The Immediate and Delayed Effects of Structured Input Instruction Versus Consciousness-Raising Instruction on EFL learners’ Development of Pragmatic Performance in Terms of Accuracy
Subject Areas : آموزش زبان انگلیسیYeganeh Rezaie 1 * , Mohaddeseh Amini Harsini 2 *
1 - Department of English Language, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran
2 - Department of English Language, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran
Keywords: Keywords : Structured Input Instruction (SII) , Consciousness-Raising Instruction (CRI) , Pragmatic Accuracy , EFL Learners,
Abstract :
This research investigated the immediate and delayed impacts of two types of input instruction, structured input instruction(SII) and consciousness-raising instruction (CRI), on the pragmatic performance of EFL learners in terms of accuracy. For this purpose, 90 intermediate-level students of a language center in Karaj, Iran were selected based on convenience sampling and their performance on Oxford Placement Test (OPT). The participants were then randomly assigned into three groups. Next, after administering a written discourse completion test (WDCT) as their pretest, the participants in the two experimental groups (structured input and consciousness-raising) had eight sessions of treatment. This was followed by an immediate WDCT posttest, and after a two-week time interval by a delayed WDCT posttest to assess their pragmatic accuracy. Two raters scored the participants` pragmatic accuracy on the pre-test, immediate post-test, and delayed post-test. Three repeated-measures two-way ANOVAs were used to analyze the data. The results showed that the participants of the experimental groups performed significantly better on immediate and delayed post-tests regarding pragmatic accuracy. However, no significant difference was found between the structured input instruction and consciousness-raising instruction on improving the EFL learners’ pragmatic accuracy. Discussion of the findings, implications of the results and suggestions for further studies have all been presented at the end of the work.
Alcón-Soler, E., & i Pitarch, J. R. G. (2013). The effect of instruction on learners’ use and negotiation of refusals. In Refusals in instructional contexts and beyond (pp. 41-63). https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401209717_005
Alemi, M., & Haeri, N. (2020). Robot-assisted instruction of L2 pragmatics: Effects on young EFL learners’ speech act performance.
Alfattah, M. H., & Ravindranath, B. K. (2009). Politeness strategies in the English interlanguage requests of Yemeni learners. Iranian Journal of Language Studies, 3(3), 249-266.
Alfghe, A., & Mohammadzadeh, B. (2021). Realisation of the speech act of request, suggestion and apology by Libyan EFL learners. SAGE Open, 11(4), 21582440211050378. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211050378
Allan, D. (2004). Placement test 1 (test+ marking kit). Oxford University Press.
Al-Momani, H. S. (2009). Caught between two cultures: The realization of requests by Jordanian EFL learners. Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Amini, M. & Aghvami, M. (2009) . A concise guide to letter writing. Tehran: Zabankadeh.
Amiri, M., Birjandi, P., & Maftoon, P. (2015). Valid criteria for the selection of speech acts of academic situations to develop a comprehensive discourse completion test of interlanguage pragmatics. Int. J. Rev. Life. Sci, 5(5), 81-90.
Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts.
Bagheri Nevisi, R., Mohammad Hosseinpur, R., & Yazdankhah, E. (2023). Request Speech Act Production Differences: A Case of Iranian EFLs and ESLs. Issues in Language Teaching, 12(1), 237- http://dx.doi.org/10.22054/ILT.2023.70358.742
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003). Teaching pragmatics. Washington DC: US Department of State Office of English Language Programs.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. E. (2015). The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research, 19(3), 324-350.
Bayrak, S. (2017). Comparative effectiveness of input-based instructions on L2 grammar knowledge: Textual enhancement and processing instruction (Master's thesis, Sakarya Universitesi (Turkey)).
Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5(2), 95-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880100500202
Benati, A. (2022). The effects of structured input and traditional instruction on the acquisition of the English causative passive forms: An eye-tracking study measuring accuracy in responses and processing patterns. Language Teaching Research, 26(6), 1231-1251.
Benati, A. (2023). The Nature, Role, and Effects of Structured Input Activities. Languages, 8(2), 135. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8020135
Benati, A., & Schwieter, J. W. (2017). Input processing and processing instruction. T. Angelovska and A. Hahn (ed.) L, 3, 253-275.
Benati, A., & VanPatten, B. (2004). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary, 207-225.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Performing speech acts in a second language. Issues in the Study of Discourse, 144-177.
Boostan Saadi, S., & Saeidi, M. (2018). The effect of input-based and output-based focus on form instruction on learning grammar by Iranian EFL learners. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 11(22), 74-90.
Christianto, D. (2020). Speech acts in EFL classrooms. Journal of Pragmatics Research, 2(1), 68-79. https://doi.org/10.1836/jopr.v2i1.1-68-79
Cunningham, J. D. (2017). Methodological innovation for the study of request production in telecollaboration.
Derakhshan, A., & Arabmofrad, A. (2018). The impact of instruction on the pragmatic comprehension of speech acts of apology, request, and refusal among Iranian intermediate EFL learners. English Teaching & Learning, 42(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-018-0004-6
Derakhshan, A., & Eslami, Z. (2015). The effect of consciousness-raising instruction on the pragmatic development of apology and request. TESL-EJ, 18(4), n4.
Derakhshan, A., & Zangoei, A. (2014). Video driven prompts: A viable pragmatic consciousness-raising approach in EFL/ESL classrooms. World Applied Sciences Journal, 31(9), 1652-1660.
El Kemma, A. (2019). Giving effective instructions in EFL classrooms. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 7(1), 74-92. https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.Vol7.Iss1.1286
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. John Wiley & Sons.
Erlam, R. (2003). Evaluating the relative effectiveness of structured-input and output-based instruction in foreign language learning: Results from an experimental study. Studies in second language acquisition, 25(4), 559-582. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310300024X
Fatemipour, H., & Hemmati, S. (2015). Impact of Consciousness-Raising Activities on Young English Language Learners' Grammar Performance. English Language Teaching, 8(9), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n9p1
Fukuya, Y. J., & Martínez‐Flor, A. (2008). The interactive effects of pragmatic‐eliciting tasks and pragmatic instruction. Foreign language annals, 41(3), 478-500.
Fukuya, Y. J., & Zhang, Y. (2002). Effects of recasts of EFL learners' acquisition of pragmalinguistic conventions of request.
Ghavamnia, M., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. (2018). The effects of input-enhanced instruction on Iranian EFL learners' production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. The Language Learning Journal, 46(2), 114-131. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.972431
Hashemian, M. (2014). A pragmatic study of requestive speech act by Iranian EFL Learners and Canadian native speakers in hotels. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 33(2), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2014.2043
Jernigan, J. (2012). Output and English as a Second Language Pragmatic Development: The Effectiveness of Output-Focused Video-Based Instruction. English Language Teaching, 5(4), 2-14.
Kaivanpanah, S., Akbarian, I. H., & Salimi, H. (2021). The Effect of Explicit, Implicit, and Modified-Implicit Instruction on EFL Learners' Vocabulary Learning and Retention. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 9(2), 129-146.
Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., & Ravandpour, A. (2020). The effect of input-based and output-based tasks with different and identical involvement loads on Iranian EFL learners’ incidental vocabulary learning. Cogent Psychology, 7(1), 1731223. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1731223
Kasper, G. (2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied linguistics, 22(4), 502-530. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.4.502
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Language learning.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied linguistics, 27(4), 590-619. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml029
Leech, G., & Thomas, J. (1990). Language, meaning and context: pragmatics. An Encyclopedia of Language, 173-206.
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009). Second language learners' beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 91-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00830.x
Malekshahi, N., & Harsini, M. A. (2018). The effect of input-based and output-based tasks on the intermediate Iranian EFL learners’ writing achievement in terms of coherent writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(1), 184-192. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.7n.1p.184
Muijs, D. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. SAGE.
Nguyen, M. T. T., Pham, H. T., & Pham, T. M. (2017). The effects of input enhancement and recasts on the development of second language pragmatic competence. Innovation in Language learning and Teaching, 11(1), 45-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1026907
Nguyen, M. T. T., Pham, H. T., & Pham, T. M. (2017). The effects of input enhancement and recasts on the development of second language pragmatic competence. Innovation in Language learning and Teaching, 11(1), 45-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1026907
Nodoushan, M. A. S. (2008). Persian requests: Redress of face through indirectness. Iranian Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), 2(3), 257-280.
Nodoushan, M. A. S., & Allami, H. (2011). Supportive Discourse Moves in Persian Requests. Online Submission, 5(2), 205-234.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis. Language learning, 50(3), 417-528. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136
Nosratinia, M., & Roustayi, S. (2014). The effect of grammar consciousness-raising tasks on EFL learners' reading comprehension and writing ability. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(3), 203-216.
O'Brien, J. (2015). Consciousness-raising, error correction and proofreading. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,15(3), 85-103. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v15i3.13284
Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Routledge.
Qi, X., & Lai, C. (2017). The effects of deductive instruction and inductive instruction on learners’ development of pragmatic competence in the teaching of Chinese as a second language. System, 70, 26-37.
Rasekh Eslami, Z., & Zohoor, S. (2023). Second language (L2) pragmatics and computer assisted language learning (CALL). Technology Assisted Language Education, 1(3), 1-17.
Reinders, H., & Ellis, R. (2009). The effects of two types of input on intake and the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge. Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching, 281-302.
Richards, J. C., Hull, J., & Proctor, S. (2006). Interchange (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385-399.
Schmidt, R. (2012). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. Perspectives on individual characteristics and foreign language education, 6(27), 27-49.
Shaban, M., Sarkeshikian, A., & Tabatabaee Lotfi, S. A. M. (2024). The Effects of Input-Based and Output-Based Tasks on Learning the Speech Act of Suggestion by Iranian EFL Learners. Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies, 3(1), 90-105.
Tabrizi, A. R. N., & Koranian, K. (2016). The effect of input-based instruction on the speaking ability of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(4), 253-265.
Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 16(4), 513-533. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1075/prag.16.4.05tag
Taguchi, N. (2007). Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. Tesol Quarterly, 41(2), 313-338. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00061.x
Taguchi, N. (2011). The effect of L2 proficiency and study‐abroad experience on pragmatic comprehension. Language Learning, 61(3), 904-939.
Taguchi, N. (2018). Learning Pragmatics. The Cambridge Guide to Learning English as a Second Language, 251-259.
Taguchi, N., & Ishihara, N. (2018). The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca: Research and pedagogy in the era of globalization. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 80-101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000028
Taguchi, N., (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics. Routledge.
Trosborg, A. (1995). The communicative act of complaining. Inter language pragmatics: request, complaints and apologies. Berlin, N. York: Mouton de Gruyter, 307-372.
Tulgar, A. T. (2016). The role of pragmatic competence in foreign language education. Turkish Online Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(1), 10-19.
Van Batenburg, E. S., Oostdam, R. J., Van Gelderen, A. J., Fukkink, R. G., & De Jong, N. H. (2019). Oral interaction in the EFL classroom: The effects of instructional focus and task type on learner affect. The Modern Language Journal, 103(1), 308-326. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12545
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Routledge.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 225-243. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011979
Walsh, M. (2005). Consciousness-raising (CR): its background and application. Retrieved June, 12, 2014.
Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary, 187-205.
Wong, W., & Ito, K. (2018). The effects of processing instruction and traditional instruction on L2 online processing of the causative construction in French: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(2), 241-268. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000274
Wong, W., & Van Patten, B. (2003). The evidence is IN: Drills are OUT. Foreign language annals, 36(3), 403-423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb02123.x
Zereshki, F., & Rezaie, G. (2018). The Impact of Structured Input and Consciousness Raising Tasks on the Acquisition of Implicit and Explicit Knowledge of EFL Learners. Int. J. Engl. Linguist, 8, 55-64. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v8n3p55
Zianda, L. (2006). Assessing EFL learners’ interlanguage pragmatic knowledge: Implications for testers and teachers. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 5(1), 1-22.