摘要
外语(二语)学习策略的研究从20世纪60年代开展以来,广泛得到了研究者和教师的关注。为使英语学习者学习更为有效,外语(二语)研究中心已逐步从老师如何教转向学生如何学,从教学方法的研究转向学习方法的研究。在外语学习领域自主学习这一理念逐步深入的情况下,对学习策略的研究和应用尤为重视。几十年来,研究者和教育者对语言学习策略进行了广泛的研究,从最初对优秀学习者的学习策略的研究,成功学习者和非成功学习者学习差异的研究,学习水平和学习策略的关系,影响学习策略选择的因素,到九十年代对学习策略的培训的研究以及学习策略和自主学习的关系研究,共涉及六个方面。
但是国内外对性格作为影响英语学习的一个重要因素的研究,尚未得出统一结论。Ellis(1994)总结了目前对外语学习和内外向性格关系的两种主要的假设:其一,性格外向的学习者在掌握基本的人际交流技能(basic interpersonal communicationskills)方面有优势;其二,性格内向的学习者在发展语言认知能力(cognitive academiclanguage ability)方面具有优势。然而针对内外向性格和外语学习的研究结论并不一致(Naiman & al.,1978;Busch,1982;Strong,1983;Robson,1992;Carrell & Prince,1996;etc.)。国内的研究结果也是众说纷纭,如王雪梅(2000)认为性格倾向确实对英语学习有较为明显的影响,而梁晓波、谭桔伶(1999)认为内外向性格与外语学习的关系非常微弱。
大量的研究致力于性格与外语学习能力的研究,并未得出一致的结论。研究者开始研究性格对学习策略选择的影响,从为数不多的研究结果看,性格确实对学习策略的选择具有影响,如Ehrman和Oxford(1990),吴丽林(2005)。文献资料显示,所有研究都是把外语学习策略作为一个整体进行研究,未进行分项研究,如:性格对阅读、听力、口语等学习策略的研究。随着人们对口语能力重要性的认识的提高,本研究选择研究性格(从内外向角度)对英语口语学习能力及策略选择的影响。
本研究选择西南大学外国语学院英语专业一年级学生为研究对象,共计117人。首先对他们进行了性格和口语水平测试,然后从中选出英语口语水平优秀且具有明显内外向性格的学生进行口语学习策略调查,内向性格和外向性格口语优秀学习者人数分别为4,11。我们以问卷调查的形式综合老师和同学们的观察对学生的性格做出界定。口语水平测试以全国大学英语四、六级口语考试为模板设计试题对研究对象进行测试。口语学习策略调查表策略分类主要以Oxford(1990)的策略分类体系为依据,并对认知策略中的形式操练策略和功能操练策略进行了分类调查,此外还增加了监控策略。最后运用Excel和SPSS13.0中的斯皮尔曼相关系数和T-值对数据进行分析。斯皮尔曼相关系数分析结果表明内外向性格与口语学习水平不具有显著相关性,即内外向性格对口语学习没有影响,也有可能是性格对口语学习的影响被其它因素的影响所抵消,如,动机。在对内外向性格学生使用策略进行T-值平均差异数进行比较后,分析结果显示内外向性格学生在总体策略使用上不存在显著性差异,在分类策略使用比较时,在调查的八类策略中只有一类策略存在显著性差异,即,形式操练策略,外向性格学生该策略平均使用频率明显高于内向性格学生。产生这一差异的可能是外向性格的学生意识到自己性格对外语学习的负面影响,明显加大了对语言形式的练习。尽管内外向性格的学生在总体策略的使用上不存在显著性差异,外向性格学生略高于内向性格学生,我们在分析比较具体单个策略的选择使用时却发现在某些功能操练策略的使用上内外向性格的学生存在显著性差异,如:自言自语,自己小声或在心里回答老师的提问等。这些差异明显与他们的性格紧密相连,内向性格的学生不喜欢社交,不愿在公众场合发言,但这并不等于他们放弃了练习口语的机会,在强烈动机的驱使下,他们采用与他们性格相符的策略来提高口语水平。研究结果表明:性格对外语口语学习的影响,并不是人们所想象的那么大,不管是内向性格还是外向性格都能学好口语,他们为学好口语,根据自己性格的特点,可以选择适合自己性格特征的策略进行学习,并根据个人需要进行调整(Oxford 1990)。学习者只要能了解自己的学习偏好并正视自己的优点和缺点,懂得如何有效地利用自己的优势来弥补自己的不足,学习就一定会成功(Brown 1994)。
本文在研究分析数据的基础上,根据研究结果进行了讨论。作者认为内外向性格不是决定口语学习成功与否的关键因素,而决定着学习者采取怎样的学习策略进行学习;外语学习环境的影响使得内外向性格学生的口语学习策略不同于二语学习环境;阅读能力和听力能力对口语能力的提高有促进作用;记忆策略是中国学生广泛使用的一个重要策略。本文还对英语教学和英语学习提出一些建议,如:增强教师对性格对英语口语学习策略的影响的意识;培养学生对自身性格的优缺点认识的意识;改变教师在课堂的传统角色;创造轻松,和谐的学习氛围;对学生进行策略培训。
本文研究结果对英语口语教学和学习具有一定的指导意义。但也存在一些不足,由于人手和经费的限制,尽管最初的研究对象为117人,但经过多次筛选后仅有15人符合学习策略调查研究要求。研究对象人数较少,研究结果有待进行较大规模的研究进一步证实。
Studies on learning strategies of foreign/second languages have received worldwide attention from both researchers and instructors since 1960s. To help learners to learn language effectively and efficiently, in the field of foreign/second language research, focus has been shifted from teachers to learners, that is, from "exclusive focus improvement of teaching to an increased concern for how learners go about their learning tasks" (Oxford, 1990). Greater importance has been attached to learning strategies since the advocacy of learning autonomy. Learning strategies are important to greater autonomy (Wenden, 1991). Whether an individual learner can achieve success in his language learning, to a large degree, rests with himself and his ability of autonomous learning. Undoubtedly, learning strategies has got vast attention and constitutes one important element in helping students to be autonomous learners.
In the past several decades, a number of researches have been done on learning strategies, aiming at finding out the differences in the employment of learning strategies between effective learners and less effective ones, the relationship between learning outcome and learning strategies, factors influencing the choice of learning strategies, ways to train learners' learning strategies and the relationship between learning autonomy and learning strategies. As for the factors influencing the choice of learning strategies, the following elements are found to effect change in the choice: motivation, aptitude, achievement of learning, and personality, etc.
Personality, an important factor in the employment of language learning strategies, also has received due attention. Ellis (1994) summarized two major hypotheses concerning the relationship between extroversion/introversion and foreign/second language learning. One is that extroversion is positively correlated with Basic Interpersonal Communication Skill (BICS); the other is that introversion help learners develop cognitive academic language ability (CALP) faster than extroverts. Nevertheless, the research results were inconclusive: some researches provided evidences for these hypotheses, while some other research results were not supportive of them (Naiman & al., 1978; Busch, 1982; Strong, 1983; Robson, 1992; Carrell & Prince, 1996; etc.). The study in Chinese context also came to different conclusions. Wang (2000) in her research concluded that personality types have an obvious influence on foreign language learning, whereas Liang and Tan (1999) found that there is little influence of introversion and extroversion on foreign language learning.
Later on, researchers began to study the influence of personality types on learning strategy employment. From the findings of the limited literature to date, one point is certain, that is, personality types do have a lot of influence on the choice of learning strategies (Ehrman and Oxford, 1990; Wu, 2005; etc.). However, in all researches which study the influence of personality on learning strategies, foreign/second language learning is researched as a whole, regardless of the different aspects of learning: few researchers have attempted to study the influence of personality on the strategies for specific aspects of foreign language learning, say learning strategies in improving listening ability, oral English learning strategy, etc. With the increasing awareness of the importance of oral English, to better understand the influence of personality on oral English study, the present study is intended to study the relationship between personality (in terms of introversion and extroversion) and oral English achievement, and examine the influence of introversion/extroversion on the choice of oral English learning strategies of good oral English learners.
This study chose first-year students of English majors of School of Foreign Languages of Southwest University as the subjects. The total number of subjects was 117. First an investigation of personality was administered to examine whether the subjects were introverts or extroverts. The questionnaire for investigation of personality is made up of an adapted version of Eysenck Introversion-extroversion Scale made by Gong Yaoxian for Chinese and a personal-information part with 4 blank-filling items and 2 multiple-choice items, helping the researcher to learn about the subjects' name, sex, birth-date, their identification of their own personality types and their opinion on the influence of personality types on oral English learning. Because of the discrepancy in some subjects' self-judged personality and the result of the questionnaire, the subjects' personality was not totally dependant on the result of the questionnaire investigation; observations of their teachers and classmates were also taken into consideration for the determination of the subjects' personality. Then an oral English test was conducted to get their oral English speaking ability. The oral English test was designed in accordance with the format of CET (College English Test) Spoken English Test, which consisted of three parts: an interaction between candidates and the examiner; an interaction among three candidates within group; further questions from the examiner to double check the candidates' oral ability. The subjects' oral English ability was determined based on the result of the test. Finally, those subjects with strong tendency of introversion and extroversion who were considered as good oral English learners according to the test were selected for the investigation of learning strategies for oral English study (4 introverts and 11 extroverts). The strategy questionnaire basically originated from Oxford' classification of learning strategies, supplemented with monitor strategies, formal practice strategies and functional practice strategies separated from cognitive strategies as two independent strategy categories.
After obtaining the statistics, the statistical analyses were carried out with the authorized software Excel 2003 and SPSS 13 for windows. First an analysis was conducted with the aid of Spearman correlation coefficient to see how oral English outcome is related to personality types (in terms of introversion/extroversion). Then T-value test was employed to test the statistical significance of the mean difference of strategies employed by the introverts and the extroverts. The result of the analysis indicates that personality types (introversion/extroversion) are not correlated with oral English outcome, which means that personality types has no or little influences on the study of oral English, or it may be that the influences of personality types is offset by other factors influencing learning, like motivation. As for differences of strategies employment, no significant difference is found in the general use of the learning strategies of oral English between the introverts and the extroverts. Among the 8 strategy categories investigated in the present study: meta-cognitive strategies, functional practice strategy, formal practice strategy, memory strategy, monitor strategy, compensation strategy, social strategy, affective strategy, no significant difference is found in the strategy categories between the introverts and the extroverts, exclusive of only "formal practice strategy", which is significantly different between the introverts and the extroverts, with the extroverts' average score much higher than that of the introverts. The attempted explanation is that the good extroverted learners have noticed the shortcoming of their personality in learning language, paying not enough attention to the study of language form, thus to improve their language accuracy, they attend to language form more than the introverts. As for individual strategies, significant difference is found between the introverts and the extroverts in some strategies, such as, for the strategy *"When my teacher asks questions in class, I try to answer them mentally to myself, there is significant difference between the introverts and the extroverts at 0.05 level; for the strategies *"I speak to myself in English, either silently or aloud" and *"I read newspapers, magazines, books, brochures, or pamphlets primarily to improve my reading comprehension", the introverts are significantly different from the extroverts at 0.01 level. The frequent employment of these strategies by the introverts is consistent with their personality. The introverts are always shy, unsociable, etc., but these characteristics do not prevent them from learning oral English. The good learners under the propelling of strong motivation can find appropriate ways to improve learning. The result of the present study proves that the influence of introversion and extroversion on the ability of oral English learning is not as big as it is assumed, thus both the introverts and extroverts have the potentiality to learn oral English well, as long as they can identify their shortcomings and merits in their personality and choose strategies in accordance with their personality to improve their oral English ability.
Based on the findings of the investigation, the paper gives an attempted discussion on the following aspects: personality type is not a decisive factor for the success of oral English learning but a factor to determine what strategies to employ for learning; foreign language learning settings do not make much difference in the outcome of the oral English learning between the introverts and the extroverts; reading and listening abilities are important in improving one's oral English for both introverted and extroverted learners; memory strategy is also attached great importance to in improving oral English for both introverted and extroverted Chinese learners.
The findings of the study provide us with some useful insights on the teaching and learning of oral English: increasing teachers' consciousness of influence of personality types on oral English learning; cultivating students' awareness of advantages and disadvantages of their personality types in oral English learning; changing teachers' traditional roles in classroom; creating a relaxed, harmonious and unthreatening environment for learners' foreign language learning.
Limitation and suggestions for future researches are also discussed in this paper. Due to the constraint of the personnel and fund, the sample for the current study is limited, thus the result of the investigation of may be affected by the small sample. It is suggested that larger samples of investigation can be conducted to verify the findings of this study, to reveal more truth in the future researches.
引文
Abraham, R. & R. Vann. 1987. Strategies of two language learners: a case study. In Wenden and Rubin (ed.), 1987, Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.
Arnold, J. & H. D. Brown. 1999. A map of the terrain. In J. Arnold (ed.) Affect in Language Learning, pp: 1-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bialystok, E. 1981. The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. The Modern language Journal, 65 (1): 24—35.
Brown, H. D. 1994. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Pearson Hall Regents.
Brown, W. Danny. 1999. The Classroom-Related Beliefs and Learning Strategies of Seven Adult Japanese Learners in a U.S. Program. A Bell & Howell Information Company.
Busch, D. 1982. Introversion-extroversion and the EFL proficiency of Japanese students. Language Learning 32: 109-32.
Canale, M., & M. Swain. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, Vol. 1 No. 1.1-47.
Carrell, P. L. & Monesta S. Prince. 1996. Personality types and language learning in an EFL context. Language Learning, 46: 75 - 99.
Carton, A. 1966. The Method of Inference in Foreign Language Study. The Research Foundation of the City of New York.
Chamot, A. et al. 1999. The Learning Strategies Handbook. NY: Longman.
Chamot, A., L. Kupper & M. Impink-Hernandez. 1988. A Study of Learning Strategies in Foreign Language Instruction: Findings of the Longitudinal Study. McLean, Va: Interstate Research Associates.
Chen, S. Q. 1990. A study of communication strategies in interlanguage production by Chinese EFL learners. Language Learning 40 (2): 155-87.
Cohen, A. D. 1998. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. London: Longman.
Dewaele, J. M. & A. Furnham. 1999. Extraversion: the unloved variable in applied linguistic research. Language Learning 49: 509-544.
Dickinson, L. 1987. Self-instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. L. 1989. Effects of sex differences, career choices and psychological types on adult learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 73: 1-13
Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. L. 1990. Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. The Modern Language Journal, 74, 311-28.
Ehrman, M. 1990. The role of personality type in adult language learning: an ongoing investigation. In Parry and Stansfield (eds.), 1990, Language Aptitude Reconsidered. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eysenck H. J. 1970. The Structure of Human Personality. London: Methuen
Gan, Zhengdong, Humphreys, G. & Hamp-lyons, L. 2004. Understanding Successful and unsuccessful EFL students in Chinese university. The Modern Language Journal, 88,ii.
Gardner, R. C. & McIntyre, P. D 1993. A Student's contribution to second language learning: Part II, Affective factors. Language Teaching, 26,1-11.
Gillette, B. 1987. Two successful language learners: an introspective report. In Farch and Kasper (eds.), 1987, Introspection in Second Language Research. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Green, J. & Oxford, R. L. 1995. A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297.
Griffiths, R. 1991. Personality and second-language learning: theory, research and practice. In Sadtano (ed.), 1991, Language Acquisition and the Second/Foreign Language Classroom. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Hedge, T. 2000/2002. Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford university press/Shanghai foreign languages education press.
Hsiao, H. & Rebecca L. Oxford. 2002. Comparing theories of language learning strategies: a confirmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language Journal. 86, iii.
Huang, Xiao-hua, & M. van Naerssen. 1987. Learning strategies for oral communication. Applied Linguistics, 8(3): 287-307.
Kiany, G. Reza. 1998. English Proficiency and Academic Achievement in Relation to Extroversion: A Preliminary Study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8: 113-130.
Krashen, S. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kubota, M. 2003. Factors affecting Japanese proficiency levels in native English speakers. ASAA E-journal of Asian Linguistics & Language Teaching. Retrieved from www. arts.unsw.edu.au/language/asaaejournal 2003: 5.
Lennon, P. 1989. Introspection and intentionality in advanced second-language acquisition. Language Learning, 39: 375 - 95.
Littlewood, W. T. 1983. Contrastive pragmatics and foreign language learner's personality. Applied Linguistics, Vol. 4, No. 3.
Mangubhai, F. 1991. The processing behaviours of adult second language learners and their relationship to second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 12: 268 -98.
Moody, R. 1988. Personality preferences and foreign language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 72 (4), 389-401.
Naiman, N., M., Frohlich, H.H. Stern, & A. Todesco. 1978. The Good Language Learner. Research in Education Series 7. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Nassaji, H. 2000. Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction in second language classroom: some pedagogical possibilities. The Modern Language Journal, 84,ii.
Nisbet, D. L., E. R. Tindall & A.A. Arroyo. 2005. Language learning strategies and English proficiency of Chinese university students. Foreign Language Annals. 2005: Spring, 38,1.pg.100.
O'Malley, J. M., & A. U. Chamot. 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. & M. Nyikos. 1989. Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal 73: 291- 300.
Oxford, R. 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Oxford, R. 1993. Style Analysis Survey. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa AL. Later published in Reid J (ed.). 1995, Language Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Heinle & Heinle, Boston, pp 208-15.
Oxford, R. & M. E. Ehrman. 1995. Adults' language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in the United States. System, Vol. 23, No. 3 pp. 359-386.
Pawley, A. & F. Syder. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J.C. Richards and R. Schmidt (eds.): Language and Communication. London: Longman.
Politzer, R. & M. McGroarty. 1985. An exploratory study of learning behaviors and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly 19:103-23.
Reiss, M. 1983. Helping the unsuccessful language learner. The Canadian Modern Language Review 39: 257 - 66.
Reiss, M. 1985. The good language learner: another look. The Canadian Modern Language Review 41: 511- 23.
Robson, G. 1992. Individual Learner differences and classroom participation: a pilot study. Unpublished paper, Tokyo: Temple University Japan.
Rossier, J. C. 1975. Extroversion/introversion as a significant variable in the learning of English as a second language. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Southern California. Dissertation Abstracts International 36: 7308A-7309A.
Rubin, J. 1975. What the "good language learner" can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1): 41-51.
Rubin, J. 1981. Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11:117-31.
Rubin,J.1987.Learner strategies:theoretical assumptions,research history and typology.In Wenden,A.& J.Rubin(eds).Learner Strategies in Language Learning.Englewood CliffS,N.J.:Prentice Hall.
Rubin,J.& I.Thompson.1982.How to Be a More Successful Language Learner.Boston:Heinle &Heinle Publishers,Inc.
Seliger,W.H.& Elana Shohamy.1989/1999.Second Language Research Methods.Oxford University Press/上海外语教育出版社.
Skehan,P.1989.Individual Differences in Second-language Learning.London:Edward Arnold.
Skehan,P.1998,A Cognitive Approach to language Learning.Oxford,U.K.:Oxford University.
Stern,H.H.1975.What can we learn.from the goodtanguage learner? Canadian Modern Language Reviews,31(3):304-318.
Strong,M.1983.Social styles and second language acquisition of Spanish-speaking kindergarteners.TESOL Quarterly 17:241-258.
Wen,Q.& Johnson,R.K.1997.L2 learner variables and English achievement:A study of tertiary-level English majors in China.Applied Linguistics,18,27-47.
Wenden,A.L.1985.Facilitating learning competence:perspectives on an expanded role for second-language teachers.Canadian Modern Language Review,41(6):981-990.
Wenden,A.L.1986.What do L2 learners know about language learning?:A second look at retrospective accounts.Applied Linguistics,7(2):186-205.
Wenden,A.L.1991.Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy.New York:Prentice -Hall.
Wharton,G.2000.Language Learning Strategy Use of Bilingual Foreign Language Learners in Singapore.Language Learning,50:2.June,pp.203-243.
龚耀先,1986,修订艾森克个性问卷手册。长沙:湖南医学院.
金泉元、戴树萱、刘长江、赵富春,2003。CET-4通过者口语能力及相关因素分析,
刘润清,戴曼纯编著,《中国高校外语教学改革:现状与发展策略研究》。北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
梁晓波、谭桔伶,1999,内/外向性格与英语学习,《解放军外国语学院学报》第4期。
束定芳,2004,《外语教学改革:问题与对策》。上海外语教育出版社。
汤永明,2003,学习者外、内向性格研究与英语教学对策,《扬州大学学报》(高教研究版)第1期。
王雪梅,2000,论性格倾向对英语学习的影响,《外语教学》第4期。
王孝玲,2006,《教育统计学》。华东师范大学出版社。
文秋芳,1996a,《英语学习策略论》。上海外语教育出版社。
文秋芳,1996b,传统与非传统学习方法与英语成绩的关系,《现代外语》第1期。
文秋芳,1996c,大学生英语学习策略变化的趋势及其特点,《外语与外语教学》第4期。
文秋芳,2000,《学习和运用第二语言的策略》导读。北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
吴丽林,2005,内/外性格倾向优秀语言学习者学习策略运用研究,《外语学刊》第2期。
吴一安、刘润清、Jeffery,P.,1993,“中国英语本科素质调查报告”,《外语教学与研究》第1期。