Relationship between teacher-led versus learners’ interaction and the development of pragmatics in the EFL classroom

Soler, Eva Alcón

doi:10.1016/s0883-0355(03)00010-7

Cited by 32 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pica et al (1996) reported that the frequency of feedback was greater in peer interaction than in learner-native speaker interaction when the interactants encountered a communication breakdown. Alcón (2002) corroborated this finding in the classroom setting where learners employed more requesting strategies with their classmates than with their teacher. In Sato and Lyster (2007), learners provided an arguably more effective type of feedback (i.e., prompts) than other types (e.g., recasts), which led to more modification of their initial incomprehensible and/or ungrammatical utterances in peer interaction.…”

Section: Literature Review Peer Interaction and L2 Learningsupporting

confidence: 64%

Interaction Mindsets, Interactional Behaviors, and L2 Development: An Affective‐Social‐Cognitive Model

Sato

2016

Language Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This classroom‐based study explored links among second language (L2) learners’ interaction mindsets, interactional behaviors, and L2 development in the context of peer interaction. While peer interaction research has revealed that certain interactional behaviors (e.g., receiving corrective feedback and engaging in collaborative interaction) assist L2 learning, it is yet unknown why some learners exhibit these interactional behaviors or how learners’ affective states impact their L2 development. The participants were two Grade 10 English as a foreign language classes in Chile (N = 53). Three data sets were collected: (a) interaction mindset data based on pretask interviews with focus groups from each class (n = 10); (b) interaction data pertaining to the communicative tasks of the focus groups; and (c) L2 development data from both classes consisting of oral and written production tests focusing on grammar and lexis. Results indicated that L2 development was mediated by learners’ interaction mindsets, which in turn affected their interactional behaviors. Open Practices This article has been awarded an Open Materials badge. All materials are publicly accessible in the IRIS digital repository at http://www.iris-database.org. Learn more about the Open Practices badges from the Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki.

show abstract

Section: Literature Review Peer Interaction and L2 Learningsupporting

confidence: 64%

Interaction Mindsets, Interactional Behaviors, and L2 Development: An Affective‐Social‐Cognitive Model

Sato

2016

Language Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…66.7 disagreed; whereas, 33.3% either agreed or strongly agreed with this idea. Both ndings achieved from the analysis of the data collected through teacher' and learners' questioners and the results of the present study are in line with the ndings of (Alcón Soler, 2002;Schmidt, 1993), in which they shed light on the effects of explicit instruction on L2 pragmatic competence development.…”

supporting

confidence: 91%

The Study of Iranian Teachers’ and Learners’ Perceptions Towards Implicit and Explicit form - Focused Instruction of Speech Acts

Shahi¹,

Gharagozloo²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pragmatic competence is an essential component in communicative competence (Bachman & Palmer, 2010; Canale, 1983). Therefore, teaching pragmatic knowledge plays an important role in a foreign language curriculum, particularly in teaching English as a ForeignLanguage (EFL). However, there exists a lack of literature about the teaching of pragmatics with little empirical research on teachers’ and learners’ perceptions in Iran. The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of focus-on-form instruction (FFI) speech acts on Iranian EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. Cooperative grouping, role plays, and other pragmatically oriented tasks were used to promote the learning of the intended speech acts. To come up with conclusive and persuasive findings, 132 Iranian male and female learners, intermediate- above, served as the subjects. The Oxford Placement Test (OPT) was used to evaluate the participants’ language proficiency level. Teachers’ and students’ questionnaires about the instructions and teachers’ interview were used as the instruments in this study. Data collected by different instruments were analyzed and compared by way of a mixed method and. then was triangulated to enhance its validity and reliability. The finding of the study showed that explicitness leads to better pragmatic knowledge development than the implicit knowledge. This study showed that consciousness-raising at the metapragmatic level improved EFL learners’ pragmatic performance and variety of form-strategy use substantially; thus, it should be taken more seriously in L2 instruction and material development.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, learners produced less than 25% of the total words, suggesting that interaction with a teacher may not provide the best interactional opportunities. Alcón's (2002) comparison between peer interaction and learner-teacher interaction also exhibited a similar phenomenon in the classroom. Her observation of EFL classes (one teacher-led and the other peer interaction focused) indicated that learners employed more requesting strategies with each other (i.e.…”

Section: Task Participation Structurementioning

confidence: 65%

Interaction and instructed second language acquisition

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interaction is an indispensable component in second language acquisition (SLA). This review surveys the instructed SLA research, both classroom and laboratory-based, that has been conducted primarily within the interactionist approach, beginning with the core constructs of interaction, namely input, negotiation for meaning, and output. The review continues with an overview of specific areas of interaction research. The first investigates interlocutor characteristics, including (a) first language (L1) status, (b) peer interaction, (c) participation structure, (d) second language (L2) proficiency, and (e) individual differences. The second topic is task characteristics, such as task conditions (e.g. information distribution, task goals), task complexity (i.e. simple or complex), and task participation structure (i.e. whole class, small groups or dyads). Next, the review considers various linguistic features that have been researched in relation to interaction and L2 learning. The review then continues with interactional contexts, focusing especially on research into computer-mediated interaction. The review ends with a consideration of methodological issues in interaction research, such as the merits of classroom and lab-based studies, and the various methods for measuring the noticing of linguistic forms during interaction. In sum, research has found interaction to be effective in promoting L2 development; however, there are numerous factors that impact its efficacy.

show abstract

Relationship between teacher-led versus learners’ interaction and the development of pragmatics in the EFL classroom

Cited by 32 publications

References 26 publications

Interaction Mindsets, Interactional Behaviors, and L2 Development: An Affective‐Social‐Cognitive Model

Interaction Mindsets, Interactional Behaviors, and L2 Development: An Affective‐Social‐Cognitive Model

The Study of Iranian Teachers’ and Learners’ Perceptions Towards Implicit and Explicit form - Focused Instruction of Speech Acts

Interaction and instructed second language acquisition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About