درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Interlanguage pragmatic learning strategies (IPLS) as particularly tailored language learning strategies for acquiring L2 pragmatic knowledge have been recently paid paramount attention in the pragmatics literature. These strategies are, therefore, related to some other social variables which are central to pragmatic development such as L2 social identity. Because of the importance of the IPLS and the rarity of research about the relationship between IPLS and with L2 social identity as a highly pragmatic-oriented variable, the current study tried to investigate the contribution of various forms of IPLS to L2 social identity among a randomly selected sample of 125 upper-intermediate to advanced EFL learners at a state university in Iran. During the two-phased data collection procedure, first, the participants filled out Locastro’s (2001) L2 social identity questionnaire, and then Malmir and Tajeddin’s (2015) IPLS inventory in two subsequent sessions. Data analysis using multiple regression revealed that all types of IPLS were significant contributors to L2 social identity except for the memory IPLS. Among the other five types of IPLS, social IPLS was a significant and strong contributor to L2 social identity. Affective and compensatory IPLS were significant moderate contributors to L2 social identity; however, metacognitive and cognitive interlanguage pragmatic learning strategies were weak albeit significant predictors of Iranian EFL learners’ social identity in English as an L2. The results of this study imply that L2 teachers can enhance social identity among the learners by fostering the knowledge of various forms of IPLS.

Working memory is believed to interact with a second language (L2) learning at the cognitive level. The present study sought to explore the impact of L2 readers’ prior knowledge on the contribution of working memory to reading comprehension. Eighty Iranian English learners were divided into two groups of high and low by their scores on L2 knowledge and the topic knowledge tests. Their working memory spans, and reading comprehension abilities were measured via a working memory test and a reading comprehension test respectively. The results indicated that working memory significantly predicted L2 reading comprehension only when the readers had sufficient topic knowledge. The results also show that the learners’ comprehension was mostly determined by their L2 linguistic knowledge, even when they had considerable working memory capacity. The findings imply that readers’ prior knowledge could moderate the contribution of working memory in L2 reading comprehension. A certain level of knowledge in the target language and on the topic is required for L2 readers to help working memory work more efficiently.

Listening comprehension is a challenging skill in EFL contexts and it is necessary to research various aspects of this skill. Therefore, this study tried to investigate EFL learners’ progress on two types of listening comprehension items, receptive-response and productive-response, through diagnostic assessment (DIA) and dynamic assessment (DA). To do this, a Nelson proficiency test was administered among 120 EFL students in six classes, out of which, 90 students whose scores were in the acceptable range were selected. The classes were then randomly divided into three groups of control, DIA, and DA. As the pretest, a KET listening test in two sections of receptive-response and productive-response items was used to check the learners’ initial performance. Next, as for the treatment, in the DIA group, the learners took four listening tests with receptive-response and productive-response items in the form of test-feedback; in the DA group, the learners took the same four tests in the form of test-mediation-retest, and in the control group, the learners practiced receptive-response and productive-response items after each listening activity. At the end of the study, another KET listening test in two sections of receptive-response and productive-response items was administered to the participants to investigate the three groups’ progress from pretest to posttest. Finally, two repeated-measures two-way ANOVAs and one MANOVA were run, and the results showed that both DIA and DA resulted in significant improvements in the learners’ performance on both receptive-response and productive-response listening items; however, the difference between the two types of assessment was not significant.