PRAGMATIC AWARENESS SCALE: A VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 42 Sayı: 1, 73 - 86, 01.05.2025

Fatma Gerez Taşgın , Muhsine Börekçi

https://doi.org/10.52597/buje.1594381

Öz

In this research, the aim was to develop a measurement tool to assess pragmatic awareness. An exploratory design from mixed research methods was employed. The sample consisted of a total of 700 pre-service teachers. The developed scale includes 20 items and five sub-dimensions. To establish the scale's validity, both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was calculated as .790. Based on the results, it was concluded that the scale is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring pragmatic awareness. Enhancing this awareness among pre-service teachers is expected to support the application of innovative and effective methods in language teaching. Furthermore, the scale fills a gap in the field by introducing a much-needed measurement tool into the literature on Turkish language education. In conclusion, this study aims to contribute to teacher education processes and to the development of pre-service teachers’ contextual language use skills by offering a new perspective on the significance of pragmatic awareness in Turkish language teaching.

Anahtar Kelimeler

pragmatics , pragmatic awareness , speech acts , scale development

EDİMBİLİMSEL FARKINDALIK ÖLÇEĞİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Öz

Bu araştırmada, edimbilimsel farkındalığı ölçmeye yönelik bir ölçme aracı geliştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada, karma araştırma yöntemlerinden keşfedici desen kullanılmıştır. Çalışma grubunu toplam 700 öğretmen adayı oluşturmuştur. Geliştirilen ölçek 20 madde ve beş alt boyuttan oluşmaktadır. Ölçeğin geçerliliğini sağlamak amacıyla açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ölçeğin Cronbach’s alfa güvenirlik katsayısı ,790 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular doğrultusunda, ölçeğin edimbilimsel farkındalığı ölçmede geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Öğretmen adaylarının bu farkındalıklarının artırılmasının, dil öğretiminde yenilikçi ve etkili yöntemlerin uygulanmasına katkı sağlayacağı öngörülmektedir. Ayrıca bu ölçek, Türkçe eğitimi literatüründe ihtiyaç duyulan bir ölçme aracını alana kazandırarak önemli bir boşluğu doldurmaktadır. Sonuç olarak bu çalışma, Türkçe öğretiminde edimbilimsel farkındalığın önemine ilişkin yeni bir bakış açısı sunarak öğretmen eğitimi süreçlerine ve öğretmen adaylarının bağlama uygun dil kullanımı becerilerinin gelişimine katkı sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

edimbilim , edimbilimsel farkındalık , söz edimleri , ölçek geliştirme

Kaynakça

• Amaliah, A. (2024). A review article of the pragmatics competence in EFL learning context. Al Qalam: Jurnal Ilmiah Keagamaan dan Kemasyarakatan, 18(1), 776-790. https://doi.org/10.35931/aq.v18i1.3163
• Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
• Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford University Press.
• Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63(1), 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x
• Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233–262. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587583
• Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
• Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
• Cohen, A. D., & Ishihara, N. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 1015–1034). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Creswell, J. W. (2015). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Sage.
• Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. Jossey-Bass.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. http://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
• Kasper, G. (2001). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 33–60). Cambridge University Press.
• Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell Publishing.
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
• Povolná, R. (2012). Pragmatic awareness in teacher education. Acta Academica Karviniensia, 12(1), 148-158. https://doi.org/10.25142/AAK.2012.014
• Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge University Press.
• Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74.
• Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language (Vol. 626). Cambridge University Press.
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
• Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000018
• Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 189–223. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014899
• Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
• Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91
• Tse, S. K. (2014). Teacher candidates' beliefs and practices in teaching English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 37(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2014.927930
• Yang, L. (2024). Affording pragmatics-focused training for language teachers: The case of L2 Mandarin Chinese. System, 125, 103447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103447