A01 cohe4573 01 se fm. Qxd

participate actively, and report perceived development of their L2 pragmatic
ability, although the pedagogical role of this type of instruction still needs
to be further examined.
31
Thus far, we have discussed the potentials of various technologies that
can mediate the learning and teaching of pragmatics, along with some 
24
See Belz and Kinginger (2002) for a learner’s use of these personal pronouns in
telecollaborative interactions extended over 50 days.
25
See González-Lloret (2008) for Spanish learners’ development of the use of T/S 
pronouns in synchronous telecollaborative interactions over 10 weeks.
26
See Takenoya (2003) for an EFL lesson on the terms of address, which may be 
integrated into language instruction involving telecollaboration.
27
See Berry (2003) and Gallow (2003) for lessons on active listening.
28
See Lee (2003) for lessons for teaching these discourse markers.
29
Also see Schneider and von der Emde (2006) for dialogic conflict management.
30
Sykes (2008).
31
Beltz (2007). See also Sykes (2008) for empirical investigation of pragmatics-focused
intervention in the synthetic immersion environment.

---

2 5 6
F U R T H E R I S S U E S I N L E A R N I N G , T E A C H I N G , A N D A S S E S S M E N T
F I G U R E 1 3 . 4 Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning
possible ways to apply them to pragmatics-focused instruction. These 
technologies can be employed alone or in combination to maximize their
benefits and compensate for shortcomings. In the following section, we will
examine how these technologies can help activate different levels of cogni-
tive learning in order to stimulate learners’ higher-order thinking.
Instructional technologies and learner cognition
Let us now consider a range of task types that may be more or less appropri-
ate for CMC or other forms of technology-assisted language learning.
Although technology may facilitate the learning of pragmatics, not all tasks
are equally amenable to delivery with a certain form of technology. In order
to analyze task characteristics in terms of the levels of cognitive demand,
the well-known Bloom’s taxonomy may be useful (Figure 13.4).
Bloom classifies levels of intellectual behavior in the cognitive domain
into six categories: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis,
and evaluation.
32
The lowest cognitive domain, knowledge, can be
exemplified by simple recall or recognition of facts. The second level,
comprehension, is still considered a lower-level cognitive activity requiring
learners to understand the material and able to interpret it on their own, 
as demonstrated, for example, through translation, restatement, and 
exemplification. The other categories, application, analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation, represent higher levels of cognitive learning, requiring greater
cognitive demands. Application involves using newly acquired information
or skills in a new situation, while analysis constitutes an investigation of 
the components and the organizational structure. Synthesis and evaluation
32
Bloom (1956).

---

I N C O R P O R A T I N G T E C H N O L O G Y I N T O I N S T R U C T I O N
2 5 7
call for higher-order thinking at abstract levels. At the cognitive level of
synthesis, learners put various components of language or ideas together to
construct a new sentence or stretch of discourse. At the level of evaluation,
learners assess the value or quality of the material (see the “information” at
the end of Activity 13.1, below, for explanations, sample tasks for pragmatics
instruction, and key words to prompt such tasks in those categories). As
with any area of learning, it is important to diversify our task demands in
pragmatics-focused instruction in order to activate various levels of cogni-
tion on the part of our learners.
What tasks and cognitive levels can best be developed through 
technology-mediated learning? The answer depends largely on what teachers
want learners to become able to do and which technology is selected for use.
For example, simple retention of vocabulary words and their meanings may
be accomplished effectively through electronic exercises where there is one-
to-one correspondence between a question and a “correct” answer. Learners
can effectively use computerized exercises to acquire certain bits of know-
ledge and check comprehension or retention of that knowledge at lower
cognitive levels. For instruction about pragmatics, this level of learning may
involve the learning of formulaic expressions and developing automaticity
in producing them. If available technology allows for communication
among learners (as chat, video-conferencing programs, and instructional
discussion tools do), then learners can engage in more meaningful dis-
cussion, for example, as to the observed norms of the target culture. This
would require higher-order cognitive skills, such as analysis, synthesis and
evaluation in Bloom’s taxonomy mentioned above.
Discussion
In this chapter, we have viewed technology broadly and have discussed
potential application of various forms of technology to pragmatics-focused
learning and teaching. We have first looked at potentials of feature film, 
situational comedies, and other media-based material conducive to the
learning of pragmatics. We have also discussed the use of audio and video
materials, as well as other forms of visual support that computers make it
possible to include with relative ease. We have also discussed online exercise
makers and CMC tools, their pedagogical advantages, and sample tasks 
or areas of L2 pragmatics that may be amenable to teaching through those
media. Finally, using Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning, we have con-
sidered different levels of cognitive demands. Learners can take advantage of
online exercises not only to practice and acquire lower-level skills while

---