外国語教育メディア学会 (LET)The Japan Association for Language Education and Technology

第 55 回（2015 年度）全国研究大会
The 55th Annual Conference

外国語教育の最前線：リサーチと実践の出あうところ
L2 Classroom: Where Research Meets Practice

主催

外国語教育メディア学会 (LET)

後援

文部科学省・大阪府教育委員会期日2015 年 8 月 4 日（火）〜 6 日（木）会場

千里ライフサイエンスセンター〒560-0082 大阪府豊中市新千里東町 1-4-2

大会事務局

関西大学

山西博之研究室内〒564-8680 大阪府吹田市山手町 3 丁目 3-35
E-mail: let2015office@gmail.com

http://www.let-kansai.org/2015/

ご 挨 拶
F o r e w o r d s

外国語教育メディア学会会長
竹内 理（関西大学）
今年もまた LET 全国研究大会の季節がやって来ました。様々な地域の会員の皆さんが一堂に集い、研究や教育の話をするすばらしい機会です。暑さにも負けず、ゲリラ豪雨にも負
けず、そして、日々の忙しさにも負けず、ぜひこの機会を最大限に利用して、研究・教育に向けた新たな活力を得て頂ければと思います。
会長就任以来６年、私は、LET 関係のいかなる挨拶でも寄稿文でも、「学会は楽会（界）となるべし」と繰り返し述べてきました。
「楽しい」の意味は人それぞれ違うでしょう。しかし、義務感で参加するのでなく、仕事として参加するのでもなく、何か「楽しい」ことを見つけるために参加することができれば、学会の存在意義はより増していくと思います。
楽しくないものは、やがて消え去ります。立場や年齢を超えて、自らの興味・関心にもとづき「さあ、これから楽しい時間の始まりだ」と言って頂けるように、そして大会終了後
は「来年もぜひ来たい」と言ってもらえるように、今大会のご挨拶でも、私の願いを込めて、同じことを繰り返して述べさせて頂きます。
本大会は、新しい試みが幾つも取り入れられています。その分、これまでの準備も大変だ
ったと思います。全力をあげてご準備いただいた若本夏美先生（大会実行委員長）、山西博之先生（大会事務局長）をはじめとした大会実行委員のみなさん、関西支部会員の方々、そしてご出展いただきました賛助会員のみなさんに、衷心より感謝の意を表したいと思います。ありがとうございました。
さあ、
思う存分、楽会を楽しみましょう！

全国大会実行委員長・LET 関西支部長
若本 夏美（同志社女子大学）
ある授業でクリッカーを使っています。学生の反応が即座にシェアされて授業が活性化することに気づきます。あらためて授業に活用可能なリソースが増えていることを実感します。しかし選択肢が増えたからこそ、英語授業の本質や目的を再考することが一層重要になったと感じています。何のためにそのような選択をしているかと。教師に限らず「仕事の本質は誰かの役に立つこと」（松浦弥太郎、2015）であると思います。新たな選択肢を活用することによって学習者にどう役に立つのか、考えてみることは大切なことではないでしょうか。一方、授業の質を高めるためには使用可能なリソースは何でも活用してみよう！という柔軟性と心を閉ざさない姿勢も重要であると思います。質の高い授業をするた
めには自分自身が変わることも求められるのです。
全国大会も関西支部としては今回初めて大学外施設である千里ライフサイエンスセンターで開催します。約 2 年の年月をかけ、支部運営委員会とりわけ山西博之事務局長をヘッドとする実行委員会で熱く建設的な議論が展開されてきました。
「外国語教育の最前線：リサーチと実践の出あうところ」をテーマに、基調講演に Xuesong (Andy) Gao 先生、Alison
Mackey 先生、Neomy Storch 先生をお迎えし、シンポジウム、研究発表、ワークショッ
プ、展示・デモンストレーションの充実したプログラムとなっています。私たち自身にどのような選択肢があるのか。多忙な日常から離れ、ゆったりと考えをめぐらせることができる 3 日間にしていただけると幸いです。

目次
Contents
全体スケジュール

Overall Schedule

2

プログラム

Program4(1) 8 月 4 日（火）(1) Tuesday, August 4th4(2) 8 月 5 日（水）(2) Wednesday, August 5th6(3) 8 月 6 日（木）(3) Thursday, August 6th

19

会場平面図

Campus Map

32

出展賛助会員一覧

Supporting Member Exhibits

33

発表要項集

Abstracts

35(1) 基調講演(1) Keynote Speeches

35(2) セミナー・ワークショップ(2) Seminars・Workshop

43(3) 研究発表・実践報告(3) Oral Presentations

51(4) 公募シンポジウム(4) Symposia

183(5) ポスター発表(5) Poster Presentations

203

実行委員一覧

Committee Members

231

賛助会員広告Advertisements

233

−1−

全体スケジュールO v e r a l l

S c h e d u l e

8 月 4 日（火） Tuesday, August 4
10:00-

各種委員会・支部長連絡会議 Committee Meetings & Chapter Presidents’ Meeting

12:30-

理事会 National Directors’ Meeting
セミナー Seminars（p. 5）

12:00-14:20

水本 篤（802 室 Room 802）

14:40-17:00

今尾 康裕（801 室 Room 801）

14:40-16:00

ワークショップ Workshop（p. 5）
中條 清美・西垣 知佳子（802 室 Room 802）

8 月 5 日（水） Wednesday, August 5
9:00

9:00-17:40

9:40-10:00

10:00-11:30

11:30-12:10

受付 Registration
サイエンスホール Science Hall
賛助会員展示 Supporting Member Exhibits
サイエンスホール Science Hall・603・604
開会行事 Opening Ceremony
ライフホール Life Hall
基調講演 1 Keynote Speech 1 / Dr. Xuesong (Andy) Gao
ライフホール Life Hall
総会・学会賞表彰 Annual General Meeting・LET Awards
ライフホール Life Hall−2−

12:30-16:00①12:30-13:00②13:05-13:35③13:40-14:10④14:20-14:50⑤14:55-15:25⑥15:30-16:00

13:10-14:40

掲示：9:00-16:00

16:10-17:40

18:00-20:00

研究発表・実践報告・公募シンポジウム Oral Presentations・Symposium
賛助会員デモンストレーション Supporting Member Demonstrations
研究発表・実践報告：501・502・503・601・602（p. 10）
公募シンポジウム：ライフホール（p. 14）
賛助会員デモンストレーション：サイエンスホール ステージ（p. 8）（公募シンポジウムは 12:30-14:10 と 14:20-16:00 の 2 件）
ポスター発表コアタイム Poster Presentation Core Time（p. 16）
サイエンスホール Science Hall
基調講演 2 Keynote Speech 2 / Dr. Alison Mackey
ライフホール Life Hall
懇親会 Conference Reception
千里阪急ホテル Senri Hankyu Hotel

8 月 6 日（木） Thursday, August 6
9:00

9:00-15:00

9:30-14:40⑦ 9:30-10:00⑧10:05-10:35⑨10:40-11:10⑩11:15-11:45⑪11:50-12:20〜昼食休憩〜⑫13:00-13:30⑬13:35-14:05⑭14:10-14:40

13:10-14:40

掲示：9:00-16:00

15:00-16:30

16:35-16:50

受付 Registration
サイエンスホール Science Hall
賛助会員展示 Supporting Member Exhibits
サイエンスホール Science Hall・603・604
研究発表・実践報告・公募シンポジウム Oral Presentations・Symposium
賛助会員デモンストレーション Supporting Member Demonstrations
研究発表・実践報告：501・502・503・601・602（p. 21）
公募シンポジウム：ライフホール（p. 27）
賛助会員デモンストレーション：サイエンスホール ステージ（p. 20）（公募シンポジウムは 9:30-11:10・11:15-12:55・13:00-14:40 の 3 件）

ポスター発表コアタイム Poster Presentation Core Time (p. 29)
サイエンスホール Science Hall
基調講演 3 Keynote Speech 3 / Dr. Neomy Storch
ライフホール Life Hall
閉会行事 Closing Ceremony
ライフホール Life Hall−3−

8 月 4 日（火）Tuesday, August 4

10:00-

各種委員会・支部長連絡会議
Committee Meetings and Chapter Presidents’ Meeting
12:30-

理事会
National Directors’ Meeting

12:00-17:00

セミナー
Seminars
14:40-16:00

ワークショップ
Workshop
セミナーとワークショップには、会員・非会員問わず無料でご参加いただけます。事前参
加申し込みも必要ありません。
The seminars and workshop are free of charge and open to both LET members andnon-members. Advance application is not required.

−4−

セミナー 1 / Seminar 1（802 室 / Room 802）
講演：12:00-13:30

休憩：13:30-13:50

質疑応答：13:50-14:20

Web アプリケーションで学ぶ統計解析の基礎と応用 ................................................. 44
水本 篤（関西大学）

Atsushi Mizumoto (Kansai University)

セミナー 2 / Seminar 2（801 室 / Room 801）
講演：14:40-16:10

休憩：16:10-16:30

質疑応答：16:30-17:00

リスニング教材準備は Mac と CasualTranscriber で！ ........................................ 46
今尾 康裕（大阪大学）

Yasuhiro Imao (Osaka University)

ワークショップ / Workshop（802 室 / Room 802）
14:40-16:00

パラレルコーパスの教育利用：4 種のコーパスフリーウェアの活用 ................ 48
中條 清美（日本大学）

Kiyomi Chujo (Nihon University)

西垣 知佳子（千葉大学）

Chikako Nishigaki (Chiba University)

−5−

８
月
４
日
︵
火
︶

8 月 5 日（水）Wednesday,

August5

9:00-

受付（サイエンスホール）
Registration (Science Hall)

9:40-10:00

開会行事（ライフホール）
Opening Ceremony (Life Hall)
司会

山西 博之（大会事務局長

挨拶

竹内 理（LET 会長

関西大学）

関西大学）

若本 夏美（大会実行委員長

LET 関西支部長

同志社女子大学）

Coordinator

Hiroyuki Yamanishi (Conference Secretariat, Kansai University)

Greetings

Osamu Takeuchi (President of LET, Kansai University)
Natsumi Wakamoto (Conference Chair, President of LET Kansai Chapter,
Doshisha Women's College of Liberal Arts)

10:00-11:30

基調講演 1（ライフホール）
Keynote Speech 1 (Life Hall)

Promoting Intercultural Understanding in Classrooms:
Making a Case for Japanese Language Learners in China .......... 36
Dr. Xuesong (Andy) Gao
The University of Hong Kong−6−

11:30-12:10

総会・学会賞表彰（ライフホール）
Annual General Meeting and LET Awards (Life Hall)司会

住 政二郎（LET 事務局長

関西学院大学）挨拶竹内 理（LET 会長

Coordinator

Seijiro Sumi (Secretariat of LET, Kwansei Gakuin University)

Greetings

Osamu Takeuchi (President of LET, Kansai University)関西大学）

9:00-17:40

賛助会員展示（サイエンスホール）
Supporting Member Exhibits (Science Hall)
出展賛助会員一覧については p. 33 をご覧ください。
A list of the exhibiting supporting members can be found on p. 33.

−7−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

①12:30-13:00 ②13:05-13:35 ③13:40-14:10 ④14:20-14:50 ⑤14:55-15:25 ⑥15:30-16:00

サイエンスホール ステージ（Science Hall）① 英会話 e-Learning 教材「MyET」のご紹介 - アジアで 140 万人が利用する理由
Introduce to ‘MyET’ -Best software of learning to speak English-    G-TELP 日本事務局

G-TELP JAPAN② 留学前後教育に対応！自己学習とオンライン英会話のバランス重視型レッスン「EZ toTalk」のご紹介
Introduction of "EZ to Talk", well-balanced lesson of self study and online speaking session, suitable forpreparation / followup of overseas study    リアリーイングリッシュ株式会社

Reallyenglish Japan Co., Ltd.

③ グロリアオンライン(総合 DB)を使った英語学習
English learning using the Gloria online (General database)    ユーメディア

YUMEDIA Inc.

④ 摂南大学における『Progress』の導入の経緯
Implementing Progress at Setsunan University    ピアソン・ジャパン株式会社

Pearson Japan K.K.

    鳥居 祐介（摂南大学）

Yusuke Torii (Setsunan University)    松田 早恵（摂南大学）

Sae Matsuda (Setsunan University)⑤ 4 技能型英語試験(IELTS・TEAP・英検)対策にも役立つオンラインアカデミックライテ

ィング講座のご案内
Introduction to "Online Study-Abroad and Preparation for Academic Writing Course"    公益財団法人 日本英語検定協会

Eiken Foundation of Japan

−8−

①12:30-13:00 ②13:05-13:35 ③13:40-14:10 ④14:20-14:50 ⑤14:55-15:25 ⑥15:30-16:00⑥ 使える語学力を磨く、ウチダの新語学ソリューションのご紹介 〜youtube の動画利用、e-Learning 学習教材、オンライン型マンツーマンレッスンなど〜
Introduction of UCHIDA's new solutions for developing English proficiency

Keywords: Youtube on CALL, e-Learning system, online English lesson    内田洋行

UCHIDA YOKO CO., LTD.

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

−9−

①12:30-13:00 ②13:05-13:35 ③13:40-14:10 ④14:20-14:50 ⑤14:55-15:25 ⑥15:30-16:00

501（実践報告｜Classroom / Application Report）① 発音の誤りへの気づきと修正を取り入れた授業実践とその効果......................................... 52
A practical study on the effectiveness of a self-monitoring method to correct pronunciation    小林 翔（東京都立白高等学校）

Sho Kobayashi (Tokyo metropolitan Hakuo senior high school)② シャドーイングによる英語スピーキング、リスニング力養成の実践報告 ....................... 54
A case study on how to enhance students’ English speaking and listening ability through shadowing    深津 勇仁（リンデンホールスクール） Yujin Fukatsu (Linden Hall School)③ オンライン・ライティング活動における仮想ファシリテーターの役割............................ 56
The Role of a Virtual Facilitator in the Online Writing Activities    久島 智津子（津田塾大学）

Chizuko Kushima (Tsuda College)④ 英語初級レベルの大学生に対する反転学習と協働学習を取り入れたライティング指導 ...... 58
English writing instruction with flipped learning and collaborative learning for beginner-level college students    下山 幸成（東洋学園大学）

Yukinari Shimoyama (Toyo Gakuen University)⑤ ウェブ型リーディング・プログラムの開発 その可能性と課題 ...................................... 60
Developing a Web-based Reading Program: Possibilities and Problems    田口 悦男（大東文化大学）

Etsuo Taguchi (Daito Bunka University)

神田 明延（首都大学東京）

Akinobu Kanda (Tokyo Metropolitan University)

大須賀 直子（明治大学）

Naoko Osuka (Meiji University)

竹村 雅史（北星学園大学短期大学部） Masashi Takemura (Hokusei Gakuen University Junior College)
メイス みよ子（聖学院大学）

Miyoko Maass (Seigakuin University)⑥ オール・イングリッシュ授業に対する大学生の声学習者ビリーフの質的研究 ...... 62
Voices from the university students about “All English” class: Qualitative study of learners’ beliefs    上野 育子（関西学院大学）

Ikuko Ueno (Kwansei Gakuin University)−10−①12:30-13:00 ②13:05-13:35 ③13:40-14:10 ④14:20-14:50 ⑤14:55-15:25 ⑥15:30-16:00

502（実践報告｜Classroom / Application Report）① 分析的・身体的音声指導の効果  中学生を対象とした 3 日間の英語合宿を通じて ...... 64
The Effects of Analytical and Physical Instruction on English Pronunciation - Through 3-days training
camp for junior high school students    阪上 潤（立命館大学）

Jun Sakaue (Ritsumeikan University)    竹田 里香（特定非営利活動法人 Creative Debate for GRASS ROOTS）
Rika Takeda (Creative Debate for GRASS ROOTS)

山根 繁（関西大学）

Shigeru Yamane (Kansai University)② アニメとドラマを利用した若者ことばの学習 目標言語と母語の素材を使用したタイ人大学生向け日本語授業の一例 ................................................................................................... 66
Learning Contemporary Youth Dialogue Through Anime and Drama -A Practice in Japanese Class for
Thai University Students Utilizing Material from Both Target and Mother Languages-    松井 夏津紀（チュラーロンコーン大学） Natsuki Matsui (Chulalongkorn University)③ ウェブ会議を伴った発信型指導が英語習熟度・スピーキング力に及ぼす効果 ............... 68
Effects of output-oriented instruction with videoconferencing on English proficiency and speaking ability    飯野 厚（法政大学）

Atsushi Iino (Hosei University)    籔田 由己子（清泉女学院短期大学）

Yukiko Yabuta (Seisen Jogakuin College)    藤井 彰子（聖心女子大学）

Akiko Fujii (University of the Sacred Heart)    中村 洋一（清泉女学院短期大学）

Yoichi Nakamura (Seisen Jogakuin College)④ 教育用例文コーパス SCoRE を利用したリメディアル文法授業の実践 ............................ 70
Teaching Remedial Grammar Using Sentence Corpus of Remedial English    中條 清美（日本大学）
西垣 知佳子（千葉大学）

Kiyomi Chujo (Nihon University)
Chikako Nishigaki (Chiba University)⑤ Web Speech API を利用した非同期型音声ブログの構築について ..................................... 72
Construction of Asynchronous Voice-based Blog System Using Web Speech API    小野 雄一（筑波大学）

Yuichi Ono (University of Tsukuba)

石井 卓巳（筑波大学）

Takumi Ishii (University of Tsukuba)

大西 昭夫（株式会社 VERSION2）

Akio Onishi (VERSION2 Inc.)

−11−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

①12:30-13:00 ②13:05-13:35 ③13:40-14:10 ④14:20-14:50 ⑤14:55-15:25 ⑥15:30-16:00⑥ リスニング力強化のためにシャドーイングをタブレットやスマホで自主学習できるシ

ステムの構築........................................................................................................................................ 74
Strengthening English listening skills: The development of a self-study shadowing system for tablets andsmart phones    伊藤 佳世子（京都大学）

Kayoko Ito (Kyoto University)    仲野 基紀（株式会社 CHIeru）

Motonori Nakano (CHIeru Co., Ltd.)503（研究発表｜Research Paper）① 多読とディクトグロスが英語熟達度に及ぼす効果 .................................................................. 76
Investigating the effects of pleasure reading and dictogloss on English proficiency    田中 美津子（立命館大学）

Mitsuko Tanaka (Ritsumeikan University)② 日本人高校生における結束性理解の質的分析 ........................................................................... 78
A qualitative analysis of the process of resolving cohesive ties by Japanese high school EFL learners    藤田 賢（三重県立神戸高等学校）

Ken Fujita (Mie Prefectural Kambe High School)③ 自然音声と圧縮音声における L2 減約の知覚............................................................................. 80
Second language learners’ perception of phonetic reduction in natural speech and mechanical speech    中田 ひとみ（獨協大学）

Hitomi Nakata (Dokkyo University)④ 語彙学習方略と語彙の主観的学習困難度コンジョイント分析と潜在クラスモデルによるセグメンテーション ...................................................................................................................... 82
Vocabulary learning strategy and subjective learning difficulty of words: A conjoint analysis and learnersegmentation    草薙 邦広（名古屋大学）

Kunihiro Kusanagi (Nagoya University)

川口 勇作（名古屋大学）

Yusaku Kawaguchi (Nagoya University)⑤ アカデミックライティングの文法的特徴の分析 ....................................................................... 84
Analysis of Grammatical Features of Academic Writing    奥山 慶洋（茨城工業高等専門学校）

Yasuhiro Okuyama (Ibaraki National College of Technology)⑥ 大規模公開オンライン講座字幕の学習利用 ........................................................................... 86
Use of subtitles in a Massive Open Online Course    安西 弥生（九州大学）

Yayoi Anzai (Kyushu University)−12−①12:30-13:00 ②13:05-13:35 ③13:40-14:10 ④14:20-14:50 ⑤14:55-15:25 ⑥15:30-16:00

601（研究発表｜Research Paper）① 教員研修における発音指導に対する教員の意識 ....................................................................... 88
Teachers' Attitudes to Teaching Pronunciation in Training Workshops    河内山 真理（関西国際大学）

Mari Kouchiyama (Kansai University of International Studies)    有本 純（関西国際大学）

Jun Arimoto (Kansai University of International Studies)② 機能シラバスに基づいた英語教育プログラムにおける発話自動採点システム導入可能性の検討 ................................................................................................................................................ 90
Feasibility demonstration of a test by automated scoring system in Functional-syllabus-based English
language program    近藤 悠介（早稲田大学）

Yusuke Kondo (Waseda University)    石井 雄隆（早稲田大学）

Yutaka Ishii (Waseda University)③ 学習者のライティング方略は現実のライティングプロセスに反映されるか ................... 92
The relationships between L2 writing strategies and real-time writing processes
川口 勇作（名古屋大学）

Yusaku Kawaguchi (Nagoya University)④ スマホ辞書とタブレット辞書の検索行動比較予備調査...................................................... 94
Student use of Dictionary apps for Smartphones vs. tablets: A pilot study    小山 敏子（大阪大谷大学）

Toshiko Koyama (Osaka Ohtani University)⑤ 児童が使用するコミュニケーション方略の分析 ....................................................................... 96
An analysis of children’s use of communication strategies    川井 理瑳（ECC ジュニア大枝塚原教室） Risa Kawai (ECC Junior Oetsukahara Classroom)⑥ 協働学習の効果に関する一考察 ..................................................................................................... 98
An investigation of the effects of collaborative learning    津田 ひろみ（明治大学）

Hiromi Tsuda (Meiji University)602（研究発表｜Research Paper）① アカデミック・ディベートを通して向上する語彙力に関する一考察 .............................. 100
A Note on the Vocabulary Development through Academic Debate    橋尾 晋平（同志社大学）

Shimpei Hashio (Doshisha University)

−13−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

①12:30-13:00 ②13:05-13:35 ③13:40-14:10 ④14:20-14:50 ⑤14:55-15:25 ⑥15:30-16:00② 理工系学生の英語学習動機づけ変化過程 .................................................................................. 102
Changing process of engineering students' motivation to learn English    前川 洋子（大阪キリスト教短期大学） Yoko Maekawa (Osaka Christian College)③ モデル音声の速度の違いがシャドーイングに与える影響について 構音速度からの考察 .... 104
How Differences in Model Voice Speeds Affect Shadowing Performances: Considerations from
Articulation Rates
杉田 依嘉子（関西学院大学）

Ikako Sugita (Kwansei Gakuin University)④ 子どもの発達段階を考慮した小学生用英語教材の記憶効果 ............................................... 106
The Memory Effects of English Teaching Materials for Elementary School Students Developed
Considering Developmental Stages of Children    長谷川 修治（植草学園大学）

Shuji Hasegawa (Uekusa Gakuen University)⑤ 携帯情報端末用工学英語語彙学習アプリの開発 ..................................................................... 108
Development of an EST vocabulary learning application for portable devices    小林 誠（豊橋技術科学大学）

Makoto Kobayashi (Toyohashi University of Technology)    笹尾 洋介（豊橋技術科学大学）

Yosuke Sasao (Toyohashi University of Technology)    河合 和久（豊橋技術科学大学）

Kazuhisa Kawai (Toyohashi University of Technology)⑥ 教材開発のための e ラーニングに関しての意識調査 ............................................................ 110
Questionnaire survey on e-learning for development of materials    中島 敬之（京都大学）

Takayuki Nakajima (Kyoto University)    壇辻 正剛（京都大学）

Masatake Dantsuji (Kyoto University)

ライフホール（Life Hall：公募シンポジウム｜Symposium）
公募シンポジウム 1／Symposium 1：12:30-14:10
グローバル人材育成を目指した大学英語学習者の実態調査研究と教育の視点から .......... 184
An Investigation of Linguistic Abilities and Affect to enhance the Development of Global Leaders among
Japanese University EFL Learners: From Research and Educational Perspectives    西田 理恵子（大阪大学）

Rieko Nishida (Osaka University)    竹蓋 順子（大阪大学）

Junko Takefuta (Osaka University)    今尾 康裕（大阪大学）

Yasuhiro Imao (Osaka University)    岡田 悠佑（大阪大学）

Yusuke Okada (Osaka University)−14−

公募シンポジウム 2／Symposium 2：14:20-16:00
多様な大学環境における英語 e ラーニング - 学習データ、アンケート、インタビューからみる「理想的」学習者 - ................................................................................................................. 188“Ideal” learners in e-learning English classes in various university settings    青木 信之（広島市立大学）

Nobuyuki Aoki (Hiroshima City University)    鈴木 繁夫（名古屋大学）

Shigeo Suzuki (Nagoya University)    竹井 光子（広島修道大学）

Mitsuko Takei (Hiroshima Shudo University)    渡辺 智恵（広島市立大学）

Tomoe Watanabe (Hiroshima City University)    志水 俊広（九州大学）

Toshihiro Shimizu (Kyushu University)    寺嶋 健史（松山大学）

Takeshi Terashima (Matsuyama University)    池上 真人（松山大学）

Masato Ikegami (Matsuyama University)

−15−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

ࢧ࢖࢚ࣥࢫ࣮࣍ࣝ㸦Science Hall㸧
iPad ࡢ㘓㡢࣭᧜ᙳᶵ⬟࡜ Moodle ࢆ㐃ᦠࡉࡏࡓ࢔࢘ࢺࣉࢵࢺάືࡢグ㘓࡜ホ౯ ............... 204
Capture, Upload, and Share Media Online Using iPads    ⇃஭ ಙᘯ㸦Ꮫ⩦㝔኱Ꮫ㸧Nobuhiro Kumai (Gakushuin University)ពᅗⓗㄒᙡᏛ⩦࡜അⓎⓗㄒᙡᏛ⩦཮᪉ࢆಁ㐍ࡍࡿ e-࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ㛤Ⓨ .......... 206Development of an e-learning program to facilitate both intentional and incidental vocabulary learning    ᒸᓮ ᘯಙ㸦⛅⏣┴❧኱Ꮫ㸧

Hironobu Okazaki (Akita Prefectural University)    ᮌᡞ ࿴ᙪ㸦⎔ኴᖹὒ኱Ꮫ㸧

Kazuhiko Kido (International Pacific University)    ᶫᮏ ಙ୍㸦㟁Ẽ㏻ಙ኱Ꮫ㸧Shinichi Hashimoto (University of Electro-Communications)    㕥ᮌ ගᏊ㸦⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ㸧

Mitsuko Suzuki (University of Tsukuba)    ⚟⏣ ⾰㔛㸦୰ᅜᏛᅬ኱Ꮫ㸧

Eri Fukuda (Chugoku Gakuen University)    Ụཎ ᬛᏊ㸦⎔ኴᖹὒ኱Ꮫ㸧

Satoko Ebara (International Pacific University)

Implementing ICT in Japanese EFL Classroom: Collaborative Writing Activities................. 208
ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿ ICT ࡢᑟධ㸸༠ྠⓗ࡞ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢάື    㕥ᮌ ගᏊ㸦⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ㸧

Mitsuko Suzuki (University of Tsukuba)    ⚟⏣ ⾰㔛㸦୰ᅜᏛᅬ኱Ꮫ㸧

Eri Fukuda (Chugoku Gakuen University)    ᒸᓮ ᘯಙ㸦⛅⏣┴❧኱Ꮫ㸧

Hironobu Okazaki (Akita Prefectural University)

ᐇ㊶ሗ࿌ࣔࣂ࢖ࣝ E-࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࡢᡂᯝ࡜ㄢ㢟㸸⬻⛉Ꮫ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢯࣇࢺ࡜Ꮫ⏕ࡢ⾜ືࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓヨࡳ .............................................................................................................. 210A Report on the Practice of a Mobile E-learning: Focusing on the Effects of a Software Based on Brain
Science and the Challenges of a Courseware Based on Students’ Behaviors    㕥ᮌ ༓㭯Ꮚ㸦㛗ᓮ⣧ᚰ኱Ꮫ㸧

Chizuko Suzuki (Nagasaki Junshin Catholic University)    ᒣᓊ ಙ⩏㸦ࢽ࣮ࣗࢺࣥH ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ஦ᴗ㒊㸧 Nobuyoshi Yamagishi (Newton e-learning Department)    ྜྷཎ ᑗኴ㸦㛗ᓮ⣧ᚰ኱Ꮫ㸧

Shota Yoshihara (Nagasaki Junshin Catholic University)−16−

短期語学研修が医療系学生の英語学習情意要因に及ぼす影響について................................ 212
The Effects of Studying Abroad on Affective Variables in Learning English among Medical Science Students    野口 朋香（愛知学院大学）

Tomoka Noguchi (Aichi Gakuin University)

語学教育設備の更新と改良の実践理工系 ESP 教育の支援を目指して ............................. 214
Designing language learning environment for ESP    加藤 鉄生（中部大学）

Tetsuo Kato (Chubu University)

ウェアラブルカメラを用いたプレゼンテーション授業実践報告 ............................................ 216
Practical report on the presentation classes using wearable cameras    森下 美和（神戸学院大学）

Miwa Morishita (Kobe Gakuin University)

−17−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

16:10-17:40

基調講演 2（ライフホール）
Keynote Speech 2 (Life Hall)

Second Language Interaction: How Research Can Inform
Instructional Practice ............................................................................................................ 38
Dr. Alison Mackey
Georgetown University

18:00-20:00

懇親会（千里阪急ホテル）
Conference Reception (Senri Hankyu Hotel)−18−

8 月 6 日（木）Thursday,August6

9:00-

受付（サイエンスホール）
Registration (Science Hall)

9:00-15:00

賛助会員展示（サイエンスホール）
Supporting Member Exhibits (Science Hall)
出展賛助会員一覧については p. 33 をご覧ください。
A list of the exhibiting supporting members can be found on p. 33.

−19−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

⑦9:30-10:00 ⑧10:05-10:35 ⑨10:40-11:10 ⑩11:15-11:45 ⑪11:50-12:20

サイエンスホール ステージ（Science Hall）⑦ アクティブラーニングを支援するチエルソリューションのご紹介
Supporting Active Learning: CHIeru's innovative solutions    チエル株式会社

CHIeru Co.,Ltd.

⑧ スマホとタブレットで始めるアクティブラーニング
Beginning Active Learning with a Smartphone and Tablet    日本データパシフィック株式会社

DATA PACIFIC (JAPAN) LTD.

⑨ スマートフォン・アプリを活用した授業外の語学学習支援
Mobile Apps as Supplementary Language Learning Resources    株式会社桐原書店

Kirihara Shoten K.K.

⑩ 英検受験者の学習を支える「スタディギア for EIKEN」とその活用状況
StudyGear for EIKEN - A web learning service for EIKEN examinees and its effectiveness    株式会社教育測定研究所

The Japan Institute for Educational Measurement, Inc.

⑪ 英文ライティング指導ツール
Criterion Online Writing Evaluation    国際教育交換協議会（CIEE）日本代表部 CIEE Japan

−20−

午前：⑦9:30-10:00 ⑧10:05-10:35 ⑨10:40-11:10 ⑩11:15-11:45 ⑪11:50-12:20
午後：⑫13:00-13:30 ⑬13:35-14:05 ⑭14:10-14:40

501（実践報告｜Classroom / Application Report）⑦ 指導ツールとしてのライティング・ルーブリックの効用学習者の気づきを促進させる

試み ....................................................................................................................................................... 112
The Effectiveness of a Writing Rubric as an Instructional Tool: Raising Awareness of English-learners    金志 佳代子（兵庫県立大学）

Kayoko Kinshi (University of Hyogo)    大年 順子（岡山大学）

Junko Otoshi (Okayama University)    久留 友紀子（愛知医科大学）

Yukiko Kuru (Aichi Medical University)    山西 博之（関西大学）

Hiroyuki Yamanishi (Kansai University)⑧ SRT 形式の字幕編集を活かしたダイナミックな動画教材の作成 ..................................... 114
Creating Dynamic Movie Materials By Editing SRT-format Caption    東 淳一（神戸学院大学）

Junichi Azuma (Kobe Gakuin University)⑨ 発音記号を使用した英語発音指導の取り組み ......................................................................... 116
Phonetic alphabet application for English pronunciation teaching    中西 のりこ（神戸学院大学）

Noriko Nakanishi (Kobe Gakuin University)⑩ 幼児教員養成における英語絵本指導 .......................................................................................... 118
Pre-service Training for Kindergarten Teachers using Picture Books    高橋 美由紀（愛知教育大学）

Miyuki Takahashi (Aichi University of Education)⑪ e ラーニングと LMS、ピアライティングによる英語ライティング授業 ......................... 120
Blending E-learning, LMS, and Peer Writing for Academic English Writing Class for College EFL Students    尾関 修治（名古屋大学）

Shuji Ozeki (Nagoya University)

−21−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

午前：⑦9:30-10:00 ⑧10:05-10:35 ⑨10:40-11:10 ⑩11:15-11:45 ⑪11:50-12:20
午後：⑫13:00-13:30 ⑬13:35-14:05 ⑭14:10-14:40⑫ 英語教育における反転授業の効果 ............................................................................................... 122
The Effect of a Flipped Lesson on Teaching EFL    小張 敬之（青山学院大学）

Hiroyuki Obari (Aoyama Gakuin University)    大久保 雅司（NEC マネジメントパートナー株式会社）
Masashi Okubo (NEC Management Partner, Ltd)502（研究発表・実践報告｜Research Papers・Classroom / Application Report）⑧ チャンク処理とゲーミフィケーションによる音読・速読アプリの開発.......................... 124
App. for oral and faster reading with chunking and gamification    湯舟 英一（東洋大学）

Eiichi Yubune (Toyo University)    峯 慎一（明治大学）

Shinichi Mine (Meiji University)⑨ 音素とプロソディーで判定する英語発音矯正ソフトの開発 ............................................... 126
English Pronunciation Correction Software based on phoneme and prosody level criteria    湯舟 英一（東洋大学）

Eiichi Yubune (Toyo University)    藤田 雅也（HOYA サービス株式会社） Masaya Fujita (HOYA Service Corporation)⑩ カナ記号を利用した英語発音表記システムによる発音矯正と音声認識ソフトを利用した評価................................................................................................................................................... 128
English phonetic transcription system by Japanese KANA: Its correction effects and feedback by speech
recognition software    湯舟 英一（東洋大学）

Eiichi Yubune (Toyo University)    井上 高志（ビッグアップル・カンパニー） Takashi Inoue (Big Apple Company)    藤田 雅也（HOYA サービス株式会社） Masaya Fujita (HOYA Service Corporation)⑪ ワーキングメモリで処理される音声言語単位の普遍性に関する一考察  英語と日本語の音響解析比較から......................................................................................................................... 130
A study of universality for language processing units in working memory: comparing the acoustic
properties of English and Japanese speech    田淵 龍二（ミント音声教育研究所）

Ryuji Tabuchi (Mint Phonetics Education Institute)    湯舟 英一（東洋大学）

Eiichi Yubune (Toyo University)−22−

午前：⑦9:30-10:00 ⑧10:05-10:35 ⑨10:40-11:10 ⑩11:15-11:45 ⑪11:50-12:20
午後：⑫13:00-13:30 ⑬13:35-14:05 ⑭14:10-14:40⑫ Monitoring students’ listening skill development through dictation homeworkassignments with TED talks .......................................................................................................... 132
 TED トークを使用したディクテーション課題から見える学生のリスニングスキルの伸び    丸尾 加奈子（福岡大学）

Kanako Maruo (Fukuoka University)⑬ The Pedagogical Significance of Education Supporter System in the Project-based

English Program at Ritsumeikan University ---Through Five-Year Practice andObservation--- .................................................................................................................................... 134
 プロジェクト発信型英語プログラムにおける教育サポーターシステムの教育的効果5 年間の実践と観察を通して    近藤 雪絵（立命館大学）

Yukie Kondo (Ritsumeikan University)    木村 修平（立命館大学）

Shuhei Kimura (Ritsumeikan University)    大賀 まゆみ（立命館大学）

Mayumi Oga (Ritsumeikan University)    笠巻 知子（立命館大学）

Tomoko Kasamaki (Ritsumeikan University)

503（研究発表｜Research Paper）⑦ 日本人大学生英語学習者の動機づけ質問紙改良の試み ........................................................ 136
Modifying a Questionnaire for Japanese EFL Learner Motivation at Tertiary Level    阿川 敏恵（順天堂大学）

Toshie Agawa (Juntendo University)    竹内 理（関西大学）

Osamu Takeuchi (Kansai University)⑧ 海外との英文手紙交換が中学生とその後の卒業生に与える影響について ..................... 138
The Influence that Exchanging English Letters with Students in the U.S. gives to Japanese Junior HighSchool Students and Graduates    伊藤 由紀子（大阪教育大学）

Yukiko Ito (Osaka Kyoiku University)⑨ Quiet: 内向型英語学習者のストラテジー ................................................................................. 140
Introversion and Associated Language Learning Strategies    滝澤 伊都子（同志社女子大学）

Itsuko Takizawa (Doshisha Women's College of Liberal Arts)    池上 久美子（同志社女子大学）

Kumiko Ikegami (Doshisha Women's College of Liberal Arts)    川井 理瑳（ECC ジュニア大枝塚原教室） Risa Kawai (ECC Junior Oetsukahara Classroom)    若本 夏美（同志社女子大学）

Natsumi Wakamoto (Doshisha Women's College of Liberal Arts)

−23−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

午前：⑦9:30-10:00 ⑧10:05-10:35 ⑨10:40-11:10 ⑩11:15-11:45 ⑪11:50-12:20
午後：⑫13:00-13:30 ⑬13:35-14:05 ⑭14:10-14:40⑩ 中学校英語学習において動機づけを高める実証研究 ............................................................ 142
How to Motivate Junior High School Students in English Classes    若生 深雪（仙台市立中野中学校）

Miyuki Wako (Nakano Junior High School)⑪ ESP コーパス分析による項目作成とコンピュータ適応型テスト ..................................... 144
Item Bank Based on ESP Corpora Analysis And A Computerized Adaptive Test    小山 由紀江（名古屋工業大学）

Yukie Koyama (Nagoya Institute of Technology)    木村 哲夫（新潟青陵大学）

Tetsuo Kimura (Niigata Seiryo University)⑫ 外国語初心者の語彙学習時の脳活動 .......................................................................................... 146
Cortical processing for a foreign language in novices: A study using fNIRS

    中野 秀子（九州女子大学）

Hideko Nakano (Kyushu Women's University)⑬ 多読授業が情意面に及ぼす影響 情意不安・動機づけに焦点を当てて ....................... 148
Effects of extensive reading on reading attitudes and motivation in a foreign language learning    池上 久美子（同志社女子大学）

Kumiko Ikegami (Doshisha Women's College of Liberal Arts)    滝澤 伊都子（同志社女子大学）

Itsuko Takizawa (Doshisha Women's College of Liberal Arts)⑭ 初級英語学習者の聴解に与えるポーズの効果 ......................................................................... 150
An effect of pauses on low level English learners’ listening comprehension    小屋 多恵子（法政大学）

Taeko Koya (Hosei University)

601（研究発表｜Research Paper）⑦ 協働学習により自己調整学習はどのように創発されるかよりよいメタ認知方略の指導をめざして .......................................................................................................................................... 152
Emergent Self-regulated Learning Through Collaborative Learning of Metacognitive Strategy: Interplay of
Individual Characteristics And Contextual Factors    池田 真生子（関西大学）

Maiko Ikeda (Kansai University)−24−

午前：⑦9:30-10:00 ⑧10:05-10:35 ⑨10:40-11:10 ⑩11:15-11:45 ⑪11:50-12:20
午後：⑫13:00-13:30 ⑬13:35-14:05 ⑭14:10-14:40⑧ 筆記、実技、意識調査から検証する音声学習項目の定着語強勢とイントネーションについて................................................................................................................................................... 154
An Analysis of the Achievements of Pronunciation Instruction Based on a Written Test, Recorded
Pronunciation and a Questionnaire: a Focus on Word Stress and Intonation Patterns    大塚 朝美（大阪女学院大学）

Tomomi Otsuka (Osaka Jogakuin University)    上田 洋子（大阪女学院大学）

Hiroko Ueda (Osaka Jogakuin University)⑨ 日本人英語学習者の英文産出過程の分析 .................................................................................. 156
Analysis of Japanese EFL learners' writing process    阪上 辰也（広島大学）

Tatsuya Sakaue (Hiroshima University)⑩ 語彙認識の自動化を測定するオンライン英語語彙テストの開発と検証.......................... 158
Development and Validation of a Network-based Vocabulary Test to Measure Automaticity of L2 Word
Recognition    山内 豊（東京国際大学）

Yutaka Yamauchi (Tokyo International University)    峯松 信明（東京大学）

Nobuaki Minematsu (The University of Tokyo)    川村 明美（東京国際大学）

Akemi Kawamura (Tokyo International University)    西川 惠（東海大学）

Megumi Nishikawa (Tokai University)    加藤 集平（HOYA サービス株式会社） Shuhei Kato (HOYA Service Corporation)    藤田 雅也（HOYA サービス株式会社） Masaya Fujita (HOYA Service Corporation)⑪ TTS(Text-To-Speech)合成音声と肉声では学習効果は異なるか 習熟度別に見た日本人

英語学習者のプライミング効果の検証 .................................................................................... 160
Are the Learning Effects of TTS (Text-To-Speech) Synthetic Speech and Real Voice Different?:
Examining Priming Effects on Japanese EFL Learners of Different Proficiency Levels    松田 紀子（大阪工業大学）

Noriko Matsuda (Osaka Institute of Technology)⑫ オンライン・ディスカッションにおける発話の生成過程の分析....................................... 162
Analyzing the discourse being emerged in the online discussion forum    菅原 安彦（国士館大学）

Yasuhiko Sugawara (Kokushikan University)    鈴木 広子（東海大学）

Hiroko Suzuki (Tokai University)    保崎 則雄（早稲田大学）

Norio Hozaki (Waseda University)

−25−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

༗๓㸸շ9:30-10:00 ո10:05-10:35 չ10:40-11:10 պ11:15-11:45 ջ11:50-12:20
༗ᚋ㸸ռ13:00-13:30 ս13:35-14:05 վ14:10-14:40

ս ྍど໬ࡢᏛ⩦ᨭ᥼ LMS ࢶ࣮ࣝࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓᅜ㝿༠ㄪᏛ⩦ࡢᐇ㊶◊✲㸸Ꮫ⩦ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕࡟ࡼࡿホ౯ ........................................................................................................................................... 164
A Study of International Collaborative Learning with Visualization    Ᏻ㒊 ⏤⨾Ꮚ㸦ᗈᓥᕤᴗ኱Ꮫ㸧

Yumiko Abe (Hiroshima Institute of Technology)    ┈Ꮚ ⾜ᘯ㸦ᾆ࿴኱Ꮫ㸧

Yukihiro Mashiko (Urawa University)վ ኱Ꮫ⏕ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ Extensive Reading ࡢຠᯝ̾ ⱥㄒ⬟ຊࠊㄞゎ㏿ᗘࠊရモู⩦ᚓ⋡ ..... 166

Effectiveness of Extensive Reading in the Japanese University Context: English Proficiency, Reading
Rate, Acquisition of Parts of Speech    㛫ᡤ ᬛᏊ㸦ᰴᘧ఍♫࢚ࢹࣗࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡ㸧
Tomoko Madokoro (Education Network)602㸦◊✲Ⓨ⾲㹺Research Paper㸧շ ᡓᚋ᪥ᮏ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱ᨻ⟇㐣⛬ࡢṔྐⓗ㌿᥮Ⅼ ............................................................. 168Historical milestones of policy making process of English language education in Japan    㟷⏣ ᗉ┿㸦ᮾி኱Ꮫ㸧

Shoma Aota (The University of Tokyo)

ո Examining the performance of multiple-choice 1-blank partial dictation items ............... 170ከ⫥㑅ᢥᘧ୍✵ḍ㒊ศࢹ࢕ࢡࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ㡯┠ࡢᛶ⬟ࡢศᯒ    㟿 ဴே㸦኱ᮾᩥ໬኱Ꮫ㸧

Tetsuhito Shizuka (Daito Bunka University)չ Lack of Ideal L2 Selves, Unique Ideal L2 Selves: University Non-English Majors' L2

Motivation Focusing on Ideal L2 Self ........................................................................................... 172


L2 ⌮᝿⮬ᕫࡢḞዴ࡜ࣘࢽ࣮ࢡ࡞ L2 ⌮᝿⮬ᕫ㸸L2 ⌮᝿⮬ᕫ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡓ኱Ꮫ㠀ⱥㄒᑓᨷ⪅ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅ    㧗ᶫ ༓ె㸦ឡ፾኱Ꮫ㸧

Chika Takahashi (Ehime University)

պ Automatic Speech Recognition Errors Enrich Partial and Synchronized Caption to

Develop Listening Skill ..................................................................................................................... 174
ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢫ࢟ࣝカ⦎ࡢࡓࡵࡢ㒊ศⓗ࠿ࡘྠᮇࡉࢀࡓᏐᖥࡢ⮬ື㡢ኌㄆ㆑ㄗࡾࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᨵၿ    ࣑ࣝࢨ࢖࣐࣒ࣜࣖࢧࢲࢺ㸦ி㒔኱Ꮫ㸧Maryam Sadat Mirzaei (Kyoto University)−26−

午前：⑦9:30-10:00 ⑧10:05-10:35 ⑨10:40-11:10 ⑩11:15-11:45 ⑪11:50-12:20
午後：⑫13:00-13:30 ⑬13:35-14:05 ⑭14:10-14:40⑪ The effect of exposure methods for word meaning retention: a comparative study

between L1 translation and L2 synonym ................................................................................... 176
語彙の意味保持における提示法の効果 訳語と類義語の比較    梶浦 眞由美（名古屋大学）

Mayumi Kajiura (Nagoya University)    木下 徹（名古屋大学）

Toru Kinoshita (Nagoya University)    高 飛（名古屋大学）

Fei Gao (Nagoya University)⑫ Emotional Valence and L2 Lexical Recall Memory: An Experimental Study withJapanese Learners of English ...................................................................................................... 178
感情価と L2 語彙再生記憶日本人英語学習者を対象とした実験研究    金澤 佑（関西学院大学）

Yu Kanazawa (Kwansei Gakuin University)⑬ How different is L2 learning motivation between would-be English teachers andwould-be non-English teachers at the tertiary level? ........................................................... 180
英語教員志望学生と非英語教員志望学生の第二言語学習動機にはどのような違いがあるか    宮迫 靖静（福岡教育大学）

Nobuyoshi Miyasako (Fukuoka University of Education)

ライフホール（Life Hall：公募シンポジウム｜Symposium）
公募シンポジウム 3／Symposium 3：9:30-11:10
Writing MaetriX を用いた言語資源の構築と英語学習者のライティング・プロセスの解明 ...... 190
Constructing Language Resources Based on Writing MaetriX and Investigating Learners’ Writing Processes    石井 雄隆（早稲田大学）

Yutaka Ishii (Waseda University)    石井 卓巳（筑波大学）

Takumi Ishii (University of Tsukuba)    川口 勇作（名古屋大学）

Yusaku Kawaguchi (Nagoya University)    阿部 大輔（名古屋大学）

Daisuke Abe (Nagoya University)    西村 嘉人（名古屋大学）

Yoshito Nishimura (Nagoya University)    草薙 邦広（名古屋大学）

Kunihiro Kusanagi (Nagoya University)

−27−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

බເࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࢘ 4㸭Symposium 4㸸11:15-12:55
͆፹௓ࡍࡿ㐨ල͇ࢆຠᯝⓗ࡟ᛂ⏝ࡋࡓⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢヨࡳ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢⱥㄒࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒຊ࡞
ࡢ࠿ .............................................................................................................................................................. 194How could we effectively use “mediating artifact” to activate EFL class and learners to develop the learners’
English proficiency?

    ಖᓮ ๎㞝㸦᪩✄⏣኱Ꮫ㸧Norio Hozaki (Waseda University)    ⸨ᯞ ⨾✑㸦ி㒔་⒪⛉Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㸧Miho Fujieda (Kyoto College of Medical Science)    㕥ᮌ ᗈᏊ㸦ᮾᾏ኱Ꮫ㸧

Hiroko Suzuki (Tokai University)    㣤㔝 ୍ᙪ㸦⩌㤿ᕤᴗ㧗➼ᑓ㛛Ꮫᰯ㸧

Kazuhiko Iino (National Institute of Technology Gunma College)බເࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࢘ 5㸭Symposium 5㸸13:00-14:40
እᅜㄒάື࡟࠾ࡅࡿẼ࡙ࡁ-Ⓨ㐩ẁ㝵ࢆព㆑ࡋࡓ⩦ᚓࢆ┠ᣦࡋ࡚- ........................................ 198How are children noticing features of L1 and L2 when doing foreign language activities?

    ஭⊁ ᖾ⏨㸦኱㜰ᕷ❧኱Ꮫ㸧Yukio Ikari (Osaka City University)    ᩧ⸨ ೔Ꮚ㸦㛵すᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ㸧

Tomoko Saito (Kwansei Gakuin University)    ⚟ཎ ྐᏊ㸦ࣀ࣮ࢺࣝࢲ࣒ΎᚰዪᏊ኱Ꮫ㸧 Fumiko Fukuhara (Notre Dame Seishin University)    ከ⏣ ⋹Ꮚ㸦኱㜰ᩍ⫱኱Ꮫ㸧

Reiko Tada (Osaka Kyoiku University)−28−

サイエンスホール（Science Hall）
ブレンディッドラーニングにおける対面授業のデザインと教師の役割学習意欲向上の視座から ........................................................................................................................................................ 218
Face-to-face class designs and the roles of teachers in blended-learning: Are the students really motivated?

    小栗 成子（中部大学）

Seiko Oguri (Chubu University)    関山 健治（中部大学）

Kenji Sekiyama (Chubu University)    加藤 鉄生（中部大学）

Tetsuo Kato (Chubu University)

外国語学習での視覚情報の効果 ......................................................................................................... 220
Effect of Visual Information on Language Learning    李 相穆（九州大学）

Sangmok Lee (Kyushu University)

ライティングにおける教師フィードバックの効果−冠詞に焦点をあてて− ....................... 222
Verifying the effect of teacher written feedback - focusing on articles -    占部 昌蔵（長岡工業高等専門学校）

Shozo Urabe (Nagaoka National College of Technology)

英語教育におけるビデオの効果的活用 ............................................................................................ 224
Using video recording of students' performance in teaching English    岡田 靖子（清泉女子大学）

Yasuko Okada (Seisen University)

日本人英語学習者の語用論的意識向上を支援するアニメーション教材................................ 226
Formulaic-Sequence-Based Animated Videos to Help Japanese EFL Learners Raise Pragmatic Awarenessin English    田中 洋也（北海学園大学）

Hiroya Tanaka (Hokkai-Gakuen University)    大木 七帆（北海学園大学）

Nanaho Oki (Hokkai-Gakuen University)    株式会社 VERSION2

VERSION2 Inc.

−29−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

The use of oral proficiency tests in the Japanese EFL context: Perceptions and problems ...... 228
日本におけるスピーキングテスト利用学習者の視点及び課題    藤井 彰子（聖心女子大学）

Akiko Fujii (University of the Sacred Heart)    渡邊(金) 泉（国際基督教大学）

Izumi Watanabe-Kim (International Christian University)    飯野 厚（法政大学）

Atsushi Iino (Hosei University)−30−

15:00-16:30

基調講演 3（ライフホール）
Keynote Speech 3 (Life Hall)

Collaborative Writing in Face-to-face and Computer Mediated
Modes: Students’ Interactions and Pedagogical Implications ...... 40
Dr. Neomy Storch
The University of Melbourne
８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

16:35-16:50

閉会行事（ライフホール）
Closing Ceremony (Life Hall)
司会

若本 夏美（大会実行委員長

LET 関西支部長

同志社女子大学）

挨拶

湯舟 英一（LET 関東支部長東洋大学）

Coordinator

Natsumi Wakamoto (Conference Chair, President of LET Kansai Chapter,
Doshisha Women's College of Liberal Arts)

Greetings

Eiichi Yubune (President of LET Kanto Chapter, Toyo University)−31−

会場平面図Map

5階
ライフホール基調講演・開会式・閉会式・総会
公募シンポジウム
サイエンスホール
受付・業者展示
ポスタープレゼンテーション
501・502・503
口頭発表

6階
601・602
口頭発表
603・604
業者展示

8階
801
セミナー
802
ワークショップ−32−ฟᒎ㈶ຓ఍ဨ୍ぴ㸦50 㡢㡰࣭7 ᭶ 10 ᪥⌧ᅾ㸧ᒎ♧఍ሙ㸸ࢧ࢖࢚ࣥࢫ࣮࣭࣍ࣝ603࣭604
BBC ࣮࣡ࣝࢻࢪࣕࣃࣥ
BBC World Japan Ltd.
G-TELP ᪥ᮏ஦ົᒁ
G-TELP JAPANJVC ࢣࣥ࢘ࢵࢻ
JVC KENWOOD Corporation
NEC ࣐ࢿࢪ࣓ࣥࢺࣃ࣮ࢺࢼ࣮
NEC Management Partner, Ltd.
࢔ࣝࢡ࣭࢔ࣝࢡᩍ⫱♫ALC PRESS INC.࣭ALC EDUCATION INC.
࢔࣮ࣥ࣌ࣝ
Ampere, Inc.
࢚࣭ࣝ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࣮ࢫ
L-Interface࢝ࢩ࢜ィ⟬ᶵCASIO COMPUTER CO., LTD.
ࢩ࣮ࢻ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ
Compass Publishing Japanࢳ࢚ࣝCHIeru Co.,Ltd.
ࢭࣥࢤ࣮ࢪ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢCENGAGE LEARNINGࢽ࣮ࣗࢺࣥNewton Inc.
ࣃࢼࢯࢽࢵࢡࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡࢫ
Panasonic System Networks Co.,Ltd.
ࣆ࢔ࢯ࣭ࣥࢪࣕࣃࣥ
Pearson Japan K.K.
࣐ࢡ࣑ࣛࣥࣛࣥࢤ࣮ࢪࣁ࢘ࢫ
Macmillan LanguageHouse Ltd.
࣐ࢢࣟ࢘ࣄ࣭࢚ࣝࢹࣗࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ
McGraw-Hill Education࣮࣓ࣘࢹ࢕࢔YUMEDIA Inc.
ࣜ࢔࣮ࣜ࢖ࣥࢢࣜࢵࢩࣗ
Reallyenglish Japan Co., Ltd.
ᮅ᪥↓⥺
Asahimusen Co., Ltd୍⯡㈈ᅋἲேᅜ㝿ࣅࢪࢿࢫࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ༠఍ The Institute for International Business Communication
Association for English Language Proficiency Assessmentⱥㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊホ౯༠఍ᩍ⫱ ᐃ◊✲ᡤThe Japan Institute for Educational Measurement, Inc.
᱒ཎ᭩ᗑ
Kirihara Shoten K.K.
㔠ᫍᇽ
KINSEIDO Publishing Co.,Ltd.
බ┈㈈ᅋἲே᪥ᮏⱥㄒ᳨ᐃ༠఍
Eiken Foundation of Japanᅜ㝿ᩍ⫱஺᥮༠㆟఍㸦CIEE㸧᪥ᮏ௦⾲㒊 CIEE Japanᯇ᯽♫
Shohakusha Publishing Co,. Ltd.
᪂ᐟࢫࢱࢪ࢜
Shinjuku-studio Corp.
ᡂ⨾ᇽ
SEIBIDO PUBLISHING CO LTD.
ṇ⯆㹇㹒ࢯ࣮ࣜࣗࢩࣙࣥSEIKO IT-SOLUTION, INC.
඲㛵すࢣ࣮ࣈࣝࢸࣞࣅࢪࣙࣥ
All Kansai Cable Television Co.,Ltd㟁Ꮚࢩࢫࢸ࣒
denshi-system CO.,LTD.
ෆ⏣ὒ⾜UCHIDA YOKO CO., LTD.
༡㞼ᇽ
NAN'UN-DO Co.,Ltd᪥ᮏࢹ࣮ࢱࣃࢩࣇ࢕ࢵࢡ
DATA PACIFIC (JAPAN) LTD.
໭㎮ᫎ㟁
Hokushin-Eiden−33−

"#)(
Abstracts

$%
Keynote Speeches8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(10:00-11:30)ࣛ࢖ࣇ࣮࣍ࣝ

Promoting Intercultural Understanding in Classrooms: Making a
Case for Japanese Language Learners in China
Xuesong Gao (The University of Hong Kong)
Keywords: Language learning, cross-cultural understanding, Japanese posture, China
1. Introduction
Frequent cross-border movements of people are supposed to lead to better mutual understanding among people
across national and cultural boundaries, but diminished ‘physical boundaries’ often ‘exacerbate ethnic and national rivalries,
rendering the deeply fractious and unsettling landscape… [and] galvanizing many into “us-against-them” posturing’ (Kim,
2006, pp. 283-284). In East Asian contexts, rising popular nationalistic sentiments have become a serious concern, requiring
concerted efforts to identify possible solutions. This author contends that language learning helps promote better intercultural
understanding and social cohesiveness (e.g. Gardener 1985). The author also believes that the learning of a foreign
language facilitates individual citizens to engage in cross-cultural dialogues for mutual understanding and may reduce thenegative influences of popular nationalism to preserve peaceful conditions (e.g. Yun & Kibber 2012). This seems to beparticularly relevant to major East Asian countries such as China and Japan which are apparently locked in island disputes
and historical memories of the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) (Reilly 2014).
In light of the shifting relationships between the two countries, this author together with his collaborator in
Shanghai conducted an inquiry into Japanese language learners’ ‘Japanese posture,’ i.e. perceptions of and attitudes towards
Japan among those who started learning Japanese at different times during the last three decades, in China. The study aims
to evaluate whether the participants’ Japanese postures changed over the years, whether their learning of Japanese might
have mediated their postures towards Japan and what need to be done to promote better cross-cultural understandings.
2. The Study
The study is a cross-sectional, mixed methods inquiry involving a survey of over 665 participants andinterviews of 36 surveyed participants who started learning Japanese at different times in the last three decades.
The questionnaire has two sections. Questions in the first section are about participants’ personal
background, including the time of when the participant started learning Japanese, duration of learning Japanese,frequency of visiting Japan, etc. It also asks whether they have changed their perceptions of Japan. It also has
open-ended questions asking them to explain why they visited Japan, describe what their impressions about Japan
were like and elaborate why they had changed their impressions. The second section has 18 seven-point likert-scalequestions that can be divided into four dimensions as identified in Yashima (2002). Dimension 1 assesses theparticipants’ intercultural exchange and understanding as reasons to learn Japanese and Dimension 2 has items on
their readiness to interact with Japanese people. Dimension 3 is about the participants’ interest in Japan-related
products, vocations and Dimension 4 asks the participants about how active and interested they are in learning about
what happens in Japan. The Cronbach alpha reliability results were .92 in general and .89, .84, .71, .78 for the four
dimensions, respectively.
The researchers conducted descriptive statistical analysis and ANOVA tests of the questionnaire data. The
qualitative data were coded to provide qualitative comments in support of the postures towards the country. Theircomments on why they had (not) changed their perceptions were also analyzed to identify how better cross-cultural
understandings can be fostered and positive postures sustained (e.g. Patton 1990).

−36−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

3. Results
The statistical analysis revealed that an overwhelming majority of the participants displayed positive postures towards
Japan. The shifting Sino-Japanese relations and massive anti-Japanese protests in recent years had no statistically significant
impact on the perceptions and attitudes of participants who had started learning the language at different times. In other words,
the participants’ perceptions and attitudes to Japan were found to be quite stable across the learners who had started learning
Japanese at different times. In fact, the study also identified that more participants had improved impressions about Japan. The
results of the qualitative analysis confirm that the participants had highly favourable perceptions about Japan as they stressed its
beautiful environment, social order and people.
It was noted that the participants’ positive postures towards Japan were results of their efforts to develop better
understandings of Japan through their in-depth and extended engagement with the Japanese language, culture and people. One
participant (who started learning Japanese in 2006, right after the anti-Japanese protests) reflected on his brief journey to Japan:
During a hasty trip I experienced the real Japan. On the return flight I could not help but reflect upon what I had seen
and heard. From the Japanese people I encountered, no enmity was sensed at all. On the contrary, I felt their kindness,friendliness, politeness and gentleness. […]The Japanese society is healthy and harmonious with its senior citizens
and adults and children are taken good care of. People lead a free, equal, happy and peaceful life there. […], we should
learn from them.

Journeys to Japan were found to have resulted in the participants’ enhanced interest in learning more about thecountry as one interviewee described Japan as ‘a country one would borrow money to visit again’.
However, a small number of participants also expressed their negative attitudes towards Japan. 23 (out of 665)
participants claimed that their impressions of Japan worsened as a result of recent tensions. Moreover, it must be noted thatmany Japanese learners are not able to afford such journeys, have few opportunities to socialize with Japanese people and have
limited cultural exposure. Therefore, it has become important for Japanese language teachers to bring these crucial elements toJapanese language classrooms and invite Japanese learners to be on virtual journeys to have in-depth engagement with thelanguage, culture and people. During such journeys, it is critical for Japanese language educators to assist them in criticalexaminations of various social and cultural issues that they were exposed to towards better cross-cultural understanding inclassrooms. This will be an important mission for Japanese language educators since the results confirm that the learning of
language may be one of the most effective means to promote mutual understandings and lay a solid foundation for peace
between the two countries.
References
Gardner, D. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London:
Edward Arnold.
Kim, Y.Y. (2006). From ethnic to interethnic: The case for identity adaptation and transformation. Journal of Language andSocial Psychology, 25, 283-300.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nded.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Reilly, J. (2014). A wave to worry about? Public opinion, foreign policy and China's anti-Japan protests. Journal ofContemporary China, 23 (86), 197–215.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language
Journal, 86, 54-66.
Yun, S., & Kibber, K. (2012). The strategic values and communicative actions of Chinese students for sociological
Korean public diplomacy. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 6, 77–92.

−37−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(16:10-17:40)ࣛ࢖ࣇ࣮࣍ࣝ

Second Language Interaction:
How research can inform instructional practice
MACKEY, Alison (Georgetown University and Lancaster University)
Keywords: Task-based language teaching, Interaction, Task design, Feedback, Task complexity
1. Introduction
In the last few decades a wide range of empirical studies into task-based interaction and L2 learning
outcomes have been carried out in both laboratory and classroom settings. This body of work has permitted
a number of syntheses and meta-analyses (for example, Keck et al. 2006 and Mackey & Goo, 2007). Taken
collectively, there is clear evidence to show that task-based interaction is developmentally helpful.
Cognitively-oriented studies have investigated relationships amongst factors such as working memory,
creativity, noticing and attention, aptitude, and interaction-driven language learning. Socially-driven
research has considered contextual issues such as L2 learners and their conversational peers, together withsettings in interaction-driven learning. Other research has looked at how interaction is obtained, including
for example, through communicative tasks and how factors such as task complexity and planning impact
interaction-driven second language (L2) learning.
Interacting in a second language is helpful for many reasons. These are grounded in theoretical
approaches to second language (L2) acquisition research. For example, in interaction, learners often makeerrors and can receive corrective feedback and produce modified output. However, as discussed in Mackey,
Park and Tagarelli (in press), it is not always clear, from a teacher’s perspective, how to best provide
corrective feedback on errors. This sort of issue has often been raised in the feedback literature withquestions focused on whether, when, how, and by whom learner errors should be corrected during
interaction.
What is known as the interaction approach to second language acquisition is also one of thetheoretical underpinnings of the task-based language teaching movement (TBLT). In this instructional
approach teachers utilize tasks, as opposed to linguistic items, as the unit of instruction in language
classrooms. TBLT is interesting for both teachers and researchers because of this grounding in second
language acquisition theory, as well as for its various empirical successes which are summarized in Long
(2015). There are properties in a task that can predispose, and sometimes constrain, learners to listen for or
produce certain types of language that can benefit their language development. During task-based language
learning, students interact and negotiate for meaning, while carrying out activities designed to provide
authentic communicative contexts for the linguistic forms that learners need to notice, use and learn.
2. What is the interaction approach?
As noted in the chapter by Mackey, Ziegler & Bryfonski (in press), as well as in a number of
explanatory papers, for example, Mackey, Abbuhl, & Gass (2012) and Mackey (2012), the interaction
approach posits that various processes involved in communicating are developmentally helpful. These
include the production and perception of input, which can be defined as the language that a learner is
exposed to through various mediums. During interaction, learners often experience misunderstandings orcommunication breakdowns. These can provide them with additional input from their interlocutors gained
through negotiation, such as confirmation checks (expressions that clarify whether an utterance has beencorrectly heard or understood) and clarification requests (remarks aimed at developing a better
understanding of a previous utterance), thereby encouraging speakers to modify incomprehensible
utterances using lexical substitutions or different grammatical structures, or by providing repetitions. In
addition, negotiation can sometimes prime learners to be more attentive to patterns in subsequent input.
This might in turn encourage learners to be more aware of specific features of the target language as well as
providing learners with useful opportunities to confirm or reject ideas they have about how the L2 works.
In summary then, the interaction approach suggests that it is the varied ways in which learners relate to
input and their interlocutors through negotiating for meaning, as in the descriptions of various interactionalfeatures above, that are likely to support their L2 developmental processes (Mackey, 2012).
Another key factor in why interaction is helpful is hypothesized to be output. Learners need
opportunities to produce language. Modified output, or learners’ reformulations of previous utterances in
response to feedback or self-monitoring (Swain, 1995), is believed to facilitate L2 development in a range−38−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍of quite different ways, including providing them with opportunities to develop fluency and automaticity,
test hypotheses about the L2, and receive corrective feedback, again, as above, drawing their attention todifferences between what they can understand and produce in the target language (TL) and facilitating
noticing, a process demonstrated to be supportive of L2 learning.
3. What are the most effective ways to promote developmentally helpful interaction?
               
  Ǥ ǡ                   ǡ      ǡ          Ǥ  ǡ ȋʹͲͲͳȌ        ǡ                         Ǥ  
Ǥ ǡ Ȁ ǡǡ  ȋǤȌǡȀ
ǡ ǡ ǡ   Ȁ   ǡ   Ȁ       ǡ              
Ǥ    
  ȋ±±ǡ ǡƬ ǡʹͲͳͳǢ ǡǡ Ƭ ǡ ʹͲͲ͹Ȍ                 ȋǡʹͲͲͻȌǤǡǡ                     ǡ           Ǧ
 Ǥ
4.PedagogyandTaskǦbasedInteraction                  ȋǡʹͲͲͻȌǤǡ ǡ
      ǡ    ǡ     ǡ  ǡ    Ǥǡ 
     ǡ  ȋʹͲͳͷȌǡ         ǯ  Ǥ
      ǡ           ǯǤ ǡǡ ǡ    ǡ
 Ǥ  ǡ
 ǯ
   
  Ǥ             ǡ ǦǤǡ
   Ǥ           ǡ     
   Ǧ 
ʹ Ǥ
5.Conclusions     ǡ    ǡ
          Ǧǡ     
            Ǧ  ǡʹǤ

−39−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(15:00-16:30)ࣛ࢖ࣇ࣮࣍ࣝ

Collaborative writing in face-to-face and computer mediated modes:
students’ interactions and pedagogical implications
STORCH, Neomy (The University of Melbourne)
Keywords㸸Collaborative writing, computer mediated collaborative writing, patterns of interactions, LREs
1. Introduction
Collaborative writing, the joint production of a text by two or more writers, has been shown to provide second
language (L2) learners with opportunities to learn the L2. Research has shown that when learners deliberate about
how to produce a joint text, they not only practice using the L2 but also focus on language choice and accuracy (e.g.
Brooks & Swain, 2009; Fernández-Dobao, 2012; Storch & Aldosari, 2013). However, research on collaborative
writing has also shown that simply assigning students to write together does not mean that they will collaborate, thatthe pattern of interaction they form may differ, and that it is the collaborative pattern that is more conducive tolanguage learning (see Storch, 2001, 2013). More recently, with the advent of online collaborative writing
platforms such as wikis and Google Docs, researchers have become interested in investigating the kind of language
learning opportunities that computer-mediated forms of collaborative writing offer L2 learners. In this paper I reporton the findings of two studies conducted by my graduate students: Liana Tan (see Tan, Wigglesworth & Storch,2010) and Amir Rouhshad (see Rouhshad & Storch, forthcoming). Both studies compared the nature of interaction
and focus on language of the same learners completing face-to-face and computer mediated collaborative writing
activities.
2. Procedure
2.1 Participants
Both studies were conducted in Australia. The participants in Tan’s study were 12 beginner learners ofChinese enrolled in a university Chinese language subject. The participants in Rouhshad’s study were 24
intermediate ESL learners enrolled in a preparatory (pre-university) ESL program.
2.2 Treatment
All participants formed self-selected pairs. Tan’s study was longitudinal (semester long) and classroom based,
and the pairs completed two similar versions of seven writing tasks. One version of each task was completed inclass in the face-to-face mode, the other version using MSN Messenger at home. Roushad’s study was experimental,
completed in a computer lab. The pairs completed one version of a short report in the face-to-face mode, the otherversion using Google Docs. Google Docs provides co-writers with two windows: a large window in which tocompose the joint text and an adjacent small window to exchange opinions. Participants in both studies received
training and practice in the use of the software used. Both studies used a counter-balanced design.
3. Analysis and results
3.1 Analysis
The data in both studies included audio-recorded pair talk of the face-to-face interactions. Additionally, Tan’s−40−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

study included the MSN Messenger files; Rouhshad’s study included the exchanges in the small window of Google
Docs. All data was analysed for patterns of interaction (based on Storch, 2001) and for instances where learners
deliberated about language. These instances were coded as Language Related Episodes (LREs) (Swain & Lapkin,1995).
3.2 Results
Both studies found a tendency to cooperate rather than collaborate in computer-mediated collaborative writing.
Furthermore, there were far fewer deliberations about language use in this mode compared to the face-to-face mode.
Table 1 presents the finding of both studies in terms of the total number of LREs. The table shows that there weremore than twice the number of LREs in the face-to-face mode than in the computer mediated mode. These findings
suggest that collaborative writing activities conducted in the face-to-face mode are preferable for language learning.
However, given that computer mediated forms of writing are likely to become more widespread, I suggest that weneed to investigate ways of encouraging learners to collaborate and engage in peer feedback in computer mediatedforms of collaborative writing.
Table 1.

LREs in face-to-face and computer mediated collaborative writing

Total No. of LREs

Tan’s study

Rouhshad’s study

Face-to-face

1090

177

Computer mediated

493

71

References
Brooks, L. & Swain, M. (2009). Languaging and collaborative writing: Ceration and response to expertise. In A.
Mackey & P. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction in SLA (pp. 58-89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Fernández-Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual
work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 40-58.
Rouhshad, A. & Storch, N. (forthcoming). A focus on mode: Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer
mediated modes. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogicalpotential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol, UK: Mulltilingual Matters.
Storch, N. (2001). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119-158.
Storch, N. & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17, 31-48.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second
language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-291.
Tan, L., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2010). Pair interactions and mode of communication: Comparing
face-to-face and computer mediated communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 1-24.

−41−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

"#)(
Abstracts
Seminars & Workshop8 ᭶ 4 ᪥(12:00-14:20)802 ᐊ

Web ࢔ࣉࣜࢣ࣮ࢩ࡛ࣙࣥᏛࡪ⤫ィゎᯒࡢᇶ♏࡜ᛂ⏝Ỉᮏ ⠜㸦㛵す኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ⤫ィゎᯒ㸪ຠᯝ㔞㸪R㸪Web ࢔ࣉࣜࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ㸪langtest.jp
1. ⫼ᬒእᅜㄒᩍ⫱◊✲ศ㔝࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⤫ィⓗศᯒࢆᢅࡗࡓ㔠Ꮠሪ࡛࠶ࡿ㸪ࠗⱥㄒᩍᖌࡢࡓࡵࡢᩍ⫱ࢹ࣮ࢱศᯒධ
㛛࠘㸦๓⏣࣭ᒣ᳃, 2004㸧ࡀⓎ⾜ࡉࢀ࡚௨᮶㸪ࡇࡢศ㔝࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ⤫ィⓗศᯒᡭἲࡢ⌮ゎࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛ࡁࡲࡋ
ࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟㸪ᖹ஭㸦2012㸧ࡸ➉ෆ࣭Ỉᮏ㸦2014㸧࡛ࡣ㸪ᖐ↓௬ㄝ᳨ᐃࡢ p ್ࡢࡳࢆ◊✲⤖ᯝࡢゎ㔘࣭⵳✚࡟⏝࠸࡚ࡁࡓᚑ᮶ࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࢆඞ᭹ࡍ࡭ࡃ᥎ዡࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Cumming, 2012; ኱ஂಖ࣭ᒸ⏣, 2012㸧㸪ࠕຠᯝ㔞ࠖࡸࠕಙ㢗༊㛫ࠖ㸪ࠕ࣓ࢱศᯒࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞⪃࠼᪉ࡀึᏛ⪅࡟ࡶࢃ࠿ࡾࡸࡍ࠸ࡼ࠺࡟⤂௓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡲࡍ
㸦≉࡟ຠᯝ㔞࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢヲ⣽ࡣ㸪ᾆ㔝, 2013 ࢆཧ↷㸧ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ὶࢀࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜㸪እᅜㄒᩍ⫱◊✲࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⤫ィⓗᡭἲࡣ㸪ᚰ⌮Ꮫ࡞࡝ࡢ㛵㐃ㅖศ㔝࡜ẚ࡭࡚ࡶ㸪ෆᐜⓗ࡟㐯Ⰽࡢ࡞࠸ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚
ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿ࡛ࡋࡻ࠺ࠋ1ࠗእᅜㄒᩍ⫱◊✲ࣁࣥࢻࣈࢵࢡ࠘
㸦➉ෆ࣭Ỉᮏ, 2014㸧࡛ࡣ㸪᭩⡠୰࡛ࡢㄝ᫂࡟ຍ࠼࡚㸪ࢥࣥࣃࢽ࣭࢜ࣥ
࢙࢘ࣈࢧ࢖ࢺ㸦http://mizumot.com/handbook㸧࡟࡚㸪(a) Microsoft Excel㸪(b)ࠕ࡜࠶ࡿ 4 ᩥᏐࡢ㧗㢠ၟ⏝⤫ィศᯒࢯࣇࢺ࢙࢘࢔ࠖ
㸪ࡑࡋ࡚ (c) ࣇ࣮ࣜࡢࢹ࣮ࢱゎᯒ⎔ቃ R ࡛ࡢศᯒ᪉ἲࢆ㸪᭩⡠࡛౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢹ
࣮ࢱࢆ⏝࠸࡚ヲࡋࡃㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ≉࡟ R ࡣ㸪እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍㸦LET㸧ࡢ㐣ཤࡢ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶᑠᯘ㸦2011㸧ࡸ㜰ୖ㸦2012, 2014㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࡀᥦ౪ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪R ࡬ࡢ㛵ᚰࡢ㧗ࡲࡾࡀ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼ࡲࡍࠋ஦ᐇ㸪ࡇࢀࡣୡ⏺ⓗ࡞ὶࢀ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪◊✲⪅ࡀ౑⏝ࡍࡿ⤫ィࢯࣇࢺ࢙࢘࢔࡜ࡋ
࡚㸪㏆ᖺ࡛ࡣ R ࡀ௚ࡢࢯࣇࢺ࢙࢘࢔ࡼࡾࡶ࣮ࣘࢨ࣮ᩘࡀከࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ሗ࿌ࡶ࠶ࡾࡲࡍ
㸦Muenchen, 2014㸧
ࠋR ࡣࢡࣜࢵࢡࡋ࡚᧯సࡍࡿ GUI㸦ࢢࣛࣇ࢕࣭࣮࢝ࣝࣘࢨ࣮࣭࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࣮ࢫ㸧࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪⮬ศ࡛ࢥ࣮ࢻࢆ᭩࠸࡚ື࠿ࡍᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡓࡵ㸪ึᏛ⪅࡟ࡣᩜᒃࡀ㧗࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ᛮ࠼ࡲࡍ㸦ࡓࡔࡋ㸪ࢥ࣮ࢻࡀṧࡿࡓࡵ㸪ࠕศᯒࡢ෌⌧ᛶࠖ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽࡣࡇࢀࡀ኱ࡁ࡞฼Ⅼ࡜࡞ࡾࡲࡍ㸧ࠋ2 ࡑࡢࡓࡵ㸪ึᏛ⪅࡛ࡶ R ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠿ࢆయ㦂࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟㸪Web ࢔ࣉࣜࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ “langtest.jp” ࢆసᡂࡋࡲ
ࡋࡓ㸦Mizumoto & Plonsky, in press㸧ࠋࡇࡢ Web ࢔ࣉࣜࢣ࣮ࢩ࡛ࣙࣥࡣ㸪Excel ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢫࣉࣞࢵࢻࢩ࣮ࢺ
ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆࢧ࢖ࢺୖ࡛ࢥࣆ࣮㸤࣮࣌ࢫࢺࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡛㸪ࠗእᅜㄒᩍ⫱◊✲ࣁࣥࢻࣈࢵࢡ࡛࠘⤂௓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ⤫ィⓗศᯒࢆᐇ⾜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛ࡍࠋ
2. ࢭ࣑ࢼ࣮࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿෆᐜ
௒ᅇࡢࢭ࣑ࢼ࣮࡛ࡣ㸪୺࡟ Web ࢔ࣉࣜࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ “langtest.jp” ࢆ⏝࠸࡚㸪ᇶ♏ⓗ㸪ࡑࡋ࡚᭱᪂ࡢᩥ⊩࡟ぢࡽࢀࡿᛂ⏝ⓗ࡞⤫ィゎᯒᡭἲࡸ⪃࠼᪉㸦e.g., ⲡⷷ, 2015; Larson-Hall, 2015; Norris, Plonsky, Ross, &Schoonen, 2015; Plonsky & Oswald, 2014; Porte, 2012㸧ࡢ⤂௓ࢆ⾜࠸ࡲࡍࠋ3. ᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࢭ࣑ࢼ࣮ཧຍ⪅Ꮫ㒊⏕࣭኱Ꮫ㝔⏕࠿ࡽ࣋ࢸࣛࣥ◊✲⪅ࡲ࡛㸪࡝࡞ࡓ࡛ࡶෆᐜ࡟⯆࿡ࡢ࠶ࡿ᪉㸪ࡈ㒔ྜࡢࡼࢁࡋ࠸᪉ࡣ
ࡈཧຍࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ3 ఍ሙ᪋タࡢ㛵ಀୖ PC ࡀ౑⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ㸪ㄝ᫂ࡣࣁࣥࢬ࢜ࣥࡢ₇⩦࡞ࡋ࡛ࡶ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢࢆ‽ഛࡋࡲࡍࡀ㸪⤂௓ࡍࡿࢧ࢖ࢺ࡛ᐇ㝿࡟ࡑࡢሙ࡛⮬ศࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆศᯒࡋ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺᪉ࡣ㸪
㸦MacBook ࡞࡝ࡢ㸧ࣀ࣮ࢺࣃࢯࢥࣥࢆࡈᣢཧࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ

−44−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

ὀ
1.

≉࡟㸪
ࠗእᅜㄒᩍ⫱◊✲ࣁࣥࢻࣈࢵࢡ࠘
㸦➉ෆ࣭Ỉᮏ, 2014㸧࡛ࡣ㸪⤫ィⓗ㸦㔞ⓗ㸧ᡭἲࡢࡳ࡟㝈ᐃࡏࡎ㸪㉁ⓗᡭἲ࡟ࡶከࡃࡢ࣮࣌ࢪࢆ๭࠸࡚⤂௓ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪◊✲┠ⓗ࡟ᛂࡌࡓᡭἲࡢ㑅ᢥࢆ᥎ዡࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ

2.

R Commander ࡸ MacR㸦https://sites.google.com/site/casualmacr/㸧ࢆ౑࠼ࡤ GUI ࡛ R ࢆ᧯సࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛ࡍࠋ

3.

ኟࡢ኱㜰ࡣᬬࡉࡀ㠀ᖖ࡟ཝࡋ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀண᝿ࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵ㸪㸦࣓ࢱࣝ㸧T ࢩࣕࢶ㸪࠿ࡾࡺࡋ㸪⿃⿸㸪ࢪ࣮ࣕࢪ࡞࡝㸪ᾴࡋ࠸᱁ዲ࡛ࢭ࣑ࢼ࣮఍ሙ࡟࠾㉺ࡋࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New
York, NY: Routledge.
ᖹ஭ ᫂௦㸦⦅㸧(2012).ࠗᩍ⫱࣭ᚰ⌮⣔◊✲ࡢࡓࡵࡢࢹ࣮ࢱศᯒධ㛛㸸⌮ㄽ࡜ᐇ㊶࠿ࡽᏛࡪ SPSS ά⏝ἲ࠘ᮾிᅗ᭩ᑠᯘ 㞝୍㑻 (2011). ࠕR ࡟ࡼࡿᩍ⫱ࢹ࣮ࢱศᯒධ㛛ࠖእᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍ ➨ 51 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍㸦᪊ྡྂᒇᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉ㈨ᩱ Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/langstat/let2011ⲡⷷ 㑥ᗈ (2015).ࠕᩍ⫱ᐇ㊶ࡢ࡞࠿࡛㞟ᅋ࡟ᑐࡍࡿฎ㐝ࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ㐺ษ࡟ゎ㔘ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢᐃ㔞ⓗ᪉ἲ̿ຠᯝ
㔞ࡢ฼⏝࡜ࡑࡢ㝈⏺Ⅼ̿ࠖࠗእᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍ (LET) 㛵すᨭ㒊 ࣓ࢯࢻࣟࢪ࣮◊✲㒊఍ ሗ࿌ㄽ㞟࠘6, 46̽84. Retrieved from http://www.mizumot.com/method/06-04_Kusanagi.pdf
Larson-Hall, J. (2015). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Routledge.
๓⏣ ၨᮁ࣭ᒣ᳃ ග㝧㸦⦅㸧(2004).ࠗⱥㄒᩍᖌࡢࡓࡵࡢᩍ⫱ࢹ࣮ࢱศᯒධ㛛㸸ᤵᴗࡀኚࢃࡿࢸࢫࢺ࣭ホ౯࣭◊✲࠘኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ
Mizumoto. A., & Plonsky, L. (in press). R as a lingua franca: Advantages of using R for quantitative research inapplied linguistics. Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from http://mizumot.com/files/AL_R.pdf
Muenchen, R. A. (2014, August 20). R passes SPSS in scholarly use, Stata growing rapidly [Web log message].
Retrieved from http://r4stats.com/2014/08/20/r-passes-spss-in-scholarly-use-stata-growing-rapidly/
Norris, J. M., Plonsky, L., Ross, S. J., & Schoonen, R. (2015). Guidelines for reporting quantitative methods andresults in primary research. Language Learning, 65, 470–476. doi:10.1111/lang.12104
኱ஂಖ ⾤ள࣭ᒸ⏣ ㅬ௓ (2012).ࠗఏ࠼ࡿࡓࡵࡢᚰ⌮⤫ィ㸸ຠᯝ㔞࣭ಙ㢗༊㛫᳨࣭ᐃຊ࠘ວⲡ᭩ᡣ
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning,
64, 878–912. doi:10.1111/lang.12079
Porte, G. (Ed.). (2012). Replication research in applied linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
㜰ୖ ㎮ஓ (2012).ࠕR ࡟ࡼࡿᩍ⫱࣭ゝㄒࢹ࣮ࢱฎ⌮ࡢࢫࢫ࣓ࠖእᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍㸦LET㸧➨ 52 ᅇ඲ᅜ኱఍㸦᪊ ⏥༡኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉ㈨ᩱ Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/sakaue/let2012-r
㜰ୖ ㎮ஓ (2014).ࠕR ࡟ࡼࡿእᅜㄒᩍ⫱ࢹ࣮ࢱࡢศᯒ࡜ྍど໬ࡢᇶᮏࠖእᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍㸦LET㸧
➨ 54 ᅇ඲ᅜ኱఍㸦᪊ ⚟ᒸ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉ㈨ᩱ Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/sakaue/
let2014➉ෆ ⌮࣭Ỉᮏ ⠜㸦⦅㸧(2014).ࠗእᅜㄒᩍ⫱◊✲ࣁࣥࢻࣈࢵࢡ㸸◊✲ᡭἲࡢࡼࡾⰋ࠸⌮ゎࡢࡓࡵ࡟࠘
㸦ᨵゞ∧㸧ᯇ᯽♫ᾆ㔝 ◊ (2013). ࠕ᭷ពᛶ࡜ຠᯝ㔞࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡋࡗ࠿ࡾ⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡼ࠺ࠖ እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍ ➨ 53 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍㸦᪊ ᩥிᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉ㈨ᩱ Retrieved from http://www.urano-ken.com/blog/2013/08/05/let2013-workshop/

−45−

８
月
４
日
︵
火
︶

8 ᭶ 4 ᪥(14:40-17:00)801 ᐊࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢᩍᮦ‽ഛࡣ Mac ࡜ CasualTranscriber ࡛㸟௒ᑿ ᗣ⿱㸦኱㜰኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 Mac㸪ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢᩍᮦసᡂ㸪㡢ኌ࣭ᫎീ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔
 Mac ⏝㡢ኌ᭩ࡁ㉳ࡇࡋ⿵ຓ࢔ࣉࣜࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ CasualTranscriber ࡣ㸪࠸ࢃࡺࡿᩥᏐ㉳ࡇࡋ㸦transcription㸧సᴗࢆ⿵ຓࡍࡿ┠ⓗ࡛㛤Ⓨࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋ࢔ࣉࣜࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆษࡾ᭰࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃ㸪࣮࣮࢟࣎ࢻࢩ࣮ࣙࢺ࢝
ࢵࢺ࡛࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆ᧯సࡋ࡞ࡀࡽຠ⋡ⓗ࡟ᩥᏐ㉳ࡇࡋసᴗࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡲࡍࠋᮏࢭ࣑ࢼ࣮
࡛ࡣ㸪ࡇࡢ CasualTranscriber ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚㸪ᫎീ࣭㡢ኌ⣲ᮦࢆ᭩ࡁ㉳ࡇࡍ࡜ࡇࢁ࠿ࡽ㸪୺࡟ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ⏝ࡢᩍᮦ࡟ࡍࡿࡲ࡛ࢆㄝ᫂ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪୍⥴࡟సᴗࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡁࡲࡍࠋ
ᩥᏐ㉳ࡇࡋసᴗ ⣲ᮦ࡜࡞ࡿ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆ᧯సࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ᩥᏐ㉳ࡇࡋసᴗࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡁࡲࡍࠋࡲࡎࡣ㸪࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆㄞࡳ㎸ࢇࡔୖ࡛㸪࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆ᧯సࡍࡿࢩ࣮ࣙࢺ࢝ࢵࢺࡢタᐃ࡜࢚ࢹ࢕ࢱࡢタᐃ࠿ࡽጞࡵࡲࡍࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪ࢱ࢖࣒ࢫࢱࣥࣉࡢᤄධ࡜ࡑࡢ฼⏝᪉ἲ㸪⡆᫆Ἴᙧ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢタᐃ᪉ἲࢆㄝ᫂ࡋ㸪ᐇ㝿࡟ᩥᏐ㉳ࡇࡋసᴗࢆ⾜࠸ࡲࡍࠋᅗ 1. CasualTranscriber ࡛ࡢᩥᏐ㉳ࡇࡋసᴗ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡢᢅ࠸ ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡣࢩ࣮ࣙࢺ࢝ࢵࢺࢆ౑ࡗࡓ෌⏕᧯సࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪㡢ኌࡢࡳࡢಖᏑࡸ㸪ࢱ࢖࣒ࢫࢱࣥ
ࣉ࡜⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪ᚲせ࡞㒊ศࡢᢤࡁฟࡋࡸࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆศ๭ࡋ࡚ಖᏑ㸪ࡲࡓ㸪」ᩘࡢࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡢ
⤖ྜ࡞࡝ࡀ࡛ࡁࡲࡍࠋ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶ⡆᫆ⓗ࡞ᶵ⬟࡞ࡢ࡛」㞧࡞ࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁࡲࡏࢇࡀ㸪⡆༢࡟ㄝ᫂ࡋ᧯సࢆ
⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡁࡲࡍࠋ
Ꮠᖥ௜ࡁ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡢసᡂ
 CasualTranscriber ࡟ࡣ㸪㡢ኌ࣭ᫎീࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ࡟Ꮠᖥࢆ௜ࡅ࡚ಖᏑࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࡀ௜࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛㸪ࡑࡢᡭ㡰ࢆㄝ᫂ࡋ㸪ᐇ㝿࡟࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ࡟Ꮠᖥࢆ௜ࡅ࡚࠸ࡁࡲࡍࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡣ㸪᭩ࡁ㉳ࡇࡋࡓࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡸ࠶
ࡽ࠿ࡌࡵࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡀ⏝ពࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡟㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆᩚᙧࡋ࡚ࢱ࢖࣒ࢫࢱࣥࣉࢆᤄධࡋ࡚
࠸ࡃࡢ࠿ࢆㄝ᫂ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽᐇ⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡲࡍࠋ

−46−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ᤵᴗ࡞࡝࡛ࡢᩍᮦᥦ♧ ᤵᴗ࡞࡝࡛㡢ኌ࣭ᫎീ⣲ᮦࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪」ᩘࡢ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆㄞࡳ㎸ࢇ࡛ษࡾ᭰࠼ࡓࡾ㸪ࣉࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢱ࡞࡝ࢆࡘ࡞࠸ࡔู⏬㠃࡟ࣅࢹ࢜ࢆ඲⏬㠃⾲♧ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࡶ௜࠸࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋࡲࡓ㸪Keynote ࡞࡝࡛సࡗࡓࢫࣛ࢖ࢻࢩ࣮ࣙࢆ᭩ࡁฟࡋࡓ PDF ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆㄞࡳ㎸ࢇ࡛㸪ู⏬㠃࡟ࢫࣛ࢖ࢻࢩ࣮ࣙࢆ⾲♧ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆᢅ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡲࡍࠋᙜ᪥ࡣ⡆༢࡞ࢹࣔࣥࢫࢺ࣮ࣞࢩࣙࣥࡢࡳ࡜࡞ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
㡢ኌ௜ࡁࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࣋ࢫ࣭ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࣋ࢫࡢᢅ࠸ ࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࣋ࢫࢆ౑ࡗ࡚㸪᭩ࡁ㉳ࡇࡋࡓࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆ⟶⌮ࡋࡓࡾ㸪㡢ኌ⣲ᮦ࡟㛵㐃௜ࡅ࡚ࢱ࢖࣒
ࢫࢱࣥࣉ࡛༊ษࡗࡓࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆ⟶⌮ࡍࡿᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠋࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࣋ࢫ࡛ࡣ㸪⡆᫆ KWIC ᳨⣴࡛౑࠸ࡓ࠸ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆྵࡴ⣲ᮦࢆ᥈ࡋ࡚㸪ࡑࡢ㒊ศࡢ㡢ኌࢆࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚᭩ࡁฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡲࡍࠋ
ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ⏝ᩍᮦࡢసᡂ
 CasualTranscriber ࡛ࡣ㸪ᩥᏐ㉳ࡇࡋࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪᭩ࡁ㉳ࡇࡋࡓࡾ⏝ពࡉࢀࡓࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆ౑ࡗ࡚㸪ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ⏝ࡢᩍᮦࢆసᡂࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡲࡍࠋ⣬࡟༳ๅࡍࡿ๓ᥦࡢ࢝ࢵࢥᇙࡵࡸ୪࡭᭰࠼ᩍᮦࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪HTML + Javascript ࢆ౑ࡗࡓ࢙࢘ࣈᩍᮦࢆసᡂࡋ࡚ᚲせ࡞ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆ᭩ࡁฟࡍᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛㸪ࡑࢀࡽࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ᩍᮦసᡂࢆ⾜࠸ࡲࡍࠋᅗ 2. HTML ✰ᇙࡵ⦎⩦ၥ㢟ࢭ࣑ࢼ࣮࡟ཧຍࡉࢀࡿ᪉࡬ ᙜ᪥ࡣࣁࣥࢬ࡛࢜ࣥ㐍ࡵࡿணᐃ࡛ࡍࡀ㸪఍ሙ࡛ࡣ Mac ࡀ⏝ព࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ㸪CasualTranscriber 㸦࠾ࡼࡧ࣐ࢽࣗ࢔ࣝ㸧ࢆࢧ࢖ࢺ࠿ࡽࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟࢻࡋ࢖ࣥࢫࢺ࣮ࣝࡋࡓୖ࡛㸪ࡈ⮬㌟ࡢ Mac (OS X 10.9 Mavericks௨㝆ᚲ㡲) ࢆ఍ሙ࡬࠾ᣢࡕࡃࡔࡉ࠸㸦⫈ㅮࡢࡳࡶྍ㸧ࠋࡲࡓ㸪సᴗࢆ⾜࠺ࡢ࡟ᚲせ࡞᭱ప㝈ࡢ⣲ᮦࡣⱥㄒࡢࡶࡢࢆ⏝ពࡍࡿணᐃ࡛ࡍࡀ㸪ࡑࢀ௨እࡢゝㄒࡢ⣲ᮦࡸ౑࠸័ࢀࡓ⣲ᮦ㸦㡢ኌ࣭ࣅࢹ࢜ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ㸪࠾ࡼࡧ㸪ࡑࡢ᭩ࡁ㉳ࡇࡋࡓࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ㸧ࡀ࠶ࢀࡤ㸪࠾ᣢࡕ࠸ࡓࡔࡃ࡜సᴗࡀ㐍ࡵࡸࡍࡃ࡞ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
㸧CasualTranscriber ࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟࢻ㸦᭱᪂∧㸦version 2.5.x㸧ࢆࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟࢻࡋ࡚࠾࠸࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ
https://sites.google.com/site/casualconcj/yutiriti-puroguramu/casualtranscriber
OS 10.7 (Lion) ࡶࡋࡃࡣ 10.8 (Mountain Lion) ࢆ࠾౑࠸ࡢ᪉ࡣ㸪⤂௓ࡍࡿࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᶵ⬟ࡣ౑࠼ࡲࡏࢇࡀ㸪version 2.0 beta ࢆ࢖ࣥࢫࢺ࣮ࣝࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡃ࡜㸪ᇶᮏⓗ࡞᧯సࡣ࡛ࡁࡲࡍࠋ

−47−

８
月
４
日
︵
火
︶

8 ᭶ 4 ᪥(14:40-16:00)802 ᐊࣃࣛࣞࣝࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢᩍ⫱฼⏝㸸
4 ✀ࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࣇ࣮࢙ࣜ࢘࢔ࡢά⏝୰ᲄ Ύ⨾㸦᪥ᮏ኱Ꮫ㸧すᇉ ▱ెᏊ㸦༓ⴥ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࣃࣛࣞࣝࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸪᳨⣴ࢶ࣮ࣝ㸪ࣇ࣮࢙ࣜ࢘࢔㸪ࢹ࣮ࢱ㥑ືᆺᏛ⩦㸪ᩍᮦసᡂ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉ࡛ࡣ㸪ᥦ᱌⪅ࡽࡢ◊✲ࢳ࣮࣒ࡀ㛤Ⓨࡋ㸪↓ᩱ࡛බ㛤ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ 4 ✀㢮ࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࣇࣜ
࣮࢙࢘࢔ࢆ⤂௓ࡋ㸪ࡇࢀࡽࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓⱥㄒᤵᴗࡢ᪉ἲࢆᐇ㝿࡟య㦂ࡍࡿࠋᢅ࠺ࣇ࣮࢙ࣜ࢘࢔ࡣ㸪2 ✀ࡢ஧ゝㄒࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ᳨⣴ࢧ࢖ࢺࠕWebParaNewsࠖࠕLWP for ParaNewsࠖ࡜㸪ࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟࢻྍ⬟࡞஧ゝㄒ᳨⣴ࢶ࣮ࣝࠕAntPConcࠖ㸪ࡑࡋ࡚㸪ⴭసᶒࣇ࣮ࣜࡢ⮬↛࡞ᩍ⫱⏝ⱥᩥ࡜ࡑࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᑐヂᩥࢆ᳨⣴࣭ࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟ
ࢻ࡛ࡁࡿࠕGPPS with SCoRE࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢶ࣮ࣝ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆྲྀࡾධࢀࡓㄒᙡ࣭
ᩥἲᏛ⩦࡜ᣦᑟࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ᩍᖌࡣᩍᮦ◊✲ࡸᩍᮦసᡂ࡟ᙺ❧࡚ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
2. 4 ✀ࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ᳨⣴ࢶ࣮ࣝ ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓᏛ⩦ࡣࢹ࣮ࢱ㥑ືᆺᏛ⩦㸦Data-Driven Learning: DDL㸧࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࠋDDL ࡛ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡣࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ᳨⣴࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡿ⏝౛ࢆぢ࡚㸪ㄒᙡࡸᩥἲࡢつ๎ᛶࢆⓎぢࡋ࡚ᖐ⣡ⓗ࡟ゝㄒࢆᏛࡪࠋ
ᥦ᱌⪅ࡽࡣ㸪2004 ᖺ࠿ࡽ᪥ᮏேᏛ⩦⪅࡟㐺ࡋࡓ DDL ࡢ᪉ἲࢆヨ⾜ࡋ㸪ࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪DDL ࡢᣦᑟຠᯝࡀ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪୍⯡ⱥㄒᤵᴗ࡛ࡢ DDL ᐇ㊶ࡢᬑཬࢆ┠ᣦࡋ㸪Ꮫ⩦࣭ᣦᑟ⎔ቃࢆᩚ࠼ࡿࡓࡵ
࡟㸪4 ✀㢮ࡢࠕ࣮ࣘࢨ࣮࣭ࣇࣞࣥࢻ࣮ࣜ࡞᳨⣴ࢶ࣮ࣝࠖࡢ㛤Ⓨࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᅗ 1 ࡣ Web ᳨⣴ࢧ࢖ࢺࡢࠕWebParaNews࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ౑࠸᪉ࡀ㠀ᖖ࡟ᐜ࡛᫆㸪᧯సᛶࢆ㔜どࡋࡓᩍᖌ࣭
Ꮫ⩦⪅ྥࡅࡢࢶ࣮࡛ࣝ࠶ࡿࠋ᪥ⱥ᪂⪺ࣃࣛࣞࣝࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ᳨⣴ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ㸪ࢫ࣐࣮ࢺࣇ࢛࡛ࣥ฼⏝ᅗ 2 ࡟♧ࡍࠕAntPConcࠖࡣࣃࢯࢥࣥ࡟୙័ࢀ࡞⪅࡟ࡶ᧯సࡀᐜ᫆࡞ከゝㄒࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ
ࡍࡿᏛ⩦⪅ࡶከ࠸ࠋᅗ
᳨⣴ࢶ࣮࡛ࣝ࠶ࡾ㸪ᩍᖌࡣ⮬సࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ฼⏝࡛ࡁࡿࠋ࢙࢘ࣈ⎔ቃࡀᩚࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ᩍ⫱⌧ሙ࡛ DDL ࢆᐇ㊶ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪ࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟࢻྍ⬟࡞ࢹࢫࢡࢺࢵࣉࢶ࣮ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚㛤Ⓨࡉࢀࡓࠋ୧⪅ࡣ
http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software.html ࡼࡾ࢔ࢡࢭࢫྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋᅗ 1. ࠕWebParaNewsࠖࡢ⏬㠃౛

ᅗ 2. ࠕAntPConcࠖࡢ⏬㠃౛

ᅗ 3 ࡢࠕLWP for ParaNewsࠖࡣ㸪ᅗᅗ 1㸪2 ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ᳨⣴ࢶ࣮࡛ࣝ࠶ࡿࠋୖ㏙ࡢ᪥ⱥ᪂⪺ࣃࣛ

−48−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ࣞࣝࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟⌧ࢀࡿ༢ㄒࢆࢥࣟࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡸࢥࣜࢤ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢᇶ‽࡛ศ㢮ࡋ㸪ฟ⌧㢖ᗘࡀ㧗࠸ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆ㢖ᗘ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟⾲♧ࡍࡿࠋhttp://lpn.lagoinst.info/ࡼࡾ࢔ࢡࢭࢫ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟㸪ᅗ
ᅗ 4 ࡢࠕGPPS with SCoREࠖࡣ㸪ẕㄒヰ⪅ࡀసᡂࡋࡓ⡆₩࡛⮬↛࡞ⱥㄒ౛ᩥ࡜ᑐヂᩥࢆ㸪ࠕ㛵ಀモࠖࠕ୙ᐃモࠖ࡞࡝ࡢᩥἲ㡯┠ࢆᇶ‽࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ึ⣭࣭୰⣭࣭ୖ⣭ࡢูࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟㜀ぴ㸪ࢥࣆ࣮㸪ࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟࢻ࡛ࡁࡿࠋhttp://score.lagoinst.info/ࡼࡾ࢔ࢡࢭࢫྍ⬟࡛㸪᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᩍᖌࡢᩍᮦసᡂᨭ᥼ࢧ࢖ࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚
ࡢ฼⏝ࡀᮇᚅ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

ᅗ 3. ࠕLWP for ParaNewsࠖࡢ⏬㠃ᅗ 4. ࠕGPPS with SCoREࠖࡢ⏬㠃౛

3. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ᮏ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉ࡛ࡣ㸪4 ✀㢮ࡢࣃࣛࣞࣝࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ᳨⣴ࢶ࣮ࣝࡢᴫせ࡜኱Ꮫⱥㄒึ⣭Ꮫ⩦⪅࠾ࡼࡧ୰࣭㧗⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓⱥㄒࡢㄒᙡ࣭ᩥἲᏛ⩦ࡢᐇ㊶ࢆ⤂௓ࡋ㸪ཧຍ⪅ࡣ DDL ࡢᖐ⣡ⓗᏛ⩦᪉ἲࢆయ㦂ࡍࡿࠋ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚㸪ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢⱥㄒᤵᴗ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᐇ㊶ⓗ฼⏝࡜࠸࠺ㄢ㢟࡟ཧຍ⪅࡜ඹ࡟ྲྀࡾ
⤌ࡴࠋ࡞࠾㸪఍ሙ࡟ࡣ PC タഛࡀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ㸪PC ࢆ⏝࠸࡞࠸ᙧែ࡛ࡢ࣮࣡ࢡࢩࣙࢵࣉ࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࡛㸪PC ࡜ࢿࢵࢺ⎔ቃ㸦࣏ࢣࢵࢺ Wi-Fi ➼㸧ࢆᣢཧ࠸ࡓࡔࡅࡿሙྜࡣ hands on ࡛ࡼࡾ⌮ゎࡋࡸࡍ࠸ࠋ4 ✀ࡢࢶ࣮ࣝࡢヲ⣽࡞౑࠸᪉ࢆ♧ࡍୗグཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ࡣ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖࡛ࣥࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟࢻ࡛ࡁ㸪ࡲࡓ㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢶ࣮ࣝྡࢆࢿ
ࢵࢺ᳨⣴ࡍࢀࡤྛࢶ࣮ࣝ࡟ᐜ᫆࡟࢔ࢡࢭࢫྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋㅰ㎡㸸ᮏ◊✲ࡣᖹᡂ 25-28 ᖺᗘ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠ᇶ┙◊✲㸦B㸧
㸦25284108㸧
ࠕከゝㄒࣃࣛࣞࣝࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟
ᇶ࡙ࡃ DDL ࣮࢜ࣉࣥࣉࣛࢵࢺࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࡢᵓ⠏࡜ᩍ⫱࡬ࡢᛂ⏝ࠖࢆཷࡅ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡲࡋࡓࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩୰ᲄΎ⨾㸪࢔ࣥࢺࢽ࣭࣮ࣟࣞࣥࢫ㸪ෆᒣᑗኵ㸪すᇉ▱ెᏊ (2014). ࣇ࣮࢙ࣜ࢘࢔ WebParaNews ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖࣭ࣥࢥࣥࢥ࣮ࢲࣥࢧ࣮ࡢⱥㄒᤵᴗ࡟࠾ࡅࡿά⏝ࠗ᪥ᮏ኱Ꮫ⏕⏘ᕤᏛ㒊◊✲ሗ࿌ B㸦ᩥ⣔㸧࠘47, 49-63.
୰ᲄΎ⨾㸪࢔ࣥࢺࢽ࣭࣮ࣟࣞࣥࢫ㸪すᇉ▱ెᏊ㸪ᶓ⏣㈼ྖ (2014). ከゝㄒ᳨⣴ࢶ࣮ࣝ AntPConc ࡢ࣓ࣜࢹ࢕࢔ࣝᩥἲᣦᑟ࡟࠾ࡅࡿά⏝ࠗ᪥ᮏ኱Ꮫ⏕⏘ᕤᏛ㒊◊✲ሗ࿌ B㸦ᩥ⣔㸧࠘47, 79-92.
୰ᲄΎ⨾㸪ⱝᯇᘯᏊ㸪▼஭༟ᕭ㸪Ᏹబ⨾⿱Ꮚ㸪ᶓ⏣㈼ྖ㸪࢟ࣕࢧ࣭ࣜࣥ࢜ࣄ࢞ࣥ㸪すᇉ▱ెᏊ (2015).
ᩍ⫱⏝౛ᩥࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ SCoRE ࡢసᡂࠗ᪥ᮏ኱Ꮫ⏕⏘ᕤᏛ㒊◊✲ሗ࿌ B㸦ᩥ⣔㸧࠘48, 21-43.
୰ᲄΎ⨾㸪すᇉ▱ెᏊ㸪㉥℩ᕝྐᮁ㸪ෆᒣᑗኵ (2015). ࣞ࢟ࢩ࣭࢝ࣝࣉࣟࣇ࢓࢖ࣜࣥࢢᆺ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥࢥ
࣮ࣃࢫ᳨⣴ࢶ࣮ࣝ LWP for ParaNews ࡢⱥㄒᤵᴗ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ฼⏝ࠗ᪥ᮏ኱Ꮫ⏕⏘ᕤᏛ㒊◊✲ሗ࿌ B㸦ᩥ⣔㸧
࠘48, 45-57.
Chujo, K., Oghigian, K., & Akasegawa, S. (2015). A Corpus and grammatical browsing system for remedial EFL
learners. In A. LeĔko-SzymaĔska & A. Boulton (Eds.), Multiple affordances of language corpora fordata-driven learning (pp. 109-128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

−49−

８
月
４
日
︵
火
︶

"#)(
Abstracts!"'
Oral Presentations

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(12:30-13:00)501 ᐊⓎ㡢ࡢㄗࡾ࡬ࡢẼ࡙ࡁ࡜ಟṇࢆྲྀࡾධࢀࡓᤵᴗᐇ㊶࡜ࡑࡢຠᯝᑠᯘ ⩧㸦ᮾி㒔❧ⓑ㬑㧗➼Ꮫᰯ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 Ⓨ㡢㸪ࣔࢽࢱࣜࣥࢢ㸪ࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢ㸪ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ㸪Ẽ࡙ࡁ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
㧗ᰯ࡟ධᏛࡍࡿ๓࡟᪤࡟୰Ꮫᰯ࡛ 3 ᖺ㛫ⱥㄒࢆᏛ⩦ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ㸪㧗ᰯ⏕ࡢⱥㄒࡢⓎ㡢⬟ຊࡣ࠶ࡲࡾ㧗ࡃ࡞࠸ࠋࡁࡕࢇ࡜ࡋࡓⓎ㡢ᣦᑟࢆཷࡅ࡚ࡁࡓ⏕ᚐࡶ㠀ᖖ࡟ᑡ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓ⏕ᚐࡣ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡢⱥㄒࡢⓎ㡢ࢆ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡗ࡚⪺࠸ࡓ⤒㦂ࡶ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪⏕ᚐ⮬㌟ࡢⓎ㡢ࡢㄗࡾ࡟ᑐࡍࡿẼ࡙ࡁ࡜ಟṇࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟᥎⛣ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࠿㸪ࣔࢽࢱࣜࣥࢢࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ᳨ドࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ṇ☜࡞Ⓨ㡢ࡀᐃ╔࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠿㸪࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘⓎ㡢࡟ᑐࡍࡿព㆑ࡣኚ໬ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࢆศᯒࡋ㸪᳨ドࡋࡓࠋᮏ◊✲࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣔࢽࢱࣜࣥࢢࡢᐃ⩏࡜ࡣ㸪⏕ᚐࡀ⮬ศࡢኌࢆ㘓㡢ࡋࡓࡶࡢࢆ⫈ࡁ㸪ホ౯ࡋ㸪ㄗࡾ࡟Ẽ࡙ࡅࡤࡑࢀ
ࢆṇࡋࡃⓎ㡢ࡋ㸪ಟṇࡍࡿ஦࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⓎ⾲ࡣᑠᯘ(2014)࡟ࡶ࡜࡙࠸࡚࠸࡚㸪ࡑࢀࢆࡉࡽ࡟Ⓨᒎࡉࡏࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2. ᡭ㡰
2.1 ཧຍ⪅ཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸪බ❧㧗➼Ꮫᰯ 1 ᖺ⏕ 41 ྡ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ඲࡚ࡢཧຍ⪅ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ⱥㄒࢆ➨ 2ゝㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚Ꮫࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ
2.2 ᡭ㡰
ࡲࡎ㸪2013 ᖺ 4 ᭶㸦஦๓㸧
㸪7 ᭶㸦୰㛫㸧
㸪2014 ᖺ 2 ᭶㸦஦ᚋ㸧ࡢ 3 ᅇ࡟ࢃࡓࡾ㸪Ⓨ㡢ࢸࢫࢺࢆᐇ᪋ࡋ
ࡓࠋⓎ㡢࡟Ẽࢆࡘࡅ࡚㸪ឤ᝟ࢆ㎸ࡵ࡚㸪ḟࡢཎ✏ࢆ㸪࡛ࡁࡿ࠿ࡂࡾⱥㄒࡽࡋ࠸Ⓨ㡢࡛ࡺࡗࡃࡾṇ☜࡟ 1
ᩥࡎࡘ Read&Look Up ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᣦ♧ࢆࡋࡓࠋྛᅇࡢⓎ㡢ࢸࢫࢺࡣⱥᩥ 8 ᩥ࡛ᵓᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪27 ಶࡢࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ㡢ࢆ᥇Ⅼᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ㸪1 ၥ 1 Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚᥇Ⅼࢆ⾜࠺ࡼ࠺࡟ࡋࡓࠋࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ㡢ࡢෆヂࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ㸪
R6 Ⅼ/L5 Ⅼ/TH5 Ⅼ/F6 Ⅼ/V3 Ⅼ/N2 Ⅼࡢྜィ 27 Ⅼ‶Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ1 ᅇࡢࢸࢫࢺ࡟ࡘࡁ㸪27 ಶࡢࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ
㡢ཧຍ⪅ᩘ 41 ே㸻1107 Ⅼ‶Ⅼࢆศᯒࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
ḟ࡟ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢸࢫࢺ࡟ྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ㡢ࡀṇࡋࡃⓎ㡢ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆⱥㄒࡢẕㄒヰ
⪅ 1 ྡ࡜⚾ࡢ 2 ྡุ࡛᩿ࡋ㸪acceptable㸦ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ A㸪B㸧࠿ unacceptable㸦ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ C㸪D㸧࠿࡟ศ㢮ࡋ
ࡓࠋ1 ᅇ┠ࡢ㸺Ⓨ㡢ࢸࢫࢺ㸼ࡣ 4 ᭶࡟⮬ᕫ⤂௓ࢆࢸ࣮࣐࡜ࡋࡓⱥᩥࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ2 ᅇ┠㸪3 ᅇ┠ࡣᤵᴗ࡛౑⏝ࡋࡓᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ༢ඖࡢせ⣙ࢆෆᐜ࡜ࡍࡿ㢟ᮦࢆ⏝࠸࡚㸪ྠࡌⱥᩥࡢⓎ㡢ࢸࢫࢺࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ1ᅇ┠ࡢࢸࢫࢺ࡜ 2,3 ᅇ┠ࡢࢸࢫࢺࡣⱥᩥࡀ඲ࡃྠࡌ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀ㸪ྛⱥᩥࡢ㛗ࡉࢆྠ⛬ᗘ࡟タᐃࡋ㸪ⱥᩥࡢᩘ㸪᥇Ⅼᑐ㇟ࡢࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ㡢ࡢᩘࢆ⤫୍ࡋࡓࠋ1 ᅇ┠ࡢࢸࢫࢺࡢⱥᩥࡣ㸪኱ᮾᩥ໬኱Ꮫࡢ㟼ဴேẶࡀ⚾❧୰Ꮫᰯ 3 ᖺ⏕ᑐ㇟࡟౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡶࡢ㸦㟿, 2009㸧ࢆࡑࡢࡲࡲ⏝࠸ࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟㸪࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘⓎ㡢ຊࢆಖᣢฟ᮶࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪1 ᖺ 3 ࣨ᭶ᚋࡢ 2015 ᖺ 5 ᭶࡟㏣㊧ㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋཧຍ⪅ࡣࣛࣥࢲ࣒࡟ 6 ྡ㑅ฟࡋࡓࠋⓎ㡢ࢸࢫࢺࡣ 2,3 ᅇ┠ࡢࢸࢫࢺ࡜ྠࡌࡶࡢࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋ
2.2.1 ࣔࢽࢱࣜࣥࢢࢩ࣮ࢺ
Ⓨ㡢ࢸࢫࢺᚋ࡟ཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸺ࣔࢽࢱࣜࣥࢢࢩ࣮ࢺ㸼࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࢇࡔࠋⓎ㡢ࢸࢫࢺ࡜ྠࡌⱥᩥ 8 ᩥ࡛ᵓᡂࡉ
ࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ཧຍ⪅ࡣⓎ㡢ࢸࢫࢺࡢ᫬࡟㘓⏬ࡉࢀࡓⱥㄒࢆ 3 ᅇ⪺࠸࡚㸪⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡢⓎ㡢ࢆホ౯ࡋࡓࠋホ౯−52−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍᪉ἲࡣ㸪Ⓨ㡢ࡀṇࡋࡃ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ᛮ࠺⟠ᡤࡍ࡭࡚࡟ୗ⥺ࢆᘬ࠿ࡏࡓࠋḟ࡟ୗ⥺ࢆᘬ࠸ࡓⱥᩥࢆṇࡋࡃゝ࠸┤ࡏࡿሙྜࡣࠊࡑࡢゞṇᩥࡢࡳ Read&Look Up ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᣦ♧ࢆࡋ㸪㘓⏬ࡋ┤ࡋࡓࠋⓎ㡢ࢸࢫࢺࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࣔࢽࢱࣜࣥࢢࢩ࣮ࢺࢆ↷ࡽࡋྜࢃࡏ㸪ࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ㡢ࢆṇࡋࡃุ᩿࡛ࡁࡓ࠿࡝࠺࠿
ࢆ☜࠿ࡵ㸪success㸦ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ A㸪C㸧࠿ failure㸦ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ B㸪D㸧࡟ศ㢮㸪unacceptable and success 㸦ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ C㸧࠿ࡽࡉࡽ࡟ಟṇ࡛ࡁࡓ࠿㸪࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࠿ࡢ correction, not correction㸦ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ E㸪F㸧࡟ศ㢮ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢ A ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࠿ࡽ F ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟᥎⛣ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡢ࠿ࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓࠋ⾲ 1.
ཧຍ⪅ࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉA ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ
B ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ

ṇࡋࡃⓎ㡢࡛ࡁࡿ
ṇࡋࡃⓎ㡢࡛ࡁࡿ

ṇࡋ࠸࡜ุ᩿࡛ࡁࡿ
ṇࡋ࠸࡜ุ᩿࡛ࡁ࡞࠸C ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ
D ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ

ṇࡋࡃⓎ㡢ฟ᮶࡞࠸
ṇࡋࡃⓎ㡢ฟ᮶࡞࠸

ㄗࡾ࡟Ẽࡀࡘࡃ
ㄗࡾ࡟Ẽࡀࡘ࠿࡞࠸

E ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ
F ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ

ṇࡋࡃⓎ㡢ฟ᮶࡞࠸
ṇࡋࡃⓎ㡢ฟ᮶࡞࠸

ㄗࡾ࡟Ẽࡀࡘࡃ㸩ಟṇ࡛ࡁࡿㄗࡾ࡟Ẽࡀࡘࡃ㸩ಟṇ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸

2.2.2 ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ
 Ⓨ㡢ᣦᑟ࡜ࣔࢽࢱࣜࣥࢢࡢ⥅⥆ⓗ࡞ᐇ㊶ࡀ㧗ᰯ⏕ࡢⓎ㡢⬟ຊ࡟ࡶࡓࡽࡋࡓලయⓗ࡞ຠᯝࢆㄪ࡭ࡿࡓࡵ㸪Ⓨ㡢࡟ᑐࡍࡿព㆑࡜ R/L/TH/F/V/ࣜࢬ࣒/࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ▱㆑࡜⬟ຊࢆၥ࠺㸺࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ㸼ࢆ㸪4 ᭶㸦஦๓㸧
࡜ 7 ᭶㸦୰㛫㸧࡜ 2 ᭶㸦஦ᚋ㸧࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ㉁ၥࡣ 28 㡯┠࡛㸪ࠕ඲ࡃࡑࡢ㏻ࡾࠖ
㸪
ࠕࡑࡢ㏻ࡾࠖ
㸪ࠕ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠼ࡤࡑࡢ㏻ࡾࠖ㸪ࠕ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠼ࡤᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ
㸪ࠕᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ
㸪ࠕ඲ࡃᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ
ࡢ 6 ẁ㝵⾲♧࡛ᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡿࡶࡢࢆ 1 ࡘ㑅ࡤࡏࡓࠋ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡣ㸪ࣔࢽࢱࣜࣥࢢ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ➨ 28 㡯┠ࢆ㝖ࡁ㸪㟼ဴேẶࡀ⚾❧୰Ꮫᰯ 3 ᖺ⏕ᑐ㇟ࡢⓎ㡢ᤵᴗ࡛ᐇ᪋ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡶࡢ㸦Shizuka, 2008㸧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝ
ศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪ࣔࢽࢱࣜࣥࢢࡢ᭷ຠᛶࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࡣ㸪஦๓ࡼࡾ୰㛫㸪୰㛫ࡼࡾ஦ᚋ࡜᫬ᮇ
ࡀ㐜ࡃ࡞ࡿ࡟ࡘࢀ࡚ᚓⅬࡀ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡾ㸪㢧ⴭ࡟᭷ពᕪࡣ⾲ࢀࡓࠋ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ࡟࠾࠸࡚Ⓨ㡢࡟ᑐࡍࡿព㆑࣭▱㆑࣭⬟ຊࡢ್ࡀࡍ࡭࡚ࡢศ㔝࡛ୖ᪼ࡋࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪Ⓨ㡢࡟㛵ࡍࡿព㆑ࡢ㧗ࡉࡀ㸪Ⓨ㡢ࡢṇ☜ࡉ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ㸪⏕ᚐࡀ⮬ศࡢⓎ㡢ࢆⰋࡃࡋࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺ព㆑࡜㛵ᚰࡢ㧗ࡉࡀⓎ㡢ࡢṇ☜ࡉ࡜┦㛵ࡀ㧗࠿ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺㸦Shizuka, 1993㸧ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜୍⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋㄪ㡢᪉ἲࢆᏛࡧ㸪⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ⮬ศࡢⓎ㡢ࢆ⪺ࡃࡇ࡜࡛㸪ṇ☜࡟Ⓨ㡢ࡍࡿຊࢆࡘࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛
ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ1 ᖺ 3 ࣨ᭶ᚋࡢ㏣㊧ㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࡶ㸪Ⓨ㡢ຊࢆಖᣢฟ᮶࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࣔࢽࢱࣜࣥࢢ
ຊࡣ᭦࡟ఙࡧ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ㸪௒ᅇࡢ◊✲࠿ࡽศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ᑠᯘ⩧. (2014). ࠗ⏕ᚐࡢ⮬ᕫⓎ㡢ࣔࢽࢱࣜࣥࢢࡀṇ☜࡞Ⓨ㡢ࡢᐃ╔࡟୚࠼ࡿຠᯝ࠘. STEP BULLETIN, vol. 26.
Shizuka, T. 1993. “Task variation and accuracy predictor in interlanguage phonology production. ͆ࠗ㛵ᮾ⏥ಙ㉺ⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍⣖せ࠘7, pp.63-79.
Shizuka, T. (2008). “The effects of a 24-session EFL Pronunciation Course as Reflected in Learners’ Self-Reports.”
JACET Journal, 47, 67-80.
㟿ဴே. (2009). ࠕⓎ㡢ࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥࢢࡢຠᯝ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᛶู࡜ึᮇືᶵ࡙ࡅࡢᙳ㡪ࠖ. Unpublished manuscript.

−53−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(13:05-13:35)501 ᐊࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ࡟ࡼࡿⱥㄒࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢࠊ
ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢຊ㣴ᡂࡢᐇ㊶ሗ࿌῝ὠ ຬோ㸦ࣜࣥࢹ࣮ࣥ࣍ࣝࢫࢡ࣮ࣝ୰㧗Ꮫ㒊㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ㸪ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ㸪ࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢ㸪CNN Student News㸪TOEFLIBT
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓⱥㄒࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࠊࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢࡢ⦎⩦ࡣከࡃࡢᩍ⫱⌧ሙ࡛ά⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑ
ࡢ୰࡛ࡶࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ⫈ゎࠊⓎヰࡢ㠃࡛ᵝࠎ࡞◊✲ࡢ⵳✚ࡀࡳࡽࢀࠊࡑࡢ᭷ຠᛶࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏሗ࿌ࡣࠊyoutube ୖ࡛↓ᩱ࡛ど⫈࡛ࡁࡿ CNN Student News ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓࣜࣥࢹ࣮ࣥ࣍ࣝࢫ
ࢡ࣮ࣝ୰㧗Ꮫ㒊࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡢᐇ㊶⤖ᯝࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2. ◊✲ࡢ⫼ᬒ ᮏᏛࣜࣥࢹ࣮ࣥ࣍ࣝࢫࢡ࣮ࣝ୰㧗Ꮫ㒊ࡣᑠᏛᰯ࠿ࡽ⥆ࡃ 12 ᖺ୍㈏ࡢⱥㄒ࢖࣐̾ࢪࣙࣥࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛᰯ࡛
࠶ࡾࠊ≉࡟ⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡟ࡼࡿᑓ㛛⛉┠ࡀᩍ⛉ࡢ኱༙ࢆ༨ࡵࡿࡓࡵ⏕ᚐ඲యࡢⱥㄒຊࡣẚ㍑ⓗ㧗࠸࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᮏᰯ࡛ࡣ㧗ᰯ஧ᖺ᫬ࡼࡾᅜ㝿ࣂ࢝ࣟࣞ࢔ᶵᵓㄆᐃࡢ IB ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡀᑟධࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࡇࡢࣉ
ࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢཷㅮ⏕ࡣࠊࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࠖࡢᤵᴗ௨እࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ⛉┠ࢆⱥㄒ࡛ཷㅮࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀ≉ᚩ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ཧຍ⪅୍ྡࡣ IB ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢆཷㅮࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㧗ᰯ஧ᖺ⏕ࡢዪᏊ࡛ࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔ࡢ኱Ꮫ࡬ࡢ㐍Ꮫࢆ┠ᶆ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔ࡢ኱Ꮫ㐍Ꮫ࡟ࡣ TOEFLࠊIELTS ࡜࠸ࡗࡓⱥㄒ⬟ຊヨ㦂ࡢ⤖ᯝࢆฟ㢪᫬࡟ᥦฟࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊྠヨ㦂࡛ㄢࡉࢀࡿࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࠊࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢຊࢆ≉࡟ఙࡤࡍࡓࡵ࡟ CNN
Student News ࢆά⏝ࡋࠊࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡢカ⦎ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ
3. ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗ ᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊIELTS ࡸ TOEFL ࡜࠸ࡗࡓⱥㄒ⬟ຊヨ㦂࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࠊࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢຊࡢྥୖ
࡟ࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ࡜࠸࠺ᡭἲࡀ࡝ࢀ࡯࡝ࡢຠᯝࢆⓎ᥹ࡍࡿ࠿᳨ドࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊື⏬ࢧ࢖ࢺ
youtube ୖ࡛ど⫈࡛ࡁࡿ CNN Student News ࢆ࠸࠿࡟ᩍᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚᭷ຠ࡟ά⏝࡛ࡁࡿ࠿᳨ドࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶᮏ◊✲ࡢ㔜せ࡞┠ⓗࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
4. ᡭ㡰
4.1 ཧຍ⪅ ཧຍ⪅ࡣࣜࣥࢹ࣮ࣥ࣍ࣝࢫࢡ࣮ࣝᑠᏛ㒊ࠊ୰Ꮫ㒊࠿ࡽࡢෆ㒊㐍Ꮫ⪅࡛ⱥㄒ࢖࣐࣮ࢪࣙࣥᩍ⫱ࢆ 11 ᖺཷࡅࡓ㧗ᰯ஧ᖺ⏕ࡢዪᏊ࡛ࠊᇶ♏ⓗ࡞ㄒᙡຊࠊᩥἲຊࡣഛࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋཧ⪃ࡲ࡛࡟ཧຍ⪅ࡢ TOEICIP ࡢࢫࢥ࢔ࡣ 2014 ᖺ 7 ᭶ཷ㦂᫬ࡀ 645 ⅬࠊTOEFLITP ࢫࢥ࢔ 2014 ᖺ 3 ᭶ཷ㦂᫬ࡀ 483 Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋཧຍ⪅ࡢⱥㄒຊࡣỴࡋ࡚✺ฟࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ↓࠸ࡀࠊྠᖺ௦ࡢᏛ⏕࡜ẚ㍑ࡍࢀࡤẚ㍑ⓗ㧗࠸࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
4.2 ᡭ㡰
1 ᅇ⣙ 60 ศࡢࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࢆ㐌஧ᅇࠊ஧㐌㛫࡟Ώࡾィᅄᗘ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᩍᮦࡣ CNN Student News ࢆά⏝ࡋࡓࠋẚ㍑ⓗᖹ᫆࠿ࡘࠊ▷࠸ᩥ❶ࢆ㢟ᮦ࡜ࡋࡓ࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࠕ࢚࣎ࣛ࢘࢖ࣝࢫࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ඲ᩥ 47 ⛊ࠊ137
ㄒࡢࢽ࣮ࣗࢫࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓ⮬㌟࡛Ⓨ㡢ࡸ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺࢆ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺ࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᅇ࡛㡢ኌࢆ㘓㡢ࡋ

−54−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ࡓࠋ
ձ1 ᅇ┠ࡣࠊࢽ࣮ࣗࢫࡢࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࢆ㯲ㄞࡉࡏࠊ⩻ヂᩥࢆࡶ࡜࡟ព࿡ࢆ☜ㄆࡉࡏࡓࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊ㔜せ༢ㄒࡢࣜࢫࢺࢆࢳ࢙ࢵࢡࡉࡏෆᐜࢆゎㄝࡋࡓࠋࡲࡎࡣᩥ❶ࡢෆᐜࢆ᏶඲࡟⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠿ࡽࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ࡟ྲྀ
ࡾ⤌ࡵࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᚰࡀࡅࡓࠋ᭱ึ࠿ࡽ඲ᩥࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࡢࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡣ㞴ࡋ࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࢆぢ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᩥ❶ࢆ୍ᩥࡎࡘ༊ษࡾࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋղ2 ᅇ┠ࡣࠊࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࢆぢ࡞ࡀࡽ୍ᩥࡎࡘ༊ษࡾ࡞ࡀࡽࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋḟ࡟ࠊ๓ᅇ࡜ẚ㍑
ࡋ࡚ᨵၿࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࢆఅࡏࠊ୍ᩥ༊ษࡾ࡛ࡶ⦎⩦ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋճ3 ᅇ┠ࡣࠊ୍ᩥ༊ษࡾ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ඲ᩥࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࢆぢ࡞ࡀࡽࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࢆఅࡏࡓ≧ែ࡛඲ᩥࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⦎⩦ࡋࡓࠋ
մ4 ᅇ┠ࡣ᭱ᚋ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡾࠊࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࢆぢࡎ࡟඲ᩥࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ
4.3 ⤖ᯝ
ձ1 ᗘ┠ࡣࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࢆぢ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ୍ᩥࡎࡘ༊ษࡾ࡞ࡀࡽࡢࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ࡛ࡶࠕ㡢ኌ㏿ᗘࡀ㏿ࡍࡂ࡚ࡘ࠸࡚ࡺࡅ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ࡢドゝ㏻ࡾࠊᐇ㝿㡢ኌ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡺࡃࡢࡀ㞴ࡋ࠸≧ἣ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᩥ㢌࠿ࡽㄞࡳ㣕ࡤࡍࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿ࡞࡝ࠊึࡵ࡚ࡢࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ࡟័ࢀ࡞࠸ᵝᏊ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ղ2 ᗘ┠ࡣࠊ࠿࡞ࡾᨵၿࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋ୍ᩥࡎࡘ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࡞ࢇ࡜࠿ࢫࣆ࣮ࢻ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡺࡅࡿᵝᏊ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ≉࡟ᩥ㢌ࠊᩥᮎࢆ㣕ࡤࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶከࡃࠊⓎ㡢ࡸ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺ࡟ࡲ࡛ព㆑ࡀྥ࠿࡞࠸ᵝᏊ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ճ3 ᗘ┠ࡣࠊ඲యࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࡶఅࡏࡓࡲࡲ࡛⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ㛫㐪࠸ࡶᖹᆒࡋ࡚ 1~2 ࠿ᡤ⛬ᗘ࡛ࠊᩥ㢌ࢆ㣕ࡤࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊⓎ㡢ࡸ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺ࡟ᙉᙅࢆࡘࡅࡿవ⿱ࡶ⏕ࡲࢀࠊ࠿࡞ࡾࡢᨵၿࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋ
մ4 ᗘ┠ࡣࠊࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࢆఅࡏ࡚඲ᩥࢆ᏶⎍࡟ࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ᡂຌࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊᩥ❶ࡶ኱㒊ศᬯၐ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿᵝᏊ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋⓎ㡢ࠊ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶ┦ᙜࡢᨵၿࡀࡳࡽࢀࠊ࡜࡚ࡶࢫ࣒࣮ࢬ࡟
࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
յ5 ᗘ┠࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ୍࠿᭶ࡢ㛫ࢆ࠾࠸ࡓࡀࠊࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࢆぢࡎ࡟᏶⎍࡟ࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛
ࡁࡓࠋⓎ㡢ࡸ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺ࡟ࡶၥ㢟࡞ࡃࠊ୍ᗘᬯၐࡋࡓ౛ᩥࡣ୍ᐃᮇ㛫ࢆ࠾࠸࡚ࡶࡍࡄ࡟ᘬࡁฟࡏࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
5. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ௒ᅇࡢᐇ㦂࡛ࡣࠊ㐌஧ᅇࠊ60 ศ⛬ᗘࡢࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡢᐇ㦂࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀ࢔ࢡࢸ࢕ࣅࢸ࢕ࡢ୰࡛ࡶⓎ㡢ࡸ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺࡀẖᅇᨵၿࡍࡿ࡞࡝ࠊὶᬸࡉࡢ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ୍ᐃࡢᡂᯝࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ୍
࠿᭶ࡢᮇ㛫ࢆ⤒ࡓ࠺࠼࡛ࠊ෌ᗘࢸࢫࢺࡋࡓ㝿࡟ࡶၥ㢟࡞ࡃᬯၐ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࢩࣕࢻ࣮
࢖ࣥࢢࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛ࡣ₯ᅾグ᠈࡟ᬯၐศࡀࢫࢺࢵࢡࡉࢀࠊ༶ᗙ࡟ᘬࡁฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
ศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ࡇࡢカ⦎ᚋ࡟ཷ㦂ࡋࡓ TOEFLIBT ࡛ 54 ⅬࢆྲྀᚓࡋࠊSpeaking ࡜ Listening ࡛ 15 Ⅼࡎࡘྲྀᚓࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝࡀฟࡓࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩㛛⏣ಟᖹ(2007).ࠗࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ࡜㡢ㄞࡢ⛉Ꮫ࠘ᮾி㸸ࢥࢫ࣑ࣆ࢔
㛛⏣ಟᖹ(2012).ࠗࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ࣭㡢ㄞ࡜ⱥㄒ⩦ᚓࡢ⛉Ꮫ࠘ᮾி㸸ࢥࢫࣔࣆ࢔

−55−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(13:40-14:10)501 ᐊ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖࣭ࣥࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢάື࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
௬᝿ࣇ࢓ࢩࣜࢸ࣮ࢱ࣮ࡢᙺ๭ஂᓥ ᬛὠᏊ㸦ὠ⏣ሿ኱Ꮫ 㠀ᖖ໅ㅮᖌ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ㸪࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥᏛ⩦ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕㸪༠ㄪᏛ⩦㸪௬᝿ࣇ࢓ࢩࣜࢸ࣮ࢱ࣮㸪Ẽ࡙ࡁ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏⓎ⾲ࡣ㸪࢜ࣥࣛ࢖࣭ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓⱥㄒࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢάື࡟࠾ࡅࡿ௬᝿ࣇ࢓ࢩࣜࢸ࣮ࢱ࣮
ࡢᙺ๭ࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⱥᩥࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢᩍ⫱⌧ሙ࡟࢜ࣥࣛ࢖࣭ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛࢆྲྀࡾධࢀࡿ࡜㸪ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢඹ᭷໬௨እ࡟ࡶ㸪Ꮫ⩦ពḧࡢྥୖ㸪ࣔࢽࢱࣜࣥࢢ࡟ࡼࡿ⮬ᕫಟṇࡢᶵ⬟ࡀⓎ᥹ࡉࢀࡿ࡞
࡝ࡢຠᯝࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋஂᓥ㸦2010㸧ࡀⱥㄒࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢάື࡟࢜ࣥࣛ࢖࣭ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛࢆά⏝ࡋ㸪ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢ㉁࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚Ꮫ⩦⪅㛫ࡢᙳ㡪ࢆㄪᰝศᯒࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕ෆ࡛≉ᐃࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ㊊ሙ࠿ࡅࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ཧຍ⪅ࡢᵓᡂ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣ㸪㊊ሙ࠿ࡅࡢᶵ⬟ࡀᙅ࠸ࢣ࣮ࢫࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪㊊ሙ࠿ࡅࢆᢸ࠺௬᝿ࣇ࢓ࢩࣜࢸ࣮ࢱ࣮࡜ࡋ࡚ Bot ࡀࣔࢹࣝࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ
ࢆ⮬ືᥦ♧ࡍࡿ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖࣭ࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆ㛤Ⓨࡋ㸪኱Ꮫࡢⱥㄒࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢᤵᴗ࡛ά⏝ࡋࡓࠋ
ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣ㸪ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡛ࡢ Bot ࡢᙺ๭ࡸᏛ⩦ࢹࢨ࢖ࣥࡢྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡿࠋ
2. ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖࣭ࣥࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢᴫせᅗ㸯ࡣ㸪ᮏ◊✲࡛㛤Ⓨࡋࡓ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖࣭ࣥࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢࢺࢵࣉࡢ⏬㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋྑࡢ㡿ᇦࡀཧຍ⪅ಶே⏝࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ㄢ㢟࡜ࣄࣥࢺ⾲♧㸪ධຊࢫ࣮࣌ࢫࡢᶵ⬟ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᕥࡢ㡿ᇦࡣ඲ཧຍ⪅ඹ㏻࡛඲ཧຍ
⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢ୍㒊ࡀ⾲♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋᮏ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖࣭ࣥࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟ࡣ㸪(1)Bot ࡀ௬᝿ࣇ࢓
ࢩࣜࢸ࣮ࢱ࣮࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ㄢ㢟ࡢࣔࢹࣝࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢆ⮬ື⾲♧ࡍࡿ㸪(2)ࣄࣥࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ the British National
Corpus㸪the Corpus of Contemporary American English㸪࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥ㎡᭩࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ౛ᩥࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿ㸪(3)࢔࢖
ࢥࣥࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓࣆ࢔࣏ࣞࣥࣥࢫࢆ⾜࠼ࡿ㸪࡜࠸࠺≉Ⰽࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
3. ◊✲ㄢ㢟ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪࢜ࣥࣛ࢖࣭ࣥࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ௬᝿ࣇ࢓ࢩࣜࢸ࣮ࢱ࣮࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ Bot ࡢᙺ๭ࢆ᫂ࡽ
࠿࡟ࡍ࡭ࡃ㸪ḟࡢ◊✲ㄢ㢟ࢆタᐃࡋࡓࠋ(1)Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡣ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘ௬᝿ࣇ࢓ࢩࣜࢸ࣮ࢱ࣮ࡀᥦ♧ࡍࡿࣔࢹࣝࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢆཧ↷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠋ
(2)௬᝿ࣇ࢓ࢩࣜࢸ࣮ࢱ࣮ࡢᏑᅾࡀᏛ⩦ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠋ
4. ◊✲᪉ἲ㸦ᤵᴗᐇ㊶㸧
4.1 ཧຍ⪅ᅜ❧኱Ꮫᩍ㣴ㄢ⛬ࡢ㸱ࢡࣛࢫ(A), (B),(C)ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢥ࣮ࢫ࡛㸪ᮏࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓࠋྛࢡࣛࢫ
࡜ࡶࢢ࣮ࣝࣉศࡅࢆࡋ㸪ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕࡛ᢞ✏ࢆࡋྜ࠺ᙧࢆ࡜ࡗࡓࠋཧຍ⪅ࡢෆヂࡣ㸪(A)ࡣ
ᩥ⣔Ꮫ㒊㸯ᖺ⏕㸦ཧຍ⪅ᩘ 29 ྡ㸪3 ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕㸧
㸪(B)ࡣ⌮⣔Ꮫ㒊㸯ᖺ⏕㸦ཧຍ⪅ᩘ 24 ྡ㸪2 ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕㸧㸪㸦C㸧ࡣ」ᩘࡢᏛ㒊 2 ᖺ⏕௨ୖ㸦ཧຍ⪅ᩘ 16 ྡ㸪2 ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ(C)ࡢࡳ࡛࡯ࡰẖᅇࡢᤵᴗ࡛ᮏࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆ฼⏝ࡋ㸪௚ࡢ 2 ࢡࣛࢫࡣ 15 ᅇࡢ࠺ࡕ 2 ᅇࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓࠋ

−56−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

4.2 ᡭ㡰࡜ᩍᮦཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸪e ࣓࣮ࣝࡢၥ࠸ྜࢃࡏࡢ⾲⌧ࢆᏛࡪ༢ඖ࡛㸪ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢ⦎⩦ၥ㢟ࢆゎ࠸ࡓᚋ࡟㸪ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢㄢ㢟࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳ㸪ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢆࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟
ᢞ✏ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ࡜ࡁཧຍ⪅࡟ࡣ㸪Bot ࡶࣔࢹࣝࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢆ⮬ືⓗ࡟ᢞ✏ࡍࡿ௙⤌ࡳࢆㄝ᫂ࡋࡓࡀ㸪Bot ࡟ࡼࡿᢞ✏ࡀࣔࢹࣝࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣఅࡏࡽࢀࡓࠋ
ㄢ㢟ࡢᢞ✏ᚋ࡟ཧຍ⪅࡬ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪ
ᰝ㸪Ꮫ⏕ཬࡧ Bot ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟ࡘ࠸

ᅗ 1. ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢࢺࢵࣉ⏬㠃࡚㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀ࣮࣡ࢻᩘ, ᩥࡢᩘ㸪4-grams ࡞࡝ࡢẚ㍑ศᯒࢆ⾜࠸㸪◊✲ㄢ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ
5. ⤖ᯝ࣭⪃ᐹ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ࠿ࡽ㸪ᮏࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡀᥦ౪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿせ⣲㸦ձ௚⪅ཬࡧղBot ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ㸪ճ㹼յࣄࣥࢺ㸦3 ✀㢮㸧㸧࡜նࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ㸪շ㎡᭩ࡢ㸵ࡘࡢ㡯┠ࡢ࠺ࡕ㸪ཧຍ⪅ࡀ Bot ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋࡓ⛬ᗘ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪(A)ࡣ 2 ఩ (20.8%)㸪(B)ࡣ 3 ఩ (14.9%)㸪
㸦C㸧ࡣ 4 ఩ (12.1%)࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓࠋBot ࡢཧ⪃ࡢ௙᪉࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪3 ࢡࣛࢫ࡜ࡶࠕ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘཧ⪃࡟ࡋ㸪⮬ศࡢⱥసᩥ࡟⏕࠿ࡋࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡀ୍␒ከࡃ㸪Botࡀࣔࢹࣝࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢆ⾲♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఅࡏ࡚࠸࡚ࡶ㸪ཧຍ⪅ࡣ┤ឤⓗ࡟ Bot ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢆࣔ
ࢹࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚ཧ⪃࡟ࡋࡓ࡜᥎㔞࡛ࡁࡿࠋᐇ㝿࡟ཧຍ⪅ࡢⱥᩥࢆศᯒࡍࡿ࡜㸪(A)࡛ࡣࠕࣆ࢔ࡢⱥᩥࢆཧ⪃࡟
ࡋࡓࡀ Bot ࡢⱥᩥࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ᅇ⟅ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓཧຍ⪅ࡢⱥᩥ࡟ Bot ࡢᙳ㡪࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ⾲⌧ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ(B), (C)࡛ࡶࠕBot ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠖ࡜ᅇ⟅ࡋࡓཧຍ⪅ࡶྵࡵ኱༙ࡢཧຍ⪅ࡀၥ࠸ࡢ㡯┠࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ Bot ࡢ♧ࡋࡓ᭩ࡁ᪉㸦⟠᮲᭩ࡁ㸧࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢ᭩ࡁ᪉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡸ஦๓ᣦᑟ࡛
ࡶᢅࢃ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀ㸪ཧຍ⪅ࡣࣆ࢔ࡢⱥᩥࢆ፹௓࡟ࡋ࡚ Bot ࡢⱥᩥࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋࡓ࡜᥎ᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ
6㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵᮏ◊✲࡛㛤Ⓨࡋࡓ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖࣭ࣥࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ Bot ࡣ㸪௬᝿ࣇ࢓ࢩࣜࢸ࣮ࢱ࣮࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᙺ๭
ࢆᢸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ≉࡟ⱥసᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣔࢹࣝࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢᥦ♧ࡣ㸪Consciousness raisingࡢാࡁࡀ࠶ࡾ(Hyland, 2003; Swales & Feak, 2000)㸪ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡶᏛ⩦⪅ࡣᣦᑟ⪅ࡀ㌟㏆࡟࠸࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶ Bot ࡢᏑᅾࡀᏛ⩦⪅࡟Ẽ࡙ࡁ࡜⮬ᕫಟṇࢆᑟࡁ㸪⮬ᚊⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦ࢆಁࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋᮏࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡣ㸪༠ㄪᏛ⩦࡜ඹ࡟⮬ᚊⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦ࡶಁ㐍ࡋ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢⱥసᩥຊࡢྥୖ࡟ᐤ୚ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᮇᚅ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ㅰ㎡
 ᮏ◊✲ࡣ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠㸦ᖹᡂ 25 ᖺ㹼27 ᖺ㸧ᇶ┙◊✲(C)㸦ㄢ㢟␒ྕ㸸25370653㸧ࡢᨭ᥼ࢆཷࡅ࡚
⾜ࢃࢀࡲࡋࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡟ឤㅰࢆ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing (pp. 87-89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kushima, C. (2010). Peer influence on writing on online discussion forum: Is peer writing effective as a scaffolding?
JAFLE BULLETIN, 13, 39-51.
Swales, J., & Feak, C. (2000). English in today’s research world: a writing guide. Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press.

−57−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(14:20-14:50)501 ᐊⱥㄒึ⣭ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕࡟ᑐࡍࡿ཯㌿Ꮫ⩦࡜༠ാᏛ⩦ࢆྲྀࡾධࢀࡓࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢᣦᑟୗᒣ ᖾᡂ㸦ᮾὒᏛᅬ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ཯㌿Ꮫ⩦㸪༠ാᏛ⩦㸪ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢᣦᑟ㸪ࢫ࣐࣮ࢺࣇ࢛ࣥ⏝࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥᩍᮦ㸪⮬ᚊᏛ⩦
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣ㸪ࢫ࣐࣮ࢺࣇ࢛࡛ࣥ㜀ぴ࡛ࡁࡿື⏬ࡸ PDF ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ࡞࡝ࡢᩍᮦࢆ࢙࢘ࢵࣈୖ࡟‽ഛࡋ࡚⾜࠺཯㌿Ꮫ⩦㸪࠾ࡼࡧᤵᴗෆࡢ༠ാᏛ⩦ࢆά⏝ࡋࡓ㸪኱Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿึ⣭ⱥㄒࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢᣦᑟࡢᐇ㊶౛ࢆ⤂௓ࡍࡿࠋࠕ཯㌿Ꮫ⩦ࠖ࡜ࡣࠊᚑ᮶ከࡃ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚ࡁࡓᤵᴗ࡜ᐟ㢟ࡢᙺ๭ࢆࠕ཯㌿ࠖࡉࡏࡓᏛ⩦ᙧែ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
㏆ᖺὀ┠ࢆ㞟ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᤵᴗෆ࡟ㅮ⩏ᙧᘧ࡛ㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥᩍᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚ᐟ㢟࡟ࡋࠊᐟ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚୚࠼࡚࠸ࡓ᚟⩦ෆᐜࡸ௒ࡲ࡛᫬㛫ࡀ࡞ࡃ࡚ᢅ࠼࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆᩍᐊ࡛⾜࠺ࠋㅮ⩏ᙧᘧࡢ㒊ศࢆ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥᩍᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝ពࡍࡿ࣓ࣜࢵࢺࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀఱᗘ࡛ࡶ⣡ᚓ࡛ࡁࡿࡲ࡛ᩍᮦࢆど⫈࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡟࠶
ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵ⌮ゎࡀ㐜࠸Ꮫ⩦⪅ࠊ㐣ཤࡢㅮ⩏ෆᐜࢆᛀࢀ࡚☜࠿ࡵࡓ࠸Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚᭷┈࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿
ࡋ㸪ࢹ࣓ࣜࢵࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚஦๓࡟ᤵᴗእ࡛ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡲ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽࡎ㸪Ꮫ⩦ពḧࡀప࠸Ꮫ⩦⪅࡛ࡶࡁࡕࢇ࡜ྲྀ
ࡾ⤌ࡴࡼ࠺࡞௙᥃ࡅࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ௙᥃ࡅ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ༠ാᏛ⩦ࠖࢆྲྀࡾධࢀࡓࠋ༠ാᏛ⩦ࡢ࣓ࣜࢵࢺ
ࡣ㸪཯㌿Ꮫ⩦ࢆ⾜ࢃ࡞࠸࡜┦ᡭ࡟㏞ᝨࢆ࠿ࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࣉࣞࢵࢩ࣮ࣕࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪సᴗࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚࡛ࡁ࡞࠸
࡜ᛮࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆᡂࡋ㐙ࡆࡿᏛࡧ࡜႐ࡧࢆᚓࡿࡇ࡜࡛Ꮫ⩦ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ㧗ࡵ㸪ᡂຌయ㦂ࢆ࿡ࢃ࠺ࡇ࡜
ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡟࠶ࡿࠋ
2. ᡭ㡰
2.1 ᑐ㇟⪅࡜⛉┠
ᮏᐇ㊶ࡢᑐ㇟⪅ࡣ㸪ᮾி㒔ᩥி༊ࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ 25 ྡ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋධᏛ᫬ࡢࣉ࣮ࣞࢫ࣓ࣥࢺࢸࢫࢺ࡛ࡣⱥㄒࡢ
ࣞ࣋ࣝࡀึ⣭࡜ุᐃࡉࢀࡓ⪅ࡓࡕ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⛉┠ࡣ 1 ᖺ⏕ࡀⱥㄒᚲಟ⛉┠࡜ࡋ࡚ᒚಟࡍࡿ 4 ࢥ࣐ࡢ࠺ࡘࡢ
1 ࡘ࡛ࠊࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ᢅ࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ᣦࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
2.2 ᡭ㡰
ึᅇࡢᤵᴗ᫬࡟࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࢆ⾜࠸㸪ᣦᑟୖᚲせ࡞ෆᐜࢆᅇ⟅ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋ⮬ศࡢⱥㄒຊࢆヲ㏙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜㸪୍ぢᤵᴗ࡟ࡣ㛵ಀࡢ࡞࠸㡯┠ࢆ࡜࠾ࡋ࡚㞟୰ࡍࡿ⤒㦂ࢆၥ࠺ࡇ࡜㸪ⱥㄒࡸእᅜㄒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⯆࿡ࢆၥ࠺ࡇ࡜㸪࡞࡝࠿ࡽᵓᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊྛᏛ⏕ࡢࢫ࣐࣮ࢺࣇ࢛ࣥ࠿ࡽᤵᴗ࡛౑࠺࢙࢘ࢵࣈ࡬
ࡢ࢔ࢡࢭࢫ᪉ἲ㸪ᤵᴗࡢᵓᡂࢆㄝ᫂ࡋࡓࠋ཯㌿ᤵᴗࡢᙧែࡣ࠾ࡑࡽࡃ௒ࡲ࡛⤒㦂ࡋ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ
ᤵᴗ୰࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜ᤵᴗእ࡛ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂♧ࡍࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࡑࡢ⌮⏤ࡶㄝ᫂ࡋࡓࠋ
2.3 ᐇ㊶ෆᐜࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢࡓࡵ࡟ᚲせ࡞ᩥἲ஦㡯ࡢㄝ᫂ࡣཎ๎࡜ࡋ࡚࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥື⏬࡛ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋⱥㄒࢆ඲ࡃ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ே࡛ࡶࢃ࠿ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ෆᐜࢆࣃ࣮࣏࣡࢖ࣥࢺ࡛సᡂࡋ㸪ࡑࢀࢆmp4 ື⏬࡟ኚ᥮ࡋ࡚࢙࢘ࣈୖ࡟⨨ࡃࠋࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥࢢ⏝ࡢ౛ᩥࡣ PDF ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ࡟ࡋ࡚ྠࡌࡃ࢙࢘ࣈୖ࡟⨨ࡃࠋᏛ⩦⪅ࡣື⏬࡜ PDF ࡛ᤵᴗࡢ๓
࡟Ꮫ⩦ࡍࡿࠋᤵᴗ࡛ࡣ㸪ࡲࡎࠊ஦๓࡟Ꮫ⩦ࡋ࡚࠶ࡿ PDF ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆ౑ࡗ࡚Ⓨ㡢ࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥࢢࡸⓎヰࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥࢢࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࡣయ࡟ࡋࡳࡇࢇࡔⱥᩥࡢࢫࢺࢵࢡࡀᚲせ࡛㸪ࡑࡢࡓࡵ࡟㸪᭩࠿

−58−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡼࡾࡶඛ࡟Ⓨ㡢ࡸⓎヰࡢࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥࢢ࡛▐᫬࡟ㄒᙡࡸⱥᩥࡀฟ࡚ࡃࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆពᅗࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋᏛ⩦ෆᐜࢆά⏝࡛ࡁࡿ≧ἣࢆタᐃࡋࡓ఍ヰᩥసᡂࡣ㸪ࡑࡢḟࡢ㐌࡟༠ാᏛ⩦࡛⾜࠺ࠋ᭩࠿ࡏࡿసᴗࢆ
ࡑࡢ᫬㛫୰࡟⾜ࢃ࡞࠸ࡢࡣ㸪ྠࡌ࣏࢖ࣥࢺࢆศᩓࡋ࡚Ꮫ⩦ࡋ㸪グ᠈ࡢᐃ╔ࢆᅗࡿࡇ࡜ࢆពᅗࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝᤵᴗෆᐜ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡣ㸪ᐇ㊶ࢆጞࡵ࡚ 2 㐌㛫ᚋ࡜㸪ᐇ㊶⤊஢᫬࡟ྠࡌෆᐜ࡛࠾ࡇ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ㡯┠ࡣ㸪1. ࢙࢘ࢵࣈୖࡢᩍᮦ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ၥ࠺ࡶࡢ㸪2. ཯㌿Ꮫ⩦࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢண⩦࣭᚟⩦࣭ࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥࢢࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆၥ࠺ࡶࡢ㸪3. ᤵᴗ᫬㛫ෆࡢࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥࢢ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ၥ࠺ࡶࡢ㸪4. ༠ാᏛ⩦࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ၥ࠺ࡶࡢ㸪
5. ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢຊࡀࡘ࠸ࡓ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆၥ࠺ࡶࡢ㸪6. ⮬ศࡢᏛ⩦ࢆศᯒ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࠿ࢆၥ࠺ࡶ
ࡢ㸪7. ⮬⏤グ㏙㸪࠿ࡽᡂࡿࠋ
2 㐌㛫ᚋࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ⤖ᯝ࡛ࡣࠊ1 ࡢ࢙࢘ࢵࣈୖࡢᩍᮦࡢᩥἲㄝ᫂࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊࢃ࠿ࡾࡸࡍ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࢥ࣓
ࣥࢺࡀ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡢ㸪ࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺⪅ࡶྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࡑ࠺࠸࠺ᣦ᦬ࢆཷ
ࡅࡓࡶࡢࡣࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࢃ࠿ࡾࡸࡍࡃಟṇࡋࡓࠋ2 ࡢ཯㌿Ꮫ⩦࡛ࡣࠊࡁࡕࢇ࡜⾜ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓᏛ⏕ࡀ࠸ࡓࡓࡵ㸪ࡑࡢព⩏ࢆ෌ᗘᤵᴗ୰࡟ㄝ᫂ࡋࡓࠋ3 ࡢᤵᴗෆࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥࢢ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪ࡓࡵ࡟࡞ࡿ㸪ᴦࡋ࠸㸪࡜࠸࠺ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࡀ㸪4 ࡢ༠ാᏛ⩦࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪┦ᡭ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡀ┠❧ࡗࡓࠋ5 ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢຊࡀࡘ࠸ࡓ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸࡜ࡢᅇ⟅ࡀ኱㒊ศࢆ༨ࡵࠊ6 ࡢᏛ⩦ࡢ⮬ᕫศᯒࡣ㸪ᑡࡋ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ㸪࡜ࡢᅇ⟅ࡀ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
୍᪉ࠊᐇ㊶ᚋࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ⤖ᯝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ㡯┠࡛ 2 㐌㛫ᚋࡢᅇ⟅⤖ᯝࢆୖᅇࡿዲ
ពⓗ࡞⤖ᯝࢆᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ≉࡟኱ࡁ࡞ኚ໬ࡣࠊ7 ࡢ⮬⏤グ㏙࡛ࠊࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢ᫬㛫࡞ࡢ࡟Ⓨ㡢⦎⩦ࡀከࡃࡓࡵ࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠊⓎ㡢ࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥࢢࡀࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢࡓࡵ࡟ᚲせࡔ࡜࠸࠺ᤵᴗࡣ᪂㩭ࡔࡗࡓ㸪࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
Ⓨ⾲࡛ࡣࠊ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ㡯┠ࡢヲ⣽࡜ࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࢆලయⓗ࡟♧ࡍ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢኚ໬࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ᢸᙜᩍ
ဨࡢ❧ሙ࡛ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International
Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).
Cockrum, T. (2014). Flipping your English class to reach all learners: Strategies and lesson plans. New York:
Routledge.
Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories andmodels: An overview of their current status. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, U.S.A.
ᆏᮏ᪪ (2008)ࠕ㺀༠ാᏛ⩦ࠖ࡜ࡣఱ࠿ࠖ
ࠗ⏕ᾭᏛ⩦࡜࢟ࣕࣜ࢔ࢹࢨ࢖ࣥ㸸ἲᨻ኱Ꮫ࢟ࣕࣜ࢔ࢹࢨ࢖ࣥᏛ఍
⣖せ Vol.5࠘ἲᨻ኱Ꮫ࢟ࣕࣜ࢔ࢹࢨ࢖ࣥᏛ఍.
http://repo.lib.hosei.ac.jp/bitstream/10114/6703/1/cd-gak05_sakamoto.pdf
ୗᒣᖾᡂ. (2014)ࠕCALL ᩍᐊ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢫ࣮࣮ࣟࣛࢼ࣮࡬ࡢ኱Ꮫⱥㄒࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢᣦᑟࠖ
ࠗᮾὒᏛᅬ኱Ꮫ⣖せ࠘➨ 22 ྕ pp.163-177.
ୗᒣᖾᡂ. (2015)ࠕ࢔ࢡࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ࡛㧗ࡵࡿࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭ࣜࢸࣛࢩ࣮࡜ⱥㄒࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙ
ࣥຊࠖ
ࠗDialogue (⏣㎶ⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ◊✲఍⣖せ)࠘Vol.13, pp.19-28.Chamot, A. U. (1999). Learning strategy
instruction in the English classroom. Language Teacher Online. Retrieved September 12, 2003, fromhttp://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp

−59−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(14:55-15:25)501 ᐊ࢙࢘ࣈᆺ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ㛤Ⓨ̿ࡑࡢྍ⬟ᛶ࡜ㄢ㢟̿⏣ཱྀ ᝋ⏨㸦኱ᮾᩥ໬኱Ꮫ㸧⚄⏣ ᫂ᘏ㸦㤳㒔኱Ꮫᮾி㸧኱㡲㈡ ┤Ꮚ㸦᫂἞኱Ꮫ㸧➉ᮧ 㞞ྐ㸦໭ᫍᏛᅬ኱Ꮫ▷ᮇ኱Ꮫ㒊㸧࣓࢖ࢫ ࡳࡼᏊ㸦⪷Ꮫ㝔኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ㸪࢙࢘ࣈᆺ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ㸪ㄞࡳࡢὶᬸࡉ㸪⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋㄞࡳ㸪ከㄞ
1. ࢙࢘ࣈᆺ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ㛤Ⓨࡢ⫼ᬒⱥㄒࡢẕㄒヰ⪅࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ 4ࠊ5 ṓ࡟࠸ࡓࡿࡲ࡛࡟ẕㄒ⬟ຊࡢⓎ㐩࡟ᚲせ࡞ 10,000 ᫬㛫ࡢᏛ⩦᫬㛫ࡣ☜ಖࡉࢀࡿ㸦Segalowitz, 2003㸧୍᪉ࠊ➨஧ゝㄒࡢᏛ⩦⪅࡟ࡣࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡟኱㔞ࡢ࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺࢆᚓࡿᶵ఍ࡣ
ᑡ࡞࠸㸦Grabe and Stoller, 2011㸧ࠋㄞ᭩⤒㦂ࢆ✚ࡴከㄞ㸦Extensive Reading: ER㸧ࢆ⿵᏶ࡍࡿ᪉ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚⧞
ࡾ㏉ࡋㄞࡳ㸦Repeated Reading: RR㸧ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋRR ࡀㄞࡳࡢ㏿ᗘࠊṇ☜ࡉࠊ⌮ゎᗘࢆ㣴ᡂࡍࡿୖ࡛᭷ຠ࡛
࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ◊✲㸦e.g., Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; National Reading Panel, 2000㸧ࡸ➨஧ゝㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ◊✲㸦e.g., Chang, 2010; Chang & Millet, 2013; Gorsuch & Taguchi, 2008; Taguchi & Gorsuch, 2004㸧࡟ࡼࡾ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋER ࡜␗࡞ࡾࠊRR ࡛ࡣ㡢ኌࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋㄞࡴࠋ᭱᪂ࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡸ㡢ኌ౑⏝ࡢᙺ๭ࡀࠊ║⌫㐠ືࡸࣉࣟࢯࢹ࢕ࡢ◊✲࡟ࡼࡾゎ᫂ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦e.g., Rayner et al.,2012; Gross et al., 2013㸧
ࠋ୍᪉ࠊRR ࡢᑟධ࡟ࡣࡑࡢ‽ഛ࡟᫬㛫࡜ປຊࡀ࠿࠿ࡿࠋࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡜ࡑࡢ㡢ኌࢆ⏝ពࡋࠊㄞࡳࡢᡤせ᫬㛫ࡸࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡢグ㘓ࢩ࣮ࢺࢆసᡂࡋࠊ᫬㛫 ᐃࡢࡓࡵࡢࢱ࢖࣐࣮ࡢ‽ഛࡶᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ࢙࢘ࣈᆺᩍᮦ࡜
ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡀ୍య໬ࡋࡓ RR ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢆ㛤Ⓨࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡑࡢ‽ഛࢆ኱ᖜ࡟㍍ῶ࡛ࡁࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ
ᩍᮦ࣭ࢸࢫࢺࡢඹ᭷࡟ࡼࡾࠊ኱ࡁ࡞ࢧࣥࣉࣝᩘ࡟ࡼࡿຠᯝ᳨ドࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
2. ࢙࢘ࣈᆺ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ㛤Ⓨࡢ≉ᚩ㛤Ⓨࡋࡓࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ኱ࡁ࡞≉ᚩࡣࠊRR ࡢせᅉ⤫ไࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ1) ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡢ᭷↓ࠊ2㸧㡢ኌࣔࢹࣝࡢ᭷↓ࠊ3㸧 ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡢᅇᩘタᐃࠊ4) 」ᩘࡢࢸࢫࢺࡢ⤌ྜࡏ➼ࡀ⮬⏤࡟⤫ไ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟
ࡼࡾࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ฿㐩ᗘ࡜⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡢᅇᩘ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࠊ㡢ኌࣔࢹࣝࡢຠᯝࠊ㡢ኌࣔࢹࣝ࡞ࡋࡢ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡢࡳࡢຠᯝ࡞࡝ࠊㄞࡳ࡟㛵ࢃࡿྛせᅉࡢຠᯝ᳨ドࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
3. ࢙࢘ࣈᆺ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢᐇ㝿 Web ᆺ Repeated Reading ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢᏛ⩦ࡢὶࢀࡣᅗ㸯࡟♧ࡍ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋඛᅇࡢࢭࢵࢩ࡛ࣙࣥㄞࢇ
ࡔෆᐜࢆᛮ࠸ฟࡍࡓࡵࡢ㯲ㄞࡢᚋࠊ᪂ࡓ࡞ RR ࢭࢵࢩ࡛ࣙࣥࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞ὶࢀࡣࠊ1) wpm

ᐃࡢࡓࡵࡢ㯲

ㄞ + ⮬ศࡢ⌮ゎᗘࢆ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡿࡓࡵࡢ⌮ゎᗘࢸࢫࢺ, 2) 㡢ኌࣔࢹࣝࢆ⫈ࡁ࡞ࡀࡽࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ㯲ㄞ, 3) wpm
ᐃࡢࡓࡵࡢ㯲ㄞ,㸦」ᩘᅇ㸧, ࡑࡢᚋࠊ4) ㄒᙡ࣭ᩥἲ࣭⫼ᬒ▱㆑ࡢ☜ㄆ, 5) ࡑࡢ᪥ࡢ RR ࢭࢵࢩࣙࣥ࡟
㛵ࡍࡿࢥ࣓ࣥࢺグධ࡛ 1 ᅇศࡢ RR ࢭࢵࢩࣙࣥࡢ⤊஢࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

−60−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

ᅗ 1. Web ᆺ Repeated Reading ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ౛
4. ⤖ᯝ
 2012 ᖺᗘ࠿ࡽ 2014 ᖺᗘ࡟࠿ࡅ࡚ࢹ࣮ࢱ཰㞟ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ⤖ᯝศᯒࡲ࡛㐍ࡵࡿணᐃ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊࢸࢫࢺࡢ
㛤Ⓨ➼࡛㛤Ⓨసᴗࡀ㐜ࢀࠊࢹ࣮ࢱ཰㞟࣭ศᯒࡣ௒ᖺᗘ㸦2015 ᖺᗘ㸧ᐇ᪋୰࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ௒ᚋࠊᏛ
఍➼࡛Ⓨ⾲ࡍࡿணᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㛗ᮇⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ◊✲⪅ࡸᩍဨࡢඛ⏕᪉࡟౑⏝࠸ࡓࡔࡅࡿࡼ࠺ࠊ⊂⮬ࡢࢥࣥࢸࣥࢶ㛤Ⓨࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ୍⯡බ㛤ࡍࡿணᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Chang, A. (2010). The effect of a timed reading activity on EFL learners: Speed, comprehension, and perceptions.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 22, 284–303.
Chang, A., & Millet, S. (2013). Improving reading rates and comprehension through timed repeated reading.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 25, 126-148.
Gorsuch, G. & Taguchi, E. (2008). Repeated reading for developing reading fluency and reading comprehension:
The case of EFL learners in Vietnam. System, 36, 253–278.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F.L. (2011). Teaching and researching reading (2nd ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Kuhn, M.R. & Stahl, S.A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3-21.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the subgroups: National reading panel. Washington, DC: National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second language. In C. Doughty and M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of
second language acquisition. (pp. 382-408). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Taguchi, E. & Gorsuch, G. (2002). Transfer effects of repeated EFL reading on reading new passages: A preliminary
investigation. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14, 43–65.

−61−

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(15:30-16:00)501 ᐊ࣮࣭͆࢜ࣝ࢖ࣥࢢࣜࢵࢩ͇ࣗᤵᴗ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢኌ㸸Ꮫ⩦⪅ࣅ࣮ࣜࣇࡢ㉁ⓗ◊✲ୖ㔝 ⫱Ꮚ㸦㛵すᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ 㠀ᖖ໅ㅮᖌ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࣮࣭͆࢜ࣝ࢖ࣥࢢࣜࢵࢩ͇ࣗᤵᴗ㸪ࣅ࣮ࣜࣇ㸪኱Ꮫ⏕㸪Target Language㸪㉁ⓗ◊✲
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟࿴〇ⱥㄒ࣮࣭͆࢜ࣝ࢖ࣥࢢࣜࢵࢩ͇ࣗ࡜࠸࠺ᤵᴗᙧែࡣ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒㅮᖌ㸦NNEST㸧ࡢᤵᴗᐇ㊶ࡢ⌧ሙ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ゎ㔘ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᤵᴗෆ࡛ࡢⱥㄒ౑⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ୰࡛ࡶࡑࡢ Belief ࡟㐪࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ⌧ᅾࡢ᪥ᮏࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ❧ሙ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᩥ⛉┬㧗➼Ꮫᰯ᪂Ꮫ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿㸦ᖹᡂ 21 ᖺᗘ㸧࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ
͆ⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗࡣⱥㄒ࡛⾜࠺஦ࢆᇶᮏ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
͇࡜࠸࠺≧ἣ࠿ࡽࠊᖹᡂ 24 ᖺᗘࡢⱥㄒຊࡢᣦᑟᨵၿ஦ᴗࢫ
ࢱ࣮ࢺࡢ㝿࡟ࠊ
͆ᤵᴗࡣ⏕ᚐࡢ⌮ゎࡢ⛬ᗘ࡟ᛂࡌࡓⱥㄒࢆ⏝࠸࡚⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᇶᮏ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
͇࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧࡬ࡢኚ㑄ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᐇ㝿࡟ࡣᤵᴗෆ࡛ Target Language㸦┠ᶆゝㄒ㸧ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ஦ࡣ㧗➼Ꮫᰯ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ᭕᫕
࡛ࠊࡑࡢᤵᴗᐇ㊶ࡣྛᩍᖌࡢุ᩿࡟ጤࡡࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ (Ford, 2009)ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡛Ꮫ⩦⪅㐩ࡣࡉࡲࡊࡲ
࡞ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢᤵᴗࢆཷࡅ࡚ࡁ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ኱Ꮫࡢᤵᴗෆ࡛ TL ࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⮬↛࡟ཷࡅṆࡵࡽࢀࡿᏛ
⏕࡜ࡑ࠺࡛࡞࠸Ꮫ⏕ࡀΰᅾࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᏛ⩦⪅㐩ࡀᤵᴗෆࡢ TL ౑⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ Belief ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆࡲࡎᩍᖌࡀᢕᥱࡋ࡚࠾ࡃ࡭ࡁ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺␲ၥⅬࡀᮏ◊✲ࡢฟⓎⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏ࡛ࡢ
Belief ࡢ◊✲ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡣࡲࡔṔྐࡀὸ࠸ࡀࠊゝㄒᩍᖌㄆ▱ࡢ㡿ᇦෆゝㄒᏛ⩦ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࡸᏛ⩦ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࡸᏛ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡞࡝࡜ඹ࡟㛵ᚰࢆᣢࡓࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ㸦➲ᓥ, 2009㸧
ࠋBelief ࡢᐃ⩏ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡶ◊✲⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡛ࠊಙᛕࡸಙ᮲ࠊࣅ࣮ࣜࣇ࡞࡝ࡢ௚ࡢゝⴥ࡛⾲⌧ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶࡋࡤࡋࡤ࠶ࡿࡀᮏ✏࡛ࡣㄆ▱ᚰ⌮Ꮫ◊✲⪅ Pajares(1992)ࡢ͆ே㛫ࡀヰࡋࠊពᅗࡋࠊ⾜ືࡍࡿ஦ࡢ㞟ྜⓗ⌮ゎ࠿ࡽࡢࡳ᥎ ࡉࢀࡿุ᩿͇࡜࠸࠺ᐃ⩏ࢆ᥇ᢥࡋࠊࣅ࣮ࣜࣇ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧࡛ᮏ◊✲ሗ࿌ࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏࡢ EFL ⎔ቃ࡛ࡢ࣮࣭͆࢜ࣝ࢖ࣥࢢࣜࢵࢩ͇ࣗࡢᤵᴗᐇែࢆᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣅ࣮ࣜࣇࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽ㉁ⓗㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ
2. ᡭ㡰
2.1 ཧຍ⪅ᮏㄪᰝࡣ 3 ࡘࡢ㉁ⓗㄪᰝ࠿ࡽᵓᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢཧຍ⪅ࡣ඲࡚㛵すᆅᇦࡢእㄒ኱Ꮫࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕࡛࠶ࡾࠊ඲యࡢ㉁ၥ⣬ㄪᰝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ 234 ྡࠊࡑࡢ୰࠿ࡽࣅ࣮ࣜࣇኚ໬ㄪᰝ࣭࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗㄪᰝࡢࡓࡵ࡟ᢳฟ
ࡋࡓཧຍ⪅ࡀྛࠎ58 ྡࠊ11 ྡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙼࡽࡢⱥㄒ⬟ຊࡣ࠾࠾ࡼࡑ୰⣭⛬ᗘ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪TOEIC ࡢᚓⅬ 400
㹼600 Ⅼࡢ⠊ᅖ࡟༙ᩘ㏆ࡃࡢ⪅ࡀ㞟୰ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᏛ㒊ࡣⱥㄒ㛵㐃Ꮫ⛉ࡢᏛ⏕ࡢࡳ࡛࡞ࡃ௚ゝㄒࢆᑓᨷࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿᏛ⏕ࡶྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ඲࡚ゝㄒ⣔ࢆᑓ㛛࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᏛ⏕㐩࡛࠶ࡿࠋ␃Ꮫࡸⱥㄒᩍᖌࢆ┠ᣦࡍᏛ⏕ࡶከࡃྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࣅ࣮ࣜࣇኚ໬ㄪᰝ࡞ࡽࡧ࡟࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗㄪᰝࡢཧຍ⪅ࡣㄪᰝ⪅ࡀ┤᥋ᢸᙜࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿ኱Ꮫ⏕࡛࠶ࡾࠊⱥ᳨‽୍⣭ྲྀᚓࢆ┠ᣦࡋࡓࢡࣛࢫ࡟ᅾ⡠ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋᐇ㝿࡟ヨ㦂ࢆཷ㦂ࡍࡿ⪅ࡣࢡࣛࢫࡢ 1㹼㸰๭⛬ᗘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2.2 ᡭ㡰
ࡲࡎ⫼ᬒㄪᰝ࡜ࡋ࡚ 234 ྡࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡟ᛶูࡸ TOEIC ࡢᚓⅬࢆグධࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠺㉁ၥ⣬࡟ࠊ⮬ศ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚͇࣮࣭࢜ࣝ࢖ࣥࢢࣜࢵࢩ͇ࣗᤵᴗ࡜ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࠿ࢆ⡆₩࡞ゝⴥ࡛⾲⌧ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࠊࡑ
ࡢᅇ⟅ࢆ⫯ᐃ࣭ྰᐃ࣭ࢽ࣮ࣗࢺࣛࣝ࡜ศ㢮ࡋྛࠎࢥ࣮ࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣛ࣋ࣜࣥࢢࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋḟ࡟ࡇࡢཧຍ⪅−62−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍㐩ࡢࣅ࣮ࣜࣇࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ᙼࡽࡢࣅ࣮ࣜࣇࡀᐇయ㦂࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ኚ໬ࡋ࠺ࡿࡢ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆぢࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊㄪᰝ
⪅ࡀᐇ㝿ࡢᤵᴗࢆ 6 ᅇ㐃⥆㸦㐌஧ᅇࠊ3 㐌㐃⥆㸧୍࡛ษ᪥ᮏㄒࢆ⏝࠸࡞࠸ 100㸣ⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗ㸦ᩍᖌࡢⓎヰ㸧ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࡑࡢᵝᏊࢆࣅࢹ࡛࢜ほᐹࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ஦๓࣭஦ᚋࡢ㉁ၥ⣬࠾ࡼࡧẖᅇࡢᤵᴗᚋࡢ⡆༢࡞ࣜࣇࣞࢡࢩ
࣮ࣙࣥ࣌ࣃ࣮ࡢグධࢆཧຍ⪅㸦N=58㸧࡟౫㢗ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊ஦๓࣭஦ᚋ࡛࣮࣭࢜ࣝ࢖ࣥࢢࣜࢵࢩ͇ࣗࡢ
ᤵᴗ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࣅ࣮ࣜࣇࡀኚ໬ࡋࡓᏛ⏕ࡢ࠺ࡕ 11 ྡ࡟࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗㄪᰝࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ヲ⣽ࢆ᥈ồࡋࡓࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝ࡞ࡽࡧ࡟⪃ᐹ⫼ᬒㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ࡛ࡣᴫࡡᏛ⩦⪅ࡣᤵᴗෆⱥㄒ౑⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⫯ᐃⓗ࡞࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡴࡋࢁከ኱
࡞ࡿᮇᚅࢆᢪ࠼࡚࠸ࡿᵝᏊࡀ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼ࡓࠋࣅ࣮ࣜࣇኚ໬ㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࡣࠊᮇᚅ࡜ྠ᫬࡟୙Ᏻࢆᢪ࠼࡚
࠸ࡿᏛ⏕ࡶࠊᐇ㝿࡟࣮࣭͆࢜ࣝ࢖ࣥࢢࣜࢵࢩ͇ࣗࡢᤵᴗࢆయ㦂ࡋࠊ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡓࡇ࡜࡛⮬ಙࡀࡘࡁྰᐃⓗ࡞ࣅ࣮ࣜࣇ࠿ࡽ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ࣅ࣮ࣜࣇ࡟ኚ໬ࡋࡓᏛ⏕ࡀከࡃ࠸ࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ヲ⣽࡞࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗㄪᰝ࠿ࡽࡣࠊ
͇㞟୰ຊ͆࡜͇ㄝ᫂͆࡜࠸࠺࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻࡀཧຍ⪅㐩ࡢゝⴥ࠿ࡽᾋ࠿ࡧ࠶ࡀࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋᤵᴗෆ࡛ࡢ TL ౑⏝ࡣᏛ⩦⪅㐩࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㠀ᖖ࡟㞟୰ຊࢆせࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ஦ࡀẕㄒ౑⏝ࡢ㝿࡜ẚ࡭࡚ᤵᴗ࡟⮫ࡴጼໃࡀኚ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋẕㄒ౑⏝ࡢᤵᴗࡢ᫬ࡼࡾࡶಶேࡢ⌮ゎᗘࡀᏛ⩦⪅㛫࡛㢧ⴭ࡟ᢕᥱฟ᮶
ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ➇தᚰࡸ↔ࡾࡢࡼ࠺࡞ឤ᝟ࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡋࠊࡑࡢࡇ࡜ࡀ⌮ゎᗘ࡬ࡢḧồ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡗࡓ࡜ᅇ⟅ࡋࡓᏛ⏕ࡀᩘྡ࠸ࡓࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊࡇࡢཧຍ⪅㐩ࡢⱥㄒຊࣞ࣋ࣝࡣẚ㍑ⓗ㧗ࡃࠊⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡜ࡋ࡚୰⣭ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡜ゝࡗ࡚࠸࠸ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᏛ⏕㐩ࡢࣅ࣮ࣜࣇ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞᝟ព㠃࡛ࡢ่⃭ࡀᤵᴗෆ TL ౑⏝ࢆᖖ࡟⫯ᐃⓗ࡟ᨭᣢࡍࡿ࡜ࡣ୍ᴫ࡟ゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢⅬࡣ௒ᚋከᒱ࡟Ώࡿࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᏛ⏕ࡢࣅ࣮ࣜࣇࢆㄪᰝࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ
͇ㄝ᫂͆࡜࠸࠺࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᩥἲㄝ᫂࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ẕㄒ࡛ࡢㄝ᫂ࢆᕼᮃࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿᏛ⏕ࡢᅇ⟅ࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࠊᩥἲㄝ᫂ࡣẕㄒࡢ࡯࠺ࡀࢃ࠿ࡾࡸࡍ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࣅ࣮ࣜࣇࡀ᰿ᗏ࡟࠶ࡿᵝᏊࡀ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼ࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮࡛ࣗヲ⣽ࢆ᥈ồࡋ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊᏛ⩦⪅㐩ࡢ୰࡟ࡣẕㄒㄝ᫂࡟ࡼ
ࡿゝㄒ⌮ゎ࡜ᤵᴗࡢෆᐜ⌮ゎࢆΰྠࡋ࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࠊࡇࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ௒ᚋ᳨ドࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ࡭
ࡁㄢ㢟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ᤵᴗᐇ㊶࡟࠾࠸࡚┠ᶆゝㄒࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࠸࠿࡯࡝౑⏝ࡍࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࢸ࣮࣐ࡣ➨஧ゝㄒ⩦ᚓࡢ◊✲㡿ᇦ࡟࠾࠸࡚㢖⦾࡟㆟ㄽࡉࢀࡿࢸ࣮࣐࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢ㝿࡟ࣅ࣮ࣜࣇ࡜࠸࠺どⅬࡣ࠶ࡲࡾ⪃៖ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸࡞
࠸ࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣ᪥ᮏ࡜࠸࠺ EFL ⎔ቃ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣮࣭࢜ࣝ࢖ࣥࢢࣜࢵࢩࣗࡢᤵᴗ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢࣅ࣮ࣜࣇ࡟
↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࠊࡑࡢᵓ⠏ࡸኚ໬ࢆ㉁ⓗ࡟᥈ồࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᩍᖌࡀᤵᴗෆ࡛┠ᶆゝㄒ㸦ⱥㄒ㸧ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣅ࣮ࣜࣇࡸ᝟⥴࡟ࡶᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊࡓࡔ༢࡟ᩍᖌࡢᤵᴗ࡛ࡢⱥㄒ㸦TL㸧౑⏝ἲࡸ౑⏝㔞ࠊⱥㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊࢆ㆟ㄽࡍࡿࡢࡳ࡛࡞ࡃᏛ⩦⪅࣭ᩍᖌ཮᪉ࡢࣅ࣮ࣜࣇ࡜࠸࠺ഃ㠃࠿ࡽࡶᤵᴗෆⱥㄒ౑⏝ࢆࢸ࣮࣐࡟ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ◊✲ࡢྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Ford, K. (2009). Principles and Practices of L1/L2 use in the Japanese University in EFL classroom. JALT Journal,
31(1), 63-80.
Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of
Educational Research, 62 (3), 307-332.
➲ᓥⱱ࣭ࢧ࢖࣭࣮ࣔࣥ࣎ࢢ(2009). ࠗゝㄒᩍᖌㄆ▱ࡢ◊✲࠘㛤ᣅ♫㸪ᮾி㸬

−63−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(12:30-13:00)502 ᐊศᯒⓗ࣭㌟యⓗ㡢ኌᣦᑟࡢຠᯝ
̿୰Ꮫ⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ 3 ᪥㛫ࡢⱥㄒྜᐟࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚̿㜰ୖ₶㸦❧࿨㤋኱Ꮫ㠀ᖖ໅ㅮᖌ㸧➉⏣㔛㤶䠄NPOἲேCreative Debate for GRASS ROOTS䠅㻌ᒣ᰿⦾㸦㛵す኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 㡢ኌᣦᑟ㸪㡢⣲㸪ࣉࣟࢯࢹ࢕㸪ศᯒⓗᣦᑟ㸪㌟య

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟㻌
ⱥㄒⓎ㡢ᣦᑟ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪᫂♧ⓗᣦᑟࢆ࠾ࡇ࡞࠺࡭ࡁ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣពぢࡀศ࠿ࢀࡿࠋࡲ
ࡓ㸪ࣉࣟࢯࢹ࢕ᣦᑟࡢ㔜せᛶ࡜ຠᯝࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡿ୍᪉㸦Derwing㸪Munro, & Wiebe, 1998㸧㸪Ꮫ ⩦ ⪅ ࡣ IPA ࢆ ⏝ ࠸ ࡚ ಶ ู 㡢 ࢆ Ꮫ ࡪ ࡇ ࡜ ࡀ ຠ ᯝ ⓗ ࡔ ࡜ ឤ ࡌ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࡜ ࠸ ࠺ ሗ ࿌ ࡶ ࠶ ࡿ㸦Rajadurai, 2001㸧ࠋᮏሗ࿌࡛ࡣ㸪୰Ꮫ⏕࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪ձẕ㡢ࡢᣦᑟ࡛ࡣཱྀࡢ㛤ࡅ᪉࡜⯉ࡢ఩⨨㸪ղᏊ㡢࡛ࡣ၁ࡸཱྀ⭍ෆࡢㄪ㡢Ⅼ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㡢ࡀኚࢃࡿࡇ࡜㸪ճ༢ㄒ༢఩࠿ࡽᩥ༢఩ࡲ࡛
ࡢ࣮ࣔࣛᢿ࡜ࢩࣛࣈࣝᢿࡢᕪࢆ㸪⫈ぬⓗ࣭どぬⓗ⿵ຓࡶධࢀ࡞ࡀࡽẼ௜࠿ࡏ㸪ࡉࡽ࡟㡢⠇ࡢᙉࡉ࣭㛗ࡉ࡟ྜࢃࡏ࡚ࠊṌᖜࢆኚ࠼࡚Ṍࡁ࡞ࡀࡽⓎ㡢ࡉࡏࡿ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ㌟యⓗ࡞άືࡶ⾜࠸ࠊ⮬ࡽఱᗘࡶⓎヰࡍࡿᣦᑟࢆࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢⓎ㡢ࡀ࡝࠺ኚ໬ࡋࡓ࠿㸪ࡲࡓ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ឤ᝿ࢆᣢࡗࡓࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ

2䠊 ᐇ㦂㻌
௒ᅇࡢᐇ㊶࡛ࡣ㸪୰Ꮫ⏕ 1~3 ᖺ⏕ 13 ྡࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ 3 ᪥㛫ࡢྜᐟࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࡑࡢ୰࡛㸪Ẽ௜ࡁࢆಁࡍάື࠿ࡽ⦎⩦ࡲ࡛ࡢ 10 ᫬㛫వࡾࢆⓎ㡢ᣦᑟ࡟඘࡚ࡓࠋ⏕ᚐࡀᏛᰯ࡛౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᩍ⛉᭩࠿ࡽࡢ 1 ᩥࢆ㸪ఱࡶᣦᑟࡍࡿ๓࡟㘓㡢ࡋࡓࡶࡢࢆࠕᏛ⩦๓Ⓨ㡢ࠖ㸪3 ᪥㛫ࡢྜᐟࡀ⤊ࢃࡿ┤๓࡟ࡶ࠺୍ᗘྠࡌᩥ❶ࢆ㘓㡢ࡋࡓࡶࡢࢆࠕᏛ⩦ᚋⓎ㡢ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚୧⪅ࢆẚ㍑ศᯒ
ࡋࡓࠋ

3䠊 ศᯒ Turk, Nakai, & Sugahara (2006) ࢆ ཧ⪃࡟㸪㡢ኌศᯒࢯࣇࢺPraatࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊಶู㡢ࡢኚ໬ࠊࣉࣟࢯࢹ࢕㠃ࡢኚ໬ࡢ୧㠃࠿ࡽศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ4䠊 ⤖ᯝ 㻌ࣉࣟࢯࢹ࢕࡟㛵ࡋ࡚኱ᖜ࡞ᨵၿࡀぢࡽࢀ㸪≉࡟ᙉ㡢⠇࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺࡢᙉࡉ࡟኱ࡁ
࡞ኚ໬ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࡀ㸪Ꮚ㡢ࡸẕ㡢ࡢᩥ⠇⣲ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪Ⓨ㡢ࡢಟṇࡀฟ᮶ࡓࡶࡢ࡜ฟ᮶࡞

−64−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍࠿ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡢ୧᪉ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕⱥㄒࡢⓎ㡢ࡀ࡜࡚ࡶ⣽࠿࠸ࠖࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࡢⓎ㡢࡜ⱥㄒࡢⓎ㡢ࡀ㐪࠸ࡍࡂࡓࠖ࡞࡝ࡢẼ௜ࡁࡸ㸪ࠕⓎ㡢ࡀ๓ࡼࡾࡶࡼࡃ࡞ࡗࡓࠖࠕࡇࡢྜᐟ
࡛ⱥㄒࡀୖᡭࡃ࡞ࡿࡓࡵࡢᡭࡀ࠿ࡾࡀࡘ࠿ࡵࡓࠖ࡞࡝⮬㌟ࡢᡂ㛗ࢆᐇឤࡍࡿࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ
㻌ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Derwing, T.M., Munro, M.J., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad framework forpronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48, 393-410.
Turk, A., Nakai, S., & Sugahara, M. (2006). Acoustic segment durations in prosodic research: apractical guide. In Sudhoff, S., Lenertova, D., Meyer, R, Pappert, S., Augurzky, P, Mleinek,
I., Richter, N., Schließer, J. (Eds.). Methods in Empirical Prosody Research (pp. 1-28).
Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter .
Rajadurai, J. (2001). An Investigation of the Effectiveness of Teaching Pronunciation to
Malaysian TESOL Students. Forum, 39(3), 10-15.

−65−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(13:05-13:35)502 ᐊ࢔ࢽ࣓࡜ࢻ࣐ࣛࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤࡢᏛ⩦̿┠ᶆゝㄒ࡜ẕㄒࡢ⣲ᮦࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓࢱ࢖ே኱Ꮫ⏕ྥࡅ᪥ᮏㄒᤵᴗࡢ୍౛̿ᯇ஭ ኟὠ⣖㸦ࢳ࣮ࣗࣛࣟࣥࢥ࣮ࣥ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤ㸪᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅㸪ࢱ࢖ே኱Ꮫ⏕㸪࢔ࢽ࣓㸪ࢻ࣐ࣛ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ࢻ࣐ࣛࡢ఍ヰࡣసࡾ≀࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀ㸪⮬↛࡞Ⓨヰ࡟ఝࡏ࡚సࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀ┠ᶆゝㄒࢆ࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ᭷ຠ࡞Ꮫ⩦⣲ᮦ࡟࡞ࡿ㸦⇃㇂㸪2003㸧
ࠋࢱ࢖࡟ࡣ᪥ᮏࡢࢥࣥࢸࣥࢶࢆ᪥ᖖⓗ࡟ど⫈ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀከࡃ㸪࢔ࢽ࣓ࡸࢻ࣐ࣛࢆᩍᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚฼⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡶ⫯ᐃⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㸪JFL
ࡢ⎔ቃ࡛᪥ᮏㄒࢆᏛ⩦ࡍࡿࢱ࢖ே኱Ꮫ⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓᤵᴗ࡛㸪┠ᶆゝㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ࢔ࢽ࣓࡜ࢻ࣐ࣛ㸪ཬࡧᏛ⩦⪅ࡢẕㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࢱ࢖ㄒࡢࢻ࣐ࣛࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓࠕⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤࠖࡢᣦᑟࡢヨࡳࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ
2. ᤵᴗࡢὶࢀ ࡲࡎ㸪ᮏ✏࡛ሗ࿌ࡍࡿᤵᴗࡢὶࢀࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋᙜヱᤵᴗࡣࢳ࣮ࣗࣛࣟࣥࢥ࣮ࣥ኱ᏛᩥᏛ㒊ᮾὒゝㄒᏛ⛉᪥ᮏㄒㅮᗙ୺ᑓᨷ 3 ᖺ⏕࠿ࡽཷㅮྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠕJapanese from Audio-Visual Mediaࠖ㸦2014 ᖺᗘᚋᮇㄢ⛬㸪㑅ᢥ⛉┠㸧࡟࡚ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋཷㅮ⪅ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࡣ୰ୖ⣭࠿ࡽୖ⣭࡛㸪ཷㅮ⪅ᩘࡣ 31 ྡ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ࡞࠾㸪ⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤ࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿ㡯┠ࢆᢅࡗࡓᤵᴗᅇᩘࡣ 4 ᅇ㸦1 ᅇ 180 ศᤵᴗ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⾲ 1.
ᤵᴗᅇᩘ
1 ᅇ┠
2 ᅇ┠
3 ᅇ┠
4 ᅇ┠

ᤵᴗෆᐜ
࢔ࢽ࣓ࠗ㐍ᧁࡢᕧே࠘➨ 1 ヰ࡜➨ 2 ヰࢆど⫈ࡋ࣐ࣥ࢞∧࡜ẚ㍑㸦࣐ࣥ࢞ࢆㄞࡴࡇ࡜ࡣㄢ㢟㸧ᙺ๭ㄒࡢᑟධ㸭࢔ࢽ࣓ࠗ㐍ᧁࡢᕧே࠘➨ 10 ヰࢆほ࡚㸪ᙺ๭ㄒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚Ꮫ⩦ࢻ࣐ࣛࠗࡈࡵࢇࡡ㟷᫓㸟࠘➨ 2 ヰࢆほ࡚㸪ⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤࢆほᐹࡋ㸪ヰࡋྜ࠸Hormones Wai Wawun ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᏐᖥ∧ࡢⓎ⾲㸦ㄢ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ 3 ᅇ┠࡟ㄝ᫂῭ࡳ㸧

3. ⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤࡢᣦᑟ
3.1 Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤࢆᏛࡪᚲせᛶᮏ✏࡛ࡢࠕⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤࠖ࡜ࡣ㸪⡿ᕝ㸦1996㸧ࡀᐃ⩏ࡍࡿ୰Ꮫ⏕࠿ࡽ୕༑ṓ๓ᚋࡢⱝ࠸⏨ዪࡀ௰㛫ෆ࡛౑࠺ࡇ࡜ࡤ࡛ፗᴦ࣭఍ヰಁ㐍࣭㐃ᖏ࡞࡝ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿつ⠊ⓗ࡞᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿ≉᭷ࡢࡇ࡜ࡤࢆᣦࡍࠋ
Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀྠᖺ௦ࡢ᪥ᮏேẕㄒヰ⪅࡜ࡢ఍ヰሙ㠃࡛㸪ሙ㠃࡟┦ᛂࡋ࠸ఏ㐩ែᗘࡸ㡢ኌ࡛Ⓨヰࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺
࡟࡞ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ㸪ᩍᐊ࡛ᣦᑟࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᮃࡲࡋ࠸㸦ᑠ▮㔝㸪2007㸧ࠋࡲࡓ㸪ⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤࢆㄗ⏝ࡋ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺㸪≉ᐃࡢࡇ࡜ࡤࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ㝿ࡢヰࡋᡭࡀ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟୚࠼ࡿ༳㇟࡞࡝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶㄆ㆑ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
3.2 ᙺ๭ㄒ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕࡢᑟධ ᯇ஭㸦to appear㸧ࡣ㸪ࢱ࢖ࡢᏛ⏕ࡢከᩘࡀ᪥ᖖⓗ࡟ࢸࣞࣅ࢔ࢽ࣓ࡸࢻ࣐ࣛࢆど⫈ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆሗ࿌
ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᏛ⩦⪅ࡓࡕࡣ࢔ࢽ࣓ࡸࢻ࣐ࣛ࡞࡝࡛Ꮫࢇࡔ⾲⌧ࢆ✚ᴟⓗ࡟౑࠾࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࡀ㸪ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ࡞ㄗ⏝ࡶࡼࡃほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ࢔ࢽ࣓ࡸࢻ࣐ࣛ࡟ࡣࠕᙺ๭ㄒࠖ
㸦㔠Ỉ㸪2003㸧ࡀከࡃ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡀ㸪⌧ᐇ

−66−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ୡ⏺ࡢゝㄒ㐠⏝࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦㔠Ỉ㸪2007㸧ࡢ࡛㸪ᙺ๭ㄒࡢᶵ⬟ࡣᏛ⩦⪅ࡶᢕᥱࡍࡿ࡭ࡁࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
3.3 ࢔ࢽ࣓ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᙺ๭ㄒࡢほᐹ ࠗ㐍ᧁࡢᕧே࠘ࢆᩍᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚㑅ᢥࡋࡓ⌮⏤ࡣసရࡀ᪂ࡋ࠸ࡇ࡜࡜㸪ࡑࡢேẼࡼࡾᅜෆእࡢ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࡛
ࡶྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከࡃ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟ࡼࡿㄆ▱ᗘࡶ㧗࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ࢔ࢽ࣓㸦࣐ࣥ࢞㸧࡛ࡣ㸪୺せ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࡀⱝ࠸⏨ዪࡢරኈ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪௨ୗࡢ≉ᚩࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ
⾲ 2.
Ⓩሙே≀
࢚ࣞࣥ
࣑࢝ࢧ
࢔࣑ࣝࣥ

ᖺ㱋࣭ᛶู
15 ṓ࣭⏨
15 ṓ࣭ዪ
15 ṓ࣭⏨

ே≀≉ᚩᡃࡀᙉ࠸ࡀຬᩒ
෭㟼࡛ⰺࡀᙉ࠸
฼ཱྀ࡛Ẽࡀඃࡋ࠸

⮬⛠モ
ನ
ࢃࡓࡋ
൅

Ⓨヰ≉ᚩ
ⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤ౑⏝㸪⏨ᛶⓗ
ࡸࡸዪᛶⓗ
ࡸࡸ⏨ᛶⓗ

ᤵᴗ࡛ࡣ㸪࢔ࢽ࣓࡟ฟ⌧ࡍࡿ⏨ᛶㄒ㸪ዪᛶㄒ㸪ⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤ㸪⪁ேㄒ࡞࡝ࡢᙺ๭ㄒࡢ౑⏝౛ࢆほᐹࡋ㸪ヰࡋᡭ࡛࠶ࡿ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡜౑⏝ゝㄒࢆ↷ྜࡉࡏ㸪ᙺ๭ㄒࡀᯝࡓࡍᶵ⬟ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋ
3.4 ࢻ࣐ࣛࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤࡢほᐹ ࢻ࣐ࣛ࡟ࡣ㸪ྎモ࡟ⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤࡀྲྀࡾධࢀࡽࢀ㸪⌧௦㢼ࡢឤࡌࡀฟࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࡀከ࠸㸦ᑠ▮㔝㸪2006㸧ࠋᏛᅬࢻ࣐ࣛࠗࡈࡵࢇࡡ㟷᫓㸟࡛࠘ࡶ㸪▷⦰ㄒ㸦౛㸸ࠕࢹ࢕ࢫࡿࠖ
㸧㸪ࢿࢵࢺ⏝ㄒ㸦౛㸸
ࠕࣜ࢔඘ࠖ
㸧
㸪ࡰ࠿ࡋ
⾲⌧㸦౛㸸
ࠕࡤࢀࡓࡗࡱ࠸ࠖ
㸧㸪☜ㄆ⾲⌧ࡢࠕ㹼ࡌࡷࡡ㸭ࡃࡡ㸽ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ⌧௦ࡢⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ
3.5 ࢱ࢖ㄒࢻ࣐ࣛ࡟᪥ᮏㄒᏐᖥࢆ௜ࡅࡿసᴗ ⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤࡢᏛ⩦ࡢࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ࢱ࢖ࡢᏛᅬࢻ࣐ࣛ Hormones Wai Wawun ࡟᪥ᮏㄒᏐᖥࢆ௜ࡅࡿసᴗ
ࢆㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚୚࠼㸪᭱⤊ᤵᴗ࡛Ⓨ⾲ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ⤖ᯝ㸪඲యⓗ࡟ࢻ࣐ࣛࡢⓏሙே≀ࡢྎモࡀⓏሙே≀ࡢᣢࡘ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ௨ୖ࡟⢒㔝࡞ࡇ࡜ࡤ㐵࠸࡟⩻ヂࡉࢀࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀุ᫂ࡋࡓࠋ
4. ᤵᴗࡢᨵၿⅬ ⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤࡢព࿡ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪౑⏝ヰ⪅ࡢ༳㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟༑ศ⌮ゎࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋὀ1ᮏ✏࡛ᢅࡗࡓᫎീࢥࣥࢸࣥࢶࡣ㸪ࠗࡈࡵࢇࡡ㟷᫓㸟࠘(2014) TBS㸪ࠗ㐍ᧁࡢᕧே࠘(2013) ࠕ㐍ᧁࡢᕧேࠖ

〇సጤဨ఍㸪Hormones Wai Wawun (2013) GMM One㸪ࡢ 3 సရ࡛࠶ࡿࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩㔠Ỉᩄ (2003).ࣦࠗ࢓࣮ࢳࣕࣝ᪥ᮏㄒᙺ๭ㄒࡢㅦ࠘ᮾி㸸ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ.
㔠Ỉᩄ (2007). ㏆௦᪥ᮏㄒ࣐ࣥ࢞ࡢゝㄒࠗᙺ๭ㄒ◊✲ࡢᆅᖹ࠘(pp. 97-107). ᮾி㸸ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.
⇃㇂ᬛᏊ (2003). ࢩࢼࣜ࢜ࡢ࠶ࡿ఍ヰ ̿ࢻ࣐ࣛࡢ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ≉ᚩ̿ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ࠘22, 6-14.
ᑠ▮㔝ဴኵ (2006). ࢸࣞࣅ࡜ⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤࠗ᭶หゝㄒ࠘3 ᭶ྕ, 36-45.
ᑠ▮㔝ဴኵ (2007). ⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤ࡜᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱࠘134, 38-47.
ᯇ஭ኟὠ⣖ (to appear). ᪥ᮏࡢ࢔ࢽ࣓ࡸࢻ࣐ࣛ࡞࡝ࡢࢥࣥࢸࣥࢶ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ㛵ᚰᗘ ̿ࢱ࢖ࡢ኱
Ꮫ⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓㄪᰝ࠿ࡽࡢ⪃ᐹ̿ ࠗᅜ㝿஺ὶᇶ㔠ࣂࣥࢥࢡ᪥ᮏᩥ໬ࢭࣥࢱ࣮᪥ᮏㄒᩍ⫱⣖せ࠘12.
⡿ᕝ᫂ᙪ (1996). ࠗ⌧௦ⱝ⪅ࡇ࡜ࡤ⪃࠘ᮾி㸸୸ၿࣛ࢖ࣈ࣮ࣛࣜ.

−67−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(13:40-14:10)502 ᐊ࢙࢘ࣈ఍㆟ࢆకࡗࡓⓎಙᆺᣦᑟࡀⱥㄒ⩦⇍ᗘ࣭ࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢຊ࡟ཬࡰࡍຠᯝ㣤㔝 ཌ㸦ἲᨻ኱Ꮫ㸧⡦⏣ ⏤ᕫᏊ㸦ΎἨዪᏛ㝔▷ᮇ኱Ꮫ㸧⸨஭ ᙲᏊ㸦⪷ᚰዪᏊ኱Ꮫ㸧୰ᮧ ὒ୍㸦ΎἨዪᏛ㝔▷ᮇ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ඹ᫬ⓗࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ፹௓ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ㸦SCMC㸧㸪ࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢᣦᑟ㸪ࢱࢫࢡ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
EFL ⎔ቃ࡟࠾࠸࡚ⱥㄒࢆᏛࡪ᪥ᮏேᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊⱥㄒヰ⪅࡜ᑐேࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ⾜࠺య㦂ࡣ᪥ᖖ⏕ά࡛ᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㞴ࡋࡃࠊពᅗⓗ࡟ᶵ఍ࢆ᥈ࡍດຊࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊ㏆ᖺࡢ ICT ᢏ⾡ࡢⓎ㐩࡟ࡼࡾࠊᐇ㝿࡟ⱥㄒࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆయ㦂࡛ࡁࡿᶵ఍ࡀᚓࡸࡍࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊSkype ࡞࡝ࡢ㏻ಙࢯࣇࢺࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓ࢙࢘ࣈ఍㆟࡟ࡼࡿඹ᫬ⓗࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ፹௓ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙ
ࣥ㸦Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication㸧࡞࡝ࡀࠊⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢ୍ᡭἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ᶍ⣴ࡉࢀጞࡵ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ࢙࢘ࣈ఍㆟ࢆకࡗࡓⓎಙᆺࡢᣦᑟࢆ㛗ᮇⓗ࡟ᐇ㊶ࡀࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢⱥㄒ⩦⇍ᗘࠊࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥ
ࢢຊࠊ࢙࢘ࣈ఍㆟౑⏝ឤ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋࡓ࠿ࢆ᥈ࡗࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2. ◊✲ㄢ㢟(1) ࢙࢘ࣈ఍㆟ࢆకࡗࡓⓎಙᆺᣦᑟࡀࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢຊ࡟ཬࡰࡍຠᯝࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࠋ(2) ࢙࢘ࣈ఍㆟ࢆకࡗࡓⓎಙᆺᣦᑟࡀⱥㄒ⩦⇍ᗘ࡟ཬࡰࡍຠᯝࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࠋ(3) Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ࢙࢘ࣈ఍㆟ࢆ㏻ࡋࡓࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿㄆ㆑ࡣࠊ㛗ᮇⓗ࡞ᣦᑟࢆ⤒࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ኚ໬ࡋࡓ࠿ࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࠋ
3. ᡭ㡰
3.1 ཧຍ⪅ᮾி㒔ෆ⚾❧኱Ꮫᡤᒓ࡛㠀ⱥㄒᑓᨷࡢᏛ⏕ 16 ྡࠋ⏨Ꮚ 10 ྡ㸦2 ᖺ 7 ྡࠊ3 ᖺ⏕ 3 ྡ㸧ࠊዪᏊ 6 ྡ㸦2
ᖺ⏕ 5 ྡࠊ3 ᖺ⏕ 1 ྡ㸧ࠋ㠀ⱥㄒᑓᨷ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ␗ᩥ໬㛫ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢᐇ㊶࡜ⱥㄒࡢ㐠⏝⬟ຊࡢྥୖࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠕ₇⩦ࠖ㸦ࢮ࣑㸧ᒚಟ⪅࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࢮ࣑ࡣ 2~3 ᖺ࡟ࡲࡓࡀࡿ⦪๭ࡾࢡࣛࢫ࡛ẖ㐌ⅆ᭙
᪥࡟ࠊ90 ศᤵᴗ 2 ࢥ࣐ࢆ㐃⥆࡛ᒚಟࡍࡿᙧែ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ 1 ࢥ࣐ࢆ‽ഛ᫬㛫࡜ࡋ࡚ⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡟࠶࡚ࠊỈ᭙᪥࠿ࡽ㔠᭙᪥ࡢ㛫ࡢ✵ࡁ᫬㛫ࢆㄪᩚࡋࠊᏛ⏕ 2 ྡ 1 ⤌ࡎࡘࡀࣇ࢕ࣜࣆࣥᅾఫⱥㄒヰ⪅࡜ẖ㐌 50
ศ㛫࢙࢘ࣈ఍㆟ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋཧຍ⪅඲ဨ࠿ࡽᮏ◊✲࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿᐇ㊶ࠊ ᐃࠊ᝟ሗ⟶⌮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ྠពࢆᚓࡓࠋ
3.2 ࢙࢘ࣈ఍㆟ࢆ┠ᶆ࡜ࡋࡓⓎಙᆺࡢᣦᑟᡭ㡰ẖ㐌 90 ศᤵᴗ 1 ࢥ࣐ࢆࠊ࢙࢘ࣈ఍㆟࡟ഛ࠼ࡿᑐヰ୰ᚰࡢᤵᴗ࡜ࡋ࡚ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢᣦᑟᡭ㡰ࡣࠊྛᅇࡢヰ㢟㸦㈶ྰࢆၥ࠺ࡶࡢ㸧࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ(1)᪥ᮏேᏛ⩦⪅ྠኈ࡟ࡼࡿⱥㄒ࡛ࡢ discussionࠊ(2)discussion ࡛ゝ࠼࡞࠿ࡗࡓㄒ࣭⾲⌧ࢆࢡࣛࢫ࡛ඹ᭷ࠊ(3)ヰ㢟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ presentation㸦๭ࡾᙜ࡚Ꮫ⏕ࡀⱥㄒ࡛ᐇ᪋㸧
ࠊ(4) ᪥ᮏேᏛ⩦⪅ྠኈ࡟ࡼࡿ෌ discussionࠊ࡜࠸࠺ᣦᑟᡭ㡰ࢆ࡜ࡗࡓࠋᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ஦๓࡟ヰ㢟※࡜࡞ࡿࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆᣢࡕࠊⱥㄒ㡢ኌࢆࢥ࣮ࢫ㐠Ⴀࢩࢫࢸ࣒㸦CMS㸧ୖ࡛ᥦ౪ࡉࢀࠊෆᐜࢆㄞ

−68−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ࢇ࡛ࠊ⪺࠸ࡓࡾ㡢ㄞࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡼ࠺ᣦ♧ࡉࢀࡓ㸦཯㌿ᤵᴗᙧᘧ㸧ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞‽ഛⓗᤵᴗࡢᚋࠊ๭ࡾᙜ࡚ࡽࢀࡓ✵ࡁ᫬㛫࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ(5)ࣇ࢕ࣜࣆࣥᅾఫⱥㄒᩍᖌ࡜ྠ
ࡌヰ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࢙࢘ࣈ఍㆟࡟ࡼࡿ discussion㸦50 ศ㛫㸧ࠊ(6)㆟ㄽࡋࡓෆᐜࢆࡶ࡜࡟ 100 ㄒ⛬ᗘࡢⱥᩥ࣏࣮ࣞࢺᥦฟࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࢱࢫࢡ࣭ࢩ࣮ࢣࣥࢫࢆタᐃࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞࢙࢘ࣈ఍㆟ࢆྵࡴ 6 ẁ㝵ࡢࢫࢸࢵࣉࢆ๓ᮇ࡟ 9 㐌ࠊᚋᮇ 10 㐌⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࠊ㏻ᖺ࡛ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ
4. ⤖ᯝ◊✲ㄢ㢟 1 ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊⱥ᳨ 2 ⣭ 2 ḟヨ㦂㸦༠఍ࡼࡾ౑⏝チㅙྲྀᚓ㸧ࡢ⤮ᥥ෗ㄢ㢟ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࢫࣆ࣮
࢟ࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺࢆ 4 ᭶࡜ 1 ᭶࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋࠊ⏘ฟࡉࢀࡓⓎヰࢹ࣮ࢱࢆẚ㍑ศᯒࡋࡓࠋศᯒࡢほⅬ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊὶࡕࡻ࠺ࡉ㸦ᥥ෗⟠ᡤᩘࠊWPMࠊ࣍ࣜࢫࢸ࢕ࢵࢡホ౯㸧ࠊ」㞧ࡉ㸦⠇ᩘࠊ1 ᩥ୰ࡢㄒᩘ㸧ࠊṇ☜ࡉ㸦ືモ㐣ཤᙧࡢṇ⏝ἲẚ⋡㸧ࠊ࣍ࣜࢫࢸ࢕ࢵࢡホ౯㸦5 ẁ㝵ࢫࢣ࣮ࣝ㸧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ ᐃ࡟㐣୙㊊࡞ࡃཧຍࡋࡓᏛ⏕ࡣ 13 ྡ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ࣍ࣜࢫࢸ࢕ࢵࢡホ౯࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ 2 ྡࡢホ౯⪅㛫ಙ㢗ᛶಀᩘࡣ.87 ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ  ⤖ᯝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿὶࡕࡻ࠺ࡉࡢᣦᶆ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᥥ෗࣏࢖ࣥࢺࠊⓎヰㄒᩘࠊ࣍ࣜࢫࢸ࢕ࢵࢡホ౯࡟ࡼࡿᣦᶆ࡟ 1%Ỉ‽ࡢ᭷ពᕪ㸦ఙ㛗㸧ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓ㸦ຠᯝ㔞୰㸧ࠋࡲࡓࠊⓎヰ᫬㛫ࡢ㛗ࡉࠊWPM㸦1 ศ㛫࠶ࡓࡾࡢⓎㄒᩘ㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ 5%Ỉ‽ࡢ᭷ពᕪ㸦ఙ㛗㸧ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓ㸦ຠᯝ㔞୰㸧ࠋ」㞧ࡉࡢᣦᶆ࡛࠶
ࡿ⠇ࡢᩘࡣᖹᆒ 4.73 ࠿ࡽ 7.20 ࡬࡜ቑຍࡋࡓࡀ᭷ពỈ‽࡟ࡣ⮳ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ㸦ຠᯝ㔞ᑠ㸧ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ1 ᩥ࠶ࡓࡾࡢㄒᩘࡣᖹᆒ 9.83 ࠿ࡽ 11.12 ࡬࡜ቑຍࡋ㸯%Ỉ‽࡛᭷ព࡛࠶ࡗࡓ㸦ຠᯝ㔞୰㸧ࠋṇ☜ࡉࡢᣦᶆ
࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊṇࡋ࠸ᙧ㸦㐣ཤᙧ㸧࡛౑࠼ࡓືモᩘ࡟ࡣ 5%Ỉ‽ࡢ᭷ពᕪࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࡀ㸦ຠᯝ㔞୰㸧ࠊⓎヰࡉࢀࡓືモᩘ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ṇ☜࡟౑⏝࡛ࡁࡓືモࡢẚ⋡ࡣ 45%⛬ᗘ࡜ࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ኚ໬ࡀࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
◊✲ㄢ㢟 2 ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ⩦⇍ᗘࡢᣦᶆ࡜ࡋ࡚ TOEIC ᶍᨃၥ㢟㸦Listening 50 ⅬࠊReading 50 Ⅼࠊ100 Ⅼ‶
Ⅼ㸧ࡢࢫࢥ࢔ࢆẚ㍑ࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࡜⥲ྜᚓⅬ࡟࠾࠸࡚ 1%Ỉ‽࡛᭷ពᕪࡀぢࡽࢀࡓ㸦ຠᯝ㔞୰㸧ࠋ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢࡶ᭷ព࡞ఙࡧࢆ♧ࡋࠊ5%Ỉ‽࡛ᕪࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓ㸦ຠᯝ㔞୰㸧ࠋ ◊✲ㄢ㢟 3 ࡢ࢙࢘ࣈ఍㆟ࡢ౑⏝ឤ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ5 ௳ἲ࡜୍㒊⮬⏤グ㏙ࢆྜࢃࡏࡓ㉁ၥ⣬ࢆ 7 ᭶࡜ 1 ᭶࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋศᯒࡋࡓࠋIino㸦2014㸧ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧ 㔠㸦1999㸧࡟ࡼࡿ CMC ౑⏝࡟㛵ࡍࡿᑻᗘࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋ࡚㉁ၥ㡯┠ࢆᵓ⠏ࡋࡓࠋᵓᡂᴫᛕࡣᐇ㊶࡟༶ࡋࡓᙧ࡛ࠊࢫ࢝࢖ࣉᑐヰ๓ࡢ‽ഛ㸦7 ၥ㸧ࠊヰࡍ࡜ࡁࡢព㆑㸦9 ၥ㸧ࠊ⫈ࡃ࡜ࡁࡢព㆑ 㸦8 ၥ㸧ࠊ࣌࢔ࣃ࣮ࢺࢼ࣮࡬ࡢព㆑㸦8 ၥ㸧ࠊ㞴᫆ឤ㸦13 ၥ㸧ࠊຠᯝឤ㸦7 ၥ)࡛ᵓᡂࡋࡓࠋ
⤖ᯝࡣࠊࠕ㞴᫆ឤࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚኱ࡁ࡞ኚ໬ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ13 ၥࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ㡯┠ࡢᖹᆒ್ࡣ 7 ᭶ 3.50㸦SD=.64㸧ࠊ1 ᭶ 3.80㸦SD=.51㸧࡛୧⪅ࡢᕪࡣ 5%Ỉ‽࡛᭷ព࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋලయⓗ࡟ࠊ1%Ỉ‽࡛᭷ពᕪࡀぢࡽࢀࡓ㡯┠ࡣࠊࠕᑐヰ࡛ࡣᛮࡗࡓࡼࡾヰࡏࡓ㸦Q33㸧
࡛ࠖ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ࠕᅇᩘࢆ㔜ࡡࡿࡈ࡜࡟⥭ᙇឤࡀῶࡗࡓࠖ
ࠊࠕᅇᩘࢆ㔜ࡡࡿࡈ࡜࡟ゝ࠸ࡓ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀゝ࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠖ
ࠊࠕᛮࡗࡓࡼࡾヰࡏࡓࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ㡯┠࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ᭷ពᕪ࡜
ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀ⫯ᐃⓗᅇ⟅ࡀቑຍࡋࡓࠋ
ࠕຠᯝឤࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ඲య࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ᫬ᮇ࡟ࡼࡿᕪࡣ࡞ࡃຠᯝ
㔞ࡶᑠࡉ࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊ࢙࢘ࣈ఍㆟౑⏝ࡀࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢຊࡢྥୖ࡟ຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ឤࡌࡿᅇ⟅ࡀቑຍࡋࡓ㸦᭷ࠋ
ពᕪ 1%ࠊຠᯝ㔞ᑠ㸧ᘬ⏝ᩥ⊩
Iino, A (2014). EFL learners’ perceived use of conversation maintenance strategies during synchronous computer
mediated communication with native English speakers. In Jager, S., Bradley, L., Meima, E. J., & Thouseny, S.
(Eds.), CALL Design: Principles and Practice:-Proceedings of the 2014 EUROCALL Conference (pp.165-171).
Research publishing. net.
㔠 ᐁᆂ㸦1999㸧.ࠕCMC㸦computerímediated communication㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿ༳㇟ᙧᡂ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᥈⣴ⓗ◊✲ࠖ. ࠗ♫఍ᚰ⌮Ꮫ◊✲࠘, 14(3), 123 – 132

−69−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(14:20-14:50)502 ᐊᩍ⫱⏝౛ᩥࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ SCoRE ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓ࣓ࣜࢹ࢕࢔ࣝᩥἲᤵᴗࡢᐇ㊶୰ᲄ Ύ⨾㸦᪥ᮏ኱Ꮫ㸧すᇉ ▱ెᏊ㸦༓ⴥ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ᩍ⫱⏝౛ᩥࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸪ࢹ࣮ࢱ㥑ືᆺᏛ⩦㸪࣓ࣜࢹ࢕࢔ࣝ㸪ᤵᴗᐇ㊶㸪ᩥἲᣦᑟ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ㏆ᖺ㸪᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ࡛ࡣ㸪᪂ධ⏕ࡢⱥㄒᏛຊࡢపୗࡀၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠕᏛࡧ┤ࡋࠖࡢ࣓ࣜࢹ࢕࢔ࣝᩍ⫱ࡀゎỴࡍ࡭ࡁㄢ㢟࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣ㸪2014 ᖺ࡟බ㛤ࡋࡓࠕᩍ⫱⏝౛ᩥࢥ࣮ࣃ
ࢫ SCoRE㸦Sentence Corpus of Remedial English㸧ࠖ㸦Chujo et al., 2015; ୰ᲄ௚, 2015; ⱝᯇ௚, 2015㸧ࠖ࡜ࠕከゝㄒ᳨⣴ࢶ࣮ࣝ AntPConcࠖ㸦Anthony, 2015㸧ࢆ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ㸪࣓ࣜࢹ࢕࢔࣭ࣝࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡀ㸪୰Ꮫ࣭㧗ᰯ࡛Ꮫࢇࡔ᪤⩦ࡢᇶ♏ⱥᩥἲࢆ Data-Driven Learning㸦DDL㸸ࢹ࣮ࢱ㥑ືᆺᏛ⩦㸧ࡢᡭἲࢆ⏝࠸࡚㸪Ꮫࡧ┤ࡍᤵᴗᐇ㊶ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓᡂᯝࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ
 DDL ࡣẼ࡙ࡁࢆᘬࡁฟࡋ㸪ᖐ⣡ⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦ࢆᑟࡃࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪እᅜㄒࡢ᪂ࡋ࠸ᣦᑟᡭἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ୡ⏺ⓗ࡟ὀ┠ࡉࢀ㸪ᩍ⫱ຠᯝࡀሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ (e.g., Mizumoto et al., 2015; すᇉ௚㸪2015)ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ᐇ㝿ࡢⱥㄒᤵᴗ࡟ DDL ࢆྲྀࡾධࢀࡿ࡟ࡣ㸪ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢ㞴ࡋࡉࡸࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ᳨⣴ࢶ࣮ࣝࡢ↹㞧࡞᧯సᛶࡢၥ
㢟ࡀ࠶ࡾ㸪ᩍ⫱⌧ሙ࡛ࡢ DDL ࡢᬑཬࡣ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ⌧≧ࡢࡶ࡜㸪Ⓨ⾲⪅ࡽࡣ㸪DDL ࡢᬑཬࢆ┠ᣦࡋ㸪ࠕ㐺ษ࡞ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᩍ⫱⏝ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢ㛤Ⓨࠖ࡜ࠕ࣮ࣘࢨ࣮࣭ࣇࣞࣥࢻ࣮ࣜ࡞᳨⣴ࢶ࣮ࣝࡢ㛤Ⓨࠖ࡜࠸࠺ 2 ࡘࡢ㛤Ⓨㄢ㢟ࢆゎỴࡋࡓ࠺࠼࡛㸪DDL ࡢᣦᑟᐇ㊶ࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ
2. DDL ᤵᴗࡢᐇ㊶᪉ἲ
2.1 ౑⏝ࡋࡓࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ ཧຍ⪅ࡀ౑⏝ࡋࡓࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡣ㸪ⴭసᶒࣇ࣮ࣜࡢࠕᩍ⫱⏝౛ᩥࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ SCoREࠖࡢ౛ᩥࢆࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟࢻ
ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋSCoRE ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡣ㸪⡆₩࡛⮬↛࡞ⱥㄒ౛ᩥ࡜ࡑࡢ᪥ᮏㄒᑐヂᩥࢆேᡭ࡛సᡂࡋ㸪㞟✚ᅗ 1 ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟㸪http://score.lagoinst.info/ࡋࡓᑐヂ௜ࡁࡢ஧ゝㄒࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡛࠶ࡿࠋSCoRE ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡣ㸪ᅗࡼࡾ㸪ᩥἲ㡯┠ࢆᇶ‽࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ึ⣭࣭୰⣭࣭ୖ⣭ࡢูࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟౛ᩥࢆ㜀ぴ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ⱥᩥ࡜ࡑࡢᑐ
ヂ౛ᩥࢆ⮬⏤࡟ࢥࣆ࣮㸪ࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟࢻࡋ࡚฼⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

ᅗ 1. ᩍ⫱⏝౛ᩥࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ SCoRE ࡢ man whom ࡢ⏬㠃−70−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

2.2 ᡭ㡰
ཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸪TOEIC 300 Ⅼࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ 90 ྡ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ༙ᮇ 10 ᅇ㸪CALL ᩍᐊ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪୰Ꮫ࣭㧗ᰯẁ㝵ࡢᇶ♏ⱥᩥἲ㡯┠ࡢ⩦ᚓࢆ┠ᣦࡋ㸪ྛ⮬࡛ SCoRE ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢ᳨⣴సᴗࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ⓎぢᏛ⩦ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ᳨⣴సᴗࡣᅗ
ᅗ 2 ࡟౛ࢆ♧ࡋࡓከゝㄒ᳨⣴ࢶ࣮࡛ࣝ࠶ࡿ AntPConc ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓࠋAntPConc ࡣ࣮ࣘࢨ࣮࣭ࣇ
ࣞࣥࢻ࣮ࣜ࡞ከゝㄒ᳨⣴ࢶ࣮ࣝࢆ┠ᣦࡋ࡚㸪Ⓨ⾲⪅ࡽࡀ᪩✄⏣኱Ꮫ Laurence Anthony Ặ࡜ඹྠ㛤Ⓨࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛㸪http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antpconc/ࡼࡾ↓ᩱ࡛බ㛤ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
஦๓࣭஦ᚋࢸࢫࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪✵ᡤ⿵඘ၥ㢟࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿᇶ♏ᩥἲຊࢸࢫࢺ㸦୰ᲄ௚, 2012㸧ࡀ㸪DDL ᣦᑟ㛤ጞ๓࡜⤊஢ᚋ࡟ᐇ᪋ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓ㸪ᣦᑟ⤊஢ᚋ࡟⮬⏤➹グ࡟ࡼࡾཧຍ⪅ࡢឤ᝿ࡀ཰㞟ࡉࢀࡓࠋᅗ 2. SCoRE ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ AntPConc ᳨࡛⣴ࡋࡓ man whom ࡢ⏬㠃
3. ⤖ᯝ ஦๓࣭஦ᚋࢸࢫࢺࡢศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪ᚓⅬୖ᪼㔞ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀ㸪ᩍ⫱⏝౛ᩥࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ SCoRE ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓ DDL
ࡢ᭷ຠᛶࡀᐇドࡉࢀࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟㸪㉁ၥ⣬࡟ࡼࡿᏛ⩦⪅ࡢホ౯ࡶ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᮏሗ࿌ࡣ㸪 DDLⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡀ࣓ࣜࢹ࢕࢔ࣝᩍ⫱ࡢࡦ࡜ࡘࡢᣦᑟ᪉ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᐇドࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ㅰ㎡㸸ᮏ◊✲ࡣᖹᡂ 25-28 ᖺᗘ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠ᇶ┙◊✲㸦B㸧
㸦25284108㸧ࢆཷࡅ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡲࡋࡓࠋ
ᘬ⏝ᩥ⊩Anthony, L. (2015). AntPConc (Version 1.1.0) [Computer software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University.
୰ᲄΎ⨾㸪ᶓ⏣㈼ྖ㸪㛗㇂ᕝಟ἞㸪すᇉ▱ెᏊ (2012).࣓ࣜࢹ࢕࢔ࣝᏛ⩦⪅ࡢⱥㄒ⩦⇍ᗘ࡜ⱥㄒᩥἲ⇍㐩ᗘㄪᰝࠗ᪥ᮏ኱Ꮫ⏕⏘ᕤᏛ㒊◊✲ሗ࿌ B㸦ᩥ⣔㸧࠘45, 43̽54.
Chujo, K., Oghigian, K., & Akasegawa, S. (2015). A Corpus and grammatical browsing system for remedial EFL
learners. In A. LeĔko-SzymaĔska & A. Boulton (Eds.), Multiple affordances of language corpora fordata-driven learning (pp. 109-128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
୰ᲄΎ⨾㸪ⱝᯇᘯᏊ㸪▼஭༟ᕭ㸪Ᏹబ⨾⿱Ꮚ㸪ᶓ⏣㈼ྖ㸪࢟ࣕࢧ࣭ࣜࣥ࢜ࣄ࢞ࣥ㸪すᇉ▱ెᏊ (2015).
ᩍ⫱⏝౛ᩥࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ SCoRE ࡢసᡂࠗ᪥ᮏ኱Ꮫ⏕⏘ᕤᏛ㒊◊✲ሗ࿌ B㸦ᩥ⣔㸧࠘48, 1-23.
Mizumoto㸪A., & Chujo, K. (2015). A meta-analysis of data-driven learning approach in the Japanese EFL
classroom. English Corpus Studies, 22, 1-18.
すᇉ▱ెᏊ㸪ᑠᒣ⩏ᚨ㸪⚄㇂᪼㸪ᶓ⏣ᱻ㸪すᆏ㧗ᚿ (2015). ࢹ࣮ࢱ㥑ືᆺᏛ⩦࡜ Focus on Form: ୰Ꮫ⏕ࡢࡓࡵࡢᖐ⣡ⓗ࡞ㄒᙡ࣭ᩥἲᏛ⩦ࡢᐇ㊶ࠗ㛵ᮾ⏥ಙ㉺ⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍ㄅ࠘29, 113-126.
ⱝᯇᘯᏊ㸪▼஭༟ᕭ㸪୰ᲄΎ⨾ (2015). Ꮫ⩦ᨭ᥼⏝᪥ⱥ౛ᩥࣃࣛࣞࣝࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ SCoRE ࡢᵓ⠏࡟࠾ࡅࡿ ㄢ㢟㸸᪥ᮏㄒᑐヂ౛ᩥࡢヂฟ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚࡚ࠗⱥㄒࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ◊✲࠘22, 34-44.

−71−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(14:55-15:25)502 ᐊ

Web Speech API ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓ㠀ྠᮇᆺ㡢ኌࣈࣟࢢࡢᵓ⠏࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᑠ㔝 㞝୍㸦⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ㸧▼஭ ༟ᕭ㸦⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕㸧኱す ᫛ኵ㸦Version 2㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 㠀ྠᮇᆺ CMC㸪㡢ኌࣈࣟࢢ㸪㡢ኌㄆ㆑㸪Web Speech API㸪እᅜㄒ୙Ᏻ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࡜ࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡࢆ௓ࡋࡓࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ㸦Computer-Mediated Communication; CMC㸧ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥάືࡀ┒ࢇ࡟⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡾ㸪እᅜㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢ⬟ຊྥୖ࡟ᐤ୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺◊✲⤖ᯝࡀከᩘሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦e.g., Alastuey, 2011; Hirotani, 2003㸧
ࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞
୰㸪᭱㏆ࡢ᝟ሗᢏ⾡ࡢⓎᒎ࡟ࡼࡾ㸪ᩥᏐࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓࢳࣕࢵࢺࢆࡣࡌࡵ㸪ࣅࢹ࢜఍㆟ࡸ Skype ➼ࡢࣅࢹ࣮࢜ࣔࢻᶵ⬟ࢆά⏝ࡋ㸪࠾஫࠸ࡢ㢦ࢆぢ࡞ࡀࡽࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡ㏻ಙࢆ௓ࡋ࡚࡯ࡰࣜ࢔ࣝࢱ࢖࣒㸪ୟࡘᑐ㠃࡟㏆࠸ᙧ࡛ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡀᐇ⌧࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ྠᮇᆺ CMC ࡣᤵᴗ࡟ࡶ
ྲྀࡾධࢀࡽࢀ㸪ࡑࡢຠᯝࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿㄽᩥࡶከࡃฟ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦e.g., Satar & Ozdener, 2008㸧ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ྠᮇᆺ CMC ࡣᑐ㠃࡟ࡼࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟㏆࠸ࢫࢱ࢖࡛ࣝ࠶ࡿࡓࡵ㸪㧗࠸ㄆ▱㈇Ⲵࢆồࡵࡽࢀ㸪እᅜㄒ୙ᏳࡀㄏⓎࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵ㸪ゝㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊ࡟⮬ಙࡀ࡞ࡃ㸪≉࡟ࢫࣆ࣮࢟
ࣥࢢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚୙Ᏻࢆᢪ࠼ࡿᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ㸪ྠᮇᆺ CMC ࢱࢫࢡ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚୙Ᏻࡸᜍᛧᚰࡀඛ❧ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸㸪Ꮫ⩦ຠᯝࡢಁ㐍ࡀṆࡲࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ᭦࡟ྠᮇᆺ CMC ࢱࢫࢡ࡛ࡣ㸪┦ᡭ࠿ࡽࡢࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡ
ࡀ࡞࠸㝈ࡾ⮬ศࡢⓎ㡢ࡀṇࡋࡃఏࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ุ᩿࡛ࡁ࡞࠸Ⅼࡶ㸪୙Ᏻࢆ㧗ࡵࡿ୍せᅉ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ᑐ㠃ᆺࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡸྠᮇᆺ CMC ࢱࢫࢡ࡟ධࡿ๓ࡢάືࡢࡓࡵ࡟㸪㡢ኌㄆ㆑ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓ㸪࢔ࢵࣉ࣮ࣟࢻ๓ࡢ㡢ኌ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡᶵ⬟ࢆྲྀࡾධࢀࡓ㠀ྠᮇᆺ㡢ኌࣈࣟࢢ㸦voice-based blog㸧ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋᮏࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ≉㛗࡜ࡋ࡚㸪㡢ኌㄆ㆑࢚ࣥࢪࣥࡢ୍㒊࡟ Web
Speech API ࢆ฼⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ㸪௚ࡢ࢙࢘ࣈ࣭࢔ࣉࣜࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡜ẚ࡭࡚ࢧ࣮ࣂࡸࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡ࡬ࡢ㈇Ⲵࢆᢚ࠼ࡽࢀࡿຠᯝࡀᮇᚅ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
2. ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ᴫ␎
ᮏࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢᴫ␎ࡣ㸪ᅗ 1 ࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ㸪ᅗ 2 ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿୖẁࡢ࣎ࢵࢡࢫ࡟ᢞ✏ࡍࡿᩥ❶ࢆධຊ㸪㡢ኌࢆࢩࢫࢸ࣒ୖ࡟㘓㡢ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀࡓ㡢ኌࡀୗẁࡢ࣎ࢵࢡࢫ࡟⾲♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋᮏࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡣ㸪Ⓨ㡢࡟୙ᏳࢆᣢࡘᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ༑ศ࡞⦎⩦ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓୖ࡛㡢ኌࢆᢞ✏࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟
࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡣ⣡ᚓࡀ࠸ࡃࡲ࡛ఱᗘࡶ⦎⩦ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾ㸪⣡ᚓࡀ࠸ࡗࡓ᫬Ⅼ࡛㡢ኌࢆᢞ✏ࡍࡿࠋ

ᅗ 1. ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ᴫ␎

ᅗ 2. ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ

−72−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ᮏࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡛ࡣ㸪ࣈࣛ࢘ࢨ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝ㡢ኌࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ㄆ㆑⤖ᯝࢆฎ⌮ࡍࡿࠋཎᩥࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ㄆ㆑⤖ᯝࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆࢧ࣮ࣂ࡟㌿㏦㸪ẚ㍑ฎ⌮ࢆ⾜࠸㸪ホ౯ࢆᐇ᪋ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺௙⤌ࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3. ヨ㦂㐠⏝࡟㛵ࡍࡿᐇ㦂
3.1 ཧຍ⪅ᐇ㦂ࡣᕤᴗ㧗➼ᑓ㛛Ꮫᰯࡢ 1 ᖺ⏕ 34 ྡཧຍࡢୗ㸪ⱥㄒ IB ࡜࠸࠺ English Expression ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᤵᴗࡢ୰
࡛⾜ࡗࡓࠋヨ㦂㐠⏝ࡣ 2 㐌㛫ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋཧຍ⪅ࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪୍⯡࡟ே๓࡛ヰࡍࡇ࡜ࡀⱞᡭ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪༑ศ࡞⌮ゎࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜ඛ࡟㐍ࡲ࡞࠸ഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿ㸦Ono & Ishihara, 2013㸧ࠋ
3.2 ᡭ㡰
2 㐌㛫ࡢάືࡀ⤊஢ࡋࡓᚋ㸪௨ୗ 3 ✀㢮ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡎ㸪ࠕእᅜㄒ୙Ᏻࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄪᰝࢆ㸪ࡑࢀࡲ࡛ᤵᴗෆࡢάື࡜ࡋ࡚⾜ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓᑐ㠃㸦face-to-face㸧࡟ࡼࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥάື࡜
ẚ㍑ࡍࡿᙧ࡛⾜ࡗࡓࠋ㉁ၥ㡯┠ࡣ Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale㸦Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope,1986㸧ࢆ㸪ᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗ࡟ྜࢃࡏ࡚᪥ᮏㄒ࡟⩻ヂࡋࡓࡶࡢ୰࠿ࡽ 14 ၥタᐃࡋࡓࠋຍ࠼࡚㸪ࠕືᶵ࡙ࡅࠖ
࡜ࠕᮏࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ༳㇟ࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚㸪10 ၥࡢ㉁ၥ㡯┠ࢆタᐃࡋࡓࠋ௨ୖࡢィ 24 㡯┠࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ཧຍ⪅ࡣ
ࠕ1. ඲ࡃࡑ࠺ᛮࢃ࡞࠸ࠖ㹼ࠕ6. ࡜࡚ࡶࡑ࠺ᛮ࠺ࠖࡢ୰࠿ࡽ 1 ࡘᅇ⟅ࡍࡿᙧᘧ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
3.3 ⤖ᯝ
ࡲࡎ㸪ࠕእᅜㄒ୙Ᏻࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪඲࡚ࡢ㡯┠࡟࠾࠸࡚ᑐ㠃࡟ࡼࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥάື࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚
୙Ᏻࡀῶᑡࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ᭦࡟㸪࢘࢕ࣝࢥࢡࢯࣥࡢ➢ྕ㡰఩᳨ᐃࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪14 㡯┠ࡢෆ 8㡯┠࡟㛵ࡋ࡚᭷ពᕪ࡜኱ࡁ࡞ຠᯝ㔞ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓ㸪ࠕືᶵ࡙ࡅࠖ࡜ࠕᮏࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ༳㇟ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ
Ⰻዲ࡞⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࠕࡇࡢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡣṇ☜࡞Ⓨ㡢ࢆ㌟࡟ࡘࡅࡿࡢ࡟ᙺ❧ࡘ࡜ᛮ࠺ࠖ
㸪ࠕࡇࡢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡣὶᬸ
࡟ヰࡍࡢ࡟ᙺ❧ࡘ࡜ᛮ࠺ࠖ
㸪ࠕࡇࡢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡣⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡟ᙺ❧ࡘ࡜ᛮ࠺ࠖ
㸪ࠕࡇࡢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡣ࡜࡚ࡶ㠃ⓑ࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࠖ㸪ࠕࡇࡢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆࡶࡗ࡜౑࠸ࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࠖ
㸪ࠕࡇࡢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢࢫࢥ࢔࡟⣡ᚓ࡛ࡁࡿࠖ➼ࡢ㡯┠࡟ᑐࡋ࡚≉࡟㧗࠸್ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓࠋ
ᮏࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ㡢ኌㄆ㆑࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ㄆ㆑ኻᩋࡸㄗㄆ㆑ࡶ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ಙ㢗ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࡶᩓぢࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ࡑࢀ➼ࡢၥ㢟࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡣᮏࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟ࡼࡿホ౯ࡸࢩࢫࢸ࣒
඲య࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ᴫࡡ⫯ᐃⓗ࡟ཷࡅධࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋ
ㅰ㎡ᮏ◊✲ࡣ㸪ᮏ◊✲ࡣ JSPS ⛉◊㈝ᇶ┙◊✲㸦C㸧
㸦26370656㸧ࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Alastuey, M. C. B. (2010). Synchronous-voice computer-mediated communication: Effects on pronunciation.
CALICO Journal, 28, 1–20.
Hirotani, M. (2003). Synchronous versus asynchronous CMC and transfer to Japanese oral performance. CALICO
Journal, 26, 413–438.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language
Journal, 70, 125–132.
Ono, Y., & Ishihara, M. (2012). Integrating mobile-based individual activities into the Japanese EFL classroom.
International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 6, 116–137.
Satar, H. M., & Ozdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text
versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 595–613.

−73−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(15:30-16:00)502 ᐊࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢຊᙉ໬ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࢆ
ࢱࣈࣞࢵࢺࡸࢫ࣐࡛࣍⮬୺Ꮫ⩦࡛ࡁࡿࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢᵓ⠏ఀ⸨ ెୡᏊ㸦ி㒔኱Ꮫ㸧௰㔝 ᇶ⣖㸦ᰴᘧ఍♫ CHIeru㸧
࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ㸪ࢫ࣐࣍㸪࣐ࣝࢳࣉࣛࢵࢺࣇ࢛࣮࣒ᑐᛂ㸪⮬୺Ꮫ⩦
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
⮬୺Ꮫ⩦࡜ࡋ࡚ࢫ࣐࣍ࡸࢱࣈࣞࢵࢺࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓእᅜㄒᩍ⫱ࡣࠊᩘከࡃᩓぢࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖
ࣥࢢࢆࢫ࣐࣍ࡸࢱࣈࣞࢵࢺࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚ࠊ࠸ࡘ࡛ࡶࠊ࡝ࡇ࡛ࡶࣘࣅ࢟ࢱࢫ࡟Ꮫ⩦ࡋࠊࡑࡢᡂᯝࢆ㘓㡢ࡋࠊᣦᑟ⪅࡟ᥦฟ࡛ࡁࡿࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ᪂ࡓ࡟㛤Ⓨࡋࡓᮏࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࡑࡢ᭷ຠᛶࢆ᳨ドࡋࡓࠋ
2. ᡭ㡰
2.1. ཧຍ⪅ཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸪኱Ꮫ⏕⣙ 850 ྡ࡛ࠊ10 Ꮫ㒊࡟ཬࡪࠋⱥㄒࡢ⛉┠ࢆ㸯ᖺ㛫ᚲಟ࡛ᒚಟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣ༙ᖺ㛫ཧຍࡋࡓࠋ⾲ 1.
ཧຍ⪅ࡢෆヂᕤ㎰  ⌮་ ⸆ ἲ ⥲ྜᩍ⫱ ᩥ ⤒῭

ィ371 157  91

32 31 59 12

43 30 24

850

2.2 ࢩࢫࢸ࣒฼⏝ᡭ㡰ᮏࢩࢫࢸ࣒ᑟධ࡟㝿ࡋ࡚ࡑࡢᡂᯝࢆࡳࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊཧຍ⪅඲ဨ࡟ࣉ࣭࣏ࣞࢫࢺࢸࢫࢺࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ
Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡣᏛ⏕ᑓ⏝ ID ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚ࠊTOEICࠊTOEFLࠊࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ࡞࡝ࡢ㡢ኌᩍᮦࢆࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟࢻࡋࠊࡑ
ࢀࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚኱Ꮫࡢࣃࢯࢥࣥࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࠊྛ⮬ࡢࢫ࣐࣮ࢺࣇ࢛ࣥࡸࢱࣈࣞࢵࢺࢆ฼⏝ࡍࡿࠋ᫬㛫࡜ሙᡤࢆၥࢃࡎ࡟ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢカ⦎ࡍࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊᐇ㝿ࡢࢱࣈࣞࢵࢺࡸᦠᖏ㟁ヰࡢᏛ⩦⏬㠃࡛ࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅⮬㌟࡛ⱥᩥࡢࣆࢵࢳࡸ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ➼ࢆࠊἼᙧᅗࢆࡳ࡚ࠊࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡢ㐩ᡂᗘࢆ☜ㄆࡋࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟⮬ࡽࡢ㡢ኌࢆ㘓㡢ࡋࡓᚋ࡛ࠊࡑࡢḞⅬࢆぢࡘࡅࡿࠋࡲࡓࡇࡢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ㘓㡢ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᣦᑟ⪅࡟ᥦฟࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᣦᑟ⪅ࡣࡑࡢ⥲Ꮫ⩦᫬㛫ࢆᢕᥱࡋࠊࡲࡓ㘓㡢ࡉࢀࡓ㡢ኌࢹ࣮ࢱࢆࡶ
࡜࡟㐍ᤖᗘࢆホ౯ࡍࡿࠋ
2.3 ࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ㛤Ⓨᮏ◊✲ࡢᐇ᪋࡟࠶ࡓࡾ㸪ᅗ 1 ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ shadowing system ࢆ⊂⮬࡟㛤Ⓨࡋࡓࠋ౑⏝ྍ⬟࡞ࢹ࢕ࣂ࢖ࢫࡣ
ࢫ࣐࣮ࢺࣇ࢛ࣥࠊࢱࣈࣞࢵࢺ(Apple iPhone, iPad, iPod, Android Galaxy, XPERIA,HTC, Nexus ࡞࡝)ࠊࣃࢯࢥ
ࣥࠋ

−74−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

ᅗ 1. shadowing system ࡢ౛

3. ⤖ᯝᮏ◊✲࡟࠾ࡅࡿศᯒ࡜⪃ᐹࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡢ⮬୺Ꮫ⩦ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ฼⏝ࡢ᭷ຠᛶࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓ஦๓஦ᚋࡢᙳ㡪ࢆ⤫ไࡋࡓ᫬ࠊᏛ⩦᫬㛫⩌ࡢ୺ຠᯝࡀከ࠸⩌ࡣࠊࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡢᏛ⩦᫬㛫ࡢᑡ࡞࠸⩌ࡼࡾࡶࠊ᭷Ⅽ࡟㧗࠸ᚓⅬࢆᚓ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ

−75−

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(12:30-13:00)503 ᐊከㄞ࡜ࢹ࢕ࢡࢺࢢࣟࢫࡀⱥㄒ⇍㐩ᗘ࡟ཬࡰࡍຠᯝ⏣୰ ⨾ὠᏊ㸦❧࿨㤋኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ከㄞ㸦Extensive Reading; ER㸧㸪ᣢ⥆ⓗ㯲ㄞ㸦Sustained Silent Reading; SSR㸧ࢢࣞ࢖ࢹ࢕ࢵࢻ࣮ࣜࢲ࣮㸪ࢹ࢕ࢡࢺࢢࣟࢫ㸪ⱥㄒ⇍㐩ᗘ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
㏆ᖺ㸪ࢢࣞ࢖ࢹ࢕ࢵࢻ࣭࣮ࣜࢲ࣮ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓከㄞᏛ⩦ࢆ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛ࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡴᏛᰯࡀቑ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋDay
and Bamford (1998)ࡣከㄞࢆᡂຌࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵࡢ10ࡢ≉ᚩࡢ୍ࡘ࡟ࠕ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅࡓࡃࡉࢇㄞࡴࠖࡇ࡜ࢆᣲࡆ
࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ከㄞᏛ⩦࡟ከࡃࡢ᫬㛫ࢆ๭ࡃࡇ࡜ࡣ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛⓗ࡟㞴ࡋ࠸ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡾ㸪ࢢࣞ࢖ࢹ࢕ࢵࢻ࣭
࣮ࣜࢲ࣮ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ▷᫬㛫ࡢᣢ⥆ⓗ㯲ㄞ㸦Sustained Silent Reading; SSR㸧ࢆヨࡳࡿᏛᰯࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
ከㄞᏛ⩦ࡢᏛ⩦ຠᯝ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪ㄞゎຊࡸㄒᙡຊࢆ㧗ࡵࡿຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ሗ࿌ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡶ࠶ࡿࡀ㸦e.g.,
Kweon & Kim, 2008; Lin, 2010㸧㸪⤫ไ⩌䜢⏝䛔䛯◊✲䛷䛿௚ࡢᏛ⩦ἲ࡜ྠ⛬ᗘ࡟ㄞゎຊࢆ㧗ࡵࡿຠᯝࡣ࠶
ࡿࡶࡢࡢከㄞᏛ⩦࡟ඃ఩ᛶࡣ࡞࠸࡜ሗ࿌ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡶ࠶ࡾ㸦e.g., Matsui & Noro, 2010; Nakanishi & Ueda,
2011㸧㸪ⱥㄒ⇍㐩ᗘࡢఙࡧ࡟ཬࡰࡍຠᯝ㸦≉࡟ㄞゎຊ࡟ཬࡰࡍຠᯝ㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ༑ศ࡟ゎ᫂ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜
ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓ㸪▷᫬㛫ࡢࣞ࢖ࢹ࢕ࢵࢻ࣭࣮ࣜࢲ࣮ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓSSRࡀⱥㄒ⇍㐩ᗘࡢఙࡧ࡟ཬࡰࡍຠᯝࢆ᳨ドࡋࡓ◊✲ࡸ㸪ࢹ࢕ࢡࢺࢢࣟࢫ㸦Wajnryb, 1990㸧ࡀ⇍㐩ᗘࡢఙࡧ࡟ཬࡰࡍຠᯝࢆ᳨ドࡋࡓ◊✲ࡶከࡃࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ▷᫬㛫ࡢከㄞᏛ⩦㸦SSR㸧࡜ࢹ࢕ࢡࢺࢢࣟࢫࡀⱥㄒ⇍㐩ᗘࡢఙࡧ࡟ཬࡰࡍ
ຠᯝࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ2. ᡭ㡰
2.1 ཧຍ⪅ཧຍ⪅ࡣ⚾❧ዪᏊ኱Ꮫ୍ᖺ⏕ 327 ྡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙜヱ኱Ꮫ࡛ࡣ㐌࡟ 3 ࢡࣛࢫ㸦90 ศ3㸧ࡢᚲಟⱥㄒ⛉┠ࡀ࠶ࡾ㸪඲࡚ࡢⱥㄒ⛉┠ࡣࢱࢫࢡ୰ᚰࡢእᅜㄒᩍᤵἲ㸦Task Based Language Teaching; TBLT㸧࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚
⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ2009 ᖺᗘࡲ࡛ࡣᤵᴗࡢ୍㒊࡟ࢹ࢕ࢡࢺࢢࣟࢫᏛ⩦ࡀྲྀࡾධࢀࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡀ㸪2010 ᖺᗘ࡟ࢹ࢕ࢡࢺࢢࣟࢫ࡟௦ࢃࡾࢢࣞ࢖ࢹ࢕ࢵࢻ࣭࣮ࣜࢲ࣮ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓከㄞᏛ⩦ࡀ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛ࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡲࢀࡓࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢከㄞ⩌㸦n = 163㸧ࡣከㄞᏛ⩦ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ 2010 ᖺᗘࡢ୍ᖺ⏕࡛㸪ࢹ࢕ࢡࢺࢢࣟࢫ⩌㸦n = 164㸧ࡣࢹ࢕ࢡࢺࢢࣟࢫࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ 2009 ᖺᗘࡢ୍ᖺ⏕࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2.2 ⱥㄒ⇍㐩ᗘ ᐃࢸࢫࢺཧຍ⪅ࡢⱥㄒ⇍㐩ᗘࡢ ᐃ࡟ࡣⱥㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊホ౯༠఍࡟ࡼࡿ ACE ࣉࣞ࢖ࢫ࣓ࣥࢺࢸࢫࢺࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋ
ACE ࣉࣞ࢖ࢫ࣓ࣥࢺࢸࢫࢺࡣ 3 ࡘࡢࣃ࣮ࢺ㸦ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ㸪ㄒᙡ࣭ᩥἲ㸪࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ㸧࠿ࡽ࡞ࡾ㸪㡯┠ᛂ⟅⌮ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࢫࢥ࢔ࡀ⟬ฟࡉࢀࡿ㸦ⱥㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊホ౯༠఍, n.d.㸧ࠋ㸲᭶࡟ࣉࣞࢸࢫࢺ
㸦ၥ㢟✀ู0277㸧
㸪㸯᭶࡟࣏ࢫࢺࢸࢫࢺ㸦ၥ㢟✀ู 0328㸧ࢆᐇ᪋ࡋⱥㄒ⇍㐩ᗘࡢఙࡧࡢᣦᶆ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
2.3 ᡭ㡰
୍ᖺ࡟ࢃࡓࡾከㄞ⩌㸦n = 163㸧ࡣẖ㐌 20 ศ㛫ࢢࣞ࢖ࢹ࢕ࢵࢻ࣭࣮ࣜࢲ࣮ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓከㄞᏛ⩦ࢆ⾜࠸㸪ࢹ࢕ࢡࢺࢢࣟࢫ⩌㸦n = 164㸧ࡣ㝸㐌࡛ 20 ศ㛫ࢹ࢕ࢡࢺࢢࣟࢫࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋከㄞ࣭ࢹ࢕ࢡࢺࢢࣟࢫ௨እࡢ᫬㛫ࡣ୧⩌࡜ࡶྠࡌ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛ㸦TBLT㸧࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ−76−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

2.4 ஦๓ศᯒ
2 ⩌㸦ከㄞ⩌࣭ࢹ࢕ࢡࢺࢢࣟࢫ⩌㸧ࡢධᏛᙜึࡢⱥㄒຊ࡟ᕪࡀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪ᚑᒓኚᩘ࡟ 4 ᢏ⬟㸦ㄞゎຊ࣭⫈ゎຊ࣭ㄒᙡຊ࣭ᩥἲຊ㸧ࡢࢸࢫࢺࡢᚓⅬࢆࡍ࠼୍ඖ㓄⨨ከኚ㔞ศᩓศᯒࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᚓⅬࡢẚ㍑ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋWilks ࡢ࣒ࣛࢲ࡟ࡼࡿ⤖ᯝ㸪4 ᢏ⬟ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㛫࡛᭷ព࡞ᕪࡀ࡞
࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓ㸦F(4, 317) = .60, p = n.s.㸧ࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝᚑᒓኚᩘ࡟ 4 ᢏ⬟㸦ㄞゎຊ࣭⫈ゎຊ࣭ㄒᙡຊ࣭ᩥἲຊ㸧ࡢࢸࢫࢺࡢᚓⅬࢆࡍ࠼㸪ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㸦ᑐᛂ࡞ࡋ㸸2 Ỉ‽㸧ࢸࢫࢺᐇ᪋᫬ᮇ㸦ᑐᛂ࠶ࡾ㸸2 Ỉ‽㸧ࡢ஧ඖ㓄⨨ከኚ㔞ศᩓศᯒࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᚓⅬࡢẚ㍑ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ
Wilks ࡢ࣒ࣛࢲ࡟ࡼࡿ⤖ᯝࡣ㸪ࠕࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࢸࢫࢺᐇ᪋᫬ᮇࠖࡢ஺஫స⏝ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸦F(4, 317) = .31, p = n.s.㸧㸪ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡢ୺ຠᯝࡶ᭷ព࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀ㸦F(4, 317) = 1.77, p = n.s.㸧㸪ࢸࢫࢺᐇ᪋᫬ᮇࡢ୺ຠᯝ㸦F(4, 317) =41.97, p < .001, Șp2 = .346㸧ࡣ᭷ព࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛༢ኚ㔞ศᩓศᯒ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᢏ⬟ู࡟ࢸࢫࢺᐇ᪋᫬ᮇࡢ༢
⣧୺ຠᯝࢆㄪ࡭ࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ㸪ㄞゎຊ㸦F(1, 320) = 130.96, p < .001, Șp2 = .290㸧࡜ㄒᙡຊ㸦F(1, 320) = 24.55, p< .001, Șp2 = .071㸧࡟᭷ព࡞ఙࡧࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ⤖ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪୧⩌࡜ࡶᖺ㛫ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ㄞゎຊ࣭ㄒᙡຊࢆఙࡤࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ከㄞᏛ⩦࡜ࢹ࢕ࢡࢺࢢࣟࢫ࡟ࡣ
୍ᐃࡢᏛ⩦ຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉㸪୧⩌ࡢⱥㄒ⇍㐩ᗘࡢఙࡧ࡟ࡣᕪࡀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪㝸㐌ࡢࢹ࢕ࢡࢺࢢࣟࢫࡣ௚ࡢᏛ⩦ἲ࡟ẚ࡭ⱥㄒຊࢆఙࡤࡍຠᯝࡀ㧗࠸࡜ࡣゝ࠼ࡎ㸪㐌 20 ศ⛬ᗘࡢࢢࣞ࢖
ࢹ࢕ࢵࢻ࣭࣮ࣜࢲ࣮ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓከㄞᏛ⩦ࡶ୍ᖺ⛬ᗘࡢᐇ᪋࡛ࡣ௚ࡢᏛ⩦ἲ࡟ẚ࡭ㄞゎຊࡸㄒᙡຊࢆఙࡤࡍ
Ꮫ⩦ຠᯝࡀ㧗࠸࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
ⱥㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊホ౯༠఍ (n.d.). Retrieved from http://english-assessment.org
Kweon, S. O., & Kim, H. R. (2008). Beyond raw frequency: Incidental vocabulary acquisition in extensive reading.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 20, 191-215.
Lin, L. F. (2010). Senior high school students’ reading comprehension of graded readers. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 1, 20-28.
Matsui, T., & Noro, T. (2010). The effects of 10-minute sustained silent reading on the junior high school EFL
learners’ reading fluency and motivation. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 21, 71-80.
Nakanishi, T., & Ueda, A. (2011). Extensive reading and the effect of shadowing. Reading in a Foreign Language,23, 1-16.
Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

−77−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(13:05-13:35)503 ᐊ᪥ᮏே㧗ᰯ⏕࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⤖᮰ᛶ⌮ゎࡢ㉁ⓗศᯒ⸨⏣ ㈼㸦୕㔜┴❧⚄ᡞ㧗➼Ꮫᰯ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ⤖᮰ᛶ⌮ゎ㸪Ⓨヰࢹ࣮ࢱ㸪㉁ⓗศᯒ㸪᝟ሗ฼⏝⠊ᅖ㸪ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮
1. ⫼ᬒ࡜┠ⓗᩥ❶⌮ゎࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡣ㸪ㄒᙡࢆ㡢ኌ໬ࡋㄒᙡࢆㄆ▱ࡍࡿࡇ࡜㸪ㄒᙡࡸ⤫ㄒ࣭ᩥἲ▱㆑ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᩥࣞ࣋
࡛ࣝࡢព࿡ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜㸪ᩥ㛫ࡢࡘ࡞ࡀࡾ㸦⤖᮰ᛶ㸧ࢆᢕᥱࡋᩥ❶ࡢ୍㈏ᛶࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡓୖ࡛⾲ࡉࢀࡓ≧ἣࢆࡇࡇࢁ࡟ᥥࡃࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪⤖᮰ᛶ⌮ゎࡢ⬟ຊࡣ㸪ᴫᛕࡢゎ㔘ࡸᵓᡂࢆ㐺ษ࡟⾜࠺๰㐀ⓗ㸦⌮ㄽⓗ࣭ศᯒⓗ࣭ከゅⓗ㸧ᛮ⪃ (㟷ᮌ, 2014)࡜ࡋ࡚Ꮫ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿࡛ゝཬࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ
⬟ຊࠖࡢ୍㒊ࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿࡶࡢࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
⸨⏣࣭⏥⏣࣭ᒣୗ (2014) ࡛ࡣ㸪ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡜ㄞࡳᡭࡢ┦஫స⏝࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚, L2 ࡛ࡢ⤖᮰ᛶࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿ⬟ຊࢆࢥ࣏࣮ࣥࢿࣥࢺࢫ࢟ࣝ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪L2 ⤖᮰ᛶ⌮ゎࡢ⬟ຊࡣ㸪L2 ゝㄒ▱㆑㸦ㄒᙡ࣭ᩥἲຊ㸧ࡢ኱ࡁ࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟㸪L1 ㄞゎຊࡢᙳ㡪ࡶྠ᫬࡟ཷࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋ
⸨⏣ (2014)࡛ࡣ㸪ཧຍ⪅ࢆୖ఩⩌࡜ୗ఩⩌࡟ศࡅ㸪⤖᮰ᛶ⌮ゎࢸࢫࢺ࡟ゎ⟅ࡋࡓ┤ᚋࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢⓎヰࣉࣟࢺࢥࣝࢆ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜศ㢮ࡋ㸪㔞ⓗ࡟ศᯒࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ሗ࿌ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪ୖ఩⩌࡛ࡣ㸪ࡼࡾᗈ⠊ᅖࡢ᝟ሗࢆ฼⏝ࡋ㸪ࡲ࡜ࡲࡗࡓෆᐜ⌮ゎ࡟ᡂຌࡍࡿ⋡ࡀ㧗࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪ୗ఩⩌࡛ࡣ㸪⊃࠸⠊ᅖࡢ㒊ศⓗ࡞ෆᐜ⌮ゎࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ⋡ࡀ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪⸨⏣ (2014) ࡢⓎヰࢹ࣮ࢱࢆࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉࡋ㸪ࡉࡽ࡟ヲ⣽࡟グ㏙ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ୖ఩⩌㸪ୗ఩⩌࡛㸪ࢸࢫࢺ㐙⾜᫬㛫㸦ゎ⟅࠾ࡼࡧⓎヰࡢ⥲᫬㛫㸪ゎ⟅ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢⓎヰࡢ㏿ᗘ㸧ࢆẚ㍑ࡋ㸪ᚓࡽࢀࡓࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ㉁ⓗ࡟ศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪⤖᮰ᛶ⌮ゎࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ2. ᪉ἲ
2.1 ཧຍ⪅㧗ᰯ 3 ᖺ⏕ 12 ྡࠋ⤖᮰ᛶ⌮ゎࢸࢫࢺ࡜➹グ෌⏕ࢸࢫࢺࡢྜィ 13 Ⅼ‶Ⅼࡢ 9 Ⅼࢆᇶ‽Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ୖ఩⩌(6 ྡ)࡜ୗ఩⩌(6 ྡ)࡟ศ๭ࡋࡓࠋ
2.2 ⤖᮰ᛶ⌮ゎࢸࢫࢺ⸨⏣࣭⏥⏣࣭ᒣୗ (2014) ࡛సᡂࡋࡓ⤖᮰ᛶ⌮ゎࢸࢫࢺࡢ࠺ࡕ 196 ㄒ࠿ࡽᡂࡿ≀ㄒᩥࢆࢸ࢟ࢫࢺᩥ࡟
ࡋࡓࡶࡢࠋᣦ♧௦ྡモ㸪ㄒᙡ௦⏝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⤖ࡤࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢᣦ᦬㸪᥋⥆モࡢ✵ᡤ⿵඘࡞࡝ࡢၥ㢟࡟ከ⫥㑅ᢥ᪉ᘧ࡛⟅࠼ࡉࡏࡿᙧᘧ࡟ࡼࡿࠋ
2.3 ᡭ㡰
ཧຍ⪅ࡣ⤖᮰ᛶ⌮ゎࢸࢫࢺࡢၥ㢟ࢆ 1 ၥゎࡃࡈ࡜࡟㸪ࡑࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿࡇ࡜(retrospective
verbalization) ࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋⓎヰࡣ IC ࣞࢥ࣮ࢲ࣮࡛㘓㡢ࡋ᭩ࡁ㉳ࡇࡋࡓࠋ
2.4 ศᯒ᪉ἲ
a)ࢸࢫࢺ㐙⾜᫬㛫ࡢẚ㍑b)᝟ሗ฼⏝⠊ᅖ㸦ᚋ᪉ᗈᇦ࣭ᚋ᪉㞄᥋࣭ᩥෆ࣭๓᪉㞄᥋࣭๓᪉ᗈᇦ࣭ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺእࡢ 6 㡿ᇦ㸧c)ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮౑⏝㸦༢ㄒព࿡ᢕᥱ㸪ྃᩥࡢព࿡ࢆ᥎ 㸪ྃᩥࡢព࿡ࢆศᯒࡋᢕᥱ㸪ᾘཤἲ࡞࡝㸪ࣔࢽ

−78−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ࢱ࣮ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡢ 5 ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮㸧ࠋ௨ୖࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㉁ⓗ࡟ศᯒࡋグ㏙ࡍࡿࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝ࡜⪃ᐹ⣬㠃ࡢไ⣙࡟ࡼࡾྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓ3 ၥ6 ྡࡢศᯒࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ1 ၥࡢࡳࡢศᯒ౛ࢆ௨ୗ࡟グ㍕ࡍࡿࠋ㡯┠(3)ࡣ㸪
If we knocked lightly on the outside, muttering sounds would follow, as if the bats were angry. ࡢୗ⥺㒊ࡢ
muttering sounds㸦ㄒᙡ௦⏝㸧ࡀᣦ♧ࡍࡿෆᐜࢆၥ࠺ၥ㢟ࠋ౛㸯㸸ୖ఩⩌ Sࠊ㘓㡢ࡢ⥲᫬㛫ࡣ 48 ศ 50 ⛊(3)ࡢ muttering sounds㸦࣑࣮ࣗࢱࣜࣥࢢ࣭ࢧ࢘ࣥࢬ࡜Ⓨ㡢㸧ࡢྵࡲࢀࡿᩥࢆ If ࠿ࡽヂࡍ࡜ࠕ⚾ࡓࡕ
ࡀእ࡛㍍ࡃࣀࢵࢡࡍࡿ࡜ࠖ
㸪muttering sounds ࡀ would follow ࡛ࠕࡘ࠸࡚ࡃࡿࠖ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡢᚋ㸪asif the bats were angry ࡜࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠕࡑࡢࡇ࠺ࡶࡾࡀᛣࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠖ࡜࡞ࡿࠋas if ࡣ౛♧ࡢศ࡞ࡢ࡛ muttering sounds ࡢ౛♧ࠋ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠕࡇ࠺ࡶࡾࡓࡕࡢ୙᫂░࡞ᑠࡉ࡞ኌࠖࢆゎ⟅ࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋ
౛㸰㸸ୗ఩⩌ Yࠊ㘓㡢ࡢ⥲᫬㛫ࡣ 37 ศ 40 ⛊ṇ┤ゝࡗ࡚඲ࡃࢃ࠿ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠋ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝┤ឤ࡟㏆࠸࡛ࡍࠋࠕ⚾ࡓࡕࡀእࡢᡞࢆࡓࡓࡃ࡜ࠖ͐ࠋ୍ᛂ㸪⟅࠼ࡣࠕ⚾ࡓࡕࡀᡞࢆࣀࢵࢡࡋࡓᑠࡉ࡞㡢ࠖࡔ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋࢫࢺ࣮ࣞࢺ࡟ヂࡏࡤࠕᡞࢆࣀࢵࢡࡋ
ࡓ㡢ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛⟅࠼ࡲࡋࡓࡀ㸪⮬ಙࡣ࡞࠸࡛ࡍࠋ 㘓㡢ࡢ⥲᫬㛫ࡣ㸪ୖ఩⩌ S ࡢሙྜࡣ 48 ศ 50 ⛊࡜࠸࠺㛗࠸᫬㛫ࡀ࠿࠿ࡗࡓࡀ㸪↓ゝࡢ᫬㛫ࡣ▷ࡃ㸪࠿࡞ࡾヲ⣽࡟ゎ⟅࡬ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆㄒࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡓࡵ㸪Ⓨヰࢹ࣮ࢱࡀ㸪ᅇ㢳ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾྠ᫬㐍⾜ⓗ࡞ᛮ⪃Ⓨヰ࡟㏆࠸ࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋmuttering ࡢⓎ㡢ࡣ㛫㐪ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡀ㸪ᚋ᪉㞄᥋ࡢ⠇ࡢព࿡ᢕᥱ㸪ᩥෆ㸪๓᪉㞄᥋ࡢ⠇ࡢព࿡ᢕᥱࢆṇ☜࡟⾜࠸ṇゎ࡟⮳ࡗࡓࠋୗ఩⩌ Y ࡛ࡣ⥲㘓㡢᫬㛫ࡀ 37 ศ 40 ⛊࡜ࡸࡣࡾ㛗ࡃ㸪↓ゝࡢ᫬㛫ࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ࠕࢃ࠿ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠖ
ࠕ⮬ಙࡣ࡞࠸࡛ࡍࠖ࡜࠸࠺⮬ᕫ⌮ゎࡢࣔࢽࢱࣜࣥࢢࢆ஧ᗘ
Ⓨゝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᚋ᪉㞄᥋ࡢ⠇ࡢព࿡ᢕᥱࡣ஧ᗘ⾜ࡗ࡚࡝࠺࡟࠿⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࡀ㸪ᩥෆࡸ๓᪉㞄᥋ࡣ඲ࡃཧ↷ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃㄗ⟅࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
ୖ఩⩌ 3 ྡࡢⓎヰグ㏙࠿ࡽඹ㏻࡟ᢕᥱ࡛ࡁࡿ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ྃᩥ㸦⠇ࢆྵࡴ㸧༢఩࡛ࡢព࿡ᢕᥱࡀṇ☜࡟㧗㏿࡟࡛ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜㸪ᚋ᪉㞄᥋᝟ሗࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎ㸪ᚲせ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣᚋ᪉ᗈᇦࡢᩥ⬦ࡢせ⣙ࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡸ㸪๓᪉㞄᥋᝟ሗ࡜ࡢ⤫ྜࢆヨࡳࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ゎ⟅ࢆྫྷ࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪ୗ఩⩌ 3 ྡࡣ㸪L2 ゝㄒ▱㆑㸦༢ㄒ࣭ᩥἲຊ㸧ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ྃᩥࡢព࿡ᢕᥱࢆࡍࡿࡢ࡟ⱞປࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ሙྜ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣ࡝࠺࡟࠿ᡂຌࡍࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࡀ㸪୙᏶඲࡛୙ṇ☜࡞ព࿡ᢕᥱ࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓ
ࡇ࡜ࡀ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ᝟ሗࡢ฼⏝⠊ᅖࡣ㸪ᚋ᪉㞄᥋࡟㝈ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪๓᪉㞄᥋࡬ࡢཧ↷ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ᩥෆࡢព࿡ᢕᥱࡍࡽᅔ㞴࡞ሙྜࡶぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟㸪ࠕ඲ࡃࢃ࠿ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠖ
ࠕ⮬ಙࡣ࡞࠸࡛ࡍࠖ
࡜࠸࠺⮬ᕫࣔࢽࢱࣜࣥࢢࢆⓎヰࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ㄞࡳࡢ㞴ࡋࡉࢆㄒࡗࡓࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩㟷ᮌ᫛භ (2014). ࠕTeach, Learn, Use ࡢ⤖ࡧࡘࡁ̿ Can use ࢆᨭ࠼ࡿ᭱ࡶ㔜せ࡞⬟ຊࡣఱ࠿̿ࠖᗈᓥ኱Ꮫ
ⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍ࠗⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ◊✲࠘➨ 5 ྕ, 1-20.
⸨⏣㈼࣭⏥⏣៞Ꮚ࣭ᒣୗ῟Ꮚ (2014). ࠕ㧗ᰯ⏕ࡢⱥᩥㄞゎ࡟࠾ࡅࡿព࿡ⓗ⤖᮰ᛶ⌮ゎࠊㄒᙡ࣭ᩥἲຊࠊ᪥
ᮏㄒㄞゎຊࡢ㛵ಀ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲ࠖྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᅜ㝿㛤Ⓨ◊✲⛉ࠗᅜ㝿㛤Ⓨ◊✲ࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛ࠘44,
54-67.
⸨⏣㈼ (2014). ࠕ㧗ᰯ⏕ࡢⱥᩥㄞゎ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⤖᮰ᛶ⌮ゎࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲ࠖࠗ඲ᅜⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍ᚨᓥ◊✲኱఍Ⓨ⾲ண✏㞟࠘424-425.

−79−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(13:40-14:10)503 ᐊ⮬↛㡢ኌ࡜ᅽ⦰㡢ኌ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ L2 ῶ⣙ࡢ▱ぬ୰⏣ ࡦ࡜ࡳ㸦⋊༠኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 L2 ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ㸪ῶ⣙㸪⮬↛㡢ኌ㸪ᅽ⦰㡢ኌ㸪Ⓨヰ㏿ᗘ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ⱥㄒࡢⓎ㡢ཬࡧࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢᣦᑟ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ᫖௒ࠕ⏕ࡁࡓⱥㄒࢆ⫈ࡃࠖࡇ࡜ࡀዡບࡉࢀࠊᩍ⫱⌧ሙ࡛ࡶࡇࢀ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ᵝࠎ࡞࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࢆ㏻ࡌࡓ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ⏕ᩍᮦ㸦BBC ࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ➼㸧ࢆ⣲ᮦ࡜ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡀᑟධࡉࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᡭຍῶࡢ࡞࠸ⱥㄒ࡟ࡣᵝࠎ࡞ῶ⣙㸦⬺ⴠࠊ㐃⤖ࠊྠ໬⌧㇟࡞࡝㸧ࢆྵࡴࡢࡀ⌧ᐇ࡛ (Gilbert,2014)ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ⫈ゎຊࢆࡣࡤࡴཎᅉ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡣᩥᏐㄆ㆑࠿ࡽධࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦᝟ࡶ࠶
ࡾࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ࡝࠺ࡋ࡚ࡶ༢ㄒ㛫ࡢࢫ࣮࣌ࢫ㸦⫈ゎ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣏࣮ࢬ㸧ࡸࢫ࣌ࣝ㏻ࡾࡢⓎ㡢ࢆᮇᚅࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ
࠺࡜࠸࠺ഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᯝࡓࡋ࡚୰ୖ⣭ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ༢ㄒࢆಶู࡟ㄆ㆑ࡋࠕῶ⣙ࡢ࡞࠸㸦୙⮬↛࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀ㸧ࢡࣜ࢔࡞㡢ኌࠖࢆ⫈ࡁࡸࡍ࠸࡜ཷࡅྲྀࡿࡢ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆ᳨ドࡋࡓࠋ
2. ᡭ㡰
2.1 ཧຍ⪅ᇸ⋢┴ࡢ Listening & Pronunciation ࢡࣛࢫࢆ㑅ᢥᒚಟࡍࡿእᅜㄒᏛ㒊 2 ᖺ⏕ࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ 25 ே㸦ⱥㄒᑓᨷ㸸23 ே㸧ࡀᐇ㦂࡟ཧຍࡋࡓࠋⱥㄒࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࡣ୰ୖ⣭㸦TOEIC scores: 550 ~ 875; ᖹᆒ Ҹ 706㸧ࠊⱥㄒᅪ࡬ࡢ
ᒃఫ⤒㦂ࡣྜィ 3 ே㸦15~18 ṓࡢ 3 ᖺ 3 ࣨ᭶; 15~16 ṓࡢ 11 ࣨ᭶; 17~18 ṓࡢ 10 ࣨ᭶㸧࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
2.2 ᡭ㡰
ᐇ㦂⣲ᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊNetAcademy2ࠕࢫ࣮ࣃ࣮ࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻ㸸ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢥ࣮ࢫࠖࡢࢫࣆ࣮ࢳ⣲ᮦࢆ 2 ✀㢮㸦Unit 39: ࢔ࣇࣜ࢝ࡢ࣌ࣥࢠࣥ; Unit 5: ࢟ࣥࢢ∾ᖌࡢ㏣᝚ᘧࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࢪࣕࣥࣝࡣࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ㸧1ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀᶵᲔⓗ࡟ヰ㏿ࢆᅽ⦰ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࠊ࡯ࡰྠࡌ㏿ᗘ࡛ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣈࢫࣆ࣮࣮࢝ࡀヰࡋࡓ⮬↛ゝㄒࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋ┠ᶆࡢῶ⣙⟠ᡤࢆ✵ḍ࡜ࡋࠊཧຍ⪅ࡣࢹ࢕ࢡࢸ࣮ࢩ࡛ࣙࣥ༢ㄒࢆグධࡍࡿࠋᅽ⦰㡢ኌ࡜⮬↛㡢ኌࡢヰ㏿ࡢ㐪࠸ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀ 10%๓ᚋ࡛ࢩࣛࣈࣝࡢᙉᢿ㢖ᗘࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀࡓ (Patel, 2008; Dauer, 1983)ࠋ
2.3 ᢳฟࡋࡓ㡢ኌ⣲ᮦ㡢ኌⓗῶ⣙ࡢ୰࡛ 3 ࡘࡢせ⣲㸦ྠ໬ࠓAssimilation: Aࠔ13; 㐃⤖ࠓLinking: Lࠔ4; ⬺ⴠ࡞࡝ 2 ࡘ௨ୖࡢῶ⣙ࢆྵࡴࣇ࣮ࣞࢬࠓMix: Mࠔ4㸧ࢆࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ࡜ࡋ㸦⾲㸯㸧ࠊ୧ࣘࢽࢵࢺྜࢃࡏ࡚ 11 ࡢᩥ❶࠿ࡽ
21 ⟠ᡤࢆᢳฟࡋࡓࠋᑦࠊῶ⣙ࡢศ㢮᪉ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ Roach (1991) ࢆཧ⪃࡜ࡋࡓࠋ⾲㸯┠ᶆ࡜ࡋࡓῶ⣙⟠ᡤ
A1calledPeter⬺ⴠ(L)
L1
ῶ⣙⟠ᡤ Peterisྠ໬(A)

ῶ⣙⟠ᡤ

A2
back
home

A3
get
there

L2
thousands
of

A4
had
to
L3
cleaned
up

A5
find
their

A6
filledwaters
L4
ceremonies
in

A7
heard
his

A8
of
former࣑ࢵࢡࢫ(M)
ῶ⣙⟠ᡤ

−80−

A9
A10
moverights
ment tofor
M1
M2
from anone of a
oil

A11
A12
A13
used non- protest
thisviolent
to
year
M3
M4
for an end
would havebeenእᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

3. ⤖ᯝ
 ௨ୗ㸦⾲㸰㸧
ࠊ⮬↛㡢ኌ㸦Natural Speech : N㸧࡜ᅽ⦰㡢ኌ (Mechanical Speech: M) ࡜ࡢᕪ␗ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ(N) – (M) ࡣ⮬↛㡢ኌ࡛ᚓࡽࢀࡓṇ⟅ᩘ࠿ࡽᅽ⦰㡢ኌ࡛ᚓࡽࢀࡓṇ⟅ᩘࢆᘬ࠸ࡓᩘ್࡜ࡋࠊ(N) > (M) ࡣ⮬↛㡢ኌ࡛ᚓࡽࢀࡓṇ⟅ᩘࡢ᪉ࡀ㧗࠸ᩘ್ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡶࡢࢆࠕ㸨࡛ࠖ⾲ࡍࠋ⾲㸰㸬⮬↛㡢ኌ࡜ᅽ⦰㡢ኌ࡛ᚓࡽࢀࡓṇ⟅ᩘࡢᕪ␗
ྠ໬(A)
(N) – (M)

A1
-3

A2
-4

A3
-1

A4
-11

(N) > (M)⬺ⴠ(L)
(N) – (M)L1
-12(N) > (M)

L2
-10

L3
2
㸨

A5
-3

A6
1
㸨
L4
-2

A7
-5

A8
0

࣑ࢵࢡࢫ(M)(N) – (M)(N) > (M)

A9
3
㸨
M1
-6

A10
-4
M2
-4

A11
2
㸨
M3
4.5
㸨

A12
-5

A13
2
㸨
M4
0

඲ 21 ⟠ᡤ25 ேࡢཧຍ⪅ࡢࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫࢆศᯒࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ࡝ࡢ✀㢮࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠕῶ⣙ࡢ࡞࠸ᶵᲔⓗ࡟㏿ᗘࢆୖࡆࡓ㡢ኌࠖࡢ᪉࡟ṇゎ⋡ࡀ㧗ࡃ(F [0, 46] = -2.47, p = .0016 < .05)ࠊ(N) > (M) ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡢ
ࡣ 21 ⟠ᡤ୰ࠊ6 ⟠ᡤࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣈࢫࣆ࣮࣮࢝ࡀᣢࡘࠕῶ⣙㒊ศࢆ⿵ൾࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸
࠺㡢㡩▱㆑ࢆ㠀ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣈࢫࣆ࣮࣮࢝ࡣᣢࡕྜࢃࡏ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ࡍࡿ Shockey & Bond (2007) ࡢ▱ぢࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢᩍ⫱࡬ࡢ᪂ࡓ࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࢆಁࡍ⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
4. ⪃ᐹ ௨ୖࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠊ୰ୖ⣭ࡢᏛ⩦⪅࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶ⫈ゎࢆಶࠎࡢศ⠇㡢࡟㢗ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࡋ
࡚ࠊࡼࡾయ⣔ⓗ࡟ῶ⣙ࡢࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆᣦᑟࡍࡿᚲせᛶࡀᑟ࠿ࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡓࡔࡋಶࠎࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡃ࡜ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀࠊ㡢㡩▱㆑࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃᩥἲࡸㄒᙡ࡞࡝௚ࡢゝㄒ▱㆑ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ṇゎࡋࡓ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ⟠ᡤࡶ࠶ࡾࠊ௒ᚋࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࡢࢫ࢟ࣝྥୖ࡟ࡣࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓࠕⱥㄒࡢ⥲ྜຊࠖࢆ㧗ࡵࡿᚲせᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶྜ
ࢃࡏ࡚♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋ
ὀ
1ྠ኱Ꮫ࡛ࡣࠊNetAcademy2 ࡢᑟධࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠕࢫ࣮ࣃ࣮ࢫࢱࣥࢲ࣮ࢻࢥ࣮ࢫࠖ࡬ࡢ࢔ࢡࢭࢫࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Roach, P. (1991). English Phonetics and Phonology – A practical course. 2nd Edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Dauer, R. (1983). Stress timing and syllable timing reanalyzed. Journal of Phonetics, 11, 51–62.
Gilbert, J. B. (2014). Clear Speech: Pronunciation and Listening Comprehension in North American English –Teacher’s Resource and Assessment Book. 4th Edition. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
NetAcademy 2 Super Standard Course (website provided by ALC Education). Retrieved January 13, 2015, fromhttp://www.alc-education.co.jp/academic/net/course-e/super.html?aid=course
Patel, A. D. (2008). Music, Language, and the Brain. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
Shockey, L., Bond, Z. S. (2007). Slips of the ear demonstrate phonology in action. Proc. 16th ICPhS. Saarbrücken.
1385–1388.

−81−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(14:20-14:50)503 ᐊㄒᙡᏛ⩦᪉␎࡜ㄒᙡࡢ୺ほⓗᏛ⩦ᅔ㞴ᗘ㸸ࢥࣥࢪࣙ࢖ࣥࢺศᯒ࡜₯ᅾࢡࣛࢫࣔࢹࣝ࡟ࡼࡿࢭࢢ࣓ࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥⲡⷷ 㑥ᗈ㸦ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕㸭᪥ᮏᏛ⾡᣺⯆఍ ≉ู◊✲ဨ㸧ᕝཱྀ ຬస㸦ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ㄒᙡᏛ⩦᪉␎㸪୺ほⓗᏛ⩦ᅔ㞴ᗘ㸪ࢥࣥࢪࣙ࢖ࣥࢺศᯒ㸪₯ᅾࢡࣛࢫࣔࢹࣝ㸪኱Ꮫ⏕
1. ⫼ᬒᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀ౑⏝ࡍࡿㄒᙡᏛ⩦᪉␎㸦VLS㸧࡜㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅⮬㌟ࡀᮍ▱ㄒ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᢪࡃ୺ほⓗᏛ⩦ᅔ㞴ᗘࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୺ほⓗᏛ⩦ᅔ㞴ᗘࡣ㸪ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ㄒᙡ≉ᛶ㸦e.g.㸪㢖ᗘ㸪ㄒ㛗㸪ᚰീᛶ㸧ࡢᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅࡿࡓࡵ㸪ㄒᙡ㡯┠࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪ࡑࡢᅔ㞴ᗘ࡟ࡣ኱ࡁ࡞ࡤࡽࡘࡁࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜
⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ᅔ㞴ᗘࡀ㧗࠸ㄒᙡ㡯┠ࡣ㸪ࣜࢫࢺᏛ⩦࡞࡝࡟඾ᆺⓗ࡞ពᅗⓗㄒᙡᏛ⩦ࡢሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪Ꮫ⩦ࡢᑐ㇟࠿ࡽእࡉࢀࡓࡾ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࡢ୰࡛ᚋᅇࡋ࡟࡞ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸࡜ぢ㎸ࡲࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪Atkinson ࡢ㐩ᡂືᶵ࡙ࡅ⌮ㄽ㸦Atkinson, 1964㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸪୺ほⓗᏛ⩦ᅔ㞴ᗘ㸦࡞࠸ࡋ୺ほⓗᡂຌ☜⋡㸧ࡣ㸪ᡂຌࡢㄏᘬ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟
ㄢ㢟࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㐩ᡂືᶵࢆつᐃࡍࡿ㔜せ࡞せ⣲࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉࡛㸪≉ᐃࡢ VLS ࡀࡶࡓࡽࡋ࠺ࡿᏛ⩦ࡢຠ⋡ᛶࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦ᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿㄒᙡ㡯┠㛫࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪ࡅࡗࡋ࡚ྠ୍࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪࠶ࡿᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ㑅ዲࡍࡿ VLS ࡜㸪࠶ࡿㄒᙡ㡯┠ࡢ୺ほⓗᏛ⩦ᅔ㞴ᗘ㸪ࡑࡋ࡚Ꮫ⩦ࡍࡿㄒᙡ㡯┠ࡢ㑅ᢥ࡜࠸࠺୕⪅ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣ㸪」㞧࡞㐃㛵㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ぢ㎸ࡲࢀࡿࠋ
2. ㄪᰝ
2.1 ࢹ࣮ࢱ཰㞟ࡑࡇ࡛㸪ࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪ᮏ◊✲ࡣ㸪᪥ᮏ࡛ⱥㄒࢆᏛࡪ኱Ꮫ⏕࠾ࡼࡧ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕㸦N = 198㸧ࡢ༠ຊࢆᚓ࡚㸪௨ୗࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ཰㞟ࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ࢹ࣮ࢱࡢḞᦆ࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ศᯒ࡟ࡶࡕ࠸
ࡽࢀࡓࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ 189 ேࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
㸦a㸧 VLS ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㉁ၥ⣬㸸ᇼ㔝࣭ᕷᕝ㸦1997㸧࡟ࡼࡿㄒᙡᏛ⩦᪉␎㡯┠㸦k = 17㸧ࢆࡶࡕ࠸ࡓࠋࡇ
ࢀࡽࡢ㡯┠ࡣ୕ᅉᏊᵓ㐀ࢆࡶࡘ㸸཯᚟᪉␎㸪࢖࣓࣮ࢪ᪉␎㸪యไ໬᪉␎ࠋᅇ⟅ࡣ 7 ௳ἲ࡛ᚓࡽࢀ㸪ศᯒୖ㸪㛫㝸ᑻᗘ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅࢃࢀࡓࠋ
㸦b㸧 ㄒᙡ㡯┠୺ほⓗᏛ⩦ᅔ㞴ᗘࡢホᐃ್㸸4 ࡘࡢ≉ᛶ㸦㡢⠇ᩘ㸪ᙧែ㡢㡩ⓗ」㞧ᛶ㸪ព࿡ⓗ」㞧ᛶ㸪ከ⩏ᛶ㸧࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚㸪2 Ỉ‽⣔ 4 せᅉࢆ 2 ཯᚟ࡍࡿ┤஺⾲ᐇ㦂ィ⏬㸦e.g., ⲡⷷ, 2014㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪
16 ಶࡢᨃఝㄒࢆ㑅ᐃࡋࡓࠋㄪᰝ༠ຊ⪅ࡣࣜࢫࢺᙧᘧ࡛ⱥㄒ㸦ᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿᨃఝㄒ㸧࠾ࡼࡧࡑࡢヂㄒ㸦స౛㸧ࢆ୚࠼ࡽࢀ㸪୺ほⓗᏛ⩦ᅔ㞴ᗘࡢホᐃࢆࡘࡅࡓࠋ
2.2 ࢹ࣮ࢱศᯒ
ࡲࡎ㸪VLS ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ᅉᏊᢳฟἲࢆ᭱ᑬἲ㸪ᅇ㌿ἲࢆࣉ࣐ࣟࢵࢡࢫᅇ㌿㸪ᅉᏊᩘࢆඛ⾜◊✲࡟ೌ࠸
3 ࡜ᅛᐃࡋ࡚㸪᥈⣴ⓗᅉᏊศᯒࢆ࠾ࡇ࡞ࡗࡓࠋඛ⾜◊✲ࡢᅉᏊᵓ㐀࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿᅉᏊ࡟ᙉ࠸ᅉᏊ㈇Ⲵ㔞ࢆࡶࡘ 1 㡯┠ࢆศᯒ࠿ࡽ㝖እࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ㸪ᮏ◊✲ࡢᅇ⟅ࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ㸪ඛ⾜◊✲࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୕ᅉᏊᵓ㐀ࢆ෌⌧ࡋ㸪ࡑࢀࡽࡢᅉᏊࡣチᐜྍ⬟࡞ಙ㢗ᛶಀᩘࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓ㸪᳨ドⓗᅉᏊศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪ᮃࡲࡋ࠸࡜ࡣ࠸࠼࡞࠸

−82−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ࡶࡢࡢ㸪チᐜྍ⬟࡞㐺ྜᗘࢆ♧ࡋࡓ㸦RMSEA = .06, CFI = .92, TLI = .91, SRMR = .06㸧ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪ᅉᏊᵓ㐀ࡢ෌⌧ᛶࡀ☜ಖࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪ᮏ◊✲࡛ᚓࡽࢀࡓᅉᏊᵓ㐀ࢆࡶ࡜࡟㸪ಶࠎேࡢᑻᗘᚓⅬࢆ⟬ฟࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟㸪୺ほⓗᏛ⩦ᅔ㞴ᗘࡢホᐃ್ࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࢥࣥࢪࣙ࢖ࣥࢺศᯒࢆࡶࡕ࠸ࡓࠋࢥࣥࢪࣙ࢖ࣥࢺ
ศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪4 せᅉࡢຠᯝࡣ㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡍ࡭࡚⤫ィⓗ࡟᭷ព࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢᚋ㸪༠ຊ⪅ࡑࢀࡒࢀ㸪ྛせᅉࡢ㒊ศຠ⏝್㸦partial utility㸧ࢆࡶ࡜ࡵࡓࠋ
ḟ࡟㸪VLS ࡢྛᅉᏊ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᑻᗘᚓⅬࢆኚᩘ࡜ࡋࡓΰྜศᕸࣔࢹࣜࣥࢢ㸦mixture distribution modeling㸧ࢆࡶࡕ࠸࡚㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࢭࢢ࣓ࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ࠾ࡇ࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢᚋ㸪୺ほⓗᏛ⩦ᅔ㞴ᗘ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㒊ศຠ⏝್ࢆኚᩘ࡜ࡋࡓΰྜศᕸࣔࢹࣜࣥࢢࢆ㸪๓⪅࡜ࡣ⊂❧ࡋࡓ≧ែ࡛࠾ࡇ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ஧㍈ࡢࢭࢢ࣓ࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙ
ࣥࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀྫྷ࿡ࡋࡓࡢࡕ㸪ࢡࣟࢫ㞟ィࡋ㸪ࡑࢀࡽࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࢆ᳨ウࡋࡓࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝࡲࡎࡣ㸪VLS ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࢭࢢ࣓ࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ㸦ᅗ 1㸧㸪௨ୗࡢ 3 ࡘࡢࢡࣛࢫࡀ᥎ᐃࡉࢀࡓ㸸㸦a㸧཯᚟᪉␎㸦REP㸧ࢆዲࡴࢡࣛࢫ㸪㸦b㸧඲యⓗ࡟᪉␎ࢆࡼࡃ౑⏝ࡍࡿࢡࣛࢫ㸪㸦c㸧඲యⓗ࡟᪉␎ࢆ࠶
ࡲࡾ౑⏝ࡋ࡞࠸ࢡࣛࢫ㸪㸦d㸧యไ໬᪉␎㸦ORG㸧࡜࢖࣓࣮ࢪ໬᪉␎㸦IMF㸧ࢆዲࡴࢡࣛࢫࠋḟ࡟㸪୺ほⓗᏛ⩦ᅔ㞴ᗘ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㒊ศຠ⏝್࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࢭࢢ࣓ࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ㸪௨ୗࡢ 2 ࡘࡢࢡࣛࢫࡀ᥎
ᐃࡉࢀࡓ㸸㸦a㸧඲యⓗ࡟ྛせᅉࡢ㒊ศຠ⏝್ࡀᑠࡉ࠸ࢡࣛࢫ㸪㸦b㸧㡢⠇ᩘ㸦NS㸧
㸪ᙧែ㡢㡩ⓗ」㞧ᛶ㸦MC㸧
ࡢຠ⏝ࡀ኱ࡁࡃ㸪ព࿡ⓗ」㞧ᛶ㸦SC㸧࠾ࡼࡧከ⩏ᛶ㸦NT㸧ࡢຠ⏝ࡀᑠࡉ࠸ࢡࣛࢫࠋࡇࢀࡽ஧㍈࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࢭࢢ࣓ࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⤖ᯝࢆࢡࣟࢫ㞟ィࡋ㸪ࣇ࢕ࢵࢩ࣮ࣕࡢṇ☜☜⋡᳨ᐃࢆ࠾ࡇ࡞ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ㸪ࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࡣ᭷ព࡛࠶ࡗࡓ㸦p = .02㸧ࠋࡇࢀࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀ౑⏝ࡍࡿ VLS ࡜ㄒᙡࡢ୺ほⓗᏛ⩦ᅔ㞴ᗘࡢ㛵ಀᛶࢆ♧ࡍドᣐࡢࡦ࡜ࡘࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

ORG

IMG

REP

1.0
0.0
-0.5
-1.0

REP

ORG

ORG

IMG

REP

3

4

1

2

2

0.0

0.5

Subjective_Difficulty

1

-0.5

REP

Cross Table

1.0

SD Class 2 (48%)

IMG

-1.0

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

IMG

VLS Class 4 (17%)

0.5

1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
ORG

SD Class 1 (52%)

VLS Class 3 (37%)

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

VLS Class 2 (32%)

-1.0

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

VLS Class 1 (14%)

NS

MC

SC

NT

NS

MC

SC

NT

VLS

ᅗ 1. ྛࢡࣛࢫࡢ≉ᛶ࡜ࢡࣟࢫ㞟ィࡢ⤖ᯝཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
ᇼ㔝⥳࣭ᕷᕝఙ୍ (1997). ࠕ㧗ᰯ⏕ࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡟࠾ࡅࡿᏛ⩦ືᶵ࡜Ꮫ⩦᪉␎ࠖࠗᩍ⫱ᚰ⌮Ꮫ◊✲࠘45,
140–147.
ⲡⷷ㑥ᗈ (2014). ࠕእᅜㄒᩍ⫱◊✲࡜┤஺⾲ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᐇ㦂ィ⏬̿ᐇ㦂ィ⏬ࡢຠ⋡໬ࢆồࡵ࡚̿ࠖࠗእᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍㸦LET㸧㛵すᨭ㒊࣓ࢯࢻࣟࢪ࣮◊✲㒊఍ሗ࿌ㄽ㞟࠘ 4, 24–33.

−83−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(14:55-15:25)503 ᐊ࢔࢝ࢹ࣑ࢵࢡࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢᩥἲⓗ≉ᚩࡢศᯒዟᒣ ៞ὒ㸦Ⲉᇛᕤᴗ㧗➼ᑓ㛛Ꮫᰯ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࢔࢝ࢹ࣑ࢵࢡࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ㸪ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸪ཷືែ㸪ᶵᲔᕤᏛ㸪ESP㸪EAP
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ࢔࢝ࢹ࣑ࢵࢡࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥἲⓗ࡞≉ᚩ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ࠾ࡶ࡟ཷືែ࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋྲྀࡾᢅ࠺ศ㔝ࡣࠊ୺࡟ᶵᲔᕤᏛ⣔ศ㔝ࡢᏛ⾡ㄽᩥࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࠊ㔞ⓗศᯒࢆ⾜࠺࡜࡜ࡶ࡟㉁ⓗศᯒࡶ⾜࠺ࠋ࢔࢝ࢹ࣑ࢵࢡࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢᣦᑟࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࡣᩥ⣔ࡢⱥㄒᩍဨࡀᩥ⣔࣭⌮⣔ࢆၥࢃࡎᣦᑟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀᐇែ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㔜せ࡞ၥ㢟Ⅼࡢ 1 ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᣦᑟࡍࡿⱥㄒᩍᖌࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ᑓ
㛛ศ㔝ࡢ▱㆑ࢆᣢࡕྜࢃࡏ࡚࠸࡞࠸୰࡛ᣦᑟࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ⌮⣔࡜୍ᣓࡾ࡟ゝࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ་Ꮫࠊ┳ㆤᏛࠊ⸆Ꮫࠊ⌮Ꮫ࡞࡝ᖜᗈ࠸ࠋ་Ꮫ࣭┳ㆤ⣔ࡢㄽᩥసᡂࡢᣦ༡᭩ࡣ᭩ᗑ࡛ࡶⰋࡃぢ࠿ࡅࡿࡀࠊᕤᏛ⣔ࡢࡶࡢࡣ࠶ࡲࡾከࡃࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟◊✲ෆᐜࡀ␗࡞ࡿศ㔝ࡢᣦ༡᭩ࢆࡑࡢࡲ
ࡲཧ⪃࡟࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠿ࡣ␲ၥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᕤᏛ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࡶࠊᶵᲔ࣭㟁Ẽ࣭᝟ሗ࣭ไᚚ࣭໬Ꮫ࡞࡝⣽ศ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢศ㔝࡛ࡢⱥㄒ⾲⌧ࡀ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘඹ㏻ᛶࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿
ࡣ࠶ࡲࡾ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࡇࡢၥ㢟ࢆゎỴࡍ࡭ࡃࠊࢥ࣮ࣃࢫศᯒࡢᡭἲࢆ⏝࠸࡚≉ᐃࡢᏛ⾡ศ㔝࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩥἲⓗ≉ᚩࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃࠼ࡓࠋ
2. ⱥㄒᏛ⾡ㄽᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿཷືែ
2.1 ࢔࢝ࢹ࣑ࢵࢡࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟࠾ࡅࡿཷືែ ᵽཱྀ(1996)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊືస୺ࡢ࡞࠸ཷືែࡣ⛉Ꮫᢏ⾡ㄽᩥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᐈほᛶࢆᣢࡓࡏࡿࡢ࡟㐺ษ࡞⾲⌧᪉ἲࡢ୍ࡘ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ㐣ᗘ࡞౑⏝ࡣᩥࡢ⌮ゎࢆ㞴ࡋࡃࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊᩥ⬦ࡀチࡍ㝈ࡾ⬟ືែࡢ࡯࠺ࡀᮃࡲ
ࡋ࠸࡜ሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ୪ᮌ(2008)࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡶㄽᩥ࡛ཷືែࢆࡼࡃ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ
ࡲࡓཷືែ࡜⬟ືែࡢ౑࠸ศࡅࢆ⤫୍ⓗ࡟ศ࠿ࡾࡸࡍࡃㄽࡌ࡚࠸ࡿཧ⪃᭩ࡀ࠶ࡲࡾ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ
᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
2.2 by ྃ௜ࡁཷືែ
 Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvik (1985) ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊཷືែࡢ by ྃࡣ㑅ᢥⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠾ࡼࡑ㸳ศࡢ㸲
ࡀ by ྃࡢ࡞࠸ⱥᩥ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢ┬␎ࡣືస୺ࢆ≉࡟᫂♧ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜ࠿୙᫂࡞ሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬
ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྠᵝ࡟ࠊBerk (1999)࡛ࡣࠊ᭩ࡁゝⴥࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡜ᨺ㏦࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࡢゝㄒࡢ 80㹼85㸣ࡣືస୺ࡀ
᫂♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ཷືែ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢᣦ᦬ࡣእᒣ(1975)ࡢ by ྃࢆక࠺ཷືែࡣ඲యࡢ
13.2%࡜࠸࠺ሗ࿌࡜ࡶ࡯ࡰྜ⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊእᒣ(1975)ࡣ allow ࡸ give ࡞࡝㸵ࡘࡢືモࡣࡍ࡭࡚ࡢฟ
⌧౛࡛ືస୺ࡀ࡞ࡃࠊfollow ࡸ replace ࡞࡝㸴ࡘࡢືモࡣ㏫࡟ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢฟ⌧౛࡛ືస୺ࢆకࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜
ࡶሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
2.3 ᕤᏛ⣔ⱥㄒᏛ⾡ㄽᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ by ྃ௜ࡁཷືែ ዟᒣ(2014)࡛ࡣࠊᶵᲔᕤᏛ⣔࡛ከࡃᘬ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿⱥㄒᏛ⾡ㄽᩥ google scholar metrics ࢆᇶ࡟ᢳฟࡋศ
ᯒ⏝ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆసᡂࡋ࡚ཷືែ࠾ࡼࡧ by ྃࡢ≉ᚩࢆศᯒࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊཷືែ࡜ࡋ࡚ฟ⌧ࡋࡸࡍ࠸ື
モ࡟ࡣ giveࠊdefineࠊuseࠊshow ࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡆࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊᚋ⪅㸰ㄒࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ by ྃࢆకࢃ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ๓⪅㸰ㄒࡣ give ࡛⣙ 60% ࠊdefine ࡛⣙ 35%ࡀ by ྃࢆకࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ≉࡟ give ࡣ by ྃࡢືస୺࡜ࡋ࡚ᩘᘧࢆక

−84−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸࡜ሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬࡣእᒣ(1975)ࡢሗ࿌࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡗࡓ≉ᚩࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡼࡾヲ⣽࡟ศᯒࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᢳฟࡢ᮲௳࡛ⱥ⡿ࡢᡤᒓᶵ㛵࡜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾⱥㄒ࡜⡿ㄒࡢᕪ␗࡟ࡼࡿᙳ㡪ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡜࠸࠺ㄢ㢟ࡶ࠶ࡾࠊࢹ࣮ࢱࡢࡼࡾཝᐦ࡞ᢳฟࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ3. ᡭ㡰
ᮏ◊✲ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᶵᲔᕤᏛ⣔ࡢ 4 ㄅ 21 ᮏࡢㄽᩥࢆࡶ࡜࡟ศᯒ⏝ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆసᡂࡋࡓࠋㄽᩥࡣ Google
Scholar Metrics ࡢᶵᲔᕤᏛศ㔝࡛ࣛࣥ࢟ࣥࢢୖ఩ࡢࡶࡢ࠿ࡽᢳฟࡋࡓࡀࠊ2.3 ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᣦ᦬ࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡚ⴭ⪅ࡢᡤᒓᶵ㛵ࡀ⡿ᅜᡤᅾࡢࡶࡢ࡜ࡋࠊࡑࡢ୰࡛ⴭ⪅ࡢẶྡ࠿ࡽ࡯ࡰⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ุ᩿࡛ࡁࡿࡶ
ࡢ࡜࠸࠺ 3 ࡘࡢ᮲௳࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ᢳฟࡋࡓࠋᘏ࡭ㄒᩘ࠾ࡼࡧ␗࡞ࡾㄒᩘࡣ Antconc ver.3.2.1w ࡛⟬ฟࡋࠊᘏ࡭ㄒᩘ 125,819 ㄒࠊ␗࡞ࡾㄒᩘ 7,899 ㄒ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
4. ⤖ᯝ⾲ྛㄽᩥㄅࡢ㔞ⓗ≉ᚩࡢẚ㍑
CS

IJES

JMPS

W

Tokens23,59640,274

41,71920,230

Types

2,653

4,272

3,734

2,868

type/token ratio

0.112

0.106

0.090

0.142

Readability

8.6

9.2

9.1

10.3

Note. CS㸻Composite Structures; IJES㸻International Journal of Engineering Science; JMPS㸻Journal of the
Mechanics and Physics of Solids; W㸻Wear.
⾲ࡣࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟฼⏝ࡋࡓྛㄽᩥㄅࡢ㔞ⓗ࡞≉ᚩࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊreadability ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊⱥ
ᩥㄒᙡ㞴᫆ᗘゎᯒࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ(http://someya-net.com/wlc/index_J.html)ࢆ⏝࠸࡚⟬ฟࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⾲࠿
ࡽࠊWear ࡣ௚ࡢ㸱ㄅ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ࠊᵝࠎ࡞ㄒᙡࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊⱥᩥࡢ㞴᫆ᗘࡶࡸࡸ㧗ࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
ศ࠿ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࠊࢪࣕࣥࣝ㸦Introduction, Method ࡞࡝㸧ࡈ࡜ࡢ by ྃ௜ࡁཷືែࡢฟ⌧㢖ᗘࡸඹ㉳ࡋࡸࡍ࠸ືモࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ドࡋලయ౛ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ࡞ࡀࡽᩥἲⓗ࡞≉ᚩࢆศᯒࡋ࡚ሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Berk, L. M. (1999). English Syntax: From Word to Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ᵽཱྀ ᬗᙪ (1996). ⛉Ꮫᢏ⾡ⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿཷືែࡢ⪃ᐹ : ጇᙜ࡞ぢゎ࡜ࡣఱ࠿?ࠖࠗᕤᏛᩍ⫱࠘ 44(6),16-20.
୪ᮌ ࿘ (2008). ࠕⱥㄒㄽᩥᨷ␎࡬ࡢ㐨ؐᅜ㝿Ꮫ఍࡛຾࡚ࡿⱥᩥࢆ᭩ࡃ࡟ࡣؐࠖ
ࠗ㟁Ꮚ᝟ሗ㏻ಙᏛ఍㏻ಙ
ࢯࢧ࢖࢚ࢸ࢕࣐࢞ࢪࣥ࠘4(4), 44-52.
ዟᒣ៞ὒ (2014). ࠕᕤᏛ⣔ⱥㄒᏛ⾡ㄽᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿཷືែࡢ౑⏝ࡢศᯒࠖࠗእᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍㸦LET㸧
➨ 54 ᅇ㸦2014 ᖺᗘ㸧඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍Ⓨ⾲せ㡯 148-149 .
እᒣᩄ㞝 (1975). ࠕ⌧௦ⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿཷືែ: ୍ࡘࡢ⤫ィⓗศᯒࠖࠗᩥ໬࡜ゝㄒ: ᮐᖠ኱ᏛእᅜㄒᏛ㒊⣖せ࠘9(1), 95-107.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.
Harlow: Longman.

−85−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(15:30-16:00)503 ᐊ኱つᶍබ㛤࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥㅮᗙ㸸ᏐᖥࡢᏛ⩦฼⏝Ᏻす ᘺ⏕㸦஑ᕞ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 MOOCs㸪Ꮠᖥ㸪ⱥㄒᏛ⩦㸪Ꮫ⩦ᨭ᥼㸪࣮࢜ࣉ࣭࢚ࣥࢹࣗࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
MOOC ࡣࠊ኱つᶍබ㛤࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥㅮᗙ(Massive Open Online Courses)ࡢ␎ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋMOOC ࢆ฼⏝ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ↓ᩱ୍࡛ὶ኱Ꮫࡢㅮ⩏ࢆཷࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊᚲせ࡞せ௳ࢆ‶ࡓࡍ࡜ಟ஢ドࡶྲྀᚓ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ICT ࢆά⏝ࡋࡓ⏬ᮇⓗ࡞㐲㝸ᩍ⫱ࡢᙧែ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᩍ⫱࡟኱ࡁ࡞࢖ࣥࣃࢡࢺࢆ୚࠼ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ(Kim,
2015; Haber, 2014; Nanfito, 2013; 㔜⏣, 2014 )ࠋࡑࡢ୍᪉࡛ࠊࢻࣟࢵࣉ࢔࢘ࢺࡢ㧗ࡉࠊホ౯᪉ἲࠊࣅࢪࢿࢫ
ࣔࢹࣝࡢᶍ⣴➼ࡢၥ㢟ࡶᢪ࠼࡚࠾ࡾࠊゎỴ᪉ἲࡀᶍ⣴ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᩍ⫱ࡢᶵ఍ࢆᣑ኱ࡍࡿ
MOOC ࡣࠊ୺࡟ⱥㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊୡ⏺ࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࡋࡓࠕࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ MOOCࠖ࡜ࠊ୺࡟࣮ࣟ࢝ࣝ࡞
ゝㄒࢆ౑࠸ࠊᆅᇦ♫఍ࡢ≉ᛶࢆ཯ᫎࡉࡏࡓࠕ࣮ࣟ࢝ࣝ MOOCࠖ࡟኱ูࡉࢀࡿࠋ
஑ᕞ኱Ꮫᩍᮦ㛤Ⓨࢭࣥࢱ࣮࡛ࡣࠊ2014 ᖺ 4 ᭶࡟ MOOC 㛤Ⓨࢆࢫࢱ࣮ࢺࡋࠊ࣮ࣟ࢝ࣝ MOOC ࡢࣉࣛࢵࢺࣇ࢛࣮࣒࡛࠶ࡿ JMOOC ࠿ࡽࡢ㛤ㅮࢆ┠ᣦࡋࡓࠋ㛤ㅮ⛉┠ࡣࠊ⁁ཱྀᏕྖᩍᤵ࡜ Claire Smith ඛ⏕࡟ࡼࡿࠕࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ♫఍⪃ྂᏛ࡛ࠖࠊ㛤ㅮᮇ㛫ࡣ 2014 ᖺ 2014 ᖺ 9 ᭶ 25 ᪥࠿ࡽ 10 ᭶ 23 ᪥ࡢ 3 㐌㛫࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡇࡢ MOOC ࡢ≉ᚩࡣࠊㅮ⩏ࡢゝㄒࡀⱥㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ
ᩍ⫋ဨࡀᩍᮦ㛤Ⓨࢭࣥࢱ࣮ࡢᡤ᭷ࡍࡿࢫࢱࢪ࡛࢜ࠊ
MOOC ไసࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ⱥㄒࡢࢲࣈࣝᏐᖥࢆ⿦ഛࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡆࡽࢀࠊJMOOC ࡢ࣮ࣟ࢝ࣝ
ᛶࢆ⪃៖ࡋࡘࡘࡶࠊୡ⏺ᇶ‽ࡢᩍ⫱ࢥࣥࢸࣥࢶ㛤Ⓨࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡓࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࠕࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ♫఍⪃ྂᏛࠖࡢᏐᖥ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢹ࣮ࢱࢆศᯒࡋࠊMOOC ࡛ࡢᏐᖥ฼⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ
2. ᡭ㡰
2.1 ཧຍ⪅
MOOCࠕࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ♫఍⪃ྂᏛࠖࡢཷㅮⓏ㘓⪅ࡣ ୡ⏺ 53 ࢝ᅜ࠿ࡽ 799 ྡ࡛ࠊ࠺ࡕ 461 ྡࡣ᪥ᮏே࡛
࠶ࡗࡓࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢᏐᖥ฼⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡢᅇ⟅⪅ࡣࠊ஦๓࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡀ 211 ྡࠊ஦ᚋ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮
ࢺࡀ 222 ྡ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
2.2 ᡭ㡰
ࡲࡎ㸪ᮏㅮᗙࡢཷㅮⓏ㘓⪅࡟஦๓࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊཷㅮ⪅ࡣ 3 㐌㛫ࡢㅮ⩏ࢆཷㅮࡋࡓࠋ
ྛ㐌࡟☜ㄆࡢࢸࢫࢺࢆ⾜࠸ࠊཷㅮᚋ࡟᭱⤊ヨ㦂ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ஦ᚋ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡣࠊMOOC ಟ஢ᚋ࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝ
3.1 MOOC Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢᏐᖥ฼⏝஦๓ࠊ஦ᚋ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡢศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ⱥㄒࡢࢲࣈࣝᏐᖥࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ㠀ᖖ࡟ᙺ❧ࡘ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ஦ᚋ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ࡛ࡣࠊ
ࠕᮏㅮᗙࡢᏐᖥࡣཷㅮࡢຓࡅ࡟࡞ࡾࡲࡋࡓ࠿ࠋ
ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ94.2%ࡀࠕࡣ࠸ࠖ࡜ᅇ⟅ࡋࠊࠕ࠸࠸࠼ࠖࡀ 4.91%࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊᏐᖥࡀ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡢᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊᏛ⩦ᨭ᥼࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋ⮬⏤グ㏙࠿ࡽࡣࠊᏐᖥࡀᏛ⩦ෆᐜࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿᡭຓࡅ࡜࡞ࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࠊⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢᶵ఍࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀグ㏙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋⱥㄒࡀእᅜㄒࡢ᪥ᮏேᏛ⩦⪅ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊእᅜே
Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡶࠊࢺࣛࣥࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࡀ᚟⩦࡟ᙺ❧ࡗࡓ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊⱥㄒࡀẕㄒࡢᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ
ᏐᖥࡀᏛ⩦ᨭ᥼ࡢᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ

−86−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

3.2 MOOC Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢᏐᖥ฼⏝ḟ࡟ࠊᮏㅮᗙࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࡢᏐᖥ฼⏝ࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡓࡢࡀࠊ⾲㸯࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⾲㸯ཷㅮ⪅ࡢᏐᖥ฼⏝ Ꮠᖥ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡢ✀㢮஦๓஦ᚋᏐᖥ౑⏝࡞ࡋ

6 (2.8%)12 (5.4%)

᪥ᮏㄒᏐᖥ

59 (28.0%)

86 (38.7%)

ⱥㄒᏐᖥ

96 (45.5%)

81 (36.5%)

୧᪉

50 (23.7%)

43 (19.4%)

ྜィ

211 (100%)

222 (100%)⾲㸯ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊཷㅮ๓࡟Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀ౑⏝ࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡓᏐᖥࡢゝㄒࡣࠊ➨୍఩ࡀⱥㄒ࡛ 45.5%ࠊ➨஧఩ࡀ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ 28.0%ࠊ➨୕఩ࡀ୧᪉ࡢᏐᖥ࡛ 23.7%࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ஦ᚋ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒ࡜
᪥ᮏㄒᏐᖥࡢ฼⏝⪅ᩘࡀ㏫㌿ࡋࠊ୍఩ࡀ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࠊ38.7%ࠊ஧఩ࡀⱥㄒ࡛ 36.5%ࠊ୕఩ࡀ୧᪉ࡢᏐᖥ 19.4%
࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ஦๓࣭஦ᚋࡢᏐᖥ฼⏝ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡢᅇ⟅࡛ࡣࠊ⤫ィⓗ࡟᭷ព࡞㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ(X2= 8.55,
p = < .05).
ࡇࢀࡣࠊࡇࡢㅮᗙࡢཷㅮ⏕ࡢ⣙༙ᩘࡀ᪥ᮏே࡛ࠊㅮ⩏ࡀⱥㄒ࡛⾜ࢃࢀࡓࡓࡵࠊཷㅮ๓ࡣⱥㄒᏐᖥࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡼ࠺࡜⪃࠼ࡓࡀࠊཷㅮ᫬ࡣ᪥ᮏㄒᏐᖥࡀ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡓࢣ࣮ࢫࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
3. ⤖ㄽ
MOOC ࡣࠊୡ⏺࡟Ꮫ⩦ࡢᶵ఍ࢆ㛤࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ୺せ࡞ᩍᤵゝㄒࡣࠊⱥㄒ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏேᏛ⩦⪅࡟ࡣࠊゝㄒࡢቨࡀ኱ࡁ࡞ไ⣙࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏேᏛ⩦⪅ࡀࠊMOOC ࡢࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ࡞࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥᏛ⩦⎔ቃ࡟ཧຍࡋࠊᵝࠎ࡞ᅜࡢᏛ⩦⪅࡜஺ࢃࡾࠊᅜ㝿ⓗ࡟ඃࢀࡓᩍ⫱ࢆཷࡅࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊẕㄒ࡟ࡼࡿᏛ⩦ࡢᨭ᥼ࡀᚲ
せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓⱥㄒࡢㅮ⩏࡟ⱥㄒࡢᏐᖥࢆࡘࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡶᏛ⩦ᨭ᥼࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋMOOCࡀࢢ࣮ࣟࣂ࡛ࣝ࠶ࡿ࠶ࡵ࡟ࠊᏐᖥࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࠕ㊊ሙ࠿ࡅࠖ࡜࡞ࡾࠊ኱ษ࡞Ꮫ⩦ᨭ᥼࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
ㅰ㎡
MOOC ไసࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ஑ᕞ኱Ꮫᩍᮦ㛤Ⓨࢭࣥࢱ࣮ࡢ๓⸨ᮧ┤⨾ࢭࣥࢱ࣮㛗ጞࡵᩍ⫋ဨࠊ⁁ཱྀᏕྖඛ⏕ࠊClaire Smith ඛ⏕ࠊJMOOC, (ᰴ)ࢿࢵࢺ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ࡟࠾♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Harber, J. (2014). MOOCs. Massachusetts: the MIT Press.
Kim, P. (2015). Massive Open Online Courses: the MOOC revolution. New York: Routhledge
Nanfito, M. (2013). MOOCs: Opportunities, Impacts, and Challenges: Massive Open Online Courses in Colleges andUniversities. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
㔜⏣ ຾௓(2014). ࣮࢜ࣉ࢚ࣥࢹࣗࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ ᮾி㸸ᮾி㟁ᶵ኱Ꮫฟ∧ᒁ

−87−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(12:30-13:00)601 ᐊᩍဨ◊ಟ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⓎ㡢ᣦᑟ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᩍဨࡢព㆑Ἑෆᒣ ┿⌮㸦㛵すᅜ㝿኱Ꮫ㸧᭷ᮏ ⣧㸦㛵すᅜ㝿኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 Ⓨ㡢ᣦᑟ㸪ᩍဨ㸪◊ಟ㸪ᩍ⫋ㄢ⛬㸪ᅜ㝿ⱥㄒ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ⱥㄒࡢⓎ㡢ᣦᑟࡢᐇ᝟࡜ᩍဨࡢព㆑࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚㸪ࡑࡢၥ㢟ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋⓎ㡢ᣦᑟ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪Ἑෆᒣ௚(2013)࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪ᩍ⫋ㄢ⛬࡛Ⓨ㡢ᣦᑟࢆᏛࢇ࡛࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ㸪Ⓨ㡢ᣦᑟ࡟⮬ಙࡀ࡞࠸ᩍဨࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡋ㸪Ⓨ㡢ᣦᑟࡀ༑ศ࡟࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ᩍဨࡢ⏕ᚐࡀⓎ㡢ࢆ༑ศ࡟Ꮫࡤ࡞࠸
࡛኱Ꮫ࡟ධࡾ㸪ࡲࡓⓎ㡢ࢆᏛࡤ࡞࠸ࡲࡲᩍဨ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᝏᚠ⎔ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ௒ᅇ㸪Ⓨ㡢ᣦᑟ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ࡢ◊ಟ఍ࡢཧຍ⪅࡟࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࢆ⾜࠸㸪Ⓨ㡢ᣦᑟࡸࡑࡢᏛ⩦࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⌧≧ࢆㄪᰝࡋࡓࠋ
2. ㄪᰝ
2014 ᖺ࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓி㒔࡜኱㜰࡛ࡢⓎ㡢ᣦᑟࡢ◊ಟ఍࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪ཧຍ⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡟࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࢆ⾜࠸㸪Ⓨ㡢Ꮫ⩦ࡸⓎ㡢ᣦᑟࡢᐇែ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᅇ⟅⪅ࡣ㸪⌧⫋ࡢᑠᏛᰯ࣭୰Ꮫᰯ࣭㧗➼Ꮫᰯ࣭኱Ꮫ
ᩍဨ㸪኱Ꮫ⏕㸪኱Ꮫ㝔⏕ࡲࡓࡣⱥㄒᣦᑟ⪅ 56 ྡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢෆヂࡣ㸪ᑠᏛᰯ 3 ྡ㸪୰Ꮫᰯ 3 ྡ㸪㧗➼Ꮫ
ᰯ 23 ྡ㸪኱Ꮫ 9 ྡ㸪Ꮫ㒊Ꮫ⏕࣭㝔⏕ 17 ྡ㸪ࡑࡢ௚ 1 ྡ࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪㝔⏕ࡢ୰࡟ࡣᩍဨ⤒㦂⪅ࡶ࠾ࡾ㸪ᩍဨ⤒㦂ࡢ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡣ 15 ྡ㸪௚ࡢ 41 ྡࡣ 1~40 ᖺࡢᩍṔࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡞࠾㸪ࡇࡢ◊ಟ఍ࡣ㸪⌧⫋ᩍဨࡀⓎ㡢ᣦᑟἲࢆಟᚓࡍࡿ┠ⓗ࡛⤌ࡲࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪㡢ኌࡢ▱㆑࠿ࡽᐇ㊶ⓗᣦᑟࡲ࡛ࢆྵࢇࡔࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ
࡛ᵓᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝ࡜⪃ᐹཧຍ⪅ࡢ࠺ࡕ㸪ఱࡽ࠿ࡢⓎ㡢ᣦᑟ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᏛ⩦Ṕࢆᣢࡘ⪅ࡣ㸪඲యࡢ 57%ࢆ༨ࡵ࡚࠸ࡓࡀ㸪ࡑࡢ 1/3ࡀ኱Ꮫࡢᩍ⫋ㄢ⛬࡟࠾ࡅࡿᤵᴗ࡛ࡢᏛ⩦࡛࠶ࡾ㸪⌧⫋࡟ᑐࡍࡿᩍဨ◊ಟ఍࡞࡝࡛ࡢᏛ⩦Ṕࡣᑡ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪኱Ꮫࢆ༞ᴗࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠼ࡤ㸪Ⓨ㡢ᣦᑟ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚Ꮫࡪᶵ఍ࡣᑡ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀᐜ᫆࡟᥎ᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓ㸪௒ᅇࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪Ⓨ㡢ᣦᑟࡢ◊ಟ࡟ཧຍࡍࡿពḧࡢ࠶ࡿᩍဨ࡛ࡶ㸪ࡑࡢ 4 ๭௨ୖࡀⓎ㡢ᣦᑟࢆᏛࢇ
ࡔ⤒㦂ࡀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ᐇ㝿ࡢᤵᴗ࡛࡝ࡢࡃࡽ࠸ࡢ㢖ᗘ࡛Ⓨ㡢ᣦᑟࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ᩍဨ⤒㦂ࡢ࠶ࡿ⪅ࡢࡳࡢᅇ⟅࡛㸪᫬ࠎ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀ 49%㸪ḟ࠸࡛㢖⦾࡟⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀ 17%㸪ẖᅇ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀ 12%࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
◊ಟ఍࡟ཧຍࡍࡿ࡯࡝Ⓨ㡢ᣦᑟ࡟✚ᴟⓗ࡞ព㆑ࡢ࠶ࡿᩍဨ࡛ࡶ㸪ࡑࡢ 10%ࡣᣦᑟࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ
ࡀุ᫂ࡋࡓࠋ⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪᫬㛫ⓗไ⣙➼ࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀ㸪ᣦᑟࢆᢸ࠺ᩍဨࡀᣦᑟ᪉ἲࢆᏛࢇ࡛࠸࡞ࡅ
ࢀࡤ㸪ᤵᴗ࡛ࡢᐇ㊶ࡣᐜ࡛᫆ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ ᤵᴗ࡛౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿゝㄒࡣ㸪୺࡟᪥ᮏㄒࡀ 29%㸪୺࡟ⱥㄒࡀ 1.8%㸪࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜᪥ᮏㄒ 32%㸪࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜ⱥㄒ 12.5%࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪᪥ᮏㄒ౑⏝ࡀከ࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ࠕ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜ࠖ࡜࠸
࠺೫ࡾࡣ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡢ᪥ᮏㄒ࣭ⱥㄒࡢ୧ゝㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⪅ࡀ༙ᩘ㏆ࡃࢆ༨ࡵ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ᩍဨࡀᤵᴗ࡛ᐇ
㝿࡟ⱥㄒࢆ౑ࡗ࡚⏕ᚐ࡟ࣔࢹࣝࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᵝᏊࡀఛ࠼ࡿࠋ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡢⓎ㡢ࡣ㸪ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦ࣭ࢫࣆ࣮࢝
࣮(NS)ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡜ぢ࡞ࡍཧຍ⪅ࡀ 1 ๭㸪௚ࡣ EIL ࠿᪥ᮏㄒࡢᙳ㡪ࡀᙉ࠸ⱥㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡓࠋཧຍ⪅ࡢ 77%ࡣ㸪┠ᶆ࡜ࡍࡿⓎ㡢ࢆ㸪ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࢫࣆ࣮࣮࢝(NS)୪ࡳ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ᅜ㝿ⱥㄒ(EIL)࡛ࡼ࠸࡜⪃࠼

−88−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍࡚࠾ࡾ㸪⮬ࡽࡢⓎ㡢ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡜┠ᶆࡀ㏆ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ᰂ㌾࡞ጼໃࡀఛ࠼ࡿࠋἙෆᒣ௚(2011)࡛ࡣ㸪୰Ꮫᰯⱥㄒᩍဨࡢ 61%ࡀⓎ㡢ᣦᑟ᫬࡟ NS㸪34%ࡀ EIL ᆺࡢⓎ㡢ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ࠸࡜ᅇ⟅ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ ࡇࡢ࡯࠿㸪ᅔࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࣭࠺ࡲࡃ࠸ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⮬⏤グ㏙࠿ࡽࡣ㸪⮬ศࡢⓎ㡢ࡸ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟⮬ಙࡀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ᩍဨ⮬㌟ࡢ▱㆑ࡸᢏ⬟࡟㛵ࡍࡿၥ㢟Ⅼࡸ㸪ᣦᑟࡢయ⣔ࡸ᫬㛫㓄ศ࡞࡝࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡇ࡜㸪⏕ᚐࡢືᶵ௜ࡅࡸὀពࡢ௙᪉㸪ᣦᑟࡢ᪉ἲ㸪ኌࢆฟࡋ࡚ࡃࢀ࡞࠸ሙྜࡢᑐ
ฎἲ࡞࡝ᣦᑟ⌧ሙ࡛ࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࡀᾋ࠿ࡧୖࡀࡗࡓࠋ
௒ᅇࡢㄪᰝ࡛ࡣ㸪⮬ࡽⓎ㡢ࡢ◊ಟ఍࡟ཧຍࡍࡿពḧࡢ࠶ࡿ⪅ࡀᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀ㸪ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓཧຍ⪅࡛ࡉ࠼ࡶ㸪Ⓨ㡢ᣦᑟ࡟ᚲせ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ▱㆑ࡸ᪉ἲࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸㸪⮬ಙࡀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡀ┠❧ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓㄪ
ᰝ࠿ࡽࡣ㸪Ⓨ㡢ᣦᑟࢆ㐺ษ࡟ᐇ᪋ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᚲせ࡞▱㆑ࡸࢫ࢟ࣝࢆ㸪ᩍ⫋ㄢ⛬࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ⌧⫋ᩍဨ◊ಟ➼࡛ᣦᑟἲࢆᏛࡪᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡀ㸪࠸ࡗࡓࢇᩍ⫋࡟ᑵࡅࡤࡑࡢᶵ఍ࡣᑡ࡞ࡃ㸪ࡲࡓ⥅⥆ⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦ࡢᚲせᛶࢆឤࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶఛ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ
ㄪᰝᑐ㇟ࡀ೫ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ୍⯡໬ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡀ㸪Ⓨ㡢ᣦᑟ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᚲせ࡞▱㆑ࡸᢏ⾡ࢆᏛࡪᶵ఍ࡸሙ
ࡀ༑ศ࡟ᥦ౪ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࡣྰᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋᩍ⫋ㄢ⛬࠾ࡼࡧ⌧⫋ᩍဨ࡬ࡢ◊ಟࣉࣟࢢ࣒࡛ࣛ
ࡇࡢ≧ἣࡀᨵၿࡉࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ㸪Ⓨ㡢ᣦᑟࡀ୙༑ศ࡞ࡲࡲࡢ⌧≧ࡀ⥆࠸࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀண ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ
࠺࡞⌧≧࠿ࡽ㸪ᮏ⛉◊࡛ࡣᩍ⫋ㄢ⛬࡟࠾ࡅࡿⓎ㡢ᣦᑟࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢆ㛤Ⓨࡋ㸪ేࡏ࡚⌧⫋ᩍဨྥࡅࡢⓎ㡢ᣦᑟ◊ಟࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡶసᡂࡋࡓࠋ
ㅰ㎡ ᮏ◊✲ࡣ㸪⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝ຓᡂ㔠㸦ᇶ┙ C ୍⯡㸸ㄢ㢟␒ྕ 23520729 2011-2014 ᖺᗘ㸧ࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅ࡚
⾜ࡗࡓࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Ἑෆᒣ┿⌮࣭ᒣᮏㄔᏊ࣭୰すࡢࡾࡇ࣭᭷ᮏ⣧࣭ᒣᮏ຾ᕭ (2011). ᑠ୰ᏛᰯᩍဨࡢⓎ㡢ᣦᑟ࡟ᑐࡍࡿព㆑
㸫࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ࡟ࡼࡿ⪃ᐹ㸫ࠗLET 㛵すᨭ㒊◊✲㞟㘓࠘13, 57-78
Ἑෆᒣ┿⌮࣭᭷ᮏ⣧࣭୰すࡢࡾࡇ (2013). ᩍ⫋ㄢ⛬࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒⓎ㡢ᣦᑟࡢ఩⨨௜ࡅ. Language Education& Technology, 50, 119-139

−89−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(13:05-13:35)601 ᐊᶵ⬟ࢩࣛࣂࢫ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
Ⓨヰ⮬ື᥇Ⅼࢩࢫࢸ࣒ᑟධྍ⬟ᛶࡢ᳨ウ㏆⸨ ᝆ௓㸦᪩✄⏣኱Ꮫ㸧▼஭ 㞝㝯㸦᪩✄⏣኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ᶵ⬟ࢩࣛࣂࢫ㸪ㄯヰ᏶ᡂࢱࢫࢡ㸪Ⓨヰ⮬ື᥇Ⅼ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᶵ⬟ࢩࣛࣂࢫ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ┠ᶆࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ሙ㠃࡛┠ᶆゝㄒࢆ౑࠼ࡿ
ࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢩࣛࣂࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ฿㐩ᗘࡢホ౯ࡣࠊㄯヰ᏶ᡂࢱࢫࢡ࡞࡝ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓ≧ἣ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ㐺ษ࡞⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆホ౯ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊጇᙜ࡞᪉ἲࡢ
ࡦ࡜ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ኱つᶍ࡞ⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡇࡢホ౯᪉ἲࡣࠊ᫬㛫ⓗไ⣙ࠊேⓗࢥࢫࢺ࠿ࡽᐇ⌧ྍ⬟ᛶࡀప࠸ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡀࠊⓎヰ⬟ຊࡢ㣴ᡂ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡓሙྜࠊㄯヰ᏶ᡂࢱࢫࢡࢆ⏝࠸ࡿホ౯ࡣ┦ᙜ࡞ᅔ㞴ࡀక࠺ࠋ୍᪉࡛ࠊⓎヰ⬟ຊࡢ㣴ᡂ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡓⱥ
ㄒᩍ⫱ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࢸࢫࢺ࡟Ⓨヰ⬟ຊࢆ┤᥋ⓗ࡟ホ౯࣭ ᐃࡍࡿ㡯┠ࡀྵࡲࢀ࡞ࡅ
ࢀࡤࠊࡑࡢࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࢸࢫࢺࡀⰋዲ࡞Ἴཬຠᯝࢆᣢࡘ࡜ࡣゝ࠸㞴࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ၥ㢟ࢆゎᾘࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊⓎヰ⮬ື᥇Ⅼࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢᑟධࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊୖ㏙ࡋࡓⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⓎヰ⮬ື᥇Ⅼࢩࢫࢸ࣒ᑟධࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2. ⫼ᬒᮏ◊✲ࡣᐇ㝿࡟㐠Ⴀࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊᶵ⬟ࢩࣛࣂࢫ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࣉࣟࢢ࣒࡛ࣛ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᩍ⛉᭩࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊᤵᴗ࡛ᢅࡗࡓㄒᙡࡸ⾲⌧࡞࡝ࡀࠊ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘᐃ╔ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆホ౯ࡍࡿࢸࢫࢺࡢ㛤Ⓨࢆヨࡳࡓࠋࡇࡢࢥ࣮ࢫࡢ┠ᶆࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅࡟᪥ᖖⓗ࡞఍ヰ࠿ࡽ㆟ㄽࡀ࡛ࡁࡿⱥㄒࡢⓎヰ⬟ຊࢆཷㅮ⪅ࡀ㌟࡟╔ࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࢥ࣮ࢫ࡛ࡣࠊྛㄢ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿሙ㠃࡜⾲⌧ࡀタᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊཷㅮ⪅ࡣㄒᙡࡸ⾲⌧ࢆᏛࢇࡔ࠶࡜ࠊ࣮࣭ࣟࣝࣉࣞ࢖ࡸ࣌࢔࣭࣮࣡ࢡ࡛ᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿ⾲⌧ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࠋ௨ୗ࡟ࡦ࡜ࡘࡢㄢ
࡛ᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿ⾲⌧ࡢ౛ࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡇࡢㄢࡣ Introduction ࡜㢟ࡉࢀࡓㄢ࡛ࠊฟ఍࠸ࠊูࢀࡢᣵᣜ⾲⌧ࢆᏛࡪㄢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
Greeting people you do not know
Hi. Nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you, too.

We haven’t met before. I’m Taro.
Ending conversations
It was nice talking to you.

Nice talking to you, too.

Well, I have to get going now.

See you later.
㸦୰㔝, 2013. p. 7㸧

ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢥ࣮ࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ཷㅮ⪅ࡢ฿㐩ᗘࡣࠊཷㅮ⪅ࡢᤵᴗෆ࡛ࡢάືࢆᢸᙜᩍဨಶேࡀಶู࡟ホ౯ࡍࡿࠋ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊࢥ࣮ࢫ⤊஢ᚋ࡟㠃᥋ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ㠃᥋ෆ࡛ࡢཷㅮ⪅ࡢⓎヰࢆホ౯ࡍࡿ࡞࡝ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ
࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢホ౯ࢆᩘ༓ேࡀཷㅮࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࢥ࣮ࢫ࡛⾜࠺ሙྜࠊ኱ࡁࡃศࡅ࡚ 2 ࡘࡢၥ㢟ࡀᏑ

−90−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ᅾࡍࡿࠋ᭱ึࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊ᫬㛫ⓗࠊேⓗࢥࢫࢺࡢၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋಶู࡟ཷㅮ⪅࡜㠃᥋ࢆ⾜࠺ሙྜࠊࡑࡢᐇ᪋
࡟࠿࠿ࡿேⓗࠊ᫬㛫ⓗࢥࢫࢺࡣ⭾኱࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊಙ㢗ᛶ࠾ࡼࡧጇᙜᛶࢆ☜ಖࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⾜࠺ホᐃ⪅ࡢカ⦎࡟ࡶከࡃࡢேⓗࠊ᫬㛫ⓗࢥࢫࢺࢆせࡍࡿࠋ2 ␒┠ࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊホ౯ࡢࡪࢀࠊಙ㢗ᛶࡢ㧗࠸ホ౯⪅ࡢ☜ಖࡢ㞴ࡋࡉ࡛࠶ࡿࠋカ⦎ࢆཷࡅࡓホᐃ⪅࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶホ౯࡟ࡪࢀࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊಙ㢗ᛶࡢ㧗࠸ホᐃ⪅ࢆ⥅⥆ⓗ࡟☜ಖࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢၥ㢟ࡢゎỴ᪉ἲࡢࡦ࡜ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚⮬ື᥇Ⅼࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢᑟධ
ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
3. 㛤Ⓨㄯヰ᏶ᡂࢱࢫࢡࢆ⏝࠸࡚཰㞟ࡋࡓ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢⓎヰࢹ࣮ࢱࢆࠊᙜヱࡢࢩࣛࣂࢫࡢ┠ᶆ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸
࡚ࠊ⾲⌧ࡢ㐺ษࡉࠊⓎ㡢࠾ࡼࡧ㡩ᚊ࡜࠸࠺ 2 ࡘࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽㄒᏛᩍဨࡀホ౯ࡋࡓࠋ㡢ኌㄆ㆑ᢏ⾡ࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡓⓎヰࡢ≉ᚩ㔞ࢆᢳฟࡋࠊホ౯࡜≉ᚩ㔞ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊⓎヰࡢ≉ᚩ㔞ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚ホ౯ࢆணࡍࡿࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆᵓ⠏ࡋࡓࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣ୍౛࡜ࡋ࡚௨ୗࡢࢱࢫࢡࡢⓎ㡢࠾ࡼࡧ㡩ᚊࡢホ౯࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⤖ᯝࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ௨ୗࡢࢱࢫࢡࡣୖ㏙ࡢ Introduction ࡢㄢู࡛ࢀࡢᣵᣜ⾲⌧ࡀせồࡉࢀࡿࢱࢫࢡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
You (A) want to end your conversation. What would you say?
A: (

).

B: See you.
Ⓨヰࡢ≉ᚩ㔞ࢆㄝ᫂ኚᩘࠊホ౯ࢆ┠ⓗኚᩘ࡜ࡋࠊࣟࢪࢫࢸ࢕ࢵࢡᅇᖐศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ㉥ụ᝟ሗ㔞つ‽࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊㄝ᫂ኚᩘࡢྲྀᤞ㑅ᢥࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ࠊ㡢㡪ࣔࢹࣝࢫࢥ࢔㸦㡢ኌㄆ㆑࡟⏝࠸ࡓ㡢ኌࡢࣔࢹࣝ࡜ᑐ㇟ࡢⓎヰࡢⓎ㡢ࡢ㏆ࡉ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᣦᶆ㸧
ࠊⓎヰෆࡢኌࡢ኱ࡁࡉࡢศᩓ࠾ࡼࡧᶆ‽೫ᕪࠊヰࡍ㏿ࡉ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᣦᶆ(words per minute)ࡢ 4 ࡘࡢㄝ᫂ኚᩘࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࣔࢹࣝࡀ᭱ࡶⰋ࠸ࣔࢹ࡛ࣝ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ᚓࡽࢀࡓᅇᖐᘧࢆ⏝࠸ࡓホ౯ࡢண ࡜ᐇ㝿ࡢホ౯ࡢȡಀᩘࡣ.63 ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢ್ࡣ༑ศ࡞୍⮴࡜୍⯡ⓗ࡟⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿
ࡽࠊᮏⓎ⾲࡛ᥦ᱌ࡍࡿⓎヰ⮬ື᥇Ⅼࡢ᪉ἲࡢ᭷⏝ᛶࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩୰㔝⨾▱Ꮚ (┘ಟ). (2013). ࠗReach out࠘ᮾி: ᪩✄⏣኱Ꮫ࢔࢝ࢹ࣑ࢵࢡࢯ࣮ࣜࣗࢩࣙࣥ.
Zechner, K., Higgins, D., Xi, X., & Williamson, D. M. (2009). Automatic scoring of non-native spontaneous speechin tests of spoken English. Speech Communication, 51, 883-895.

−91−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(13:40-14:10)601 ᐊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ᪉␎ࡣ
⌧ᐇࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀࡿ࠿ᕝཱྀ ຬస㸦ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ᪉␎㸪ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࣉࣟࢭࢫ㸪㉁ၥ⣬㸪WritingMaetriX㸪ከኚ㔞┦㛵ศᯒ
1. ◊✲⫼ᬒ➨஧ゝㄒ㸦L2㸧ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪ᮃࡲࡋ࠸࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀ㸪᭩ࡁጞࡵࡿ๓࡟ィ⏬ࢆ⾜࠸㸪୰┙࡟ᩥ❶໬ࢆ⾜࠸㸪⤊┙࡟᥎ᩙࢆ⾜࠺࡜࠸࠺㸪3 ࡘࡢୗ఩ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿࣛ
࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ L2 ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࣉࣟࢭࢫ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪ඃࢀࡓ᭩ࡁᡭ࡯࡝᭩
ࡁጞࡵࡿ๓࡟ィ⏬ࢆ⾜࠺ഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦e.g., Sasaki, 2002㸧ࠋࡇࢀࡣࠕໟᣓⓗィ⏬ࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀ㸪ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ᪉␎ࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Yamanishi㸦2009㸧ࡣ㸪ໟᣓⓗィ⏬㸪ᒁᡤⓗィ⏬㸪᥎ᩙ㸪ᅇ㑊࡜࠸࠺ 4 ࡘࡢୗ఩ᑻᗘࢆᣢࡘ㉁ၥ⣬ࢆ⏝࠸࡚㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ᪉␎ࡢ㔞ⓗ࡞᧯స໬ࢆ⾜࠸㸪⇍㐩ᗘ㛫ࡢ౑⏝᪉␎ࡢᕪ␗ࢆẚ㍑ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢ
⤖ᯝ㸪ẚ㍑ⓗ࡟㧗࠸⇍㐩ᗘࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࡣẚ㍑ⓗప⇍㐩ᗘࡢᏛ⩦⪅࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚㸪ໟᣓⓗ࡞ィ⏬ࢆࡼࡾከࡃ⏝࠸ࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡓࡔࡋࡇࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ᪉␎ࢆ㉁ၥ⣬ࡢᅇ⟅ࡢࡳ࡛᧯స໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ㸪ᐇ㝿࡟Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀ࡜ࡗࡓࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ᪉␎ࢆ㉁ၥ⣬ࡢᅇ⟅ࡀ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡣ᫂☜࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡑ
ࡇ࡛ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ቑຍㄒᩘࡢ᫬⣔ิ᥎⛣ࢆ࣏࢔ࢯࣥศᕸࣔࢹࣝ࠾ࡼࡧ⥺ᙧᅇᖐࣔࢹࣝ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡵ㸪ࡑࡇ࡛ᚓࡽࢀࡓ್ࢆࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢഴྥࡢᣦᶆ࡜ࡋ࡚᥇⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢ᧯
స໬ࢆ⾜࠺㸦e.g., ᕝཱྀ࣭ᐊ⏣࣭ᚋ⸨, 2014㸧ࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸪࣏࢔ࢯࣥศᕸ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡵࡓ㝿࡟ᚓࡽࢀࡿ Ȝ ࡢ್ࡀ኱ࡁ࠸࡯࡝㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀໟᣓⓗ࡞ィ⏬࡟᫬㛫ࢆከࡃ๭࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㸪ᑠࡉ࠸࡯࡝ໟᣓⓗ࡞ィ⏬࡟᫬㛫࡟๭ࡃ᫬㛫ࡀᑡ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡇ࠺ࡋ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡓᣦᶆ࡜㸪㉁ၥ⣬ㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡢ㐃㛵࡟㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡜ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ᪉␎࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㸪ᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ2. ᮏ◊✲
2.1 ཧຍ⪅ཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸪᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ࡟ᅾ⡠ࡋ࡚ⱥㄒࢆᏛ⩦ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ኱Ꮫ⏕࣭኱Ꮫ㝔⏕ 17 ྡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋཧຍ⪅ࡢᖹᆒ
TOEIC ࢫࢥ࢔ࡣ 790 Ⅼ㸦SD = 154.22㸧࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ẚ㍑ⓗ㧗⇍㐩ᗘࡢᏛ⩦⪅࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
2.2 ᡭ㡰
ཧຍ⪅ࡣ 30 ศࡢ࢚ࢵࢭ࢖ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢆࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࣉࣟࢭࢫグ㘓ࢯࣇࢺ࢙࢘࢔ WritingMaetriX㸦ⲡⷷ௚, 2015㸧࡛⾜ࡗࡓࠋࢺࣆࢵࢡࡣ㸪⛉Ꮫᢏ⾡࡜ᐙ᪘࡟㛵ࡍࡿෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ࢚ࢵࢭ࢖ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢᚋ㸪ཧຍ⪅ࡣࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ᪉␎࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㉁ၥ⣬㸦Yamanishi, 2009㸧ࡢ㡯┠㸦k = 33㸧࡟ᅇ⟅ࡋࡓࠋ
2.3. ศᯒ
཰㞟ࡋࡓࣉࣟࢭࢫࢹ࣮ࢱ࠿ࡽ⟬ฟࡉࢀࡓ㸪ㄒᩘ㸪࣏࢔ࢯࣥศᕸ࡬ࡢᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡾࡢⰋࡉࢆ♧ࡍ࢝࢖஧஌
್㸪ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢഴྥࢆ♧ࡍ Ȝ ್㸪⥺ᙧᅇᖐࣔࢹࣝ࡟ᙜ࡚ࡣࡵࡓ㝿࡟ᚓࡽࢀࡿഴࡁ࣭ษ∦㸪⥺ᙧᅇᖐࣔࢹࣝ࡬ࡢᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡾࢆ♧ࡍ R2 ್㸪᥎ᩙᅇᩘ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ㄒᩘࡀቑຍࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࢹ࣮ࢱ࣏࢖ࣥࢺ㸦ศ㸧ࡢᩘ㸪

−92−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍᪉␎࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㉁ၥ⣬ࡢୗ఩ᑻᗘࡈ࡜ࡢᖹᆒᅉᏊᚓⅬࢆኚᩘ࡜ࡍࡿ㸪ከኚ㔞┦㛵ศᯒ㸦ࢫࣆ࢔࣐ࣥࡢ㡰఩┦㛵ศᯒ㸧ࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝ࣭⪃ᐹከኚ㔞┦㛵ศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࢆᅗ 2 ࡟♧ࡍࠋࡇࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ㸪㔞ⓗ࡟ᣦᶆ໬ࡋࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࣉࣟࢭ
ࢭࢫࡢഴྥ࡜㸪㉁ၥ⣬ㄪᰝ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ᪉␎࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐃㛵ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ᪉␎ࡣࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟
཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋ

RR

0.51

LP

0.75
0.4

0.52

Lambda

-0.67
0.49

0.58

GP

-0.5

-0.77

Poisson.chisq

0.41
0.41

Intercept
0.44
-0.47

-0.83

-0.58

RevNum

-0.56

0.65

Slope

Words

0.97

-0.74

0.45

R^2

-0.62
-0.67

AV
ᅗ 1. ኚᩘ㛫ࡢ㛵ಀࢆ♧ࡍࢢࣛࣇ࢕࢝ࣝࣔࢹࣜࣥࢢࠋࣃࢫୖࡢ್ࡣ┦㛵ಀᩘࢆ♧ࡍࠋRevNum ࡣ᥎ᩙᅇᩘ㸪GP ࡣໟᣓⓗィ⏬㸪LP ࡣᒁᡤⓗィ⏬㸪RR ࡣ᥎ᩙ㸪AV ࡣᅇ㑊ࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀ♧ࡍࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ᕝཱྀຬస࣭ᐊ⏣኱௓࣭ᚋ⸨ளᕼ (2014). ࠕ࢚ࢵࢭ࢖ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟࠾ࡅࡿቑຍㄒᩘࡢ᫬⣔ิ᥎⛣ഴྥࡣ࢚ࢵࢭ࢖ホ౯ࢆண ࡍࡿ࠿̿⥺ᙧᅇᖐࣔࢹࣝ࠾ࡼࡧ࣏࢔ࢯࣥศᕸ࡬ࡢࣇ࢕ࢵࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢆ⏝࠸࡚̿ࠖࠗ➨ 40 ᅇ඲ᅜⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍ᚨᓥ◊✲኱఍Ⓨ⾲ண✏㞟࠘306–307.
ⲡⷷ㑥ᗈ࣭㜿㒊኱㍜࣭⚟⏣⣧ஓ࣭ᕝཱྀຬస (2015). ࠕᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆグ㘓࣭ྍど໬࣭ศᯒࡍࡿከᶵ⬟ᆺࢯࣇࢺ࢙࢘࢔ࡢ㛤Ⓨ㸸WritingMaetriXࠖࠗእᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍୰㒊ᨭ㒊◊✲⣖せ࠘26, 23–34.
Sasaki, M. (2002). Building an empirically-based model of EFL learners’ writing processes. In S. Ransdell & M-L.
Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 49–80). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic.
Yamanishi, H. (2009). Japanese EFL learners’ use of writing strategies: A questionnaire survey. The Bulletin of the
Writing Research Group, JACET Kansai Chapter, 8, 53–64.

−93−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(14:20-14:50)601 ᐊ

ࢫ࣐࣍㎡᭩࡜ࢱࣈࣞࢵࢺ㎡᭩ࡢ᳨⣴⾜ືẚ㍑㸸ணഛㄪᰝᑠᒣ ᩄᏊ㸦኱㜰኱㇂኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࢫ࣐࣍㎡᭩㸪ࢱࣈࣞࢵࢺ㎡᭩㸪᳨⣴⾜ື㸪෌ㄆ⋡㸪㎡᭩࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࣮ࢫ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ௒ࡸ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡀᡤ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢫ࣐࣮ࢺࣇ࢛ࣥ㸦௨ୗࠊࢫ࣐࣍㸧࡟㐺ษ࡞㎡᭩ࡀᦚ
㍕ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓሙྜࡢࠊⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࢶ࣮ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≉࡟௒ᅇࡣࠊ
ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ◊✲⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡓࠊ㸯㸧㟁Ꮚ㎡᭩࣮ࣘࢨ࣮ࡣࠊⱥㄒᏛ⩦᫬࡟ࡣ࣮࣮࢟࣎ࢻࢆዲࡴഴྥࡀ
࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡲࡓࠊ㸰㸧㏆ᖺࠊᑠᏛᰯ࠿ࡽ኱Ꮫ࡟⮳ࡿࡲ࡛ᖜᗈ࠸ᖺ㱋ᒙ࡛ࠊᏛ⩦ࢶ࣮ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࢱࣈࣞࢵࢺ
ࡀ฼⏝ࡉࢀࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊ≉࡟㎡᭩ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࣮ࢫࡀ࡯ࡰྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿሙྜࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ
࠺࡞㐪࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࢆㄪ࡭ࡿࡓࡵࠊࢫ࣐࣍㎡᭩࡜ࢱࣈࣞࢵࢺ㎡᭩࡜ࡢ᳨⣴⾜ືࡸᏛ⩦ຠᯝࢆẚ㍑ࡍࡿ
ࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
2. ◊✲2.1 ཧຍ⪅ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊேᩥ⣔Ꮫ㒊࡟ᡤᒓࡍࡿᏛ㒊⏕ 5 ྡ㸦඲ဨࡀ᫖ᖺᗘࡢ㟁Ꮚ㎡᭩࡜ࢫ࣐࣍㎡᭩ࡢẚ㍑ᐇ㦂࡟ཧຍࡋࡓᏛ⏕㸧ࢆᑐ㇟࡟ಶู࡟⾜ࢃࢀࡓࠋ஦๓࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࢡ࣮ࣟࢬࢸࢫࢺࡢ⤖ᯝ࡞࡝࠿ࡽࠊཧຍ⪅ࡽࡢⱥㄒ⩦⇍ᗘࡣึ୰⣭⛬ᗘ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡓࠋ
2.2 ౑⏝ᩍᮦ࡜㎡᭩ ᮏ◊✲࡟౑⏝ࡋࡓⱥㄒᩍᮦࡣࠊⱥ᳨ 2 ⣭ࡢ➹グၥ㢟㸦༢ᩥ࡟㐺ษ࡞ㄒࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿㄒᙡၥ㢟 10 ၥ࡜ 250
ㄒ⛬ᗘࡢㄞゎၥ㢟 5 ၥ㸧࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋཧຍ⪅ࡽࡣࠊྛ⮬ࡀᡤ᭷ࡍࡿࢫ࣐࣍㎡᭩㸦ࢪ࣮ࢽ࢔ࢫⱥ࿴㎡඾ ➨㸲∧ࡀ࢖ࣥࢫࢺ࣮ࣝ῭ࡳ㸧࡜ࠊྠࡌ㎡᭩࢔ࣉࣜࢆ࢖ࣥࢫࢺ࣮ࣝ῭ࡳࡢࢱࣈࣞࢵࢺ㸦iPad Air㸧ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓࠋ
2.3 ᡭ㡰
ᐇ㦂࡛ࡣࠊ㎡᭩࢔ࣉࣜࢆᦚ㍕ࡋࡓࢫ࣐࣍࡜ࢱࣈࣞࢵࢺࢆ⏝࠸࡚⾜ࢃࢀࠊ㸯㸧᳨⣴᫬㛫ࠊ㸰㸧᳨⣴ㄒᩘࠊ㸱㸧ⱥㄒၥ㢟࡬ࡢṇ⟅⋡ࠊ㸲㸧୍㐌㛫ᚋࡢ᳨⣴ㄒࡢ෌ㄆ⋡ࠊ㸳㸧Ꮫ⩦⪅࠿ࡽࡢࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡࠊ࡞࡝ࢆ
ẚ㍑᳨ウࡋࡓࠋ
ࡲࡎࠊཧຍ⪅඲ဨࡀࢱࣈࣞࢵࢺࢆᡤ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊ⦎⩦⏝ࡢⱥㄒၥ㢟ࢆ⏝ពࡋࠊࢱࣈࣞࢵࢺ
㎡᭩ࡢ౑࠸᪉࡟༑ศ࡟័ࢀࡓ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࠊྠࣞ࣋ࣝࡢⱥㄒࡢၥ㢟ࢆࠊࢫ࣐࣍㎡᭩࡜ࢱࣈࣞࢵࢺ㎡᭩࡛ࡑࢀࡒ
ࢀゎ⟅ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋ୍㐌㛫ᚋࠊண࿌࡞ࡋ࡛ᐇ㦂࡟౑⏝ࡋࡓ 2 ✀㢮ࡢⱥㄒၥ㢟ࢆᵓᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ༢ㄒࡢ෌
ㄆࢸࢫࢺࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢᚋ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ㎡᭩ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࣮ࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢពぢ࡞࡝ࡶヲࡋࡃ
ᑜࡡࡓࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝ
⾲ 1 ࡟ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᖹᆒ್ࢆグࡋࡓࠋ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࢫ࣐࣍㎡᭩ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓሙྜࠊㄞゎၥ㢟ࡢṇ⟅⋡ࡀⱝᖸప࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢෆᐜࡀ㛵ಀࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ୍ᅉ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࢫ࣐࣍㎡᭩ࠊࢱࣈࣞ

−94−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ࢵࢺ㎡᭩ࡢ࡝ࡕࡽࡢ㎡᭩ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊⱥㄒၥ㢟ゎ⟅ࡢࡓࡵࡢ᫬㛫ࡸ᳨⣴ㄒᩘࡣ࡯ࡰྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿
࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊ෌ㄆㄒᩘ㸦෌ㄆ⋡㸧࡟ᕪࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࡶ⯆࿡῝࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊඛ⾜▱ぢ࠿ࡽࠊ㟁Ꮚ㎡᭩࡟័ࢀぶࡋࢇࡔᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ࣮࣮࢟࣎ࢻࢆዲࡴࡇ࡜ࡀุ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᮏ
◊✲࡛౑⏝ࡋࡓ㎡᭩ࡣࠊᾮᬗ⏬㠃ࡢ኱ࡁࡉࡢࡳࡀ␗࡞ࡾࠊ㎡᭩ࢥࣥࢸࣥࢶࡣࡶ࡜ࡼࡾࠊ㎡᭩࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ
࢙࣮ࢫࡣࡲࡗࡓࡃྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ๓࡟ࡣࠊ⏬㠃ࡀ኱ࡁࡃぢࡸࡍ࠸ࢱࣈ
ࣞࢵࢺ㎡᭩ࡀᅽಽⓗ࡟ᨭᣢࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡓࡀࠊᖖ࡟㌟㏆࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡸ∦ᡭ࡛᧯స࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ
ࢫ࣐࣍㎡᭩ࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿኌࡶከ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ኱఍ᙜ᪥ࡣࠊᏛ⏕࠿ࡽࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗෆᐜࡢヲ⣽ࢆሗ࿌ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
≉࡟௒ᅇࡣࢹ࣮ࢱᩘࡀᴟࡵ࡚㝈ࡽࢀࡓ Pilot ᐇ㦂࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ௒ᚋࡣࢹ࣮ࢱᩘࢆቑࡸࡋಙ㢗ᛶࢆ㧗ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃணᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⾲ 1.
ᖹᆒ್ࡢẚ㍑ࢫ࣐࣍㎡᭩

ࢱࣈࣞࢵࢺ㎡᭩ゎ⟅㸦᳨⣴㸧᫬㛫㸦ศ㸧

48.80

46.40

ㄒᙡၥ㢟ṇ⟅ᩘ

8.20

8.20

ㄞゎၥ㢟ṇ⟅ᩘ

2.60

4.60

᳨⣴ㄒᩘ

33.80

30.80

෌ㄆㄒᩘ

17.00

11.40

෌ㄆ⋡㸦%㸧

42.37

28.55

ㅰ㎡
 ᮏ◊✲ࡢ୍㒊ࡣࠊᖹᡂ 27 ᖺᗘᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠㸦ᇶ┙◊✲ C㸪ㄢ㢟␒ྕ 15K02739 ◊✲௦⾲⪅㸸ᑠᒣᩄᏊ㸧ࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡓࠋᮏ◊✲ᐇ᪋࡟㝿ࡋ࡚ࠊ㐃ᦠ◊✲⪅ࡢᮃ᭶ṇ㐨Ặ㸦㯇⃝኱Ꮫ㸧࠿ࡽࡣ㈗㔜࡞ຓゝࢆ㡬࠸ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ
㸦ᰴ㸧኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ ⦅㞟஧㒊ࡢᮌᮧ୍ᙪẶ࡟ࡶᚚ♩ࢆ⏦ࡋ࠶ࡆࡓ࠸ࠋ

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ᑠᒣᩄᏊ㸦2014㸧㟁Ꮚ㎡᭩㸽ࢫ࣐࣍㎡᭩㸽㸸 ࡑࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆ᥈ࡿࠕእᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍㸦LET㸧➨
54 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ Ⓨ⾲せ㡯ࠖ92-93.
ᑠᒣᩄᏊ㸦2013㸧ࢫ࣐࣍∧㎡᭩ࡢྍ⬟ᛶ㸸 㟁Ꮚ㎡᭩࡜ࡢẚ㍑࡟࠾࠸࡚㸬ࠕእᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍㸦LET㸧
➨ 53 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ Ⓨ⾲せ㡯ࠖ168-169.
Koyama, T. & Takeuchi, O. (2003). Printed Dictionaries vs. Electronic Dictionaries: A Pilot Study on How Japanese
EFL Learners Differ in Using Dictionaries. Language Education & Technology 40, 61-79.
Koyama, T. & Takeuchi, O. (2004). Comparing electronic and printed dictionaries: How the difference affected EFL
learning. JACET Bulletin, 38, 33-46.
Koyama, T. & Takeuchi, O. (2007). Does look-up frequency lead to better comprehension of EFL learners?: Twoempirical studies on electronic dictionaries. Calico Journal. 25, 110-125.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, MCB University Press.

−95−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(14:55-15:25)601 ᐊඣ❺ࡀ౑⏝ࡍࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ᪉␎ࡢศᯒᕝ஭ ⌮⍰㸦ECC ࢪࣗࢽ࢔኱ᯞሯཎᩍᐊ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ᪉␎㸪ඣ❺㸪⦪᩿ⓗ◊✲㸪Observation scheme㸪BICS
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ᪉␎㸦௨ୗ CS㸧ࡣ Canale and Swain (1980) ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡢ⌮ㄽⓗࣇ࣮࣒࣮ࣞ࣡ࢡࡀᥦၐࡉࢀࡓ᫬Ⅼࡼࡾࠊⱥㄒ⬟ຊࡢ㔜せ࡞せᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚ከࡃࡢ◊✲ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ୰Ꮫ⏕௨ୗࡢᏛ⩦⪅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ CS ◊✲ࡢ㞟✚ࡣࡲࡔከࡃࡣ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊඣ❺ࡢ CS ౑⏝࡟㛵ࡍࡿほᐹㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊ(1)ඣ❺ࡀ౑⏝ࡍࡿ CS ౑⏝ࡢ≉ᚩࠊ(2)ඣ❺ࡀ౑⏝ࡍࡿ CS ࡜ⱥㄒ⬟ຊࡢ㛵ಀᛶࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࠶ࡿࠋ
2. ཧຍ⪅࡜ᡭ㡰 ᮏ◊✲ࡢཧຍ⪅ࡣⱥ఍ヰᩍᐊ࡟㏻࠺ᑠᏛ⏕ 7 ྡ㸦6 ṓ࠿ࡽ 12 ṓ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄪᰝ᪉ἲࡣࠊᩍᐊほᐹࠊ㉁ၥ⣬ㄪᰝࠊⱥㄒ⬟ຊホ౯ࡢ୕✀㢮ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓࠋᩍᐊほᐹ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊඣ❺ࡀ౑⏝ࡍࡿ CS ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍ
ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊSpada and Fröhlich (1995) ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㛤Ⓨࡉࢀࡓᤵᴗほᐹࣇ࣮࣒࣮ࣞ࣡ࢡ(COLT) ࡸ Dörnyei(1995)ࠊNakatani (2010) ࡢ CS ศ㢮⾲ࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࠊ20 㡯┠࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿ Observation scheme ࢆ㛤Ⓨࡋࡓࠋ2014 ᖺ
4 ᭶࠿ࡽ༙ᖺ㛫ࠊほᐹㄪᰝࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓཧຍ⪅ࡢಖㆤ⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᪩ᮇⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㉁ၥ⣬ㄪᰝ
㸦14 㡯┠㸧࡜ඣ❺ࡢⱥㄒ⬟ຊ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㉁ၥ⣬ㄪᰝ㸦26 㡯┠㸧ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ༙ᖺ㛫ࡢ⤒ᖺኚ໬࡟ࡼ
ࡾⱥㄒ⬟ຊࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ኚ໬ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊヰࡍ࣭⪺ࡃ࣭ㄞࡴ࣭᭩ࡃ࣭Ⓨ㡢࣭ⱥㄒ࡟ᑐࡍ
ࡿែᗘࡢ 6 ࡘࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽホ౯ࡍࡿ Evaluation sheet㸦18 㡯┠㸧ࢆ㛤Ⓨࡋࠊⱥㄒ⬟ຊホ౯ࢆ 3 ᅇᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ
⾲ 1㸬Observation scheme

CS Category

Communication Strategies

Non-Linguistic Signals

1 Facial expression, 2 Gesture, 3 Sound imitation, 4 Face down, 5 Pause, 6 Eye-contact

L1-based Abondonment 7 Asking, 8 Stalling or Time-gaining, 9 Answer and response
Interlanguage

10 Code-switching, 11 Foreignizing

Appeal for Help

12 Questions, 13 Asking for repetition, 14 Raising intonation

Maintenance Strategy

15 Active response, 16 Shadowing

Others17 Stalling or Time-gaining, 18 Approximation, 19 Word coinage, 20 Others

3. ⤖ᯝศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࠊඣ❺ࡣᵝࠎ࡞✀㢮ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ᪉␎ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋඣ❺ࡀ᭱ࡶࡼࡃ౑⏝ࡍࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ᪉␎ࡣ㠀ゝㄒⓗ࡞ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋࡓᅇ㑊ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࠊ఍ヰࢆ⥔ᣢࡍࡿࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋඣ❺ࡀ࠶ࡲࡾ౑⏝ࡋ࡞࠸ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ᪉␎ࡣࠊ୰㛫ゝㄒࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ
࣮ࠊⱥㄒ࡛ຓࡅࢆồࡵࡿࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮࡛࠶ࡗࡓ㸦ᅗ 1㸧ࠋࡲࡓពᅗⓗࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥࢢࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊㅮ
ᖌࡸ཭㐩ࡀ౑⏝ࡍࡿ CS ࢆ┿ఝࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ CS ࢆ⩦ᚓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿጼࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋඣ❺ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ
ࣙࣥ᪉␎ࡢ౑⏝ࡣࠊຓࡅࢆồࡵࡿᙺ๭ࠊ࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺࢆⓎ⏕ࡉࡏࡿᙺ๭ࠊࡼࡾヲࡋ࠸᝟ሗࢆ⪺ࡁฟࡍᙺ๭ࠊ
⯆࿡ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍᙺ๭ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

−96−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

ᅗ 1㸬ඣ❺ࡀ౑⏝ࡍࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ᪉␎
CS ౑⏝࡜ⱥㄒ⬟ຊ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡸࡸᙉ࠸㈇ࡢ┦㛵㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀุ᫂ࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣඣ❺ࡀ౑⏝ࡍࡿCS ࡣゝㄒ⬟ຊࡢ⿵ൾⓗ࡞ഃ㠃ࡀᙉࡃࠊᡂຌࡋࡓⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ⏝࠸ࡿ఍ヰ⥔ᣢࡢࡓࡵࡢ CS ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡗ࡚
࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
4. ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜♧၀ᮏ◊✲࠿ࡽࠊⱥㄒࢆᏛ⩦ࡍࡿඣ❺ࡶ CS ࢆከ⏝࡟ά⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢከࡃࡀ㠀ゝㄒⓗ࡞᪉␎ࡸᅇ㑊᪉␎࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ◊✲ࡢ♧၀࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊCS ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࡼࡾ㛗ࡃ఍ヰࢆ⥔ᣢࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡾࠊࡑࡢ఍ヰࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࢆಁ㐍ࡉࡏࡿᣦᑟࡀ᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡉࡽ࡟ᣑ඘ࡉ
ࢀࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ᑠᏛ⏕ᑐ㇟ࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ୰࡛ࠊCS ࡣ BICS (ᇶ♏ⓗࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊ) ࡢ᰾࡟࡞ࡿ࡜
⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching andtesting. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Dörnyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL quarterly, 29(1), 55-85.
Nakatani, Y. (2010). Identifying strategies that facilitate EFL learners’ oral communication: A classroom study using
multiple data collection procedures. The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 116-136.
Spada, N & Fröhlich, M. (1995). Communicative orientation of language teaching observation scheme: Coding
conventions and applications. Sydney, Australia: National Centre for English Language Teaching andResearch, Macquarie University.

−97−

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(15:30-16:00)601 ᐊ༠ാᏛ⩦ࡢຠᯝ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⪃ᐹὠ⏣ ࡦࢁࡳ㸦᫂἞኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ㸪༠ാᏛ⩦㸪㉁ⓗࢹ࣮ࢱ㸪ືᶵ࡙ࡅ
1. ◊✲ࡢ⫼ᬒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࢆᾰ㣴ࡍࡿᏛ⩦ᙧែࡢࡦ࡜ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚༠ാᏛ⩦ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࠕ஫ᜨⓗᨭ࠼ྜ
࠸ࠖࢆᇶᮏ࡜ࡍࡿ༠ാᏛ⩦ࡣ㸪ⱥㄒ࡟⮬ಙࡢ࡞࠸Ꮫ⏕࡟ࡶࠕཧຍࡢᶵ఍ࢆಖドࡋ㸪ࡑࡢཧຍࢆ࡜࠾ࡋ࡚
ព࿡࠶ࡿ⤒㦂ࢆ㇏࠿࡟ࡍࡿᶵ఍ࢆಖドࠖࡍࡿ࡜࠸ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦బ⸨ࠊ2006㸧
ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡣㄡࡶࡀᖹ➼࡟Ⓨゝ࡛ࡁࡿ㸪࠸ࢃࡤ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࡢሙ࡛ࡢࠕ࣮࢝ࢽࣂࣝᛶ㸦࣮࢝ࢽࣂ࡛ࣝࡣ㸪♫఍ⓗ࠾ࡼࡧ㌟ศⓗ࡞㊥㞳ࡀព㆑ࡉࢀࡎ࡟ேࠎࡀ஺ࢃࡿ㸧(Bakhtin, 1981)ࠖࡀᥦ౪ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ࣓ࢱㄆ▱ࡢᾰ㣴࡟ࡣ individual
learning ࡸcompetitive learning ࡼࡾcooperative learning ࡢ᪉ࡀࡼࡾຠᯝⓗ (Johnson & Johnson, 1989) ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛㸪༠ാᏛ⩦ࡣ࣓ࢱㄆ▱࡜῝ࡃ㛵ࢃࡿ⮬ᚊⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦ែᗘࡢ⫱ᡂ࡟ࡶຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
2. ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗ ᮏ◊✲ࡣ㸪༠ാᏛ⩦ࡀ㸪኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾࠸࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ꮫ⩦ຠᯝࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋ㸪⮬ᚊⓗᏛ⩦ែᗘࡢ⫱
ᡂ࡟࡝࠺㈉⊩ࡍࡿ࠿᳨ドࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ3. ཧຍ⪅
ཧຍ⪅ࡣ኱Ꮫࡢᚲಟᤵᴗ࡛࠶ࡿࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢡࣛࢫࡢ 1 ᖺ⏕ 2 ࢡࣛࢫ㸪ィ 53 ྡ㸦⏨Ꮚ 23 ྡዪᏊ 30 ྡ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋⱥㄒຊࡣ lower-intermediate (TOEFL ITP 350-460) ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࢡࣛࢫෆ࡟ከᑡࡤࡽࡘࡁࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋ㐌 2 ᅇࡢᤵᴗࡣࡍ࡭࡚ⱥㄒ࡛⾜ࢃࢀ㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡶⱥㄒ࡛ヰࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ⩏ົ௜ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
4. ◊✲ࡢᡭ⥆ࡁ
4.1 ࢹ࣮ࢱ཰㞟 ྛᏛᮇࡢጞࡵ࡟ྛ⮬ࡢᏛ⩦┠ᶆࢆタᐃࡉࡏࡓࠋẖᤵᴗᚋ࡟ࡣࠕᏛ⩦ࡢ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡾࠖࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ᭩࠿ࡏ㸪ࡉࡽ࡟㸪ᩍᐊእࡢᏛ⩦࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ࣭ࣟࢢࢆグ㘓ࡉࡏࡓࠋᏛᮇᮎ࡟ࡣ㉁ၥ⣬ㄪᰝ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚༠ാᏛ
⩦࠾ࡼࡧືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟㛵ࡍࡿព㆑ㄪᰝࢆ⾜࠸㸪Ꮫᖺᮎ࡟ࡣᩘྡࡢᏛ⏕࡟ಶู࡟ᅇ㢳࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢆᐇ᪋ࡋ
ࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ㉁ⓗࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚♫఍ᩥ໬ⓗどᗙ࡟❧ࡗ࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ
4.2 ᡭ㡰
ཧຍ⪅ࡣ 4 ྡࡎࡘࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ศ࠿ࢀ㸦1 ࢡࣛࢫ 6 ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ⛬ᗘ㸧๓ᮇ࣭ᚋᮇඹ࡟ 8 ✀㢮ࡢ༠ാⓗάືࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ㸪Pre-listening-task (Zimmerman, 1998) ࡢẁ㝵࡛ࡣ㸪࢔ࢩࣔࡸⅆᫍ᥈ᰝᶵࡢ෗┿ࢆぢ࡚ࣘࢽࢵࢺࡢࢸ࣮࣐࡛࠶ࡿࠕࣟ࣎ࢵࢺࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࢹ࢕ࢫ࢝ࢵࢩࣙࣥࢆࡋࡓࡾ㸪ࠕࢩࣝࢡ࣭࣮ࣟࢻࡢṔྐࠖ࡞࡝⌮ゎࡀ㞴ࡋ࠸࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠕࢪࢢࢯ࣮ࠖάືࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡾࡋ࡚㸪ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࡟ᚲせ࡞ࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࢆάᛶ໬ࡉࡏࡓࠋࡲࡓ㸪In-task ࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕteam ࡜ groupࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚
note-taking ࡢ௙᪉ࢆ஫࠸࡟ẚ㍑ࡋࡓࡾ㸪ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࡢෆᐜ⌮ゎၥ㢟ࡢ⟅࠼᪉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡸ࣌࢔࡛ពぢ஺᥮ࡋࡓࡾࡋ࡞ࡀࡽᵝࠎ࡞⪃࠼᪉ࡸ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢ௙᪉ࢆᏛࢇࡔࠋPost-task ࡛ࡣ㸪ࠕE.T.ࠖࡸࠕ㑇ఏᏊ⤌ࡳ᥮࠼ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡢ⤒㦂ࡸ⪃࠼ࢆ⪺ࡁྜ࠸ࠊࡑࡢෆᐜࢆ௦⾲⪅ࡀⓎ⾲ࡋ㸪ࢡࣛࢫ඲ဨ࡛ࡉࡽ࡟⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡓࠋᖺ㛫ࢆ㏻ࡌ㸪ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅᏛ⩦⪅୰ᚰࡢᏛ⩦ࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ

−98−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

5. ⤖ᯝ㉁ၥ⣬ㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ㸪༠ാᏛ⩦ࡣࠕࢡࣛࢫ࣓࣮ࢺ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࠖࠕࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࡢ㔜せᛶࡢㄆ㆑ࠖࡢ 2 㡯┠࡟᭱ࡶ኱ࡁ࡞ຠᯝࡀぢࡽࢀ㸪ḟ࠸࡛ࠕࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⯆࿡ࠖࠕせⅬࡢ⌮ゎࠖࠕ⪃࠼ࡿຊࠖࡢ 3 㡯┠࡟ࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡞ຠᯝࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊከࡃࡢཧຍ⪅ࡀ㸪༠ാᏛ⩦ࡣࠕே㛫㛵ಀࠖࠕ⪃࠼ࡿຊࠖ࡜ࠕせⅬࡢ⌮ゎࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࣉࣛࢫࡢᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡓ࡜⟅࠼ࡓࡀ㸪53 ྡ୰ 7 ྡࡢཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸪ࠕࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⮬ಙࠖ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣ࣐࢖ࢼࢫ࡟ᙳ㡪ࡋࡓ࡜ゎ⟅ࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡢཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸪༠ാᏛ⩦ࡢ࣓ࣜࢵࢺࡢ᪉ࡀ
ࢹ࣓ࣜࢵࢺࡼࡾ኱ࡁ࠸࡜⪃࠼࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ᤵᴗࡢ 30~40㸣ࡢ᫬㛫ࢆ༠ാᏛ⩦࡟ᙜ࡚ࡓ࠸࡜⟅࠼࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
ཧຍ⪅ࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࠿ࡽࡣ㸪ࠕ⮬ศ࡜␗࡞ࡿពぢࡀ⪺ࡅ㸪ࡼࡾ⌮ゎࡀ῝ࡲࡿࠖࠕຓࡅྜ࠼࡚㸪⪃࠼ࡿຊࡶ㧗ࡲࡿࠖࠕࢹ࢕ࢫ࢝ࢵࢩࣙࣥࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛⮬ศࡢ⌮ゎࡀ῝ࡲࡾࠊᤵᴗ࡟ᑐࡍࡿពḧࡀ㧗ࡲࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ຠᯝ
ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓ㸪ࠕ࣓ࣔࢆ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅ࡜ࡗ࡚᝟ሗࢆࢩ࢙࢔ࡍࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟ヲࡋࡃヰࡏࡓࠖࠕ࣓ࣔࢆ࡜ࡗ࡚㉁ၥ࡟⟅࠼ࡓࡾ㸪ᅔࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ཭ேࢆຓࡅࡓࠖ࡞࡝㸪༠ാᏛ⩦࡟✚ᴟⓗ࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿጼໃࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋ
ࡦ࡜ࡾࡢཧຍ⪅ࡣ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮࡛ࣗ㸪ࠕⱥㄒࢆࡋࡷ࡭ࢀࡿ௚ࡢே࡟ᑐࡋ࡚៿ࢀࡸ➇தព㆑ࢆࡶࡕ㸪ࡶࡗ࡜ຮᙉࡋࡼ࠺࡜ᛮࡗࡓࠖ
ࠕᩍᐊࡢእ࡛ࡶ௰㛫࡜่⃭ࡋ࠶ࡗࡓࠖ࡜ヰࡋ㸪༠ാᏛ⩦ࡀᩍᐊእ࡛ࡶ⮬ᚊⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦ែᗘࢆᘬࡁฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋ

6. ⪃ᐹ࡜௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟ୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡟༠ാᏛ⩦࡛ࡣ㸪near-peer role model(Ushioda, 2013) ࡢᏑᅾ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪ከᵝ࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ
ࢆᏛࢇࡔࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪ࠕ࠶ࢇ࡞ࡩ࠺࡟࡞ࡾࡓ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺᫂☜࡞┠ᶆ㸪᥮ゝࡍࢀࡤ㸪⌮᝿࡜ࡋ࡚ᥥࡃ Ideal
L2-self (ibid.)ࢆタᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࡓࡵ࡟ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡀ㧗ࡲࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ┠ᶆࢆタᐃࡋ㸪ࡑࢀ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ィ⏬ࢆ❧࡚࡚ᐇ⾜ࡋ㸪᣺ࡾ㏉ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚෌ࡧィ⏬ࢆ⦎ࡾ┤ࡍ࡜࠸࠺࣓ࢱㄆ▱࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ“Self-system” (Dörnyei, 2009) ࡀᶵ⬟ࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪༠ാᏛ⩦ࡣ௰㛫࡜ࡢࡼࡾⰋ࠸㛵ಀࡀࡶࡓࡽࡍࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࢲ࢖ࢼ࣑ࢡࢫࡀാ࠸࡚⮬ᚊⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦ែᗘࢆᾰ㣴ࡍࡿᏛ⩦ᙧែ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ
ࣙࣥ⬟ຊࢆ㔜どࡍࡿ௒ᚋࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾࠸࡚㔜せ࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍࡇ࡜ࡀᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿࠋ
୍᪉㸪༠ാᏛ⩦ࡢࡦ࡜ࡘࡢ㝈⏺࡜ࡋ࡚㸪Ꮫ⩦࡬ࡢ┤᥋ⓗຠᯝ࡟࠾࠸࡚༶ຠᛶࡀపࡃ㸪༢ㄒࢸࢫࢺࡸ༢
ඖࢸࢫࢺ㸪ᐃᮇヨ㦂ࡢⅬᩘ࡟኱ࡁ࡞ኚ໬ࡣぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋຍ࠼࡚㸪༠ാᏛ⩦ࡀຠᯝࢆୖࡆࡿ࡟ࡣᏛ⩦⪅࡟࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢⱥㄒᇶ♏ຊࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪༠ാᏛ⩦ࡀࡵࡊࡍࡶ
ࡢࡣ㸪ࠕᙜ㠃ࠖࡢⱥㄒᏛຊࡢྥୖ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ࠕ⮬ᚊⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦ࠖ࡬ྥࡅ࡚ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ࡜
⪃࠼ࡿ࡞ࡽࡤ㸪༠ാᏛ⩦ࡣᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ࣓ࢱㄆ▱ࢆ㧗ࡵࡿ࡞࡝඘ศ࡟ࡑࡢຠᯝࢆⓎ᥹ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ
௒ᚋࡣ㸪ᩍᐊࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫࡢศᯒ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪༠ാᏛ⩦࡜ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡢ㛵㐃ࢆࡉࡽ࡟ヲࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language
identity, and the L2 self (pp. 9-42). New York: Multilingual Matters.
Kemp, J. (2010). The listening log: motivating autonomous learning. ELT Journal, 64 (4), 385-395.
Ushioda, E. (2013). International perspectives on motivation: Language learning and professional challenges (pp.
192-215). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary
instructional models. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to
self-reflective practice (pp. 1-99). New York: Guilford Press.

−99−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(12:30-13:00)602 ᐊ࢔࢝ࢹ࣑ࢵࢡ࣭ࢹ࢕࣮࣋ࢺࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ྥୖࡍࡿ
ㄒᙡຊ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⪃ᐹᶫᑿ ᫴ᖹ㸦ྠᚿ♫኱Ꮫ ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࢔࢝ࢹ࣑ࢵࢡ࣭ࢹ࢕࣮࣋ࢺ㸪ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ㸪ㄒᙡຊ㸪ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸪ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᶫᑿ㸦2015㸧࡛ࡣࠊ࢔࢝ࢹ࣑ࢵࢡ࣭ࢹ࢕࣮࣋ࢺ㸦Academic Debate; AD㸧ࡢ⤒㦂ࡀࠊ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ⬟ຊࡢྥୖ࡟ᐤ୚ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊAD ⤒㦂⪅࡜㠀⤒㦂⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓⱥ
సᩥࡢࢸࢫࢺࡢᚓⅬศᯒ࠿ࡽ୺ᙇࡋࡓࡀࠊࡇࡢ◊✲ࡣࠊⱥసᩥࢸࢫࢺࡢࢫࢥ࢔ẚ㍑࡜࠸࠺㔞ⓗ࡞ศᯒࡢࡳ࡟⤊ጞࡋࠊAD ࢆ㏻ࡋࡓⱥᩥࡢ㉁࡬ࡢ㈉⊩࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ༑ศ࡞᳨ウࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋᮏ◊✲࡛
ࡣࠊAD ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ྥୖࡍࡿࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ⬟ຊࡢ୰࡛ࠊ
ࠕㄒᙡຊࠖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊᶫᑿ㸦2015㸧࡛཰㞟ࡋࡓ AD⤒㦂⪅࣭㠀⤒㦂⪅ࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡸ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ ICNALE ࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ᣦࡍࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕㄒᙡຊࠖ࡜ࡣࠊJacobs et al.㸦1981㸧ࡀ୺ᙇࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ
㞴᫆ᗘࡢ㧗࠸ㄒᙡࢆ㐠⏝࡛ࡁࡿ⬟ຊ࠾ࡼࡧ࢚ࢵࢭ࢖ࡢࢪࣕࣥࣝ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㐺ษ࡛ຠᯝⓗ࡞ㄒᙡࢆ㐠⏝࡛ࡁࡿ⬟ຊ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
2. ࠕ㞴᫆ᗘࡢ㧗࠸ㄒᙡࡢ㐠⏝ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿศᯒࡇࡢㄪᰝ࡛౑⏝ࡍࡿゝㄒࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᶫᑿ㸦2015㸧ࡢⱥసᩥࢸࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊAD ⤒㦂⪅ࡢⱥᩥࢆ㞟ࡵࡓࡶࡢ㸦Test-D㸧࣭㠀⤒㦂⪅ࡢⱥᩥࢆ㞟ࡵࡓࡶࡢ㸦Test-G㸧࡟ຍ࠼ࠊICNALE ࡢ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒ
Ꮫ⩦⪅ 49 ྡࡢⱥᩥࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࠋ౑⏝ࡍࡿ ICNALE ࡢⱥᩥࡣࠊ࢔ࣝࣂ࢖ࢺࡢ᫝㠀ࢆㄽࡌࡓࡶࡢ㸦௨ୗ B12PTJ㸧࡜ႚ↮ࡢ᫝㠀ࢆㄽࡌࡓࡶࡢ㸦B12SMK㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௨ୖࠊ4 ✀㢮ࡢ୰ᑠつᶍࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊJACET8000 ࡢ v8an ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊྛⱥᩥࡢ඲యࡢᘏ࡭ㄒᩘ࡟ᑐࡍࡿྛㄒᙡࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᘏ࡭ㄒᩘ
ࡢ๭ྜ㸦࢝ࣂ࣮⋡㸧ࢆィ⟬ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ⣼✚࢝ࣂ࣮⋡࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ4 ࡘࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢ㛫࡛ẚ㍑ࡍࡿࠋ
୍ඖ㓄⨨ศᩓศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࠊAD ⤒㦂⪅࡜㠀⤒㦂⪅ࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢㄒᙡࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟᭷ពᕪࡀぢࡽࢀࡎ㸦T ್=0.027, p ್=0.10㸧ࠊ⤒㦂⪅ࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡀ㠀⤒㦂⪅ࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡼࡾㄒᙡࣞ࣋ࣝࡀ≉ู࡟㧗࠸࡜࠸࠺ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊAD ࡟ࡼࡿࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢㄒᙡຊ࡜ࡣࠊ㞴᫆ᗘࡢ㧗࠸ㄒᙡࡢ㐠⏝࡜㛵㐃ࡀ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
3. ࠕ࢚ࢵࢭ࢖ࡢࢪࣕࣥࣝ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㐺ษ࡛ຠᯝⓗ࡞ㄒࡸ࢖ࢹ࢕࣒࢜ࡢ౑⏝ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿศᯒḟ࡟ࠊAD ⤒㦂⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄒᙡⓗ≉ᚩࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ5 ᖺ㛫ศࡢᐇ㝿ࡢ AD άື࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓⱥᩥࢆ཰㞟ࡋࠊKHCorder ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊရモẖ࡟㢖ฟㄒᙡࡢࣜࢫࢺࢆసᡂࡍࡿ㸦ࡇࡢ㝿ࠊෙモ࣭be ືモ࣭๓⨨モ࣭௦ྡモ࣭ᅛ᭷ྡモ࣭␲ၥモࡣ㝖እࡍࡿ㸧ࠋmore ࡸ than ࡞࡝ẚ㍑ࡢ⾲⌧ࠊrate ࡸ increase ࡞࡝☜⋡࣭ᩘ㔞࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⾲⌧ࠊbecause, but, however ࡞࡝ࡢㄽ⌮࣐࣮࣮࢝ࠊຓືモࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋࡓࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕⾲⌧࡞࡝ࡢㄒᙡⓗ≉ᚩࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊAD ࡟ࡼࡿࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢㄒᙡຊ࡜ࡣࠊ௚⪅ࢆㄝᚓࡍࡿୖ࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢሙ㠃࡛ࠊ㐺ษ࠿ࡘຠᯝⓗ࡞ㄒᙡࡀ㐠⏝࡛ࡁࡿ⬟ຊࢆᣦࡍ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ
4. 4 ࡘࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㢖ฟ⾲⌧ࡢẚ㍑
๓❶࡛ᚓࡽࢀࡓ AD άື࡛ぢࡽࢀࡿ AD ⤒㦂⪅ࡢゝㄒⓗ≉ᚩ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡀ AD άື௨እࡢࣛ࢖

−100−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡛ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࠊࡲࡓࠊAD ⤒㦂⪅ᅛ᭷ࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊKHCorder ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊྛ⾲⌧ࡢ᳨⣴᮲௳ࢆసᡂࡋࠊඛ㏙ࡋࡓ Test-DࠊTest-GࠊB12PTJࠊB12SMK ࡢ 4 ✀㢮ࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ẚ㍑࣭ᩘ㔞࣭☜⋡ࠊࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣐࣮࣮࢝ࠊࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕⾲⌧ࡢฟ⌧㢖ᗘࢆ㞟ィࡍࡿࠋ
4.1. ẚ㍑࣭ᩘ㔞࣭☜⋡⾲⌧AD ⤒㦂⪅ࡣࠊ☜⋡࣭ᩘ㔞⾲⌧࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊ౑⏝⋡⮬యࡣ㧗࠿ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡢࠊẚ⋡ࡢ᳨ᐃࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ
㠀⤒㦂⪅ࡢ౑⏝⋡࡜⤫ィⓗ࡞᭷ពᕪࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡎ㸦z ್ = 0.81, p ್ = 0.42㸧ࠊ☜⋡࣭ᩘ㔞⾲⌧ࡣࠊࢸ࣮࣐
࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ㠀⤒㦂⪅ࡶព㆑ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡍࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ୍᪉࡛ࠊ⤒㦂⪅ࡣࠊ௚ࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࡼࡾࡶẚ㍑⾲⌧ࢆከ⏝ࡍࡿࠋẚ㍑⾲⌧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
D-Test ࡜ 2 ␒┠࡟ከࡃ౑⏝ࡍࡿ B12SMK ࡢฟ⌧๭ྜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ
᭷ពᕪࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓ㸦z ್ = 2.13, p ್ = 0.03㸧ࠋẚ㍑⾲⌧ࡣࠊ᪥㡭࠿ࡽ⮬ࡽࡢ୺ᙇ࡟ᑐࡍࡿពぢ࡜ࡢᐈほⓗ࡞ẚ㍑ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋࡘࡘࠊࡑࢀࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓୖ࡛ࠊ⮬ࡽࡢ୺ᙇࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊAD ⤒㦂⪅ࡣ⮬ࡎ࡜⩦ᚓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
4.2. ࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣐࣮࣮࢝
ࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣐࣮࣮࢝ࡢ୰࡛ࠊᅉᯝ㛵ಀࢆ♧ࡍ࣐࣮࣮࢝࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊAD ⤒㦂⪅ࡣࠊ࠾ࡼࡑ 2 ᩥ࡟ 1ᅇ࡜࠸࠺㠀ᖖ࡟㧗࠸㢖ᗘ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋD-Test ࡜ 2 ␒┠࡟౑⏝⋡ࡀ㧗࠸ B12PTJ ࡢ㛫࡟⤫ィⓗ࡞ᕪࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ㸦z ್ = 2.37, p ್ = 0.018㸧
ࠋࠕ⌮⏤࡙ࡅࠖࡣࠊ⮬ศࡢ୺ᙇࡢጇᙜᛶࢆ㧗ࡵࡿᡭẁ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊ࢔
࢝ࢹ࣑ࢵࢡ࣭ࢹ࢕࣮࣋ࢺ࡛ࡣࠊ࡞ࡐࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞୺ᙇࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࡢ᰿ᖿ࡜࡞ࡿせ⣲࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡀᅉ
ᯝ࣐࣮࣮࢝ࡢ㧗࠸౑⏝⋡࡟⧅ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊD-Test ࡢⱥᩥࢆほᐹࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊAD ⤒㦂⪅ࡢᅉᯝ࣐࣮࣮࢝ࡢ౑⏝ࡣࠊ⪺ࡁᡭࡢὀពࢆᘬࡁࡘࡅ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ
ࠕ⌮⏤࡙ࡅࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ጇᙜᛶࡢ㧗ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ⮬ࡽࡢ୺ᙇࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
4.3. ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕⾲⌧ࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕⾲⌧ࡢ୰࡛ࠊ᝟ሗࡢ☜࠿ࡉࢆ♧ࡍࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕⾲⌧࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊAD ⤒㦂⪅ࡣࠊ3 ᩥ࡟ 1 ᅇ௨ୖ౑⏝ࡉࢀࠊ2 ␒┠࡟౑⏝⋡ࡀ㧗࠸ B12PTJ ࡜ࡢ㛫࡛ࡶ᭷ពᕪࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓ㸦z ್ = 2.43, p ್ = 0.015㸧
ࠋࡲࡓࠊD-Test ࡢⱥᩥ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊAD ⤒㦂⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢࣔࢲࣜࢸ࢕⾲⌧ࡣࠊ᝟ሗࡢ☜࠿ࡉࡢ⛬ᗘ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊ⮬ศࡢ୺ᙇ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ⮬ಙࢆᣢࡗ࡚ᥦ♧ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺୍ࡘࡢᙉㄪ⾲⌧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
AD ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩ࡛ࣙࣥࡣࠊ⮬ศࡢ୺ᙇ࡜ࡑࢀ࡟㛵㐃ࡋࡓ㔜せ࡞᝟ሗࢆ㏙࡭ࡿ㝿࡟ࠊ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟༳㇟࡙ࡅࡿᕤኵ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇ࠺࠸ࡗࡓ⾲⌧ࢆከ⏝ࡍࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡾࠊẚ㍑⾲⌧ࡸᅉᯝ㛵ಀࡢࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ
࣮ࢫ࣐࣮࣮࢝࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ୰࡛ᐃ╔ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩▼㯮᫛༤. (2009).ࠗ⥲ྜⱥㄒ Forest 6th edition࠘. ᮾி㸸ࣆ࢔ࢯࣥ᱒ཎ.
Jacobs, H. L., S. A. Zinkgraf, D. R. Wormuth, V. F. Hartfiel, and J. B. Hughey. (1981). Testing ESL Composition: A
practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
ᡂ⏣࠶ࡺࡳ࣭᪥ẚ㔝ඞဢ. (2007). ࠗࢹ࢕ࢫࢥ࣮ࢫ࣐࣮࣮࢝ⱥᩥㄞゎ࠘. ᮾி㸸Z ఍ฟ∧.
ᶫᑿ᫴ᖹ. (2015). ࠕࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ⬟ຊ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢔࢝ࢹ࣑ࢵࢡ࣭ࢹ࢕࣮࣋ࢺࡢᏛ⩦ຠᯝ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⪃ᐹࠖࠗẚ
㍑ᩥ໬◊✲࠘. 116, pp. 207-217.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd ed.
London: Hodder Arnold.
Ỉᮏ⠜. (2006).ࠕTOEFL ㄒᙡࡢㄒᙡࣞ࣋ࣝ㸪┿ṇᛶ㸪≉ᚩࡢ᳨ドࠖࠗゝㄒᩥ໬Ꮫ఍ㄽ㞟࠘ 27, pp. 3-15.

−101−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(13:05-13:35)602 ᐊ⌮ᕤ⣔Ꮫ⏕ࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦ືᶵ࡙ࡅኚ໬㐣⛬๓ᕝ ὒᏊ㸦኱㜰࢟ࣜࢫࢺᩍ▷ᮇ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 Ideal L2 self㸪Self-determination theory㸪English learning motivation㸪ືᶵ࡙ࡅኚ໬
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟⤒῭⏺ࠊ⏘ᴗ⏺ࡢࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ໬ࡀ㐍ࡴ⌧௦࡛ࠊᕤᏛ⪅ࡶᅜ㝿ⓗ࡞ά㌍ࢆవ൤࡞ࡃࡉࢀࠊ⌮ᕤ⣔Ꮫ⏕࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᅜ㝿ゝㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢⱥㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊ⩦ᚓࡀᚲ㡲࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ⫋ᴗୖࡢⱥㄒ౑⏝≧ἣ࡟ἢࡗࡓࡼࡾᐇ㊶ⓗ࡞ᩍ⫱ࡀᚲせ࡜ࡉࢀࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ⮬ᚊ㸦⮬❧㸧ࢆಁࡍᵝࠎ࡞ᕤኵࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ
࡚ࡁࡓ (ᑎෆ, ᒣෆ, 㔝ཱྀ & ➲ᓥ, 2010)ࠋ➹⪅ࡣࠊ⌮ᕤ⣔Ꮫ⏕ࢆࡼࡾ⮬❧ࡋࡓⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡬࡜ᑟࡃࡓࡵ࡟
ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊ⌮ᕤ⣔Ꮫ⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊESP ◊✲ཬࡧ Laveand Wenger (1991)࡟ࡼࡿ≧ἣⓗᏛ⩦ㄽ㸦ᐇ㊶ࡢඹྠయ㸧ࡢᴫᛕࡶ⏝࠸᳨࡚ウࡋࠊᕤᏛ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᑗ᮶ⓗ࡞ⱥㄒ౑⏝≧ἣࢆ᝿ᐃࡋࡓ᝿ീୖࡢᅜ㝿ᑓ㛛ᐙ㞟ᅋ(Imagined international discourse community)ࢆᩍᐊෆ
࡟๰ࡾฟࡍ୍౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ1 ᖺ㛫࡛ィ 4 ᅇࠊᕤᴗ〇ရࢆ⤂௓ࡍࡿⱥㄒࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥάືࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋ
ࡓᤵᴗࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥάືࡢయ㦂ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ⌮ᕤ⣔Ꮫ⏕ࡢⱥㄒ౑⏝ᕤᏛ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⮬ᕫീࡢᵓ⠏ࡸࠊⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡟ᑐࡍࡿጼໃࡸືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ኚ໬ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࡢ࠿ࠊࡑ
ࡢ㐣⛬ࢆ㉁ⓗ࡟᳨ドࡍࡿࠋ
2. ㄪᰝ
2.1 ◊✲ㄢ㢟 ㉁ⓗศᯒࢆࡍࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ࠊ◊✲ㄢ㢟ࡣࠊ1㸧ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥάື࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊⓎ⾲ཬࡧ‽ഛ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ⌮ᕤ⣔Ꮫ⏕ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⓨゝࢆࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊⓎゝࡢ᫬⣔ิኚ໬ࢆぢࡿࠋ2㸧ⱥㄒࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥά
ືࢆ⤒㦂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ⌮ᕤ⣔Ꮫ⏕ࡣ⮬ᕫࡢᡂ㛗ࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ホ౯ࡋࠊఱࢆᏛࢇࡔ࡜ឤࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡜
ࡋࡓࠋ
2.2 ㄪᰝ᪉ἲ
ㄪᰝ࡟ࡣࠊ➹⪅ࡀᢸᙜࡍࡿᢏ⾡ⱥㄒϨࢡࣛࢫ࡛ 1 ᖺ㛫 4 ᅇ㸦5 ᭶ࠊ7 ᭶ࠊ11 ᭶ࠊ12 ᭶㸧ࡢྛⓎ⾲ᚋ࡟Ꮫ⏕ࡀᥦฟࡋࡓᏛ⩦グ㘓ࢩ࣮ࢺࡢグ㏙ෆᐜࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋᮏㄪᰝ࡛ࡣࠊ2010 ᖺᗘࡢᢏ⾡ⱥㄒϨཷㅮ⪅(45 ྡ)ࡢ୰࠿ࡽࠊᏛ⩦グ㘓ࢩ࣮ࢺ 4 ᅇ඲࡚ᥦฟࡋࡓᏛ⏕㸦27 ྡ㸧ࡢグ㏙ࡢࡳࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
2.3 Ꮫ⩦グ㘓ࢩ࣮ࢺᏛ⩦グ㘓ࢩ࣮ࢺࡣࠊᏛ⏕ࡀ⮬㌟ࡢⓎ⾲ཬࡧάື⮬యࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ឤࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ ᐃࡋࠊ‽ഛࡸ⦎⩦ࡀ኱ษ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄆ㆑ࡉࡏࠊㄢእᏛ⩦ࢆಁࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚సᡂࡉࢀࠊ㸯㸧Ⓨ⾲┠ᶆ(グ㏙)ࠊ㸰㸧Ⓨ⾲‽ഛሗ࿌㸦yes /no ཬࡧグ㏙㸧ࠊ㸱㸧Ⓨ⾲ᮏ␒࡛ᚰࡀࡅࡓࡇ࡜㸦yes /no㸧ࠊ㸲㸧Ⓨ⾲ᚋࡢឤ᝿㸦グ㏙㸧ࠊ㸳㸧Ⓨ⾲ࡢ཯┬㸦グ㏙㸧ࠊ㸴㸧ࣅࢹ࢜ࢆぢࡓឤ᝿㸦5࣭12 ᭶ࡢࡳ グ㏙㸧ࠊ㸵㸧ḟᅇ┠ᶆ㸦5㸫11 ᭶ グ㏙㸧ࠊᡂ㛗⮬ᕫホ౯㸦12 ᭶ グ㏙㸧ࠊ㸶㸧Ⓨ⾲‽ഛ⮬ᕫホ౯㸦5 ẁ㝵 4 㡯┠㸧࡛ᵓᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㸰㸧ࡢⓎ⾲‽ഛሗ࿌ࡣࠊⓎ⾲ᅇẖ࡟ෆᐜࡀኚࢃࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊⓎ⾲ࢸ࣮࣐ࡸᤵᴗෆᐜ࡟ἢࡗࡓᵓᡂ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
2.4 ศᯒᡭ㡰ศᯒࡣࠊᏛ⩦グ㘓ࢩ࣮ࢺ 4 ᅇศࡢグ㏙ෆᐜࢆᏛ⏕୍ேศࡎࡘࡲ࡜ࡵࡓᚋࠊM-GTA (ᮌୗ, 2003)ࢆཧ↷ࡋࠊ

−102−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍◊✲ㄢ㢟࡟ἢࡗ࡚ᴫᛕ࣮࣡ࢡࢩ࣮ࢺ㸦ࢥ࣮ࢻ㸧ࢆసᡂࡋࡓࠋࢥ࣮ࢻࡣࠊ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬ࡶ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ
Ꮫ⏕ࡢグ㏙ෆᐜࡢኚ໬ࡸⓎᒎࢆࡼࡾ᫂☜࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᚲせ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ࠊศᯒ࠿ࡽ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓࢥ࣮ࢻࡸ࢝
ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢฟ⌧ᩘࢆᩘ࠼ࠊ㔞ⓗ࡟⤖ᯝࢆぢࡿᡭἲࡶ㑅ࢇࡔࠋศᯒ⤖ᯝࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࡣࠊDörnyei (2005)࡟ࡼࡿ➨஧ゝㄒᏛ⩦ືᶵ࡙ࡅࢭࣝࣇࢩࢫࢸ࣒⌮ㄽ࡜ Deci and Ryan (2000)࡟ࡼࡿ⮬ᕫỴᐃ⌮ㄽࢆ⌮ㄽⓗᯟ⤌ࡳ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡓࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝ࡜⪃ᐹ◊✲ㄢ㢟㸯㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊグ㏙ෆᐜ඲య࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕⓎ⾲ࡸ‽ഛ࡟ᑐࡍࡿⓎゝࠖ࡟↔Ⅼࢆ⨨࠸ࡓᴫᛕ࣮࣡
ࢡࢩ࣮ࢺࡣ 17 ✀㢮సࡽࢀࠊ4 ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ㸦Ⓨ⾲ࢸࢡࢽࢵࢡࠊ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡢศ࠿ࡾࡸࡍࡉࠊෆᐜࠊ‽ഛ㸧࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋྛࢥ࣮ࢻࡢⓎゝᩘࡢኚ໬ࢆぢࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊⓎ⾲ࢸࢡࢽࢵࢡ࠿ࡽḟ➨࡟ෆᐜࡸ⫈⾗࡬࡜ព㆑ࡀኚ໬ࡋࡓᵝᏊࡀఛ࠼ࡓࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥάືࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ⏕ࡣⓎ⾲ࢸࢡࢽࢵࢡࢆ
ព㆑ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠊఏ࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ᝟ሗࡑࡢࡶࡢࡸ᝟ሗఏ㐩࡜࠸࠺┠ⓗࢆ㔜どࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡾࠊ௚⪅࡜ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥᡭẁ࡜ࡋ࡚ⱥㄒࢆᤊ࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
◊✲ㄢ㢟㸰㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ12 ᭶ࡢᡂ㛗⮬ᕫホ౯࡟㛵ࡍࡿグ㏙ࢆศᯒࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊᏛ⏕ࡣ➨୍ᅇⓎ⾲᫬㸦5᭶㸧ࡢ⮬ศࡢⓎ⾲ࢆ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡾࠊ1 ᖺ㛫࡛ࡢᤵᴗ࡟࠾࠸࡚ⱥㄒ⾲⌧ຊࡸⓎ⾲ෆᐜ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ▱㆑࡟㛵ࡍࡿᏛࡧࠊㄪᰝຊࡸⓎ⾲⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᡂ㛗ࡢᐇឤࠊࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㛵ಀᛶྥୖࢆグ㏙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ᭦࡟ࠊᑗ᮶ࡢ
Ⓨ⾲ᶵ఍ࢆ᝿ᐃࡋࠊ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࢆぢࡘࡅ࡚ࠊࡼࡾྥୖࡋࡓⓎ⾲‽ഛ࡬ࡢഛ࠼ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᵝᏊࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊⱥㄒࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥάືࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ⏕ࡣ⮬㌟ࡢᏛࡧࡸⓎ⾲⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᡂ㛗࠿ࡽ᭷⬟ᛶࢆᐇឤࡋࠊࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡛ࡢάື࠿ࡽ㛵ಀᛶࢆᐇឤࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊṧࡿㄢ㢟ࢆㄆ㆑ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠊⓎ⾲⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ
ideal self ࢆᵓ⠏ࡋࠊ௒ᚋ࡬ࡢᏛࡧ࡬࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽࡢ⤖ᯝࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊ1 ᖺ㛫ࡢᤵᴗࡢ୰࡛ࠊⱥㄒࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ⤒㦂ࡍࡿ୰࡛ࠊ⌮ᕤ⣔Ꮫ⏕ࡣࠊ௚⪅࡜ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥᡭẁ࡜ࡋ࡚ⱥㄒࢆᤊ࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡾࠊ1 ᖺ㛫ࡢᡂ㛗ࢆ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡿ୰࡛ࠊ᭷⬟ᛶࡸ㛵ಀᛶࡶᐇឤࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ᭦࡞ࡿㄢ㢟ࢆぢࡘࡅࠊⓎ⾲⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⌮᝿ࡢ⮬ᕫീࢆᵓ⠏ࡋ࡚ࠊ᭦࡞ࡿᏛࡧ࡬࡜ࡘ࡞ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡃᵝᏊࡀぢ࠼ࡓࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊⱥㄒࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥάືࡣࠊᕤᏛ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᑗ᮶ⓗ࡞ⱥㄒ౑⏝≧ἣࢆ᝿ᐃࡋࡓ᝿ീୖࡢᅜ㝿ᑓ㛛ᐙ㞟ᅋ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ௚⪅࡜㛵ࢃࡿࡓࡵ࡟ఱࢆᏛࡪ࡭ࡁ
࠿ࢆព㆑ࡉࡏࠊᕤᏛⱥㄒ౑⏝⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⌮᝿ࡢ⮬ᕫീࢆ☜❧ࡉࡏࠊྛ⮬ࡀ᝿ീୖࡢᅜ㝿ᑓ㛛ᐙ㞟ᅋ࡟ᡤᒓࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᚲせ࡞▱㆑ࢆ⮬ࡽ⋓ᚓࡋ࡚࠸ࡃᡭຓࡅ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶാ࠸ࡓ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determinationof behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition.
Mahwah, NJ: Longman Pearson Education Ltd.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
ᮌୗᗣோ(2003). ࠗࢢࣛ࢘ࣥࢹࢵࢻ࣭ࢭ࣮࣭࢜ࣜ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢᐇ㊶࠘ ᮾி㸸ᘯᩥᇽ.
ᑎෆ୍, ᒣෆࡦࡉᏊ, 㔝ཱྀࢪࣗࢹ࢕̿ & ➲ᓥⱱ (⦅) (2010). ࠗ21 ୡ⣖ࡢ ESP㸸᪂ࡋ࠸ ESP ⌮ㄽࡢᵓ⠏࡜
ᐇ㊶࠘ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ

−103−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(13:40-14:10)602 ᐊࣔࢹࣝ㡢ኌࡢ㏿ᗘࡢ㐪࠸ࡀࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ࡟୚࠼ࡿᙳ㡪࡟ࡘ࠸࡚̿ ᵓ㡢㏿ᗘ࠿ࡽࡢ⪃ᐹ ̿ᮡ⏣ ౫჆Ꮚ㸦㛵すᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ, 㡢ኌ㏿ᗘ, ᵓ㡢㏿ᗘ, ࣜࢬ࣒ฎ⌮ᶵᵓ, ₯᫬(latency)
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ࣔࢹࣝ㡢ኌ㸦⫈ぬ่⃭㸧ࡢ㏿ᗘࡀࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ࡟ཬࡰࡍᙳ㡪࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᵓ㡢㏿ᗘࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡋࡓᐇド◊✲ࠋἙ㔝(2001, 2003)࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ㏿࠸㡢ኌࡣ඲యⓗ࡟ࠊ㐜࠸㡢ኌࡣศᯒⓗ࡟ฎ⌮ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ
ࡲࡓ㛛⏣(2007)࡛ࡣࠊࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡢ୺࡞ຠ⏝࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ㡢ኌ▱ぬࡢ⮬ື໬ࠖ࡜ࠕ᪂つᏛ⩦㡯┠ࡢෆᅾ໬ࠖࡀሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᵓ㡢㏿ᗘ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣゝㄒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࣓ࣔࣜࢫࣃࣥࡢ୺せ࡞Ỵᐃせᅉࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ࡉࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿ(Hitch et al. 1998㸹Roodenrys et al., 1993) ࠋࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ࡜⫈ぬ่⃭ࡢ㏿ᗘࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᐇド◊✲ࡣࡲࡔṤ࡝౛ࡀ࡞࠸ࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ୧⪅ࡢ㛵ಀࢆࠕ㡢ኌ▱ぬࡢ⮬ື໬ࠖࢆࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡢ෌⏕⋡ࠊࠕ᪂つᏛ⩦㡯┠ࡢෆᅾ໬ࠖࢆࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡋࡓࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢࣜࢥ࣮ࣝ⋡ࢆᇶ࡟ ᐃࡋ᳨ドࡋࡓࠋ
2. ᡭ㡰
2.1 ཧຍ⪅ 㸱㸱ྡࡢ᪥ᮏㄒࢆẕㄒ࡜ࡍࡿ኱Ꮫ⏕࣭኱Ꮫ㝔⏕㸦⏨ᛶ㸯㸱ྡࠊዪᛶ㸰㸮ྡ㸧ࠋᑓᨷࡸ◊✲㡿ᇦࡣᵝࠎࡔࡀⱥㄒࡢ⇍㐩ᗘࡣ୰⣭࠿ࡽୖ⣭ࠋ⡆༢࡞ᩍᮦ࡞ࡽࡤึฟࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ
⬟࡞ࣞ࣋ࣝࠋ඲ဨ Oxford Placement Testϩࢆཷ㦂ࠋᖹᆒⅬ(Listening79.97, Grammar & Reading 64.24, Total
144.21)ࢆ CEFRi࡟᥮⟬ࡍࡿ࡜ B1 ⛬ᗘࠋ
2.2 ᡭ㡰
2.2.1 ࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ࡜ࣜࢥ࣮ࣝㄢ㢟ࡲࡎࠊ▷࠸ⱥᩥࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ࡜ࣜࢥ࣮ࣝㄢ㢟ࡢ⦎⩦ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢ᫬ࠊཧຍ⪅ࡢ㡢ኌࢆ㘓㡢ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡢᚋࠊࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡋࡓࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢࣜࢥ࣮ࣝㄢ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆཧຍ⪅ࡣ▱ࡿࠋ⫈ぬ่⃭࡟ࡣ㛛⏣࣭⋢஭ (2004)ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋྠ⛬ᗘࡢ࣮ࣜࢲࣅࣜࢸ࢕ࡢ㸰ࡘࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊ࢝࢘ࣥࢱ࣮ࣂࣛࣥࢫࢆ⪃៖ࡢୖࠊ㸰ࣃࢱ࣮࡛ࣥᐇ᪋ࠊ(Pattern 1 (Text A 110 wpm + Text B 150 wpm) Pattern 2(Text B 110 wpm + Text A 150 wpm)ࠋࡲࡎࠊ㐜࠸㡢ኌ(110 wpmii)࡛㸴ᅇࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࢆ⾜ࡗࡓᚋࠊᩥ㢌ࡢ㸰ㄒࢆᥦ♧ࡋ⥆ࡁࢆ➹グ෌⏕ࡍࡿࣜࢥ࣮ࣝㄢ㢟(cued recall)ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊḟ࡟㏿࠸㡢ኌ(150 wpm)ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ྠᵝ࡟⾜ࡗࡓࠋ㏿ᗘࡢኚ᥮ࡣ㡢ኌࢯࣇࢺ audacity ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊࣆࢵࢳ➼ࡣኚ࠼ࡎࠊࢸ࣏ࣥࡢࡳㄪᩚࡋࡓࠋ110 wpm
ࡢ᪉ࡀ 150 wpm ࡟ẚ࡭㏿ᗘࡀ㐜ࡃ࡞ࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟࣏࣮ࢬࡶ㛗ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ(㸯㡢⠇ࡢ㡢ࡢ㛗ࡉࡢᖹᆒ㸸࣏࣮ࢬࡢ㛗ࡉࡢᖹᆒ(millisecond) Text A 110 wpm 294 : 541  Text A 150 wpm 215 : 396 Text B 110 wpm
324 : 489 Text B 150 wpm 238 : 358) ࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊ⫈ぬ่⃭࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᚟ၐࡢ₯᫬ࡀ㛗ࡃ࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ෌⏕⋡㸦⫈ぬ่⃭ࢆ᚟ၐ࡛ࡁࡓ⠇ᩘࡢ๭ྜ㸧࡜ࣜࢥ࣮ࣝ⋡㸦ࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡋࡓࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆ➹グ෌⏕࡛ࡁࡓㄒᩘࡢ๭ྜ㸧ࢆ ᐃࠋࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡢᅇᩘ㸦㸴ᅇ㸧ࡣ Shiki et al.(2010)࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁỴᐃࡋࡓࠋi
ii

The Common European Framework of References for Languages

words per minute−104−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

2.2.2 ᵓ㡢㏿ᗘࡢ ᐃᶓᕝ (2009)ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࠊ㧗ぶᐦᗘ㸦ぶᐦᗘ 6.65 ௨ୖ㸧ࡢⱥ༢ㄒࠊ㸲㸳ㄒࢆ㑅ࡧࠊ㸯㸳ㄒࡎࡘࡢ༢ㄒࡢ⨶ิ(word list)ࢆ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅ㏿ࡃኌ࡟ฟࡋ࡚ㄞࡴ㏿ᗘࢆ ࡗࡓࠋ㸱ᅇࡎࡘㄞࡳࠊ㸰ᅇ┠࡜㸱ᅇ┠ࡢ㏿ᗘࡢᖹᆒ࠿ࡽࠊ࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢ࣓ࣔࣜෆࡢ㡢㡩࣮ࣝࣉ࡛ࡢグ᠈ࡢಖᣢᮇ㝈࡜ࡉࢀࡿ㸰⛊㛫࡟ఱ⠇ࠊᵓ㡢࡛ࡁࡓ࠿ࢆィ ࡋࡓࠋィ ᪉ἲࡣࠊHori (2008), ⋢஭ (2004)ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋࡓࠋ⾲㸯㸬         ࣮࣡ࢻࣜࢫࢺࡢ౛
music

hello

today

examplequestion

numberyes

restaurant

teachergood

television

rememberwindowfinishlarge

3. ⤖ᯝ࡜⪃ᐹ㐜࠸㡢ኌ(110 wpm)࡜㏿࠸㡢ኌ(150 wpm)࡛ࡣ෌⏕⋡ࠊࣜࢥ࣮ࣝ⋡࡜ࡶ࡟ 110 wpm ࡢ᪉ࡀ㧗࠸⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡑࢀࡒࢀ㏿ᗘࡢ㐪࠸࡛␗࡞ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ150 wpm ࡛ࡣ࣮࣡ࢻࣜࢫࢺࡢ㡢ㄞ࡛ィ ࡋࡓᵓ㡢㏿ᗘ࡜෌⏕⋡࡟᭷ព࡞ṇࡢ┦㛵ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ෌⏕⋡࡜ࣜࢥ࣮ࣝ⋡࡟ࡣṇࡢ┦㛵ࡣ࠶ࡗࡓࡀ᭷ព࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
㏫࡟ 110wpm ࡛ࡣࠊࣜࢥ࣮ࣝ⋡࡜෌⏕⋡࡟ࡣ᭷ព࡞ṇࡢ┦㛵ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋᵓ㡢㏿ᗘ࡜෌⏕⋡࡟ࡣṇࡢ┦㛵ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡀ᭷ព࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠊ⫈ぬ่⃭ࡢ㏿ᗘࡢ㐪࠸ࡀࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ࡟ཬࡰࡍᙳ
㡪ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆㄆࡵࡓࠋᏛ⩦࡬ࡢᛂ⏝࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ㡢ኌ▱ぬࡢ⮬ື໬ࢆಁ㐍ࡋࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢຊࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ
┠ⓗ࡜ࡋࡓࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ(prosody shadowing)(㛛⏣, 2007, p.227)࡟ࡣᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᑡࡋ㏿ࡃឤࡌࡿ㡢ኌࠊ⫈ぬ᝟ሗࡢෆᅾ໬ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ(content shadowing)(㛛⏣, 2007, p.229)࡟ࡣᑡࡋ㐜ࡃឤࡌࡿ㡢ኌࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀຠᯝⓗ࡞ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Hitch, G., M.S.Halliday, & J.E.Littler. (1998). Item Identification Time and Rehearsal Rate as Predictors of Memory
Span in Children. Manchester: University Manchester, U.K.
Hori, T. (2008). Exploring shadowing as a method of English pronunciation training. Nishinomiya, Hyogo:
Doctorial Dissertation Submitted to Kwansei Gakuin University.
㛛⏣ಟᖹ࣭⋢஭೺. (2004). Ỵᐃ∧ࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ. ᮾி: ࢥࢫࣔࣆ࢔.
㛛⏣ಟᖹ. (2007). ࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ࡜㡢ㄞࡢ⛉Ꮫ. ᮾி: ࢥࢫࣔࣆ࢔.
Ἑ㔝Ᏺኵ. (2001). 㡢ኌゝㄒࡢㄆ㆑࡜⏕ᡂࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒. ᮾி: 㔠ᫍ♫.
Ἑ㔝Ᏺኵ࣭஭⊁ᖾ⏨࣭▼ᕝᆂ୍࣭㛛⏣ಟᖹ࣭ᮧ⏣⣧୍࣭ᒣ᰿⦾. (2007). ࡇ࡜ࡤ࡜ㄆ▱ࡢࡋࡃࡳ. ᮾி: ୕┬ᇽ.
Roodenrys, S., & Hulme, C. (1993). The Development of Short-Term Memory Span: Separate Effects of Speech
Rate and Long-Term Memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 56, 431-442 (1993).
Shiki, O., Mori, Y., Kadota, S., & Yoshida, S. (2010). Exploring Differences Between Shadowing and Repeating
Practices: An Analysis of Reproduction Rate and Types of Reproduced Words. ARELE : annual review ofEnglish language education in Japan 21, 81-90, 2010-03.
⋢஭೺. (2005). ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢᣦᑟἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡢຠᯝ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲. ᮾி: 㢼㛫᭩ᡣ.
ᶓᕝ༤୍. (2009). ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢⱥ༢ㄒぶᐦᗘ ᩍ⫱࣭◊✲ࡢࡓࡵࡢ➨஧ゝㄒࢹ࣮ࢱ࣮࣋ࢫ 㡢ኌ⦅. ᮾி: ࡃࢁࡋ࠾ฟ∧.

−105−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(14:20-14:50)602 ᐊᏊ࡝ࡶࡢⓎ㐩ẁ㝵ࢆ⪃៖ࡋࡓᑠᏛ⏕⏝ⱥㄒᩍᮦࡢグ᠈ຠᯝ㛗㇂ᕝ ಟ἞㸦᳜ⲡᏛᅬ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 እᅜㄒάື㸪ⱥㄒᩍᮦ㸪Ⓨ㐩ẁ㝵㸪グ᠈㸪࣑ࣞࢽࢭࣥࢫ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
2011 ᖺ 4 ᭶ࡼࡾ㸪ᑠᏛᰯ 5࣭6 ᖺ⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡟ᖺ㛫 35 ༢఩᫬㛫ࡎࡘ㸪ⱥㄒࢆྲྀࡾᢅ࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆཎ๎࡜ࡋࡓ
ࠕእᅜㄒάືࠖࡀᐇ᪋ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪౑⏝⩏ົࡢ࡞࠸ඹ㏻ᩍᮦ㸦Hi, friends! 1, 2㸧ࡣ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡢᩍ⛉᭩ࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓ㸪ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ᐇ㊶ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠕḷ࣭㋀ࡾ࣭ࢤ࣮࣒ࠖࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋࡓᴦࡋࡉ
ඃඛࡢᣦᑟἲࡣ㸪Ꮚ࡝ࡶࡢⓎ㐩ẁ㝵࠿ࡽぢࡓሙྜ㸪⮬ព㆑ࡀⱆ⏕࠼㸪ศᯒⓗ࣭ㄽ⌮ⓗ࣭ᢳ㇟ⓗᛮ⪃ࡀྍ⬟࡞ᑠᏛᰯ 5࣭6 ᖺ⏕㸦ᵽཱྀ࣭㔠᳃࣭ᅧ᪉, 2005㸧࡟ࡣ㐺ษ࡜ࡣゝ࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡉࡽ࡟㸪ᶵᲔⓗ࡞⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࢆከ⏝ࡍࡿࡔࡅࡢᣦᑟἲ࡛ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦஦㡯ࡀ࡝ࢀࡔࡅグ᠈࡟ṧࡿ࠿ࡶ␲ၥ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦ᒣ⏣, 2005㸧
ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ᮏ◊✲ࡣ㸪Ꮚ࡝ࡶࡢⓎ㐩ẁ㝵ࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡚㛤ⓎࡋࡓᑠᏛ⏕⏝ⱥㄒᩍᮦࡀ㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞グ᠈ຠᯝࢆⓎ᥹ࡍࡿ࠿ࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ2. ◊✲ࡢ᪉ἲ
2.1 ཧຍ⪅࡜ᣦᑟᙧែ
ཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸪බ❧ᑠᏛᰯ 6 ᖺ⏕ 24 ྡ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᣦᑟᙧែࡣ㸪㛤Ⓨࡋࡓࢹࢪࢱࣝᩍᮦࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓᩍဨ࡟ࡼ
ࡿᩍᐊ࡛ࡢ୍ᩧᣦᑟ࡛㸪ࣃࢯࢥࣥ࠿ࡽ኱ᆺࣔࢽࢱ࡟⏬ീࢆᫎࡋฟࡋ㸪㡢ኌࢆ⪺࠿ࡏ࡞ࡀࡽ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ
2.2 ᡭ㡰
ᣦᑟࡣ㸪1 ᭶࡟ྜィ 2 ᅇ㸪1 㐌㛫࡟ 1 ᅇࡎࡘᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ࠺ࡕ㸪グ᠈ࢸࢫࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚➨ 1 ᅇ┠ࡢᏛ⩦࡛
Ⓩሙࡋࡓ 5 ࡘࡢⱥㄒࣇ࣮ࣞࢬࢆ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࡢ 10 ศᚋ㸪1 㐌㛫ᚋ㸪2 㐌㛫ᚋ㸪3 㐌㛫ᚋ࡛㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀඣ❺࡟ 2ᅇࡎࡘ⪺࠿ࡏ㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࢆゝࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛᭩ࡃࡇ࡜࡛㸪グ᠈ࡢṧᏑ≧ែࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓࠋ10ศᚋࡢグ᠈ࢸࢫࢺ࡛ࡣ㸪5 ࡘࡢⱥㄒࣇ࣮ࣞࢬࡀᏛ⩦࡛Ⓩሙࡋࡓ㡰␒࡟࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ㸪1 㐌㛫ᚋ࡛ࡣࡉࡽ࡟㡰␒ࢆኚ࠼ࡓࠋ2 㐌㛫ᚋ௨㝆ࡣ㸪㡰␒ࡢᙳ㡪ࡣ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼࡚ 1 㐌㛫ᚋ࡜ྠࡌ㡰␒࡛ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ᥇Ⅼࡣ㸪1 ࡘࡢⱥㄒࣇ࣮ࣞࢬ࡟ࡘࡁṇ⟅ࡢሙྜࡣ 2 Ⅼ࡜ࡋ㸪ྜィ 10 Ⅼ‶Ⅼ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ᥇Ⅼ⪅ࡣ㸪ᑠᏛᰯࡢእᅜ
ㄒάືࡢᐇ᝟ࢆ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ⪅ 1 ྡ࡜▱ࡽ࡞࠸⪅ 1 ྡ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢⅬᩘࡢᖹᆒ್ࢆྛཧຍ⪅ࡢⅬᩘ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
2.2.1 㛤Ⓨࡋࡓࢹࢪࢱࣝᩍᮦ
㛤Ⓨࡋࡓࢹࢪࢱࣝᩍᮦࡣ㸪࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟࢻ࡛ࡁ㸪ID ࡜ࣃࢫ࣮࣡ࢻࢆධຊࡋ࡚㸪ᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿᩍᐊ࡛ࡢ୍ᩧᣦᑟࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎඣ❺࡟ࡼࡿಶูᏛ⩦ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋᩍᮦࡣ 18 ࡢ Lesson ࠿ࡽᵓᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᢅ࠺ࢺࣆࢵࢡࡣ㸪 Lesson 1㹼7 ࡲ࡛ࡣࠕᇶ♏⦅ 1ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ Hi, friends! 1㸦ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬㸪2012㸧࡟ᑐᛂࡋ㸪Lesson 8㹼13 ࡲ࡛ࡣࠕᇶ♏⦅ 2ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ Hi, friends! 2㸦ibid.㸧࡟ᑐᛂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪Lesson 14
㹼18 ࡲ࡛ࡣࠕᛂ⏝⦅ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚⊂⮬ࡢࢺࣆࢵࢡࡀタࡅ࡚࠶ࡿࠋ
ᩍᮦࡢྛ Lesson ࡣ㸪1㸧ࠕ⤮ࢆぢ࡞ࡀࡽⱥㄒ࡛ 30 ㄒ⛬ᗘࡢࣃࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࢆ⪺࠸࡚㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⟅࠼ࡢ㑅ᢥࠖ㸪2㸧ࠕⱥㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢᑐᛂ㛵ಀࡢ☜ㄆࠖ㸪3㸧ࠕཱྀ㢌⦎⩦ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ 3 ẁ㝵࡛⾜ࢃࢀ㸪15 ศ⛬ᗘ࡛⤊ࢃࡿࠋ
1㸧ࡢࣃࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡣ㸪ᑠᏛᰯ 6 ᖺ⏕ࡢኴ㑻࡜ⰼᏊࡀ᪥ᖖ⏕ά࡛㐼㐝ࡍࡿ㌟㏆࡞࢚ࣆࢯ࣮ࢻ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠾ࡾ㸪Ⓩሙே≀ྠኈࡢ఍ヰ࡜ࢼ࣮ࣞࢩࣙࣥࢆྵࢇࡔ≀ㄒᛶࡢ࠶ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⟅࠼ࡣ㸪ࣃࢵࢭ࣮−106−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ࢪෆࡢ᝟ሗࢆᇶ࡟ᛮ⪃ຊࢆせࡋ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡿࠋ2㸧ࡢ☜ㄆ࡛ࡣ㸪ࣃࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡢⱥᩥࡀ⾲♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋⱥᩥࡣ㸪ࢳࣕࣥࢡࡈ࡜࡟࢔ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ࢖ࣥࡀᘬ࠸࡚࠶ࡾ㸪࢔ࣥࢲ࣮ࣛ࢖ࣥ㒊ศࢆࢡࣜࢵࢡࡍࡿ࡜㸪ࠕⱥㄒЍ᪥ᮏㄒࠖ
ࡢ㡰࡛㡢ኌࡀὶࢀࡿࠋ3㸧ࡢ⦎⩦࡛ࡣ㸪㛵㐃ࡋࡓ⤮ࢆぢ࡞ࡀࡽࣃࢵࢭ࣮ࢪ࠾ࡼࡧ㉁ၥ࡜⟅࠼ࡢⱥㄒࢆ㸪ࢳࣕࣥࢡࡈ࡜࡟ⱥㄒࡢ㡢ኌࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓᚋ࡟ 10 ⛊㛫ࡢࠕỿ㯲ࡢ᫬㛫ࠖࢆᣳࢇ࡛᚟ၐࡍࡿࠋ
ࠕỿ㯲ࡢ᫬㛫࡛ࠖࡣኌ࡟ฟࡉࡎ࡟㢌ࡢ୰࡛ఱᗘࡶゝ࠺ࠋ10 ⛊ᚋ࡟ࠕࣁ࢖㸟ࠖ࡜ྜᅗࡀฟࡓࡽ㸪ཱྀ㢌࡛Ⓨ㡢ࡍࡿࠋㄪᰝࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓᑠᏛᰯ࡛ࡣ㸪Hi, friends! 1, 2 ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡓࡵ㸪ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ Hi, friends! 1, 2 ࡜ࡣ㛵ಀࡢ࡞࠸ࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆᢅࡗࡓ Lesson ࡛ᣦᑟࡋࡓࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝᏛ⩦ࡢ 10 ศᚋ㸪1 㐌㛫ᚋ㸪2 㐌㛫ᚋ㸪3 㐌㛫ᚋ࡟ࡑࢀࡒࢀᐇ᪋ࡋࡓグ᠈ࢸࢫࢺࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ⾲ 1 ࡟♧ࡋࡓࠋ  ⾲ 1.
  グ᠈ࢸࢫࢺ㸦10 Ⅼ‶Ⅼ㸧ࡢ᫬㛫⤒㐣࡟ࡼࡿⅬᩘࡢẚ㍑
グ᠈ࢸࢫࢺ

N

ᖹᆒ್

ᶆ‽೫ᕪ

᭱ᑠ್

᭱኱್

ᖹᆒࣛࣥࢡ

10 ศᚋ

24

4.31

3.37

0

10

1.52

1 㐌㛫ᚋ

24

6.06

3.55

0

10

2.63

2 㐌㛫ᚋ

24

6.29

3.36

0.5

10

2.83

3 㐌㛫ᚋ

24

6.69

2.85

1

10

3.02

ࡲࡎ㸪ࡇࢀࡽࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ඲య࡜ࡋ࡚ぢࡓሙྜ㸪࡝ࡇ࠿࡟ᕪࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓࠋྛᗘ
ᩘศᕸࡢほᐹ࠿ࡽṇつᛶࡀᮇᚅ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵ㸪ᑐᛂࡢ࠶ࡿ 4 ⩌ࡢẚ㍑ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࣀࣥࣃ࣓ࣛࢺࣜࢵࢡ
᳨ᐃࡢ Friedman ᳨ᐃࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪1%Ỉ‽࡛᭷ព࡞ᕪࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ㸦N = 24, Ȥ2 = 22.329, df = 3, p
= .000㸧ࠋḟ࡟㸪࡝ࡢ⩌࡜࡝ࡢ⩌ࡢ㛫࡟ᕪࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࡓࡵ㸪
Bonferroni ࡢ⿵ṇࢆ࡜ࡶ࡞ࡗࡓWilcoxonࡢ➢ྕ௜㡰఩᳨ᐃ࡛ከ㔜ẚ㍑ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪10 ศᚋ࡜ 1 㐌㛫ᚋ࡛ 5%Ỉ‽㸦Z = -2.963, p = .018, r= .62㸧
㸪10 ศᚋ࡜ 2 㐌㛫ᚋ࠾ࡼࡧ 10 ศᚋ࡜ 3 㐌㛫ᚋ࡛ࡑࢀࡒࢀ 1%Ỉ‽㸦Z = -3.522, p = .003, r = .75 ࠾ࡼ
ࡧ Z = -4.025, p = .000, r = .82㸧࡛᭷ព࡞ᕪࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋຠᯝ㔞㸦r㸧ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠕ኱࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ
4. ⤖ㄽ ୖグࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ㸪Ꮚ࡝ࡶࡢⓎ㐩ẁ㝵ࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡚㛤ⓎࡋࡓᑠᏛ⏕⏝ⱥㄒᩍᮦ࡛ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࡢ 10 ศᚋ࡟ᑐࡋ
࡚㸪1 㐌㛫ᚋ㸪2 㐌㛫ᚋ㸪3 㐌㛫ᚋ࡜᪥ᩘࢆ⤒ࡿ࡟ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚㸪グ᠈ࡢṧᏑ≧ែࡀⰋࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
ࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ≉࡟㸪10 ศᚋ࡜ 1 㐌㛫ᚋࡢ㛫࡟኱ࡁ࡞ୖ᪼ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋᮏ᮶㸪グ᠈ࡣᏛ⩦ࡢ┤ᚋࡀ᭱ࡶⰋࡃ㸪᫬㛫ࡢ⤒㐣࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ῶ⾶ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ᮏ◊✲࡛♧ࡉࢀࡓ⤖ᯝࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪᪥᫬ࡢ⤒㐣࡜࡜ࡶ࡟グ᠈ࡢ᝿㉳ࡀⰋࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃ⌧㇟ࡣ㸪ࠕ࣑ࣞࢽࢭࣥࢫࠖ㸦Colman, 2009, p. 650㸧࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࡶ
ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⌧㇟ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪ᮏᩍᮦࡢグ᠈ຠᯝࡢ㧗ࡉࢆ♧ࡍ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟㸪ᩍᮦࡢෆᐜࡀᑠ
Ꮫᰯ 5࣭6 ᖺ⏕࡟࡜ࡗ࡚⯆࿡῝ࡃ㸪⌮ゎࡋࡸࡍ࠸ࡼ࠺࡟సᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Colman, A. M. (2009). Oxford dictionary of psychology (9th ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ᵽཱྀᛅᙪ࣭㔠᳃ᙉ࣭ᅧ᪉ኴྖ㸦⦅㸧
㸦2005㸧
㸬ࠗࡇࢀ࠿ࡽࡢᑠᏛᰯⱥㄒ̿⌮ㄽ࡜ᐇ㊶̿࠘ᮾி㸸◊✲♫㸬ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬㸦2012㸧㸬Hi, friends! 1㸬ᮾி㸸ᮾி᭩⡠ᰴᘧ఍♫㸬ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬㸦2012㸧㸬Hi, friends! 2㸬ᮾி㸸ᮾி᭩⡠ᰴᘧ఍♫㸬ᒣ⏣㞝୍㑻㸦2005㸧㸬ࠗ᪥ᮏࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱࠘ᮾி㸸ᒾἼ᭩ᗑ㸬

−107−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(14:55-15:25)602 ᐊᦠᖏ᝟ሗ➃ᮎ⏝ᕤᏛⱥㄒㄒᙡᏛ⩦࢔ࣉࣜࡢ㛤Ⓨᑠᯘ ㄔ㸦㇏ᶫᢏ⾡⛉Ꮫ኱Ꮫ ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕㸧➲ᑿ ὒ௓㸦㇏ᶫᢏ⾡⛉Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㸧Ἑྜ ࿴ஂ㸦㇏ᶫᢏ⾡⛉Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ㄒᙡᏛ⩦㸪Ꮫ⩦ᨭ᥼ࢩࢫࢸ࣒㸪ᦠᖏ᝟ሗ➃ᮎ㸪ᕤᏛⱥㄒ㸪EST
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝேᮦ⫱ᡂࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㸪ⱥㄒࡢ࡛ࡁࡿᢏ⾡⪅ࡢ⫱ᡂࡣᛴົ࡛࠶ࡿࠋእᅜㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢⱥㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ㸪ⱥㄒㄒᙡ▱㆑ࡢ⫱ᡂࡀࡁࢃࡵ࡚㔜せ࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ඛ⾜◊✲ࡣ᪥ᮏே኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢㄒᙡ▱㆑ࡣᚲせ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟ẚࡋ࡚ஈࡋ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚㸪ᢏ⾡⪅࡟ᚲせ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ EST㸦English for Science and Technology㸧ㄒᙡࢆ㑅ᐃࡋ㸪ᙜヱㄒᙡᏛ⩦ࢆࢧ࣏࣮ࢺࡍ
ࡿࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢᵓ⠏ࡣᢏ⾡⪅ࡢⱥㄒຊ⫱ᡂ࡟࠾࠸࡚㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2. ᡭ㡰
2.1 ᕤᏛ⣔Ꮫ⾡ㄒᙡࡢ㑅ᐃ ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ᕤᏛⱥㄒㄒᙡ㸦EST ㄒᙡ㸧ࣜࢫࢺ㸦➲ᑿ ௚, 2015㸧ࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࢆ㛤Ⓨࡋࡓࠋᙜヱㄒᙡࣜࢫࢺࡣ㸪⏣ᆅ㔝 ௚㸦2007㸧ࡢㄪᰝᡭἲ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ㸪ྛᑓ㛛ศ㔝ࡢᕤᏛᩍဨ࠿ࡽᏛ⏕ࡀㄞࡴ࡭ࡁⱥ
ㄒᏛ⾡㞧ㄅࢆ᥎⸀ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋᙜヱ㞧ㄅࡢ᭱᪂ྕ࠿ࡽ㡰࡟↓సⅭ࡟ㄽᩥࢆᢳฟࡋ㸪ᕤᏛㄽᩥࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ
ࢆసᡂࡋࡓࠋ㢖ᗘ࡜⠊ᅖࡢ᝟ሗ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚㸪஑ࡘࡢࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟ศ㢮ࡋ㸪ᶵ⬟ㄒࡶྵࡵ࡚⣙ 5,000 ㄒ㸦࣐ࣞ᥮⟬㸧ࢆᢳฟࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢㄒࡢ▱㆑ࡀ࠶ࢀࡤ㸪ᕤᏛ⣔ศ㔝ࡢⱥㄒᏛ⾡ㄽᩥ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿㄒࡢ 90㸣௨ୖࢆ࢝ࣂ࣮࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ࡞࠾㸪ᢳฟࡉࢀࡓㄒ࡟ࡣ㸪ᅛ᭷ྡモ㸪␎ㄒ㸦౛㸸fig㸧㸪㢌ᩥᏐㄒ㸦౛㸸DNA㸧࠾ࡼࡧ໬Ꮫグྕ㸦౛㸸NaCl㸧ࡣྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢㄒᙡࣜࢫࢺ࡟Ⓨ㡢࡜᪥ᮏㄒヂࢆ㏣ຍࡋ㸪ㄒᙡᏛ⩦࢔ࣉࣜࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ㛤Ⓨࡢࡓࡵࡢ⣲ᮦ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
2.2 ㄒᙡᏛ⩦࢔ࣉࣜࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ㛤ⓎㄒᙡᏛ⩦࢔ࣉࣜࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ㛤Ⓨ࡟࠶ࡓࡾ㸪࢔ࣉࣜࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢືస⎔ቃࡢ㑅ᐃࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪ྍᦙᛶ࡜Ꮫ⏕࡟࡞ࡌࡳࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ iPod Touch ࢆ㑅ᢥࡋࡓࠋㄒᙡᏛ⩦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸪⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ≉࡟㸪Ꮫ⩦ࡢึᮇẁ㝵࡛ࡣ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡢ㛫㝸ࢆ⊃ࡃࡋ㸪ᚎࠎ࡟㛫㝸ࢆᗈࡆ࡚࠸ࡃᏛ⩦㸦spaced learning㸧ࡢຠᯝࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦౛㸸Nation, 2013㸧ࠋᮏࣉࣟࢢ࣒࡛ࣛࡣ㸪spaced learning ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿ⎔ቃࢆྲྀࡾධࢀࡓࠋ
➲ᒸ௚㸦2014㸧࡟ࡼࡿ࡜㸪㧗ᑓ⏕ࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀᦠᖏ᝟ሗ➃ᮎୖ࡛ືసࡍࡿㄒᙡᏛ⩦࢔ࣉࣜࢣ࣮ࢩࣙ
ࣥࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚⾜࠺ㄒᙡᏛ⩦᫬㛫ࡣᖹᆒࡋ࡚ 15 ศ⛬ᗘ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵ㸪୍ࡘࡢࣘࢽࢵࢺࢆ 15 ศ⛬ᗘ࡛᏶஢࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟㸪Ꮫ⩦ᶵ⬟࡛Ꮫ⩦ࡍࡿ༢ㄒᩘࡣ 10 ༢ㄒࢆ୍ࡘࡢ༢఩࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
ࡲࡓ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿㄒࢆᏛ⩦࣮ࣔࢻ࠿ࡽ┬ࡃࡓࡵ࡟㸪ㄒࡢ▱㆑ࡢ᭷↓ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࢫࢡ࣮ࣜࢽࣥ
ࢢࢸࢫࢺࢆ᭱ึ࡟⾜࠺ࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡾ㸪ࡍ࡛࡟▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿㄒࢆᏛ⩦ࡍࡿᡭ㛫ࢆ┬ࡅࡿࡓࡵ㸪ຠ⋡ⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦ࢆ⾜࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺࢆᐇ᪋࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ㸪ᚑ᮶ࡢ⣬፹యࡢᏛ⩦࡛ࡣᐇ⌧ࡀᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡗࡓㄒᙡ▱㆑ࡢഃ㠃ࡢᏛ⩦ࢆᨭ᥼ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟㸪ࡼࡾຠᯝⓗ࡞⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋᏛ⩦ࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪㔜せㄒࣜࢫࢺࢆᐇ⿦ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢࣜࢫࢺ࡟ࡣ㸪㸦㸯㸧Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀᚋ࡛ཧ↷࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺⮬ࡽࢳ࢙ࢵࢡࡋࡓㄒ㸪࠾ࡼࡧ㸦㸰㸧Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࢸࢫࢺࡢゎ⟅ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡀ⮬ືⓗ࡟㑅ᢥࡋࡓㄒࡢ 2 ✀㢮࠿ࡽᡂࡿࠋ

−108−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

3. 㛤Ⓨ⤖ᯝ ㄒᙡᏛ⩦࢔ࣉࣜࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡣ iOS 7.0 ௨ୖࡢ iPod Touch ࡸ iPhone ୖ࡛ືసࡍࡿࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣈ࢔ࣉࣜࢣ࣮
ࢩࣙࣥ࡜ࡋ࡚㛤Ⓨࡋࡓࠋᅗ 1 ࡣᏛ⩦⏬㠃ࡢ୍౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍ࡘࡢ⏬㠃୰࡟㸪┠ᶆㄒ࡜ࡑࡢⓎ㡢ࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ⏬㠃ୗ㒊࡟࠶ࡿࠕព࿡ࠖࡢ࢔࢖ࢥࣥࢆࢱࢵࣉࡍࡿ࡜㸪ᅗ 2 ࡟♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞᪥ᮏㄒヂࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ⏬㠃᭱ୗ㒊ࡢࠕぬ࠼࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠖࢆ㑅ᢥࡋ࡚ḟࡢ┠ᶆㄒ࡬⛣ࡿ࡜㸪୍ᐃࡢ㛫㝸ࢆ⤒࡚෌ᗘࡑࡢ┠ᶆㄒࡀฟ⌧ࡍࡿࠋ
ᅗ 3 ࡣ㔜せㄒࣜࢫࢺࡢࢫࢡ࣮ࣜࣥࢩࣙࢵࢺ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᏛ⩦⪅ࡈ࡜࡟␗࡞ࡿ㔜せㄒࣜࢫࢺࡀసᡂ࡛ࡁࡿᶵ
⬟ࢆᐇ⿦ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ㸪ຠᯝⓗ࡞ㄒᙡᏛ⩦ࡀᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿࠋࡼࡾヲ⣽࡞Ꮫ⩦⎔ቃ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲࡛ሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ

 
ᅗ 1 Ꮫ⩦⏬㠃 
ᅗ 2 Ꮫ⩦⏬㠃(ព࿡⾲♧᫬)

ᅗ 3 㔜せㄒࣜࢫࢺᘬ⏝ᩥ⊩Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language, Cambridge: CUP.
➲ᑿὒ௓࣭ຍ⸨୕ಖᏊ࣭ࣦࣞ࢕ࣥ ࢹ࢖ࣦ࢕ࢵࢻ࣭ࣛ࢖࢔ࣥ ࣮ࣘࢪࣥ㸬
㸦2015㸧
㸬ࠕᕤᏛⱥㄒㄒᙡࣜࢫࢺࡢ
㛤Ⓨࠖ
㸬
ࠗ㞼㞛㔝࠘
㸪➨ 37 ᕳ㸪71㸫78 㡫㸬㇏ᶫᢏ⾡⛉Ꮫ኱Ꮫ⥲ྜᩍ⫱㝔⣖せ㸬➲ᒸຬభ࣭㡲⸨Ὧᇶ࣭ΎỈ⩏ᙪ࣭௒஭୍㞞࣭Ἑྜ࿴ஂ㸬
㸦2014㸧
㸬ࠕᦠᖏ᝟ሗ➃ᮎࢆά⏝ࡋࡓ㧗ᑓ⏕ࡴࡅⱥ༢ㄒᏛ⩦ᨭ᥼ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࠖ
㸬ࠗ㟁Ꮚ᝟ሗ㏻ಙᏛ఍ᢏ⾡◊✲ሗ࿌㸬ᩍ⫱ᕤᏛ࠘㸪➨ 113 ᕳ㸪➨ 482 ྕ㸪213
㸫218 㡫㸬
⏣ᆅ㔝ᙲ࣭ᑎෆ୍࣭➲ᑿὒ௓࣭࣐ࢫ࣡ࢼ⣪▮Ꮚ㸬(2007)㸬
ࠕ⥲ྜ◊✲኱Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒᏛ⾡ㄒᙡࣜࢫࢺ㛤Ⓨࡢព⩏ʊEAP ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛࢹࢨ࢖ࣥࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽʊࠖ㸬ࠗி㒔኱Ꮫ㧗➼ᩍ⫱◊✲࠘㸪➨ 13 ྕ㸪121-131
㡫. ி㒔኱Ꮫ㧗➼ᩍ⫱◊✲㛤Ⓨ᥎㐍ࢭࣥࢱ࣮㸬

−109−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(15:30-16:00)602 ᐊᩍᮦ㛤Ⓨࡢࡓࡵࡢ e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡢព㆑ㄪᰝ୰ᓥ ᩗஅ㸦ி㒔኱Ꮫ ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕㸧ቭ㎷ ṇ๛㸦ி㒔኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ㸪࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ㸪Ꮫ⏕ㄪᰝ㸪ᩍဨㄪᰝ㸪ᩍᮦ㛤Ⓨ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࡢᗈࡀࡾ࡟క࠸≉ᐃࡢ e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢᩍᮦࡢᏛ⩦ຠᯝࢆ ࡿ◊✲ࡸ㸪ࡑࢀࡽࡢᩍᮦࡸ౑⏝᪉ἲ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࡣከࡃ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢㄪᰝࡸ◊✲ࡣ≉ᐃࡢᩍᮦࡢᨵၿ࡟ࡣ኱ࡁ
ࡃᐤ୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪᪂つࡢᩍᮦ㛤Ⓨࢆᛕ㢌࡟⨨࠸ࡓ㝿ࡢ e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ୍⯡࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡢヲ⣽࡞ㄪᰝࡀࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠸㞴࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࡢ㛗ᡤ࡜▷ᡤࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓୖ࡛እᅜ
ㄒᏛ⩦ᩍᮦࡢ㛤Ⓨ࡟㛵ࡍࡿពぢࢆồࡵࡿ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ
2. e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࡢ㛗ᡤ࡜▷ᡤ Ἑᮧ㸦2009㸧࡛ࡣ e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࡢ㛗ᡤ࡜▷ᡤࢆ௨ୗࡢ㡯┠࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ1㸧ಶูᏛ⩦࡟㐺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ 2㸧ሙᡤ࡜᫬㛫࡟ไ⣙ࢆཷࡅ࡞࠸Ꮫ⩦ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ 3㸧㇏ᐩ࡞ᩍᮦࢆ㑅࡭ࡿࡇ࡜ 4㸧཮᪉ྥᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ
ࡇ࡜ 5㸧Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟ྜࢃࡏࡓࢧ࣏࣮ࢺࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ 6㸧ᩍᮦ⟶⌮ࡀࡋࡸࡍ࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊࡢ௨ୖ 6 Ⅼ࡞࡝ࡀ㛗ᡤ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪1㸧᝟ሗᶵჾࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ 2㸧ᑐ㠃ᘧᏛ⩦࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㝈⏺ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡢ 2 Ⅼ࡞࡝ࡀ▷ᡤ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࢭࣥࢱ࣮ᩍ⫱㛤Ⓨࢭࣥࢱ࣮㸦2008㸧࡛ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿప࠸ಟ஢⋡ࡣ 2 Ⅼ┠ࡢ▷ᡤ࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿࡀ㸪ࡇࢀࡽࡣ⮬୺ⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦ࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿ㧗➼ᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿ኱ࡁ࡞ၥ㢟࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢၥ㢟Ⅼ
ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼㸪⌧≧࡟࠾ࡅࡿヲ⣽࡞ពぢࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ
3. ㄪᰝᡭ㡰
3.1 ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ༠ຊ⪅࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ࡬ࡢ༠ຊ⪅ࡣ㸪164 ྡࡢᏛ⏕࡜ 12 ྡࡢᩍဨ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᏛ⏕ࡣ඲Ꮫඹ㏻⛉┠㸦୍⯡ᩍ㣴⛉┠㸧ࡢᤵᴗ࡟ฟᖍࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᏛ⏕࡛㸪ᤵᴗෆ࡟࠾࠸࡚࡞ࢇࡽ࠿ࡢᙧ࡛ e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᩍဨࡣእ
ᅜㄒ⛉┠ࢆᢸᙜࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᩍဨ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3.2 ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺෆᐜタၥෆᐜࡢᴫせࢭࢡࢩࣙࣥ 3ࢭࢡࢩࣙࣥ 4ࢭࢡࢩࣙࣥ 1ࢭࢡࢩࣙࣥ 2㏻ᖖᤵᴗࡢホ౯౑⏝⤒㦂࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ e ᪂ᶵ⬟ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓ e ⮬ᚊᏛ⩦࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࢩࢫࢸ ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ࡬ࡢ฼⏝ ホ౯㸪ᶵ⬟
࣒࡬୙‶➼

ᑐ㇟➼

ᅗ 1 ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ࡛ࡢ㉁ၥෆᐜࡢᴫせ୍ぴ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ࡛ࡣ㸪ࢸࢫࢺࡢᡂ⦼ࡸㄢ㢟࡞࡝ᡂ⦼ホ౯࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢࢆ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘ㔜どࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࢭࢡ
ࢩࣙࣥ㸪CALL ᩍᮦࡸ㸪Sakai ࢆ࣮࣋ࢫ࡟సᡂࡉࢀࡓி㒔኱Ꮫࡢ࢜ࣜࢪࢼࣝ LMS㸪㏻⛠͆PandA͇࡞࡝⌧≧ࡢ e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡢ୙‶ࡸၥ㢟Ⅼ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢭࢡࢩࣙࣥ㸪⌧≧࡛ࡣᐇ⿦ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸㡢ኌゎᯒࡸ࣓࡛࢝ࣛࡢࣔࢽࢱࣜࣥࢢᶵ⬟࡞࡝ࢆ฼⏝ࡍࡿᙧ࡛ࡢᏛ⩦⪅࣭Ꮫ⩦㡯┠࣭Ꮫ⩦᪉ἲ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢭࢡࢩࣙࣥ㸪−110−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍⮬ᚊᏛ⩦ࢆᛕ㢌࡟⨨࠸ࡓ㝿࡟㛵ࡍࡿᡂ⦼ホ౯᪉ἲࡸᚲせ࡞ᶵ⬟࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡢࢭࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢ 4 ࢭࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡟
኱ูࡋࡓ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣ 4 ࡘࡢࢭࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢ୰࠿ࡽ≉࡟ᩍᮦసᡂ᫬࡟⪃៖ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ 3 ࡘࡢࢭࢡࢩࣙࣥࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ࡚⪃ᐹࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ
4. ⤖ᯝ࡜⪃ᐹ ศᯒ࡟ࡣࣄࢫࢺࢢ࣒ࣛ࡟ࡼࡿẚ㍑࡜㸪⮬⏤グ㏙ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋe ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࡢ㛗ᡤ࡜ゝࢃࢀࡿࠕᩍ⫱ࡢ㉁ࡢ☜ಖ࡜Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢேᩘࡢ☜ಖࡀྠ᫬࡟⾜࠼ࡿࠖࠕ⮬ศࡢ࣮࣌ࢫ࡛Ꮫ⩦࡛ࡁࡿࠖࠕ㡢ኌᩍᮦࡀ
㇏ᐩ࡟ᥦ౪࡛ࡁࡿࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ㡯┠࡟ࡣᩍဨ࣭Ꮫ⏕࡜ࡶ࡟㧗࠸ホ౯ࡀ㞟ࡲࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪⮬⏤グ㏙࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕࡶ࠺ᑡࡋ㡢ኌᩍᮦࡀከ࠸࡜࠺ࢀࡋ࠸ࠖ࡞࡝࡜ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟㸪ࡸࡸ≀㊊ࡾ࡞࠸࡜ឤࡌࡿᏛ⏕ࡶぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓ㡢ኌᩍᮦࡢ㔞ࡀከ࠸ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪Ⓨ㡢ࡢಶேᕪࢆ⪃៖ࡋᵝࠎ࡞ேࡢ㡢ኌࢆᩍᮦ࡟ᇙࡵ
㎸ࡴࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࡶ e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࢆጞࡵ࡜ࡍࡿ࣐ࣝࢳ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ᩍᮦࡢ≉㛗࡜ࡶゝ࠼ࡿࠋᐇ㝿࡟Ꮫ⏕࠿ࡽࡣ㡢ኌ࡟㛵ࢃࡿホ౯࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕே࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡕࡻࡗ࡜Ⓨ㡢ࡀ㐪࠺ࡢࢆᤵᴗ࡛ᐇឤࡋࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢥ࣓
ࣥࢺࡀᐤࡏࡽࢀࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ึಟእᅜㄒࢆᢸᙜࡍࡿᩍဨ࠿ࡽࡣࠕึ⣭ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࡢⓎ㡢⦎⩦ࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡞ᶆ‽ⓗ㡢ኌࢆⓎ㡢࡛ࡁࡿヰ⪅ࡢ㡢ኌࢆᩍᮦ࡟཰㘓ࡍࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ኌࡶᐤࡏࡽࢀ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿᚲせࡶ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ ⮬ᚊᏛ⩦ࢆᛕ㢌࡟࠾࠸ࡓ➨ 4 ࢭࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿタၥ࡛ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⏕࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᚲせ࡞ᶵ⬟࡜ᩍဨ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚
ᚲせ࡞ᶵ⬟㸪ࡲࡓ༢఩ࢆ୚࠼ࡿ㝿࡟Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ꮫ⩦≧ἣࡀศ࠿ࡿ࡜Ⰻ࠸࠿ࢆᑜࡡࡓࠋ≉࡟ᚲせ࡞ᶵ⬟࡟㛵ࡋ࡚Ꮫ⏕࡜ᩍဨ࡛ṇ཯ᑐ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡀᐤࡏࡽࢀࡓࠋᢸᙜᩍဨ࡬ࡢ㉁ၥࡢ㔜せᛶ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡢタၥ࡛ࡣᏛ⏕ࡣࠕᩍဨ࡬ࡢ㉁ၥࡀ࡛ࡁࢀࡤᏛ⩦ពḧࡀྥୖࡍࡿࠖ
ࠕ㐃⤡ࡣࡍࡄ࡟࡛ࡁࡓ࡯࠺ࡀ㉁ၥࡀ
ࡍࡄ࡟࡛ࡁ࡚࠸࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ពぢࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡀ㸪ࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡋᩍဨ࠿ࡽࡣࠕᩍဨࡢ㈇ᢸࢆቑࡸࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛
ࡣ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽ㉁ၥᶵ⬟ࡢᚲせᛶࢆྰᐃࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ពぢࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ௚࡟ࡶⓎヰศᯒᶵ⬟ࡸㄢ㢟ࡢ⮬ື᥎⸀ᶵ⬟࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶᩍဨࡀ᝿ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼࡾࡶᏛ⏕ࡢ᪉ࡀࡼࡾồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀఛ࠼ࡿ⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋᏛ⏕ࡣ⮬ᚊᏛ⩦࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪⮬ศࡢ࣮࣌ࢫ࡛Ꮫ⩦ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࡶྛ⮬ࡀᚲせࡔ࡜ឤࡌࡿࢱ࢖࣑ࣥࢢ࡛ࡢ
ᩍဨ࠿ࡽࡢ⿵ຓࢆồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ㸪࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋe ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ࡬ࡢ⿵ຓ࡜ࡋ࡚ e ࣓ࣥࢱࡸ TA ࡢタ⨨ࡶ୍ࡘࡢᡭ
ẁ࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀ㸪࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ࡛ࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡸᯇ⏣࡯࠿㸦2010㸧࡛ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ಶࠎࡢᩍ
ᤵ⪅ഃࡢ㈇ᢸቑ኱ࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㰻⸨࡯࠿㸦2012㸧࡛ࡣࠕe ࣓ࣥࢱ 1 ே࠶ࡓࡾࡢ⥲ྜⓗ࡞㈇ᢸ㍍ῶࡀྍ
⬟࡞ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࠖࡀ㛤Ⓨࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪e ࣓ࣥࢱ௨እࡢᡭẁ࡜ࡋ࡚Ꮫ⏕࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ᩍᮦసᡂࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡸ㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡢᕼᮃ࡟ྜࢃࡏࡓᩍᮦసᡂࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪➹⪅ࡽࡀ⌧ᅾᐇ㝿࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿㄢ㢟ࡢゎỴ᪉ἲࢆ౛♧ࡍࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Ἑᮧ୍ᶞ (2009). ࠗe-Learning ධ㛛࠘኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ฟ∧.
ቭ㎷ṇ๛ (2011). ඹ㏻ᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿ ICT ᨭ᥼ࡢእᅜㄒᩍ⫱࡜Ⓨ㡢ᣦᑟ ࠗ㟁Ꮚ᝟ሗ㏻ಙᏛ఍ᢏ⾡◊✲ሗ
࿌࠘ SP, 㡢ኌ, 110 (452), 1-6.
㰻⸨⿱࣭ᯇ⏣ᓅኈ࣭ྜ⏣⨾Ꮚ࣭ᒣ⏣ᨻᐶ࣭ຍ⸨ᾈ࣭ᐑᕝ⿱அ (2012). ⮬ᕫㄪᩚᏛ⩦ࢧ࢖ࢡࣝࡢィ⏬ẁ㝵࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓ e ࣓ࣥࢱ㈇ᢸ㍍ῶࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ㛤Ⓨ࡜ホ౯ࠗ᪥ᮏᩍ⫱ᕤᏛ఍ㄽᩥㄅ࠘ 36, 1, 9-20.
ᯇ⏣ᓅኈ࣭ᩪ⸨⿱࣭ྜ⏣⨾Ꮚ࣭ᒣ⏣ᨻᐶ࣭ຍ⸨ᾈ࣭ᐑᕝ⿱அ (2010). Ꮫ⩦ᨭ᥼⪅ࡢ㈇ᢸ㍍ῶࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ
ヨస࡟ྥࡅ࡚ ࠗ᪥ᮏᩍ⫱ᕤᏛ఍◊✲ሗ࿌᭩࠘J-SET10-1, 169-172.
࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ᩍ⫱㛤Ⓨࢭࣥࢱ࣮ (2008). ࠗe ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ➼ࡢ ICT ࢆά⏝ࡋࡓᩍ⫱࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄪᰝሗ࿌᭩ (2007ᖺᗘ)࠘ ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ᩍ⫱㛤Ⓨࢭࣥࢱ࣮, ༓ⴥ.
ྜྷ⏣ᬕୡ࣭㔝⃝࿴඾ (2014). ࠗ᭱᪂ ICT ࢆά⏝ࡋࡓ⚾ࡢእᅜㄒᤵᴗ࠘୸ၿࣉࣛࢿࢵࢺ.

−111−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(9:30-10:00)501 ᐊᣦᑟࢶ࣮ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭࣮ࣝࣈࣜࢵࢡࡢຠ⏝㸸Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢẼ࡙ࡁࢆಁ㐍ࡉࡏࡿヨࡳ㔠ᚿ ె௦Ꮚ㸦රᗜ┴❧኱Ꮫ㸧኱ᖺ 㡰Ꮚ㸦ᒸᒣ኱Ꮫ㸧ஂ␃ ཭⣖Ꮚ㸦ឡ▱་⛉኱Ꮫ㸧ᒣす ༤அ㸦㛵す኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭࣮ࣝࣈࣜࢵࢡ㸪┦஫ホ౯㸪⮬ᕫホ౯㸪ᣦᑟࢶ࣮ࣝ㸪Ẽ࡙ࡁ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏᐇ㊶ሗ࿌ࡣ㸪᪥ᮏࡢᩍ⫱⎔ቃ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㐠⏝ࢆ┠ᣦࡋ࡚⊂⮬࡟㛤Ⓨࡉࢀࡓࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭࣮ࣝࣈࣜࢵࢡ㸦ホ౯࢞࢖ࢻࣛ࢖ࣥ㸧ࢆ㸪ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡬ࡢᣦᑟࢶ࣮ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡋࡓຠ⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒ᳨࣭ドࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏሗ࿌࡛౑⏝ࡍࡿࠕ࣮ࣝࣈࣜࢵࢡ 2009ࠖࡣ㸪㸳ࡘࡢホ౯㡯┠㸦ෆᐜ࣭ᒎ㛤㸪ᵓᡂ㸪ᩥἲ㸪ㄒᙡ㸪⥛ࡾ࣭ྃㄞⅬ㸧࡜ࡑࢀࡒࢀࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿୗ఩㡯┠࠿ࡽ࡞ࡾ㸪ᩍ⫱ⓗ࡞ࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡࢆ⾜࠸ࡸࡍ࠸ศᯒⓗホ౯ࢆࡑࡢ≉㛗࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Kinshi, et al., 2011㸧ࠋࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭࣮ࣝࣈࣜࢵࢡࡣ㸪ᩍᖌࡀᏛ⩦⪅ࡢసᩥࢆホ౯ࡍࡿ㝿࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿホ౯ࢶ࣮ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍ୍᪉࡛㸦Hamp-Lyons, 2003; Hyland,2003㸧㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀ࣮ࣝࣈࣜࢵࢡࢆ⏝࠸࡚⮬㌟࠾ࡼࡧ௚⪅ࡢసᩥࢆホ౯ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡍࡿᣦᑟࢶ࣮࡛ࣝ
࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋᮏᐇ㊶ሗ࿌࡛ࡣ㸪࣮ࣝࣈࣜࢵࢡࡢࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞౑࠸᪉ࡢ᭷ຠᛶࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᮏᐇ㊶ࡢ┠ⓗࡣ㸪௨ୗࡢ㸰Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㸯㸧ᩍᐊ࡛ࡢᣦᑟ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀ┦஫ホ౯࡜⮬ᕫホ౯ࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡿࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠕẼ࡙ࡁࠖࢆಁࡍࠋ
㸰㸧Ꮫ⩦⪅ྠኈ࡜Ꮫ⩦⪅⮬㌟ࡢホ౯ࡢ㛵ಀࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࠋ
2. ᪉ἲ
2.1 ཧຍ⪅ཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸪㛵すᆅ᪉ࡢ⚾❧኱Ꮫ࡛㏻ᖺ⛉┠ࠕⱥㄒ㸦ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ㸧ࠖࢆᒚಟࡍࡿ㸱ᅇ⏕㸯ࢡࣛࢫ 37 ྡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ Ready to Write 2 (Longman)ࢆ⏝࠸࡚㸪ࣃࣛࢢࣛࣇ࣭ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ᣦᑟࢆ⾜࠸㸪㸰㐌࡟㸯ᗘࡢ࣮࣌ࢫ࡛Ꮫ⏕࡟ࡼࡿࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢆᐇ᪋ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏᣦᑟᐇ㊶ࡣࣃࣛࢢࣛࣇࡢᇶᮏᵓᡂ㸦ࢺࣆࢵࢡࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ㸪ࢧ࣏࣮ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ㸪ࢥࣥࢡ࣮ࣝࢹ࢕ࣥࢢࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ࡞࡝㸧ࡢᣦᑟࢆ⤊࠼ࡓẁ㝵࡛⾜ࡗࡓࠋ
2.2 ᣦᑟᡭ㡰
2.2.1 ࠕ࣮ࣝࣈࣜࢵࢡ 2009ࠖࡢᑟධ࣭ㄝ᫂
ࡲࡎ㸪ᩍᐊ࡟࠾࠸࡚ཧຍ⪅࡟ࠕ࣮ࣝࣈࣜࢵࢡ 2009ࠖࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓ࠺࠼࡛㸪ホ౯㡯┠࠾ࡼࡧୗ఩㡯┠࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢㄝ᫂ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓ㸪ᤵᴗෆ࡛⾜࠺ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡣ㸪ࡇࡢࠕ࣮ࣝࣈࣜࢵࢡ 2009ࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡚ホ౯ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆఏ࠼ࡓࠋ
2.2.2 ࣃࣛࢢࣛࣇ࣭ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢᐇ᪋ ḟ࡟㸪ᩍဨࡀ ETS®ࡢ Criterion®ࡢ඲ࢺࣆࢵࢡ୍ぴ࠿ࡽ㑅ࢇࡔ㸪ୗグࡢࣉࣟࣥࣉࢺࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓ㸸

−112−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

If you could change one important thing about your hometown, what would you change? Use reasons andspecific examples to support your answer.
ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡣᡭ᭩ࡁ࡛⾜ࢃࢀ㸪ᤵᴗ୰࡟⣙ 30 ศ㛫࡛ᐇ᪋ࡉࢀࡓࠋ㎡᭩ࡢ౑⏝ࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋ
2.2.3 ཧຍ⪅࡟ࡼࡿ┦஫ホ౯㸪⮬ᕫホ౯࠾ࡼࡧ㉁ၥ⣬ㄪᰝ ᏶ᡂࡋࡓసᩥࡣ㸪ࠕ࣮ࣝࣈࣜࢵࢡ 2009ࠖࢆ⏝࠸࡚ཧຍ⪅ྠኈࡀ஫࠸࡟┦஫ホ౯ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋホ౯᪉ἲࡣࠕ࣮ࣝࣈࣜࢵࢡ 2009ࠖࡢୗ఩㡯┠ࡈ࡜࡟㸲ẁ㝵㸦㸮㸪㸯㸪㸰㸪㸱㸧࡛ホ౯ࡉࡏࡓࠋ┦஫ホ౯ࡢ࠶࡜㸪ྠࡌせ㡿࡛Ꮫ⩦⪅ᮏே࡟ࡼࡿ⮬ᕫホ౯ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࡓࠋ᭱ᚋ࡟㸪࣮ࣝࣈࣜࢵࢡ 2009 ࢆᣦᑟࢶ࣮ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚౑ࡗࡓ
ຠ⏝ࢆ㸪ᨵၿⅬ࡟㛵ࡍࡿẼ࡙ࡁ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽ㉁ၥ⣬ㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝ࡜⪃ᐹ
3.1 ㉁ၥ⣬ㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ ⾲ 1 ࡢ㏻ࡾ࡜࡞ࡾ㸪ෆᐜ࣭ᒎ㛤࡜ㄒᙡࡣ≉࡟࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜㸪ᵓᡂ࡜ᩥἲࡣ࣏ࢪࢸ
࢕ࣈ࡜ࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࡟ศ࠿ࢀࡓࡇ࡜㸪⥛ࡾ࣭ྃㄞⅬࡣ୺࡟ࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࡟ᤊ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
⾲ 1 ᨵၿⅬ࡟㛵ࡍࡿẼ࡙ࡁࡢᅇ⟅๭ྜ㸦N = 37㸧
ෆᐜ࣭ᒎ㛤

ᵓᡂ

ᩥἲ

ㄒᙡ

⥛ࡾ࣭ྃㄞⅬ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈᅇ⟅

71.4%

59.4%

48.6%

72.2%

27.1%

ࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈᅇ⟅

28.6%

40.6%

51.4%

27.8%

72.9%

ὀ. ࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈᅇ⟅ࡣࠕᨵၿⅬ࡟ࡼࡃẼ࡙࠸ࡓࠖࠕᑡࡋẼ࡙࠸ࡓࠖ
㸪ࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈᅇ⟅ࡣࠕ࠶ࡲࡾẼ࡙࠿࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠖ
ࠕ඲ࡃẼ࡙࠿࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠖ

3.2 ┦஫ホ౯࡜⮬ᕫホ౯ࡢ㛵ಀ ௨ୗࡢ⾲ 2 ࡢ㏻ࡾ࡜࡞ࡾ㸪඲㡯┠࡛┦஫ホ౯ࡢ್ࡀ㧗ࡃホ౯ࡢࡤࡽࡘࡁ㸦ᶆ‽೫ᕪ㸧ࡀᑠࡉ࠸ࡇ࡜㸪୧⪅ࡢᖹᆒ್ࡢᕪࡣ᭷ព࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓ㸪┦㛵ศᯒ࠿ࡽ㸪ෆᐜ࣭ᒎ㛤㸪⥛ࡾ࣭ྃㄞⅬ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ┦஫࣭⮬ᕫホ౯ࡢṇࡢ┦㛵ࡣẚ㍑ⓗ㧗ࡃ㸪ࡑࢀ௨እࡢ㡯┠ࡣ࡯ࡰ┦㛵㛵ಀ࡟↓࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
⾲ 2 ┦஫ホ౯࡜⮬ᕫホ౯ࡢ㛵ಀ㸦N =34㸧
┦஫ホ౯

⮬ᕫホ౯

┦஫Ѹ⮬ᕫ

t

p

┦㛵ಀᩘ (r)ෆᐜ࣭ᒎ㛤

2.64 (0.45)

2.01 (0.64)

0.63

6.01

< .001.42

ᵓᡂ

2.47 (0.47)

1.87 (0.68)

0.60

4.10

< .001–.07

ᩥἲ

2.42 (0.42)

1.62 (0.56)

0.80

6.34

< .001–.11

ㄒᙡ

2.37 (0.45)

1.53 (0.70)

0.84

6.15

< .001.09⥛ࡾ࣭ྃㄞⅬ

2.70 (0.44)

2.30 (0.73)

0.40

4.18

< .001.66

ὀ. ┦஫ホ౯࡜⮬ᕫホ౯ࡢᩘ್ࡣ㸪ᖹᆒ್ (ᶆ‽೫ᕪ)ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Kinshi, K., Kuru, Y., Masaki, M., Yamanishi, H., & Otoshi, J. (2011). Revising a writing rubric for its improved use
in the classroom. LET Kansai Chapter Collected Papers, 13, 113–124.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2003). Writing teachers as assessors of writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of
second language writing (pp. 162–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

−113−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(10:05-10:35)501 ᐊ

SRT ᙧᘧࡢᏐᖥ⦅㞟ࢆά࠿ࡋࡓ
ࢲ࢖ࢼ࣑ࢵࢡ࡞ື⏬ᩍᮦࡢసᡂᮾ ῟୍㸦⚄ᡞᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ື⏬㸪Ꮠᖥ㸪SRT㸪VLC ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࣉࣞ࢖࣮ࣖ㸪Casual Transcriber㸪TED
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏሗ࿌࡛ࡣࠊTED ࡞࡝Ꮠᖥ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ᥦ౪ࡉࢀࡿື⏬࡟ᩍᤵ⪅ࡢពᅗ࡝࠾ࡾࡢᙧᘧ࡛Ꮠᖥࢆ⾲♧ࡋࠊࡑࡢື⏬ᩍᮦࢆ VLC ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࣉࣞ࢖࣮ࣖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ከᶵ⬟࣐ࣝࢳ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࣉࣞ࢖࣮࡛ࣖ⾲♧ࡋ࡚ຠᯝⓗ࡟ᤵᴗ࡛ά⏝ࡍࡿ᪉ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゎㄝࡍࡿࠋື⏬ᏐᖥࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࢩ࣮࡛ࣥࡢά⏝࡜ⱥㄒᏐᖥᑟධࡢຠᯝ➼࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣከᩘࡢᇶ♏◊✲࡜ᐇ㊶◊✲ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ᳜ᯇ㸦2004㸧ࡣ DVD ᫎ⏬ᩍᮦࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓⱥㄒᤵᴗ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊⱥㄒᏐᖥࡀᏛ⩦⪅ࡢⱥㄒࡢᡂ⦼ྥୖ࡟ᙺ❧ࡘࡇ࡜ࢆሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᭱㏆࡛ࡣ TEDࡢࡼ࠺࡟ື⏬ࢆ࠾ዲࡳࡢゝㄒࡢᏐᖥ௜࡛ࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟࢻ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠾ࡾࠊⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗ࡛ࡢᏐ
ᖥ௜ࡁື⏬฼⏝ᙧែࡣࡉࡽ࡟ᣑࡀࡾࢆぢࡏࡘࡘ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
2. ᤵᴗ࡛ࡢື⏬฼⏝ࡢၥ㢟Ⅼ࡜ᑐᛂ⟇ᤵᴗ࡛Ꮠᖥ௜ࡁື⏬ࢆά⏝ࡍࡿሙྜࠊື⏬ど⫈୰ࡲࡓࡣど⫈ᚋ࡟ෆᐜ☜ㄆࡢ⦎⩦ၥ㢟࡟ゎ⟅ࡉࡏࡿ࡞࡝ࡢάືࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠋࡑࡢሙྜࠊ࠶ࡽ࠿ࡌࡵࣉࣜࣥࢺ㢮ࢆ⏝ពࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࠊࣉࣜࣥࢺࡢ㏵୰࡟✵ḍࢆタࡅ࡚࠾࠸࡚ཷㅮ⪅࡟ㄒྃࢆ⪺ࡁྲྀࡾࡉࡏࡿࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ≉ᐃ㒊ศࡔࡅࣉࣜࣥࢺ࡟ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆ⾲♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡑ
ࡢ㒊ศࢆ୍⥴࡟Ⓨヰࡉࡏࡿ➼ࡢసᴗࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜࠊཷㅮ⪅ࡣ࡝࠺ࡋ࡚ࡶࣉࣜࣥࢺ࡟
㞟୰ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠸ࠊᢡゅ⏝ពࡉࢀࡓື⏬ࡀࣇࣝ࡟ά⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ၥ㢟ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࠋ࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊୖグࡢၥ㢟ࡣᏐᖥࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟✵ḍࢆタࡅ࡚࠾ࡁࠊື⏬ࢆぢࡏࡓࡲࡲㄒྃࢆ⪺ࡁྲྀࡾࡉࡏࡿࠊ
㏫࡟≉ᐃ㒊ศࡔࡅᏐᖥࢆ⾲♧ࡋⓎヰ⦎⩦ࡉࡏࡿ➼ࡢᕤኵࢆ⾜࠼ࡤゎỴࡍࡿࠋᏐᖥࢆᕤኵࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ཷㅮ
⪅ࡣື⏬࡟㞟୰࡛ࡁࠊྠ᫬࡟ᩍᤵ⪅࡜ཷㅮ⪅ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࢆಖࡘࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
3. Ꮠᖥ⦅㞟ࡢ᪉ἲ
3. 1 TED ࡢᏐᖥࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆྲྀᚓࡍࡿ
TED ࡢື⏬ࡣᩍ⫱฼⏝ࠊ㠀Ⴀ฼฼⏝࡛࠶ࢀࡤࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟࢻࡋ࡚ᤵᴗ࡛౑⏝ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࢜ࣜࢪࢼࣝ
ゝㄒࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊ⩻ヂࡉࢀࡓࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ゝㄒࡢᏐᖥࡀ⏝ពࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊᏐᖥࡣື⏬ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡜
୍య໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊື⏬࡜ࡣูࡢᙧࡢࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚Ꮡᅾࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡣ SRT ᙧᘧ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࡀࠊࣃࢯࢥ࡛ࣥ VLC ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࣉࣞ࢖࣮ࣖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ከᶵ⬟࣐ࣝࢳ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࣉࣞ࢖࣮࡛ࣖື⏬ࢆ㛤ࡁࠊ࣓ࢽ࣮ࣗ࠿ࡽᏐᖥ⾲♧⏝ࡢ SRT ᙧᘧࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆᣦᐃࡋ࡚ࡸࢀࡤࠊ⡆༢࡟ࠊ࠿ࡘࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ㒊ศࡢຎ໬࡞ࡃᣦᐃࡉࢀࡓᏐᖥࢆື⏬ୖ࡟⾲♧࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊṧᛕ࡞ࡀࡽಶࠎࡢ TED Talk ࡢ SRT Ꮠᖥࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ
࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᙜヱࡢື⏬࣮࣌ࢪ࡟ࣁ࢖ࣃ࣮ࣜࣥࢡࡀᙇࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᬑ㏻ࡣ⡆༢࡟᥈ࡋฟࡍ
ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡓࡵࠊ฼⏝ࡋࡓ࠸ TED Talk ࡢ SRT Ꮠᖥࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆ᥈ࡍ࡟ࡣࠊTed Talk Subtitle Download ࡜࠸࠺ࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࢆ฼⏝ࡍࡿ㸦URL = http://tedtalksubtitledownload.appspot.com㸧ࠋ≉ᐃࡢ TED Talk ࡢ URL ࢆࢥࣆ࣮ࡋ
࡚ࡇࡢࢧ࢖ࢺࡢ࣎ࢵࢡࢫ࡟㈞ࡾ௜ࡅ Download ࢆࢡࣜࢵࢡࡍࡿ࡜ࠊᥦ౪ࡉࢀࡿゝㄒࡀࣜࣥࢡ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚⾲♧ࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛ࠊᚲせ࡞ゝㄒࡢࣜࣥࢡࢆࢡࣜࢵࢡࡍࡿࠋࡍࡿ࡜ࣃࢯࢥࣥ࡟ SRT Ꮠᖥࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡀࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟ

−114−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ࢻࡉࢀࡿࠋࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡣ 521-en.srt.html ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᮎᑿ࡟ࠕ.htmlࠖࡀ௜ຍࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࡇࢀࢆ๐㝖ࡋ࡚࠾
ࡃࠋVLC ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࣉࣞ࢖࣮࡛ࣖື⏬ࢆ෌⏕ࡍࡿ㝿࡟࣓ࢽ࣮ࣗࡢࠕᏐᖥࠖ࠿ࡽࠕᏐᖥࢆ㏣ຍࠖ࡜㐍ࡳࠊࡑࡢᚋ SRT Ꮠᖥࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࢀࡤ⾲♧ࡋࡓ࠸Ꮠᖥࡀ⾲♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
VLC ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࣉࣞ࢖࣮ࣖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ࡑࡢ࣓ࢽ࣮ࣗ࠿ࡽᏐᖥࡢ⾲♧᪉ἲࢆࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ᙧ࡟ኚ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࡛౽฼࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3.2 ᤵᴗ࡟ぢྜࡗࡓᏐᖥ⾲♧ ࡑࢀ࡛ࡣᤵᴗ࡛ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ꮠᖥ⾲♧ࡀᩍᐊάື࡟ᙺ❧ࡘࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋᐇ㝿࡟➹⪅ࡀᤵᴗ࡛ᑐᛂࡋ࡚ࡳ
ࡓࣃࢱࣥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
࣭⪺ࡁྲྀࡽࡏࡓ࠸ㄒྃࢆ ()࡛♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࠊࡑࡢ✵ḍ㒊ศࢆ⪺ࡁྲྀࡽࡏࡿࠋ

࣭ᬯၐ⦎⩦ࡢ㝿࡟ࠊ1)඲Ꮠᖥ⾲♧Ѝ 2)୍㒊ㄒྃࢆᢤ࠸࡚⾲♧Ѝ 3)㔜せㄒྃࡢࡳ୍㒊⾲♧Ѝ 4)Ꮠᖥ⾲♧࡞ࡋࠊࡢ㡰࡛⦎⩦ࡉࡏ᏶඲࡞ᬯၐࢆࡉࡏࡿࠋ
࣭SRT ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆ⦅㞟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ⪺ࡁྲྀࡾࠊᬯၐࡢ⦎⩦ࡢ㝿࡟୍ᗘ࡟⾲♧ࡍࡿᏐᖥࢆከࡃࡋࠊࡸࡸ㛗࠸᫬㛫ື⏬ࢆ⾲♧ࡋࡘࡘ⦎⩦ࡀ⣽ษࢀ࡟࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ࡍࡿ㸦ᅗ㸯ཧ↷㸧ࠋᅗ㸯㸬୍㒊ㄒࢆᢤ࠸࡚ࡸࡸ㛗࠸᫬㛫Ꮠᖥࢆ⾲♧ࡋࡓ౛
4. Ꮠᖥࢆᅛᐃࡍࡿሙྜ ᤵᴗ࡛ iPad ࡞࡝ࢱࣈࣞࢵࢺࢆ౑࠺ሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ㐺ษ࡞࣐ࣝࢳ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࣉࣞ࢖࣮ࣖࡀ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊࡉࡲࡊࡲ
࡞⾲♧ᙧᘧࡢᏐᖥࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀ㸯ࡘࡎࡘື⏬࡜࡜ࡶ࡟࢚ࣥࢥ࣮ࢻࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣ Casual
Transcriber ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ࡜ࡼ࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡣ኱㜰኱Ꮫࡢ௒ᑿὈ⿱Ặ࡟ࡼࡾ㛤Ⓨࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࠊ↓ൾ࡛฼⏝࡛ࡁ
ࡿࠋURL ࡣ https://sites.google.com/site/casualconcj/yutiriti-puroguramu/casualtranscriber ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊᏐ
ᖥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᩥᏐࡣື⏬࡜࡜ࡶ࡟↝ࡁ㎸ࡲࢀࡿࡢ࡛⏬ീ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣᑡࡋ⢒ࡃ࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
5. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
 TED ࢆ౛࡟࡜ࡾࠊSRT ᙧᘧࡢᏐᖥࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆ⦅㞟ࡋ࡚ື⏬࡜࡜ࡶ࡟⾲♧ࡋࠊ⪺ࡁྲྀࡾࡸⓎ㡢⦎⩦ࠊᬯၐ࡞࡝ࡢྛ✀ᤵᴗ࡛ࡢάື࡟ᑐᛂࡋࡓᏐᖥࢆࣇࣞ࢟ࢩࣈࣝ࡟⾲♧ࡍࡿ᪉ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゎㄝࡋࡓࠋ௒ᚋࡉࡽ
࡟ᐇ㝿ࡢᤵᴗ࡛ࡢά⏝ᐇែࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡸᩍ⫱ຠᯝࡢ ᐃ࡞࡝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚◊✲ࢆ῝ࡵࡓ࠸ࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩᳜ᯇⱱ⏨ (2004). DVD ᫎ⏬ᩍᮦ฼⏝᫬ࡢⱥㄒᏐᖥࡀⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡟୚࠼ࡿᙳ㡪࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࣓ࠗࢹ࢕࢔ᩍ⫱◊✲࠘
1-1, 107-114.

−115−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(10:40-11:10)501 ᐊⓎ㡢グྕࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓⱥㄒⓎ㡢ᣦᑟࡢྲྀ⤌ࡳ୰す ࡢࡾࡇ㸦⚄ᡞᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ⱥㄒⓎ㡢ᣦᑟ㸪Ⓨ㡢グྕ㸪㠀ⱥㄒᑓᨷ኱Ꮫ⏕㸪࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ㸪ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࣐࢖ࢽࣥࢢ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ࠕⱥㄒࡀ౑࠼ࡿ᪥ᮏேࠖࡢ⫱ᡂࡢࡓࡵࡢ⾜ືィ⏬㸦ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬㸪2003㸧ࡢ⟇ᐃ࠿ࡽ 10 ᖺ௨ୖࡀ⤒㐣ࡋࡓࡀ㸪≉࡟㡢ኌࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ࡀᮇᚅࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡞ேᮦࡀ⫱ᡂࡉࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸࡞
࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡢ⫼ᬒ࡟ࡣ㸪ⱥㄒ㡢ኌࡢࡋࡃࡳࢆ⌮ㄽⓗ࡟ᣦᑟࡉࢀࡓ⤒㦂ࡀஈࡋ࠸ࡓࡵ㸪ఱ࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡵࡤࡼ࠸ࡢ࠿Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀ⮬ぬࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ⱥㄒ㡢ኌࢆ⌮ㄽⓗ࡟ᣦᑟࡍࡿ᪉ἲࡢ 1 ࡘ࡟㸪Ⓨ㡢グྕ࡟ࡼࡿ㡢ኌ⾲グࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࡀ㸪ᩍ⫱⌧ሙ࡛Ⓨ㡢グྕࡀ㡢ኌᣦᑟࡢࢶ࣮ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚ຠᯝⓗ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣゝ࠸㞴࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸪୰Ꮫ⏕⏝ⱥㄒ᳨ᐃᩍ
⛉᭩࡛ࡣ᪂ฟ༢ㄒࡢㄞࡳ᪉ࡀⓎ㡢グྕ࡛♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ୖ⏣࣭኱ሯ㸪2010㸧࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡽࡎ㸪Ꮫ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿㸦ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬㸪2008; 2009㸧࡛ࡣࠕ㡢ኌᣦᑟࡢ⿵ຓ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪Ⓨ㡢⾲グࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᣦᑟࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠖ
࡜࠸࠺ᾘᴟⓗ࡞⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠾ࡾ㸪Ⓨ㡢グྕࡀⱥㄒⓎ㡢Ꮫ⩦࡟ᚲせ࡞ᇶ♏ⓗ࡞せ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚఩⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ᮏᐇ㊶࡛ࡣ㸪㡢ኌ㠃࡛ࡢⱥㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡢ⫱ᡂࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ㸪ࡑࡢᇶ♏࡜࡞ࡿ⌮ㄽⓗ▱㆑ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓᣦᑟࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼㸪90 ศ㛫ࡢ኱Ꮫᤵᴗࡢ୍㒊ࢆⱥㄒ㡢ኌࡢ⌮ㄽⓗㄝ᫂࡜Ⓨ㡢⦎⩦࡟㈝ࡸࡋ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢⱥㄒ㡢ኌ࡟ᑐࡍࡿព㆑ࢆྥୖࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࢆヨࡳࡓࠋ
2. ᡭ㡰
2.1 ᤵᴗᐇ㊶ཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸪ᒚಟᚲಟࡢⱥㄒ⛉┠ࢆ 1 ᖺ㛫ᒚಟࡋࡓ኱Ꮫ 1, 2 ᖺḟ⏕㸦2 ኱Ꮫ㸪㠀ⱥㄒᑓᨷᏛ㒊㸪6 ࢡࣛࢫ,N=136㸧࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᮏᐇ㊶ሗ࿌࡛ࡣ⾲ 1 ࡢ࠺ࡕմ࠿ࡽն࡟࠾ࡅࡿάື࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿࠋ⾲ 1.
90 ศࡢᤵᴗࡢὶࢀ
ศ

άື

ᴫせ

ձ

00-10

Voc. check

Web ୖ࡛ Vocabulary check ၥ㢟࡟ᅇ⟅㸪⟅࠼ྜࢃࡏࢆࡍࡿࠋ

ղ

10-20

Introduction

You Tube ࡞࡝࡛㛵㐃ࡍࡿࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ▱㆑ࢆᚓࡿࠋ

ճ

20-40

Reading

WPM

ᐃ㸪Web ୖ࡛ Comprehension question, Language focus ၥ㢟࡟ᅇ⟅㸪⟅࠼ྜࢃࡏࢆࡍࡿࠋ
մ

40-60

Pronunciationࡑࡢ᪥࡟ᢅࡗࡓⱥᩥ⣲ᮦ࠿ࡽᢤࡁฟࡉࢀࡓ 1 ᩥࡢ࠺ࡕ㸪ὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁⓎ㡢ࡢ࣏࢖ࣥࢺ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢゎㄝࢆ⪺ࡁ㸪Ⓨ㡢⦎⩦ࢆࡍࡿࠋ

յ

60-70

Recordingմ࡛⦎⩦ࡋࡓ 1 ᩥࢆ PC ᶆ‽ᦚ㍕ࡢࢯࣇࢺࢆ⏝࠸࡚㘓㡢ࡋ㸪Ꮫෆࢩࢫࢸ
࣒⤒⏤࡛ᥦฟࡍࡿࠋ

ն

70-90

Peer Feedbackյ࡛ᥦฟࡉࢀࡓࢡࣛࢫ඲ဨศࡢ㡢ኌࢆᏛෆࢩࢫࢸ࣒⤒⏤࡛ࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟ
ࢻࡋ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅㛫ࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡάືࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ−116−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ ᤵᴗࡣࠕࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࣭ࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢࠖࢆ㔜どࡍࡿඹ㏻ࢩࣛࣂࢫ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ᐇ᪋ࡉࢀࡓࡀ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ▱ⓗዲወᚰ࡟ἢࡗࡓࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ⣲ᮦࢆᢅ࠺ࡓࡵ㸪᫬஦ࢽ࣮ࣗࢫࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓከㄞ࣭㏿ㄞᩍᮦ㸦ᰁ㇂࣭༡ὠ㸪
2014㸧ࢆᩍ⛉᭩࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡓࠋ⾲ 1 մ࡛ࡢⓎ㡢ࡢ࣏࢖ࣥࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪๓ᮇᤵᴗ࡛ࡣ୺࡟ࣜࢬ࣒࣭࢖ࣥࢺࢿ
࣮ࢩ࣭ࣙࣥ㡢ኌኚ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㡢ኌᏛ⏝ㄒࢆ⏝࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡋ㸪ᚋᮇᤵᴗ࡛ࡣࡉࡽ࡟ಶู㡢ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᣦᑟࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵⓎ㡢グྕࢆ⏝࠸ࡓㄝ᫂ࢆヨࡳࡓࠋᚋᮇ 15 ᅇࡢᤵᴗ࡛ᇶᮏⓗ࡞ⱥㄒࡢ㡢⣲ࢆ⥙⨶࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺㸪⾲ 1յ࡛Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀ㘓㡢ࡍࡿᩥ࠿ࡽᢤࡁฟࡋࡓ 4 ㄒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪࢝ࢱ࢝ࢼ㡢࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿⱥㄒ㡢⣲ࡸᙉໃࡢ఩⨨࡟
↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡓᣦᑟࢆ⾜ࡗࡓᚋ㸪Ⓨ㡢グྕࡢ᭩ࡁྲྀࡾࢸࢫࢺࡶᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ
2.2 ศᯒࡢ᪉ἲ
ᮏᤵᴗᐇ㊶࡟ᑐࡍࡿᏛ⩦⪅ࡢព㆑ࡸⱥㄒⓎ㡢ࡢኚ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᣺ࡾ㏉ࡿࡓࡵ㸪௨ୗࡢグ㘓ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋࡓࠋ࣭ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢩ࣮ࢺ㸸Ꮫ⩦⪅࠿ࡽẖᅇᥦฟࡉࢀࡓᏛ⩦ࡢグ㘓㸦⾲ 1ձ㹼ճ㸧࡜ 1 ⾜࡯࡝ࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࠋ
࣭㘓㡢㡢ኌ㸸⾲ 1յ࡛ᥦฟࡉࢀࡓ 㡢ኌࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ㸦12 ✀㢮㸪N=2,814 ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ㸧ࠋ࣭┦஫ホ౯ࢩ࣮ࢺ㸸⾲ 1ն࡛ᥦฟࡉࢀࡓホ౯ࢩ࣮ࢺ㸦N=15,366 ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ㸧ࠋ࣭⮬⏤ᥦฟ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ㸸ᚋᮇᤵᴗ⤊஢᫬࡟ᥦฟࡉࢀࡓ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺᅇ⟅㸦4 㡯┠㸪N=113㸧ࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝ
➨ 1 ࡟㸪ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺෆᐜ࣭㘓㡢㡢ኌ࣭┦஫ホ౯ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆᴫほࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᤵᴗ࡛ᢅࡗࡓⱥㄒ
Ⓨ㡢ࡢὀ┠࣏࢖ࣥࢺ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚཯┬Ⅼࡸ௒ᚋࡢ┠ᶆࢆᏛ⩦⪅ࡀලయⓗ࡟ゝㄒ໬࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡜㸪ⱥㄒࡽࡋ࠸
Ⓨ㡢࡛ⱥᩥࢆ㡢ㄞ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣఱࡽ࠿ࡢ㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋ
➨ 2 ࡟㸪⮬⏤ᥦฟ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ㡯┠ࡢ࠺ࡕࠕࡇࡢᤵᴗ࡛Ⓨ㡢グྕࢆ⩦࠸ጞࡵࡓ࡜ࡁࡢẼᣢࡕࠖ࡜ࠕ༙ᖺ
㛫ࡢᏛ⩦ࢆ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡗ࡚௒ឤࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⮬⏤グ㏙ᅇ⟅ࢆࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࣐࢖ࢽࣥࢢ tf-idf㔜ࡳ࡙ࡅ࡟ࡼࡾẚ㍑ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ㸪⩦࠸ጞࡵ࡟ࡣࠕ㞴ࡋ࠸ࠖࠕぬ࠼ࡿព࿡ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࡞཯
ᛂࢆᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ♧ࡋࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ㸪ぬ࠼࡚ࡋࡲ࠼ࡤࠕㄞࡵࡿ࣭࡛ࡁࡿࠖ
ࠕᴦࡋ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ๓ྥࡁ࡞ጼໃ࡟ኚ
໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
➨ 3 ࡟㸪
ࠕⓎ㡢グྕࢆぬ࠼ࡿ㝿࡟Ẽ࡙࠸ࡓࡇ࡜࣭ᅔࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡸࢥࢶࠖ࡜࠸࠺㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᅇ⟅࠿ࡽࡣ㸪ࠕ㡢ࢆ⪺ࡁ࡞ࡀࡽグྕࢆ᭩࠸࡚ࡳࡿཱྀ࣭ࢆື࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ᭩࠸࡚ࡳࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡼ࠺࡟㸪⫈ぬ᝟ሗ࡜どぬ᝟ሗࢆ୍⮴ࡉࡏ࡚ぬ࠼ࡿ࡜ຠ⋡ࡀࡼ࠸࡜࠸࠺ពぢࡀᩓぢࡉࢀࡓࠋ㡢ኌᏛ⏝ㄒࡸⓎ㡢グྕࢆ⏝࠸࡚Ⓨ㡢⦎⩦ࡢ࣏࢖ࣥࢺ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⌮ㄽⓗㄝ᫂ࢆຍ࠼ࡿ࡜㸪୍᫬ⓗ࡟Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ㈇ᢸࡣቑࡍࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㛗ᮇⓗ࡟ࡣ㸪ⱥㄒ㡢ኌࡢ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ⅼ࡟ὀពࡍ࡭ࡁ࠿ࢆ⌮ㄽⓗ࡟ゝㄒ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢⱥㄒⓎ㡢ୖ㐩ࡸ㐩ᡂឤ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ (2003).ࠕࠕⱥㄒࡀ౑࠼ࡿ᪥ᮏேࠖࡢ⫱ᡂࡢࡓࡵࡢ⾜ືィ⏬ࠖ. Retrieved January 12, 2015, fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo3/004/siryo/04031601/005.pdf
ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ (2008).ࠗ୰ᏛᰯᏛ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿࠘ி㒔㸸ᮾᒣ᭩ᡣ.
ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ (2009).ࠗ㧗➼ᏛᰯᏛ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿࠘ி㒔㸸ᮾᒣ᭩ᡣ.
୰すࡢࡾࡇ࣭㜰ୖ₶࣭ᒣᮏ♸ኴ(2015).ࠕⓎ㡢グྕᏛ⩦࡟ᑐࡍࡿ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢព㆑ࡢኚ໬㸸KJ ἲ࡟ࡼࡿศᯒࠖ.
LET 㛵すᨭ㒊 2015 ᖺᗘ᫓Ꮨ◊✲኱఍Ⓨ⾲せ㡯㞟. 8.
ᰁ㇂Ὀṇ࣭༡ὠెᗈ (2014).ࠗVOA ࡛Ꮫࡪከㄞ࣭㏿ㄞࡢᇶ♏ - Reading Powerhouse࠘ᮾி㸸㔠ᫍᇽ.
ୖ⏣ὒᏊ࣭኱ሯᮅ⨾ (2010).ࠕⓎ㡢࡜㡢ኌࡢࡋࡃࡳ࡟↔Ⅼࢆ࠶࡚ࡓ୰Ꮫᰯⱥㄒᩍ⛉᭩ศᯒ: ࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺࡢ
ᇶ♏ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠖ
ࠗ኱㜰ዪᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ⣖せ࠘ , 7, 15-32.

−117−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(11:15-11:45)501 ᐊᗂඣᩍဨ㣴ᡂ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒ⤮ᮏᣦᑟ㧗ᶫ ⨾⏤⣖㸦ឡ▱ᩍ⫱኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 Ꮚ࡝ࡶࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱㸪ᣦᑟ⪅㣴ᡂ㸪⤮ᮏ㸪ㄞࡳ⪺࠿ࡏ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ࡢࠕࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ໬࡟ᑐᛂࡋࡓⱥㄒᩍ⫱ᨵ㠉ࠖ࡟క࠸ࠊᑠᏛᰯⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㧗Ꮫᖺࡣᩍ⛉໬ࠊ୰Ꮫᖺࡣእᅜㄒάືࡀᑟධࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟కࡗ࡚ࠊᏊ࡝ࡶࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡀࡲࡍࡲࡍపᖺ㱋໬ࡋ࡚ࡁ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᑠᏛᰯධᏛ๓࠿ࡽⱥㄒࢆᏛࢇ࡛࠸ࡿᗂඣࡶከ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ᪥ᖖࡢಖ⫱ࡸㄢእᤵᴗ࡛ⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࢆᑟධࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⚾❧ᗂ⛶ᅬࡣከ࠸(ᰗ࣭㧗ᶫ, 2015)ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊᗂඣᩍ⫱ᩍဨ㣴ᡂㄢ⛬࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ
ࠕᏊ࡝ࡶࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࠖࡢᣦᑟἲࡀồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊᑠᏛᰯ㧗Ꮫᖺࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡛ࡣࠕㄞࡴࡇ࡜ࡸ᭩ࡃࡇ
࡜ࡶྵࡵࡓึṌⓗ࡞ⱥㄒࡢ㐠⏝⬟ຊࢆ㣴࠺ࠖࡇ࡜ࡀ┠ᶆ࡜ࡉࢀࠊ
ࠕCAN-DO ࣜࢫࢺ㸫ࡩࡾ㏉ࡾࠖࡢෆᐜ
࡟ࡣࠕඛ⏕ࡀ⤮ᮏ This is ME! ࢆㄞࡴࡢࢆ⪺࠸࡚ࡑࡢෆᐜࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠖ
ࠕඛ⏕ࡀㄞࡴ⤮ᮏ This is ME!ࡢⱥᩥ
ࢆᣦ࡛㏣࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠖࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⤮ᮏࡢຠᯝⓗ࡞ᣦᑟࡶồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊᗂඣᩍ⫱Ꮫ⛉ࡢᩍဨ㣴ᡂࡢ୍⎔࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕᗂඣᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿຠᯝⓗ࡞ⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢᣦᑟࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅⱥ
ㄒࡢ⤮ᮏࢆά⏝ࡋࡓάືࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ➹⪅ࡢ⾜ࡗࡓ஦౛◊✲࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ
2. ᩍᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢⱥㄒࡢ⤮ᮏ⤮ᮏࡣⱥㄒᅪࡢᏊ࡝ࡶ㐩ࡢẕㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ┠ⓗ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᙼࡽࡢㄆ▱Ⓨ㐩࡟㐺ࡋࡓ⤮ᮏࢆ㑅ࡪࡇ࡜࡛ࡼࡾຠᯝⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ⤮ᮏࢆ᪥ᮏࡢᗂඣ࡟౑⏝ࡋࡓሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢゝㄒᩍ⫱ᖺ㱋࡜ྠᖺ㱋࡛እᅜㄒ㸦ⱥㄒ㸧ᩍ⫱ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࣓ࣜࢵࢺ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᩍᖌࡀẕㄒᩍ⫱࡜ࡋ࡚ᗂඣ࡟⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠕ⤮ᮏࡢㄞࡳ⪺࠿ࡏࠖࡢᣦᑟἲࢆࠊྠࡌゝㄒᩍ⫱࡜࠸࠺どⅬ࠿ࡽⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡛ࡶᛂ⏝࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
3. ᗂඣᩍ⫱Ꮫ⛉࡟࠾ࡅࡿᗂඣࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱⪅㣴ᡂ
3.1. Shared reading ࡜⤮ᮏࡢㄞࡳ⪺࠿ࡏ
Curtain & Dahlberg (2015) ࡣࠊᩍᖌࡀᏊ࡝ࡶ㐩࡟ㄞࡳ⪺࠿ࡏࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕoral language inputࠖ ࡜ࠕabridge to literacy in the new language࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࠊ
ࠕBig book ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓㄞࡳ⪺࠿ࡏࡣᏊ࡝ࡶ㐩ࢆࡑࡢ୰࡟
ᘬࡁ㎸ࡴࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁຠᯝⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Curtain & Dahlberg ,2015, p.176)ࠋ

3.2. ⤮ᮏࡢㄞࡳ⪺࠿ࡏࡢᣦᑟᐇ㊶
3.2.1.ᑐ㇟⪅ᮏ◊✲ࡢᑐ㇟⪅ࡣࠊᗂඣᩍ⫱Ꮫ⛉ࡢᏛ⏕ 93 ྡ㸦A ࢡࣛࢫ 48 ྡࠊB ࢡࣛࢫ 43 ྡ㸧࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᙼࡽࡣ
2014 ᖺᚋᮇ㸦9 ᭶ 22 ᪥࠿ࡽ 2 ᭶ 2 ᪥ࡲ࡛㸧ࡢ 15 ᅇࠊᗂඣᩍ⫱⪅ࡢᣦᑟ⪅㣴ᡂ⛉┠࡜ࡋ࡚ⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗࢆ
ࠕBeautiful butterflyࠖ
ࠕA Teddy BearࠖࠕTiny Boppersࠖ
ࠕThe Very Hungry Caterpillarࠖࡢ⤮ᮏཷࡅࡓࠋ➹⪅ࡣࠊ
4 ෉ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ⤮ᮏ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ௨ୗࡢᣦᑟࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋձ㡢ኌᩍᮦࢆά⏝ࡋ࡚ࠊࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜ
ࡢ㡰␒࡟⤮ᮏࡢ⤮ࢆ୪ࡧ᭰࠼ࡿࠊղ⤮ᮏࡢ⤮࡟⪺ࡇ࠼ࡓⱥᩥ㸦ࢭࣜࣇ㸧ࢆࡘࡅࡿࠊճ㡢ኌࢆ⫈ࡁ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ
⤮ᮏࡢ୰࡟࠶ࡿḷ࡜ᩥࡢㄞࡳ᪉ࢆ⦎⩦ࡍࡿࠊ
մStory reading ࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵ࡟ࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ࡟ࡼࡿ⤮ᮏࡢㄞࡳࡢ⦎⩦ࢆࡍࡿࠊյ⤮ᮏࡢෆᐜ࠿ࡽ≀ㄒࡢሙ㠃ࢆࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡛⪃࠼࡚ࠊ࣮࣌ࣉࢧ࣮ࢺᩍᮦ➼ࢆసᡂࡋ࡚ࡍ
ࡿࠊնᗂඣࡢ๓࡛ࠊᐇ㝿࡟ⱥㄒ࡛࠾ヰࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊStorytelling ࡢせ㡿࡛Ⓨ⾲ࡍࡿࠋ−118−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

3.2.2. ⤮ᮏࡢ Story reading ࡜ᐃ╔ᗘࢸࢫࢺ ࠕBeautiful butterflyࠖ
ࠕA Teddy BearࠖࠕTiny Boppersࠖ
ࠕThe Very Hungry Caterpillarࠖࡢྛ⤮ᮏࡢ Story readingࡣ㏵୰࡛㏥ᏛࡋࡓᏛ⏕ 12 ྡ㸦A ࢡࣛࢫ 8 ྡࠊB ࢡࣛࢫ 4 ྡ㸧ࢆ㝖࠸࡚඲ဨྜ᱁ࡍࡿࡲ࡛⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ
࡞ࡀࡽࠊ16 ᅇ┠ࡢᤵᴗ࡛⾜ࡗࡓࠕStory ࡢᐃ╔ᗘࢸࢫࢺ࡛ࠖࡣࠊ
ࠕ100 Ⅼࠖ࠿ࡽࠕ㸳Ⅼࠖࡲ࡛࡜Ꮫ⏕ࡢⱥㄒ⬟ຊࠊᗂඣⱥㄒ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⯆࿡㛵ᚰࡢᗘྜ࠸࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࠿࡞ࡾᕪࡀ⏕ࡌࡓࠋ
⾲㸸Story ࡢᐃ╔ᗘࢸࢫࢺ࡜Ꮫ⏕ࡢ⯆࿡㛵ᚰᗘ
ࢸࢫࢺⅬᩘ㸦Ⅼ㸧 ᤵᴗ࡟⮫ࡴែᗘ100

Ḟᖍ 0 A 9 ᅇᏛ⏕ࡢᤵᴗ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⯆࿡㛵ᚰᗘ࣭ୖᡭ࡟ㄞࡵࡿࡼ࠺࡟㡹ᙇࡾࡓ࠸࣭኱ࡁ࡞ኌ࡛ㄞࡵ࡚Ⰻ࠿ࡗࡓ࡛ࡍࠋࡓࡔࡶ࠺ᑡࡋ➗㢦࡛ㄞࡵࢀࡤⰋ࠿ࡗࡓ࡜
ᛮ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ
࣭࣮࣌ࣉࢧ࣮ࢺࢆసࡗ࡚ࡢⓎ⾲ࡣᴦࡋ࠿ࡗࡓࡋຮᙉ࡟࡞ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋಖ⫱⪅ࡣṇࡋ࠸Ⓨ㡢࡛ㄞࡴࡇ࡜ࡀ኱ษࡔ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ

86Ḟᖍ 0 A 6 ᅇ࣭ࢭࣜࣇࡢሙ㠃ࢆᙉㄪࡋ࡚ゝࡗ࡚ࡳࡓࡾㄞࡴ࡜ࡁࡢᕤኵࡀ࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࡗࡓࠋ
࣭ᮏ࡟㍕ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㌟యࡢ㒊ศࡋ࠿ゝ࠼࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࠿ࡽ㐪࠺㒊ศࡶゝ࠼ࡓࡽⰋ࠸
࡜ᛮࡗࡓࠋ࣭ᮏࢆぢࡎ࡟ㄞࡵࡿࡼ࠺࡟ఱᗘࡶㄞࡶ࠺࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋ

50Ḟᖍ 1 A 6 ᅇ࣭ㄞࡳ⪺࠿ࡏ࡛ⱥㄒ࡛ឤ᝟ࢆ㎸ࡵࡿࡢࡣ኱ኚࡔࡗࡓࠋ
࣭ࡶࡗ࡜ᴦࡋࡵࡿࡼ࠺࡟ㄞࡳ᪉ࢆᕤኵࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
࣭CD ࢆ⪺࠸࡚ྠࡌᵝ࡟Ⓨ㡢ࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡞ࡢ࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡀ࡞࠿࡞࠿ฟ᮶࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

30Ḟᖍ 1 A 6 ᅇ࣭Ⓨ⾲ࡣ࡜࡚ࡶ⥭ᙇࡋ࡚࠺ࡲࡃ࠸ࡁࡲࡏࢇ࡛ࡋࡓࠋࡶࡗ࡜኱ࡁ࡞ኌ࡛ゝ࠼ࢀࡤⰋ࠿ࡗࡓ࡛ࡍࠋ
࣭ࡶ࠺ᑡࡋ኱ࡁ࡞ኌ࡛࡛ࡁࡓࡽⰋ࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋ
࣭ㄞࡳ࡙ࡽ࠸ⱥㄒࡀ࠸ࡃࡘ࠿ฟ࡚ࡁࡓࡢ࡛㡹ᙇࡗ࡚⦎⩦ࡋࡓ࠸࡛ࡍࠋ

15Ḟᖍ 3 A 5 ᅇ࣭ࢫࣛࢫࣛ࡜࠾ヰࡀㄞࡵࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
࣭ࡲࡔⓎ⾲ࡀࡁࡕࢇ࡜࡛ࡁࡎ࡟ࡸࡾ┤ࡋࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࠋ௚ࡢ
༙ࡢⓎ⾲ࢆぢ࡚Ⰻ࠸࡜ࡇࢁࢆ┿ఝࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
࣭⤮ᮏࢆぬ࠼ࡿࡢࡣ኱ኚ

4. ᗂඣᩍ⫱Ꮫ⛉࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒᩍဨ㣴ᡂ ⤮ᮏࡢⓎ⾲ᚋ࡟Ꮫ⏕࡟⾜ࡗࡓࠕ⤮ᮏࡢᮏᩥࡢᐃ╔ࢸࢫࢺࠖࡸᤵᴗࡢឤ᝿➼࠿ࡽࠊᗂඣⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠕⱥㄒ⤮ᮏᣦᑟࠖࡢຠᯝⓗ࡞࠶ࡾ᪉࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊձᩍᮦ࡟⯆࿡ࡀᣢ࡚ࡿࡇ࡜㸫Ꮫ⏕⮬㌟ࡀⱥㄒࡢ⤮ᮏ࡟⯆࿡ࢆᣢࡕࠕᏊ࡝ࡶ㐩࡟ⱥㄒࡢ⤮ᮏࢆㄞࢇ࡛࠶ࡆࡓ࠸ࠖ࡜ᛮ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊղᙼࡽࡀ⮬ಙࢆᣢࡗ࡚ⱥㄒ࡛Ⓨヰࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࠊճᗂඣᩍ⫱ࡢ≉ᚩࢆά࠿ࡋ࡚⤮ᮏ࡟ᤄධࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿḷࡸ࣮࣌ࣉࢧ࣮ࢺ➼ࢆά⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ
➼ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ⤮ᮏࡢㄞࡳ⪺࠿ࡏࡣࠊᩥᏐࢆࠕㄞࡴάືࠖ࠿ࡽ≀ㄒࢆࠕヰࡍάືࠖ࡬࡜ࡘ࡞ࡀ
ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵⱥㄒࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢ⬟ຊࡢྥୖ࡟ࡶຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Curtain & Dahlberg (2015). Language and Learners Making The Match , USA: Peason Education.
ᰗၿ࿴࣭㧗ᶫ⨾⏤⣖㸦2015㸧. ᗂඣᩍ⫱Ꮫ⛉ࡢᏛ⏕ࡢⱥㄒ⬟ຊ࡜ⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡟ᑐࡍࡿព㆑࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ ࠗ୰㒊ᆅ༊ⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍⣖せ࠘44, 183-190.

−119−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(11:50-12:20)501 ᐊ

e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ࡜ LMSࠊࣆ࢔ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟ࡼࡿ
ⱥㄒࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢᤵᴗᑿ㛵 ಟ἞㸦ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ㸪e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ㸪LMS㸪CALL㸪኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ࢔࢝ࢹ࣑ࢵࢡࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢᤵᴗ࡛ࡣࢸ࣮࣐࡟ἢࡗࡓ⮬⏤࡞Ⓨ᝿࡟ࡼࡿࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡜ࡑࡢᣦᑟ࡟᫬
㛫ࢆ๭ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊㄒᙡࡸᩥἲ࣭ࣃࣛࢢࣛࣇᵓᡂࡢᇶ♏ຊࢆಶே࡟㐺ࡋࡓࣞ࣋ࣝ࡜ෆᐜ࡛⿵࠺
Ꮫ⩦ࡶᚲせ࡜࡞ࡾࠊ༙ᮇ 15 ᅇࡢᤵᴗࢆ࠸࠿࡟ຠ⋡ࡼࡃ㐍ࡵࡿ࠿ࡀㄢ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࠋᮏᐇ㊶ሗ࿌࡛ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ୍
⯡ᩍ⫱ࡢⱥㄒᤵᴗ࡛ e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ࡜ LMS (Learning Management System)ࠊCALL ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ
άື࡟ࡼࡾࠊ࢔࢝ࢹ࣑ࢵࢡࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢆᏛࡪ༙ᮇࡢᤵᴗࢆຠᯝⓗ࡟⾜ࡗࡓ஦౛ࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ
2. ᤵᴗࡢᴫせ࡜ᑐ㇟ ᮏᐇ㊶ࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿࠕⱥㄒ୰⣭ࠖࡣ 1 ᖺḟᚋᮇࡢᚲಟⱥㄒ⛉┠࡛࠶ࡾࠊ๓ᮇࠕⱥㄒᇶ♏࡛ࠖᇵࡗࡓࣃ
ࣛࢢࣛࣇ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢᢏ⬟ࢆ࢚ࢵࢭ࢖࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡬࡜Ⓨᒎࡉࡏࡿ఩
⨨௜ࡅ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᮏᏛ࡛ࡣධᏛ┤ᚋࡢ 4 ᭶࡜⩣ᖺ 1 ᭶ࡢ 2 ᅇࠊTOEFL ITP ࡜ Criterion ヨ㦂ࡀ 1 ᖺḟ⏕඲ဨ࡟ㄢࡉࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿ 1ࠋ1 ᭶ࡘࡲࡾᚋᮇᮎࡢ୧ヨ㦂ࡢᡂ⦼ࢆᤵᴗࡢホ౯ࡢ 30%࡜ࡋ࡚⤌ࡳ㎸ࡴࡇ࡜࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᏛ
ᖺඹ㏻ࡢᤵᴗ᫬㛫እࡢ e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ୖ⣭࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢࡀᣦᐃࡉࢀࠊ㐌 2.5ࠥ3 ᫬㛫⛬ᗘࡢㄢእᏛ⩦ࡀせồࡉࢀࠊࡑࡢ㐩ᡂ⋡ࡀᤵᴗࡢホ౯ࡢ 20%࡜ࡋ࡚⤌ࡳ㎸ࡲࢀࡿ 2ࠋ ཷㅮ⪅ࡣ኱Ꮫ 1 ᖺ⏕⣙ 40 ே2 ࢡࣛࢫ㸦ᩥ⣔࣭⌮⣔ྛ 1 ࢡࣛࢫ㸧ࠋ௒ᅇࡣࡇࡢ࠺ࡕḞᦆ್㸦ࢸࢫࢺᮍཷ㦂ࠊㄢ㢟ᮍᥦฟ➼㸧ࢆ㝖࠸ࡓ 74 ྡࢆศᯒࡢᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࠋTOEFL ➼ࡢࢫࢥ࢔ࡣ⾲ 1 ࡢ㏻ࡾࠋ3
⾲ 1. ཧ୚⪅ࡢ TOEFL ITP ➼ࡢࢫࢥ࢔
4 ᭶ TOEFL ITP
4 ᭶ TOEFL Reading
4 ᭶ Criterion
1 ᭶ TOEFL Reading
1 ᭶ Criterion
4 ᭶࡜ 1 ᭶ࡢ TOEFL Reading ࡢᕪ
4 ᭶࡜ 1 ᭶ࡢ Criterion ࡢᕪ

ᖹᆒ
478.8
49.7
2.7
48.9
3.1
-0.7
0.4

ᶆ‽೫ᕪ
31.0
3.8
0.8
4.0
0.6
4.4
0.6

᭱ᑠ್
397
42
1
39
2
-18
-1

᭱኱್
550
58
4
58
4
12
2

୰ኸ್
483
50
3
49
3
-1
0

3. ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡜ᩍᮦࠊࣆ࢔ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠗPathways 2A: Reading, Writing, and Critical Thinking࠘ࢆᣦᐃࡋࡓࠋ୰⣭࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࠊྛࣘ
ࢽࢵࢺ࡛ࢸ࣮࣐ࡀタᐃࡉࢀࠊᑟධⓗ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢࠊㄒᙡࡢᑟධࠊ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ 2 㢟࡜ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢෆᐜ⌮ゎࠊࣅࢹ࢜ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࡢࡢࡕ࡟ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢱࢫࢡࡀㄢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣⓎ᝿ࡢࡓࡵࡢᑟධⓗࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢆ LMS ࡢࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛ㸦ᥖ♧ᯈ㸧࡟ᢞ✏ࡉࡏ࡚ඹ᭷ࡋࡓࡢࡕ࡟ࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࢵࢺࢆཧ⪃࡟సᡂࡋࡓࣆ࢔ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ⏝ࡢ⏝⣬ࢆ㓄ᕸࡋࡓࠋ࠾ࡶ࡚㠃࡛➨ 1 ࢻࣛࣇࢺࢆ᭩ࡁ⮬ᕫࢳ࢙ࢵࢡ㡯┠ࢆ☜ㄆࡋࠊࣛࣥࢲ࣒࡟Ỵᐃࡉࢀࡓࣃ࣮ࢺࢼ࣮ࡀ⿬㠃࡟

−120−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ࢳ࢙ࢵࢡ㡯┠࡜ឤ᝿ࢆグධࡋ࡚㏉༷ࠊཷࡅྲྀࡗ࡚࠿ࡽ➨ 2 ࢻࣛࣇࢺ࡜᭱⤊ࢳ࢙ࢵࢡ㡯┠ࢆグධࡍࡿ࡜࠸
࠺సᴗࣇ࢛࣮࣒࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᭱⤊∧ࡣ LMS ࡢࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛ࡟ᢞ✏ࡉࡏࡓࠋ ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡜ࡑࡢ┦஫ホ౯ࠊᨵゞ࡟༑ศ࡞᫬㛫ࢆ☜ಖࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᑟධࡸㄒᙡࠊ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢࠊࣜ
ࢫࢽࣥࢢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ⊂⮬࡟ e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ໬ࡋຠ⋡ⓗ࡛⮬Ꮫ⮬⩦ࡀྍ⬟࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡋࡓࠋྛࣘࢽࢵࢺᮎ࡟ࡣ
ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡢෆᐜࡢࣞࣅ࣮ࣗࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋࡓ 20 ศ⛬ᗘࡢᑠࢸࢫࢺࢆ web ࣇ࢛࣮࣒࡛ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ
4. LMS ࡜ CALL e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࡸࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛ฼⏝ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢάືࢆᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᑿ㛵(2013)࡛ࡶゎㄝࡋࡓXOOPS Cube 2.1 ࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡋ࡚ᵓ⠏ࡋࡓ LMS ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊ୺࡟௨ୗࡢᶵ⬟ࢆᤵᴗ࡛฼⏝ࡋࡓ㸸ࢽ࣮ࣗࢫ㸸ẖᅇࡢᤵᴗෆᐜ➼ࡢᥖ♧㸭ゎ⟅⏝⣬㸸ྛ✀ࣇ࢛࣮࣒㏦ಙ࣭ཷ㡿☜ㄆ࣭㞟ィ㸭ື⏬⾲♧㸸㡢ኌ
ᩍᮦࡢ㏦ฟ㸭ࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛ㸸ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢㄢ㢟ࡢᥦฟ࣭ඹ᭷㸭ᢞ⚊㸸ㄒᙡᑟධ࡜ᑟධⓗࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢᢞ
✏࣭ඹ᭷㸭e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ㸸ࢻࣜࣝၥ㢟ࡢ⾲♧㸪᥇Ⅼ㸪ᡂ⦼ࡢ⮬ື㞟ィ࡜ᥦ♧ LMS ࡜ే⏝ࡋ࡚ᩍᐊタഛࡢ CALL ࢩࢫࢸ࣒㸦ࢳ࢚ࣝ♫ CaLabo EX㸧ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓࠋCALL ࡢᶵ⬟ࡢ࠺ࡕ≉࡟௨ୗࢆά⏝ࡋࡓ㸸- ࣔࢽࢱ࣮ᶵ⬟㸸ಶูࡢ e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢᏛ⩦᫬ࡢࣔࢽࢱࣜࣥࢢ࡜ಶูᣦᑟ
- ࣌࢔Ꮫ⩦ᶵ⬟㸸ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢㄢ㢟ࡢホ౯ࢆ࣌࢔࡛⾜࠺ࡓࡵࡢࣛࣥࢲ࣒࡞࣌࢔సᡂ
- ࣌࢔ࢳࣕࢵࢺᶵ⬟㸸࣌࢔Ꮫ⩦ࢆ෇⁥࠿ࡘ㟼⢔࡟⾜࠺ࡓࡵࡢᩥᏐ࡟ࡼࡿ᝟ሗඹ᭷
5. άືࡢグ㘓࡜ศᯒ 4 ᭶࡜ 1 ᭶ࡢ TOEFL ITPࠊCriterion ࡢྛࢫࢥ࢔࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊe ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࡢ཯᚟Ꮫ⩦ࡢᚓⅬࠊࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥ
ࢢࡢ⥲༢ㄒᩘࠊࣘࢽࢵࢺࡈ࡜ࡢᑠࢸࢫࢺࠊㄢእ e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࡢ㐩ᡂ⋡ࢆグ㘓ࡋ࡚㞟ィࡋࠊศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ
ࡓࠋ┦஫ࡢ┦㛵➼ࢆ᳨ウࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ4 ᭶ධᏛᐇ᪋ࡢ TOEFL ࢫࢥ࢔ࡀప࠸Ꮫ⏕࡟࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕
ࣥࢢ཮᪉ࡢࢫࢥ࢔ࡢఙࡧࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ୍᪉ࠊࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢ⥲ㄒᩘ࡜ࢫࢥ࢔ࡢఙࡧ࡟ࡶ┦㛵ᛶࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋⓎ⾲࡛ࡣྛάືࡢ┦஫㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡍࡿࠋὀ
1

Criterion ࡣTOEFL iBT ࡛᥇⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࢚ࢵࢭ࢖ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱデ᩿ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢸࢫࢺࡣ 4 ᭶࡜ 1 ᭶ࡢ㛫࡛ࢫࢥ࢔㸦0 ࠿ࡽ 6 ࡢ 7 ẁ㝵㸧࡟┦㛵ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊಙ㢗ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
2ࠕⱥㄒ୰⣭ࠖ࡜ྠᏛᮇࡢᚲಟ⛉┠ࠕⱥㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ࡛ࣙࣥࠖࡶୖ⣭ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࡢ e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࡀ

ㄢእᏛ⩦࡜ࡋ࡚ㄢࡉࢀࠊࡇࡕࡽࡶ㐌 2ࠥ3 ᫬㛫⛬ᗘࡢᏛ⩦᫬㛫ࢆᚲせ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3௒ᅇࡢศᯒ࡛ࡣ TOEFL ITP ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ Section 3 ࡘࡲࡾ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢࡢࢫࢥ࢔ࡢࡳࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

4 ᭶ࡢ TOEFL ITP ࢫࢥ࢔࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ඲ 3 ࢭࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢࢫࢥ࢔ࢆධᡭࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ1 ᭶ࡢࢫࢥ࢔࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᡂ⦼ホ౯ࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢࡢࢫࢥ࢔ࡢࡳࡀ㏻▱ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Blass, L., & Vargo, M. (2013). Pathways Split Text 2A: Reading, Writing, and Critical Thinking. Singapore: Cengage
Learning Asia Pte Ltd.
ᑿ㛵ಟ἞. (2013). e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ࡜ LMS㸪CALL ࢆά⏝ࡋࡓⱥㄒࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥᤵᴗ. እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 53 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍Ⓨ⾲せ㡯.
ᑿ㛵ಟ἞. Ozeki's class. http://class.ozekis.net/

−121−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(13:00-13:30)501 ᐊⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿ཯㌿ᤵᴗࡢຠᯝᑠᙇ ᩗஅ㸦㟷ᒣᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ㸧኱ஂಖ 㞞ྖ㸦NEC ࣐ࢿࢪ࣓ࣥࢺࣃ࣮ࢺࢼ࣮ᰴᘧ఍♫㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ཯㌿ᤵᴗ㸪ࢹࢪࢱࣝᩍ⛉᭩㸪Mobile Learning㸪OPIc Speaking test
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ࢹࢪࢱࣝᩍᮦࢆ୺ࡓࡿᩍ⛉᭩࡜ࡋ࡚཯㌿ᤵᴗࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࡑࡢຠᯝࢆ TOEIC ࡞ࡽࡧ࡟ OPIc㸦ⱥㄒࢥ࣑ࣗ
ࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢸࢫࢺ㸧ࢆᐇ᪋ࡋ࡚ ᐃࡋࡓࠋ2. ཯㌿ᤵᴗᐇ㦂
2.1 ཧຍ⪅ཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸪㟷ᒣᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ⤒῭Ꮫ㒊ᑠᙇࢮ࣑ࡢ㸱ᖺ⏕㸰㸳ྡ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᤵᴗࡣ๓ᮇ࣭ᚋᮇ࡛ 28 ᅇࡢᤵᴗࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ
2.2 ᤵᴗ᪉ἲ
Lecture Ready II ࢹࢪࢱࣝᩍ⛉᭩ (Oxford Press) ࢆ iPad ࡟ࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟࢻࡋ࡚ࠊẖ㐌඲ဨࡀ஦๓࡟ᩍᮦࡢ
ື⏬ࢆぢ࡚ෆᐜࢆ PPTS10 ᯛ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋḟ࡟ࡇࢀࡽࢆ Dooodlecast.pro ࡢࢯࣇࢺࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚㡢ኌ௜ື⏬
࡟௙❧࡚ࡿࠋᤵᴗ࡛ࡣ 5 ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ศ࠿ࢀ࡚஫࠸࡟ホ౯࣭ウㄽࢆ⾜ࡗࡓᚋࠊGroup Ⓨ⾲ࠊಶேࡢⓎ⾲ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋⓎ⾲ホ౯⏝⣬㸦10 㡯┠㸧ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊᏛ⏕ࡢホ౯ࡢᖹᆒᚓⅬ࡜ᩍᖌࡢᚓⅬࢆẚ㍑ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࣉࣞࢮ
ࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢᣦᑟࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋୖグ࡟ຍ࠼࡚ࠊࢡࣛࢫእ࡛ࡣୗグࢆ⿵ຓᩍᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚ά⏝ࡋࡓࠋ
㸯㸧COOORI ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥᩍᮦ㸦ࢹࢪࢱࣝᩍ⛉᭩࡜㐃ᦠࡉࡏ࡚ࠊᦠᖏ➃ᮎ࡛ Lessonࡈ࡜ࡢ༢ㄒᏛ⩦ࢆ⣙ 200 ㄒ⛬ᗘᏛ⩦㸧㸰㸧Newton e-Learning ᩍᮦ㸦ᦠᖏ➃ᮎࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ࠊTOEIC ᶍᨃࢸࢫࢺ㸶ࡘ㸩TOEIC㛵㐃ࡢᏛ⩦ࢆ 20 ᫬㛫௨ୖᏛ⩦㸧㸱㸧TED Talks ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥᩍᮦ㸦ᦠᖏ➃ᮎ࣭PC ࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ఱᗘࡶ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋⱥᩥࢆ⪺ࡁࠊ300 ㄒࡢⱥᩥせ⣙ࢆ㏻ᖺ࡛ 20 ᮏᥦฟࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࡇࢀࢆ PPTS3 ᯛ࡟ⱥᩥせ⣙ࡉࡏࠊࢫࣛ࢖ࢻࢆぢ࡞ࡀࡽⱥㄒ࡛Ⓨ⾲ࡋࡓࠋ㸧
2.3 ᤵᴗホ౯
 2014 ᖺ㸲᭶࡟ Pre-test, 2014 ᖺ 12 ᭶࡟ Post-test ࡜ࡋ࡚ TOEIC㸦㐣ཤࡢᐇ㝿ࡢヨ㦂㸧ࢆ CALL ᩍᐊ࡛ཷ㦂ࡉࡏࡓࠋOPIc Speaking Test ࢆ 2014 ᖺ 5 ᭶࡜ 2015 ᖺ 1 ᭶࡟ CALL ᩍᐊ࡛ Computer ࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ཷ㦂ࡉࡏࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ཯㌿ᤵᴗ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝ
3.1 TOEICTOEIC 4 ᭶ Pre ཷ㦂᫬ࡢᖹᆒⅬ㸦25 ྡ㸧 577 Ⅼ㸦ᶆ‽೫ᕪ 132㸧
12 ᭶ Post ཷ㦂᫬ࡢᖹᆒᚓⅬ㸦25 ྡ㸧 758 Ⅼ㸦ᶆ‽೫ᕪ 105㸧      t ᳨ᐃ: p < 0.05 ࡛᭷ពᕪ࠶ࡾ

−122−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

3.2 OPIc (9 ẁ㝵ホ౯)
Ꮫෆ CALL ᩍᐊࡢ PC ࠿ࡽ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺ࡟᥋⥆ࡋ୍࡚ᩧཷ㦂ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋタၥࡣࠊヨ㦂࡟ඛ❧ࡗ࡚ᐇ
᪋ࡍࡿ Background Survey㸦⡆༢࡞ࣉࣟࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ࡜㊃࿡࣭⯆࿡ࢆ㑅ᢥ㸧࡜ Self-Assessment㸦ࢧࣥࣉࣝࢆ⪺ࡁ࡞ࡀࡽ⮬ศ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࢆ㑅ᢥ㸧࡟ࡼࡾࣛࣥࢲ࣒࡟㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊಶࠎ࡟ෆᐜࡶฟ㢟ᩘࡶ␗࡞ࡿࠋ
ุࣞ࣋ࣝᐃࡣࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣈࡢࣞ࢖ࢱ࣮࡟ࡼࡾᐇ᪋ࡉࢀࠊゝㄒ᧯స⬟ຊ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ Advanced 㹼 Intermediate
㹼 Novice 㸦ࡉࡽ࡟⣽ศ໬ࡋࡓ㸷ẁ㝵㸧ࡲ࡛ࡢ⤖ᯝࡀᡠࡉࢀࡿࠋูࣞ࣋ࣝேᩘࡢ㞟ィ್࡜ Pre/Post ࡢኚ໬ࡣ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ 㸺⤖ᯝ㞟ィ㸼

Pre

Post

Advanced Low

1ே㸫  Intermediate High3ே7ே

  Intermediate Mid(3)1ே1ே  Intermediate Mid(2)7ே4ே  Intermediate Mid(1)1ே1ே  Intermediate Low

9ே

10 ே

  Novice High3ே2ே 㸺Pre/Post ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝኚ໬㸼ࣞ࣋ࣝ UP/DN

-1

0

+1

+2

㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫
 AL

ĺ

 IH

ĺ

3ே

 IM3

ĺ

1ே

1ே

 IM2

ĺ

 IM1

ĺ

1ே

 IL

ĺ

1ே

 NH 

ĺ

3ே

4ே
7ே

1ே

1ே

2ே

 ᑐ㇟ேᩘ࡜ୖグࡢࣞ࣋ࣝኚ໬㸦UP/DN ࣏࢖ࣥࢺ㸧ࡢ⥲࿴ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊࣞ࣋ࣝ࢔ࢵࣉ⋡㸦ᕪศ㸭ேᩘ㸧ࢆ⟬ฟࡋࡓ㸦౛㸸ᑐ㇟⪅඲ဨࡀ㸯࣏࢖ࣥࢺ UP ࡍࡿ࡜ࣞ࣋ࣝ࢔ࢵࣉ⋡ 100%࡜࡞ࡿ㸧
ࠋ
ᑐ㇟ேᩘ

UP/DN

 ᕪศ

ࣞ࣋ࣝ࢔ࢵࣉ⋡㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫㸫 25 ே

+9㸭-3

 +6

 +24.0%ࡇࡇ࡛ᑟ࠿ࢀࡓࣞ࣋ࣝ࢔ࢵࣉ⋡ࢆࠕᤵᴗࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡓࢡࣛࢫ඲యࡢ⬟ຊྥୖ್ࠖ࡜ゎ㔘ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊᮏᤵᴗࡀࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢ⬟ຊྥୖ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶ᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
4. ⤖ㄽ
ࢮ࣑⏕඲ဨࡀ iPad ࡢື⏬సᡂࢯࣇࢺࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ࢹࢪࢱࣝࢫࢺ࣮ࣜࢆసᡂࡋࡓࠋᤵᴗእ࡟࠿࡞ࡾࡢ㔞ࡢⱥㄒࡢ input ࢆࡋ࡚ⱥᩥせ⣙ࡢ⦎⩦ࡶࡋࡓࠋ஦๓࡟༑ศ‽ഛࢆࡋ࡚ࠊ཯㌿ᤵᴗᙧᘧ࡛Ꮫࢇࡔࡇ࡜ࡀࠊTOEIC
࡛ᖹᆒ 181 Ⅼࡢྥୖࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋLecture Ready II ࡢ 10 ࣞࢵࢫࣥࢆࠊdigital storytelling ࡢసᡂࡸⱥㄒ࡟ࡼࡿཱྀ㢌Ⓨ⾲ࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࢫ࢟ࣝྥୖࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ ᑠᙇᩗஅ㸦2015㸧. ཯㌿ᤵᴗࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿຠᯝࡢ᳨ド-TOEIC ࡛ 181 Ⅼୖ᪼㟷ᒣᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ ♫఍㐃ᦠᶵᵓ HIRC 2014 ᖺᗘࡢᡂᯝ pp.28-32.

−123−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(10:05-10:35)502 ᐊࢳࣕࣥࢡฎ⌮࡜ࢤ࣮࣑ࣇ࢕ࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ࡼࡿ
㡢ㄞ࣭㏿ㄞ࢔ࣉࣜࡢ㛤Ⓨ‫୍ⱥ ⯚‮‬㸦ᮾὒ኱Ꮫ㸧ᓟ ៅ୍㸦᫂἞኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࢙࢘ࣈ࢔ࣉࣜ㸪ࢤ࣮࣑ࣇ࢕ࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ㸪㡢ㄞࠊ࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺὥỈ㸪TOEIC ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟

ᮏⓎ⾲ࡣࠊࣇ࢛࣮࢝ࢫࢆᙜ࡚ࡿゝㄒᙧᘧࢆࠕⱥㄒ㡢ኌ⌧㇟ࠖ࡜ࡋࠊTOEIC® ࢸࢫࢺࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ
ၥ㢟ᙧᘧࡢࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺ࡟኱㔞ࡢ㡢ኌኚ໬ࢆᇙࡵ㎸ࢇࡔୖ࡛ࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆࠕ2 ⛊௨ෆࡢࢳࣕࣥࢡ༢఩࡛
㡢ㄞ࣭㏿ㄞ⦎⩦ࠖࡋࡓࡾࠊࢫࣆ࣮ࢻࢆ➇࠺ࢤ࣮࣒ᛶࢆྲྀࡾධࢀࡓࠕTOEIC ༢ㄒ࿴ヂ࢝ࣝࢱྲྀࡾࠖ➼ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ↓ᩱ㸦఍ဨⓏ㘓ࡢࡳᚲせ㸧࢙࢘ࣈ∧࢔ࣉࣜࢆ㛤Ⓨࡋࡓ⤒⦋࡜ᕤኵ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ
2. Sound Features࢙࢘ࣈ࢔ࣉࣜࡢᇶ࡟࡞ࡗࡓᩍ⛉᭩ࡣ Yubune,
Noyes & Kiggell㸦2015㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ᭩ࡀྲྀࡾୖ
ࡆࡓ㡢ኌኚ໬⌧㇟ࡣࠊ▷⦰ᙧࠊ㡢㐃⤖ࠊ↓㛤ᨺ◚⿣㡢ࠊྠ໬ࠊᙅᙧㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡽࡀࠊሙ㠃ࡸࢺࣆࢵࢡู࡟⦅㞟ࡉࢀࡓ 15 ࡢྛࣘࢽࢵࢺ࡟ࠊ
ࡉࡽ࡟⣽࠿࠸㡢ኌ≧ἣ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚≉㞟ⓗ࡟ᢅࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊᕥࡢᅗ㸯ࡢ Unit 5 ࡣ Music &Art ࡢࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊ
ࠕ㰯㡢 m, n, ƾ +ẕ㡢ࠖࡢ㡢㐃⤖ࢆᢅࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྛࣘࢽࢵࢺࡢጞ
ࡵ࡟㡢ኌ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄝ᫂࡜⡆༢࡞౛ᩥࢆ⤂௓ࡋࠊࢡࣜࢵࢡ࡛㡢ኌࡀ⪺ࡅࡿࠋᅗ 1 Sound Features ⏬㠃

3. Dictation & Repetition࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺὥỈࡣࠊㄞゎࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡸࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ
⏝ࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࡢ୰࡟ᩍᮦసᡂ⪅ࡀࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ
࡜࡞ࡿᩥἲࡸ㡢ኌࢆ௙㎸ࢇ࡛࠾ࡅࡤㄡࡶࡀࡍ
ࡄ࡟ᤵᴗ࡛౑࠼ࡿࡓࡵࠊ⡆᫆࠿ࡘຠᯝࡢᆒ୍ᛶ
ࡢ㧗࠸ᐇ㊶᪉ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋၥ㢟ࡣ 10 ၥ࠶ࡾࠊ࠸
ࡎࢀࡶࡇࡢᚋ࡟᥍࠼ࡿ TOEIC ₇⩦ၥ㢟ࡢࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺ࠿ࡽᙜヱ㡢ኌኚ໬ࢆྵࡴࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫࢆ
ࡑࡢࡲࡲฟ㢟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊ✵ᡤࢆ᏶ᡂᚋࠊ⧞
ࡾ㏉ࡋ㡢ㄞ⦎⩦ࡸ࣌࢔⦎⩦ࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᏛ⏕ࡣ TOEIC ₇⩦ၥ㢟࡟ᮃࡴ㝿࡟ࠊ୍ᗘ⪺࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࡢ࠶ࡿ㡢ኌࢆูࡢኌ࡛⪺ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ᅗ 2 Dictation & Repetition ⏬㠃−124−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

4. VocabularyࠕTOEIC ༢ㄒ࿴ヂ࢝ࣝࢱྲྀࡾࠖ

ᅗ 3 Vocabulary ⏬㠃ࡑࡢࣘࢽࢵࢺࡢࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄒᙡ 10 ಶࡢ㡢ኌࡀ㐃⥆ࡋ࡚⪺ࡇ࠼࡚ࡃࡿ㛫࡟ṇࡋ࠸࿴ヂࡢ࣎ࢱࣥࢆࢡࣜࢵࢡࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࠊ10 ㄒࡢṇࡋ࠸࣎ࢱࣥ
ࢆ15 ⛊௨ෆ࡟୍ࡘࡶ㛫㐪࠼ࡎ࡟㑅ᢥ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜100
Ⅼ㸦ࣉࣛࢳࢼ࣓ࢲࣝ㸧ࡀࡶࡽ࠼ࡿࠋྛ༢ㄒࡣ୍Ⓨ࡛ṇࡋ࠸㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆ㑅࡭ࢀࡤࠊ10 Ⅼࠊ୍ᗘ㛫㐪࠼࡚
2 ᗘ┠࡛ṇゎࡍࡿ࡜ 5 Ⅼ⋓ᚓ࡜࡞ࡿࡀࠊ10 ㄒࢆ⤊
ࡗࡓ᫬Ⅼ࡛ 15 ⛊ࢆ㐣ࡂࡿ࡜ᚓⅬ࡟ࡣ 90%ࠊ20 ⛊࡛ 80㸣ࠊ25 ⛊࡛ 70㸣ࠊ30 ⛊࡛ 0㸣ࡀ஌ࡌࡽࢀࠊ
ᚓⅬ࡟ᛂࡌࡓⰍࡢ࣓ࢲࣝࡀᤵ୚ࡉࢀࡿࠋ ༢ㄒ࣎ࢱࣥࡢ㓄⨨࡜ⱥ༢ㄒࡢ㡰␒ࡣẖᅇ␗࡞ࡿࠋ

5. TOEIC Test: Part 1 Photographs࢔ࣉࣜࡢࣉࣟࢢ࣑ࣛࣥࢢゝㄒࡣ⌧ᅾࡶ࢙࢘ࣈୖ
ࡢከࡃࡢ࣐ࣝࢳ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ࢥࣥࢸࣥࢶ㛤Ⓨ࡟౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ Adobe Flash CS 6.0 ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓࠋᕥᅗࡣ
Part 1 ෗┿ၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ෗┿ୗࡢ A㹼D ࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥࣎ࢱࣥࢆࢡࣜࢵࢡࡍࡿ࡜ࡑࡢ㡢ኌࡀ⪺ࡅࡿࠋ
iPhone ࡸ iPad ࡢሙྜࠊ↓ᩱࣈࣛ࢘ࢨ Puffin ࢆ࢖ࣥࢫࢺ࣮ࣝࡍࢀࡤࠊࣔࣂ࢖࡛ࣝ฼⏝ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⪺ࡁྲྀࢀ࡞࠸㑅ᢥ⫥ࡸఱᗘࡶ⦎⩦ࡋࡓ࠸ࢳࣕࣥࢡ
ࢆ㐃ᡴࡍࡿ࡟ࡣዲ㒔ྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᩍᖌࡀᤵᴗ࡛౑࠺
㝿ࡶ౽฼࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᅗ 4 Part 1 Photographs ⏬㠃

6. Part 4 Short TALK (Chunk Reading, Shadowing, Repeating, and Speed Reading)Part 4 ࡢࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ࠊ㏿㡢ㄞࡸࢳࣕࣥࢡ
㡢ኌ࡟⥆࠸࡚㡢ㄞ࡛ࡁࡿ 4 ✀㢮ࡢ࣮ࣔࢻࢆᦚ㍕ࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋ150 WPM ࡛ㄞࡵࢀࡤࢦ࣮ࣝࢻ࣓ࢲࣝࡀᤵ୚ࡉ
ࢀࡿࢤ࣮࣒ᛶࡶഛ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᩍ⛉᭩࡟ࡣࠊ
TOEIC ₇⩦ࡢࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺ࡟ࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ㡢ኌ㒊ศࡢࡳࡀ✵ᡤ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ Dictation Sheet ࡀ௜࠸࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
Ꮫ⏕ࡣཷㅮᚋ࡟ಶேᏛ⩦࡛࢔ࣉࣜ࡟࢔ࢡࢭࢫࡋࠊᐟ
㢟ࢆ᏶ᡂࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡼࡾ୍ᒙࡢᐃ╔ࡀᮇᚅ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊ㡢ኌࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃㄒᙡࢸࢫࢺࡶ௜࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᅗ 5 Part 4 Short TALK㸦Chunk Reading ⏬㠃㸧ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Yubune, E., Noyes, M., & Kiggell, T. (2015). E-Ticket!: Listening Upgrade for the TOEIC® Test. Planet Media Lab.

−125−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(10:40-11:10)502 ᐊ㡢⣲࡜ࣉࣟࢯࢹ࢕ุ࣮࡛ᐃࡍࡿⱥㄒⓎ㡢▹ṇࢯࣇࢺࡢ㛤Ⓨ‫୍ⱥ ⯚‮‬㸦ᮾὒ኱Ꮫ㸧⸨⏣ 㞞ஓ㸦HOYA ࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 Ⓨ㡢㸪࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ㸪ࣉࣞࢮࣥ⦎⩦㸪TTS㸪㡢ኌㄆ㆑
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
᪥ᮏேᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࠕヰࡍࠖⱥㄒⓎ㡢ࡢṇ☜ࡉࢆホ౯ࡋᨵၿࡍࡿ࡟ࡣࠊᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿಶูᣦᑟࡀḞ࠿ࡏ࡞࠸ࡀࠊᡭ㛫ࡢ᥃࠿ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⓎ㡢ࡢホ౯ࡣࠊTOEIC ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࡸ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢၥ㢟ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᏛ⩦⪅⮬㌟࡛ᐈほⓗ࡞ᇶ‽࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁホ౯ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡽࢆຠᯝⓗ࡟Ꮫ⩦࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊHOYA ࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡣ GlobalvoiceCALL2 (GVC2)ࢆ㛤ⓎࡋࡓࠋⓎ⾲⪅ࡽࡣࠊࡇࡢⓎ㡢ホ౯ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆ኱Ꮫࡢ
ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟ᐇ㝿࡟฼⏝ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࠊⱥㄒⓎ㡢ࡢᏛ⩦ຠᯝ࡜࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊᙜヱࢯࣇࢺࡢ᳨ドࢆ⾜࠺࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊࡼࡾࡼ࠸Ⓨ㡢ホ౯ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ㛤Ⓨ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡆࡓ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ
2. Ⓨ㡢ᣦᑟ࡜ⱥㄒⓎ㡢▹ṇࢯࣇࢺ࡜ࡣ
2.1 ୍⯡ⓗ࡞኱Ꮫ㸯~㸰ᖺ⏕ࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࡢሙྜࡢⓎ㡢グྕࡸ༢ㄒࡢ㐃⤖ࡢ⌮ゎᗘㄒᏛࢆᑓ㛛ศ㔝࡜ࡋ࡞࠸ᇸ⋢┴ෆࡢ኱Ꮫ㸯~㸰ᖺ⏕ࡢⱥㄒᚲಟ⛉┠ࡢᒚಟ⪅ࡢሙྜࡣࠊ኱ᏛධᏛ᫬࡟ࡣࠊ
Ⓨ㡢グྕࡢ⌮ゎᗘࡀᴟࡵ࡚పࡃࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅ IPA ࠿ࡽⓎ㡢඲⯡ࢆయ⣔ⓗ࡟⌮ゎ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ⛥࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊⱥㄒ⾲グ࡜ࣔࢹࣝ㡢ኌࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࠊయ⣔ⓗ࡟㡢⣲༢఩࡛ṇ☜࡞Ⓨ㡢ࢆ࡛ࡁࡿ≧ែ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ࠶
ࢃࡏ࡚ࠊ༢ㄒࡢ㐃⤖㸦Linking㸧࡜࠸ࡗࡓࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫࡢㄞࡳࡢయ⣔ⓗ࡞ಟᚓࡣ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸࡞࠸≧ែ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2.2 ୍⯡ⓗ࡞㡢ኌㄆ㆑ࡸ㡢ኌホ౯ࢯࣇࢺ࢙࢘࢔ࡢሙྜ
㏆ᖺ㡢ኌࢆᩥᏐ໬ࡉࡏࡿࠕ㡢ኌㄆ㆑ࠖࡀᕷሙ࡛ㄆ▱ᗘࢆୖࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࢫ࣐࣍➼࡟ヰࡋ࠿ࡅࡿ࡜ࡑࡢ㡢ኌࢆᩥᏐ໬ࡉࡏࡿᶵ⬟࡛ࠊ㥐ࡢ஌ࡾ᥮࠼᱌ෆࡸࠊGoogle ᳨⣴➼࡛฼⏝࡛ࡁࡿࠋᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ㡢ኌㄆ㆑ࡢ㛤Ⓨ఍♫ࡣࡑࡢᵓ㐀ࢆࣈࣛࢵࢡ࣎ࢵࢡࢫ໬ࡋ࡚බ㛤ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ࡜࠶ࡿ఍♫ࡢᐇ㝿ࡢᵓ㐀ࡣᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࠕ㡢⣲ࡢ⤌ྜࡏࠖࢆ༢ㄒࡸࣇ࣮ࣞࢬ➼ࡢ㸯࠿ࡓࡲࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊุᐃ⾲♧ࡉࡏࡿࠕ㡢⣲ࡢࣈࣟࢵࢡ໬ࠖ⾲♧ࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊ
ࠕ㡢⣲ࡢ᭱㐺໬ุᐃࠖࡣࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊⱥㄒⓎ㡢ホᐃ࡛㔜せ࡞ࠕࢫࢺࣞࢫࠖ
ࠊࠕ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠖ
ࠊࠕࣜࢬ࣒ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࣉࣟࢯࢹ࢕࣮ࡢุᐃࡣ୍ษ࠾ࡇ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
2.3 GlobalvoiceCALL2 ࡢሙྜ
HOYA ࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡢ GVC2 ࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞㡢ኌㄆ㆑ࢯࣇࢺ࡜㐪࠸ࠊࠕࣔࢹࣝ㡢ኌࠖ࡜ࠕᏛ⩦⪅㡢ኌࠖࡢẚ
㍑ุᐃ࡛ホ౯ࡍࡿ௙⤌ࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡣࠊ
ࠕ㡢⣲ุࠖᐃࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕࢫࢺࣞࢫࠖ㸦HOYA ࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ࡛ࡣ
ࠊࠕࢱ࢖࣑ࣥࢢ
᪥ᮏㄒࢆጞࡵከゝㄒࢆᢅࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺ࡜࿧ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ㸧ࠊࠕ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠖ
(Duration)ࠖࡢ 4 せ⣲ࢆ༢ㄒࡸ㡢⠇༢఩ุ࡛ᐃࡋࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ⾲♧࡟ࡼࡾࠊᨵၿࡍ࡭ࡁၥ㢟ⅬࢆᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ┤ほⓗ࡟⌮ゎࡉࡏࡸࡍࡃࡍࡿ௙⤌ࡳ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ༢ㄒ⦎⩦࡛ࡣࠊྛ㡢⣲ࢆࣔࢹࣝ࡜Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ㡢ኌࢆẚ㍑ࡉࡏࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ᭱㐺࡞Ⓨ㡢᪉ἲࢆᩍᖌ㡢ኌ࡜ཱྀ⵹ᅗࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪື⏬௜࡛᫂♧࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ≉㛗࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3. GVC2 ࢯࣇࢺࡢ≉ᚩ
3.1 㡢⣲㸸ᒚಟ⪅ࡢከࡃࡀ IPA ࡜ࡑࡢⓎ㡢ࢆ㐃ᦠࡋ࡚⌮ゎ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊࡑࡢෆᐜࢆయ⣔ⓗ࡟Ꮫ⩦
࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

−126−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

3.2 ༢ㄒ㸸⦎⩦⏝࡟⮬⏤Ⓩ㘓ࡋࡓ༢ㄒ࠿ࡽ࢔ࣝࣇ࢓࣋ࢵࢺ࡜ GVC2 ࡛⮬ື⨨᥮ࡉࢀࡓ IPA ࡢ 2 ✀㢮ࡀ⾲♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࡾࠊࣔࢹࣝ㡢ኌ࡜Ꮫ⩦⪅㡢ኌࢆ༢ㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ㡢⣲༢఩࡛Ⓨ㡢᪉ἲ࡜ࡑࡢ㡢⣲࡜ࢆ⤒㦂ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽᏛ⩦࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ༢ㄒ㸸㡢⣲ホ౯㸦ࣔࢹࣝ࡜Ꮫ⩦⪅ࢆẚ㍑㸧༢ㄒ㸸ࢢࣛࣇࢆࢡࣜࢵࢡࡋཱྀ⵹ᅗື⏬☜ㄆ

3.3 ࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ㸭ࢳࣕࣥࢡ㸸༢ㄒ࡜༢ㄒࡢ㐃⤖࡛ࠊࡑࡢ୍㒊ࡀ Linking ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࡣࠊኚ໬ࡋࡓࣔ
ࢹࣝ㡢࡜Ꮫ⩦⪅㡢ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆุᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ࠕ㡢⣲ุࠖᐃࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺࠖ
ࠊࠕ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠖ
ࠊࠕࢱ࢖࣑ࣥࢢࠖࡢᶵ⬟࡛
3.4 ุᐃᶵ⬟㸸࠸࠿࡟ࣜࢬ࣑࢝ࣝ࡟Ⓨኌ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆุᐃ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

ࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ⦎⩦㸸ᕥ࠿ࡽࠊ࢔ࢡࢭࣥࢺࠊ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠊࢱ࢖࣑ࣥࢢᶵ⬟ࡢ⤖ᯝ⾲♧3.5 ࣔࢹࣝ㡢ኌ㸸Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀࡓ㡢ኌࢆෆⶶࡍࡿ㡢ኌྜᡂ㸦Text-to-Speech㸧ࢯࣇࢺ࡛ࣔࢹࣝ㡢࡜ࡋ࡚⮬ື࡛ㄞୖࡆࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ௵ព࡟ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡟㐃ᦠࡉࡏࡓࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣈ➼ࡢ㡢ኌࡀ‽ഛ࡛ࡁࢀࡤࠊ
ࡑࡢእ㒊㡢※ࢆ wav ᙧᘧ࡛㐃ᦠ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
3.6 ⮬⏤࡞༢ㄒࠊࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ➼ࡢⓏ㘓㸭⦎⩦ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ㸸ࡘࡲࡾࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࡸࢽ࣮ࢬ࡟࠶ࢃࡏࡓⓎ㡢⦎⩦ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࣉࣞࢮࣥ➼ࡢㄢ㢟ࡢᩥ❶ࡶ⮬⏤Ⓩ㘓㸭Ⓨ㡢⦎⩦ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
4. ᐇドᐇ㦂⤖ᯝᐇドᐇ㦂ࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࠊᣦᑟ⪅ࣄ࢔ࣜࣥࢢㄪᰝ࠿ࡽࠊGVC2 ࡢᵝࠎ࡞ᶵ⬟ࡢ᭷ຠᛶࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡓࠋᐇ㦂⤖ᯝࡢヲ⣽ࡣࠊⓎ⾲᫬࡟ሗ࿌ࡍࡿࡀࠊGVC2 ࡟ࡼࡾࠊⓎ㡢ࡀࡼࡾ㌟㏆࡟ឤࡌࡽࢀࠊࣔࢹࣝ㡢ኌࢆ࣐ࢿࡿ
ࡇ࡜࡛ࡼࡾࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣈࡽࡋ࠸Ⓨ㡢࡟㏆࡙ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆ୍᫬ⓗ࡛࡞ࡃ࣐ࢫࢱ࣮࡛ࡁࡿࡲ࡛ࠊ⧞
ࡾ㏉ࡋ⦎⩦࡛ࡑࡢຠᯝࢆಟᚓ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟ GVC2 ࡜Ꮫ⩦⪅࡜ࡢ㐃ᦠࡀḟࡢ┠ᶆ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

5. ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ GlobalvoiceCALL2 ࣮࣒࣮࣍࣌ࢪ㸸 http://voicetext.jp/products/globalvoice/index.html

−127−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(11:15-11:45)502 ᐊ࢝ࢼグྕࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓⱥㄒⓎ㡢⾲グࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟ࡼࡿⓎ㡢▹ṇ࡜㡢ኌㄆ㆑ࢯࣇࢺࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓホ౯‫୍ⱥ ⯚‮‬㸦ᮾὒ኱Ꮫ㸧஭ୖ 㧗ᚿ㸦ࣅࢵࢢ࢔ࢵࣉ࣭ࣝ࢝ࣥࣃࢽ࣮㸧⸨⏣ 㞞ஓ㸦HOYA ࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸Ⓨ㡢⾲グ㸪᪥ᮏㄒ࢝ࢼ㸪ⱥㄒⓎ㡢㸪㡢ኌㄆ㆑㸪ࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
‫࣭⯚‮‬஭ୖ㸦2014㸧ࡣࠊ㡢⣲ᩥᏐ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ࢝ࢼグྕࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓ᪂ࡋ࠸ⱥㄒⓎ㡢⾲グࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋ
ࡓࠋࡑࡢ⫼ᬒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࣇ࢛ࢽࢵࢡࢫᣦᑟࡸࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣈ㡢ኌࡢ Listen & Repeat ࡟ࡼࡿⱥㄒ㡢ኌࡢ⩦ᚓࡣࠊㄪ㡢ࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡᶵᵓࡢ㐺ᛂᰂ㌾ᛶࡀ⾶࠼ࡿᛮ᫓ᮇ௨㝆࡛ࡣࠊຠᯝࡢᮇᚅ࡛ࡁࡿᏛ⏕ࡢ๭ྜࡣᚎࠎ࡟
ῶᑡࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡼࡗ࡚ᡂே௨㝆ࡢᏛ⩦⪅࡟ࡣࠊ⪺࠸ࡓ㡢ኌࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡍ㝿࡟ࠊṇࡋ࠸Ⓨ㡢ࡢࡓࡵࡢどぬⓗ⿵ຓࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜౽฼࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᚑ᮶ࡢ IPA ࡟ࡼࡿⓎ㡢グྕ࡟ࡼࡿయ⣔ⓗ࡞ᣦᑟࡣ୰㧗࡛ࡣࡉࡋ࡚⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢከࡃࡀ IPA ࡀㄞࡵ࡞࠸≧ἣ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡛ࠊ᪥ᮏே࡟㥆ᰁࡳࡢ࠶ࡿ࢝ࢱ࢝ࢼࢆ⏝࠸ࡓⓎ㡢⾲グࡢྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳࡶ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸦e.g. ụ㇂, 2008; ᓥᒸ࣭ᓥᒸ, 2013; ⏣ᑼࠊ2012; ▮㔝, 2000㸧ࠊಶࠎࡢ༢ㄒࡸࣇ࣮ࣞࢬ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚࢝ࢱ࢝ࢼ࡛㏆ఝࡋࡓ⾲グࡀ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࡟␃ࡲࡾࠊIPA ࡟௦ࢃࡿࠕ⾲グࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࠖ
࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡲࡓࡑࡢ⾲グἲ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶⓎ㡢ᐇ⾜ྍ⬟ᛶ࡜㡢ീ෌⌧ᛶ࡟࠾࠸࡚ၥ㢟Ⅼࡀከ࠸ࠋ
2. ┠ⓗ‫࣭⯚‮‬஭ୖ㸦2014㸧࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢᩥᏐ࡜㡢ᵓ㐀ࡢ㐪࠸࡟╔┠ࡉࡏࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㡢ࢆᏊ㡢࡜ẕ㡢࡟ศࡅࡓ㡢⣲ᩥᏐ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ࢝ࢼグྕࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓⱥㄒⓎ㡢⾲グࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࠕNipponglishࠖ㸦≉チ⏦ㄳ␒ྕ㸸≉㢪 2013-10097㸧ࢆᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢ⾲グࡢⓎ㡢ᐇ⾜ྍ⬟ᛶ࡜㡢ീ෌⌧ᛶࢆࡉࡽ࡟ᨵၿࡋࡓࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࠕAcademic ∧ࠖࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ⱥㄒ㡢ኌኚ໬ࢆྵࡴࠕࢳࣕࣥࢡࡢⓎ㡢ࠖࢆᐇ⌧࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺どㄆᛶࢆᨵၿࡋࡓ ࠕPOP ∧ࠖࢆ⤂௓ࡍࡿࠋ
3. ᪉ἲ
2014ᖺ∧ࡢⓎ㡢⾲グࡢ㛤Ⓨࡣࠊᵝࠎ࡞㡢⣲ࡸ㡢⠇ᵓ㐀ࢆᣢࡘⱥ༢ㄒࡢ㡢㡪ゎᯒࠊఏ⤫ⓗ࠾ࡼࡧ᭱᪂ࡢ
ⱥㄒ㡢ኌᏛࡢ▱ぢࠊWorld Englishes ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ The Lingua Franca Core (Jenkins, 2000) ➼࡛ᥦၐࡉࢀࡿୡ⏺࡟
㏻ࡌࡿࡓࡵࡢⱥㄒⓎ㡢ࡢඃඛ஦㡯ࠊ࡞࡝ከゅⓗ࡞ࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜⌮ㄽࢆୗᩜࡁ࡟ᵓ⠏ࡋࡓᚋࠊ࢝ࢼ⾲グࡢどㄆᛶࠊⓎ㡢ᐇ⾜ྍ⬟ᛶࡸ㡢ീ෌⌧ᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿጇᙜᛶ᳨ドࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᡃࠎࡣࡉࡽ࡟ࠊࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣈࢫ
ࣆ࣮࣮࢝ࡢⱥ༢ㄒ⣙2,000ಶࡢ㡢ኌࢹ࣮ࢱࡢࠕᢚᥭࠖࢆ㡢⛬ゎᯒࢯࣇࢺࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ ᐃࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊⱥ༢ㄒෆ
ࡢࣆࢵࢳࡢୖୗࡣ౛እ࡞ࡃ୍㈏ࡋࡓἲ๎࡟ᚑࡗ࡚Ⓨ㡢ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆⓎぢࡋࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࢆୖグࡢ࢝ࢼ⾲グࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡜⤫ྜࡋࡓࠋ
୍᪉ࠊ2015ᖺ࡟㛤ⓎࡉࢀࡓࢳࣕࣥࢡⓎ㡢⏝ࡢࠕPOP ∧ࠖࡣࠋ
ࠕAcademic ∧ࠖ࡟࠾࠸࡚㡢⣲⾲グࡋࡓࡓࡵ࡟Ꮚ㡢㒊࡜ẕ㡢㒊࡟ูࢀ࡚⾲グࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ㒊ศࢆࠊ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅ᪥ᮏㄒ࢝ࢼ࡜ྠᩘࡢᩥᏐᩘ࡟࡞ࡿࡼ࠺
࡟㓄៖ࡋࡓࠋ

1LSSRQJOLVK ஶୁ৅ఠও९ॵॻ

−128−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

ᅗ 1. Nipponglish ࡢ Academic ∧࡜ POP ∧4. 㡢ኌㄆ㆑ࢯࣇࢺࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓホ౯Ⓨ⾲⪅ࡽࡣࠊୖグࡢ Academic ∧ࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏேࡢⓎ㡢ࡢⱞᡭ࡞ẕ㡢࡜Ꮚ㡢ࢆྵࡴ༢ㄒ 15 ಶ㸦sit,
sheet, thick, bad, rock, bird, park, singing, rod, lack, correct, collect, milk, queen, year㸧࡜ࠊPOP ∧ࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚▷⦰ᙧࠊ㡢㐃⤖ࠊ↓㛤ᨺ◚⿣㡢ࠊ⼥ྜྠ໬ࠊᶵ⬟ㄒࡢᙅᙧ➼ࡢ㡢ኌኚ໬ࢆྵࡴࢳࣕࣥࢡ 15 ಶ㸦a cup of coffee, I
should’ve known that, We can work it out, Tell us all about it,
She’ll come in a minute, take your time, web page, ௚㸧ࢆࠊ
Nipponglish ࢝ࢼ⾲グࡢ↓࠸ሙྜ࡜࠶ࡿሙྜ࡛ࠊ᪥ᮏே
ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢⓎ㡢࡟㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ㄪ࡭ࡓࠋホ
౯࡟ࡣࠊHOYA ࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡢ GlobalVoiceCALL 2 ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᐇ㦂ᚋ࡟ 5 ௳ἲࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ࢝ࢼ⾲グࡢ᭷⏝ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪺࠸ࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ⤖ᯝࡢヲ⣽ࡣⓎ⾲᫬࡟⤂௓ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

 ᅗ 2. GlobalVoiceCALL 2 ࡟ࡼࡿᐇ㦂⏬㠃

1. GlobalVoiceCall 2 ࡟ࡼࡿ㡢ኌࢹ࣮ࢱホ౯࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊNipponglishࡢ࢝ࢼグྕࡀⱥㄒࡢⓎ㡢Ꮫ⩦ࡢ⿵ຓᶵ⬟࡜ࡋ࡚᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋ≉࡟Pronunciation Score࡜Intonation Score ࡟኱ࡁ࡞ᨵၿࡀ
ࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋ⣬㠃ࡢ㛵ಀୖࠊヲ⣽⤖ᯝࡣⓎ⾲᫬࡟ᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋ
2. ஦๓࡟༑ศ࡞࢝ࢼグྕࡢㄝ᫂ࢆࡋ࡞࠸࡛ᐇ㦂ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡀࠊ࢝ࢼグྕࡣ⿕㦂⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࢫࢺࣞࢫࢆ୚
࠼ࡿ⾲グ࡛࡞࠸࡜࠸࠼ࡿ㸦ࠕQ. ࢝ࢼグྕࡣㄞࡳࡸࡍ࠿ࡗࡓ࡛ࡍ࠿㸽ࠖࡢ㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋࠕࡑ࠺ᛮ࠺ࠖ㸩ࠕከᑡࡑ࠺ᛮ࠺ࠖࡢྜィࡀ 76.92 %࡛࠶ࡗࡓ㸧ࠋ
3. ࡑࡢ௚ࠊ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕQ. ࢝ࢼグྕ࡛ṇࡋ࠸ⱥㄒࡢⓎ㡢ࢆぬ࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࡜ᛮ࠺࠿㸽ࠖࡢ㉁ၥ
࡟ᑐࡋࠊ76% ࡀ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ᅇ⟅ࢆ♧ࡋࠊࠕNipponglish ࢝ࢼグྕ࡟࠸࡚ࡢឤ᝿ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⮬⏤グ㏙࡛ࡣࠊ⫯ᐃⓗពぢ࡜ዲពⓗពぢࢆྜࢃࡏ࡚ 92.3%ࠊྰᐃⓗពぢࡣ 7.7% ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ࠗᛧ࠸ࡃࡽ࠸㏻ࡌࡿ࢝ࢱ࢝ࢼⱥㄒࡢἲ๎ʊࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣈࡶ㦫࠸ࡓ⏬ᮇⓗⓎ㡢⾡࠘. ㅮㄯ♫.
ụ㇂⿱஧㸦2008㸧
ᓥᒸⰋ⾰࣭ᓥᒸୣ㸦2013㸧ࠗ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ぬ࠼ࡿࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣈࡢⱥㄒⓎ㡢࠘. ࢲ࢖ࣖࣔࣥࢻ♫.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: OUP.
⏣ᑼᝅ㑻㸦2012㸧ࠗNHK ࢸࣞࣅ࡛ᇶ♏ⱥㄒ࠘. NHK ฟ∧.
ࣁ࢖ࢹ࢕▮㔝㸦2000㸧
ࠗࣁ࢖ࢹ࢕ࡢἲ๎ 77࠘. ㅮㄯ♫‫୍࣭ⱥ⯚‮‬஭ୖ㧗ᚿ㸦2014㸧ࠕ㡢⣲ᩥᏐ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ࢝ࢼグྕࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓⱥㄒⓎ㡢⾲グࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ㛤Ⓨࠖࠗ➨133 ᅇእᅜㄒ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍㸦LET㸧㛵ᮾᨭ㒊◊✲኱఍Ⓨ⾲せ㡯࠘ࠊpp.22-23.

−129−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(11:50-12:20)502 ᐊ࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢ࣓࡛ࣔࣜฎ⌮ࡉࢀࡿ㡢ኌゝㄒ༢఩ࡢᬑ㐢ᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⪃ᐹ ̿ ⱥㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㡢㡪ゎᯒẚ㍑࠿ࡽ
⏣ῡ 㱟஧㸦࣑ࣥࢺ㡢ኌᩍ⫱◊✲ᡤ㸧‫୍ⱥ ⯚‮‬㸦ᮾὒ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢ࣓ࣔࣜ㸪㡢㡩࣮ࣝࣉ㸪୍ᜥࡢ㐃⥆㡢ኌ (breath group)㸪᪥ᮏㄒ㸪㡢ㄞ
1. ⫼ᬒ࡜┠ⓗࣄࢺࡢ⬻ࡢㄆ▱≉ᛶ࡟ぢྜࡗࡓᩍᮦࡸᩍᤵἲࢆ㑅ࡪ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽ㸪≉࡟ࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱࢆ౑ࡗࡓゝㄒ᝟ሗᥦ♧ἲࡢᶆ‽໬࡜㧗ᗘ໬ࡀồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ➹⪅ࡽࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ⮬௚ࡢ⌮ㄽ◊✲ࡢ⤖ᯝࢆᇶ┙࡟㸪ࠕ࣮࣡࢟ࣥࢢ࣓ࣔࣜࡢ⫈ぬᛶ▷ᮇグ᠈ࡢฎ⌮༢఩ࡣ㸪୍ᜥࡢ㐃⥆㡢ኌ㸦breath group; BG㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ࡢ
௬ㄝࢆ❧࡚㸪ᩍᮦ࡜ᥦ♧ἲ㛤Ⓨࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣ㸪᭱㐺࡞ᥦ♧ἲࢆ㛤Ⓨࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪ⱥㄒ࡜᪥ᮏ
ㄒ࡟ඹ㏻ࡍࡿㄆ▱≉ᛶࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿᇶ♏◊✲࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2. ඛ⾜◊✲
ࣄࢺࡢゝㄒάື࡟㛵ࢃࡿ⬻ᶵ⬟ࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚సືグ᠈㸦working memory㸧ࡀ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≉࡟⫈ぬᛶ▷ᮇグ᠈࡟ࡣ᫬㛫ไ⣙㸦2s1 ⛊㸧ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ㸦Baddeley, 1975; Card et al., 1983㸧
ࠋ⪺ࡁྲྀࡗࡓ㡢ኌࡣ㸪㡢㡩࣮ࣝࣉ࡛཯᚟ࡋ࡞࠸㝈ࡾ 2 ⛊๓ᚋ࡛ῶ⾶㸦▷ᮇグ᠈࠿ࡽᾘ⁛㸧ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ㄝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㡢㡩࣮ࣝࣉࡣ⫈ゎ᫬ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃㄞゎ᫬࡟ࡶ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ㸦㛛⏣, 2007㸧ࠋ㡢ኌ⌧㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪ⱥㄒࡢሙྜ㸪୍ᜥࡢ㐃⥆㡢ኌ㸦BG㸧ࡢ⥅⥆᫬㛫ࡣᖹᆒ⣙ 2 ⛊࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦‫⯚‮‬㺃⏣ῡ, 2013㸧ࠋࡇࢀࡽࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚ど⫈ぬᩍᮦࢆ฼⏝ࡍࡿ㝿ࡣసືグ᠈ࡢ᫬㛫ⓗไ⣙࡟㓄៖ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⫢せ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᥦၐࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᒣཱྀ௚, 2014㸧
ࠋ

3. ᪉ἲ
␃Ꮫ⏕ྥࡅ᪥ᮏㄒ㡢ኌᩍᮦࠕẖ᪥ࡢ⪺ࡁྲྀࡾࠖ㸦ᐑᇛ௚, 1992㸧
㸦ᮁㄞ᫬㛫 67 ศ㸪58 ⠇㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ BG ࡈ࡜ࡢ⥅⥆᫬㛫࡜࢝ࢼᩘࢆィ ࡋࡓࠋ⥅⥆᫬㛫ࡢィ ࡟ࡣࠕm-Boxed ᦚ㍕ࣉ࣮࣮ࣞࣖ

ᅗ 1. BG ᫬㛫ศᕸ࣑ࣥࢺࠖ㸦࣑ࣥࢺ࢔ࣉࣜࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢬ㸧㸪࢝ࢼᩘࡢィ ࡟ࡣࠕⲔ➾ࠖࢆ౑ࡗࡓࠋᖹᆒヰ㏿㸦ẖ⛊࢝ࢼᩘ㸧ࡣ⠇ࡈ࡜࡟ィ⟬ࡋ㸪ᖹᆒヰ㏿࡟ࡼࡿண ್࡜ᐇ ್ࢆẚ㍑ࡋࡓࠋ

4. ⤖ᯝ
BG ᩘࡣ 1,688 ಶ࡛㸪ᖹᆒ BG 㛗ࡣ 1.66 ⛊㸪13.6 ࢝ࢼ࡛࠶ࡗ
ࡓࠋᅗ 1 ࡟ 1 ⛊้ࡳࡢศᕸࢆ♧ࡍࠋᑐᩘṇつศᕸゎᯒ࡛ࡣṍᗘ
-0.553㸪ᑤᗘ-0.185 ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᅗ 2 ࡟࢝ࢼᩘ࡜ヰ㏿ࡢศᕸ࡜ヰ㏿㏆ఝ᭤⥺ࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡦ࡜ᜥࡢ࢝ࢼᩘࡀቑ࠼ࡿ࡯࡝ヰ㏿ࡀ㏿ࡃ࡞ࡿഴྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋᖹᆒヰ㏿࡟ࡼࡿண ್࡜ᐇ ್ࡢẚ㍑ࢆᅗ
3 ࡟♧ࡍࠋᐇ ್࡛ࡣ 1㹼2 ⛊༊㛫ࡀ 1 ๭ᙅቑ኱ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ⠇−130−

ᅗ 2. BG 㛗㸦࢝ࢼᩘ㸧࡜ヰ㏿እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ࡈ࡜࡟ぢࡓண ್࡜ᐇ ್ࡢ BG 㛗༊㛫ࡈ࡜⛣ື≧ἣࢆᅗ 4 ࡟♧ࡍࠋ඲ 58 ⠇ࡢෆ 1㹼2 ⛊༊㛫ࡀቑ࠼ࡓࡶࡢࡣ 42 ⠇㸦඲యࡢ 72%㸧࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
5. ⪃ᐹⱥㄒ㡢ኌゎᯒ㸦‫⯚‮‬௚, 2013㸧࡛ᚓࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ BG ࡢ≉ᛶ㸦ᖹᆒ⣙ 2 ⛊㸪ᑐᩘṇつศᕸ㸪ヰ㏿㏆ఝ᭤⥺ࡀᑐᩘ㛵ᩘ㸪ヰ㏿ㄪᩚຠᯝ㸹 ௨ୗ BG ≉ᛶ㸧ࡀ᪥ᮏㄒ㡢ኌ࡛ࡶほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋ᪥ᖖⓗ࡟⪺ࡁྲྀࡿ㡢ኌࡢሢ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪BG ࡀᖹᆒ⣙ 2 ⛊࡛࠶ࡾ㸪BG ࡟ෆໟࡉࢀࡿⓎヰ㔞㸦༢ㄒᩘࡸ࢝ࢼᩘ㸧࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ 2s1 ⛊ࡢ᫬㛫ᖜ࡟཰ࡵࡿࡼ࠺࡞ヰ㏿ㄪᩚຠᯝࡀ㸪ⱥㄒࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃゝㄒⓗ㊥㞳ࡢ㞳ࢀࡓ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡶほᐹࡉࢀࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣ㸪BG ≉ᛶࡀⱥㄒᅛ᭷࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ࣄࢺࡢ⬻ࡢㄆ▱≉ᛶ࡟⏤᮶ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆᙉࡃ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ᅗ 3. ヰ㏿ㄪᩚ࡟ࡼࡿ༊㛫ู BG 㛗ᵓᡂẚ⋡ࡢኚື (BG: N=1,688)⫈ゎ᫬ࡸㄞゎ᫬࡟άືࡍࡿసືグ᠈ࡢ㡢㡩࣮ࣝࣉ࡛ฎ⌮ࡉࢀࡿ㡢ኌᐇែࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ᭱᪂ࡢ⬻⛉Ꮫほ ⿦⨨ࢆࡶࡗ࡚ࡋ࡚ࡶ┤᥋ほᐹ࡛ࡁࡿ࡟ࡣ⮳ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ≧ἣ࡛㸪㡢ኌゝㄒⓗ࡟ࡣ㊥㞳ࡀ㐲࠸࡜ゝࢃࢀࡿⱥㄒ࡜᪥ᮏㄒࡢ BG ≉ᛶࡀྠ➼࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓ௒ᅇࡢ◊✲⤖ᯝࡣ㸪ゝㄒ࡟౫ࡽࡎࠕ࣮࣡
࢟ࣥࢢ࣓ࣔࣜࡢ⫈ぬᛶ▷ᮇグ᠈ࡢฎ⌮༢఩ࡣ BG ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ࡢ௬
ㄝࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿ᪂ࡓ࡞ドᣐ࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿࠋ௨ୖࡼࡾ㸪BG 㛗ࡀ 2s1⛊ࡢ᫬㛫ᖜ࡟཰ࡲࢁ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡢࡣ⬻ࡢ㡢ኌゝㄒㄆ▱⬟ຊ࡜࠸࠺ᬑ㐢ⓗᶵ⬟࡟⏤᮶ࡍࡿ᣺ࡿ⯙࠸࡛࠶ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
6. ᩍ⫱ⓗ♧၀ᮏ◊✲⤖ᯝࡼࡾ㸪2 ⛊௨ෆࡢࢳࣕࣥࢡ㛗ࡢᩥᏐ࡜㡢ኌࡢྠᮇᥦ

ᅗ 4. ⠇ࡈ࡜࡟ぢࡓヰ㏿ㄪᩚ࡟ࡼࡿ BG 㛗༊㛫ቑῶ㸦⠇: N=58㸧♧ࢆᇶ♏࡟ࡋࡓ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ㡢ㄞカ⦎ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚㸪ࢳࣕࣥࢡෆ࡛Ⓨ⏕ࡍࡿᵝࠎ࡞㡢ኌኚ໬࡟㡰ᛂࡋࡓࣜࢫࢽࣥ
ࢢຊࡢ⩦ᚓ࡜㸪༢ㄒࡼࡾ኱ࡁ࡞ฎ⌮༢఩ࡢ㡢㡩➢ྕ໬⬟ຊࢆ⋓ᚓࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢㄞゎ㏿ᗘྥୖ࡟ࡶຠᯝࡀᮇᚅ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ㡢ㄞάືࡸࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ࡞࡝ࡢ࣮࢜ࢹ࢕࣭࣓࢜ࣜࣥ࢞ࣝࢯࢵࢻࡀ෌ホ౯ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ⌧≧࡟࠶ࡗ࡚㸪ㄆ▱㈨※࡟ஈࡋ࠸እᅜㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢカ⦎࡛ࡣ㸪2 ⛊௨ෆࡣᙜ↛ࡢࡇ࡜㸪1.5 ⛊ࡸ 1 ⛊⛬ᗘࡢࢳࣕࣥࢡ࡟ᩥἲ㸪ㄒᙡ㸪Ⓨ㡢㸪㡢ኌኚ໬࡞࡝ࡢᏛ⩦㡯┠ࢆෆໟࡋ࡚཯᚟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀ᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩࣭㈨ᩱ
Baddeley, A. D., Thomson, N. & Buchanan, M. (1975). Word length and the structure of short-term memory.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14 (6), 575–589.
Card, S., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
㛛⏣ಟᖹ (2007). ࠗࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ࡜㡢ㄞࡢ⛉Ꮫ࠘. ࢥࢫࣔࣆ࢔.
ᐑᇛᖾᯞ㸪௚ (1992, 2004, 2005). ࠗ୰⣭᪥ᮏㄒ⫈ゎ⦎⩦㸸 ẖ᪥ࡢ⪺ࡁྲྀࡾ 50 ᪥ ୖ࣭ୗ࠘. ซே♫.
ᒣཱྀ㧗㡿㸪⚄⏣᫂ᘏ㸪‫୍ⱥ⯚‮‬㸪⏣ῡ㱟஧㸪ụᒣ࿴Ꮚ㸪㕥ᮌᨻᾈ (2014). ࢳࣕࣥࢡ༢఩ࡢ୍ᩧ㡢ㄞカ⦎ࡀ㯲ㄞ㏿ᗘ࡜ㄞゎࢫࢥ࢔࡟୚࠼ࡿᙳ㡪 ࠗLanguage Education & Technology࠘, 51, 243-266.
‫⏣࣭⯚‮‬ῡ (2013). ᫎ⏬㡢ኌࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓ Breath Group 㛗ࡢศᯒ ࠗLanguage Education &Technology࠘ 50 23–41.
Ⲕ➾. http://chasen-legacy.osdn.jp/ ዉⰋඛ➃⛉Ꮫᢏ⾡኱Ꮫ㝔኱Ꮫ᝟ሗ⛉Ꮫ◊✲⛉⮬↛ゝㄒฎ⌮Ꮫㅮᗙ.
ࣉ࣮࣮࣑ࣞࣖࣥࢺ. http://www5b.biglobe.ne.jp/~mint_hs/publish/playmxpro/ ࣑ࣥࢺ࢔ࣉࣜࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢬ.

−131−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(13:00-13:30)502 ᐊ

Monitoring students’ listening skill development through dictation
homework assignments with TED talks
MARUO, Kanako (Fukuoka University)
Keywords: dictation, authentic materials, intensive listening skill, self-reflection, pronunciation
1. Introduction
Dictation, an ‘old-fashioned’ learning tool, has been re-evaluated as an effective tool in second language
learning (Alkire, 2002; Takeuchi, 1997). It provides a learner the chance to distinguish sounds and transfer oralsounds to written symbols (Finocchiaro, 1969).
In spite of its value, dictation is not widely used for learning English in Japan. Listening instructions tend to
focus on top-down approaches rather than bottom-up approaches, and there are not enough exercises for the learners
to develop their intensive listening skills in the lessons (Yonezaki, 2014). As Field (1998) mentions, top-heavy
listening instruction fails to pay attention to the learners’ listening process and find their weaknesses.
Throughout a course called Global English (GE), which prepares university students for a two-week oversea
language program, dictation homework assignments were designed to improve the students’ listening skills. In orderfor the students to become familiar with natural English speech, TED talks were chosen as the dictation medium.
2. The project
2.1 ParticipantsParticipants of this study were 36 students majoring in English literature, pharmaceutical science, andcommercial science in a GE course. GE courses are offered to the second year students in Fukuoka University whowish to go to a short language program in foreign countries such as Canada, America, England, New Zealand,
Singapore, and Korea. The course includes 15 weeks of lessons in first and second semesters, and a two-weekoverseas language program.
2.2 Procedure
The homework assignment was to watch a part of a TED talk that the instructor had chosen, and transcribe as
much of it as possible on a sheet of paper. TED talks are free English presentation videos available on the Internet
covering a variety of topics. Subtitles and transcripts are available in many languages including Japanese. The
students were told to watch the talk four times and use a different colored pen each time so that both the student andthe instructor could monitor their progress. Transcriptions in Japanese were allowed in order to assist with thedictation. At the end of the dictation assignment, the students compared their answers with the English subtitles, andwrote self-reflections on the paper. The dictation sheets were collected in the following lesson and handed back tothe students the next week with some comments on their self-reflections.
In order to encourage the students to work on the assignment, a dictation quiz from the homework assignment
was given in the following week. In the quiz, the students were asked to transcribe a few sentences. After the quiz,
the instructor provided pronunciation practice on the parts where many students had difficulty distinguishing thesounds. Throughout the course, the students worked on the dictation assignments and took the quizzes for ten weeks.

−132−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

3. Results and discussion
On the self-reflections, many students reported that these dictation homework assignments helped them
improve their listening skills. At the beginning, most of them expressed their frustration for not being able totranscribe the basic words they had known. As Morris (1983) points out, misunderstanding occurs in lexical andstructural items that were already known. The exercise helped the students find errors in their listening and promoted
them to practice processing fast and accurate information at speed.
After 4 or 5 homework assignments, the students started to report that they can hear sounds clearer andtranscribe longer sentences at a time. They also started to mention the use of listening strategies such as looking at
the speakers’ mouth, guessing words from the meaning, paying attention to the grammatical structures such as
articles, prepositions, conjunctions, tense, and plurals.
The quizzes in class seemed to have encouraged the students to not only work on the assignments, but toreview after transcribing the sentences. Some students reported that they listened to the talk a few times more after
they finished their dictation homework. Other approaches mentioned in their self-reflections were reading aloud andwriting down the sentences one more time for the quizzes. The pronunciation practices in class were also noted to bea helpful exercise for the students. Many of them realized the parts they couldn’t transcribe was because they were
unsure of the correct pronunciation.
Some instructors may hesitate to use authentic materials such as TED talks for listening lessons. They may
appear as a material for only advanced learners, however, by providing only a part of the talk, pre-teaching
unfamiliar vocabulary and expressions, and using subtitles and transcriptions make the TED talks easier for learners
to listen to. The characteristics of natural speech such as hesitations, false starts, repetition, filled and empty pauses
made it difficult for the students to transcribe the talks at first, but they gradually became familiar with them.
These dictation homework assignments with TED talks, followed by dictation quizzes and pronunciation
training in class, helped the students make greater connections between English sounds and forms, be familiar withnatural speed and pronunciation, and use various listening strategies.
References
Alkire, S. (2002). Dictation as a language learning device. The Internet TESL Journal, 8(3), 1.
Field, J. (1998). Skills and strategies: Towards a new methodology for listening. ELT journal, 52(2), 110-118.
Finocchiaro, M. (1969). Teaching English as a Second Language. Revised and Enlarged.
Morris, S. (1983). Dictation—a technique in need of reappraisal. ELT Journal, 37(2), 121-126.
Takeuchi, O. (1997). Dictation: Is it really effective for language teaching. Kansai University, Audio-Visual Education,
20, 55-63.
Yonezaki, H. (2014). Is dictation effective at improving listening comprehension of Japanese high school learners ofEnglish? An empirical study focusing on those who excel at reading and grammatical competence. The Chubu
English Language Education Society, 43, 43-50.

−133−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(13:35-14:05)502 ᐊ

The Pedagogical Significance of the Education Supporter System in
the Project-based English Program at Ritsumeikan University
KONDO, Yukie (Ritsumeikan University)
KIMURA, Syuhei (Ritsumeikan University)
OGA, Mayumi (Ritsumeikan University)
KASAMAKI, Tomoko (Ritsumeikan University)
Keywords: Peer support, Faculty development, Educational supporter, Project-based English Program
1. Introduction
Ritsumeikan University characterizes the implementation of Educational Supporters (ESs) as an assisting factor increating a better environment for the students and teachers, and also an educational activity for ESs to learn through giving
support to their junior students (Oki, 2015). The goal of this study is to assess the pedagogical significance of our ES system
based on a survey to determine the qualities required for an ES in the Project-based English Program at our university.
2. Procedure
A survey was conducted in the classes for freshmen and sophomores in the Project-based English Program during thespring term of 2015. The participants of this study consisted of 234 students, 26 ESs, and 12 teachers using the ES system. Allof the participants were asked to rate how much the ES system provided benefits for students/ESs/teachers on a five-point scale(1 = no benefit, 5 = great benefit) (Question 1). In addition, the ESs and the teachers were asked to rate how much these nine
qualities: 1. Autonomy, 2. Responsibility, 3. Communication skills, 4. Aspiration, 5. Issue-raising skills, 6. Problem-solving
skills, 7. Specialized knowledge, 8. English skills, and 9. Teaching skills, were required for an ES on a five-point scale (1 = notrequired, 5 = highly required) (Question 2).
3. Results
3.1 Question 1: Benefits of the ES system for students, ESs, and teachers
The results of the answers to Question 1 showed the participants’ positive evaluation on the benefits of the ES
system to students, ESs, and teachers (Figure 1).

n = 272

Figure 1. Results of Question 1: How Much the ES System Provides Benefits for Students, ESs, & Teachers
One-way ANOVA and Bonfferoni’s multiple comparison test found the differences in mean values between “for students” and−134−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍“for teachers” in the answers to the question. (F (2, 542) = 3.51, p < .05).
Table 1.
One-way ANOVA Results of Question 1: How Much the ES System Provides Benefits for Students, ESs & Teachers
Benefits for

F-ratio

Students

ESs

Teachers

4.22 (.73)

4.16 (.79)

4.11 (.83)

Multiple comparison(Benefits for)3.51

p < .05

Students > Teachers

Notes: Data are means (standard deviation) and F-ratio
3.2 Question 2: Qualities required for ESs
Nine qualities for an ES, which had been predetermined by the authors, were divided into two clusters by Ward’s method.
The first cluster was named “Comprehensive ability”, as it was applicable to other subjects, and the second cluster was named“Specialized ability”, as it was subject-specific ability. The mean values of the answers between participant groups, theES group and the teacher group, were assessed by Mann-Whitney’s U test, the results of which indicated that
“Responsibility” was deemed more important among the teacher group (U = 88, p < .05, r = .39) (Table 2). All of theESs and the teachers who answered Question 2 found “Communication skills” highly required or required.
Table 2.
Means of each quality required for an ES
Comprehensive ability
Autonomy

Responsibility Communication Aspiration

Issue-raisingProblem-solvingESs

4.54 (.65)

4.27 (.72)

4.77 (.43)

4.27 (.78)

4.42 (.64)

4.38 (.70)

Teachers

4.83 (.39)

4.83 (.39)

4.83 (.39)

4.33 (.78)

4.67 (.49)

4.25 (.62)

Knowledge

EnglishTeaching

ESs

3.81 (.69)

3.96 (.72)

4.00 (.75)

Teachers

4.00 (.43)

3.92 (.52)

3.67 (.65)

Specialized ability

Notes: Data are means (standard deviation)
4. Discussion
The study found that the ES system was highly appreciated by the participant groups, regarded to be beneficial
not just for the students being supported but also for ESs themselves. More specifically, it was indicated that
communication skills were found required by both teachers and ESs and that responsibility was valued more byteachers. These findings suggest that these qualities should be taken into consideration in the process of employing
and training ESs. Further research should be conducted to identify which qualities ESs have lead to what kind of
benefits for the participant groups of the ES system in our English curriculum.
References
Oki, H. (2015). “Gakusei staff” no ikusei no kadai: Arata na gakusei sanka no kategori o mezasite. [Developing
student staff at universities: A new category for student engagement]. Nagoya Journal of Higher Education, 15,
5-22.

−135−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(9:30-10:00)503 ᐊ᪥ᮏே኱Ꮫ⏕ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅ㉁ၥ⣬ᨵⰋࡢヨࡳ㜿ᕝ ᩄᜨ㸦㡰ኳᇽ኱Ꮫ㸧➉ෆ ⌮㸦㛵す኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ⮬ᕫỴᐃ⌮ㄽ㸪ᚰ⌮ⓗḧồ㸪᪥ᮏே኱Ꮫ⏕ EFL Ꮫ⩦⪅㸪㉁ၥ⣬ᨵゞ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅ◊✲࡟኱ࡁ࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿ⌮ㄽࡢࡦ࡜ࡘ࡟⮬ᕫỴᐃ⌮ㄽ (self-determination
theory: SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2002) ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ㉁ၥ⣬ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓㄪᰝࡀከࡃᐇ᪋ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ(e.g., Noels, Clément,& Pelletiner, 1999; Noels, Pelletiner, Clément, & Vallerand, 2000)ࠋSDT ࡢ㉁ၥ⣬ࡣ 2 ࡘࡢᑻᗘ࡛ᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿࡢ
ࡀ୍⯡ⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡦ࡜ࡀ⏕᮶ᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᚰ⌮ⓗḧồ(⮬ᚊᛶࠊ᭷⬟ᛶࠊ㛵ಀᛶ)ࡢ඘㊊ᗘࢆ ࡿᑻᗘ࡜ࠊ
ࢱ࢖ࣉࡈ࡜(e.g., ෆⓎⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅࠊእⓗㄪᩚࠊ↓ືᶵ)ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࡢᙉࡉࢆ ࡿᑻᗘ࠿ࡽᡂࡿࠋࡇࡢᙧែ
ࡢ㉁ၥ⣬ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏࡢ EFL Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅ ᐃ࡟ࡶᛂ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊSDT ⌮ㄽ࡟཯ࡋࠊᚰⓗḧồࡀ඘㊊ࡉࢀ࡚ࡶືᶵ࡙ࡅࡀ㧗ࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࢣ࣮ࢫࡀᗄࡘ࠿Ⓨ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ(Agawa & Takeuchi, in press; Maekawa &Yashima, 2012; Otoshi & Heffernan, 2011)ࠋࡇࡢཎᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᬑཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᑻᗘ࡟ context-dependent ࡞㡯┠ࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸࡚ࠊㄪᰝᑐ㇟ࢧࣥࣉࣝࡀ␗࡞ࡿ࡜ᚓࡽࢀࡿ⤖ᯝࡀ␗࡞ࡿ༴㝤ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿ (Agawa, 2014)ࠋContext-dependent ࡞㉁ၥ⣬࡟ࡣ 2 ࡘࡢၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ1 Ⅼ┠ࡣୖ㏙ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㉁ၥ⣬㛤Ⓨ᫬࡟᝿ᐃࡋࡓ௨እࡢࢧࣥࣉࣝ࠿ࡽᅇ⟅ࢆ཰㞟ࡋࡓሙྜࠊࢹ࣮ࢱࡢጇᙜᛶࡀపࡃ࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࠋ2 Ⅼ┠ࡣࠊ㉁ၥ⣬㡯┠࡟ἢࡗ࡚(e.g., ᚰⓗḧồࢆࠕ඘㊊ࠖࡉࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡞)ᤵᴗࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀዲࡲࡋ࠸⤖ᯝࢆ⏕ࡴ(e.g., Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ㧗ࡵࡿ)࡜ゝ࠸ࡁࢀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊSDT ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ኱Ꮫ⏕ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅ ᐃᑻᗘࡢᨵⰋࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡜ࡋࡓࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣ㉁ၥ⣬ಟṇ㐣⛬࡜ࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝᚓࡽࢀࡓᨵゞ∧㉁ၥ⣬ࢆ
ሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ
2. ᡭ㡰
ࡲࡎඛ⾜◊✲࡜኱Ꮫ⏕ EFL Ꮫ⩦⪅࡬ࡢ㠃᥋ㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ᳨ウࡋࠊ᪥ᮏࡢ EFL ⎔ቃ࡟࠾࠸࡚ SDT ࡢྛ
ᵓᡂせ⣲ࡀ࡝࠺ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࠿☜ㄆࡋࡓ(Step 1)ࠋḟ࡟ࠊ᪤Ꮡࡢ㉁ၥ⣬(Dei, 2011; ᘅ᳃, 2006; Otoshi &Heffernan, 2011; ⏣୰࣭ᘅ᳃, 2007)ࠊ㠃᥋ㄪᰝ⤖ᯝࠊཬࡧ㛵㐃ࡍࡿඛ⾜◊✲࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚㡯┠ࢆࣉ࣮ࣝࡋ(Step2)ࠊStep 1 ࡛ᚓࡓᐃ⩏࡟↷ࡽࡋ࡚᥇⏝ࡍࡿ㡯┠ࢆ⤠ࡾ㎸ࢇࡔ(Step 3)ࠋࡇ࠺ࡋ࡚సᡂࡋࡓಟṇ∧㉁ၥ⣬ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ⏕ 3 ྡཬࡧⱥㄒᩍ⫱ᑓ㛛ᐙ 1 ྡ࠿ࡽࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ㄪᩚࢆຍ࠼ࡓ(Step 4)ࡢࡕࠊ኱Ꮫ⏕ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ 203 ྡࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࠊྠពࢆᚓ࡚ᅇ⟅ࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓ(Step 5)ࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝ
Step 5 ࡛཰㞟ࡋࡓࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᥈⣴ⓗᅉᏊศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊᚰ⌮ⓗḧồࡢ඘㊊ᗘࢆ ࡿᑻᗘ࡛ 3ᅉᏊ(⮬ᚊᛶࠊ᭷⬟ᛶࠊ㛵ಀᛶ)ࠊືᶵ࡙ࡅᑻᗘ࡛ 4 ᅉᏊ(ෆⓎⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅࠊྠ୍ど࣭ྲྀࡾධࢀㄪᩚࠊእⓗㄪᩚࠊ↓ືᶵ)ࡀᢳฟࡉࢀࡓࠋ඲࡚ࡢᅉᏊ࡛඘ศ࡞ಙ㢗ಀᩘ (Cronbach’s Į = .75-.88) ࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ
Step 5 ࡛༠ຊࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓⱥㄒᩍဨࡸㄪᰝཧຍ⪅࠿ࡽᗄࡘ࠿ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡽ࡟ࡶᇶ࡙ࡁࠊ㉁ၥ
⣬ࢆ෌ᗘಟṇࡋࡓࠋࡇ࠺ࡋ࡚ᚓࡽࢀࡓᨵゞ∧㉁ၥ⣬ࢆ Table 1 ࡟♧ࡍࠋ−136−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

Table 1. ᨵゞ∧㉁ၥ⣬㡯┠ᐃᑻᗘᚰⓗḧồ඘㊊

ᅉᏊ
⮬ᚊᛶ

㉁ၥ⣬㡯┠
ⱥㄒ䛾ᤵᴗ䛷䛿䚸ඛ⏕䛿⚾䛯䛱䛾ᤵᴗ䛻㛵䛩䜛ពぢ䜢ᑛ㔜䛧䛶䛟䜜䛶䛔䜛䛸ᛮ䛖䚹ⱥㄒ䛾ᤵᴗ䛷ᩍᖌ䛿䚸άື䜔ㄢ㢟䛾౯್䜔ព⩏䜢ㄝ᫂䛧䛶䛟䜜䜛䚹ⱥㄒ䛾ᩍᖌ䛿䚸Ꮫ⏕䛾Ẽᣢ䛱䜢⌮ゎ䛧䛶䛔䜛䛸ᛮ䛖䚹ⱥㄒ䛾ᩍᖌ䛿䚸⚾䛯䛱䛾ⱥㄒ䛾Ꮫ⩦䛻䛴䛔䛶ບ䜎䛧䛶䛟䜜䜛䚹ⱥㄒ䛾ᤵᴗ䛷ᩍᖌ䛿䚸⚾䛯䛱䛾どⅬ䜢⪃៖䛧䛶䛟䜜䛶䛔䜛䛸ᛮ䛖䚹᭷⬟ᛶⱥㄒ䛾ᤵᴗ䛷䛿䚸‶㊊䛾䛔䛟ᡂ⦼䛜䛸䜜䜛䛸ᛮ䛖䚹ⱥㄒ䛾ᤵᴗ䛷䛿䚸⮬ศ䛾ດຊ䛜ᐇ䛳䛯䛸䛔䛖඘ᐇឤ䛜ᚓ䜙䜜䜛䛣䛸䛜䛒䜛䛸ᛮ䛖䚹ⱥㄒ䛾ᤵᴗ䛷䛿䚸䛂䛷䛝䛯䛃䛸䛔䛖㐩ᡂឤ䛜ᚓ䜙䜜䜛䛣䛸䛜䛒䜛䛸ᛮ䛖䚹㛵ಀᛶⱥㄒ䛾ᤵᴗ䛷䛾⮬ศ䛾㡹ᙇ䜚䛻‶㊊䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹ⱥㄒ䛾ᤵᴗ䛷䛿䚸࿴Ẽ䛒䛔䛒䛔䛸䛧䛯㞺ᅖẼ䛜䛒䜛䛸ᛮ䛖䚹ⱥㄒ䛾ᤵᴗ䛷䛿䚸ྠ䛨ᩍᐊ䛾௰㛫䛸௰Ⰻ䛟䜔䛳䛶䛔䜛䛸ᛮ䛖䚹ⱥㄒ䛾ᩍᖌ䛿䚸㉁ၥ䛧䜔䛩䛔㞺ᅖẼ䜢ᣢ䛳䛶䛔䜛䛸ᛮ䛖䚹ⱥㄒ䛾ᤵᴗ䛾䜾䝹䞊䝥άື䞉䝨䜰䝽䞊䜽䛷䛿䚸༠ຊ䛧ྜ䛖㞺ᅖẼ䛜䛒䜛䛸ᛮ䛖䚹ືᶵ䛵䛡ෆⓎⓗ ⱥㄒ䛻᥋䛩䜛䛣䛸⮬య䛜ዲ䛝䛺䛾䛷ຮᙉ䛩䜛䚹ືᶵ䛵䛡 ⱥㄒ䜢ຮᙉ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛷䚸ึ䜑䛶Ẽ䛵䛟䛣䛸䛜䛒䜛䛸Ꮀ䛧䛔䚹ⱥㄒ䜢Ꮫ䜆䛣䛸䛻่⃭䜢ឤ䛨䜛䛾䛷ຮᙉ䛩䜛䚹ゎ䜙䛺䛛䛳䛯ⱥㄒ䛜ゎ䜛䜘䛖䛻䛺䜛䛸Ꮀ䛧䛔䛾䛷ຮᙉ䛩䜛䚹䜒䛧ⱥㄒ䜢Ꮫ䜆ᚲせᛶ䛜䛺䛡䜜䜀䚸ⱥㄒ䜢Ꮫ䜀䛺䛔䛰䜝䛖䚹⚾䛜ⱥㄒ䜢Ꮫ䜆䛾䛿䚸ⱥㄒ䛜ヰ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜛䛾䜢⪺䛟䛾䛜ᚰᆅ䜘䛔䛛䜙䛰䚹⚾䛜ⱥㄒ䜢Ꮫ䜆䛾䛿䚸ⱥㄒ䜢ヰ䛧䛶䛔䜛䛸Ẽᣢ䛱䛜䜘䛔䛛䜙䛰䚹ྠ୍ど䞉ྲྀ 䛔䜝䛔䜝䛺ሙ㠃䛷ⱥㄒ䛿ᙺ❧䛴䛸ᛮ䛖䛛䜙ຮᙉ䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䜚ධ䜜ㄪᩚ ⱥㄒ䜢౑䛘䜛ே䛻䛺䜚䛯䛔䛛䜙ຮᙉ䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹ⱥㄒ䜢౑䛘䛺䛔䛸䚸ᑗ᮶ᅔ䜚䛭䛖䛰䛛䜙ຮᙉ䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹⚾䛜ⱥㄒ䜢Ꮫ䜆⌮⏤䛿䚸ⱥㄒ䛜⮬ศ䛾ᡂ㛗䛻䛸䛳䛶ᙺ❧䛴䛸⪃䛘䜛䛛䜙䛰䚹⮬ศ䛾ᑗ᮶䛾䛯䜑䛻䛿䚸ⱥㄒ䛿኱ษ䛷䛒䜛䚹⮬ศ䛾㐍㊰䛾䛯䜑䛻䛿኱ษ䛺⛉┠䛰䛛䜙ຮᙉ䛩䜛䚹እⓗㄪᩚ ⱥㄒ䜢ຮᙉ䛩䜛䛾䛿䚸䝔䝇䝖䛜䛒䜛䛾䛷䚸䛧䛛䛯䛺䛟䚹༢఩䜢ྲྀ䜛䛯䜑䛻ⱥㄒ䜢ຮᙉ䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹ຮᙉ䛧䜝䛸ゝ䜟䜜䜛䛾䛷ⱥㄒ䜢䜔䛳䛶䛔䜛䚹↓ືᶵⱥㄒ䛾Ꮫ⩦䛿᫬㛫䛾↓㥏䛷䛒䜛䛸䛔䛖ឤぬ䛜䛒䜛䚹ⱥㄒ䜢Ꮫ䜣䛷䜒ఱ䛻䜒䛺䜙䛺䛔䛸ᛮ䛖䚹䛺䛬ⱥㄒ䜢Ꮫ䜆ᚲせ䛜䛒䜛䛾䛛䚸⌮ゎ䛷䛝䛺䛔䚹䛸䛻䛛䛟ⱥㄒ䛾ຮᙉ䛿䜒䛖䛧䛯䛟䛺䛔䚹⮬ศ䛻䛸䛳䛶䛾ⱥㄒ䜢Ꮫ䜆ព⩏䛜䜟䛛䜙䛺䛔䚹ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Agawa, T., & Takeuchi, O. (in press). Validating self-determination theory in the Japanese EFL context: relationshipbetween innate needs and motivation. The Asian EFL Journal.
Agawa, T. (2014). Self-determination theory in a Japanese EFL context: Reconsideration of autonomy support.
Paper presented at 11th Asian EFL Journal International TESOL Conference, Pampanga, Philippines.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. NY: The University of Rochester
Press.
Dei, Y. (2012). Pedagogical intervention to enhance EFL students’ motivation: An attempt based on
Self-determination theory. Journal of Kansai University Graduate School of Foreign Language Education andResearch, 10, 1-19.
Maekawa, Y., & Yahima, T. (2012). Examining the motivational effect of presentation-based instruction on Japaneseengineering students: From the viewpoint of the ideal self and self-determination theory. Language Education &Technology, 49, 65-92.
Noels, K., Clément, R., & Pelletiner, L. (1999). Perceptions of teachers’ communicative style and students’ intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 23-34.
Noels, K. Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you learning a second language?
Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50, 57-85.
Otoshi, J. & Heffernan, N. (2011). An analysis of a hypothesized model of EFL students' motivation based on
self-determination theory. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly. 13, 66-86.
⏣୰༤᫭࣭ᘅ᳃཭ே (2007). ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢෆⓎⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ㧗ࡵࡿᩍ⫱ᐇ㊶ⓗ௓ධ࡜ࡑࡢຠᯝࡢ᳨ド
JALT Journal, 29, 59-80.
ᘅ᳃཭ே㸦2006㸧. ࠗእᅜㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ㧗ࡵࡿ⌮ㄽ࡜ᐇ㊶࠘ ᮾி㸸ከ㈡ฟ∧.

−137−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(10:05-10:35)503 ᐊᾏእ࡜ࡢⱥᩥᡭ⣬஺᥮ࡀ୰Ꮫ⏕࡜ࡑࡢᚋࡢ༞ᴗ⏕࡟୚࠼ࡿᙳ㡪࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ఀ⸨ ⏤⣖Ꮚ㸦኱㜰ᩍ⫱኱Ꮫ 㠀ᖖ໅ㅮᖌ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ⱥᩥᡭ⣬஺᥮㸪␗ᩥ໬⌮ゎ㸪ⱥㄒᏛ⩦㸪ᩍᖌࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ㸪༞ᴗ⏕ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
2020 ᖺࡢᮾி࢜ࣜࣥࣆࢵࢡࢆ᥍࠼㸪௒ᚋࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢᨵၿࡀྉࡤࢀࡿ୰࡛㸪Ꮫຊ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢⱥㄒຊࡢྥ
ୖࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪ࠕⱥㄒࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ఱࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢᣦᑟࡀồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬㸪2014㸧ࠋᾏእ࡜ࡢⱥᩥᡭ⣬஺᥮ࡣ᪂ࡋ࠸ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀ㸪⌧௦ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᝟ሗ♫఍࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ㸪㛗ᮇ㛫ࡢᩥ㏻ࢆࡍࡿ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ⏕ࡢⱥㄒ࡟ゐࢀࡿάືࡣ⏕ᚐ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㈗㔜࡞య㦂ࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪኱㜰ࡢබ❧୰Ꮫᰯ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪Ꮫࢇࡔⱥㄒࢆᐇ㝿࡟౑࠺άື࡜ࡋ࡚ⱥᩥᡭ⣬஺᥮ࢆ⾜࠸㸪୧ᅜࡢ⏕ᚐࡢ␗ᩥ໬⌮ゎࡢኚᐜ࡜㸪ࡑࡢኚᐜࡀ᪥ᮏࡢ⏕ᚐࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡬ࡢ✚ᴟᛶ࡟୚࠼ࡿᙳ㡪ࢆ㸪㉁ၥ
⣬ㄪᰝ࡟ࡼࡾ᳨ドࡋࡓ◊✲㸦ఀ⸨㸪2015㸧࡟⥆ࡃ㸪ᩍᖌ࡜༞ᴗ⏕࡬ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡢ㒊ศ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿࠋᩍᖌࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮࡛ࣗࡣ㸪ⱥᩥᡭ⣬஺᥮ࡢྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳࢆ㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ꮚ࡝ࡶࢆ⫱࡚ࡓ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡡࡽ࠸
࡛⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿㸪ࡲࡓ⏕ᚐࡢ␗ᩥ໬⌮ゎࡢኚᐜࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࡜ࡽ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࡋ㸪ࡉࡽ࡟㸪୰Ꮫ᫬௦࡟ⱥᩥᡭ⣬஺᥮ࢆ⤒㦂ࡋࡓ 20 ௦ࡢ༞ᴗ⏕࡟㸪㏣㊧ㄪᰝ࡜ࡋ࡚࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢆ⾜࠸㸪ᡭ⣬஺᥮ࡀ༞ᴗᚋࡢ㐍㊰ࡸⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡬ࡢពḧ࡟୚࠼ࡿᙳ㡪࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㉁ⓗ࡟ศᯒࡍࡿࠋⱥᩥᡭ⣬஺᥮ࡣ➹⪅ࡀ⣙
9 ᖺ㛫⥅⥆ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿάື࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪ᮏ◊✲ࡣࡑࡢ୰ࡢ 2 ᖺ㛫ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋ
2. ᡭ㡰
2.1 ཧຍ⪅࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡢཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸪኱㜰ࡢබ❧୰Ꮫᰯࡢⱥㄒ⛉ᩍㅍ 2 ྡ㸪࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ྜ⾗ᅜࡢᑠᏛᰯᩍㅍ 1 ྡ࡜୰Ꮫᰯ 3 ᖺ㛫ࡢⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⣙ 12 ᅇࡢⱥᩥᡭ⣬஺᥮ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⤒㦂ࢆᣢࡘ㸪20 ௦ࡢዪᏊ༞ᴗ⏕ 6
ྡ㸦21 ṓ 4 ྡ㸪24 ṓ 2 ྡ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2.2 ᩍᖌࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡢᡭ㡰ᮏ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪᪥ᮏ࡛ࡣ 2 ྡࡢᩍᖌ㸪࢔࣓࡛ࣜ࢝ࡣ 1 ྡࡢᩍᖌࡀྲྀࡾ⤌ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏഃࡣᮏᐇ㊶ࡢᑐ㇟ᰯ࡛࠶ࡿබ❧୰Ꮫᰯࡢⱥㄒ⛉ᩍㅍ࡜➹⪅࡛࠶ࡾ㸪࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ഃࡣ➹⪅࡜άືࢆ⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿබ❧ᑠᏛᰯࡢᩍᖌ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ➹⪅ࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟㉁ၥࢆࡋ㸪➹⪅࡟ࡣ◊✲༠ຊ⪅ࡀ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᙧ࡛㸪ICࣞࢥ࣮ࢲ࣮࡟㘓㡢ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࠿ࡽࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࢆసᡂࡍࡿࠋඛ⾜◊✲ࢆࡶ࡜࡟ 4 ࡘࡢ㉁ၥࢆసᡂࡋ㸦⾲ 1㸧㸪ᅇ⟅ࡣ㸪ᮌୗ㸦2003㸧࡟ࡼࡿࠕಟṇ∧ࢢࣛ࢘ࣥࢹࢵࢻ࣭ࢭ࣮࢜ࣜࠖ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚⾲࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋ
⾲ 1. ᩍᖌࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡢ㉁ၥ஦㡯
ၥ

࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ

㉁ ၥ ஦ 㡯1ᅜ㝿⌮ゎᩍ⫱

ᮏάືࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⏕ᚐ࡟ఏ࠼ࡓ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣఱ࡛ࡍ࠿

2௚ᅜᩥ໬ࡢ⌮ゎᡭ⣬࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࡀ᭩࠸࡚࠶ࡿ࡜႐ࢇ࡛࠸ࡲࡍ࠿

3

␗ᩥ໬⌮ゎ

஫࠸ࡢᅜࡢᩥ໬࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⯆࿡ࢆᣢࡘࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁࡲࡋࡓ࠿

4እᅜㄒࡢ⌮ゎ

஫࠸ࡢゝㄒ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⯆࿡ࢆᣢࡘࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁࡲࡋࡓ࠿

−138−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

2.3 ༞ᴗ⏕ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡢᡭ㡰ᮏ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮࡛ࣗࡣ㸪➹⪅ࡀ༞ᴗ⏕࡟⣙ 30 ศ㛫ࡢ㉁ၥࢆࡋ㸪IC ࣞࢥ࣮ࢲ࣮࠿ࡽࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࢆసᡂࡍ
ࡿࠋ㉁ၥࡣ㸪ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳࡀࡑࡢᚋࡢே⏕࡟࡝࠺㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࡛సᡂࡋ㸦⾲ 2㸧㸪ᅇ⟅ࡣ㸪ᮌୗ
㸦2003㸧ࡢࠕಟṇ∧ࢢࣛ࢘ࣥࢹࢵࢻ࣭ࢭ࣮࢜ࣜࠖ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࡲ࡜ࡵࡿࠋၥ 1 ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ 4 ௳ἲ࡛ࡓࡎࡡ
ࡿࠋ
⾲ 2. ༞ᴗ⏕࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࡢ㉁ၥ஦㡯
ၥ

࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ

1 ␗ᩥ໬⌮ゎ㉁ ၥ ஦ 㡯␗࡞ࡿᩥ໬࡟ゐࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ⯆࿡῝࠸య㦂ࡔ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿
1.࡜࡚ࡶࡑ࠺ᛮ࠺ 2.ࡲ࠶ࡑ࠺ᛮ࠺ 3.࠶ࡲࡾࡑ࠺ᛮࢃ࡞࠸ 4.඲ࡃࡑ࠺ᛮࢃ࡞࠸

2 ⤫ྜⓗᏛ⩦ືᶵ୰Ꮫ᫬௦࡜ẚ࡭࡚㸪ⱥㄒࡸ␗ᩥ໬ࢆᏛࡪព⩏ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ኚ໬ࡋࡲࡋࡓ࠿

3 ឤ᝿ⱥᩥᡭ⣬஺᥮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢឤ᝿

3. ศᯒ࡜⪃ᐹࡲࡎ㸪3 ேࡢᩍᖌࡣ㸪⏕ᚐࡀ㸪⏕ά⎔ቃࡢ඲ࡃ㐪࠺እᅜே࡜୍ᑐ୍࡛ྥࡁྜ࠸㸪ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ
ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪࠾஫࠸ࢆ⌮ゎࡋ࠶ࡗ࡚ḧࡋ࠸࡜⪃࠼࡚࠾ࡾ㸪᪥ᮏࡢᩍᖌࡣࡑࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢࡓࡵ
࡟㸪ⱥㄒࢆ౑ࡗ࡚⮬ᅜࡢᩥ໬ࢆᾏእ࡟Ⓨಙࡋ㸪ᾏእࡢᩥ໬ࢆୖᡭ࡟ྲྀࡾධࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࡡࡽ࠸࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓ㸪ⱥᩥᡭ⣬ࡢ஺᥮ࡢ୰࡛㸪࢖ࣛࢫࢺࡢ஺᥮➼㸪ゝⴥࢆ㉸࠼ࡓࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ
ࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࡣ㦫ࡁ࡟್ࡍࡿࠋ
ḟ࡟㸪ⱥᩥᡭ⣬ࡢ஺᥮ࡀ㸪༞ᴗᚋࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡸ␃Ꮫ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ㐍㊰࡟⧅ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ୰
࡟ࡣⱥㄒࡀᚓព࡛ᾏእ␃Ꮫࡋࡓ⪅ࡶ࠸ࢀࡤ㸪ⱞᡭࡔࡗࡓ⪅ࡶ࠸ࡿࡀ㸪௒ࡲࡉ࡟ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢព⩏࡜ࡑࡢᚲせᛶࢆឤࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋㄒᙡ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚㸪ᡭ⣬஺᥮࡛ᇵࡗࡓᐇ⏝ⓗ࡞⾲⌧ࢆ㸪௒࡟࡞ࡗ࡚᭷ຠ࡟ά⏝࡛ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ឤࡌ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡶ␗ᩥ໬⌮ゎࡶ㸪㌟࡟௜ࡅࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ㛗࠸᫬㛫ࢆᚲせ࡜ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ
࠿ࡗࡓࠋ୰Ꮫ᫬௦࡟ࡍࡄ࡟⤖ᯝࡀฟ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶ㸪ᧈ࠸ࡓ✀ࡣ╔ᐇ࡟᰿ࢆᙇࡾ㸪♫఍࡬ฟ࡚࠿ࡽⰼࢆဏ࠿ࡏ
ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶከ࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀゝ࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
4. ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟ᩍᖌࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ࠿ࡽ㸪ྠࡌ┠ⓗࢆᣢࡗ࡚άືࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡛㸪⏕ᚐࡢ␗ᩥ໬⌮ゎࡢኚᐜ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡓࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡾ㸪༞ᴗ⏕ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ࠿ࡽ㸪༞ᴗᚋࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡬ࡢព㆑ࡢྥୖ࡟⧅ࡀࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ
ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋࡇࢀ࠿ࡽࡢ᪥ᮏࢆᢸࡗ࡚࠸ࡃⱝ⪅ࡓࡕ࡟㸪ࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ♫఍ࢆ⏕ࡁᢤࡃຊࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪␗ᩥ໬ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿᚰ࡜ⱥㄒ࡛ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡍࡿຊࢆࡘࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᚲ㡲࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ᮏྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳࡢ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ᛂ⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢᐇ㊶࡜◊✲ࡢ㝈⏺ࢆྵࡴࠋ㛗ᮇ࡟Ώࡾⱥ
ᩥᡭ⣬ࢆ஺᥮ࡍࡿάືࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ㸪ಙ㢗࡛ࡁࡿࣃ࣮ࢺࢼ࣮ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡣ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺࢆ
౑ࡗࡓ஺ὶࡸ㸪⏕ᚐࡀ஺ὶᰯࢆゼࢀࡿ࡞࡝᪂ࡓ࡞άືࡶྲྀࡾධࢀ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳࢆ⥅⥆ࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ఀ⸨⏤⣖Ꮚ (2015). The Effectiveness of a Letter Exchange Program Between the U.S. and Japan: Fostering
Students’ Global Mind and Integrative Motivation in Junior High School.ࠗ୰㒊ᆅ༊ⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍⣖せ࠘44,
149-156
ᮌୗᗣோ (2003).ࠗࢢࣛ࢘ࣥࢹࢵࢻ࣭ࢭ࣮࣭࢜ࣜ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢᐇ㊶ʊ㉁ⓗ◊✲࡬ࡢㄏ࠸࠘ᮾி㸸ᘯᩥᇽᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ (2014).ࠗ௒ᚋࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢᨵၿ࣭඘ᐇ᪉⟇࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ ሗ࿌㹼ࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ໬࡟ᑐᛂࡋࡓⱥㄒᩍ
⫱ᨵ㠉ࡢ஬ࡘࡢᥦゝ㹼࠘http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/102/ houkoku/attach/1352464.htm

−139−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(10:40-11:10)503 ᐊ

Quiet: ෆྥᆺⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮⁪⃝ ఀ㒔Ꮚ㸦ྠᚿ♫ዪᏊ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔⫈ㅮ⏕㸧࣭ụୖ ஂ⨾Ꮚ㸦ྠᚿ♫ዪᏊ኱Ꮫ㠀ᖖ໅ㅮᖌ㸧ᕝ஭ ⌮⍰㸦ECC ࢪࣗࢽ࢔኱ᯞሯཎᩍᐊ㸧࣭ⱝᮏ ኟ⨾㸦ྠᚿ♫ዪᏊ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 Ꮫ⩦⪅᪉␎㸪ෆྥⓗᏛ⩦⪅㸪SILL㸪MBTI㸪ᅉᏊศᯒ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡑࡢ᥈ồࡀᚅࡓࢀ࡚࠸ࡓෆྥᆺᏛ⩦⪅࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ (Cain, 2013)ࠊ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ
⩦⪅ࡢᏛ⩦⪅᪉␎࡜Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ㸦እྥᛶ࡜ෆྥᛶ㸧࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㉁ၥ⣬ㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋⱥㄒ⬟ຊ
࡜ࡢ୍㈏ࡋࡓ㛵ಀᛶࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡢࠊእྥᆺ࣭ෆྥᆺ࡜Ꮫ⩦⪅᪉␎࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࡢ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚እ
ྥᆺᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ㉁ၥࡸ༠ຊ࡞࡝ࡢ♫఍ⓗࢫࢺࣛࢱࢪ࣮ࢆዲࢇ࡛౑⏝ࡋࠊෆྥᆺᏛ⩦⪅ࡣಶேᏛ⩦ࢆዲࡳࠊ♫఍ⓗ᥋ゐࢆ㑊ࡅࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ (Ehrman and Oxford, 1990; Wakamoto, 2009)ࠋ
୍᪉ࠊከࡃࡢᩍᖌࡣእྥᆺᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ᪉ࡀㄒᏛᏛ⩦࡟࠾࠸࡚ᡂຌࡍࡿ࡜☜ಙࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ (Lightbown andSpada, 1993)ࠊෆྥⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ᪉ࡀⓎ㡢ࡢṇ☜ᛶ࡟ඃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝࡶሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ (Busch,
1982)ࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗࡣ (RQ1) ᪥ᮏே኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅᪉␎ࡢ≉ᚩࢆᴫほࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ(RQ2) Ꮫ⩦⪅ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡜Ꮫ⩦⪅᪉␎ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࠊ≉࡟ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ὀ┠ࡉࢀ࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗࡓෆྥᆺᏛ⩦⪅ࡢᏛ⩦⪅᪉␎౑⏝ࡢ≉ᚩࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࠶ࡿࠋ
2. ཧຍ⪅࡜ᡭ㡰◊✲ཧຍ⪅ࡣ᪥ᮏே኱Ꮫ⏕ 182 ྡ㸦඲ဨⱥㄒᑓᨷࠊዪᛶࠊ18 ṓ - 22 ṓ㸧ࠋᏛ⩦⪅᪉␎ࡢㄪᰝ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning) ࢆ᪥ᮏࡢᏛ⩦⎔ቃࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡚ᨵኚࡉࢀࡓ 61 㡯┠ᵓᡂࡢ
Revised SILL (Oxford,1990; Wakamoto, 2009) ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊ2013 ᖺ 11 ᭶࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋᏛ⩦⪅ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ Myers-Briggs Indicator ᪥ᮏ∧ (MBTI, Form M) ࢆ 2014 ᖺ 1 ᭶࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋࠊศᯒ࡟ᙜࡓࡗ࡚ࡣእྥᛶ࣭
ෆྥᛶ≉ᛶࡢࡳࢆྲྀࡾฟࡋࠊᅬ⏣ (2010) ࡟ᚑ࠸㐃⥆㔞໬ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ (Range: 75 [እྥᛶ] -125 [ෆྥᛶ])ࠋ
୧㉁ၥ⣬࡜ࡶㄪᰝ࡟ᙜࡓࡾࠊㄪᰝ┠ⓗࢆㄝ᫂ࡋཧຍ⪅ࡢྠពࢆ☜ㄆࡋࡓ㸦MBTI ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣಶࠎேࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡࢆ࠾ࡇ࡞ࡗࡓ㸧ࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ 54.4 % ࡢཧຍ⪅ࡀእྥⓗࠊ45.6% ࡢཧຍ⪅ࡀෆྥⓗ࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࡓࠋRevised SILL ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣグ㏙⤫ィࡢᚋࠊᅉᏊศᯒࢆ⏝࠸㸦᭱ᑬἲࠊࣉ࣐ࣟࢵࢡࢫᅇ
㌿ࠊᅉᏊ㈇Ⲵ㔞 > .35 ௨ୖࢆᢳฟ㸧ᅉᏊᚓⅬ࡜ MBTI ࡢእྥᛶ࣭ෆྥᛶᣦᶆ࡜ࡢ┦㛵㛵ಀࢆ᳨ウࡋࡓ㸦ㄪᰝᙜ᪥ࡢ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿ࡢḞᖍ⪅ࢆ㝖እࡋࡓཧຍ⪅ᐇᩘࡣ 126 ྡ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ㸧ࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝ
 RQ1 ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ඲యࡢ 45.9%ࡢ᪉␎ࡀࡼࡃ౑࠺ (High Use) ࡲࡓࡣ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜ゝ࠼ࡤࡼࡃ౑࠺
(Mid-high Use)ࠊ୍᪉ 54.1%ࡀ࠶ࡲࡾ౑ࢃ࡞࠸㸦Mid-low Use㸧ࡲࡓࡣ౑ࢃ࡞࠸ (Low Use) ࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ㸦⾲㸯㸧
ࠋ
⾲ 1. グ㏙⤫ィࡢ⤖ᯝ

−140−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ RQ2 ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣᅉᏊศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ7 ᅉᏊࢆᢳฟࡋࠊ
✚ᴟⓗ࡟ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆᅗࡿ᪉␎
㸦Factor 1㸧ࠊ࣓ࢱㄆ▱࣭༢ㄒᏛ⩦᪉␎ (Factor 2)ࠊEFL ࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄆ▱᪉␎ (Factor 3)ࠊᤵᴗ࡛౑࠺᪉␎ (Factor 4)ࠊᐇ㝿࡟ⱥㄒࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ぬ࠼ࡿ᪉␎ (Factor 5)ࠊ♫఍ⓗ᪉␎ (Factor 6)ࠊᅇ㑊ⓗ᪉␎ (Factor 7) ࡜࿨ྡࡋࡓࠋእྥ
ᆺᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ Factor 1ࠊ
5 ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ࠊ
ෆྥᆺᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ Factor 7 ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟᭷ព࡞┦㛵㛵ಀࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓ (⾲ 2)ࠋ
⾲ 2. Ꮫ⩦⪅᪉␎㸦ᅉᏊᚓⅬ㸧࡜እྥᛶ࣭ෆྥᛶࡢ Pearson Product-Moment Correlation ࡢ⤖ᯝFactor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7
*
.002
-.205
Note: **p < .01. *p < .05.

p

  

.042

-.115

*

-.168

.125

.285

**

 እྥᆺᏛ⩦⪅࡜┦㛵㛵ಀࡀぢࡽࢀࡓ Factor 1 ࡟ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡀࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸᫬ࡣࡺࡗࡃࡾヰࡍࡼ࠺࡟㢗ࡴࠊᛮ࠺༢ㄒࡀฟ࡚ࡇ࡞࠸᫬࡟ࡣ ’uh’ ‘well’ ࡞࡝ࡘ࡞ࡂゝⴥࢆ౑ࡗ࡚⪃࠼ࡿ᫬㛫ࢆ✌ࡄࠊ┦ᡭࡀゝࡗࡓෆᐜ࡟☜ಙࢆᣢ࡚࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟ࡣ͆You mean,” ࡞࡝࡜ゝࡗ࡚ෆᐜࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࠊ࡞࡝✚ᴟⓗ࡟ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙ
ࣥࢆᅗࡿ㡯┠ࡀࠊFactor 5 ࡟ࡣࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸ㄒᙡࢆᐇ㝿࡟఍ヰࡢሙ㠃࡛౑ࡗ࡚࠾ࡰ࠼ࡿ࡞࡝ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙ
ࣥࢆά⏝ࡍࡿ᪉␎ࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉࡛ෆྥᆺᏛ⩦⪅࡜┦㛵㛵ಀࡀぢࡽࢀࡓ Factor 7 ࡟ࡣࠊⱥㄒ࡛㐺ษ࡞ᛮ࠸ᾋ࠿ࡤ࡞࠸᫬ࡣࠊࡇࡕࡽࡀఱࢆゝ࠸ࡓ࠸ࡢ࠿┦ᡭࡀᐹࡋ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࡢࢆᚅࡘࠊⱥㄒࢆヰࡍ࡜ࡁࡣⱞᡭ
࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆ㑊ࡅࡿࠊ⮬ศࡀࡼࡃ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡟௙ྥࡅࡿࠊ࡞࡝ᅇ㑊ⓗ࡞᪉␎ࢆ♧ࡍ㡯┠ࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
4. ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜♧၀ ᮏ◊✲ࡀ♧ࡍ㏻ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡣᵝࠎ࡞᪉␎ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋෆྥᆺᏛ⩦⪅ࡣᅇ㑊ⓗ᪉␎ࡢ౑⏝ࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࡓࡢ࡛ࠊእྥᆺᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ౑࠺ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ᪉␎ࢆᩍ࠼ࡿࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥࢢࢆࡍࡿ࡜Ꮫ⩦ࡢど㔝ࡀᗈࡀࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋᩍᖌࡣᏛ⩦⪅ࡢᏛ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࢆᢕᥱࡋࠊ࠶ࡲࡾ౑ࢃ࡞࠸Ꮫ⩦⪅᪉␎㸦♫఍ⓗࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮㸧ࢆᩍ࠼ࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠊኻᩋࢆᜍࢀ࡞࠸ᩍᐊ⎔ቃࢆసࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢ㔜どࡢᤵᴗࢆᒎ㛤ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᏛ⩦⪅⮬㌟ࡀࡑࢀࢆᮃࡲ࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊ኱ࡁ࡞Ꮫ⩦ᡂᯝࢆᮇᚅࡍࡿࡇ
࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ◊✲ࡢ♧၀࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡼࡾ㧗ᗘ࡞ⱥㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡢ⫱ᡂࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿ୰࡛ࠊ
Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡜Ꮫ⩦᪉␎ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶ࡞࡝Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ≉ᚩࢆ⤫ྜࡋࡓᣦᑟࡀ᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Busch, D. (1982). Introversion-extroversion and the EFL proficiency of Japanese students. Language Learning, 32,
109-132.

ࠗෆྥᆺே㛫ࡢ᫬௦ ♫఍ࢆኚCain, S. (2013). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can't stop talking 㸦࠼ࡿ㟼࠿࡞ேࡢຊ࠘
ࠊྂⲡ⚽Ꮚヂ㸧. ᮾி: ㅮㄯ♫.
Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1990). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult’s
language learning strategies. Modern Language Journal, 73, 1-13.
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1993). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury
house/Harper & Row.
ᅬ⏣⏤⣖. (2010). ࠗ᪥ᮏ∧ MBTI ࣐ࢽࣗ࢔ࣝ㸸 MBTI ࡢ㐺ษ࡞ᐇ᪋࡜ࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡࡢࡓࡵ࡟࠘. ᮾி: JPP.

Wakamoto, N. (2009). Extroversion/Introversion in foreign language learning: Interactions with learner strategy
use. Bern: Peter Lang.

−141−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(11:15-11:45)503 ᐊ୰ᏛᰯⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡟࠾࠸࡚ືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ㧗ࡵࡿᐇド◊✲ⱝ⏕ ῝㞷㸦௝ྎᕷ❧୰㔝୰Ꮫᰯ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ෆⓎⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅ㸪⮬ᕫỴᐃㄽ㸦SDT㸧㸪ᫎ⏬ᩍᮦ㸪୰ᏛᰯⱥㄒᏛ⩦㸪⮬ᚊᛶ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ⱥㄒᩍ⫱⌧ሙ࡛ࡣࠊᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ࡀ┠ᣦࡍᐇ㊶ⓗ࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡢ⫱ᡂࢆ┠ᣦࡋ࡚ࠊᩘࠎࡢ
ヨࡳࢆᣮᡓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ༑ศ࡞ᡂᯝࡀୖࡀࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ➹⪅ࡣࠊࡇࡢ⌧≧ࢆᡴ㛤ࡍࡿᡭࡔ࡚࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢᚰ⌮ⓗഃ㠃࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࠊពḧࢆ㧗ࡵࡿྲྀ⤌ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡓࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᩘ࠶ࡿືᶵ࡙ࡅ
⌮ㄽࡢ୰࠿ࡽࠊ
ࠕ⮬ᕫỴᐃㄽࠖ Self-Determination Theory, Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002௨㝆 SDT ࡜␎グ ࢆࠊ◊✲ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡜ࡋᏛ⩦ពḧࢆ㧗ࡵࡿ᪉ἲࢆ᥈ࡾࡓ࠸ࠋ➹⪅ࡀࠊSDT ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࢆⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟ྲྀࡾධࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆぢฟࡋࡓࡢࡣࠊ௨ୗ㸱Ⅼ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ1) ୰Ꮫᰯ࡛ࡣࠕ⏕ࡁࡿຊࠖࢆ⫱ࡴࡇ࡜ࡀᣦᑟ┠ᶆࡢせ࡜ࡉࢀࠊSDT ࡢ⮬ᚊᛶࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡍࡿ⌮ㄽ࡜ඹ㏻ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ2) ෆⓎⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ㧗ࡵࡿ࡜௬ᐃࡉࢀࡓ SDT ࡢ㸱ࡘࡢᚰ⌮ⓗḧồࠊ⮬ᚊᛶࡢḧồࠊ᭷⬟ᛶࡢḧồࠊ㛵ಀᛶࡢḧồࡣࠊᩍ⫱⌧ሙ࡛άẼࡢ࠶ࡿⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗ
ࢆࢹࢨ࢖ࣥࡍࡿ㝿࡟␃ពࡍ࡭ࡁᏛ⩦⪅ࡢᚰ⌮ⓗせ⣲࡜㔜࡞ࡿࠋ3) SDT ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃᐇ㦂ⓗ࡞ⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗࢆᐇ᪋ࡋ᳨ウࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ㧗ࡵࡿせᅉࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࠊSDT ࢆᯟ⤌ࡳ࡜ࡋࡓⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗ࡛ࡢᐇド◊✲ࡢ⤖ᯝࡣࠊᩍ⫱⌧ሙ࡬᭷⏝࡞♧၀ࢆࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊࡑࡢከࡃࡣ኱Ꮫ⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊⱥㄒࣞ࣋ࣝࡀึ⣭࡛ࠊᚰ⌮ⓗ࡟Ⓨ㐩ẁ㝵࡟࠶ࡿᛮ᫓ᮇࡢ୰Ꮫ⏕࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡶ㐺ᛂྍ⬟࠿࡝࠺࠿ࠊ᳨ウࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

2. ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗ ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ୰Ꮫ⏕࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊSDT ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛ෆⓎⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ㧗ࡵࡿᐇ㦂ⓗ࡞ⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࠊ
࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᣦᑟࡀຠᯝࢆ㧗ࡵࡓࡢ࠿ࢆࠊ㔞ⓗࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜㉁ⓗࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ୧㠃࠿ࡽ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ఱࡀືᶵ
࡙ࡅ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚ពḧࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࠊࡑࡢពḧࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⥔ᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᥈ࡿ⣒ཱྀࢆⓎぢࡋࠊ୰Ꮫᰯⱥㄒ
Ꮫ⩦࡛ࡢពḧྥୖ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿᩍ⫱ⓗ♧၀ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ3. ᡭ⥆ࡁ ௝ྎᕷࡢබ❧୰Ꮫᰯ 3 ᖺ⏕ࡢ 3 ࢡࣛࢫ 107 ྡࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࠊSDT ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛ࠊࢸࣞࣅࢆど⫈ぬᩍᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚
እᅜㄒᫎ⏬ࢆ⤂௓ࡍࡿᐇ㦂ⓗ࡞ᤵᴗࢆ 4 ᅇᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋෆⓎⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡓࡵࠊᣦᑟෆᐜ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚
ࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅࡟㑅ᢥࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ⮬⏤ᗘࢆ୚࠼ࠊ࡝ࡢ⩦⇍ᗘࡢᏛ⩦⪅࡟ࡶ㐩ᡂឤࡀឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡞
ෆᐜ࡜ࡋࠊ࣌࢔άືࢆྲྀࡾධࢀࠊᏛ⩦⪅ྠኈࡢ㛵ࢃࡾࢆᴦࡋࡳ࡞ࡀࡽᏛ⩦࡛ࡁࡿෆᐜ࡟タィࡋࡓࠋ඲ᤵ
ᴗࡢᤵᴗ㐣⛬ࡣ⤫୍ࡋࠊ㡰␒ࡣ 1) ᫎ⏬ࡢ࠶ࡽࡍࡌ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ 2) ᫎ⏬ࡢண࿌⦅ࡢど⫈ 3) ᫎ⏬ࡢ୍ሙ㠃ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ 4) ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡜ࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢάື࡜ࡋࡓࠋᚰ⌮ⓗኚᐜࢆᤊ࠼ࡿࡓࡵࠊ㉁ၥ⣬ࢆ஦๓࡜஦ᚋ࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ㉁ၥ⣬ࡣࠊSDT ࢆᯟ⤌ࡳ࡜ࡋࡓᏳ⸨㸦2001㸧ࠊᘅ᳃㸦2006㸧
ࠊᘅ᳃࣭⏣୰㸦2006㸧ࠊࠊ⏣୰㸦2009a㸧ࢆཧ⪃࡟సᡂࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢᵓᡂࡣࠊᫎ⏬⤂௓ࡢᤵᴗࠊ⮬ᚊᛶࡢḧồࠊ⏣୰࣭ᘅ᳃㸦2007㸧᭷⬟ᛶࡢḧồࠊ㛵ಀᛶࡢḧồࡢ඲㸲ᅉᏊ࡛ࠊࠕࢸࣞࣅࢆ౑࠺άືࡣ࠾ࡶࡋࢁ࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࠖ
ࠕⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗ࡛ࡣ⏕ᚐࡢせᮃࢆ኱ษ࡟ࡋ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠖ
ࠕⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗ࡛ࡣࠊ⮬ศࡣࡀࢇࡤࡗ࡚ࡸࢀࡤ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ឤࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ
ࠕⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗ࡛ࡣࠊ࣌࢔ࡸࢢ࣮ࣝࣉάື࡟༠ຊⓗ࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮ࠺ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢィ 12 㡯┠࡛࠶ࡾࠊࣜࢵ࢝
࣮ࢺࢫࢣ࣮ࣝ㸳௳ἲ࡛ᅇ⟅ࡉࡏࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᭷ຠ࡞㉁ၥ⣬ࡢ 99 ྡศ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅඲య࡜⩦⇍ᗘู࡟⤫ィゎᯒࢆࡋࡓࠋᅉᯝ㛵ಀࡀ୙᫂࡞Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ 8 ྡ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ

−142−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ಶูࡲࡓࡣ」ᩘே࡛ࠊ15 ศ࠿ࡽ 80 ศ⛬ࡢࣇ࢛࣮ࣟ࢔ࢵࣉࡢ㠃᥋ࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ㘓㡢ࡋࡓ㠃᥋ࡢෆᐜࡣࢫ
ࢡࣜࣉࢺ໬ࡋࡓᚋࠊ㸱ࡘࡢᚰ⌮ⓗḧồࡈ࡜࡟࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ໬ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟ゎ㔘ࢆຍ࠼⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ4. ⤖ᯝ
 㔞ⓗࢹ࣮ࢱࡢศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࠊᏛ⩦⪅඲యࡢഴྥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᫎ⏬⤂௓ࡢᤵᴗ࡬ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࡀ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿
ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ௚ࡢ㸱ࡘࡢᅉᏊ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᚤᑠ࡞ኚᐜ࡛ពḧࢆ⥔ᣢࡍࡿ⛬ᗘࡢຠᯝࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋ⩦⇍ᗘ
ูࡢどⅬ࡛ࡣࠊ㸰せᅉศᩓศᯒ࡜ከ㔜ẚ㍑࡛ࡢ⤫ィゎᯒࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ⩦⇍ᗘࡀ㧗࠸㡰␒࡟ពḧࡢୖ᪼⋡ࡀ㧗࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊୖ఩ᒙ࡟ࡣࠊ
ࠕ⮬ᚊᛶࠖࢆᚋᢲࡋࡍࡿࠊ୰㛫ᒙ࡟ࡣࠕ࡛ࡁࡓឤࠖࢆ㧗ࡵࠊୗ఩ᒙ࡟ࡣࠕ㛵ࢃࡾᗘࠖࢆᣢࡓࡏࡿᣦᑟࡀᚲせ࡞ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ⩦⇍ᗘࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽࡢ⤖ᯝࡣࠊᘅ᳃(2006)ࠊ⏣୰࣭ᘅ᳃(2007)ࠊ⏣୰(2009b)ࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ୍㐃ࡢ SDT ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳ࡛ࡢ◊✲ࡢ⤖ᯝࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗ
ࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ㉁ⓗࢹ࣮ࢱࡼࡾࠊ୰Ꮫ⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓືᶵ࡙ࡅࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ௨ୗࡢ㸱Ⅼࢆ␃ពࡋ࡚ᣦᑟ
࡟⏕࠿ࡍᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋ1) Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡣືᶵ࡙ࡅࡀ㧗ࡲࡗࡓ࡜ࡁࠊḞዴࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ㄆ▱ࡍࡿᚰ⌮ⓗ࡞ഃ㠃ࢆ⿵࠸࡞ࡀࡽᏛ⩦⾜ືࢆ⾲ฟࡉࡏࠊ┠ᶆ㐩ᡂ࡬⮬ࡽࢆᑟࡃຊࡀഛࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠋ2)ど⫈ぬᩍᮦࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅຠᯝࡣࠊ࡯ࡰ඲ဨࡢᏛ⩦⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᏛ⩦⪅ಶูࡢ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔࡜ࡢ㛵ࢃࡾ᪉ࡸႴዲ࡟㉳ᅉࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢど⫈ぬᩍᮦ࡟ᑐࡍࡿཷᐜࡢᵝ┦ࡀ」㞧໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠋ3)ෆⓎⓗせᅉ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ࠊཷ㦂ࡸᐙᗞ⎔ቃࢆྵࡴᏛ⩦⎔ቃ࡞࡝ࡢእⓎⓗ࡞せᅉࡀ኱ࡁࡃືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Ᏻ⸨ྐ㧗 (2001).ࠕ⮬ᕫỴᐃព㆑ࡀ⮬ᚊᛶᨭ᥼ࡢㄆ▱࣭ືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟ཬࡰࡍᙳ㡪ࠖ ࠗྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᩍ⫱Ꮫ㒊⣖せ㸦ᩍ⫱ᚰ⌮Ꮫ⛉㸧 ࠘ 48 , 73-81.
Deci, E.L.,& Flaste, R. (1995). Why we do what we do: understanding self-motivation. New York: Penguin㸦ࢹࢩ
E.L. ࣇࣛࢫࢺ R. ᱜ஭ⱱ⏨┘ヂ (1999)ࠗேࢆఙࡤࡍຊ㸫ෆⓎ࡜⮬ᚊࡢࡍࡍࡵ࠘ ᪂᭙♫.㸧ᘅ᳃཭ே (2006). ࠗእᅜㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ㧗ࡵࡿ⌮ㄽ࡜ᐇ㊶࠘ ከ㈡ฟ∧ᘅ᳃཭ே࣭⏣୰༤᫭㸦2006㸧.ࠕⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡟࠾ࡅࡿືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ㧗ࡵࡿᤵᴗᐇ㊶㸸⮬ᕫỴᐃ⌮ㄽࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽࠖ LET Language Education and Technology 43 , 111-126.
Ryan, R.M.,& Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-Determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation. Social

Development, and Well-Being American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
⏣୰༤᫭࣭ᘅ᳃཭ே (2007).ࠕⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢෆⓎⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ㧗ࡵࡿᩍ⫱ᐇ㊶ⓗ௓ධ࡜ࡑࡢຠᯝࡢ᳨ドࠖ
JALT Journal, 29, 59-80.
⏣୰༤᫭ (2009a). ࠕ㸱ࡘࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࡢෆⓎⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ㧗ࡵࡿ᪉␎ࡢຠᯝ᳨ドࠖ JALT
Journal, 31, 227-250.
⏣୰༤᫭ (2009b). ࠕࢡࣛࢫෆࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࡀప࠸Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ㧗ࡵࡿᐇ㊶◊✲ࠖ ࠗ኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍୰ᅜ࣭ᅄᅜᨭ㒊◊✲⣖せ࠘ 6, 69-81.
⏣୰༤᫭ (2010).ࠕⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗ࡛ෆⓎⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ㧗ࡵࡿ◊✲ࠖ JACET Bulletin, 50, 63-80.

−143−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(11:50-12:20)503 ᐊ

ESP ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫศᯒ࡟ࡼࡿ㡯┠సᡂ࡜ࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ㐺ᛂᆺࢸࢫࢺᑠᒣ ⏤⣖Ụ㸦ྡྂᒇᕤᴗ኱Ꮫ㸧ᮌᮧ ဴኵ㸦᪂₲㟷㝠኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ESP㸪ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸪ࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ㐺ᛂᆺࢸࢫࢺ㸪ෆᐜⓗጇᙜᛶ㸪㡯┠ࣂࣥࢡ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ㐺ᛂᆺࢸࢫࢺ㸦CAT㸧ࡣ㡯┠ᛂ⟅⌮ㄽ (IRT) ࡜ࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱࢸࢡࣀࣟࢪ࣮ࡢⓎ㐩࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ὀ┠ࡉࢀࡿࢸࢫࢺᡭἲ࡜࡞ࡾ 1990 ᖺ௦࡟ࡣ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋ࡚኱つᶍࢸࢫࢺ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟
࡞ࡗࡓࠋಶࠎேࡢᅇ⟅⾜ື࡟ྜࢃࡏ࡚ฟ㢟ࢆ⾜࠺࡜࠸࠺⬟ຊ ᐃࡢຠ⋡ᛶࡀ CAT ࡢ୺せ࡞฼Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ
ࡇࡢฟ㢟㡯┠ࡶ㡰␒ࡶཷ㦂⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚␗࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼࡀࠊ୍ࡘࡢࢸࢫࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢෆᐜⓗጇᙜᛶࡢ᳨ドࡢ㞀ቨ࡜ࡶ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ෆᐜⓗጇᙜᛶ࡜ CAT ࡢ⢭ᗘ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ㆟ㄽ࡛ࡣࠊSteinberg et al. (1990) ࡣ㡯┠ࣂࣥࢡࡢᵓ⠏ࡢ௙᪉࡜ฟ㢟ࡢࣂࣛࣥࢫࡀ⫢ᚰ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊLuecht et al. (1998) ࡣࢩ࣑࣮ࣗࣞࢩࣙࣥ࡟ࡼࡿᐇ㦂ࡢ⤖ᯝࠊࢥࣥࢸࣥ
ࢶࡢศ㔝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣ㡯┠ࡢ㞴᫆ᗘ࡜ฟ㢟ศ㔝ࡢࣂࣛࣥࢫࡀ CAT ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟
ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊCrotts et al. (2012) ࡣᑓ㛛ᐙࡀ඲㡯┠ࡢホ౯ࢆ⾜࠺ᙧ࡛ෆᐜⓗጇᙜᛶࡢ᳨ドࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࠊෆᐜⓗጇᙜᛶࡣᐇ᪋ࡉࢀࡓಶࠎࡢ࡝ࡢࢸࢫࢺࢭࢵࢺ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡶ࡯ࡰྠ➼࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽࡢ◊✲࠿ࡽࠊCAT ࡢෆᐜⓗጇᙜᛶ࡜⢭ᗘࢆ㧗ࡵࡿ࡟ࡣࠊ㞴᫆ᗘࡸศ㔝ࡢࣂࣛࣥࢫࡢⰋ࠸ࠊᑓ㛛ᛶࢆ཯ᫎࡉࡏࡓ㡯┠ࣂࣥࢡࢆసᡂࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡇ࡛ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ୍⯡⛉Ꮫᢏ⾡ⱥㄒࡢ⬟ຊ ᐃࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚⛉Ꮫᢏ⾡ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢศᯒ⤖ᯝࢆࡶ࡜࡟
ㄒᙡ࣭ㄒྃࡢ㡯┠ࢆసᡂࡋࠊෆᐜⓗጇᙜᛶࢆ☜ಖࡋࡓ CAT ࢆ㛤Ⓨࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ CAT ࢆᐇ᪋ࡋ⢭ᗘࢆศᯒࡍࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࡑࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ2. ࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺ࡜࡞ࡿㄒᙡ࣭ㄒྃࡢ㑅ᐃ࡜஦๓ࢸࢫࢺ
ࢸࢫࢺ㡯┠ࡢࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺㄒᙡ࣭ㄒྃࡢ㑅ᐃࡣࠊ୍⯡⛉Ꮫ㞧ㄅ Scientific American㸦SA㸧ࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ⣙80 ୓ㄒ࡜Ꮫ⾡ㄽᩥࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫྜィ⣙ 200 ୓ㄒ㸦ᶵᲔᕤᏛࠊ㟁ẼᕤᏛࠊᛂ⏝≀⌮Ꮫࠊ⏕≀ᕤᏛࡢ㸲ศ㔝㸧ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࠊᑠᒣ㸦2013㸧ࡢᡭἲ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋSA ࡢศᯒ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠊⱥㄒࢆぢ࡚᪥ᮏㄒࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆ㑅ࡪࢱ࢖ࣉ㸦EJ㸧࡜ࡑࡢ㏫ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ㸦JE㸧ྛ 50 ၥࢆసᡂࡋࠊᕤᏛ⣔Ꮫ⾡ㄽᩥࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࠿ࡽࡣ᭱ప 3ศ㔝࡟ඹ㏻ࡋ࡚ฟ⌧ࡍࡿ 4gram ࡜ 5gram ࡢࣜࢫࢺࢆᢳฟࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ༢ㄒ㐃㙐ࢆྵࡴᩥ❶ࢆ⊂⮬࡟సᡂࡋ࡚ࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺࢆ✰ᢤࡁࡋ㑅ᢥ⫥࠿ࡽ㑅ࡪࢱ࢖ࣉ㸦SC㸧ࢆ 80 ၥࠊྜィ 180 ၥࢆసᡂࡋࡓࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽࡢ㡯┠ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ 2 ኱ᏛࡢᕤᏛ⣔Ꮫ㒊ࡢᏛ⏕ 145 ྡࡢ༠ຊࢆᚓ࡚஦๓ࢸࢫࢺࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢᅇ
⟅ࢆࣛࢵࢩࣗࣔࢹ࡛ࣝศᯒࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ Outfit Mean Square ࡢ್ࡀ 1.3 ࢆ㉸࠼ࡓࡶࡢࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᶆ‽໬ࡉࢀࡓt ್ࡶ 1.96 ࢆ㉸࠼ࡿࡶࡢࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵ㡯┠㝖ཤࡣ⾜ࢃࡎ඲ 180 ၥࢆ㡯┠ࣂࣥࢡ࡟౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝ࡜⪃ᐹ஦๓ࢸࢫࢺࡢ⤖ᯝࡣᅗ㸯࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ 180 㡯┠୰ 79 㡯┠㸦44㸣㸧ࡀᅔ㞴ᗘ 0.5㹼2.0 ࡟㞟୰ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ
ࡇࢀࡣ SC ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ 80 㡯┠୰ 58 㡯┠ࡀࡇࡇ࡟㞟୰ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ẚ࡭ EJ ࡜ JE ࢱ࢖ࣉࡣᅔ㞴ᗘࡢศᕸࡀᗈ࠸ࠋ
ᮏ◊✲ࡢ CAT ᐇ᪋࡟ࡣ Moodle UCAT (Kimura et al., 2012) ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊᕤᏛ⣔Ꮫ㒊⏕ 63 ே࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ
ࡇࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ஦๓ࢸࢫࢺ࡜ CAT ඲య࡜ࡢ┦㛵ࡣ௨ୗࡢᅗ 2 ࡟♧ࡍ࡜࠾ࡾ 0.54 ࡜࡞ࡾ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢ┦㛵ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓ┠ᶆṇ⟅☜⋡ࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿ CAT ࡢ⢭ᗘ࡬ࡢᙳ㡪ࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊCAT1㸦50%㸧࡜ CAT2
㸦80%㸧ࢆタᐃࡋࡓࡀࠊ⢭ᗘ࡟ࡣ኱ࡁ࡞ᕪ␗ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

−144−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

ᅗ 1. 㡯┠ᅔ㞴ᗘࡢศᕸᅗ 2. CAT1&CAT2 ࡜஦๓ࢸࢫࢺࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡢ┦㛵௨ୖࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽᮏ CAT ࡣࠊ㡯┠సᡂ࡟ヱᙜศ㔝ࡢࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾෆᐜⓗጇᙜᛶࡣ☜ಖࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊࡼࡾṇ☜࡞⬟ຊ ᐃࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ 3 ࡘࡢ㡯┠ࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜㞴᫆ᗘࡢࣂࣛࣥࢫࢆࡉࡽ࡟ᨵၿࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Crotts, K., Sireci, S. G., and Zenisky A. (2012). Evaluating the Content Validity of Multistage-Adaptive Tests,
Journal of Applied Testing Technology, Volume 13, Issue #1
Kimura, T. Ohnishi, A., & Nagaoka, K. (2012). Moodle UCAT: a computer-adaptive test module for Moodle basedon the Rasch model, The 5th International Conference on Probabilistic Models for Measurementᑠᒣ⏤⣖Ụ (2013). ⛉Ꮫᢏ⾡ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢศᯒ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ࢔࢖ࢸ࣒࣭ࣂࣥࢡࡢᵓ⠏࡜₯ᅾࣛࣥࢡ⌮ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣭࢔ࢲࣉࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭ࢸࢫࢺࡢヨ⾜, ࠗ⤫ィᩘ⌮◊✲ᡤඹྠ◊✲࣏࣮ࣜࢺ࠘295, 29-49.
Luecht, R. M., de Champlain, A., & Nungester, R. J. (1998). Maintaining content validity in computerized adaptive
testing. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 3, 29-41.
Steinberg, L., Thessen, D. and Wainer, H. (1990). Validity. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: A
primer (pp. 185-229). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

−145−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(13:00-13:30)503 ᐊእᅜㄒึᚰ⪅ࡢㄒᙡᏛ⩦᫬ࡢ⬻άື୰㔝 ⚽Ꮚ㸦஑ᕞዪᏊ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 እᅜㄒㄒᙡᏛ⩦㸪ࢫ࣌࢖ࣥㄒ㸪࡞ࡒࡾ㸪ึᚰ⪅㸪⬻⾑ὶ㸪fNIRS
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᖹᡂ 23 ᖺᗘ࠿ࡽ᏶඲ᐇ᪋ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᑠᏛᰯእᅜㄒάືࡢᏛ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿࡛ࡣᩥᏐࡣ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶ⿵ຓ࡜
ࡋ࡚ᢅࢃࢀ㸪➨ 1 ゝㄒ࡜␗࡞ࡿ㡢⣲ࡢⓎ㡢࣭ࣜࢬ࣒࡞࡝ࢆ㐌୍ᅇ࡜࠸࠺▷᫬㛫࡛⮬↛࡟⋓ᚓࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ
ࡴࡎ࠿ࡋ࠸ࠋⲶཎ௚ (2011)ࡣ㸪ᑠᏛᰯ 5㸪6 ᖺ⏕ࡢⱥ༢ㄒࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ㐙⾜᫬ࡢ⬻⾑ὶࢆㄪ࡭㸪ᕥ⬻ࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎྑ⬻ࡶάᛶ໬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ⱥㄒࡢ㡢ࢆゝㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㡢࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ
◊✲࡛ࡣࡍ࡛࡟ⱥㄒࢆᏛࢇࡔⱥㄒ௨እࡢእᅜㄒึᚰ⪅ࡢㄒᙡᏛ⩦᫬࡟≉ᚩⓗ࡞⬻άືࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ
ㄪ࡭ࡿࡓࡵ࡟኱Ꮫ⏕ࡀึࡵ࡚Ꮫࡪࢫ࣌࢖ࣥㄒࡢ 3 ✀㢮ࡢ␗࡞ࡿㄢ㢟ࡢㄒᙡᏛ⩦୰ࡢ⬻⾑ὶኚ໬ࢆ㸪㏆㉥እග⬻ᶵ⬟࢖࣓࣮ࢪࣥࢢ⿦⨨ (near-infrared spectroscopy, NIRS) ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ㄪ࡭㸪ࡑࡢㄒᙡᏛ⩦ࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡿᏛ⩦ຠᯝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋ
2. ᐇ㦂
2.1 ┠ⓗ᪥ᮏேᏛ⩦⪅ࡀึࡵ࡚ᏛࡪእᅜㄒࡢㄒᙡᏛ⩦୰ࡢάືࢆㄪ࡭ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࢫ࣌࢖ࣥㄒࡢㄒᙡᏛ
⩦୰࡟࠾࠸࡚௨ୗࡢ 2 ࡘࡢ◊✲┠ⓗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ LABNIRS (ᓥὠ〇సᡤ)ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ㄪ࡭ࡓࠋ
(1)ࠕ㡢+⤮+ᩥᏐ↓ࠖ(ᩥᏐ↓)㸪ࠕ㡢+⤮+ᩥᏐ᭷ࠖ(ᩥᏐ᭷)㸪
ࠕ㡢+⤮+ᩥᏐ࡞ࡒࡾࠖ(࡞ࡒࡾ)ࡢ 3 ࡘࡢㄢ㢟ᚋࡢㄒᙡグ᠈ࢸࢫࢺ⤖ᯝ࡟ࡼࡿᏛ⩦ຠᯝࡢ㐪࠸ࢆㄪ࡭ࡿ
(2) 3 ࡘࡢㄢ㢟㐙⾜୰ࡢ⬻⾑ὶኚ໬ࢆㄪ࡭ࡿࠋ                   
2.2 ཧຍ⪅ཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸪22㹼25 ṓࡢྑ฼ࡁ 10 ேࡢ⏨Ꮚ࡛ࢫ࣌࢖ࣥㄒࢆᏛࢇࡔ⤒㦂ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
2.3 ㈨ᩱ
ࠕ㡢+⤮ࠖ(ᩥᏐ↓), ࠕ㡢+⤮+ᩥᏐ᭷ࠖ(ᩥᏐ᭷),ࠕ㡢+⤮+ᩥᏐ࡞ࡒࡾࠖ(࡞ࡒࡾ) ྛ㸴ᯛ
2.4 ᡭ㡰1㸬㛤║࣭㛢║ (ྛ 10 ⛊㸧2㸬ࢫ࣌࢖ࣥㄒᮍಟㄒᏛ⩦㸦
ࠕᩥᏐ↓ࠖ
㸪
ࠕᩥᏐ᭷ࠖ
㸪
ࠕ࡞ࡒࡾࠖ, ྛ 6 ㄒ㸦60 ⛊㸧㸩rest (10 ⛊))3㸬ィ⟬ (30 ⛊㸧
4㸬ㄒᙡグ᠈ࢸࢫࢺ-㡢ኌ࣭⤮࣐ࢵࢳࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺ (3㹶3 = 9 ㄒ) 㸦90 ⛊㸧
5㸬ࢫ࣌ࣝࢸࢫࢺ-㡢ኌ࣭ࢫ࣐࣌ࣝࢵࢳࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺ(3 x 3 = 9 ㄒ) 㸦90 ⛊㸧6㸬㛤║࣭㛢║ (ྛ 10 ⛊㸧
3. ⤖ᯝ
3.1 ㄒᙡグ᠈ࢸࢫࢺ
3 ࡘࡢᏛ⩦ᩍᮦࡢ㐪࠸㸦ᩥᏐ↓㸪ᩥᏐ᭷㸪࡞ࡒࡾ㸧࡟ࡼࡿᏛ⩦ᚋࡢㄒᙡࢸࢫࢺࡢࢫࢥ࢔ࢆ⾲ 1 ࡟♧ࡍࠋ

−146−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

⾲ 1. ㄒᙡグ᠈ࢸࢫࢺࡢ Score㸦3 Ⅼ‶Ⅼ㸧ࢸࢫࢺᩥᏐ↓ (SD) ᩥᏐ᭷(SD)
*࡞ࡒࡾ(SD)

㡢࣭⤮࣐ࢵࢳࣥࢢ㸦ྛ n=10㸧

1.70 ( .949)

1.90 (.738)

2.20 (.632)*㡢࣭ࢫ࣐࣌ࣝࢵࢳࣥࢢ㸦ྛ n=10㸧

1.90 (1.197)

1.80 (.789)*

2.50 (.707)*඲య㸦ྛ n=20㸧

1.80 (1.056)

1.85 (.749)*

2.35 (.671)**

p < .05ࡇࢀࡽࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ㸪2 ✀㢮ࡢࢸࢫࢺ඲య࡛ࡣࠕ࡞ࡒࡾࠖ
㸦2.35㸧࡛ᏛࢇࡔㄒᙡࡢᚓⅬࡀ, ࠕᩥᏐ↓ࠖ㸪ࠕᩥᏐ᭷ࠖᏛ⩦ㄒᙡࡢᚓⅬ㸦1.80㸪1.85㸧ࡼࡾࡑࢀࡒࢀ᭷ព࡟㧗ࡃ㸦p < .05㸧, 㡢⤮࣐ࢵࢳࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺ࡛ࡣࠕ࡞
ࡒࡾࠖ
㸦2.20㸧ࡀࠕᩥᏐ↓ࠖ
㸦1.70㸧
㸪ࠕᩥᏐ᭷ࠖ
㸦1.90㸧ࡼࡾࡑࢀࡒࢀ᭷ព࡟㧗ࡃ㸦p < .05㸧㸪㡢࣭ࢫ࣐࣌ࣝ
ࢵࢳࣥࢢࢸࢫࢺ࡛ࡶࠕ࡞ࡒࡾࠖ
㸦2.50 㸧ࡀࠕᩥᏐ↓ࠖ
㸦1.90㸧࡜ࠕᩥᏐ᭷ࠖ
㸦1.80㸧ࡼࡾࡑࢀࡒࢀ᭷ព࡟㧗࠿ࡗࡓ㸦p < .05㸧ࠋ
3.2 ⬻ෆ⾑ὶኚ໬⾑ὶ㔞ࡶࠕᩥᏐ↓࡛ࠖࡣ⾑ὶ㔞ࡢ᭷ព࡞ቑຍࡣ࠶ࡲࡾぢࡽࢀࡎࠊࠕᩥᏐ᭷࡛ࠖࡣᕥࣈ࣮ࣟ࢝㸪ゅᅇ௜㏆ࡢ⬻⾑ὶࡀࡸࡸቑຍࡋ,ࠕ࡞ࡒࡾ࡛ࠖࡣᕥഃ㢌㒊ࣈ࣮ࣟ࢝㔝㸪⫈ぬ㔝㸪⦕ୖᅇ௜㏆ࡣ኱ࡁࡃቑຍࡋࡓࠋྑ
ഃ㢌㒊࡛ࡣࠕᩥᏐ↓ࠖࠕᩥᏐ᭷࡛ࠖࡣ᭷ព࡞⾑ὶ㔞ࡢቑຍࡣぢࡽࢀࡎ㸪ࠕ࡞ࡒࡾ࡛ࠖࡣࣈ࣮ࣟ࢝㔝㸪⫈ぬ㔝㸪࢚࢘ࣝࢽࢵࢣ௜㏆ࡢ⾑ὶ㔞ࡀᛴ࡟ቑຍࡋࡓࠋ
4. ⪃ᐹࡇࢀࡽࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ㸪ᩥᏐࡢ࡞ࡒࡾࡢṇ⟅⋡ࡀ㧗࠿ࡗࡓࡢࡣࠕ࡞ࡒࡾࠖ㐙⾜᫬ࡢ⾑ὶ㔞ࡀቑ኱ࡋ㸪ࣈ࣮ࣟ࢝㔝ࡢάືࡀάᛶ໬ࡋࡓ࠿ࡽ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋཧຍ⪅ࡓࡕࡣࢫ࣌࢖ࣥㄒࡢึ⣭⪅࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶ
ࡍ࡛࡟ⱥㄒࢆ 10 ᖺ௨ୖࡶᏛࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࢔ࣝࣇ࢓࣋ࢵࢺࡢᩥᏐᥦ♧ࡀࢫ࣌࢖ࣥㄒࡢ㡢⣲ㄆ㆑ࢆಁ㐍ࡉࡏ㸪ࡉࡽ࡟࡞ࡒࡿࡇ࡜࡛ゝㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢㄆ㆑ࢆ㧗ࡵࡓࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪
ࠕᩥᏐ↓ࠖ
ࠕᩥᏐ
᭷ࠖࡢㄢ㢟㐙⾜᫬࡟ྑ⬻ࡢ⾑ὶࡀ᭷ព࡟ቑ኱ࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪ゝㄒ㔝ࡣᕥ⬻࡟ᒁᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠕ࡞ࡒࡾࠖ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ྑ⬻ࡢ⾑ὶ㔞ࡶ᭷ព࡟ቑຍࡋࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪ཧຍ⪅ࡣࢫ࣌࢖ࣥㄒࡢึ
⣭⪅࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ㸪Ⲷཎࡽࡀሗ࿌ࡋࡓⱥㄒࡢึ⣭⪅࡜ྠᵝ㸪ྑ⬻ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚㡢ࡸࣜࢬ࣒ࡢศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓ㸪ࢫ࣌ࣝࢆ⏬ീ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤕࡽ࠼࡚࠸ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡉࡽ࡟㏣ドࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Sugiura, L., Shiro Ojima, S., Matsuba-Kurita, H., Dan, I., Tsuzuki, D., Katura, T., & Hagiwara, H. (2011). Sound tolanguage: Different cortical processing for first and second languages in elementary school children as revealed
by a large-scale study using fNIRS. Cereb Cortex, 21(10), 2374-2393, doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhr023.

−147−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(13:35-14:05)503 ᐊከㄞᤵᴗࡀ᝟ព㠃࡟ཬࡰࡍᙳ㡪-᝟ព୙Ᏻ࣭ືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚࡚ụୖ ஂ⨾Ꮚ㸦ྠᚿ♫ዪᏊ኱Ꮫ 㠀ᖖ໅ㅮᖌ㸧⁪⃝ ఀ㒔Ꮚ㸦ྠᚿ♫ዪᏊ኱Ꮫ ⫈ㅮ⏕㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ከㄞ㸪ෆⓎⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅ㸪᝟ព୙Ᏻ㸪⮬ᕫỴᐃឤ㸪㉁ၥ⣬1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
㏆ᖺࠊⱥㄒከㄞᣦᑟࡀᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࡸࡿẼࠊⱥㄒ⬟ຊࢆྥୖࡉࡏࡿຠᯝⓗ࡞ᣦᑟ᪉ἲࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ὀ┠ࢆ㞟ࡵ࡚࠾ࡾࠊྛᰯ✀࡛ከㄞᤵᴗࡢᑟධࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ 㧗℩, 2008)ࠋከㄞ࡜ࡣࠕᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ㎡᭩ࢆ౑⏝ࡏࡎ࡟⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿ᫆ࡋ࠸ⱥㄒࡢᮏࢆ኱㔞࡟ㄞࡴࡇ࡜ࠖ Day & Bamford, 2002)࡜ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࠊࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ࣞ࣋ࣝ
ࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᐇ᪋ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ⌧ᅾࡲ࡛ከㄞ࡟ࡼࡿㄞゎຊ㣴ᡂ㸦Robb & Susser, 1989㸧
ࠊⱥᩥㄞゎ㏿ᗘࡢྥୖ㸦Matsui & Noro, 2010㸧ࠊⱥㄒ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ๓ྥࡁ࡞ែᗘࡢᙧᡂ㸦Fujita & Noro, 2009) ࡞࡝ࡢ◊✲ᡂᯝࡀሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࠊከㄞᤵᴗࡀⱥㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊࡢྥୖࡸືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟ࡶࡓࡽࡍຠ
ᯝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ▱ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ୙Ᏻせᅉ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙳ㡪ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆ᳨
ドࡋࡓ⛉Ꮫⓗ◊✲ࡣ࠶ࡲࡾከࡃ࡞࠸ࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢ Research question ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀከㄞάືࢆ⾜࡞࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ᝟ព㠃㸦࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈࠊࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈࡢ୧᪉ࡢ᝟ព㠃㸧࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠊ࡜タᐃࡋࡓࠋ                    
2. ◊✲ࡢ᪉ἲ㸸ཧຍ⪅࣭ᡭ㡰࣭㉁ၥ⣬ᐇ㦂⩌࡜ࡋ࡚ᅜ㝿ᩍ㣴ᑓᨷࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ 52 ྡࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࠊᅄࣨ᭶㛫ᤵᴗ᫬㛫እከㄞࢆྵࡴ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢࡢᤵ
ᴗࢆ⾜࡞ࡗࡓࠋᤵᴗᅇᩘࡣ඲ 15 ᅇ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊࡑࡢ࠺ࡕࡢ 2 ᅇࡣ࢚࢜ࣜࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠊ஦ᚋࢸࢫࢺࢆᐇ
᪋ࡋࡓࡓࡵࠊᐇ㉁ⓗ࡞ᤵᴗᅇᩘࡣ 13 ᅇ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᤵᴗෆᐜࡣࠊᾏእࡢࢽ࣮ࣗࢫࡸⱥㄒࡢᑠㄝࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊㄞゎຊࡢ㣴ᡂࠊㄒᙡࠊⱥᩥせ⣙(summary writing)ࡢ⩦ᚓࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋࡓᤵᴗࢆ⾜࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ⯆࿡࣭㛵ᚰ࡟ྜࡗࡓᴦࡋࡵࡿᮏࢆ㑅ࡪࡼ࠺࡟ᣦ♧ࡋࠊᤵᴗ᫬㛫እ࡛᭱ప 500 ࣮࣌ࢪࠊ4 ෉௨ୖࢆㄞࡳࠊከㄞグ㘓࣏࣮ࣞࢺࢆ 4 ᯛ௨ୖᥦฟࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⩏ົ௜ࡅࡓࠋᩍᮦࡣࠊGraded Readers (ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࡋࡓᏛ⩦ᅗ᭩)࠾ࡼࡧ Very Short Introduction Series (Ṕྐࠊᨻ἞ࠊࣅࢪࢿࢫࠊᩥ໬࡞࡝ᵝࠎ࡞ศ㔝ࡢධ㛛᭩)ࠊࡲࡓ኱Ꮫ
ࡢᅗ᭩㤋࠿ࡽ⮬ศࡢⱥㄒࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟ྜࡗࡓዲࡁ࡞ᮏࢆ㑅ࢇ࡛ㄞࡴࡼ࠺࡟ᣦᑟࡋࡓࠋ୍᪉⤫ไ⩌࡜ࡋ࡚㠀ⱥㄒᑓᨷࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ 35 ྡࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࠊⱥㄒᅄᢏ⬟ࡢ⫱ᡂ࡜⌧௦♫఍ࡢᵝࠎ࡞ၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽ⌮ⓗ࡟⪃࠼ࠊ⮬ࡽࡢពぢࢆ㏙࡭ࡿຊࢆ㣴࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋࡓᤵᴗࢆ⾜࡞ࡗࡓࠋᐇ㦂⩌ࠊ⤫ไ⩌ࡢཧຍ⪅࡟ᤵᴗᐇ㊶ࡢ᭱ึ
࡜᭱ᚋ࡟㉁ၥ⣬ㄪᰝࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࠊከㄞࡢᤵᴗࡀ᝟ព㠃࡟ཬࡰࡍᙳ㡪࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࡋࡓࠋ㉁ၥ⣬ࡣ Section A㸦᝟ព㠃࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㉁ၥ㡯┠㸧㸸 Part A: intrinsic motivationࠊPart B: instrumental motivationࠊPart C: class-related
extrinsic motivationࠊPart D: integrative motivationࠊPart E: anxiety and negative attitudes toward EnglishࠊPart F:
self-confidence/self-efficacy ࡜ Section B㸦Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢᅄᢏ⬟࡟ᑐࡍࡿዲࡳ㸧ࡢ 40 㡯┠࠿ࡽᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿࠋ

3. ⤖ᯝ
 ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀከㄞάືࢆ⾜࡞࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ᝟ព㠃࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ⊂❧ኚᩘࢆࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡜᫬㛫ࠊᚑᒓኚᩘࢆ㉁ၥ⣬࡬ࡢᅇ⟅࡜ࡍࡿ஧せᅉࡢศᩓศᯒࢆ⾜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ࣮ࣔࢡ࣮ࣜ⌫㠃ᛶࡢ᳨ᐃࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ⌫㠃ᛶࡢ௬ᐃࡀᡂࡾ❧ࡓ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊࢢ࣮ࣜࣥࣁ࢘ࢫ࣭ࢤ࢖ࢨ࣮ࡢ

−148−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍⤖ᯝࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ᭷ព࡞┦஫స⏝ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡣ Q2(F(1, 68)=9.061 p<.01), Q26(F(1, 68)=4.415
p<.05), Q 31(F(1, 68)=5.115 p<.05), 32(F(1, 68)=5.327 p<.05), 36(F(1, 68)=5.419 p<.05)࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉࡛᭷ព࡞┦஫స⏝ࡣ↓࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊQ.5(F(1, 68)=3.389 p<.07), Q.27(F(1, 68)=3.694 p<.059)࡟᭷ព࡞ഴྥࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋỈ‽ᩘࡀ[2]࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊ࣎ࣥࣇ࢙࣮ࣟࢽࡢ᪉ἲ࡟ࡼࡿከ㔜ẚ㍑ࡣ⾜࡞ࢃ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋୖグࡢ㉁ၥ␒ྕ࡜㉁ၥ
㡯┠ࡣ㸦Q.2: ⱥㄒࡢᮏࢆㄞࢇ࡛ど㔝ࢆᗈࡵࡓ࠸ࠋQ5㸸᪥ᮏㄒ⩻ヂ࡛ㄞࢇࡔᚋࠊⱥㄒࡢཎసࢆㄞࢇࡔࡇ࡜
ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋQ. 26㸸ⱥㄒࡢᮏࢆㄞࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ᫬ࠊ▱ࡽ࡞࠸༢ㄒࡀฟ࡚ࡃࡿ࡜୙Ᏻ࡟࡞ࡿࠋQ. 27㸸ⱥㄒࡢᮏࢆㄞ
ࡳ࡞ࡀࡽࡁࡕࢇ࡜᪥ᮏㄒヂࢆࡋ࡞࠸࡜ࠊ୙Ᏻ࡟࡞ࡿࠋQ.31㸸ⱥㄒࡢᮏࢆ୍෉ㄞࡳ⤊࠼ࡓࡽࠊ඘ᐇឤࢆᚓ
ࡽࢀࡿࠋQ.32㸸ⱥㄒࡢᮏࢆㄞࢇ࡛ࠊⱥㄒ࡞ࡽ࡛ࡣࡢゝ࠸ᅇࡋࢆ▱ࡗ࡚㠃ⓑ࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࠋQ.36㸸ⱥㄒࡢᮏࢆ
ㄞࡴࡢࡀዲࡁࡔࠋ
㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࠊᐇ㦂⩌ࠊ⤫ไ⩌ࡢ୧⩌࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊෆ

4.2Ⓨⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ㧗ࡵࡿ࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞
4ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓᐇ㦂⩌࡛ࡣࠊࠕ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢᩍᮦ࡟ᑐ
⤫ไ⩌

3.8

ࡍࡿ୙Ᏻࡢ㍍ῶࠖ㸦ᅗ㸯㸧ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࠕⱥㄒࡢཎ᭩

ᐇ㦂⩌ࢆ⮬Ⓨⓗ࡟ㄞࡴࠖ࡞࡝Ⓨᒎⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦ែᗘࢆ♧ࡍഴ

3.6

ྥࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊከㄞ࡟ࡼࡾ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ
࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୙Ᏻせᅉࡀ㍍ῶࡉࢀࠊෆⓎⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅࢆ

3.4
Pre

㧗ࡵࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡓࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿

Postࡽࠊከㄞࢆ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛ࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡴࡇ࡜ࡣከㄞᣦ

ᅗ 1. ᤵᴗ᭱ึ࡜᭱ᚋ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠊ㉁ၥ⣬ㄪᰝࡢẚ㍑
㸦4㸸ⱥㄒࡢᮏࢆㄞࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ᫬ࠊ▱ࡽ࡞࠸༢ㄒࡀฟ

ᑟࡀᏛ⏕࡬ࡢ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᢬ᢠࢆ㍍ῶ

࡚ࡃࡿ࡜୙Ᏻ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
㸧ࡋࠊ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟ᑐࡍࡿⱞᡭព㆑ࢆඞ᭹ࡋࠊ๓
ྥࡁ࡞ែᗘࢆᇵ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ
♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

4. ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟 ᮏ◊✲࡟ࡼࡾࠊ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀከㄞάືࢆ⾜࡞࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࠊࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࡞᝟ព㠃㸦࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟
ᑐࡍࡿ᢬ᢠࢆ㍍ῶ㸧࡟ࡶࡼ࠸ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉࡛ࠊෆⓎⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ᐇ㦂⩌࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣኳ஭ຠᯝࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࡓࡵࠊ⤫ไ⩌ࡢ᪉ࡀෆⓎⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅࡀࡼࡾ㧗ࡲࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝ࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋᮏㄪᰝ࡛ࡣࠊᅜ㝿ᩍ㣴ᑓᨷࡢⱥㄒୖ⣭Ꮫ⩦⪅㸦ᐇ㦂⩌㸧࡜ࠊⱥㄒึ⣭Ꮫ⩦⪅㸦⤫ไ⩌㸧ࡀᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ኱ࡁ࡞せᅉ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ௒ᚋࡢ◊✲ㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊከㄞᣦᑟࡢỗ⏝ᛶࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡶࠊࡼࡾ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ẕ㞟ᅋ࡛෌ᗘ᳨ドࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ


5. ᘬ⏝ᩥ⊩Day, R. R. & Bamford, J. (2002). Top ten principles for teaching extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language,14(2), 136-141.
Fujita, K., & Noro, T. (2009). The effects of 10 minute extensive reading on the reading speed, comprehension andmotivation of Japanese high school EFL learners. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan,
20, 21-30.
Matsui, T., & Noro, T. (2010). The effect of 10-minute sustained silent reading on junior high school EFL learners’
reading fluency and motivation. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 21, 71-80.
Robb, T. N. & Susser, B. (1989). Extensive reading vs skills building in an EFL context. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 5, 239-251.
Takase, A. (2008). The two most critical tips for a successful extensive reading program. Kinki University English
Journal, 1, 119-136.

−149−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(14:10-14:40)503 ᐊึ⣭ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ⫈ゎ࡟୚࠼ࡿ࣏࣮ࢬࡢຠᯝᑠᒇ ከᜨᏊ㸦ἲᨻ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ึ⣭ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅㸪࣏࣮ࢬ㸪⫈ゎ㸪㡢ኌᩍᮦ㸪ࢳࣕࣥࢡ༊ษࡾ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ⱥㄒࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࡟࠾࠸࡚⫈ゎ࡟ཬࡰࡍせᅉࡢ㸯ࡘ࡟࣏࣮ࢬࡀ࠶ࡿࠋBlau (1990), Ἑ㔝 (1993, 1997), 㛗⏣ (2001)ࡣࠊ࣏࣮ࢬࡀᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ⌮ゎࢆຓࡅࡿ࡜ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣ㈇ࡢᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠶࠺㐺ษ࡞࣏࣮ࢬࢆධࢀࡓࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ㡢ኌࡢᥦ♧ࢆ᥎ዡࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊึ⣭ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟㝈ᐃࡋࠊ࣏࣮ࢬࡢ⫈ゎ࡬ࡢᙳ㡪ࢆㄪᰝࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊࢸࢫࢺ࡜࢔
ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ
2. ࣜࢧ࣮ࢳ࣭ࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥ
1. ࢳࣕࣥࢡࡈ࡜ࡢ࣏࣮ࢬᤄධࡣึ⣭ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ⫈ゎ࡟ࣉࣛࢫࡢᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡍ࠿
2. ࣏࣮ࢬᤄධ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㏿ࡉࡀ㐜ࡃឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿
3. ᡭ㡰
3.1 ཧຍ⪅ ཧຍ⪅ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ 1 ᖺ⏕ࡢⱥㄒᚲಟ⛉┠ࢆཷㅮࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ 2 ࢡࣛࢫࡢᏛ⏕ࠊ22 ྡ࡜ 32 ྡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋཧຍ⪅ࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ᾏእᅾఫ࠾ࡼࡧΏ⯟ࡢ⤒㦂ࡀ࡞ࡃࠊⱥㄒࡣ᪥ᖖ⏕ά࡛ࡶᤵᴗ௨እ࡛ࡣ౑࠺ࡇ
࡜ࡀ࡞ࡃࠊẚ㍑ⓗⱥㄒࡢⱞᡭព㆑ࡀ㧗࠸᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ 2 ࢡࣛࢫࡢᏛ⏕ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ⬟ຊࡀྠ⛬ᗘ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ☜࠿ࡵࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ኱Ꮫ࡛ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓ TOEIC ࢸࢫࢺࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢫࢥ࢔ࢆ⏝࠸࡚᭷ពỈ‽ 5%࡛୧ഃ᳨ᐃࡢ t ᳨ᐃࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊt (52)=0.36, p=.72 ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ2 ࢡࣛࢫࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࢫࢥ࢔ࡢ
ᖹᆒⅬࡢᕪ࡟᭷ពᕪࡣࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
3.2 ၥ㢟࣭࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺసᡂ࡜᥇Ⅼ᪉ἲࣜࢧ࣮ࢳ࣭ࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥ 1 ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ2 ✀㢮ࡢྠෆᐜ࡛࣏࣮ࢬࡢ␗࡞ࡿ㡢ኌ࡜ࢱࢫࢡࢆ⏝ពࡋࡓࠋ1ࡘ┠ࡣࠊ2013 ᖺ➨ 3 ᅇⱥ᳨ 2 ⣭ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࠿ࡽࣔࣀ࣮ࣟࢢၥ㢟඲ 15 ၥࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊྛၥ 1ศ⛬ᗘࡢⱥᩥࢆ⫈ࡁࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㉁ၥࡢ⟅࠼ࢆ 4 ࡘࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥࠿ࡽ㑅ࡪࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⱥᩥࡢ㡢ኌ୰ࡢ࣏࣮ࢬ࡜ࢳࣕࣥࢡ༊ษࡾ࡟ຍᕤࢆ᪋ࡋࠊ200msec ௨ୖࡢ࣏࣮ࢬࢆࡍ࡭࡚ 200msec ࡟ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࠊព࿡
ࡢࡲ࡜ࡲࡾࡈ࡜࡟ 600msec ࡢ࣏࣮ࢬࢆᤄධࡋࡓࡶࡢࢆసᡂࡋࡓࠋ1 ࢡࣛࢫ࡛ࡣࠊ200msec ࣏࣮ࢬ㡢ኌࢆ⫈ࡁࠊ௚ࢡࣛࢫ࡛ࡣ 600msec ࣏࣮ࢬ㡢ኌࢆ⫈ࡁࠊⱥ᳨ࡢヨ㦂ྠᵝ 15 ၥࡢၥ㢟࡟ 4 ᢥ࠿ࡽ㸯ࡘࡢ⟅࠼ࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿࡼ࠺ᣦ♧ࡋࡓࠋ᥇Ⅼࡣࠊ1 ၥ࡟ࡘࡁ 1 Ⅼࠊ15 Ⅼ‶Ⅼ࡛᥇Ⅼࡋࡓࠋ2 ࡘ┠ࡣࠊ2013 ᖺ➨ 1 ᅇⱥ᳨ 2⣭ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࠿ࡽ 3 ࡘࡢࣔࣀ࣮ࣟࢢၥ㢟ࢆ㑅ࡧࠊྠࡌຍᕤࢆ᪋ࡋࡓ㡢ኌࢆ⫈ࡁࠊෆᐜࢆ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅከ
ࡃ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛グ㏙ࡉࡏࡿࢱࢫࢡ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ1 ࡘ┠ࡢࢱࢫࢡࡢᚋ࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋⱥᩥࡣ 2 ᅇᨺ㏦ࡋࠊᨺ㏦⤊஢᫬࡟ 30 ⛊ࡢグ㏙᫬㛫ࢆタࡅࡓࠋ᥇Ⅼ᪉ἲࡣࠊྛ㡢ኌࢆࢳࣕࣥࢡ࡟ศࡅࠊࡑࡢࢳࣕࣥࢡࡢෆᐜࡀ᭩ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ
ሙྜࢆ 1 Ⅼ࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ1 ᩥ༢఩࡛ࡶ᥇Ⅼࢆࡋࠊ㐺ษ࡟ෆᐜࡀࢃ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࢀࡤ 1 Ⅼ࡜ࡋࡓࠋࢳࣕࣥ
ࢡᩘ࡜ᩥࡢᩘࡣྛၥ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚␗࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊ3 ࡘࡢၥ㢟ࡈ࡜࡟‶Ⅼࡀ␗࡞ࡿࠋ ࣜࢧ࣮ࢳ࣭ࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥ 2 ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ⮬⏤࡟グ㏙࡛ࡁࡿ⣬ࢆ⏝ពࡋࡓࠋ2 ࡘࡢ㡢ኌࢱࢫࢡ⤊஢ᚋࠊࡇࡢ⏝⣬࡟௒ᅇࡢࢱࢫࢡࡢ㡢ኌ㠃㸦㞴ࡋࡉࡸ㡢ኌࡢ㏿ࡉ࡞࡝㸧࡟㛵ࡋ࡚⮬⏤࡟ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᣦ♧ࡋࠊ

−150−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ࢫࢥ࢔࡟ࡣ⾲ࢀ࡞࠸ཧຍ⪅ࡢ୺ほⓗ࡞ពぢࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ⾲ 1 ࢱࢫࢡ 1㸸200msec ࣏࣮ࢬᤄධᚋࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ
2013ᖺ➨3ᅇ2⣭
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
#13
#14
#15

No. 16
No. 17
No. 18
No. 19No. 20No. 21
No. 22
No. 23
No. 24
No. 25
No. 26
No. 27
No. 28
No. 29No. 30average

Ⓨヰ㏿ᗘ
wpm
160.3
187.8
149.1
171.0
159.0
160.5
169.2
167.6
152.7
156.9
148.5
150.8
153.1
164.4
169.5
161.4

⾲ 2 ࢱࢫࢡ 1㸸600msec ࣏࣮ࢬᤄධᚋࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ

䝫䞊䝈䛾ᖹᆒ 䝫䞊䝈䛾๭ྜ
msec
%
200.0
7.0
200.0
5.1
200.0
7.2
200.0
5.3
200.0
5.8
200.0
4.8
200.0
5.3
200.0
4.6
200.0
4.8
200.0
6.3
200.0
6.2
200.0
4.2
200.0
3.9
200.0
6.9
200.0
5.7
200.0
5.5

⾲ 3 ࢱࢫࢡ 2㸸200msec ࣏࣮ࢬᤄධᚋࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ
2013ᖺ➨1ᅇ2⣭
#1
#2
#3

No. 16
No. 17
No. 18average

Ⓨヰ㏿ᗘ
wpm
158.7
157.4
144.3
153.5

2013ᖺ➨3ᅇ2⣭
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
#13
#14
#15

No. 16
No. 17
No. 18
No. 19No. 20No. 21
No. 22
No. 23
No. 24
No. 25
No. 26
No. 27
No. 28
No. 29No. 30average

Ⓨヰ㏿ᗘ
wpm
112.5
140.9
119.8
124.8
117.2
125.8
114.3
126.2
117.8
110.4
115.0
111.5
117.8
124.3
123.8
120.1

䝫䞊䝈䛾ᖹᆒ 䝫䞊䝈䛾๭ྜ
msec
%
600.0
52.5
600.0
40.1
600.0
33.4
600.0
44.2
600.0
43.5
600.0
33.6
600.0
55.8
600.0
39.0
600.0
35.8
600.0
51.1
600.0
37.1
600.0
40.8
600.0
35.1
600.0
41.3
600.0
44.8
600.0
41.9

⾲ 4 ࢱࢫࢡ 2㸸600msec ࣏࣮ࢬᤄධᚋࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ

䝫䞊䝈䛾ᖹᆒ 䝫䞊䝈䛾๭ྜ
msec
%
200.0
5.4
200.0
3.9
200.0
6.5
200.0
5.3

2013ᖺ➨1ᅇ2⣭
#1
#2
#3

No. 16
No. 17
No. 18average

Ⓨヰ㏿ᗘ
wpm
119.1
118.5
112.7
116.8

䝫䞊䝈䛾ᖹᆒ 䝫䞊䝈䛾๭ྜ
msec
%
600.0
40.5
600.0
38.0
600.0
36.3
600.0
38.3

4. ⤖ᯝ
 ⤖ᯝࡣࠊࣜࢧ࣮ࢳ࣭ࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥ 1 ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ⤫ィ࡟ࡼࡿ࣏࣮ࢬࡢຠᯝࡣ☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࣜࢧ࣮
ࢳ࣭ࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥ 2 ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ200msec ࡢ㡢ኌࢆ⪺࠸ࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࡣࠊ
ࠕ㏿ࡃ࡚ࡘ࠸࡚࠸ࡅ࡞࠸ࠖ
ࠕࡲࡗࡓࡃศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡀከࡃࠊ600msec ࡢ㡢ኌࢆ⪺࠸ࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࡣࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᅇ⟅ࡣᐤࡏࡽࢀ
࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊ࣏࣮ࢬࡣࡴࡋࢁጉࡆ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⪺ࡁ࡙ࡽࡃឤࡌࡓ࡜࠸࠺ኌࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ௚ࠊ᭩ࡃసᴗࡸࣀ
࢖ࢬࠊ༢ㄒࡢ⌮ゎ➼࣏࣮ࢬ௨እࡢせᅉࡢᙳ㡪ࡶᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ⫈ゎ࡟ࡣᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡍࡇ࡜ࡶ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Blau, E. K. (1990). The effect of syntax, speed, and pauses on listening comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4),746-753.
Ἑ㔝Ᏺኵ (1993). ࠕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡜ࣄ࢔ࣜࣥࢢࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࠖᑠụ⏕ኵ (⦅)ࠗⱥㄒࡢࣄ࢔ࣜࣥࢢ
࡜ࡑࡢᣦᑟ࠘኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ, pp. 8-55.
Ἑ㔝Ᏺኵ (1997). ࠕࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࡢ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢゝㄒᚰ⌮Ꮫ◊✲ࠖࡇ࡜ࡤࡢ⛉Ꮫ◊✲఍ (⦅)ࠗࡇ
࡜ࡤ࡜ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࠘➨ 1 ྕ, ⱥ₻♫, pp. 5-31.
㛗⏣ᐉᏊ (2001).ࠕ࣏࣮ࢬ᧯స࡟ࡼࡿⓎヰ㏿ᗘࡢኚ໬࡜⫈ゎࠖࠗ᪩✄⏣኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ᩍ⫱Ꮫ◊✲⛉⣖せู࠘෉ 8 -2, pp. 127-137.

−151−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(9:30-10:00)601 ᐊ༠ാᏛ⩦࡟ࡼࡾ⮬ᕫㄪᩚᏛ⩦ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟๰Ⓨࡉࢀࡿ࠿㸸ࡼࡾࡼ࠸࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎ࡢᣦᑟࢆࡵࡊࡋ࡚ụ⏣ ┿⏕Ꮚ㸦㛵す኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎㸪༠ാᏛ⩦㸪⮬ᕫㄪᩚᏛ⩦㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅せᅉ㸪ࢲ࢖ࢼ࣑ࢵࢡࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢬ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ◊✲Ⓨ⾲࡛ࡣࠊ࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎ࡢᣦᑟࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋࡓ༠ാᏛ⩦ࢆᤵᴗෆ࡛ᐇ᪋ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ(1) ᤵᴗእ࡛ࡢ⮬ᕫㄪᩚᏛ⩦ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࠿㸦ࡲࡓࡣᐇ᪋ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢ࠿㸧ࠊࡲࡓ (2) ࡑࡢ㐣⛬࡟㸦ືᶵࡸ୙Ᏻࠊ⮬ᕫຠຊឤ࡞࡝ࡢ㸧Ꮫ⩦⪅せᅉࡸࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࢆྲྀࡾᕳࡃᏛ⩦⎔ቃ㸦≉࡟ࢡࣛࢫ࣓
࣮ࢺ㸧ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࢆࠊComplex Dynamic Systems Theory㸦௨ୗ CDST㸧ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࡢ୰࡛᫂
ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ
Ꮫ⩦᪉␎ᣦᑟࡢ◊✲ࡣࠊ⌧ᅾࡲ࡛࡟ᩘከࡃሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ (Goh, 2008; Graham & Macaro, 2008; Ikeda,
2007 ࡞࡝) ࠊ⮬ᕫㄪᩚᏛ⩦࡟࠾࠸࡚㔜せ࡞࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎ࡢᣦᑟ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡲࡔຠᯝⓗ࡞᪉ἲࡀ༑ศ࡟
☜❧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ (Plonsky, 2011)ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊᤵᴗࠕෆࠖࡢ༠ാᏛ⩦ࢆࠊᤵᴗࠕእ࡛ࠖࡢ⮬ᕫㄪᩚᏛ⩦ࡢ㊊ሙ࡜ࡋ࡚ᑟධࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡼࡾ᭷ᶵⓗ࡞࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎ᣦᑟࣔࢹࣝࡢ☜❧ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿ࢆ᥈ࡗ
ࡓࠋ
2. ᡭ㡰
2.1 ཧຍ⪅ཧຍ⪅ࡣࠊእᅜㄒࢆᑓᨷ࡜ࡍࡿ᪥ᮏே኱Ꮫ⏕ 38 ྡ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᙼࡽࡣࠊ㑅ᢥ⛉┠࡜ࡋ࡚ⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗࢆᒚ
ಟࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᭦࡞ࡿⱥㄒຊྥୖࡢࡓࡵ࡟ᤵᴗእ࡛ࡢ⮬ᕫㄪᩚᏛ⩦ࡀᚲせ࡞≧ἣ࡟࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
2.2 ᡭ㡰
2.2.1 ᤵᴗࠕෆ࡛ࠖࡢ༠ാᏛ⩦ᙼࡽࡣࠊ㐌 1 ᅇ 90 ศࡢᤵᴗ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊẖᅇ⣙ 30 ศ㛫ࡢ༠ാᏛ⩦ࢆ࠾ࡇ࡞࠸ࠊᤵᴗእ࡛ࡢ⮬ᕫㄪᩚᏛ⩦࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⪃࠼ࡸᝎࡳ㸦≉࡟࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎ࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸧ࢆ㆟ㄽࡋࡓࠋᐇ㝿ࡢᡭ㡰࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ
(1) ẖᅇࠊᏛ⩦᪉␎ࢆ㸯ࡘྲྀࡾୖࡆࠊᩍᖌࡀࡑࡢෆᐜࢆࣉࣜࣥࢺ࡛‽ഛࡋࠊ᝟ሗ࡜ࡋ࡚ཧຍ⪅࡟ᥦ౪ (15ࠥ20 ศ)(2) ࣉࣜࣥࢺ࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀࡓ᪉␎࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆࠊ」ᩘྡࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㸦⣙ 4 ྡ㸧࡛㆟ㄽ㸦10ࠥ15 ศ㸧࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋྛᅇ࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡓᏛ⩦᪉␎࠾ࡼࡧࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⾲ 1 ࡟♧ࡍ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㆟ㄽࡢᚋ࡟ࡣࠊ
༠ാᏛ⩦ࡢࣟࢢ࡜ࡋ࡚᣺ࡾ㏉ࡾࢩ࣮ࢺࢆグධࡋࡓࠋ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡾࢩ࣮ࢺ࡟ࡣࠊ
(a) ㆟ㄽࡢෆᐜࠊ(b)ࡑࡢ᪥ࡢᏛ⩦⪅せᅉࡢ⛬ᗘ㸦ືᶵࠊ୙Ᏻࠊ⯆࿡㸧
ࠊ(c) ㆟ㄽࡀᤵᴗእᏛ⩦࡬୚࠼ࡓᙳ㡪ࠊ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚グධ
ࡋࡓࠋ

−152−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍  ⾲ 1. Ꮫ⩦᪉␎࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢺࣆࢵࢡ
Ꮫ⩦᪉␎ 1ᅇࢺࣆࢵࢡ

1⌧≧᣺ࡾ㏉ࡾ

⌧ᅾࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿

2࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎㸦┠ᶆ࣭ィ⏬㸧

⮬㌟ࡢ┠ᶆ࣭ィ⏬ࡣఱ࠿ࠋᐇ⌧ྍ⬟࡞ࡶࡢ࠿3ㄆ▱᪉␎㸦Reading, Listening㸧ලయⓗ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪉ἲࡀࠊ⮬ศ࡟㐺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿

4ㄆ▱᪉␎㸦Writing, Speaking㸧ලయⓗ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪉ἲࡀࠊ⮬ศ࡟㐺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿

5ㄆ▱᪉␎㸦ㄒᙡ㸧ලయⓗ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪉ἲࡀࠊ⮬ศ࡟㐺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿

6࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎㸦Ꮫ⩦┤ᚋࡢ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡾ࣭ホ౯㸧 ලయⓗ࡟ఱࢆ᣺ࡾ㏉ࢀࡤࡼ࠸࠿㸽7࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎㸦ᐃᮇⓗ࡞᣺ࡾ㏉ࡾ࣭ホ౯㸧ලయⓗ࡟ఱࢆ᣺ࡾ㏉ࢀࡤࡼ࠸࠿㸽8࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎㸦౑⏝ᶵ఍ࡢ☜ಖ㸧ⱥㄒࡢ౑⏝ᶵ఍ࢆࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟☜ಖࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿

9ឤ᝟᪉␎㸦ືᶵࡢ⥔ᣢ㸧

⮬㌟࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢᏛ⩦ືᶵࢆ⥔ᣢࡍࡿ᪉ἲࡣ㸽

10♫఍᪉␎㸦Ꮫ⩦⎔ቃࡢ⥔ᣢࠊ௚⪅ࡢᏑᅾ㸧

⮬㌟ࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢຓࡅ࡜࡞ࡿࠕ௚⪅ࠖ࡜ࡣ㸽

11

⥲᚟⩦

2.2.2 ࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ཰㞟࠾ࡼࡧศᯒ ࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ཰㞟ࡣࠊ(a) Ꮫ⩦⪅せᅉ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ㉁ၥ⣬㸦஦๓㸧
ࠊ(b) ༠ാᏛ⩦ࡢࣟࢢࠊ(c) ᤵᴗእ࡛ࡢ⮬ᕫㄪᩚᏛ⩦グ㘓ࢩ࣮ࢺ㸦Ꮫ⩦ࡍࡿᗘ࡟グ㘓ࡋࠊᥦฟ㸧ࠊ࠾ࡼࡧ (d) ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ㸦㐺ᐅ㸧࡟࡚࠾ࡇ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ ࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ⌧ᅾ཰㞟୰࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊCDST ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࡢ୰࡛ࠊᤵᴗࠕእࠖࡢ⮬ᕫㄪᩚᏛ⩦ࡀࠊᤵᴗࠕෆࠖࡢ
༠ാᏛ⩦ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⏕ࡌࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡲࡓࡑࡢ㐣⛬࡟࠾࠸࡚Ꮫ⩦⪅⮬㌟ࡀ᭷ࡍࡿせᅉ࡜Ꮫ⩦⪅ࢆྲྀࡾᕳࡃ⎔ቃࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟స⏝ࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡟↔Ⅼࢆ⤠ࡾࠊศᯒࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝ
 Ⓨ⾲᫬࡟ࡣࠊ᭱᪂ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ࡑࡢศᯒ⤖ᯝࢆヲ⣽࡟ሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓྠ᫬࡟ࠊᩍ⫱ⓗ♧၀࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࣓ࢱ
ㄆ▱᪉␎ࡢࡼࡾࡼ࠸ᣦᑟ᪉ἲࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿணᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ὀ
1. ࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎௨እࡢ᪉␎ࡶྲྀࡾୖࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎ࢆ౑࠸ࡇ࡞ࡍࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࢀ௨እࡢ᪉
␎࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ▱㆑ࢆᣢࡕࠊ౑࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟㉳ᅉࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development: theory, practice and research
implications. RELC, 39, 188-213.
Graham, S., & Macaro, E. (2008). Strategy instruction in listening for lower-intermediate learners of French.
Language Learning, 58, 747-783.
Ikeda, M. (2007). EFL reading strategies: Empirical studies and instructional model. Tokyo: Shohakusha.
Plonsky, L. (2011). The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Learning,
61, 993-1038.

−153−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(10:05-10:35)601 ᐊ➹グ㸪ᐇᢏ㸪ព㆑ㄪᰝ࠿ࡽ᳨ドࡍࡿ㡢ኌᏛ⩦㡯┠ࡢᐃ╔㸸ㄒᙉໃ࡜࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚኱ሯ ᮅ⨾㸦኱㜰ዪᏛ㝔▷ᮇ኱Ꮫ㸧ୖ⏣ ὒᏊ㸦኱㜰ዪᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 Ⓨ㡢デ᩿ࢸࢫࢺ㸪ព㆑ㄪᰝ㸪ᙉໃ㸪࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ㸪Ⓨ㡢ᣦᑟ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏⓎ⾲ࡣ㸪኱Ꮫ࡛ࡢⱥㄒ㡢ኌᏛࡢ㏻ᖺᤵᴗ࡟ࡼࡿᏛ⩦㡯┠ࡢᐃ╔ࢆ㸪➹グ㸪ᐇᢏ㸪ព㆑ㄪᰝࡢ 3 Ⅼ࠿ࡽ᳨ドࡋ⪃ᐹࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࡢሗ࿌࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㡢ኌᏛ⩦㡯┠ࡢ࠺ࡕ㸪௒ᅇࡣㄒᙉໃ࡜࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ࡢኚ໬ࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࠋⓎ㡢ᣦᑟࡢ๓ᚋ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ຠᯝࢆ᳨ドࡋ࡚࠸ࡿඛ⾜◊✲ࡣ㸪኱Ꮫ⏕ᑐ㇟ࡢ㏻ᖺࡢ㡢ኌᏛᣦᑟ๓ᚋࡢᐇᢏホ౯࡟ࡼࡿ᳨ド㸦ྜྷ⏣㸪2006㸧㸪୰Ꮫ⏕ᑐ㇟ࡢ 5 ᪥㛫ࡢⓎ㡢ᣦᑟࢆᐇᢏ࡜ព㆑ㄪᰝ᳨࡛ド㸦ᮌ⃝㸪2013㸧㸪୰Ꮫ⏕ᑐ㇟ࡢ 2 ࡘࡢⓎ㡢ᣦᑟἲ࡜ᐇᢏ࣭ព㆑ㄪᰝ㸦す㔝࣭⊧⏣, 2014㸧࡞࡝ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࡀ㸪኱Ꮫ࡛ࡢ㏻ᖺ
ᤵᴗࡢ๓ᚋኚ໬ࢆ➹グ㸪ᐇᢏ㸪ព㆑ㄪᰝࡢ 3 Ⅼ࠿ࡽㄪᰝࡋࡓࡶࡢࡣࡳࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋከ᪉ྥ࠿ࡽࡢㄪᰝࢆ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡚⌧≧ࢆᢕᥱࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪ࡼࡾຠᯝⓗ࡞Ⓨ㡢ᣦᑟࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࠋ
2. ㄪᰝ᪉ἲ
2.1 ཧຍ⪅࡜ᐇ᪋᫬ᮇ
ㄪᰝཧຍ⪅ࡣⱥㄒ㡢ኌᏛࢆཷㅮࡍࡿ኱Ꮫ 1 ᖺ⏕ 2 ࢡࣛࢫࡢ 35 ྡࠋ4 ᭶ࡢึᅇᤵᴗ࠾ࡼࡧ 1 ᭶ࡢ᭱⤊ᤵᴗࡢィ 2 ᅇ㸪➹グࢸࢫࢺ㸪ᐇᢏ࡜ࡋ࡚ⱥᩥࢲ࢖࢔ࣟࢢࡢ㘓㡢㸪ࡑࡋ࡚ព㆑ㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᐇᢏ࡜➹グࢸࢫࢺࡢෆᐜࡀ㛵㐃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ㸪ᐇᢏ㸪ព㆑ㄪᰝ㸪➹グࢸࢫࢺࡢ㡰࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ
2.2 ᡭ㡰
2.2.1 ᐇᢏࢸࢫࢺ
ᐇᢏࢸࢫࢺ࡛ࡣ㸪➹グࢸࢫࢺ࡛ၥࢃࢀࡿ༢ㄒࡸ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩ࣭ࣙࣥࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆྵࡴࢲ࢖࢔ࣟࢢࢆ㘓㡢ࡉࡏ㸪㡢ኌࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆᅇ཰ࡋࡓࠋࢲ࢖࢔ࣟࢢࡢ㛗ࡉࡣ⣙ 120 ㄒ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪➹グࡢㄒᙉໃၥ㢟࡛ၥࢃࢀࡿ 6
༢ㄒ࡜ 5 ✀㢮ࡢ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩ࣭ࣙࣥࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࢆྵࡴ 6 ᩥࡀධࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋCALL ᩍᐊ࡛㸰ศ㛫ࡢࢫࢡࣜࣉ
ࢺࢆ㯲ㄞᚋ㸪ྠ᫬࡟㘓㡢ࢆࢫࢱ࣮ࢺࡋ㸪ṇᖖ࡟㘓㡢ࡉࢀࡓ㡢ኌࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡀฟ᮶ࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ☜ㄆᚋ࡟ࣇ࢓࢖
ࣝࢆᅇ཰ࡋ㸪ࡑࡢᚋᢸᙜ⪅ 2 ྡࡀ᥇Ⅼࡋࡓࠋ᥇Ⅼࡣ㸪➹グࢸࢫࢺ࡜㛵㐃ࡍࡿ 6 ༢ㄒࡢㄒᙉໃ࡜ 5 ✀㢮ࡢ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆྵࡴ 6 ᩥࡢࡳ࡟⤠ࡗ࡚ṇㄗࡢุ᩿ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ2.2.2 ព㆑ㄪᰝព㆑ㄪᰝࡣ㸪4 ᭶࡜ 1 ᭶ࡢࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡢཧຍ⪅ࡢ㐩ᡂᗘࢆ㸪Ⓨ㡢グྕࡢㄞࡳ㸪Ⓨ㡢ࡢṇ☜ࡉ㸪ㄒᙉໃ㸪࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ㸪ࣜࢬ࣒㸪㡢ࡢࡘ࡞ࡀࡾ㸪༊ษࡾ㸪⾲⌧ㄞࡳ㸦ឤ᝟ࢆࡇࡵࡓⱥᩥࡢㄞࡳ㸧࡟
ࡘ࠸࡚ 5 ௳ἲ࡛ᅇ⟅ࢆồࡵࡓࠋ
2.2.3 ➹グࢸࢫࢺࡇࡢ➹グࢸࢫࢺࡣ㸪Ⓨ㡢Ꮫ⩦ᒚṔㄪᰝ࡛⏝࠸ࡓ➹グࢸࢫࢺ㸦኱ሯ࣭ୖ⏣ 2012㸧ࢆ㸪ᪧ∧࡜⌧⾜ࡢᩍ⛉−154−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍᭩ศᯒ⤖ᯝ㸦ୖ⏣࣭኱ሯ 2011㸪ୖ⏣࣭኱ሯ 2014㸧ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚ᨵゞࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋタၥࡣ 4 ࡘࡢ㡢ኌᣦᑟ㡯┠㸦Ⓨ㡢グྕ㸪ㄒᙉໃ㸪࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ㸪ᩥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿព࿡ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡢ༊ษࡾ㸧࡛ᵓᡂࡋ㸪ᖹ᫆࡞ㄒᙡࡸⱥᩥࢆ౑⏝ࡋ㸪タၥᩘ࡟ࡶ㓄៖ࡋࡓࠋ4 ࡘࡢタၥ㡯┠୰㸪ᙉໃ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ 6 ಶࡢከ㡢⠇ㄒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ṇࡋࡃᙉໃグྕࡢࡘ࠸ࡓࡶࡢࢆ㑅ᢥ⫥࠿ࡽ㑅ࡪタၥ㸪ࡲࡓ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ Yes-No ␲ၥᩥ㸪2✀㢮ࡢ␲ၥモ␲ၥᩥ㸪⫯ᐃᩥ㸪㑅ᢥ␲ၥᩥ㸪ิᣲᩥࡢ㸴ᩥィ㸷࢝ᡤࡢኚㄪ㒊ศ࡟㸦ĹĻ㸧ࢆ⨨ࡁ㸪ᅇ⟅ࢆ୸࡛ᅖࡴࡼ࠺࡟ồࡵࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᅇ⟅࡟ไ㝈᫬㛫ࢆタࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࡏࡎᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ᥇Ⅼࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ㡯┠ࡈ࡜࡟ྜィⅬ㸦ᙉໃ 6 Ⅼ‶Ⅼ㸪࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ 6 Ⅼ‶Ⅼ㸧ࢆ⟬ฟࡋࡓࠋ3. ⤖ᯝ
㏻ᖺࡢᏛ⩦ࡢ๓ᚋ࡛ẚ㍑ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ㸪ᙉໃ࡜࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪➹グ㸪ᐇᢏ࡜ࡶ࡟ᖹᆒⅬࡣୖ᪼ࡋ㸪࡝ࡕࡽࡶ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘᐃ╔ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศࡗࡓࠋ
㸦➹グ㸦ྛ 6 Ⅼ‶Ⅼ㸧㸸ᙉໃ 4.78ĺ5.22 Ⅼ㸪࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ 3.95ĺ5.24 Ⅼ㸪ᐇᢏ㸦ྛ 6 Ⅼ‶Ⅼ㸧㸸ᙉໃ 5.27ĺ5.59 Ⅼ㸪࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ 3.51ĺ4.65 Ⅼ㸧ࡓࡔࡋ㸪㡯┠ู࡟ぢࡓሙྜ㸪࣏࢖ࣥࢺࡢఙࡧᖜࡣ㸪➹グ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ㸦㸩1.29㸧
㸪 ᐇᢏ࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮
ࢩࣙࣥ㸦㸩1.14㸧
㸪 ➹グᙉໃ㸦㸩0.44㸧
㸪 ᐇᢏᙉໃ㸦㸩0.32㸧࡜ᕪ␗ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋࡘࡲࡾ㸪࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩ
ࣙࣥࡣ➹グ࡟ࡶᐇᢏ࡟ࡶᏛ⩦ຠᯝࡀฟࡸࡍࡃ㸪㏫࡟ከ㡢⠇ㄒࡢṇࡋ࠸ㄒᙉໃࡣ༶⯆ⓗ࡞㡢ㄞ࡜࡞ࡿ࡜㸪⌮ㄽ࡛ࢃ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸࡚ࡶࡑࡢ㏻ࡾࡢⓎ㡢࡟⮳ࡽ࡞࠸ࢣ࣮ࢫࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡲࡓ㏻ᖺࡢᏛ⩦ᚋࡢ 1 ᭶ࡢព㆑ㄪᰝ࣭➹グ࣭ᐇᢏࡢⅬᩘࡢ┦㛵ࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜㸪ᙉໃࡣព㆑࡜➹グ࡟㸪࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡣព㆑࡜ᐇᢏ࡟ࡸࡸ┦㛵ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓ㸦ᙉໃ㸸r=.372㸧
㸦࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ㸸r=.313㸧
ࠋ
4. ⪃ᐹከ㡢⠇ㄒࡢㄒᙉໃ࡜࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ὀ┠ࡋ㸪➹グ㸪ᐇᢏ㸪ព㆑ㄪᰝࡢ 3 Ⅼ࠿ࡽ᳨ドࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ㸪࢖ࣥࢺࢿ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ➹グ࡟ࡶᐇᢏ࡟ࡶᏛ⩦ຠᯝࡀฟࡸࡍ࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ㄒᙉໃ࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ࡣ༶⯆ⓗ࡞㡢ㄞ࡜࡞ࡿ࡜㸪⌮ㄽ࡛ࢃ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸࡚ࡶࡑࡢ㏻ࡾࡢⓎ㡢࡟⮳ࡽ࡞࠸ࢣ࣮ࢫࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋព㆑ㄪᰝ࡜ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢࢸࢫࢺ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ࡸࡸᙅ࠸┦㛵ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࡀ㸪ࠕ࡛ࡁࡿࠖ࡜ព㆑ࡋ࡚㸪ᐇ㝿ࡢࢸࢫࢺ࡛ࡶᐇຊࢆⓎ᥹ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᐜ࡛᫆ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡶศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ௒ᅇࡢࡼ࠺࡞➹グࡸᐇᢏࡢࢸࢫࢺࡢෆᐜࢆࡼࡾ⢭ᰝࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪Ꮫ⩦๓ᚋࡢⓎ㡢࡟ࡘ࠸࡚デ᩿ࢸࢫࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ά⏝࡛ࡁࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡶឤࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᏛ⩦⪅ྛࠎ࡟⤖ᯝࢆ㑏ඖ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡬ࡢᥦ᱌ࡢ୍Ṍ࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㢪࠺ࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ᮌ⃝฼ⱥᏊ (2013). ᫂♧ⓗⓎ㡢ᣦᑟࡀ୰Ꮫ⏕ࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡟୚࠼ࡿᙳ㡪ʊ㡢ኌࢫ࢟ࣝ࠾ࡼࡧⱥ༢ㄒᏛ⩦᪉␎࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚ʊࠗ㛵ᮾ⏥ಙ㉺ⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍࠘27㸪 99-112.
す㔝཭୍ᮁ࣭⊧⏣ⱥఙ (2014). ࢫࣆ࣮ࢳࢥࣥࢸࢫࢺ࡟ྥࡅࡓⓎ㡢ᣦᑟࡢ㛤Ⓨ࣭ᐇ㊶ʊ1 ࢝᭶ࡢᩍ⫱ᐇ㊶
࠿ࡽʊ ࠗ୰ᅜᆅ༊ⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍◊✲⣖せ࠘44㸪 51-60.
኱ሯᮅ⨾࣭ୖ⏣ὒᏊ (2012). ୰Ꮫ࣭㧗ᰯ࡛ࡢⓎ㡢Ꮫ⩦ᒚṔ࡜ᐃ╔ᗘ̺኱Ꮫ㸯ᖺ⏕࡬ࡢࢳ࢙ࢵࢡࢩ࣮ࢺ࡜㉁ၥ⣬ࡀ♧၀ࡍࡿࡶࡢ̺ࠗ኱㜰ዪᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ⣖せ࠘8㸪 1-27.
ୖ⏣ὒᏊ࣭኱ሯᮅ⨾ (2011). Ⓨ㡢࡜㡢ኌࡢࡋࡃࡳ࡟↔Ⅼࢆ࠶࡚ࡓ୰Ꮫᰯⱥㄒᩍ⛉᭩ศᯒ̺࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺࡢᇶ
♏ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿ̺ࠗ኱㜰ዪᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ⣖せ࠘7㸪 15-32.
ୖ⏣ὒᏊ࣭኱ሯᮅ⨾ (2014). ୰Ꮫᰯⱥㄒ᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㡢ኌᣦᑟ㡯┠ࡢศᯒ̺᪂ᪧᏛ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿࡛ࡢᢅ࠸ࡢኚ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚̺ࠗ኱㜰ዪᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ⣖せ࠘10㸪 1-15.
ྜྷ⏣ᘯᏊ௚ (2006). FACETS ศᯒ࡟ࡼࡿⱥㄒ㡢ኌホ౯࡟࠾ࡅࡿホᐃ⪅ࣂ࢖࢔ࢫ᳨ドࠗ኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ
఍࠘43㸪 73-85.

−155−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(10:40-11:10)601 ᐊ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢⱥᩥ⏘ฟ㐣⛬ࡢศᯒ㜰ୖ ㎮ஓ㸦ᗈᓥ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ㸪ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸪⏘ฟ㐣⛬
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗࡣ㸪᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀⱥసᩥࢆࡍࡿ㝿㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐣⛬ࢆ⤒࡚ⱥᩥࢆ⏘ฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ
࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡣ㸪ⱥసᩥࢆ⾜࠺㐣⛬ࢆほᐹࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪ࣅࢹ࢜᧜ᙳࡸ
think-aloud ἲ࡞࡝ࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚⾜ືࡢヲ⣽ࢆศᯒࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡶࡢࡢ㸦Harvey and Yuill, 1997 ࡞࡝㸧㸪ࢹ࣮ࢱ཰㞟ࡢຠ⋡ᛶࡢᝏࡉࡸ⭾኱࡞సᴗ᫬㛫ࡀ㞀ᐖ࡜࡞ࡾ㸪ィ㔞ⓗ࡞ศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣᐜ࡛᫆ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
㏆ᖺࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢᵓ⠏࣭ศᯒ࡟ࡼࡾ㸪ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀసᩥ᫬࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⾲⌧ࢆከ⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ
࠿㸪ࡲࡓ㸪ẕㄒヰ⪅ࡀ౑࠺⾲⌧࡜ࡢẚ㍑࠿ࡽ㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᕪࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡉࢀࡘࡘ࠶ࡿ
㸦Aijmer, 2002 ࡞࡝㸧ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡛ほᐹྍ⬟࡞ࡶࡢࡣసᩥࡢࠕ⤖ᯝ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡾ㸪ࠕ㐣⛬࡛ࠖࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ㸪᭱⤊ⓗ࡟᭩࠿ࢀࡓ⾲⌧࡟⮳ࡿࡲ࡛࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ヨ⾜㘒ㄗࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡢ࠿ࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ
㞴ࡋ࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱୖ࡛ධຊࡉࢀࡓᩥᏐิࢆグ㘓ࡍࡿࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟ࡼࡿⱥᩥ⏘ฟ㐣⛬ࢆグ㘓ࡋ㸪⏘ฟࡉࢀࡿ⾲⌧࡜ࡑࡢ㐣⛬ࡢศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
2. ᡭ㡰
2.1 ㄪᰝཧຍ⪅ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪᪥ᮏே኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ୰࡛ࡶ㸪⩦⇍ᗘࡀ୰⣭ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟࠶ࡿᏛ⩦⪅ 94 ྡศࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ
ࢆ཰㞟ࡋࡓࠋᑐ㇟⪅࡜࡞ࡗࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ TOEIC IP ࢸࢫࢺ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᖹᆒࢫࢥ࢔ࡣ 479.5 Ⅼ㸦ᶆ‽೫ᕪࡣ 69.9㸧࡛࠶ࡾ㸪᭱పⅬࡣ 305 Ⅼ㸪᭱㧗Ⅼࡣ 655 Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
2.2 ࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ཰㞟᪉ἲ࡜ศᯒᡭ㡰ศᯒࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ࡋ࡚฼⏝ࡋࡓࡢࡣ㸪࠾ࡼࡑ 4 ࣨ᭶࡟Ώࡗ࡚㛤ㅮࡉࢀࡓ࢔࢝ࢹ࣑ࢵࢡ࣭ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢᇶ
ᮏࢆᏛࡪᤵᴗ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪Ꮫᮇࡢึᮇ࡜ᮇᮎ࡟ࠕᏛᰯᩍ⫱ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡛᭩࠿ࢀࡓసᩥࢹ࣮ࢱ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀཧ↷≀ࢆ౑ࢃࡎ㸪᫬㛫ไ㝈ࡀ࠶ࡿ୰࡛㸪ࡑࡢ᫬Ⅼ࡛᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ▱㆑ࡢࡳ࡛᭩࠿ࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪⾲ 1࡛♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡞᮲௳࡛཰㞟ࡉࢀࡓࠋࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ཰㞟࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ࡣ㸪ᮡᾆṇ฼Ặ㸦ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ㸧ࡀసᡂࡋࡓ࣮࣮࢟࣎ࢻධຊࡢグ㘓ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆ
୍㒊ᨵኚࡋ࡚฼⏝ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡣ㸪Hot Soup Processor㸦HSP㸧࡜࠸࠺ゝㄒ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚సᡂࡉࢀ࡚
࠾ࡾ㸪ᩥᏐࡀࢱ࢖ࣉࡉࢀࡓ㝿ࡢᩥᏐࡸࡑࡢ᫬ࡢ᫬㛫ࢆ࣑ࣜ⛊༢఩࡛グ㘓ࡍࡿࠋධຊ⏬㠃ࡣ㸪ᅗ 1࣭ᅗ 2࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟㸪ᴟຊ⡆⣲࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ㸪ⱥᩥࢆධຊࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㞟୰࡛ࡁࡿ࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
⾲ 1.
ⱥసᩥࡢᥦฟ᫬ᮇ࡜཰㞟᫬ࡢ᮲௳ᤵᴗ
Week 1/2
Week 2/3-14
Week 15

άືෆᐜ

᫬㛫ไ㝈

ཧ↷≀

ࢺࣆࢵࢡ

㸯ᅇ┠ࡢసᩥ཰㞟

50 ศ㛫

࡞ࡋ

Ꮫᰯᩍ⫱

ྛ✀₇⩦

࡞ࡋ

࠶ࡾ

࢔ࣝࣂ࢖ࢺ௚

㸰ᅇ┠ࡢసᩥ཰㞟

50 ศ㛫

࡞ࡋ

Ꮫᰯᩍ⫱

−156−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍  ᅗ 1. ࢱ࢖ࣆࣥࢢ㏿ᗘࡢ ᐃ⏬㠃ࡢ୍㒊         ᅗ 2. సᩥࡢධຊ⏬㠃཰㞟ࡋࡓⱥసᩥࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ࠺ࡕ㸪᭱⤊ⓗ࡟⏘ฟࡉࢀࡓ㧗㢖ᗘ⾲⌧࡜ࡋ࡚㸪 N-gram ⾲⌧㸦2-gram㸪3-gram㸪
4-gram㸧ࢆᢳฟࡍࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟㸪ࡑࡢ⾲⌧ࢆ⏘ฟࡍࡿ࡟⮳ࡗࡓ㐣⛬ࢆศᯒࡋࡓࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣ㸪ྛᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࢱ࢖ࣆࣥࢢ㏿ᗘࢆࡶ࡜࡟㸪ࢱ࢖ࣆࣥࢢࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠕ೵␃ࠖ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁࡿ㜈್ࢆồࡵ㸪㧗㢖ᗘ⾲⌧ࢆ⏘ฟࡍࡿ㐣⛬࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪೵␃ࡀ㉳ࡇࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃ⏘ฟࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆศᯒࡋࡓࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝ࡜⪃ᐹศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪
ࡲࡎ㸪௒ᅇࡢㄪᰝ༠ຊ⪅࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡓసᩥࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪in the ࡸthere is ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ2-gram⾲⌧㸪a lot of ࡸ I think that ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ 3-gram ⾲⌧㸪ࡑࡋ࡚㸪it is important to ࡸ I think it is ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ 4-gram⾲⌧ࡀ㧗㢖ᗘ࡛⏘ฟࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢ⤖ᯝࡣ㸪௒ᅇࡢㄪᰝ༠ຊ⪅࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⾜ࡗࡓ㜰ୖ (2013) ࡢㄪᰝ⤖ᯝ࡜㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪௒ᅇ࡛ᚓࡽࢀࡓ⾲⌧ࡀ㸪୰⣭ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ⩦⇍ᗘࡢᏛ⩦⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࠾࠾ࡼࡑඹ㏻ࡋ࡚⏘ฟࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
ḟ࡟㸪ᢳฟࡉࢀࡓ㧗㢖ᗘ⾲⌧ࡀ㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐣⛬ࢆ⤒࡚⏘ฟࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿㸪ࡲࡓ㸪೵␃ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃ⏘ฟࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࢆศᯒࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ㸪2-gram ⾲⌧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ẚ㍑ⓗㄒᩘࡢᑡ࡞࠸⾲⌧ࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣ㸪೵␃ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃ⏘ฟ࡛ࡁࡿ஦౛ࡀほᐹࡉࢀࡿࡀ㸪4-gram ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ㄒᩘࡀቑ࠼ࡿ࡜㸪೵␃ࢆ⏕ࡌࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃ⏘ฟ࡛ࡁࡿ஦౛ࡣከࡃぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓ㸪㧗㢖ᗘ⾲⌧௨እࡢ⾲⌧ࢆ⏘ฟࡍࡿሙྜ࡟࠾࠸
࡚ࡶ㸪඲యⓗ࡟ࡣ㸪⾲⌧ࡢಟṇࡸ๐㝖࡜࠸ࡗࡓヨ⾜㘒ㄗࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ⏘ฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከࡃ㸪1ࡘࡢ༢ㄒෆ࡛೵␃ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ஦౛ࡸ㸪1 ㄒࡶࡋࡃࡣ 2 ㄒࢆ೵␃ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃ⏘ฟࡍࡿ஦౛ࡀከᩘࢆ༨
ࡵࡓࠋࡇࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ㸪୰⣭ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢሙྜ㸪㧗㢖ᗘ࡛⌧ࢀࡿ 3-gram ⾲⌧ࡸ 4-gram ⾲⌧ࡣ㸪ᛮ⪃ࡸ᥎ᩙ࡟ࡼࡿࡶࡢ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿ೵␃ࡀ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡉࢀࡘࡘ㸪1 ㄒ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ 2 ㄒ⛬ᗘࡢ⏘ฟࡀ㐃࡞ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࡼࡾ኱ࡁ࡞༢఩࡛ࡢゝㄒ⏘ฟ࣭ฎ⌮ࡀ༑ศ࡟⾜࠼࡞࠸ྍ⬟ᛶࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Aijmer㸪K. (2002). Modality in advanced Swedish learners' written interlanguage. In Granger, S., J. Hung, and S.
Petch-Tyson. (Eds.), Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching(pp. 55Ѹ76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Harvey, K and Yuill, D. (1997). A study of the use of monolingual pedagogical dictionary by learners of English
engaged in writing. Applied Linguistics, 18(3), 253-278.
㜰ୖ㎮ஓ (2013). ⦪᩿ⓗᏛ⩦⪅ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࢆ⏝࠸ࡓⱥㄒ⾲⌧ࡢ⤒᫬ኚ໬ࡢศᯒ ࠗᗈᓥእᅜㄒᩍ⫱◊✲࠘17,
93-103.

−157−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(11:15-11:45)601 ᐊㄒᙡㄆ㆑ࡢ⮬ື໬ࢆ ᐃࡍࡿ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥⱥㄒㄒᙡࢸࢫࢺࡢ㛤Ⓨ࡜᳨ドᒣෆ ㇏㸦ᮾிᅜ㝿኱Ꮫ㸧ᓟᯇ ಙ᫂㸦ᮾி኱Ꮫ㸧ᕝᮧ ᫂⨾㸦ᮾிᅜ㝿኱Ꮫ㸧すᕝ ᝴㸦ᮾᾏ኱Ꮫ㸧ຍ⸨ 㞟ᖹ㸦HOYA ࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ㸧⸨⏣ 㞞ஓ㸦HOYA ࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ㄒᙡㄆ㆑㸪⮬ື໬㸪࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥ㸪ㄒᙡࢸࢫࢺ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
㏿ㄞࡸከㄞ࡟ࡣ㸪༢ㄒㄆ㆑ࡀ⮬ື໬ࡋ bottom-up ฎ⌮ࡀ෇⁥࡟㐍ࡴࡇ࡜ࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௒ࡲ࡛㸪ㄒᙡࢧ࢖ࢬࡸㄒᙡࡢ῝ࡉ࡞࡝ࢆ ࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ㄒᙡࢸࢫࢺࡀ㛤Ⓨࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ(Nation & Webb 2011)ࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ㄒᙡㄆ㆑ࡢ⮬ື໬ࢆ ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿ L2 ㄒᙡࢸࢫࢺࡣᮍࡔ㛤Ⓨࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ㄒᙡࢧ࢖ࢬ࡜ㄆ㆑㏿ᗘ࡟ຍ࠼࡚㸪ㄆ㆑ࡢ⮬ື໬ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࢆ ᐃ࡛ࡁ㸪⤖ᯝࢆ༶᫬ⓗ࡟ࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡ࡛ࡁࡿ᪂
ࡋ࠸࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥㄒᙡࢸࢫࢺࢆ㛤Ⓨࡋࡇࡢጇᙜᛶ࡜ಙ㢗ᛶࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࠋ
2. ゝㄒฎ⌮ࡢ⮬ື໬ ゝㄒฎ⌮ࡢ⮬ື໬ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࢆ♧ࡍᣦᶆ࡜ࡋ࡚ኚືಀᩘ(CV: coefficient of variation㸧ࡀᥦၐࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
㸦Segalowitz & Segalowitz 1993; Segalowitz, Segalowitz & Wood 1998; Harrington 2007; Lim & Godforid 2014)ࠋ
ᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓ༢ㄒࡀᐇᅾࡍࡿ༢ㄒ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆỴࡵࡿㄒᙡุูㄢ㢟(lexical decision task)࠾ࡼࡧᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓⱥᩥࡀᩥἲⓗ࡟ṇࡋ࠸࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆỴࡵࡿᩥἲᛶุูㄢ㢟㸦grammaticality judgment test㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄆ▱ㄢ㢟࡛,ⱥㄒຊࡀ㧗ࡃゝㄒฎ⌮ࡢ⮬ື໬ࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿᏛ⩦⪅࡯࡝㸪ኚືಀᩘࡀᑠࡉࡃ࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
3. ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥㄒᙡࢸࢫࢺࡢ㛤Ⓨ
BNC(British National Corpus)ࡢ⣙ 1 ൨ㄒࡢㄒᙡࣜࢫࢺ࠿ࡽ㸪ฟ⌧㢖ᗘ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚㸪500 ㄒ㸪1000 ㄒ㸪1500
ㄒ㸪2000 ㄒ㸪3000 ㄒ㸪5000 ㄒ㸪1 ୓ㄒ࡜࠸࠺㸵ࣞ࣋ࣝࢆタᐃࡋࣞ࣋ࣝࡈ࡜࡟ࢸࢫࢺᑐ㇟ㄒᙡࢆᢳฟࡋࡓࠋ
Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀㄒᙡࢸࢫࢺ࣭ࢧ࢖ࢺ࡟ࣟࢢ࢖ࣥࡍࡿ࡜㸪⏬㠃ୖ࡟ⱥ༢ㄒ࡜ࡑࢀ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿព࿡࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ㑅ᢥ⫥ࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ㸪ᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓ༢ㄒ࡟㐺ࡍࡿព࿡ࢆ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅ㏿ࡃṇ☜࡟㑅ᢥࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ồࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ༢ㄒᥦ♧࠿ࡽ㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆỴࡵࡿࡲ࡛ࡢ᫬㛫㸦཯ᛂ᫬㛫㸧㸪㑅ᢥ⫥ࡀṇ⟅࠿ㄗ⟅࠿㸪ࡑࡢ༢ㄒࡀ㸵ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ࡝ࢀ࡟ᒓࡍࡿ࠿➼ࡀ㸪ㄒᙡࢸࢫࢺ⏝ࢧ࣮ࣂ࡟⮬ືⓗ࡟グ㘓ࡉࢀࡿࠋ඲ၥࡢᅇ⟅ධຊᚋ㸪ㄒᙡࣞ࣋ࣝࡈ࡜࡟㸪ṇ⟅⋡㸪ゎ⟅᫬㛫㸪ㄒᙡㄆ㆑ࡢ⮬ື໬ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀᏛ⩦⪅࡟୍ぴࡢᙧ࡛ࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡࡉࢀࡿࠋᮏࢸࢫࢺࢆ㸪ᐃⅬほ ⓗ࡟୍ᐃᮇ㛫ࡈ࡜࡟ᐇ᪋࣭ẚ㍑ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡣ⮬ศࡢㄒᙡㄆ㆑ࡢྛࣞ࣋ࣝࡢṇ☜ᛶ࣭㏿ᗘ࣭⮬ື໬ࡢ㐍Ṍࡀᢕᥱࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
㛤Ⓨࡋࡓ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥㄒᙡࢸࢫࢺࡣ㸪ࢸࢫࢺࡢ┠ⓗ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚㸪ᑐ㇟ㄒᙡ࡜ࡑࡢᩘࢆ⮬⏤࡟ኚ࠼ࡿᰂ㌾ᛶࢆࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㑅ᢥࢸࢫࢺᑐ㇟ㄒᙡࢆ BNC ࠿ࡽ㑅ᢥࡍࡿ࡜ㄒᙡࡢ⇍㐩ᗘࢆ ࡿ proficiency test ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ୍᪉㸪ࢸࢫࢺᑐ㇟ㄒᙡࢆ㸪ᩍ⛉᭩ࡢ➨㸯ㄢ࠿ࡽ➨㸳ㄢ࡛౑ࢃࢀࡓㄒᙡ࡟ࡍࡿ࡜Ꮫ⩦⠊ᅖෆࡢㄒᙡ⩦ᚓࡢ฿㐩ᗘࢆ ࡿ achievement test ࡟ࡶ࡞ࡿࠋ

−158−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

4㸬᳨ドᐇ㦂
4.1 ᮦᩱ (ㄒᙡࢸࢫࢺ) ᮏ◊✲࡛㛤Ⓨࡉࢀࡓ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥㄒᙡࢸࢫࢺࠋ௒ᅇࡣ㸪ྛࣞ࣋ࣝ࠿ࡽ 6 ༢ㄒࡈ࡜ࡀฟ㢟ࡉࢀࡓࡢ࡛㸪㸵ࣞ࣋ࣝ×6 ༢ㄒ=42 ༢ㄒࡀࢸࢫࢺᑐ㇟ㄒ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢ 42 ಶࡢ༢ㄒࡣࣛࣥࢲ࣒࡟ᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋ
4.2 ཧຍ⪅TOEIC ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃⱥㄒ⇍㐩ᗘࡢ␗࡞ࡿ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅㸦኱Ꮫ⏕㸧ࢆᑐ㇟࡟ᐇ᪋ࡉࢀࡓࠋ
4.3 ᡭ㡰
(1) ཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸪ᮏࢸࢫࢺࡢෆᐜ㸪ព࿡㸪ཷࡅ᪉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢㄝ᫂ࢆ⪺࠸ࡓࠋ(2) ᮏࢸࢫࢺࡢゎ⟅ᙧᘧ࡟័ࢀࡿࡓࡵ㸪ࢧࣥࣉࣝၥ㢟࡟ゎ⟅ࡋࡓࠋࢧࣥࣉࣝၥ㢟࡛ࡣ㸪ゎ⟅ࡢṇㄗ㸪ゎ⟅࡟せࡋࡓ᫬㛫࡞࡝ࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋ(3) 42 㢟࡟㐃⥆ࡋ࡚ゎ⟅ࡋࡓࠋྛၥ㢟ࡢゎ⟅ධຊ┤ᚋ࡟ࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ḟࡢၥ㢟ࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋ(4) ඲ၥゎ⟅ධຊࡢ⤊஢ᚋ㸪ㄒᙡࡢูࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟ṇㄗ㸪ゎ⟅࡟せࡋࡓ᫬㛫㸪ゎ⟅᫬㛫ࡢࡤࡽࡘࡁ㸪ኚືಀᩘ㸦CV㸧ࡀ୍ぴࡢᙧ࡛ᥦ♧࣭ࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡࡉࢀࡓࠋ(5) ཧຍ⪅ࡣ⮬ศࡢࢸࢫࢺ⤖ᯝࢆぢ࡚㸪⮬ศࡢㄒᙡㄆ㆑࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ឤࡌࡓࡇ࡜㸪⮬ศࡢ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࡣఱ࠿࡞࡝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚グ㏙ࡋ࡚ᥦฟࡋࡓࠋ(6) ࢸࢫࢺᐇ᪋⪅㸦ᩍဨ㸧ࡣཧຍ⪅ࡢࢧ࣮ࣂ࡟⵳✚ࡉࢀࡓᒚṔࡸグ㏙࣏࣮ࣞࢺࢆ㜀ぴࡋ㸪ཧຍ⪅ࡢㄒᙡࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ
ᢕᥱ㸪࠾ࡼࡧ㸪௒ᚋࡢㄒᙡᣦᑟࡢィ⏬❧᱌࡟ᙺ❧࡚ࡓࠋ
5. ⤖ᯝ௒ᅇࡢᐇ㦂ࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪(1) 㢖ᗘ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃㄒᙡࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ㞴᫆ᗘࡀୖࡀࡿ࡯࡝㸪ṇ⟅⋡ࡀୗࡀࡾ཯ᛂ᫬㛫ࡀ㛗ࡃ࡞ࡾኚືಀᩘ
㸦CV㸧ࡀቑຍࡋ࡚⮬ື໬ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀῶᑡࡍࡿࡇ࡜ (2) ⱥㄒ⇍㐩ᗘࡢ㧗࠸Ꮫ⩦⪅࡯࡝㸪ṇ⟅⋡ࡀୖࡀࡾ཯ᛂ᫬㛫ࡀ▷ࡃ࡞ࡾ CV ࡀῶᑡࡋ࡚⮬ື໬ࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀቑຍࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋཷ㦂⪅ࢆኚ࠼࡚ྠࡌࢸࢫࢺࢆᐇ᪋ࡋ࡚ࡶ࡯ࡰྠࡌ⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ⤖ᯝࡣ Segalowitz ࡸ Harrington ࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜୍⮴ࡍࡿࡢ࡛㸪ᮏࢸࢫࢺࡣ L2 ㄒᙡࡢࢧ࢖ࢬ࡜ㄆ㆑㏿ᗘࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪⮬ື໬ࡢ ᐃ࡛ࡶጇᙜᛶ࡜ಙ㢗ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Harrington, M. (2007). The coefficient of variation as an index of L2 lexical processing skill. School of English,
Media Studies and Art History, The University of Queensland.
Hulstijn, J.H., Van Gelderen, A., & Schoonen, R. (2009). Automatization in second language acquisition: What does
the coefficient of variation tell us? Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 555-582.
㛛⏣ಟᖹ࣭Ặᮌ 㐨ே࣭㛗㇂ᑦᘺ. (2014). ࠗⱥ༢ㄒ㐠⏝ຊุᐃࢯࣇࢺࢆ౑ࡗࡓㄒᙡᣦᑟ࠘ ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
Lim, H. & Godforid, A. (2014). Automatization in second language sentence processing: A partial, conceptual
replication of Hulstijn, Van Gelderen, and Schoonen's 2009 study." Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1-36.
Nation, I.S.P. & Webb, S. (2011). Researching and Analyzing Vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Segalowitz, N.& Segalowitz, S. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-up fromautomatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 369-385.
Segalowitz, N., Segalowitz. S. & Wood, A. (1998). Assessing the development of automaticity in second language
word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 369-385.
Someya, Y. (2010). Introduction to Interpreter Training, Kansai University
ᒣෆ㇏, ᓟᯇಙ᫂, ຍ⸨㞟ᖹ, ᕝᮧ᫂⨾, すᕝ᝴. (2012).ࠕࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ࡟ᚲせ࡞ୗ఩⬟ຊࡢ◊✲㸸༢ㄒㄆ㆑ຊ࡜ࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡢ㛵ಀࠖࠗእᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 52 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍Ⓨ⾲せ㡯࠘76-77.
Yamauchi, Y. (2013). The relationship between auditory vocabulary size, recognition rate and EFL listening
comprehension skills, Proceedings of the fourth WorldCALL Conference, 286.

−159−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(11:50-12:20)601 ᐊ

776 7H[W7R6SHHFK ྜᡂ㡢ኌ࡜⫗ኌ࡛ࡣᏛ⩦ຠᯝࡣ␗࡞ࡿ࠿
̿⩦⇍ᗘู࡟ぢࡓ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣉࣛ࢖࣑ࣥࢢຠᯝࡢ᳨ド̿ᯇ⏣ ⣖Ꮚ㸦኱㜰ᕤᴗ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 TTS(Text-To-Speech)ྜᡂ㡢ኌ㸪⫗ኌ㸪ࣉࣛ࢖࣑ࣥࢢᐇ㦂㸪᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅㸪⩦⇍ᗘ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
㏆ᖺ㸪㡢ኌྜᡂᢏ⾡ࡢྥୖ࡟ࡼࡾ㸪እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࡬ࡢ㡢ኌྜᡂࢯࣇࢺࡢά⏝౛ࡀቑ࠼ࡘࡘ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢά
⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᵝࠎ࡞฼Ⅼࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡿ㸦ᮾ㸪2010㸹᯽ᮌ௚㸪2008㸧୍᪉࡛㸪⫗ኌࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓሙྜ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ
࡚㸪ࡑࡢᏛ⩦ຠᯝࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟␗࡞ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᳨ドࡋࡓ◊✲ࡣᑡ࡞࠸ࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪≉࡟㡢ኌ༢ㄒㄆ▱࡜▱ぬᏛ⩦࡜࠸࠺㠃࠿ࡽ㸪᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡟⩦⇍ᗘࡢᕪ࡟ࡼࡿࡑࡢᏛ⩦ຠᯝࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋࡓࣉࣛ࢖࣑ࣥࢢᐇ㦂ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᮏ◊✲࡜ྠᵝࡢ➨஧ゝㄒ㸦௨ୗ㸪L2㸧㡢ኌᥦ♧࡟ࡼࡿࣉࣛ࢖࣑ࣥࢢᐇ㦂࡛ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦ᮇ࡟ฎ⌮ࡉࢀࡓ่⃭ㄒ⩌ࡀࢸࢫࢺᮇ࡛᪂ฟࡢ่⃭ㄒ⩌ࡼࡾ㏿ࡃ㸪ṇ☜࡟ฎ⌮㸦᚟ၐ➼㸧ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣࡇࡢࣉࣛ࢖࣑ࣥࢢຠᯝ㸦Ꮫ⩦ຠᯝ㸧ࡀ⌧ࢀࡿ⌮⏤ࢆ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀ▱ぬ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝ㡢ኌࡢ㡢㡪ⓗ࡞≉ᛶࢆグ᠈ࡋ㸪฼⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ㸪ゝㄒࡢ⩦ᚓࢆᨭ࠼ࡿ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒ࡢ 1 ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
㸦Trofimovich & Gatbonton, 2006 ௚㸧ࠋྜᡂ㡢ኌࡣ⫗ኌ࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ᵓᡂせ⣲ࡀ⤫ไࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃៖ࡋ㸪ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪⩦⇍ᗘࡀ㧗࠸Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ྜᡂ㡢ኌࡣ㡢㡪ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢฎ⌮ࡀຠ⋡໬ࡉࢀࡸࡍ࠸ࡓࡵ࡟
Ꮫ⩦ຠᯝࡣపࡃ㸪⫗ኌࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ᪉ࡀᏛ⩦ຠᯝࡣ㧗࠸࡜࠸࠺௬ㄝࢆࡓ࡚ࡓࠋ

2. ᡭ㡰
2.1 ཧຍ⪅ཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸪᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ ኱Ꮫ⏕࡜኱Ꮫ㝔⏕ 80 ྡ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋྜᡂ㡢ኌࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᐇ㦂ཬࡧ⫗ኌࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᐇ㦂ࡢཧຍ⪅ࡣྛࠎ40 ྡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡞࠾㸪2 ࡘࡢᐇ㦂ཧຍ⪅ࡢ⩦⇍ᗘࡣ Oxford Placement Test (Listening)➼ࢆ⏝࠸࡚⤫ไࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 
2.2 ᮦᩱ
ㅖ᮲௳㸦ぶᐦᗘ, 㢖ᗘ, 㡢⠇ᩘ, ࢹ࣮ࣗࣞࢩࣙࣥ, ㄒ㢌Ꮚ㡢➼㸧ࢆ⤫ไࡋࡓ่⃭ㄒ⩌ࢆ㡢ኌྜᡂࢯࣇࢺ
ࡲࡓࡣⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢ⫗ኌ࡛సᡂࡋࡓࠋ㡢ኌྜᡂࢯࣇࢺ࡟ࡣ Globalvoice English Professional version 2.0.1(HOYA)ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ㸪⏨ᛶࡢኌ (PAUL)࡜ዪᛶࡢኌ (KATE)ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓࠋ⫗ኌ࡟ࡣⱥㄒẕㄒヰ⪅㸦࢔࣓ࣜ࢝
ฟ㌟࡛᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ࡛ᩍ㠴ࢆ࡜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ⏨ᛶ࡜ዪᛶྛ 1 ྡ㸧࡟ࣔࢹࣝ㡢ኌసᡂࡢ༠ຊࢆ౫㢗ࡋ㸪ࢹࢪࢱࣝ㘓㡢ࡋࡓ㡢ኌࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ㝿㸪Ⓨヰ㏿ᗘ࡜㡢ࡢ኱ࡁࡉࡣ㡢ኌศᯒࢯࣇࢺ Praat ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚⤫ไࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
2.3 ᡭ㡰
ࣃࢯࢥࣥࢆ౑⏝ࡋ㸪ಶู࡟ᐇ㦂ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ୍ேࡢཧຍ⪅ࡢ౛ࢆᣲࡆࡿ࡜㸪㡢㡩ฎ⌮࣮࣋ࢫࡢㄢ㢟㸦Ꮫ⩦ᮇ㸧Ѝ᚟ၐㄢ㢟㸦ࢸࢫࢺᮇ㸧Ѝఇ᠁Ѝព࿡ฎ⌮࣮࣋ࢫࡢㄢ㢟㸦Ꮫ⩦ᮇ㸧Ѝ᚟ၐㄢ㢟㸦ࢸࢫࢺᮇ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄢ㢟ࡢ㡰␒ࡣཧຍ⪅㛫࡛࢝࢘ࣥࢱ࣮ࣂࣛࣥࢫࢆ࡜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

−160−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

2.4 ศᯒ᪉ἲ
ࢸࢫࢺᮇ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣔࢹࣝ㡢ኌᥦ♧࠿ࡽ᚟ၐࡲ࡛ࡢ཯ᛂ᫬㛫ࢆศᯒᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ㸪㡢ኌࡢ㐪࠸㸦ྜᡂ㡢ኌ࡜⫗ኌ ࡜Ꮫ⩦ᮇࡢฎ⌮ࡢ㐪࠸㸦㡢㡩ฎ⌮࣮࣋ࢫ࡜ព࿡ฎ⌮࣮࣋ࢫ㸧࡟ࡼࡿᙳ㡪ࢆ⩦⇍ᗘู㸦⩦⇍ᗘࢸࢫࢺࡢᡂ⦼࡟ࡼࡗ࡚  ⩌࡟ศ㢮ࡋ㸪ୗ఩⩌࡜ୖ఩⩌ࢆẚ㍑㸧࡟ศᯒࡋࡓࠋ࡞࠾㸪ࣉࣛ࢖࣑ࣥࢢຠᯝࡢ᭷↓ࡣඛ⾜◊✲࡟ࡢࡗ࡜ࡾ㸪Ꮫ⩦ᮇ࡟᪤ฟࡢㄒᙡ࡜ࢸࢫࢺᮇ࡛᪂ฟࡢㄒᙡࡢ཯ᛂ᫬㛫࡟᭷ពᕪࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿
ุ࡛᩿ࡍࡿࠋ

50.00䝥䝷䜲䝭䞁䜾ຠᯝ䠄䡉䡏䠅

40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
Ͳ10.00

㡢㡩ฎ⌮
ୗ఩⩌

㡢㡩ฎ⌮
ୖ఩⩌

ព࿡ฎ⌮
ୗ఩⩌

ព࿡ฎ⌮
ୖ఩⩌

ᅗ 1. ྜᡂ㡢ኌࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓሙྜࡢࣉࣛ࢖࣑ࣥࢢຠᯝ

50.00

䝥䝷䜲䝭䞁䜾ຠᯝ䠄䡉䡏䠅

40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
Ͳ10.00

㡢㡩ฎ⌮
ୗ఩⩌

㡢㡩ฎ⌮
ୖ఩⩌

ព࿡ฎ⌮
ୗ఩⩌

ព࿡ฎ⌮
ୖ఩⩌

ᅗ 2. ⫗ኌࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓሙྜࡢࣉࣛ࢖࣑ࣥࢢຠᯝ
3. ⤖ᯝྜᡂ㡢ኌࡢሙྜ㸦ᅗ 1㸧ࡣ㸪⩦⇍ᗘࢸࢫࢺୗ఩⩌࡛▱ぬᏛ⩦ࡢ㠃࡛ຠᯝࡀ㧗࠸ࡀ㸪⩦⇍ᗘࢸࢫࢺୖ఩
⩌࡛ࡣຠᯝࡀపࡃ㸪㡢㡪ࣞ࣋ࣝࡼࡾୖ఩ࡢฎ⌮㸦ព࿡ฎ⌮➼㸧ࡢᏛ⩦ຠᯝࡀ⌧ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ⫗ኌࡢሙྜ㸦ᅗ 2㸧ࡣ⩦⇍ᗘࢆၥࢃࡎࣉࣛ࢖࣑ࣥࢢຠᯝࡀ㧗࠸཯㠃㸪㡢㡪ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢฎ⌮㈇Ⲵࡀ㠀ᖖ࡟㧗࠸ࡓࡵ㸪ព࿡ฎ⌮➼ࡢㄆ▱㈇Ⲵࡢ㧗࠸ࢱࢫࢡࡣຠᯝࢆῶࡌࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ௒ᚋࡢ㏣ドࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪᪥ᖖⓗ࡟ L2 ࡢ⫗ኌ࡟ゐࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᑡ࡞࠸⎔ቃ࡛ࡣ㸪ྜᡂ㡢ኌࡢᏛ⩦ຠᯝࡀ⩦⇍ᗘ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚␗࡞ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽᏛ⩦࡟ྲྀࡾධࢀ࡚࠸ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀࡛ࡁࡿࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ᮾ῟୍ (2010).ࠕTTS ྜᡂ㡢ኌ࡛ᗈࡀࡿእᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣐ࣝࢳ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ᩍᮦ㛤Ⓨࡢ᪂ࡓ࡞ᆅᖹࠖ
ࠗὶ㏻⛉Ꮫ኱
Ꮫᩍ⫱㧗ᗘ໬᥎㐍ࢭࣥࢱ࣮⣖せ࠘, 6, 1-11.
᯽ᮌ἞⨾, ᗣᩄ, ኱᭶୍ᘯ (2008).ࠕእᅜㄒᏛ⩦࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㡢ኌྜᡂ฼⏝ࡢ⌧≧࡜ㄢ㢟ࠖࠗ⚄ᡞ኱Ꮫᅜ㝿ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢭࣥࢱ࣮ㄽ㞟࠘, 5, 10-19.
Trofimovich, P., & Gatbonton, E. (2006). Repetition and focus on form in processing L2 Spanish words:
Implications for pronunciation instruction. Modern Language Journal, 90, 519-535.

−161−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(13:00-13:30)601 ᐊ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖࣭ࣥࢹ࢕ࢫ࢝ࢵࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
Ⓨヰࡢ⏕ᡂ㐣⛬ࡢศᯒⳢཎᏳᙪ㸦ᅜኈ⯓኱Ꮫ㸧㕥ᮌᗈᏊ㸦ᮾᾏ኱Ꮫ㸧ಖᓮ๎㞝㸦᪩✄⏣኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࢹ࢕ࢫ࢝ࢵࢩ࣭ࣙࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛ㸪Ⓨヰ⏕ᡂ㐣⛬㸪ゝㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕㸪ᶍೌཧຍ⪅ࡢ⮬❧ࠊTED
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ⱥㄒ࡟ࡼࡿⓎಙຊࢆ㣴ᡂࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀႚ⥭ࡢㄢ㢟࡛࠶ࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊࢹ࢕ࢫ࢝ࢵࢩࣙࣥࢆ⾜࠺࡜ࠊᏛ⏕ࡣࠊཧຍࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟㌋㌉ࡍࡿࠊⓎಙࡋࡓ࠸࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡀᾋ࠿ࡤ࡞࠸ࠊ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࢆⱥㄒ࡛⾲⌧࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠊ࡜
࠸ࡗࡓၥ㢟ࡀぢࡽࢀࠊάⓎ࡞㆟ㄽᒎ㛤ࢆ⤒㦂ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㠀ᖖ࡟㞴ࡋ࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ୺యⓗ࡞ゝㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕࡬ࡢཧຍࢆಁࡍ⎔ቃࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࢹ࢕ࢫ࢝ࢵࢩ࣭ࣙࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛࢆᵓ
⠏ࡋࡓࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣࢹ࢕ࢫ࢝ࢵࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾ࡅࡿゝㄒ⾲⌧࡟╔┠ࡋࠊࣉࣟࢺࢥࣝศᯒࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚Ⓨヰࡢ⏕ᡂ㐣⛬ࢆほᐹࡋࡓࠋලయⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ࢜ࣥࣛ࢖࣭ࣥࢹ࢕ࢫ࢝ࢵࢩ࣭ࣙࣥࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛࢆ౑ࡗ࡚Ꮫ⏕ࡢࣟࢢࢆྲྀࡾࠊ
ࣉࣟࢺࢥࣝศᯒ࠿ࡽᏛ⏕ࡀᑐ㇟ࡢࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕࡬ࡢཧຍᗘྜ࠸ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋ
2. ᡭ㡰
2.1 ཧຍ⪅ཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸪㸶ࡘࡢ㧗➼ᩍ⫱ᶵ㛵㸦㸵኱Ꮫࠊ㸯㧗ᑓ㸧ࡢᏛ⏕࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋྛᏛ⏕ࡢ኱༙ࡣᩍ㣴ㄢ⛬ࡢⱥㄒࡢᒚಟ⪅࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢᑓ㛛ࡣᩥ໬⣔࠿ࡽᕤᏛࠊ་⒪ࡲ࡛ከᒱ࡟ࢃࡓࡿࠋཧຍᩍ⫱ᶵ㛵ྡࡣୗグࡢ㏻ࡾ㸸⩌㤿㧗ᑓࠊᮾᾏ኱Ꮫࠊ᪩✄⏣኱Ꮫࠊ⚟ᓥ኱Ꮫࠊරᗜ┴❧኱Ꮫࠊி㒔་⒪⛉Ꮫ኱Ꮫࠊᅜኈ⯓኱Ꮫࠊឿᜨ་኱
2.2 ᡭ㡰 ࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛࡣࠊᏛ⏕ࡢཧຍ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࢫࢺࣞࢫࢆୗࡆࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊᑐ㠃ᘧ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࢹ࢕ࢫ࢝ࢵࢩࣙࣥࢆࡍ
ࡿሙ࡜ࢿࢵࢺୖ࡟タࡅࡓࠋཧຍ⪅ࡣ Moodle ࡛సᡂࡉࢀࡓࢸ࣮࣐࡜࡞ࡿື⏬ࡢど⫈ࠊࢹ࢕ࢫ࢝ࢵࢩࣙࣥ
ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ✵㛫ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ✵㛫ࡣࢫࣆ࣮ࢳど⫈࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᏛ⏕࡟ࢸ࣮࣐ࠊෆᐜࠊⱥㄒ⾲⌧㸦᪥ⱥㄒࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺ㸧ࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡶタィࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᏛ⏕ࡣᤵᴗ୰࡟ࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࣛࡢ฼⏝ἲࡢㄝ᫂ࠊᣦᑟࡢ
࠶࡜ࠊື⏬ࢆど⫈ࡋࠊࢹ࢕ࢫ࢝ࢵࢩࣙࣥࡢཱྀⅆ࡜࡞ࡿ㉁ၥࢆཷࡅࠊࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㏉⟅࠿ࡽ᭩ࡁ㎸ࡳࢆጞࡵࡿࠋ⮬⏤࡟Ⓨゝࡍࡿࡀࠊᚲࡎࠊㄡ࠿ࡢⓎゝ࡟ᑐࡋࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆຍ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡜㏉ಙࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⩏ົ࡙ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᩍဨࡣࣇ࢓ࢩࣜࢸ࣮ࢱ࡜ࡋ࡚ཧຍࡋࠊⱥㄒ⾲⌧࠾ࡼࡧࢹ࢕ࢫ࢝ࢵࢩࣙࣥࡢ᪉ྥᛶࢆㄪ
ᩚࡋࡓࠋ
2.2.1 Moodle ࢧ࢖ࢺࡢ㛤Ⓨ ᮏ◊✲ࡢᐇ᪋࡟࠶ࡓࡾ㸪 Moodle ࢧ࢖ࢺࢆ⊂⮬࡟㛤ⓎࡋࡓࠋTED discussion ࡢࣜࣥࢡࢆጞࡵࠊglossary,᪥ⱥࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࡢཧ↷ࠊforum ࡬ࡢཧຍࡀࢡࣜࢵࢡ୍ࡘ࡛࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ Quizlet ࡜ࡢࣜࣥࢡࡶ᪋ࡋࠊཧຍ⪅ࡣࣅࢹ࢜ࡸ glossary ➼࡛ᚲせ࡜ឤࡌࡓㄒࢆᏛ⩦ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡋࡓࠋ
㸦ᅗ 1㸧

−162−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

ᅗ 1.
3. ⤖ᯝ
 ⱥㄒ࡛᭩ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡸࢹ࢕ࢫ࢝ࢵࢩࣙࣥ࡟័ࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ཧຍ⪅ࡶከ࠸୍᪉ࠊࡑࡢ཯ᑐ࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿᏛ⏕ࡶ࠸ࡿࠋ๓⪅ࡢⓎゝࢆぢ࡚ࡳࡿ࡜ࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ᪉␎ࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿ┦ᡭࡢⓎゝࡢᢎㄆࠊࡘࡲ
ࡾ”That’s a good idea”, “It’s great.”➼ࡢ⾲⌧ࡀከࡃぢཷࡅࡽࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓẚ㍑ⓗⱥㄒຊࢆ᭷ࡍࡿཧຍ⪅ࡣ”Are
you saying....?”ࡢ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟┦ᡭࡢⓎゝࡢ┿ពࢆၥ࠺⾲⌧ࡶぢࡽࢀࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢጼໃࡀ࡛ࡁࡘ
ࡘ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀぢ࡚ྲྀࢀࡓࠋ ࢹ࢕ࢫ࢝ࢵࢩࣙࣥࡢෆᐜࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊ౑⏝ㄒᙡࡀ᮲௳࡟ࡼࡗ࡚␗࡞ࡗࡓࠋࣅࢹ࢜ど⫈ࡢࡳࡢሙྜ࡜ど⫈ࡋࡓᚋ࡟ࢿࢵࢺ࡞࡝࡛㛵㐃㈨ᩱࢆ᥈ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆⓎ⾲ࡋࠊཧຍ⪅ࡀ஫࠸ࡢ᝟ሗࢆඹ᭷ࡋ࡚࠿ࡽࢹ࢕ࢫ࢝ࢵ
ࢩࣙࣥࢆ⾜ࡗࡓሙྜ࡛ࡣࠊ๓⪅ࡀࣅࢹ࢜࡟ྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿㄒᙡࡢ౑⏝ࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊᚋ⪅࡛ࡣከࡃぢࡽࢀࠊࣉࣟࢺࢥࣝ඲యࡢㄒᙡࡀ㇏ᐩ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡲࡓࢹ࢕ࢫ࢝ࢵࢩࣙࣥࡢ୰㌟࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ๓⪅ࡀࠊ⮬ศࡢឤ᝿ࢆ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿഴྥࡀᙉ࠸ࡢ࡟ᑐࡋࠊᚋ⪅ࡣ⮬ศࡢ⪃࠼ࠊᥦ᱌ࢆࣅࢹ࢜ෆᐜࡸࡑࡢ௚
ࡢ᝟ሗࢆ┒ࡾ㎸ࡳ࡞ࡀࡽ⮬ศࡢពぢࡸ⪃࠼ࢆ㏙࡭ࡿⓎゝࡀከࡃぢཷࡅࡽࢀࡓࠋ ௨ୖᮏせ㡯ᇳ➹᫬Ⅼ࡛ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ኱఍Ⓨ⾲ࡲ࡛࡟ࡣࡉࡽ࡞ࡿࢹ࣮ࢱ཰㞟ࡀྍ⬟࡛ࠊୖ㏙ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࡶࡢࢆሗ࿌࡛ࡁࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩࣮࣡ࢳ㸪ࢪ࢙࣮࣒ࢫࠝబ⸨ බ἞࣭௚ヂࠞ
㸦2002㸧⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᚰ ໭኱㊰᭩ᡣ࣮࣡ࢳ㸪ࢪ࢙࣮࣒ࢫࠝ⏣ᓥ ಙඖ࣭௚ヂࠞ
㸦2004㸧ᚰࡢኌ̿፹௓ࡉࢀࡓ⾜Ⅽ࡬ࡢ♫఍ᩥ໬ⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ
⚟ᮧฟ∧▼㯮 ᗈ᫛㸦2004㸧♫఍ᩥ໬ⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢᐇ㝿ʊᏛ⩦άືࡢ⌮ゎ࡜ኚ㠉ࡢ࢚ࢫࣀࢢࣛࣇ࢕࣮
໭኱㊰᭩ᡣ
Lois Holzman (2015). Vygotsky at Work and Play. Routledge


−163−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(13:35-14:05)601 ᐊ

ྍど໬ࡢᏛ⩦ᨭ᥼ LMS ࢶ࣮ࣝࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓᅜ㝿༠ㄪᏛ⩦ࡢᐇ㊶◊✲㸸Ꮫ⩦ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕࡟ࡼࡿホ౯Ᏻ㒊 ⏤⨾Ꮚ㸦ᗈᓥᕤᴗ኱Ꮫ㸧┈Ꮚ ⾜ᘯ㸦ᾆ࿴኱Ꮫ㸧
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣮፹௓࡟ࡼࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ㸦CMC)ࡣࠊ♫఍ⓗᵓᡂ୺⩏ࡢᏛ⩦⌮ ㄽࢆ⌮ᛕ࡜ࡍࡿࡀࠊ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢸ࢕ࣈ࡞ゝㄒᏛ⩦ࢆಁ㐍ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㐣ཤࡢ◊✲ࡢ୰࡛ሗ࿌ࡉ
ࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ(Chapelle, 2003)ࠊྠᮇᆺࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓࠊ㠀ẕᅜ⪅ྠኈࡢ␗ᩥ໬㛫 ࡢ ࢖ ࣥ ࢱ ࣛ ࢡ ࢩ ࣙ ࣥ ࡛ ࡶ ࠊ ⱥ ㄒ ຊ ࢆ 㧗 ࡵ ࡿ ຠ ᯝ ࡀ ࠶ ࡿ ࡇ ࡜ ࡀ ♧ ၀ ࡉ ࢀ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ 㸦 Park &Nakano, 2001)ࠋࡲࡓࠊᒣ⏣ࡽ㸦2009㸧ࡢ᪥ᮏேᏛ⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࡋࡓྠᮇᆺ CMC ࡢ◊✲࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊࣅࢹ࣭࢜࢝ࣥࣇ࢓ࣛࣥࢫ࡛ࡣࠊ✚ᴟⓗ࡞ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆಁ㐍ࡋࠊࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐
ࣥࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࣭ࢳࣕࢵࢺ࡟ࡣᩥἲⓗ࡞ព㆑ࢆ㧗ࡵࡿຠᯝࡀ
࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࣅࢹ࣭࢜࢝ࣥࣇ࢓ࣛࣥࢫ࡛ࡣࠊゝ࠸┤ࡋ࡞࡝ࡢ⮬ᕫಟṇࡀಁ㐍ࡉࢀࡿຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿ(Levy & Stockwell, 2006)࡜ሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ◊✲ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊ࣓ࢹ
࢕࢔ࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ␗ᩥ໬㛫ࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦άືࡸࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐪࠸ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ࠿᳨ウࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
2. ◊✲┠ⓗᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ௚⪅ࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࡢᏛ⩦ᒚṔࢆྍど໬ࡍࡿࢶ࣮ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊLMS(Moodle)ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࠊྠᮇᆺ CSCL(Computer Supported Collaborative Learning)ࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࡜ࣅࢹ࢜࡜࠸࠺㸰ࡘࡢࢶ࣮ࣝࡢ㐪࠸࡟╔┠ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡽࡀࠕ༠ㄪᏛ⩦୰ࡢάືព㆑ࠖࠊࠕᏛ⩦ຠᯝࠖࠊࠕⱥㄒ
ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟㛵ࡍࡿព㆑ࠖ࡟୚࠼ࡿᙳ㡪ࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ3. ᐇ㊶᪉ἲ
పʊ୰⣭ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ (TOEIC ᚓⅬࡀ 380 ࠿ࡽ 550)ࡢ᪥ᮏே኱Ꮫ⏕ 37 ྡࠊ39 ྡࡢࣇ࢕ࣜ
ࣆࣥࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿ࣎ࣛࣥࢸ࢕࢔ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉィ 76 ே࡟ࡼࡿ CMC ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓ㆟ㄽࢆㄪᰝࣇ
࢕࣮ࣝࢻ࡜ࡋࠊࣅࢹ࣭࢜࢝ࣥࣇ࢓ࣛࣥࢫ࡜ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࣭ࢳࣕࢵࢺ࡟ࡼࡿⱥㄒ࡛ࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾࢆࠊ
4 㐌㛫⾜ࡗࡓࠋ
4. ྍど໬ᨭ᥼࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ LMS㸦Moodle㸧฼⏝Ꮫ⩦⾜ືࡢྍど໬ࠊ࢔ࢡࢭࢫᶒࡢไ㝈ࠊཬࡧ௚⪅࡜ࡢᏛ⩦ࡢẚ㍑ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ LMS㸦Learning
Management System㸧ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓࠋLMS ࡣࠊ┠ⓗ࡟ᛂࡌࡓ LMS ࣉࣛࢵࢺࣇ࢛࣮࣒ࡢ౑࠸ศࡅࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊMoodle ࡣࠊ࣮࢜ࣉࣥࢯ࣮ࢫࡢࡓࡵࠊ࢝ࢫࢱ࣐࢖ࢬ⮬⏤࡛ࠊᶵ⬟ࡀ඘ᐇࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ➨஧ゝㄒ⩦ᚓࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺ࣭࢔࢘ࢺࣉࢵࢺࡶቑࡸࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡓࡵࠊ
Moodle ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓࠋ⵳✚ࡉࢀࡓࢹ࣮ࢱࡣࠊLMS ࡢᶵ⬟ࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿᢞ⚊ᙧᘧࡢホ౯ࣇ࢛࣮࣒࡟࡚ࠊ┦ᡭ⏕ᚐ࡟ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ㏣ຍࡉࡏࡓᚋ࡛ྠ୍ࢳࣕࢵࢺࢢ࣮ࣝࣉෆࡢᏛ⏕࡟බ㛤ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࣆ࢔ホ౯ࡉࡏࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊホ౯⤖ᯝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶྠᵝ࡟බ㛤ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᏛ⩦⾜ືࡢྍど໬࡜┦஫ホ౯ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ−164−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

5. ⤖ᯝ࡜⪃ᐹศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࠊྠᮇᆺ CSCL ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࠊࣅࢹ࢜࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊᑐヰ┦ᡭ࡬ࡢぶ㏆ឤࢆቑ኱ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࣭ࢳࣕࢵࢺ⩌ࡢ࡯࠺ࡀࠊ⾲⌧⩦ᚓࡢホ౯ࡀ㧗ࡃࠊᩥἲࡸㄒᙡ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ṇ☜ᛶࢆព㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࣭ࢳࣕ
ࢵࢺ⩌ࡢ࡯࠺ࡀࠊ┠ᶆㄒᙡࢆᐃ╔ࡉࡏࡿ࡜࠸࠺ຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ
ࣙࣥࡢ✚ᴟᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ2 ࡘࡢ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔㛫࡛᭷ព࡞ᕪࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡛ࡣࠊᒣ⏣(2009) ࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࢆᨭᣢࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊࣅࢹ࣭࢜࢝ࣥࣇ࢓ࣛࣥࢫ⩌࡛ࡣࠊࢸ࣮࣐࠿ࡽ
ヰ㢟ࡀ㞳ࢀࡓࡇ࡜(off-topic)ࠊ㠀ゝㄒ࡟ࡼࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟౫Ꮡࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ✚ᴟᛶࡀಁ㐍ࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓྍ⬟ᛶࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ࣆ࢔ホ౯࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᏛ⩦ᒚṔࢆྍど໬࡛ࡁࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊᏛ⩦⪅࡟ࡼࡾⓗ☜࡛ヲ⣽࡞ࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡࡶᚓࡽࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊᏛ⩦ᒚṔࢆྍど໬࡟ࡼࡾࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࢆࡼࡾ⮬ᚊⓗ࡟ࡉࡏ㸪Ꮫ⩦ືᶵࢆ㧗ࡵࡿ⮬ᚊⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦ࢆᨭ᥼ࡍࡿ⎔ቃࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࡶࡢ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
ㅰ㎡
ᮏ◊✲ࡣ JSPS ⛉◊㈝ 2 5 3 7 0 6 7 4 ࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ༠ຊࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡔ࠸ࡓࣇ࢕
ࣜࣆࣥ኱Ꮫࡢඛ⏕࡟ឤㅰࢆࡍࡿࠋ
୺࡞ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
ᒣ⏣ᨻᐶ࣭ᯇᮏె✑Ꮚ࣭㉥ᇼ౔ྖ㸦2009㸧ࠕ➨஧ゝㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥᏛ⩦ᨭ᥼ࡢࡓࡵࡢ
ྠᮇᆺ CMC ࡢホ౯ : ࣅࢹ࢜࢝ࣥࣇ࢓ࣞࣥࢫ࡜ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢳࣕࢵࢺ⩌ࡢẚ㍑࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠖ
ࠗ᪥ᮏᩍ⫱᝟ሗᏛ఍Ꮫ఍ㄅ࠘ 25(1), 15-24.
Levy, M. & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL Dimensions: Options and issues in Computer Assisted
Language Learning. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Park, K-J., & Nakano, M. (2001). Negotiation in cyber: The role of chatting in the development ofgrammatical competence. In Waschauer, M., & Kern, R. (Eds.), Network-based language
teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 50-86). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chapelle, C. (2003). English language learning and technology (Vol.7). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.

−165−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(14:10-14:40)601 ᐊ኱Ꮫ⏕ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ Extensive Reading ࡢຠᯝ̿ⱥㄒ⬟ຊࠊㄞゎ㏿ᗘࠊရモู⩦ᚓ⋡㛫ᡤ ᬛᏊ㸦࢚ࢹࣗࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ከㄞάື㸪C-test㸪ရモ㸪ⱥㄒ⬟ຊ㸪ㄞゎ㏿ᗘ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
Extensive Reading (ER)ࡢຠᯝࡣඛ⾜◊✲࡛♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ౛࠼ࡤ Lao & Krashen (2000)ࡣ ER ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ྡモ࡜ືモࡢ⩦ᚓࡀ㉳ࡇࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊྡモ࣭ືモ௨እࡢရモࡢ⩦ᚓ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄪ࡭ࡓ◊✲ࡣᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓከࡃࡢ◊✲ࡀ୍ࡘࡢᩍ⫱ᶵ㛵ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ(Hafiz & Tudor, 1989; Iwahori, 2008)ࠊER
ࡢᐇ᪋᪉ἲࡢ㐪࠸ࡀᏛ⩦ຠᯝ࡟㐪࠸ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࢃ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏࡢ஧኱Ꮫ㸦㸿኱Ꮫࠊ㹀኱Ꮫ㸧࡛ᐇ᪋ࡉࢀࡓ ER ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᤵᴗ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊER ࡢⱥㄒ⬟ຊ࠾ࡼࡧㄞゎ㏿ᗘ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᏛ⩦ຠᯝࡢ᭷↓ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ရモࡈ࡜ࡢᏛ⩦ຠᯝࢆㄪ࡭ࡓࠋ
2. ◊✲᪉ἲ
ཧຍ⪅ࡣ Extensive Reading ࢆᤵᴗෆ࡛⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸰ࡘࡢ኱ᏛࡢᏛ⏕ 32 ྡࠋෆࠊA ኱ᏛࡣࠊᕤᏛ㒊 2 ᖺ⏕ 17 ྡ㸦⏨ዪẚ 13:4ࠊᖺ㱋 19-21㸧ࠋࠕୖ⣭ⱥㄒࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࡢᤵᴗࢆཷㅮࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᤵᴗෆ࡛ࡣ୺
࡟ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆᏛࡧࠊᤵᴗእ࡛ Extensive Reading ࢆᐟ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊᐇ㦂ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓᏛᮇ୰ࡣࠊࡇࡢᤵᴗ௨እ࡟ⱥㄒࡢࢡࣛࢫࡣཷㅮࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊ㹀኱ᏛࡣࠊእᅜㄒᏛ㒊ࡢ 1 ᖺ⏕ 15 ྡ㸦⏨ዪẚ 8:8ࠊᖺ㱋 18-19㸧ࠋࠕExtensive Readingࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࡢᤵᴗࢆཷㅮࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᤵᴗෆ
࡛ࡣ Extensive Reading ࡢᩍᮦࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࡢ⢭ㄞࡸ༢ㄒࢸࢫࢺ࡞࡝ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋᤵᴗእ࡛ࡣ Extensive
Reading ࢆᐟ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋB ኱ᏛࡢᏛ⏕ࡣ Extensive Reading ࡢᤵᴗ௨እ࡟ࡶከࡃࡢⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗࢆ
ཷㅮࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ୧኱Ꮫࡣ 1 Ꮫᮇ㛫 ER ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ1 㐌㛫࡟ 1 ෉ Graded Readers ࢆㄞࡳࠊࣈࢵࢡ࣏࣮ࣞࢺࢆᩍ
ဨ࡟ᥦฟࡋࡓࠋER ࡢ஦๓ࠊ஦ᚋ࡟ⱥㄒ⬟ຊࢆ ᐃࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ C-test ࠾ࡼࡧㄞゎࢫࣆ࣮ࢻࢸࢫࢺࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟➨஧ゝㄒᏛ⩦Ṕࡸㄞ᭩⩦័࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋC-test ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᑐᛂࡢ࠶ࡿ t ᳨ᐃ࡛ ER ࡟ࡼࡿຠᯝࢆㄪᰝࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ 9 ࡘ࡟ศࡅࡓရモࡈ࡜ࡢఙࡧ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ3. ⤖ᯝศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ୧኱Ꮫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ⱥㄒ⬟ຊ࡜ㄞゎ㏿ᗘ࡟࠾࠸࡚ఙࡧࡀࡳࡽࢀࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ஦๓ࢸࢫࢺ࡛ࡣ
C-test ࡢࢫࢥ࢔ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ኚࢃࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊER ࡢຠᯝࡢ኱ࡁࡉࡣ஧ࡘࡢ኱Ꮫࡢ㛫࡛ᕪࡀ
⏕ࡌࡓࠋ

−166−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍⾲ 
Descriptive Statistics of the C-test, and Pre- and Post-reading Rates in wpm(University A, n=17, and University B, n=15)

University B

University A
C-testReading Rates***

p < .001.

㻌

M

SD

Pre-rate

48.82

12.86

Post-rate

69.94

6.58

Pre-test

130.35

26.71

Post-test

151.3522.54

P.000***.000***

M

SD

49.87

13.77

59.33

8.54

145.0022.84

154.2728.82

p.003**.107**

p < .01.

4. ⪃ᐹ஧኱Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿຠᯝࡢᕪࡣࠊER ᐇ᪋᪉ἲ࡟ 4 ࡘࡢ㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡓࡵ࡜♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋձᑟධࡢ௙᪉㸸A
኱Ꮫ࡛ࡣࣞ࣋ࣝࡸฟ∧♫࡟ࡼࡿᮏࡢ㐪࠸㸦authentic ࠿ࡑ࠺࡛࡞࠸࠿㸧➼ࠊከㄞࡢ Material ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࣃ࣡
࣮࣏࢖ࣥࢺࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽㄝ᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊB ኱Ꮫ࡛ࡣࠊࣉࣜࣥࢺࢆ㓄ᕸࡋࠊ୺࡟኱Ꮫ⊂⮬ࡢ ER
ࡢᥦฟㄢ㢟ࡸ࣏࢖ࣥࢺไ࡞࡝ᐇົⓗ࡞ࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸ཱྀ࡚㢌࡛ㄝ᫂ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋղࣈࢵࢡ࣏࣮ࣞࢺࡢㄢࡋ
᪉㸸୧኱Ꮫ࡜ࡶࠊཎ๎࡜ࡋ୍࡚㐌㛫࡟ 1 ෉ Graded Readers ࢆㄞࡳࠊࣈࢵࢡ࣏࣮ࣞࢺࢆ⩣㐌࡟ᥦฟࡍࡿࡇ
࡜࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊA ኱Ꮫࡣࠊ࣏࣮ࣞࢺࢆ⩣㐌ࡲ࡛࡟ᥦฟ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓሙྜࡣࠊ⩣ࠎ㐌ࡲ࡛࡟ᥦฟ࡜࡞
ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ୍᪉ B ኱Ꮫࡣࠊ⩣㐌ࡲ࡛࡟࣏࣮ࣞࢺࢆฟࡏ࡞࠿ࡗࡓሙྜࡣࠊᤵᴗ᭱⤊᪥ࡲ࡛࡟ᥦฟ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚
࠸ࡓࠋ⤖ᯝࠊB ኱Ꮫ࡛ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡢ࣏࣮ࣞࢺࢆ᭱⤊᪥࡟ฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡓᏛ⏕ࡶ࠸ࡓࠋճࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡෆᐜ㸸୧኱Ꮫ࡜ࡶࠊࣈࢵࢡ࣏࣮ࣞࢺ࡟ᩍဨࡀ 1 ゝࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆຍ࠼㏉༷ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊຍ࠼࡚ A ኱Ꮫ࡛ࡣከㄞ࡟
ࡼࡿ⥲ㄒᩘࢆࢡࣛࢫ඲ဨศࢢࣛࣇ࡟ࡋࠊẖ㐌Ꮫ⏕࡟Ώࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋմGraded Readers ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝ㸸A ኱Ꮫ࡛ࡣࠊᏛ⏕ࡀ⮬⏤࡟ࣞ࣋ࣝࢆ㑅ࢇ࡛࠸ࡓࡓࡵࠊࣞ࣋ࣝ 1ࠥ6 ࡲ࡛࡜ᵝࠎࡔࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊB ኱Ꮫ࡛ࡣࠊ࢝ࣜ࢟
࣒ࣗࣛୖࣞ࣋ࣝ 1 ࠿ 2 ࠿ࡽᮏࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ௨ୖࠊ4 ࡘࡢⅬࡀࠊER ࡢຠᯝ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡋࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊC-test ࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽෆᐜㄒࠊᶵ⬟ㄒ࡟㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊ㧗㢖ᗘ࡟ฟ⌧ࡍࡿရモ࠿ࡽ⩦ᚓࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ
♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ᮏ◊✲ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡀ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ⤒㦂࡟ஈࡋ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊᐇ㝿ࡢᩍᐊ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ ER ᐇ᪋࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᩍ⫱ⓗᥦゝࢆ⾜࠺ࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Hafiz, F. M. &Tudor, I. (1989). Graded readers as an input medium in L2 learning. System, 18(1), 31-42.
Iwahori, Y. (2008). Developing reading fluency: A study of extensive reading in EFL. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 20(1), 70–91.
Lao, C. Y. & Krashen, S. D. (2000). The impact of popular literature study on literacy development in EFL: Moreevidence for the power of reading. System, 28, 261–270.

−167−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(9:30-10:00)602 ᐊᡓᚋ᪥ᮏ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱ᨻ⟇㐣⛬ࡢṔྐⓗ㌿᥮Ⅼ㟷⏣ ᗉ┿㸦ᮾி኱Ꮫ ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ⱥㄒᩍ⫱ᨻ⟇㸪ᨻ⟇㐣⛬㸪ᅜ఍఍㆟㘓㸪Ṕྐⓗ◊✲1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗࡣ㸪ᡓᚋ᪥ᮏ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢᨻ⟇㐣⛬ࡢ㌿᥮Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋ㸪⌧ᅾ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᪥ᮏ
ࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ᨻ⟇㐣⛬ࡢᵓ㐀ࢆࡼࡾヲ⣽࡟ᢕᥱࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㏆ᖺ㸪᪥ᮏࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ᨻ⟇࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣᗘ㔜࡞ࡿᨵ㠉ࡀ⾜࡞ࢃࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࡑࢀ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ◊✲ࡶᩘከࡃ⵳
✚ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦e.g., Butler and Iino, 2005㸹Ụ฼ᕝ㸪2009㸧ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ࡑࢀࡽࡢከࡃࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪≉ᐃࡢᨻ⟇ࡸࡑࡢෆᐜࢆศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟୺║ࡀ⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࡑࡢ㐣⛬࡟ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝╔┠ࡉࢀ࡚ࡇ࡞࠿
ࡗࡓࠋⓎ⾲⪅ࡣ㸪㟷⏣㸦2015㸧ࡸᒣ⏣࣭㟷⏣㸦2015㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪ᶫᮏ㸦2014㸧࡞࡝ࡢ௚ศ㔝࡟࠾ࡅࡿ◊✲⵳✚ࢆཧ↷ࡋ㸪ⱥㄒᩍ⫱ᨻ⟇ࡢ◊✲࡟ᨻ⟇㐣⛬◊✲ࡢどⅬࢆ᥼⏝ࡋࡓࠋ㟷⏣㸦2015㸧ࡸᒣ⏣࣭㟷⏣㸦2015㸧ࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㏻ࡾ㸪ᅜ఍࡟࠾࠸࡚ⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡣ୍᫬ⓗ࡟Ⓨゝࢆ㞟୰ⓗ࡟㞟ࡵࡓࡾ㸪Ⓨゝᩘࡀᛴ⃭࡟ῶᑡࡋࡓࡾ࡜㸪኱ࡁ࡞㌿᥮ࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ࡇࢀࡽࡢ㌿᥮Ⅼࡶࡋࡃࡣࡑࡢ๓ᚋ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ
࠺࡞ฟ᮶஦ࡀ࠶ࡾ㸪ࡑࡢ๓ᚋࡢ㌿᥮Ⅼ࡜࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣ㸪ᑎἑ㸦2014㸧ࡢᣦ᦬ࡍࡿ㸪ⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢṔྐⓗ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ከࡃࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࡀ⾜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠕ኱஦௳୰ᚰࠖⓗ࡞ศᯒ࠿ࡽࡢ㞳⬺ࢆᅗࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2. ◊✲᪉ἲ
2.1 ᑐ㇟
ᮏ◊✲ࡢ୺࡞ᑐ㇟ࡣᅜ఍఍㆟㘓࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪ࠕᅜ఍఍㆟㘓᳨⣴ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࠖ
㸦http://kokkai.ndl.go.jp㸧࠿ࡽ⮬⏤࡟᳨⣴࣭㜀ぴ࣭ࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟࢻࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋศᯒ࡟⏝࠸ࡓࡢࡣ㸪ᅜ఍఍㆟㘓ࡢⓎゝෆᐜ࡟࠾࠸࡚
ࠕⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࠖࢆྵࡴ఍㆟ࡸẁⴠࡢ௳ᩘཬࡧࡑࡢ᥎⛣࡛࠶ࡿࠋ௳ᩘྲྀᚓ࡟ࡣࠕᅜ఍఍㆟㘓᳨⣴ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࠖ
ࡢㅖᶵ⬟ࢆ⏝࠸㸪 1947 ᖺ࠿ࡽ 2014 ᖺᮎࡲ࡛ࡢᅜ఍࡛ࡢ඲Ⓨゝࡢ࠺ࡕ㸪ࠕⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࠖࡀྵࡲࢀࡿࡶࡢࢆ
඲࡚ࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟࢻࡋࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡛㏙࡭ࡿ఍㆟࡜ࡣ㸪⾗㆟㝔࣭ཧ㆟㝔࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㸪ᮏ఍㆟㸪ጤဨ఍㸪୧㝔༠㆟఍㸪ྜྠᑂᰝ఍㸪㛢఍୰ᑂᰝࢆྵࡴ඲࡚ࡢ఍㆟࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࡑࡢ௳ᩘ࡜ࡣࡑࢀࡽࢆ᪥௜ࡀኚࢃࡿࡈ࡜࡟⣼ィࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ẁⴠ࡜ࡣ㸪ᅜ఍఍㆟㘓࡟࠾࠸࡚࠶ࡽ࠿ࡌࡵ௜ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ᴫࡡヰ㢟ࡢษࢀ┠࡛༊ษࡽࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋẁⴠࡢ௳ᩘ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪ศᯒᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿⓎゝࢆ඲࡚ࢲ࣮࢘ࣥࣟࢻࡋࡓ࠺
࠼࡛௳ᩘࢆィᩘࡋࡓࠋ
2.2 ᡭ㡰
ࡑࡋ࡚㸪௨ୖࡢ௳ᩘࡢ᥎⛣ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᫬௦⫼ᬒ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟᥎⛣ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋศᯒࡢಋୖ
࡟㍕ࡏࡿࡢࡣ㸪⤒῭ⓗ࣭ᅜ㝿ⓗእ஺ⓗ࣭ᩍ⫱ྐⓗ࡞ฟ᮶஦࡜㸪᪥ᮏ࡟࠾ࡅࡿฟධᅜ⪅ᩘࡢ᥎⛣➼ࡢྛ✀⤫ィⓗ㈨ᩱ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢศᯒࡢどⅬࡣ㸪Ụ฼ᕝ㸦2009㸧ࡸᑎἑ㸦2014㸧➼ࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࡋ࡚
㑅ᐃࡋ㸪ࡇࢀࡽࡢどⅬ࡟㛵ࢃࡿᩥ⊩ࢆ΅⊟ࡋ࡚ฟ᮶ࡿ㝈ࡾ⥙⨶ⓗ࡟ศᯒࢆ⾜࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓ㸪⤒῭࣭እ஺࣭ᩍ⫱࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⤒᫬ⓗ࡞⤫ィⓗࢹ࣮ࢱࢆศᯒࡢᮦᩱ࡜ࡋ࡚᥇⏝ࡍࡿࡀ㸪ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⤫ィⓗࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ౑⏝ࡣ㸪ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶᑎἑ㸦2014㸧࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚╔┠ࡉࢀ࡚ࡣ࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡢࡲࡔࡲࡔᡭⷧ࡞ࡢ
ࡀ⌧≧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−168−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

3. ⤖ᯝ
௨ୖࡢᡭ㡰࡟ᚑࡗ࡚ศᯒࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ㸪ᡓᚋ᪥ᮏࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ᨻ⟇㐣⛬ࡢ㌿᥮Ⅼࢆࡼࡾヲ⣽࡟グ㏙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ⣬ᖜࡢไ⣙ୖࡑࡢ඲࡚ࢆࡇࡇ࡛㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡀ㸪௨ୗ࡟୍౛ࢆᣲࡆࡿࠋ
1947 ᖺ࠿ࡽ 1975 ᖺࡲ࡛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸪௚ࡢᩍ⛉ࡸᩍ⫱ࡑࡢࡶࡢ࡟㛵ࡍࡿⓎゝࡀቑຍࡋࡓ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕᩍ
⫱ࡢ㏫ࢥ࣮ࢫࠖࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡀ㸪ⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡀᅜ఍࡛Ⓨゝࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ౛እⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ㸦ᅗ 1㸧ࠋࡲࡓ㸪ࡇࡢᮇ㛫࡟ࡣ㸪࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕⱥㄒࣈ࣮࣒ࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿ⌧㇟ࡀ 2 ᗘ฿᮶ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ࡇࢀࡽࡢฟ᮶஦
ࡶᅜ఍࡛ࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟ᑐࡍࡿⓎゝ࡟ࡣ࠶ࡲࡾࡘ࡞ࡀࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟㸪Ụ฼ᕝ㸦2009㸧࡞࡝ࡀⱥㄒᩍ
⫱ᨻ⟇࡜ࡢ㛵㐃ࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿ⤒῭ᅋయ࡟ࡼࡿᥦゝࡢඛ㥑ⓗ࡞౛࡛࠶ࡿࠕ኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ෌᳨ウ࡟㛵ࡍࡿせᮃࠖࡶࡇࡢ᫬ᮇ࡟ࡣⓎゝࡢቑຍ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋᚋ࡟௨ୖࡢ≧ἣࡀ୍ኚࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࡀ㸪ࡑࡢ㌿
᥮Ⅼ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࡢࡣ 1975 ᖺ࠿ࡽ 1976 ᖺ࡟࠿ࡅ࡚࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢᖺ࡟ࡣ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕᖹἨΏ㒊ㄽதࠖࡸ᪫ᕝ
Ꮫࢸ஦௳ࡢ᭱㧗⿢ุỴࡀฟࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࡇࢀࡽࡀᅜ఍࡟࠾࠸࡚ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟ᑐࡍࡿⓎゝࡀቑຍࡍࡿࡁࡗ࠿
ࡅ࡜࡞ࡗࡓ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

ᅗ 1. ⱥㄒᩍ⫱㛵㐃఍㆟ᩘࡢኚ㑄ࠋY ㍈ࡣⱥㄒᩍ⫱㛵㐃఍㆟ࡢ௳ᩘࢆ⾲ࡍࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩㟷⏣ᗉ┿ (2015). ᡓᚋ᪥ᮏࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ᨻ⟇࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄽⅬ࡜ࡑࡢኚᐜ㸸࢔࢖ࢹ࢕࢔࣭࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡟ࡼࡿᅜ఍
఍㆟㘓ࡢᨻ⟇㐣⛬ศᯒࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋ࡚ ࠗ᪥ᮏⱥㄒᩍ⫱ྐ◊✲࠘30, 45-70.
Butler, Y. G. & Iino, M. (2005). Current Japanese Reforms in English Language Education: The 2003 "Action Plan".
Language Policy, 4 (1), 25-45. New York: Springer.
Ụ฼ᕝ᫓㞝 (2009).ࠗⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ࣏ࣜࢸ࢕ࢡࢫ㸸➇த࠿ࡽ༠ྠ࡬࠘ᮾி㸸୕཭♫ฟ∧.
ᶫᮏ㖔ᕷ (2014).ࠗ㧗➼ᩍ⫱ࡢᨻ⟇㐣⛬ 㸸࢔ࢡࢱ࣮࣭࢖ࢩ࣮࣭ࣗࣉࣟࢭࢫ࠘⏫⏣㸸⋢ᕝ኱Ꮫฟ∧㒊.
ᑎἑᣅᩗ (2014).ࠗࠕ࡞ࢇ࡛ⱥㄒࡸࡿࡢ㸽ࠖࡢᡓᚋྐ㸸ࠓᅜẸᩍ⫱ࠔ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢⱥㄒࠊࡑࡢఏ⤫ࡢᡂ❧㐣⛬࠘ᮾி㸸◊✲♫.
ᒣ⏣㞝ྖ࣭㟷⏣ᗉ┿ (2015). ᪥ᮏࡢᅜ఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱ᨻ⟇㐣⛬㸸᫬௦༊ศ࣭࢔ࢡࢱ࣮࣭≉ᚩㄒ KATE
Journal, 29, 71-84.

−169−

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(10:05-10:35)602 ᐊ

Examining the Performance ofMultiple-choice 1-blank Partial Dictation Items
SHIZUKA, Tetsuhito (Daito Bunka University)
Keywords: Partial dictation, Multiple-choice, Reliability, Validity, Rasch person separation
1. Introduction
It is generally agreed that dictation is a useful pedagogical technique that taps overall EFL proficiency. In
testing a large number of students, however, partial dictation may be preferred because of its greater ease of scoring.
Taking one step further, one can conceive of, as it were, multiple-choice partial dictation that makes machine scoring
possible.
Multiple-choice 1-blank partial dictation (MC1PD) refers to a technique of asking the test-taker to choose,from multiple options, the word that fills the designated blank in a sentence. For example, the sentence stimulus“Cooking is a wonderful hobby because you can eat what you create” is aurally delivered; the test-takers listens,
looking at its blank-mutilated partial script “Cooking is a wonderful hobby (
(

*

) (

) (

)

) ...”; the test-taker’s task is to decide which of the four options provided – “can’t”, “watch”, “neat”, “eat” –fills the asterisked blank.
Although MC1PD items are already being used in at least one standardized EFL placement test (Shizuka &Mochizuki, 2014), their psychometric nature is yet to be fully examined. This study addresses the question: “Howdoes MC1PD compare with standard open-ended partial dictation in terms of item performance?”
2. Procedure
2.1 ParticipantsParticipants of this study were 76 university students in Tokyo, Japan. They comprised three groups at two
institutions: 42 English majors at university A, 10 English majors at university B, and 24 non-English majors also atuniversity B. The participants joined this study as learning activities in courses taught by this presenter.
2.2 Tests and scoring
The participants took two tests with a three-week interval in between. The first test consisted of 20 MC1PD
items. As stimulus sentences and four options, Listening Section Part 2 sample items of the VELC Test® (VELC
Research Group, 2013) were used. The second test delivered the same 20 stimuli but the students were required towrite, for each sentence, four words to fill in the four blanks.
The first test was scored dichotomously to produce MC1PD score. The second test produced one
dichotomous score and one polytomous score. The open-ended 1-blank partial dictation (OE1PD) score reflected
whether or not the target asterisked blanks were correctly filled. The open-ended 4-blank partial dictation (OE4PD)
score was about how many of the 4-per-sentence blanks were correctly filled.
For a subsample of 35 students, TOEIC® scores were also available as one external criterion.

−170−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

3. Results
3.1 Relationship between OE1PD and MC1PD correctness
When a person tries an OE1PD item and its MC1PD counterpart, the result can be one of the following fourcombinations: both correct, only OE1PD correct, only MC1PD correct, and both incorrect. Table 1 presents the
proportion of each combination summarized across all 76 persons and 20 items. The tendency was that when one
gets an OE1PD item correct, one gets its MC1PD counterpart also correct, but not vice versa, as expected.
Table 1.
Proportions of Four OE1PD-by-MC1PD Correctness Combinations
MC1PD Correct

MC1PD Incorrect

Total

OE1PD Correct

13.1%

4.7%

17.8%

OE1PD Incorrect

40.4%

41.8%

82.2%

53.5%

46.5%

Total
3.2 Item difficulty and item separation

MC1PD and OE1PD item difficulties were positively correlated, r = .50. MC1PD items were much easierthan OE1PD items: the mean MC1PD item difficulty was -0.20 logits and the mean OE1PD item difficulty was 2.50
logits, z = 4.763, p < .0001, r = 1.065 (large effect size). MC1PD items varied more reliably in difficulty than
OE1PD items: Rasch item separation for the former was 2.96 and that for the latter was 2.41.
3.3 Person ability and person separation
MC1PD and OE1PD person abilities were positively correlated, r = .67. MC1PD items separated candidates
somewhat more reliably than OE1PD items: Rasch person separation was 1.22 for MC1PD items and 1.16 for
OE1PD items.
3.4 Correlation with OE4PD and with TOEIC
MC1PD person ability measures correlated with OE4PD measures less strongly (r = .63) than OE1PD did (r= .81), but MC1PD measures correlated with TOEIC total as strongly (r = .68) as OE1PD measures did (r =.66).
4. Discussion and conclusion
Overall, MC1PD items behaved as expected relative to their open-ended counterparts. Difficulty-wise they
were much more manageable, but separated persons somewhat better. In addition, the fact that 20-item-based
MC1PD measure accounted for 46.2% of 200-item-derived TOEIC total variance is noteworthy. Taken together,
these results are interpreted as indicating that MC1PD can play a useful role in large-scale EFL testing.
References
Shizuka, T., & Mochizuki, M. (2014). The development and validation of a standardized placement test for Japanese
university students. JACET Journal 58, 121-141.
VELC Research Group. (2013). The VELC Test® [Measurement instrument]. Commercially available fromhttp://www.velctest.org

−171−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(10:40-11:10)602 ᐊ

Lack of Ideal L2 Selves, Unique Ideal L2 Selves:
University Non-English Majors’ L2 Motivation Focusing on Ideal L2 Self
TAKAHASHI, Chika (Ehime University)
Keywords: L2 motivation, L2 motivational self system, Ideal L2 self
1. Introduction
In the field of second language (L2) motivation studies there has been much discussion on the role of English
as the primary international language in the globalized world and how the new conceptualization of L2 motivation,
namely the L2 motivational self system (Dörnyei, 2009), might well explain L2 learners’ motivation. In particular,
researchers have demonstrated that ideal L2 self, which is one’s idealized self-image regarding an L2, might exert astrong motivational power. The studies in Japan focusing on ideal L2 self can be broadly categorized into four types:(a) examination of the structural relationships between and among the constructs of the L2 motivational self system
as well as criterion measures; (b) investigation of the relationships between the constituents in the L2 motivationalself system and variables in other theories, such as the constructs within the self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan,
1985); (c) intervention studies with the aim of enhancing students’ ideal L2 selves; and (d) detailed qualitative
examination of the ideal L2 self. What seems to not have been discussed enough, however, is the possible lack ofideal L2 self among some learners and the socio-contextual factors that might play an important role in whether or
not students form ideal L2 selves. As Hayashi (2013) describes, some Japanese learners of English have “noidentifiable need to use English in interpersonal communications” (p. 90) and thus might not have any ideal L2 self.
Given these circumstances, the aim of the study was to examine ideal L2 selves as reported by university
non-English majors in rural Japan who might not be very motivated to study English.
2. Method
A questionnaire was administered to 114 university non-English majors. The questionnaire included both
positively and negatively worded Likert-scale items as well as an open-ended question that asked participants tofreely describe their ideal L2 selves. In the presentation, some of the preliminary findings of an exploratory factor
analysis (EFA), descriptive statistics, and the analysis of the open-ended question are discussed.
3. Results
The results of the EFA showed that items focusing on the general importance of English for the future (general
ideal L2 self) and others focusing on specific situations in which English is used (specific ideal L2 self) seemed tovary in distinct ways. Furthermore, items that focused on general ideal L2 self were very easy to endorse, suggestingthat these participants, non-English majors who might not see the relevance of English studies, seem to consider that
English will be important for their future in general terms. In contrast, when items focused on specific ideal L2 self,they were much more difficult to endorse. Another interesting finding is that when the scores on negatively worded
items focusing on specific ideal L2 self were reverse coded, many of the items had higher means than positively
worded items with similar meanings on specific ideal L2 self. Thus, in order to capture the participants’ varying ideal
L2 selves, it might be worthwhile to include both positively and negatively worded items in future studies.

−172−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍In terms of the answers to the open-ended question, 52.50% of the participants answered that they did nothave any ideal L2 self. The type of ideal L2 self that was reported with the most frequency was oneself using
English for business purposes. Furthermore, some participants, although not many, reported unique ideal L2 selves,
some of which are very specific. These include, for example, becoming an anchor and interviewing foreigners in
English and becoming a businessperson and having negotiations in English.
4. Discussion
The analysis of the open-ended question indicated that indeed many participants reported that they did nothave any ideal L2 self. This might be natural in a sense because Japan is a typical English as a foreign language
context where visualizing an active self communicating in English does not come easily. This is also captured bylow means of items describing specific situations in which to use English. In contrast, the Likert-scale items that hadhigh means were those focusing on general ideal L2 selves; these might not be the ideal L2 selves that ignite thenecessary effort and persistence in order to achieve any realistic competence in communicating in English.
While most types of ideal L2 self reported by the participants were general, some were rather specific ideal L2
selves with a career-related focus. This might suggest that ideal L2 selves become clearer and more elaborate when
one has a clear ideal self in general terms. That is, when an L2 learner has an image of oneself pursuing a certain
career and if that career can have the English-related component, their ideal L2 self also becomes clearer. Thus,
participants’ ideal L2 selves might develop and become more elaborate as they become more mature and have more
vivid images of themselves pursuing a certain career. In this sense, in future research it might be worthwhile toexamine in more detail the relationships between ideal selves and ideal L2 selves. Participants live in similar
circumstances but develop different types of ideal L2 selves. This points to the possibility that elaborate ideal L2
selves can be developed in an environment where opportunity for communication in English is limited. Learners andteachers alike can learn from these few learners with elaborate ideal L2 selves.
References
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York:
Plenum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language
identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Hayashi, H. (2013). Dual goal orientation in the Japanese context: A case study of two EFL learners. In M. T. Apple,
D. Da Silva, & T. Fellner (Eds.), Language learning motivation in Japan (pp. 75–92). Bristol, UK: Multilingual
Matters.

−173−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(11:15-11:45)602 ᐊ

Automatic Speech Recognition Errors EnrichPartial and Synchronized Caption to Develop Listening Skill
MIRZAEI, Maryam Sadat (Graduate Student, Kyoto University)
Keywords: Listening skill, Partial and Synchronized Caption, Automatic speech recognition, Error analysis
1. Enhancing Partial and Synchronized Captioning
We have developed Partial and Synchronized Caption (PSC)1, a smart type of captioning that aims to foster
L2 listening comprehension by providing minimal textual assistance. PSC promotes listening to the audio instead ofreading the caption and strives to act as a source of scaffold for training L2 listening skill. In PSC, synchronization isdone in word-level, using an automatic speech recognition (ASR) system, so that the words appear on the screen
one-by-one from left to right and in synchrony with the speakers’ utterance. Synchronization facilitates
text-to-speech mapping, but encourages word-by-word decoding strategy. To avoid this problem, partialization isdevised to restrict the number of words. Partialization makes a principled selection of words to generate a caption,
which includes less than 30% of the original transcript. This selection is based on factors that impair L2 listening
comprehension. Three factors were considered: speech rate, word frequency and specificity. Based on these, thesystem adjusts the captions according to the learners’ vocabulary sizes and their tolerable rates of speech. Evaluatedagainst the conventional full-captioning method, PSC led to comparable amount of comprehension. PSC, however,
could better train L2 learners to cope with difficulties of authentic material without receiving any assistance (caption).
In order to enhance the PSC system, it is necessary to incorporate other features that cause listening difficulty. To thisend, we exploit the potential of ASR errors as an insightful resource for investigating different features.
2. ASR and L2 Speech Recognition
ASR technology has been incorporated into CALL systems mainly for training pronunciation and improving
speaking skill. However, this technology is hardly used for training listening skill due to the errors in the generated
transcripts, which make them inappropriate or confusing for L2 listeners. For captioning to be used in teaching/learning purposes, there is little tolerance for errors (below 5%). In PSC, we avoided this problem by referring to theoriginal transcript and eliminating all the errors.
Although the ASR errors are often considered as a major drawback of such systems, in this study we aim toview these errors from a different perspective and use them as a medium to enrich PSC. While transcribing, ASR
systems come across several problems that lead to erroneous output. Some of these errors can be explained by thecharacteristics of the input. For instance, noise, distortion, high speech rate and lexical difficulties are several of theperceivable causes of ASR errors (Goldwater et al., 2008). In this view, ASR systems deal with similar challenges as
L2 learners often face when listening to authentic materials. Thus ASR errors can be viewed as good indicators of
the problematic segments in speech for L2 listening. If this assumption is true, these errors may be beneficial and canbe accredited some instructional value. To investigate this hypothesis, in this study we undertook a root-cause
analysis of the ASR errors and further performed a comparative analysis between the conceivable causes of the ASR
errors and the factors that lead to L2 speech recognition difficulties.
1

http://www.ar.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp/psc/−174−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍Previous studies have considered human speech recognition where native speakers are compared against ASR
performance in transcription tasks (Meyer et al., 2011). However, we could not find a comprehensive comparison
between ASR and L2 speech recognition. A comparison of the two highlights the joint errors, reveals the differences
and clarifies whether ASR errors can be epitomized as the sources of L2 listening difficulties.
3. Results
To analyze the ASR errors, 12 TED talks were transcribed by an ASR system (Julius 4.3.1). The generated
transcript is then aligned with the original transcript (expert-annotated transcript) in order to find the mismatchedinstances (ASR errors). The errors are then classified into three main categories: insertion, deletion and substitution.
Insertion errors are made when the ASR system transcribes a word that does not actually exist in the speech. In
contrary, deletion errors refer to those words that existed in the original transcript, but were not generated by the ASR.
Finally, the substitution errors are the mismatches between the ASR output and the original transcript. Our analysis
revealed that 6.62% of the ASR errors are insertions, 5.18% are deletions, and 88.20% are substitution instances.
In the second stage, the errors are further analyzed to identify the underlying features. These features are
adopted from the factors that make L2 listening difficult, such as speech rate, word frequency, word length, etc.
(Griffiths, 1990; Bloomfield, et al., 2010). Our preliminary results at this stage revealed a close relationship between
the underlying factors that lead to ASR errors and those that impede L2 listening (Table 1). Moreover, similar trends
have been found for the influence of these factors on speech recognition both for L2 learners and ASR systems. As
the table suggests factors such as high speed of delivery, incidence of low-frequency words and use of short words
are responsible for ASR errors. Our results showed that Word Error Rate (WER) increases as the speech rate inclines.
In line with this, studies on L2 listening problems indicate that high speech rate attenuate L2 listening (Griffiths,
1990). Moreover, incidence of low-frequency words led to higher WER. This factor also largely impacts L2
listening (Webb, 2010). Finally, the analysis shows that WER is inversely correlated with word-length. Yet, for L2
listeners, studies reported mixed results. Longer words may be easy to recognize, but hard to learn.
The results of this study suggest that the ASR errors can identify the difficult segments of speech. The findings
also shed light on improving the selection criteria of the PSC system in order to better assist L2 listeners.

Factors

Table 1. Analysis of ASR errors. For speech rate the standards in (Tauroza & Allison, 1990) was used.
Analysis

Speech Rate
Word Frequency
Word Length

Slow: 23.14%

Moderately Fast: 24.27%

Too Fast: 29.14%

High (<3K freq. band): 23.66% Mid (3K~9K freq. band): 22.76% Low (>9K freq. band): 26.00%
Short (< 6 letters): 24.07%

Medium (6~11 letters): 23.70%

Long (> 11 letters): 20.57%

References
Bloomfield, A., Wayland, S. C., Rhoades, E., Blodgett, A., Linck, J., & Ross, S. (2010) What makes listening
difficult? Factors affecting second language listening comprehension. Maryland University.
Goldwater, S., Jurafsky, D., & Manning, C. D. (2008). Which Words Are Hard to Recognize? Prosodic, Lexical, andDisfluency Factors that Increase ASR Error Rates. In ACL (pp. 380-388).
Griffiths, R. (1990). Speech Rate and NNS Comprehension: A Preliminary Study in Time-Benefit Analysis.
Language Learning, 40 (3), 311-336.
Meyer, B. T., Brand, T., & Kollmeier, B. (2011). Effect of Speech-intrinsic Variations on Human and Automatic
Recognition of Spoken Phonemes. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129 (1), 388-403.
Tauroza, S., & Allison, D. (1990). Speech Rates in British English. Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 90-105.
Webb, S. (2010). Using Glossaries to Increase the Lexical Coverage of Television Programs. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 22(1), 201-221.

−175−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(11:50-12:20)602 ᐊ

The effect of exposure methods for word meaning retention: acomparative study between L1 translation and L2 synonym
KAJIURA, Mayumi (Graduate Student, Nagoya University)
KINOSHITA, Toru (Nagoya University)
GAO, Fei (Graduate Student, Nagoya University)
Keywords: translation, synonym, word, retention
1. Introduction
A substantial amount of research has dealt with the importance of vocabulary and vocabulary learning for
ESL/EFL learners from various perspectives. For example, Qian (2002) focused on the significance of learners’ sizeand depth of vocabulary for reading. Similarly, Schmidt & Schmidt (2014) proposed the necessary sizes ofvocabulary for various pedagogical purposes. Farghal and Obiedat (1995) shed light on L2 learners’ collocational
knowledge while Webb (2005) discussed the influence of learners’ vocabulary on their reading and writing.
Yamamoto (2014) examined memorizing word-lists as one of the most typical learning methods and showed its
efficiency not only for receptive but also for productive knowledge. Fewer studies, however, have been conductedon the effectiveness of learning words which are encountered incidentally in EFL classroom settings. In such asituation, instructors would typically provide the meaning of the new words aurally using either learners’ L1 or L2.
Thus, attempting to simulate a classroom learning situation, this research compared Japanese college-level EFL
learners’ word-meaning retention rates taught by two exposure methods: L1 equivalent words or their L2 synonyms.
2. Procedure
2.1 Participants, materials, and procedures
The participants were 178 students enrolled in a university in the Chubu district in Japan. Eighteen
low-frequency English adjectives beyond the JACET 8000 level were selected as target words. Each word wasshown for 15 seconds on a screen while its meaning was provided aurally through either L1 translation or L2
synonyms. The order of methods was counterbalanced. A recall test was given two times: once immediately
following the exposure, and again two weeks after the exposure.
2.2 Statistical analyses
A two-way ANOVA and following simple main-effect analyses were conducted. Exposure methods(translation vs. synonym) and test administration time (immediate vs. delayed) were used as two main factors, andthe word retention score for each level of the two main factors was used as the dependent variable of the ANOVA.
3. Results
As shown in Table 1, the mean retention scores of the immediate test were 4.46 for words learned throughtranslation, and 2.33 for words by synonym, respectively. Those of the delayed retention test administrated two
weeks later were 2.85 for translation exposure and 1.18 for synonyms. The ANOVA results showed that the twomain effects were statistically significant at .01 and so was the interaction at .05. The results of the simple main
effects turned out to be all significant at .001. Based on the results of the simple main effects, a comparison of the−176−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍four retention scores in Table 1 revealed that the scores of the immediate post-test were significantly higher thanthose of the delayed tests for both exposure methods, and that the average word-meaning retention scores by L1
translation method were also significantly higher than those by L2 synonyms at immediate post-test and at delayed
test. These results suggest that translation is the most effective method for both short-term and long-term retention ofword meaning for the present participants and its presumed population.
Table 1. Mean word retention scores at immediately-after test and delayed-test
exposure method

immediate-test scoredelayed-test score

4.46
2.33

2.85
1.18

Translation
SynonymNote. n=178

Table 2 Results of the two-way ANOVA on time and exposure method as two main factors
Source

SS

df

MS

time

337.9081
337.908
357.405177
2.019
exposure
646.5761646.576
method679.236
177
3.838
interaction
9.559
1
9.559
320.753
177
1.812
Note.* means p<0.05, ** means p<0.01, *** means p<0.001

F-ratiop-value

167.3440.000 ***

168.4890.000 ***

5.275

0.023 *

Table 3 Results of the simple main effects of each level of the two main factors.
SourceSS

df

MS

F-ratiop-valuetime at translation

230.568
422.057
116.899
256.101
406.686
521.439249.449478.551

1
177
1
177
1
177
1
177

230.568
2.385
116.8991.447
406.686
2.946
249.4492.704

96.6940.000 ***

80.7930.000 ***

138.0480.000 ***

92.2630.0000***time at synonym
method at
immediate test
method at delayed
test
References

Farghal, M., & Obiedat, H. (1995). Collocations: A neglected variable in EFL.IRAL. International review of applied
linguistics in language teaching, 33(4), 315-331.
Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading
performance: An assessment perspective. Language learning, 52(3), 513-536.
Schmitt. N. & Schmitt D. (2014) A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary teaching.
Language Teaching, 47(4), 484-503.
Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on word
knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(01), 33-52.
Yamamoto, Y. (2014). Multidimensional vocabulary acquisition through deliberate vocabulary list learning. System,
42, 232-243.

−177−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(13:00-13:30)602 ᐊ

Emotional Valence and L2 Lexical Recall Memory: An Experimental
Study with Japanese Learners of English
KANAZAWA, Yu (Graduate Student, Kwansei Gakuin University)
Keywords: emotional valence, emotional words, L2 lexical memory, incidental learning, recall test
1. Introduction
Affective/emotional aspects have been proposed to be crucial factors in SLA. Although such phenomena as
motivation and learner anxiety have been investigated elaborately, there have been less research on the topic
approached from the domain of second language vocabulary processing and acquisition (memory). In other words,
while the macro-level effect of emotion on L2 learning has been well investigated, the micro-level effect of emotion
on L2 learning has been disregarded so far. Although there surely have been studies related to this interest, theymostly focused on investigating the special characteristics of ‘emotional words’ in bilingual lexicon, leaving few
implications on how emotionality of L2 words has potential cognitive benefit on memory. This study approachedthis issue experimentally from the perspective of emotional valence (positive-unpolarized-negative), which is themost influential constituent of emotionality in emotional psychological literatures (e.g. Bradley & Lang, 1999).
2. Purpose of the Study and Research Question
The purpose of this study is to investigate whether the difference in emotional valence of L2 words havedifferent impacts on incidental lexical memory formation. The following research question was established: Do threedifferent conditions of lexical emotional valence (i.e. valence+ [positive], valence= [unpolarized], and valence[negative]) result in different recall performance of English words?
3. Method
3.1 Participants
32 Japanese learners of English participated in the experiment (13 males and 19 females; mean age = 30.16,
SD = 13.17; mean AOA = 11.31, SD = 2.28; TOEIC score: M = 789.40, SD = 147.47). Most of them were
undergraduate or graduate students of Kwansei Gakuin University.
3.2 Experimental Materials
The experimental words were selected from Affective Norms for English Words by Japanese Learners ofEnglish (JLE-ANEW; Kanazawa, 2015). The words selected met both of the following requirements: (a)imageability score is larger than 5.00 in MRC Psycholinguistic Database, (b) the SD of valence score in JLE-ANEW
is 0.5 or less. As a result, 141 words were extracted, which were divided into three groups of 47 words: (i) valence+(mean valence score = 3.44), (ii) valence= (mean valence score = 3.14), and (iii) valence- (mean valence score =2.54). Psychological software SuperLab® on lap-top PC was used to present stimuli.
3.3 Procedure
Participants took the experiment individually or in a couple. The experiment consisted of two sessions: study−178−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍session and test session. The emotional valence judgment task was utilized in the study session to ensure semantic
processing. A paper-based recall test was implemented in the test session without previous notice (incidental learning
paradigm). The answer sheet consisted of two sections: ‘confident’ section, in which only those words you clearly
remembered are to be written, and ‘maybe’ section, in which you can also write dubious words. To rate the test, twodifferent criteria were adopted; sensitive rating (in which both ‘confident’ and ‘maybe’ words are scored) and strict
rating (in which only ‘confident’ words are scored).
4. Results and Discussion
Since the results of Shapiro-Wilk test showed that some of the groups were not normally distributed (p < .05),
Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance test was implemented for statistical analysis. It was revealed that there
are significant difference between the valence conditions for both sensitive rating, H (2) = 8.34, p = .015, and strict
rating, H (2) = 7.15, p = .028. Further multiple comparison using Mann-Whitey U test detected significant difference
between valence+ condition and valence- condition for both sensitive rating, U = 724.00, p = .004, r = -.51, and strict
rating, U = 762.00, p = .009, r = -.46. Sensitive rating and strict rating resulted differently between valence+
condition and valence= condition, in which only strict rating detected marginal significance (U = 878.00, p = .086, r= -.30). These result ([valence+] > [valence=] = [valence-]) correspond with a previous study with Turkish learnersof English with high proficiency (Aycicegi-Dinn & Caldwell-Harris, 2009), which suggests that the effect ofemotionality of L2 words on memory could not be L1-specific phenomenon.

Figure 1. Emotional Valence of L2 Words and Recall Performance
5. Conclusion
It was verified that emotionality (i.e. emotional valence) affects L2 lexical recall memory, also proposing thatmicro-level (e.g. lexical-level) effect of emotion on L2 learning be a potential field of SLA research to investigate.
References
Aycicegi-Dinn, A., and Caldwell-Harris, C. (2009). Emotion-memory effects in bilingual speakers: A
levels-of-processing approach. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12 (3), 291-303.
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective
ratings. Technical Report C-1, The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida.
Kanazawa, Y. (2015, August). Emotional valence and L2 lexical processing: The making of L2 experimental word
list for Japanese learners of English. Paper to be presented at the sixth joint Foreign Language Education andTechnology Conference (FLEAT-VI), Harvard University, Boston.

−179−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(13:35-14:05)602 ᐊ

How Different is L2 Learning Motivation
between Would-be English Teachers andWould-be non-English Teachers at the Tertiary Level?
MIYASAKO, Nobuyoshi (Fukuoka University of Education)
Keywords: L2 learning motivation, L2 motivational self system, international posture, willingness to communicate
1. Introduction
Admittedly, many Japanese university students are not so eager to learn or use English even in this global age
when English is practically used as the lingua franca. Included are supposedly would-be English teachers ineducation departments. Why don’t they try to develop their English proficiency more aggressively? Is their L2(English) learning behavior relevant to their L2 learning motivation? If so, what is their L2 learning motivation? Is
their L2 learning motivation different from that of would-be non-English teachers? In order to answer thesequestions, this study compared L2 learning motivation between would-be English teachers and would-be
non-English teachers at a university.
2. Method
2.1 ParticipantsParticipants of this study were 88 students at a teacher training university in Kyushu in the 2014 fall semester.
43 of them were would-be English teachers, who took a mandatory course for obtaining the certificate for English
teachers at the secondary level. The other 45 were would-be non-English teachers, who, not majoring in English,
took an English course as a part of the liberal arts requirement.
2.2 Instruments
The students’ perceptions of their L2 learning motivation were investigated with two questionnaires. One
examined their motivational factors relevant to L2 motivational self system (Dऺrnyei, 2005) with 39 6-point Likert
items devised by Taguchi, et al. (2009). Motivational factors examined included L2 motivational effort as criterion
measures, ideal L2 self, ought-to L2 self, family influence, promotion-focused instrumentality, prevention-focused
instrumentality, attitudes to learning English, cultural interest, attitudes to L2 community, and integrativeness.
The other inquired into their international posture factors and willingness-to-communicate factors with 34
6-point Likert items developed by Yashima (2009). International posture factors examined were intergroup
approach-avoidance tendency, interest in international vocation / activities, interest in international news, and having
things to communicate to the world. Willingness-to-communicate factors consisted of willingness to communicate,and frequency of communication.
2.3 Analyses
With these data, correlation analyses were first conducted within the would-be English teachers and would-be
non-English teachers to look into characteristics of their L2 learning motivation. Second, regression analyses were−180−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

performed with the motivational factors, international posture factors and willingness-to-communicate factors to
identify explanatory factors for their L2 learning effort within the groups. Third, analyses of variance or
Mann-Whitney U tests were run with the motivational factors, international posture factors andwillingness-to-communicate factors to compare L2 learning motivation between the would-be English andnon-English teachers.
3. Results
The analyses produced the following results. First, L2 learning effort of the would-be English teachers wasmoderately correlated with their ideal L2 self, attitudes to learning English, and frequency of communication.
Factors that significantly accounted for their L2 learning effort turned out to be attitudes to learning English,
frequency of communication, and willingness to communicate.
Second, L2 learning effort of the would-be non-English teachers was highly correlated with their ideal L2 self,
promotion-focused instrumentality, and attitudes to learning English. Also, their L2 learning effort was moderately
correlated with attitudes to L2 community, integrativeness, and interest in international vocation / activities. Out ofthem, what significantly contributed to their L2 learning effort were ideal L2 self, promotion-focused instrumentality,
attitudes to learning English, and frequency of communication.
Third, there were significant differences in seven motivational factors between the would-be English andnon-English teachers: L2 motivational effort, ideal L2 self, promotion-focused instrumentality, attitudes to learning
English, cultural interest, attitudes to L2 community, and integrativeness. There were also significant differences inall of the four international posture and two willingness-to-communicate factors between the teachers. All of thesignificant differences showed supremacy of the would-be English teachers. Moreover, effect sizes for the
motivational factors were large or nearly large.
4. Discussion
At the presentation, based on the results, we will discuss what relationships the students’ L2 learning
motivation and behavior have, and what we can do to raise their L2 learning motivation and improve their L2
learning behavior.
ReferencesDऺrnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 motivational self system among Japanese, Chinese and Iranianlearners of English. In Dऺrnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (Eds.) Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp.
9-42). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Yashima, T. (2009). International posture and the ideal L2 self in the Japanese EFL context. In Dऺrnyei, Z., &Ushioda, E. (Eds.) Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 144-163). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

−181−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

"#)(
Abstracts





Symposia8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(12:30-14:10)ࣛ࢖ࣇ࣮࣍ࣝ

ࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝேᮦ⫱ᡂࢆ┠ᣦࡋࡓ኱ᏛⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢᐇែㄪᰝ㸸◊✲࡜ᩍ⫱ࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽす⏣ ⌮ᜨᏊ㸦኱㜰኱Ꮫ㸧➉⵹ 㡰Ꮚ㸦኱㜰኱Ꮫ㸧௒ᑿ ᗣ⿱㸦኱㜰኱Ꮫ㸧ᒸ⏣ ᝆభ㸦኱㜰኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 TOEFL ITP®㸪ࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝேᮦ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ືᶵ㸪࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
㏆ᖺࡢࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣜࢮ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟కࡗ࡚➨୍ゝㄒࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊᡃࠎ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚እᅜㄒ࡛࠶ࡿⱥㄒࢆ⩦ᚓࡋࠊᅜ㝿ⓗ࡞ሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ⱥㄒ࡛ウ㆟࣭஺΅ࡋࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆᅗࡿ⬟ຊࢆᣢࡘேᮦࡀồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋ௒ᚋࠊࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣜࢮ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟కࡗࡓேᮦ⫱ᡂ࣭ேᮦ㛤Ⓨࢆᛕ㢌࡟⨨ࡁࠊ⏕ᾭ࡟Ώࡗ࡚⮬ᚊࡋࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࢆ⫱ᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡓࡵ࡟ࡶࠊ኱Ꮫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᩍ⫱ࢆ௓ࡋ࡚ࠊࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣜࢮ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟㐺ᛂࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ
࡛ࡁࡿேᮦࢆ⫱ᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ ᮏ◊✲Ⓨ⾲࡛ࡣࠊ኱ᏛⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢゝㄒࢹ࣮ࢱ㸦TOEFL ITP®㸧ࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡋ࡚኱ᏛⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢゝㄒⓗഃ㠃࡟㛵ࡍࡿᐇែࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࠋ኱㜰኱Ꮫ࡛ࡣࠊᖹᡂ 24 ᖺᗘ࠿ࡽ㛤ጞࡋࡓ඲Ꮫ㒊ࡢ 1 ᖺḟ⏕㸦ᖺ㛫
⣙ 3000 ே㸧ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ TOEFL ITP®ࡢ኱つᶍࢹ࣮ࢱ཰㞟ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊ㔞ⓗ࣭㉁ⓗ◊✲᪉ἲࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࢹ࣮ࢱศᯒ࡜ゎ㔘ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ◊✲࣭ᩍ⫱ࡢ୧ഃ㠃࠿ࡽࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝேᮦࢆ┠ᣦࡋࡓ኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ
2. ඛ⾜◊✲TOEIC ࡸ TOEFL ࡞࡝ࡢእ㒊ࢸࢫࢺࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࡣࠊྛᩍ⫱ᶵ㛵ࡢᥖࡆࡿ┠ᶆࡸᏛ⩦⪅ࡢᐇែࢆᢕ
ᥱࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊྛⱥㄒࢸࢫࢺࡢಙ㢗ᛶࠊጇᙜᛶࠊᐇ⏝ᛶ࡜࠶ࢃࡏ᳨࡚ウࡋࠊ㑅ᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊTOEIC ࢆ඲Ꮫⓗ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᏛ㒊༢఩࡛ᐇ᪋ࡋࠊࢫࢥ࢔ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆศᯒࡋࡓ◊✲ࡣᩘከࡃぢࡽࢀࡿ㸦୚㑣ぞ࣭➉⵹ 2013㸪㣤⏣ 2013 ࡞࡝㸧ࠋ࡞࠿࡛ࡶࠊᑠሯ㸦2013㸧ࡢ◊✲ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡣ඲Ꮫⓗ࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢸࢫࢺ⤖ᯝࢆ」ᩘࡢ
◊✲⪅ࡀከゅⓗ࡟ศᯒࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ⯆࿡῝࠸⪃ᐹࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊTOEIC ࡼࡾࡶཷ㦂⪅⩌ࡢࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺࡀ
⤠ࡽࢀࡿ G-TELP ࢆά⏝ࡋࡓሗ࿌ࡶᩓぢࡉࢀࡿ㸦ᑠ➟ཎ 2013㸪୰ᓥ 2010㸧ࠋ୍᪉ࠊTOEFL ITP®ࡢሙྜࠊ඲Ꮫⓗ࡟౑⏝ࡋ࡚ࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࢆሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ౛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊࢫࢥ࢔ࢹ࣮ࢱࡢヲ⣽࡞ศᯒ➼ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ◊✲ሗ࿌࡛ࡣࠊTOEIC ࡸ G-TELP ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚ࠊᩘ༑ྡ࠿ࡽᩘⓒྡつᶍࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ
ࡓ㔞ⓗ◊✲ࡀ୺ὶ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᏛ⾡ⱥㄒࢆᢅࡗࡓ TOEFL ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓ◊✲ࡸሗ࿌࡛ࠊࡋ࠿ࡶ 3,000 ྡ
࡜࠸࠺኱つᶍ࡞ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆࠊ㔞ⓗ࠾ࡼࡧ㉁ⓗ◊✲᪉ἲࡢ཮᪉ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ከゅⓗ࡟ศᯒࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ◊✲ࡣࠊ⌧ᅾࡢ࡜ࡇࢁ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞࠸࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ
3. ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣ኱ᏛⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊձTOEFL ITP®ࢆࢸࢫࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽ㸦௒ᑿ㸧ᥦゝࢆ⾜࠸ࠊղTOEFL ITP®࡜Ꮫ⩦⪅ືᶵ (ෆⓎⓗືᶵ௜ࡅ࣭እⓎⓗືᶵ௜ࡅ) ࡜᝟ព㠃࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄪᰝ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ኱ᏛⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢᐇែ㸦す⏣㸧ࢆ᥈ࡾࠊճTOEFL ITP®࡜㠃᥋ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ኱ᏛⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࢫࢱࣥ−184−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ࢫ࡜࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕࡜ᩍ⫱ⓗ௓ධ㸦ᒸ⏣㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࠊմ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢᾏእ␃Ꮫࢆᡂຌࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟ⱥ
ㄒᩍᖌࡀࡍ࡭ࡁࡇ࡜㸦➉⵹㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡍࡿࠋ኱ᏛⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ TOEFL ITP®ࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡋࡓ㔞ⓗ◊✲㸦ࢸࢫࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭㉁ၥ⣬ㄪᰝ̺ືᶵ࡜᝟ព̺㸧
࡜㉁ⓗ◊✲㸦㠃᥋ࢹ࣮ࢱ㸧ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊ኱ᏛⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢゝㄒⓗ࣭ᚰ⌮ⓗഃ㠃࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᐇドࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ⏝࠸࡚ศᯒ࣭ゎ㔘ࡋࠊ௒ᚋࠊᾏእ␃Ꮫࢆ┠ᣦࡍᏛ⩦⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩍ⫱᪉ἲ㸦ពᅗⓗ࡞ᩍ⫱ⓗ௓ධ㸧ࡀ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ♧ࡍࠋ◊✲࡜ᐇ㊶ࡢ୧ഃ㠃࠿ࡽ㆟ㄽࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ௒ᚋࡢ◊✲࣭ᐇ㊶ࡢ᪉ྥᛶࡸᒎ
ᮃ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ4. ◊✲ 1㸸TOEFL ITP®ࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࢃ࠿ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࢃ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜㸦௒ᑿ㸧 ᖹᡂ 24࣭25 ᖺᗘ࡟ 1 ᖺḟ⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡟ᐇ᪋ࡉࢀࡓ TOEFL ITP®ࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ኱Ꮫධヨࢭࣥࢱ࣮ヨ㦂࡟ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࡀᑟධ๓ᚋࡢᖹᡂ 16-18 ᖺᗘ࡟ᐇ᪋ࡉࢀࡓ㐣ཤࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ẚ㍑ࡍࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ␗࡞ࡿᐇ᪋᮲௳࡛⾜ࢃࢀࡓ 24࣭25 ᖺᗘࡢ⤖ᯝࢆヲ⣽࡟ẚ㍑ࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ 24 ᖺᗘࡣඹ㏻ᩍ⫱ࡢⱥㄒ⛉┠ࡢᡂ⦼࡜ࡢ㛵㐃࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ
25 ᖺᗘࡣᛶู࡟ࡼࡿᕪ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ24 ᖺᗘࡢ⤖ᯝࡣྜィⅬ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣᖹᆒⅬ࡟ᕪࡀ኱ࡁࡃぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊListening ࢭࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢᖹᆒⅬࡣୖ᪼ࡋࠊStructure ࢭࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢᖹᆒⅬࡀୗ㝆ࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡛ࠊぢ࠿ࡅୖࡣྜィⅬࡢᖹᆒ࡟ኚ໬ࡀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ24 ᖺᗘ࡜ 25 ᖺᗘࢆẚ࡭ࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊྜィⅬࡢኚ໬ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࢭࢡࢩࣙࣥࡈ࡜ࡢᖹᆒⅬࡀ୍ᚊ࡟ኚ໬ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ᡂ⦼࡜ࡢ┦㛵ࡣపࡃࠊ☜ドⓗᅉᏊศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽඹ㏻ᩍ⫱ࡢⱥㄒ⛉┠ࡢᡂ⦼࡟ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿ⬟ຊࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀ
ࡢ⛉┠ࡢᡂ⦼࡟༨ࡵࡿ๭ྜࡶప࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊࡑࡢ⬟ຊ࡜ TOEFL ITP®࡛ィࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⬟ຊ࡟ࡣ୰⛬ᗘࡢ┦㛵ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠋᛶู࡟ࡼࡿᕪࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡢࢭࢡࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊዪᏊᏛ⏕ࡢᖹᆒⅬࡀ⏨ᏊᏛ⏕ࡢ
ᖹᆒⅬࡼࡾࡶ㧗࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢศᯒ⤖ᯝࡢヲ⣽ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ኱Ꮫ࡟
࠾࠸࡚ࡢ TOEFL ITP®࡞࡝ࡢእ㒊ヨ㦂ࡢ฼⏝ࡸࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࡢゎ㔘ࢆࡍࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ࡢ㝈⏺࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㆟ㄽࡍࡿࠋ
5. ◊✲ 2 : ኱ᏛⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟࠾ࡅࡿゝㄒ࡜᝟ព㸦す⏣㸧ᖹᡂ 24 ᖺ࣭ᖹᡂ 25 ᖺࡢ 2 ᗘ࡟Ώࡗ࡚ࠊTOEFL ITP®ㄪᰝᐇ᪋᫬࡟ࠊᏛ⏕⣙ 5500 ྡࢆᑐ㇟࡟ືᶵ௜ࡅ
࡜᝟ពせᅉ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㉁ၥ⣬ㄪᰝࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ㉁ၥ⣬㡯┠࡟ࡣࠊ⮬ᕫỴᐃ⌮ㄽ࡟౫ᣐࡋࡓෆⓎⓗືᶵ௜ࡅ࣭
እⓎⓗືᶵ௜ࡅ࣭↓ືᶵࠊࡑࡢ௚ࡢ᝟ពⓗഃ㠃࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᅜ㝿ⓗᚿྥᛶࠊྍ⬟⮬ᕫ㸦⌮᝿⮬ᕫ࣭⩏ົ⮬ᕫ࣭ດຊ㸧
ࠊCan-Do (Speaking/Listening, Reading/Writing)ࠊᅜ㝿ⓗᚿྥᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ඲యഴྥ࣭ᛶᕪ࣭ᖺ
ᗘูẚ㍑ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ඲యഴྥ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊእⓎⓗືᶵ௜ࡢ୰࡛ࡶྠ୍どㄪᩚ㸦άື࡟ᑐࡍࡿព㆑ⓗ౯್௜ࡅ㸧ࡀ㧗࠸Ꮫ⩦⪅⩌࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⮬ᚊᛶࡀపࡃࠊࡑࡢ௚ࡢ᝟ពせᅉ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊL2 ⌮᝿⮬ᕫࡸ Can-Do Reading/Writing ࡣ㧗࠸ࡀࠊCan-Do Speaking/Listening ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣప࠸Ꮫ⩦⪅㞟ᅋ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜
ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋከኚ㔞ศᩓศᯒ㸦ᛶᕪ㹶ᖺᗘูẚ㍑㸧ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࠊዪᏊ⏕ᚐࡢ᪉ࡀ⏨Ꮚ⏕ᚐ࡜ẚ
㍑ࡋ࡚ࠊືᶵ௜ࡅ㸦ෆⓎⓗ࣭እⓎⓗ㸧࡜᝟ពせᅉࡀ㧗࠸ഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋᖺᗘูẚ㍑ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࠊᖹᡂ 25 ᖺᗘධᏛࡢ 1 ᖺḟ⏕ࡢ᪉ࡀࠊືᶵ௜ࡅࡸ᝟ព㠃࡛㧗࠸ഴྥࢆ♧ࡋࠊゝㄒⓗ࡟ぢ࡚ࡶ㧗࠸ᩘ್ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋᏛ⩦⪅ಶேࡢ≉ᚩࢆ▱ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࢡࣛࢫࢱ࣮ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ⤖ᯝࠊୖ఩⩌࡟ᒓࡍࡿᏛ⩦⪅ࡣゝㄒ࣭᝟ពඹ࡟㧗࠸ഴྥ࡟࠶ࡾࠊప఩⩌࡟ᒓࡍࡿᏛ⩦⪅ࡣゝㄒ࣭᝟ព࡜ࡶ࡟ప࠸ഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ
࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊ㉁ၥ⣬ㄪᰝ࡟㛵ࡍࡿศᯒ⤖ᯝࡢヲ⣽ࢆᥦ♧ࡋࠊᏛ⩦⪅ືᶵࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡓࡵࡢᩍ
⫱ⓗ௓ධ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᥦゝࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ
6. ◊✲ 3: ኱ᏛⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࢫࢱࣥࢫ࡜࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕࡜ᩍ⫱ⓗ௓ධ㸦ᒸ⏣㸧ᖹᡂ 24 ᖺᗘࡢ 1 ᖺḟ࡟ TOEFL ITP®ࢆཷ㦂ࡋࡓᩥ⣔࣭⌮ᕤ⣔Ꮫ㒊ࡢ 2 ᖺ⏕ィ 17 ྡ࡟ࡼࡿⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡟㛵ࡍࡿࣇ࢛࣮࢝ࢫࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㸲௳ࢆᑐ㇟࡟⾜࡞ࡗࡓᛂ⏝఍ヰศᯒ◊✲ࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ఍ヰศᯒ࡜ࡣ┦஫⾜Ⅽ

−185−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(12:30-14:10)ࣛ࢖ࣇ࣮࣍ࣝ

࡟࠾࠸࡚ཧຍ⪅ࡀ⏝࠸ࡿព࿡ࡢゎ㔘ཬࡧ๰ฟ᪉ἲࠊࡑࢀࢆྍ⬟࡜ࡍࡿᩥ໬ࢆグ㏙ࡍࡿゎ㔘Ꮫⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࣇ࢛࣮࢝ࢫࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡜࠸࠺┦஫⾜Ⅽෆ㒊࠿ࡽࡢศᯒ࠿ࡽࠊᏛ⏕㐩ࡣ TOEFL ITP®࡟ࡣ㊥㞳ࢆ⨨࠸ࡓᚋࢁྥࡁ࡞ࠊࡋ࠿ࡋⱥㄒ࡜ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⮬య࡟ࡣ๓ྥࡁ࡞ࢫࢱࣥࢫཬࡧ⮬ศ㐩ࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࢆ
ࠕᥥฟࡉࢀࡓᛮ⪃ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ┦஫⾜Ⅽᡭ⥆ࡁ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᵓ⠏ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢫࢱࣥ
ࢫཬࡧ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ᵓ⠏ᡭ⥆ࡁࡢ୰࡛⮬ศ㐩ࢆྲྀࡾᕳࡃ௚⪅ࡢゝㄝࢆ㈨※࡜ࡋ࡚ᥥฟ࡟⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋ࡚እ㒊㈨᱁ヨ㦂ࠊⱥㄒࠊⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡬ࡢࢫࢱࣥࢫࡑࡋ
࡚࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿᏛ⏕㐩࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᩍ⫱ᶵ㛵ࡀồࡵࡿ᪉ྥ࡬Ꮫ⏕ࢆ㣴ᡂࠊࡘࡲࡾ୍ᐃ᪉ྥ
࡬࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࢆ㛵㐃௜ࡅ㸦ゝㄒ㸧♫఍໬ࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩍ⫱ⓗ௓ධࡀ㈨※࡜ࡋ࡚ᚲせ࡞ࡢ࠿ࢆ㆟ㄽࡍࡿࠋ
7. ◊✲ 4: ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢᾏእ␃Ꮫࢆᡂຌࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟ⱥㄒᩍᖌࡀࡍ࡭ࡁࡇ࡜㸦➉⵹㸧 ࠕୡ⏺ࢺࢵࣉ 10ࠖࢆ┠ᣦࡋ࡚ࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ໬ࡢᙉ໬ࢆ᥎㐍ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᮏᏛ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟ᦠࢃࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ఱࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡲࡓఱࢆࡍ࡭ࡁ࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊ➹⪅ࡽࡀ⾜ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓᩍ⫱ᐇ㊶◊✲ࡸࠊᮏᏛ୍ᖺ
ḟ⏕ࡢ TOEFL ITP®ࡢࢫࢥ࢔ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟➹⪅ࡀᮏᏛࡢᏛ⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡟⾜ࡗࡓ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ࡞࡝ࢆཧ↷ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ⪃ᐹࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡀᾏእ␃Ꮫࢆᡂຌࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟⫢せ࡜ࡉࢀࡿせ⣲ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊⱥㄒᩍᖌࡣᏛ⏕ࡢⱥㄒຊ㣴ᡂ࡜ࣔࢳ࣮࣋ࢩࣙࣥྥୖ࡟㈉⊩࡛ࡁࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗ࡃࠊ๓⪅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
⌧ᅾࡢᖹᆒⓗ࡞ᮏᏛ୍ᖺḟ⏕ࡢⱥㄒຊࢆࠊ␃Ꮫࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟ࡲ࡛࡟㣴ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ㛗ᮇఇᬤᮇ㛫ࡶྵࡵ࡚ᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ୍ᖺ༙࡟ࢃࡓࡿ㞟୰ⓗ࡞ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᥎ᐃࡉࢀࡓࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡀᾏእ␃Ꮫࢆᡂຌࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟ⱥㄒᩍᖌࡀࡍ࡭ࡁࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㆟ㄽࡍࡿࠋ8. ⪃ᐹ
 ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࠊ኱ᏛⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ TOEFL ITP®ࢆ㔞ⓗ࣭㉁ⓗ◊✲᪉ἲࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᇶ♏◊✲ࢆᴫほࡋࠊ⪃ᐹࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ1)࠶ࡿ≉ᐃࡢ኱Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᏛ⏕ࡢⱥㄒ⬟ຊࢆ TOEFL ITP®ࡸ TOEIC ࡛ ᐃࡋᖺᗘࡈ࡜࡟ẚ㍑
ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࡣᵝࠎ࡞せᅉࡀ」㞧࡟⤡ࡳྜࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊྜィⅬࡔࡅࢆぢ࡚ኚ໬ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࢆุ᩿ࡍࡿࡇ࡜
ࡣ㞴ࡋ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊᡂ⦼࡜ࡢ┦㛵ࡀప࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀఱࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛࡸᡂ⦼࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪉㔪ࡀ☜❧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊእ㒊ヨ㦂ࡢᑟධࡸࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࡢ฼⏝࡟ࡣࠊៅ㔜࡞᳨ウࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ2) ゝㄒ࡜ືᶵ௜ࡅ࣭᝟ពⓗഃ㠃࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᵝࠎ࡞Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀΰᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡸゝㄒ࣭᝟ពࡢ
ୖ఩⩌ࡣ㧗࠸ഴྥࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢࡢࠊప఩⩌ࡣゝㄒ࣭᝟ពඹ࡟ప࠸ഴྥࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾࠸࡚ప఩⩌ࢆዴఱ࡟ゝㄒ࣭᝟ពࡢ୧ഃ㠃ඹ࡟㧗ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁࡿᩍ⫱ⓗ௓ධࡸᩍᤵἲ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜࡞ࢁ࠺ࠋ3) Ꮫ⏕㐩ࡣ௚⪅ࡢゝㄝࢆ㈨※࡜ࡋⱥㄒཬࡧⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢᚲせᛶ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚
๓ྥࡁ࡞ࢫࢱࣥࢫࢆ⠏࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋᏛ⏕㐩ࡀእ㒊㈨᱁ヨ㦂࡟ࡼࡾ๓ྥࡁ࡜࡞ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᚲせ࡞ᩍ⫱ⓗ௓ධࢆ఍ヰศᯒⓗ࡟ゝ࠼ࡤࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᡂဨ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࢆᏛ⏕࡜ྠᐃࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡑࡋ࡚࡝ࡢࡼ
࠺࡞ⱥㄒຊཬࡧⱥㄒࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࡑࡢᡂဨ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟⣣௜ࡅࡽࢀࡓ㏙㒊࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂♧ⓗ࡟♧ࡋ⌮ゎࡉࡏࡿ඲Ꮫⓗ࠿ࡘ᪥ᖖⓗྲྀ⤌ࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ4) ኱Ꮫ⏕ࡀᾏእ␃Ꮫࢆᡂຌࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟⫢せ࡜ࡉࢀࡿせ⣲ࡢ࠺ࡕࠊⱥㄒᩍᖌࡣᏛ⏕ࡢⱥㄒຊ㣴ᡂ࡜ࣔࢳ࣮࣋ࢩࣙࣥྥୖ࡟㈉⊩࡛ࡁࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗ࡃࠊ๓⪅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⌧ᅾࡢᖹᆒⓗ࡞ᮏᏛ୍ᖺḟ⏕ࡢⱥㄒຊࢆࠊ␃Ꮫࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟ࡲ࡛࡟㣴ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ㛗ᮇఇᬤᮇ㛫ࡶྵࡵ࡚ᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ୍ᖺ༙࡟ࢃࡓࡿ㞟୰ⓗ࡞ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᥎ᐃࡉࢀࡓࠋ
9. ࡉ࠸ࡈ࡟
௒ᚋࡢᒎ㛤࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ1) TOEFL ITP®࡜㉁ၥ⣬ㄪᰝ㸦ືᶵ࡜᝟ព㸧ࢆ 4 ᭶࣭2 ᭶࡟ ᐃணᐃ࡜ࡋࠊ1 ᖺḟ⏕ࡢ 1 ᖺ㛫ࡢኚ໬ࡢഴྥࢆ᥈ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀணᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊ2)௚኱Ꮫ࡜ࡢẚ㍑ࡸࠊ
඲ᅜⓗ࡞ㄪᰝࠊ3) ᵝࠎ࡞ᩍ⫱ⓗ௓ධ࡟ࡼࡿゝㄒ࣭᝟ពࡢኚ໬࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲ࠊ4)⦪᩿ⓗㄪᰝࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࡢኚ໬࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲−186−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ࢆィ⏬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟௒ᚋࡢⓎᒎⓗᒎ㛤࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡼࡾຠᯝⓗ࡞ᩍ⫱ⓗ௓ධ(࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛᵓ᝿ࡸࡼࡾࡼ࠸ᩍᤵἲࡢ☜❧)ࢆᶍ⣴ࡋࠊᵓ⠏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡛ࠊゝㄒ⬟ຊ࡜᝟ពഃ㠃ࢆ㧗ࡵࠊ኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊࡼࡾከࡃࡢࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝேᮦࢆ⫱ᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩㣤⏣Ẏ㸦2013㸧
ࠕ␃Ꮫ࡜኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢⱥㄒຊʊᾏእ ESL ࡜ࡢࡼࡾࡼ࠸㛵ಀࢆồࡵ࡚ʊࠖ
ࠗJACET Kansai journal࠘
15, 106-124.
ᑠ➟ཎ┿ྖ㸦2013㸧ࠕ㛗ᓮ኱ᏛᏛ⏕ࡢⱥㄒຊఙᙇ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲ ʊ1 ᖺ㛫ࡢ G-TELP ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࠿ࡽʊࠖ
ࠗ㛗ᓮ኱Ꮫゝㄒᩍ⫱◊✲ࢭࣥࢱ࣮⣖せ࠘1, 47-66.
ᮌᮧⱱ㞝࣭᳃♸ྖ⦅㸦2014㸧. ᖹᡂ 24 ᖺᗘ TOEFL ITP®ᐇ᪋࡟㛵ࡍࡿሗ࿌᭩㸸⤖ᯝ࡜ศᯒ࣭⪃ᐹ኱㜰኱Ꮫ඲Ꮫᩍ⫱᥎㐍ᶵᵓ ኱㜰኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔ゝㄒᩥ໬◊✲⛉ᑠሯⰋᏕ㸦2013㸧ࠗⱥㄒຊྥୖ࡟ྥࡅࡓឡ▱ᩍ⫱኱ࡢᣮᡓʊ㉁ಖド࡜Ꮫ⩦⮬❧ྥୖࢆ┠ᣦࡋ࡚ʊ࠘ឡ▱ᩍ⫱኱Ꮫ.
୰ᓥᙲᏊ㸦2010㸧ࠕึᖺḟᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿ G-TELP ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ฿㐩ᗘ ᐃࡢ᭷ຠᛶࠖ
ࠗ኱ᡭ๓኱Ꮫ CELL ᩍ⫱ㄽ㞟࠘2㸪43-46.
୚㑣ぞಙᜨ࣭➉⵹㡰Ꮚ㸦2013㸧ࠕࠗⱥㄒᩍ⫱⥲ྜࢩࢫࢸ࣒࠘࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢຠᯝࡢ᳨ドʊLTM-CALLࢆ⥅⥆౑⏝ࡋࡓᏛ⩦⪅⩌ࡢ㛗ᮇⓗほᐹ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ⪃ᐹʊࠖࠗゝㄒᩥ໬ㄽྀ࠘7, 43-59.

.

−187−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(14:20-16:00)ࣛ࢖ࣇ࣮࣍ࣝ

ከᵝ࡞኱Ꮫ⎔ቃ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒ㹣࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ̾ Ꮫ⩦ࢹ࣮ࢱࠊ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࠊ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗ࠿ࡽࡳࡿ
ࠕ⌮᝿ⓗࠖᏛ⩦⪅ Ѹ㟷ᮌ ಙஅ㸦ᗈᓥᕷ❧኱Ꮫ㸧㕥ᮌ ⦾ኵ㸦ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ㸧➉஭ ගᏊ㸦ᗈᓥಟ㐨኱Ꮫ㸧Ώ㎶ ᬛᜨ㸦ᗈᓥᕷ❧኱Ꮫ㸧ᚿỈ ಇᗈ㸦஑ᕞ኱Ꮫ㸧ᑎᔱ ೺ྐ㸦ᯇᒣ኱Ꮫ㸧ụୖ ┿ே㸦ᯇᒣ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ㸪⌮᝿ⓗᏛ⩦⪅㸪Ꮫ⩦ࡢ㔞࣭㉁࣭⥅⥆ᛶ㸪⮬ᚊⓗᏛ⩦⾜ື
1. ◊✲ࡢ⫼ᬒ Ⓨ⾲⪅ࡽࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡀᡤᒓࡍࡿ኱Ꮫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊྠ୍ࡢⱥㄒ㹣࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆ⏝࠸ࠊࡑࡢᏛ⩦ຠᯝࡸ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ࣐ࢿࢪ࣓ࣥࢺࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸶ᖺ௨ୖ࡟ࢃࡓࡾඹྠ◊✲ࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢⱥㄒ㹣࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡣࠊ㸶㐌㛫࠿ࡽ㸯㸳㐌㛫ࠊ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢࠊࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࠊᩥἲၥ㢟ࢆ኱㔞࡟Ꮫ⩦ࡍࡿࢻࣜࣝᆺࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑࡢᑟධᙧែࡸᤵᴗᙧែࡣྛ኱Ꮫ࡛ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡟␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 Ⓨ⾲⪅ࡽࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢඹྠ◊✲࡟ࡼࡾࠊᏛ⩦ࡢ㔞ࠊ㉁ࠊ⥅⥆ᛶࢆࡁࡕࢇ࡜☜ಖ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡀ㹣࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢᏛ⩦ࡢᡂྰࢆศࡅࡿ኱ࡁ࡞せᅉ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡲࡓࠊẚ㍑ⓗ▷࠸㛫㝸࡛Ꮫ⩦㐍ᗘࡢ⟶⌮ࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡸࠊ୍ᐃᮇ㛫ࡈ࡜ࡢ᚟⩦ࢸࢫࢺࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡞࡝ࠊࡼࡾཝᐦ࡞Ꮫ⩦⟶⌮ࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ㔞ⓗ࡟ࡶ㉁ⓗ࡟ࡶ㐺ษ࡞Ꮫ⩦ࢆ☜ಖࡉࡏࡿୖ࡛᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ㹣࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࡣࠕ࠸ࡘ࡛ࡶ࡝ࡇ࡛ࡶࠖᏛ⩦࡛ࡁࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊ
ࠕඛᘏࡤࡋ࡟ࡋ࡚⤖ᒁࡸࡽ࡞࠸ࠖࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿሙྜࡶከ࠸ࠋㅮ⩏ᙧᘧࡢఏ⤫ⓗ࡞ᤵᴗ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊ㹣࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࡣ┤᥋ⓗ࡞┘どࡢ┠ࡀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀከࡃࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ⮬ᚊᛶࡀࡼࡾ୍ᒙᙉࡃせồࡉࢀࡿᏛ⩦ᙧែ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⟶⌮ࡉࢀࡎ࡜ࡶ⮬୺ⓗ࡟Ꮫ⩦ࢆ⾜࠺Ꮫ⩦⪅ࠊࡘࡲࡾ⮬ࡽࡢᏛ⩦ࢆ⮬ᚊⓗ࡟ࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝࡋ࡚ⱥㄒຊྥୖࢆᅗࡿᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ㣴ᡂࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦ࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊⱥㄒ㹣࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ᭱኱ࡢㄢ㢟࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡞┠ᶆࡢ୍ࡘ࡛
࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
2. ㄪᰝࡢᴫせ ୖ࡛㏙࡭ࡓၥ㢟ព㆑ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࠊⓎ⾲⪅ࡽࡣᏛ⩦ࡢ㔞ࠊ㉁ࠊ⥅⥆ᛶ࠾ࡼࡧᏛ⩦ຠᯝࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊⱥㄒ㹣࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ⌮᝿ⓗࠖᏛ⩦⪅࡜ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ꮫ⩦⪅࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆసᴗⓗ࡟ᐃ⩏ࡋࠊࡑࡢᐃ⩏࡟ࡶ࡜࡙࠸࡚⌮᝿ⓗᏛ⩦⪅ࢆ㆑ูࠊᢳฟࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆヨࡳࡓࠋ ⌮᝿ⓗᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ㆑ู࡟࠾࠸࡚᭱ึ࡟ὀ┠ࡋࡓࡢࡣࠕᏛ⩦ࡢࢥࣥࢫࢱࣥࢺࡉ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ◊✲⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠊࢥࣥࢫࢱࣥࢺ࡟Ꮫ⩦ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᏛ⩦ຠᯝ࡟ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࢥࣥࢫࢱࣥ
ࢺ࡞Ꮫ⩦࡟ᑟࡃࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࣐ࢿ࣮ࢪ࣓ࣥࢺࡀຠᯝⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ◊✲ࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚ࡁࡓࡢ࡛
࠶ࡿࡀࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ୰࡟ࡣ࣐ࢿ࣮ࢪ࣓ࣥࢺ࡟㛵ಀ࡞ࡃࠊࢥࣥࢫࢱࣥࢺ࡞Ꮫ⩦ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᏛ⩦⪅ࡀᏑᅾࡋ
࡚࠸ࡓࠋⓎ⾲⪅ࡽࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ꮫ⩦⪅ࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊࢥࣥࢫࢱࣥࢺ࡞Ꮫ⩦ࢆࠕࡸࡽࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞

−188−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ࡃࠕ⮬Ⓨⓗ࡟ࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ୰࡟⌮᝿ⓗᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜⪃࠼ࠊࡲࡎࢥࣥࢫࢱࣥࢺ࡞
Ꮫ⩦⪅ࢆᏛ⩦ࢹ࣮ࢱࡼࡾᢳฟࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆヨࡳࡓࠋᏛ⩦ࢹ࣮ࢱࡢ୰࡛ࠊ㸯᪥ࡢᏛ⩦㔞࡜Ꮫ⩦㛫㝸࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚࡚ศᯒࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ㸯᪥ࡢᏛ⩦㔞ࡀᑡ࡞ࡃࠊ࠿ࡘᏛ⩦㛫㝸ࡀ▷࠸Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀࠊࢹ࣮ࢱୖࡣࢥࣥࢫࢱࣥ
ࢺ࡞Ꮫ⩦ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࡑࡢᏛ⩦⾜ືࡀࠕព㆑ⓗ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࠿
࡝࠺࠿ࡣศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊᐇ㝿ࡢᏛ⩦ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡛࠶ࡿᏛ⩦ࢹ࣮ࢱࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊព㆑ⓗ࡟Ꮫ⩦ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᙼࡽ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿ⮬ᚊⓗᏛ⩦⾜ືࡸᏛ⩦࡟ᑐࡍࡿព㆑ࡸᕤኵ࡟ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞≉ᚩࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࠊࡑࡢ୰࠿ࡽᑐ㇟⪅ࢆ⤠ࡾ㎸ࢇ࡛࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᮏබເࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࡛࢘ࡣࠊࡑࡢㄪᰝ⤖ᯝࡢ୍㒊࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ
3. ㄪᰝཧຍ኱Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᐇ㊶⎔ቃ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊᮏ◊✲࡟ཧຍࡋࡓྛ኱Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄪᰝᑐ㇟ࢡࣛࢫࡢᐇ㊶⎔ቃࡢᴫせࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ
ᗈᓥᕷ❧኱Ꮫ

ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ

஑ᕞ኱Ꮫ

ᗈᓥಟ㐨኱Ꮫ

ᯇᒣ኱Ꮫⱥㄒ㸦ᇶ♏㸧

ⱥㄒ IIIBe-learning

CALL1

CALL

㹣࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ

ⱥㄒ㞟୰Ϩ

ⱥㄒϨ

౑⏝ᩍᮦ

㺶㺎㺡㺼㺆㺻㺖㺼㸦60㸧㺶㺎㺡㺼㺆㺻㺖㺼㸦40㸧㺶㺎㺡㺼㺆㺻㺖㺼㸦40㸧㺶㺎㺡㺼㺆㺻㺖㺼㸦40㸧㸦ᩍᮦ㔞㸧㺶㺛㺤㺻㺖㺼㸦1400㸧

㺶㺛㺤㺻㺖㺼㸦800㸧

㺶㺛㺤㺻㺖㺼㸦800㸧

㺶㺛㺤㺻㺖㺼㸦800㸧

㺶㺛㺤㺻㺖㺼㸦800㸧

ᩥἲ㸦800㸧ᩥἲ㸦800㸧ᩥἲ㸦400㸧ᩥἲ㸦400㸧

ᤵᴗ⛉┠ྡ

Ꮫ⩦ᙧែ

ⱥㄒϨ
㺶㺛㺤㺻㺖㺼㸦800㸧

㺶㺎㺡㺼㺆㺻㺖㺼㸦40㸧⮬Ꮫ⩦ࡢࡳ

㐌 1 ᅇࡢ୍ᩧᤵ

ᤵᴗእ࡛ࡢ⮬Ꮫ㐌㸯ᅇࡢ୍ᩧᤵ

ᤵᴗእ࡛ࡢ⮬Ꮫ⮬Ꮫ⩦ࡢࡳ㸦୍ᩧᑐ㠃ᤵᴗ

ᴗ࡛ࡢ⮬Ꮫ⩦㸩⩦㸦㐌㸯ᅇࡢ୍ᩧ

ᴗ࡛ࡢ⮬Ꮫ⩦㸩⩦㸦㐌㸯ᅇࡢ୍ᩧ

㸦୍ᩧᑐ㠃ᤵᴗ

࡞ࡋ㸧ᤵᴗእ࡛ࡢ⮬Ꮫᤵᴗ࡛ࡣูᩍᮦ

ᤵᴗእ࡛ࡢ⮬Ꮫᤵᴗ࡛ᑠࢸࢫࢺ

࡞ࡋ㸧

⩦

ࢆᏛ⩦㸧

⩦

ࢆᐇ᪋ࠊูᩍᮦࢆ
Ꮫ⩦㸧

᚟⩦ࢸࢫࢺ

↓

᭷

↓

᭷

ྛᩍᮦ࡟ࡘࡁ

ྛᩍᮦ࡟ࡘࡁ

ྛᩍᮦ࡟ࡘࡁ

ྛᩍᮦ࡟ࡘࡁ

70%

100%

100%

80%

᭷

↓

᭱పᾘ໬
ࣀ࣐ࣝࡢ
タᐃ
Ꮫ⩦ᮇ㛫ෆࡢ
ᾘ໬ᮇ㝈

500 ၥ௨ୖ

ྛᩍᮦ࡟ࡘࡁ
70%

᭷

᭷

᭷

᭷

᭷

᭷

㸦㸯㐌㛫ࡈ࡜㸧㸦㸯㐌㛫ࡈ࡜㸧㸦㸯ࣨ᭶ࡈ࡜㸧㸦㸯ࣨ᭶ࡈ࡜㸧㸦㸯㐌㛫ࡈ࡜㸧㸦㸰㐌㛫ࡈ࡜㸧ㅰ㎡㸸ᮏ◊✲ࡣ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝⿵ຓ㔠ᇶ┙◊✲(B)㸦ㄢ㢟␒ྕ㸸25284106ࠊ◊✲ㄢ㢟ྡ㸸ከᵝ࡞኱Ꮫ⎔ቃ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒ㹣࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ –⟶⌮ࡉࢀࡿᏛ⩦࠿ࡽ⮬ᚊⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦࡬ íࠊ◊✲ᮇ㛫㸸ᖹᡂ 25 ᖺᗘࠥ27 ᖺᗘࠊ◊✲௦⾲⪅㸸㟷ᮌಙஅ㸧ࢆཷࡅ࡚⾜ࢃࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

−189−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(9:30-11:10)ࣛ࢖ࣇ࣮࣍ࣝ

WritingMaetriX ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓゝㄒ㈨※ࡢᵓ⠏࡜ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢゎ᫂▼஭ 㞝㝯㸦᪩✄⏣኱Ꮫ㸧▼஭ ༟ᕭ㸦⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕㸧ᕝཱྀ ຬస㸦ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕㸧㜿㒊 ኱㍜㸦ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕㸧すᮧ ჆ே㸦ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕㸧ⲡⷷ 㑥ᗈ㸦ྡྂᒇ኱Ꮫ ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 Ꮫ⩦⪅ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ㸪ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫ㸪CALL㸪WritingMaetriX㸪R
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᮏࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࡛࢘ࡣ㸪ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢ࣮࢟ධຊグ㘓ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ WritingMaetriX㸦WMX; ⲡ࣭ⷷ㜿㒊࣭⚟⏣࣭ᕝཱྀ, 2015㸧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫྍど໬ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫᵓ⠏ࣉࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢺ㸦Writing MaetriX
Corpus Project; ▼஭࣭▼஭࣭ⲡ࣭ⷷ㜿㒊࣭⚟⏣࣭ᕝཱྀ, 2014㸧ࡢ㐍ᒎ࡜ࡑࢀ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢ◊✲ᡭἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋᮏࣉࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢺࡢ≉Ⰽࡣ㸪ࡇࢀࡲ่࡛⃭෌⏕ἲࡸᛮ⪃Ⓨヰἲ࡞࡝ࡢෆ┬ⓗㄪᰝἲࡀ୺ὶ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫ◊✲࡟࣮࢟ධຊグ㘓ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆ⏝࠸
ࡓⅬ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏࣉࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢺࡣ㸪኱ࡁࡃศࡅ࡚㸪ゝㄒ㈨※ᵓ⠏ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㸪ࢯࣇࢺ࢙࢘࢔㛤Ⓨ࣭ᨵⰋࢢࣝ
࣮ࣉ㸪ࢹ࣮ࢱゎᯒࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡢ 3 ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࠿ࡽᵓᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢ࣮࢟ධຊグ㘓ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆྵ
ࢇࡔᏛ⩦⪅ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢᵓ⠏ཬࡧࡑࢀࡽࢆ⏝࠸ࡓⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢゎ᫂ࢆ┠ᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ᅗ 1. ࣉࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢺࡢᵓᡂ
2. WMX ࡜ࡣ WMX ࡜ࡣ㸪Windows ⏝࡟ Hot Soup Processor 3.3 ࡛㛤Ⓨࡉࢀࡓ㸪ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢグ㘓࣭෌⏕࣭ศᯒࢆ⾜࠺୕ࡘࡢ࣮ࣔࢻࢆᣢࡘࣉࣟࢢ࣒࡛ࣛ࠶ࡿ㸦ⲡ࣭ⷷ㜿㒊࣭⚟⏣࣭ᕝཱྀ, 2015㸧ࠋ グ㘓࣮ࣔࢻ࡛ࡣධຊࡢࡓࡵࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺ࣎ࢵࢡࢫࡀ⾲♧ࡉࢀ㸪ࡑࡇ࡟ᩥᏐࡀධຊࡉࢀࡿ᫬࡟ධຊࡉࢀࡓ
ᩥᏐ࡜ධຊࡉࢀࡓ᫬㛫ࡀグ㘓ࡉࢀࡿࠋ⤊஢᫬࡟㸪グ㘓ࡉࢀࡓ᝟ሗࡣ࣮࢟ࣟࢢࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚ฟຊࡉࢀࡿࠋ

−190−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ࡇࡢ࣮࢟ࣟࢢࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡣࢱࣈ༊ษࡾࡢࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢹ࣮ࢱ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ㸪⾲ィ⟬ࢯࣇࢺࡸ R ➼ࡢ⎔ቃ࡜ࡢぶ࿴ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࠋ ෌⏕࣮ࣔࢻ࡛ࡣグ㘓࣮ࣔࢻ࡛ฟຊࡉࢀࡓ࣮࢟ࣟࢢࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆ౑࠸㸪᭩ࡁጞࡵ࠿ࡽ⤊஢᫬ࡲ࡛ࡢᩥᏐධ
ຊࢆື⏬ࡢࡼ࠺࡟෌⏕ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪᪩㏦ࡾ㸪୍᫬೵Ṇ㸪ᕳࡁᡠࡋࡢ᧯సࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁ
ࡿࠋ ศᯒ࣮ࣔࢻ࡛ࡣグ㘓࣮ࣔࢻ࡛ฟຊࡉࢀࡓ࣮࢟ࣟࢢࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆඖ࡟㸪௨ୗࡢ⏘ฟࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ㸸㸦a㸧⥲ᝅᩘ㸪㸦b㸧ึධຊ᫬㛫㸪㸦c㸧୍ศ࠶ࡓࡾࡢ࣮࢟ධຊᩘ㸪㸦d㸧୍ศ࠶ࡓࡾࡢㄒᩘ㸪㸦e㸧๐㝖࣮࢟ࡢᡴ㘽ᩘ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓ୍ศ࠶ࡓࡾࡢ᥎ᩙᅇᩘ㸪㸦f㸧๓༙㸭୰┙㸭ᚋ༙ࡢ᥎ᩙᅇᩘࠋࡲࡓ㸪ㄒᩘࡢ᫬⣔ิ᥎⛣࡜⣼✚ಟṇᅇᩘࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀᲬࢢࣛࣇ࡜ࡋ࡚ᅗ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ㸪⾲♧ࡉࢀࡓࢢࣛࣇࢆ⏬ീࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚ಖ
Ꮡࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪WMX ࡣᮏ᮶㸪⮬ᚊᏛ⩦㸪ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢᣦᑟ㸪ࡑࡋ࡚ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ◊✲⏝ࡢࢶ࣮࡛ࣝ࠶
ࡿࡀ㸪ࡑࡢỗ⏝ⓗᶵ⬟࠿ࡽᏛ⩦⪅ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢᵓ⠏࡟ࡶᗈࡃᛂ⏝࡛ࡁࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
3. ࣉࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢺࡢᴫ␎
ᮏࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࡛࢘ࡣ㸪ࡣࡌࡵ࡟㸪ゝㄒ㈨※ᵓ⠏ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࠿ࡽ㸪᫖ᖺࡢࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࡛࢘ᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࢥ࣮ࣃ
ࢫࣉࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢺࡢᴫ␎ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿࠋ▼஭࣭▼஭࣭ⲡ࣭ⷷ㜿㒊࣭⚟⏣࣭ᕝཱྀ㸦2014㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫྍど໬ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢᵓ⠏࡬ࡢ 3 ✀㢮ࡢᥦ᱌ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ୍Ⅼ┠ࡣ㸪WMX ࡢᴫㄝ࡜ࡑࡢྍ⬟ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡋࡓࠋእᅜㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢホ౯ࡸᣦᑟ࡟㔜ᚰࢆ⨨࠸࡚ࡁࡓࡶࡢࡢ㸪୺࡜ࡋ࡚ෆ┬ⓗ◊✲ἲ㸦e.g., ่⃭෌⏕ἲ࣭ᛮ⪃Ⓨヰἲ㸧ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡑ࠺࠸ࡗࡓ≧ἣࢆ㚷ࡳ㸪࣮࢟ධຊࡢ᫬⣔ิグ㘓ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ㔞ⓗ◊✲ἲࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡢᒎᮃࢆᥦ♧ࡋࡓࠋ
஧Ⅼ┠࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫᵓ⠏ィ⏬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᥦ᱌ࡋࡓࠋ᪤ᏑࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡣ㸪୺࡟Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢲࢡࢺࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟༑ศ࡞↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚࡚ࡁࡓ࡜ࡣ
࠸࠼࡞࠸ࠋWMX ࡛グ㘓ࡋࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ⏘ฟ㐣⛬ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ኱㔞࡟⵳✚ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪ẕㄒู࣭⩦⇍ᗘูࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆᶓ᩿ⓗ࣭⦪᩿ⓗ࡟ศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪᪤ᏑࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢᵓ⠏ᡭ㡰࡟๎ࡾ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪Writing MaetriX Corpus Project ࡢᴫ␎ࢆㄝ᫂ࡋࡓࠋ
᭱ᚋ࡟㸪ணഛ◊✲ࡢ஦౛⤂௓ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᅜ❧኱Ꮫࡢ 2 ࡘࡢ⩦⇍ᗘูࢡࣛࢫ㸦ィ 75 ྡ㸧ࢆᑐ㇟࡟㸪WMX
ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ 3 ✀㢮ࡢ࢚ࢵࢭ࢖ࢆ཰㞟㸪ᑠつᶍࢥ࣮ࣃࢫࡢᵓ⠏࣭ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉ
ࣟࢲࢡࢺ࡜ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢ཮᪉࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡍせᅉࢆྍ⬟࡞㝈ࡾ⤫ไࡍࡿࡓࡵ㸪ணഛ◊✲࡛ࡣ ICNALE㸦Ishikawa, 2013㸧ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ᮲௳࡟‽ᣐࡋࡓࠋ⩦⇍ᗘูࢡࣛࢫ࣭ㄒᙡࢧ࢖ࢬ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ㸪࢚ࢵࢭ࢖ࡢࢺࣆࢵࢡࡸࢪࣕࣥࣝ࡟ࡼࡿ㢮ఝ࣭ᕪ␗➼ࡢศᯒࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚㸪ᮏࣉࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢺࡢ≺࠸࡛࠶ࡿᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢྍど໬ࡢ୍➃ࢆ♧ࡋ㸪ࡲࡓ㸪ࡑࡇ࠿ࡽぢ࠼࡚ࡃࡿ WMX ᨵⰋ࣭ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ
ᵓ⠏࡟ᑐࡍࡿ♧၀࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡋࡓࠋ᫖ᖺᗘࡢᥦ᱌ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼࡚㸪⌧ᅾࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ཰㞟≧ἣཬࡧᴫせ㸦ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢᣦᑟࢆཷࡅࡓ⤒㦂࣭ᾏእ⁫ᅾṔ࡞࡝㸧㸪ࡲࡓ௒ᚋࡢࢹ࣮ࢱබ㛤ࡢணᐃ࡞࡝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ
4. Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢࡘ࠸࡚ࡢศᯒ஦౛ 1㸸ㄒᩘࡢ᫬⣔ิ᥎⛣ഴྥࡢࣔࢹࣝ໬
ࡑࡢᚋ㸪ࢹ࣮ࢱゎᯒࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࠿ࡽ㸪཰㞟ࡋࡓࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟㛵ࡍࡿศᯒ஦౛㸪≉࡟㸪ㄒᩘࡢ᫬⣔ิ᥎⛣ഴྥ࡟╔┠ࡋࡓ᫬⣔ิࢹ࣮ࢱศᯒࡢᡭἲࢆ⤂௓ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎ㸪WMX
࡛཰㞟ࡋࡓ࣮࢟ࣟࢢ᝟ሗ࠿ࡽ㸪ᅗ 2 ࡢࣉࣟࢵࢺ㸦a㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⣼✚ㄒᩘࡢ᫬⣔ิ᥎⛣ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆᢳฟࡍࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⣼✚ㄒᩘࡢ᫬⣔ิ᥎⛣ࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ㸪㸦a㸧㞳ᩓ☜⋡ศᕸࡢࡦ࡜ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿ࣏࢔ࢯࣥศᕸ㸦Poisson
distribution㸧㸪࡞࠸ࡋ㸦b㸧⥺ᙧᅇᖐࣔࢹ࡛ࣝࣔࢹࣝ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ㸦e.g., ᕝཱྀ࣭ᐊ⏣࣭ᚋ⸨, 2014; ⲡ

−191−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(9:30-11:10)ࣛ࢖ࣇ࣮࣍ࣝ

࣭ⷷ㜿㒊࣭⚟⏣࣭ᕝཱྀ, 2015㸧ࠋᅗ 2 ࡢࣉࣟࢵࢺ㸦b㸧ࡣ㸪ࣉࣟࢵࢺ㸦a㸧ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜㸪⣼✚࣏࢔ࢯࣥศᕸ
࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࣇ࢕ࢵࢺࡉࢀࡓᮇᚅ್ࢆ㸪ࣉࣟࢵࢺ㸦c㸧ࡣ㸪ほ ࢹ࣮ࢱ࡟ຍ࠼㸪⣼✚࣏࢔ࢯࣥศᕸ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ⥺ᙧᅇᖐࣔࢹࣝ࡟ࡼࡿᮇᚅ್ࢆグࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

0

5

10 15 20 25 30

80 100
60

words

0

20

40

60

words

0

20

40

60
0

20

40

words

(c)

80 100(b)

80 100

(a)

0

5

10 15

Time

20 25 30

0

5

10 15 20 25

Time

30

Time

ᅗ 2. ㄒᩘࡢ᫬⣔ิ᥎⛣࡜ࡑࡢࣔࢹࣝ໬ࢆ♧ࡍ౛ ࣏࢔ࢯࣥศᕸࡣẕᩘ࡜ࡋ࡚ Ȝ ࡢࡳࢆᣢࡕ㸪⥺ᙧᅇᖐࣔࢹࣝࡣ㸪ษ∦࠾ࡼࡧഴࡁࡢࡩࡓࡘࡢ್ࢆࡶࡘࠋ
ࡑࡢࡓࡵ㸪㐺ษ࡟ࣔࢹࣝ໬ࡉࢀࡿሙྜ㸪⣼✚ㄒᩘࡢ᫬⣔ิ᥎⛣࡜࠸ࡗࡓⳘ኱࡞᝟ሗࢆ㸪1㹼2 ಶࡢᣦᶆ࡟
㞟⣙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ㸪ᅗ 3 ࡣ㸪࠾ࡼࡑ 120 ಶࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ࢚ࢵࢭ࢖࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⣼✚ㄒᩘࡢ᫬⣔ิ᥎⛣ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ୖグࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࣔࢹࣝ໬ࢆ᪋ࡍࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪࣏࢔ࢯࣥศᕸࡢሙྜ࡛ࡣ㸪ࡇࡢࡼ

200
100
0

Words

300

࠺࡞ಶࠎேࡢ⣼✚ㄒᩘࡢ᫬⣔ิ᥎⛣ഴྥࢆࡓࡗࡓࡦ࡜ࡘࡢኚᩘ࡜ࡋ࡚࠶ࡽࢃࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Time

ᅗ 3. ࢥ࣮ࣃࢫ࡟཰㘓ࡉࢀࡿ࢚ࢵࢭ࢖࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄒᩘࡢ᫬⣔ิ᥎⛣ ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ኚᩘ໬ࡉࢀࡓ⣼✚ㄒᩘࡢ᫬⣔ิഴྥ࡟㛵ࢃࡿࢹ࣮ࢱࡣ㸪ከኚ㔞ゎᯒ࡞࡝ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ࢹ࣮ࢱ
ศᯒ࡟ᛂ⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ㸦e.g., ᕝཱྀ, to appear; ᕝཱྀ࣭ᐊ⏣࣭ᚋ⸨, 2014㸧ࠋ
5. Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢศᯒ஦౛ 2㸸᫬⣔ิࢹ࣮ࢱศᯒ ࡉࡽ࡟㸪᫬⣔ิࢹ࣮ࢱศᯒ㸦time series data analysis㸧ࡢᡭἲࢆ᥼⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪ಶࠎேࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ
࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆࡼࡾヲ⣽࡟ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡤ㸪⮬ᕫ┦㛵ಀᩘ㸦autocorrelation㸧㸪⮬ᕫᅇᖐࣔࢹࣝ㸦auto-regression model㸧࡜࠸ࡗࡓ᪉ἲ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪᭩ࡁᡭࡢᒁᡤⓗィ⏬㸦local planning㸧ࡢഴྥ࡞࡝ࢆ᳨ウࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟࠶ࡿ᭩ࡁᡭࡢㄒᩘࡢఙࡧ࡟࿘ᮇᛶࡀぢࡽࢀࡿሙྜ㸪ほ ࢹ࣮ࢱࢆࢺࣞࣥࢻ + ࿘ᮇᡂศ + ṧᕪ࡜ࡋ࡚ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛㸪ࡼࡾ⢭⣽࡞ศᯒࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿ㸦ᅗ 4㸧
ࠋ


−192−

60
40
60
40

-4

-2

0

remainder

2

0

20

trend

80

-3 -2 -1 0

1

seasonal

2

3

0

20

data

80

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

2

4

6

8

time

ᅗ 4. ㄒᩘࡢ᫬⣔ิࢹ࣮ࢱศᯒࡢ౛
ὀ. ୖ࠿ࡽࡑࢀࡒࢀ᫬⣔ิ࡟࠾ࡅࡿほ ࢹ࣮ࢱ㸪࿘ᮇᡂศ㸪ࢺࣞࣥࢻ㸪ṧᕪࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
 Ⓨ⾲࡛ࡣ㸪ࡇࢀࡲ࡛࡟཰㞟ࡋࡓࢹ࣮ࢱ࠿ࡽ㸪ㄒᩘࡢ᫬⣔ิ᥎⛣ഴྥࢆ࠶ࡽࢃࡍᣦᶆ㸪ཬࡧ᫬⣔ิࢹ࣮ࢱศᯒ࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡿ࿘ᮇᡂศ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ᝟ሗ࡜ࢹࣔࢢࣛࣇ࢕ࢵࢡ᝟ሗ࡜ࡢ㛵㐃࡞࡝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ⤂௓ࡍࡿࠋ
6. ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫ◊✲ࡢࡓࡵ࡟㛤Ⓨࡉࢀࡓ R ࡢ㛵ᩘࡸ࢙࢘ࣈ࢔ࣉࣜࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ⤂௓᭱ᚋ࡟㸪ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫ◊✲ࡢࡓࡵ࡟㛤Ⓨࡉࢀࡓ R ࡢ㛵ᩘࢆ⏝࠸ࡓㄒᩘࡢ᫬⣔ิ᥎⛣ࡢィ⟬ࡸศᯒ㸪ཬࡧࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫ◊✲ࡢࡓࡵࡢ࢙࢘ࣈ∧ศᯒࢶ࣮ࣝࢆ⤂௓ࡋ㸪ࡑࢀࡽࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫࡢ࡝࠺࠸ࡗࡓഃ㠃ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ㏙࡭ࡓ࠸ࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Ishikawa, S. (2013). The ICNALE and sophisticated contrastive interlanguage analysis of Asian learners of English.
In S. Ishikawa (Ed.), Learner corpus studies in Asia and the World (Vol. 1, pp. 91–118). Hyǀgo, Japan: Kobe
University, School of Languages & Communication.
▼஭㞝㝯࣭▼஭༟ᕭ࣭ⲡⷷ㑥ᗈ࣭㜿㒊኱㍜࣭⚟⏣⣧ஓ࣭ᕝཱྀຬస (2014). ࠕࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢲࢡࢺ࠿
ࡽࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࣭ࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡬㸸Writing MaetriX Corpus Projectࠖࠗእᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 54 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍せ㡯㞟࠘, 156–157.
ᕝཱྀຬస (to appear).ࠕᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ᪉␎ࡣ⌧ᐇࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀࡿ࠿ࠖእᅜㄒ
ᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍ ➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍. ༓㔛ࣛ࢖ࣇࢧ࢖࢚ࣥࢫࢭࣥࢱ࣮.
ᕝཱྀຬస࣭ᐊ⏣኱௓࣭ᚋ⸨ளᕼ (2014). ࠕ࢚ࢵࢭ࢖ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟࠾ࡅࡿቑຍㄒᩘࡢ᫬⣔ิ᥎⛣ഴྥࡣ࢚ࢵࢭ࢖ホ౯ࢆண ࡍࡿ࠿̿⥺ᙧᅇᖐࣔࢹࣝ࠾ࡼࡧ࣏࢔ࢯࣥศᕸ࡬ࡢࣇ࢕ࢵࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࢆ⏝࠸࡚̿ࠖࠗ➨ 40 ᅇ඲ᅜⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍ᚨᓥ◊✲኱఍Ⓨ⾲ண✏㞟࠘, 306–307.
ⲡⷷ㑥ᗈ࣭㜿㒊኱㍜࣭⚟⏣⣧ஓ࣭ᕝཱྀຬస (2015). ࠕᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆグ㘓࣭ྍど໬࣭ศᯒࡍࡿከᶵ⬟ᆺࢯࣇࢺ࢙࢘࢔ࡢ㛤Ⓨ㸸WritingMaetriXࠖࠗLET ୰㒊ᨭ㒊◊✲⣖せ࠘, 26, 23–34.

−193−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(11:15-12:55)ࣛ࢖ࣇ࣮࣍ࣝ

“፹௓ࡍࡿ㐨ල”ࢆຠᯝⓗ࡟ᛂ⏝ࡋࡓⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢヨࡳ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢⱥㄒࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ゝㄒຊ࡞ࡢ࠿
ྖ఍㸸㕥ᮌ ᗈᏊ㸦ᮾᾏ኱Ꮫ㸧   ヰ㢟ᥦ౪⪅㸸㣤㔝 ୍ᙪ㸦⩌㤿ᕤᴗ㧗➼ᑓ㛛Ꮫᰯ㸧       ⸨ᯞ ⨾✑㸦ி㒔་⒪⛉Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㸧    ಖᓮ ๎㞝㸦᪩✄⏣኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ≧ἣ࠿ࡽࡢᏛ⩦㸪୺యᛶ㸪ᮏ≀ࡢ≧ἣ㸪፹௓ࡍࡿ㐨ල㸪άື⌮ㄽ ⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗࢆཧほࡍࡿ࡜ࠊάືࡣ active ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ activated ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ᤵᴗࡣ
ᑡ࡞࠸ࠋⱥㄒ⩦ᚓ࡟㛵ࢃࡿάືࡀᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊゝㄒࡢ⩦ᚓ࡟ࡣ୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺┿ṇᛶࡀప࠸࠿ࡽ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊゝㄒࡢᏛࡧࡀ⏕άࡢᏛࡧ࡜┤⤖ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ᡤㅝࠕࢃ
࠿ࡗࡓࡘࡶࡾࡢᏛ⩦ࠖ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࡋࡤࡋࡤぢཷࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ࡛ࡣࡑࡢᏛࡧࡢሙࡢ⍗⑅࡜ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᵝ┦ࢆ࿊ࡋ࡚࠸࡚ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ಟṇࠊ⿵᏶ࡍࢀࡤ┿ṇᛶࡀ㧗ࡲࡾࠊຠᯝⓗ࡞ゝㄒ⩦ᚓ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ ᮏࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࡛࢘ࡣࠊࡲࡎྖ఍ࢆᢸᙜࡍࡿ㕥ᮌᗈᏊ㸦ᮾᾏ኱Ꮫ㸧ࡀࠕ㧗ᰯ⏕ࡢព࿡ୡ⏺ࡢ⾲⌧᪉ἲ࡛ࠖࡢᐇ㊶ࢆ⡆༢࡟⤂௓ࡋࠊヰ㢟ᥦ౪⪅࡬࡜ࡘ࡞࠸࡛⾜ࡃࠋ 1 㐌㛫ࡢྜᐟᙧᘧ࡛⾜ࢃࢀࡓᮏࣉࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢺࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊཧຍ⪅ࡀⱥㄒࢆࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ࣭ࣙࣥࢶ
࣮ࣝ࡜ࡋࡓព࿡ࡢ࠶ࡿάືࢆ⤒㦂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᭱⤊᪥ࡢࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫ࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࠊⓏሙே≀ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫ࣭ࢳ࣮࣒࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⮬ศࡢᙺ๭ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࢳ࣮࣒࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ⮬ศࠖࡢ❧ࡕ఩⨨ࢆㄆ㆑ࡋࠊゝㄒ▱㆑ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣᚓࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢព࿡ࢆ▱ࡿࠋලయⓗ࡟⏕ᚐࡣࠊ1) ⏕ᚐࡢ㐣ཤࡢ⤒㦂ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸≧ἣࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࠊ2)ᮏ≀ࡢ♫఍ᐇ㊶ࢆ⾜࠸ࠊᩥ⬦࡜άືࡢព࿡ࢆᢕᥱࡋࡓ whole language learning ࢆ⤒㦂ࡍࡿࠊࡑࡋ࡚ 3)ⱥㄒ࡜࠸࠺ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ࣭ࣙࣥ
ࢶ࣮ࣝࡢᙺ๭ࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ㧗ᰯ⏕ࡣ୺యⓗ࡟Ꮫࡪࡇ࡜ࠊࢭࣜࣇࢆ⦎⩦ࡍࡿ⮬ศ
࠿ࡽⓏሙே≀࡜ࡋ࡚ࡇ࡜ࡤࢆⓎ⏕ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⮬ศ࡬ࡢኚ໬ࢆ⤒㦂ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ
ࠕࢭࣜࣇࢆぬ࠼ࡿࠖάືࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥຊࡀࡘ࠸ࡓ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ḟ࡟ࠊࠕ་⒪⣔኱Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᏛࡧࡢᵓ⠏ࠖ㸦⸨ᯞ㸧ࢆࠊ
ࠕ⌮ᕤ⣔Ꮫ⏕࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢ Authenticity ࡜ࡣఱ
࠿ࠋ
ࠖ
㸦㣤㔝㸧
ࠊ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠕ▷ᮇᾏእ༠ാ◊ಟ࡟ࠗཧຍ࠘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ᚓࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡑࡢ⏕ᡂ㐣⛬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠖ
㸦ಖᓮ㸧ᐇ㊶ሗ࿌ࢆ⤂௓ࡍࡿࠋྛሗ࿌ᚋ࡟ࡣࣇࣟ࢔࠿ࡽࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࠊ㉁ၥ࡞࡝ࢆཷࡅࠊ఍ሙࡢཧຍ
⪅ࡀヰࡋྜ࠸ࠊពぢ஺᥮ࢆ⾜࠺ணᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ᮏࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࡛࢘ࡣࠊⱥㄒ࡜࠸࠺ゝㄒࡑࡢࡶࡢࢆ┤᥋ᩍ࠼ࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࢆ௒୍ᗘぢ┤ࡍࠋⱥㄒ࡜࠸
࠺ゝㄒᩍ⫱࡟ࠊ
ࠕ፹௓ࡍࡿ㐨ලࠖࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⏕㉳ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ⱥㄒ࡜࠸࠺ゝㄒࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᐃ╔ࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᐇ㊶࠿ࡽࡢࢹ࣮ࢱ࡜ඹ࡟ᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᑡࡋࡃどⅬࢆኚ࠼ࡓⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡀேࡢ⫱ᡂ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㛵ࢃࡗ࡚᮶ࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆࠊࣇࣟ࢔࠿ࡽࡢពぢࢆ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅ⏕࠿ࡋࡘࡘࠊ㆟ㄽࡋࠊᑗ᮶ീ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡆࡓ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋ

−194−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍㸯㸧་⒪⣔኱Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᏛࡧࡢᵓ⠏ி㒔་⒪⛉Ꮫ኱Ꮫ࡛ࡢᐇ㊶౛㸦ヰ㢟ᥦ౪⪅㸸⸨ᯞ⨾✑㸧ᑐ㇟Ꮫ⏕㸸ᨺᑕ⥺ᢏ⾡Ꮫ⛉㸯ᖺ⏕⛉┠ྡ㸸་Ꮫⱥㄒ㸦1 ᖺᚋᮇ㛤ㅮ㸪ᚲಟ⛉┠㸪㸯ࢡࣛࢫ 35 ྡ⛬ᗘ㸪㐌㸯ᅇ 15 ᅇᤵᴗ㸧ᤵᴗෆᐜ㸸 ࣐ࣝࢳ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ᩍᐊ࡜ Moodle ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓ㸲ᢏ⬟⤫ྜ࣭ෆᐜ㔜どᆺࡢᤵᴗࠋᏛ⏕ࡢⱥㄒຊࡸ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛Ꮫࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ་⒪㛵㐃▱㆑ࢆ⪃៖ࡋ㸪ⱥㄒᅪࡢ୍⯡ྥࡅᝈ⪅ᩍ⫱⏝ࢧ࢖ࢺ࠾ࡼࡧ୰➼ᩍ⫱⏝ࡢࢧ࢖ࢺ࠿ࡽ࣮࢜ࢭࣥࢸ࢕ࢵࢡ࡞ࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࢆ㑅ᐃࡋ࡚ᩍᮦ໬ࠋ᭱
⤊ⓗ࡟ࡣࠕẼ࡟࡞ࡿ⑓Ẽࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⯡ᝈ⪅ྥࡅㄝ᫂ᩥࢆどぬ᝟ሗࢆ஺࠼࡚෌ᵓᡂࡋ㸪ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡆࡿ࣑ࢽࣉࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢺࢆᐇ᪋ࠋ
Ꮫ⏕ࡢ⫼ᬒ㸸࣭ᑠつᶍ༢⛉኱Ꮫ࡛㸪࡯ࡰ඲ဨࡀᑗ᮶デ⒪ᨺᑕ⥺ᢏᖌ࡜࡞ࡾ㸪⑓㝔໅ົ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ኱Ꮫ
⑓㝔➼࡟໅ົࡋ㸪ᑗ᮶◊✲࡟ࡶᦠࢃࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡢࡣ 15%⛬ᗘ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ      ࣭᥎⸀ධヨࡢཷ㦂⛉┠࡟ⱥㄒ⛉┠ࡀ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ㸪ⱥㄒຊࡀ࠿࡞ࡾప࠸Ꮫ⏕ࡀΰࡌࡗ࡚࠾
ࡾ㸪ⱥㄒ᎘࠸ࡶከ࠸ࠋ      ࣭ᚲಟⱥㄒࡣ㸯ᖺḟ㸰⛉┠㸦ࠕⱥㄒࠖࠕ་Ꮫⱥㄒࠖ㸧
㸪2 ᖺḟ㸯⛉┠㸦ࠕⱥㄒ࣮࢜ࣛࣝࢥ࣑
ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠖ
㸧ࡢࡳࠋࡑࡢ௚࡟ࡣ㸱ᖺᚋᮇࡲ࡛ᑓ㛛⛉┠ࡢᩍဨࡀᢸᙜࡍࡿ㑅ᢥⱥㄒࡀ㛤ㅮࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ་⒪⣔኱Ꮫࡢሙྜ㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡣධᏛ᫬Ⅼ࠿ࡽ᫂☜࡟༞ᴗᚋࡢ⫋ᴗࢆព㆑ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪኱Ꮫ࡛ࡢᏛࡧࡣ་⒪ே࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢே㛫ᩍ⫱࡜㸪༞ᴗ࡜ඹ࡟ཷ㦂ࡍࡿᅜᐙヨ㦂ྜ᱁࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࡢᑓ㛛ᩍ⫱ࡀ஧ᮏࡢᰕ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛ࡟ࡣ⑓㝔ᐇ⩦࡞࡝ࡢᐇᆅ₇⩦ࡀྲྀࡾධࢀࡽࢀ㸪ࠕᐇ㊶ࡢඹྠయࠖ࡬ࡢཧຍ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ꮫ
⏕ࡣᡂ㛗ࡍࡿࠋᏛ⏕ࡣධᏛ࡜ྠ᫬࡟ࠕᑗ᮶ࡢ་⒪ேࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ➨୍Ṍࢆ㋃ࡳฟࡍࡢ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ᩘᖺ㛫ࡢᩍ⫱ㄢ⛬ࡣࠊ་⒪ேࡢ༸࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⮬ᕫࢆ☜❧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃᡂ㛗ࡢ㐣⛬࡜ぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࢆᗈ࠸ᩥ⬦ࡢ୰࡟఩⨨࡙ࡅࠊᏛ⏕ࡢᏛࡧࢆᙼࡽࡢ⏕ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ♫఍࡜ࡢࡘ࡞ࡀࡾ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᤊ࠼ࡼ࠺࡜
ࡍࡿ࡜ࡁࠊከࡃࡢ኱Ꮫ࡛ᚲಟ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠕⱥㄒ⛉┠ࠖࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍࡢ࠿ࠋ኱Ꮫ㸪≉࡟పᏛᖺ᫬ࡢ㸪୍⯡ⱥㄒ࠿ࡽᑓ㛛ⱥㄒ࡬ࡢ᥋⥆᫬ᮇࡣ㸪኱Ꮫ༞ᴗᚋࡶ⥆ࡃ⫋ᴗே࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⏕ᾭᏛ⩦ࢆぢᤣ࠼ࡓ᪉ྥ௜ࡅࢆࡍࡿព࿡࡛ៅ㔜࡟ᤵᴗタィࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ ᮏᐇ㊶࡛ࡣ㸪15 㐌ࢆ㸯㸧㌟య࡟㛵ࡍࡿᇶᮏㄒᙡࡢᏛ⩦㸪㸰㸧᪥ᮏㄒ࡛Ꮫ⩦ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠕゎ๗Ꮫࠖࢆព㆑ࡋࡓෆᐜ㔜どᆺࡢ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢάື㸪㸱㸧⑌ᝈ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᝈ⪅ྥࡅ᝟ሗࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓⓎᒎⓗᏛ⩦ࡢ୕ẁ㝵࡟ศࡅ㸪࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺୖࡢ࣮࢜ࢭࣥࢸ࢕ࢵࢡ࡞ゝㄒ㈨ᩱࢆά⏝ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㐺ᐅ㊊ሙసࡾࡢࡓ
ࡵࡢ࣮࣡ࢡࢩ࣮ࢺࢆᕤኵࡋ㸪ᤵᴗࢆ⤌ࡳ❧࡚࡚࠸ࡿࠋᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ⏘ฟࢹ࣮ࢱࡸ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡾࡢグ㘓ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪኱Ꮫึᖺḟࡢ ESP ࡢ࠶ࡾ࠿ࡓ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋ

−195−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(11:15-12:55)ࣛ࢖ࣇ࣮࣍ࣝ

㸰㸧⌮ᕤ⣔Ꮫ⏕࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢ Authenticity ࡜ࡣఱ࠿ࠋ
⩌㤿㧗ᑓ࡛ࡢᐇ㊶౛㸦ヰ㢟ᥦ౪⪅㸸㣤㔝୍ᙪ㸧ᑐ㇟Ꮫ⏕㸸ᑓᨷ⛉ 2 ᖺ⏕㸦኱Ꮫ 4 ᖺ⏕┦ᙜ㸧⛉┠ྡ㸸⛉Ꮫⱥㄒ㸦㸰ᖺ๓࣭ᚋᮇ㛤ㅮ㸪㑅ᢥ⛉┠㸪ཷㅮ⪅ 25 ྡ⛬ᗘ㸪㐌㸯ᅇ 15 ᅇᤵᴗ㸧ᤵᴗෆᐜ㸸AFP ࡢ⛉Ꮫᢏ⾡࡟ᑐࡍࡿࢽ࣮ࣗࢫࣅࢹ࢜㸦ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ㛗ࡉࡣ 2~3 ศ㸧ࢆど⫈ࡋࡓᚋࠊ⌮ゎࡋࡓෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ⮬ࡽⓎ⾲ࡍࡿࠋⓎ⾲ࡣࠊࣅࢹ࢜ࡢ୰ࡢ࠶ࡿ㡯┠࡟ࡘ࠸ཱྀ࡚㢌࡛Ⓨ⾲ࡋࡓࡾࠊෆᐜࡢせ⣙ࢆ⡆༢࡞ⱥᩥࢆ᭩࠸ࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛⾜࠺ࠋᏛ⏕ࡢ⫼ᬒ㸸࣭ከࡃࡀ⌮ᕤ⣔ࡢ኱Ꮫ㝔࡟㐍Ꮫࡍࡿࠋ࣭ᑓᨷ⛉ 1 ᖺḟࡢ⤊ࢃࡾ࡟ࠊ⮬ศࡢᑓ㛛ศ㔝ࡢ◊✲ࢆ୰㛫Ⓨ⾲ࡢᙧ࡛ࠊཱྀ㢌࡜ㄽᩥ㸦ⱥᩥ࢔ࣈࢫࢺࣛࢡࢺࢆྵࡴ㸧࡛Ⓨ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
࣭༞ᴗ᫬࡟ࡣ⮬ศࡢ≉ᐃࡢ◊✲ࢆ௙ୖࡆࠊཱྀ㢌࡜ㄽᩥ㸦ⱥᩥ࢔ࣈࢫࢺࣛࢡࢺࢆྵࡴ㸧
࡛Ⓨ⾲ࡍࡿࠋ
࣭ᡤᒓ◊✲⌜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊᅜ㝿Ꮫ఍➼࡛ⱥㄒ࡛ࡢⓎ⾲ࢆࡍࡿᏛ⏕ࡶ࠸ࡿࠋᮏᐇ㊶࡛౑⏝ࡍࡿࢽ࣮ࣗࢫࣅࢹ࢜ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡣᏛ⩦⪅ྥࡅ࡟⦅㞟ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᐇ㝿ࡢࢽ࣮ࣗࢫᫎീ࡜㡢ኌ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊ㹃㹑㹎ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊᩍᮦࡑࡢࡶࡢࡀ authentic ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡓࡔ
ࡋࠊauthentic ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࡺ࠼࡟ཷㅮᏛ⏕࡟ࡣ࠿࡞ࡾ㞴ᗘࡀ㧗࠸ࡢࡀ⌧ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣࣅࢹ࢜ࡢど⫈ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ᏶඲࡞⌮ゎࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺࢆㄞࡳࠊ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ༢ㄒ㸦୍⯡ⓗ࡞༢ㄒ࡜ᑓ㛛⏝ㄒ㸧࡞࡝ࢆ☜ㄆࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ⌮ゎࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࠋ
ᮏᐇ㊶ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊᑗ᮶ⓗ࡟ᢏ⾡⪅࡜ࡋ࡚㐼㐝ࡍࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ᕤᏛ⣔ࡢࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᏛ⏕⮬ࡽ୺యⓗ࡟㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡃែᗘࢆ㣴࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋauthentic ࡞ࣅࢹ࢜ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡣど⫈ࡋ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ
࠿࡞ࡾ㞴ࡋ࠸ࡀࠊ㏫࡟㞴ࡋ࠸࠿ࡽࡇࡑࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀࡸࡿẼࢆ㉳ࡇࡋࠊ㐍ྲྀࡢẼᴫ࡛ᩍᮦ࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ᪥㡭ࡢᐇ㊶࡛ឤࡌࡽࢀࡿࠋᮏᤵᴗࡢཷㅮ⏕ࡣࠊ᪥㡭ࡢ◊✲⏕ά࠿ࡽࠊ⮬ศࡢᮍ᮶ീ
ࢆ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘ᝿ീ࡛ࡁࠊࡑࡢ୰࡟⮬ศࢆᢞᙳ࡛ࡁࡿᏛ⏕ࡀከ࠸࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓព࿡࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
⌮ᕤ⣔Ꮫ⏕࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢ authenticity ࡣࠊ▷ᮇⓗࡲࡓ㛗ᮇⓗ࡟⮬ศࡢᑗ᮶ࢆぢᤣ࠼࡚ࠊ௒ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴ࡭ࡁㄢ㢟ࢆㄆ㆑ࡋࠊᐇ㊶࡛ࡁࡿᏛ⩦ᙧែ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࡛࢘ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢᤵ
ᴗࡢྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳࢆ⤂௓ࡋࠊᕤᏛࢆᑓᨷࡍࡿᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ୺యⓗ࡞ពᚿࡀ཯ᫎࡉࢀࡿᏛ⩦⎔ቃࡸᩍᮦ࡜ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢ࠿ࠊࡲࡓ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᣦᑟἲࡀ࠶ࡾᚓࡿࡢ࠿ࢆၥ࠸ࡓ࠸ࠋ

−196−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍㸱㸧▷ᮇᾏእ༠ാ◊ಟ࡟ࠕཧຍࠖࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ᚓࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡑࡢ⏕ᡂ㐣⛬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᪩✄⏣኱Ꮫே㛫⛉Ꮫ㒊࡛ࡢᐇ㊶౛㸦ヰ㢟ᥦ౪⪅㸸ಖᓮ๎㞝㸧
㸦2001 ᖺᗘ࠿ࡽ 15 ᖺ㛫ᐇ᪋㸧ᑐ㇟Ꮫ⏕㸸㸱ᖺ⏕ࡀẖᖺ 10 ྡ⛬ᗘཧຍ ࡜ࡁ࡟㸲ᖺ⏕ࠊ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕ࡶຍࢃࡿ⛉┠ྡ㸸ᑓ㛛ࢮ࣑ᒚಟ⏕ 㸦⩣㸲ᖺḟ࡟ࡣ඲ဨࠕ༞ᴗ◊✲ࠖ࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴ㸧ᤵᴗෆᐜ㸸⡿ᅜ༠ᐃᰯ࡛ࡢ㸷᭶ࡢ 10 ᪥㛫࡛௨ୗࡢࡇ࡜ࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ     ༠ᐃᰯࡣࠊCase Western Reserve University (Cleveland, OH)  㸯㸧᪥ᮏᩥ໬ࡢⱥㄒࣉࣞࢮࣥ  㸰㸧᪥ᮏㄒࢡࣛࢫ࡟࡚ TA  㸱㸧Show & Tell㸦ᒎ♧࡜ᐇ㊶㸧 㸲㸧ᑠ୰ᏛᰯࡢぢᏛ  㸳㸧⌧ᆅ኱Ꮫࡢᤵᴗࢆ⫈ㅮ   㸴㸧Ꮫ⏕ࡢࡳࡢ஺ὶ఍  㸵㸧Ṕྐⓗ࡞᪋タࠊᅵᆅࡢࢶ࢔࣮ཧຍ㸦ಶูάື㸧  㸶㸧⡿ᅜ㛤ᣅ᫬ࡢ⏕άࡢయ㦂  㸷㸧”Thanksgiving dinner” ࡢయ㦂  10㸧Dartmouth College ࡛ࡢ᪥ᮏㄒࠊᩥ໬ࡢᤵᴗཧຍ㸦ᕼᮃ⪅㸧11) Major League Baseball ほᡓ㸦ᕼᮃ⪅㸧Ꮫ⏕ࡢ⫼ᬒ㸸࣭㸲ᖺḟ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡢࡲࡲࠕ༞ᴗ◊✲ࠖ࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴࠋ      ࣭༞ᴗᚋ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡀ୍⯡௻ᴗ࡟ᑵ⫋ࡋࠊ㸯ࠊ㸰ྡࡀ኱Ꮫ㝔࡟㐍Ꮫࡍࡿࠋ ࠕ㌿ᆅ⒪ἲ࡛ࠖࡶ࠶ࡿࠊᾏእ◊ಟࡣࠊᴦࡋࡃࠊཝࡋ࠸Ꮫࡧࡢᐇ㊶࡛࠶ࡾࠊ༠ാ࡛⾜࠺┠ⓗࢆᣢࡗࡓάື࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊẖᖺ㸷᭶ࡢᐇ᪋ࡢ஦๓ࡢ‽ഛ࡜ࡋ࡚㸵ࠊ㸶᭶ࡢ㸰ࣨ᭶ࢆ࠿ࡅࡿࠋ༠ᐃᰯ࡟࡚
ࣉࣞࢮࣥࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ᪥ᮏⓗ࡞ࢺࣆࢵࢡࡢ㑅ᐃࠊྲྀᮦࠊయ㦂ࠊᫎീ⦅㞟సᴗ࡞࡝ࢆ㸱ࡘࡢ⌜㸦㸱ྡ๓ᚋ㸭⌜㸧࡟࡚ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳࠊᢸᙜᩍဨࡢ❧ࡕ఍࠸ࡢࡶ࡜࡟㸶᭶ᮎ࡟Ⓩᰯࡋ࡚㞟୰ⓗ࡟ⱥㄒࣉࣞࢮࣥࡢ⦎
⩦ࢆ⾜࠺ࠋಟṇᚋࡶ࠺୍ᗘࣉࣞࢮࣥࡢ⦎⩦ࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡇࡢ◊ಟ࡛ࡣࠊཎ๎ⓗ࡟⌧ᆅ㞟ྜࠊ⌧ᆅゎᩓࡀᇶᮏ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ᦚ஌ࡋࡓ࡜ࡁ࠿ࡽࠊⱥㄒ⎔ቃ࡛ࡢάືࡀጞࡲࡿࠋ⌧ᆅࡢ࣍ࢸࣝ࡟ࡣ⏨ዪ୍ู࡛㒊ᒇ㸱ࠥ㸳ྡࡢᐟἩ࡜࡞ࡿࠋࠕ༠ാࠖάືࡣࠊࡲࡎ⮬ศࡓࡕࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕࡛㐍⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ‽ഛᮇ㛫ࠊ10 ᪥㛫ࡢ⌧ᆅ⁫ᅾᮇ㛫ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࠊᚲࡎ⮬ᡃࡢ⾪✺ࡀ㉳ࡁࠊ୺ᙇࠊ㛵ಀಟ᚟ࠊྜពᙧᡂࠊጇ༠ࠊⴱ⸨࡞࡝ࡦ࡜࡜
ࡾࡢᐇ㊶ࠊࡑࡋ࡚⣲ࡢ⮬ศ࡜ྥࡁྜࢃ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡣࡸࡗ࡚࠸ࡅ࡞࠸≧ἣࢆẖ᪥⤒㦂ࡍࡿࠋᮏ◊ಟ࡛ࡣࠊⱥㄒ⎔ቃࢆᇶ┙࡜ࡋࡓάືࡢ┠ⓗࡀ᫂☜࡛࠶ࡾࠊఏ࠼ࡿ┦ᡭ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡢάື࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠕ┿ṇࠖ࡞≧ἣ࡬ࡢཧຍࡀ㐍⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ୰࡛ࠊ᪥ᖖࡢᏛࡧࡀ⏕ࡁࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡟ᚎࠎ࡟Ẽ࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡃࠋ ⌧ᆅᰯ࡛ࡣࠊάື࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡇ࡜ࡢከࡃࡀࠕ✺↛ࠖࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢሙ࡛ࡢ㐺ษ࡞ᑐᛂࡀせồࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ㐃⥆࡛࠶ࡿࠋᘬ⋡ᩍဨࡣ≉࡟ຓࡅ࡞࠸ࠋ஦๓஦ᚋࡢⱥㄒຊ ᐃࠊ஦๓ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࠊ஦
ᚋࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࠊ஦ᚋࡢ㠃ㄯ࡛⯆࿡῝࠸ࢹ࣮ࢱࡀẖᖺ⵳✚ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࠊⓎ⾲ᙜ᪥୍㒊ࢆ⤂௓ࡍࡿࠋⓎ⾲᫬࡟ࡣࠊࢹ࣮ࢱࢆࣇࣟ࢔࡜ࡶ࡟᳨ドࡋࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᾏእ◊ಟ࡟࡚ࠊ࠸࠿࡟୺యⓗ࡞Ꮫࡧࡀ⏕ᡂࡉࢀࡿᏛ⩦⎔ቃࠊᣦᑟἲࡀ࠶ࡾᚓࡿࡢ࠿ࢆၥ࠸ࡓ࠸ࠋ

−197−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(13:00-14:40)ࣛ࢖ࣇ࣮࣍ࣝ

እᅜㄒάື࡟࠾ࡅࡿẼ࡙ࡁ
㸫Ⓨ㐩ẁ㝵ࢆព㆑ࡋࡓ⩦ᚓࢆ┠ᣦࡋ࡚㸫஭⊁ ᖾ⏨㸦኱㜰ᕷ❧኱Ꮫ㸧ᩧ⸨ ೔Ꮚ㸦㛵すᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ㸦㠀㸧㸧⚟ཎ ྐᏊ㸦ࣀ࣮ࢺࣝࢲ࣒ΎᚰዪᏊ኱Ꮫ㸧ከ⏣ ⋹Ꮚ㸦኱㜰ᩍ⫱኱Ꮫ㸦㠀㸧㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 Ẽ࡙ࡁ㸪ᬯ♧ⓗ▱㆑㸪ᑠᏛᰯ㸪እᅜㄒάື㸪␗ᩥ໬⌮ゎ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᑠᏛᰯࡢእᅜㄒάື࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊẕㄒࡢ᪥ᮏㄒࢆ௓ࡋ࡚ព࿡࡜ᙧᘧࢆ⋓ᚓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ➨஧ゝㄒ࡟
ゐࢀࡿ୰࡛᪂ࡓ࡟ఱ࠿ࢆⓎぢࡍࡿ᫬ࠊẼ࡙ࡁࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢẼ࡙ࡁ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࠊࡑࡢᙺ๭࡜ຠᯝ࡟
ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼ࡿࠋ ࡇ࡜ࡤࢆ⮬↛࡞ᙧ࡛㌟࡟௜ࡅࡉࡏࡼ࠺࡜ጞࡲࡗࡓᑠᏛᰯࡢእᅜㄒάື࡛ࡣࠊᵝࠎ࡞ሙ㠃࡛ࠕẼ࡙ࡁࠖ࡜࠸࠺⾲⌧ࡀ౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࡛࢘ࡣࠊẼ࡙ࡁࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄆ▱㐣⛬࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ᴫほࡋࡓᚋࠊ 㡢ኌ࡜ព࿡ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ᑐࡍࡿẼ࡙ࡁࡸࠊᩥᏐ࡜㡢㡩ࡢ㛵ಀ࡟㛵ࡍࡿẼ࡙ࡁ ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥάືࡢ
୰࡛⏕ࡲࢀࡿࠊ⮬ศࡸ௚⪅ࡢឤ᝟ࡸᛮ࠸࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᪂ࡋ࠸Ⓨぢࡸࠊఏ㐩ࡢ㞴ࡋࡉ➼ࡢከᵝ࡞Ẽ࡙ࡁ ࡇ࡜ࡤࡢ⫼ᬒ࡟࠶ࡿᩥ໬࡟㛵ࢃࡿẼ࡙ࡁ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊලయ౛ࢆ♧ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋ
2. ⬻⛉Ꮫ࠿ࡽぢࡓẼ࡙ࡁ
2.1Ẽ࡙ࡁࡢ✀㢮 Ẽ࡙ࡁࢆᨭ࠼ࡿཎ⌮࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ1) ඲యീࡀぢ࠼ࡿ 2) ศ㢮ࡍࡿ 3) ➽ࡀ㏻ࡿ 4) ✵㛫㛵ಀࢆᢕᥱࡍࡿ 5)௙⤌ࡳࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿ 6) つ๎ࡀぢࡘ࠿ࡿ ࡢ㸴ࡘࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ㸦ᒣ㫽, 2002㸧ࠋ
2.2ព㆑ⓗ㐣⛬࡛⏕ࡌࡿẼ࡙ࡁ Ẽ࡙ࡁ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࡣࠊḟࡢᅗ࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᑐ㇟࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ὀពࡀྥࡁࠊព㆑࡟ୖࡾࠊࡑࡢᚋࠊ
ୖᥖࡢཎ⌮࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚Ẽ࡙ࡁࡀ㉳ࡇࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ὀព Ѝ ព㆑ Ѝ Ẽ࡙ࡁ

2.3 ↓ព㆑ⓗ㐣⛬࡛⏕ࡌࡿẼ࡙ࡁ Ẽ࡙ࡁ࡟ࡣࠊ࠶ࡲࡾ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠊࡶ࠺㸯ࡘࡢẼ࡙ࡁࡀ࠶ࡿࠋලయ౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࣭࣊ࣞࣥࢣ࣮ࣛࡀࠊ
ࢧࣜࣂࣥඛ⏕࡜ࡢࡸࡾྲྀࡾ࠿ࡽࠊ≀࡟ࡣⓙྡ๓ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡟Ẽ࡙ࡃ஦౛ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ඲యࡢ
⛛ᗎࢆಖ࡜࠺࡜ࡍࡿ⬻ࡀࠊẼ࡙ࡁࡢࢫ࢖ࢵࢳࢆධࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᐇ⌧ࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
⬻࡟ഛࢃࡿཎ⌮Ѝ࢚ࣥࢺࣟࣆ࣮ࠊ⮬ᕫ⤌⧊໬ЍẼ࡙ࡁ ࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊᬑẁࡢᏛ⩦࡛㉳ࡇࡿẼ࡙ࡁ࡜ࠊ㛗ᮇ㛫࡟ரࡿᏛ⩦࡛⏕ࡌࡿẼ࡙ࡁࡀࠊᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࡢゝㄒᏛ⩦࡟࠾ࡅࡿᵝࠎ࡞⌮ゎࢆຓࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜᥎ᐹࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊẼ࡙ࡁࡣࠊ᫂♧ⓗ▱㆑ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊᬯ♧ⓗ▱㆑ࡶ㛵ಀࡋࠊ≉࡟ࠊ↓ព㆑ⓗ࡞㐣⛬࡛⏕ࡌࡿẼ࡙ࡁ࡜ᐦ᥋࡟㛵ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

−198−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

3. 㡢࡜ᩥᏐ࡟ᑐࡍࡿẼ࡙ࡁ
3.1 ὀព࠿ࡽẼ࡙ࡁ࡬ ㏻ᖖࠊᏊ࡝ࡶࡣ⏕ࡲࢀ࡚࠿ࡽࢃࡎ࠿ᩘᖺࡢ㛫࡟ࠊከ㔞ࡢ࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺࢆ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ゝㄒࢆ㌟࡟௜
ࡅ࡚࠸ࡃࠋẕぶࡀᏊ࡝ࡶ࡟ㄒࡾ࠿ࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ┠ࡢ๓ࡢ஦㇟࡜㡢࡟ὀពࢆྥࡅࠊ㡢࡜ព࿡ࡢ㛵ಀࢆ⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋࡇࡢࠕὀពࠖ࡜ࠕẼ࡙ࡁࠖࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ゝㄒ⋓ᚓࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛⾜ࡃࠋ➨஧ゝㄒࡢᏛ⩦ࡢ㐣⛬࡛ࡶྠᵝ࡟ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀࠊධࡗ࡚ࡃࡿゝㄒ᝟ሗ㸦㡢ኌ㸧࡟Ẽ࡙ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡘࡲࡾࡑࡇ࡟ὀព (attention)ࢆྥࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡾࠊⓎぢ㸦detection㸧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚➨஧ゝㄒ⩦ᚓࡢ᭱ึࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚᭱ࡶ㔜せ࡞Ẽ࡙ࡁ㸦noticing㸧ࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࡿ㸦Schmidt, 2001㸧ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊⱥㄒᅪࡢᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࡣࠊᑵᏛ๓࡟ Phonemic
awareness ࡢᣦᑟࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜࡛ព㆑ⓗ࡟㡢࡟ὀ┠ࡉࡏࠊࢤ࣮࣒ࡸࡇ࡜ࡤ㐟ࡧࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚༢ㄒࡢ㡢㡩ᵓ㐀ࢆឤぬⓗ࡟㌟࡟௜ࡅ࡚࠸ࡃࠋPhonemic awareness ࡣ኱ࡁࡃศࡅ࡚ࠊ1) Rhyming 2) Alliteration 3) Syllables andOnsets/Rimes 4) Blending 5) Location 6) Segmentation 7) Manipulation ࡢ 7 ẁ㝵࠶ࡾ㸦Adams,1990㸧
ࠊㄞࡳࡢ๓ẁ㝵࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ㡢㡩ᵓ㐀ࡢ࣮ࣝࣝ࡟Ẽ࡙࠿ࡏࠊࡑࡢᚋࡢㄞࡳ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡆࡿࠋព㆑ⓗ࡞㡢࡬ࡢὀពࡀࡇ࡜ࡤ࡬
ࡢẼ࡙ࡁࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡍࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3.2 㡢࡜ᩥᏐࡢ⤖ࡧࡘࡁ Phonemic awareness ࡛⣲ᆅࢆసࡗࡓᚋ࡟ࠊ ⱥㄒᅪࡢᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࡀ㡢ኌ࠿ࡽᩥᏐ࡬⛣⾜ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ᑟධࡉࢀࡿࡢࡀࣇ࢛ࢽࢵࢡࢫ࡛࠶ࡿࠋゝㄒ⩦ᚓࡣࠊ1) ព࿡ 2) 㡢ኌ 3) ᩥᏐ ࡢ㡰࡛⾜ࢃࢀ㸦ᯇ㤶ࠊ2003㸧
ࠊࡇࡢ2)࠿ࡽ 3)࡬ࡢ⛣⾜ࡢ㝿࡟ࠊࣇ࢛ࢽࢵࢡࢫࡀᑟධࡉࢀ㡢࡜ᩥᏐࢆ⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡼࡾᙉᅛ࡞ㄒᙡ
Ꮫ⩦ࡀಁ㐍ࡉࢀグ᠈࡬࡜ᐃ╔ࡍࡿࠋ ➨஧ゝㄒ⩦ᚓ࡛ࡣࠊ࠸ࡁ࡞ࡾࣇ࢛ࢽࢵࢡࢫࡢᵝࠎ࡞࣮ࣝࣝࡢㄝ᫂ࢆࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊ ⱥㄒࡢ㡢㡩ᵓ㐀ࢆ⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸Ꮚ࡝ࡶࡓࡕ࡟ࡣ኱ࡁ࡞㈇ᢸ࡜࡞ࡿࡀࠊ࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺࢆ୚࠼ࡿ㝿࡟ࠊᩥᏐࢆᥦ♧ࡋὀពࢆಁࡍࡇ
࡜࡛Ẽ࡙ࡁࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࢀࡤࠊ↓ព࿡࡞㡢ࡢࡘ࡞ࡀࡾࢆ⌮ゎྍ⬟࡞࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺ࡟ኚ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡿࠋ᪩ᮇⱥㄒࡢሙ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᩥᏐᣦᑟ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣ㈶ྰ୧ㄽ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ⩦ᚓࢆಁࡍ࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺࡢ᮲௳ࡢ୍ࡘ࡟㡢ኌ࡜ᩥᏐࡢྠ᫬࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸦ᮧ㔝஭, 2006㸧ࠊึᮇࡢẁ㝵࡛ᩥᏐ࡟᥋ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᮃࡲࡋ࠸
࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ㸦ᒸ࣭㔠᳃, 2007㸧ࠋ
3.3 Ẽ࡙ࡁࢆಁࡍࣇ࢛ࢽࢵࢡࢫࡢάື
 ᮏࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࡛࢘ࡣࠊ㡢࡟ὀពࢆྥࡅࠊẼ࡙ࡁࢆಁࡍάືࡢ୰࠿ࡽࠊ1) ༑ศ࡞㡢ኌ࡟ゐࢀࡿάື  2) ࢔ࣝࣇ࢓࣋ࢵࢺ࡟ぶࡋࡴάື 3 )ᩥᏐࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞㡢ࢆ▱ࡿάື ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⤂௓ࡍࡿࠋ࠸ࡎࢀࡶ኱ษ࡞ࡢ
ࡣࠊᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕ࡟༑ศ࡞࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࢀࡀὀពࢆಁࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕ⮬㌟
ࡀẼ࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
4. ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥάື࡟࠾ࡅࡿẼ࡙ࡁ
4.1 ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥάື࡜ࡣ
እᅜㄒάື࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡬ࡢ✚ᴟⓗ࡞ែᗘࢆ㌟࡟௜ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ
࡛ゝ࠺ែᗘ࡜ࡣࠊእᅜㄒࢆὀព῝ࡃ⪺࠸࡚┦ᡭࡢᛮ࠸ࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋࡓࡾࠊ௚⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⮬ศࡢᛮ࠸ࢆఏ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ㞴ࡋࡉࡸ኱ษࡉࢆᐇឤࡋࡓࡾࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ✚ᴟⓗ࡟⮬ศࡢᛮ࠸ࢆఏ࠼ࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿែᗘࡢࡇ
࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋᯇ⏿㸦2002㸧ࡣࠊࠕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠖ࡜ࡣࠊヰࡋᡭ࡜⪺ࡁᡭ࡜ࡢ┦஫స⏝࡟ࡼࡿࠕ㡪ࡁྜ࠸࡟ࡼࡿ㧗ࡲࡾࠖ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋឤ᝟࣭ពᛮ࣭᝟ሗࢆศ࠿ࡕྜ࠸ࠊࡼࡾṇ☜࡞⌮ゎࢆ┠ᣦࡋࡓ㝈ࡾ࡞࠸┦஫஺ὶࡀࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥάື࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥάື࡟࠾ࡅࡿẼ࡙ࡁ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

−199−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(13:00-14:40)ࣛ࢖ࣇ࣮࣍ࣝ

4.2 ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥάື࡟࠾ࡅࡿẼ࡙ࡁ Ẽ࡙ࡁࡣࠊఱ࠿࡟ὀពࢆྥࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡉࢀࡿࠋᑠᏛᰯẁ㝵ࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥάື
࡛ࠊᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࡀὀពࢆྥࡅࡿᑐ㇟ࡣࠊ1) ⮬ศࡢឤ᝟ࡸᛮ࠸ 2) ⮬ศࡢឤ᝟ࡸᛮ࠸ࢆ⾲ࡍⱥㄒ⾲⌧ 3) ⮬ศࡢឤ᝟ࡸᛮ࠸ࡢఏ࠼᪉㸦ᕤኵ㸧 4) ⮬ศࡢឤ᝟ࡸᛮ࠸ࡀఏࢃࡿᎰࡋࡉࡸᴦࡋࡉ 5) ⮬ศࡢឤ᝟ࡸᛮ࠸
ࢆఏ࠼ࡿ㞴ࡋࡉ 6) ௚⪅ࡢⱥㄒ⾲⌧ 7) ⾲⌧࠿ࡽศ࠿ࡿ௚⪅ࡢឤ᝟ࡸᛮ࠸ 8) ௚⪅ࡢឤ᝟ࡸᛮ࠸ࡢఏ࠼
᪉㸦ᕤኵ㸧9) ௚⪅ࡢឤ᝟ࡸᛮ࠸ࡀศ࠿ࡿᴦࡋࡉࡸᎰࡋࡉ 10) ௚⪅ࡢឤ᝟ࡸᛮ࠸ࢆཷࡅṆࡵࡿ㞴ࡋࡉ11) ┦஫஺ὶ࡛ࡁࡿ႐ࡧ ࡟ᩚ⌮࡛ࡁࡿࠋࡲࡎࡣ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡢឤ᝟ࡸᛮ࠸࡟Ẽ࡙ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀ㔜せ࡛ࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ࡣࠊ┦஫஺ὶ࡟ࡼࡿ᪂ࡋ࠸ከᵝ࡞Ⓨぢࢆ㏻ࡋࡓ⮬௚ࡢ㧗ࡵྜ࠸ࢆ┠ᣦࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
4.3 Ẽ࡙ࡁࢆಁࡍࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥάືࡢᒎ㛤እᅜㄒάືࡢᤵᴗࡣ኱ࡁࡃศࡅ࡚ࠊ1㸧ᑟධ 2㸧ᒎ㛤 3㸧ࡲ࡜ࡵ ࡢὶࢀ࡛ィ⏬ࡉࢀࡿࠋᑟධ࣭ᒎ㛤࡛ࡣࠊᚲ↛ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿሙࢆタᐃࡋࠊࣔࢹࣝࢫ࢟ࢵࢺࡸ఍ヰ࡞࡝࠿ࡽࢱ࣮ࢤࢵࢺࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫࡸࡡࡽ࠸࡟Ẽ࡙ࡁࠊࡑࡢୖ࡛⮬ࡽࡢᛮ࠸ࡸឤ᝟࡜ྥࡁྜ࠸ࠊⱥㄒ࡛┦ᡭ࡟ఏ࠼࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋᮏ≀ࡢ᝟ሗࡔ࠿ࡽࡇ
ࡑఏ࠼ࡓ࠸ࠊ⌮ゎࡋࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠸ࠊ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚᪂ࡋ࠸Ⓨぢࡀ࠶ࡾ┦஫஺ὶࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜ࡋ
࡚ࠊಶே࡛ࡢ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡾ࡜ࢡࣛࢫ඲య࡛ࡢඹ᭷ࡀ㔜せ࡜࡞ࡿࠋᩍᖌࡀࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡾ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚๓㏙ࡢ
1㸧࠿ࡽ 11㸧ࡢ࡝ࡢほⅬ࠿ࢆ᫂☜࡟♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊẼ࡙ࡁࡀᏛࡧ࡬࡜῝ࡲࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊẼ࡙ࡁࢆಁࡍ
ࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥάືࡢ㉁࡜㔞ࡢ୧㠃࠿ࡽࡢᶵ఍ࡢ๰ฟ࡜ࠊᩍᖌࡢⓗ☜࡞ຓゝ࡜ࠊ᪥ᖖⓗ࡞ཷᐜ࡜ඹឤ࡟ࡼࡿ ࠿࠸Ꮫ⣭࡙ࡃࡾࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ୍᪉࡛ࠊᑠᏛ⏕ࡢᩥἲ⬟ຊࡣ㝈ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡚ࠊ㠀ゝㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ᪉␎ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࡶࠊ┿࡟ఏ࠼ࡓ࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲⌧࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࠕእᅜㄒࢆ㏻ࡌࡓࠖ
ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡀ㔜せ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡼࡾ┿ᐇ࡟㏆࠸」㞧࡞⾲⌧ࠊ౛࠼ࡤ⌮⏤ࡸ᰿ᣐ࡞࡝ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ
ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ఏ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊ⮬௚࡬ࡢࠕẼ࡙ࡁࠖࡀ῝ࡲࡾࠊࠕⱥㄒࡶ᪥ᮏㄒࡶࠖ㇏࠿࡟࡞ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࠋࡇ࡜ࡤࡢ⫼ᬒ࡟࠶ࡿᩥ໬࡟㛵ࢃࡿẼ࡙ࡁ
5.ࡇ
5.1 ࡇ࡜ࡤ࡜ᩥ໬ࡢ㛵ಀ ᑠᏛᰯእᅜㄒάືࡢ┠ᶆࡢ୰࡛ᩥ໬࡟㛵ࢃࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊᏛ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠕእᅜㄒࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚
ゝㄒࡸᩥ໬࡟㛵ࡍࡿయ㦂ⓗ⌮ゎࢆ῝ࡵࠖࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ⣲ᆅࢆ㣴࠺࡜㏙࡭ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍ࡛࡟ᩍ
⛉࡜ࡋ࡚ⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ୰ᅜࠊྎ‴࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ⮬ᅜᩥ໬࡜௚ᅜᩥ໬ࡢ⌮ゎࡀࡑࡢᣦᑟ┠ᶆ࡟ᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᑠᏛᰯእᅜㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡇ࡜ࡤࡢ⫼ᬒ࡟࠶ࡿᩥ໬ࢆᢅ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡓ
ࡔࠊᑠᏛ⏕࡜࠸࠺Ⓨ㐩ẁ㝵࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᙼࡽࡢ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿ㝈ࡽࢀࡓⱥㄒࡢㄒᙡࠊ⾲⌧࡛ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟Ẽ࡙ࡁࢆ࠶ࡓ࠼ࡿ࠿ࠊ▱㆑ࡢࡳ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⌮ゎࢆ῝ࡵࡉࡏࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕయ㦂ⓗ࡟ࠖ⌮ゎࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟῝ࡵࡉࡏࡿ࠿ࡣࠊከ࠸࡟㆟ㄽࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᮏࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࡛࢘ࡣࠊࡑࡢ୍ࡘࡢᥦ᱌ࢆࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
5.2 ᩥ໬࡟㛵ࢃࡿẼ࡙ࡁ ᩥ໬ࢆᑠᏛ⏕࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᢅ࠺࠿࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊCurtain(2004)ࡀ⤂௓ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࢔࣓ࣜ࢝ࡢ National Standard
in Foreign Language Education Project(1999)ࡢసᡂࡋࡓ Standard for Foreign Language Learning in the 21stCentury ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ The Culture Triangle ࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏࡢඣ❺࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢᐇ㊶ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿୖ࡛ࡶከ࠸࡟ཧ⪃࡟࡞ࡿࠋୖᥖ᭩࡛ࡣᩥ໬ࢆࠊ1) Products 2) Practices 3) Perspectives ࡢ㸱ࡘࡢせ⣲࡟ศࡅࠊேࠎࡢ♫఍⾜ືᵝᘧࡢ Practices ࡜ࡑࡢ౯್ほࡸᛮ⪃ᵝᘧ࡞࡝ࡢ⢭⚄ᩥ໬࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࠊࡲࡓ㣗࡭≀ࠊ㐨ලࠊ㡢ᴦ࡞࡝ࡢ≀㉁ᩥ໬࡛࠶ࡿ Products ࡜ Perspectives ࡢ㛵ಀ࠿ࡽࠊᩥ໬඲యࢆᏛࡪ࡜♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋඣ❺࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊࡲࡎどぬⓗ࡟ࡶࡑࡢ㐪࠸ࡸඹ㏻ᛶࡀࢃ࠿ࡾࡸࡍ࠸ᩥ໬ࡢഃ㠃࡛࠶ࡿ Products ࢆ♧ࡋࠊࡑࢀࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ேࠎࡢ
⏕άࡢ୰࡛౑ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ Practice ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠕయ㦂ⓗ࡟ࠖ⌮ゎࡍࡿࠋࡇࡇࡲ࡛ࡣࠊእᅜㄒ࡛⾜ࡗ࡚ࡶඣ❺࡟࡜ࡗ࡚⌮ゎྍ⬟࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࡇ࡛⤊ࢃࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑࡢ Products ࡜ Practices−200−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ࡣࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞౯್ࡸ㔜せᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡑࡢᅜࡢఏ⤫ࡸ♫఍⫼ᬒ࡜ᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋእᅜㄒ࡛ࡍ࡛࡟⌮ゎࡋࡓ Products ࡜ Practices ࠿ࡽࠊ⮬ศࡓࡕࡢᩥ໬࡜ࡢ┦㐪Ⅼࡸඹ㏻
Ⅼ࡟Ẽ࡙ࡃࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ┦㐪Ⅼࡢᚲ↛ᛶࡇࡑࡀ┦ᡭࡢᩥ໬ࢆㄆࡵࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆࠊPerspectives ࡜ࡋ࡚ᣦᑟ⪅ࡀඣ❺࡟Ẽ࡙࠿ࡏࡿࡼ࠺ヰࡋྜ࠸ࡓ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
5.3 ࠸࠿࡟ᩥ໬࡟㛵ࢃࡿẼ࡙ࡁࢆ୚࠼ࡿ࠿
ALT ࡞࡝␗ᩥ໬࣭␗ゝㄒࢆᣢࡘேࠎ࡜ࠊⱥㄒࢆ౑ࡗ࡚஺ὶࡍࡿ୰࡛ࠊඣ❺ࡀࠕయ㦂ⓗ࡟ࠖ⌮ゎࢆ῝ࡵࠊ⮬↛࡟᪥ᮏ࡜እᅜࡢᩥ໬ࢆẚ㍑ࡋࠊ┦㐪Ⅼࡸඹ㏻Ⅼ࡟Ẽ࡙࠿ࡏࡿ࡟ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡋࡓࡽࡼ࠸࠿ࠋ
ࡑࡢලయⓗάື୍౛ࡣࠊᮏࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࢘࡟࠾࠸࡚⤂௓ࡍࡿࡀࠊ␃ពࡍ࡭ࡁࡇ࡜ࡣࠊⱥㄒ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶඣ❺ࡀ⌮ゎࡋࡸࡍ࠸ලయⓗ࡞ Products ࡸࠊゝㄒࡸ㠀ゝㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ࡛ࣙࣥ Practices ࢆ㢟ᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡲࡎྲྀ
ࡾୖࡆࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࠿ࡽࠊ࡞ࡐ᪥ᮏ࡜␗࡞ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡑࡢᩥ໬⫼ᬒࡸᅜẸᛶ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࡸᩥ໬ࢆ㉺࠼
ࡓඹ㏻ᛶࢆࠊ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡼ࠸ࡢ࡛ඣ❺ࡀ⪃࠼ࡿ Perspectives ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡄࡇ࡜ࡀ኱ษ࡛ࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡶ᪂ࡓ࡞Ẽ࡙ࡁࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࠊ␗ᩥ໬⌮ゎࢆ῝ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
6. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ እᅜㄒάືࡢᵝࠎ࡞㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊὀពࢆྥࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡉࢀࡿẼ࡙ࡁࡣࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ▱㆑ࡸ⬟ຊࢆᩚ⌮ࠊ⤫ྜࡋࠊᏛ⩦ࡢᐃ╔࡟ᙺ❧ࡘࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇ࡜ࡤࡸ▱㆑ࢆ✚ᴟⓗ࡟౑࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ
࡚ࠊࡉࡽ࡟Ẽ࡙ࡁࡀಁࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡶࢃ࠿ࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊᮏࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࣒࢘࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
እᅜㄒάື࡟࠾ࡅࡿゝㄒࡸᩥ໬࡟ᑐࡍࡿẼ࡙ࡁࡢ㔜せᛶࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࠊᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࡀᏛ⩦㐣⛬࡛Ẽ࡙ࡃࡓࡵࡢලయⓗ࡞ᣦᑟ౛ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓࠋⓎ㐩ẁ㝵࡟ᛂࡌࡓẼ࡙ࡁࡸࠊ➨஧ゝㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ୰࡛⢭⦓໬ࡉࢀࡿẼ࡙ࡁ࡬ࡢ⌮ゎࡀ῝ࡲࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊእᅜㄒάື࡬ࡢᛂ⏝ࡀ㐺ษ࡟⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ᒸ⚽ኵ࣭㔠᳃ᙉ㸦⦅㸧 (2007). ࠗᑠᏛᰯⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ㐍ࡵ᪉㸫ࠕࡇ࡜ࡤࡢᩍ⫱ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠘ᮾி㸸ᡂ⨾ᇽ.
ᯇ㤶ὒᏊ (2003). ࠗᑠᏛ⏕ࡣⱥㄒࡀ኱ዲࡁ㸰࠘ᮾி㸸ᯇ㤶ࣇ࢛ࢽࢵࢡࢫ◊✲ᡤ.
ᯇ⏿↫୍ (2002).ࠗⱥㄒᩍ⫱ே㛫Ꮫࡢᒎ㛤࠘ᮾி㸸㛤㝯ᇽ.
ᮧ㔝஭ (2006). ࠗ➨஧ゝㄒ⩦ᚓ◊✲࠿ࡽぢࡓຠᯝⓗ࡞ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ἲ࣭ᣦᑟἲ࠘ᮾி㸸኱ಟ㤋.
ᒣ㫽 㔜 (2002). ࠗࠕࢃ࠿ࡿࠖ࡜ࡣ࡝࠺࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࠿̺ㄆ㆑ࡢ⬻⛉Ꮫ࠘ ᮾி㸸⟃ᦶ᭩ᡣ.
ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ (2008).ࠗᑠᏛᰯᏛ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿ゎㄝእᅜㄒάື⦅࠘ᮾி㸸ᮾὒ㤋ฟ∧♫.
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Curtain, Helena, and Carol Ann Dahlberg. (2004). Languages and Children- Making the Match: New Languages for
Young Learners, Grades K-8, Third Edition. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

−201−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

"#)(
Abstracts"
Poster Presentations

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(9:00-16:00 㸭ࢥ࢔ࢱ࢖࣒㸸13:10-14:40)ࢧ࢖࢚ࣥࢫ࣮࣍ࣝ

iPad ࡢ㘓㡢࣭᧜ᙳᶵ⬟࡜ Moodle ࢆ㐃ᦠࡉࡏࡓ࢔࢘ࢺࣉࢵࢺάືࡢグ㘓࡜ホ౯⇃஭ ಙᘯ㸦Ꮫ⩦㝔኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 iPad㸪Moodle㸪ࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ㸪࢔࢘ࢺࣉࢵࢺάື㸪ホ౯
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
እᅜㄒࡢᤵᴗ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢫࣆ࣮ࢳࡸࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡞࡝ࡢ࢔࢘ࢺࣉࢵࢺάືࡣࠊ୍ᐃࡢホ౯άືࡀక࠺ࡶࡢࡢࠊࡑࡢሙ㝈ࡾࡢሙྜࡀከࡃࠊάືࢆࣅࢹ࢜࡞࡝࡛グ㘓ࡋࡓࡶࡢࢆᚋ࡛ど⫈ࡋ᳨ウࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺
ࡼ࠺࡞࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠕ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡾࠖࡢάືࡀ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢࡀ⌧≧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ࢔࢘ࢺࣉࢵࢺ
άືࢆࢫ࣐࣮ࢺࣇ࢛ࣥࡸࢱࣈࣞࢵࢺ࡞࡝ࡢ࠸ࢃࡺࡿᦠᖏᶵჾ࡛㘓㡢࣭᧜ᙳࡋࠊࡑࡢ㡢ኌ࣭ື⏬ࢆࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡୖ࡛ඹ᭷ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ┦஫ど⫈ࡸホ౯ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࣔࢪ࣮ࣗࣝࢆࡇࢀࡲ࡛㛤Ⓨࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋ
㡢ኌᢞ✏⏝࠾ࡼࡧࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ⦎⩦⏝ࡢ VoiceShadow ࡜ࠊື⏬ᢞ✏⏝ࡢ VideoBoard ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡽ
࡟ࡉࡽ࡟᪂ࡋ࠸ᶵ⬟ࢆ௜ࡅຍ࠼ࡓ᭱᪂∧ࢆ⤂௓ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡑࡢሙ࡛᧜ᙳࡋࡓᩘᯛࡢ෗┿ࢆ࢔ࢵࣉ࣮ࣟ
ࢻࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ෗┿࡟ㄝ᫂ࡢࡓࡵࡢ㡢ኌࢆຍ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࢫࣛ࢖ࢻࢩ࣮ࣙࢆసᡂࡍࡿࣔࢪࣗ
࣮ࣝ MediaBoard ࡶ⤂௓ࡍࡿࠋ
ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛㛤Ⓨࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆᐇ㝿ࡢእᅜㄒࡢᤵᴗ࡛౑⏝ࡋࡓ⤒㦂ࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࠊᚑ᮶ࡢ
᪉ἲ࡜ẚ࡭࡚࢔࢘ࢺࣉࢵࢺάືࢆࡼࡾຠᯝⓗ࡟⾜࠺ࡓࡵࡢ᪉ἲࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋ
2. VoiceShadow Moodle ୖ࡛ࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡢ㡢ኌࢆ㘓㡢ࡋࠊࡑࡢ㘓㡢ࡉࢀࡓ㡢ኌࢆ࠾஫࠸࡟⪺ࡁྜࡗࡓࡾホ౯ࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢࣔࢪ࣮ࣗࣝࡀ VoiceShadow ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪂ࡋ࠸ᶵ⬟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊPC ୖ࡛ࡢ Chrome ࣈࣛ࢘ࢨ࣮ࡢࡳ࡟
ᑐᛂࡍࡿࡀࠊ㘓㡢୰ࡢ㡢ኌࢆ Google Speech to Text API ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᩥᏐ໬ࡋࠊᚋ࡛Ꮫ⩦⪅⮬㌟ࡀ㘓㡢ࡋࡓࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ㡢ኌࡀ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘⱥㄒ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀࡿ࠿᫂♧࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡋࡓࠋホ౯࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ5 ẁ㝵ホᐃ࡟ຍ࠼ࠊRubrics㸦ホ౯ᇶ‽㸧ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢάື࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡼࡾヲ⣽࡞ࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵ
ࢡࢆ㏉ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊPC ୖࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊiOS ᶵჾୖ࡛ࡶᑓ⏝ࡢ࢔ࣉࣜ㸦VoiceShadow App
for Moodle㸧ࢆ⏝࠸ࢀࡤࠊࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢࡢ⦎⩦ࡸ㘓㡢ࠊホ౯ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋᅗ 1. VoiceShadow ࣔࢪ࣮ࣗࣝ࡟ࡼࡿ PC ୖ࡛ࡢ㘓㡢࣭෌⏕࠾ࡼࡧホ౯−204−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

3. VideoBoardࢫࣆ࣮ࢳࡸࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡞࡝ࡢᵝᏊࢆࠊᩍဨࡸᏛ⩦⪅ྠኈࡀ iPad ࡞࡝ࡢᦠᖏᶵჾ࡛㘓⏬ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆ Moodle ࡟┤᥋࢔ࢵࣉ࣮ࣟࢻࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ㘓⏬ࡋࡓື⏬ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆ PC ୖࡸᦠᖏᶵჾୖ࡛බ㛤࣭㜀ぴ࡛ࡁࡿࠋᤵᴗ࡛⾜ࡗࡓࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢ
άືࢆࡍࡄ࡟ᡭࡶ࡜ࡢᦠᖏᶵჾࡸ PC ࡛ぢࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡑ
ࡢሙ࡛⮬ᕫホ౯ࡸ┦஫ホ౯ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡾࠊࡼࡾᐈほⓗ࡞どⅬ࠿

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

ࡽάືࢆホ౯ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋᩍဨഃ࠿ࡽࡣ Rubrics ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊලయⓗ࡞࢔ࢻࣂ࢖ࢫ࡞࡝ࡢヲࡋ࠸ࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵ
ࢡࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪂ࡋ࠸ᶵ⬟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊiMovie ࡸ YouTube ࢧ࢖ࢺ࡞࡝࡛ᵝࠎ࡞⦅㞟ᶵ⬟ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠕసရࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚సᡂࡉࢀࡓື⏬
ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࡶ࢔ࢵࣉ࣮ࣟࢻ࡛ࡁࠊMoodle ୖ࡛ඹ᭷ྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊiOS ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ Android ࠿ࡽࡢᢞ✏࡟ࡶᑐᛂࡋࡓࠋ
ᅗ 2. iPad ୖ࡛ࡢ VideoBoard ࣔࢪ࣮ࣗࣝ
4. MediaBoard ࠶ࡽ࠿ࡌࡵ᧜ᙳࡋ࡚࠾࠸ࡓ෗┿ࡸࠊࡑࡢሙ࡛᧜ᙳ
ࡋࡓ෗┿ࢆఱᯛ࠿࢔ࢵࣉ࣮ࣟࢻࡋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ෗┿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᥥ෗ࡋࡓࡾㄝ᫂ࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿ㡢ኌࢆຍ࠼ࡿࡇ
࡜࡛ࠊ㡢ኌ௜ࡁࡢࢫࣛ࢖ࢻࢩ࣮ࣙࢆ Moodle ୖ࡛సᡂࡍࡿࣔࢪ࣮࡛ࣗࣝ࠶ࡿࠋసᡂࡋࡓࢫࣛ࢖ࢻࢩ࣮ࣙ
࡟㑅ᢥ⫥௜ࡁࡢ⡆༢࡞ Quiz ࢆ㏣ຍࡋࡓࡾࠊLike ࣎ࢱࣥ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚࠾஫࠸ࡢసရࢆẼ㍍࡟ホ౯ࡋࡓࡾࠊࢥ࣓
ࣥࢺࡋྜ࠼ࡿᶵ⬟ࡶ௜ࡅຍ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋタᐃ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࢫࣛ࢖ࢻࢩ࣮ࣙࡢ࡯࠿࡟ࠊື⏬ࡸ㡢ኌࡶྠࡌ⏬㠃ࣞ࢖࢔࢘ࢺ࡛බ㛤࣭ඹ᭷ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋᅗ 3. iPad ୖ࡛ࡢ MediaBoard ࣔࢪ࣮ࣗࣝ࡟ࡼࡿࢫࣛ࢖ࢻࢩ࣮ࣙ
5. ⤖ᯝ࡜௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ⏝ࡢࣔࢪ࣮࡛ࣗࣝ࠶ࡿ VoiceShadow ࢆ CALL ᩍᐊ࡛ࡢᤵᴗ࡛ 1 ᖺ㛫౑⏝ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢຊ࡜ⱥㄒຊ࡟࠾࠸࡚᭷ព࡞ఙࡧࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓࠋ௒ᚋࡣᵝࠎ࡞ OS ࡸࣈࣛ࢘ࢨ࣮࡛㐠⏝ྍ⬟࡞ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆᵓ⠏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀㄢ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Daniels, P. (2012). Technically Speaking: Moodle, mobile apps and mobile content, The JALTCALL Journal, 8(1),33-43.
⇃஭ಙᘯ & Daniels, P. (2013). ࣔࣂ࢖࣭ࣝࢹࣂ࢖ࢫࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ⦎⩦ࡢࡓࡵࡢ Moodle ࣔࢪ࣮ࣗࣝࡢ㛤Ⓨ࡜ࡑࡢά⏝, Ꮫ⩦㝔኱Ꮫእᅜㄒᩍ⫱◊✲ࢭࣥࢱ࣮⣖せࠗゝㄒ࣭ᩥ໬࣭♫఍࠘11, 115-130.
⇃஭ಙᘯ (2014). Capture, Upload, and Share 㸫ࢱࣈࣞࢵࢺ࡛グ㘓ࡋࡓάືࢆࢿࢵࢺୖ࡛ඹ᭷࣭ホ౯ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ Moodle ⏝ࣔࢪ࣮ࣗࣝࡢά⏝㸫 ࠗ᭱᪂ ICT ࢆά⏝ࡋࡓ⚾ࡢእᅜㄒᤵᴗ࠘୸ၿࣉࣛࢿࢵࢺ, 53-62.
⇃஭ಙᘯ & Daniels, P. (2015). ຠᯝⓗ࡞࢔࢘ࢺࣉࢵࢺάືࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵࡢࣔࣂ࢖ࣝࢹࣂ࢖ࢫά⏝ἲ◊✲ 㸫
iPad ࡜ Moodle ࡢ㐃ᦠ㸫, Ꮫ⩦㝔኱Ꮫእᅜㄒᩍ⫱◊✲ࢭࣥࢱ࣮⣖せࠗゝㄒ࣭ᩥ໬࣭♫఍࠘13, 91-99.

−205−

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(9:00-16:00 㸭ࢥ࢔ࢱ࢖࣒㸸13:10-14:40)ࢧ࢖࢚ࣥࢫ࣮࣍ࣝ

ពᅗⓗㄒᙡᏛ⩦࡜അⓎⓗㄒᙡᏛ⩦཮᪉ࢆಁ㐍ࡍࡿe-࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢ㛤Ⓨᒸᓮᘯಙ㸦⛅⏣┴❧኱Ꮫ㸧ᮌᡞ࿴ᙪ㸦⎔ኴᖹὒ኱Ꮫ㸧ᶫᮏಙ୍㸦㟁Ẽ㏻ಙ኱Ꮫ㸧㕥ᮌගᏊ㸦⟃Ἴ኱Ꮫ㸦㝔㸧㸧⚟⏣⾰㔛㸦୰ᅜᏛᅬ኱Ꮫ㸧ỤཎᬛᏊ㸦⎔ኴᖹὒ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ㄒᙡ㸪ពᅗⓗᏛ⩦㸪അⓎⓗᏛ⩦㸪ከㄞ㸪e-࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᡃࠎࡣ 2014 ᖺࡢ LET ඲ᅜ኱఍࡟࠾࠸࡚ពᅗⓗㄒᙡᏛ⩦ࢆಁ㐍ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ e-࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ
㸦Vocabulary Manager㸻VM㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚Ⓨ⾲ࡋࡓ㸦ᒸᓮ, 㕥ᮌ, ௚, 2014㸧ࠋࡑࡢ୰࡛ࠊ༢ㄒᖒࢆ࣮࣋ࢫ࡟ࠊ
༢ㄒ༢యࠊࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫ᏶ᡂࡢ⦎⩦ၥ㢟ࢆ‽ഛࡋࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ㑅ᢥࡋ࡚⦎⩦ၥ㢟࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡵࡿࡼ࠺࡞ᶵ⬟࡟
ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡓࡀࠊࡑࡢᚋࠊࡇࡢᶵ⬟ࡢ୍㒊ࡣ࢙࢘ࣈ࢔ࣉࣜ௜ࡁࡢ༢ㄒᖒࠗ㢖ฟ㡰ⱥ༢ㄒ 2000+࠘㸦ᒸᓮ, Ṋ⏣, ௚, 2014㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ල⌧໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋ
VM ࡣ࣮ࣘࢨ࣮ࣇࣞࣥࢻ࣮࡛ࣜᡂ㛗ྍ⬟࡞⥲ྜⓗᏛ⩦ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢆࢥࣥࢭࣉࢺ࡟ࠊࣔࣂ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡶᑐᛂࡋࠊ
ᵝࠎ࡞ࣔࢪ࣮ࣗࣝࡢ㏣ຍ࡟ࡼࡾࠊㄒᙡᏛ⩦ࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢࠊࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࠊࢩࣕࢻ࣮࢖ࣥࢢ࡞
࡝࡟ࡶᑐᛂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⟶⌮⪅ᶵ⬟࡟ࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅⟶⌮ࠊᩍᮦ⟶⌮࡞࡝ࢆ⤌ࡳ㎸ࡴࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾࠊࢭࣝࣇ࢔ࢡ
ࢭࢫࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎᤵᴗ࡟ࡶᐜ᫆࡟ᑟධ࡛ࡁࡿࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ᫖ᖺࡢⓎ⾲௨㝆࡟㏣ຍࡋࡓ VM
ࡢ᪂ࡋ࠸ᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡿࠋ
2. VM ᪂ᶵ⬟
2.1 ᪤▱༢ㄒᾘࡋ㎸ࡳᶵ⬟ᅗ 1. AFP ࢽ࣮ࣗࢫࢆᩍᮦ࡜ࡋࡓᏛ⩦⏬㠃ࡢ౛

−206−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

ᅗ 1 ࡣ AFP ࢽ࣮ࣗࢫࢆᩍᮦ࡜ࡋࡓᏛ⩦⏬㠃ࡢ୍౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋձ࡛♧ࡋࡓࡢࡀᫎീᥦ♧㒊ࠊղ࡛♧ࡋࡓࡢࡀࢺࣛࣥࢫࢡࣜࣉࢺᥦ♧㒊࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ⾲♧࣭㠀⾲♧ࡢ㑅ᢥࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࠋᫎീᥦ♧㒊ࡢୗ࡟⾲♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࣎ࢱࣥࡣࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࡸ㡢ㄞࡢ⦎⩦࡟⏝࠸ࡿᕳᡠࡋ࣎ࢱࣥ㸦౛㸸 1Sec 㸻㸯⛊ᕳᡠࡋ㸧ࠊ෌⏕ࢫࣆ࣮ࢻㄪ⠇࣎ࢱࣥ㸦౛㸸 80 㸻෌⏕ࢫࣆ࣮ࢻ 80㸣㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋᏛ⩦⏬㠃ᕥࡢࠕᮏࣞࢵࢫࣥࡢᚲ㡲ㄒᙡࠖࢆࢡࣜࢵࢡࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࡢࣞࢵࢫࣥ࡟ᚲせ࡞ㄒᙡࡀ⾲♧ࡉࢀࡿ㸦ᅗ 2㸧ࠋࡇࡇ࡛⾲♧ࡉࢀࡿㄒᙡࡣࡑࡢࣞࢵࢫࣥ࡟ᚲせ࡛࠿ࡘᏛ⩦⪅ࡢᮍ▱ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᪤▱ㄒ࠿ᮍ▱ㄒ࠿ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡲ࡛
ࡢᏛ⩦⤒㐣࡟࠾࠸࡚ᾘ㎸ࡳࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࠿࡝࠺
࠿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ỵᐃࡉࢀࡿࠋᅗ 2 ࡢ౛ࡣࠊᩍᮦ୰
࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝ 3 ࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀࠊࡲࡔᏛ⩦⪅ࡀᾘࡋ㎸ᅗ 2㸬ࠕᮏࣞࢵࢫࣥࡢᚲ㡲ㄒᙡࠖࡢ౛

ࢇ࡛࠸࡞࠸ㄒᙡࡢࣜࢫࢺ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡶࡋ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿㄒࡀᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓሙྜࡣࡑࡢㄒ࡟ࢳ࢙ࢵࢡࢆ࠿ࡅ࡚ᾘࡋ㎸ࢇ࡛࠸ࡅࡤ௨㝆ࡣᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢㄒᙡࢆ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࢀࡤࠊ
ࠕᮏࣞࢵࢫࣥࡢᚲ㡲ㄒᙡࠖࢆᢲࡋ࡚ࡶఱࡶ⾲♧ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ୍⯡ⓗ࡟༢ㄒᖒࡣᮍ▱ㄒࢆ✚ࡳୖࡆ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࡀࠊᮏᶵ⬟࡛ࡣ᪤▱ㄒࢆᾘࡋ㎸ࡴࡇ࡜࡛ࠊ୍ᗘ✚ࡳୖࡆࡓࡶࡢࢆ
෌ᗘᾘࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ࡞࡝ࡢᡭ㛫ࡀ࠸ࡽࡎࠊࡼࡾຠ⋡ⓗ࡟Ꮫ⩦ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᕤኵࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
2.2 ㄒᙡࢧ࢖ࢬࢸࢫࢺ
୰ᩍᑂ⟅⏦ࠊ
ࠕᏛኈㄢ⛬ᩍ⫱ࡢᵓ⠏࡟ྥࡅ࡚ࠖࡀⓎ⾲ࡉࢀ࡚௨㝆ࠊከࡃࡢ㧗➼ᩍ⫱ᶵ㛵࡛ࠕᏛ⩦ᡂᯝ㸦࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ࣭࢔࢘ࢺ࣒࢝㸧ࠖࢆ࠸࠿࡟♧ࡍ࠿ࡀ኱ࡁ࡞ㄢ㢟࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᡃࠎࡶ VM ࡢᏛ⩦ຠᯝࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟᪥ᮏᅜෆ
࡛ࡶࡋࡤࡋࡤ฼⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
Paul Nation ࡢ Vocabulary Size
Test㸦Nation & Beglar, 2007㸧ࡢ
monolingual ࣂ࣮ࢪࣙࣥࢆᐇ㦂ᅗ 3㸬
ࠕ9RFDEXODU\6L]H7HVWࠖࡢ⤖ᯝᥦ♧౛ⓗ࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡳࠊVM Ꮫ⩦๓ᚋࡢpre- and post-test ࡜ࡋ࡚฼⏝࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡋࡓ㸦ᅗ 3㸧ࠋᮏᶵ⬟ࡣࠊ௒ᚋࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ㈨᱁ヨ㦂㸦TOEIC ࡸⱥ᳨㸧ࡢࢫࢥ࢔ࡸ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ
ࢫࣆ࣮ࢻࠊࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢຊ࡜ࡢẚ㍑⾲♧ࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃணᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Nation, I.S.P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31(7), 9-13.
ᒸᓮᘯಙ, Ṋ⏣ளᕼᏊ, ⚟⏣⾰㔛, ᕝ➃Ὀ†, ⇃⏣ᒱᏊ, Ỉ㔝⣧ḟ, ᶫᮏಙ୍ (2014).ࠗ㢖ฟ㡰ⱥ༢ㄒ
2000+࠘ᮾி㸸ᅜ㝿ㄒᏛ♫ᒸᓮᘯಙ, 㕥ᮌගᏊ, ỤཎᬛᏊ, ᮌᡞ࿴ᙪ (2014).ࠕពᅗⓗㄒᙡᏛ⩦ࢆಁ㐍ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ e-࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࢹࣂ࢖
ࢫࡢ◊✲࡜㛤Ⓨࠖ, ࠗእᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 54 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍Ⓨ⾲せ㡯࠘, 166-167.
グ࣭ᮏ◊✲ࡣ୍㒊ࠊ⛉Ꮫ◊✲㈝(ㄢ㢟␒ྕ㸸25282061)ࡢຓᡂࢆཷࡅ࡚⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

−207−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(9:00-16:00 㸭ࢥ࢔ࢱ࢖࣒㸸13:10-14:40)ࢧ࢖࢚ࣥࢫ࣮࣍ࣝ

Implementing ICT in Japanese EFL Classroom:
Collaborative Writing Activities
SUZUKI, Mitsuko (Graduate Student, University of Tsukuba)
FUKUDA, Eri (Chugokugakuen University)
OKAZAKI, Hironobu (Akita Prefectural University㸧
Keywords: electronic whiteboard, collaborative learning, writing, EFL activities
1. Introduction
Implementation of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in education has become a highpriority in Japan now. According to the survey conducted by Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology (MEXT) in 2011, the average number of electronic whiteboards per Japanese primary and secondary
school has reached two. These digital boards, which can integrate technology for a range of learning purposes, allow
teachers to accommodate learners’ various learning styles and encourage collaborative learning in classroom (Swan,
Schenker & Kratcoski, 2008). On the other hand, however, the use of electronic whiteboards has the potential toprovide teacher-centered rather than student-centered lessons (Northcote, Mildenhall, Marshall & Swan, 2010). In
fact, Japanese teachers appear to have been less successful in using the interactive whiteboard as a collaborative,
student-centered tool (Benesse Education Research and Development Institute, 2011).
The two lessons provided below focus on academic English writing. These collaborative electronic
whiteboard activities have been successful in supporting beginner level students’ writing skills at Japanese English as
Foreign Language (EFL) high school and university courses.
2. Writing Activity at Senior High School
English writing tends to be deductive, requiring the writers to present their main points first followed byexplanations. This style of writing is in marked contrast to Japanese inductive paragraph organization.
Understanding this structural difference is a critical first step to write a logical essay and therefore, a one-to-one
teaching situation would be ideal in order to check each student’s comprehension. However, Japanese typical large
class size hinders such an optimal learning. The first series of activities are designed to deal with these difficulties.
2.1 Procedure
For preparation, instructor needs to divide a paragraph into individual sentences and mix them up. At thispoint, it is important to choose a paragraph that has a clear topic, supporting, and concluding sentences. Following abrief introduction on the basic structure of an English paragraph, identical sets of these sentences are shown on theelectronic whiteboard. Students are asked to get into groups and directly reorder one of the sets into a paragraph on
the whiteboard. Electronic whiteboard allows the students to move the sentences smoothly. Once they finish this task,
students are given an opportunity to compare their answer with the others’, and rearrange their sentences if necessary.
Because this activity is done on a single screen, it adds a game-like element to the lesson and promotes further
discussions and mutual support among the students. This process also enables instructors to observe students’
understanding visually and provide necessary feedback on the point that students have difficulty with.

−208−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

3. Writing Activity at University
Typical peer-reviewing requires students to be paired. However, when only two students are involved in theprocess, Japanese learners of English are often hesitant in expressing their honest opinions about the partner’s work
partly because her comment could be taken more personally in one-on-one communication. In comparison, whenpeer-review is done in groups, students’ comments on a group member’s writing could be taken as more of
subjective points of view, which encourages them to express themselves more freely. Active discussions on a
student’s work would be more helpful for the student than limited exchange of thoughts in pairs. An electronic
whiteboard enables the instructor to conduct peer-reviews in groups, as it is equipped with a large screen whichallows several students to work on one essay concurrently.
3.1 Procedure
In order to implement the activity using the electronic whiteboard, two kinds of worksheets are needed. The
instructor should prepare a handout for the rest of the class while one group is peer-reviewing using the electronic
whiteboard. For peer-reviews, students need to pay attention to content, organization, and mechanics; thus, activities
to review those components would be effective. While the rest is working on this activity, one group is provided witha checklist which guides the students to focus on the aforementioned areas as they peer-review one of their groupmember’s essay. Utilizing the touch panel feature of the device, students are encouraged to write question marks
when they do not understand certain points in the essay and exclamation marks if they like the ideas, just as they doin pairs in the traditional method, but more actively. The amount of feedback one student gains increases, at the sametime, use of body could relax the students, which could result in more interactions and discussions.
4. Conclusion
Even though electronic whiteboards have the potential in boosting learners’ interactivity, instructors still havea vital role in facilitating learning. With careful planning on materials and grouping, ICT learning could be more
motivating and engaging. The above two activities are beneficial for students who are at beginner level in writing,but could be as well adapted to higher-proficiency EFL students.
References
Benesse Education Research and Development Institute (2011). ICT wo katsuyoushita kyoudougakushuu niyoru
shikouryoku hyougenryoku no ikusei. [Developing the ability to think and express through collaborative ICT
learning]. Retrieved February 20, 2015, fromhttp://berd.benesse.jp/feature/focus/7-school_ict/activity03/page_2.html
MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology). (2011). Heisei 23 nendo gakko ni okeru
kyouiku nojyouhouka no jittaitou ni kansuru chousakekka [The result of survey on education informatization at
schools 2010]. Retrieved February 19, 2015, from,http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/zyouhou/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2013/09/17/1323235_01.pdf
Northcote, M., Mildenhall, P., Marshall, L., & Swan, P. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: Interactive of justwhiteboards? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(Special Issue, 4), 494-510.
Swan, K., Schenker, J. & Kratcoski, A. (2008). The Effects of the Use of Interactive Whiteboards on Student
Achievement. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Media andTechnology 2008 (pp. 3290-3297). Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education.

−209−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(9:00-16:00 㸭ࢥ࢔ࢱ࢖࣒㸸13:10-14:40)ࢧ࢖࢚ࣥࢫ࣮࣍ࣝ

ᐇ㊶ሗ࿌ࣔࣂ࢖ࣝ (࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࡢᡂᯝ࡜ㄢ㢟㸸 ⬻⛉Ꮫ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࢯࣇࢺ࡜
Ꮫ⏕ࡢ⾜ືࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓヨࡳ㕥ᮌ ༓㭯Ꮚ㸦㛗ᓮ⣧ᚰ኱Ꮫ㸧ᒣᓊ ಙ⩏㸦ࢽ࣮ࣗࢺࣥ e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ஦ᴗ㒊㢳ၥ㸧ྜྷཎ ᑗኴ㸦㛗ᓮ⣧ᚰ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࣔࣂ࢖࣮ࣝࣛࢽࣥࢢ㸪⬻⛉Ꮫ㸪Testing Learning Training㸪ࣈࣞࣥࢹ࢕ࢵࢻ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ
ᩍᐊᤵᴗࡢᙺ๭
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
㏆ᖺ㸪E-࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࡣ㸪㧗➼ᩍ⫱࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶᗈࡃᬑཬࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ࡑࡢຠᯝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ࡣ㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᮲௳࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶಖドࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣ⤒㦂ⓗ࡟᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ஦ᐇ㸪㰻⸨㈗ᾈ
࡜㔠ᛶᕼࡣ㸪㧗➼ᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿ E-࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࡢຠᯝࢆᢅࡗࡓ 12 ᖺ㛫ࡢ◊✲ࢆ཰㞟ࡋ㸪24 ࡢㄽᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸
࡚࣓ࢱศᯒࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ㸪⥲ྜⓗ࡟ࡣ୰⛬ᗘࡢຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓ㸦㰻⸨࣭㔠㸪2009㸧ࠋ୍᪉㸪ࡑࡢຠᯝ
࡟ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡢᏛ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡸᏛ⩦⎔ቃࡀᑡ࡞࠿ࡽࡎᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Ᏻᾉ㸪2011㸧ࠋేࡏ࡚㸪ᮏ◊✲⪅ࡽࡣ㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡓࡕࡢ⾜ືᵝᘧ㸪Ṧ࡟ࣃࢯࢥࣥࡢ๓୍࡛ᐃ᫬㛫ᐃᮇⓗ࡟Ꮫ⩦ࡍࡿࡇ࡜⮬య࡟ᅔ㞴ࢆぬ࠼ࡿ≧ἣࡀ㸪୍⯡໬ࡍࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆほᐹࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪㏆ᖺࡢᏛ⏕ࡢࣔࣂ࢖ࣝᶵ
ჾ౑⏝ࡢቑ኱ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼㸪ᙜヱ኱Ꮫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࣔࣂ࢖࣮ࣝࣛࢽࣥࢢࢆ⤌ࡳ㎸ࢇࡔᤵᴗࢆ 2014 ᖺᗘ࡟ヨ⾜ࡋࡓࠋ౑⏝ࢯࣇࢺࡣ㸪ᩓₔ࡟࡞ࡾࡸࡍ࠸Ꮫ⏕ࡢ⾜ືࢆไᚚࡋ⣔⤫❧࡚࡚ಶู࡟ᚲせ㡯┠ࢆ㞟୰ⓗ࡟カ⦎࡛ࡁࡿ୺┠ⓗ࡟ྜ⮴ࡍࡿ㸪⬻⛉Ꮫ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣮ࡢ≉ᛶࢆά࠿ࡋ࡚㛤Ⓨࡉࢀࡓ㸪Newton TOEIC® TESTᑐ⟇ A1A2A3B1B2 ࢥ࣮ࢫࢆ㑅ᐃࡋࡓࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣ㸪ࡑࡢヨ⾜⤖ᯝࢆሗ࿌ࡋ㸪௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࠋ
2. ᪉ἲ
2.1 ཧຍ⪅ཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸪㛗ᓮ┴㛗ᓮᕷࡢ኱Ꮫ࡛๓ᮇ࡟㛤ㅮࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᑓ㛛ᚲಟ⛉┠ࢆᒚಟࡍࡿ 3࣭4 ᖺ⏕ዪᛶ 38 ྡ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᙼࡽࡢཷㅮ๓ࡲ࡛ࡢⱥㄒ⬟ຊࡣ㸪CASEC ⱥㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ̿ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊุᐃࢸࢫࢺ࡞ࡽࡧ࡟TOEIC ཷ㦂ᐇ⦼⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽ㸪TOEIC ࢫࢥ࢔࡟᥮⟬ࡋ࡚㸪␎ 300 Ⅼ㹼600 Ⅼࡢᖜ࡟ศᕸࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
2.2 ᡭ㡰 Ꮫ⩦ᮇ㛫ࡣ㸪⛉┠ᒚಟᮇ㛫ࡢ 15 㐌࡟ຍ࠼࡚ኟᮇఇᬤ୰࡟ࡶࢩࢫࢸ࣒฼⏝ࢆྍ⬟࡜ࡋ㸪ᖹᡂ 26 ᖺ 4 ᭶ᙧែࡣ㸪ᤵᴗ࡛Ꮫ⩦᪉ἲ࡞ࡽࡧ࡟ὀពࡍ࡭ࡁ㡯┠ࢆ౛♧ࡍࡿ࢜
11 ᪥㹼8 ᭶ 15 ᪥ࡢ⣙ 18 㐌㛫࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᙧ
Ꮫ⩦᫬㛫ࡣ㸪ẖ㐌ࡢᤵᴗ᫬㛫୰࡟⾜࠺ 1 ᅇࣇࣛ࢖࡛ࣥࡢ┤᥋ᣦᑟࢆຍ࠼ࡓࣈࣞࣥࢹ࢕ࢵࢻ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࠋᏛ
30 ศ㛫࡜㸪ᤵᴗእㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ⮬⩦᫬㛫㐌 2 ᫬㛫㸪㐌ᙜࡓࡾィ 2.5 ᫬㛫࡛㸪ㄢࡋࡓྜィᏛ⩦᫬㛫ࡣ 45ࢩࣛࣂࢫࡣ㸪
᫬㛫௨ୖ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᐇ㝿࡟ࡣ㸪3 ேࡢእࢀ್ࢆ㝖ࡁ 54 ᫬㛫㹼38 ᫬㛫ࡢᖜ࡟ศᕸࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࢩ
ࢽ࣮ࣗࢺࣥ♫ไస㈐௵⪅⏣୰Ặࡢ࢔ࢻࣦ࢓࢖ࢫࢆཷࡅ㸪ᮏ◊✲⪅ࡢ୍ே࡛⛉┠ᢸᙜࡢᩍဨࡀసᡂࡋࡓࠋຠᯝࡢ ᐃࡣ㸪ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ෆࡢ Web ࢸࢫࢺࢆ⏝࠸㸪஦๓ࢸࢫࢺࢆ 4 ᭶ 11 ᪥㸪஦ᚋࢸࢫࢺࢆ 8 ᭶ 15 ᪥࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋ㸪ᚓⅬᕪࢆ⟬ฟࡋ࡚⾜ࡗࡓࠋ−210−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

3. ⤖ᯝ
 ຠᯝࡢ ᐃࡢ⤖ᯝࡣ㸪஦๓ࢸࢫࢺࡢᖹᆒࢫࢥ࢔ࡀ 200 Ⅼ‶Ⅼ୰ 122 Ⅼ (᭱㧗 156 Ⅼ㸪᭱ప 90 Ⅼ)㸪஦ᚋࢸࢫࢺࡢᖹᆒࢫࢥ࢔ࡀ 149 Ⅼ (᭱㧗 186 Ⅼ㸪᭱ప 106 Ⅼ) ࡛㸪Ⅼᕪࡢᖹᆒࡣ+27 Ⅼ( ᭱㧗+62 Ⅼ㸪᭱ప0 Ⅼ)࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋt ᳨ᐃࢆ⾜࠸㸪p<0.05 ࡛᭷ពᕪ᭷ࡢ⤖ᯝࢆᚓࡓࠋࡲࡓ㸪ྛཧຍ⪅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪Ⅼᕪࢆ஦๓ࢸࢫࢺࢫࢥ࢔࡟ᑐࡍࡿ๭ྜ࡛⟬ฟࡋࡓ⤖ᯝ㸪ᖹᆒ࡛+23% (᭱㧗+57.4%㸪᭱ప 0%)࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋᏛ⩦᫬㛫࡜Ⅼᕪ࡜ࡢ┦㛵࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪┦㛵ಀᩘ 0.302 ࡛ୟࡘ t ᳨ᐃ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶ㸪┦㛵㛵ಀࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
4㸬⪃ᐹ ୖグࡢ㏻ࡾ᭷ពᕪ࠶ࡾࡢⱥㄒຊྥୖࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓ⌮⏤࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪Ṧ࡟㧗➼ᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿ E-࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ
ࡢຠᯝࢆಖドࡍࡿ᮲௳࡜ࡣఱ࠿ࢆ᥈⣴ࡍࡿ┠ⓗ࡛㸪௨ୗࡢ 3 Ⅼࢆ᳨ウࡋࡓࠋ
㸦㸯㸧TLT (Testing, Learning, Training) ࢆࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡢᇶᮏ࡟ᤣ࠼ࡓ⬻⛉Ꮫ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࢯࣇࢺ࡛㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࠕ᏶඲⩦⇍ែໃࠖࡀᨭ᥼ࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜ࡣ㔜どࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋేࡏ࡚㸪ࣃࢯࢥࣥ࡟ࡼࡿࠕ⩦⇍⟶⌮ᶵ⬟ࠖ࡜㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢᅇ⟅཯ᛂࢆ㉸㏿࡛㐍ࡵࡿࠕ࣡ࣥࢱࢵࢳධຊࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࠖࡶ㸪ⱥㄒࢆグ᠈Ꮫ⩦࡜ࡋ࡚࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ゝㄒࢆ౑࠺⬟ຊࡢカ⦎࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅ࠺ᶵ⬟࡛࠶ࡾ㸪㔜せ࡞ാࡁࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜᥎ ࡉࢀࡿࠋ㸦㸰㸧ࡓࡔ༢࡟཯᚟⦎⩦ࢆከ㔞࡟㧗㏿࡛ᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥࢢẁ㝵࡛ࡣ㸪୍ᗘ㛫㐪࠼ࡓၥ㢟ࡢ෌ᥦ♧࡟࠾࠸࡚㑅ᢥ⫥ࢆࢩࣕࢵࣇࣝᥦ♧ࡍࡿ࡞࡝㸪ࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣮ᶵ⬟ࢆά࠿ࡋࡓ⦎⩦᪉ἲࢆ㥑౑ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢゝㄒ⬟ຊࢆᮏ㉁ⓗ࡟ᙉ໬ࡍࡿࡢ࡟ຠᯝⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ᥮ゝࡍࡿ࡜㸪ゝㄒ⬟ຊࢆᮏ㉁ⓗ࡟ᙉ໬ࡍࡿ᪉ἲ࡛࡞࠸㝈ࡾ㸪ࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣮ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿᚲせࡣ↓࠸࡟➼ࡋ࠸ࠋ㸦㸱㸧ᤵᴗ୰࡜ᤵᴗእࡢᏛ⩦᫬㛫ࡢୗ㝈タᐃࢆࢩࣛࣂࢫ࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡳ㸪ࢫ࣐࣮ࢺࣇ࢛ࣥࡢ฼⏝ࢆࡣࡌࡵࣔ
ࣂ࢖࣮ࣝࣛࢽࣥࢢࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪ᐃᮇⓗ࡟୍ᐃ㔞ࡢᏛ⩦ࢆ☜ಖࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡓࠋᚑࡗ࡚㸪E-࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࢆ⤌ࡳ㎸ࡴᤵᴗ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ᤵᴗእࡢᏛ⩦᫬㛫ࡢ⟶⌮ࢆ␯࠿࡟ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪እᅜㄒ⩦ᚓࡢᡂྰࡢ㘽ࢆᥱࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪E-࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࡣ㸪㧗➼ᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿ༢఩ไࡀᣐࡾᡤ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠕᏛࡧ࡟せࡍࡿ᫬㛫ࠖࡢ☜ಖࡀၥ㢟どࡉࢀࡿ୰࡛㸪ᤵᴗእ࡛ࡢᏛ⩦ࢆಖドࡍࡿ᭷ຠ࡞ᡭẁ࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿࠋ ௨ୖࢆせ⣙ࡍࡿ࡜㸪࢔ࢡࢭࢩࣅࣜࢸ࢕ࡀࡼࡃ㸪ୟࡘࡦ࡜ࡓࡧᏛ⩦ࡋጞࡵࡓᏛ⏕ࢆᥗࢇ࡛㞳ࡉࡎ㸪ᘬࡗᙇࡗ࡚㸪ᚋᢲࡋࢆࡋ㸪క㉮ࡋ⥆ࡅࡿ E-࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࡀ㸪ຠᯝࢆୖࡆࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ࡞࠾㸪Ꮫ⩦᫬㛫࡜ఙ㛗ᗘ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟┦㛵ࡀぢࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ⌮⏤࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ㸪㸦㸯㸧Ꮫ⩦᫬㛫㸦㸰㸧ᮍ⩦⇍ࡢ㡯┠ࡢୗ㝈ࢆタᐃࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ㸪Ꮫ⩦᫬㛫࡟࠾࠸࡚ཧຍ⪅㛫࡛㐪࠸ࡀᑡ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜㸪ࡢ཯᚟⦎⩦࡟᫬㛫ࢆ㈝ࡸࡍ௙⤌ࡳࡀᶵ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ㸪≉࡟஦๓ࢸࢫࢺ࡛పࢫࢥ࢔ࡔࡗࡓཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸪஦ᚋࢸࢫࢺ࡛ࢫࢥ࢔ࢆୖࡆࡿࡢ࡟༑ศ࡟ከᵝ࡞ၥ㢟ࡢ⦎⩦࡟୚࠿ࡿᶵ఍ࡣᑡ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ㸪ࡓࡵ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡓࠋ

5㸬௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟 ௒ᅇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤖ᯝ࡜㸪ཧຍᏛ⏕ࡓࡕࡢᐇ㝿ࡢ TOEIC ཷ㦂⤖ᯝ࡜ࢆ↷ྜࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
ࡲࡓ㸪௒ᅇࡢᐇ㊶◊✲࠿ࡽ㸪ୖグࡢ⪃ᐹ᳨࡛ウࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡞᮲௳ࢆ‶ࡓࡍ E-࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪እᅜㄒ⩦ᚓ࡟࠿࡞ࡾࡢຠᯝࡀᮇᚅ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ุ᩿ࡉࢀࡓ୍᪉࡛㸪ࡑࢀ࡜ࡢᑐ↷࡟ࡼࡾ㸪⛉┠ᢸᙜࡢᩍဨ⮬㌟
ࡢෆ┬ⓗほᐹ࠿ࡽ㸪≉࡟ࣈࣞࣥࢹ࢕ࢵࢻ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࡢᤵᴗ࡛ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡢ㢟ᮦ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ▱㆑⩦ᚓពḧࡸᛮ⪃ࢆಁࡍᩍᖌഃࡢ࢖ࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢෆᐜ㸪ࡲࡓࡣ᪉ἲ࡟ᕤኵࡢవᆅࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㸪᫂ⓑ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩㰻⸨㈗ᾈ㸪㔠ᛶᕼ (2009). 㧗➼ᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿ e-Learning ࡢຠᯝ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࣓ࢱศᯒࠗ᪥ᮏᩍ⫱ᕤᏛ఍ㄽᩥ
ㄅ࠘32 (4), 339-350.
Ᏻᾉㄔ♸ (2011). ⛉◊ㄢ㢟ࠕᏛ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡜᥼ຓ⾜ືࣔࢹࣝ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓᤵᴗእእᅜㄒᏛ⩦ᨭ᥼⎔ቃࡢᵓ⠏࡜ホ౯ࠖhttps://kaken.nil.ac.jp/d/p/23300304.ja.html 㸦2015 ᖺ 5 ᭶ 31 ᪥ཷಙ㸧

−211−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(9:00-16:00 㸭ࢥ࢔ࢱ࢖࣒㸸13:10-14:40)ࢧ࢖࢚ࣥࢫ࣮࣍ࣝ

▷ᮇㄒᏛ◊ಟࡀ་⒪⣔Ꮫ⏕ࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦᝟ពせᅉ࡟ཬࡰࡍᙳ㡪࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㔝ཱྀ ᭸㤶㸦ឡ▱Ꮫ㝔኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ▷ᮇㄒᏛ◊ಟ㸪᝟ពせᅉ㸪་⒪⣔Ꮫ⏕
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
2007 ᖺ௨㝆㸪᪥ᮏࡢᅾ␃እᅜேࡢᩘࡀ 200 ୓ேࢆ㉸࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡟క࠸㸪་⒪ᶵ㛵ࢆ฼⏝ࡍࡿ㠀᪥ᮏㄒẕㄒヰ⪅ࡶቑ࠼㸪་⒪ᚑ஦⪅࡟ࡶ㸪ࡲࡎࡣỗ⏝ᛶࡢ㧗࠸ⱥㄒ࡟ࡼࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡀồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉㸪་⒪⣔኱Ꮫ࡛ᏛࡪᏛ⏕ࡢ୰࡟ࡣ㸪ⱥㄒ࡟ⱞᡭព㆑ࢆᣢࡘ⪅ࡶᑡ࡞ࡃ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ㸪኱ᏛᅾᏛᮇ㛫୰࡟ⱥㄒ࡟ᑐࡍࡿព㆑ᨵ㠉ࢆ⾜࠺ᚲせ࡟㏕ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪་⒪⣔Ꮫ⏕࡟ࡣ㸪ᅜᐙヨ㦂ཷ㦂ㄆᐃࡢせ௳ࢆ‶ࡓࡍࡓࡵࡢㅮ⩏ࡸᐇ㦂㸪ᐇ⩦➼ࡀከࡃㄢࡏࡽ
ࢀ࡚࠸࡚㸪ㄒᏛࡢࡓࡵ࡟౑࠼ࡿ᫬㛫ࡣ㝈ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀ⌧≧࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢⅬࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼㸪་⒪⣔Ꮫ⏕ࡢⱥㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊ⫱ᡂࡢ୍ࡘࡢྍ⬟ᛶ࡜ࡋ࡚⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡢࡀ㸪ኟఇࡳࡸ᫓ఇࡳࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓ▷ᮇㄒᏛ◊ಟ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᮏㄪᰝ࡛ࡣ㸪ㄒᏛ࠾ࡼࡧ་⒪◊ಟࡢࡓࡵ࡟ 2 㐌㛫ࣁ࣡࢖࡟⁫ᅾࡋࡓ་⒪⣔Ꮫ⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡟㸪◊ಟཧຍ๓ᚋ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᝟ពࡢኚ໬࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ドࡋ㸪་⒪⣔Ꮫ⏕ࡀ▷ᮇࡢㄒᏛ◊ಟ࡟ཧຍࡍࡿព⩏࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ
2. ཧຍ⪅࠾ࡼࡧᡭ㡰▷ᮇㄒᏛ◊ಟ࡟ཧຍࡋࡓ୰㒊ᅪࡢ་⒪⣔኱Ꮫࡢ 68 ྡ㸦┳ㆤᏛ⛉㸸37 ྡ ᨺᑕ⥺Ꮫ⛉㸸12 ྡ ⮫ᗋ᳨ᰝᏛ⛉㸸19 ྡ㸧ࢆᑐ㇟࡟㸪እᅜㄒ࡛ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ⾜࠺㝿ࡢ᝟ពせᅉ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲࡟ᗈࡃ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ MacIntyre and Charos (1996) ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㛤Ⓨࡉࢀࡓ 12 㡯┠࠿ࡽᡂࡿ Perceived Communication
Competence (PCC㸸Ꮫ⩦⪅⮬㌟ࡢⱥㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⮬ぬ)ᑻᗘࢆ⏝࠸㸪◊ಟཧຍ๓ᚋ
ࡢཧຍ⪅ࡢⱥㄒ࡛ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ⾜࠺㝿ࡢ᝟ព㠃ࡢኚ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋPCC ᑻᗘ࡛ࡣ㸪
4 ࡘࡢሙ㠃㸦ᑠࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡛ࡢⓎゝ㸪఍ྜ࡛ࡢⓎゝ㸪2 ே࡛ࡢ఍ヰ㸪ே๓ࡢࢫࣆ࣮ࢳ㸧ࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀ㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢሙ㠃࡛ 3 ✀㢮ࡢ⪺ࡁᡭ㸦ぢ▱ࡽࡠே㸪▱ே㸪཭ே㸧ࡀ᝿ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋཧຍ⪅ࡣྛ㡯┠࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ࡲࡗࡓࡃⱥㄒ࡛ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆࡍࡿ⬟ຊࡀ࡞࠸㸻0㸣࠿ࡽ㸪༑ศ࡟ⱥㄒ࡛ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆࡍ
ࡿ⬟ຊࡀ࠶ࡿ㸻100㸣 ࡜ࡋ࡚ᅇ⟅ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢ◊ಟࡢཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸪⁫ᅾᮇ㛫୰࡟་⒪ⱥ఍ヰࢆྵࡴ 30 ᫬㛫ࡢⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗࢆཷࡅࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪ᆅඖࡢ┳ㆤᖌࡸᨺᑕ⥺ᢏᖌࢆ┠ᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᏛ⏕࡜ඹ࡟኱Ꮫࡢᐇ⩦࡟ཧຍࡋ㸪◊ಟࡢ᭱ᚋ࡟ࡣࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡛ 20ศࡢⱥㄒ࡟ࡼࡿࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝ◊ಟ๓ᚋࡢᅇ⟅࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࣀࣥࣃ࣓ࣛࢺࣜࢵࢡ᳨ᐃࢆ⾜࠸㸪ḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤖ᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀࡓ㸦⾲㸯㸧
ࠋ

−212−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍⾲㸯㸬㸬Ꮫ⩦⪅⮬㌟ࡢⱥㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⮬ぬࡢኚ໬

ぢ▱ࡽࡠே
▱ே
཭ே
ᑠࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡛ࡢⓎゝ఍ྜ࡛ࡢⓎゝ
ே࡛ࡢ఍ヰ
ே๓࡛ࡢࢫࣆ࣮ࢳ
median (interquartile range)

Perceived Communication Competence in English
Pre
Post
z
82.96 (0-350)
139.83 (6-360)-4.53**
78.08 (0-330)
170.09 (20-360)-5.07**
75.00 (13-185)
180.00 (95-250)-4.64**
86.82䠄0-270)
130.52 (16-270)-4.58**
70.99 (0-300)
117.82 (15-270)-4.94**
90.96 (0-240)
134.18 (22-270)-4.95**
67.48 (0-300)
116.83 (15-270)-4.81**** p <.005 ศᯒࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪◊ಟᚋ࡟ࡣࡍ࡭࡚ࡢሙ㠃㸪࠾ࡼࡧ⪺ࡁᡭ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅⮬㌟ࡢⱥㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙ
ࣥ⬟ຊ࡟ᑐࡍࡿホ౯ࡀ㢧ⴭ࡟㧗ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡓ࡜࠼ 2 㐌㛫࡜࠸࠺▷ᮇ㛫ࡢㄒᏛ◊ಟ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶ㸪ⱥㄒᏛ⩦᝟ពせᅉࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿཧຍ⪅ࡢⱥㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡢ⮬ᕫホ౯ࡀ㸪ሙᡤࡸ┦ᡭ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀุ᫂ࡋࡓࠋ
ㅮ⩏ࡸᐇ㦂㸪ᐇ⩦➼ࡀከࡃㄢࡏࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵ࡟እᅜㄒᏛ⩦ࡢ᫬㛫ࢆ☜ಖࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸་⒪⣔ࡢᏛ⏕࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㸪▷ᮇㄒᏛ◊ಟ࡟ཧຍࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㸪ᑗ᮶ࡢ⫋ሙ࡛ᙺ❧ࡘྍ⬟ᛶࡢ࠶ࡿⱥㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࢆ㣴࠺ࡓࡵࡢ᭷ຠ࡞ෆⓗືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ⤖ᯝࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼㸪ㄒᏛ◊ಟ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᚓࡽ
ࢀࡓⱥㄒᏛ⩦᝟ព㠃࡛ࡢ⫯ᐃⓗ࡞ኚ໬ࢆ㸪ᐇ㝿ࡢⱥㄒຊ⫱ᡂ࡟⤖ࡧࡘࡅࡿࡓࡵࡢලయⓗ࡞ᩍ⫱᪉ἲࡢ᳨ドࡀ௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. A. (2002). Sex and age effects on willingness to
communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion
students. Language Learning, 52 (3), 537-564.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language
communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15 (1), 3-26.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a
L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545-562.
Matsuoka, R. (2004). Willingness to communicate in English among Japanese college students. Proceedings of the
9th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 165-176.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern
Language Journal, 86, 54-66.

−213−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(9:00-16:00 㸭ࢥ࢔ࢱ࢖࣒㸸13:10-14:40)ࢧ࢖࢚ࣥࢫ࣮࣍ࣝ

ㄒᏛᩍ⫱タഛࡢ᭦᪂࡜ᨵⰋࡢᐇ㊶㸸
⌮ᕤ⣔ ESP ᩍ⫱ࡢᨭ᥼ࢆ┠ᣦࡋ࡚ຍ⸨ 㕲⏕㸦୰㒊኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ㄒᏛᩍᐊ㸪Self-Access Center㸪CALL㸪e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ㸪ESP
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
኱Ꮫ⏕ࡢእᅜㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊࢆ඲Ꮫඹ㏻ࡢᩍ㣴ᩍ⫱࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢእᅜㄒ࡜࠸࠺఩⨨࡙ࡅ࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡽࡎ㸪Ꮫ㒊Ꮫ⛉࡛ᚲせ࡜ࡍࡿᑓ㛛࡛ࡢⱥㄒ㸪ESP ࡢᣦᑟ࠾ࡼࡧ⩦ᚓࡀ㸪ႚ⥭ࡢ㔜せㄢ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚఩⨨࡙ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟
࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣ 2013 ᖺᗘ࡟໅ົᰯ࡛タഛ᭦᪂ࡋࡓㄒᏛᩍᐊ 5 ᩍᐊ࡜ㄒᏛ⏝⮬⩦ᐊ㸦SAC㸧ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚㸪኱ᏛࡢㄒᏛᩍ⫱タഛ࡟ᑐࡍࡿከᵝ࡞ࢽ࣮ࢬ࡟ᛂ࠼ࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪ᑟධ࣭฼⏝ᨭ᥼࣭ᨵⰋ࡜࠸࠺㸱ࡘࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽⓎ⾲⪅ࡀᐇ㊶ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓ஦౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⤂௓ࡍࡿࠋࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ␗࡞ࡿ 4 ✀㢮ࡢㄒᏛᩍᐊ࡜㸪1 ࡘࡢㄒᏛᑓ⏝⮬⩦ᐊࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟᪉ྥ௜ࡅ࡚ᒎ㛤ࡋ㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡑࢀࡒࢀࢆ⤖ࡧࡘࡅ࡚ຠᯝⓗ࡞ㄒᏛᩍ⫱࣭ㄒᏛ⮬⩦⎔ቃࡢά⏝ࢆಁࡋࡓࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ሗ࿌ࡋ㸪ㄒᏛᩍ⫱⎔ቃ࡜ㄒᏛᏛ⩦⎔ቃࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉ࡢᡂຌ౛ࡢ୍ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚ᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ
2. ᡭ㡰
2.1 ᮏᰯࡢㄒᏛᩍ⫱タഛࡢ฼⏝⪅࡜ᮏⓎ⾲ࡢᑐ㇟⪅Ⓨ⾲⪅ࡣ㸪ឡ▱┴᫓᪥஭ᕷࡢᏛ㒊Ꮫ⏕ 10,000 ே⛬ࡢ኱ᏛࡢㄒᏛᩍ⫱タഛࡢタィ㸪㐠⏝㸪⟶⌮ࢆ⫋ົ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⾲ 1 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ␗࡞ࡿㄒᏛᩍᐊ 6 ᩍᐊ࡜ SAC ࡜㸪e ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ⎔ቃ࡞࡝ࡢㄒᏛᏛ⩦࡟㛵ࡍࡿྛ✀タഛ㸪⎔ቃࡀᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏタഛࡢ฼⏝⪅ࡣ඲Ꮫࡢᩍ㣴ᩍ⫱࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢㄒᏛᤵᴗࡢᒚ
ಟ⪅࡜ㄒᏛᩍဨ㸪ࡲࡓࡣᏛ㒊ᑓ㛛ࡲࡓࡣᏛ⛉ᑓ㛛ࡢㄒᏛᤵᴗࡢᒚಟ⪅࡜ᩍဨ㸪ࡑࡋ࡚බ㛤ㅮᗙࢆࡣࡌࡵ
࡜ࡍࡿཷㅮ⪅ࡸㅮᖌ㸪⮬⩦ᐊ฼⏝⪅ࡀ୺࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣ㸪඲Ꮫࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ฼⏝⪅ࡢ୰࡛ࡶ≉࡟㸪
2014 ᖺᗘ࡟໅ົᰯ࡟᪂タࡉࢀࡓᕤᏛ㒊ࡢ᪂Ꮫ⛉ࡢᏛ⏕㸦⾲ 2㸧ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᙼࡽࡢⱥㄒ⬟ຊ࡟ࡼࡾ㸪ୖ⣭ࢡࣛࢫ࡜୰⣭ࢡࣛࢫ㸪ึ⣭ࢡࣛࢫ࡟ศ๭ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᑐ㇟⪅ࡣ඲ဨᚲಟࡢⱥㄒ⛉┠࡜ࡋ࡚ᒚಟࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋᏛ⛉ࡢせᮃ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪⾲ 1 ࡢㄒᏛᩍ⫱⎔ቃࢆຠᯝⓗ࡟ά⏝ࡋ㸪Ꮫ⛉ࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࢆ᥎㐍ࡋ㸪ESP ᩍ⫱ᨭ᥼⎔ቃ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢᮏタഛࡢ㧗࠸᭷⏝ᛶࢆ┠ᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
⾲ 1.
ᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿㄒᏛᩍ⫱タഛ⎔ቃ㸦2013 ᖺᗘ᭦᪂᫬㸧
LL ᩍᐊ

ከ┠ⓗ
₇⩦ᐊ

CALL ᩍᐊ

PC+LL ᩍᐊSACe ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ

ᩍᐊᩘ

1

2

1

1

1

31

ᗙᖍᩘ

41

42

47

41

30

↓ไ㝈 2

୺࡞ᶵ⬟

LL

ᮘ࡜᳔Ꮚ

CALL

PC ࡜ LL

฼⏝⎔ቃ

ᩍᮦ

−214−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍⾲ 2.
ᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿᕤᏛ㒊ࡢ᪂Ꮫ⛉ࡢෆヂ㸦2014 ᖺᗘධᏛ᫬㸧
ୖ⣭

୰⣭

ึ⣭

ィ

24

28

28

80

2014 ᖺᗘධᏛ⏕2.2 ᡭ㡰
ࡲࡎ㸪᪂Ꮫ⛉ࡢᩍဨ࡜⛉┠ࢆᢸᙜࡍࡿㄒᏛᩍဨ࠿ࡽ⥥ᐦ࡞஦๓ࣄ࢔ࣜࣥࢢࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢᚋ㸪ㄒᏛᩍဨ࡜฼⏝⎔ቃ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ᳨ウࢆ㐍ࡵࡓࠋᢸᙜㄒᏛᩍဨࡣᑓ௵ᩍဨ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪᪥ᖖⓗ࡟ᡴࡕྜࢃࡏࡀ⾜࠼ࡿ⎔ቃ࡟࠶ࡿࠋᏛ⛉ࡢᩍဨ࡜ࡣᑐ㠃ࡢᡴࡕྜࢃࡏ࡜࢜ࣥࣛ࢖ࣥࡢᡴࡕྜࢃࡏࡢ୧᪉ࢆᚲせ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚౑࠸ศ
ࡅ㸪༑ศ࡟㆟ㄽࢆ㔜ࡡࡓࠋㄒᏛᤵᴗࡀጞࡲࡗ࡚࠿ࡽࡶ㸪Ꮫ⛉ᩍဨ࡜ㄒᏛᩍဨ㸪ࢫࢱࢵࣇࡀ୍య࡜࡞ࡗ࡚
Ꮫ⏕ࡢᡂ㛗ᨭ᥼ࢆ⥆ࡅࡓࠋ඲࡚ࡢ༠ຊ⪅࡜Ꮫ⏕⮬㌟ࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࢆඖ࡟㸪ࠕ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠖ
㸪ࠕ⤖ࡧࡘࡅࠖ࡟ࡼࡾ㸪⌧ᅾࡢㄢ㢟ゎỴ࡟ྥࡅࡓ᭱ᑠࡢタഛᨵⰋࢆ⥅⥆ⓗ࡟⾜࠸㸪ᑗ᮶ࡢࢦ࣮ࣝ࡟㏆࡙ࡅࡿᨭ᥼ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ2.2.1 ESP ᩍ⫱ᨭ᥼ࢆ┠ᣦࡋࡓㄒᏛᩍ⫱タഛࡢ᭦᪂࡜ᨵⰋ
ᮏᐇ㊶࡟࠶ࡓࡾ㸪௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ㄒᏛᩍ⫱タഛࡢ᭦᪂ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋ᭦᪂࡟ࡣ㸪๓㏙ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㛵ಀ⪅࡜ᙜ஦⪅ࡢ༠ຊ࣭ពぢࢆ✚ᴟⓗ࡟ᘬࡁฟࡍࡓࡵ࡟ࠕࢫࢸ࣮ࢡ࣍ࣝࢲ࣮࣐ࢿࢪ࣓ࣥࢺࠖࡢᡭἲࢆཧ↷ࡋࡓࠋ
3. ⤖ᯝ
ᐇ㊶ࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪ESP ᩍ⫱ᨭ᥼ࢆຠᯝⓗ࡟⾜࠺࡟ࡣ㸪1)Ꮫ㒊Ꮫ⛉ࡢࢢࣛࣥࢻࢹࢨ࢖ࣥࡢタᐃ㸪2)ㄒᏛᩍဨ
࡜ࡢ㛫࡛ࡢࢥࣥࢭࣥࢧࢫࡢ᫂☜࡞ඹ᭷㸪3)⌧≧ࡢㄢ㢟ࡢᢕᥱ࡜ࢦ࣮ࣝ࡬ࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢ㐺ษ࡛⥅⥆ⓗ࡞㑅ᢥ࡜ヨ⾜㸪4)⌮᝿ⓗ࡛኱ࡁ࡞ᨵၿ࣭᭦᪂ࡼࡾࡶಶูࡢࢽ࣮ࢬ࡟ࢱ࢖࣒࣮ࣜ࡟㐺ᛂࡋࡓ⌧ሙ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ
㓄៖ࡢ⾜ࡁᒆ࠸ࡓ࢝ࢫࢱ࣐࢖ࢬࡢ 4 Ⅼࡀ୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣ඲ㄒᏛᩍဨࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚タഛࢽ࣮ࢬࡢ
ࣄ࢔ࣜࣥࢢࢆࡋࡓୖ࡛⾜࠺኱つᶍ࡞タഛ᭦᪂ࡼࡾࡶ㸪ࡼࡾࡁࡵ⣽࠿ࡃᏛ⏕ࡢ⏕ࡢኌ㸪⌧ሙࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᨭ᥼
ࡢࢽ࣮ࢬࢆタഛ࡟㐺ษ࡟ࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡗࡓࠋḟࡢㄢ㢟ࡣ㸪タഛࡢࢢࣛࣥࢻࢹࢨ࢖ࣥ
࡛ᑐᛂࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ㐩ᡂ୙ྍ⬟࡞ၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏタഛࢆά⏝ࡋࡓᩍ⫱ᐇ㊶ຠᯝࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ᑠᰩ࣭㧗୸࣭ຍ⸨㸦2014㸧࡛බ⾲ࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓ㸪௒ᚋࡢ⥅⥆ⓗ࡞ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳࡢ⤖ᯝ㸪2017 ᖺᗘᮎ࡟ึᖺᗘධᏛ⪅ࡢึᮇ᭱⤊┠ᶆ࡛࠶ࡿᏛ⛉┠ᶆ࡟㐩ࡍࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡣ᭱⤊ᖺᗘࡲ࡛ࡢ⥅⥆ⓗྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳ࡜㏣ドࡀᚅࡓࢀࡿࠋ
ὀ
1ዎ⣙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᩍᮦࢥ࣮ࢫᩘࢆ♧ࡍࠋ

2ໟᣓࣛ࢖ࢭࣥࢫ࡟ࡼࡿ඲Ꮫ⏕ࡢྠ᫬฼⏝ᩘࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡓࡔࡋࢧ࣮ࣂ࣮ࡢฎ⌮⬟ຊ࡟ࡼࡾྠ᫬฼⏝࡟ࡣ⌧ᐇⓗ࡞ୖ㝈ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ࠶ࡃࡲ࡛ࡶࣛ࢖ࢭࣥࢫୖࡢୖ㝈ᩘ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫ⮬యࢆಖドࡋ࡞࠸ࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ᑠᰩᡂᏊ࣭㧗୸ᑦᩍ࣭ຍ⸨㕲⏕ (2014). ⌮⣔Ꮫ⛉࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࣔࢹ ࣝࡢ෌ᵓ⠏:Ꮫ⩦ពḧࡢྥୖ࡜⮬ᚊⓗᏛ⩦ຊ⫱ᡂ࡬ࡢᣮᡓ. බ┈♫ᅋἲே ⚾❧኱Ꮫ᝟ሗᩍ⫱༠఍ ᖹᡂ 26 ᖺᗘ ᩍ⫱ᨵ㠉 ICT ᡓ␎኱఍, <http://www.juce.jp/archives/taikai_2014/a-17.pdf> 㸦࢔ࢡࢭࢫ᪥㸸2015 ᖺ 6 ᭶ 7 ᪥㸧኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍㸦┘㸧࣭ᑎෆ୍࣭ᒣෆࡦࡉᏊ࣭㔝ཱྀࢪࣗࢹ࢕࣮࣭➲ᓥⱱ (2010).ࠗ21 ୡ⣖ࡢ ESP ̾᪂ࡋ࠸⌮ㄽࡢᵓ⠏࡜ᐇ㊶࠘኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ.
⚟஭ᕼ୍࣭㔝ཱྀࢪࣗࢹ࢕࣮࣭Ώ㎶⣖Ꮚ (2009).ࠗESP ⓗࣂ࢖ࣜࣥ࢞ࣝࢆ┠ᣦࡋ࡚ ኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ෌ᐃ⩏࠘኱㜰኱Ꮫฟ∧఍.

−215−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 5 ᪥(9:00-16:00 㸭ࢥ࢔ࢱ࢖࣒㸸13:10-14:40)ࢧ࢖࢚ࣥࢫ࣮࣍ࣝ

࢙࢘࢔ࣛࣈ࣓ࣝ࢝ࣛࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥᤵᴗᐇ㊶ሗ࿌᳃ୗ ⨾࿴㸦⚄ᡞᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮࣭ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ㸪ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥάື㸪࢙࢘࢔ࣛࣈ࣓ࣝ࢝ࣛ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ຠᯝⓗ࡞ゝㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ㸪4 ᢏ⬟ࢆ⤫ྜⓗ࡟ά⏝ࡍࡿ⬟ຊࢆ㌟࡟௜ࡅ࡚࠾ࡃ
ࡇ࡜ࡀ୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪኱Ꮫ࡛ࡣᢏ⬟ูࡢⱥㄒᤵᴗࡶከ࠸ࠋሗ࿌⪅ࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛㸪ࡉࡲࡊࡲ࡞ᤵᴗࡢ୍㒊࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ୺せ࡞せ⣲࡜ࡋ࡚㸪4 ᢏ⬟ࢆࣂࣛࣥࢫࡼࡃ㐠⏝ࡍࡿカ⦎࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆྲྀࡾ
ධࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ㸦᳃ୗ㸪2011㸪᳃ୗ㸪2014 ࡯࠿㸧ࠋࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ࣮࢜ࢹ࢕࢚ࣥࢫࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽࣅࢹ࢜
᧜ᙳࡍࡿヨࡳࡣ㸪ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡶከࡃሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ᮏᐇ㊶ሗ࿌࡛ࡣ㸪2014 ᖺᗘࡢᤵᴗෆࡢ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮࣭
ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪᪂ࡋ࠸ヨࡳ࡜ࡋ࡚ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢱ࣮ࡀ࢙࢘࢔ࣛࣈ࣓ࣝ࢝ࣛ (Panasonic
HX-A500) ࢆ⏝࠸࡚㸪Ⓨ⾲⪅ࡢどⅬ࠿ࡽࣅࢹ࢜᧜ᙳࡋࡓ஦౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⤂௓ࡍࡿࠋ2. ᡭ㡰
2.1 ཧຍ⪅⤒ႠᏛ㒊࡛ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢᤵᴗࢆᒚಟࡍࡿ㸪኱Ꮫ 2 ᖺ⏕ 30 ྡࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓࠋOxford Quick
Placement Test (Oxford University Press) ࠾ࡼࡧ Versant English Test (Pearson Knowledge Technologies) ࡛㸪ᙼࡽࡢⱥㄒ⩦⇍ᗘࢆ ᐃࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ㸪௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓ 1ࠋ
⾲ 1.
⩦⇍ᗘࢸࢫࢺࡢ⤖ᯝᖹᆒࢫࢥ࢔㸦‶Ⅼ㸧 CEFR ᥮⟬ࣞ࣋ࣝ⩦⇍ᗘࢸࢫࢺ

ཷ㦂⪅ᩘ

OQPT

30

22.7 (60)

A2

VET

25

30.1 (80)A1ྛࢸࢫࢺ࡟ῧ௜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ CEFR ᥮⟬⾲࡟ࡼࡿ࡜㸪ࢸࢫࢺ㛫࡛␗࡞ࡿࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟┦ᙜࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ㸪OQPT ࡜ VET ࡛ CEFR ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝ᥮⟬ࡢㄪᩚࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡶせᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚⪃៖ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶
ࡿࡀ㸪OQPT ࡀ ᐃࡍࡿㄞゎ࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄒᙡ࣭ᩥἲࡢ▱㆑࡜ VET ࡀ ᐃࡍࡿࣜ࢔ࣝࢱ࢖࣒࡛ࡢࣜࢫࢽࣥ
ࢢ࣭ࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢ⬟ຊ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟኱ࡁ࡞ᕪࡀ࠶ࡾ㸪ࡦ࠸࡚ࡣ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ⌮ゎຊ࡜⏘ฟຊࡢ஋㞳ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡶ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ㸦ཎ⏣࣭᳃ୗ㸪2013㸧ࠋ
2.2 ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮ࡢసᡂ
࣏ࢫࢱ࣮࣭ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢࢸ࣮࣐ࡣ㸪My future plans ࡜ࡋ㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡣ PowerPoint ࡛ 4㹼6 ᯛ⛬ᗘࡢࢫࣛ࢖ࢻࢆసᡂࡋࡓࠋA4 ࢧ࢖ࢬࡢࣇ࣮࡛ࣝ࢝ࣛࣉࣜࣥࢺ࢔࢘ࢺࡋࡓࢫࣛ࢖ࢻࢆ㈞ࡾྜࢃࡏ࡚㸪A2 ࢧ࢖ࢬ⛬ᗘࡢ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮ࢆ᏶ᡂࡉࡏࡓࠋ
2.3 Ⓨ⾲ࡢ⦎⩦ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ඛ❧ࡕ㸪඲యࡢὶࢀ (e.g., Today, I’d like to talk about Japan.)㸪㉁ၥ࣭ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ (e.g.,
May I ask you a question?)㸪⾲ࡸࢢࣛࣇࡢㄝ᫂ (e.g., Please look at this pie chart.) ࡞࡝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ྛ 10 ᩥ࠿−216−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ࡽᡂࡿࠕࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟ᙺ❧ࡘ⾲⌧㞟ࠖࢆసᡂࡋࡓࠋPowerPoint ࡛ᩍᮦࢆసᡂࡋ㸪ྠࡌⱥᩥࢆ౑
ࡗ࡚㡢ኌ㸭ᩥᏐᥦ♧࠾ࡼࡧ㡢ኌ㸭ᩥᏐ⏘ฟ࡟ࡼࡿ⦎⩦ࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋࡓࠋಶே࡛ࡢ⦎⩦ࡢᚋ㸪Ꮫ⏕ࡣ 4 ྡ⛬ᗘࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ศ࠿ࢀཱྀ࡚㢌⦎⩦ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ㸪࠾஫࠸ࡢ᏶ᡂᗘࢆࢳ࢙ࢵࢡࡋྜࡗࡓࠋ
2.4 Ⓨ⾲ࡢᡭ㡰࣏ࢫࢱ࣮࣭ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡣ㸪௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᡭ㡰࡛⾜ࡗࡓࠋ1) 30 ྡࡢࢡࣛࢫࢆ 4 ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ศࡅ㸪ྛࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㸦7 ྡ⛬ᗘ㸧ࡀྠ᫬࡟ᩍᐊෆ࡟࣏ࢫࢱ࣮ࢆ㈞ࡿࠋ
2) ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢱ࣮ࡣ㸪ᩍဨࡢᣦ♧࡟ᚑࡗ࡚࢙࢘࢔ࣛࣈ࣓ࣝ࢝ࣛࢆ⿦╔ࡍࡿࠋ3) ṧࡾࡢᏛ⏕ࡣ㸪ྛ⮬⯆࿡ࢆᣢࡗࡓ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮ࡢ๓࡟⛣ືࡋ㸪1 ࡘࡢ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮࡟ࡘࡁ㸪3㹼4 ྡࡀ࣮࢜ࢹ
࢕࢚ࣥࢫ࡟࡞ࡿࠋ
4) ྛ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮ࡢ࣮࢜ࢹ࢕࢚ࣥࢫࡢ࠺ࡕ㸪࢙࢘࢔ࣛࣈ࣓ࣝ࢝ࣛ࡜ࡣูࡢࣅࢹ࣓࡛࢜࢝ࣛࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩ
ࣙࣥࢆ᧜ᙳࡍࡿேࢆỴࡵ㸪ᩍဨࡢྜᅗ࡛㸪ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢࣅࢹ࢜᧜ᙳࢆ㛤ጞࡍࡿࠋ5) Ⓨ⾲ࡣ 5 ศ㸪Q&A ࢭࢵࢩࣙࣥࡣ 1 ศ࡜ࡋ㸪5 ศ௨ෆ࡟Ⓨ⾲ࡀ⤊ࢃࡗࡓࣉࣞࢮࣥࢱ࣮ࡣ㸪㐺ᐅ Q&Aࢭࢵࢩࣙࣥࢆጞࡵࡿࠋᩍဨࡢྜᅗ࡛㸪ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢࣅࢹ࢜᧜ᙳࢆ⤊஢ࡍࡿࠋ6) ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡣ㸪ྛࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡟ࡘࡁ 2 ᅇ⾜࠺ࠋ1 ᅇ┠ࡀ⤊ࢃࡗࡓࡽ㸪ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢱ࣮ࡣࡑࡢࡲࡲ
࡛㸪࣮࢜ࢹ࢕࢚ࣥࢫࡔࡅูࡢ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮ࡢ๓࡟⛣ືࡍࡿࠋ7) 2 ᅇ┠ࡶୖグࡢ 3㹼5 ࡜ྠࡌせ㡿࡛⾜࠸㸪Q&A ࢭࢵࢩࣙࣥࡀ⤊ࢃࡗࡓࡽḟࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡜஺௦ࡍࡿࠋ
3. ࡲ࡜ࡵ
ᤵᴗෆ୍࡛ᩧ࡟⾜࠺࣏ࢫࢱ࣮࣭ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩ࡛ࣙࣥࡣ㸪࣮࢜ࢹ࢕࢚ࣥࢫࡀᑡேᩘ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵ㸪ྛᏛ⏕ࡀ⥭ᙇࡏࡎ࡟Ⓨ⾲ࡋ㸪㉁␲ᛂ⟅࡟ཧຍࡋ㸪Ⓨ⾲ࡢᶵ఍ࢆከࡃ☜ಖ࡛ࡁࡿ࡞࡝ࡢ฼Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉㸪ᩍဨࡀࡍ࡭࡚ࡢࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ᭱ึ࠿ࡽ᭱ᚋࡲ࡛ぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺༳㇟ࢆᏛ⏕࡟୚࠼ࡿࡓ
ࡵ㸪බᖹ࡟ホ౯ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿୙Ᏻ࡟ᛮ࠸㸪ᩍᖌࡢ┠ࡀᒆ࠸࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ᛮࡗ࡚ཎ✏ࢆㄞࡳୖࡆࡓࡾ㸪᪥ᮏㄒࢆ౑ࡗࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከࡃ࡞ࡿ࡞࡝ࡢḞⅬࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
ᮏᤵᴗᐇ㊶࡛ࡣ㸪ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢱ࣮ࡀ࢙࢘࢔ࣛࣈ࣓ࣝ࢝ࣛࢆ⿦╔ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡾ㸪ୖグࡢၥ㢟ⅬࢆゎỴࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ᣦࡋࡓࠋࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⤊஢ᚋࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜㸪࢙࢘࢔ࣛࣈ࣓ࣝ࢝ࣛࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚
Ⰻ࠿ࡗࡓⅬ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪ࠕ⫈⾗ࢆព㆑࡛ࡁࡓࠖ
㸪ࠕ⮬ศࡢ┠⥺࡟Ẽࢆ௜ࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠖ
㸪ࠕᬯグࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟
ດຊࡋࡓࠖ㸪ࠕ᩾᪂࡛㠃ⓑ࠿ࡗࡓࠖ࡞࡝ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡓࠋẼ࡟࡞ࡗࡓⅬ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ㸪ࠕ᧯స᪉ἲࡀศ࠿ࡾ࡟ࡃ࠿
ࠕ┠⥺࡟ព㆑ࡀ⾜ࡁ㐣ࡂ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓࠖ࡞࡝࡟ຍ࠼㸪ࠕ⮬ศࡀ࡝࠺ᫎࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ
ࡗࡓࠖ㸪ࠕᑡࡋ㑧㨱ࡔࡗࡓࠖ
㸪࠿㸪ኌࡢ኱ࡁࡉࡣ࡝࠺ࡔࡗࡓࡢ࠿ࠖ࡞࡝ࢆ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡓࠋ௒ᚋࡣ㸪ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᤵᴗᐇ
㊶ࡢ୰࡛㸪ࡼࡾ㐺ษ࡞࢖ࣥࢫࢺࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࡸࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡࢆ୚࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᕤኵࡋࡓ࠺࠼࡛㸪࢙࢘࢔ࣛࣈ࣓ࣝ࢝ࣛࡢຠᯝⓗ࡞ά⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ᘬࡁ⥆ࡁㄪᰝࢆ⾜࠸ࡓ࠸ࠋὀ1

VET ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪Ḟᖍ⪅࠾ࡼࡧኌࡀᑠࡉࡍࡂࡿ࡞࡝ࡢ⌮⏤࡟ࡼࡾ not scored ࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝࡀฟࡓᏛ⏕㸦ィ

5 ྡ㸧ࢆࢹ࣮ࢱ࠿ࡽ┬࠸ࡓࠋᙜヱᏛ⏕ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ┬ࡃ 25 ྡศࡢ OQPT ࡢᖹᆒࢫࢥ࢔ࡣ 22.5 ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
୺せཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
ཎ⏣ᗣஓ࣭᳃ୗ⨾࿴ (2013).ࠕ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢゝㄒฎ⌮࡜ゝㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊ㸸Versant English Test ࡢࢫࢥ࢔ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࠖ㟁Ꮚ᝟ሗ㏻ಙᏛ఍ࠗಙᏛᢏሗ࠘2013-14-40, 1-6.
᳃ୗ⨾࿴ (2011).ࠕ4 ᢏ⬟ࡢ⤫ྜࢆ┠ᣦࡋࡓ኱Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢᤵᴗ㸸ࣆ࢔࣭ࣦ࣮ࣞࣗ࡜࣏ࢫࢱ
࣮࣭ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠖ㛵すⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍ࠗⱥㄒᩍ⫱◊✲࠘(SELT) ➨ 34 ྕ, 91-100.

−217−

８
月
５
日
︵
水
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(9:00-16:00 㸭ࢥ࢔ࢱ࢖࣒㸸13:10-14:40)ࢧ࢖࢚ࣥࢫ࣮࣍ࣝ

ࣈࣞࣥࢹ࢕ࢵࢻ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᑐ㠃ᤵᴗࡢࢹࢨ࢖ࣥ࡜ᩍᖌ
ࡢᙺ๭Ꮫ⩦ពḧྥୖࡢどᗙ࠿ࡽᑠᰩ ᡂᏊ㸦୰㒊኱Ꮫ㸧㛵ᒣ ೺἞㸦୰㒊኱Ꮫ㸧ຍ⸨ 㕲⏕㸦୰㒊኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸ࣈࣞࣥࢹ࢕ࢻ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢ㸪࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛࢹࢨ࢖ࣥ㸪ⱥㄒᩍᤵἲ㸪Ꮫ⩦ពḧ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
 2014 ᖺᗘ㸪໅ົᰯ࡟ࣟ࣎ࢵࢺ⌮ᕤᏛ⛉㸦௨ୗ㸪ER Ꮫ⛉㸧ࡀ᪂タࡉࢀࡓࠋධᏛ⪅ࡀᑗ᮶ᑓ㛛ศ㔝࡟ᦠࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡃ࡟ࡣ㸪ୡ⏺ࡢᵝࠎ࡞ⱥㄒ౑⏝⪅࡜༠ാ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺᭱ప㝈ࡢⱥㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩ
ࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ㸪ER Ꮫ⛉ࡣ໅ົᰯㄒᏛࢭࣥࢱ࣮࡜ඹ࡟⊂⮬ࡢ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛࢆ㛤ጞࡋࡓࠋ
ධᏛ᫬Ⅼࡢⱥㄒຊ࡟ࡣ㸪ᴫࡡⱥ᳨‽㸰⣭࠿ࡽ 5 ⣭࡜࠸࠺᱁ᕪࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ 2014 ᖺᗘධᏛ᫬㸪ⱥㄒᤵᴗึᅇ࡟࠾࠸࡚⾜ࡗࡓㄪᰝ࡛ࡣ㸪80 ே୰ 99%ࡀⱥㄒ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୙Ᏻឤ㸪ⱞᡭព㆑㸪᎘ᝏឤࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ධᏛ⪅ࢆ ER Ꮫ⛉ࡀ┠ᶆ࡜ࡍࡿࠕᇶ♏ⓗ࡞ⱥㄒࢆ㐠⏝࡛ࡁࡿᕤᏛ⪅ࠖ࡬࡜࠸࠿࡟ᑟࡇ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ึᖺᗘࡢᐇ㊶ࢆሗ࿌ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

2. ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛࢹࢨ࢖ࣥ࡜ᩍᖌࡢᙺ๭ ER Ꮫ⛉ࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ 1ࠥ㸰ᖺḟ㸦㐌 1 ᅇᤵᴗ㸧ࡢ┠ᶆࡣ㸪ḟࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
1) ⱥㄒ⩦ᚓ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࣐࢖ࢼࢫ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ⫯ᐃⓗ࡟㌿ࡌࡉࡏᏛ⩦ពḧࢆᙧᡂࡋጞࡵࡿ
2) ⱥㄒࡢ㡢ኌࢆ⪺࠸ࡓࡾே๓࡛ⱥㄒࢆⓎ㡢࣭Ⓨヰࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟័ࢀࡉࡏ㸪ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ
࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡟୙ྍḞ࡞⣲ᆅࢆᇵ࠸ጞࡵࡿ
3) ୺యⓗ࡟ࢫ࢟ࣝࢆ㌟࡟ࡘࡅ㐠⏝ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿᏛ⩦⪅ጼໃࢆᇵ࠸ጞࡵࡿ
4) ␗ᩥ໬࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㛵ᚰࢆ㧗ࡵ㸪␗ᩥ໬⌮ゎຊ࣭ཷᐜ⬟ຊࢆ㣴࠸ጞࡵࡿᮏ࣒࡛࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛࡣධᏛ᫬࡟ CASEC㸦ⱥㄒࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊุᐃࢸࢫࢺ㸧ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࣉ࣮ࣞ
ࢫ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᨃఝึᚰ⪅ࡀ኱༙ࢆ༨ࡵࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ෌ࢫࢱ࣮ࢺ࡟ࡣ㸪㐌 1 ᅇ 90 ศࡢᤵᴗ࡛ࡣ୙඘ศ࡛࠶ࡿࡀᤵᴗ᫬㛫ࢆ᭱኱㝈࡟ά⏝ࡍࡿࡓࡵ㸪⾲ 1㸪⾲ 2 ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ CALL ᩍᐊ࡜
₇⩦ᐊࢆά⏝ࡋ」ᩘᩍဨࢆ㸯ࢡࣛࢫ࡟㓄⨨ࡋࡓࣈࣞࣥࢹ࢕ࢵࢻ࣮ࣛࢽࣥࢢࢆᐇ㊶ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㐌 1
ᅇ 90 ศࡢᤵᴗࡢ௚࡟ࡣ㸪ୖ఩ 2 ࢡࣛࢫ㸦A㸪B㸧࡟㐌 1 ᅇ 90 ศࡢ e-Learning ᩍᮦ⿵⩦᫬㛫ࢆ⮬୺ཧຍ࡜ࡋ࡚タࡅⱥㄒᤵᴗᢸᙜ⪅ࡀ⿵⩦ࢆᣦᑟ㸪ୗ఩ᒙ࡛࠶ࡿ C ࢡࣛࢫ࡟ࡣᤵᴗෆ࡛඲࡚ࡢࢱࢫࢡ
ࢆᐇ㊶ࡉࡏᩍᖌࡀᏛ⩦ࢆ⣽ࡸ࠿࡟ᨭ᥼ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺ 2 ࢥ࣐㐃⥆ࡢᤵᴗ᫬㛫ࢆ☜ಖࡋࡓࠋ−218−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

⾲ 1. 2014 ᖺᗘ 1 ᖺḟⱥㄒᤵᴗ⦅ᡂ(A,B)
᫬㛫๭

11:00

ᑠᰩ࣭㛵ᒣྜྠ

ᑠᰩᩍᐊ

A,B ࢡࣛࢫ

10:15-

ᩍဨ

ᮌ᭙᪥

ⅆ᭙᪥

10:15

᫬㛫๭

ᩍဨ
㛵ᒣ

9:30-

⾲ 2. 2014 ᖺᗘ 1 ᖺḟⱥㄒᤵᴗ⦅ᡂ(C)

C ࢡࣛࢫ

CALL

₇⩦ᐊ

A

B

CALL
15:20

45 ศ

-16:50
17:05

45 ศ

B

A

ᩍᐊ

-18:35

90 ศ

90 ศ

C

C

࠸ࡎࢀࡢࢡࣛࢫ࡟ࡶᑐ㠃ᤵᴗ࡛ࡢ୍ᩧㄝ᫂ࢆ⿵ຓ࡜ࡋ࡚࣌࢔࡛ࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢸ࢕ࣈᛶ㸪ಶูᏛ⩦࡛ࡢ࢖ࣥࢼ࣮࢔ࢡࢸ࢕ࣈᛶࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࢱࢫࢡࢆᩘከࡃࣈࣞࣥࢻࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

3. ᑐ㠃ᤵᴗ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩍᖌࡢᙺ๭ ⱥㄒຊࡢᐃ╔ࡣ㸪༢࡟Ꮫ⩦㔞ࡢቑຍࡸᤵᴗ⎔ቃࡢ㑅ᢥ㸪ᩍᮦ㑅ᐃ࡛㐩ᡂ࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ
≉࡟ⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡟᢬ᢠឤࡀᙉ࠸Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟ࡣ㸪ᑐ㠃ᤵᴗ࡛ࡢࢱࢫࢡࢆៅ㔜࡟ࣉࣛࣥࡋ㸪Ꮫ⩦≧ἣࡸᏛ⩦ពḧࡢኚ໬࡟↷ࡽࡋྜࢃࡏ࡚㸪ෆⓎⓗືᶵ௜ࡅ࡟⤖ࡧࡘࡃࡼ࠺࡞ࢱࢫࢡࢆᵓᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ㝿ᩍᖌ࡟᭱ࡶồࡵࡽࢀࡿᙺ๭ࡣ㸪⣽ᚰࡢὀពࢆᡶࡗ࡚Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢኚ໬㸪ᡂ㛗ࢆほᐹࡋ㸪ಶࠎࡢࢱࢫࢡࢆ 1 ࡘࡢᏛ⩦ࢲ࢖ࢼ࣑ࢬ࣒࡬࡜⤖ࡧࡘࡅ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛ࡟࠾࠸
࡚ࡣⱥㄒᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿⱥㄒᤵᴗෆ㸪ⱥㄒ⮬୺Ꮫ⩦ෆ࡛ࡢᏛ⩦⪅ほᐹࡢࡳ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪Ꮫ⛉ᑓ㛛ᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿ௚ࡢᤵᴗ࡛ࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࡢᵝᏊ࡜ࡶ㔜ࡡྜࢃࡏࡿ࡭ࡃ᝟ሗ஺᥮ࢆ㢖⦾࡟⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

4. ⤖ᯝ 㸯ࠥ㸰ᖺḟࡢ኱ࡁ࡞┠ᶆࡣᏛ⩦⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࢫࢱ࣮ࢺ
ࣛ࢖ࣥ࡟඲ဨࡀ❧ࡘࡇ࡜㸪ⱥㄒ࢔ࣞࣝࢠ࣮ࢆᑡࡋ࡛ࡶ
ඞ᭹ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋධᏛ᫬࡜㸯ᖺᚋࡢ CASEC ࢫࢥ࢔ࡣ඲య࡜ࡋ࡚ࢫࢥ࢔ᨵၿࡀぢࡽࢀ㸪≉࡟ C ࢡࣛࢫ࡟᭱ࡶⴭࡋ࠸ࢫࢥ࢔ᨵၿࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ
2 ᖺ㛫࡛ࡢ㐩ᡂ┠ᶆ࡟ᑡࡋ࡛ࡶ㏆࡙ࡁⱥㄒࢆᏛࡪពḧᅗ 1. 2014 ᖺධᏛ⪅ CASEC ࢫࢥ࢔ࡢኚື ࢆྥୖࡋጞࡵࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ

−219−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(9:00-16:00 㸭ࢥ࢔ࢱ࢖࣒㸸13:10-14:40)ࢧ࢖࢚ࣥࢫ࣮࣍ࣝ

እᅜㄒᏛ⩦࡛ࡢどぬ᝟ሗࡢຠᯝᮤ ┦✕㸦஑ᕞ኱Ꮫ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 どぬ᝟ሗ㸪ㄒᙡᏛ⩦㸪࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭ࢫ࣮࣐࢟
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
 ㏆ᖺࠊእᅜㄒᩍ⫱ศ㔝࡛ࡣㄒᙡࡢ୰ᚰⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍࡓࡵࡢ୍ࡘࡢ᪉ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭ࢫ࣮࣐࢟
ࢆ฼⏝ࡋࡓከ⩏ㄒࡢ⩦ᚓࡸ᱁ࡢᵓᩥࡢ⩦ᚓࢆᨭ᥼ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿ㡯┠ࡀ≉ᐃࡢㄒᙡ࡟㝈ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑࢀ௨እࡢㄒᙡ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪉ἲ࡜ᡭ㡰࡛Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟ᥦ♧ࡍ࡭ࡁ࠿࡜࠸ࡗࡓලయ౛ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣእᅜㄒࡢㄒᙡᏛ⩦࡟࠾ࡅࡿどぬ᝟ሗࡢຠᯝࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊㄒᙡᏛ⩦࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭ࢫ࣮࣐࢟ά⏝ࡢ᭷ຠᛶࢆ᳨ウࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
2. ㄒ⩏ࡢࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉ࡜࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭ࢫ࣮࣐࢟ ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭ࢫ࣮࣐࢟࡜ࡣࠊ⚾ࡓࡕࡢ⾜ືࠊ▱ぬࠊᴫᛕࡢ୰࡟ࡃࡾ㏉ࡋ⌧ࢀࡿࣃࢱ࣮ࣥࡸᙧࠊつ๎ᛶࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ㸦Johnson, 1987㸧ࠋࡇࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭ࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࡣࠊ⚾ࡓࡕࡢᐇ㝿ࡢ㌟య㐠ືࡸ▱ぬࠊࣔࣀࢆ᧯స
ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ලయⓗ࡞⤒㦂ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊព࿡ࡢ࠶ࡿᵓ㐀࡜ࡋ࡚❧ࡕ⌧ࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆ௓ࡋ࡚ࠊ⚾ࡓࡕࡣ᪥ࠎࡢ⤒㦂ࢆᵓ㐀໬ࡋࡓࡾࠊᢳ㇟ⓗ࡞≀஦ࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡓࡾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋLakoff㸦1987㸧ࡣ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭ࢫ࢟
࣮࣐ࢆ᪥ᖖ⤒㦂࡜ᴫᛕᵓ㐀ࢆࡘ࡞ࡄ๓ᴫᛕⓗᵓ㐀㸦preconceptual structures㸧ࡢࡦ࡜ࡘ࡜ࡋ࡚≉ᚩ࡙ࡅ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋࡺ࠼࡟࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭ࢫ࣮࣐࢟࡜ࡢ㛵㐃࡛ゝㄒ⾲⌧ࡢព࿡ࢆศᯒࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡣ㠀ᖖ࡟㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦㘠ᓥ, 2003㸧ࠋ  谣螿ࡣᏛ⩦⪅ࡢㄒ⩏Ꮫ⩦ࡢ㝿࡟࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭ࢫ࣮࣐࢟ᙧᡂࢆຓࡅࡿ᪉ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡸどぬ᝟ሗࡢ౑⏝࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋㄒ⩏ࡢࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉࢆᏛ⩦⪅࡟ᥦ♧ࡍࡿ᪉ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ⡆␎໬ࡉࢀࡓ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡀࡶࡗ
࡜ࡶຠᯝⓗ࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊࣉࣟࢺࢱ࢖ࣉࡢ⌮ゎࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃᏛ⩦⪅ࡢㄒᙡࡢグ᠈ࡲ࡛ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿሙྜࠊ⌧ẁ㝵࡛ࡣከᑡලయ໬ࡋࡓࡶࡢࡀ┦ᛂࡋ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ༢⣧ࡍࡂࡿ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡣ⌮ゎࡀᐜ᫆࡟⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊ
ࡑࢀࢆ᝿㉳ࡍࡿẁ㝵࡛ࡣᅔ㞴࡟࡞ࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾ⌮ゎ࡜グ᠈ࡣࢺ࣮ࣞࢻ࢜ࣇࡢ㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿࡓࡵ࡝ࢀ࡯࡝ࡢල㇟໬ࡀ㐺ษ࠿ࡣ᭦࡞ࡿ◊✲ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3. ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭ࢫ࣮࣐࢟ᙧᡂࢆຓࡅࡿどぬ᝟ሗ ➹⪅ࡶཧຍࡋࡓ᪥ᮏㄒᏛ⩦⪅⏝ᇶᮏືモ⏝ἲࣁࣥࢻࣈࢵࢡࣉࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢺ㸦Prashant et al., 2012㸧࡛ࡣࠊືモࡢព࿡ࡢ⌮ゎ࠾ࡼࡧᐃ╔ࢆಁ㐍ࡍࡿࡓ
ࡵ࡟ど⫈ぬࢥࣥࢸࣥࢶࢆ᥇⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋືモࡢព࿡ࡸ⏝౛ࢆ⨶ิࡍࡿ௒ࡲ࡛ࡢ㎡᭩࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊㄒ
ᙡࡢ⩦ᚓࢆ㐩ᡂࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᛕ㢌࡟࠾ࡁࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢㄆ▱ࣉࣟࢭࢫࠊグ᠈ࣉࣟࢭࢫࢆ⪃៖ࡋࡓど⫈ぬࢥࣥࢸࣥࢶࢆ㛤Ⓨࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࠶ࡿືモࡢព࿡ࢆ⾲♧ࡍࡿ㝿ࠊලయⓗ࡞ㄒ⩏ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿ๓࡟」ᩘࡢㄒ⩏ࡢ୰᰾ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆ⡆␎໬ࡉࡏࡓ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚⾲ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᅗ 1㸧ࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢㄒ⩏࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࢖ࣛࢫࢺ㸦㐃⏬㸧

−220−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍ࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ືసࡢ‽ഛẁ㝵ࠊᐇ⾜ẁ㝵ࠊ᏶஢ᚋࡢ୍㐃ࡢືసࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡸ࢖ࣛࢫࢺ࡞
࡝࡛⾲⌧ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸≧ἣࡣື⏬ࢆ౑ࡗ࡚ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿࠋ࢖ࣛࢫࢺ࡜ື⏬ࡣ㡢ኌ᝟ሗࡶྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ㸱✀㢮ࡢど⫈ぬࢥࣥࢸࣥࢶࡣぢฟࡋㄒ⏬㠃ࡢᒎ㛤㡰ᗎ࡟㐃ືࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᐇ㝿ࡢ࢙࢘ࣈ࣮࣌ࢪ࡛ࡣぢฟࡋㄒ୍ぴ⏬㠃࠿ࡽືモࢆ㑅ᢥࡋࠊḟ⏬㠃㸦ぢฟࡋㄒ⏬㠃㸧ࡢ᭱ึ࡟ᙜヱືモࡢ୰᰾ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࢆ⾲ࡍከ⩏ࢿࢵࢺ࣮࣡ࢡࢆ⾲♧ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊྛㄒ⩏ࡢ⌮ゎࢆຓࡅࡿࡓࡵ࡟࢖ࣛࢫࢺ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣື⏬ࢆ㐺ᐅ⏝࠸ࡿࠋືモࡢㄒ⩏࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣどぬ໬ࡀᅔ㞴࡞ࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅどぬ᝟ሗ࡛⾲⌧࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺ᕤኵࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ぢฟࡋㄒࠕ࠶ࡀࡿࠖࡢሙྜࠊࠕࡶࡢࡀୖࡢ᪉ྥ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚⛣ືࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡀ୰ᚰⓗ࡞ព࿡࡛ࠊࠕᐙ࡟࠶ࡀࡿࠖࠊࠕỈ୰ࡸỈୖ࠿ࡽ㝣ᆅ࡟࠶ࡀࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡣὴ⏕ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡢ౛࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ືモࡢព࿡ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿ㝿ࡶࡍ࡭࡚ࡢㄒ⩏ࢆ⥙⨶ⓗ࡟ิᣲࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡲࡎࡑࡢ୰ᚰⓗ࣭୰᰾ⓗ࡞ព࿡࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡢࡀⰋ࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ ືモࡢㄒ⩏ࡢㄝ᫂࡟ࡣ࢖ࣛࢫࢺࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᅗࡢᥥ⏬ࡸྡ๓ࡢㄆ㆑ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᫎീࡢグ᠈࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲㸦Dwyer, 1978㸧࡛ࡣࠊ⥺⏬ࡣどぬ᝟ሗࡢ➢ྕ໬ࢆᐜ᫆࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋල㇟ᗘ
ࡢ㐪࠸ࡣᫎീࡢే⏝ຠᯝ࡟ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊᩥࡢ⌮ゎࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ༢⣧⥺⏬ࡀຠᯝⓗ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᇶᮏືモࣁࣥࢻࣈࢵࢡ࡛ࡶྍ⬟࡞㝈ࡾ⡆␎໬ࡋࡓ⥺⏬ࢆ⏝࠸ࠊࡑࢀࢆ㡢ኌ࡟ྠᮇࡉࡏ࡞ࡀࡽ㡰␒࡟ぢࡏ࡚ືࡁࢆ
⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡜࢖ࣛࢫࢺࡔࡅ࡛ࡣࠊࢲ࢖ࢡࢩࢫ㸦౛࠼ࡤࠕ࠶ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡃ / ࡃࡿࠖࡢࡼ࠺࡞ヰ⪅࡟఩⨨࡟౫Ꮡࡍࡿ⾲⌧㸧ࢆ⾲ࡍࡢࡣ㞴ࡋ࠸ࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙྜ࡟ື⏬ࡀຠᯝⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋື⏬࡟ࡼࡾࠊヰ⪅ࡢ఩⨨࡜㑅ᢥࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⾲⌧ࡢ㛵ಀࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢグ᠈࡟ࡶ῝ࡃ้ࡲࢀࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
4. ⤊ࢃࡾ࡟
 ᮏⓎ⾲࡛ࡣእᅜㄒࡢㄒᙡᏛ⩦࡛ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭ࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࡢ᭷ຠᛶࢆ㏙࡭ࠊࡑࢀࢆᐇ㝿ࡢᩍ⫱⌧ሙ࡛ά⏝ࡍࡿ᪉ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡓࠋㄒᙡࡢ⾲㠃ⓗ࡞ព࿡ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃㄒࡀᣢࡘ୰ᚰⓗᴫᛕࢆᏛ⩦ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ┠ᶆゝㄒࡢㄒᙡయ⣔ࢆࡼࡾ☜ᐇ࡟⩦ᚓࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿ࡜⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Dwyer, Francis M.㸦1978㸧Strategies for improving visual learning. State College, PA.: Learning Services.
Johnson, Mark㸦1987㸧The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. University of
Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson㸦1980㸧Metaphors We Live by. University of Chicago Press.
Littlemore, Jeannette㸦2009㸧Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Second Language Learning and Teaching. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Prashant Pardeshi, Shingo Imai, Kazuyuki Kiryu, Sangmok Lee, Shiro Akasegawa and Yasunari Imamura
㸦2012㸧 “Compilation of Japanese Basic Verb Usage Handbook for JFL Learners: A Project Report.” Acta
Linguistica Asiatica, 2. 37-63.
ᐑᮏ⠇Ꮚ㸦2001㸧࣐ࠗࣝࢳ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔ㄒᏛᏛ⩦ᩍᮦࡢ㛤Ⓨ࡜ホ౯í⌮ㄽ࡜ᐇド࡜í࠘. ῱Ỉ♫㘠ᓥᘯ἞ᮁ㸦2003㸧ࠕㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࣭ࢫ࣮࣐࢟ࡢඛ⾜◊✲ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ఍ㄽᩥ㞟࠘➨ 3 ᕳ. 334-338.
୰ᓥ⩏᫂㸦2004㸧ࠗᫎീࡢᚰ⌮Ꮫ࠘. ࢧ࢖࢚ࣥࢫ♫.
ࠖࠗ኱㜰ᩍ⫱኱Ꮫ⣖せ࠘.
㇂୍ཱྀ⨾㸦2011㸧ࠕᛂ⏝ㄆ▱ゝㄒᏛ࡜ㄒᙡᏛ⩦íᩥἲ⌮ㄽࢆⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟ά⏝ࡍࡿ㸦2㸧
63-74.

−221−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(9:00-16:00 㸭ࢥ࢔ࢱ࢖࣒㸸13:10-14:40)ࢧ࢖࢚ࣥࢫ࣮࣍ࣝ

ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩍᖌࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡࡢຠᯝ
㸫ෙモ࡟↔Ⅼࢆ࠶࡚࡚㸫༨㒊 ᫀⶶ㸦㛗ᒸᕤᴗ㧗➼ᑓ㛛Ꮫᰯ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ㸪ࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡ㸪ᩥἲᣦᑟ㸪ෙモ㸪ῧ๐
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
࢖ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺࡢᬑཬ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟㸪e-mail ࡢᏑᅾ౯್ࡀ㧗ࡲࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀ࡜ྠ᫬࡟㸪ⱥㄒࣛ࢖ࢸ
࢕ࣥࢢ࡬ࡢὀ┠ࡶ㧗ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪᪂ᩍ⫱ㄢ⛬ࡢ㧗ᰯẁ㝵࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸪English Expression࡜࠸࠺⛉┠ࡀ⏕ࡲࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢ⛉┠ࡢ᳨ᐃᩍ⛉᭩ᩘ෉࡟┠ࢆ㏻ࡏࡤ㸪ᪧㄢ⛬ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢᩍ⛉᭩࡜ఝ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡉ࡚㸪ࡑࡢᣦᑟἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣኚ໬ࡀ㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
2. ⫼ᬒ࡜┠ⓗᮏ◊✲ࡢ┠ⓗࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀ᭩࠸ࡓⱥసᩥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⾜࠺ᩍᖌ࠿ࡽࡢᩥἲಟṇࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡ㸦ෙモ㸧ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅࡬ࡢࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡ⌮ゎᗘ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡑࡢຠᯝ࡟㐪࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋTruscott㸦1996㸧ࡀ㸪ࠕᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢάື࡬ࡢᩥἲಟṇࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡࡣ㸪ຠᯝࡀ࡞࠸ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ࡴࡋࢁ᭷ᐖ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜୺ᙇࡋ࡚௨᮶㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᩥἲಟṇࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡࡢຠᯝ࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ᑓ㛛⣬࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ㆟ㄽࡀ⥆࠸࡚࠸ࡿ(Ferris, 2004)ࠋከࡃࡢඛ⾜◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡ࡛ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡓ࢚࣮ࣛࡀ㸪ḟࡢసᩥ࡛࢚࣮ࣛࢆ㉳ࡇࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࠿ࢆぢ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡ࡬ࡢ⌮ゎᗘࡣ㸪ࡑࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࡢᩥἲຊ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㐪࠺ࡢ࡛㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ◊✲࡟ཧຍࡋࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࡢᩥἲࣞ࣋ࣝࡀ㐪࠼ࡤ㸪ࡑࡢຠᯝ࡟ࡶ㐪࠸ࡀฟ࡚ࡁ࡚ᙜ↛࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀ㸪ࡑࡇࡲ࡛ㄪ࡭࡚࠸ࡿ
◊✲ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡇ࡛㸪ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡࢆཷࡅࡓ┤ᚋࡢ⌮ゎᗘࢆ㸪㉁ၥ⣬ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚ࡾ㸪ࡑࡢᕪ␗࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪ᚋ᪥࡟᭩ࡃసᩥ୰࡛ࡢㄗࡾ࡟ᕪࡀฟࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᳨ドࡍࡿࠋ
3. ᡭ㡰
3.1 ཧຍ⪅ཧຍ⪅ࡣ㸪㛵ᮾ⏥ಙ㉺ᆅ᪉࡟࠶ࡿ㧗➼ᑓ㛛Ꮫᰯ࡟ᡤᒓࡍࡿ㸰ᖺ⏕㸱ࢡࣛࢫ࡛㸪ࣉࣞࢸࢫࢺ࣭㉁ၥ⣬࣭࣏ࢫࢺࢸࢫࢺࡢࡍ࡭࡚࡟ཧຍࡋࡓ⪅ࡢసᩥࡢࡳࡀศᯒࡢᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
௒ᅇࡢཧຍ⪅ࡢ TOEIC Bridge ࢸࢫࢺࡢᖹᆒࢫࢥ࢔㸫ࡣ㸪108.0 ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
3.2 ᡭ㡰
ࡲࡎ㸪ཧຍ⪅ࡣࣉࣞࢸࢫࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ⱥసᩥࢆ᭩࠸ࡓࠋࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡࡢࢱ࢖ࣉࡣ㸪ෙモࡢ࢚࣮ࣛࡢࡳ࡟
ୗ⥺ࢆᘬࡁ㸪ࡑࡢୗ࡟ṇ⟅ࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡛㸪┤᥋ࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ෆᐜ࡞࡝࡬ࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡣ
⾜ࢃ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࣉࣞࢸࢫࢺ࠿ࡽ 1 㐌㛫ᚋ࡟㸪ⱥసᩥࢆ㏉༷ࡍࡿ࡜ྠ᫬࡟㉁ၥ⣬ࡶ㓄ᕸࡋ㸪ࡑࡢ⌮ゎᗘࢆ㉁ၥ⣬࡟グධࡋ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ㉁ၥ⣬ࡢᅇ⟅࠿ࡽ㸪ࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡࡀ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡓࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㸦GY㸧࡜ࡑ࠺࡛࡞࠸ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㸦GN㸧࡟ศࡅࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚㸪ࣉࣞࢸࢫࢺ࠿ࡽ 5 㐌㛫ᚋ࡟࣏ࢫࢺࢸࢫࢺ㸦᪂つࡢసᩥ㸧ࢆ
ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࠋ

−222−

እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

4. ⤖ᯝ
௒ᅇࡢᐇ㦂⤖ᯝࢆ㸪㉁ၥ⣬࡛ࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡࡀ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡓࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㸦GY㸧࡜ࡑ࠺࡛࡞࠸ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㸦GN㸧
࡟ศࡅ࡚㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ࢚࣮ࣛᩘࢆୗグࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡚ࡳࡓ㸦⾲㸯㸧ࠋ⾲㸯 ゎ⟅ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉู࢚࣮ࣛᩘ
ࣉࣜࢸࢫࢺ࣏ࢫࢺࢸࢫࢺ

ῶᑡ⋡㸦%㸧

GY

32

14

43.7

GN

16

11

68.7

ࣉࣜࢸࢫࢺ᫬㸦GY:N=23, GN:N=8㸧࣏ࢫࢺࢸࢫࢺ᫬㸦GY:N=12, GN:N=8㸧ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㸦GY㸧ࡢ࢚࣮ࣛᩘࡣ㸪࣏ࢫࢺࢸࢫࢺ᫬࡟࠾࠸࡚㢧ⴭ࡟ῶᑡࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ࡑࡢேᩘ⮬యࡶ㸪࣏ࢫࢺࢸࢫࢺ᫬࡟ࡣ࠾ࡼࡑ༙ῶࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦23ĺ12㸧ࠋࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ㸦GN㸧ࡢ࢚࣮ࣛᩘࡣ㸪࣏ࢫࢺࢸࢫࢺ᫬࡟
࠾࠸࡚ῶᑡࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ㸪ࡑࡢேᩘ⮬యࡣ㸪ࣉࣜࢸࢫࢺ᫬࠿ࡽ࣏ࢫࢺࢸࢫࢺ᫬࡟࠿ࡅ࡚ࡣ඲ࡃኚ໬
ࡀ࡞࠸㸦8ĺ8㸧ࠋ
5. ࡲ࡜ࡵ
௒ᅇࡢᐇ㦂࡛ࡣ㸪ṇ⟅ࢆ♧ࡍ┤᥋ࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡉ࠼ࡶ㸪୚࠼ࡽࢀࡓࣇ࢕࣮ࢻࣂࢵࢡࢆᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ⌮ゎ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡢᕪ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪ࡑࡢຠᯝ࡟ࡶᕪࡀฟ࡚ࡃࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡓࠋࡓࡔ㸪ཧຍ⪅ࡀᑡ࡞࠸ࡓࡵ㝈ᐃⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here?
(and what do we do in the meantime…?) Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.

−223−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(9:00-16:00 㸭ࢥ࢔ࢱ࢖࣒㸸13:10-14:40)ࢧ࢖࢚ࣥࢫ࣮࣍ࣝ

ⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣅࢹ࢜ࡢຠᯝⓗά⏝ᒸ⏣ 㟹Ꮚ㸦ΎἨዪᏊ኱Ꮫ 㠀ᖖ໅ㅮᖌ㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ࣅࢹ࢜㸪ⱥㄒᩍ⫱㸪┬ᐹ㸪ほᐹᏛ⩦㸪ࣅࢹ࢜⮬ᕫࣔࢹࣜࣥࢢ
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
⌧ᅾࠊእᅜㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾࠸࡚Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟どぬⓗ࣭⫈ぬⓗ࡞᝟ሗࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋࡓࢹࢪࢱࣝࣅࢹ
࢜ᫎീ㸦௨ୗࠊ
ࠕࣅࢹ࢜ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ
㸧ࡢά⏝ࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࠋShrosbree㸦2008㸧࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊእᅜㄒᤵᴗ࡟࠾
ࡅࡿࣅࢹ࢜ά⏝ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊ㸦1㸧ᩍᐊ࡟࠾࠸࡚እᅜㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࢫ࢟ࢵࢺࡸ࣮࢜ࣛࣝࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ࡞
࡝ࡢࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫࢆ᧜ᙳࡋࠊࡑࡢࣅࢹ࢜ࢆᩍᖌࡸᏛ⩦⪅ࡀホ౯ࡍࡿࠊ㸦2㸧ᩍᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚ᩍᖌࡀ᧜ᙳࡋࡓ
ࣅࢹ࢜ࢆᏛ⩦⪅ࡀど⫈ࡍࡿࠊ
㸦3㸧ᩍᐊእࡢࣉࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢺ࡞࡝ࢆᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ᧜ᙳࡋࠊࡑࡢᫎീࢆᩍᐊ࡛ᩍᖌ
ࡸ௚ࡢᏛ⩦⪅࡟ぢࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࡇࡢ 3 ࡘࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ1 ࡘ┠ࡢࣅࢹ࢜࡟ࡼࡿ᧜ᙳ࣭ホ౯ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡋࡓά⏝᪉ἲ࡟୺║ࢆ⨨ࡁࠊࡑࡢά⏝౛࡜ຠᯝ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ドࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋ
2. ព⩏እᅜㄒᏛ⩦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࣅࢹ࢜ά⏝ࡀ⮬ᕫ┬ᐹຊ࣭⮬ᚊⓗᏛ⩦⬟ຊࡢྥୖ࡟᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂☜࡟࡛ࡁࢀࡤࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢゝㄒ⬟ຊࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫ඲⯡࡟㛵㐃ࡋࡓ⬟ຊࡢྥୖ࡜࠸࠺ᡂᯝࡀᚓࡽࢀࡿ
࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋCastañeda and Rodríguez-González㸦2011㸧ࡣࠊࢫ࣌࢖ࣥㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟ࡼࡿࣅࢹ࢜ά⏝ࢆ᳨ウࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢ⬟ຊࡢ㛗ᡤ࡜▷ᡤ࡟Ẽ࡙ࡃࡁࡗ࠿ࡅࢆసࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡇࢀࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ⮬ࡽࡢࣃࣇ࢛࣮࣐ࣥࢫࢆ┬ᐹࡋࠊ⮬ᕫホ౯ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚௚ே࡟ᑐࡍࡿほᐹຊࡸ⮬㌟࡟ᑐࡍࡿẼ࡙ࡁࢆಁ㐍ࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋTochon㸦2008㸧ࡣࠊࣅࢹ࡛࢜᧜ᙳࡍࡿࡇ࡜⮬యࡀ⾜ື࡟ᑐࡍࡿẼ࡙ࡁࢆ㧗ࡵࠊࡑࡢ⾜ືࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᙼࡽࡢᐇ㊶ࢆ⌮ゎࡉࡏࡿࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊᙼࡽࡢḟࡢ⾜ືࢆᨵၿࡉࡏࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦p. 426㸧ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊእᅜㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࣅࢹ࢜࡟ࡼࡿ᧜ᙳ࠿ࡽࡑࡢど⫈࣭ศᯒࡲ࡛ࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡀࠊ⮬ᕫࡸ௚⪅࡟ᑐࡍࡿᢈุⓗ࡞ᛮ⪃⬟ຊࢆྥୖࡉࡏࡿࡢ࡟୙ྍḞ࡞㐣⛬࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
3. ඛ⾜◊✲
䝡䝕䜸⮬ᕫ䝰䝕䝸䞁䜾䠄vi deoselfͲmodeling: VSM䠅

䝡
䝕
䜸
ᫎ
ീ
䛾
ᩍ
⫱
ⓗ
ά
⏝

䛒䜛≉ᐃ䛾ᢏ⬟䜢⩦ᚓ䛩䜛䛯䜑䛻ᑐ㇟⪅⮬䜙䛜䝰䝕䝹䛸䛺䛳䛯䝡䝕䜸䜢ほᐹ䛧䚸䛣䛖䛩䜜䜀䛷䛝䜛䜘䛖䛻䛺䜛䛷䛒䜝䛖䛸䛔䛖⪃䛘䜢ᙉ໬䛩䜛䛣䛸䛻䜘䛳䛶Ꮫ⩦䛩䜛᪉ἲ䠄Dowrick, 1999䠅ᩍဨ㣴ᡂᐇ⩦⏕䛜⮬㌟䛾ᣦᑟ᪉ἲ䜢▷ᮇ㛫䛷ྥୖ䛥䛫䜛┠ⓗ䠄Tochon,2008䠅䛛䜙䚸ᣦᑟ᪉ἲ䛾┬ᐹ䞉ᤵᴗ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ほᐹຊ䜢⫱ᡂ䛩䜛┠ⓗ䠄Orlova,2009;Hamilton,2012䛺䛹䠅䛻ኚᐜ䠡䠯䠨
ESL䛻䛚䛡䜛VSM䛜ⱥㄒ⬟ຊ䛰䛡䛷䛺䛟䚸Ꮫຊ඲య䛾ྥୖ䛻䛴䛺䛜䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ䠄Ortiz, et al. 2012䠗 Boisvert& Rao, 2014䠅䠡䠢䠨᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅䛻䜘䜛䜸䞊䝷䝹䝥䝺䝊䞁䝔䞊䝅䝵䞁䛾䝡䝕䜸᧜ᙳ䞉ど⫈䛻䜘䜛ゝㄒᢏ⾡䞉䝥䝺䝊䞁䝔䞊䝅䝵䞁ᢏ⾡䛾Ⓨ㐩䠄Okada,2011,2012,2013;Okada,Sawaumi&Ito,2014䠅ᅗ㸯 ࣅࢹ࢜ᫎീࡢᩍ⫱ⓗά⏝ࡢ౛−224−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

4. ࣅࢹ࣓࢜࢝ࣛࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ◊✲ࢆ㐍ࡵࡿ࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚
ᩍဨᐇ⩦ࡸእᅜㄒᤵᴗ࡛᧜ᙳࡉࢀࡓࣅࢹ࢜ࡢど⫈࡟ࡼࡿຠᯝࡀ᳨ドࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊࡑࡢ
ᫎീࡀᐇ㝿࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㐣⛬ࢆ⤒࡚᧜ᙳࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࠶ࡲࡾ㆟ㄽࡀ㐍ࢇ࡛࠸࡞࠸ࡼ࠺࡟ぢཷࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋࣅࢹ࣓࢜࢝ࣛࢆ౑ࡗ࡚᧜ᙳࡍࡿ㐣⛬࡛ὀពࡍ࡭ࡁⅬࢆ௨ୗ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵࡓࠋyࣅࢹ࣓࢜࢝ࣛ࡜ࣃࢯࢥࣥ࡜ࡢ஫᥮ᛶy∦ᡭᣢࡕ࣓࢝ࣛ࡜୕⬮௜ࡁࣅࢹ࣓࢜࢝ࣛy」ᩘࡢࣅࢹ࣓࢜࢝ࣛ࡟ࡼࡿྠ᫬᧜ᙳy⥅⥆ⓗ࡞ࣅࢹ࢜᧜ᙳ࣭ど⫈5. ⤊ࢃࡾ࡟
ᩍ⫱ᐇ⩦ࡸእᅜㄒᤵᴗ࡟࠾࠸࡚Ꮫ⩦⪅ࢆࣅࢹ࢜᧜ᙳࡋࠊࡑࡢᫎീࢆほᐹ࣭ศᯒࡍࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽᵝࠎ࡞ྍ⬟ᛶࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡿࠋࣅࢹ࡛࢜㐣ཤࢆ᣺ࡾ㏉ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ㐣ཤࡢ஦ᐇࢆࡑࡢࡲࡲཷࡅධࢀࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
௚⪅ࡸ⮬ศ⮬㌟࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᪂ࡓ࡞Ẽ࡙ࡁࢆࡶࡓࡽࡋ࡚ࡃࢀࡿࠋேࡣ௚ேࢆほᐹࡋ࡚┿ఝࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⮬ࡽࡢ⾜ືࢆ⫯ᐃⓗ࡟ኚ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡟࡞ࡾࠊࣅࢹ࡛࢜⮬㌟ࢆほᐹࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⮬ࡽࡢ⾜ື࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡍࡇ࡜ࡣᗈࡃ▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏேࡢⱥㄒ࡟ࡼࡿࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ⬟ຊࡢ⫱ᡂࡀồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿ᫖௒ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢⱥㄒ⬟ຊࡢྥୖࢆ┠ᣦࡍࡓࡵ࡟ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟ࣅࢹ࢜ࢆᩍ⫱ⓗ࡟ά⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ᭷ព⩏ࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ௒ᚋࠊ㧗➼ᩍ⫱ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊึ➼୰➼ᩍ⫱ẁ㝵࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ୰࡛ࠊࣅࢹ࢜ࡢᩍ
⫱ⓗά⏝࡟㛵ࡍࡿᐇドⓗ◊✲ࡀࡲࡍࡲࡍ㐍ࡴࡇ࡜ࢆᮇᚅࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩
Boisvert, P., & Rao, K. (2014). Video self-modeling for English language learners. TESOL Journal, 1-23.
doi:10.1002/tesj.135
Castañeda, M., & Rodríguez-González, E. (2011). L2 Speaking self-ability perceptions through multiple video speech
drafts. Hispania, 94 (3), 483-501. Retrieve from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23032122
Dowrick, P. W. (1999). A review of self modeling and related interventions. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 8, 2339. doi:10.1016/S0962 -1849(99)80009-2
Hamilton, E. R. (2012). Video as a Metaphorical Eye: Images of Positionality, Pedagogy, and Practice. College
Teaching, 60(1), 10-16. doi: 10.1080 /87567555.2011.604803
Okada, Y. (2011). Reflecting on students’ videotaped presentations. Journal of Teaching English, 20, 41–54.
Okada, Y. (2012). Video feedback comparison with EFL students. Studies in Language Education, 4, 17–33.
Okada, Y. (2013). EFL learners’ positive perceptions with regard to reviewing their classroom performance.
Proceedings of the 18th Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics Conference. 2 pages.
Okada, Y., Sawaumi, T., & Ito, T. (2014). Different effects of sample performance observation between high and low
level English learners. The 6th Centre for Language Studies International Conference Proceedings, 394-413.
Retrieved from http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/cls/CLaSIC/clasic2014 /Proceedings/okada _yasuko.pdf
Orlova, N. (2009). Video recording as a stimulus for reflection in pre-service EFL teacher training. English Teacher
Forum, 2, 30-35. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ923452)
Ortiz, J., Burlingame, C., Onuegbulem, C., Yoshikawa, K., & Rojas, E. (2012). The use of video self-modeling withEnglish language learners: Implications for success, Psychology in the Schools, 49(1), 23-29. doi: 10.1002 /pits.20615
Shrosbree, M. (2008). Digital Video in the Language Classroom. The JALT CALL Journal, 4(1), 75-84.
Tochon, F. (2008). A Brief History of Video Feedback and its Role in Foreign Language Education. CALICO Journal,
25(3), 420-435. Retrieved from https://calico.org/html/article_709.pdf

−225−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(9:00-16:00 㸭ࢥ࢔ࢱ࢖࣒㸸13:10-14:40)ࢧ࢖࢚ࣥࢫ࣮࣍ࣝ

᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព㆑ྥୖࢆᨭ᥼ࡍࡿ
࢔ࢽ࣓࣮ࢩࣙࣥᩍᮦ⏣୰ ὒஓ㸦໭ᾏᏛᅬ኱Ꮫ㸧኱ᮌ ୐ᕹ㸦໭ᾏᏛᅬ኱Ꮫ ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕㸧ᰴᘧ఍♫ VERSION2࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⬟ຊ㸪ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព㆑㸪ᐃᆺ⾲⌧㸪࣓ࢹ࢕࢔
1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪≉ᐃࡢⓎヰ⾜Ⅽ࡟≉ᚩⓗ࡞ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᐃᆺ⾲⌧ (pragmatic routine) ࡢᙺ๭࡟ὀ┠ࡋ㸪᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព㆑ྥୖࢆᨭ᥼㸪ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⬟ຊࡢⓎ㐩࡟㈉⊩ࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ࢔ࢽ࣓࣮ࢩࣙࣥᩍᮦࢆ
ไసࡋࡓࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣ㸪ᩍᮦไసࡢ◊✲⫼ᬒ㸪┠ⓗ㸪ไసࡢ㐣⛬࡜⤖ᯝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ሗ࿌ࡍࡿࠋ
2. ◊✲⫼ᬒ
2.1 ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⬟ຊⓎヰࡢࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥୖࡢᶵ⬟ࡸࡑࡢゝㄒ౑⏝♫఍࡛ࡢ≉ᚩ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ▱㆑࡛࠶ࡿㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ▱㆑ࡣ㸪ㄒᙡ࣭ᩥἲࡸᩥ❶ᵓᡂ࡟㛵ࢃࡿᵓᡂⓗ▱㆑࡜୪ࡧ㸪ゝㄒ▱㆑ࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿ㔜せ࡞せ⣲࡛࠶ࡿ (Bachman &Palmer, 2010)ࠋ୍᪉㸪➨஧ゝㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀᩥἲⓗ▱㆑ࢆⓎ㐩ࡉࡏࡿ㐣⛬࡛㸪ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ▱㆑ࡢⓎ㐩ࢆ⨨ࡁཤࡾ࡟ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡶᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵ㸪┠ᶆゝㄒ࡜ࡢ᥋ゐ㔞ࡀ㝈ࡽࢀࡿእᅜㄒᏛ⩦⎔ቃ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⬟ຊࡢ⫱ᡂ࡟୍ᐃࡢᩍ⫱ⓗ㓄៖ࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ
2.2 ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᐃᆺ⾲⌧ ᐃᆺ⾲⌧(formulaic sequence)࡜ࡣ㸪ࠕ㐃⥆ⓗ࡛࠶ࢀ㠀㐃⥆ⓗ࡛࠶ࢀ, ࠶ࡽ࠿ࡌࡵ⤌ࡳ❧࡚ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸪ࡲࡓࡣ⤌ࡳ❧࡚ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿ㸪ㄒࡸ௚ࡢព࿡ࢆᣢࡘせ⣲࡟ࡼࡿࡘ࡞ࡀࡾ࡛࠶ࡾ, ᩥἲ࡟ࡼࡗ
࡚⏕ᡂ, ศᯒࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶ, ࡦ࡜ࡘࡢࡲ࡜ࡲࡾ࡜ࡋ࡚グ᠈࡟㈓ⶶࡉࢀ, ゝㄒ౑⏝ࡢ㝿࡟᝿㉳ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࠖ
(Wray, 2002)࡜ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡿࠋᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࡣ㸪
ヰࡋゝⴥࡢ 30~50%௨ୖࢆ༨ࡵࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ(Foster,2001)㸪ࡑࡢ▱㆑ࡣ㐺ษ࡞ゝㄒ౑⏝࡟୙ྍḞ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ (Schmitt & Carter, 2004)ࠋᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࡢ୰࡛ࡶ㸪ࠕ(a)ᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ㸰ࡘ௨ୖࡢᙧែ⣲࠿ࡽᡂࡾ㸪(b)㡢㡩ⓗ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡲࡾࡀ࠶ࡿ㸪ࡘࡲࡾὶᬸ࡟ࡓࡵࡽ
࠸࡞ࡃ㡢ኌ໬ࡉࢀ㸪(c)⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ㸪࠸ࡘࡶྠࡌᙧᘧ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀ㸪(d)≧ἣ౫Ꮡⓗ࡛㸪(e)㸦ヰ⪅㸧ඹྠయ࡛ᗈ
ࡃ౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢࡣ㸪ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᐃᆺ⾲⌧(pragmatic routine)࡜ࡉࢀࡿ(Bardovi-Harlig, 2012, p. 208)ࠋᐃ
ᆺ⾲⌧㸪ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࡣゝㄒ౑⏝ࡢ㐺ษࡉ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿ୍᪉࡛㸪㠀ẕㄒヰ⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㸪ࡑࡢ౑࠸ࡇ࡞ࡋࡣᐜ࡛᫆ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪㛗ࡃ┠ᶆゝㄒ⎔ቃ࡟⁫ᅾᮇ㛫ࡋࡓ࠿ࡽ࡜࠸ࡗ࡚⩦ᚓ࡛ࡁࡿヂ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࡢᣦ᦬
ࡶ࠶ࡿ(Bardovi-Harlig & Bastos, 2011)ࠋࡑࡢࡓࡵ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⬟ຊࡢⓎ㐩ࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ㸪ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࡢᩍ⫱ࡀ୍ᐃࡢᙺ๭ࢆᯝࡓࡍࡶࡢ࡜ᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡣ㸪ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࢆ⏝࠸࡚ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព㆑(pragmatic awareness)㸪ࡦ࠸࡚ࡣㄒ⏝ㄽⓗ⬟ຊࡢⓎ㐩ࢆᨭ᥼ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ3. ࢔ࢽ࣓࣮ࢩࣙࣥᩍᮦࡢไస
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪≧ἣ౫Ꮡⓗ࡞ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࢆࡼࡾຠᯝⓗ࡟ᥦ♧ࡍࡿ᪉ἲ࡜ࡋ࡚࢔ࢽ࣓࣮ࢩࣙࣥື⏬
ࡢᙺ๭࡟ὀ┠ࡋ㸪ᩍᮦࢆไసࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡋࡓࠋᩍᮦࡣ㸪࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ◊✲ࡢࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ⬣࠿ࡍ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶

−226−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍

ࡿ 3 ࡘࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮㸦࠶࠿ࡽࡉࡲ࡟ゝ࠺㸪࣏ࢪࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ㸪ࢿ࢞ࢸ࢕ࣈ࣭࣏ࣛ࢖ࢺࢿࢫ㸧ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗព㆑ࡢྥୖࢆᅗࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ≺࠸࡜ࡋࡓࠋ
ᩍᮦࡣ㸯ヰ࠶ࡓࡾ㸱㹼㸳ศ࡛㸪ィ㸳ヰ࠿ࡽᡂࡿࠋ≀ㄒࡣ㸪୺ேබ࡛࠶ࡿ᪥ᮏே኱Ꮫ⏕(Eizo Hokkaido)㸪
ࡀ࢝ࢼࢲ▷ᮇ⁫ᅾ୰࡟⤒㦂ࡍࡿᵝࠎ࡞ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗㄗࡾ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸪୺ேබࢆຓࡅࡿ࣐ࢫࢥࢵࢺࡢ࢚ࢺࣆࣜ࢝
㸱⩚(Negpo, Pospo, Boldy)ࡀㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࢆྵࡴࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ㸪୺ேබࡀኻᩋࡋࡓሙ㠃ࢆ෌
₇ࡍࡿᵓᡂ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୺࡜ࡋ࡚ྲྀࡾᢅࡗ࡚࠸ࡿⓎヰ⾜Ⅽࡣ㸪ࣇ࢙࢖ࢫࢆ⬣࠿ࡍ⾜Ⅽ࡜ࡋ࡚Ꮫ⩦ࡢ㔜せᗘࡶ㧗࠸ᥦ᱌࣭ᣍᚅ࣭⏦ࡋฟ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕ᩿ࡾ (refusal)࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋ⬮ᮏࡢᇳ➹࡟ᙜࡓࡾ㸪ඛ⾜◊✲ (Beebe,
Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz, 1990) ࡢ᩿ࡾࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ศ㢮ࢆࡶ࡜࡟┤᥋ⓗ᩿ࡾ(direct)㸪㛫᥋ⓗ᩿ࡾ(indirect)㸪᩿ࡾࡢ⿵ຓᡭẁ(adjunct to refusals)ࡢࡑࢀࡒࢀ࡟≉ᚩⓗ࡞ᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡋࡓࠋ౛
࡜ࡋ࡚⾲㸯࡟㸪᩿ࡾࡢࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ศ㢮࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓᮏᩍᮦ࡛ࡢㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᐃᆺ⾲⌧ࢆ♧ࡍࠋᅗ㸯࡟ᮏᩍᮦࠕRewind & Replayࠖࡢ⏬㠃౛ࢆ♧ࡍࠋࠕ᩿ࡾࠖࡢ࡯࠿㸪ᮏᩍᮦ࡛ࡣ㸪࣐ࢫࢥࢵࢺࡀ୺ேබ࡟Ⓨヰ⾜Ⅽࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿ㝿ࡢࠕᥦ᱌(suggestion)ࠖ࡟㛵ࢃࡿ⾲⌧ࡶᏛ⩦㡯┠࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
௒ᚋࡣ㸪ᮏᩍᮦࢆ⏝࠸ࡓᩍ⫱ⓗ௓ධ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᐇド◊✲ࢆ⾜࠺࡜࡜ࡶ࡟㸪ᮏᩍᮦ࣭⿵ຓᩍᮦࢆ୍⯡බ㛤ࡍࡿணᐃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⾲ 
ㄒ⏝ㄽⓗᐃᆺ⾲⌧౛㸦᩿ࡾ㸧ࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ศ㢮

ᐃᆺ⾲⌧

┤᥋ⓗ᩿ࡾ

I can’t. / I won’t.

㛫᥋ⓗ᩿ࡾ

I wish I could …
I don’t think I can …

⿵ຓᡭẁ

Sorry, but …
Thanks for the invite, but …
I’d love to, but …

ᅗ 1. Rewind & Replay ⏬㠃౛Ah … / Well …

ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012). Formulas, routines, and conventional expressions in pragmatics research. Annual review
of applied linguistics, 32, 206-227.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, M. T. (2011). Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction and the acquisitionof conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural pragmatics, 8(3), 347-384.
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcella, E.
Anderson, & S. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). New
York: Newbury house.
Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: a consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native andnon-native speakers. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogical tasks: second
language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 75-93). Harlow: Longman.
Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences:
Acquisition, processing and use (pp. 1-22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.

−227−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

8 ᭶ 6 ᪥(9:00-16:00 㸭ࢥ࢔ࢱ࢖࣒㸸13:10-14:40)ࢧ࢖࢚ࣥࢫ࣮࣍ࣝ

The use of oral proficiency tests in the Japanese EFL context:
Perceptions and Problems
FUJII, Akiko (University of the Sacred Heart)
WATANABE-KIM, Izumi (International Christian University)
IINO, Atsushi (Hosei University)
Keywords: language testing, formative assessment, speaking, learners’ perceptions
1. Introduction
It is becoming increasingly common for language proficiency tests internationally and within Japan toincorporate a speaking component (Sato, 2013). Learners’ performance on speaking tests can have a huge impact on
their future careers as well as on their self-esteem and motivation. For instance, high-stakes tests such as the TOEFL
ibT and IELTS are often used to screen applicants to overseas graduate study programs or merit-based financial aid
scholarships (e.g. Fullbright), and TEAP has been introduced as a means to screen college applicants to select private
universities in Tokyo. Furthermore, it is also of current relevance to consider the role of tests for formative or
learner-oriented purposes. Tests have the potential to play a key role in shaping learners’ further learning (Purpura &Turner, 2014). However, although established assessment measures are recognized as valid and reliable measures oforal proficiency, they are not without their weaknesses (Sato, 2013; Watanabe, 2000; Winke, 2013). In particular,much more work is needed in order to understand how such tests assess the oral proficiency of Japanese EFL
learners.
2. Research Goals
The goal of the current study was to investigate the problems Japanese EFL learners have on oral proficiency
tests from the perspective of (1) language produced during the two types of oral proficiency tests (IELTS-based and
TOEFL-based), (2) the relationship between learners’ test performance and self-assessment of their oral proficiency,and (3) learners’ perceptions about the different types of speaking assessments.
3. Method
3.1 ParticipantsParticipants were 36 university students at a private women’s university in Tokyo. They were all English
majors and their English language proficiency ranged from low-intermediate to high-intermediate.
3.2 Materials & Procedure
Materials used for the current study included three types of speaking assessments and a questionnaire. The
three types of speaking assessments included: (1) an oral proficiency interview test based on the IELTS model, (2) arecorded oral proficiency testing based on prompts following the TOEFL model, including integrated speaking
questions, and (3) a self-assessment checklist to assess spoken interaction and production competence adapted fromthe Swiss version of the European Language Portfolio. Learners also completed questionnaires that elicited
perceptions about the different assessment measures.

−228−እᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍➨ 55 ᅇ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍The IELTS type interview tests were conducted individually with a native speaker or near-native speakertrained interviewer. The recorded speaking test following the TOEFL model was conducted in small groups. Eachlearner recorded responses into a voice recorder. The self-assessment and questionnaire were completed after the
IELTS and TOEFL type speaking tests. Learners completed all three types of assessments and questionnaires withina time span of one month.
4. Data Analysis & Results
The data for the current study consisted of language produced during two types of oral proficiency tests(IELTS-based and TOEFL-based), learners’ scores on the tests, learners’ self-assessments, and questionnaire
responses. The oral proficiency tests were rated by two raters using official scoring guide rubrics. Overall, test results
indicated general correlation between the two tests and self-assessment with some exceptions. In addition, learners’
production was limited in terms of content, particularly in the case of the TOEFL type test, which did notdiscriminate among the lower proficiency learners. Data analysis for the current study focused mainly on identifying
the problems learners had with the speaking tests. Findings are described below.
With respect to the TOEFL-type test, almost all of the learners reported on the written questionnaire thatcomprehension of the oral input for the integrated question was the most difficult aspect of the speaking test. Several
learners specified that they had trouble identifying the main points of the input texts. Some of the more advanced
learners reported that even if they could understand the question, they still could not come up with a response. Manylearners also mentioned that the time limit made the test difficult. With respect to test preparation, almost all of thelearners responded that they needed training in listening comprehension. The second most common responsereferred to the need to study vocabulary. In contrast, learners’ perceptions about the IELTS-type test were mostly
related directly to language production, specifically, the difficulty in expressing their ideas in English. Many learners
mentioned the difficulty with translating their ideas from Japanese to English. Learners also commented on anxiety
and lack of confidence in the content of their answers. With respect to test preparation, the two most common
responses were the need to increase their vocabulary and review grammar, and the need to practice speaking.
Learners generally did not offer more specific study or preparation strategies.
5. Discussion and Directions for Further Research
The results of the study indicate that for both types of oral proficiency assessments, vocabulary knowledge is amajor challenge for Japanese learners. This is an important point for learners and teachers to note. In addition,
listening skills are a major barrier for learners on a TOEFL type test with integrated speaking tasks. If success on the
TOEFL is of importance, this is also a point that needs to be addressed by learners and teachers. Finally, in thecurrent study, the IELTS-type test interview test provided learners with the opportunity to directly reflect upon theirability to express their ideas in English. For the proficiency level of the learners in this study, an IELTS typeinterview test may be more beneficial as a means of formative assessment. Further research is needed to investigate
how such assessment measures then impact learners’ further learning.
Selected References
Sato, T. (2013). The construct of English oral proficiency tests: Which aspects of communication are measured.
JACET Journal, 56, 39-56.
Winke, P. (2011). Evaluating the validity of a high-stakes ESL test: Why teachers' perceptions matter. TESOL
Quarterly, 45, 628-660.

−229−

８
月
６
日
︵
木
︶

外国語教育メディア学会（LET）第 55 回全国研究大会
大会会長
大会実行委員長
大会事務局長
実行委員

竹内 理（関西大学）
若本 夏美（同志社女子大学）
山西 博之（関西大学）
池田 真生子（関西大学：講演・企画）
佐藤 臨太郎（奈良教育大学：プログラム・ワークショップ）
菅井 康祐（近畿大学：会計・渉外）
竹蓋 順子（大阪大学：会場・懇親会）
田中 博晃（近畿大学：プログラム・ワークショップ）中西 正樹（摂南大学：業者展示・賛助会員プレゼンテーション）
名部井 敏代（関西大学：講演・企画）
橋本 健一（大阪教育大学：広報・出版）

発行日：

2015 年 8 月 4 日

代表者：

竹内 理

編集・発行： 外国語教育メディア学会（LET）
発行所：

外国語教育メディア学会（LET）
第 55 回全国研究大会事務局〒564-8680 大阪府吹田市山手町 3 丁目 3-35
印刷所：

関西大学 山西博之研究室

株式会社 日本オフセット〒530-0035 大阪市北区同心 1 丁目 2 番 10 号
TEL： 06-6353-5065

掲載情報の更新および訂正につきましては、以下のサイトをご確認ください。
http://www.let-kansai.org/2015/





&
Advertisements

TOEIC プログラムで英語4技能のコミュニケーション能力を測定
TOEIC プログラムでは、TOEIC テストとTOEIC Speaking&Writing（TOEIC S&W）により、
「聞く」
「読む」
「話す」
「書く」英語4技能を測定できます。

「聞く」「読む」英語力を測るなら「話す」「書く」英語力を測るならListening

Speaking

TOEIC®テスト

Reading

TOEIC®S&W+

Writing

TOEIC® S&Wは、パソコンを使って音声を吹き込んだり、文章を入力して解答するテストです。TOEIC® テスト（リスニング、リーディング）とは別に実施されます。

活用事例や詳細情報は、TOEIC ® Speaking&Writing公式サイトへ 〉〉http://www.toeic.or.jp/sw/

一般財団法人 国際ビジネスコミュニケーション協会〒100−0014 東京都千代田区永田町2−14−2 山王グランドビル

TEL：03−5521−5901
FAX：03−5521−5915

最新情報・テスト詳細は公式サイトへ

http://www.toeic.or.jp

ETS, the ETS logo, PROPELL, TOEIC, TOEIC Bridge, TOEIC BRIDGE are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service in the United States, Japan and other countries and used under license.

公共本部

東京 〒135-0016 東京都江東区東陽２-3-2５

０３（５６３４）
６４０２

大阪 〒540-8520 大阪市中央区和泉町２-２-２

０６（６９２０）
２６４１

札幌 〒060-0031 札幌市中央区北1条東4丁目1-１

０１１
（２１４）
８６３０

福岡 〒810-0041 福岡市中央区大名 2-9-27

０９２
（７３５）
６２４０

名古屋 〒460-0003 名古屋市中区錦2-2 -2 名古屋丸紅ビル13F

（２２２）
７２３４
０５２

g

「英語で学ぶ」がキーワード。
英語学習を自主自律学習に発展させる！

筑波大学、慶應義塾大学、立教大学、芝浦工業大学、京都工芸繊維大学 様などスーパー
グローバル採択校をはじめ 50 校以上の国公私立大学・高校で導入いただきました！

TOEFL/TOEIC 対策に最適！トライアル ID 配布中。
ぜひ一度お試しください！！

Listening
Contents

Reading
Contents

Dialogue

人文科学

Monologue

自然科学

ビジネスや学校、あらゆるシーンでの日常会話
その他多数

人文、
教育、
歴史、
地理
芸術など

生物、化学、
数学、
医学
ビジネストーク、
ニュース
・天気・報道、
アナウンス、 など
案内、
大学でのガイダンス
社会科学など
政治、経済、社会、
ビジネス、
法律
など

700 時間以上学
べる豊富な教材
群をご用意

課題管理機能でクラスの進捗に合わせた学習時間を設計可能詳しくは Web サイトをご覧ください

PC があればいつでも学習可能。スマホ対応の教材もご用意しました

ポートフォリオ機能で学びのプロセスを見える化

http://www.supereigo.com/〒151-0051 東京都渋谷区千駄ヶ谷５−１８−２０代々木フォレストビル
Tel: 03-5312-6101 Mail: academic@supereigo.com

る
。
え
支
を
び
学
の
を実現。
グ
ン
ニ
ー
生
ラ
学
でアクティブ各教室

アクティブ
ラーニング教室

講義教室

CALL/PC 教室

授業支援プラットフォーム

エイブリッシュ

フルデジタルCALLシステム

CaLabo Bridge

CaLabo EX

講義管理機能（LMS）に加えCALL システム『CaLabo EX』や授業支援システム『CaLabo LX』と連携し、講義室での授業の双方向性を高めます。

タブレット対応 授業支援システム
ステム

CaLabo TX

全国で 1,300 校以上、海外でも 20 か国以

双方向授業を活発化し配信される英語教材や、文書・Web ページ・

学生同士の積極的な動画サイトなどを用いた様々な教材をもと

ディスカッションやに、ディスカッション、グループワーク、協協働学習を実現します。

上に導入実績を誇る『CaLabo EX』は PCと LAN のみで映像と音声の伝送を実現する
フルデジタル仕様です。

授業支援システム

働学習、課題解決型の学修を支援する各種

CaLabo LX

ツールが揃っています。

新しいクリッカーソフトウェア『FLOW』や
無線 LAN 最適化ソリューション『Tbridge』など
学校現場の ICT 活用に活躍する
ソリューション製品を展示しております。

シンプルで
使いやすい
クリッカー

FLOW

お気軽にお問い合わせください。 営業時間：平日午前10時〜正午、午後1時〜午後5時

TEL:03-6712-9721 E-MAIL:chieru-sales@chieru.co.jp〒140-0002 東京都品川区東品川2-2-24 天王洲セントラルタワー3F

無線LAN を最適化

Tbridge学生の熟達度が明確に！
4 技能＋文法力＋語彙力が計測できる
オンライン英語運用能力テスト。

スピーキングには Versant™ のテクノロジーを採用

スピーキング・ライティングも計測

3 回のテストが１セットに４技能と文法や語彙力など、総合的な英語運用能力スキルを測定。

１セットに３回分のテストが含まれているので、技能毎にスコアが測定されるため、日々の学習課題が明確に把握できる。

例えばセメスター毎の熟達度が測定可能。

スピーディに結果を算出

アダプティブ方式を採用

約 60 分の試験終了後、自動採点システムにより通常 15 分以内で受験者の解答により出題内容が変化。

結果を算出。ウェブ上での結果確認が可能。

より正確な英語力が測定できる個別対応型。

［ どのテストを受けるか、
６つの英語力レベルから選択可能 ］［ 幅広い出題形態 ］
1. 選択問題8. 描写問題

2. 穴埋め問題

9. 音声認識問題

3. 並べ替え問題

10. 要約問題

4. 読解問題11. 作文・

5. 音読問題
6. ディクテーション
7. リピーティング*Progress 65-80 は 2015 年秋にリリース予定

Progress のスコアは、
グローバル・スケール・オブ・イングリ
グローバル・スケール
オブ・イングリッシュにッシュ
準拠しています。
詳しくはこちらをご確認ください。
詳しくはこちらをご確認
ださい。
www.pearson.co.jp/company/gse
www.pearson.co.jp/coany/gse小論文

www.pearsonelt.com/progress
Join the conversation#testingprogress
ピアソン・ジャパン株式会社
www.pearson.co.jp〒 106-6021

東京都港区六本木 1-6-1 泉ガーデンタワー 21 階

Tel: 03-5549-8630

Email: elt.jp@pearson.com

グローバル・スケール・オブ・イングリッシュ (GSE) とは ?
グローバルに比較可能な英語能力の客観的指標で、10 から 90のスコアで英語能力を評価するもの。

⤫ྜᆺ䜸䞁䝷䜲䞁ⓒ⛉஦඾䠄ⱥㄒ䠅䛾䛤᱌ෆ䜾䝻䝸䜰䜸䞁䝷䜲䞁䞊ከ᪉㠃䛷ά⏝䛷䛝䜛ⱥㄒ䜸䞁䝷䜲䞁䝕䞊䝍䝧䞊䝇䟿䜾䝻䝸䜰䜸䞁䝷䜲䞁䜢౑䛳䛶«䕪ㄪ䜉䛯䛔ㄒྃ䜢᳨⣴䛩䜛䛸ᵝ䚻䛺䝕䞊䝍䝧䞊䝇䛛䜙䝠䝑䝖䛧䛯グ஦䛜୍ぴ䛷⾲♧䛥䜜䜎䛩䚹䕪ⱥᩥ䛾㞴᫆ᗘ䜒⾲♧䛥䜜䜎䛩䛾䛷ⱥᩥㄞゎຊ䛻ྜ䜟䛫䛶᭱㐺䛾䝕䞊䝍䝧䞊䝇䜢㑅ᢥ䛷䛝䜎䛩䚹䕪䇿ⱥㄒ䜢Ꮫ䜆䇿䛷䛿䛺䛟䇿ⱥㄒ䛷Ꮫ䜆䇿Ꮫ⩦᪉ἲ䛾䝒䞊䝹䛸䛧䛶᭱㐺䛷䛩䚹௨ୗ䛾䝕䞊䝍䝧䞊䝇䛜䛤฼⏝ྍ⬟䛸䛺䜚䜎䛩䐟䜶䞁䝃䜲䜽䝻䝨䝕䜱䜰䞉䜰䝯䝸䜹䞊䝘㻠㻡㻘㻝㻜㻜䜰䞊䝔䜱䜽䝹䚹䚷ᇶ♏▱㆑䛜ワ䜎䛳䛶䛔䜛ୡ⏺䛾䝇䝍䞁䝎䞊䝗䛸䛺䜛⥲ྜⓒ⛉஦඾䛷䛩䚹୍⯡ศ㔝䜢䛿䛨䜑䚸䝇䝫䞊䝒䚸ဴᏛ䚸᐀ᩍ䛺䛹䛾ศ㔝䛜ᥖ㍕䛥䜜䛶䛔䜎䛩䚹ᖺ㛫䛤฼⏝㔠㢠
䠍䠏䠌͕䠌䠌䠌෇䡚䠆Ꮫ⏕ᩘ䞉ᩘ䛻䜘䜚ኚື䛧䜎䛩/H[LOH/HYHO

$PHULFDQFLYLOULJKWVOHDGHUDQG
1REHO3HDFH3UL]H:LQQHU'U.LQJD%DSWLVVWPLQLVWHUDFKLHYHGQDWLRQDOIDPH
DVDOHDGHU«/H[LOH/HYHO
䐠䝄䞉䝙䝳䞊䞉䝤䝑䜽䞉䜸䝤䞉䝜䞊䝺䝑䝆㻥㻘㻞㻜㻜䜰䞊䝔䜱䜽䝹䚹୍⯡ⓗ䛺ᇶ♏▱㆑䜢ᥖ㍕䛧䛯ⓒ⛉஦ 3OXWRKDVWUDGLWLRQDOO\EHHQFDOOHGD඾䚹䜔䛥䛧䜑䛾ⱥᩥ䛸⌮ゎ䜢ຓ䛡䜛⏬ീ䛷ᵓᡂ䛥䜜䛶䛔䜎 SODQHW%XWPDQ\DVWURQRXQWVKDYH
H[SUHVVHGGRXEWV,QWKH䛩䚹,QWHUQDWLRQDO$VWURURQLFDO«/H[LOH/HYHO
䐡䜾䝻䞊䝸䜰䞉䝬䝹䝏䝯䝕䜱䜰䞉䜶䞁䝃䜲䜽䝻䝨䝕䜱䜰㻠㻝㻘㻟㻜㻜䜰䞊䝔䜱䜽䝹䚹ᆅᏛ䚸Ṕྐ䚸ᨻ἞䚸ゝㄒ䚸ᩥᏛ䚸䝔䜽 +DUU\3RWWHULVWKHILFWLRQDOKHURRID
䝜䝻䝆䞊䚸䝃䜲䜶䞁䝇䚸ⱁ⾡䛺䛹୍⯡ᇶ♏▱㆑䛜ᥖ㍕䛥䜜 VHULHVRIERRNVE\%ULWLVKDXWKRU-.
䛶䛔䜎䛩䚹䝡䝕䜸䜽䝸䝑䝥䜔䝡䝆䝳䜰䝹⿵ຓ䜒㇏ᐩ䛷䛩䚹 5RZOLQJWKDWKDYHHQMR\HG
XQSUHFHGHQWHGVXFFHVVDQG«/H[LOH/HYHO
䐢䝷䞁䝈䞉䜰䞁䝗䞉䝢䞊䝥䝹
7KHORQJWDSHULQJFRQWLQHQWRI6RXWK㻣㻞㻡䜰䞊䝔䜱䜽䝹䚹ୡ⏺䛾ᅜ䚻䛻䛴䛔䛶䚸ᅜ䛾㠃✚䚸ேཱྀ䚸ゝㄒ䜔㒔ᕷྡ䛺䛹䛾୍⯡ᇶ♏▱㆑䛛䜙䚸Ṕྐ䜔ᩥ໬ $PHULFDURXJKO\WULDQJXODULQVKDSHLV
IRXUWKLQVL]HDPRXQJWKHFRQWLQHQWVRI䛾Ⓨᒎ䚸䜎䛯䚸⤒῭≧ἣ䛺䛹䜒⤂௓䛥䜜䛶䛔䜎䛩䚹WKHZRUOG«/H[LOH/HYHO
䐣䝄䞉䝙䝳䞊䞉䝤䝑䜽䞉䜸䝤䞉䝫䝢䝳䝷䞊䞉䝃䜲䜶䞁䝇㻟㻘㻝㻜㻜䜰䞊䝔䜱䜽䝹䞉䝃䜲䜶䞁䝇䜔䝔䜽䝜䝻䝆䞊䜢䛿䛨䜑䚸་ 6FLHQWLVWVKDYHORQJEHOLHYHGWKDW⒪䜔⸆Ꮫ䛾ศ㔝䛻㛵䛩䜛Ṕྐ䜔᭱᪂䛾᝟ሗ䜒ᥖ㍕䛥䜜 KXQGUHGVRIPLOOLRQVRI\HDUVDJRILVKDFTXLUHGZHLJKWEUHDULQJOLPEVDQGWKXV䛶䛔䜎䛩䚹ᑓ㛛⏝ㄒ䛾ゎㄝ⏬ീ䛺䛹䜒‶㍕䛷䛩䚹
WKHDELOLW\WROHDYHWKHLUDFXDWLFKRPH«䛭䛾௚䝕䞊䝍䝧䞊䝇䠖䐤$PHULFDWKH%HDXWLIXO䐥$PDJLQJDQLPDOZRUOG䐦/D1XHYD(QFLFORSHGLD&XPEUH୺䛺≉ᚩ䕪௨ୖ䛾䜰䞊䝔䜱䜽䝹ᥖ㍕䚹䚷䚷䕪䝸䞊䝕䜱䞁䜾䝺䝧䝹⾲♧ 䝺䜽䝃䜲䝹䝺䝧䝹䠅䚷䚷䕪䜹䝷䞊෗┿䜔䝡䝕䜸ᫎീ㇏ᐩ䕪ᖺ㛫䜢㏻䛧䛶ᐃᮇⓗ䛻᝟ሗ䜰䝑䝥䝕䞊䝖䚹䚷䚷䕪䜶䝕䜱䝍䞊䛚ቚ௜䛝䛾㻟㻠㻜㻘㻜㻜㻜௨ୖ䛾䜲䞁䝍䞊䝛䝑䝖䝃䜲䝖䛻䝸䞁䜽䚹䕪䝸䝰䞊䝖䜰䜽䝉䝇䛷䚸Ꮫᰯ䜔ᅗ᭩㤋䚸䛤ᐙᗞ䛛䜙䜒䜰䜽䝉䝇ྍ⬟䚹䕪ㄝ᫂䜴䜵䝤䝃䜲䝖KWWSWHDFKHUVFKRODVWLFFRPSURGXFWVJUROLHULQGH[KWP⏬㠃䝃䞁䝥䝹

䛆↓ᩱ䛚ヨ䛧䜻䝱
䞁䝨䞊䞁ᐇ᪋୰䛇᭱኱䠎䛛᭶㛫↓ᩱ䛷౑䛘䜛䠥䠠䛸䝟䝇䝽䞊䝗䜢䛤᱌ෆ䛔䛯䛧䜎䛩䚹
ᘢ♫䜎䛷䝯䞊䝹䛛
䛚㟁ヰ䛷䛚ၥ䛔ྜ䜟䛫䛟䛰䛥䛔

㻳㼞㼛㼘㼕㼑㼞㻌㼛㼚㻌㼘㼕㼚㼑㻌㼒㼛㼞㻌㻸㼕㼎㼞㼍㼘㼥㻌᪥ᮏ⥲௦⌮ᗑ䚷䝴䞊䝯䝕䜱䜰䠄ᢸᙜ䠖᰿ᮏ䠅䚷䚷㼀㻱㻸㻦㻜㻟㻙㻡㻥㻡㻜㻙㻜㻢㻥㻤䛈ᮾி㒔㇏ᓥ༊༡ụ⿄ụ⿄䝟䞊䜽䝡䝹䠍䠢䚷(PDLOLQIR#\XPHGLDFRP