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.
Ramezani et al. (Sat,) studied this question.