The Impact of Structured Input and Consciousness Raising Tasks on the Acquisition of Implicit and Explicit Knowledge of EFL Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the past decades, the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge and how they could be developed through instruction have always been controversial issues for cognitive psychologists and second language acquisition (SLA) researchers. The present study was aimed at investigating the effects of two different input-based tasks (Structured Input and Consciousness Raising) on the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge of English active causative structure by EFL learners. Seventy three female English language learners participated in this study. Participants were divided into two experimental groups, one was provided with structured input activities and the other with consciousness raising activities. The participants’ implicit and explicit knowledge of the target structure was assessed through Timed Grammaticality Judgment and Untimed Grammaticality Judgment respectively before and after the treatment. The results of Paired and Independent Samples t-test analyses revealed that both C-R tasks and SI tasks resulted in the acquisition of both implicit and explicit knowledge, with C-R having more significant impact on the explicit knowledge. The findings provided indirect positive support for the interface hypothesis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".