论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】Previous research has shown that the effect of planning time in second language can trigger the anxiety of the speaker. In this study， time is manipulated as an important variable in a final Oral English Test for students of College English. Discourse analytic techniques and SPSS software are used to classify and process the data collected.
【Key Words】Anxiety Time Oral Test Discourse Analysis
【中图分类号】G64 【文献标识码】A 【文章编号】2095-3089（2015）06-0093-02
I. Introduction
Based on many researches that have been done， it’s widely acknowledged that L2 Learners suffer from varied kinds of anxiety when they are doing English listening， writing or speaking. According to Prof. Wang Yinquan （Wang， 2001）， oral English is likely to cause the most extensive degree of anxiety in L2 Learners due to its unique characteristics. Some candidates show extreme anxiety in taking foreign language tests. This is especially true in the case of testing oral communication ability.
The effect of planning time on second language learners’ performance is recognized as theoretically important in the second language acquisition literature （Skehan， 1995）. And in the testing situation， planning time is of interest for both theoretical reasons relating to test validity and practical goals related to test design.
II. Methodology
1. Participants
Participants of this study cover students from 2 classes of College English courses， named Class A （the Traditional Class， 44 students） and Class B （the Innovative Class， 43 students）. They have the same proficiency level. At the beginning of the semester， they formed small study groups of 5-6 people and the oral test is given orderly to these groups.
2. Materials and Data
Materials involved in this study are the topics designed to test both students’ oral proficiency level and their achievements this semester. Four types of data are collected in this study： audio and video recordings， transcriptions and note-taking by researchers.
3. Procedure
Step 1： Real-time Interference and Recording
To record the students’ performance in the English oral test， an early schedule was made with the teachers who were about to give the test and the recording devices were prepared and set on scene beforehand.
For the interference， the warning of time was given only to the students in Class B with a researcher posing like the time-keeper. No interference is given to Class A. For the purpose of information supplement， one researcher is responsible for instant note-taking. Step 2： Transcription and data systematization
After the oral test， based on Gui Shichun’s （Gui， 2005） classification and the researchers’ understanding， the standards of classification and counting are made as follows：
Accuracy： This standard centers on defining and calculating the mistakes made by those test-takers. Mistakes in verb agreement， tense， plural or singular form， fixed collocation and other kind of mistakes are chosen as the five types of mistakes to be tested. These mistakes are marked from A1-A5.
Fluency： Two phenomenon， “Short hesitation” and “Semantic interrupt” are tested. Short hesitation is speech fillers like “umm” and “hmm”. Semantic interrupt refers to a long pause （2 or 3 seconds longer than the short hesitation） during the conversation. Mark the “Short hesitation” with F1 and the “Semantic interrupt” with F2， and their numbers are also added up.
Appropriateness： In this study， the rules of appropriateness mostly refer to the meaningless repeats in the test-takers’ English expression， a word or a sentence， which prevents the speaker from delivering a natural and appropriate speech. It is marked as R， and is counted by the time of its occurrence.
After the transcription is done， data are collected in this table：
III. Data Analysis and Findings
Altogether 23 groups of data are obtained from Class A and 15 groups from Class B， which are analyzed in SPSS 16.0 and comparison between the two classes is made. The findings are as follows：
1. Comparison of Total Utterance：
The total utterance is the number of words that has been uttered. The results show there is no significant difference between the total utterances of the two classes. In other words， test-takers’ total length of utterance will not be affected by the anxiety caused by planning time.
2. Comparison of Errors in Accuracy：
The numbers of accuracy errors （from A1-A5） are added up and researchers find that there exists a slight difference between the total numbers of errors in accuracy， but the difference is not significant.
3. Comparison of Fluency：
The times of short hesitation and long pauses are counted and analyzed. The result shows there is a significant difference between the total number of the fluency errors of the two classes， meaning test-takers’ total number of fluency errors will be significantly affected by the anxiety caused by planning time.
4. Comparison of Appropriateness： As for appropriateness， the result indicates that there is a significant difference of appropriateness between the students with/without planning time stimulus. In other words， the appropriateness of students’ performance in the oral test will be affected by the planning time/the anxiety caused by planning time.
IV. Conclusion and Suggestion
To sum the above results up， a conclusion may be drawn that the adding of timing stimulus could cause a higher level of anxiety in test takers， which leads to more inappropriate uses of repeating as well as empty modal particles， making the whole speech less efficient in communication and idea exchanging. In a word， the designed stimulus of timing has played a negative role that may discourage better performance in English oral tests.
Following this pattern， an actionable suggestion for English oral test design could be provided. As the study result reveals， a higher level of anxiety in test takers would not improve their performances but on the contrary make the situation less “natural” and uncomfortable for communication. In the end， the actual performance of the test takers would suffer. By this token， providing a more relaxed phenomenon without stress of time or other limits could make the speakers feel at ease in an oral test， and is more likely to see the best of their speaking performance. And that’s also the reason why we don’t recommend adding the time limit into college English oral test if the test pursuits to test what it should be tested—the real speaking skills of a student under real situations and context which occurs in his real life.
References
[1]杨惠中，桂诗春，杨达复.“中国学习者英语言语失误分析”， 《基于CLEC语料库的中国学习者英语分析》.上海：上海外语教育出版社， 2005.
[2]王银全.“外语学习焦虑及其对外语学习的影响——国外相关研究概述”， 《外语教学与研究》. 北京： 外语教学与研究出版社， 2001.
[3]Crookes， G. Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition， 1989（11）.
[4]Skehan， P. Analyzability， accessibility， and ability for use. Principle and practice in applied linguistics. Oxford： Oxford University Press， 1995.
作者简介：
金敏（1987～），女，浙江富阳人，硕士，助教，研究方向：英语语言学及应用语言学（英语教学、语用学）。
【Key Words】Anxiety Time Oral Test Discourse Analysis
【中图分类号】G64 【文献标识码】A 【文章编号】2095-3089（2015）06-0093-02
I. Introduction
Based on many researches that have been done， it’s widely acknowledged that L2 Learners suffer from varied kinds of anxiety when they are doing English listening， writing or speaking. According to Prof. Wang Yinquan （Wang， 2001）， oral English is likely to cause the most extensive degree of anxiety in L2 Learners due to its unique characteristics. Some candidates show extreme anxiety in taking foreign language tests. This is especially true in the case of testing oral communication ability.
The effect of planning time on second language learners’ performance is recognized as theoretically important in the second language acquisition literature （Skehan， 1995）. And in the testing situation， planning time is of interest for both theoretical reasons relating to test validity and practical goals related to test design.
II. Methodology
1. Participants
Participants of this study cover students from 2 classes of College English courses， named Class A （the Traditional Class， 44 students） and Class B （the Innovative Class， 43 students）. They have the same proficiency level. At the beginning of the semester， they formed small study groups of 5-6 people and the oral test is given orderly to these groups.
2. Materials and Data
Materials involved in this study are the topics designed to test both students’ oral proficiency level and their achievements this semester. Four types of data are collected in this study： audio and video recordings， transcriptions and note-taking by researchers.
3. Procedure
Step 1： Real-time Interference and Recording
To record the students’ performance in the English oral test， an early schedule was made with the teachers who were about to give the test and the recording devices were prepared and set on scene beforehand.
For the interference， the warning of time was given only to the students in Class B with a researcher posing like the time-keeper. No interference is given to Class A. For the purpose of information supplement， one researcher is responsible for instant note-taking. Step 2： Transcription and data systematization
After the oral test， based on Gui Shichun’s （Gui， 2005） classification and the researchers’ understanding， the standards of classification and counting are made as follows：
Accuracy： This standard centers on defining and calculating the mistakes made by those test-takers. Mistakes in verb agreement， tense， plural or singular form， fixed collocation and other kind of mistakes are chosen as the five types of mistakes to be tested. These mistakes are marked from A1-A5.
Fluency： Two phenomenon， “Short hesitation” and “Semantic interrupt” are tested. Short hesitation is speech fillers like “umm” and “hmm”. Semantic interrupt refers to a long pause （2 or 3 seconds longer than the short hesitation） during the conversation. Mark the “Short hesitation” with F1 and the “Semantic interrupt” with F2， and their numbers are also added up.
Appropriateness： In this study， the rules of appropriateness mostly refer to the meaningless repeats in the test-takers’ English expression， a word or a sentence， which prevents the speaker from delivering a natural and appropriate speech. It is marked as R， and is counted by the time of its occurrence.
After the transcription is done， data are collected in this table：
III. Data Analysis and Findings
Altogether 23 groups of data are obtained from Class A and 15 groups from Class B， which are analyzed in SPSS 16.0 and comparison between the two classes is made. The findings are as follows：
1. Comparison of Total Utterance：
The total utterance is the number of words that has been uttered. The results show there is no significant difference between the total utterances of the two classes. In other words， test-takers’ total length of utterance will not be affected by the anxiety caused by planning time.
2. Comparison of Errors in Accuracy：
The numbers of accuracy errors （from A1-A5） are added up and researchers find that there exists a slight difference between the total numbers of errors in accuracy， but the difference is not significant.
3. Comparison of Fluency：
The times of short hesitation and long pauses are counted and analyzed. The result shows there is a significant difference between the total number of the fluency errors of the two classes， meaning test-takers’ total number of fluency errors will be significantly affected by the anxiety caused by planning time.
4. Comparison of Appropriateness： As for appropriateness， the result indicates that there is a significant difference of appropriateness between the students with/without planning time stimulus. In other words， the appropriateness of students’ performance in the oral test will be affected by the planning time/the anxiety caused by planning time.
IV. Conclusion and Suggestion
To sum the above results up， a conclusion may be drawn that the adding of timing stimulus could cause a higher level of anxiety in test takers， which leads to more inappropriate uses of repeating as well as empty modal particles， making the whole speech less efficient in communication and idea exchanging. In a word， the designed stimulus of timing has played a negative role that may discourage better performance in English oral tests.
Following this pattern， an actionable suggestion for English oral test design could be provided. As the study result reveals， a higher level of anxiety in test takers would not improve their performances but on the contrary make the situation less “natural” and uncomfortable for communication. In the end， the actual performance of the test takers would suffer. By this token， providing a more relaxed phenomenon without stress of time or other limits could make the speakers feel at ease in an oral test， and is more likely to see the best of their speaking performance. And that’s also the reason why we don’t recommend adding the time limit into college English oral test if the test pursuits to test what it should be tested—the real speaking skills of a student under real situations and context which occurs in his real life.
References
[1]杨惠中，桂诗春，杨达复.“中国学习者英语言语失误分析”， 《基于CLEC语料库的中国学习者英语分析》.上海：上海外语教育出版社， 2005.
[2]王银全.“外语学习焦虑及其对外语学习的影响——国外相关研究概述”， 《外语教学与研究》. 北京： 外语教学与研究出版社， 2001.
[3]Crookes， G. Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition， 1989（11）.
[4]Skehan， P. Analyzability， accessibility， and ability for use. Principle and practice in applied linguistics. Oxford： Oxford University Press， 1995.
作者简介：
金敏（1987～），女，浙江富阳人，硕士，助教，研究方向：英语语言学及应用语言学（英语教学、语用学）。