Inicio
todoELE
  • Inicio
  • Materiales
    • πŸ“‹ Actividades
    • πŸ“ Conjugación
    • πŸ“Š Corpus
    • πŸ“” Diccionarios
    • βœ… Evaluación
    • βš™οΈ Gramática
    • πŸ“— Manuales
    • ✍️ Ortografía
    • πŸ“… Programación
    • πŸ—£οΈ Pronunciación
    • πŸ“ Recursos
    • πŸ”€ Vocabulario
    • πŸ’» Herramientas digitales
  • Formación
    • πŸ“š Bibliografía
    • πŸ‘₯ Congresos
    • πŸŽ“ Cursos
    • 🏫 Centros
    • 🏒 Organizaciones
    • πŸ“° Revistas
    • 🌍 Atlas de ELE
  • Trabajo
    • πŸ’Ό Ofertas de trabajo
    • ℹ️ Trabajo - Recursos
  • En la red
    • 🌐 Sitios ELE
    • πŸ“° Agregador
    • πŸ“§ Formespa
  • IA
    • ✨ Nuevos contenidos
    • πŸ“š Bibliografía IA
    • 🧰 Herramientas IA
    • πŸ’¬ Prompts
    • πŸ§ͺ Experiencias IA
    • 🌐 Sitios web IA
    • πŸ“° Actualidad IA
  • Comunidad
    • πŸ“° Actualidad ELE
    • 😊 Anécdotas ELE
    • πŸ“ Blog
    • πŸ“ŒTablón de anuncios
  • Buscar

Ruta de navegación

  • Inicio
  • Bibliografia
  • Explicit and implicit instruction of refusal strategies: Does working memory capacity play a role?

Explicit and implicit instruction of refusal strategies: Does working memory capacity play a role?

Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
2020
Language Teaching Research
24-2
163-188
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.117…
artículo
estudio experimental
estudio empírico
pragmática
actos de habla
diferencias individuales
cognición y procesamiento
enseñanza/aprendizaje de lenguas

This study investigated the differential effects of implicit and explicit instruction of refusal strategies in English and whether and how the impacts of instruction methods interact with learners’ working memory capacity (WMC). 78 learners of English were assigned to three groups (explicit, implicit, and control). Implicit instruction was operationalized through input enhancement and provision of recast. In the explicit instruction group, participants received description and exemplification of refusal strategies and were provided with explicit corrective feedback. Prior to the treatment, all participants took WMC test, Discourse Completion Test (DCT) and completed a pragmatics comprehension questionnaire (CQ). Results revealed that explicit instruction was more effective than implicit instruction for both production and comprehension of refusals and that both implicit and explicit groups maintained the improvement in the delayed post-test administered two months later. In addition, whilst WMC scores were positively and strongly correlated with gains in the immediate and delayed post-test for both DCT and CQ in the implicit group, no meaningful relationship was found for explicit and control groups. The unique feature of this research is demonstrating that explicit instruction of refusal strategies equalizes learning opportunities for all learners with differential levels of WMC.

  • Inicie sesión para enviar comentarios

Enviar publicación

Contenidos relacionados

  • Exploring the role of strategy instruction on learners’ ability to write authentic email requests to faculty
  • Pedagogic tasks in digital games: Effects of feedback conditions and individual characteristics on learning request-making
  • ‘May I do something for you?’: The effects of audio-visual material (captioned and non-captioned) on EFL pragmatic learning
  • Developing EFL students’ pragmatic competence: The case of compliment responses
  • New Ways to Teach and Learn Pragmatics for Advancing Academic Communication Competence: An AI-Mediated Multimodal Platform
  • Comparing traditional and task-based approaches to teaching pragmatics: Task design processes and learning outcomes
Sobre Todoele Índice Publica Contacto: todoele@gmail.com
Política de privacidad Créditos