Control-group exposure to dialogs without pragmatic instruction produces no significant change in refusal performance¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In the control group, where dialogs served only to improve English proficiency, no significant change occurred in pragmatic production of refusals (Exact Sig. 2-tailed = 1.000). → Farrokhi and Atashian 2012

Evidence¶

Farrokhi and Atashian 2012¶

Farahman Farrokhi, Soheil Atashian. (2012). The Role of Refusal Instruction in Pragmatic Development. World Journal of Education, Vol. 2, No. 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/wje.v2n4p85

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Control group (n = 20) in the quasi-experiment received the same Spectrum dialogs as a source of English comprehension and production without pragmatic awareness-raising. Table 4 reports Exact Sig. 2-tailed of 1.000 for the control pretest-posttest comparison; equivalence was not tested.

"It is obvious from the cumulative percent in pretest and postte st that in control group, wher e the presentation of dialogs was merely to ameliorate English proficiency of the subjec ts, no significant change occurs in pragmatic production of refusals."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Explicit instruction of refusals significantly improves Iranian EFL learners' pragmatic performance of refusals — related
• Implicit instruction of refusals also significantly improves pragmatic performance, but less than explicit instruction — related
• Explicit instruction outperforms implicit instruction in boosting Iranian EFL learners' pragmatic performance of refusals — related
• Prompts raised learners' pragmatic awareness of refusals more than explicit feedback or control after a 10-week treatment — related
• Five weeks of instruction in pragmatic routines significantly improved EFL learners' pragmatic competence relative to a control group — related