日 本 言 語 テ ス ト 学 会 (JLTA)
第 21 回（2017 年 度）全 国 研 究 大 会 発 表 要 綱
Handbookofthe 21st Conferenceofthe Japan Language Testing Association

Conference Theme:
Aligning Task-based Assessment to Curriculum Objectives
日 時：2017年9月9日（土）14:30－16:40 ～ 9月10日（日）9:00－18:00
会 場：会津大学〒965-8580 福島県会津若松市一箕町大字鶴賀字上居合90
http://www.u-aizu.ac.jp/access/主 催：日本言語テスト学会 事務局〒270-1695 千葉県印西市平賀学園台1-1
順天堂大学さくらキャンパス 小泉利恵研究室
TEL: 0476-98-1001 (代表) FAX: 0476-98-1011 (代表)http://jlta.ac/
協賛 (Co-sponsor)：JALT (Japan Association for Language Teaching) Testing and Evaluation Special
Interest Group (TEVAL SIG: http://teval.jalt.org/)

The Japan Language Testing Association
1-1 Hiraka Gakuendai, Inzai, Chiba 270-1695, Japan
Telephone: +81-476-98-1001 Fax: +81-476-98-1011
http://jlta.ac/
E-mail: rie-koizumi@mwa.biglobe.ne.jp

Conference venue:
University of Aizu
Aizu Wakamatsu, Fukushima-ken, 965-8580,
Japan http://www.u-aizu.ac.jp/en/access/全 国 研 究 大 会 本 部 委 員 (Annual Conference Committee)
渡部 良典 / Yoshinori WATANABE
小泉 利恵 / Rie KOIZUMI
片桐 一彦 / Kazuhiko KATAGIRI
横内 裕一郎 / Yuichiro YOKOUCHI
深澤 真 / Makoto FUKAZAWA
金子 恵美子 / Emiko KANEKO（上智大学 / Sophia University）（順天堂大学 / Juntendo University）（専修大学 / Senshu University）（弘前大学 / Hirosaki University）（琉球大学 / University of the Ryukyus）（会津大学 / University of Aizu）

全 国 研 究 大 会 運 営 委 員 (Annual Conference Steering Committee)
金子 恵美子 / Emiko KANEKO
藤田 智子 / Tomoko FUJITA
井上 千尋 / Chihiro INOUE
印南 洋 / Yo IN’NAMI
木村 哲夫 / Tetsuo KIMURA
澤木 泰代 / Yasuyo SAWAKI
島田 勝正 / Katsumasa SHIMADA
谷 誠司 / Seiji TANI

（会津大学 / University of Aizu）（桃山学院大学 / St. Andrew’s University）（University of Bedfordshire, U.K.）（中央大学 / Chuo University）（新潟青陵大学 / Niigata Seiryo University）（早稲田大学 / Waseda University）（桃山学院大学 / St. Andrew’s University）（常葉大学 / Tokoha University）

全 国 研 究 大 会 実 行 委 員 (Annual Conference Executive Committee)
金子 恵美子 / Emiko KANEKO
藤田 智子 / Tomoko FUJITA
印南 洋 / Yo IN’NAMI
木村 哲夫 / Tetsuo KIMURA
澤木 泰代 / Yasuyo SAWAKI
李 洙任 / Soo im LEE
谷 誠司 / Seiji TANI髙木 修一 / Shuichi TAKAKI（会津大学 / University of Aizu）（桃山学院大学 / St. Andrew’s University）（中央大学 / Chuo University）（新潟青陵大学 / Niigata Seiryo University）（早稲田大学 / Waseda University）（龍谷大学 / Ryukoku University）（常葉大学 / Tokoha University）（福島大学 / Fukushima University）

研 究 発 表 審 査 委 員 (Paper Presentation Abstract Reviewer)
金子 恵美子 / Emiko KANEKO
藤田 智子 / Tomoko FUJITA
印南 洋 / Yo IN’NAMI（会津大学 / University of Aizu）（桃山学院大学 / St. Andrew’s University）（中央大学 / Chuo University）

Table of Contents（目次）
1. Conference Schedule Overview（大会日程表）

2

2. From the JLTA Office: Information for Conference Participants（学会事務局からのお知らせ）

11

3. Abstracts（発表要旨）

14

4. Workshop Information（ワークショップ情報）

41

5. Conference Venue（会場マップ）

43

6. Advertisement/Commercial Exhibit Sponsors（広告・展示協賛企業）
45-52

1

1. Conference Schedule Overview
Day 1: September 9, 2017 (Saturday)
14:30－16:40 Workshop (Conducted in Japanese)(14:00 －“An Analysis of Free Descriptive Questionnaire by Text Mining”
Registration)
Toshihide O’KI (Hakuoh University)
University of Aizu (M3 [Room 203] in Lecture Hall)
15:00－18:00 Board Meeting(with 10 min.
break)(Room 128, Research Quadrangle, University of Aizu)

Day 2: September 10, 2017 (Sunday)
8:20－
Registration
Opening Ceremony
9:00－9:15
9:25－9:55
Presentation I
10:00－10:30 Presentation II
10:30－10:45 Break
10:45－12:00 Keynote Speech
12:00－13:40 Lunch Break
13:40－14:10
14:15－14:45
14:50－15:20
15:20－15:40
15:40－17:10
17:20－17:40
17:40－18:00
18:20－20:20(Lecture Hall, 2nd floor, M6 [Room 206])(Lecture Hall, 2nd floor, M7 [Room 207])(Lecture Hall, 1st and 2nd floors)(Lecture Hall, 1st and 2nd floors)(Lecture Hall, 1st floor hallway)(Lecture Hall, Lecture Theater)(JLTA Committee Meetings:
Cafeteria, Student Hall, 1st floor)
Presentation III(Lecture Hall, 1st and 2nd floors)
Presentation IV(Lecture Hall, 1st and 2nd floors)
Presentation V (Institutional Member Presentations)(Lecture Hall, 1st and 2nd floors)
Break(Lecture Hall, 1st floor hallway)
Symposium(Lecture Hall, Lecture Theater)
Closing Ceremony & JLTA Best Paper Award Ceremony(Lecture Hall, 2nd floor, M7 [Room 207])
JLTA General Business Meeting(Lecture Hall, 2nd floor, M7 [Room 207])
Banquet(Keyaki, Student Hall, 2nd floor)

Commercial Exhibits:
Lunch Room for Participants :Break Room (after 10:30):
Headquarters:

Lecture Hall, 1st floor hallway
Cafeteria, Student Hall, 1st floor
Lecture Hall, 2nd floor, M3 [Room 203]
Lecture Hall, 1st floor, M6 [Room 206]

 Drinks and refreshments are served in the 1st floor hallway in the Lecture Hall.
 Please refrain from eating in the classrooms. Only beverages in containers with a lid, such as PET
bottles or vacuum flasks are allowed.

2

Program of the 21st JLTA Conference
September 10, 2017 (Sunday)
8:20－
Registration
Conference Attendance Fee:

(Lecture Hall, 2nd floor, M6 [Room 206])
JLTA Members: ¥1,000
Non-members: ¥3,000(Graduate students: ¥1,000; Undergraduate students: ¥0)

9:30－

Registration for Commercial Exhibits(Lecture Hall, 2nd floor, M6 [Room 206])

9:00－9:15

Opening Ceremony(Lecture Hall, M7 [Room 207])

Coordinator: Tomoko FUJITA (St. Andrew’s University)
Greetings: Yoshinori WATANABE (JLTA President; Sophia University)
Ian WILSON (Director, Center for Language Research, University of Aizu)
9:25－10:30
10:30－10:45

Presentations I and II (Presentation: 20 minutes; Discussion: 10 minutes)(Lecture Hall, 1st and 2nd floors)Break

10:45－12:00

Keynote Speech(Lecture Hall, Lecture Theater)
Coordinator: Yoshinori WATANABE (Sophia University)
Title: Task-based Language Assessment:
Aligning Designs with Intended Uses and Consequences
Lecturer: John NORRIS (Educational Testing Service)

12:00－13:40

Lunch BreakLunch Room for Participants: Cafeteria, Student Hall, 1st floor
JLTA Committee Meetings: Cafeteria, Student Hall, 1st floor

13:40－15:20

Presentations III, IV and Institutional Member Presentations (V)(Presentation: 20 minutes; Discussion: 10 minutes)(Lecture Hall, 1st and 2nd floors)Break

15:20－15:40
15:40－17:10

Symposium(Lecture Hall, Lecture Theater)
Theme: Task Development in EAP and ESP Contexts:
Application of Theories and Challenges
Coordinator Takanori SATO (Sophia University)
Panelist 1
Claudia KUNSCHAK (Ritsumeikan University)
Task Development in CBLT – Integration across the Curriculum
Panelist 2
Moonyoung PARK (Chinese University of Hong Kong)
Designing and Developing Target Tasks for English for Aviation SpecificPurposes Assessment
Discussant John NORRIS (Educational Testing Service)3

17:20－17:40

17:40－18:00

18:20－20:20

Closing Ceremony & JLTA Best Paper Award Ceremony(Lecture Hall, M7 [Room 207])
Coordinator: Yukie KOYAMA (Nagoya Institute of Technology, Professor Emeritus)
Best Paper Award Recipient: Wakana ONOZUKA(Benesse Educational Research and Development Institute)
JLTA General Business Meeting(Lecture Hall, M7 [Room 207])
Selection of the chair
Reporter:Rie KOIZUMI (JLTA Secretary General, Juntendo University)
Banquet(Keyaki, Student Hall)
Coordinator: Hiroya TANAKA (Hokkai-Gakuen University)

4

大会日程表第 1 日目：2017 年 9 月 9 日（土）14:30－16:40 ワークショップ:(14:00－受付) テキストマイニングを使った自由記述式アンケートの分析（日本語で実施）
講師：大木 俊英 (白鴎大学)
場所：会津大学 講義棟 M3 (203)
15:00－18: 00 役員会(10 分休憩)（会津大学研究棟 128 会議室）

第 2 日目：2017 年 9 月 10 日（日）8:20－
受付9:00－9:15
開会行事
9:25－9:55
研究発表 I
10:00－10:30 研究発表 II
10:30－10:45 休憩
10:45－12:00 基調講演
12:00－13:40 昼食
13:40－14:10
14:15－14:45
14:50－15:20
15:20－15:40
15:40－17:10
17:20－17:40
17:40－18:00
18:20－20:20

研究発表 III
研究発表 IV
研究発表 V (賛助会員発表)
休憩
シンポジウム
閉会行事＆JLTA 最優秀論文賞授与式
JLTA 総会
懇親会（講義棟 2 階 M6 [206]）（講義棟 2 階 M7 [207]）（講義棟 1 階、2 階）（講義棟 1 階、2 階）（講義棟 1 階ホール）（講義棟 大講義室）（JLTA 委員会：
学生ホール 1 階学食）
（講義棟 1 階、2 階）（講義棟 1 階、2 階）（講義棟 1 階、2 階）（講義棟 1 階ホール）（講義棟大講義室）（講義棟 2 階 M7 [207]）（講義棟 2 階 M7 [207]）（学生ホール 2 階 欅）

協賛企業展示：講義棟 1 階ホール
一般参加者昼食：
学生ホール 1 階学食
休憩室 (10 時半以降)： 講義棟 2 階 M3 [203]大会本部：
講義棟 1 階 M8 [103]※飲み物やお菓子は、講義棟 1 階ホールにございます。
※教室内での飲食はご遠慮ください。蓋のついた容器に入った飲み物（ペットボトル、水筒等）に限り、お持込いただいて結構です。

5日本言語テスト学会第 21 回全国大会プログラム
2017 年 9 月 10 日（日）
8:20－
一般受付
（講義棟 2 階 M6 [206]）
学会参加費：JLTA 会員 1,000 円、未会員 3,000 円（ただし大学院生は 1,000 円、学部生は無料）
9:30－
企業展示受付（講義棟 2 階入り口ロビー）
9:00－9:15

開会行事
総合司会
挨
拶

9:25－10:30
10:30－10:45（講義棟 2 階 M7 [207]）
藤田 智子（桃山学院大学）
渡部 良典（JLTA 会長・上智大学）
イアン・ウィルソン（会津大学語学研究センター長）

研究発表 I・II（発表 20 分, 質疑応答 10 分）（講義棟 1 階、2 階）
休憩

10:45－12:00

基調講演（講義棟 大講義室）
司会：渡部 良典（JLTA 会長・上智大学）
演題：Task-based Language Assessment:
Aligning Designs with Intended Uses and Consequences
講師：John NORRIS (Educational Testing Service)

12:00－13:40

昼食
一般参加者昼食控室：学生ホール 1 階 学食
JLTA 委員会：学生ホール 1 階 学食

13:40－15:20

研究発表 III、IV、賛助会員発表 (V) （発表 20 分, 質疑応答 10 分）（講義棟 1 階、2 階）
休憩

15:20－15:40
15:40－17:10

シンポジウム（講義棟 大講義室）
テーマ
Task Development in EAP and ESP Contexts: Application of Theories and Challenges
コーディネーター： 佐藤 敬典（上智大学）
パネリスト 1 ：Claudia KUNSCHAK (Ritsumeikan University)
Task Development in CBLT – Integration across the Curriculum
パネリスト 2：
Moonyoung PARK (Chinese University of Hong Kong)
Designing and Developing Target Tasks for English
for Aviation Specific Purposes Assessment
討論者：
John NORRIS (Educational Testing Service)

17:20－17:40

閉会行事＆JLTA 最優秀論文賞授与式（講義棟 2 階 M7 [207]）
司会
小山 由紀江（名古屋工業大学名誉教授）
2016 年度 JLTA 最優秀論文賞受賞者 小野塚 若菜（ベネッセ教育総合研究所）

6

17:40－18:00

JLTA 総会（講義棟 2 階 M7 [207]）
議長選出
報告
小泉 利恵（JLTA 事務局長・順天堂大学）

18:20－20:20

懇親会
司会田中 洋也（北海学園大学）（学生ホール 2 階 欅）

Presentation Overview
Time

Part

9:25 －
9:55

I

10:00 －
10:30
10:30 －
10:45
10:45 －
12:00
12:00 －
13:40

II

13:40 －
14:10

III

FUJII

長沼、泉、山川

14:15 －
14:45

IV

中野

14:50 －
15:20

V

英語能力測
定・評価研究会（VELC 研究会）(VELC)HIRAI,
MAEDA,
OKA &
KATO
アルク
(TSST)

15:20 －
15:40
15:40 －
17:10

M4
[204]
PARK &
SUH*

M5
[205]
ISHII,SAWAKI &TAHARA
新明

NAM*

M8
[103]
USAMI

M9
[104]
JONES†M10[105]
LINGLEY†

Lecture Theater

KOIZUMI &IN’NAMINICHOLAS†

神澤、光永、
清水、羽藤†

--

--

Break
--

--

--

Keynote----LAKE &KIKUCHIWATANABEKIM†--

THRASHERQUMILLER &HENDERSON†
野田、山本、
井狩†

ベネッセコー
ポレーション(GTEC)

教育測定研究所、日本英語検定協会(TEAP)

ケンブリッジ
大学英語検定機構(ケンブリッジ
英語検定)--

NORRIS

Lunch Break

--

Break
--

--

--

--

*KELTA delegate presentation†Assessment practice presentation

7--

SymposiumPresentation Details
Lecture Theater
Keynote speech chair
Yoshinori WATANABE (Sophia University)
Keynote speech summary
Tsutomu KOGA (Tokai University)
Symposium summary
Kiwamu KASAHARA (Hokkaido University of Education)
Part
Presenter (Affiliation)
Title (Page)
10:45－
Task-based Language
12:00
Assessment: Aligning Designs
Keynote speech
Lecturer: John NORRIS (Educational Testing Service)with Intended Uses andConsequences (p. 14)-----I－V-----15:40－ Symposium:
Task Development in EAP and
17:10
ESP Contexts:
Application of Theories andChallenges
Coordinator: Takanori SATO (Sophia University)

Introduction (p. 15)

Panelist 1: Claudia KUNSCHAK (Ritsumeikan University)

Task Development in CBLT –Integration across the
Curriculum (p. 16)

Panelist 2: Moonyoung PARK (Chinese University of Hong Designing and Developing
Target Tasks for English for
Kong)
Aviation Specific Purposes
Assessment (p. 17)
Discussant: John NORRIS (Educational Testing Service)

2F M4 [204]Part
I

Presenter (Affiliation)
Tae-Ja PARK (Korea University)
9:25 － Myoung-Ah SUH (Woongji Accounting &9:55
Tax College)
Kyoung-Oak NAM (Korea University)II
10:00 －
10:30

III
13:40 －
14:10

IV

Akiko FUJII
University)(International

Title (Page)
A Study on the Performance Differences inTranslating the Written Texts Derived from the
KCSAT English* (p. 18)
A Comparative Study on the School-based English
Achievement Test and the National Assessment ofEnglish Achievement* (p. 19)
Christian The Impact Performance-based Speaking
Assessment on Learners’ Goals (p. 20)

中野 愛美 (筑波大学)

批判的思考課題と批判的思考態度が英語スピーキングに与える影響 (p. 21)

靜 哲人 (大東文化大学、VELC 研究会)

2017 年度実施 VELC Test®データからみる同一大学内での受験者分離の成功度 (p. 38)

14:15 －
14:45

V
14:50 －
15:20

*KELTA Delegate presentation

8

2F M5 [205]Part

Presenter (Affiliation)
Yutaka ISHII (Waseda University)
I
Yasuyo SAWAKI (Waseda University)
9:25 －
Tatsuro TAHARA (Waseda University)
9:55
II

Title (Page)
An Analysis of Japanese EFL Learners’
Reading-to-write Task Completion Process:
Triangulation of Stimulated Recall and Keystroke(p. 22)
誤文訂正問題における練習効果とピアフィー
ドバックがエッセイライティングに与える影響 (p. 23)
小学校英語における Can-Do 評価と観点別評価の方向性 (p. 24)

新明 匠 (筑波大学)

10:00 －
10:30

長沼 君主 (東海大学)
13:40 － 泉 惠美子 (京都教育大学)
14:10
山川 拓 (京都教育大学附属桃山小学校)
Akiyo HIRAI (University of Tsukuba)IV
14:15 － Hiroki MAEDA (University of Tsukuba)
14:45
Hideaki OKA (University of Tsukuba)
Takeshi KATO (University of Tsukuba)V平野 琢也 (株式会社アルク)
14:50 － 木下 あおい (株式会社アルク)
III

Evaluating Study Abroad Programs on L2
Improvement of Japanese Students: A
Meta-Analysis Approach (p. 25)
スピーキング力がアップする、高校生への英語指導とは？―スピーキングテスト
TSST を使用した３年間追跡調査の２年目
報告― (p. 38)

15:20

2F M8 [103]Part
I

Presenter (Affiliation)
Hiroko USAMI (Tokai University)

Rie KOIZUMI (Juntendo University)
Yo IN’NAMI (Chuo University)

Title (Page)
A Validation Study of the CEFR Vocabulary Levels
of Japanese English Learners in the English
Vocabulary Profile (p. 26)
Vocabulary Size and Depth, and Listening andReading Skills (p. 27)

J. LAKE (Fukuoka Jo Gakuin University)
Keita KIKUCHI (Kanagawa University)

Using Rating Scales and Rasch Analysis in theDevelopment of a Model of Positive L2 Self (p. 28)

9:25 －
9:55

II
10:00 －
10:30

III
13:40 －
14:10

IV
14:15 －
14:45

V
14:50 －
15:20

Randy THRASHER (International Christian Confessions of an Unsuccessful Language Learner
University)(p. 29)小田桐 一弘 (ベネッセコーポレーシ
ョン)1550 校 93 万人の高校生が受検する GTEC が提供する価値 (p. 39)

9

1F M9 [104]Part
I

Presenter (Affiliation)
Susan JONES (Trinity College London (Asia))

Title (Page)
Localising High Stakes Exams to Meet Test Takers
Needs† (p. 30)

Allan NICHOLAS (University of Aizu)

Developing a Dynamic Assessment ofInteractional Competence: The Act of Requesting†(p. 31)
Exploring the Construct of Incorporating Sourcesin Academic Writing: Use of Formative
Assessment in a Research Writing Course† (p. 32)
An Evaluation of a Chinese Program at a Japanese
university (p. 33)

9:25 －
9:55

II
10:00 －
10:30

III
13:40 －
14:10

IV

Izumi WATANABE-KIM (International
Christian University)
Ming QU (Muroran Institute of Technology)

14:15 －
14:45

山野井 真児 (株式会社教育測定研究所)
高村 恭子 (株式会社教育測定研究所)
14:50 －
仲村 圭太 (公益財団法人日本英語検定協
15:20
会)
V

TEAP CBT Speaking セクションにおける対面式テストと録音式テストの相関調査 (p. 39)†Assessment practice presentation

1F M10 [105]Part
I

Presenter (Affiliation)
Darren LINGLEY (Kochi University)

Title (Page)
Assessing Interactive Competence: Improving Rater
Consistency Through Teacher Training† (p. 34)

神澤 克徳 (京都工芸繊維大学)
光永 悠彦 (島根大学)
清水 裕子 (立命館大学)
羽藤 由美 (京都工芸繊維大学)
Lisa MILLER (Kansai Gaidai University)
Dunstan HENDERSON (Kansai Gaidai
University)
野田 三貴 (大阪市立大学)
山本 修 (大阪市立大学)
井狩 幸男 (大阪市立大学)
青山 智恵 (ケンブリッジ大学英語検定
機構)

ビデオフォン (Skype) 方式英語スピーキング
テストの可能性と課題：高等学校定期考査への導入実績に基づく報告† (p. 35)

9:25 －
9:55

II
10:00 －
10:30

III
13:40 －
14:10

IV
14:15 －
14:45

V
14:50 －
15:20

Common Final Examination Development† (p. 36)

Versant English Test 結果と Versant English Test
Can Do Guide に基づくスキル別英語能力自己評価アンケート結果との関連性† (p. 37)
スマートテクノロジーを活用したスピーキン
グとライティングテスト対策 (p. 40)†Assessment practice presentation

102. From the JLTA Office: Information for Conference Participants
Registration
1. There is no need to register in advance.
2. The conference registration site is M6 (Room 206) on the second floor of the Lecture Hall.
3. The conference attendance fee is ¥1,000 for members (including institutional members) and ¥3,000 for
non-members (¥1,000 for non-member graduate students and ¥0 for non-member undergraduate
students).
4. If non-members apply for membership at the registration desk, the conference attendance fee will be¥1,000. The JLTA annual membership fee is ¥8,000 for a general member and ¥5,000 for a student
member. The admission fee for the JLTA membership is ¥1,000.
5. Please wear your conference name card strap throughout the conference.
6. The banquet fee is ¥2,000. The banquet registration is conducted at the registration desk. The banquet
will be held at KEYAKI in the Student Hall. (See the map on p. 43).
7. The conference handbook is available at the registration desk on the day of the conference and is notsent by post in advance.
Lunch and Participants’ Lounge Etc.
1. Please refrain from eating in the classrooms. Only beverages in containers with a lid, such as PET
bottles or vacuum flasks are allowed.
2. Please use the seating area of the cafeteria in the Student Hall for lunch. The cafeteria does not operate
on weekends.
3. Complimentary refreshments are available in the first floor hall of the Lecture Hall.
4. There is almost no place where you can get lunch near the University of Aizu. We strongly recommend
you to purchase your lunch on your way to the campus in the morning. The on-campus cafeteria does
not operate on Saturdays and Sundays.
Accommodation
We are afraid that we provide no accommodation services through our association. Please makearrangements by yourself.
Smoking
Smoking is prohibited on campus.
Emergency Contact E-Mail Address: rie-koizumi@mwa.biglobe.ne.jp (Rie KOIZUMI)
Received e-mail messages will be automatically forwarded to her mobile phone.

To Presenters
1. Presenters will have 20 minutes to present their paper, followed by 10 minutes for discussion.
2. There will be no chair person in the presentation room. A time keeper will show you the time left.
3. Please register at the registration desk first. Please go to the designated room 5 minutes prior to thestarting time of the presentation.
4. If you are not a JLTA member, please pay the ¥3,000 “Presentation fee” (in addition to the “Attendancefee”) at the registration desk. This rule applies to every presenter on the program.
5. Presenters are expected to bring a PC. There will be an audio terminal connector (for PC connection
through a stereo mini plug) and a D-sub 15-pin cable in the presentation room. If necessary, please11

prepare an HDMI to VGA adaptor. Mac users should bring their own Mini DisplayPort to VGA
Adapter.
6. Eduroam will be available if your home institution is a member. Other Wi-Fi Internet access is notavailable.
7. Please bring handouts in case your PC or the projector does not work.
8. If you need a letter of invitation, contact Rie KOIZUM at rie-koizumi@mwa.biglobe.ne.jp

学会事務局からのお知らせ
大会参加者へのご案内■受付
1. 事前申し込みは必要ありません。
2. 受付は、講義棟 2 階 M6 (206) 教室 で行います。
3. 学会参加費は、会員 1,000 円（個人・賛助会員を含む）、未会員 3,000 円（ただし大学院生は1,000 円、学部生は無料）です。
4. 未会員の方でも、受付で入会手続きを行えば学会参加費は 1,000 円となります。JLTA 年会費
は、一般会員は 8,000 円、学生会員は 5,000 円、入会費は 1,000 円です。
5. 学会中は、名札をお付けください。
6. 懇親会費は 2,000 円です。受付でお支払いください。懇親会は学生ホール「欅」にて開かれます（マップ p. 43 参照）。
7. 参加者の方には、『JLTA 第 21 回（2017 年度）全国研究大会発表要綱』を受付で配布します。
『要綱』は事前に郵送しませんので、ご注意ください。
■昼食・休憩室等
1. 教室内は、飲食禁止ですが、ペットボトル、水筒、タンブラー等の蓋のある容器に入っている
飲み物に限り、持ち込みは可能です。
2. 昼食・休憩室として、学生ホール 1 階学食の座席をご利用ください。週末につき、学食の営業はありません。
3. 無料の飲み物は講義棟 1 階ホールにございます。
4. 大学周辺には昼食を入手できるところはありません。大学にいらっしゃる前に昼食を購入されることをお勧めいたします。
■宿泊
宿泊の斡旋はいたしておりません。
■喫煙キャンパス内は建物外も含め、禁煙です。
■緊急連絡先の E メールアドレス rie-koizumi@mwa.biglobe.ne.jp（小泉利恵）
携帯電話の E メールアドレスに転送されます。

発表者へのご案内
20 分の発表と 10 分の質疑応答の時間があります。
司会者はおりません。タイムキーパーが残り時間を提示します。
受付を済まされ、発表開始 5 分前には、発表会場にお越しください。
未会員の方は、「研究発表費」(参加費とは別) の 3,000 円を、受付時に支払いをお願いいたします。これは、プログラムに掲載する共同研究者すべてに適用されます。
5. ご発表にはご自分のコンピューターを持参してください。
6. 音声ケーブル (ステレオミニプラグによる PC 接続用) および RGB ケーブル (D-sub15 ピン)
は発表会場にあります。必要に応じて、HDMI から VGA への変換用アダプター、並びに Mac
12
1.
2.
3.
4.

用のケーブルはご自身でご準備ください。
7. ご所属先が Eduroam の会員の場合、Eduroam がご利用いただけます。それ以外の Wi-Fi イン
ターネットへの接続はありません。
8. 予測できない不具合に備え、ハンドアウトのご持参をお勧めします。
9. 出張依頼状などが必要な方は、rie-koizumi@mwa.biglobe.ne.jp (小泉利恵) までご連絡ください。

13

3. Abstracts (発表要旨)
Keynote Speech (Lecture Theater)

10:45－12:00

Task-based Language Assessment: Aligning Designs with Intended Uses and Consequences
John NORRIS (Educational Testing Service)jnorris@ets.org
Tasks have captured the attention of testers and educators for some time (e.g., Cureton, 1951), because theypresent goal-oriented, contextualized challenges that prompt examinees to deploy cognitive skills anddomain-related knowledge in authentic performances. Such performances present a distinct advantage
when teaching, learning, and assessment focus on what learners can do rather than merely emphasizing
what they know (Kane, 2001; Wiggins, 1998). Over the past several decades, tasks have come to play a
crucial role in language assessments on a variety of levels, from classroom-based tests, to professional
certifications, to large-scale language proficiency exams (Norris, 2016). However, not all task-based
assessments are alike. Indeed, the types of tasks in focus, the nature of performances elicited, and thecriteria used for scoring responses all depend on the ways in which assessments are being used and theconsequences that are intended. In this talk, I will provide numerous examples of the incorporation of tasks
into language assessment practice across diverse settings and for distinct purposes. In doing so, I would liketo challenge the common misinterpretation that language tests are either task-based or not. Instead, I will
demonstrate how communicative language tasks serve as a core construct underlying many language
assessments, while features of their design vary in specific ways based on how they are being interpreted
and what decisions or actions ensue. In particular, I will highlight design differences between
classroom-based, learning-oriented assessments and standardized language proficiency assessments, both ofwhich can benefit from adopting a task-based approach. I will also suggest some of the positive
consequences of task-based assessment for language learners, teachers, and programs, and I will point to thedangers of using certain assessments that do not incorporate communicative tasks in their designs. Finally, I
will discuss some of the validity challenges for task-based language assessment, and I will recommend avariety of solutions.
Bio
John Norris is Principal Research Scientist and Senior Research Director in the Center for English
Language Learning and Assessment at Educational Testing Service, where he manages research on English
language teaching, learning, and assessment. Prior to joining ETS, he was associate professor at
Georgetown University, where he was founding director of the Assessment and Evaluation Language
Resource Center. He also worked as associate professor at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, and asassessment specialist at Northern Arizona University. John’s teaching
and research focus on language education (task-based language
teaching, in particular), assessment, program evaluation, and researchmethods. He has published widely on language education andassessment, including recent books on “Second language educational
experiences for adult learners”, “Improving and extending
quantitative reasoning in second language research”, “Innovation andaccountability in foreign language program evaluation”, and “Student
learning outcomes assessment in college foreign language programs”.
John speaks and conducts research on German, Portuguese, andSpanish, and he is currently working on acquiring Japanese.
14Symposium (Lecture Theater)

15:40－17:10

Task Development in EAP and ESP Contexts: Application of Theories and Challenges(EAP と ESP におけるタスク開発：理論の適用と課題)

Coordinator
Panelists
DiscussantTakanori SATO (Sophia University)
Claudia KUNSCHAK (Ritsumeikan University)
Moonyoung PARK (Chinese University of Hong Kong)
John NORRIS (Educational Testing Service)
Introduction
Coordinator: Takanori SATO (Sophia University)
taka-sato@sophia.ac.jp

Task-based language assessment (TBLA) is not a new phenomenon and has been widely implemented invarious language educational contexts since the early 1990s. The current language testing literatureaddresses TBLA either as a distinct entity (Van Gorp & Deygers, 2014) or in the context of integrated skill
assessment (Plakans, 2012), and language for specific purposes assessment (Knoch & Macqueen, 2016).
Interestingly, issues regarding TBLA mentioned in the literature are not new and were alreadyacknowledged more than a decade ago (Bachman, 2002; Ellis, 2003). This suggests that these issues are notobsolete, and it would be worthwhile to consider them in current language education contexts. Among others(e.g., assessment criteria, tasks for formative assessment), task development for the summative assessment
has been considered a challenging issue for TBLA. In essence, tasks need to be developed in such a way that
test-takers’ performance on the assessment tasks reflects their performance in target language use (TLU)
domains. In other words, test developers need to take account of the degree to which performance on
assessment tasks can be extrapolated to tasks beyond the test setting (Norris, 2009). However, developing
such tasks is not easy and requires applying a theoretical framework or conducting needs analysis.
This symposium will address the issue of task development through two case studies of implementing
TBLA in English for academic purposes (EAP) and English for specific purposes (ESP) contexts. The twopanelists, Dr. Claudia KUNSCHAK and Dr. Moonyoung PARK, will discuss how they developed
summative assessment tasks and incorporated them into their assessment contexts, including the theoreticalframeworks they applied in the development and the challenges they identified. It will be intriguing to seethat their approaches and frameworks differ although they share the essential principle of task development:
the high degree of correspondence between the assessment tasks and tasks outside the test itself. I expect thatthe audience would be able to obtain a variety of ideas regarding how to approach task development andforesee potential problems applicable to their own educational contexts.
Bio
Takanori SATO is Assistant Professor in the Center for Language Education and Research (CLER) at Sophia
University. He received a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics at the University of Melbourne. His research interests
include performance assessment, washback, and English as a lingua franca. He has published several articles
related to tests’ assessment criteria, including “The contribution of test-takers’ speech content to scores on an
English oral proficiency tests” (Language Testing, 2012), “Interrogating the construct of communicativecompetence in language assessment contexts: What the non-language specialist can tell us” [with Elder,
McNamara, Kim, and Pill] (Language and Communication, in press), and “The gap between communicative
ability measurements: General-purpose English speaking tests and linguistic laypersons’ judgments” (Papers
in Language Testing and Assessment, in press).
15

Symposium Paper 1: Task Development in CBLT – Integration across the Curriculum
Claudia KUNSCHAK (Ritsumeikan University)
ckr12106@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp
Task-based language teaching is becoming increasingly mainstream in ESP and EAP contexts for the
obvious benefits of preparing learners for a real world application of their language skills, combining
content knowledge with language performance and integrating a series of related competencies such as
critical thinking, interpersonal skills and learner autonomy. However, in the age of accountability where
institutions, parents and other stakeholders demand measurable program outcomes, decision makers are
reluctant to forego reliable standardized or discreet item tests for more qualitative assessments required intask-based language teaching. That is why a strong anchoring of any task-based program in a coherent
framework of criteria, development of tasks across skills, proficiency levels and class types, and localized
design of assessment instruments are necessary foundational principles.
To illustrate these principles, this contribution will report on a task-based curriculum development project at
a College of International Relations that offers both English-medium instruction and Japanese-medium
instruction with a strong emphasis on English and study abroad. The chosen framework of criteria was the
CEFR that was adapted to fit the specific local needs and expectations. After defining program goals,
learning outcome indicators and tasks were developed for all levels and skills across the different class types.
Finally, sample rubrics were designed for sample tasks to be accomplished at the advanced level of the main
suite program. These sample rubrics are currently being adapted for the four different proficiency levels andthree different programs within the college. In order to validate the tasks and rubrics, norming sessions will
be conducted with new instructors at the beginning of each school year.
In concluding, the presentation will indicate some areas of concern that have emerged in the process ofcurriculum development, suggest ways of addressing those issues and hopefully encourage participants toventure into task-based learning and assessment as a valid alternative to traditional teaching and testing.
Bio
Claudia KUNSCHAK is Associate Professor at the College of International Relations at Ritsumeikan
University in Kyoto, Japan. She received her Ph.D. in Education from the University of Arizona and her
M.A. in Interpreting from the University of Vienna. She has taught at universities in Austria, China,
Scotland, Spain, Ukraine and the U.S.A. As a practitioner, she emphasizes language awareness, learnerautonomy and content-based instruction. Her research interests include curriculum development,
assessment and English Lingua Franca.

16Symposium Paper 2: Designing and Developing Target Tasks for English for Aviation
Specific Purposes Assessment
Moonyoung PARK (Chinese University of Hong Kong)
moonyoungpark@cuhk.edu.hk
Aviation English, a key component of air traffic control (ATC) communication, is a comprehensive, but
specialized subcategory of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) related broadly to aviation. Researchers
who explore language use in ATC performance have tended to focus on the limitations of non-native
English speakers and the associated threats for aviation safety that are a result of the speakers’ limitedcommand of aviation English. There is, however, growing concern about ineffective paper-based testing
methods and the severely lacking interactive online testing of non-native English speaking practitioners’
aviation English proficiency, which should be ideally assessed using authentic tasks and situations. Aviation
English assessment, which lacks validity and authenticity, cannot capture how aviation English
communication knowledge and skills are used in a valid manner and, therefore, inevitably fails to predict
how test takers would actually perform in the target language use (TLU) situations.
Correspondingly, the purpose of this presentation is twofold. First, the presentation will demonstrate theprocess, informed by Evidence-Centered Design (ECD), of developing virtual aviation English assessment
tasks. In this way, ECD is able to function not only as a task design and construction blueprint, but also as
priori validity evidence. Second, the presentation will discuss findings from a task-based needs analysis
survey and document analysis on: (a) the core skills, knowledge, abilities, and processes required forsuccessful aviation English communication; (b) authentic tasks that could be representative of the TLU
situations; and (c) experts’ perceptions of prototype, online simulation aviation English tasks. The
presentation will conclude with a statement of implications for the field of language education for air traffic
controllers, task-based performance assessment, and computer-assisted language learning (CALL).

Bio
Moonyoung PARK received a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics and Technology at Iowa State University in the
U.S.A, and currently serves as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at
Chinese University of Hong Kong. He has taught in Japan, Korea, Thailand, and the U.S.A. His researchhas been focused on technology-mediated, task-based language teaching and assessment, curriculum andinstructional design, and teacher development.

17

Paper Session
Room M4 [204] Part I (9:25-9:55)
A Study on the Performance Differences in Translating the Written Texts Derived from the KCSATEnglish*Tae-Ja PARK (Korea University)
Myoung-Ah SUH (Woongji Accounting & Tax College)
Translation was a crucial element of teaching and learning English for a long time in Korea, but it has beena significant missing part to measure communicative competence in English because communicative
methodologies have arrived and dominated English teaching and learning in the secondary schoolclassrooms. This paper aimed at investigating the performance differences in translating the two English
written texts derived from the English listening and reading passages of the Korean College Scholastic
Ability Test (KCSAT) into Korean. The two texts had differing characteristics in terms of context,
vocabulary, and format. More specifically, this study examined the impact of translation of the two different
texts on the students’ English proficiency. A total of 38 high school seniors participated in the study, whowill take the KCSAT this November. To analyze the data quantitatively, descriptive statistics,
independent-samples t-test, and correlations were utilized, while the Excel program was used to analyze thequalitative characteristics of the data. Given these analysis methods, the study is the combination ofquantitative and qualitative research methods. One of the findings was that the students attained muchhigher scores on translating the listening passage than on the reading passage. The mean score of thelistening passage was 11.46, which was much higher than the mean of 2.34 in the reading passage,
indicating that the reading passage was more difficult than the listening passage. Additionally, the t-test
results showed the gap between the two mean scores was about 9.11, implying that the students performedmuch better in the listening passage than in the reading passage. Furthermore, as for the result of thecorrelations among the listening passage, the reading passage scores, and the English level of the practicetest the students took in April 2017, there was a strong relationship between the English level and thereading passage score (.734**), indicating that the higher the English level the students achieved in thepractice test, the higher score they obtained on the reading passage. One of the findings of the qualitative
characteristics indicated that in the listening passage, the expression “by two inches” was most correctlytranslated by the students by 91 percent, followed by the idiomatic expressions “pick up” (74%) and “dropoff” (69%). By contrast, in the reading passage, the expression “make money” (20%) was the most correcttranslation, followed by expressions “nothing more than” (16%), a means to an end” (16%), and “lead to”(16%). These results showed that the students might use the context of the conversation to translate thelistening passage, while they might not get any clues to translate the decontextualized academic reading
passage. The limitation of this study was the small sample size so its generalizability of the analysis of thedata would be low.

18

Room M4 [204] Part II (10:00-10:30)
A Comparative Study on the School-based English Achievement Test and the National Assessment ofEnglish Achievement*
Kyoung-Oak NAM (Korea University)
This study aims to examine the “test usefulness” (Bachman & Palmer, 1996) of the School-based
Achievement Test (SBT), using an empirical comparative analysis in relation to the National Assessment ofEnglish Achievement (NAEA) within an elementary school context in 2011.
The participants in this study were 563 Korean elementary school students. The participants’ results in theachievement test were measured using statistical methods – descriptive statistics, the Wilcoxon signed rank
test, and the Kruskal-Wallis test – and a correlation analysis was conducted in relation to the results of the2011 NAEA for 6th graders administered by Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (KICE).
The findings of the research indicated that there were significant differences between the NAEA and the
Mid-Term Exam (MT) and between the NAEA and the Final Term Exam (FT) (Z=-5.89, p=.00, p<.05;
Z=-5.89, p=.00, p<.05, respectively), as well as between the NAEA and the corresponding achievementlevels of MTs (χ2=163.07, p=.00, p<.05) and between the NAEA and the corresponding achievement levelsof FTs (χ2=182.40, p=.00, p<.05). With regard to the results of the correlation analysis comparing the SBT
and NAEA, statistically significant correlations were found. Some implications and suggestions were thendrawn from these results.
This study was an empirical study based on the comparison of the SBT and NAEA as a follow-up study tothat of Nam (2012). Moreover, this study shows that the SBT played an important role as a complementary
tool that was well equipped with construct validity of English assessment for 6th grade learners in anelementary school context in 2011. Considering that the national curriculum is embodied in elementary
English textbooks that are based on communicative functions as well as in the basic concept of assessmentof what the teachers have taught and what the students have learned, the SBT and the NAEA do not play amutually exclusive role in assessment, as shown in this study.
For further research, to gain a fuller understanding of the different assessment and evaluation tools being
implemented in the region, a longitudinal study across the school-based achievement tests will be neededwith more sufficient data. Certainly, the present paper was limited in scope by data collected from threedifferent elementary schools’ 6th grade test results. Further studies on different, larger scale school-based
assessments are needed. As in Nam et al. (2014), the school-based achievement test has not been connectedwith the NAEA either longitudinally or cross-sectionally. These results have not been provided as aconstruct to measure the improvement of students’ English ability by comparing the SBT and the NAEA
with multilateral analysis. In addition, even though this study’s SBT was based on the government
designated textbook used throughout the 2011 elementary 6th grade classroom, the SBT based on theauthorized textbook can still be considered as another area of future research.

19

Room M4 [204] Part III (13:40-14:10)
The Impact of Performance-based Speaking Assessment on Learners’ Goals
Akiko FUJII (International Christian University)
In recent years there has been a shift towards including a performance-based assessment of speaking skills
in large-scale high-stakes language tests, both internationally and within Japan. Such changes in high-stakes
language testing can have an enormous impact on the nature of language learning at the level of the national
curriculum, teaching methods in the classroom, and the individual learner (Cheng, Watanabe, & Curtis
2004; Hawkey 2011; Wall 2012).
The current study focused on the impact of large-scale performance-based speaking assessment on
individual learners, examining the use of speaking assessments in the classroom and the impact that suchassessment has on learners’ goals for improving their speaking. The current study builds on a previous studyof speaking assessment (Fujii, Watanabe-Kim, & Iino 2016) that found learners who had taken practice tests
for two large-scale speaking assessments had only a vague idea of how to further improve their speaking
abilities. In line with the notion of learning-oriented assessment (Carless 2016; Norris 2014), this study
examines the potential of speaking assessments to influence learners’ short term goals in second language
learning when learners have the opportunity to reflect on their performance and on the test feedback theyreceive.
The current study reports on a small-scale, qualitative study to address the following research questions: (1)What goals do learners’ set for improving their speaking skills after participating in a speaking assessment
and after receiving feedback on their performance? (2) Do learners’ goals for improving their speaking
skills change over time? The data reported here is part of a larger study (Inagaki & Fujii 2017) on theimpact that speaking assessment has on learners’ motivation and learning behavior.
A total of 16 learners participated in the current study. They were university students at a women’s
university in Tokyo, Japan, all majoring in English. The learners completed the ACTFL Oral Proficiency
Interview by Computer (OPIc) in June and December of the same academic year. In addition, they wereasked to report their goals for improving their speaking skills, immediately after taking the OPIc and after
receiving their test scores and feedback.
Learners’ reports about their study goals were carefully examined to identify emergent categories, as well asthemes and patterns in the data. Preliminary findings indicate that (1) some learners developed more
specific goals as the year progressed, while other learners maintained only very broad goals for learning,and (2) that the goals were generally consistent with learners’ motivation level and actual learning behavior.
Implications for teaching are discussed in terms of how speaking assessment can be used to enhance learnerautonomy in development of speaking skills.

20

Room M4 [204] Part IV (14:15-14:45)
批判的思考課題と批判的思考態度が英語スピーキングに与える影響
中野 愛美（筑波大学）
批判的思考を養うディスカッションを授業に盛り込むことが学習指導要領で述べられている
なか、批判的思考と英語スピーキングの関係や、ディスカッション内の発話に着目した研究は少ない。本研究では批判的思考課題や批判的思考態度が学習者のスピーキングパフォーマンスの技
術面にどのように影響するかを分析する。
リサーチクエスチョンは以下のように設定した。
1. 批判的思考課題を行うことでスピーキングパフォーマンスにはどのような変化がみられるか。
2. 批判的思考態度とスピーキングパフォーマンスの変化に関係はあるか。
参加者は様々な英語力の大学生 26 名である。実験は以下の手続きで行われた。参加者は英語で書かれた課題文を読み、自分の意見を考え、それを基に１分間程度英語で意見を述べた。その後批判的思考課題を行った。その上で再度同じ課題文を読み、意見を考え、１分間程度英語で意見を述べた。事後に熟達度テストと、批判的思考態度に関するアンケート（平山・楠見，2004）を行った。
以上の調査において産出されたスピーキングパフォーマンスの 1 分間の平均発話語数・AS ユ
ニットごとの平均語数・誤りのない AS ユニットの割合・AS ユニットごとの節数の平均を算出し、1 回目と 2 回目を t 検定で比較する。同時に根拠の数や意見の変化に注目した内容分析も行う。
さらに、批判的思考態度アンケートの結果とスピーキングパフォーマンスの各指標に相関があるか分析する。
結果としては、スピーキングパフォーマンスの 1 分間の発話語数の平均は、1 回目が 66.56 語、
2 回目が 67.48 語であり、t 検定でも有意差はみられなかった。また 1 回目と 2 回目のスピーキン
グにおける 1 分間の平均発話語数の変化と批判的態度アンケートの結果の相関をみたが、「論理的思考の自覚」「探求心」「客観性」「証拠の重視」の項目すべてで相関はみられなかった。また発表では、他の指標や内容分析、それらの批判的思考態度アンケートとの相関についても考察する。

21

Room M5 [205] Part I (9:25-9:55)
An Analysis of Japanese EFL Learners’ Reading-to-write Task Completion Process: Triangulation of
Stimulated Recall and Keystroke Logging Data Sources
Yutaka ISHII (Waseda University)
Yasuyo SAWAKI (Waseda University)
Tatsuro TAHARA (Waseda University)
Reading-to-write tasks require learners to summarize and paraphrase ideas represented in source texts. The
importance of such tasks in fostering learners’ English language ability for academic purposes has beenrecognized by practitioners and researchers of EFL in Japan because such tasks elicit learner performancereflecting authentic language use in academic settings. Moreover, the employment of skill-integrated
language use activities including reading-to-write tasks in English language instruction has become acentral issue in the development of the next version of the course of study for grade schools by the Ministryof Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) as well as the currently on-going reform of
university entrance examinations in Japan. Accordingly, it is imperative to elucidate the process learners
engage while responding to reading-to-write tasks. As an example, Barkaoui (2015) investigated the processof completing integrated and independent writing tasks in his stimulated recall study. Barkaoui’s results
revealed various construct-relevant activities that learners engage during the process of task completion
such as interacting with the writing task and sources, planning, generating, evaluating, and revising for ESL
learners. In the Japanese EFL context, however, little is known about learners’ strengths and weaknesses of
their reading-to-write task performance. As an attempt to address this gap, the present study examined
activities learners engage during the process of completing reading-to-write tasks by combining stimulated
recall and keystroke logging for a fine-grained analysis of learners’ writing process from multiple
perspectives (Lindgren & Sullivan, 2003).
Participants in this study were five undergraduate students majoring in English language and literature at a
private university in Tokyo. Each learner read an English text and wrote a summary of it in approximately
80 words. To explore the learners’ writing process this study employed a keystroke-logging program,WritingMaetriX (Kusanagi, Abe, Fukuta, & Kawaguchi, 2014), which can record, analyze, and replay
learners’ writing process. Upon completion of the summary task, a stimulated recall session was conducted,
where the video of the learner’s task completion process and the replay of the learner’s keystroke logging
were employed as prompts. Data on trends and frequencies of different activities observed in the keystroke
logging data were analyzed in conjunction with stimulated recall data. In this presentation the presenterswill summarize the key study results and implications of the findings for teaching, learning and assessment
as well as future directions of this research.

22

Room M5 [205] Part II (10:00-10:30)
誤文訂正問題における練習効果とピアフィードバックがエッセイライティングに与える影響
新明 匠（筑波大学）
本研究は、誤り訂正の一環である誤文訂正問題に着目し、ライティングの自己訂正力との関連に焦点を充てながら、自由英作文に与える影響と学習効果について検証することを目的とする。
現行学習指導要領の「英語表現」では、「論理の展開や表現の方法を工夫しながら伝える能力を養う」ことが明記され、ライティングの重要性が増している。各種外部試験では、４技能化が進
み、自由英作文も多く導入されている。また、近年は協働的学習も注目されているため、学習者同士の訂正活動であるピアフィードバック（PF）を対照実験として取り上げながら、誤文訂正問
題による学習者自身の訂正活動と比較検証する。
実験デザインは、実験群１（誤文訂正問題グループ）と実験群２（PF グループ）及び統制群の３群比較である。参加者は、高校１年生６９名である。２０分間の自由英作文をプレテスト・
ポストテスト・遅延ポストテストとして３回実施する。書き直し及び新課題の自由英作文では、英文の正確性や介入の学習効果を検証する。誤り計測は、Ferris (2001) を基に、動詞や名詞のエラー、接続詞や語句選択、文構造に着目し、誤りの出現数や減少率なども検証する。また、「パ
ラグラフに関するアンケート調査」を実施し、
「表現」
「内容」
「構成」
「メタ認知」の４分野について作成したものを使用して、作文ストラテジーに関する情動調査を行う。
３月に実験を終え、現在、英文の分析中である。一部を例に取ると、誤文訂正群における「誤り出現率」は、プレテストで 3.99%、書き直しで 2.93%、新課題で 2.86%と減少傾向が見られる。
一方、統制群では、プレテストで 3.70%、書き直しで 3.25%、新課題で 3.17%と誤り減少率が低い。誤文訂正群では、誤りの減少率が 26.6%であるのに対して、統制群では 12.2%である。同時に質的研究も進めており、接続詞 so の誤用や because の断片文の出現率など、日本人高校生に多く見られる誤りにも着目し、典型的誤答例を基にして新たに誤文訂正問題を作成することも検討
している。

23

Room M5 [205] Part III (13:40-14:10)
小学校英語における Can-Do 評価と観点別評価の方向性
長沼 君主（東海大学）
泉 惠美子（京都教育大学）
山川 拓（京都教育大学附属桃山小学校）
新学習指導要領が公表され、小学校における英語教科化の方向性が打ち出される中、これまでの活動と教科との大きな違いの一つは評価の在り方となる。中高で CAN-DO リストの形式による学習到達目標の設定が推奨される中、2015 年度の英語教育強化地域拠点事業取組状況の報告で77.9％の小学校で Can-Do リストを設定していると回答し、次期学習指導要領実施に向けて開発された補助教材の Hi, friends! Plus にも、児童の振り返りのための Can-Do リストが含まれるなど、Can-Do 評価の導入にあたっての検討がされている。また、評定にあたっては、次期指導要領における観点別学習状況評価における「知識・技能」「思考力・判断力・表現力」「学びに向かう力」
といった各観点と Can-Do 評価をどう結び付け、小中高を接続していくかも検討する必要がある。
本研究では泉科研（課題研究番号：26284078）における小学校英語評価研究の結果をもとに、小学校英語における Can-Do 評価と観点別評価の方向性について議論する。
泉科研において、泉ら（2015）では、長沼・高野（2015）を参照し、Hi, friends! 1 & 2 の活動に基づいて、自己効力と自律性を促進するための段階的 Can-Do 尺度の開発を行った。また、泉ら（2016）では、リテラシーや言語的気づきを高めることを意図した補助教材の Hi, friends! Plus について、泉ら（2017）では、小学校の英語活動との接続を意識して中学校 1 年生の検定教科書 6社について言語活動を分析し、Can-Do 尺度の開発を行った。いずれの尺度においても、できるようになる過程を Can-Do 形式で記述しており、機械的な活動からよりコミュニカティブな活動
へと変容を起こすように活動が設計されている。発表では科研におけるパフォーマンス評価研究の結果も共有し、とりわけ、観点別評価の「思考力・判断力・表現力」に関して、具体的な評価
ルーブリック開発及び実施事例を示し、いかに思考の過程を具体的な言語活動のパフォーマンス
の段階に落とし込んでいけるか、Can-Do 評価との使い分けも含めて議論する。

24

Room M5 [205] Part IV (14:15-14:45)
Evaluating Study Abroad Programs on L2 Improvement of Japanese Students: A Meta-Analysis
Approach
Akiyo HIRAI (University of Tsukuba)
Hiroki MAEDA (University of Tsukuba)
Hideaki OKA (University of Tsukuba)
Takeshi KATO (University of Tsukuba))
Many studies have reported on the effects of study abroad programs on L2 proficiency. The degree of theseeffects may be influenced by many factors, such as study abroad duration (e.g. Iida, 2013), pre-departure L2
proficiency (e.g. Freed, 1990), accommodation arrangements (e.g. Harada, 2014), and affective factors (e.g.
Wang, 2013). An extensive literature review shows that study abroad duration and pre-departure L2
proficiency are those that seem to have significant influence on L2 proficiency. However, it remains unclear
to what extent long-term study abroad is more effective than middle- or short-term study abroad, or whether
students with low pre-departure proficiency receive the same effects as those with more advanced
proficiency. This is because each study has reported on students who studied under different conditions, andtheir L2 improvement has been measured by different tests. Thus, with the aim of clarifying the influence of
these two factors on L2 proficiency, the current study provides a synthesis of previous studies throughmeta-analysis. Meta-analysis is a qualitative statistical method that can synthesize multiple studies with acommon metric of effect size and enables a fair comparison of these studies.
To accurately determine the effects of the two factors on L2 proficiency, we collected studies that met thefollowing conditions: (a) participants were limited to Japanese university students in Japan to exclude age
factor; (b) the major purpose of their going abroad was to study English to fix the linguistic distance
between L1 (i.e., Japanese) and L2 (i.e., English); (c) the students participated in mainly study abroad
programs at educational institutions overseas to minimize variables of students’ study environment andmotivation; and (d) the students took both pre- and post-tests before and after studying abroad to convert thetest scores reported in studies into a common metric.
Of the 40 relevant studies collected, 14, all of which included pre- and post-tests on students before andafter studying abroad, were used for the analysis. The results showed that less than half of the studies had
significant effects on L2 progress. Regarding the factor of study abroad duration, the magnitudes of effect ofshort-, middle-, and long-term study abroad programs were significantly different. On the other hand,
students’ pre-departure L2 proficiency did not seem to be a significant factor, which implies that students at
any proficiency level can significantly develop their L2 proficiency. Based on these results, in thepresentation, we will discuss whether studying abroad is worthwhile.

25

Room M8 [103] Part I (9:25-9:55)
A Validation Study of the CEFR Vocabulary Levels of Japanese English Learners in the English
Vocabulary Profile – Using Multiple Choice Questions in Japanese University Entrance Exams
Hiroko USAMI (Tokai University)
There has been considerable research comparing receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge in general(e.g. Melka, 1997), but relatively little research has been conducted in the specific context of the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR; Council of Europe, 2001). In the English
Vocabulary Profile (EVP), six CEFR levels pertaining to learners’ writing are assigned for the individual
meanings of each word and phrase (Capel, 2015). Each CEFR level is assigned based on learners’ written
and productive vocabulary knowledge in learner corpora such as the Cambridge Learner Corpus (CLC).
Capel (2015) claims that there should be no significant difference between learners’ receptive andproductive vocabulary knowledge. However, it is essential to investigate learners’ receptive and productive
knowledge of vocabulary in a Japanese learning context.
This study aims to examine the receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge of Japanese learners ofEnglish, and to validate the CEFR levels of receptive vocabulary knowledge by presenting statisticalanalyses of the answers to vocabulary multiple choice questions taken from the Japanese University
Entrance Exams Corpus. Approximately 300 Japanese university students took the CEFR Vocabulary Test,
which comprises 60 multiple choice questions (10 per CEFR level). The results showed that the B1 and B2
vocabulary levels appear most frequently in Japanese university entrance exams. However, some multiple
choice vocabulary questions were difficult for the assigned CEFR level, which would imply that, in theJapanese context, some productive CEFR levels presented on the EVP are different from the receptive
CEFR levels. The findings of this study can help improve learners’ productive knowledge in written
English.

26

Room M8 [103] Part II (10:00-10:30)
Vocabulary Size and Depth, and Listening and Reading Skills
Rie KOIZUMI (Juntendo University)
Yo IN’NAMI (Chuo University)
In classifications of vocabulary knowledge, a distinction is often made between vocabulary size and depth(Schmitt, 2014). Although size and depth are known to be substantially correlated (Schmitt, 2014), it is notclear whether they can be considered the same factor, or two separate components of vocabulary knowledge.
This issue has not been addressed extensively in the literature. In addition, the relationship of vocabularyknowledge to listening and reading skills has rarely been examined within a single study, with a few
exceptions using regression analyses (e.g., Cheng & Matthews, in press; Stæhr, 2008).
These two issues (i.e., a factor structure of size and depth, and the relationships between size and depth andlistening and reading) can be adequately handled using structural equation modeling (SEM), withmeasurement errors and shared variances taken into account. The current study reports on conventional andBayesian SEM approaches (e.g., Asparouhov & Muthén, 2010) to examine the factor structure of size anddepth of second language vocabulary knowledge and the relationship between vocabulary knowledge andlistening and reading skills among Japanese adult learners of English.
A total of 255 participants took five vocabulary tests and reported their TOEIC® Listening and Reading testscores. One of the vocabulary tests was designed to measure vocabulary size in terms of the number ofwords known, and the remaining four to measure vocabulary depth in terms of word association, polysemy,and collocation. All were presented in a multiple-choice format. The size test was divided into threeaccording to word frequency. SEM was conducted using Mplus (Version 7.2).
Results using both conventional and Bayesian SEM show that a model using two correlated factors of sizeand depth with three and four indicators respectively fit better than another model of one unitary factor withseven indicators of size and depth (e.g., SRMR = .018 vs. 024; by results of a chi-square different test). Thisshows that vocabulary size and depth are strongly correlated (r = .945) but they are distinct. With respect tothe relationship between vocabulary knowledge and listening and reading skills, results using Bayesian
SEM show that the best model had (a) a higher-order vocabulary knowledge factor with size and depth
factors reflected by three and four indicators, and (b) listening and reading measures predicted substantiallyby the vocabulary knowledge factor (β = .799 and .547). Implications are discussed at the presentation.

27

Room M8 [103] Part III (13:40-14:10)
Using Rating Scales and Rasch Analysis in the Development of a Model of Positive L2 Self
J. LAKE (Fukuoka Jo Gakuin University)
Keita KIKUCHI (Kanagawa University)
The field of positive psychology has been rapidly growing in the past few years. Interest in applying
positive psychology to education is a more recent development (e.g., Furlong, Gilman, & Huebner, 2014;
White & Murray, 2015). A few researchers have applied it to the field of second language (L2) learning in avariety of contexts and a range of identity or self-levels from general trait-like to the specific state-like (e.g.,
Gabryś-Barker & Gałajda, 2016; Lake, 2013; MacIntyre, Gregersen, & Mercer, 2016). The presenters show
the process of developing a model of positive L2 self that integrates constructs of positive psychology andmotivation in the context of L2 learning based on rating scales given to over 3,500 Japanese college
students and case study interviews conducted with a limited few. Composite constructs of positive self,
positive L2 self, and L2 motivation were constructed and tested using Rasch analysis and then confirmatory
factor analysis. A structural model composed of stable constructs of positive self, was found to have a causal
relationship to a less stable positive L2 self, which in turn was found to have a causal relationship to a least
stable L2 motivation. More specifically we have done Rasch using Winsteps for the rating scale analysis ofglobal positive self-constructs of flourishing, curiosity, and hope; positive L2 self-constructs of interest,
passion, and mastery goal orientations; and L2 self-efficacy in speaking, listening, and reading. The
relationships in this three-level set of composite constructs were then assessed using structural equation
modeling. These measures are then used to construct a structural model of a Positive L2 Self. Using bothquantitative and qualitative data, presenters discuss how these constructs can be measured and applied byresearchers and educators in developing positive identities of language learners.

28

Room M8 [103] Part IV (14:15-14:45)
Confessions of an Unsuccessful Language LearnerRandy THRASHER (International Christian University)
There have been attempts to list the characteristics of the successful language learner, but there has beenvery little interest in looking specifically at unsuccessful language learning. This study examines myexperiences over 58 years of language study in an attempt to pinpoint specific causes of my failure tomaster Japanese in an environment supposedly conducive to language learning. It is my hope that thefindings will lead to a better understanding of what are some crucial factors in successful adult language
learning. The study of the actual experiences of this one language learner over a long period of time,
hopefully, will lead to a more comprehensive understanding of what are the essential factors for language
mastery.
The presentation begins with a short overview of my 58 years of Japanese study and continues with a moredetailed description of the 10 personal experiences I see as illustrating the most important points inunderstanding success and/or failure in individual language learning.
The points I believe that my experiences illustrate as essential are;
1. The teaching material and curriculum must fit the short and long-term language needs of the students
2. All 4 skills must be taught
3. Giving students drudge work is essential.
4. These skills must be practiced regularly outside the classroom
5. The students must believe that the instruction is going to produce the results promised
6. Regular measurement of each student’s learning up to that point is needed, not just comprehension of
the most recent lessons
7. Measurement results must be presented in way each student can correctly understand8. Competition between students should be encouraged
9. The students must understand the purpose of what they are asked to do in the classroom; particularly
the practical advantages of what they are learning.
10. The students must understand the usefulness of the instruction in real world language
It will conclude with some suggestions of how to use these findings to improve curriculum design andlonger-term study plans and perhaps even to construct check sheets that can be used to better predict
language learning success by considering factors other than those the language aptitude tests of the 1960s
measured.

29

Room M9 [104] Part I (9:25-9:55)
Localising High Stakes Exams to Meet Test Takers Needs†
Susan JONES (Trinity College London (Asia))
In an increasingly globalised world where people regularly migrate to different countries for education,
work or better opportunities, it is increasingly difficult for high-stakes, standardised tests to meet the needsof both test-takers and test-users.
Competing pressures must be considered: How to ensure that those who are coming into an
English-speaking environment have adequate knowledge and skills to do the tasks that are required? Whatprimary function do high-stakes standardised exams actually serve? And equally important, how can exams
offer an authentic and appropriate assessment of a candidate’s skills and knowledge which is contextuallybased?
Is it possible to do both; to ensure a suitable level of knowledge and skills are tested with an assessment
instrument that is adequately localised to address the needs of particular groups of learners, or particular
contexts in which the language skills are applied?
This session asserts that it is feasible to develop tests that meet the needs of both test-takers and wider
stakeholders by placing the test-taker at the centre of test design. The objective is to fairly, authentically andrigourously assesses the language skills that the test-user, whether government or academic institution or
employer, has identified as necessary. It is argued this can be achieved through the application of an
overarching valid and reliable exam construct to specific contexts, so the construct remains constant, but thecontent is developed to meet specific needs.
This talk will focus on the recent experience of a U.K. exam board that established a process for localisingthen evaluating a high-stakes exam, with the test-taker as the central focus of the test. Localisation started
with a needs analysis and qualitative data collection from the target cohort to fully understand their needs
and expectations. This informed the adaptation of test content that was then applied to a robust exam
construct. The exam in question focuses on the functional use of language and cognitive processes which
underlie demonstration of the language skills, rather than on discreet grammar and vocabulary.
Ultimately, the goal of high stakes assessment should be to allow test-takers the opportunity to demonstratethat they have the skills that are required by test-users. To ensure a stronger validity argument, tests should
be localised to the requirements of given test-users and the context in which test-takers will be working or
studying. This presentation will demonstrate challenges when localising assessment, and the rewards ofstronger context and cognitive validity arguments when localisation is achieved.

30

Room M9 [104] Part II (10:00-10:30)
Developing a Dynamic Assessment of Interactional Competence: The Act of Requesting†
Allan NICHOLAS (University of Aizu)
This presentation reports on the development and implementation of a dynamic assessment (DA) ofinteractional competence among Japanese learners of EFL at a higher education institution in Japan.
Specifically, the primary focus of the assessment was to investigate interactional competence with regards
to the speech act of requesting in the English L2. The purpose of the report is to provide an overview ofdynamic assessment, its applicability to second language learning, and how a dynamic assessment ofinteractional competence was developed and implemented. The effectiveness of this approach is also
discussed.
DA aims to provide a detailed analysis of not only a learner’s current stage of development, but also theirstill developing abilities. Unifying instruction and assessment, the learner and a mediator co-construct a task,with the mediator providing assistance when necessary. By examining both the types of mediation practices
and their frequency, insights can be gained as to the learner’s still maturing abilities, and future potential.
DA also aims to uncover sources of learner difficulty, offering a diagnostic function as part of assessment.
Drawing on conversation analysis research, concept-based instruction and dynamic assessment
methodology, an assessment was developed in which the speech act of requesting in spoken interaction was
examined, assessing the effectiveness with which DA promoted development in the learners. Further, theability of the DA to uncover specific locations of learner difficulty was investigated.
This report focuses on the theoretical foundations and assumptions of dynamic assessment, with dynamic
and non-dynamic assessments compared and contrasted. The key characteristics and features of DA are
outlined, and the development process of the assessment, including the ways in which the methodology wasadapted to the particular requirements of pragmatics assessment, is also discussed.
The results of the DA indicate that, when applied to the speech act of requesting, DA methodology can be
an effective way to both promote learner development and assess learner’s abilities. Evidence was found oflearners co-constructing more complex request-based spoken interactions, with an increased ability toverbally explain their language choices. Evidence was also found of the social context of the spoken
interactions informing the learners’ language choices to a greater extent.

31

Room M9 [104] Part III (13:40-14:10)
Exploring the Construct of Incorporating Sources in Academic Writing: Use of Formative
Assessment in a Research Writing Course†
Izumi WATANABE-KIM (International Christian University)
One critical element that distinguishes academic writing from other forms of writing is the appropriate useof outside sources. How to avoid the misuse of sources, i.e. plagiarism, is an important issue for language
educators in higher education. Yet, very little research has been done to assess and monitor L2 students’development of the ability to incorporate sources in academic writing.
Past studies concerning plagiarism largely focused on either: (a) students’ attitudes towards plagiarism(Sutherland-Smith, 2005; Li and Casanave, 2012; Wheeler, 2009; Thampson, Morton and Storch, 2013) or(b) degrees of plagiarism through analysis of writing samples (Li and Casanave, 2012, Currie, 1998;
Pecorari, 2003, 2006; Storch 2009, 2012). There seems to be a uniform agreement on the need to provide
more effective instruction, and measures to assess the ability to use sources appropriately in academic
writing (Pecorari, 2003; Storch, 2012).
The current study responds to the call to develop an instrument for measuring this ability of undergraduate
L2 learners of academic English. It reports on a classroom-based study of the process of developing an
instructional unit on plagiarism, followed by an informal assessment. The class was composed of 21
second-year undergraduate students, who enrolled in a content-based research writing course for ten weeks.
They received a total of six hours of instruction on how to incorporate sources in academic writing andtested their knowledge and the ability to identify plagiarism in sampled texts. The test items included: (1)yes/no items regarding when to cite, (2) error identification items in the mechanical aspects of citations, and(3) items relating to degrees of plagiarism. Students’ writing samples were also analyzed and compared with
their performance on such tasks. The results suggest that there was a significant increase in the awareness ofplagiarism and understanding of the rules of citations. However, in their actual writing, very few were able
to incorporate sources appropriately, especially beyond the level of directly quoting the source orparaphrasing sentence-level information. There was little evidence of summarizing and synthesizing
multiple sources, and their attempts to weave information into their writing seemed to be interfered by theirdifficulties in comprehending source materials.
The findings suggest that understanding of the mechanical aspects of citations may not be the sign of thedevelopment of the ability to incorporate sources. Nevertheless, there were indications that declarativeknowledge may lead to procedural knowledge, implying the need for further research in elucidating thecomplex construct of incorporating sources in academic writing32

Room M9 [104] Part IV (14:15-14:45)
An Evaluation of a Chinese Program at a Japanese University
Ming QU (Muroran Institute of Technology)
In order to improve the quality of education and ensure program accountability, programme evaluation isseen as an integral part of curriculum development. In this research, an attempt was made to evaluate a
Chinese Program at Muroran Institute of Technology in Japan.
Based on the regulations of Muroran Institute of Technology, there are two primary aims in the educational
goal of foreign language program, one is to enhance intercultural competence, and the other one is toenhance communication competence in a foreign language. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of theChinese program, four sets of data were employed to evaluate the above two aims, 1) Students’questionnaire on intercultural competence was used to evaluate the changes in intercultural attitudes,
behavioural tendency, interest in international affairs, and basic knowledge about China, 2) The results of
the CHUKEN Test, 3) Students’ self-assessment by using a can-do list was used to evaluate theimprovement of communication competence in Chinese, and 4) Focus group was used to learn about theirsatisfaction and views on the overall Chinese program.
Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies were used in this study. Quantitative approach was used tocompare and analyse the scores of pre, post-tests, and the results of the questionnaire. Qualitative analysis
was used to analyse the data of focus group.
The results revealed that although the students have moderately positive opinions on the program, and there
are significant differences between the scores in the pre and post Chinese proficiency test, there are still
inefficient points of the Chinese program that need to be revised and developed. Particularly, with regards tointercultural competence, the basic knowledge about a foreign country can be acquired in a short term, but
the changes of intercultural attitude, skill, and behavioural tendency seem to be a process that takes moretime and requires more support.

33

Room M10 [105] Part I (9:25-9:55)
Assessing Interactive Competence: Improving Rater Consistency Through Teacher Training†
Darren LINGLEY (Kochi University)
This presentation will cover issues related to assessing the spoken language proficiency of Japanese EFL
learners in a small-group interaction format. The oral output of students is assessed during a placement test
for a compulsory first-year English Conversation course, and then again during course exams. In theassessment of spoken language, there is often considerable variation in how examiners evaluate output, andhow raters interpret assessment criteria. As part of a long-term ongoing project to research and develop
holistic spoken language assessment standards for a compulsory English Conversation course at a national
university, rating scales were designed to assess interactive competence across four bands (keeping theconversation going, quality of content and contribution, grammar/vocabulary intelligibility, andpronunciation intelligibility). While it is difficult to establish airtight criteria for what constitutes
communicative language ability in general, the rating scale bands represent an effort to assess students
based on the actual skills required for the course.
Based on performance in the placement test, students are streamed into one of four course levels (False
Beginner, Post Elementary, Lower Intermediate, and Upper Intermediate). It is therefore important to work
towards an ideal common assessment standard so that students are placed as accurately as possible. Because
teachers evaluate spoken output and interpret rating scales differently, it is necessary to regularly revisit theway examiners engage with the assessment criteria so as to calibrate, as best we can, how we rate student
performance. This is done in two ways: first, through regular training sessions involving a placement test
simulation video where all examiners assess the same single group of students. In these sessions, our teamof examiners discuss the results and provide a rationale for how they evaluated a particular student. The
assessments of each teacher are then compared against the mean. Secondly, pair examiner sessions are
regularly integrated into the standard single examiner placement system so that teacher-examiners canperiodically work together during actual placement testing to calibrate their understanding of the rating
scales criteria.
In this practice-oriented session, I will look at assessment data from 18 examiners who evaluated a small
group interaction. Based on this data, I will identify issues that arise in the interpretation of rating scales,and suggest ways to more consistently assess oral proficiency. Participants will then be guided through aspeaking assessment simulation by using the same rating scale bands to assess a group of Japanese learners.

34

Room M10 [105] Part II (10:00-10:30)
ビデオフォン (Skype) 方式英語スピーキングテストの可能性と課題：高等学校定期考査への導入実績に基づく報告†
神澤 克徳 (京都工芸繊維大学)
光永 悠彦 (島根大学)
清水 裕子 (立命館大学)
羽藤 由美 (京都工芸繊維大学)
京都工芸繊維大学では、学部や大学院入試への導入を目指し、2014 年度より独自に開発したコンピュータ方式の英語スピーキングテストを定期実施している。しかし、事後アンケートでは、
スピーキングテストの有効性を実感しながらも、入試導入に抵抗を感じる学生の実態が浮き彫りになった。
「日頃のテスト→定期考査→入試」と段階的にスピーキングテストを導入するのが望ましいことは明らかである。そこで、本研究チームは、京都市立京都工学院高校およびフィリピンに拠点を置いてオンライン英会話レッスンを提供する企業（QQ イングリッシュ）と共同で、ビデオフォン（Skype）方式の英語スピーキングテストを開発し、2016 年度より同校において「英語表現Ⅰ/Ⅱ」の学期末考査の一環として実施している。本発表では、プロジェクトの中間報告として、テストの成果や今後の課題を明らかにする。
このテストは、環境問題や言語・文化の多様性など授業で扱ったトピックに関する preparedspeech と、スピーチの内容についてインタビュアーと即興で話し合う spontaneous interaction から成り、学期中の学習成果と一般的なスピーキング能力を一つのテストで測ることを目指してデザインした。フィリピン在住のオンライン英会話講師が Skype を介して面接にあたり、採点も担当した。2016 年度 3 学期末考査実施後に行ったアンケートでは、66.2%の生徒が「各学期の期末テストでこのようなスピーキングテストを受けたことは、自分の英語スピーキング力を伸ばすのに役立った」と答えた。一方で、「今後は、このようなスピーキングテストはやめてほしい」という設問には、47.2%の生徒が「あてはまる」あるいは「ややあてはまる」と回答した。また、授業担当の高校教員からは「学期末のスピーキングテストというゴールを設定することにより、普段の指導がしやすくなった」「AET に頼んでスピーキングテストをしてもらうよりずっと手間がかからなかった」等の感想を得た。
本発表では、通常の授業時間（50 分）内に 1 クラス（31 名）分のテストを確実に行うための工夫や、外部ネットワークの不安定性に対応するためのリスク管理などについても説明する。また、スピーキングテストに対する生徒の姿勢と同様にスコアも二極化していることや、授業とテストを効果的に関連づける難しさなど、1 年半の間、テストを実施したことで明らかになった課
題についても報告する。

35

Room M10 [105] Part III (13:40-14:10)
Common Final Examination Development†
Lisa MILLER (Kansai Gaidai University)
Dunstan HENDERSON (Kansai Gaidai University)
Purpose: As part of curriculum development and standardization, Kansai Gaidai University’s College of
Foreign Studies has implemented a common final exam for its core required English courses since 2014.
Because these final exams account for 40% of each students’ grade in multiple courses, these are highstakes exams. Developing high stakes language tests requires rigorous item vetting, piloting and statisticalanalysis (Bachman and Palmer, 2010). Over the past two years, the faculty who teach the required courses
have written, pilot tested, and statistically analyzed exam items. While assessment is often used todetermine the success of curricular reforms (Cheng, Sun, & Ma, 2015), it is also the case that high stakes
examinations are typically seen as having a negative impact on student perception of their strengths andweaknesses in using the second language as a communicative tool.
This paper and presentation focuses on the validity and reliability of examination assessment on student
language ability within the realm of specific curriculum objectives using Rasch analysis.
Content: The unified final examinations attempt to measure students’ learning of vocabulary, reading
comprehension, and writing objectives at the end of each semester of study for two years. Over the past
three years, item banks have been created by instructor workgroups whose membership has changed eachyear. Developing the process for creating items has led to standardization of item types and a system foritem review, pilot testing and analysis. The process of pilot testing draws on the Rasch statistical model.
Rasch’s unidimentionality (Bond & Fox, 2001), namely the interconnectedness of student’s ability, itemdifficulty and curriculum outcomes are relevant for a wide range of course objectives (Wang, 2003).
Through a pathway analogy and item fit analysis, the model allows for the exam development workgroups
to weigh the interconnectedness between students’ ability and course objective in the local language
learning environment during the examination construction process.
Results: the application of piloting, vetting and statistical analysis of the high stakes examination has led toa flexible and substantial item bank for a wide range of courses and objectives. The success of this system
has also allowed for the redefining of English for academic purposes within the university.

36

Room M10 [105] Part IV (14:15-14:45)
Versant English Test 結果と Versant English Test Can Do Guide に基づくスキル別英語能力自己評
価アンケート結果との関連性†
野田 三貴 (大阪市立大学)
山本 修 (大阪市立大学)
井狩 幸男 (大阪市立大学)
大阪市立大学英語教育開発センターでは、英語カリキュラムの改定にあたり、統一シラバスお
よび Can-do descriptor 作成の事前調査として、学生の英語能力の客観評価と自己評価の関連性の検証を行った。なお、客観評価には Versant English Test を、自己評価には当センターで作成した
OCU 英語能力自己評価アンケートを用いた。同アンケートは、4 技能別に 4 つの能力記述文を組み込んだ合計 16 の Can-do descriptor から構成されている。各 descriptor については、Pearson がヨーロッパ言語共通参照枠（CEFR）を参照し作成した Versant English Test Can Do Guide の Score 36～46（CEFR: A2 に対応）にある Can-do descriptor と、欧州評議会が公開している『15 歳以上の言語学習者のためにデザインされた ELP に使うための汎用目的のチェックリスト』（Generic
Checklists for Use in ELPs Designed for Language Learners Aged 15 +）のA2 の Can-do descriptor から、調査目的に合うものを選択し、一部カスタマイズして使用した。
客観評価に利用する Versant English Test は、本学では 2007 年度より、必修科目である College
English の成績評価の一部として、またクラス分けのプレイスメントテストとして、学期末に実施している。調査を開始した 2016 年度後期においても、例年通り計 58 クラスでテストを実施し、
内 20 クラスの約 500 名を調査対象とした。2017 年度前期においては、新入生の英語能力調査の目的で 5 月に 20 クラスを選定、約 550 名を対象にテストを実施した。自己評価については、2
回とも OCU 英語能力自己評価アンケートを大学のポータルサイトに掲載し、授業中もしくは課外での回答を促した。1 回目は約 55%、2 回目は約 85％の回答を得た。回答には、
「できる」
「で
きない」
「経験なし」の 3 件法を採用している。結果として、客観評価と自己評価との差が顕著なのは、Listening では monologue の理解力、Speaking では interaction の能力であった。
また、
Readingと Writing に関しても、Versant English Test では直接の測定は行われないものの、interpersonal なコ
ミュニケーション・スキルに関する問いで、両評価の差が大きく現れた。
本調査は徐々に規模を拡大しながら継続する予定である。客観評価と自己評価との差異の要因を分析することによって焦点化すべき言語活動の抽出が容易になるため、新しいカリキュラムとシラバス作成に向けて、今後も有用なリソースの構築が期待される。

37

Part V: 賛助会員発表 (Institutional Member Presentations) (14:50-15:20)
Room M4 [204]2017 年度実施 VELC Test®データからみる同一大学内での受験者分離の成功度
靜 哲人 (大東文化大学、VELC 研究会)
VELC Test®は、リスニングとリーディング計 120 問によって日本人大学生の英語熟達度を測定する標準テストである。主としてプレイスメントを主目的に実施されるため、当該大学内の受験者グループの英語力をいかに正確に弁別し、熟達度の異なる複数レベルに分離できるかが重要である。
2017 年度 4 月に受験した中から 7 大学（合計 3,818 名）を抽出し、各大学内での受験者分離の成功度を調べた。当該受験者集団を統計的な有意さをもっていくつのレベルに分離可能であるかを示す Person Separation （受験者分離指数）は、最も英語力の高い A 大学と最も低い G 大学を除いてすべて 3.00 を超えた。すなわち受験者層を３レベル以上に分離しているということである。
ほとんどの大学で習熟度別は 3 レベルで実施していることを考えると、VELC Test はそれらの大学のニーズに十二分に応えているといえる。最も英語力の高い A 大学に関しても 2.0 は越えており、おおむね十分な受験者分離であると言える。

Room M5 [205]
スピーキング力がアップする、高校生への英語指導とは？
―スピーキングテスト TSST を使用した３年間追跡調査の２年目報告―平野 琢也 (株式会社アルク)
木下 あおい (株式会社アルク)「日本の高校生は、どの程度英語で話せるのか？」「授業や自宅での学習でどのようにスピー
キング力がアップするのか？」この２つの疑問を解決すべく、アルク教育総合研究所では、高校３校のご協力の下、高校生のスピーキング力を３年間に渡り調査しています。調査には、「その時、その場」で話す英語の運用能力を測定する、アルクのスピーキングテスト TSST（Telephone
Standard Speaking Test）を使用。２年目の調査では、３校のうち１校で、１年目に比べスピーキン
グ力がアップした生徒が著しく多い、という結果が出ました。また、同時に実施したアンケート
から、生徒の学習実態や、英語教師の授業実態がどのように影響しているか、その概要が見えて
きました。

38

Room M8 [103]1550 校 93 万人の高校生が受検する GTEC が提供する価値
小田桐 一弘 (ベネッセコーポレーション)
2016 年度全国約 1550 校 93 万人（2017 年度 100 万人見込み）に受検された GTEC について、測定領域、対象受検者、これまでの様々な実施結果等に基づいてご報告をさせていただきます。主に、2点のご報告をさせていただきます。
1 点目は、高等学校の英語教育においてどのように活用されているのかについて、
2 点目は、高等学校での活用の広がりに伴い、どのように大学入試で活用されているのか、その背景について、ご報告させていただきます。

Room M9 [104]
TEAP CBT Speaking セクションにおける対面式テストと録音式テストの相関調査
山野井 真児 (株式会社教育測定研究所)
高村 恭子 (株式会社教育測定研究所)
仲村 圭太 (公益財団法人日本英語検定協会)
TEAP CBT は、コンピュータで受験する 4 技能の英語テストで、大学生活における実践的な英語運用能力を測定する目的で開発されている。本発表では、TEAP CBT の Speaking テストの解答方式変更
に関し、調査した結果を報告する。2016 年の Speaking セクションはオンラインによる対面式のテストであったが、2017 年以降、面接官を伴わない録音式のテストに移行することが検討されることになった。そこで、283 人の大学生に、対面式と録音式の Speaking テストの両方を受験させることにより、スコアの相関性について検証した。その結果、相関係数の値が 0.9 を超え、対面式と録音式の 2 つのスコアの間に高い相関性を持つことが確認された。

39

Room M10 [105]スマートテクノロジーを活用したスピーキングとライティングテスト対策
青山 智恵 (ケンブリッジ大学英語検定機構)
Cambridge English Qualifications（ケンブリッジ英語検定）ペア型・対面式のスピーキングテス
トについて、動画を交えて説明した後、受検者の不安を軽減させるためのスマートテクノロジー（VR を活用した 360 度カメラ動画と英作文自動採点システム“Write & Improve”）をご紹介。次世代テストの可能性をお届けします。
After an overview of the Speaking test of Cambridge English exams, I’ll explain our recent smart
technologies that would reduce test-taker’s language anxiety: Immersive 360° videos using virtual reality tosupport speaking test candidates and “Write & Improve” which uses an automated feedback system tosupport writing test candidates.

40

4. Workshop Information（ワークショップ情報）
題目：「テキストマイニングを使った自由記述式アンケートの分析」（日本語で実施）
講 師 大木 俊英（白鴎大学）
司 会 平井 明代（筑波大学）
日時：
2017 年 9 月 9 日（土）14 時 30 分～16 時 40 分 (10 分の休憩を含む)
場所：
会津大学 講義棟 2 階 203（M3）
参加費： 1,000 円
定員：
100 名（申し込み順）
参加条件： 2007 年以降の Microsoft Excel が搭載された Windows PC を持参できる方（ハードディ
スク空き容量が 2GB 以上。OS のバージョンは問いませんが、CPU 400MHz・RAM
128MB 以上のスペックが必要です）。Excel の基本的な操作方法がわかる方。参加者には当日テキストデータが配布され、KH Coder というテキストマイニングソフトを使って実際に分析を行っていただきます。事前に下記 URL より khcoder-200f-f.exe
をダウンロードして、KH Coder をインストールしておいてください。
http://khc.sourceforge.net/dl.html
目的：
1. テキストマイニングに関わる諸理論や、テキストマイニングを用いた研究の例を知り、その長所や短所について理解する。
2. KH Coder を用いた分析を実際に行い、データの入力から解釈までの一連の手順を学ぶ。
手順：
1. 講義 1：テキストマイニングに関わる諸理論と研究例
2. 演習 1：データ収集とクリーニング
3. 演習 2：KH Coder を用いた TM
4. 講義 2：テキストマイニング後の分析
申し込み方法：1. 事前申込の期限は設けませんが、ワークショップを円滑に進めるため、下記 URL にアクセスし、以下の情報をご登録ください。
https://goo.gl/b3p8og
2. 上記の申込方法で不具合がある場合はメールでの受け付けも致します。下記の情報を横内 裕
一郎（弘前大学）u16yoko@gmail.com まで e-mail でご連絡ください。
(1) 氏名・所属・e メールアドレス(2) これまで多人数（200 名以上）を対象に自由記述式アンケートを行ったことはありますか？ある方は、どのような方法で分析を行ったか教えてください。
(3) これまでにテキストマイニングを行ったことがありますか？ある方は、使用したことのある
ソフトウェアとそれらの使用感について教えてください。
(4) 講師へのご質問（希望者のみ）(5) その他、ワークショップまたは JLTA ワークショップ全体に対して何かご要望がありましたら
お書きください。
（希望者のみ）41

Workshop Information

An Analysis of Free Descriptive Questionnaire by Text Mining(Conducted in Japanese)
Lecturer: Toshihide O’KI (Hakuoh University)
Chair:
Akiyo HIRAI (University of Tsukuba)
Date: September 9, 2017 (Saturday), 14:30－16:40 (including a 10-minute break)
Venue: University of Aizu (Building M3, 2nd floor, Room 203)
Attendance Fee: ¥1,000
Maximum Number of Participants: 100 (first-come, first-served basis)
Prerequisite: All participants must bring their own Windows computer with Microsoft Excel 2007 or later(Storage capacity must be larger than 2GB. Any OS version may be used, but the specs should be higher than
CPU 400MHz and RAM 128MB, but the specs of better than CPU 400MHz and RAM 128MB are necessary).
Familiarity with Excel is helpful. Participants will be provided with text data to practice analysis using KH Coder.
Prior to the workshop, please install the KH Coder from the following website:
Website for KH Coder download <http://khc.sourceforge.net/dl.html>
 Objectives
1. To learn the advantages and disadvantages of text mining by viewing basic theories and studies related to text
mining.
2. To learn the entire analysis procedure by getting hands-on experience while using KH Coder.

1.
2.
3.
4.

Procedure
Lecture 1: Introduction of theories and studies related to text mining
Hands-on workshop 1: Data collection and cleaning
Hands-on workshop 2: Text mining by KH Coder
Lecture 2: Post hoc analysis after text mining

 How to register
1. There is no deadline for registration for the workshop. To facilitate the workshop process, please go to thefollowing website and fill in your name, affiliation, and e-mail address. Also, please answer these questions.
https://goo.gl/b3p8og
2. In case, you cannot register using above website, please email to Yuichiro Yokouchi (u16yoko@gmail.com).

Let us know the following information when you register the workshop.
(1) Your name, affiliation, and email address.
(2) Did you ever collect free descriptive data from more than 200 people? If so, how did you analyse them?
(3) Did you ever do text mining? If so, please tell me the name of the program you used and your impression
when using it.
(4) Questions to the instructor, if you have. (Optional)(5) Requests for this workshop, or JLTA workshops in general. (Optional)42

5. Conference Venue
キャンパスマップ (Campus Map)

43

講義棟フロアマップ (Lecture Hall Floor Map)

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

＜協賛企業・法人・団体の一覧（50 音順）＞
公立大学法人 会津大学
University of Aizu
http://www.u-aizu.ac.jp/
株式会社 アルク ＊ALC PRESS INC.
http://www.alc.co.jp/
グローバル・コミュニケーション＆テスティング（GC&T） ＊Global Communication &Testing Co.
https://gc-t.jp/
VELC 研究会（事務局 株式会社 金星堂） ＊Visualizing English Language Competency
http://www.velctest.org/index.html
ケンブリッジ大学英語検定機構 ＊Cambridge English Language Assessment
http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/jp/
JALT TEVAL SIG (Japan Association for Language Teaching, Testing and
Evaluation Special Interest Group) ＊ピアソン・ジャパン株式会社 ＊Pearson Japan
http://www.pearson.co.jp/
ブリティッシュ・カウンシル
British Council
https://www.britishcouncil.jp/exam/aptis
ベネッセコーポレーション ＊Benesse Corporation
http://www.benesse-gtec.com/cbt/
リアリーイングリッシュ株式会社 ＊Reallyenglish
http://www.reallyenglish.co.jp/
We would like to greatly acknowledge 10 companies, organizations, and groups fortheir support.
本大会にあたり以上の 10 の企業・法人・団体様より大会運営のご支援を賜りました。厚く御礼申し上げます。
Commercial Exhibits（展示協賛企業）＊
All exhibits are located in the hallway on the 1st floor of Lecture Hall, except JALTTEVAL SIG, which is at the entrance lobby on the 2nd floor.
展示は、JALT TEVAL SIG は講義棟 2 階ロビー、他は 1 階フロアで実施いた
しております。
52

The symposium in this conference is partially supported by the Grant for International Academic
Conference of the University of Aizu. Our special gratitude also goes to the University of Aizu for making
its campus available as the venue for the 21st Annual Conference of the Japan Language Testing
Association.
本大会のシンポジウム開催にあたっては、会津大学国際会議助成金を受けております。また、今大会の実施にあたりまして、会津大学より会場の無償提供を始め、ご支援・ご協力を賜りました。
誠にありがとうございました。

The next year’s annual conference will be held in autumn 2018 at Hokkai-Gakuen University in Sapporo.
The conference schedule will be announced via the JLTA website as soon as the details become available.
We look forward to seeing you there.
2018 年度の日本言語テスト学会全国研究大会は、2018 (平成 30) 年秋に北海学園大学で行われます。詳細が決まり次第、JLTA のホームページでお知らせいたします。ご参加のほどよろしくお願
いいたします。

日本言語テスト学会 (JLTA) (2017 年度) 全国研究大会発表要綱
Handbook of the 21st Conference of the Japan Language Testing Association
発行日：2017 年 8 月 1 日
発行：日本言語テスト学会 (JLTA)
会長：渡部良典 (上智大学)
事務局：〒270-1695 千葉県印西市平賀学園台 1-1 順天堂大学
さくらキャンパス 小泉利恵研究室
TEL: 0476-98-1001 (代表)FAX: 0476-98-1011 (代表)E-mail: rie-koizumi@mwa.biglobe.ne.jp
編集：全国研究大会実行委員会
印刷：株式会社国際文献社〒162-0801 東京都新宿区山吹町358-5
TEL: 03-5937-0249
FAX: 03-3368-2822

53