10.57647/jee.2026.0901.04

Instructional Techniques for Teaching Interlanguage Pragmatics: A Comparative Study of Reflective and Non-Reflective EFL Instructors

PDF
  • Sara Ramezani1,
  • Leila Akbarpour1,
  • Firooz Sadighi1,
  1. Department of Foreign languages, Shi. C., Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran

Received: 2026-10-25

Revised: 2026-02-03

Accepted: 2026-02-16

Published in Issue 2026-06-30

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Ramezani, S., Akbarpour, L., & Sadighi, F. (2026). Instructional Techniques for Teaching Interlanguage Pragmatics: A Comparative Study of Reflective and Non-Reflective EFL Instructors. Journal of Education Experiences, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.57647/jee.2026.0901.04
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 12

Abstract

nterlanguage pragmatics instruction has been one of the measures taken to raise learners’ awareness of pragmatic norms. However, the instructional techniques teachers adopt are often guided by their underlying educational beliefs. Despite this, little research has explored how reflective versus non-reflective instructors differ in their approaches to teaching interlanguage pragmatics. This study addresses this gap by examining the instructional techniques employed by Iranian English as a foreign language reflective and non-reflective instructors. This quantitative study involved 6 applied linguists in developing a questionnaire and 410 instructors (179 reflective, 231 non-reflective) in answering it. The participants were selected through convenience sampling from diverse educational contexts in Iran. The analysis of the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed four categories of instructional techniques: consciousness-raising, technology-based, communication-based, and corrective feedback. Results further indicated that reflective instructors tend to utilize a balanced mix of techniques, while non-reflective instructors predominantly rely on explicit methods. The findings of the study might offer valuable insights for language teachers and educators by equipping them with effective instructional techniques to explicitly develop learners’ pragmatic competence.

PDF

References

  1. Adyagarini, G., Lestari, A., & Munir, A. (2019). Teachers’ practices on raising students’ pragmatic awareness: Challenges and reflections for EFL teachers. International Journal of Education and Social Science Research, 2 (02), 1–25. http://ijessr.com
  2. Akbari, R., Behzadpoor, F., & Dadvand, B. (2010). Development of English language teaching reflection inventory. System, 38(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.03.003
  3. Alsmari, N. A. (2024). Learner autonomy and interlanguage pragmatic learning strategies (IPLS) use: A gender-based analysis in the Saudi EFL context. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 42, 145–162. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2024.42.09
  4. Amalia, T., Sitorus, P., Siregar, D. Y., Aulia, D. N., Atalia, N., Parinduri, A. I., Nur, D., Lubis, A., & Wardiah, F. D. (2025). A systematic review of pragmatic competence in second language acquisition. Sintaksis: Publikasi Para Ahli Bahasa Dan Sastra Inggris, 3(1), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.61132/sintaksis.v3i1.1291
  5. Arvand, E., & Gorjian, B. (2022). Effect of reflective teaching instruction (RTI) on learners’ listening skill. Journal of new advances in English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 753-767. https://www.jeltal.ir
  6. Aydin, F. (2023). Effects of implicit and explicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. TESOL Communications, 2(1).
  7. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2020). Pedagogical linguistics: A view from L2 pragmatics. Pedagogical Linguistics, 1(1), 44-65. https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.19013.bar
  8. Beech, G. (2023). Misunderstanding misunderstanding: Exploring the depth of hindrance to cross-cultural communications. International Bulletin of Mission Research,47(2), 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/23969393221105220
  9. Clarke, Z. C., Judge, S., Fryer, K., Cunningham, S., Toogood, J., & Hawley, M. S. (2023). A qualitative study exploring the effect of communicating with partially intelligible speech. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 39(2),110–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2023.2206910
  10. Feruza, K. (2024). A brief overview of pragmatics: Language in context. American Journal of Philological Sciences, 4(03), 24-31. https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume04Issue03-05
  11. Haristiani, N., & Christinawati, D. (2024). Interlanguage pragmatic competence of university students: An error analysis of apology speech act strategies in Japanese learners. International Journal of Language Education,8(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v8i1.60904
  12. Herraiz-Martinez, A. (2018). Technology and task-based language teaching (TBLT): Exploring pragmatics. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 14(2), 36-61.
  13. Htun, N. N., Nu, T., & Oo, T. Z. (2023). The effectiveness of the reflection-based interactive teaching approach on students’ reading comprehension achievement. Journal of Field-Based Lesson Studies, 4(1), 85–123. https://doi.org/10.22768/jfls.2023.4.1.85
  14. Jafari, S., Rostampour, M., & Akbarpour, L. (2025). Investigating the impact of mobile-assisted metalinguistic corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ grammar proficiency: A mixed-methods approach. Journal of Education Experiences, 8(2), 215-239. https://doi.org/10.71922/jee.2025.1219901
  15. Khodjaeva, G., & Akhmadaliyeva, K. (2024). Modern pedagogical technologies in teaching a foreign language: Enhancing language learning in the digital age. Journal of Science-Innovative Research in Uzbekistan, 2(5), 499-503.
  16. Mann, S., & Walsh, S. (2017). Reflective practice in English language teaching: Research-based principles and practices. In Reflective Practice in English Language Teaching: Research-Based Principles and Practices. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315733395
  17. Mekki, T. A. (2020). Utilizing reflective teaching strategies to develop EFL Iraqi university students writing ability. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 10(02), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.37648/ijrssh.v10i02.020
  18. Mohamadi, M., Moradkhani, S., & Saberi, K. (2023). Reasons for EFL teachers’ L1 use in classrooms: Teachers’ versus students’ perceptions. Language Related Research, 14(1), 283–304. https://doi.org/10.52547/LRR.14.1.11
  19. Moslehi, P., & Salehi, H. (2021). Relationship between reflective teaching and teacher autonomy among Iranian EFL experienced and novice teachers. Journal of Practical Studies in Education, 2(5), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.46809/jpse.v2i5.28
  20. Munira, D. S., Nessa, M., Afreen, S., Helal, A., & Akter, A. (2024). Enhancing EFL outcomes through reflective teaching experiences from public and private universities of Bangladesh. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(7), 1068-1075.
  21. Namaziandost, E., Heydarnejad, T., & Azizi, Z. (2023). The impacts of reflective teaching and emotion regulation on work engagement: Into prospect of effective teaching in higher education. Teaching English Language, 17(1), 139-170. https://doi.org/10.22132/TEL.2022.164264
  22. Ningsih, P. K., Efendi, M., & Samawi, A. (2022). Improving reading skills of beginning deaf students through global reflective maternal methods controlled learning motivation. Journal of ICSAR, 6(2), 237-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.17977/um005v6i22022p237
  23. Putri, S., Sari, I., Soepriyanti, H., & Amin, M. (2024). An exploratory study of miscommunication problems experienced by foreigners. Pendas: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Dasar, 9(1), 4524-4538 .
  24. Phan, Q. N., & Nguyen, Q. T. (2024). Reflective teaching: Voices from Vietnamese pre-service EFL teachers.Issues in Educational Research, 34(2), 666-681.
  25. Quinto, J. B. (2024). Pragmatic instructions in oral communication in context. JLE: Journal of Literate of English Education Study Program,5(1),1-16. https://doi.org/10.47435/jle.v5i1.2952
  26. Rassaei, E. (2021). Effects of dynamic and non-dynamic corrective feedback on EFL writing accuracy during dyadic and small group interactions. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 59(2), 233-265. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-0044
  27. Sánchez-Hernández, A., & Barón, J. (2022). Teaching second language pragmatics in the current era of globalization: An introduction. Language Teaching Research, 26(2), 163-170. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211064931
  28. Savvidou, C., & Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2019). Teaching pragmatics: Nonnative-speaker teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and reported practices. Intercultural Communication Education, 2(1), 39-58. https://dx.doi.org/10.29140/ice.v2n1.124
  29. Shadiev, R., & Feng, Y. (2024). Using automated corrective feedback tools in language learning: a review study. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(6),2538-2566. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2153145
  30. Stratton, J. M. (2023). Implicit and explicit instruction in the second language classroom: A study of learner preferences in higher education. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 56(2), 103-117. https://doi.org/10.1111/tger.12263
  31. Taguchi, N. (2024). Technology-enhanced language learning and pragmatics: Insights from digital game-based pragmatics instruction. Language Teaching, 57(1), 57-67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000101
  32. Tekin, S., & Garton, S. (2020). L1 in the primary English classroom: how much, when, how and why?: How much, when, how and why?. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 77-97.
  33. Tora, T. (2024). English language instructors’ beliefs about implementing reflective teaching strategy in EFL instructions: A mixed-method research. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30 (4), 4231-4245.
  34. Youn, S. J. (2020). Interactional features of L2 pragmatic interaction in role-play speaking assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 54(1), 201-233. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.542
  35. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Harvard University Press.
  36. Wei, R. E. N., Li, S., & Xiaoxuan, L. (2023). A Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of second language pragmatics instruction. Applied Linguistics, 44(6), 1010–1029. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amac055
  37. Yousefi, M., & Nassaji, H. (2021). Corrective feedback in second language pragmatics: A review of research. TESL-EJ, 25(1), 1-14.
  38. Zhang, S. (2024). The application and effectiveness of reflective teaching in the training of English normal students. Journal of Modern Education and Culture, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.70767/jmec.v1i1.89