Research Digest

The European Language Portfolio in a
Japanese University
Paul Wicking
Meijo University
The European Language Portfolio (ELP) was conceived and developed alongside theCommon European Framework of Reference for languages (CEFR) as a tool for enhancing,guiding and reporting on levels of language attainment. In some situations it successfullyraised student motivation and autonomy, by fostering independent study and directing
learner progress. With the acceptance and spread of the CEFR beyond Europe and into
Asia, an investigation into the use of the ELP in an Asian context is warranted. This paper
reports on a study into the implementation of the ELP in a university in Japan. Students
used the portfolio for one semester, and then answered a questionnaire survey to give theiropinions about the portfolio. While the results of the questionnaire showed mixed reactions
in regard to its value for students, some important insights were given that will prove helpful
for those wishing to develop a language portfolio in their own educational context.
ヨーロッパ言語ポートフォリオ (ELP) は、言語技能の向上、指導、および記録の手段として、ヨーロッパ言語共通参照枠 (CEFR) と共に着想され発展してきた。ELPを用いて自主的な学習を効果的に促すことによって、学習者の意欲や自律性を向上させることに成功した例もある。今日CEFRがヨーロッパを越えアジア地域にまで普及している現状を鑑みると、ELP導入に関する調査、研究の範囲もアジア地域に拡張していくことが求められよう。そこで本稿では、日本の大学で実施したELPの導入とその分析結果について報告した。一学期間ポートフォリオを使用した学生を対象にアンケートを実施し、感想や意見を収集した。ポートフォリオが学生から高評価を得たとは言い難いが、本研究によって得られた知見は、今後ランゲージ・ポート
フォリオを開発、導入したいと考えている英語教育者にとって重要な一助となろう。

The European Language Portfolio (ELP) has been used for over a decadethroughout Europe as an effective tool for promoting language learning. The
two main functions of this document are evaluative and pedagogical. It aims to39

Wicking

formally record learning and intercultural experiences of diverse kinds and also
to provide direction and purpose for future language study. Both teachers andlearners have reported benefits from using the ELP, in such areas as fostering
student autonomy, raising awareness of the language learning process, building
motivation, and providing clarity and focus to language curricula.
This paper will explain the rationale behind developing a Japanese version of
the ELP, called the Japanese Language Portfolio (henceforth, JLP). A descriptionof its development and implementation will also be given. Student perceptions
regarding the language portfolio will be presented and discussed, which will
provide the foundation for making some practical suggestions for using a language
portfolio with Japanese learners.

The Rationale Behind Developing a Japanese
Language Portfolio

The ELP is based upon the Common European Framework of Reference for
languages (CEFR), and functions as a tool to help contextualize the CEFR into
local educational environments. It was originally piloted from 1998 to 2000 in a
number of European states. The final report of the pilot project stated, “the ELP,
in a variety of forms, has proven itself a valid and innovative pedagogic tool. It
helped improve both process and outcome of foreign language learning under
widely differing pilot conditions” (Scharer, 2000, p. 9). Since then, subsequent
research has shown the ELP to have a positive effect on motivational orientations(Glover, Miric & Aksu, 2005; Sisamakis, 2006), promoting learner autonomy(Gonzalez, 2009; Little, 2009), and enabling students to function actively andindependently (Yilmaz & Akcan, 2012). O’Dwyer (2009) introduced the ELP toa Japanese university class and also reported a positive effect on learner autonomy
and motivation.
The rationale behind developing a Japanese version of the ELP is twofold.
Firstly, the present socio-cultural and educational context of Japan appears ripe
for such an innovation. As the Japanese Ministry of Education (MEXT) is
pushing toward an educational system that promotes internationalization and“Global Human Resources” (MEXT, 2010), increasing attention is being given
40The ELP in a Japanese University, OnCUE Journal, 9(1), pages 39-49

to developing practical English abilities that can be used in a plurilingual andglobalized world. However, previous plans of MEXT have been criticized as being
divorced from classroom realities and lacking in practicality. Hato argues thatthose plans were “ill-defined” and “impractical” (Hato, 2005, p. 46), due to thefact that there is no valid framework for describing and assessing L2 attainment.
Moreover, in most English programs there is simply not enough hours ofclassroom instruction available to achieve those goals (Fukuda & Yoshida, 2013).
These two challenges of a lack of clear goals and a lack of time can potentiallybe addressed by a language portfolio. O’Dwyer (2009) writes,
The ELP can bring learners incrementally toward the goal of life-long language
learning, by highlighting the exact whats, whys, and hows of learning throughself-assessment and goal-setting. In short, it creates a focus and transparency
missing in most communicative language courses. (p. 19)
The ELP takes the internationally recognized levels of the CEFR and applies
them as clear goals to the language classroom. Concerning lack of class time, themost obvious answer is to increase the time outside of class that students spend
studying English. One way to do this is to increase motivation and autonomy. In
the European context, an ELP has been successful in both these areas (Glover etal., 2005; Gonzalez, 2009; Little, 2009; Sisamakis, 2006).
The second reason for developing a JLP lies with the growing acceptanceof the CEFR as a global standard. Most course books from large international
publishers (such as Oxford, Cambridge, Cengage and Macmillan) are now rated
according to their CEFR level, and in second language assessment discourse the
CEFR is referred to with increasing regularity. For educators in Japan faced withthe growing influence of the CEFR, a tool to take that framework and apply it to
the classroom in practical ways will prove invaluable. A language portfolio that
performs the same function as the ELP but is tailored to address the unique needsof Japanese learners could make a valuable contribution in this area.

41

Wicking

Language Portfolio Development and
Implementation

Following the principles outlined in Schneider and Lenz (2000), a JLP wasdeveloped for use in a Japanese university. It has two basic functions: a pedagogic
function and a reporting function. The pedagogic function has three purposes.
Firstly, to motivate students to improve their language skills and seek newintercultural experiences. Secondly, to help learners plan, undertake and reflect
on their learning autonomously. Thirdly, to encourage learners to enhance theirintercultural experiences through travel, reading, media and projects (Schneider& Lenz, 2000).
The reporting function aims to comprehensively document the student’s
language ability and intercultural experiences. It includes items such as TOEIC
scores, school certificates and awards. Other kinds of evidence that suggest
intercultural competence are also documented, such as participation in homestay
programs, intercultural friendships, volunteer work abroad, etc. (Schneider &Lenz, 2000).
Like the ELP, the JLP was divided into three parts: the Language Passport,
the Language Biography, and the Language Dossier. It was A4 size, containing 16
colour pages printed on high quality paper, with an attractive design. Instructions
were provided in English and Japanese. The main point of departure with the
ELP, however, was the self-assessment framework. Instead of the pure CEFR
descriptors, the CEFR-J descriptors were used (Tono, 2013). These descriptors
are firmly rooted in the CEFR, but aim to provide a more detailed breakdown ofproficiency levels that is better suited to Japanese learners.
Participants in the study were first and second year university students at alarge university in central Japan. They were all non-English majors, enrolled in acompulsory course of general English. The JLP was trialed in six classes, ranging
from basic to intermediate level (roughly CEFR A1 to B1).
At the end of one semester, questionnaires were collected from 125 students,
based upon the questionnaires used in Europe during the ELP Pilot Project
Phase (Scharer, 2000). The questionnaire consisted of seven questions using a42

The ELP in a Japanese University, OnCUE Journal, 9(1), pages 39-49

Likert scale and two free response questions. Descriptive quantitative analysis
was performed on the Likert questions. Students’ comments to free response
questions underwent qualitative analysis; the comments were coded after
multiple readings in order to uncover common themes and find patterns instudent opinions (Nunan & Bailey, 2009).
Students were given seven multiple response questions, with answers aligned
on a 5-point scale ranging from 5 = “strongly yes,” to 1 = “strongly no,” with 3 =“unsure.” The results are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Language Portfolio Student Questionnaire Survey N = 125
Percentage of responses

No

Strongno

Averagescore
out of 5

29.6

10.4

0

3.57

56.8

24.8

6.4

0

3.74

11.2

52.8

25.6

10.4

0

3.65

4. Does the Language Portfolio
stimulate you to participate more
fully in the language learning
process?

4

23.2

37.6

33.6

1.6

2.94

5. Do you think that the timespent on keeping your Language
Portfolio was time well spent?

7.2

39.2

36

16.8

0.8

3.35

6. Do you think all learners
should be encouraged to keep a
Language Portfolio?

6.4

27.2

46.4

17.6

2.4

3.18

7. Does keeping a Language
Portfolio help you to do selfstudy outside of the classroom?

7.2

37.6

32.8

20.8

1.6

3.28

Strongyes

Yes

Unsure1. Does the Language Portfolio
allow you to show what you can
do in English and other foreign
languages?

7.2

52.8

2. Does the Language Portfolio
help you see progress in learning?

12

3. Does the Language Portfolio
help you assess your competence?

Question43

Wicking

Generally, the data seem to show that students were slightly favorable
towards the language portfolio, tending to answer most questions in the positive.
However, in most responses over a quarter were “unsure,” and this increased toalmost half the responses in Question 6 (46.4%), which asked, “Do you think alllearners should be encouraged to keep a language portfolio?”. The most positive
feedback concerned students being able to see progress in learning (Question 2)
and being able to assess their competence (Question 3).
The final two questions allowed students to freely express their opinions.
Question 8 asked, “What do you like best about your language portfolio?” while
Question 9 asked, “What do you like least about your language portfolio?” By far
the most positive response was that the JLP allowed students to understand theirown level of language ability (36 comments). “I can understand at a glance myown English ability,” wrote one student, while others wrote, “My language ability
is able to be looked at objectively,” and “I can get a general feeling for my practicalability.” Students said they appreciated being able to know their strengths andweaknesses, aided by the detail of the CEFR-J descriptors.
The second thing students liked best about their portfolio was that they
could show their language learning history (11 comments). One student liked
that “The results from past exams can be seen,” and another wrote, “I’m able tobring together everything I’ve experienced in English up until now,” and “[Thelanguage portfolio] makes it easy for me to look back and reflect on my English
study.” Many students had a sense of satisfaction in looking back over their pastlearning experiences, both within and without the formal education system, andseeing their progress.
The most common recurring comment as to what students liked least about
the JLP was that they didn’t understand it (16 comments). For example, “There
were a lot of difficult questions that I couldn’t understand,” “The basis for making
a [self-] assessment was too vague,” and “It was difficult to evaluate my own level
using the CEFR-J.” Other negative comments were made by students who didn’t
see the relevance of the JLP to their study. “I don’t think this is necessary for
English study,” wrote one learner, and another, “Because this is self-evaluation, it
doesn’t have any meaning.” A few learners commented that they would have put
44

The ELP in a Japanese University, OnCUE Journal, 9(1), pages 39-49

more effort into using the JLP if it had contributed to their final grades.

Discussion

The strongest claim that can be made from the questionnaire results is that thestudents in this study were “unsure” of the value of using the language portfolio.
Some students had doubts about their own ability to do self-evaluation, somefound the can-do statements difficult to understand, and in general, there
seemed to be a lack of understanding as to the reasons behind its use. However,the students who did understand the aims and objectives of the JLP affirmed
its utility for their own language learning, and expressed favourable attitudes
towards it. These students valued the JLP primarily because it allowed them tosee progress in learning. They could clearly record their current level of language
attainment, showing how far they had progressed while also pointing the way
to future learning objectives. Accordingly, the JLP helped to foster a sense ofachievement. This is a key area in which the JLP can make a positive contribution
to English education in Japan. The failure of English education to foster a senseof achievement is a major concern of some educators of late (Clark, 2010), while
Dörnyei argues that monitoring learner progress increases learning satisfaction(Dörnyei, 2001).
Just under half of the respondents said that time spent keeping their language
portfolio was “well spent,” indicating that many students do not attach muchvalue to the JLP. However, there was a great deal of uncertainty regarding student
opinions, as evidenced by the large proportion of “unsure” answers. In the future,
more care will need to be taken to clearly explain the function and purpose of the
JLP. As the experience of using an ELP in Finland indicates,
the teacher also needs to justify the benefits of reflection to the students andexplain why she is asking them to reflect on their learning and assess theircommunicative knowledge, skills and attitudes. Once the students realize
the purpose of reflection and self-assessment they have crossed the basic
motivational threshold for reflective activities in class. (Kohonen, 2002, p.
88)
The JLP piloted in this study will need to be refined in order to better fulfill
45

Wicking

the purposes for which it was created. Much care and deliberation needs to betaken in explaining the goals of the JLP, and in making evident the value of its
pedagogical and reporting functions. A few students admitted that because the
JLP didn’t contribute to their final grades, they lacked the necessary motivation
to use it to its full extent. Incorporating a JLP into the core components of alanguage course would provide the necessary extrinsic motivation for students
to get the most value from it, rather than just offering a JLP as an optional extra.
Students will also need to be trained in the process of self-evaluation. This
was a foreign concept for many of the respondents, and they struggled with it. To
help with that, it is recommended that students write in their JLP every lesson.
The teacher can tell students the learning goal at the start of the lesson, and thenstudents can check the corresponding can-do statement at the end of the lesson.
One student liked this process because “I can understand the goal of every lesson
and keep it in mind as I’m studying.” Of course, if the curriculum is not based on
CEFR-J descriptors, the portfolio developer could use the learning goals of his or
her particular language program.
And here is the crux of the issue – for any version of a Language Portfolio
to have a chance of success in Japan, it must be woven tightly through the fabricof the language program and not just sewn on to the outside as a patch. It needs
to consolidate all that the students are doing in class from lesson to lesson andfrom one semester to the next, as well as independent study and extra-curricularcross cultural experiences. The goals of the program need to be stated explicitly
and written clearly in the can-do statements, and students helped to evaluate
their own progress in achieving those goals. Without such tight integration, as
this study suggests and the European experience has shown (Little, 2014), any
language portfolio will not achieve the purpose for which it was created.

Conclusion

As educators in Japan turn their attention to building global citizens, the increasing
recognition of the importance of regional languages and plurilingualism havecreated a fertile environment for the development of a JLP. The ELP provides ahelpful platform for developing a portfolio tailored to address local and regional
46

The ELP in a Japanese University, OnCUE Journal, 9(1), pages 39-49

needs. From the point of view of students, the biggest challenges will be training
learners in the process of self-evaluation, and guiding them to appreciate its value.
As already noted, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to designing a language
portfolio. The challenge for teachers is to create a portfolio template that is
adapted to their unique teaching situation, while also adhering to a common
standard that is understood domestically and internationally. The JLP used in
the current study has made some contribution toward that end, but needs further
improvement.
However, as Little (2002) notes,
From a pedagogical point of view the ELP is a tool that can be used well orbadly, which means that empirical methods of evaluation cannot prove that
the ELP is a good or bad thing in itself. Evaluation can only focus on theeffectiveness of implementation, though this may draw attention to problems
in the design of particular ELP models. (p. 188)
It is quite possible that the success of a particular JLP would not be repeated in adifferent educational environment or with a different method of implementation.
Therefore, the focus of the present study is not to make a categorical statement
about the worth of language portfolios in the Japanese context, but rather togauge the effectiveness of one particular language portfolio, and so help makea contribution to future dialogue concerning the place of language portfolios inJapan.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Robert Croker and Joe Falout for their helpful comments
and advice. Any errors are my own.

References

Clark, G. (2010, August 17). Saving Japan’s universities. The Japan Times.
Retrieved from <http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2010/08/17/
commentary/saving-japans-universities>
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
47

Wicking

Fukuda, S., & Yoshida, H. (2013). Time is of the essence: Factors encouraging
out-of-class study time. ELT Journal, 67(1), 31-40.
Glover, P., Miric, I., & Aksu, M. (2005). Preparing for the European Language
Portfolio: Internet connections. Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education, 6(1), 84-98. Retrieved from <http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/
tojde/article/view/5000102865>
Gonzalez, J. (2009). Promoting student autonomy through the use of theEuropean Language Portfolio. ETJ Journal, 63(4), 373-382.
Hato, Y. (2005). Problems in top-down goal setting in second language
education: A case study of the “Action plan to cultivate ‘Japanese withEnglish abilities’”. JALT Journal, 27(1), 33-52.
Kohonen, V. (2002). The European language portfolio: From portfolio
assessment to portfolio-oriented language learning. In V. Kohonen &P. Kaikkonen (Eds.), Quo vadis foreign language education? (pp. 7795). Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere Department of Teacher
Education. Retrieved from <www.script.men.lu/activinno/portfolio/
kohonen_european_language_portfolio.pdf>
Little, D. (2002). The European language portfolio: Structure, origins,
implementation and challenges. Language Teaching, 35(3), 182-189.
Little, D. (2009). The European language portfolio: Where pedagogy andassessment meet. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Retrieved from<http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/elp/elp-reg/Source/Publications/
ELP_pedagogy_assessment_Little_EN.pdf>
Little, D. (2014, March). The CEFR from the perspective of the European
Language Portfolio. Keynote speech presented at the CEFR Web
Conference.
MEXT. (2010). The concept of global human resource development focusing
on the East Asian region. Central Council for Education, Working Groupon the Promotion of Globalizing Universities. Retrieved from <http://www.
mext.go.jp/english/highered/1303540.htm>
Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. (2009). Exploring second language classroom research.
Boston, MA: Heinle.
48

The ELP in a Japanese University, OnCUE Journal, 9(1), pages 39-49

O’Dwyer, F. (2009). Supplementing a task-based curriculum with the European
Language Portfolio. The Language Teacher, 33(3), 15-20.
Scharer, R. (2000). Final report: European Language Portfolio pilot project
phase 1998-2000. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Retrieved from<http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/elp/elp-reg/Source/History/ELP_
PilotProject_FinalReport_EN.pdf>
Schneider, G., & Lenz, P. (2000). European Language Portfolio: Guide fordevelopers. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
Sisamakis, E. (2006). The European language portfolio in Irish post-primaryeducation: A longitudinal empirical evaluation (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin. Retrieved
from <http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/Elp_tt/Results/PagEF/e12r.html>
Tono, Y. (Ed.). (2013). The CEFR-J handbook: A resource book for using can-do
descriptors for English language teaching. Tokyo, Japan: Taishukanshoten.
Yilmaz, S., & Akcan, S. (2012). Implementing the European Language Portfolio
in a Turkish context. ELT Journal, 66(2), 166-174.

Author Bio

Paul Wicking is an associate professor at Meijo University. He has been teaching
English in Japan for 12 years. His research interests include learning-oriented
assessment, task-based language learning and teacher beliefs. If you would like a
PDF of the JLP used in this study, please email the author at wicking@meijo-u.ac.jp
Received: March 10, 2015
Accepted: April 14, 201549