CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningReading and Literacy Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 93 of the 93 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 76 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Harnessing Dual Memory Systems: A Balanced Approach to Explicit and Implicit Reading Instruction for Young EFL Learners

Open access
Kim, Jeong Mi·2026·Reading Psychology
DOI 10.1080/02702711.2026.2735234
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Two distinct approaches to L2 reading instruction—language-oriented and literacy-oriented—have long been debated in the literature. Similarly, SLA research has distinguished between form-focused and meaning-focused approaches. This paper examines these debates through the lens of explicit and implicit learning, proposing a balanced approach for young EFL learners. Drawing on research across cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and reading, the balanced approach rests on two theoretical pillars. First, it advocates for “focus on communication” to distinguish authentic engagement for pleasure or knowledge from mere literal text comprehension. Second, it argues that explicit and implicit instruction should be combined rather than integrated, as the brain’s dual memory systems—declarative and procedural—are neurologically distinct and operate independently and competitively. The paper concludes with pedagogical implications for Korean primary schools, suggesting explicit instruction in phonics, vocabulary, and grammar, paired with authentic storybook reading to foster implicit knowledge—the ultimate goal of language acquisition.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This conceptual paper argues that L2 reading instruction for young EFL learners should combine explicit and implicit instruction rather than integrate them, because the brain's declarative and procedural memory systems are neurologically distinct and operate independently and competitively. It proposes a "balanced approach" resting on two pillars: a "focus on communication" (FonC) that distinguishes authentic reading for pleasure or knowledge from mere literal comprehension, and the pairing of explicit phonics, vocabulary, and grammar instruction with authentic storybook reading.

Key findings

  • The paper proposes that explicit and implicit instruction be *combined* rather than *integrated*, citing Ullman and Lovelett's (2018, p. 42) claim that "it is not the case that knowledge is in any sense transformed from declarative to procedural memory. Rather the two systems seem to acquire knowledge essentially independently," and that the systems "operate competitively" (Ullman, 2016).
  • It argues for the term "focus on communication" (FonC) over "focus on meaning" (FonM), to distinguish reading for authentic purposes (pleasure, knowledge) from reading to complete comprehension questions or identify grammatical items in laboratory/classroom settings.
  • Cited evidence for combining explicit and implicit instruction: Chu and Chen (2014) found a phonics-plus-text-reading group significantly outperformed a phonics-only group on a two-week delayed post-test, with the phonics-only group's scores declining over time; Woore et al. (2018) found phonics plus text reading was more effective for vocabulary development than reading alone.
  • Cited evidence on memory-system shifts: Morgan-Short et al. (2014) found declarative memory predicts initial syntactic development while procedural memory predicts at more advanced stages; Hamrick et al. (2018) meta-analyses confirmed this shift in both L1 children and L2 adults; Hwang (2024) found a Meta-Language Group performed better on an immediate post-test but declined on a delayed post-test, whereas an Input Flood Group showed gains.
  • Contextual claims: approximately 84% of English words follow phonetic patterns (Blevins, 2006); Nation (2007) states 95–98% of running words should be within learners' prior knowledge for meaning-focused input; Elley (1989) shows engaging stories can double vocabulary gains.

Methods

  • Design: a conceptual/theoretical paper, not an empirical study. It synthesizes research across cognitive psychology, neuroscience, SLA, and reading to build a framework and pedagogical proposal; no participants, intervention, or data collection are reported.
  • Analytical approach: it interprets three long-standing debates—phonics vs. whole language, Grammar-Translation vs. CLT, and intensive vs. extensive reading—through the lens of implicit and explicit learning, and integrates the Declarative/Procedural Model (Ullman, 2016; Ullman & Lovelett, 2018) with Skill Acquisition Theory (DeKeyser, 2015) into a model of the implicit-explicit interface (Figure 2).
  • Output: a proposed balanced model (Figure 10) and a comparison table (Table 1) contrasting current Korean primary-school practice with the proposed approach across phonics/decoding and comprehension, plus pedagogical implications for Korean primary schools.

Limitations

  • Stated in the paper: the paper repeatedly calls for further research, noting that "longitudinal research is needed to compare the long-term effects of decodable versus authentic texts on phonics acquisition," that "longitudinal studies are essential for a comprehensive evaluation of how input flood and input enhancement influence grammar acquisition over time," and that research on motivation/engagement effects on implicit grammar acquisition "remains scarce." It also notes that the ideal type of text for pairing with phonics "remains a subject of debate" and that "further research is required regarding this matter."
  • Stated in the paper: a note to Figure 10 acknowledges that "only explicit language instruction was categorized as explicit instruction because this model is for young EFL learners," a scope restriction of the proposed model.
  • Evident from the text: the paper presents no empirical data of its own—its claims rest on secondary synthesis of others' findings, and several cited studies are described as having short intervention durations ("ranging from one to four sessions") that the paper itself says "are inherently biased toward explicit learning." The pedagogical recommendations are framed specifically for Korean primary schools, so generalization to other EFL contexts is not established in the text.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02702711.2026.2735234

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 76 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 37 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 36
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 31
56 of 56

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Findings from cognitive psychology and neuroscience about declarative and procedural memory systems apply to young EFL reading instruction.

    “Drawing on research across cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and reading, the balanced approach rests on two theoretical pillars.”
    “Second, it argues that explicit and implicit instruction should be combined rather than integrated, as the brain's dual memory systems-declarative and procedural-are neurologically distinct and operate independently and competitively.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The historical development of phonics instruction in L1 contexts is relevant to EFL settings.

    “Although the historical development of phonics instruction reflects an emerging consensus on a balanced approach, this trend is primarily observable in L1 reading contexts, whereas phonics instruction in EFL settings often remains unsystematic.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Young EFL learners who are beginning to learn English require reading instruction that encompasses both decoding and text comprehension.

    “However, for young EFL learners who are beginning to learn English, reading instruction should encompass both decoding and text comprehension.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Young EFL learners already have relatively well-developed nonlinguistic knowledge through their ample experience of reading in their L1.

    “given the simplicity of text genres young eFl learners read and the straightforwardness of meaning of the content, young eFl learners already have relatively well-developed nonlinguistic knowledge through their ample experience of reading in their l1.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The purpose of reading should be the pursuit of knowledge or pleasure, rather than merely completing questions or identifying specific grammatical items.

    “This highlights a fundamental issue: the purpose of reading should be the pursuit of knowledge or pleasure, rather than merely completing questions or identifying specific grammatical items.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Young EFL learners' vocabulary and grammatical knowledge remain quite limited.

    “Finding authentic and engaging texts that align with young EFL learners' reading proficiency is extremely challenging, as their vocabulary and grammatical knowledge remain quite limited.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    For young EFL learners, the primary authentic purpose of reading is to enjoy the meaning of the content rather than to gain information or knowledge.

    “For young EFL learners, the primary authentic purpose of reading is to enjoy the meaning of the content rather than to gain information or knowledge.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Young EFL learners often read with teacher support alongside aids such as audio modeling, illustrations, and glossing.

    “Decisions regarding text difficulty should be made in light of early EFL classroom conditions, where students often read with teacher support alongside aids such as audio modeling, illustrations, and glossing.”
8 of 8

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Cited page falls outside the listed article's page range

    Minor

    The text attributes a quotation to page 531 of Duke and Cartwright (2021), but the reference lists that article on pages S25-S44.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 85 references

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Abdulkader F. A. (2019). Exploring Saudi EFL teachers’ and learners’ perceptions regarding the application of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in the English Language Classroom (Publication No. 27991989) [Doctoral Dissertation]. Northumbria University. ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis.
  2. Blevins, W. (2006). Phonics from A to Z: A practical guide. Scholastic Inc.
  3. Chall, J. S. (1996). Learning to read: The great debate (3rd ed.). Harcourt Brace & Company.
  4. Cummins, J. (1998). Immersion education for the millennium: What have we learned from 30 years of research on second language immersion?. In M. R. Childs & R. M. Bostwick (Eds.) Learning through two languages: Research and practice. Second Katoh Gakuen International Symposium on Immersion and Bilingual Education (pp. 34–47). Katoh Gakuen.
  5. Day, R. (2020). Teaching reading (Revised ed.). TESOL Press.
  6. DeKEyser, R. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 94–112). Routledge.
  7. Ellis, N. (2011). Implicit and explicit SLA and their interface. In C. Sanz, & R. P. Leow (Eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 35–48). Georgetown University Press.
  8. Ellis, N., & Wulff, S. (2015). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 75–93). Routledge.
  9. Emans, R. (1968). History of phonics. Elementary English, 45(5), 602–608.
  10. Enever, J., Moon, J., & Raman, U. (2009). Young learner English language policy and implementation: International perspectives. Garnet Publishing.
  11. Germain, C. (2018). The neurolinguistic approach (NLA) for learning and teaching foreign languages: Theory and practice. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  12. Han, Z. H., Anderson, N. J., & Freeman, D. (2009). Crossing the boundaries: An introduction. In Z. H. Han, & N. J. Anderson (Eds.), L2 reading research and instruction: Crossing the boundaries. Michigan ELT.
  13. Katz, S., & Blyth, C. S. (2008). What is grammar? In S. Katz, & J. Watzinger-Tharp (Eds.), Conceptions of L2 Grammar: Theoretical approaches and their application in the L2 classroom. Heinle Cengage Learning.
  14. Kim, T., Lee, S., Song, S., Pae, H., Lee, Y., Shin, Y., Kim, M., Jang, Y., Hong, J., Shin, S., Yoon, C., & Kim, K. (2025). Elementary School English 3. Chunjae Education.
  15. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition. Second Language Learning, 3(7), 19–39.
  16. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Citeseer.
  17. Ministry of Education (MOE). (2022). The Curriculum of English Subject. Ministry of Education.
  18. Miyasako, N. (2002). Does text-glossing have any effects on incidental vocabulary learning through reading for Japanese senior high school students? Language Education & Technology, 39, 1–20.
  19. National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US) (NICHHD). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
  20. Ortega, L. (2015). Second Language Learning Explained? SLA across 10 Contemporary Theories. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 245–272). Routledge.
  21. Reinders, H., & Ellis, R. (2009). The effects of two types of input on intake and the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge. In R. Ellis, J. E. Philp, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 2817–302). Multilingual Matters. · DOI
  22. Rixon S. (2011). Beyond ABC: Investigating current rationales and systems for the teaching of early reading to young learners of English (Publication No. 634436) [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Warwick. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
  23. Rose, J. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of early reading. Department for Education and Skills.
  24. Rowe, K. (2005). Teaching reading: Report and recommendations. Department of Education, Science and Training.
  25. Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32(4), 403–408.
  26. Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis) abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. B. Neuman, & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Approaching difficulties in literacy development: Assessment, pedagogy and programmes (pp. 23–38). Guilford Press.
  27. Seo M. O. (2018). Development and application of an English Reading instructional model based on self-directed learning for 5th Grade in Elementary School [Doctoral Dissertation]. Korea National University of Education. Riss. https://www.riss.kr/link?id=T14747055.
  28. Stoller, F. L., Anderson, N. J., Grabe, W., & Komiyama, R. (2013). Instructional enhancements to improve students’ reading abilities. English Teaching Forum, 51(1), 2–11.
  29. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.0 · DOI
  30. Ünal Gezer, M. (2021). Storybooks, songs, and games: Tools to boost early literacy development in Primary English Classrooms. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 8(4), 2683–2700.
  31. VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2015). Introduction: The nature of theories. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 1–16). Routledge.

Cited by

Still being checked.

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kim, J. M.
Affiliations
LLMVC (The School of Language, Literature, Music and Visual Culture), University of Aberdeen
ORCID
Kim, Jeong Mi
Venue
Reading Psychology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2026-09-18
Pages
1-30
ISSN
  • 0270-2711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1521-0685
DOI
10.1080/02702711.2026.2735234
OpenAlex
W7213539825
Cited by
0
References
85
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Reading Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
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 › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
explicit instruction, implicit learning, EFL learners, young learners, declarative memory, procedural memory, form-focused instruction, meaning-focused instruction, phonics instruction, storybook reading

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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