REVIEW PAPER DIRECT INSTRUCTION IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE By HJALMAR PUNLA HERNANDEZ Assistant Professor, English Division, Department of Humanities, University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines. Date Received: 29/11/2016 Date Revised: 03/03/2017 Date Accepted: 13/03/2017 ABSTRACT Second Language Acquisition (SLA), as a sub – discipline in applied linguistics, is rapidly growing and changing (Ellis & Shintani, 2014). As such, it has yielded stirring issues on both naturalistic and instructed settings causing reviews and/or investigations by language researchers. This paper accordingly serves as a humble attempt at critically reviewing the related literature of instructed SLA particularly direct instruction as situated in the landscape of language teaching. Initially, the paper kicks-off with the essentials of direct instruction. It subsequently delves into the importance of such instruction, and this extends to the analysis of notably empirical studies conducted in the 20th century and currently empirical studies in the 21stcentury. In regards of these, the paper arrives at conclusions, recommendations, and trajectories for future SLA studies. Keywords: Second Language Acquisition, Direct Instruction, Empirical Studies on Direct Instruction in SLA. INTRODUCTION assists in developing theoretical understanding as it can shed light on how differences in environmental or Second Language Acquisition, henceforth SLA, refers to naturalistic conditions affect SLA. Second is it aids in “the acquisition of a language beyond the native developing language pedagogy as it can help to test language” (Gass & Selinker, 2008, p.1). It is a complex field basic pedagogical assumptions (e.g. whether the orders in of inquiry as it involves interconnected variables (Mendiola, which grammatical structures are presented 2016; Ellis, 1985). As this is so, SLA has been faced with never corresponding to the arrangement in which they are learnt) – ending issues and debates since its conception in the (Ellis, 1985). In this regard, this paper serves as a humble late 1950s particularly during the time of Pit Corder in 1967 attempt at critically reviewing the related literature of when he produced his SLA publication entitled, ‘The instructed/tutored/classroom SLA particularly direct Significance of Learners' Errors’. Issues in SLA range from the instruction as situated in the landscape of language role of the first language (L1), natural route of development, teaching. Importantly, this paper primarily aims to: variations in the language learner's contexts, individual learners' differences, role of input, learner processes to the · Provide language teachers and researchers role of formal instruction (Ellis, 1985) which have motivated indispensable foundations of direct instruction in SLA; applied linguists in scrutinizing the world of SLA. · Emphasize the crucial tests and criteria in measuring In spite of the above, SLA can be classified only into two: direct instruction in SLA; and naturalistic and instructed. Naturalistic SLA refers to the · Highlight significant researches on direct instruction in acquisition of second language in the actual environment SLA so as to determine trajectories for future studies in like home where children commonly acquire language SLA. while instructed SLA is about acquiring the target language With these objectives, the author hopes that this critical in a classroom setting. Being knowledgeable about the review of literature will give language teachers, roles of instruction to SLA is valuable for two reasons: First is it i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, Vol. 7 l No. 1 l January - March 2017 43 REVIEW PAPER researchers, and practitioners, who are active, enthralled, being taught (Ellis, 2010). More than these, direct and and even neophyte in the field, a profounder indirect focus on form instructions have been contrasted by understanding and sense of direct instruction in SLA. De Graaff and Housen (2009, p. 737). Table 1 shows the differences between indirect and direct instructions. Initially, the paper kicks-off with the essential features of direct instruction. It subsequently delves into the Direct instruction is classifiable into dimensions. The first importance of such instruction, and this extends to the dimension is deductive and inductive dimension (Ellis, analysis of notably empirical studies conducted in the 20th 2010; Ellis, 2008). century and currently empirical studies in the 21st century. In Deductive dimension requires metalinguistically regards of these, the paper arrives at conclusions and explanative type of explicit instruction providing the L2 implications. learners’ explicit elaboration about syntactical structure of 1. Direct/Explicit instruction: Essentials the target language. Inductive dimension, on the other hand, is giving the L2 learners the assistance and inputs As Krashen (2013) explains, “direct or explicit instruction is which they need in order to arrive at an understanding of hypothesized to result in conscious learning, not the syntactical feature they receive. This may be subconscious acquisition (p.271). Ellis (2010) enlightens performed in three various forms: consciousness – raising that direct instruction has two aims which are to (1) increase tasks or CR, production exercises, and comprehension learners' implicit knowledge and (2) increase their explicit tasks. Consciousness – raising tasks are “a pedagogic knowledge of grammar forms. Additionally, it seeks to (3) activity where the learners are provided with L2 data in increase the learner's implicit knowledge of grammar in some form and required to perform some operation on or fluent, but accurate communicative language use. This is with it, the purpose of which is to arrive at an explicit believed achievable through increasing first explicit understanding of some regularity in the data” (Ellis, 1991, p. knowledge. 239). The second dimension is a proactive and reactive Explicit knowledge is about the rules of language that dimension. The former is based on grammatical syllabus learners are capable of explaining or verbalizing. An containing structural items to be taught and graded. It example is the knowledge on forming the past tense of includes predetermined instructions to avoid the irregular verbs. Implicit knowledge, on the other hand, is occurrence of errors by the L2 learners. The latter is intuitive knowledge in that it is a representation of being attending directly to errors. Its foundation of direct fluent in the mother tongue. When developed into explicit instruction lies on either grammatical syllabus or focused – knowledge, it gets verbalizable. It demonstrates itself tasks lessons developed for learners to use a linguistic through authentic language performance. Direct instruction can be more understood when it is Indirect Instruction Direct Instruction distinguished from indirect instruction (Ellis, 2008). Thus, it is Attracts attention to Directs attention to language form language meaning important articulating the various features that both have. Language serves primarily as Language serves as an object of study One notable difference of direct instruction from indirect a tool for communication Delivered spontaneously and Predetermined and planned (e.g. as instruction is its focus on form capturing or interesting the L2 incidentally (e.g. in an otherwise the main focus and goal of a learners' attention on the target language structure. Long communication oriented activity) teaching activity) Unobtrusive (minimal interruption Obtrusive (interruption of 1991, (as cited in Ellis, 2005) uses that term to refer to of communication of meaning) communication of meaning) instruction that engages learners' attention to form while Presents target forms in context Presents target forms in isolation they are primarily focused on message content. In the first, No rule explanation or directions to Use of rule explanation or directions attend to forms to discover rules; to attend to forms to discover rules; learners are stimulated to develop metalinguistic no use of metalanguage use of metalinguisticterminology awareness, while the latter is allowing learners to make Encourages free use of target form Involves controlled practice of target form inferences on rules without metalinguistic awareness and there is no intention to develop understanding of what is Table 1. Differences between Indirect and Direct Instructions 44 i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, Vol. 7 l No. 1 l January - March 2017 REVIEW PAPER structure in a context which is communicative (Ellis, 2010). review. A valuable question is deemed a need to be satisfied; that is whether direct instruction has a positive These two sets of dimension are frequently incorporated in effect to SLA or effective. one single lesson (Ellis, 2010). The proactive/reactive dimension functions as the form of explicit instruction and 2. Is it Effective? Measuring the Effects of Direct Instruction the deductive/inductive dimension serves as a means of Plenty of research (Ellis, 1985) will reveal the answer to the identifying the effect of instruction. For instance, proactive question in the heading. Measuring the effects of direct deductive direct instruction through metalinguistic instruction should not only refer to the tests that can be explanation of a language structure is succeeded by appropriately used to measure; however, criteria for opting comprehension tasks which are proactive inductive explicit which measurement tool should be considered as well instruction. Another is deductive reactive direct instruction (Ellis, 2005). They are shown in Table 3. by explicit correction leading to repetition that is inductive The effects of direct instruction can be identified through reactive direct instruction. Other combinations are using different instruments as distinguished by Norris and reactive/deductive explicit instruction, and reactive/ Ortega (2000), and they are if not somehow unlike the ones inductive explicit instruction (Ellis, 2010). involved in the dimensions of direct instruction, concrete Ellis and Shintani (2014, Chapter 4) have tabulated the forms of the dimensions of direct instruction. At the onset, merits and demerits of deductive and inductive direct these types of tool to measure the effects of direct instruction as shown in Table 2. The table indicates the instruction are more likely focused on the target form or dissimilarities between the two. grammatical structure of the target language. They, While research designs from descriptive to correlational however, seem to be indefinite as to which particular have enlightened instructed SLA, only experimental studies language knowledge as explicit or implicit knowledge is address the impact of instruction in SLA (Ellis, 2005). being measured. Doughty (2003) asserts that learning is Experimental studies provide more credible findings on the either explicit or implicit. effects of direct instruction in language learning (Mendiola, One is constrained constructed response wherein the L2 2016). Empirical studies have, thus, been chosen for critical learners create the target language form through very Deductive Presentation Inductive Presentation Advantages It is a quicker and easier way to teach the rule to learners Discovering rules by learners is likely to lead to more ‘meaning ful, memorable, and serviceable’ knowledge (Thornbury, 1999, p.54). It respects the intelligence and maturity of learners, especially It involves greater depth of processing which assists memory adult learners It encourages the students’ active involvement in grammar It confirms many students’ expectations about classroom learning learning, particularly adult learners or analytical learners who It is more challenging than simply receiving explanations want to know ‘what they are studying’ It can be done collaboratively in the classroom Time- saving (explaining rules is usually quicker than guessing from examples). The class time can be used for more practice Figuring out the rule by themselves mighten courage learner autonomy Acquirers develop the skills needed to analyze language A discovery based - approach enables learners to recognize that grammar is‘ conventional rather than logical’ (Ellis, 2002, p.165). Disadvantages Grammar explanation tends to be teacher fronted and Time consuming – it takes up time better spent on practice does not actively involve learners Inferring rules might result in learners misunderstanding the rule Grammar explanation might be cognitively demanding for young learners It places high demands on teachers for class preparation Starting with grammar explanation might demotivate It might frustrate students who are used to a deductive type of learners learning It leads to the belief that learning language involves just knowing the rules Table 2. Merits and Demerits of Deductive and Inductive Direct Instruction i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, Vol. 7 l No. 1 l January - March 2017 45 REVIEW PAPER target language (Ellis, 2010; Norris & Ortega, 2000). The Criteria Description researcher of this paper contends that using tests that elicit Certainty The assurance of L2 learners that their responses follow the rules of the target both explicit and implicit knowledge are necessary to language overcome biases in treatment and result. Putting more Degree of awareness The extent to which the L2 learners use the rule or feel to answer the test critical attention on this area of measuring direct instruction Focus of attention Whether the test has the L2 learners to focus in SLA is a crevice that requires action. on accuracy or fluency Systematicity Whether the L2 learner responds consistently 3. 20th Century Empirical Studies on Direct Instruction in SLA or inconsistently to the test Notable and classic experimental studies in the 20th Metalanguage The extent to which the test allows the L2 learners to access the metalanguage in century have been considered in this section. They order to respond focused on the effects of direction instruction towards the Time available Whether L2 learners are tense in answering the test rapidly or have sufficient time to route, rate, and/or success of development in learners' respond acquisition of the L2. The route of development refers to the Table 3. Criteria for Selecting an Instrument to Measure general sequence/specific order of acquisition. The rate of Direct Instruction development is the speed at which learning takes place, controlled linguistic test. Production may be written, such as while the success of development is the proficiency level filling – in the gaps, or correcting sentences containing that is achieved. Through morphemes and longitudinal errors, or oral as recall of isolated sentences. Second is free studies on instruction in SLA, they pave ways on increasing constructed form, that is, the opposite of the first. Thus, it is theoretical understanding as they can shed light on how not controlled; this is to engage the L2 learners in differences in naturalistic conditions affect SLA (Ellis, 1985), communicative tasks by which they can produce the that is, when the order of language structure instructed to target form in meaningful communication. It tests either and learned by L2 learners manifested on the results of tests comprehension of production. Translating an L2 narrative opposed or correspond to the natural order in acquiring into English, for example, tests comprehension; describing linguistic structures. pictures, on the other hand, measures production. Free Lightbrown (1983), Pica (1983), Sajavaara (1981), Makino constructed response is the one which meets the criteria in (1979), Fathman (1978), and Fathman (1975) (as cited in selecting a test to measure implicit knowledge (Ellis, 2010), Ellis, 1985) investigated the acquisition of English while the other three will draw on explicit knowledge. Third morphemes. Their studies focused on the route of are metalinguistic judgments through which the L2 learners development. Lightbrown (1983) had mainly lower analyze the soundness of the target language form being intermediate grade 6 pupils, and grade 7 and 8 who were provided. Lastly, selected response is a multiple choice tested through spontaneous speech on picture tasks. type in which the L2 learners typically select the correct Differences from natural order for a number of morphemes target form in a list of alternatives. Other examples are such as -ing but disruptions were concluded as only matching pictures to sentences, choosing from a list of temporary. Pica (1983) had six adults who were native words to complete a sentence, and recognition of words. Spanish speakers with mixed ability levels from 18 to 50 It is relatively difficult to create free constructed response years old. They received grammar instruction and tests, whereas it is relatively easy to produce constrained communicative language practice, and were tested response, metalinguistic, and selected response tests (Ellis, through hour – long audiotaped conversations. 2010). It is important to note that using these three Accordingly, the order of morpheme of instructed group remaining entails bias towards explicit knowledge of correlated significantly with that of naturalistic group, that of language (Doughty, 2004) on studies which emphasized mixed group, and that of natural order by Krashen. focus on form direct instruction. Conversely, measuring Sajavaara (1981) studied adolescents. They received implicit knowledge is favoured by free – constructed formal direct classroom instruction. Spontaneous elicitation response tests that target meaning not only the form of the 46 i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, Vol. 7 l No. 1 l January - March 2017 REVIEW PAPER measures were used. In effect, natural morpheme order result of distorted input. Felix (1981) had recorded disturbed – in particular, articles ranked lower. On the other classroom speech audio with German EFL beginners. hand, no significant difference between that of These L2 learners either selected any structure randomly morpheme order subjects and the natural order reported from repertoire either or produced utterances following by Krashen (1977) was revealed by Makino (1979) who same rules as naturalistic SLA. studied mixed-ability-level EFL learners who were 777 Ellis has resisted through closed examination of different adolescents and children receiving formal classroom studies on morphemes that formal grammar instruction instruction just like that of Sajavaara (1981). The difference does not affect the natural route of development or the of the result perhaps could be associated with the type of order of development of grammatical features (Ellis, 2005). test used. Makino (1979) utilized written short answer test, Similarly, longitudinal researches on instructed SLA do not while Sajavaara (1981) used spontaneous elicitation. The prove a great role to play in the route of development effects vary and they seem dependent on the type of test among L2 learners. measuring the language acquisition. Another case in point What may be questioned on these empirical undertakings is the study of Fathman (1978) who also used adolescents may have been the type of knowledge being measured. with mixed ability levels. They received grammar lessons, Lightbrown (1983), Pica (1983), Sajavaara (1981), Makino drills, and controlled dialogues. Through oral production (1979), Fathman (1978), and Fathman (1975) may have test, the L2 learners resulted into 'difficulty order' of failed to specify or classify whether explicit or implicit morphemes which significantly correlated with the order knowledge on the target language structure did the L2 evident in speech of adolescent ESL learners who were not learners acquire. The balance between the two may be receiving instruction in United States. Similarly, Fathman absent as both types of language knowledge are subjects (1975) used oral production test to 260 children ESL learners of ambiguities; so, this suggests that there had been an (elementary and intermediate) aged 6-15 years old with existing dearth of unbiased empirical studies on the area of mixed first language backgrounds. Findings showed route of development which needed gap – filling. If this is different result, that is, the morpheme orders of pupils who not so, is balance between explicit and implicit knowledge received instructions significantly correlated with those applicable only for the rate and/or success of pupils who did not receive instruction. It may be valid to development? claim that this result differs from that of Pica (1983), Most of the studies found on the rate and success of Sajavaara (1981), and Fathman (1978) since younger development stressed relative utility, that is, the overall participants became the subjects of study of Fathman effect of formal instruction in ESL and EFL classes. It further (1975). Thus, age aside from the type of test appears to means that the effects relate with direct instruction. These affect the findings. studies show positive effect of instruction, uncertain Conversely, longitudinal experimental studies of Ellis (1984), findings, and no effects of instruction. Tests used for and Felix (1981) (as cited in Ellis, 1985) prove the route of measuring acquisition were discrete-point and integrative. second language acquisition is not affected by direct One may analyze that discrete-point tests are instruction. Overall, the results showed that the instruction metalinguistic judgment, constrained constructed did not impact the route of development of subjects as response, and selected response tests, while integrative experimental and control groups were compared and tests are free constructed response tests. Carroll (1967), analysed. Ellis (1984) had British ESL beginners as subjects Chihara and Oller (1978), Briere (1978), Krashen, et al. aged 10 to 13 years of age with Punjabi and Portuguese as (1978) (as cited in Ellis, 1985) reported the positive effects of their L1. Communicative classroom speech which focused instruction with exposure. Carroll (1967) examined adults on meaning served as the source of measurement. As a from all proficiency levels and whose L1 was English. Based result, the overall developmental route was found the on the result of integrative test, both instruction and same as naturalistic SLA, and minor differences were a i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, Vol. 7 l No. 1 l January - March 2017 47 REVIEW PAPER exposure help, but exposure helps most. Chihara and Oller route of acquisition, but it enables learners to progress (1978) also studied students from all proficiency levels but more rapidly along the natural route. Fotos (1993, 1994) Japanese adult learners. Through discrete point test and had grammar discovery tasks aimed at developing integrative test, results revealed that instruction helps, but metalinguistic knowledge of L2 learners. Instruction was exposure does not. Briere (1978) and Krashen with his measured by the following: learners' ability to judge the colleagues have the same result. Briere (1978) had children grammaticality of sentences; learners' ability to whose L1 was Indian learning Spanish as a second subsequently notice the grammatical features in input; language in Mexico. Consequently, both instruction and and the magnitude of the effect of instruction when exposure help, but exposure helps most. Krashen, et al. assessed through meta-linguistic judgment (Norris & (1978) had adults with mixed first languages having all Ortega, 2000). Tests were less selected response or proficiency levels. Using discrete-point and integrative constrained constructed response, but more free tests, both instruction and exposure help, but exposure constructed response. Findings showed ambiguity that the helps most. Both studies, however, differ in terms of the extent to which instruction can help learners to an explicit types of subjects. The study of Krashen, Seliger, and Hartnett understanding of grammatical structures remains (1974), Krashen and Seliger (1976), and Fathman (1976) uncertain as indeed does the value of instruction directed provide results that instruction is helpful, but the evidences at this type of L2 knowledge. On the other hand, Fotos and are insufficient or ambiguous. All the first three used adult Ellis (1991) utilized didactic and discovery based learners with mixed first languages with all proficiency approaches. They found that both were effective in backgrounds, but only Fathman (1976) had children. There promoting understanding of a grammatical rule as must be other factors that affected the results such as the measured by a grammaticality judgment test. This might length of exposure to direct instruction in the classroom. It is be so because the students in this study were unfamiliar surprising to find out that the study of Upshur (1968) and with working in groups, as was required by the discovery Mason (1971) report that there is no advantage of option by Fotos and Ellis (1991). Ellis (1991) used instruction and exposure. Upshur (1968) had adults with consciousness-raising tasks. CR tasks were found to have mixed first languages and from intermediate and their limitations as they do not demonstrate empirical advanced levels, whereas Fathman (1975) had children results. But through it, explicit knowledge of the L2 facilitates with mixed first languages also and from all proficiency the acquisition of implicit knowledge. VanPatten (1996) levels. The first took discrete – point test while the latter took investigated on the relative effectiveness of structured integrative test. One possible cause may be the variety of input and production practice. Learners who received L1 where the subjects were possessing. This could be an input-processing instruction outperformed those receiving area that needs investigation. As there are probably studies traditional instruction on comprehension post-tests. that have been conducted on this void, further researchers However, this may be owed more to the structured input may be deemed necessary. component than to the explicit instruction as VanPatten (1996) claims. On the other hand, Harley (1989), Lyster and More SLA studies on direct instruction had different foci. Ranta (1997), and Muranoi (2000) testify the effectiveness Pienemann (1985, 1989) had teachability hypothesis that of functional grammar teaching. The success of the effective instruction needs to target features that lie within instruction was derived from both test-like and more the developmental stage next to that which the learner has communicative performance; however, it does not already reached. L2 learners were exposed to an input appear to be dependent on the choice of target form. flood of question forms at Stages 4 and 5. It was predicted Hawkins and Towell (1996) used form-focused instruction. It that learners at Stage 3 would be better placed to benefit was revealed likely to be more effective if the targeted from this than learners at Stage 2. By advancing to Stage 3, feature is simple and easily-explained. Lastly, Truscott learners benefited most from the instruction. This proves Ellis' (1999) had corrective feedback as mode of direct conclusion that direct instruction does not alter the natural 48 i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, Vol. 7 l No. 1 l January - March 2017 REVIEW PAPER instruction. Negatively, correcting learners' errors revealed outperform the second group in terms of translations tasks. no effect on learners' acquisition of new L2 forms. In effect, the intensive grammar direct instruction was found as insufficient variable to bring about a significant Observably, these empirical studies have different results improvement in the learners' grammatical knowledge depending on the type of direct instruction used. The since there was no extent to which overall judgments can question now is which is the best way to prove the effect of be made between the two groups. direct instruction to SLA? 4. 21stCentury Empirical Studies on Direct Instruction in SLA Relating with the last statement, the result of the study cannot be generalized as effective in developing L2 The 21st century offers more experimental studies. It has learners' interlanguage. One may suspect that the number become apparent that explicit instruction for almost or of subjects affected the findings while the nature of using more than 20 years has a positive effect on second direct instruction is actually grammar intervention. Another language learning and performance (Ricketts, & might be Macaro and Masterman's lack of control over the Ehrensberger – Dow, 2007). These SLA studies focused on quality and quantity of direct instruction for the learners. presentation of rules, exposure to relevant input, Their individual differences could also be a factor. metalinguistic awareness, feedback, and opportunities for A similar result supports Macaro and Masterman's (2006) practice among others. The studies in this section are so far experimental inquiry. Nazari (2013) investigated the effects conducted with most L2 learners who were learning English of both direct and indirect instruction on learners' ability to as a foreign language. learn grammar and apply it in their writing. Unlike the study Macaro and Masterman (2006) probed the effect of of Macaro and Masterman, Nazari focused on English as intensive direct grammar instruction (focus on form) on L2. Two intact classes with 30 students, that is, 60 female grammatical knowledge and writing competence among Iranian adult learners were used for teaching the present freshman students of French as L2. A group of learners perfect by various methods of instruction. Through direct received explicit instruction in French as L2 while another instruction, learners got exposed on direct explanation of group did not receive any intervention. Discrete-point the rule on the part of the teacher, having students work grammar test was used to measure their acquisition of individually or in pairs composing sentences, using the French relative pronouns, verbs/tenses/aspect, relative sentences in order to extract and explain the use of rules, clauses, agreement and prepositions. The learners took a having the learners do the related exercises taken from pre-test (for both groups), interim test taken one week after Grammar in use, and translation. Indirect instruction the instruction (for the experimental group only), and post- included schema building (showing the grammar in use, test on the 12th week (for both groups). The tests were in four not talking about it) by making examples, having students styles: grammar judgement, error correction with rule watch a related film answering the questions in such a way explanation, translation that are discrete – point tests, and that they would have to use the targeted, and providing a narrative composition that is a production task. text with highlighted forms of the intended grammatical Accordingly, the experimental group improved structure. This lasted for 10 sessions. Given a teacher – significantly between interim and post-tests and not made grammar test to check the learners' achievement, between pre and interim tests in terms of spotting and the group that received direct instruction outperformed the correcting errors, and explaining their corrections. The group that had indirect instruction. Direct instruction had a control group did not attain significant improvement. Both better effect in enhancing the L2 learners' grammatical groups improved significantly in their narrative knowledge (Nazari, 2013). compositions, but the experimental group did not gain At a similar note, Finger and Vasquez's (2010) study had 17 development in terms of grammar accuracy between pre Brazilians learning English in a university received direct and interim tests. The number of participants did not really instruction on present perfect and simple past as well. They affect the results. Moreover, the first group did not i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, Vol. 7 l No. 1 l January - March 2017 49 REVIEW PAPER were tested twice through comprehension and production measured by the grammaticality judgment post-test, tests as pre and post-tests during a three –week interval. The input-based L2 instruction alone does not lead to improved experimental group was actually tested in terms of form and performance on tasks involving the comprehension of function. This group performed better than the control group English tense and aspect. A direct instruction incorporating as the first group got higher scores in the comprehension test input-based-instructional treatment cannot be held on present perfect and simple past. This is understood as responsible for enabling L2 learners to comprehend and to attributed to the fact that explicit instruction is direct and produce the target structure more effectively than input- affects a learner's perception of the target linguistic item in only. The result, then, implies that coalescing direct and the sense that they used it frequently. Thus, the positive result indirect grammar instructions is a better option (Gardaoui & linked with direct grammar instruction. The control group that Farouk, 2015). did not receive direct instruction, however, showed significant Results according to Nazari (2013), and Gardaoui and improvement as a result of the production test in simple past Farouk (2015) could be attributed to several reasons: only and not present perfect. This is not necessarily based on learners being habituated to direct instruction or direct direct instruction, but on first language interference (Finger & instruction without implicit conditions; the type of grammar Vasquez, 2010). Results indicated that through direct test used (multiple choice, contextualized, and sentence instruction, the learners gained an overall improvement. making); the aims of the university's syllabus enabling the Given this positive result, can one declare that the findings students to identify the grammatical rules, and to use them have been conclusive to the extent that no further inquiries correctly, and focusing on grammatical forms and the on direct instruction in SLA are to be explored? The amount usage of grammatical features without emphasizing of target input may be tested in order to obtain more grammatical features in meaning–based contexts comprehensive results. More testing may be deemed (Gardaoui & Farouk, 2015). Moreover, L2 learners' individual necessary to reveal whether the L2 learners achieved long differences are a factor. The participants' characteristics, –term improvement. such as motivation, positive attitude, and perseverance to learn affected their success. Considering these factors in On the other hand, Gardaoui and Farouk (2015) compared mind could make another SLA research more carefully the relative effectiveness of direct instruction before input planned and thoroughly done. enhancement on English tense and aspect, and input enhancement alone with 38 Algerian young adult ELF Tavakoli, Dastjerdi, and Esteki, (2011) determined the learners in the tertiary level. All participants participated in a effects of direct strategy instruction on L2 oral production pre-test and post-test that was varied in formats: (1) a with regard to accuracy, fluency, and complexity of 40 grammaticality judgment task, (2) a written gap-filling task; male intermediate EFL learners. Being an experimental and (3) a picture description task. study, communication strategy instruction was the independent variable. Learners were taught of four The instruction for the experimental group included form – communication strategies: circumlocution, approximation, focused macro options: (i) input flood, (ii) textual all-purpose words, and lexicalized fillers. Learner's oral enhancement operationalized by combination of bold and proficiency, that was the dependent variable, was color, and (iii) rule – oriented. The control group comprised assessed using analytic measures of accuracy, fluency, of activities where learners engaged with language and complexity. Twenty each in number, the experimental receptively, that is, language input in the form of listening group and control group had eight sessions. The first was and reading tasks. Results showed that the group which made aware of the various strategies to compensate received direct instruction prior to the input enhancement certain communication difficulties through the teacher's exceeded the performance of the other group which did direct instructions, whereas the latter received no special not receive direct instruction. The first though did not reveal treatment. It only underwent normal routine class statistically significant learning improvements. As 50 i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, Vol. 7 l No. 1 l January - March 2017 REVIEW PAPER procedure. Using interview as post-test that was candidates, Wu's (2007) dissertation that employed a pre- transcribed, examined, and coded in terms of accuracy, test-post-test experimental design reports that the fluency, and complexity the study revealed that direct randomly assigned teacher participants (average age of strategy instruction aids oral performance and the 19 years old) who were directly taught on English experimental group achieved a higher level of accuracy, conditionals for five sessions via EEGI (i.e. Explicit fluency, and complexity. Explicit teaching of Experienced Grammar Instruction) improved their oral communication strategies may have a positive effect on accuracy. The test used was pre-test-post-test oral the learners' strategic competence. interview. Using statistical regression, the degree of accuracy was around 37% after direct instruction that Wu If Tavakoli, Dastjerdi, and Esteki's (2011) conclusion is so, (2007) related with the experimental group being incorporating communication strategies into the English immersed in several communicative meaning – based language curricula, then, is important. Some may contend activities to practice English conditionals. On the other though that communication strategies have been hand, 60% development was linked with EEGI. The observed if never taught, implicitly to ESL/ELF learners for remaining 40% might be based on explanatory variables example in the Philippines, Singapore, Japan, Korea, different from EEGI: learner's psychological aspects, China, and so on. namely aptitude, cognition, learning styles, and A similar study focusing on the effects of direct instruction to motivation, and social elements such as learning the oral communication skills of Sudanese high school EFL environment that both represent learner differences (Wu, learners was that of Nasr (2015). He used teacher's 2007). Another was the error of measurement which is questionnaire and learner's questionnaire. Contrary to the unavoidable in all type of research inquiry. These variables positive result that Tavakoli, Dastjerdi, and Esteki (2011) had were not explored whether valid or invalid indicators reported, direct grammar instruction made a negative carrying the puzzling 40%. Explicit grammar instruction in effect on the learners' communication skills and it exposed English conditional sentences can explain the reasons why them to the least possible amount of linguistic structures to the experimental group outperformed the control group. acquire. Coming from the words of Nasr, (2015, p. 155), Direct instruction also affects the implicit and explicit “Explicit grammar instruction impedes fluency and oral knowledge of L2 learners (Nezakat – Alhossaini, communication in general, on the other hand, it exposes Youhanaee, & Moinzadeh, 2014). The study of Nezakat – EFL learners' to a little amount of language that presented Alhossaini, Youhanaee, and Moinzadeh (2014) explored by the teacher”. the impact of direct instruction on the acquisition of English One question to arise in scrutinizing why it had a negative passive objective relative clauses. Their experimental effect towards the L2 learners perhaps is the amount of group underwent four sessions of direct instruction while the time the English language teacher(s) devoted for each other group remained on its common routine in the writing opportunity of providing direct instruction. The time and the class. Two separate tests of explicit and implicit knowledge days of teaching the Sudanese learners, however, were not used varied: an offline test of metalinguistic knowledge (an mentioned in their experimental study. If the amount of error correction task) and two online speed tests of implicit direct instruction covers the entire class time of the L2 knowledge (a self-paced-reading task and a stop-making learners, acquiring the target structures may suffer; thus, sense task). Randomly divided into experimental and leading to less chance of acquiring the language. Or control groups, intermediate EFL learners, male and should the learners be exposed more on grammar female, participated as the first group. The second and exercises and communicative activities that these control group consisted of PhD students of TEFL with an activities should play more amount of time instead of direct average of 10 years studying English as a foreign instruction. language, but never lived in an English speaking country. A On the oral grammatical performance of teacher pre-test, a post-test, and a delayed post-test were i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, Vol. 7 l No. 1 l January - March 2017 51 REVIEW PAPER administered to both. Considering the effect of direct What may be missing in Tamayo's study is the fact, the instruction to explicit knowledge, both groups accordingly language also has other dimensions such as meaning and made similar performances in the pre-test; however, the function. While this may be rare in tutored SLA settings, experimental group outperformed the other group in the meaning – based direct grammar instruction may offer the immediate post-test by producing the accurate form of chance for learners to use the target language which in relative clauses after direct instruction. In the offline post- turn may be viewed as a void that needs research. test, there was no significant difference found between the Explored on the qualitative effect of direct instruction as two groups' performance. Direct instruction also improved intervention on Korean learners' perceptions on writing and the learners' implicit knowledge. The experimental group editing skills at the sentence level (i.e. Complete Sentence, decreased reading time that was indicated by the similar Verb Tense, Simple Sentence, Compound Sentence, and performances of the control group. The experimental Complex Sentence), Wang G.H. and Wang S. (2014) had group showed a faster automaticity in their delayed post- intermediate-level freshman English learners accomplish a test than the other group. The rate of progress of the L2 pre-intervention writing assignment before receiving learners can speed in acquiring complex grammatical sentence grammar instruction, and a similar but slightly structures through direct instruction. However, one may different post-intervention assignment after receiving the view that this finding is no longer new. What more can direct instruction. A set of workbooks which the students read and instruction bring about to the EFL learners? What about studied for homework over five days was provided as a online direct instruction in acquiring a second or foreign form of grammar instruction to the learners. This alone was language? the grammar instruction provided. After submitting the Tamayo (2010) analyzed the role and effect of explicit post-intervention writing assignment, the learners answered English grammar instruction focusing on form. Grammar an online survey anonymously to reflect on their instruction took five hours every week, one hour per day. experience of the overall task. The results of the survey point Randomly selected, ten 17 to18 year old L2 learners to a positive impact of the direct instruction on their (advanced level) who were Spanish, participated in an oral perceptions of their writing and editing abilities. This entails interview. Then, they identified the correct sentence they that it is actually likely to deliver direct grammar instruction had previously produced in the oral interview in student- in written mode without interventions coming from the specific tests that consist of ten pairs of sentences. Each teacher's involvement. pair had a correct sentence and an incorrect option While Wang G.H. and Wang S., (2014) conclude such added. The learners analyzed their choices by providing positive effect, they themselves admitted that either explicit or implicit explanations. Accordingly, most of generalizability of their findings was weak given that it the learners selected the correct sentence and explained lacked a control group. The dearth of participants and their correct choice in the student-specific tests. They scope may be needed to investigate more on the preferred explaining most of the structures through explicit connection between direct instruction and writing knowledge. They used implicit knowledge only when they performance. In addition, they might have missed that lacked the technical terms to explain the phenomenon. perceptions just like reflections serve as data for Tamayo (2010) claims that direct grammar instruction that triangulating other primary data. Perceptions are also is gradually developed through practice in the process of difficult to measure. This study is significant for raising the learning has an effect in SLA. Moreover, it could aid the issue that direct grammar instruction delivered in the form learners in making them feel more certain and self - of workbooks could have a beneficial role in foreign confident on the utterances that they produced. Form – language writing pedagogy. This may be a good area for focused direct instruction raises awareness about research as a little amount of studies are being conducted language accuracy. in second language writing. 52 i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, Vol. 7 l No. 1 l January - March 2017