東洋英和女学院大学『人文・社会科学論集』
第 33 号（2015 年度）

Developing Can-Do Lists for Stay-over Type
Language Programs
MUTO Katsuhiko
Keywords: Can-Do lists, teaching English to children, English immersion camps,
program evaluation, Five Proposals and Specific Measures for Developing
Proficiency in English for International Communication

1. BackgroundSpurred by “Five Proposals and Specific Measures for Developing Proficiency inEnglish for International Communication,” which was proposed by the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT, 2011), empirical researchthat examines the feasibility of the proposals and attempts to apply the essentials ofthem to the language classroom is now on the steady rise (see below for an outline of
the five proposals).
Proposal 1.
English ability required of students − assessment and verification of attainment
level
Proposal 2.
Promoting students’ awareness of necessity of English in the global society, andstimulating motivation for English learning
Proposal 3.
Providing students with more opportunity to use English through effective
utilization of ALTs, ICT and other means
Proposal 4.
Reinforcement of English skills and instruction abilities of English teachers/
Strategic improvement of English education at the level of schools and communities
Proposal 5.
Modification of university entrance exams toward global society

93Among the five proposals, Proposal 1, which addresses the English ability
required of students, has been having the most definitive impact among foreign
language practitioners throughout Japan. Specifically, one of the practical suggestionsin the proposal, “The Government shall consider establishment of national learning
attainment targets in the form of ‘Can-Do lists,’ while taking into account approaches
adopted in foreign countries” (p. 5) seems to be attracting fair amount of attention
from language teachers as well as researchers. Originally, this trend of using the CanDo statements dates back to 2001 when the Common European Framework ofReference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) was published by
the Council of Europe. As a guideline referred to in describing achievements oflearners of second of foreign languages across Europe, the CEFR was introduced withtwo main aims (1) to encourage practitioners of all kinds in the language field; and (2)to make it easier for them to tell each other and their clientele what they wish to help
learners to achieve and how they attempt to do so (Figueras, 2012, p. 478). Used
often as the exclusive neutral reference in language learning contexts (Byram &Parmenter, 2012), it has been having a major impact on language education aroundthe world. In Japan as well, the CEFR and the idea of Can-Do statements have been
gaining its popularity also in other language education fields including Japanese,
producing considerable research being done (e.g., Koike, 2007; Araki, 2014). What
still lacks, however, is research on younger learners by means of Can-Do lists andstudies on participants in out-of-school programs. In this article, drawing on Can-Do
research done over a three-year period on short-term English immersion camps, theprocedure of designing Can-Do lists suitable to use in such educational researchsettings and the research results obtained from data by employing the lists will be
addressed.

2. Previous studies
2. 1. Can-Do research on Younger Learners
Compared to the amount of Can-Do research conducted in junior and seniorhigh schools (e.g., Yoshida & Naganuma, 2003) or on students and English teachers(e.g., Yoshida et al., 2004), whether or not practitioners are motivated by the strategicplan (MEXT, 2003) or the guidebook for setting the educational goal in the form of
Can-Do lists (MEXT, 2013), it is often pointed out that studies that are aimed at94

Developing Can-Do Lists for Stay-over Type Language Programs

elementary school students are rather small in number. One of a few studies that
addressed the area of interest is Naganuma & Ogawa (2010), where they developed a
Can-Do scale for English activities in elementary school. The Can-Do list wascomprised of 14 Can-Do statements (hereinafter, CDSs), six for speaking, five forlistening, and three for reading. Teachers instructed their students (N=214) to selfevaluate their learning outcome on the scale twice a year (1st and 3rd semester).
Analyzing the results, the researchers argue that allowing students to monitor theirown learning led to high self-efficacy in terms of language learning and achievement.
Obviously, one of the reasons for the dearth of academic research conducted inelementary school is that it is not an easy task for younger children to reflect on theirown learning process on a CDS. Bearing this difficulty in mind, Naganuma (2011)
conducted a study on elementary school students, from 1st to 6th grade, by adding acomment section to a Can-Do list in order to elicit qualitative as well as quantitative
responses from the students. According to his analysis, although most of the 1st
graders could not write a comment, there were some who illustrated with small
drawings their impressive moments in the language class. Most of the 2nd graders
wrote a comment on their achievements or goals, and the 3rd graders as a whole
were able to analyze how they should tackle the language task by recalling their pastexperience. There were more reflective comments on learning among students in theupper grades. The 5th graders typically made objective comments about where andwhen to use the grammar that they had been taught, and the 6th graders made selfreflective comments on the learning process and strategies. By including a comment
section in a Can-Do list, Naganuma argued in conclusion that children’s comments
can be diversified according to their stages of development, and even students in thelower grades in elementary school can engage in self-evaluation of their achievements.
2. 2. Stay-over Type English Learning Programs
The effective use of stay-over type English learning programs, namely English
camps, is suggested in Proposal 3 in the aforementioned MEXT’s propositions.
The third proposal, which discusses providing students with more opportunities
to have contact with English, clearly states in the following section that “Education
boards and schools shall provide students with opportunities for intensive contact
with practical English, such as English camps with ALTs and people from the private

95

sector” (p. 9). In a similar vein, a suggestion for English camps can be found in a more
recent proposal by the Prime Minister’s Cabinet Office, namely, “The Third Proposal
for University Education and Global Human Resource Development for the Future”(The Education Rebuilding Implementation Council, 2013). In the proposal, theCouncil advocates that “The national government and local governments should…
increase opportunities for students to come into contact with English through theholding of ‘English camps’ and so on” (p. 7).
Despite the two official proposals, it must be candidly acknowledged that
research on English camps has not been conducted sufficiently due mainly to thelimitations posed on the researcher. One of the recent few studies is Onaka’s (2013)
research conducted at a two-day English immersion camp in Iwate, in which juniorhigh school students (N=22) participated. According to the research, almost all thestudents at the end of the program answered on a questionnaire that they became
more motivated to study English. Based on the results obtained from the postquestionnaire, she argued that even a short program is effective in increasing intrinsic
motivation.
Another study is a five-day summer camp for 6th graders (N=150) implemented
by the Arakawa Ward Board of Education. Higashi (2008) developed so called thesituational syllabus where students learn English with cartoons that depict daily
situations where characters are using English phrases. Through the close examinationof the results of the camp program, she demonstrated how effective it was inpromoting speaking in natural contexts, arguing that providing authentic situations inEnglish conversation at the elementary school level is essential.
Though not empirically, Shiratori (2012) in a brief report discusses a series ofthree camps held in Hokkaido, which were provided with elementary, junior high andhigh school students (N=301). With over 50 ALTs and international students taking
care of the students, the program was highly evaluated by the participants and camp
staff on a questionnaire. Shiratori, therefore, argues that foreign language practitioners
need to consider how to connect the camp and English education in school.
Taking the educational point of view discussed above into consideration, I
conducted a series of Can-Do research on the development of children’s language
learning in English camps (Muto, 2014a; Muto, 2014b; Muto, 2015). In what follows,
beginning with an overview of the research setting, two of my studies will be

96

Developing Can-Do Lists for Stay-over Type Language Programs

discussed in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of English camps in fosteringchildren’s confidence in language skills and the validity of using Can-Do lists to study
stay-over type language programs.

3. Research setting
Both of the two studies were conducted in short-term English immersion camps(hereinafter, EICs) provided by one of the largest private educational institutions inJapan. The EICs are a series of stay-over type programs that have been offeredannually in summer since 2001, and each of the present studies were conducted in
the camp programs held in 2013 and 2014. As short-term foreign language experience(FLEX) programs, the EICs are committed to fostering individuals who will contributeto world peace with their abilities to communicate in English (Muto, 2012). Therefore,
most activities are designed so that children, who are encouraged to use English as atool throughout the camp, can build confidence by communicating with camp leaders
who are from diverse backgrounds (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Outline schedule of the 6-day English immersion camps

97

The following is a summary of four key camp activities.
Love Chain (Day 2)This activity enables participants to learn about and accept differences incultures. Camp leaders explain typical differences related to culture, such as foodand greetings. This activity is particularly concerned with two of the camps’ aims,
to share a communal lifestyle with people from different countries, and to realize
the importance of understanding each other.
Traveling Around the World (Day 3)
In this activity, participants learn about the different countries and culturesof the camp leaders. The presentations are hands-on. Participants experience
national dance, food, traditional clothes, and so on. By doing this, participants
are able to expand their views, learn more, and boost their interest in othercountries of the world.
Wonder-Land (Day 3)
Participants listen to a presentation about world problems, such as global
warming and poverty. They learn about the reality of what is happening in theworld. They start to think about what they can do for society and take selfmotivated action.
World Food Market (Day 4)
Participants learn how to negotiate in English as well as have fun anddiscover different foods of the world. They are given a set amount of money anda recipe for one international dish. Camp leaders work at a market, selling
ingredients for the foods at stalls. Participants go shopping and buy the necessary
ingredients by negotiating for a lower price.
Camp leaders, who not only conduct camp activities but also take care of all of
the children’s needs, are undergraduate and graduate students from overseas, aged
from approximately 18 to 30. Regularly, almost all of them are composed of nonnative
speakers of English, who have acquired English as their official or second language in98

Developing Can-Do Lists for Stay-over Type Language Programs

their home countries. Before participation they are required to receive an intensive
training provided by the educational institute, and therefore their skills, though not as
adequate as licensed language teachers, are considered essentially sufficient. The
diversity of their background offers children valuable opportunities to listen to a wide
variety of English, or World Englishes (Kachru, 1985), and use English as aninternational language (McKay, 2002).

4. Can-Do studies in English camps
4. 1. Studies by means of the EIKEN Can-Do List
Employing the EIKEN Grade 4 Can-Do list (STEP, 2008), Muto (2014a) studied
the changes in confidence of elementary school children ranging from 3rd to 6th
graders (N=223) participating in the EIC camps held in 2013, and the relationshipbetween their confidence in each Can-Do statement and the language activities at thecamp. The rationale behind opting for the EIKEN Grade 4 Can-Do list (see Appendix
1) for the study (Muto, 2014a) is that all the seven EIKEN Can-Do lists, including thatof Grade 4, are assumed to offer a general picture of what typical language learners
believe they can do (Naganuma, 2010). Therefore, the lists are not customized
exclusively for language activities in the classroom, but for real-life situations (Yanase,2014) which are embodied in an out-of-class learning environment such as the target
English camp. Moreover, there is a practical reason for the use of the Grade 4 Can-Do
list. Prior to participation, all camp participants are required to have passed EIKEN
Grade 4 and/or finished studying the worksheets equivalent to the EIKEN grade,which are provided by the educational institution. Twice, before and after the
program, participant children were instructed to self-evaluate their confidence in thesame questionnaire on a four-degree Likert scale: None, Little, Some, and A lot. Tables
below, divided according to language skills, show the results obtained from thequestionnaires. In each of the following table, the number of valid data ( n ) varies
depending on an item. This is because out of all participants (N=223) those whoreported having previous experience regarding an item in the first (pre-camp)questionnaire are subjects of the analysis. The reason behind this is that without any
prior experience one cannot assert he or she is confident in performing the language
activity described in the Can-Do statement.

99

Table 1. Level of Confidence about Reading Can-Do Statements
n

Time

None

Little

Some

A lot

R-1. Can understand short letters andemails.

47

BeforeAfter

1 ( 2%)
2 ( 4%)

9 (19%)
6 (12%)

27 (57%)27 (57%)10 (21%)
12 (25%)R-2. Can understand simple stories that
include illustrations or photographs.

110

BeforeAfter0 ( 0%)
0 ( 0%)

16 (14%)14 (12%)59 (53%)49 (44%)35 (31%)47 (42%)R-3. Can understand sentences describing
familiar activities from everyday life.

111

BeforeAfter0 ( 0%)
0 ( 0%)

14 (12%)8 ( 7%)

57 (51%)44 (39%)39 (35%)59 (53%)R-4. Can understand simple signs andnotices in public facilities.

110

BeforeAfter0 ( 0%)
0 ( 0%)

7 ( 6%)
6 ( 5%)

40 (36%)32 (29%)63 (57%)72 (65%)R-5. Can understand simple English menus.

71

BeforeAfter

1 ( 1%)
1 ( 1%)

15 (21%)9 (12%)

27 (38%)36 (50%)28 (39%)25 (35%)R-6. Can understand the information in an
invitation to a party, etc.

46

BeforeAfter0 ( 0%)
0 ( 0%)

6 (13%)
12 (26%)27 (58%)24 (52%)13 (28%)10 (21%)

Can-Do statement

Table 2. Level of Confidence about Listening Can-Do Statements
n

Time

None

Little

Some

A lot

L-1. Can understand the information in a
simple self-introduction.

97

BeforeAfter0 ( 0%)
0 ( 0%)

13 (13%)7 ( 7%)

46 (47%)36 (37%)38 (39%)54 (55%)L-2. Can understand the content of simply
constructed sentences.

112

BeforeAfter0 ( 0%)
2 ( 1%)

10 ( 8%)2 ( 1%)

43 (38%)34 (30%)59 (52%)76 (62%)L-3. Can understand the content of simply
constructed sentences.

112

BeforeAfter0 ( 0%)
2 ( 1%)

12 (10%)4 ( 3%)

42 (37%)28 (25%)58 (51%)78 (69%)L-4. Can understand descriptions of thelocation of people and things.

94

BeforeAfter0 ( 0%)
0 ( 0%)

8 ( 8%)
3 ( 3%)

39 (41%)41 (43%)47 (50%)50 (52%)

Can-Do statement

Table 3. Level of Confidence about Speaking Can-Do Statements
n

Time

None

Little

Some

A lot

S-1. Can give a simple self-introduction.

92

BeforeAfter

1 ( 1%)
0 ( 0%)

19 (20%)3 ( 3%)

43 (46%)36 (39%)29 (31%)53 (57%)S-2. Can ask simple questions.

101

BeforeAfter

2 ( 1%)
0 ( 0%)

17 (16%)8 ( 7%)

39 (38%)39 (38%)43 (42%)54 (53%)S-3. Can ask for repetition when he / she does
not understand what the speaker says.

72

BeforeAfter

2 ( 2%)
5 ( 6%)

10 (13%)18 (25%)33 (45%)25 (34%)27 (37%)24 (33%)S-4. Can say dates and days of the week.

84

BeforeAfter

6 ( 7%)
3 ( 3%)

19 (22%)17 (20%)30 (35%)29 (34%)29 (34%)35 (41%)

Can-Do statement100Developing Can-Do Lists for Stay-over Type Language Programs

Table 4. Level of Confidence about Writing Can-Do Statements
n

Time

None

Little

Some

A lot

W-1. Can write sentences using English word
order, provided that the sentences are short.

120

BeforeAfter

4 ( 3%)
4 ( 3%)

30 (25%)24 (20%)52 (43%)46 (38%)34 (28%)46 (38%)W-2. Can write short messages by putting
words and phrases together.

57

BeforeAfter

1 ( 1%)
1 ( 1%)

15 (26%)15 (26%)24 (42%)26 (45%)17 (29%)15 (26%)W-3. Can write sentences joining clauses
with conjunctions.

107

BeforeAfter

9 ( 8%)
4 ( 3%)

31 (28%)15 (14%)45 (42%)49 (45%)22 (20%)39 (36%)W-4. Can write dates and days of the week.

101

BeforeAfter

4 ( 3%)
1 ( 0%)

29 (28%)25 (24%)38 (37%)34 (33%)30 (29%)41 (40%)Can-Do statement

Additionally, in order to determine whether there might be a significant change
in the nominal data (i.e., the number of responses) before and after the target camps,
a McNemar’s test (exact significance, 2-tailed) was applied after creating two groups
by combining None and Little into Negative, and Some and A lot into Positive. As is
obvious from Table 5, only two statements, S-1 (p = .015) and W-3 ( p = .005) were
found to demonstrate a significant change (α< .05).
Table 5. Results of McNemar’s Test Comparing Responses Before and After Camp
Reading

Listening

Speaking

R-1 .757

L-1 .430

S-1 .015

W-1

Writing

R-2 .840

L-2 .316

S-2 .139

W-2 1.000

R-3 .383

L-3 .462

S-3 .080

W-3

.005

R-4 .946

L-4 .512

S-4 .488

W-4

.360

.478

R-5 .356
R-6 .251

With the relationship between the results and the camp activities closely
examined, S-1 and W-3, both of which are concerned with productive skills related toactivities done repetitively during the camps, were shown to have the potential tostrengthen confidence. The change in S-1 (Can give a simple self-introduction) is
attributed to activities named Sign Game (conducted on Day 1 and Day 2) and My
Hometown (Day 4). In the game, while freely walking around in the room, children
introduced themselves to each other and wrote down what they learned about otherparticipants. Similarly, in My Hometown, each participant with prepared notes andpictures introduced his or her hometown to other members in their groups. Activities

101

that can be considered to have triggered the rise in W-3 (Can write sentences joining
clauses with conjunctions) are ones named Diary Writing (conducted from Day 1
through Day 5), Writing a Postcard (Day 3), Camp Impression (Day 5) and Dream
Poster (Day 4 and Day 5). In all four activities, though their purposes differed,children were encouraged to write English in sentences, if possible, with conjunctions.
Providing repetitive lessons that focus on a particular language skill (e.g.,
writing) is feasible in regular intensive language courses, however, dealing with a wide
variety of topics is often limited due to resources available in the classroom. In thisregard, it may be argued that stay-over type language programs have an advantage inoffering meaningful real-life activities (e.g., keeping a diary every day).
On a final note, the EIKEN Can-Do list could be a possible powerful tool toelucidate the relationship between confidence in language use and the nature oflanguage activities. The list, however, may not be sufficient to cover the uniquecharacteristics that the camp program had. This reflection leads to the necessity of thefollowing research.
4.2. Research by use of the EIC Can-Do list
Based on the results of and reflections on the previous study, in Muto (2014b)
an original Can-Do list was developed and employed to study the changes in selfevaluation of confidence of participants (N=189) in the EIC camps held in thefollowing year. The original Can-Do list, namely the EIC Can-do list (see Appendix 2),
was developed with reference to the EIKEN Grade 4 list (Appendix 1) and by breaking
down the elements of each activity conducted in the camp program.
As with the previous study, a question was added to each CDS in order toinquire about their previous experience and confidence with regard to each statement.
In an exactly similar way, participants were instructed to self-evaluate their confidence
on a four-point Likert scale: None, Little, Some, and A lot. Again, the samequestionnaire was carried out twice in the study: one month before and one monthafter the program. Results are shown in Tables 6 to 9 below.

102

Developing Can-Do Lists for Stay-over Type Language Programs

Table 6. Level of Confidence about Reading Can-Do Statements
n

Time

None

Little

Some

A lot

R-1. Can understand the information given
on schedule.

70

BeforeAfter0 ( 0%)
1 ( 1%)

6 ( 8%)
2 ( 2%)

38 (54%)23 (32%)26 (37%)44 (62%)R-2. Can understand signs and notices.

78

BeforeAfter

1 ( 1%)
1 ( 1%)

12 (15%)6 ( 7%)

42 (53%)31 (39%)23 (29%)40 (51%)R-3. Can understand English on presentation
slides.

57

BeforeAfter0 ( 0%)
1 ( 1%)

16 (28%)7 (12%)

31 (54%)22 (38%)10 (17%)27 (47%)R-4. Can understand the information given
on a price list.

61

BeforeAfter0 ( 0%)
0 ( 0%)

3 ( 4%)
4 ( 6%)

30 (49%)13 (21%)28 (45%)44 (72%)R-5. Can understand short messages.

79

BeforeAfter

1 ( 1%)
1 ( 1%)

5 ( 6%)
2 ( 2%)

49 (62%)24 (30%)24 (30%)52 (65%)

Can-Do statement

Table 7. Level of Confidence about Listening Can-Do Statements
n

Time

None

Little

Some

A lot

L-1. Can understand the information given
in self-introduction.

118

BeforeAfter0 ( 0%)
0 ( 0%)

9 ( 7%)
5 ( 4%)

55 (46%)43 (36%)54 (45%)70 (59%)L-2. Can understand the meaning of simple
instructions or requests.

110

BeforeAfter0 ( 0%)
0 ( 0%)

5 ( 4%)
4 ( 3%)

46 (41%)40 (36%)59 (53%)66 (60%)L-3. Can understand short skits.

84

BeforeAfter0 ( 0%)
0 ( 0%)

22 (26%)4 ( 4%)

35 (41%)32 (38%)27 (32%)48 (57%)L-4. Can understand the information given
a presentation.

74

BeforeAfter

1 ( 1%)
0 ( 0%)

22 (29%)8 (10%)

34 (45%)32 (43%)17 (22%)34 (45%)L-5. Can understand English spoken bypeople from various countries.

72

BeforeAfter

6 ( 8%)
0 ( 0%)

19 (26%)6 ( 8%)

35 (48%)29 (40%)12 (16%)37 (51%)

Can-Do statement

Table 8. Level of Confidence about Speaking Can-Do Statements
n

Time

None

Little

Some

A lot

S-1. Can give a simple self-introduction.

136

BeforeAfter

1 ( 0%)
1 ( 0%)

11 ( 8%)2 ( 1%)

62 (45%)36 (26%)62 (45%)
97 (71%)S-2. Can ask simple questions.

123

BeforeAfter

2 ( 1%)
0 ( 0%)

10 ( 8%)6 ( 4%)

57 (46%)34 (27%)54 (43%)83 (67%)S-3. Can answer simple questions.

123

BeforeAfter

2 ( 1%)
0 ( 0%)

9 ( 7%)
2 ( 1%)

52 (42%)37 (30%)60 (48%)84 (68%)S-4. Can ask for repetition when I do notunderstand.

87

BeforeAfter

2 ( 2%)
1 ( 1%)

14 (16%)
11 (12%)40 (45%)26 (29%)31 (35%)49 (56%)S-5. Can make a presentation about myself
if I’m prepared.

73

BeforeAfter

1 ( 1%)
1 ( 1%)

13 (17%)
6 ( 8%)

36 (49%)14 (19%)23 (31%)52 (71%)

Can-Do statement

103

Table 9. Level of Confidence about Writing Can-Do Statements
n

Time

None

Little

Some

A lot

W-1. Can write down information about hisor her self-introduction.

51

BeforeAfter

1 ( 1%)
1 ( 1%)

14 (27%)
4 ( 7%)

20 (39%)21 (41%)16 (31%)25 (49%)W-2. Can write in my diary.

47

BeforeAfter

2 ( 4%)
1 ( 2%)

13 (27%)2 ( 4%)

23 (48%)14 (29%)9 (19%)
30 (63%)W-3. Can write an explanation about myfuture dream.

56

BeforeAfter

1 ( 1%)
2 ( 3%)

16 (28%)2 ( 3%)

24 (42%)13 (23%)15 (26%)39 (69%)W-4. Can write my impression about events.

37

BeforeAfter

1 ( 2%)
1 ( 2%)

10 (27%)
3 ( 8%)

17 (45%)10 (27%)9 (24%)
23 (62%)W-5. Can look at information and write it
down in my notebook.

49

BeforeAfter

3 ( 6%)
1 ( 2%)

7 (14%)
4 ( 8%)

26 (53%)19 (38%)13 (26%)25 (51%)

Can-Do statement

Although applying a McNemar’s test produced no significant results, as can beseen from the four tables, seven out of the 20 CDSs indicated significant increase(more than 30% increase in the A Lot category) in the confidence level. The following
is the seven CDSs, the names of activities pertaining to them, and the day(s) the
activity was conducted.
R-3.

Wonder-Land (Day 3)

R-5.

Camp leaders’ comments in diary (from Day 2 through Day 6)

L-5.

Interaction with others throughout camp (from Day 1 through Day 6)

S-5.

My hometown (Day 4)

W-2. Diary writing (from Day 2 through Day 5)
W-3. Dream poster (Day 4 and Day 5)
W-4. Writing impression on Camp (Day 5)
As previously explained, Wonder-Land is an activity in which children listen toa presentation and take notes of what they understand in their booklets. With only 57
participants who had reported having prior experience, this activity might have been
new and interesting for most of the participants. Though cognitively challenging, theactivity is argued to have been successful in building confidence, while bringing a
sense of accomplishment. In My hometown, which boosted their confidence in S-5,
each participant child often with notes and pictures introduced his or her own
hometown in front of friends in a group. Among the five CDSs in Speaking, S-5 was104Developing Can-Do Lists for Stay-over Type Language Programs

the least experienced activity among all participants (n =73). Considering their ages,
the activity was so demanding that they felt a fair amount of accomplishment after
they had done the activity, and rated their confidence higher than before.
More noteworthy is that there are three CDSs related to writing, W-2, W-3, andW-4. This is largely because almost all participants were children who would regularly
study reading and writing in the juku (private cramming school) run by the same
institution, and their English skills were much higher than those of average childrenof the same age. With such previous experience, their confidence in writing is
considered to be reinforced in writing activities during the six days on camp.
Obviously, this exceptionality can also explain the increase in confidence levelin R-5. In each day of the program, they were supposed to write a short diary andreceive feedback from their camp leaders. Due probably to the nature of thecomments camp leaders wrote in simple English, children might have felt it easy toread English different from what they usually read in the worksheet.
Last but not least, the escalation in L-5 is largely due to the distinctive nature of
the EIC program. With international students as camp leaders who speak English as
an official or a second language, children were allowed to listen to a wide variety ofEnglish, or World Englishes, throughout the program. Evidently, this is one of themost important outcomes of the program.

5. Conclusion and Implications
As detailed above, in a language program, such as English camps, where
neither a pre-test nor a post-test can often be administered, it is feasible to prove
program validity by research employing Can-Do lists. Recently, the number of shortterm language immersion programs conducted in Japan has been increasing, however,few if any of the organizers or coordinators attempt to verify their effectiveness byother means than the use of a casual questionnaire that occasionally tends to ask for
responses as to whether participants like the program, how they feel about theirEnglish skills after the program, and so forth. Elaborating a Can-Do list can be begun
with referring to established lists such as the CEFR, CEFR-J, the EIKEN list and the
GTEC for STUDENTS Can-Do statements. If conditions permit, doing a pilot study bymaking use of them as they are or with minor changes may bring about beneficial
results. Through reflection on the outcome and by revising and customizing those lists

105

to fit the characteristics of the target program, the researcher may develop a Can-Do
list that can do the job of measuring students’ achievement more precisely. Unlike
regular language classes, this procedure should be all the more important for out-ofclassroom programs and stay-over type camps because of the uniqueness they boast.
As a matter of course, Can-Do studies would produce the best results if
conducted on students immediately after each language activity or at the end of eachday. Taking the findings from Naganuma (2011) into consideration, I developed a setof Can-Do statements with a comment section for children to fill in for each camp day(see Appendix 3, for a sample completed form), and conducted a survey in the same
program setting in the subsequent year. The results being analyzed at present, I will
set discussion for another occasion.

References
Araki, F. 荒木史子（2014）．
『外国語コミュニケーション力に情動が及ぼす影響—CEFR 自己評価に基づく分析から—』広島：溪水社 .
Byram, M., & Parmenter, L. (2012). Introduction. In Byram, M. & Parmenter, L. (eds.)
The Common European Framework of Reference. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
The Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
The Education Rebuilding Implementation Council 教育再生実行会議 (2013). University
Education and Global Human Resource Development for the Future (3rd proposal)（「これからの大学教育等の在り方について」［第三次提言］）．Retrieved fromhttp:///www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/kyouikusaisei/pdf/dai3_en.pdf
Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of CEFR. ELT Journal, 66, 477-485.
Higashi, H. 東仁美（2008）．
「アウトプットを促進させる高学年でのスキット活動—荒川区
ワールドスクールでの取り組み— Promoting Output in English through Skit Activities:
The Arakawa Project」聖学院大学論叢，第 21 巻，第 2 号，155-169.
Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification, and sociolinguistic realism: the English
language in the outer circle, in R. Quirk and H. G. Widdowson (eds.) English in
the World: Teaching and Learning Language and Literatures. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 11-30.

106Developing Can-Do Lists for Stay-over Type Language Programs

Koike, I. 小池生夫（2007）．
「第二言語習得研究を基盤とする小、中、高、大の連携をはかる英語教育の先導的基礎研究」『企業が求める英語力調査報告書』千葉：明海大学 .
McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) 文部科学
省 (2003). A Strategic Plan to Cultivate ‘Japanese with English Abilities’（「英語が使える日本人」育成のための行動計画）．Retrieved fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo3/004/siryo/04031601/005.
pdf
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) 文部科学省（2011）．Five Proposals and Specific Measures for Developing Proficiency inEnglish for International Communication（国際共通語としての英語力向上のための 5 つの提言と具体的施策）．Retrieved fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2012/07/09/
1319707_1.pdf
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) 文部科学省（2013）．
『各中・高等学校の外国語教育における「CAN-DO リスト」の形での学習到達目標設定のための手引き』Retrieved fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/__icsFiles/Afieldfile/2013/05/08/
1332306_4.pdf
Muto, K. (2012). Roles English Immersion Camps Play: Through the Outcome ofKumon EIC.『言語文化の諸相』．大阪，メディアイランド．190-202.
Muto, K. (2014a). Can-do self-evaluation by English camp participants. In N. Sonda &A. Krause (eds.), JALT2013 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT, 78-87.
Muto, K. (2014b). Creating a can-do list for an English Camp. Paper presented at
JALT2014 conference. Tsukuba, Ibaraki.
Muto, K. 武藤克彦（2015）．
「児童を対象とした Can-Do リストの作成 —英語キャンプでの実践から—」『日本児童英語教育学会 第 35 回 秋季大会資料集』，44.
Naganuma, N. (2010). The range and triangulation of can do statements in Japan. In
M. G. Schmidt, N. Naganuma, F. O’Dwyer, A. Imig & K. Sakai (eds.) Can doStatements in Language Education in Japan and Beyond: Applications of the
CEFR. Tokyo: Asahi Press, 19-34.
Naganuma, N. 長沼君主（2011）．「小学校英語活動における自律性と動機づけを高める

107Can-do 評価の実践」『ARCLE REVIEW』第 5 号，65-74.
Naganuma, N. & Ogawa, T. 長沼君主・小川隆夫（2010）．「小学校英語教育における CanDo 尺度の開発とスキル指導の効果の検証—スキルと情意のバランスを求めて」『第33 回全国英語教育学会東京研究大会発表予稿集』，358-359.
Onaka, N. 尾中夏美（2013）．
「グローバル人材基礎力育成事業の一例［Nurturing global
competence through an English immersion program］」．In N. Sonda & A. Krause(eds.), JALT2012 Conference proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.
Shiratori, K. 白鳥金吾（2012）．
「イングリッシュキャンプで国内留学」『英語教育』61（9），18-19.
The Society for Testing English Proficiency (STEP). (2008). The EIKEN can-do list
(English translation). Retrieved fromhttp://www.eiken.or.jp/eiken/exam/cando/pdf/Eiken_CandoList_translation.pdf
Yanase, K. 柳瀬和明（2014）．
「Can-do への関心の高まりと「英検 Can-Do リスト」」．『英語展望』No.121，32-37.
Yoshida, K., & Naganuma, N. 吉田研作・長沼君主（2003）．『英語 can-do アンケート調
査分析報告書』東京：ベネッセコーポレーション．Retrieved fromhttp://berd.benesse.jp/berd/center/open/kokusai/report/2003/07/pdf/cando_rep.
pdf
Yoshida, K., Watanabe, Y., Negishi, K., & Naganuma, N. 吉田研作・渡部良典・根岸雅史・
長沼君主（2004）．
『日・韓・中の英語教育の現状と今後の課題：学生 CAN-DO ／英語教員意識調査より』『英語教育』53（8），66-72.

Appendix 1: EIKEN Grade 4 Can-Do Statements (English translation)
Reading
R-1.

Can understand short letters and e-mails (e.g. introducing the writer’s family,
about memories of a trip.).

R-2.

Can understand simple stories that include illustrations or photographs (e.g.
picture books for children.).

R-3.

Can understand sentences describing familiar activities from everyday life (e.g.
“Ken went to the park and played soccer with his friends.”).

R-4.

Can understand simple signs and notices in public facilities (e.g. “No Smoking,”/ “Closed” / “No Dogs”).

108Developing Can-Do Lists for Stay-over Type Language Programs

R-5.

Can understand simple English menus (e.g. in a fast-food restaurant).

R-6.

Can understand the information in an invitation to a party, etc. (e.g. date, time,
place).

Listening
L-1.

Can understand the information in a simple self-introduction (e.g. the speaker’s
name, where the speaker lives, about the speaker’s family).

L-2.

Can understand the content of simply constructed sentences (e.g. “I like dogs,
but she likes cats.”).

L-3.

Can understand the meaning of simple instructions (e.g. “Open your textbook.”/ “Close the door, please.”).

L-4.

Can understand descriptions of the location of people and things. (e.g. “Thebook is on the TV.”).

Speaking
S-1.

Can give a simple self-introduction (e.g. name, where he/she lives, about his/her family).

S-2.

Can ask simple questions (e.g. the time, someone’s likes, name).

S-3.

Can ask for repetition when he/she does not understand what the speaker says(e.g. “Pardon? / “Could you speak more slowly?”).

S-4.

Can say dates and days of the week.

Writing
W-1. Can write sentences using English word order, provided that the sentences areshort (e.g. “I went to the park yesterday.”).
W-2. Can write short messages by putting words and phrases together (e.g. “birthday
party at 6 p.m.”).
W-3. Can write sentences joining clauses with conjunctions (e.g. and, but, so, when,because).
W-4. Can write dates and days of the week.

109Appendix 2: The EIC Can-Do Statements (English version)
Reading
R-1.

Can understand the information given on schedule.

R-2.

Can understand signs and notices.

R-3.

Can understand English on presentation slides.

R-4.

Can understand the information given on a price list.

R-5.

Can understand short messages.

Listening
L-1.

Can understand the information given in self-introduction.

L-2.

Can understand the meaning of simple instructions or requests.

L-3.

Can understand short skits.

L-4.

Can understand the information given a presentation.

L-5.

Can understand English spoken by people from various countries.

Speaking
S-1.

Can give a simple self-introduction.

S-2.

Can ask simple questions.

S-3.

Can answer simple questions.

S-4.

Can ask for repetition when I do not understand.

S-5.

Can make a presentation about myself if I’m prepared.

Writing
W-1. Can write down information about his or her self-introduction.
W-2. Can write in my diary.
W-3. Can write an explanation about my future dream.
W-4. Can write my impression about events.
W-5. Can look at information and write it down in my notebook.

110Developing Can-Do Lists for Stay-over Type Language Programs

Appendix 3: Daily Can-Do Sheet (a completed sample)111

滞在型外国語プログラムのための Can-Doリストの開発
武藤克彦

文科省提言「国際共通語としての英語力向上のための 5 つの提言と具体的施策」（文部科
学省 , 平成 23 年）を受けて、外国語教育の専門家や教育現場はそれに基づく実践や研究に鋭意努力している。５つの提言のうち、教育現場においては、生徒に求められる英語力に言及した提言 1 が最も多くの関心を集めている。提言１の「学習到達目標を「Can-Do リスト」の形で具体的に設定する」という文言に基づき、中高を始めとする多くの教育現場ではCan-Do リストを作成し、使用する試みが行われている。しかしながら、提言 3「ALT、ICT等の効果的な活用を通じて生徒が英語を使う機会を増やす」、より具体的には「教育委員会
や学校は、ALT や民間人材等を活用してイングリッシュ・キャンプなど、生徒が集中的に英語に触れる機会を設ける」といった具体的施策を踏まえると、学校外での外国語学習活動
においても Can-Do リストを用いた到達目標の設定を行うのが望ましいと考えられる。残念ながら現状では、イングリッシュ・キャンプの実践もさることながら、学術的な実証研究は皆無である。本稿では著者自身がイングリッシュ・キャンプにて行った Can-Do リストを用いた調査研究を元に、滞在型外国語プログラムにおける Can-Do リストの開発およびデータ
収集の結果について論じたい。

112