What Experts From The Field Want You To Learn
페이지 정보
작성자Callum 댓글댓글 0건 조회조회 7회 작성일 24-11-01 20:45본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor 프라그마틱 슬롯 (see the second example).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 불법 (Bbs.01Bim.Com) the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful 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 influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
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 study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 환수율 (infozillon.com) 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and 프라그마틱 무료체험 testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor 프라그마틱 슬롯 (see the second example).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 불법 (Bbs.01Bim.Com) the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful 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 influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
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 study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 환수율 (infozillon.com) 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and 프라그마틱 무료체험 testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
