Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated
Abstract
More than a decade has passed since Norris and Ortega’s (2000) seminal meta-analysis on the effectiveness of instruction in L2 learning. This line of research has matured for another research synthesis, which led to the present meta-analytic review. Thirty-four unique sample studies, in each of which explicit and implicit instructional treatments were compared, were retrieved and included in the present meta-analysis: 11 studies from Norris and Ortega’s meta-analysis and 23 new studies published between 1999 and 2011. Overall, explicit instruction was found to have been more effective than implicit instruction. The effectiveness of implicit and explicit instruction in L2 development was also meta-analyzed in terms of several moderator variables. We discuss our results in comparison with Norris and Ortega’s findings.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A second statistical meta-analysis (Goo et al., 2015) confirmed the earlier results.
“Eleven of the original studies, plus 34 new ones reported in the following decade prompted a second statistical meta-analysis (Goo, Granena, Novella, & Yilmaz, 2015), which confirmed the earlier results.”
From In Defense of Tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and Real Issues (2016) · cites this paper as Goo, Granena, Novella, & Yilmaz, 2015
Many of the 80-plus studies included in two statistical meta-analyses (Goo et al., 2015; Norris & Ortega, 2000) involved new language for the learners concerned.
“Many of the 80-plus studies included in two aforementioned statistical meta-analyses (Goo et al., 2015;Norris & Ortega, 2000), for example, involved new language for the learners concerned.”
From In Defense of Tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and Real Issues (2016) · cites this paper as Goo et al., 2015
Explicit morphological instruction has emerged as a potential solution to overcome challenges and enhance learners' acquisition of morphological forms.
“In recent years, explicit morphological instruction has emerged as a potential solution to overcome these challenges and enhance learners' acquisition of morphological forms (Norris and Ortega, 2000;Spada and Tomita, 2010;Goo et al. 2015).”
From Transformative impacts of explicit morphological instruction on irregular inflectional acquisition in Saudi EFL learners (2024) · cites this paper as Goo et al. 2015
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 88 · Cited by 224
- Authors
- Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M.
- Affiliations
- Gwangju National University of Education (KR)
- Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
- Indiana University
- Eastern Washington University (US)
- Venue
- Studies in Bilingualism
- Publisher
- John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Published
- 2015-09-04
- Pages
- 443-482
- ISSN
- 0928-1533 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2537299854
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 88
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 42.81
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Studies in bilingualism (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Subtitles and Audiovisual Media
- Keywords
- explicit instruction, implicit instruction, second language acquisition, language teaching effectiveness, teaching methods, moderators
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
