--- title: 'The \"What\" and \"How\" of Classroom-Research, Part 1' url: 'https://eltresearchbites-archive.englishup.me/the-what-and-how-of-classroom-research-part-1' markdown: 'https://eltresearchbites-archive.englishup.me/the-what-and-how-of-classroom-research-part-1.md' date: '2017-01-16' description: "Geoff Jordan 2017-01-16 This is a summary of an\_article which\_reviews\_classroom research on language acquisition done from a mentalist point of view, where researchers work under the influence of two different paradigms: a\_Chomskian, generative view, and\_a general cognitivist\_view.\_The two sides ha…" --- # The \"What\" and \"How\" of Classroom-Research, Part 1 ### *Geoff Jordan* *2017-01-16* This is a summary of an article which reviews classroom research on language acquisition done from a mentalist point of view, where researchers work under the influence of two different paradigms: a [Chomskian, generative view](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_grammar), and a general cognitivist view. The two sides have tended to go their separate ways, not exactly avoiding each other, but certainly not collaborating much. The article argues that the two sides have much in common, and that “cross-paradigm research” can be fruitful when studying classroom-based, adult SLA. **Article:** Whong, M., Gil, K., Marsden, H. (2014). Beyond paradigm: The ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of classroom research. *Second Language Research, 30*(4), 551–568. . **Implicit and explicit knowledge** All second language researchers interested in psycholinguistics assume a distinction between a deliberate, consciously controlled type of linguistic knowledge (‘explicit’ knowledge) and an intuitive, automatic type of linguistic knowledge (‘acquired’ or ‘implicit’ knowledge), but there’s a big divide between those who take a Chomskian, generative view and those who take a more general cognitivist view. The **generative approach** focuses on implicit knowledge, on the Universal Grammar-constrained development of linguistic competence, and attempts to avoid researching learned knowledge, or gathering performance data. The strict separation between acquired and learned knowledge, between "competence" and "performance", results in what is known as the ‘no interface’ position between the two types of knowledge. On the other hand, within **cognitive research**, both implicit and explicit knowledge are seen as a product of learning, and no distinction is made between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’, as understood by generativists. In short, for generativists, language is a unique type of knowledge, while for cognitivists, it’s indistinct from other types of knowledge; for generativists grammatical principles are innately specified, while for cognitivists they’re deduced from the input. Whether or not there is *interaction* between types of knowledge, both paradigms posit a qualitative difference between implicit knowledge and explicit knowledge. And both paradigms share another point, namely that implicit knowledge is ‘better’ than explicit knowledge . For generativists, this is obvious (a matter of definition), but cognitivists also value implicit knowledge more, because it is automatic and fast,and these are the two most basic components of fluency. From the cognitivist viewpoint, the more that knowledge of language is implicit, the more a speaker can exploit explicit mental resources for optimal delivery of thoughts and intentions. Additionally, implicit knowledge is assumed to be more lasting; within a cognitive orientation, this is a result of deeper entrenchment that comes from repeated activation. So there is agreement on two points between the two mentalist approaches to SLA: - that there is a meaningful distinction between the two types of knowledge implicated in L2 development; and - that implicit knowledge is valued over explicit knowledge. **Research on instruction: What to measure, and when** A lot of research focuses on the “How” of language development, on what teachers can do in order to better facilitate language development among their learners. Findings of meta-analyses by Norris and Ortega (2000, 2001), Mackey and Goo (2007) and Spada and Tomita (2010) gives clear support for the effectiveness of instruction, with indication that explicit instruction leads to larger effect sizes in aggregate than implicit. But findings based on studies of instruction face what the authors call “the Instructed SLA bind”. The effectiveness of different types of instruction is based on data about changes in learner knowledge, but that doesn’t allow for claims about the type of knowledge that develops as a result: explicit instruction does not necessarily lead to explicit knowledge. The authors then discuss the problem of using production tasks to measure implicit knowledge. As they say > *spontaneous production data is not a sufficient method for showing implicit knowledge, since learners can potentially draw from all sources of knowledge concurrently. Moreover, production data is, by nature, limited; regardless of the amount of the output, any set of production data, even if captured by very large corpora, will only ever be a subset of what learners, whether individually or in aggregate, can produce. In addition, production data cannot show the limits of knowledge as it can never show what is ruled out by the learner’s underlying L2 knowledge, whether in terms of grammaticality or interpretation*. Despite these problems, most of the studies included in the meta-analyses mentioned above rely on production data. The authors suggest that a **delayed post-test would increase validity** (“durability of knowledge, say, a year after instruction, indicates stable knowledge”), but acknowledge how difficult this is in practical terms. Another option is the use of on-line psychometric measures such as reaction time or eye-tracking methods, or techniques in neurolinguistics such as fMRI, though access to this technology is a challenge. The authors conclude that while classroom research shows that explicit instruction is effective, as measured by immediate post-tests, whether instruction results in increased levels of implicit (and hence, durable, ingrained, automatic) knowledge is not as clear. As a result, they argue that **the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge needs to be more robustly recognized in research design**, and suggest that implicit knowledge should be the target of research, regardless of theoretical premise. The remaining sections of the article, which review several published journal articles following this paradigm will be summarised in [Part 2](https://eltresearchbites-archive.englishup.me/the-what-and-how-of-classroom-research-part-2). --- ## Navigation - Previous: [The Ups and Downs of Listening Instruction](https://eltresearchbites-archive.englishup.me/the-ups-and-downs-of-listening-instruction.md) - Next: [The \"What\" and \"How\" of Classroom-Research, Part 2](https://eltresearchbites-archive.englishup.me/the-what-and-how-of-classroom-research-part-2.md)