Why Teachers Don’t Use Their Pragmatic Awareness
DESIGN OF THE RESEARCH
Data Analysis
The data obtained from the twelve lessons observed were coded following an adapted version of the coding scheme presented by Lyster and Ranta (1997). This scheme consists of six categories from the original scheme and another two, which I felt justified in adding due to the peculiarities of my data. The whole set of categories comprised: explicit correction, recasts, clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition, translation and utterance completion.vi
This study looked at the provision of CF at four broad levels of language, namely Phonological, Morphological/Syntactic, Lexical/Semantic and Pragmatic. There were moments in which these categories overlapped. Whenever that happened, feedback was considered as being provided for the two (or more) areas concerned.
After all the data had been fully analyzed in the manner described above and the interviews carried out, I felt it might be important not only to know whether teachers had provided CF at the pragmatic level, but also whether the classroom situations recorded would actually require this type of feedback. I then opted for selecting samples from the audio recorded lessons. I divided the four lessons by each teacher into odd (lesson 1 and lesson 3) and even (lesson 2 and lesson 4) lessons. For each teacher investigated, I looked at pages 1 to 10 of the transcription of the odd lessons and pages 7 to 16 of the transcription of the even lessons.vii In total, 120 pages of lessons were analyzed for occasions that would lend themselves to CF in Pragmatics, i.e. occasions in which inappropriate pragmatic behavior had occurred.
vi It is important to mention that CF in Pragmatics can be provided by means of any of the eight categories mentioned.
vii I considered 10 pages per lesson to be quite significant, given that the lessons ranged from 17 to 44 pages in length.
