SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Current Perspectives in Social Sciences / 2017 / Cilt: 21 Sayı: 3

A Quantitative Study on Faculty Members’ Perceptions of and Attitudes towards Teaching and Assessing Pragmatic Competence in EFL Context

Ayşegül TAKKAÇ TULGAR
Pages
1109–1121
Publication Date
2017-09-20
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The study revealed that field and professional experience helped the participants expand their views in terms of the importance of pragmatic competence in general and its teaching and assessment in particular.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to emphasize the perceptions and attitudes of faculty members in terms of teaching and assessing pragmatic competence in foreign language education.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Based on a quantitative research design, this study showed that there were not statistically significant differences among the faculty members in terms of their age, gender, academic degree and teaching experiences concerning their attitudes towards teaching and assessing pragmatic competence in foreign language education.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study revealed that field and professional experience helped the participants expand their views in terms of the importance of pragmatic competence in general and its teaching and assessment in particular.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:pragmatic competence · faculty members · teaching pragmatics

Özet

The purpose of this study was to emphasize the perceptions and attitudes of faculty members in terms of teaching and assessing pragmatic competence in foreign language education. Based on a quantitative research design, this study showed that there were not statistically significant differences among the faculty members in terms of their age, gender, academic degree and teaching experiences concerning their attitudes towards teaching and assessing pragmatic competence in foreign language education. However, as to age, academic degree and teaching experience variables, though there were not statistically significant differences among the participants, the results revealed that there was a general increasing tendency towards the awareness regarding teaching and assessment of pragmatic competence as the participants gained experience in the field as well as in the profession. The study revealed that field and professional experience helped the participants expand their views in terms of the importance of pragmatic competence in general and its teaching and assessment in particular.

🔖

Cite This Article

TULGAR, A. T. (2017). A Quantitative Study on Faculty Members’ Perceptions of and Attitudes towards Teaching and Assessing Pragmatic Competence in EFL Context. Current Perspectives in Social Sciences, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 3, 1109–1121. https://ajindex.com/articles/894157

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Alco´n Soler, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System, 33,417-435. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2005.06.005. Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In: Bouton, L.F. (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning, 7. University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign, Urbana, IL, pp. 21-39.
  3. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233-259.
  4. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2010).
  5. Introduction. In K, Bardovi-Harlig & R, Mahan-Taylor (Eds.), Teaching Pragmatics (pp. 1-13). Retrieved June 08, 2014, from http://exchanges.state.gov/media/oelp/teaching-pragmatics/introms.pdf.
  6. Beebe, L. M., & Waring, H. Z. (2004). The linguistic encoding of pragmatic tone: Adverbials as words that work. In D. Boxer & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (228-249).
  7. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8(2), 47-61.
  8. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical base of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47. doi: 10.1093/applin/I.l.l. Chen, H. (2011). Study on necessity to cultivate English pragmatic competence of non-English majors. Asian Social Science, 7(9), 235-239. doi:10.5539/ass.v7n9p235. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  9. Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31, 113-134. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981.tb01375.x. Halenko, N. & Jones, C. (2011). Teaching pragmatic awareness of spoken requests to Chinese EAP learners in the UK: Is explicit instruction effective? System, 39, 240-250.
  10. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Price, & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris and L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165-211). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Leech, G. (1983). Principles o