Investigating Explicit and Implicit Teaching Strategies of Formulaic Sequences and Their Influence on Writing Accuracy and Complexity

Nahid Chamani

doi:10.61227/iltt.v1i2.222

Authors

Nahid Chamani University of Tabriz

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61227/iltt.v1i2.222

Keywords:

Explicit teaching, Formulaic Sequences, Implicit teaching, Writing Accuracy, Writing Complexity

Abstract

Although the positive impact of formulaic sequences on learners’ writing ability has been widely acknowledged, limited empirical research has rigorously explored the comparative effects of implicit and explicit instruction in this area. To address this gap, the present study investigated how explicit versus implicit teaching of formulaic sequences influences Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy and complexity. Employing a quasi-experimental design, the study examined 45 students (22 males and 28 females) aged between 14 and 20, recruited from a private language institute in Isfahan. Participants were divided into two experimental groups and one control group. One experimental group received implicit instruction of formulaic sequences, while the other was taught explicitly prior to completing writing tasks. Pre-tests and post-tests were administered across all groups, and learners’ writing accuracy and complexity were assessed through their task scores. Results from ANCOVA analyses demonstrated that both explicit and implicit instruction significantly enhanced learners’ writing performance. Specifically, both approaches improved accuracy, leading to more precise written outputs, and both experimental groups surpassed the control group in terms of complexity. These findings highlight the pedagogical value of integrating explicit and implicit teaching of formulaic sequences into EFL writing instruction, suggesting that mastery of such sequences can contribute meaningfully to the development of learners’ writing skills.

References

Akkoç, A. B., Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2018). The effects of explicit instruction of formulaic language on EFL argumentative writing quality. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 358–368.

AlHassan, L., & Wood, D. (2015). The effectiveness of focused instruction of formulaic sequences in augmenting L2 learners’ academic writing skills: A quantitative research study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.11.003

Basturkmen, H. (2018). Explicit versus implicit grammar knowledge. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–6). Wiley.

Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). Pearson Longman.

Cancino, M., & Iturrieta, J. (2022). Assessing the impact of the lexical approach on EFL perceived oral proficiency: What is the role of formulaic sequences? Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 41–66.

Chan, M. (2018). Processing instruction in helping map forms and meaning in second language acquisition of English simple past. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(6), 720–732.

Čolović-Marković, J. (2012). The effects of explicit instruction of formulaic sequences on second-language writers [Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah].

DeKeyser, R. M. (2009). Cognitive-psychological processes in second language learning. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 119–138). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315783.ch8

El-Dakhs, D. A. S., Prue, T. T., & Ijaz, A. (2017). The effect of the explicit instruction of formulaic sequences in pre-writing vocabulary activities on foreign language writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(4), 21–31.

Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816628627

Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R., & Loewen, S. (2007). Confirming the operational definitions of explicit and implicit knowledge in Ellis (2005): Responding to Isemonger. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 119–126.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (Eds.). (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Multilingual Matters.

Erman, B. (2009). Formulaic language from a learner perspective. In R. Corrigan, E. A. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language: Vol. 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations (pp. 324–346). John Benjamins.

Fordyce, K. (2014). The differential effects of explicit and implicit instruction on EFL learners’ use of epistemic stance. Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 6–28.

Grami, G. M. A., & Alkazemi, B. Y. (2016). Improving ESL writing using an online formulaic sequence word-combination checker. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(2), 95–104.

Hogue, A. (2014). Longman academic writing series. Pearson Education.

Huang, K. (2015). More does not mean better: Frequency and accuracy analysis of lexical bundles in Chinese EFL learners’ essay writing. System, 53, 13–22.

Jones, M., & Haywood, S. (2004). Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences: An exploratory study in an EAP context. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use (pp. 269–300). John Benjamins.

Kara, S. (2013). Writing anxiety: A case study on students’ reasons for anxiety in writing classes. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 3(1), 103–111.

Lee, J. (2018). A Coh-Metrix analysis of lexical, syntactic and discourse aspects in the newspaper articles of Korean and British university students. Modern English Education, 19(4), 17–26.

Liou, H.-C., & Chen, W.-F. (2018). Effects of explicit teaching on learning academic formulaic sequences for EFL college learners’ writing. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 15(1), 61–100.

Lukácsi, Z. (2021). Developing a level-specific checklist for assessing EFL writing. Language Testing, 38(1), 86–105.

Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N. (2012). A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams010

Mazgutova, D., & Kormos, J. (2015). Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for academic purposes programme. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.004

Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263198001041

Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). Hodder Arnold.

Nattinger, J., & DeCarrico, J. (2015). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford University Press.

Nergis, A. (2021). Can explicit instruction of formulaic sequences enhance L2 oral fluency? Lingua, 25(3), 103–121.

O’Donnell, M. B., Römer, U., & Ellis, N. C. (2013). The development of formulaic sequences in first and second language writing: Investigating effects of frequency, association, and native norm. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.1.05odo

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2014). Formulaic language in L1 and L2 expert academic writing: Convergent and divergent usage. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 84–94.

Peters, E., & Pauwels, P. (2015). Learning academic formulaic sequences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 28–39.

Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004

Shintani, N. (2013). The effect of focus on form and focus on forms instruction on the acquisition of productive knowledge of L2 vocabulary by young beginning-level learners. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 36–62.

Sinclair, J. McH. (2003). Reading concordances: An introduction. Pearson Longman.

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.38

Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00071

Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x

Tang, J. (2012). An empirical study on the effectiveness of the lexical approach to improving writing in SLA. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(3), 578–583. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.3.578-583

Umeda, M., Snape, N., Yusa, N., & Wiltshier, J. (2019). The long-term effect of explicit instruction on learners’ knowledge on English articles. Language Teaching Research, 23(2), 179–199.

Wang, Y. (2021). Formulaic sequences with ideational functions in L1 student and expert academic writing in English. In A. Trklja & Ł. Grabowski (Eds.), Formulaic language: Theories and methods, 21(1), 113–137.

Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. McGraw-Hill.

Wray, A., & Perkins, M. R. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language & Communication, 20(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(99)00015-4