1. 论文阅读与评价 Paper 1 文秋芳 中国外语教育研究中心 2008 年 7 月

2. Breaking the code of silence: a study of teachers’ nonverbal decoding accuracy of foreign language anxiety By Tammy Gregersen, University of Northern Iowa, USA

3. Research questions 1. To what extent do language teachers and trainees can detect the foreign language anxiety by decoding the nonverbal behavior according to their own criteria?

4. Research questions 2. Is nonverbal decoding accuracy of foreign language anxiety related to the observer variables of gender, years of teaching experience and life experiences inside or outside the USA?

5. Research questions 3. By using the explicit criteria, can the decoding accuracy be improved?

6. Logical relations First viewing Second viewing Decoding Accuracy Differences in Observers Explicit Criteria Gender Teaching experiences Local or not local students

7. Variables Q 1: decoding accuracy Q 2Q3 Independent Variables Gender The use of Criteria Years of Experience Country of Origin Dependent Variables Decoding Accuracy

8. Justifications 65%-93% of social communication nonverbally Nonverbal behaviors more accurately reflect true feelings teacher’s ability of decoding nonverbal expressions of emotions: FLA understanding nonverbal behaviors: important

9. Justifications Empirical studies by Gregersen (2005) and Burgoon & Koper (1984) The focus of the study FLA results in negative consequences No study on teachers’ability to accurately decode the nonverbal behaviors indicative of FLA

10. Research design and Procedures

11. Participants 7 Examinees 4 anxious and 3 non-anxious out of the 13 beginning French learners at a Midwestern university Gender: female Ages: 18-26.

12. Selecting the seven students Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) A 33-item self-report Likert type scale (strongly agree ~strongly disagree) to assess their degree of anxiety Categories of the items include: 1)Negative performance expectancies 2)Social comparisons 3)Psychophysiological symptoms 4)Avoidance behaviors

13. Scores on FLCAS Participant scores Anx1 111 Anx2 99 Anx3 97 Anx4 94 Non-anx1 65 Non anx2 65 Non-anx3 51 Possible score ranges: 33-165 The average score of the 13 participants is 78

14. An oral exam Length of time: 4~7 minutes Answer oral questions Use only the first three minutes of each interview for the study (in full body shots).

15. Participants 31 observers Graduate and undergraduate students from two courses: Individual Variability in SLA and TESOL

16. Observer variables __________________________________ Gender Years of Experience country of Origin —————— —————————— —————— male female 0-3 years 3~11 years USA others n=8 n=23 n=20 n=11 n=18 n=13 _______________________________________________ From 9 different countries in Europe, Asia, etc.

17. Instrument Non-verbal Decoding Criteria a five-point Likert scale for assessing eight specific non-verbal cues indicative of anxiety.

18. Data collection: first viewing Not inform the observers of the detailed information about the 7 students Intersperse the video clips. Turn off the sound of the video tape Ask the observers to write a short narrative of what criteria they have used.

19. Data collection: second viewing Watch the same video excerpts a second time. Ask to use a five-point Likert scale to assess 8 specific non-verbal cues indicative of anxiety

20. Review: The whole design Selected 7 out of the 13 participants based on the scores on FLCAS Videotaped their oral exams but edited the first 3-minute segment First viewing based on the criteria of the 31 observers followed by writing a narrative Second viewing according to the given specific criteria

21. Data Analysis For Q1, calculate the average percentage of accuracy by each observer and by the whole group For Q2, compare the average percentage of accuracy by independent-samples tests For Q3, calculate the means of 8 criteria and compare the average accuracy of two viewing by paired-samples T tests

22. Results: Q1 The average percentage of accuracy being 63% after the first viewing Vary from 29% to 100%

23. Results: Q2 GenderTeaching exp.Country origin MF0-33+ANon-A 82320111813 68%62%63% 89%63% None of them produced any effect on decoding accuracy.

24. Results: Q3 The average percentage of accuracy being 72%(71.9%) after the second viewing. 63.48% vs. 71.9% significantly different

25. Discussion From the examinee ’ s perspective Observers were much more accurate in their assessment of individuals on the high and low ends of the anxiety scale than they were with the students who fell in within the middle.

26. Discussion From the observer ’ s perspective No significant differences found between males and females, experienced and inexperienced teachers, and Americans and non- Americans

27. Discussion The impact of defined criteria The exposure time to the nonverbal behavior had been doubled

28. Strengths in the design The topic is new and interesting The variables investigated in the study are right choices. The participants were properly chosen The procedures of data collection clearly stated.

29. Problems in design How did the author select students with a high-level and a low-level of foreign language anxiety? FLCAS Is it a good instrument to measure the level of FLA? Overestimate the level of FLA. Measure the level of general anxiety rather than the level of anxiety related to a specific task, in the case of an oral exam

30. Problems in design No.ScoreMean 1111111/333.17 29999/333.00 39797/332.94 49494/332.85 56565/331.97 66565/331.97 75151/331.85 5=strongly agree 4=agree 3=neutral 2=disagree 1=strongly disagree 78/33=2.4

31. Problems in design How was the oral exam videotaped? Lack the facial expressions

32. Problems in design What was the instruction for the first viewing? (p. 213) How was the decoding accuracy calculated? Either anxious or non-anxious

33. Problems in design Why did the researcher give more time for the second time viewing? How was the decoding accuracy was calculated in the second viewing? How did the author get the average percentage of decoding accuracy?

34. Suggestions for improving the design Ask the students to answer the questionnaire immediately after the oral exam. Have two groups of teachers to observe the videotape CGEG CGEG First viewing Second viewing (the same amount of time) Given the criteria

35. Suggestions for improving the design For the first and second viewing, use five-point scale to indicate the students’ level of anxiety with the same amount of time Use the correlation analysis to see to what extent the teachers’ observation is related to the students’ own report. Independent-sample tests to compare the mean of the two groups of teachers’ decoding accuracy

36. Strengths in writing Justification for the need for the study: convincing The information about the participants detailed enough The data collection procedures clearly described The results reported succinctly Discussion sufficient

37. Major problems in writing Organization Introduction A brief description of the study Literature review Review previous studies Indicate the gap in the existing literature and the focus of the study Research questions

38. Major problems in writing Research design Participants 31 observers 7 students selected out of the 13 Instrument Explicit criteria Content The source of the specific features Data collection Data analysis

39. Major problems in writing Results 1. Decoding accuracy after the first viewing 2. Observers ’ variables and decoding accuracy 3. Decoding accuracy after the second viewing

40. Major problems Discussion From the examinee ’ s perspective: self-contradictory

41. Minor problems in writing P. 14 Gregersen (2005) reference missing P. 19 Para. 2: Data approaching the number one indicate higher anxiety, whereas data near five show lower anxiety (Just the opposite)