Effect of Explicit Separate and Explicit Integrated Pragmatic Learning Strategies-Based Instruction on EFL Learners’ Speech Act Comprehen-sion: Apology and Request in Focus
محورهای موضوعی :
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 - Department of English Language Teaching, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, Islamic Azad University (South Tehran Branch), Tehran, Iran
3 - Islamic Azad University, Tehran South Branch
کلید واژه: Apology, Pragmatic learning SBI, Request, Speech act comprehension,
چکیده مقاله :
Despite the significance of comprehension of L2 pragmatic features, research into speech acts’ comprehension is at a premium. The present study sought to examine the impact of explicit sep-arate and explicit integrated strategies-based instruction (SBI) on Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners' comprehension of apology and request speech acts. The participants consisted of 90 convenience-sampled intermediate EFL learners, who were randomly divided into 3 groups: an explicit separate SBI group (ESG; N = 30), an explicit integrated SBI group (EIG; N = 30), and a control group (CG; N = 30). Given the study’s counterbalanced design, ESG and EIG both had two 15-member subgroups, differing in the order of presentation of im-plicit and explicit strategies. ESG received explicit instruction and modeling of the strategies by the teacher before practicing them. Conversely, EIG engaged in pragmatic learning strategy use practice during pragmatic learning tasks. Speech act-containing video vignettes and predicting tasks were deployed as the means of practicing and presenting pragmatic learning strategies. CG, on the other hand, did not receive any pragmatics-focused instruction. A 20-item multiple-choice discourse completion test was deployed as the pre-and post-test with all the groups. ANCOVA results indicated the significant gain of both ESG and EIG from the pre-treatment to the post-treatment phase, with EIG outperforming ESG. These findings contribute to the under-standing of the effectiveness of explicit pragmatic learning SBI, whether separate or integrated, in enhancing learners' pragmatic comprehension, and have implications for attempts at facilitat-ing L2 learners’ interlanguage pragmatic development.
Despite the significance of comprehension of L2 pragmatic features, research into speech acts’ comprehension is at a premium. The present study sought to examine the impact of explicit sep-arate and explicit integrated strategies-based instruction (SBI) on Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners' comprehension of apology and request speech acts. The participants consisted of 90 convenience-sampled intermediate EFL learners, who were randomly divided into 3 groups: an explicit separate SBI group (ESG; N = 30), an explicit integrated SBI group (EIG; N = 30), and a control group (CG; N = 30). Given the study’s counterbalanced design, ESG and EIG both had two 15-member subgroups, differing in the order of presentation of im-plicit and explicit strategies. ESG received explicit instruction and modeling of the strategies by the teacher before practicing them. Conversely, EIG engaged in pragmatic learning strategy use practice during pragmatic learning tasks. Speech act-containing video vignettes and predicting tasks were deployed as the means of practicing and presenting pragmatic learning strategies. CG, on the other hand, did not receive any pragmatics-focused instruction. A 20-item multiple-choice discourse completion test was deployed as the pre-and post-test with all the groups. ANCOVA results indicated the significant gain of both ESG and EIG from the pre-treatment to the post-treatment phase, with EIG outperforming ESG. These findings contribute to the under-standing of the effectiveness of explicit pragmatic learning SBI, whether separate or integrated, in enhancing learners' pragmatic comprehension, and have implications for attempts at facilitat-ing L2 learners’ interlanguage pragmatic development.
Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words (Vol. 88). Oxford university press.
Azizi, Z., & Namaziandost, E. (2023). Im-plementing peer-dynamic assessment to cultivate Iranian EFL learners’ in-terlanguage pragmatic competence: A mixed-methods ap-proach. International Journal of Lan-guage Testing, 13(1), 18-43.
Bagherkazemi, M. (2013). Interlanguage pragmatic development: Impacts of individual output, collaborative out-put, input enhancement, metaprag-matic awareness raising, and prag-matic learning strategies. [Un-published doctoral dissertation]. Al-lameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran.
Bagherkazemi, M. (2018). Impact of col-laborative output-based instruction on EFL learners’ awareness of the speech act of apology. Journal of Language and Translation, 8(4), 45-54.
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.
Bazaei, P., Mowlaie, B., & Yazdani Moghaddam, M. (2023). The effect of strategy training of speech acts of request and apology on developing Iranian EFL learners’ pragmatic per-formance and critical thinking. Jour-nal of Language and Translation, 13(3), 65-81.
Birjandi, P. & Rezaei, S. (2010). Develop-ing a multiple-choice discourse com-pletion test of interlanguage pragmat-ics for Iranian EFL learners. ILI Lan-guage Teaching Journal (Special Is-sue: Proceedings of the First Confer-ence on ELT in the Islamic World), 6 (1, 2), 43-58.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex Pub-lishing Corporation.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cam-bridge university press.
Bruce, I. (2017). What knowledge do practi-tioners need to master to inform and direct not only their teaching but al-so, more broadly, their professional activities including understandings of academia in both its epistemological and sociological dimensions? Paper presented at BALEAP ResTes Knowledge and the EAP Practitioner: A Symposium. The University of Leeds., UK.
Chamot, A.U. (2005) Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Ap-plied Linguistics, 25, 112-130.
Chamot, A. U. (2016). The learning strate-gies: Hand book. 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 re-quests: Acquisition in three situational contexts during short-term study abroad. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(3), 391-419.
Derakhshan, A., Malmir, A., & Greenier, V. (2021). Interlanguage pragmatic learn-ing strategies (IPLS) as predictors of l2 speech act knowledge: A case of Iranian EFL learners. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 18(1), 235-243.
Ebadi, S., & Seidi, N. (2015). Iranian EFL learners request strategies preferences across proficiency levels and gender. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(4), 65-73.
Eslami, Z. R., Raeisi-Vanani, A., & Sarab, M. R. A. (2022). Variation patterns in interlanguage pragmatics: Apology Speech Act of EFL learners vs. Amer-ican native speakers. Contrastive Pragmatics, 4(1), 27-63.
Fakher, Z., Vahdany, F., Jafarigohar, M., & Soleimani, H. (2016). The effect of mixed and matched level dyadic in-teraction on Iranian EFL learners’ comprehension and production of re-quests and apologies. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 35(1), 1-30.
Farahi, T., & Mohseni, A. (2014). The im-pact of co-teaching model on improv-ing motivation and achievement of Iranian young EFL learners. Journal of Language and Translation, 4(1), 17-22.
Grenfell, M., & Macaro, E. (2007). Claims and critiques. In A. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies (pp. 9-28). Oxford Univer-sity Press.
Gu, P. Y. (1996). Robin Hood in SLA: What has the learning strategy re-searcher taught us? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 6(1), 1 -29.
Hsiao, T., & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Compar-ing theories of language learning strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 368-383.
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2014). Teach-ing and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Routledge.
Kasper, G. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Language Learning, 52(Suppl1), 1-352.
LoCastro, V. (2003). An introduction to pragmatics: Social action for lan-guage teachers. University of Michi-gan Press.
Maleki, R., Malmir, A., & Esfandiari, R. (2023). Pragmatic capabilities and challenges: A mixed method study of gender-based differences in varied pragmatic tasks performances. Jour-nal of Language and Translation, 13(3), 219-235.
Malmir, A. (2020). Interlanguage pragmatic learning strategies (IPLS) as predictors of L2 social identity: A case of Irani-an Upper- intermediate and Advanced EFL Learners. Iranian Journal of Ap-plied Language Studies, 12(1), 177-216.
Malmir, A., & Derakhshan, A. (2020). The socio-pragmatic, lexico-grammatical, and cognitive strategies in L2 prag-matic comprehension: The case of Iranian male vs. female EFL learners. Iranian Journal of Language Teach-ing Research, 8(1), 1-23.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge UP.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second lan-guage acquisition. Cambridge Uni-versity Press.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apol-ogy: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 18-35). Newbury House Publishers.
Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and re-searching language learning strate-gies. Pearson Education.
Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis us-ing IBM SPSS. Routledge.
Plonsky, L., & Zhuang, J. (2019). A meta-analysis of L2 pragmatics instruction. InN. 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.
Psaltou-Joycey A. (Ed.). (2015). Foreign language learning strategy instruc-tion: A teacher’s guide. Kavala: Saita publications.
Schauer, G. (2009). Interlanguage prag-matic development: The study abroad context. New International Continuum Publishing Group.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual review of applied linguistics, 13, 206-226.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cam-bridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in sec-ond language teaching and learning (pp. 471-484). Lawrence Erlbaum.
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. Ap-plied Research on English Language, 10(3), 77-104.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Lan-guage Teaching, 48(1), 1-50.
Taguchi, N. (Ed.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language acqui-sition and pragmatics. Routledge.
Taguchi, N., Tang, X., & Maa, J. (2019). Learning how to learn pragmatics: Application of self-directed strategies to pragmat-ics learning in L2 Chinese and Japa-nese. East AsianPragmatics, 4(1), 11‒36.
Tajeddin, Z., & Bagherkazemi, M. (2014). Short-term and long-term impacts of individual and collaborative pragmat-ic output on speech act produc-tion. Teaching English Lan-guage, 8(1), 141-166.
Tajeddin, Z., & Bagherkazemi, M. (2022). Implicit and explicit pragmatic learn-ing 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 pref-erences of high vs. low pragmatic performers. Teaching English as a Second Language (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 33(4), 153-180.
Takahashi, S. (2010). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. Pragmatics across languages and cultures, 7, 391.
Tateyama, Y. (2019). Pragmatics in a lan-guage classroom. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), TheRoutledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 400–412). New York: Routledge.
Tatsuki, D. (2019). Instructional material development in L2 pragmatics. In N. Taguchi(Ed.), The Routledge hand-book of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 322–337). New York:Routledge.
Webb, C. (2013). Teaching pragmatics to international students in private lan-guage schools in the UK. Contempo-rary English Teaching and Learning in Non-English-Speaking Countries, 2(2), 27-41.
Zhang, L. J. (2007). Constructivist peda-gogy in strategic reading instruction: Exploring pathways to learner devel-opment in the English as a second language (ESL) classroom. Instruc-tional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 36, 89-116.
