Explicit Strategies-Based Instruction for L2 Apology and Request Production: Should It Be Separate or Integrated?
محورهای موضوعی : Research in English Language Pedagogy
Mina Akhavan Tavakoli
1
,
Marzieh Bagherkazemi
2
,
Alireza Ameri
3
1 - Department of English Language Teaching, Islamic Azad University (Kish International Branch), Kish Island, Iran
2 - English Language Teaching Department, Faculty of Islamic Education, ST.C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3 - English Language Teaching Department, Faculty of Islamic Education, ST.C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
کلید واژه: Apology, Explicit Integrated SBI, Explicit Separate SBI, Pragmatic Learning Strategies-Based Instruction (PLSBI), Request, Speech Act Production ,
چکیده مقاله :
Pragmatic learning strategies have been recently addressed in descriptive studies; however, research into their instruction is scarce. This study compared the effects of explicit separate and explicit integrated pragmatic learning strategies-based instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ production of the speech acts of apology and request. Participants included 60 convenience-sampled intermediate EFL learners, randomly divided into an explicit separate instruction group (ESG; N = 30) and an explicit integrated instruction group (EIG; N = 30). ESG and EIG were both comprised of two 15-member subgroups, differing in the order of instruction of implicit and explicit strategies (N = 20) adopted from Tajeddin and Bagherkazemi’s (2021) Pragmatic Learning Strategy Inventory. Strategy-based instruction was offered as a separate course to ESG, and an L2 speech act course component was integrated into the while-task phase for EIG. A 16-item written discourse completion test, comprised of eight apology and eight request items, was used to measure the participants’ pre-treatment and post-treatment speech act production ability. Two separate analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) on apology and request scores showed explicit integrated pragmatic learning strategies-based instruction to be more effective than separate instruction. The findings indicate the greater effect of the integrated approach, which could be attributed to its embedded gap noticing and metapragmatic reflection opportunities. They have implications for speech act instruction aimed at enhancing learners’ interlanguage pragmatic development autonomy.
Pragmatic learning strategies have been recently addressed in descriptive studies; however, research into their instruction is scarce. This study compared the effects of explicit separate and explicit integrated pragmatic learning strategies-based instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ production of the speech acts of apology and request. Participants included 60 convenience-sampled intermediate EFL learners, randomly divided into an explicit separate instruction group (ESG; N = 30) and an explicit integrated instruction group (EIG; N = 30). ESG and EIG were both comprised of two 15-member subgroups, differing in the order of instruction of implicit and explicit strategies (N = 20) adopted from Tajeddin and Bagherkazemi’s (2021) Pragmatic Learning Strategy Inventory. Strategy-based instruction was offered as a separate course to ESG, and an L2 speech act course component was integrated into the while-task phase for EIG. A 16-item written discourse completion test, comprised of eight apology and eight request items, was used to measure the participants’ pre-treatment and post-treatment speech act production ability. Two separate analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) on apology and request scores showed explicit integrated pragmatic learning strategies-based instruction to be more effective than separate instruction. The findings indicate the greater effect of the integrated approach, which could be attributed to its embedded gap noticing and metapragmatic reflection opportunities. They have implications for speech act instruction aimed at enhancing learners’ interlanguage pragmatic development autonomy.
Azizi, Z., & Namaziandost, E. (2023). Implementing peer-dynamic assessment to cultivate Iranian EFL learners’ interlanguage pragmatic competence: A mixed-methods approach. International Journal of Language Testing, 13(1), 18-43. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijlt.2022.345372.1171
Bagherkazemi, M. (2013). Interlanguage pragmatic development: Impacts of individual/collaborative output, input enhancement, metapragmatic awareness raising, and pragmatic learning strategies [Doctoral Dissertation, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran].
Bagherkazemi, M. (2016). Interlanguage pragmatics: A compendium of theory and practice. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Langauge Research, 3(5), 38-53.
Bagherkazemi, M., & Harati-Asl, M. (2022). Interlanguage pragmatic development: Comparative impacts of cognitive and interpersonal tasks. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 37-54. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2022.121182
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Brown, A.L., Armbruster, B.B., & Baker, L. (1986). The role of metacognition in reading and studying. In J. Orasanu (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice (pp. 49-76). Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge university press.
Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Cohen, A. D. (2010). Strategies for learning and performing speech acts. In N. Ishihara & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (pp. 227‒243). Routledge.
Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S., & Li, T. Y. (1998). The impact of strategies-based instruction on speaking a foreign language. In A. D. Cohen (Ed.), Strategies in learning and using a second language (pp. 107–156). Longman.
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N. (2018). Second language pragmatics: From theory to research. Routledge.
Cuza, A., & Czerwionka, L. (2017). A pragmatic analysis of L2 Spanish requests: Acquisition in three situational contexts during short-term study abroad. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(3), 391-419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0016
Derakhshan, A., Malmir, A., & Greenier, V. (2021). Interlanguage pragmatic learning strategies (IPLS) as predictors of l2 speech act knowledge: A case of Iranian EFL learners. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 18(1), 235-243. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2021.18.1.14.235
Eslami, Z. R., Raeisi-Vanani, A., & Sarab, M. R. A. (2022). Variation patterns in interlanguage pragmatics: Apology Speech Act of EFL learners vs. American native speakers. Contrastive Pragmatics, 4(1), 27-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/26660393-bja10068
Fakher, Z., Vahdany, F., Jafarigohar, M., & Soleimani, H. (2016). The effect of mixed and matched level dyadic interaction on Iranian EFL learners’ comprehension and production of requests and apologies. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 35(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2016.3728
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: Book plus code for E version of text (Vol. 896). SAGE Publications Limited.
Grenfell, M., & Macaro, E. (2007). Claims and critiques. In A. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies (pp. 9-28). Oxford University Press.
Gu, Y. (2007). Strategy-based instruction. In T. Yashima & T. Nabei (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on English Education in Japan: Exploring New Frontiers (pp. 21-38). Yubunsha.
Hsiao, T., & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 368-383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00155
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2014). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Routledge.
Malmir, A. (2020). Interlanguage pragmatic learning strategies (IPLS) as predictors of L2 social identity: A case of Iranian Upper- intermediate and Advanced EFL Learners. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 12(1), 177-216. http://doi.org/10.22111/ijals.2020.5681
Malmir, A., & Derakhshan, A. (2020). The socio-pragmatic, lexico-grammatical, and cognitive strategies in L2 pragmatic comprehension: The case of Iranian male vs. female EFL learners. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 1-23. http://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2020.120805
Nguyan Thi Bich, T. (2020). The application of S2R strategies in English reading comprehension by university students in Vietnam. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(3), 1534-1546. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1273321.pdf
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge UP.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury House Publishers.
Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Pearson Education.
Plonsky, L., & Zhuang, J. (2019). A meta-analysis of L2 pragmatics instruction. In
N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics. New York:
Routledge.
Prasatyo, B. A., Ali, H. V., & Hidayati, D. (2023). Current studies on pragmatics competence in EFL learning context: A review. Jurnal Sinestesia, 13(2), 985-994.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). Oxford University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
Shakki, F., Naeini, J., Mazandarani, O., & Derakhshan, A. (2021). Instructed second language pragmatics for the speech act of apology in an Iranian EFL context: A meta-analysis. Applied Research on English Language, 10(3), 77-104. https://doi.org/10.22108/are.2021.128213.1709
Shively, R. (2010). From the virtual world to the real world: A model of pragmatics instruction for study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 43(3), 105-137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01063
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-484). Lawrence Erlbaum.
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. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289-310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000018
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263
Taguchi, N. (2018). Pragmatic competence in foreign language education: Cultivating learner autonomy and strategic learning of pragmatics. In I. Walker, D. Kwang Guan Chan, M. Nagami & C. Bourguignon (Eds.), New perspectives on the development of communicative and related competence in foreign language education (pp. 53-70). De Gruyter Mouton.
Taguchi, N. (Ed.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics. Routledge.
Taguchi, N., Tang, X., & Maa, J. (2019). Learning how to learn pragmatics: Application of self-directed strategies to pragmatics learning in L2 Chinese and Japanese. East Asian
Pragmatics, 4(1), 11‒36. https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.38207
Tajeddin, Z., & Bagherkazemi, M. (2014). Short-term and long-term impacts of individual and collaborative pragmatic output on speech act production. Teaching English Language, 8(1), 141-166.
Tajeddin, Z., & Bagherkazemi, M. (2021). Implicit and explicit pragmatic learning strategies: Their factorial structure and relationship with speech act knowledge. TESL-EJ, 25(3), 1-28.
Tajeddin, Z., & Malmir, A. (2015). The construct of interlanguage pragmatic learning Strategies: investigating preferences of high vs. low pragmatic performers. Teaching English as a Second Language (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 33(4), 153-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2015.3016
Zhang, L. J. (2007). Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction: Exploring pathways to learner development in the English as a second language (ESL) classroom. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 36, 89-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9025-6
