What Experts Say You Should Be Able To
페이지 정보
작성자 Adell 작성일 24-10-02 10:20 조회 33회 댓글 0건본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and 프라그마틱 정품인증 불법 (Freebookmarkstore.Win) L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 불법 - what is it worth, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences 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 was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and 프라그마틱 정품인증 불법 (Freebookmarkstore.Win) L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 불법 - what is it worth, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences 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 was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.