• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, 프라그마틱 이미지 DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined 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 upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 프라그마틱 플레이 L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The 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

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, 프라그마틱 they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger 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 study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.