شهاب الدین بهتری

Despite the substantial significance of communicative goals in EFL, pragmatic aspects of instruction that are geared towards the learners’ appropriacy still remain less than adequately addressed. Such a niche offers potentials for and stimulates a proliferating body of research. This study aims at examining the effectiveness of explicit vs. implicit pragmatic instruction regarding language performance as output. For the purpose of the study, 120 (60 male and 60 female) EFL learners took part in this project. Error Recognition Tests (ERTs), Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs), role-play, and writing assessments were used for gauging pragmatic output. Two separate 3×2 mixed between-within-subjects factorial ANOVAs were conducted to examine the effects of instruction type, proficiency level, and time (treatment) on pragmatic acquisition. Findings significantly support (a) the overall benefit of pragmatic instruction, (b) the effect of both implicit and explicit instructions with explicit type being more highly influential, (c) the effect of proficiency, and (d) the interaction effect of proficiency and pragmatic instruction on pragmatic language L2 use. Findings bear implications for enriching teaching and learning contexts, deepening theoretical concerns, improving pedagogical practice, and implementing communicative syllabus design. Keywords:

General English Course (GEC), considering its syllabus, is a misnomer for the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) instruction in Iran. The major goal of GEC, as set by the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, is to help undergraduate students develop a reasonable ability to read and comprehend their reference textbooks in their majors. Since a lot of time, money, and energy are spent on GEC and given the dropout rate among students, its efficiency needs to be evaluated meticulously. This study was an attempt to assess the efficiency of GEC in achieving its purported objectives. Two hundred and sixty-six university students taking their GEC sat for the pretest of the study in order to get a preliminary profile of their reading comprehension ability as well as their knowledge of vocabulary. After 15 sessions of treatment, based on the GEC syllabus, the learners took a posttest. Results of a Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test revealed an improvement from the pretest to the posttest, which is negligible with regard to a small effect size. This state of affairs denotes that GEC has not achieved its goals completely. The implications of the study for policymakers, curriculum developers, and educators are discussed.