Explicit and Implicit Instruction of Requestive Strategies: A Comparison of the Effects on Upper -intermediate English Learners’ Email Writing Development
محورهای موضوعی : language teaching
افروز سینکی راد
1
(English Department, West Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran)
ثروت شیرخانی
2
(گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد خرم آباد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، خرم آباد، ایران)
کلید واژه: explicit instruction, implicit instruction, email writing, pragmatics instruction, requestive strategies,
چکیده مقاله :
This study compared the efficacy of explicit and implicit instruction of requestive strategies on upper-intermediate female English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ email writing development. Sixty-two participants in four intact classes were randomly assigned to two explicit and implicit groups. In this quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design study two email evaluation tests and two written discourse completion tests (WDCT) were used to collect the data. In the pretest phase, an email evaluation test and a WDCT were administered to the participants in two sessions. Next, the two groups were provided with ten treatment sessions. The explicit group received direct instruction and metapragmatic explanation on the use of appropriate requestive strategies in writing emails. The implicit group, however, received instruction on writing requestive emails without any explicit explanation about the requestive strategies in emailing. Then, the participants took the posttest of email evaluation test and WDCT in two successive sessions. The results indicated that both modes of instruction exerted significant effects on the learners’ production of requestive strategies in English. The comparison of the two modes of instruction, nonetheless, indicated that the participants who underwent explicit instruction significantly surpassed those in the implicit group. The findings have implications for materials developers and instructors.
این تحقیق به مقایسه تاثیر تدریس صریح و تدریس ضمنی استراتژی درخواست کردن بر نگارش ایمیل فراگیران دختر سطح فوق متوسط زبان انگلیسی پرداخته است. شصت و دو نفر فراگیر زبان انگلیسی از شعبه دخترانه زبانکده ملی ایران در این کار تحقیقی مشارکت کردند و آنها در چهار کلاس مجزا بصورت تصادفی در دو گروه تدریس صریح و تدریس ضمنی قرار گرفتند. با طراحی دو نوع مختلف آزمون، اطلاعات مورد نظر را قبل و پس از تدریس جمع آوری گردید. در مرحله اول یک هفته قبل از شروع ترم در دو جلسه مجزا ابتدا تست بررسی ایمیل و سپس آزمون نگارش ایمیل برگزار شد. بعد زبان آموزان دو گروه در ده جلسه 30 دقیقه ای تحت آموزش قرار گرفتند. در گروه تدریس صریح به طور صریح استراتژی درخواست کردن ازافراد در جایگاهها ی اجتماعی متفاوت به زبان آموزان آموزش داده شد و توضیحات درسی بصورت کتبی (بروشور) به آنها داده شد. زبان آموزان در گروه تدریس ضمنی هم بدون توضیحاتی صریح در مورد استراتژی درخواست کردن تحت تعلیم قرار گرفتند. بررسی داده ها نشان داد که هر دو روش تدریس تاثیرقابل توجهی بر بکارگیری صحیح استراتژی درخواست کردن در نگارش ایمیل داشتند اگرچه فراگیران در گروه تدریس صریح به طور معناداری بیشتر از گروه ضمنی پیشرفت کردند.
Alcon Soler, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System, 33(3), 417-435.
Alcon Soler, E., & Martinez-Flor, A. (2008). Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing. Multilingual Matters.
Ariana, N., Ahmadi Shirazi, M., & Mousavi Nadoushani, S. M. (2016). An explicit/implicit lead to producing requests: Eliciting learners’ awareness or soliciting metapragmatic knowledge. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 6(1), 115-127.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics. In G. Kasper & K. Rose (Eds.), Pragmatics and language teaching, (pp. 11-32). Cambridge University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63(1), 68-86.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B. A. S., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M.J., & Reynolds, D.W. (1991). Developing pragmatic awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT Journal, 45(1), 4-15.
Chalak, A., & Abbasi, S. (2015). The effects of explicit and implicit pragmatic instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ production of suggestion speech act in the context of distance learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(4), 275-284.
Chen, Y. (2009). Learner perceptions of instruction in L2 pragmatics. English Language Teaching, 2(4), 154-161.
Cohen, A. D. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners? Language Teaching, 41(02), 213-235.3efr
Eslami-Rasekh, Z., & Noora, A. (2008). Perceived pragmatic transferability of L1 request strategies by Persian learners of English. In M. Putz & J. Neff-van Aertselaer (Eds.), Developing contrastive pragmatics. Interlanguage and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 301-334). Mouton de Gruyter.
Fukuya, Y., & Clark, M. (2001). A comparison of input enhancement and explicit instruction of mitigators. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning, monograph series. Division of English as an international language (pp. 111-130). University of Illinois.
Fukuya, Y. J., Reeve, M., Gisi, J., & Christianson, M. (1998). Does focus on form work for teaching sociopragmatics? Paper Presented at the 12th International Conference on Pragmatics and Language Learning, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 452736).
Gharibeh Gharibeh, S., Mirzaee, M., & Yaghoubi Notash, M. (2016). The role of instruction in the development of EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 173-184.
Hymes, D. (2005). Models of the interaction of language and social life: Toward a descriptive theory. Intercultural discourse and communication: The essential readings, 4-16.
Iraji, H., Enayat, M., & Momeni, M. (2018). The effects of implicit and explicit instruction on the academic interlanguage pragmatic knowledge of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 6(1), 171-178.
Kaburise, P. (2014). Using explicit and implicit instruction to develop pragmatic ability in non-urban classrooms in South Africa. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy, 5(23) 1235-1241.
Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research method in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 215-247.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). The Role of instruction in learning second language pragmatics. Language Learning, 52(1), 237-273.
Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 149-169.
Kim, D., & Hall, J. K. (2002). The role of an interactive book reading program in the development of second language pragmatic competence. The Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 332-348.
Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481-501.
Lingli, D., & Wannaruk, A. (2010). The effects of explicit and implicit instruction in English refusals. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Bimonthly), 33(3), 93-109.
LoCastro, V. (2013). Pragmatics for language educators: A sociolinguistic perspective. Routledge.
Martinez-Flor, A., & Fukuya, Y. J. (2005). The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, 33(3), 463-480.
Nguyen, T. T. M., Pham, T. H., & Pham, M. T. (2012). The relative effects of explicit and implicit form focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(4), 416-434.
Rajabi, S., Azizfar, A., & Gowhary, H. (2015). Investigating explicit instruction of apology speech act on pragmatic development of Iranian EFL Learners. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(4), 53-61.
Rose, K. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 27-67.
Rose, K. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385-399.
Salemi, A., Rabiee, M., & Ketabi, S. (2012). The effects of explicit/implicit instruction and feedback on the development of Persian EFL learners’ pragmatic competence in suggestion structures. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(1), 188-199.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press.
Shark, P. (2018). The effects of explicit/implicit instructions on the development of advanced EFL learners’ pragmatic knowledge of English: apology speech act. Journal of language teaching and research, 10(1), 76-82.
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289-310.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1-50.
Tajeddin, Z., & Zand Moghadam, A. (2012). Interlanguage pragmatic motivation: Its construct and impact on speech act production. RELC Journal, 43(3), 353-372.
Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 189-223.
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp.171-199). Cambridge University Press.
Takahashi, S. (2005). Pragmalinguistic awareness: Is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 90-120.
Takahashi, S. (2010). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 391-421). De Gruyter Mouton.
Takimoto, M. (2009). The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 1-25.
Vahid Dastjerdi, H., & Rezvani, E. (2010). The impact of instruction on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ production of requests in English. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(6), 782-790.
