The effect of omission of grammar instruction on oral fluency: Comparing the effect of implicit and explicit English language teaching on Dutch secondary school pupils’ oral fluency in English

Abstract

For several decades, researchers have compared the learning effects between form-focused and meaning-focused language education. Whereas one of the main arguments of the supporters of meaning-focused education is that explicit knowledge of grammar rules will impede on the communicative flow, few studies have actually looked at the effect of type of instruction on oral fluency. The present study is part of a bigger longitudinal study that looks at the effect of delaying grammar instruction for Dutch EFL learners in a regular classroom setting. More specifically, the present study investigates the differences in oral fluency between two groups of students in their first year of secondary school (N=319), one of which had received traditional English education (including grammar instruction) for a full year, whereas for the other group the grammar instruction was omitted from the lessons. The following research question was posed: what is the effect of one year of implicit English education on the English fluency of Dutch pupils in their first year of secondary school compared to Dutch pupils who have experienced traditional, English language education in which grammar instruction is included? In line with the arguments raised by supporters of meaning-focused education, it was expected that the group that had not received grammar instruction would outperform the group that had. The students were subjected to a narrative elicitation task. The stories were transcribed in CLAN and fluency measures were calculated by use of Praat and CLAN. Three different fluency variables (1. average number of words; 2. average length of silent pause; 3. breakdown and repair fluency) were gathered for each participant and t-tests were conducted to the compare the two groups on each variable. For the first variable it was found that the group that had received no grammar instruction significantly outperformed the group that had. For the second variable, no significant differences were found. However, for breakdown and repair fluency it was found that the group that had received grammar instruction significantly outperformed the group that had not. It was concluded that the omission of grammar instruction has both a positive and a negative effect on oral fluency.