Reference Data:

School-WideCollaborative
ActionResearch forCurriculum
Development I

Sato, K., & Hirano, M. (2014). School-wide collaborative action research for curriculum development. In N.
Sonoda & A. Krause (Eds.), JALT2013 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.

Although Gordon (2008) asserted that “schoolwide collaborative action research is the most powerfultype of collaborative research because of its potential for bringing about whole-school improvement”(pp. 1-2, italics in original), little is known about how teachers have actually incorporated action research
into their practice and worked with other teachers for curriculum development. The aim of this 4-year
study was to reveal how Japanese senior high school teachers engaged in collaborative action researchorganized by a university teacher and how, as a result, they developed a 3-year English curriculum attheir school.
ゴードン（2008）は、協力的なアクション・リサーチが学校改革のために有効であると提唱しているが、実際、教師がどのよ
うにアクション・リサーチを実践して、他の教員と協力し合い、カリキュラム改革をするのかについての研究はほとんどされていない。4年間に渡るこの研究は、日本の英語高校教員が大学教員の支援を受けて、どのように他の教員とアクション・リサーチに取り組み、3年間の英語カリキュラムを作り上げたのかを明らかにする。

Kazuyoshi Sato

Nagoya University of Foreign
Studies

Mitsuru Hirano
Yokohama Senior HighSchool of International
Studiesn action research teachers usually spend one or more years working on classroom-based

research projects for professional development (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000).
Although action research for teacher development has gained prominence in the literature,
there has been little documentation as to how action research influences teacher learning andcurriculum development. Moreover, little is known about how teachers have actually incorporated action research into their practice and worked with other teachers for curriculum development, particularly in the area of foreign language teacher education (Burns, 1999). Burns
identified the advantage of collaborative as opposed to individual action research:
Collaborative action research processes strengthen the opportunities for the results ofresearch on practice to be fed back into educational systems in a more substantial andcritical way. They have the advantage of encouraging teachers to share common problems and to work cooperatively as a research community to examine their existing assumptions, values and beliefs. (p. 13)
Although few studies of action research in ELT have been conducted, including collaborative action research reported by teachers within collaborative groups (Burns, 2005), one study is worth reviewing. Mutoh, Sato, Hakamada, Tsuji, and Shintani (2009) reported the results of a yearlong col-

JALT2013 CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGSONLINE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

130

SATO & HIRANO • SCHOOL-WIDE COLLABORATIVE ACTION RESEARCH FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

laborative action research project conducted by 15 school teachers(one elementary, seven junior high, and seven senior high school
teachers). The English teachers, who were from different schools,
met once a month, reported on their practices, and received comments from two university teachers and other participants. All 15
teachers reported that collaborative action research helped them tomake reflection a part of their daily teaching routine. Nine teachers said that they heard good teaching ideas from other teachers,
which they then implemented in their own classrooms. In addition,
six teachers reported that their advisors’ comments were useful.
Consequently, 12 teachers said that they had improved their practices through the continuous action research cycle of implementation, reflection, and revision (see Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988).
Nonetheless, only four teachers shared new ideas they had learned
from action research with other teachers in their schools andonly one teacher actually utilized action research for curriculum
development at his school. Thus, how can teachers collaborate withother teachers for curriculum development in a school throughcontinuous action research?
Among the different types of collaborative action research,
Gordon (2008) asserted that “schoolwide collaborative action
research is the most powerful type of collaborative research because of its potential for bringing about whole-school improvement” (p. 1-2, italics in original). This 4-year study was aimed atrevealing how Japanese senior high school teachers engaged incollaborative action research organized by a university teacher
and how, as a result, they developed a 3-year English curriculum at their school. The following three research questions were
formulated for this study:
1.
2.

How do teachers communicate and collaborate for a curriculum reform project?

How do students change their attitudes toward learning
English and improve their abilities through the curriculum
reform project?

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE

3.

What are the difficulties in implementing a school-wide
curriculum reform project?

Context and Data Collection
School and Teaching Context
Kagamihara Senior High School is a public school with threecourses of study, including a general course, a math and science course, and an English course. This is the only public highschool in Gifu Prefecture that has an English course. Althoughstudents’ English ability is at a lower intermediate level, mostof them go on to university or junior college. This top-down curriculum reform project started in 2008 and became a prefecturalproject from 2009 to 2011. Before the project started, students
were not interested in English and received teacher-centeredclass instruction. As a result, they could not improve their communicative ability. Therefore, teachers decided to provide morecommunicative classes to develop students’ communicativecompetence in English. The first author, Sato, was invited as anadviser in April 2008. He visited the school every other week,
observed classes, and gave advice to teachers at meetings. Following his advice, the teachers mainly relied on two teachingapproaches based on Communicative Language Teaching (seeBrown, 2007; Lee & VanPatten, 2003). First, they implemented
skill integration in English 1 and 2, for 1st- and 2nd-year students, and Reading, for 3rd-year students. Second, they implemented focus-on-form instruction in Oral Communication (OC)for 1st-year students and Writing 1 and 2 for 2nd- and 3rd-year
students so that they could continue to teach communicatively
for 3 years (see Table 1). All English teachers shared handouts
and participated in weekly meetings.

 PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

131

SATO & HIRANO • SCHOOL-WIDE COLLABORATIVE ACTION RESEARCH FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Table 1. English Curriculum at Kagamihara High School
Total units earned

Year Listening

Generalcoursestudents

Math and science course
students

Englishcoursestudents

English Course 1

4

3

3

English Course 2

3

3

3

Arts 4 /Science 333Oral Communication 1

2

2

2

Writing 1

2

2

3

Writing 2

Arts 3 /Others 2

2

3

Course title

Reading

Table 2 shows the goals of the English curriculum for each
grade level. Through trial and error teaching, the teachers
agreed with the goals for each grade level. In addition, theychanged assessment components. Though they had previously
relied on summative assessment (90%), they reduced this to 50%
and incorporated formative assessment, including speaking
tests (20%), fun essays (20%), and portfolios (10%).

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE

Table 2. Goals of the English Curriculum (Can-Do List)
Speaking

Reading

Writing

1stUnderstand
Understand Manage aa text with
70% of what 3-minuteconversation 150 words
the teacher
and the CD
say

Complete an
essay with
100 words

2nd

Understand
Understand Manage aa text with
80% of what 4-minuteconversation 300 words
the teacher
and the CD
say

Complete an
essay with150 words

3rd

Understand
Understand Manage aa text with
90% of what 5-minuteconversation 400 words
the teacher
and the CD
say

Complete an
essay with
200 words

Participants
The project started in 2008 with four 1st-year teachers (three
Japanese teachers and one ALT). This group focused on changing the approach in OC classes to a communicative one basedon focus-on-form instruction (see Sato, Iwai, Kato, & Kushiro,2009). Hirano, the second author of this paper, transferred to
Kagamihara High School and joined the project in 2009. Both
1st- and 2nd-year teachers, including seven teachers and one
ALT, were involved in the curriculum reform project. In 2010 all
12 English teachers were involved in the project. However, three
3rd-year teachers withdrew and went back to their traditional
methods to prepare students for university entrance exams inthe middle of the school year. The following year, finally and for PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

132

SATO & HIRANO • SCHOOL-WIDE COLLABORATIVE ACTION RESEARCH FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

the first time, Hirano and his colleagues collaborated for the full
year. The project was continued for a total of 3 years. Therefore,
the data and observations presented below are based on the
3-year period that Hirano was involved, from 2009 through2011.

Data Collection and Analysis
Mixed methods were used to analyze multiple data sources forthis longitudinal study. Teachers conducted a student survey
at the end of each semester (in October and February). Results
were collected by each grade-level leader and analyzed. For example, Hirano was a leader for English 1 and 2 and Reading for
3 years, and another teacher was in charge of OC and Writing
1 and 2 for 3 years. Grade-level leaders were also in charge ofmaking handouts (see Appendix A for an example) and calling
weekly meetings. They also analyzed student comments andperformance tests (speaking tests and fun essays) from selectedstudents. Finally, Hirano added the results of the Assessmentof Communicative English test (ACE; ELPA, n.d.), which is a
proficiency test measuring vocabulary, grammar, listening, andreading skills. At the end of each school year (in late March),
all the English teachers gathered for a meeting and grade-level
leaders reported the results of their action research, followed by
Sato’s comments and advice.

First, Hirano narrates his observations of what happened in
English Course 1 and 2 and Reading over the 3 years so as todescribe how he and his colleagues developed a 3-year English
curriculum from 2009 to 2011. Second, quantitative data, including student surveys for 3 years and the ACE test conducted
in 2011, are presented. Finally, both qualitative data (Hirano’s
stories and students’ comments) and quantitative data (student
surveys and ACE test results) are discussed.

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE

Qualitative Results
Year 1At the beginning of April, it took some time for students tobecome accustomed to all the classes being taught only inEnglish. However, my colleagues soon told me that almost no
students slept during the class and there was an increase inmotivation for studying English. Teachers had a meeting once aweek for sharing problems related to our lessons. We also talked
about the rubrics of both a speaking test and a writing test (seeAppendix B). I was surprised and happy to see the improvement in students’ speaking ability in their first speaking test in
front of a video camera. Even though the students were nervous, most somehow managed a 3-minute conversation about afamiliar topic using basic conversation strategies. Moreover, I
was pleased to see students’ writing, which we call “fun essays”
because they use colorful paper and include club photos (seeAppendix C). Students showed their originality and ingenuity.
During peer editing time, students had valuable opportunities
to enjoy reading what their classmates had written. Some students were not interested in participating in the activity at the
beginning. However, once they noticed that it was an importantpart of this English class, they joined in positively. In July, we
displayed all the fun essays along the corridor for the first time,
like banners flying from one end to the other. A lot of students
visited other classrooms to see and remark on the work. Three
students wrote the following comments in the survey. (All comments were in Japanese; translations are by author.)
I did not want to write something in English because my
English was poor. But I could gradually get used to writing. Finally I completed a fun essay. I was a little embarrassed that not only my classmates but also students fromdifferent classes looked at mine and some friends told me
my work was cute and colorful. I was very happy.

 PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN133

SATO & HIRANO • SCHOOL-WIDE COLLABORATIVE ACTION RESEARCH FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

I was surprised to see the rubric for the fun essay as I was
not good at English. But as one of the criteria was design,
I wrote my essay without worrying about my English. I
want to increase the number of the words for the next fun
essay.
Even though I worried if I could complete a fun essay, I
was able to write an essay with over 150 words. I enjoyed
the fun essay because I used colored paper, photos, andeven print club stickers. Timed conversations were really
useful for me to complete all the essays.
My colleagues were also moved when they saw their students’ work displayed in the hallway. They told me that they
had not expected their students to complete such excellent essays. In addition, it was a good opportunity for teachers of othersubjects to see what we had been doing for the English curriculum reform project. Two English teachers gave me the following
comments:
The essays of the 1st-year students were much better thanthose of the 2nd-year students as theirs were much morecolorful and longer.
I did not know that some students of my homeroom classwere good at design. It was a good thing to show us students’ essays because we could not easily see what thereform project was.
We were very happy with the results of the 1st year of the action research project and decided to continue the project in 2010.

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE

Year 2All the 2nd-year students started 1-hour extensive reading oncea week from the second semester, following the advice of Sato,and continued reading the True Stories series in addition to
the textbook. They were able to read the content of the stories
more quickly than before. All the teachers involved in extensive reading told me that their students suddenly concentrated
on reading the books of the Oxford Reading Tree (ORT) andFoundations Reading Library (FRL) series. I realized that thosebooks had an impact on students’ motivation. They had readmore than 8,000 words by the end of the 2009 school year. Whenthey finished reading a book, they wrote the title of the story, thelevel, the rank, the number of words, and their impression of thecontent of the story in a book report. Since a lot of students justwrote “Fun!” or “Interesting!” we had them answer the question“Which part of the story did you especially like?” Furthermore,because they could not concentrate on reading for the wholeclass, they also engaged in small talk about the book they had
just read. They asked three questions of their partners: “What’s
the title of the story?” “Who are the main characters?” and “Tellme about the content of the story.” When they were telling theirpartners about the contents of the story, they were able to use
pictures they liked from the book. One of the strongest memories I have was when I saw students who had really disliked
English in the beginning open an ORT book and concentrate
on reading. This was a great surprise. From that time, students
began to prefer extensive reading to regular English class. Some
female students did not like reading the ORT series very much.
However, as soon as FRL was introduced, most students became
big fans of the series. The reason was that the main characters
were teenagers, and the stories were familiar to students. I realized that if we offer books that suit the level and the interests ofstudents, they can enjoy reading the books.

 PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

134

SATO & HIRANO • SCHOOL-WIDE COLLABORATIVE ACTION RESEARCH FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Some students wrote the following comments:
As I disliked studying English, I did not understand why
we should move to another room just to read. But I wasshocked when I read through the books of the ORT series.
It was easy for me to read those books with a small number of words and various pictures.
I didn’t expect that the contents of the stories of ORT and
FRL would be enjoyable. I had never had the experienceof being devoted to reading something written in English.
I naturally memorized the characteristics of the charactersin the stories so I enjoyed talking with my friends about
them. At the same time, friends gave me comments aboutstories I hadn’t read yet or I was going to read.
The 2nd-year English teachers decided to continue the curriculum reform project, including extensive reading, in 2011.

Year 3For the final speaking test in December, almost all the students
were able to manage a 5-minute conversation about a social
topic using all the conversation strategies they had learned.
Teachers noted that they strove to succeed in the final speaking
test, especially by using follow-up questions. As both teachersand students worked hard toward the same goal, the students
performed noticeably better on the speaking test. It was vitalto implement a speaking test to improve students’ speaking
skills. As soon as they were seated, they seemed ready to takethe test. When 1st- and 2nd-year students were nervous, theyoften forgot the content or order of the questions. However, the3rd-year students were able to help their partners naturally and
immediately, often with a follow-up question, and to wait sup-JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE

portively for the partners to respond. Thanks to their partners’
helpful follow-up questions, students seemed to relax andbecome able to continue the conversation. Use of this follow-up
question strategy was evidence that students had gained theability to fill in pauses in a conversation, as the test was performed live, without rehearsal and with a sense of tension. Until
the previous year, the only follow-up question they would ask
was, “Why?” They had become able to use the other follow-up
questions in order to prolong a conversation. It showed, at thesame time, that students had gained confidence. Although I had
thought previously that students did not need to go to a different room for a speaking test, I realized that a speaking test for a
final evaluation should be carried out with a sense of tension in
a separate room. Some students wrote the following comments:
Thanks to small talk (warm-up conversations) at the startof every class, I am sure that my speaking skills improved.
We had an opportunity to use what we learned in small
talk for the speaking test, and it was especially useful forme to pass the 2nd-grade Eiken interview test.
Even though rotating my position to talk with different
partners annoyed me, I actually stole some useful expressions from my partners during small talk.
I learned that I needed a lot of background knowledge inorder to be able to keep talking about not only familiar
topics but also social topics.
Of course, the higher we set the level of the criteria for the
speaking test, the longer it took us to evaluate them. Although
my colleagues and I had a lot of extra work, we became accustomed to evaluating student speaking tests by the 3rd year.

 PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

135

SATO & HIRANO • SCHOOL-WIDE COLLABORATIVE ACTION RESEARCH FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Summary
Through participating in this lesson reform project, I havelearned a number of things. I had a fulfilling time teaching English through integrated skills learning. I was astonished to see
our students improve their English skills. Every lesson broughtme endless surprises. In other words, I found that integrating
language skills was effective in improving students’ English
ability. Through a recursive process, students were able to use
English more fluently and accurately than before. However, I
had great difficulty in developing a 3-year communicative curriculum. I would like to highlight two of these problems.

The first difficulty was making handouts for each lesson
based on skill integration and the framework suggested by Lee
and VanPatten (2003). The handouts included an informationexchange task as the lesson goal and students worked toward
the speaking test and fun essay. Lee and VanPatten (2003)
claimed that “a lesson goal that is represented by an interactive
information-exchange task allows an instructor to map out thelesson, specifying subgoals along the way” (p. 77). I spent hours
making handouts and modifying them following Sato’s advice
and incorporating my colleagues’ feedback.
The second difficulty was teacher collaboration. I always
worried whether colleagues would be able to use my handouts
effectively because it seemed difficult to use handouts made bysomeone else without sufficient explanation. Without teacher
collaboration, we could not have achieved our goals. Our experience is similar to what Brown (2007) wrote about the significance of teacher collaboration. Citing Murphey and Sato (2005),
Brown suggested thatthe process of continuing to develop your professional
expertise as a teacher is sometimes difficult to managealone. The challenge of teaching in a rapidly changing

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE

profession almost necessitates collaboration with otherteachers in order to stay on the cutting edge. (p. 502)
I moved to the school as a new teacher in 2009 and immediately started participating in the 1st year of the curriculum
reform project. Some teachers with strong beliefs in traditional methods of language teaching and learning regularlycomplained about communicative teaching in English teachers’ meetings. Thus, every time I heard their objections, I felt
awkward. However, I fortunately had the great privilege ofcollaborating with two other teachers for 3 years. We had not
only a weekly 1-hour meeting but also other informal meetings
to share problems and feedback. My colleagues and I discussed
how to implement each activity on the handouts, the speaking
tests, fun essays, extensive reading, and surveys. Those meetingwere essential to improving our lessons. We also received substantial advice from Sato for the project after his observations of
our English classes every other week.
In short, it is worth emphasizing that the two important factors in improving students’ English ability were the systematic
approach to teaching through integrating language skills andthe power of teacher collaboration. In addition, revising our assessment methods was a catalyst for the students to participate
more actively in class. If it had not been for these two conditions, students would have lost the motivation to learn English
and we would not have succeeded in the curriculum reformproject.

Quantitative Results
Tables 3, 4, and 5 show the results of speaking skills from thesurvey (self-reported) conducted in February from 2009 to
2011. While 67% of the 1st-year students managed to maintaina 3-minute conversation on a familiar topic, 87% did so with a PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

136

SATO & HIRANO • SCHOOL-WIDE COLLABORATIVE ACTION RESEARCH FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

5-minute conversation on a familiar topic in the following year.
In the 3rd year, 68% were able to keep talking about a social
topic for 5 minutes.

Table 3. Speaking Skills of 1st-Year Students in
February 2009, n = 275
Can-do statement% of students
Can completely manage using shadowing and25
rejoinders
Can almost manage using shadowing and42
rejoinders
Can somehow manage using shadowing and27
rejoinders
Can hardly manage
5
Cannot manage at all
1
Note. Self-reported for a 3-minute timed conversation about familiar topics.

Table 4. Speaking Skills of 2nd-Year Students in
February 2010, n = 273
Can-do statement
Can completely manage using shadowing,rejoinders, and follow-up questions
Can almost manage using shadowing, rejoinders, and follow-up questions
Can somehow manage using shadowing,rejoinders, and follow-up questions
Can hardly manage
Cannot manage at all% of students
23
64
9
4
0

Note. Self-reported for a 5-minute timed conversation about familiar topics.

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE

Table 5. Speaking Skills of 3rd-Year Students in
February 2011, n = 261
Can-do statement% of students

Can completely manage using shadowing,rejoinders, and follow-up questions
Can almost manage using shadowing, rejoinders, and follow-up questions
Can somehow manage using shadowing,rejoinders, and follow-up questions
Can hardly manage
Cannot manage at all

5
63
27
5
0

Note. Self-reported for a 5-minute timed conversation about social topics.

Tables 6, 7, and 8 show the results of writing skills from 2009
to 2011. While 13% of the 1st-year students wrote an essay ofover 150 words in 2009, 53% of them wrote over 150 words inthe following year. 62% of them wrote at least 150 words about asocial topic when they became 3rd-year students.

Table 6. Writing Skills of 1st-Year Students in
February 2009, n = 274
Can-do statement
Can write over 150 words
Can write over 120 words
Can write over 100 words
Can write over 80 words
Can write with fewer than 80 words% of students
13
48
24
14
1

Note. For a fun essay about familiar topics.

 PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

137

SATO & HIRANO • SCHOOL-WIDE COLLABORATIVE ACTION RESEARCH FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Table 7. Writing Skills of 2nd-Year Students in
February 2010, n = 273
Can-do statement
Can write over 150 words
Can write over 120 words
Can write over 100 words
Can write over 80 words
Can write with fewer than 80 words% of students
53
33
11
2
1

Note. For a fun essay about familiar topics.

Table 8. Writing Skills of 3rd-Year Students in
February 2011, n = 271
Can-do statement
Can write over 200 words
Can write over 150 words
Can write over 130 words
Can write over 100 words
Can write with fewer than 100 words% of students
13
49
37
1
0

Note. For a fun essay about social topics.

Table 9 displays the results of ACE tests conducted in April andJanuary of the 2011 school year. As explained before, the ACE
is a standardized test conducted in many high schools all overJapan. It measures vocabulary, grammar, listening, and reading
skills. Whereas only 29.3% of the 1st-year students reached oroutperformed the standard of English ability for 1st-year students
in January 2012, 39.7% of the 2nd-year students did so. Moreover, 53% of the 3rd-year students reached or outperformed thestandard for the 1st-year students. Considering the English levelof the 1st-year students, students at Kagamihara High School

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE

improved their basic linguistic ability over 3 years. In short, thesestudents developed not only fluency but also accuracy over 3
years through the communicative English program.

Discussion
The first research question was about how teachers communicate and collaborate for a curriculum reform project. As Hirano
explained, these teachers had busy schedules. However, he andhis colleagues had informal gatherings in addition to weekly
meetings to discuss how to use handouts and solve problems.
Consequently, they were able to develop a systematic and coherent English curriculum for 3 years, which resulted in successful
student outcomes. The results confirm the finding of previous
researchers that teacher collaboration leads to better student
learning (see McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Sato & Takahashi,2008). Unfortunately, Hirano reported that there were otherteachers who were unwilling to collaborate due to different beliefs about language learning and teaching. There still
remains the challenging issue of how to change a school culture
into a collaborative one. Hawley and Valli (1999) asserted that“without collaborative problem solving, individual change may
be possible, but school change is not” (p. 141). In other words,
without developing a collaborative teaching culture, innovations are marginalized and curriculum improvement does notoccur (see Sato 2002; Sato & Kleinsasser, 2004).
The second research question was about how students change
their attitudes toward learning English and improve theirabilities through the project. The results indicate that students
improved their English ability in terms of both fluency and accuracy. One of the important things we learned from this project
was the value of integrating teaching and assessment. To begin
with, all teachers gave students a syllabus that included goals
and assessment components at the beginning of the school year
in April, which had not been the norm at this high school. In

 PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

138

SATO & HIRANO • SCHOOL-WIDE COLLABORATIVE ACTION RESEARCH FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Table 9. The Results of ACE Tests in 2011-2012 School YearGrade
1st-year
2nd-year
3rd-year

Month
April
January
April
January
April
January

1st year 430~449
18 (6.5%)
36 (12.9%)
45 (15.1%)
38 (12.8%)
42 (15.7%)
37 (13.8%)

Standard scores
2nd year 450~469
16 (5.7%)
26 (9.3%)
17 (5.7%)
41 (13.8%)
36 (13.4%)
34 (12.7%)

3rd year 470 ~499
4 (1.4%)10 (3.5%)
7 (2.3%)30 (10.1%)
26 (9.7%)
34 (12.7%)

500 ~ 599
6 (2.2%)7 (2.5%)1 (0.3%)8 (2.7%)18 (6.7%)
31 (11.6%)

600 ~ 69903 (1.1%)0
1 (0.3%)3 (1.1%)4 (1.5%)

700
0
0
0
0
0
2 (0.7%)Note. Maximum score is 900. Scores less than 430 are not included.

most high schools, students are assessed based only on written
term tests. Lee and VanPatten (2003) suggested that “testing
cannot be viewed as an isolated event; it must be an integral
part of the teaching and learning enterprise” (p. 100). Similarly,
Brown (2007) affirmed that assessment and teaching shouldbe partners for successful language learning. Because the final
grade included speaking tests (20%) and fun essays (20%), bothteachers and students worked hard on performance tests. Hirano’s stories illustrate how students were motivated and madean effort on the tests.
The third research question was about the difficulties in implementing the school-wide curriculum reform project. Hirano
revealed two difficulties in his narrative. One was developing
handouts based on skill integration and the other was teacher
collaboration. Hirano spent hours developing handouts andmodified them based on the advisor’s comments and feedback
from his colleagues. Gradually, he developed the ability tomake handouts based on principles of language teaching (seeBrown, 2007; Lee & VanPatten, 2003). With regard to language
teaching theories, the teachers mainly relied on skill integration and focus-on-form instruction. This study indicates thatteachers can put theory into practice successfully and make a

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE

difference in student learning if they receive continuous teacher
learning opportunities and advice from a mentor (see Mutoh
et al., 2009). Yet, an unresolved issue remains. Although there
were two leaders in charge of making handouts for each gradelevel, many or most of the students were taught by other teachers. These included both novice and experienced teachers whotransferred in from different schools and joined the curriculum
reform project while it was being carried out. Their degree ofparticipation in the new curriculum became an issue. As Hirano
reported, there were teachers who were unwilling to participate
in the curriculum reform project, although it had been mandated by the prefectural Board of Education. Because it was a
top-down reform project, Sato observed that some teachers did
not collaborate and did not follow the handouts that grade-level
leaders made over the 4 years. As the literature on teacher beliefs and practices indicates, beliefs are difficult to change, tend
to self-perpetuate, and affect practices (Pajares, 1992). Moreover,school culture is influential in forming individual teachers’
beliefs (Sato, 2002; Sato & Kleinsasser, 2004). For example, Satoand Kleinsasser (2004) found that, in one Japanese high school,novice teachers were acculturated into the norms of their new
school and went back to traditional ways of teaching. This issue

 PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

139

SATO & HIRANO • SCHOOL-WIDE COLLABORATIVE ACTION RESEARCH FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

should encourage the consideration of additional questions:
How can teachers collaborate with others and develop a collaborative school culture? How do teachers change their beliefs
and practices in a collaborative school culture? How do teachers
continue to work on curriculum development after a top-down
reform project is over?
In summary, collaborative action research empowers teachers
to be continuous learners and action research “has a potential to
be a powerful agent of educational change” (Milles, 2003, p. v).
However, to make it happen, these teachers need support fromboth their colleagues and policy makers to make their school acollaborative learning community (see Murphey & Sato, 2005;
Sato & Kleinsasser, 2004; Sato & Takahashi, 2008). We should
keep in mind Smylie’s (1995) important observation that “[we]will fail . . . to improve schools for children until we acknowledge the importance of schools not only as places for teachers towork but also as places for teachers to learn” (p. 92).

Bio Data
Kazuyoshi Sato teaches at Nagoya University of Foreign Studies. He holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics from the Universityof Queensland, Australia. He has written papers on communicative language teaching and teacher education. His researchinterests include teacher development, second language acquisition, and curriculum development.
Mitsuru Hirano teaches English at Kanagawa Prefectural Yokohama Senior High School of International Studies. He holds
an MA in TESOL from Nagoya University of Foreign Studies
in Japan. His research interests include skill integration andmultilingualism.

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE

References
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people
learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson
Longman.

Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burns, A. (2005). Action research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of researchin second language teaching and learning (pp. 241-256). London: Erlbaum.

ELPA (English Language Proficiency Assessment). (n.d.). ACE (Assessment of Communicative English) test. Available from http://englishassessment.org/products/test/ace.html
Gordon, S. P. (Ed.). (2008). Collaborative action research: Developing professional learning communities. New York: Teacher College Press.

Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional
development: A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes(Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bas.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1986). The action research planner.
Geelong, VIC, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching
happen (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities andthe work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Milles, G. E. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (2nded.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Murphey, T., & Sato, K. (Eds.). (2005). Communities of supportive professionals. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Mutoh, N., Sato, K., Hakamada, A., Tsuji, H., & Shintani, S. (2009). Collaborative action research: Teacher and curriculum development. In
A. M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT 2008 Conference Proceedings (pp. 53-66). Tokyo:
JALT.

 PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

140

SATO & HIRANO • SCHOOL-WIDE COLLABORATIVE ACTION RESEARCH FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.

Sato, K. (2002). Practical understandings of CLT and teacher development. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education (pp. 41-81). New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.

Sato, K., Iwai, R., Kato, M., & Kushiro, M. (2009). Focus-on-form instruction (FFI) and its effect on student learning. In A. M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT
2008 Conference Proceedings (pp. 521-534). Tokyo: JALT.

Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (2004). Beliefs, practices, and interactions ofteachers in a Japanese high school English department. Teaching andTeacher Education, 20, 797-816.
Sato, K., & Takahashi, K. (2008). Curriculum revitalization in a Japanesehigh school through teacher collaboration. In D. Hayes & J. Sharkey(Eds.), Revitalizing a program for school-age learners through curricularinnovation (pp. 205-237). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Smylie, M. A. (1995). Teacher learning in the workplace: Implications
for school reform. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional
development in education: New paradigms & practices (pp. 92-113). New
York: Teachers College Press.

JALT2013 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

141

Appendix A
Lesson Handouts and Activities
Lesson 10“What is Meaningful International Cooperation?”

Pre-reading of this lesson
Goal
I will be able to write and speak about “International Cooperation.”

Small Talk
Your teacher has already written down a question for today’s talk “Which country in Africa
would you like to visit?” on the blackboard. Make a pair and play jyanken-pon. Winners starttalking.
Use conversation strategies for 1st-year students;
1. openers; Hi, How ya doin?
2. How ‘bout you?
3. rejoinders: That’s great! / Really? / Oh, I see. / Sounds interesting!
4. shadowing (repeat completely or partially what your partner said)
5. follow-up question (ask your partner about his/her answer)
6. closers: Nice talking with you. / You, too.
A: Hi (partner’s name). How ya doin? (opener)
B: I’m pretty good. (rejoinder) How ‘bout you?
A: I’m great. (rejoinder) Which country in Africa would you like to visit?
B: I would like to visit.

A: You would like to visit. (shadowing)That’s great! (rejoinder) Why? (follow up question)
B: Because.

A: (shadowing what B said), (rejoinder). How ‘bout you?
Which country in Africa would you like to visit?
(when you finish your conversation, you use closer as follows)
A: Nice talking with you. (closer)
B: You, too. (closer)

Preview the story 1 : Skimming
Open your textbook. Look at the pictures on pages 102, 104, 106, 109, and 110.
Read the Japanese sentences on each page. Then, read only the first sentence ineach paragraph on pp. 104, 106, 108, and 110 and answer the following true or false
questions.

1. When he was 12, Mr. Yamamoto went to South America with his father.

T/F

2. He was sent to one of the countries in Africa called Sierra Leone.

T/F

3. In Sierra Leone, there had been a civil war for 10 years.

T/F

4. When he left Sierra Leone, he received a welcome message.
T/F
A map of that part of West Africa

Preview the story 2
Answer the following questions.
Q1 What is the capital of Sierra Leone?
Q2 Which is smaller, Hokkaido or Sierra Leone?
Q3 What language do they speak in Sierra Leone?
Q4 How do you say ‘Medecins Sans Frontieres’ inJapanese?

*医療援助団体 medical aid group
Flag of Sierra Leone
Yes, Yoko. It

green
white

Do you know

was one of theabout Sierracountries with

Leone mum?

the lowest life
expectancy.

blue

Pre-reading of Part 1
True or False questionsFirst of all, guess true or false before reading part one. Circle T / F.
He saw children there eating a fruit.

T/F

He traveled to some developing countries when he was a high school student.

T/F

When he was 35, he decided to join MSF to seek the answer to his question.

T/F

While-reading of Part 1
Now open your textbook on page 104 and read part one silently. After that, check youranswers. You may want to change them.
Check your answers with a friend as follows:
A: Let’s talk about No.1. Is this true or false?

B: I think it is true/false. How ‘bout you?
A: I think so, too. / I don’t think so. I think it is true/false.
B: Then how about No.2? Is this true or false?
A: I think it is…
Vocabulary Input
Match the underlined English words and Japanese ones.
1. Tanaka sensei wants to eat a whole chilled watermelon by himself.
*chilled 冷やされた

(

)

(

)

2. My nephew has been working in a developing country.
()

3. I tried to seek my friends at Hirano University.
(

)

(

)

4. Hirano sensei seems happy to see Tetsuya Tomuro.
()

5. Hirano sensei was involved in international cooperation activities()

right after coming back from Ecuador in South America.
()

ア	  ～の直後に
イ	
  西瓜
ウ	
  探す
エ	
  ～（する）ように思われる（見える）オ	
  ～に参加した
カ	
  開発途上国キ	
  大学Play jyanken-pon. Winners say Japanese and losers translate into English. When you havefinished, change the role. I would like you to memorize all words or phrases.
Quick Reading 1
Read part one silently and time your speed by yourself.

(

seconds)

Detailed questions
Now answer the following questions in English. You may want to scan the text.
1. When did Mr. Yamamoto go to Africa with his father? →2. What was he shocked by when he saw the sight? →3. When did Mr. Yamamoto decide to take part in MSF? →Check your answer with a friend as follows.
A: Let’s talk about question No.1. When did Mr. Yamamoto go to Africa with his father?
B: I think . . . . How ‘bout you?
A: I think so, too. / I don’t think so. I think . . . .
B: Okay, let’s talk about question No. 2. Since when did Mr. Yamamoto decide to . . . .
Reading practiceLet’s practice reading!
1st time – Read the story with your teacher, check your pronunciation of the words you finddifficult.
2nd time – Read it again in a soft voice by yourself.
3rd time – Shadowing: Play jyanken-pon. Losers shadow your partner without the textbook.
Please change roles in each paragraph.
Quick Reading 2
Read part one silently and time your speed by yourself. (seconds)

Post-reading of Part 1
Vocabulary Output
Fill in the blanks with the words listed below.
1. There were lots of flies on the.

2. Cameroon is one of the
3. I.
a face-to-face relationship.

*a face-to-face relationship 直接対話できる関係
4. I
5. The baby

a school festival when I was ato be happy

student.
his mother showed up.

Word list⇒
university / developing countries / watermelons / seek / was involved in~ /right after / seemed
Retelling
I want you to retell part one with several sentences. You may use key words below ifnecessary. Play jyanken-pon. Winners first tell one sentence about the first information of partone. Then, losers add one sentence. Continue to tell the story, taking turns.

key words for part 1 : developing countries, international cooperation, MSF, doctors

Timed-Conversation“International cooperation” is the topic of your fun essay and speaking test. This activity isuseful for you to complete your fun essay and speaking test. First answer two questions ①
and ② below. Then, start timed-conversation with the partner next to you. Play jyanken-pon.
Losers start talking. You have ONE minute.
The list of conversation strategies
opener / How ‘bout you? / shadowing / rejoinders / follow up questions / closer
Could you say that again, please? ←Use this, if you don’t understand what your partner
says.
①What kind of international cooperation are you interested in?
②Why?
Appendix B
Rubrics
Rubric for the Speaking Test
Speaking Test (Video Recording)① What kind of international cooperation are you interested in?
② Why?
③ Where would you like to go?
④ Why?
⑤ Do you need a certification for doing the cooperation?
⑥ If yes, what kind of certification do you have to get?
⑦ What is a tough point of the occupation?
Fluency & Content(10 points)
You can completely manage 3-minute talk.
(7 points)
You can manage the 3-minute talk with a couple of pauses.
(4 points)
You can somehow manage the 3-minute talk but the content is not enough.
(1 point)
You cannot manage the 3-minute talk because of long pauses.
Delivery (volume & eye contact)(4 points)
You can talk with eye contact and appropriate volume.
(2 points)
You can talk most of time with eye contact and volume.

(1 point)

You cannot talk with eye contact and appropriate volume.

Strategies (conversation strategies)(6 points)
You can shadow and use more than 4 types of rejoinders.
(5 points)
You can shadow and use more than 3 types of rejoinders.
(3 points)
You can shadow and use more than 2 types of rejoinders.
(1 point)
You cannot shadow and use any rejoinders.
Rubric for the Fun Essay
DesignA (3 points) … You use pictures or illustrations, and color effectively.
B (2 points) … You use pictures or illustrations, and color.
C (1 point) …
You use only black.
LengthA (3 points) …
B (2 points) …
C (1 point) …

You write over 120 words.
You write 115 words.
You write 110 words or less.

Content
A (3 points) …
B (2 points) …
C (1 point) …

Your essay is very interesting and creative.
Your essay is interesting, but not so creative.
Your essay is too simple and monotonous.

Bonus point
You will get ONE bonus point if your essay is brilliant in one of the aspects above.

Appendix C2010 Students’ Work Samples: Fun Essay “The Job I’m Interested in.”