Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of Bloom-based activities and Vygotskian scaffolding on Iranian EFL learners’ use of the speech act of request

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine if Bloom-based Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) instruction could enhance EFL learners’ use of the speech act of request. Based on their OQPT scores, 43 students were assigned to a control group (n=23) and a treatment group (n=20). A written discourse completion task (WDCT) was developed to measure participants’ use of the speech act of request before and after the intervention. The results pointed to a significant difference between the performance of the treatment group in which Bloom-based treatment supported by Vygotskian scaffolding was employed and the control group which received no explicit ILP instruction. The treatment group also yielded significant gains from the pretest to posttest and to delayed posttest, while no significant improvement was observed in the performance of the control group. In-depth examination of the participants’ WDCT performance indicated that the four pragmatics factors (correct use of speech acts, type of expressions, amount of information, and degree of politeness) measured in this study, improved significantly, but differentially, from the pretest to delayed posttest. Comparison of the pretest and posttest data suggested that the component of degree of politeness enjoyed the highest degree of gain followed by amount of information, correct use of speech acts and type of expression.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alcón, E. (2005). Does instruction work for pragmatic learning in EFL contexts? System, 33(3), 417–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcón, E., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2005). Editors’ introduction to pragmatics in instructed language learning. System, 33(3), 381–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allami, H., & Naeimi, A. (2011). A cross-linguistic study of refusals: An analysis of pragmatic competence development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 385–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Athanassiou, N., McNett, J. M., & Harvey, C. (2003). Critical thinking in the management classroom: Bloom's taxonomy as a learning tool. Journal of Management Education, 27(5), 533–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford University Press.

  • Bailin, S. (2002). Critical thinking and science education. Science Education, 11, 361–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, A. L., & Washburn, S. G. (2001). Teaching students to think: Practical applications of Bloom's taxonomy. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 74(3), 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning (pp. 21–39). Division of English as an International Language: University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bialystok, E. (Ed.). (1991). Language processing in bilingual children. Cambridge University Press.

  • Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic presentation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 43–57). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birjandi, P., & Derakhshan, A. (2014). The impact of consciousness-raising video-driven vignettes on the pragmatic development of apology, request, & refusal. Applied Research on English Language, 3(1), 67–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B, S., Engelhart M, D., Furst E, J., Hill W, H. & Krathwohl D, R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook, 1.

  • Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 131–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness. In S. BlumKulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, (1- 34). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Discourse pragmatics. In T. Ivan Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 38–63). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49, 44–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, K, S. (1990). How can we teach critical thinking? ERIC clearinghouse on elementary and early childhood education. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED326304).

  • Chen, H, Y. (2010). A classroom quasi-experimental study to explore processing instruction (Doctoral dissertation, University of York).

  • Clemons, S. A. (2005). Brain-based learning: Possible implications for online instruction. International Journal of Instructional Technology and distance learning, 2(9), 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31(1), 113–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, M., & Liddicoat, A. (2002). The development of comprehension in interlanguage pragmatics: The case of request strategies in English. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 19–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowe, A., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2008). Biology in bloom: Implementing Bloom's taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 7(4), 368–381.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, K., & Decker, T. (2006). Bloom’s and beyond: Higher level questions and activities for the creative classroom. Marion, IL: Pieces of Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demetrulias, D. A. M., & McCubbin, L. E. (1982). Constructing test questions for higher level thinking. Nurse Educator, 7(5), 13–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz, A, R. (2013). Developing critical languaculture pedagogies in higher education: Theory and practice (Vol. 25). Multilingual matters.

  • Educational Testing Service. (2005). TOEFL iBT score comparison tables. Princeton, NJ: ETS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal, 59(2), 199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flor, A. M., & Juan, E. U. (Eds.). (2010). Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (Vol. 26). John Benjamins Publishing.

  • Fraser, B. (1978). Acquiring social competence in a second language. RELC Journal, 9(2), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 219–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazilatfar, M. A., & Cheraghi, M. (2013). Exploring the effects of instruction on EFL learners’ pragmatic development. TELL, 7(2), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, P. (2004). Pragmatic comprehension of high and low level language learners. TESL-EJ, 8(2), n2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geranpayeh, A. (2006). A quick review of the English quick placement test. Retrieved from University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations: https://www.uniss.it/documenti/lingue/what_is_the_QPT.pdf

  • Gilmore, A. (2004). A comparison of textbooks and authentic interactions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 363–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, W. (2007). The new Bloom's taxonomy: Implications for music education. Arts Education Policy Review, 108(4), 7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, T., Detmer, E., & Brown, J. D. (1995). Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics. Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Idek, S., & Fong, L. L. (2015). The use of consciousness-raising techniques in teaching the verb ‘be’to students of vocational colleges. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 208, 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishihara, N. (2010). Assessment of pragmatics in the classroom. In N. Ishihara & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (pp. 286–317). Malaysia: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development. Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, 165–211.

  • Jernigan, J. E. (2007). Instruction and developing second language pragmatic competence: An investigation into the efficacy of output. The Florida State University.

  • Jernigan, J. E. (2012). Output and English as a second language pragmatic development: The effectiveness of output-focused video-based instruction. Canadian ELT Journal, 5(4), 2–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, X. (2006). Suggestions: What should ESL students know? System, 34(1), 36–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught?. http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/.

  • Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language (language learning monograph series). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasper, G., & Rover, C. (2002). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317–334). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasper, G., & Rover, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317–334). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kondo, S. (2008). Effects on pragmatic development through awareness-raising instruction: Refusals by Japanese EFL learners. Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing, 153–177.

  • Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunen, S., Cohen, R., & Solman, R. (1981). A levels-of-processing analysis of Bloom’s taxonomy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 202–211.

  • Liaw, M, L. (2007). Content-based reading and writing for critical thinking skills in an EFL context. 英語教學期刊, 31(2), 45-87.

  • Liu, C. N. (2007). Pragmatics in foreign language instruction: The effects of pedagogical intervention and technology on the development of EFL learners’ realization of” request”. Texas A & M University.

  • MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design, Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirzaei, A., & Seyyed Rezaei, M. (2012). Exploring the underrepresentation of pragmatic competence in the L2 classrooms in Iran. Social Sciences and Humanity Studies, 4(1), 1309–8063.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olshtain, E., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Crosscultural pragmatics and the testing of communicative competence. Language Testing, 2(1), 16–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1990). The learning of complex speech act behavior. TESL Canada Journal, 7(2), 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riazi, A, M., & Mosalanejad, N. (2010). Evaluation of learning objectives in Iranian high-school and pre-university English textbooks using Bloom’s taxonomy. TESL-EJ: The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 13(4).

  • Rose, K. R. (1994). On the validity of DCTs in non-western contexts. Applied Linguistics, 15, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, K. R. (1999). Teachers and students learning about requests in Hong Kong. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 167–180). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 27–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effect of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition., 11, 129–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. Interlanguage pragmatics, 21, 42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. Attention and awareness in foreign language learning, 9, 1–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. (2012). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. Perspectives on individual characteristics and foreign language education, 6, 27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shardakova, M. (2005). Intercultural pragmatics in the speech of American L2 learners of Russian: Apologies offered by Americans in Russian. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(4), 423–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharwood Smith, M. (1980). Consciousness raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed second language acquisition: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taguchi, N. (2007). Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 313–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taguchi, N. (2011). The effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience on pragmatic comprehension. Language Learning, 61, 904–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. Pragmatics in language teaching, 171–199.

  • Takahashi, S. (2005). Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: A qualitative analysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics. System, 33(3), 437–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, D. S., Goles, T., and Chin, W. W. (2002). Measuring student learning. E-service journal 1, 41–51.

  • Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, T. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ interpretation of higher-order thinking in bloom’s taxonomy. Retrieved from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.153.1356

  • Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and apologies (Vol. 7). Walter de Gruyter.

  • Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14(2), 103–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodfield, H. (2008). Problematising discourse completion tasks: Voices from verbal report. Evaluation and Research in Education, 21(1), 43–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, Y. (2001). An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2), 271–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zangoei, A., & Derakhshan, A. (2014). Iranian EFL learners’ ILP comprehension and their language learning preferences: The effect of consciousness-raising instruction. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5(2), 211–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U. (1993). Are lecture and learning compatible? Maybe for LOCS: Unlikely for HOCS (SYM). Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 195–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

    Shiva Kaivanpanah & Mostafa Taghizadeh Langari

Authors
  1. Shiva Kaivanpanah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mostafa Taghizadeh Langari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shiva Kaivanpanah.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all the participants prior to their participation in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaivanpanah, S., Langari, M.T. The effect of Bloom-based activities and Vygotskian scaffolding on Iranian EFL learners’ use of the speech act of request. Curr Psychol 41, 6348–6362 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01053-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01053-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation