Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-lfgmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-29T16:35:55.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

CONFIRMING THE OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE IN ELLIS (2005): Responding to Isemonger

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2007

Rod Ellis
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Shawn Loewen
Affiliation:
University of Auckland

Extract

Ellis (2005) and his coresearchers developed a number of tests with a view to providing relatively separate measures of explicit and implicit knowledge. The aim in the development of these tests was to resolve a continuing problem in SLA studies—namely the construct validity of tests used to measure acquisition—and, more specifically, to provide a basis for investigating the relationship between implicit and explicit knowledge (i.e., the strong interface, the weak interface, and the noninterface positions).

Type
RESPONSES
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arbuckle, J. (2004). AMOS 5.0. Chicago: Small Waters Corporation.
Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Douglas, D. (2001). Performance consistency in second language acquisition and language testing: A conceptual gap. Second Language Research, 17, 442456.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227275.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141172.Google Scholar
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS ( 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jolliffe, I.T. (1972). Discarding variables in a principal component analysis I: Artificial data. Applied Statistics, 21, 160173.Google Scholar
Jolliffe, I.T. (1986). Principal component analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Reid, J. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 87111.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R., Boraie, D., & Kassabgy, O. (1996). Foreign language motivation: Internal structure and external connections. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new century (pp. 970). University of Hawai‘i at Manoa: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185211.Google Scholar
Wintergerst, A., DeCapua, A., & Itzen, R. (2001). The construct validity of one learning style instrument. System, 29, 385403.Google Scholar