The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions

Output and English as a Second Language Pragmatic Development: The Effectiveness of Output-focused Video-based Instruction

“…In the present study, video-based materials were used, and a pragmatic acceptability judgment task (PAJT) served as one measure of pragmatic awareness. Additionally, in response to Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (2005), who have called for a focus on more authentic data when assessing the production of speech acts, the study included a written discourse completion task (DCT), which offered a fuller understanding of learner pragmatic development than the pragmatic awareness data alone (Kasper & Roever, 2005;Martínez-Flor & Fukuya, 2005;Yuan, 2001).…”

“…In fact, the stated goal of much developing L2 pragmatics research has been to contribute results that are of interest to general SLA theory (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999;Kasper & Roever, 2005). A number of studies have found beneficial effects for interaction (e.g., Belz & Kinginger, 2003;Davies, 2004;Ohta, 2001Ohta, , 2005Yoshimi, 2001) or instruction (e.g., Koike & Pearson, 2005;Liddicoat & Crozet, 2001;Martínez-Flor & Fukuya, 2005;Silva, 2003) on pragmatic development. Roever (2009) concludes that, although both sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic proficiency appear to be amenable to instruction, pragmatics is rarely a featured part of instructional approaches.…”

The Status of Pragmatics among Iranian EFL Learners

“…The main feature distinguishing one group from another was the provision of metapragmatic information designed to make the target features more salient. Again, many experiments were done with the purpose of comparing these two methods (Tateyama et al, 1997;Rose & Ng, 2001;Takahashi, 2001;Martinez-Flor & Fukuya, 2005;Alcon Soler, 2005), and except some inconsistencies, most confirmed the advantage of explicit instruction of pragmatics.…”

Finnish Mathematics Teaching from a Reform Perspective: A Video-Based Case-Study Analysis

“…The second phase, in particular, necessitates teachers modeling explicitly each step of the process by means of scaffolded instruction (Carnine et al 1994). Implicit instruction, on the other hand, typically occurs when teachers provide students with tasks from which meaning may be inferred with appropriate teacher support and guidance (Koike and Pearson 2005;Manset-Williamson and Nelson 2005;Martínez-Flor and Fukuya 2005). However, in the context of science teaching in general and the nature of science in particular, implicit instruction assumes that by doing science, particularly hands-on, inquiry-based activities, students will acquire an un-FINNISH MATHEMATICS TEACHING derstanding independently of teacher support (Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002;Clough 2006).…”

“…In this respect, there were frequent episodes in all four sequences that could be construed as encouraging incidental learning (Radwan 2005). However, if implicit instruction entails that teachers offer appropriate support, guidance, and feedback (Koike and Pearson 2005;Manset-Williamson and Nelson 2005;Martínez-Flor and Fukuya 2005) or, as with the Nature of Science tradition, immersion in hands-on activities from which meaningful inferences might emerge (Clough 2006), then teachers did not engage in implicit instruction as typically understood.…”