EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION IN CENTRAL ASIAN EFL SETTINGS: CHALLENGES AND PERSPECTIVES
Keywords:
explicit grammar instruction, implicit grammar instruction, EFL, Central Asia, second language acquisition, Uzbekistan.Abstract
This paper examines the role of explicit and implicit grammar instruction in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms, with particular attention to the Central Asian educational context. Drawing on existing research in second language acquisition (SLA), the study explores the theoretical foundations of both instructional approaches and their practical implications for EFL learners in Uzbekistan and the broader Central Asian region. Explicit grammar instruction, characterized by direct rule presentation and metalinguistic awareness, is compared with implicit instruction, which promotes naturalistic acquisition through meaningful communication. The paper argues that neither approach is universally superior; rather, effective grammar teaching in Central Asian EFL settings requires a balanced integration of both methods, adapted to learners' proficiency levels, cultural background, and educational environment. Key challenges include large class sizes, limited exposure to authentic English input, and prevailing grammar-translation traditions. The paper concludes with pedagogical recommendations for EFL practitioners in the region.
References
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83–107.
Hasanova, D., & Shadieva, T. (2008). Implementing communicative language teaching in Uzbekistan. The Buckingham Journal of Language and Linguistics, 1, 51–65.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). John Benjamins.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. Routledge.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528.
Ringbom, H. (2007). Cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. Multilingual Matters.
Shintani, N., Li, S., & Ellis, R. (2013). Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63(2), 296–329.
Spada, N. (2011). Beyond rich/poor and weak/strong dichotomies: Describing multiple dimensions of language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 45(3), 611–621.
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
How to Cite
