Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 32468
The Effect of Computer-Mediated vs. Face-to-Face Instruction on L2 Pragmatics: A Meta-Analysis

Authors: Marziyeh Yousefi, Hossein Nassaji


This paper reports the results of a meta-analysis of studies on the effects of instruction mode on learning second language pragmatics during the last decade (from 2006 to 2016). After establishing related inclusion/ exclusion criteria, 39 published studies were retrieved and included in the present meta-analysis. Studies were later coded for face-to-face and computer-assisted mode of instruction. Statistical procedures were applied to obtain effect sizes. It was found that Computer-Assisted-Language-Learning studies generated larger effects than Face-to-Face instruction.

Keywords: Meta-analysis, effect size, pragmatics, computer-assisted language learnin, face-to-face instruction, comprehensive meta-analysis software.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 654


[1] T. Khaerudin, “Envisioning the use of technology to teach pragmatics,” IJ-TEFL, vol.1(1), pp. 60-69, 2012.
[2] M. Farahian, M. Rezaee, and A. Gholami, “Does direct instruction develop pragmatic competence? Teaching refusals to EFL learners of English,” Journal of Language Teaching & Research, vol. 3(4), pp. 814–821, 2012.
[3] S. L. Chow, “Meta-Analysis of Pragmatics and Theoretical Research: A Critique,” The Journal of Psychology, vol. 121(3), pp. 259-271.1999.
[4] J. M., Norris, and L. Ortega, “Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis,” Language Learning, vol. 50, pp. 417–528, 2000.
[5] A. D. Cohen, “Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners?” Language Teaching, vol. 41, pp. 213–235, 2008.
[6] R. Rosenthal, “Writing meta-analytic reviews,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 118(2), pp. 183-192. 1995.
[7] S. Li, “The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis,” Language Learning, vol. 60, pp. 309–365, 2010.
[8] M. Borenstein, L. V. Hedges, J. P. T., Higgins, and H. R. Rothstein, “Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2)”. Englewood, NJ: Biostat. 2005.retrieved from
[9] L. Bax, L. Yu, N. Ikeda, and K. Moons, “A systematic comparison of software dedicated to the meta-analysis of casual studies”. BMC Med Res Methodol. vol. 7(40) doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-40. 2007.
[10] J. Cohen, “Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.)”. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. 1988
[11] M. Borenstein, L. V., Hedges, J. P. T Higgins, and H. R. Rothstein, (2009). “Introduction to meta-analysis,” Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 2009.
[12] Z. Tajeddin, M. H., Keshavarz, and A. Zand Moghaddam, “The Effect of Task-Based Language Teaching on EFL Learners’ Pragmatic Production, Metapragmatic Awareness, and Pragmatic Self-Assessment”. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), vol. 15(2), pp.139-166, 2012.
[13] S. Li, (2013). “Amount of practice and pragmatic development of request-making in L2 Chinese”, In N. Taguchi & J. M. Sykes (eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 43–70, 2013.
[14] H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, M. Borenstein, “Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment, and Adjustment,” Wiley Publications. 2005. Retrieved from