آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 6 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 131 |
| تعداد مقالات | 1,631 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 1,879,815 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 1,741,140 |
Sociopragmatic Competence in Medical Higher Education: Structure, Criteria, and Measurement Methods | ||
| Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances | ||
| مقاله 2، دوره 14، شماره 2، دی 2026، صفحه 1-30 اصل مقاله (4.62 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22049/jalda.2026.31530.1982 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| Gulnoza Salimova* | ||
| MA in Applied Linguistics, Department of Youth Affairs, Spirituality and Enlightenment, Abu Ali ibn Sino Bukhara State Medical Institute, Bukhara, Uzbekistan | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Sociopragmatic competence—the ability to use language appropriately in accordance with social, institutional, and cultural context—represents a critical yet comparatively underexplored dimension of medical professional communication. In Uzbek-medium higher education, validated structural models and assessment frameworks for this construct appear to remain limited, particularly within the Central Asian context. This study aimed to develop a theoretically grounded structural model of sociopragmatic competence for medical higher education, articulate component-specific assessment criteria, and identify appropriate measurement methods through a systematic integrative literature review conducted across Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar, yielding 54 sources retained for thematic synthesis following PRISMA-ScR screening procedures and employing abductive reasoning evaluated against criteria of internal coherence, theoretical grounding, and practical applicability. The study proposes the five-component MedSPC Model, organized across two hierarchical planes. The foundational plane encompasses Sociopragmatic Knowledge and Discourse Organizational Competence, while the performative plane comprises Interactional Role Competence, Face Management Competence, and Pragmatic Adaptability. The model is accompanied by a component-specific four-level assessment rubric and a Multi-Method Assessment Battery (MMAB) consisting of four complementary instruments. All components are theoretically grounded and presented as a structured research agenda subject to empirical validation. The MedSPC Model is presented not as a set of validated claims but as an empirically generative framework that produces testable hypotheses about the structure, development, and assessment of medical sociopragmatic competence, with empirical validation constituting the essential and immediate next step in this research agenda. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| MedSPC Model؛ professional discourse؛ pragmatic assessment؛ Central Asian higher education؛ integrative literature review | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Harvard University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2010). Pragmatics and second language acquisition. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 232–243). Oxford University Press.
Barrows, H. S. (1993). An overview of the uses of standardized patients for teaching and evaluating clinical skills. Academic Medicine, 68(6), 443–451. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199306000-00002
Barnes, R. K., & Woods, C. J. (2024). Communication in primary healthcare: A state-of-the-art literature review of conversation-analytic research. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 57(1), 7–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2024.2305038
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex Publishing.
Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/1.1.1
Claramita, M., & Susilo, A. P. (2024). Bridging the communication gap in health care: Challenges and opportunities in hierarchical and collectivistic cultures. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4320-9
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
Dashtestani, R., & Forutanian, S. (2025). Toward designing Education 4.0 competency-based ESP curriculum (E4CEC) in the context of Iranian education: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 13(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.22049/jalda.2025.29868.1710
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Anchor Books.
Heritage, J., & Maynard, D. W. (Eds.). (2006). Communication in medical care: Interaction between primary care physicians and patients. Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins Publishing.
Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride, & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings (pp. 269–293). Penguin Books.
Imafuku, R., Saiki, T., & Woodward-Kron, R. (2022). Revisiting discourse analysis in medical education research. International Journal of Medical Education, 13, 138–142. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.6278.c1b7
Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000
Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G. (2008). Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory (2nd ed., pp. 279–303). Continuum.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell Publishing.
Khalili, A., Zohrabi, M., Dobakhti, L., & Gholami, J. (2025). Convenience editing in medical sciences: Professional expertise vis-à-vis linguistic virtuosity. Language Related Research, 16(1), 161–189. https://doi.org/10.48311/LRR/lrr.2025.161161
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). American Council on Education & Macmillan.
Mishler, E. G. (1984). The discourse of medicine: Dialectics of medical interviews. Ablex Publishing.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. Longman.
Rastegar, B., Zarei, A. A., & Esfandiari, R. (2022). Towards the development of an assessment literacy questionnaire: The case of Iranian EFL teachers. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 10(2), 9–34. https://doi.org/10.22049/jalda.2022.27579.1378
Rees, C., Knight, L., & Wilkinson, C. (2007). Doctors being up there and we being down here: A metaphorical analysis of talk about student/doctor-patient relationships. Social Science & Medicine, 65(4), 725–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.044
Roever, C. (2005). Testing ESL pragmatics: Development and validation of a web-based assessment battery. Peter Lang.
Roever, C. (2011). Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language Testing, 28(4), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210394633
Roter, D. L., & Hall, J. A. (2006). Doctors talking with patients/patients talking with doctors: Improving communication in medical visits (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243
Silverman, J., Kurtz, S., & Draper, J. (2005). Skills for communicating with patients (2nd ed.). Radcliffe Publishing.
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2015). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), Article 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
Terkourafi, M. (2005). Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(2), 237–262. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.237
Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., Lewin, S., Straus, S. E., Knowles, K., & Booth, A. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford University Press.
Yudkowsky, R. (2002). Should we use standardized patients instead of real patients for high-stakes clinical skills examinations? Academic Emergency Medicine, 9(11), 1212–1213. https://doi.org/10.1197/aemj.9.11.1212
Zargaran, Z., & Ghorbanpoor, M. (2026). Assessing the assessors: A study of UTAS Level 2 EFL teachers' perspectives and practices in writing evaluation and its impact on students' writing scores. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 14(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.22049/jalda.2026.30804.1842
Zohrabi, M. (2013). Mixed method research: Instruments, validity, reliability and reporting findings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(2), 254–262.
Zohrabi, M., & Khalili, A., (2025). The utility of tailor-made teacher education in Iranian EFL instructors’ attitudes towards dynamic assessment. Language Testing in Asia, 15(29), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-025-00366-9 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 360 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 41 |
||
