JACET Kansai Journal, 17
17, 113-127. (2015) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿ All in English ࡢᤵᴗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ
᳃ୗ⨾࿴⚄ᡞᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ
ABSTRACT
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology recently mandated, in the new
curriculum guidelines, that English is to be used as media language in all English classes at highschools. This is one of the new proposals the ministry has made to cope with the current situation
where more and more companies are employing English as their official or common language. In
reality, however, not all Japanese teachers of English are ready to conduct their classes “All-inEnglish” even in universities. The author was in charge of a class focusing on writing and speaking,which is originally expected to be conducted by a native speaker of English “All-in-English” asdetermined by the university policy. In this paper, the author briefly explains the content of thelessons and then reports the questionnaire results from the students who took her class as well asfrom Japanese teachers of English and native English teachers teaching at various universities inJapan, in the hope that these might offer some insights for improving the quality of “All-in-English”
classes by Japanese teachers of English.
࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ: ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᩍဨࠊAll in Englishࠊ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࠊᣦᑟຊࠊ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛ

1㸬ࡣࡌࡵ࡟ ᪥ᮏࡢᅜ㝿໬࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱ᨵ㠉ࡢᣦ㔪࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ2002 ᖺ࡟ࠊᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ࡀࠕࠗⱥㄒࡀ౑࠼ࡿ᪥ᮏே࠘ࡢ⫱ᡂࡢࡓࡵࡢᡓ␎ᵓ᝿ࠖࢆⓎ⾲ࡋࡓ㸦ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ࠊ2002㸧ࠋᅜ㝿໬ࡣࡑࡢᚋࡶࡉࡽ࡟㐍ᒎࡋࠊ௻ᴗ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒබ⏝ㄒ໬ࡢືࡁࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ
2012 ᖺ࡟ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏᏛ⾡᣺⯆఍࠾ࡼࡧᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ࡀࠊࠕࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝேᮦ⫱ᡂ᥎㐍஦ᴗࠖࡢ୰࡛ࠊࠕⱝ࠸ୡ௦ࡢࠗෆྥࡁᚿྥ࠘ࢆඞ᭹ࡋࠊᅜ㝿ⓗ࡞⏘ᴗ➇தຊࡢྥୖࡸᅜ࡜ᅜࡢ⤎ࡢᙉ໬ࡢᇶ┙࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ࡞⯙ྎ࡟✚ᴟⓗ࡟ᣮᡓࡋά㌍࡛ࡁࡿࠗே㈈࠘ࡢ⫱ᡂࢆᅗࡿࡓࡵࠊ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱ࡢࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ໬ࢆ᥎㐍ࡍࡿྲྀ⤌ࢆ⾜࠺஦ᴗ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ㔜Ⅼⓗ࡟㈈ᨻᨭ᥼ࠖ
ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦᪥ᮏᏛ⾡᣺⯆఍ࠊ2012㸧ࠋࡇࢀࡽࢆ⫼ᬒ࡟ࠊᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ࡣ㧗➼Ꮫᰯࡢ᪂Ꮫ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿࡛ࠊࠕᤵᴗࡣⱥㄒ࡛⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᇶᮏ࡜ࡍࡿࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ࠊ2013㸧ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ኱Ꮫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡉ࠼ࠊ᪥ᮏேᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿ All in English ࡢᤵᴗࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢࡀ⌧≧࡛࠶ࡿࠋ2013 ᖺ࡟ࡣࠊ⮬Ẹඪᩍ⫱෌⏕ᐇ⾜ᮏ㒊ࡀࠊ኱Ꮫධヨ࡟ TOEFL® iBT ࡢᑟධࢆᥦゝࡋࡓࡀࠊྠᖺࡢ TOEFL® iBT ࡢ᪥ᮏேࡢᖹᆒࢫࢥ࢔㸦70 Ⅼ㸧ࡣࠊୡ⏺ᖹᆒ㸦81 Ⅼ㸧ࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊ௚ࡢ࢔ࢪ࢔ㅖᅜ㸦୰ᅜ 78 Ⅼࠊ㡑ᅜ 85 Ⅼ࡞࡝㸧࡜ẚ㍑ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᴟࡵ࡚ప࠸㸦ྛࢭࢡࢩ113᳃ୗ ⨾࿴

ࣙࣥ 30 Ⅼ㸹ィ 120 Ⅼ‶Ⅼ㸧(Educational Testing Service, 2014)ࠋTOEFL® iBT ࡢ኱ࡁ࡞≉ᚩࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢ 4 ᢏ⬟ࡍ࡭࡚ࢆᐃࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊEFL (English as a Foreign Language)⎔ቃ࡟⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ࡜ࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢࠊࡘࡲࡾ㡢ኌゝㄒࡢฎ⌮⬟ຊࡢྥୖࡣࠊ㠀ᖖ࡟㔜せୟࡘᅔ㞴࡞ㄢ㢟࡛࠶ࡿ㸦᳃ୗࠊ2013a㸧ࠋ
Levelt (1993) ࡢㄒᙡ௬ㄝࣔࢹࣝ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ㡢㡪࣭㡢ኌฎ⌮⿦⨨ (ACOUSTIC-PHONETIC PROCESSOR) ࡛㡢ኌಙྕࡀ㡢ኌ⾲㇟࡟ኚ᥮ࡉࢀࠊᩥゎᯒ⿦ ⨨ (PARSER) ࡛ ࣓ ࣥ ࢱ ࣝ ࣞ ࢟ ࢩ ࢥ ࣥ 㸦 ᚰ ⓗ ㎡ ᭩ 㸧 ࡟ ࢔ ࢡ ࢭ ࢫ ࡋ ࡚ ᩥ ἲ ᚟ ྕ ໬(grammatical decoding) 㸭 㡢 㡩 ᚟ ྕ ໬ ࠾ ࡼ ࡧ ㄒ ᙡ 㑅 ᢥ (phonological decoding & lexical
selection) ࡀ᪋ࡉࢀࡿࠋᴫᛕ໬⿦⨨ (CONCEPTUALIZER) ࡛Ⓨヰࡢ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡸពᅗࡀฎ⌮ࡉࢀࠊ࢔࢘ࢺࣉࢵࢺ㸦⌮ゎ㸧࡟⮳ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᴫᛕ໬⿦⨨࡛ స ࡽ ࢀ ࡓ ࣓ ࢵ ࢭ ࣮ ࢪ ࡣ ࠊ ᙧ ᘧ ໬ ⿦ ⨨ (FORMULATOR) ࡛ ᩥ ἲ ➢ ྕ ໬ (grammatical
decoding)㸭㡢㡩➢ྕ໬ (phonological decoding) ࡉࢀࠊㄪ㡢⿦⨨ (ARTICULATOR) ࢆ⤒࡚࢔࢘ࢺࣉࢵࢺ㸦Ⓨヰ㸧࡟⮳ࡿ㸦ᅗ 1㸧ࠋᅗ 1. ゝㄒࡢ⌮ゎ࡜⏕ᡂ࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄒᙡ௬ㄝ
ㄝࣔࢹࣝ (Levelt, 1993)ࡇࡢ୍㐃ࡢࣉࣟࢭࢫࡣࠊ᫬㛫ⓗไ⣙ࡢ୰࡛⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊẕㄒヰ⪅ࡢሙྜࡣ⮬ື໬ࡉࢀࠊ୪⾜ฎ⌮ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ゝࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉ࠊL2 (Second Language) / EFL Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ
ὶᬸࡉ࣭ṇ☜ࡉ࣭」㞧ࡉࡢ㛫࡛ࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤ┦ẅຠᯝ (trade-off effect) ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿ (Morishita,2010)ࠋ
᳃ୗ (2013b) ࡛ࡣࠊ␃Ꮫ⤒㦂⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࢆ⾜࠸ࠊ␃Ꮫᮍ⤒㦂⪅࡜ࡢẚ㍑࣭ศᯒࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࠋⱥㄒ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕㄞࡴࠖࠕ᭩ࡃࠖࠕ⪺ࡃࠖࠕヰࡍࠖࠕⓎ㡢ࠖࠕㄒᙡࠖ
ࠕᩥἲࠖࡢ 7 㡯┠ࡢ⬟ຊ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᚓពࡔ࡜ᛮ࠺㡰࠾ࡼࡧఙࡤࡋࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠺㡰࡟␒ྕࢆࡘ
ࡅ࡚ࡶࡽࡗࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ␃Ꮫ⤒㦂⪅࡜ᮍ⤒㦂⪅ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡛ࡶࠊᚓពࡔ࡜ᛮ࠺㡯┠ࡣࠊࠕㄞࡴࠖࠕ⪺ࡃࠖࠕᩥἲࠖࡢ㡰࡛࠶ࡾࠊཷಙᆺ୰ᚰࡢ᪥ᮏࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࢆཷࡅࡓ⤒㦂ࡀࠊ␃Ꮫᚋࡶᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡍࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡢࢢ࣮ࣝࣉ࡛ࡶࠊఙࡤࡋࡓ࠸㡯┠ࡢ
ୖ఩ 2 㡯┠ࡣࠊࠕヰࡍࠖࡇ࡜࡜ࠕ⪺ࡃࠖࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡾࠊEFL ⎔ቃ࡛Ꮫ⩦ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓ᪥ᮏேࡀࠊ

114

᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿ All in English ࡢᤵᴗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ

␃Ꮫᚋࡶࠊ㡢ኌゝㄒࠊ≉࡟ࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢຊࢆྥୖࡉࡏࡿᚲせᛶࢆឤࡌ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋSLA㸦Second Language Acquisition㸹➨஧ゝㄒ⩦ᚓ㸧◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕゝㄒ⩦ᚓ࡟ࡣ኱㔞ࡢ⌮ゎྍ⬟࡞࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺࡀᚲせࠖ㸦࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺ௬ㄝ㸹Krashen, 1985㸧ࠊࠕ࢔࢘ࢺࣉࢵࢺ
ࡣᏛ⩦⪅ࡀព࿡ࡢฎ⌮࠿ࡽᵓᩥࡢฎ⌮࡬࡜ྥ࠿࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆຓࡅࡿࠖ㸦࢔࢘ࢺࣉࢵࢺ௬ㄝ㸹
Swain, 1985㸧࡞࡝ࡢ௬ㄝࢆ⤒࡚ࠊ⌧ᅾ࡛ࡣࠊࠕ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࡣ࢖ࣥࣉࢵࢺ࡜࢔࢘ࢺࣉ
ࢵࢺ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟ಟṇࡢᶵ఍ࢆ୚࠼ࠊ➨஧ゝㄒࡢⓎ㐩ࢆಁࡍࠖ㸦࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥ௬
ㄝ㸹Long, 1996㸧࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉ࡀ୺ὶ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ௬ㄝࡣࠊࡲࡉ࡟ All in English ࡢᤵᴗ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᐇド࡛ࡁࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ㧗࠸ࠋ 㧗➼Ꮫᰯࡢ᪂Ꮫ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿࡟ࠕᤵᴗࡣⱥㄒ࡛⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᇶᮏ࡜ࡍࡿࠖ࡜᫂グࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜
࡟ࡼࡾࠊࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡣດຊ┠ᶆ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ All in English ࡢᤵᴗࡀࠊႚ⥭ࡢㄢ㢟࡬࡜ኚࢃࡗࡓࠋ
ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿ All in English ࡢ࠶ࡾ᪉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ᳨ウᮦᩱ࡜ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊ
➹⪅ࡀ⾜ࡗࡓࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡜ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏࡓᤵᴗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢෆᐜ
ࢆ⡆༢࡟⤂௓ࡋࠊࡇࡢࢡࣛࢫࡢᒚಟ⏕ࠊ᪥ᮏேࡢⱥㄒᩍဨࠊ࠾ࡼࡧࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦࢫࣆ࣮࣮࢝
ࡢⱥㄒᩍဨ㸦௨ୗࠊࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨ㸧ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ሗ࿌ࡍ
ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊࡇࡢᤵᴗࡣࠊ㏻ᖖࡣⱥㄒࡢࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦࢫࣆ࣮࣮࢝ࡀᢸᙜࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ࡍ࡭࡚ⱥㄒ࡛⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ⩏ົ௜ࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
2㸬㸬ᤵᴗ
2.1 ᑐ㇟
 2013 ᖺᗘᚋᮇࡢࠕసᩥ࣭఍ヰࠖࡢࢡࣛࢫ࡛ࠊ୰ᅜㄒᑓᨷࡢ኱Ꮫ 2 ᖺ⏕ 27 ྡࢆᢸᙜࡋࡓࠋ
ᙼࡽࡣ 2013 ᖺᗘ๓ᮇࡶྠࡌࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࡢࢡࣛࢫࢆᒚಟࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨࡀᢸᙜࡋ
࡚࠸ࡓࠋⱥㄒࡢ⩦⇍ᗘࢆㄪ࡭ࡿࡓࡵࠊQuick placement test (Oxford University Press, 2004) ࢆᐇ᪋ࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊᖹᆒⅬࡣ 36.9 Ⅼ㸦60 Ⅼ‶Ⅼ㸧࡛ࠊ᥮⟬⾲࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ Common European
framework of reference for languages (Council of Europe, 2001) ࡢ B1 (threshold: lower
intermediate) ࡟ᙜࡓࡿ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
2.2 ┠ⓗ ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥ௬ㄝ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊࠕసᩥ࣭఍ヰࠖ࡜࠸࠺࢔࢘ࢺࣉࢵࢺ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡓࢡ
ࣛࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡉࡽ࡟࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࡢᶵ఍ࢆቑࡸࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ᣦࡋࡓࠋࢩࣛࣂࢫ࡟グ㍕
ࡋࡓᤵᴗࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊ௨ୗࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
The objective of this class is to provide students with the opportunity to express themselves in both
written and spoken English. Students are required to write three essays, one of which will be thetheme of their poster presentation.
2.3 ෆᐜ
All in English ࡢᤵᴗࢆ⾜࠺࡟࠶ࡓࡗ࡚ࡣࠊࡍ࡛࡟᪥ᮏㄒ࡛⾜ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡢ࠶ࡿసᩥࡢࢡࣛ

115᳃ୗ ⨾࿴

ࢫ࡛ᢅࡗࡓෆᐜࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࡋࡓ㸦᳃ୗࠊ2011㸧ࠋࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡣ≉࡟౑⏝ࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡀࠊ
“Writing from within” (Kelly & Gargagliano, Cambridge University Press, 2001) ࡞࡝ࢆཧ⪃࡟ࡋࡓࠋసᩥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᩥ❶㸦ࣉࣟࢲࢡࢺ㸧ࡑࡢࡶࡢࡼࡾࡶࡑࡢసᡂ㐣⛬㸦ࣉࣟࢭࢫ㸧ࢆ㔜どࡍࡿࣉࣟࢭࢫ࣭ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࢆྲྀࡾධࢀ (Elbow, 1973; Murray, 1980)ࠊࣈࣞ࢖࣭ࣥ
ࢫࢺ࣮࣑ࣥࢢࡸࣆ࢔࣭ࣦ࣮ࣞࣗ࡞࡝ࡢάືࢆ⤒࡚ࠊ༙ᮇ࡛ 3 ᮏࡢసᩥࢆᥦฟࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡋ
ࡓࠋࡑࡢ࠺ࡕ 1 ᮏ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊྛᏛ⏕ࡀ⊂⮬ࡢࣜࢧ࣮ࢳ࣭ࢡ࢚ࢫࢳࣙࣥࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࢡࣛࢫ඲
ဨ࡬ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࢆᏛᮇᮎࡢ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮࣭ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩ࡛ࣙࣥⓎ⾲ࡋࡓࠋ
3㸬㸬࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ
3.1 ᒚಟ⏕3.1.1 ึᅇᤵᴗ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ
ึᅇᤵᴗ࡛ࠊᒚಟ⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ All in English ࡢᤵᴗ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ㸦ᅇ⟅⪅ᩘ㸸27 ྡࠊグྡ⮬⏤㸧ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ (Appendix A)ࠋ
(1)ࠕࡇࡢࢡࣛࢫ࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேᩍဨࡀ All in English ࡢᤵᴗࢆᢸᙜࡋࡲࡍࡀࠊⱥㄒࢆ࡝ࢀ
ࡄࡽ࠸౑⏝ࡋ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸࡛ࡍ࠿㸽࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡦ࡜ࡘ࡟‫ࢆ⏤⌮ࡢࡑࠊࡅࡘࢆۑ‬㏙࡭࡚ࡃࡔࡉ
࠸ࠋࠖ࡜࠸࠺㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ
1) ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝᪥ᮏㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸㸦2 ྡ㸧2) ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜᪥ᮏㄒࢆከࡃ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸㸦1 ྡ㸧3) ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ⱥㄒࢆ࡝ࡕࡽࡶྠࡌࡄࡽ࠸౑⏝ࡋ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸㸦7 ྡ㸧4) ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜ⱥㄒࢆከࡃ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸㸦9 ྡ㸧5) ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ⱥㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸㸦8 ྡ㸧࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ඲య࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕⱥㄒ࡟ゐࢀࡿ᫬㛫ࡀከ࠸࡯࠺ࡀⰋ࠸ࠖ࡞࡝ࠊⱥㄒࡢ
౑⏝ࢆᕼᮃࡍࡿኌࡀከ࠸ࡶࡢࡢࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡔ࡜ࠕㄢ㢟ࡢᣦ♧ࡀศ࠿ࡾࡸࡍ࠸ࠖࠊࠕศ࠿ࡽ࡞
࠸࡜ࡁ࡟᪥ᮏㄒヂࡀ࡯ࡋ࠸ࠖ࡞࡝ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡶከᑡࡣ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸࡜࠸࠺ពぢࡶᑡ࡞࠿ࡽࡎ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ(2)ࠕAll in English ࡢࢡࣛࢫࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேᩍဨ࡜ⱥㄒࡢࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨࡢ࡝ࡕࡽࡀཷࡅᣢࡘ
࡯࠺ࡀⰋ࠸࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿㸽࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡦ࡜ࡘ࡟‫ࢆ⏤⌮ࡢࡑࠊࡓࡲࠊࡅࡘࢆۑ‬㏙࡭࡚ࡃࡔࡉ
࠸ࠋࠖ࡜࠸࠺㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ
1) ᪥ᮏே㸦0 ྡ㸧2) ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜᪥ᮏே㸦1 ྡ㸧3) ࡝ࡕࡽࡶྠࡌ㸦7 ྡ㸧4) ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦ㸦12 ྡ㸧
5) ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦ㸦7 ྡ㸧

116᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿ All in English ࡢᤵᴗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ

࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨࡢᤵᴗࢆᕼᮃࡍࡿ⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࠕឤぬⓗ࡟ⱥㄒࢆ౑࠼ࡿ࠿ࡽࠖࠊࠕⓎ㡢ࡸゝ࠸ᅇࡋࡀᐇ㊶ⓗࠖ࡞࡝࡟ຍ࠼ࠊࠕ஺ὶࡢᶵ఍ࡀᑡ࡞࠸࠿ࡽࠖࠊ
ࠕⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗࡀᑡ࡞࠸࠿ࡽࠊᑡࡋ࡛ࡶ⏕ࡢⱥㄒ࡟ゐࢀࡓ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋⱥㄒ
ᑓᨷ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡟ࡋࢁࠊㄒᏛ࡟⯆࿡ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺୰ᅜㄒᑓᨷࡢᏛ⏕࡞ࡽ࡛ࡣࡢពぢ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ୍᪉ࠊ᪥ᮏேᩍဨ࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠕᩥἲࡸⱥㄒࡢ౑࠸᪉ࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡸࡍ࠸ࠖ཯㠃ࠊࠕ⏑࠼ࡀฟࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅࠿ࡽࡣࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ౑⏝ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࡯ࡢࡵ࠿ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࠕ࡝ࡕࡽࡶྠࡌࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡢ⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࠕ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿ࡽࡶᚓࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࠖࠊࠕෆᐜ
ࡀ኱ษࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ๓ྥࡁ࡞ពぢࡀከࡃࠊࠕᮏᙜ࡟ⱥㄒຊࡢ࠶ࡿඛ⏕ࡔࡗࡓࡽࠊ᪥ᮏே࡛ࡶၥ
㢟࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠊAll in English ࡢᤵᴗࢆ⾜࠺᪥ᮏேᩍဨ࡟ࡣࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦ୪ࡳࡢⱥㄒຊࢆồࡵࡿኌࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
3.1.2 ᭱⤊ᤵᴗ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ
᭱⤊ᤵᴗ࡛ࠊୖグࡢᒚಟ⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ㸦ᅇ⟅⪅ᩘ㸸27 ྡࠊグྡ⮬⏤㸧ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ (Appendix B)ࠋ
(1)ࠕࡇࡢࢡࣛࢫ࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேᩍဨࡀ All in English ࡢᤵᴗࢆᢸᙜࡋࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊⰋ࠿ࡗࡓ
࡜ᛮ࠺Ⅼ࡜ᨵၿࡍ࡭ࡁࡔ࡜ᛮ࠺Ⅼࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀᣲࡆ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋࠖ࡜࠸࠺㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋࠊⰋ࠿
ࡗࡓⅬ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࠕࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦࡢඛ⏕ࡼࡾࡶⱥㄒࡀ⪺ࡁྲྀࡾࡸࡍ࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࡛ࠊᏛ⩦ࡋࡸࡍ࠿ࡗࡓࠖࠊࠕᮏᙜ࡟ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ࡁ࡟ヰࡀ㏻ࡌࡓࠖ࡞࡝ࡢᅇ⟅ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏேᩍဨࡀ
ⱥㄒ࡜㸦ᚲせ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚㸧᪥ᮏㄒࢆ㥑౑ࡋ࡚୎ᑀ࡟ᣦᑟࡍࢀࡤࠊᏛ⏕ࡣᴫࡋ࡚ዲពⓗ࡟ཷࡅྲྀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋ᪥ᮏேᩍဨࡀ୺࡟᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ᣦᑟࡍࡿሙྜ࡜ࡢẚ㍑࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࠕⱥ
ㄒ࡛⌮ゎࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿጼໃ࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠖࠊࠕ⮬ศࡶⱥㄒ࡛ヰࡍ࡭ࡁࡔ࡜࠸࠺㈐௵ឤࡀᣢ࡚
ࡓࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ๓ྥࡁ࡞ࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊᏛ⏕ࡣᴫࡋ࡚ᤵᴗෆࡢ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩ
ࣙࣥ࡟✚ᴟⓗ࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࢇ࡛࠸ࡓࡀࠊࠕཤᖺࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ᩥἲࡢㄝ᫂ࡤ࠿ࡾ࡛㧗ᰯࡢᤵᴗࡳࡓ
࠸ࡔࡗࡓࡀࠊ௒ᖺࡣ㐪ࡗࡓᤵᴗࡀ࿡ࢃ࠼ࡓࠖࠊࠕ࣏ࢫࢱ࣮࣭ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࡢ‽ഛ࣭Ⓨ⾲ࡀ㠃ⓑ࠿ࡗࡓࠖ࡞࡝ࡢᅇ⟅࠿ࡽࡶࠊࡑࡢᵝᏊࡀ࠺࠿ࡀ࠼ࡿࠋ
୍᪉ࠊᨵၿⅬ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࠕඛ⏕࣭Ꮫ⏕࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ౑࠺ⱥㄒࡢ㔞ࡀࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦࡼࡾࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿
࡟ᑡ࡞࠸ࠖࠊࠕ⟅࠼ࡽࢀ࡞࠸Ꮫ⏕ࢆᚅࡘ᫬㛫ࡀ㛗ࡃ࡚ࠊᤵᴗࡀṆࡲࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࠖ࡞࡝ࠊ
ⱥㄒࢆ౑࠺ᤵᴗ࡟័ࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸➹⪅ࡢḞⅬࢆᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡓࠋࠕ኱ษ࡞࡜ࡇࢁࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡶゝࡗ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸ࠖࠊࠕඛ⏕ࡢᣦ♧ࢆ 100%⌮ゎ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡲࡲࠊᐟ㢟ࡸㄢ㢟ࢆᥦฟࡍࡿᏛ⏕ࡀฟ࡚ࡁ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢᅇ⟅࠿ࡽࡣࠊ」㞧㸭㔜せ࡞ෆᐜࢆⱥㄒ࡛ศ࠿ࡾࡸࡍࡃఏ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ㔜せᛶࢆឤࡌࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊᏛ⏕ഃࡢၥ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕ᪥ᮏㄒࢆ౑࠺Ꮫ⏕ࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡶᑡ࡞ࡃ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
(2)ࠕAll in English ࡢࢡࣛࢫࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேᩍဨ࡜ⱥㄒࡢࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨࡢ࡝ࡕࡽࡀཷࡅᣢࡘ
࡯࠺ࡀⰋ࠸࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿㸽࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡦ࡜ࡘ࡟ࠐࢆࡘࡅࠊࡲࡓࠊࡑࡢ⌮⏤ࢆ㏙࡭࡚ࡃࡔࡉ
࠸ࠋࠖ࡜࠸࠺㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ
1) ᪥ᮏே㸦0 ྡ㸧2) ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜᪥ᮏே㸦5 ྡ㸧

117

᳃ୗ ⨾࿴

3) ࡝ࡕࡽࡶྠࡌ㸦6 ྡ㸧4) ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦ㸦9 ྡ㸧5) ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦ㸦7 ྡ㸧࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ᪥ᮏேᩍဨ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕⱥㄒ࡛ࡶ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ࡶㄝ࡛᫂ࡁ࡚ศ࠿ࡾࡸ
ࡍ࠸ࠖࠊࠕ᪥ᮏேᩍဨࡢ࡯࠺ࡀࠊ⚾ࡓࡕ᪥ᮏேࡀ࡝ࡇࢆ⌮ゎࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢ࠿ࢆࡘ࠿ࡳࡸࡍ
࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡀ࠶ࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊࠕ᪥ᮏேᩍဨ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ⱥㄒࢆ౑࠸࡟ࡃ࠸ࠖࠊࠕ᪥ᮏேࡢඛ
⏕ࡔ࡜ࡘ࠸⏑࠼࡚᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ヰࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿࠖࠊࠕⱥㄒࡢヰࡋ᪉ࡀ࠾࠿ࡋࡃ࡚ࡶࠊ
᪥ᮏேᩍဨࡣᏛ⏕ࡀ኱యఱࡀゝ࠸ࡓ࠸࠿ศ࠿ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ㏻ࡌ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࠖ࡞࡝ࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦ࡞ࡽ࡛ࡣࡢゝⴥࡢࢽࣗ࢔ࣥࢫ࡞࡝ࠊ▱ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆከࡃᩍ࠼࡚ࡶࡽ࠼ࡿࠖࠊࠕࢹ࢕࣮࣋ࢺ࡞࡝ࠊᾏእࡗࡱ࠸ᤵᴗࢆᑟධࡋ࡚ࡃࢀ
ࡿࠖ࡞࡝ࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿ฼Ⅼࡢ࡯࠿ࠊࠕࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦࡢⓎ㡢ࡣ⪺ࡁྲྀࡾ࡙ࡽ࠸࠿ࡽࠊ
ᤵᴗࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚័ࢀ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠖࠊࠕఱ࡜࠿ࡋ࡚ఏ࠼ࡼ࠺࡜࠸࠺Ẽᣢࡕࡀᙉࡃ࡞ࡾࠊ✚ᴟⓗ࡟ᤵᴗ࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡵࡓࠖ࡞࡝ࡢᅇ⟅ࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊࠕ࡝ࡕࡽࡶྠࡌࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅࡟ࡣࠊࠕᮏሙࡢⓎ㡢ࢆ⪺ࡁࡓ࠸ࡔࡅ࡞ࡽࠊᫎ⏬ࢆほࡓࡾࣛࢪ࢜ࡸ CD ࢆ⫈࠸ࡓࡾࡍࢀࡤ࠸࠸ࡔࡅ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊ࡝ࡕࡽࡀᤵᴗࢆཷࡅᣢࡗ࡚ࡶ࠸࠸ࠖࠊ
ࠕࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦ࡛ࡶ᪥ᮏே࡛ࡶࠊ⤖ᒁࠊⱥㄒ࡟ࢡࢭࡸケࡾࡀ࠶ࡿࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ⌮⏤ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ(2) ࡢ㉁ၥࡣࠊึᅇᤵᴗ࡜᭱⤊ᤵᴗ࡛ྠࡌෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊ᭱⤊ᤵᴗࡢሙྜࡣࠊࢿ࢖ࢸ
࢕ࣦᩍဨ࡜᪥ᮏேᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿྠࡌࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࡢࢡࣛࢫࢆ୧᪉ᒚಟࡋࡓᚋࡢᅇ⟅࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟
࡞ࡿࠋᮏ✏ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࡣグྡ⮬⏤࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊྛᒚಟ⏕ࡢព㆑ࡢኚ໬ࢆಶู࡟☜ㄆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ➹⪅࡟ࡼࡿ All in English ࡢᤵᴗࡢᚋࡶࠊ౫↛࡜ࡋ࡚᪥ᮏேᩍဨ
ࡼࡾࡶࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿ All in English ࡢᤵᴗࢆᮃࡴኌࡀከ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ඲
య࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏேᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿ All in English ࡢᤵᴗࢆཷࡅධࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁࡓ࡜ᛮࢃࢀ
ࡿࢥ࣓ࣥࢺࡀከࡃぢࡽࢀࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ᪥ᮏேᩍဨࡀ୺࡟᪥ᮏㄒ࡛⾜࠺ⱥㄒࡢᤵᴗࡼࡾࡶዲ
ពⓗ࡟ཷࡅྲྀࡽࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
3.2
 ᪥ᮏேᩍဨ
᪥ᮏேᩍဨ㸦49 ྡ㸧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡶࠊAll in English ࡢᤵᴗ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ(Appendix C)ࠋ
(1)ࠕAll in English ࡢᤵᴗࢆᢸᙜࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍ࠿㸽ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㉁ၥ࡟ࠊࠕࡣ࠸ࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓᩍဨࡣ 36 ྡࠊࠕ࠸࠸࠼ࠖࡣ 13 ྡ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
(1) ࡛ࠕࡣ࠸ࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓᩍဨࡢࡳ࡟ࠊ(2)ࠕ㸦All in English ࡢᤵᴗࢆᢸᙜࡋࡓ㝿㸧ⱥㄒࢆ࡝ࢀࡄࡽ࠸౑⏝ࡉࢀࡲࡋࡓ࠿㸽࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡦ࡜ࡘ࡟‫ࢆ⏤⌮ࡢࡑࠊࡅࡘࢆۑ‬㏙࡭࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊᤵᴗ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ⱥㄒࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀ኱ࡁࡃ␗࡞ࡿሙྜࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᤵᴗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡈᅇ
⟅ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋࠖ࡜࠸࠺㉁ၥࢆࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ

118

᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿ All in English ࡢᤵᴗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ

1) ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝᪥ᮏㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓ㸦0 ྡ㸧2) ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜᪥ᮏㄒࢆከࡃ౑⏝ࡋࡓ㸦2 ྡ㸧3) ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ⱥㄒࢆ࡝ࡕࡽࡶྠࡌࡄࡽ࠸౑⏝ࡋࡓ㸦10 ྡ㸧4) ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜ⱥㄒࢆከࡃ౑⏝ࡋࡓ㸦10 ྡ㸧5) ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ⱥㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓ㸦24 ྡ㸧࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ࡞࠾ࠊⱥㄒࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀ␗࡞ࡿᤵᴗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚」ᩘࡢᅇ⟅ࢆࡋࡓᩍဨ
ࡀከࡃࠊୖグࡢᩘᏐࡣᘏ࡭ேᩘ㸦46 ྡ㸧࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏㄒࡣࠊࠕึ⣭ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ࡜
ࡁࠖࠊࠕࢡࣛࢫෆࡢࣞ࣋ࣝᕪࡀ኱ࡁ࠸࡜ࡁࠖ࡞࡝ࡢࣞ࣋ࣝࢆ㓄៖ࡋࡓሙྜࡸࠊࠕᩥἲࡢㄝ
᫂ࡸ༢఩ྲྀᚓ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ஦ົⓗ࡞ᡭ⥆ࡁࠖࠊࠕᑓ㛛ෆᐜࢆ⌮ゎࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢࢧ࣐
࣮ࣜࢆධࢀࡓࠖ࡞࡝ࡢ」㞧㸭㔜せ࡞ෆᐜ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄝ᫂ࡢ㝿࡟౑⏝ࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࠋ୍᪉ࠊⱥㄒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕᏛ㒊ෆ࡛ All in English ࡢྜពࡀ࡞ࡉࢀࠊࢩࣛࣂࢫ➼ࡢ㈨ᩱࡶ
ࡍ࡭࡚ⱥㄒ໬ࡉࢀࡓࠖࠊࠕࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨࡀࢥ࣮ࢹ࢕ࢿ࢖ࢺࡍࡿඹ㏻ᤵᴗ࡛ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ౑
⏝ࡀ⚗Ṇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠖࠊࠕࢸ࢟ࢫࢺࡀ All in English ๓ᥦ࡛ᵓᡂࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠖࠊࠕཷㅮ⏕ࡢ୰࡟␃Ꮫ⏕ࡸᖐᅜᏊዪࡀ࠸ࡓࠖ࡞࡝ࠊ౑⏝ࢆవ൤࡞ࡃࡉࢀࡿ⌮⏤ࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࡀ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡛ࠊ
ࠕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ㔜どࡢᤵᴗࢆᒎ㛤ࡋࡓ࠿ࡗࡓࠖࠊࠕ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅⱥㄒ࡬ࡢ exposure ࢆከࡃࡍࡿࡓࡵࠖ࡞࡝ࠊ⮬Ⓨⓗ࡟౑⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿᅇ⟅ࡣࠊ㠀ᖖ࡟㝈ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ(3)ࠕ᪥ᮏேᩍဨࡀ All in English ࡢᤵᴗࢆᢸᙜࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ฼Ⅼ࡜ḞⅬ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀᣲࡆ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋࠖ࡜࠸࠺㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ฼Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕᤵᴗࡢᅜ㝿໬ࠖࠊࠕ᪥ᮏே࡛ࡶⱥㄒࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿ࡜࠸࠺࣮ࣟࣝࣔࢹࣝ࡟࡞ࢀࡿࠖࠊࠕᩍဨᚿᮃ
ࡢᏛ⏕࡟ࠊⱥㄒࢆ⏝࠸࡚ᤵᴗࢆ⾜࠺࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᣢࡓࡏࡿࠖࠊࠕᤵᴗ๓ᚋ࡛᪥ᮏㄒࢆ౑࠸ࠊ㉁ၥ➼࡟⣽ࡸ࠿࡟ᑐᛂ࡛ࡁࡿࠖࠊࠕ⮬ࡽࡀᏛ⩦⪅࡛࠶ࡗࡓ⤒㦂࠿ࡽࠊᏛ⏕ࡢࡘࡲࡎࡁ࡟Ẽ࡙ࡁࡸࡍࡃࠊᣦᑟ࡟ࡶ཯࡛ᫎࡁࡿࠖ࡞࡝ࡢᅇ⟅ࡢ࡯࠿ࠊࠕᩍဨࡢⱥㄒ㐠⏝⬟ຊࡢάᛶ໬ࠖ
࡜࠸࠺ᩍဨഃࡢ࣓ࣜࢵࢺࡶᣲࡆࡽࢀࡓࠋ
ḞⅬ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࠕᤵᴗ‽ഛ࡜㐠Ⴀࡢࡓࡵࡢປຊࡀቑ኱ࡍࡿࠖࠊࠕⱥㄒ࡟Ẽࢆྲྀࡽࢀ࡚ෆ
ᐜࡀ࠾ࢁࡑ࠿࡟࡞ࡾࡀࡕࠖࠊࠕᤵᴗ㐍ᗘࡀ㐜ࢀࡿࠖࠊࠕᏛ⏕ࡢㄒᏛࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟ࡼࡿ⌮ゎຊࡢࡤࡽࡘࡁࠖ࡞࡝ࠊᤵᴗ㐍⾜ୖࡢၥ㢟Ⅼ௨እ࡟ࡶࠊࠕᏛ⏕ࡣࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦ୪ࡳࡢⱥㄒຊࢆᬯ࡟
ồࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ㄗࡾ࡞࡝࡟ពእ࡜ᩄឤࠖࠊࠕࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦ୪ࡳࡢ⾲⌧ᣦᑟࡀ༑ศ࡟࡛ࡁ࡞
࠸ࠖ࡞࡝ࠊᩍဨഃࡢⱥㄒ୙㊊࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᣦ᦬ࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊ᳃ୗ (2013b) ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒᅪ࡛ࡢ␃Ꮫ⤒㦂⪅࡬ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࡢࠕ᪥ᮏ࡛ࡢᏛ⩦ࡸᩍ⫱ᶵ㛵࡛ࡢᣦᑟࡣ༑ศࡔ
ࡗࡓ࡜ᛮ࠺࠿ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᅇ⟅࡜ྜ⮴ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࠕᤵᴗ࡛ࡢࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢࡢᣦᑟ
ࡣ୙༑ศ࡛ࠖࠊࡑࡢ⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࠕᩍᖌ⮬㌟ࡢࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢຊ୙㊊ࠖࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ
(4)ࠕ኱Ꮫࡢ All in English ࡢࢡࣛࢫࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேᩍဨ࡜ⱥㄒࡢࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨࡢ࡝ࡕࡽࡀ
ཷࡅᣢࡘ࡯࠺ࡀຠᯝⓗࡔ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿㸽࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡦ࡜ࡘ࡟‫ࢆ⏤⌮ࡢࡑࠊࡓࡲࠊࡅࡘࢆۑ‬㏙
࡭࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋࠖ࡜࠸࠺㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ

119᳃ୗ ⨾࿴

1) ᪥ᮏே㸦0 ྡ㸧2) ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜᪥ᮏே㸦2 ྡ㸧3) ࡝ࡕࡽࡶྠࡌ㸦20 ྡ㸧4) ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦ㸦16 ྡ㸧5) ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦ㸦7 ྡ㸧࡜࠸࠺⤖ᯝ࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ㡯┠࡟↓ᅇ⟅ࡢᩍဨࡀ 4 ྡ࠸ࡓࡓࡵࠊୖグࡢᅇ⟅ࡣ 45 ྡศ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊAll in English ࡢᤵᴗࡢ⤒㦂ࡀ࡞࠸ᩍဨࡢ࡯࠺ࡀࠊ⤒㦂ࡀ࠶ࡿᩍဨ
ࡼࡾࡶࠊࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨࡀཷࡅᣢࡘ᪉ࡀຠᯝⓗࡔ࡜⪃࠼ࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡗࡓࠋ᪥ᮏேᩍဨ࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࠕ᪥ᮏேᩍဨࡣ᪥ᮏㄒࡀヰࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᏛ⏕ࡀ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ
࠶ࡲࡾព࿡ࡀ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺᪨ࡢពぢࡀ┠❧ࡕࠊࠕ᪥ᮏேᩍဨࡢᤵᴗ࡛ࡣࠊᩍဨࡤ࠿ࡾࡀヰࡋࠊᏛ⏕ࡀ⪺࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡔࡅ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡾࡀࡕࡔࡀࠊ࡛ࡁࡿࡔࡅከࡃᏛ⏕ࡀⱥㄒࢆヰࡍࡼ࠺࡞ᕤኵࡀᚲせࠖ࡜࠸࠺ពぢࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࠕㄒᏛ⩦ᚓࡀ୺࡞┠ⓗࡢሙྜࠊᙜ
ヱゝㄒࡢẕㄒヰ⪅ࡀᩍ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᮃࡲࡋ࠸ࡋࠊᏛ⩦ຠᯝࡶ㧗࠸࡜ᛮ࠺ࠖࠊࠕᏛ⏕ࡢⱥㄒࡢࢫ࢖ࢵࢳࡀධࡿࡢࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦࠖࠊࠕ᪥ᮏ࡟ࡣࡲࡔࡲࡔࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦಙ௮ࡀ᰿௜࠸
࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡞࡝ࠊ᪥ᮏேᩍဨ⮬ࡽࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦࡢ฼Ⅼࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿ౛ࡀከ࠸ࡶࡢࡢࠊࠕ᪥ᮏே
ࡢⱥㄒຊࢆᢕᥱࡋ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ㐺ษ࡞ࢫࣆ࣮ࢻࡸㄒᙡ࡛ヰࡍࡇ࡜ࡀ㞴ࡋ࠸ሙྜࡀከ࠸ࠖ࡜࠸
࠺ᣦ᦬ࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
3.3
 ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨ
ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨ㸦12 ྡ㸧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡶྠᵝ࡟ࠊAll in English ࡢᤵᴗ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪ
ᰝࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ (Appendix D)ࠋ
(1) “To what extent English is used in your classes? Circle one and write your reason(s). If you
have several classes in which you have different situations, please answer for each.” ࡜࠸࠺㉁ၥ࡟
ࡣࠊ12 ྡ୰ 10 ྡࡢᩍဨࡀ 5) “I for the most part use English.” ࢆ㑅ࢇࡔࡀࠊ“With the lower
levels of the students, there needs to be some Japanese in the classroom.” ࡜࠸࠺⌮⏤࡛᪥ᮏㄒࢆ
౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡶ࠶ࡾࠊ“There are students who feel embarrassed to speak English
with me if they know that I can speak Japanese. For these students, speaking Japanese in classundermines the feeling that they really must use English to communicate.”࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅࠿ࡽࡣࠊࢿ
࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ౑⏝ࢆᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
୍᪉ࠊⱥㄒࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ“It is important that they have the ability to see the language in
use and the chance to use and learn what is being presented in the classroom (often they are only
exposed to the language (in) one or two classes a week, so that minimal amount of time needs tohave the language component maximized).”࡞࡝ࠊࡑࡢ㔜せᛶࡀᙉㄪࡉࢀࡓࠋ
(2) “What do you think are strengths and weaknesses of ‘All in English’ conducted by Japanese
EFL teachers?”࡜࠸࠺㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ᪥ᮏேᩍဨࡢ฼Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ“The students can see that thenative Japanese teacher is able to perform at a high level in the target language, and that is a
motivation for the students to strive for similar abilities,” “Gives the students an example of a120᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿ All in English ࡢᤵᴗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ

realistic model for their own English speaking.”࡞࡝ࠊ᪥ᮏேᩍဨࡢ࡯࠺ࡀ⌧ᐇⓗ࡞࣮ࣟࣝࣔ
ࢹࣝ࡟࡞ࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࡀ┠❧ࡕࠊ“Can explain grammar and technical points in more detail,”“Students can ask questions more freely if they use Japanese.” ࡞࡝ࠊ᪥ᮏㄒࡢ౑⏝ࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋࡓពぢࡶ࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ḞⅬ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ“Some Japanese teachers may not have adequate pronunciation or conversation
skills, leading to less confidence in their own teaching,” “The effectiveness of the class is dependent
on the teachers’ proficiency in English.” ࡞࡝ࠊ᪥ᮏேᩍဨࡢⱥㄒຊ୙㊊ࢆᠱᛕࡍࡿࢥ࣓ࣥࢺ
ࡀከࡃࢆ༨ࡵࡓࠋ
(3) “Which do you think is better, ‘All in English’ conducted by Japanese EFL teachers or native
English teachers? Circle one and write your reason(s).”࡜࠸࠺㉁ၥ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ“I think probably
the biggest problem with conducting the class mostly in Japanese is that the language becomessomething to study rather than a means of communication. But in principle, I don’t think that thecountry of birth of the teacher is as important as proficiency in the language and skill as a teacher,”“If the EFL instructor is able to simply and clearly explain in English, the message should be able tobe well received by the students by both.” ࡞࡝ࠊᩍဨࡢᣦᑟຊ࡟ᅜ⡠ࡣ㛵ಀ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ពぢࡀ┠❧ࡕࠊ12 ྡ୰ 9 ྡࡢᩍဨࡀ 3) “Same” ࢆ㑅ࢇ࡛࠸ࡓࠋ
4㸬㸬ࡲ࡜ࡵ࡜௒ᚋࡢㄢ㢟ᮏ✏ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ࠿ࡽࠊ୰⣭ࣞ࣋ࣝ㸦ࡲࡓࡣࡑࢀ௨ୖ㸧ࡢᏛ⏕ࡣࠊࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨ
࡟ࡼࡿ All in English ࡢᤵᴗࢆᮃࡴഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ୍᪉࡛ࠊ᪥ᮏேᩍဨࡀⱥㄒ
࡜᪥ᮏㄒࢆ㥑౑ࡋ࡚୎ᑀ࡟ᤵᴗࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᮃࡴኌࡶᑡ࡞ࡃ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋAll in English ࡢᤵᴗࢆᢸᙜࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ᪥ᮏேᩍဨࡣࠊᤵᴗ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ⱥㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᪥ᮏேᩍ
ဨ࡜ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨ㛫࡛኱ࡁ࡞㐪࠸ࡣ࡞࠸࡜⪃࠼ࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊ᏶⎍ࢆ┠ᣦࡍࡢ࡛ࡣ
࡞ࡃࠊࡴࡋࢁᏛ⏕࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢ⌧ᐇⓗ࡞ࣔࢹࣝ (realistic model) ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࢀࡤⰋ࠸ࡢ
࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ
All in English ࡢᤵᴗ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊᏛ⏕ࡀ⮬Ⓨⓗ࡟ⱥㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋᩍဨࡢ
ẕㄒࡸ౑⏝ゝㄒࡀఱ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡼࡾࡶࠊ࢖ࣥࢱࣛࢡࢩࣙࣥࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ࠸࠿࡟࢔࢘
ࢺࣉࢵࢺࢆᘬࡁฟࡍ࠿ࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ᪥ᮏேᩍဨࡀ᪥ᮏㄒ࡛ᩥἲ࣭ㄒᙡࡢㄝ᫂ࢆ
ࡍࡿࡔࡅࡢᤵᴗ࡛ࡣࠊ▱㆑ࡣቑ࠼࡚ࡶ㐠⏝⬟ຊࡣ㌟࡟௜࠿࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡾࠊ୍᪉ࠊ
ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨࡀᣦᑟࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᏛ⏕ࡀ⮬ࡽⓎゝࡋᩥ❶ࢆ᭩ࡃ࡞࡝ࡢ⏘ฟࡢᶵ఍ࢆከࡃ୚࠼
࡞ࡅࢀࡤࠊ㐠⏝⬟ຊࡢྥୖ࡟ࡣࡘ࡞ࡀࡽ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
᳃ୗ (2013b) ࡛ࡣࠊ≉࡟ࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢࡣࠊ␃Ꮫᚋࡶ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡢ኱ࡁ࡞
ㄢ㢟࡛࠶ࡾࠊព㆑ⓗ࡟ఙࡤࡍດຊࡸᕤኵࢆ㔜ࡡࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋᐇ㝿ࠊ␃Ꮫ⤒㦂⪅ࡢከࡃࡀࠊ᪥ᮏ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢࡢᣦᑟ୙㊊ࢆᢈุࡍࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊ␃Ꮫ๓࠿ࡽ
⮬Ⓨⓗ࡟ⱥㄒࡢ౑⏝ᶵ఍ࢆᣢࡗࡓ࡜ᅇ⟅ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣࡢୗࠊEFL ⎔ቃ࡟࠾ࡅࡿຠᯝⓗ࡞ࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢࡢᏛ⩦࣭ᣦᑟἲࢆ᪩ᛴ࡟☜❧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀồࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊAll in
English ࡢᤵᴗࡣࠊࡑࡢࡁࡗ࠿ࡅ࡜࡞ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
ᮏ✏ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ࡛ࡣࠊࠕAll in English ࢆㅻ࠺࠿ࡽ࡟ࡣࠊࡍ࡭࡚ⱥㄒ࡛ᤵᴗࡀ⾜ࢃ121᳃ୗ ⨾࿴

ࢀࡿࡣࡎ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊ࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘⱥㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓ࠿࡜࠸࠺㉁ၥࡣ࠾࠿ࡋ࠸ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࠖࠊࠕࣞ
࣋ࣝ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ⱥㄒࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀ␗࡞ࡿࡓࡵࠊᅇ⟅ࡋ࡙ࡽ࠸ࠖ࡞࡝ࠊ㉁ၥෆᐜࡢ࠶࠸ࡲ࠸࡞
Ⅼࢆᅇ⟅⪅࠿ࡽᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡓࠋ௒ᚋࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢⅬࢆᨵၿࡋࠊࡼࡾලయⓗ࡞ព㆑ㄪᰝࢆ⾜࠸ࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊAll in English ࡢᤵᴗࡢ஦๓࣭஦ᚋ࡟ࠊ⩦⇍ᗘࢸࢫࢺ࡞࡝ࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆྲྀࡿࡇ࡜
࡟ࡼࡾࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࣞ࣋ࣝࡢᏛ⏕࡟࡝ࡢ⛬ᗘࡢຠᯝࡀ࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆㄪᰝࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊ୺࡟ All in English ࡢᤵᴗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⌧≧ᢕᥱࢆ⾜ࡗࡓࡀࠊ௒ᚋࡣࠊAll in English ࡟ࡶ࡜࡙ࡃຠᯝⓗ࡞ᣦᑟἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ᳨ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࠋ௜グᮏ✏ࡣࠊ➹⪅ࡀ 2014 ᖺ 6 ᭶ 14 ᪥࡟㛤ദࡉࢀࡓ JACET 㛵すᨭ㒊᫓Ꮨ኱఍㸦᪊኱㜰⸆⛉኱Ꮫ㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࠕAll in English ࡢᤵᴗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ୍⪃ᐹ㸸኱Ꮫ⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ
ㄪᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࢱ࢖ࢺཱྀ࡛ࣝ㢌Ⓨ⾲ࡋࡓෆᐜࢆࠊຍ➹࣭ಟṇࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩᪥ᮏᏛ⾡᣺⯆఍ (2012)ࠕࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝேᮦ⫱ᡂ᥎㐍஦ᴗࠖ
http://www.jsps.go.jp/j-gjinzai/index.html?utm_medium=twitter᳃ୗ⨾࿴ (2011)ࠕ4 ᢏ⬟ࡢ⤫ྜࢆ┠ᣦࡋࡓ኱Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢᤵᴗ㸸ࣆ࢔࣭ࣦࣞ
࣮ࣗ࡜࣏ࢫࢱ࣮࣭ࣉࣞࢮࣥࢸ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠖࠗⱥㄒᩍ⫱◊✲࠘No. 34, 91–100.
᳃ୗ⨾࿴ (2013a)ࠕ▷ᮇᾏእ◊ಟࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡀ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ㡢ኌゝㄒฎ⌮⬟ຊ࡟ࡶࡓࡽࡍຠᯝࠖࠗⱥㄒᩍ⫱◊✲࠘No. 36, 41–50.
᳃ୗ⨾࿴ (2013b)ࠕ᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࢫࣆ࣮࢟ࣥࢢຊ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄪᰝ㸸ⱥㄒᅪ࡛ࡢ␃Ꮫ⤒㦂⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠖࠗࡇ࡜ࡤࡢ⛉Ꮫ◊✲࠘No. 14, 63–74.
ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ (2002)ࠕࠗⱥㄒࡀ౑࠼ࡿ᪥ᮏே࠘ࡢ⫱ᡂࡢࡓࡵࡢᡓ␎ᵓ᝿ࠖ
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/020/sesaku/020702.htm
ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ (2013)ࠕ㧗➼ᏛᰯᏛ⩦ᣦᑟせ㡿ゎㄝ㸦እᅜㄒ⦅࣭ⱥㄒ⦅㸧ࠖ
http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2010/01/29/1282000_9.pdf
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning,teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Educational Testing Service. (2014). Test and score data summary for TOEFL iBT tests.
http://www.ets.org/s/toefl/pdf/94227_unlweb.pdf
Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kelly, C., & Gargagliano, A. (2001). Writing from within. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1993). The architecture of normal spoken language use. In G. Blanken, J.
Dittmann, H. Grimm, J. C. Marshall, & C-W. Wallesch (Eds.), Linguistic disorders andpathologies: An international handbook (pp. 1–15). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.
122᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿ All in English ࡢᤵᴗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ

Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language
acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Morishita, M. (2010). The effect of different latencies and sentence lengths on repeating tasks:
Further analyses of Morishita (2008). JACET Kansai Journal, 12, 20–31.
Murray, D. M. (1980). Writing as process: How writing finds its own meaning. In T. R. Donovan &B. W. McClelland (Eds.), Eight approaches to teaching composition (pp. 3–20). Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Oxford University Press. (2004). Quick placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input andcomprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second
language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

123᳃ୗ ⨾࿴

Appendix A㸸ᒚಟ⏕⏝࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ㸦ึᅇᤵᴗ㸧(1) ࡇࡢࢡࣛࢫ࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேᩍဨࡀ All in English ࡢᤵᴗࢆᢸᙜࡋࡲࡍࡀࠊⱥㄒࢆ࡝ࢀࡄࡽ
࠸౑⏝ࡋ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸࡛ࡍ࠿㸽࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡦ࡜ࡘ࡟‫ࢆ⏤⌮ࡢࡑࠊࡅࡘࢆۑ‬㏙࡭࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ
1) ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝᪥ᮏㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸
2) ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜᪥ᮏㄒࢆከࡃ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸
3) ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ⱥㄒࢆ࡝ࡕࡽࡶྠࡌࡄࡽ࠸౑⏝ࡋ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸
4) ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜ⱥㄒࢆከࡃ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸
5) ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ⱥㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࡯ࡋ࠸
⌮⏤(2) All in English ࡢࢡࣛࢫࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேᩍဨ࡜ⱥㄒࡢࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨࡢ࡝ࡕࡽࡀཷࡅᣢࡘ࡯
࠺ࡀⰋ࠸࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿㸽࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡦ࡜ࡘ࡟‫ࢆ⏤⌮ࡢࡑࠊࡓࡲࠊࡅࡘࢆۑ‬㏙࡭࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ1) ᪥ᮏே
2) ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜᪥ᮏே
3) ࡝ࡕࡽࡶྠࡌ
4) ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦ
5) ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦ
⌮⏤Appendix B㸸ᒚಟ⏕⏝࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ㸦᭱⤊ᤵᴗ㸧(1) ࡇࡢࢡࣛࢫ࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேᩍဨࡀ All in English ࡢᤵᴗࢆᢸᙜࡋࡲࡋࡓࡀࠊⰋ࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ᛮ
࠺Ⅼ࡜ᨵၿࡍ࡭ࡁࡔ࡜ᛮ࠺Ⅼࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀᣲࡆ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ
Ⰻ࠿ࡗࡓⅬ

124

᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿ All in English ࡢᤵᴗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ

ᨵၿⅬ(2) All in English ࡢࢡࣛࢫࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேᩍဨ࡜ⱥㄒࡢࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨࡢ࡝ࡕࡽࡀཷࡅᣢࡘ࡯
࠺ࡀⰋ࠸࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿㸽࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡦ࡜ࡘ࡟‫ࢆ⏤⌮ࡢࡑࠊࡓࡲࠊࡅࡘࢆۑ‬㏙࡭࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ1) ᪥ᮏே 2) ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜᪥ᮏே 3) ࡝ࡕࡽࡶྠࡌ
4) ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦ 5) ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦ
⌮⏤Appendix C㸸᪥ᮏேᩍဨ⏝࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ
(1) All in English ࡢᤵᴗࢆᢸᙜࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍ࠿㸽࠸ࡎࢀ࠿࡟‫ࠋ࠸ࡉࡔࡃ࡚ࡅࡘࢆۑ‬ࡣ࠸ ࣭ ࠸࠸࠼(2) (1) ࡛ࠕࡣ࠸ࠖ࡜⟅࠼ࡓ᪉ࡢࡳࡈᅇ⟅ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋⱥㄒࢆ࡝ࢀࡄࡽ࠸౑⏝ࡉࢀࡲࡋࡓ࠿㸽࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡦ࡜ࡘ࡟‫ࢆ⏤⌮ࡢࡑࠊࡅࡘࢆۑ‬㏙࡭࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊᤵᴗ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ⱥㄒࡢ
౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀ኱ࡁࡃ␗࡞ࡿሙྜࡣࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢᤵᴗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡈᅇ⟅ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ
1) ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝᪥ᮏㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓ2) ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜᪥ᮏㄒࢆከࡃ౑⏝ࡋࡓ3) ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ⱥㄒࢆ࡝ࡕࡽࡶྠࡌࡄࡽ࠸౑⏝ࡋࡓ4) ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜ⱥㄒࢆከࡃ౑⏝ࡋࡓ5) ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ⱥㄒࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓ⌮⏤125

᳃ୗ ⨾࿴

(3) ᪥ᮏேᩍဨࡀ All in English ࡢᤵᴗࢆᢸᙜࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ฼Ⅼ࡜ḞⅬ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡇ
࡜ࢆࡑࢀࡒࢀᣲࡆ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ฼ⅬḞⅬ(4) ኱Ꮫࡢ All in English ࡢࢡࣛࢫࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேᩍဨ࡜ⱥㄒࡢࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨࡢ࡝ࡕࡽࡀཷࡅ
ᣢࡘ࡯࠺ࡀຠᯝⓗࡔ࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿㸽࠸ࡎࢀ࠿ࡦ࡜ࡘ࡟‫ࢆ⏤⌮ࡢࡑࠊࡓࡲࠊࡅࡘࢆۑ‬㏙
࡭࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ
1) ᪥ᮏே
2) ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜᪥ᮏே
3) ࡝ࡕࡽࡶྠࡌ
4) ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠺࡜ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦ
5) ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦ
⌮⏤Appendix D㸸ࢿ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣦᩍဨ⏝࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ
(1) To what extent English is used in your classes? Circle one and write your reason(s). If you haveseveral classes in which you have different situations, please answer for each.
1) I for the most part use Japanese.
2) I use Japanese more than English.
3) I use Japanese and English evenly.
4) I use English more than Japanese.
5) I for the most part use English.
Reason(s)126᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿ All in English ࡢᤵᴗ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ

(2) What do you think are strengths and weaknesses of “All in English” conducted by Japanese EFL
teachers?
Strengths

Weaknesses(3) Which do you think is better, “All in English” conducted by Japanese EFL teachers or native
English teachers? Circle one and write your reason(s).
1) Japanese EFL teachers
2) Japanese EFL teachers rather than native English teachers3) Same4) Native English teachers rather than Japanese EFL teachers5) Native English teachers
Reason(s)127JACET Kansai Journal, 17
17, 128-140. (2015) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

An Investigation into the Changes of Remedial Students’ Recognition of theDiversity of EIL through Experience in Singapore
Kanako Yamaoka
Himeji Dokkyo University
ABSTRACTThe purpose of this study is to investigate students’ awareness of English as an International
Language (EIL). Particularly students who are relatively low level in English ability are major
participants in this research. It is meaningful to focus on such students as an increasing number ofteachers or researchers have to think of what is called remedial education in their classrooms thesedays. This is because, the decreasing population of young people and large number of universities
allow almost every applicant to university to pass the entrance exam. This leads to a situation inwhich teachers need to teach students who are deficient in fundamental knowledge of the language
and motivation for learning. In order to address the circumstance mentioned above in universities,
this research investigates if the experience of EIL brings about any changes in students’ awarenessof English or learning English. Moreover if the idea could make changes in students’ learning
attitudes, what kind of changes would that be? Possibilities that the concept of EIL has for students
of low level are discussed based on the outcomes.
Keywords: EIL, remedial education, quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis

I. INTRODUCTION
University students who lack fundamental knowledge of English will increase due to thecurrent situation that the decreasing population of 18 year-olds in Japan makes it easier or possible
for nearly every applicant to enroll in universities. Generally speaking, many of them not only lack
English ability, but also lack motivation for learning itself. This situation requires teachers incollege to teach English as a sort of remedial education. The students who need remedial education
are said to have low self-esteem (Kiyota, 2010) and their confidence in their own ability to learn
may also be low. These elements could lead the students to think of English as a difficult thing totackle.
In order to address this status quo, a large amount of research investigating such students’awareness or motivation toward learning or English has been conducted (e.g. Kiyota 2009, Kiyota
2010, Sakai et al. 2010). However, very little research has been done about students’ awarenessconcerning their view toward English itself by using theoretical frameworks. Therefore in thisresearch English as an International Language (EIL) is utilized as a framework. This is grounded on
an assumption that the idea that English is the language for its native speakers might hamper
128

Kanako YAMAOKA

students’ improvement of the language or their motivation toward learning it. For instance, Honna
and Takeshita (1998) stated that ‘“nativist” goal should be held largely accountable for the low
achievement. It also causes Japanese students’ passive attitudes in using this language as a means ofinternational and intercultural communication. They are ashamed if they do not speak English theway native speakers do. (p.119)’. This suggests that the concept of EIL could support students’promotion of their English ability or motivational changes. Especially if the students are, what iscalled, false starters, this idea might be able to influence their attitude in a favorable way.
1. English as an International Language
As for EIL, enormous number of academic researchers have shed light on the reality ofEnglish use in the world. Among all the literature, Crystal (2003) estimated that a total of 430
million people use English as their L2 language, which means that the number outnumbers that of
L1 users of English. He attributes this tendency to the factor that ‘the emergence of the UnitedStates as the leading economic power of the twentieth century (Crystal 2003, p.59)’. And it is notdifficult to imagine that the number of speakers of English for whom English is not L1 would
continue to increase in the current economic situation around the globe.
As the necessity of EIL increases, a lot of definitions of EIL have been proposed. While avariety of definitions of the term EIL have been suggested, the definition of EIL in this paper draws
on the one defined by Hino (2001) as “English as a means of communication between people ofdifferent nations.”(p.39).
II. LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH QUESTION
Research which deal with Japanese learners’ attitude or awareness toward EIL has been
carried out since a relatively early period.
For example, Chiba et al. (1995) focuses on the attitudes of Japanese university students
toward varieties of spoken English and examines the relation between the acceptance of varieties ofEnglish spoken by native and non-native speakers and the attitudes toward people, culture, andEnglish learning (p.77). Consequently, it is suggested that accepting non-native accents is difficult
for learners with leanings toward American or British people, culture and so forth. Hence, theauthor concludes that increasing familiarity with different varieties of English would be one of thesolutions. Matsuda (2003) conducted a qualitative case study to investigate Japanese senior school
students’ view of their ownership of English. The results showed that while the students agreed
English is used internationally, they perceive speakers of English as mainly Americans or Britons.
Additionally, the Japanese variety of English was perceived as either Japanese or incorrect Englishthat deviated from the “real” English of native speakers (p.493). Furthermore, their lack ofawareness of other varieties such as Singaporean English or Indian English was pointed out andexposing them to as many varieties as possible in order to raise their awareness was suggested.
More importantly she states that the higher level of exposure to and awareness of different varieties
of English, the more positive their attitudes may become. Furthermore, they may become less129

An Investigation into the Changes of Remedial Students’ Recognition of
the Diversity of EIL through Experience in Singapore

inhibited about communicating in their own variety of English (p.494).
Yoshikawa (2005) distributed a questionnaire to investigate students’ recognition of world
Englishes before and after their first year of classes at the Department of World Englishes of
Chukyo university. As a result, for example, 1st year students’ attitude toward outer circle varieties
was more tolerant compared with that of 2nd and 3rd students’. This outcome might reflect the factthat 2nd and 3rd year students participated in a language seminar at Singapore while 1st year students
have not yet taken part in the course. Regarding this consequence, the author suggests that students
cannot understand Singlish and therefore show a sort of rejection to it. In conclusion, it is said thatthe scheduling of oversea visits and the students’ English ability should be taken into consideration.
Oi (2012) investigated Japanese English learners’ attitudinal changes toward native speakers or theirEnglish and non-native speakers or their English after short-term interaction with non-native
English speakers. The number of times that students interacted with non-native speakers is threeand non-native speakers are a Chinese speaker of English and a Lithuanian speaker of English.
Students’ psychological changes were measured by using a questionnaire before and after theinteraction. The result suggested that the short-term interaction with non-native English speakers
worsened students’ perception toward non-native English speakers or their English, while students’attitude toward native speakers and their English has not changed. The author attributed thisoutcome to the lack of preliminary knowledge about EIL. However, many Japanese learners ofEnglish still do not know or notice this reality (e.g. Honna & Takeshita 1998), think of English as
native speakers’ language and undervalue Japanese English (Matsuda, 2003).
Although, as listed above, literature which investigates students’ awareness of EIL can befound, research which focuses on EIL awareness of students with low English proficiency is
considerably limited. It is necessary to investigate their awareness of EIL and if EIL could bringsome changes in such students’ recognition as to English learning. For this reason, the researchquestions of this paper are as follows; 1) How do students who need remedial education perceive or
recognize the idea of EIL?, 2) Can the experience of EIL change their attitude toward therecognition of the diversity of EIL? And if the experience could bring about changes, then 3) How
were students’ attitude toward EIL or English learning influenced?
III. METHOD
1. Objectives
The objectives of this research are the following three points.
(1) How students who need remedial education perceive or recognize the idea of EIL.
(2) Whether the experience of EIL can change their attitude toward the recognition of the diversity
of EIL.
(3) How students’ attitudes toward EIL or English learning were influenced.
2. Participants
The participants are first-year students at a private university in Kansai district. They
130
3

Kanako YAMAOKA

participated in an English course held in RELC Singapore from the beginning of March 2014 forabout one week. They took TOEIC Bridge in the middle of December 2013, and their English
ability can be categorized as a low level because the mean of their TOEIC Bridge score is 129 (SD= 19.8). According to Educational Testing Service, the score around 129 is converted into around310-345 of TOEIC score which means their ability is that of basic users’.
3. RELC Singapore seminar
Through this seminar, on weekdays students take English classes in the morning and go on
an excursion in the afternoon. For instance, if students learn Indian culture in the morning class,then they go to Little India as an excursion. And after the excursion, they can go anywhere they
are interested in. On weekends they go sightseeing and on Sunday, they take part in a cultural
exchange program in which they meet some students in Singapore and spend a day with them.

4. Procedure
Participants’ recognition regarding EIL was measured through a questionnaire. The
questionnaire was distributed in January 15th at one of the classes for preparation to RELC seminar
and after the seminar. Students who didn’t answer every item were eliminated and those who didn’t
take TOEIC Bridge were also excluded for analysis. Consequently the number of participants was
31 in total. The data dealt with in this study are the result of the questionnaire and that of TOEIC
Bridge. For analysis, langtest (langtest.jp) was utilized.
5. Questionnaire
Items in the questionnaire were extracted from items used by Chiba et al. (1995) (seeAppendix1) and Yoshikawa (2005) (see Appendix 2). As a result, the number of items used in thisresearch was 11 with 4-point scale ranging from “strongly agree” (4), “agree” (3), “disagree” (2),“strongly disagree” (1). The even numbers’ scale was adopted because if the scale consisted of a
odd number, there would be possibility that some of the participants might choose the middle scale
without considering the meaning of the item deeply (Yashima & Takeuchi 2006, p.40).
IV. RESULTS
1. Students’ recognition of the diversity of EIL
For the purpose of investigating students’ recognition of the diversity of EIL, cluster analysis
was adopted. As for the data, the responses to the questionnaire which was conducted before they
took part in RELC seminar and TOEIC Bridge score were utilized.
In order to verify the internal-consistency reliability of the questionnaire, the Cronbach’s alphawas calculated. With all the 11 items, it was -.50 which means the reliability could be in question.
The use of all of the questions should be avoided. Therefore some of the items were omitted toincrease the value. As a result, .64 was gained with 5 items and it was difficult to get more than .70
by any adjustments of items. According to Takeuchi and Mizumoto (2012), the reliability131

An Investigation into the Changes of Remedial Students’ Recognition of
the Diversity of EIL through Experience in Singapore

coefficient for questionnaire should be ideally obtained more than 0.7 and it is believed that if thevalue is under 0.5, it is considered as an error of measurement which suggests that the measurement
tools should not be used (p.23). The fact that the reliability coefficient was .64 might be a little low,
but the value was not under 0.5. For this reason these 5 items were utilized for analysis.
Table 1 illustrates the descriptive statistics of the questionnaire. The outcome indicates that thestudents overall have a relatively negative recognition toward EIL as the mean score is 2.13.

Table1. Means, Standard deviation and the Cronbach’s Alpha of the questionnaire
Students’ recognition toward EIL

M
2.13

SD
0.48

Į
.64

The result of the questionnaire (Q) and TOEIC Bridge score were used to profile the leaners
through hierarchical cluster analysis. Ward method and squared Euclidean distance technique wereadopted as this combination is said to be appropriate for research of individual differences(Takeuchi & Mizumoto, 2012). As a consequence, a dendrogram in figure 1 was obtained and basedon the dendrogram, three clusters were identified. Mean and Standard Deviation of Cluster 1(n=5),
Cluster 2(n=11) and Cluster 3(n=15) are listed in Table 2. The results of ANOVA for clusters of
Questionnaire and TOEIC Bridge are shown in Table 3 and 4 respectively. The effect size of eachcluster is indicated by r.
According to the Table 4, unlike the other 2 pairs, the result of p-value cluster pair 1-2 is notstatistically significant and r for the same pair is very small. This suggests that this pair is strongly
influenced by the result of questionnaire when it was clustered.

Figure 1. The Dendrogram on the result of cluster analysis

132
5Kanako YAMAOKA

Table 2. The number of subjects, Means and Standard deviation for each cluster
Cluster1(n=5) Cluster2(n=11) Cluster3(n=15)
M(SD)
M(SD)
M(SD)
Q
2.88 (0.27)
1.71 (0.31)
2.19 (0.23)
TOEIC Bridge 142.40 (13.22) 142.91 (14.29) 114.13 (14.69)

㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌 Table 3. The result of ANOVA for three clusters of questionnaire
Cluster Pairt-value
df
p
adj.p
r
1-2
8.053828 0.0000
0.0000.83
1-3
4.981028 0.0000
0.0001.68
2-3
4.463328 0.0001
0.0001.64㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌 Table 4. The result of TOEIC Bridge for three clusters of questionnaire
Cluster Pairt-value
df
p
adj.p
r
1-2
0.065828 0.9480
0.9480.01
1-3
3.815828 0.0007
0.0014.58
2-3
5.053428 0.0000
0.0001.69

The characteristics of three clusters can be summarized as follows. Cluster 1 is made of 5
students who showed the highest means in questionnaire while that of TOEIC Bridge is the second
highest. Cluster 2 is consisted of 11 participants and the result indicated that it is the highest in
TOEIC Bridge score and lowest in questionnaire. Cluster 3 contains 15 students and this group is
the lowest in TOEIC Bridge but the mean of the questionnaire is the second highest.
As this paper focuses on students with low level of English ability, Cluster 3 would be themain target for analysis. This is because, 114 in TOEIC Bridge is considered the same level as 4th or
3rd level in STEP test which means their level is around junior high school students. Remedial
education is for students who have difficulty in understanding university level lectures. Hence it isappropriate to regard this cluster as a cluster of remedial students.
2. The change of recognition concerning EIL
The results of pre and post questionnaire were statistically compared through Wilcoxon
signed-rank test to investigate if students’ perceptions toward EIL have changed or not. Nonparametric test (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was adopted as the number of participants in eachcluster is considerably small. The number of the participants in this pre and post is 31 respectively.
According to the power analysis conducted by using G*Power, the sample size which is needed forthis research is 27 at least. Therefore this number of participants in this examination is valid.
The questionnaire results of pre and post of each cluster were compared. The mean of pre andpost is presented in Table 5. Table 6 shows the descriptive statistics of each cluster.

133

An Investigation into the Changes of Remedial Students’ Recognition of
the Diversity of EIL through Experience in Singapore

Table5. The number of Mean of Pre and Post questionnaire result
Cluster
pre
post
1
2.88
2.40
2
1.70
1.92
3
2.18
2.04

㻌 㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌㻌Table6. P -value and the effect size (r ) of each cluster
Cluster
p
r
1
0.22
.55
2
0.06
.57
3
0.06
.50

As Table 6 indicates, statistically significant results were not obtained in any clustercomparison. However the effect sizes of each cluster are above 0.5, this means the effect is medium
and also suggests that the RELC seminar affected students’ recognition toward EIL and the effectwas mediocre.
Although overall tendency was briefly analyzed above, different aspects can be found. For
instance, the result of Cluster 2 indicates that if participants’ TOEIC Bridge score is high, they are
more likely influenced by the experience in Singapore and consequently their awareness toward EIL
is improved as the effect size of this cluster shows. On the other hand, as Cluster 3 represents, if
students’ TOEIC Bridge score is low, the seminar does not have a positive effect on participants’recognition of the diversity of EIL. To sum this up, the higher the score of TOEIC Bridge students
get, the larger the effect of the RELC seminar on students’ awareness of EIL. And the lower thescore of TOEIC Bridge students have, the less the effect of the study trip on students’ recognition of
the diversity of EIL. These outcomes prove suggestions made by Yoshikawa (2005). Therefore an
appropriate length of the seminar for remedial students needs to be considered.
More importantly, since the focus of present research is mainly on remedial students, theoutcome that if the students’ language ability is low, their recognition toward EIL is adversely
affected is worth considering. This might be because, as Yoshikawa (2005) implies, students who
have relatively low commodity of English would have more difficulty in understanding varieties ofEnglish as they have unique accents, for instance. And the difficulties might demotivate them tocomprehend the varieties, consequently their attitude toward EIL decreased after the seminar.
3. Qualitative analysis of students’ brief report after the seminar
In order to compensate for what quantitative analysis cannot deal with, qualitative analysis isconducted. The data utilized for the investigation was short reports which each student wrote after
the study trip. As a technique, content analysis is adopted.
Consequently, 8 categories are obtained in Cluster 1; awareness of lack of academic ability,
improvement of motivation to learn, meaningful intercultural exchange, favorable attitudes to134
7Kanako YAMAOKA

multicultural Singapore, positive attitudes to English varieties, satisfaction with the study program,
positive attitudes to communication and inclination to foreign countries. The number of the total
description of these categories is 18.
As for Cluster 2, 11 categories are elicited. The categories are the followings; awareness oflack of academic ability, improvement of motivation to learn, meaningful intercultural exchange,
disappearance of worries, favorable attitudes to multicultural Singapore, positive attitudes toEnglish varieties, difficulties in understanding of English varieties, satisfaction with the study
program, positive attitudes to communication, inclination to foreign countries, criticism of thelearning environment in Japan. All the description in this cluster is 42.
Lastly, Cluster 3 has 11 categories as follows; awareness of lack of academic ability,
improvement of motivation to learn, meaningful intercultural exchange, disappearance of worries,
favorable attitudes to multicultural Singapore, positive attitudes to English varieties, difficulties inunderstanding English varieties, satisfaction with the study program, positive attitudes tocommunication, inclination to comfortable environment and gratitude to teachers. The number ofdescription which consists of categories in this cluster is 64.
The number of descriptions for each category in each cluster is represented by percentage in
Figure 2 to 4 in order to examine the character of each cluster.
According to Figure 2 and 3, the highest score is ‘improvement of motivation to learn’ in both
Cluster 1 and 2. In Cluster 3, the highest category is ‘meaningful intercultural exchange’ and‘improvement of motivation to learn’ is the second highest. As for categories relating to EIL such as‘positive attitudes to English varieties’ or ‘difficulties with understanding English varieties’, Cluster
1 showed highest scores in ‘positive attitudes to English varieties’ and Cluster 2 is the second
highest regarding the category among clusters. However Cluster 2 is the highest in ‘difficulties with
understanding English varieties’. Only a small number of remarks regarding English varieties itself
are gained in Cluster 3.

Figure 2. Percentage of each categories of students’ report in Cluster 1
135

An Investigation into the Changes of Remedial Students’ Recognition of
the Diversity of EIL through Experience in Singapore

Figure 3. Percentage of each categories of students’ report in Cluster 2

Figure 4. Percentage of each categories of students’ report in Cluster 3
Cluster 1 is originally highest in the recognition of the diversity of EIL and second highest in
TOEIC Bridge score when clustered by ANOVA. The finding obtained through quantitative analysis
indicated their awareness of EIL has decreased from 2.88 to 2.40. Despite this decrease, it is still the136
9Kanako YAMAOKA

highest among others. Therefore the result of qualitative analysis could support it. In other words,
students’ English ability is not that low and they are positively motivated through exposure tovarieties of English. At the same time, they also have high understanding concerning EIL, which
could foster students’ ‘positive attitudes to English varieties’. However reasons for the decrease inmean score in quantitative analysis need to be investigated in further research.
Cluster 2 is profiled as the highest in TOEIC Bridge score and lowest in the recognition of thediversity of EIL. They seem to be motivated by the experience they had in Singapore and theiroverall satisfaction to this program is high (17%). Interestingly, although they have the lowest
awareness to EIL before they visit the country, some of them had positive feelings to English
varieties after the program. As quantitative data suggests, the mean score of the awareness to EIL
has increased from 1.70 to 1.92 and the effect size was the biggest among others. More importantly,
5% of the respondents mentioned ‘difficulties with understanding English varieties’ which comesmainly from unique accents according to their remarks. Therefore the EIL education is crucial to
overcome the difficulties, especially in the field of English varieties’ accents.
Cluster 3 is the lowest in TOEIC Bridge and second highest in awareness to EIL when it’s
profiled. Results indicate the following two points. Firstly, the outcome of qualitative analysis
supports quantitative analysis to some extent, because the categories concerning EIL in this cluster
are the lowest among other clusters. This could prove the findings that if the students’ language
ability is low, their acceptance of EIL is adversely affected after the experience of exposure to
English varieties. Hence improvement of their English ability would positively affect theiracceptance of EIL. Secondly, giving them opportunities to experience English varieties to address
the issue of their low awareness of EIL is important. While their recognition to EIL is low, thehighest score obtained in ‘meaningful intercultural exchange’. The number of data for this category
is 17 and 7 out of which indicates that intercultural exchange inside and outside of classroom wasmeaningful. On the other hand, 10 out of the 17 indicates that they experienced meaningfulintercultural exchanges through communication with people outside of classroom. Therefore it ismore significant to let them be aware of the importance of understanding of EIL throughintercultural experiences abroad than in Japan. Those experiences might motivate them to learn andconsequently their English ability might improve.
V. DISCUSSIONFirst of all, I would like to discuss objective one; to investigate how students who need
remedial education perceive or recognize the idea of EIL? Quantitative analysis reveals thatstudents with the lowest scores in TOEIC Bridge showed the second highest recognition to EIL(M=2.19). But this mean score to EIL recognition is below 3 which purport the middle, so theirawareness of EIL is not high before the experience of EIL in Singapore.
Secondly, the second objective is discussed; if the experience of EIL can change their attitude
toward the recognition of the diversity of EIL or not? According to pre and post questionnaire
analysis, students who require remedial education in Cluster 3 might be adversely influenced by the137

An Investigation into the Changes of Remedial Students’ Recognition of
the Diversity of EIL through Experience in Singapore

experience of EIL, because their acceptance of EIL has decreased. Qualitative data also suggeststhat their awareness of EIL is low even after the seminar. As one of the categories, positive attitudes
to English varieties, showed the lowest among three clusters. This might be the result of shortperiod of the seminar, therefore it is necessary to consider an appropriate length of the program for
remedial students.
Lastly, the third objective is considered; how students’ attitude toward EIL or English learning
was influenced? It seems students’ attitudes toward EIL were not positively influenced, but theymentioned that they had meaningful intercultural exchanges in Singapore. Hence visiting Singapore
might have become one of the steps to understand EIL and to study English for remedial students.
Those experiences could lead them to be aware of EIL.
As a one possible pedagogical implication based on the outcomes is that letting them havemore meaningful intercultural exchanges not only in other countries but also in Japan. Having
meaningful intercultural exchanges is possible without visiting abroad to some extent. For example,
welcoming as many guest speakers from non-English speaking countries as possible to classroom
and have students communicate with the guests in English could be one of the solutions. It is also
important to improve their English ability through this type of meaningful intercultural exchange.
VI. CONCLUSION
For students who require remedial education, the understanding of EIL might be a daunting
task. Although it is a difficult challenge, improvement of their English ability and learning throughmeaningful intercultural exchanges could be some of the solutions.
Restrictions of the present research are large. For example, the number of the participants islimited. Therefore the generalization of the findings of this study should be avoided. As a one of thesolutions to the shortcomings of this research mentioned above, a longitudinal research based on thesuggestions of this research is necessary to investigate students’ change of their acceptance of EILor their changes in motivation to learn and so forth. On top of that, questions which measure
students’ motivation for learning English need to be added to the EIL questionnaire in order toinvestigate how recognition or experience of EIL affects their motivation at the same time. However
the suggestions indicated in this research based on quantitative and qualitative analysis could serve
as significant hints to the research of remedial students’ awareness of EIL.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author is grateful to Professor Hino Nobuyuki for his accurate advice and thoughtful
suggestions on this research. The author would also like to thank Professor Imao Yasuhiro andProfessor Morikawa Fumihiro for their helpful comments and instructions on data collection and its
analysis.

138
11

Kanako YAMAOKA

REFERENCES
British Council. (n.d.). Retrieved January 7th, 2015 fromhttp://www.britishcouncil.jp/sites/britishcouncil.jp/files/jiao_cai_nonan_yi_du_tocefrying_yu_li_jian_ding_shi_yan__0.pdf
Chiba, R., Matsuura, H., & Yamamoto, A. (1995). Japanese attitudes toward English accents. World
Englishes, 14(1), 77-86.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language. 2nd edition .Cambridge University Press.
Educational Testing Service. (n.d.). Retrieved October 15, 2014 from http://www.toeic.or.jp/
Eiken Foundation of Japan. (n.d.). Retrieved January 7th, 2014 from http://www.eiken.or.jp/eiken/
Hino, N. (2001). Organizing EIL studies: toward a paradigm, Asian Englishes, 4(1), 34-65.
Honna, N., & Takeshita, Y. (1998). On Japan’s propensity for native speaker English: A change insight, Asian Englishes, 1(1), 117-137.
Matsuda, A. (2003). The ownership of English in Japanese secondary schools, World Englishes,
22(4), 482-496.
Oi, M. (2012). Eigo hibogowasha tono intarakushon ga gakushuusha no gengotaido ni oyobosu
eikyou, The Chubu English Language Education Society Journal, 41, 93-98.
Takeuchi, O., & Mizumoto, A. (Eds.). (2012). Gaikokugo kyoiku kenkyu handobukku : Kenkyu
shuho no yori yoi rikai no tameni, Tokyo: Shohakusha.
Yoshikawa, H. (2005). Recognition of world Englishes: Changes in Chukyo University students’attitudes, World Englishes, 24(3), 351-360.
Yashima, T., & Takeuchi, O. (2006). Gaikokugo kyouikugaku notameno shitsumonshiho [Zoltan
Dörnyei, Questionnaires in Second Language Research], Tokyo: Shohakusha.

139

An Investigation into the Changes of Remedial Students’ Recognition of
the Diversity of EIL through Experience in Singapore

APPENDIX 1: Items of questionnaire in Chiba et al. (1995)
1. I study English because it is required for graduation.

1234567

2. I am interested in the English of Singapore and India.

1234567

3. Just like Chinese or Hindi, English is a kind of foreign language.
4. English spoken by Japanese is easy to understand.

12345671234567

5. As long as it is understood, innocent English is acceptable.

1234567

6. I prefer friends from USA or UK to those from Asia.

1234567

7. There is too much English in Japanese TV commercials.

1234567

8. High English proficiency is advantageous for job hunting.

1234567

9. I would choose USA or UK for studying or traveling.
10. English is the best foreign language to learn.

12345671234567

11. I am willing to respond if spoken to in English.

1234567

12. I am willing to go abroad if appointed to work there.

1234567

13. English should be used as a world lingua franca.

1234567

14. I envy those who can pronounce English like an American or a British

1234567

person.
15. I want to get good grades in English.

1234567

16. It is more important to use Japanese correctly than to speak English

1234567

fluently.
17. It is possible to obtain more knowledge by reading English books.
18. Japanese English teachers pronounce English well.

12345671234567

19. I want to get acquainted with people from different countries.

1234567

20. The Japanese language should be used at school in Japan.

1234567

21. The indigenous language is the most important in any country.

1234567

APPENDIX 2: Items of questionnaire in Yoshikawa (2005)
1. English is the most popular language among Japanese foreign language learners. This is naturalin the present world situation.
2. English has to be taught by native speakers.
3. English has to be taught by Japanese teachers.
4. American Standard English or British Standard English is the most suitable as a model language
for Japanese learners.
5. Singaporean English or Indian English is suitable as a model language for Japanese learners.
6. English has to be an official language in Japan.
7. Japanese English is acceptable if it is communicable.
8. You had better avoid using idiomatic expressions in conversations in English with non-native
speakers of English. (to WE students only)

140
13

JACET Kansai Journal, 17
17, 141-154. (2015) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

Use of a Self-Evaluation System in a University EFL Course in Japan:
Helping Students Improve Learner Motivation
Kate Maher
Kyoto University of Foreign Studies

ABSTRACTThis study reports on the utilization of a student self-evaluation system within a first-year university
EFL course to investigate whether it has an effect on learner motivation towards English. Throughthis system, students are guided in forming learner goals, reflect on time management, task
strategies and effort. This should motivate students to sustain their study independently outside ofclass. The self-evaluation system was divided into inside of class and outside of class sheets, whichcontained items to prompt self-evaluation of desired target learning behavior for the course they
were taking. The study used pre- and post-questionnaires and the data from the answers theparticipants gave on their self-evaluation sheets to answer the following research question: Wouldthe self-evaluation system help improve the students’ motivation? The results showed that theparticipants’ motivation towards studying English did increase, and through evaluating the scores
given on the self-evaluation sheets, they became more aware of their study habits, making an effort
to create a non-distracting study environment, managing their independent study time outside ofclass, and setting goals for their learning. It can be claimed that through using the self-evaluation
system, students became more aware of their learning behavior and took steps towards improving it.
Keywords: self-evaluation, motivation, learner behavior, goal setting, autonomy

I. INTRODUCTION
According to Dörnyei (2012), unlike any other school subject, language learning is rather
different regarding motivation and the influence it has on the learner, particularly due to the socialand cultural elements involved. Looking at the motivation of Japanese university students studying
English, there is the issue of de-motivation or insufficient motivation for outside of class study. Irie
(2003) states that for some, “English is a means to an end for Japanese students” (p. 91). Irie (2003)
identified three motivation types in Japanese students; instrumental motivation, which represents
the need for English ability for the entrance exam and job hunting, mastery motivation to attainproficiency, particularly in terms of grammar, and extrinsic motivation, which connects to the
expectation of others, such as teachers and parents. Instrumental motivation is reported most often
in Japan due to the exam driven learning environment (Berwick & Ross, 1989; Irie, 2003; Kimura,
Nakata & Okumura, 2000; O'Donnell, 2003). Several studies have shown that the domination of theentrance exam for how English is taught, learnt and used, as well as the purpose portrayed to141

Kate MAHER

students about English study, is clouded by the exam system, and may affect motivation to continue
the study of English once the entrance exam is over (Berwick & Ross, 1989; O’Donnell, 2003;
Okuno, 2007). It is also important to consider the context of learning English as a foreign language(EFL) rather than as a second language (ESL) in Japan (Kikuchi & Sakai, 2009). In addition to the
EFL environment, there is also the conception that because Japan is an island nation and only
Japanese is perceived as necessary for living, there is little need for the average citizen to have
English abilities for daily life, just for the entrance exam and job hunting, after that it is a rather
obsolete skill to possess and spend time on. Furthermore, even if a person has the interest or will to
use English, the chances are few and far between thus depleting motivation further (Kikuchi &Sakai, 2009; Okuno, 2007). Within the past decade, however, language-learning motivation has
become more prevalent in Japan, including the concern felt by university English instructors about
how to get students to study more independently outside of class and how to sustain theirmotivation (Kimura, Nakata, & Okumura, 2000).
Japanese students often show signs of negative attribution and associate their ability and lackof preparation with failure in their studies, and success is often attributed to external factors rather
than themselves (Kormos & Csizer, 2010; Mori, Gobel, Thepsiri & Pojanapunya, 2010). Weiner(2001) discusses the impact of attribution theory on students, suggesting that learners can link theirpast and future selves. If learners are able to understand their past failure due to lack of effort, they
may be more inclined to try again. Furthermore, if they are able to attribute success to their effort,
this may help them to sustain their effort. This connects with Bandura’s previous studies, (Bandura,
1977), which looked at the influence of Self-Efficacy Theory for persistence in activities, using
coping strategies, and the confidence in the learner’s ability to accomplish a task or reach a goal.
The higher the level of self-efficacy, the more likely they are to develop skills, have a higher levelof ability, and more motivation to overcome previous negative experiences and persist incompleting a task (Bandura, 1977).
A further issue regarding Japanese university students studying English is learner autonomy.
Asik (2010) defines learner autonomy as putting “the learner at the focal point of all attention and it
endows him/her with responsibility for his/her actions” (p. 142). The Self-Determination Theory(Deci & Ryan, 1985) is connected to autonomous learning through learners determining their own
actions through making their own choices and initiating their own learning behavior. Within thistheory, two types of motivation known as intrinsic and extrinsic motivation occur. When focusing
on autonomy, this theory looks at how learners can set conditions where they motivate themselves,for example to study more outside of class. If learners are asked to evaluate their own learning
behavior, this could facilitate them making their own choices regarding it and result in successful
adaptation of it. If Japanese students are able to positively attribute their learning behavior throughself-evaluation more, there is a chance that their self-efficacy could increase, supporting theirmotivation and autonomy. Therefore, considering the findings of previous research, the use of aself-evaluation system was considered to have the potential to assist students to develop moreautonomous learning behavior, as well as awareness of their learning behavior, especially142

Use of a Self-Evaluation System in a University EFL Course in Japan:
Helping Students Improve Learner Motivation

independent study outside of class. Furthermore, in order to improve students’ motivation, theirlevel of self-efficacy should be increased. For that purpose, a self-evaluation system was designed
and implemented both in class and outside of class.
II. RESEARCH QUESTION
Considering the motivational issues that can be faced by Japanese first-year university
students studying English as indicated in previous research, a study was conducted to examine
whether a self-evaluation system in a traditional face-to-face learning environment would improve
the students’ motivation, in particular with regards to their independent study time outside of class.
The study used pre- and post-questionnaires and the answers written by the students on the selfevaluation sheets, to answer the following research question: Would the self-evaluation system help
improve the students’ motivation?
III. SELF-EVALUATION SYSTEM
To investigate the effect of self-evaluation on student motivation in a first-year EFL course ata Japanese university, a self-evaluation system was designed based on previous studies and theperceived needs of the course where it was intended to be used. The design for this study especiallytook into consideration the key design issues raised by the previous studies such as the need for
feedback and goal setting facilitation. The base of the design was created bearing in mind the needto take into careful consideration what the desired target behavior is for the course where the selfevaluation system is to be used, and making sure that this remains the focus of the self-evaluation
process. This has been highlighted as essential when aiding students with how to identify goals andstrategies to achieve them and the target behavior, particularly paying attention to making it
achievable, with a reasonable time frame, short and long-term goals and a suitable learning
environment that will help to elicit such behavior (Rafferty, 2010). The following section will lookat each aspect of the design of the self-evaluation system. The system was divided into inside ofclass and outside of class weekly sheets, and then inside of class, outside of class and feedback
overview sheets.
As the purpose of this study was to investigate ways of how to improve students’ motivation,encourage them to study more outside of class, and increase their independent learning behavior,
the study included self-evaluation of the students’ study behavior outside of class, as well as insideof class. So as to encourage students to simultaneously work on short-term as well as long-termgoals, weekly sheets, as well as overview sheets that reviewed multiple weeks at the same time,
were created. By doing this, the short-term goals should provide achievable and motivating
milestones on the road to their long-term goals, which should help them to feel that they areprogressing. The overview sheets were designed to be used after two weeks of using the weekly
sheets at the start of the course (after Week 2 and after Week 4) and then after three weeks of using
the weekly sheets (after Week 7), so as to provide staggered scaffolding or support for the selfevaluation system. By fading out the support, this should give students more space to self-evaluate
143
3Kate MAHER

and facilitate independence and time for them to reflect (McMillan & Hearn, 2008; Rafferty 2010;
Schunk, 2003). The target behavior for the weekly and overview sheets were based on the
categories used in the Online Self-regulated Learning Questionnaire (OSLQ) in a study by Barnard,
Lan, To, Osland Paton, and Lai, (2010). The results of this study showed that this was a successful
tool for measuring self-reflected learning outside of class. From the categories used in the OSLQ,
items were chosen, then divided into items for inside of class and outside of class, as well as forweekly and overview sheets, varying the type of focus for each.
1. Sheet Design
Due to the number of items and to make it easy for the users to complete the items, a 6-point
Likert scale was chosen for quick and clear completion. A written section was also included toencourage the users to think more deeply, and also in case some skipped quickly over the Likert
scale items without considering their answers fully. In addition, according to McMillan and Hearn,(2008), explaining goals and learning behavior in their own words, can be effective for students
when evaluating themselves, allowing them to express their feelings and thoughts more deeply. For
the Likert scale questions, a circle and triangle answering method was utilized. The circle represents
where the learner feels they are currently at, and the triangle is their target, i.e. where they feel theyshould be at, with the aim that this would make the users more aware of the gap between the two.
Schunk’s (2003) study found that if students are aware of the difference between their current levelof effort and where they feel they should be, any dissatisfaction might prompt them to try harderand change their behavior. Hadfield and Dörnyei (2013) also talk of ‘unifying’ the ideal (learner)
self and the ought-to (learner) self by consolidating both elements, so that a more effective goal
path and strategies can be established as part of motivating the learner.
Table 1. Example Weekly and Overview Sheet Schedule
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

WeeklyooOverview

Feedback

Other

Weeks 1-2oooReturn feedback
Weeks 1-4ooooReturn feedback

Weeks 5-7
Course summary

144

o
o

Return feedback
Return feedback via email

Use of a Self-Evaluation System in a University EFL Course in Japan:
Helping Students Improve Learner Motivation

Table 2. Overview of self-evaluation sheet items
Category
Task strategies
EffortEnvironmentTimemanagement
Goal setting
Help seeking
Self-reflection

Weekly Sheet
Inside of classooOutside of classoooOverview Sheet
Inside of class

Outside of class

o
o
o

o
o
o

o

2. Overview Sheets
The staggered overview sheets were included to encourage the users to reflect back on theirprogress and to analyze any changes they witnessed in their behavior. It was hoped that by doing
this they would attribute success to their effort and any negative changes or outcomes to their
behavior, which would prompt them to alter it and help them sustain their effort for their next goal.
In order to facilitate reflection of their past behavior, the overview sheets included a graph area for
the users to plot their Likert scale item answers. Rafferty (2010) stated that by having users graphtheir own behavior, they are able to create goals for themselves with less prompting. Furthermore,
the overview graphs would provide a visual quantification, easy to read record of their progress,
which was thought to be easier for users to reflect back on than the written sections and checking
each weekly sheet.
The overview sheets were followed up with a feedback sheet. People often cannot evaluate
themselves accurately or effectively, so feedback can help to overcome this issue, and it has been
claimed that motivation to achieve goals can be assisted by feedback (Birney, Beckmann & Wood,
2012; McMillan & Hearn, 2008; Schunk, 2003; Zimmerman, 1990). The benefits of feedback
within a self-evaluation or reflection system was also discussed by Meyer, Abrami, Wadea, Aslan
and Deault (2010) who used an online system called ePearl, where peer and teacher feedback wasused. They found that it can encourage deeper reflection, particularly learning strategies, and can
influence a change in learning behavior as they adjust in line with suggestions and comments fromfeedback, which can lead to higher levels of positive self-attribution. Also, the sharing of feedback
amongst peers in particular may have encouraged better consideration and recording of strategies
used. Hadfield and Dörnyei (2013) talk of the importance of ‘making it real’ stage (p. 291), to keep
motivation up, by showing the relevance and vision of one’s ‘ideal self’, in this case, through peer
and teacher feedback.
3. Paper-based format
In this study a paper-based self-evaluation system was used rather than a digital or online
version. This was predominantly due to assessing the participants and what they would be most
comfortable with, and the fact that the most of the time spent using this system would be in class sothat the researcher could support the users better with a paper-version that would be easier to access145
5Kate MAHER

and manage.

Figure 1. Self-evaluation weekly sheets146

Use of a Self-Evaluation System in a University EFL Course in Japan:
Helping Students Improve Learner Motivation

IV. EVALUATION OF THE STUDY
Pre- and post-questionnaires were conducted to provide comparative data to ascertain whether
the self-evaluation system improved learner motivation and to answer the following researchquestion: Would the self-evaluation system help improve the students’ motivation? In addition tothese questionnaires, the answers given on the self-evaluation sheets were analized to gather further
data regarding the participants’ level of motivation as well as their experience of using the selfevaluation system. The pre- and post-questionnaires were conducted on the first and last classes of
the course respectively. The self-evaluation sheets were completed by the participants every weekduring class with the support of the instructor.
1. Participants
The participants were 22 first-year English major university students (13 females and 9 males)
enrolled in an EFL course at a university in Japan. The study took place in the second semester of
the academic year. All of the participants were enrolled in a 15-week compulsory English coursethat was based around paper-based reading materials and related communicative output activities,
such as group discussions, mini-presentations and debates, and took place in a traditional face-toface learning environment. The class and participants that took part in this study were categorized
as being of ‘intermediate’ level within their year. The placement of these students in thisintermediate class was based on the scores they achieved in a TOEIC placement test conducted at
the beginning of the semester, and the students’ scores in this class ranged from 450 to 550. Before
the start of the study, permission from the students was obtained through a consent form after a brief
explanation about the study and informing them that they could refuse to participate without penalty.
Of the 22 participants, three students (two females and one male) did not take part in the study due
to their frequent absences throughout the course and this study. When they did attend class, they
volunteered to complete the self-evaluation sheets for their own benefit.
2. Procedure
The self-evaluation system created for use in this study was completed by the participants on
a weekly basis during the last 15 to 20 minutes of class time. Classes for this course were held oncea week for 2 periods, in total 180 minutes. The instructor distributed paper copies of the relevant
sheet for that week in the schedule to all members of the class. For example, in the case of it being a
regular weekly sheet, students received an in-class and outside of class weekly sheet to complete.
Students were asked to complete the sheets independently. During this time the instructor walked
around the classroom to provide support and on the spot feedback, as and when it was felt to berequired, or was requested by the students. At the end of the class, all of the sheets were
photocopied. In the following class, the original was returned to the students for their own reference,
and a copy was retained for the purpose of data collection for the study.
In addition to analysis of the answers given by students on their self-evaluation sheets, preand post-questionnaires were employed in this study. All of the items in these three instruments
used a six-point Likert-scale system ranging from 1-6 with three variations depending on the item
147
7

Kate MAHER(1 = disagree and 6 = agree, 1= low and 6= high, 1= weak and 6 = strong). The pre- and postquestionnaires were divided into inside of class and outside of class items. The inside of classquestionnaire was based on several instruments from previous studies used to measure various
aspects of motivation and connected elements. For the outside of class questionnaire, the Online
Self-regulated Learning Questionnaire (OSLQ) developed by Barnard, Lan, To, Paton and Lai(2010) was used. The pre- and post-questionnaires were completed in the first and last class of thecourse respectively.
Table 3. Inside of class pre- and post-questionnaire items

Table 4. Outside of class pre- and post-questionnaire items

V. RESULTS
All data from the instruments and self-evaluation sheets were analyzed using SPSS software.
In the case of the data from the self-evaluation sheets, SPSS was used to compare the scores of theLikert scale items, as well as the quantity and detail of the written sections at the bottom of the sheet.
The written sections were analyzed and given a score based on a scale from 0 to 5. A score of 0 was
given if the participants left it blank, 1 if they wrote ‘same’ for more than one section or repeated
what they wrote in another section, 2 when they wrote an unrelated comment such as they ‘enjoyedwatching a movie’, 3 if they wrote a related but vague comment such as they ‘want to speak more’,
4 if they wrote a related comment and tried to give some detail for example how they were going to
improve their listening skills, and 5 if they wrote clear and detailed answers they gave specificstudy plans and goals. These scores were then analyzed and compared in the same way as the preand post-test questionnaires.

148

Use of a Self-Evaluation System in a University EFL Course in Japan:
Helping Students Improve Learner Motivation

1. Pre- and post-questionnaires
The pre- and post-questionnaires were conducted to ascertain whether a change occurred fromusing the self-evaluation system, and examine what kind of influence it had on the participants’motivation and learning behavior. Although there were few significant increases, there were somesmall to medium effect sizes for learning strategies, self-efficacy and goal setting as Table 5 shows.
Table 5. Comparison of pre- and post-questionnaires

2. Self-evaluation system
The scores from the Likert scale items and written sections of the self-evaluation system
sheets were compared from week 1 and week 3 as well as week 1 and week 5 (week 1 refers to thefirst round of weekly sheets, week 3 was the third round in the middle of the semester, and week 5
was the final round) to examine whether there was a change in the participants’ learning behavior
and motivation.

149
9Kate MAHER

Table 6. Self-evaluation system results

Note. W1 &W3 indicates the comparison between Week 1 and 3, W1 &W5 indicates the comparison between Week 1 and 5.

150

Use of a Self-Evaluation System in a University EFL Course in Japan:
Helping Students Improve Learner Motivation

VI. DISCUSSION
The results of this study do not provide conclusive evidence to suggest that the self-evaluation
system improved the participants’ motivation; however, it can be claimed that through using theself-evaluation system, students became more aware of their learning behavior and took steps
towards improving it, particularly environment and time management outside of class.
As is shown in Table 5, there was an increase in the participants clarifying what they have notunderstood, which indicates there was some motivation and interest in the subject to take the effort
to clarify their understanding of it. It can also be seen that there was an improvement in theparticipants’ beliefs and confidence in their own English ability compared to others. The results ofthe goal setting items also show an increase from the pre- to post-questionnaire. Although the postquestionnaire mean scores are fairly low, there was an increase with small to medium effect,indicating that through using the self-evaluation system not only did their use of learning strategies
increase, but also their goal setting and thus planning for their English study improved, which may
have helped to raise their levels of self-efficacy.
As is shown in Table 6 it can be seen that in terms of inside of class self-evaluation there wasa significant increase in the effort the participants felt they were making during class time,
especially with regards to doing more than the specified task and trying to do more than what was
just expected by the instructor, indicating perhaps an improvement in intrinsic motivation. For
example, learning strategies such as looking up, recording and trying to use new words andexpressions, which also showed a significant increase and large effect size. The results of theoutside of class data show that there were some significant increases in the environment items
which indicates that the participants made an effort to make a suitable study environment forindependent study, and in addition there was an increase in their planning of their time for outsideof class study. Although this was not a significant increase there was a small effect size. There weresignificant increases and medium effect sizes for the level of effort participants reported for their
independent study outside of class, as they reported that they tried to do more than just the specified
task. This was also reported for inside of class, and again perhaps indicates an improvement in theirintrinsic motivation and taking the initiative in their own learning. This suggests that the combined
improvement of environment, time management and effort for outside of class means that the selfevaluation system may have helped to improve the participants’ independent study.
VII. FURTHER DIRECTIONS
The findings of this study indicate that there is a potential for improving Japanese university
students’ motivation to study English more outside of class through the process of self-evaluation toincrease awareness of their learning behavior, and through prompting and supporting them in thecreation of goals for their own learning. Therefore, future research should look to examine otherforms of self-evaluative activities and processes that can be conducted during class time, orassigned for outside of class with support during class time. By using this study as a base forresearch and gathering more data and feedback from the participants regarding the experiences of151
11Kate MAHER

using the self-evaluation system, it may be possible to refine the design, making it easier and more
effective for the users. Through the process of refining the design, further studies could be carriedout to examine what kind of self-evaluative activity is useful for first-year university students
studying English in an EFL environment in Japan, and what kind of support and scaffolding theyrequire to develop their autonomous learning behavior. Furthermore, future studies should also try
to ascertain whether a self-evaluation system is beneficial for improving the proficiency of students.
In addition to refining the design, future studies using self-evaluation activities would ideally be
conducted for longer periods of time. In this study, the researcher only had access to the participants
for a single semester, but to examine the effectiveness of self-evaluation activities more thoroughly,
it might be beneficial to trial the use of the self-evaluation system with the same participants over at
least two semesters, and carry out delayed post-test questionnaires and interviews.
VIII. CONCLUSION
The results of this study and the research reported here focused on the question: Would theself-evaluation system help improve the students’ motivation? In answer to this question, while theresults of this study do not conclusively provide enough evidence to support the idea that the selfevaluation system used in this study did improve the participants’ motivation, it can be suggested
that through using the self-evaluation system, students became more aware of their learning
behavior and took steps towards improving it, particularly as to the environment and time
management outside of class. The purpose of this study was to examine the utilization of a selfevaluation system in a first-year university compulsory EFL course for English students, to improve
motivation and support students with studying outside of class. Through this system students wereguided in the forming of learner goals, which was expected to motivate them to sustain their study
independently outside of class and to optimize their use of face-to-face time during class. While thesignificance of the findings is somewhat limited by the number of participants, this study does
provide a platform for future research into the use of self-evaluation systems in an EFL university
setting, and is relevant when considering the motivational needs of first-year EFL university
students. It is perhaps important for instructors to consider that first-year students are experiencingchanges in their learning environment and daily life, so it is important to help them sustain theirmotivation to study post-entrance exam English, and adapt to a more independent study routine.
REFERENCES
Asik, A. (2010). Misconceptions on learner autonomy: A methodological and conceptual review.
Ekev Akademi Dergisi, 14(43), 141-152.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychologicalreview, 84(2), 191-215.
Barnard, L., Lan, W.Y., & Paton, O.V. (2010). Profiles in self-regulated learning in the online
learning environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,
11(1), 1- 10.
152

Use of a Self-Evaluation System in a University EFL Course in Japan:
Helping Students Improve Learner Motivation

Berwick, R. & Ross, S. (1989). Motivation after matriculation: Are Japanese learners of English
still alive after exam hell? JALT Journal, 11(2), 193-210.
Birney, D.P., Beckmann, J.F. & Wood, R.E. (2012). Precursors to the development of flexible
expertise: Metacognitive self-evaluations as antecedences and consequences in adult learning.
Learning and Individual Differences, 22(5), 563-574.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York: Plenum.
Dörnyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign language learning. Language Learning,
40(1), 45-78.
Dörnyei, Z. (2012). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hadfield, J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2013). Motivating learning. Harlow: Longman.
Irie, K. (2003). What do we know about the language learning motivation of university students inJapan? Some patterns in survey studies. JALT Journal, 25(1), 86-100.
Kikuchi, K. & Sakai, H. (2009). Japanese learners’ demotivation to study English: A survey study.
JALT Journal, 31(2), 183-204.
Kimura, K., Nakata,Y. & Okumura, T. (2001). Language learning motivation of EFL learners inJapan: A cross-sectional analysis of various learning milieus. JALT Journal, 23(1), 47-68.
Kondo, M. (2009) Gaikokugogakushu no jiritsu wo habamu belief no youin [Beliefs that prevent
learner autonomy in foreign language learning]. Proceedings of the 49th LET National
Conference, 238-239.
Kormos, J. & Csizér, K. (2008). Age-related differences in the motivation of learning English as aforeign language: Attitudes, selves, and motivated learning behavior. Language Learning,
58(2), 327-355.
McMillan, J.H. & Hearn, J. (2008). Student self-assessment: The key to stronger student motivationand higher achievement. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 40-49.
Meyer, E., Abrami, P.C., Wade, C.A., Aslan, O. & Deault, L. (2010). Improving literacy andmetacognition with electronic portfolios: Teaching and learning with ePEARL. Computers &Education, 55(1), 84-91.
Mori, S., Gobel, P., Thepsiri, K. & Pojanapunya, P. (2010). Attributions for performance: A
comparative study of Japanese and Thai university students. JALT Journal, 32(1), 5-28.
O’Donnell, K. (2003). Uncovering first-year students’ language learning experiences, their attitudes,
and motivations in a context of change at the tertiary level of education. JALT Journal, 25(1),31-62.
Okuno, H. (2007). A critical discussion on the action plan to cultivate “Japanese with English
abilities”. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 4(4), 133-158.
Rafferty, L.A. (2010). Step-by-step: Teaching students to self-monitor. TEACHING Exceptional
Children, 43(2), 50-58.

153
13Kate MAHER

Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting,and self-evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 159-172.
Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an attribution
perspective. Eductional Psychology Review, 12(1), 1-14.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview.
Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.

154

AppendicesࠗJACET Kansai Journal㸦JACET 㛵す⣖せ㸧࠘ห⾜つᐃ㸦2008 ᖺ 12 ᭶ไᐃࠊ2015 ᖺ 3 ᭶ 7 ᪥ᨵᐃ㸧
1. ห⾜㊃᪨࣭ห⾜≀ࡢྡ⛠
JACET 㛵すᨭ㒊ࡣᨭ㒊఍ဨ࡟◊✲Ⓨ⾲ࡢᶵ఍ࢆᥦ౪ࡋࠊࡶࡗ࡚ᨭ㒊ࡢ◊✲άືࡢάᛶ໬࡟㈨ࡍࡿ࡭
ࡃࠊ◊✲⣖せࢆห⾜ࡍࡿࠋᮏ⣖せࡢྡ⛠ࡣࠗJACET 㛵す⣖せ࠘㸦JACET Kansai Journal㸧࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
2. ห⾜᪥⛬ᮏ⣖せࡣᖺห࡛Ⓨ⾜ࡍࡿࠋⓎ⾜ࡲ࡛ࡢ᪥⛬ࡣཎ๎࡜ࡋ࡚ḟࡢ࡜࠾ࡾ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
9 ᭶ 30 ᪥㸦ᚲ╔㸧ᢞ✏ཎ✏⥾ࡵษࡾ

12 ᭶ 15 ᪥ᑂᰝ⤖ᯝ㏻▱

1 ᭶ 10 ᪥㸦ᚲ╔㸧ಟṇཎ✏⥾ࡵษࡾ

3 ᭶ᮎห⾜3. ᥖ㍕ㄽᩥࡢ✀㢮ᮏ⣖せ࡟ᥖ㍕ࡍࡿㄽᩥࡣୗグࡢ 3 ✀㢮࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧 ጤკㄽᩥ
㸦2㸧 JACET 㛵すᨭ㒊኱఍࠾ࡼࡧ඲ᅜ኱఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌㸦࣏ࢫࢱ࣮㸧Ⓨ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃᢞ✏ㄽᩥ
㸦3㸧 ୍⯡ᢞ✏ㄽᩥ࡞࠾ࠊ㸦1㸧ࡢጤკࡣ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡢุ᩿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾜࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊ
㸦2㸧ࡣᢞ✏⥾ࡵษࡾ᪥ࢆ㉳Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚㐣ཤ 1 ᖺ௨ෆ࡟㛤ദࡉࢀࡓ኱఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌㸦࣏ࢫࢱ࣮㸧Ⓨ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃㄽᩥࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡍ࡭
࡚ࡢᥖ㍕ㄽᩥࡣࠊᢞ✏⪅ࡢ᝟ሗࢆ㞃ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊヱᙜᑓ㛛ศ㔝࡟㏆࠸ 2 ྡࡢᰝㄞ⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ཝᐦ࡟ᰝ
ㄞࡉࢀࡿࠋ
4. ᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡢ✀ู࡜ෆᐜᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡣୗグࡢ 3 ✀࡜ࡋࠊᢞ✏᫬࡟ᢞ✏⪅ࡀㄽᩥ✀ูࢆ⏦࿌ࡍࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊᑂᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ␗࡞ࡿ
✀ู࡛᥇⏝ࡍࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧 ◊✲ㄽᩥ
㸦2㸧 ᐇ㊶ㄽᩥ㸦3㸧 ◊✲ࣀ࣮ࢺ
5. ᢞ✏ㄽᩥ
ᑂᰝࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡣࠊ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡀཎ๎࡜ࡋ࡚ JACET ఍ဨ࠿ࡽጤკࡋࡓ」ᩘࡢᑂᰝဨ࡟
ࡼࡗ࡚༏ྡ᪉ᘧ࡛ᑂᰝࡉࢀࡿࠋ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡣࠊᑂᰝ⤖ᯝࢆࡩࡲ࠼࡚᥇ྰࡢ᭱⤊Ỵᐃࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᑂᰝ⤖ᯝࡣୗグࡢ 3 ✀࡜ࡋࠊ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡼࡾᢞ✏⪅࡟㟁Ꮚ࣓࢖࡛ࣝ㏻▱ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧 ᥇⏝㸦2㸧 ಟṇ᮲௳௜ࡁ᥇⏝㸦3㸧 ୙᥇⏝6. つᐃࡢᨵᗫᮏつᐃࡢᨵᗫࡣᨭ㒊ᙺဨ఍࡟࠾࠸࡚⾜࠺ࠋ

155

JACET Kansai Journal
Publication Policy
Revised March 7, 2015
1. Journal name and reason for publication
JACET Kansai Journal (JKJ) is published by JACET Kansai Chapter to serve as a medium for
publication of research by its Chapter members and thus promote research activities.
2. Publication schedule
The journal will be published annually according to the following schedule (subject to revision by
the Editorial Committee).
Deadline for manuscripts: September 30
Announcement of editorial decision: December 15
Deadline for receipt of revised manuscripts: January 10
Publication: March 31
If revision of the manuscript is requested as a condition for publication, the revised manuscript must
be received by January 31 or it will be considered to have been withdrawn.
3. Types of papers
Three types of papers will be published: (1) invited paper, (2) paper based on a presentation at a
JACET Chapter or National Convention, (3) submitted paper (see 4). An invited paper can berequested by the Editorial Committee. A paper based on a JACET presentation (oral or poster) canbe submitted if the presentation was made within one year prior to the submission deadline. All
papers will be subject to peer review.
4. Types of submitted papers
All manuscripts submitted must have been authored by JACET Kansai Chapter members in goodstanding. Three types of submitted papers will be considered for publication: research article,
application report, research note.
5. Review of manuscripts
All manuscripts submitted will be subject to review by the JKJ Editorial Committee. The decisionof whether or not to accept a manuscript for publication will be based on peer review by reviewers,
who will be JACET members selected by the editorial committee. The final decision by the JKJ
Editorial Committee will be (1) accept, (2) accept if revised, or (3) reject.
6. Amendment
Amendment of this Publication Policy (Japanese version) will be subject to approval by the JACET
Kansai Chapter Executive Committee. The English version will conform to the Japanese version.

156

ࠗJACET Kansai Journal㸦JACET 㛵す⣖せ㸧࠘ᢞ✏つᐃ㸦2014 ᖺ 3 ᭶ 8 ᪥ᨵᐃ㸧
1. ᢞ✏㈨᱁
ᢞ✏⪅ࡣᢞ✏᫬࡟࠾࠸࡚ JACET 㛵すᨭ㒊఍ဨ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ௚ᨭ㒊࡟ᡤᒓࡍࡿ
JACET ఍ဨࡀࠊ㛵すᨭ㒊఍ဨࢆ➹㢌ⴭ⪅࡜ࡍࡿㄽᩥࡢ㐃ྡᇳ➹⪅࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣጉࡆ࡞࠸ࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᢞ
✏⪅࠾ࡼࡧ㐃ྡᇳ➹⪅࡟Ꮫ఍㈝ࡢᮍ⣡ࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࠊᢞ✏ࡣཷ⌮ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ➹㢌ⴭ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ」ᩘᢞ✏ࠊ௚ㄅ࡟ᢞ✏୰ࡶࡋࡃࡣ௚ㄅ࡟ᥖ㍕῭ࡳࡢㄽᩥࡢᢞ✏ࡣㄆࡵ࡞࠸ࠋྛ✀Ꮫ఍➼࡛ࡢཱྀ㢌㸦࣏ࢫࢱ࣮㸧Ⓨ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃㄽᩥࡣᑂᰝᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿࡀࠊㄽᩥᮎᑿ࡟ཱྀ㢌㸦࣏ࢫࢱ࣮㸧Ⓨ⾲ࡢ஦ᐇࢆṇ☜࡟
グ㍕ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
2. ᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡢෆᐜ࡜✀ูᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱࠾ࡼࡧࡑࡢ㛵㐃ศ㔝ࡢ◊✲࡟㛵ࢃࡿෆᐜࡢࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡣୗグࡢ 2 ✀㢮࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧JACET 㛵すᨭ㒊኱఍࠾ࡼࡧ඲ᅜ኱఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌㸦࣏ࢫࢱ࣮㸧Ⓨ⾲ࢆ⤒ࡓᢞ✏ㄽᩥ
㸦2㸧୍⯡ᢞ✏ㄽᩥ࡞࠾ࠊ㸦1㸧ࡣᢞ✏⥾ࡵษࡾ᪥ࢆ㉳Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚㐣ཤ 1 ᖺ௨ෆ࡟㛤ദࡉࢀࡓ኱఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌㸦࣏ࢫࢱ࣮㸧Ⓨ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃㄽᩥࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
3. ౑⏝ゝㄒ࣭య⿢࣭᭩ᘧ࣭ศ㔞౑⏝ゝㄒࡣⱥㄒࡲࡓࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡣࠊ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡀసᡂࡋࡓᙜヱᖺᗘࡢᢞ✏ㄽᩥ⏝ࢸࣥࣉ࣮ࣞࢺࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚సᡂࡋࠊᘬ⏝᭩ᘧ࣭ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩᭩ᘧ➼ࡣ APA ࡢ᭱᪂∧࡟‽ࡌࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿࠋᏐయࡣⱥᩥ Times New Roman ᪥ᮏㄒ MS ᫂ᮅࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊࢧ࢖ࢬࡣ 12p ࡜ࡍࡿࠋᅗ࣭⾲ෆࡢࣇ࢛ࣥࢺࡣ 9p ௨ୖ࡜ࡍࡿࠋㄽᩥࡢศ㔞ࡣࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࠊᴫせࠊ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻࠊᮏᩥࠊཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ࠊᅗ⾲࡞࡝ࢆࡍ࡭࡚ྵࡵ࡚ 10 㡫௨ୖ 20 㡫௨ෆ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
4. ᢞ✏᪉ἲ
ᣦᐃࡢࢸࣥࣉ࣮ࣞࢺ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚సᡂࡉࢀࡓ MS Word®ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆᙜヱᖺᗘࡢ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍஦ົᒁ㛗ᐄ࡟㟁Ꮚ࣓࣮࡛ࣝ㏦ಙࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠋῧ௜ࡍࡿㄽᩥࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ࡟ࡣࠊẶྡ࣭ᡤᒓ࣭ᮏேࡀ≉ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿㅰ㎡
࡞࡝ࡣグ㍕ࡏࡎࠊࡇࢀࡽࡀධࡿ࡭ࡁሙᡤ࡟ྠ➼ศ㔞ࡢ✵⾜ࢆᤄධࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋࡲࡓࠊ࣓࣮ࣝࡢ௳ྡࡣ
ࠕJACET 㛵す⣖せᢞ✏㸸Ặྡ㸦ᡤᒓ㸧ࠖ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ࣓࣮ࣝᮏయ࡟ࡣୗグෆᐜࢆグ㍕ࡍࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧Ặྡ
㸦2㸧ᡤᒓ࣭⫋ྡ㸦㠀ᖖ໅ࡸ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕࡞࡝ࡢูࡶྵࡴ㸧㸦3㸧ᢞ✏ㄽᩥ✀ู㸦኱఍Ⓨ⾲῭ㄽᩥ㸭୍⯡ᢞ✏ㄽᩥ㸧ͤ๓⪅ࡢሙྜࡣⓎ⾲኱఍ྡ࣭᪥᫬࣭㢟┠ࢆ᫂グࠋ㸦4㸧ㄽᩥ✀ู⏦࿌㸦◊✲ㄽᩥ㸭ᐇ㊶ㄽᩥ㸭◊✲ࣀ࣮ࢺ㸧
㸦5㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸦࣮࣮ͤ࢟࣡ࢻࡢᩘࡣ 3㹼5 ࡜ࡋࠊᇳ➹ゝㄒ࡛グ㍕㸧
࡞࠾ࠊᑂᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ᥇⏝࡞࠸ࡋಟṇ᥇⏝࡜࡞ࡗࡓሙྜࡣࠊ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡢᣦ♧࡟ᚑ࠸ࠊᮇ᪥ࡲ࡛
࡟ಟṇཎ✏ࡢ㟁Ꮚࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆῧ௜ࣇ࢓࢖࡛ࣝ㏦ಙࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠋ෌ᥦฟᮇ㝈࡟㐜ᘏࡋࡓሙྜࡣᢞ✏ࢆ㎡

157

㏥ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࠋ
ⴭసᶒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ᢞ✏⪅ࡣࠊᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡀ᥇⏝࣭ᥖ㍕ࡉࢀࡓሙྜࠊ௨ୗࡢ஦㡯ࢆ஢ᢎࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࠋ㛵すᨭ㒊⣖せ࡟ᥖ㍕ࡉࢀࡓㄽᩥ➼ࡢⴭసᶒࡣᮏᏛ఍࡟ᖐᒓࡋࠊⴭ⪅➼ࡀ」〇࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㌿㍕ࡍ
ࡿሙྜࡣࠊᮏᏛ఍ࡢᢎㄆࢆཷࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋ㛵すᨭ㒊⣖せᥖ㍕ㄽᩥ➼ࡀࠊ&L1LLཬࡧⴭ⪅ᡤᒓࡢᶵ㛵࣏ࣞࢪࢺࣜ➼ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚බ㛤ࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡓሙྜࡣࠊⓎ⾜ᚋ㸯ᖺ⤒ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡣཎ๎ࡇࢀࢆㄆࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋᑦࠊࡇࡢሙྜࡣ↓ᩱ࡜ࡍࡿࠋᶵ㛵࣏ࣞࢪࢺࣜ➼ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚බ㛤ࡍࡿㄽᩥࡣ㛵すᨭ㒊⣖せᥖ㍕✏࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

ⴭ⪅➼ࡀࠊ⮬㌟ࡢㄽᩥ➼ࢆබ㛤ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࡣࠊᮏᏛ఍࡟஦๓࡟ᢎㄆࢆᚓ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋᑦࠊ
ࠕᮏㄽᩥࡢⴭసᶒࡣ୍⯡♫ᅋἲே኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᚲࡎ᫂グࡍࡿࠋ

6. つᐃࡢᨵᗫᮏつᐃࡢᨵᗫࡣ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍࡟࠾࠸࡚⾜࠺ࠋʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊ
2005 ᖺ 6 ᭶ไᐃ2007 ᖺ 6 ᭶ᨵᐃ2008 ᖺ 12 ᭶ᨵᐃ2009 ᖺ 7 ᭶ 25 ᪥ᨵᐃ2011 ᖺ 6 ᭶ 5 ᪥ᨵᐃ2014 ᖺ 3 ᭶ 8 ᪥ᨵᐃ

JACET Kansai Journal
Submission Guidelines
Revised March 8, 2014

1. Qualifications for manuscript submission
Papers can be submitted by Kansai Chapter members in good standing who have paid their dues for thecurrent year. Each member can submit only one paper as a first author for each issue. If the first author is a
Kansai Chapter member, coauthors can be JACET members of other chapters. All papers must be originaland not have been published elsewhere nor be under consideration for publication (including overseas
journals). If the research has been presented orally or as a poster and this is so indicated, the paper can beconsidered for publication.

2. Papers accepted for submission
Papers should be related to research on college/university English education or relevant areas. Two types of
papers will be accepted for submission:

1581) A paper that reports the content of an oral or poster presentation at a JACET Kansai Chapter Convention
or a JACET National Convention

2) A paper submitted by a Kansai Chapter member
A paper based on a JACET presentation (oral or poster) can be submitted if the presentation was made within
one year prior to the submission deadline.

3. Language, format, style and length
Papers should be written in English or Japanese. All manuscripts should be prepared using the current
template prepared by the JACET Kansai Journal (JKJ) Editorial Committee. The reference format should
conform to the most recent edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association(APA). Use font type Times New Roman, size 12 point font for body text and 9 and bigger point for Table
and Figure. Papers must be more than 10 and no more than 20 printed pages, including the title, references,
figures and other material.

4. Submission
Manuscripts should be submitted by e-mail to the JKJ Editorial Committee. Prepare the manuscript without
the author name(s) or affiliation(s) or information in the Acknowledgments that can reveal the author(s) but
leave the equivalent amount of space to allow the information to be added. Send the manuscript as an MS
Word® document to the JKJ Editorial Committee. Use the following subject line template for the e-mailmessage: Paper submission to JACET Kansai Journal: Corresponding author name (corresponding author
affiliation). The e-mail cover message should include the following information: (1) Author name(s), (2)author affiliation(s) and position(s), (3) type of submission [conference-presentation paper (give conference
name and date) or submitted paper], (4) type of paper (research article, application report, research note), and(5) three to five keywords in the language used for the paper. If the manuscript is accepted for publication, acomplete manuscript, including the author name(s) and affiliation(s), and a final camera-ready copy should
be sent as an e-mail attachment to the JKJ Executive Committee office with the Attention note “JACET
Kansai Journal manuscript.”

5. CopyrightIf the manuscript is accepted for publication in JACET Kansai Journal:(1) JACET will hold the copyright of the articles published in JACET Kansai Journal. Anyone,
including the author(s), who wishes to reproduce an article, must obtain permission from JACET.
(2) When a request is made for an article in JACET Kansai Journal to be published through CiNii or
the repository of the author’s institution, permission shall be granted one year after the issue of JACET
Kansai Journal has been published, at no cost.
(3) The institutional repositories are to use the versions as they are published in JACET Kansai
Journal.
(4) Anyone, including the author(s), who wishes to republish an article must obtain permission from
JACET and clearly state that JACET holds the copyright.

159

6. Amendment
Amendment of these Submission Guidelines (Japanese version) made by the Kansai Chapter Editorial
Committee will be subject to approval by the Kansai Chapter Executive Committee. The English version will
conform to the Japanese version.

160