Implicit instruction of refusals also significantly improves pragmatic performance, but less than explicit instruction¶

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? The implicit instruction group showed a statistically significant pretest-to-posttest improvement in pragmatic production of refusals (Exact Sig. 2-tailed = .013). → 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

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test results for the implicit group in the same 60-learner quasi-experiment show Exact Sig. 2-tailed of .013, which the authors read as instruction making a difference in developing pragmatic performance of EFL learners. No effect size is printed.

"the P-value (Exact Sig. 2-tailed) for control, explicit and implicit groups is 1.000, .000, and .013 respectively. This is indicative of the fact that, instruction does make a difference in developing pragmatic performance of EFL learners."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Control-group exposure to dialogs without pragmatic instruction produces no significant change in refusal performance — related
• Explicit instruction outperforms implicit instruction in boosting Iranian EFL learners' pragmatic performance of refusals — related
• Explicit instruction of refusals significantly improves Iranian EFL learners' pragmatic performance of refusals — related