Treatment groups also significantly outperformed controls on categorizing pragmatic routines by function, with a medium effect size¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i0 On the function-categorization task, no significant pre-test difference existed between groups (d=0.0), but the post-test difference was significant (U=726, p=.000) with a medium effect size (d=0.3). → 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 · i0 · causal · r1

A second Mann-Whitney U comparison in which participants categorized pragmatic routines according to their functions in pre- and post-tests; the pre-test difference printed d=0.0, and the article states this finding "supports the previous one with more evidence."

"while there was no significant difference between the two groups in the pre-test (U=1153.5, p< .05, d=0.0), there was a significant difference in the post test ( U= 726, p=.000) with a medium effect size (d=0.3) (Cohen, 1988)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Oral Language — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Explicit teaching of pragmatic routines was more effective than implicit teaching, with implicit-group scores decreasing from pre- to post-test — 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
• Five weeks of instruction in pragmatic routines significantly improved EFL learners' pragmatic competence relative to a control group — related