慶應義塾
外国語教育研究
第13号

目 次

2016

〈研究論文〉
大人の L2 学習成功のための TBLT の役割

大 竹 優 志1

日本人英語学習者にとっての英語  と  の困難度：音響分析による

北 川

21

彩

〈調査・実践報告〉
創作文教室へのアプローチ

プリエト ムニョス，ベアトリス

43

大学英語教育における多読の実践：速読と語彙の増加について

シェイ デビット65

ピア・フィードバックに対する高校生の認識とその意義

折田（由川）京子

85

実験授業報告『TOEFL® を通して照らし出される日本人小学生の英語学習動機』

伊 藤

扇

107

外国語学習法の非言語的認知機能への影響：日本語を母語とするドイツ語初習者を対象とした実験的検討

矢田部 清 美皆 川 泰 代135

慶應義塾の中国語教育における高大連携（1）― 全塾懇談会の理念と既習者の扱い

須 山 哲 治山 下 一 夫吉 川 龍 生153

ネット流行式構造「一言不合就〜」の意味拡張に関する一考察

嚴

馥

163

ドイツの就学前教育における言語支援策

牛 山 さおり175〈研究ノート〉

慶應義塾大学外国語教育研究センター
Keio Research Center for Foreign Language Education

JOURNALofFOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION
Vol. 13 2016

CONTENTS〈Research Articles〉
The Role of TBLT in Promoting Success in Adult L2 Learning

OTAKE, Masashi

Difficulty levels of English  and  for Japanese learners: An acoustic analysis

KITAGAWA, Aya〈Survey / Practical Reports〉
APROXIMACIÓN A UN CURSO DE ESCRITURA CREATIVA
Extensive Reading in a University EFL Classroom: Issues of Fluency, Vocabulary, and Proximity
Student Perception on Giving Peer Feedback in EFL Writing and its Implications

Beatriz Prieto Muñoz
David P. Shea
ORITA YOSHIKAWA, Kyoko

Motivation of Japanese Elementary School EFL Learners
Illuminated through the Test of English as a Foreign Language（TOEFL®）
Changes in the Non-Verbal Cognitive Abilities Induced by Foreign Language Learning:
A Pilot Study Involving Japanese-Speaking Novice Learners of German

ITO, Ohgi
YATABE, Kiyomi
MINAGAWA, Yasuyo〈Research Notes〉
University - High School Collaboration in Chinese Language Education of Keio Gijuku（Part I）― A concept of the Keio Chinese Language Lecturersʼ/Teachersʼ Conference
and A description of the assessment of students with knowledge of Chinese language

SUYAMA, Tetsuji
YAMASHITA, Kazuo
YOSHIKAWA, Tatsuo

网络流行句式 “一言不合就〜” 的意义扩张
Language support programs in German preschool education

YEN FUUSHIYAMA, Saori

KEIO RESEARCH CENTER FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATIONThe Role of TBLT in Promoting Success in Adult L2 Learning

The Role of TBLT in Promoting Successin Adult L2 Learning
Masashi Otake
Abstract
This literature review investigates the efficacy of Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT)
in achieving a high level of proficiency in adult L2 learning. First, the learner variables thattrigger successful adult L2 learning are identified and classified into two categories: cognitive
and non-cognitive variables. Then, the possible roles that TBLT play on these variables are
examined. This paper maintains that even though TBLT cannot directly stimulate people’s
cognitive variables, it presumably promotes two non-cognitive variables for successful adultL2 learners: explicit learning, and extremely high motivation. In addition, TBLT temporarily
surrounds the learners with L2 input, which is similar to the immersion experience that
all the successful adult L2 learners have had. These findings suggest that when certain
conditions are met, TBLT offers what the successful adult L2 learners have done in theprocess of achieving their high proficiency. This paper concludes that it is possible for adultlearners to achieve a practical, high-level L2 competence through TBLT.

Introduction
With the increasing professional opportunities due to globalization, many second language(L2) learners are aiming for a high level of L2 fluency. Their pragmatic objectives are to
be able to negotiate deals, persuade others, and resolve disputes to name a few. The focusof language teaching has been shifting from accuracy to fluency (Brumfit, 1984), andCommunicative Language Teaching (CLT), especially the strong form of CLT, Task Based
Language Teaching (TBLT), has gained the worldwide attention of researchers and analysts.
(Van den Branden, Bygate, & Norris, 2009).
In TBLT, the learners discover new language structures by themselves through the useof the language in ‘meaning negotiation’. They exchange knowledge and ideas with others

1慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

to solve pedagogical tasks. While engaging in these tasks, the learners’ focus shifts from themeanings of words to their language structures in order to make their meaning negotiations
more smooth and effective (Ellis, 2003; Long, 2014). The proponents are not only SLA
researchers, such as Ellis (2003), Skehan (1998b), and Long (2014), but also teachers andeducationalists, such as Prabhu (1987), Willis (1996), and Nunan (1989). These TBLT
advocates suggest TBLT nurtures learners’ practical high-level of L2 competence for not only
everyday basic language use, but also for educational and professional language use, which
many current adult learners are aiming for in their L2 learning (Long, 2005).
This literature review, therefore, aims to investigate the relationship between TBLT andthe learner variables that successful adult L2 learners possess in order to predict the efficacy
of TBLT in achieving a high level of proficiency in adult L2 learning. The research questions
are the following: (1) What are the learner variables that trigger successful adult L2 learning?
(2) Does TBLT promote the development of these variables? In order to answer thesequestions, the remainder of the paper will, first, review TBLT and discuss what L2 learning
success is. Then, the focus will fall on the cognitive and non-cognitive variables that several
empirical studies on successful adult L2 learners have discovered. Finally, the paper will
discuss the possibility of TBLT and address whether TBLT promotes adult L2 learning interms of these variables.

What is TBLT and adult L2 learning success?
Many SLA researchers believe L2 learning happens when learners are richly exposed tothe target language and engage in meaningful interaction. TBLT approaches create such anenvironment and elicit learners’ implicit incidental L2 learning. The tasks in TBLT provide
opportunities for learners to engage in meaningful communications, and to elaborate their
linguistic structures, while its focus-on-form instruction accelerates the development of theirgrammar ability (Ellis, 2014; Long, 2014). The criteria of TBLT tasks that TBLT proponents
all agree with are the following: meaning based, goal oriented, outcome-evaluated, andauthentic (Skehan, 1998a). When it comes to “authenticity,” it does not need situational
authenticity, but at least it needs interactional authenticity. In other words, tasks themselves
do not have to mirror what they do in real life, but they have to be able to prepare the learners
for the language use in real life (Nunan, 1989; Ellis, 2003; Long, 2014).
TBLT supporters have slightly different conceptions of TBLT pedagogy, especially on
pedagogical interventions (Skehan, 1998b; Robinson, 2001; Ellis, 2003; Long, 2014). TBLT

2

The Role of TBLT in Promoting Success in Adult L2 Learning

proponents all agree on the importance of learners paying attention to their language forms
during meaning negotiations, but how to attract the learners’ attention on these language
forms differ for several researchers. Ellis (2003) and Long (2014) maintain learners’ attention toforms are mainly induced by instructors’ weak intervention using focus-on-form instructions.
Focus-on-form instructions are just-in-time grammar instructions that immediately shift thelearners’ attentions to linguistic forms whenever they make errors in meaning negotiations(Ellis, 2014; Long, 2014). On the other hand, Skehan (1998b) claims that learners’ attentions
to form should be implicitly induced by manipulating task characteristics and conditions.
Robinson (2001) possesses a neutral position in which manipulating tasks characteristics andconditions and teachers’ interventions with focus-on-form instructions are both essential.
Both Ellis (2003) and Long (2014) believe that teachers’ explicit or implicit focus-on-form
instructions bring efficiency and accelerate the learners’ attainment of the target linguistic
forms. Long says, without teachers’ interventions, learners might not be able to notice theirerrors in their interlanguages because some erroneous forms that learners make do not hinder
their communications. Ellis focuses on explicit intervention of focus-on-form instruction.
He argues that explicit instructions promote learners’ learning in two ways. First, explicit
instructions, especially negative feedback, allow learners to clearly notice the gaps between
their linguistic forms and others’ forms, which in turn promotes modification of their output
and accelerates their mastering the target language structures. Second, explicit instructions
help teachers clearly understand which linguistic forms learners are trying to master and theirprogress. Long stresses implicit intervention of focus-on-form instruction, especially recasts,
where teachers repeat or reformulate learners’ linguistic errors in their utterances. Long
argues that recasts focus on conveying only necessary information about the target language
in context, which promote learners’ form-function mapping efficiently and promote learners’
noticing correct forms. Recasts also provide motivation and attention to the fact that theirmessages are at stake and they already understand some portions of the message.
On the other hand, Skehan (1998b) believes manipulating task complexity induces learners’
attentions implicitly and brings great progress in the learners’ language performance. Skehan’s(1998b) trade-off hypothesis argues learners’ attentional resources are provided from only one
resource pool, and fluency, complexity and accuracy cannot develop at the same time. He
argues that without teachers’ interventions, learners’ attentions on each aspect of linguistic
performance can be manipulated by controlling task conditions and characteristics. For
example, providing more familiar topics and clearly structured tasks improve learners’ accuracy

3慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

and fluency, and providing more interactive tasks augments their accuracy and complexity(Skehan & Foster, 1997). In terms of teachers’ interventions, Skehan (1998b) believes
that teachers’ interventions hinder learners’ automatization, in which learners’ spontaneous
noticing of gaps and restructuring their own interlanguages control their L2 acquisition.
Robinson (2001, 2005) stands between these interventionists and noninterventionists.
Like Skehan (1998b), Robinson (2001) believes that manipulating task complexity can
improve learners’ language performance, but his concept of learners’ attention deployment on
language fluency, complexity and accuracy is different from Skehan’s (1998b) understanding.
Robinson’s (2001) ‘Cognition Hypothesis’ argues that there are multiple attentional resource
pools, and learners’ language complexity, accuracy, and fluency never compete as long asattention resources are provided from different pools. According to Robinson (2001, 2005),
task complexity is manipulated in two dimensions: resource-dispersing and resource-directing.
In the resource-dispersing dimension, task complexity is manipulated by controlling theamount of the attentional resource from each attentional resource pool, and in the resourcedirecting dimension, task complexity is manipulated by directing learners’ attentions toa specific attentional resource pool and controlling the competitions of these attentions.
Robinson (2001, 2005) believes that increasing complexity in the resource-directing
dimension stimulates learners’ attentional and memory resources and leads to noticing gaps
between target input and learners’ output, which develops their L2s. In addition, Robinson(2001) claims teachers’ focus-on-form instructions are essential. It compresses a long periodof time that is needed for learners to be exposed to the target language input extensively andto notice the gaps between their input and interlanguages.
As mentioned above, unlike the basic concepts of TBLT tasks, there is no consensus on thepedagogical interventions in TBLT. Further investigation of how L2 learners’ automatizationof input processing happens will help expose the efficacy of teachers’ interventions in TBLT.
The following section will define adult L2 learning success.
Adult L2 learning success can be defined in numerous ways because every L2 learnerhas a different concept of L2 learning success based on his or her future L2 needs. In the
difficulty of conceptualizing L2 learning success, the concept of the success this paper adopts
is the one commonly used in several empirical studies focusing on their successful adult L2
learning participants: near-nativeness or nativelikeness. (Birdsong, 1992; Ioup, Boustagui,
Tigi, & Moselle, 1994; Moyer, 1999; Bongaerts, 1999; DeKeyser, 2000; Abrahamsson, &Hyltenstam, 2008). The nativelikeness described in these studies was measured in two

4

The Role of TBLT in Promoting Success in Adult L2 Learning

different dimensions: (1) L2 production features and (2) L2 knowledge.
L2 production features are measured and analyzed by several different methods, suchas error analysis, obligatory occasion analysis, frequency analysis, interactional analysis,
conversation analysis, and so on (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005). In the studies that depicted
the adult L2 learners achieving near-native level of proficiency, the qualitative coding ofdata and the quantitative analysis of learners’ complexity, accuracy, and fluency are often
adopted. Qualitative data are normally gathered through naturalistic observation, open-ended
interviews, introspection/retrospection, field notes, and life-stories. In the analysis of learners’
complexity, accuracy, and fluency, accuracy was measured by examining the number of errors,complexity was measured by counting the number of subordination, and fluency is measured
by calculating the rate of production and the number and length of pauses and false starts (Ellis& Barkhuizen, 2005).
Explicit and implicit language knowledge that L2 learners possess is also often measured
to analyze L2 proficiency. In this measurement, L2 proficiency is believed to be theaccumulation of linguistic building components that the learners possess. In Purpura’s(2013) conceptualization of language knowledge, grammatical knowledge plays a key role. He
argues that form-meaning mappings occur in grammatical knowledge, which allows learners
to use L2 at a pragmatic level. According to Purpura, several empirical studies provide theevidence of this process. That is, the learners’ knowledge of grammatical form interacted with
their knowledge of the semantic meaning, which conveyed literal and pragmatic meanings
in the learners’ utterances. The Grammaticality Judgment Test (GJT) focuses on learners’
grammatical knowledge to measure adult learners’ L2 proficiency and has been administeredin several studies (Johnson & Newport, 1989; DeKeyser, 2000; Ellis, 2009). GJT examines
learners’ knowledge of syntax and morphology, and the examinees are asked to distinguishbetween grammatical and ungrammatical sentences. The following section will introduce theempirical studies that depict the adult L2 learners’ near-nativeness or nativelikeness fromthese two dimensions and examine the learner variables that presumably caused their success.

What variables contribute to adult L2 learning success?
This paper categorizes the learner variables found in the L2 learners who have attained anear-native level of proficiency into two types: cognitive variables and non-cognitive variables,
adopting the definitions from Farkas’s (2003) study. According to Lee and Shute (2009),
Farkas’s definitions of cognitive and non-cognitive variables have been adopted in many5慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

studies in economics and sociology, as well as in psychology and education. According toFarkas, cognitive variables are the traits, behaviors, and skills that are measured by objective
test scores, and non-cognitive variables are ones that are assessed by more subjective rating
systems, such as surveys or observations. According to Hall (2011), there are several different
cognitive and non-cognitive variables that allegedly influence L2 development, such as age
and aptitude for cognitive variables, and motivation, attitudes, personality, learning styles,
and learning strategies for non-cognitive variables. This paper, however, will only focus on
the variables that were observed in successful adult learners who have achieved near-native
or native-like L2 proficiency. The subsequent sections will describe these cognitive andnon-cognitive variables that presumably affected adult L2 learners’ success.
According to several researchers (Schneiderman & Desmarais, 1988; Ioup et al.,
1994; DeKeyser, 2000; Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2008), some of the successes ofadult L2 learning are attributed to a cognitive variable: high language-learning aptitude.
Language-learning aptitude is human’s innate linguistic information processing ability
indicated by the scores of aptitude tests (Doughty, 2014).
Language-learning aptitude was originally theorized by Carroll and Sapon (1959), andit consists of four factors: phonetic detecting, syntax comprehension, memorization, andinductive learning. Carroll’s ‘Modern Language Aptitude Test’ (MLAT) has since played anincreasing role in assessing adult language-learning aptitude (Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam,2008). The updated version of Carroll’s model, Hi-LAB (High-Level Language Aptitude
Battery) was introduced by Doughty, Campbell, Mislevy, Bunting, Bowles and Koeth (2010).
This model takes into account the understanding of the human memory system: working
memory and long-term memory. It can predict adult learners’ L2 acquisition especially at theadvanced level.
DeKeyser (2000) and Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam (2008) both investigated how
language-learning aptitude works in L2 learning. DeKeyser tested Bley-Vroman’s (1988)
Fundamental Difference Hypothesis, which posits that child language acquisition happens
implicitly by simply accessing Universal Grammar (UG), whereas adult language acquisition
instead needs learners’ focuses on the linguistic structures of the L2 inputs. DeKeyser
did a replication study of Johnson and Newport (1989) and tried to find the relationshipbetween learners’ language-learning aptitude and their L2 proficiency as well as the aptitudedifferences between adult and child L2 learners. DeKeyser administered a grammaticality
judgment test (GJT) and the Hungarian adaptation of the MLAT to 57 Hungarian learners of

6

The Role of TBLT in Promoting Success in Adult L2 Learning

English. All the participants had been the residents in the United States at least for 10 years,
and their age at arrival was from 1 to 40. As predicted in his hypothesis, DeKeyser foundthat the 5 out of 6 adult L2 learners who achieved near-native proficiency possessed highaptitude. In addition, he found a significant correlation between the learners’ aptitude andtheir L2 proficiency. Yet, he could not find any correlations between child learners’ aptitude
and their L2 proficiency. DeKeyser concluded that reaching an exceptionally high level ofL2 proficiency after puberty needed activation of language-learning aptitude. Conversely,
child L2 learners attain a high level of L2 proficiency only by activating innate implicit
language-learning mechanism.
Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam (2008) also investigated the role of language-learning
aptitude on attaining L2 proficiency and the relationship between learners’ ages andthe scores of the test in a different language. In the experiment, GJT and MLAT wereadministered to 42 near-native Swedish speakers whose L1 is Spanish and assessed thecorrelation between their L2 proficiency and language-learning aptitude. Their average lengthof residence in Sweden was 25 years. The result confirmed DeKeyser’s (2000) finding. The
near-native adult L2 learners had a higher language aptitude score than the near-native
child L2 learners. However, unlike DeKeyser’s study, Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam founda correlation between child L2 learners GJT scores and their aptitude test scores. Based on
the fact that language aptitude was activated during the children’s early L2 acquisition, they
concluded that language aptitude is essential not only for adult learners, but also for young
learners for their L2 learning.
Both DeKeyser (2000) and Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam (2008) found the necessity ofhigh language-learning aptitude for adult learners to attain a high level of L2 proficiency, andthe finding of Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam suggests the importance of language-learning
aptitude in any L2 learning. Besides language learning aptitude, no other cognitive
variables were found in the studies that depict adult learners’ high level L2 proficiency.
However, DeKeyser (2000) and Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam (2008) instead found several
non-cognitive variables that allegedly contributed to the high level of proficiency of adult L2
learners in their studies.
Non-cognitive variables, which are measured not by test scores, but by subjective rating
systems, such as surveys or observations, can also play key roles in learners’ L2 attainment.
The studies on achievement of near-native level or native-like proficiency by adult L2 learners
have observed three of these variables in successful learners (Ioup et al. 1994; Moyer, 1999;7慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

Bongaerts, 1999; DeKeyser, 2000; Birdsong, 2007; Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2008).
One of them is explicit learning. Explicit learning is an extraneous non-cognitive activity,
which according to Ellis (1994), is “a conscious operation where the individual makes andtests hypotheses in a search for structure.” DeKeyser and Hall (2009) maintain that it isindispensable for adult L2 learners, since it compensates for the implicit learning ability that
adults have lost after puberty. The explicit grammatical rules these learners receive in theirlearning provide shortcuts, and it accelerates the speed of their L2 learning. The subsequent
sections will describe how explicit learning becomes effective comparing the studies of Ioupet al. (1994) and Schmidt (1983).
Ioup et al. (1994) described two cases of attainment of near-native L2 proficiency in theirstudy. Both learners, Julie and Laura, are English speaking L2 learners of Arabic, who werechosen for this case study because native speakers could not recognize them as non-native.
Julie came from Britain to Cairo, Egypt when she was 21 years old, and had since then been
living there for 26 years. She had never received any formal language instruction of Arabic,
but constantly communicated with her Egyptian husband and two children in Arabic. In
the first four months after coming to Cairo, she kept a diary about her Arabic learning andalso received continuous explicit feedback from native speakers when she made errors incommunication. Laura, who was American, had been living in Morocco for 10 years. She
had received many years of formal instruction in Arabic. She started learning Arabic when
she was an undergraduate and continued studying it until a Ph.D. Program in the U.S. She
moved to Cairo in the middle of the program to pursue the acquisition of spoken Arabic andhad been an Arabic teacher since then. She also had been married with an Egyptian man for
10 years. When comparing these two learners, Julie showed higher fluency than Laura, eventhough both of them had achieved an exceptionally high level of proficiency. Ioup et al. (1994)
attributed Julie’s success to her explicit learning, specifically grammar-focused self-teachingwith native speakers’ immediate feedback. Compared to Laura, who had kept taking formal
language classes to improve her L2 skills, Julie had actively engaged with native speakers in
informal settings. She also received error feedback from native speakers whenever she madeerrors in everyday conversations. This was further enhanced by her self-study, as she kept
learning notes on the learned grammatical structures, especially morphological variations.
Schmidt’s (1983) case study of an adult L2 learner also describes the efficacy of explicit
learning on adult L2 learners. Schmidt (1983) conducted a three-year longitudinal case studyof Wes, a 33-year-old Japanese man who achieved high English communication skills in only

8

The Role of TBLT in Promoting Success in Adult L2 Learning

three years without any formal language instructions. Wes had moved to Hawaii because of
his profound interest in and great affection for Hawaii and Hawaiian people. The comparisonof this study with Ioup et al.’s (1994) case of Julie provides an insight into the role of explicit
learning. Like Julie, Wes also constantly interacted with native English speakers and received
error feedback from them. However, Wes’s language had little accuracy in grammar. Unlike
Julie, who always listened to the feedback she received and made tremendous efforts inacquiring unseen linguistic elements of the target language, Wes ignored the feedback hereceived from native speakers, which resulted in his inability of attaining the L2 accuracy thatnative speakers could not recognize as nonnative. This comparison shows that explicit learning
may become more effective when the learners are actively involved in grammar-focused
self-study and try to internalize the feedback they receive from native speakers.
The study of Ioup et al. (1994) and Schmidt (1983) depict two other non-cognitive
variables that helped promote the success of the adult L2 learners: immersion experiencesand extremely high motivation for acquiring the target languages. In the study of Ioup etal. (1994), Julie immersed herself in an Arabic speaking community for 26 years and her
motivation was being able to communicate effectively with her husband, two children andpeople in the community in Arabic. In the study of Schmidt (1983), Wes lived in Hawaii forthree years, and his motivation was also becoming part of the Hawaiian community.
A short or long period of immersion experience of adult L2 learners who attained anear-native level or native like proficiency has been observed in several studies (Ioup etal. 1994; Moyer, 1999; Bongaerts, 1999; DeKeyser, 2000; Birdsong, 2007; Abrahamsson& Hyltenstam, 2008). The immersion experiences that these studies describe are mostly
studying abroad and immigration to other countries. The efficacy of immersion experience on
adult L2 proficiency development was focused in the study of Lindseth (2010) and Tschirner(2007).
Lindseth (2010) studied the improvement of the oral proficiency of adult German learners
during a semester of studying abroad in Germany. The use of two specific advanced levelgrammar structures by 38 graduate students, who were majoring in German, were assessedby a well-known oral proficiency interview offered by ACTFL (ACTFL OPI). This interview
was conducted by the professional ACTFL raters. As a result, 31 students improved their L2
proficiency after the one-month immersion experience including two students who reachedan advanced level and seven students who improved their L2 proficiency by at more than one
sublevel on the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines for Speaking.

9慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

Tschirner (2007) also investigated the efficacy of immersion experience. His study
investigated not only the effectiveness of immersion experience on improving learners’ oral
proficiency, but also how to maximize the immersion experience. Tschirner’s (2007) study
assessed the oral performance of 15 adult American learners of German before and after the
four-week intensive immersion program in Germany. Two different instruments were used tomeasure the learners’ oral proficiency: the Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview (SOPI) forthe pretest and the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) for the posttest. The learners were also
asked to fill in questionnaires to provide their biographical information and the head teacher
provided written, detailed comments to each student. The study showed that at the end of
the program, 11 of 15 participants improved their oral proficiency by at least one sub-levelon the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines for Speaking. Tschirner (2007) also found out the five
following components that maximize people’s immersion experience: understanding how todevelop oral proficiency; intensive speech instructions with many opportunities to interact
with different native speakers; homestays that provide large amounts of language input andspeaking opportunities, and extremely high motivation. The only drawback of Tschirner’s(2007) study was that two different instruments were used to measure oral proficiency:
the SOPI for the pretest and the OPI for the posttest. He argued that he administereddifferent tests because of the practical, scheduling and cost reasons. Even though Tschirner(2007) maintained that the scores of these two tests are highly correlated, it is problematic
to compare the different test scores to observe the progress during the immersion program
because they are not exactly the same measurements.
Even though both Lindseth (2010) and Tschirner (2007) discovered the efficacy of
immersion experience on improving learners’ oral proficiency, neither of these studies norother studies delved deeper into what elements in immersion experience stimulate thelearners’ L2 development. However, Long’s (2014) Interaction Hypothesis, and Robinson’s(2001, 2005) Cognition Hypothesis corroborate the reasons immersion experiences
accelerate adult L2 learning. Long’s (2014) interaction hypothesis contends that, in addition
to comprehensive input, modifying their interlanguages in meaning negotiation facilitateslearners’ L2 acquisition. As Tschirner (2007) mentioned, effective immersion experiences
provide a lot of meaning negotiation opportunities in the interactions with native speakers.
Robinson (2001, 2005) and Robinson and Gilabert (2007) argue that increasing taskcomplexity in the resource-directing and resource-dispersing dimensions provides more
opportunities of interactions and meaning negotiations in learners, which promotes their

10The Role of TBLT in Promoting Success in Adult L2 Learning

noticing of new language forms. According to Robinson and Gilabert, learners experience a lotof task complexity in both resource-directing and resource-dispersing dimensions when they
are exposed in the L2 environment. Tschirner argues that the ideal immersion experiences
provide the learners with such an environment, where they engage in large amounts of
speaking and interaction opportunities. As these theories suggest, immersion experiences
promote adult L2 development.
The third non-cognitive variable is motivation. According to Skehan (1989), the exact natureof motivation is uncertain, and there is no consensus on the definition of motivation among
SLA researchers. Moyer (1999) also mentioned the difficulty of measuring motivation andthe scarcity of studies on the relationship between motivation and ultimate L2 attainment.
Despite the ambiguity in SLA research on motivation, what is known about it is depicted
as the crucial factor for attaining a near native level of or native-like L2 proficiency in manystudies (Ioup et al. 1994; Moyer, 1999; Bongaerts, 1999; DeKeyser, 2000; Birdsong, 2007;
Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2008). Particularly, the studies of Bongaerts (1999), Birdsong(2007), and Moyer (1999) indicated the importance of motivation on attaining a near-native
level of L2 pronunciation by adult learners.
Bongaerts (1999) conducted three experiments in his study: two with Dutch learners ofBritish English and one with Dutch learners of French, aiming to find if adult L2 learners
can achieve the L2 pronunciation that is indistinguishable from that of native speakers, andto discover what factors helped the learners achieve such a high-level of attainment. The firststudy compared the English pronunciation between three groups of participants: 5 native
speakers; 10 adult Dutch learners of English whose proficiency levels are highly advanced
according to English as a Foreign Language (EFL) experts; and 12 adult Dutch learners ofEnglish in different levels of proficiency. All participants were asked to do the following twotasks: (1) to talk about their recent holiday experiences and (2) to read 10 English sentencesand 25 words. Then, four linguistically inexperienced native English speakers rated theaccents in these speeches and reading samples. The result showed that the judges could nottell the pronunciation differences between the highly advanced L2 learners and the native
speakers. The same results were found in the experiments conducted on the supraregional
accent of British English and standard French; the judges could not distinguish the sounding
differences between the highly advanced L2 learners and the native speakers. In this study,
Bongaerts discovered the three common variables in the learners who achieved a near native
level of pronunciation skills: receiving a large amount of L2 input from native speakers after

11慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

entering university, taking intensive perceptual and pronunciation trainings for acquiring
accurate pronunciation of the target language, and exhibiting extremely high motivation in
attaining native-like pronunciation. One drawback of Bongaerts’s (1999) study is the lack of
scrutiny. The participants’ pronunciations were not analyzed at the segmental level, which
made the accuracy of the result skeptical.
Birdsong (2007) reexamined Bongaerts’s (1999) study. He replicated Bongaerts’s study andanalyzed successful adult L2 learners’ pronunciations in both sentence level and segmental
level. Twenty-two English speaking adult learners of French, who had experienced immersion
in the French speaking countries, were assessed on the durations of their French vowels,
voice onset time of their plosives and the sentence level pronunciations of three passages
from French literature. He also investigated the relationship between the productions of
the two levels. The recorded read-aloud of adult learners of French were compared withthe ones of native French speakers who had grown up in France. The result showed 2 ofthe 22 participants achieved an exceptionally high-level of pronunciation in both segmental
and sentence levels, and their pronunciation was indistinguishable from the native French
speakers. He also found that the sentence level production predicts the segmental levelproduction but not vice versa. Finally, he found that both of the successful learners whoachieved near-native level of pronunciation in segmental and sentence levels had had formal
phonetic trainings, had spent more than 20 years in France, and had been highly motivated inacquiring proper French pronunciation.
The studies of Bongaerts (1999) and Birdsong (2007) found the effect of high motivationof adult L2 learners on attaining a near-native level of L2 pronunciation, but they did not
directly test the effect of motivation in their studies. Moyer (1999), instead, focused on thecorrelations between phonological proficiency of adult L2 learners and extrinsic variables:
motivations, the starting ages of immersion and receipt of instruction, and the types and theamounts of instruction and feedback. Moyer found the negative correlation between theparticipants’ phonological performance and the starting ages of immersion and receipt of
instructions and the positive correlation between the participants’ phonological performanceand the amount of phonological instructions on stress, rhythm and intonation. While nocorrelations were found between the participants’ phonological performance and otherextrinsic variables including their motivations on acquiring the language, Moyer found one ofthe participants who achieved extremely high scores in all the pronunciation tasks and was
rated as native-like by the all the four judges exhibited an exceptionally high motivation in

12

The Role of TBLT in Promoting Success in Adult L2 Learninglearning the German language.
Moyer also found there are two other non-cognitive variables that were mentioned earlier
behind this participant’s L2 success: explicit learning and immersion experience. He not only
had an extremely high interest in Germany and the German language, but also self-taught
through communication with his German friends, and had joined a one-year exchange
program in Germany at the age of 22, which, according to him, brought rapid growth of his
German skills. Successful learners’ explicit learning and immersion experiences were also
discovered in the studies of Bongaerts (1999) and Birdsong (2007). In Bongaerts’s study,
the successful learners had taken intensive perceptual and pronunciation trainings and had
immersion-like experiences, in which they had received a massive L2 input from native
speakers on a daily basis.
In the previous sections, the studies that had portrayed the adult L2 learners who attained ahigh-level of L2 proficiency were reviewed and the cognitive and non-cognitive variables that
presumably caused a high-level of L2 competence were examined. The subsequent section
will focus on the relationship between these cognitive and non-cognitive variables and TBLT.

Does TBLT enhance the learners’ cognitive and non-cognitive variables and promote
their L2 learning?
A cognitive variable, language learning aptitude, and non-cognitive variables, explicit
learning, immersion experiences and extremely high motivation were identified as thestimulants that have been described in the previous studies as ones that could trigger adult L2
learning success. Whether or not TBLT can promote these learner variables will be discussed
further.
The cognitive variable, which was allegedly contributed to adult L2 learners’ highproficiency, was language-learning aptitude. Language-learning aptitude is, however, believed
to be an innate fixed talent for learning languages in many researchers (Abrahamsson &Hyltenstam, 2008). If it is not developmental or does not fluctuate under external influences,
the role of TBLT in successful language learning is uncertain. Since there were only a few
studies that focused on the development or fluctuation of language-learning aptitude, it ishard to understand the mechanism of language-learning aptitude. The study of Harley andHart (1997), which sought the relationship between the language-learning aptitude of 65
11th grade French learning students in immersion programs and the ages of first language
exposure, could not find the evidence of the development of language-learning aptitude.

13慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

McLaughlin (1990), however, claims that language-learning aptitude is developmental
because he believes people’s prior successful language-learning experiences unconsciously
influence the following new language learning. Doughty (2014) also argues that at least one
component of language-learning aptitude, working memory, is developmental and can betrained. If the language-learning aptitude or a part of it is developmental as McLaughlin andDoughty claim, there is a possibility that TBLT can influence its development.
In addition, TBLT also might have a possibility to trigger the activation of language-learning
aptitude. Carroll (1964) investigated the contributions of motivation, instruction qualities,
time and intelligence on learners’ language aptitude in one-week intensive language course
and in a yearlong extensive language course. He found that when learners’ motivation is low
or the quality of instruction is low, their aptitudes were not activated. However, when they
consider that the language courses are beneficial or entertaining, the learners were more
motivated and their language learning aptitude started to make effects. Carroll’s (1964) findings
suggest that if TBLT stimulates learners’ motivation, TBLT might also be able to stimulate
adult L2 learners’ language learning aptitude. Further research on aptitude development andactivation is needed to discover the role of TBLT on promoting language-learning aptitude. In
the subsequent section, the roles of TBLT on non-cognitive variables will be investigated.
Non-cognitive language learner variables discussed in this paper were explicit learning,
immersion experience, and extremely high motivation. Firstly, TBLT provides effective
explicit learning. In the study of Ioup et al. (1994), Julie received corrective feedback from
native speakers whenever she made grammatical errors in everyday conversations. This iswhat TBLT’s focus-on-form approach offers to the learners. As mentioned earlier, in thefocus-on-form approach, a just-in-time grammatical instruction is given whenever the learners
need it in meaning negotiation (Ellis, 2000; Robinson, 2001; Long, 2014). Focus-on-form
instructions help develop the learners’ language abilities because the learners become
psycholinguistically the most susceptible to new forms when learners’ attention is shifted frommeanings to linguistic elements due to perceiving problems in comprehension and production(Prabhu, 1987; Long, 2005).
Secondly, when it comes to immersion experiences, there are no studies on the explicit
relationship between TBLT and immersion experiences. However, TBLT provides similar
learning environments to what actual immersion experiences offer during class periods.
According to Révész (2009), TBLT aims to create the environment where the learners engage
in implicit and explicit learning, receive rich exposure to the target language, and meaning

14

The Role of TBLT in Promoting Success in Adult L2 Learning

based communication. This notion matches with the five components that Tschirner (2007)
argued for maximizing people’s immersion experience. In addition, Long’s (2014) Interaction
Hypothesis and Robinson’s (2001) Cognition Hypothesis suggest TBLT can create an
immersion-like environment. The input and output processing through interactions with peers
and instructors in classrooms expose the learners in comprehensive input and promote them
meaning negotiation and output modification, which accelerate the learners’ L2 acquisition.
TBLT learners can also engage in many cognitively demanding tasks in both resource-directing
and resource-dispersing dimensions. It provides them with ample opportunities of interactions
and meaning negotiations with teachers and other learners in the target language, whichallows them to notice new language forms and promotes their L2 complexity development.
What TBLT lacks when compared to the actual immersion experiences are the quality and thequantity of input the learners receive. Unlike actual immersion experiences, the quality of the
input that TBLT provides is not as high as that of the input that actual immersion experiences
offer. TBLT learners receive native level input only from teachers and from the students whogrew up abroad unlike being surrounded by real natives in the actual immersion experiences.
The amount of the L2 input that TBLT learners can receive is limited, and it is normally only
the time in the classroom. On the other hand, in the actual immersion experiences, learners
receive the L2 input for a long period of time, sometimes all day long. Even though thesedifferences from actual immersion experiences exist, TBLT still provides immersion-likeexperiences to its learners, which possibly accelerates their L2 attainment.
Finally, TBLT positively works on learners’ motivation. According to Krashen’s (1982)
Affective Filter Hypothesis, negative affective factors, such as negative emotions, low
self-confidence, and anxiety become psychological obstacles and hinder language learners’
full absorption of available comprehensible input. However, TBLT adopts needs analysis,
which eliminates these negative affective factors during the task design and helps teachers
avoid psychological obstacles that hinder the learners’ L2 attainment in the classroom.
TBLT’s needs analysis also takes account of learners’ present or future communicative needs
or interests (Long, 2014), which stimulates the learners’ motivation and interests in the L2
development (Robinson, 2001; Tamponi, 2004). In the following studies, Chen and Brown(2012) have found the efficacy of TBLT on the learners’ motivation.
Chen and Brown (2012) investigated whether or not task-based computer-mediatedcommunication (CMC) approach facilitates adult English learners’ motivation toward ESL
writing. Six adult learners (18 to 33 years old) who study in the ESL program at a university

15

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

were assigned a task: to create informative websites using CMC tools. Their perceptions of
their progress in English writing and the motivation for improving it were analyzed. The data
was derived from the participants’ interviews, observation notes and finished websites. The
study found that the CMC supported TBLT facilitated the learners’ motivation. The learners
mentioned that relaying the knowledge they had in writing articles on the website made themfeel like being actual professional web journalists. Since they had to open their websites to the
public, they not only perceived the task as an authentic, purposeful, and meaningful activity,
but also made tremendous efforts to improve the quality of their writing in order not to “loseface”. In addition, many learners often visited the websites that the other students made,even though it was not the requirement of the task. Chen and Brown (2012) mentionedthat this fact indicates how much many of the learners were intrinsically motivated in thistask. They concluded that the task removed the learners’ anxiety and generated their highmotivation. The result of this study clearly demonstrates the efficacy of TBLT on motivation.
It reduced the learners’ anxiety and increased their motivation. However, there are limitationsin this study. First, the sample size was small, which compromised the validity. The numberof the participants was six, which was too small to generalize the findings to a bigger group ofpeople. Second, the tasks were mediated through the computer, and there was a possibility
that the learners were simply interested in computer-based activities, compromising theconstruct validity. In spite of these limitations, this study still deserves attention, as few
studies have focused on the relationship between TBLT and L2 learners’ motivation.

Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to investigate the roles of TBLT approach in promoting successin adult L2 learners. For the first research question, multiple cognitive and non-cognitive
variables that promoted success were indicated in the reviewed studies. When it comes tocognitive variables, language-learning aptitude allegedly played a role in promoting a high levelof adult L2 proficiency. As for non-cognitive variables, three different variables were identified
as the stimulants for successful adult L2 learning: explicit learning, immersion experiences,and extremely high motivation. Then, for the second question, the possible role of TBLT oneach variable was discussed. For the cognitive variables, even though TBLT cannot directly
stimulate people’s language-learning aptitude, it may be able to activate the aptitude bystimulating the learners’ motivation for learning L2 (Carroll, 1964). On the other hand,
TBLT presumably promotes two of the three non-cognitive variables of the successful adult16

The Role of TBLT in Promoting Success in Adult L2 Learning

L2 learners: explicit learning, and extremely high motivation. When it comes to immersion
experiences, TBLT also offers immersion-like experiences in which the learners only receive
low quality L2 input. These findings suggest that over all, TBLT offers what the adult L2
learners who have achieved a near-native level of proficiency have experienced in their life.
Provided that the tasks are always given in the areas of learners’ needs and interests, effective
feedback is provided instantly from instructors, and the target languages are meaningfully
and constantly used by both instructors and learners in the process of accomplishing thesetasks, it is possible for adult learners to achieve practical high-level of L2 competence through
TBLT.
In addition, the studies reviewed above proved that explicit learning, immersion experience,and extremely high motivation were often observed together in the successful L2 learners
who achieved a high level of proficiency (Ioup et al. 1994; Moyer, 1999; DeKeyser, 2000;
Birdsong, 2007; Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2008). This finding implies explicit learning,
immersion experiences, and extremely high motivation might interact with each other tostimulate adult L2 learners and promote their L2 to a high level. In future studies, whether or
not these three non-cognitive variables interact with each other and how TBLT promotes thisinteraction need to be investigated.
As Ellis (2003) and Gonzalez-Lloret and Nielson (2015) mentioned, the studies on theevaluation and the efficacy of TBLT program are scarce and the existing studies on theevaluations of TBLT programs are mostly qualitative and only focus on the experience andperception of the learners on the gained language skills (McDonough & Chaikitmongkol,
2007; Towell & Tomlinson, 1999). The efficacy of TBLT on promoting success in adult L2
learning also should be further discussed in future research.

17慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

References
Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second
language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(04), 481-509.
Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68, 706-755.
Birdsong, D. (2007). Nativelike pronunciation among late learners of French as a second language.

Language experience in second language speech learning, 99-116.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1988). The fundamental character of foreign language learning. Grammar and second

language teaching: A book of readings, 19-30.
Bongaerts, T. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The case of very advanced late L2
learners. Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis, 133-159.
Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching: The roles of fluency andaccuracy (Vol. 129, p. 33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bygate, M. (2009). Task-based language teaching: a reader. John Benjamins Publishers.
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M.(1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test, New York: The Psychological
Corporation.
Carroll, J. B. (1964). The Prediction of Success in Intensive Foreign Language Training. In R. Glaser (Ed.),

Training research and education. Pittsburgh: Univer. Pittsburgh Press, 1962. Pp. 87-136
Chen, J. C., & Brown, K. L. (2012). The effects of authentic audience on English as a second language(ESL) writers: a task-based, computer-mediated approach. Computer Assisted Language Learning,25(5), 435-454.
DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies insecond language acquisition, 22(04), 499-533.
DeKeyser, R., & Larson-Hall, J. (2009). What does the critical period really mean. In Handbook ofbilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, 88-108.
Doughty, C., Campbell, S., Bunting, M., Mislevy, M., Bowles, A., & Koeth, J. (2010). Predicting
near-native L2 ability. Proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Form. Cascadilla Press.
Doughty, C. J. (2014). Assessing aptitude. In Kunnan (Ed.), The Companion to Language Assessment,
25-46.Wiley-Blackwell.
Ellis, N. C. (1994). Implicit and explicit language learning. Implicit and explicit learning of languages,
79-114.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language teaching research, 4(3), 193-220.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2014). Taking the critics to task: The case for task-based teaching. Knowledge, Skills andCompetencies in Foreign Language Education, 103-177.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. P. (2005). Analyzing learner language, 51-275. Oxford: University Press,
USA.
Ellis, R. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching(Vol. 42). Multilingual Matters.

18

The Role of TBLT in Promoting Success in Adult L2 Learning

Farkas, G. (2003). Cognitive skills and noncognitive traits and behaviors in stratification processes.

Annual review of sociology, 541-562.
González-Lloret, M., & Nielson, K. B. (2015). Evaluating TBLT: The case of a task-based Spanish
program. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 525-549.
Hall, G. (2011). Exploring English language teaching: Language in action, 123-142. Taylor & Francis.
Harley, B., & Hart, D. (1997). Language aptitude and second language proficiency in classroom learnersof different starting ages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(03), 379-400.
Ioup, G., Boustagui, E., El Tigi, M., & Moselle, M. (1994). Reexamining the critical period hypothesis.

Studies in second language acquisition, 16(01), 73-98.
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The
influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive

Psychology, 21(1), 60-99.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition (Vol. 2). Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Lee, J., & Shute, V. J. (2009). The influence of noncognitive domains on academic achievement in K-12.

ETS Research Report Series, 2009(2), i-51.
Lindseth, M. U. (2010). The development of oral proficiency during a semester in Germany. Foreign

Language Annals, 43(2), 246-268.
Long, M. (2005). Current issues in task-based language teaching. Paper presented at the University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Long, M. (2014). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching . Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell
McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’ reactions to a task-based EFL
course in Thailand. Tesol Quarterly, 107-132.
McLaughlin, B. (1990). The relationship between first and second languages: Language proficiency andlanguage aptitude. The development of second language proficiency, 158-178.
Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,

21(01), 81-108.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Purpura, J. E. (2013). Assessing grammar. In Kunnan (Ed.), The Companion to Language Assessment,
100-124.Wiley-Blackwell.
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 31(03), 437-470.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in acomponential framework. Applied linguistics, 22, 27-57.

19

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential frameworkfor second language task design. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language

Teaching, 43(1), 1-32.
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language
learning and performance. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,45(3), 161-176.
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence: A casestudy of an adult. Sociolinguistics and language acquisition, 137, 174.
Schneiderman, E. I., & Desmarais, C. (1988). The Talented Language Learner: Some Preliminary
Findings. Second Language Research, 4(2), 91-109.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Skehan, P. (1998a). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268-286.
Skehan, P. (1998b). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: University Press.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign
language performance. Language teaching research, 1(3), 185-211.
Tamponi, A. R. (2004). Content and language integrated university course: A task-based approach. Paper
resented at the Navigating the New Landscape for Language Conference, University of London.
Towell, R., & Tomlinson, P. (1999). Language curriculum development research at university level.

Language teaching research, 3(1), 1-32.
Tschirner, E. (2007). The development of oral proficiency in a four-week intensive immersion program in
Germany. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 111-117.
Van Den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. (2009). Task-based language teaching: a reader, 2-19.
John Benjamins Publishers.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman

20Difficulty levels of English  and  for Japanese learners: An acoustic analysis

Difficulty levels of English  and 
for Japanese learners: An acoustic analysis
Aya Kitagawa
Abstract
The present study aimed to examine phonetic and phonological learning with a specificfocus on production of  and  and to identify the difficulty level of these approximants
by defining  and  as easy, learnable or difficult items for Japanese learners of English.
Acoustic analyses were conducted, where the third formant was measured for  and .
The variables obtained from the analyses were submitted to three statistical tests, a cluster
analysis, a multivariate analysis of variance and a discriminant analysis. The results showedthat both approximants were difficult for Japanese learners to learn to produce. Despite thedifficulty in learning them, it was also found that there was an individual preference about
which approximant was learned faster. Some Japanese learners of English were learning 
faster than  whereas others were learning  faster than . Further studies will be required
to explore what creates these individual differences, and how positively the preference forlearning  or  can affect the learning of both approximants.

1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the study

Previous studies have pointed out the difficulty of Japanese learners learning to perceiveand produce English  and  (Flege, Guion, Akahane-Yamada, & Yamada, 2004; Goto,
1971; Yamada, 1995). This is partly because of the difference in the phonological inventory of
approximants between the two languages: English has four voiced approximants, ,whereas Japanese has only two approximants, . Japanese does not have a voiced alveolar
approximant, , and a voiced alveolar lateral approximant, , unlike English (English 
should be transcribed as  if based on IPA, but  will be used in this paper following theconventional transcription).

21

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

It should also be noted that although previous research often has found that Japaneselearners of English tend to perceive and produce the English syllable-initial  and  asJapanese , English  and Japanese  are phonetically different. Japanese  is not evenclassified as an approximant. It is a flap, labelled as  or , which is articulated with a brief
closure immediately before the following sound by quickly contacting the tip of the tongue
with the alveolar ridge (Kent & Read, 2002). It rather sounds similar to an English flap
used in American English, as in better. Japanese  and English  thus have very different
phonetic qualities.
The contrastive phonetics and phonology above suggest that Japanese learners of English,
less experienced learners in particular, would have difficulty in producing  and  in anative-like manner. There seems to be a lack of consensus as to which approximants are
more likely to be learned, however, especially concerning production. Some argued that 
was learned with more ease (Aoyama et al., 2004; Hazan, Sennema, Iba, & Faulkner, 2005),
while others maintained that both could be equally learned (Flege, Takagi, & Mann, 1995;
Slawinski, 1999). This study therefore analyzed the production of these two approximants by
Japanese learners with no experience of living in an English-speaking country, using acoustic
analyses, in order to define the level of difficulty for these approximants.
1.2 Learning of L2  and 

The difficulty of discriminating perceptually between English  and  for Japaneselearners was empirically examined (Goto, 1971; Hallé, Best, & Levitt, 1999; Yamada, 1995).
Goto (1971) conducted an experiment, where American and Japanese participants read a listof words including  and  tokens, and then identified the tokens as  and  by listening
to their own recorded samples or the other participants’. He found that both proficient andless proficient Japanese participants discriminated between  and  in perception poorly.
Yamada (1995) is in accordance with Goto (1971), but claimed that the experience of livingin the U.S. affected accuracy in perceiving these approximants.
Whereas the findings of Guion, Flege, Akahane-Yamada, and Pruitt (2000) showed that noJapanese sounds, including vowels and consonants, were similar to  and  perceptually,
they reported that  was closer to , a Japanese flap. In their experiment, highly experienced
Japanese learners and moderately experienced Japanese learners performed better indiscriminating between English  and Japanese  than between English  and Japanese .
Guion et al. regarded this as an indication that English  sounded closer to Japanese  than22

Difficulty levels of English  and  for Japanese learners: An acoustic analysis

English  to Japanese learners.
According to Goto (1971), Japanese participants with higher English proficiency
discriminated between  and  well in production. Therefore, whereas prior studies
generally agreed that both  and  were perceptually difficult for Japanese learners todiscriminate, these approximants may be more likely to be learned in production. Aoyama
et al. (2004), however, found a better performance of  in learners’ production, as in theirperception. They carried out experiments, where adult and child speakers of Japanesediscriminated between ,  and  in perception and production. They reported thatthe children improved the production of  and  more than , while the adults showed
only a minimal improvement in learning these approximants. Although both children andadults performed better in producing  than producing  and  at the first session, they
concluded that there was a greater improvement in the production of  and , highlighting
a relative improvement. Hazan et al. (2005) also found some differences between  and. According to their results, whereas the production test did not produce a significant

difference in the effect of the perceptual training with audiovisual stimuli between learning and learning , the rating task showed that the production of  was better rated as anauthentic token due to the effect of the training. That is to say, the participants performed
slightly better in producing  than  as a whole.
In contrast, Slawinski (1999) argued that the learning of  and  was parallel in the
production. She carried out experiments of both perception and production of  and  byJapanese children and adults to investigate the effect of spoken proficiency on the productionof  and . Four groups of Japanese children and three groups of adults participated in
the experiments. The production test was aimed at examining how the participants would
use temporal and spectral cues in discriminating between  and , the results of whichindicated that they improved the second formant (F2) and third formant (F3) transitionsof both  and  with age and exposure to English. The experimental groups did not differ
significantly, except that the adult late learners used a longer cue for  at a significantly
different level from the other adult groups. Flege, Takagi et al., (1995) also found thatJapanese learners of English could learn to produce both  and  accurately, as they became
more experienced.
1.3 Acoustic measurements of approximants

The approximants targeted in the current study,  and , are similar to vowels in that23

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

they have clear formant frequencies. This provides them with vowel-like features, making
these sounds acoustically distinct from other consonants. The sonority of these sounds is thus
higher than other consonants, including plosives, fricative and affricates. Espy-Wilson (1992)
noted these characteristics, and analyzed all four English approximants in terms of a decreasein energy at low frequencies, abrupt amplitude change, mid-frequency energy and the first
four formants.
F3 is recognized as one of the primary cues used to distinguish between  and  of all
measurements. The decrease of F3 is a characteristic feature of , and the lowering of F3
in  has been measured in previous studies (Flege, Takagi et al., 1995; Iverson et al., 2001;
Saito & Lyster, 2011). Flege, Takagi et al. (1995) highlighted the importance of lowering F3
for English , noting that a higher F3 value led to more perceived foreign accentedness.
Figure 1.1 depicts F3 of  in rats and  in learn. The boxed portion in each spectrogram
corresponds to the whole  and . The horizontal line immediately below the arrow is F3,
measured in hertz (Hz).
(a) (b) 

Figure 1.1. The spectrogram of  and : (a) ; and (b) .
A relatively wider range of F3 values have been reported for English , which reflects
a different degree of r-coloring. Some initial  was produced as low as 1240 Hz whenarticulated with a strongly curled tongue; in contrast, because of the lesser degree ofr-coloring, F3 in the intervocalic  is lowered only to a smaller extent (Ladefoged, 2003).
Ladefoged (2003) described the intervocalic  in berry as having the F3 value of 2100 Hz.
Saito and Lyster (2011) maintained that the degree of F3 lowering affected native speakerjudgment, reporting that  tokens with F3 values ranging from 2200 Hz to 2300 Hz were
judged as good examples of English  of all tokens produced by Japanese learners of English.

24Difficulty levels of English  and  for Japanese learners: An acoustic analysis

In contrast, as evident in a comparison with F3 of the sounds preceding and following  in
Figure 1.1, F3 of  has no abrupt change. Flege, Takagi et al. (1995) found that the average
F3 value of  produced by native speakers of American English was 2854 Hz. Saito and
Lyster also noted that authentic  would be produced with F3 of 2800 Hz.
Another acoustic cue of  to be noted is the presence of anti-formants (Kent & Read,
2002). The spectrogram of  in Figure 1.1, surrounded by vowels, shows that formants of are also generally weaker than those of the adjacent vowels. Because  is articulated withthe tip of the tongue on the alveolar ridge, the air flow goes out through the side(s) of the oralcavity. This blockage causes the energy to radiate, which is reflected as anti-formants on the
spectrogram, as with nasals.
1.4 Research question and hypotheses

This study aimed to examine the learning of  and  with a specific focus on production
and to identify the difficulty level of these approximants by defining  and  as easy,
learnable or difficult items for Japanese learners of English. To address this research question,
hypotheses were formed as follows.
It was hypothesized that  and  would be learnable and difficult, respectively. Bothapproximants do not have any exact counterpart in the Japanese phonological inventory as
noted in Section 1.1, which suggests that Japanese learners have to learn both phones fromscratch. Previous research shows that training (Saito & Lyster, 2001) and exposure or age(Slawinkski, 1999) would be key factors in promoting learning, and therefore, these findings
imply no strong ground for hypothesizing that these approximants would be easy items.
Additionally, some researchers claim that the degree of difficulty varies between  and  as
far as production is concerned:  is more likely to be learned (Aoyama et al., 2004; Hazan
et al., 2005). Although others argue that both approximants could be learned (Flege, Takagi,& Mann, 1995; Slawinski, 1999), it is not a major argument that  is easier than  forJapanese learners to learn to produce. Thus,  was predicted to be learnable and  to bedifficult.
2. Methods
2.1 Participants

Ninety-one speakers participated in this study: 72 were Japanese learners of English ( JL),
12 were native speakers of British English (BN) and 7 were native speakers of American25慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

English (AN). The JL participants were third-year students at boys high school well reputedfor its high academic level. They had diverse academic backgrounds, but none of them had
the experience of living in an English-speaking country. The JL’s performance data werecompared against those of BN/AN obtained from publicly available databases, the UCL
Speaker Database (Markham & Hazan, 2002) and the Audio Archive (Merfert, 1997). The
data of these speakers with two different accents were used because both are the mostcommon accents of English taught in the classroom in Japan and spoken around the world. It
is known that gender affects the absolute values of formant frequencies, and thus, this study
only collected data from male speakers.
2.2 Materials

Phonetically-balanced passages, The Story of Arthur the Rat and Arthur the Rat, wereused. Data for the BN and JL participants were collected using the former passage and thosefor the AN participants, using the latter. These passages were slightly different in some words
used, but they follow exactly the same story line.
Target words were selected from these passages. Voiced approximants,  and , occurredeither at the word-initial position or the word-medial position as follows. The number within
the square brackets in the list presents the number of repetitions, when provided:		BN/JL data				: rat [5], rainy, room, roof [2], right, rode, carry and hurry				: learn, looked, lived, last, later, lying, Helen and Nelly
		AN data				: rat [6], rainy, room, roof, right, rode, carry and hurry				: like, look, loft, little, long, line, Helen and Nelly
2.3 Recording and procedure

All recordings of the JL participants were made using a digital recorder, Roland-09, and acondenser microphone, SONY ECM-MS957. Their data were recorded at a sampling rate of
44.1 kHz, 16 bit. The recording level was first checked and adjusted to each speaker.
The material, printed on one side of A4 paper, was distributed to each participant between
3 days and 30 minutes prior to the recording. A summary of the story was presented in26

Difficulty levels of English  and  for Japanese learners: An acoustic analysis

Japanese on the other side of the paper, with the intention of helping them to grasp thegist of the story. Although the participants were allowed to look up the pronunciation of
unfamiliar words in a dictionary before the recording session, no instructions were given by
the experimenter as to phonetic and phonological features.
2.4 Acoustic analyses

Based on the finding of Saito and Lyster (2011) that only F3 values predicted whether thenative listeners would perceive a produced sound as , F3 was acoustically analyzed in thisexperiment. F3 was measured for  and , after the spectrogram and formant track were
specified on Praat (Boersma & Weenink, 2011, 2015). Because the low F3 value characterizes
 as described in Section 1.3, the lowest F3 values at the beginning of the upward slope andthe steady-state F3 value were measured for each token. The values were obtained in Hz.
One thing that should be considered when analyzing the speech sample collected from
non-native speakers is that the F3 values cannot be measured when another sound issubstituted for the target  and . There were two cases of this; one was the substitutionof a flap-like sound and the other was that of a vowel-like sound. The flap-like pronunciation
is evident from the presence of a hold phrase in most cases. When the presence of the holdphrase could be confused with the presence of anti-formant for , a durational cue wasapplied to judge whether the token was  or a flap-like sound, referring to the duration ofa flap obtained by Rimac and Smith (1984). Both durations and F3 values were therefore
recorded with the candidates for the flap-like tokens that had an unclear hold phrase. The
articulation rate, calculated using the script (de Jong & Wempe, 2009) on Praat (Boersma& Weenink, 2011, 2015), was also obtained so as to take into account the difference in the
speaking rate between the BN/AN participants and the JL participants. The other type of
substitution, vowel-like pronunciation, was due to an incomplete articulation of . The
tokens were classified into this type of error, when characteristics of anti-formant were notvisually evident in the spectrogram and waveform.
2.5 Variables for  and 

Two variables were applied to the statistical tests on the production of  and : score forthe  and score for the  tokens, which corresponded to the number of tokens produced
as the intended sound as in Table 2.1. These variables were obtained by judging every target
token as ,  or other sounds with reference to the BN/AN data, and counting the number

27慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

of tokens identified as intended.

Table 2.1

Variables for the Analysis of  and 
No. ofvariables

Level ofmeasurement

Scale

Score for the  tokens

1Interval

0-8

Score for the  tokens

1Interval

0-8

Variable

After the F3 values were measured, they were converted from Hz to mel using Equation 1(Fant, 1968):
		 Mel = 1000/ log 210 x log(1+F/1000)(1)where F represents the frequency value. The thresholds of the F3 mel value to distinguishbetween  and  and that of the durational value to separate  from a flap-like sound werethen set based on the data of BN/AN participants. As for the F3 threshold to classify thetokens into  or , all tokens of initial  and  obtained from the BN/AN participants wereranked according to F3, and the F3 mel values whose z-scores fell at 2 SD and -2 SD were
defined as the thresholds for  and , respectively. The durational threshold for a flap-likesound, on the other hand, was set using the average duration of American flaps for adultspeakers, reported by Rimac and Smith (1984), 33 ms, as a reference. Non-native speakers
are likely to speak more slowly than native speakers (Munro & Derwing, 1995); therefore, amodified threshold for the JL participants was calculated by multiplying 33 ms by the ratio of
the average articulation rate of the JL participants to that of the BN/AN participants.
Every item was scored in terms of whether they were produced as intended or not, withreference to the threshold values above. First, by comparing the duration of the candidates forthe flap-like tokens against the threshold of the durational value for a flap-like sound, tokens
longer than the threshold were considered not to be flap-like. These tokens were submitted
to the subsequent scoring process to judge whether or not the tokens were  or . The 
tokens with F3 lower than threshold F3 value for  and the  tokens with F3 higher than
the threshold F3 value for  were judged as intended. The two variables were obtained on a28

Difficulty levels of English  and  for Japanese learners: An acoustic analysis

scale of 0 to 8 by adding the scores for the eight items of  and  each. The target word rat
was repeated in the passage five times for the BN and JL data and six times for the AN data,
and roof was repeated twice for BN and JL data. These words were scored as intended whenmore than one token was judged as intended for rat and when at least one token was judged
as intended for roof.
2.6 Statistical analyses

Three statistical analyses were performed using the variables above: a cluster analysis,
a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and a discriminant analysis. The firststatistical test, a cluster analysis, was carried out to group the participants into clusters,
based on similarities in the input variables. This analysis was conducted using the entire
sample, including the BN/AN participants, which made it possible to form the groups of JL
participants depending on similarities in their performances. The cutoff point was selected on
two criteria. One is that at least one of the clusters consisted of as many BN/AN participants
as possible, called a BN/AN cluster. This is based on the theoretical hypothesis that the BN/
AN participants would be grouped together. The other was that the JL participants formed
four clusters at most, called as JL clusters, considering the balance of the sample size of eachcluster for the subsequent analyses. The second statistical test, a MANOVA, was carried out
using the clusters generated by this analysis as the between-subjects independent variables.
It revealed whether there was a statistical difference among the clusters or not. The third
statistical test, a discriminant analysis, was performed to identify clusters that differed in thevariables at a statistically significant level. This judgment was based on the distance displayedin the canonical discriminant function plots and the location with reference to the group
centroids indicated by positive and negative signs. A discriminant analysis additionally
showed which variables discriminated them and to what degree these variables contributed
to the discrimination. This was judged based on the structural matrix of the correlations
between the variables and each of the discriminant functions. There is no decisive standard
in the interpretation of the correlations, but those higher than .33 were interpreted to suggest
variables contributing to the discrimination, following the convention provided by Tabachnick
and Fidell (2007).
2.7 Criteria of learning

In order to define the difficulty level of  and  as easy, learnable or difficult, the results

29慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

were discussed by comparing the BN/AN cluster(s) with the JL clusters. The definition
was then given against the following criteria. The first criterion was whether the target item
discriminated between the BN/AN cluster(s) and the JL clusters. The items that did notdiscriminate between the JL clusters and the BN/AN cluster(s) were interpreted as easy
for Japanese learners of English. The second criterion was how many JL participants werediscriminated from the BN/AN cluster(s) when the target items differentiated between
the JL clusters and the BN/AN cluster(s). The items that discriminated more than half the
JL participants from the BN/AN cluster(s) were defined as difficult items. The items that
discriminated some JL participants from the BN/AN cluster(s), but not more than half the JL
participants, were defined as learnable items.
3. Results

Before presenting the results of the score for the  tokens and the score for the  tokens,the threshold value of duration for a flap-like sound and the threshold values of F3 will bereported. As described in Sections 2.4 and 2.5, the threshold value of duration was computed
to judge some  tokens as  or a flap-like sound. The articulation rate of the BN and AN
participants was 4.44 syllables per second and that of the JL participants was 3.43 syllables
per second on average, and the threshold was thus defined as 43 ms for the JL participantsby multiplying 33 ms (Rimac & Smith, 1984) by 1.29. The 33 ms threshold of duration wasapplied to the BN/AN participants, and as a result of this threshold, six tokens produced by
BN/AN participants were judged as a flap-like sound.
The tokens defined as either  or  were then submitted to the scoring procedure to
determine whether  and  were produced as intended using the threshold values of F3 for and . The results of the BN/AN data showed that the F3 value of initial  at 2 SD andthat of initial  at -2 SD were 1665 mel Hz and 1671 mel Hz, respectively, and these values
were set as the threshold value of F3 for each approximant. Three  tokens out of the 113
and two  tokens out of the 111 that the BN/AN participants produced were identified as
unintended when these thresholds were applied.
Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 present the descriptive statistics of the variables for the BN, AN
and JL groups. Figure 3.1(a and b) illustrates these variables, the average number of the and  correct tokens out of eight and the average number of tokens for each error type,respectively. In Figure 3.1(a), the items are indicated on the x-axis and the score for the and  tokens on the y-axis. In Figure 3.1(b), the error types and the average number of errors

30Difficulty levels of English  and  for Japanese learners: An acoustic analysis

are shown on the x-axis and y-axis, respectively. The errors were broadly categorized into three
types, as displayed in the figure: the substitution of  for  and vice versa, that of a flap-likesound for  and  and that of a vowel-like sound for  and .

Table 3.1

Descriptive Statistics of  and  for BN, AN and JL GroupsAN(n = 7)BN(n = 12)JL(n = 72)

M

SD

Max

Min

M

SD

Max

Min

M

SD

Max

Min



7.83

0.39

8.00

7.00

7.57

0.79

8.00

6.00

2.86

2.62

8.00

0.00



7.42

0.67

8.00

6.00

7.29

0.76

8.00

6.00

2.69

2.34

8.00

0.00

Note. For  and , the highest possible value is 8, corresponding to the number of items.

(b) Number of errors

8

8

7

7

6
5
4

BN

3

AN

2

JL

1
0

r

l

Voiced Approximant

Average Number of Errors

Score of the Target Tokens(a) Scores for the  and  tokens

6
5
4

BN

3

AN

2

JL

1
0

r>l

r > flapr > vowell>rl > tapl > vowel

Error Type

Figure 3.1. Score for the  and  tokens and average number of errors for BN, AN and
JL groups: (a) the score for the  and  tokens; and (b) the number of errors for six
error categories. r>l = substitution of  for ; r>ﬂap = substitution of a ﬂap-like soundfor ; r>vowel = substitution of a vowel-like sound for ; l>r = substitution of  for
; l>ﬂap = substitution of a ﬂap-like sound for ; l>vowel = substitution of a vowel-likesound for .

The BN and AN groups and the JL group primarily differed in the number of correct tokens
as in Table 3.1. The JL group achieved lower scores for both  and  (M = 2.86, SD = 2.62
for ; M = 2.69, SD = 2.34 for ) than the BN group (M = 7.83, SD = 0.39 for ; M = 7.42,

SD = 0.67 for ) and the AN group (M = 7.57, SD = 0.79 for ; M = 7.29, SD = 0.76 for31慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

). Figure 3.1(a) displays no substantial difference in the scores between  and  for eachgroup, and also shows how low the scores of the JL group were, compared to those of the
BN/AN groups. Figure 3.1(b), furthermore, reveals that the low score of the JL groups were
attributed to frequent substitutions of both  and  for a flap-like sound. Substitutions of 
for  and vice versa came next.
A cluster analysis was carried out to profile the JL participants, using the z-scores of thescores for the  and  tokens calculated based on the mean and standard deviation of theentire sample. Figure 3.2 shows the dendrogram output by the analysis.

Cluster 3( JL)

Cluster 4(JL)

Cluster 2( JL)

Cluster 1(BN/AN)

Figure 3.2. Dendrogram for  and All participants were separated into four clusters at the earliest stage of the clustering
process. The four clusters were thus selected for the statistical analyses that followed.
Cluster 1 consisted of 12 BN participants, 7 AN participants and 6 JL participants. This
cluster was considered to represent native speakers, and termed as a BN/AN cluster (Figure3.2). Clusters 2, 3 and 4 were comprised of 20 JL participants, 19 JL participants and 27 JL
participants, respectively, each of which was termed as a JL cluster (Figure 3.2).
Table 3.2 shows the descriptive statistics for the four clusters formed by the cluster
analysis, where the valid F3 values averaged across participants were also presented. Someparticipants whose tokens were judged as neither  nor  failed to provide any valid F3
values; therefore, the number of participants from whom the F3 values were measured is also32

Difficulty levels of English  and  for Japanese learners: An acoustic analysis

given in the table. Figure 3.3(a and b) visually presents the scores for the  and  tokens,and the average number of errors for each error type, respectively. The results are summarized
in Figure 3.3(a and b) in the same style as Figure 3.1(a and b).

Table 3.2

Descriptive Statistics of  and  for Four Clusters
Cluster 1(n = 25)

Cluster 2(n = 20)

Cluster 3(n = 19)

Cluster 4(n = 27)

25  / 25 

20  / 18 

13  / 19 

14  / 19 

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD



7.40

1.15

5.75

1.41

1.21

1.03

1.11

1.22



7.28

0.74

1.55

1.23

4.95

1.22

1.00

0.78

F3 Hz 1735.33

156.601819.72102.231789.36

161.11

1861.69

156.89

F3 Hz 2546.50131.71

2562.12176.402497.90140.042565.37

115.93F3 mel 

1489.06

69.40

1491.40

52.81

1460.2081.78

1487.68

142.50F3 mel 

1824.57

52.31

1830.76

70.51

1784.35

56.42

1833.13

46.98

Valid F3 n

Note. The number given on the third row shows the number of participants who provided a valid F3 valueof  and . For  and , the highest possible value is 8, corresponding to the number of tokens.

The four clusters had different patterns of performance for the production of  and , asclearly shown in Table 3.2 and Figure 3.3(a). The target tokens that the participants in Cluster
1, the BN/AN cluster, produced were most frequently judged as intended for both  and (M = 7.40, SD = 1.15 for ; M = 7.28, SD = 0.74 for ). In contrast, Cluster 2 obtained ahigher score for  than  (M = 5.75, SD =1.41 for ; M = 1.55, SD =1.23 for ), Cluster
3 achieved a higher score for  than  (M = 1.21, SD =1.03 for ; M = 4.95, SD = 1.22 for) and Cluster 4 performed poorly for both  and  (M = 1.11, SD =1.22 for ; M = 1.00,

SD = 0.78 for ). These patterns are reflected in the pattern of errors that the participants in
the JL clusters made. As can be seen in Figure 3.3(b), Cluster 2, which performed better in, substituted  for  most frequently, Cluster 3, which performed better in , tended to

substitute  for  or a flap-like sound, and Cluster 4, which performed most poorly in both and , substituted a flap-like sound for  and  more often than the other clusters.

33慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号(b) Number of errors

8

8

7

7

6
5

Cluster 1

4

Cluster 2

3

Cluster 3

2

Cluster 4

1
0

r

l

Average Number of Errors

Score of the Target Tokens(a) Scores for the  and  tokens

6
5

Cluster 1

4

Cluster 2

3

Cluster 3

2

Cluster 4

1
0

r>l

r > flap r > vowel

Voiced Approximantl>rl > flap l > vowel

Error Type

Figure 3.3. Score for the  and  tokens and average number of errors for fourclusters: (a) the score for the  and  tokens; and (b) the number of errors for six error
categories. r>l = substitution of  for ; r>ﬂap = substitution of a ﬂap-like sound for; r>vowel = substitution of a vowel-like sound for ; l>r = substitution of  for ;l>ﬂap = substitution of a ﬂap-like sound for ; l>vowel = substitution of a vowel-likesound for .

A one-way MANOVA was conducted with the scores for the  and  tokens as dependent
variables, and the four clusters as the independent variables, in order to determine whether
these visually detected differences were significant or not. Table 3.3 shows that two variables,
the score for  the tokens and that for the  tokens, were moderately correlated. Thissuggests that a MANOVA was estimated to work well with these variables, as in Tabachnick
and Fidell (2007), who states that the MANOVA does not perform well when the variables
have an extremely high or low correlation.

Table 3.3

Correlation between the Variables for  and 
Variable1

1. 

－2.

.48**** p < .01.

34

Difficulty levels of English  and  for Japanese learners: An acoustic analysis

The sample size of the largest cluster was less than 1.5 times as large as that of the smallest
cluster, so that the á level was set at .05 (Stevens, 2007). Pillai’s trace yielded a significant
difference among the clusters, F(6, 174) = 140.91, p < .001,

2
p= .83.

A post-hoc discriminant analysis was performed to identify the differences among theclusters, which was found by the MANOVA. Two discriminant functions were found to
discriminate between the clusters. The first function accounted for 76.7% of the variance,
canonical R2 = .91, and the second function accounted for 23.3% of the variance, canonical

R2 = .75. When combined, these functions significantly differentiated the clusters fromeach other with the Wilk’s lambda value of .02, ÷2(6) = 328.64, p < .001. After removing
the first function, the second function was able to discriminate between the clusters at asignificant level with the Wilk’s lambda value of .25, ÷2(2) = 120.70, p < .001. These resultsmean that the differences among the clusters can be explained by these two functions withthe first function accounting more for the differences. The group centroids in Table 3.4 andthe discriminant plot in Figure 3.4 show that the four clusters were well discriminated by
the functions. The first function distinguished Clusters 2, 3 and 4 from Cluster 1. Cluster 1
and Cluster 4 were separated maximally. The second function differentiated between the JL
clusters, where Cluster 2 and Cluster 3 were discriminated most.

Table 3.4

Group Centroids for  and 
Function
Cluster

1

2

1

4.58

0.09

2

⊖ 0.782.58

3⊖ 0.28⊖ 2.594⊖ 3.47⊖ 0.1735

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

12
3
4Group centroids

5.0

Function 2

2.5

0.0

2.5

5.0

5.0

2.5

0.0

2.5

5.0

Function 1

Figure 3.4. Canonical discriminant function plot for  and .

Table 3.4 is a structural matrix to show the correlations between the variables and the twofunctions. The results revealed that the score for the  tokens loaded on the first function
most highly (r = .81), and that of  also loaded on it (r = .62). As noted above, the firstfunction discriminated Cluster 1 from the other clusters, especially between Cluster 1 andCluster 4. Taken together, the results suggest that both the score for the  tokens and thescore for the  tokens contributed to discriminating Clusters 2, 3 and 4 from Cluster 1,
Cluster 4 from Cluster 1 in particular, as seen in Table 3.2 and Figure 3.3(a). The participantsin Cluster 1 performed best for  and  of all clusters, obtaining the highest scores (M = 7.40,

SD = 1.15 for ; M = 7.28, SD = 0.74 for ), whereas those in Cluster 4 performed mostpoorly, achieving the lowest scores for both  and  (M = 1.11, SD =1.22 for ; M = 1.00,

SD = 0.78 for ). Cluster 2 also achieved the lower scores for both target approximants(M = 5.75, SD = 1.41 for ; M = 1.55, SD = 1.23 for ) than Cluster 1. This was true ofCluster 3 (M = 1.21, SD = 1.03 for ; M = 4.95, SD = 1.22 for ). Thus, none of the JL
clusters failed to attain the level of the BN/AN clusters for the production of  and .

36

Difficulty levels of English  and  for Japanese learners: An acoustic analysis

Table 3.5

Structural Matrix for the Correlations between the Variables for  and  and the Two
Discriminant Functions
Function
Variable1

2

Score for the  tokens

.81

⊖ .59

Score for the  tokens

.62

.79

Note. The variables with the absolute value of correlations with the corresponding functions of .33 andabove were highlighted in bold.

The second function concerned the discrimination among the JL clusters, as noted earlier.
According to the structural matrix in Table 3.5, this function was identified by both the score
for the  tokens (r = .79) and the score for the  tokens (r= -.59). As in the values presented
in Table 3.2, Cluster 3 gained the higher score for the  tokens (M = 4.95, SD = 1.22) than
Cluster 2 (M = 1.55, SD = 1.23). In contrast, Cluster 2 obtained the higher score for the tokens (M = 5.75, SD = 1.41) than Cluster 3 (M = 1.21, SD = 1.03). The participantsin Cluster 4 failed to achieve such higher scores than those in the other JL clusters for both
approximants (M = 1.11, SD =1.22 for ; M = 1.00, SD = 0.78 for ) as in Table 3.2.
Accordingly, these results demonstrated that the second function particularly highlighted
the differences between Cluster 2 and Cluster 3. The average number of errors in Figure
3.3(b) also emphasized these differences among the JL clusters, as described above. Cluster
2, which showed better performance in , produced  even for the  tokens more often
than Clusters 3 and 4. Cluster 3, obtaining the higher score for the  tokens, were likely
to substitute  for  more frequently than Clusters 2 and 4. Cluster 4 performed morepoorly in both  and  than Cluster 2 and Cluster 3, which would be reflected in the mostfrequent substitution for a Japanese consonant, a flap-like sound.
4. Discussion
4.1 Findings

This study measured F3 values produced by the JL participants and BN/AN participants
to examine the difficulty level of learning two English approximants  and . The results
showed that a majority of the JL participants produced both consonants less accurately than37慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

the BN/AN participants. At the same time, two patterns of learning were found for the JL
participants: one is the pattern that  is learned faster than  and the other is the one that is learned faster than . The results of the experiment and the definition of the difficultylevel will be discussed in more detail below.
To judge the target tokens as intended  or , the threshold values of F3 were defined for and , respectively, as follows: 1665 mel Hz and 1671 mel Hz. These thresholds of  and are equal to 2177 Hz and 2185 Hz, respectively, when mel was converted back to Hz. The

threshold of  in this study was close to the F3 value of  in Saito and Lyster (2011), whoreported the F3 value between 2200 Hz and 2300 Hz. This value defined as the threshold for in the present study would therefore be reasonable. On the other hand, the threshold of 

defined was lower than the value that Saito and Lyster reported as F3 value of , 2800 Hz.
Iverson and Kuhl (1996) also showed the F3 values for  and , which helped discuss
whether the thresholds of this study were reasonable or not. They investigated the perceptual
similarity underlying ,  and  within the framework of the native language magnet
model, and found that an F3 value of the best exemplar for  was 1473 Hz, and that for was 3478 Hz for one group, and 3329 Hz for the other. Compared with these values, thethreshold values  and  in the present study seemed higher and lower, respectively. As
Iverson and Kuhl noted, however, the best exemplars tended to be more extreme. The stimuli
were created by synthesizing female speech, and were tokens that constituted a simple
syllable structure, CV, in Iverson and Kuhl. In contrast, the F3 values that this study set were
not F3 values for good exemplars or averages, but thresholds. The values were defined basedon the speech sample collected from male speakers, and a passage was used to collect thedata. In addition, the phonetic boundary of F3 between  and , found by Iverson and Kuhl,
was somewhere between 2067 Hz and 2523 Hz. The thresholds of this study fell within thisrange. Taken together, the thresholds of F3 defined in the present study would be acceptable.
The cluster analysis was carried out using the variables obtained based on these yardsticks,
and it generated one BN/AN cluster, consisting of 25 participants. All BN/AN participants
were classified into this cluster. The fact that only six JL participants were grouped into thesame cluster as the BN/AN participants suggests the overall difficulty of learning  and .
The cluster analysis also formed three JL clusters, each of which comprised of 20 JL
participants, 19 JL participants and 27 JL participants. All these clusters were discriminatedfrom the BN/AN cluster in production of both  and . The results suggest that  and were difficult items for the JL participants to learn to produce according to the criteria

38

Difficulty levels of English  and  for Japanese learners: An acoustic analysis

described in Section 2.7 because more than half the JL participants were differentiated fromthe BN/AN cluster.
At the same time, it was found that there was a difference in the performances of both and  among the JL participants, although none of the JL clusters reached the level of BN/
AN cluster. This points to some potential for learning by Japanese learners of English. The
major difference was that the JL cluster of 20 participants performed better in producing
, that the JL cluster of 19 participants performed better in  and that the JL cluster of

27 participants performed poorly on both  and . This pattern was further supportedby the results of the pattern of the errors that they made. The JL cluster of 20 participants
produced  even for the  tokens, and  was thus an easier item than  for them tolearn. In contrast, the JL cluster of 19 participants tended to substitute  for the  tokens
more often, which suggests that  was an easier item than  for them to learn, unlike the
JL cluster of 20 participants. The cluster of 27 JL participants were most likely to replace
both  and  tokens with a flap-like sound of all clusters. This indicates that they did
not have any preference for learning  or , but rather had been learning neither  nor
. The statistical tests including a MANOVA and a discriminant analysis confirmed theseresults that some of the JL participants had been learning  or , while the others had not.
However, evidence of learning these approximants was only found in less than half of the JL
participants. Accordingly, both target approximants were defined as difficult items.
4.2 Definition of the difficulty level

It was hypothesized that  and  would be learnable and difficult for Japanese learnersof English, respectively. According to the results, more than half of the JL participantssignificantly differed from the BN/AN participants in production of both target approximants,
and fewer than half of the JL participants improved their articulation of  and . Twentyseven JL participants, nearly half the JL participants, even performed poorly for both and , and showed a high frequency of substitution of a flap-like sound for  and . Bothapproximants were thus identified as difficult items for Japanese learners of English to learn
to produce, which rejected the hypothesis of  and upheld that of .
The present research formed the hypothesis for  based on the findings of Aoyama et al.
(2004) and Hazan et al. (2005) that  could be learned faster than . One of the possible
reasons that this study failed to support this would be related to the proficiency level of theparticipants. Previous studies have found the difficulty for less experienced learners to attain39

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

the level of native speakers in production of  and  (Flege, Takagi et al., 1995; Goto, 1971),
and have suggested a different status of  and  in the L2 phonological space of Japaneselearners of English. Considering that the participants in this study were less experienced
learners, who had no experience of living in an English-speaking country, the findings here
were consistent with these past studies. Yamada (1995) pointed out that the experience ofliving in the U.S. could affect the perception of these approximants. Saito and Lyster (2011)
reported that with training, Japanese learners of English could improve the production of .
It was also found that there were  preference and  preference for learning, which
was unexpected. The participants in one JL cluster showed that they were going throughthe learning process of , while those in another JL cluster were learning . This gives anindication that there are individual differences in the way of learning. It should be emphasizedthat some JL participants were learning  faster than , in particular. This is against theprediction of one of the learning models for production, the Speech Learning Model (SLM;
Flege, 1987, 1995), which proposes that the newer L2 phones are easier for learners to learn
while the more similar L2 phones to an L1 phone are more difficult. Guion et al. (2000)
claimed that the difference between English  and Japanese  would be more salient thanthat between English  and Japanese , although no Japanese sound was perceptuallysimilar to  and . From the articulatory perspective,  could also be assumed to be newer
than . The major phonetic features of articulating English , such as retracted tongue
or lip rounding, are not prominently used in Japanese. On the other hand, English  andJapanese  differ in that the former is continuant and the latter is not, but both require thetip of tongue as an active articulator and the alveolar ridge, or around this region, as a passive
articulator. Thus, the newness is higher for . When the SLM is applied here, the higher
degree of salience of  can facilitate Japanese learners learning this approximant. However,this did not hold true of this study that demonstrated that some learners were learning 
faster. Thus, the findings in this study suggest the need to test one of the most influential
learning models, the SLM, although it should be taken into account that the participants inthe present study were not so experienced as the SLM requires learners to be experienced forits prediction.
5. Conclusion

The present study aimed to define  and , notoriously difficult for Japanese learnersof English to learn to produce, as easy, learnable or difficult items. The results showed that40

Difficulty levels of English  and  for Japanese learners: An acoustic analysis

both approximants were difficult. However, it was also found that there was an individual
preference about which approximant was learned faster. Some Japanese learners of English
were learning  faster than  whereas others were learning  faster than . Further studies
will be required to explore from what these individual differences arise, and how positively
the preference for learning  or  will affect the learning of both approximants.

References
Aoyama, K., Flege, J. E., Guion, S. G., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Yamada, T. (2004). Perceived phonetic
dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: The case of Japanese  and English  and . Journal of

Phonetics, 32(2), 233-250.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2010). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.2) [Computer
program]. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2015). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.05) [Computer
program]. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/
Espy-Wilson, C. Y. (1992). Acoustic measures for linguistic features distinguishing the semivowels
 in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 92(2), 736-757.

Fant, G. (1968). Analysis and synthesis of speech processes. In B. Malmberg (Ed.), Manual of phonetics(pp. 173-177). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland.
Flege, J. E. (1987). The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for theeffect of equivalent classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15(1), 47-65.
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange(Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233-277).
Timonium, MD: York Press.
Flege, J. E., Takagi, N., & Mann, V. (1995). Japanese adults can learn to produce English  and 
accurately. Language and Speech, 38(1), 25-55.
Goto, H. (1971). Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds “L” and “R.”Neuropsychologia, 9, 317-323.
Guion, S. G., Flege, J. E., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Pruitt, J. C. (2000). An investigation of current
models of second language speech perception: The case of Japanese adults’ perception of English
consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107(5), 2711-2724.
Hallé, P. A., Best, C. T., & Levitt, A. (1999). Phonetic vs. phonological influences on French listeners’
perception of American English approximants. Journal of Phonetics, 27(3), 281-306.
Hazan, V., Sennema, A., Iba, M., & Faulkner, A. (2005). Effect of audiovisual perceptual training on theperception and production of consonants by Japanese learners of English. Speech Communication,

47, 360-378.

41慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

Iverson, P., & Kuhl, P. K. (1996). Influence of phonetic identification and category goodness on American
listeners perception of  and . Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99(2), 1130-1140.
Iverson, P., Kuhl, P. K., Akahane-Yamada, R., Diesch, E., Tohkura, Y., Kettermann, A., & Siebert, C. (2001).
A perceptual interference account of acquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes. Speech,

Hearing and Language: Work in progress, 13, 106-118.
de Jong, N. H., & Wempe, T. (2009). Praat script to detect syllable nuclei and measure speech rate
automatically. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 385-390.
Kent, R. D., & Read, C. (2002). Acoustic analysis of speech (2nd ed.). Clifton Park, NY: Delmar.
Ladefoged, P. (2003). Phonetic data analysis: An introduction to field work and instrumental techniques.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Markham, D., & Hazan, V. (2002). The UCL speaker database. Speech, Hearing and Language: Work in

Progress, 14, 1-17.
Merfert, I. (1997). The alt.usage.english Audio Archive. Retrieved from http://alt-usage-english.org/index.
shtml
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perceptionof native and foreign-accented speech. Language and Speech, 38, 289-306.
Rimac, R., & Smith, B. L. (1984). Acoustic characteristics of flap productions by American Englishspeaking children and adults: Implications concerning the development of speech motor control.

Journal of Phonetics, 12(4), 387-396.
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2011). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2
pronunciation development of  by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62(2), 595633.
Slawinski, E. (1999). Acquisition of /r-l/ phonemic contrast by Japanese children and adults.

Psycholinguistics on the Threshold of the Year 2000, 583-590.
Stevens, J. P. (2007). Intermediate statistics: A modern approach (3rd ed.). New York, NY. Routledge.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
Education.
Yamada, R. (1995). Age and acquisition of second language speech sounds perception of American
English  and  by native speakers of Japanese. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception andlinguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 305-320). Timonium, MD: York Press.

42

APROXIMACIÓN A UN CURSO DE ESCRITURA CREATIVAAPROXIMACIÓN A UN CURSO DE
ESCRITURA CREATIVA
Beatriz Prieto Muñoz
ABSTRACT
When students hear the phrase “writing class”, they usually anticipate boring classes witha great deal of solitary work. It is possible, however, to have fun and communicative “writingclasses” that are much more in tune with the new educational times.
Based on relevant theoretical approaches about writing and creativity -and also taking
into account the questionnaires that students filled out before the beginning of the course
regarding their own interests- pupils exchange ideas, participate together in the creative
process, and then share the final results in a personal blog that shows their work on bothgroup and individual levels.
An evaluation system where students have to find and correct their own mistakes on theirown is also applied, making the learning process much more meaningful.
In this article, therefore, we will analyze the creation process of a Creative Writing course
in each of its stages: theory, class development and conclusion. The most popular activities
will be shared as will the evaluation method and the technological tools that this relies on.
Additionally, we will present the results of the final questionnaire, along with students’opinions about the course.
Keywords: Writing, creativity, activities, groups, fun.

1. INTRODUCCIÓN

Cuando a la autora de este artículo le asignaron un curso de Escritura Creativa en varios
centros educativos, descubrió que no había muchos manuales sobre el tema y que los pocos
que había no se ajustaban a los objetivos que se había propuesto para su clase, por lo que
decidió crear el curso desde cero, basándose en un plan de organización que cubría, entre

43慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

otras, las siguientes áreas:
1. Investigar sobre la adquisición de la destreza escrita y factores que la favorecían.
2. Búsqueda de materiales para el curso: libros de texto, artículos de revistas, Facebook,materiales originales, etc.
3. Realización de una serie de encuestas al principio del curso sobre los temas de másinterés entre los estudiantes así como sus expectativas, y al final del curso, para
comprobar los resultados.
La palabra “escritura” no suele causar gran entusiasmo entre los estudiantes, ya que
anticipan clases poco entretenidas y mucho trabajo dentro y fuera de la clase así que losobjetivos del curso eran simples aunque no sencillos: conseguir que los estudiantes disfrutaran
escribiendo en español y que pusieran en práctica lo aprendido a lo largo del curso anterior.
De igual manera, como objetivo secundario aunque no por ello menos importante, se buscaba
potenciar su creatividad e imaginación y, muy especialmente, su capacidad para generar ideas,algo que, todos los profesores de escritura coinciden en afirmar, es una de las partes que más
dificultad entraña.
Se tratará también la forma de evaluación elegida para este curso, que tuvo que adaptarsea las diferencias en cuanto a facilidades y acceso a la tecnología de cada centro. En este
artículo, pues, se describirá el proceso abierto de creación de un curso de escritura creativa
en las tres fases de inicio, desarrollo y conclusión, se describirán actividades que resultaron
exitosas en la clase y se compartirán los resultados de las encuestas realizadas durante elmismo.
2. FASE INICIAL
2.1 MARCO TEÓRICO

Antes de analizar la combinación de escritura y creatividad, decidimos profundizar primeroen cada concepto por separado.
2.1.1 ESCRITURA. El origen de la palabra “escribir” lo encontramos en el vocablo latino

scribere, el cual, según la primera acepción de la Real Academia Española, podemos definiren la actualidad como “representar las palabras o las ideas con letras u otros signos trazados
en papel u otra superficie”.

44APROXIMACIÓN A UN CURSO DE ESCRITURA CREATIVA

En la enseñanza de segundas lenguas, el papel de la escritura ha pasado por diferentes
etapas: desde el enfoque tradicional, en el cual la escritura se utilizaba básicamente para
hacer ejercicios de gramática y traducciones, pasando por ser un refuerzo a la oralidad en el
método audio-lingual, hasta llegar a épocas más modernas donde se empezó a considerar un
instrumento de comunicación en toda regla. (García Parejo, 1999: 25-27)
Es en estas últimas etapas donde se comienza a ver la destreza escrita como un proceso,
no solo como un producto, y donde se incluyen tareas para trabajar las etapas intermediasdel proceso de escritura: borradores, esquemas, etc. con el objetivo de dotar al estudiantede estrategias para escribir de forma creativa en función de sus necesidades comunicativas.
El texto final, pues, es el resultado de un proceso en el que se planifica, se negocia con el
profesor, se discute con otras personas y que se deja abierto a modificaciones posteriores, si
fuera necesario (García Parejo, 1999: 33-34).
En esta misma línea, el Marco Común Europeo de Referencia define la práctica escrita
como un instrumento que propicia la interacción comunicativa, aportando ejemplos deescritura reales que los aprendientes pueden necesitar en su vida cotidiana incluso en etapas
muy básicas de su estudio, como por ejemplo, un formulario. (Consejo de Europa, 2002: 64)
2.1.2 CREATIVIDAD. Una vez recabada información sobre la adquisición de la destreza

escrita, nos dispusimos a investigar sobre la creatividad.
El origen etimológico de la palabra “creatividad” se encuentra en el vocablo latino creare,que significa crear, hacer algo nuevo. En realidad lo que llegamos a calificar de creativo sería
aquellas formas nuevas a partir de otras ya creadas a las que damos una nueva utilización(Vázquez, 2000).
En La Estructura del Intelecto, Guilford despertó un interés científico por el estudio dela creatividad, considerándola como una actividad intelectual que forma parte de lo que
denominó “pensamiento divergente”. Este pensamiento se define como aquel que, ante unproblema específico, puede formular varias respuestas alternativas, en oposición a lo que seríael “pensamiento convergente”, que ocurre cuando solo es posible una solución determinada.
De esta manera, el pensamiento divergente implica utilizar el conocimiento previo deformas nuevas, y el convergente está relacionado con el pensamiento base, la reproducción ymemorización de los aprendizajes y hechos. (Jiménez González, 2007)
A partir de los años 70 y el resurgir del paradigma cognitivo, el sujeto creativo se empezóa ver como un procesador activo de información, poseedor de una mente capaz de tener45慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

actividad autónoma, y se reconoce que la mente dispone de representaciones de la realidad
variadas, que se pueden entender como “módulos mentales”. De esta forma, el pensamiento
convergente sería el proceso utilizado para solucionar los problemas mediante procedimientos
convencionales y predeterminados. En contraposición, el pensamiento divergente sería laoperación que implica la producción de distintas respuestas o soluciones para un determinado
problema. Así pues, la producción divergente reúne las cuatro características de la creatividad
o factores propuestos por Guilford: fluidez, flexibilidad, originalidad y elaboración. Estos
cuatro componentes que configuran el pensamiento creativo fueron definidos de la siguiente
forma: a) fluidez: es la característica de la creatividad o la facilidad para generar un número
elevado de ideas. Es decir, se trata de una habilidad que consiste en producir un número
elevado de respuestas en un campo determinado, a partir de estímulos verbales o figurativos;b) flexibilidad: es la característica de la creatividad mediante la cual se transforma elproceso para alcanzar la solución del problema o el planteamiento de éste. Comprende
una transformación, un cambio, un replanteamiento o reinterpretación. En definitiva,
es la capacidad consistente en producir diferentes ideas para cambiar de un enfoquede pensamiento a otro y para utilizar diferentes estrategias de resolución de problemas;c) originalidad: es la característica que define a la idea, proceso o producto como algoúnico o diferente. Está referida a la habilidad para producir respuestas novedosas, pococonvencionales, lejos de lo establecido y usual; d) elaboración: es el nivel de detalle, desarrollo
o complejidad de las ideas creativas. Se trata de una capacidad para desarrollar, completar oembellecer una respuesta determinada. (Jiménez González, 2007)
Asimismo, Torrance (1974), creador del test de pensamiento creativo, definió la creatividad
como el proceso de descubrir problemas o lagunas de información, formar ideas o hipótesis,
probarlas, modificarlas y comunicar los resultados y le asignó a la creatividad un carácter dehabilidad global.
2.1.3 ESCRITURA CREATIVA

Aunque existen muchas definiciones de escritura creativa, elegimos la de García Carcedo(2011): “La escritura creativa es aquella, de ficción o no, que desborda los límites de laescritura profesional, periodística, académica y técnica. Esta categoría de escritura incluye laliteratura y sus géneros y subgéneros, en especial, la novela, el cuento y la poesía, así como laescritura dramática para el teatro, el cine o la televisión. En este modo de escritura prima lacreatividad sobre el propósito informativo propio de la escritura no literaria.”

46

APROXIMACIÓN A UN CURSO DE ESCRITURA CREATIVAY la de Betancour (2000):“Educar en la creatividad es educar para el cambio y formar personas ricas en originalidad,
flexibilidad, visión, iniciativa, confianza; personas amantes de los riesgos y listas para afrontar
los obstáculos y problemas que se les van presentando en su vida, tanto escolar y cotidiana.
Además, educar en la creatividad es ofrecer herramientas para la innovación.”
Seguidamente, encontramos también seis estrategias propuestas por Hal y Sweet (2008)
para enseñar escritura creativa:
1. La estrategia del atelier, donde el maestro acepta a un discípulo y le enseña todas sus
técnicas de escritor.
2. La estrategia del imitatio auctoris, donde el estudiante se empapa de las técnicas,
formas y contenido de los clásicos y copia sus modelos de escritura.
3. La estrategia de la inspiración. Con el objetivo de activar la creatividad de losestudiantes, los profesores plantean una serie de ejercicios para vencer el bloqueo
frente a la hoja en blanco.
4. La estrategia de la Techné, está centrada en el profesor, que, utilizando los preceptos
y técnicas de grandes escritores para ilustrar conceptos, espera que los estudiantes
aprehendan esa técnica y sean capaces de utilizarla en sus propios textos.
5. La estrategia del taller literario, en la que un grupo de aprendices son guiados por un
solo maestro.
6. La comunidad de escritores, propone hacer trabajo colaborativo en pequeños grupos
de tres o cuatro estudiantes con intereses literarios comunes que son asesorados por
un profesor.
Nos pareció que la estrategia número seis era la que más se adecuaba a nuestro curso,
ya que nuestro objetivo era que los estudiantes produjeran sus propias ideas, aunqueproporcionáramos algunos modelos que les ayudaran cuando se produjera el bloqueo
mencionado en la estrategia 3.
Así pues, teniendo en cuenta lo aprendido en nuestra investigación teórica, la preparacióndel curso de escritura debía cumplir unas condiciones básicas:
1. Trabajar el proceso de escritura tanto en la fase creativa como en la escrita, para lo
cual se diseñaron actividades en las que los estudiantes tenían que trabajar en grupos

47慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

en alguna de las dos fases o incluso en las dos, creándose así contextos de interacción
entre compañeros (Cassany, 1999: 20) y aplicando así la estrategia número seis ya
mencionada: “Comunidad de escritores”.
2. Crear el ambiente y las actividades adecuadas que permitieran al estudiante escribirde forma libre para desarrollar su pensamiento divergente, tratando de que el producto
final reuniera fluidez, flexibilidad, originalidad y elaboración, las cuatro características
de la creatividad.
3. Finalmente, nos propusimos que los estudiantes simplemente disfrutaran escribiendoo, citando a Concha Moreno: reivindicar el placer de escribir por escribir. Para ello,
pensamos que era de vital importancia que los estudiantes escribieran sobre temas
que les interesaran, por lo que el primer día de clase se realizaron unas encuestas enlas que se les preguntó, simplemente, qué temas les interesaban, y cuyo resultado
dilucidó que su vida y sus aficiones eran sus temas favoritos. También se trataron deincluir temas no tan populares pero que consideramos serían de utilidad en su vida
profesional, por ejemplo, cómo escribir un curriculum vitae en español.
2.2 DESCRIPCIÓN DE LOS GRUPOS.

El curso de Escritura Creativa se impartió en los años 2013 y 2014 en varios centros
educativos a nivel universitario y, por tanto, a estudiantes de entre 18 y 22 años. Cada
universidad cuenta con un número de estudiantes diferente en clase, así como programas ymetodologías diversos, pero las clases tenían entre 10 y 18 estudiantes.
Las encuestas se repartieron en tres grupos en concreto, de 10, 12 y 18 estudiantes, en
total, 40 personas, de las cuales 23 eran mujeres y 17, hombres.
Asimismo, hemos trabajado con alumnos que estudiaban español como asignatura
obligatoria y con otros que la tenían como asignatura opcional pero no hemos observado
ninguna diferencia reseñable en los resultados de las encuestas, por lo que no hemos reflejado
esta distinción en los resultados. En cuanto al nivel, en todos los casos correspondía a un nivel
intermedio, alcanzado tras estudiar dos semestres de forma intensiva con 4 clases semanales
de una hora y media.
Con respecto a la metodología que se ha usado en las clases de español, no se siguió ningún
libro en particular, ya que se creó material original específico para esta clase. Además, losestudiantes tenían clases de gramática impartidas por un profesor japonés mientras que lasclases de comunicación, tanto oral como escrita, estuvieron a cargo de un profesor nativo

48

APROXIMACIÓN A UN CURSO DE ESCRITURA CREATIVA

hispanohablante.
Casi todos los estudiantes de estos cursos habían viajado a algún país de habla hispana
como viaje de estudios con una estancia de entre 1 y 3 meses, lo que ayudó a que la mayor
parte de ellos se encontrara bastante predispuesto y motivado de cara a estas clases.
2.3 MATERIALES

Para este curso se utilizaron actividades modificadas de varios libros de texto entre los que
se incluyen: Expresión Oral, Escritura Creativa, Nuevo ELE actual B1, Rápido rápido,

Gente 2, etc.
De ellos se tomaron ideas para realizar actividades referentes a cómo escribir un curriculum
vitae, hacer una entrevista a su compañero o crear las leyes de un país imaginario, entre otros
ejemplos.
De igual manera, se utilizó material auténtico tomado de artículos de revistas, blogs yFacebook, convenientemente modificados para adaptarlos al nivel de los estudiantes, claroestá. Un ejemplo de ello es la actividad “Cosas que echas de menos de Japón”.
La autora decidió también diseñar material original para recrear ideas que no aparecían en
ninguna de las otras opciones y que incluían referencias culturales japonesas. Un ejemplo es
la actividad “Un día normal en el mundo”.
En cuanto a soportes digitales, se contempló también la posibilidad de crear un grupo en
Facebook donde publicar lo que se iba escribiendo en clase pero se descartó la idea por lapérdida de control de privacidad y por la exposición a material auténtico no modificado que
sobrepasaba el nivel de los estudiantes. En su lugar, se eligió la creación de un blog como
opción que mejor se adaptaba a los objetivos del curso.
Uno de los centros donde se impartió este curso proporcionaba a los estudiantes unordenador portátil que ellos siempre llevaban a las clases, por lo cual se les dio la opción deutilizar los últimos minutos de clase para escribir en el blog. Los otros grupos tuvieron que
realizar esta tarea como deberes en su casa.
En el blog debían escribir todo el trabajo realizado en clase, una vez que éste había sido
revisado por la profesora y modificado por los estudiantes, y se les indicó también que sevaloraría el aspecto visual del mismo, como prueba de su esfuerzo y dedicación.
La profesora creó también su propio blog para que los estudiantes tuviesen una referencia
pero decidió incluir solamente una entrada de presentación para dar más libertad creativa alos estudiantes.

49慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

3. DESARROLLO

En el seminario organizado por GIDE sobre Expresión escrita en junio de 2013 la profesora
Concha Moreno empezó con una imagen del kanji japonés de escritura para hacernos
reflexionar sobre su significado. Ese interesante comienzo, así como otras ideas del taller
y de sus asistentes, resultaron de valiosísima ayuda para preparar el curso de escritura que
nos ocupa e hicieron que en la primera clase también se comenzara con una pregunta dereflexión: “¿Qué escribimos?”, siguiendo el modelo de Moreno et al. (1999:78). Para ayudarles
a responder esa pregunta, se les pidió primero que hicieran una lista de todas las cosas que
habían escrito en los últimos días: un mensaje en el móvil, una entrada en Facebook, un
examen, etc. y se puso en común en la pizarra.
El siguiente paso a esta actividad fue hacer otra lista de cosas que les gustaría escribir oaprender a escribir, que conformó la base para preparar la mayor parte del curso y finalmente
se les indicó que escribieran qué temas les resultaban más interesantes, donde las opciones
más populares fueron hablar de su mundo: su vida, sus aficiones, viajes, etc.
Con este primer feedback en mente, revisamos y modificamos el plan del curso para
ajustarlo a estos nuevos criterios.
3.1 ACTIVIDADESEn las actividades realizadas en este curso se trataron los siguientes géneros discursivos:
entrevista, historia, entrada en un foro, lista justificada, test, carta informal, diario de viajes,
biografía, leyes/normas, cuento, artículo periodístico, poesía, curriculum vitae; ademáspueden clasificarse en varias categorías:
1. Actividades donde se trabaja la generación de ideas en grupo pero se escribe
individualmente.
2. Actividades donde se hace el proceso creativo de forma individual pero para escribir eltexto se necesita la colaboración de los compañeros.
3. Actividades en las que tanto el proceso creativo como el escrito se hace en grupo.
4. Actividades en las que se da un modelo previo que se trabaja en gran grupo pero tantoel proceso creativo como el escrito se hace de forma individual.
5. Combinación de dos de las categorías anteriores.
En la mayor parte de las actividades se trabajó con los compañeros en alguna parte

50

APROXIMACIÓN A UN CURSO DE ESCRITURA CREATIVA

del proceso, ya que el trabajo colectivo siempre suele producir mejores resultados que elindividual, como demuestra la actividad “Supervivencia en la luna”, incluida en la bibliografía,
que la autora tuvo oportunidad de realizar en un seminario de formación de profesores.
En otras actividades, no solo se realizó alguna parte en grupo, sino la actividad completa,
que luego cada estudiante podía modificar a su gusto y necesidad en la fase final.
A continuación pasamos a explicar la dinámica de las actividades más populares.
3.1.1 Un día normal en el mundo. Esta actividad, basada en una idea original de laautora, consistía en imaginar un viaje por el mundo en un solo día.
Vimos un gran potencial en este concepto, ya que los alumnos habían expresado su interésen los viajes en la encuesta inicial, por lo que decidimos escribir un texto original narrando
un día normal de la autora en el mundo, como referencia para los estudiantes. Introdujimos
la actividad con un componente cultural, preguntando a los estudiantes qué objeto mágico
de Doraemon les gustaría tener, y esperando que mencionaran el famoso どこでもドア o“puerta a cualquier sitio”. Desde ahí les propusimos que pensaran a dónde viajarían en un día
si tuvieran ese objeto mágico y qué harían en el sitio elegido. Se propuso un número inicial
de 10 lugares diferentes pero dependiendo del tiempo de clase o del ritmo de trabajo de losestudiantes, se modificó en consecuencia. Una vez pensados los 10 lugares y lo que harían
allí, se les pidió que escribieran una memoria de su viaje, siguiendo el modelo que se les había
proporcionado y del cual adjuntamos un par de párrafos a modo de ejemplo:
11:00 Me voy a tomar el sol a la playa de Bora Bora. Hace mucho calor pero es muy
agradable sentir la brisa del mar mientras me tomo un zumo de mango y papaya. Después delzumo, me doy un baño laaaargo en el mar.
21:30 Cena con velas en París, a la orilla del río Sena. No soy fan de la comida francesa,
pero me encanta el ambiente romántico de la noche parisina. ¿Con quién ceno? Eso es unsecreto... ^^Casi todos los estudiantes se esforzaron en elegir lugares repartidos por todo el mundo,
destacando un estudiante que incluso viajó a la Luna.
3.1.2 Citas rápidas. Basada en una actividad que realizaron los profesores Mercedes Castroy Javier Fernández para el Instituto Cervantes de Tokio, el objetivo es que cada estudianteencuentre a su “pareja ideal”.
Para ello, tras confirmar el significado de “citas rápidas” y preguntarles por su experiencia,

51慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

que en Japón podría equivaler al 合コン, se comienza dividiendo la clase en igual número dechicos y chicas. Si hay más de uno que de otro grupo, se pide que algunos estudiantes haganel papel del sexo contrario, para equilibrar.
Conseguido el primer objetivo, se entrega a los estudiantes una foto boca abajo, es decir,
que no pueden elegir, y se les pide que completen una ficha, que también entregaremos, conlos siguientes campos: nombre y apellidos, nacionalidad, profesión, edad, idiomas que habla,gustos y qué tipo de persona busca.
Una vez completadas las fichas, se sienta a los estudiantes en parejas de sexo contrario y seles indica que disponen de 5 minutos para hablar con esa persona y escribir la información
que consideren relevante o que les resulte de interés.
Transcurridos los 5 minutos, se cambia de pareja y cuando han terminado de hablar con
todas las personas, ponen en orden sus notas y eligen a la persona que más les haya gustadoo con la que piensen que encajarían mejor. Acto seguido, se pone en común para ver si lapersona que han elegido también les ha elegido a ellos, es decir, si han conseguido formar“pareja”. Este es, sin duda, el punto álgido de la actividad.
La tarea final consiste en escribir una entrada de foro con su información personal, que
imaginaron en la primera tarea de la actividad, y una breve descripción de la persona que
habían elegido como pareja ideal, indicando si su “amor” ha sido correspondido o no y cómo
se sienten al respecto. Cuantos menos estudiantes haya en la clase, más fácil es que se forme
alguna pareja, pero como promedio, casi siempre se forman dos o tres.
3.1.3 Carta informal sobre una fiesta hispana. Actividad original donde el protagonista

vuelve a ser un viaje, aunque esta vez con más detalle y con un componente cultural.
Tras una lluvia de ideas para ver qué fiestas hispanas conocen, se les pide que elijan una yse agrupan con las personas que también han elegido esa fiesta. No importa si no la conocen
bien, ya que parte de la actividad consiste en investigar sobre ella.
En grupos, buscan información (dónde, cuándo, en qué consiste, etc.) y diseñan un plan deviaje para experimentar cómo es la fiesta: cuántos días van, qué hacen allí, alguna anécdota
especial, etc. Para esta fase de la actividad, se les permite el uso de sus dispositivos móviles y,si preocupa que se distraigan, se puede limitar a uno por grupo.
Tras revisar juntos el formato de una carta informal, del que se les han entregado unmodelo, escriben una carta a una persona de otro grupo explicándole cómo fue su viaje ysu experiencia con esa fiesta, pidiéndoles que presten atención a los tiempos del pasado, y52

APROXIMACIÓN A UN CURSO DE ESCRITURA CREATIVA

repasándolos si es necesario.
Ejemplos de fiestas elegidas por los estudiantes incluyeron las Fallas, la tomatina, el día delos Muertos, etc.
3.1.4 Cosas que echas de menos. Actividad basada en el artículo de Raquel Piñeiro: 22

cosas que echas de menos de España ahora que no vives aquí.
Como actividad previa, se divide a los estudiantes en grupos y tratan de adivinar cinco cosas
que echan de menos los españoles cuando no están en España, por ejemplo, el sol, el tecladodel ordenador, etc. que forma parte del artículo.
Una vez que han entendido la actividad y el concepto de “echar de menos”, se les pide que,también en grupos, hagan una lista de cosas que ellos echan (o echarían de menos) cuando
no están en Japón.
Esa primera lista se pone en común en gran grupo y, ya de forma individual, tienen que
elegir 10 cosas y escribir su lista particular, justificándola.
Es importante limitar el campo “comida” a una sola cosa. De lo contrario, para muchos delos estudiantes la lista estaría compuesta íntegramente por productos alimenticios...
Algunos ejemplos de cosas que los estudiantes incluyeron en sus listas fueron las tarjetas
electrónicas como Suica o Pasmo, las tiendas de 24 horas, la costumbre de recibir agua o té
gratis en los restaurantes o el modernísimo toilet japonés.
3.1.5 Cuento en versión moderna. Actividad inspirada en varios libros de texto y páginas

web, consistente en reescribir un cuento clásico en una versión moderna.
Debido a la complejidad creativa de este ejercicio, se trabajó en grupos durante la totalidad
de la clase. Como actividad previa, se visionó un vídeo de una moderna Cenicienta queencuentra a su príncipe en una red social, citándose después en una discoteca y se les
proporcionaron expresiones relacionadas con los cuentos: “érase una vez”, “colorín colorado,este cuento se ha acabado”, etc.
Aunque el vídeo pareció interesarles mucho y enseguida se pusieron a trabajar, les costó
bastante empezar a generar ideas, o por lo menos, ideas aceptadas por todo el grupo.
Lamentablemente el proceso creativo de esta actividad llevó tanto tiempo que nunca
se pudo poner en común con el resto de la clase, lo que sin duda habría resultado muy
interesante.
Algunos ejemplos de las historias creadas por los estudiantes fueron un Momotaro que

53慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

usa Facebook para buscar esposa, o una pequeña cerillera que, en vez de vender fósforos, sededicaba a repartir pañuelos de papel en la estación de Shinjuku.
3.2 ENCUESTAS Y ANÁLISIS

En la encuesta de fin de curso, que se adjunta como anexo 1 al final de este trabajo, sepidió a los estudiantes que puntuaran cada actividad según dos parámetros: su interés y su
dificultad, siendo 5 puntos el máximo en interés y 0 en mínimo. En cuanto a la dificultad, 0correspondía a la mayor dificultad y 5, a la menor, por lo cual, cuanto más difícil les resultara
una actividad, menos puntos le darían. El resultado se ilustra en los siguientes gráficos. En
este trabajo, por limitaciones de espacio, solo vamos a hablar de las cinco actividades másinteresantes y las cinco que les resultaron más difíciles.

INTERÉS
Un día normal
Citas rápidas
Carta informal
INTERÉS

Cosas que echas de menos
Cuento en versión moderna
160

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

VIABILIDAD DE LA ACTIVIDAD
CuentoTest
Un suceso
CV
VIABILIDAD

Poesía
0

54

20

40

60

80

100

120

APROXIMACIÓN A UN CURSO DE ESCRITURA CREATIVA

Estas cantidades son el resultado de la suma de los puntos que cada estudiante había
asignado a cada tarea:“Un día normal” = 192 puntos. “Citas rápidas” = 188 puntos. “Carta informal” = 180
puntos. “Cosas que echas de menos” = 176 puntos. “Cuento en versión moderna” = 172
puntos.
“Poesía” = 60 puntos. “CV” = 92 puntos. “Suceso” = 100 puntos. “Test de la felicidad” =104 puntos. “Cuento en versión moderna” = 112 puntos.
Como vemos en el gráfico, la actividad más popular fue “Un día normal en el mundo”,
que, ya cuando fue presentada por la profesora, obtuvo una recepción magnífica, con algunos
estudiantes empezando a escribir sin terminar siquiera de escuchar las instrucciones. En
los comentarios de las encuestas, los estudiantes escribieron que les había gustado mucho
imaginar un viaje tan interesante y de hecho, fue la actividad donde más cantidad de material
produjeron.
En cuanto a la segunda actividad más popular, que produjo un nivel de emoción yparticipación muy positivo, a los estudiantes les gustó mucho la idea de buscar pareja yademás, hacerlo con fotografías, no sobre ellos mismos, les quitó cualquier presión personal.
Solo hubo quejas de que algunos personajes de la fotografía no eran muy agraciados y lapersona que había recibido esa fotografía pensaba que sería muy difícil ser correspondido. A
destacar, sin embargo, la reacción de un estudiante que, tras recibir una de estas fotos “pocoagraciadas”, decidió hacer que su personaje fuera muy rico y con muchas aficiones, para
asegurarse de que al menos tendría cosas en común con alguien. Le salió muy bien y fue
elegido por dos personas.
De la carta informal sobre una fiesta hispana, los estudiantes resaltaron que había sidointeresante aprender sobre estas fiestas y había sido divertido imaginar un viaje en grupo. De
hecho, el trabajo de grupos fue algo que muchos estudiantes destacaron como positivo delcurso, ya que les había permitido practicar la destreza escrita al mismo tiempo que la oral.
De la actividad “Cosas que echas de menos de Japón” los estudiantes escribieron que
habían sentido mucha nostalgia de su viaje al extranjero y que esta actividad les había
recordado los sentimientos que habían experimentado entonces.
Finalmente, sobre el cuento en versión moderna, los alumnos destacaron la originalidad
de la idea y aseguraron que habían disfrutado imaginando y creando, aunque también
comentaron que les había resultado bastante difícil.
En cuanto a las actividades en el top 5 de viabilidad o dificultad, la razón principal común

55

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

a todas las actividades fue que la generación de ideas les había resultado muy difícil, aun en
grupos, lo cual hizo que nos planteáramos dar más modelos antes de la actividad y pautarla enmás fases previas.
Mención especial para la actividad de poesía, que no solo les resultó difícil por el proceso
creativo, sino porque la profesora cometió el error de seleccionar poesías demasiado complejascomo modelo, con lo cual el tiempo de clase se pasó solamente intentando descifrar elsignificado. Por supuesto, también decidimos introducir abundantes modificaciones en esta
actividad o incluso, viendo que el nivel de interés también había sido muy bajo, eliminarla delcurso. Una de las opciones que pusimos en práctica en sesiones posteriores fue trabajar la
rima de la poesía con alguna canción, donde numerábamos los huecos de la misma rima con
el mismo número. Tanto la dinámica de clase como el resultado fueron mucho más exitosos
aunque aún nos quedó pendiente la producción de la poesía misma que, concluimos, quizá
deberíamos dejar para niveles más altos de español.
En cuanto a los comentarios generales de las encuestas, los más repetidos fueron que
habían disfrutado la clase porque habían podido imaginar, ya que en otras clases no tenían
esta oportunidad. Los estudiantes también comentaron que habían apreciado la oportunidad
de escribir en español sobre temas que les habían resultado interesantes y, como ya hemos
mencionado, destacaron además que les había gustado mucho trabajar en grupo ya queen otras clases trabajaban de forma más individual. Paradójicamente, a pesar de estos
comentarios positivos hacia el trabajo en grupo, algunas de las actividades más populares
fueron las que pertenecen al grupo donde se trabaja de forma individual. Las razones que
indicaron fueron que los temas les habían resultado muy interesantes y habían disfrutado
mucho imaginando.
En cuanto a los puntos que menos les habían gustado o que podían mejorar, hubo un
estudiante que, además de no ser bueno usando tecnología y que, por lo tanto, parece que
tuvo muchas dificultades para crear y mantener el blog, comentó que él quería una clase para
aprender textos académicos, y solo le pareció útil e interesante la actividad de cómo escribir
un curriculum vitae en español. No llegó a entender el objetivo de potenciar la creatividad
porque no lo consideraba importante en su vida.
Durante el curso, también hubo alguna queja sobre el trabajo extra de escribir en el blog eltexto corregido de clase, ya que lo entendían como una tarea innecesaria y les costó entenderel objetivo de escribir el texto dos veces pero en las encuestas finales reconocieron que leshabía ayudado y sobre todo, que se sentían orgullosos de ver todo lo que eran capaces de56

APROXIMACIÓN A UN CURSO DE ESCRITURA CREATIVA

escribir en español.
4. EVALUACIÓN Y CRITERIOS DE CORRECCIÓN

En cuanto a los criterios de evaluación, que adjuntamos en el anexo 2 al final de este
trabajo junto con el programa del curso, se decidió asignar un porcentaje de 50% al trabajo
realizado en clase, basado en la observación y en el texto resultante de cada sesión, un 30% al
blog y un 20% al examen final, impuesto por la universidad y que consistía en algunas pruebasdel examen DELE B1.
Para la corrección de los textos que escribían o empezaban a escribir en clase, se decidió
usar el siguiente código, basado en el que propone el libro de texto Prisma B1 (2003:
transparencia 12):Error de gramática _____					 Error de vocabulario ○Error de ortografía							Falta algo V

Hay muchas teorías sobre el mejor momento para corregir un error pero, al menos en elcaso de la expresión escrita, consideramos muy positivo ayudar al estudiante a descubrir ymodificar sus fallos en el momento (Cassany, 1993a: 124), ya que con el paso del tiempo, sesuele olvidar parcialmente (o completamente) tanto la forma como el contenido del texto que
ha escrito.
De igual manera, nos parece completamente imprescindible que el estudiante vuelva aescribir su texto incorporando las correcciones sugeridas. De lo contrario, será más difícil que
asimile su error y entienda cómo no cometerlo, de ahí que una de las tareas más importantes
de la clase fuese el blog.
A pesar de la corrección formal, nos gustaría insistir en que este curso no consistía en
aprender a escribir ni a corregir exclusivamente contenido léxico-sintáctico, sino un curso
en el que los estudiantes pusieran en práctica de una forma lo más lúdica posible losconocimientos previos de español que habían adquirido en el año anterior. De tal manera, loscriterios que primaron a la hora de realizar la evaluación, además del código ya mencionado,
fueron los relativos a los componentes de la creatividad, aplicados de forma general basados
en la definición de Guilford.

57慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

5. CONCLUSIONESComenzamos la preparación de este curso con varios objetivos: conseguir que losestudiantes disfrutaran escribiendo en español, que pusieran en práctica lo aprendido a lolargo del curso anterior, y que se potenciara su creatividad e imaginación, especialmente, su
capacidad para generar ideas.
Basándonos en nuestra observación de la clase, pensamos que la mayoría de lasactividades propuestas en el curso fueron del agrado de los estudiantes y que no les resultó
pesado realizarlas. En algunas incluso, nos parece que realmente disfrutaron escribiendo
e intercambiando ideas con sus compañeros, por lo cual, damos por cumplido el primer
objetivo. Asimismo, las encuestas finales que pasamos a los estudiantes fueron en su mayoría
muy positivas, destacando el hecho de que la clase les había parecido divertida, algo que
aparentemente no consideraban posible en un curso de escritura y, de nuevo, apreciando laoportunidad de poder trabajar en grupos.
En cuanto a poner en práctica lo aprendido en etapas anteriores, aunque en muchas
actividades fue así, hubo otras de vocabulario más específico que implicaron aprendizaje devocabulario nuevo y difícil para los estudiantes. Consideramos eliminar las actividades de este
tipo que no tuvieron un alto grado de interés y modificar las que sí les resultaron atractivas.
Con respecto al último objetivo y basándonos en los productos finales y en la observaciónde la clase en la etapa de producción de ideas, pensamos que al final de este curso losestudiantes estaban más acostumbrados a generar ideas sobre temas generales y específicos
y que, como muchos mencionaron en las encuestas, el trabajo en grupo les había servido degran ayuda, reconociendo que ese trabajo coral había mejorado el resultado final del texto y su
propia creatividad.
De igual manera, nos ayudó mucho en la preparación del curso conocer la teoría sobre
escritura, creatividad y escritura creativa, ya que nos permitió definir más claramente nuestros
objetivos y nos guió en la tarea de preparar las actividades más relevantes para el curso.
También resultó muy valioso este marco teórico en la etapa de evaluación de la creatividad,
un tema del que, reconocemos, no teníamos mucha información previa.
Por supuesto, somos conscientes de que hay muchas cosas que revisar y mejorar, comotambién nos lo hicieron saber en las encuestas pero, gracias a estos valiosísimos comentarios
de los estudiantes y del no menos valioso intercambio de ideas con otros colegas, seguiremos
trabajando para hacer de este curso de Escritura Creativa un medio de aprendizaje a todos losniveles.

58

APROXIMACIÓN A UN CURSO DE ESCRITURA CREATIVAREFERENCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS
Betancour, (2000), Creatividad en la educación: educación para transformar. Recuperado de
http://psicopediahoy.com/creatividad-en-educacion/
Cassany, D. (1999), Los procesos de escritura en el aula de E/LE, Carabela, 46: p. 20
Cassany, D. (1999), Construir la escritura. Barcelona: Paidós
Consejo de Europa (2002), Marco común europeo de referencia para las lenguas: aprendizaje, enseñanza,

evaluación. Madrid: Secretaría General Técnica del MEC, Anaya e Instituto Cervantes.
Equipo Prisma (2003), Prisma Progresa B1: Libro del profesor. Madrid: Edinumen.
García Carcedo, Pilar (2011), Educación literaria y escritura creativa, Granada, GEU
García Parejo, I. (1999), Teoría de la expresión escrita en la enseñanza de segundas lenguas, Carabela, 46:
pp. 23-42.
Guilford, J. P. (1950), Creativity, American Psychologist, 5, pp. 444-454.
Guilford, J. P. (1967), The nature of intelligence, Nueva York: McGraw-Hill.
Hal, B., & Sweet, C. (2008), The Writing Community: A New Model for the Creative Writing

Classroom, Durham: Duke University Press.
Jiménez González, Juan E. (et al) (2007), Adaptación y baremación del test de pensamiento creativo deTorrance: expresión figurada. Educación Primaria y Secundaria, Canarias: Consejería de Educación,
Cultura y Deportes del gobierno de Canarias. Dirección General de Ordenación e Innovación
Educativa.
Knox, Grahame. Moon landing. Recuperado de http://insight.typepad.co.uk/moon_landing.pdf
Moreno, C., Zurita, P. & Moreno, V. (1999), A escribir se aprende escribiendo, Carabela, 46: pp. 75-101.
Moreno, C. (2011), Creación y explotación de materiales para la expresión escrita. Materiales, estrategias

y recursos para la enseñanza del español como 2-L, (pp. 373-414). Madrid: Arco Libros.
Piñeiro, R. (2013). 22 cosas que echas de menos de España ahora que no vives aquí. Recuperado de
http://www.traveler.es/viajes/mundo-traveler/articulos/22-cosas-que-echas-de-menos-de-espanaahora-que-no-vives-aqui/4566
Real Academia Española, Diccionario de la Lengua Española. Recuperado de http://dle.rae.es/?id=GKCiBz2
Torrance, E. P. (1974), The Torrance test of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual, Bensenville’s IL,
Scholastic Testing Service.
Vázquez, M. (2000), Apuntes sobre creatividad: origen del término y su pervivencia. Revista Latina de
Comunicación Social, 25, pp. 1-7.

59

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

ANEXOS
Anexo 1.

ENCUESTA
1. Escribe tu opinión sobre las actividades que hemos hecho en clase en este curso, por favor,
y puntúalas de 1 a 5:
1. Entrevista a un compañero.
5 Muy interesante

4 Interesante3 Normal2 Poco interesante

1 No interesante

5 Muy fácil

4 Fácil

3 Normal

2 Difícil

1 Muy difícil

2. Historia colaborativa.
5 Muy interesante

4 Interesante3 Normal2 Poco interesante

1 No interesante

5 Muy fácil

4 Fácil

3 Normal

2 Difícil

1 Muy difícil

5 Muy interesante

4 Interesante3 Normal2 Poco interesante

1 No interesante

5 Muy fácil

4 Fácil

3 Normal

2 Difícil

1 Muy difícil

3. Citas rápidas.

4. Cosas que echas de menos.
5 Muy interesante

4 Interesante3 Normal2 Poco interesante

1 No interesante

5 Muy fácil

4 Fácil

3 Normal

2 Difícil

1 Muy difícil

5. Test de la felicidad.
5 Muy interesante

4 Interesante3 Normal2 Poco interesante

1 No interesante

5 Muy fácil

4 Fácil

3 Normal

2 Difícil

1 Muy difícil

6. Carta informal sobre una fiesta hispana.
5 Muy interesante

4 Interesante3 Normal2 Poco interesante

1 No interesante

5 Muy fácil

4 Fácil

3 Normal

2 Difícil

1 Muy difícil

7. Un día perfecto en el mundo.
5 Muy interesante

4 Interesante3 Normal2 Poco interesante

1 No interesante

5 Muy fácil

4 Fácil

3 Normal

2 Difícil

1 Muy difícil

8. Biografía de un hispano.
5 Muy interesante

4 Interesante3 Normal2 Poco interesante

1 No interesante

5 Muy fácil

4 Fácil

3 Normal

2 Difícil

1 Muy difícil

9. Las normas de tu país.
5 Muy interesante

4 Interesante3 Normal2 Poco interesante

1 No interesante

5 Muy fácil

4 Fácil

3 Normal

2 Difícil

1 Muy difícil

60

APROXIMACIÓN A UN CURSO DE ESCRITURA CREATIVA

10. Cuento clásico en versión moderna.
5 Muy interesante

4 Interesante3 Normal2 Poco interesante

1 No interesante

5 Muy fácil

4 Fácil

3 Normal

2 Difícil

1 Muy difícil

5 Muy interesante

4 Interesante3 Normal2 Poco interesante

1 No interesante

5 Muy fácil

4 Fácil

3 Normal

2 Difícil

1 Muy difícil

11. Un suceso.

12. Escribir una poesía.
5 Muy interesante

4 Interesante3 Normal2 Poco interesante

1 No interesante

5 Muy fácil

4 Fácil

3 Normal

2 Difícil

1 Muy difícil

13. Curriculum vitae.
5 Muy interesante

4 Interesante3 Normal2 Poco interesante

1 No interesante

5 Muy fácil

4 Fácil

3 Normal

2 Difícil

1 Muy difícil

2. ¿Qué te ha gustado en este curso y por qué?

3. ¿Qué NO te ha gustado en este curso y por qué? ¿Qué podría mejorar?

¡MUCHAS GRACIAS!

61

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

Anexo 2.

ESCRITURA CREATIVA

1. PROGRAMA DEL CURSO:

CLASE 1

CLASE 2Presentación de la clase, explicación del contenido y de los criterios de evaluación.
Presentación y entrevista. (Traer el ordenador para la próxima clase)
Escribir una historia de forma colaborativa. Pretérito indefinido/imperfecto.
Explicación del blog y creación del mismo en clase.

CLASE 3Citas rápidas. Buscar a la pareja ideal y escribir una entrada en un foro.

CLASE 4

Crear una lista común y justificarla. “22 cosas que echas de menos cuando...”

CLASE 5

CLASE 6

CLASE 7

CLASE 8CLASE 9CLASE 10

Elaborar un test para evaluar el nivel de felicidad de los compañeros de clase.
También se crearán las puntuaciones y las conclusiones de ese test.
Buscar información sobre una fiesta hispana y escribir una carta informal a un amigo
contando la experiencia en esa fiesta.
Diario de viajes: un día normal en el mundo. Escribiremos sobre la rutina diaria ideal si
pudiéramos viajar por el mundo en un día.
Biografía. Buscar información sobre un personaje hispanohablante y escribir su
biografía.
Crear las leyes de un país. Estructuras de opinión con subjuntivo. Leer las leyes deotros grupos y elegir el mejor país para vivir.
Reescribir un cuento clásico desde la perspectiva actual. Estructuras para escribir
cuentos.

CLASE 11

Artículo periodístico. Describir un suceso (real o imaginario)

CLASE 12

Escribir poesías en diferentes grupos con diferentes temáticas.

CLASE 13

Escribir un curriculum vitae en español.

CLASE 1462

EXAMEN: Prueba de Comprensión lectora, Comprensión auditiva y Expresión escritadel examen DELE B1.

APROXIMACIÓN A UN CURSO DE ESCRITURA CREATIVA

2. CRITERIOS DE EVALUACIÓN:A. Trabajo y participación en clase: 50%
A

B

C

D

Ha participado muy

Ha participado bien

Ha participado en clase

Ha participado poco

bien en clase y ha

en clase y ha hecho losregular y ha hecho losen clase y ha hecho

hechodeberes normalmente.

deberes algunas veces.

los deberes muy pocaslosdeberessiempre.

veces o ninguna.

B. Blog: 30%
A

B

C

D

La

presentaciónyLa presentación y el

La presentación y elLapresentaciónyelcontenidosoncontenido son muy

contenido son buenos.

elcontenidosonexcelentes. Muy buen

buenos. Buen esfuerzo

Esfuerzo regularinsuficientes

esfuerzoonopresentados

C. Examen final: 20%
A

B

C

D

90-100 puntos

70-89 puntos

50-69 puntos

Menos de 49 puntos

63Extensive Reading in a University EFL Classroom:
Issues of Fluency, Vocabulary, and Proximity

Extensive Reading
in a University EFL Classroom:
Issues of Fluency, Vocabulary, and Proximity
David P. Shea
Abstract
As universities move to offer content classes in the medium of English, students face thechallenge to handle large amounts of reading. Research in English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
suggests that extensive reading (ER) can strengthen fluency as well as improve attitudes
toward reading. While most ER researchers recommend graded readers, sociocultural
approaches suggest that shared texts may also prove effective. In this paper, I report on aqualitative investigation of a required first-year reading class which incorporated selective
components of ER: a large quantity of interesting text, read for enjoyment with a focus on
meaning, not translation. Students overwhelmingly endorsed ER, reporting faster reading
speeds and more positive attitudes, yet a number of students felt that their vocabulary
declined, due to skipping unknown words. However, diagnostic tests suggested that althoughacademic vocabulary may have declined slightly, general vocabulary likely increased. Whilea modified ER approach may be effective, it may be helpful to supplement reading withvocabulary practice and to “sell” students on the idea of ER.

Introduction
With the spread of globalization, there is increasing pressure placed on universities inJapan to offer classes that deliver authentic academic content in English (Brown, 2014).
The Ministry of Education has endorsed a university curriculum where “Japanese people
can acquire the necessary English skills” to take classes with foreign students in the country(MEXT, 2012, p. 17), and the situation is arguably similar in other parts of Asia (Kirkpatrick,2016). This increase of English medium instruction (EMI) raises questions about the balance
between content and language skills, between studying English as a foreign language versus

65慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

studying an academic subject in English. There is some overlap, depending on the context.
Content-based instruction (Lyster, 2007) places emphasis on academic subject matter, witha simultaneous concern for various elements of linguistic structure and discourse. Carty and
Susser (2015) note, however, that with most EMI, there is usually little if any provision for
language learning, which suggests that for many Japanese students, EMI is a sink or swim
situation. Advanced “returnee” students may have the language proficiency to take classes inEnglish, but “regular” students face an imposing hurdle.
Perhaps the biggest challenge for intermediate first-year university students who hope toenroll in upper level EMI courses is learning how to deal with the large amount of required
reading (Spack, 1997). For many students at this stage, there is a strong tendency to relyon an ineffective and time consuming word-for-word approach to reading, which involves
the “close study of short passages, including syntactic, semantic, and lexical analyses andtranslation into the L1 to study meaning” (Susser & Robb, 1990, p. 161). An intensive
approach, however, simply does not give students the skills to deal with large amounts ofreading material.
Although the character of English education is slowly changing, with the recent
introduction of public international schools (Noguchi, 2015) and educational initiatives
for high-level returnee education (Kanno, 2003), the goal of reading instruction in manyhigh schools is typically word-for-word translation, with explanation of associated grammar
patterns, often in the L1 (Nishino & Watanabe, 2008). Informal surveys of incoming
students in my first-year classes regularly confirm that many have never read an entire bookin English. The problem is compounded when students report that not only have they had
little practice reading, they basically do not like to read. The challenge for instruction thus
involves developing both more positive attitudes as well as more effective reading practices.
As Lees and Althomsons (2015, p. 74) point out, “non-fluent readers may be trapped in a
vicious circle; by reading slowly and with little comprehension, they do not enjoy what they
read, which in turn causes them to read less and further stunts their reading attitude and skill
development.”

Extensive Reading
A good deal of educational research suggests that extensive reading (ER) is an effective
approach that improves fluency as well as attitudes toward reading, giving students the skills
to deal with large amounts of text. In Spack’s (1997) study of the academic socialization of66

Extensive Reading in a University EFL Classroom:
Issues of Fluency, Vocabulary, and Proximity

a Japanese student at an American university, for example, one of the turning points was thestudent’s decision to read extensively over the summer vacation, which improved confidence
as well as proficiency.
One of the strongest proponents of ER, Nation (2015), has stated that the “single mostsignificant change that a teacher could make to a language learning course would be toinclude a substantial extensive reading program” (p. 139). Nation (2001) has also argued
that reading is “strongly related” to English L2 proficiency, pointing out that the amount ofreading learners do outside class is the “most important direct contributor to TOEFL test
performance” (p. 154). In reviewing empirical studies of “book floods,” Elley (1991) foundthat engagement in reading programs using ER produced strong gains on text comprehension
measures, as well as increased motivation to read. Bell (2001) noted that extensive reading
produced higher comprehension than intensive methods focused on short texts with grammar
and vocabulary tasks. Robb and Susser (1989) found that university students who were
engaged in ER activities performed equal to students engaged in a traditional skills-based
approach, but with greater interest and enjoyment. Other research (e.g., Day & Bamford,
1998; Dupuy, Tse, & Cook, 1996; Krashen, 2000) has provided compelling evidence that ER
is a positive means of developing English proficiency.
Although there are common practices that define extensive reading (Stoller, 2015), ER is
perhaps most widely associated with use of simplified graded readers controlled for vocabulary
and grammatical complexity (Bamford & Day, 1997; Hill, 1997; Nation & Wang, 1999).
Within a graded reader program, students typically choose books that they read individually,
either inside or outside class. According to Day and Bamford (1998), students select only
books in which they are interested, with “the freedom to stop reading when they want to, withno questions asked” (p. 27). Within this paradigm, reading is an independent activity with theteacher’s role not to instruct, but to encourage students as a model reader, an “active memberof the classroom reading community” (Day & Bamford, 1998, p. 8). Prowse (2002) has argued
that most instructional follow-up activities such as tests and comprehension questions areinappropriate because they preclude the natural engagement with books that stems from
intrinsic interest rather than compulsory assignment.
In endorsing ER, Nation (2015) points out that while reading for meaning provides a good
opportunity to develop incidental acquisition of vocabulary, students need to understand 98%
of running words if they are to effectively comprehend a text. A large amount of reading isneeded to acquire new vocabulary incidentally, so that the repeated meeting of new words

67

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

strengthens the “small amounts of knowledge gained from previous meetings” (Nation, 1997,
p. 15). Along similar lines, Waring and Takaki (2003) concluded that students need a gooddeal of repeated exposure if they are to successfully acquire vocabulary through reading formeaning. However, Waring and Takaki argue that the primary “aim” of ER is not vocabulary
growth, but development of already known vocabulary. The point is that for ER to be
successful, it is critically important that students understand the books they are assigned.
Nation (2001, p. 21-22) recommended conducting a diagnostic vocabulary levels test as a“reliable, valid and very practical” means to determine word recognition ability.
Many ER approaches refer to Krashen’s (1985) theory of acquisition via comprehensible
input, which hypothesizes that reading itself improves achievement – as long as the text isunderstandable and interesting, so that the “more students read, the better they become at it”(Day & Bamford, 1998, p. 4). In the classroom, the focus on natural acquisition often revolves
around sustained silent reading (Chow & Chou, 2000), an approach where students devote
time in the classroom to reading, typically accompanied by the teacher.
A number of teacher-researchers, however, advocate a more social approach, seeking tobalance learner development and collaborative interaction (Barfield, 2000). Within this view,the teacher adopts a proactive role, guiding interaction in class and facilitating understandingof the text through discussion and follow-up activities. Casanave (1993), for example, argued
that students “should think, talk and write about what they read, before, during, and after”
engagement with a text (p. 149), and she proposed that students write reflective journals in
response to reading assignments, with the goal not to reproduce textual facts, but engage withideas and generate thoughtful response. Renandya, Rajan, and Jacobs (1999) incorporated
a number of post-reading tasks into classroom activities, especially group-based discussion
and found that in-class peer interaction not only reinforced learning vocabulary, it also gave
students a sense of progress and broader understanding. Similarly, Jacobs and Gallo (2002)
integrated cooperative learning into ER classes, producing higher reading scores and morepositive attitudes. Both Dupey, Tse, and Cook (1996) and Hill and Van Horn (1997) stressthe importance of talking about books, discussing themes and critical issues, and addressing
open-ended questions related to character motivations, plot features, and related personal
experience. It is important, Dupey, Tse, and Cook (1996) argue, to give students relevant
cultural and historical information to facilitate understanding, a point that seems especiallyrelevant in Asian contexts.
While the rationale for integrating follow-up activities into an ER program often refers

68Extensive Reading in a University EFL Classroom:
Issues of Fluency, Vocabulary, and Proximity

to Swain’s (2000) output hypothesis, which suggests that productive expression, both oral
and written, enhances acquisition, Swain (1993) herself argues that output is not as muchabout pushing students toward more conscious awareness of increased grammatical accuracy,
as it is about situating engagement with texts in productive activities where students are
involved in expressing and exchanging opinions. A few ER advocates (e.g., Jacobs & Hannah,2009) have grounded an extensive approach to reading in the Vygotskyian notions ofscaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976) and shared cognition (Moll, 1990) which view
learning not as individual but collaborative social activity.

Methodology
This paper is a report of a small-scale, action research project (Burns, 2009) involving
reflective practice (Walsh, 2011), which investigated the effectiveness of using extensive
reading in a required first-year university English course. I was particularly interested in
adopting ER, but given the administrative, institutional, and organizational difficulties insetting up a graded reader program, I opted to use shared texts (Rosszell, 2010) that students
read together as class assignments. As a result, a modified ER approach was adopted: alarge quantity of interesting but accessible English text, read for enjoyment with a focus on
meaning, not translation or skill-based exercises.
There were two sections of the same class which met weekly over two semesters, withapproximately 30 students in both sections (attendance varied significantly from week toweek). The two required texts were Holes (Sachar, 1998) and Molly Moon’s Incredible Book

of Hypnotism (Byng, 2002) critically acclaimed young adult novels filled with action, humor,
and adventure. In total, students read more that 600 pages of text over the course of theacademic year, at a rate of approximately 20-25 pages per week. I provided a basic glossary
for both novels that students could use as they read. At the beginning of each class, there
was a brief short-answer quiz with the stated purpose of encouraging students to keep up
with the reading. Quizzes were designed to review plot details, and students who did poorly
on a quiz were allowed to write a short summary as a make-up exercise. In-class activities
were organized around discussion of the reading, and students made short presentations
explaining selected passages. They wrote journal entries that they sometimes read aloud. I
gave mini-lectures explaining key vocabulary terms, central themes, and culturally specificbackground information. I also talked about my own response to the reading and asked
students to do the same.

69

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

On the first class at the beginning of the academic year, I administered a vocabulary levels
diagnostic (Nation, 2001, p. 416) to obtain an approximate idea of vocabulary recognitionat the 2,000 (2K) and 3,000 (3K) levels, as well as the academic word list (AWL). Overall
scores for all students on the 2K diagnostic averaged 27 on a 30 item scale (90%), suggestinga basic-intermediate reading proficiency. Scores on the AWL and 3K tests were slightly lower.
Average scores measured 22/30 on the 3K (77%) and 18/30 on the AWL (60%).
Individually, two students scored low (below 20) on the 2K test. Five students scoredbelow 20 on the AWL, and 12 students on the 3K. A preliminary estimate of the reading levelof Holes, based on a selected excerpt, suggested that the book would be broadly accessible
to a reader with a strong command of the 2,000 word level, with approximately 95% of the
vocabulary at the 2K level, excluding proper names and words likely familiar to a Japanesereader. It was fairly clear that most students would not have 98% coverage of the vocabularyof the novels.
In terms of overall language proficiency, individual student scores for the reading segmentof the TOEIC IP placement test ranged from 115 to approximately 300, reflecting noticeably
disparate abilities, from low to mid-intermediate, a common situation in university EFL
classes. Most students were diligent and attentive in class, although 5-6 students were absent
three or more times per semester, and 4-5 students regularly showed up 10-15 minutes late.
Two students had trouble staying awake in class, though they were attentive when not drifting
off. Four students had lived abroad for periods of six to nine months as exchange students
during high school.
Individual learning styles were noticeably mixed. For example, Aki (all names arepseudonyms) was attentive and consistently received A’s on quizzes, but he scored low on
the vocabulary levels diagnostic (73% at the 2K level). Similarly, Taka scored high on the
vocabulary index (97% at the 3K level) but was often absent and rarely spoke in class. In
contrast, Nori was a returnee who had what seemed to be near native proficiency coupledwith the highest vocabulary level scores (100% at 3,000, 83% at 5,000 level) but, until the last
third of fall semester, was disinclined to make an effort to participate in class discussion or
keep up with assignments (i.e., he read in spurts, usually at the last minute). Kazuko, on theother hand, asked for extra reading after quickly finishing both texts and in fact read two far
more advanced novels, including Jurassic Park. Most students were characteristically shy andreluctant to talk in English, even in small group contexts.
At the end of the academic year in January, I asked students to complete Form B of the70Extensive Reading in a University EFL Classroom:
Issues of Fluency, Vocabulary, and Proximity

vocabulary levels diagnostic, to obtain a broad baseline comparison. Because of absences, lateregistration and other factors, only 50 students took both diagnostics (Form A in April andForm B January). Scores on the two forms, A and B, were compared to indicate broad changes
in vocabulary recognition. I also asked students in January to complete a 38 item evaluationquestionnaire using a 4 point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree),with open-ended questions and space for comments. Responses were anonymous. The
intention was not to find statistical significance, but to get an indication of the effectivenessof ER. Feedback from students was evaluated within a qualitative paradigm (Patton, 2015),
using interpretative, inductive analysis (Hubbard & Power, 1993; Thomas, 2006) to generatea grounded understanding of student attitudes. I tabulated survey answers in terms of asimple calculation of percentage. I report the findings in the section below.

Results
First and foremost, there was a near unanimous endorsement of ER as an effective
approach to English study. A clear majority of students (77%) thought that their reading
improved because of ER. Almost everyone (88%) said that they read faster, with greater
understanding (96%) and increased enjoyment (96%). Taken together, all students (100%)reported that they felt either speed or comprehension had improved. There was one student
who thought his reading speed didn’t increase, but his comprehension did, while six students
responded that comprehension had not improved, but reading speed had. A large majorityof students (87%) stated that they understood the gist of the narrative, defined as more than
75% of the story, and two of the eight students who said they only understood only 50% of thestory actually made A’s in the class, consistently scoring well on quizzes and the final exam.
Perhaps more significantly, most students felt that they had developed more positive
attitudes toward reading because of ER. Though not all were unreservedly positive, either in
evaluations or class participation, nearly every student asserted more favorable orientations
toward English. The majority (75%) indicated that, after taking the course, they enjoyedreading more than at the beginning of the year. Nearly two thirds (62%) attributed their morepositive attitudes toward English to ER. Most (80%) said that they would take another ER
class if offered, and 57% stated that they were more likely to read an English book in their
free time because of ER. Taken together, all but a handful of students (95%) asserted thatthey either enjoyed reading more, were more positive about English in general, or would takeanother ER course given the opportunity.

71慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

The change in attitudes among students who were either reluctant readers or negative about
English was particularly striking. Eighteen students reported at the beginning of the academic
year that they did not like English in high school. Of the 18, almost all (16) said that at theend of the ER course they enjoyed reading more or were willing to enroll in another class withsimilar reading requirements. Some of the attitudinal changes were dramatic. For example,
Matosuke commented: “I hated English in high school because it was not fun. There were
too many things to memorize and the teacher let us read only boring sentences. But we canread interesting novels in ER and I’m enjoying studying now.” Ayami, another student who
didn’t like English in high school, said: “I really didn’t like English. I knew it was useful, but
I thought that studying was hard and boring. But now I enjoy reading more than before and I
think it’s because of Molly Moon! I really enjoy reading this book.”
There was also a shift in attitudes among enthusiastic students. For example, Chikako, said
that the way she thought about reading improved:

Until I took this class. I always had to translate each word. Studying for the entrance
exam, learning grammar, reading difficult texts, I couldn’t enjoy the content of what I
was reading…. And at first, with the homework for this class, I translated every word as
I had always done, but that amount decreased the more I read, and I was able to guesseven words I didn’t know before. Because of that, my reading speed became a lot fasterand since I didn’t have to stop reading in the middle of the story, I could enjoy the story
much more. [original in Japanese; translations are mine]
Similarly, Taka, a reluctant student who rarely demonstrated outward enthusiasm but whoscored very high on the 3K vocabulary test (97%), said that he was “thankful” for the classbecause it gave him a new orientation toward English:

I like to read English books a little more than before. I will try to read English books
for myself. This class is an opportunity to start to read English in private.
Choice of Texts
Nearly all students found the two novels interesting. All but three (88%) said they liked

Holes, and all but one (96%) said they enjoyed Molly Moon, suggesting that perhaps attitudes
became more positive as reading proficiency increased over the year. Although there was72

Extensive Reading in a University EFL Classroom:
Issues of Fluency, Vocabulary, and Proximity

more to the class than simply reading, the overwhelming majority of students (96%) said thatthey enjoyed the course as a whole. The only student who said he enjoyed neither the classnor Molly Moon was Aki, who was nonetheless positive about ER. He replied that the class
had been helpful, and said that his reading confidence and speed, as well as vocabulary andoverall English proficiency, all improved by taking the class. Importantly, Aki’s grade for theclass was a solid A. He scored consistently high marks on the quizzes and participated actively
and attentively in class discussion.
Only a minority of students (25%) expressed a desire to choose their own individual bookto read. A full three-fourths of students said that they would rather have the entire class readthe same book chosen by the instructor. Students who said they wanted to read different
texts were divided into two fairly clear categories. Most (11 of 15) were strong readers withhigh vocabulary test scores who reliably completed reading assignments and participatedactively in class. A few (4 of 15) were more passive in class and either had trouble withattendance or completing reading assignments. In other words, class readers were positively
received by the majority, with little resistance to a shared text. In fact, a number of students
noted that they were able to complete the reading precisely because of the structured natureof the assignments. A full 80% of students admitted that, were they not enrolled in the ER
class, they would likely not have read as much or as regularly. Only 12 of the stronger, more
independent students reported that they would likely be reading English even if they had not
had the class assignments.
The weekly quizzes, designed to structure the reading in terms of pace and attention
to details of plot and character, were not overly popular. At the same time, most students
seemed to accept the value of the quizzes. Only slightly more than half (53%) agreed thatthey actually liked having quizzes. At the same time, 62% admitted that, without the quizzes,
they would likely not have read as consistently or as carefully. By far, the large majority (92%)
admitted that the quizzes served as a useful review of the story and were a good check ofcomprehension.

Vocabulary
In spite of the positive attitudes and strong endorsement of ER, almost half of the students(47%) thought that their vocabulary did not improve doing ER. Only a slim majority (53%)
said their vocabulary increased. A few even felt that their vocabulary had actually decreased
because of ER. Apparently, some students thought that the emphasis on quantity adversely73慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

affected the quality of reading. Certainly, the practical exigencies of reading 20-25 pages per
week pushed students to focus on understanding the bigger picture of the story rather thanthe particular details of word meaning. Given this tendency to read pragmatically and skip
unknown words, some students seemed to feel that they were not acquiring new vocabularyincidentally. Further, the skepticism about vocabulary development did not seem to be related
to not doing the reading. While eight students who stated that their vocabulary did notincrease admitted that they sometimes skipped reading assignments, the other 20 students
who said their vocabulary did not improve reported doing homework conscientiously.
Student impressions about vocabulary acquisition seem rooted, at least in part, in thepractice of guessing, a reading strategy which appeared prevalent. Students almost universally(97%) reported guessing the meaning of unfamiliar words encountered in the course ofreading. Although most (73%) seemed to feel that guessing actually helped to learn new
words, many seemed to automatically assume that guessing was not productive and in fact,even constituted a kind of academic laziness. For example, one student explained that his
vocabulary did not improve because, he said, “I skip a lot of words.” Another student usedalmost exactly the same reasoning: “The disadvantage is that I skip words I don’t know, so it’sdifficult to learn new words.” Still another drew a distinction between comprehending thestory and learning vocabulary:

When I came across a word that I didn’t know, I skipped over it and kept reading.
More than before, I got used to reading a lot of text. On the other hand, I think myknowledge of vocabulary decreased as a result. – S22 [original in Japanese]
Apparently, some students felt that, when they skipped words (sometimes whole sections)in order to grasp the “gist” of the story without stopping to look up unknown vocabulary, theymissed something important. In other words, students seemed to be assuming that they could
not learn if they did not pay explicit attention, arguably an attitude rooted in the intensive
approach to reading developed in high school English classes.
Student intuitions were not supported, however, by the vocabulary levels tests which offereda more complex picture, suggesting that students may have in fact gained vocabulary, at least
the kind associated with reading novels. There may have been a slight decline in recognitionof academic vocabulary terms that do not usually appear in fiction but that students typicallystudy in preparation for university entrance exams, but the loss appeared to be small.

74

Extensive Reading in a University EFL Classroom:
Issues of Fluency, Vocabulary, and Proximity

On the whole, average vocabulary scores for the three levels (2K, 3K and AWL) showeddistinct trends. On the 2K test, average scores showed little decline over the course of theyear. If anything, class averages suggest a slight increase. The average score in April was 27.4
of 30. The average score at the end of fall semester was 27.7, a largely insignificant change.
Interestingly, however, four students showed changes of five or more points, and three ofthe four were positive gains. For example, Josaburo, who demonstrated the biggest shift,scored 18/30 (60%) on the 2K diagnostic in April, and 27/30 (90%) in January, which was a
noticeable increase.
On the AWL diagnostic, the average score showed a slight decline over the year. Total
scores for both classes dropped a total of 137 points, and the average individual score
dropped from 23.8/30 to 21.1/30, a little more than two words per student. Among individual
students who demonstrated a noticeable shift of 5 points or more, eleven students showeddeclines, while only one showed an increase. Etaya, for example, dropped from 24/30 (80%)
to 15/30 (50%), which was one of the two largest shifts. The downward trend suggests thaton the whole, students may indeed have lost some command of the academic vocabulary theystudied prior to entering university, perhaps reflecting a decline that follows the intensive
study associated with exam preparation. In the words of Sakio, “You may have a good ability tounderstand and read English when you enter college, but it declines day by day because you
study less than before.” The lower scores seem to reflect how students slowly lost some of thecomplex vocabulary they had memorized.
However, scores for vocabulary at the non-specialized 3K level of frequency demonstrated
a markedly different trend. Diagnostic results showed an increase at the 3K level more
pronounced than the decline in academic vocabulary. Scores for all students increased 151
points, while the average individual score showed an increase of more than three words perstudent, rising from 21.3 to 24.4. In particular, sixteen students demonstrated a shift of 5 ormore points, with four students making gains of 10 points or more. Guriko, who lost 10 points
on the AWL test, gained 23 points at the 3K level. Matosuke gained gained 10 points andSasuko gained 11. In sum, the increases in recognition of non-specialized words at the 3K
range surpassed the AWL decline, both in overall totals and individual scores.
The increase in vocabulary was particularly noticeable in students who scored low on
the diagnostic test at the beginning of Spring semester. Two students scored below whatmight be considered a minimum criterion of 20 points (66%) on the 2K diagnostic, and 12
students scored below 20 on the 3K test. At the end of the year, all 14 students demonstrated

75慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

increases, all more than five points each. On the AWL diagnostic, six students scored below
20, and there was little noticeable change, though one student increased six points. All
students who scored low on the AWL, however, showed increases on the 3K.
While the vocabulary levels tests provide only approximate measures of word recognition,
they do suggest that students might not be losing vocabulary in the way they imagine.
Explanations students made in open-ended comments are instructive on this point, inpart because they illustrate a flawed dichotomous logic. For these students, it was either
understanding content or skills development. For example, S11 said:

I could enjoy reading English because I didn’t have to translate. However, I need to
improve my English grammar and vocabulary, so I wanted more grammar explanationand vocabulary tests in class.
Student S14 concurred, for a similar reason:

I like extensive reading better…. But when I found the word I didn’t know, I almost
never used a dictionary, so my vocabulary has not improved.
These students admitted that they enjoyed extensive reading, but at the same time, they did
not feel that enjoyable reading counted as language learning.
In effect, ER seemed to be too pleasurable, too much fun to be study. Elley (1991, p. 403)
mentioned this point, though in reference to elementary school administrators and parents,
not students. In several of the studies he reviewed, Elley notes that skeptics viewed ER as
students “merely enjoying themselves, rather than learning.” Yu (1997, p. 3), also noted thatstudents regarded ER “an optional extra, a luxury” rather than an effective means to foster
a “reading culture.” Certainly, the notion that learning requires diligence and conscientious
effort is deeply rooted in traditional attitudes toward education. Evidently, some students
seem to have internalized a conception of English study that equates learning not with using
the language, but with explicit and earnest attention to its constituent parts.

Proximity
Another notable finding involved the way students thought about themselves vis-à-vis
English. There was a perceptible shift in terms of proximity, as many students stated they felt76Extensive Reading in a University EFL Classroom:
Issues of Fluency, Vocabulary, and Proximity

closer to English because of ER. For example, Guriko said, “I’m not afraid of reading English
now” and Tahoya remarked that English had “become familiar” through ER. In part, the shift
in proximity was related to the way students understood English, as the language becameless a subject of study that required correctness and attention to detail, and more a tool ofcommunication. In particular, students began to relate to English through the enjoyment
and excitement of narrative. Many students made a point to contrast ER with the traditional
grammar-translation approach, which nearly everyone (92%) reported using to some extent inhigh school. With ER, “I’ve been able to feel the enjoyment of English,” Jofumi noted, addingthat “I feel that I’ve drawn closer to English.” Similarly, Banichi commented that when he“studied for the entrance exams,” he “hated” English, while now he “enjoys reading more.”
Junoya said, “My way of reading changed because I don’t translate English into Japaneseanymore,” and Moyuki insisted that while he had learned English in the traditional intensive
style for years, he now thinks it “useless” because extensive English is “more fun.”The shift in proximity generated a sense of ownership and connection, as students began
to appropriate English as something they related to personally. Manami said, for example, “Ilearned to read English as English. Now I seem to understand how people using English feel.”
Similarly, Haseo commented, “I don’t translate English into Japanese. Rather, I now think in
English as I read. I feel absorbed in English as it is.” In other words, student identities began
to change through ER. Students developed, in Hakui’s words, “English brains” as they began
to think in English and see themselves as readers to whom English belonged. Rather thanlocating English externally, as a subject of study for exams with right and wrong answers,
English became rooted in the imagination and personal sense of value.
Part of the shift in identity was generated by the growing ability to engage with extended
narrative. That is, the reading was tied to creative involvement. Students read successfully
because they were able to construct the story, which worked in turn to attract them asreaders. This narrative engagement was evident in the adventure and excitement of the plot,
the appeal of the characters, and the relevance of underlying themes. For many, however,affective engagement was neither immediate nor intrinsic to the story; rather, it was an active
process of construction that developed over time, only with persistence and concerted effort.
For example, Goto, one of the most skeptical students in class commented:

The book itself is relatively easy. If it were Japanese, even elementary school kids would
understand. But I’m not good at English (especially reading) and doing the homework77慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

every week was really difficult. The only thing that saved me was the interesting story.
You don’t often find this kind of atmosphere in Japanese novels, and I like it. What’smore, I can empathize with the heroine, who is weak and unattractive.
For Goto, it was the connection he was able to construct with the story that allowed him todeal with the workload and the challenge of getting through the reading assignments. Morespecifically, Goto’s ability to get involved with the story provided the stimulus to keep reading.
The connection that other students built with the narrative was also strong, though thefocus differed. For example, Saiko pointed to Molly, the protagonist’s changes of heart andstated, “I was encouraged by Molly.” Makiko commented on the vicarious excitement ofimagined delinquency: “I experienced committing a robbery with Molly and Rocky. Thoughrobbing a bank is bad, I enjoyed the thrill.” Another student, Etaya, talked about theexcitement of travel to America: “This book taught me something important about my life. I
also learned about American culture. I want to go to America.” And Mami remarked that, like
Molly, she too “wanted to use hypnotism!”
However, a number of students found the reading difficult at first, which made the story
hard to relate to. Sansuke, for example, noted how the level of difficulty changed as he began
to become involved in the story and make connections with the protagonist:

Until I caught the story, I thought it was difficult to read and there are many
vocabulary words I didn’t know. But as I became used to reading, I began to like Molly,
who noticed that hypnotizing is a dangerous power while she lived a gorgeous life.
Similarly, Manami pointed to her initial skepticism of the main character, because of what she
saw as the heroine’s selfishness:

The first part of this book is so disgusting. I disliked Molly’s character and the idea that
she could make anyone do what she wanted by hypnotism. I thought again and againthat I wanted to give up reading, but the story turned good. Molly changed, and I likeher now. This book is so enjoyable.
Until Manami thought the story had a moral point to which she could relate, her basic dislike
worked as an impediment and held her back to the point where she was ready to give up.

78

Extensive Reading in a University EFL Classroom:
Issues of Fluency, Vocabulary, and Proximity

What is significant here is that these comments express connections with literature thatexperienced readers make. Students were able to go beyond reading the text as an assignment
and make contact with the narrative, developing an emotional investment in the story.
In addition, students were able to read beyond their competence, and develop increased
proficiency because they were drawn into the story by the narrative. However, the emotional
involvement did not come automatically. Understanding was a constructive process which
took place over time within the supportive structure of the class as a whole.

Discussion
In this paper, I have reported on a local investigation of using a modified ER approach ina first-year university reading class. The evidence suggests that in reading the two novels
extensively, most students felt that their reading fluency (speed and comprehension)increased. Further, interest in English and attitudes toward reading also improved for many,with some students expressing a noticeably stronger sense of proximity to the language. A
small but significant number of students felt concerned that reading extensively did not
develop their vocabulary, because attention was focused on meaning, not explicitly learning
new words. The diagnostic tests suggest, however, that while academic vocabulary may haveindeed dropped slightly, vocabulary at 3K level (that is, non-specialized words that appearedin the novels) may actually have increased.
Research in ER often talks about the inherent motivation of enjoyable texts (e.g., Stoller,2015), but it seems that it may be important, not simply to trust the intrinsic power ofER, but to “sell” students on the idea, explicitly reminding them of the value of reading
for meaning and the particular challenges that the approach entails. Given the experience
many first-year students have with English in high school, it would also seem to be helpful
to address unstated assumptions about how the language is acquired and remind students
that not only does learning and enjoyment often go together, but that an important aspect of
second language proficiency is acquired in the tacit focus on meaning and authentic content.
At the same time, evidence from this study seems to suggest that it would probably be agood idea to supplement ER with additional vocabulary study, even if assigned outside class,a position that Nation (2013) advocates as a matter of course. Browne, Culligan, and Phillips(2013) have updated the academic word list and placed it online with flash-card exercisesthat provide excellent individual practice, with the potential to not simply stem possible
attrition, but actually develop academic vocabulary. While there is a strong argument to be79慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

made that ER is more about fluency, narrative interpretation, and response, a supplementary
practice component would likely prove effective in addressing student concerns about losing
vocabulary.
Some critics might contend that popular fiction has no place in the university EFL
classroom, which demands a more serious approach to content. A focus on academic content
involving larger social issues is needed, the argument goes, to prepare for upper-level EMI
courses and, after graduation, a professional career in a globalizing world. Certainly this is theideal, which is possible for students already proficient in English, but intermediate learners
who lack fluency and tend to be skeptical about reading in general need an alternative
pedagogy that strengthens language skills. Findings from this study suggest that a modified
ER approach using popular fiction may in fact prove effective in strengthening fluency
and positive attitudes toward both reading and English itself. In sum, learning to read withspeed and enjoyment in the EFL classroom can play an important role in preparing first-year
intermediate students to deal successfully with upcoming challenges, including English
medium instruction.

Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to Bernard Susser, Christine Pearson Casanave, and three anonymous
reviewers for critical comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

80Extensive Reading in a University EFL Classroom:
Issues of Fluency, Vocabulary, and Proximity

References
Bamford, J. & Day, R.R. (1997). Extensive reading: What is it? Why bother? The Language Teacher, 21,
6-8/12.
Barfield, A. (2000). The promise and practice of extensive reading: An interview with George Jacobs andWilly Renandya. Literacy Across Cultures, 3(2), 25-30.
Bell, T. (2001). Extensive reading: Speed and comprehension. The Reading Matrix, 1 (1).
Brown, H. (2014). Contextual factors driving the growth of undergraduate English-medium instruction
programmes at universities in Japan. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 50-63.
Browne, C., Culligan, B. & Phillips, J. (2013). The new academic word list. Retrieved fromhttp://www.newgeneralservicelist.org.
Burns, A. (2009). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners . New
York: Routledge.
Byng, G. (2002). Molly Moon’s incredible book of hypnotism. London: Macmillan.
Carty, P., & Susser, B. (2015). Global education and classroom teaching: From CBI to EMI. In P.
Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), JALT 2014 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.
Casanave, C. P. (1993). Reading and responding: Using journals. In R.R. Day (Ed.), New ways inteaching reading (pp. 149-156). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Chow, P. H., & Chou, C. T. (2000). Evaluating sustained silent reading in reading classes. The Internet

TESL Journal, 6(11).
Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dupuy, B., Tse, L., & Cook, T. (1996). Bringing books into the classroom: First steps in turning
college-level ESL students into readers. TESOL Journal, 5, 10-15.
Elley, W. B. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs.

Language Learning, 41, 375-411.
Hill, D. R. (1997). Setting up an extensive reading programme: Practical tips. The Language Teacher,21(5), 17-20.
Hill, M., & Van Horn, L. (1997). Extensive reading through book clubs: How book clubs have changed
lives. In G. M. Jacobs, C. Davis, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Successful strategies for extensive reading(pp. 98-108) Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Hino, N. (1988). Yakudoku: Japan’s dominant tradition in foreign language learning. JALT Journal, 10(1),45-55.
Jacobs, G. M., & Hannah, D. (2009). Combining cooperative learning with reading aloud by teachers.

International Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 97-118.
Jacobs, G., & Gallo, P. (2002). Reading alone together: Enhancing extensive reading via student-student
cooperation in second-language instruction. Reading Online, 5(6).
Kanno, Y. (2003). Negotiating bilingual and bicultural identities: Japanese returnees betwixt two worlds.
NY: Routledge.

81慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

Kirkpatrick, A. (2016). The learning and teaching of English as an international language in Asia-Pacificuniversities: Issues and challenges. In C.H.C. Ng, R. Fox, & M. Nakano (Eds.), Reforming learningand teaching in Asia-Pacific universities (pp. 233-247). Singapore: Springer.
Krashen, S.D. (2000). What does it take to acquire language? ESL Magazine, 3(3), 22-23.
Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. NY: Longman
Lees, D. & Althomsons, S. (2015). Approaches to extensive reading in the Japanese education system.

Kwansei Gakuin Language Education Research Center Report, 18, 73-82.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
MEXT. (2012). Higher education in Japan. Tokyo.
Moll, L.C. (1990). Introduction. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education. New York: Cambridge
University Press
Nation, P. (1997). The language learning benefits of extensive reading. The Language Teacher, 21, 13-16.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Nation, P. (2013). What should every EFL teacher know? Compass Publishing.
Nation, P. (2015). Principles guiding vocabulary learning through extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign

Language, 27(1), 136.
Nation, P., & Wang, K. (1999). Graded readers and vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign Language, 12 (2),355-380.
Nishino, T., & Watanabe, M. (2008). Communication‐oriented policies versus classroom realities inJapan. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 133-138.
Noguchi, J. (2015). Secondary English education in Japan. In B. Spolsky & K. Sung (Eds.), Secondary

school English education in Asia: From policy to practice (pp. 33-46). Routledge.
Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). LA: Sage.
Prowse, P. (2002). Top ten principles for teaching extensive reading: A response. Reading in a Foreign

Language, 14(2).
Renandya, W. A., Rajan, B. R. S., & Jacobs, G. M. (1999). Extensive reading with adult learners ofEnglish as a second language. RELC Journal, 30, 39-61.
Robb, T. N., & Susser, B. (1989). Extensive reading vs. skills building in an EFL context. Reading in a

Foreign Language, 5, 239-251.
Rosszell, H. R. (2010). Class readers: The learner’s perspective. Global Japanese Studies Review of Meiji

University, 2(1) 51-76.
Sachar, L. (1998). Holes. NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A longitudinal case study.

Written Communication, 14 (1), 3-62.
Stoller, F. L. (2015). Viewing extensive reading from different vantage points. Reading in a Foreign

Language, 27(1), 152.

82

Extensive Reading in a University EFL Classroom:
Issues of Fluency, Vocabulary, and Proximity

Susser, B., & Robb, T. N. (1990). EFL extensive reading instruction: research and procedure. JALT

Journal, 12(2), 161-185.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The CanadianModern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative
dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114).
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, D.R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American

Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246.
Waring, R., & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from reading a
graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(2).
Wood, D., Bruner, J. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Yu, V. W-S. (1997). Encouraging students to read more in an extensive reading programme. In G. M.
Jacobs, C. Davis, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.). Successful strategies for extensive reading (pp. 1-9).
Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

83

Student Perception on Giving Peer Feedbackin EFL Writing and its Implications

Student Perception on Giving Peer Feedbackin EFL Writing and its Implications
Orita Yoshikawa, Kyoko
Abstract
The qualitative case study reported in this paper explored Japanese senior high school
students’ perceptions on giving peer feedback in an EFL writing class. The study unveiled
two contrasting findings. The survey data revealed that the students perceived giving peer
feedback positively and recognized the benefits. The students identified the process ofgiving feedback as an experience of reading non-standard, imperfect English essay actively.
The benefits they saw in giving feedback were related to the improvements in their own
English proficiency: the reviewing of their own English usage, the application into their own
writing of what they learned from giving peer feedback, and the exposure to the wide variety
of English their classmates used. On the other hand, the observational and interview data
unveiled the students’ irritation and impatience in giving feedback on essays written by theirpeers in imperfect, non-standard English. It depicted the intolerance toward students’ own
non-standard English. The study stresses the importance of giving peer feedback in EFL
writing sessions with regards to 1) the students recognizing its benefits, and 2) the students
needing to develop tolerance and perseverance in dealing with their own non-standard
English.

Introduction
As the communicative approach gained its momentum over the grammar-translation
method in the 1990s, the Japanese EFL classrooms began to witness an increased amountof pair and group work. The use of peer feedback was also not ignored. A large amount ofresearch on peer feedback was conducted, varying in its purpose, nature, and results. Somestudies emphasized the effectiveness of peer feedback (Keh, 1990; Hedgcock&Lefkowitz,
1992; Tsui&Ng, 2000; Nakanishi, 2006) while others criticized its ineffectiveness85慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

(Conner&Asenavage, 1994; Zhang, 1995).
Despite the differences in their results, most of the research on peer feedback focused on
the end product, the given peer feedback. Some examined the student feedback given on
paper in writing and dissected it using different approaches. Others studied the students’reactions to the given feedback, while some others studied how much the given student
feedback was reflected in their second essays. However, when the focus is shifted from thegiven feedback to the process of giving feedback, the educational and social benefits uniqueto peer feedback came into the picture. This is precisely what this research paper is focusedon, the students’ perceptions on giving peer feedback in an EFL writing session, rather thanthe end product, that is, the given peer feedback.

Literature Review
Studies on peer feedback can be categorized into the four types outlined below: 1) students’preferences, 2) comparisons of teacher feedback and student feedback, 3) the constraints ofpeer feedback, and 4) the benefits of peer feedback.

1) Students’ preference of feedback type
There are studies that focused on learners’ preference in terms of peer and/or teacher
feedback. Zhang (1995) conducted research involving 81 university students in an ESL
setting. Her study attempted to examine the changes in the students’ preferences as regards
teacher and peer feedback when social support was provided in the classroom. She concluded
that 93.8% of the students preferred teacher feedback to peer feedback.
Tsui & Ng (2000) observed 27 high school students in an ESL setting to determine theeffectiveness of the peer feedback. They attempted to clarify whether secondary L2 learners
benefited from peer comments or not. They found that the students preferred teacher
feedback, and that the teacher feedback was incorporated a lot more than the peer commentsin the revision of their writing. In addition, they stated that the reasons for the preference
were based on the teachers’ experiences and the directness of the feedback. Regarding thepeer feedback itself, they found that 88% of the students stated that given peer feedback was
more beneficial than receiving it.
Moreover, Chaudron (1984) examined 23 university students in an ESL setting and foundthat nearly all the students preferred teacher feedback over peer feedback. He stated thatsome students did see benefits of receiving peer feedback, but they doubted the validity of86

Student Perception on Giving Peer Feedbackin EFL Writing and its Implications

the peer feedback.
Regarding the validity of the feedback and its relation to the students’ preference ofthe types of feedback, Nakanishi (2006) concluded in her study that the validity and thepreference of feedback varied according to the language proficiency level of the reviewers(pp.103-109). She had 13 teachers, 25 university students of higher-English proficiency, and25 university students of lower-English proficiency review one common composition. She
found that the teacher feedback outweighed the student feedback in quantity and in quality.
Similarly, the students with higher-English proficiency gave much more direct and codedfeedback than those with lower-English proficiency. Her results aligned with the students’preference for the types of feedback they received. In other words, the students preferredteacher feedback to that of the high English proficiency students, while the high English
proficiency student feedback was preferred to that of the lower English proficiency students.
Likewise, Mendoca & Johnson (1994) stated that the corrections made in the peer feedback
tended to arouse doubts on the side of the receivers, especially when their fields of study
differed, resulting in an increase in the students’ preference for teacher feedback over peer
feedback. Interestingly, Sumida (2010) examined two-year college students’ perceptions of
EFL writing instruction through a survey analysis, concluding that the learners regarded
receiving feedback from teachers and peers to be a lot more effective than from teachers
alone. His study showed that the students acknowledged the fundamental differences of thetwo and considered both to be significant. Similar results were reported by Tsui and Ng (2000)
and Wakabayashi (2008).

2) Comparisons of teacher feedback and peer feedback
Teacher feedback and peer feedback are fundamentally different. The strength of peer
feedback can be found in its social, cognitive and affective aspects all of which cannot be
fully supplemented by the teacher feedback. Conversely, the strength of teacher feedback canbe identified in its methodological and linguistic aspects (Rollinson, 2005, p.24; Liu&Hansen,
2002, p.8). Teacher feedback and peer feedback complement one another to provide the mosteffective feedback. Thus, for example, when peer feedback is compared to teacher feedback
in its accuracy over grammatical corrections, the effectiveness of teacher feedback naturally
outweighs the other. However, despite such fundamental differences, there have been a large
number of studies concerned with a comparison of the two.
There is research examining how much influence peer feedback had on the final draft of87慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

students’ compositions when compared to the teacher feedback. Connor and Asenavage (1994)
reported on eight university students in an ESL environment, showing that approximately
35% of the teacher feedback was reflected in the final drafts, while it was only 5% for the peer
feedback (pp.266-267). They pointed out that the majority of the teacher feedback appearing
in the students’ final draft was of direct corrections.
In a study comparing the effects of different editing methods on EFL writing quality at highschool level, Shizuka (1993) found that the quality of the final draft improved the most when
the direct corrections were made by the teachers. Nakanishi (2006) compared the features of
the teacher feedback and peer feedback in her study involving Japanese university students
and reported that teachers made far more “grammatical” corrections than the peers (p.106).
Approximately 12% of the teacher feedback focused on the language, while it was only 4% for
the peer feedback.
Similarly, Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1992) compared the final drafts of 30 FSL (French
as a Second Language) students that received either teacher or peer feedback. They foundthat while the final drafts written after the peer feedback tended to improve in their content,
structure and vocabulary, those with the teacher feedback exhibited improvements on theirlanguage use the most. Shizuka (1993) however, went so far as to question the effectiveness ofthe direct corrections offered by the teachers. He stated that direct corrections in the teacher
feedback tended to appear as they were instructed in the final drafts, but suspected that in
the long run, such direct corrections may prevent learners from developing self-feedback skills
to revise and improve their own writing (p.20).
In the studies comparing the teacher feedback and peer feedback, the scores of thestudents’ first and revised compositions were often examined. In most cases, the score of therevised composition was better than the first one. Simply put, the “revision” improves thescore regardless of the type of feedback the students receive. Nakanishi (2006) conducteda study involving four types of feedback (self-feedback, peer-feedback, teacher-feedback,and peer-&-teacher feedback) and compared the scores of the revised composition. She
concluded that the improved scores of the second draft were due to the effect of “revision”
rather than the types of feedback the writers received (pp.171-172). Similarly, Yakame (2005)
studied the revised composition of students who received peer feedback and concluded that
their scores improved because the students simply added sentences to increase the volume of
their compositions (pp.108-109).
Furthermore, Sumida (2010), Wakayabashi (2008), and Kambara (2011) suspected the88

Student Perception on Giving Peer Feedbackin EFL Writing and its Implications

writing topic selection resulted in the score improvement. They all suggested that the score of
the revised compositions increased depending on the topic. Wakabayashi (2008) cited one of
the limitations of her study was the failure to adjust the composition conditions for the first
and the revised ones (p.106). Thus, regardless of what type of feedback the students received,
the score for the second composition increased in general.

3) Constraints of peer feedback
Outlined below are some problematic aspects of peer feedback including time constraints,
cultural dispositions, and both the students’ and teacher’s characteristics and beliefs.
Time constraint has been the major obstacle in implementing peer feedback (Rollinson,
2005, pp.25-26). Whether it is given orally or written, the process of giving peer feedback
itself is a time consuming activity. In addition, most learners are not accustomed to reviewing
papers. Pre-training on how to give feedback may be needed, which naturally demands
more time (Liu&Hansen, 2002, pp.151-155; Nakanishi, 2008, p.46). Moreover, usually insecondary education, the EFL curricula have been set in advance, often leaving no room forpeer feedback sessions. Yu (2013) stated that Chinese EFL teachers were occupied withaligning their content and schedule around the common term examinations that it was nearly
impossible to incorporate peer feedback (p.76).
Collectivism, often a symbol of East Asian cultures, may be a cultural disposition which
impedes the effective implementation of peer feedback. In their study, Carson and Nelson(1998) suggested such collectivism to be the reason behind Chinese students’ tendency towithhold critical comments. They stated that Chinese students were reluctant to critiquetheir peers in order to maintain group harmony within the class and to avoid exerting
authority over their peers. With similar notions in mind, Nakanishi (2006) conducted astudy involving 48 Japanese college students. In order to adjust such cultural dispositions,she asked the students to give two kinds of peer feedback, one of which was named and theother anonymous. Her results showed that the anonymous evaluation contained lower scoresand more comments on points to be improved. She also stated that the students commented
more specifically and directly when their feedback was anonymous. On the other hand, in the
feedback including their names, the students gave higher points and commented more on thegood points. Their wording was much more polite. Her study showed that conducting peer
feedback anonymously allowed the Japanese students to critique their peers more effectively(p.124).

89

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

Student characteristics and beliefs often interfere with the implementation of peer
feedback. Rollinson (2005) stated that many students might need to be persuaded to value
peer feedback (p.26). Some of them might not accept the notion that their peers werequalified to read and critique their writing in place of a teacher. They might feel that only abetter writer, in most cases a native speaker or the teacher, was qualified to judge or commenton their work. This is more apparent in a foreign language setting than that of L2 because
the exposure to the target language is extremely limited and the only model accepted is theteacher. At the same time, Masaki (1997) stated that some students remained hesitant incritiquing their peers’ writing due to their lack of confidence in their English ability.
Teacher characteristics and beliefs, although not often pointed out, may hinder the
implementation of peer feedback. Rollinson (2005) stated that teachers often questioned
the value of peer feedback and wondered how they could reconcile such a time consuming
activity with course or examination constraints. He also pointed out that some teachers haddifficulty handing over a significant degree of responsibility to the students. They feared
being unable to supervise each and every peer feedback taking place. Moreover, “the teacher
may find it difficult not to interfere by providing feedback in addition to that of the student
readers, which might well reduce the students’ motivation and commitment to their own
responding” (Rollinson, 2005, p.26).
Indeed, Yu (2013) conducted her qualitative research with 26 Chinese EFL teachers andfound that there was a gap between their beliefs and practice regarding the peer feedback.
Although most teachers acknowledged the significance of peer feedback, they did not put
it into practice due to various constraints, including their own beliefs. For example, someteachers believed that their students did not possess enough English proficiency to make peer
feedback meaningful. According to her study, nearly all the teachers who incorporated peer
feedback in their class gave teacher feedback after peer feedback. This not only increased theworkload of the teacher, but it clearly illustrated how the teachers thought peer feedback was
not sufficient. Her study concluded that EFL teachers lacked the awareness of the value andpotential of peer feedback and thus needed to be persuaded.
Moreover, a teacher-centered approach and large class size prevent teachers from
implementing peer feedback in their classroom. Zaman and Azad (2012) found that although
the Bangladeshi teachers had a very positive attitude towards peer feedback in their study ofteachers’ perceptions of peer feedback, none of the teachers attempted to incorporate it into
their classroom due to the large class sizes (p.150).

90

Student Perception on Giving Peer Feedbackin EFL Writing and its Implications4) Benefits of peer feedback
The advantages of peer feedback have often been summarized as follows: Learners
receiving more feedback than from the teacher’s alone, learners receiving comments fromother learners’ perspectives, learners gaining audience awareness, learners focusing on ideas
for better revision, learners being able to improve their self-revision skills, learners being
able to enhance critical reading and critical thinking skills, and learners building a sense ofcommunity in the classroom (Chaudron, 1984; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1992; Liu & Hansen,
2002) .
One of the most influential benefits is depicted in the Cone of Experience (Dale, 1954,
p.43). Dale stated that students retained more in the active participation than throughpassive participation. Moreover, in defining active participation, he concluded that thestudents learn more by teaching one another. This is precisely what peer feedback is about.
By having students become involved as evaluators, the learning benefits of such students areincomparably better than more passive approaches. Making corrections on peer’s essays are
typical examples of such benefits. In the process of giving peer feedback, the students consult
their friends and teacher; they take the initiative in making corrections; and they extend theirlanguage retention period through such hands-on experiences.
As is self-evident, the amount of feedback the learners receive increases when peer
feedback is added to teacher feedback. This benefit has been reported by Sumida (2010) in
his study of Japanese college students. The students acknowledged that receiving feedback
from their peers and teacher was more beneficial than the teacher’s alone. Unlike the topdown structure of teacher feedback, peer feedback allows the learners to receive commentsfrom the learners’ perspectives. It encourages and motivates them in improving their written
work.
Liu and Hansen (2002) stated that the benefits of peer feedback are found in its social
aspect (see Table 1). They stated that peer feedback enhanced the communicative powerof learners, allowed them to receive authentic feedback, and established collegial ties andfriendship. Learners may also gain audience awareness through peer feedback (p.8). Keh(1990) asserted that using peer feedback allowed learners to gain a greater sense of audience
when their text was reviewed by several readers, instead of just by one teacher (pp.299-303).
Audience awareness enables the learners to conduct self-feedback and self-assessment
at every stage of the writing process. In other words, they are able to revise and edit theirwork as it progresses from a reader’s point of view. Rinnert & Kobayashi (2001) also noted91慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

that peer feedback required leaners to become more aware of their own writing style, andsimultaneously, forced them to guess where readers might have problems reading their writing(p.203).
Table 1 Benefits and Constraints in Using Peer Response (Liu & Hansen, 2002; p.8)
BENEFIT
Cognitive

1. Exercise thinking
2. Take active role in learning
3. Engage in exploratory talk

CONSTRAINT
1. Uncertainty concerning peers’comments
2. Lack of learner investment

4. Build critical skills
5. Demonstrate and reinforce knowledge
6. Build audience awarenessSocial

1. Enhance communicative power

1. Discomfort and uneasiness

2. Receive authentic feedback

2. Lack of security in negotiating

3. Gain confidence and reduce apprehension
4. Establish collegial ties and friendshipmeaning
3. Commentary may be over critical

5. Influence learners’ affective state
Linguistic

1. Enhance metalinguistic knowledge

1. Too much focus on surface structure

2. Explore linguistic knowledge

2. Lack of L2 formal schemata

3. Gain additional language skill practice

3. Difficulty in understanding foreign

4. Enhance participation and improve discourse

accent5. Find right words to express ideas
Practical

1. Applicable across students proficiency levels

1. Time constraints

2. Flexible across different stages in the writing

2. Counter-productive feedback

process

3. Lack of student preparation

3. Time-efficient in some cases
4. Reinforces process writing

To conclude this review of current literature regarding peer feedback, we can see that mostof the research introduced here focused on the given feedback. Comparisons between teacher
feedback and student feedback were made, often resulting in the teacher feedback outweighing
the other in quality and quantity. Such studies have failed to focus on the process of giving peer
feedback. They disregarded how the students felt as they gave their feedback and what they
thought of the whole process. The practical research case study reported in this paper aims toreveal the students’ perception of giving peer feedback and find out its implications.

92Student Perception on Giving Peer Feedbackin EFL Writing and its Implications

Practical Research

Methodology(1) Participants
The participants in this research were 73 first-year senior high school students. The
academic level of this school against the national standard was considered to be high withnearly all the graduates advancing to a four-year university. The students were divided into
two levels according to their English proficiency (intermediate and advanced), and all theparticipants of this study belonged to the intermediate level. All the participants took four
50-minute EFL classes per week taught by the researcher.
(2) Procedure
First, the participants wrote English compositions on a given topic: my turning point in life.
The compositions were collected in class by the instructor. Later, the instructor photocopied
each composition onto a peer feedback sheet with the writers’ names hidden (see Appendix
A). Second, these photocopied sheets were handed out to be evaluated by the participants.
They gave feedback directly onto the peer feedback sheet in class using red pens. Third, theEnglish compositions with the peer feedback were each returned to the writers, who thenrevised their compositions and submitted their second drafts in class.
(3) Instruments
As described above, four instruments were used: peer evaluation sheet, questionnaire,interview notes, and observation notes.
i) Peer evaluation sheet
The peer evaluation sheet consisted of four parts. First, the participants twice
summarized the compositions they read – once in 50 Japanese characters or less, andonce in English. They then made changes and comments directly onto the compositionreferring to a proofreader’s guide. Next, they evaluated the composition according tofive criteria - content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics – usinga scale of four. Finally, they gave comments and advice to the writer in Japanese (seeAppendix A).
ii) Questionnaire
The questionnaire was given to the students when they submitted their second draft.
Nearly 10 minutes were allotted for the participants to answer two questions.
a) Do you think giving peer feedback on EFL composition is beneficial to you?
b) What is your reason for answering YES or NO to the above question?

93慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

iii) Interview notes
Interviews were conducted with the five participants who answered that they feltthat giving peer feedback on EFL composition was not beneficial to them. All theinterviews were conducted separately under very casual settings. The interview timevaried from five to ten minutes and was all conducted in Japanese.
iv) Observation notes
The students were observed under two circumstances: when giving peer feedback,and when writing up their second draft. The observer was the instructor. Notes weremade after class based on the recollection of the observer.

Analysis
The responses to the questions on the questionnaire were analyzed according to thequalitative data analysis scheme – data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing andverification (Miles & Huberman, 1994, pp.55-66).

Results(1) Questionnaire
Question #1 Do you think giving peer feedback is beneficial to you?
Of the 73 participants, 67 answered that giving feedback was beneficial to them. Fiveanswered that it was not beneficial to them; and one answered “neither”.
Question #2 What is your reason for answering YES or NO to Question #1?
For those who answered yes, the improvement in their overall English skills appeared
the most as the benefit of giving peer feedback. In order of perceived benefit, they were
1) English composition skill, 2) grammatical skill, 3) reading skill, and 4) vocabulary skill (seeAppendix B).
First, regarding the English composition skill, the participants replied that giving peer
feedback enabled them to learn from peer’s writing and mistakes, compare their own work to
those of peers, and review their own writing. They further mentioned that they could imitatepeers’ writing in their second draft.
Second, the participants felt that giving peer feedback strengthened their English grammar.
In order to confirm if the grammatical corrections they made on the peer feedback sheet
were correct or not, they had to consult dictionaries, grammar books, and other classmates.
Moreover, they mentioned that they became more careful so as not to make the similar

94

Student Perception on Giving Peer Feedbackin EFL Writing and its Implications

grammatical mistakes as their peers.
Third, as for the reading skill, the majority of responses reflected how their proofreading of
the compositions was carried out attentively and carefully. It appeared that reading imperfectcompositions written in “raw” English without any set of answers required much attention on
the part of the reviewers.
Fourth, regarding vocabulary skills, the participants mentioned checking the spellings,
witnessing peers using vocabulary they had never used before, and actually using a set of
vocabulary they had learned from giving peer feedback onto their second draft.
Aside from the general English skills, other responses by those who answered yes included
learning from comparing one’s writing with those of peers, being able to realize one’s own
mistakes, being motivated by the idea of peers reading one’s work, and being able to provide
detailed feedback.
First, regarding learning from the peer comparison, the participants noted that they learned
where they stood among their peers in regards to their English proficiency. Some responses
pointed out the surprise of discovering how much their own and peers’ writing differed inquantity, quality, and topic.
Second, as for being able to notice their mistakes, the participants discovered some patterns
in mistakes made by their peers; and those patterns were taken into account when they wrote
the second draft. They also learned how misinterpretations occurred in EFL writing. The
majority of them pointed out that giving peer feedback made them conduct self-checks, or
self-feedback, while writing.
Third, some participants thought that giving peer feedback motivated them in writing
English compositions. They said that it was inspirational that somebody actually gave
feedback to their writing, just as they were giving feedback. The last point was being able
to provide individualized, detailed feedback. Unlike the teacher feedback, the participants
felt that they were giving more individualized feedback with, for instance, grammaticalexplanations and examples.
For the five who answered that giving peer feedback was not beneficial, the main reason
given was their own lack of English proficiency and therefore ability to make meaningful
judgments. They further pointed out that even if they could locate a mistake, they did notpossess enough knowledge to make necessary correction or give advice.

95慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

(2) Interview
The five participants who answered no to the questionnaire were then interviewed casuallyin order for them to clarify their reflections. Of the five, two had low-intermediate level ofEnglish proficiency, while three were high-intermediate.
All of them reiterated that they lacked enough knowledge of English to “correct” their peers’
compositions. The low-intermediate participants stated that they could not locate mistakes
and problems within the composition. They said that their time was spent merely trying
to figure out what was said in English. Thus, they felt extremely useless in the process ofgiving peer feedback. Those with high-intermediate English proficiency felt that none of thestudents in class possessed enough English knowledge to give feedback to another student.
One felt that it was a waste of time to give feedback when neither the reader nor the writerknew the “right” English.
Regarding the peer feedback itself, one participant of low-intermediate proficiency statedthat he feared he might be “contaminated” by non-standard, incorrect English. Since helacked a basic knowledge of English, he worried that he might accept the grammaticalmistakes made by peers as correct, and end up learning them in such a way. One participant
with high-intermediate proficiency insisted that the teacher feedback was the only feedback
he wanted. He saw no significance in peer feedback.
As for the method of incorporating peer feedback into the EFL writing classroom, one
participant said that it was difficult to give and receive peer feedback only on paper. He said
that it was meaningless without an oral explanation and that he could not make corrections
or advise well enough on paper. By the same token, he could not understand the corrections
and advice given to him on his own paper and wished to ask the peer reviewer directly, face toface, for more details.
(3) Observation
The participants were observed under two circumstances: first, during the procedure inwhich the participants gave peer feedback to anonymous writers, and second, during theprocess when the writers began working on their second draft, after receiving the anonymous
peer feedback of their first draft.
During the process of giving peer feedback, the majority of the participants worked
individually following the peer feedback guidelines at first. Once they completed the wholeprocess, they began to consult those sitting nearby for advice on certain points they could96

Student Perception on Giving Peer Feedbackin EFL Writing and its Implications

not give feedback on. Meanwhile, some of the participants, regardless of their English
proficiency, reacted openly to peers’ essays. Some were surprised at the level of English they
displayed. Some were irritated by being unable to decipher an essay written in non-standard,
grammatically-flawed English. The positive and negative comments by the participants while

giving peer feedback were in such terms as (researcher’s translation): “Wow!” “This guy knows
how to use English.” “This writer should be in the advanced class.” “What does he want tosay?” “How can you read it, Sensei? It’s incomprehensible!” “Native speakers would never say
it this way, right?” (see Appendix C for remarks in Japanese). As the class period approached
its end, many participants voiced the need for more time to give peer feedback.
When the anonymous peer feedback sheets were returned to the students, some students
reacted emotionally, verbalizing their feelings. Some criticized the anonymous peer reviewers
for pointing out the mistakes and attempted to prove that their peer reviewers had wrongfully
pointed out the mistakes. It seemed that the participants were fighting back at the unseen
anonymous reviewers. Some students appeared to be threatened by the given peer feedback
and seemed desperate in trying to justify the mistakes pointed out in the feedback sheets.
One participant nearly begged his instructor for an approval that his paper was sufficient andthat the peer reviewer made unnecessary revisions. The participants were making full useof dictionaries and English textbooks, and consulting the teacher and classmates in writing
up their second draft. Some of the comments expressed out loud by the participants whenreading the anonymous peer feedback sheets were: “Why can’t you get it?” “You should be

able to read it and understand it.” “I checked the dictionary. It can’t be wrong!” “What I wrote
is right, isn’t it?” (see Appendix C for remarks in Japanese).
Discussion
After analyzing the above results using qualitative data analysis scheme (Miles andHuberman, 1994), the study raises the following three main characteristics, further discussed
below: 1) the benefits and constraints students saw in giving peer feedback, 2) the students’
definitions of giving peer feedback, and 3) the students’ reactions to anonymous peer
feedback.
(1) The benefits and constraints students saw in giving peer feedback
The majority of the participants (67/73) answered that giving peer feedback was beneficial
to them. This is similar to the finding by Tsui & Ng (2000) in which 88% of the participants97慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

thought giving peer feedback was more beneficial than receiving it (p.158). On the other
hand, less than one-tenth of the participants (5/73) answered that giving peer feedback was
not beneficial to them. The reasons given by the participants aligned with the benefits andconstraints of peer feedback summarized by Liu and Hansen (2002, p.8) (see Table 1). The
findings are significant in that they revealed that the students recognized and acknowledged
the benefits and the constraints of giving peer feedback.
First, in all the responses noting benefits, cognitive, linguistic, and practical aspects
are evident. Cognitively, some participants mentioned of gaining audience awareness.
For example, one wrote, “through the process, I can see what kind of writing is easy tocomprehend, and on the other hand, what kind of writing causes confusions for the readers.”
Others touched upon taking active roles in learning: “I had to use all my resources in giving

peer feedback, and I think the process contributes to improving my grammatical skills in
return.” Linguistically, the students found benefits in improving their English skills. Some
referred to gaining additional language skills. For instance, one wrote, “I discovered some

new English expressions.” Another wrote that he noticed a certain tendency for grammaticalmistakes while giving peer feedback, and hoped not to repeat similar mistakes in his own
writing: “[Through the process of giving peer feedback,] I get to see what kind of grammaticalmistakes are made often, and it helps me when I write.” As for practicality, one of the students
wrote: “Regardless of the language proficiency of the peers, we can all learn something

through giving peer feedback. From those who are good at English, we learn how to construct
the composition. From those who are not good at English, we can learn the solutions ofimproving not-so-good compositions.”
Second, the responses illustrating the constraints of peer feedback could all be witnessedin cognitive, social, linguistic, and practical aspects. Cognitively, two participants ofhigh-intermediate English proficiency expressed uncertainty concerning peers’ comments:“I believe none of us has enough knowledge of English skill to give peer feedback. I doubt
the appropriateness of the feedback I give, and of that I receive.” Socially, some participants
with lower-intermediate English proficiency expressed discomfort and uneasiness. One wrote,“I hate giving peer feedback because I don’t have any confidence in my command of English
and I can neither point out the mistakes nor correct them.” Linguistically, one participant
focused too much on surface. He said that he was hesitant in marking the paper directly
because he wasn’t sure what he wrote would be right. Another student said in the interview,“I don’t want to pick up some incorrect English knowledge through reading peers’ writing. I

98

Student Perception on Giving Peer Feedbackin EFL Writing and its Implications

don’t want to be ‘contaminated’ by non-standard English.” As for a practical aspect, a majorityof the participants pointed out the time constraints. They stated that they needed much
more time in giving peer feedback: “I couldn’t finish giving feedback. One class period is notenough.”(2) The students’ definitions of giving peer feedback
The results of the questionnaire revealed how the participants defined the process of giving
peer feedback (see Appendix D). Two definitions emerged from the results: 1) pointing out
the mistakes and 2) reading imperfect English. The significance of these definitions is thatit made it apparent that the students were intolerant toward non-standard English writing,and that a realistic depiction of present-day English language was essential in an EFL writingclass.
First, more than one third of the participants (27/73) defined the process as “pointing out

the mistakes”. For example, one wrote, “I can improve my grammatical knowledge because I
read to find the mistakes.” Another wrote, “[The process of giving peer feedback] is like theerror-recognition questions on the entrance exam.” Of these participants, one-third (9/27)
additionally answered “making corrections” as part of pointing out the mistakes. Interestingly,
three of them (3/9) were the participants who responded that giving peer feedback was notbeneficial. One of the responses reads as follows: “Our English proficiency is not so high. So,

the process of making us point out the mistakes accurately and expecting us to correct themis too time consuming, and it is even doubtful that the corrections are right.” Rather thandefining the process merely as “pointing out the mistakes,” these participants placed greater
expectations on the function of peer feedback as simultaneously offering corrections. On theother hand, those who responded positively said that they could strengthen their grammar
as they needed to check to make sure the corrections they were making were correct: “Bypointing out the mistakes and making corrections, the process is inscribed in our memories.
So, we don’t repeat the same mistakes. Through it, we are reviewing our own grammar
knowledge unintentionally, but aggressively.”
Second, nearly one-third of the participants (23/73) defined the process as “reading otherpeople’s writing.” Under this definition, the most commonly expressed feature was “reading
imperfect English” followed by “reading ambiguous English,” and “reading various kinds ofEnglish.” One wrote, “I learned a lot from giving peer feedback because reading composition
written in imperfect English was a new situation for me.” Another wrote, “I am reading99慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

and evaluating a composition with no correct answers.” Others wrote that they had to read
carefully and attentively because compositions were written with “raw English” unlike thosein English textbooks. This definition indirectly confirmed the lack of student exposure tovarieties of non-standard English writing. It showed that they were exposed only to texts
written in Standard English, and thus reading non-standard English compositions left a strong
impact on the participants, which was closely reflected in their definition of the process ofgiving peer feedback.
(3) The students’ reactions to anonymous peer feedback
The students’ reaction to anonymous peer feedback unveiled their intolerance towards
non-standard English writing, while showing the effectiveness of anonymity in overcoming
certain cultural dispositions, especially collectivism.
Some of the expressions heard in the classroom during the process of giving anonymous
peer feedback highlighted the non-standard English. However, after receiving anonymous
peer feedback, comments expressed frustration at the feedback and looked for support as
their own non-standard English came under attack.
The students tried to justify their writing by validating it with the use of dictionary,consulting their instructor, their peers and counter-attacking the anonymous reviewers.
What all this illustrated was that the students, although non-native speakers of English andstill at a relatively early stage of learning English, lacked tolerance and/or immunity towards
non-standard English writing.
The effectiveness of anonymity over the culturally-disposed barrier of collectivism also stoodout in the observational study. The participants were able to maintain group harmony within
the class and were not forced to take authority over their classmates. They could critique thecomposition objectively without worrying about any after-effects of their reviews. This allowed
the peer feedback to be implemented effectively, fulfilling its purpose. Nevertheless, it is truethat anonymity did bring about some over-critical reviews, impolite wording, and insufficient
responses. Despite this, the anonymity in this study can be said to have reduced the culturalbarrier against the effective implementation of peer feedback in EFL writing classrooms.

Conclusion of Practical ResearchSome limitations of this study could be found in its inapplicability to other situations, thestudents’ tendency to answer in the favor of their teacher/researcher, and the limited amount100

Student Perception on Giving Peer Feedbackin EFL Writing and its Implicationsof interview data as a qualitative research. A longer term study would be beneficial so as tosee how the students’ attitudes developed over time as they improved their English ability, andbecame more accustomed to the peer feedback method.
However, consideration of the results of this practical research pointed out a strong needfor incorporating peer feedback in EFL writing sessions for two apparent reasons. The firstone is the students’ recognition of the benefits of giving peer feedback as reflected in thequestionnaire and supported by the observational data. The second is the need for a realistic
representation of English in EFL classrooms. The students’ lack of tolerance was shown in
how they defined the process of giving peer feedback, and how they reacted in giving andreceiving peer feedback on their non-standard English writing. This study made it clear thatincorporation of giving peer feedback in EFL writing sessions is crucial because students
do indeed acknowledge the benefits of peer feedback. There also seems to be a need for the
students to develop tolerance and immunity towards non-standard English writing as the
majority of English speakers in our present-day world are non-native speakers whose English
may be far from standard.

Conclusions and Implications
Based on the findings from this study, there are two implications for teachers incorporating
peer feedback into their EFL writing lessons: 1) the need to acknowledge students’recognition of the benefits of giving peer feedback, and 2) the need to develop students’perseverance and willingness to communicate even when faced with non-standard varieties ofEnglish.
The constraints of peer feedback, as mentioned in the literature review, weigh so heavily
on the teachers that it seems nearly impossible to conduct peer feedback in class regularly.
However, as shown in the study, the students are well aware of the benefits of giving feedback
to their peers. They find giving feedback strengthens their own English skills. Furthermore,
the students need to be exposed to non-standard varieties of English to develop tolerance
and acceptance toward their own non-standard English, and to nurture perseverance andwillingness to communicate even when faced with such non-standard English. This is because
non-standard English is prevalent in our present-day society when the English language isused as a lingua franca and when the majority of its speakers are non-native speakers. The
students’ rejection of non-standard English is indeed a rejection of their own non-standard,developmental-stage English. It is crucial that the English language is presented realistically101慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

in accordance with the present-day society, and that our students possess the means and thewill to communicate with others even when faced with non-standard varieties of English.
In conclusion, this paper examined the students’ perceptions on giving peer feedback.
Through the practical research, it was found that the students recognized the benefits ofgiving peer feedback, while being intolerant toward essays written in non-standard English.
Based on the findings, the study concludes that the incorporation of peer feedback isessential in EFL writing classes. Teachers need to acknowledge that their students themselves
recognize the benefits of giving peer feedback, and that their students need to obtain themeans and willingness to communicate even when encountering non-standard English.

102

Student Perception on Giving Peer Feedbackin EFL Writing and its Implications

References
Carson, J.G., & Nelson, G.L. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 113-131.
Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students’ composition revisions. RELC Journal, 15,
1-16.
Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact onrevision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 257-276.
Dale, E. (1954). Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing
instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing,1(3), 255-276.
Kambara, K. (2011). Writing katsudo niokeru peer response to kyoshi feedback no koka [Effects ofteacher feedback and peer response in an writing activity]. Eiken Bulletine, 23, 127-139.
Keh, C.L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods for implementation. ELT

Journal, 44(4), 294-304.
Liu, J. & Hansen, J.G. (2002). Peer response. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Masaki, M. (1997). Peer feedback in a Japanese EFL writing classroom. JACET Kansaishibu Daiyonji(1995-1999) Kenkyu Project Writing Shido Kenkyukai Kiyo, 3, 11-18.
Mendoca, C.O. & Johnson, K.E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing
instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (4), 745-769.
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Nakanishi, C. (2006). A teaching approach to Japanese college students’ EFL writing . Tokyo: Keio
University Press.
Nakanishi, C. (2008). The effects of trained self-feedback on revision. JACET Journal, 47, 35-49.
Rinnert, C. & Kobayashi, H. (2001). Differing perceptions of EFL writing among readers in Japan. The

Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 189-209.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30.
Shizuka, T. (1993). Effects of different editing methods on EFL writing quality at high school level.

JACET Bulletin, 24, 139-158.
Sumida, A. (2010). College students’ perception of EFL process writing instruction: A survey analysis.

Niigata Seiryo Daigaku Tankidaigakubu Kenkyu Houkoku, 40, 157-164.
Tsui, A.B.M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second

Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.
Wakabayashi, R. (2008). The effect of peer feedback on EFL writing: Focusing on Japanese university
students. OnCUE Journal, 2(2), 92-110.
Yakame, H. (2005). The role of peer feedback in the EFL writing classroom. Annual Review of English

Language Education in Japan, 16, 101-110.
Yu, S. (2013). EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding peer feedback in L2 writing classrooms.

Polyglossia, 24, 74-79.

103

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

Zaman, M., & Azad, A.K. (2012). Feedback in EFL writing at tertiary level: Teachers’ and learners’
perceptions. ASA University Review, 6(1), 139-156.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journalof Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222.

Appendices
Appendix A Sample peer feedback sheet
1. Summarize the essay in Japanese. 50文字前後に要約

2. Summarize the essay in English. 英文１文に要約

3. Give feedback directly on the essay. （直接書き込む、赤ペンで）※下線を引くだけや「？」を書き込むだけは避け、具体的なフィードバックを！
校正記号例：
削除

the

校正前に戻す

挿入

㋬

段落変更

ok
the ○

大 / 小文字

大⃝ 小⃝

スペース

␣

¶

文法ミス

Ⓖ

スペリング

sp
○

4. Evaluate the essay by circling the appropriate rating. ※「評価」というよりも「印象」
内容

1（very poor）

2（poor to fair）

3（average to good）

4（good to excellent）

構成

1（very poor）

2（poor to fair）

3（average to good）

4（good to excellent）

語彙1（very poor）

2（poor to fair）

3（average to good）

4（good to excellent）

文法

1（very poor）

2（poor to fair）

3（average to good）

4（good to excellent）

形式

1（very poor）

2（poor to fair）

3（average to good）

4（good to excellent）

5. Write a comment addressed to the writer.

104

日本語・英語可Student Perception on Giving Peer Feedbackin EFL Writing and its Implications

Appendix B Students’ perceived benefit of giving peer feedback
Code

No. of Responses

English-skill

English composition skill

15

related

Grammatical skill

14

Reading skill

12

Vocabulary skill

5

Non

Comparing one’s writing with those of peers

10English-skill

Being able to realize one’s own mistakes

8

Being motivated by the idea of peers reading one’s work2

Being able to provide detailed feedback

1

relatedAppendix C Student remarks in JapaneseObservation 1:
Student remark when giving anonymous
peer feedback

Observation 2:
Student remark when receiving anonymous
peer feedback「こいつスゲーなぁ」「なんでわからない？」「上級だよ！」「フツウ、わかるだろう！」「何が言いたいの？」「辞書にそうあった。ちゃんと調べた。」「ありえない！」「間違えてないですよね？」「先生、これよく読めますね。大変だ。」「俺、あってますよね？」「ネイティブはこう言いませんよね。」

Appendix D Students’ definitions of giving peer feedback
Code

Definition:
Giving feedback means…

Responses to Q1

No. ofResponses

Yes

No

Neither

Pointing out

to look for mistakes

18

17

0

1

the mistakes

to make corrections of the mistakes

9

6

3

0

Reading

to read imperfect English

14

14

0

0

other people’s

to read ambiguous English

8

8

0

0

to read various kinds of English

3

3

0

0

to give feedback (redundant response)

4

4

0

0

nothing mentioned

17

15

2

0

writing
No definition

105

Motivation of Japanese Elementary School EFL Learners
Illuminated through the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL®)

Motivation ofJapanese Elementary School EFL Learners
Illuminated through the Test of English
as a Foreign Language (TOEFL®)
Ohgi Ito
ABSTRACTThis article reports on the practice of an English Language Teaching (ELT) experiment at
an elementary school in Japan, employing an international standardized test as a stimulator ina private school context. The introduction of assessment tasks and the implementation of the
Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) Primary towards 11 to 12-year-old students
revealed a strong learning motivation of young learners and their enthusiasm for the practicaluse of the foreign language. Although the discussion has been continuing about whether
or not English language should be taught at an earlier age, the field of Teaching English to
Young Learners (TEYL) is increasingly expanding, and the government policy has set thedirections of elementary school English to be started at a lower grade. This article illustrates
the impact of assessment opportunities and highlights the motivation of Japanese EFL (English
as a Foreign Language) learners. The power of social values, including family influence, isobserved and the experimental classes exhibit the strong desires of Japanese young learners tocommunicate in English however limited their abilities may be. The results could potentiallycontribute to the development of TEYL in Japan and suggest the need for further longitudinal
research into motivational transition from elementary to secondary school English education.

1. Introduction

This study was undertaken with the aim to shed light on Japanese EFL learners’ motivationin undergoing assessment and their views on learning English in an elementary school
context. In Japan’s education scenario, there has been a discussion about whether or not
ELT should be implemented at an earlier age. Since the announcement of the Action Plan107慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

to Cultivate “Japanese with English Abilities” by Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT 2003), the field of TEYL has occupied the attentionof Japanese people. Traditionally in Japan, ELT had relied heavily on the grammar-translation
methods, and it was not until the mid-1980s that people started to call for the need for‘English for communication’ and the method of Communicative Language Teaching(CLT) gained ascendancy in the 1990s. Those changes were brought on by the growth of
linguistic influence in international relations, media, travelling and communications (Crystal
2003:86-122) and the social context has influenced the direction of ELT in Japan. The fieldof TEYL has been no exception to this trend, and many express their belief that the ‘earlier
is better’ in child second language (L2) acquisition. The number of young learners has been
growing, and the government most recently proclaimed the English education reform plan
(MEXT 2014) and officially announced that English language classes would be taught fromYear 3 (age 8-9) in all state schools from 2020.
Meanwhile, private schools have a different background with a long history of ELT, andthe institution in this article is a private elementary school in Tokyo with children from Year 1(age 6-7) to Year 6 (age 11-12), who take English classes once or twice a week as part of theirregular school subjects. From a teacher-researcher’s point of view, ELT has brought positive
outcomes and strong learning motivation can be observed, although various factors, e.g.
individual interest, aptitude, intellectual curiosity and influence from family or peers, seem tobe deeply connected with their motivation. Interpreting this highly complex EFL setting canilluminate what plays an important role in stimulating elementary school learners and in what
aspects the objective measurement has potential for TEYL. The experiment first commenced
with the idea that the impact of an assessment could motivate the young EFL learners forfurther development as well as provide the teachers with meaningful factors about learning
motivation.
For this experiment, a case study method is employed in order to portray what it is like to
be in a particular EFL situation and ‘to catch the close up reality’ (Cohen et al. 2007:253).
Empirical research is conducted on 18 Year 6 students with research tools such as observationand questionnaires, and the data collected from the TOEFL Primary attempt to illuminate
the enthusiasm of Japanese elementary school EFL learners for acquisition of English as aforeign language.

108

Motivation of Japanese Elementary School EFL Learners
Illuminated through the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL®)

2. Context

For this research experiment, it is essential to give full descriptions of background context,
particularly of TEYL in Japan, and to throw light on the layers of context. Crystal (2003:59)
identifies two aspects for the present-day world status of English as ‘the expansion of
British colonial power, which peaked towards the end of the nineteenth century, and theemergence of the United States as the leading economic power of the twentieth century’,both of which can be evidenced in the history of ELT in Japan. From the mid-1980s throughthe 1990s, the method of CLT started to gain ascendancy, and the primary goal of ELT
became ‘fostering communication skills’ for global stages (MEXT 2003). Some critics put inquestion the Japanese perception towards English language learning that reflects their beliefin ‘communicative English for intercultural communication’ (Kubota 2002; Sakui 2004),
and the changes to the trend for CLT have apparently brought confusion to schools; Sakui(2004:155) describes metaphorically that CLT in Japan is somewhat like ‘wearing two pairsof shoes’, taking on ‘a parallel situation’ where the teachers keep the grammar-translation
approach for university examinations, while teaching ‘communicative English’ as requiredby the government. These historical and social backgrounds of ELT are deeply entrenched
in Japan, and the field of TEYL began to flourish in the 1990s with great expectations fromadults about young learners’ potential for ‘communicative’ competence.
2.1 Teaching English to Young Learners (TEYL) in Japan

As indicated, the social context has influenced the direction of foreign language educationin Japan, including TEYL, and the number of young EFL learners has been growing in spiteof the fact that Japanese children have extremely limited exposure to foreign languages. There
has been a belief that the ‘earlier is better’ in child L2 acquisition, and the government decided
to introduce English language in all state schools from Year 5 (age 10-11) in 2011 and fromYear 3 (age 8-9) in 2020 (MEXT 2014). The decision inevitably affected the whole ELT in theschool context and raised issues from both extremes. Critics such as Otsu (2004) and Torigai(2006) argue that Japanese children are not ready to learn a foreign language and that earlylearning of a foreign language might disturb the acquisition of their first language (L1). Others
fear that TEYL might take away the ‘identity’ as Japanese and suggest that ELT should be
combined with other subjects such as social studies or intercultural understanding at school(MEXT 2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning has been advancing in Europe;
however, this approach cannot be easily adopted into the environment where foreign language

109慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

exposure is limited and comprehensible input is sparse. Among these negative perspectives,
Tomita (2004:18-20) advocates that linguistic input is not required for young EFL learners
and that their ‘awareness’ to unknown, new things around the world should be the goal for
TEYL. It has been a concerning issue what can be done to facilitate the foreign language
learning of young learners in a ‘low-immersion’ context like Japan.
Under these controversial circumstances, TEYL has become a reality in Japanese schools
and the focus is now moving towards what age would be the best to introduce English
language as a school subject. In private schools, on the other hand, ELT has long been
implemented from younger ages, since these schools can select their own educational policies
with minimal control from the government. In the early years of CLT, the effects of TEYL
activities such as chants, games and short plays were highlighted and researched mainly;
however, the situation has changed, and several studies have revealed linguistic and emotional
effects of ELT, such as Nishida (2013:93-109), who investigates motivational differences inage and gender among Japanese school children. At present, the link between elementaryand secondary English education has become a new topic for discussion (Higuchi et al.
2008:58-69). Therefore, TEYL is still in the middle of pursuing methods and materials, andempirical studies are rather thin on the ground, remaining unexplored as yet.
2.2 English Language Teaching (ELT) in this institution

The institution in which this experiment was conducted is a private elementary school inTokyo, and since the foundation in 1874, ELT has been implemented with original materials
and methods. Learning English is a part of the school curriculum from Year 1 (age 6-7) andthe class size in upper grades is relatively small for a Japanese school, dividing a class of 36
students into three groups (12 students each for English classes) from Year 4 (age 9-10) ontoYear 6 (age 11-12). There is a unique assessment for the upper grades, offering the students
speaking and writing sessions, and the whole course of study has been positively accepted,
although educational research into learning motivation has been scarcely administered.
The Year 4 English generally carries an enthusiastic class atmosphere, but the dynamics
start to change as the students grow physically and mentally; competitiveness between ‘fast’and ‘slow’ learners arises, and parental influence on achievement becomes remarkable. Someparents provide children extra classes outside school, and others express concerns aboutchildren’s achievement in the reports. During Year 4 and Year 5, the main focus of teachingis to get the students familiar with English sounds through chants and simple expressions,110Motivation of Japanese Elementary School EFL Learners
Illuminated through the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL®)

not so much with vocabulary or structure. The Year 6 English classes introduce syntax withnew vocabulary by degrees so that the students can prepare for secondary school English; inJapanese schools, English language formally becomes a required subject from the secondary
education. Still, the Year 6 students are vigorous and energetic in learning English, thanks
to their curiosity about different languages and cultures, and the milieu of a small class size
enables them to speak out without hesitation. From Year 4 onward, the students learn English
twice a week (40 minutes each), which is twice as much as state school students learn, andthe proficiency level of the Year 6 students is assumed to be high, compared to other average
Japanese school children. It should be noted, however, that their language abilities are varied
and individual differences in motivation and competence are immense. In addition, parents
play a crucial role in motivation with some, for example, believing that earlier learning would
result in better achievement of ‘communicative competence’. The learning environment
greatly depends on each student’s background, particularly in the private school context as inthis article.
2.3 The Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) and TOEFL Primary for EFL

learners in JapanThe TOEFL is a standardized test to measure the English language abilities of non-native
speakers who wish to study at English-speaking universities or institutions, and it has beentaken and accepted globally for many years. The test is designed and administered by the
Educational Testing Service (ETS) in the United States and the official score report isreceived as a certificate of applicants’ English abilities by major academic and professional
institutions around the world. In 2005, the internet-based test (iBT) was introduced andgradually replaced the paper-based test and the computer-based test. The iBT format consistsof four sections, measuring four language skills, i.e. Reading, Listening, Speaking andWriting sections, and it requires comprehension and integrated communicative skills as wellas academic knowledge for higher education. A significant feature of iBT is the quality andquantity of its content as the four-hour test is conducted by means of a personal computerwith a headset and a microphone. Integrated skills are measured, for instance, in the Writing
section, the test takers first read a passage, then listen to a related lecture, and finallysummarize the whole content, typing within a limited time frame and word amount. In the
Speaking section, various topics are indicated and some require the test takers to read a shortpassage, then to listen to a conversation, and finally to express their opinions or suggestions111慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

on what has been previously presented.
According to Test and Data Summary for TOEFL iBT ® Tests (ETS 2015), the score means(average score) of each country is published as a guide every year, and the data is primarily forcomparing the performances of individual test takers in the same country, not for comparing
countries by rank. However, the results provoke concerns in non-native English-speaking
countries, including Japan, because the iBT format appears to be difficult and the low score
might become a barrier for EFL learners to study abroad. With such a background, the
TOEFL Junior for learners from age 11 and the TOEFL Primary from age 8 were introduced
to meet the needs of young EFL learners around the world. Both tests intend to measure
English language skills, guide to the next step of learning, and help both teachers and young
learners to identify their strengths and weaknesses. The scores are mapped to the Common
European Framework of Reference (CEFR) levels released by the Council of Europe (2001),
and both tests enable the young learners to get accustomed to the test format and receive anappropriate measurement of their linguistic abilities. These junior versions of the TOEFL
have been introduced in Japan, although the test opportunities are limited and the contents
are not yet well-known.
The experiment in this article started with this background, reflecting the voices of former
students of the researcher who intended to study abroad, but struggled to achieve the TOEFL
scores high enough to be accepted to the overseas universities in which they wished toenroll. The experiment, therefore, has a mission to highlight learners’ motivation as well as toenhance EFL learning by inclusion of an extracurricular assessment opportunity at school inJapan.
3. Literature Review
3.1 Research methodology

When research involves children who cannot be regarded as being on equal termswith adult subjects, special attention should be paid to respect their freedom andself-determination. Thus, it is necessary to take into consideration ‘the issues of sampling,
reliability and validity at the very outset’ (Cohen et al. 2007:49), and ‘sensitivities’ of ethicalissues should be addressed. Another critical phase is that teachers have an extremely strong
influence on students’ decisions and actions in class, hence the participants should not
feel coerced, nor suffer any disadvantages, retaining anonymity and confidentiality of theiridentities to protect privacy. For this particular EFL experiment in an elementary school112

Motivation of Japanese Elementary School EFL Learners
Illuminated through the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL®)

context, a case study approach is effective because it attempts to examine ‘an instance inaction’ and to provide ‘a unique example of real people in real situations, enabling readers
to understand ideas more clearly than simply by presenting them with abstract theories or
principles’ (Cohen et al. 2007:253).
According to Nisbet and Watt (1984), case studies have strengths in that ‘the results
are more easily understood by a wide audience’, as they are frequently written in ‘everyday,
non-professional language’ and that ‘they can catch unique features that may otherwise belost in larger scale data’. The findings might hold the key to understanding the situationand provide insights into other similar contexts. Weaknesses, on the other hand, are that‘the results may not be generalisable’ and ‘they are not easily open to cross-checking, hence
they may be selective, biased, personal and subjective’ (Nisbet and Watt 1984:78-79). The
outcome of a theory-seeking or theory-testing case study might lead to a ‘fuzzy generalization’(Bassey 1999:30); therefore, it should be understood that a case study may lack rigor withlittle basis for scientific generalization. Nevertheless, Simons (1996:225) welcomes ‘theparadox between the study of the singularity and the search for generalization’ and helps
researchers to understand the characteristics of case studies.
3.2 Teaching English to Young Learners (TEYL)

It was widely believed until quite recently that L1 acquisition was largely complete by
the age of five, and it has been hypothesized that ‘children learn a L2 better than adults’(Cameron 2001:12-13). Nevertheless, literacy skills of children are still in the early stages ofdevelopment under school age, and some studies provide evidence that there is no such ‘cut-off
point’ for L2 acquisition as suggested by the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH; first proposedby Penfield and Roberts in 1959), the idea that children can learn a L2 more effectively before
puberty because their brains are still able to use the mechanisms that have assisted their L1
acquisition. Lightbown and Spada (1999:16) present some evidence for and against the CPH
and they point out that if the goal of the L2 learning is ‘native-like proficiency’, the learningbenefits from an early start, but if the goal is ‘communicative ability’ in a foreign language,
the benefits are much less clear. In EFL teaching, the process of child language acquisitionis highly suggestive; however, attention should be paid to different needs, motivations,and contexts of diverse learners. O’Grady (2005:164-175) admits that ‘there is still no real
solution to the mystery of child’s language acquisition’ and the substantial indication is thatthe mystery cannot be explained by ‘imitation’ nor ‘teaching’. It is a popular idea that children

113慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

learn languages by imitating adults in immersion contexts, but the imitation cannot accountfor the speed at which children acquire vocabulary and language rules. According to Eyres(2007:26), children are in fact not very good at imitating sentences containing unfamiliar
words and structures, and they typically repeat only what they can already say. Children
often produce sentences (e.g. allgone milk, come car) which they have never heard anybody
actually say before. Their language learning cannot be explained in one simple ‘straight line’ of
progress.
Cameron (2001:14-15) asserts that different languages have different ways of carrying
meaning, and that the particular ways in which a language encodes meaning act as ‘cues’ tointerpreting the meaning of what is said. When faced with the new language, children try tounderstand it in terms of ‘salient cues of their L1 and also pay particular attention to items of
L2 vocabulary that they are familiar with’ (Schmidt 1990:141). Generally, children are said tobe more enthusiastic and lively as learners than adults, seem less embarrassed with speaking
in the L2, and their ‘lack of inhibition’ seems to help them acquire a more native-like accent.
Meanwhile, they lose interest more quickly and are less able to keep themselves motivatedon one task than adults. Cameron (2001:xi-xii) claims that ‘Theorising the teaching of young
learners has an important role to play in complexifying oversimplifications about working withchildren and thereby increasing the quality of foreign language education’. When teaching
young learners between the age of five and twelve, significance lies in the fact that they arestill in the middle of development in their L1 and individual differences are remarkable;
formal L1 literacy skills are still in the early stages of growth, discourse skills are continuing
to develop. As a result, there is a burden on the teachers to provide exposure to the L2 witheffective classroom activities. Young EFL learners attempt to make sense of the world in termsof their limited knowledge and experience, but they definitely need ‘skilled’ help in noticing
and attending to various aspects of the English language.
The implications for TEYL that can be drawn at this point are threefold: firstly, if language
learning is neither ‘imitating’ nor ‘teaching’, effective methods and programs (other thanthe L1 acquisition approaches alone) can be explored to facilitate the L2 learning. Young
EFL learners in ‘low-immersion’ contexts like Japan have very few opportunities to ‘imitate’or ‘produce’ the L2 in their everyday life, meaning that their learning approaches should be
distinguished from the ‘L2 immersion context’. Secondly, teachers play an important role tosupport young EFL learners by focusing their attention on useful sources of information,
however limited their ‘cues’ are in the target language. Lastly, the process of L1 acquisition

114

Motivation of Japanese Elementary School EFL Learners
Illuminated through the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL®)and young learners’ characteristics should be fully considered in TEYL, and the socio-culturalcontext needs to be examined as it exercises an invisible but enormous influence on learning
motivation.
3.3 Assessing young EFL learners

The nature of young EFL learners might generate issues of assessment in need ofattention: factors such as age, gender, the influence of L1, background context, the linguistic
development and diverse learning motivation, all need to be taken into consideration.
Cameron (2001:215) suggests that it seems ‘reasonable to require an assessment to serve
teaching, by providing feedback on pupils’ learning that would make the next teaching evenmore effective, in a positive, upwards direction’ [her italics]. Despite that, the reality is often
contrary; ‘assessment seems to drive teaching by forcing teachers to teach what is going to
be assessed’ and some of the classroom activities are restricted to test preparation in extreme
cases. Thus, the assessment for young EFL learners is expected to ‘identify the needs ofyoung learners, to determine what level, if any, of proficiency they have in the target language,
to diagnose their strengths and areas in need of improvement, and to keep track of theirprogress in acquiring the language’ (Alderson and Bachman 2006:x).
At the same time, vulnerability might become apparent when the impact of assessment on
young EFL learners is to be studied. Children are sensitive to praise, criticism and approval,
and their self-esteem is influenced by their experiences among friends and teachers at school.
Therefore, they need experiences that will help them to succeed and maintain enthusiasm
and creativity; a lack of positive experiences might result in loss of motivation. The
assessment has a power to change their learning both positively and negatively, and McKay(2006:18-19) asserts that effective assessment provides valuable information to educators,
parents and students themselves, and the valid assessments are ‘those that measure what they
are supposed to measure’. The TOEFL Primary in this article can be classified as a ‘summative
assessment’ to measure language skills of young EFL learners as well as an ‘assessment toencourage and motivate’ them. By utilising objective ‘scales and scores for each language
skill’ rather than ‘pass-fail results’, the TOEFL offers the Japanese learners an opportunity tounderstand their English language abilities as well as to see the progress that they have madeup to the present.

115慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

3.4 EFL learning motivation

In regard to learning motivation, Dörnyei and Ottó (1998:65) attempt to give acomprehensible definition stating that ‘motivation can be defined as the dynamically changing
cumulative arousal in a person that initiates, directs, coordinates, amplifies, terminates, andevaluates the cognitive and motor processes whereby initial wishes and desires are selected,
prioritised, operationalized and (successfully or unsuccessfully) acted out.’ Dörnyei (2001:46)
also points out that the ‘motivation to learn’ is ‘an intricate, multifaceted construct’ on its
own, but if the target is the mastery of the L2, ‘the picture becomes even more complex’. He
indicates two aspects of L2 motivation; one is that the L2 is a ‘learnable’ school subject andthe results of its studies on academic achievement are of direct relevance to motivation. The
other is that language is ‘socially and culturally bound, and serves as the primary channelof social organisation in society’. The mastery of the L2 is not merely an educational issue
but is also connected with social events that require incorporation of a wide range of factors
in respective cultures. Gardner (1979:193-194) reveals the social nature of L2 acquisitionand claims that foreign language learning in the school context should not be viewed as‘an educational phenomenon’ in much the same light as any other school subject, but as ‘acentral social psychological phenomenon’. For school-age young learners, the ‘school’ literally
represents a social arena, and the effects of the ‘microcontext (i.e. the immediate learning
environment)’ as noted by Dörnyei (2001:32-34 [his italics]) need to be examined thoroughly
in motivation research.
The question remains, however, whether young learners’ motivation is driven by an intrinsic
interest in the field of subject (e.g. intellectual curiosity and preferences of challenges), orby an extrinsic orientation motivated by desire, for instance, getting good grades or skills inorder to win teachers’ approval or meeting external demands for higher education. As Dörnyei
questions the ‘researchability’ (2001:183) of motivation, what makes motivation researcha formidable task is that it is not subject to direct observation but must be inferred from‘some indirect indicator, such as the individual’s self-report accounts, overt behaviours or

physiological responses (e.g. change of blood pressure)’ [his italics]. What is recommended asa principal step for motivation research is to keep the level of this inherently subjective natureof motivation to the minimum, especially when analyzing motivational factors of young EFL
learners.

116Motivation of Japanese Elementary School EFL Learners
Illuminated through the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL®)

4. Methodology
4.1 Research methods

Having taken the layers of context into consideration and reviewed relevant literature, theexperiment in this article commenced with the question whether an assessment opportunity
would stimulate the motivation of Japanese elementary school EFL learners and what
motivational factors could be observed through the preparation for the TOEFL Primary. It
was not the researcher’s intention to make assertions on the learners’ achievement from thescores or to draw attention to a simple interpretation of the small-scale data. The experiment
was planned for 18 Year 6 students, due to the limited facility of the computer-assisted
language learning (CALL) system needed for the Speaking test; prior to the actual test day,two preliminary classes were scheduled. The announcement was made in a letter to all 144
Year 6 students and 41 students showed an interest and applied to participate. With thesecircumstances, the participants were decided by lottery and all attended two preliminaryclasses to experience the mock tests and get accustomed to the test format of the TOEFL
Primary. In addition to the recordings of the interactions between the learners and theteachers, a semi-structured questionnaire and post-interview were conducted after the test.
A supplementary free comment space was included to gather various forms of ‘self-reportaccounts’ and ‘overt behaviours’ (Dörnyei 2001:185), and respective research tools aredescribed below.
4.2 Research tools

Preliminary classes prior to the TOEFL Primary
The participants in this experiment carried diverse English learning backgrounds and theirfluency levels varied, but the researcher had taught them previously or was teaching themin regular classes, so each learner’s English levels were acknowledged. The relationshipbetween the participants and the teacher-researcher was intimate and friendly, which madeit easy to draw their true feelings and honest opinions. The preliminary classes were heldon consecutive weekends, each for three hours, in order for the participants to understandthe test content and prepare for the unfamiliar format. Two teachers implemented thelectures, one for reading and listening practice and the other for speaking, using the
textbook “Preparation Book for the TOEFL Primary® Step 1 (Kumon Publishing 2015)”.
The participants practiced answering a variety of questions and were given an explanationof the vocabulary and comprehension tasks. After this, they took the mock tests of each117慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

section. Throughout this process, two observers were present from the TOEFL testingorganization (Global Communication & Testing Co. Ltd.), who supported the test session andaudio-recorded the lectures. Target factors to be investigated were categorized accordingly in
relation to the post-test questionnaire questions as shown in Table 1 (see also Appendices 1
and 2), and the teacher-researcher, while engaging in interactions with the participants, took
observation notes in written format, utilizing subsequent video analysis of classroom exercises.

Table 1. Target factors to be investigated through the preliminary classes prior to the test
Questions in the questionnaire
1. Did you know about the TOEFL Primary
before this experiment?
2. Why did you take part in this experiment anddecide to take the test?

Target factors to be investigated
Recognition of the standardized English test
Personal interest in assessment opportunities
Specific motivational factors
Influence of family/peers/school milieu
Attitude towards learning English

3. How were the TOEFL Primary tests?
Which were difficult?
4. What did you think about the Speaking test?

Fondness of the assessment/test content
Confidence or fear for speaking English
Factors related with characteristics of young
EFL learners

5. Agreement rating: The TOEFL Primary
preliminary classes were good.
6. Agreement rating: This opportunity to take theFondness of linguistic activities
Attitude towards assessment opportunities
Learning motivation towards English

TOEFL Primary was good.
7. Agreement rating: I would take the TOEFL
Primary again if planned.
8. Agreement rating: Further TOEFL test
opportunities in affiliated schools would be good.

Future images of learning English
Perception towards learning English
Motivational factors related with personal
wishes

9. Do you wish to study abroad (either short orlong term) in the future?

Observation of the actual assessment and post-interview
Observation is a strong tool for interpretive research and offers researchers an opportunity
to gather ‘live’ data from naturally occurring social situations (Cohen et al. 2007:384),
although it is also beset by issues of validity and reliability. For this case study, the actual test118

Motivation of Japanese Elementary School EFL Learners
Illuminated through the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL®)

session was observed and recorded in written format by the teacher-researcher in accordancewith the target factors shown previously, and for structured observation, four motivational
domains clarified by Morrison (1993:80) were used, i.e. physical setting, human setting,interactional setting and program setting. For the Speaking test, two groups were formed
to maintain the personal space while speaking to the microphone; one group contained 8
students, taking the Speaking test for the first 30 minutes, while the other had 10 students,
who took the paper-based Reading and Listening tests for the first 60 minutes. The Listening
test was played on an audio-CD player and took approximately 30 minutes to finish withthe directions in English. To reinforce individual accounts, the participants’ live and instantcomments were extracted verbally immediately after the test and written into the formof notes. Post-interview was administered one month later when the test results arrived.
Interviewing was beneficial ‘to understand the world of children through their own eyes rather
than the lens of the adult’ (Cohen et al. 2007:374), and it revealed how the participants
perceived the assessment. The duration was five minutes, and each participant was asked thefollowing questions: 1) How did you like the TOEFL? 2) Were the preliminary classes andthe test session beneficial? 3) Would you like to develop your English abilities?

A semi-structured questionnaire to 18 participants
Subsequent to the actual test, a semi-structured questionnaire (Appendix 1, translatedby the researcher from Japanese into English) was undertaken with the 18 Year 6 students.
The questionnaire is a useful tool ‘for collecting data from a large number of respondents’and ‘the information sought is not so complex’ (Hinds 2000:42-3). The primary objective
was to grasp the participants’ interest in the assessment and their attitude towards English
language learning. A Likert scale (named after its deviser in 1932, Rensis Likert) with five
point responses was employed, as it was easy for the young learners to indicate their opinions
by simply circling a mark which should represent their ideas most. A free comment space wasincluded to invite ‘an honest, personal comment from respondents’ (Cohen et al. 2007:330),
which might contain information that otherwise might not be caught in standardized
questionnaires. Although 18 was not a sufficient number to yield a general tendency of young
learners, the results contributed to illuminating certain motivational factors such as ‘a senseof achievement’, ‘parental influence’ and ‘future images of EFL learning’. This experiment
was not for generating hypotheses, classifying or categorizing; rather, it aimed to illuminate,interpret and describe what was observed in the practice of TEYL, informing ‘on-going’

119慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

teaching and learning in a specific context in Japan.
5. Results and Analysis
5.1 Results of the preliminary classes

During the preliminary classes, all the participants showed strong interest and curiosity inthe content of the test, asking enthusiastically about the meaning of each text and sharing
the new knowledge with their peer group. As the TOEFL Primary Step 1 is specifically aimed
at beginner-level young learners, both the Reading and the Listening tests carry a numberof illustrations to match the correct vocabulary. The participants found them amusing andanswered the questions with confidence. In latter parts of the Reading test, there are riddles
and short passages with about 80-100 words in order to examine the test takers’ knowledgeof vocabulary and syntax as well as to test their comprehension speed in English. Contrary to
the researcher’s anticipation, the participants vigorously answered the questions and sought
more detailed explanations in Japanese. While reading the passages beyond their lexical level,
they made inferences with some verbal assistance and exhibited high motivation to answer
the questions. This suggested that an assessment opportunity could give young learners much
more than mere linguistic knowledge; a learning motivation driven by young EFL learners’
pure interest in new things, not just to score good points on the test.
Similarly, the Listening test contains illustrated
conversations in the beginning, but the later
sections include several dialogues and recorded

Figure 1. Preliminary classes with the
CALL system for the Speaking test
(December 2015)

messages. The participants practiced oral readingof some scripts with approximately 80-100 words
in the preliminary classes, but they struggled withthe high speed of spoken English as well as thedeliberate choices of vocabulary. Moreover, in
the Speaking test, practical usage of the English
language is required; for instance, the test takers
look at several pictures and describe the situations in progress within 15 seconds, or in othertopics, they watch an animated cartoon story and are required to explain what has happened
within 30 seconds. The preliminary classes offered the participants an opportunity to exercise
this format with the CALL system within a required time (Figure 1). The results displayedsome remarkable behaviors, for example, some students uttered whatever words that flashed120

Motivation of Japanese Elementary School EFL Learners
Illuminated through the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL®)

into their minds, or others showed puzzlement with the gap between L1 and L2, being unable
to describe the situations in English. Nevertheless, the participants enjoyed the activities forthe most part, indicating a positive attitude towards learning English.
5.2 Results of the assessment session

During the actual TOEFL session, several factors were identified in terms of motivational
domains, following Morrison’s categorization (1993:80) as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Motivational domains observed in the assessment, Morrison (1993)
Physical setting

Physical environment of the test room and the layout of the desks created aserious, quiet milieu for the Reading/Listening tests.
The distance between the participants was sufficient for the test.
The CALL room was assisted with the teachers and the testing staff, which
seemingly added a tense ambience.

Human setting

Observable actions and behaviors were witnessed such as tone of voice,facial expressions and postures before and during the test session.
Most participants showed fear on their faces in the beginning.
Characteristics of individual participants were observed, e.g. puzzled faces
when listening to the instructions in English.

Interactional setting

Both formal and informal interactions were observed in the tests.
When each group finished with the Speaking tests, the participants moved
and some interactions occurred among the two groups.
Some showed confidence in the Reading test, while others looked troubled,
especially in and after the Speaking test.

Program setting

Preliminary classes seemed effective as the participants had learned
beforehand what to expect in the actual test.
Some participants cited they would study more speaking and listening.

In the Reading test, most participants finished the section earlier than the time limit, andthe score results showed that 8 students out of 18 obtained 109 points (the best score for thePrimary Step 1 test), and 15 students (83%) reached A2 level of CEFR, scoring more than
107 points (see Appendix 3).
In the Listening test, on the contrary, the content was perceived as challenging, and121

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

many of the participants indicated confusion in the latter section. As was hypothesized, theListening test was difficult for the beginner-level participants, and the test duration of half
an hour appeared too long for the young learners to remain focused. As a result, the scoresvaried greatly, and 6 students reached 109 points (the best score). Despite that, all of theparticipants reached A2 level of CEFR listening ability, scoring more than 105 points.
The most challenging section was the Speaking test, and the participants were
overwhelmed by the time limit. During the session, some keyword vocabulary was presented
verbally on individual computer screens, but the test format seemed far beyond their previous
experiences with spoken English, with the result that the Speaking test was regarded the mostdifficult. In terms of CEFR speaking ability levels (maximum point score of 27), 6 students(30%) achieved A2 level, of whom 4 obtained 18 points or more. Another 11 students (61%)
were graded at A1 level.
The actual session of the TOEFL Primary revealed that the Japanese elementary school
EFL learners lacked the experience of listening to spoken English as well as speaking thelanguage in authentic settings.
5.3 Results of the semi-structured questionnaire and the post-interview

The results of the nine closed-questions were analyzed with some charts from gross
responses (Appendix 2); Questions 1 and 2 explored the participants’ knowledge about the
TOEFL and the reason why they took part in the test. Question 3 searched for the learners’
perception of the test in regard to three language skills, i.e. reading, listening and speaking.
Question 4 focused particularly on the Speaking test, investigating what aspects seemed easy
or difficult to the participants and whether they became motivated or demotivated by the test
format. Questions 5 to 8 related to the young learners’ attitudes towards EFL learning andhow the extracurricular assessment opportunity was regarded. Question 9 looked into thelearners’ interest in studying abroad, and the last space invited free comments, which weretranslated from Japanese into English by the researcher and listed in relation to two broad
categories of motivational factors.
Question 1 was the premise for learning motivation, and three quarters, 14 out of 18
participants, did not know about the TOEFL before the experiment. Question 2 was directly
connected with the individual motivations (Figure 2), and the top three answers were: a pureinterest by the young learners in a new experience, preparation for secondary school English,
and a simple motivation to acquire foreign language. It was shown that for young EFL

122

Motivation of Japanese Elementary School EFL Learners
Illuminated through the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL®)

learners, family influence plays a central role; more than 40% responded that their parents
advised them to take the test. Those participants wishing to study abroad in the futurewere strongly motivated and considered the assessment as a good opportunity for acquiring
practical skills.

Figure 2. (Question 2: Why did you take part in this experiment and decide to take the test?)
motivational factors
Pure interest
Future preparation
Improve English
Like English
Family Advice
Trial of own skills
Plan to study abroad
Other reasons
Teachers recommend
Friends recommend

0

2

4

6

8

10

12
person(s)Question 3 intended to find the participants’ impression on each test (Figure 3), and theoverall view was that the test was difficult, particularly the Speaking test. Roughly 60%
thought the Reading test was hard, and more than 80% considered the Listening test difficult.
Over 88% believed the Speaking test was ‘beyond their abilities’, according to their verbal
accounts after the session. The results reflect that the Japanese young EFL learners are notaccustomed to the actual usage of English language, and the test format is far too unfamiliar.
Among them, the Reading test was perceived positively and was actually finished within thetime limit. This implies that some young learners already possess a certain level of literacy
and can read English texts to some extent.

123慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

Figure 3. (Question 3: How were the TOEFL Primary tests? Which were difficult?)
person(s)141210Reading Test

8

Listening Test

6

Speaking Test

420

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither

DisagreeStrongly disagree

Question 4 specified what factors of the Speaking test were considered difficult, as thetest format of using a microphone was unfamiliar to the Japanese EFL learners; nearly 90%
agreed that it was their first experience to speak English to a machine. The participantsalso found the test content demanding and struggled to express their ideas within a limited
time frame, although the instructions in English were understood properly. In regard tolearners’ motivation, more than 70% showed an intention to take the test again, proving their
enthusiasm and a sense of competitiveness. The results showed the strong motivation ofpromising young EFL learners who are willing to advance their learning.
Questions 5 and 6 investigated the post-assessment impressions, and the results were 100%
positive; the participants appreciated the preliminary classes and the assessment opportunity,
verifying that the inclusion of extracurricular test opportunities is meaningful and could
stimulate young learners’ motivation. Questions 7 and 8 shed light on the participants’ desire
to take another assessment in the future, and the majority (77%) displayed eagerness to try
again, although some negative responses were observed at the same time.
In addition, Question 9 explored learning motivation connected with the participants’eagerness to study abroad in the future (Figure 4), and nearly 80% agreed, half expressing

124Motivation of Japanese Elementary School EFL Learners
Illuminated through the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL®)a strong wish. This implies that Japanese elementary school EFL learners feel it necessary
to live in an English-speaking environment to become fluent users of English language. A
powerful motivation was witnessed.

Figure 4. (Question 9: Do you wish to study abroad (either short or long term) in the future?)
Strongly agree					8Agree								6Either								2Disagree							0Strongly disagree			2

Lastly, the free comment space collected individual voices and diverse perspectives on
English language learning, which highlighted the young learners’ subtle yet enthusiastic
attitudes towards EFL learning. A supplementary question, “What English abilities would you
like to acquire?” was added so that the participants could write their thoughts without losing
focus. The responses could be divided into two broad categories for clarification, ‘linguisticknowledge’ such as vocabulary and syntax that the young EFL learners hope to acquire, and‘communicative experience’ such as speaking and listening skills that the Japanese learners
hardly have a chance to gain outside the classroom (Table 3).
The results of the post-interview reflected how the individual participants perceived theassessment and the responses were diverse, for example, “The preliminary classes wereenjoyable, but I never expected the Speaking test to be that difficult.” or “It was exciting andI want to improve my English.” A large number of the comments pointed out the importanceof English language learning for the purpose of school, business, travel etc. in the future. In
addition, positive images of English were seen from their verbal comments such as ‘It’s cool to
speak English’ or ‘I feel great when using English’.

125慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

Table 3. Voices from the free comment space:
Linguistic Knowledge (vocabulary/syntax factors)
I want to learn more words and phrases.

I want to get better reading and listening skills.

I want to read faster.

I want to learn grammar.

I want to get more vocabulary, acquire grammar
as well as composition skills.

I want to use English more accurately.

Communicative Experience (sound/communication factos)
I want to understand English spoken in themovies and TV dramas.

I want to get English abilities accepted andunderstood abroad.

I want to be able to speak English without being
too nervous.

I want to speak English fluently and travel
around the world by myself.

English would be very helpful when talking toforeign people for the first time.

I want to work as a bridge between Japan andforeign countries.

I want to speak to foreign people with fluency.

I want to get better in speaking.

I want to speak with foreign people.

I want to be able to sing songs in English.

I want to be good at English so that I canunderstand what people are talking about.

I think grammar is important, but I want to get
speaking proficiency too.

I want to know more convertational expressions
and vocabulary out of textbooks.

I want to listen to English more and get better
listening and speaking skills.

I want to explain the directions to foreign visitors
instantly when they are in trouble.

I want to work on the global stage in the future,and English is necessary to get there.

5.4 Analysis of young learnersʼ motivation observed through the experiment

The observation and the questionnaire in this case study exposed to view various but
fundamental motivations of Japanese EFL learners, and the experiment illuminated theelementary school learners’ attitudes towards EFL learning. The free comment spaceparticularly succeeded in gaining motivational factors in detail, reinforcing each factor to
be narrowed down for further research. Some responses might be ‘impressionistic’ (Cohenet al. 2007:330); however, the comments mirror the reality of the present TEYL in Japan,
especially in the elementary school context, and the significance of the data collected can be126

Motivation of Japanese Elementary School EFL Learners
Illuminated through the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL®)

summarised as follows:
1) The preliminary classes made it apparent that the participants perceived theassessment opportunity positively and considered it as a chance to test their language
abilities. Parental influence is extremely powerful for shaping these positive attitudes
and images.
2) The challenge of assessment means more than a mere measurement of language
competence to young learners. The participants in this experiment found pleasure
in gaining new knowledge and their motivation was driven by their pure interest andintellectual curiosity. The assessment can function as a stimulator and the elementary
school students can obtain foreign language experiences with appropriate support
from the teachers.
3) The questionnaire revealed positive images of EFL learning among the young learners
despite the reality that the English language has no major role in Japanese society.
An important implication for TEYL is that the social context plays a crucial role inmotivating young EFL learners.
4) The participants were highly motivated and some possessed advanced language
abilities for their age as the test results showed (Appendix 3). They appreciatedoccasional assessment opportunities, especially those who were wishing to study
abroad. The issue to be discussed further is the link between elementary andsecondary school English education; the experiment has opened a question to thepresent ELT curriculum, in which no linguistic skill-based subdivisions have been
constructed between the two.
This was the first attempt for all the participants at the TOEFL Primary, but the results
showed that the Japanese elementary school EFL learners possessed diverse motivations, andthey found enjoyment in EFL learning. The experiment has illuminated the enthusiasm of
young learners and their motivational factors for English language learning. As was observed
all through the experiment, socio-cultural influence appears to be enormous in creating
learner perception, indicating the necessity of setting appropriate contexts for young EFL
learners.

127慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

6. Discussion: the impact of assessment opportunity and motivational transition

In this case study, motivation of Japanese elementary school EFL learners is highlighted
through the course of study for the TOEFL, and the results imply that the inclusion ofassessment might function effectively in TEYL. The motivational factors are diverse and thedata indicates both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, the former mostly from the learners’
pure interest, curiosity or competitiveness, and the latter from family influence, desires forappraisal or positive images of EFL learning engraved in Japanese social values. Occasional
assessment opportunities like the TOEFL could stimulate young learners’ enthusiasm, andhigh expectation towards global status can be observed. However, the question remains
whether the young learners can maintain high motivation through puberty on to adolescencein the present EFL environment in Japan. Each young EFL learner differs in motivation andlikewise in aptitudes for foreign language learning. As this experiment has elucidated, different
motivations are originated in each learner’s ‘value mechanisms’ or ‘appraisal system’ (Schumann
1997:2). A constructive outcome is the fact that the positive young learners naturally findpleasure in learning linguistic knowledge and acquiring communicative experience throughthe assessment.
On the other hand, as Nishida (2013:98) recognizes, ‘motivation tends to decrease as
students get older’ and ‘no objective measure of linguistic ability is available’ in Japaneseelementary school contexts. As learners grow older, linguistic achievement is required,and many EFL learners tend to weaken in motivation in Japan. Yet, the results from thisexperiment have contrasted young learners’ willingness to obtain real-life communicativecompetence, and the participants possessed a strong desire for further learning. The
problematic features of standardized tests like the TOEFL would be that the settings arealways ‘virtual’, not authentic, which has often led to the question as to whether this would
facilitate genuine communication skills. As the learners get older, the issue of ‘authenticity’
can affect their motivation, because foreign language learning tends to become a mere ‘school
subject’. The differentiations in learning motivation might call the need for ‘individualization’in EFL teaching, particularly in school context, and a dramatic improvement in the link
between elementary and secondary school English education is greatly needed. Along withneeds analysis, a variety of teaching methods and techniques should become essential forelementary school EFL learners, and it is suggested that the young EFL learners in Japan
would benefit from more effective, individualized English teaching in a smaller group and in
an appropriately streamed form of learning for better communicative practices.

128

Motivation of Japanese Elementary School EFL Learners
Illuminated through the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL®)

7. Conclusion

The experiment in this article has shed lighton the motivational factors of Year 6 students ina private elementary school context in Japan and

Figure 5. Preliminary classes for theReading and the Listening tests(December 2015)

portrayed diverse motivational factors of EFL
learning. Through the preliminary classes (Figure5) and the actual TOEFL Primary session, it was
discovered how the assessment was experienced by
the Japanese elementary school students, and theimpact of the assessment opportunity was closely
examined. Despite the argument, the reality isthat elementary school education adopts English
language as a regular subject, and Japanese people consider it necessary for the future careersof the younger generation. The dominant power of social context including family influence
has become evident, and the strong desires of young learners to gain communicative skills
were exhibited in this study. The assessment opportunity could function as a stimulator for
young EFL learners and as Cameron (2001:218) advocates, a tactfully practiced ‘learningcentred perspective’ should be assumed in TEYL.
The remarkable feature of the Japanese EFL context is that the positive image of acquiring
English language is deeply connected with young learners’ motivation, and a social ‘value’
conveys an immense effect on foreign language learning. The various factors cannot simply
fit in one theory or generalization; however, the inclusion of assessment can offer important
opportunities for EFL learners to see their linguistic abilities by an international standard. It
is, therefore, recommended to create these opportunities regularly at school in order to help
both learners and teachers to measure language skills and identify the next step of learningand teaching.
This experiment has also called for the need to explore further motivational transition fromelementary to secondary school English education longitudinally. It is to be hoped that thevoices of the young EFL learners in this experiment can contribute to the betterment of the
field of TEYL in Japan, in some part enabling methods of effective learning and teaching ofEnglish language in school contexts to continue to be enlightened by further research.

129慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

Bibliography
Alderson, J. C. and L. F. Bachman. (2006) Series editors’ preface. In McKay, P. Assessing Young Language

Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bassey, M. (1999) Case Study Research in Educational Settings. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Cameron, L. (2001) Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and K. Morrison (2007) Research Methods in Education [sixth edition]. Oxson:
Routledge.
Council of Europe. (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Language Learning,

Teaching, Assessment (CEFR). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2003) English as a Global Language [second edition]. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001) Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Dörnyei, Z. and I. Ottó. (1998) Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers

in Applied Linguistics. 4:pp.43-69. London: Thames Valley University.
Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2016) Test and Data Summary for TOEFL iBT ® Tests 2015.
Princeton: ETS.
[on-line] https://www.ets.org/s/toefl/pdf/94227_unlweb.pdf
Eyres, I. (2007) English for Primary and Early Years. Developing Subject Knowledge [second edition].
London: The Open University.
Gardner, R. C. (1979) Social psychological aspects of second language acquisition. In Giles, H. and R.
St. Clair. (eds.) Language and social psychology. pp.193-220. Oxford: Blackwell.
Higuchi, T., T. Kunikata, Y. Omura, Y. Tanabe, E. Shimo, E. Izumi, T. Kinugasa, T. Kagata and
Y. Hakozaki. (2008) A follow-up survey of primary English learners and implications for primary andsecondary English education. [translated from Japanese by the researcher] The English Teachers’

Magazine [special edition]. October 2008, pp.58-69. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Hinds, D. (2000) Research instruments. In Wilkinson, D. (ed.) The Researcher’s Toolkit – The complete

guide to practitioner research. Oxon: Routledge.
Kubota, R. (2002) The impact of globalization on language teaching in Japan. In Block, D. and D.
Cameron. (eds.) Globalization and Language Teaching. Oxon: Routledge.
Kumon Publishing. (2015) Preparation Book for the TOEFL Primary ® Step 1; original copyright by Ji, T.
Lim. (2014) First published in Korea. Japanese translation supervised by Global Communication &Testing. Tokyo: Kumon Publishing Co.Ltd.
Lightbown, P. and N. Spada. (1999) How Languages are Learned [second edition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
McKay, P. (2006) Assessing Young Language Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) - Japan. (2003) Regarding theEstablishment of an Action Plan to Cultivate “Japanese with English Abilities”.
[on-line] http://www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/03072801.htm

130Motivation of Japanese Elementary School EFL Learners
Illuminated through the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL®)

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) - Japan. (2006) The official
record of the proceedings of the International Education Division, Elementary and Secondary
Education Bureau. The original document is available only in Japanese.
[on-line] http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo3/015/siryo/06080203/004.htm
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) - Japan. (2014) Report on the

Future Improvement and Enhancement of English Education (Outline): Five Recommendations on
the English Education Reform Plan Responding to the Rapid Globalization.
[on-line] http://www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/1356541.htm
Morrison, K. R. B. (1993) Planning and Accomplishing School-Centred Evaluation. Dereham: Peter
Francis.
Nisbet, J. and J. Watt. (1984) Case study. In Bell, J., T. Bush, A. Fox, J. Goodey and S. Goulding (eds.)

Conducting Small-Scale Investigations in Educational Management, pp.72-92. London: Harper &Row.
Nishida, R. (2013) A Comprehensive Summary of Empirical Studies of Motivation Among Japanese
Elementary School EFL Learners. In Apple, M. T., Da Silva, D. Fellner, T. and Authors of Individual
Chapters. (eds.) Language Learning Motivation in Japan, pp.93-109. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
O’Grady, W. (2005) How Children Learn Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Otsu, Y. (2004) Objections to English language teaching in state primary schools in Japan. [translated
from Japanese by the researcher] The English Teachers’ Magazine. Vol.53/2 May 2004, pp.8-11.
Tokyo: Taishukan.
Sakui, K. (2004) Wearing two pairs of shoes: language teaching in Japan. ELT Journal. Vol.58/2 April
2004, pp.155-63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics. II, 2,
pp.129-58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schumann, J. H. (1997) The Neurobiology of Affect in Language. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Simons, H. (1996) The paradox of case study. Cambridge Journal of Education. 26(2), pp. 225-40.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomita, Y. (2004) Heading to authentic foreign language activities as a part of intercultural understanding.
[translated from Japanese by the researcher] The English Teachers’ Magazine. Vol.53/2 May 2004,
pp18-20. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Torigai, K. (2006) Critical Condition of Elementary School English Teaching. [translated from Japaneseby the researcher] Tokyo: Bungei-Shunju
Wilkinson, D. (2000) Analysing data. In Wilkinson, D. (ed.) The Researcher’s Toolkit – The complete

guide to practitioner research. Oxon: Routledge.

131慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

Appendices
Appendix 1: A semi-structured questionnaire (translated into Japanese by the researcher)132

Motivation of Japanese Elementary School EFL Learners
Illuminated through the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL®)

Appendix 2: Gross results of responses for the semi-structured questionnaire (with original
Japanese version, the numbers indicate the responses)

133慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

Appendix 3: [Upper part] Gross results of the open-ended question[Lower part] Score results of the participants; the TOEFL Primary Step 1

134

外国語学習法の非言語的認知機能への影響：
日本語を母語とするドイツ語初習者を対象とした実験的検討

外国語学習法の非言語的認知機能への影響：
日本語を母語とするドイツ語初習者を対象とした実験的検討
矢田部

清

美

皆

泰

代

川

Abstract
The present study examines changes in young adults’ non-verbal cognitive abilities inducedby foreign language learning, with a view to investigating how a particular instruction method
may affect students’ general executive function as well as language proficiency. Seventeen
Japanese university students were divided into two groups, on the basis of their scores on
tests evaluating their non-verbal cognitive abilities and knowledge of German. Participantsin the first group were taught German using the inductive method and participants in thesecond group were taught the language using the deductive method. Both groups were taught
the same content with the same material; the only difference between the two was in the typeof instruction. There was no signiﬁcant difference in the level of language proﬁciency attained
between the two groups. However, there was a weak but significant effect of instruction
method on participants ’ ability to perform a non-verbal cognitive task. We also found asigniﬁcant difference in reaction time between the two groups in a German and a non-verbal
cognitive task. These ﬁndings suggest that it might be possible to enhance certain types of
one ’s non-verbal cognitive abilities through language learning, although more research isneeded to reach a ﬁrm conclusion.

１.

はじめに

本論文では、外国語学習法、特に外国語を異なる学習様式で学習すると、学習者の外国語の熟達度 だけでなく、非言語的認知機能 に 変化 に 違 いが 生 じうるのかという 問題 について 論 ずる。まず、一般的に、外国語学習の結果として非言語的認知機能に変化が生じるということがありうるのかを、従来のバイリンガルと外国語学習の研究を参照して論じ、続いて本研究の課

135

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

題設定を論じる。さらに、異なる学習様式での外国語学習研究の必要性を述べ、日本語を母語とするドイツ語初習者を対象としたパイロット実験を説明する。最後に実験結果を踏まえ、異なる学習様式の外国語学習による学習者の認知機能への考えうる影響と今後の外国語教育への展望を述べる。
１.１

外国語学習経験による認知機能の変化

１.１.１

バイリンガルであることによって生じる認知機能の変化

最近、国際化が進展するにつれ、複数の言語を同時に習得する、または母語以外の外国語を学習する等により、日常的に複数の言語を使用する機会が増えている。このように、ある個人
が 少 なくとも二 つの 言語 を 話 すこと、 またはその使用者 をバイリンガル（bilingual） と 呼 ぶことがある（American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2004）。本節では、バイリンガルであることが認知処理全般に影響を及ぼし得るのか、さらに本研究の課題設定について論じる。

1960年代 までバイリンガルは 一 つの 言語 を 話 すモノリンガル（monolingual） の 言語 レベルに到達することが出来ず、それゆえ多くの認知処理課題においてモノリンガルより劣っていると考えられていた（Tunmer, Pratt, Herriman, & Bowey, 1984）。しかし1960年代に入ると、過去 の 研究 には 調査対象 のグループ 間 の 社会経済 レベルや 年齢 が 統制 されていない、調査問題に 文化背景 が 異 なると 答 えにくい 問題 が 含 まれている 等 の 深刻 な 方法論上 の 欠点 があったことが指摘されはじめた（Adesope, Lavin, Thompson, & Ungerleider, 2010; Bialystok, Craik, &Luk, 2012; Peal & Lambert, 1962; Tunmer et al., 1984）。そのため、こうした点が統制された
それ以降の研究により、バイリンガルはモノリンガルより多くの認知処理課題において優れた点を有するという報告が多数を占めるようになった。
バイリンガルが優位性を持つような認知処理には何種類かのものがあると言われている。ひと つ は 言語知識 を 構造化 し 説明 す る メ タ 言語的気 づ き（metalinguistic awareness） で あ る。
バイリンガルのメタ言語的気づきの成長を促すためには一定の閾値を超える第一言語と第二言。ま語の両言語の能力が必要であることが知られている（Cummins, 1979; Ricciardelli, 1992）
た、なぜバイリンガルがメタ言語的気づきに優れているかについては複数の言語を使用することで言語の違いなどの言語知識の抽象化が発達するからではないかと示唆されている。もうひ
とつは、非言語課題を含めた多くの認知処理課題に解答する際に共通して必要となる実行機能（executive function）（Miyake et al., 2000）である。これは、注意や記憶などの限られた資源を使いつつ情報更新や目標設定を行い思考や行動を制御する高次の認知機能である。バイリン
ガルの実行機能の成長を促すためには、二言語の熟達度ではなくバイリンガル教育の年数が影響 すると 言 われている（Bialystok & Barac, 2012）。 しかしバイリンガルの 実行機能 の 優位性にバイリンガル教育におけるどのような過程が影響したのかは不明であった。

136

外国語学習法の非言語的認知機能への影響：
日本語を母語とするドイツ語初習者を対象とした実験的検討

さらに後者のバイリンガルの実行機能の優位性についてはまだ議論も多い。たとえば、言語の獲得時期・熟達度・バイリンガル言語の類似性などを統制すると、優位性があるという研究。 しかしそうした 報告
結果 は 再現 しない、 とする 報告 もある（Paap, Johnson, & Sawi, 2015）においても特定のバイリンガル経験に限れば実行機能に正の影響を及ぼすことが否定できないとしている。
そこで、本研究では新しい言語を学ぶときに特定の学習過程を設定し、学習過程が学習者の実行機能に影響を与える可能性を検討する。その一例として、ある推論法を用いた学習方法が非言語的認知処理機能、特に一連の情報から課題目標に適切な情報のみを維持し効果的に問題解決する実行機能に影響を及ぼすという仮説をたて、外国語学習における教示法の認知処理への影響を検討する。

１.１.２

外国語学習前後における認知機能の変化

前節 で 論 じた 言語機能 に 限 らずその 一般的 な 認知機能（general cognitive function） の 差異
をバイリンガルとモノリンガルという群間で比較する共時的研究とは別に、より直接的な方法として、ある外国語に熟達していない被験者群の外国語学習前後で一般的な認知機能の変化を測定 する 通時的研究 がある。通時的研究 は、外国語学習経験内容及 びその 開始・終了 の 統制、
個人要因、熟達を確認しやすく、外国語学習経験が認知機能の変化を生むという因果関係を明らかにするために有効な方法のひとつであるが、バイリンガルとモノリンガルのある時点での対比といった共時的研究に比べ、その数はまだ少ない。
これまで Bialystok や Bak らのグループが、 ある 外国語 に 熟達 していない 被験者群 の 外国語

学習前後 で、言語 に 限 らない 注意 や 抑制機能 などの 認知機能 の 評価 をしている（Bak, Long,

Vega-Mendoza, & Sorace, 2016; Bialystok & Barac, 2012; Janus, Lee, Moreno, & Bialystok,
2016; Sullivan, Janus, Moreno, Astheimer, & Bialystok, 2014）。 その 結果、 ひとつの 研究 を 除
く多くの研究で統制群より顕著な認知機能の向上が認められた。また、顕著な認知機能の変化がみられなかった研究でも、非言語課題中の脳波計測をしたところバイリンガルの脳波パタンに類似した結果が得られたという。こうした結果が多く集まれば外国語学習経験による認知機能の変化は存在するという仮説を強く支持するものとなる。
しかし、これまでの外国語学習実験では、外国語学習方法は様々で、学習群と比較する統制

群が心理学を同時期に学ぶ群や音楽を学ぶ群、外国語学習以外の色々なコースで学ぶ群などであった。そのため、どのような外国語学習方法が認知機能の変化を生みやすいかといった知見を得ることは難しかった。このことは、前節でみたように、特定の言語学習過程が学習者の実

行機能に影響を与えるかを問う本研究では大変重要な問題であるといえる。

137

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

１.２

外国語学習方法における学習様式。古 くか
言語学者 Pinker によれば 言語学習 とは 語彙 と 規則 の 学習 から 成 る（Pinker, 1999）
ら 言語 の 学習法 について 議論 があり、特 に 言語規則 をどのように 教授 するかをめぐっては 多くの 研究 がある（Ellis, 2011; Robinson, 2008）。一般的 に 規則 の 学習 は 多 く 推論 に 基 づいてなされることが 多 い。推論 は 与 えられた 命題（proposition） から 新 しい 命題 を 導 く 方法 を 示 す
もので、知的活動 を 行 う 上 で 欠 かせないものである。 そのため 多 くの 論理学者 や 心理学者 は

人間 の 行 う 推論 と 認知処理 の 関係 に 興味 を 持 ってきた（Isaac, Szymanik, & Verbrugge, 2014;

Johnson-Laird, Khemlani, & Goodwin, 2015）。そして最近の研究では、異なる推論の方法では、認知処理も異なる可能性を見出した（Goel & Dolan, 2004; Heit & Rotello, 2010）。
推論の方法、つまり推論規則は二つに大別され、一方を演繹規則（演繹法 ; rules of deduction）と呼び、もう一方を帰納規則（帰納法 ; rules of induction）と呼ぶ。演繹規則によれば、真なる言語的発話（linguistic utterance）から他の真なる言語的発話が導かれ、帰納規則によれば、

真なる言語的発話から、それが真であるかどうかはわかっていないがその確率がわかっている
ような仮に真である経験的言明が導かれる（Reichenbach, 1947）。一般に、演繹規則は既知の法則（premise） を 個々 の 事象 に 適用 し、帰納規則 は 個々 の 事象 からの 経験的観測 により 仮 の法則を導き出すことができる。
これを外国語における言語規則の学習方法に当てはめると、演繹的学習法では最初に言語規則が明示的に与えられ学習者は規則を個々の例に適用し、帰納的学習法では個々の例のみ与えられ学習者はこれらの経験的観察から暗示的に与えられた言語規則を学習する。演繹的学習法
は 言語規則 が 明示的 に 与 えられる 文法訳読法（grammar-translation method） に 代表 され、帰納的学習法 は 言語規則 が 個々 の 例 のうちに 暗示的 に 与 えられる 点 で 直接法（direct method）
や AL 法（audiolingual method）に深く関連している（Corder & Allen, 1975）。学習法が明示的か暗示的かという点に特に着目し明示的学習法（explicit learning）や暗示的学習法（implicit

learning） といった 分 け 方 をする 場合 もある。多 くの 研究 によって、 そのような 外国語学習法の対照的な違いは着目され（Gollin, 1998）、その効果、つまり学習者の熟達度の向上ばかりが検討されてきたが、その点でもどちらの学習法の効果が高いかについて、意見は分かれている（Erlam, 2003）。
本研究では二つの外国語学習法、即ち演繹的学習法と帰納的学習法による違いを実験的方法
によって検討する。特に、これまでの外国語学習法の対照研究がすべて言語の熟達度の変化のみに焦点を当てていたのに対し、外国語学習に伴って生じる実行機能の変化に着目する。すな
わち、非言語的課題においても、学習法によって学習前後の成績変化の度合いに違いが生じるのかどうかについて検討する。

138

外国語学習法の非言語的認知機能への影響：
日本語を母語とするドイツ語初習者を対象とした実験的検討

２. 外国語学習実験の方法
２.１

参加者

本研究の参加者は、大学内のインターネットやポスターによる広報をみて応募した、神経学的既往歴がなく、右利き・日本語のみ母国語・外国で３カ月以上暮らしたことがない健康な17名の大学生である。１名は実験開始後に参加を取りやめた。参加者のドイツ語学習歴は最長で６ カ 月 を 超 えずその 平均 は1.06ヶ 月（標準誤差 0.44ヶ 月） だった。参加者 は（未成年 は 保護
者共に）研究説明を受け、同意の下に研究参加を開始した。全ての研究参加に謝礼が支払われた。本研究は慶應義塾大学文学部研究倫理委員会により承認された（番号13006）
。

２.２

手法

２.２.１

学習前後の評価方法

学習前に参加者はドイツ語の熟達度をはかる二種類の課題と非言語的認知機能をはかる二種類の課題、合計四種類の課題に取り組んだ。ドイツ語の熟達度をはかる課題では、ドイツ語技能検定（German Diploma in Japan）４級・５級の2014年春と2015年秋の問題から20問と、自作 のドイツ 語文法性判断課題36問 に 回答 した。 また 非言語的認知機能 をはかる 課題 では、非言語的知能検査であるレーヴン漸進的マトリックス検査（Raven’s Progressive Matrices; RPM検査）（Raven, 1941）の奇数問題30問と、自作の図形を用いた推論課題18問に回答した。
学習後にも参加者は学習前と同様のドイツ語の熟達度をはかる二種類の課題と非言語的認知機能をはかる二種類の課題、合計四種類の課題に取り組んだ。ドイツ語の熟達度をはかる課題
では、ドイツ語技能検定４級・５級の2014年秋と2015年春の問題から20問と、自作の別のドイ
ツ語文法性判断課題36問に回答した。また非言語的認知機能をはかる課題では、非言語的知能検査である RPM 検査の偶数問題30問と、自作の別の図形を用いた推論課題18問に回答した。
ドイツ語の熟達度をはかる課題の一方であるドイツ語技能検定は年度などによって難易度が異なるため、学習前後の課題間の難易度も異なることが予想された。しかし、学習前と学習後それぞれの群が同じ課題に回答することにより、前と後の時点の学習群間の差をはかること及び学習前後変化の両群間の差をはかることができることからもう一方の自作課題と併用することとした。また、非言語的認知機能をはかる課題の一方である RPM 検査は無作為に偶数問題と 奇数問題 を 抽出 したため、学習前後 の 課題間 の 難易度 が 異 なることが 予想 された。 しかし、同様に前と後の時点の学習群間の差をはかること及び学習前後の変化の両群の差をはかることができることから併用することとした。
もう一方のドイツ語の熟達度をはかる課題であるドイツ語文法性判断課題は、統語範疇と語彙 を 同程度 のものとすることで 学習前後 の 課題間 の 難易度 をおおよそ 等 しくするように 努 めた。各問題のドイツ語は文もしくは句の形で出題され、参加者はドイツ語文法表現が正しいか139慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

正しくないかを二択で答えた。また、もう一方の非言語的認知機能をはかる課題である推論課
題は、過去の推論課題研究（Crone et al., 2009）を改良し大きさや模様といった別の様式を用いながら推論に要求される計算の複雑性を統制することで学習前後の課題間の難易度をおおよそ等しくするように努めた。

自作の推論課題についてさらに詳細を説明することとする。この課題は図形の形に着目しその並びにしたがって空欄となっている図形を推論するものである。各問題は上段の３行３列の図形の並びと下段の１行４列の図形の並びから成り、常に上段の３行３列目の右下の図形が点線の四角図形で空欄となっている。参加者は上段の３行３列目の右下の図形以外の図形の並びから、３行３列目の右下の図形が何であるべきか、最も適した図形を下段の四つの図形から一つ選んで答えることが求められた。また学習者の認知的特性をより明らかにするために、推論

課題の計算の複雑性の水準を３つに分けた。
図１は計算の複雑性の水準が低い問題の代表例である。上段の３行３列目の右下の図形以外の図形の並びは同じものが並んでおり、したがって３行３列目の右下の図形に最も適した図形
は同じ図形である下段の左から２番目を選んで答えるのが正解である。図２は計算の複雑性の水準が中の問題の代表例である。上段の３行３列目の右下の図形以外の図形の並びは列ごとに同じものが並んでおり、したがって３行３列目の右下の図形に最も適した図形は上段の３列目の図形と同じ図形である下段の左から２番目を選んで答えるのが正解である。図３は計算の複雑性の水準が高の問題の代表例である。上段の３行３列目の右下の図形以外の図形は入れ子になっており、 その 並 びは 外側 の 図形 は 行 ごとに、内側 の 図形 は 列 ごとに 同 じものが 並 んでおり、したがって３行３列目の右下の図形に最も適した図形は外側が３行目と同じで内側が３列目と同じ図形である下段の左から３番目を選んで答えるのが正解である。課題の慣れを防ぐ目
的で、形に着目する以外に図形の大きさや模様に着目する課題を用意した点が先行研究より優れた点であるが、紙面の都合上、形のみ例示した。

図１ 計算の複雑性が低い問題

140

図２ 計算の複雑性が中程度の問題

図３ 計算の複雑性が高い問題

外国語学習法の非言語的認知機能への影響：
日本語を母語とするドイツ語初習者を対象とした実験的検討

各課題の成績は次のように求めた。ドイツ語技能検定は20問中の正答数を求めた。ドイツ語
文法性判断課題における二択の弁別性の指標には、信号検出理論に基づいたディー・プライム（dprime; d’）指標を用いた。この弁別指標は d’ ＝ z（正答率（hit））⊖ z（フォールス・アラーム率（false alarm）） によって 計算 した（Macmillan & Creelman, 1991）。 バイリンガルについての先行研究より青年期の認知機能をはかる問題では認知的負荷の高い問題でのみ統制群との差が出やすい（Bialystok, 2006; Costa, Hernandez, Costa-Faidella, & Sebastian-Galles, 2009）との 知見 があり、RPM 検査 は 後半 の 問題 ほど 難易度 が 上 がる 設計 になっているので、30問 を５分割し最後の６問の正答数を求めた。推論課題では要求される計算の複雑性が高い課題の正答数を求めた。いずれの課題も一問ごとにコンピュータの画面に問題を表示しながら、一問ごとの反応時間を計測し、反応時間の平均は正答の反応時間から計算した。参加者はいずれも自分のペースで問題を解いたが、ドイツ語技能検定と RPM 検査のときには無制限時間内でキー
ボード 上 の 数字 キーを 押 し、 ドイツ 語文法性判断課題 と 推論課題 のときにはそれぞれ3.5秒 の制限時間内と10秒の制限時間内でキーパッド上のキーを押して答えた。
２.２.２

学習群と学習内容

参加者は、学習前に回答した四課題の成績・反応時間によって、非言語的知能とドイツ語の熟達度 におおよそ 差 のない 演繹的学習群８名 と 帰納的学習群９名 の ２群 の 学習群 に 分 けられた。演繹的学習群８名 の 平均年齢 は20.28歳（標準誤差 11.72カ 月）、帰納的学習群９名 の 平均

年齢 は19.04歳（標準誤差 5.24カ 月） で 年齢 についても 両群 は 統計的 な 差異 は 認 めらなかった（（t 15）＝ 1.21, p ＞ 0.24 ）。
両群ともに同じ教材で同じ内容を学習した。ただ一つ両群で異なる点は、演繹的学習か帰納的学習かといった学習様式の差だった。演繹的学習群は最初から言語規則を明示的に与えられ、それから例に言語規則を当てはめながら学習した。一方、帰納的学習群は最初に個々の例のみ与えられ、これらの経験的観察から暗示的に与えられた言語規則を推測しつつ学習した。
学習に用いられる例は情報技術の発展と共にコーパス等から入手が容易になった言語データ
を 言語教育 に 用 いるデータ 駆動型学習（data-driven learning; DDL）
（ Johns, 1991） に 倣 い、研究室内 で 用意 した 学習者 のドイツ 語 レベルに 統制 したおよそ1700見出 し 語 コーパスに 基 づ
いて作成され、クイズ形式などで学習者に示された。各群ともに３ヶ月間９回の60分授業と宿題を通じてドイツ語の名詞・冠詞・形容詞・動詞・助動詞・接続詞・前置詞を用いた初級文法
を 大量 の 例 と 共 に 学習 した。DDL には 学習者 が 言語 データを 自由 に 探索 し 学習 に 利用 する 拡

散型（divergent）学習 と、予 め 決 められた 学習目標 に 向 けて 導 かれつつ 言語 データを 学習 に利用する収束型（convergent）学習があるが、今回は学習者が初習者であり、必ずしも全ての学習者がコーパス利用を得意としていなかったため、後者の方法を選択した。即ち、授業では141

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

ドイツ語の例はコンピュータもしくはハンドアウトによって示され、宿題では参加者に貸与された iPod touches（Apple Inc.）という携帯型端末機器 を通じて簡便なクイズ形式として例が示された。さらに授業内では学習の際の正誤をフィードバックとして与え、宿題の中では個々の問題に正誤のフィードバックと20問ごとの成績が表示された。学習者は次回の授業までの課

外 のすきま 時間 を 生 かして 言語 データを 通 じて 言語規則 を 学習 した。DDL は 帰納的学習法 に利用 されることが 多 いが、演繹的学習法 に 利用 されることも 可能 である。 また、DDL の 特徴
として言語規則即ち文法から語彙情報が切り離されにくく、統合的に学習できる面がある。

２.２.３

検定方法

以下のように統計的仮説の検定を行った。学習前後のドイツ語技能検定の正答数及び反応時
間、 ドイツ 語文法性判断課題 の 弁別指標及 び 反応時間、RPM 検査 の 反応時間、計算 の 複雑性が高い推論課題の反応時間を、学習様式別で比較する場合には、学習前後を参加者内要因、学習様式を参加者間要因とする二要因分散分析を行った。ドイツ語文法性判断課題弁別指標の学
習前後 の 差分、RPM 検査正答数 の 学習前後 の 差分 を 学習様式別 で 比較 する 場合 には t 検定 を行 った。RPM 検査正答数、計算 の 複雑性 が 高 い 推論課題 の 正答数 の 学習前後差 を 比較 する 場
合には Wilcoxon の符号付順位検定を行った。RPM 検査の学習前正答数および学習後正答数、計算の複雑性が高い推論課題の学習前正答数および学習後正答数、計算の複雑性が高い推論課
題正答数 の 学習前後 の 差分、RPM 検査反応時間 の 学習前後 の 差分 を、学習様式別 で 比較 する
場合には Mann-Whitney 検定を行った。
３. 外国語学習実験の結果
３.１

外国語の熟達度の変化

前章で述べたように、ドイツ語の熟達度の変化を測るために、学習前後で、ドイツ語技能検
定の問題から20問と、ドイツ語文法性判断課題36問が用意された。
ドイツ 語技能検定 の 学習前後 では 二群 をあわせた 参加者全体 の 正答数 の 平均値 の 向上 がみられ、学習前後の主効果は統計的に有意な傾向があった（F（1,15）＝ 3.83, p ＜ 0.07 ）。しかし、両群間の主効果もなく（F（1,15）＝ 0.03, p ＞ 0.8 ）、学習前後と群間の交互作用がなかったため（F（1,15）＝ 0.007, p ＞ 0.9 ）、両群の学習方法によるドイツ語の熟達度及びその変化には差がみられなかった。

図４に各群のドイツ語文法性判断課題における弁別指標の学習前後変化を示す。実線で表されているのが帰納的学習群で、破線で表されているのが演繹的学習群である。図４にみられる
ように、ドイツ語文法性判断課題の学習前後では二群をあわせた参加者全体の弁別指標の平均値の向上がみられ、学習前後の主効果は統計的に有意であった（F（1,15）＝ 22.22, p ＜ 0.001 ）。

142

外国語学習法の非言語的認知機能への影響：
日本語を母語とするドイツ語初習者を対象とした実験的検討

しかし、両群間 の 主効果 もなく（F（1,15）＝ 0.07, p ＞ 0.7 ）、学習前後 と 群間 の 交互作用 がなかったため（F（1,15）＝ 0.01, p ＞ 0.4 ）、両群の学習方法によるドイツ語の熟達度及びその変化には 差 がみられなかった。図5は 各群 の 学習後 の 弁別指標 から 学習前 の 弁別指標 を 引 いた 結果である。図5にみられるように、両群 の 平均値 の 散 らばりは 重 なっており、効果 の 差 がみられないことがわかる（ （t 15）＝ 0.78, p ＞ 0.4 ）。

1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25

弁別指標の学習前後差
ドイツ語文法性判断課題

ドイツ語文法性判断課題の弁別指標

学習群
帰納的学習群
演繹的学習群

1.50

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

0.00

0.0

0.25

帰納的学習群

演繹的学習群
学習群

0.50

学習前

学習後

エラーバー：+/‑1 標準誤差

エラーバー：+/‑1 標準誤差

図４

文法性判断課題弁別指標の推移

図５

文法性判断課題弁別指標の学習前後差

反応時間 は ド イ ツ 語技能検定 の 二群 を あ わ せ た 参加者全体 で 学習前後 の 変化 が み ら れ ず（F（1,15）＝ 0.45, p ＞ 0.5 ）、両群間 の 差 もみられなかった（F（1,15）＝ 0.24, p ＞ 0.6 ）。 しかし、学習前後 と 群間 の 交互作用 に 有意傾向 があり（F（1,15）＝ 3.33, p ＜ 0.09 ）、演繹的学習群 では
反応時間 は 学習前 で8.7秒程度 だったのが 学習後 には7.5秒 に 短縮 したのに 対 し、帰納的学習群
では学習前で7.4秒程度だったのが学習後には9.8秒に延長したことが観察された。
ドイツ語文法性判断課題の反応時間では二群をあわせた参加者全体で学習前後に有意に延長した（F（1,15）＝ 10.02, p ＜ 0.01 ）。反応時間 は 学習前 で1.9秒程度 だったのが 学習後 には2.2秒に延長したことが観察された。しかし、両群間の差もみられず（F（1,15）＝ 0.34, p ＞ 0.5 ）、学

習前後 と 群間 の 交互作用 もなく（F（1,15）＝ 0.08, p ＞ 0.7 ）、二群 の 反応時間 に 差 はみられな
かった。

３.２

非言語的認知機能の変化

前章で述べたように、非言語的認知機能とその変化をはかるために学習前後の RPM 検査最終６問と、計算の複雑性が高い推論課題６問を評価した。

RPM 検査 の 二群 をあわせた 参加者全体 の 正答数 の 平均値 は 学習前後 で 差 がみられなかっ143

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

た（Z ＝ ⊖1.53, p ＞ 0.1 ）。 また 両群 の 正答数 の 平均値 は 学習前（U ＝ 34.00, p ＞ 0.8 ） も 学習後（U ＝ 36.00, p ＞ 0.99 ） も 差 がみられず、学習後 の 正答数 から 学習前 の 正答数 を 引 いた 成績 の向上も両群間で差がみられなかった（ （t 15）＝ 0.1, p ＞ 0.9 ）。
図６に各群の計算の複雑性が高い推論課題における正答数の学習前後変化を示す。実線で表されているのが帰納的学習群で、破線で表されているのが演繹的学習群である。図６にみられるように、計算の複雑性が高い推論課題の二群をあわせた参加者全体の正答数は学習前後で差がみられなかった（Z ＝ ⊖ 0.26, p ＞ 0.7 ）。 また 両群 の 正答数 は 学習前（U ＝ 27.00, p ＞ 0.3 ） も学習後（U ＝ 25.5, p ＞ 0.17 ） も 差 がみられなかった。図７ は 各群 の 学習後 の 計算 の 複雑性 が高 い 推論課題 の 正答数 から 学習前 のそれを 引 いた 結果 である。図７ にみられるように、学習後の正答数から学習前の正答数を引いた成績の向上は帰納的学習群のほうが有意に大きかった（U ＝ 15.5, p ＜ 0.05 ）。

5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

正答数の学習前後差
計算複雑性が高い推論課題

計算の複雑性が高い推論課題の正答数

学習群
帰納的学習群
演繹的学習群

6.0

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5

演繹的学習群

帰納的学習群
学習群

学習前

学習後

エラーバー：+/‑1 標準誤差

エラーバー：+/‑1 標準誤差

図６

計算の複雑性が高い推論課題の正答数の推移図７ 計算の複雑性が高い推論課題正答数の学習前後差

図８に各群の RPM 検査最終６問における反応時間の学習前後変化を示す。実線で表されているのが 帰納的学習群 で、破線 で 表 されているのが 演繹的学習群 である。RPM 検査最終６問の 反応時間 は 二群 をあわせた（正答 がなかった 参加者１名 を 除 いた ）参加者全体 で 学習前後の 変化 がみられず（F（1,14）＝ 1.08, p ＞ 0.3 ）、両群間 の 差 もみられなかった（F（1,14）＝ 0.13,

p ＞ 0.7 ）。しかし、学習前後と群間の交互作用があり（F（1,14）＝ 4.64, p ＜ 0.05 ）、演繹的学習
群 では 反応時間 は 学習前 で21.6秒程度 だったのが 学習後 には18.5秒 に 短縮 したのに 対 し、帰納的学習群 では 学習前 で17.2秒程度 だったのが 学習後 には25.9秒 に 延長 したことが 観察 された。
図９ は 各群 の 学習後 の RPM 検査最終６問 の 反応時間 から 学習前 のそれを 引 いた 結果 である。

144

外国語学習法の非言語的認知機能への影響：
日本語を母語とするドイツ語初習者を対象とした実験的検討

図９にみられるように、反応時間は帰納的学習群の方が有意に延長した（U ＝ 14.0, p ＜ 0.04 ）。
計算 の 複雑性 が 高 い 推論課題 の 反応時間 で は 二群 を あ わ せ た 参加者全体 で 学習前後 に 差がみられなかった（F（1,15）＝ 0.56, p ＞ 0.4 ）。 また、二群 の 反応時間 にも 差 はみられなかった。両群間の差もみられず（F（1,15）＝ 0.26, p ＞ 0.6 ）、学習前後と群間の交互作用もなかった（F（1,15）＝ 0.08, p ＞ 0.7 ）。

帰納的学習群
演繹的学習群

25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0

反応時間の学習前後差
検査最終六問の一問あたりRPM

反応時間︵秒︶
検査最終六問の一問あたりの
RPM

学習群

30.0

5.0
0.0

15
10
5
0
5
10
15

学習前

学習後

学習群

エラーバー：+/‑1 標準誤差

図８ RPM 検査最終六問反応時間の推移

演繹的学習群

帰納的学習群

エラーバー：+/‑1 標準誤差

図９

RPM 検査最終六問反応時間 の 学習
前後差

４. 議論
本論文では、外国語の言語規則を異なる学習様式で学習すると、学習者の外国語の熟達度だ
けでなく、非言語的認知機能にも違いが生じうるのか、バイリンガルや第二言語習得の先行研究を概観するとともに、日本語を母語とするドイツ語初習者を対象としたパイロット実験について検討した。

実験の結果、外国語の熟達度を測るためのドイツ語技能検定とドイツ語文法性判断課題では学習前後で成績があがる傾向があり、その傾向は両群で差がないことがわかった。一方、学習前後の非言語的認知機能の向上は RPM 検査と推論課題の双方でみられなかったが、学習様式
が演繹的か帰納的かによって推論課題の学習前後の変化に一部差がみられた。即ち、認知的負荷 が 大 きいような 計算 の 複雑性 が 高 い 推論課題 では 帰納的学習群 の 学習前後 の 伸 びが 高 かった。また、課題の反応時間の分析から、外国語の熟達度を測る課題のときと、非言語的認知機能を測る課題のとき双方で、演繹的学習群は学習前よりも学習後のほうが短時間で解答したのに対し、帰納的学習群は学習よりも学習後のほうが長時間で解答する傾向がみられた。とくに、ドイツ語技能検定と RPM 検査のときにその有意な傾向や有意差がみられた。

145

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

これらの 結果 から、外国語 の 熟達度 に 関 しては、学習様式 が 演繹的 か 帰納的 かに 関 わらず、両群の参加者はドイツ語の言語規則の学習を通じて、外国語の熟達度の差がなく、同様にドイ
ツ語の成績が向上した可能性が高いといえる。非言語的認知機能に関しては、学習様式が帰納的のときに計算の複雑性が高い推論課題の成績の向上が一部みられた。そして、反応時間に関しては、外国語 の 熟達度 に 関 する 課題 と 非言語的認知機能 を 測 る 課題 いずれも、学習 を 通 じて、演繹的学習群は素早く、帰納的学習群はじっくり解答するようになった可能性が高い。これが、ドイツ語技能検定と RPM 検査のときに限られたのは、それ以外の二つの課題は解答するまでの時間に制限を与えたからであると思われる。

総じて、今回の結果は、外国語の言語規則を異なる学習様式で学習すると、非言語的認知機
能 にも 変化 に 違 いが 生 じうることを 支持 する 結果 といえる。先行研究（Erlam, 2003） で 述 べられているとおり、異 なる 学習様式 は 外国語習得 の 熟達度 には 影響 を 与 えるとはいえなかった。しかし、異なる学習様式は非言語的認知課題の成績向上に影響を与えることが示唆された。

本研究の意義は、新しい言語を学ぶときの学習様式が学習者の実行機能に影響を与える可能性を指摘し、予備的な調査を行なった点にある。バイリンガルが優位性を持つような認知処理には何種類かのものがあることを提唱した先行研究では、メタ言語的気づきには言語の熟達度
が、実行機能 にはバイリンガル 教育 の 年数 が 影響 を 与 えることが 指摘 されている（Bialystok& Barac, 2012）。しかしバイリンガルの実行機能にバイリンガル教育におけるどのような過程が影響したのかは不明であった。またバイリンガルであることが実行機能の成長を促すのではないといった報告のなかでも、将来必要な研究として、ある特定のバイリンガル経験が実行機。こうした問いに答えを与え能に影響する可能性の追求が示唆されていた（Paap et al., 2015）
るためには、教育の過程で特定の学習方法を設定し個々の実行機能の変化を計測することが重要であることを本研究は示したといえる。
一方、本研究は様々な要因で予備的実験であるといえる。まず、参加者の数が少なく、また課題数も少ないため、説明能力が十分とはいえない。かつ、自発的に学習実験に応募した参加者で平均的なドイツ語初習者を代表する参加者群でない可能性もある。今後は効果に関して年
齢やどのような認知特性や学習スタイル・経験を持っているのかという参加者のさらに詳細な
個人要因の検討も必要と思われる。さらに学習後の評価においてドイツ語課題と非言語課題が同セッションで行われているためドイツ語の授業の体験を想起しながら非言語課題に取り組んだ可能性もあり、課題の施行を別々の日に行うことが必要である。実行機能の向上が長期的に続くのかも確認が必要である。
今後はこうした点を修正して研究を発展させる必要がある。まず、外国語学習が、新しい言語 の 知識 やスキルの 獲得 を 促 すに 留 まらず、思考 や 行動様式 そのものを 変化 させること、 さらにそれは 学習様式 によって 違 った 方向性 に 変化 しうるという 可能性 を 追及 する 必要 がある

146

外国語学習法の非言語的認知機能への影響：
日本語を母語とするドイツ語初習者を対象とした実験的検討と 考 える。 この 問題 は、心理学 や 神経科学分野 における、経験 の 結果 として 認知機能 や 脳 の変化 が 起 こり 得 るのかという 問題 にも 通 じる 重要 な 課題 である。 また、非言語的認知機能 を向上 させるような 外国語学習方法 によって 得 られるであろう 学習者 の 技能 が、一般的 な 学習
技能（learning skill） に 通 ずる 汎化可能 なものなのかといった 点 も 熟考 すべき 問題 である。 つまり 外国語学習 によって 培 った 学習者 の 技能 が、 より 一般的 な 学習技能 として 教科間 で 転移

（transfer）しうるかといった検討である。このためには教科横断的取り組みも必要になると思われる。

後者 の 一般的 な 学習技能 の 習得 の 重要性 は 多 くの 教育研究 の 場 で 客観的 な 事実 を 蓄 える 際に 獲得 さ れ る ど の よ う に 学 ぶ か を 学 ぶ と い う 方略、方法知（ learn how to learn） と い っ た

表現 で 論 じられている（Halász & Michel, 2011）。外国語教育研究 の 場 で 一般的 な 学習技能に 関連 が 深 い の は、例 え ば、 ヨ ー ロ ッ パ 言語共通参照枠（Common European Frameworkof Reference for Languages）（Council of Europe, 2001） で、 コ ミ ュ ニ ケ ー シ ョ ン 言語能力
（communicative language competences） の 他 に 必要 で 学習者個人 に か か わ る 一般的 な 能力
（general competences） の 一種 と し て 紹介 さ れ て い る 学習能力（savoir-apprendre, ability tolearn） である。学習能力 は 言語学習 の 動機 を 高 め、学習方略 を 豊 かにするもので、 その 中 にはメタ 言語的気 づき（metalinguistic awareness） に 代表 されるような、言語 とコミュニケー
ションに関する意識、一般的な音声意識と技能の他、勉強技能、発見技能が含まれる。また第二章 で 紹介 した DDL がもともと 目指 している 能力 にこの 方法知 は 含 まれ、確認（ identify）、分類（classify）、一般化（ generalize）を通じて学習者の自律的な思考様式を促進させる（ Johns,
1991）。
外国語学習 で は、 こ の よ う な 学習能力 が 学習者 の 学習 の 基礎 に 育 つ こ と で、言語間、 つ
ま り 新 し い 言語 や 読解 の よ り 容易 な 学習、使用 が 可能 に な る と 考 え ら れ て い る（de Sousa,

Greenop, & Fry, 2010; Kuo & Anderson, 2012）。 また 複言語 を 用 いることでそれが 促進 されるという 報告（ Jessner, 1999） もある。一方、外国語学習 によって 培 った 学習者 の 技能 がより 一般的 な 学習技能 と し て 教科間 で 転移可能 か ど う か の 研究 は 音楽（Moreno, Lee, Janus,& Bialystok, 2015; Patel, 2003）、算数（Vukovic & Lesaux, 2013b）、統計 や 幾何（Vukovic &Lesaux, 2013a）、科学（Mayer, 2004） についていくつか 存在 するが、今後 より 多 くの 研究 によって証明されなければならないといえる。
また、外国語学習技能がより一般的な学習技能として汎化可能である場合があるならば、それはなぜなのか、 についても 明 らかにされなければならない 。例 えば 音楽 と 言語 は 別々 の 表

現型だが認知資源を共有しているからといった説明（Patel, 2003）や、メタ手続き的なより抽象的な言語能力に依存するといった説明（Karmiloff-Smith, 1979）があるが今後の実証が待た
れる。

147

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

さらに、 どのような 方法 で 学習能力 を 伸 ばしていけばよいかについての 研究 も 必要 である。
このような能力は、学ぶべき内容、ものごとの構成と使用の原理原則に関する客観的な事実や知識の学習や理解なしには培われず、豊富な知識に根差した上で、それまでの知識に新しい経験を統合（synthesize）することで、相互補完的に伸長するものと考えられている（Perkins &Salomon, 1989）。そのため、学習時には対象の使用に対する理解や感性を伸ばすような内容を使用すべきであり、機械的な暗記学習、空虚な内容を提示し方略のみを明示的に学ばせるような学習、演繹的学習法や帰納的学習法への偏りも避けるべきであろう。そして最適な学習方法
は学習者個人により異なりうるという点も考慮すべき点である。

以上のような問題は外国語学習や教科学習をどのようにすべきかといった教育政策においても重要な課題だと考えられる。

148

外国語学習法の非言語的認知機能への影響：
日本語を母語とするドイツ語初習者を対象とした実験的検討

引用文献

Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A Systematic Review and MetaAnalysis of the Cognitive Correlates of Bilingualism. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 207245. doi:10.3102/0034654310368803
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Knowledge and Skills Needed by SpeechLanguage Pathologists and Audiologists to Provide Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services.

Knowledge and Skills. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/policy/ks2004-00215.htm
Bak, T. H., Long, M. R., Vega-Mendoza, M., & Sorace, A. (2016). Novelty, Challenge, and Practice: The
Impact of Intensive Language Learning on Attentional Functions. PLoS One, 11(4), e0153485.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153485
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for Mind and Brain. Trends

in Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 240-250. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.03.001
Bialystok, E. (2006). Effect of bilingualism and computer video game experience on the Simon task. Can

J Exp Psychol, 60(1), 68-79.
Bialystok, E., & Barac, R. (2012). Emerging bilingualism: Dissociating advantages for metalinguistic
awareness and executive control. Cognition, 122(1), 67-73. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.003
Corder, S. P., & Allen, J. P. B. (1975). Papers in applied linguistics. London: Oxford University Press,
1975.
Costa, A., Hernandez, M., Costa-Faidella, J., & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2009). On the bilingual advantage
in conflict processing: now you see it, now you don’t. Cognition, 113(2), 135-149. doi:10.1016/
j.cognition.2009.08.001
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,

Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Crone, E. A., Wendelken, C., Van Leijenhorst, L., Honomichl, R. D., Christoff, K., & Bunge, S. A.
(2009). Neurocognitive development of relational reasoning. Developmental Science, 12(1), 55-66.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00743.x
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic Interdependence and the Educational Development of Bilingual
Children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222-251. doi:10.3102/00346543049002222
de Sousa, D. S., Greenop, K., & Fry, J. (2010). The effects of phonological awareness of Zulu-speaking
children learning to spell in English: A study of cross-language transfer. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 80(4), 517-533. doi:10.1348/000709910X496429
Ellis, R. (2011). Language Teaching Research and Language Pedagogy. West Sussex, U.K.: WileyBlackwell.
Erlam, R. (2003). The Effects of Deductive and Inductive Instruction on the Acquisition of Direct
Object Pronouns in French as a Second Language. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 242-260.
doi:10.1111/1540-4781.00188
Goel, V., & Dolan, R. J. (2004). Differential involvement of left prefrontal cortex in inductive anddeductive reasoning. Cognition, 93(3), B109-121. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.001

149

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

Gollin, J. (1998). Deductive vs. inductive language learning. ELT Journal, 52(1), 88-89. doi:10.1093/
elt/52.1.88
Halász, G., & Michel, A. (2011). Key Competences in Europe: interpretation, policy formulation andimplementation. European Journal of Education, 46(3), 289-306. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2011.
01491.x
Heit, E., & Rotello, C. M. (2010). Relations between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36 (3), 805-812.
doi:10.1037/a0018784
Isaac, A. M. C., Szymanik, J., & Verbrugge, R. (2014). Logic and Complexity in Cognitive Science. In A.
Baltag & S. Smets (Eds.), Johan van Benthem on Logic and Information Dynamics (pp. 787-824).
Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Janus, M., Lee, Y., Moreno, S., & Bialystok, E. (2016). Effects of short-term music and second-language
training on executive control. J Exp Child Psychol, 144, 84-97. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2015.11.009
Jessner, U. (1999). Metalinguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: Cognitive Aspects of Third Language
Learning. Language Awareness, 8(3-4), 201-209. doi:10.1080/09658419908667129
Johns, T. (1991). Should you be persuaded. Two samples of data-driven learning materials. ELR Journal, 4,
1-16.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., Khemlani, S. S., & Goodwin, G. P. (2015). Logic, probability, and human reasoning.

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(4), 201-214. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.02.006
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). Micro- and Macrodevelopmental Changes in Language Acquisition andOther Representational Systems. Cognitive Science, 3(2), 91-118. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0302_1
Kuo, L.-J., & Anderson, R. C. (2012). Effects of early bilingualism on learning phonological regularities
in a new language. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111 (3), 455-467. doi:10.1016/
j.jecp.2011.08.013
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory : a user’s guide. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Teaching of Subject Matter. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 715-744.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.082602.133124
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The
unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: alatent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol, 41(1), 49-100. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
Moreno, S., Lee, Y., Janus, M., & Bialystok, E. (2015). Short-Term Second Language and Music Training
Induces Lasting Functional Brain Changes in Early Childhood. Child Development, 86(2), 394-406.
doi:10.1111/cdev.12297
Paap, K. R., Johnson, H. A., & Sawi, O. (2015). Bilingual advantages in executive functioning either do
not exist or are restricted to very specific and undetermined circumstances. Cortex, 69, 265-278.
doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.04.014
Patel, A. D. (2003). Language, music, syntax and the brain. Nat Neurosci, 6(7), 674-681. doi:10.1038/nn1082

150

外国語学習法の非言語的認知機能への影響：
日本語を母語とするドイツ語初習者を対象とした実験的検討

Peal, E., & Lambert, W. E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological

Monographs: General and Applied, 76(27), 1-23. doi:10.1037/h0093840
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are Cognitive Skills Context-Bound? Educational Researcher,18(1), 16-25. doi:10.3102/0013189x018001016
Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules : the ingredients of language (1st ed. ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Raven, J. C. (1941). Standardization of progressive matrices, 1938. British Journal of Medical Psychology,

19(1), 137-150. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8341.1941.tb00316.x
Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan Co.
Ricciardelli, L. A. (1992). Bilingualism and cognitive development in relation to threshold theory. Journalof Psycholinguistic Research, 21(4), 301-316. doi:10.1007/bf01067515
Sullivan, M. D., Janus, M., Moreno, S., Astheimer, L., & Bialystok, E. (2014). Early stage second-language
learning improves executive control: evidence from ERP. Brain Lang, 139, 84-98. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.
2014.10.004
W. E., Pratt, C., Herriman, M. L., & Bowey, J. (1984). Metalinguistic Awareness in Children: Theory,

Research, and Implications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Vukovic, R. K., & Lesaux, N. K. (2013a). The language of mathematics: Investigating the ways language
counts for children’s mathematical development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115(2),227-244. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.02.002
Vukovic, R. K., & Lesaux, N. K. (2013b). The relationship between linguistic skills and arithmetic
knowledge. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 87-91. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.007

151慶應義塾の中国語教育における高大連携（1）慶應義塾の中国語教育における高大連携（1）― 全塾懇談会の理念と既習者の扱い

須

山

哲

治

山

下

一

夫

吉

川

龍

生

一、はじめに慶應義塾の一貫教育校・大学で中国語教育を担当する教員の有志が集まり「慶應義塾全塾中
国語担当者懇談会（以下、全塾懇談会）」の第1回会合を開催したのは、2012年の３月のことであった。従来、個別に連絡を取ることはあっても、全体で集まることはなかった塾内の各部門の教員が、ここで初めて集合し、塾内の中国語教育の様々な問題について意見交換を行った。

継続的に会合が開催されるか未定であった第１回会合には、文学部・経済学部・法学部・商学部・理工学部の中国語担当者と、慶應義塾高等学校・慶應義塾女子高等学校・慶應義塾志木i高等学校・慶應義塾湘南藤沢中・高等部 の「一貫教育校」 の 授業担当者（女子高等学校 は 主事も）が参加し、以降の継続的な懇談会開催と、塾内の各部門から最低１人出席することを目指すという方針を確認した。第２回以降では、湘南藤沢キャンパス３学部の中国語担当代表者が参加し、慶應義塾ニューヨーク学院の担当者から送られてきたカリキュラムや履修状況についての情報が紹介され、芝共立キャンパスの薬学部の中国語担当者とも情報共有が図られるよ
うになっていった。また、2016年度から慶應義塾大学外国語教育研究センターの公的な会合として位置づけられるようになった。会場は、参加教員の交通の便を考え、それぞれのキャンパスの「中間地点」ということで、毎回日吉キャンパスが使用されている。第１回以降、各回の詳細は以下の通りである。
第１回

2012年３月２日（金）17：00～19：00
日吉キャンパス慶應義塾高等学校 B 棟地下 1F 第３会議室

第２回

2012年６月６日（水）18：10～20：30

日吉キャンパス来往舎 2F 大会議室

第３回

2013年６月28日（金）18：15～20：30

日吉キャンパス来往舎 2F 大会議室

第４回

2014年６月27日（金）18：30～20：30

日吉キャンパス来往舎 2F 大会議室

第５回

2015年６月25日（木）18：30～20：30

日吉キャンパス来往舎 2F 大会議室

第６回

2016年６月30日（木）18：30～20：30

日吉キャンパス来往舎 2F 中会議室

153

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

全塾懇談会の開催は、各部門の教員によって情報共有の必要性が強く意識されたことが大きな理由となっているが、その中でも特に重要なのが、高校と大学の間の情報交換である。一般の高校では多くの場合、外国語は英語しか学習しないため、大学の第二外国語教育は基本的に未習者 を 想定 して 設計 されている。 しかし 一貫教育校 では 第二外国語 の 教授 が 行 われており、学生が大学でも同じ言語を履修した場合、学部では未習者とは異なる対応が必要になる。多くの学部では、そうした「既習者」を対象とした特別クラスを設置しているが、クラスの規模を決めるには次年度に何人くらいそうした学生が来るのかを予測しておく必要がある。また、授業設計のために一貫教育校でどのような教科書を使い、どのような授業を行ったのかを知っておく必要もある。さらに高校側も、自分たちが送り出す生徒たちが大学でどのように継続して中国語を学習していくのか、また大学は自分たちにどのような教育を期待しているのかといった問題を知らなければならない。

近年さかんに「高大連携」が喧伝されているが、高校と大学の連携と言っても、高校の教員が自分たちの生徒を送り出した先の大学の教員と直接話し合いを持つことは、生徒の進路の多様性を考えると一般には困難を伴う。さらに「連携」を行おうにも、第二外国語教育の場合は実施している高校が非常に少ないため、大学側は対象者・対象校を見つけることが難しい。しかし慶應義塾であれば、一貫教育校で第二外国語教育を行っている上に、卒業生の大部分がそのまま大学に進学して来るため、直接的な連携が可能となる。その意味で、全塾懇談会の試み
は、「高大連携」の活動の一つと捉えることもできるだろう。
そこで 本稿 では、全塾懇談会 の 試 みを 通 して 検討 された、慶應義塾 の 中国語教育 における「既習者」問題 の 現状 の 一端 を 報告 することで、第二外国語教育 における 高大連携 について 考
えてみたいと思う。なお、全塾懇談会参加者でも、もちろんそれぞれの教育に対する考え方は異 なっており、全体 の 総意 のようなものを 形成 しているわけではないし、 またその 必要 もない。本稿 は 全塾懇談会 の 許可 を 得 た 上 で 執筆者 が 個人 の 発想 ないし 見解 を 述 べるものであり、内容についても全塾懇談会ではなく、執筆者が責任を負うものであることは諒解されたい。
二、一貫教育校と既習者
慶應義塾の一貫教育校には、初等教育を行う幼稚舎・横浜初等部、前期中等教育を行う普通部・中等部・湘南藤沢中等部、後期中等教育 を 行 う 高等学校・女子高等学校・志木高等学校・
湘南藤沢高等部・ニューヨーク学院がある。この中で、初等教育や前期中等教育を担当する学校でも、単発的な講座を実施したり、中華圏の学校と交流を行ったりと、中国語に関わる教育が行われていて、慶應義塾全体の中国語教育の中で果たしている役割は決して小さくないと思われるが、ひとまず本稿では検討の範囲としない。

大学教育と直接接続しているのは、後期中等教育に関わる５つの学校である。いずれも卒業

154

慶應義塾の中国語教育における高大連携（1）

生は原則的に各学校長の推薦によって全員が慶應義塾大学に進学する。これらの学校で行われている中国語授業の2016年度の授業設置状況は以下の通りである（なお本項での１コマは50分である）。

（1）高等学校◦

２年生：全員が必修選択科目として第二外国語を履修、週２コマ◦

３年生：希望者が自由選択科目として第二外国語を履修、週３コマ（2）女子高等学校◦

２・３年生：全員が必修選択科目として第二外国語を履修

２年生：週２コマ
３年生：週３コマ（3）志木高等学校「総合的 な 学習 の 時間」 で、２年生 は 設置 されている24言語 の 中 から 興味 のある 語種 を選んで履修、半年間週２コマ。またそれ以外に、自由参加である１年間週１コマの「語学課外講座」も設置。
（4）湘南藤沢高等部◦

３年生：全員が必修選択科目として第二外国語を履修

Ⅰ類（文系科目主体）：週４コマ
Ⅱ類（理系科目主体）：週２コマ（5）ニューヨーク学院
選択科目の「外国語」で、２・３年生共に「中国語Ⅰ」および「中国語Ⅱ」を履修可能。
各学年１年間４コマ。なお「外国語」は、中国語以外ではスペイン語のみ設置。
次に大学の各学部の状況を見てみよう。多くの学部で第二外国語は選択必修科目、すなわち各語種の中から一つ以上を履修し、進級・卒業要件となる科目として設置されている。またそれ以外に、必修ではない選択科目なども多数存在する。前者についての各学部の中国語の設置状況は以下の通りとなる（なお本項での１コマは90分である。また、文学部・経済学部・法学部の３学部には「通信教育課程」も設置されているが、本稿では扱わない。なお、経済学部の通信教育課程には中国語は設置されていない）。

155慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

（1）文学部◦

１年：週３コマ◦２年：週２コマ「第二外国語選択必修」 ではなく、英語・ ドイツ 語・ フランス 語・中国語・朝鮮語・ ス
ペイン語・ロシア語・イタリア語・日本語（留学生のみ）の中からの「２言語」の選択必修。

（2）経済学部◦

１年：週３コマ６単位◦

２～４年：２～４単位（２単位＝通年週１コマ / 半期集中週２コマ）

２年次に第三外国語として１年次に履修した第二外国語以外の言語を週２コマ４単位履
修可。
（3）法学部◦

レギュラーコース：１～２年：週２コマ◦

インテンシブコース：１～２年：週４コマ、３年：週３コマ。

（4）商学部◦

１～２年：週２コマ◦

インテンシブコース：１～２年：週３コマ「第二外国語選択必修」 ではなく、英語・ ドイツ 語・ フランス 語・中国語・ スペイン 語の中からの「２言語」の選択必修。

（5）理工学部◦

１年：週２コマ（6）総合政策学部・環境情報学部「第二外国語選択必修」 ではなく、「１年生・２年生 で 外国語科目 を 一定単位以上履修」（2014年度以降の入学者）という制度。そのうち中国語は、インテンシブコース１期・２期・、ベーシックコース１期・２期・３期（各半年間週２コマ）。
３期・４期（各半年間週４コマ）
なおこれ 以外 の 学部 だと、医学部 では １年生 の 時 に 第二外国語 の 履修 が 必修 となっている
が、ドイツ語かフランス語しか選べず、また薬学部や看護医療学部では第二外国語は必修とはなっていない。

上記の必修科目の履修者は、前章でも述べたとおり大多数が未習者であるが、大学入学以前に何らかの形で中国語を学んだ、以下のような「既習者」もいる。

１．一貫教育校で中国語の授業を履修した者
２．一貫教育校以外の高等学校、あるいはそれに相当する国内外の後期中等教育学校で中国

156

慶應義塾の中国語教育における高大連携（1）語の授業を履修した者
３．専修学校・市民講座・放送講座などで中国語を学習した者
４．中国語母語・準母語話者（いわゆる「ネイティブ」「ニア・ネイティブ」）
この中で、圧倒的多数を占めるのはやはり１である。2016年度で見ると、大学学部新入生約6500名のうち、一貫教育校出身者は1400名弱である。従って、中には高校で選んだのとは異な
ii

る 言語 を 大学 で 学 ぶ 学生 も 多少存在 するものの 、単純計算 すると 大学 の 必修中国語履修者 の２割程度を１が占めることになる。これに対して、２～４は相対的に人数が少ない。そのため、学部の既習者クラスも基本的には一貫教育校出身者を念頭に設計し、２や３の学生については
１に合わせて割り振るという方式が採られている（なお４の中国語母語・準母語話者の問題については後述）。
この既習者クラスの設計に、全塾懇談会で共有された情報が役立てられることが想定されている。具体的には、一貫教育校での履修者数の動向に基づいて、どのくらいの学生が集まるか事前にある程度の予測を立て、クラス規模を調整している。加えて、高校側でどのような教科書を用い、どのようなアプローチで授業を行ったかをもとに、学習内容がこれとうまく接続するよう、既習者クラスの授業内容を調整するのである。

三、大学における既習者クラスの設定
さて、各学部の必修外国語科目における中国語既習者クラスの設置状況は以下の通りである。

（1）文学部：１年生週３コマの必修では、既習者をレベルによって「中級クラス」と「上級クラス」とに、また２年生週２コマの必修では「上級クラス」と「最上級クラス」とに振り分ける（１年生「上級クラス」と２年生「最上級クラス」は、外国語教育研究セン
ター設置科目、後述）。

（2）経済学部：１年週３コマの必修では、同レベルの既習者がなるべく同じクラスになるよ
うに、年度ごとに状況を見て調整を行う。

（3）法学部：１～２年週２コマのレギュラーコースでは、既習者を「既習者クラス」と外国語教育研究センター設置科目（後述）とに振り分ける。
（4）商学部：既習者 クラスは 設置 していない。既習者 については、本人 の 希望 とレベルによって、外国語教育研究センター設置科目などを履修させる。

（5）理工学部：１年週２コマの必修では、既習者を「既習者クラス」に振り分ける。
（6）総合政策学部・環境情報学部：インテンシブコース１期・２期・３期・４期（各半年間
週４ コマ ）、 ベーシックコース １期・２期・３期（各半年間週２ コマ ） は、 どちらも 学157慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

部独自の「検定試験」に合格することでコース途中からの履修を認めており、既習者にはこの制度を利用して自分にあったレベルを選択させる。

大学の授業で言えば、例えば歴史や漢文のような科目でも、未習者と既習者の間には大きな相違があるはずだが、そうした授業では既習者クラスのようなものは設定されていない。にもかかわらず中国語で既習者クラスが設定されているのは、初級・中級・上級と段階的な学習を設計している以上、初級をすでに終えた学生には中級の授業を提供すべきであるという教学理
念に基づいている。そしてそれを可能としているのは、一貫教育校を擁することで常に一定数の既習者が入学して来るという、慶應義塾に特有の環境である。また、中国語は進級・卒業要件に関わる科目となるため、学生たちに対して成績の上での公平性を担保するという問題も関わっている。
これら一貫教育校出身者を主体とする既習者は、学習者全体の中ではあくまでも少数派である。しかし、人材育成という観点からは、決しておろそかにしてはならない存在である。一つの外国語を、研究や仕事に用いるのに充分な水準まで引き上げるには、３年間～４年間の時間が 必要 だが、未習者 の 場合、 そこまで 到達 するのに 学部 の 時間 のほとんどを 使 うことになる。
こうした 事情 は、英語一辺倒 を 唱 える 一部 の 人々 にとって、「 コストパフォーマンスの 悪 さ 」
iiiとして 映 り 、
「第二外国語 は 結局習得 できないのだから、 その 時間 は 英語 の 強化 に 使 うべきだ」などという主張の根拠とされてしまう。しかし既習者であれば、大学入学の時点で１年～２年の学習を経てきているため、未習者よりも在学中の早い段階で高い水準に到達できる可能性が高い。また、そうした学生が周囲に存在することは、大学入学後に当該言語の学習を始めた学生たちにとっても大きな刺激となり得る。

四、中国語母語・準母語話者
前章で触れた４の中国語母語・準母語話者の存在の問題も、全塾懇談会を通じてより明確になったことである。従って、このことも全塾懇談会の成果の一つと言えるので、併せてここで紹介しておきたい。
まず、中国語母語・準母語話者の存在は、中国語教育において特徴的な問題といえる。もちろん、大学 で 第二外国語 として 設置 されているどの 言語 であっても、 いわゆる「 ネイティブ 」の学生は存在する。ただ、日本国内においては近年、中華圏にルーツを持つ人口が増加傾向にあるため、例えばフランス語やドイツ語などのヨーロッパ諸語に比べると、中国語の母語・準母語話者は桁外れに多い。
こうした中国語母語・準母語話者が大学の第二外国語で中国語を履修することを許可しないという発想は当然あり得る。
「楽に単位を取得するためだろう」というわけである。もちろん、

158

慶應義塾の中国語教育における高大連携（1）

そうした場合もかなり存在することは事実だが、ただ全員が「不純な動機」に基づくというわけでもないようである。中国語母語・準母語話者と言っても、中国語の能力にはかなりの開きがある。その中には中等教育を日本語で受けたため、中国語を話すことはできても読み書きに不安があるから、大学の必修科目で第二外国語を勉強しなければならないのであれば、ぜひそれを 利用 して 自分 の 中国語 を 強化 したいと、真剣 に 考 えて 履修 しようとする 学生 も 少 なくない。もちろん、そうしたあり方は必修選択外国語科目の理念に反するとして認めていない学部もある。しかし一方で本人のいわばセールスポイントとなる中国語をサポートすることは、教育上決して悪い選択ではないという考え方もあるだろう。
問題は、そうした場合の受け皿である。この種の学生は、一般の日本人学生では数年かけても到達が難しいような、かなり高度な会話力を有している。しかしその反面、中国語のローマ

字発音表記などは不得意なこともあり、高校から中国語学習を始めた学生を前提とする既習者
クラスでは対応が難しくなることが多い。
だからと言って、ローマ字発音表記を未習者クラスで学習させようとしても、うまくいかな
い。当人にとっては「発音は理解しているが、どう表記するのか解らない」という問題なのに対 し、未習者 クラスの 授業 では「中国語 の 発音 を 習得 するための 道具」 として 使 われるので、両者の間には大きな齟齬が生じるからである。また中国語母語・準母語話者と言っても、教科書で教えるような「標準的な発音」の学生は稀で、何らかの方言的要素を有していることが多いが、そうした学生に教員が発音矯正を行うのはあまり意味がない。加えて、さらに事情を知らない 未習者 がそれを 見 て、「中国人 の 発音 が 教科書 と 違 う 」 ことに 違和感 を 覚 え、授業 への信頼をなくしたりすることもあり、教育効果は決して高くない。
唯一の解決策としては、こうした中国語母語・準母語話者に特化した授業を別に作るということになる。ただ、現状では学生数が少なく、学部単独では設置が難しいため、学部横断組織である慶應義塾大学外国語教育研究センターの特設科目として開講し、各学部が乗り入れるという形にしている。中国語母語・準母語話者に必修選択第二外国語として中国語の履修を認めていない学部も、そうした学生に対しては選択科目として履修することを勧めている。
なおこの 問題 は、一見 すると「高大連携」 とは 関係 しないように 思 われるかもしれないが、実はそうではない。全塾懇談会の結果、各一貫教育校にもこのような中国語母語・準母語話者の生徒が存在することが明らかになったからである。彼らは、塾全体における中国語母語・準母語話者の数から見れば、割合としては少数かもしれないが、しかし確実に一定数存在することもまた事実である。

一貫教育校の中国語母語・準母語話者の生徒の中には、自らの中国語能力に対して、完全な自信 を 持 っていない 者 も 当然 ながら 存在 する。特 に、上述 のように「日常会話 は 問題 ないが、読み書きは苦手」という者が多い。そうした生徒の多くが、大学入学後に自分の中国語入力の159

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

不足を補ってくれるような中国語の教育が受けられるのか否か、不安を感じている。上述した、大学各学部の中国語母語・準母語話者への対応状況を一貫教育校と情報共有することで、こうした生徒への対応もより十全なものとなり得る。これもまた全塾懇談会の「高大連携」に対する成果の一つと言えよう。

五、おわりに「高大連携」は、1999年に中央教育審議会が提出した答申（中央教育審議会（1999））を契機とする。答申 で 触 れられている 具体的 な 方法 をもとに、「高校生 の 大学 での 聴講」、「大学教員の高校での出張授業」、「高校生向けの大学のオープンキャンパス」といった動きが2000年代前iv

半 に 急速 に 拡大 した 。 しかし、高校側 は 生徒 の 進学率 を 高 める 材料 として、 また 大学側 は 入
試広報活動の一環として利用しているだけという側面もあり、これによって「大学教育へのス
ムーズな移行」という高大連携の理念が本当に「達成」されたと、手放しで賞賛できるようなv

性質のものではないように思われる 。
教育研修事業財団（2011） は、 こうした 活動 の 問題点 として、（1）高校生 は 正規 の 授業以外の 時間 で 参加 することになり、様々 な 点 で 負担 となること、（2）高校教員 との 個人的 な 繋 がりに基づきボランティアで行われることが多いため、そうした関係を有する一部の大学教員に負担 が 集中 する 傾向 にあること、（3）高校生 の 学力向上 が 主眼 となっており、大学生 の 学力向上を目指すという視点が欠けていること、の３点を指摘している。

注目すべきは（3）であろう。学習者が高校で学んだ内容をスムーズに大学での学習に移行できるカリキュラムを、教育目標の異なる高校と大学が違いを乗り越え、協力して作り上げていく全塾懇談会の試みは、この問題に対する答えの一つだと言えるだろう。もちろん、まだまだ暗中模索といった側面もあるが、今後も着実に続け、発展させて行きたいと考えている。
なお本稿では、字数の関係もあって、全塾懇談会で議論されている既習者クラスの使用教材
や、授業内容の設計の問題については詳しく触れることができなかった。こうした問題については、また稿を改めて検討したい。

160

慶應義塾の中国語教育における高大連携（1）参考文献
中央教育審議会（1999）「初等中等教育 と 高等教育 との 接続 の 改善 について（答申）」、http://www.mext.

go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chuuou/toushin/ 991201.htm、2016年８月23日閲覧。
勝野頼彦（2004）『高大連携とは何か―高校教育から見た現状・課題・展望』、学事出版。
堀茂樹（2005）「多言語主義 について ―英語以外 の 外国語 を（ も ）教 える 理由」、平高史也・古石篤子・
山本純一（編）『外国語教育のリ・デザイン 慶應 SFC の現場から』、慶應義塾大学出版会、pp.9 ⊖ 27。
教育研修事業財団（2011）「新しい 教育 の 流 れとして拡大 する 高大連携についての調査研究～高大連携の現状 と 課題、将来 への 提言～【現状報告】」、http://aef.or.jp/_src/sc632 / 2010.0981408D8291E598A8Cg
81408CBB8FF395F18D90.pdf、2016年８月23日閲覧。
日本経済団体連合会（2013）「世界を 舞台 に 活躍 できる人 づくりのために― グローバル人材 の 育成 に 向 け
たフォローアップ提言―」、http://www.keidanren.or.jp/policy/ 2013 / 059_honbun.pdf、2016年８月23日閲覧。
境一三・冶山純子・平高史也・丸田千花子・山下一夫・吉川龍生（2015）「慶應義塾 の 第二外国語教育 における 高校・大学 の 連携 についての 意識調査― フランス 語・ ドイツ 語・ スペイン 語・中国語 の 調査

結果 の 概要 と 分析」、『外国語一貫教育 における 複言語・複文化能力育成 に 関 する 研究（研究課題番号
24242018）平成24年度～平成26年度科学研究費補助金基盤研究（A）研究成果報告書』、pp.16 ⊖ 71。
高大接続 システム 改革会議（2016）『高大接続 システム 改革会議「最終報告」』、http://www.mext.go.jp/

component/b_menu/shingi/toushin/__icsFiles/afieldfile/ 2016 / 06 / 02 /1369232_01_2.pdf、2016年８月
20日閲覧。

注i

一貫教育校とは、慶應義塾の中で初等教育・前期中等教育・後期中等教育を担当する学校を指す。

ii

この問題については、境一三・冶山純子・平高史也・丸田千花子・山下一夫・吉川龍生（2015）を参照。

iii

多言語主義を主張している堀（2005）は、英語の汎用性を強調し、第二外国語不要論を唱える人々が、
この「英語以外 の 外国語 を 学 ぶコストパフォーマンスの 悪 さ 」 を 論拠 の 一 つとして 挙 げていると 述 べ
ている。

iv

2000年代初頭における高大連携の議論については勝野頼彦（2004）を参照。

v

なお 高大連携 については、経団連 が2013年 に 発表 した 提言 に 基 づき、「 グローバル 人材育成」 のための「高大接続 テスト 」 の 導入 という 議論 に 進 んでいるが、本論 ではこの 問題 には 立 ち 入 らない。日本

経済団体連合会（2013）、高大接続システム改革会議（2016）などを参照。

161

网络流行句式 “一言不合就～” 的意义扩张

网络流行句式 “一言不合就〜” 的意义扩张
嚴

馥

一. 前言
“一言不合” 描写双方沟通时话不投机的情况。“一言” 指〈一句话〉，“不合” 表示〈合不来、不和〉之意。《中国語大辞典》将其列为词条，释义为〈話がうまく合わない〉，并举例如下。
（1） 他们倆说着说着，一言不合就吵了起来１。
（2） 一言不合斗起口来。《儿女・39》［《中国語大辞典》（下），東京：角川书店，1994年，3666页］“一言不合” 的标注是［成］，但该词典的［成］除成语之外，还包括具有成语形式的词语，因此无法完全断定 “一言不合” 是否真的属于成语。笔者另外调查的成语词典及汉语词典２都没
有收录。因此，“一言不合” 这四个字现今只能看作词与词的组合，尚未归类为成语。
“一言不合” 在句子里，除了像例（3）这样单独使用之外，如例（4）、例（5）所示，也常跟副词 “就” 或 “便” 一起搭配使用。而且，人们在不能达成共识时，往往会发生冲突，因此 “一言不合”
后面会出现带负面意义的词语，如例（3）的 “成仇”、例（4）的 “相打” 和例（5）的 “拳脚相加”。
（3） 我们现在是要好的，万一将来一言不合，翻转面来，何苦为好成仇，弄到一场没趣？
３［清・张春帆，《九尾龟》，上海：上海古籍出版社，1990年，18页］（4） 海明威性喜打猎，富有所谓 “男子汉气概”，在酒巴间中饮酒时，一言不合，就要与
人相打。［董鼎山，〈酒癖无助灵感〉，《读书》，北京：生活・读书・新知三联书店，
1981年，97页］４（5） 一言不合便拳脚相加，兵刃相见。［陆文夫，《人之窝》，上海：上海文艺出版社，1995年，261页］５

最近在网络中经常出现像例（4）那种 “一言不合” 加上副词 “就～” 的搭配，只不过，后接的词语并不带任何负面意义，跟典型用法不同，如例（6）所示。句子里的搭配虽然没有语法上的
错误，但 “跳舞” 很难跟言语上的争执扯上关系，大多数的情况下，都是人们带着欢愉的心情进

163

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

行的动作，因此这种搭配，在语义上存在着很大的矛盾。

（6） 为什么印度电影里一言不合就跳舞？６
语言是活的，并非永远固定不变，“一言不合” 跟 “就” 的搭配因为某种契机产生意义与用法上的变化，而且在网络的世界里，类似例（6）的使用越来越频繁，甚至延伸到电视媒体里，引发了众多的关注。俨然成为一个网络流行新句式。
这些网络流行新句式虽然形成一股势不可当的风潮，但尚未完全固定，因此在教学时，教师势必会把例（6）这种牛头不对马嘴的句子判成病句，要求学习者进行修改。只不过，使用网络的汉语学习者与日俱增，脱离教科书进入真实的汉语世界后，必定会接触到网络上流行的新句式，
因此对于其使用和意义的变化也有必要加以探讨。在看似随意发生的意义变化里，是否存在着某种规律？本文从语言学的角度，使用语义扩张的概念来分析网络流行句式 “一言不合就～”，对其扩张意义以及扩张意义结构进行考察。

二. 多义词的语义扩张认知语言学认为多义词的每个意义之间绝非独立的，而是互有关联的。卢植（2006：167）指出 “词的意思组成一个集合，而该集合的结构是一种放射状网络（racial network），这意味着这样的网络有一个中心点，不同词义从该中心点出发向不同方向辐射出去”。
位于网络中心点的词义被称为原型词义。原型词义是我们在想象这个词的意思时首先想到的７
那个词义（卢植，2006：186）。松本（2003：141 ⊖ 143）
指出原型词义具备最基本、熟习程度及凸显程度最高等特征。此外，在用法上不带限制，或者相对来说限制较少。
关于在整个放射状网络中，其他的词义跟原型词义之间的连接问题，卢植（2006：167）提到 “认知语言学使用四种不同的过程来集中分析和探讨这个普通范畴中的多个成分之间的关联：
转喻、隐喻、特化和概括”。换句话说，非典型词义的出现是建立在这四种认知的基础上的。
８认为考察多义词时的主要课题有三。
综上所述，籾山（2002：101）（1）决定原型词义、（2）分

析各项意义间的关系、（3）厘清语义的放射状网络结构。本文欲探讨的 “一言不合就～” 的句式
是词与词的组合，其意义扩张就如同多义词语义扩张的放大版。因此，下面也逐步按照上述的三个项目来分析其在意义方面的扩张情况。

三. “一言不合就〜” 的原型意义 ＜一句话说得不投合，立刻〜＞“一言不合就～” 的原型意义就是以往通用的、收录在词典里的、未经过扩张变化前的意义。
笔者认为其原型意义里包含五个意义成分：164网络流行句式 “一言不合就～” 的意义扩张〈沟通双方〉〈口头〉〈失败〉〈立刻〉〈负面动作 / 状态〉“一言不合” 表示〈一句话说得不投合〉９，为符合这个词义，首先需要两个沟通者，而且双
方是用口头进行沟通。另外还包括双方沟通不顺利之后失败的部分。副词 “就” 表示〈立刻～〉，
也就是双方在一言不合之后立即出现另一种情况。一般来说，沟通失败之后，都不会发生什么好事，因此 “一言不合就～” 后接的词语所表示的动作或状态会带着负面意义。上述曾提及，大多数的是像例（7）和例（8）那种表示语言或肢体冲突的词语，有时也会出现例（9）和例（10），仅
表示某一方的负面情绪等的词语。

（7） 包不同爱和人争辩，却不问亲疏尊卑，一言不合，便争个没了没完。［金庸，《天龙八部》（四），北京：生活・读书・新知三联书店，1994年，1573页］10（8） 众人均知南海鳄神是段延庆的死党，但一言不合，便即取了他性命，凶残狠辣，当真是世所罕见，眼看到这般情状，无不惴惴。［金庸，《天龙八部》（五），北京：生活・读书・新知三联书店，1994年，1866页］11（9） 对天气与情绪，并没有必要盖棺论定。只是反观现下高温天，为什么一言不合就动怒？［《新民晚报》、2016年08月23日］12（10） 问题是聊天的对象不认识，又看不到对方脸部表情，下笔若稍不斟酌，一言不合，误
会就发生了。［中央研究院平衡语料库］13
三. “一言不合就〜” 的扩张意义
３.１

扩张意义（1）＜思想・观念不一致，立刻〜＞

根据网友的说法 14，“一言不合就～” 起源于下面这两个句子。
（11） 一言不合就飙车 15。
（12） 一言不合就开车 16。
在这里的重要关键是 “飙车” 和 “开车”。这两个词在网络世界里有了新的解释。百度曾因卖掉网吧的行为受到众多网友的抗议。网友发无意义的贴子、黄图、网盘等去爆吧，用这些行为来表达不满情绪。在爆吧时产生了 “老司机（开车）带你上路” 这样的说法。“老司机” 本指富有经
验、相当熟悉路况的驾驶者，“上路” 指启程、动身出发到目的地。通过隐喻的手法，“老司机”
被比喻为熟悉网络操作的吧友，“上路” 成为开始运用各项手段达到爆吧的目的，而 “飙车” 或是“开车” 则被用来表示各种让网吧停止营运的行为，比如在网上发一些种子、网盘等特殊资源等等。在 “大家知道钢琴吧被百度卖掉了嘛” 中，出现了下面的说法。

165慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

（13） 被卖了70万，空降了一枚吧主，现在吧友很不爽在飙车呢 17。
（14） 以最近 “钢琴吧” 为例，百度以三十万价格卖给一个钢琴店的老板，钢琴吧的所有吧务在贴吧空降吧主后集体罢工，如今的钢琴吧整个乱套了，不少吧友通过 “开车” 的
方式表示抗议 18。

老司机

开车

带你

上路

老经验的驾驶者驾驶车辆乘客

动身前往目的地

↓

↓

↓

↓

老经验的吧友发黄图、网盘等行为经验浅的吧友达到爆吧目的［表１］ “开车” 的隐喻用法形成过程另外还有一种说法，同样跟爆吧有关。那是起因于一场世界电子游戏竞技大赛。据说某次世界电子游戏竞技大赛的举办方的态度引起 DOTA2 观众不满，观众就跑去爆其百度贴吧，让百度贴吧自动封吧。表示爆吧行为的 “开车” 的新用法，被套用到 “一言不合就～” 句式里，慢慢扩张之后就形成现在的网络流行新句式。
这个扩张意义跟原型意义的用法相较后，可以发现〈口头〉及〈负面动作 / 状态〉这两处发生了变化。“一言不合” 的原型意义的用法将沟通形式限定为口头沟通，但是到了扩张意义（1）时，
不再局限在口头沟通上。在上述的事件发展中，很难完全排除亲自通过口头进行沟通的网民，然而大多数的吧友应该只通过观察对方的态度和行为就心生不满，并无直接交流。换句话说，在 “一言不合就开车” 的句子里，沟通双方仍然存在，但沟通方式有所改变，由口语上的交流变成观察。
再者，表示〈负面动作 / 状态〉的词语性质也发生变化。“开车” 是以通过隐喻手法产生的新意义进入 “一言不合就～” 的句式里，这个新意义带有进行破坏的负面意义，与典型用法的 “一言不合” 要求的〈负面动作 / 状态〉契合，因此能顺利进入这个句式，不至于让人感觉突兀。然而，“开车” 的原义是〈驾驶机动车〉，并不具备任何价值色彩，属于中性意义的词语。而这个中性意义在后来的意义扩张里被焦点化，因此，在 “一言不合就～” 的后面，除了原本要求的负面意义的词语之外，一些不带任何价值色彩的词语，甚至通过解释还能成为带有正面价值的词语也
都出现了。
比如例（15）的 “卖萌”。这个词原为动漫用语，从〈使动漫角色刻意装萌样讨好观众〉，引申出〈故作可爱状，藉以讨好他人〉或是〈故意作秀〉或〈无知〉等贬义。这个词语带有嘲讽或轻蔑的意思，算不上正面意义的词语。但是为了不让场面太难看，年轻女孩常用装可爱这种战术来缓解局面，从某种观点来看，这也可以算是一种处世智慧。跟上述的 “开车” 的破坏行为相比，“卖萌” 的负面意义相对地淡化许多。也就是说，在经过意义扩张后，后接词语不再需要是表示

166

网络流行句式 “一言不合就～” 的意义扩张负面意义的动作或状态。此点在后续介绍的其他的扩张意义里更为明显。

（15） 道理讲不通的时候，卖萌是最好的武器。一言不合就给你卖萌。19
综上所述，扩张意义（1）转变成 “沟通双方在思想・观念不一致时，立刻进行某种行为”。
跟原型意义相比，在沟通方式和最后出现的词语性质上发生了变化。其意义成分如下：〈沟通双方〉〈不限口头〉〈失败〉〈立刻〉〈不限负面动作 / 状态〉
３.２

扩张意义（2）＜总是＞“一言不合” 的 “言” 字，表示句式里存在〈沟通双方〉和〈口头〉上的沟通这两个重要环节。
但到了扩张意义（2）里，原本重要的组合成分不再被焦点化。与此同时，诱发 “一言不合” 的后续动作的契机也改变了。本该是失败的沟通，现在变成某个特定的事态。换句话说，整个句式的意思，从 “一碰到话说得不投合的情况，就立刻进行某行为”，转变为 “一碰到某个特定情况，就立刻产生某行为”。扩张意义（2）的意义成分变更如下：〈特定事态〉〈立刻〉〈不限负面动作 / 状态〉（16） 现在的人啊，一言不合就秀恩爱，看看这才叫真正的浪漫，爱情的小船说开就开！20“秀” 为英语的 show 的音译，表示〈故作～状〉。在例（16）里的 “秀恩爱” 完全是 “现在的人”
的单方面行为，无所谓沟通不沟通，当然也不存在口头的沟通方式。既然沟通双方和口头的沟通
都消失，自然也不会出现沟通时的不顺利，所以 “秀恩爱” 这个动作的契机不是沟通上的失败，而只是指一种特定的、经常发生的事态。每个不同的语境都有其不同的触点，根据网络里贴在例（16）下方影片内容可以得知，特定事态是跟另一半同时出现在公众场合的情况。换句话说，现代人习惯一到众人面前，就马上炫耀亲密关系、彰显美好的恋情或幸福的婚姻。扩张意义（2）的 “一言不合就～” 变成〈一有机会就～、动不动就～、总是〉之意。
此外，扩张意义（2）里的后续动作也不局限于带负面意义的词语。例（16）的 “秀恩爱” 还带点嘲讽的意味，但例（17）的 “发自拍”，就属于中性词语，完全不带任何正面或负面的价值。
（17） 后来一个中国人找我聊天，忽然间有找到同胞的感觉，就加 QQ 聊了起来。……。
他去过别的国家留学，见识很广，然后认识很多朋友，说真的，在他身上学到很多东
西，一切都挺好的，本来是值得深交的朋友。结果剧情来个一百八十度大转变，……

167

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

他来了句很自然的话，发自拍给我看看呗。我瞬间傻眼了，发自拍干嘛，又不和你相亲，我长什么样和我们聊天有什么关系吗？
貌？

还是说你和一个人交朋友看的是她的外

……。所以，不要一言不合就要我发自拍，好吗？ 21

文章的作者写到在网上与新朋友结识的经过。在这段记述里，存在着两个人进行口头上的沟通，但纯属情感交流，并非起争执，亦非思想上的对立，自然也没有因沟通不良而失败的局面。
在典型的 “一言不合就～” 句式的意义成分里存在的〈沟通双方〉、〈不限口头〉、〈失败〉均不复见。
根据前后文可以得知，这位在网上认识的朋友，跟人聊得尽兴之际，就习惯要求看对方的长相。换句话说，只要一触动了 “网聊” 这个特定的事态，立刻就会启动 “要求发自拍” 的行为。
发自拍本身没有什么负面的意思，至此，不带任何价值色彩的词语也能顺利进入 “一言不合就～”的句式里。文章最后之所以产生厌恶或抱怨的语感，完全是因为作者对网友的态度不以为然，跟词语本身性质无关。

（18） 很多人发自拍的时候，网友们会纷纷地吐槽说，有事好说干嘛发自拍。所以才有一句
话叫做一言不合就发自拍。有些星座的确是这样的，动不动就喜欢发自拍，在群聊里发自拍，在朋友圈里发自拍，在微博上发自拍，一有机会就发自拍，他们是哪些星座
呢？ 22

在例（18）的星座解说里的 “一言不合就发自拍” 后面，作者还加上 “动不动就～” 和 “一有机会就～” 两个替代词语来解释前述的 “一言不合就～” 的情况。从此例更可清楚得知，扩张意义（2）的 “一言不合就～” 的语义已转变为 “总是在某特定事态发生时，立刻产生某种行为”。
３.３扩张意义（3）＜冷不防地、突然＞到了扩张意义（3），“一言不合就～” 的原型意义里的前三个组合成分消失殆尽，与此同时，〈立刻〉这个部分被大大地焦点化。前者的扩张意义（2）尚保留了诱发后续动作的契机，但在扩张意义（3）里，做任何动作时的理由已完全不列入考虑。整个句式的意思也因此转变为 “没有任何铺垫就立刻进行某行动”。扩张意义（3）的意义成分如下：〈立刻〉〈不限负面行为 / 状态〉（19） 一言不合就裁员！

168

科技公司让你走人的 N 种理由 23。

网络流行句式 “一言不合就～” 的意义扩张

例（19）是文章标题，文章的内容描述大公司会因为任何看似不可抗力的理由来解雇员工，而且是在无预警的状况下。雇主和雇员之间没有任何沟通，“裁员” 也无关乎沟通的成功或失败。
整个句式所要传达的只有突然被开除的那种震惊。
此外，在这个 “一言不合就～” 句式里，后面不仅能出现带有负面意义的词语，也能出现如
例（20）里的 “唱歌” 和 “跳舞”，不带任何价值色彩的中性意义词语。
（20） 提到印度电影，不少人想到的都是：一言不合就唱歌跳舞，歌舞桥段来得让人没有一
点点防备 24。

对印度电影略知一二的人都晓得，里面总是少不了唱歌、跳舞的场景。增添歌舞片段的独特
表现手法，其实跟印度电影的发展有很密切的关系。在早期的印度，看电影是种奢侈的享受。影片时间过短的话，观众会觉得看得不过瘾。制片者为顺应观众要求，想方设法拉长电影时间，便在情节里加入唱歌和跳舞的场景。有些网友为了调侃那种突如其来的歌舞表现手法，便用 “一言不合就～” 这个网络流行句式，来描述印度电影里男女主角只要说上几段话，就没铺没垫地开始
载歌载舞的情况。在这个句子里完全不存在任何跟沟通有关的情况，所要强调的只有突然开始唱
歌跳舞，那种令人不知所措的感觉。

（21） 一言不合就结婚，你真的想好了吗 25？
“一言不合就～” 的后面，甚至还能与正面词语搭配使用。“结婚” 象征着男女双方的美好结合，跟原型意义里所提及的 “打骂、生气、发生误会” 等情况处于两个极端。本文根据这种意义上的相对性，把 “结婚” 视为带正面意义的词语。由此可知，“一言不合就～” 到了扩张意义（3）时，
已经能完全违反典型意义的要求，与正面词语一同搭配使用。

四. 扩张意义的效果“一言不合” 的扩张意义从 “一言不合就开车” 或 “一言不合就飙车” 开始发端。之后，网友
可能觉得用起来有意思或者想追随潮流，便大量复制此句式，使其成为新的网络流行句式。主要目的是为了搞笑、调侃，或表示幽默。这些效果能否得到彰显，跟后接的词语性质有极大的关联。由前述内容可知，伴随着意义的扩张，“一言不合就～” 后面出现的词语性质，从原型意义
要求的负面词语，扩张到不带价值色彩的词语，甚至能出现带有正面意义的词语。而进入此句式
后面的词语，越带正面意义的，所形成的反差就越大，网友想要制造出来的那些无厘头的感觉也就越明显。
例（22）和例（23）的 “一言不合就～” 都不属于原型意义的用法。前者出现 “暴雨”、“暴晒”、169慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

“台风” 等表示天灾的词语，天灾人祸绝非美事，本身带有负面意义。相较而言，例（23）的 “上演男模秀” 本身虽不带任何评价色彩，但是能看帅哥是件令人大呼过瘾、感到欢愉的事情，在意义上相对地比较正面。因此，同样套用到 “一言不合就～” 的句式里，后者的违和感比较显著，在语言表现上所呈现出幽默感也相对比较大。

（22） 一言不合就暴雨，一言不合就暴晒，一言不合就台风，一言不合就上天！

夏至已

过，天气就像娃娃脸。一言不合说变就变，高温暴雨随意切换 。
26（23） 然而，某些情况下一言不合带来的却是满满的福利，比如正在火热进行中的欧洲杯，
一言不合就上演男模秀！27

五. 小结
本文从语言学的角度，使用语义扩张的概念考察了网络流行句式 “一言不合就～” 的扩张意义及其扩张意义结构。其原型意义为＜一句话说得不投合，立刻～＞。从这个原型意义衍生出以下三个扩张意义。
扩张意义（1）＜思想・观念不一致，立刻～＞。
扩张意义（2）＜总是＞
扩张意义（3）＜冷不防地、突然＞
表示原型意义的 “一言不合就～” 里有五个意义成分：〈沟通双方〉〈口头〉〈失败〉〈立刻〉〈不限口头〉〈失败〉〈立刻〉〈不〈负面动作 / 状态〉。扩张意义（1）的意义成分转变为〈沟通双方〉
限负面动作 / 状态〉。其与原型意义有两点不同之处。第一，沟通方式从直接的口头交流扩张到间接观察。第二，后面出现的词语性质的限制减少。“开车” 或 “飙车” 通过隐喻产生负面意义后，顺利进入 “一言不合就～” 的句式里，成为最早的例子。但是 “开车” 的原意不带负面意义，这个部分被焦点化之后，不带负面意义的词语也能进入 “一言不合就～” 句式里。这点在其他的扩张意义里也能观察得到。扩张意义（2）的意义成分为〈特定事态〉。
〈立刻〉〈不限负面动作 / 状态〉
跟 “一言不合” 有关的〈沟通双方〉和〈口头〉不再是焦点，〈失败〉也通过隐喻转变成〈特定事态〉。“一言不合就～” 本来表示一碰到话说得不投合的情况，就立刻进行某种行为，到了这个扩张意义里，变成一碰到某种特定情况，就立刻进行某行为。扩张意义（3）的意义成分只剩下〈立刻〉〈不限负面行为 / 状态〉。跟 “一言不合” 相关的意义成分消失殆尽，取而代之的是〈立刻〉的部分被完全焦点化。
“一言不合就～” 的所有意义组成的放射状网络结构，是根据整体和部分的关系架构而成的，也就是说通过焦点的转移，由整个事态逐渐聚焦到中间由副词 “就” 所表示的部分。〈立刻〉这
个意义成分在三个扩张意义里都没发生变化，可视为网络流行句式的核心。以此意义成分为中心
点，来观察扩张意义间的关系可以得知，前面表示 “一言不合” 的词义逐渐淡化，意义成分脱离170

网络流行句式 “一言不合就～” 的意义扩张

焦点成为背景。从 “口头沟通” 到 “非口头沟通”，扩张到 “无关乎沟通的特定事态”，最后完全消失聚焦至〈立刻〉这一点上。与此同时，随着 “一言不合” 意义成分的淡化，后面能出现的词
语性质的限制也逐渐宽松，从 “负面意义词语” 最后扩大到所有 “不带负面词语的词”。此外，与原型意义的意义成分的差距越大，其呈现出来的语言效果也就越显著。

六. 今后课题 ― “一言不合” 就消失？
网络流行句式因某种契机突然出现，也有可能突然消失，第一个课题便是观察 “一言不合就～” 的保质期究竟有多长，是否还会出现新转变。
第二个课题是厘清扩张意义间的模糊界线。“一言不合就～” 可以根据上下文随时变换成其他意思。前述的 “一言不合就秀恩爱” 解释成一天到晚在别人面前秀恩爱，但在 “张睿大方认爱！
一言不合就秀恩爱，猝不及防就扔狗粮！28 ” 里，“猝不及防” 这四个字让句式转变成〈突然宣布谈恋爱〉之意。句式和后接词语与语境的关系必须再加以厘清。
第三个课题是对负面词语或正面词语，定下更明确的定义。本文使用意义上的相对概念把“结婚” 视为正面词，但如何区分负面词语、中性词语和正面词语应该还是需要更明确的基准。

171

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

附注１

汉语例句后面原附带日译。例（1）彼らは話をしていて、うまが合わず、けんかになった。例（2）言葉の行き違いで口論しだした。

２笔者调查过下列词典，发现均未收录 “一言不合”。

［ a ］《辞海》，辞海编辑委员会编纂，上海：上海辞书出版社，2009。
［b］《成语词典》，常州市教育局编，南京：江苏人民出版社，1981。
［ c ］《古今汉语成语词典》，《古今汉语成语词典》编写组编，太原：山西人民出版社，1985。
［d］《汉语成语词典》，甘肃师范大学中文系《汉语成语词典》编写组编，上海：上海教育出版社，1978 ⊖1983。
［ e ］《汉语成语词典》，李一华；吕德申编，成都：四川辞书出版社，1985。
［ f ］《汉语成语大词典》，湖北大学语言研究室编纂，郑州：河南人民出版社，1985。
［ g ］《汉语成语分类词典》，叶子雄主编，上海：复旦大学出版社，1987。
［h］《汉语新成语词典》，史式；赵培玉编著，西安：陕西人民教育出版社，1986。
［ i ］《实用成语词典》，常晓帆编，北京：台声出版社，1990。
［ j ］《现代汉语词典》（第六版），中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室编，北京：商务印书馆，2012。
［ k ］《中華成語大辭典》，向光忠；李行建；刘松筠主编，长春：吉林文史出版社，1986。
３

例（3）出处：张春帆，《九尾龟》，上海：上海古籍出版社，1990。

４

例（4）出处：董鼎山，〈酒癖无助灵感〉，《读书》，北京：生活・读书・新知三联书店，1981。

５

例（5）出处：陆文夫，《人之窝》，上海：上海文艺出版社，1995。

６

例（6）出处：https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/ 21596004

７

日语原文：松本（2003：141）「複数 の 意味 のなかで、最 も 基本的 であり、慣習化 の 程度・認知的際 だち（cognitive prominence/cognitive salience） が 高 いといった 特徴 を 備 えたものをプロトタイプ 的意味と 認定 することにする。
」（同書：143）「多義語 の 複数 の 意味 のうち、用法上制約 がない、 あるいは 制約
が相対的に少ない意味をプロトタイプ的意味と認定し、
（略）。」

８

日语原文：籾山（2002：101）「多義語分析 の 課題 としてすくなくとも 以下 の ３ つがある。① プロトタ
イプ 的意味 の 認定

② 複数 の 意味 の 相互関係 の 明示

③ 複数 の 意味 すべてを 統括 するモデル・枠組 み

の解明。
」
９

此词义出自汉词网（http://www.hydcd.com/cy/ htm5 /yy1851.htm）

10

例（7）出处：金庸，《天龙八部》（四），北京：生活・读书・新知三联书店，1994年。

11

例（8）出处：金庸，《天龙八部》（五），北京：生活・读书・新知三联书店，1994年。

12

例（9）出处：张嘉佳．情绪中暑．新民晚报．2016 / 08 / 23．
（http://shanghai.xinmin.cn/xmwb/ 2016 / 08 / 23 / 30357792.html）

13
14

例（10）出自中央研究院平衡语料库（http://asbc.iis.sinica.edu.tw）。原文为繁体字，经笔者修改。
百度知道（https://zhidao.baidu.com）为公众媒体，任何网友都随时可以按照己意对内容进行增删。在可信度方面，的确有值得商榷之处。本文先根据 “百度知道” 上网友的说法，对扩张意义（1）进行意义成
分的分析之后，再与其他扩张意义的意义成分进行比较。相对来说，扩张意义（1）跟原型意义的意义成分
的相似度最高，在认知上的变化最小。根据这些实际语言现象，最终将扩张意义（1）视为最早出现的扩张
意义。

172

网络流行句式 “一言不合就～” 的意义扩张

15

例（11）出处：

http://zhidao.baidu.com/link?url=kmfsXA7DI8BTg9GF9d5OOtYz65xQQ0M-c7aJfOVrV2uG3piGv8X
NHjrT1LD7GZwuQ9NmXvhK88gXg7dDtnngyOmhv7bMYkwWAprpPfZXlS
16

例（12）出处：

http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/ 1642054281732843980.html?qbl=relate_question_1&word=%D2%B
B%D1%D4%B2%BB%BA%CF%BE%CD
17

例（13）出处：http://tieba.baidu.com/p/ 4103200894

18

例（14）出处：https://www.zhihu.com/question/ 36612887

19

例（15）出处：http://www.gd.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/ 2016-07/ 12 /c_1119204347.htm

20

例（16）出处：http://www.weibo.com/ 3490279655 /DxqAFzYaX?type=comment21

例（17）出处：http://www.jianshu.com/p/ 8045fccbd18c

22

例（18）出处：http:// 3g.d1xz.net/astro/gexing/art145353.aspx 。笔者将原 “纷纷的” 修改为 “纷纷地”。

23

例（19）出处：http://business.sohu.com/ 20160807/n462985365.shtml

24

例（20）的原文为繁体字，经笔者修改。例句出处：

http://www.weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show?id=2309404000797389127598
25

例（21）出处：http://fashion.sohu.com/ 20160701/n457275249.shtml

26

例（22）出处：http://bj.leju.com/scan/ 2016-07-04 /15236155631982564127711.shtml

27

例（23）出处：http://www.gd.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/ 2016-07/ 12 /c_1119204347.html

28

例句出处：http://toutiao.com/i6301900495153791489

参考文献［1］卢植，《认知与语言—认知语言学引论》，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2006。
［2］松本曜，《认知意味论》，东京：大修馆书店，2003。
［3］籾山洋介，《认知意味论のしくみ》，东京：研究社，2002。
［4］大东文化大学中国语大辞典编纂室编，《中国语大辞典（下）》，东京：角川书店，1994。

173ドイツの就学前教育における言語支援策

ドイツの就学前教育における言語支援策
牛

１.

山

さおり

はじめに

2000年の経済協力開発機構の学習到達度調査（PISA2000）により、ドイツは家庭の社会階層、両親の出身国によって、生徒の学習到達度の格差が最も大きい国であることが示された（小玉2008：76 ⊖ 84）。 この 結果 を 受 け、2001年12月以降、就学前教育における 言語支援、科学教育などに比重が置かれるようになった。

政策 が 施行 されてから15年後 の 現在、 ドイツの 就学前教育 において、近年何 が 問題 となっているのかを 述 べ、言語支援策 の 例 として Baden-Württemberg 州（ バーデン・ ヴュルテンベ
ルク 州、以下 BW 州） での 取 り 組 みを 報告 する。 そして、外国 につながりを 持 つ 就学前児童への日本語教育にも応用可能だと考えられる点を考察する。

２.
２.１

ドイツの就学前教育

旧東西ドイツ地域に見られる相違点

豊田（2011） によれば、統一前 の 旧東西 ドイツ 地域 では、就学前教育全般 に 関 する 考 え 方、幼児を取り巻く環境に地域差が見られた。旧西ドイツ地域では市場経済・自由主義体制のもと、保育や教育の基盤は家庭にあり女性が担うものという考え方が根強く、３歳未満児を対象とする保育施設の整備は著しく遅れていた。一方、旧東ドイツ地域では、社会主義的計画経済の政策のもと、乳幼児からの集団保育および就学前教育は、質・量ともに充実していた。統一を機に、旧西ドイツ地域では旧体制を維持し、旧東ドイツ地域では旧西ドイツのモデルに再編成されたが、その過程は決して容易な道のりではなかったと言われている。

２.２

保育施設の種類

ドイツの 保育制度 は 児童青少年援助法 のもと、16州 のうち10州 で 青少年・家族・女性・福祉関係省に、６州は教育を管轄する官庁に所轄されている。連邦政府と連携のもと、州ごとに教育・研究を統括する大臣が存在し、文化大臣会議により、保育制度や教育行政が決定されるi（斉藤2014）。一般的 に、就学前 の 子供 たちが 受 ける 保育 サービスには、児童昼間保育 と 昼間

175

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

施設との２種類が存在し、本研究に関する昼間通所施設を以下に挙げる。
・保育園（Kinderkrippe）：０歳から３歳未満児を対象とした施設
・幼稚園（Kindergarten）：３歳から就学前の幼児を対象とした施設
・児童昼間施設（Kindertagesstätte、通称 KITA）：幼保一元化された施設
・学童（Kinderhort）：基礎学校１年生から14歳未満児童までを対象とした施設
２.３

ii

保育をめぐる諸問題

2008年12月 に 子供援助法 が 施行 されたことで、３歳未満児 に 向 けた 保育 サービスの 利用率は向上し、半日保育から全日保育への移行が行なわれつつある。2013年８月には、３歳未満児を対象とした「保育請求権」が認められ、３歳未満児のための保育施設の増設が急速に進められた。なお、この数年で議論されている問題としては、以下の３点が挙げられる。

（1） 施設の増設に伴う保育者不足
2014年７月16日付 の Die Welt 誌 によれば、連邦全体 でさらに12万人 の 保育者 が 必要 という試算 が 出 ている。保育者一人 あたりの 担当 する ３歳未満児 の 理想的 な 割合 は 1：3 であるのに対 し、旧西 ドイツ 地域 では 平均 3.8 人、旧東 ドイツ 地域 では 平均 6.3 人 であった。３歳児以上の場合にも同様の傾向が見られ、保育者１人あたり理想とされる幼児の人数基準を満たしているのは、ブレーメン市と BW 州のみであった。

（2） 移民背景を持つ子供の就園率増加
従来、外国籍を持つ子供の就学前教育・保育への参加率は、ドイツ国籍の子供より低く、就、近年、自宅学前 の 段階 から 教育格差 が 始 まっているとの指摘 もあったが（小玉2008：78 ⊖ 79）
で保育されていた移民背景をもつ子供も、就学前に施設に通う傾向にある（VBW 2016）。

表１：家庭外保育施設で 保育を受けている、あるいは昼間保育サービスを受けている子供 の割合
満１歳から３歳
全

体

移民背景を
持つ幼児

iii

満３歳から６歳
移民背景を持たない幼児

全

体

移民背景を
持つ幼児

移民背景を
持たない幼児

2009年

20％

11％

25％

92％

84％

96％

2014年

32％

20％

38％

94％

85％

98％

176

ドイツの就学前教育における言語支援策

３歳未満児 で 保育 サービスを 受 ける 子供 の 割合 の 目標 は35％ と 設定 されており、全体 での結果は目標値に近づいている。移民背景を持つ３歳未満児で、保育サービスを受ける割合がほぼ２倍に増えているのは、特筆すべき傾向である。なお、３歳から６歳児に関しては、就学前に何らかの保育施設に通う、あるいはサービスを受けるということが定着している。次に、移民背景を持つ子供のうち、ドイツ語が家庭内言語ではない子供の割合を示す。
表２：家庭外保育施設 に 在籍 している 乳幼児 および 児童（０歳〜14歳） の 中 で、 ドイツ 語 が家庭内言語でない子供の割合
在籍児童のうち
０～25％

在籍児童のうち25～50％

在籍児童のうち50～75％

在籍児童のうち
75～100％

2009年

33.7％

36.5％

22.4％

8.4％

2014年

30.4％

36.0％

23.2％

10.5％

表２では、表１よりも対象とする子供の年齢が拡大されているが、在籍児童のうちドイツ語を家庭内 で 使用 しない 子供 の 割合 が50％ を 超 える 保育施設 は、数 パーセントではあるが 上昇 している。調査では地域差や年齢別の傾向までは把握できておらず、検討の余地がある。

連邦全体 で、 ドイツ 語 を 家庭 でほとんど 使 っていない 子供 が 大半 を 占 める 保育施設 が10.5％
存在するいうことは、保育施設で言語支援策を行なう必要性が高いだけでなく、日常の場面でドイツ語のみを使用すること自体が困難である保育施設も増加していることが示唆される。

（3） 保育者養成課程の見直し
ドイツの 保育者 は 社会的教育者（Sozialpädagoge） という 位置 づけで、小学校段階以上 のiv

教員養成 とは 異 なる 養成 システムで 教育 される（吉岡2007） 。 そのため、最終学歴 が 専門学校卒である保育者が大半を占めており、BW 州では大学で社会教育学を修めた保育者が全体の14％ に 過 ぎない（同州文化省 の 発表 による ）。Vitzthum（2014） によれば、在学中 に 行 なわれる 実習 の 比重 が 高 く、離職率 は 極 めて 低 いが、専門学校在学中 の 中退率 が60％ に 達 する 学校vもある。 そのため、1）保育者 の 給与水準 の 改善 、2）専門学校 で 行 なわれている 教育 の 質 のvi

向上 、3）新卒保育者 の 採用基準 の 一定化、 が 求 められている（Mix 2013）。今後、一層多様化する幼児（とその家族）を理解し、就学前教育を行なっていくために、専門性を持った保育者、および常に新しい保育事情を学び続けることのできる姿勢を持った保育者の養成が重要と
みられる。

177

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

３. 就学前における言語支援策 ― BW 州を例に―Statistisches Bundesamt（2016） によれば、BW 州 の 人口 の27％（約295万人） が 移民背景を持っている。そして就学前教育、保育施設とサービスの量・質を調べた調査で、BW 州は一vii

位 を 獲得 した 。 この 背景 にあるのは、BW 州 の 文化・青年・ スポーツ 省 が 保育政策 を 積極的に行なうなど、保育の質の向上への努力である。保育者向けの研修・再研修を充実させ、離職率も連邦で最も低い水準を保っている。そして以前は学士号を持つ保育者が少なかったが、同州の政策により、学士号を持つ保育者は全体の25％に上昇した。以下、実際に行なわれてきた
言語支援策を紹介する。
３.１

Sagʼmal was ― Sprachförderung für Vorschulkinder（ねえ、何か言って ― 就学前の子供のための言語支援策）

このプログラムは2003年 から2010年 にかけて、 ドイツ 語 を 第二言語 として 獲得 する ３歳未

満児 を 担当 する 保育者 に 向 けて 開発 された。1）Mit Kindern im Gespräch（子供 との 会話）、
2）Dialoge mit Kindern führen（子供との対話を導く）、3）Sprache macht Stark!（言葉が強くする！）という３つの下位プロジェクトから成る。
このような政策が立ち上がった背景には、以前より保育者養成校のカリキュラムに、言語獲得・習得などを学ぶ科目が極めて少ないと指摘されていたことが挙げられる。この点を補うた
めに、保育者が、1）自身の言語習得経験・学習経験に気づき、振り返る、2）理論を学び、ド
イツ 語 を 母語 としない 幼児 の 言語発達 を 適切 に 見極 め、支援 を 行 えるようになる、3）言語獲得に関する知識を広める伝達者となる、ことを目的として行なわれた。
３.２

Sprache macht Stark! Sprachbrücke Familie-Kita（言葉が強くする！ 家庭と保育施設の間に架かる言葉の橋）

このプログラムは2006年 から2009年 にかけて、 マンハイム 大学 とマンハイム 市及 びルート
ヴィヒスハーフェン 市 の 保育施設、BASF 社 の 協力 のもと 実施 された。報告書、Tracy（2009）を基にその詳細を述べ、実際に行なわれた活動の例を付録に挙げる。

・対象とする幼児：２歳児から４歳児。家庭でドイツ語以外の言語のみに触れていた幼児、あるいは教育から離れた環境で育ったため、言語能力が年齢相当と見なされないドイツ語を母語とする幼児。

・期間：１つのテーマにつき２週間を１クールとして、１年間行なう。
・対象とする保育施設：2006年は５ヶ所から開始、2009年までに39ヶ所で実施された。

178

ドイツの就学前教育における言語支援策

・目的

1）保育施設に入る前の幼児に、基礎的なドイツ語能力を身に着けさせる。
2）言語支援策を理解した保育者を一園に２名ずつ配置するための研修も兼ねる。

・活動の内容：３つの活動を連続して行なう。

a ）ミニグループ活動：幼児４人１組でグループを組み、週３回１時間ずつ行なう。１テー
マにつき、15～20の 語彙 や 表現 を 重点的 に 扱 う。保育者 は 擬音語 や 幼児語 を 使 わず、幼児がドイツ語を使う楽しさに気づくよう促す。

b）親子 グループ 活動：週１回１時間半～２時間程度行なう。自宅 で、第一言語 を 使 っても出来る活動を多く行なう。保育者は幼児が多文化・多言語で育つことの意味を考え、
ドイツ 語 を 母語 としない 親 が、今後 どのように 子供 のドイツ 語習得 を 支援 できるかを助言する。

c ）日常 での 支援：a ）と b）で 学習 しているテーマで 扱 われたテーマと 語彙 を 他 の 保育者と共有し、なるべく日常の中で幼児が語彙や表現に自然に触れられる機会を増やす。

３.３

Sprache macht Spaß!（言葉は楽しい！）本 プログラムは、3.2で 得 られた 知見 を 活 かし、勤務先 で 言語支援 プログラムを 遂行 する 保viii

育者の養成を目的として、2012年から2015年まで行われた 。言語支援に取り組む保育者に必要となるテーマ別のモジュール制で行なわれ、理論と振り返りの合計40コマからなる。本項では、この中から Modul 3、5、9 を取り上げる。

Modul 3：言語モデルとしての保育者
学習目的：「言語 モデルとしての 保育者」 とは 何 かを 考 える。幼児 が 第二言語 で 話 すことの 楽
しさを知るために、保育者が何をすればよいのかという問題に取り組む。

理

論：言語獲得理論、学習理論 などを 学 ぶ。同時 に 子供 の 発話 を「聞 くこと 」、子供 と 大人の相互作用についても考えを深める。

実

践：声の出し方、言語を発する時の身体の使い方を学び、唇や舌などを重点的に動かす練習を通して、幼児が言語を獲得するプロセスを体験する。

Modul 5：子供の言語発達を観察する：ポートフォリオ入門
学習目的：幼児の言語発達を観察し、報告するためのポートフォリオを作る。
理論：各幼児の言語発達の観察方法、およびポートフォリオの作り方を学ぶ。

実

践：実際に幼児１人の言語発達を、３週間にわたって観察したのち、ポートフォリオを作成し、発表する。

179

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

図１：ポートフォリオの例
Das bin ich（これがわたし）
Name（名前）

Datum（日付）Ich heiße（名前）So alt bin ich gerade（年齢）So sehe ich aus

So groß bin ich gerade（背の高さ）（写真を貼る）

So viel wiege ich（体重）Meine Haarfarbe（髪の色）Meine Augenfarbe（目の色）Das möchte ich über mich erzählen（こんなことを話したい）

Diese Wörter kann ich schon（使える言葉）
Datum（日付）

Wort（語彙）

Wortbedeutung（語の意味）

Modul 9：保育の観点から見た早期の多言語学習目的：第二言語獲得（習得）において、第一言語が果たす役割を知る。他の言語や方言に対する保育者自身の態度を振り返る。
理論：第二言語獲得・習得研究で得られた知見を知り、外国語を学ぶ態度について改めて考える。第一言語・第二言語・母語の違いを知る。自分に合った言語学習の方法が何かを振り返る。さらに言語バイオグラフィの作り方を学ぶ。

実

践：保育者自身の言語バイオグラフィを作成する。さらに幼児用のバイオグラフィには何が必要となるかを参加者と話し、アイディアを交換・共有する。

180

ドイツの就学前教育における言語支援策

図２：自分の言語態度を振り返るためのシート
Meine Sprachbiografie

Erst- oder Muttersprache(n)（第一言語もしくは母語）：（言語バイオグラフィ）

Zweitsprache(n)（第二言語）：
Fremdsprache(n)（外国語）：
Dialekt(e)（方言）：Besonderheiten（特記事項）：

Mein Sprachverhalten mit
Fremdsprache(n), Dialekt(e)z.B: Gestik, Mimik, Sprechtempo, Sprechmelodie,
Grammatik（外国語や方言の言語態度）（ジェスチャー、ミミック、テンポ、メロディー、文法など）

４. 考察
本稿ではドイツを例に就学前教育における諸問題と、言語支援策を検討したが、ここでは東
西 ドイツでの「幼児教育」「保育」 に 関 する 考 え 方、保育施設 の 違 いから、統一後 の 制度一本化の難しさが浮き彫りとなった。そして、保育の責任は私的から公的な領域へ移行されつつあり、家庭外で教育を受ける子供の中には、ドイツ語を家庭内言語としない子供も多く含まれるようになった。
彼らも就学前の段階で、基礎的なドイツ語力も身に着ける必要がある。日々刻々と変化していく状況に対して、専門家や州の文化省などが連携し、保育者に向けた再研修や資格取得の機会を提供することで保育者自身のスキルを向上させてゆくべきである。
日本の場合には、すでに高卒以上の学生を対象とした保育者養成校や大学で、発達心理学と教育心理学の授業が行われ、日本語を母語とする幼児の認知発達に関する知識が教授されている。本研究で得られた知見を基に、今後、外国にルーツをもつ子供の日本語支援を行なう保育者に必要な点を提案することができるだろう。具体的には、保育者自身の言語学習経験や態度を 振 り 返 ること、幼少期 から 複数 の 言語 を 身 に 着 けていくことに 関 する 知識 を 得 て、多様 な文化背景 を 持 った 子供 とその 家庭 を 理解 できるだけの 開 かれた 態度 を 身 に 着 けていくことで
ある。

181

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

今回は、ドイツの一州の取り組みを紹介するにとどまったが、今後の課題としては、日本国内における就学前の子供たちに向けた日本語支援の問題がある。いくつかの市町村の言語支援策を調べたところ、日本語を体系的に学ぶということに加えて、「育児相談」「託児」といった側面もやや強いように見受けられた。識字教育も含め、外国にルーツを持つ就学前の子供が日
本語をどのように学ぶのか、どの程度最新の研究成果などが活かされたカリキュラムが行われているのかなど、引き続き検討していきたい。

注i

児童昼間保育 は、日本 でいう 保育 ママ・ パパサービスを 指 し、保育者 と 両親 が 私的 な 契約 を 結 び、

委託するという形で行なわれる。
ii

ドイツの 場合、初等教育 は 基礎学校 において ４年間（一部 の 州 は ６年間）行 われる。中等教育 は 生

徒 の 能力 と 適性 に 応 じて、基幹学校（卒業後 に 就職 して 職業訓練 を 受 ける 者 が 主 に 進学 する ５年制学校）、実科学校（卒業後 に 職業教育学校 に 進 む 者 や 中級 の 職 につく 者 が 進 む ６年制学校）、 ギムナジウ
ム（大学進学希望者 が主として進む９年制学校）が設けられている。
iii

移民背景を持つ幼児＝両親の少なくとも片親がドイツ以外の出身である、という定義に基づく。

iv

保育者 を 目指 す 学生 の 多 くは、基幹学校 ないしは 実科学校 を 卒業後、２～３年制 の 専門学校、 ある
いは ５年制 の 保育者養成 を 目的 とした、高度職業専門学校 に 進学 する。専門学校 では 週３～５日 の 実

習が半年間、高度職業専門学校では後半の２年間が実習に充てられる。
v

就学前教育に従事する保育者の給与は、一般的な小学校教員の50～60％である。

vi

教育内容 に 関 しては 州 により 偏 りがみられる。教授 する 立場 にある 保育者 の 現場 での 経験 に 基 づく

授業が行われがちで、必ずしも時代の流れやニーズに即していないことがあると指摘されている。
vii

ベルテルス財団の発表による（2015年９月17日付）

viii

なお、2016年現在も改良されたプログラムが継続中である。

182

ドイツの就学前教育における言語支援策

参考文献
小玉亮子（2008）．「PISA ショックによる 保育 の 学校化「境界線」 を 越 える 試 み 」泉千勢、一見真理子、
汐見稔幸（編）『世界の幼児教育・保育改革と学力』明石書店，pp.69 ⊖ 88．
斉藤純子（2014）．「ドイツの保育制度―拡充の歩みと展望―」『レファレンス』2014年２月号，pp.29 ⊖ 62．
豊田和子（2011）．「ドイツの幼稚園における「教育の質」をめぐる議論と成果 ― Tietze ら（ベルリン自由大学研究グループ）を中心に」『保育学研究』48号３巻，pp.269 ⊖ 280．
吉岡真佐樹（2007）．「教育福祉専門職の 養成 と 教育学教育―ドイツにおける教育福祉専門職養成制度の 発
展と現状―」『教育学研究』第74巻，第２号，pp.88 ⊖ 101．

Baden-Württemberg Stiftung（2015）. Sprache macht Spaß. Curriculare Grundlage: Spracherwerb undSprachentwicklung von Kindern unter drei Jahren in der Kindertagespflege.
		https://www.bwstiftung.de/uploads/tx_news/ 150717-tm-sprache-macht_spass-download.pdf（accessed 2016⊖ 08⊖ 01）

Baden-Württemberg Stiftung（2016）. Sag mal was. Das Programm.
http://www.sagmalwas-bw.de/startseite/（accessed 2016⊖ 08⊖ 01）
Landesstiftung Baden-Württemberg（2006）. Sagʼ mal was – Sprachförderung für Vorschulkinder – Eine
Projektdarstellung –Mix, Ulrike（2013 ⊖ 07 ⊖27）. Mängel bei der Erzieher-Ausbildung – Studie bescheinigt der Lehre eineschlechte Qualität- Die Deutschlandfunk.
http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/maengel-bei-der-erzieher-ausbildung.1180.de.html?dram:article_
id=255370（accessed 2016⊖ 08⊖ 05）
Pressemeldung Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg（2015）. Qualität in derfrühkindlichen Bildung ist für Baden-Württemberg ein Top- Thema.bildungsklick.
https:// bildungsklick.de/ fruehe-bildung /detail /qualitaet-in-derfruehkindlichen-bildung-ist-fuerbaden-wuerttemberg-ein-top-thema/（accessed 2016-08-05）
Statistisches Bundesamt（2016）. Destatis. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Startseite.html（accessed 2016⊖08⊖ 11）

Tracy, Rosemarie（2009）. Sprache macht stark! Offensive Bildung. Cornelsen Verlag.
Vereinigung der Bayerischen Wirtschaft e.V.（2016）. Integration durch Bildung. Migranten undFlüchtlinge in Deutschland. Waxmann.
Vitzthum, Thomas（2014⊖ 07⊖ 16）. In deutschen Kitas fehlen 120.000 Erzieherinnen.Die Welt.
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article130538422 /In-deutschen-Kitas-fehlen-120 - 000 Erzieherinnen.html（accessed 2016⊖ 08⊖05）

183

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号

付録：Sprache macht stark! プログラム例
テーマ：わたしの身体（Mein Körper）

形

態

時

間

内

容

１週目（基本的な身体部位の語彙を学ぶ）

a ）ミニグループ活動

１時間目

厚紙で人形を作る。
身体の部位に関する歌を歌う。

２時間目

身体の部位に関する歌を歌う。
手や足が冷たい、温かいといった表現を学ぶ。
２人１組で毛布に隠れ、１人ずつ身体のどこかを外に出す。他の２人が中に入っている子供のどちらの手足かを当てる。

３時間目

身体の全体像を描く。

b）親子グループ活動

親子で Peter Hampelmann（手足が動く人形）を作る。

c ）日常での支援

ミニグループでの活動をポスターにまとめる。
幼児 が 親 と 作成 した「手足 が 動 く 人形」 を 使 い、全員 で 語彙 を復習する。

２週目（身体部位の語彙を拡充する）

a ）ミニグループ活動

１時間目

身体の部位に関する歌を歌う。
顔を扱って、部位の名前を覚える。
１週目の終わりに親子で作った人形を使って復習する。
新しく学習した身体部位の名前を入れて、歌を歌う。

２時間目

身体の部位に関する歌を歌う。
病気がテーマになっている絵本を読み聞かせる。
鼻水が出ている自分の顔を描いて、表現を学ぶ。

３時間目

身体の部位に関する歌を歌う。
手に絵の具をつけて、自由に自分の絵を描く。
手洗いの表現も学ぶ。

b）親子グループ活動

ギプスを使ってお面を作る。
各国の手遊び、歌などを紹介し合う。

c ）日常での支援

身体の部位に関する歌を歌う。

184

2016年度『慶應義塾 外国語教育研究』第13号投稿規程
１．投稿資格：原則 として 塾内 の 教員・職員・研究員（常勤・非常勤 を 問 わない ）。共同執筆者についてはこれ以外の者も可とするが、その場合も投稿筆頭者は原則として
塾内の教員・職員・研究員（常勤・非常勤を問わない）とする。
２．投稿論文の種類：以下の内容のものを掲載対象とし、未発表のものに限る。なお、１）研
究論文は特別寄稿を掲載することもある。
１）研究論文・テーマが言語教育あるいはそれに深く関係するものであること
・独創性を有する実証的または理論的研究の成果であること
・先行研究・関連研究を十分に踏まえていること
・他の研究者の検証にも耐えうる、客観性を有すること
２）調査・実践報告
・言語教育あるいはそれに深く関係する分野における調査もしくは実践の報告であること・調査・実践内容について具体的かつ明確な記述がなされていること・得られた知見の応用可能性や実践面での問題点について批判的に論じられている
こと

３）研究ノート
・テーマが言語教育あるいはそれに深く関係するものであること
・未だ論文の形には至らないが、実証的または理論的研究の中間的報告であり、着想に独創性がみとめられること・他の研究者の検証にも耐えうる、客観性を有すること
３．アブストラクト（概要）１）研究論文および２）調査・実践報告については、タイトルの下、本文の前に以下の要領でアブストラクトを記載すること。３）研究ノートについては、アブストラクトは不要。 ただし、応募用紙 の ５）概要（原則 として 和文800 ～ 1,000字） については、 い
ずれの場合も記載すること。

・本文が和文・欧文の場合：欧文で150 ～ 200語程度
・本文 が 和文・欧文以外 の 言語 の 場合：欧文 で150 ～ 200語程度、 あるいは 和文 で800 ～ 1,000字程度
４．書式・長さ
和文・欧文とも横書きとし、A４用紙に、和文の場合「明朝体」、欧文の場合は「Times」
か「Times New Roman」 か「Century」 とする。文字 の 大 きさは12ポイント。 ページ

番号を記載すること。
脚注・付録・図表、参考・引用文献リストなども以下の字数・語数に含む。ただし、ア
ブストラクトは除く。

185

字数・語数のカウントは、例えば Word の場合、「校閲」→「文字カウント（字数の場合、スペースを含める）」機能を使用し、テキストボックス、脚注、文末脚注を含めること。

１）研究論文・和文の場合、20,000 ～ 24,000字程度
・欧文の場合、7,000 ～ 8,000語程度
・その他の言語の場合は和文に準ずる
２）調査・実践報告
・同上
３）研究ノート
・和文の場合、8,000 ～ 10,000字程度
・欧文の場合、2,800 ～ 3,500語程度
・その他の言語の場合は和文に準ずる
５．使用言語
特に定めない。
６．応募用紙の添付
所定の応募用紙に、以下１）～７）の内容を記入し、原稿に添えて提出する。
応募用紙は当センター、Web サイトからダウンロード可能
１）氏名、所属、職位、（担当外国語）
２）連絡先住所、電話番号、e-mail３）論文の種類、使用言語
４）論文タイトル、総文字数（欧文の場合は総語数）
５）概要

原則として和文800 ～ 1,000字とする。

６）キーワード５語（日本語）
７）提出時には応募用紙の全ての項目に記入すること。
７．書式上の注意
引用や参考文献一覧表の形式については、執筆者の分野における標準の形式（例：APA
スタイル、MLA スタイルなど）に従うこと。

注は本文の末尾にまとめて付けること。
氏名や所属、住所等は応募用紙にのみ記入すること。アブストラクト（概要）や本文（タイトルの下）に氏名は記入しない。

８．採録の決定および通知
査読を行なったうえで採否を決定する。査読の結果によっては、修正または論文の種類の変更（研究論文から研究ノートへの変更等）を要請することもある。

結果は執筆者に通知する。
９．採録決定後の校正
校正は再校まで執筆者が行なうこととする。校正は誤字・脱字および査読者の指示による修正のみとし、原稿の変更はできない。

186

10．論文の公開
１）採録論文 は Web 上 での 公開（慶應義塾大学 の 運用 する Web サイトおよびデータ
ベースへの登録と公開）を前提とする。執筆者によって公開が許諾されない論文は採録しない。
２）文字データ以外に、他から転載された写真・図版等のデータが採録原稿に含まれる
場合は、執筆者自身が著作権についての処理を済ませていることを前提とする。
３）採録論文の著作権については、執筆者によって以下の事項が承認されていることを前提とする。
３－１）執筆者 は、『外国語教育研究』編集委員会 が 発行 する『外国語教育研究』に掲載された論文等の著作権を当委員会に委託し、当委員会が論文等の編集著作権および出版権を保有する。
３－２）上記３－１に基づき、当委員会は執筆者の論文等を原文のままの形において印刷物または電子媒体により再出版または再配布する権利を保有する。

３－３）執筆者は、論文等を他の印刷物または電子媒体に転載する場合には、当委員会にその旨、通知する。
３－４）執筆者の論文等を要約して印刷物または電子媒体により再出版または再配布する場合は、原則として当委員会は執筆者から事前の同意を得るものとする。

11．原稿提出締切
2016年９月16日（金）必着とする。
以下１）・２） を 印字 したものを 郵送 にて、文書 ファイル（MS Word） を e-mail 添付にて提出のこと。なお、提出された原稿は返却しない。また文書ファイルは印字した原稿と同一のものとする。
１）原稿

３部（用紙はＡ４サイズに限る）

２）応募用紙１部

12．原稿提出先〒108-8345（郵送）

東京都港区三田2-15-45

慶應義塾大学外国語教育研究センター三田支部『慶應義塾 外国語教育研究』担当（e-mail） flang-kiyo@adst.keio.ac.jp
13．問合せ先
同上（電話）

03-5427-1601

内線22304（e-mail）※開室時間については、上記に問合せること。
以上

187

Submission Guidelines for the Journal of Foreign Language Education 2016 (vol.13)
1. Full and part-time faculty members of the Keio University system are eligible to submit
papers to the journal. The leading author should be a full or part-time faculty member of
Keio.
2. Papers may be written in any language.
3. Contributions include research articles, survey/practical reports, and research notes.
a. Research articles and survey/practical reports in a European language must be within
7,000-8,000 words; articles in a non-European language including Japanese should
be within 20,000-24,000 characters (including notes; but abstract not included).
b. Research notes in a European language must be within 2,800-3,500 words; research
notes in a non-European language including Japanese must be within 8,000-10,000
characters.
4. Format:– All submissions should conform to the conventions and guidelines of the relevant
field (APA, MLA, etc.).
– Submissions must be typed horizontally and double-spaced on A4 paper.
– If written in Japanese, please use Minchotai font in 12 point. If written in a European
language, please use Times, Times New Roman, or Century in 12 point.
– Include page numbers.
– Place all notes at the end of the paper.
– Name must not appear in the submitted text other than in the submission form.
5. Two abstracts:
a. The first abstract must be included in the paper following the title. If written in any
European Language the abstract must be in 150-200 words. However, if the paper
is written in any non-European language other than Japanese, the abstract may be
written either in Japanese in 800-1,000 characters or in any European language in
150-200 words.
b. The second abstract must be provided in Japanese in 800-1,000 characters in thesubmission form.
6. The deadline for submission is September 16 (Fri). Contributors should submit three copiesof the paper, accompanied by an electronic copy as an e-mail attachment, CD-R or flash
memory, as well as a submission form. The submission form is available for download at
the Keio Research Center for Foreign Language Education website. (www.flang.keio.ac.jp)188You must complete all items in the submission form and send to:
Office of Journal of Foreign Language Education
Mita Office
Keio Research Center for Foreign Language Education
2-15-45 Mita, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-8345 Japan
7. Papers will be reviewed by the Editorial Committee.
8. Printer’s proofs will be provided twice. Major revisions other than those suggested by the
Editorial Committee will not be accepted.
9. Papers will be made available for public view on the Keio Research Center for Foreign
Language Education website. If a contributor borrows from another author’s work/data,
the contributor must obtain that author’s consent concerning the copyright of photographs
and/or illustrations, before the publication of the paper, normally at the first proof stage.
The Editorial Committee holds the copyright and publishing rights of the published papers
including the reprint right. If a contributor wishes to republish their paper elsewhere, theauthor must inform the Editorial Committee.
Inquiries:
Postal address as above.
tel.: + 81-3-5427-1601 ext. 22304
e-mail:
URL: http://flang.keio.ac.jp/

189執筆者紹介

大

竹

北

川

優

志

……………………

慶應義塾高等学校 教諭

彩……………………

慶應義塾高等学校 教諭

プリエト ムニョス，……………………
ベアトリス

慶應義塾大学
商学部・総合政策学部 講師（非常勤）シェイ デビット……………………

慶應義塾大学
商学部 准教授

折田（由川）京子……………………

慶應義塾高等学校 教諭

伊扇……………………

慶應義塾幼稚舎 教諭

藤

矢田部

清

美

……………………

慶應義塾大学
外国語教育研究センター 助教

皆

川

泰

代

……………………

慶應義塾大学
文学部 准教授

須

山

哲

治

……………………

慶應義塾大学
文学部 准教授

山

下

一

夫

……………………

慶應義塾大学
理工学部 准教授

吉

川

龍

生

……………………

慶應義塾大学
経済学部 准教授

馥……………………

慶應義塾大学
法学部・総合政策学部 講師（非常勤）嚴牛

山 さおり ……………………

慶應義塾大学
外国語教育研究センター 兼任研究員

191

『慶應義塾 外国語教育研究』編集委員
文 学 部
経済学部

法 学 部
理工学部

中 村 優 治前 島 和 也山 口 祐 子ミヤン・マルティン，アルベルト林
秀 光
山 下 一 夫（委員長）
杉 山 由希子

中 等 部

ローズ，ジョナサン

事 務 局

長
加
杉
松

慶應義塾 外国語教育研究 第13号
平成29年 3 月31日 発行
発 行 人

七

印 刷 所

有限会社

字

眞

明

発 行 所

慶應義塾大学外国語教育研究センター

梅沢印刷所

東京都港区三田 ₂ ⊖₁₅⊖₄₅
電話 03 ⊖ 5427 ⊖ 1601

尾
藤
田
本

孝
祐
陽
美

子
一
子
緒