Explicit teaching of pragmatic routines was more effective than implicit teaching, with implicit-group scores decreasing from pre- to post-test¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i2 Explicit and implicit groups differed significantly at post-test (U=263.5, p=.000, d=0.5), with explicit groups scoring higher; the pre-test difference was small (U=441, p=.01, d=0.2). → Üstünbaş 2017 q2 i? Table 2 shows explicit-group scores increased at post-test while implicit-group scores decreased. → Üstünbaş 2017 (2)

Evidence¶

Üstünbaş 2017¶

Üstünbaş, Ü. (2017). Language Learners' Feelings about Pragmatics in Action. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 11(2), 155-168. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/novitasroyal

q2 · i2 · causal · r1

Mann-Whitney U test comparing the explicit (N=38) and implicit (N=35) teaching groups' pre- and post-test scores; the article reports that "explicit groups had higher scores in the post-test indicating that explicit teaching was more effective."

"there was a significant difference between explicit and implicit groups in the post- test (U= 263.5, p=.000) with medium effect size (d= 0.5) (Cohen, 1988) whereas the difference between these groups was small in the pre-tests (U=441, p=.01, d=0.2)."

Üstünbaş 2017 (2)¶

Üstünbaş, Ü. (2017). Language Learners' Feelings about Pragmatics in Action. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 11(2), 155-168. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/novitasroyal

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Table 2 reports mean ranks (explicit post-test 47.57 vs implicit 25.53). The authors note this pattern is "in accordance with other findings in the literature" citing Fukuya & Zhang, House, Takahashi, and Tateyama et al.

"while there was an increase in the scores of the students in the explicit teaching group in the post-test, the scores of the students in the implicit teaching group decreased"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Oral Language — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Five weeks of instruction in pragmatic routines significantly improved EFL learners' pragmatic competence relative to a control group — related
• Treatment groups also significantly outperformed controls on categorizing pragmatic routines by function, with a medium effect size — related
• Explicit grammar teaching outperforms implicit teaching; one review found the advantage only for complex rules, but a meta-analysis found it for simple rules too — related
• Learners reflected positively on pragmatic routine instruction, and most wanted more routines taught — related
• Pragmatic routine instruction showed no effect on learners' spoken production three weeks into treatment — related