Why Is It So Useful During COVID-19

From Angicos Wiki
Revision as of 12:52, 31 October 2024 by BrockGiblin779 (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean<br><br>In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on 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 criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).<br><br>This article reviews all locally published practical research on Ko...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on 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 criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 무료체험, minibookmarks.com, such as manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

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 designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had 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. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This is 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 reassess the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.