دانشگاه تبریز
فهرست نشریات دارای اعتبار وزارت علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری
پایگاه استنادی علوم جهان اسلام (ISC)

 آمار

تعداد نشریات44
تعداد شماره‌ها1,327
تعداد مقالات16,307
تعداد مشاهده مقاله53,171,584
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله15,781,886
Al Khafaji, Hussein, Amirian, Zahra, Amiryousefi, Mohammad, Sultan, Abbas. (1403). Pragmatic Instruction and Speaking Ability of Iraqi EFL Learners in Virtual vs. Face-to-face Classroom Contexts: Expressive, Declarative, and Directive Speech Acts in Focus. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 16(34), 19-36. doi: 10.22034/elt.2023.58594.2568
Hussein Al Khafaji; Zahra Amirian; Mohammad Amiryousefi; Abbas H. J. Sultan. "Pragmatic Instruction and Speaking Ability of Iraqi EFL Learners in Virtual vs. Face-to-face Classroom Contexts: Expressive, Declarative, and Directive Speech Acts in Focus". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 16, 34, 1403, 19-36. doi: 10.22034/elt.2023.58594.2568
Al Khafaji, Hussein, Amirian, Zahra, Amiryousefi, Mohammad, Sultan, Abbas. (1403). 'Pragmatic Instruction and Speaking Ability of Iraqi EFL Learners in Virtual vs. Face-to-face Classroom Contexts: Expressive, Declarative, and Directive Speech Acts in Focus', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 16(34), pp. 19-36. doi: 10.22034/elt.2023.58594.2568
Al Khafaji, Hussein, Amirian, Zahra, Amiryousefi, Mohammad, Sultan, Abbas. Pragmatic Instruction and Speaking Ability of Iraqi EFL Learners in Virtual vs. Face-to-face Classroom Contexts: Expressive, Declarative, and Directive Speech Acts in Focus. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1403; 16(34): 19-36. doi: 10.22034/elt.2023.58594.2568

Pragmatic Instruction and Speaking Ability of Iraqi EFL Learners in Virtual vs. Face-to-face Classroom Contexts: Expressive, Declarative, and Directive Speech Acts in Focus

Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning
دوره 16، شماره 34، اسفند 2024، صفحه 19-36    اصل مقاله (711.86 K)
نوع مقاله: Research Paper
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22034/elt.2023.58594.2568
نویسندگان
Hussein Al Khafaji1؛ Zahra Amirian* 2؛ Mohammad Amiryousefi2؛ Abbas H. J. Sultan3
1Department of English Language and Literature, University of Isfahan, Iran.
2Department of English Language and Literature, University of Isfahan, Iran
3Department of English Language, University of Kufa, Iraq
چکیده
This study was an attempt to see whether the instruction of pragmatic markers in virtual vs. face-to-face classroom settings had any effect on Iraqi EFL learners’ speaking ability. It also attempted to examine the intervening effects of some factors including age (teenagers in the language institute vs. adults in the university), gender, social class, and the learners’ English language proficiency levels.  To achieve these purposes, a group of 224 Iraqi EFL learners at a university and a private language institute in Kufa, Iraq passing conversation courses were selected and randomly divided into four groups. The two experimental groups (both in university and language institute settings) received instruction on pragmatic markers in online vs. face-to-face conversation classrooms while the two control groups (in university and language institute settings) did not receive instruction on pragmatic markers in online vs. face-to-face conversation classrooms. An English language speaking test was given to the learners to assess their oral performance before and after the treatment. The test was randomly selected from IELTS speaking tests. For the teenagers in the language institute, a simplified speaking task was designed based on IELTS criteria for assessing speaking performance. The results indicated that generally those who received pragmatic instruction outperformed those who did not receive such kind of instruction and the participants in face-to-face classrooms outperformed their virtual counterparts in terms of speaking ability. The study also examined the intervening effects of some social and personal factors including age, gender, social class and level of language proficiency. Based on the findings of this study, the male participants and the students from higher proficiency levels outperformed females and their lower proficiency counterparts in terms of speaking ability. However, they did not show any differences with regard to age and social class. This study offers important implications for EFL teachers, learners and material designers, with regard to the promising effect of face-to-face instruction of different pragmatic features of language through speech acts on learners’ speaking skill. 
کلیدواژه‌ها
virtual instruction؛ face-to-face instruction؛ pragmatic markers؛ speaking ability
مراجع

Abolfathiasl, H., and Abdullah, A. N. (2015). Pragmatic consciousness-raising activities and EFL learners’ speech act performance of’ making suggestions. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6, 2, 333. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.17507/jltr.0602.13

Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh University Press.

Aliakbari, M. & Mahjoob, E. (2016). The Relationship between Age and Willingness to Communicate in an Iranian EFL Context. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3) 1), 54-65. Available online at www.jallr.com ISSN: 2376-760X

Alipour, F., Youhanaee, M., Barati, H., & Nasirahmadi, A. (2015). Intentional vs. incidental vocabulary learning through games by young EFL Persian speakers. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 4 (1). 23-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.5861/ijrset.2015.943

Allan, D. (2004). Oxford Placement Test. Oxford University Press.

Alsuhaibani, Z. (2022). Developing EFL students’ pragmatic competence: The case of compliment responses. Language Teaching Research, 26 (5), 847-866. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820913539

 Andersen, G. (2001). Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation: A relevance-theoretic approach to        the language of adolescents.  John Benjamins.

Birjandi, P., & Soleimani, M. M. (2013). Assessing language learners’ knowledge of speech acts: A test        validation study. Issues in Language Teaching, 2(1), 1-26.

Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics a pragmatics of discourse

        markers. Cambridge University Press.

Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide, Cambridge University Press.

Chen, J. C. (2016). The crossroads of English language learners, task-based instruction, and 3D multi-user virtual learning in second life. Computers & Education, 102, 152-171.

Chun, D., Kern, R., & Smith, B. (2016). Technology in language use, language teaching, and language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 100 (S1), 64-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/modl.12302

Davarzani, F., and Talebzadeh, H. (2020). The effect of Virtual and Face-to-face Classroom Instruction on Inter-language Pragmatic Development: Microblogging versus Traditional Instruction of Speech Acts to Iranian EFL Learners. The Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 13 (27), 72-99. https://doi.org/10.30495/jal.2021.680904

Derakhshan, A., & Arabmofrad, A. (2018). The impact of instruction on the pragmatic comprehension of speech acts of apology, request, and refusal among Iranian intermediate EFL learners. English Teaching & Learning, 42 (1), 75-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42321-018-0004-6

Erman, B. (2001). Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1337-1359.

Fazilatfar, A. M. & Cheraghi, M. (2013). Exploring the effects of instruction on EFL learners’ pragmatic development. TELL, 7(2), 1-25.

Fernández, J., Gates Tapia, A., & Lu, X. (2014). Oral proficiency and pragmatic marker use in L2 spoken Spanish: The case of pues and bueno. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 150-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.09.005

Fraser, B. (2009). An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(2), 293–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187730909X12538045489818

Gabarro-Lopez, S. (2019). Are discourse markers related to age and educational background? A comparative account between two sign languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 156, 68-82.

Gilmore, A. (2004). A comparison of textbooks and authentic interactions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 362-374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.4.363

Hedia, M. M. H. (2016). Enhancing Speaking Skills of EFL adult learners: A pragmatic approach Occasional Papers, 62, 71-110.

Hellermann, J., & Vergun, A. (2007). Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 157-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.008

Islam, M. Sh. and Stapa, M. (2021). Students’ low proficiency in spoken English in private universities in Bangladesh: reasons and remedies. Language testing in Asia, 11, 22. 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-021-00139-0.

Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 149-169.

Knott, A. & Dale, R. (1994), Using linguistic Phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18, 35-62

Lewis, G. (2004). The internet and young learners. Oxford University Press.

Li, W. (2015). Effective teaching in the use of pragmatic markers for Chinese EFL learners. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(11), 822-829. http://dx.doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2015.031107

Liao, S. (2009). Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the US. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1313-1328 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.026

Liu, J. (2012). Assessing EFL Learners’ interlanguage pragmatic knowledge: Implications for testers and teachers. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 5(1), 1-22.

Magliacane, A., & Howard, M. (2019). The role of learner status in the acquisition of pragmatic markers during study abroad: The use of ‘like’ in L2 English. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 72-86.

Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Neary-Sundquist, C. (2014). The use of pragmatic markers across proficiency levels in second language speech. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 637-663. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.4.4

Petraki, E., & Bayes, S. (2013). Teaching oral requests: An evaluation of five English as a second language course books. Pragmatics, 23(3), 499-517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/prag.23.3.06pet

Nasri, M., Shafiee, S, and Sepehri, M. (2022). An Account of Iranian EFL Learners’ Speaking Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency and Foreign Language Speaking Anxiety in a Computer-Assisted Language Learning Environment. Computer-Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal (CALL-EJ), 23(2), 2022, 299-321.

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.003

Rose, K. R. (1994). Pragmatic consciousness-raising in an EFL context. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 5(1), 52-63.

Schauer, G. A. (2006). Pragmatic Awareness in ESL and EFL Contexts: Contrast and Development. Journal of Language Learning, 56, 2, 269-318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00348.x

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.

Seedhouse, P., Nakatsuhara, F. (2018). The Discourse of the IELTS Speaking Test: Interactional design and practice. Cambridge University Press.

Seth, A., Okpatah, B., Richard, A., Coffie, A. J., & Justice, A. O. (2019). Supplementary virtual- class system as a possible frontier for bridging the grades gap between top tier and low tier high schools in Ghana. American Journal of Educational Research, 7(1), 6-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.12691/education-7-1-2

Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis. The University of Chicago Press.

Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1-50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263

Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 171−199). Cambridge University Press.

Uso-Juan, E. (2010). The presentation and practice of the communicative act of requesting in textbooks: Focusing on modifiers. In E. Alcon & M. Safont (Eds.). Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 223-244). Springer.

Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning Pragmatics from ESL & EFL Textbooks: How Likely? TESL-EJ, 8, 1-17.

Yoonjung, Ch., Na Young, K. and Hea-Suk, K. (2022).  Effects of EFL Learners’ Perspectives on Online English Classes: Gender, Major, and Proficiency. Journal of English Teaching         through Movies and Media, 23, 1, 42-57. https://doi.org/10.16875/stem.2022.23.1.42 

Yuan, F. (2018). Roles of action research in the professional development of Chinese language teachers. Chinese as a Second Language. The journal of the Chinese Language Teachers        Association, USA, 53(3), 201-221.

Zand-Moghadam, A., & Adeh, A. (2020). Investigating Pragmatic Competence, Meta-pragmatic Awareness and Speech Act Strategies among Turkmen-Persian Bilingual and Persian Monolingual EFL Learners: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 49(1), 22–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2019.1705876

آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 291
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 76


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب