5 Pragmatic Projects That Work For Any Budget
페이지 정보
작성자 Kandy 작성일24-09-20 22:56 조회5회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 게임 슬롯 환수율 [http://47.108.249.16] the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior 프라그마틱 이미지 정품 [Daoban blog entry] of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 게임 슬롯 환수율 [http://47.108.249.16] the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior 프라그마틱 이미지 정품 [Daoban blog entry] of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
