Argumentation Patterns, Logical Reasoning, Pragmatic Competence, and Communicative Competence of College Students

College students in the Philippines are expected to demonstrate strong argumentation, logical reasoning, and context-sensitive language use to succeed in academic and professional settings. However, gaps in these interrelated skills persist. This study examined the argumentation patterns, logical reasoning, pragmatic competence, and communicative competence of 457 second-year college students from higher education institutions in Capiz during the academic year 2025–2026. It also investigated the relationships among these variables and their influence on students’ communicative performance. Using a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design, the study employed a researcher-made Awareness of Argumentation Patterns Questionnaire, Logical Reasoning Test, Discourse Completion Test, and Communicative Competence Test. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, and Pearson correlation through SPSS at a .05 level of significance. Qualitative data from a focus group discussion with eight students from different HEIs underwent reflexive thematic analysis. Findings showed that participants had a high level of awareness of argumentation patterns and high communicative competence, while logical reasoning and pragmatic competence were both moderate. Significant differences in communicative competence were found when grouped according to levels of argumentation patterns awareness, logical reasoning, and pragmatic competence. A significant relationship also existed among the four variables. The study concludes that notable gaps in logical reasoning and pragmatic competence continue to affect students’ communicative performance. In response, an instructional material titled “An Input to Discourse Ability Enhancement” was developed.

The study concludes that notable gaps in logical reasoning and pragmatic competence continue to affect students

1. Agbo, I. I., & Ugwuagbo, R. C (2023). Speech acts and pragmatics in political speeches and advertisements. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(1), 78-90. DOI:10.5539/elt.v16n5p77 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2016). Language assessment in practice: Developing useful language tests. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Barron, A. (2021). Pragmatic competence in intercultural communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 175, 132-145. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Ennis, R. (2018). Critical thinking abilities and their assessment. Philosophy of Education, 30(1), 45-60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Facione, P. (2015). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus. Insight Assessment. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). Academic Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269-293). Penguin. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Manalo, E. (2020). Cognitive skills in critical thinking. Journal of Higher Education, 45(1), 100-115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Ocampo, D. (2023). Academic English language exposure and pragmatic competence. Journal of ESL Research, 20(2), 150-165. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Taguchi, N. (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study