论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】Classroom activities （pair work， small group work and whole class group） as principles for promoting students’ speaking fluency and second language learning outcomes are widely used in communicative language teaching （CLT） classrooms. Under these circumstances， students have various opportunities to practice speaking by getting involved in different kind of interaction activities; therefore， exploring students’ attitudes toward practicing speaking in these activities is crucial for teachers and learners， as this can encourage students to take an active role in the classroom， and therefore contribute to fluent speaking and better learning outcomes. This study aims to investigate the principles for promoting intermediate ESL students’ speaking fluency within a communicative language teaching classroom， concentrating on exploring students’ attitudes toward practicing speaking in pair work， small group work and the whole class group.
【Key words】pair work; small group work; whole class group; speaking fluency
【作者簡介】张夏郡，宁夏大学新华学院。
1. Introduction
Communicative language teaching （CLT） is widely used in today’s language teaching classroom， and as a methodology has been created to help students to achieve a good command of English （Richard， 2005）. It consists of a set of principles that connect the goals of second language teaching. Classroom activities have become a core element in the communicative language teaching classroom to facilitate students’ second language learning outcomes， including speaking fluency （ibid）. Under these circumstance， students have a quantity of opportunities to participate in speaking， which are based on a cooperative instead of an individualistic way of learning; furthermore， learners may feel comfortable listening to their peers in group work， rather than depending on the teacher as a model （Richard， 2005）.
2. Literature review
2.1. Fluency
2.1.1. ‘Fluency’ defined in ESL classroom
Speaking fluency is crucial for second language learners when they take part in academic， social or occupational contexts. Many students spend enormous amounts of time on developing speaking fluency， while still struggling with it even after years of instruction in English as a second language （ESL） classrooms （Derwing， Munro and Thomson， 2008）. There are a range of meanings of the term ‘fluency’ among ESL classrooms; in this research we defined fluency as students’ speech performance phenomena connected with smoothness， flow， automaticity or continuity （Koponen and Riggenbach， 2000）. Speaking fluency is shown to be related to appropriate length， rate， fluency， silent pauses distribution as well as non-lexical fillers （for example uh and um） of speech， and refers to the length that learners run a speech， which means the average numbers of syllables between pauses during learners’ speech （Rossiter， 2009）. 2.1.2 Review of relevant researches’ methodologies and findings
In more recent studies， researchers have attempted to make up the gap in investigating students’ attitudes toward different kinds of classroom communicative activities through gathering data over a period of time from a wider range of sources. As in Cao and Philip’s （2006）， they have used a quantity of tools for data collection： a questionnaire for students， over one month’s recordings and observations for eight classrooms， and individual students’ interviews were conducted at the end of the study， which helped to elicit situational variables; information. While it was a small-scale study， precluding researchers， only 8 participants responded， to provide clear correlations between situational， individual learners’ reported factors and classroom behaviour observations. There were three main factors frequently mentioned by participants as affecting their attitudes toward different communicative activities， which included interlocutors’ familiarity， group size and self-confidence. Kang’s （2005） small-scale study also reported similar findings that supported these findings.
2.2 Factors in learners’ reticence to participate in classroom activities
2.2.1 Speaking ability and confidence development aspects
Zhang and Head （2009） indicated that teacher believed that learners’ reticence to participate in speaking activities such as group discussion， whether in the small group or pair work in speaking classes， was preventing them from processing and achieving the outcomes intended for the course. The main factors in learners’ declining to participate in classroom activities is that they were not aware of the real value of classroom activities in improvement of their spoken English （Williams and Burden， 1997）.
2.2.2 Fear and embarrassment of making mistakes
There are various factors that contribute to students’ reticence in classroom activities; from Tsui’s （1996） point of view， another significant aspect is learners’ fear and embarrassment at making mistakes during classroom activities. Those learners who are less proficient may worry about lacking the abilities to use language may lead them to be viewed as incompetent during activities （Allwright and Bailey， 1991）.
2.2.3 Desire for teachers’ clear explanations and instructions
In another study on the problems of student reticence while participating in interactive activities in the classroom from Dingfang （2002）， he used questionnaires and interviews to investigate students’ attitudes about interactive activities in the classroom to find that 54 percent of participants believed that too many discussion activities had a negative effect on the course， as they thought students had limited abilities to express profound ideas in English， and were convinced that they would benefit more from listening to teachers’ lectures for clear explanations and instructions. 2.3 Classroom activities from pedagogical perceptions
2.3.1 More opportunities for speaking
Group work activities （pair work and small group work） have already been recommended as a methodology in promoting language acquisition such as developing speaking fluency in the second language classroom （Long and Porter， 1985）. From the pedagogical view， group work is concerned with increasing students’ language practice opportunities. Second language learners do not have enough time to practice and develop their speaking skills， which is especially serious in a large ESL speaking class; for one aspect students practice new language skills， for another aspect student focus on relevant ESL context. Group work cannot entirely solve problems. but it can indeed help （ibid）.
2.3.2 Positive affective climate as an encouragement for speaking
Another argument about group work from pedagogical aspects is that it can motivate the positive affective climate of speaking. Many students who are linguistically insecure or shy may experience considerable stress when they are called upon in the public area of a speaking class. This stress is contributed by the knowledge that they have to respond quickly and accurately in the class （ibid）. According to White and Lightbown （1984）， the teacher will interrupt， repeat or rephrase the questions， ask other students to correct or respond to the question if students pause more than a second or longer before beginning to respond; otherwise， they do not know the answers， or they make errors. While not all the teachers do these things in language class， in fact this happens more than they would like to admit， or they realised.
2.3.3 Two features of group work （pair and small group work）
When students are given group work in discussion， they are allowed to make mistakes or discuss with each other， which means they are delegating authority in discussion. This is the first key feature of group work. This does not mean that students work together without control; the final group product will be controlled by teachers through the process of evaluation （Cohen and Lotan， 2014）.
The second key feature of group work is that they need to work with one another to complete the task to some degree; in other words， they cannot complete the work all by themselves or through others. They make interactions sometimes by using nonverbal language， pointing， showing， nodding， frowning or smiling. The group interaction process is enormously interesting for students （Cohen and Lotan， 2014）. 2.4 Group work （pair and small group）
2.4.1 Advantages of group work style compared with whole class interaction
（1） Group work increases the quantity of learners’ language practice opportunities. Many second language learners have low achievement in the classroom， the main reason being simply that they do not have enough opportunities to practice the new language.
（2） Group work increases learners’ spoken quality. The whole class interaction manner in the lockstep ESL classroom not only limits the quantity of learners engaged in speaking， but also the quality.
（3） Group work produces an effective， positive classroom climate. Many students， especially those students who feel shy or linguistically insecure when they are called to the public area of the lockstep classroom， may experience considerable stress.
（4） Group work’s several advantages have already been demonstrated. It provides a rich variety and great quantity of language practice opportunities for students， which is adjusted to individuals’ needs and conducted in a more positive effective climate.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research paradigm
The central meaning of the interpretive paradigm endeavours to help humans understand their subjective knowledge of the world from experience （Hoepfl， 1997）. From analysis， we can realise individuals’ behaviours and attitudes from their earlier experience of communication activities. The subjective opinions of participants for the study help researchers to interpret meanings and prepare for further study. Also， this study essentially relies on participants’ point of views of the situation that is being investigated， which match the theory of interpretive paradigm construction （Creswell， 2013）.
4. Findings and Conclusion
For the first research question， students showed a positive attitude toward practicing speaking in a whole class group setting， which was directly authorized by teachers’ instructions and explanations. Most of them like to take part in whole class group discussion， and prefer to work with the whole of the class together at one pace， with nothing to worry about.
Regarding the second research question， students are in agreement that pair work indeed increases their speaking time. They largely believe that pair work provides a more relaxed and friendly environment for them to speak in cooperation， which encourages their speaking responsibility sharing to some degree. However， students noticed they could easily diverge from the point during the discussion and use their own first language to speak if two members within one pair share the same first language. Also， they show a willingness to work with partners who have strong linguistic ability. Concerning the third research question， students generally regard small group work as providing them more with speaking opportunities compared with pair work; they broadly believe that small group work supports them to gain lot of chances to generate various ideas through cooperation and negotiation in discussion. Also， students largely agree that it is easier to choose their degree of participation in small group work than in pair work or whole class group settings. At the same time， they believe that they are fostering the skills of self-study ability through making their own decisions without too much instruction by the teacher in small group discussions.
For the last research question， students feel happiest when taking part in pair work， then small group work and the whole class group. However， when asking which one can best promote their speaking fluency， the answers are quite different. According to students， small group work is considered as the best to promote fluent speaking， followed by the whole class group and finally pair work. In addition， most students who are willing to give suggestions for these three kinds of classroom activity mainly concentrated on two points. One is that students should maintain the condition of speaking in English from the beginning to the end of a discussion， and the teacher should make efforts to arrange participants from different language background in one group to avoid students speaking in the same first language.
【Key words】pair work; small group work; whole class group; speaking fluency
【作者簡介】张夏郡，宁夏大学新华学院。
1. Introduction
Communicative language teaching （CLT） is widely used in today’s language teaching classroom， and as a methodology has been created to help students to achieve a good command of English （Richard， 2005）. It consists of a set of principles that connect the goals of second language teaching. Classroom activities have become a core element in the communicative language teaching classroom to facilitate students’ second language learning outcomes， including speaking fluency （ibid）. Under these circumstance， students have a quantity of opportunities to participate in speaking， which are based on a cooperative instead of an individualistic way of learning; furthermore， learners may feel comfortable listening to their peers in group work， rather than depending on the teacher as a model （Richard， 2005）.
2. Literature review
2.1. Fluency
2.1.1. ‘Fluency’ defined in ESL classroom
Speaking fluency is crucial for second language learners when they take part in academic， social or occupational contexts. Many students spend enormous amounts of time on developing speaking fluency， while still struggling with it even after years of instruction in English as a second language （ESL） classrooms （Derwing， Munro and Thomson， 2008）. There are a range of meanings of the term ‘fluency’ among ESL classrooms; in this research we defined fluency as students’ speech performance phenomena connected with smoothness， flow， automaticity or continuity （Koponen and Riggenbach， 2000）. Speaking fluency is shown to be related to appropriate length， rate， fluency， silent pauses distribution as well as non-lexical fillers （for example uh and um） of speech， and refers to the length that learners run a speech， which means the average numbers of syllables between pauses during learners’ speech （Rossiter， 2009）. 2.1.2 Review of relevant researches’ methodologies and findings
In more recent studies， researchers have attempted to make up the gap in investigating students’ attitudes toward different kinds of classroom communicative activities through gathering data over a period of time from a wider range of sources. As in Cao and Philip’s （2006）， they have used a quantity of tools for data collection： a questionnaire for students， over one month’s recordings and observations for eight classrooms， and individual students’ interviews were conducted at the end of the study， which helped to elicit situational variables; information. While it was a small-scale study， precluding researchers， only 8 participants responded， to provide clear correlations between situational， individual learners’ reported factors and classroom behaviour observations. There were three main factors frequently mentioned by participants as affecting their attitudes toward different communicative activities， which included interlocutors’ familiarity， group size and self-confidence. Kang’s （2005） small-scale study also reported similar findings that supported these findings.
2.2 Factors in learners’ reticence to participate in classroom activities
2.2.1 Speaking ability and confidence development aspects
Zhang and Head （2009） indicated that teacher believed that learners’ reticence to participate in speaking activities such as group discussion， whether in the small group or pair work in speaking classes， was preventing them from processing and achieving the outcomes intended for the course. The main factors in learners’ declining to participate in classroom activities is that they were not aware of the real value of classroom activities in improvement of their spoken English （Williams and Burden， 1997）.
2.2.2 Fear and embarrassment of making mistakes
There are various factors that contribute to students’ reticence in classroom activities; from Tsui’s （1996） point of view， another significant aspect is learners’ fear and embarrassment at making mistakes during classroom activities. Those learners who are less proficient may worry about lacking the abilities to use language may lead them to be viewed as incompetent during activities （Allwright and Bailey， 1991）.
2.2.3 Desire for teachers’ clear explanations and instructions
In another study on the problems of student reticence while participating in interactive activities in the classroom from Dingfang （2002）， he used questionnaires and interviews to investigate students’ attitudes about interactive activities in the classroom to find that 54 percent of participants believed that too many discussion activities had a negative effect on the course， as they thought students had limited abilities to express profound ideas in English， and were convinced that they would benefit more from listening to teachers’ lectures for clear explanations and instructions. 2.3 Classroom activities from pedagogical perceptions
2.3.1 More opportunities for speaking
Group work activities （pair work and small group work） have already been recommended as a methodology in promoting language acquisition such as developing speaking fluency in the second language classroom （Long and Porter， 1985）. From the pedagogical view， group work is concerned with increasing students’ language practice opportunities. Second language learners do not have enough time to practice and develop their speaking skills， which is especially serious in a large ESL speaking class; for one aspect students practice new language skills， for another aspect student focus on relevant ESL context. Group work cannot entirely solve problems. but it can indeed help （ibid）.
2.3.2 Positive affective climate as an encouragement for speaking
Another argument about group work from pedagogical aspects is that it can motivate the positive affective climate of speaking. Many students who are linguistically insecure or shy may experience considerable stress when they are called upon in the public area of a speaking class. This stress is contributed by the knowledge that they have to respond quickly and accurately in the class （ibid）. According to White and Lightbown （1984）， the teacher will interrupt， repeat or rephrase the questions， ask other students to correct or respond to the question if students pause more than a second or longer before beginning to respond; otherwise， they do not know the answers， or they make errors. While not all the teachers do these things in language class， in fact this happens more than they would like to admit， or they realised.
2.3.3 Two features of group work （pair and small group work）
When students are given group work in discussion， they are allowed to make mistakes or discuss with each other， which means they are delegating authority in discussion. This is the first key feature of group work. This does not mean that students work together without control; the final group product will be controlled by teachers through the process of evaluation （Cohen and Lotan， 2014）.
The second key feature of group work is that they need to work with one another to complete the task to some degree; in other words， they cannot complete the work all by themselves or through others. They make interactions sometimes by using nonverbal language， pointing， showing， nodding， frowning or smiling. The group interaction process is enormously interesting for students （Cohen and Lotan， 2014）. 2.4 Group work （pair and small group）
2.4.1 Advantages of group work style compared with whole class interaction
（1） Group work increases the quantity of learners’ language practice opportunities. Many second language learners have low achievement in the classroom， the main reason being simply that they do not have enough opportunities to practice the new language.
（2） Group work increases learners’ spoken quality. The whole class interaction manner in the lockstep ESL classroom not only limits the quantity of learners engaged in speaking， but also the quality.
（3） Group work produces an effective， positive classroom climate. Many students， especially those students who feel shy or linguistically insecure when they are called to the public area of the lockstep classroom， may experience considerable stress.
（4） Group work’s several advantages have already been demonstrated. It provides a rich variety and great quantity of language practice opportunities for students， which is adjusted to individuals’ needs and conducted in a more positive effective climate.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research paradigm
The central meaning of the interpretive paradigm endeavours to help humans understand their subjective knowledge of the world from experience （Hoepfl， 1997）. From analysis， we can realise individuals’ behaviours and attitudes from their earlier experience of communication activities. The subjective opinions of participants for the study help researchers to interpret meanings and prepare for further study. Also， this study essentially relies on participants’ point of views of the situation that is being investigated， which match the theory of interpretive paradigm construction （Creswell， 2013）.
4. Findings and Conclusion
For the first research question， students showed a positive attitude toward practicing speaking in a whole class group setting， which was directly authorized by teachers’ instructions and explanations. Most of them like to take part in whole class group discussion， and prefer to work with the whole of the class together at one pace， with nothing to worry about.
Regarding the second research question， students are in agreement that pair work indeed increases their speaking time. They largely believe that pair work provides a more relaxed and friendly environment for them to speak in cooperation， which encourages their speaking responsibility sharing to some degree. However， students noticed they could easily diverge from the point during the discussion and use their own first language to speak if two members within one pair share the same first language. Also， they show a willingness to work with partners who have strong linguistic ability. Concerning the third research question， students generally regard small group work as providing them more with speaking opportunities compared with pair work; they broadly believe that small group work supports them to gain lot of chances to generate various ideas through cooperation and negotiation in discussion. Also， students largely agree that it is easier to choose their degree of participation in small group work than in pair work or whole class group settings. At the same time， they believe that they are fostering the skills of self-study ability through making their own decisions without too much instruction by the teacher in small group discussions.
For the last research question， students feel happiest when taking part in pair work， then small group work and the whole class group. However， when asking which one can best promote their speaking fluency， the answers are quite different. According to students， small group work is considered as the best to promote fluent speaking， followed by the whole class group and finally pair work. In addition， most students who are willing to give suggestions for these three kinds of classroom activity mainly concentrated on two points. One is that students should maintain the condition of speaking in English from the beginning to the end of a discussion， and the teacher should make efforts to arrange participants from different language background in one group to avoid students speaking in the same first language.