Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-j7khd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T11:22:49.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE: Response to R. Ellis (2005) and Some Recommendations for Future Research in This Area

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2007

Ian M. Isemonger
Ian M. Isemonger
Affiliation:
Kochi Women's University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article comprises two parts. The first part is a critique of R. Ellis's (2005) psychometric study, which attempted to use an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to establish operationalizations of the constructs of explicit and implicit knowledge. I argue that the choice of an EFA in this endeavor is misguided and that a confirmatory factor analysis should have been employed. Additionally, the specific execution of the EFA is criticized on a number of fronts. The major claim of the critique is that R. Ellis's study does not successfully demonstrate that his operationalizations are reducible to the two factors of implicit and explicit knowledge. The second part of this article goes on to make some methodological recommendations for future research in this area. Finally, the potential of structural equation modeling is pointed out as a response to Hulstijn's (2005) warning concerning the pitfalls of extreme rationalism and extreme empiricism within the future research trajectory of explicit and implicit knowledge.

Information

Type
RESPONSES
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 101 - 118
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bailey, P., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Daley, C.E. (2000). Using learning style to predict foreign language achievement at the college level. System, 28, 115–133.Google Scholar
Bartlett, M.S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 77–85.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1979). Explicit and implicit judgments of L2 grammaticality. Language Learning, 29, 81–103.Google Scholar
Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cattell, R.B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.Google Scholar
Cattell, R.B. & Jaspers, J. (1967). A general plasmode for factor analytic exercises and research. Multivariate Behavioral Research Monographs, 3, 1–212.Google Scholar
Cattell, R.B. & Scheuberger, J.M. (1978). Personality theory in action. Champaign, IL: IPAT.
Chomsky, N. (1976). Reflections on language. London: Temple Smith.
DeKeyser, R.M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 397–410.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R.M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dirksen, C. (1988). Learning styles of mainland Chinese studying English. ELIC Teaching, 1, 9–20.Google Scholar
Douglas, D. (2001). Performance consistency in second language acquisition and language testing: A conceptual gap. Second Language Research, 17, 442–456.Google Scholar
Ellis, N.C. (1996). Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91–126.Google Scholar
Ellis, N.C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1993). Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 91–112.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227–275.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.Google Scholar
Feldt, L.S. & Brennan, R.L. (1989). Reliability. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement ( 3rd ed.) (pp. 105–146). Washington, DC: American Council of Education.
Green, P. & Hecht, K. (1992). Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study. Applied Linguistics, 13, 168–184.Google Scholar
Gregg, K.R. (1989). Second language acquisition theory: The case for a generative perspective. In S. M. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 15–40). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Guttman, L. (1954). Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis. Psychometrika, 19, 149–161.Google Scholar
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hedgcock, J. (1993). Well-formed versus ill-formed strings in L2 metalingual tasks: Specifying features of grammaticality judgments. Second Language Research, 9, 1–21.Google Scholar
Henson, R.K., Capraro, R.M., & Capraro, M.M. (2004). Reporting practices and use of exploratory factor analyses in educational research journals: Errors and explanation. Research in the Schools, 11, 61–72.Google Scholar
Henson, R.K. & Roberts, J.K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 393–416.Google Scholar
Horn, J.L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.Google Scholar
Hu, G. (2002). Psychological constraints on the utility of metalinguistic knowledge in second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 347–386.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (2002). Towards a unified account of the representation, processing and acquisition of second language knowledge. Second Language Research, 18, 193–223.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 129–140.Google Scholar
Humphreys, L.G. (1964). Number of cases and number of factors: An example where N is very large. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24, 457–466.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1993). Culture and learning: A study of the learning styles of Japanese students. RELC Journal, 24, 69–91.Google Scholar
Isemonger, I.M. & Sheppard, C. (2003). Learning styles. RELC Journal, 34, 195–222.Google Scholar
Isemonger, I.M. & Sheppard, C. (2007). A construct-related validity study on a Korean version of the Perceptual Learning Styles Preference questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 1–12.Google Scholar
Kaiser, H. (1961). A note on Guttman's lower bound for the number of common factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 249–276.Google Scholar
Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge.
Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Krashen, S.D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. London: Pergamon.
Linn, R.L. (1968). A Monte Carlo approach to the number of factors problem. Psychometrika, 33, 31–71.Google Scholar
Macrory, G. & Stone, V. (2000). Pupil progress in the acquisition of the perfect tense in French: The relationship between knowledge and use. Language Teaching Research, 4, 55–82.Google Scholar
Mote, T.A. (1970). An artifact of the rotation of too few factors: Study orientation vs. trait anxiety. Revista Interamericana de Psicologia, 37, 61–91.Google Scholar
O'Connor, B.P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396–402.Google Scholar
Oller, J. (1979). Language tests at school. London: Longman.
Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilingualism and SLA (M. Paradis, Trans.). In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 393–419). San Diego: Academic Press.
Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 1–20.Google Scholar
Reid, J.M. (1984). Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire. Copyrighted by Reid. Available through Joy Reid, Department of English, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82070.
Reid, J.M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 87–109.Google Scholar
Robinson, P.J. (2005). Cognitive abilities, chunk strength, and frequency effects in implicit artificial grammar and incidental L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 235–268.Google Scholar
Rossi-Le, L. (1995). Learning styles and strategies in adult immigrant ESL students. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 118–125). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Sharwood Smith, M.A. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159–169.Google Scholar
Stebbins, C. (1995). Culture-specific perceptual-learning-style preferences of post secondary students of English as a second language. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 108–117). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Sy, B.M. (1991). Perceptual learning styles preference of English department students. Studies in Foreign Language Teaching, 1, 89–112.Google Scholar
Thompson, B. (1996). AERA editorial policies regarding statistical significance testing: Three suggested reforms. Educational Researcher, 25, 26–30.Google Scholar
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Washington, DC: APA.
Thompson, B. & Daniel, L.G. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: A historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 197–208.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N. & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 173–204.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, L., & American Psychological Association Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594–604.Google Scholar
Wintergerst, A.C., DeCapua, A., & Itzen, R.C. (2001). The construct validity of one learning styles instrument. System, 29, 385–403.Google Scholar
Yeomans, K.A. & Golder, P.A. (1982). The Guttman-Kaiser criterion as a predictor of the number of common factors. Statistician, 31, 221–229.Google Scholar
Zwick, W.R. & Velicer, W.F. (1982). Factors influencing four rules for determining the number of components to retain. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 17, 253–269.Google Scholar
Zwick, W.R. & Velicer, W.F. (1986). Factors influencing five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432–442.Google Scholar