Speaker
Description
Helping students move from short answers to natural conversation remains difficult in many EFL classrooms. This presentation introduces a structured interaction approach that teaches conversation patterns and turn-expansion strategies while using Cornell note-taking and guided reflection to build metapragmatic awareness. Classroom research from a freshman communication course suggests that combining interaction training with reflective learning can significantly improve speaking fluency, conversational management, and student confidence.
Abstract section 5: References
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Routledge.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50.
Abstract section 2: Contribution/research questions
This study examines whether structured interaction training with guided reflection supports development of pragmatic competence in university EFL classrooms. Instruction in pragmatics can increase learners’ awareness of language use in context (Taguchi, 2015).
1. Does explicit instruction in structured conversational moves improve learners’ interactional competence in speaking tasks?
2. Does reflective note-taking increase metapragmatic awareness of conversational strategies?
3. To what extent does this approach improve speaking fluency and pragmatic performance?
Abstract section 3: Content/method
Participants will be first-year undergraduates in a university English communication course in Japan. Instruction combines teaching conversation patterns (greetings, small talk, and closings), interactional structure training emphasizing questioning and expanded responses, and guided reflective note-taking to support metapragmatic awareness, consistent with pragmatics pedagogy (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010). Students will conduct paired pre- and post-course conversations on familiar topics. Measures include openings and closings, follow-up questions, expanded responses, turn length, and speech rate.
Abstract section 4: Outcomes/results
The study reports whether the instructional model improves speaking fluency, interactional competence, and pragmatic awareness. Interactions will be audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded using a discourse-move analysis framework. Pre- and post-course performance will be compared using paired statistical instruments. Reflective journals will be analyzed for evidence of metapragmatic awareness, including learners’ ability to identify conversational strategies and reflect on communication challenges.
Journal analysis will triangulate quantitative findings, and coding reliability will be checked through independent rating of a sample of transcripts. Preliminary analysis suggests increased follow-up questions, response expansions, and longer conversational turns in post-course tasks.
Abstract section 1: Relevance
Many university EFL learners produce grammatically correct sentences yet struggle to sustain natural conversation due to limited interactional management skills and pragmatic awareness. While communicative activities are common in language classrooms, learners rarely learn how conversations develop through structured interactional moves including openings, turn expansion, and closings. Research suggests that explicit instruction can support the development of interactional competence in second language communication (Kasper & Rose, 2002). Reflective learning practices may further promote metapragmatic awareness by encouraging learners to notice and analyze conversational strategies during interaction. These abilities are particularly important for students preparing to communicate in global contexts.
| Title | Structured Interaction for Pragmatic Competence in EFL |
|---|---|
| Teaching Context | College and university education |