The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 28 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing
Open accessAbstract
This study investigated the long-term effectiveness of explicit versus implicit instruction in a classroom setting. The participants were 114 Dutch secondary school students learning English as an L2; a control group received explicit and an intervention group received implicit instruction in a meaning-based context for two academic years. Instructional effects were measured via a timed writing task. The writing products of the two groups were compared in terms of holistic quality, writing complexity, accuracy and fluency. The results revealed that explicit and implicit instruction were equally effective in terms of promoting global writing proficiency, writing complexity and fluency. Regarding accuracy, interesting differences were found in the learners’ command of tense/aspect related verb phrases. The findings suggest that the benefit of explicit instruction lies in the use of correct verb forms, whereas the benefit of implicit instruction lies in the correct choice of tense/aspect in the communicative context.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This study compared two years of explicit versus implicit English instruction in Dutch secondary classrooms using a timed free-response writing task. It found the approaches equally effective for overall writing quality, complexity, and fluency, but with different accuracy strengths: explicit instruction favored correct verb forms, while implicit instruction favored contextually appropriate tense/aspect use.
Key findings
- Explicit and implicit groups did not differ in holistic writing quality (explicit M = 2.56, SD = 0.96; implicit M = 2.76, SD = 1.07; U = 1478.5, p = .394, η² = 0.006), combined complexity measures (MANCOVA F(4, 107) = 0.649, p = .629, partial η² = .024), or text length as fluency (ANCOVA F(1, 110) = 2.118, p = .148, partial η² = .019).
- Tense/aspect verb use errors were greater for the explicit group (M = 2.00, SD = 1.28) than the implicit group (M = 0.50, SD = 0.81), U = 429, p < .001, η² = 0.414.
- Tense/aspect verb form errors were greater for the implicit group (M = 0.76, SD = 0.77) than the explicit group (M = 0.26, SD = 0.42), U = 956.5, p < .001, η² = 0.141.
- Non-verbal error ratios did not differ between explicit (M = 10.01, SD = 4.71) and implicit (M = 10.42, SD = 4.28) groups, U = 1519.5, p = .559.
Methods
- Two cohorts of Dutch secondary students aged 12–14 at the same school: explicit group N = 55 (2014 cohort) and implicit group N = 59 (2015 cohort); both used the same textbooks and teachers, but the implicit group had grammar explanation/drill pages removed and no explicit grammar feedback for two academic years.
- Writing was assessed with a 50-minute in-class letter about a latest holiday, minimum 140 words, no dictionary; texts were transcribed, cleaned, holistically rated by six trained raters using the CAFIC rubric, and manually coded for complexity, accuracy, and fluency measures.
- Analyses used Mann-Whitney U tests with α adjusted to .008 for six tests, one-way MANCOVA for complexity, and ANCOVA for text length, controlling for pre-intervention listening and reading scores; SPSS version 26.
Limitations
- Stated by the authors: only one writing task was used; the number of measures was limited, especially text length as a fluency measure; possible ceiling effects may have underestimated instructional effectiveness; future work should use more fine-grained measures and different age/proficiency groups.
- Evident in the text: the study analyzed only the highest scholastic stream, limiting generalizability; it compared only second-year writing data rather than the full two-year developmental trajectory; out-of-school English exposure was not measured or controlled, and the authors speculate it may explain why instruction type mattered less for English than in studies of French.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 28 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the explicit group showed higher accuracy in tense/aspect related verbal inflection, the implicit group were better at choosing the right tense/aspect to express meaning.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: The pre-intervention listening and reading scores adequately control for pre-existing differences in writing proficiency between the explicit and implicit groups.
- Rests on an assumption: The single writing task adequately measures overall writing proficiency.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No differences were found for non-verbal error ratio between the explicit group (Mdn = 9.4) and the implicit group (Mdn = 9.31), U = 1519.5,p = .559.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the writing task was designed to elicit a wide range of tense aspect forms, both groups seemed to favor the Present Simple in writing.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the two groups developed similar overall writing quality, linguistic complexity, and writing fluency”
- Also stated in: § 4 Results · plain
“explicit and implicit types of instruction have a similar impact on the Dutch-speaking secondary school learners of L2 English in terms of their general writing proficiency, linguistic complexity, non-verbal accuracy and writing fluency”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: The pre-intervention listening and reading scores adequately control for pre-existing differences in writing proficiency between the explicit and implicit groups.
- Rests on an assumption: The single writing task adequately measures overall writing proficiency.
- Also stated in: § 4 Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A one-way ANCOVA test indicated no significant differences between the explicit and implicit groups on text length after controlling for the pre-intervention listening and reading scores, F (1, 110) = 2.118, p = .148,”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the explicit group showed higher accuracy in tense/aspect related verbal inflection, the implicit group were better at choosing the right tense/aspect to express meaning.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: The pre-intervention listening and reading scores adequately control for pre-existing differences in writing proficiency between the explicit and implicit groups.
- Rests on an assumption: The single writing task adequately measures overall writing proficiency.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our findings in verbal accuracy suggest that the explicit group seemed to overuse the Present Simple more than the implicit group did”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: The pre-intervention listening and reading scores adequately control for pre-existing differences in writing proficiency between the explicit and implicit groups.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even though differences were found in writing accuracy measured as error ratios, neither instructional method showed a clear advantage over the other.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: The pre-intervention listening and reading scores adequately control for pre-existing differences in writing proficiency between the explicit and implicit groups.
- Rests on an assumption: The single writing task adequately measures overall writing proficiency.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“however, when the Present Simple was used, the explicit group were better able to deliver the correct forms than the implicit group.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: The pre-intervention listening and reading scores adequately control for pre-existing differences in writing proficiency between the explicit and implicit groups.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of non-verbal accuracy (i.e.accuracy in lexicon, grammar, word order, spelling, mechanics, and punctuation use), the two groups were equally accurate.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: The pre-intervention listening and reading scores adequately control for pre-existing differences in writing proficiency between the explicit and implicit groups.
- Rests on an assumption: The single writing task adequately measures overall writing proficiency.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 17
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The error ratio in the use of tense/aspect was greater for the explicit group (Mdn = 1.92) than for the implicit group (Mdn < 0.001), U = 429, p < .001,with a large effect size η2 = 0.414”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The writing task elicited the use of varied tense/aspect forms.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the error ratio in tense/aspect forms was greater for the implicit group (Mdn = 0.57) than for the explicit group (Mdn < 0.001), U = 956.5,p < .001,with a large effect size η2 = 0.141”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The writing task elicited the use of varied tense/aspect forms.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“tense aspect types like the Present Continuous, the Present Perfect, and the Future Simple occurred very infrequently; as a result, for these tense aspect types the error ratios were highly skewed to zero.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Similarly, Andringa et al. (2011) found that explicit and implicit instruction contribute equally to the use of the target constructions after a computer-assisted L2 Dutch intervention.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Andringa et al. (2011) source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not checked yet
In the paper
“our findings are in line with Macaro and Masterman (2006), which suggests that explicit instruction does not contribute to the diversity or complexity in the learners' expression.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Macaro and Masterman (2006) source
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Firstly, we only used one writing task to assess writing proficiency, while overall writing proficiency should ideally be measured using multiple writing tasks (Schoonen et al., 2011) to elicit a wider range of language use.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schoonen et al., 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Rousse-Malpat et al. focused on similar learners learning L2 French, and found advantageous effects of implicit instruction on both writing fluency and complexity.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Rousse-Malpat et al. (2019) source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, although varying types of instruction would lead to similar effectiveness with respect to overall proficiency, the effectiveness differs when it comes to specific linguistic aspects.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was also possible that the effectiveness of instruction was underestimated due to a possible ceiling effect in some of the measures used.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It makes sense that explicit grammar instruction could have trained the explicit group to pay attention to form issues, with explicit learners erring less in verb forms as a result.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These findings are in line with the differences in accuracy that Tilma (2014) found in a longitudinal study of Finnish as an L2, where there were no differences between the implicit and explicit learners in overall case accuracy rate after ten months of intervention, but here, too, the implicit learners made relatively fewer use errors.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tilma (2014)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The analysis revealed a significant interaction for Time*Group with the implicit group showing a steeper growth in complexity measures between Year 1 and Year 2.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Piggott (2019)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This is in line with Verspoor et al. (2012), whose findings suggest that learners at lower levels tend to mainly rely on the Present Simple tense, and a more balanced use of different tense/aspect occures only at higher proficiency levels.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Verspoor et al. (2012) source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The instruction might have helped the implicit group to be more aware of the context and make a more accurate choice of which tense/aspect to use.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A one-way multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was run to compare the writing complexity between the two groups, with the pre-intervention listening and reading scores as covariates.”
- Also stated in: § 3.8 Analyses · plain
“A one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was run to compare the text length between the two groups, with the pre-intervention listening and reading scores as covariates.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 3.8 Analyses
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § 3.8 Analyses · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Holistic human scoring presents a rounded view of learners' language competence in that a human mind can weigh different strengths and weaknesses of a text simultaneously and has been considered very informative in L2 studies (Hou et al., 2016;Polio, 2001;Verspoor et al., 2012).”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 2.3 Length of intervention, outcome measures, and aspects of proficiency measures
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the Mann-Whitney U test was run six times, the α level was adjusted to .008(0.05 divided by 6) for that test.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 3.8 Analyses
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Secondly, the number of measures taken to examine L2 writing proficiency was limited; for fluency in particular, text length may be too broad to provide sufficient insight into writing fluency.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We thus suspect that whereas explicit/implicit instruction may contribute to significantly different learning outcomes of Dutch learners of L2 French, type of instruction may not matter as much to Dutch learners of L2 English, whose English attainment is strongly influenced by out-of-class exposure.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Ortega and Iberri-Shea (2005) argue that as L2 development takes time, longitudinal research can tap into issues that cannot possibly be solved by short-term observations.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 2.3 Length of intervention, outcome measures, and aspects of proficiency measures
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ortega & Iberri-Shea (2005) source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“some researchers found high correlations between text length and other highly valued writing qualities, suggesting that text length has strong impact on both holistic and multi-trait scoring (Lee et al., 2010).”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lee et al., 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Implications drawn from this study are that L2 instruction does make a difference for language development as it directly taps into different language learning patterns and knowledge (Norris & Ortega, 2000).”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Norris & Ortega, 2000 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As the explicit group would give more attention to producing a form correctly, they might not pay enough attention to choosing the correct use, (over)using their most familiar tense aspect instead -the Present Simple.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firstly, we only used one writing task to assess writing proficiency, while overall writing proficiency should ideally be measured using multiple writing tasks (Schoonen et al., 2011) to elicit a wider range of language use.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To ensure inter-coder reliability, all independent coding was examined by the other annotator and disagreements were discussed and resolved.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 3.6 CAF measures
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The groups had the same amount of classroom time (i.e.same amount of instruction) and were both taught in English only by the same teachers.”
- Also stated in: § 3.2 Instructional treatment · plain
“In other words, the instructional difference between the two groups lay in whether metalinguistic knowledge was provided.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 3.2 Instructional treatment
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 3.2 Instructional treatment · plain
In the paper
“We employed six trained raters (two professors and four master students of Applied Linguistics) to holistically assess the text quality with a rubric used by Hou et al. (2016).”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 3.5 Holistic assessment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hou et al. (2016) source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The implicit group, on the contrary, might have experienced less pressure to produce correct forms but learned to directly focus on meaning.”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 4 Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“CAF measures have been used both as descriptive guidelines for learners to assess their language proficiency and as indices to gauge L2 progress (Housen et al., 2012).”
§ Long-term effects of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL writing > 2.3 Length of intervention, outcome measures, and aspects of proficiency measures
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Housen et al., 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
The writing task elicited the use of varied tense/aspect forms.
“As tense/aspect had been the grammatical focus in the curriculum, the writing test was designed to elicit the use of varied tense/aspect forms.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The pre-intervention listening and reading scores adequately control for pre-existing differences in writing proficiency between the explicit and implicit groups.
“with the pre-intervention English proficiency (i.e.listening and reading scores) being controlled for.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The single writing task adequately measures overall writing proficiency.
“we only used one writing task to assess writing proficiency”
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- ConsistentF(4, 107) = 0.649reported p = .629 · recomputed p = .629
“F (4, 107) = 0.649, p = .629”
- ConsistentF(1, 110) = 2.118reported p = .148 · recomputed p = .148
“F (1, 110) = 2.118, p = .148”
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.
%PST is cited as appearing in the wrong table
MinorThe text directs readers to Table 2 for %PST, but %PST appears in Table 3; Table 2 contains only pre-intervention scores and holistic writing scores.
“the Present Simple constituted more than half of the tense/aspect tokens in the writings of both groups (as measured by %PST; see Table 2).”
“Table: 3 Table 3 Descriptive statistics and the effect sizes of testing the differences between the two groups for the four writing complexity measures and for Text Length | Measures | Explicit group (N = 55) | Implicit group (N = 59) | Effect size | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | | | MLT | 8.39 | 1.40 | 8.32 | 1.11 | | | DC/T %PST | 0.19 0.51 | 0.12 0.13 | 0.20 0.55 | 0.10 0.17 | η2 = 0.024 |”
Citations
Cites
Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition
Higgs, T. V., & Krashen, S. D. (1983) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/328293 · Cited by 5,375
Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition
Krahnke, K. J., & Krashen, S. D. (1983) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3586656 · Cited by 4,483
A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning
Garcia, P., & Skehan, P. (1999) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3587891 · Cited by 3,489
(1985) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,037
Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00136 · Cited by 2,569 · cited 10×
“Constrained tests thus have beenwidely criticized for being biased and free-response tests have been called for (Norris & Ortega, 2000).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialTowards an Organic Approach to Investigating CAF in Instructed SLA: The Case of Complexity
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amp044 · Cited by 1,392
The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom
Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. D. (1983) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/328020 · Cited by 1,326
Pica, T. (1994) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01115.x · Cited by 1,200
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005) · Cited by 1,102
Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amp048 · Cited by 863
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Boyd, E., & Barraclough, C. (2010). Activate! A2 student's book. Pearson Longman.
- Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris and Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443-483).
- Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (Vol. 32). John Benjamins Publishing.
- Long, M.H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
- Oh, S. (2006). Investigating the relationship between fluency measures and second language writing placement test decisions. [Unpublished master's thesis, University of Hawai'i, Honolulu, the United States]. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/20203
- Polio, C. (2001). Research methodology in second language writing research: The case of text-based studies. In T. Silva, & P.K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 91-115).
- Puchta, H., & Stranks, J. (2008). More! 1 student's book. Cambridge University Press.
- Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Mea- sures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. University of Hawaii Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wei, S., & Shin, Y. (2025) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2025.2510082 · Cited by 5
Mustafa, P. O., & Bajalani, F. R. H. A. (2024) · Zanco Journal of Humanity Sciences · doi:10.21271/zjhs.28.spa.27 · Cited by 3
The Effect of Explicit Writing Instruction on EFL Students' Writing Performance: A Case Study
Rizvić-Eminović, E., Dervić, M., Bilic, A., & Independent Researcher, B. A. H. (2025) · Journal Human Research in Rehabilitation · doi:10.21554/hrr.092514 · Cited by 1
Maes, J. H. R., Scheper, A., Hermans, D., & Vissers, C. (2026) · Research in Developmental Disabilities · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2026.105221 · Cited by 1
Fernández Lastras, P. (2023) · UVaDOC UVaDOC University of Valladolid Documentary Repository (University of Valladolid)
Metadata
- Authors
- Ke, H., Luo, Y., Piggott, L., & Steinkrauss, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Groningen (NL)
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Ke, Huimin
- Luo, Yu
- Piggott, Leslie
- Steinkrauss, Rasmus
- Venue
- Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
- Published
- 2021-12-08
- Volume
- 10
- ISSN
- 2211-7245 (ISSN-L)
- 2211-7253
- OpenAlex
- W4206969045
- Semantic Scholar
- b75e402e188c7552a1d20e6e80d571064c6554ed
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 1.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
- Universiteit Utrecht
- 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 › Linguistics and Language Analysis
- Keywords
- explicit instruction, implicit instruction, EFL writing, second language writing, writing skills, writing complexity, writing fluency, writing accuracy, tense and aspect, high school students
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
