Comparing the effects of explicit and implicit teaching using literary and nonliterary materials on learner’s pragmatic comprehension and production
The present paper explored how plays could contribute to pragmatic development when employed as a medium of implicit or explicit instruction. 80 undergraduate English-major students were divided into four experimental groups two of which were literary and two nonliterary. Implicit Literary, as one o...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2019-01-01
|
| Series: | Cogent Education |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1662979 |
| _version_ | 1797722261038301184 |
|---|---|
| author | Mohammad Baqerzadeh Hosseini Hossein Pourghasemian |
| author_facet | Mohammad Baqerzadeh Hosseini Hossein Pourghasemian |
| author_sort | Mohammad Baqerzadeh Hosseini |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The present paper explored how plays could contribute to pragmatic development when employed as a medium of implicit or explicit instruction. 80 undergraduate English-major students were divided into four experimental groups two of which were literary and two nonliterary. Implicit Literary, as one of the literary groups was exposed to typographically enhanced plays containing the speech acts of, refusal, apology, and request. Explicit Literary, the other literary group received the same speech acts and metapragmatic instructions on the acts as well. For the nonliterary groups, dialogs which contained the given functions served as the medium of instruction for either Implicit Nonliterary containing enhanced input or Explicit Nonliterary having input plus metapragmatic information. All participants took a Multiple- Choice Discourse Completion Test (MDCT) and a Written Discourse Completion Test (WDCT) both before and after the instruction. Analysis of the participants’ performance on the pretest and posttest WDCT did not reveal any significant difference between the literary and nonliterary groups. Concerning the mode of instruction, explicit groups outperformed the implicit ones. Pre and posttest analyses of the participants’ performance on the MDCT revealed no significant differences among the groups in terms of the four teaching conditions implying that EFL learners’ knowledge of speech acts can be boosted by pragmatic instruction irrespective of the medium or mode of instruction. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T09:45:00Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-551c7e5e077e44aca1979378a9e5d8de |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2331-186X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T09:45:00Z |
| publishDate | 2019-01-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Cogent Education |
| spelling | doaj.art-551c7e5e077e44aca1979378a9e5d8de2023-09-02T12:56:10ZengTaylor & Francis GroupCogent Education2331-186X2019-01-016110.1080/2331186X.2019.16629791662979Comparing the effects of explicit and implicit teaching using literary and nonliterary materials on learner’s pragmatic comprehension and productionMohammad Baqerzadeh Hosseini0Hossein Pourghasemian1Islamic Azad UniversityQom University of TechnologyThe present paper explored how plays could contribute to pragmatic development when employed as a medium of implicit or explicit instruction. 80 undergraduate English-major students were divided into four experimental groups two of which were literary and two nonliterary. Implicit Literary, as one of the literary groups was exposed to typographically enhanced plays containing the speech acts of, refusal, apology, and request. Explicit Literary, the other literary group received the same speech acts and metapragmatic instructions on the acts as well. For the nonliterary groups, dialogs which contained the given functions served as the medium of instruction for either Implicit Nonliterary containing enhanced input or Explicit Nonliterary having input plus metapragmatic information. All participants took a Multiple- Choice Discourse Completion Test (MDCT) and a Written Discourse Completion Test (WDCT) both before and after the instruction. Analysis of the participants’ performance on the pretest and posttest WDCT did not reveal any significant difference between the literary and nonliterary groups. Concerning the mode of instruction, explicit groups outperformed the implicit ones. Pre and posttest analyses of the participants’ performance on the MDCT revealed no significant differences among the groups in terms of the four teaching conditions implying that EFL learners’ knowledge of speech acts can be boosted by pragmatic instruction irrespective of the medium or mode of instruction.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1662979explicitimplicitplaypragmatic development |
| spellingShingle | Mohammad Baqerzadeh Hosseini Hossein Pourghasemian Comparing the effects of explicit and implicit teaching using literary and nonliterary materials on learner’s pragmatic comprehension and production Cogent Education explicit implicit play pragmatic development |
| title | Comparing the effects of explicit and implicit teaching using literary and nonliterary materials on learner’s pragmatic comprehension and production |
| title_full | Comparing the effects of explicit and implicit teaching using literary and nonliterary materials on learner’s pragmatic comprehension and production |
| title_fullStr | Comparing the effects of explicit and implicit teaching using literary and nonliterary materials on learner’s pragmatic comprehension and production |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparing the effects of explicit and implicit teaching using literary and nonliterary materials on learner’s pragmatic comprehension and production |
| title_short | Comparing the effects of explicit and implicit teaching using literary and nonliterary materials on learner’s pragmatic comprehension and production |
| title_sort | comparing the effects of explicit and implicit teaching using literary and nonliterary materials on learner s pragmatic comprehension and production |
| topic | explicit implicit play pragmatic development |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1662979 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mohammadbaqerzadehhosseini comparingtheeffectsofexplicitandimplicitteachingusingliteraryandnonliterarymaterialsonlearnerspragmaticcomprehensionandproduction AT hosseinpourghasemian comparingtheeffectsofexplicitandimplicitteachingusingliteraryandnonliterarymaterialsonlearnerspragmaticcomprehensionandproduction |