名古屋外国語大学論集第5号

2019年7月

Special Issue

The Core English Programme in the Schools of
Foreign Studies and World Liberal Arts
Nicholas BRADLEYThis paper has multiple purposes. Firstly, it is to provide an overview of the Core
English (CE) Programme at Nagoya University of Foreign Studies. Secondly,
by providing such an overview of the course it is hoped that other teachers andcourse leaders may gain ideas that might benefit their own programmes in someway. Additionally, as I am always looking for ways to improve the course,
providing this course summary will, hopefully, result in feedback through theprovided email address that allows me to develop the programme further.

1. The Fundamentals of Core English (CE)
Before discussing the different parts of CE it is necessary to first look at the
purpose and goals of the course. The course purpose is what should, and does,
drive all other considerations. This section will lay down the fundamental
assumptions and beliefs that underpin the course. This is done not only for
informative purposes, but as a course rationale that allows the means to better
understand and contextualize the more specific activities and other working parts
that will be detailed later.

1

Core English is a course taken by all freshman students within the Faculty ofForeign Languages. As of early 2019, this comprised the following departments:
Department of British and American Studies

Department of Chinese Studies

Department of English Language Teaching

Department of Japanese Studies

Department of World Liberal Arts

Department of French Studies

Approximately 800 students take the Core English course each year. TOEIC
scores among these students range from under 300 to over 900. Among thiscohort are students of different national backgrounds such as Brazilian, Peruvian,Filipino and Korean. With such a large and increasingly diverse student population taking the course, and with English proficiency levels ranging to such a
degree, it is clear that a more traditional language teaching approach based on
the acquisition of certain graded grammatical structures is not appropriate. An
approach that can still be relevant to students’ wildly different levels is required.
Such an approach will inevitably involve goals beyond the acquisition of certain
grammar points and vocabulary, as important as they may be.
It is at this point that other considerations become necessary, such as the language learning experiences and disposition of students. It goes without sayingthat students will enter university with different language learning experiences,diverse educational personas and attitudes to learning English. However, if one
is to make a needs analysis of the student cohort, it becomes clear that certain
commonalities exist and that they must be considered. The vast majority ofstudents taking CE will, for example, have come directly from a Japanese highschool and they will likely have been educated exclusively within the Japanese
education system. Again, differences between schools, teachers and boards ofeducation exist, and I do not wish to claim complete uniformity, but having
taught at several Japanese high schools, certain traits and beliefs are common.
2

The Core English Programme in the Schools of Foreign Studies and World Liberal Arts ■Such a conclusion is not my own. Any centrally controlled educational system
will inevitably develop its own characteristics and, for the Japanese school
system, these have been documented at length in numerous articles and books
from both Japanese and non-Japanese academics (Anderson, 1993; Azuma,
1998; Bradley, 2013; Cave, 2007; Goodman, 2007; Horio, 1991; Kobayashi,
1976; McVeigh, 2000, 2002; Yoneyama, 1999).
With regards to language learning, I would like to focus in particular on the styleof language teaching and the demeanour of students, the latter being partly aconsequence of the former. Students entering university will have most likely
studied English in high school classes that placed a huge emphasis on form.
This form is often drilled through heavily teacher-controlled separated inputs
and outputs that confine language use and remove any possibility of authentic
use. Focus is on language and not communication, something understandable
given that school teachers are largely guiding students towards examinations thatdemand knowledge of form and accuracy. The risk taking required in communication is often neither allowed nor encouraged as regurgitation of predetermined
set forms, rather than positive communicative outcomes, mark success.
With such a generalized assessment of incoming students’ English needs andlearning experiences, the following points are identified as course objectivesof CE:• To foster an attitudinal shift in the way students view English and language
learning.
• To develop fluent and confident speaking.
• To develop knowledge and awareness of certain content areas.
• To encourage students to reflect on their own language use.
• To learn new vocabulary and conversation strategies.

3

The goals on this list are listed in order of importance. The primary goal is anattitudinal shift from a passive, often can’t-do, attitude towards English to one
characterised by a growing ownership of English and a belief that English use
is neither an aberration that conflicts with one’s own identity (Aspinall, 2003;
Rivers, 2010) nor is it unachievable as may be believed by students pushed toreplicate native-speaker use (Holliday, 2006, 2013). Fixed views of identity canstifle language learning and interlocutions with intercultural Others (Bradley,2018a) and CE, therefore, aims to shift English away from attachment with aparticular group and clearly focus it in the minds of students simply as a skill
that, like all others, can be developed and learned through active use.
At this point it is necessary to mention the role of content. CE places greatemphasis on content as it is the discussion and development of content thatallows students to constantly engage with the language by placing it withinmeaningful communicative exchanges. A focus on content also fosters greater
cognitive maturity in students and a greater awareness of their language goals
and challenges (Lightbown, 2014). Though many, if not all, language courses
have a subject of discussion that provides a context for language use, this is
not the same as a focus on content. The role of content in CE is much more
central; developing content knowledge is as much a purpose of every unit as thedevelopment of language ability. Indeed, the very purpose of content is to drive
language learning by providing a real purpose for English use that removes asole focus on linguistic elements and places it firmly on meaning and successfulcommunicative acts. Without placing emphasis on content, this would be much
more difficult to achieve.
However, it would be wrong to characterize CE as a fully content based language
course. A purely content based approach has no predetermined language syllabus(Thornbury, 2006) yet CE contains elements which closely represent communi4

The Core English Programme in the Schools of Foreign Studies and World Liberal Arts ■cative language teaching (CLT). A glance at the materials will show that there issignificant scaffolding through graded readings, discussion prompts, vocabulary
work, discussion preparation sheets, conversation strategy development, and soon. It would, perhaps, be more accurate to describe Core English as a mix ofcontent based language teaching and CLT approaches.
The content is chosen to be interesting but also highly relevant to students. The
four subjects of the first semester are:
Unit 1 – University Life
Unit 2 – Food and Health
Unit 3 – Living Overseas
Unit 4 – Japanese Culture
The topics are also selected to be familiar to students and allow them to express
opinions and experiences relating to the topics, but also be deep enough to enable
students to learn new information, discuss things from different perspectives andengage in research to uncover additional aspects. Ultimately, content offers thepossibility of authentic and meaningful language use through the development ofknowledge and awareness of different subject matter. With focus on the subject
and not simply on linguistic elements, focus is firmly fixed on meaning and thesuccessful communication of information and ideas.

2. The Working Parts of Core English
Structure of a unit
Having detailed the rationale for the course, its objectives, and the approach thathas been chosen to work towards these, this section will present the different
parts of a CE unit.

5Each unit contains the following main parts:• Introductory discussion questions• Project brief• Reading 1• Checklist• Listening questions• Recording preparation sheet• Imaginary dialog sheet• Recording reflection sheet• Listening transcript• Reading 2
Each element of the unit is there to prepare for the next and to build upon whatcame before. This is true in terms of content knowledge and language. Each unit
is taught over six classes. An example of a typical skeleton unit plan for thesesix classes can be seen below.
1 Topic introduction. Discovering what is already known using the introductory discussion questions. Sharing initial opinions, views, etc.
2 Reading 1– comprehension work, content discussion, vocabulary work.
3 Listening – listening comprehension, discussion, conversation analysis.
4 Reading 2 – comprehension work, content discussion, vocabulary work.
5 Project – Students communicating their own research findings.
6 Quiz, imaginary dialog sharing, recorded conversations, conversationreflection.
As can be seen, the development of the content comes from the text, teacher
and the students themselves. Classes 2, 3 & 4 feature content information thatis presented to students via readings, video and audio clips. Classes 1, 5 & 6 are
student driven and focus on the sharing of information students already knowor have researched about the topic.
Several elements of the course have been highlighted in the skeleton unit plan
above. While all parts of the unit are there for a purpose and mutually support
other parts, the highlighted elements are especially important as they provide

6

The Core English Programme in the Schools of Foreign Studies and World Liberal Arts ■much of the impetus for the unit as well as being the course components (alongwith short quizzes) that are graded. The grading system will be discussed in moredetail later, but for now I will outline the key aspects of a unit.
The Recording and Reflection
Purpose• To reinforce content learning.
• To encourage fluency and the uptake of vocabulary and conversation strategies.
• To encourage students to be reflective of their own learning and language use.
• To highlight that effective language use is best judged by their performancein a communicative exchange of information.
The recorded pair conversation is typically 6 minutes long and features in the
final class of the unit. It is mentioned here before other unit elements because
it is the culmination of the unit in that it allows students to reflect on what they
have discussed in class. In the timed discussion, students endeavour to include
information from class texts, their own opinion, the opinions of others, as well as
information brought into class discussions by themselves and classmates throughthe unit research project or other means.
Though the recording itself is not graded by the teacher, students are required tocomplete a short reflection task for homework that is assessed. This reflection
task requires students to watch their conversation and comment on the level ofcontent they discussed, their use of language, their interaction with their partner
and to identify three particular areas in which their discussion could be improved.
Points are awarded on the level of substance and introspection students’ reflections demonstrate as well as the accuracy and appropriateness of their proposed
conversational/rhetorical changes.
7

Imaginary Dialogs
Purpose• (Preparation) To provide the chance for students to create a conversation on
the theme of the unit prior to the recording.
• (Review & Recycle) For students to use the vocabulary, content, conversation
strategies of the unit in a conversation of their own design.
• (Feedback) For teachers to assess how the unit language is used and givesome individual or class-wide feedback. Imaginary dialogs are particularly
useful for checking language because the language used is considered andwritten rather than spontaneous and spoken. Therefore, any language issues
that emerge from students’ work are likely to be errors rather than mistakes.
Errors indicate an incorrect understanding of function or form whereas mistakes, typically found in spontaneous production, are the result of real time
use where students know the correct usage but simply made a mistake during
production (Bradley, 2018b).
An example imaginary dialog (ID) is provided in each unit. This is given in
the form of a listening exercise and the accompanying script. Students workon the ID throughout the unit with the deadline being the final class. Working
on the ID throughout the unit allows students to add content, vocabulary andconversation strategies as the unit progresses, but also allows for constant editing
and reaffirming.
In the final class of the unit, as a final means of preparing for the recorded
conversation, students share their IDs in small groups. The sharing of eachother’s conversations prior to the recording not only primes students for theconversational task further for by reading through (usually) three conversationsof the topic, it also offers increased exposure to the vocabulary, conversation
strategies and content thereby increasing the chances of uptake. As part of this ID
8

The Core English Programme in the Schools of Foreign Studies and World Liberal Arts ■review, students provide comments to the writer on all aspects of the conversation prior to submitting to the teacher.
CE Project
Purpose• To encourage students to research independently.
• To supplement the content of class with material chosen and presented by
students• To give each student an individual bank of information to discuss in theirrecorded conversation.
• To encourage fluency and foster an understanding of language that places theeffective communication of meaning above a focus on form.
• To make students active and responsible participants in the development ofunit content.
All students receive the same project brief in the CE textbook and prepare theirpresentation out of class over the course of the unit. The briefs require students
to engage in independent research, but do so in ways that guarantee students
will be bringing very different information to class. First semester examplesof this are students researching the pros and cons of moving to live in different
countries (Unit 3), or interviewing an elderly member of Japanese society about
the cultural changes they have experienced in their lifetime (Unit 4).
Given that the project is a required part of every unit, students’ presentations
are typically short, being usually between 3–5 minutes depending on the brief
and class situation. Students use this time to clearly present their findings andrespond to questions.
To reduce the anxiety often associated with presentations, to increase language
9use and uptake, and to increase class cohesion, students give their presentation
multiple times on a one-to-one basis. In addition to the positives listed before,
this format also results in greater audience feedback, participation and questioning, as well as ensuring that all students are actively engaged at all times.
Following the presentations, students pair with a new classmate who saw entirely
different presentations and summarize the information they heard for their new
partner. All of this makes presentation classes extremely active and ensuresthe maximum value is achieved from students’ independent research in both acontent and language development sense.
The repeated nature of presentations affords teachers ample opportunity toview all student offerings and take notes for feedback on either a class-wide
or individual basis. As a graded element of the course, teachers focus on theappropriateness of content in terms of relevance and depth, and the degree towhich this is successfully communicated to the audience.
Grading
Assessment in CE strives to be formative at all times, even for methods that may
appear to be purely summative. IDs and presentations are assessed by teachers,
but also provide the basis for targeted feedback and the revisiting of specificpoints as needed; even vocabulary / content quizzes provide teachers with information on student uptake that can be addressed in subsequent classes of the unit.
As a course that is taken by many hundreds of students across different departments within Nagoya University of foreign Studies, there must be consistencyof grading. Although the grading focus of each assessed element has been
mentioned briefly in the sections above, extensive grading rubrics are available
for CE teachers in the course guide they receive. These rubrics cover each element of the course and offer teachers support and clarity in grading while also
10The Core English Programme in the Schools of Foreign Studies and World Liberal Arts ■ensuring a certain level of course-wide calibration that is needed for the greatest
level of fairness possible.

3. Outcomes
The outcomes of CE must be judged according to the goals the course set out
to achieve. Though there is always room for improvement and refinement, thefirst three years of Core English can be regarded as a success. A key goal of CE
is to change and develop students’ attitudes to English, English learning andEnglish use at a fundamental level. Rather than being receivers of language,
students have begun to own English and increasingly view it is a vehicle for the
expression of meaning. Evidence of this comes in multiple forms, but perhaps
the most salient barometer of success is direct student feedback. Both standardized university feedback surveys and bespoke CE feedback surveys strongly
identify CE as a course that students value highly and enjoy greatly. Ultimately,
the impact of the course can be seen in the students’ own words on the comment
papers they complete at the close of the course. In response to the simple question“What things were good about this class?” many replies similar to those shown
below were common.
You never denied what we said. Therefore, I could speak English with confidence. I was given reflection times, so I could find what’s my bad point andimprove it.
I could speak English with confidence because there were a lot of opportunities to speak English. I think getting used to is very important.
The lessons are interesting. Even if the topics are serious, the how it is wasinteresting. I like how the class is interactive.
We can use English proactively. Additionally, thanks to your explanation we
can easily understand for this class.
I gained confidence in my English. I like to talk with my classmate.
I had a lot of opportunities to talk with friends and teacher. I could improve
communication skills.
*Language used is the student’s own.
11

As can be seen, confidence was a word students often used indicating that thegoals of creating a can-do attitude and ownership of English are being met.
Students also often pointed to the interactive nature of classes and the large
amount of language use time as course aspects they particularly appreciated.
These views were not only expressed in post-course surveys; they were common
themes present in students’ comments after watching back their first and final
recorded conversations at the end of the course. Here, students could clearly
see their development in both their attitude towards English and their skill in its
use. This is even more the case when we consider the difference in difficulty ofthe subject matter berween their first and final recording; students talked about
university life and the switch from high school to university in their first recording, and the different strategies employed by advertisers in their final recording.
The first conversation I looked really nervous, the conversation wasn’t smooth,no reactions, sometimes stopped. The last recording we could talk smoothly,
react a lot. It is more like a conversation.
I got to speak English better without stopping. My reaction skills improved. I
could feel how my English skills have improved.
First recording I used a lot of Japanese such as etto, nayakke and something.
I think I improved. Now, I can talk to my friends smoothly. I’m happy to watch
my growth.
I’ve improved. Now, I speak more proactively than unit 1. Also, I became able
to help my partners. Conversation becomes smooth. At first, we used Japanese
a little, but now we can talk in English.
In the first recording, I watched paper because I didn’t have a confidence to
speak English. However, in the latest recording. I could decide what to say.
In the latest recording, we could start the conversation more naturally than
the first one with small talk. I came to expand the conversation.
Compared to our first speech, I improved a lot when it comes to pronunciation,
grammar and reactions. I was also able to speak without matching the levelof my partner. We are able to speak naturally.
*Language used is the student’s own.
12

The Core English Programme in the Schools of Foreign Studies and World Liberal Arts ■As I teacher, I wholeheartedly concur with the opinions expressed above.
Students’ growing comfort and confidence in using English is clearly visible.
By having English as the carrier of meaning in class and by placing greater
emphasis on successful communicative outcomes rather than correct use ofprescribed forms, students became active language users and develop a can-do
attitude. Although the uptake of vocabulary and conversation strategies aids inthis and were also developed over the duration of the course, the attitudinal shiftthat occurred is, in my view, paramount. By transforming their view of English
and seeing themselves as English users, and able ones at that, I believe CE sets
important ground work for all future English classes that students will takeduring their university careers and beyond.

References
Anderson, F. E. (1993). The enigma of the college classroom: Nails that don’t stick up. In P. Wadden(Ed.), Handbook for Teaching English at Japanese Colleges and Universities. pp. 101–110.
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Aspinall, R. W. (2003). Japanese nationalism and the reform of English language teaching. In R.
Goodman & D. Philips (Eds.), Can the Japanese change their education system? pp. 103–108.
Oxford: Symposium.
Azuma, H. (1998). Japanese collectivism and education. In S. G. Paris & H. M. Wellman (Eds.),
Global prospects for education: Development, culture and schooling. pp. 291–307. Washington
DC, American Psychological Association.
Bradley, N. (2013). International Posture and Cultural Nationalism among Japanese University
Students. TESOL International Journal, (8)1, pp. 70–98.
Bradley, N. (2018a). Essentialism in the concept of culture: Gauging belief. Journal of Intercultural
Communication (SIETAR), 21, pp. 55–76.
Bradley, N. (2018b). Error Correction Strategies and the Japanese University Context. Bulletin of
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies, 2, pp. 187–200.
Cave, P. (2007). Primary school in Japan: Self, individuality and learning in elementary education.
London: Routledge.
Goodman, R. (2007). The concept of kokusaika and Japanese educational reform. Globalisation,
Societies and Education. 5(1), pp. 71–87.
Holliday, A. (2006). Native-Speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), pp. 385–387.
Holliday, A. (2013). ‘Native speaker’ teachers and cultural belief. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers(Eds.). Native-speakerism in Japan. pp. 17–28. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

13

Horio, T. (1991). A Japanese critique of Japanese education. In B. Finkelstein, A. E. Imamura & J. T.
Tobin, (Eds.). Transcending stereotypes: Discovering Japanese culture and education. Yarmouth:
Intercultural Press.
Kobayashi, T. (1976). Society, schools and progress in Japan. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
McVeigh, B. (2000). Education reform in Japan: fixing education or fostering economic nationstatism? In J. Eades, T. Gill & H. Befu (Eds.). Globalization and social change in contemporary
Japan. pp. 76–92. Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.
Lightbown, P. M. (2014). Focus on content-based language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Rivers, D. (2010). National identification and intercultural relations in foreign language learning.
Language and Intercultural Communication. 10(4), pp. 318–336.
Thornbury, S. (2006). An A-Z of ELT. Oxford: Macmillan.
Yoneyama, S. (1999). The Japanese high school: Silence and resistance. London: Routledge.

14