The Investigation of Interactional Patterns as Predictors of Pragmatic Competence using Structural Equation Modeling

محورهای موضوعی : Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English

Ehsan Hadipour ¹ , Mohammad Bavali ² , Mohammad Ali Enshaei Behsaraei ³

1 - Department of English Language, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
2 - Department of Foreign Languages, Shiraz branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
3 - Department of English Language, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran

تاریخ دریافت : 1403/06/15 تاریخ پذیرش : 1403/08/07 تاریخ انتشار : 1403/08/29

کلید واژه: Pragmatic Competence, Interactional patterns, Structural Equation Modeling,

چکیده مقاله :

Undoubtedly, pragmatic competence and teacher-learner interaction are crucially important in language teaching, learning, and communication. However, language users at any level experience difficulties in the implementation and understanding of interactional patterns while producing meaningful statements, transforming that meaning, and comprehending the exchange of it. Although pragmatic competence and teacher-learner interaction are both widely highlighted in the field, there are still numerous difficulties in linking theory to practice particularly in the English as a Foreign Language context (EFL). To address this gap, the current study intends to enliven and brighten the relationship between interactional patterns and pragmatic competence of EFL students in the Iranian context; despite previous quantitative approaches to understanding the relationship, for this goal, a model is proposed in Amos (Analysis of moment structures) akin to the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The research was conducted on 150 students (male and female) in Islamic Azad University Shiraz branch. The data for the research was gathered via two questionnaires on interactional patterns and speech acts of request and apology. The data analysis procedure benefited from IBM SPSS and Amos via the exploration of model-fit indices. The study's findings demonstrate an excellent fit between the model and the data, as indicated by the fit indices computed through Amos. Specifically, the default model showed a Chi-square value (CMIN/DF) of 0.991, signifying an excellent fit. Furthermore, the Goodness of fit index (GFI) reached 0.968, also reflecting an excellent fit. The Baseline Comparison revealed a comparative fit index (CFI) of 1 surpassing the threshold of 0.95 for an excellent fit.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Undoubtedly, pragmatic competence and teacher-learner interaction are crucially important in language teaching, learning, and communication. However, language users at any level experience difficulties in the implementation and understanding of interactional patterns while producing meaningful statements, transforming that meaning, and comprehending the exchange of it. Although pragmatic competence and teacher-learner interaction are both widely highlighted in the field, there are still numerous difficulties in linking theory to practice particularly in the English as a Foreign Language context (EFL). To address this gap, the current study intends to enliven and brighten the relationship between interactional patterns and pragmatic competence of EFL students in the Iranian context; despite previous quantitative approaches to understanding the relationship, for this goal, a model is proposed in Amos (Analysis of moment structures) akin to the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The research was conducted on 150 students (male and female) in Islamic Azad University Shiraz branch. The data for the research was gathered via two questionnaires on interactional patterns and speech acts of request and apology. The data analysis procedure benefited from IBM SPSS and Amos via the exploration of model-fit indices. The study's findings demonstrate an excellent fit between the model and the data, as indicated by the fit indices computed through Amos. Specifically, the default model showed a Chi-square value (CMIN/DF) of 0.991, signifying an excellent fit. Furthermore, the Goodness of fit index (GFI) reached 0.968, also reflecting an excellent fit. The Baseline Comparison revealed a comparative fit index (CFI) of 1 surpassing the threshold of 0.95 for an excellent fit.

منابع و مأخذ:

Abramczyk, A., & Jurkowski, S. (2020). Cooperative learning as an evidence-based teaching strategy: What teachers know, believe, and how they use it. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(3), 296–308.
Alcala, D., Garijo, M., & Gomez, M. (2019). Cooperative learning and motivation in social interaction: A comparative study. Journal of Educational Research, 112(3), 385-395.
Al-Gahtani, S., & Alkahtani, S. A. (2012). Request strategies by second language learners of English: Pre-and post-head act strategies. Studies in Literature and Language, 5(2), 16.
Allen, L. D. (2018). A study of the relationships between teacher support behaviors, teacher effectiveness, and student achievement among fifth-grade students (Doctoral dissertation). Southeastern University. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Antonenko, P. D. (2015). The instrumental value of conceptual frameworks in educational technology research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 53–71.
Arraya, M., & Mónico, L. S. (2020). Goal-setting, collectivism, task orientation, and performance: Predictors and mediators. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 20, 2094–2103.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25 (4), 297–308.
Austin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 25(4), 297-308.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
Balaman, U. (2018). Task-induced development of hinting behaviors in online task-oriented L2 interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 130, 60–73.
Balaman, U. (2018). Task orientation and interactional competence in online collaborative tasks: A longitudinal study. Language Learning & Technology, 22(3), 68-82.
Bean, J. M., & Johnstone, B. (1994). Workplace reasons for saying you're sorry: Discourse task management and apology in telephone interviews. Discourse Processes, 17(1), 59-81.
Birjandi, P., & Rezaei, S. (2010). The effect of teacher-learner interaction on pragmatic competence: A case study of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(9), 2315-2328.
Birjandi, P., & Rezaei, S. (2010). Developing a multiple-choice discourse completion test of interlanguage pragmatics for Iranian EFL learners. ILI Language Teaching Journal (Special issue: Proceedings of the first conference on ELT in the Islamic world), 6(1), 1-13.
Björk-Willén, P. (2018). Learning to apologize: Moral socialization as an interactional practice in preschool. Research on Children and Social Interaction, 2(2), 177-194.
Byon, A. S. (2005). Apologizing in Korean: Cross-cultural analysis in classroom settings. Korean Studies, 137-166.
Castelli, L., De Amicis, L., & Sherman, S. J. (2012). The loyal member effect: On the preference for ingroup members who engage in exclusive relations with the ingroup. Developmental Psychology, 48(5), 1356-1363.
Castelli, L., Ragazzi, S., & Crescentini, A. (2012). Equity in education: A general overview. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 2243–2250.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113-143.
Dansereau, D. F. (1988). Cooperative learning strategies. In Learning and study strategies (pp. 103-120). Academic Press.
Da Silva, D. E., & McInerney, D. M. (2005). Personal investment theory and Japanese university student's achievement on the English as a Foreign Language Test. In Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference Papers (pp. 1–16). Australian Association for Research in Education.
Deda, N. (2013). The role of pragmatics in English language teaching: Pragmatic competence. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(4), 63–69.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D.C. Heath & Co.
Elison, M. (1970s). Goal orientation theory.
Erton, İ. (2007). Applied pragmatics and competence relations in language learning and teaching. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 3 (1), 59–71.
Forrester, W. R., & Tashchian, A. (2006). Modeling the relationship between cohesion and performance in student work groups. International Journal of Management, 23(3), 458.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Gillies, R. M. (2014). Cooperative learning: Developments in research. International journal of educational psychology, 3(2), 125-140.
Goar, C., & Sell, J. (2005). Using task definition to modify racial inequality within task groups. The Sociological Quarterly, 46(3), 525-543.
González-Cruz, M. I. (2012). Apologizing in Spanish: A study of the strategies used by university students in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 22(4), 543-565.
González-Lloret, M. (2021). L2 pragmatics and CALL. Language Learning & Technology, 25(2), 90–105.
Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 66(3), 377-388.
Hall, J. K. (1995). (Un)Popularizing pronouns: Interpreting face-to-face interaction in a foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 217-244.
Hall, J. K. (2009). Interaction as method and result of language learning. Language Teaching, 42(1), 9-20.
Hall, J. K., Hellermann, J., & Doehler, S. P. (Eds.). (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. 56.
Hall, J. K., & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 186-203.
Hendry, G., Wiggins, S., & Anderson, T. (2016). The discursive construction of group cohesion in problem-based learning tutorials. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 15(2), 180–194.
Hortigüela Alcalá, D., Hernando Garijo, A., Pérez-Pueyo, Á., & Fernández-Río, J. (2019). Cooperative learning and students' motivation, social interactions and attitudes: Perspectives from two different educational stages. Sustainability, 11(24), Article 7005.
Hsiung, C. M. (2012). The effectiveness of cooperative learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 119-137.
Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Penguin.
Itzchakov, G., & Latham, G. P. (2018). The moderating effect of performance feedback on the relationship between goal setting and task performance. Human Resource Management Review, 28(3), 314-324.
Jordà, M. P. S. (2004). An analysis on EAP learners' pragmatic production: a focus on request forms. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE), (8), 23-39.
Jung, J. (2000). Development of pragmatic competence: Past, present, and future. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(3), 471-482.
Jung, J. (2002). Acquisitional pragmatics in second language learning: Issues of cultural knowledge and interaction. Journal of Second Language Studies, 5(2), 111-123.
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 141–184.
Kasanga, L. A. (1998). Requests in English by second-language users. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 119(1), 123-153.
Kasper, G. (2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 502–530.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell.
Kecskes, I. (2015). How does pragmatic competence develop in bilinguals? International Journal of Multilingualism, 12(4), 419–434.
King, R. B., Yeung, S. S. S., & Cai, Y. (2019). Personal investment theory: A multi-faceted framework to understand second and foreign language motivation. System, 86, 102120.
Kramsch, C. (1989). Interaction in the language classroom: Social and communicative dimensions. Oxford University Press.
Kuzai, E. (2020). Pragmatic information in constructions: What do speakers generalize? Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34(1), 213–224.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
Lindgren, J. A. M. (2008). Interaction competence: A concept describing the competence needed for participation in face-to-face interaction. Journal of Communication Research, 2, 113–131.
Lin, G. H. C. (2007). The significance of pragmatics. Online Submission, 3(2), 91–102.
Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64(4), 259-309.
Lundberg, I., & Sterner, G. (2006). Reading, arithmetic, and task orientation—How are they related?. Annals of dyslexia, 56, 361-377.
Macbeth, D. (2000). Classrooms as installations: Direct instruction in the early grades. Human Studies, 23(1), 57-87.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological methods, 1(2), 130.
Ma, L., Luo, H., & Xiao, L. (2021). Perceived teacher support, self-concept, enjoyment, and achievement in reading: A multilevel mediation model based on PISA 2018. Learning and Individual Differences, 85, Article 101947.
Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2002). Measuring perceived social support: Development of the Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (CASSS). Psychology in the Schools, 39(1), 1–18.

Martínez-Flor, A., & Usó-Juan, E. (2006). Learners' use of request modifiers across two University ESP disciplines. Ibérica, Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, (12), 23-41.
Matsumoto, Y. (2010). Politeness theory and its application to second language acquisition. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(8), 455-468.
Ma, X., Shen, J., Krenn, H. Y., Hu, S., & Yuan, J. (2018). A meta-analysis of the relationship between learning outcomes and teacher support. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547-588.
McCollum, D. L., & Kajs, L. T. (2007). Applying goal orientation theory in an exploration of student motivations in the domain of educational leadership. Educational Research Quarterly, 31(1), 45–59.
Morgan, B. M. (2003). Cooperative learning in higher education: Undergraduate student reflections on group examinations for group grades. College Student Journal, 37(1).
Ozgur, H., & Yurdugul, H. (2016). The effect of interactional patterns in distance learning: An exploratory factor analysis. Educational Technology & Society, 19(4), 152-167.
Petek, E. (2013). Teachers' beliefs and classroom interaction: A case study of native and non-native English teachers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 227-246.
Quin, D., Watt, H. M. G., & Crooks, C. L. (2018). Positive teacher-student relationships: What accounts for classroom climate? Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 400-416.
Rojo, L. (2005). “Te quería comentar un problemilla…” The Speech Act of Apologies in Peninsular Spanish: A pilot study.
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher-student relationships on students' school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493-529.
Roorda, D. L., Jak, S., Zee, M., Oort, F. J., & Koomen, H. M. (2017). Affective teacher-student relationships and students' engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement. School Psychology Review, 46(3), 239-261.
Sandoval-Pineda, A. (2011). Attitude, motivation and English language learning in a Mexican college context.
Saville-Troike, M. (1989). The ethnography of communication: An introduction (2nd ed.). Blackwell.
Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M. C., & Minnaert, A. (2015). Need supportive teaching in practice: A narrative analysis in schools with contrasting educational approaches. Social Psychology of Education, 18, 585-613
Sun, D. (2014). From communicative competence to interactional competence: A new outlook to the teaching of spoken English. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 5(5), 1079–1085.
Sun, Q. (2014). A shift from communicative competence to interactional competence: Implications for language teaching and learning. Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 390-401.
Taguchi, N. (2011). Pragmatic competence in language learning. Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Longman.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125.
Topală, I. (2014). Attitudes towards academic learning and learning satisfaction in adult students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 142, 227–234.
Tran, V. D. (2013). Theoretical perspectives underlying the application of cooperative learning in classrooms. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(4), 101–115.
Thuruvan, P., & Yunus, M. M. (2017). The speech act of request in the ESL classroom. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 23(4), 141–158.
Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. Oxford University Press.
Umar, M., & Ko, I. (2022). E-learning: Direct effect of student learning effectiveness and engagement through project-based learning, team cohesion, and flipped learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability, 14(3), Article 1724.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1985). Context and cognition: Knowledge frames and speech act comprehension. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Language and Social Situations (pp. 31-63). Springer.
Veerman, G. J., & Denessen, E. (2021). Social cohesion in schools: A non-systematic review of its conceptualization and instruments. Cogent Education, 8(1), 1–21.
Verma, M. H. (2005). Learner’s attitude and its impact on language learning. Retrieved on March, 10, 2015.
Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. Routledge.
Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. (1975). Equity and social justice. Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 21–43.
Wang, M. C., & Dishion, T. J. (2012). Student-teacher relationships and adolescent academic engagement: The mediating role of self-regulation. Developmental Psychology, 48(3), 451-457.
Wang, M. C. (2009). School climate: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 491-530.
Weyns, T., Colpin, H., De Laet, S., Engels, M., & Verschueren, K. (2018). Teacher support, peer acceptance, and engagement in the classroom: A three-wave longitudinal study in late childhood. Journal of youth and adolescence, 47, 1139-1150.
Weizheng, J. (2019). Teacher-student interaction in the EFL classroom: Applying communication accommodation theory. English Language Teaching, 12(3), 98-111.
Wong, T. K., Tao, X., & Konishi, C. (2018). Teacher support in learning: Instrumental and appraisal support in relation to math achievement. Issues in Educational Research, 28(1), 202–219.
Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (1991). A comparison of interpersonal behavior of Dutch and American teachers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15(1), 1-18.
Yıldırım, I. (2012). Teacher support and its role in student engagement and success. International Journal of Educational Studies, 24(1), 156-171.
Young, R. F. (2002). Discourse approaches to teaching: Teaching the language of social interaction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 164-186.
Young, R. F. (2008). Language and interaction: An advanced resource book. Routledge.
Young, R. F. (2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, 426–443.
Özgür, A., & Yurdugül, H. (2015). The investigation of learner-assessment interaction in learning management systems. Unpublished master thesis). Hacettepe University, Ankara.
Zabarankin, M., & Uryasev, S. (2013). Maximum likelihood method. In Statistical Decision Problems: Selected Concepts and Portfolio Safeguard Case Studies (pp. 45-52). New York, NY: Springer New York.
Zhang, Z., Rohloff, C. T., & Kohli, N. (2023). Model Fit Indices for Random Effects Models: Translating Model Fit Ideas from Latent Growth Curve Models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 30(5), 822-830.