EFL teachers’ pragmatic awareness and classroom practices influenced by an in-service training course of meta-pragmatics

محورهای موضوعی : Curriculum Design and Development

Behnood Samani ¹ ( PhD Student in TEFL, English Department, Sarab Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sarab, Iran )
Mehrdad Amiri ² ( Assistant Professor, Department of English Language Teaching, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran )
Naser Ghafouri ³ ( Assistant Professor, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, English Department, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran )

تاریخ دریافت : 1402/10/15 تاریخ پذیرش : 1403/01/15 تاریخ انتشار : 1403/01/22

کلید واژه: Classroom pragmatic practices, In-service training course, Meta-pragmatics, Iranian EFL teachers, Pragmatic awareness, Teaching pragmatics,

چکیده مقاله :

The present study focused on the effect of an in-service meta-pragmatics training course on Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ pragmatic awareness and classroom pragmatic practices. A mixed methods design was used to achieve the objectives of the study. In the quantitative phase of the study, 300 EFL teachers were selected through convenience sampling and filled out the Pragmatic Awareness Questionnaire. In the qualitative phase, 60 of those teachers participated in a pragmatic training course. They were divided into experimental and control groups and underwent the processes of pretesting, intervention, and post-testing. Furthermore, 30 of these teachers were observed in terms of their teaching inter-language pragmatics both before and after the training course of meta-pragmatics. The results of the multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) revealed that EFL teacher’s pragmatic awareness was relatively low. In addition, the findings unveiled a statistically significant difference between the EFL teachers’ meta-pragmatic awareness and their practices in terms of the 'language teacher' component. Moreover, the findings showed a statistically significant improvement in the EFL teachers’ pragmatic practices regarding teaching pragmatic features after receiving the instructions. The results of this study have some implications for stakeholders, namely EFL teacher trainers, EFL teachers, and EFL students.

چکیده انگلیسی:

The present study focused on the effect of an in-service meta-pragmatics training course on Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ pragmatic awareness and classroom pragmatic practices. A mixed methods design was used to achieve the objectives of the study. In the quantitative phase of the study, 300 EFL teachers were selected through convenience sampling and filled out the Pragmatic Awareness Questionnaire. In the qualitative phase, 60 of those teachers participated in a pragmatic training course. They were divided into experimental and control groups and underwent the processes of pretesting, intervention, and post-testing. Furthermore, 30 of these teachers were observed in terms of their teaching inter-language pragmatics both before and after the training course of meta-pragmatics. The results of the multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) revealed that EFL teacher’s pragmatic awareness was relatively low. In addition, the findings unveiled a statistically significant difference between the EFL teachers’ meta-pragmatic awareness and their practices in terms of the 'language teacher' component. Moreover, the findings showed a statistically significant improvement in the EFL teachers’ pragmatic practices regarding teaching pragmatic features after receiving the instructions. The results of this study have some implications for stakeholders, namely EFL teacher trainers, EFL teachers, and EFL students.

منابع و مأخذ:

Adlan, O. M. A. (2022). The effects of excluding pragmatics from university syllabus on EFL learners’ performance in academic texts (a case of Omdurman Islamic university students). International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 9(6), 56- 86.
Alcón-Soler, E. (2015). Pragmatic learning and study abroad: Effects of instruction and length of stay. System, 48(1), 62-74.
Alkawaz, A., Afrouz, M., Ansari, D. N., & Dabaghi, A. (2023). The effect of explicit pragmatic instruction on EFL students’ production of speech acts: pragmalinguistic vs. Socio-pragmatic errors in focus. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 15(31), 1-17.
Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63, 68-86.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2016). Pragmatics and second language acquisition. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 232-243). Oxford University Press.
Bardovi‐Harlig, K. (2018). Teaching of pragmatics. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 36, 1-7.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233-259. http://tesol.aua.am/TQD_2000/TQD_2000/TQ_D2000/VOL_32_2.PDF
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System, 33(3), 401-415.
Bazaei, P., Mowlaie, B., & Yazdanimoghaddam, M. (2023). The effect of strategy training of speech acts of request and apology on developing Iranian EFL Learners “pragmatic performance and critical thinking”. Journal of Language and Translation, 13(3), 65-81.
Basturkmen, H., & Nguyen, T. T. M. (2017). Teaching pragmatics. In G. Steen & A. Barron (Eds.), Routledge handbook of pragmatics. Routledge
Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2014). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.). Cengage Learning.
Chen, J. C. (2016). The crossroads of English language learners, task-based instruction, and 3D multi-user virtual learning in second life. Computers & Education, 102, 152-171.
Cohen, A. D. (2012). Research methods for describing variation in intercultural pragmatics for cultures in contact and conflict. In C. Félix-Brasdefer & D. Koike (Eds.), Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts: Methodological issues (pp. 271-294). John Benjamins.
Cohen, A. D. (2018). Learning pragmatics from native and nonnative language teachers. Multilingual Matters.
Cohen, A. D. (2019). Strategy instruction for learning and performing target language pragmatics. In A. Uhl Chamot & V. Harris (Eds.), Learning strategy instruction in the language classroom: Issues and implementation (pp. 140-152). Multilingual Matters.
Cohen, A. D. (2020). Considerations in assessing pragmatic appropriateness in spoken language. Language Teaching, 53(2), 183-202.
Ekin, M. T. Y., & Damar, E. A. (2013).Pragmatic awareness of EFL Teacher Trainess and Their Reflections on Pragmatic Practices. ELT Research Journal, 2(4).
Glaser, K. (2020). Assessing the L2 pragmatic awareness of non-native EFL teacher candidates: Is spotting a problem enough?. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 16(1), 33-65.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. Edward Arnold.
Hassall, T. (2003). Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(12), 1903-1928.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride, & J. Holmes, (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Penguin.
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2014).Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Routledge.
Jia, Y., Eslami, Z. R., & Burlbaw, L. M. (2006). ESL teachers’ perceptions and factors influencing their use of classroom-based reading assessment. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 407-430.
Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317-334). Routledge.
Liu, M. H. (2023). Blended cross-tier language teacher development: designing online video-based pragmatic assessment. English Teaching & Learning, 47(1), 21-46.
Meihami, H., & Khanlarzadeh, M. (2015). Pragmatic content in global and local ELT textbooks: A micro analysis study. Sage Open, 8, 25-37.
Niezgoda, K. & Roever, C. (2001) ‘Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: A function of learning environment? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 63-79). Cambridge University Press.
Norouzian, R., & Eslami, Z. (2016). Critical perspectives on interlanguage pragmatic development: An agenda for research. Issues in Applied Linguistics 12(2), 123-134.
Povolná, R. (2014). Pragmatic awareness and its role in teacher education. Vienna English Working Papers, 4(3), 111-118.
Ravesh, M. M., & Tabrizi, H. H. (2017). The effect of teaching inter-language pragmatics on interpretation ability of Iranian translation students. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8(3), 44-54.
Sadeghinezhad, S. (2023). Developing pragmatic awareness of requests in the EFL classroom: A focus on instructional effects. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 11(4), 710-732.
Savvidou, C., & Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2019). Teaching pragmatics: Nonnative-speaker teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and reported practices. Intercultural Communication Education, 2(1), 39-58.
Taguchi, N. (2012). Context, individual differences and pragmatic competence. Multilingual Matters.
Tajeddin, Z., & Alemi, M. (2014). Criteria and bias in native English teachers’ assessment of L2 pragmatic appropriacy: Content and FACETS analyses. Asia Pacific Educational Research, 23(3), 425-434.
Tajeddin, Z., Alemi, M., & Pashmforoosh, R. (2017). Acquisition of pragmatic routines by learners of L2 English: Investigating common errors and sources of pragmatic fossilization. Tesl-Ej, 21(2), 12-23.
Tajeddin, Z., Alemi, M., & Pashmforoosh, R. (2018). Idealized native-speaker linguistic and pragmatic norms in English as an international language: Exploring the perceptions of nonnative English teachers. Language and Intercultural Communication, 18(3), 300-314.
Savić, M. (2016). Do EFL teachers in Serbia have what they need to teach L2 pragmatics? Novice teachers’ views of politeness. Pragmatics & Language Learning, 14, 207-231.
Savignon, S. J. (1972). Communicative competence: An experiment in foreign-language teaching. Series: Language and the teacher, Hispania, 56(4), 11-31.
Savvidou, C., & Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2019). Teaching pragmatics: Nonnative-speaker teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and reported practices. Intercultural Communication Education, 2(1), 39-58.
Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely? TESL-EJ, 8(2), 25-38.
Wahyuni, E. S., & Arieffiani, D. (2021). The Implementation of authentic assessment in course syllabus incorporating the pragmatic acquisition. JET (Journal of English Teaching) Adi Buana, 6(01), 53-64.
Warford, M. K. (2011). The zone of proximal teacher development. Teaching and teacher education, 27(2), 252-258.
Watson, D. G., Jacobs, C. L., & Buxó‐Lugo, A. (2020). Prosody indexes both competence and performance. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 11(3), 15-32.
Yeh, E., & Swinehart, N. (2020). Testing the waters: Developing inter-language pragmatics through exploration, experimentation, and participation in online communities. Calico Journal, 37(1), 121-135.