Implicit vs. Explicit Instruction: Which is Better for Word Learning?
Does traditional or exploratory learning work
better?
As educators, we are constantly faced with the
question of how we can best present material so that it is optimally
“learnable” for the different students we are trying to reach.
There is considerable evidence both for and
against self-directed and exploratory learning, so there is a great opportunity
for neuroscience to examine the ground-level differences between these and more
traditional methods of instruction and how the brain reacts to each. One of
those differences is the subject of current investigation: the divide between
explicit and implicit instruction.
By explicit instruction, we mean teaching
where the instructor clearly outlines what the learning goals are for the
student, and offers clear, unambiguous explanations of the skills and
information structures they are presenting.
By implicit instruction, we refer to teaching
where the instructor does not outline such goals or make such explanations
overtly, but rather simply presents the information or problem to the student
and allows the student to make their own conclusions and create their own
conceptual structures and assimilate the information in the way that makes the
most sense to them.
Which is more effective?
One study out of Vanderbilt University
recently looked at this question as it applies to word learning. In this study,
principal investigator Laurie Cutting and her team examined 34 adult readers,
from 21 to 36 years of age.
The subjects were taught pseudowords—words
that are similar to real words but that have no meaning, such as “skoat” or
“chote.” Then, through both explicit and implicit instruction, subjects were
taught meanings for these words. (In the study, both of these pseudowords were
associated with the picture of a dog.)
The goal was to gain a clearer understanding
of how people with different skills and capabilities processed short-term
instruction, how effectively they learned, and how those differences looked
physiologically in the brain.
In the end, the subjects were all able to
learn the pseudowords. But, through functional magnetic resonance imaging
(fMRI), the researchers learned that something deeper was actually taking
place: subjects previously identified as excellent readers showed little
difference between how they processed explicit vs. implicit instruction.
Average readers, on the other hand, showed through their fMRIs that they had to
work harder to learn through implicit instruction; for them, explicit
instruction was the more effective method.
Granted, the study did focus on a group of
adults, not school-age learners. Still, the Vanderbilt team’s preliminary
results support the idea that, even in group situations where all students have
roughly the same degree of previous experience, prior reading ability might be an important element to consider when choosing an
instructional approach.
