溝通策略訓練對英語口語語意表達之影響

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Learning a language is a difficult and long process and being able to use language for communication requires constant practice. No matter what learners’ language proficiency is, it is impossible to avoid communication problems due to gaps in linguistic or lexical knowledge. The use of communication strategies (CSs) is one way to cope with these problems. For example, a learner might substitute an unknown language item for one existing in his or her repertoire, or describe its properties in order to explain the meaning to the interlocutor as closely as possible. Until now research investigating the use of CSs has yielded controversial results on whether it is necessary to teach various CSs to learners or not. The current study aims to investigate the effects of CS training in order to add empirical evidence to this controversy, answering 4 research questions: 1) Does training influence the frequency of CS use in total and by strategy type? 2) How many CS episodes are transferred to LREs before and after the training in total and by strategy type? 3) How do different types of tasks (i.e., highly controlled closed-ended tasks, less controlled closed-ended tasks, and minimum controlled closed-ended tasks) influence the frequency of CS use and transfer to language related episodes (LREs)? 4) What are learners’ opinions about CS training and its effectiveness? Thirty-two local and international EFL students from two prestigious universities in Taiwan participated in this experiment. They were 17 male and 15 female students with intermediate and high level of English language proficiency. The participants were divided into a control and an experimental group according to their availability and preference. The control group did not receive any treatment, while the experimental group attended a four-week course of CS training, specifically designed for the study. The main aim of the course was to increase the students CS use, with particular attention paid to the CSs requiring high level of verbal engagement. The secondary aim of the course was to increase students’ CS to LRE transfer. The course consisted of four training sessions with one session per week lasting for 90 minutes. In the course of training, the participants learned about six types of CSs (asking for repetition, mime, approximation, appeal for help, circumlocution and comprehension check) through video analysis, explicit instruction, awareness raising discussions and CS practice. A pretest and a posttest with three types of tasks (map task, spot the difference, and assemble the story) were conducted in order to investigate the effectiveness of the treatment. The participants’ use of CSs and CS to LRE transfer was compared across two groups at two tests. The results of the current study suggest that the CS related training had a positive influence on the frequency of learners’ CS use. It appears that the approximation and asking for repetition CSs were particularly influenced by the training. The findings also suggest that the training course did not have a positive influence on the CS to LRE transfer, since participants were not encouraged to focus on language and improve their English level through collaboration. The results also suggest that task type can influence the students CS use and CS to LRE transfer. Finally, the course effectiveness survey demonstrated that the learners viewed the course as effective and interesting. It is hoped that the results of this study will help teachers and educators to understand whether it is necessary to teach CSs, and will introduce a framework for effective teaching of CSs and provide pedagogical ideas to EFL teachers.

ABSTRACT

Learning a language is a difficult and long process and being able to use language for communication requires constant practice. No matter what learners’ language proficiency is, it is impossible to avoid communication problems due to gaps in linguistic or lexical knowledge. The use of communication strategies (CSs) is one way to cope with these problems. For example, a learner might substitute an unknown language item for one existing in his or her repertoire, or describe its properties in order to explain the meaning to the interlocutor as closely as possible. Until now research investigating the use of CSs has yielded controversial results on whether it is necessary to teach various CSs to learners or not. The current study aims to investigate the effects of CS training in order to add empirical evidence to this controversy, answering 4 research questions: 1) Does training influence the frequency of CS use in total and by strategy type? 2) How many CS episodes are transferred to LREs before and after the training in total and by strategy type? 3) How do different types of tasks (i.e., highly controlled closed-ended tasks, less controlled closed-ended tasks, and minimum controlled closed-ended tasks) influence the frequency of CS use and transfer to language related episodes (LREs)? 4) What are learners’ opinions about CS training and its effectiveness? Thirty-two local and international EFL students from two prestigious universities in Taiwan participated in this experiment. They were 17 male and 15 female students with intermediate and high level of English language proficiency. The participants were divided into a control and an experimental group according to their availability and preference. The control group did not receive any treatment, while the experimental group attended a four-week course of CS training, specifically designed for the study. The main aim of the course was to increase the students CS use, with particular attention paid to the CSs requiring high level of verbal engagement. The secondary aim of the course was to increase students’ CS to LRE transfer. The course consisted of four training sessions with one session per week lasting for 90 minutes. In the course of training, the participants learned about six types of CSs (asking for repetition, mime, approximation, appeal for help, circumlocution and comprehension check) through video analysis, explicit instruction, awareness raising discussions and CS practice. A pretest and a posttest with three types of tasks (map task, spot the difference, and assemble the story) were conducted in order to investigate the effectiveness of the treatment. The participants’ use of CSs and CS to LRE transfer was compared across two groups at two tests. The results of the current study suggest that the CS related training had a positive influence on the frequency of learners’ CS use. It appears that the approximation and asking for repetition CSs were particularly influenced by the training. The findings also suggest that the training course did not have a positive influence on the CS to LRE transfer, since participants were not encouraged to focus on language and improve their English level through collaboration. The results also suggest that task type can influence the students CS use and CS to LRE transfer. Finally, the course effectiveness survey demonstrated that the learners viewed the course as effective and interesting. It is hoped that the results of this study will help teachers and educators to understand whether it is necessary to teach CSs, and will introduce a framework for effective teaching of CSs and provide pedagogical ideas to EFL teachers.