Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching

Volume 17 (2026) Issue 2

Pragmatic Awareness as a Catalyst for Multilingualism, Reflective Competence, and Intercultural Growth in Language Education: A Case Study

Brikena Xhaferi & Gezim Xhaferi (South East European University, North Macedonia)

Abstract

In multilingual educational settings, pragmatic competence is essential for navigating diverse communicative situations. This study investigates how explicit pragmatics instruction supports the development of multilingual abilities, reflective learning, and intercultural awareness among English and German majors at South East European University. Utilising a mixed-methods design consisting of a Pragmatic Awareness Questionnaire and Reflective Learning Journals, this research examines two constructs: pragmatic sensitivity – the ability to interpret contextual cues – and pragmatic adaptability – the capacity to adjust language use strategically. The results indicate that students effectively identify appropriate speech acts, interpret indirect meanings, and apply politeness strategies, demonstrating a strong attunement to contextual and cultural norms. Overall, the findings suggest that integrating explicit pragmatics instruction with reflective learning significantly enhances learners' pragmatic sensitivity and intercultural competence, equipping them to communicate effectively in diverse social and academic environments. (1)

Keywords: Pragmatic Awareness, Multilingual Competence, Politeness Strategies, Reflective Learning, Intercultural Communication

1 Introduction

Language operates beyond grammar and vocabulary as a social tool shaped by culture, context, and speaker intent. The way individuals communicate, particularly in multilingual and multicultural environments, reflects both linguistic competence and pragmatic awareness. Pragmatics, as a field of linguistic study, examines how speakers convey meaning beyond the literal content of words, including intentions, social norms, politeness strategies, and context-dependent interpretations (Yule, 1996). Understanding pragmatic variation – the differences in language use across social and cultural contexts – is increasingly important in a globalised world where cross-cultural communication is commonplace. For students of English and German at South East European University (SEEU), pragmatic competence plays a crucial role in academic, professional, and social interactions, enabling them to navigate subtle variations in politeness, requests, refusals, and other speech acts across languages.

In general, Pragmatic awareness refers to learners’ ability to recognise and interpret these variations and to adjust their language use according to contextual and cultural norms (Taguchi, 2015). Research has demonstrated that even proficient language learners often encounter challenges in interpreting indirect requests, understanding culturally bound expressions, or producing appropriate speech acts (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1993). For instance, English speakers frequently employ indirectness, hedging, and mitigated expressions to maintain politeness and minimise face-threatening acts, whereas German speakers may prefer more direct forms in similar contexts. Such differences, if not properly understood, can lead to miscommunication or unintended impoliteness, particularly in academic and professional settings where students are expected to collaborate, negotiate, and interact across cultures.

In the context of SEEU, students majoring in English and German are exposed to both languages as foreign or additional languages, each embedded in distinct cultural norms. English, often regarded as an international lingua franca, carries pragmatic conventions influenced by Anglophone cultures, where indirectness, politeness markers, and euphemistic expressions are prevalent. German, conversely, is characterised by directness, explicitness, and formalised politeness distinctions, especially in professional and educational settings (Koike & Pearson, 2005). Awareness of these differences is essential for learners not only to achieve linguistic accuracy but also to demonstrate social competence and intercultural sensitivity. By examining students’ observations of pragmatic variation and cultural influences on communication, educators can better understand learners’ difficulties and design pedagogical interventions that enhance pragmatic competence.

Previous studies on pragmatics have highlighted the importance of classroom-based reflective activities, such as journals, role plays, and scenario analysis, in fostering learners’ awareness of speech acts, politeness strategies, and context-dependent meaning (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993; Bardovi-Harlig, 2001). Reflective learning journals, in particular, provide students with opportunities to document and analyse real-life interactions, notice patterns of variation, and compare pragmatic norms across languages. This reflective process supports the development of metapragmatic knowledge, allowing learners to critically evaluate their own communication strategies and to adapt their language use in intercultural interactions. Such exercises are especially valuable in multilingual contexts like North Macedonia, where exposure to multiple languages and cultures creates complex communicative demands.

This study seeks to explore how English and German majors at SEEU perceive and reflect on pragmatic variation and cultural influences in communication. It investigates learners’ awareness of speech acts, politeness strategies, and context-dependent meaning through reflective journals, aiming to uncover patterns of pragmatic development and cross-linguistic differences. The research also considers the pedagogical implications of these findings, highlighting the role of reflective practices in enhancing learners’ pragmatic competence and intercultural communication skills. By focusing on pragmatic awareness, this study contributes to the broader understanding of language learning as a socially and culturally embedded process, emphasising that effective communication requires not only linguistic knowledge but also an understanding of the social and cultural dimensions of language use. Also, Investigating pragmatic awareness through reflective learning journals offers valuable insights into the ways learners navigate these challenges and develop competence in both languages. The findings of this study are expected to inform language teaching practices at SEEU, providing strategies to enhance students’ sensitivity to cultural norms, speech acts, and politeness conventions, ultimately fostering more effective and nuanced cross-cultural communication.

2 Literature Review

Research in pragmatics emphasises that effective communication extends beyond grammatical proficiency; it requires pragmatic competence – the ability to use language appropriately in social contexts (Kecskes, 2023). Pragmatic competence consists of pragmalinguistic knowledge (how to formulate speech acts) and sociopragmatic knowledge (how context and cultural norms shape interpretation) (Taguchi, 2015; Harlow, 1990, as cited in Rose, 2000). Learners often struggle with both components because cultural norms influence how speech acts like requests, refusals, and apologies are realised (Beck, 2019; Schauer, 2024). In addition, pragmatic variation refers to systematic differences in how speakers of different languages use and interpret language according to cultural values, social norms, and communicative conventions. Variation can occur between speech communities but also within languages across contexts, genders, and social groups (Smith & Lee, 2024). Pragmatic norms are not universal: what counts as polite in one culture may be perceived as rude or unusual in another (Kecskes, 2023; Schauer, 2024). For example, English often employs indirect strategies, such as hedging or mitigators, to maintain face and politeness, especially in hierarchical relationships, whereas German can tolerate more direct forms without threatening politeness (Schauer, 2024; Beck, 2019).

When it comes to speech acts and cross cultural variation, from Austin and Searle’s foundational work on speech act theory, speech acts are recognised as pivotal to pragmatic research. Searle (1969) defined speech acts as actions performed through utterances, such as requesting, apologising, or refusing. Modern pragmatics research investigates how learners’ second language (L2) use of speech acts diverges from native speaker norms due to differing cultural schemas or insufficient pragmatic input. Studies involving German learners of English show that learners frequently misinterpret or misproduce pragmatically appropriate forms. Schauer’s (2024) comparative study revealed that German EFL learners were less aware of pragmatic infelicities (e.g., inappropriate directness or missing politeness markers) than peer groups immersed in English speaking contexts, particularly in how speech acts like requests and refusals were executed. Prolonged exposure to the target culture enhanced learners’ pragmatic awareness significantly, highlighting the role of sociocultural immersion (Schauer, 2024). Similarly, politeness research shows that learners’ use of politeness strategies is strongly influenced by their L1 norms. In a study of Cypriot Greek learners of English, participants preferred conventionally indirect request forms even in contexts that did not require hedging, suggesting that their L1 cultural norms influenced their pragmatic choices in English (Petrou & Michail, 2023). Such results support the view that learners transfer sociopragmatic norms from their first language to the L2 unless explicit instruction or cultural exposure intervenes. Furthermore, politeness is deeply embedded in cultural expectations. In English speaking contexts, indirectness and hedging (e.g., Could you possibly…?) are often interpreted as polite strategies mitigating face threatening acts. In contrast, German norms allow direct forms (e.g., Bitte hilf mir…) without incurring negative pragmatic judgements, highlighting interlanguage variation in politeness strategies (Beck, 2019). Research also shows that explicit instruction in politeness norms and speech act realisation improves L2 pragmatic performance more than grammar focused teaching alone (Wijayanto, 2023).

Overall, pragmatic awareness, i.e. the conscious understanding of how language use varies with context, is crucial for learners to negotiate meaning in intercultural communication. Several studies demonstrate that pragmatic instruction (e.g., role plays, discourse completion tasks, reflective journals) increases learners’ sensitivity to context dependent meaning and appropriate use of speech acts (Taguchi, 2015; Wijayanto, 2023). For example, learners exposed to pragmatic input (authentic dialogues, explicit explanations of politeness norms) outperformed control groups on measures of speech act appropriateness and politeness recognition (Wijayanto, 2023). Methods such as discourse completion tasks (DCTs) have been used widely to measure L2 pragmatic competence because they elicit contextually bound speech acts in controlled scenarios (Blum Kulka, House & Kasper, 1989). These instruments allow researchers to compare learners’ responses against native speaker norms and identify areas where pragmatic knowledge is lacking.

Furthermore, Intercultural pragmatics emphasises that communication is co constructed and influenced by norms from multiple cultures (Kecskes, 2023). In multilingual settings, such as English and German majors at SEEU, learners bring varied linguistic and cultural backgrounds that shape their pragmatic choices. Learners reflect not only on form (what is said) but on function (what is meant), demonstrating that context significantly influences interpretation (Schauer, 2024; Petrou & Michail, 2023). Recent research also shows that pragmatic variation is dynamic within languages and shaped by sociocultural factors beyond mere grammatical rules. For instance, pragmatic patterns can vary regionally or socially within a single language, complicating the assumption that a single set of norms defines ‘correct’ pragmatic behaviour (Smith & Lee, 2024). Therefore, learners must navigate not only cross linguistic differences (English vs. German) but also intralinguistic variations shaped by groups and contexts.

3 Methodology

3.1 Research Questions

The present study is guided by the following research questions:

1. How do English and German majors differ in their pragmatic awareness across speech acts, politeness strategies, and context-dependent meaning?

2. In what ways do learners perceive and mobilize politeness strategies and cultural norms within their real-life communication in English and German?

3. How does reflective learning contribute to learners’ metapragmatic awareness and ability to adapt language use across different cultural and linguistic contexts?

3.2 Participants

This study involved a total of 95 undergraduate students majoring in English and German at South East European University (SEEU), North Macedonia. Participants were enrolled across all years of study and represented a predominantly female cohort – 70 female as compared to 25 male students –, including Albanian, Macedonian, Turkish, and Roma students at the SEEU. The sample included 56 English majors and 39 German majors, providing insights into learners’ pragmatic competence across two target languages:

Table 1: Demographic Information

Participants were drawn from all four years of study, with minor variations in representation across academic levels. Most students reported Albanian as their native language, followed by Macedonian, while fewer participants indicated Turkish or other languages. Overall, the sample reflects a predominantly female, Albanian-speaking population with representation across study years and both language programmes, providing relevant context for interpreting students’ pragmatic awareness.

3.3 Research Methods

The study used two research methods i.e. student questionnaire and reflective journals. The Pragmatic Awareness Questionnaire (Appendix 1) was employed as a quantitative instrument to assess learners’ knowledge and understanding of pragmatic features in English and German. Specifically, the questionnaire targeted three key domains of pragmatic competence: speech acts, politeness strategies, and context-dependent meaning, and it follows the frameworks proposed by Searle (1969) and Taguchi (2015).

Reflective learning journals were utilised as a qualitative instrument of data collection to examine students’ pragmatic awareness and the impact of cultural norms on communication in English and German. This method involved 12 participants and it enabled them to systematically record observations of authentic language use and to provide reflective accounts of the social and contextual factors influencing communication. The reflective journals were integrated into an elective Pragmatics course offered to students enrolled in both the English Language and Literature, and German Language and Literature programmes. The course aimed to develop students’ understanding of how language is used in context and how sociocultural factors influence meaning construction and interpretation. A particular emphasis was placed on pragmatic competence, intercultural communication, and the ways in which speakers from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds employ communication strategies. Furthermore, the reflective journals were based on the main themes explored throughout the course, including indirectness, politeness strategies, hedging, speech acts, contextual meaning, and cross-linguistic differences in communication. Students engaged with a range of course materials, and these materials provided the foundation for students’ observations and reflections on pragmatic features in English and German.

The reflective journals followed a semi-structured format, combining guiding prompts with students’ own reflections. Students were encouraged to reflect on pragmatic differences between English/German and their own language(s), the influence of cultural norms on communication practices, experiences of intercultural misunderstandings, and strategies for achieving more effective cross-cultural communication.

4 Results

4.1 Pragmatic Awareness Questionnaire Results

This section presents the findings from the Pragmatic Awareness Questionnaire administered to English and German majors at SEEU. The questionnaire assessed learners’ understanding of speech acts, politeness strategies, and context-dependent meaning in both languages. Data are reported for multiple-choice items, scenario-based questions, Likert-scale statements, and self-assessment measures, providing a comprehensive overview of students’ pragmatic awareness, sensitivity to social and cultural context, and perceived competence.

Table 2 presents students’ performance on selected speech acts in English and German, focusing on the identification of pragmatically appropriate responses:

Table 2: Speech Acts in English and German

Item 5 regarding polite requests evaluated a scenario in which a peer asks: Can you lend me your notes for tomorrow's lecture? Participants were instructed to select the most appropriate request form in English. Conversely, the item assessing formal apologies (Item 6) examined students' ability to identify suitable pragmatic expressions within German contexts. Participants demonstrated stronger overall performance on the English item, indicating a higher level of pragmatic awareness in routine English interactions. This heightened sensitivity may stem from greater exposure to English through formal instruction, media, and everyday practice.

Also, performance on the German formal apology item (Item 6) was a bit lower, although a considerable number of students were still able to identify the appropriate expression. This difference may reflect variations in students’ pragmatic competence across languages, influenced by factors such as instructional emphasis, frequency of language use, and familiarity with specific sociocultural conventions. Overall, the findings revealed differences in students’ pragmatic awareness across speech acts and target languages, highlighting the importance of explicit and contextualised pragmatics instruction, particularly in languages that students have fewer opportunities to use extensively outside the classroom, such as German in the current study.

Table 3 presents students’ performance on scenario-based items assessing the use of politeness strategies in English and German:

Table 3: Politeness Strategies: Scenario-based Multiple Choice

Item 8 involved an academic interaction in which a professor makes a request, and students were asked to select the most appropriate response in English. The scenario required students to identify a polite and respectful way of responding to an authority figure in a university context. A large majority of English majors (44 out of 56, or 78.6%) selected the pragmatically appropriate response (I’d be happy to stay…), compared to 18 out of 39 German majors (46.2%). This indicates a strong awareness among English majors of formal politeness conventions in academic English interactions, suggesting familiarity with indirectness, willingness expressions, and deference strategies commonly used when communicating with professors or other academic figures.

Item 9 focused on a written communication context in German, in which students were asked to choose the most polite opening for an email requesting an extension. A substantial proportion of German majors (29 out of 39, or 74.4%) selected the correct option (Könnten Sie mir bitte…), demonstrating clear awareness of formal request conventions in written German. In contrast, only 13 out of 56 English majors (23.2%) selected the appropriate response. Overall, these findings highlight program-specific strengths in pragmatic competence, while indicating that cross-language formal written communication – particularly in German – may benefit from explicit instruction and targeted practice to help all students master context-specific conventions.

Table 4 summarises students’ self-reported awareness and their use of politeness strategies in English and German:

Table 4: Politeness Strategies: Likert-Scale Items (Mean ± SD)

The mean scores across all items are relatively high, indicating that students perceived themselves as sensitive to contextual and interpersonal factors when using a certain language.

The highest mean score relates to adjusting language according to the interlocutor, suggesting strong pragmatic awareness of social roles and situational appropriateness in both languages.

Preference for indirect forms when interacting with unfamiliar people also received high mean values, reflecting students’ recognition of indirectness as a key politeness strategy.

Slightly lower, though still positive, mean scores were observed for noticing differences between English and German politeness strategies, which may indicate that, while students are generally aware of cross-linguistic pragmatic variation, this awareness is less developed than their general use of politeness strategies.

Across all items, English mean scores are marginally higher than those for German, pointing to greater confidence or familiarity with politeness conventions in English. The standard deviations suggest moderate variability in responses, indicating individual differences in pragmatic awareness. Overall, the findings reflect a solid level of pragmatic sensitivity, with scope for further instruction focused on cross-linguistic contrasts between English and German politeness norms.

Table 5 shows students’ ability to interpret context-dependent meaning in English and German:

Table 5: Context-dependent Meaning: Multiple-Choice

Item 10 focused on an English pragmatic inference task in which students were asked to interpret the implied meaning of the statement It’s a bit chilly in here. In this context, the speaker may not simply be commenting on the temperature but may indirectly be requesting that someone close the window or adjust the room temperature. A clear majority of English majors – 39 out of 56 (69.6%), representing 41.1% of the total sample of 95 participants – correctly identified the implied meaning of the indirect statement (option b, Want the window closed), indicating a relatively strong ability to interpret pragmatic intent beyond literal meaning. This suggests that students are generally proficient in understanding indirectness and implied requests in familiar English contexts.

Item 10 also examined students’ interpretation of the German expression Das ist ja interessant. Rather than expressing genuine interest in all contexts, this phrase may also convey meanings such as mild surprise, reservation, or doubt depending on the situation and intonation. Specifically, 24 out of 39 German majors (61.5%), representing 25.3% of the total sample of 95 participants, correctly interpreted the pragmatic meaning of the expression as mild surprise or doubt, indicating a developing awareness of contextual meaning and speaker attitude in German. When viewed across the total sample, the results reveal differences in pragmatic inferencing abilities between the two languages. These findings suggest stronger pragmatic interpretation skills in English than in German, highlighting the need for more explicit instruction and practice in recognising context-dependent meanings and implied intentions in German communication.

In the open-ended item 11, students were asked to provide an example from their own experience where a literal translation between English and German would not convey the same meaning and to explain how they decide which level of formality or politeness to use in different contexts in English or German. Students identified literal vs. pragmatic mismatches and reported using context, relationship, and formality to decide language use. Their responses revealed that decisions about formality and politeness are guided by context, relationship, and social norms. Most noted that formal situations (e.g., with professors or unfamiliar adults) require indirectness, hedging, or honorifics, while informal settings allow casual language. Many highlighted literal vs. pragmatic mismatches between English and German, emphasising that direct translation often fails to convey the intended tone. The responses also showed metapragmatic awareness, with students consciously adapting language based on observations and cultural norms. Overall, English majors expressed more confidence in applying these strategies, while German majors were more cautious, reflecting the greater complexity of German pragmatics.

Table 6 presents students’ self-rated pragmatic competence in English and German:

Table 6: Self-Assessment of Pragmatic Competence

Table 6 presents the findings from the last two questions (Items 12 and 13) which asked the students to assess and rate their pragmatic competence in both English and German. Overall, students assessed their English competence more highly than their German proficiency. Regarding English, the majority of participants evaluated their skills as high or moderate, indicating confidence in their ability to use the language appropriately in social and academic contexts. Very few individuals categorised their abilities as low or very low, suggesting that English majors felt relatively secure in their pragmatic skills.

To conclude with, the analysis of the Pragmatic Awareness Questionnaire revealed that SEEU English and German majors generally demonstrate moderated to high pragmatic awareness, with stronger performance in English than in German. Students showed a good understanding of speech acts, politeness strategies, and context-dependent meaning, although formal registers and subtle expressions in German posed some challenges. They were aware of strategies such as mitigation, indirectness, and adapting language to context, and their responses indicated sensitivity to cross-linguistic differences. Self-assessments aligned with these findings, showing higher confidence in English than in German. Overall, the results highlight the importance of explicit and contrastive pragmatics instruction to support mastery of indirectness, formal registers, and contextual nuances, thereby enhancing communicative competence in both languages.

4.2 Reflective Journal Analysis

To examine students' pragmatic awareness and intercultural communication experiences, reflective journals were collected from twelve participants. To ensure anonymity, pseudonyms were assigned to all participants. The group consisted of seven female and five male students aged between 19 and 23 years. Eight participants were Albanian, three were Macedonian, and one was Turkish. Six were enrolled in the English Language and Literature programme and six in the German Language and Literature programme. The journals provided valuable evidence of students' growing awareness of pragmatic differences between English and German and revealed several recurring themes The themes were identified through qualitative thematic analysis. The researchers coded the reflective journal entries, identified recurring patterns in students’ reflections, and grouped related codes into broader themes concerning pragmatic awareness, intercultural communication, and differences between English and German language use.

4.2.1 Indirectness and Politeness Strategies

Participants frequently noted contrasts in indirectness and politeness between the two languages. Many observed that English speakers rely on indirect requests and mitigated expressions, whereas German communication is often perceived as more direct.

For example, Arta (a 21-year-old Albanian female English major) noted that English speakers commonly use expressions such as “Could you possibly help me?”, while German speakers may prefer more straightforward formulations like: ”Kannst du mir helfen?“ Although the German expression is not impolite, it sounds more direct because the speaker clearly states the request without additional softening strategies.

Leon (a 22-year-old Macedonian male German major) reflected on differences in expressing criticism: “When giving feedback, English speakers often try to make criticism sound softer by saying something like ‘‘I think we could improve this part’’. In German, people are usually more direct and may simply say ‘‘Das ist nicht richtig’’. This direct style does not necessarily mean that the speaker is impolite, but it reflects a different communication style. 

Our respondents generally recognised the fact that these differences require careful adaptation to avoid unintended impoliteness or misunderstandings during intercultural interactions.

4.2.2 Context-Dependent Meaning and Pragmatic Interpretation

A second major theme involved the interpretation of implied meanings and indirect messages. Several participants demonstrated awareness that literal interpretation alone is often insufficient for successful communication.

Elira, a 20-year-old Albanian female English major, described a situation in which the statement “It's a bit chilly here” functioned as an indirect request to close a window rather than a simple comment about temperature. Likewise, Denis, a 22-year-old Albanian male German major, emphasised that understanding speaker intention requires attention to contextual clues rather than relying solely on direct translation.

These reflections indicate that the respondents recognised the importance of pragmatic inference in understanding communicative intent.

4.2.3 Formality and Professional Communication

Another recurring theme concerned language use in formal and professional contexts, particularly in emails and institutional communication.

Mira, a 21-year-old Turkish female German major, observed that English emails typically contain greetings, closings, and various politeness markers designed to soften requests. In contrast, she perceived German email communication as more concise and task-oriented.

Similarly, Sara, a 20-year-old Albanian female English major, reflected on differences in apology strategies, noting that English speakers often use more elaborate expressions of regret, while German speakers may prefer shorter and more direct apologies.

These observations suggest that our respondents were aware of how pragmatic conventions vary across professional and academic settings.

4.2.4 Managing Disagreement and Feedback

Several journal entries focused on disagreement, criticism, and feedback. Students frequently noted that English speakers tend to mitigate disagreement through hedging devices and modal verbs.

For instance, Arben, a 23-year-old Albanian male English major, observed that English speakers often use expressions such as “Well, maybe…” to soften disagreement, whereas German speakers are generally more comfortable expressing opposing views directly, for example through expressions such as “Ich bin anderer Meinung”. He noted that these expressions communicate disagreement clearly and directly, while English speakers often use additional mitigating phrases to make disagreement sound less confrontational.

Similarly, Julia, a 19-year-old Macedonian female German major, highlighted the frequent use of modal verbs such as “might” and “could” when making suggestions in English discussions. She contrasted this with German, where suggestions are often expressed more directly through forms such as “Wir könnten…” “Du solltest…”, which may sound more explicit and less tentative compared to the English equivalents.

These reflections exemplify the respondents’ awareness of how linguistic choices contribute to maintaining interpersonal harmony.

4.2.5 Cultural Influences on Communication

In view of the broader role of culture in shaping communication styles, students noted differences in humor, conversational topics, compliments, and conflict avoidance strategies.

Besnik, a 22-year-old Albanian male German major, observed that English humour often relies on irony and understatement, which may be difficult for German speakers to interpret.

Lina, a 20-year-old Albanian female English major, reflected on differences in complimenting behaviour, while Marko, a 21-year-old Macedonian male German major, highlighted variations in small-talk practices, noting that English speakers frequently engage in casual conversation before addressing the main topic.

These observations indicate that the respondents viewed communication not merely as a linguistic process but as a culturally embedded practice shaped by social norms and expectations.

Overall, our respondents’ reflective journals reveal a developing level of metapragmatic awareness. Students demonstrated their sensitivity to indirectness, politeness strategies, contextual meaning, formality conventions, and culturally influenced communication patterns. Across the journals, English majors generally expressed greater confidence in interpreting and applying pragmatic strategies, while German majors often reported being more cautious and analytical when confronted with pragmatic differences. The findings suggest that reflective activities can play an important role in fostering learners' intercultural communicative competence and pragmatic awareness in foreign language education.

5 Conclusion

This study investigated the pragmatic awareness, application of politeness strategies, and reflective learning of English and German majors at SEEU. In response to the first research question of how English and German majors differed in their pragmatic awareness across speech acts, politeness strategies, and context-dependent meaning, the findings show that learners demonstrated moderate to high pragmatic awareness overall, with stronger performance in English. Students were generally able to identify appropriate speech acts, infer indirect meanings, and apply politeness strategies, while formal registers and subtle expressions in German presented more challenges, reflecting differences in exposure, familiarity, and instructional emphasis. This pattern of development is consistent with (Taguchi, 2015; Kasper & Rose, 2002).

Regarding the second research question of how learners perceived and applied politeness strategies and cultural norms in real-life communication across English and German, the analysis revealed that learners were sensitive to contextual and cultural factors, adjusting their language according to interlocutor, formality, and social norms. Observations of indirect requests, hedging, email conventions, and disagreement showed that students actively applied pragmatic strategies to maintain appropriateness and effectiveness in communication.

For the third research question of how reflective learning contributed to learners’ metapragmatic awareness and their ability to adapt language use across different cultural and linguistic contexts?, the respondents’ journal entries demonstrated that reflection played a critical role in developing metapragmatic awareness and pragmatic adaptability. Students consciously noticed cross-linguistic differences, interpreted context-dependent meaning, and adjusted their language strategically, enhancing both intercultural competence and multilingual communication skills (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Rose, 2005).

Integrating explicit pragmatics instruction with reflective learning strengthens learners' pragmatic sensitivity and intercultural competence, better equipping them for diverse social and academic environments.

Although this study is limited by its relatively small sample size and focus on English and German majors at a single institution (SEEU in Tetovo), which may restrict the generalisability of the findings, it provides some significant pedagogical insights. Consequently, we recommend that future language courses integrate structured, contrastive, and context-based pragmatics instruction alongside reflective exercises, thereby enabling learners to practise and internalise pragmatic strategies in both English and German.

Appendices

Target Group: English and German Majors, SEEU, North Macedonia
Purpose: To assess students’ understanding of speech acts, politeness strategies, and context-dependent meaning in English and German.

Instructions:

• Read each question carefully.

• Answer honestly; there are no right or wrong answers.

• For multiple-choice items, select the best option.

• For open-ended items, write complete responses.

• The questionnaire should take approximately 15–20 minutes.

                     Thank you for your participation!

References

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13–32). Cambridge University Press.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310001212X

Beck, B. (2019). Pragmatic competences of German students in English content and CLIL contexts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex Publishing.

Harlow, L. L. (1990). Do they mean what they say? Sociopragmatic competence and second language learners. Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 328–351.

Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Pearson Education.

Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.). (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford University Press.

Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell Publishing.

Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford University Press.

Kecskes, I. (2023). The socio-cognitive approach to communication and pragmatics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30160-5

Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The assessment of pragmatic competence in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 38(3), 481–490.

Petrou, A., & Michail, A. (2023). The effect of L1 linguistic and cultural background on L2 pragmatic awareness. Languages, 10(5), Article 112. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages10050112

Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 27–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100001027

Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.003

Schauer, G. (2024). Pragmatic development in L2 English: The role of instruction and immersion. Journal of Pragmatics, 210, 104–118.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.

Smith, J., & Lee, M. (2024). Pragmatic variation and cultural norms in global communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 21(1), 45–62.

Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263

Wijayanto, A. (2023). The effect of explicit instruction on pragmatic routines in L2 learning. Journal of Second Language Pragmatics, 15(2), 112–128.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.

Authors: 

Prof Brikena Xhaferi

Faculty of Languages, Cultures and Communications

South East European University

Tetovo

Republic of North Macedonia

Email: b.xhaferi@seeu.edu.mk

ORCID: 0000-0003-2218-3349

Prof Gezim Xhaferi

Faculty of Languages, Cultures and Communications

South East European University

Tetovo

Republic of North Macedonia

Email: g.xhaferi@seeu.edu.mk

ORCID: 0000-0001-5563-6670 

_______________________________

(1) In the preparation of this paper, AI tools were used for language editing, proofreading, and improving clarity and organisation. The authors reviewed and verified the content and remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, and final version of the paper.

Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching

Volume 15 (2024) Issue 1

pp. 79-93

Perceptions of Inquiry-based Learning in Higher Education: A Case Study from North Macedonia 

Brikena Xhaferi, Jeta Hamzai & Gezim Xhaferi (Tetovo, North Macedonia)

Abstract 

Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is a learner-centred approach based on using students' questions to facilitate learning. This approach is based on constructivist philosophy, particularly the work of Piaget, Dewey and Vygostky. Because it is suitable for developing students' critical thinking skills, modern educational methodologists call for its wider use in the classroom, not only in language teaching but also in other disciplines. The present study aims to explore teachers' and students' perceptions and classroom experiences of IBL in the EFL classroom at tertiary level. The research context is the South East European University (SEEU) in Tetovo, North Macedonia. The study, which uses two instruments, a survey and an interview for data collection, found that IBL has several benefits, including the development of communication skills, collaboration among students, critical thinking and active learning.

Keywords: Inquiry-based learning, tertiary level, language learning, teachers and students’ perceptions

1   Introduction 

With the inclusion of Artificial Intelligence in education, learners and teachers are exposed to unlimited resources and tools for learning and teaching. The education system in North Macedonia is going through tremendous changes in all levels of education. Not leaving any child behind is one of the core issues of the national curriculum and universities must prepare future teachers to respond to the diversity and differentiation that they will face in the future. One of the best ways to achieve these goals is using modern teaching methods and approaches which put the learner in the centre of learning. An important current trend in teaching EFL which engages learners a lot and promotes active learning is inquiry-based learning. 

Inquiry-based learning is a pedagogical approach which has its roots in the 1960s when discovery learning, as opposed to traditional teaching methods such as the Grammar-Translation Method, began to be used (Brunner 1961). Based on Dewey's pedagogy of experiential learning, inquiry is conducted in a way that is based on the main principles that students should engage with the content, ask questions in class and work together to find solutions to different learning problems. Additionally, learners are expected to construct knowledge by themselves and based on experiences. 

The present study focuses on teachers’ and students’ perceptions and experiences with inquiry-based learning at a tertiary level of education, i.e. at the South East European University (SEEU) in North Macedonia. The institutions in this country strive to move away from traditional teaching methods, used until recently, to modern teaching methods including technology such as Mobile-assisted language learning, Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, Online quizzes, Podcasts and AI in education. The utilisation of modern technology enhances inquiry-based learning because technology creates environments that engage learners in self-learning and increases their autonomy.  

Indeed, there is a growing recognition of the importance of preparing learners for the demands of 21st-century education, which emphasises critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity. Inquiry-based learning plays a crucial role in promoting these skills by engaging students in activities that require them to think critically, analyse information, and generate creative solutions to real-world problems.

At the South East European University, various learning activities are implemented to enhance students' learning experiences. These activities include classroom debates, research papers, projects, group work, class reflections, online quizzes, all of which provide opportunities for students to explore complex issues, collaborate with their peers, and apply their knowledge in practical contexts. No doubt, teachers play a pivotal role in shaping students' learning experiences and helping them develop the skills necessary for success in the 21st century. By understanding teachers' perspectives on inquiry-based learning, this study aims to provide insights into how best to support educators in implementing effective teaching approaches and promoting student learning and achievement.

2   Basic Aspects of Inquiry-based Learning 

Inquiry-based learning is a contemporary approach based on constructivist principles that place the learner at the centre of learning. The main principles of this approach are problem-solving, investigations and questions:

Inquiry-based teaching has often focused on its application in science and maths education, but the approach is equally well-suited to the teaching of the humanities’. (Sweetland 2008: 1) 

Furthermore, the role of the teacher in an inquiry-based classroom is quite different from that of a teacher in a conventional classroom. Instead of providing direct instruction to students, teachers help students generate their own content-related questions and guide the investigation that follows (ibid.). The role of the teacher is very important in this process because his or her task is to lead and facilitate learning.

Regarding this issue, Pappes (2014) summarises four different forms of inquiries used in this approach: 

• Confirmation inquiry: This is a question or method given to learners with known results at the end. This type of inquiry offers learners an opportunity to reinforce ideas which require the practice of investigative skills.
• Structured inquiry: The learner is given a question or a method by which to arrive at the end result. The aim is to provide explanations for the evidence provided during a confirmation inquiry. 
  
• Guided inquiry: Learners only get the question, and the idea is to design a method of investigating the question itself. 
  
• Open inquiry: Learners form their questions, design the methods of investigation, conduct their inquiry and present the results. 

Laursen & Rasmussen (2019) summarise four pillars of inquiry-based learning, which include student engagement with meaningful tasks, student collaboration, teacher inquiry, student thinking, and the promotion of equity in the design of facilitative choices by teachers. Alfieri et al. (2011: 3) believe that inquiry-based learning has the advantage of allowing students to interact with materials and models, manipulate variables, explore phenomena and attempt to apply principles, and provides them with opportunities to notice patterns, discover their underlying causalities and learn in ways that appear more robust. When it comes to the methodology of inquiry-based teaching, it is based on the 5E model (engage, explore, explain, evaluate, and elaborate). This model is flexible, and it offers best teaching practices (Bybee 2009). The 5E model is also based on constructivism and supports students' learning through experience: 

Table 1: 5 E Model (Bybee et.al.2006: 2) 

Williams (2019) suggests that the 5E model for instruction can be used as a flexible one that can be very useful for curriculum development, instructors, and other educators based on constructivism and best teaching practices. In 2023, Zusy introduced a model of instruction that prioritises engaging students in the classroom to foster knowledge acquisition through phased lessons. This innovative approach is characterised by inquiry-based learning, which fundamentally shifts the dynamic of education from passive reception to active discovery. Including inquiry as a teaching method, students are given the opportunity to explore information themselves, rather than simply receiving it through traditional lecturing or instruction.

Furthermore, the main benefits of inquiry-based learning are that it enhances critical thinking, comprehension and communication skills; it helps students to explore different topics; it supports language learning and ideally makes students love learning; it is useful for different types of classrooms and promotes diversity and differentiation in the classroom (Crocket 2019). Nonetheless, there are three main disadvantages of inquiry-based learning, which Gutierrez (2018) lists. These include concerns about decreased performance in standardised testing; the risk of overlooking important issues if too much time is devoted to student inquiries, and student discomfort with the level of participation required; and potential unpreparedness of teachers to effectively facilitate inquiry-based lessons. These reflections show that implementing inquiry-based learning is not an easy task for teachers as there exist several obstacles which need to be overcome.  

Recently, several studies have looked at the effectiveness of the inquiry-based method in ELT in different contexts.

Stepanechko & Kozub (2022) conducted a quantitative survey to collect data from 76 students who were enrolled in a specialised program in cybernetics and IT. The participants’ age ranged from 17-18 years old. The study aimed to present the implementation of the inquiry-based method in English language classes and to determine if this method is effective to develop students’ speaking skills. The activities used were those that encouraged collaboration between students and other learning materials, increased learners' intrinsic motivation and promoted critical thinking. The teacher's sole role was that of a facilitator who organises students’ learning and fosters their critical thinking and engagement in learning. The findings showed that there were many benefits of inquiry-based learning such as the development of students’ curiosity, inspiration of deep learning and cognition as well as the increase of motivation and their overall learning achievements.   

Gholam (2017) employed a mixed approach; the research questions were related to some challenges of implementing inquiry-based learning and to find out the reasons why student teachers favour using it in the classroom. Eight participants, all  students, completed the survey. The results revealed that the participants were of the opinion that the school system was an obstacle for the implementation of inquiry-based learning in the classroom. The study recommended that inquiry-based learning should be used at all levels of schooling, starting in the early stages of development. According to the study, the integration of inquiry-based learning into the school curriculum can enhance interaction and students’ questioning techniques. 

In conclusion, the implementation of inquiry-based learning in EFL teaching and learning has its advantages, but also presents considerable challenges. 

3   Methodology 

The present study was conducted with the aim of exploring the potential of inquiry-based learning at the tertiary level in SEEU, North Macedonia. It was considered to be a pioneering project because none of the studies previously dealt with this issue in the given research context. By examining teachers' perceptions, students' attitudes and experiences, and the perceived benefits of inquiry-based learning, the study aimed to provide insights into the effectiveness and potential challenges of implementing this approach in EFL instruction at the tertiary level.

The study aimed to address the following research questions:

Q1: What are teachers’ perceptions of the inquiry-based approach at the tertiary level of education? Q2: What are students’ attitudes and experiences with inquiry-based learning in their classroom? Q3: What are the benefits of implementing inquiry-based learning in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom?

These research questions were designed to explore the perspectives of both teachers and students regarding inquiry-based learning in the tertiary education context, particularly focusing on the EFL classroom. 

The institution in which the present study was carried out is the South East European University (SEEU) located in Tetovo, North Macedonia. The study was conducted at the Faculty of Languages, Cultures and Communication, one of the seven faculties of this university. Students enrolled on the English Language and Literature major, BA programme. After graduation, the majority of them became EFL teachers; therefore, training them in using modern approaches is crucial for their success in their future teaching career. Additionally, the SEEU is a multilingual University which promotes learner-centred education, combines the best possible inquiry-based learning practices and trains its staff continuously. It is now regarded as a model for multi-ethnic, multi-lingual higher education in South East Europe.

The present study employed two research instruments: a teacher survey and student interviews. The teacher survey contained two parts: 1) perceptions of inquiry-based teaching and 2) usefulness of inquiry-based instruction. According to Jonex, Baxter & Khanduja (2013: 5), questionnaires are a very useful survey tool, allowing large populations to be assessed with relative ease. 

The questionnaire employed contained 30 questions. In addition, semi-structured interviews with students were used to explore their perceptions and experiences of inquiry-based activities. The interview itself included eight open-ended questions appropriate for the purpose of this research. According to DeJonckheere & Vaughn (2019), semi-structured in-depth interviews are commonly used in qualitative research, and they are the most frequent qualitative data source in health service research. 

4   Results 

4.1 Quantitative Results 

The survey on EFL teachers' perceptions of inquiry-based learning received responses from 32 teachers at the South East European University. However, only 30 surveys were filled out completely. The results are presented in Table 1 and Table 2: 

Table 2: Teachers’ Perception of inquiry-based learning

Based on the findings presented in Table 2, it can be concluded that teachers generally hold positive perceptions of inquiry-based learning. The majority of participants, comprising 22 out of 30 teachers (73.3%), expressed enthusiasm for lessons that incorporated inquiry-based activities. While a small number of teachers, 7 out of 30 (23.3%), found maintaining class control to be a challenge, the overwhelming majority, 26 out of 30 (86.6%) agreed that inquiry-based learning developed problem-solving skills in their students.

Furthermore, the results indicate that a significant number of teachers, 23 out of 30 (76.6%), perceived assessment of inquiry-based learning to be challenging, suggesting a need for further development in this area. Regarding the availability of materials for inquiry-based classes, the majority of participants (20 out of 30; 66,6%) reported finding online materials useful, while one third of them, representing 10 teachers (33,3%), disagreed with this estimation. 

Overall, these findings highlight the positive stance of teachers towards inquiry-based learning, with acknowledgment of its benefits for student learning outcomes. However, they also underscore certain challenges such as classroom management and assessment, indicating areas for potential improvement and professional development:

Table 3: Usefulness of Inquiry-based Learning Activities with Students

The findings presented in Table 3 indicate that teachers generally perceived inquiry-based learning activities as highly beneficial for students. More specifically, a majority of teachers, 28 out of 30 (93.3%), reported that inquiry-based learning activities were very useful for improving students' communication skills. Similarly, 26 teachers (86.6%) noted that students were actively engaged while working on inquiry-based activities, thus indicating a high level of commitment to learning. Teachers also observed that students enjoyed inquiry-based activities, with 21 (71%) out of 30 teachers reporting this finding. Furthermore, 22 (73.3%) teachers indicated that students demonstrated high levels of concentration when engaged in inquiry-based activities. However, there were mixed responses regarding the participation of introverted students in inquiry-based activities, where 10 (33.3%) teachers agreed that introverted students willingly participated in inquiry-based activities, another 10 teachers (33.3%) remained neutral on this statement, and 10 teachers (33.3%) disagreed with the notion that introverted students gladly participated in inquiry-based activities. 

Overall, these findings suggest that teachers perceived inquiry-based activities as highly useful for students, particularly in terms of improving communication skills, increasing engagement, enjoyment, and concentration. However, there appears to be variability in how introverted students engaged with such activities, with some teachers observing willingness to participate while others did not.

4.2 Interview Results 

The second instrument of this study involved interviews with 40 English as Foreign Language (EFL) students majoring in English Language and Literature. The purpose of the interviews was to inquire about the participants' experiences with inquiry-based learning within their department. The interview contained eight questions covering students familiarity with IBL, their experiences, perceptions, benefits, challenges and possible recommendations for teachers while implementing IBL in the classroom. The participants who were interviewed were all students in the aforementioned department.

Q1: Do you know what inquiry-based learning is?

P1: Yes, it is a new teaching approach related to problem-solving activities.

P3: Well, it is a student-centred learning process which focuses on solving open-ended questions.

P11: I think it is learning with the help of asking questions.

P19: This approach makes students engaged in the learning process by making real-word connections through exploration.

P22: I think it aims to encourage students to ask questions and find solutions to problems in real-life situations.

Analysing all the responses to the first question "Do you know what inquiry-based learning is?", it is collectively described as a student-centred teaching approach that emphasises problem solving and questioning. Key aspects include engaging students through exploration, focusing on open-ended questions, and making real-world connections to encourage students to find solutions to real-world problems.

Q2: Can you describe your experience in using inquiry-based learning as positive or negative in the classroom?

P5: Inquiry-based learning always works with students in a positive way because when you teach a hard topic, you connect it with some examples from real life. 

P15: One instance where I found inquiry-based learning to be very positive was during a group project. Our task was to research and present on a topic related to our studies. Instead of just assigning us a topic, the teacher allowed us to choose our own topics and encouraged us to explore our interests.

P26: As a student, my experience with inquiry-based learning in the classroom has been overwhelmingly positive. It has transformed the way I approach learning and has had a significant impact on my educational journey.

P27: Through inquiry-based learning, I have developed strong critical thinking and problem-solving skills. I have learned how to analyse information, evaluate its credibility, and draw logical conclusions.

Based on the responses to the question about participants' experiences with IBL, they generally indicated that inquiry-based learning was viewed positively, with benefits including increased engagement, autonomy, critical thinking and real-world connections. Specific examples (such as P15's group project) and detailed outcomes (such as P27's skills development) provided concrete evidence of its positive impact.

Q3: Do you think you achieved your learning aim(s)?

P4: Personally, I think I have achieved my learning aims.

P10: Yes, I strongly believe that my learning aims have been achieved.

P28: Yes, because I have developed critical thinking skills and communication skills a lot.

P39: I have because I am an introverted person and group work helped me to participate more in the problem we were given by the teacher.

 

An analysis of the responses to the question of whether students had achieved their learning objectives through IBL shows that the responses indicated a positive perception of the achievement of learning objectives, with varying levels of detail. P28 and P39 provided more detailed insights by specifying skills acquired and personal growth experiences, whereas P4 and P10 provided more general affirmations of their achievements.

Q4: Can you name any factors of inquiry-based learning you find the most/least useful?

P7: Factors of inquiry-based learning that I often found useful are: curiosity and engagement, independence and autonomy. While least useful was the need for guidance.

P14: For the most useful I would choose the problem-based inquiry approach when you give students a real-life problem and they with their problem-solving skills need to solve the problem and the least effective I would choose the lecture method or the oral method of teaching.

P27: Some factors that make inquiry-based learning useful include active student engagement and collaborative learning. On the other hand, some factors that may make inquiry-based learning less useful include teacher preparation and prior knowledge.

P34: The most useful factors of inquiry-based learning are a context for questions, a framework for questions, a focus for questions and different levels of questions. Least useful would be evaluation of the activity. 

Based on the interview responses regarding the most and least useful factors of IBL, the participants mentioned curiosity, engagement, problem solving skills and collaboration. On the other hand, the need for guidance, method of teaching / lecturing, teacher preparation and evaluation of the activity were mentioned as the least useful.

Q5: What was the most challenging in inquiry-based learning?

P14: I needed to be trained to practise inquiry-based activities in the class.

P20: For me, the most challenging aspect was to solve problems but luckily we worked in groups so we managed it very well. 

P 31: Students’ preparedness because it is a time-consuming activity. 

An analysis of the responses to the challenges that inquiry-based learning posed for pupils revealed the need for adequate teacher training, the difficulty of the problem-solving tasks and the need for pupils to be well prepared due to the time-consuming nature of these activities. These findings point to the importance of professional development for teachers, the benefits of collaborative learning, and the need for effective time management and preparation.

Q6: Which courses encouraged the use of inquiry-based learning? 

P2: For me, this was more appropriate to be used in language skills classes because I was given freedom to work.  

P17: In the course ESP for law, we were thrilled to work on inquiry-based tasks because it helped us to solve problems related to law.

P29: Inquiry-based learning was very useful for us while taking a teaching methodology-related course because we could choose our own activities for class presentations.

P34: Definitely the course language and society encouraged the use of inquiry-based activities in class.

When asked about the courses that most promoted IBL in the classroom, participants identified Language Skills, ESP for Law, Teaching Methodology and the Language and Society course.

Q7: Do you have any suggestions for teachers for inquiry-based learning?

P1: My suggestion is to practise it with the students because it increases our critical thinking skills.

P9: My experience with inquiry-based learning was very useful therefore, I strongly recommend it to teachers of EFL.

P12: I would suggest they implement it in class especially for developing collaboration and speaking skills of the students.

P22: I would definitely suggest it to teachers because it encouraged active learning where we actively participated in the learning process through inquiry-based activities.

In response to question 7, which asked for any other suggestions for teachers, the students indicated that they were all in favour of implementing IBL in the classroom because it improved their critical thinking, developed collaboration in the classroom and promoted active learning. In general, the students' suggestions highlighted the many benefits of implementing inquiry-based learning in the classroom, and their feedback emphasised the importance of incorporating inquiry-based approaches into teaching practices in order to create engaging and effective learning experiences for all students.

 Q8: Will you use it when you become a teacher? Why or why not?

 P5: I will definitely use it with my students in my future teaching career. 

 P28: Yes, I think I will use it to develop my students’ critical thinking skills.

 P35: I will think about it when I become a teacher.

 P40:Yes, because I really enjoyed the group work and problems we had to solve. 

When asked about their use of IBL once they become teachers, participants recognised the potential benefits of IBL in promoting critical thinking, collaboration and engagement. Positive experiences with IBL activities such as group work and problem-solving also influenced participants' intentions to use them in their future teaching careers.

The overall results from the students' interviews indicate a strong preference for inquiry-based learning as their favourite class activity, with universally positive and rewarding experiences reported by all participants. Although it can be suggested that interview responses may be influenced by the research process, the genuine enthusiasm of students for Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) is evident in classrooms where researchers have implemented it themselves.

The above findings underscore the effectiveness of inquiry-based approaches in engaging students and fostering a supportive and enriching learning environment. They suggest that inquiry-based learning resonates well with students, improves their critical thinking skills and contributes to their overall satisfaction with the course. It also helped them to learn how to analyse information, evaluate its credibility, and draw logical conclusions as well as work collaboratively. 

5   Limitations of the Study

During the research process, the researchers encountered several limitations. These included a small pool of participants drawn exclusively from one institution, as well as limitations related to research methods and insufficient training for teachers in the implementation of Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) in the classroom.

A limited number of participants undermines the representativeness of the study's findings and hinders the ability to draw broader conclusions. This limitation can result in a lack of diverse perspectives, experiences and contextual factors, which may lead to biassed or distorted findings. As a result, the findings may lack robustness and may not accurately reflect the different experiences and challenges associated with IBL in different educational settings.

Furthermore, the lack of a survey method limits the systematic collection and analysis of quantitative data on participants' perceptions, attitudes and behaviours towards IBL. Surveys could provide standardised measures of the depth of participants' experience of IBL, their level of satisfaction and their perceptions of its effectiveness. Without survey data, the study relies heavily on qualitative data, interviews, which, while insightful, may not provide a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under study.

In addition, inadequate teacher training in the implementation of IBL can lead to inconsistent or ineffective implementation practices. This deficiency may impede teachers' ability to effectively facilitate inquiry-based activities, resulting in suboptimal learning experiences for students. Inadequate training may also contribute to challenges such as difficulties in designing meaningful inquiry tasks, managing group dynamics, or accurately assessing student learning outcomes.

6   Conclusions 

The present study was designed to explore teachers’ and students’ perceptions of inquiry-based learning at the tertiary level of education. The implementation of this approach in teaching EFL has been found to have several benefits including the development of communications skills, collaboration among students, the development of critical thinking, and active learning. These benefits contribute to a more engaging, effective, and enriching educational experience both for teachers and students.

Teachers’ responses to the quantitative part of the survey underscored their positive attitude towards inquiry-based learning, with recognition of its benefits for student learning outcomes. However, they also highlighted certain challenges, such as classroom management and assessment, that warrant attention and potential areas for improvement through professional development initiatives. These findings answer the first research questions about teachers' perceptions of inquiry-based learning at the tertiary level.

In response to the second research questions on students’ attitudes and experiences with inquiry-based learning in the classroom, the results were also very positive. Students reported that they were familiar that this approach is a student-centred learning process which focuses on solving open-ended questions and makes students engaged in the learning process by establishing real-word connections through exploration. The most useful factors during its implementation were curiosity and engagement on the students’ part as well as independence and autonomy. However, students still needed guidance throughout the learning process. The least useful factors influencing IBL implementation were teacher preparation and prior knowledge, and evaluation of learning activities. Finally, the inquiry-based activities were most useful for courses in language skills, English for specific purposes, and language methodology. 

In response to the third research question on the benefits of implementing inquiry-based learning in the EFL classroom, both groups, i.e. teachers and students, perceived inquiry-based activities as highly beneficial for students, particularly in enhancing communication skills, increasing engagement, enjoyment, and concentration on the tasks to be performed. These positive perceptions reflected the effectiveness of inquiry-based learning in promoting active student involvement and fostering a conducive learning environment.

However, there was a slight variability in how introverted students engaged with inquiry-based activities. While some teachers observed that introverted students willingly participated in such activities, others did not report the same level of participation. This discrepancy highlighted the importance of considering individual student needs and preferences when implementing inquiry-based approaches. It underscored the need for educators to adopt strategies that accommodate diverse learning styles and personalities, thus ensuring that all students can fully engage and benefit from inquiry-based learning experiences.

All in all, this study has contributed valuable insights into the perceptions and experiences of both teachers and students regarding inquiry-based learning at the tertiary level. It has highlighted the positive impact of inquiry-based approaches on student learning outcomes and emphasised the importance of addressing challenges to further enhance the effectiveness of this instructional method. 

It is strongly recommended that further research and professional development initiatives be undertaken to address challenges such as classroom management, assessment, and the engagement of introverted students. In addition, the study suggests the need for ongoing support and training for teachers to effectively implement inquiry-based learning strategies and to maximise the benefits of inquiry-based learning in the EFL classroom, not only in North Macedonia, but also beyond. 

References 

Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 (1), 1–18.

Bruner, J. S. (1961). “The act of discovery”. Harvard Educational Review 31 (1): 21–32.

Bybee, R.W.et.al.(2006). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness. (https://media.bscs.org/bscsmw/5es/bscs_5e_full_report.pdf; 21-05-2023).

Bybee, R.W. (2009). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model and 21st Century Skills. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.

Crockett, L.(2019). The 9 Big Advantages of Inquiry-based Learning. (https://blog.futurefocusedlearning.net/inquiry-based-learning-advantages; 24-05-2023).

DeJonckheere, M. and Vaughn, L. (2018). Semistructured interviewing in primary care research: a balance of relationship and rigour. (https://fmch.bmj.com/content/7/2/e000057; 22-05-2023).

Gholam, A. (2019). Inquiry-based Learning: Student Teachers’ Challenges and Perceptions. In Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 10(2). (https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1241559.pdf; 21-05-2023).

Gutierrez, D.(2018). The Pros and Cons of Inquiry-based Learning For College Success. (https://collegepuzzle.stanford.edu/the-pros-and-cons-of-inquiry-based-learning-for-college-success/: 24-05-2023).

Hu, J., Gao, Ch., and Liu, Y. (2017). Study of the 5E Instructional Model to Improve the Instructional Design Process of Novice Teachers. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 5(7): 1257-1267,

Jones, T.L, Baxter, M. and Khanduja, V. (2013). A quick guide to survey research. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3964639/; 25-05-2023).

Laursen S, and Rasmussen C. I .(2019). Inquiry approaches in undergraduate mathematics. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education. 5(1):129–146.

Pappas, Ch. (2014). Instructional Design Models and Theories: Inquiry-based Learning Model. (https://elearningindustry.com/inquiry-based-learning-model; 21-05-2023).

Parveen, Z. (2017). Educational Effectiveness of The 5E Model For Scientific Achievement of Students With Hearing Impairment. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16, (5), 723-732.

Sweetland, J.(2008). Inspired issue in Brief: Inquiry-Based Teaching. Center for Inspired teaching. (https://inspiredteaching.org/wp-content/uploads/impact-research-briefs-inquiry-based-teaching.pdf; 24-05-2023).

Stepanechko, O., & Kozub, L. (2022). Effectiveness of the Inquiry-Based Method in English Language Teaching of Ukrainian University Students Through Technology-Enabled Learning. Arab World English Journal, 13 (3) 368- 377. (https://awej.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/24.pdf;  21-05-2023).

Williams, P. 2019. “The Principles of Teaching and Learning in STEM Education.” AIP Conference Proceedings 2081(1). 

Authors:

Prof Brikena Xhaferi

Faculty of Languages, Cultures and Communications

South East European University

Tetovo

Republic of North Macedonia

Email: b.xhaferi@seeu.edu.mk

ORCID: 0000-0003-2218-3349

Dr Jeta Hamzai

Senior Lecturer

Language Center

South East European University

Tetovo

Republic of North Macedonia

Email: j.hamzai@seeu.edu.mk

ORCID: 0009-0002-0778-3899

Prof Gezim Xhaferi

Faculty of Languages, Cultures and Communications

South East European University

Tetovo

Republic of North Macedonia

Email: g.xhaferi@seeu.edu.mk

ORCID: 0000-0001-5563-6670