A Comparison of Explicit and Implicit Approaches to EAP Teaching to Postgraduate Students
https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2024-33-2-148-161
Abstract
The present study aims to explore the role of explicit and implicit approaches in developing pragmatic competence in postgraduate students as part of the Foreign Language course. 32 students were divided into two groups depending on the type of teaching approach for six weeks of instruction. Research proposals written by each group after the interventions were examined with the aim of comparing the employment of pragmatic features such as stance-taking resources and their frequencies. In order to investigate the effects of stance-taking instruction, this study adopted a combination of quantitative and interpretative analysis methods. The results revealed significant differences in the use of stance resources by the postgraduate students exposed to explicit vs implicit instruction. In terms of compliance with the academic writing norms, the explicit instruction was found to be more effective than the implicit one. The analysis found that while the explicit group tended to mitigate their claims and hide authorial presence, the students exposed to the implicit instruction expressed stronger commitments to propositional content and showed writer visibility in the text, which considers to be inappropriate in English-language academic writing. The findings point to important considerations for EAP teaching and future research into academic discourse and contribute to previous studies of the benefits of instruction in the development of pragmatic competence. The results may be employed by curriculum designers to create materials for L2 writers and EAP instructors in their teaching practice.
About the Author
O. A. Boginskaya
Irkutsk National Research Technical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Olga A. Boginskaya – Dr. Sci. (Philology), Associate Professor; Professor at the Department of Foreign Languages, Institute of Linguistics and Cross-cultural Communication
83, Lermontov str., Irkutsk, 664074
Researcher ID: O-4217-2014,
Scopus Author ID: 56049693200
References
1. Alcon Soler, E. (2005). Does Instruction Work for Learning Pragmatics in the EFL Context? System. Vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 417-435, doi: 10.1016/j.system.2005.06.005
2. Zashikhina, I.M. (2021). Academic Writing: A Discipline or Disciplines? Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 134-143, doi: 10.31992/0869-3617-2021-30-2-134-143 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
3. Korotkina, I.B. (2018). Academic Writing in Russia: The Urge for Interdisciplinary Studies. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 10, no. 27, pp. 64-74, doi: 10.31992/0869-3617-2018-27-10-64-74 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).
4. Smirnova, N.V. (2015). Fostering Academic Literacy and Academic Writing in University: From Theory to Practice. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 6, pp. 58- 64. Available at: https://vovr.elpub.ru/jour/article/viewFile/220/170.pdf (accessed 04.01.2024) (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).
5. Smirnova, N.V., Shchemeleva, I.Yu. (2020). “It’s Not That I Am Researching It, It’s Just That I Am Interested in It”: Writing a Research Proposal in English as a Social Practice. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya = Tomsk State University Journal of Philology. Vol. 63, pp. 115-131, doi: 10.17223/19986645/63/7 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).
6. El-Dakhs, D.A.S., Yahya N., Pawlak M. (2022). Investigating the Impact of Explicit and Implicit Instruction on the Use of Interactional Metadiscourse Markers. Asian Journal of Second. Foreign Language Education. Vol. 7, no. 44, pp. 1-21, doi: 10.1186/s40862-022-00175-0
7. Smirnova, N.V., Shchemeleva, I.Yu. (2015). Writing at the University Level: American, European and Russian Perspectives. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Journal of Saint Petersburg State University. Vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 185-197. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).
8. Boginskaya, O. (2023). Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in English Research Article Abstracts Written by Non-Native Authors: A Corpus-Based Contrastive Study. Нkala Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura. Vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 139-154, doi: 10.17533/udea.ikala.v28n1a08
9. Korotkina, I.B. (2015). Akademicheskoe pis’mo: protsess, produkt i praktika: uchebnoe posobie dlya vuzov [Academic Writing: Process, Product, and Practice: Workbook]. Moscow: Urait Publ. 295 p. ISBN: 978-5-534-00415-1. (In Russ.).
10. Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and Implicit Teaching of Pragmatic Routines: Japanese Sumimasen. In: Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 200-222, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524797.015
11. Takimoto, M. (2006). The Effects of Explicit Feedback on the Development of Pragmatic Proficiency. Language Teaching Research. Vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 393-417, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.441
12. Takimoto, M. (2015). A Corpus-Based Analysis of Hedges and Boosters in English Academic Articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics. Vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 95-105, doi: 10.17509/ijal.v5i1.836
13. Martínez-Flor, A. (2004). The Effect of Instruction on the Development of Pragmatic Competence in the English as a Foreign Language Context: A Study Based on Suggestions. Castellón: Universitat Jaume I. Available at: https://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/10438/martinez2.pdf?...1 (accessed 04.01.2024).
14. Yaghoubi, A., Ardestani, S. (2014). Explicit or Implicit Instruction of Metadiscourse Markers and Writing Skill Improvement. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature. Vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 14-22, doi: 10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.4p.14
15. Nunan, D. (1994). Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar. In: Linguistic Theory and Pedagogic Practice. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 253-270, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524605.012
16. Farrokhi, F., Atashian, S. (2012). The Role of Refusal Instruction in Pragmatic Development. World Journal of Education. Vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 85-93, doi: 10.5430/wje.v2n4p85
17. Altun, L., Dincer, R. (2019). A Comparison of Implicit and Explicit Teaching in Terms of Grammar and Writing Skills of Intermediate Learners. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education. Vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 96-105, doi: 10.14686/buefad.601184
18. Kapranov, O. (2018). The Impact of Implicit Instruction on the Use of English Discourse Markers in Written Tasks at the Advanced Beginners’ Level Of EFL Proficiency. Baltic Journal of English Language Literature & Culture. Vol. 8, pp. 56-73, doi: 10.22364/BJELLC.08.2018.04
19. Ziafar, M. (2020). The Influence of Explicit, Implicit and Contrastive Lexical Approaches on Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Iranian EFL Learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. Vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 103-131, doi: 10.1515/iral-2016-0018
20. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse. Discourse Studies. Vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 173-192, doi: 10.1177/1461445605050365
21. Fukuya, Y.J., Clark, M.K. (2001). A Comparison of Input Enhancement and Explicit Instruction of Mitigators. Pragmatics and Language Learning. Division of English as an International Language Intensive English Institute. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, pp. 111-130. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503649.pdf (accessed 04.01.2024).
22. Boginskaya, O. (2022). Russian Lexical and Syntactic Hedges in Dissertation Reviews. Russian Journal of Linguistics. Vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 18-32, doi: 10.22363/2618-8163-2023-21-1-18-32
23. Fatahipoura, M., Tahmasbib, M., Salehi, M. (2020). Ecology of Teaching Academic Writing: A case study of the Effect of Metadiscourse Markers Instruction on Intermediate EFL Learners’ Narrative vs. Descriptive Writing. Başkent University Journal of Education. Vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 70-80. Available at: https://buje.baskent.edu.tr/index.php/buje/article/view/235/161 (accessed 04.01.2024).
24. Sarani, A., Talati-Baghsiahi, A. (2017). Explicit Instruction of Pragmatic Features: Its Impact On EFL Learners’ Knowledge of Hedging Devices in Academic Writing. Issues in Language Teaching. Vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 29-53, doi: 10.22054/ILT.2017.8418
25. Richards, J.C., Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman. Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Pearson Education Press. 4th ed. 656 p. ISBN: 9781408204603.
26. Krashen, S.D. (1981). Second language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford University Press.
27. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum. 230 p. ISBN: 0-8264-7610-4; 0-8264-7611-2.
28. Glaser, K. (2013). The Neglected Combination: A Case for Explicit-Inductive Instruction in Teaching Pragmatics in ESL. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL Du Canada. Vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 150-163, doi: 10.18806/tesl.v30i7.1158
29. Norris, J.M., Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-Analysis. Language Learning. Vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 417-528, doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.00136
30. Rose, K.R., Ng Kwai-fun, C. (2001). Inductive and Deductive Teaching of Compliments and Compliment Responses. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 145- 170, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524797.013
31. Fordyce, K. (2014). The Differential Effects of Explicit and Implicit Instruction on EFL Learners’ Use of Epistemic Stance. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 6-28, doi: 10.1093/applin/ams076
32. Safont, M.P. (2004). An Analysis on EAP Learners’ Pragmatic Production: A Focus on Request Forms. Ibérica. Vol. 8, pp. 23-39. Available at: https://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/jltr/vol01/06/jltr0106.pdf (accessed 04.01.2024).
33. Dastjerdi, H.V. (2010). The Impact of Instruction on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ production of Requests in English. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. Vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 782-790, doi: 10.4304/jltr.1.6.782-790
34. Nguyen, T.T.M., Pham, T.H., Pham, M.T. (2012). The Relative Effects of Explicit and Implicit Form-Focused Instruction on the Development of L2 Pragmatic Competence. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 416-434, doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.003
35. Biber, D., Finegan, E. (1998). Adverbial Stance Types in English. Discourse Processes. Vol. 11, pp. 1-34, doi: 10.1080/01638538809544689
36. Biber, D. (2006). Stance in Spoken and Written University Registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 97-116, doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
37. Gray, B., Biber, D. (2012). Current Conceptions of Stance. Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. Palgrave McMillan, pp. 15-33.
38. Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic Representation and Attentional Control in Pragmatic Competence. Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 43-57.
39. Bhatia, V.K. (1997). The Power and Politics of Genre. World Englishes. Vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 359- 371, doi: 10.1111/1467-971x.00070
40. Gass, S. (1998). Integrating Research Areas: A Framework for Second Language Studies. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 9, pp. 198-217, doi: 10.1093/APPLIN/9.2.198
Review
Views:
392
Email this article 