Instructional phase

Ten hours of explicit pragmatic instruction on requests and apologies were delivered over a six-week period. Instructional weeks 1, 4, 5, and 6 focussed equally on both

requests and apologies, whilst weeks 2 and 3 provided a more detailed overview of

requests and apologies respectively. Weeks 1 and 6 also incorporated testing stages

for approximately one hour of class time (see Figure 5.5). The sessions were

programme and were timetabled for two hours per week as ‘communication skills’

practice. The length of treatment was selected to maximise instructional effects. Jeon and Kaya’s (2006) meta-analysis of instructed pragmatic studies suggests, in the

main, longer treatments of over five hours have proved more beneficial for learners.

The effects of this explicit instruction would inform the outcome of RQ1.

Figure 5.5. Six-week classroom-based instructional procedure.

Both experimental groups (CAPT and PAPER) participated in the six weeks of explicit pragmatic instruction on requests and apologies. The researcher designed all of the

classroom materials and provided the instruction. The input the two experimental

groups received was differentiated by 40 minutes of controlled and freer language

practice in each of the six sessions where the CAPT group used electronic tablets to

work with computer-animated scenarios, in contrast to the PAPER group who

completed more traditional paper-and pencil activities. These stages constituted the

longest, most focused section of independent practice for the students so

knowledge/discussion could be developed and language practised. Otherwise, the

instruction was the same for both experimental groups and covered pragmalinguistic

and sociopragmatic aspects of request and apology behaviour. The effects of the

differentiated training materials would inform the outcome of RQ2. Appendix 5 details WEEK 1 T1 pretest (1 hour) Request and apology instruction (1 hour) WEEK 2 Request-focused instruction (2 hours) WEEK 3 Apology-focused instruction (2 hours) WEEK 4 Request and apology instruction (2 hours) WEEK 5 Request and apology instruction (2 hours) WEEK 6 Request and apology instruction (1 hour) T2 posttest (1 hour)

the six-week scheme of work for the intervention. Appendix 6 provides the

instructional materials from teaching week 3 as an example.

The instructional framework employed in teaching weeks 2-5 (those not incorporating a testing phase), broadly followed Uso-Juan’s (2010) five stages of awareness-

raising and communicative practice activities: aspects of explicit instruction

considered requisite for success (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001). This is depicted in Figure

5.6. The organisation of the input and activities each week did not always conform to

the stages and timings illustrated in 5.6, rather they were used as a guide for

designing the training materials over the six-week period, and ensuring some form of

awareness-raising and language practice activities featured in the training sessions.

Figure 5.6. The instructional framework adopted for teaching request and apology

speech acts.

At stage one, learners were first invited to explore both the linguistic and cultural aspects of requests and apologies in their first language, for approximately 20

minutes, to raise awareness. For instance, this was achieved through highlighting

pragmatic errors in scripted dialogues in weeks 2 and 4, explicit quiz questions in

week 3, and the creation of mind maps and discussion in week 5. At stage two,

STAGE 1

•Exploration of L1 linguistic and cultural aspects of requests and apologies (approx. 20 minutes)

STAGE 2

•L2 cross-cultural comparisons made followed by the introduction of formulaic request and apology language (approx. 20 minutes)

STAGE 3

•Consideration of social and cultural factors which affect language choice in varied contexts (approx. 20 minutes)

STAGE 4

•Communicative practice of request and apology language (40 minutes, utilising differentiated training materials)

STAGE 5

•Class discussions of input and feedback provided to learners (approx. 20 minutes)

cross-cultural differences were discussed from a second language perspective for

approximately 20 minutes, and first and second language comparisons made, again

utilising discussion or noticing activities such as highlighting pragmatic errors in scripted dialogues. At this stage, guided input from the instructor is required, to

introduce formulaic expressions used to realise L2 requests and apologies, for

instance, as in weeks 2 and 3. Stage three was the application of this knowledge to consider social and cultural factors which may influence the learners’ choice of how

requests and apologies are realised in different contexts. For instance, in week 4,

learners were provided with authentic contrasting scenarios involving a range of

social and cultural features to encourage reflection on aspects associated with Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness (1987) such as power, distance and imposition,

and how these variables may affect language choice. This stage typically lasted for

around 20 minutes. At stage four, once these connections had been made, learners were provided with opportunities for communicative practice for around 40 minutes.

In this study, the CAPT group worked with other computer-animated scenarios on

electronic tablets to extend opportunities for language practice. For example, one

activity in week 3 involved being presented with a range of computer-animated

scenarios, requiring learners to formulate appropriate apologies (paying attention to

situation, context and interlocutor), before playing the animation to discover how well

their suggestions matched. The final stage five (approximately 20 minutes) included teacher-learner discussions to summarise the input and provide feedback on the

activities completed.

In terms of resources, learners were exposed to a range of oral and written materials

in which the target pragmatic features could be observed such as excerpts from

online videos, virtual role plays, and fictional and non-fictional written material. Prior

to the presentation of specific metapragmatic explanation, an inductive approach to

was adopted to encourage observation skills and analysis (Schmidt, 1993):

techniques which could be transferred to day-to-day language practice. In the case of

raising sociopragmatic awareness, for instance, learners had to remedy dialogues

containing inappropriate requests or apologies by first deliberating what social

aspects contribute to a successful or unsuccessful request or apology. Learners also

offered their own examples of miscommunications over the instructional period which proved to be an effective resource for examples of challenging interactions. Where

possible, this inductive learning approach was continued for all class activities to aid

long term retention of input, and promote real-world learning and self-reflection strategies, as advocated by Shively’s (2010) teaching framework.

Each lesson sequence typically included the following features:

1. Cross-cultural discussions of request and/or apology scenarios in academic

contexts, considering power-social distance-imposition variables which may

affect language choice.

2. Introduction of formulaic language sequences to realise requests/apologies.

Cross-cultural discussions of linguistic similarities/differences between first

and target languages.

3. Controlled and freer language practice activities to consolidate learning.

4. Review and class feedback on input.