Developing EFL Learners’ Pragmatic Competence through a Blended Learning Model: A Quasi-Experimental Study
In the era of globalization, EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teachers have nominated to weld EFL instruction and aspects of intercultural competence together. Howbeit, the literature on the topic promulgates that procuring pragmatic competence remains a high-priority quest for EFL learners worldwide. This paper delineates the use of a blended learning model to teach pragmatic competence in an EFL context. This quasi-experimental study sought to probe into the potential of a blended learning model on participants’ levels of pragmatic competence. 62 students from a junior high school participated in the study. 32 participants belonged to the control group and 30 participants belonged to the experimental group. The main findings demonstrated that the three-week blended learning model resulted in a statistically significant impact on participants’ levels of pragmatic competence; that is, the experimental group participants (M=16.40; SD=2.54) remarkably outperformed the control group participants (M=11.87; SD=3.49) on the posttest. This implies that foreign language teachers are highly encouraged to attach much importance to amalgamating classroom teaching and the use of interactive websites (blended learning) as a way to develop the pragmatic competence of language learners.
2. Alcon Soler, E. (2008). Investigating pragmatic language learning in foreign language classrooms. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 46, 173e196.
3. Atkinson, D., Churchill, E., Nishino, T., & Okada, H. (2007). Alignment and interaction in a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 169e188.
4. Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
5. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13–32). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6. Beetham, H and Sharpe, R (2007) ‘An introduction to rethinking pedagogy for a digital age’, in Beetham, H and Sharpe, R (eds) Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 1–10
7. Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 68-117. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/belz/default.html
8. Birjandi, P. & Rezaei, S. (2010). Developing a multiple-choice discourse completion test of interlanguage pragmatics for Iranian EFL learners. ILI LanguageTeaching Journal, 6 (1, 2), 43-58
9. Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5, 196-213.
10. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Alblex Publishing Corporation.
11. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
12. Bouton, L. F. (1994a). Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved through explicit instruction? A pilot study. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 5, pp. 89–109). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.
13. Bouton, L. F. (1994b). Conversational implicature in a second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(2), 157–167.
14. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
15. Canale, M. (1984). A communicative approach to language proficiency assessment in a minority setting. In Rivera, C. (Ed.), Communicative competence approaches to language proficiency assessment: Research and application, 107-122. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
16. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics,1, 1-47.
17. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1981). A Theoretical framework for communicative competence. In Palmer, A., Groot, P., & Trosper, G. (Eds.), The construct validation of a test of communicative competence, 31-36.
18. Chun, D. M., & Wade, E. R. (2004). Collaborative cultural exchanges with CMC. In L. Lomicka & J. CookePlagwitz (Eds.), Teaching with technology (pp. 220-247). Boston: Heinle
19. Cohen, A. (2016). The design and construction of websites to promote L2 pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & C. Félix-Brasdefer (eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 14, pp. 341-356). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
20. Cohen, A. D., & Ishihara, N. (2005). A Web-based approach to strategic learning of speech act. Minneapolis: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA), University of Minnesota. Retrieved June 06, 2019, from http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/Japanese%20Speech%20Act%20Report%20Rev.%20June05.pdf
21. Cook, V. J. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 2, 185‑209.
22. De Vaus. D. (2001). Research design in social research. London: SAGE.
23. Cruse, A. (2006). A glossary of semantics and pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
24. Crystal, D. (2008). Dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
25. Dickinson, D., & Smith, M. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teachers’ book readings on low-income children’s vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 105–122.
26. Dudeney, & Hockly, N (2007). How to… Teach English with Technology. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited
27. Dzuiban, CD, Hartman, JL and Moskal, PD (2004) Blended Learning. Available online at http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erb0407.pdf
28. Eisenstein, M. & Bodman, J. (1993). Expressing gratitude in American English. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics, Oxford University Press, Cary,64-81.
29. Elley, W. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 175–187.
30. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.
31. Facer, K., Furlong, J., Furlong R. & Sutherland, R. (2003). Screenplay: children and computing in the home. London: Routledge Falmer.
32. Finch, G. (2000). Linguistic terms and concepts. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
33. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill
34. Fraser, B. (2010). Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch, & S. Schneider (Eds.), New approaches to hedging (pp. 15-34). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
35. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Doubleday.
36. Gonzalez, D., & St.Louis, R. (2008). The use of web 2.0 tools to develop autonomy. Technology, pp. 28-32. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.454.3536&rep=rep1&type=pdf
37. Grundy, P. (2000). Doing pragmatics. London: Arnold.
38. Halenko, N. & Jones, C. (2011). Teaching pragmatic awareness of spoken requests to Chinese EAP learners in the UK: Is explicit instruction effective? System 39, 240–250
39. Harker, M and Koutsantoni, D (2005) Can it be as effective? Distance versus blended learning in a web-based EAP programme. ReCALL 17/2: 197–216
40. Heerwegh, Dirk & Loosveldt, Geert. (2008). Face-to-Face Versus Web Surveying in a High-Internet-Coverage Population: Differences in Response Quality. Public Opinion Quarterly - PUBLIC OPIN QUART. 72. 836-846. 10.1093/poq/nfn045.
41. Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride, J. B., & Holmes, J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics, 269-293. Baltimore, USA: Penguin Education, Penguin Books Ltd.
42. Ishihara, N. & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.
43. Verschueren J. (2009). Introduction: The pragmatic perspective. In Verschueren, J. & Ostman, J. (Eds), Key notions in pragmatics, 2-27. Netherlands: John Benjamins.
44. Jenney, T. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. New York, NY: Routledge.
45. Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris, & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165e211). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
46. Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? (NFLRC NetWork #6). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Retrieved from http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/networks/NW06/default.html
47. Kasper, G. (2001). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 33–60). New York, NY: Cambridge University
48. Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 317-334). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
49. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. USA: Blackwell Publishing.
50. Klesius, J. P., & Griffith, P. L. (1996). Interactive storybook reading for at-risk learners. The Reading Teacher, 49, 552–560.
51. Kramsch, C., & Thorne, S. (2002). Foreign language learning as global communicative practice. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Language learning and teaching in the age of globalization (pp. 83-100). London: Routledge.
52. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53. Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of educational research, 77, 575-614. DOI:10.3102/0034654307309921
54. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
55. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56. Márquez Reiter, R. (2000). Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay: a contrastive study of requests and apologies. Netherlands: John Benjamins.
57. Moeschler, J. (2002). Speech act theory and the analysis of conversation. In D. Vanderveken & S. Kubo (Eds.), Essays in speech act theory, pp. 239-261. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
58. Neumeier, P (2005) A closer look at blended learning – parameters for designing a blended learning environment for language teaching and learning. ReCALL 17/2: 163–178.
59. Norouzian, R., & Eslami, Z. (2016). Critical perspectives on interlanguage pragmatics development: An agenda for research. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 25-5
60. Osguthorpe, RT and Graham, CR (2003) Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 4/3: 227–233.
61. Rogers, M. E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th Ed.), New York: The Free Press.
62. Rose, K., & Kwai-fun, C. N. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In K. R. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 145e170). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
63. Rossett, A, Douglis, F and Frazee, RV (2003). Strategies for Building Blended Learning. Available online at https://files.pbworks.com/download/P3s9Jzj67I/ablendedmaricopa/1240589/Strategies%20Building%20Blended%20Learning.pdf.
64. Salsbury, T., & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Oppositional talk and the acquisition of modality in L2 English. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. A. Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition: Selected proceedings of the 1999 second language research forum (pp. 57-76). Somerville: Cascadilla Press.
65. Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Texts and contexts in second language learning. Reading, Massachusetts at all: Addison- Wesley Publishing Company.
66. Sbisà, M. (1995). Speech act theory. In J. Verschueren, J. Östman & Jan Blommaert (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics – Manual, 495–506. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
67. Scarcella, R., (1979). On speaking politely in a second language. In C. Yorio, K. Perkins & J.
68. Schachter, (Eds.), On TESOL ’79: The Learners in Focus. TESOL, pp. 274–287. Washington, DC.
69. Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 137-174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
70. Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech act. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Speech act, 59–82. New York: Academic Press.
71. Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1-23. Seuren, P. A. M. (1998). Western Linguistics: An Historical Introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
72. Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds. Second Language Research, 7,118-132.
73. Sharwood Smith, M. A. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011943.
74. Snow, C., & Goldfield, B. (1983). Turn the page please: Situation-specific language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 10, 551–569.
75. Strickland, D. S., & Taylor, D. (1989). Family storybook reading: Implications for children, families, and curriculum. In D. S. Strickland & L. M. Morrow (Eds.), Emerging literacy: Young children learn to read and write (pp. 27–34). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
76. Taguchi, N. (2013). Teaching pragmatics. In C. A. Chapelle (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, (vol. IX). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1172
77. Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K. Rose, & G.
78. Takahashi, T. & Beebe, L.M. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal 8, 131-155.
79. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6 (2), 144-176.
80. Thomas, M., Reinders, H., & Warschauer, M. (Eds.). (2013). Contemporary computer-assisted language learning. London/New York: Bloomsbury.
81. Tienson, J. (1983). Linguistic competence transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies. Available at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas/259
82. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46 (2), 186-204.
83. Wade, E. R. (2005). Enhancing German language learners’ intercultural communicative competence through the on-line exchange project ICE (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Santa Barbara.
84. Walker, G (2005) Critical thinking in asynchronous discussion. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 2/6. Available online at http://itdl.org/ journal/jun_05/article02.htm.
85. Walters, J. (1980). Grammar, meaning, and sociological appropriateness in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 34, 337-345.
86. Westbrook, K (2008) The beginning of the end for blended learning? IATEFL CALL Review, Summer: 12–1.
87. Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning purpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
88. Yang, SC (2001) Integrating computer-mediated tools into the language curriculum. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 17: 85–93.
Copyright (c) 2022 Mohamed Bouftira, Mohammed El Messaoudi, Shuai Li
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.