摘要
Task-planning studies have mostly been conducted using quantitative methods, not qualitative. However, the actual planning behaviors by learners could be overlooked by quantitative research which focuses mostly on planning outcomes rather than the processes. This study aims to bridge this gap by exploring learner behavioral patterns in pre-task planning as well as the under-investigated area of topic familiarity by drawing upon interview data. This consists of a comparison between the task-external and task-internal readiness constructs proposed in Bui's (2014) task-readiness framework. Eight undergraduate students in Hong Kong completed two speaking tasks (a familiar and an unfamiliar task), followed by retrospective interviews. Though largely confirming previous (but parsimonious) research on task planning behaviors, this study discovered three major findings that had not been covered well in previous literature. First, while past studies focused on the psycholinguistic processes of task planning, these participants extensively reported its affective influences. Next, most participants reported their overall intended emphasis was on accuracy. These reports contradict general quantitative research results which suggest that task planning often leads to complexity, not accuracy. Finally, the lack of planning time as task-external readiness can be partly compensated for by topic familiarity as task-internal readiness. These issues along with their relevant implications in teaching and learning are discussed in this study.
任务型语言教学中的任务前预备研究,通常以量化而非质化方式进行。然而,量化研究较多注重任务预备的结果而非过程,从而导致学生在学习进程中的预备行为容易被忽视。本研究尝试填补此方面空白,以访谈研究方法探索具体任务前预备行为,以及先前研究较少触及的主题熟悉度问题。这两个因素构成了Bui(2014)所提出的任务外和任务内预备理论。八位香港本科学生完成了一项熟悉以及一项不熟悉的口语任务,并在任务后接受访谈。尽管此前研究的部分结果得到证实,本研究还是发现了三项较新成果:第一,先前相关研究都集中在任务预备的心理语言学过程,但我们发现,大部分学生报告任务预备可减少焦虑并增强自信,显示任务预备在情感层面的影响。其次,即使先前研究显示,任务前预备提高了流利度和复杂度而非准确度,学生的自我报告却反映了他们对准确度的重视。再次,主题熟悉度可以在无任务前准备的情况下,部分填补任务前准备所起的作用。基于研究结果,本文还讨论了相关教学启示。
基金
supported by an RGC grant that the first author received from the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong (Ref. No: UGC/FDS14/H01/14)