Pragmatic routine instruction showed no effect on learners' spoken production three weeks into treatment¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Only 3 participants used pragmatic routines in a recorded conversation task after three weeks of instruction, which the authors take to indicate no effect on spoken production. → Üstünbaş 2017

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 · i? · causal · r1

Participants were administered an interactive conversation task after three weeks and their performances recorded to detect transfer of routines into spoken discourse. The authors state the effect on pragmatic competence "is relatively higher" than on production.

"However, only 3 of the participants used pragmatic routines after 3 weeks of instruction, indicating pragmatic instruction has no effect on spoken production."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Oral Language — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Learners reflected positively on pragmatic routine instruction, and most wanted more routines taught — related
• Five weeks of instruction in pragmatic routines significantly improved EFL learners' pragmatic competence relative to a control group — reports the opposite
• Treatment groups also significantly outperformed controls on categorizing pragmatic routines by function, with a medium effect size — related
• Explicit teaching of pragmatic routines was more effective than implicit teaching, with implicit-group scores decreasing from pre- to post-test — related
• EFL learners rank speaking as the skill most urgently needing improvement, with pragmatic routines the top speaking sub-skill — related