Developing Pragmatic Competence in English Academic Discussions: An EAP Classroom Investigation

Marcella Caprario

doi:10.1515/lpp-2020-0006

Article

Developing Pragmatic Competence in English Academic Discussions: An EAP Classroom Investigation

Marcella Caprario
Marcella Caprario is an English language instructor and PhD student at Northern Arizona University. Her teaching and research interests include content-based academic English instruction, the teaching and learning of second-language pragmatics, multilingualism and identity, and corpus linguistics. She has presented widely on these topics (e.g., at the TESOL International Convention). Her teaching background spans the United States and China, where she has taught a wide variety of student populations, including new immigrants, university students, and professionals. She has also worked with faculty across the disciplines on strategies for supporting international students at U. S. institutions of higher education. She holds an MA TESOL from SIT Graduate Institute.

Published/Copyright: October 15, 2020

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Lodz Papers in Pragmatics Volume 16 Issue 1

Abstract

This qualitative classroom study investigated the development of pragmatic competence in academic discussions through content analysis of student reflective writing. The aims of the study were: to understand the greatest challenges that students faced during the learning process, the causes of those challenges, and the most successful strategies that students employed to overcome the challenges. In addition, the analysis investigated other significant themes in the reflective writing that related to the students’ experiences in developing their pragmatic competence in discussions. Five advanced English for Academic Purposes (EAP) students at a Sino-US institution in China participated over the course of a semester. Results showed that common challenges included: hesitation resulting in missed opportunities to speak, lack of clarity when speaking, inability to repair communication breakdowns, and difficulty with listening comprehension. Self-reflection allowed the learners to understand the various reasons for the challenges they faced and to develop appropriate pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic strategies for coping with them. It also enabled the instructor to make suggestions suited to learners’ specific needs. In addition to revealing specific challenges, causes, and strategies that students employed, themes that emerged through content analysis included the impact of students’ emotional lives on their learning and performance, as well as the value of authentic communication in the development of pragmatic competence for academic discussions. This exploratory classroom investigation provides suggestions for teaching pragmatic competence in academic discussions and for additional classroom explorations that empower learners to develop autonomy.

Keywords: EAP; academic discussion; L2 pragmatics; learner self-reflection; practitioner research

About the author

Marcella Caprario

Marcella Caprario is an English language instructor and PhD student at Northern Arizona University. Her teaching and research interests include content-based academic English instruction, the teaching and learning of second-language pragmatics, multilingualism and identity, and corpus linguistics. She has presented widely on these topics (e.g., at the TESOL International Convention). Her teaching background spans the United States and China, where she has taught a wide variety of student populations, including new immigrants, university students, and professionals. She has also worked with faculty across the disciplines on strategies for supporting international students at U. S. institutions of higher education. She holds an MA TESOL from SIT Graduate Institute.

References

Allwright, Dick. 2003. Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research 7(2). 113–141.10.1191/1362168803lr118oaSearch in Google Scholar

Allwright, Dick. 2005. Developing principles for practitioner research: The case of exploratory practice. The Modern Language Journal 89. 353–366.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00310.xSearch in Google Scholar

Ament, Jennifer, Carmen Perez Vidal & Julia Baron Pares. 2018. The effects of English-medium instruction on the use of textual and interpersonal markers. Pragmatics 28(4). 517–545.10.1075/prag.17042.ameSearch in Google Scholar

Anderson, John R. 1993. Rules of the Mind Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Bandura, Albert. 2001. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology 52. 1–26.10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1Search in Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, Sabrina Mossman & Heidi E. Vellenga. 2015. The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research 19(3). 324–350.10.1177/1362168814541739Search in Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & Heidi Vellenga. 2012. The effect of instruction on conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. System 40. 77–89.10.1016/j.system.2012.01.004Search in Google Scholar

Bhowmik, Subrata K. & Marcia Kim. 2018. Preparing diverse learners for university: A strategy for teaching EAP students. TESOL Journal 9(3). 498–524.10.1002/tesj.340Search in Google Scholar

Bransford, John D. 1979. Human Cognition: Learning, Understanding and Remembering Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Search in Google Scholar

Bruner, Jerome S. 1961. The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review 31. 21–32.10.4324/9780203088609-13Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Rose & Simon N. Gieve. 2006. On the discursive construction of ‘the Chinese learner.’ Language, Culture and Curriculum 19(1). 54–73.10.1080/07908310608668754Search in Google Scholar

Crandall, Elizabeth & Helen Basturkmen. 2004. Evaluating pragmatics-focused materials. ELT Journal 58(1). 38–49.10.1093/elt/58.1.38Search in Google Scholar

Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education New York, NY: Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar

Duff, Patricia A. 2010. Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 30. 169–192.10.1017/S0267190510000048Search in Google Scholar

Enochs, Ken & Sonia Yoshitake-Strain. 1999. Evaluating six measures of EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. JALT Journal 21(1). 29–50.Search in Google Scholar

Gan, Zhengdong. 2013. Understanding English speaking difficulties: An investigation of two Chinese populations. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 4(3). 231–248.10.1080/01434632.2013.768622Search in Google Scholar

Glaser, Karen. 2013. The neglected combination: A case for explicit-inductive instruction in teaching pragmatics in ESL. [Special issue]. TESL Canada Journal 30(7). 150–163.10.18806/tesl.v30i7.1158Search in Google Scholar

Hanks, Judith. 2017. Integrating research and pedagogy: An exploratory practice approach. System 68. 38–49.10.1016/j.system.2017.06.012Search in Google Scholar

Hanks, Judith. 2019. From research-as-practice to exploratory practice-as-research in language teaching and beyond. Language Teaching 52. 143–187.10.1017/S0261444819000016Search in Google Scholar

He, Deyuan. 2013. What makes learners anxious while speaking English: A comparative study of the perceptions held by university students and teachers in China. Educational Studies 39(3). 338–350.10.1080/03055698.2013.764819Search in Google Scholar

Heng, Tang T. 2018. Different is not deficient: Contradicting stereotypes of Chinese international students in US higher education. Studies in Higher Education 43(1). 22–36.10.1080/03075079.2016.1152466Search in Google Scholar

Henze, Jürgen & Jiani Zhu. 2012. Current research on Chinese students studying abroad. Research in Comparative and International Education 7(1). 90–104.10.2304/rcie.2012.7.1.90Search in Google Scholar

Jin, Lixian & Martin Cortazzi. 2006. Changing practices in Chinese cultures of learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum 19(1). 5–20.10.1080/07908310608668751Search in Google Scholar

King, Nigel. 2012. Doing Template Analysis. In Gillian Symon & Catherine Cassell (eds.), Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges 426–450. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.10.4135/9781526435620.n24Search in Google Scholar

Kolb, David A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Xiaoshi & Xuerui Jia. 2006. Why don’t you speak up?: East Asian students’ participation patterns in American and Chinese ESL classrooms. Intercultural Communication Studies XV(1). 192–206.Search in Google Scholar

Little, David. 2007. Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 1(1). 14–29.10.2167/illt040.0Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Meihua & Jane Jackson. 2008. An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal 92(i). 71–86.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00687.xSearch in Google Scholar

MacIntyre, Peter D. & Laszlo Vincze. 2017. Positive and negative emotions underlie motivation for L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 7(1). 61–88.10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.1.4Search in Google Scholar

Meyer, Jan H. F. & Ray Land. 2003. Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practicing. In Chris Rust (ed.), Improving Student Learning – Ten Years On Oxford: OCSLD. Available at: https://eastcambsandfens.researchschool.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2018/01/Meyer-Land-2003-Threshold_Concepts__and_Troublesome_Knowledge.pdf (accessed 13 April 2020).Search in Google Scholar

Morita, Naoko 2004. Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. Tesol Quarterly 36(4). 573–60310.2307/3588281Search in Google Scholar

Nakata, Yoshiyuki. 2010. Toward a framework for self-regulated language-learning. TESL Canada Journal 27(2). 1–10.10.18806/tesl.v27i2.1047Search in Google Scholar

Nakatani, Yasuo. 2005. The effects of awareness-raising training on oral communication strategy use. The Modern Language Journal 89(I). 76–91.10.1111/j.0026-7902.2005.00266.xSearch in Google Scholar

Pekrun, Reinhard, Thomas Goetz, Wolfram Titz & Raymond P. Perry. 2002 Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist 37(2). 92–10610.4324/9781410608628-4Search in Google Scholar

Prior, Matthew T. 2019. Elephants in the room: An “affective turn,” or just feeling our way? The Modern Language Journal 103. 516–527.10.1111/modl.12573Search in Google Scholar

Ryan, Mary. 2013. The pedagogical balancing act: Teaching reflection in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education 18(2). 144–155.10.1080/13562517.2012.694104Search in Google Scholar

Schmidt, Richard W. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11(2). 129–158.10.1093/applin/11.2.129Search in Google Scholar

Shi, Lijing. 2006. The successors to Confucianism or a new generation? A questionnaire study on Chinese students’ culture of learning English. Language, Culture and Curriculum 19(1). 122-147.10.1080/07908310608668758Search in Google Scholar

Snow, Marguerite Ann & Donna M. Brinton (eds.). 2017. The Content-Based Classroom New Perspectives on Integrating Language and Content, Second Edition Michigan Teacher Training. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.8198148Search in Google Scholar

Song, Bongsun. 2017. Effect of task repetition and self-reflection on EFL learners’ attentional allocation and speaking. English Teaching 72(4). Available at: http://journal.kate.or.kr/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/v72_4_04.pdf (accessed 13 April 2020).10.15858/engtea.72.4.201712.81Search in Google Scholar

Sterling, Eleanor, Adriana Bravo, Ana Luz Porzecanski, Romi L. Burks, Joshua Linder, Tom Langen, Denny Fernandez, Douglas Ruby & Nora Bynum. 2016. Think before (and after) you speak: Practice and self-reflection bolster oral communication skills. Journal of College Science Teaching 45(6). 87–99.10.2505/4/jcst16_045_06_87Search in Google Scholar

Taguchi, Naoko. 2015. Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching 48(1). 1–50.10.1017/S0261444814000263Search in Google Scholar

Vygotsky, Lev S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wolters, Christopher A. 2003. Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist 38(4). 189–205.10.1207/S15326985EP3804_1Search in Google Scholar

Wu, Qi. 2015. Re-examining the ‘‘Chinese learner’’: A case study of mainland Chinese students’ learning experiences at British Universities. Higher Education 70. 753–766.10.1007/s10734-015-9865-ySearch in Google Scholar

Wu, Xiaoxin. 2009. The dynamics of Chinese face mechanisms and classroom behaviour: A case study. Evaluation & Research in Education 22(2-4). 87–105.10.1080/09500790903487512Search in Google Scholar

Youn, Soo Jung. 2018. Task-based needs analysis of L2 pragmatics in an EAP context. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 36. 86–98.10.1016/j.jeap.2018.10.005Search in Google Scholar

Yuan, Wenli. 2011. Academic and cultural experiences of Chinese students at an American university: A qualitative study. Intercultural Communication Studies XX(1). 141–157.Search in Google Scholar

Appendix

Appendix A: EAP course description

EAP101: Science in the Public Sphere

This English for Academic Purposes (EAP) course is designed to help you develop the high-level language, communication, and critical thinking skills needed to be successful in an English-medium university. You will enhance your speaking, listening, reading, and writing skills, with an emphasis on speaking and listening. You will also develop metacognitive skills to enhance your studies in other classes and your ongoing language development.

In addition to developing the oral communication and listening skills needed to communicate effectively in an academic context, you will also engage in an interdisciplinary exploration of the course theme, Science in the Public Sphere. The thematic, content-based EAP seminar aims to help you cultivate an interest in issues that cross disciplines, an important part of a well-rounded, liberal arts education.

The course outcomes will be met by engaging with a variety of texts on the ways science and society impact each other. You will also participate in guided language analysis, listening and notetaking practice, class discussions, reflective writing assignments, and experiential learning outside the walls of the university. You will complete assignments individually and with peers.

By the end of the course, you can expect to speak and listen to academic English with greater confidence, fluency, and accuracy. You can also expect to deepen your understanding of the ways in which the public receives and influences scientific research and discovery.

Questions to investigate: What role do/should scientists play in public discourse? How and why is science misconstrued or resisted by the public? In what ways do science and politics impact each other? What is the relationship between science and the media? How can scientists and journalists communicate science and technology more effectively?

Appendix B: Reflective writing prompt

Think back to the seminar discussion event you recently took part in and view the video to see what happened more clearly. Reflect on your own performance in this discussion.

Choose one or two meaningful moments to focus on in this reflective writing. These should be examples of moments you can learn from.

First, describe what happened in some detail. The objective here is to clearly see what happened without making any judgment.

Next, assess what went well and what did not go well. Use evidence to explain why you believe something went well or did not go well. For example, if your classmates all looked confused after you spoke, that could be evidence that you did not explain yourself clearly. The objective here is to use actual experiences as evidence of what is working and what is not working.

Then, analyze what you could have done differently or what you should continue doing, drawing on what you’ve learned from our class, and from other classes, experiences, and observations. The objective here is to link theory to practice, to apply what you are learning to your own academic discussions. Think about your preparation as well as strategies and language you have learned.

Finally, make a plan for the next academic discussion you engage in. What would you like to achieve and how might you do so? You can review this plan before the next seminar discussion.

Some suggestions of what to focus on: ability to facilitate discussion, ability to gain the floor appropriately and successfully, ability to respond to questions, overall coherence and language use (including reference language). You are not limited to these ideas.

At the end of the self-reflection, briefly provide an evaluation of your overall performance. Based on the rubric, what letter grade would you give yourself and why?

(500-600 words)

Appendix C: Final template

Student-reported challenges
1. Specific challenges
  1. Missed opportunities
  2. Lack of clarity
  3. Lack of repair
  4. Poor listening comprehension
  5. Other
2. Causes of challenges
  1. Emotional
  2. Pragmatic (pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic)
  3. Linguistic (other than pragmatic)
3. Types of solutions attempted
  1. Emotional regulation
  2. Pragmatic (pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic)
  3. Other linguistic (e.g., listening comprehension development, vocabulary expansion)
4. Evaluation of solutions
  1. Positive evaluation
  2. Negative evaluation
Emotions
1. Negative emotion
  1. Experienced during discussion
  2. Experienced during reflection on discussion
2. Positive emotion experienced during reflection on discussion
3. Confidence
4. Surprise
Authentic communication
1. Peers
  1. Peers as source of challenge/frustration
  2. Peers as motivation 3.2 Content knowledge
2. Concept of academic discussion
  1. Performative concept
  2. Communicative concept

Published Online: 2020-10-15

Published in Print: 2020-07-28

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2020-0006

Keywords for this article

EAP; academic discussion; L2 pragmatics; learner self-reflection; practitioner research