Cited by 54

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all the difference?

Macaro, Ernesto, Masterman, Liz·2006·Language Teaching Research

Abstract

This paper investigates the effect of explicit grammar instruction on grammatical knowledge and writing proficiency in first-year students of French at a UK university. Previous research suggests that explicit grammar instruction results in gains in explicit knowledge and its application in specific grammar-related tasks, but there is less evidence that it results in gains in production tasks. A cohort of 12 students received a course in French grammar immediately prior to their university studies in order to determine whether a short but intensive burst of explicit instruction, a pedagogical approach hitherto unexamined in the literature, was sufficiently powerful to bring about an improvement in their grammatical knowledge and performance in production tasks. Participants were tested at three points over five months, and the results were compared with a group which did not receive the intervention. Our results support previous findings that explicit instruction leads to gains in some aspects of grammar tests but not gains in accuracy in either translation or free composition. Reasons for these findings are discussed in relation to theories of language development and the limitations of working memory.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1191/1362168806lr197oa

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 69

  1. 10.1177/136216889700100202 · DOI
  2. AQA, 2005, Qualifications and subjects
  3. Baddeley, A., 1986, Working memory
  4. Baddeley, A., 1997, Human memory: theory and practice
  5. 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00505.x · DOI
  6. Bautier-Castaing, E., 1977, Études de linguistique appliquée, 27, 19
  7. 10.1177/136216880100500202 · DOI
  8. 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1979.tb01053.x · DOI
  9. 10.1093/applin/3.3.181 · DOI
  10. 10.1017/S0272263100012869 · DOI
  11. 10.4159/harvard.9780674732469 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Cook, V., 2001, Second language learning and language teaching
  13. Doughty, C., 1998, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition
  14. 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00234.x · DOI
  15. 2004, Edexcel qualifications
  16. 2005, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305
  17. 10.1093/applin/6.2.118 · DOI
  18. Ellis, R., 1990, Variability in second language acquisition: Proceedings of the Tenth Meeting of the Second Language Research Forum, 25
  19. 10.1093/applin/11.4.384 · DOI
  20. 10.1017/S0272263100009931 · DOI
  21. Ellis, R., 1994, The study of second language acquisition
  22. 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00255.x · DOI
  23. Elston, T., 1997, Génial
  24. 10.1093/applin/14.4.385 · DOI
  25. 10.2307/3587079 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb01108.x · DOI
  27. Gass, S., 1994, Research methodology in second language acquisition, 303
  28. 10.1093/applin/13.2.168 · DOI
  29. 10.1177/136216889800200102 · DOI
  30. 10.1093/applin/10.3.331 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Hulstijn, J., 1994, AILA Review, 11, 97
  32. 10.1080/09571739285200041 · DOI
  33. ILEA, 1979, Graded objectives for modern foreign languages
  34. 10.1080/09571739785200231 · DOI
  35. 10.1080/09571739885200211 · DOI
  36. 10.1191/1362168803lr128oa · DOI
  37. Krashen, S., 1982, Principles and practice in second language learning and acquisition
  38. Krashen, S. D., 1985, The input hypothesis: issues and implications
  39. 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1976.tb00264.x · DOI · Paper page
  40. Leow, R., 1996, Georgetown University round table on language and linguistics 1996, 126
  41. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb42014.x · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1093/applin/4.2.126 · DOI
  43. 10.1080/0305498042000303964 · DOI
  44. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01211.x · DOI
  45. McLagan, P., 1994, Grammar! A conference report, 69
  46. McLaughlin, B., 1987, Theories of second language learning
  47. 10.1177/136216880000400104 · DOI
  48. 10.1057/9780230511804 · DOI
  49. 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb01318.x · DOI
  50. Marsden, R., 1999, Deutsch: Lehren und Lernen, 19, 15
  51. 10.1080/09571739885200041 · DOI
  52. 10.1093/applin/21.3.281 · DOI
  53. 10.1017/S0272263100005015 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Prabhu, N. S., 1987, Second language pedagogy
  55. Rivers, W. M., 1983, Communicating naturally in a second language: theory and practice in language teaching
  56. 10.1017/S0272263100014674 · DOI · Paper page
  57. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05303.x · DOI
  58. Sharwood-Smith, M., 1994, Second language learning: theoretical foundations
  59. Sheppard, R., 1993, German Teaching, 8, 3
  60. Skehan, P., 1998, A cognitive approach to language learning
  61. Soars, J., 1987, Headway
  62. 10.1111/0026-7902.00002 · DOI
  63. Swain, M., 1985, Input and second language acquisition, 235
  64. Tarone, E., 1988, Variation in interlanguage
  65. VanPatten, B., 1996, Input processing and grammar instruction
  66. 10.1017/S0272263100011979 · DOI
  67. 10.1093/applin/8.2.95 · DOI
  68. Widdowson, H. G., 1978, Teaching language as communication
  69. 10.1080/09571739985200071 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 54

Metadata

Authors
Macaro, E., & Masterman, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford, UK,
  • University of Oxford, UK
Venue
Language Teaching Research
Published
2006-07
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
297-327
ISSN
  • 1362-1688
  • 1477-0954
Cited by
54
References
7
Language
en

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