慶應義塾
外国語教育研究第３号

2006
フランスの初等・中等教育における外国語教育政策 ― 学習指導要領と関連法に見る変遷 ―古 石 篤 子1

癒し・文化・語学教育英語技能クラスの調査

トマス・ハーディ

19

実験的「使う力アップ」クラスから探る大学英語教育

増 田 修 代39

高等教育におけるカリキュラムと英語教育

市 山 陽 子59

テストレビュー（中学生の英語力測定に使用されている CASEC）

大久保 正 章79

A Mountain or a Mole Hill? 日本と西洋の大学教育における「剽窃」に対する姿勢

ウィリアム・スネル

105

慶應義塾高等学校における英語オーラルコミュニケーションの評価・信頼性・妥当性の改善に向けてジョナサン・ハリソン

121

持 原 なみ子〈研究ノート〉
映画論：英語を母語としない学習者を対象として慶應義塾大学外国語教育研究センター
Keio Research Center for Foreign Language Education

マーク・メニッシュ

139

JOURNALofFOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION
Vol. 03 2006

CONTENTS
Lʼenseignement des langues vivantes dans le primaire et le secondaire en France

KOISHI, Atsuko--- Évolution vue à travers les programmes dʼenseignement et les textes législatifs --HEALING, CULTURE, AND LANGUAGE TEACHING : A REVIEW OF AN ENGLISH SKILLS CLASSTHOMAS, Hardy“Upgrade your English skills as a user” class in a quest for better Japanese university English education

MASUDA, Nobuyo

Curriculum and English Language Education at a Tertiary level Institution

ICHIYAMA, Yoko

Test Review: CASEC as a Measurement of Studentsʼ English Ability at a Japanese Lower Secondary School

OKUBO, Masaaki

A Mountain or a Mole Hill? Recent attitudes and remedial responses toward plagiarism

WILLIAM, Snellat higher education institutions in the West and Japan
Assessment in English Oral Communication for Keio Senior High School :Working toward Improving Reliability and Validity

JONATHAN, Harrison
MOCHIHARA, Namiko〈Research Notes〉
Teaching Film Studies to Non-Native Speakers of English

MARC, Menish

KEIO RESEARCH CENTER FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION

フランスの初等・中等教育における外国語教育政策

フランスの初等・中等教育における外国語教育政策― 学習指導要領と関連法に見る変遷 ―

古

石

篤

子

Résumé
Cette étude vise à suivre de près la récente évolution du système d’enseignement deslangues vivantes (LV) en France à l’école primaire, au collège et au lycée. Dans l’Europe
actuelle qui avance à un rythme de plus en plus accéléré vers l’unification dans tous lesdomaines ainsi que vers la mondialisation, la France s’efforce d’adapter ses systèmesd’enseignement des langues vivantes à cette réalité en modifiant les programmes
d’enseignement de tous les niveaux et les textes législatifs qui s’y rapportent. La présente
recherche met en lumière notamment la période à partir de 2005, année où la nouvelleloi d’orientation et de programme pour l’avenir de l’école (« loi Fillon ») a été promulguée.
Cette loi met en place un plan ambitieux pour renforcer l’apprentissage des langues vivantesétrangères et suggère de nombreux moyens dans son rapport annexé intitulé « Assurer lamaîtrise des langues vivantes étrangères ».

０.

はじめに

他国の教育制度の調査・研究は何に資するか。それはどのようなものであれ、自国の制度を相対化、客観視 して 見直 す 契機 となりうる。 また 制度 は 一種 の 記号 のようなものであるから、その 裏 の 意味 を 探 る 作業 はそのままその 制度 の 存 する 社会 を 理解 するよすがとなるはずである。

本研究のテーマを成すフランスという国における近年の外国語教育政策変遷の概観は、現時点では特に次の観点から大きな意味をもつと考える。古来わが国では、フランス人といえば自国の言語であるフランス語を大切にする国民、そして日本人と同様、外国語が苦手な国民として考えられてきたが、その彼らも近年のヨーロッパ統合の急激な進展、およびグローバリゼー
ションの波のなかで、実生活レベルにおける異言語話者との接触の機会の大幅な増大という未1慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

曾有の変化を経験している。そうしたなかで、外国語教育は欧州評議会を中心にヨーロッパレ
ベルで大きな改革のうねりが高まり１）、フランスでも大規模な制度改革が次々になされてきている様は注目に値する。
たしかにヨーロッパでは、EU（欧州連合）統合 の 深化・拡大 に 伴 い、
「欧州市民（citoyens

européens）」 の 形成 が 全教育課程 の 重要課題 のひとつとなっており、 なかでも 外国語教育 は
子供たちの視野を世界に向かって開いて民主主義を実現する人材を育て、そして彼らの将来の進路 を 保障 するという 点 からも 重要視 され、 その 促進 には 以前 にも 増 して 力 が 入 れられている。Chauvet（2005：38） の 指摘 を 待 つまでもなく、「人々 や 文化・思想」 の 流通 は「資本 や商品」 のそれに 比 して 滞 っていると 言 われ、 この 状態 を 打開 するには EU 構成員 の 外国語使用能力 を 高 めるしかないのは 明白 である。EU には EC であった 時代 から 言語 と 文化 の 多様性を 尊重 するという 基本理念 があり、 それに 基 づき1984年 の 文相 を 交 えた 閣僚会議 では、 できるだけ多くのヨーロッパ人が義務教育修了時までに母語以外に２つの言語を使えるようにする

方向が確認されている。そしてそのとき以来、その方向でさまざまな施策が練られ実行に移されてきている（古石、1992）。 しかしこの 分野 の 改革 が 各国 での 制度改革 に 結 びつき 実効 を 上げることは一朝一夕には成らないこともまた事実である。

筆者は十年ほど前から、フランスにおける外国語教育政策の変遷について一種の「定点観測」
を行ってきたが、この分野でのカリキュラム改革は文字通り日進月歩で行われており、特に古石（2004）における総合的な調査研究の後、わずか２年の間にも様々な大きな変化が認められる。そのような刻々変化する対象に対しては定期的な調査と考察が不可欠であり、本論では特に2004年〜2006年の間の変化に中心をおいて現時点でのまとめをしておこうと思う２）。もちろ
ん必要に応じてそれまでの経緯にも触れることにする。

調査の方法はフランスの学習指導要領と手引書の内容を丹念に追うことを中心とし、それに関連法、国民教育省担当者との会見から得られた情報なども加えていきたい。
以下、 まずフランスの 教育制度 と 外国語教育 における 新 しい 動向 を 概観 し、続 いて 初等教
育、前期中等教育、後期中等教育の順に見てゆき、最後に全体を見渡してその他の特筆すべき点について付け加えたいと思う。
全体として見て、フランスの外国語教育制度は大きな改革の途上にあるが、その改革のポイ
ントは出揃った感があり、今後それらの内容が煮詰められ、実行に移されていく段階に達したのではないかと思われる。

2

フランスの初等・中等教育における外国語教育政策

１.

フランスの教育制度と外国語教育における新しい動向

１.１. 教育制度と学習指導要領
フランスの教育制度は連邦制をとっている米国やドイツなどとは異なり、日本と同様に中央集権体制をとっているところが特徴である。したがって学校の教育内容は詳細な国家基準により、教科毎、学年毎 の programme という 形 で 指示 されている。 この programme が 日本 の 学

習指導要領に相当するもので、以下「（学習）指導要領」と呼ぶことにする。この指導要領は、より 具体的 な 授業 の 内容 の 説明 や 教材提示 に 踏 み 込 んだ accompagnement（手引書） と 一体となっていることが 多 い。 しかし 日本 と 異 なるのは、「個性重視 や 教育 の 自由 の 原理」（桑原1997：12）であろう。指導要領により教育目標の基準策定がなされ、それによって学校で育成
する知的・技術的水準の指定制度が維持されながら、そこに到達する方法は教育の専門家の自由 に 委 ねられているといえる（同上：13）。 また 教科書 も 指導要領 に 基 づいて 民間会社 で 編纂されているが、検定制度や使用義務はない。
こういったフランスの 教育行政 を 司 る 省庁 は 内閣 が 代 わるたびによく 省庁改編 が 行 われ、そのたびに 名称 も 変更 される。現在 は Ministère de l ’éducation nationale, de l ’enseignement

supérieur et de la recherche「国民教育高等教育研究省」と称するが、通称としては広く「国民教育省」（Ministère de l ’éducation nationale）が使われているので、本論でもそれを踏襲することにしたい。

学習指導要領 の 制定 は、 ほぼ10年 ごとに 全学年、全教科 が 変 わる 日本 と 異 なり、大 きな 改
訂 の 後 は、教科毎、 あるいは 同 じ 教科 でも 必要 に 応 じて 省令（arrêté ministériel） などにより部分的に頻繁に変更されてゆく。したがってある特定の教科に絞っても、その経年変化を追うのはなかなか骨が折れる。

１.２. 学校制度
学校制度の全体は図１を参照されたい。日本と比較しての特徴としては、義務教育が６歳から16歳 までの10年間 で 日本 より １年長 いこと、 また、 フランスでは 就学前教育 もほぼ 義務化
しているということが挙げられる。小学校前の教育機関はフランス語で école maternelle というが、école「学校」 という 語 の 使用、 および 指導要領 によってカリキュラムもその 進度 も 決められているところから、「幼稚園」ではなく「保育学校」という訳語を使用する識者もいる。

重要なのは、幼稚園が小学校、コレージュ…と続く教育システムの一環として考えられているということで、初等教育 の「初期学習期」 は 保育学校 の 年少組 から 始 まる。５歳児 の 就「学」

率 が100％ になったのは1970年 ごろ、４歳児 は80年 ごろ、 そして ３歳児 は1997年 である。現在
は ２歳児 の 就「学」 が 問題 になっているが、 これは2000年現在35.7％ である（Auduc 1998：

24 31、Auduc 2003：44）。

3

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

幼稚園 か ら 義務教育 の10年間 は、学年 の 他 に cycle「期」 と い う 考 え 方 で 分 け ら れ て い るが、 これは 子 どもの 成長 を １年単位 ではなく、 もう 少 し 緩 やかな 時間単位 で 見 ようとする 考
え 方 による。初等教育 も 中等教育 もそれぞれ ３ つの「期」 から 成 る。初等教育 は「初期学習期」（Cycle des apprentissages premiers：幼稚園年少組〜年長組）、「基礎学習期」（Cycle desapprentissages fondamentaux：幼稚園年長組〜小学校初級１年）、「深化学習期」（Cycle desapprofondissements：小学校初級２年〜中級２年） で あ り、中等教育 は「適応期」（Cycle
d ’adaptation：第６級）、「中央期」（Cycle central：第５、第４級）、「進路決定期」（Cycled ’orientation：第３級）である。

ቇ

図１

ᩞ
学

ቇ
ᐕ
㪉㪇
㪈㪐
㪈㪏
㪈㪎
㪈㪍
㪈㪌
㪈㪋
㪈㪊
㪈㪉
㪈㪈
㪈㪇
㪐
㪏
㪎
㪍
㪌
㪋
㪊
㪉
㪈

ᐕ
㦂
㪉㪍
㪉㪌
㪉㪋
㪉㪊
㪉㪉
㪉㪈
㪉㪇
㪈㪐
㪈㪏
㪈㪎
㪈㪍
㪈㪌
㪈㪋
㪈㪊
㪈㪉
㪈㪈
㪈㪇
㪐
㪏
㪎
㪍
㪌
㪋
㪊

ቇ
⠌
ᦼ
䈱
ฬ
⒓
㜞
╬

㙃⷗
ᚑ⠌
䉶䈇
䊮ᛛ
䉺⢻
丶⠪

フランスの学校制度

♽

校

⛔

系 統

࿑

図

䉶ᢎ
䊮ຬ
䉺ᢎ
丶⢒
ᄢ
ቇ

ᄢቇ㒮䊧䊔䊦

ᛛ
ⴚ
⍴
ᦼ
ᄢ
ቇ
ㇱ

⡯ᬺ䊋䉦䊨䊧䉝
ขᓧ⺖⒟

䉫
䉮
䊤
丶
䊮
䊦
䉷

ᢎ
⢒

╬

ฦ
⒳
ቇ
ᩞ

⡯ᬺ䊥䉶
㫋㪼㫉㫄㫀㫅㪸㫃㪼

ਛ

ਛ
㙃⚖
ᚑᛛ
⺖ⴚ
⒟⠪

䊥䇭䇭䉶

㪈㬞㫉㪼

䉫䊤䊮䉷䉮䊷䊦Ḱ஻⚖

㪉㪼
㪊㪼

ᢎ
⢒

㪋㪼
㪌㪼
㪍㪼

ೋ

㪚㪤㪉

╬

㪚㪤㪈

䉮䊧䊷䉳䊠
ᛛⴚ╙䋳䊶╙䋴ቇᐕዞ⡯೨ቇ⚖䊶⡯ᬺḰ஻ቇ⚖

ዊ䇭ቇ䇭ᩞ

㪚㪜㪉
ᢎ
⢒
ዞ
ቇ
೨
ᢎ
⢒

㪚㪜㪈
㪚㪧
㪞㪪
㪤㪪

ᐜ

⒩

࿦

㪧㪪

㪉
䋨

ㇱಽ䈲⟵ോᢎ⢒䋩ᢥㇱ⑼ቇ⋭㧘‫⻉ޡ‬ᄖ࿖ߩೋ╬ਛ╬ᢎ⢒‫ޢ‬㧘㧘Rߦၮߠ߈ട╩4

フランスの初等・中等教育における外国語教育政策

学年の名称は日本とは異なり、特に中等教育では第６級（6e）から始まり、上にいくに従って 第５級（5e）、第４級（4e）、第３級（3e）、第２級（2nde）、第１級（1ère）、 そ し て 最終級（terminale）となる。また小学校は、１年目は準備級（CP : cours préparatoire）、次に初級１
年（CE1 : cours élémentaire 1ère année）、初級２年（CE2 : cours élémentaire 2e année）、中級１年（CM1 : cours moyen 1ère année）、中級２年（CM2 : cours moyen 2e année）と呼ばれるが、本論では必要に応じてわかりやすい名称を使用することにする。
さて義務教育の後は進路が分かれるが、高等教育機関に進学するにはリセに進み、バカロレ
アという試験に合格しなければならない。これは中等教育修了資格と高等教育入学資格を兼ねる国家資格の取得試験である。バカロレアには一般バカロレア、技術バカロレア、そして職業
バカロレアの３種類がある。一般・技術バカロレアは３年制リセ（高校）の卒業時に、職業バ
カロレアは４年制職業リセの卒業時にそれぞれ受験し取得する。
これら３つのバカロレアそれぞれの内区分は次のようになっている。一般バカロレアは大学への進学コースである。

・一般バカロレア：文学系（ L ）、経済・社会系（ES）、科学系（ S ）・技術バカロレア：工業系、第三次産業系、農業環境科学技術（STAE）、農産物加工科学
技術（STPA）
・職業バカロレア：工業系、第三次産業系、農産業系
バカロレアの合格率は、1985年のシュヴェヌマン改革時に、二十世紀の終わりまでに同年代の若者の80％を目指すとされたが、1995年以来62％という数字に落ち着いている。
フランスにはこの 他 にエリート 養成 のためのグランドゼコール（grandes écoles） という 学校群があるが、ここに入るには厳しい入学試験があり、そのためにリセの最終級修了後２年間の準備学級（classe préparatoire）に通って準備する。これはふつうリセに併設されている。

１.３. 「フィヨン法」と外国語教育
フランスには、欧州レベルでの「母語以外に２つの言語の習得」という目標を盛り込んだ法律がある。それはフランス語における「外国語の表現や用語」使用の制限を設けたことで知られる「1994年８月４日第94 665号 フランス 語使用 に 関 する 法律」、 いわゆる「 トゥーボン 法」（「トゥーボン」とは当時の文化・フランス語圏担当大臣の名）である。このことはあまり知られていないが、その第11条第Ⅱ項には次のように書かれている。
３）
Ⅱ．1989年７月10日89 486号教育基本法（loi d ’orientation sur l ’éducation）
第１条の第２段落 の 後 に、次 の 段落 を 挿入 する。「 フランス 語 を 使 いこなすこと、 およびその 他の言語を２つ使えるようにすることは教育の重要な目標の一部を成す。
」
４）
このトゥーボン法には第21条にフランスの地域語（langues régionales）
についての文言もあ5

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

るが、本論の趣旨から逸れるので割愛する。
ところで 日本 の「外国語」 に 対応 するフランスでの 教科名 は、伝統的 に「生 きている 言語（langue vivante）」（現代語） と 呼 ばれ、LV と 略記 されてきた。 これはいわゆる「外国語」 のみではなく、国内の「地域語」をも包括した概念なのである。しかし、2002年に改訂された初等教育の学習指導要領においては、単に「外国語」（langue étrangère）という用語が使用されている。だがその場合、「外国語あるいは地域語」というように、「地域語」が外国語と同じステイタスで併記されていることが注意を引く。それに対して、中等教育では教科名は相変わらず「現代語」 と 表記 されており、 それには 第１現代語（LV1）、第２現代語（LV2）、第３現代

語（LV3） の 別 があり、LV1としては 常 に「外国語」 を 選択 しなければならず、「地域語」 は

LV2、LV3としてしか選択肢に入らない。以下本論では必要に応じて「LV」と略記する。参考までに 付記 すれば、「生 きている 」 の 反対 は「死 んでいる 」 であるから、langue vivante の 反

対 は「死 んでいる 言語＝死語」（langue morte） となる。 たしかに 古代 ギリシア 語 やラテン 語は死語であるが、これらの言語は教科の科目名としては「古典語」（langues anciennes）という。
さて、 フランス 政府 は 法典編成（codification） を 統一的 に 進 めており、労働法典 や 環境法

典など多くの法典が整備されている。「教育法典」Code de l ’éducation は2000年に編纂されたが、 これは 教育関係 の 法律（loi） や décret（政令） などをひとつにまとめたもので、上 に 挙
げたジョスパン法もこの教育法典の重要な部分を成す形で統合されている５）。

本論 に 直接関係 する 法律 は2005年４月23日2005 380号「学校 の 未来 のための 教育計画基本法（loi d ’orientation et de programme pour l ’avenir de l ’école）」であり、当時の国民教育大臣の名前をとって別名「フィヨン法」といわれる。この法律は上記教育法典の第Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳ、

Ⅵ、Ⅶ、Ⅸ巻に修正をもたらす形で制定されている。実際フランスでも教育の危機が叫ばれて久 しいが、 この 法律 は2003年９月 に「学校 の 未来 に 関 する 国家委員会（commission nationale

sur l ’avenir de l ’école）」を設置し、時間をかけて国民的討論を喚起して大規模に民意を汲み取り制定されたといわれる。そこでは次の３つが優先課題とされ、外国語教育改革はそのうちのひとつである。

⑴

すべての生徒の学業達成⑵

外国語教育の現状改革⑶

教員養成制度の改革

外国語教育 に 関 しては19条（各学校区 に 外国語教育委員会設置） と25条（初等教育 からの外国語教育） の 条文修正 がなされた。 この 法律 に 関 しては「付帯文書」（rapport annexé） も同時に提出された。そこには「新しいヨーロッパの建設に向かって」13の目標が掲げられている（Chauvet, 2005）。そのひとつである「外国語能力の向上（Assurer la maîtrise des langues

vivantes étrangères）」のなかには、以下のような改革のポイントが列記されている。この付帯

6

フランスの初等・中等教育における外国語教育政策

文書は本文とは異なり、一度法律として採択されたが、その後、2005年４月の憲法院の判決で関連条文が手続き的な理由で無効とされた。したがって、そのままの形では法的効力はもたないが、その後様々な政令や省令などの形で制定される形をとった６）。それぞれについては２章以降の関連箇所で詳述することにする。
・義務教育の間にフランス語以外に２言語を学習すること。
・外国語教育は幼稚園からではなく CE1（初級１年）からとする。
・小学校からコレージュへの学習の継続を保証するために能力別クラスの考え方を導入する。
・２つ目の外国語はこれまでコレージュの第４級からであったが、開始を１年早める方向で進める。
・リセでは一般バカロレアコース・技術バカロレアコースにおいて、第２級では全員が LV2を履修する。

・リセにおいての少人数クラスを実現する。
・学習において口頭表現を重視する。
・学習目標として欧州評議会設定の「言語学習・教育・評価のための欧州共通参照枠（以下CEFR）」７）利用を一般化する。
・小学校教員採用試験時における外国語口頭試問を2006年より実施する。
・中等教育で外国語以外の教科担当の教員が、フランス語以外で当該教科を教える能力をつけることを推進する。

２. 初等教育２.１. 「ことばの力」と基礎学力強化
初等教育 は2002年１月25日付省令８） で 新学習指導要領 が 提示 され、同年９月 より 実施 に 移されたが、７年ぶりの大改訂となり、多くの新しい考え方が盛り込まれた。そのひとつは言語教育を重視する方針である。指導要領は基礎学習期と深化学習期の２つに分けて提示されているが、前者では、「ことばの習得、フランス語の学習」（週９時間〜10時間）に週２時間半の「読み・書 き（作文 または 書 き 写 し ）」 がプラスされ、全 カリキュラム 週26時間 の 約半分弱（11時

間半〜12時間半）が言語の習得に充てられる計算になる。また後者では、「文学」（週４時間半〜５時間半）や「フランス語の観察（文法・活用・正書法・語彙）」（週１時間半〜２時間）が導入された他に、科目横断的に「ことばの習得・フランス語の習得」に週に13時間（内２時間
は 毎日読 み・書 きに ） を 充 てることとされる。 またこの 深化学習期 には 週1時間（内30分間 は

毎週討論）が「公民教育」に充てられている。以上のように、小学校では全教科を通じての読
み 書 き 訓練 の 強化 が 目指 されているが、 これは 小学校卒業時 に 約20％ の 児童 が 読 み 書 きに 困難を抱えているという驚くべき事実に対処しようとする試みである（文科省編 2003）９）。さて、

7慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

外国語学習も「ことば」の習得であるが、その詳細は２．２．にゆずる。
次 に2005年 のフィヨン 法 において 初等教育 および 中等教育 に 関連 する 部分 をあげるとすれば、“socle commun”「共通基礎学力」 と い う 用語 が 最 も 重要 で あ ろ う。 こ れ は 学業 を 達成
し、人間 として 職業人 として 社会 で 十分生活 していけるだけの 知識（connaissances） と 能力

（compétences） のことを 指 し、１．３．であげたフィヨン 法 における ３ つの 優先課題 の ⑴ に 関連する。この共通基礎学力を義務教育の間にすべての生徒に身につけてもらうことが目標とされることになった。この基礎学力に含まれるのはフランス語の使用能力、算数・数学の基礎力（以上、日本流 に 言 えば「読 み 書 きソロバン 」 に 対応 する ）、市民生活 を 送 るのに 必要 な 人文的教養 と 科学的知識、ICT の 利用能力、 そして 最低限 ひとつの 外国語 の 使用能力等 が 含 まれ
る10）。

２.２. 外国語学習：学年・時間数・目標
2002年の新学習指導要領では、基礎学習期の第１年目、すなわち幼稚園の年長組から「外国語または地域語」が必修とされた。しかしこの科目は初めて必修となったので、実施までに移行期間 が 設 けられ、年長組 では2005年度、CP（準備級） では2006年度、CE1（初級１年） では2007年度新学期からそれぞれ開始されることとされた。ところが、年長組で開始されるはずの2005年春に施行されたフィヨン法ではこの方針が撤回されてしまったのである。理由はひと言で言って実現困難性にある11）。その結果、新たに目標として設定されたのは、2007年度から

CE1から 開始 するということである。 そして、 それまでにまずフランス 全土 での CE2（初級２年）からの開始の普及を目指すことになる。
学習時間数 は 基礎学習期 では 週１時間〜２時間、深化学習期 では 週１時間半〜２時間 である。前者では異言語・異文化対応能力の涵養が中心となり、後者ではでは具体的な言語コミュ
ニケーション 能力 の 育成 を 目指 すとする。深化学習期 の 学習目標 としては、CEFR の A1レベ
ルの「学童バージョン」が提示されている。また、2002年６月の省令は外国語（ドイツ語、英語、 アラビア 語、中国語、 スペイン 語、 イタリア 語、 ポルトガル 語、 ロシア 語）、2003年 の ２
つの 省令 は 地域語（ バスク 語、 ブルトン 語、 カタラン 語、 アルザス・モーゼル 地域諸語、 オック語）のそれぞれの言語について指導内容を定めている。
またフィヨン法関連での改革でもたらされたもうひとつの大きな変化は、小学校教員が採用

試験時 に 外国語 の 口頭試問 を 受 けなければならなくなったことであり、 これは2006年春 から
既 に 実行 に 移 されている。受験者 はドイツ 語、英語、 アラビア 語、 スペイン 語、 イタリア 語、
ポルトガル語の６言語のなかから１言語を選択できる。試験時間は20分間で、面接30分前に手渡 される20行 ほどの 外国語 の 文章 について、 まず ５分間 でその 要約 を 述 べ、次 に 試験官 に 指示された箇所を音読する。そして最後に試験官とその言語で質疑応答が行われ、該当言語での

8

フランスの初等・中等教育における外国語教育政策

生きたやりとりを行う能力が評価される。受験者に要求されるレベルとは、上記 CEFR の B2レベルとされる12）。

２.３.

フランスにおける早期外国語教育の歴史

日本 の 公立学校 において、外国語 が 最初 に 教科 として 導入 されるのは 中学１年生 であるが、フランスでも小学校での外国語教育が一般化されるまでは、本格的な外国語教育が始まるのはコレージュに入った年（第６級）からであった。小学校からの外国語教育は「早期」外国語教育と呼ばれることが多いが、「早期」というのは何かに対して「早い」のであり、その「何か」、
つまり基準となっているのはフランスの場合コレージュ第６級なのである。

新指導要領が施行された以降もフランスでのこの「早期外国語教育」という分野では動きが絶 えないが、 ここに 至 るまでにも 目標 を sensibilisation（異 なった 言語 や 文化 への 感受性 を 育てること ） に 置 くのか、 それとも apprentissage（本格的 な 習得） に 置 くのかといった 議論 が戦わされ、それに伴う様々な教授法の試行錯誤がくり返されてきた。そして今はっきり本格的な 習得、 それもオラルを 重視 した 本格的 な 外国語学習 を 目指 すものと 位置 づけられることになったといえる。ここで簡単にこれまでの道のりを振り返っておこう。

早期外国語教育はまず既に1954年〜1973年に試みられたことがあるという記録がある。しかし現在の流れにつながる最初の本格的な動きは、1989年にジョスパン国民教育大臣によって開始された「外国語入門教育」（Enseignement d’initiation aux langues étrangères : EILE）である。
これは３年計画の実験的試みであったが、CM1と CM2の生徒に週２〜３時間の外国語の手ほどきをするというもので、コレージュからの外国語学習の準備段階という位置づけであった。

次 に94年 に 新 し い 大臣 バ イ ル ー が 着任 す る と、翌95年 か ら 新 し い 制度 の 導入 が 宣言 さ れた。このときはカリキュラム上は、「フランス語」の授業のうち最大１時間（基礎学習期）、あるいは １時間半（深化学習期） を「外国語」 に 充 てることができるという 形 であった（文科省編 2003：81 82）。 こ の バ イ ル ー 方式 は「外国語 へ の 手 ほ ど き 」（Initiation à une langue

vivante） という 名称 で、改革 のポイントは、開始年齢 を CE1まで 下 げたことである。CE1とCE2から、視聴覚教材を利用して毎日15分ずつ外国語に触れる時間を作ることにした。対象となる言語は６つで、ドイツ語、英語、アラビア語、スペイン語、イタリア語、ポルトガル語であった。そのために文部省の肝いりでビデオテープも作成され、希望者に配布された。
その 後、国民教育大臣 はアレグルに 替 わり、98年秋 からまた 新 しい 考 え 方 が 打 ち 出 された。
アレグルは「一般化」（généralisation） という 言葉 で、早期外国語教育 を 全員 に 普及 することをまず 最 も 大 きな 目標 として 掲 げた。 それを 小学校 の 最終学年 の CM2から 始 める、 というのである。 というのも、前任者 バイルーの 始 めたバイルー 方式 は、95年度 に CE1、96年度 にCE2、 そして97年度 には CM1で 実施 されるに 至 っていた。 そして98年度 には CM2となるは

9慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号ずであったからである。しかしアレグル方式というのは、バイルー方式とは目指すところが少し 異 なる。 それは「入門」 とか「手 ほどき 」 ではなく、「本格的 な 外国語学習」 を 目指 しているところである。そして外国人助手の導入というのも新しい目玉であった。とはいってもアレ
グルは、89年 に 開始 されたジョスパン 方式 の EILE「入門」 もバイルー 方式 の「手 ほどき 」 もそのまま生かしたかたちで改革を進めた。したがって、ジョスパン方式、バイルー方式、そしてアレグル方式の並存状態が生まれたのである13）。
このように 大臣 が 代 わる 毎 に 新 しい 方式 が 提案 され、教育現場 では 一種 の 混乱 が 生 じたが、2002年新指導要領 によってようやく 全国的 に 教育内容 も 目標 も 一律 に 定 められたものになったわけである。しかしその後も、上述したように2005年になって開始学年が幼稚園の年長組から 小学校 の CE1へ 引 き 上 げられるという 変更 が 加 わったが、教育 の 基本方針 は 変 わらないといえる。

３. 前期中等教育（コレージュ）
３.１. 「発見の過程」導入とコレージュの問題
上述の「共通基礎学力」の充実は、義務教育の後半部分に当たるコレージュまでを対象に実現すべき目標であるが、コレージュでの近年の新しい試みといえば、2002年１月14日付省令による 第６級〜第４級 の 学習指導要領改訂 で「発見 の 過程（itinéraires de découverte）」 という

２科目横断型の授業が新設されたことであろう。これは科目横断的な課題について、個別ある
いは少人数グループで調査学習を行わせるものであり、狙いは「相当数の中学生が見失いがちな知識の全体的なまとまりをコレージュにおける教育に与えること」と説明されている（文科省 2003：85 86）。日本の「総合的な学習の時間」に似た発想である。
また、コレージュに関しては、1975年の改革においてコース制が廃止され、一本化されたカ
リキュラムのもとに「統一コレージュ」（collège unique）が誕生した。しかし生徒の学力格差に対応するため進路の多様化が再び推進され、2002年フェリー国民教育大臣は「全員のためのコレージュ」（collège pour tous） という 方向 を 提示 したが、早期 の 差別化 につながらないかという議論が強く沸き起こった。しかしこのとき提言されたことがらは、かなりの部分が今日の施策に反映されているように見える。

３.２. 外国語学習：学年・時間数・語種
フランスの 子 どもたちがコレージュに 入学 するのは 日本 の 中学校 より １年早 く11歳 であり、第６級 から 第３級 までの ４年間在学 する。 その 間、全員 に ２ つの 現代語（LV） が 必修 とされ、LV1は 第６級（11歳） から、LV2は 第４級（13歳） から 開始 されることになっている。LV1と
LV2、およびそれぞれの週当たりの時間数をまとめると表１のようになる。

10

フランスの初等・中等教育における外国語教育政策

表１

コレージュ：LV 履修学年と時間数
時間数は週当たり

LV1

第６級

第５級

第４級

第３級

４時間

３〜４時間

３〜４時間

３時間

３時間

３時間

LV2

LV1は あ く ま で も ｢ 外国語 ｣ で あ り、選択肢 と し て の「地域語」 は 含 ま な い が、LV2と しては 地域語 を 選択 することも 可能 である。 また、小学校 での 外国語教育 が 導入 されてからは、

LV1に関しては小学校からの継続が重要な課題となっているが、それについては３．３．で述べる。

次にコレージュでの現代語履修の新しいポイントを挙げよう。
・以前は第３級の技術選択コースでは LV2は選択科目であったが、2005年度からは原則として全員 LV2が必修となった。

・フィヨン 法関連 の 新 しい 方向 としては、LV2開始 を 第４級 から 第５級 へと １年前倒 しにすることが課題とされており、その場合、第５級では週２時間が想定されている。

・2005年７月25日省令（Arrêté du 25 7 2005） で 出 された 新学習指導要領 は 以下３．３．で説明する「パリエ１」について定めたものであるが、ドイツ語、英語、アラビア語、中国語、スペイン語、ヘブライ語、イタリア語、ポルトガル語、ロシア語の９言語に対して適用され、日本語、オランダ語、ポーランド語、トルコ語についてはそれぞれそれまでの指導要領が継続されるとある14）。
この 新指導要領 の 中味 は、 まずコレージュ 全学年 を 通 しての 課程目標 と「 パリエ 」１、２のそれぞれについて到達目標について説明した後、パリエ１の目標とするコミュニケー
ション 能力（４技能別）、文化能力、文法能力、及び ICT 利用について明記し、その後９

言語のそれぞれにつき教授されるべき言語材料が提示されている。また、欧州評議会設定の CEFR とその 各 レベルについても 説明 が 付 されている。 これはこの CEFR が 教員間 でもまだそれほど周知されていないためと思われる。

付記すれば、旧指導要領は手引書と合わせて１冊の冊子を成し、英語、スペイン語、ドイツ 語、 ポルトガル 語、 アラビア 語、 ロシア 語、 イタリア 語 の ７言語 で 出版 されていた。
その 冊子 には 第６級 から 第３級 までの 内容 が 網羅 され、例 えば 英語 のものは 全体 で212
ページもある大部のものであった。しかし大変見やすく使いやすい体裁を備えていたといえる。新指導要領もいずれは同様の体裁をとるものと考えられる。

11慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

３.３. 小学校からの継続と能力別クラス編成
長い間外国語学習はコレージュ第６級から開始されていたが、小学校での外国語教育の普及が進むにつれて、従来から懸念されてきた学習の継続の問題が深刻になってきた。主な問題点
としては小学校での学習が未だ非均一であることと、コレージュでの既習者への手当てがまだ

無 いことである。 したがって、 せっかく 小学校 である 程度 の 基礎 が 身 についた 生徒 でも、 コ
レージュ入学以降は他の生徒と同じプログラムに入れられてしまうため、その既得能力が無駄になってしまうことが多いことである。
そこで、上記2005年７月25日省令において「パリエ」（段階）という新しい概念が導入され、これは2006年度新学期より適用されることとされた。これはこれまでの学年制を基盤とした指導要領からから能力別クラス編成を中心としたものへの移行と考えられるので、基本的な考え方の大きな変化といえる15）。
パリエは１と２に分けて設定されており、パリエ１はコレージュでの到達目標を初等教育での既習言語については CEFR の A2、初習言語は A1と設定している。パリエ２は前期中等教育修了時の到達目標を設定し、既習言語は B1、初習言語は A2としている。パリエ１については上述のように上記省令においてその内容が詳しく説明され、９言語について指導要領が提示されている。パリエ２については2007年までに刊行が予定されているが、本論執筆時には未刊である。

４. 後期中等教育（リセ）４.１. 外国語教育：学年と時間数
リセの 最新 の 学習指導要領 は 次 のものである。第２級 は2002年７月30日付省令（Arrêté du30 7 2002、B.O. HS no.7 du 3 oct. 2002）、第１級は2003年７月15日付省令（Arrêté du 15
7 2003、B.O. HS no.7 du 28 août 2003）、そして最終級は2004年７月６日付省令（Arrêté du
6 7 2004、B.O. HS no.5 du 9 sept. 2004）である。それによると現在のリセでの現代語学習の学年と時間数は表２のようである。リセは第２級、第１級、最終級の３年間であり、系列別に分かれるのは第１級以降である。

表２
第２級

リセ：LV 履修学年と時間数（単位：時間）

第１級

最終級

経済・社会系

文学系

科学系

技術

経済・社会系

文学系

科学系

技術

2.5

3.5

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

（2）

（2）

（3）

（3）

LV1

3

LV2

（2.5）

2

LV3

（2.5）

（3）

2

2

2

（3）

（3）

（3）

学習指導要領の記述を基に古石作成

注：（ ）：選択
第１級、最終級の経済・社会系および文学系では LV1、LV2の時間数を増やすオプションも有る。

12

フランスの初等・中等教育における外国語教育政策

技術バカロレアコースでは LV2は選択科目となっているものの、一般バカロレアコース（進学コース）では第１級、最終級において系列を問わず LV1、LV2が必修である。LV1以外では、
ラテン語、古典ギリシャ語、LV3としての外国語、地域語なども選択として履修が可能である。
これに 対 して 第２級 においては LV2は 選択科目 となっていることが 注意 を 引 く。 しかしながらこれに対してはフィヨン法の付帯文書において、上にも述べたように、第２級においてもLV2を「共通部分（tronc commun）」として必修とする方向が明示されている。実際、コレー
ジュの最後の２学年に当たる第４級、第３級では連続で２言語が必修であり、リセの２年目以降 も 同様 である 現状 では、 リセの 第2級 においても LV2を 必修 にした 方 が 学習 の 連続性 は 保証されよう。
さて、この必修／選択に関して言えば、以下の表３に見るように、旧指導要領では一般バカ
ロレアコースでも、科学系では LV1のみが必修であったことがわかる。このことから新指導要領においては、進学コースでは系列や学年を問わず、全員に対して２言語が必修化されるという方向性がはっきり読み取れるのである。

表３ （旧）第１級／最終級系列別 LV 履修形態 16）
文学系

経済・社会系（単位：時間）

科学系

LV1

必修

４／３

必修

３／３

必修

３／３

LV2

必修

３／３

必修

３／３

選択

３／３

LV3

選択

３／３

選択

３／３

選択

３／３

さて、新学習指導要領の内容を概観すると、第２級では、到達目標（コミュニケーション能力、 オートノミー 育成、語彙 と 文法、文化的内容） の 後、言語別 に 言語的目標、文化的目標、学習方法論、評価 という 構成 をもっている。第１級 と 最終級 においては、 まずリセの 全学年・
全言語 の「共通枠組」 としての 到達目標 が CEFR のレベルで 表示 されている。 これは LV1、

LV2、LV3のそれぞれについて、聴解力、表現力、等々の能力別に A2 C1まで設定されている。
またそれぞれの学年での学習内容の言語別指導要領（第２級とほぼ同様の内容区分）が提示されている。
言語としてはドイツ語、英語、アラビア語、中国語、スペイン語、現代ヘブライ語、
イタリア語、ポルトガル語、ロシア語の９言語が見られる。その他、リセの外国語教育全般について言えば、他教科と連携の必要性について強調されていること、そして特に文化面の強調が目立つ特徴といえる。また、別冊の手引書は第２級にのみあり、2003年12月発行となっている。

13

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

４.２. 「少人数クラス」の実現
母語以外の言語を実際に使用する機会が増えてきていることから、オラルの能力養成に注意が注がれ、フィヨン法「付帯文書」においては、特にヒアリング能力や口頭表現能力の育成のために、後期中等教育レベルにおいては少人数クラスを実現することが明記されている。これは特に24人以上の人数のクラスが対象で、最終級から実現させていくとされる。この少人数ク
ラスの 実現形態 が「 モジュール 形式」 や、「分割 クラス 」 と 呼 ばれる 授業形態 であると 考 えられる。指導要領には次のように記されている。

・第２級の LV1の週３時間のうち１時間は「モジュール形式（少人数）」授業
・第２級 の LV2、LV3の 週2.5時間 の う ち0.5時間、 ま た、第１級 と 最終級 の 経済・社会系、文学系、科学系 の LV1と LV2では、 いずれもその 内 の １時間 は「分割 クラス 」 とされる。
これはクラスを二分割して行う授業である。

４.３. 語種
フランスでは、学習指導要領に記載されている語種以外にも中等教育課程で履修可能とされる現代語がある。また、バカロレアで受験可能な言語も多様なので、リセの場合を例にとって見てみよう。
＜リセで履修できる外国語および地域語＞
ドイツ語、英語、アラブ語、スペイン語、現代ヘブライ語、イタリア語、ポーランド語、ポルトガル 語、 ロシア 語、中国語、 デンマーク 語、現代 ギリシャ 語、日本語、 メラネシア 諸語、オランダ語、トルコ語、地域語（バスク語、ブルトン語、カタロニア語、コルシカ語、オック語、タヒチ語、ガロ語、アルザス諸語、モーゼル諸語）（ B.O., no.44, 2002年11月28日）
しかし、 すべての 学校 にこれらの 言語 の 授業 があるわけではない。 ディクソン ＆ カミング

（1999［1996］：39）は次のように述べている。「外国語の選択の幅は理論的には非常に広いが、実際、多くの学校では英語、ドイツ語、スペイン語のみを提供しており、さらに選択が可能な言語 として、通常、 イタリア 語、 ポルトガル 語、 ロシア 語 を 付 け 加 えている 場合 もある。」 また、Note d’information（no.00.40：5） には 次 のようにある。
「英語 はほとんどすべての 学校
で 勉強 できる。 ドイツ 語 やスペイン 語 は、 ほぼ ９割 の 学校 で LV2として 学 べる。 ドイツ 語 はLV1としての 要望 が 減 ったとはいえ、７割方 の 学校 では 第６級 から 学 べるようになっている。
（ ドイツ 語希望者 は1割 に 満 たないにもかかわらず。） スペイン 語 は ６％ の 学校 で 第６級 から 学べる。
（希望者は１％にも満たないのに。）また、イタリア語は平均すると５校に１校しか学べないことになっているが、 しかしそのような 学校 はフランスの 南東地方 に 固 まっている。
」また、居住 している 学区 の 学校 に 自分 の 学 びたい 言語 がない 場合、別 の 学区 の 学校 に 登録（越14

フランスの初等・中等教育における外国語教育政策

境入学）することも可能であるし、CNED（Centre National pour l ’ Enseignement à distance
国立通信教育センター）を通じて通信教育で受講することもできる。それぞれの生徒の意思を尊重しようという制度である。
＜バカロレアで受験可能な外国語＞
バカロレア受験の言語は登録手続きの際に、受験可能言語の中から自分で LV1や LV2等を明確 にして 登録 するが、習 ったときの 序列 に 関係 なく、LV1、LV2、LV3の 区別 は 好 きなように
選択決定 できる。 たとえばスペイン 語 を 第2外国語（LV2） として 学 んだ 生徒 でも、希望 すればそれを 第1外国語（LV1） として 受験 することができるということである。受験可能 な 言語
は以下のとおりである（B.O., no.30, 2003年７月24日）。

＜LV1として＞（下線付きの言語はリセで履修可能な言語以外のもの。下線は古石による。）
ドイツ語、英語、アラブ語、アルメニア語、カンボジア語、中国語、デンマーク語、スペイ
ン語、フィンランド語、現代ギリシャ語、ヘブライ語、イタリア語、日本語、オランダ語、ノルウェー語、ペルシャ語、ポーランド語、ポルトガル語、ロシア語、スウェーデン語、トルコ語、ヴェトナム語。
＜LV2、LV3として（外国語または地域語）＞
上記の他に、バスク語、ブルトン語、カタロニア語、コルシカ語、メラネシア諸語、オック語（オーベルニュ、ガスコン、ラングドック、リムザン、ニサール、プロバンサル、ヴィヴァ
ロ・アルパン）、タヒチ語。

ただし 受験 に 当 たっては、 ドイツ 語、英語、 スペイン 語、 イタリア 語以外 の 言語 は、年 によって、受験できるアカデミー（大学区）を指定すると注記がある。つまり、独・英・西・伊のメジャー４言語はすべてのアカデミー（大学区）で受験できるが、他の言語は受験人数や試

験官の有無によって、他のアカデミーと合同になる可能性もあるということである。
５.

おわりに

フランスでの「外国語」教育の制度について概観してきたが、最後にふたつ特徴的な動きを挙げつつ、本論を終えることとする。
まず第一はバイリンガル教育の広まりである。最も有名なのが、一般に「ヨーロッパ・セクション（sections européennes）」 と 呼 ばれているものである。 フランスでは、1992年度 から《sections européennes, sections de langues orientales（ ヨーロッパ・ セクション、東洋語 セクション）》という制度が新たに設置されたが（Duverger 1996：150）、これはふつうのコレー
ジュやリセで、数学や歴史というような教科をフランス語以外の言語で教えようという試みで15

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号ある。従来 の 外国語強化 クラス（LV2や LV3を 選択 する 代 わりに、LV1で 選 んだ 言語 の 時間数を追加して学ぶクラス）を改造して発足したといわれるが、言葉を教えるのではなく、言葉を使 って 他 の 教科 の 内容 を 教 えるところが 画期的 であった。本来 は、対象 となる 言語 にはヨー
ロッパで話されている言語のみではなく、アラビア語や日本語なども含まれるが、何といってもヨーロッパ・ セクションの 方 が 圧倒的 に 数 が 多 い。1992年 には120ほどのクラスが 発足 したが、2004年 にはその 数 はコレージュとリセを 合 わせて2,500以上 に 上 り、現在 は18万人 の 生徒
が3,944のセクションで 学 んでいるといわれる。 それはコレージュの26％、 リセの34％、 そして職業リセの９％に当たる17）。フィヨン法付帯文書には、中等教育教員はフランス語以外の言

語で自分の担当科目を教える能力をつけることが望ましいと書かれている。
もう一種類のバイリンガル教育は「地域語セクション」と呼ばれるものである。これは地域語とフランス語の割合を半々にして、両言語を使って教科科目を教えようとする試み、いわゆ
る部分的イマージョン教育である。公立の学校では、地域語の授業以外は、地域語だけで教える 科目 があってはならないとされるので、早期全面 イマージョン 教育 を 行 うことはできない（省令 2003年5月12日）18）。
その 他 の 注目 すべき 動 きとしては EVLANG（Eveil aux langues「（多）言語 への 目覚 め 」）
や Ja-Ling（Janua Linguarum「ことばの門」）と呼ばれる一種の運動がある。前者は EU のプ
ロジェクト（1997 2000）、Ja-Ling は 欧州評議会 のプロジェクト（2000 2003） として、数 カ

国の研究者、教員、教育機関関係者が共同で行ってきているもので、初等、中等教育レベルで多言語教育 を 促進 し、子 どもたちのことばの 力 を 全体 として 底上 げすることを 目標 としている。 これは1980年代 の 英国 の Language Awareness という 運動 にヒントを 得 て 始 められたものであるが、子 どもたちの 言語・文化 に 対 する 態度（attitude） と 能力（aptitude） に 働 きかけ、異文化に開かれた広い視野と寛容の精神、そして異言語学習に適したメタ言語的能力の開発を目指すものである。フランスでは小規模に行われているのみであるが、スイス（フランス語圏）
では、小学校で既にある程度まで制度として取り入れられるところまで進んでいる。

以上、 フランスという 国 における 外国語教育制度 の 改革 の 動 きを、期間 を2004年〜2006年に絞って追ってみた。今回の調査は制度の変遷を中心に行ったので、実際の学校現場でどの言語がどのように教えられているのかというような現実についての調査・分析や、学習評価については稿を改めて論じたいと思う。

16

フランスの初等・中等教育における外国語教育政策

参考文献
桑原敏明（1997）：「1989年教育基本法 の 基本原理 ―20世紀 フランス 教育改革 の 総決算―」『21世紀 を 展望するフランス教育改革 ―1989年教育基本法の論理と展開―』（小林順子（編））東信堂、pp.5 23.

古石篤子（1992）：「EC の言語政策」『SFC Journal of Language and Communication』vol.1、pp.19 31、
言語コミュニケーション研究所、慶應大学．
― （2001）：『フランスの異言語教育 ―言語教育政策論の構築に向けて―』教授会提出昇格審査論文― （2004）：「 フランス 」『外国語 のカリキュラムの 改善 に 関 する 研究 ―諸外国 の 動向―』国立教育政策研究所、pp.39 69.（http://www.nier.go.jp/kiso/kyouka/kyouka21.pdf ）― （2007予定）：「外国語（フランス）」（比較表）、国立教育政策研究所．
ディクソン、P. ＆ カミング、A.（編）（1999［1996］）：『世界25か 国 の 外国語教育』（竹内慶子編訳）大修館書店．
文部科学省（編）（2003）：『諸外国の教育の動き2002』教育調査130集、文部科学省．
文部科学省生涯学習政策局調査企画課（2002）：『諸外国の初等中等教育』財務省印刷局．

Auduc, J.-L. (1998) : Les institutions scolaires et universitaires, Paris; Nathan-Université.
― (2003) : Le système éducatif français, Paris; Scérén.

Chauvet, N. (2005) :《Le projet de loi d’orientation sur l’avenir de l’école》, in Regard sur l’actualité :L’école : quel avenir ?, Paris; La Documentation française, pp.33-50.
Duverger, J. & J.-P. Maillard (1996) : L’enseignement bilingue aujourd’hui, Albin Michel.

Note d’information (no.00.40：5)
Bulletin Officiel などの官報については本文と注の該当箇所にそれぞれ記載した。
註１）1970年代 の Threshold Level から 始 まり、極近 では Common European Framework of Reference（１．３．
for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment（言語学習・教育・評価のための欧州共通参照枠）
以下参照） まで、 フランスのストラスブールの 本部 やオーストリアのグラーツ 支部 を 中心 に 活発 な 活動が繰り広げられている。

２）本論 は 古石（2004） を 前提 にしているが、必要 と 思 われる 箇所 は 部分引用 する。古石（2007予定） は
約２頁 の「比較表」 のみである。 その 表 を 所収 した 冊子全体 は、 フランスの 学校制度 における 全教科 の記述であるが、それぞれの教科については２〜３頁の比較表のみの掲載である。
３） この 法律 は 一般 に「 ジョスパン 法」 と 呼 ばれている 法律 で、 これについては 次 のような 評価 がある。
「 これはフランス 教育史上画期的 な 法律 であり、20世紀 フランス 教育改革 の 総決算 として、 その 到達点を示すものである。
（桑原1997：5）」

４）「欧州地域語・少数語憲章」第１条によれば、「地域語・少数語」（langues régionales ou minoritaires）というのは、「国家 の 中 のある 地域 で 歴史的 に 使用 されている、 その 国 の 公用語 とは 異 なる 言語 で、 そ17慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号の 話者 はその 国家 の 国民 であるが、数的 に 他 の 国民 より 少 ない 言語 のことである。 その 中 には、 その 公

用語の方言や移住者の言語は含まない」とされる。
５）法典編成 などに 関 しては 大場淳氏（広島大学高等教育研究開発 センター） に 多 くの 示唆 を 受 けた。記して感謝の意を表したい。

６）国民教育省初等教育グループチーフ、M. サフラ氏談（2006年３月）。付帯文書のテキストは《Assurer

la maîtrise des langues vivantes étrangères》（date de mise à jour : 17 mai 2005）（http://www.loi.ecole.
gouv.fr/_web/templates/vprint.php?NodId=83）参照。 ただしこの URL には2006年９月現在異 なった 文書が存在する。同様の内容は Chauvet（2005）にも掲載。
７）日本では『外国語の学習、教授、評価のためのヨーロッパ共通参照枠』（吉島茂他訳・編、朝日出版社、
2004）として和訳されている。
８）2002年２月10日 Journal Officiel、2002年２月14日 B.O., No.1号外参照。
９）日本でも、2007年度までに改訂が目指されている次期学習指導要領原案では「ことばの力」がキーワードとされ、「国語 だけではなく、様々 な 教科 のなかで 論理的 に 考 える 力 や 表現 する 力 をつける 」 ことが目指されている（http://www.asahi.com/kansai/wakuwaku/class0315-1.html）。
10）http://www.loi.ecole.gouv.fr/11）日本 の 文科省 では 幼稚園 から 開始 というフランスの 計画 に 大 きな 興味 を 示 していたが、 フランス 国民
教育省の担当官によると、この計画は当初から実現には疑問がもたれていた。
12）http://www.loi.ecole.gouv.fr/
13）詳細は古石（2001：36 46）参照。
14）省令は B.O. 25 août 2005参照。日本語等の例外については以下参照。

http://eduscol.education.fr/D0067/anglaiscoll_palier1.pdf#search=%22programme%20anglais%20coll%C
3%A8ge%20%22
15） しかし2006年度 から 実際 の 教育現場 でどの 程度実行 されるかは 定 かではない（ アルザス 教員養成大学
院教員談、2006年７月）
16）Baccalauréat général（1998：66 71）より作成。
17）http://eduscol.education.fr/D0121/sections_europeennes.htm18）私立学校はその限りでなく、早期全面イマージョン教育を行っている学校もある。

18

HEARLING, CULTURE, AND LANGUAGE TEACHING:A REVIEW OF AN ENGLISH SKILLS CLASSHEALING, CULTURE,
AND LANGUAGE TEACHING:A REVIEW OF AN ENGLISH SKILLS CLASS
Thomas Hardy
Abstract
Until recently, most health care professionals concentrated on defining and curing diseases.
Healing is an attempt to move beyond traditional concepts of medical curing, beyond acting
mechanistically on the patient as an object and toward treating people as empowered agents.
The concepts and practices of healing may seem self-evident, but are, in fact, deeply shapedby the learned, shared behaviors of those who give and receive care, by their cultures, a core
anthropological concept.
This paper, based on ethnographic action research over a three-year period, describes a
course in the Faculty of Nursing and Medical Care at the SFC campus of Keio University.
In this course, students use the precepts of anthropology as they read short passages inEnglish dealing with aspects of healing. In these passages they learn about and practicesome of the basics of healing (including self-disclosure, respect, and empathy) and researchcomplementary and alternative medical and healing techniques.
After outlining the course, the paper focuses on one class: its anthropological, linguistic,
and care-giving foci; selected student productions in which they engage with the material; aswell as student responses to the process. The paper ends with a critique of the use and utilityof anthropology in the language classroom.

Key words: healing, EFL / ESL, critical thinking, culture
Acknowledgements: I thank the students and staff at the NMC for their patience while I did
the research. Special thanks goes to the two anonymous reviewers whose comments helped
sharpen and shape both the language and the argument.

19慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

Terms and issues
Until recently, most health care professionals concentrated on defining and curing
diseases while the medical profession concentrated on creating and consolidating theircultural authority (Starr 1982). These professionals used a powerful set of tools, including
the emerging sciences of biology and chemistry (Nuland 1988) to construct a vast sovereign
profession and, eventually, a vast industry that impacted nearly every aspect of life in thedeveloped world. In most cases it was for the better, as even the most cursory review ofmorbidity and mortality tables will demonstrate.
But in the rush to scientize and cure, an equally important aspect of health care, namely
healing, was eclipsed. Recently, however, health care practitioners and theorists have cometo refocus on healing in its manifold aspects and requirements. Healing is an attempt to movebeyond the now traditional concepts of medical curing, beyond acting mechanistically on an
object, the patient, and toward treating people as empowered agents. It seeks to integrate
body, mind, and sprit (Dossey 1995: 88). Healing recognizes human subjects, not objects;
it works with clients who are fully engaged in the relationship, in a partnership that cantransform both parties. This approach can be seen in works as diverse as Bill Moyer’s popular
television show and book, Healing and the mind (1993) to reflections by physicians on thetransformation from doctor to patient (Brio 2000), to the elegant reflections of Joan Didion ondeath, recovery, and healing (2005).
The concepts and practices of healing may seem self-evident. In fact, they are deeply
shaped by culture, a core anthropological concept. To teach about healing is necessarily toengage in the core anthropological practice of thinking and teaching about culture.
The concept of culture, more than most such concepts, is open to many interpretations.
In fact, as Williams (1979: 174), one of its leading theorists noted, “I don’t know now manytimes I’ve wished that I’d never heard the damned word.” The fraught concept, once a termof art for anthropologists, is now so widespread as to be almost without content, as corporate
executives, literary critics, political commentators, and fashion commentators use it vaguely
and loosely (Morita quoted in Buruma 2000: 235; Williams 1977: 11-20; Huntington 1966:
29; Menkes 2006: 9).
Upon examination however, one can discern a set of shared meanings in these various andvaried usages. One is that culture is learned; it is not something inherent in the biologicalmake up of humanity (though humans may have a predisposition to culture and may have
evolved in such a way as to now need it to be fully human). Another is that culture is shared;

20

HEARLING, CULTURE, AND LANGUAGE TEACHING:A REVIEW OF AN ENGLISH SKILLS CLASS

there is a sense of community and collectivity in the use of culture that no other term seems
to capture. And yet another common feature is that culture is an active, constructive andconstitutive part of the human experience, culture is making and doing, culture is behavior.
This catches one essence of the anthropologists’ culture: learned, shared behavior. Though
there are many definitions of culture among anthropologists, and the meanings of the term
are hotly contested (for a sampling of the discourse, see Kuper 1999; Goodenough 2003;
Diamond 1981; and Sahlins 1972) these essentials can be found in most definitions, whether
the practitioner is interested in evolution (physical or cultural), environmental and material
issues, critical reflection, or close grained ethnographic observation.
The anthropological concern with culture leads, in my thinking, to an inherently
comparative and critical endeavor.
Anthropologists take the detailed ethnographic information developed from fieldwork, andlook closely at it. Using the ethnographic material, they examine particular relationships andpractices and beliefs within the culture. They compare this information with that of the same
people over time (diachronic or historical anthropology) and they compare it with that of othercultures around the world, including their own.
Having compared the material with a range of cultures, many anthropologists take the next
step. They reflect critically on what the comparisons reveal about human culture, their own
culture and their own learned and shared values and beliefs and practices in the here andnow as well as historically.
Of course, a comparative and critical approach to social reflection and research is in no
way new or exclusively the preserve of anthropology. Montaigne (1991), who wrote in 1590
in Renaissance France, practiced it in his essay “Of cannibals.” In this work he started fromthe particular knowledge gained in the early voyages of European exploration, an emerging
knowledge of the exotic Other. This allowed Montaigne to compare it with life in Europe atthe time and to make critical sense of his own life and culture.
Where do these notions of healing and culture place me in the language classroom?
To begin with, they place me firmly in the camp of content-based instruction. The course isbased on the notion that language learning can profitably be organized around the specialized
topics and information that future nurses and care-givers will need in their classes andprofessional lives (Krahnke 1987; Hutchison & Waters 1987). It does this by focusing onmaterials that connect with healing, the powerful (if until, as noted earlier, recently secondary )tradition in health care. This reviving, powerful, and alternative tradition has long valued

21慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

holistic treatment. In recent years in the United States it has gained influence as patients
have become clients and as clients have empowered themselves. It focuses on the social andcultural aspects of health and illness in addition to caring and healing that transcend thescientistic concepts of the human body (Nuland 2000).
Teaching English to future caregivers has usually focused on the very real and important,rigorous and precise linguistic formulations for transactional and instrumental medical
purposes. These are not to be underestimated, as they are necessary for complex medical
treatments and their specific regimens of medications. A thorough grounding in and controlof such language helps to ensure that such treatments and regimens are understood andfollowed.
In the class under discussion, however, the focus is on healing and hence a slightly
different set of criteria applies. Under these conditions, the pedagogical emphasis draws
on the cultural learning theory of writers such as Bourdieu (1973) and critical discourse
theorists such as Fairclough (1992) and Lantolf (2000). The focus of these thinkers is on
the expressive functions of language and on the socio-cultural interactions (ranging from theintimate, such as to the larger social and cultural structures) shape the ways language leads us
to express thoughts and feelings and insights and ideas and experiences.
By drawing on these diverse strands of thought, anthropological and pedagogical, thestudents will leave doubly enriched. First, they will have a better grasp of the language ofhealing in English. This includes growth in the specific language as well as the metalinguistic
skills and knowledge necessary for effective communication leading up to healing. Second,and much harder to measure, they will come to better recognize the ways culture can
influence and shape the very notion of healing, as well as its processes and procedures.

Research methods
Doing the research for a project like this requires a certain methodological fluidity
since, in the research process, I must move among several roles. In one, I adopt the roleof anthropologist and assume the social research perspective of that role, along with the
distance and intellectual baggage that go with it. In another role, I am a language researcher
with the appropriate interests in understanding and applying the relevant ESL/SFL language
acquisition literature to the classroom. And a third role is that of practicing teacher, whichbrings with it the issues of time management, material development, and the transmission oflearning skills and language that this role implies. This multiplicity of roles, though typical, is

22

HEARLING, CULTURE, AND LANGUAGE TEACHING:A REVIEW OF AN ENGLISH SKILLS CLASS

not without problems (Crotty 1998).
Doing such research requires regular reflection on precisely where I am and what I am
doing. It also requires that I consider the ways these matters impinge on my research,
my teaching, and the students / informants. These are not unusual issues in qualitative
research and in ethnography in particular; such issues have bedeviled the anthropologicaldiscipline since its very beginnings. From Radcliffe-Brown’s (1968) reflections on method,to Malinowski ’s (2001) reflections on fieldwork, to Crapanzano’s (1977) discussion of theways that fieldwork changes the fieldworker’s own sense of self, to more recently Lewin andLeap’s (1996) edited collection of gay and lesbian anthropologists’ reflections on sex, sexuality,
and the fieldwork experience, there has been a continuous interest in the shifting practices,
experiences, and ethics of fieldwork.
Furthermore, methods of research shift as I move from section to section in this paper. In
one section I take the role of participant observer. In this role, while I am teaching students
and negotiating classroom practices and materials with them as expected in a studentcentered class, I am also collecting data about the students and their responses to thesepractices and materials. For another section, I collect data from students via end-of-theterm questionnaires. These questionnaires are administered anonymously and collectedby students who know nothing about the class or the students involved. In fact, I do noteven open the questionnaires until the course is finished and grades are submitted. In yet
another section, when I describe, examine, and critique my own teaching, I am engaging ina reflective practice that could be described as a personal narrative (Clandinin & Connelly2000) or authoethnography (Ellis & Bochner 2000).

The methodologies used in this project bring together an array of qualitative researchmethods common to the practice of anthropology and the language classroom. The practices,in terms of method, are messy, but not unexpectedly or exceptionally so (Reason 2004).
Course description
The course under consideration, Healing in English, is an elective course open to second,
third, and fourth year students. There is no standing English level requirement, but students
are given to understand that the course will be conducted in English and that they will use
English when talking to the instructor, if not when negotiating with each other. The course isdesigned for students in a nursing program.
The course has three parts.

23慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

The first part deals with the basics of healing (caring, helping, and communicating) andsome healing skills (asserting, self-disclosure, and specificity). As a class, students select,
read, and discuss two passages on these topics. After completing the readings, they select ahealing skill that interests them, do the reading, exercises, and reflective tasks, and finallyturn their thinking into a short (three to four) page essay, and discuss their findings with otherstudents.
The second part of the course deals with healing qualities (warmth, respect, genuineness,
empathy, humor, and spirituality). Again students select, read and discuss two passages onthese qualities. After completing the readings, they select a healing quality that interests
them, do the exercise and reflective tasks, turn their thinking into a short (three to four) page
essay, and discuss their findings with other students.
The third part of the course deals with healing techniques. Students are briefly introduced
to a range of complementary and alternative medical and healing techniques available tohealth care providers. Each student then selects one that appears interesting, researches it,
and gives a brief presentation and demonstration of it (if appropriate). Students then write ashort (three to four) page essay on it and discuss their findings with other students.
The objectives, as I make clear to students, are: (a) to help them become better at healingin English by becoming more aware of some of the cultural issues and practices involved, (b)to develop their consciousness about the processes of healing, and (c) to help them improvetheir language skills through a variety of exercises (including reading, discussion, and roleplays).
Each chapter (aside from introductory chapter 1) has four parts: a short reading passageof about 500 words (one page); reading skills exercises (to develop students’ ability tonote content, determine vocabulary from context, and discern organization; one page); an
exercise encouraging discussion and application of ideas in the reading passage (one page);
and a reflections page to help students think about what they have learned, the cultural
factors shaping the skill, and one final page on how they might use it in their personal andprofessional lives.
The course is inherently, if not explicitly, cross-cultural and comparative. It gives students
readings and exercises and reflection tasks based on American health care provider materials,
experiences, and notions of healing and asks Japanese learners to reflect on the materials.
This is intended to start students thinking about similar or related practices in Japan and theways these practices are shaped by cultural and social notions.

24

HEARLING, CULTURE, AND LANGUAGE TEACHING:A REVIEW OF AN ENGLISH SKILLS CLASS

Students receive a textbook (A-4 size, about 70 pages) of my construction (see Appendix
1 for a sample lesson) at the first class. It contains 18 chapters of four pages each. I briefly

describe each passage in this part of the course (such as warmth, respect, genuineness, etc.)
and ask students to spend a few minutes previewing and discussing them. I leave the room tofacilitate the discussion. When I return, I field questions. I then ask students to vote (a semisecret ballot) for the passages that most interest them. The results are tallied and the content
for the next few weeks of classes is set. Students seem to enjoy this menu approach as it lets
them select topics that they are interested in.
Depending on the students’ language skills and the degree to which they get involved in
discussion, I have that found one passage and its associated exercises are usually enoughfor a 90-minute class. In a semester, in which there are about nine or ten actual reading /discussion classes, we can cover nine or ten passages.
Most passages are self-contained. That is, aside from the first chapter, which does a bitof scene setting, and the last chapter, which tries to bring together the various concepts ofhealing discussed, there is no particular order to the passages. This means the passage on
warmth could be followed by the passage on humor and then by the passage on respect,depending on the teachers’ and their students’ needs and interests. The chapters don’t “ build ”
on one another in that sense.
Self-contained chapters have the benefit of giving students and teachers maximum
flexibility in the use and selection of passages, and doing so without penalizing students
who have to miss a class or two. The disadvantage is that the teacher has to provide themomentum and sense of direction on his or her own.
This is not to say that there is no organization. Lessons, as noted above, are grouped
together in four loose categories -- healing basics, skills, qualities, and techniques -- to givesome cohesion to the course as a whole. And, as noted above, there is development withineach lesson from relatively concrete work on comprehension and vocabulary to more reflective
and applied exercises.
Ethnography of a class
To observe the specifics of the general matters noted above, it might be useful to use
ethnographic action research to more closely study one class dealing with healing, specificallythe passage on respect. This ethnographic material is to provide context for student responses
to the course and my analysis of these comments. A detailed analysis and critique of25慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

pedagogical practices must await another paper.
The class was held on Friday, third period (1:00 to 2:30) during the spring semester.
Approximately 25 students were enrolled in the course, and 22 attended the class underdiscussion, a representative rate of attendance. Of the students attending, 19 were female andthree were male, also representative of the sex ratio of the students in the department. The
class took place in a standard flat (not raked) classroom capable of holding about 35 students.
Chairs and desks are arranged in rows, which we shift into small circles as the activities anddiscussion demand.
The class started shortly after one o’clock. Greetings were exchanged and attendance
was taken. I very briefly reviewed the materials from the previous class on warmth and thendirected the attention of the students to the next passage that they had selected, “respect.” (SeeAppendix I for a complete copy of the lesson materials.)
After briefly introducing the topic of respect, I ask them to write down two or three words
they think of when they hear the word, “respect.” I circulate and after two or three minutes,
note some of the most common and interesting observations on the whiteboard: “admire,”“like,” “want to be like,” “considerate,” and “face,” (from the Chinese and Japanese concept).
This is a common EFL teaching strategy to activate learners’ existing knowledge and to engage
them in the upcoming topic.
I quickly review a few of the reading skills they have already encountered in the course,
including reading for goals (think about why they are reading [see the Reading Skills questionsin Appendix I]), and the importance of skimming and scanning, including marginal notes.
I also mention the importance of recognizing organization as something that skilled readers
often do, as a way of directing their attention to the reading skills that they will encounter inthis lesson.
“OK. And remember, skilled readers read quickly. If they don’t catch something, they moveon to the next sentence, the next paragraph. You don’t have time to worry about single words.”
Ayumi and Kayoko roll their eyes. This could either be because this is the third or fourth
time that they have heard me say something similar and they want to just get on with it or
because they don’t believe it.
In any case, I continue, “Ready? Let’s begin. You have about twenty minutes. That should
be enough to read the passage and get a good start on the reading skills questions. Go.”The students focus on the reading. A couple of students itch to pull out their dictionaries.
Maiko does. I wander past her desk and encourage her to try and read without it. It is a26

HEARLING, CULTURE, AND LANGUAGE TEACHING:A REVIEW OF AN ENGLISH SKILLS CLASS

reading skill, I tell her, and she needs to learn to cope with text without word-by-wordassistance. I walk her through the sentence, and she moves on. In my wanderings I keep trackof who is doing what, which questions are causing difficulties, and how far along the class asa whole is.
“OK. Now turn to the people around you and check your answers. Get help. Or give help.
Find out what other people think. Explain your answers. Work out differences. Try and speak
English.”Students form small groups and soon the class is buzzing. Mie and Misako ask me over toarbitrate between their answers. I get the answer from Mie and then the answer from Misako.
“Where in the passage is your support for this?” I ask Mie. “Where is your support?” I ask
them. “Work it out between you.” Most of the other groups do work it out among themselves.
After about ten minutes, I ask them to tell me the answers to the "Reading for content”
questions. They can respond fairly easily to questions 2, 3, 4, and 5, which ask for key
arguments made in the passage. Question 1, “What is the main idea of the passage?” proves
to be a little more difficult. The first suggestions are “respect” and “respect for patients.” I ask
them, again, the difference between a topic and an idea. They seem to get the point, which
has been often repeated.
“OK. Work with the person next to you and come up with the main idea of the passage. Of
course, you will include the topic. And then also include the main ideas of the passage, what
they are and how they relate.”
After about five minutes of work, they seem to have a handle on the matter. I ask threeteams, at random, to write their answers on the whiteboard. All of the answers approach thematter seriously. All of them have minor grammar errors. All of them, with a bit of massage
and manipulation, are acceptable.
“Excellent. Now, without using your dictionary, see if you can figure out the meaning of
the underlined words in the passage. Remember, people writing essays in English will often
explain difficult words, or use a word with a similar meaning around it to help readers. To
better communicate the point the writer is making. Keep working with your partner. You have
five minutes. One word, one minute. Go.”I again circulate. In fact the exercise takes closer to ten minutes, and then we go throughword-by-word, examining where in the surrounding sentences the meaning of the word waslodged. By the end of fifteen minutes or so, the vocabulary in context portion of the class is
over.

27

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

I briefly point out the reading point: the use of comparison and contrast organization in thepassage. I start by mentioning the importance of balance when writing such an essay. I notethe writer’s use of cue words (“in contrast”) to help readers. I end this five-minute lecture witha reminder that skillful readers are aware of such things which helps them read with greater
comprehension and speed.
With this, the reading skills portion of the course is done. It has taken about 45 to 50
minutes, about half the ninety-minute class.
“All right. The reading portion is done. Next we do the exercises. We will start with ʻPracticeit.’ You get to talk. Change partners. Do the ‘Practice it’ exercise. Person A can talk for four
minutes about anything. Person B listens disrespectfully.” Here I mime several typical actsthat can show disrespect when another person is speaking: a girl examining the split ends ofher hair, looking at a watch to check the time, tapping out a short text message on a mobile
phone, glancing at a pocket calendar, and folded arms and eyes firmly on the ceiling.
Shoko laughs.
“Yes,” I say, “It is funny now. But you try it and see how you feel. Get started.”
They practice listening disrespectfully for four minutes. Then they briefly talk about the
feelings involved, of both the speaker who was shown disrespect, and the person showing
disrespect.
After five minutes of discussion, they change roles and practice showing disrespect again.
After four minutes, they again stop and analyze their feelings. The general consensus is that
respect is important.
“So you can see that respect is important for healing. Without respect, it is just that muchharder for the processes of healing to take place. Show respect. Now, look at the first ‘ Talk
about it’ topic. Let’s change partners. Then talk about these questions. Why do you think aperson acts disrespectfully? Do you think they are usually aware of what they are doing? Do
you think they are aware of the affect they have on others? What can you do to let them knowthat their disrespect is harming your relationship? Use your own experiences to illustrate yourtalking points. Try to talk in English.”With that I move out of the way and let students speak. I spend some of the time doingclass housekeeping, tidying the class file, catching up on class-related paperwork. But at all
times I keep an eye on the discussions. Every minute or two I quietly walk about the room,
checking on issues which students are wrestling with, trying to clarify questions they have,helping with a vocabulary word or expression.

28

HEARLING, CULTURE, AND LANGUAGE TEACHING:A REVIEW OF AN ENGLISH SKILLS CLASS

After about ten minutes, I get the students’ attention. “Now turn to the person on yourother side. Go over the questions again. See if you reach different conclusions. See if you findthe examples more powerful. Go.” Again I move out of the way and let them get on with their
discussion for ten minutes.
“Time’s up. I’d like to know what you have discovered about respect and disrespect andhealing. Does anyone have something to say about what you and your discussion partners
have learned?” There is silence. A couple of students try to melt into their chairs. “Chiaki.
Your discussion was full of energy. What did you and Shiroi learn?”
Chiaki goes into a brief huddle with Shiroi. “I learned that communications with respect
were very important and interesting to us. Now we know that nurse acting respectful reallyaffects patients. Disrespectful too. I want to be careful about my acting in front of patients.”[Note: These and the student statements that follow in the section presenting and analyzing
student comments were all originally in English. I have retained any errors that occurred andat the same time refrain from marking them with a “sic.” The effort at communicating was ingood faith and deserves respect.]“Excellent observation. And you could see it and feel it in the exercise. My next question isabout showing respect in Japan. The passage is about respect in the United States, some waysof showing respect, and the effects of respect to Americans. What about Japan? Is respectalso important in Japan? Do Japanese show it in the same ways as in the US? Turn to theperson next to you and talk about these matters for a few minutes.”
I get the discussions started and get out of the way. I interrupt only to help refocus a
discussion that has moved to the movies seen last weekend and to supply an occasional
vocabulary word. As in the previous exercise, I call a break after ten minutes and havestudents change partners. This pattern of speak and then speak again serves several
pedagogical functions: it increases the chance for students to talk, it gives students a chance
to increase fluency by letting them recycle material they are familiar with, and it expands theircircle of knowledge, experience, and story telling.
In the last few minutes of class I review the linguistic, healing, and cultural matters
covered. I then ask the students to write short journal entries reflecting on three things: what
they have learned from the passage; how this knowledge will impact their health-care practiceor personal life; and how they will put the new knowledge or skills to use in their lives.

29慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

Student responses
I collected student responses to specific lessons and the course in general in a number ofdifferent ways. The following student responses are based on comments students made inclass while doing the readings, exercises, and discussions. They also come from anonymous
end-of-term questionnaires, both one administered by the university and one that I composed
and administered.
I explained to students that I was doing action research as part of an ethnographic projectand explained the ideas and methods and goals. I promised that if they agreed to let me doit, their real names will not be used, that their responses will not affect their grades, in part
because I would not access the comments until end of the term, and grades were submitted.
I also asked for and received oral permission from them to use the comments made in theirwritten comments, again with the proviso that names would be changed.
Again I note that all the student comments used in this report were originally in English.
I retain errors of spelling, grammar, and usage in them and at the same time refrain frommarking the errors with a “sic.” The students communicated in good faith and the effort
deserves respect.
After reviewing the material, I have arranged student comments in three broad categories:
those dealing with language matters; those dealing with healing; and those dealing with
cultural matters.
Language matters
The following are representative of student responses that concerned English matters andissues of language acquisition. Some, like Erika, focused on the general pleasure they had
from learning English in a relaxed classroom environment. She wrote, “I like speaking English.
I had many times to speak English in this class and it was good. I like healing English.”
Others made a connection between the language and language skills being taught andsome of the qualities and aspects of healing that were dealt with in the class. For some,like Moe, this is a general proposition, “I could learn English how to make relationshipbetween clients and medical stuff and how to develop it.” Others, like Kayoko, made a tighter
connection between the content of healing and the practices of English communication,“Show respect and communication with Eye-contact is necessary. I learned this many English

communication skills at this class. It is very good for me. I want English skill more andmore.” Yukiko makes a similar point when she writes, “I’ve learned English ways of human30

HEARLING, CULTURE, AND LANGUAGE TEACHING:A REVIEW OF AN ENGLISH SKILLS CLASS

communication. One of the ways we learned is specificity. And respect. And empathy. It must
be a standard way of English and the most of important way to make good human relations inEnglish.”Healing matters
About a third of the students focus on the content of the class when reviewing it. For some
this was a general proposition. For instance, Kayoko notes, “I think everyone can be someone’s
healer. Just listen to his [her] friend, he [she] can be healed. But I want to be a healer not
only for my friends, but also my clients. So I studies technical knowledge and help and heal
my surrounding people.”
Others were concerned with specific aspects of healing that interested them. Of thecomments dealing with respect, two are representative. Saori notes, “Especially, I think that
it is important for us (caregivers) to show respect. Without respect, I think the care to clientshas little effect.” Ryoko’s comments echoes aspects of this when she writes, “When I become
caregiver I would like to be respect for patients and nursing teammates. To be respect, I will
use skills that I learned in this class, like listening other people and looking them. So I will
create nice relationship and heal with clients and other caregivers.”
Culture and healing
A third set of comments concerned the link between culture and healing that students had
discovered in the course. For some, this was a fairly simple proposition, with a link simply
being a link. As Risako notes, “I think I want to be a nurse who can think about patients. And
I think it is important to do this not only in Japan but also other countries. Because healing
is country by country.” Risako develops this idea when she notes, “Heal has many means. If
out cultures are different, we feel different king of feelings. So I think every culture must
understand it is to heal.”
Other students recognized the impact of specific cultures and cultural practices on healing.
Some, like Masami, focused on the cultural influences she saw reflected in the reading
passages, “American thinking is very straight and direct. It is very good for me to heal likethis in English for American people. Many American ways to heal. I will try them in mypractice.” Others, like Yukiko, shifted the ground and reflected on the impact of Japanesecultural practices on healing, “Not just American passages, Japanese also have healing. It issometimes the same ways, it is sometimes the different way. Japan has Japanese culture so we

31慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

have Japanese healing. It is interesting for me to think.”
The most sophisticated responses lead students to the beginnings of a comparative andcritical stance on matters of healing and culture. For example, Misako wrote, “Healing is adifficult thing to do. So we must think deeply. I want to use this in my dayly life. Also in the
future to be one kind of caregiver. To see the US healing way and the Japanese healing way
means think deeply about the US living way and the Japanese living way. What is good? Whatis changing? What are we doing? Healing means deep thinking.” This concern with criticalissues, and the impact of such matters beyond the immediate concerns of caregivers is also
evident Shoko’s observation, “What is healing? In this class thinking about to heal is my basic
theme. I could know to heal in the US and US culture. I could know to heal in Japan andJapanese culture. But I could not know the right way to heal. Can I do it? This class makesme thinking about healing and human life.”
Analysis and conclusion
It might seem impossible to bring together the critical and reflective musing of Montaigne(1991) with the responses of Japanese college students. But read sympathetically, thecomments of the students share certain features with the French essayist.
First, both exercise the basic anthropological skill of comparative thinking. They take theparticulars of one society and use them to develop a sense of social diversity and constants
both within their own culture and in comparing these constants to those of other cultures.
Second, both the students and Montaigne exercise the anthropological skill of critical andempathetic thinking. They use what they have learned about the healing practices of theexotic Other (in this case, the United States) to reflect on their own culture and their places
in it.
Still, I am less than wholly satisfied with the course and there are things about it that
disturb me. As a teacher of English classes at a Japanese university, I am resigned to thestructural limits on what I can do in a course and what I can with fairness expect fromstudents. Thirteen 90-minute class meetings spread out over four months, with limited
homework possible, given students’ competing activities and classes, strongly shape what I
can teach and expect students’ to learn. Nevertheless, I want to find a way to start students
thinking more concretely about the diversity of life in Japan. They know, intellectually,that they are privileged in many ways and hence not representative of the broader Japanese
population. But this, so far as I can tell, is seldom felt or discussed. I want them to recognize

32

HEARLING, CULTURE, AND LANGUAGE TEACHING:A REVIEW OF AN ENGLISH SKILLS CLASS

more of the diversity that does, in fact, characterize Japanese society in terms of ethnicity, as
Lie (2001) notes, and in terms of social class, as Robertson (2005) delineates in her edited
overview of Japanese society and as Stevens (1997) makes clear in her intimate ethnographyof an urban underclass near Tokyo.
I would like to reshape the course to help students become more aware of the sharedexperiences and beliefs of these less privileged and less powerful groups, and the ways inwhich the values of these groups have, in many cases, been constructed in opposition to thevalues and perceptions and experiences of dominant cultural groups in Japan. This might
require shifting the course to focus more on learning about these groups and their needs andexperiences in healing and less on healing in English. It might require a course in power,
culture, and healing. It might require a course on social theories of health care and healing.
But this is getting far away from a mandated course on Healing in English.
A second source of dissatisfaction with the course is harder for me to pin down. I believe
students when they write that they have come to recognize the importance of healing, someof the sources of healing practices in the learned and shared behaviors and values of people,
and, in some cases, their own culturally based constructions of healing. I would like students
to take the next step and have this recognition lead to action of some sort in their lives. I
realize this is a very American response: knowledge is for action. And it is a response basedon my cultural beliefs and experience that much of social structure is based on conflict andconfrontation. It is a response based on notions of individual autonomy and responsibility.
I realize that these assumptions may play very badly in a society based on smoothly running
functional relations and in-group cooperation.
These concerns notwithstanding, I would like to teach these matters, and it raises anunderlying question I have about the course: to what extent can I teach these mattersof critical and comparative anthropology and still engage the students imaginatively andcreatively in learning about healing and English, the basic purposes of the course? I take what
comfort I can from the hope that what students learn in the course may, someday, help themto make sense of things happening to and around them and to make them healers who, in the
future, will be more sensitive to their own values and those of the people they help.
As it stands, the class is a beginning, if only tangentially, in the basic anthropological skillsof self-reflection and the practices of the empathetic ethnographic imagination. Students tellme that the structure of the class, explicitly combining English structure with anthropologicalcontent, no matter how attenuated, frees them to think about their lives and it allows them to33慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

respond to their own experiences and those of others in ways that they might not have. They
tell me that the process of dealing with cross-cultural materials, in a non-threatening way,
brings the materials closer to their own lives and practices. Hopefully, this can help students
bring together a personal response with critical cognitive analytic and empathic healing
skills – skills they can use in other classes and in their future professional lives.

References cited
Bourdieu, P. 1973. Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In R Brown (Ed.), Knowledge,

education, and cultural Change. London: Tavistock, pp. 71-112.
Brio, D. 2000. One hundred days: my unexpected journey from doctor to patient. New York: Pantheon.
Buruma, I. 2000. The Missionary and the libertine: love and war in East and West. New York: Vintage.
Clandinin, D.J. & Connelly, M. 2000. Narrative inquiry: experience and story in qualitative research. San
Francisco: Josey Bass.
Crapanzano, V. 1977. On the writing of ethnography. Dialectical anthropology 2: 29-73.
Crotty, M. 1998. The foundations of social research. London: Sage.
Diamond, S. 1981. In search of the primitive. Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Didion, J. 2005. The year of magical thinking. New York: Knopf.
Dossey, B. et al, (1995). Holistic nursing: a handbook for practice (2nd ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
Ellis, C. & Bochner, A. 2000. Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: researcher as subject. In
N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pp.
722-768.
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and social change. London: Polity Press.
Goodenough, W.H. 2003. In pursuit of culture. Annual review of anthropology 32: 1-12. Retrieved online
at: http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093257.
Huntington, S.P. 1996. The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon andSchuster.
Hutchison, T. & Waters A. 1987. English for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krahnke, K. 1987. Approaches to syllabus design for foreign language teaching. New York: Prentice Hall.
Kuper, A. 1999. Culture: the anthropologists’ account. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lantolf, J. 2000. Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewing, E. & Leap, W.L. 1996. Out in the field: reflections of gay and lesbian anthropologists. UrbanaChampaign: University of Illinois Press.
Lie J. 2001. Multiethnic Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Malinowski, B. 2001. Argonauts of the western Pacific. London: Routledge.

34

HEARLING, CULTURE, AND LANGUAGE TEACHING:A REVIEW OF AN ENGLISH SKILLS CLASS

Menkes, S. 2006. Karl and Yves in the decadent ’70s. International Herald Tribune, September 5.
Montaigne, M. de 1991. The Essays. London: Allen Lane
Moyer, B. Healing and the mind. New York: Doubleday.
Nuland, S.B. 1988. Doctors: the biography of medicine. New York: Knopf.
Nuland, S.B. 2000. The mysteries within: a surgeon reflects on medical myths. New York: Simon &Schuster.
Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1968. Method in social anthropology: selected essays. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Reason, P. 2004. Critical design ethnography as action research. Anthropology & education quarterly 35:
269-276.
Robertson J. (Ed.) 2005. A Companion to the Anthropology of Japan. Maden (MA): Blackwell.
Sahlins, M. 1972. Culture and practical reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Starr, P. 1982. The social transformation of American medicine. New York: Basic Books.
Stevens C.S. 1997. On the Margins of Japanese Society: Volunteers and the Welfare of the Urban

Underclass. London: Routledge.
Williams, R. 1977. Marxism and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, R. 1979. Politics and letters. London: New Left Books.

35

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

Appendix I
9. Respect• Reading Passage
Respect is communicating your acceptance of another’s ideas, feelings, and experiences (Haber et
al 1997). When we show respect to clients and colleagues we are sending them the message, “I valueyou. You are important to me.” Together, warmth and respect form what Carl Rogers (1961) calls
unconditional positive regard. As a caregiver, doing this means showing that you accept others forwhat they are, not on condition that they behave in a certain way or possess certain characteristics or
have certain qualities.
Respect makes people feel important, cared for, and worthwhile. For example, your friend mighttell you, “I love going to my new physician. Besides being a good clinician, she makes me feel soimportant. She’s on time for my appointments, her receptionist remembers my name, and she follows
up on all my requests.” In another case, your neighbor might tell you about her recent experienceswith nurses at a hospital where her husband is a patient. “The nurses are busy, of course, but they
seem to have time to say ‘Hello’. They made me feel cared for.”In contrast, when people do not receive respect, they feel hurt and ignored. For instance, thiswoman talks about her experience at the reception desk of the hospital, “The nurse didn’t even havethe courtesy to raise her head to speak to me when I asked her where Dad’s room was. All she did
was point!”
You can show respect to clients and colleagues in many ways. A list of some ways follows. Lookat your clients. Offer them your undivided attention. Maintain eye contact with them. Determine
how clients like to be addressed. Introduce yourself. Make contact with a handshake or by gently
touching clients. Ask what the clients want or need. Be clear about how you can be of help. Ensure
the clients that you will respect their privacy and confidentiality. Make certain that the environmentis as comfortable as possible. Avoid barriers, such as desks, that come between you and the clientsand might block communication.
Experience shows that there is a positive correlation between respect and successful outcomes inhealth care; the greater the respect, the more clients work with you to improve their care. Indirect
evidence supports the notion that respect for clients increases their compliance with therapeutic
regimens and helps them agree to them. The simple act of respecting and recognizing your clientsand colleagues, their needs and hopes and interests as individuals is not just good manners. Respect
your clients; it is common sense, good health care, and aids in healing.
References
Rogers, C. 1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Haber, K., et al (1997). Comprehensive psychiatric nursing. St. Louis: Mosby.
*Vocabulary: unconditional（無条件の）, courtesy（礼儀）, make certain（取り計らう）, correlation（相関）.

36

HEARLING, CULTURE, AND LANGUAGE TEACHING:A REVIEW OF AN ENGLISH SKILLS CLASS

Reading skills• Reading for content -- answer the following questions in your own words.
1. What is the main idea of the passage?
2. How do people feel when they receive respect?
3. How do people feel they do not receive respect?
4. What are three ways you can show respect?

a.
b.
c.
5. Why is respect important in caring for clients?

• Vocabulary in context
Without using your dictionaries, find the meaning of the following words based on the use andposition of each in the passage.
1. they behave in a certain way or possess certain characteristics
2. Ensure the clients that you will respect their privacy
3. you will respect their privacy and confidentiality
4. Avoid barriers such as desks
5. respect for clients increases their compliance with

• Point – comparison and contrast
This passage compares the way clients feel and respond when they receive respect and contrasts
the different responses when they receive it and don’t receive it.
With your partner(s) come up with a list of three more words that help you, as skillful readers, tocatch that the writer is comparing and contrasting cases to help make her or his point.
a.
b.
c.

37

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

Exercises• Practice it -Find a partner. Let Person A talk for four minutes about any topic that is of interest (a clubor circle activity, a television show, etc.) and Person B listens. While A is speaking, B listensdisrespectfully: B does not acknowledge A; B forgets A's name; B reads something while A isspeaking; B interrupts A; B refuses to look at A; B checks messages on a cell-phone; and so forth.
When the four minutes are up, tell each other how you felt. How does A feel to receive
disrespectful communication? How does B feel being disrespectful?
Now change roles, B talks and A listens disrespectfully. After four minutes, again discuss yourfeelings.

• Talk about it -1. With the person sitting next to you, discuss the following questions. Why do you think a person

acts disrespectfully? Do you think they are usually aware of what they are doing? Do you thinkthey are aware of the affect they have on others? What can you do to let them know that theirdisrespect is harming your relationship?
2. The passage discusses showing the importance of respect in the United States. In what ways isthis similar to Japan? In what ways is it different?

• Look for it -Observe and reflect on your social encounters over the next few days and focus on the respect anddisrespect you receive from others you meet at work, in the stores, on the street, or in professional
relationships. What specific behaviors make you feel worthwhile and which ones humiliate oranger you? In receiving respect, does it make any difference whether the relationship is a one-time
encounter or an ongoing one?

Reflect
Consider what you have read in this passage to answer these questions.
What is one thing you learned from this passage?
How could this impact your health-care practice or personal life?
How will you put this new knowledge or skill to use in your professional and personal life?

38

実験的「使う力アップ」クラスから探る大学英語教育

実験的「使う力アップ」クラスから探る
大学英語教育増田修代Abstract
A goal of Japanese foreign language education, especially of English one, should beto establish equal human relations among people having different cultural backgrounds,
based on Cultural Relativitism. In order to realize this long-term goal, college language
instructors should design their classes, adding these three elements: teaching materials on
Japanese culture, an easily understandable communication style for English speakers, andopportunities to use English in a classroom. I myself have two cooperative, task-based classes
for 66 freshmen at Keio University. Here I discuss my 12 lessons and activities I did in thefirst semester of 2006, students’ reactions to them, and my analysis. I found that students are
inclined to regard the culture of English speakers, even in a moral sense, as superior to thatof Japanese. The student survey shows not only students’ favorite activities, but also some
unexpected facts; for example, 1/3 of the students predict Japan will become a kind of US
state in 20 years and only 1/5 of them wish to have more output activities rather than input
ones. Although my six month experimental teaching is not enough to get rid of their tendencyof “Ethno-peripheism”, the class activities have improved their English and 80% of them think
the class is profitable and (will) upgrade(s) their English skills.

１.

はじめに

日本の外国語教育政策における最大の盲点は「文化相対主義」の視点が抜けていることである。
「自文化周辺主義１）」傾向 の 強 い 日本人 のための 外国語教育、特 に 英語教育 では、英語圏

文化 と 日本文化 を 価値 の 優劣 ではなく、相対的 な 視点 で、「文化背景 の 異 なる 人 たちと 対等 な人間関係を築く教育」が特に意識されねばならない。２）
対等な人間関係構築のためには、１）学生が日本文化を知る機会となるような英語教材の使用、２）英語を使っている外国人に理解しやすい順番での表現、３）受身で知識を蓄積する授業ではなく、学生が英語使用者として、自分の知識を生かし、必要に応じて知識を増やしなが39

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

ら作品を創作する練習、以上３点が入った授業が効果的と考える。
この方針で自分にできることとして、筆者自身はタスク／アクテビティを中心とした授業を行 っている。本稿 で 紹介 するのは 慶應義塾大学法学部１年生 の 選択必修英語 の「使 う 力 アップ」と名づけたクラスである。慶應義塾大学法学部の「使う力アップ」クラスは2005年４月から現時点まで１年半担当してきた。また、筆者は別の大学で同じようなタスク／アクテビティ

中心のクラスをその２年前から担当していたが、今回本稿では、2006年前期３限クラス34名と４限クラス33名の２クラスでの授業と学生の反応、その分析・解釈に限って紹介する。上記の盲点 をもつ 英語教育 を 高校 まで 受 けてきた 日本人学生 に、「文化背景 の 異 なる 人 たちと 対等 な人間関係を築く」上での弱点を埋め、使える英語力向上を意図して筆者が行ってきたクラスの実際とその結果である。
結論は英語力育成では成果が出たが、「対等な人間関係を築く」には道遠し、である。（限られた紙面で、教材、学生の作品、など載せられないのは残念に思う）

２. 対等な人間関係を築くための英語クラス
２.１. 教材としての日本文化（基本方針の１）
国際語としての英語を使うためには、世界の知識人が共有するレベルの、文学、世界史、経済、法律、宗教 など、 あらゆる 分野 を 英語 で 学 ぶことが 有益 なことは 言 うまでもない。 しかし、物事は優先順位の高いものから手をつけるべきではあるまいか。

外国人を相手にビジネスをする日本人の誰もが身をもって知っているが、異文化間で、自己の感情、意見、文化を表明しなければ、その日本人は人間的魅力が乏しいとされ、敬意を払われはしない。しかし、中・高等学校の英語教科書は大部分、欧米英語圏が素材であり、日本関係事項に多くのスペースを割いておらず、日本文化発信教育に重心を置いてない３）。また、現在進行中の、少子高齢化と世界のアメリカ化の波の中で、日本は国としての存在感、独自性を失ってゆく危険性が高い。大学で日本文化を教材に入れ、学生が卒業後から始まるその後の人生で日本人としてのアイデンティティを守って生きられるよう、日本文化を説明、紹介する力をつける機会を提供する必要がある。
ここで筆者が用いる「文化」とは文化／社会人類学の「文化」概念である。人間が自然に手を 加 えて 形成 してきた 物心両面 の 成果 を 指 し、生活様式 と 内容 の 全般 を 表 す。
「文化」 の 概念には、その上下が問題にできる狭義の概念と、できない広義の概念の２つがあるが、文化／社会人類学ではその後者である。
２.２. 日本人英語の弱点（基本方針の２）
そもそも、日本人同士では、歴史的に共有する知識が多く、「分かりきったこと」、つまり言40

実験的「使う力アップ」クラスから探る大学英語教育

語化する必要のない、無意識部分が大きい。だが、地球上に植民地を広げながら異文化、異言語と対峙し、制圧しながら、自分たちの言葉を発達させてきた人たちの言語でのコミュニケー
ションではそうはいかない。日本人 は 自分 の 無意識部分 を 意識 して 言語化 する 必要 に 迫 られ、さらに、日本語の場合よりはるかに自分の意思を鮮明にしたメッセージにしなければ英語らしくならない。だが、現実の日本人英語は、文法上の間違がなくとも、全体で何を伝えたいのか不明瞭 で、（私 だけの 体験 ではあるまいが ）実際 の 英語 コミュニケーションの 場 で、日本人 の発言が無視される事態が多々生じている。
日本人 の 英語 には 相手 を 意識 した 説得力 あるメッセージが 足 りない。「何 を 言 いたいのかが分 かる 」英語 は 語彙 や 文法 の 知識 の 習得 だけでは 不可能 である。単 なる「内容」 だけでなく、英語話者に理解されやすい「形式」でメッセージを伝えることが、この弱点補強に有効である。
学生に英語の伝達スタイルとして、次の３点を強調しておく。第一に、必ず根拠を提示して自分の意見を述べること、第二に、物事を大きく概要としてとらえ、細部の説明は後からにする
こと、 また 第三 には、結論 を 先 に、 それから 理由、 という 順 にすること。大学１年生 に 演繹・帰納を超えた修辞学レベルの「説得力」を求めはしない。しかし、自分の発するメッセージで相手の反応を引き出したり、変えたりするには、説得力ある表現形式として、この英語コミュ
ニケーションの基本ルールを体得させる必要がある。とはいえ、日本語で考え、それを英語に置き換えて英文を組み立てている大部分の学生にとって、自分の発想とは逆の順番で発表するのは容易でない。

２.３.

タスク／アクテビティの有効性（基本方針の３）

教師の指導力と学生の意欲・能力という制約はあるものの、グループワークやペアワークを入れたタスク／アクテビティで学生の創造性を刺激しつつ、英語を使わせる効用は大きい。学生は「英語の使用者」となり、自分の作品（production）を仕上げる（アウトプット）ために辞書から情報を自主的に取り入れる。学生間のインタラクションで、互いの英語の知識を確かめ合いながら、意欲的により良い作品を出そうとする。教師からの一方的なインプットのクラスより、客観的に作品を眺め、論理的、創造的に考えるきっかけは多い。上記の英語コミュニ
ケーションの基本はパラグラフ・ライティングの原則でもあるから、学生が無理なくライティ
ングのスタイルを身につけられる。また、話す／書くことへの不安が、クラスを重ねるごとに減ってゆく。このようなことが、今回の学生の反応から伺えた。
２.４. ESL 教育の中のタスク／アクテビティ
今日、米国主導の ESL（English as a Second Language 第二言語としての英語）ではコミュ
ニカティブ 教授法（ メソッド ／ アプローチ、 また CLT, Communicative Language Teaching41慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号とも言われる）全盛であるが、この教授法に統一定義はなく、せいぜいの共通項が、言語はコ
ミュニケーションの道具であり、言語使用上の正確さ（form）よりも内容（meaning）を重んじるという認識と、教室で学習言語（つまり英語）のみ使用するルール、学習者に自ら言葉を作り出させることを目標に置くこと、くらいである。
他の教授法、すなわち、古典的な文法・翻訳法（the Grammar-Translation Method）、20世
紀初頭 のダイレクトメソッド（the Direct Method）、 また、 パブロフ（Pavlov 1849-1936） の犬 の 条件反射理論 で 知 られる 行動主義 の 言語習得論 に 基 づいたオーディオリンガルメソッド（the Audio-Lingual Method）（これは第二次大戦時米軍隊が採用したためアーミィメソッドの異名がある）、リラックスさせた雰囲気を大切に考えるサジェストペディア（Suggestopedia）、
体 を 動 かす 学習 を 提唱 したティピーアル（TPR、Total Physical Response）、 などをはじめとする 諸教授法 は、CLT と 矛盾 せず、 むしろ 学習者 のニーズに 合 わせながら 折衷的 に 適宜用 いるのが良いとされている４）。
コミュニカティブな 言語教育 が 興隆期 を 迎 えた1980年代以降、 タスク ／ アクテビティは 学

習者 に 英語 を 使 わせる 指導法 であるゆえに、ESL で 脚光 をあびるようになってきた。ESL の中 から、習得（acquisition） と 学習（learning） を 分 け、言語 の 習得 プロセスを 研究 する 人 たち（SLA、第二言語習得 Second Language Acquisition） が 現 れてくると、80年代以降、特 に

90年代以降、 タスク ／ アクテビティ 有効性 の 根拠 となるインタラクションとアウトプットの仮説５） が 出 された。 このように、 タスク ／ アクテビティは 英語教育 において 今後、 ますます重視され、かつ、その内容の適切さが問われることになると予想される。
なお、 タスクとアクテビティは task が 日常 の job を 連想 させるように、目的 があってやる

活動 であり、activity は 目的 の 有無 にかかわらず 人間 の 活動 を 指 す。 タスクを 定義 する 多 くの研究者 が「 タスクとはこういうアクテビティ」 と 定義６） していることから 分 かるように、 タ
スクとアクテビティはオーバーラップする概念用語であり、筆者は研究者が多分に個人的な趣向で使用しているという印象をもつ。本稿ではその定義の差異を論じることを目的に入れてな
いため、タスク／アクテビティとしたり、アクテビティと書いたりしているが、その差異は上記のように微小である７）。
３. 2006年度前期シラバス、授業内容
３.１.

クラスの方針

この「使う力アップ」クラスは大学生になるまでに学び、蓄積してきた英語を自己表現手段として使いこなすための練習を行い、総合力としてのコミュニケーション英語力の向上を目指す。授業中 は 学生同士 でも 日本語使用 は 禁止、英語 のみ 使用、英英辞書（電子辞書可）必携、という講義要綱に載せたルールの他に、ガイダンスで各回座席とパートナーを変えるという決42

実験的「使う力アップ」クラスから探る大学英語教育め事をした。
（筆者が座席移動を命じないと、なかなか守られなかったが）クラス 参加意欲 を 高 めるため A4 用紙 を 出席票 にし、日付、座席番号、 パートナー 名、各回

終了後 の 感想（日英 どちらで 書 いてもよい ）、学生自身 のエネルギーレベルという 形 での 自己評価を書かせる欄を設けた。ここに書かれたことは無論、成績評価と関わらない。
時間がある限り、毎回早く仕上げられたペアやグループは前に出て発表し、筆者のアドバイ
スを 受 ける。
（ ただし、添削作業 は 教室 の 書画 カメラで 教室 の 全員 が 見 られるはずなのだが、書画カメラは絵を見せるには有効だが、鉛筆書きのサマリーや会話文はよく映らなくて性能的に不十分）。なお、最後２回の個人作品の秀品講評は後期の授業で行う予定。

３.２

2006年度前期シラバス

No.

日付

１、

4・11

形式

内容
クラスガイダンス

P

漫画でストーリー、yes / no question ５つで相手を知る

２、

4・18

P

絵を見てそれを言葉で伝える（屋外サーカス、大砲から飛び出す女）

３、

4・25

I

聞いてサマリー、読んで再度サマリー（論説文「日本人の Feedback」）

４、

5・2

3G

聞いて記憶し、しゃべる、聞いて書く物語（落語「のっぺらぼう」）

５、

5・9

3G

続き

６、

5・16

5G

続き、前２回分のプリントを読み、自分の言葉で書き換え、語る

７、

5・23

P

日本の住生活―１

床に寝るか

会話文作成、発表

モデル会話練習、その後同じ質問に日本人として自分の答え

８、

6・6

P

日本の住生活―２

家

会話文作成

９、

6・13

P

日本 の 住生活―３

風呂

同上形式

会話文作成

モデル 会話練習後、説得力 ある会話文作成、発表

10、

6・20

3G

ディクテーション（論説文「日本人の Modesty」
）

11、

6・27

I

続 き、 デ ィ ク テ ー シ ョ ン 正誤 チ ェ ッ ク、 サ マ リ ー（内容理解文 と して）、内容への賛否とその理由を書く（成績評価対象）

12、

7・4

I

日本の住生活―４

会話文作成、絵から物語作成。（成績評価対象）

本クラスに対するアンケート実施（ なお 上記、形式 の P はペアワーク、I は 個別作業、3G は ３人一組 で 行 なうグループワーク、
5G は ５人１組 でのものを 示 す。上記４、５、６回目 は 同 じ 教材使用、４、５回目 は 授業形式も同じ。また、７、８、９、12（前半）回目は日本の生活文化を知らない在日外国人に教えてあげることをテーマにしている。

43

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

４. 学生の反応
４.１.

フィードバック媒体

学生の反応を知る媒体は、学生自身が書いた各授業での作品、出席カードのクラス各回終了後に記入するコメントとクラスで教えている教師への学生の反応、最終回に行った無記名アンケート。無記名アンケートは数値を出せる部分を表にし、稿末に載せた。

出席票については既に書いたので、無記名アンケートについて紹介する。全体３枚で、２枚目は前期でやった授業内容を思い出してもらうため、上記のシラバスを載せた。３枚目は各回のアクテビティの効果について数字での評価と記述部分。１枚目と３枚目を、書き込み用空所

部分を圧縮し、また同じ部分を省略して掲載する。
「使う力アップ」クラスアンケート

2006年７月（１ページ目）Ｉ．バックグラウンドについて
１．あなたの母国語は ［ａ．日本語、ｂ．その他（）］

２．大学入試試験を受験して慶大生となった。
［ａ．はい、ｂ．いいえ（内部進学その他）］
Ⅱ．心の状態１．大学入学後、不安感に駆られたことが［ａ．まったくない、ｂ．多少あった、ｃ．あった］
２．このクラスに参加していたことが不安感を少なくすることに［ａ．役立ったと思う、ｂ．関係ない、ｃ．分からない］
Ⅲ．およそ20年後の日本についてあなたの予測では（ア） 独立国といっても文化的、経済的にはアメリカの一州のような状態になっている［ａ．そう思う、ｂ．そう思わない］（イ） 日本の昔話（かぐや姫、さるかに合戦、など）や童謡を知る子供は少なくなり、日本の伝統文化や独自性は今より薄まる［ａ．そう思う、ｂ．そう思わない、かえって高まると思う］（ウ） 外国人に日本人の生活文化を説明する必要は今より［ａ．高まると思う、ｂ．そうは思わない］
Ⅳ．「使う力アップ」クラスについて
１．このクラスに参加したことであなたの英語を使う力が［ａ．伸 びたと 思 う、ｂ．伸 びたと 意識 できない、ｃ．特 に 意識 しないが 今後伸 びるた
めの土台が作れたと思う］

２．外国人（文化背景の違う人）との意思疎通（コミュニケーション）においてどのような44

実験的「使う力アップ」クラスから探る大学英語教育

能力を身につける必要があると思いますか、以下を重要度の高い順に記号を並べてください。

［ａ．相手 の 文化背景 を 含 めた 相手 の 考 えや 立場 を 理解 する 能力、ｂ．自分 の 国 の 文化を含めた自分の考えや立場を相手に理解させる能力、ｃ．文化の差を越えた合理的、論

理的な説得力］
（

）＞（

）＞（

）

３．学習形式としてグループワークやペアワークが多かったことについて学習効率上有益でしたか、また、気がついたことを自由に書いておしえてください。

［ａ．非常に有益、ｂ．有益、ｃ．分からない、ｄ．やめたほうがよい］
グループワーク、ペアワークについて（３ページ目）あなたの自己評価と感想：
あなたの 場合、上記 のようなシラバスで 教師 の 意図 した 能力 が 向上 したと 思 いますか。 どれがどのくらい 効果的 であったか、数字（３：非常 に 効果的、２：効果的、１：効果 なし、

０：やらないほうがいい）で、また、別の効用があった場合や、良くするためのヒントがあれば教えてください。

No.１：（３、２、１、０） ＊以下 No.２：から No.12：まで同様
４.２.

フィードバック

筆者 は 塾 の 指定校推薦制度 に 無知 だったため、慶應義塾大学法学部入学試験受験組 と 内部・非受験進学者とに分けた。塾の一貫教育の学生への影響を知るためには適切でなかった。
韓国人留学生１名は、母集団の均一化のため、この回答からはずし、34名クラスと実際は33名だが、その留学生を除いた32名、合計66名をアンケート分析対象の数字とした。合計66名になってない項目は欠席者やその問いへの未記入者がいたためである。

一般に、書き込みの有無はアンケート参加者の真剣さの高低を示す。本アンケートの書き込
み箇所は１枚目の「グループワーク、ペアワークについて」と３枚目の「各回アクテビティの効果評価」の記述欄である。両方ともに書き込みのある回答用紙は24、片方だけに書き込みの回答用紙は29、全く書き込みのないものは13、全体数66のうちの８割（53名）が書き込みをしており、学生は非常に真剣にこのアンケートに答えてくれている。
ただし、３枚目 の 各回 のアクテビティの 効果 の 評価 では No.４ と No.５ は 同 じアクテビティ
だから当然同一人物は同一の評価のはずだが、実際の結果はそう出ていない。学習効果というより、学生はそのアクテビティでの自分の熱中度や達成感を数字で評価したのである。

45

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

４.４. 各回アクテビティへのフィードバック分析
まず、クラス各回のアクテビティの効果について数字での評価と記述部分、すなわち、アンケートでは ３ ページ 目 と 学生 の 授業終了直後 に 記入 した 出席票 コメントを 検討 する。
（各回 ア
クテビティの評価順位と肯定的な度合いを数値化し、最初に提示）

No.１［漫画のストーリー］ 12位 （1.65少数第三位四捨五入で出した肯定的／否定的数字）
最初 はやさしく、Easy True Stories -A Picture-Based Beginning Reader ８） の 話 を 使用。 この 教材 は 日本文化 と 関 わりがない。最初10コマほどの 漫画 を 渡 し、学生 はその 絵 を 見 ながら教師 が 読 む 物語 をノートに 書 く（dictation）。次 にその 物語 の 英文 を 見 て、各自 が 書 いた 文 をチェックする。クラス全体で音読。この前段階が終わってから、次に文字のない漫画だけのプ
リントを 見 ながらペア Ａ から、文字付 プリントを 持 つペア Ｂ にストーリーを 語 る。協同学習（cooperative learning） であるから、 ペア Ａ が 詰 まったらペア Ｂ が 助 けてよい。交互 にやり 終
わったら、次に過去の話にして同じように語り合う。
このアクテビティはやってみれば難しくないが、絵をヒントに英語でちょっとした話を伝えられた（narration） ことで 学習者 は 達成感 を 覚 える。一回目 の 授業 なので、初対面 の 学生同士が協力し、自信をつけ、また、このクラスのやり方に慣れてもらう効果がある。
これは出席表のコメントでは「単純な話なのに、実際には難しかった」など、評価する書き

込 みがあったが、 アンケートでは「絵 だけを 見 ながらストーリーを 話 すのは 力 がつくと 思 った」「過去形 にするのが 意外 と 難 しく、達成 できたことで 自信 がついた 」 など 効果 を 評価 しながらも、「非常 に 効果的」19名、「効果的」９名 で、合 わせて28、「効果 なし 」15名 と「 やらないほうがいい 」２名 をあわせて17、 つまり28：17＝1.65弱（ この 計算 で 出 た 数字 で 各回 の 評価

順位 を 出 している ） で、12回 のクラスで 学生 は 一番低 く 評価 した。教材 がやさしすぎた、 というコメントがあった。もちろん、学生の英語力の進歩があってアンケートでは評価が厳しくなったと解せられるが、入学時点での学生の英語力の差がかなりある事実も第一回授業の出席

票コメントに反映されている。
残 り 時間20分 ほどをパートナーの 人物像 を 想像 し、 それを 確認 する yes / no question を ５ つ
考 えて 質問 する 時間 にした。（時間 の 都合 で １ つのクラスではやれなかった ）異文化間 コミュ
ニケーションで 誤解 を 少 なくするには、確認（confirm） を 繰 り 返 して 行 うことが 不可欠 である。このアクテビティでその習慣がつくことを願っている。互いを知るには、質問者がいわば白紙状態 で 相手 に what や how で 問 うのも 悪 くないが、 まず、相手 の 答 えを 予測 し、 それを

yes / no question の 形 で 確 かめることは、自分 が 想像力 で 補 って 理解 した 内容 を 整理 して 相手に問うことであり、コミュニケーションとして一段上の活動なのである。

46

実験的「使う力アップ」クラスから探る大学英語教育

No.２［絵を語る］ ３位 （12.54）
日本語認識を経ずに状況把握力をつけるこのアクテビティには、人物のいる単純な絵を使うのがよい。筆者はカレンダーの絵を書画カメラで映し出した。絵を大きくとらえること、最初に What is the theme of the picture? に答えるセンテンスを書くこと、次に３つ以上のセンテ
ンスで 絵 の 説明 をすること、 どのセンテンスも 必 ず 自分 の 書 いた 最初 のテーマ（theme） と 関連すること、を学生に指示した。
しかし、クラスの半数近い７、８組の添削をしたが、どちらのクラスにおいても、絵全体で何が描いてあるのかを示すトピックセンテンスに相当するものが書いてなかった。後で全ペアのペーパーをチェックしたが、結果はゼロであった。英文は間違いがなくとも、全体で何を伝えるのかが分からない。メッセージ性がお粗末な日本人英文の典型であった。

No.３［聞いてサマリー読んでサマリー］ ２位 （15.25）
使用教材は、日本人の聞き返しについて述べた米国人の書いた短い論説文９）。学生に以下のことを 告 げた。教師 は ３度読 む。１回目 は 何 について 言 っているのか、結論 は 何 かをつかみ、それを、題と最初のセンテンスとして書くこと。２度目に教師が読む時にはワンセンテンスごとに間をとるからキーワードと思う語を書き出すこと。教師が読み終えたら、15〜20分で、内容を思い出し、英語でサマリーを書くこと。３度目に教師が読むのを聞きながらそれを完成すること。次にこの論説文のプリントを各自に配るので、それを読んで、新しくサマリーを30分ほどで書くこと。できた人から添削するので持ってくること。
もちろん、前回成功しなかったパラグラフ形式での英語コミュニケーションスタイル／ルー
ルを体得させる狙いである。要点の把握は学生間で差が大きく、また、アンケートの書き込みには「耳 で 聞 く 英語 と 書 いてある 英語 の 差 に 驚 いた 」
「 リスニング 力 が 足 りないと 分 かった 」など学生は同一情報が２つの形式で入った印象の違いを強く意識したようだ。

No.４、No.５［廊下で聞いて、教室で語り、書いてもらう、を繰り返すグループワーク］
９位（3.64）、８位（3.77）
このアクテビティで成功の鍵はストーリー自体がおもしろいものを使うことである。今回は『英語 で 読 む 日本昔話』10） から 落語 の 怪談、「 のっぺらぼう 」 を 使 った。 グループの １人 が 教室の 外 で 聞 いた ２ つのセンテンス（最初 の 文 は 自分 の 前 の 番 の 人 の 責任、次 の 文 が 当人 の 責任）を 聞 き、 それを 覚 えて 自分 のグループに 戻 り、自分 の 書記役 をやってくれるメンバーに 語 り、

書いてもらう。これをグループ３人で順番に行う。
実際にやってみると、グループメンバーの間で「これ単数じゃなくて、複数じゃないか。今度お前の番だろ、ここのところよく聞いて来いよ」など、自分たちが英文法に適ったセンテン

47慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

スを書いているかを自主的にチェックし、意味のよく分からない単語（教師は難しそうな単語
は 前 もって 黒板 に 書 いておいたし、廊下 で 読 んだとき、説明 も 加 えているが ） を 調 べていた。
こういう学生の会話はほとんど日本語であったが、英語のみ使用というルールを厳守させるよ
り、自主的 なチェック（monitor） で 得 られるもののほうが 大 きいと 思 い、注意 は 与 えなかった。筆者は以前このアクテビティを５人グループ、４人グループでと試したことがある。３人
はかなりきつい。 ただし、４人以上 だと、日本語 で 私的 なおしゃべりをする 学生 も 出 るため、
あえて 今回 は ３人 で 行 った。 これは「苦 しいけど 楽 しい 」
「単語覚 えますね 」 とクラスでは 好評だったのに、アンケートでの評価はさほど高くない。

No.６［前回前々回の話を自分の言葉で］ 11位 （3.06）「 のっぺらぼう 」 を 教材 にした 最終回。結末 までやったところで、CD で 朗読 を 聞 かせる 予定が、器械が使えず教師が朗読することになった。前回前々回に廊下で私が学生に２センテン
スずつ読み聞かせた物語のプリントを初めて全員に配る。５人一組のグループでそれを読みな
がら学生は不明な単語を調べ、各場面のイメージについてグループ内で話す。次に学生に英英や類語辞典を使わせて、自分に馴染みのない語・表現を別の、自分に使える表現に替えさせる。
それぞれが書き直した作品を、グループの中で順に読み聞かせをする。次にグループ内で代表を１人決め、代表がクラスの前に出てそれぞれ自分版の「のっぺらぼう」を読み語る。
すでに聴いて書いている物語なので、内容理解はできていると思っていたが、プリントを渡してみると、どの学生も辞典を引き、話を改めて理解しようとしていた。学生は落語で聞いたことがないため、英語で聞いても分かった気持ちになれなかったようだ。筆者は、このアクテ
ビティで前２回のクラス内容が定着し、学生が自分の使える言葉で物語を書き直すことで、オリジナルとは 別 の、
「自分 で 語 れる 物語」 を 作 る、 と 期待 していた。学生 の、 もっと 分 かり 易
く、もっと面白く語りたいという欲求によって、英語落語との心理的距離が縮まると思っていた。しかし実際には、オリジナルより良い物語が作れるわけではなく、学生には熱中度や達成感が乏しかったのだろう、アンケート評価は11位と低い。

No.７［Sleeping on the floor］ ５位 （9.33）
３回の日本の生活文化について外国人に質問された場合にどう答えるか、の一回目。最初は教師の作った質問のみのプリントで、Do the Japanese sleep on the floor? Is it comfortable tosleep on the floor? Why do you sleep on the floor? の３つの質問を見せて、その質問にどう答えるかが今日の課題と説明する。次に外国人がこういう質問をする背景を話しておく。それは日本人のことを良く知らない外国人、特に白人が、日本人は遅れた生活をして人たちだと思い込 んでいるからだ。 だが、日本人 の 生活 には 土地 の 気候風土 に 適 った 合理性 がある。「日本 の48

実験的「使う力アップ」クラスから探る大学英語教育

生活文化の良さを、外国人に親切に教えてあげましょう」
上記 の 外国人 の 質問 に 対 する 日本人 の 答 えが 書 いてある 別 のモデル 文 のプリントを 配 り11）、それを使ってまず、ペア間で外国人と日本人役を交代でやって会話練習、次にペアに１枚配った質問のみ書いてあるプリントに自分たちならどう答えるか、自分たちで考えた答えを書かせる。できたペアからクラスで発表、その後で筆者の注意や添削を受ける。
モデル 文 からの 借用 があっても 自分 たちで 考 えた 答 えを 書 くことで、借 り 物 の 英会話 でな
く、自分 の 考 えを 伝 えるための 英語 になってゆく、 と 考 えてのアクテビティである。 とはいえ、 ベッドでしか 寝 た 経験 のない 者 だけでなく、少 なからぬ 学生 がモデル 文 プリントを 読 ん
で、布団は持ち運びできる、狭い家でも布団の数だけ客を泊められる、などの利点に初めて気がついていた。自分たちの生活文化をそれまでとは別の目で見ることができたのだ。
このような会話作成アクテビティでは外国人に日本人が「なにかをしてあげる」立場である。

「してもらう」立場より優位に立てる。「優位な立場」の方が言葉は出やすい。アクテビティを考える場合、こういう語学学習の心理的側面を考慮することも大事であろう。

No.８［ Japanese Homes］ ４位 （11.6）
What are Japanese houses like? What about apartments and condominiums? Why doJapanese people live in small homes? の３つの質問を見せて、前回と同じように行う。ここでは 答 えの 書 いてある 教師 の 用意 した 別 のプリントで、日本 の 国土 の67％ が 山地 で 平野 は13％、住宅地は３％という数字を書いておいた。それに学生が驚いたり、床の間、押入れが身近でない生活をしている学生がそれらについて他の学生に聞いていたり、日本人だけで十分に異文化

理解 クラスとなってしまった。形式 としては No.７ と 同 じなのに、No.８ のほうが 効果 ありと評価 する 学生 が ２人多 かった。 これは 答 えの 書 いてあるプリントで 知 った 日本情報 が 新鮮 であったためではあるまいか。

No.９［A Japanese Bath］ ７位 （7.83）
前２回と少々異なり、今回は日本の習慣に対する外国人の見方を変える会話文の作成。自分が 外国人 のペースに 巻 き 込 まれず、 どう 説得 してゆくか、「説得力」発揮課題 である。日本 に住む外国人の Do Japanese take a bath every day? It’s hard to believe. で始まる会話を日本人とその 外国人 との 何回 かのやりとりの 後、最後 にその 外国人 に Now I should change my bad

habits and take a bath every day. と言わしめるというわけである。何回かのやりとりの会話部
分をどう作るかが主要課題と告げてから、まず教師の作った別のプリントの会話をペアで練習する。外国人が How do you Japanese take a bath? に、日本人が風呂桶の外で体を洗い、風呂

桶 の 中 で 石鹸 を 使 わないなど 説明 し、You mean other people use the same bath water? と 外49

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

国人の驚きが続き、それが How do you wash and rinse outside the tub? と会話が流れ、日本
人が風呂場の説明をする。最後が Do men and women bathe together at the public bath? と混浴の質問。どれも筆者が外国人をホームステイさせた際に経験したものである。最後の質問には男女で脱衣所、風呂場が別と答えよ、一部の温泉での混浴の話を持ち出せば、その会話は外国人の多くがもつ間違った日本観を増長させると注意しておく。
この会話練習が終わると最初に提示した会話作成に取り掛かる。
ヒントとして教師は最後の、外国人が日本人を見習って風呂に毎日入ろうと心変わりしたせりふから、つまり会話を逆方向から 考 えてみること、 また、人 はその 当人 にとって 良 いこと（incentive） で 動 くものだから、日本在住外国人にとっての入浴のメリットを挙げて説得をするようにと言った。
しかしながら、添削の段階になると学生に、文化の違う人にこう言われて「はい、そうです
か」とそれまでの習慣を変えるだろうか、そう簡単にはできないのが人間ではないか、と問わねばならない作品が多かった（例えば、風呂に入らないと日本人のガールフレンドに嫌われる
ぞ、 などだけで、 その 理由 が 挙 げられていない ）。 しかし、書画 カメラ 添削 を 見 ていて 書 き 直したのか、提出作品では日本人にとって入浴は体を洗うだけではなく湯につかることで体を温め、それで血流が良くなり、健康に良く、リラックス効果がある、あなたもどうですか、と順に説明、説得ができている良質作品が数枚提出された。

No.10［書き手順繰りディクテーション］ 10位 （3.50）
使用教材 は No.３ で 使用 した 本 の ６章 Modesty 12）。３人 で １枚 の 紙 を 回 して 共同作業 としてのディクテーション。こう指示したが、実際には当番学生だけでなく、他の２名もノートに書きとりをしているグループが多かった。読みは１文ずつポーズを入れながら２回。日本という group-oriented culture の中で modesty は重要、だが、日本でも若者世代から modesty を表明することが大切でなくなっている、という内容である。

No.11［前回の論説文に対する自分の意見表明］ ６位 （8.14）
前回のディクテーションが終わったところで、教材のプリントを渡しグループでそれぞれ書いたものを直させた。次に、プリントを注意深く読み、内容をよく理解してから、個々人で下記 の ３ つの 質問 に 英文 で 自分 の 考 えを 述 べるよう 指示 した。成績 の 対象 とするテストなので相談 は 禁止 であるが、 いつもと 同様、辞書 の 使用 は 許可。論理的思考 を 評価 することも 告 げておく。質問とは、1. Write briefly what is written about? 2. Do you agree with this article?

3. Why do you agree / disagree with it? Give at least three reasons.
この 論説文 の 著者 の 意見 に 対 し、大方賛成 で、反対 は11名。 だが、筆者 が 驚 いたのは、賛否に関わらず学生側にある文化価値的バイアスであった。文化を比較する場合、どの文化も価

50実験的「使う力アップ」クラスから探る大学英語教育

値的優劣 はない、 という「文化相対主義」 は 現代、文化 / 社会人類学 の 領域 にとどまらず 平和
や 民主主義教育 の 前提 であるはずである。高校 までの 国際理解教育 13） などで 基本的 なこととして教えられていると思っていた。ところが違った。それも自民族中心主義（ethnocentrism）の 逆 で、自文化 を 劣 っていると 位置 づけているのが 見 てとれた。論説文 の 著者自身 は group-oriented の culture や society を 文化相対主義 で 論 じている。 それなのに、学生 の 方 は 日本 の集団志向より著者の文化である個人主義（individualism）の方が良いと勝手に解釈して答えを書いているのである。
例 えば（以下学生 の 英文 は 原文 のまま ）、 ある 女子学生 は The author wrote indirectly that

English speakers are more honest than Japanese speakers. と 書 き、 こ れ に 賛 意 を 表 し、 自分の体験から I was amazed by how honest the English teachers were. They donʼ t hide theirthoughts like we Japanese do. と、英語話者は日本人よりも正直である、と解釈していた。また 別 の 学生 のものでは They don’t tell a lie.（They は English speakers） という 極端 なものまであった。自分自身 を 含 む 日本人 は 英語 ネイティブスピーカーに 比 べて、正直 でない、 ウソをつく 民族 だと 思 っているのだ。 こういう 文化価値的 バイアスは 表現力 では Ａ クラスのトッ
プレベルの 学生 が 書 いたものに、 よりはっきりとした 形 で 見 られたのである。 ただし、傑出した例外の１名は Japanese is agricultural people. To succeed agriculture without fights, theyneeded coordination. と、過去において日本は農業国であったという、学校で誰もが学んだはずの知識を基にして書いていた。
また、以前 から 筆者 は 気 がついて、学生 に 注意 しているにもかかわらず、English speaker
や foreigner を 即 アメリカ 人 と 解 し、日米間 の 比較 として 論 じる 学生 が 今回 でも ２名 いた。学生が欧米以外の人々を視野に入れるアクテビティを教師は工夫しなければ、と痛感した。

No.12［会話文作成、絵から物語を作る］ １位 （15.5）
これも個人ワークで成績評価対象。全２問。１題目はキャンパスの寮から結婚を期に日本で部屋を借りて住もうという外国人と日本人との会話の作成。日本社会の閉鎖的イメージをもつ
外国人に対し、その人が円滑に日本社会に受け入れられるためにはどうしたらよいのか、役に立つ忠告をするという異文化問題である。
一番多かった具体的アドバイスは日本人の家では靴を脱がなければいけない（18名＝27％）、
２番目 は 近隣 の 人 と 挨拶 を 交 わせ（11名＝17％）、靴 と 挨拶 の 両方 を 挙 げたものが 上記 のうち８名。 しかしながら 筆者 の 予想 に 反 し、簡単 な 日本語 を 学 びなさい、 とか、敬語 を 使 いなさい、とか、日本語学習に関する忠告は全体66名中でわずか３名（５％弱）であった。学生の日

本語に対する意識が低いのか、日本にいる外国人が日本語を学ばないのは当たり前と思い込んでいるからか、ここでも「文化相対主義」に程遠い「自文化周辺主義」が出ている。他に、自51慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

宅でパーティを開いて騒いではいけない、ゴミの日を間違えるな、入浴を毎日しろ、いつも笑
顔で接しろ、引越しそばを配れ、外人の多い地区に住め、敷金・礼金を知れ、時間を守れ、家主に何でも相談しろ、などあった。「郷に入っては郷に従え」をローマ字で書いているだけで、何の説明もしてない学生が２名いた。
また、日本人が You shouldn’ t say anything straight. It will break harmony. と言うと、外国人 が I understand that. と 素直 に 分 かってしまう、 など 筆者 の 目 からは 例外的 な 外国人 を 想定しているとしか思えない作品がいくつもあった。異文化から来た外国人がそれほどたやすく日

本人 の harmony 概念 が 分 かるとは 思 えないし、通常 こう 言 ってしまった 後、日本人 は 畳 み 掛
けて説明しなければならないものである。学生は実際の異文化衝突を知らない。

２題目 は 浜辺 のベンチに 腰掛 けた 女２人男１人 の 後 ろ 姿 の 絵 から 短編物語 を 作成 するというもの。A4 用紙23行 の 半分以上 に 書 いてあるものが42名＝64％ に 及 び、大部分 の 学生 が 夢中
で 書 いていることが 伝 わってきた。 ただし、時制 の 混乱 には 驚 いた（10名＝15％）。文学作品によくある 過去形 が 現在形 に 変 わって 臨場感 を 出 すという 時制 の 変換 ではなく、単 に 間違 いとしての 時制 の 混在 である。物語 を 書 かせることで、顕在化 した。 また、brother という 基本

単語を、姉妹を含んだ、つまり siblings と誤解している学生が５名いた。a brother and（two）

sisters と書くべきである。基本語を英英辞書で調べることを勧めたい。
試験というのは充実感があるのか、この設問が興味深かったのか、その両方か、このテスト
が学生の最も高い評価のアクテビティであった。

成績評価はコミュニカティブ・イングリッシュの基準で、まず、内容重視、次に会話・物語としての自然さ、コミュニケーション能力の一部としての言葉の適切さ、文法能力。価値観は対象でない。とはいえ、本来数値化できないものの採点である。全12回のうち１度でなく２回の作品を成績評価対象にするのは教師の主観の危うさを薄めるためでもある。

５. 大学英語教育についての学生の考え方
アンケートの１枚目の回答を検討する。Ⅱの心の状態は大学一年生の五月病を案じ、心の安定があってこその学習と思っての質問である。１／３以上（26名）が不安になったことがある。
１枚目 のアンケート 結果 で 大学受験組 か 否 かが 最 も 影響 すると 思 っていたが、（ａ）不安 に 駆られたことがまったくないというのが、受験経験者33名中７人、非受験者33名中３名。自信をもって 大学生活 を 始 めている 者 が 受験組 のほうに 多 い。
「使 う 力 アップ 」参加 で、友人 ができたことが 心 の 安定 に 役立 ったと 評価 するのはどちらも 半数強、受験者17名（51％）
、非受験経験者33名18名（54％）、ほとんど差はない。
Ⅲ．の（ ア ） は20年後 の 日本 で 文化・経済面 でどのくらいの 米国化 が 進 んでいるかの 予測。
66名中22名、１／３ が、独立国 とはいえ、米国 の 一州 のような 状態 になっていると 答 えてい52

実験的「使う力アップ」クラスから探る大学英語教育

る。衝撃的 である。 ここから、日本 のトップレベルの 大学１年生 の ３人 に １人 が、「 それでよ
い」と思っている、との解釈が可能でないと言えないからである。

Ⅲ．の（ イ ） では 昔話 や 童謡 など 日本 の 伝統文化 や 独自性 が 今 ほどに 保持 されているかを 問
うた。１名答えず、薄まると答えた方が半数より多く、38名（58％）対27名（42％）
。（ウ）では ２名 が 答 えず、総数64名中、外国人 に 日本 の 生活文化 を 説明 する 必要性 は 今 より 高 まると考えたのが45名（70％）、そう思わないは19名（30％）。
以上３つの質問への回答から、日本の米国化のいっそうの加速、文化的伝統の弱化を明白な
未来、与件だと受け止める学生が、かくも多い。さて、これを、どう解釈するべきか。
次のⅣ．クラスの評価として自分の英語力が（ａ）伸びた、と意識するのは66名中19名（29％、うち受験者33名中７名＝21％）、（ｂ）伸びたと意識できないは13名（20％、うち受験者８名＝24％）（ｃ）意識 はしないが、今後伸 びるための 土台 が 作 れたと 思 うのは34名（52％、 うち 受験者19名＝58％）。（ａ） と（ｃ） を 合 わせて 肯定的評価 とすると19＋34＝53（80％、 うち 受験者25名＝76％）。受験経験者33名のクラス評価は総じて非受験経験者33名より低い。「受験勉
強の張り詰めた緊張感、案外好きでした」という勉強観があるためだろうか。
外国人 とのコミュニケーションに 必要 な 能力 を 問 う Ⅳ−２ に 於 いて ３ つの 選択肢（ａ）相手 を 理解 する 受信能力、（ｂ）自分 を 理解 させる 発信能力（ｃ）文化 の 差 を 越 えた 説得力、 を
与 えたが、本来（ｃ） は（ｂ） の 一部 である。
（ａ） の 受信能力 と（ｂ） と（ｃ） の 発信能力のどちらに 力点 を 置 いた 英語教育 を 望 むか、直接的 な 質問 だと 答 えを 誘導 する 危険 があるので、一 ひねりした。 この 質問 で 学生 に 本音 を 聞 きたかった。
（ａ） が 最下位 にくる ｂ＞ｃ＞ａと ｃ＞ｂ＞ａ は 発信能力 を 第一 に 考 えている。65名 の 全回答者 のうち 前者５名、後者８名、合計13名（20％）、１／５。他方、受信力第一主義 の ａ＞ｂ＞ｃ と ａ＞ｃ＞ｂ の 方 は 前者13
名、後者９名、合計22名（34％）、１／３ である。 どちらかに 区分 することはできない 残 りのｂ＞ａ＞ｃ と ｃ＞ａ＞ｂ は、 そ れ ぞ れ20名（31％） と10名（16％）。筆者 の 意図 と は 反対 に
20：34で、学生は受信能力の方を重視している。全体の１／５が発信力を、１／３が受信能力の育成を望むと解せる答えを出したのだ。
だが、学生 はこの 解釈 と 矛盾 した 反応 もみせる。最後 の Ⅳ．
３ のグループワークやペアワー
クについての評価である。これは発信のための協力的学習法（cooperative learning）についての学生の反応を聞くものである。回答者65名中、学習効果上「やめたほうがいい」が１名、「分からない 」 が12名（18％）
、「非常 に 有益」27名（42％）、「有益」25名（38％） で 肯定的評価

合計が52名（80％）に達していた。書きが込みのあるものが45名（68％）。「友達ができました。
楽しかった」「英語力もコミュニケーション力も伸びました」「一人で作業していると、自分の考えやそれを伝えるための方法の勉強が主だけれど、グループやペアで学習することで、いろいろな 考 えやアイディアなどが 学 べるから 非常 に 有益 だと 思 う 」「少人数 でのグループワーク

53慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

は学習の成果を高めるためには非常に有益だと思う」など、クラスに喜んで参加していることが伝わってくる書き込みが43名（65％）
。「やめたほうがいい」を選択した１名もアンケート３

枚目ではグループワークやペアワーク授業を肯定的に評価していた。また、昨年１年間の「使う力アップ」クラスで、能力と人間関係の両面で「落ちこぼれ」の学生が出なかった。この半

年のクラスで８割の学生が「何を言いたいのかが分かる」英語作品を作るようになったことに
加 え、 このような 学生 の 好意的反応 で、（受信能力 と 発信能力 のどちらの 英語教育 を 望 むかでは疑問が残るものの）、協力的学習自体は大学一年生の英語力育成に有効であると明言できる。
ただし、筆者自身もこのようなクラスの問題点を知っている。学生の社交性の高さである程度カバーしているが、グループワークやペアワークでは、メンバーの均質性が低いほど自分を十分発揮できない学生が出てしまう。意見が通らないとクラスへの不満が出る。
６. 終わりに、大学英語教育今後の課題「今 までの 知識 を 詰 め 込 むだけの 勉強 から、 この 授業 ではそれを 生 かして 使用 することを 目的としていることが分かった。確かに知識を詰め込むだけでは脳の無駄使いであり、それを使わない限り意味はないと思う。春期の授業で、慶応に入学できて少しは英語ができると思っていた自分に、本当の意味での英語の勉強のしかたを教えてもらった気がする」と書いた学生がいた。私のクラスのやり方を理解し、支持してくれている。

他方で全員の添削を要求する書き込みもあった。60名を越す学生全員の添削は一教師には不可能である。だが、それが学生の不満になるのももっともなことである。クラスの定員について大学側に検討いただきたい。また、コンピュータ・ラボ使用可能性を知りたい。
すでにアンケートの１枚目の結果で見たように、予想以上に多くの学生が、日本のアメリカ化は時代の流れととらえており、そういう将来に備えた英語教育を望んでいる。
学生の求めるものと教師の理想とは、いつの世でも同じではない。道は遠いが、筆者は自分の教えた学生が「文化相対主義」の視点で自分たちの文化的伝統を眺め、語り、誇りとし、それがいつの日か、外国人と対等な人間関係を構築する力となることを願っている。

54

実験的「使う力アップ」クラスから探る大学英語教育註１）「自文化周辺主義」 という 語 は「自文化中心主義（ethnocentrism）」 という 用語 に 対比 して 筆者 が 造
語 した。 しかしこの 考 え 方自体 は 鈴木孝夫 の 著書 にある。鈴木 は 米英 の 民族英語 とは 別 の「国際英語」
を 提唱 した。
『武器 としてのことば：茶 の 間 の 国際情報学』、新潮社、1985、p.179。 なお、1990年 に 大

石俊一 の『英語 イデオロギーを 問 う 』東京、開文社出版、 と 津田幸男 の『英語支配 の 構造―日本人 と 異文化 コミュニケーション 』東京、第三書館 が 出版 され、「英語帝国主義論」 として 反響 を 呼 んだ。 これに対し、「英語 は 国際語 だ 」 という 反発 が 広 く 一般 にある。斉藤兆史 は 日本人 が「国際語 としての 英語」
を 使 って 対等 の 立場 でいる 気 になっている 危 うさに 警告 を 発 する。斉藤兆史『日本人 のための 英語』講談社、2001. pp.168 171。
２）文部科学省 は2000年 に「『21世紀日本 の 構想』懇談会」 による「英語第二公用語論」、2002年 に「『英語 が 使 える 日本人』 の 育成 のための 戦略構想」、 および、2005年 の 中央教育審議会答申 の「小学校段階における 英語教育 の 充実」、2006年 の「小学校 における 英語教育 について 」 と 日本 の 英語教育 を 大 きく

変 える 提言 をしている。（文部科学省 ホームページ「報道発表」参照） この 動 きに 呼応 し、日本 の 英語
教育 を 抜本 から 問 い 直 す 動 きが 起 きている。（ その 一端 は 大津由紀雄編著『日本 の 英語教育 に 必要 なこと ―小学校英語 と 英語教育政策』慶應義塾大学出版会、2006．からも、 うかがい 知 れる ）論点 は 人 によって 異 なるが、一連 の 文部科学省 の 提言 に、「理念」 や「理想」 が 欠 けている、 との 批判 は 多 くの 人に共通する。筆者は「平和国家」を標榜する日本の外国語教育政策には「文化相対主義」に基づいた「文化背景の異なる人たちと対等な人間関係を築く」との文言を入れるべきであると考える。
３）高等学校語教科書 は 毎年改定 され、 また、公立高校 で 同 じ 教科書 を 翌年 も 使用 することはない。平成17年前期、筆者 は 神奈川県 のトップ 校 といわれる 公立高校 で 教 えた。 そこで、日本文化紹介 に 特化 した教科書は市川泰男他、Unicorn English Writing 文英堂、2005、だけであった。
４）「誰 にでも 合 う 教授法 はない、諸教授法 を 取 り 入 れ、自分 の 教 え 方 で 」、 が 現在 の ESL 界 の 共通認識である。例えば Jack C. Richards and Theodore S. Rodgers.

Approaches and Methods in Language

Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001, pp.250 251.
５）SLA は1980年代以降、周辺分野（言語学、認知心理学、心理言語学、社会言語学）を取り入れで急速に発展し、今では ESL とは独立した一分野とも言われる。しかし、SLA 初期の80年代にはナチュラル・アプローチ（これは往々、コミュニカティブ・メソッド／アプローチの一種とされる）として知られた。
ナチュラル・ アプローチの 主要根拠 はインプット 仮説 であるが、 タスク ／ アクティビティ 有効性 の 根拠とされるインタラクション 仮説 やアウトプット 仮説 は、 このインプット 仮説 への 反論 として 出 てきた。
ただし今も、SLA の研究諸成果は一つの包括的理論を構築するには至っていない。

６）Ellis, Rod. Task-based Language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003. pp. 4 5. Ellis は先行研究者９名 のタスク 定義 を 載 せているが、 うち ６名 が A task is an activity … の 形式 である。Ellis
自身は一種の作業計画（workplan）だと言う。Ibid., p.16.
７） ドリル、 エクササイズ、 アクティビティ、 タスクの ４語 は、答 え 方 の 自由度 と 創造性 においてこの 順に 大 きくなり、目標文法項目 への 意識度 は 逆 に 低 くなるという。高島英幸『英語 のタスク 活動 と 文法指導』大修館書店、５版、2004．pp.27 38。
８）Sandra Heyer. Easy True Stories: a Picture-Based Beginning Reader. NY: Pearson, 1994.

55

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

９）Paul Stapleton. How Culture Affects Communication. Tokyo: Kinseido, 2006. pp.9 10.
10）『英語で読む日本昔話３』、東京、The Japan Time、2005、pp.85 93。
11）筆者は市販の日本紹介本に手を加え、会話練習用プリントを作成している。
12）Paul Stapleton. Ibid., p.21 22.
13）国際理解教育 は1952年 ユネスコ 総会決議 に 基 づき、日本 を 含 む31ケ 国 が 実験的 に 参加 したことに 始 まる。
「 ユネスコ1974年勧告」 で 各国 の 学校教育 に 取 り 入 れられ、日本 の 小学校 では「総合学習 の 時間」、

中高 では 社会科 や 英語科 の 授業 で 扱 われてきた。新学習指導要領 で 高校 では2003年 から「情報」教育 と一緒に「必修」となった。主要テーマは人権問題、環境問題、南北問題、平和問題、未来問題である。
タスク／アクティビティ考案の参考文献

大西駿二、『国際化時代の英語教育―現状考察と独習法のヒント』、東京、近代文芸社、2001.
三森ゆりか『外国語で発想するための日本語レッスン』東京：白水社、2006.

Willis, Jane. A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Harlow: Pearson, 1996..
Pollard, Laurel., and Natalie Hess. Zero Prep Ready-to-Go Activities for the Language Classroom. San
Francisco: ALTA, 1997.
Pollard, Laurel., and Natalie Hess, Jan Herron. Zero Prep for Beginners Ready-to-Go Activities for theLanguage Classroom. San Francisco: ALTA, 2001.

56

実験的「使う力アップ」クラスから探る大学英語教育「使う力アップ」クラスアンケート

2006前期

３枚目

学生による各回クラスアクティビティの学習効率評価
選択肢 非受験16 受験18 計34名 非受験17 受験15 計32名
3
5
7
12
4
3
7
No.１
2
9
7
16
9
4
13
Pair
1
2
2
4
3
8
11
漫 画
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
3
5
7
12
4
7
11
No.２
2
9
9
18
13
6
19
Pair
1
2
1
3
0
2
2
絵
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
3
6
8
14
6
10
16
No.３
2
9
9
18
8
5
13
Indiv
1
1
1
2
2
0
2
要 約
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
8
5
13
9
5
14
No.４
2
6
9
15
4
5
9
3G
1
2
4
6
3
5
8
落 語
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
8
5
13
9
4
13
No.５
2
6
8
14
6
6
12
3G
1
2
4
6
2
5
7
落 語
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
7
10
6
2
8
No.６
2
8
8
16
6
9
15
5G
1
4
3
7
4
4
8
落 語
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
3
10
11
21
6
10
16
No.７
2
5
4
9
7
4
11
Pair
1
1
2
3
2
0
2
寝 方
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
3
9
10
19
7
10
17
No.８
2
6
5
11
7
4
11
Pair
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
家
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
10
9
19
8
7
15
No.９
2
5
6
11
6
6
12
Pair
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
風 呂
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
3
8
6
14
6
4
10
No.10
2
5
7
12
8
5
13
3G
1
2
4
6
3
5
8
謙 遜
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
8
10
18
8
5
13
No.11
2
6
6
12
6
8
14
Indiv
1
2
2
4
2
1
3
意 見
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
9
11
20
9
7
16
No.12
2
7
5
12
6
8
14
Indiv
1
0
2
2
1
0
1
会話と絵
0
0
0
0
1
0
1

２クラス合計
19
28
9
1.65
15
17
2
23
60
37
12.54
5
6
1
30
61
31
15.25
4
4
0
27
51
24
3.64
14
14
0
23
49
26
3.77
13
13
0
18
49
31
3.06
15
16
1
36
56
20
9.33
5
6
1
36
58
22
11.6
5
5
0
24
47
23
7.83
4
6
2
24
49
25
3.50
14
14
0
31
57
26
8.14
7
7
0
36
62
26
15.5
3
4
1

順

位

12位

３位

２位

９位

８位

11位

５位

４位

７位

10位

６位

１位

57

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号「使う力アップ」クラスアンケート
質

問

Ｉ．１
Ｉ．２
Ⅱ．１

Ⅱ．２
Ⅲ．ア
Ⅲ．イ
Ⅲ．ウ
Ⅳ．１

Ⅳ．２

Ⅳ．３

58

選 択 肢
ａ
ｂ
ａ
ｂ
ａ
ｂ
ｃ
ａ
ｂ
ｃ
ａ
ｂ
ａ
ｂ
ａ
ｂ
ａ
ｂ
ｃ
ａ＞ｂ＞ｃ
ａ＞ｃ＞ｂ
ｂ＞ｃ＞ａ
ｂ＞ａ＞ｃ
ｃ＞ａ＞ｂ
ｃ＞ｂ＞ａ
ａ
ｂ
ｃ
ｄ

日本語16

３限 34名
日本語18 ３限小計
受験

非受験16
1
6
9
8
5
3
6
10
11
5
12
3
7
2
7
2
2
1
6
1
4
7
7
1
0

2006前期

日本語17

4
9
5
9
2
7
8
10
9
9
12
6
2
5
11
6
1
1
3
3
3
5
8
5
0

４限 32名３限４限合計
日本語15 ４限小計
受験

18
5
15
14
17
7
10
14
20
20
14
24
9
9
7
18
8
3
2
9
4
7
12
15
6
0

非受験17
2
8
7
10
4
3
4
13
10
7
10
7
6
3
8
1
3
3
7
2
1
10
4
3
0

１枚目

15
0
3
7
5
8
3
4
4
11
8
6
11
3
4
3
8
4
3
0
4
4
0
5
6
3
1

5
15
12
18
7
7
8
24
18
13
21
10
10
6
16
5
6
3
11
6
1
15
10
6
1

10
30
26
35
14
17
22
44
38
27
45
19
19
13
34
13
9
5
20
10
8
27
25
12
1

Curriculum and English Language Education at a Tertiary level Institution

Curriculum and English Language Education
at a Tertiary level Institution
Yoko Ichiyama

Introduction
In an attempt to respond to the changing educational contexts of Japanese universities,
the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), has proposedseveral educational reforms that appear to have a significant impact on curriculum
development.1) The deregulation of “the Standards for the Establishment of Universities”
and the enactment of the National University Corporation Law 2003 appear to be thetwo manifestations of the reforms. Research on the impact of the legislation on private
universities, however, seems to be curiously limited. In fact recent research on theincorporation of national universities in Japan is largely, and sometimes exclusively, drawn
from national universities in spite of the fact that private universities educate approximately
80% of 18-24-year-olds in higher education and they account for 74% of all universities.
Researchers need to investigate the curriculum in private universities.
Curricula cannot be the “neutral assemblage of knowledge” (Apple 222) but rather “the siteof a battleground” (Kliebard 250), because curricula are “always part of a selective tradition,
someone’s selection, some group’s vision of legitimate knowledge” (Apple 222). Kliebard also
argues that curricula are not arbitrary but are the outcome of the dialectics between nations,politics, ideology, the economy, and social theory. Curricula, therefore, reflect the views andvalues of a certain group that has the power to decide what students should learn or how
they should learn. Moreover, the contents and their hierarchical order inevitably show what
subjects or contents are defined as the most legitimate as official knowledge.
This study critically examines legislation on the English language education curriculum
and its impact on a tertiary level institution curriculum, to explore how the government andthe tertiary level institution in question have fought to reconfigure codes of power, and inwhose interests. To address this question, I used Bernstein’s theory of codes of power incurriculum. Bernstein (1975) suggested that codes of power could be identified by examining59慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

how curriculum is classified and framed. Analysis suggests that the recent reforms and thecurriculum in question fit within a political movement to reconfigure power relations. This is
not simply about trying to improve student learning, but more importantly, about reasserting
who has the right to define what schools are for, and whose knowledge has most legitimacy.

Theoretical FrameworkBernstein (1975) stated that curriculum could be examined by two concepts: classificationand frame. Classification refers to the level of isolation between the curriculum contents. It
focuses on “the strength of boundary between contents” (Bernstein 49). Therefore, strongclassification means that the boundaries between contents are strong and the structure ofknowledge is hierarchical.
Using this theory, Bernstein proposes two types of curricula: collection code and integrated
code curriculum. A collection code curriculum has strong boundaries among subjects,
disciplines, and contents while an integrated code curriculum tends to be weak in its
classification. In his view, a move towards an integrated code curriculum implies an attempt
to “alter power standards and principles of control” while a move towards a collection code
curriculum connotes an attempt to “re-establish traditional power hierarchy” (Bernstein 111).
Frame refers to “the degree of control teacher and pupil possess over the selection,organization, pacing of the knowledge transmitted and received in the pedagogicalrelationship” (Bernstein 50). Teachers and students identify “their place in hierarchical power
relationships through the degree of power they have over selecting, organizing and teachingor learning curriculum” (Sleeter et al. 29). Strong frame curriculum means that teachers or
students have less power on making decisions on what should be taught, when it should betaught, and how it should be taught; on the other hand, weak frame curriculum facilitates
them to make decisions.
Bernstein also says, “School is a primary regulator of society and classification and framing
as tools for examining how regulation is imposed and, at times disrupted” (29). Bernstein’s
theory has provided concepts to analyse curriculum in social contexts and the interpretations
may be used to improve the contexts where learners are conscious of their curriculum and its
relationship to power and their learning.
Before analysing the curriculum documents of the institution, the writer will outline therecent government reports and regulations that seem to have influenced the formation andthe development of the curriculum in general, and that of English language education, in

60Curriculum and English Language Education at a Tertiary level Institution

particular, in order to gain an overview of the power relation in larger contexts surrounding
the institution concerned.

An Overview of the University Reform
Unlike primary and secondary level curricula, where the government exerts a strong
degree of control over the formation and the development of curriculum (e.g., the selectionof content areas, highly detailed and sequenced standards of learning, or the introductionof standardized tests), MEXT appears to have respected the autonomy and individuality ofuniversities on this matter. This can be illustrated by MEXT ’s official announcement thatthey are not concerned with controlling curriculum development at the tertiary level.
The statement above can also be exemplified by the deregulation in higher education.
In the June 1991, “the Standards for the Establishment of Universities” was substantiallyrelaxed. Before the deregulation, the universities needed to provide a curriculum that had
clear classification. Article 9 of the pre-1991 version stated that a university level curriculum
should categorize all the subjects into “ipann kyouiku kamoku” (liberal arts subjects), “senmon
kamoku” (major-specific subjects), “gaikokugo kamoku” (foreign language subjects), “hoken
taiiku kamoku” (health and physical education subjects). Universities needed to provide
liberal arts subjects that equated to 24 credits, foreign language subjects that equated to
12 credits, health and physical education subjects that equated to 4 credits and majorspecific subjects that equated to 84 credits. The organization of universities exemplified thiscategorization, with each having four independent sections: a liberal arts section, a majorspecific section, a foreign languages section, and a health and physical education section.
These sections exerted power on curriculum development as well as budget distribution.
The 1991 deregulation especially dealt with this matter. According to the new legislation,
universities must provide learners with: 1) subjects that reflect the university’s educational
objectives and that show systematic relationships between the liberal arts subjects and majorspecific subjects and 2) a curriculum that enables the learners to attain not only majorspecific knowledge but also a wide range of knowledge and analytical thinking skills in order
to become desirable citizens in society. Most importantly, what the 1991 version of theStandard connoted was that each university could develop a curriculum within 124 credits
as long as the university was responsible for introducing a valid and reliable self-evaluation
system in order to maintain the quality of education. This illustrates that the boundaries
between the liberal arts subjects, major-specific subjects, health and physical education and61慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

foreign language subjects were blurred, because universities could provide any kind of subject
as long as it fitted the university’s educational objective. MEXT, in support of the revision,argued that because universities had different social, economic, and cultural contexts, theyneeded to meet various and differing expectations and demands. In order to fulfil their roles,
the development of a curriculum should be left to the decisions of each university.
The deregulation of “the Standards for the Establishment of Universities” in 1991 can beseen as the genesis of the reforms that took place in Japan at the end of the twentieth century
because it appears to have facilitated the formation of subsequent curriculum reforms (Hayashi
2003). In 1997, the University Council presented a final report on “the Future Vision forHigher Education” to MEXT at its 69th general meeting. This report sets out the prospect
that, “Diversified institutions would competitively, and independently, improve their quality
and responsiveness to the ever-growing social expectation where changing needs of economy,society and academics are intensified.” The argument above can be partially supported by
the fact that 553 universities (80%) adopted new curricula that reflected the June 1991
amendment of “the Standards for the Establishment of Universities”.
The claim against deregulation, however, has also been raised during these decades.
Hayashi (2003) suggests that the universities are now downsizing the number of liberal artsand foreign language subjects, such as philosophy, literature, German, or Latin and they
have adopted major-specific subjects instead. Kodama (2005) states that the deregulation of“the Standards for the Establishment of Universities” in 1991 has blurred the content of thecurriculum and thus has led to the deterioration of the level of education provided at tertiarylevel institutions. The arguments against the deregulation intensified because there was also a
qualitative change surrounding higher education.
For example, prior to the start of the Koizumi administration in 2001, which has launchedseveral structural reforms, there had already been a slight shift in the relationship between
MEXT and the tertiary level institutions. In the 1990s, the government began to construct
structures in order to improve the “quality” of tertiary level education and to introduce a moregovernment-centred approach. For example, the University Council had proposed “A Visionof Universities in the 21st Century and Reform Measures: to be Distinctive Universities in aCompetitive Environment” in 1998. In the report, MEXT argued that:“Higher education will be urged to advance its structural reform to further strengthen
intellectual activities in preparation for the new era of ‘intelligence’ restructuring. In

62Curriculum and English Language Education at a Tertiary level Institution

the last decade, higher education institutions have taken reform measures in responseto this council’s reports and have certainly made progress. They are now required totake more drastic measures promptly in order to meet the social expectations in theearly 21st century.”
The report states that technological advancement and global restructuring were changing
the nature of work and the people and that Japan would need to develop human capital thatwould meet the demands of this new economy.
In 2000, the government established the National Commission on Education Reform(NCER), which later submitted the “Report by the National Commission on Education
Reform-17 Proposals for Changing Education.” Based on the report, MEXT released an“Education Reform Plan for the 21 st Century” in 2001. The report suggests “the Seven
Priority Strategies” which include the reinforcement of “university education and researchfunctions in order to create leaders of the next generation…[and] establish a competitiveenvironment in university education.”
In 2005, the Central Council for Education, responsible for deliberations on mattersregarding promotion of education, lifelong learning, sports and other matters, submitted areport on higher education “The Future of Higher Education in Japan.” In the report, thecouncil argues that universities should guarantee the quality of education they provide while
meeting the diverse expectations. They need to reconsider their role in society and reconstruct
the forms of liberal arts education. In order to materialize the preceding regulations andreports, the 1998 council report mandates that universities receiving a subsidy should
implement an accountability system, which obliges annual evaluation by a third party from2014.2)
Along with the report, MEXT released subsequent reports regarding higher education. “A
New Image of National University Corporation” (2002) led to the legislation of the National
University Corporation Law 2003 3) and the launch of “the 21st Century Center of Excellence(COE) Program.” The legislation materialized the proportional distribution of budget touniversities that succeeded in proposing innovative research. Moreover, in response to therequest to build more distinctive universities and other institutions of higher education,
MEXT submitted two more programmes: “Good Practice (GP) University Educational
Support Program (Tokusyoku GP)” in 2003 and “Good Practice (GP) Current Need Support
Program (Gendai GP)” in 2004.4)

63

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

The introduction of the proportional budget and the incorporated national university has
brought about several reforms in monetary aspects. MEXT proposed the reduction of thesubsidy of education by 1% every year across the board until the year 2020. This implies thatthe total reduction of subsidy in 2020 will be estimated up to a 20% reduction comparedto that of 2000. Moreover, MEXT provides the presidents of universities with discretion
regarding budget allocation and finance. For example, national universities are now free
to raise or lower tuition fees so that each university can compensate for the decrease ingovernment budget.
With regard to English language curriculum, “Eigo sidou houhou kaizenn no suisinn nikannsuru konnsinnkai” (the Improvement Committee on English Teaching Method) reported
in 2001 that each university puts too much emphasis on teaching reading comprehension
skills and neglects to teach listening and speaking skills. Students are not only unable to readproperly, but also unable to listen and speak. Moreover, each university should develop an
English language teaching curriculum that targets “learning in English.” The report appears
to propose that the English class should focus more attention on listening and speaking withteachers and students using English in the classroom.
In 2003, MEXT proposed “an Action Plan to Cultivate Japanese with English Abilities.” In
the report, it argues:“For children living in the 21 st century, it is essential for them to acquirecommunication abilities in English as a common international language… (but) due
to the lack of sufficient ability, many Japanese are restricted in their exchanges withforeigners and their ideas or opinions are not evaluated appropriately… in order tomake such improvements bear fruit, it is necessary to carry out simultaneously anumber of different measures.”
These include improving teaching methods, improving the teaching ability of teachers,
improving the selection system for university applicants as well as creating better curricula.
The action plan states that the goal of English education at the higher level is that “graduates
can use English in their work.” In order to do so, it states that “each university should
establish attainment targets from the viewpoint of fostering personnel who can use English intheir work.”
MEXT has submitted a report “Daigaku niokeru kyouiku-naiyou / houhou no kaizenn

64Curriculum and English Language Education at a Tertiary level Institution

nituite” (The Improvement of Teaching Contents and Methodology at University) which
describes the number of universities that adopt streamed classes, TOEIC or TOEFL as theplacement test, native speakers, and Language Learning (LL) classrooms, etc. To be more
specific, the research reports on whether the classes are: classified by their purposes (e.g.,conversation classes, extensive reading classes); streamed classes; LL classrooms or using
visual aids; have native speakers as teachers, and are provided with test preparation classes.
Moreover, the report describes the universities that have achieved unique English teachingclasses as an example. To illustrate, some examples are given, such as the ability to retrieve
information from references, the ability to use appropriate major-specific vocabulary, theability to understand English without translating into Japanese, and describe or present thecontent in English.5)
Interestingly, the report shows that the provision that had increased the most during theyears 2002-2004 is the use of native speakers as teachers (from 588 universities to 634). This
increase, however, contradicted the fact that the number of the universities adopting English
as a major medium of communication classes had actually decreased during the same years(from 318 universities to 306). Moreover, the number of universities that provide classes
according to purposes had also decreased. At the same time, the number of institutions thatgive streamlined classes and test preparation classes had increased. This appears to suggestthat the initial enthusiasm of the institutions that supported the government initiatives toprovide classes with English as a major medium of communication classes had resulted in theuse of native English speakers, streamed classes, and test preparation classes in order to meetthe university’s educational accountability.
The matter of accountability has become the focus of educational concerns in thatJapanese educational institutions appear to place more emphasis on the importance oftesting. Although educators claim that they do not want to teach to test, the reality is thatevery educator wants their students to be successful. Decision-makers, teachers and students
equate this success with high test scores, resulting in classroom instruction that is reflectiveof test practice and expectation.
Moreover, the report fails to provide information on the method of measurement of the
English language education curriculum. While the report shows the government’s preferenceon certain contents and methods of learning and teaching, such as the ability to use English
in future work, the use of native speakers, LL classrooms, streamed classes, test preparation
classes and classes with English as a major medium of communication, there are no65

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

statements on the standards or criteria for evaluating a curriculum.
The regulation and reports described above appear to suggest that MEXT has shifted
towards taking more control over the development of the English curriculum, which implies
that teachers and students have less control over what to learn and how to learn.
Regarding the English language education at a tertiary level, MEXT apparently wants thestudents to focus on acquiring listening and speaking skills as opposed to learning grammar,
or reading classic novels. Teachers need to expose students to listening or speaking activities
by using English as the major language in the classroom so that students can practise
speaking as well as develop their listening skills by using English in the classroom. Kodama(2005) argues that foreign language education at higher levels is exclusively concerned with
developing programmes that facilitate skills rather than acquiring knowledge.
Below is the summary of what MEXT has proposed as better contents and pedagogicalpractices at a tertiary level English language education:
Introduce contents that are related to real-life foreign language skills that can be used
for the students’ future work
Increase the number of listening and speaking activities
Introduce a class that exclusively uses English in the classroom
Introduce streamlined classes
Utilize official testing in order to assess the students’ progress in learning and teachers’
teaching practices.

Subject of Research
The research was done in a private tertiary level institution, Faculty of Science andEngineering, which is situated in the heart of Tokyo. The university is categorized as one of
the top four “highly selective universities” (Obata et. al. 51) in Japan. Founded as a collegewith three departments under the old system of Japanese higher education, it has grown tobecome a university that has eleven faculties with an affiliated junior high school, two seniorhigh schools and an art and architecture school. The Faculty of Science and Engineeringis the oldest faculty of science and engineering of all the private universities in Japan,
sending more than 85,000 graduates out since its establishment in 1908. The faculty had
undergone a change in the English curriculum and standardized a English language course
in 2004. The new curriculum seems to be an appropriate sample to explore the impact of the66

Curriculum and English Language Education at a Tertiary level Institution

recent legislations and reports on education and English language curricula of tertiary levelinstitutions.
Before 2004, there seemed to be no unified curriculum or syllabus and teachers wereentitled to make up their own syllabus as long as it was related to “English.” Therefore, some
lectured on British contemporary poetry while others assigned intensive reading of British
and American novels, journals, essays, or newspapers. This type of instruction was viewed
as fundamentally “traditional” practices while a small number of teachers adopted a morecommunicative approach where speaking and listening activities were partially adopted.
Intensive reading was, however, the most frequent and popular way of teaching in mostclasses.
Although the classes attracted some highly motivated English learners with diverse
interests, many appeared to lose interest in English altogether in major-specific subject areas.
Obata et. al. (2006) argues that this appears to be a typical attitude among university students
where high absenteeism and engagement in off-campus activities, such as working part-time
as a shop assistant or a private tutor to earn money, or playing in tennis tournaments are thenorm. As a result, not only the faculty but the university has gained the reputation of being
tolerant of the students’ high absenteeism. The president of the faculty has announced a shift
towards the strengthening of an administrative system to deal with the high absenteeism.
With the direct and indirect demands for the innovation of the English curriculum, thefaculty has established the Centre for English Language Education. Moreover, it requested
the Centre for English Language Education to introduce drastic measures to build an
effective and efficient programme that is geared towards the students’ needs and interests.
In order to develop an English learning programme that is compatible with an IT society
and to increase the amount of students’ exposure to English, the Centre for English Language
Education has designed a unified English course and a system of interactive multimedia
programme for English self-study, beginning in 2005. The basic aim of the introductionof the interactive multimedia programme for English self-study is not only to develop
students’ listening and reading skills but also to improve students’ speaking ability andenhance vocabulary while cultivating students’ learning habits that will be sustainable after
graduation.
At the beginning of the semester, each student receives a user name and password sothat they can be connected to the programme’s Internet homepage. As long as the student’s
computer has Internet Explorer 6.0, they can access the programme off-campus. The

67

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

introductory session encourages the students to actively engage in self-study in order to bewell-prepared for classroom participation. Through self-study, students are exposed to English
by repeated listening, vocalization of words and phrases by shadowing which enables thelearner’s passive vocabulary to be activated, and thus they are provided with the opportunity
to engage in phased learning. In the classroom, they can demonstrate their achievement ofself-study through advanced communication activities, such as exchanging their views on the
topic with pair work and group work. It is deemed that the interactive multimedia programme
for English self-study will enable the students to participate in the classroom activities withease and comfort, with extensive knowledge and understanding as a result of self-study at
home.
Grades are based on the completion of the interactive multimedia programme for English
self-study, classroom participation (which includes attendance, quizzes, presentations), andfour progress achievement tests. If students fail to pass in any of these three components,
they have to register for each of them the next academic year. For example, if a student
fails to pass “the third progress achievement test” but has completed other components,
he/she is entitled to move up to the next grade while retaking “the third achievement test”
the next academic year. Teachers are responsible for evaluating classroom participation
while operations on the interactive multimedia programme for English self-study and fourstandardized tests are administered and managed by the senior staff.
To measure how much progress the students have made, the Centre for English Language
Learning requires students to take two TOEFL-ITPs, which is comprised of listening,
structure (or grammar) and reading components,6) at the beginning and the end of academic
year. If they fail to get a pass mark on these tests, their grade will be “fail,” even if they geta passing grade from their class teacher. If this happens, a student will have to take two
TOEFL-ITPs.7)
The Centre for English Language Learning adopted a standardized textbook for classroomuse, titled “Talking about America.” The textbook is composed in accordance with theinteractive multimedia programme for English self-study, and conversation activities in pairs
and groups are encouraged. Students study each unit of the textbook in two class sessions.
The spring semester covers Unit 1 to Unit 6 and the fall semester Unit 7 to Unit 12.
The standardization of a syllabus, a textbook, four achievement examinations, two TOEFLITPs and a class schedule are just part of the newly introduced disciplines. Along withthe standardization of teaching materials, teachers are also encouraged to shift towards

68Curriculum and English Language Education at a Tertiary level Institution

more communicative modes of teaching, which tend to prioritize speaking and listening
activities. In the view of the Centre for English Language Learning, because students areprepared for the topic and for the vocabulary, a teacher can and should spend more time onpractising students’ speaking skills. This can be done by discussion or debate, or training theirinformation processing skills through the use of the Internet in the classroom by showing
web pages relevant to the topic being discussed. The explanation of the use of an interactive
multimedia programme for English self-study and the English course are given at a one-hour
meeting carried out twice at the beginning of the course.

Methodology
The writer conducted a content analysis on the syllabus and the textbook of the faculty’s
standardized English language course. To analyse the documents, the writer read them withthe following criteria in mind: the contents reflecting real life knowledge that can be used
for future jobs; the four language skills areas (reading listening, writing and speaking) andpedagogical approaches (such as, a communicative approach, a lecture-centred approach, theuse of English in classroom practices, streamed classes, standardized tests), keeping notes oneach item.

Results of Analysis
Below is the description of how the curriculum is classified and framed, according toBernstein’s analytical framework.

Classification
The analysis of classification addresses how knowledge of boundaries and hierarchies are
established. The syllabus states that the purpose of the course is to cultivate the students’practical communication skills in English. In order to increase the exposure to authentic
English, the textbook covered a wide range of “real-world topics they feel are relevant totheir own lives,” so that the learners can learn English more effectively. According to thesyllabus, real-life topics are as follows: community college as an alternative route to getting
an education in America, hospice as a better way to spend final days, recycling and thecommunity effort, an African burial ground which contributed to the history of early AfricanAmerican life, “twister” detection and practical science in action, manufacturing andproductivity in America with regards to the changes in attitudes and practices, extreme sports,

69

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

alternative sentencing, cloning, religion in America, consumer product safety, and Henry
Ford who is “the father of modern America.” The use of phrases, such as “real-life topics,”“exposure to English,” and “relevance to their own lives” in the syllabus and the textbook
seems to show the efforts to connote MEXT’s views that prioritize real-life knowledge thatcan be used for future jobs. MEXT’s view, however, appears to be slightly flawed because:
1) mere exposure does not always motivate the students to relate the topic to their real life,and 2) real-world topics are not always a familiar topic to the Japanese tertiary level students,and 3) the textbook exclusively uses reports from American news media. Most importantly,
while the textbook claims that the news covers “interesting and sometimes controversial topics
in American society,” it shows strong classification by prioritizing American perspectives. As
listed above, the topics are all related to America. The problems with the prioritization ofAmerican issues are that some of the topics are too local to the Japanese context while others
are less interesting. For example, the topic of the community college has less relevance totertiary level institution students, not only because the topics are less discussed in actual life
but also that there appears to be no equivalent institution in the Japanese context. It is very
difficult for the students to imagine what life would be if there was such an institution. The
conversation practice activity asks questions, such as, “In [the] Edo [period], do you thinkfarmers were slaves to the samurai?” or “Henry Ford wanted every American to drive a car.
How did the realization of his dream change people’s lifestyle in the United States?” These
questions require the learners to use imagination and there is a question of the relevanceto real-life knowledge. Moreover, it does not explicitly show why the knowledge and theinformation about American society would be beneficial for them in the future.
To summarize, the documents set up considerable strength of classification, solidifying
collection code. The emphasis on American topics could discourage the development of otherintegrated code curricula. Most importantly, the privileging of American issues in the nameof “real-world topics” rather than Asian, European, or Japanese issues seems to show theinfluence of the end-of-the-year TOEFL-ITP. Because TOEFL is for students who want tostudy in an American university, the test only uses American issues.

Framing
Framing refers to the degree to which teachers and students have power to decide which
contents to be taught and in what order. With regard to the four skill areas, the syllabus statesthat students participate in discussion, presentation, and pair-work along with the use of70

Curriculum and English Language Education at a Tertiary level Institution

the textbook. Listening, shadowing, and content comprehension are done in the interactive
multimedia programme for English self-study. Moreover, the syllabus strongly encourages
the teachers to use English in the classroom. This can be exemplified by the fact that the
textbook and additional materials do not use Japanese translation. The textbook appears tosuggest that the preferred pedagogical practices should be on training students with listening
and speaking by using English exclusively in the classroom, which again shows consistency
with what MEXT has proposed.
The analysis of the textbook and materials, such as the transcripts of the listening tasks,
however, appears to offer a different interpretation. The textbook states that the language
used in the textbook is “authentic” and thus can be “fast, confusing, and overly difficult” forthe students to understand in the first listening. In order to “bridge the gap,” it advises to
use the “simplified version of the news report” in the earlier part of the textbook activities
and interactive multimedia programme for English self-study and then move on to the realtranscripts. The writer has measured scores of readability of the simplified transcripts. The
average score of “Flesch Reading Ease” 8) of all the units is approximately 48 points, which
is suitable for graduates of American high schools, and the Flesch-Kinkade Grade Level 9) is
9.3 points, which is equivalent to grade ten in America. The result seems to suggest that thesimplified script is still very difficult for the learners of English at tertiary level institutions inJapan to understand in the listening activities. This seems to suggest that the reality of theteaching and learning practices in and out of the classrooms would engage largely on intensive
reading using dictionaries on one hand and the textbook on the other. If this is the case, theunderlying purpose of the syllabus is to encourage intensive reading rather than engaging inlistening and speaking activities, which seems to be incompatible with MEXT ’s view.
With the strong frame in the syllabus and the textbook, the teacher or students appear
to have less power on deciding what and how to teach/ learn. Moreover, the sequencing of
the four skill areas, starting from intensive reading, simplified listening, controlled speaking,authentic listening to finally engaging in speaking, might give the impression that intensive
reading is the prerequisite to take part in other activities.
To summarize, the syllabus strongly frames the teaching and learning in the English
language classroom. Students might receive the impression that they have no control overdeciding which activities to engage in until they are at the “satisfactory level of reading” where
they can choose what to learn and how to learn. In the syllabus, the implicit emphasis of thereading activities, the prescriptive nature and the strict compliance enforced by the end-of-71慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

the-year TOEFL-ITPs and teacher evaluation appear to discourage straying from or expanding
upon the curriculum even in the interest of meeting the needs of individual learners.
The reason for the disproportion in both classification and framing is partly on the“washback” of the TOEFL-ITP. The term “washback” is referred to as “the effect of tests
on teaching and learning” (Wall 291). The effect of “washback” operates on two levels;from micro, where the test operates on teachers and individual students in classrooms, tomacro, where it operates on the educational system and society. As a whole, the nature of
the “washback” is divided into two categories: negative and positive. Negative washback iscommonly described as the phenomenon in which teachers drop a curriculum and teachtowards tests. The higher the stakes of the test, the more the teachers distort the curriculumin order to gain high scores in the test. As described earlier, the TOEFL-ITP explicitly
deals with American issues and categorizes the test into three areas: listening, reading, andstructure (grammar). Thus, it can be said that the use of TOEFL-ITP as the end-of-theyear achievement test has served to strengthen the classification and the framing of thecurriculum.

Discussion and Implication
Given the context of Japanese universities and recent reforms over curricula, how has
English language education reconfigured codes of power, and in whose interests? The analysisof the way MEXT and the university classify curriculum shows discrepancies between theirattitudes towards what to teach and how they want to teach.
Concerning the classification, MEXT prioritizes the acquisition of real-life English
language skills in order to educate people who can compete in the ever-growing economy.
The university, on the surface, seems to embrace the government discipline by adopting “realworld topics they feel are relevant to their own lives.” However, the textbook exclusively deals
with American issues, paying less attention to the Japanese context. It appears to suggestthat the institution values the traditional power relation to be restored with regard to English
education, where “traditional pedagogy,” such as intensive reading, and lecture-centred
approach and learning about America are given a superior position than real-life topics andEnglish language skills, while, MEXT is trying to alter such power relations and the hierarchy.
Framing examines how far teachers and students have power on making decisions on what
and how should be taught, in the classroom. The syllabus and the textbook appear to show
obedience to the legislation and the reform by locating the listening activities as the central

72Curriculum and English Language Education at a Tertiary level Institution

issue. Analysis of the textbook, however, reveals that the syllabus and the textbook implicitly
encourage the learners and the teachers to associate with “traditional” activities, such as
reading intensively, where they can reassert supremacy of academic knowledge. Complianceis enforced by the end-of-the-year TEOFL-ITPs and through the teacher evaluation.
While the subject of the research is limited to a private university, the findings appear
to reveal the impact of the recent shift in the legislation and the reforms of tertiary levelinstitutions regarding English language education. The analysis suggests that the curriculum
appears to fit within a political movement where a battle continues between the government
and the tertiary level institutions for dominance in order to restore or alter the existing values
and powers.

73慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

Works Cited“Action Plan to Cultivate Japanese with English Ability.” Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology (MEXT). 19 Sep. 2006 < http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/15/03/03033101.
html >
Anthony, Laurence, Fujii, Masatugu and Ueno Yoshio. Talking about America. Tokyo: Tsurumi Shoten,
2005.
Apple, Michael W. “The Politics of Official Knowledge: Does a National Curriculum Make Sense?”
Teachers College Record 95 (1993): 222-241.
Arimoto, A. “Taikoukaikou no kouto-kyouiku kaikaku no nagare to syouraizou [the reports on the reformof the standards for the establishment of Universities 1991 and the future of higher education].” The
Consortium of Universities in Kyoto. 15 September 2006. < http://www.consortium.or.jp>“ ‘A Vision of Universities in the 21st Century and Reform Measures to be Distinctive Universities ina Competitive Environment.” Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology(MEXT). 19 Sep. 2006 < http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/1998/10/981010.html >Bachman, Lyle F. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: OUP, 1990.
Bernstein, B. “On the classification and frame of educational knowledge.” Knowledge and Control. Ed.
Young, M. F. Basingstoke: Colllier-Macmillan, 1971.
Canale, M. and Swain, M. “ Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language
Teaching and Testing.” Applied Linguistics 1 (1980): 1-47.
Cobb, T. “The Compeat Lexcial Tutor vol. 4” 19 Sep. 2006 < http://www.lextutor.ca >“Daigaku Sechi Kijyunn [the Standards for the Establishment of Universities].” Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). 19 Sep. 2006 < http://www.mext.or.jp/ >“Formal Education: Higher Education.” Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology(MEXT). 19 Sep. 2006 < http://www.mext.go.jp/org/formal/22.htm>
Hayashi, M. “Problems of General Education Brought about by the Relaxation of the Standards for
the Establishment of Universities.” Oita University. 19 Sep. 2006 < http://www.oit.ac.jp/japanese/toshokan/tosho/kiyou/jinshahen/48-2/jin-sya26.html >“Japan’s Education at a Glance 2005.” Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology(MEXT). 19 Sep. 2006 < http://www.mext.go.jp/english/statist/05101901.htm>“Karikyuramu-kaikaku jissi-jyokyo nituite. [the reports on curriculum improvement] ” Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). 19 Sep. 2006 < http://www.mext.go.jp/
b_menu/houdou/18/06/06060504/001.htm>
Kleibard, H. M. The Struggle for the American Curriculum. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. 1995.
Kodama, T. “Daigaku ni okeru gaikokugo-kyouiku [English language education at university levelinstitutions].” Ritumeikan Gengo Bunka Kennkyu 16. 4 (2005): 229-240.
“Major Policies: higher education.” Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology(MEXT) Higher Education Bureau. 19 Sep. 2006 < http://www.mext.go.jp/English/org/eshisaku/

74

Curriculum and English Language Education at a Tertiary level Institution

ekoutou.html >“National University Corporation Law 2003.” Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology (MEXT). 19 Sep. 2006 < http://www.mext.go.jp/English/news/2003/07/03120301/001.
html >
Obata, K. and Ishihara, S. The Daigaku-zukann 2006 [Japanese University Guide 2006] Tokyo:
Daiamond-shya, 2006.
Sleeter, C. and Stillman, J. “Standardizing knowledge in multicultural society.” Curriculum Inquiry 35(2005): 27-46.
“The Education Reform Plan for the 21st Century: the Rainbow Plan.” Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). 19 Sep. 2006 < http://www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/
21plan/010301.html >“ The Future of Higher Education in Japan.” Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology (MEXT) Central Council for Education. 19 Sep. 2006 < http://www.mext.go.jp/English/
news/2005/html >Wall, Dianne. “Impact and Washback in Language Testing.” Encyclopedia of Language and Education.
vol. 7. Language Testing and Assessment. Eds. Clapham C. and Corson, D. Kluwer Academic
Publishers: Netherlands, 1997.
Weber, Lec E. “Justification and Methods of University Evaluation: A European Perspective.”
Symposium: How to Evaluate a University and What for? The Research Institute for Economy, Tradeand Industry (RIETI). United Nation University, Tokyo. 22 Feb. 2003. < http://www.rieti.go.Jp/en/
events/03022201/paper/weber.pdf >Wikipedia the Free Encyclopaedia 19 Sep. 2006 < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch_reading_ease >75慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

Notes
1)

For further details regarding the educational reforms administered by the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, see the Ministry’s website (accessed 19 September 2006)< http://www.mext.go.jp/english/org/f_formal_22.htm>.

2) There are three evaluation bodies; NIAD, which evaluates national universities, Japan Accreditation

Board for Engineering Education (JABEE), which evaluates and accredits the level of engineers, anda private organization called Japan University Accreditation Association (JUAA). As a result of therevision of the School Law in 2001, the government required the introduction of an evaluation system
for all the universities including private institutions. National universities will be evaluated on mid-termgoals and plans.
3)

For the discussions on the legislation of “the National University Incorporation Law 2003,” see,for example, “ The Impact Brought about by the Final Report on Concerning the Image of ‘the
New Corporate National University.’ ” Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (REIT).
19 Sep. 2006 < http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/columns/a01_0033.html >. A close look at the processthat facilitated the legislation of the Act, however, shows another facet of the legislation. The longdepression that resulted in the excessive debt in the national economy is behind the enforcement of
the NUCL 2003. In order to compensate the diminution of tax income from the private sectors the
Koizumi Administration declared the reduction of personnel costs by 20% in all the ministries andthe departments in 1999 (Fujita, 1999). The legislation was, therefore, the inevitable consequenceof the reconstitution of the ministries and government. Before this, the educational sectors had long
been protected by MEXT; for example, the employees including researchers, lecturers and staff
received the benefits and the status of civil servants, such as, excessively abundant welfare, permanent
employment, and seniority. The patronage of the educational sector is well described in the word “sei-iki(sanctuary)”. The second aspect that contributed to the enactment of the NUCL 2003 was the decline
in population. While a drop in the birth rate is one of the most controversial issues in Japan, thenumber of universities has been increasing since 1991. This is mainly the result of the legislation of the
University Establishment Act in 1991 which deregulated the law on higher education enterprises. As aresult, the government estimates that in 2008, the capacity of all the universities in Japan becomes thenumber of applicants for universities. This is named “zennyu-jidai (all entrance era)” which means thatanyone can enter a university as long as he/she is not particular about which university to enter. It has
been announced that 29.1% of private universities are already under strength in 2004.

4)

Tokusyoku GP provides additional subsidy to the universities and faculties that introduce uniqueeducational practices while Genndai GP provides additional subsidy for universities and faculties that
respond well to more current needs and demands. Total expense of COE, Tokusyoku GP, and Genndai
GP is estimated to be 53 billion Japanese yen in 2005.

5) See “karikyuramu-kaikaku no jissi-jyokyo.” 2004. The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology. 19 Sep. 2006. < http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/18/06/06060504/001.htm >76

Curriculum and English Language Education at a Tertiary level Institution

As has been suggested in the essay, the major focus of the research seems to be on whether theuniversities have adopted certain ways of teaching in the classroom or not.
6)

For the details of the TOEFL-ITP and its scoring criteria, <http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/
menuitem.1488512ecfd5b8849a77b13bc3921509/?vgnextoid=efc32d3631df4010VgnVCM10000022
f95190RCRD&vgnextchannel=eb817f95494f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRDG-TELP>

7) The faculty has changed the assessment criteria in 2006. The students no longer need to retake any

standardized test or TOEFL-ITPs as long as they pass the classroom participation grade. The rationale
for the change has not been explained from the Center for English Language Learning.
8) According to Wikipedia, the definition of “Flesch Reading Ease” is as follows:

In the Flesch Reading Ease test, higher scores indicate material that is easier to read; lower
numbers mark harder-to-read passages. The formula for the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES)
test is206.835－1.015

total words
total sentences－84.6

total syllables
total words

where total syllables/total words = average number of syllables per word (ASW) and total words/
total sentences = average sentence length (ASL).
As a rule of thumb, scores of 90－100 are considered easily understandable by an average 5th
grader. 8th and 9th grade students could easily understand passages with a score of 60－70,
and passages with results of 0－30 are best understood by college graduates. Reader’s Digest
magazine has a readability index of about 65, Time magazine scores about 52, and the Harvard
Law Review has a general readability score in the low 30s.
9) For the details of “Flesch-Kinkade Grade Level”, see the following explanation of Wikipedia:

The “Flesch－Kincaid Grade Level Formula” translates the 0－100 score to a U.S. grade level,
making it easier for teachers, parents, librarians, and others to judge the readability levelof various books and texts. It can also mean the number of years of education required tounderstand this text, relevant when the formula results in a number greater than 12.[1] The
grade level is calculated with the following formula:
0.39

total words
total sentences＋11.8

total syllables
total words－15.59The result is a number that corresponds with a grade level. For example, a score of 6.1 would
indicate that the text is understandable by an average student in 6th grade.

77Test Review: CASEC as a Measurement of Students’ English Ability
at a Japanese Lower Secondary School

Test Review: CASEC as a Measurement ofStudentsʼ English Ability
at a Japanese Lower Secondary School
Masaaki Okubo
I Introduction
Keio Futsubu School (hereafter referred to as “Futsubu”) started to employ Computer
Assessment System for English Communication (CASEC) in 2002 in order to measure theEnglish ability of the second and the third year students. One of the reasons why standardised
testing was introduced to Futsubu stemmed from the needs to assess students’ English ability
by a highly objective measure in addition to rather subjective term tests prepared by English
teachers (Mori, 2006).
Recently in Japan, CASEC has been attracting great attention from English teachers andstudents at various levels, from beginner to advanced. More than 400 companies and schools
have employed CASEC and approximately 90,000 English learners take the test each year
(The Japan Institute for Educational Measurement, Inc. [JIEM], 2006). Various advantagesof CASEC have been reported by its developer, JIEM. They have reported that the reliability
and practicality of the test are among CASEC’s strongest points, with the aid of their highly
elaborated computer adaptive testing system.
However, what has been hardly reported or discussed is the extent to which CASEC
measures the kind of English learners’ ability that test users (e.g. English teachers) aim tomeasure in each school, language institute, or company. Especially the situations in lower
secondary schools, where students have just started learning English, need to be carefully
investigated. The test takers in this test review were, at the time of their first CASEC test,
as young as 13 or 14 years of age. Many of them had only learnt English for just over a year.
Whether CASEC is able to assess the English ability of beginner or lower-intermediate level
learners is one of the concerns involved in the use of CASEC at Futsubu. There are also
other concerns about the implementation of CASEC at Futsubu. In order to address thoseconcerns, this test review aims to broadly discuss the strengths and weaknesses of CASEC
when it is used at Futsubu, instead of focusing on one particular section or one specific79慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

aspect of the test. The views of the test takers and test users (i.e. students and teachers at
Futsubu) on CASEC are also reported. The following discussion section explores how we deal
with the weaknesses of CASEC to make a better interpretation of Futsubu students’ CASEC
scores.

II Synopsis of CASEC

1 Test Purpose
To measure test takers’ English communicative ability that is necessary in the situations ofdaily life, school life, business, etc (JIEM, 2006).

2 Primary Uses
Five uses of CASEC are suggested by JIEM (JIEM, 2006).
To write down the score in the CV in order to prove test takers’ English ability
To prepare for TOEIC, *EIKEN and TOEFL
To regularly check English skills
For (Japanese) students studying overseas to check their English ability(To check the improvement, it can be used) before and after test takers complete
textbooks or distance education learning materials
Notes: Words in the parentheses were added; EIKEN is one of the most widely recognised
and administered English tests in Japan.

3 Test Delivery, Registration and Payment
The whole test, as well as each question, is delivered via the Internet. Test takers do nothave to go to a test centre to take this Internet-based test. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, they
can take the CASEC test anywhere in the world (even outside of Japan) as long as a computerconnected to the World Wide Web is available. Registration process has to be undertaken
online through CASEC ’s homepage. Payment can be made fairly simply if test takers haveone of the major credit cards. All they need to do is to put in their credit card information on
the screen. Other payment methods include paying through banks and convenience stores.
The test fee is 3,500 yen regardless of the payment methods. When a group registrationis arranged for test takers at educational institutions or companies, they do not have to go
through this payment process.

80

Test Review: CASEC as a Measurement of Students’ English Ability
at a Japanese Lower Secondary School

4 Score Report
After completing the test, the result is displayed on the computer screen. It includes thescores for each section, the overall score (i.e. the score for all the four sections combined),“ advice ” for each test taker, the predicted score for Test of English for International

Communication (TOEIC) and the predicted grade for EIKEN on the basis of the test takers’
CASEC performance. The band of 5-point “Proficiency Scale,” where A is the highest and E
is the lowest, is also reported. Those reports can also be printed out and viewed on paper.

5 Author and Publisher
The Japan Institute for Educational Measurement, Inc. (JIEM), Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo

6 Contact Information
E-learning Division, The Japan Institute for Educational Measurement, Inc., 55
Yokoteracho Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo 162-8680; phone 03-3266-9364; e-mail casec@evidus.com

7 General Description
CASEC consists of four sections, all of which employ a computer adaptive system. Basedupon the performance in the previous questions, the computer chooses from the item bankthe next question that is most suitable for the test takers’ level. It normally takes about 25 to
35 minutes to complete all the sections depending on how fast each test taker answers thequestions. Table 1 below summarises the features of each section.
Table 1 Test specifications of CASEC
2: Knowledge ofSection

1: Vocabulary Knowledge

Expressions forCommunication

3: Listening
Comprehension Ability

4: Ability to Grasp
Concrete Information

Measures the ability to
grasp concrete information
working as a key expression
to communication andcomprehension, from alarge amount of informationin the settings of daily life,
school life, and business.

Contents

Measures the knowledgeof vocabulary frequently
used in daily life, school
life, business, etc.

Measures the knowledge
and usage of expressions
frequently used in daily
life, school life, business,
etc.

Measures the listening
comprehension ability inconversations occurringin daily life, school
life, business as well
as news and airplaneannouncements.

Question Type

Fill in the blanks

Fill in the blanks

Listening

Answer Format Multiple Choice Question Multiple Choice Question Multiple Choice Question

Listening
Dictation

Number of Qs

15

15

15

10

Possible Points

250

250

250

250

Note: The table is adopted and translated from CASEC’s official website (JIEM, 2006).

81慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

III The use of CASEC at Futsubu
CASEC has been administered at Futsubu since 2002 as a means to assess students’English ability. One of the main reasons why the school started to employ a standardised
English test is that the teachers wanted students to keep track of their English ability or
improvement over time by a highly objective measurement instead of rather subjective term
tests prepared by English teachers. It was also hoped that a criterion referenced test like
CASEC would give students a better idea of what they can and cannot do in English (Mori,
2006).

Futsubu is one of the three lower secondary schools run by Keio Gijyuku. The other two
schools are co-educational, whereas Futsubu is a boys’ school with a total of approximately
720 boys (i.e. 1st, 2nd and 3rd year students combined). The test results, questionnaires andother reports presented in this article are from the 235 third year students enrolled in the
2006-07 academic year. Some students have lived in English speaking countries or have learnt

English at their primary schools. However, the vast majority of them have similar English
learning background. Their official English learning starts at Futsubu.
The third year students took the CASEC test three times before the end of Term 1 of the
2006-07 academic year; the first and the third terms of the 2005-06 academic year (whenthey were in the second year) and the first term of the 2006-07 academic year. The numbersof students who took the CASEC test each time were 158, 223 and 231, respectively (seeTable 2 below).
Table 2 Occasions when CASEC was administered for the 2006 07 third year students
Academic Year

Term 1 (Apr-July)

1 st Year

2004 05

2nd Year2005 06

X(N＝158)3 rd Year2006 07

X(N＝231)

Term 2 (Sep-Dec)

Term 3 (Jan-Mar)

X(N＝223)

At Futsubu, CASEC is not administered on a special day but it takes place in the usual,
45-minute class time. A full time Japanese teacher of English makes instructions to lead thestudents to the first question of the test. Usually one or two computer specialists are present
to help the students. Depending on each year’s teacher allocations, another English teacher is82

Test Review: CASEC as a Measurement of Students’ English Ability
at a Japanese Lower Secondary School

also at the computer room for assistance. The students are told that their scores would not be
included in their academic grades. Thus the test is not very high stake for Futsubu students.
They are not necessarily encouraged to study hard to prepare for the test, but they are told
to take it seriously since this is one of the few opportunities that they can learn about theirEnglish ability by an assessment developed outside Futsubu.

IV Strengths

1 Reliability
The developer of CASEC, JIEM reports the reliability of the test through an experimental
research. It has been found that the reliability of CASEC is superbly high (Hayashi, 2001).
They conducted an experiment, where 48 participants took the test three times on the sameday. The correlation coefficients obtained through the study were all over .96. The correlation
between the first time and the second time was .975. Also, .969 and .964 were obtained forthe correlations between the first time and the second time, and the second time and thethird time, respectively. For a 55-question test, the reliability of over .96 is exceptionally high(Hayashi, 2001).
Such a high reliability of CASEC is made possible, not solely but largely due to its use ofcomputer technology. As far as the rating process of this Internet-based testing is concerned,
there are absolutely no human errors involved. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliabilities cannever be an issue for tests marked by a computer like CASEC because only one rater (i.e. acomputer) is involved and a computer itself does not make any errors. Both reliabilities are
1.000 all the time. The utilisation of computer rating may have largely influenced on such ahigh reliability of CASEC.
In addition, it seems that carefully conducted studies in the test item piloting processfurther strengthen the reliability of CASEC. Each of the newly developed questions is tested
through approximately 2000 English learners. The results of the pilot tests are then analysedbased upon Item Response Theory (IRT) before the items are actually put into the item bank
(Hayashi, 2001).
It is necessary, however, to investigate whether the high reliability of CASEC (i.e. over .96)
is also applicable to a lower secondary school situation where most students are at beginneror lower-intermediate levels. The information on the age group and the learning history of the48 participants in JIEM study above is not reported. It may be that the high reliability is only

applicable to learners who have been learning English for a fairly long time. The applicability

83慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

of the high reliability to beginner and lower-intermediate levels is unknown. The ideal way
to do research into this is to have students take the CASEC test twice or more in a very
short interval as the participants in JIEM study did so that no or little learning may occur
during that period. However, that kind of experimental research was not (and should not be)
carried out at Futsubu. As has been seen above, the main use of CASEC was to let students
know how much they improved their English ability from the previous test to the current
test. Giving students two tests consecutively in a very short time would not have had a goodeducational influence on them when they did not see the significance of the immediately
followed second test.
Inferred from the data of the third year student, the high reliability of CASEC seems
to be also applicable to students at Futsubu. A Pearson’ s r correlation was run for the
CASEC scores of the third term in the 2005-06 academic year and the first term of thefollowing academic year. Students took CASEC in February in the third term of the 2005-06
academic year and in June in the first term of the 2006-07 academic year. During the fourmonth interval, their average scores rose by approximately 60 points (see Table 3 below).
The correlation coefficient obtained for these two tests was a remarkably high .83 (p ＜ .01,
df ＜ 221, t ＝ 22.21). It is true that .83 is lower than .96, which was obtained by JIEM
through their own study. However, considering the fact that the students took the test fourmonths after the previous one, .83 should be interpreted as a good enough number to argue
that CASEC has a very high reliability in the case of lower secondary level test takers as well.
Table 3 Descriptive statistics
N

Mean

SD

3rd term, 2nd year

*223

272.6

118.0

1st term, 3rd year

*223

332.2

113.1

*Only the students who took the test on both occasions are included.

2 Concurrent Validity
Concurrent validity is another quality of tests that deals with the extent to which thescores of a test are correlated to the ones of other, usually more reliable tests. It is reported
that CASEC shows a significantly high correlation with TOEIC (JIEM, 2006). Comprising
the writing sections and the listening sections, both TOEIC and CASEC aim to measure
the English ability of English learners, especially their communicative English ability. One

84

Test Review: CASEC as a Measurement of Students’ English Ability
at a Japanese Lower Secondary School

major difference between them lies in TOEIC putting more emphasis on communications
in business settings as opposed to CASEC ’s more balanced contents; daily life, school lifeand business, etc. Because of the similarities between the two tests, the correlation between
CASEC and TOEIC reported by JIEM is a considerably high .83. The figure was obtained
through the data collected for a duration of 18 months from 3767 participants. When they
took the CASEC test, they self-reported their past TOEIC scores, which were then used to
run correlation with their CASEC scores.
It was also found that the concurrent validity of CASEC was moderately high when
the correlation coefficient between CASEC and an English test at Futsubu was obtained,showing its strength in concurrent validity at Futsubu. The issue of the concurrent validity inthe situation of Futsubu could not be fully explored due to lack of data. Not many students
had taken other major standardised English tests, such as EIKEN, TOEIC, etc. Simply, there
is not enough data available at this stage. Instead, a Person’s correlation was run for students’
CASEC scores and their test scores of English II class, where students learnt communicative
English, with more emphasis on listening and speaking than writing and reading. The English
II final exam was conducted in June in the first term of 2006-07 academic year, one monthafter the third year students took the CASEC test. There were two sections (i.e. listening
and writing) in either multiple choice or “ True or False” question formats. The statistics
demonstrates a fairly high correlation coefficient of .69 (n ＝ 234, p ＜ .01, df ＝ 232, t ＝14.69). Even though the concurrent validity of a test is normally examined with other morereliable tests, this result also shows a strength of CASEC in its concurrent validity at lower
secondary level.

3 Practicality
At Futsubu, the CASEC test is normally administered in the middle of each term, threetimes a year. The practicality of CASEC is a crucial factor in order to keep the test in theschool ’s curriculum for years. The current situation of Futsubu will be looked at in terms ofteachers, students and the school ’s resources.
For the English teachers, it is a very convenient test, considering the efforts and timerequired to administer the test and the test length, which is not too long for the school ’s timeframe of each period. Neither do they need to make the test nor do they have to mark it. Oneof the few important roles for teachers, when running the test, is to ensure that students’
computers and headsets are working properly throughout the test. Teachers may not even85慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

have to do this because computer specialists are usually present to help them in the caseof computer troubles. In addition, the test length of 25-35 minutes just fits into the time of
one period at Futsubu (i.e. 45 minutes). Thus the teachers can complete the test within theschool ’s regular class time.
CASEC is also highly practical for students at Futsubu. First of all, cost-wise, CASEC
is relatively inexpensive as a major standardised English test. 3,500 yen is quite reasonable
and competitive, whereas other major standardised tests that are well recognised in Japangenerally cost much more (e.g. TOEFL, US$ 140; TOEIC, 6,615 yen; TOEIC Bridge, 4200
yen; EIKEN, 1400 yen to 7500 yen.).
In addition, the potential practicality concern of test takers’ computer familiarity may not
be applicable to Futsubu students. The computer familiarity of test takers and the extent towhich the test scores are affected by their computer skills, etc. were issues that attracted
great attention (e.g. Kirsch, Jamieson, Taylor and Eignor, 1998; Choi, Sung and Boo, 2003).
It is a concern whether young test takers manage to use a computer to complete the CASEC
test. However, it is not too big a deal for Futsubu students. Under Futsubu’s curriculum, it
is required for students to take computer classes in the first two years. They learn far moredifficult computer skills than required in the CASEC test, where they have to be able toclick, type in the English alphabet, and occasionally scroll up and down. At the time of Term
1, 2006-07, only 1 out of 235 third year students seemed to have trouble using a computer

during the course of the test. Nonetheless, everyone was able to complete the test. As far as
Futsubu students are concerned, it can be arguably said that they are able to complete thecomputer-based test without having serious problems in the use of computers.
The computer facilities and resources of Futsubu also make it possible for teachers andstudents to use Internet-based CASEC test. The feasibility of CASEC at Futsubu largely
depends upon the school ’s computer room and computer network system. The delivery of thewhole test, from the application process to the final score reports, is all carried out throughthe Internet. The computer room at Futsubu equipped with Windows XP operated machines
and a high speed broadband Internet connection is updated enough to allow students to takethe test. Outdated PCs and narrowband Internet connection would make it impossible forInternet-based testing like CASEC to be administered.

86

Test Review: CASEC as a Measurement of Students’ English Ability
at a Japanese Lower Secondary School

V Issues and Weaknesses

1 Test Content and English Education at Futsubu
The content validity of a test forms an important aspect of test qualities. This section,
however, will not look at the content validity of CASEC itself. It is of course important toinvestigate content related issues. This section will look at a content-related issue, especially
focusing on the extent to which students are tested on what they learnt in the past years
at Futsubu. If the contents or topics of English conversations that appear in the CASEC
test are totally different from what they heard or read in English class, their scores would
be significantly underrated. This is a great concern, considering the fact that, for most ofthem, what they learn in English classes at Futsubu is almost all their knowledge of English
vocabulary, expressions and grammar. It is thus important to investigate how much of theirknowledge of English from English classes at Futsubu is reflected or not reflected in the texts
and questions of the CASEC test.
In order to learn about what is taught in English classes, first, the contents of the English
textbook used at Futsubu were analysed. The English textbooks, “ TOTAL” series have beenused in recent years throughout the three years at Futsubu. In each year, TOTAL, which isauthorised by Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), isused as the main textbook in English I courses. In English I courses, the authorised English
textbooks are used two or three days a week for all the first, second and third year students.
It has been revealed that the textbooks used at Futsubu do not cover all the major
contents in CASEC through an investigation of the textbook contents, with conversations inbusiness settings most uncovered. There are three major categories in CASEC’s contents:
conversations in daily life, school life and business situations (see Table 1 above for detailed
information on the test content). It was found that TOTAL English textbooks mostly dealt
with conversational English rather than story-type materials. TOTAL ENGLISH 1 (for the
first year students) comprises twelve conversation-oriented lessons and only one reading
section. TOTAL ENGLISH 2 (for the second year students) has eleven lessons and one
reading section. Out of the eleven lessons, as many as nine lessons deal with conversations
with only two lessons and one reading section included as reading materials. TOTALENGLISH 3 (for the third year students) contains seven lessons and one reading section withfour lessons related to daily conversations. As the year proceeds, the authorised textbooks
comprise less conversation related materials and more for reading. A further investigationof the conversation-oriented lessons in the textbooks has revealed that none of the lessons

87慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

explicitly involves conversations in business settings, not covering one of the three major
contents in CASEC.
What has been found from the analysis of the textbook contents in the previous paragraphis also observed in Teacher Questionnaire. The questionnaire was conducted in order tolearn about the relevance of the contents taught in English I and II courses to the threemain categories of the contents in CASEC. All Futsubu students enroll in both English I
and II courses in each year (i.e. a total of six English courses before they graduate). English
teachers were asked about how often students learnt or teachers dealt with each of the three
categories. The teachers answered it by choosing one letter from A to E (A “almost every
time,” B “more than half of the times,” C “approximately half of the times,” D “less than halfof the times” and E “almost never”). Table 4 below illustrates the summary of the results. The
figures in the table were obtained by averaging teachers’ responses, which were translated
from letters to numbers in the following way; A to 1, B to 2, C to 3, D to 4 and E to 5.

Table 4 Teachers’ perception on the contents taught in English I and II courses
English I
Daily Life

School Life

Year 1

1Year 2

2.5

Year 3

1.5

English II
Business

Daily Life

School Life

Business

1

5

3

4.5

1

1

5

3

2.7

1.5

5

5

1.5

2

4

The table shows that conversations in daily life and school life are dealt with fairly
frequently throughout the three years, almost regardless of the courses and the years, andthat conversations in business settings are mostly neglected. The results are clear-cut. Every
number in Table 4 on daily life and school life is three and under, whilst the numbers forbusiness are all four and over.
It is important for the English teachers at Futsubu to keep in mind that students’ scores arelikely to be significantly influenced due to the lack of instruction in business-related contents.
As has been seen above, the content-related issue has been found from both the investigationof the textbooks used at Futsubu and teachers ’ perception through the questionnaire.
Students see a number of questions whose topics are related to what is talked about atworkplace. Because business contents are among the three major categories stated in the test
specifications of CASEC, the impact on the test scores can be very significant.

88

Test Review: CASEC as a Measurement of Students’ English Ability
at a Japanese Lower Secondary School

2 Construct Validity
Construct Validity, Authenticity and InteractivenessThe construct validity of a second language test deals with how well it measures the abilityof test takers’ second language that is intended to be measured (i.e. the construct). In otherwords, tasks in the test should elicit the kind of test takers’ ability that the test is supposed
to measure and they should not elicit the kind of their ability that the test is not supposed tomeasure.
The construct validity of a test is often discussed in terms of authenticity andinteractiveness of the test (Bachman & Palmer, 1996). The way in which each of the twotest qualities is related to construct validity is out of the scope of this article (see Bachman &Palmer’s (1996) discussion for details). The construct validity of CASEC is discussed below
in terms of authenticity and interactiveness.

Authenticity and interactiveness of Standardised English Tests
In this section, some of the major standardised English tests on the Japanese market today
will be overviewed, in terms of authenticity and interactiveness: TOEFL iBT (Internet-basedtest), TOEIC, and STEP BULATS (The Society for Testing English Proficiency) (Business
Language Testing Service).
When Educational Testing Service (ETS) replaced the former version of the test called
TOEFL CBT (Computer-based test), TOEFL iBT made a great improvement in its
interactiveness and authenticity. In September 2004, TOEFL made a drastic change froma computer-adaptive, more of a skills test to a non computer-adaptive, more interactive andauthentic test. Two of the new features, among others, that had not been accomplished in theformer computer-based version are the inclusion of a speaking section and the developmentof integrated tasks.
The new TOEFL has achieved a greater interactiveness, for test takers are required toexert more of test takers’ skills to answer the questions than in the previous computerbased version. It is a great advance that the test has started to include a speaking section,
considering the difficulty of scoring it. Thus the test has been able to assess anotherimportant skill (i.e. speaking) in addition to already included three other skills (i.e. listening,writing and reading). Moreover, the integrated tasks also help TOEFL achieve an even greaterinteractiveness of TOEFL in that it requires more than one skill (e.g. listening and speaking)simultaneously. For instance, test takers read a text and listen to what a lecturer is talking

89慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

about, and then respond to it by writing or speaking (ETS, 2006a). The new TOEFL has
shifted away from a skills test that measure each of test takers’ skills individually
In addition, the authenticity of the test has been found to be one of the strengths in the
new TOEFL. In order to assess the English ability of prospective university students, thecontents of TOEFL iBT are consistent with academic settings. ETS reports that the test
content is derived from 2.7 million word corpus of spoken and written English collected from
US educational institutions (ETS, 2006a).
TOEIC, one of the major business English tests, is also shifting in the same direction,
pursuing higher authenticity and interactiveness. ETS recently made changes on TOEIC in
its variety of English used in the listening section. In the previous version of TOEIC, eventhough ETS claims that it measures the English ability required in conversations at workplacein international business settings, American English used to be the only variety of Englishthat test takers listened to in the listening section. American English is certainly one of themost influential and important varieties of English in business. Nevertheless, the varieties
of English spoken in other parts of the world are as important, for there are a number ofinternational companies where native English speakers from different countries and nonnative English speakers use English as a means of communication. Even though non native
speakers’ English was not included in the new version of the TOEIC test, test takers now
hear a wider variety of English than in the former TOEIC; American, British, Canadian,Australian, and New Zealand English (ETS, 2006b). TOEIC has now attained a greater
degree of authenticity in that the listening section better reflects the real business situations.
In addition to authenticity, the interactiveness of TOEIC will also be strengthened, owing
to the introduction of speaking and writing sections in January 2007. TOEIC is now being
further developed and is going to offer speaking and writing sections. The current paper-andpencil English communication test that assesses reading and listening abilities will enable test
takers to learn about their levels in all the four skills, with the options of speaking and writing
sections. Even though the speaking and writing sections are optional, TOEIC will soon beable to assess English learners’ productive skills as well as their receptive skills. Engaging
more types of test takers’ skills, TOIEC will make an improvement in its interactiveness.
STEP BULATS is another test of business English recently introduced to Japan. STEP
BULATS, developed by STEP in collaboration with the University of Cambridge ESOL(English for Speakers of Other Languages) Examinations, is also following the same
English testing trend, emphasizing its authenticity and interactiveness. STEP BULATS was90

Test Review: CASEC as a Measurement of Students’ English Ability
at a Japanese Lower Secondary School

introduced to the Japanese market in September 2004 with the aim to measure the English
ability that is necessary at workplace where English is used as a means of communication(STEP, 2006). As CASEC aims to measure the English communicative ability, so does STEP
BULATS. In addition, both CASEC and STEP BULATS are computer adaptive testing.
However, STEP BULATS gives test takers options for the speaking and writing tests. In its
speaking test, test takers are required to perform three different tasks; interview, presentationand communicative activities. The contents and the kind of tasks in the speaking test are
representative of what they need to perform in English in real business settings. STEP
BULATS, as well as TOEFL and TOEIC, involves test takersʼ productive skills, which has
contributed greatly to its interactiveness.

The Construct Validity of CASEC
Unlike the English tests seen above, the authenticity and interactiveness of CASEC are
in doubt, raising a serious issue in its construct validity. CASEC neither reflects the kindof tasks test takers would face in real-life settings nor engages the kind of students’ abilities
required in those settings. Even though CASEC intends to measure the ability of English
in oral communications, the fact that the items in CASEC do not involve students’ ability
to speak should be regarded as construct under-representation. Both speaking and listening
constitute important and essential aspects of oral communication. Thus, the influence on thetest score caused by the lack of speaking sections is so immense that it is difficult to makegood inferences of test takers’ communicative ability on the basis of the obtained score. Test
takers’ knowledge of vocabulary and expressions are tested in Sections 1 and 2. Their listening
ability is assessed in Sections 3 and 4. However, hardly any sections are dedicated to assess
test takers’ productive skills, especially their speaking skills.

The Construct Validity of Section 4
There is another issue found in Section 4 in relation to CASEC ’s construct validity. The
high scores in this section may not guarantee studentsʼ ability to grasp concrete information inoral communication, as is clamed in the test specifications of CASEC by the test developer.
Section 4 is a dictation section, in which test takers listen to a few sentences three times
and fill in the given blanks. According to the test specifications by JIEM (see Table 1 above),the aim of this section is to measure the ability to grasp concrete information. If so, howdoes writing words correctly in the dictation section affect the ability to grasp concrete91慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

information? This section seems to require test takers to perform tasks that are irrelevant tothe aim of the section. In the real life situation, it is rare that we need to spell correctly eachword we hear. On the phone, for instance, we often write down important information suchas the caller’s contact address, someone’s phone number or e-mail address, the name of arestaurant or a meeting place, etc. Even in those cases, correct spelling is often not required.
It is important to justify that the construct a test aims to measure is fully reflected in the tasksof the test and that no or little other language abilities are required in the tasks (Bachman& Palmer, 1996). In this case, it seems that the tasks requiring students to do dictation are
irrelevant to the construct that is intended to be measured in this section. If it is difficult tojustify the construct validity of a section, it would be hard to make an adequate interpretationfrom the obtained section scores.
Statistical results also support the speculated weakness of Section 4 in its construct validity(see Tables 5 and 6). The test results of the third year students (n ＝ 234) in June 2006 wereused to run correlations for the scores of all the combinations of the four sections. As Table
6 illustrates, Section 4 always shows the worst correlations with all the other sections. The

correlation between Section 1 and Section 4 (.48) is lower than the other two correlations
with Section 1 (.59 and .54, respectively). The correlation between Section 2 and Section
4 (.47) is also considerably lower than the ones between Section 2 and Section 1 (.59), andSection 2 and Section 3 (.59). The correlation between Section 3 and Section 4 is slightly
higher (.51), possibly resulting from the fact that Sections 3 and 4 are both listening sections.
Similar statistical results are also observed in participants in Hayashi ’s (2001) study (seeTables 7 and 8) in a clearer way. This study also shows that the dictation section has a much
weaker correlation to the other three sections. The fact that the correlation matrix has
revealed lower correlations of Section 4 with all the other sections also brings up the issue of
construct irrelevant variance.
Table 5 Descriptive statistics
The results for the third year students (Term 1, 2006 2007)

92

N

Mean

SD

Section 1

234

73.3

34.9

Section 2

234

82.6

38.2

Section 3

234

94.6

39.8

Section 4

234

85.4

35.6

Test Review: CASEC as a Measurement of Students’ English Ability
at a Japanese Lower Secondary School

Table 6 Correlation matrix
The results for the third year students (Term 1, 2006 2007)
Section 1

Section 2

Section 3

Section 4

Section 1

1

*.59

*.54

*.48

Section 2

−

1

*.59

*.47

Section 3

−

−

1

*.51

Section 4

−

−

−

1

*p < .01

Table 7 Descriptive statistics
Study by JIEM (Hayashi, 2001)
N

Mean

SD

Section 1

168

100.2

18.2

Section 2

168

100.6

12.0

Section 3

168

107.7

12.2

Section 4

168

100.7

11.2

Table 8 Correlation matrix
Study by JIEM (Hayashi, 2001)
Section 1

Section 2

Section 3

Section 4

Section 1

1

.869

.831

.744

Section 2

−

1

.807

.736

Section 3

−

−

1

.764

Section 4

−

−

−

1

3 Band Scale
Another issue that needs to be considered is whether the band scale CASEC uses in eachtest taker’s score report is appropriate for lower secondary level students. One of the featuresof CASEC is to give not only test takers’ section scores and overall scores but also “Proficiency
Scale,” which tells their band based upon their performance in the test. Students are thenable to learn about what they can and cannot do in English from the descriptive statements
on each band. CASEC ’s proficiency band is a 5-point scale from A (highest) to E (lowest); A(760 and above), B (600-759), C (450-599), D (390-449), E (below 390).
Considering Futsubu’s situation, the appropriateness of the band scale is questionable for93慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

such young English learners with limited English ability. As Table 9 shows, the vast majorityof the students are in E and only a handful of students are in D and higher even in their thirdtime taking CASEC. As is clearly seen from Table 9, the percentage of the students in D
and higher increases, as learning proceeds. However, a significant 69% of them still remain
in E, the lowest band, in even their third time. One of the most important points of CASEC
being introduced to Futsubu was for students to learn about what they can and cannot do in
English. Receiving the same band three consecutive times (over one year) by average studentssuggests that it is not fulfilling the purpose of the introduction of the public standardised test
to Futsubu.
Table 9 The number of students in each band of CASEC ’s “Proficiency Scale”
A

B

C

D

E

Total

Term 1, 2nd Year0 ( 0%)

0 (0%)

4 ( 3%)

1 ( 1%)

153 (97%)

158

Term 3, 2rd Year0 ( 0%)

3 (1%)

13 ( 6%)15 ( 7%)192 (86%)

223

Term 1, 3rd Year1 (0.4%)4 (2%)

32 (14%)34 (15%)160 (69%)231

VI Studentsʼ and Teachersʼ views
Some results of Teacher Questionnaire and Student Questionnaire already appeared
earlier in this article. There were other items in the questionnaires in relation to the viewsof the English teachers and the students on CASEC. What can be interpreted from thequestionnaires will be reported in this section.

1 Teachers’ views on CASEC
As is mentioned earlier, the students’ CASEC scores are not reflected in their final grades.
The students are not necessarily told to prepare hard for the test. Thus it is seen as having
characteristics of more of a proficiency test rather than an achievement test as it is supposed
to be used. If English teachers are to use CASEC as a proficiency test, it is likely that they
do not teach to the test, without CASEC too much in mind while teaching. Dealing with thequestions in CASEC intensively in the usual classes by teachers would unexpectedly give
more achievement test like characteristics to CASEC. This particular point was asked throughthe questionnaire. They were asked how much they had CASEC in mind in their teaching.
(Item: Are you teaching your students in such a way that they can obtain good scores in
CASEC?) Also, the same question was asked, but in a different condition: “if CASEC became

94Test Review: CASEC as a Measurement of Students’ English Ability
at a Japanese Lower Secondary Schoola test with a higher stake for students.” (Item: Would you teach your students in such a waythat they could obtain good scores in CASEC if the scores accounted for 30% of their final
grades?)Table 10 implies that English teachers at Futsubu may not see CASEC as completely
having achievement test like characteristics even though their views on CASEC significantly
vary from teacher to teacher. What can be interpreted from Table 10 is somewhat mixed.
Many of them answered B, but about the same number of them answered D or E. It is hard totell, in a dichotomous way, whether they see CASEC as more of a proficiency or achievement
type test. The only thing that is clear from the table is that no one answered A even though
there were two teachers who gave the answer E. In other words, none of them thinks that
CASEC is used completely as an achievement test, whereas two of them (in the case of thethird year students) possibly see it completely as a proficiency test.
Table 10 English teachers’ responses to the item below (Teacher Questionnaire)
Are you teaching your students in such a way that they can obtain good scores in CASEC?
A

B

C

D

E

To 1st Year Students

0

3

1

1

4

To 2nd Year Students

0

4

2

1

2

To 3rd Year Students

0

5

0

2

2

(A “very much,” B “to some extent,” C “neutral,” D “Hardly” and E “Never”)

Table 11 implies that English teachers at Futsubu would come to teach more to the test
due to the test’s higher stake for the students. In the item, “Would you teach your students
in such a way that they could obtain good scores in CASEC if the scores accounted for 30%of their final grades?,” more teachers answered A and B compared to the previous item (seeTable 10), whereas answers of D and E are significantly reduced. Notably, there was one
teacher who gave the answer A (in the cases of “to the second year students” and “to the thirdyear students”), which did not receive any votes in the previous item in Table 10. This may
suggest that this teacher would teach their students with CASEC very much in mind if thescores were included into 30% of their final grades.
Table 11 also implies that the purpose of the CASEC test as an objective assessment
could become no longer legitimate if English teachers started to teach to the test. As is stated95慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

above, Futsubu introduced CASEC so that the students are able to know how much they
improved their communicative English ability as a result of learning at Futsubu. Teaching
to the test as a result of reflecting the CASEC’s socres in the final grades could change
the test’s characteristics because CASEC would come to have more achievement test likecharacteristics by the teachers’ instructions for the preparation for the test.

Table 11 English teachers’ response to the item below (Teacher Questionnaire)
Would you teach your students in such a way that they could obtain good scores in CASEC
if the scores accounted for 30% of their final grades?
A

B

C

D

E

To 1st Year Students

0

5

0

2

2

To 2st Year Students

1

5

0

2

1

To 3st Year Students

1

5

1

1

1

(A “very much,” B “to some extent,” C “neutral,” D “Hardly” and E “Never”)

2 Students’ views on CASEC
There were items in Student Questionnaire which asked about the students’ views on
CASEC. The results demonstrate that they tend to have positive views on CASEC and thinkof it as giving them useful feedbacks, especially students enrolled in the higher level course
than in the lower level course offered at Futsubu. However, Student Questionnaire also
reveals a problem of noisiness in the listening sections.
In order to know how students think of CASEC, two items were included in Student
Questionnaire. (i.e. I can learn about my communicative English ability. / I can learn about
my weaknesses.) The students were required to answer them by choosing “Strongly Agree,”“Agree,” “Neutral,” “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree.”As Table 12 shows, for the item “I can learn about my communicative English ability,”
40.8% of the students answered either “Strongly Agree” or “Agree,” whereas 28.1% answered

either “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree.” The numbers in positive answers rise significantly
when only students in the high level course are included. Half of the students ( 50 %)answered positively. The high level course is called “Challenge Course,” in which a native
English speaker teaches students generally with good grades and the motivation to learn
English from a native speaker. In the lower course called “Regular Course,” students are less96

Test Review: CASEC as a Measurement of Students’ English Ability
at a Japanese Lower Secondary School

confident in English and taught English by a Japanese teacher of English and they generally
have lower grades.
Table 12 Students’ responses to the item below (Student Questionnaire)
I can learn about my communicative English ability.
All students(N ＝ 228)“Challenge Course”(N ＝ 100)

Strongly Agree

9.2%

13%

Agree

31.6%

37%

Neutral

31.1%

28%

Disagree

20.6%

16%

Strongly Disagree

7.5%

6%

As Table 13 shows, for the item “ I can learn about my weaknesses,” 52.1% of the students
answered either “Strongly Agree” or “Agree,” whereas 26.8% answered either “Disagree”
or “Strongly Disagree.” As well as the previous table, this table shows that the numbers inpositive answers rise significantly when only students in Challenge Course are included. 58%
of Challenge Course students answered positively, whereas only 17% gave negative answers.
Table 13 Students’ responses to the item below (Student Questionnaire)
I can learn about my weaknesses.
All students(N ＝ 228)“Challenge Course”(N ＝ 100)

Strongly Agree

8.3%

9%

Agree

43.9%

49%

Neutral

21.1%

25%

Disagree

20.2%

12%

Strongly Disagree

6.6%

5%

Student Questionnaire has also revealed a problem in the use of CASEC at Futsubu. It wasobserved that there was talking and chatting by fast test takers and the noise was botheringother students who were still answering the listening questions. Student Questionnaire
confirms that the noisiness from students’ talking in the listening sections does bother a97慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

number of students. In this all computer adaptive test, the length of the test varies fromstudent to student. Some of the fastest students finish the test more than ten minutes before
the slowest students. Students who completed the test early often get excited about theirscores and their friends’ high scores. They then begin talking and chatting with other students
nearby. Even if teachers, right before the beginning of the test, warn them not to talk after thetest until every one of them finishes, the issue of nosiness seems to persist to some extent.
Table 14 shows studentsʼ responses in relation to this issue. To the item, “Other students were
noisy while you were answering questions in the listening sections,” 47.0% of the students
answered either “Strongly Agree” or “Agree,” whereas only 27.6% disagreed (either “Strongly
Disagree” or “Disagree”).
Table 14 Students’ responses to the item below (Student’s Questionnaire)
Other students were noisy while you were answering questions in the listening sections.
Number

Percentage

Strongly Agree

61

26.8

Agree

46

20.2

Neutral58

25.4

Disagree37

16.2

Strongly Disagree

26

11.4

Total

228

100

VII Discussion
In the previous sections, it is argued that the reliability, concurrent validity and practicalityof CASEC are all very high. These qualities of the test are among CASEC ’s strongest points.
CASEC ’s reliability and concurrent validity have been supported by the study conducted byits developer JIEM. In addition, the data gathered from the third students at Futsubu havesuggested that the high reliability and concurrent validity of CASEC are to a large extent
applicable to the school ’s situation.
At the same time, however, several issues have been raised as to CASEC ’s weakness in its
construct validity as well as issues resulting from its uses at Futsubu. The following issues
have been identified.

98

Test Review: CASEC as a Measurement of Students’ English Ability
at a Japanese Lower Secondary School

the test content irrelevant to what is taught in English classes at Futsubu
the omission of the section to measure speaking skills (construct under-representation)
the tasks that involve skills irrelevant to the construct (Section 4) (construct irrelevant
variance)
the band scale that is unable to differentiate low levels in a way that is suitable forbeginner level students at Futsubu
Among the four issues above, the issues of the construct under-representation and theconstruct irrelevant variance should be taken into special consideration due to their serious
influence on the interpretation teachers and students make on the basis of students’ CASEC
scores. The former applies to the test as a whole and the latter is an issue found in only
Section 4, the dictation section. As for the other two issues (i.e. the content-related issue
and the band scale issue), even though there is some influence on the test scores, there is
not much the teachers can do about them. There is no special reason to cover at Futsubu
the kind of English spoken at workplace or in business settings. There is also no standardised
English test that is similar to CASEC and that can give more useful feedbacks to the test
takers. Besides, considering the students’ positive views found out from the questionnaire(see Tables 12 and 13) on the feedbacks that CASEC gives, the band scale and feedback
comments of CASEC seem to work fine for the students.
Even though there are issues found in the first three sections of CASEC, Sections 1, 2 and3 are quite reliable as measurements of what each section intends to measure. In Sections 1,
2 and 3, the only concern pointed out is the relevance of the test contents to the contents ofthe English classes at Futsubu. It is of course likely that the fact that the third year students
have hardly been taught business-related contents in the English classes at Futsubu affects
their scores in every section and hence the overall scores. A number of adult English learners
in Japan are keen to learn business English. Compared with them, teenage English learners
with little knowledge of business and workplace and a limited amount of English vocabulary
on business may be somewhat underrated. However, since Sections 1, 2 and 3 do not haveother major weaknesses and they have such a high reliability, the English teachers at Futsubu
are able to see these three sections as fairly good indicators of what is supposed be measured
by CASEC (i.e. the knowledge of vocabulary and expressions for communication and thelistening comprehension ability).
However, Section 4 needs careful consideration before the teachers and students interpret99

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

the scores of this section due to the issue as to the construct irrelevant variance. As isdiscussed above, it can not be justified that assessing the dictation ability of test takers is
assessing the construct that is intended to be measured in Section 4 (i.e. the ability to grasp
concrete information). Being able to write words correctly requires students to exert morethan the ability to grasp concrete information. Thus it is necessary that English teachersand students should interpret Section 4 scores carefully or should not use the scores as they
are because the tasks may not involve the kind of students’ ability that Section 4 claims tomeasure. Section 4, of course, measures some kind of listening ability but perhaps more else.
In addition to the issues on each section, there was an issue found on the construct of thewhole CASEC test. The construct under-representation issue identified earlier in this article
makes it difficult to make inferences about students’ communicative ability from the overall
scores. If we are to make a better interpretation of students’ communicative ability from thescores obtained from CASEC, it would be essential to give some kind of speaking assessmentin the light of second language and testing literature. The development of the concept ofcommunicative language ability by second language learning and testing researchers (e.g.
Canale and Swain, 1980; Canale, 1983a, b; Bachman, 1990; Bachman & Palmer 1996;
McNamara 1996) inform language test developers of theoretical bases on communicative
language tests. Communicative language tests have been understood as performance-based
tests (McNamara, 2000). CASEC, without any section that assesses test takers’ productive
skills, is not a performance-based test and may not engage what, researchers argue, constitutes
the communicative language ability (e.g. “Model of Knowledge,” “Model of Performance,”
and “Actual use” according to McNamara’s (1996) terms). Since it is impossible to change
or improve the test by test users, one of the things that can be done at the school is to havestudents engage in communicative activities or speaking tasks so that teachers can assess oneof the essential skills of the communicative ability, the speaking skills. The combination of thescores obtained by CASEC and the assessment of speaking skills at school may give students
and teachers a better idea of students’ communicative English ability.
VIII Conclusion and future research
The strong points of CASEC as a measurement of the students’ communicative English
ability at Futsubu cannot be stressed enough. There will always be some weaknesses whena school employs a standardised test since it is not designed only for the school. Depending
upon the uses of the test, different kinds of issues may arise. Instead of quickly looking for100

Test Review: CASEC as a Measurement of Students’ English Ability
at a Japanese Lower Secondary School

another standardised, it is important for the test users to review the test, taking the use of thetest into special consideration.
In order to use CASEC for more meaningful information for both teachers and students at
Futsubu, one way of overcoming an issue was suggested (i.e. giving some kind of assessmentof speaking skills). However, there were things that needed to be investigated more to get themost out of the use of CASEC at Futsubu. For example, the views of the English teachers
were not fully investigated. They were only asked about the contents they teach and theextent to which they have CASEC in mind while teaching. It was necessary to have a wider
variety of questions in Teacher Questionnaire, such as the ones about the practicality of
CASEC and the difficulties involved in the use of computers, etc. There also needed to be
more direct questions as to “teach to the test” issue. On this issue, it may be better to haveinterviews with the teachers because how they feel about CASEC could be quite complicatedand it may be too difficult to be examined through just a questionnaire. By clarifying thesethrough research, the teachers will be able to adjust CASEC to better suit the use of the test
at Futsubu.

101

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

References
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice: designing and developing usefullanguage tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Canale, M. (1983a). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C.
Richards and R. W. Schmitt (Eds). Language and communication. London: Longman, 2-27.
Canale, M. (1983b). On some dimensions of language proficiency. In Oller (Ed.). Issues in language

testing research. (pp. 333-342). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language

teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1; 1-47.
Choi, I., Sung, K. and Boo, J. (2003). Comparability of a paper-based language test and a computer-based
language test. Language Testing, 20, 295-320.
Educational Testing Service (ETS) (2006a). The official website of TOEFL , [Online] Available
http://www.ets.org/toefl/.
Educational Testing Service (ETS) (2006b). The official website of TOEIC , [Online] Available
http://www.toeic.or.jp/.
Hayashi, N. (2001). Eigonouryokusokutei Niokeru CAT No Tekiourei To koukasokutei. Keisoku To

Seigyo, 40, 572-575.
Kirsch, I., Jamieson, J., Taylor, C. and Eignor, D. (1998). Computer familiarity among TOEFL examinees.

TOEFL Research Reports 59. March: Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
McNamara, T. F. (1996). Measuring second language performance. London and New York: Addison
Wesley Longman.
Mori, I. (2006). Kyakkantesuto Dounyuu No Kokoromi. Summary of Research Activities April

2004-March 2006, 119-121. Keio Research Center for Foreign Language Education.
The Japan Institute for Educational Measurement, Inc. (JIEM) (2006). The official website of CASEC[Online] Available http://casec.evidus.com/.
The Society for Testing English Proficiency (STEP), (2006). The official website of STEP BULATS,[Online] Available http://www.eiken.or.jp/bulats/index.html/.

102

Test Review: CASEC as a Measurement of Students’ English Ability
at a Japanese Lower Secondary School

要

約

2002年 から 慶應義塾普通部 で 利用 している CASEC を 批評 をした。CASEC は、TOEIC のように英語によるコミュニケーション能力を判定する試験であるが、まだ英語を学習し始めてまもない中学生の英語力を測定できるかなど、中学校で利用された場合についての検証は特に報告されていない。
本稿では、慶應義塾普通部で使われている CASEC を様々な角度から検証した。CASEC の強みである信頼性や並存的妥当性、実用性などの重要なテストの性質が、一般の受験者だけでなく、慶應義塾普通部に通う中学生にも通じるかを検証した。また、CASEC の構成概念妥当性についての問題や、慶應義塾普通部での使用に起因する様々な問題を生徒や教員のアンケー
トなどを通じて指摘した。

103

A Mountain or a Mole Hill? Recent attitudes and remedial responses
toward plagiarism at higher education institutions in the West and Japan

A Mountain or a Mole Hill?
Recent attitudes and remedial responses towardplagiarism at higher education institutionsin the West and Japan
William Snell
Abstract
This paper examines attitudes toward plagiarism at institutes of higher education and the
responses that have been made to curb the phenomenon among students and academics
alike. It includes survey data taken from Japanese students regarding their awareness ofplagiarism and attitudes toward it, as well as guidelines and an overview of manuals and otherrecent materials that have produced useful strategies to promote intellectual and academic
honesty. The paper also discusses such issues as how the very act of highlighting the problemof plagiarism (one which has been referred to in the U.S. as a “plague”; indeed the topic isoften alluded to in apocalyptic terms such as the “war against plagiarism”, etc.) may as a result
effectively exacerbate it.

1. Introduction

One of the great virtues of the Japanese, their prodigious “lust for knowledge” hashistorically --- and paradoxically --- laid the Japanese open to charges of intellectual
property theft and plagiarism. (Dryden, 1999, p.81)
Recent accusations of plagiarism made against the artist Yoshihiko Wada (May, June
2006), so prominently highlighted by the media, have brought an awareness of its incidence
in Japan, where there has always been an ambivalent attitude towards the subject; ambivalent
in the sense that there has been very little consideration or study of plagiarism in this country,
indicative perhaps of an unwillingness to recognize and confront a problem which has been105慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

around for some time in the U.S. and threatens to, at some point, produce the same backlashthat has been witnessed there. High profile court cases like that surrounding the popularnovel The DaVinci Code and exposés such as that of New York Times reporter Jayson Blairin 2003 have served to keep the topic in the public consciousness in the States. The U.S.
is, of course, a litigious society which may in some way go to explain the attention given to
the matter. At American and also British Higher Education (hereafter referred to as HE)
institutions, steps have been made to try to curb what many see as a contagion, a growing
problem with plagiarism at undergraduate, graduate and also faculty level, and strenuous
efforts have been made to combat it. The result has been a large output of publications andwebsites devoted to the topic as well as practical guides.
But what of the situation in Japan? What can Japanese higher education establishments
learn from the experience outside Asia, to what extent is the problem and attitude toward it
different here, and do cultural differences play any role in this regard; that is if, indeed, a realor potential problem exists? It would seem a worthwhile exercise to look at these questions,which is the principle aim of this paper.
2. History... for talent, as Picasso once observed, borrows where genius steals. Indeed, Picasso
probably stole this celebrated maxim from Stravinsky, though claims that Stravinsky
filched it in turn from Rimsky-Korsakov, who stole it from his mother at gunpoint, areas yet unverified. (Dyson, 2004)
The term plagiarism derives from the Latin plagium. It means kidnapping. The
Romans, however, did not invent it. They nicked it from the Greeks... I do not know
where the Greeks nicked it [from], but it is more or less self-evident that the first
person to have it nicked from him, i.e., its inventor, failed to pay the ransom, andthe rest is semantic history. Had there been a High Court around, its inventor would
have sued, but those were primitive times; my theory is that the kidnapper, when theinventor refused to cough up, hit him with a rock. (Coren, 2006)
The above quotation is from British journalist and humorist Alan Coren commenting on thelegal case that followed the publication of Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code, and is not
far off the mark in his explanation of the derivation of the term, first used by the poet Martial

106

A Mountain or a Mole Hill? Recent attitudes and remedial responses
toward plagiarism at higher education institutions in the West and Japan(Marcus Valerius Martialis – c.40-103 BC) regarding someone who had “kidnapped” some ofhis poems by copying and circulating them under the copier’s name. But while copying so as
to take credit for another’s work was deemed wrong, use of another’s work to create somethingof one’s own was not. The goal was to take an idea that someone else might have had first,
but to improve on it, or its execution. Classical writers, such has Martial, Aristotle, Socrates,
Aristophanes and Plato borrowed heavily from earlier works; it was considered orthodox.
Plagiarists and plagiarism are nothing new. Indeed it has even been linked (inextricably) to therise of the novel, with renowned novelists such as H.G. Wells being accused of it. Artists havealways made excuses for taking other peoples’ ideas and adapting them to their own ends.
Literary or artistic plagiarism in the past was assessed as either “good” or “bad”:
There is a vast difference between imaginative and unimaginative borrowing; between
the borrower who makes poetry of the first order from his borrowings and the derivative
artist; and between the derivative artist and the plain thief. And this difference between
the successful and the unsuccessful borrowers, is the difference between the artist andthe plagiarist. The plagiarist is simply the bad borrower. (Edwards, 1933, p.115)
Outside of literary piracy, scholars reviewing Martin Luther King Jr.’s papers have foundevidence of plagiarism in his doctoral dissertation and other papers which has brought hisacademic integrity into question, although this has done little to diminish the man’s statureor his achievement. However, the form of transgression that King has been accused of is one
that mortals of much lesser social standing have been vigorously condemned for and one thathas been observed, certainly in the West, to be spreading.
3. The Present Situation

Until very recently HE institutions were reluctant to discuss plagiarism on campus. Past
policy was to brush it under the carpet rather than confront the problem. However, theadvent of the Internet forced a sea change. Increased reliance on the Internet has lead to aphenomenon known as “Cyber plagiarism”, sometimes incurred inadvertently through theprocess of so-called “dropping” and “dragging” (see Lipson, 2004, pp.12-13). “Inevitably,
the old mail-order term-paper mills have given way to their cyber counterparts” (Mallon,
1989;1991, p.246). Automatic/ automated translation functions have further muddied thesituation.

107慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

Much as effort has gone into warning against plagiarism, so a great deal of research has
been conducted into methods of combating it. In Japan, however, little attention has been
paid to the matter, as is evidenced by the very few studies produced in the country incomparison with those on the subject of Copyright. So does this mean that no problem exists?
In Japanese the terms tousaku（盗作）and hyousetsu（剽窃）denote stealing a piece ofwork or robbing someone of their work. In a society associated with honesty and diligence,
however, neither word properly conveys the same meaning that “plagiarism” evokes. Dryden(1999) carried out student surveys and interviews with a number of Japanese professors (manyof them English-speaking) as well as native-English-speaking foreigners at “half a dozen
universities in Japan” and “frequently heard echoes that plagiarism is ‘no big deal’” (p.76).
He perceives a “mutual disorientation” between the Japanese and Western perspectives onplagiarism and remarks that the Japanese work “in a very different epistemological tradition”
and that they regard moralizing on the matter “with bewilderment”(p.75). Concerning his
student survey he found the responses were so similar that he wondered if the students were
simply writing what they thought or were expected to say (my own findings in a survey I
carried out on a smaller scale provided strikingly similar results – see below). Dryden observes
that attitudes at secondary education level in Japan can be traced back to methods usedearlier in the system: the fact that “debate and discussion are rarely undertaken” (p.77) withstudents generally keeping opinions to themselves: he quotes Thomas P. Rohlen (authorof Japan’s High Schools, 1983), “By implication, Japanese high school education provides
no intellectual roots, it turns out students long on information and short on intellectual
reasoning.” Dryden states that “teachers who try to observe such Western conventions as theauthorial ownership of words and ideas find themselves at odds with an academic culture that
does not value those conventions very highly” (p.79). He also notes the tendency of Japanese
undergraduate essays to be a “patchwork”.
Diekhoff et al. (1999) reported data obtained from a sample of 286 students ofundergraduate level at three Japanese universities over three months in 1995 in a survey oncheating in examinations (p.345). Their results showed that “Japanese students reported
significantly more cheating on exams than did American students…” (p.347). “Overall,American students rated social stigma as more deterring than did Japanese students, but thiscross-reference was found to be significant only among noncheaters.” Regarding the deterrent
effectiveness of guilt, “Our Japanese students ranked guilt most effective, followed by fear
and then social stigma” however American students placed fear as most effective. “Japanese108A Mountain or a Mole Hill? Recent attitudes and remedial responses
toward plagiarism at higher education institutions in the West and Japan

cheaters were less deterred than their American counterparts by both social stigma and fearof punishment.” (p.351)
It must be stated here that in my personal experience, cases of plagiarism have been
mainly restricted to students on the correspondence course here at Keio, although in myundergraduate Academic Writing courses I have occasionally come across it for reasonscomparable to those of students caught in Western universities discussed below.
Let me cite two examples that I have encountered since I have been involved in marking
reports for the advanced Academic Writing course. The opening of this first essay was copied
directly from eNotes.com which purports to make “quality study guides available online” andwas found in a matter of seconds using a Google search:

The End of the Affair Summary & Study Guide by Graham Greene:
Graham Greene’s novel The End of the Affair was first published in 1951 in England.
The events of the novel concern an adulterous affair in England during World War
II. With the war and the affair over, Maurice Bendrix seeks an explanation of why hislover, Sarah Miles, broke off their relationship so suddenly. Greene’s contemporaries
could relate to the setting of the story, as the war was fresh in their memories and they
were living in the same postwar period as the characters. Within this setting, Greene
explores themes of love and hate, faithfulness, and the presence of the divine in human
lives.
Student version:
Graham Greene’s novel “The End of the Affair” was first published in 1951 in England.
The events of the novel concern an adulterous affair in England during World War II.
With the war and the affair over, Maurice Bendix seeks an explanation of why his lover,
Sarah Miles, broke off their relationship so suddenly. Greene explores themes of loveand hate, faithfulness, and the presence of the divine in human lives.
The rest of the essay was of a similar vein and the culprit most probably paid the one-timecharge for downloading the paper ($7.95). Another, on George Orwell’s novel Nineteen

Eighty-Four, was downloaded entirely from BookRags.com. In one further case where I
made an official complaint, the student in question was made to tender a written apology and109

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

forbidden from submitting any further essay for the credit, whereas in the U.K. or U.S. he
would likely have been expelled. This leniency, also observed by Dryden (1999), is indicativeof the clemency shown for perceived mitigating circumstances such as simple ignorance ofthe correct conduct.
For the purposes of this paper I conducted my own survey amongst students fromundergraduate to graduate level at two notable HE institutions in Japan, Keio and Hosei
universities, from different faculties in a rough survey carried out in 2005 and 2006 coveringsome 76 students. Admittedly this was modest in scale, but the results are neverthelesssignificant.
Those who responded to the question (discounting non-respondents) “ Do you knowwhat plagiarism is?” answered Yes: (56.5%) No: (21.05%). “Have you ever copied from theInternet?” Yes: (23.68%) No: (23.68%) (probably because the question was miss-termed; “Haveyou ever copied from the Internet with the intent to mislead the reader into thinking thatthe words were your own?” would, in hindsight, have been a better question). “Have you evercopied from all or part of an assignment from others?” Yes: (21.05%) No: (40.7%). Of those
who answered “ Yes” to the latter their reasons were mainly “Because it’s convenient” / “Because
I couldn’t say ‘No’” / “Give and take policy” / “I couldn’t deny my work to be copied by myfriend” / “I was not able to keep track of the deadline because of having multiple assignments/
finish faster”. On the question “Have you ever discussed the topic of plagiarism with yourteacher/ other students?” 18.4% answered Yes, and significantly 59.2% No; “Have you evertaken a writing course?” Yes 35.5%, No 40.7%. On “What do you initially do when assigned
a written report” comments were: “Search the Internet library” / “Use Internet” ; “Internet(because going to the library takes too much time).” Only one student remarked “Go find abook about it”, which is symptomatic of a general international trend (see Bowman, 2004,
pp.6-7) to rely on internet sources, also remarked upon by Stubbings and Brine, 2003.
4. Racial profiling

Student plagiarism tends to take two main forms: 1) deliberately considered (i.e.
intentional, flagrant) sometimes due to pressure to achieve good grades (see Stubbings andBrine, 2003, p.42) and 2) inadvertent (unconscious, i.e. “subliminally reproducing somethingalready digested”) or unintentional: due to poor study skills, poor time management, poor
research and citation skills, or a lack of understanding of what plagiarism is. Lackie andD’Angelo-Long (2004) cite Robert Harris (Harris, 2002) who states that students are “natural110

A Mountain or a Mole Hill? Recent attitudes and remedial responses
toward plagiarism at higher education institutions in the West and Japaneconomizers” and links their resorting to plagiarism as due to “poor time management andplanning skills”. They add that this is a “cultural variable that enters into the equation…in
many Asian, Middle eastern, African and First Nation cultures, ideas and words expressing
those ideas are not considered the sole property of the originators.” (p.36) Harris also observes
that “plagiarism is a relatively new concept.”
One of the consequences of the focus of attention on student plagiarism in the U.S. has
been a tendency to see the problem in terms of cultural background. Pecorari (1998) assertsthat “In western universities there has been a popular belief that international students(foreign) are particularly prone to copying,” Some lecturers at English-speaking countries
believe that international students are especially likely to plagiarize.
It has been determined that definitions of plagiarism differ according to the culture.
Paraphrasing Yamada (2003) it is very difficult for native speakers of English, let alone ESL
students, to grasp a proper understanding of when it is necessary to acknowledge a source.
Considerable cultural differences also exist in the student-teacher relationship. The degree ofrespect shown to the teacher and how this respect is shown varies enormously from culture toculture (Ninnes et al., 1999). International students tend to be more reluctant to question theopinions of a teacher/ lecture as this is a position of authority.
Robertson et al. (2000) suggest that this reluctance is stronger in particular groups such as
Japanese students and female international students. Furthermore, these students often takethe opinions of a book or lecturer as the truth without question as the knowledge has comefrom someone of superior authority. It is therefore unsurprising that this information is thenreproduced verbatim.
5. Remedies

Several years ago the British LTSN-ICS (Learning and Teaching Support Network –Information and Computer Science) and Loughborough University Library in England carriedout a project to find out why individuals plagiarize, to “identify student practices in relation
to their assignments; current citation practices, determine the level of student undergraduate
understanding of plagiarism; help students work out their own level of knowledge; provide
online resources that improve their understanding of plagiarism and avoid being a plagiarist”(Stubbings and Brine, 2003, p.42). The survey revealed that students said they did not receive
enough tuition on citing and referencing, that their tutors were also ignorant on the matter,and that this resulted in anxiety about citing from electronic sources. One student remarked111慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

that “I am terrified to cite an electronic site any more as the last time I was marked down
for it.” (p.42) Regarding information-seeking behavior, 84% responded that they use Internet
sites, only 3% that they used journals. Noticeable was a tendency to use quotation rather thanparaphrase: only 7% said they copied in whole or part or allowed their work to be copied byfriends. “The reasons by students for copying part or all of an assignment were that they did
not understand what was required or that they ran out of time.” (p.43)
The usual recourse has been punishment for plagiarism in the West, usually consisting of
failure (and therefore repetition) of a course or expulsion of the student, yet there is a needfor caution in acting in too draconian a manner, in being careful not to cross the narrow line
between cautioning and threatening punishment, although in certain circles academic piracy
is equated with crime. This, for example, is a quotation from “The Student Style Manual” atMorris Knolls High School Library, Rockaway, New Jersey:
We in the Morris Hills Regional District consider plagiarism, whether it be accidental
or deliberate, so serious an offense that you will receive a grade of zero on any
assignment that is plagiarized.
(See http://www.mhrd.k12.nj.us/mk/library/stylemanual.htm)[emphasis added]
Given that students, particularly undergraduates, often do not know how to cite, there
seems little point in simply preaching, as practical advice would be more efficacious. Words
associated with “plagiarism” are of course such terms as “piracy”, “theft”, “stealing”, etc. whichhave helped to encourage and reinforce an image of criminality. But at the student level weneed to treat the subject with kid gloves. In some instances the same pitfalls encounteredby students are also encountered by academics. As Bowman (2004) notes “if a professional
writer can get into trouble via technology, how much more vulnerable to mistakes is thestudent researcher?” (p.7) In addition, Stubbings and Brine (2003) point to “many shades ofgrey in relation to plagiarism, including the definition and severity of the offence”. (p.42)
5.1 Pre-emptive plagiarism education

In my experience prevention is vastly preferable to detection, which is both time consuming
and unprofitable in the long run. We should not have to police our classrooms. What isrequired is to set a proper example and lay out the notions of proper academic conduct at an

112

A Mountain or a Mole Hill? Recent attitudes and remedial responses
toward plagiarism at higher education institutions in the West and Japan

early stage, particularly among freshmen, to instill an understanding of intellectual property
and a sense of ‘dishonesty’ before the friendship/peer-pressure begins.
There also seems to be a definite need for greater cooperation between media resource
centers and teaching staff, not so much as to conquer what may or may not be a growing
problem, but to prevent it from happening. Collaboration between library staff and teachers
can have positive results. One recent example of this is Vibiana Bowman’s 2004 resource
guide and CD-Rom “Tutorial for Educators and Librarians” (see Bibliography below).
Students should not be confused by style manuals but informed about the basics: citation
systems do not matter as long as acknowledgement is made for using someone else’s writing
or research (the MLA Handbook for Writers or Researchers, for example, is regrettably
long, perhaps indicative of an American tendency toward invective and verbalism). In theclassroom the practicing of summarizing and paraphrasing are essential as is guidance as tohow and when to quote. Explaining such matters as when is it necessary to acknowledge asource, or permissible to resort to translation software and encouraging the use of printed
sources along with the Internet, together with emphasis on the dangers of misinformation anderror likely to be incurred when citing electronic sources as opposed to printed ones should
also be a priority, especially given that the Japanese university curriculum does not encourage
independent writing or critical thought. We might also consider, here in Japan, making“study skills” and information literacy a required subject for all freshmen, even if only for one
semester.
Plagiarism will never be eradicated, but we can take positive measures toward preventing it
and instilling a sense of intellectual integrity among our students.
5.2 Recursive writing

Mallon (1989; 1991) offers some useful pedagogical strategies as proposed by academics
in the States, although he feels that they are only “further instances of the general dumbingdown and infantilzation of American college life.”
Bruce Leland of Western Illinois University recommends that professors ‘Watch [their]
students write. Ask them to bring notes or drafts to class, have short conferences about
the assignment, use peer groups to comment on drafts, ask for drafts to be submittedwith the final paper.’ Even worse, Mary Hricko, the Kent state librarian, suggests that
‘we can lessen the temptation to plagiarize in the way we organize our assignments’.

113慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

On her campus, ‘several instructors provide students with a list of required web sites
to examine. Although this procedure may appear restrictive, students learn how to use
specific reference materials and compare ways in which their classmates incorporated
the same sources into their assignment.’ (Mallon, 1989; 1991, p. 247)
Mallon, however, caustically comments that “instead of being asked to take all knowledge
for their province, students past voting age must have their hands held while crossing theinformation superhighway” (p.247) and adds: “some of the pedagogical strategies now being
advocated to keep students from plagiarizing seem like further instances of the general
dumbing-down and infantilization of American college life” (p.247). He goes on to cite
recommendations from certain college professors that students be watched as they write, thatthey bring notes to class, and ask for final drafts to be submitted.
This latter strategy, the present author has found, is effective in the Japanese case,whereas peer-marking, whereby fellow students comment on and correct text, usually
proves unproductive. Mallon quotes the librarian at Kent State University who suggests thattutors “place specific items on reserve for student research and provide students with a listof required web sites to examine. Although this procedure may appear restrictive, students
learn how to use specific reference materials and compare ways in which their classmatesincorporated the same sources into their assignment” (p.247). Again this is an approach
which, despite Mallon’s rather jaundiced view of it, the author agrees with.
5.3 Resources rather than recourses

Educators should be encouraged to refer to the extensive resources available giving
advice on plagiarism, its detection and how to respond. In this connection, a useful list ofresources is available on the Central Queensland University Homepage: [http://ahe.cqu.edu.
au/plagiarism.htm.] including Anti-Plagiarism sites. Some important resources include: The
Center for Intellectual Property (University of Maryland College) 1)
The Professional Development Collection [Educators] “Provides a highly specialized
collection of electronic information especially for professional educators, professional
librarians and education researchers.” The collection includes abstract and index coverage forover 585 well-known professional development titles, and searchable full text for 504 journals
covering the most current topics in the field of education.” 2)
Among the plethora of books being produced to turn the tide which, judging from the114

A Mountain or a Mole Hill? Recent attitudes and remedial responses
toward plagiarism at higher education institutions in the West and Japan

number of recent publications addressing the matter has turned into an industry in itself, arehandbooks like Charles Lipson’s 2004 manual Doing Honest Work in College. Yet however
well-intended such manuals are, there is also a danger that they can also serve to exacerbate
the problem by presenting the temptation to plagiarize. For example, Lipson states at the startof his book that in a Google search of “’Catcher in the Rye’ + phony” the top two results wereready-to-use term papers on the topic.
6 Conclusion

From an Asian perspective, the problem of plagiarism on campus may appear symptomaticof the American propensity to see everything on a large scale and proclivity for hyperbole.
But the problem (if there is one) may be deeper than that: Buranen (1999) makes the cutting
observation that in the U.S., while proclaiming a belief in the value of education “… a lookat the relative amount of money spent on it or the lack of positive media images suggeststhat maybe we [American people] do not value teaching and learning as highly as we tellourselves.” (pp.68-9) This might also apply to Japan or any other developed country for thatmatter. She goes on to say:... our frequent inability to recognize our own cultural values and biases may also be
at work in our beliefs about plagiarism Rather than stemming from our own morally
impeccable, confident proclamations about the value of education, the importanceof doing one’s own work and not stealing the fruit of someone else’s labor, and soon, many of our own attitudes as well as our indignation at perceived instances ofplagiarism may instead betray a deep suspicion of students themselves, especially,
perhaps, students from backgrounds and cultures very different from our own. Our
reaction may merely be anger and embarrassment masquerading as moral indignation,
because we have been “had on” by our students: we may have been taken in by astudent’s lovely essay and the evidence of growth this demonstrates (no doubt because
the students had such splendid guidance!) only to discover that it is not the student’s
own work after all. (Buranen, 1999, p.71)
In addition, as stated earlier, an over zealous reaction can have retrograde results, as witnessedby the 2004 case of the sophomore student at McGill University in Montreal, who challenged
the university policy on the issue of requiring students to submit essays to the Internet-based115慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

program called Turnitin, which compares type against every last document on the Internet,
with a database of some 15 million other documents (see Appendix). Any similarities to thatvast content show up within minutes on the system, side-by-side with the source material.,that verifies originality by comparing documents to thousands of others. He appealed to theuniversity senate committee and won. Respect for students’ rights is also imperative, as is theneed to strike a balance between creating an awareness of the problem and a tactful responsethat does not serve to aggravate it; it is now a molehill--- above all, here in Japan we must
prevent it from becoming, as it has in the U.S., a mountain. However, this does not preclude
further discussion of the topic.
Italian artist Alberto Sughi, by the way, whose work Yoshihiko Wada has been accused ofcopying, has said that he does not intend to sue the Japanese artist, taking the view that he “willsuffer enough social backlash”.

116

A Mountain or a Mole Hill? Recent attitudes and remedial responses
toward plagiarism at higher education institutions in the West and JapanNotes
1) [http://www.umuc.edu/distance/odell/cip/links_plagiarism.html]
2) [http://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp?profile=web&defaultdb=ehh]

Bibliography
Angélil-Carter, S. (2000) Stolen Language? Plagiarism in Writing. Harlow, England: Longman.
Banwell, J. (2003) ‘Chinese and South East Asian students’ perceptions of plagiarism and collusion,’
Northumbria University, Retrieved 9 June, 2005, from [www.jiscpas.ac.uk.]
Bethany, H. in collaboration with Christine Keenan and Peter Jemmeson, School of Design Engineeringand Computing, “International students and plagiarism: A review of the literature” Bournemouth
University (U.K.) The Centre for Academic Practice[http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/cap/research/research_support.html]
Bowman, V. ed. (2004) The Plagiarism Plague: A Resource Guide and CD-ROM Tutorial for Educators
and Librarians N.Y.: Neal-Schuman Pub. Inc.
Buranen, L. (1999) “But I Wasn’t Cheating: Plagiarism and Cross-Cultural Mythology” In L. Buranen & A.
Roy (Eds.), Perspectives on plagiarism and intellectual property in a postmodern world. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press, pp. 63-74.
Coren A. “Mary Magdalene, now she could spot four bestsellers when she saw them”. The Times, Wed.
March 15, 2006: Comment: 17
Decoo, Wilfried (2002) Crisis on Campus: Confronting Academic Misconduct. Cambridge, Mass.: The
MIT Press.
Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E.E., Shinohara, K., & Yasukawa, H. (1999). “College cheating in Japan and theUnited States”. Research in Higher Education 40 (3): 343-353.
Dryden, L. (1999) “A Distant Mirror or Through the Looking Glass? Plagiarism and intellectual property
in Japanese education. In L. Buranen & A. Roy (Eds.), Perspectives on plagiarism and intellectual

property in a postmodern world. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 75-85.
Dyson, A. “Cornered” The Age April 25, 2004
[http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/24/1082719670621.html?from=storyrh]
Edwards W. A. (1933) Plagiarism: An essay on good and bad borrowing Cambridge: The Minority Press.
Franklyn-Stokes A. and Newstead S. E. (1995) “Undergraduate Cheating: who does what and why?”

Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 20 (No. 2), 159-172.
Grinberg, E. “Student wins battle against plagiarism-detection requirement” CNN Court TV Wednesday,
January 21, 2004 [http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/21/ctv.plagiarism/]Hall B. (2004) “International students and plagiarism: a review of the literature.”[http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/centre-for-academic-practice/researchsupport.htm]
Harris, R. (March 7, 2002) “Anti-plagiarism Strategies for Research Papers.” VirtualSalt.
[www.virtualsalt.com/antiplag.htm.]

117慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

Introna L. [et al] (2003) “Cultural attitudes towards plagiarism: developing a better understanding of theneeds of students from diverse cultural backgrounds relating to issues of plagiarism”.
[http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/journals/index.php/IJEI/article/viewFile/25/17]
Lackie, R. J. and Michele D’Angelo-Long (2004), “It’s a Small World? Cross-Cultural Perspectives and
ESL Considerations” in Bowman (2004): 35-48.
Lipson, C. (2004). Doing Honest Work in College: How to prepare citations, avoid plagiarism, andachieve real academic success. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mallon C. (1989; rev. ed. 1991) Stolen Words. San Diego: Harcourt Books.
Ninnes, P., Aitchison, C. & Kalos, S., 1999. “Challenges to Stereotypes of International Students’ Prior
Educational Experience: undergraduate education in India” in Higher Education Research andDevelopment, 18 (3), 323-342.
Park, C. (2003). “In Other (People’s) Words: plagiarism by university students̶literature and lessons.”

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28 (5), 471-489.
Pecorari D. (1998) “Process citing: avoiding plagiarism in student writing”. The Japanese Learner 16[http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/education/eal/jl-archive/jl-bestof/31.pdf!]
Pickering J. and Hornby G. “Plagiarism and international students: A matter of values differences?”
ISANA: International Education Association, 16th Annual conference: “Internationalisation-Practical
Solutions: A Trans-Tasman workout”, Christchurch Nov 30 – Dec 2, 2005 (refereed paper)[http://www.ie-nz.com/Documents/Pickering%20and%20Hornby%20ISANA05.pdf]
Stubbings, R. and Brine A. (2003) “Plagiarism and the Role of the Library” Update magazine 2(12),42-44.
Williams, C. (1993) “Plagiarism: the need for an institutional policy.” Education Today, Vol. 43(No.1),
22-25.
Yamada K. (2003) “What Prevents ESL/EFL Writers from Avoiding Plagiarism?: analyses of 10 NorthAmerican College Websites.” System 31 (2): 247-258.

118

A Mountain or a Mole Hill? Recent attitudes and remedial responses
toward plagiarism at higher education institutions in the West and Japan

Appendix
By Emanuella Grinberg. Student wins battle against plagiarism-detection requirement CNN Court TV
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
[http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/21/ctv.plagiarism/]
CNN (Court TV) -- After refusing to submit his class work to a plagiarism-detection Web site, a 19-yearold sophomore has become the first college student to challenge university policy on the issue -- and win.
The senate committee at McGill University in Montreal sided last Thursday with sophomore Jesse
Rosenfeld, who argued that he should not be required to submit his essays to Turnitin.com, a Web sitethat verifies originality by comparing documents to thousands of others.
Though the ruling was a boon to student organizations across Canada and the United States who haveprotested use of the plagiarism-detection site, Turnitin.com insists it is in compliance with all related
copyright laws.
The conflict began in October, when Rosenfeld refused to hand in essays for his international
development studies class through the Web site. He received failing grades for his assignments.
Rosenfeld filed an appeal with the university senate committee. Afterward, his professor “reluctantly”
agreed to grade his papers without submitting them through the online plagiarism-detection program -giving him Bs and Cs for his work.
Rosenfeld said he had “an ethical and political problem” with the university’s policy of submitting student
work to Turnitin.com.
“I was having to prove I didn’t plagiarize even before my paper was looked at by my professor,” Rosenfeld
said, according to the Globe and Mail.
Rosenfeld wasn’t the only one concerned. Several on-campus groups have voiced opposition to the site,
and the national body representing all Canadian student organizations, the Canadian Federation ofStudents, recently took up a policy position against it.
“Of the 20 Canadian universities currently using the site, not one consulted with students in the decisionmaking process when signing on with Turnitin.com,” said Ian Boyko, national chairman of the CFS. “Thatin itself shows a lack of respect for students’ rights.”
Boyko also believes universities should not be permitted to turn over essays to sites like Turnitin.com,
which he said makes money off students’ work without their consent.
“The student is the author of the work, and deserves to be part of the decision as to where his work goes,”
Boyko said.
John Barrie, founder and president of Turnitin.com, said such accusations are groundless and madewithout due diligence.
“This is the first time since our inception in 1998, since millions of papers have gone through our site,that this issue has come up,” Barrie said. “We are following the letter of the law, and not one of the 3,000
universities who use our service would have signed contracts with us if we weren’t.”

119慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

Because student work exists in Turnitin.com’s database solely as digital fingerprints and not as collectionsof essays, Barrie disputes accusations that the company makes unfair use of students work.
“The value to our company is not in the collection of words and characters in an essay, but in the series ofnumbers derived from the essay once we transform those words and characters into digital fingerprints,”
Barrie said. “In short, the value to us is not derived from the student’s actual work.”
Barrie says in this way, Turnitin.com does not violate students’ copyrights to their work, adding thatstudents retain control over their copy.
“We don’t harm the free-market value of the work --a student can take their Macbeth essay to the market
and make millions,” he said.
But, according to CFS, sites like Turnitin.com present an even broader political issue.
“We see the use of sites like Turnitin.com as means of cutting corners,” Boyko said. “We think they are apoor substitute for trained individuals.”
A former professor who launched the site after students complained of the proliferation of plagiarism
because of the Internet, Barrie sees little merit in that argument.
“Human beings can’t detect plagiarism,” he said, and referred to a Rutgers University study that found 40
percent of students polled admitted they plagiarized at least once.
“Unless you apply a digital solution, it’s impossible. We have 13 seven-foot, computer racks to determine
if a student has lifted one line in an essay from the Internet.”
Acknowledgement: I am grateful to my colleague Nicholas Henck for his comments on an earlier draft ofthis paper.

120

Assessment in English Oral Communication for Keio Senior High School:
Working toward Improving Reliability and Validity

Assessment in English Oral Communication for
Keio Senior High School:
Working toward Improving Reliability and Validity
Jonathan Harrison
Namiko Mochihara
Abstract
Reliability and validity are important issues in language testing. This paper analyzes
the reliability and validity of the 2005 first semester Keio Senior High School Oral
Communication test. The items for this type of test are prepared individually by the parttime native English teachers and the full-time Japanese teachers who teach the Oral
Communication classes. Item analysis provides a basis to open a discussion on ways toimprove future test items, future tests, and methods used to create such evaluations.
Improving the quality of evaluation procedures is paramount to continuing program
development. Piloting is recommended to improve reliability and validity.

1. Rationale

At Keio Senior High School, the freshmen are tested twice a year as part of the evaluation
process for Oral Communication I, OCI, using tests similar to this test. The tests are createdeach term by a team of teachers aiming to cover the topics from the Departure textbook. The
other portion of the evaluation process is the individual student assessments done by therespective teachers on speaking tasks in the classroom. The Common European Frameworkof Reference (CEFR), which is a practical tool created by the Council of Europe for setting
clear standards to be attained at successive stages of language learning, was adopted by the
English Department as a reference by which students of various levels of language proficiency
who are studying with a variety of teachers, books, and learning materials could be judged.
This test is a measure of student listening comprehension written to reflect the lower levels of
the CEFR.

121

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

For administrative reasons, the test is prepared in a multiple choice format. This format
is practical as it allows for large numbers of students to be assessed in a short time. Eachquestion has four answers to choose from, and students are allowed to take notes throughout
the test. Students are given a test paper and a marksheet for this listening test which takes
50 minutes. The test consists of four parts divided into twelve sections: Section I evaluatesknowledge of vocabulary; Section II tests the students’ abilities to respond to short statements
and questions; Sections III to VI each consist of a short listening exercise with written
questions following; and sections VII to XII are each a listening text followed by spoken
questions which are not written on the test paper. The test being analyzed here consisted of
62 items.
Although much work is put into making the test, there is little follow-up after the scoringprocedures are completed. This paper will focus on four research areas. Reliability of thetest will be discussed in section 5. Reliability will be determined using the Cronbach-alpha.
Section 6 will analyze the validity of the test. Face validity, construct validity, and the levelof criterion related validity with the TOEIC Bridge Test will be discussed. In section 7,
item analysis and sectional analysis will be given. Item facility and item discrimination will
be used to evaluate items for difficulty and discrimination, and distractors will be analyzed
for effectiveness. Finally, suggestions for creating a more effective and efficient measure of
student proficiency will be made in section 8.
2. The framework for the course

The OCI course focuses on developing oral and communication skills and promotinginteraction between students in the target language. Class sizes range from 15 to 25 students
for these classes, and students are tracked into beginner, intermediate, or advanced levels
according to the results of the TOEIC Bridge Test. The upper two levels are taught by native
speakers of the English language, and the beginner level is taught by Japanese teachers ofEnglish. A MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology) approved
course book works as a notional/functional syllabus; the 2005 course book, which is currently
being used, is Departure . Instructors supplement this course book with activities andmaterials focusing on reading, writing, speaking, listening, vocabulary building, pronunciation,
grammar, and other areas which are believed to benefit the students and enhance theircommunicative abilities. Reading, writing, and grammar are also taught by Japanese teachersof English in the English I classes.

122

Assessment in English Oral Communication for Keio Senior High School:
Working toward Improving Reliability and Validity

3. The purpose of the test

The purpose of this test is as an achievement test as well as a proficiency test on listening
skills. This test allows students to be assessed by the whole department, not just by a single
teacher, allowing students the opportunity to demonstrate their skills. By giving the same test
to all of the students, one aim is to raise the students’ awareness of their learning processes.
A second aim is for the department to provide goals for the students based on the topics
discussed in the textbook, and, thirdly, to give the students a sense of achievement. This test,
which is administered twice a year at the end of each semester, is only a portion of the wholeevaluation process for the course; other elements, such as presentation and speaking skills,
ability to interact, attitude, and so on are evaluated in class by each instructor. The test will
be analyzed here as a norm-referenced test used to spread the students along a continuum
and as an achievement test covering functions and topics taught during the semester prior to
testing.
4. Overview of the results

Table 1. OCI Test Statistics
Central Tendency

Dispersion

N

M

mode

medianmidpoint

low-high

ranges

S

SEM

746

42

45

42

31.5

4-59

56

6.21

2.8

In September of 2005, 746 students took the OCI test. The results for the test form anormal distribution with a high of 59 and a low of 4 (See Table 1). The mid-point is 31.5 andmedian and mean are 42 creating a positively skewed curve. The most frequent score was
45. As the standard deviation was 6 points, approximately 70% of the students scored within
one standard deviation of the mean between 36 and 48 points. Thirteen percent scored two
standard deviations above the mean between 49 and 54 points, or two standard deviations
below the mean between 24 and 30. The remaining 2% of the students fell at each of the tipsof the curve (See Figure 1).

123慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

Figure 1. OCI Test Results
OCI TEST 200570

Frequencies

60
50
40

Series1

30
20
10
0

4

22

27

29

31

33

35

37

39

41

43

45

47

49

51

53

55

57

59

ScoresOverall, the test curve is not well-centered, yet scores are dispersed effectively as should be
the case with a norm-reference test. Additionally, the curve has a positive skew which makes
it effective as an achievement test showing that the majority of students scored roughly one
and one half standard deviations above the mid-point.
5. Reliability
5.1 Reliability coefficient & SEM

Reliability is the extent to which the results of a given test can be considered consistent if
the test were to be administered again. Using the Cronbach-alpha, an internal-consistency
strategy, the reliability coefficient was determined as .785 (Brown, 2005, pp. 177-179).
The standard error of measurement (SEM) is 2.8 (Brown, 2005, p. 189). This means that a
student who scored 51 could be expected to score between 48.2 and 53.8 about 79% of thetime if the test were given repeatedly.
5.2 Discussion of factors affecting the reliability of this test

The large group of students and the large range of abilities of those students contributed to
the reliability of this test (Henning, 1987, p. 78). With sixty-two items, the test is long enoughto be sufficiently reliable. The overall test design is good as it includes 4 types of items.
However, the test has both carefully written and poorly written items. As the test iscovering all levels, it is assessing a wide variety of material and not similar language material;

124

Assessment in English Oral Communication for Keio Senior High School:
Working toward Improving Reliability and Validity

therefore, reliability suffers slightly. Item analysis led to an understanding of some of themeasurement error due to poorly written items and administrative factors, such as 2 items
being incorrectly marked on the key will be discussed in section 7.
6. Validity
6.1 Face validity

Face validity, the perception of the population who administer and take the test that it isvalid in some meaningful way, is fairly high for several reasons. The name of the school has
high name recognition and is known to have high-expectations and high-quality programs,
teachers, and students. Much time and energy is divested into coordinating all of the parttime native speakers of English and involving them in the test making process. With a variety
of teachers from six different countries contributing to the test, it is created to test a variety
of skills, levels, and comprehension levels of various dialects and accents. This examinationis one of the students’ end of semester exams, and they know the test is used as part of theircourse grade. Students also realize that the test will allow them to understand their level in
relation to their peers. Because the levels of students range from beginner to near native, thetest is made to test multiple levels which makes the test valid for this group of learners.
6.2 Content validity

The Departure course book fulfills the role of a functional/notional syllabus. The teachers
have agreed that these are the functions, topics, and vocabulary to be taught. Vocabulary also
is taken from the English I required vocabulary text, Database 3000. The vocabulary sectionof the test is over material covered in multiple English classes throughout the semester. Itemsof the test cover the following functions/topics which are included in the course book: daily
life, sports, travel, shopping, part-time jobs, restaurants and ordering food, talking on thetelephone, weather, hobbies, and asking and giving directions.
6.3 Criterion related validity with the TOEIC Bridge Test

The TOEIC Bridge Test was designed by Educational Testing Services to measureemerging English Language competencies. Specifically designed for beginner to intermediatelevel students, it is a written test with only listening and reading sections. The TOEIC Bridge
Test is administered in exactly the same fashion as the full TOEIC test. The OCI test is notconstructed with the same format; however, both are listening proficiency tests.

125慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

Figure 2. Plot for Validity Coefficient

OCI TestPlot for Validity Coeﬃcient
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Series1

0

50

100

150

200

TOEIC Bridge

The validity coefficient between the Keio High School OCI Test and the TOEIC Bridge
Test was .73. The scatter plot graph (Figure 2) illustrates the positive correlation between
the two tests. The percentage of overlap between the two measures, the coefficient ofdetermination, is .53. One possible reason for this weak positive correlation could be that thefunctions and topics measured by the TOEIC Bridge Test are different than those of the OCI
Test. Suggestions for increasing the validity of future tests will be made in the conclusion.
7. Item and section analysis
7.1 Item facility and item discrimination

Table 2 summarizes the percentage of correct answers for the test items (item facility:IF) as well as the ability of the test item to separate the better performing students from thepoorer performing ones (item discrimination: ID). For individual items values, see Appendix
A. Brown (2005, p.75) states the IF range of .3-.7 as good for norm-referenced tests. The“Acceptable” values would not be acceptable on a normal norm-referenced test. However, as

this test is used for achievement purposes as well, “Acceptable (high and low)” and “Acceptable(easy)” categories have been added. “Acceptable (easy and high)” allow for beginner level
students to correctly answer and feel confident about a number of items. The “Acceptable(low) ” area separates intermediate and advanced level students as the items are morechallenging.

126

Assessment in English Oral Communication for Keio Senior High School:
Working toward Improving Reliability and Validity

Table 2. Criteria for Item Analysis
Item Facility

Item Discrimination

Acceptable (easy).90-1.00

Very Good>.4

Acceptable (high).71-.89Good.30-.39Good.30-.70

Acceptable.20-.29

Acceptable (low).20-.29

Poor

Poor: too difficult

0.0-.19<.19(Brown, 2005, p.75)

Table 3 summarizes the results of the items performance using the above criteria. This test
is comprised of a total of 62 items.
Table 3. Item Tallies According to Item Facility and Item Discrimination
Item Facility

Item Discrimination

Performance Level

Number of Items

Performance Level

Number of Items

Acceptable (easy)

18

Very Good

Acceptable (high)

16

Good

9

Good

21

Acceptable

17

Acceptable (low)

6

Poor

29

Poor: too difficult

1

7

IF analysis shows that approximately a third of the items were acceptable (easy), 16 items
were acceptable (high), about a third were good, and 6 were acceptable (low). The acceptable(high and easy) items are created to function to show achievement in the beginner andbeginner-intermediate levels. Having these items on the test allows for student confidence.
Acceptable (high) items discriminate between beginner and intermediate levels. The good
items function, as items on a norm-reference test should, to separate all levels. When writtenwell, acceptable (low) questions separate the upper intermediate level students from theadvanced level students.
Item discrimination statistics show that roughly half of the items discriminate at acceptableor higher levels, and just under half of the questions are poor discriminators. For a normal
norm-referenced test, items which discriminate poorly would be omitted or improved, andhaving 29 of 62 items with poor discrimination would be terrible. As with norm-referenced
tests, one purpose of this test is to spread the students along a continuum; however, thistest also functions as a criterion referenced test. Items specific to level are included to show127

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

achievement for beginner level students are poor discriminators (Henning, 1987, p.50). 16of the 29 poor discriminators are categorized as acceptable (easy) meaning that more than
90% of students understand these items. These items shift the ideal curve, with IF of .5, fora norm-referenced test more toward our ideal of a bell-curve with the mean IF of .75. The
remaining 13 items had various item facility values; one of which was too difficult, yet analysis
revealed it was incorrectly keyed.
To locate items which perform poorly, item facility, item discrimination, and distractor
analysis were taken into account (See Table 4). There were 7 items, marked (**), which
proved to be poorly written, misleading, or which had the correct answer marked incorrectlyon the key. Items where distractors were more popular choices than the correct answer led to
the following discoveries. Q40 and Q51, 2 of the poor discriminators, were incorrectly marked
on the answer key. Q15, also a poor discriminator, was written poorly as it had multiple
correct answers. Poorly worded questions and answers on Q28, Q39, Q48, and Q52, ledstudents to choose distractors over the correct answers. This means that a minimum of 11%of the 21% variance was due to poorly written, misleading, and incorrectly keyed items. If thistest had been piloted, variance could have been reduced to roughly 10%.
7.2 Section analysis

Section and item analysis reveal that many of the sections had a subtle positive skew or anearly normal skew which for the most part means the section was balanced with questionsof varying difficulty. As mentioned earlier, an average IF of .5 is ideal; an average IF between.5 and .75 in each section would create a positively-skewed curve with a normal distribution.
Also if sectional IF averages were within that range, it would mean that item difficulty is
distributed well within each section and students are being challenged during every part of
the test. The average IF for this test at .68 was ideal for our purposes.

128

Assessment in English Oral Communication for Keio Senior High School:
Working toward Improving Reliability and Validity

Harrison/Mochihara 11(**Incorrectly keyed or poorly written item)
Table
keyed or poorly written item)
Table4.4.Individual
Individual Item
Item Performance
Performance (**Incorrectly
Section I

Section II

Section III**

Section IV

Section V

Section VI**

Section VII

Section VIII

Section IX****

Section X

Section XI

Section XII

**
**
**

Q
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62

IF
acceptable (high)acceptable(easy)
goodacceptable (high)acceptable (high)acceptable (high)goodacceptable(easy)
goodacceptable (high)acceptable (high)acceptable(easy)
acceptable(easy)
acceptable (high)acceptable (low)acceptable(easy)
acceptable(easy)
acceptable (high)acceptable(easy)
acceptable(easy)
acceptable (high)acceptable(easy)
acceptable(easy)
acceptable(easy)
acceptable(easy)
acceptable(easy)
acceptable(easy)
acceptable (low)
good
good
acceptable(easy)
acceptable (high)acceptable(easy)
acceptable(easy)
acceptable (high)acceptable (high)goodacceptable (high)
good
good
acceptable(easy)
acceptable (high)
good
good
good
good
good
good
good
good
poor: too difficult
acceptable (low)goodacceptable (high)acceptable (high)
good
good
acceptable (low)goodacceptable (low)acceptable (low)good

ID and comments
good
poor
poor
acceptable
acceptable
acceptable
good
poor
good
poor
acceptable
poor
poor
good
poor (multiple answers possible: A,B,C)
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
acceptable
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor (A,B distractors popular as question is misleading)very good
acceptable
poor
poor
poor
poor
acceptable
good
good
acceptable
good (B distractor popular as correct answer is poorly worded)poor (neg); (answer incorrect on key)poor
acceptablevery goodvery good
acceptablevery good
acceptable
good (B,C,D distractors popular as correct answer is poorly worded)very goodvery goodpoor(zero); (answer incorrect on key)poor (C distractor is popular as question and distractors poorly worded)
acceptable
good
acceptablepoor
very good
acceptable (D distractor is popular but question is well-written)
acceptable
poor (B distractor is popular but question is well-written)
acceptable (B distractor is popular but question is well-written)
acceptable

129慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

Table 5. Section Analysis
Central Tendency

Dispersion

SUBTESTS

N

k

M

mode

high-low

ranges

S

IF

I

746

10

7.75

8

median midpoint
8

6

10-2

9

1.51

0.77

II*

746

5

3.79

4

4

3

5-1

5

0.77

0.76

III

746

3

2.82

3

3

1.5

3-0

4

0.46

0.94

IV

746

4

3.66

4

4

2

4-0

5

0.62

0.92

V

746

5

4.73

5

5

2.5

5-0

6

0.65

0.95

VI*

746

3

1.34

1

1

1.5

3-0

4

0.83

0.45

VII

746

5

4.58

5

5

2.5

5-0

6

0.7

0.92

VIII*

746

5

2.9

3

3

2.5

5-0

6

1.08

0.58

IX

746

3

2.26

2

2

1.5

3-0

4

0.74

0.75

X*

746

5

2.29

2

2

2.5

5-0

6

1.3

0.46

XI*

746

4

1.46

2

1

2

4-0

5

0.9

0.36

XII

746

10

4.62

4

5

5

10-0

11

1.78

0.46

Referring to the data in Table 5, sections I and IX work very well for our purposes. Sections
III, IV, V, and VII were extremely positively skewed meaning that nearly all test-takers foundthese sections easy. Sections II, VI, VIII, X and XI(*) had one or more items which wereincorrectly marked on the key or which were written poorly thus affecting students’ scoresand the reliability of the test.
7.3 Discussion of the effectiveness of each section

Section I Vocabulary
In this section an audio clip of a phrase or a short sentence is played which is followed bya question asking about the meaning of one of the words from the phrase or sentence. The
students choose from 4 choices on their answer sheet. The source of the vocabulary for thistest is levels 1 to 4 from the Database 3000 text, which is the required text for the first year
students in the English program.
Out of ten items the mean was 7.75. The range was 10-2 and the standard deviation was
high. The average IF for this section was 77%. This section functioned well to disperse
students, yet item analysis reveals that two of the questions were acceptably easy or
distractors were poor as more than 90% of the students answered them correctly.

130Assessment in English Oral Communication for Keio Senior High School:
Working toward Improving Reliability and Validity

Section II Stimulus-Response
Section II consists of 5 stimulus-response items where students must choose the best
response to a short statement or question after an audio clip has been played.
With a mean of 3.79, most of the students did well here. Three of the questions were quite
easy. One was of medium difficulty, and one was difficult with only 21% on the students
answering it correctly. See item 15 below:
Q15 (Hi. Can I take your order?)a) No, I’m busy.
b) I’ll have the special.
c) Yes.
d) Why?

For this question, 68% of the students chose the simple answer of “ Yes.” The more complex
answer was an actual order, answer b, which only 21% of the students chose. Ten percentof the students chose answer a, which could also be correct. This item is poorly written andshould be reworded as all of the answers are acceptable under different circumstances.
Section III, IV, V and VI Short Dialogue with Written Questions
For these sections, a short dialogue is played, and test takers then must answer three tofive questions. Students must read the questions from the test paper and choose an answer.
Sections III and IV are played twice, while sections V and VI are only heard once.
These sections were extremely easy for the students as the scores were high, and the mean
was less than a half of a point from a perfect score. For all of the questions in these sections,the distractors did not perform or the questions were easy (See Q19 below). Only 2 of 12questions had distractors that minimally functioned.
Q19 What sport does Bill like to play?
a) tennisb) watching TVc) baseballd) golf

131

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

The item analysis reveals that 98% of the test-takers answered with choice d. The otheranswers received roughly 1 percent each. This question although quite simple could bemade more complex by using more challenging distractors, such as replacing the non-sportof “watching TV ” with “miniature golf.” Most items in these sections performed with similar
results.
Section VI had 3 questions which proved to be difficult as the mean score was 1.34.
This section spread the students out a little more than the previous three sections of thetest. There may be a few reasons for this. One reason for this is the recording was from a
professional source as the previous sections were created by Keio’s native English teachers.
Although the quality of the recording was better and the speech clearer, the dialogue wasalso faster and the items more detailed which seems to have affected the scores. Anotherreason is that one item, Q28, may be considered misleading as the answer is given in the text,
but the answer in not part of the choices the students can choose from, the answer being“None of the above.” This item has been labeled misleading because the 3 distractors are ofgrammatical similarity leading students the answer a different question, “How long does Davework?”
Q28 What are Dave’s working hours?
a) 4 hours a dayb) 8 hours a dayc) 11 hours a dayd) None of the above.

Sections VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, and XII Dialogues with Spoken Questions
As in the previous three sections, a dialogue is played and three to five spoken questions are
asked. The listening texts for sections VII and VIII are repeated a second time, but students
only have a chance to hear Section IX once.
Similar to sections III, VI, and V, the mean of the students’ scores for Section VII wasnearly a perfect score as 80% of the questions were quite simple for the students.
The mean for section VIII was 2.9 out of a range from 0 to 5. The standard deviation wasover one point which means this section did separate students; however, not for the rightreasons. There were a number of problems with this section. The recording of this section

132

Assessment in English Oral Communication for Keio Senior High School:
Working toward Improving Reliability and Validity

was difficult to understand due to poor reading of the text. Three of the questions were of
medium difficulty, IF between .3 and .7 . One of the remaining questions, Q39, could bedesigned better as the distractors were written as specific details and the answer was anunspecified action. The other, Q40, had a negative item discrimination. The answer on the
key was incorrect; therefore, students were mis-scored on this item.
Q39 (Why can’t Parker come to the phone?)a) He doesn’t want tob) He is not at homec) He is busy doing something (suggested change: taking a bath)d) He is asleep

As with section VI, section IX is a professionally made recording. However, as opposed
to section VI, the answers are well-written using parallel grammar structures with minimal
differences which are quicker for students to read. The mean was 2.26 out of three points.
This section is balanced perfectly with one easy, one medium, and one difficult item.
Section X is a long dialogue followed by questions which are spoken. This listening text isrepeated twice in this section. Out of a possible 5-items, this section had a mean of 2.29 anda standard deviation of 1.30. This section did differentiate between students, and if graphedwould have a nearly normal distribution. This part was difficult for the students as on each of
the questions, less than 61 percent of the students answered them correctly.
Section XI is a monologue which is played for the students only once. This section had amean of 1.46 and a range of 0 to 4. Two of the four questions in this section were written
well with good distractors. However, Q51 had a negative item discrimination because it was
keyed incorrectly; therefore, students were mis-scored on this item. Out of 4 choices, 26% of
the students answered item 52 correctly, yet 41% of the students chose distractor “c”. As nopiloting is done, only upon review was this item found to be confusing as there was no clear
answer from the listening text.
The final section is a single reading of a magazine article by one teacher followed by ten
spoken questions. This section was one of the more difficult and one of the longest subtests
being 10 -items. The distribution was quite normal with a mean of 4.6 and a standard
deviation of 1.78. This section separated students the most. The multiple-choice answers
were short for 9 of the 10 questions which allowed students to be able to read them quite133

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

easily. Although three of the questions in this section were answered correctly by less than
25% of the students, the items were well-written. One item which proved to be a very good

item in regard to difficult and discrimination was Q57 which had and IF of .41 and ID of.40. Each distractor was chosen by roughly 20 percent of the test-takers, and 40 percentof the students chose the correct answer. The question and the answer choices are easy tounderstand, and the answers to choose from are short and easy to read quickly and efficiently.
Q57 (What is the profession of Jonathan Jones?)a) Engineering.
b) Making TV commercials.
c) Photography.
d) Gardening.

7.4 Overall distribution of correct answers

Analysis of the total percentages of answers out of 62 shows 24% were “a,” 18% were “b,”34% were “c,” and 24% were “d.” For this test, the answers are distributed well. To insure

a good distribution, future tests should be analyzed before being administered to equallydistribute the answers between the choices at roughly 25% for each a, b, c, and d.
8. Suggestions for Improvement
8.1 Suggestions for Improving Reliability and Validity

Reliability is fair. To improve reliability, variance due to controllable factors should be
minimized. For example, 7 items (See Table 4 or Appendix A) were incorrectly keyed,
misleading, or poorly written. Items like these can easily be identified by creating a piloting
program. Piloting items on a different group of students with similar ability would be ideal;
however, this would call for a few major changes in the current program. A minor change
would be to first pilot the OCI tests on the groups of teachers which create the examinations.
Those who brought the tests into being would obtain first-hand knowledge of how welltheir items function. This change could be initiated at the beginning of the school year byadding an official two hour per year, paid or unpaid, test piloting duty for teachers involvedin this process. After test creation, teachers could pilot the test during free periods on theirindividual schedules.

134

Assessment in English Oral Communication for Keio Senior High School:
Working toward Improving Reliability and Validity

Secondly, as nearly 30% of the items on the test were extremely easy for the students,
piloting the items early with groups of similar students might increase reliability as items withhigher item discrimination values could be stored in an item bank. In this way, items from the
90 th percentile, the 80 th percentile, the 70 th percentile, etc., could be included in future tests

to vary the level of item difficulty. Piloting would also allow test makers to balance sections
with easy, medium level, and difficult questions. Each section could be designed to have IF
averages between Brown’s ideal of .5 and our ideal of .75, and this would lead to the tests
having ideal average IF values as well.
Validity can also be improved as course content becomes more defined, and this, in turn,would allow future test content to become more defined. If topics, situations, grammar, andvocabulary are chosen as content to be mastered for different levels, then items for testing
can reflect these areas and future tests will have higher validity.
Threats to reliability are threats to validity; therefore, improved item writing should be apriority. One method to improve item writing would be through workshops to educate parttime teachers or by creating item writing guidelines which part-time teachers could refer towhen making test items. However, guidelines do not necessitate better item creation as thecauses for poor item writing may lie deeper. This only reiterates the importance of adding
piloting as it would both allow for discovery of poor items and motivate test item writers towrite quality items prior to piloting.
9. Conclusion

This test upon analysis proved to have high reliability (r=.79) as an evaluation tool forstudents of various levels, and validity was demonstrated through a weak, positive correlation
with the TOEIC Bridge Test. Reliability and validity can be improved by instituting someform of piloting program to avoid errors in item creation and administration, such asincorrectly keyed, misleading, and poorly written items. However, without making changes tothe current method of test creation, simple errors which accounted for 11% of the variance on
this test will doubtfully be avoided. With more discussion, the program can develop avenues
for improvement with further defined roles for those participating in test creation and test
analysis.
Further analysis of tests is recommended as it will allow for a more thorough discussion ofreliability and validity for this type of test. In the future a more carefully planned study should
be done to measure validity of this type of test against more than one other measure. This will

135

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

lead to a truer picture of validity. Other areas for further study include the most cost effectivemeans to develop a more reliable and valid testing program, if a speaking portion of the test
can be added to efficiently measure speaking performance in the target language, and how
can the existing testing program be adjusted to allow for piloting and continued analysis oftests.

136

Assessment in English Oral Communication for Keio Senior High School:
Working toward Improving Reliability and Validity

Harrison/Mochihara 20
Harrison/Mochihara
Harrison/Mochihara
20 20Appendix A
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
AA A
Item Analysis: Item Facility, Item Discrimination, Distractor Analysis
Item Analysis:
Item Facility,
Item Discrimination,
Distractor
Analysis**
Incorrectly
keyed Analysis
or poorly written item
Item Analysis:
Item Facility,
Item Discrimination,
Distractor**
Incorrectly**
Incorrectly
keyed or
keyed
poorlyorwritten
poorly item
written item
Q㧝
Question
QuestionIF
0.73
Q㧝
Question
IF upperIF 0.91
0.73
lowerIF upper
0.55
IF upper
0.91
ID lowerIF lower
0.36
IF
0.55
ID
0.36
Answer
ID a
A
AnswerAnswer
a 73
B
10
A
A
73
C
7
B
B
10
D
11
C
C
7
D
11
D

Q㧞
0.99
Q㧞
Q㧝
0.99
1.00
0.73
0.96
1.00
0.91
0.96
0.04
0.55
0.04
b
0.36
b
a 0
99
73
0
99
1
10
0
1
7
0
11

Q3
0.68
Q㧞
Q3
0.68
0.77
0.99
0.59
0.77
1.00
0.59
0.18
0.96
c0.18
0.04
cb 2
2
6
0
68
99
6
25
68
1
25
0

Q4
0.75
Q4
Q3
0.75
0.89
0.68
0.61
0.89
0.77
0.61
0.28
0.59
0.28
d
0.18
d
c 1
13
1
2
13
11
6
75
11
68
75
25

Q5
0.76
Q5
Q4
0.76
0.89
0.75
0.61
0.89
0.61
0.28
0.28
d
d 12
12
4
1
7
13
4
76
11
7
76
75

Q6
0.86
Q6
Q5
0.86
0.95
0.76
0.72
0.95
0.89
0.72
0.23
0.61
0.23
b
0.28
b
d 1
86
12
1
86
10
4
10
4
7
4
76

Q7
0.52
Q7
Q6
0.52
0.70
0.86
0.35
0.70
0.95
0.35
0.72
0.35
d
0.23
d
b 4
12
4
1
12
32
86
52
32
10
52
4

Q8
0.93
Q8
Q7
0.93
0.97
0.52
0.87
0.97
0.70
0.87
0.10
0.35
0.10
d
0.35
d 4
1
4
2
12
1
93
32
2
93
52

Q9
0.68
Q9
Q8
0.68
0.87
0.93
0.48
0.87
0.97
0.48
0.38
0.87
0.38
d
0.10
d 12
13
12
4
13
7
1
68
7
2
68
93

Q10
0.87
Q10
Q9
0.87
0.92
0.68
0.77
0.92
0.87
0.77
0.15
0.48
0.15
a
0.38
a
d 87
87
2
12
9
13
2
2
9
7
2
68

Q11
0.86
Q11
Q10
0.86
0.95
0.87
0.73
0.95
0.92
0.73
0.22
0.77
0.22
c
0.15
ca 1
4
87
1
86
4
2
86
8
9
8
2

Q12
0.99
Q12
Q11
0.99
1.00
0.86
0.99
1.00
0.95
0.99
0.00
0.73
0.00
a
0.22
a
c 99
99
1
1
0
4
0
86
0
8

Q13
0.94
Q13
Q12
0.94
0.99
0.89
0.99
1.00
0.89
0.10
0.99
0.10
b
0.00
b
a 3
94
99
3
94
0
1
2
0
2
0

Q14
0.78
Q14
Q13
0.78
0.94
0.59
0.94
0.99
0.59
0.35
0.89
0.35
c
0.10
cb 3
3
7
78
94
7
12
78
0
12
2

Question
Q17
Question
Q17
IF
0.97
Question
IF upperIF 1.00
0.97
lowerIF upper
0.93
IF upper1.00
ID lowerIF lower
0.07
IF
0.93
AnswerID c0.07
ID
Answerc 1
A
Answer
B
A
A
1
C
97
B
B
1
D
1
C
C
97
D
D
1

Q18
Q18
0.89
Q17
0.89
0.98
0.97
0.80
0.98
1.00
0.80
0.18
0.93
a
0.18
0.07
a
c 90
90
5
1
5
1
1
97
5
1

Q19
Q19
0.97
Q18
0.97
1.00
0.89
0.93
1.00
0.98
0.93
0.06
0.80
d
0.06
0.18
d
a 1
1
90
1
5
98
1
5
98
1

Q20
Q20
0.95
Q19
0.95
0.98
0.97
0.91
0.98
1.00
0.91
0.07
0.93
b
0.07
0.06
b
d 2
95
2
1
95
1
1
2
98
2

Q21
Q21
0.82
Q20
0.82
0.93
0.95
0.72
0.93
0.98
0.72
0.22
0.91
0.22
c0.07
cb 0
9
0
2
82
95
9
82
9
1
9
2

Q22
Q22
0.92
Q21
0.92
0.96
0.82
0.86
0.96
0.93
0.86
0.10
0.72
0.10
a
0.22
a
c 93
93
4
0
4
1
9
3
82
1
3
9

Q23
Q23
0.92
Q22
0.92
0.99
0.82
0.99
0.96
0.82
0.17
0.86
0.17
d
0.10
d
a 2
3
93
2
3
4
92
3
1
92
3

Q24
Q24
0.92
Q23
0.92
0.98
0.83
0.98
0.99
0.83
0.15
0.82
0.15
a
0.17
a
d 92
92
7
2
7
0
3
0
3
92
0

Q25
Q25
0.98
Q24
0.98
1.00
0.92
0.95
1.00
0.98
0.95
0.05
0.83
0.05
c0.15
ca 0
1
92
0
98
1
7
98
0
0

Q26
Q26
0.96
Q25
0.96
1.00
0.98
0.93
1.00
0.93
0.07
0.95
0.07
c
0.05
c 1
1
0
97
1
97
1
98
1
0

Q27
Q27
0.95
Q26
0.95
0.99
0.96
0.92
0.99
1.00
0.92
0.07
0.93
0.07
a
a
c 96
96
3
1
3
2
1
0
97
2
0
1

Q29
Q29
0.67
Q28
0.67
0.88
0.21
0.48
0.88
0.32
0.48
0.40
0.14
0.40
b
0.18
b
d 8
67
35
8
67
16
32
16
8
12
21
8

Question
Q33
QuestionIF
0.96
Question
Q33
IF upperIF 1.00
0.96
lowerIF upper
0.89
IF upper1.00
IF lowerIF lower
0.89
ID
0.11
AnswerID a
ID
0.11
A
AnswerAnswer
a 96
B
1
A
A
96
C
2
B
B
1
C
2
D
1
C
D
D
1

Q34
0.98
Q34
Q33
0.98
1.00
0.96
0.95
1.00
0.95
0.05
0.89
c0.05
0.11
ca 1
0
96
1
98
0
1
98
1
2
1

Q35
0.78
Q35
Q34
0.78
0.89
0.98
0.66
0.89
1.00
0.66
0.24
0.95
d
0.24
0.05
d
c 1
16
1
16
6
0
6
78
98
78
1

Q36
0.77
Q36
Q35
0.77
0.92
0.78
0.54
0.92
0.89
0.54
0.38
0.66
c0.38
0.24
cd 3
3
7
1
77
16
7
77
13
6
13
78

Q37
0.53
Q37
Q36
0.53
0.73
0.77
0.38
0.73
0.92
0.38
0.35
0.54
b
0.35
0.38
b
c 8
53
8
3
53
33
7
33
6
77
13
6

Q38
Q38
0.82
Q37
0.94
0.82
0.53
0.72
0.94
0.73
0.72
0.22
0.38
0.22
a
0.35
a
b 83
83
12
8
12
4
53
4
1
33
1
6

Q42
Q42
0.80
Q41
0.92
0.80
0.94
0.70
0.92
1.00
0.70
0.22
0.89
0.22
c0.11
cb 7
7
0
81
94
7
81
6
4
6
1

Q43
Q43
0.52
Q42
0.73
0.52
0.80
0.32
0.73
0.92
0.32
0.41
0.70
0.41
b
0.22
b
c 32
52
32
7
52
8
7
8
9
81
9
6

Q50
0.43
Q50
Q49
0.43
0.69
0.61
0.26
0.69
0.82
0.26
0.43
0.41
d
0.43
0.41
d
c 10
10
27
21
27
20
15
20
43
61
43
3

Q51
0.16
Q51
Q50
0.16
0.17
0.43
0.17
0.69
0.17
0.00
0.26
c0.00
0.43
cd 54
54
15
10
15
16
27
16
14
20
**
14
43
**

Q52
0.26
Q52
Q51
0.26
0.28
0.16
0.19
0.28
0.17
0.19
0.10
0.17
d
0.10
0.00
d
c 16
16
17
54
17
41
15
41
26
16
**
26
14
**

Q53
Q53
0.48
Q52
0.62
0.48
0.26
0.36
0.62
0.28
0.36
0.26
0.19
d
0.26
0.10
d 7
37
16
7
37
6
17
48
41
6
48
26

Q54
Q54
0.71
Q53
0.87
0.71
0.48
0.55
0.87
0.62
0.55
0.31
0.36
0.31
c0.26
cd 7
12
7
12
71
37
71
10
6
10
48

Q40
Q40
0.35
Q39
0.33
0.35
0.43
0.39
0.33
0.64
0.39
-0.1
0.27
b
0.36
-0.1
b
c 26
26
35
3
35
27
49
27
12
43
** 12
6
**
Q56
Q56
0.49
Q55
0.58
0.49
0.81
0.39
0.58
0.92
0.39
0.19
0.66
0.19
d
0.26
d
c 11
11
32
10
32
8
5
49
81
8
49
4

Q41
Q41
0.94
Q40
1.00
0.94
0.35
0.89
1.00
0.33
0.89
0.11
0.39
0.11
b-0.1
b 0
94
26
0
94
4
35
4
1
27
12
1

Question
Q49
QuestionIF
0.61
Question
Q49
IF upperIF 0.82
0.61lowerIF upper
0.41
IF upper
0.82
ID lowerIF lowerIF
0.41
AnswerID c0.41
IDA
AnswerAnswer
c 21
B
15
A
A
21
C
61
B
B
15
D
3
C
C
61
D
D
3

Q39
Q39
0.43
Q38
0.64
0.43
0.82
0.27
0.64
0.94
0.27
0.36
0.72
0.36
c0.22
ca 3
49
83
3
49
43
12
43
6
4
** 6
1
**
Q55
Q55
0.81
Q54
0.92
0.81
0.71
0.66
0.92
0.87
0.66
0.26
0.55
0.26
c0.31
c 10
10
5
7
81
12
5
81
4
71
10
4

Q28
Q28
0.21
Q27
0.21
0.32
0.95
0.14
0.32
0.99
0.14
0.18
0.92
0.18
d
0.07
d
a 35
35
32
96
32
12
3
12
21
2
** 21
0
**
Q44
Q44
0.66
Q43
0.87
0.66
0.52
0.45
0.87
0.73
0.45
0.42
0.32
0.42
a
0.41
a
b 66
66
6
32
11
52
6
11
17
8
17
9

**
Q57
Q57
0.41
Q56
0.63
0.41
0.49
0.23
0.63
0.58
0.23
0.40
0.39
0.40
d
0.19
d 21
21
20
11
20
18
32
18
41
8
41
49

Q58
0.26
Q58
Q57
0.26
0.36
0.41
0.16
0.36
0.63
0.16
0.20
0.23
0.20
a
0.40
a
d 26
26
18
21
18
38
20
38
18
18
41

Q59
0.56
Q59
Q58
0.56
0.69
0.26
0.41
0.69
0.36
0.41
0.27
0.16
0.27
a
0.20
a 56
56
20
26
20
16
18
16
8
38
18
8

Q60
0.24
Q60
Q59
0.24
0.30
0.56
0.17
0.30
0.69
0.17
0.12
0.41
0.12
c
0.27
ca 22
22
43
56
43
24
20
24
11
16
11
8

Q16
0.96
Q15
Q16
0.99
0.96
0.21
0.92
0.99
0.30
0.07
0.92
0.13
0.07
a
0.17
ba 96
1
96
10
2
21
1
1
68
2
1

Q16
0.96
0.99
0.92
0.07
a
96
1
2
1

Q30
Q30
0.46
Q29
0.46
0.59
0.67
0.37
0.59
0.88
0.37
0.23
0.48
0.23
c
0.40
cb 19
19
8
19
46
67
46
16
16
8

Q15
0.21
Q15
Q14
0.30
0.78
0.21
0.13
0.94
0.30
0.17
0.59
0.13
b0.17
0.35
b
c 10
10
21
3
21
68
7
1
78
68
** 121
**
Q31
Q31
0.98
Q30
1.00
0.46
0.98
0.95
0.59
1.00
0.06
0.37
0.95
a0.06
0.23
a
c 98
0
19
98
1
190
461
161

**
Q32
Q32
0.89
Q31
0.89
0.95
0.98
0.83
0.95
1.00
0.83
0.12
0.95
0.12
b
0.06
ab 1
90
98
1
90
2
0
2
7
1
7
1

Q32
0.89
0.95
0.83
0.12
b
1
90
2
7

**
Q45
Q45
0.51
Q44
0.65
0.51
0.66
0.39
0.65
0.87
0.39
0.25
0.45
0.25
c
0.42
ca 15
15
26
66
26
51
6
51
8
11
17
8

Q46
0.47
Q46
Q45
0.47
0.75
0.51
0.20
0.75
0.65
0.20
0.55
0.39
0.55
c
0.25
c 3
30
15
3
30
47
26
47
20
51
20
8

Q47
0.30
Q47
Q46
0.47
0.47
0.30
0.20
0.75
0.47
0.20
0.28
0.20
c0.55
0.28
c 10
10
53
3
30
30
53
30
8
47
208

Q48
0.36
Q47
Q48
0.55
0.36
0.30
0.20
0.55
0.47
0.20
0.35
a
0.35
0.28
ca 36
9
36
10
12
53
9
12
42
30
** 42
8
**

Q48
0.36
0.55
0.20
0.35
a
36
9
12
42
**

Q61
0.20
Q61
Q60
0.20
0.36
0.24
0.08
0.36
0.30
0.08
0.28
0.17
0.28
d
0.12
d
c 28
28
32
22
32
19
43
19
20
24
20
11

Q62
0.47
Q62
Q61
0.47
0.59
0.20
0.35
0.59
0.36
0.35
0.24
0.08
0.24
c
0.28
cd 19
19
21
28
21
47
32
47
13
19
13
20

AVG
0.68
AVG
Q62
0.79
0.47
0.68
0.58
0.59
0.79
0.21
0.35
0.58
0.24
0.21

AVG
0.68
0.79
0.58
0.21

c 24
18
19
24
34
21
18
24
47
34
13
24

24
18
34
24

**

137

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

References
Brown, J. D. (2005). Testing in Language Programs. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Database 3000. (2004). Tokyo: Kirihara.
Departure: Oral Communication I. (2003). Tokyo: Taishukan.
Henning, G. (1987). A Guide to Language Testing. Cambridge (Mass.): Newberry.
The Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Cambridge:
Cambridge.

要約

本稿 は 慶應義塾高等学校 において 平成17年度前期 に 行 われたオーラルコミュニケーション
Ⅰ（OCI）のリスニングテストの分析を行った結果を報告するものである。
本テストは高等学校において OCI の授業担当者（日本人専任教員及びネイティブ英語講師）
によって作成されたものである。習熟度別の授業を展開しているこの科目において全クラス共

通で実施している本テストは達成度テストと、実力テストの二つの役割を担っている。本テス
トの信頼性と妥当性を分析することを通じて今後作成する問題・テストの質を向上させると共に、テスト開発手順の検討・見直しに必要な課題を明確にすることを狙いとした。

分析の結果、信頼性、妥当性共に実施の意図を満たすには十分な役割が果たせているという結果 が 得 られた 一方 で、多 くの 改善 の 余地 があることも 明確 になった。今後 OCI という 科目のみならず慶應義塾高等学校の英語教育カリキュラムを改善していく上で有益であろう改善策
をいくつか提示する。

138

Teaching Film Studies to Non-Native Speakers of English

Teaching Film Studies to
Non-Native Speakers of English
Marc Menish
概要外国語の授業で映画を学習教材として使用することに関しては、学生も教師も同様に関心を
示 し、楽観視 している。 しかし、 いざ（単 なる 娯楽 としての ）映画 が、（学問 としての ）正当化された研究対象となると、さまざまな問題が学生、教師両者に持ち上がる。ここでは、映画がこうした 対象 になった 時 のさまざまな 需要 を 探 り、EFL/ESL 環境 で 映画論 を 教 える 教師 にとって、特に重要であると考えられる事柄について論ずる。

本文は、４部門で構成されている。映画論を効果的に捉えるために、映画論のカリキュラム
内容を下記の４項目に分類し、それぞれの項目ひとつずつを各部門で論ずる：
理論
言語
歴史
文化
慶應義塾大学経済学部経済学科で設置されたような英語のカリキュラムは画期的であり、一年次 の 後期目 にすでにコンテント・ ベースの 英語授業 が 設 けられている。「映画論入門」 のよ
うな科目は、英語を（文法、語彙といった技能習得という）目的それ自体と考えるのではなく、英語を、単に言語の側面だけで世界を捉えるというよりは、より大きな文脈の中で世界を捉えるための道具であると考えるよう学生に強く求めている。いまや、英語は、特定の（とりわけ英語圏の）社会が生み出す文化の産物を探求するための手段（媒体）となっている。
英語を母語としない学生を特に配慮した、信頼できる映画論の教科書は、現在のところ皆無である。そこで、こうした学生に必要最低限の映画専門用語を熟知させ、映画史および映画分

析 のための 基礎知識 を 身 につけさせるために、 より 体系化 した 教授法 があれば、EFL/ESL 環
境にある学生と教師にとって有益となるだろうと期待される。本文では、その教授法をも試みる。

139

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

Introduction
Though students and teachers alike voice interest in and express optimism for using films
in the classroom, problems arise in both camps when cinema (ostensibly entertainment)
becomes a legitimate object of study. This article explores the various needs and addresses
specific concerns of the teacher of film studies in an English as Foreign Language / English
as Second Language (EFL/ESL) setting. This paper is broken down into four broad sections,each covering one aspect of an effective film studies curriculum:－ Theoretical
Linguistic
Historical
CulturalInnovative English language programs such as the one established in Keio University’s
Department of Economics include content-based language classes as early as the second
semester of the freshman year. Courses such as ‘Introduction to Film Studies’ challenge
students to view English not as a goal (deciphering grammar and memorizing vocabulary),
but rather as a tool by which to view the world in a larger context than in simple linguistic
terms. English becomes a means to explore the cultural products of a given (English-speaking)society.
There are currently no reliable textbooks on film studies available specifically for non-native
English speaking students (NNESS)1). Thus, in order to acquaint NNESS with the necessary
film terminology and give them a basic grounding in film history and analysis, a morestructured pedagogical approach-- presented here-- may be beneficial to prepare students
and teachers in ESL / EFL environments. Several exercises which have proved effective in theclassroom are proposed throughout the paper in an abbreviated form.
1. Laying the groundwork

The title of this essay may appear straightforward but it has been my experience thatmany readers assume it implies teaching English through films. Inevitably, a good portionof my first-day class is spent clarifying what “Film Studies” is and what is expected from thestudent2). One method which has yielded positive results is comparing the discipline withother, more clearly established areas of scholarship. Similarities can be drawn between themanner in which the student of Film Studies approaches a film and the way a student ofliterature would approach a book.

140

Teaching Film Studies to Non-Native Speakers of English

Exercise 1: Explanation of Film Studies [In-class assignment]:
Employ two texts-- a fictional short story and a short scene from a fictional film-- toillustrate the point made above. The short story should be fairly descriptive and be consistent
with the NNESS English ability. Each student is given a copy of the text and the teacher
calls on someone to start reading. After reading a portion of the story, words can be listed on
the blackboard which categorize some of the literary techniques (e.g. metaphor, vocabulary,narrative voice, etc.), soliciting ideas from students if appropriate. The teacher can describe
and demonstrate how, with these techniques, authors communicate their characters’
thoughts, desires and emotions. These same narrative tools have allowed readers access tothat information.
The teacher can now pause the class long enough to shift attention to the monitor/screen.
There, he can show a relevant scene from a film-- of any genre, director or period. The main
point is that the scene should be somewhat brief and elicit an emotional response. I have used
Disney movies in the past because the narrative construction tends to be rather exaggerated.
Recently, however, I have chosen scenes from directors such as Gus Van Sant and Jim
Jarmusch in a class on American cinema. The opening sequence from Elephant (2003),
for example, is useful in its subtle simplicity. The credits are shown over a shot of the sky.
Sounds and voices are heard off frame. There seems to be a sport of some sort being played.
A car drives down a quiet suburban road. The camera hovers 20 feet above the moving vehicle
in a crane shot. It is early morning and autumn leaves cover the trees and the suburban road.
The car veers a bit to the right and hits a mailbox. The car brakes hard, narrowly avoiding abicyclist.
Stop the film. Repeat the same few minutes of footage again. Stop the film and ask thestudents the same question you did about the short story. What tools is the director using toconvey narrative information to the viewer? If there is no immediate response, the teacher
might offer a comment like: “Where is the location of the scene?” or, “What sounds do wehear?” and, depending on the motivation of the class members, the discussion can proceed
in this manner for many minutes. The end result of the discussion should link in some way
with the aims of the director. In Elephant, Van Sant is establishing a sense of foreboding-something ominous-- indicated but not yet defined. The death/injury (of the bicyclist) is
circumvented, but the disruption of the everyday (implied) peace of the town has occurred.
The stage has been set for the tragedy, which unfolds much later on in the movie. The main
point is to establish film as a legitimate object of study. It may also be mentioned how much141慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

more information can be conveyed in just a 2-minute scene from a film versus the equivalentmultiple pages of a novel. All of the necessary vocabulary (camera angles, tracking shot,
fade in, off-screen, lighting, etc.) can be taught at incremental stages over the course of thesemester. All that is important now is that the students begin to see the projected images
on the monitor as viable material for study and discussion. As a result, he/she will be more
receptive to the more comprehensive lessons throughout the subsequent weeks to follow.
2. Viewing techniques for NNESS

Many teachers make the mistake of assigning films to students one week and expecting thestudents to have the ability to carry on meaningful discussions the following week. Students,
too tend to assume that understanding simple content (i.e. the narrative arc of the film), will
suffice. Guidelines outlining a sensible, fairly non-obtrusive system of note taking are the only
effective way to insure proper viewing of the visual material.
Most DVD and video tape players have a counter, either on the front of the machine, oras an on-screen data feature which keeps track of the time which has elapsed. Therefore,
NNESS should all confirm that the numbers 00:00:00 start at the studio logo at the beginningof the movie (e.g.: the mountain for Paramount or the roaring lion for MGM). From thispoint, each five-minute block of screen time should be accounted for with at least one writtencomment from the student. Since most feature-length films run 90 minutes or so, this will
result in approximately 18 comments. Due to understandable lack of experience taking
notes while watching media, NNESS resist at first. It might be necessary to review each
student’s work for a simple check, check-minus/check-plus grade at least at the start. Whenthe students realize how helpful these notes will be for meaningful participation and in-classquizzes, motivation will improve.
Without clear instructions on what to write down, most students tend to list narrative
information about films: “The girl ran away from home.” or, “The soccer coach is too severe.”
These types of comments are typical from NNESS, as most foreign visual media in theclassroom exists solely as a gauge of foreign language comprehension. Students can bereminded that understanding the plot is not the object of the lesson-- especially since mostfilms shown throughout the semester will be subtitled into the students’ native language. In
an integrated film studies program, the emphasis should be on a broader range of analyticalobjectives. The teacher should steer the class towards viewing the films as more than simple
vehicles for relating a story. They should be viewed as complex works of art and technology

142

Teaching Film Studies to Non-Native Speakers of English

with their own set of techniques conveying narrative information. Students should be
instructed to look for the manner in which the filmmaker is telling the story. Thus, the twocomments above can be rewritten with additional information:
Original comment #1:
The girl ran away from home.
Adjusted comment #1:
The music used in the scene when the girl ran away from home made it seem tragic.
Original comment #2:
The soccer coach is too severe.
Adjusted comment #2:
The shot of the coach looking down at the students really made me feel that the soccer

coach is too severe.
In each revised statement the narrative information (what happened) gains significance whenanalyzed within the context of the overall film. It is not enough to simply respond to the film.
General comprehension of the plot and dialogue are not sufficient anymore. What is essential
in a film studies class, even for NNESS, is the reason why the student is responding in acertain way towards a film. This task requires reductive reasoning on the part of each student.
They must search for the specific filmic convention employed by the director that elicited thesaid response. This process entails broadening the student’s analytical skills to include all of
the varied visual and aural data presented in a movie.
In order to develop good analytical tools amongst NNESS, the instructor must insist thateach student push him or herself further in each stage of the course. If the student thinks
the scene is ominous and foreboding, the teacher can suggest looking deeper and reduce thescene into its must fundamental elements. Sometimes those elements will be facile-- a happysong on the soundtrack, for instance, makes the audience rejoice that the child was reunited
with her mother. But cinema, no matter how simplistic it may appear on first viewing, is infact relying on a complex system of codes so entrenched and reinforced (e.g.: certain camera
angles signifying power or hopelessness; soft key lighting making a character appear more143慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

attractive) that many people don’t recognize them. The teacher of film studies awakens thestudent to this “language” inherent in cinema. It has been my experience that most collegeaged NNESS have the ability to discern how narrative information is being conveyed. Years
spent watching various media have given them a strong foundation in the language of thevisual arts. The instructor can harness and develop the students’ know-how through in-classdiscussion and short writing assignments.
3. Assigning Visual Materials

Below (Image #1) is a portion from a foreign exchange student’s notes from a class I taught
on Japanese Film in 2002 (all participants were NNJSS, or non-native Japanese speaking
students). Most of the students in the class had studied Japanese for 2 or 3 years and were ona one-year study abroad program through the University of Washington, USA. The assigned
film was The Flavor of Green Tea Over Rice by Yasujiro Ozu (1952.) The instructions
were to write down any observations about the film that struck the student as significant orinteresting. I also encouraged the students to draw small, rough sketches of shots if it helped
then save time or if it they thought it could help them recall crucial information during
discussions.
The student’s first comment (00:20:24) contains both visual information (“2-room shots-very square”) and linguistic observations（鈍感；単純）written with furigana. Her comments
are supported with small sketches in the margins along with descriptions designating thearchitectural elements of the scene: the fusuma in the background and the “sliding door”
separating the two rooms. As the film progresses, the student continues to make connections,ask questions and interact with the work on various levels. She is demonstrating what I referto in class as active viewing-- earnestly recording her thoughts and reactions. (I discourage
passive viewing -- pressing the play button and reclining in a chair), as students rarely
remember enough for follow-up class work. [Be forewarned: most NNESS (or NNJSS) resist
active viewing at first as it disrupts the pleasurable escape ‘buzz’ they normally associate withwatching visual media. So an adequate amount of time should be allotted for explanation.]
At 26:33, the student relates the shot to a similar shot occurring earlier. Making connections
such as these-- finding recurring themes throughout the film-- marks an important phase in a
student’s development. Diligent note taking resulted in a more complete understanding of thefilm and she is ready to write about and discuss the film intelligently.

144

Teaching Film Studies to Non-Native Speakers of English

Exercise 2: Note-taking Basics [Homework]
Assign the first film of the semester for viewing at home or the language laboratory. Instruct
the students to follow the guidelines of note taking explained above and submit their notes
during the next class period.

145慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

4. Film History

Most students’ awareness of film history seems to be limited to something to the following
logic: “Old” films are shot in black and white and have simplistic stories, while “new” films
are shot in color, have better sound and picture quality and more sophisticated story lines.
Responding to a questionnaire I distributed over a three-year period, the oldest films students
consistently entered in the answer space for “What is the oldest English language film you
know?” Was either Star Wars (1977) at an adjusted average of 36% or The Sound of Music(1965) at 30% adjusted over three years. Based on this data, at least 70 years of the 111-year
history of cinema is unaccounted for. To make up for this rather large gap in knowledge, ahistorical time line can be highly effective educational instrument to relate the sometimes
tedious and/or technical data associated with film. Students begin creating their individual
time lines during the first week of the semester and gradually add to it up until the final
week. The basic outline which they receive in an early class and which they are encouraged
to add to and personalize begins in 1895 (with the development of the first camera projector
invented by Louis and Auguste Lumiere) and continues up to movies currently playing at the
local theater.
Due to constraints of space, the entire 111-year history of film cannot be covered here. In
the curriculum proposed in this article, NNESS will need to have a basic understanding ofmajor technological events (e.g.: advent of sound, development of color) as well as a generalknowledge of genre and major figures. Mention could be made of major figures and films ofeach decade of filmmaking: a few major works for each of the eleven decades, for instance.
Or, to economize even further, the teacher might choose to divide the time line between preand post-war (World War II) sections and focus on one or the other period. Specific creative
developments and other more advanced topics can be addressed in a later course. Even abrief explanation of film history, from its inception to the present day, will go a long way toconvincing the students of the value of viewing older films. The DVDs that teachers haveaccess to will vary greatly from school to school, department to department. Despite thesedisparities, every effort should be made to cover a wide range of genres, time periods anddirectors.
5. Defining films and where they come from.

A basic understanding of the type of medium film started out as and has grown to become
enriches even the most introductory of classes. Film has two tracks: the image track and the146Teaching Film Studies to Non-Native Speakers of English

audio track. Images are captured on a light-sensitive material (film), which is then developedin a laboratory and sent back to the director to edit together at a later date. The amount andquality of the light are immeasurably important for the overall “feel” and “look” of the final
film. Sounds are all recorded on a separate device and are added to the image track during theediting process. A teacher might mention that this is why a clapboard is “clapped” in front of
the camera before the start of each scene (accompanied by someone saying “ Action!”): so thatthe two tracks can be lined up later on. It is significant to show these two aspects of film-image and sound-- separately in order to facilitate lengthier discussions about crewmembers
and their duties in a later class.
Now that the students are aware of the basic nature of film, they can put it into thecontext of the working methodology employed by most production companies. Moviemaking
is a TEAM EFFORT divided into three distinct phases: Pre-production, Production, andPost-Production. Each phase represents tremendous expenditure both in terms of laborand financial costs. I always begin discussion of the first phase by asking the students thequestion: “What is necessary to make a film?” Answers usually vary from anything to a “Acamera.” to “Money.” Though accurate, I try to push them to think back even further into
the embryonic stage of the process. The answer I am looking for is “An idea.” And this is
crucial because without an idea (inspiration), films would not be made. This idea must thenbe translated into a viable script, which in turn needs to motivate others (cast and crew) tofollow it through to completion. It could be worth mentioning that very few ideas-- between
1% and 10% of all ideas proposed (Bosko) -- are ever turned into films. Some ideas, however,and their resultant scripts are strong enough to make it to the first phase of production.

I. Pre-production
One student will rarely be able to describe all five facets of this phase, but a healthy
brainstorming session with the entire class can evoke a surprising majority of them. (NNESS
also seem to remember more vocabulary from such assignments if they actively participate.)
The most basic elements are: a.) Writing the script; b.) Establishing financing3); c.) Casting
actors; d.) Scouting locations/ designing sets; e.) Naming a crew. One individual usuallyauthors the script initially though this number can change as rewrites or revisions become
necessary. To best illustrate a script and its very specific and ordered format, copied extractsof scripts can be distributed and used for reference4). Here is the first page from the script to
The Wizard of Oz (1939):147慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

The teacher might introduce some of the specialized English used such as FADE IN and
FADE OUT as well as the manner in which time of day and characters’ names are always
written in capital letters, descriptions of sets in italics, and dialogue in regular script. The
basic camera set-ups (MEDIUM SHOT and LONG SHOT) may seem extraneous, but thesecan be easily explained by showing the corresponding scene from the film. Since scriptwriting
is such a highly formalized medium, almost any English script will suffice. Having a copy ofthe film on DVD will bring the written language alive. The screenwriter’s attention to location(i.e. where a scene is filmed) is important as it greatly affects the film’s budget (requiring sets
to be built or securing areas of an actual city street for location shooting), and also weather

148

Teaching Film Studies to Non-Native Speakers of English

considerations (possible delays in shooting) so these are always indicated at each new scene.
Finally, though this differs from case to case, it could be mentioned that one to one and ahalf pages of a screenplay makes for approximately one minute of screen time in a finishedfilm. By working in this way with an actual script, NNESS can start to visualize the intricate
process of filmmaking.
Exercise 3: Screenwriting Exercise [For homework]:
The students are to write a scene according to the format described above. The scene
must have a beginning, middle and end and utilize some of the specialized vocabulary of
scriptwriting. The scene’s location, time of day, as well as the characters’ descriptions,movements and dialogue must all be accounted for. As in most NNESS environments, thestudents’ assignments will vary drastically in terms of vocabulary and coherence. So insteadof assigning a grade, the teacher can use these writing samples to fuel discussions in class.
Groups of three to four students can review their homework during the following class andelect one story most “ creative” or “ successful”. The class as a whole can review each of theselected scripts. The teacher can guide the discussion to include issues of realism concerning
dialogue, and feasibility concerning storyline. This segues nicely with the second section of
pre-production: financing.
Armed with a few student-generated stories, the teacher can point out various factors
in the students’ work (or in a published screenplay) that will have high or low production
costs. Clearly anything with location shots in Rome, intense car chases, or special effects
will require higher budgets. Dialogue-heavy films with just a few interior sets and a small
cast are much more feasible even if their drawing power at the box office will be limited.
Who the writer/director envisions playing the lead roles will also make a difference and thus
the third element, casting, can be covered briefly in class. Big-name talents are likely tohave ongoing projects that will have to be worked around, so issues of scheduling might becovered. The teacher might be able to print out a comparison of two popular current films
with their budgets and gross receipts (available on numerous websites and magazines listed in
the bibliography), to drive the point home. Some excellent documentaries have been released
recently, which cover the challenges faced by the director and crew such as Lost in La

Mancha (Fulton and Pepe, 2002). This DVD chronicles the bizarre series of mishaps and badluck that literally brought the production of Terry Gilliam’s adaptation of Don Quixote to acomplete halt. Assigning material such as this greatly enhances teacher-generated discussions

149慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

and assignments.
By the same token, where and in what period the story takes place also has a direct impact
on the size of the budget. Far away galaxies and period pieces set in 14th century France
all require expensive sets, wardrobe and make-up. In order to give the film a feeling ofauthenticity, sets, designed by the art director, must be designed and approved. Every scene
will require some sort of physical space, either interior or exterior, and those spaces must be
linked together somehow to make it all seem realistic. In order to organize these connections,a storyboard is often employed to help the director communicate his/ her vision to the art
director. Examples of storyboards, which resemble the simplified comic-book type renderings,
are widely available in film books, in bonus sections of some newer DVDs, and on theInternet.
The final step before production commences entails choosing the five essential
crewmembers: 1.) Producer; 2.) Director, 3.) Cinematographer, 4.) Art director and 5.) Editor.
Anyone familiar with filmmaking knows that list neglects countless other major job titles. But
loading the NNESS with too much information at this point negates the ultimate goals of thiscurriculum5).
Exercise 4, 5, 6: Reinforcing the students’ understanding of Pre-Production [For Media Lab
with an in-class quiz]
Students view Lost in La Mancha and write a list of at least ten of the problems facing
the cast and crew. Each point should be written as a complete sentence. In addition to thisquiz, the teacher can create basic quizzes covering the 5 components of Pre-Production,
Production and Post-Production over a several week period.
II. Production
Now that the class has covered Pre-Production, the students are ready to enter the
Production phase. It should be pointed out that here is where a film’s greatest costs are
incurred. The meter is literally running: the cast is now present on the set waiting to act intheir scenes. Coordination between the crewmembers is of the utmost importance as every
wasted minute can be measured in dollars. This phase of filmmaking, offered referred toas “ the shoot,” is broken down into five basic elements which take place simultaneously:a.) Set and costume fabrication/ Securing of Locations; b.) Preparation (including dialoguecoaches, make-up artists, hair stylists, preparing extras, etc.) c.) Filming: rehearsing/lighting/150

Teaching Film Studies to Non-Native Speakers of English

acting/retakes; d.) Stunts and second-unit camera work; e.) Incidentals (catering, insurance,
maintenance, etc.).
Now that production has commenced, the sets which were designed in Pre-productionneed to be constructed as full-scale on the studio lot and decorated to match the overall
theme and look of the film. Meanwhile, the locations that were scouted now need to be
secured-- that is cordoned off -- so that the pace of filming and the personal security of thecast are maintained. These employees must be paid in addition to the filming rights paid
to the city (quite high in a town like New York or Paris) that cover costs for diverting trafficand hiring extra police officers. Costumes, like sets, are started in pre-production but actual
fittings are usually done in the production phase. As a result, there are numerous stylists
running around with outfits and sewing kits, making last-minute alterations. In addition to
the costume designer and his/her staff, there are make-up artists and hair stylists who prepare
actors, reapply as the shoot progresses, and then remove and start all over again if the day’sschedule calls for it. These professionals, it may be noted, are usually represented by unions.
Their work is of very high level but so too are their salaries. To keep them waiting because ofa preventable delay is one way in which a movie’s budget can quickly escalate. And as soon
as one shot runs over schedule, the potential for each succeeding shot’s delay is increased.
Therefore, a well-planned shooting schedule which dictates when and where each cast andcrewmember needs to be for each shot is absolutely imperative.
Every director has his/her own unique style of shooting scenes. Many rehearse until they
are convinced the actors have gotten the dialogue and blocking down cold. Others prefer toallow the actors more room for creativity and improvisation. Whichever method is employed,
after the director calls “ action,” the actors are the focus of everyone’s attention. Lights are
switched on, the cinematographer (cameraman) presses the shutter and film in the camera
starts to “ roll” (i.e. record) information. Due to technical factors of the various cameras,
lenses, and film stock used on a shoot, the cinematographer will have a very important anddirect impact on the overall “ look” of the work. If the take was successful, the next scene’s
preparation begins. If there were problems, then a retake may be deemed necessary andthe process must be repeated. In addition to setting up the camera and lights all over again,
retakes usually entail reapplying make-up, touching up hair, and repositioning props. If thescene is being shot outdoors, then lighting, changes in weather, the realignment of extras
and vehicles takes up a great deal of time and energy. Every effort is made to preserve thecontinuity of the production.

151慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

While the director is busy filming the main cast members, there is often a second-unit
director and his/her smaller staff filming scenes that do not require the presence of the mainstars. Action sequences involving stuntmen, for instance, or driving scenes where the car
is filmed driving through the countryside from far away (e.g. from a helicopter), would be
two examples of second-unit work. Not every production calls for it, but most large-scale
Hollywood films of recent years depend on these units to finish shooting on schedule.
One must not forget that cast and crew members, must be fed, housed and driven around.
Thus an entirely separate set of employees comprising of caterers, assistants and drivers areassembled to prepare meals and tend to the needs of the major cast and crewmembers.
III. Post-production
Once a film’s principle photography is complete, the actors, extras, wardrobe and make-up
people, caterers and all of the other cast and crew members can pack up their belongings andleave the set. The film is now referred to as being “ in the can” and attention is now directed
at how to best assemble the hours of shot footage. In post-production, the director normallyallows a new set of crew members to come in and aid him/her with the film. The steps arebroken down into two final stages: a.) Editing; and b.) Music/soundtrack work. The editor
is the person entrusted with splicing together the separately shot scenes in a smooth andunified manner. Many directors work closely with this individual in order to maintain theirartistic vision. Studios, responding to audience surveys, tend to want a tight edit (close to 90
min. in length) which assembles the scenes in a clear-cut manner. Directors often become
very sensitive about what footage is being included and what is being left out. Compromises
between the studio and artistic personnel are often necessary to appease all concerned 6).
The semi-assembled film, called a ‘rough-cut’, is ready for the audio track to be added.
The sound editor and the music director carefully view each scene, matching dialogue to theaction and finding appropriate music and sound effects to create more realism and emotional
impact. An orchestra or other live musicians might be called in to play live as they watch thescene on a monitor. Once the sound has been recorded, this is edited together with the visualtrack and the whole thing is sent off to the laboratory to make a master print. From this, otherprints are made and sent off to theatres for the theatrical release of the film7).
*A Caveat:
Students might be reminded that there have been many low-budget films, which have152

Teaching Film Studies to Non-Native Speakers of English

foregone some, or all of the above elaborate expenses. El Mariachi (1993), Blair Witch
Project (1999), and Super Size Me (2004) are three successful films that were shot withmuch smaller casts and crews on very small budgets. However, the majority of films NNESS
are familiar with--those heavily promoted and advertised-- typically follow the three phases ofpreproduction, production and post-production.
6. Writing About Films

Once NNESS are familiar with some of the vocabulary and viewing techniques outlined
above, and after they have taken notes and participated in discussions on several films, they
may be ready for the next process: Writing short papers about films. Since every ESL/EFL
environment will present its own unique set of challenges, including, but not limited to,the overall language ability of the class, expectations can be modified to fit the particularsituation. In a recent class, I was fortunate to have a group of students who had spent sometime abroad. Though not all of them fit the precise definition of a “ returnee,” most of thegroup could express themselves fairly well in both written and spoken English. Still, available
film studies texts in English were too difficult to introduce into the curriculum. I would have
had to spend an inordinate amount of time and energy pre-teaching the complex vocabulary
and explaining the academic writing. Despite many failed attempts with several textbooks
it became clear that students would gain more from relying on their own growing analyticalskills as well as those of their classmates.
Writing papers is a natural extension of the note-taking assignments. The NNESS willcontinue to take notes while watching assigned films, but these will serve solely as a tool in
the writing process and are not to be collected or graded once the writing section commences.
Papers are kept to a concise length (one type-written A4 size page), as they will be copiedand distributed to all of the members of the class. [If the number of students exceeds 12, theteacher may want to divide the group into groups of 6 or 7 students each.] The student reads
aloud his/her entire paper and time is provided so that each member of the class/group can
express opinions concerning each paper. I always participate actively in these readings and,if the class is to be divided, conduct the first five or so together as one large group in order todemonstrate effective listening and discussion strategies. [Given that each student knows they
will be reading their own paper in a few minutes, it is sometimes necessary to remind themto show courtesy and listen carefully to their classmates. I usually stipulate that only papers
being read can be out on the desks.] After one or two sessions, most students seem to catch153慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

on. I have witnessed tremendous individual growth among students using this paper writing +reading process. Since each student has a copy of the reader’s text, mistakes in pronunciation
do not interfere with the class’s overall apprehension of the material.
Below (Image #3), is a sample paper from a recent class I taught entitled “ Studies in
American Cinema”. As the reader can see, there are minor errors in spelling (the director’sname, for example, and vocabulary that Word’s ‘spell-check’ function did not catch) as well
as some grammar mistakes. These are not egregious enough to warrant rewriting. Indeed,grammatical issues can be remedied later on when the student receives the teacher ’ s
corrected copy.

154

Teaching Film Studies to Non-Native Speakers of English

In this example, the student has followed instructions, which stipulated that 1.) Every
paragraph should have a unique theme and 2.) Examples from the film need to be given to
support the student’s arguments. The student focused on the idea of realism for the firstparagraph and expanded on the theme by introducing issues of sound and soundtrack in thesecond paragraph. Her personal aside: “ If you chase around me [me around] and look at myordinary life, you’ll probably not find meanings from every movement I make,” aptly relates
the main character’s actions (a man in his twenties) to her own (a 20-year old woman). She
demonstrates an engagement with the work and at the same time, a blossoming aptitude atvisual analysis. I firmly believe that her notes enabled her to accomplish this. By encouraging
her to express and record her visceral, immediate reactions to the film, the note-taking
exercise provided her with data (observations), which became the motivation for the themes
in her paper. The other NNESS in the same course produced equally intriguing and highly
personalized work. With each succeeding film, assigned in three-week intervals, quality roseincrementally. Given the right environment with motivated students, writing about films canyield tremendous results. The beauty of such a content-based program is that the students
are not mired in concern over “ correct” English, but rather focus their energy relating to thedirector’s work on a personal level, inspired by what they discover within the work of art. As
long as the teacher provides positive encouragement, coupled with gentle guidance, NNESS
demonstrate a remarkable aptitude for film studies regardless of whether or not they had any
intention of studying film in college8).

155慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号

Notes
1)

Many useful books, such as Jane Sherman’s Using Authentic Video in the Language Classroom(2003), or G. Dirk Mateer’s Economics in the Movies (2005) help to introduce visual media asteaching aids, but they do not focus on film as the object of study.

2)

Though some film production programs in Japan do exist, it is still safe to assume most Japanese
students are not aware of Film Studies (i.e.: a theoretical approach to cinematic texts) as an academic
pursuit.

3)

For simplicity the complex roles of the producer, associate producer and executive producer are
bundled under the word producer.

4) The script on this page is from Faber’s edition of The Wizard of Oz (1989).
5) See Frank E. Beaver’s book for a complete list of job descriptions.
6)

Disagreements between studios and directors are everyday occurrences in the film industry. Most
end with negotiations, but sometimes disagreements force one side or the other to abandon the project.

7) The documentary feature on the DVD version of Grizzly Man (2005) provides an excellent accountof this process.
8)

All of the vignettes and student samples contained in this paper were taken from classes within
departments completely unrelated to Film Studies.

156

執筆者紹介古石篤子………………… 慶應義塾大学 総合政策学部教授

トマス・ハーディ……………… 慶應義塾大学 看護医療学部助教授

増

田

修

代

………………… 慶應義塾大学 法学部講師

市

山

陽

子

………………… 慶應義塾大学 理工学部講師

大久保

正

章

………………… 慶應義塾普通部 教諭

ウィリアム・スネル…………… 慶應義塾大学 文学部助教授

ジョナサン・ハリソン………… 慶應義塾高等学校 講師

持

原

なみ子

………………… 慶應義塾高等学校 教諭

マーク・メニッシュ…………… 慶應義塾大学 経済学部講師

157

平成18年度
文 学 部

経済学部

斎藤

太郎

坂本

学術委員
法 学 部

迫村

純男

光

笠井

裕之

関根

謙

ギブソン、ロバート B.

中村

優治

許

曼麗

野村

伸一

種村

和史

山下

輝彦

吉田

友子

宇

振領

石井

明

商 学 部

理工学部

エインジ、マイケル W.

泉

千佳子

重松

淳

境

一三

平高

史也

志村

明彦

外国語教育研究センター

鈴村

直樹

横川

真理子

竹内

良雄

折笠

敬一

持原

なみ子

高等学校

和美

平成18年度

法 学 部

森

柏崎

松岡

経済学部

真澄

総合政策学部

ポールハチェット、ヘレン J.

文 学 部

金田一

刊行物編集委員

白崎

容子

商 学 部

吉田

鈴村

直樹

理工学部

金田一

真澄

山下

輝彦

森

泉

石井

明
佐藤

和貴

城市

政明

杉田

陽子

境

一三（委員長）

鈴村

直樹

大久保

事 務 局

教宏

笠井

裕之

山田

恆

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第３号
平成19年 3 月31日 発行
発 行 人

金田一

真

澄

印 刷 所

有限会社

発 行 所

慶應義塾大学外国語教育研究センター
東京都港区三田 2 15 45
電話 03 5427 1601

梅沢印刷所

友子