PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF PRAGMATIC VIDEO CLIPS IN AN EFL CONTEXT WITH L1 ARABIC SPEAKERS By Anne M. Desiderio A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages 2011 i ABSTRACT PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF PRAGMATIC VIDEO CLIPS IN AN EFL CONTEXT WITH L1 ARABIC SPEAKERS By Anne M. Desiderio This study looks at the pedagogical implications of pragmatic video clips in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) setting with native L1 Arabic speakers. Previous research on the use of video clips in pedagogy with this population of learners is limited. This study consists of administering pragmatic video clips to 28 high intermediate/ advanced level English, L1 Arabic learners at the American University of Sharjah, in the United Arab Emirates. This research looks primarily at the following pragmatic and pedagogical issues: investigating the frequency of pragmatic-related episodes (PREs) in three high intermediate/advanced level EFL classes at this university and observing/collecting data on how pragmatic-focused video clips may or may not aid EFL second language learners in their quest for pragmatic knowledge. Analysis showed that pragmatic video clips were beneficial in improving L2 pragmatic competence. These results provide suggestions for future EFL pragmatic teaching methodologies. ii Dedicated to all cross-linguistic and cross-cultural endeavors to create and cultivate communication, appreciation, collaboration, and understanding amongst the various language speakers and cultural groups of this world. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have realized in my life that a dream, be it creative, passionate, or good-intended, will only remain a dream in the absence of a strong network of support and encouragement. From the first day I began my journey into graduate life I knew that I would use the experience to complete my near ten year goal of researching in the Middle East, particularly with an Arabicspeaking population. From the moment I assuredly walked into my future committee members’ offices and explained that I would design a thesis in a country where I knew no one and did not speak the language, to say the least, I was up against the odds. I think back to those moments of my first meetings with my future committee members and I have nothing but the highest regard for them for not simply kicking my idealistic and overly-ambitious self out of their doors. I would like to here express my gratitude to them, my advisor Dr. Debra Hardison and my secondary reader Dr. Paula Winke, for seeing something in my passion and desire which others may have disregarded as overzealous naivety. For your efficiency, patience, mentorship, and encouragement I was able to see this project through to its completion. My immense gratitude goes out to you both. Another person who took a shot on me and this project, a person half a world away from me, was Mrs. Laurial Mehdi the Associate Director of the Intensive English Program at the American University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates. Through her, and by extension the approval of the program to allow me conduct research at their institute, this project was possible. Likewise, I would like to thank Dr. Mahmoud Abdalla for suggesting numerous schools and contacts for me when I was beginning my search for a host institution. In addition, I would like to extend a warm thank you to Dr. Dan Reed and the English Language Center at Michigan State iv University for approving my request to call upon their students to assist me in the first portion of my research study. Next, a large bushel of appreciation goes to my fellow MA TESOL students: Mariah Shafer, Damien DeArment, Allyssa Chamberlain, Sheila Wheeler, and Sally Behrenwald for being willing to play any character I beseeched of you for the production of my pragmatic video clips. Furthermore, an additional thank you goes out to the artistically talented Devin DeArment for filming the video clips, and also to my cue card holders Mica Fanning and Hashim AlSadah. I would also like to express my deep gratitude to Khasim Jafri, Alaa Tayeb, Hashim AlSadah, Zainab AlSadah, the Muslim Student Association, and the Saudi Student Organization at Michigan State University for being my immediate lifeline to my research participants. For even the slightest request I had you all bent over backwards to assist me to the best of your capabilities, and I am immensely grateful for this. Finally, a special thank you to my friend Caleb Colyer for accompanying me on my trip to the United Arab Emirates and taking on the frustrating, confusing, and often times frightening task of driving to every corner of the country that I begged you to drive us to. All of you have helped redefine for me the meaning of flexibility and true friendship. I must now not proceed any farther without expressing my sincere gratitude to all the teachers, administrators, and participants who took part in my study in both the United States and the United Arab Emirates. I appreciate your willingness and helpfulness in assisting me with my academic pursuits and I wish all of you the best. In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge my family. To my brother, John M. Desiderio, for showing me that tenacity begets the fruition of dreams. Your relentless drive to accomplish your ambitions and unfailing steadfastness to push back those barriers which may v impede your goals, undoubtedly served as both a symbol of strength and backbone of support for me. To my father, Dr. John S. Desiderio for the academic legacy you left for your children. Although you passed away before I was able to know you, your drive for academic excellence, belief in the possibilities of education, and desire for truth and knowledge not only reinforces my passion for academia but also sets a high bar of accomplishment that I aspire to emulate. Furthermore, each day as I walk step by step in your academic footprints I finally, and gratefully, am able to know a part of you. Lastly, no small bird can take its first flight without a strong supporting wind pushing behind its unsure wings. This wind is, and will always be my mother, Ginny Desiderio, who is more of an inspiration to me and to the people around her than I fear she’ll ever fully know. Her words of encouragement have been nothing short of the supporting force behind every single sane, and at times, crazy, idealistic dream I have concocted. Although others may have doubted me and aimed to pull apart my ambitions, never once did you tare down my little shelter of dreams and hopes. For this, I owe you all my present and future accomplishments: of my worldtraveling, archaeologically digging, desert surviving, and finally PhD striving goals. No matter where my wings may fly me to, you will always be the wind carrying them. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………....ix LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………………...x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………..…...1 Literature Review....………………………………………………………………………...1 CHAPTER 2 THE STUDY………………………………………………………………………………….....8 Methodological Overview and Framework……..………………………………………......8 Research Questions……………………………………………………………………..…..8 Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………………..…...9 Participants……………………………………………………………………………..….11 Group 1: Target Environment (the United States)…………………………………....11 Group 2: EFL Environment (the United Arab Emirates)…………………..................13 CHAPTER 3 GROUP 1: PRAGMATIC GAPS IN L2 ENGLISH ACQUISITION…………………...............15 Methodological Overview and Framework……………………………………………......15 Data Collection – Questionnaire………………………………………………………......15 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………………...16 Discussion………………………………………………………………………………....21 CHAPTER 4 GROUP 1: EFL DIVISION OF LANGUAGE SKILLS…………………………………..….....23 Methodological Overview and Framework……………………………………………..….23 Data Collection – Questionnaire………………………………………………………......24 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………..……….24 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………..……..27 CHAPTER 5 GROUP 2: PRAGMATIC RELATED EPISODES (PREs)………………………….………....29 Introduction to PREs……………………………………………………………..................29 Methodological Overview and Framework…………………………………………….....31 Data Collection – Audio Recordings…………………………………… ……………..…...32 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………….................32 Discussion……………………………………………………………… ……….................34 vii CHAPTER 6 GROUP 2: PRAGMATIC VIDEO CLIPS……………………………………………………..36 Methodological Overview and Framework…………………………………………….....36 Data Collection – Pragmatic Pre- and Posttests………………………………………..….39 Results……..……………………………………………………………………….…...…41 Discussion ……………………………………………………………… …………….…....44 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………..………..…46 Overview of the Findings……………………………………………………..………..….46 Future Implications……………………………………………………………..………....47 Limitations to the Study………………………………………………………..............….48 FOOTNOTES………………………………………………………………………………......50 APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………………….51 APPENDIX A GROUP 1: QUESTIONNAIRE…………………….……………………… …………………..52 APPENDIX B GROUP 2: PRAGMATIC PRE/POSTTEST……………………………………….………..….61 APPENDIX C GROUP 2: EXPERIMENT GROUP 2 LESSON PLAN…………………………………….....71 APPENDIX D VIDEO CLIP TRANSCRIPTION………………………………………………………………76 APPENDIX E INTER-RATER RELIABILITY TEST……………………………………… ………………...89 REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………....100 LIST OF REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………...101 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Group1: Regional demographics of L1 Arabic participants (USA)………………….12 Table 2 Group 2: Regional demographics of L1 Arabic participants (UAE)………………....14 Table 3 Group 1: Perceptions on most received pragmatic EFL instruction………………...17 Table 4 Group 1: Perceptions on least received pragmatic EFL instruction…………….…...17 Table 5 Group 1: Preference for further pragmatic instruction………… …………………....18 Table 6 Group 1: Pragmatic sampling comprehension test results……………………….…..19 Table 7 Group 1: L1 Arabic/L1 English item selection results………………………....…....20 Table 8 Group 1: L1 Arabic/L1 English item selection: scenario 5…………………….…....20 Table 9 Group 1: Perceptions of overall EFL language skill instruction………………….…24 Table 10 Group 1: Change over time of self-reported language abilities………………….….25 Table 11 Group 2: Pragmatic Related Episode (PRE) inter-rater reliability……………….….32 Table 12 Group 2: Pragmatic Related Episode (PRE) frequency…………………………..…33 Table 13 Group 2: Outline of procedures………..……………………………………….……41 Table 14 Group 2: Pre/Posttest scores per received input………..……………………………..43 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Group 2: Outline for division of participants based on received input………….39 Figure 2 Group 2: Results of input-based pragmatic instruction.........................................43 x CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION Literature Review Foreign language learners face particular challenges when it comes to acquiring targetlike pragmatic competence. In analyzing the current body of literature surrounding methodology in pragmatic pedagogy, especially in regards to language learning in a foreign setting, particular difficulties seems to immerge. In addition to the lack of direct exposure foreign language learners have to native speakers and native-like contexts and materials, many textbooks omit or limit instructional input on specific pragmatic responses and nuances for given contexts. (Kraemer et al., 2009). Pragmatics may be defined as “language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication” (Crystal, 1997, p. 301). Thus by the limitation of foreign language learners to the L2 and target culture, these learners are in direct need of supplementary input in the target pragmatic environment and how to perform pragmatic utterances with native-like ability. The use of video clips in pragmatics-related studies as a methodological tool has been limited. Furthermore, the incorporation of video clips in pragmatics for pedagogical purposes is lacking in the current body of literature. Video clips were previously only used as a test design tool (Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998; Niezgoda & Röver, 2001) rather than as a pedagogical method for pragmatics teaching. In their 1998 study, Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei investigated how both learners and teachers rank the relative severity of grammatical or pragmatic errors. For this study the authors used 20 videotaped scenarios which demonstrated up to four different pragmatic skills (suggestions, apologies, refusals, and requests). Results indicated that the EFL learners ranked pragmatic errors as being less significant compared with grammatical errors, 1 which was in contrast to the ESL learners who ranked pragmatic errors as being more significant. Niezgoda and Röver (2001) replicated this study using the same video clips and questionnaire. Their results also showed that environment (EFL compared to ESL contexts) affected learners’ rankings of severity between grammatical and pragmatic errors. However, in Niezgoda and Röver’s study, the authors emphasized that environment was not the most significant factor in learners’ pragmatic awareness; exposure and attention to input (or motivation) also played a significant role. Textbook type (American/British or foreign-made) and teaching approach (communicative or lecture-based) led certain groups to be more able to recognize pragmatic errors than others, regardless of proficiency level. This brought about the argument that pragmatic knowledge could be learned in an EFL setting depending upon input factors. Both of the previous studies showed that environment influences a learner’s pragmatic awareness. However, Niezgoda and Röver expanded upon this knowledge by explaining that there is a complex web of environmental factors (not simply being a foreign language learner) that contribute to EFL learners’ pragmatic knowledge. Nevertheless more work could be done on the influence that these video clip scenarios played in soliciting EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness. Could pragmatic-based video clip scenarios be used in enticing EFL learners to pay more attention to and recognize culturally-specific pragmatic cues? Additionally, could pragmatic-based video clip scenarios be used in a pedagogical framework to inform EFL learners of discrepancies between their own and the target language’s pragmatic acceptability in varying situations? Currently these questions have not been satisfied by the present body of pragmatics literature. 2 Evidence from Yu’s 2008 study argues that pragmatic knowledge is rarely being encouraged in EFL classrooms. Yu examined the teaching practices of 24 Chinese instructors of English, who had a total of 732 intermediate-level L2 English students from a sum of seven different universities in Taiwan. All these courses claimed to be following a communicativestyle teaching agenda in agreement with guidelines set forth by Brown (2007) which identifies characteristics of communicative language teaching. However, results indicated that the 24 courses clearly differed in their degree of communicative orientation and that in terms of pragmatic competence, little input was being given to these L2 learners. Incidences of pragmatic episodes were isolated to incidental questions by students to their instructors. Furthermore, such questions were not always given complete clarification by the instructors. Yu explains that teacher confidence and ideology about teaching pragmatics can be a determinant for the degree to which L2 learners receive pragmatic-related input. Clearly, as an EFL instructor teaching another culture’s pragmatic acceptability, it is a challenge and not all instructors will believe they possess the skills required to teach such a topic. Additionally, cultural expectations may dictate that pragmatic knowledge is something that will be implicitly learned through time (Holmes & Brown, 1987) or perhaps that it is simply not a significant component of second language acquisition compared to the acquisition of reading, writing, speaking, listening, and grammar skills. Nevertheless Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei (1998) argue that context-embedded instruction is necessary for learners to gain pragmatic skills. Additionally, Kasper and Zhang (1995) emphasize the importance of providing relevant instruction in the target-language’s history, beliefs, values, and philosophies in tandem with the pragmatic pedagogical input. Although this may length the amount of time dedicated to pragmatic and pragmatic-related instruction, Kasper (2001) states that considerable time must be 3 dedicated to the instruction of pragmatic knowledge for results to be most effective. Furthermore, when it comes to the actual execution of pragmatic instruction, it has been argued that explicit pragmatic input is more advantageous for L2 pragmatic competence than implicit pragmatic input (Alcon Soler, 2005; House, 1996). However, this may be debated. Such important discoveries as these which interpret levels, styles, and lengths of pragmatic-based instruction, or lack thereof, should be applied in various regions of the world to test their methodological reliability. Currently, much pragmatic research has been aimed at L1 Chinese populations acquiring English (Yu, 2008; Winke and Teng, 2010), however other areas and L1’s must be similarly explored. For example, a lack of pragmatic-based studies has taken place within the region of the Middle East using L1 Arabic speakers. Similar studies, such as Yu’s which compares the availability of pragmatic input in EFL classrooms, should be conducted in L1 Arabic, EFL classrooms as well. Pragmatic instruction for L1 Arabic speakers, who are intending to visit or study in the United States, would be significantly advantageous. Many new L1 Arabic speaking students and scholars from the Middle East who attend American universities already face certain levels of pressure to acclimate into American society as the result of current and previous sociopolitical tensions between these two regions (Sawaie, 1986). Thus, an already present knowledge of pragmatic skills would help in preventing embarrassing and awkward mistakes by the L1 Arabic speakers within their new environment. At what level is pragmatics being incorporated (explicitly, implicitly, or incidentally) into EFL classrooms? What would be the benefits of including pragmatic-initiated discussions between students in an EFL classroom? The classic study by Swain and Lapkin (1998) using French immersion programs, investigated the results of L2 student dyad groups working together to complete an activity. Using either their L1 or the target L2 to communicate with each other, 4 students were prompted into Language Related Episodes (LREs), which according to the authors are “any part of a dialogue where the students talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves or others” (p. 326). Results showed that there was a positive correlation between posttest scores and the number of Language Related Episodes (LREs) for these dyads. Student pairs that produced more LREs scored higher on the posttest. As successful as recognition and usage of LREs were within this study, it is perplexing that a similar strategy has not been used to target specific language skills individually; pragmatics being such a skill. A demand exists to extract out of LREs a pragmatics related component, since too often pragmatics are dismissed in EFL classrooms (Yu, 2008). Currently no strategy of engaging L2 learners into such a tactic of pragmatic elicitation has been used and results quantified to see if PREs (Pragmatic Related Episodes), discussed later, benefit L2 EFL learners. Rather, other forms of pragmatics instruction have revolved around production tasks (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001) with emphasis on implicit instruction and pragmatic error recognition tasks. Bardovi-Harlig and Griffin’s (2005) research engaged then in a learner pragmatic error recognition task performed in pairs. Learners observed pragmatic video scenarios, were asked to detect the pragmatic error, and then rectify this error in a subsequent video-taped role play activity representing the same pragmatic scenario. Results showed that like other language skills, pragmatic knowledge is learned in stages and that although learners were able to recognize the semantic meaning behind various pragmatic utterances, form and content of these statements were produced less frequently in a native-like production. Thus, the authors argue for an increased focus on form and content when providing language learners with explicit pragmatic instruction, although semantic meaning may be acquired through implicit instruction. Additionally, it was proposed in their study that rather than requiring learners to identify and 5 correct pragmatic errors with an infinite list of possible responses, a controlled list of item choices or the presentation of comparison scenarios and follow-up discussion, may be more beneficial to improving learners’ pragmatic competence. This study is advantageous in expressing areas for methodological improvement in pragmatic pedagogy while also offering up invaluable information in L2 learners’ stages of pragmatic acquisition. Moreover, the methodology of testing pragmatic knowledge and recognition has been complicated and debated amongst pragmatic researchers. Although discourse completion tests have been commonly used to extort L2 learners’ awareness of various pragmatic skills (BardoviHarlig & Hartford, 1992), Sasaki (1997) contends that different elicitation and testing techniques are required for different types of pragmatic aspects which are being investigated. For drawing out L2 learners’ production skills which focus on the length or quantity of speech responses, role play methods may be more suitable. However, if the researcher’s focus is predominantly to see if learners can produce the most critical part of the speech act, then a production questionnaire, carefully designed, would be a more practical tool for quick and large data collection. Research conducted by Hartford and Bardovi-Harlig (1992) and Beebe and Cummings (1985) support the understanding that discourse completion tasks (DCT) have limitations. Hartford and BardoviHarlig’s study pointed out the reduction in status preserving strategies by both native and nonnative speakers when making rejections to suggestions in discourse completion tasks as compared to natural situations. They argue that the overall design of the DCT does not allow for back and forth negotiation. It is this negotiation which may elicit the use of face-saving (refer to Goffman, 1955) or status preserving language. However, through the implementation of discourse completion tasks, participants may not only maintain their anonymity but they may 6 also reduce their use of these specific forms of status/face saving language as shown by Hartford and Bardovi-Harlig’s study. It appears then that for pragmatics testing, a varying array of methodologies should be utilized; different pragmatics testing styles may tap into different L2 learners’ pragmatic knowledge uniquely. In addition to the utilization of different pragmatic testing styles, further tools may be used to educe learners’ pragmatic knowledge and awareness. De la Fuente (2006) found that while testing for L2 learner’s acquisition of new vocabulary, a task-based activity in conjunction with explicit instruction afterwards, provided the most advantageous results for a group of L2 learners acquiring new vocabulary. Furthermore, Takimoto (2009) discovered that consciousness-raising instruction in combination with a consciousness-raising task was more effective than comprehension-based instruction accompanied by a structured input task. Pragmatics is not static and should be adapted to different forms to measure different types of pragmatic knowledge. It should use a multitude of testing methods to tap into different L2 learners’ pragmatic skills. Finally pragmatics testing should investigate the effects of using pragmatics-eliciting techniques (such as consciousness-raising, task-based activities) in addition to other implicit or explicit instructional methods, to see if a combination of procedures provides the best outcomes for the improvement of L2 learners’ pragmatic competence. 7 CHAPTER 2 – THE STUDY 2.1 Methodological Overview and Framework For these reasons, this research has aimed to not only look at how video clips can be used as pedagogical tools in an EFL context, and how Pragmatic Related Episodes (PREs) are lacking and should be emphasized in EFL classrooms, but also to see if consciousness-raising, taskedbased activities in conjunction with instruction will best facilitate an EFL learner to gain pragmatic competence in the target language. The corpus of this research is broken up between research conducted on L1 Arabic students at one Midwestern university in the United States, and L1 Arabic EFL students at a gulf region American university in the Middle East. There are four overarching, thematic questions outlined in this research spanning the two geographic locations: 2.2 Research Questions 2.2.1 Are L1 Arabic speakers learning English presently experiencing difficulties in pragmatic acquisition in the L2 context? Will the results of this study indicate that in fact L2 pragmatic knowledge is insufficient for many L1 Arabic speakers studying at this one Midwestern American university? 2.2.2 If in fact L2 pragmatic skills are not being explicitly taught to students in an EFL context, and they are left instead to incidental and/or implicit moments of instruction, then where is the designated amount of classroom time being allotted instead? What is the division of productive and perceptual language skills in a given EFL classroom with L1 Arabic speakers? Is there congruency regarding this division of productive/perceptual instruction between the opinions of L1 Arabic speakers already living in the L2 environment and what was observed at one EFL classroom in the United Arab Emirates? 8 2.2.3 Within the EFL context (research conducted at the American University of Sharjah, the United Arab Emirates), what is the frequency of Pragmatic Related Episodes (PREs) during instructional classroom time? Does the frequency of PREs increase or decrease based on the major language skill being instructionally focused upon (reading, writing, speaking, listening, and grammar)? 2.2.4 Finally, what role can video clips demonstrating pragmatic moments in the L2 language and environment play in EFL instruction? How do pragmatic video clips in conjunction with a related task-based activity affect learners’ pragmatic acquisition? Could video clips made by L1 English speakers and instructors be beneficial in an international collaborative exchange program for pragmatic teaching materials? Would such clips, or such an exchange program address the concerns presented by Yu (2008) regarding non-target speaking instructors’ hesitations when teaching foreign pragmatic skills? 2.3 Research Hypotheses 2.3.1 The premise of the study supports the hypothesis that in fact L1 Arabic speakers learning English are lacking in pragmatic ability of their L2 (English) even while living in the target environment and performing at an advanced level in the L2. It is believed that upon investigation it will be discovered that much is left to be desired by participants in terms of pragmatic instruction from their home institutions. Of further interest, what specific pragmatic skills (complaints, complements, salutations, closings, requests, and apologies) would L1 Arabic speakers already living in the L2 environment say that they struggle with the most, received the least amount of instruction in, and would like further knowledge in? No clear prediction is made here by the investigator pertaining to 9 participants’ evaluations of specific pragmatic skills. Instead, exploration into this matter will serve principally as additional informative data. 2.3.2 It is hypothesized that the L1 Arabic speakers already living in the L2 environment will rate speaking as the skill focused upon the least by L2 learners of many Middle Eastern (predominantly the gulf region) English programs, and that speaking would have received the least amount of attention. Thus, it is predicted in this study that L1 Arabic speakers in the target language would self-rate the largest improvement in their English skills to be in the area of speaking. The lack of speaking in EFL classrooms would coincide with Yu’s 2008 research on the lack of communicative/productive EFL classrooms at a number of Taiwanese universities. Additionally the lack of direct speaking exposure to native speakers of English may also serve as a hindrance to L1 Arabic speakers’ production of English in a verbal context. As an example, Wu and Wu (2008) express that the lack of opportunities to converse with native English speakers in Taiwan made it challenging for L2 learners to improve upon their English speaking abilities. However, it will later be determined if the environment present at these Taiwanese universities can be indicative of similar situations in other regions of the EFL world. 2.3.3 According to researchers Martinez-Flor and Uso-Juan (2006), pragmatic exposure scarcely occurs in most EFL classrooms. Thus it is believed that Pragmatic Related Episodes (PREs) at this one EFL classroom with L1 Arabic students would be limited. It was predicted that few PREs would occur either between the students and their instructor or between the students themselves. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that PREs would 10 be more frequent in the Speaking/Listening class as many pragmatic moments occur within a spoken context. 2.3.4 In regards to the incorporation of pragmatic video clips a pedagogical tool to teach pragmatics in an EFL context, it is hypothesized that the video clips are beneficial in aiding the improvement of L2 learners’ pragmatic competence. It is predicted that the inclusion of a related, task-based activity following the video clip instruction, would prove to be the most beneficial in aiding the improvement of L2 learners’ pragmatic competence. The inclusion of a task-based activity following a form of language instruction was shown to be the most successful combination for de la Fuente’s (2006) study of L2 learner vocabulary acquisition. This study then supports this investigation’s prediction that the incorporation of a task-based activity along with instruction from the pragmatic video clips will further increase EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness and competence. 2.4 Participants There are two separate groups of participants for this research study. Both groups’ responses to various research-type data will play an integral part in teasing out the implications of pragmatic pedagogical reform, especially within EFL settings. 2.4.1 GROUP 1: L1 Arabic Speakers at Michigan State University, the United States L1 Arabic speakers who at the time of this study were students at Michigan State University, a Midwest American university, were asked to complete a detailed, multiple component questionnaire (see Appendix A). Participants were required to be at least 18 years of 11 age, have Arabic as one of their native languages (English being excluded from a possible additional native language), and be advanced English speakers who have spent the majority of their lives in a predominantly Arabic-speaking country. The level of English proficiency was determined by the students’ enrollment within academic courses at the university, or by presently being enrolled in an advanced level course (levels 4 & 5) of the university’s English Language Center. In addition, participants could not be heritage learners of English. Those who did not meet all of these criteria did not have their responses included in this study. Forty-one students completed the questionnaire with participants displaying the following demographics. Table 1 Country of Origin Number of Participants (n) = 41 Saudi Arabia 29 United Arab Emirates 3 Iraq 2 Libya 2 Jordan 2 Kuwait 2 Egypt 1 Group 1: Regional demographics of L1 Arabic participants (USA) Participants ranged in age from 18 to 45 with the mean age being approximately 23 years old, with a standard deviation of 5.79 years. The average time spent in an English speaking environment was 2 years and 4 months, indicating that these participants were likely to have a noteworthy increase in exposure to native speakers compared with L1 Arabic, EFL learners. 12 2.4.2 GROUP 2: L1 Arabic, EFL Learners at the American University of Sharjah, the United Arab Emirates The second group of participants in this study derives from an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context. Participants were recruited from three high intermediate/ advanced level summer EFL courses at the American University of Sharjah, the United Arab Emirates. All participants were required to be at least 18 years of age, have Arabic as one of their native languages (English being excluded from a possible additional native language), have lived in a predominantly Arabic-speaking country for the majority of their lives, and could not be heritage learners of English. Additionally participants of group 2 mustn’t have traveled to a predominantly English-speaking country for an extended period of time (six months or longer). A total of 28 students attending an Intensive English Program (IEP) at this American university in the United Arab Emirates participated in this study. This program consists of a total of 6 IEP levels. Students are able to earn three credits per IEP class attended and these credits count toward their cumulative American University of Sharjah (AUS) grade point average (GPA). A GPA of 2.0 is required for the successful completion of an IEP level. IEP courses are taught throughout the academic school year as well as during an intensified (shorter number of weeks) summer program. This study was conducted during a summer session. Each IEP level consists of a mix of language skill classes. For a summer IEP session, 2 hours of the day were dedicated to writing and grammar (a conjoined skills class), 1 hour for reading, and finally 1 additional hour for speaking and listening (combined). Classes were spread throughout the day but the same core group of students remained together through all the language skill classes. The demographics of the students were as follows: 13 Table 2 Country of Origin Number of Participants (n) = 28 United Arab Emirates 11 Palestine 4 Jordan 4 Saudi Arabia 3 Syria 3 Egypt 1 Yemen 1 Qatar 1 Group 2: Regional demographics of L1 Arabic participants (UAE) There were 19 male participants and 9 female participants. The students ranged in age between 18 and 24, with the average age being 19 years. Data collected from both groups of participants will be examined and discussed in the ensuing pages. 14 CHAPTER 3 – PRAGMATIC GAPS IN L2 ENGLISH ACQUISITION 3.1 Methodological Overview and Framework Returning to the first of four thematic research questions which guided this study, the concern whether there exists pragmatic gaps in L1 Arabic second language learners’ acquisition of English is at the forefront of this research. Do in fact L1 Arabic speakers recognize disparities in their L2 pragmatic competence? 3.2 Data Collection - Questionnaire To address this question, group 1 of the participants in this study took part in a multisectional questionnaire (See Appendix A) to address in detail where, if at all, L1 Arabic speakers noticed inequality in their English proficiency, particularly with their pragmatic skills. To begin, participants were required to respond to demographic questions to help the investigator of this study eliminate potential participants who did not meet the requirements of this investigation (See Appendix A, Section I). Following, the participants ranked six types of pragmatic skills (greetings, closing, compliments, complaints, requests, and apologies) in terms of the skills they received the most and least instruction in from their English language programs attended in their home countries (See Appendix A, Section II). Next, participants were asked to indicate which of these six pragmatic skills they currently would like to receive more instruction in. The last phase of group one’s analysis was to respond to a comprehensive test of the six pragmatic skills listed above. Contained within this section of the questionnaire are example scenarios of each pragmatic skill which participants were required to read and then select the most appropriate response to from a list of four potential items (See Appendix A, Section III). Below is an example of one such scenario: 15 Scenario: You are interested in coming to the United States to earn a graduate degree. You want to work with a specific faculty member, Dr. Smith, who you have never contacted before. You write an e-mail to Dr. Smith and now need to end your e-mail. Which is the best response? C. Sincerely, A. Warmest regards, (Your name) (Your name) D. Thanks, B. Thank you, (Your name) (Your name) Item construction for these pragmatic scenarios was the result of numerous pilot tests (and subsequent item revisions) with native L1 English speakers from various occupations and ages who lived in the general Midwest area of the United States. Appropriate item choices for this portion of the questionnaire were confined to this localized region. Future research should be conducted using other regional variations of pragmatic appropriate responses with L1 English speakers. 3.3 Data Analysis Group one participants stated that they believe they had received the most amount of instruction in salutations and requests and the least amount of information in complaints from their EFL programs and institutions. See Tables 3 and 4 below. 16 Table 3 Apologies Salutations Requests Closings Complaints Compliments No Response Group 1: Most pragmatic instruction received from EFL classes Table 4 N 0 13 12 3 5 2 6 Apologies Salutations Requests Closings Complaints Compliments No Response N 3 1 2 7 16 3 9 Group 1: Least pragmatic instruction received from EFL classes Table 3 depicts participants’ responses to the question “Of these 6 pragmatic skills, which do you feel you received the most amount of instruction in from your EFL classes?” Terms such as EFL and pragmatics were explained to the participants prior to beginning the questionnaire. Additionally, participants reviewed examples of each type of pragmatic skill through scenarios to help better demonstrate the significance of each of these pragmatic terms. Table 4 above represents participants’ replies to the question “Of these 6 pragmatic skills, which do you feel you received the least amount of instruction in from your EFL classes?” Based on these two tables it is clear that students believed salutations and requests were at the forefront of their EFL pragmatic learning experience and the pragmatic skill of complaints was instead, somewhat lacking. Students were also pressed to consider which of these six aforementioned pragmatic skills they would like to receive more instruction in. Table 5 below clearly outlines the students’ preferences for instruction in complaints and compliments. 17 Table 5 Apologies Salutations Requests Closings Complaints Compliments Request further instruction in all mentioned categories: Total no. of responses: N 4 1 7 1 8 9 2 32 Group 1: Preference for further pragmatic instruction Table 5 shows that giving compliments and making complaints were the two pragmatic areas that these L1 Arabic learners of English said they would like to receive more information in. Many of the participants who listed complaint making as a pragmatic skill that they would like to have more instruction in said that they desired this type of information so as to know the proper way to give compliments to the opposite sex. One comment stated: “giving compliment specially from females, because I’m a man.” Additionally, others stated that having pragmatic competence in compliment giving would benefit their position or acceptability into the target society. For example, one student reported: “[Giving compliments]. It could be very helpful in building social networks at the west.” Another stated: “Giving compliments, because I think it is pretty important gives better acceptance in the society.” Here, the social power of compliments may be being felt more by L2 learners of English more so than the other 5 pragmatic skills being tested. Pragmatic gaps may be deeper between the target and the home cultures in terms of compliments, and additionally complaints and requests. As an example, the social norms governing compliment giving to the opposite sex between the two cultures may be creating this gap in inter-pragmatic knowledge. 18 In addition to looking at participants’ preference for future instruction among these six different pragmatic skills, participants also completed a pragmatics test (See Appendix A, Section III). The results of this test are detailed in Table 6 below. It shows how these L1 Arabic speakers living in the target environment and who were advanced in L2 English, responded to 6 pragmatic scenarios representing six different pragmatic skills (apologies, salutations, requests, closing, complaints, and compliments). Table 6 Item Responses No. of Participants who Responded Correctly Scenario One (Apologies) 33 Scenario Two (Salutations) 18 Scenario Three (Requests) 27 Scenario Four (Endings) 24 Scenario Five (Complaints 5 Scenario Six (Compliments) 33 Group 1: Pragmatic sampling of comprehension tests results To test item validity, a pilot study was conducted where 41 L1 English speakers at Michigan State University participated in the same pragmatic test. The results of this pilot study are found in Table 7 below, comparing the correct item selection for both the L1 Arabic and L1 English speakers. A Two-Variable Pearson’s Chi-Square test was administered for each scenario to see if the participants’ L1 affected item choice, specifically the frequency with which each L1 group selected each item. Significant values were shown for four of the six pragmatic skill scenarios: salutations, requests, closings, and complaints). The only scenarios that did not result in significant findings were those which tested pragmatic knowledge in apologies and compliments. 19 Table 7 L1 English Students (% Correct) Confidence Level Mean (7-pt Scale) L1 Arabic Students (% Correct) 90.24% 5.83 80.49% Apologies 95.12% 6.34 43.90% Salutations 100.00% 6.59 65.85% Requests 60.98% 6.13 58.54% Closings 48.78% 5.33 12.20% Complaints 6.44 80.49% Compliments 95.12% Group 1: L1 Arabic/L1 English item selection results Confidence Level Mean (7-pt Scale) 5.66 5.79 5.77 5.55 5.05 5.85 Pearson ChiSquare Sig. Value for L1 p = .452 p < .000 p < .000 p < .05 p < .01 p = .111 When comparing more closely L1 English and L1 Arabic participant responses, we see clearly that L1 affected item choice. Below are participant item selections for Scenario 5 (Complaints). Forty L1 English speaker (ES) and 39 L1 Arabic speaker (AS) responses are detailed below: Table 8 Scenario 5: You are at an American restaurant with your parents and your father notices that there is a hair in his soup. What do you tell the server when she returns to your table? 1. “There is a hair in my father’s soup! We refuse to pay for the food!” ES: 1 AS: 3 2. You say nothing to the server, because you don’t want to embarrass her. ES: 4 AS: 12 3. “We found a hair in the soup! We want to speak with the manager!” ES: 15 AS: 19 4. “We found a hair in the soup! We would like a discount on our food.” ES: 20 AS: 5 Group 1: L1 Arabic/L1 English item selection: Scenario 5. N = 40 (ES) and 39 (AS) Interestingly, native English speakers chose items 3 and 4 as possible responses, while the Arabic speakers mostly chose between items 2 and 3. Does L1 then play a role in item selection for this scenario? A Pearson’s Chi-Square test for this particular scenario showed that 20 item choice based on L1 was significant (p = .000). These results stimulate an interesting discussion about why complaint responses seem to be variable for both L1s but predictable between L1s. An attempt to address this is discussed below. 3.4 Discussion To return to hypothesis one of this research study (refer back to item 2.2.1 above), four out of the six pragmatic skills explored in this phase of the research pointed to participants’ L1 (Arabic) being a direct factor in correct item selection for the six pragmatic scenarios. Additionally, it was shown that certain pragmatic skills, particularly complaint making, were what L1 Arabic participants felt they received the least amount of instruction in from their EFL institutions. Furthermore, one of the top pragmatic skills that L1 Arabic participants requested to receive more formal instruction in included complaint making in the target language. When we compare Tables 4, 5, and 6, there is evidence to suggest that the pragmatic skill of complaint making was one of the least instructed and most challenging to execute for L1 Arabic speakers trying to communicate in L2 English. When we take a closer look at Table 7 we see that the pragmatic skill of complaints also produced variable responses for L1 English speakers. However, when comparing the results of this specific pragmatic scenario referring to complaint making, analysis still proved significant in pointing out that L1 played a role in a participant’s item selection for this particular scenario. It then becomes curious as to why complaints are so challenging and why L1 Arabic speakers feel they received the least amount of pragmatic instruction in this particular skill from their EFL institutions. I would like to offer three potential explanations for this phenomena concerning complaint making. First, complaint making may depend more on an individual’s personality and upbringing compared with other pragmatic skills being examined. This would 21 explain why even the L1 English speakers responded with less acceptable item choices for this pragmatic skill compared to the others, as was the case for the L1 Arabic speakers. Perhaps complaint making is more challenging and variable since personal and emotional influences may come into direct play with the speech act. Second, complaint making difficulties and variation may be influenced by gender. Of the participants in this phase of the study, male participants tended on average to choose the more direct and confrontational item responses for this particular scenario compared with female participants. Further analysis into this would be needed however to make a clear argument for or against the role of gender in making complaints with a large sample size and appropriate control of other variables. However, consideration must be made since gender may be observed as a remote variable that exerts its influence through other factors thus complicating its measurability in such analysis. Finally, the effects of culture and the gaps between two cultural styles may be the greatest during the production of complaints. Perhaps culture influences complaint making more than the other pragmatic skills being tested here. Future research may attempt to answer this particular potential hypothesis. 22 CHAPTER 4 - EFL DIVISION OF LANGUAGE SKILLS 4.1 Methodological Overview and Framework Returning to the second hypothesis of this study (refer to item 2.2.2 above), this research also desires to look at the structure of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms, both from the perspective of the EFL students and also from the stated structure at one EFL program at the American University of Sharjah, the United Arab Emirates. By directly examining the format of EFL classrooms we may receive a window onto the frequency of moments of pragmatic instruction. In comparison with studies conducted by Yu (2008) and Wu and Wu (2008), it has been suggested that the direct lack of exposure of EFL learners to native speakers of English and engagement in communicative activities resulted in the EFL learners lagging in their L2 speaking abilities. In the context of the Middle East with L1 Arabic speakers, is there also a lack of communicative activities? Additionally, what is the direct exposure of EFL students to native speaking teachers? Can the results obtained by Yu, Wu and Wu, and similar studies conducted primarily with L1 Chinese, Japanese, and Korean speakers show a lack of speaking abilities for L1 Arabic speakers in the Middle East? Through this analysis on the breakdown of one EFL program in the Arabian Gulf region and by perspectives on EFL learning wrought forward by L1 Arabic speakers with advanced English proficiency, this phase of the research hopes to address concerns about division of instruction in English language skills. In addition, it hopes to direct attention to the frequency at which EFL learners are exposed to pragmatic encounters and pragmatic instructional opportunities in the target language/culture. 23 4.2 Data Collection - Questionnaire To begin, L1 Arabic speakers of advanced English proficiency who were studying at Michigan State University were asked to respond to a questionnaire addressing their beliefs of the proportioned breakdown of their EFL classroom instruction (See Appendix A, Section II). Participants were asked to assign percentages to the following language-related skills: reading, writing, listening, and speaking based on cumulatively how much instruction they felt they received in each of these categories from the EFL programs they participated in their home countries. The percentages were required to reach a sum of 100%. Those which did not total this amount were discarded from analysis. Qualified participants were also asked to mark on Likert scales their self-assessed difficulties in the following four language-related skills: reading, writing, listening, and speaking based on before and after they arrived in the United States (refer also to Appendix A, Section II). Twenty-nine participants completed the questionnaire in its entirety. 4.3 Data Analysis Questionnaire averages were calculated on the self-reported scoring of EFL classroom instruction in the following language skills: reading, writing, speaking, and listening (refer to Appendix A, Section II). Results from the 41 participants are displayed in Table 9 below: Table 9 Language Skill Percentage of Overall, Self-Reported EFL Instruction in this Skill Reading 43.41% Writing 28.18% Speaking 26.14% Listening 34.09% Group 1: Perceptions of overall EFL language skill instruction. N = 29 24 Results of Table 8 show that L1 Arabic speaking students at this one Midwestern American university in the United States ranked their overall EFL instruction as having had the most attention directed toward reading (43.41%) and listening (34.09%); least attention focused towards speaking (26.14%). The results of this study support the second hypothesis of this study (refer to item 2.2.2. above) which predicted that most L1 Arabic speakers who studied in an EFL context would rate speaking as the least focused upon skill from their overall EFL instructional experiences. Data were also analyzed regarding participants’ self-assessed rankings on their overall language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) before and after they arrived in the United States. The results of this analysis can be seen in Table 10. Table 10 Language Skill Mean Self-Reported Mean Self-Reported Change Over Scores of Difficulty Scores of Current Time Before Arriving in the Difficulty U.S. Reading 3.39 5.29 1.89 Writing 3.21 4.95 1.74 Speaking 3.76 5.71 1.95 Listening 4.18 6.05 1.87 Group 1: Change over time of self-reported language abilities, based on a Likert Scale ranging from 1 = Lots of difficulties to 7 = No difficulties. N = 38 (participants who responded to this section) The self-assessed average scores of improvement for each of the basic language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) were calculated. The results of Table 10 are compatible with the hypothesis stating that participants in this section of the research study would self-rate their speaking skills to have improved the most in comparison with the other three language skills being considered. 25 In the data above we observed the break down of EFL time spent on the following four language skills: reading, writing, speaking, and listening. These were based on self-reports by L1 Arabic speakers of advanced English studying at one Midwestern university in the United States. It was shown that the participants ranked speaking as receiving the least amount of instruction and furthermore this language skill is what these participants have improved upon the most since arriving in the United States, although it is not known if this is a significant difference or not. The results of the previous section must now be compared with the actual instructional time laid out by one EFL language institute in a predominantly Arabic speaking country. This institute, the American University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates, will serve as a small sample of an EFL language institute serving predominantly L1 Arabic speakers. Is speaking, in reality, given the least amount of attention? Are opportunities available for L2 English language learners to practice their speaking abilities? Throughout the academic school year, the American University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates, services its provisionally admitted students to assist in their English proficiency. Intensive English Program (IEP) courses and post-IEP advanced writing courses are required for provisionally admitted students to the university. During the summer session, six IEP level courses and two advanced writing courses are available to students (availability of courses is subject to level of enrollment). Each IEP level (levels 001 – 006) consists of a combination of reading, writing, grammar, speaking, and listening classes. Classes meet 5 days a week. For the upper level IEP classes, the division of language classes each day is the following: • Two 75-minute reading classes • One 75-minute writing/grammar class • One 75-minute speaking/listening class 26 Taking the percentage of classroom time designated to each skill, each week breaks down in the following sequence: 50% reading-focused, 25% writing/grammar-focused, and 25% speaking/listening-focused. This marked emphasis on reading observed here at one advanced EFL course in the gulf region maps similarly to the data produced by L1 Arabic speakers living in the L2 context (refer to Table 9 above). In Table 9, it was reported by these L1 Arabic speakers (originating from eight different, predominantly Arabic speaking countries) who are already living in the target environment, that emphasis from their home EFL courses was placed predominantly on reading (43.41% of allotted instructional time). 4.4 Discussion It clear that a parallel exists between the perceived and actual allotment of time towards certain language skills in EFL courses from predominantly L1 Arabic speaking contexts. First, L1 Arabic participants living in the L2 context rated speaking as the language skill they received the least amount of instruction in from the culmination of their EFL courses. Speaking is also the skill that these participants felt they improved upon the most after spending time living in the L2 environment. Additionally, speaking is not one of the more focused upon language skills observed in one EFL course at the American University of Sharjah, the United Arab Emirates. This institute designed their summer language program to comprise approximately 12.5% instruction time devoted to speaking. This time allotment is dramatically skewed when compared with that for reading, 50%. This higher emphasis placed on reading by this sample Middle Eastern institute, corresponds closely to the perceived allotment of time reported by L1 Arabic speakers (from eight different, predominantly Arabic speaking countries) living in the target environment who stated that reading received the most attention (43.41%) out of their entire EFL curriculum. 27 To tie this discussion back to the principle concern of this study, pragmatic competence and pragmatic instruction, analysis must be conducted to see where moments of pragmatic learning take place within this predominantly four-pronged (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) approach to language acquisition. Where exactly pragmatic moments may appear within this division of language instruction will be discussed in the following section. Likewise, the frequency of pragmatic learning moments will be analyzed for both their quantitative and qualitative values. 28 CHAPTER 5 - PRAGMATIC RELATED EPISODES (PREs) 5.1 Introduction to PREs ‘Language Related Episodes,’ or LREs, were first introduced by Swain and Lapkin in their 1998 study on the improvement of language learners’ scores on language skill posttests. They defined a Language Related Episode as “…any part of a dialogue where the students talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves or others.” (p. 326). Among the important empirical discoveries related to LRE research, LREs have proved important in 1) identifying the frequency of such language events between studentstudent and student-teacher dialogues 2) marking how specific tasks may elicit such productive occurrences 3) and importantly, the value of such communicative inter-plays between participants in encouraging language negotiation and perhaps error correction. Following the definition set forth by Swain and Lapkin on Language Related Episodes (LREs), Pragmatic Related Episodes (PREs), which will be first introduced in this study, may be defined as the following: Any moment in a dialogue when students are discussing, questioning, and/or correcting their use of a pragmatic skill while conversing with other language learners or the instructor. In other words, whenever a moment arises in either a student-student dyad or a student-instructor dyad where pragmatics is discussed, questioned or used to express correct meaning, this is a Pragmatic Related Episode. PREs may be tied to other forms of communication such as gestures 1 or to other language skills such as phonetics as shown below in Scenarios 1 and 2 respectively : 29 Scenario 1: STUDENT (to teacher): (Snaps fingers) TEACHER: “This is not an appropriate way to get your teacher’s attention. This would be considered rude in my country (the teacher is from the United States). Scenario 2: STUDENTS: (Talking to each other about an event which occurred in a previous class. Meanwhile the teacher is listening in on their conversation). TEACHER (to students): “It’s not Miss, it’s Mrs. Nelson.” 2 STUDENT 1: “No she said to say Mi[s] Nelson because we do not know if she is married.” TEACHER: “Oh, she said that…uh… then to say Mi[z] Nelson. There’s a little ‘z’ sound.” STUDENT 2: “Why do I say that?” TEACHER: “Because Mi[s] is for unmarried ladies and Mi[z] is for married ladies. Some ladies don’t want you to know if they’re married or unmarried. That’s private information.” With each scenario, although there may be the inclusion of other language skills and non-verbal gestures, there still must clearly be an element of pragmatic language that is being examined or manipulated in the utterance to be included under the term Pragmatic Related Episode. Some distinguishable incorporation of pragmatics, such as discussion on appropriate salutation or closing production in the target language, must be present. 30 Just as Language Related Episodes proved valuable to Swain and Lapkin’s (1998) research in statistically showing a correlation between frequency of events and overall improvement in language skill posttests, Pragmatic Related Episodes may function in a similar way. PREs may serve as a quantifiable means of predicting students’ overall success in acquiring pragmatic knowledge in the target language. PREs may also in the future serve as a goal for language classrooms which are striving for improved pragmatic competency in the target language. By analyzing the frequency of Pragmatic Related Episodes at one EFL institution it desired by this research to measure the frequency of PREs during instructional classroom time. Specifically the research questions proposed are to see if the frequency of PREs increases or decreases based on the major language skill being instructionally focused upon (reading, writing, speaking, listening, and grammar) at the time of observation. According to researchers Martinez-Flor and Uso-Juan (2006), pragmatic exposure scarcely occurs in most EFL classrooms. Thus, the frequency of Pragmatic Related Episodes is hypothesized to be limited in the observation of one EFL course at the American University of Sharjah, the United Arab Emirates. Additionally, it is hypothesized that of all the language classes associated with this one EFL course, the majority of PREs would appear in the speaking and listening classes. 5.2 Methodological Overview and Framework One high intermediate/ advanced-level EFL classroom at the American University of Sharjah, the United Arab Emirates, was observed for a cumulative total of 20 hours as learners of English participated in a summer EFL course at this institution. A total of 12 students were enrolled in this course, with eight students having an L1 of Arabic. Courses spanned from eight in the morning until three in the afternoon, with 15 minute breaks between classes and an hour 31 and half break for lunch. Course time equated to five hours every day with 75 minute blocks for each class. Classes were arranged into one 75 minute writing/grammar session, two 75 minute reading sessions, and one 75 minute speaking session. 5.3 Data Collection – Audio Recordings During the observation, the investigator sat in the back of each classroom and audio taped the entire session. Afterwards, audio files were analyzed and transcribed for pragmatic-related episodes and the frequency of these episodes was calculated by two raters who were MA TESOL students and instructors at the English Language Center at Michigan State University. The criterion for recognizing Pragmatic Related Episodes (refer to Appendix E) was created and explained to the other rater during rater training for this study. Using Cohen’s Kappa, a substantial inter-rater reliability of .894 was attained (see Table 11 below). Table 11 Symmetric Measures b Asymp. Std. Approx. T a Error .894 .103 4.019 Value Measure of Kappa Agreement N of Valid Cases Approx. Sig. .000 20 a. Not assuming the null hypothesis b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis Group 2: Pragmatic Related Episodes (PRE) inter-rater reliability 5.4 Data Analysis At the American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, 12 episodes of Pragmatic Related Episodes (PREs) were observed during the 20 hours of classroom observation. Table 11 below depicts the frequency of PREs for each of the language skill classes. 32 Table 12 Frequency of PREs Writing/Grammar 6 Reading (2 Sessions) 2 Speaking/Listening 4 Group 2: Pragmatic Related Episode (PRE) frequency Of the 12 Pragmatic Related Episodes observed, half of them occurred during the writing/grammar classes, a third of them occurred during the speaking/listening classes, and only a sixth of all observed PREs took place during the reading classes. The lower number of PREs during the reading classes is only exaggerated by the fact that this language skill receives double the allotted amount of instructional time as compared with the other classes: writing/grammar and speaking/listening. If we think of these results in terms of percentages then we see that for the 25% of instructional time allotted toward writing/grammar, 50% of the observed PREs occurred. Of the 25% of instructional time allotted toward the improvement of speaking/listening skills, 33% of observed PREs took place. Finally, of the 50% of allotted instruction time for reading, covering the span of 2 sessions per day, only 17% of observed PREs were produced. Pragmatic Related Episodes (PREs) occurred most frequently in the Reading classes during instruction giving moments. These moments were all incidental moments of PREs. For the Speaking/Listening class, PREs were generally produced by the instructor who was providing additional and/or background information which related to tasks the students had or would soon be completing. These tasks generally required listening to an audio sample and answering following comprehension questions or making an outline related to the heard audio file. In this class, PREs were explicitly and incidentally taught, but not implicitly. Finally, PREs 33 which occurred in the Writing/Grammar class covered a wider range of contexts compared to the other two language classes. For Writing/Grammar, PREs occurred incidentally or as implicit or explicit instruction. Explicit instruction came during an activity where students must provide information pertaining to birthdays and age. Other PREs appeared incidentally as students made comments unrelated to the material that was presently being covered. Likewise PREs occurred implicitly during certain teacher-student dialogues at the beginning of certain activities to raise awareness and perhaps also to transition from one activity to another. The Writing/Grammar instructor’s receptiveness to addressing pragmatics incidentally, explicitly, and implicitly may be the reason why PREs appeared most frequently in this class compared to the Speaking/Listening and Reading classes. Instructors’ opinions of the value of pragmatic instruction and knowledge were not considered in the present study. However, philosophy of pragmatic competence may have also been indicative of the frequency of PREs in the present study. The results of this analysis suggest a considerable imbalance in the location of PRE production amongst the four predominant language skill areas of focus (reading, writing, speaking, and listening). 5.5 Discussion Returning to Hypothesis 2.2.3 which argued for the limited use of Pragmatic Related Episodes, further research is needed to fully analyze the relative quantity of PREs in relation to performance. Through the observation and documentation of PREs in one EFL summer IEP course it was observed that moments of pragmatic negotiation and discussion were most prominent in the writing/grammar class and least frequent in the reading classes. Although these results are suggestive of a relationship between lack of Pragmatic Related Episodes and EFL reading classes in the Gulf region, further analysis is necessary. Future research should be 34 directed toward determining correlations between frequency of PREs during sessions of certain language skill instruction (e.g. during a reading, writing, speaking, or listening class) and location of EFL institution. Do the majority of EFL IEP institutions in the Middle East or Gulf region show similar results of where PREs are more likely to appear? Also how would this compare with the frequency of PREs in ESL courses? Additionally, future research into how EFL and ESL courses compare in terms of their appearance of PREs would be worthy of note. Likewise, analysis on the correlation between frequency of PREs and improved proficiency in pragmatic knowledge would be compelling in detailing more the effects of PRE exploration. Will the increased frequency of PREs improve posttest scores of pragmatic competency in a similar fashion to LRE’s (Language Related Episodes) as shown by Swain and Lapkin (1998)? If in fact PREs function similarly to LREs in improving a component of language competency, then perhaps future discussion may begin on pushing for more quantitative amounts of Pragmatic Related Episodes within the classroom. 35 CHAPTER 6 - PRAGMATIC VIDEO CLIPS 6.1 Methodological Overview and Framework To date, no research has been presented to see how L1 Arabic speakers in an EFL context may or may not benefit from video clips designed to teach the target language’s pragmatic skills. One potential reason for this hesitancy in the use of video technology can be explained by Coniam (2001) who expressed certain concerns in using video-mediated technology as it may require more resources and energy to devise and implement. However, the value of visual input has proven beneficial in improving learner posttest scores for non-pragmatic language skills (Baltova, 1994; Shin, 1998; Sueyoshi & Hardison, 2005). Wagner (2010) demonstrated that by incorporating video input alongside audio input, it significantly improved learner posttest comprehension scores for listening-focused assessment. In both dialogue and lecture style video scenarios, learners who received the additional visual input showed significant improvement in posttest scores. In regards to video input, it was hypothesized by the author that the use of gestures in the video text served as an additional tool to help learners recognize corresponding information from the audio text they were receiving. Such a hypothesis is supported by Burgoon (1994), Raffler-Engel (1980), and Wagner (2008) who explain the use of non-verbal cues as tools for creating redundancy or reinforcement of the message being uttered orally. Additionally, this would coincide with Winke and Teng’s (2010) statement that acquisition of pragmatic forms will be more meaningful if placed directly into their pragmatic contexts. So for the current study, it would mean placing the pragmatic information directly into the coinciding pragmatic context through visual methods (e.g. video clips). Thus by including video input reflecting the target context, learners are able to incorporate 36 non-verbal information into their auditory interpretation of a given pragmatic text, allowing for increased cues or understanding into the overall comprehension of the utterance. Importantly, it must also be stated that the ultimate goal of including pragmatic video clips as a tool for teaching pragmatics in an EFL setting was not to in any way diminish the pragmatic styles and language usages of the language learners’ native context or L1. Rather as Zhang (1995) suggests, pragmatic instruction should take on the form of pointing out differences that exist between the two languages. Value should not be placed on the learner fully acquiring the L2 pragmatics while simultaneously devaluing pragmatic expressions in their L1. As Dorian (1998) elaborates on in her analysis of the colonization of certain languages over others, that there must not exist the sense that one language has higher value or social significance than another, especially when it comes to language teaching. Thus, the goal of the video clips used in this present study was first to point out acceptable pragmatic responses in either the L1 or the L2, and the alternative language, and finally to verbally state the difference that exists among them. As a result of this, video clips were incorporated into this portion of the present study. Video clips were made in the target environment with native speakers, depicting appropriate responses to pragmatic situations within the target setting. The video clips were approximately 20 minutes in length and they covered all six of the previously mentioned pragmatic skills (apologies, salutations, closing, requests, compliments, and complaints). A transcript of the dialogue presented in the clips may be found in Appendix D. The context of these video clips centers around a new student from Lebanon, Mariam, who is adjusting to her life in the United States at an American university. This specific situational setting was chosen since it may directly map onto situations that many EFL students in this study might soon be facing as they consider collegial opportunities. The video clips begin 37 with Mariam writing an e-mail to her advisor, whom she has not met before. The clips then follow Mariam as she engages with Americans, and concludes with her sitting down for a meal and trying to use the pragmatically appropriate speech acts to order and pay for her meal. The use of these video clips will help to address hypothesis four of this study (see item 2.2.4 above) which considers the value in using video clips made for a target language and made by native speakers and language teachers of that target language, in teaching pragmatic skills to EFL learners abroad. Yu (2008) suggested that teaching pragmatics in an EFL context, specifically with non-native speaking instructors, proves particularly challenging. Many teachers whose L1 and culture are not that of the language they are teaching, are reluctant to provide formal instruction in that target language’s pragmatic areas. In using the before-mentioned video clips made by native speakers and language teachers, can these clips then be exported and used in EFL contexts? The hypothesis is that, in fact, these video clips will prove successful in improving EFL students’ pragmatic competence while studying in a non-target environment. The second component of hypothesis four (refer to item 2.2.4 above) is that it examines if the combination of these pragmatic clips immediately followed by a related tasked-based activity, will result in an even further advancement of these EFL learners’ pragmatic knowledge. This task-based activity concurs with the definitions set forth by Ellis (2003) and Nunan (2004); that a task-based activity should be authentic but that authenticity can be fluid and expand beyond the concept of immediate usage in the real world setting of the target language. Thus, in connection with the definition of a task-based activity set forth by Ellis and Nunan, a task based activity (refer to Appendix C) was designed for this portion of the research to engage students with the material covered by the pragmatic video clips they just observed. The hypothesis is that 38 the combined activity and video clips will result in the most effective recipe for improvement in pragmatic knowledge of the target language. 6.2 Data Collection – Pragmatic Pre/Posttests Participants for this phase of the research study were advanced EFL learners from the American University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates (Refer to 2.3.2 above for specific restrictions on participatory involvement). A total of 28 participants, from three high intermediate/ advanced level EFL summer courses at the university participated. To begin, all participants were required to respond to demographic questions to help the investigator of this study eliminate potential participants who did not meet the requirements of this investigation (See Appendix B, Section I). Next, students in three classes were divided into separate groups: one control group and two experimental groups (see Chart 1 below). Both experimental groups would watch the pragmatic video clips, however only one of the experimental groups would participate in a follow-up task-based activity, related to information presented in the video clips. The control groups neither observed the pragmatic video clips nor participated in the task-based activity. See Table 13 below for a detailed outline of the layout of this phase of the study: Figure 1 American University of Sharjah EFL Learners Class 1 Control Group Class 2 Experimental Group (Video Input Only) Class 3 Experimental Group (Video + Task-Based Activity) Group 2: Outline for division of participants based on received input 39 All three groups took a pretest (see Appendix B) measuring their present pragmatic knowledge of 6 pragmatic skills (apologies, greetings, closings, requests, complaints, and compliments) for the target language, English. Results of the pretests were quickly scored to see if the three participating classrooms demonstrated an equally random sample of scores for the pragmatics pretests. If scores had been skewed favoring once class over another on the pretest, then all participants would have needed to be mixed and randomized into three new groups. However, this process was not necessary, as there was no significant difference between the three classrooms based on their responses to the pragmatics pretest. The first classroom (N = 8) served as the control group, only taking the pre and posttests. The second classroom (N = 8) received the pragmatic video clip input only. Finally, the third classroom (N = 12) not only received the pragmatic video clip input but additionally completed a related task-based activity in groups before taking the posttest. All three groups took the posttest. (The pre and posttests were in fact the exact same test with no item or scenario alteration). The task-based activity taken by the third class concurs with the definitions set forth by Ellis (2003) and Nunan (2004); that a task-based activity should be authentic but that authenticity can be fluid and expand beyond the concept of immediate usage in the real world setting of the target language. 40 Table 13 Time: Class 1: Control Group: Class 2: Experimental Group (Video Input Only) Class 3: Experimental Group (Video + Task Based Activity) Pretests were administered a few days in advance 60 minutes These participants Participants watch pragmatic video clips work on material = 20 minutes provided by their instructors = 40 minutes Take the posttest Participants take Participants posttest complete a taskbased activity in = 20 minutes groups = 20 minutes = 20 minutes Participants work on Participants take the material provided posttest by their instructors = 20 minutes = 20 minutes Group 2: Outline of procedures 6.3 Results The pretest scores for the control group (who did not receive either the video or related task-based activity input) did not increase on the posttest. A mean score of 7.63 (SD = 1.77) in the pretest only slightly increased in the posttest with a mean score of 7.75 (SD = 2.32). A paired-samples t-test revealed that the lack of pragmatic input resulted in no significant improvement in scores, t(7) = -.18, p = .86, r = .07. As a result, no further analysis is necessary for the control group in this study. A mixed-design ANOVA was used to analyze pre and posttest scores for the two experimental groups of participants. The factors of this test were time and group, each containing two levels: for time it was the pre and posttests and for group it was the video only and the video with task-based activity groups. Time was a repeated or within subjects factor and 41 group was a between subjects factor. Experimental group one received only pragmatic video input whereas experimental group two not only received the pragmatic video input but also performed a related task-based activity. Mean scores improved for both experimental groups between their pre and posttest scores. Between the pretest and posttest, learners’ percentage accuracy improved from a mean of 8.75 (SD = 1.71) to 13.50 (SD = 1.31) in the video input only experimental group. For experimental group two which received video input as well as performed a related task-based activity, mean scores improved from 7.75 (SD =2.92) to 12.63 (SD = 3.02). The mixed-design ANOVA was used to test whether group type significantly affected the improved acquisition of pragmatic knowledge over a week’s period in a pretestposttest design. Results indicated a significant main effect of time, F(1, 18) = 103.78, p < .001, 2 ηp = .85; however, neither group type, F(1,18) = 1.12, p >.05 nor the Time x Group interaction, F(1,18) = .02, p > .05, was significant. Findings indicate both (types of groups) resulted in similar improvement in accuracy in the acquisition of pragmatic knowledge. Findings indicated that both experimental groups similarly improved in pragmatic accuracy regardless if a related, task-based activity was included after the video input or not. Figure 2 below outlines the change in pre and posttest scores for all three groups (also refer to Table 14). 42 Figure 2 16 14 12 Estimated Marginal Means 10 Time 8 Pretest 6 Posttest 4 2 0 1 = Video Only 2 = Video + Activity 3 = Control Group 2: Results of input-based pragmatic instruction Table 14 Mean Standard Deviation N 8.25 1.75 8 Group A Pretest 13.62 1.19 8 Group A Posttest 7.75 2.92 12 Group B Pretest 12.63 3.02 12 Group B Posttest 7.63 1.77 8 Group C Pretest 7.75 2.32 8 Group C Posttest Group 2: Pretest – Posttest scores per received input. (Group A: Video Only, Group B: Video + Task-Based Activity, Group C: Control). 43 6.4 Discussion The results of this portion of the research study partially support the original hypothesis arguing that pragmatic video clips will be significantly beneficial in improving pragmatic proficiency for L1 Arabic learners of L2 English in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context. Results showed that indeed pragmatic video clips were able to significantly improve participants’ pragmatic competency. However, this study also asked if the incorporation of a related, task-based activity immediately following the pragmatic video clip input would further improve participants’ posttest scores. The hypothesis of this study was that by including this sort of activity, posttest scores would significantly improve further from initial improvement seen from the inclusion of pragmatic video input alone. The results of this portion of the study, however, did not support this hypothesis. Although pragmatic video clip input resulted in significant improvement in participants’ posttest scores, the inclusion of a related, task-based activity did not significantly, additionally increase posttest scores representing pragmatic competency. It must be stated, however, that perhaps a different form of follow-up activity or maybe even a different task-based activity may elicit results different than those shown here. A replication of this study using a different form of follow-up activity should be considered for future research. Additionally, by removing the video clip input and using only a task-based pragmatic activity may equally elevate foreign language learners pragmatic awareness and competence as was the result of a study conducted by Winke and Teng (2010). Future research would be needed to test if video clip input only or whether a task-based activity only is best at improving foreign language learners’ pragmatic competence. 44 Nonetheless, the success shown by participants who received pragmatic video input is indicative of the possible implications that pragmatic video clips may have in EFL pragmatic pedagogy. Uses, then, of these or similar video clips may aid in revitalization or re-invention of pragmatic pedagogy. Additionally, these materials may finally address the concerns presented by Yu (2008) and the proclaimed anxiety that non-native EFL teachers face when trying to instruct learners in the correct pragmatic knowledge of the target language. Pragmatic video clips may serve as an aid or a supportive outline for non-native EFL teachers who do not feel comfortable teaching target language pragmatics. 45 CHAPTER 7 – CONCLUSION 7.1 Overview of the Findings The consideration of pragmatic events and pragmatic instruction in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) courses with L1 Arabic speakers has received little attention by the current body of second language research. Additionally, addressing the concern of non-native EFL instructors in the teaching of the target language’s pragmatic knowledge has likewise been overlooked in the literature. Finally, how the appearance of pragmatic events, demonstrating negotiation and use of L2 pragmatic knowledge, comes in to play in the overall division of language related instruction (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) must be examined. Through the quantifiable use of Pragmatic Related Episodes (PREs) within the classroom, we may be able to predict the likely success a L2 learner will have in successfully producing target-appropriate pragmatic utterances. Likewise, by increasing the amount of PREs within the classroom, specifically balancing between different types of pragmatic knowledge, it is the hope that L2 learner pragmatic competency will also increase. By quantifying and categorizing various PREs, it can be noticed which pragmatic skills have received the least and most attention. As in the case presented here, most L1 Arabic speakers living in the L2 environment stated that they received little instruction in complaint making (refer to Table 4). Thus, by recognizing and categorizing the frequency and type of PRE, instructors can better balance the amount and kind of L2 pragmatic information they are providing to the learners. Additionally, EFL instructors may incorporate the use of pragmatic related video clips to aid in their instruction of L2 pragmatic knowledge. Pragmatic video clips can be made by native speaking, language teachers to represent a wide range of different pragmatic scenarios in the target language/environment. These videos, in turn, can be used in EFL classrooms (as well as 46 ESL classrooms) to teach the target language’s pragmatics. This may be especially potent for those EFL teachers whose L1 is not the same as the target language they are teaching, and/or who have not spent vast amounts of time in the target environment. The results of this study were clear in showing the effectiveness of pragmatic video clips in improving L2 EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness and competence (refer to Table 13 & Graph 1 above). Thus, future incorporation of this form of learning material is suggested for EFL language programs. 7.2 Future Implications The implications of these findings suggest that consciousness-raising, pragmatic video clip scenarios made by native speakers can be exported to EFL classrooms to aid nonnative EFL teachers, specifically to teach pragmatics. (However, future exchange programs may include materials expanding beyond simply pragmatics and reaching into the language skills of reading, writing, listening, and speaking). Pragmatic video clips made by native speakers from language institutes in the target environment can be exchanged for similar pragmatic video clips of a different target language. For example, language instructors and researchers at Michigan State University can use native English speakers to create pragmatic video clips which in turn could be exchanged for pragmatic video clips made by native Arabic speakers at perhaps the American University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates. Then the video clips made by the native Arabic speakers could be used in Arabic as a Foreign Language (AFL) classes at perhaps Michigan State University in the United States. This exchange would serve as an interactive and collaborative initiative to help each university’s L2 students of either Arabic or English acquire higher pragmatic competence in their respective second language. 47 Programs through Michigan State University’s Center for Language Education and Research have devised computer assisted language learning (CALL) materials that would directly assist in the creation of such pragmatic video clips used in this study. Multimedia Interactive Modules for Education and Assessment (MIMEAs) allow instructors to create and upload video recordings and directly use them on a webpage in combination with other input or assessment materials (Kraemer et al., 2009). This webpage incorporating the video recordings may then be accessed and used in language classrooms. This may be of particular use for foreign language instructors who would like to include native speaker interactions into their lessons. As Sydorenko (2011) recommended in her study using MIMEA to measure perceived and actual item difficulty, MIMEA may be used individually by students to independently work on particular language skills. The multiple potential applications of this program would be beneficial for accomplishing a variety of teacher and learner language goals. For this present study in particular, the MIMEA website (http://mimea.clear.msu.edu) would be of particular value for making future pragmatic video clips, similar to the ones used in this study, and to share them between international language programs to help foreign language instructors teach pragmatics. Overall, the findings of this research study support the value of such language institutions participating in a collaborative exchange of pragmatic-focused videos for pedagogical purposes in foreign language contexts. 7.3 Limitations to the Study The largest limitation to this research is the lack of longitudinal analysis for the portion of this study analyzing the value of pragmatic video clips in a foreign language setting. An extended posttest of perhaps three months would have been informative in confirming: that pragmatic videos are effective in teaching EFL learners pragmatic skills of the target language. 48 Future research should be designed to test the longitudinal implications of pragmatic video clips in an EFL context. Furthermore, the future direction of related studies should look into the implementation practicalities of designing a collaborative exchange program of pragmatic materials to non-native instructors of a target language in foreign language environments. Additionally, in future research comparisons should be drawn between the frequency of Pragmatic Related Episodes (PREs) in an English as a Second Language (ESL) in contrast to an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context. Will the frequency of PREs be higher in one or the other context? Will it depend somewhat on the L1 of some of the learners, the environment of the EFL setting, effects of motivation and purpose, or other factors which affect PRE occurrence? Much quantifiable and qualitative analysis should be considered for future research into PREs, particularly pertaining to the effects of PREs in overall learner pragmatic acquisition. 49 FOOTNOTES 1 Scenarios one and two presented here are original transcriptions from observed dialogues at the Intensive English Program at the American University of Sharjah, the United Arab Emirates. 2 “Ms. Nelson” in this scenario is referring to an American EFL teacher at the American University of Sharjah who is approximately in her late forties to early fifties and who is unmarried. Ms. Nelson has been an EFL teacher in the Middle East and southern Asian region for approximately ten years. 50 APPENDICES 51 APPENDICES 11.1 Appendix A IRB #: x10-235, Category: Exempt 1-2, Approved 3-18-10 Instructions: Please provide information to the questions below. Once you have finished Part I, proceed to Parts II and III. Once you have completed the entire questionnaire return it to the researcher. All information provided in this questionnaire will be anonymous. Thank you for your participation in this research study! PART I: General Information 1. Age: ________________________ 2. Are you a Michigan State University student? _____________________________________ 3. Native Language(s):__________________________________________________________ 4. Country of Origin: ___________________________________________________________ a. The number of years you have lived here: ________________________________ 5. How long have you been studying English outside your country of origin? ______________________________Years, ___________________________Months 6. How long have you lived in a predominantly English-speaking country? ______________________________Years, ___________________________Months 7. Have you ever participated in a study abroad program, or traveled to a predominantly English-speaking country for an extended period of time? If yes, please explain where and for how long: _______________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 52 8. Growing up, did anyone in your house speak English? If yes, please explain: ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ PART II Instructions: Think back to your English learning experience in your home country. Do NOT consider any English language instruction you have received in a predominantly Englishspeaking country such as the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, etc. Please provide information to the questions below. 1. Please consider the following language learning skills and give a percentage for how often you felt this skill was taught while you were learning English in your native country. Do not consider individual classes, but reflect on your English learning experience (in your home country) as a whole: Reading: % Writing: % Listening: % Speaking: % Total = 100% 53 2. While studying these skills (in English) in your home country, did you feel you had any difficulties? Please reflect upon the following skills, and circle your answer on the scale provided. 1 = I had lots of difficulties, 7 = I had NO difficulties. NO Difficulties Lots of Difficulties Reading: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Writing: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Listening: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Speaking: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Now, do you feel you have any difficulties with these skills (in English)? Please reflect upon the following skills, and circle your answer on the scale provided. 1= I have lots of difficulties, 7 = I have NO difficulties. Lots of Difficulties NO Difficulties Reading: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Writing: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 54 Listening: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Speaking: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Please consider the following types of pragmatic functions and rank which skills you received the most classroom instruction in. 1= the most amount of instruction, 6 = the least amount of instruction. Making requests Giving compliments Greeting someone or beginning a letter (salutations) Making complaints Apologizing Saying goodbye to someone or ending a letter (endings) Comments (optional): ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 55 5. Which of the pragmatic functions listed above (requests, compliments, salutations, complaints, apologies, or endings) would you like to receive more instruction in? Also, why? _____________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ PART III Instructions: The objective of Part III is to evaluate your individual responses to a list of pragmatic scenarios. Look at the following scenarios and circle the most appropriate response for each question. There may be more than one possible answer, but your job is to find the best answer. Scenario 1: You are in the U.S. playing soccer with your friend outside and you accidentally kick the ball through a neighbor’s window. Your neighbor comes outside and is very upset. His face becomes red and he begins to yell at you. What do you say? A. “I’m sorry” and provide an explanation. B. Stay quiet while he lectures you. C. “It was not my fault.” D. Just say: “I’m sorry.” 56 • How confident do you feel about your answer? Please circle your answer on the scale provided. 1 = Not very confident, 5 = Very confident. Not Very Confident 1 Very Confident 2 3 4 5 6 7 Scenario 2: You just moved into your dormitory at an American university. Your roommate is already in the room unpacking his/her things. He looks at you and says “Hey, what’s up?” How do you respond? A. “Nothing is up. My name is _______.” B. “Not much. My name is ______.” C. “Hello, my name is ________.” D. Don’t say anything. • How confident do you feel about your answer? Please circle your answer on the scale provided. 1 = Not very confident, 5 = Very confident. Not Very Confident 1 Very Confident 2 3 57 4 5 6 7 Scenario 3: You are in an American restaurant with your friends, and you have finished your meals. The waiter gives you the check but he puts everything on one check. However, you and your friends would prefer to pay for your own meals individually. What do you say to your waiter when he returns? A. “This is not how we want the check.” B. “Can we have a separated check?” C. “We don’t want to pay together.” D. “Can we have separate checks?” • How confident do you feel about your answer? Please circle your answer on the scale provided. 1 = Not very confident, 5 = Very confident. Not Very Confident 1 Very Confident 2 3 58 4 5 6 7 Scenario 4: You are interested in coming to the United States to earn a graduate degree. You want to work with a specific faculty member, Dr. Smith, who you have never contacted before. You write an e-mail to Dr. Smith and now need to end your e-mail. Which is the best response? C. Sincerely, A. Warmest regards, (Your name) (Your name) D. Thanks, B. Thank you, (Your name) (Your name) • How confident do you feel about your answer? Please circle your answer on the scale provided. 1 = Not very confident, 5 = Very confident. Not Very Confident 1 Very Confident 2 3 4 5 6 Scenario 5: You are at an American restaurant with your parents and your father notices that there is a hair in his soup. What do you tell the server when she returns to your table? A. “There is a hair in my father’s soup! We refuse to pay for the food!” B. You say nothing to the server, because you don’t want to embarrass her. C. “We found a hair in the soup! We want to speak with the manager!” D. “We found a hair in the soup! We would like a discount on our food.” 59 7 • How confident do you feel about your answer? Please circle your answer on the scale provided. 1 = Not very confident, 5 = Very confident. Not Very Confident 1 Very Confident 2 3 4 5 6 7 Scenario 6: You are a new student at an American university. Over the weekend you got a new haircut, and you really like it. While walking to class your roommate sees you and says: “I like your new haircut; it looks very nice!” How do you respond? A. “Thank you! I like your hair too!” B. “No, I think it looks very bad.” C. “It’s okay.” D. “Thanks!” • How confident do you feel about your answer? Please circle your answer on the scale provided. 1 = Not very confident, 5 = Very confident. Not Very Confident 1 Very Confident 2 3 4 5 Thank you for participating in this research study! 60 6 7 11.2. Appendix B Instructions: Please provide information to the questions below. Once you have finished Part I, proceed to Parts II and III. Once you have completed the entire questionnaire return it to the researcher. All information provided in this questionnaire will be anonymous. Thank you for your participation in this research study! Part I: General Information 1. Code Name (Please provide a “code name” so the researchers can easily identify your responses. DO NOT use your real name. You can make up any name or use any appropriate English words as a “code name.” Remember this name!): ____________________________ 2. Age: ________________________ 3. Gender: ______________________ 4. Native Language(s): _______________________ 5. Country of Origin: ___________________________________________________________ i. The number of years you have lived in your country of origin: _______________ 6. Why are you studying English? _________________________________________________ 7. How long have you been studying English at the American University of Sharjah? ______________________________Years, ___________________________Months 8. How long have you been studying English in general? ______________________________Years, ___________________________Months 61 9. Have you ever participated in a study abroad program, or traveled to a predominantly English-speaking country for an extended period of time? If yes, please explain where and for how long: ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 10. Growing up, was anyone living in your house a native English speaker? If yes, please explain how this may have influenced you and your English skills: ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Part II: Instructions: Please read the following questions and circle the most appropriate response for each question. There may be more than one possible answer, but your job is to find the best answer. 62 Scenario 1: You are interested in coming to the United States to earn a graduate degree. You are writing an e-mail to a faculty member, Dr. Sara Smith, who you would like to work with. You have never contacted Dr. Smith before. How do you begin the e-mail? Pick the best response. A. Dearest Dr. Smith, B. Dear Ms. Smith, C. Hello Ms. Smith, D. Dear Dr. Smith, Scenario 2: You are a student at an American university and you are writing a letter to an important historian in the local community. You would like this historian to give a presentation in your history class. You want to mention in your letter that this historian is important to the community. Which of the following sentences would be the most appropriate to include in your letter? Please pick the best response. A. Please come and speak in my history class, because you are such a very famous historian and it is a great, great honor that you are in our community! B. You are a very, very famous historian and it is a great, great honor that you are in our community! Please come and speak in my history class. C. You are a very well-known historian in the community, and I would appreciate it if you could speak in my history class next week. D. Because you know a lot about history, please come speak in my history class. 63 Scenario 3: You are interested in coming to the United States to earn a graduate degree. You want to work with a specific faculty member, Dr. Sara Smith, who you have never contacted before. You write an e-mail to Dr. Smith and now need to end your e-mail. Which is the best response? A. Warmest regards, (Your name) B. Thank you, (Your name) C. Sincerely, (Your name) D. Thanks, (Your name) Scenario 4: You just moved into your dormitory at an American university. Your roommate is already in the room unpacking his/her things. He looks at you and says “Hey, what’s up?” How do you respond? A. “Nothing is up. My name is _______.” B. “Not much. My name is ______.” C. “Hello, my name is ________.” D. Don’t say anything. 64 Scenario 5: You are eating lunch in a coffee shop in the United States. You observe a girl walk into the coffee shop and greet her girl friends by saying “Hey guys!” Is this a correct way to greet a group of girls who are your friends? A. Yes, this is a correct way to greet a group of friends that are girls. B. No, she should say “Hey gals” because her friends are girls, and the word “guys” should be used only for a group of boys. C. No, she should say “Hi gals” because “hey” is not the correct way to say hello, and the word “guys” should be used only for a group of boys. D. No, she should say “Hi guys” because “hey” is not the correct way to say hello. Scenario 6: Your American roommate is leaving the room to go to class. She says: “take it easy.” What do you say to her in response? Pick the most appropriate answer. A. Why? I’m not stressed! B. Thanks, you too C. Thank you, I will take it easy D. Thanks, easy I’ll take it. 65 Scenario 7: You are studying at an American university and as you walk down the hallway you see your close friend, Rachel. When Rachel approaches you she gives you a big, genuine smile and says hello but then quickly keeps walking. You think: A. that Rachel was very impolite. She should have at least asked you how your life is going. B. that Rachel was impolite, but you forgive her because she’s your friend. C. it’s okay, because sometimes in American culture it’s okay to greet someone quickly and then keep moving. D. it’s okay, because in American culture you don’t need to greet your closest friends out loud, you just need to smile. Scenario 8: Pretend you are a girl visiting the United States and your American friend introduces you to her male friend, Josh. Josh extends his hand to you and says “Nice to meet you.” How do you respond? Please choose the most appropriate response for this context. A. Shake Josh’s hand and say “hello.” B. Shake Josh’s hand and say “nice to meet you.” C. Shake Josh’s hand and say “I am glad to meet you.” D. Do not shake Josh’s hand but smile and say “hello.” 66 Scenario 9: You are in the U.S. playing soccer with your friend outside and you accidentally kick the ball through an older neighbor’s window. Your neighbor comes outside and is very upset. His face becomes red and he begins to yell at you. What do you do? A. Stay quiet while he lectures you. You don’t want to talk back to someone who’s older than you. B. Say “I’m sorry” and provide an explanation. C. Say “it was not my fault.” D. Just say: “I’m sorry.” Scenario 10: You are a new student at an American university. Over the weekend you got a new haircut, and you really like it. While walking to class your roommate sees you and says: “I like your new haircut; it looks very nice!” How do you respond? Please pick the best response. A. “Thanks! It makes me glad that you like it.” B. “Thank you! I like your hair too!” C. “It’s okay.” D. “Thanks!” 67 Scenario 11: You are a new student at an American university and you are in the cafeteria for the first time. There is a lot of food available that is unfamiliar to you. You want to know what each food dish consists of. You see a student cafeteria employee nearby. What do you say to the student employee at the cafeteria? A. Nothing because you don’t want to sound foolish and have the employee laugh at you. B. “Excuse me Ms./Sir, what are inside these foods?” C. “Please tell me what is in each dish” D. “Excuse me Ms./Sir, could you tell me what is in each of these dishes?” Scenario 12: You are eating with friends at a restaurant in the United States, and it appears that your waitress has forgotten to bring your appetizers. How do you get the waitresses attention and request your appetizers? What do you say? Please choose the most appropriate response. A. “Please, when you have the time, could you bring us the appetizers we ordered?” B. “Excuse me, but we would like our appetizers soon.” C. “We need our appetizers soon otherwise we will not leave you a tip.” D. “Where are our appetizers? We are hungry over here!” 68 Scenario 13: You are at an American restaurant with your parents and your father notices that there is a hair in his soup. What do you tell the server when she returns to your table? A. “There is a hair in my father’s soup! We refuse to pay for the food!” B. You say nothing to the server, because you don’t want to embarrass her. C. “We found a hair in the soup! We demand to speak with the manager!” D. “We found a hair in the soup! We would like a discount on our food.” Scenario 14: You are at an American restaurant with your friends, and you have finished your meals. The waiter gives you the check but he puts everything on one check. However, you and your friends would prefer to pay for your own meals individually. What do you say to your waiter when he returns? A. “This is not how we want the check.” B. “Can we have a separated check?” C. “We don’t want to pay together.” D. “Can we have separate checks?” 69 Scenario 15: You are a student at an American university and you are taking a class in biology. You just took an exam and received a very low score. You are upset because you studied very hard for this exam and you feel that the exam was too difficult. You schedule an appointment to see the teacher. What do you say to your teacher regarding your exam? Please choose the most appropriate response. A. “I am not happy with my score, because I feel that I studied very hard for this exam.” B. “I am very upset, and you need to give me a higher score.” C. “This exam was too difficult, and so you need to give everyone a higher score.” D. “Could you please change the score on my exam? I studied very hard.” 70 11.3. Appendix C Lesson Plan for Task-Based Activity and Implicit Instruction Group PROJECT NAME: Pedagogical Implications of Pragmatic Video Clips in an EFL Context for L1 Arabic Speakers POPULATION: • Approx. 20 high intermediate/advanced level English students APPROX. TIME: • 20 minutes OBJECTIVE: • Students will be able to apply knowledge they gained from watching the pragmatic video clips in a task-based activity, by working in groups to discuss answers to hypothetical situations. MATERIALS: • Handout A PROCEDURE: 1. The secondary investigator will briefly go through the instructions of the following activity. 2. Students will be divided into groups of approximately 3-4 students each. 3. Each GROUP will receive a copy of handout A (see below) to complete together. 4. The goal is for each group to complete handout A with all the correct answers before any of the other groups. Once the students feel their group has all the right answers they will raise their hands and the secondary investigator will review their answers and mark where they don’t have the correct (appropriate) responses. The students will have an 71 opportunity then to revise their answers and try and beat the other teams. (No compensation will be given to the winning team). 5. Once there is a winning team, a copy of handout A will be given to ALL students. Answers will be reviewed as a class and students will be asked to write the correct answers on their copies of the handout. 6. There will be a short follow-up discussion, prompted by the secondary investigator, regarding information from Handout A and the video clips. Discussion will be designed to only make students more consciously aware of what they just learned without providing explicit instruction. 7. Students will be asked if they have any questions related to the topic of this activity, which then will be answered by the secondary investigator. 8. Once questions have been addressed, the students will take the posttest for this research study which will be administered and collected by the secondary investigator. 72 HANDOUT A INSTRUCTIONS: Work with the members in your group to find the MOST APPROPRIATE responses to the following scenarios. Once you think you have answered all the questions correctly, raise your hand and the investigator will review your answers. Afterwards, you will need to fix your incorrect responses. The goal of this activity is to get all the correct answers first and beat the other groups. Good luck! EXAMPLE: Melanie is an American student writing a letter to her little sister. How does she end her letter? Answer  She can write “Love,” or “Thinking of you,” and then sign her name. 1. Scott is an American writing a letter to a very important person in his community that he has never spoken to before. How does Scott end his letter? 2. Mary is an American student who is going to visit her professor to talk about her grade on an exam. How does she greet her teacher? 3. Allison is an American student living in a dormitory. Her friends (American) just knocked on her door. How does Allison greet her friends? 73 4. You are talking with an American friend online. Your friend ends the conversation by saying “take it easy.” What does this mean? How do you respond? 5. Your American friend just gave you a compliment about your new shirt. How do you respond? 6. You are at an American restaurant and you want to ask the waitress something. How do you get her attention? 7. You are eating at an American restaurant and you want to complain about the food. What do you do? 74 POSSIBLE ANSWERS TO HANDOUT A 1. Sincerely (most appropriate – a more formal way to end a letter as a sign of a respect) 2. Hello 3. Hey/ Hey guys/ What’s up? 4. The person is wishing you well when they say “take it easy”. You would respond by saying something like “you too,” “you take it easy too,” or simply “thanks.” 5. Thanks/Thank you 6. Excuse me (Ms./ Sir) 7. Talk to the waitress/waiter first. Try not to make a big scene or call the manager for small concerns. 75 11.4. Appendix D Video Clip Transcription Project Title: Pedagogical Implications of Pragmatic Video Clips in an EFL Context for L1 Arabic Speakers. I. VIDEO 1 SETTING: Mariam and Jessica are roommates. They are also graduate students studying Biology at an American University. Mariam just arrived from Lebanon and is worried about her English speaking skills. Here, Mariam and Jessica are in a computer lab at their university. - Mariam: Jessica could you come here and help me with something? - Jessica: Sure - Mariam: I am trying to write a letter to my new adviser, Dr. Sanders. I want to meet with her this week to discuss what classes I should take. - Jessica: Okay - Mariam: I am nervous about my English, could you look at it for me? - Jessica: Sure (E-mail message from Mariam to her professor): “Dearest Ms. Sanders, I am one of your new students, Mariam. It is an honor to have you as my adviser. You are very famous in the field of biology and it is an honor to be your student. When you have the time, could I meet with you to talk about classes I need to take? My deepest thanks! 76 Thank you, I am waiting your response. Mariam” - Jessica: It sounds like you are being too polite here, Mariam. - Mariam: I am? Where? - Jessica: Well, let’s start with the first line. You say “dearest”. Instead of “dearest” you can just say “dear”. - Mariam: What’s the difference Jessica? - Jessica: “Dearest” is more sweet, more caring. You would probably use this word with someone very close with you whom you’ve known for a long time. - Mariam: Oh, ok. So I should use “dear” instead? - Jessica: Yes, the word “dear” can be used at the beginning of letters to show respect and politeness. Okay, let’s continue….. You should probably use DR. Sanders instead of MS. Sanders. - Mariam: Oh, why? - Jessica: Well because it is very important to give respect to someone who has received a doctoral degree. If you don’t know if the person has a doctoral degree or not, then you can say MS. - Mariam: Ok, so if I know they have a doctoral degree then I should use DR. and not just MS. - Jessica: Yes. Okay, you are being too polite here. You do not need to explain how honored you are to have her as your adviser. You also don’t need to say how famous she is in the field of biology. - Mariam: But I was trying to be nice and respectful. 77 - Jessica: I understand but this is too polite for someone you’ve never met before. Also some teachers will think you are trying too hard to make them like you, and they will not respect this. - Mariam: So Jessica, you’re saying that I can be too polite? - Jessica: Yes - Mariam: and that the professor may think I’m trying too hard to make them like me? - Jessica: Yes - Mariam: Ok - Jessica: Let’s continue. Okay here you wrote “thanks” but then you also wrote “thank you.” Why do you have both of them? - Mariam: Actually Jessica, I was not sure the difference between “thanks” and “thank you.” Could you help me? - Jessica: Of course Mariam. Well “thanks” is more informal than “thank you.” “Thanks” you can use with a friend, or someone you’ve talked to frequently. But here you are talking to your adviser for the first time, so I would just use “thank you.” - Mariam: Okay, we’ll just use “thank you.” - Jessica: Now, here you use the word “deepest” … why? - Mariam: I guess I’m being too polite again, huh? - Jessica: Yes Mariam. We can just delete it. Okay now let’s just keep your “thank you”. One more thing. Now you write “Thank you, I am waiting your response.” You should end your letter differently. - Mariam: How do I do that Jessica? 78 - Jessica: Well, first you do not need “Thank you” again so we can delete that. Next, instead of “I am waiting your response” how about you just say “sincerely.” This is a polite ending word to use to someone you have not talked with frequently. If you use “I am waiting your response” it sounds a little demanding. - Mariam: Okay Jessica we can delete “I am waiting your response” because it sounds a little demanding. Also I will just use the word “sincerely.” So I can use the word “sincerely” when I’m talking to someone new? - Jessica: Yes Mariam, for someone new and for someone you want to show respect to you should use the word “sincerely.” If you are talking to a new classmate you don’t need to use “sincerely” but for a professor, yes, because you want to use a formal word. - Mariam: Okay, thanks Jessica! - Jessica: Okay now just work on the middle part of your letter so it’s not so polite and I think everything else looks alright. - Mariam: Great! Thanks! - Jessica: Do you want to get some dinner? - Mariam: Okay let’s go. Pause, scene change. New character: Amanda (Jessica’s friend) - Mariam: Thanks for helping me with my letter. - Jessica: You’re welcome…. - Amanda: Hey guys, what’s up? - Jessica: Oh, not much. How are you? - Amanda: I’m fine, just in a hurry to get some lunch and then go to class. 79 - Jessica: Oh Amanda, this is my new roommate Mariam. She just came here from Lebanon. - Amanda: Nice to meet you Mariam! I hope you like the U.S. so far! - Mariam: Nice to meet you too. Yes it is nice here. - Amanda: Sorry guys, I need to go. Take it easy! - Mariam: “Take it easy?” What does that mean? I’m not stressed why did she say “take it easy”? - Jessica: Oh, when we say “take it easy” it can mean “take care.” “Take it easy” is like a way of saying goodbye and wishing the best for someone. You can respond by just saying “thanks, you too.” - Mariam: Oh, okay. So “take it easy” is just another way to say goodbye and wish someone well. And you can respond to “take it easy” by saying “thanks, you too.” - Jessica: Yes. - Mariam: I have another question. When we first met Amanda she said “Hey, what’s up guys?” I am confused. First, what does she mean by “what’s up”? - Jessica: “What’s up” is a way to greet someone informally in the U.S. It means “what’s new?” After someone says “what’s up” the response is usually “not much”. If you want to say what is new in your life you first say “not much” and then say what is new. For example ask me “what’s up.” - Mariam: What’s up? - Jessica: Not much. I just finished a quiz in biology. - Mariam: Oh okay, I understand now. “What’s up” is just a type of greeting and the proper response is first “not much” and then I can say what is new in my life if I want. - Jessica: Exactly. Good. 80 - Mariam: I have another question. Amanda said, “what’s up GUYS?” Why did she say “guys?” I thought guys meant boys, but we are girls. - Jessica: Yes “guys” specifically refers to boys, but sometimes we use the word “guys” to refer to any group of people. - Mariam: So I can go up to a group of girls and say “Hey guys, what’s up?” - Jessica: Yes! Exactly! - Mariam: Okay, so “guys” can be used for any group of people, girls or boys. Also, Amanda said “hey”, but what is “hey?” - Jessica: “Hey” means “Hello” but it is a very informal. You can say this to your friends. - Mariam: Okay, so I can say “hey” to you because you are my friend and I can be informal with you? - Jessica: Yes. - Mariam: Okay. Thanks Jessica for explaining everything to me. - Jessica: You’re welcome. - Mariam: Jessica, why did Amanda say hi so quickly and then leave? In my country this would be seen as very rude! When we meet people we usually talk to them for awhile and really ask them how their life is. - Jessica: Well Amanda was in a hurry and that is why she couldn’t talk to us longer. Also Americans move very quickly; we usually greet each other quickly and keep moving. Don’t be offended or think we’re rude, this is just our culture. - Mariam: Oh, okay. Thank you for explaining that to me! Let’s go and have some lunch. - Jessica: I will call my friend Brian to see if he can have lunch with us. - Mariam: That sounds great. 81 (Scene Ends) II. VIDEO 2 Scene changes to a restaurant outside New character: Brian (Jessica’s friend) - Jessica: Hi Brian! Brian, this is my roommate Mariam. - Brian: Hi, nice to meet you (extends hand out) - Mariam: (Without shaking Brian’s hand says…) Nice to meet you. (There is a moment of awkward silence and Brian keeps his hand out) - Jessica: Mariam, you should shake Brian’s hand. It’s rude not to. - Mariam: (Doesn’t say anything) - Brian: My hands are clean, I promise - Mariam: No, it’s for religious reasons - Brian & Jessica: Oh… - Jessica: Oh you should have told us, we didn’t know. - Mariam: Oh I’m sorry, I thought it was okay to not shake hands if we did not want to. - Jessica: In the U.S., if someone puts their hand out, and you don’t shake it, it is considered very rude. - Mariam: Oh I did not know that. - Jessica: You should try to always let someone know why you aren’t shaking their hand. - Mariam: Ok, I will. In the future I will always let someone know why I won’t shake their hand. 82 - Brian: Okay let’s decide what we want to eat. (With an annoyed voice he says….) So, Jessica why were you SO late? I was about to leave! - Jessica: Oh, I’m sorry Brian. Don’t be upset! Mariam and I got lost on our way to this restaurant. - Brian: Hmmm. Okay, but please try to not be late next time. - Jessica: Okay, I won’t be late in the future. - Mariam: Jessica, why did you say anything? He seemed very upset! I would have just been quiet. - Jessica: Oh, no. It was important that I said something. If you have done something wrong to someone, you should apologize, say you’re sorry, and provide an explanation. It’s important to give an explanation with your apology. - Mariam: Oh, so I should not just stay quiet, I should apologize, say I’m sorry, and provide an explanation? - Jessica: Yes, in a situation like this. - Mariam: Okay. Thanks Jessica. - Brian: Mariam, I really like your hair. - Mariam: It makes me so glad that you like it - Jessica: You can just say “thanks” in this situation. You can simply say “thanks” when you get a compliment. - Mariam: Oh ok. Thanks Brian. - Brian: You’re welcome. (At that moment the waitress comes by) 83 - Waitress: Hi, my name is Kristen, I will be your waitress today. What would you guys like to drink? - Brian: Just a water. - Jessica: A water for me too. - Mariam: A water. - Waitress: Do you know what you would like to order yet? - Brian: Yes, I’ll have the club sandwich - Jessica: and I’ll have a hamburger with….. - Mariam: (Interrupting ...) Tell me what are inside these foods. - Waitress: Excuse me? - Mariam: Yes! I don’t know what is in these foods. Please tell me. - Waitress: Um… - Jessica: (Talking to Mariam) You should first say “excuse me” to the waitress to get her attention. - Mariam: I need to say “excuse me” first? Why? - Jessica: Yes. You should say something like “EXCUSE ME Ms. or Sir, could you please tell me what are in these dishes.” - Mariam: Oh okay, I need to first say “excuse me Ms. or Sir….” - Jessica: Yes - Mariam: (Speaking to the waitress) Excuse me Ms., could you please tell me what are in these dishes. - Waitress: (Quietly speaks to Mariam about the dishes) - Mariam: Okay, thank you. I’ll have this (pointing to something on the menu) 84 - Brian: Can we have an appetizer of cheese sticks? - Waitress: Yes, I will bring your appetizer out to you soon. (Waitress leaves) ( 10 minutes later) - Brian: Where are our appetizers? - Jessica: I don’t know. It’s been at least 10 minutes! (Waitress walks by) - Mariam: (To waitress) We need our appetizer soon otherwise we will not leave you a tip! - Waitress: Oh, oh, um…. I’m sorry. I will get them now. - Brian: (Speaking to Mariam) Why did you say that? That was a little mean. - Mariam: It was? - Jessica: Yes Mariam, you should have been more polite. - Mariam: But she didn’t bring us our food! - Jessica: Yes, but you still need to be polite. - Mariam: Oh, really? What should I have said? - Jessica: You could have said “Excuse me but we would like our appetizers soon.” - Mariam: I need to say “Excuse me” again? - Jessica: Yes. Even though the waitress forgot our food, you still should be polite. Don’t be TOO polite though! - Mariam: I didn’t know I needed to be polite in a situation like this. - Jessica: Yes. - Mariam: Okay so I should have said something like “Excuse me but we would like our appetizers soon.” - Jessica: Yes. 85 - Mariam: I need to make sure that I’m not too polite or too rude. - Jessica: Exactly. (The waitress returns) - Waitress: Here is your appetizer you ordered and some soup. Sorry for the wait. - Jessica: Oh yuck! There’s a hair in my soup! - Brian: Oh yuck! That’s disgusting! (Waitress walks by) - Mariam: (Stops the waitress and says…) We found a hair in my friend’s soup! We demand to speak to the manager! - Brian: (Speaking to the waitress) Oh, no…. we don’t need to speak to the manager, but could we have a discount on the food? - Waitress: Oh yes! You can have a discount on the soup. I am so sorry! Let me get you a new soup. - Mariam: Why shouldn’t we demand to talk to the manager? - Brian: Because you should only talk to the manager in very serious situations. The waitress can fix this problem. We don’t need the manager. - Mariam: Oh really? In my country, we would demand to talk to the manager. - Jessica: Oh, no. In the U.S., you should first let the waitress try to fix the problem. Only if the problem gets worse do you call the manager. - Mariam: Oh okay. So first I should ask the waitress to fix the problem? - Jessica: Yes. Also you can usually get a discount on your food in a situation like this. - Mariam: Oh okay. So I should talk to the waitress first, and ask for a discount? - Jessica and Brian: Yes! 86 (Waitress returns) - Waitress: Here’s a new bowl of soup for you and here are your main courses. - Mariam, Jessica, and Brian: Thank you. (15 minutes later) - Brian: That was really good food. - Jessica: Yes I really enjoyed it. - Mariam: Me too. - Waitress: Thank you guys, here is your check. - Jessica: Oh no! She only gave us one check! We wanted to pay separately. - Mariam: What should we say to her? - Brian: We can just say “Can we have separate checks?” - Mariam: Okay I’ll ask her - Mariam: (to waitress) Hi, can we have separate checks? - Waitress: Oh yes. Not a problem. Let me do that for you. - Mariam: Thank you - Waitress: (Returning with three separate checks) Here you guys go. Have a nice day! - Mariam, Jessica, and Brian: Thank you. - Jessica: Before we leave, I wanted to ask you guys for your opinion about something. I just took a quiz last week in one of my biology classes but I did really badly on it. I studied very hard for this quiz, but it was too difficult! I am meeting with my teacher this week to talk about it. What do you think I should say to my teacher? - Mariam: I would tell your teacher that the quiz was too difficult, and you studied but it’s not your fault. The teacher should give you a higher grade. 87 - Brian: No, no. You should be more polite with your teacher. Say “I am not happy with my score; I feel I studied really hard for this quiz.” - Mariam: But the teacher made the quiz too difficult! - Brian: Yes but you HAVE TO be polite with your teacher. You shouldn’t demand a higher score. - Mariam: Oh. - Jessica: Yes, I think it would be rude to demand him to change my score. - Mariam: Okay. What will you say to your teacher then? - Jessica: I think I will just say that I am not happy with my score and that I felt the quiz was really hard. - Mariam: Yes, that sounds a bit nicer. - Brian: Okay guys, let’s go. - Mariam and Jessica: Yes (Scene ends) 88 11.5. Appendix E Inter-Rater Reliability Training: Code for Identifying Pragmatic Related Episodes (PRE’s) IRB #: x10-460, Category: Exempt 1-2, Approved 5-11-10 Project Name: Second Language Pedagogy in an EFL Context with L1 Arabic Speakers Primary Researchers: Anne M. Desiderio & Dr. Debra Hardison, Michigan State University Introduction: This portion of the above mentioned study refers to previous research conducted by Swain & Lapkin (1998) on Language Related Episodes (LRE’s). Language Related Episodes are “... any part of a dialogue where the students talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves or others” (p. 326). Among the important empirical discoveries related to LRE research, LRE’s have proved imperative for 1) identifying the frequency of such events between student-student and studentteacher dialogues 2) Marking how specific tasks may elicit such productive occurrences 3) and importantly, the value of such communicative inter-play between participants in encouraging language negotiation and perhaps error correction. Pragmatics: According to Gass & Selinker (2008), pragmatics are representations of language being used within its designated cultural context. Pragmatics must demonstrate a use of language in the context of culture. Discussing cultural gestures and practices, without focusing on how language is used between different cultures, is NOT pragmatics. Also, variations in the phonetic systems between languages are NOT representative of pragmatics. Examples of pragmatics include the following: 89 • Salutations/Openings • Compliments • Closings • Complaints • Requests • Apologies Pragmatic Related Episodes (PRE’s): Following the definition set forth by Swain & Lapkin on Language Related Episodes (LRE’s), Pragmatic Related Episodes (PRE’s) may be defined as the following: Any moment in a dialogue when students are discussing, questioning, and/or correcting their use of a pragmatic skill while conversing with other language learners or the instructor. Practice Scenarios: Next to each of the follow scenarios, mark if you believe a Pragmatic Related Episode (PRE) is being represented or not. Only consider if the following pragmatic subjects are being discussed: • Salutations/Openings • Complaints • Closings • Complements • Requests • Apologies If you believe the scenario is representative of a Pragmatic Related Episode (PRE), write “YES” on the space provided. On the contrary, if you believe that a Pragmatic Related Episode (PRE) is not being depicted in one of the follow scenarios, write “NO” on the space provided. 90 1. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ STUDENT: “Hey Mary (the teacher)! What page are we on?” TEACHER: “Pg. 65. Class, is it okay to get your teacher’s attention by saying ‘hey’ first?” CLASS: “No.” TEACHER: “Right, that is too informal and may be interpreted as rude by the teacher. You can say ‘excuse me’ instead.” 2. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ STUDENT: “I goed to the store yesterday with my friend.” TEACHER: “You went to the store yesterday with your friend.” STUDENT: “Yes, that’s what I meant. I went.” 3. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ STUDENT 1: “In Saudi culture you must stand when someone enters the room.” STUDENT 2: “Yes this is very important! It is rude to not stand.” TEACHER: “Oh, I did not know that. Thank you for sharing that information.” 4. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ STUDENT (to teacher): “There is too much homework and you must reduce it now! We cannot do so much! You must give us less homework!” TEACHER: “In American culture you should ask the teacher politely to give less homework. You should never demand the teacher to give less homework. Demanding something from your teacher is considered rude.” 91 Rater 2 Analysis of PRE Data: Instructions: Like the previous task, you will need to mark if the scenarios below are representative of a Pragmatic Related Episode (PRE). Consider if the following pragmatic subjects are being discussed: • Salutations/Openings • Closings • Requests • Complaints • Complements • Apologies Also consider where there may be cultural differences with speech patterns between languages such as in the case of word order when discussing a date (e.g. March 2nd ). Additionally, pragmatics looks at levels of politeness and formality for a particular audience. Finally, even if the Pragmatic Related Episode did not completely or correctly identify the gap between language/culture between two languages, it is still a Pragmatic Related Episode if it was an attempt at discussing these gaps. 92 Instructions: If you believe the scenario is representative of a Pragmatic Related Episode (PRE), write “YES.” On the contrary, if you believe that a Pragmatic Related Episode (PRE) is not being depicted in one of the following scenarios, write “NO.” There are 20 scenarios. 1. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ STUDENT 1(to student 2): “You’re so fine today.” TEACHER (to student 1): “Informally, you’re saying you look nice. What you’re trying to say is ‘you’re fine’” (to mean a person’s state). STUDENT 1: “No, I am saying she looks good.” 2. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ TEACHER: “Who are they?” (Referring to characters in a text). STUDENT: “Two chicks.” TEACHER: “A little more polite please.” 3. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ STUDENT (to teacher): “Teacher, what are the homeworks for tomorrow?” TEACHER: “Homework. The homework for tomorrow is to do activity 5 on page 88 of the reading book.” 93 4. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ STUDENTS: (Talking to each other about an even which occurred in a previous class. Meanwhile the teacher is listening in on their conversation). TEACHER (to students): “It’s not Miss, it’s Mrs. Nelson.” STUDENT 1: “No she said to say Mi[s] Nelson because we do not know if she is married.” TEACHER: “Oh, she said that then say Mi[z] Nelson. There’s a little ‘z’ sound.” STUDENT 2: “Why do I say that?” TEACHER: “Because Mi[s] is for unmarried ladies and Mi[z] is for married ladies. Some ladies don’t want you to know if they’re married or unmarried. That’s private information.” 5. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ STUDENT: “My birthday is 16th December.” TEACHER: “[Try] Again.” STUDENT: “eh..[pause] my birthday is December 16th.” 6. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ STUDENT 1: “In China, the old do not have to pay for insurance. The government pays it.” STUDENT 2: “In the United Arab Emirates it is free.” STUDENT 1: “I like the Emirati way of doing things.” 94 7. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ STUDENT 1: “United States is very expensive.” STUDENT 2: “The United States. You need to say ‘the’”. STUDENT 1: “Why?” STUDENT 2: “Because it’s part of its name.” 8. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ STUDENT (to teacher): “Miss. [Pause]. Miss.” TEACHER: (Silent) STUDENT (to teacher): “Mrs. Nelson.” TEACHER: “Yes (student’s name).” 9. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ TEACHER (to class): “Please be quiet while we take the quiz.” STUDENT: (whispers to classmate in Arabic) TEACHER (to student): “You must be quiet or your quiz will be taken away and you will receive a zero.” STUDENT: “Oh, okay.” 95 10. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ STUDENT 1 (to student 2): “(students name) here!” TEACHER (to student 1): “Now what did you say? Hmm? STUDENT 1: (Silent). TEACHER: “Say come here.” 11. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ TEACHER: “So a woman says, Oh that’s a beautiful dress… for a woman your age. When she says this it sounds like a compliment but then she said for a woman your age. So she’s implying she looks old and ugly. Right? She didn’t say to her You look old and ugly. She said it in an indirect way; she implied it.” STUDENT: “Oh, okay.” TEACHER: “And then they began to fight and tear each other’s dresses.” STUDENT: “So what did you do?” TEACHER: “Nothing, I just watched.” 96 12. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ STUDENT (to teacher): “Why does the U.S. not have health insurance for all its people?” TEACHER: “This is a good question. [Pause] Actually some Americans want universal healthcare.” STUDENT: “What do you mean, ‘universal healthcare?’” TEACHER: “This means when a country’s government pays for the health needs of all its citizens.” STUDENT: “Oh.” 13. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ TEACHER: “If I don’t know someone, I shouldn’t talk to them in an informal way. Like if I see my boss I shouldn’t say Hey you.” STUDENT: “Or, what’s up.” TEACHER: “That’s not how I should talk to my boss; someone who is higher than me.” 14. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ STUDENT 1: “How do you say _________ (word in Arabic) in English?” STUDENT 2: “I’m not sure. [Pause] It’s like a type of business person for money.” 97 15. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ STUDENT (to teacher): “My brother work in company for oil since 3 years. TEACHER: “Does your brother still work for that company?” STUDENT: “Yes! Since 3 years.” 16. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ TEACHER: “… if you go into the Souk (a type of marketplace) … ya know when we westerns come to [the United Arab Emirates]… in our world, we’re not use to bargaining. In our country there’s a fixed price for everything. If you go in and bargain they’ll think you’re a really rude person. … they’ll think he’s (Arabic word); he’s cheap.” STUDENTS: (laugh). 17. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ STUDENT (to teacher): (Snaps fingers) TEACHER: “This is not an appropriate way to get your teacher’s attention. This would be considered rude in my country (the teacher is from the US).” 98 18. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ TEACHER: “Students, [pause] what are the different ways to greet people around the world?” STDUENT 1: “You shake hands.” TEACHER: “What about in Japan?” STUDENT 2: (Student makes a bowing gesture). TEACHER: “You bow. What about here in the United Arab Emirates?” STUDENTS: “Kiss the person’s cheek.” (Multiple students shout similar responses). 19. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ STUDENT: “I have a bet cat. She is my best friend.” TEACHER: “ ‘Bet?’ [Pause] Or do you mean ‘pet?’” STUDENT: “Yes, pet. In Arabic we do not have the letter ‘p.’ 20. Is the following scenario representing a PRE? _______________________________ STUDENT 1 (saying out loud to classmates): “Move this book!” TEACHER: “Nicer! Ask who’s book it is.” STUDENT 1: “Whose book is that?” (Points to book). STUDENT 2: (takes their book). THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE WITH THIS STUDY! 99 REFERENCES 100 REFERENCES Alcon, Soler, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System, 33(3), 417-435. Baltova, I. (1994). The impact of video on comprehension skills of core French students. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(3), 507-531. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In Martinez-Flor, A., Usó, E. Fernández, A. (Eds.), Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching, (pp. 13-32). Servei de Publicaciones de la Universitat Jaume I, Castelloon, Spain. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233-262. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System, 33, 401-415. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: a longitudinal study of pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 279-304. Beebe, L. & Cummings, M. C. (1985). Speech act performance: a function of the data collection procedure? Paper presented at the Nineteenth Annual TESOL Conference; New York, NY. Brown, H.D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education. Burgoon, J. (1994). Non-verbal signals. In M. Knapp & G. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 344-393). London: Routledge. Coniam, D. (2001). The use of audio or video comprehension as an assessment instrument in the certification of English language teachers: A case study. System, 29(1), 1-14. Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. New York: Cambridge University Press. De la Fuente, M. J. D. I. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: Investigating the role of pedagogical task and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 263-295. Dorian, N. (1998). Western language ideologies and small language prospects. In L. Grenoble & L. Whaley (Eds.), Endangered languages: current issues and future prospects (pp. 321). England: Cambridge University Press. 101 Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goffman, Erving. On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 18, 213-231. Hartford, B. S., & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 3, pp. 33-52). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Division of English as an International Language. Holmes, J., & Brown, D.F. (1987). Teachers and students learning about compliments. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 523-546. House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 225-252. Hudson, T. (2001). Indicators for pragmatic instruction: some quantitative tools. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 283-300). Cambridege: Cambridge University Press. Kasper, G. (2001). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (33-60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kasper, G., & Zhang, Y. (1995). ‘It’s good to be a bit Chinese’: Foreign students’ experience of Chinese pragmatics. In G. Kasper (ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as native and target language (pp. 1-22). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press. Kraemer, A., Ahn, S., Hillman, S., & Fei, F. (2009). Innovative learning modules for language in context: MIMEA. CALICO Journal, 27(1), 187-204. Liu, J. (2006). Measuring interlanguage pragmatic knowledge of EFL learners. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 38(4), 259-265. Martinez-Flor, A., & Uso-Juan, E. (2006). A comprehensive pedagogical framework to develop pragmatics in the foreign language classroom: The 6Rs approach. Applied Language Learning, 16(2), 39-63. Niezgoda, K., & Röver, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: A function of the learning environment? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 63-79). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge UP. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge language teaching library. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 102 Raffler-Engel, W. (1980). Kinesics and paralinguistics: a neglected factor in second language research and teaching. Canadian Modern Language Review, 36, 225-237. Roever, C. (2006). Validation of a web-based test of ESL pragmalinguistics. Language Testing, 23(2), 229-256. Sasaki, M. (1998). Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 457-484. Sawaie, M. (1986). The present and future status of a minority language: The case of Arabic in the United States. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7(1), 31-40. Shin, D. (1998). Using video-taped lectures for testing academic language. International Journal of Listening, 12, 56-79. Sueyoshi, A. & Hardison, D. (2005). The role of gestures and facial cues in second language listening comprehension. Language Learning, 55(4), 661-699. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-337. Sydorenko, T. (2011). Item writer judgments of item difficulty versus actual item difficulty: a case study. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8, 34-52. Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In Rose, K. R., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 171-199). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA. Takahashi, S. (2005a). Pragmalinguistic awareness: is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 90-120. Takahashi, S. (2005b). Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: a qualitative analysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics. System 33(3). 437-461. Takimoto, M. (2009). Exploring the effects of input-based treatment and test on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 10291046. Wagner, E. (2010). The effect of the use of video texts on ESL listening test-taker performance. Language Testing, 27(4), 493-513. Wagner, E. (2008). Video listening tests: what are they measuring? Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(3), 218-243. 103 Winke, P., & Teng, C. (2010). Using task-based pragmatics tutorials while studying abroad in China. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(2), 363-399. Wu, W. V., & Wu, P. N. (2008). Creating an authentic EFL learning environment to enhance student motivation to study English. Asian EFL Journal, 10(4), 211-226. Yu, Ming-Chung. (2008). Teaching and learning sociolinguistic skills in university EFL classes in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 31-53. Zhang, Y. (1995). Strategies in Chinese requesting. In G. Kasper (ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as native and target language (pp. 23-57). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press. 104