Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUEA Letter fromthe Editor

Greetings! These are times of change for
On CUE. In fact, this is the last time thisjournal will appear under that title. After
ﬁfteen volumes, it will be succeeded by The
On CUE Journal later this year. This change
marks the culmination of a long evolution
for this journal—from a small newsletter toa peer reviewed journal.
This issue includes two feature articles.
First, Yang Tao explains how she developed
an inventory of learner autonomy, using aquestionnaire to identify six factors related
to learner autonomy. Next, Justine Ross
reﬂects on the development and implementation of a creative writing course for Japanese
university students.
In Research Digest, Ahmar Mahboob
offers a unique perspective on assessing
language proficiency that goes beyond
standardized testing. And Manami Suzuki
considers the role of self-efﬁcacy in learningand academic achievement, looking at thetheoretical backgrounds of self-efﬁcacy andintroducing empirical studies that suggest a
relationship between students’ self-efﬁcacy
beliefs and academic attainment.
In Opinion & Perspective, Michael Guest
responds to Yoko Ichige’s recent featurearticle on the validity of university entrance
exams for evaluating English communicative ability.

In From the Chalkface, James Porcaro
expands the traditional parameters of public speaking courses, outlining successful
instructional practices that he has used withlower to low-intermediate proﬁciency students. Also in Chalkface, Scott Bingham
describes how he incorporated intensive andextensive reading activities in a freshmanreading course.
This issue includes one Conference Review. David Ockert shares his experiences
at JALT CALL 2006 and previews JALTCALL 2007.
Starting with this issue, CUE SIG ofﬁcers will write brief status reports, keeping
members up to date on the state of their SIG.
These reports round out the current issue.
In addition to the name change, there areseveral changes to the CUE executive toreport. Matt Apple takes over as Coordinator, replacing Phil McCasland, who has
moved on to become Programs Chair for
JALT. Terry Fellner takes over for Matt as
Treasurer. Finally, Dexter Da Silva takes
over as Publications Chair and Editor of The
On CUE Journal. I wish him luck with thischallenging and rewarding position.
We hope you enjoy 15.1.

Mike Hood
On CUE Editor
1

From the Editor

Friends and Colleagues,

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

Construction of an Inventory of
Learner Autonomy

Feature Article: Yang

YANG Tao
Kansai University
been utilized (Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995;
Takeuchi, 2003). There are many advantagesof using questionnaires. As Griffee (1999)
summarizes: (1) you can collect a large
amount of data in a fairly short time; (2)they are easier and less expensive than otherforms of data collection; (3) questionnaires
can be used to research almost any aspectof teaching or learning; and (4) they can beeasily used in a ﬁeld setting such as classrooms. However, a questionnaire is not easily
made. Kamahara et al (1998) and Shizuka,
Takeuchi, and Yoshizawa (2001) emphasizethat before a questionnaire can be used forresearch purposes, its construction, piloting,and the results of the pilot study must be reported to determine its validity and reliability(Takeuchi, 2003, p. 242). Therefore, in thisstudy, despite the problems pointed out by
Takeuchi (2003), an inventory of learnerautonomy for Japanese EFL learners has
been developed, aiming to provide a scale
to assess learner autonomy. Factor analysisof the inventory indicates that Japanese EFL
learners in this study are somewhat poor at
self-initiative, making plans, and ﬂexibility,
while they are quite good at self-control,
taking action and concentration.

学習者オートノミー（自主性）は観察が困難
な内面的要因であるために、現時点ではそれを評価する方法が確立されていない。本論
は、まずアンケート調査に固有の問題点について論じたのち、日本人EFL学生に関する学習者オートノミーの目録を作成することにより、学習者オートノミー評価指標の提示を試みる。アンケート調査のために収集されたデータに因子分析法を用いることにより、日本
人EFL学生の中で自主的学習者の傾向を示す
６つの要因が選択された。この因子分析の結果、日本人EFL学習者は自発性・計画性・柔軟性に比較的乏しく、その反面、自制心・実行
力・集中力に秀でていることが示された。従って、学習者オートノミーを育てるために重要なのは、学習者に如何にして自身の学習に対する自己管理力を植えつけるか、という点である。

In language education, researchers havebeen cultivating various methods to improve learner autonomy, which aims tohelp language learners take control overtheir learning (Dickinson, 1987; Benson,
2001; Benson & Voller, 1997; Permberson
et al., 1996; Scharle & Szabó, 2000). Since
learner autonomy is an internal factor which
is difﬁcult to observe, there is presently no
speciﬁc method to assess it (Benson, 2001,
p. 51; Yang, 2006) and only a few (e.g.,
Cotterall & Crabbe, 1999) studies have provided detailed information on how and towhat degree learner autonomy is enhanced.
As we seek to understand invisible things,
introspective methods such as questionnaires, reports, and interviews have often

MethodA 56-item questionnaire on learner autonomy was constructed as a scale to measure
the degree of learner autonomy for Japanese2

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

an average placement score of 89 out of 200
possible points. The average TOEIC score
was 360. Students were told that (1) their participation was voluntary; (2) their responses
would remain conﬁdential; and (3) the results
would not be considered for their grades, butjust for general information concerning theirattitude toward English study.

EFL learners (see Appendix).
A ﬁve point Likert-scale was used: neveror almost never true for me, generally nottrue for me, somewhat true for me, generally
true for me, and always or almost always
true for me. It was originally designed inJapanese, the students’ native language.

Procedure: Validity and Reliability

Principal component analysis with Varimax rotation on SPSS version 12.0 and
Excel 2000 was adopted (see Table 1). An
eigenvalue of 1.0 was taken as the threshold
and a cutoff of 0.32 was set for meaningful
loading of each item. Items which registeredless than 0.32 were excluded. A total of 33
items loaded on to six factors, accounting
for 37.84% of the variance. Before doing
the factor analysis, the mean and standard
deviation of each item was calculated to see
whether some items showed a ceiling effect and/or ﬂoor effect. Consequently, nine
items were removed. The items showing
high correlation coefﬁcients (over 0.8) werereconsidered. Cronbach’s alpha reliabilityof total items for factor analysis was 0.92,
which seemed to be satisfactorily high. Six
factors (r = 0.92) (see Table 2) were chosen
to indicate autonomous learner tendencies
for Japanese intermediate EFL learners.
Each of the six factors was discussed andnamed jointly by the graduate students andthe author’s instructor as mentioned earlier.
Table 1. Conditions of Factor Analysis
Criterion
Extraction
Rotation
Eigenvalue
Loading

Participants
A total of 396 valid responses were collected for analysis. The participants’ proﬁciency level is typically intermediate, with
3

Option used
Principal Component Analysis
Varimax<1.0>0.32

Feature Article: Yang

Results of the Inventory of Learner
Autonomy

In order to have higher validation evidence, as Griffee (1999) indicates, moreexperts’ opinions are necessary. Therefore,
in making this questionnaire, more than
15 post-graduate students (including theauthor), studying foreign language education, most of whom were in-service junioror senior high school teachers, contributed
their opinions on deﬁning learner autonomy
in Japanese. Initially 79 items were collected.
After adjustments, 56 items were chosen to
be the ﬁrst precepts of learner autonomy.
The questionnaire included directions for the
student with a sample item, the 56-item instrument, and a scoring worksheet on which
students recorded their answers.
Before the pilot, the Japanese meanings ofeach item were checked by post-graduates tomake sure that participants could understandthe items clearly and precisely. Then, 197
student responses to the 56-item questionnaire were completed as a pilot to determine
which items to keep and which to revise or
eliminate. The items with high correlation
coefﬁcients (over 0.8) were reconsidered
to see whether the content was repeated ornot. In the end, 13 items were removed. The
questionnaire achieved a Cronbach’s alphaof 0.989, indicating high reliability.

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

Feature Article: Yang

On CUE

Factor 1 (self-initiative) explains 11.29%of the variance (r = 0.89). All nine items are
related to using English as much as possible
actively and voluntarily. However, the average score for this factor is only 2.78 (seeTable 3), lowest among the six factors. It issuggested that Japanese learners in this study
are not interested in using English and not
active in their English studies as anticipated.
They are not willing to search for opportunities to be involved in their own language
learning (item 55, 53, 6, 20, 48 and 14). If
they were bored by what they were doing,
there was no possibility for autonomous
learning at all.
Five items loading on Factor 2 are related
making to plans in learning English (r = 0.80).
The average of these items is low—2.81 (seeTable 3), which suggests that Japanese learners are poor at making plans and they don’t
see self-learning as necessary.
Factor 3 (self-control) contains 6 items
emphasizing self-management (r = 0.74).
For example, item 28, “Once the class starts,
I feel like studying”; Item 5, “I pay more
attention to the lessons if we are practicing
something I am not so good at”. The averagescore of factor 3—3.24 is higher than factor 1
and 2 (see Table 3), which indicates that theJapanese students are good at managing theirlearning in various ways: reviewing after theclass; taking actions after careful consideration; doing more reﬂection to understand thepoints; and working to improve their weakness. According to Victori and Lockhart(1995), developing a sense of self-control
prepares learners to assume responsibilityof their own learning. So from this aspect,
Japanese learners in this study have potential
to manage their learning well.
Factor 4 is deﬁned by 6 items suggestinglearners’ ﬂexibility (r = 0.72). It includes
whether or not learners are able to change

their learning methods according to different
needs (item 44, 45 & 46), to choose suitablelearning materials (item 43), to create satisfactory learning environment (item 42), andto use time efﬁciently (item 31). The averagescore is the number 2 lowest among the six
factors (see Table 3), which leads us to assume that the Japanese students in this study
don’t seem to know what to do in learning,
nor how to learn English especially they arepoor at changing their learning methods;
regulating their learning materials based on
their needs; and are not known to create agood study environment for themselves.
Factor 5 includes 5 different statements on
taking actions (r=0.68). The average scoreis 3.5, which is the highest among the six
factors (see Table 3). Five variables indicatethat Japanese students in this study would
take action once a decision was made (item
25 & 32), and they were patient and tolerateenough to continue upon the decided action(item 29). Thus, from certain aspects, if they
have a clear and well made determination
they are willing to take action immediately
and actively.
Only three items loaded on Factor 6, allof which are about concentration (r = 0.52).
The average score is 3.0 (see Table 3) whichis intermediate among the six factors. It suggests that Japanese learners have no problem
concentrating when other people are speaking in English (item 17), they can study
English no matter their mood (item 21) andthey are able to concentrate on their studies
even if they happen to hear other people
talking (item 16)

4

ERRATA: Table 2 (page 5) was misprinted. The correct table is below.
Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

Table 2. Six Factors by Principal Component Analysis (Varimax Rotation α= 0.92)
F2

F3

F4

F5

F6

h2

0.83
0.74

0.09
-0.02

0.01
0.05

0.03
0.08

0.08
0.16

0.06
-0.10

0.71
0.63

50. I enjoy studying English, so I learn it because I want to

0.71

0.27

0.14

0.10

0.04

0.16

0.71

6. I look for opportunities to use English as much as possible.

0.65

0.30

0.19

-0.01

0.11

0.06

0.65

20. I study English voluntarily

0.61

0.45

0.14

0.10

0.05

0.14

0.72

56. I ﬁnd information about English by myself, e.g. Study aboard

0.60

0.10

0.08

0.37

0.01

0.10

0.55

7. I try to ﬁnd as many ways as I can to improve my English

0.51

0.34

0.18

0.11

0.07

-0.15

0.56

0.46

0.10

0.09

0.21

-0.04

0.01

0.30

0.41

0.38

0.12

0.07

0.05

0.01

0.45

0.37

0.63

0.23

0.16

0.17

0.06

0.70

24. I make my schedule so I will have enough time to study English.

0.35

0.59

0.24

0.22

0.04

0.15

0.62

23. I prefer to plug away diligently at my English study.

0.23

0.42

0.28

0.16

0.03

0.11

0.37

0.30

0.37

0.37

0.26

0.02

0.06

0.49

-0.00

0.36

0.17

0.26

0.24

0.34

0.41

28. Once the class starts, I feel like studying (os)

0.13

0.05

0.57

0.06

0.02

0.28

0.53

30. I check to make sure that I understood the lesson (os)
5. I pay more attention to the lessons if we are practicing
something I am not so good at.
33. Before study or work, I consider a lot (os)

0.12

0.22

0.55

0.12

0.11

0.21

0.49

0.08

0.22

0.46

0.08

0.08

0.06

0.30

0.08

0.06

0.45

0.17

0.11

0.05

0.26

26. I reﬂect on what I learn and look for something important (os)
11. I try to improve my weaknesses (os)Flexibility α = 0.722

0.04
0.19

0.01
0.34

0.39
0.37

0.38
0.27

0.32
0.09

0.11
-0.03

0.44
0.44

45. I know the methods which suit me best and use them
43. I make use of good material, eg. Internet, when I study English
at home31. I use time effectively (os)

0.20

0.28

0.05

0.53

0.11

0.20

0.51

0.27

0.05

0.13

0.45

0.01

0.01

0.34

0.02

0.14

0.14

0.44

0.40

0.35

0.53

46. I change my study content and target according to my needs

0.17

0.18

0.31

0.37

0.15

0.12

0.37

0.19

0.22

0.22

0.33

0.06

0.14

0.31

0.02

0.08

0.16

0.33

0.21

0.02

0.24

0.04
0.14
0.01
0.31

0.01
0.08
0.23
-0.13

0.01
0.13
0.40
0.24

0.05
0.19
0.01
0.00

0.65
0.60
0.45
0.35

0.08
0.08
0.06
0.05

0.46
0.50
0.42
0.41

0.33
0.14

0.15
0.28

0.31
0.10

-0.03
0.14

0.07
0.13

0.44
0.43

0.50
0.35

-0.04

-0.03

0.15

0.09

0.09

0.42

0.23

11.29

17.75

23.98

29.03

33.44

37.84

48. I check my English proﬁciency by taking TOEIC or EIKEN
voluntarily.
14. I think about my progress in learning English .
Making plansα = 0.792
22. I am determined to attain the target which I set for my English
studies

15. I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help
me do better
19. I carry out the plans I make (os)Self-controlα = 0.74

42. I try to have a good environment to study English, eg. I clean up
my table, when I study English at home.
44. I try to use other methods if the method of English study does
not suit me (os).
Taking actionsα = 0.675
25. If I decide to do something, I will act immediately (os)32. I do things actively (os)29. I try to complete the things I have decided to do (os)51. I have all kinds of interests not limited to English
Concentrationα = 0.521
17. I pay attention when someone is speaking in English
21. I can study English no matter what mood I am in
16. I concentrate on my studies even if I happen to hear other people
talking (os)
Total % variance

Os: overall study, not speciﬁcally referring to English study.

5

Feature Article: Yang

F1
Self-initiative α = 0.891
55. I want to ﬁnd a job where I can use English later
53. I want to study in English-speaking countries in the futureSpring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUEunchallenging manner (Usuki, 2003). Therefore, learners do not need to consider the necessity of making plans, not to mention they
can save time for self-study in order to reachthe goals they set for themselves. As a result,
without enough repetitive own learning, they
fail to make their learning successful. From
this respect, we need to bolster support byhelping students make plans for their learning contents and learning progress, as wellas guiding them to continue their plans, until
their desired results are achieved.
Japanese learners in this study have low
ﬂexibility of changing their learning methods. They don’t seem to know what to do inlearning, nor how to learn English especiallythey are poor at changing their learning
methods; regulating their learning materials
based on their needs; and are not known tocreate a good study environment for themselves. It may be necessary for students toknow a variety of learning strategies, to have
many opportunities to make use of them,and to regulate their learning for different
needs.

Feature Article: Yang

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Six Factors
in Subscale Mean Scores (N = 396)
Factor
Self-initiative
Making plans
Self-control
Flexibility
Taking actions
Concentration
Total

M
2.78
2.80
3.24
2.79
3.52
3.03
3.00

SD
1.47
1.21
0.98
1.29
1.12
1.16
1.23

Discussion
In this study, six factors were found to
explain learner autonomy in Japanese EFL
learning context: self-initiative, making
plans, self-management, ﬂexibility, taking
actions and concentration. Among thesefactors, Table 3 indicates that Japanese EFL
learners in this study have low self-initiative,
low ability to make plans and they are unable
to change their learning methods ﬂexibly.
There is one possible reason may explain
their low self-initiative. That is, under pressure for success in the university entrance
examinations, many students may havestudied English passively in their high schooldays. The goal of their learning was perhaps
focused only on passing the examinations, sothey might not have enjoyed learning it bythemselves (Tanoue, 2004). Therefore, how
to motivate our students and let them feel thehappiness of using the language seems a way
to improve learners’ self-initiative.
One of the reasons why Japanese learners
are poor at making plans is that the Japanese
students have been used to being given plans
and goals set by their teachers. It is widely
acknowledged in Japan that teachers demonstrate their authority and students passively
accept their teacher’s instruction. Accordingly, Japanese learners tend to accept theteacher’s authority in an unquestioning andConclusion
In this study, an inventory as a way tomeasure learner autonomy for Japanese EFL
learners was constructed. Factor analysis of
the inventory indicates that these Japaneseintermediate EFL learners are comparatively
poor at self-initiative, making plans, andﬂexibility, while they are quite good at selfcontrol, taking action and concentration. The
main issue in promoting learner autonomy
is, therefore, how we as teachers can help
and encourage learners take charge of andcontinue their own learning.
Bearing these in mind, perhaps we should
consciously do more of the following in our
teaching:

6

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE(pp.142-54). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Benson, P., & Voller, P. (1997). Autonomy
and Independence in language learning.
London: Longman.
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching
autonomy in language learning. London:
Longman.
Cotterall, S., & Crabbe, D. (1999). Learnerautonomy in language learning: Deﬁning
the ﬁeld and effecting change. Frankfurt:Peter Lang.
Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction inlanguage learning. Cambridge University
Press.
Griffee, D. T. (1999). Questionnaire
construction and classroom research. The
Language Teacher, 23(1) 19-21.
Harmer, J. (2001). How to teach English.
Longman.
Kamahara, M., Miyashita, H., Onoki, H., &Nakazawa, J. (1998). Shinrigaku Manuaru
Shitsumonnhou. Kitaoojihonpo.
Murphey, T. (2003). Learning to surf:
Structuring, negotiating, and owningautonomy. In A. Barﬁeld, & M. Nix (Eds.).
Learner and teacher autonomy in Japan
1: Autonomy you ask (pp.1-10). Learnerdevelopment special interest group of
JALT.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods inlanguage learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Permberson, R., Li, E. S.L., Or, W.W.F.,& Pierson, H.D. (Eds.). (1996). Taking
control: Autonomy in language learning.
Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning
strategies: What every teacher should
know. New York: Newbury House.
Oxford, R., & Burry-Stock, J.A. (1995).
Assessing the use of language learning
strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL
version of the strategy inventory for
language learning (SILL). System, 23(1),1-23.

In autonomous learning teachers need tochange their traditional roles from focusing on the grammar-translation method to
becoming active participants, monitors,
consultants in language teaching and working closely with students’ language learning in order to help students become realautonomous learners (Aoki, 1999; Benson& Voller, 1997; Cotterall & Crabbe, 1999;
Harmer, 2001).

References

Aoki, N. (1999). Affect and the role of teacher
in the development of learner autonomy. In
J. Arnold (Ed.) Affect in language learning
7

Feature Article: Yang1) steer our students away from using
unchallenging forms of traditional spoonfed learning methods, and towards morechallenging and interesting points throughfurther voluntary study;2) provide our students with various study
skills and learning strategies to satisfy different needs for different purposes, in order to encourage the ﬂexibility toward language study;3) cultivate our students with self-management skills as stated in Dickinson (1987) inorder to help them set goals, make plans,monitor and evaluate their own language
learning;
4) give our students various tasks to ﬁnish
at home, in order to encourage them to takecontrol of their study schedule until they can
do it themselves little by little and learningfacilities such as self-access learning center
should be provided for students to learn
language anytime at their will to react theirpotential for learning;5) care about our students to the greatest
possible degree and to develop rapport withthem, giving them help when they need it.
It is like a partnership as stated by Harmer(2001: 26).

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

Feature Article: Yang

On CUE

Shizuka, T., Takeuchi, O., & Yoshizawa, S.
(2001). Basic concepts in foreign language
education research and testing. Osaka:
Kansai University Press.
Takeuchi, O. (2003). In search of goodlanguage learning strategies: studies on
good language learners in the Japanese FL
context. Tokyo: Syohakusya.
Tanoue, Y. (2004). Investigating beliefs andstrategies of Japanese university students
in learning EFL. Language Education &Technology, 41, 37-56.
Usuki, M. (2003). Learner beliefs about
language learning and learner autonomy: areconsideration. In A. Barﬁeld, & M. Nix(Eds.). Learner and teacher autonomy inJapan 1: Autonomy you ask (pp.11-26).
Learner development special interest groupof JALT.
Victori, M., & Lockhart, W. (1995). Enhancing
metacognition in self-directed language
learning. System, 23(2), 223-234.
Yang, T. (2006). An overview of learnerautonomy II: researches, methods,
instructional issues & assessment. Ryukoku
International Center Research Bulletin, 15,
111-130.

Appendix: Inventory of Learner Autonomy
Read the following statements carefully. If it is always true for you, choose 5. If it is nevertrue for you, choose 1. Circle your answers on the answer sheet.
5. always true for me (80%-100%)
4. generally true for me (60%-80%)
3. somewhat true for me (50%)
2. generally not true for me (25%-40%)
1. never or almost never true for me（0％-20%）
Example: I study English by myself. If you study English by yourself four times a week,
you should choose 4.
1. It is important for me to learn English.
2. I study English voluntarily.
3. Sometimes I study things that the teacher did not give as a task (os).
4. I study things which I didn’t learn from my English class (os).
5. I pay more attention to the lessons if we are practicing something I am not good at.
6. I look for opportunities to use English as much as possible.
7. I try to ﬁnd as many ways as I can to improve my English.
8. I think about my methods of learning English and whether they are good or not.
9. I know my good points and my weaknesses.
10. I try to develop my good points (os)
11. I try to improve my weaknesses (os).
12. I notice my mistakes and use that information to help me do better (os).
13. I write down my feelings towards English studies in a language learning diary.
8Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

9

Feature Article: Yang

14. I think about my progress in learning English.
15. I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better..
16. I concentrate on my studies even if I happen to hear other people talking (os).
17. I pay attention when someone is speaking in English.
18. I plan how I learn English.
19. I carry out the plans I make (os).
20. I study English voluntarily.
21. I can study English no matter what mood I am in.
22. I am determined to attain the target which I set for my English study.
23. I prefer to plug away diligently at my English studies.
24. I make my schedule so I will have enough time to study English.
25. If I decide to do something, I will act immediately (os).
26. I reﬂect on what I learn and look for something important (os).
27. I am well aware of my studies (os).
28. Once the class starts, I feel like studying (os).
29. I try to complete the things I have decided to do (os).
30. I check to make sure that I understood the lesson (os).
31. I use time effectively (os).
32. I do things actively (os).
33. Before study or work, I consider a lot (os).
34. Even with limited time, I try to study English regularly.
35. I have a strong will and am not be easily inﬂuenced by others (os).
36. I am satisﬁed with my English studies at college.
37. I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English.
38. If I have a question about English, I will ask my teacher
39. If I have a question about English, I will talk with my friends.
40. If I come across foreigners in the street, I will talk to them in English.
41. I practice English with people outside class.
42. I try to have a good environment to study English, e.g. I clean up my table when I study English
at home.
43. I make use of good materials and resources when I study English at home.
44. I try to use other methods if one method of English study does not suit me (os).
45. I know the method which suits me best and use it.
46. I change my study content and target according to my needs.
47. I always want to be a good English learner.
48. I check my English proﬁciency by taking TOEIC or EIKEN voluntarily.
49. I dream of being a good English speaker.
50. I enjoy studying English, so I learn it because I want to.
51. I have all kinds of interests not limited to English.
52. I want to communicate with foreigners in English.
53. I want to study in English-speaking countries in the future.
54. I think English is important to my future.
55. I want to ﬁnd a job where I can use English later.
56. I ﬁnd information about English by myself, e.g. Study aboard.
os: stands for overall study, not speciﬁcally referring to English study.

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

Reﬂections on a Creative Writing
Course for Japanese University
English Majors
Feature Article: Ross

Justine Ross
Kyoto Sangyo University

The learning outcomes specified by
MEXT indicate that the level of proﬁciency
to be reached by Japanese university students
should be that of advanced level learners by
the time they graduate. But there are problems. The declining birth rate in Japan (andthe subsequent decline of the student population) has led many universities to lower theirentrance requirements in order to maintaintheir enrolment ﬁgures. The result of sucheconomics-driven admission policies is thatclasses are often composed of students with
only basic English ability. Teachers are left
with the difﬁcult task of helping these students while attempting to achieve the valid, if
unrealistic, English language learning goals
set forth by MEXT. This dilemma suggeststhat there is a strong need to develop curricula that cater to the varied learning needsof our students.

本稿は、著者が計画し、京都女子大学で英語学専攻の４年生に対して実施したクリエイティブライティング（創作英作文）のコースに焦点を当てている。このコースはライティング教
授法において支配的な二つの手法―ジャンルア
プローチ及びプロセスライティングアプロー
チ―を組み合わせて用いた。児童文学作品を典拠とするジャンルに焦点を当て、学生が自分自身の童話を書くことでプロセスライティングの訓練を行った。このニ面アプローチは、熟達度
レベルの異なる複数の学生集団においてその有効性が認められた。本稿の末尾には、学生による創作文からの抜粋を付録とした。

Introduction
According to Honna & Takeshita (2005),
educational achievement by Japanese students have fallen over the last 25 years.
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology (MEXT, 2003)
released an Educational policy document
outlining achievement goals for Japanese
students of English entitled Regarding theestablishment of an action plan to cultivate
Japanese with English abilities. One of thelearning outcomes envisaged in this document for university level students studying
English is for them to be able to use English
to participate successfully in international
exchange.

Creative Writing for University
English Classes
Terrell Franz (2005, p. 13) describes
creative writing in the EFL classroom as
an “avenue of success for students who are
not necessarily successful in a conversation
classroom that stresses only speaking andlistening skills.” From a psychoanalyticalperspective, creative writing may be seen as a
key to unlocking the unconscious mind (Harris, 2001). Creative writing gives students theopportunity to express themselves in ways
10

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

students with the repetitive practice needed
to reﬁne the ﬁnished written product. In thiscourse, more emphasis is placed on the process writing approach.
Time restraints also necessitated combining the two approaches. The students would
only study creative writing during one 90minute class over a twelve-week semester.
The genre approach is based on exposing
students to various writing styles in orderto help them understand and replicate thevocabulary and grammatical structures used
for each particular genre studied. However,given the limited class time available todo this, the author was concerned that less-able students would struggle to achieve
acceptable levels of competence in all thegenres covered. Instead, the author decided
to focus only on one genre that was deemed
to be basic enough to allow low-proﬁciency
students to achieve the set learning outcomesby the end of the course while stimulating
and challenging the more advanced students.
With these priorities in mind, children’s literature was chosen as the literary genre forthe creative writing class.

Teaching Approaches for ESL/EFL
Creative Writing
Reﬂecting on thirty years of experiencein ESL/ EFL, Richards (2002, p. 24) deﬁnes ESL/EFL approaches to the teachingof writing as “dynamic” and adds that they
are “generating an increasing amount ofresearch.” Approaches to teaching ESL writing originate in L1 learning theories, such as
the process writing approach and the genre
approach (Bradford-Watts, 2003). However,there is no approach speciﬁcally tailored forteaching writing to the EFL learner, according to Muncie (2002). Although there may
not be a particular approach for teaching
EFL writing, there is a substantial body ofliterature detailing different pedagogies forteaching EFL writing in areas like academic
writing, business English and creative writing (Collie & Slater, 2001; Raimes, 1983;
White, 1995).
As previously mentioned, ESL writing
pedagogy focuses on either the process
writing approach or the genre approach. The
author incorporated parts of both approaches
into a course for EFL students specializing in
the writing of children’s literature. The genre
approach is used to expose students to various writing styles, relevant vocabulary ,andgrammatical structures commonly found ina particular writing genre. In contrast, theprocess writing approach is used to provide

A University Creative Writing Course
for Japanese Students
The students described in this article areenrolled in the Department of English of
Kyoto Women’s University. These students
will sit for exams to become elementary
school teachers. The genre of children’s literature was chosen for the fourth-year creative writing class because it related directly
to the students’ elementary education studies
and to their future careers as elementary
school teachers.
The learning objectives of this curriculum
were to introduce popular English children’s
stories for analysis of their written structure
and to train students to read out aloud in front
11

Feature Article: Ross

that a communicative class does not. “Most
English language programs and classes at
Japanese universities offer listening andspeaking in foreign-taught classrooms andsentence-level translation skills in Japanesetaught classrooms.” (Wachs, 1993, as cited in
Terrel Franz, 2005, p. 13.) Thus, an argument
can be made that there is a need to further
develop writing curricula offered to Japanese
EFL students.

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUEthe vocabulary, themes, and grammaticalstructures found in this kind of ﬁction.

of a classroom audience in an entertaining
manner. Students were asked to write andillustrate an original children’s story by theend of semester. This story had to be of alinguistic standard sufﬁcient to merit it being
read aloud to elementary school children.

Reading Aloud/Narration
Techniques
By the second week, students had chosen
an English children’s story that they would
read aloud in class in the fourth week. They
repeated this task with a Japanese children’s
story translated into English in the sixth
week. Course assessment was based onthese two short presentations and on a ﬁnal
presentation in which students read their own
stories aloud to their classmates.
The English storybooks were accompanied by a cassette recording of the story.
Students were instructed to listen to the cassette for homework, reading aloud as theylistened. In this way, they learned how goodnarration makes a story come alive, and they
could practice storytelling techniques, suchas variations in voice projection, pitch, andpace. Prior to the fourth week, students were
given a demonstration and short lecture on
how some of these techniques can be usedeffectively when reading aloud to children.
This lecture also aimed to teach students
how to introduce a book to young children
as an experienced elementary school teacher
might. Such an introduction would include
information about the author and the illustrations. This was to be put into practice throughan open dialogue with the young pupils who
would be encouraged to voice their opinions
concerning the book (e.g., questions about
what a certain character in the story shouldor should not do, or the moral of the story).

Feature Article: RossStudent-Centered Approaches
and Authentic Texts
Research into ESL/EFL pedagogy andstudent learning strategies indicates thatstudent-centered approaches support accelerated language acquisition. These approaches
also empower and motivate students tobecome actively involved in their own language learning (Cotteral, 2000; Ghosn, 2002;
Spelleri, 2004; Keplinger, 2001; Heyden,
2001; Edwards, 2004; Terrell Franz, 2005).
Furthermore, the use of authentic texts insecond language teaching has been shownto increase student motivation (Ghosn,
2002; Bamford & Day, 1997; Spelleri, 2004;
Randolph, 2001). “The use of ‘authentic
texts’ is one of the most important criteria
acknowledged by writers of textbooks forlanguage teaching” (Feng & Byram, 2002,
p. 58). These ideas are shared by the author
and are reﬂected in the university creative
writing course illustrated by the followingcase study.

Process
Becoming Familiar with the Genre
In the ﬁrst three weeks of class, students
were given popular English language children’s stories to read, analyze, and summarize. Next, they repeated the same analyticaltasks with Japanese children’s stories translated into English. At this stage, the learning
objective was to become familiar with thegenre of children’s literature, especially with

Story Maps
While listening to their classmates readan English children’s story aloud, audience
members had to produce a story map that12

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUEthe teacher to eliminate major grammaticalerrors before the ﬁnal draft of the story was
typed up and handed in (steps 6 and 7).

plotted the characters and storyline. This wasdone with the use of short sentences or justsingle words on a piece of paper, with arrows
indicating the progression of the story. This
story map exposed common structures andthemes found in children’s literature. The
students then began to plan their original
story by creating their own story map.

Final Version
Each student produced a children’s story
that was original and uplifting. Themes included a focus on friendship, caring for pets,and looking after the environment.

The diagram below illustrates the steps
used in the process writing approach thatwere followed in this creative writing course.
After completing the story map, students
consulted with the teacher about the content
of the story and its length (steps 1 through4). They then revised the original story plotor proceeded to write their ﬁrst draft (steps
3 through 5). This initial draft was handed
in for correction in week 7 and was returnedto the student in week 8 (steps 5 and 6).

Storybook Presentation

As part of their ﬁnal grade, students presented their storybook to the class in the ﬁnal
meeting of the semester. In this presentation,
students explained why they had chosen thetheme. They then read their story aloud andsubsequently invited questions and comments in English from their peers. The shortearly semester presentations on English andJapanese children’s stories helped students
feel more at easeduring their ﬁnal
presentation, reThe Process Writing Approach
gardless of theirEnglish ability.
3. Drafting
2. Planning
The remainder of4(Process)(Process)the course grade4
was based on thequality of the
ﬁnished product,
1. Generating
4. Receiving
7. Publishing
the content of theideas
feedback(Product)(Process)(Process)story, and the ﬁ4
4nal class presentation.
4

4

4

4

4

6. Editing(Process)

4

5. Revising(Process)

Discussion

It became apparent to the author that, uponcompletion of the one-semester creative
writing course detailed in this paper, students
were motivated and better equipped to teach(Terrell Franz, 2005, p. 13)
Students were graded on grammatical accuracy for their ﬁrst draft. The written work
produced by each student was corrected by
13

Feature Article: Ross

Story Writing & Revision Process

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

Feature Article: RossOn CUEand inspire young children to enjoy learning
English. Furthermore, the process writing approach practiced in this course gave students
confidence because they knew that theirﬁnished product would be error free.
Use of the genre of children’s literatureenabled all students to write a story using
simple vocabulary while tackling head-on
the challenging linguistic and creative taskof narrating a children’s story. Some students
had more difﬁculty than others deciding on
the level of English vocabulary appropriate for primary school children, and theyrequired additional guidance to achieve asuitable outcome.

level of competence in English were able tobuild on that ability and produce interesting
stories, as illustrated in the appendix of thispaper. Creative writing provided students theopportunity to express their creative side andto put to good use all that they had learned
during their previous English studies.
MEXT has outlined language-learning
goals for high achieving students, but as
educators have experienced, our classes are
not always ﬁlled with such able students. In
the course devised and taught by the author,
creative writing gave mixed ability students
the experience of success in achieving an
attainable English language-learning goal.

Conclusion
This case study shows that while students
come to class with various levels of language proﬁciency, creative writing offers
an avenue for all students to improve theirEnglish writing skills. While the discrepancy
between current educational policies in Japanand learner English proﬁciency persists, itis the ﬁrm belief of the author that English
language educators should strive to improve
language learning outcomes in a practicaland common sense manner that makes allowances for individual learners’ EFL ability.
The curriculum described here aimed tocater to the wide range of English proﬁciency
that university students had attained prior tothe commencement of the creative writing
course. The process writing approach gave
students the opportunity to produce a pieceof English ﬁction of which they could feelproud. This course was unlike traditional listening and speaking classes because students
who would not normally achieve high resultsin the typical communication classroom due
to a lack of conﬁdence in their English oral
ability did well in the creative writing class.
Those students who already possessed a highReferences

Bamford, J., & Day, R. (1997). Extensive
reading: What is it? Why bother? The
Language Teacher Online, 21(5) Retrieved
February 1, 2006, from http://www.jaltpublications.org/tlt/ﬁles/97/may/extensive.
html
Bradford-Watts, K. (2003). The role of genre
in TEFL. The Language Teacher, 27(12),9-13.
Collie, J., & Slater, S. (1987). Literaturein the language classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cotteral, S. (2000). Promoting learnerautonomy through the curriculum:
Principles for designing language courses.
ELT Journal, 54(2), 109-117.
Edwards, N. (2004). Rediscovering thecreative heart of Japanese education:
Fostering intrinsic motivation through alove of language. The Language Teacher,28(1), 19-23.
Feng, A., & Byram, M. (2002). Authenticity incollege English textbooks–An intercultural
14

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

15

Feature Article: Ross

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology (MEXT) (2005).
Report of the awareness survey on English
language teaching at the primary school.
Tokyo: Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology.
Muncie, J. (2002). Finding a place forgrammar in EFL composition classes. ELT
Journal, 56(2), 180-186.
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teachingwriting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Randolph, T. (2001). Using folktales topromote ﬂuency among adult EFL students
in China. TESOL Journal, 10(1), 9-13.
Richards, J. (2002). 30 years of TEFL/TESL:A personal reﬂection. RELC Journal, 33(2),1-35.
Spelleri, M. (2002). From lessons to life:
Authentic materials bridge the gap. ESL
magazine. Retrieved February 1, 2006,
from http://eslmag.com/modules.php?name=News&ﬁlearticle&sid=18
Terrell Franz, T. (2005). Recommendations fordeveloping L2 English writing programs
at Japanese universities. The Language
Teacher, 29(3), 13-18.
White, R. V. (Ed.). (1995). New ways inteaching writing. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

perspective. RELC Journal, 33(2), 68-84.
Ghosn, I. (2002). Four good reasons to use
literature in primary school ELT. ELT
Journal, 56(2), 172-179.
Harris, J. (2001). Re-writing the subject:
psychoanalytic approaches to creative
writing and composition pedagogy. College
English, 64(2), 175-204.
Heyden, T. (2001). Using sustained contentbased learning to promote advanced ESL
writing. TESOL Journal 10(4), 16-20.
Honna, N., & Takeshita, Y. (2005). English
language teaching in Japan. RELC Journal,
36(3), 363-383.
Keplinger, D. (2001). The words themselves:
Beneﬁts of creative writing workshop forstudents of English as a second language.
Radical Pedagogy. Retrieved February 1,
2006, from http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.
org/content/issue3_3/6keplinger.html
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology (MEXT) (2003).
Regarding the establishment of an action
plan to cultivate ‘Japanese with English
abilities’. Retrieved February 1, 2006, fromhttp:www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/15/0
3/03033101/001.pdf

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

Appendix

Over the Rain, by Miki Takadono
This is a story about a little girl called
Nami who ﬁnds a dragon who is dying asa result of people who have polluted thedragon’s natural environment. From her
efforts to help the dragon, Nami discovers
the importance of protecting our delicate
environment. What follows is an extractfrom the story.

Feature Article: Ross

A Cat in Another Town, by Yuka Akimoto
This is a story about a little girl who goesin search of her lost cat. Along the way, she
befriends a boy and ﬁnds out that her cat is
the re-incarnation of the boy’s grandmother.
What follows is an extract from the story.
One day, a girl called Tomoko was searching forher cat named Tama. Tama was an old female
cat and she suddenly disappeared. Tomoko waslooking for her everyday, but she never foundher. That day, she decided to visit the next town
in secret from her parents. She had never been toother towns without her mother, but she reallywanted to ﬁnd her cat and save her.

Once upon a time, a chief of a village was in trouble.
There was no rain for a long time, so he and his people
had poor crops. He looked around the dried ﬁeld andwas at a loss what to do. At that very moment,
something had crawled in front of him. It was awhite snake.
He picked it up and said, “I’ll give you anything if
you help me...” That night, the land was soaked withrain. People rejoiced at the unexpected blessing, as
did the chief too. In the rain, a young man knockedon the chief’s door. The young man said, “I am thewhite snake which you asked to help, and in fact, I
am Dragon who manages rain. The thing is...I desire
to take your daughter for my bride as your promise.”
The chief was astonished and sorrowful to part withhis daughter, though, he kept the promise. Dragon andthe daughter climbed up the mountain and returned
to where he lived. Since then, the village never had
a draught again. It was said because Dragon always
kept an eye on the village.
Nami was in trouble. It was a hot day in June.
Actually, it was boiling. All the rivers in the town
were dried up. Although Nami loved swimming, she
couldn’t because there was not enough water. The
climate was unusual--no rain for weeks. “I’m dying
to go for a swim.” She said to herself and walked
down the street on the way home from school. Then,a shrine at the side of the street caught her eye.
Nami stopped to take a longer look. It was forlorn
and nobody was there. Nami looked over the shrine
and then went back to her home. She didn’t notice a
woman watching her.

Tomoko took the bus to the next town. She wasuneasy, but also had hope. She watched houses
passing away. Then she began to feel sleepy. She
dozed off at her seat and the bus rolled along thestreet. Then Tomoko heard a bell ringing in her
dream. Suddenly someone tapped her shoulder.
She woke up. A boy was standing beside her andsmiling. “Hello. You slept well. Where are you
going?” the boy said.

16

On CUE

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

Research Digest
Toward a Familiarity-BasedApproach to Language Proﬁciency

The following article is a reprint, with thekind permission from Dr. Ahmar Mahboob,
from the newsletter of the Nonnative English
Speakers in TESOL Caucus, NNEST
Newsletter, Volume 8, Number 1, May 2006,
published by Teachers of English to Speakerof Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL).
One of the hardest concepts to tackle
in teaching English as a second language(TESOL) and applied linguistics is that oflanguage proﬁciency: How do we deﬁnelanguage proﬁciency? How proﬁcient does
one need to be to be an effective teacher? Insome countries (such as China), teachers’
language proﬁciency is measured by standardized tests. However, research has shownthat standardized tests fail to take localized
use of language into context. In addition,
my on-going research with Lia Kamhi-Steinhas shown that although teachers’ language
proﬁciency as measured by language tests
is an indicator of their use or non-use of thetarget language in class, some teachers withlow language proﬁciency scores do use thetarget language in their classes. We argue
that such use may be explained by looking at
teachers’ belief systems. However, no modelof language proﬁciency or how it relates tolanguage teaching has been presented. Sucha model is of interest to TESOL in general,
but is especially relevant to non-native English speaking teachers (NNESTs)—since
NNESTs often have to deal with questions
about their language proﬁciency. In this essay, I will introduce a framework that we
can use to understand the notion of language
proﬁciency. This familiarity-based approachto language proﬁciency draws on our understanding of research on World Englishes andgenre analysis.
Given our understanding of World Englishes, we know that the English language
undergoes linguistic adjustments when it
is taken up in different regions. In terms oflanguage proﬁciency, World Englishes gives
us an understanding that we are proﬁcient in
the variety of English that we are most familiar with. We might be proﬁcient speakers
of Chinese or Pakistani English, but not ofAustralian English. Likewise, proﬁciency in
Anglo-American English and Afro-American English does not mean the same thing.
Our understanding of different Englishes isin part a result of our familiarity with them.
Thus, a speaker of Chinese English will ﬁnd
another speaker of the same variety easy tounderstand and mark them as proﬁcient, but
may ﬁnd a speaker of Sri Lankan English
harder to follow and mark them as less17

Research Digest: Mahboob

Ahmar Mahboob
University of Sydney

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

Research Digest: Mahboob

On CUE

proﬁcient (and vice versa). However, with aspects. Figure 1 below shows that we can
exposure and interaction, these perceptions map the two dimensions (language andchange. Thus, a deﬁnition of proﬁciency genre) along a familiar-unfamiliar conneeds to be ﬂexible and take the familiarity tinuum: we can be more or less familiarof language into consideration.
with a particular language (register, dialect,
In a different body of work, genre-based variety) and/or context. This mapping gives
research has shown that language varies and us four quadrants that show different ways
can be explainedin which we can unFigure 1. A familiarity-based framework forin relation to thederstand language
understanding language proﬁciency.
context in which
proﬁciency.
it is used. The
The familiarityFamiliar genre/context
language usedbased framework
in a formal busipresented in Figure
1 above suggests
ness meeting isÅ A É
Cthat the nature of
not the same asz
language profilanguage usedciency varies based
amongst friends
on our familiarity
at an evening
Familiar
Unfamiliar
or unfamiliarity
party. In terms
1
B
D Languagewith a particularof teaching, the Language
language dialect,
language usedor variety and theby a teacher incontext of use.
class is not the
The figure showssame as the lanUnfamiliar genre/context
guage used bythat there are four1
lawyers in the Language here refers to a dialect or a variety of abroad categories incourts. In short, language.
which we can unthe language wederstand language
use is dependent on the context of use, and proﬁciency. Proﬁciency in one quadrant does
our ability to select and use appropriate lan- not mean or imply that a person will haveguage is related to our familiarity with the proﬁciency in a different setting as well.
context. When we ﬁrst encounter a unique The dotted arrows in the ﬁgure show that,situation, we are not always conﬁdent about over time, unfamiliar context and language
the appropriateness or use of language. As variations may become familiar.
we become familiar with the context and the
Quadrant A represents familiar context ingenre, we are able to draw on our experience which we also share the language variety.
and use the appropriate style and register. Most everyday language experiences may
The familiarity of context thus impacts our be placed in this quadrant, such as casual
proﬁciency: we are not all equally proﬁcient conversations with friends or family. Thisin different contexts and our familiarity with quadrant also includes expert or professionala genre impacts our ability to operate in it.
discourses that we engage in routinely as
In trying to understand the concept of these discourses and genres have become
proﬁciency we have to consider both these familiar to us. Thus classroom talk for expe18

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

proﬁciency—it includes linguistic strategies that enable communication in unique
circumstances. However, this is not the typeof proﬁciency that we should expect in all
speakers (including native speakers). Also,
as in quadrants B and C, frequent encounters with an unfamiliar context or languagechanges the nature of the speech event as
these become familiar (quadrant A) to us.
One of the aspects that make this familiarity-based understanding of proficiency
unique is that it does away with the distinction between native and non-native speakers. Such a separation is not important or
relevant to teaching English as an additional
language (EAL). Since proﬁciency is measured by both the control of the local varietyof the language as well as the genre and thecontext of use, all speakers of English willﬁnd certain contexts and language structures
more familiar than others. Additionally, to beable to work in non-familiar context and/or
language variety, all speakers (whether native or non-native) will need to be able touse strategies that they can use to jointly
co-construct a language variety that is meaningful to them.
An understanding of this familiarity-based
framework impacts the way in which we lookat standards in language teaching. One of
the current debates in TESOL is whether weneed to have language proﬁciency standards
for language teachers—especially in case of
NNESTs. The familiarity-based frameworksuggests that we need to tread very carefully in this area. It is difﬁcult to establish
standards for each of the four quadrants as
our language proﬁciency varies in these.
Thus, for language teachers to be efﬁcient intheir classes, they may have proﬁciency inclassroom-speciﬁc language where they can
use the target language appropriately within
their limited context. They may not have or
19

Research Digest: Mahboob

rienced teachers falls in this category.
Quadrant B represents new contexts ofuse, but contexts in which we use a familiar
language. For example, when we interview
for a job, we use language (professional or
personal) that we are familiar with, but in acontext that is new. If we have several interviews, then the context becomes unfamiliar
as well.
Quadrant C represents use of unfamiliar
language dialect or variety in a familiar genre. Many cross-cultural episodes fall in thisquadrant. An example of this will be reading
newspapers published in English in different
countries. In this situation, we know what
to expect (based on our understanding of
the genre) in a news feature, an editorial, or
perhaps a letter to the editor, but the language
code is different and might contain linguistic
forms and structures that we are not familiarwith. In these contexts we need to use strategies to develop an understanding of the rulesof this language variety. Once we develop
this understanding (which might take varying degrees of effort, time, and exposure),
we move to quadrant A where this language
and genre both become familiar.
Finally, quadrant D represents new contexts and new language forms. This may happen within our cultural contexts, for example
when we graduate from high school and enter
the university, we ﬁnd that the language ofhigher education and academics is different
from other language forms. This may also
happen when we travel and ﬁnd ourselves
talking to people with an unfamiliar dialect
and in contexts that we are not familiar with.
For example, if we apply for a job overseas
and are interviewed over phone by a person
who speaks in a different variety, then we
have to negotiate both an unfamiliar language
variety and context. Perhaps proﬁciency inquadrant D is a higher category of language

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

need language skills or strategies to negotiate in other contexts (especially quadrants
C or D). For example, many of the teachers that I have observed and worked within Pakistan have low language proﬁciency
as measured by a battery of language tests,
but use English extensively in their classes.
This is possible because they use familiar
language (Pakistani English) that is domain
speciﬁc (classroom and textbook based).

Research Digest: Mahboob

When asked to produce language in different
contexts (essay writing, interviews) using a
different language variety (a language test
based on standard British English), they areunable to satisfy the requirements. Keeping
this in mind, perhaps when we talk about
language standards and language proﬁciency
for language teachers, we need to keep both
the domain of language use as well as the
local language variety in mind.

20

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

Developing Students’ Self-Efﬁcacy
Beliefs for their Language Learning
and Academic Achievement

Manami Suzuki
Dokkyo University

to beliefs in one’s abilities in activities suchas writing, reading or academic achievement(Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001; Schunk &Zimmerman, 1997; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997).
Most importantly, self-efficacy beliefs
have a strong effect on choice of action,
degree of effort, persistence or emotional
control in the phase of challenges or difﬁculties (Bandura, 1997; Chemers et al., 2001;
Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991; Zimmerman,
2000). According to a meta-analysis ofMulton, Brown, and Lent (1991), self-efﬁcacy beliefs were linked both to academic
achievement (r = .38) and to persistence (r =.34). Students with self-efﬁcacy “participate
more readily, work harder, persist longer,
and have fewer adverse emotional reactions
when they encounter difﬁculties” than those
without self-efﬁcacy (Zimmerman, 2000,
p. 86). Thus, self-efﬁcacy is one importantfactor of academic performance (Schunk &Zimmerman, 1997).

In this paper I will introduce the importantrole of self-efﬁcacy in learning and academic achievement. I will explain theoreticalbackgrounds of self-efﬁcacy and introduce
two empirical studies in the ﬁeld of educational psychology research, which provided
evidence of the strong effect of university
students’ self-efﬁcacy beliefs on academic
attainment. I propose further replication
research on self-efﬁcacy in the contexts ofsecond and foreign language (L2 and FL)
learning, and suggest pedagogical implications to enhance students’ self-efﬁcacy fromprevious L2 literature and my own L2 andFL teaching experiences.

Deﬁnition of Self-Efﬁcacy
The concept of self-efficacy has beendeveloped “as a key component in social
cognitive theory” in the ﬁeld of educational
psychology (Zimmerman, 2000, p. 83). Since
Bandura (1977) ﬁrst suggested a theory ofself-efﬁcacy beliefs and guideline for empirical research to measure it, self-efﬁcacy has
been regarded “as a highly effective predictorof students’ motivation and learning” (Zimmerman, 2000, p. 82). Zimmerman (2000)
introduced Bandura's (1977, 1997) deﬁnitionof self-efﬁcacy “as personal judgments of
one’s capabilities to organize and executecourses of action to attain designated goals”(p. 83). In other words, self-efﬁcacy refers

Role of Self-Efﬁcacy in theProcesses of Self-Regulation andMotivation
Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997) argued
that there was strong relation between selfregulatory processes and self-efﬁcacy. Selfregulation consists of three cyclical phases:(a) forethought (planning before learning);
21

Research Digest: Suzuki

Introduction

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

Research Digest: Suzuki

On CUE(b) performance (maintaining attention andeffort toward goals during learning; and(c) self-reﬂection (evaluation after learning (Alderman, 2004; Zimmerman, 1998).
The three-stage model of self-regulation iscompatible to Dörnyei's (2001) model of
L2 learning motivation which comprises
three stages: (a) preactional (selection of
the goal and task); (b) actional (sustaining
activities); and (c) postactional (retrospective
self-evaluation).
Zimmerman (2001) explained the processof self-regulation:
Forethought processes, such as goal setting, set the stage for the performancephase, where strategies designed to attain the goals are deployed. Self-monitoring during performance produces
feedback that is evaluated for progress
and interpreted for meaning during theself-reﬂection phase. Self-reﬂections
affect forethought goals regarding subsequent efforts to learn—completing theself-regulatory cycle. (p. 21)
In the models of self-regulation and motivation, each stage has reciprocal inﬂuence(Zimmerman, 2001; Dörnyei, 2001). Furthermore, the last phase (the self-reﬂection
phase or postactional phase) affects learningin the future. Dörnyei (2001) suggested thatlearners’ self-reﬂection in the retrospective
stage “will determine the kind of activities
they will be motivated to pursue in the future” (p. 21). Alderman (2004) argued “[a]vision of a possible self—how we think
about ourselves and the future—is the ﬁrst
step in developing self-regulation” (p. 164).
Zimmerman (2000) proposed: Self-efﬁcacy
beliefs also provide students with a senseof agency to motivate their learning as goal
setting, self-monitoring, self-evaluation, andstrategy use (p. 87).
Self-efficacious students have tended

to set higher goals and make more effort
to achieve these goals (Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992). According
to Alderman (2004), goals and goal setting
play an important role in the processes ofself-regulation. To summarize, self-efﬁcacy
centrally works in the processes of selfregulation, and inﬂuences motivation andacademic achievement.

Empirical Studies of SelfEfﬁcacy
There were many empirical studies which
provided the validity of the effects of selfefﬁcacy on academic performance (Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, & Larivee, 1991;
Chemers et al., 2001; Multon et al., 1991;
Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994; Zimmerman
et al., 1992; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons,
1990). Among them I select and introduce
two relatively recent empirical studies:
Chermes, Hu, and Garcia (2001); and Zimmerman and Bandura (1994). Participants inboth studies were freshmen university students. In this paper, I will focus on university
students’ self-efﬁcacy and their academic
attainment.
Chermes, Hu, and Garcia (2001) examined
the inﬂuence of academic self-efﬁcacy andoptimism on students’ academic achievement, stress, health, and coping perception
to retain in school, using a factor analysis.
Participants were 373 freshman university
students in the U.S. At the end of the ﬁrst
academic quarter, Chermes et al. collected
the data: students’ high school grade-point
average (GPA); academic self-efficacy;
optimism; academic expectations; and selfperceived coping capability. At the end of theschool year, students’ classroom performance (grades), personal adjustment, stressand health were measured. The Life Orientations Test (Scheier & Carver, 1985) was
22

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE(in press) carried out a partial replication
study of Zimmerman and Bandura (1994) inthe ESL context in Canada. However, theymainly focused analysis on relation between
ESL students’ self-regulation for writing
and motivation. Although they comparedstudents’ self-regulation of important aspects of writing processes with their TOEFL
scores, they did not directly examine by pathanalysis the effect of self-efﬁcacy for writingon their writing grade, writing proﬁciency
or improvement. Further replication studies
of self-efﬁcacy are needed in the L2 or FL
contexts.

Training for Self-Efﬁcacy
In this section, I suggest some ways fordeveloping L2/FL learners’ self-efﬁcacy,
based on previous studies of social cognitive theory (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997;
Zimmerman, 2000; Zimmerman, Bonner, &Kovach, 1996; Zimmerman & Risemberg,1997).

Introduction of Self-Regulatory
Processes
It might be effective to introduce students
to self-regulatory processes for developing
their self-efﬁcacy. According to Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997), self-efﬁcacious
students can manage triadic self-regulatory
processes: environmental; behavioral; andpersonal processes. Students with highself-efﬁcacy tend to produce good learning
environments by trying to study in a silent
room, utilize and develop human resources(e.g., study group, human network in a speciﬁc ﬁeld) or learning resources (e.g., books,
the Internet). Self-efﬁcacious students canmanage their time, set speciﬁc goals, evaluate their own academic performance, selectappropriate strategies and have a clear men23

Research Digest: Suzuki

used for assessment of optimism. Variables
other than GPA and academic performanceat university were measured using questionnaires with Likert scale items developed forthe study. Instructors’ narrative evaluations
were deployed as the measure of academic
performance. Chermes et al. used “common keywords (e.g., outstanding, excellent,satisfactory)” and rated levels of academic
achievement in a range from 1 to 5 (p. 59).
The results of their path analysis showedthat students’ academic self-efﬁcacy andoptimism directly inﬂuenced their academic
performance and indirectly through academic expectations and self-perceived coping capability. Self-efﬁcacy and optimism
were strongly linked to freshman college
students’ academic achievement and adjustment at school.
Zimmerman and Bandura (1994) studied the role of self-efﬁcacy with regard to
the academic performance, regulation ofwriting, academic goals, self-evaluation
on a writing course and ﬁnal grade in thecourse. Self-regulation of writing processes
was measured using a questionnaire. They
used students’ verbal aptitude scores on the
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) to measureacademic performance. Participants were 95
freshmen university students in the UnitedStates. Their path analysis showed that students’ self-efﬁcacy for writing inﬂuenced
their ﬁnal writing grade both directly andindirectly through its effect on grade goal
setting. Students’ SAT verbal aptitude scores
were not directly linked to writing course
grades at university. Zimmerman and Bandura (1994) suggested that academic selfefﬁcacy was the main factor in academic
performance as well as goal setting.
These two studies I described above wereconducted in the ﬁeld of educational psychology. Cumming, Kim, and Eouanzoui

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

Research Digest: Suzuki

On CUE

Learning Strategy Instructions

tal image of learning processes to success.
Furthermore, such self-efﬁcacious students
can control their own behavior by promising themselves a reward in the processes ofwriting or reading (e.g., coffee break afterﬁnishing an assignment) or using self-verbalization, which are considered as mediations for problem solving or learning (Chi,2000; Chi, de Leeuw, Chiu, & LaVancher,
1994; Chi, Lewis, Reimann, & Glaser, 1989;
Schunk, Hanson & Cox, 1987). Teachers canintroduce and recommend these models of
self-regulatory processes to their students.
Teachers might provide students with opportunities to develop self-efﬁcacy, asking
students to set their academic goals, andevaluate and monitor their performance. For
example, at the beginning of the semester I
ask my students to set and write course goals
for the term. After commenting, I return
their goal statements. I implement students’
self-evaluation in my writing course or a language learning strategy course at university,using a self-evaluation sheet (see AppendixA) as well as every week logs and portfolios.
At the end of the semester, I ask them towrite a reﬂection. Thereby, I give students
the chance to employ a triadic self-regulatory
process (a) forethought; (b) performance;and (c) self-reﬂection in their learning.
For establishing their learning environment, I recommend that students shouldmake study groups and learn collaboratively
both in and out of class. I try to employ asmuch pair work or group work as possible
in my class. Moreover, I introduce learning resources (e.g., library research) andask students to use for their L2 writing andpresentation assignments.

Schunk and Zimmerman (1997) suggested
that learning strategy training enhances students’ self-efﬁcacy. Schunk and Zimmerman(1997) suggested “[t]eaching students to use
learning strategies enhances achievement
outcomes, motivation, and perceptions ofcapabilities” (p. 42). Therefore, instructions
for language learning might be effective fordeveloping L2 learners’ self-efﬁcacy as well.
Teachers can use Muranoi's (2006) list of L2
learning strategies such as memory strategies, cognitive strategies, metacognitive
strategies or socioaffective strategies (pp.
132-134). Students can ﬁll in their answers
to what extent they use each strategy for
their L2 learning on the list, using a 5-point
Likert scale. Muranoi shows the means andstandard deviations of his students’ answers
on a list so that students can compare theirstrategy use with other students.
In my English reading classes, I teachreading strategies such as skimming, scanning, inferencing or attention to paraphrasing(Suzuki, in press). I also give my students
a summary writing task or an oral reading
practice which are considered important forreading (Brown, 2000; Hidi & Anderson,1986). For developing oral communication,
instructions for shadowing, summarizing, or
self-talk might be effective (Murphey, 2001,
2006). Parallel reading and dictation could
be introduced as good learning strategies
for development of listening proﬁciency(Muranoi, 2006). Writing teachers can teachthe effective use of brain storming, planning,self-verbalization, and self-evaluation andmonitoring in the processes of writing (Zimmerman et al., 1996). Such strategy training
could enhance students’ self-efﬁcacy for L2
learning.

24

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

Summary
In this paper I introduced the signiﬁcantrole of self-efﬁcacy in learning and academic
achievement. I explained the theoreticalbackgrounds and presented empirical studies of self-efﬁcacy that are based on social
cognitive theories. Implications for instructions to enhance self-efficacy were also
provided.
I believe that students who acquire self-efﬁcacy for L2 learning can apply these beliefs
in the processes of self-regulated language
learning toward their successes and achievements in life after they graduate from school.
Self-efﬁcacious people regulate themselves:
they manage time, set and stay focused on a
speciﬁc goal, strive toward it, evaluate andmonitor their activities, and select appropriate and effective strategies for their goal
attainment. They do this while developing agood environment around themselves. I hopethat studies and practice of self-efﬁcacy beliefs will be further carried out in the contextsof L2 and FL learning for learners’ linguistic
development and academic attainment.

References

Alderman, M. K. (2004). Motivation forachievement: Possibilities for teaching andlearning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efﬁcacy: Towarda unifying theory of behavior change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efﬁcacy: The exerciseof control. New York: Freeman.
Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Larivee,
S. (1991). Inﬂuence of self-efﬁcacy on
self-regulation and performance among
junior and senior high-school age students.
International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 14, 153-164.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language
25

Research Digest: Suzuki

learning and teaching. White Plains, NY:
Longman.
Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F.
(2001). Academic self-efﬁcacy and ﬁrst
year college students performance andadjustment. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(1), 55-64.
Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining
expository texts: The dual processes ofgenerating inferences and repairing mental
models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in
instructional psychology: Educational
design and cognitive science (Vol. 5, pp.
11-238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H.,& LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting selfexplanations improves understanding.
Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
Chi, M. T. H., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., &Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How
students study and use examples in learning
to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13,
145-182.
Cumming, A., Kim, T., & Eouanzoui, K.
(in press). Motivation for ESL writing
improvement in pre-university contexts. In
S. Hidi & P. Boscolo (Eds.), Motivation andacademic writing: Elsevier.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies
in the language classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing
written summaries: Task demands,
cognitive operations, and implications
for instruction. Review of Educational
Research, 56(4), 473-493.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W.
(1991). Relation of self-efﬁcacy beliefs
to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic
investigation. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 18, 30-38.
Muranoi, H. (2006). Daini
gengosyuutokukenkyuu karamita
koukatekina eigogakusyuhou,shidouhou[Effective learning and teaching ways
from the perspective of second language

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

Research Digest: Suzuki

On CUE

analysis of exemplary instructional models.
In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman(Eds.), Self-regulated learning: Fromteaching to self-reﬂective practice (pp. 119). New York: Guilford.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efﬁcacy: An
essential motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 82-91.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994).
Impact of self-regulatory inﬂuences ondevelopment of writing proﬁciency.
American Educational Research Journal,
31, 845-862.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & MartinezPons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for
academic attainment: The role of selfefﬁcacy beliefs and personal goal setting.
American Educational Research Journal,
29, 663-676.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R.
(1996). Developing self-regulated learners:
Beyond achievement to self-efﬁcacy.
Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M.
(1990). Student differences in selfregulated learning: Relating grade, sex, andgiftedness to self-efﬁcacy and strategy use.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82,
51-59.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997).
Research for the future: Becoming aself-regulated writer: A social cognitive
perspective. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 22, 73-101.

acquisition research]. Tokyo, Japan:
Taisyukan.
Murphey, T. (2001). Exploring conversational
shadowing. Language Teaching Research,
5(2), 128-155.
Murphey, T. (2006). Language hungry!: An
introduction to language learning fun andself-esteem. Innsbruck, Austria: Helbling
Languages.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985).
Optimism, coping, and health: assessment
and implications of generalized outcome
expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219247.
Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R., & Cox, P. D.
(1987). Peer model attributes and children's
achievement behaviors. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 79, 54-61.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997).
Developing self-efﬁcacious readers
and writers: The role of social and selfregulatory processes. In J. T. Guthrie &A. Wigﬁeld (Eds.), Reading engagement:
Motivational strategic reading throughintegrated instruction (pp. 34-50). Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Suzuki, M. (in press). Holistic language
learning, koutoukyouikuniokeru
eigojyugyouno kenkyu:
jyugyoujissenhoukokuwo cyuushinni[A study of English Teaching in Higher
Education: A report from English
classrooms]. Tokyo, Japan: JACET.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing selffulﬁlling cycles of academic regulation: An

26

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

Appendix
Self-Assessment Sheet for a Writing Course
Name:
Participation
Number of Assignments (Essays)
Assessment of each work1
your self-introduction
2
your goal3
the person/event that inﬂuenced your life.
4
your recommendation
5
a thank-you letter
6
the Golden Week
7
your favorite song/poem
8
a business letter
9
your e-mails
10 your TWE essay

4. Assessment of your ﬁnal paper.
1 Organization (Does your paper have an introduction, a body part, and aconclusion?/ Does each paragraph has a topic sentence?/ Is each topic sentence
supported enough?)2
Content (Did you choose a good and interesting topic for your audience?)3

Grammar (Is your paper free from all spelling/typing mistakes or grammaticalmistakes?)

5. Total grade for the semester
6. Explain why you think you deserve the grade above.

27

Research Digest: Suzuki

1.
2.
3.

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

Opinion & Perspective

Opinion & Perspective: Guest

A Response to Yoko Ichige’s “Validity ofCenter Examinations for Assessment ofCommunicative Ability”

Mike Guest
Miyazaki University

it examines the different competencies thatthe various tasks are measuring. Ichige alsoutilizes several helpful tools of analysis,headed by Bachman’s (1990) notions as towhat constitutes communicative language
ability. This approach helps to deﬁne moreconcisely the tasks within the test and pose
relevant questions, as well as frame the test
according to established guiding principles.
However, there are also several areas inwhich I feel that Ichige’s research falls shortor requires further explanation. I also believethat it contains one fatal ﬂaw, which I shalloutline ﬁrst.
The title of Ichige’s paper is “Validityof Center Examinations for Assessment ofCommunicative Ability”. Since, as Ichige
correctly notes, Mombukagaku-sho (2003)
suggested that colleges and high schools revise their entrance exam in order to properly
assess communicative ability, it might seem aworthy task to ﬁnd out if it is practicing what
it preaches, or in other words, is Mombukagaku-sho also testing for communicative
ability? Not surprisingly, Ichige’s conclusion
is that “it can hardly be said that the current
center examination measures communicative
ability appropriately” (p. 21).
But this is a forgone conclusion. The
Center Exam makes no claim to be assessing communicative ability, nor could it. The

Yoko Ichige’s (2006) recently publishedresearch paper on the current university
entrance examinations - focusing speciﬁcally on the center examinations - provides
a worthy contribution to our understandingof these controversial tests. Recognizing thatchanges have been made to the content of theexams, as well as to the pedagogical principles presumed to underlie them, both Ichige
and Kikuchi (2006) provide much–needed
updates on Brown and Yamashita’s seminal(1995) study. Ichige further recognizes thelimitations of the research done by Brown
and Yamashita, and by Kikuchi, in that the
samples selected in these studies were fromthe English or Education department exams - not to mention Kikuchi’s recognition
that Brown and Yamashita’s analysis waslimited only to prestigious universities (p.
177). Instead, by focusing upon the Center
Exam, Ichige is rightly presuming that thismore widely-applied, broader based test ismore representative of the whole Japanese
university entrance exam experience.
Ichige’s item-by-item analysis of theexam is particularly enlightening since a
lot of previous research has been prone to
making generalized conclusions about thenature of the exam without presenting or
explaining individual items to the reader.
Ichige’s analysis is further helpful in that28

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

municative applicability of a test that does
not claim to be communicative - and in fact
is so aware of its non-communicative form
that it has actively asked other institutions
to ﬁll the gap in their tests? This is why I
claim that the outcome of Ichige’s research
is a foregone conclusion.
Perhaps it would be opportune at this point
to argue that Mombukagaku-sho, as well as
their critics, might do well to mitigate theirnotion of “communicative” in order to avoid
the awkward schism between university
entrance exams and their stated ideal pedagogy. This could be achieved by re-establishing the notion of “communicative” notas meaning “real-life, authentic, productive
skills” but rather as based upon the original
notion of the communicative approach, thatis that tasks focus upon text meaning as opposed to text form. And, as I have argued inboth Guest (2000) and Guest (2006), and as
Ichige’s analysis of the Center Exam- if not
her conclusions- further seems to conﬁrm,
Japanese university entrance exams are infact largely meeting this deﬁnition of “communicative”.
Ichige also makes an important point when
she notes that “…what the center examination is intended to measure is not clear” (p.
21). After all, the concept of test validity ismeaningful only when the content of a test
suits its stated purpose, and without a purpose it clearly becomes difﬁcult to measurevalidity. I would therefore like to propose apurpose. It is as follows: The purpose of theCenter Exam is: 1) to measure the aptitude ofJapanese students for academic study at Japanese universities; 2) to stratify examinees on
the basis of this aptitude test in order to allow them to sit for appropriate second-stage(individual university) examinations.
What this implies is that the purpose of thetest is not to attempt to measure “real-world”
29

Opinion & Perspective: Guest

Center Exam is taken simultaneously, undervery strict conditions, by over 500,000 applicants (as reported in the Daily Yomiuri
newspaper, Jan. 20th, 2007) across the country. Objectivity in marking, given the test’svalue in determining which second stage
exams an applicant can or should sit for, isabsolutely crucial. Productive testing, suchas interviews, interactive speech or essay
writing, which Ichige ﬁnds lacking, would
not only compromise this quest for strict
objectivity but also create enormous timing
problems as the current examination alreadyﬁlls two entire days with up to seven hours
of testing per day. Furthermore, results ofthe test must be made known to examinees
as soon as possible - usually within a week
- necessitating machine-readable answers.
Holding personal interviews, judging interactive speech skills or reading and marking
essays or other productive writing would takean enormous amount of time and an unprecedented nation-wide effort of collaboration
to ensure balanced standards. One must also
not forget that entrance exams consist ofother subjects besides English and that byincreasing the time taken and the number ofskills demanded, the entire process would
become that much more unwieldy, stressful,and time-consuming for both test-takers andadministrators.
And this is precisely why Mombukagakusho speciﬁcally made the request for colleges
and high schools to include more communicative content on their exams - because
the Center Exam can’t do it. The burden ofmeasuring communicative ability is thereby
willfully passed on the second-stage exams.
Therefore, to measure, let alone criticize, thecurrent Center Exam for not addressing communicative skills is to address something thatno one claims to be extant in the test in theﬁrst place. How can one measure the com-

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

Opinion & Perspective: Guest

On CUEIn the analysis, Ichige rightly points out how
certain questions demand the ability to process entire texts (“recognize the organizationof a whole passage”), and “rhetorical organization”, as well as an eye for the “sequencing
of conversation” and other “conversational
conventions”, “coherence and cohesion”,“interactiveness”, “translation skill”, andmeta-linguistic cognitive skills while utilizing a wide variety of “text type, genre andmode of discourse” (pp. 16-18).
These descriptions apply particularly tothe later questions which are weighted far
more heavily than the more discrete-point
based prior questions, although Ichige does
not mention this. Moreover, they are very
similar to the ﬁnding made in Guest’s (2006)
analysis of the same test. However, despite
these (accurate, in my opinion) descriptions,
Ichige suddenly characterizes the test holistically in her conclusion section as being “discrete-point testing” which leads to washbackin the form of “…domination of the grammar-translation method in the classroom”(p.19), lacking extra-linguistic components,
and not allowing for authenticity because of
its emphasis upon “…discrete-point questions and the multiple-choice format” (p.19).
In other words, this conclusion appears to bequite at odds with the ﬁndings she presents
in her analysis and, not surprisingly, at odds
with Guest’s (2006) conclusions as well.
At this point it is imperative that a note bemade regarding multiple-choice questions.
There is a widespread, but unwarranted,
belief that a multiple-choice format dictatesa discrete-point approach, not to mention
receptivity. Ichige seems to be aware ofthis, given her citation of Oller (1979), whoargues that multiple-choice items can berevised to measure reading ability in a moreauthentic way, but Ichige claims that there
are no questions of this type on the Centerskills in a native-speaker setting but rather
aptitude for academic work in a Japanesemilieu. Clearly this obviates the need forconversation-like items or real-life, interactive examples on the test and would rather
orient the test towards slightly more formalized language, with an emphasis on reading.
As a result, since the test is not preparation
for study-abroad programs or workplaceinteractions with non-Japanese it would infact be invalid to have such a focus on theCenter Exam. This would also seem to render
Ichige’s application of Bachman’s (1990) dichotomy of IA (interactional/ability) and RL(real/life performance) testing approaches,and her support for the latter, as moot.
The real dilemma though, as Ichige
notes, is washback. Mombukagaku-sho
wants a more communicative curriculumin high schools, but if the purpose of theCenter Exam is as I proposed above it seems
logical that university-track high schools inparticular will provide preparation more inline with the Center Exam approach. However, this backwash effect is not a one-way
street and may well be overstated. Mulvey(2001), Guest (2000) and Stout (2003) haveall questioned the so-called washback effect,
arguing that high school English content andpedagogy would in fact be very different if
washback indeed had occurred. Moreover,test designers at universities and Mombukagaku-sho do take great pains to ensure thattest content falls in line with what is taught
in high school in terms of known structures,vocabulary and even test formatting. In otherwords, there is a strong argument for suggesting that high school pedagogy is in fact
determining to some degree the nature andcontent of university entrance exams.
I was also concerned by a discrepancy noted between Ichige’s insightful item-by-item
analysis and her rather different conclusions.
30

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUEthe visual connection between written information and data. This is clearly not a discrete
point task even though the answer is written
in multiple-choice format (all answers arevaried combinations of Japan, Germany andthe USA). There are numerous similar tasks
found all over the exam.
Finally, I must disagree with Ichige’s claimthat the form of the Center Exam indicates aview as to what language is, wherein Ichige
characterizes the Center Exam as being “…
based on the idea that language is a system
consisting of linguistic elements governed byrules” (p.19). Although Ichige is surely correct in implying that language is not merely acombination of combined elements governed
by rules, any test is bound to contain “linguistic elements” with some sense of being“rule-governed”. These qualities are inescapable. In fact, while Ichige does note the test’s
gradual movement away from this narrower
grammatical competence in the early sections towards more comprehensive modes
and units of meaning, she instead characterizes this positive development as treating
language as “…a kind of system consistingof independent elements with several hierarchical levels” (p. 17) simply because thetest itself proceeds in such a manner. But, if
a test is well-ordered, balanced, and divided
into distinct sections (all of which would
seem to be acceptable qualities of any test),
would it be fair to criticize that test because
language itself is not always well-ordered,balanced and divided into distinct sections?
It seems that according to this criterion any
well-made test could be likewise criticized.
The format and content of a test can and does
reﬂect other factors, such as administrative
limitations and considerations for what andhow examinees have studied up to this point both of which I believe are far greater factors
in determining test content and format.
31

Opinion & Perspective: Guest

Exam (p.18). This seems an odd pronouncement given the descriptions of the skills
required from examinees to carry out thetasks from section 2 that I cited from Ichige’s
paper above.
Indeed, a multiple-choice format need
not imply a discrete-point emphasis, and I
would argue that there are in fact many suchitems on the Center Exam. For example, on
the 2004 exam (the exam used in Guest’s[2006] research: Senta Shiken [2005]) we
may note on pp. 21-23 an extended reading
section (#6) that is a story about two rival
swimmers and the change in their relationship. Question 3 asks:
Why did Angela want to help Kate?
1. She wanted Angela to win.
2. The coach insisted that she do so.
3. Angela was a newcomer.
4. She understood how Angela felt.
Although this is a multiple-choice question, the correct answer (#4) can be determined only by following- and understandingthe ﬂow of the story. It demands an ability
to interpret the characters’ feelings indirectly
since the answer is not explicitly written
anywhere in the text. In order to correctly
answer the question one has to use holistic
reading skills, including making inferences
and interpreting motivations. This is not a
discrete-point skill or question.
Likewise, section 4 (pp. 13-16) from thesame test is a comparative essay about working hours and holidays in several countries.
A graph is included but three of the coordinates on the graph (countries) have had theirnames crossed out, replaced with X, Y, andZ. Question A asks the examinees to ﬁll inwhich countries match coordinates X, Y, andZ—a task that can be achieved only by: 1)
reading and understanding the entire text; 2)collating the various information therein; 3)
understanding the English graph; 4) making

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

Opinion & Perspective: Guest

On CUE

Equally inevitable is the problem of a testdeveloping test-wiseness in the examinee
rather than purely measuring holistic language skills. This was a particular concernof Brown & Yamashita’s (1995). If any test
is taken seriously examinees are bound tofamiliarize themselves with the test’s format
and typical content, as well as awareness ofthe test’s intentions and purposes. Thus, anemphasis upon test-wiseness is unavoidable.
If the tasks were as discrete and narrow as
Ichige characterizes them, this would be a
problem but, as we have seen, the most heavily-weighted tasks do not demand discrete
skills but what are routinely understood as
more holistic, comprehensive reading skills.
No amount of test-wiseness can prepare
examinees for tasks that demand the ability
to “recognize the organization of a whole
passage”, understand “rhetorical organization”, sequence conversations, understand“conversational conventions”, comprehend“coherence and cohesion”, practice “interactiveness”, and utilize “translation skills”,
as well as the ability to use meta-linguistic
cognitive skills within a variety of text types,
genres and modes of discourse.
Ichige’s skilful item-by-item analysis isunfortunately scarred by these inconsistent, almost contradictory, conclusions andI would ask the researcher to reconsider theconnections between the two in the light of
my comments.

grammar!” The Language Teacher, 24(11),23-29.
Guest, M. (2006) Teaching progressively…For
the Senta Shiken! In K. Bradford-Watts, C.
Ikeguchi & M. Swanson (Eds.), JALT 2005
Conference Proceedings (pp. 1182-1191).
Tokyo, JALT.
Ichige, Y. (2006). Validity of center
examinations for assessment ofcommunicative ability. On Cue, 14(2), 1322.
Kikuchi, K. (2006). Revising English entrance
examinations at Japanese universities after
a decade. JALT Journal, 28, 177-196.
Mombukagaku-sho (2003). Eigo ga
tsukaeru nihonjin no ikusei no tame no
koudoukeikaku [Guidelines for developing
English communication ability inJapanese]. Retrieved January 20, 2007,
from http://www.mext.go.jp.b_menu/
shingi/chukyo3/siryo/015/0404230/011
Mulvey, B. (2001). The role and inﬂuenceof Japan’s university entrance exams:
A reassessment. The Language Teacher,25(10), 29-32.
Oller, J. W. Jr. (1979). Language tests at
school. New York: Longman.
Senta Shiken Kako Mondaisaku: Tanki Kansei
Ban (2005). Kyougakusha, Tokyo.
Stout, M. (2003). Not guilty as charged; Do theuniversity entrance exams in Japan affectwhat is taught? ETJ Journal, 4(1), 1-7.

References

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Language testing inpractice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, J. D. & Yamashita S. O. (1995).
English language entrance examinations at
Japanese universities; What do we know
about them? JALT Journal, 17(1), 7-30.
Guest, M. (2000). …But I have to teach32

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

From the Chalkface
Public Speaking Is Much MoreThan Speechmaking!
Introduction

activities with enthusiasm and worthy effort
which have yielded very satisfying results.

College Public Speaking courses often
seem to be limited to speechmaking. What ashame! There are so many other interesting,relevant, and productive modes of public
speaking that can and should be included insuch courses not only to provide variety to
the instructional menu but also to develop
particular skills in addition to those gained
through speechmaking only.
The aim of a public speaking course fundamentally is to develop students’ oral presentation skills and thus their ease, conﬁdence,and effectiveness in speaking to groupsof people. These skills include elementsof voice control, such as projection, pace,phrasing, rhythm, intonation, articulation,and ﬂuency of expression; elements of bodylanguage, such as posture, facial expressions,and gestures; and elements of audience rapport, such as eye contact, assurance, sincerity, and awareness of audience response.
In this article I outline several successful
instructional practices other than speechmaking which I have employed in my university
course with students generally at lower to
mid-intermediate levels of English language
proﬁciency. At the start I describe the practice of panel discussion in some detail andthen summarize more brieﬂy some other public speaking activities students have done in
my course. They have responded to all these

Panel Discussion
Panel discussion is an instructional activity that extends students’ public speaking
beyond the presentation of a ﬁxed text they
have written and then either read or deliverfrom memory to an audience. It is especially
feasible to include in the course programwith smaller classes. Groups of about ﬁve
students may be involved in each project.
With larger classes of up to twenty students,
the activity can be done more than once, withdifferent topics, during the term or year toinclude all students in the end, or simply
done with some students while others do
different assigned projects.
The topic of tourism, for example, has
worked very well in this format of a publicforum. It follows on the “Visit Japan Campaign” that was inaugurated a few years
ago by the Japanese government with theaim to raise the number of foreign visitors
to Japan to at least ten million by 2010. Initially, students are assigned for homework to
prepare to discuss in pairs, solely in English,of course, in the following class such items
as: the reasons why Japan receives so few
tourists (consistently past 30 on the international list of tourist arrivals); what should
33

From the Chalkface: Porcaro

James W. Porcaro
Toyama University of International Studies

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

From the Chalkface: Porcaro

On CUEbe done to attract more foreign tourists toJapan, that is, what Japan should highlightto attract tourists from other countries; thebest ways for tourists to see and learn about
Japan; and the best places to go and things
to do for various types of tourists.
For this kind of public speaking activity
I do not assign or approve topics that are
beyond students’ general knowledge andwould require research. Indeed, I do not
permit any research because, in fact, it stunts
originality and thoughtfulness. Almost always it would involve students going to theInternet, encyclopedias or other materials
in Japanese and then translating passages or
copying from English sources and presenting the content and language as their own.
Such research precludes students from drawing on their general knowledge, exercising
their own critical thinking, and using theEnglish language proﬁciency and resources
they have acquired, which are precisely thelanguage learning objectives of the exercise.
I do provide, however, some graphic data on
the subject which students prepare to referto in the panel presentation. (See the section
below on graphic data.)
The following week, the students make apanel presentation as if they were participating in an international tourist industry association gathering. They are permitted accessto very limited notes from their preparationin the previous lesson. They have not at all
memorized anything they will say, though
they are well-prepared and practiced for theforum. I act as the moderator of the eventand direct the course of the discussion and
who will speak, as is usually the case in suchpanel discussions. This not only maintains
a good pace and coverage of the points on
the agenda, but also eliminates any canned
preparation and presentation by the students.
They are aware that I could ask anyone ofthem at any time to start or add to any of thepoints under discussion.
Teachers should invite to the classroom
audience other teachers and students, especially foreign students on campus when the
topic, such as tourism, is related to Japan.
Even a limited expanded audience createsa more authentic atmosphere and a more
dynamic exchange. Students must be adept
at answering the many questions from theaudience which is an intrinsic part of theactivity.
The panel discussion may take up to thefull ninety minutes of class time. Assessment of students’ performance is based on
the level of their achievement of the public
speaking skills listed at the start of this article
and the particular demands of this activity as
just mentioned. If the activity is done laterwith other students, teachers can expect anaccumulation of experience to raise the levelof success.

Other Modes of Public Speaking
1. Recitation is the oral presentation ofstories, poetry, and play scripts. It is a wonderful means by which students can develop
the public speaking skills listed above and it
is an activity adaptable to almost any level ofstudents’ English proﬁciency. (See Porcaro,
1999.) Working with narrative texts that
include a clear story line, characters, andsome dialogue, along with the opportunity
for a range and force of dramatic expression,
students are able to expand their oratorical
practice beyond the requirements of most
speech presentations. Particularly appropriate and appealing texts include the traditional
tales of old Japan as related by Lafcadio
Hearn, available in full (Hearn, 1971) or
simpliﬁed (Hearn, 1983) versions. Poetry,
as well, offers a wide range of possibilities.
My collection for class use spans from Edgar
34

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

ic forms has been mentioned as part of thecontent of panel discussions. In itself, it is an
excellent practice of public speaking for students. Data that are particularly appealing tostudents as both presenters and audience deal
with aspects of their own society, including
demographics, education, crime, economics,social welfare, and so on. These kinds of dataon Japan are available from several goodsources, such as The Asahi Shimbun Japan
Almanac or Web Japan <http://web-japan.
org/stat/index.html>. They can be shownon an overhead projector or PowerPoint.
Students work with a pointer referring to thegraphic data while explaining to the classaudience the information presented therein
and offering comment and analysis fromtheir general knowledge and reﬂection on
the subject. Once again, this task extends
students’ oratorical practice beyond the skillsof just delivering the text of a speech.
5. Public speaking may also be taken outside of the classroom. On most campuses
throughout the year there are opportunities
for at least some students in the class to speak
to the real public, for example, at open campus events, explaining parts of the English
program and conducting campus tours in
English (which make a strong impression
on visiting high school students sought forrecruitment); at school festival activities; oras MC’s at university-sponsored events, suchas symposiums, that include the medium ofEnglish. Teachers should establish a regularrole for their Public Speaking students insuch events. It may be possible also in somecircumstances to conduct public speaking
exercises off campus at local places of interest. For example, some years ago I taught at
a college near a large park with an area ofreconstructed traditional rural houses fromvarious parts of Japan. Students preparedfrom the informational materials available
35

From the Chalkface: Porcaro

Allan Poe’s classic “Annabel Lee” to Shel
Silverstein’s outrageous and delightful “Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout Would Not Take theGarbage Out”. With the recitation of poetry,students learn additionally about pacing,rhythm, and appreciation of the sounds ofwords and the images and meanings they canconvey through their oral presentation.
2. As follow-up with some stories used
for recitation, story writing or dialog writing
may be assigned and then utilized in turnfor public speaking practice. Students may
extend a story by telling from their imagination what happened after the given ending, ordevelop an alternative to the given course of
events with a shift at some appropriate pointin the story. Also, they may write, and thenrecite with a partner to the class, their own
plausible dialog between characters in thestory at dramatic moments.
3. Script writing is an entirely originaltask. Students think ﬁrst of a subject that interests them and which they know something
about, and then determine two well-known
people, living or dead, from any place inthe world or any time in history, related tothat subject, who will talk with each otherabout some aspect of their mutual ﬁeld of
endeavor or life experience. (See Porcaro,
2001.) Oral presentation by the writer and apartner produces some fascinating listening
for the class audience, such as James Deanand Leonardo DiCaprio discussing being
movie idols in their respective generations,or Anne Frank and Chiune Sugihara sharing
their experiences of the Holocaust. Scriptwriting not only integrates the four basic
language skills in the course of the task, butalso allows students to engage in interactive
elocution with a partner, playing off one
another in a dramatic style that they havewholly created.
4. Oral presentation of data given in graph-

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUElic speaking in Japanese as well. To attractenrolment and to involve students in a varied
and well-rounded learning experience that
actualizes positive outcomes, I believe thecourse should offer much more than speechmaking. Teachers may ﬁnd some inspirationfrom the ideas related in this article.

small parts for each of them to explain on a
guided tour of the site that they conducted
for some other students and faculty fromthe college.

From the Chalkface: Porcaro

Conclusion
Quite a few students who take my Public
Speaking course are in the teacher licenseprogram offered at the university. The course
for them has an immediate value and clear
relevance as preparation for the two-weekclassroom practice teaching they will do,
as well as in the long term after graduation
when they set out into the teaching profession itself. Several other students obtainjobs after graduation with companies where
they start in sales positions. A good public
speaking course can be a potentially valuable
experience and training for many other ﬁelds
students will enter. The skills they acquire in
the English course certainly transfer to pub-

References
Hearn, L. (1971). Kwaidan. Tokyo: Tuttle.
Hearn, L. (1983). Stories from Lafcadio Hearn.
Tokyo: Oxford University Press.
Porcaro, J. (1999). Recitation in an English
language program. The Language Teacher,23(8), 10-12.
Porcaro, J. (2001). Role-play scriptwriting
and integration of language skills. The
Language Teacher, 25(3), 28-29.

36

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

Integrating Extensive andIntensive Reading Activities in a
Freshmen Reading Course

Scott Bingham
Miyazaki Municipal University
Materials

This article describes a 12-week reading
course for freshmen university students.
Students participate in an institution-wide
Extensive Reading (ER) program that I havesupplemented with Intensive Reading (IR)activities adapted from the SQ3R reading
system. To teach and practice SQ3R, students
read one graded reader approximately one
level above their current level and complete
weekly worksheets especially designed forthis course.

For the ER component of this course, thestudents select graded readers from a large
collection in the school library. For the inclass IR activities, the students also have a“class reader” which they read together inclass. The reader I have chosen is “WhenRain Clouds Gather” (Macmillan Guided
Readers, Intermediate Level). Students also
receive a weekly worksheet and a reading
journal template.

Students

Time Required

This reading course is for students in theirﬁrst year at a small liberal arts college inJapan. Students major in liberal arts, languages, and/or multi-media. They have acore English curriculum made up of one or
two CALL classes and one reading, writing,and grammar module.
The reading module consists of about
25 students and meets once a week for
90 minutes for 12 weeks. The Edinburgh
Project for Extensive Reading (EPER) Placement/Progress Test (EPER, 1994, 1995) isadministered before and after the course todetermine student reading levels and assess
progress. The average score on the precourse EPER exam is 24 which corresponds
to just between the Beginner and Elementary
Level of the Macmillan Guided Readers.

The course I describe below covers atwelve-week term. Each week students complete a weekly worksheet that has a varietyof activities that should take a total of 90
minutes to complete. In most cases, students
ﬁnish the weekly worksheets in 90 minutes,
but if not the remainder is assigned as homework. Students also read one graded reader
and complete a reading journal as homework
each week. Most students report that thistakes approximately 2 – 3 hours a week.

Rationale
Proponents of ER tell us that we need tomotivate our students to read by allowing
them to choose their own reading material at the level they feel most comfortable.
However, in the real world, our students
37

From the Chalkface: Bingham

SummarySpring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

From the Chalkface: Bingham

On CUE

will be faced with authentic material thathas not been simpliﬁed, and whether they
are motivated or not they need IR strategies
that will help them cope with this more challenging material. Having considered both
approaches, I have come to the conclusionthat it is important that students ﬁnd pleasure
in reading and that well-motivated students
will probably become better readers. There
will also come a time when all students willneed to know how to handle material that is
far above their level. The purpose of thisarticle is to introduce a university reading
curriculum that attempts to integrate the bestof both the ER and IR approaches.
When developing the IR component, I
had two objectives in mind. First, I wanted
to supplement the ER component with additional Intensive Reading activities that would
help students deal with higher-level readingmaterial. Second, I wanted to do so using
a process-oriented approach. I strongly feelthat students beneﬁt from seeing learning, especially skills such as reading and writing, asa process. The process I have adapted for thiscourse is the SQ3R system (Kemper, Meyer,& Sebranek, 1992; Robinson, 1970). SQ3R
stands for Survey, Question, Read, Recite,
Review. My main reason for selecting thisapproach is that I feel it is one of the most
systematic approaches to teaching reading
strategies. In addition, SQ3R incorporates
all of the steps that I feel are important inteaching the process of reading.
The reading material I have chosen toteach SQ3R is the graded reader “WhenRain Clouds Gather.” The choice of using
graded material to teach IR is a compromise. More traditional IR approaches use
authentic material such as newspaper ormagazine articles or short stories. By selecting graded material, I can be assured that thematerial we cover each week is at the samelevel and that this level is difﬁcult but not
overwhelming. As mentioned before, theaverage student in this course is at a readinglevel which corresponds to the Macmillan
Guided Reader’s Elementary Level. “WhenRain Clouds Gather” is one level above thatand through my experience with using thisbook for several years, I have found that boththe level and the story are perfectly suited toteaching SQ3R.

Procedure
Extensive Reading Component
Students are expected to read 10 graded
readers each term. According to the scores
they receive on the EPER Placement/
Progress Test, students select readers appropriate to their level from the university
library. For each graded reader, students are
expected to complete one entry in a reading
journal. The reading journal entry I havedeveloped for this course consists of one A3sized handout with three sections: Personal
Vocabulary List, Summary, and Reaction.

Intensive Reading Component
In order to teach SQ3R, the students readone or two chapters of their class reader,“When Rain Clouds Gather,” and completea weekly worksheet that I have designed
speciﬁcally to use with this story. For the ﬁrst
four weeks of class, the worksheets introduce and practice one or two steps in SQ3R.
Starting with the ﬁfth week, the worksheets
incorporate all of the steps and class time isspent working in groups of four completing
the worksheets.
Step 1: Survey
The activities in Survey are designed as
pre-reading strategies which prepare the38

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

Figure 1 Sample of Weekly Worksheet: Activity 4 and 5.
II. Survey
Activity 4 WITH YOUR GROUP, discuss the illustration ( ) from Chapter 5 of “When Rain Clouds Gather.” In your discussion,
you should try to answer the following questions. Who is in the illustration? What are they doing? How do you think thisrelates to the story? What is the setting? What objects can you see? Etc. DO NOT read the story to answer these questions.
Use your imagination to guess. After discussing, write a description ( ) of the illustration listed below. Write as much as
you can about what you see in this illustration. Don’t read the story! Use your IMAGINATION!
Pg. 27__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Activity 5 By yourself, Review your New Word Lists for Chapters 1-4. Then, skim (read quickly and lightly) Chapter 5. While skimming, look for and underline all the unknown words, new characters, and new place names. Make a New Word List bycopying all the unknown words, new characters, and new place names into the chart below. Then, with your group, help
each other to look up the meanings of these words in your dictionary.

English日本語

English日本語

39

English日本語

From the Chalkface: Bingham

discuss the illustrations. In their discussion,
they are asked to draw conclusions as to how
these illustrations connect to previously readchapters, and make inferences about whatmight happen next in the story. In addition,
students are asked to search the illustrations
for any unknown vocabulary. Once students
have discussed the illustrations, they write abrief description which reinforces any new
vocabulary they might have encountered.
In Activity 5, students skim the chapter
and mark any unknown vocabulary. They
then work as a group to make a New Word
List by copying their unknown words into
the chart and using their dictionaries to ﬁnd
the Japanese meanings. Finding unknown
vocabulary before they read the text, students can concentrate more carefully on
the meaning of the story without having tointerrupt the ﬂow of their reading by taking
time to look up unknown words. Working
as a group, less time is needed in looking up

students to read the text in detail. These
activities help students to get a general ideaof what is in the passage and to identify inadvance any problems they might face. In
most reading material, there are many clues
that can help students get an idea of what thebook or article is about. In Survey, students
try to ﬁnd those clues without resorting toreading the text. In authentic material, suchas newspaper or magazine articles, students
should focus on the title, sub-titles, section
headings, captions, and any bold or italicizedwords. In addition to these textual clues,
students should preview all the visual clues
such as illustrations, graphs, or charts. In
graded readers, there are less of these textual
and visual clues, however, in Activity 4 of
the weekly worksheet, students use thoseavailable. My explanation of the worksheet
starts with Activity 4. Activities 1-3 will be
discussed later.
In Activity 4, students work in groups toSpring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

From the Chalkface: Bingham

unknown words allowing a more effective
use of class time.

When students are ﬁnished with these steps,
they are in a much better position to read andunderstand the text.

Step 2: Question
Question is also a pre-reading activity. In
this step, students try to use all the information they have gained in Survey to makequestions about what they are going to read.
It is important to stress that the answers to
the questions are not important at this stage.
The goal of this activity is to make the students think more deeply about the story, help
the students identify important points in thepassage, and help the students predict what
the story might be about.
Activity 6 of the worksheet focuses on
the questions they should be thinking aboutlater while they are reading. Ideally, students
generate their own list of questions; however,I have found this activity is quite difﬁcult
for most freshmen. Therefore, until Week
10, I compromise by giving them questions
I think are important. After Week 10, they
write their own. The important point is tohave students concentrating on something
while they are reading. I have found thismakes them much more active readers.

Step 3: Reading in Detail
Activity 7 introduces the next step. Students use what they learned in Survey to help
read the text in detail while thinking about
the questions made in Question. While reading, students should actively read the text byconstantly asking and answering questions
to themselves.

Step 4: Recite
Both Step 4 Recite and Step 5 Review aredesigned as post-reading activities. In Recite,
the students are encouraged to talk about
what they have been reading and learning.
In these discussions, they should review out
loud what they have read—the story, theplot, and the characters. They should also
talk about any problems they have had understanding the text or any interesting points
they have found. Finally, they should repeat
out loud the answer to all the questions they
have made in the previous step, Question. In
class, they engage in discussions with theirclassmates. When alone, they are encouraged
to have one-sided discussions
Figure 2 Sample of Weekly Worksheet: Activity 6.
with themselves.
III. Question
Activity 6 Look at the following questions and think about them while you are Reading The main point is toin Detail.
talk out loud about
the text. In that way
Chapter Fivestudents
can better
1. Who are these people? Write a description for each.
-Paulina Sebeso
understand what they
-Lorato Sebeso
have learned and-Isaac Sebeso
identify any prob2. What had Paulina’s life been like before coming to Golema Mmidi?
3. What “terrible mistake” does Paulina think she had made?
lems they might have
4. What advice does Mma-Millipede give Paulina about her relationship to Makhaya?
5. Why does Makhaya want to forget his “old life” in South Africa? How is it different had. In addition, students are also asked
from his new life in Golema Mmidi?
6. Why is Maria jealous of Makhaya?
to summarize chap7. Why does Gilbert want to marry maria so quickly?
terspage by page to
8. How does Paulina feel when she heard the news that Maria and Gilbert were getting
reinforce what theymarried? Why does she feel this way?
40

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

Figure 3 Sample of Weekly Worksheet: Activity 7 and 8.
IV. Read In Detail
Activity 7 With the information from Survey and the questions from Question in mind, read Chapter 5 carefully.
Try to read them from start to ﬁnish without stopping. Do not stop to use your dictionary or to answer
the questions.
V. Recite
Activity 8 Now, read the chapter AGAIN. After each page, stop, think, and then write a summary of the MAIN
POINTS of that page. Repeat this with each page of the chapter. Don’t translate the story word for word.
Include in your summaries only the most important information form the story.

ing to synthesize what they have read into
Japanese. Since I cannot read the Japanesesummaries, my assessment is based on how
much they write. I can only hope that what
they have written is satisfactory. With this inmind, I still have not decided whether summarizing in English or Japanese is most beneﬁcial. Therefore, I leave it to the students todecide what they feel is best for them.
Activity 9 of the worksheet asks the students to ﬁrst discuss and then write answers
to the questions from Activity 6 as a group.
When answering the questions, students are
asked to only use the summaries they have

have learned. These summaries are an important part of the later step of Review.
Activity 8 of the worksheet has students
read the chapter carefully through one time.
Then, they read the chapter again. This time,
students stop and write a summary after eachpage. I have them close their books while
they are writing so that they are using what
they learned and not copying from the book.
I don’t demand that students write their notes
in English or Japanese. I encourage themto write in English because I feel that helps
reinforce new vocabulary; however, I do feelthat some students beneﬁt greatly from hav-

Figure 4 Sample of Weekly Worksheet: Activity 9.
Activity 9 Question Discussion In groups, discuss the questions from Activity 6. Use the summaries from Activity 8
to help you answer the questions. AFTER you have ﬁnished discussing all the questions, write your answers below.
Try to use your own words and do not copy sentences from the story.
Chapter Five
1. Who are these people? Write a description of each.
-Paulina Sebeso_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-Lorato Sebeso______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-Isaac Sebeso______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. What had Paulina’s life been like before coming to Golema Mmidi?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

41

From the Chalkface: Bingham

Chapter 5: Page 26____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

Figure 5 Sample of Weekly Worksheet: Activity 10.
Activity 10 Work with your group and make 2 guesses about what you think MIGHT happen next in the story. Useyour imagination and be creative!
Guess 1

From the Chalkface: Bingham____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 6 Sample of Weekly Worksheet Activity 1, 2, and 3.
I. Recite and Review
Activity 1 WITH YOUR GROUP, review the notes you wrote and the answers to the questions on last week’s print.
Activity 2 WITH YOUR GROUP, each person read out loud the guesses they wrote on last week’s print.
Activity 3 WITH YOUR GROUP, review your New Word Lists from Chapters 1-4.

the Review activities are at the beginning of
the worksheet. Activities 1, 2, and 3 ask thestudents to simply review the summaries,
question answers, and New Word Lists fromthe previous week. Students then take turns
reading their summaries out loud while theother members of the group listen and add
any important information they might havemissed.

written. This helps reinforce the importanceof good note taking and the need to read thetext carefully.
In Activity 10, students practice inferencing skills by using their imagination to makeinferences as to what will happen next in thestory. At ﬁrst, many students hesitate to do
this because they are concerned with having
the “right” answer. Once they understandthat there are no “right” answers, most students come up with very imaginative andwell-thought-out guesses.

Assessment
As outlined above, the course requires a
lot of work from the students. Each week
students complete two major pieces, thereading journal and the weekly worksheet.
Assessment of this work requires quite a bitof work on the part of the instructor.
Reading journals are given points forquantity and quality. Quantity is simply how
much the students complete. Quality is asubjective grade that depends on the activity.
For the New Word List, I look at the variety
of vocabulary students choose for their new
words and related words. I also look at their
original sentences and try to determine howmuch effort they put into writing sentencesthat demonstrate their understanding of theStep 5: Review
The last step in SQ3R is Review. This isboth a post-reading activity and a pre-reading activity because it is done at the endof a reading session and at the beginning.
Students should always try to use what they
have learned in previous chapters to help
them understand that they are going to readin the next. By using Review as both a postreading and pre-reading strategy, the students
are constantly reinforcing newly acquiredmaterial. I have found this circular approachis effective in maintaining long-term acquisition of newly acquired material. Therefore,
42

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUEto me, a handful of students give signs thatthe work might be a bit excessive. However,by the fourth or ﬁfth week, students become
accustomed to the work load and few haveproblems ﬁnishing their assignments.
In addition to their being able to ﬁnish thework, the best indicator I have that I am notasking too much are the students’ responses
on post-course surveys. In these surveys, only
a few students say the work was too much tohandle each week. The vast majority say thatthe course was tough and they spent much
more time doing homework in this classcompared to their other classes. However,they also acknowledge that through this hard
work, they feel a sense of accomplishment
and that their reading ability has improved.
With an average increase of one reading level
over the 12-weeks, post-course results of the
EPER Placement/Progress Exam conﬁrm thestudents’ impressions.

Reﬂections

Edinburgh Project for Extensive Reading.
(1994). Edinburgh Project for Extensive
Reading Placement/Progress Test A.
Edinburgh: IALS University of Edinburgh.
Edinburgh Project for Extensive Reading.
(1995). Edinburgh Project for Extensive
Reading Placement Test B. Edinburgh:
IALS University of Edinburgh
Head, B. (2002). When Rain Clouds
Gather (as retold by Tarner, M.). Oxford:
Macmillan Heinemann ELT.
Kemper, D., Meyer, V., & Sebranek, P. (1992).
Writers Inc. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heathand Company.
Robinson, F. P. (1970). Effective study (4thed.). New York: Harper & Row.

References

I have outlined the curriculum for the
freshmen reading class that I am currently
teaching. This curriculum combines both an
Extensive and Intensive Reading approachthat not only allows students to pursue the joyof reading through graded readers, but alsoteaches valuable strategies for dealing withmore difﬁcult reading material. I have used
this approach for several years and am verysatisﬁed with the improvements the students
have made in reading level, attitudes towardreading in a foreign language and their ability
to cope with challenging reading material.
Having said this, I have to acknowledge
that this approach asks a lot from both thestudents and me. During the course I am always asking myself, “Is it too much?” During
the ﬁrst few weeks of class, as students are
getting used to the class, their classmates, and43

From the Chalkface: Bingham

word’s meaning. Due to time constraints, it is
difﬁcult to give much more than a point gradeon the Journals. However, while students areworking on their weekly worksheets in class,
I take time to have student conferences inwhich I give more personal evaluations of
their journal entries.
The weekly worksheets are marked in twostages. After completion, worksheets arehanded in and I check everything except for
the answers to the questions in Activity 9. At
the beginning of the following week’s class,
the worksheets are handed back to students
to use in the Review activities (Activities 13) on the current week’s worksheet. As they
are reviewing the answers, students have an
opportunity to compare their answers to theirclassmates’ and add anything they feel is necessary. At the end of class, I give an answer
sheet which the students use to self-correct
their answers. The students then re-submit
the worksheets for a ﬁnal grade.

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

Conference Review: Ockert

Conference Review
Highlights of JALT CALL 2006
Looking Forward to JALT CALL 2007
David Ockert
Shinshu University
are now designing and administering theirown placement and progress assessments
using inexpensive servers equipped with
free, open-source software. They related
how one university has used a ﬁfty-question
English placement test to place more than
1,000 freshmen university students into threelevels of general English courses. Those of us
with wireless notebooks were able to try thisonline test consisting of thirty listening items
and twenty vocabulary and reading items.
While my results remain conﬁdential, it was
deﬁnitely worthwhile to learn about this facetof education since many teachers rarely comeinto contact with what is otherwise considered an administrative procedure.
Another Saturday presentation was Designing Digital Repositories for File Exchange by Andrew Johnson. In his presentation, Johnson showed the audience members
how to manage a variety of ﬁles such as web
pages (.html), documents (.doc), presentations (.ppt), photos (.jpg), audio recordings(.mp3), video clips (.mov), interactive activities (.php), and whole courses from learning
management systems such as Moodle (.zip).
Johnson began by outlining the design process of an open source digital repository for
language teachers that was started in early
2006. We had the opportunity to use thesystem and discuss the implications of copyright, server requirements, and how to search

The CALL SIG conference, Designing
CALL for Wired and Wireless Environments,
was held on June 3 – 4, 2006 at Sapporo
Gakuin University, a modern campus located just minutes from downtown Sapporo.
This year green grass, deciduous trees, coolbreezes, and blue skies welcomed our modern technology, wireless communication
devices, and software to Sapporo for the
CALL SIG conference.
On Saturday, registration began early—
managed excellently by a team put together
by Elaine Gilmour. Several new books wereon offer including the ofﬁcial proceedings ofthe 2005 conference, Glocalization: Bringing People Together, edited by the CALL
SIG coordinator and conference chair, Timothy Gutierrez. The Changing Face of CALL,
the 2001 Conference Proceedings, wasanother popular sell. Additional books, videos, audio-cassettes and learning materials
were on display from Cambridge University
Press, Lexxica/Navisona, Pearson Longman,
and Thomson Learning. Workshops began
promptly at 10:00 and ended at 17:00, withmore than twelve selections running concurrently. Fantastic! It made one wish they
could be in two places at once.
The Saturday morning speakers included
Tim Grose and Don Hinkelman, who presented Open Source Placement Testing. They
examined the fact that several universities
44

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUEThe 2006 conference also provided a venue for planning this year’s event. Saturday’slunch was an opportunity to meet with theother SIG ofﬁcers to plan the calendar. The
2007 Conference Chairs are Glenn Stockwell, editor of The JALT CALL Journal, Paul
Lewis and Timothy Gutierrez. We have put
together an experienced team of professionals to make this year’s event the best ever.
The Keynote Speaker will be Mike Levy,
Associate Professor, School of languages
and Linguistics, Grifﬁth University, Australia. Professor Levy has authored numerous books including Computer Assisted
Language Learning: Context and Conceptualization (Oxford University Press); CALL
Dimensions: Options and Issues in Computer
Assisted Language Learning with Glenn
Stockwell (Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates); and the co-editor of Teacher Education in Call published by John Benjamins.
Also, Professor Yasunari Harada, Faculty ofLaw, Waseda University will be the Plenary
Speaker. Professor Harada is director of theInstitute for Digital Enhancement and Cognitive Development. He co-authored Studies in
Korean and Japanese Linguistics and Natural Language Processing (WIT, Inc.).
Due to the central location in Tokyo
this year, the event organizers anticipate alarger than average turnout and encourage
all interested to please make arrangements
for accommodations as soon as possible.
We are very excited about this year’s eventwith so many wonderful presentations,friendly faces, and of course, lots of useful
information to take home with you. Finally,members interested in joining us in Tokyo,
joining the CALL SIG or inquiring about
any of our many publications and related
events, please visit our website at <www.
jaltcall.org>. Looking forward to meeting
you in Tokyo!
45

Conference Review: Ockert

for the various ﬁles held on the system.
The last presentation I attended was given
by Robert Chartrand and Bill Pellowe on theuses of the popular iPod and how incorporating podcasting into the syllabus beneﬁts
students. They began with a demonstration of
their own podcast, explaining how it is usedin the classroom. The idea behind podcasts,in their opinion, is that language learning
does not stop in the classroom; therefore, using portable MP3 players allows for mobility
thus enhancing the opportunities for exposure
to the target language in a variety of settings
including while bicycling or walking, riding
the train or subway, working at a computeror sitting in the library. Since podcasts canbe made from any audio source, they offer
authenticity from a wide variety of material
readily available on the internet. This wasa wonderfully informative presentation for
those who have not yet considered using podcasts. We were encouraged to take advantageof this practical application of technology asboth a unique source of listening material
and a way to recycling listening materials
that have already been taught.
While the day was packed with intellectually stimulating and pedagogically interesting workshops, the real treat was the Saturday evening buffet arranged by site co-chair,Seiichi Miyamachi. The cuisine included
smoked salmon, crab, lamb, melon, and theunique Otaru beer—produced in Sapporo.
Great job, Seiichi—we loved it!
Finally, Sunday’s events began with akeynote address by Josef Colpaert. In addition to being a professor at the Universityof Antwerp, he also edits the CALL Journaland serves as Director of R&D for the Lingualopolis Language Institute. He spoke on
the transition from Blended to Distributed
Learning: The Importance of Pedagogybased Speciﬁcation.

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

Ofﬁcers’ Reports

CUE SIG News
Ofﬁcers’ Reports

From the Coordinator
I am pleased and honored to take the baton from Out-going CUE SIG Coordinator
Phil McCasland who will be taking over as
JALT National Director of Programs. Philhas been working extremely hard over the
past four years, wearing many volunteer hats
as he became more and more involved at thenational level. I wish him well, and hope hewill stay in touch with CUE as a Memberat-Large ofﬁcer.
After several years of dedicated, nighHerculean effort, Mike Hood will be stepping down from his position as Publications
Chair. Mike has generously offered to assist
incoming chair Dexter Da Silva as OnCUE
transforms into The OnCUE Journal thisfall. Etsuko Shimo has joined as a Memberat-Large, as well as the editor of the newquarterly e-mail newsletter YouCUE. We also
have a new treasurer in Terry Fellner, whowill help CUE maintain its strong ﬁnancial
standing during the upcoming year. Steve
Quasha, who limelights as the JALT National
Chapter Liaison, is assisting as a Co-chair of
the 2007 CUE Conference.
I would like to give my thanks to Juanita
Heigham (Membership Chair, 2007 CUE
Conference Co-Chair) and Tim Micklas(Program Chair, Chalkface Editor), who willboth stay on as ofﬁcers for the upcoming
year. I would also be remiss without thanking

Joseph Falout, Keith Ford, Stephen Snyder,and Stephen Ryan, for their assistance as
OnCUE research digest editor, opinion andperspective editor, reviews and cyberpipeline editor, and proofreader coordinator,
respectively.
This year, CUE hopes to provide continuing support to college and university educators throughout Japan by redoubling our efforts to improve the quality and timeliness of
our SIG publications and by offering publicforums such as the 2007 CUE Conference
for SIG members to present and meet othereducators with similar interests.
However, as a 100% volunteer organization, CUE only functions effectively throughthe efforts of each of its members. Would
you like to help? If you would, here are a
few suggestions:
1. Become a proofreader or reviewer for
OnCUE.
2. Help address, stuff, and mail envelopes for
OnCUE and other SIG publications.
3. Help out with the upcoming 2007 CUE
Conference
4. Share your ideas about how to publicize
and spread the word about CUE SIG
5. Donate an hour or two of your time at theCUE desk during national conferences
6. Write a research, review, or classroom46

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

From the Conference Co-Chairs

practice article for OnCUE
7. Assist with the CUE web page maintenancewith your technical savvy
8. Submit a presentation proposal for the2007 CUE Conference
9. Come to the CUE OGM at the 2007 CUE
Conference and the AGM at the JALT
2007 conference and join in!
If you would like to become more activein the CUE SIG, please visit our new website
at http://jaltcue-sig.org and contact one of
the 2007 CUE Ofﬁcers. We look forward to
greeting new faces and making new friends
in Nagoya!
Matt AppleSIG Coordinatormapple@mail.doshisha.ac.jp

From the Programs Chair

From the Membership Chair

As Program Chair, it’s my job to contact
speakers for CUE events and conferences.
So, I am pleased to announce that Deryn
Verity (Osaka Jogakuin) will be giving aworkshop at the 2007 CUE Conference. Her
topic will be “Neo-Vygotskian psychology,”
and her workshop is sure to offer an interesting, thought-provoking experience for
conference participants.
I’m also currently the editor of the From
the Chalkface section of OnCUE, which publishes your classroom lessons and techniques.
Many of these activities are reproduced on
our old web site (there’s a link from the new
CUE web page). We’re always accepting
new teaching materials ideas, so please don’t
hesitate to contact me. We also hope to holda one-day mini-conference some time later
this year; the one-day mini will give you achance to demonstrate your own practicalclassroom projects. Check the CUE web site

Hello fellow CUE members! I’m Juanita
Heigham, the membership chair. I’ve been
watching over the ﬂock for the last two years,
and I’ve seen the numbers as high as 450 andas low as 325. We are one of the largest JALT
SIGs, but right now, we’re in a bit of a slump
with a current membership of about 340.
This means that we need YOU to encourage
your friends and colleagues to join or renew
with CUE. We’d like to get our numbers up
so that we can have a successful conferencein June (more about this below)! So, pleasespread the word. Thanks!
Juanita Heigham
Membership Chairjheigham@sugiyama-u.ac.jp

47

Ofﬁcers’ Reports

Greetings from Sugiyama Jogakuen University in Nagoya, the host site for the 2007
CUE Conference. We, Juanita Heigham
and Steve Quasha, are the co-chairs for thisupcoming event. The conference has been in
the making for several years, and it promises
to be very exciting. We have joined together
with Gifu-JALT, Nagoya-JALT and Toyohashi-JALT, and we expect great things fromthis joint venture. Like all CUE conferences,
this one is focused on you and giving you theopportunity to develop yourself professionally as well as to expand your professional
network in a comfortable environment. It
will be a great chance for you to learn andhave fun! For more information see the conference website <http://jaltsig-cue.org>.
We hope to see you in June!

Spring 2007: Volume 15, Issue 1

On CUE

From the Treasurerfor information in the near future.
Lastly, I hope to see you at the 2007 CUE
Conference. I'm really looking forward toworking with CUE members old and new.

I am pleased and excited to be involved
with the CUE SIG this year as Treasurer
and look forward to coming year. I was a
bit surprised to discover how much money
CUE actually had when I took this positionin November but believe that the amountprovides us with a solid ﬁnancial base to bevery active in the coming year. When theﬁnancial year started in April 2006, CUE had

Ofﬁcers’ Reports

Tim Micklas
Programs Chairtmicklas@yahoo.com

1,228,224 yen in reserves and its postal account.
The largest expenses have been making a donation to JALT’s new Splash Database (400,000yen) in December, paying for the Miyazaki
2005 conference proceedings (174,200 yen) in
October, printing costs of ON CUE (96,000 yen)in October and the honorarium of our featured
speaker, Sarah Cotterall, at JALT 2006 (50,000).
All told, money well spent.

From the Publications Chair
It is with pleasure, mixed with some trepidation, to be taking over from Mike Hood as
the Publications Chair – pleasure to be working with the CUE team and to be contributing
more to CUE and to JALT, and trepidation
because I’m aware that I do not know what I
don’t know. This fear is somewhat moderatedby Mike’s willingness to provide guidanceover the initial period of transition. However,
perhaps I should apologise in advance forany problems that may arise.
I do not envision any sudden revolutionarychanges in the format or content during thetransition, but rather slow evolutionary ones,
as they appear necessary or worthwhile.
The quality of a journal depends largely on
the quality of the contributions it receives, so
one of my duties will be to continue to attract
a variety of interesting, top quality papers.
I ask for your support with this and for any
suggestions that may enhance the quality of
The OnCUE Journal.
I look forward to meeting many of youat the CUE Conference in Nagoya, and toreceiving your contributions to The OnCUE
Journal in the future.

As I mentioned this coming year promises
to be a busy one. Currently our ﬁnancial balance is 862,779 yen including our reserve
funds. I expect our expenses to largely comefrom setting up CUE’s new website and the2007 CUE Conference in Nagoya at Sugiyama Jogakuen University on June 23rd &24th, the ON CUE journal and the sponsoringof two CUE members to JALT 2007 Conference in Tokyo.
Terry Fellner
Treasurer
mark@cc.saga-u.ac.jp

Dexter Da Silva
Publications Chairdasilva@keisen.ac.jp

48