Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 11 – uploaded by Shiva Kaivanpanah

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 11 Paired-wise comparisons of participants’ performance on the four pragmatics factors questionnaire indicated that ILP instruction not only enhances language learners’ ability in using request strategies but also increases their confidence when performing speech acts. This change in individuals’ confidence may also be rooted in the fact that despite grammatical failures, language learners’ prag- matic failures are often interpreted as an index of their person- ality (Thomas 1983) which can affect their L2 confidence.

Table 11 Paired-wise comparisons of participants’ performance on the four pragmatics factors questionnaire indicated that ILP instruction not only enhances language learners’ ability in using request strategies but also increases their confidence when performing speech acts. This change in individuals’ confidence may also be rooted in the fact that despite grammatical failures, language learners’ prag- matic failures are often interpreted as an index of their person- ality (Thomas 1983) which can affect their L2 confidence.

Related Figures (15)

This list indicates that skills required for mastery of interlanguage pragmatics are within the range of the higher order thinking skills, making it almost mandatory to focus on these skills in ILP instruction. An approach based on Bloom’s Taxonomy has the potential for advancing learners towards these higher level thinking skills. As discussed before, the characteristics of Bloom’s Taxonomy are also in consonance with Bialystok’s (1991) cognitive model and Schmidt’s (1990, 1993) noticing hypothesis for ILP instruction. Although Bloom’s Taxonomy presents a stepwise progress from lower to higher levels of cognitive functioning, it does not specify how this transition should be achieved. This step- wise move from low order to high order cognitive functioning in Bloom’s Taxonomy is also emphasized in Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). He argues that instruction should be beyond the individuals’ present level of cognitive functioning 1.e., it should be based on their ZPD, “the distance between the learners’ existing developmental state and their potential development”(Brown 2000, p.13). Vygotsky’s notion of ZPD and Blooms’ Taxonomy comple- ment each other well in helping learners advance towards high levels of cognitive functioning. Given the stepwise nature of
This list indicates that skills required for mastery of interlanguage pragmatics are within the range of the higher order thinking skills, making it almost mandatory to focus on these skills in ILP instruction. An approach based on Bloom’s Taxonomy has the potential for advancing learners towards these higher level thinking skills. As discussed before, the characteristics of Bloom’s Taxonomy are also in consonance with Bialystok’s (1991) cognitive model and Schmidt’s (1990, 1993) noticing hypothesis for ILP instruction. Although Bloom’s Taxonomy presents a stepwise progress from lower to higher levels of cognitive functioning, it does not specify how this transition should be achieved. This step- wise move from low order to high order cognitive functioning in Bloom’s Taxonomy is also emphasized in Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). He argues that instruction should be beyond the individuals’ present level of cognitive functioning 1.e., it should be based on their ZPD, “the distance between the learners’ existing developmental state and their potential development”(Brown 2000, p.13). Vygotsky’s notion of ZPD and Blooms’ Taxonomy comple- ment each other well in helping learners advance towards high levels of cognitive functioning. Given the stepwise nature of
Table 1 Distribution of the sociolinguistic variables in the L2 situations of the WDCT
Table 1 Distribution of the sociolinguistic variables in the L2 situations of the WDCT
Creating level: learners were asked to apply what they have learnt in creating something new. Select a pair Consider one of the following situations: informal, casual, friendly, and formal and create a dialogue with your pair in which a request is used. Evaluating level: learners made some value judgments based on what they have acquired in the previous levels. Task: Consider the following situation and decide whether an appropriate speech act is being utilized or not.
Creating level: learners were asked to apply what they have learnt in creating something new. Select a pair Consider one of the following situations: informal, casual, friendly, and formal and create a dialogue with your pair in which a request is used. Evaluating level: learners made some value judgments based on what they have acquired in the previous levels. Task: Consider the following situation and decide whether an appropriate speech act is being utilized or not.
Table 3 Descriptive statistics of participants’ performance on OQPT
Table 3 Descriptive statistics of participants’ performance on OQPT
Table 4 Descriptive statistics for the participants’ scores on the WDCT
Table 4 Descriptive statistics for the participants’ scores on the WDCT
Table 5 Kolmogrov-Smirnov test of normality Kolmogorov-Smirnov test revealed that the assumption of 10rmality of the WDCT data was met (p > .05) (Table 5).
Table 5 Kolmogrov-Smirnov test of normality Kolmogorov-Smirnov test revealed that the assumption of 10rmality of the WDCT data was met (p > .05) (Table 5).
Table 7 Paired-wise comparison of participants’ scores from the pretest to delayed posttest
Table 7 Paired-wise comparison of participants’ scores from the pretest to delayed posttest
Table 8 Descriptive statistics for the four pragmatics factors measured in this study that Bloom-based instruction had the highest impact on degree of politeness which subsumes three other factors, i.e., formal- ity, directness and politeness. This factor was followed by the amount of information, correct use of speech act and type of expression. The fact that the degree of politeness benefitted the most from Bloom-based instruction could be attributed to the nature of this component which requires more analytica ability than the other three components. The fact that degree o politeness was affected the most, provides evidence in support of the impact of Bloom-based ILP instruction on the improve- ment of higher order thinking skills such as evaluation and analysis (Athanassiou et al. 2003) which play key roles in the production of requests with appropriate degree of politeness (Liu 2007). sae ma eae a “ae wae te ia the higher degree of change in the other two factors (amount of information and degree of politeness) suggests how these factors are influenced by high order thinking skills such as analysis and evaluation skills (Garcia 2004; Flor and Juan 2010), the mastery of which is difficult for students (Bailin 2002; Bransford et al. 2000). Success in these two compo- nents, especially in degree of politeness, calls for a detailed analysis and evaluation of different contextual elements which were the main foci of the treatment activities of the present study. As for amount of information component, the better performance of the participants in the posttest and delayed posttest can be due to the boost in participants’ L2 self- confidence which influences their willingness to communicate (MacIntyre et al. 1998).
Table 8 Descriptive statistics for the four pragmatics factors measured in this study that Bloom-based instruction had the highest impact on degree of politeness which subsumes three other factors, i.e., formal- ity, directness and politeness. This factor was followed by the amount of information, correct use of speech act and type of expression. The fact that the degree of politeness benefitted the most from Bloom-based instruction could be attributed to the nature of this component which requires more analytica ability than the other three components. The fact that degree o politeness was affected the most, provides evidence in support of the impact of Bloom-based ILP instruction on the improve- ment of higher order thinking skills such as evaluation and analysis (Athanassiou et al. 2003) which play key roles in the production of requests with appropriate degree of politeness (Liu 2007). sae ma eae a “ae wae te ia the higher degree of change in the other two factors (amount of information and degree of politeness) suggests how these factors are influenced by high order thinking skills such as analysis and evaluation skills (Garcia 2004; Flor and Juan 2010), the mastery of which is difficult for students (Bailin 2002; Bransford et al. 2000). Success in these two compo- nents, especially in degree of politeness, calls for a detailed analysis and evaluation of different contextual elements which were the main foci of the treatment activities of the present study. As for amount of information component, the better performance of the participants in the posttest and delayed posttest can be due to the boost in participants’ L2 self- confidence which influences their willingness to communicate (MacIntyre et al. 1998).
Regarding the participants’ confidence level, the findings are in consonance with Fazilatfar and Cheraghi’s (2013) study which revealed that ILP instruction can enhance students’ self-confidence and how they perceive their language ability. This finding is in line with Liaw (2007) who found that de- veloping higher order thinking skills can promote language learners’ confidence in their language ability. Similar to this study, Takahashi (2001) used a confidence questionnaire to complement the data collected through DCT. In Takahashi’s (2001) study, the data collected through confidence
Regarding the participants’ confidence level, the findings are in consonance with Fazilatfar and Cheraghi’s (2013) study which revealed that ILP instruction can enhance students’ self-confidence and how they perceive their language ability. This finding is in line with Liaw (2007) who found that de- veloping higher order thinking skills can promote language learners’ confidence in their language ability. Similar to this study, Takahashi (2001) used a confidence questionnaire to complement the data collected through DCT. In Takahashi’s (2001) study, the data collected through confidence
Previous studies (e.g., Athanassiou et al. 2003; Ball and Washburn 2001; Bloom et al. 1956; Crowe et al. 2008; Demetrulias and McCubbin 1982; Kunen et al. 1981; Taylor et al. 2002) have pointed to merits of applying Bloom-based activities to different educational circles. However, Bloom-based pedagogical intervention for the development of ILP competence has not been well regarded in EFL contexts. The findings of the present study provide evidence in support of the effectiveness of Bloom-based pedagogical intervention in pragmatic development of language learners. The findings of this study demonstrated that the implementation of the Bloom-based instruction enhanced ILP development by tailoring the cognitive levels of learning activities to the cognitive abilities of learners. The data analysis revealed that all the four components of learners’ pragmatic com- petence improved significantly, although not equally,
Previous studies (e.g., Athanassiou et al. 2003; Ball and Washburn 2001; Bloom et al. 1956; Crowe et al. 2008; Demetrulias and McCubbin 1982; Kunen et al. 1981; Taylor et al. 2002) have pointed to merits of applying Bloom-based activities to different educational circles. However, Bloom-based pedagogical intervention for the development of ILP competence has not been well regarded in EFL contexts. The findings of the present study provide evidence in support of the effectiveness of Bloom-based pedagogical intervention in pragmatic development of language learners. The findings of this study demonstrated that the implementation of the Bloom-based instruction enhanced ILP development by tailoring the cognitive levels of learning activities to the cognitive abilities of learners. The data analysis revealed that all the four components of learners’ pragmatic com- petence improved significantly, although not equally,
References Alcon, E. (2005). Does instruction work for pragmatic learning in EFL contexts? System, 33(3), 417-435.
References Alcon, E. (2005). Does instruction work for pragmatic learning in EFL contexts? System, 33(3), 417-435.
Related topics:
PsychologyCognitive SciencePragmatics
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved