ISSN 2436-2204

多言 語 教 育
実践 ジャーナル

3

Vol.

MARCH 2023

JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGYAND PRACTICE目次 / Table of Contents【授業実践報告・Teaching Practice Report 】

Using Flip in an English Presentation Class With Japanese University Students
Adam Roarty

1

Andrew Tyner

8

Toward Student Autonomy in the English Discussion Classroom:
A Consideration of Non-Visible Timer Use in Discussions

Practical Approaches to Reducing the Reliance on Scripts Among English Presentation Students
Andrew Warrick

14

Devon Arthurson

21

Heather Woodward

34

Using Learners’ Video Recordings for Skills Development and Assessments

Examining the Unit 3 Goals of English Discussion Class

An Intelligibility-Based Approach: Teaching English Pronunciation Toward Comprehensibility
Ian Hart

43

James Carpenter

55

Jason Murray

62

Jon Mahoney72

Shared Inquiry and CLIL: A Teaching Practice Report

The Formulation of a Classroom Observation Instrument for Recording Purposeof Recording Error Correction in EFL Classes

How Masks Have an Impact on Communication

Identifying and Learning From a High-Intermediate Class Struggling From Foreign Language Anxiety
Jonathan Hennessy

87

Overcoming Barriers to Student Wellbeing in the Classroom:
Utilizing Universal Design for Learning Principles in Lesson Planning, Content, and Delivery
Matthew Alexander Hartley

96

Pleasure Reading: Incorporating CLIL Into an Extensive Reading-Based Course
Michael Peragine, Christopher Mattson 107
Opening Translanguaging Spaces: Facilitating Bilingual Development in an English Discussion Class
Omar Shelesh 124
Using CLIL to Design Elective University Courses
Tanya L. Erdelyi 138

投稿規定・Manuscript Submission Guidelines

145

執筆者・Authors

150【Teaching Practice Report】

Using Flip in an English Presentation Class With Japanese
University Students
Adam Roarty
Abstract
This paper details using the website and application, Flip, in an English presentation class with Japanese university
students. It was believed the tool would assist students in preparing for their presentations and also help overcome
feelings of anxiety about speaking in front of their peers. The week-to-week assignments are detailed as well asinterventions to maximize student engagement with the application. The use of the tool is then reflected upon, andrecommendations are made for its use in future English as foreign language classes with Japanese university
students.
Keywords: flip, EFL speaking, presentation skills, technology assisted language learning

Introduction
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for technology in education has become useful andessential. One such tool that has grown in popularity is Flip (formerly Flipgrid). Flip is a website anddownloadable application that can be used on a number of devices, including smartphones andcomputers. The main function is to record videos. This may therefore serve as a useful tool in foreign
language learning as students can practice their speaking skills. In Japan, opportunities to practiceEnglish as a foreign language (EFL) are often restricted by a largely monocultural environment. Thiswas further restricted by the closing of borders during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to thepandemic, Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) had
introduced reforms in EFL education shifting toward a more active, communicative approach, which
focused on enhancing students’ communication skills (MEXT, 2014). Central to these communication
skills is enhancing speaking fluency and confidence. Anxiety has been shown to be prevalent inforeign language learners as noted by Horwitz et. al. (1986), “any performance in the L2 is likely tochallenge an individual’s self-concept as a competent communicator and lead to reticence, selfconsciousness, fear, or even panic” (p.128 as referenced in Ohata, 2005). In particular, Japanese EFL
learners have been shown to be reticent to communicate and anxious about speaking English in frontof their peers (King, 2013). A number of factors may influence this reticence to speak English, suchas cultural norms, a lack of opportunities in school English classes as well as sensitivity toembarrassing themselves in front of their peers (Humphries, Burns & Tanaka, 2015). In this project,
the application Flip was utilized in an English presentation class at a Japanese university, with the aimof lessening student anxiety about speaking English in front of their peers and assisting students in
preparing for their in-class presentations.

Literature Review
The application Flip was used in this project as a number of previous studies have indicatedpositive results in utilizing this application to aid students’ speaking skills. For example, McClure &1

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

McAndrews (2016) found that Flip improved American university students’ public speaking skills.
Mango (2019) also showed that American students learning Arabic found Flip to be a valuable tool in
improving their listening and speaking skills. In an EFL context, McLain (2018) reported that South
Korean students felt more comfortable speaking English after a semester using Flip. In a study
exploring student perceptions of Flip in online courses, Lowenthal & Moore (2021) found thatstudents generally liked using the application, but some students commented that they did not feel
comfortable recording themselves. In particular, students noted that they had self-confidence issues
about being on camera, felt they had to look presentable, or felt they were “showing too much ofoneself” (Lowenthal & Moore, 2021; p.31). However, it is reasonable to assume that students withthese feelings of seeing themselves on camera would have self-confidence issues before speaking infront of their peers in class. Flip may therefore present a soft entrance to giving a presentation inclass as students are exposed to the feelings of nervousness that they may inevitably experienceduring the presentation. Prior to using Flip with Japanese EFL first-year university students, Petersen,
Townsend & Onak (2020) “assumed that many of the Japanese students would be shy about theirpeers watching their videos” (p.173) but “an unexpected result was the overwhelming student
approval of videos being watched by other classmates, both as a whole class or in small groupexercises” (p.173).
Flip, therefore, presented advantages both in being used as part of an online course and as asupplement to face-to-face classes. Due to the pandemic, it was not known if classes would be online
or conducted face-to-face; therefore, it was decided to use Flip as a tool in an English presentation
class with Japanese first-year university students. The tool offered flexibility in assisting both online
or face-to-face classes and had the potential to make students less anxious about delivering
presentations to their classmates either online over web-conferencing software such as Zoom or inperson in a face-to-face class.

Background Information
Flip was integrated into a first-year English presentation class at a university in Tokyo, Japan
from September 2021 to January 2022. The first 3 classes of the semester were online (conducted
over Zoom), and the remaining 11 (total 14 classes) were conducted face-to-face on campus. The
author was the instructor of six presentation classes, and Flip was used in all classes. The course was
mandatory for all first-year students, and in these six classes, students majored in a range of subjects,
including Law & Politics, Tourism, Community & Human Services, Economics, Sociology, andBusiness. Students varied in language abilities, with TOEIC scores ranging from 280 to 700. In termsof the Common European Framework of References for Languages (CEFR), this equates to levels A2
to B1. The textbook, Present Yourself 2: Viewpoints 2nd Edition (Gershon, 2015) was used in thecourse.

Implementation of Flip and Assignments
Prior to the first class of the semester, a group was set up for each class on Flip. In the first class,students were given the link to join the group and were shown the various functions of the tool,
including how to use the website and how to download the application. As this first class was online,
the instructor’s screen was shared and students were able to see the process of how to add a video.
2

USING FLIP IN AN ENGLISH PRESENTATION CLASS WITH JAPANESE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

The instructor recorded an example video for the first topic, a self-introduction, and students wereassigned the task of adding their self-introduction as homework. In their study with Japanese firstyear university students, Petersen, Townsend & Onak (2020) detailed that “students were prompted
to self-evaluate their videos before uploading them and to re-record videos for the purpose of
improving their English, content, accuracy, intonation and fluency” (p.173). Additionally, Alrabai(2015) found that a successful strategy for reducing speaking anxiety in EFL students was to giveopportunities for self-talk before they talked in real situations in class. Students were therefore
shown how to preview videos before uploading them to Flip and were encouraged to do this in order
to self-evaluate their performance. Students were subsequently given homework assignments torecord a video on Flip each week. Table 1 below shows the assignments for each week of the course.
Table 1
Weekly assignments on FlipClass

Assignment

1

Self-Introduction

2

Choose first presentation topic

3

Opener and introduction of presentation

4

Practice first presentation

5

Feedback on first presentation

6

Choose second presentation topic

7

Practice stressing important words

8

Practice second presentation (with slides in background)9

Feedback on second presentation (self/peers)

10

Feedback on second presentation (self/peers)

11

Choose final presentation topic

12

Practice final presentation (with slides in background)

13

Final presentation feedback

14

Course reflection

The tasks mainly concentrated on practicing presentations, reflecting on in-class presentations,and improving some specific presentation skills such as week three where students practiced making
an interesting opener and introduction, week six where they practiced stress and intonation, andweeks eight and twelve where they practiced presenting with slides in the background. A function of
Flip is that it allows students to set their screen as the backdrop, so students may view themselveswith their presentation slides behind them, thus mimicking an in-class presentation where theywould be standing in front of a screen showing presentation slides. These assignments built on
in-class activities where students were introduced to and practiced various presentation skills such as
controlling their voice, engaging an audience, making presentation slides, and using gestures.

Complementar y Activities
In addition to activities designed to develop presentation skills, a number of activities were usedin this course in an attempt to enhance the benefits of using Flip. These mainly centred on selfreflection, peer reflection, and strategy planning. It was believed that such activities would allow
students to become better self-regulated learners and further improve their English speaking
abilities and study skills.
3多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Self-Reflection
Zimmerman’s (2002) model of self-regulated learning includes three main phases: forethought,
performance control, and self-reflection. It is important that learners become aware of their own
strengths and weaknesses through reflective activities. Flip may aid learners in this regard. Firstly,
Flip allows students to preview their video before uploading to the application. This enables students
to self-evaluate their performance before peers or the instructor. Highly motivated students werelikely to make use of this opportunity; however, students with lower motivation may not spend asmuch time previewing and perfecting their videos. Yet, if these learners are to improve and become
more self-regulated learners, which may in turn increase their self-efficacy, it is important they
engage in some self-reflection. To ensure some self-evaluation took place, even in students with lower
self-motivation, students were given time in-class to reflect on their Flip videos. The following
questions were displayed on the board for students to discuss:
1. What was good about your video?
2. What do you want to improve next time?
Unfortunately, it was noted that many students did not fully engage with these questions and offered
only short answers such as “my video was good” and talked in very general terms. In order to realize
the benefits of self-reflection, students were given more specific examples of what they could identify
as a positive point or a point to improve. These were brainstormed with students and added as
examples after the questions:
1. What was good about your video? (for example, speed, volume, pronunciation, changing tone,
looking at the camera, using gestures, content etc.)
2. What do you want to improve? (for example, speak slower, louder, practice difficult words,
change tone, look at the camera more, use more gestures, prepare more interesting answers
etc.)
These examples offered students more opportunities to identify the specific points they were doing
well or could improve. Self-reflection was also integrated into the Flip assignments, with students
reflecting on their performance in the three in-class presentations (week 5, 9/10, and 13). As thisself-reflection became a key component of the course, it is hoped that students were able to become
more self-regulated learners as a result.

Peer-to-Peer ReflectionPetersen, Townsend & Onak (2020) noted that students were positive about their videos being
watched by classmates, and this activity was also integrated into this course. Students were placed
into groups of two or three students and asked to view their group members’ videos and then reflect
together by answering the following questions:
1. What was good about your group member’s video?
2. What should they try to improve?
As in the self-reflection activity above, students were also given possible points to focus on, such as
the speed, volume, pronunciation, changing tone, looking at the camera, using gestures, and content
of the video. Flip’s built-in speech recognition software offered a means for students to check thepronunciation by turning on the closed captions. Students were shown how to use this in class, but it
was stressed that the auto-generated captions would not be perfect, particularly for proper nouns
such as names or places. Yet, this tool offered students a useful gauge of whether their pronunciation
4

USING FLIP IN AN ENGLISH PRESENTATION CLASS WITH JAPANESE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

was problematic. Students could then identify difficult words and practice these to improve theirpronunciation. In the peer-to-peer reflection, students were asked to identify any words they could
not understand before turning on the closed captions. Then, they were asked to identify any words
different from the captions. This peer-to-peer reflection gave students the feeling of being watchedand evaluated, which was also done when they gave presentations in class. This activity also
encouraged students to complete the homework assignments as they knew they would be used in thesubsequent class.
Flip also allows for this peer-to-peer reflection to take place on the app as students can comment
on other videos. From the first week, students were encouraged to comment on other videos toincrease interaction opportunities with their classmates. However, few students did this. One reason
was that many students waited until the day of the class to upload their videos. Having noted this, andto encourage more peer-to-peer reflection, the deadline for uploading videos was changed to threedays before the next class from week seven. Students then had more time to watch other videos andadd comments. Adding at least one comment to another video was assigned as a task from week
seven. As in the reflective activity done in class, comments were initially often very shallow, such as“great” or “your video is nice”, so in week nine students were asked to reflect on this task with thefollowing questions:
1. What kind of comments have you received?
2. What did you think when you saw these comments?
3. What kind of comments would you like to receive?
Students reflected that they enjoyed getting positive feedback, but they would like to receive more
specific comments so that they knew the praise was genuine. By reflecting on the comments theyreceived and not the comments they had made, it was believed this activity would allow students tobecome more aware of how they could help classmates and subsequently how classmates could help
them by giving more constructive feedback in their comments.

Strategy Planning
In order to further increase engagement with Flip, students were also asked to reflect on how
they used this tool. It was hoped that students could then share some tips and troubleshoot any
issues as well as encourage students to develop more successful task strategies. Task strategies suchas time management and organizational strategies are another key component of Zimmerman’s(2002) model of self-regulated learning. In week six, students were asked to reflect on their strategy
for adding videos to Flip as well as the functions of the website or application that they had used andif they had experienced any difficulties using it. Students were then asked to plan the time they would
add their next video. While students were also told to ask if they had any problems using theapplication, some may have been reluctant to do this, but by giving some lesson time to reflecting on
how to use the tool, students were able to assist each other to become more competent users. In thislesson, students were also shown how they could add slides in the background of their videos as wellas other ways they could do this, such as using PowerPoint and uploading the video. The task inweek eight was to practice their presentation with the slides. At the start of lesson nine, students
were asked to reflect on whether they had successfully done this and what strategy they had used.
Through this task, some students were able to better understand different ways they could use Flipand its functions.

5多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Recommendations
Based on the use of Flip in this English presentation class, it is believed the tool had a positiveeffect on students’ English speaking skills. Firstly, it gave more opportunities outside class to actually
speak English. Secondly, it allowed students to make use of various functions such as the in-built
speak recognition software, which automatically adds closed captions to videos. Students could thencheck mispronounced words and improve their pronunciation. Additionally, students could practicepresentations in an environment closer to actually giving a presentation in-class. By recording thepresentation, students have the sensation of being watched, which adds an extra dimension compared
to practicing alone. Students are also able to watch themselves and edit their performance before
uploading the video, which can be highly useful in identifying issues such as speaking too quietly,
speaking too fast, or not changing tone. Students appeared to value the use of Flip in the course as
mentioned in their course reflection videos as the final assignment. This aligns with previous studies,
which showed that foreign language learners including Japanese EFL students indicated Flip can bea useful tool in improving speaking skills (Petersen, Townsend & Onak, 2020; Lowenthal & Moore,
2020; Mango, 2019). In order to maximize the benefits of using Flip, the following recommendations
are suggested:
1. Allow students time to share task strategies
2. Reflect on videos in class
3. Stage assignments in two phases: adding video and watching other videos
Firstly, it is important to give students opportunities to share and troubleshoot any issues they may
have when using the tool. Students may be reluctant to share any difficulties they have with theirinstructor, but further to that, students can explore the tool together and discover various ways tomake the most of its many functions. Secondly, by watching videos in class and reflecting on them,
students are encouraged to add their videos each week. and they may also realize the benefits of selfreflection, an important part of self-regulated learning. Peer-to-peer reflections can also give students
another perspective on their performance and further encourage task engagement. Finally, students
will have more opportunities for interaction and to receive constructive criticism from their peers if
the Flip assignment has two stages, add their own video and comment on other videos. These
recommendations will hopefully allow students to become more self-regulated learners, moredigitally competent and improving their listening and speaking skills.

Conclusion
Flip may be a useful tool for EFL instructors. It allows more interaction opportunities forstudents whether they are studying online or doing classes in a traditional face-to-face environment.
In particular, this may be beneficial to Japanese EFL students who have limited opportunities to use
English outside the classroom. The various functions of the tool make it well-suited to an English
presentation class, and it is believed that the students in this course benefited from its use. Moreresearch is needed to see how the strategies utilized in this course actually affected students’
speaking abilities and self-regulated learning, but it would seem that integrating Flip into an EFL
course could provide many benefits for students, particularly if integrated with various reflection
activities in the course, which allow students to engage in the process of self-regulated learning to aid
their progress.

6

USING FLIP IN AN ENGLISH PRESENTATION CLASS WITH JAPANESE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

References
Alrabai, F. (2015). The influence of teachers’ anxiety-reducing strategies on learners’ foreign language
anxiety. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 163-190. https://www.tandfonline.
com/doi/abs/10.1080/17501229.2014.890203
Gershon, S. (2015). Present Yourself 2: Viewpoints 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern
Language Journal, 70, 125-132.
Humphries, S. C., Burns, A., & Tanaka, T. (2015). “My head became blank and I couldn’t speak”:
Classroom factors that influence English speaking. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics,
2(3), 164-175.
Lowenthal, P. R., & Moore, R. L. (2020). Exploring student perceptions of Flipgrid in online courses.
Online Learning, 24(4), 28-41.
King, J. E. (2013). Silence in the second language classrooms of Japanese universities. Applied
Linguistics, 34(3), 325-434. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams043
Mango, O. (2019). Students’ Perceptions and Attitudes toward the use of Flipgrid in the Language
Classroom. In K. Graziano (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher
Education International Conference (pp. 1970-1973). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association
for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved October 20, 2022 fromhttps://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/207916/
McClure, C. & McAndrews, L. (2016). Going Native to Reach the Digital Natives: New Technologies
for the Classroom. 2016 ITAA Annual Conference Proceedings, 12, 8-10.n Retrieved fromhttp://lib.dr.iastate.edu/itaa_proceedings/2016/presentations/135
McLain, T. R. (2018). Integration of the Video Response App Flipgrid in the Business Writing
Classroom. International Journal of Educational Technology and Learning, 4(2), 68–75.
https://doi.org/10.20448/2003.42.68.75
MEXT. (2014). English education reform plan corresponding to globalization. Tokyo: MEXT.
Ohata, K. (2005). Potential sources of anxiety for Japanese learners of English: Preliminary caseinterviews with five Japanese college students in the US. TESL-EJ, 9(3), n3.
Petersen, J. B., Townsend, S. D., & Onak, N. (2020). Utilizing Flipgrid Application on Student
Smartphones in a Small-Scale ESL Study. English Language Teaching, 13(5), 164-176.
Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory Into Practice. 41.
64-70.

7

【Teaching Practice Report】

Toward Student Autonomy in the English Discussion Classroom:
A Consideration of Non-Visible Timer Use in Discussions
Andrew Tyner
Abstract
In this paper, I reflect on a small but impactful change to my lesson practice, namely, that I no longer display a timer
visible to students during either of the 12–20+ minute discussion portions of my English discussion lessons. My
focus is largely on the effectiveness of this practice in remedying certain shortcomings observed while using ahighly visible timer during discussions. I find that removing the timer from students’ view apparently improves
motivation and performance in the discussion (production) phase of the lesson. I explore relevant literature tobetter understand the effects observed, particularly in light of metacognition and student motivation, and conclude
that the use of a non-visible timer during discussion (production) phases is of significant benefit. I finally suggest
an avenue for additional research with regard to the effects I have informally observed, suggesting a connection torecent neurocognitive research.
Keywords: English discussion, student motivation, timing, metacognition

Introduction
In this paper, I shall focus on a small alteration to my classroom practice for English discussion
class. Namely, while I carefully monitor the timing of all parts of the lesson, I no longer display atimer that is visible to students during the two production, or discussion, phases of the lesson. At myworkplace, Rikkyo University, English discussion classes are 100-minute, once per week classes.
Each class has, on average, ten students. The lessons present students with skills (i.e., asking forreasons, giving opinions, giving different points of view, etc.), provide for skill practice, and allow for
production of skills during two extended discussion sections, each being multi-person and 12–20 ormore minutes in length. Each discussion is punctuated by periods of feedback1.
In all sections of the lesson, the expectations of what students should do are clear, through bothverbal and written instructions. Students have a specific time limit2 in most sections of the lesson.
Commonly, students hurry, say, to practice a given language skill as many times as possible in a shortperiod. However, in the longer discussions, the total time for which students are expected to speak issomewhat more flexible, with definite minimums, but with maximums defined more by available
class time and student skill level. Though the actual speaking time in discussions for any given class
may vary little from week to week, as both total class time and general lesson structure are more-orless fixed, from the Spring 2022 semester, I have made one very small but impactful change to theway in which expectations are communicated regarding the multi-person discussions. I have stopped
1 I have written on this feedback in detail elsewhere. Tyner, A. (2020) Self and Group: Dynamics of Reflection in Student-toStudent Feedback. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion 8, 65-70. In short, feedback in this context
consists of students self-assessing their discussion performance using a provided general framework, reporting that assessment
to their discussion partners, and receiving brief instructor feedback to reinforce their assessments or direct their attention to
any major deficits in skill use. The general intention is to foster students’ self-awareness regarding language use so that they
may be more self-sufficient, more autonomous in their process of improvement and growth as language users.
2 This limit is tracked using a timer visible to all students in the room.

8

TOWARD STUDENT AUTONOMY IN THE ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASSROOM:
A CONSIDERATION OF NON-VISIBLE TIMER USE IN DISCUSSIONS

tracking the discussion length with a timer visible to the students. Instead, I use a small stopwatchthat is visible only to me. This change, while minor in many respects, bears further discussion as its
effects have been both positive and significant.
In the past, prior to the start of the students’ lengthier discussion, I would announce specifically
how much time would be allotted for the discussion and, subsequently, track this time on a highly
visible timer. In many cases, this had a markedly negative effect, specifically, that of continuing thediscussions only to a point somewhat close to the end of the allotted time. If there were, for instance,
only a minute or two left, students would often hesitate to venture into a new idea or area ofconsideration, thinking, perhaps, that there was not enough time to do so effectively. Other times,
students might exhaust their initial ideas after only about half the time had elapsed and would thenseem demotivated by what they may have perceived as an overwhelming amount of remaining
discussion time.
In response to these issues, I continue to track the discussion times and ensure that they always
meet the minimum lengths set forth in the class syllabus as before; however, I remind students onlyof the minimum discussion time, and I use a stopwatch that is generally only visible to me. This has
the effect of virtually eliminating the first problem, encouraging students to continue sharing theirideas freely until we proceed to the next part of the lesson. The second problem, that of students
being demotivated by what they may perceive as an overwhelming amount of remaining discussiontime, has also, somewhat surprisingly, been much improved as well.
As encouraging as these observations may be, I must note a concern that I had prior to switching
to a non-visible timer for discussions. I pose this concern as a question: Is it possible, or even more
likely than in the past, that students’ more freely structured discussions (at least in consideration of
the fact that they are not actively working toward a definite ending of the discussion) may beinterrupted? Yes. In my experience, when using a non-visible timer, the discussions often areinterrupted, but they are interrupted as the students are actively engaged, as opposed to a beeping
timer that signals merely the official end to a discussion that has more-or-less ended already. So, in
so far as the period of meaningful engagement in discussion has been extended, I am comfortablewith the resultant need to interrupt discussions that might otherwise continue indefinitely. Further,while it may be argued that ending a discussion is a discrete skill unto itself, I would counter that
ending a discussion at the cost of not engaging as deeply or extensively in the discussion in the firstplace is not a reasonable exchange.
While I could speculate on the causes of the improvements noted above, the modification to my
instructional methodology was not conducted in an experimental context. My observations of theeffectiveness of the improvement are subjective and informal. Perhaps, by turning to relevant
literature, we might explore some theoretical underpinning to the methodology I have employed andof the beneficial effects I have observed.

Discussion
The teacher’s role in managing student discussion may have profound quantitative andqualitative effects on the resultant discussion. In quantitative terms, at least within the scope of ourpresent discussion, I have already noted the limiting effect of a countdown timer. Qualitative
differences may be subtler.
One qualitative difference of note is that of the role of the listener. As Lee highlights, “nonvocal
conduct, rather than talk, plays a crucial role in the organization and regulation of coordinating
9

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

speakership.” (p. 673) Citing Goodwin, Lee further notes that, “hearers, just like speakers, areco-participants in a temporally unfolding interactional event, actively displaying their participation
through local projection.” Even the silent listener is participating, and meaningfully so, as the“Organization and regulation of coordinating speakership” is an undeniably important component
not only of a discussion but also of one’s competence and ability in using any language. If students
stop carrying out these tasks, silently or otherwise, because the end of the discussion is known to be
only a minute or two away, they are no longer participating in the discussion as they otherwise might.
They are no longer playing their role as a language user; they are no longer actively participating,
vocally and non-vocally, in a genuine discussion. A meaningful silence becomes merely empty.
Perhaps then, by encouraging the active continuation of both listener and speaker roles, the absenceof a visible timer allows not only for lengthier periods of language production but also higher-quality
discussion considering time spent by students meaningfully filling different roles in the discussion.
To explore this difference more thoroughly, we might consider the meaningful continuation of
the discussion not simply as an end in itself but as a sign of student motivation. Indeed, this motivation
is not limited to the listener even if it is in the listener’s largely silent role that one might most easily
observe a meaningful difference of the sort noted above after switching to the use of a non-visible
timer. Kelen notes that while “language used in the classroom, measured in terms of the ‘real’ usageof native speakers…is one index of a classroom’s level of motivation…motivation more broadly
conceived is a better measure of the reality of the target language for…students” (p.233). In so far as
students can use language to accomplish something, in our case communication within a discussion,
English becomes more real, more meaningful to them. The longer they are engaged, both as active
speakers and listeners, the more English becomes real to them, the more it becomes a genuine
language, a vehicle for the receipt and expression of ideas. To carry this consideration of autonomy
and ownership of language still further, one might consider how students conceptualize theparameters of a discussion as they carry it out.
Metacognition is an area much researched and discussed in relation to many types of instruction,
including ESL. We shall define metacognition3, in our restrictive case, as one being actively aware ofand guided by a given task’s parameters, requisite skills, and strategies for effective completion while
one is engaged in the completion of said task. It is one thing to be aware that a language task must
be completed and to, perhaps, react to the questions or prompts of others. It is very much anotherthing to work actively toward the completion of a discussion task while holding in mind the language
skills to be used by both one’s self and one’s partners (so one may not only use said skills but cue
their use in others), simultaneously being mindful of the requisite strategies to begin and maintain a
discussion in which all members may actively participate, and successfully communicating one’s
ideas and responding to those of others.
Fostering metacognition within the L2 classroom can, in the words of Maftoon & Alamdari, “helpteach... [students] how to regulate their own comprehension and learning” (p.2). Citing Anderson(2002), Maftoon & Alamdari note that students’ metacognitive awareness “can not only guide themto plan, monitor, and evaluate their own learning process…but also…[enhance] the development ofcognitive skills.” (p.4) Further, they note the opinion from Wenden (1998) that “metacognitiveawareness is regarded as the self-direction necessary for L2 performance and learning” (p.4). So,
metacognition is, depending on one’s viewpoint, either beneficial or requisite for learning in thelanguage classroom. How then does this very large concept of metacognition tie-in with the use of a
3 Our definition of metacognition is a simplification of the concept in order to highlight its relevance to the discussion at hand.
Metacognition, as it is more broadly studied, encompasses far more than task parameters.

10

TOWARD STUDENT AUTONOMY IN THE ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASSROOM:
A CONSIDERATION OF NON-VISIBLE TIMER USE IN DISCUSSIONS

non-visible timer? What is the connection?
In so far as students are managing all aspects of a discussion in the metacognitive sense noted
above, metacognition is possible. However, in so far as a teacher, excess scaffolding, a timer, or otherfactor imposes artificial limits upon the task of discussion, the student loses the autonomy, thecapacity for free decision making and self-management, that is requisite for the sort of metacognition
discussed here.
In a somewhat more extreme but illustrative case, Maftoon & Alamdari (2020) note a study
conducted by Vandergrift and Tafaghodtari (p.5) in which students of French as a second language,
in the control group or their experiment, were given a detailed lesson plan, including elements suchas evaluating, problem solving, and planning, to aid in their completion of a listening task. The
experimental group was given no lesson plan. The experimental group significantly outperformed
the control group in the final measure of comprehension. Certainly, completing a listening task andbeing an active participant in a discussion are two different things, but the suggestion remains thatproviding a strict framework for task management is not only not always necessary, but may, indeed,
be harmful rather than beneficial regarding student performance. We might acknowledge that atimer is perhaps not as restrictive as a detailed lesson plan, but to the extent that it influences
decisions about time management in the manner discussed previously, it is a limiting factor. It is only
through removal of as many such limiting factors as possible that a space for metacognition may befostered. If students are cognizant of the criteria for successful completion of a task, it may indeed bethat they could benefit from less ‘help’ in the task’s completion.

Conclusion
While the theoretical underpinnings may be numerous and varied, and largely beyond the scopeof our present considerations, the effectiveness of using a non-visible timer in the discussion sectionof an English discussion lesson is, I believe, clear. Far from being a discouragement, as a visible timer
may sometimes be, an unseen timer acts as a tool for motivation. One might argue that the removalof the timer from the students’ view removes some of the contrivance and artificiality of discussion in
the context of a discussion class. Both speakers and listeners continue in their roles indefinitely(even if the limits of class time are definite). The idea that the timer or arbitrary time limit itself is thearbiter of the scale and scope of a discussion is at least mitigated through the use of a non-visible
timer, and the concomitant drive in the presence of a visible timer to ‘watch the clock,’ is done awaywith entirely.
While the results of using a non-visible timer have been quite positive in my experience, myexperiences have been, as I have noted, subjective, non-scientific. I have simply reflected on myteaching practices. Considering how a more thorough examination might be undertaken, an avenueof academic consideration somewhat beyond the scope of this paper occurs to me. Generally, it may
be worth considering the neurocognitive effect of lesson design and delivery choices. Morespecifically, considering the small lesson design change focused upon in this paper, recent research
into variability of what is called “the readiness potential” (Travers, et al., 2021) comes to mind. The
readiness potential is a form of brain activity measurable by electroencephalogram that precedes anaction (Travers, et al., 2021, p.14). Study of this readiness potential is of great interest in considerationof the neural processes that underly decision making. Citing Brass & Haggard (2008), Travers notes,“stronger… [brain]4 activation for free actions than cued actions.” It may be that an action decided
4 I use “brain” as a simplification to make a point. The original notes “SMA activation” (Travers, et al., 2021, p.15). ‘SMA’ here11

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

upon by oneself is what one might call, unscientifically, a more genuine choice. Further, Travers
finds that readiness potential signals are stronger5 if one learns through their own experience howlong to wait in each circumstance before taking whatever action, in other words, if one learns tomanage one’s own timing and actions. The same source notes that this has the effect of actions
becoming “less random, more preplanned” (p.21). This ties directly back in with the earlier notes on
metacognition in that students who are more self-sufficient and self-aware in completing tasks
improve more readily at completing those tasks. If we, in the language classroom, intend to equip
students to engage, at least ultimately, in the unguided, unaided use of a language, providing
circumstances more conducive to genuine decision-making regarding language must be consideredinvaluable. Regarding the readiness potential itself, its examination specifically with regard tolanguage as opposed to discrete physical action seems an area open to further exploration both in the
medical and academic fields.
Returning to our immediate scope of concern, if teachers wish to empower students to use alanguage, we must ultimately take a step back. We must, to take Kaur (2015) slightly out of originalcontext, “give…[students] the space to experiment with language so that learners may develop asense of ownership for their [use of the language]” (p.374). We must allow for genuine engagementwith the roles of speaker and listener. We must trust in students’ abilities to be cognizant not only oftask parameters but also of themselves as speakers and listeners. Certainly, there is space for
guidance. As I have noted, the periods of discussion in my class are punctuated by feedback.
However, just as they may be ‘on their own’ in the future when called upon to use their English
language ability, I try to let students be as autonomous as possible within the periods of discussions.
Removing the timer from view during discussions is simply one more way to allow students thisfreedom.

refers to portions of the brain known as the Supplementary Motor Areas, “which…receive strong drive from the subcorticalcircuitry of the basal ganglia” (Travers, et al., 2021, p.14).
5 Specifically, “[readiness potential] amplitude increases as participants learn through experience how long to wait before
acting…their actions become less random, more preplanned and more predictable” (Travers, et al., 2021, p.21).

12

TOWARD STUDENT AUTONOMY IN THE ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASSROOM:
A CONSIDERATION OF NON-VISIBLE TIMER USE IN DISCUSSIONS

References
Kaur, K. (2015) The emergent nature of strategic mediation in ESL teacher education. Language
Teaching Research, 19(3) 374-388. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1362168814547074
Kelen, C. (2002) Language and Learning Orthodoxy in the English Classroom in China. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 34(2), 223-237. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.14695812.2002.tb00299.x
Lee, J. (2017) Multimodal turn allocation in ESL peer group discussions. Social Semiotics, 27(5),671-692. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1207353
Maftoon, P. & Alamdari, E.F. (2020) Exploring the Effect of Metacognitive Strategy Instruction on
Metacognitive Awareness and Listening Performance Through a Process-Based Approach.
International Journal of Listening, 34, 1-20. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10
904018.2016.1250632
Travers, E., Friedemann, M., & Haggard, P. (2021) The Readiness Potential reflects planning-based
expectation, not uncertainty, in the timing of action. Cognitive Neuroscience 12(1), 14-27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2020.1824176
Tyner, A. (2020) Self and Group: Dynamics of Reflection in Student-to-Student Feedback. New
Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion 8, 65-70.

13

【Teaching Practice Report】

Practical Approaches to Reducing the Reliance on Scripts
Among English Presentation Students
Andrew Warrick
Abstract
English Presentation was introduced as a new course at Rikkyo University in the fall of 2020 as a required course
for all first-year students. The course aims to teach students the essential elements of giving a good presentation
while also providing them opportunities to develop their English speaking skills. In the two previous years where I
have taught English Presentation, I have noticed that students come to rely very heavily on scripts, which can cause
various problems. Once this reliance on scripts develops, it becomes very difficult to supplant it. To address thisissue, I took steps to eliminate my students’ reliance on scripts from the outset of the fall 2022 semester. These
included utilizing routine activities to reinforce understanding of presentation structure, preparatory discussions togenerate ideas, and practice giving presentations without any preparation. Furthermore, I discussed some of thebenefits of reducing reliance on scripts on the overall quality of student presentations.
Keywords: English presentations, class routines, discussions, practiceIntroduction
When English Presentation was first introduced at Rikkyo University, it had the aim of teaching
first-year students the three basic components of giving a presentation: structural organization,
physical techniques, and the use of proper visual aids. Structural organization refers to the formattingof a presentation, such as ways to create a proper introduction and conclusion, elements to be
included in the main body of the presentation, and the use of words and expressions to facilitate thetransition from one section to another. Physical techniques encompass the use of posture andgestures, ways to maintain eye contact, and ways to correctly emphasize words. Lastly, the use ofvisual aids involved creating and explaining slides well. An aspect of the organization component
includes creating outlines and note cards to use during a presentation so as not to read from a script.
However, when English Presentation first began in the fall 2020 semester, it was entirely online due
to measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The online nature of the course made it difficult forteachers to ensure students were not reading from scripts, as they could simply have theirpresentations on the screens in front of them as they spoke into their video cameras during online
lessons. The fall 2021 semester began online as well, and while the number of COVID-19 cases inTokyo eventually declined enough to allow for the return to teaching classes on campus, students
had already become accustomed to relying on scripts during their presentations after several weeks
of classes online. Once students develop the habit of relying on scripts, it is hard to wean them off it,even when they know it will negatively affect their grades. My previous experience teaching English
Presentation has taught me that students, regardless of their English ability, are compelled to either
write scripts for their presentations, and this reliance on scripts creates numerous problems forstudents.
Among students with lower English ability, script writing often leads to script reading, withstudents sometimes holding a written script up in front of their faces, even though this results inpenalized scores on graded presentations for students. Having a script causes students to want to use
14

PRACTICAL APPROACHES TO REDUCING THE RELIANCE ON SCRIPTS AMONG ENGLISH PRESENTATION STUDENTS

it, and reading from a script is not the same as giving a presentation and goes against the stated goalsof the course. For students with higher English proficiency, scripts are often memorized, and what
results is a carefully rehearsed speech and not the type of presentation that the course aims to help
students develop proficiency in. In the beginning of the semester, when presentations are only aminute to two minutes long, students who make the effort are able to memorize their pre-written
scripts well enough and perform them in front of others, but it is just a mere performance and not apresentation. Occasionally, students who stumble in their memorization are unable to continue
without reattempting the same sentence again to find their place. However, as the course progresses
and students are expected to give longer presentations, they begin to encounter problems using thisapproach, as it becomes increasingly difficult to memorize longer and longer scripts. At the sametime, because they had reliably used this approach previously, it is not a strategy students abandon
easily, despite the fact that it typically does not work. Therefore, regardless of English ability, thegoals of English Presentation are often not met due to how students approach the course, placing
more emphasis on simply completing the presentations rather than acquiring the skills to dopresentations well. Toland et al. (2016) called presentations by English learners a “glorified readingor memorization exercise of text-heavy slides that fails to meet the intended objective of developing
the learners’ presentation skills.” I believe part of this problem comes from the reliance on writing
scripts, and so to overcome these issues, I tried to reduce my students’ reliance on scripts for the fall2022 semester.

Reducing Script Reliance
I used several strategies from the outset of the fall 2022 semester with my English Presentation
classes to help my students create presentations without first creating a script. Some of theapproaches I used included creating routine activities to reiterate and reinforce the cumulative
understanding of how to organize a presentation, utilizing discussions to develop ideas prior to theplanning stage, and asking students to give impromptu presentations.

Utilizing Routines
Habits and routines are important for the flow of a class throughout a semester. They help
establish student expectations and familiarize them with activities that they can expect to do on aregular basis for each lesson. Class routines can save time, allowing teachers more time for
instruction and creating a more organized and cooperative classroom environment (Colvin & Lazar,
1995). I used class routines to establish precedent with regard to course expectations and also foster
the creation of positive habits and facilitate the internalization of presentation structure and skills. In
order to establish effective routines that reinforce a proper presentation structure, it is important toteach students how to create a presentation from the outset. If this is done, then students can begin
creating presentations with a proper introduction, body, and conclusion from the very first lesson,
instead of fumbling with how to organize a presentation for a few lessons and the teacher later
needing to correct any misconceptions. Proper structure and format was one of the first things I
taught the students, deviating slightly from the order elements are introduced in the Ready to
Present textbook. I did this so that students develop the habit of creating presentations with a proper
introduction, body, and conclusion from the beginning, as previous years’ experience of teaching thiscourse have taught me that it becomes difficult to correct bad presentation organization habits once15

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

they develop. Having students create well-organized presentations has reduced the amount ofaimless sentences students had used in previous years I when taught the course, whereby students
do not really have a main point to organize their presentations around, and so just keep adding
sentences with no coherency or direction to their presentations until they have enough to reach therequired time limit. To achieve this, I first spent more time teaching students how to brainstorm
ideas and build a presentation from only the notes created through brainstorming by organizingthem into sequential talking points. As a class, I did a few examples together with my students in theearlier lessons, showing how to narrow down their own suggestions during the brainstorming
portion to choose a main idea, create an introduction around this idea, and then build the body of
their presentation using their ideas before finishing with a conclusion. As I did these demonstrations,
I carefully explained the essential components of an effective introduction and conclusion, thereafter
asked students to offer ideas for these elements, such as a greeting, an attention grabber (quote,question, or fact), a topic sentence, and so on. Once students knew how to create and organize apresentation, I had them regularly use this approach of brainstorming ideas to use to build apresentation outline in each class. The time to prepare was kept short and deliberately insufficientfor writing a full script, but enough to complete an outline and self-check it. I then asked students togive these quickly made presentations to a partner, practicing the cumulative total of presentation
skills we had learned as a class each time. This routine of creating and giving a presentation everyclass likely helped students internalize the structure of a presentation, including the essential
elements of an introduction and conclusion, and this allowed for them to create increasingly complex
presentations without the need of writing a script. Creating these routines early in the semester
helped students build strong habits regarding the amount of effort they would require, internalize
the methodology for structuring a presentation early, and learn and practice essential skills for giving
presentations.

Discussions as Preparation
To facilitate the brainstorming stage of presentation preparation, I had students discussquestions related to the theme of the upcoming presentation with their group members. For example,
if I wanted students to make a presentation about an interesting personal story from which theylearned a valuable lesson, I had them first ask each other in small groups a series of questions related
to various experiences they may have had. These types of warm-up activities can help students build
familiarity with the subject matter of a presentation and give students time to work out what theywant to say and how they want to say it in English. Castillo (2007) also found that speaking in small
groups like this promoted English oral production, as students found it enjoyable and spent moretime speaking during class. The goal of these discussions was to give students the opportunity todevelop ideas and the means of explaining them in English prior to giving a presentation on a related
topic. Furthermore, as students are not given time to write completed scripts and can only create
outlines, having a prior opportunity to get ideas from group members and practice explaining thedesired content can allow students to feel more comfortable during their actual presentations, as they
are not talking about anything for the first time. Pre-task activities like this increase confidence andreduce cognitive load for language students as they are not needing to think of vocabulary or content
for the first time when the actual task begins (Tonkin, et al., 2019), making the actual target task, inthis case a small presentation, much easier. Speaking activities like these done in preparation give
students enough time to make answers and lower the amount of thinking that is required to be done
16

PRACTICAL APPROACHES TO REDUCING THE RELIANCE ON SCRIPTS AMONG ENGLISH PRESENTATION STUDENTS

in the moment (Chin, 2015).

Impromptu Presentations
The final method I used to reduce my students’ reliance on scripts during their presentations
was to have them give short presentations about a single slide that I had prepared. Slightly similar to
the PechaKucha presentations suggested by Paxton and Truxal (2019), I made slides with a single
picture and the topic written above it and then randomly called on students to come to the front of theclass and give a presentation on the topic of each slide. I selected topics the students would be very
familiar with, such as famous sightseeing spots around Tokyo or popular chain restaurants. Students
needed to present on these slides without any preparation for forty seconds, slowly increasing thetime in subsequent classes.
This activity perhaps helped increase students’ confidence and demonstrated that they could
give a presentation without first creating a script. By routinely creating quick presentations in earlier
classes, students understood how to build an introduction, body, and conclusion easily and were able
to organize these impromptu presentations properly even though they had not been given time toprepare anything. This shows that they had internalized the structure of a presentation and theessential elements of each segment. I used these quick unprepared presentations to help students
see that they could give a presentation on anything, as long as they knew it well, so it would be
important for their future presentations to be familiar with their topics.

Benefits
Encouraging students to create their presentations without first writing a script first has had
several benefits. By only creating presentation outlines in place of writing full scripts, the preparation
time students spend to create their presentations is significantly reduced. In the previous semesters
when I taught the course, students would waste a lot of class time slowly writing their scripts in class,and need to be constantly reminded to stay on task. When assigned as homework, many students
would simply just not write the script, even when told it would affect their grade. This often caused
problems in lesson planning because some students would complete their scripts in the time allotted
while others would not, so rehearsal groups could not properly be formed since students within thesame class would be at different stages of completion. By focusing on making outlines and not giving
time to write scripts, this was less of a problem, and students could be ready to practice much more
quickly. Now, the time students previously spent in class writing their own scripts and havingclassmates check them is now better used for practicing their presentations and the use ofpresentation skills we have learned, such as employing gestures and emphasizing key words. This
has resulted in a meaningful improvement in the quality of presentations because the time spent
making scripts is instead used for meaningful practice and getting feedback from classmates.
Furthermore, since students lack scripts to rely on, they are not reading from a page or screen
during their presentations, or being mentally distracted trying to recall something they had
previously written. As a consequence, presenters are making eye contact a lot more. Pestano (2020)
had noted that getting students to maintain eye contact properly during presentations was difficult,even when forbidding notes or other aids. This could have been the case because even without ascript or notes to look at, students are trying excessively to recall their planned presentations andstick to the scripts they had written, but by not having a script, this problem can be significantly
17

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

reduced. I also noticed that my students were using gestures a lot more and speaking more emotively
since they are not looking at a script, so their presentation delivery has become more expressive.
Lastly, they are interacting with the audience more, asking and answering questions. Since students
are not writing full scripts, they are also not translating words into English too difficult for their peers
to understand, and this has led to presentations that are easier to follow for their classmates.
Another benefit of not writing scripts is a reduction in academic dishonesty. In previous years
when I have taught English Presentation, there were always various ways academic dishonesty, tovarying degrees, seemed to occur. There were two types of academic dishonesty that I havefrequently encountered in the prior semesters when I have taught English Presentation, both ofwhich occur during the script-writing phase of presentation preparation. The first is using translation
software to convert something they had written in Japanese into English. This was often easily
recognizable, as students would be reading from a script that contained English words that were both
unknown to them and odd choices for the context, as well as alternating pronouns and even overly
poor English syntax – all problems that frequently occur when translating from Japanese to English.
The second form of common academic dishonesty I have noticed when teaching the course before isdirectly copying something word-for-word into their script without referencing it or even trying topass it off as something they themselves had written. For example, I once had a student make apresentation on some recent piece of news, where the contents were copied in their entirety from an
English news article. One reason academic dishonesty may take place is that students may not beaware of what constitutes academic dishonesty in some cases or may pay little heed to the
explanations of academic dishonesty given at the beginning of the English Presentation course or in
the syllabus. At the same time, academic dishonesty may happen because students lack the language
skills and technical writing skills to avoid it (Teeter, 2015). However, in focusing more on creatingpresentations without writing scripts in the fall 2022 semester, these problems have been much lessfrequent. In fact, they typically only occur when students have used a script and have been, forexample, very lazy about proofreading something produced through translation software, resulting
in a presentation where a student may switch pronouns mid-sentence. Creating less reliance on
scripts seems to therefore be an effective method of preventing academic dishonesty, whether
unintentional or otherwise, since by only using outlines and point-form notes, students are not able
to copy text from somewhere else.

Conclusion
The methods I used to reduce students’ reliance on scripts seem to have been effective, but itwould be interesting to do a formal study on their effectiveness. Ultimately, the goal was not to
reduce students’ use of scripts, because there is nothing inherently wrong with them, but rather
reduce the negative effects scripts have on student presentations. These included poor eye contact,reading, trouble breaking the habit of memorization and the later problems this causes, poor use ofpresentation skills, and academic dishonesty. It would therefore be interesting to examine the extent
to which class routines, pre-task activities, and impromptu presentations like those discussed in thispaper can reduce these problems. These approaches were employed in an effort to better achieve thecourse objectives by placing the emphasis of the course on the delivery of an effective presentation
more than the contents of a presentation, as students may inherently believe that the content is themost important aspect, and therefore having a carefully written script with impressive words and a
lot of information is essential. Downplaying this and instead stressing how the presentation is given
18

PRACTICAL APPROACHES TO REDUCING THE RELIANCE ON SCRIPTS AMONG ENGLISH PRESENTATION STUDENTS

may not be enough to alter student behavior, so it is important to create activities and structure theclass in such a way that students are able to succeed in employing the presentation skills they learn.

19

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

References
Castillo, C. (2007). Improving Eleventh Graders’ Oral Production in English Class throughCooperative Learning Strategies. Profile Issues in Teachers` Professional Development. p. 75-90.
Colvin, G. & Lazar, M. (1995) Establishing Classroom Routines. The Oregon Conference Monograph,Vol. 7. p. 203-206.
Paxton, S. & Truxal, D. (2019). From Chinmoku to Pera Pera: Teaching Presentation Skills at
University in Japan. The journal of Rikkyo University Language Center, 41, p. 63-73.
Pestano, J. (2020) Strategies for Improving Eye Contact During EFL Presentations by Japanese
University Students. Reports from English Teachers’ Seminar, Volume 3 pp. 1-11.
Teeter, J. (2015) Deconstructing Attitudes towards Plagiarism of Japanese Undergraduates in EFL
Academic Writing Classes. English Language Teaching; Vol. 8, No. 1, p. 95-109. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5539/elt.v8n1p95
Toland, S.; Mills, D.; & Kohyama, M. (2016). Enhancing Japanese university students’ Englishlanguage presentation skills with mobile-video recordings. JALT CALL Journal. 12. p. 18324215.
Tonkin, K., Page, S., and Forsey, M. (2019). Managing cognitive load with a flipped language class:
An Ethnographic Study of the student experience. Foreign Language Annals, 52(3), p. 551-575.
https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12412

20

【Teaching Practice Report】

Using Learners’ Video Recordings for Skills Development andAssessments
Devon Arthurson
Abstract
Using students’ video recordings enables learners to develop their skills as well as gain more awareness of self- andpeer assessments in foreign language learning settings. Furthermore, with online tools that not only video record
but also allow for video sharing, there are numerous benefits for both students and teachers in comparison to
speaking assessments done in real time. In particular, learners have the opportunity to practice their speaking tasks
numerous times, review their performance, and select the ideal performance that they would like to submit forgrading. When assessing, students can rewatch their own and others’ performances numerous times, if necessary,with a decrease in the number of distractions that may occur with grading in the classroom. Learners can use their
video recordings for self-assessment and use multiple recordings from previous dates to reflect on the developmentof their skills. In addition, video sharing can allow students to peer assess. An activity using learners’ video
recordings in English debate classes will be shared. A discussion and adaptations of the activity for skills
development and learner-participatory assessments will also be explored.
Keywords: assessment, peer assessment, self assessment, video recordings, reflection journals

Introduction
In fall 2021, first-year students from three English debate classes were required to make videos
on an online video-recording and video-sharing tool, Flip (Microsoft, 2022), as part of their homework.
All three classes had TOEIC scores from 480 to 699, with two classes having in-person lessons andone class having online lessons. Students were also expected to compare their performance from aprevious lesson with a more recent one to reflect on their performance as well as complete two
reflection journals and two optional online surveys about viewing the videos and self- and peer
feedback. In the debate class, during debate tests, The instructor would assess and provide feedback,and students would share feedback of the classmates’ performances after the debates. The videorecording activity was created to help the students practice their debating skills, particularly
arguments and summaries. The current article builds on research already presented in Arthurson(2022). By taking a more pedagogical focus on implementation of the activity, it is hoped that thearticle might be of use to other practitioners interested in conducting a similar task. Furthermore,
based on the instructor’s comments using the rubric for each video submitted by students, it was
hoped that learners would become more familiar with performance expectations, enabling them toimprove their own performances through self assessing and to better understand how to give
feedback to their classmates when peer assessing.

Literature Review
Using student video recordings alongside self- and peer assessments has many advantages in
the language learning classroom with regard to learners’ increased usage of skills outside theclassroom, more control of output, reduction of stress, and a greater ease in assessments. Students
21

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

can practice multiple times and determine which performance they decide to submit, giving them
control of their output (King’s College London, 2022). In contrast with real-time assessments, videos
allow for multiple viewings for assessments of speaking tasks. For students, this can better allow for
self- and peer assessments because if they are uncertain about how to grade, they can review thevideo again while confirming the scoring criteria. They can also watch the video again in case they
think they may have missed or not understood something. Furthermore, having students view theirown and peers’ performances on their own computers or devices may reduce the number of
distractions that can occur in the classroom.
In addition, many EFL students in countries where English is not the native language may havefew chances of speaking English when not in class (Göktürk, 2016, p. 72). Having students makevideos allows them to practice speaking skills wherever their chosen site of recording is and to use
English, or any other foreign language under study that is not spoken by the majority of the
population, multiple times. For grading, having student recorded videos lessens the stress that often
comes with being tested in front of the instructor and classmates versus a testing setting determinedby the students who use their devices (Sumardi, Adzima, & Wijaya, 2020, p.67). One point to notewhen using video recording of student performances is that some learners may not be comfortablewith video and prefer only their audio be recorded (King’s College London, 2022, para. 15).
Self- and peer assessments allow for students to have greater control over their learning, selfawareness, and reflection of their performances. By having students use grading rubrics inassessments, they can understand what is expected of them as they also use the rubric instead of
only the instructor, resulting in more autonomy of their learning (Benson, 2011; Sebba et al., 2008, p.
1). Students can also understand more concretely how their skills have developed or need to be
developed when using videos for self- and peer assessment (Qureshiet al., 2019; Sumardiet al., 2020;
Tailab & Marsh, 2020). According to a study by Cotter & Hinkelman (2019), students using theirown videos with student-led assessments, resulting in a better future output (p. 98). Students can also
use their videos as reflection tools (Sumardiet al., 2020, p.67). Accordingly, students can put theirperformances into the context of how the past performances shape their future performances. By
viewing their performances, the learners may also be more confident and potentially more motivatedabout the language under study (Göktürk, 2016, p. 87). If students have more responsibility overtheir learning by better understanding how they need to improve their skills, this could lead to agreater desire for life-long learning (Baleghizadeh & Masoun, 2013; Sebba et al., 2008, p. 5).
Christian, Hoskins, and Watanabe’s (2010) study of Japanese university students’ video
recordings with self- and peer assessment tasks proved that such activities can be effective in
improving learners’ speaking skills and providing them with more awareness of their performances.
Students would go to their instructors’ offices to record their videos using webcams and view them
there for the assessments (Christianson et al., 2010). However, changes in accessibility to technology
now allow students to choose when and where to record their performances, as most students haveaccess to a computer or device. Accordingly, using online tools to record and share videos seemed
an ideal way to also help students to self- and peer assess in EFL classes.

ProcedureVideo-making was part of the students’ homework tasks, with eight videos to be recorded witha video-recording and -sharing tool, Flip (Microsoft, 2022), during fall 2021’s 14-week semester.
Students also used a debate textbook, Up For Debate (Mishima et al., 2021), with the same rubric that
22

USING LEARNERSʼ VIDEO RECORDINGS FOR SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENTS

the instructor used for assessments. The videos would be the basis for students’ debate practice,review of instructor feedback based on the rubric, familiarization with the rubric, self-assessments,
and peer assessment preparation. The steps students would follow for the activity will be outlined andthen followed by a more detailed explanation for each step. The outline is below:
1. Write their argument to the assignment proposition and position for weeks 1 to 6 and thedebate summary for weeks 10 and 11.
2. Record their argument on the online tool for weeks 1 to 6, 10, and 11.
3. Receive instructor feedback of the video based on the rubric via the private section commentsof the online tool for weeks 1 to 6, 10, and 11.
4. Compare week 2’s video with week 6’s video and then write about that process in a reflection
journal. See Appendix A. Then answer an online survey about self-assessing the debate skills.
See Appendix B.
5. Compare week 6’s video with week 11’s video and then write about that process in a reflection
journal. See Appendix C. Then answer an online survey about peer-assessing skills. See
Appendix D.

Step 1
To prepare students for the video recording, part of the homework task included a prompt in areflection journal requiring them to write an argument for the lesson’s proposition and position,
including the target language. This would enable the students to be ready for the recording,potentially lessening any anxiety, and to simulate what was required for the mid- and final-term
debates, which also used written arguments.

Step 2Using the prompt from the reflection journals, students used the video-recording and -sharing
tool. Students were given up to five minutes of recording time. The prompt for weeks 1 to 6 was asfollows:
Please use your Reflection Journal to help you. Use the proposition and position (affirmative/
negative) you were given in class. You can use your team’s arguments and sources. Write yourspeech with three points, each with a source. Include the summary. Also use Appendix A “Useful
Expressions for Debate Skills” on page 58.
The prompt for weeks 10 and 11 was as follows:
Please use your Reflection Journal to help you. Use the summary your team made in the lesson.
Remember to include your team’s three points, the other team’s points, the proposition, and yourteam’s position. Also use Appendix A “Useful Expressions for Debate Skills’’ on page 58.

Step 3
Before the next class, the instructor viewed the recordings and posted individual and private23

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

comments to each student, using the rubric for the argument’s organization and quality. An exampleof the feedback for the argument speech is as follows:
Argumentation’s Organization: Good
Argumentation’s Quality: Supported all points using data and sources
Summary: Restate the points again
An example of the feedback for the final debate speech is as follows:
Well done! The summary had your team’s proposition, position, three points, and the other team’s
three points.
Students were expected to read their feedback before the next class. At the start of the class, theinstructor gave general feedback about the videos and commented on particular students who had
given good performances. During this time, students could also view their feedback.

Step 4Students were once again assigned the reflection journals for week 6; however, the prompts
were focused on the self-assessment process. See Appendix A. The survey questions were also
included in the week 6 reflection journal to prepare students for the online survey. The link to theonline survey was shared during week 6 and given time at the start of week 7’s class. Students wereasked to compare week 2’s video with week 6 ‘s video. Then they were asked to answer an optional
online survey about the self-assessing debate skills such as the level of difficulty assessing theirargument’s strength. See Appendix B. Students were also asked if watching their videos assisted withassessment.

Step 5This step followed a similar process to step 4, with a reflection journal for week 11 having
prompts focusing on the peer-assessment process. See Appendix C. Furthermore, the second online
survey’s link was shared during week 11, and time was given at the start of week 12’s class. See
Appendix D. The videos to be compared were week 6’s video and week 11’s video. This survey’s
question focused on peer assessment.

Discussion
The activity was crafted to help the students develop their debate skills and assessment abilities.
In general, most of the students completed the video activity. This means that they practiced theirarguments at least once outside of the classroom, developing their debate skills. Furthermore, somestudents may have had multiple attempts at recording their arguments before posting their final
submissions, resulting in more practice of their skills. On the whole, most students completed thevideos, though as the semester progressed, the number decreased. The quality of the submissions
was quite good, with students completing the requirements of the rubric.
The rubric was often referred to in the class, and the applicable parts were used as the24USING LEARNERSʼ VIDEO RECORDINGS FOR SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENTS

instructor’s comments on the online tool to give individual feedback. Furthermore, the instructor
had occasionally referenced those students demonstrating good performances in their videos at thestart of the lesson in classes following the video homework task. It was expected that students could
have a better understanding of the rubric based on this. Furthermore, it was hoped that the surveys
and reflection journals would provide the instructor with more feedback about the effectiveness ofthe videos for self- and peer assessing. It did provide some information as some students felt thatassessing was not difficult, yet many felt that they lacked the confidence to correctly assess.
It appeared that during the peer-feedback sessions after the mid- and final-term debates, thestudents were comfortable assessing their classmates using the rubric when presenting their
feedback to the class. Through the surveys and reflection journals about assessments, many students
felt using videos was a helpful tool in assessment. The reflection journals, Appendix A and C, wereused to prepare students for the two surveys. The surveys, Appendix B and D, were used to get thestudents to compare their performances and elicit feedback for the instructor about how they viewed
self- and peer assessments using the rubric. There were some issues about receiving duplicate andcontradictory responses using the online surveys, in addition to getting students to submit both thesurveys. It should be noted that students’ consent was gained for the surveys as part of anotherresearch project, but the journals were not part of that project, so the instructor had no permission
to share journals’ contents. These surveys were optional tasks. Consequently, this resulted in 20% of
students completing the homework tasks for the required videos to be previewed and correctly
submitting both surveys. Nevertheless, a portion of the students’ survey responses will be sharedbelow, focusing on videos in relation to self- and peer assessment.
From Survey 1’s Question 5, “Did watching the two videos help you to learn how to judge yourperformance?” Responses are with 7 answering agree, 5 answering not sure, and 1 answering
disagree. The responses to the optional prompt are as follows:
Agree because comparing the two videos helped me learn how to judge because of the differences.
Agree because I saw obvious change[s] in two videos. Two videos have a big difference[s].
From Survey 2’s Question 5, “Do you think watching your own video helps you to judge otherstudents’ performances?” Responses with 7 answering agree, 4 answering not sure, and 2 answering
disagree. The response to the optional prompt is as follows:
Agree because I can find the difference.
There are limitations, such as with students not completing homework or reading their feedback
or using the video-sharing component of the online tool. If students did not do their homework, they
did not perform video recordings. Though students received written feedback on their videos, it isdifficult to determine if the written feedback was read on the video-making and -sharing tool by thestudents and if they viewed their videos again to better understand the feedback. During the mid- andfinal-term test peer-feedback activities, students directly referenced the rubric in class, and at thattime, the instructor also gave oral feedback on how well they assessed their peers. Students wererequired to take notes when judging, so they could give more accurate feedback, but the instructor
did not check or give formal feedback on their notes. Doing this may have helped the learners gain
more awareness into expectations about giving feedback, consequently helping them to gain more
confidence. Furthermore, having students view their classmates’ videos on the online tool would also25

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

be helpful so that they might understand how their feedback compares with those of the instructors.
This would give students more awareness of how to assess, especially during the mid- and final-term
debates.

Adaptations
The activity was created for a debate class, but it could be adapted for any class that uses
speaking skills such as presentation or discussion classes. Steps 1 to 3 would be most applicable forvideo recordings and assessment, as any speaking task could be assigned alongside the appropriate
rubric. The benefits of using the video recordings such as awareness of skills, potential improvementof future output, and a source of reflection will still occur (Cotter & Hinkelman; 2019, p. 98; Qureshi
et al., 2019; Sumardiet al., 2020; Tailab & Marsh, 2020). Steps 4 to 5 could be changed from a survey
or reflection journal to pair or group discussions or even a student video recording for the instructor
to gain more understanding of how students perceive assessing. Though these two steps could also
be omitted, it is useful to know how students feel about the difficulty of assessing and the usefulnessof video recordings so that appropriate support might be given by the instructor. Therefore, it isrecommended that the journal prompts and survey questions from the appendices be shared withstudents and altered based on the students’ needs.
For those instructors interested in having their students video record to aid in self- and peer
assessments, they can model an ideal performance in a video. Showing it in the classroom could be
more practical and beneficial than the aforementioned actions. This video could also be used as a
discussion point that could aid learners in reflecting on their own performance regarding what they
achieved and still need to achieve pertaining to their skills. Using students’ recordings for others topeer-assess would also be useful. Students could compare their comments about their peer’s
performances with their instructor’s to see how their assessing skills are. In addition, checking
students’ assessment notes of this practice activity would also be beneficial. Moreover, instead ofsurveys or reflection journals to gain students feedback about assessing, in-class discussion where
the instructor would determine the areas of uncertainty based on students’ comments and addressthese to the class could be more appropriate. Such modifications may give students more guidance
in developing assessment skills.

Conclusion
Using students’ video recordings with self- and peer assessments can be an activity for more
concrete awareness of their skills usage, points of improvement for future performances, areas for
growth, and even practices to develop life-long learning through more participation and control intheir learning. The activity in the debate class required students to record a performing video on an
online tool, most often presenting an argument and sometimes giving a summary of their debate.
Students were then given private written feedback so that they could understand how they use therubric when they self-assessed and peer-assessed. An area of concern was that many students wereuncertain if they were assessing correctly, so in the future, it is important to give students more
examples of how to assess using the video and the rubric. Other speaking classes may also benefit
from this activity, which aids in students practicing speaking the foreign language outside theclassroom, seeing how their skills are developing, and better understanding how to assess by using
videos as a practice for real-time assessments.
26

USING LEARNERSʼ VIDEO RECORDINGS FOR SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENTS

References
Arthurson, D. (2022). Learners’ perspectives of using their video recordings to aid in performing
assessments. Journal of Foreign Language Education and Research, 3, 154-59. ISSN 2436-0325.
Baleghizadeh, S. & Masoun A. (2013). The effect of self-assessment on EFL learners’ self-efficacy.
TESL Canada Journal /Revue TESL Du Canada (31), 1, 42-58. https://teslcanadajournal.ca/
index.php/tesl/article/view/1166/986
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy (2nd ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
Christianson, M., Hoskins, C., & Watanabe, A. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of a videorecording based self-assessment system for academic speaking. Language Research Bulletin,
24, 1-15. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234717241.pdf
Cotter, M. & Hinkelman, D. (2019). Video assessment module: self, peer, and teacher postperformanceassessment for learning. In F. Meunier, J. Van de Vyver, L. Bradley & S. Thouësny (Eds), CALL
and complexity – short papers from EUROCALL 2019 (pp. 94-99). Research-publishing.net.
https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2019.38.992
Göktürk, N. (2016), Examining the effectiveness of digital video recordings on oral performance of
EFL learners, Teaching English with Technology, 16(2), 71-96. https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/305445319_Examining_the_Effectiveness_of_Digital_Video_Recordings_on_
Oral_Performance_of_EFL_Learners
King’s College London (2022). How can I use video for self-assessment https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/
aflkings/students-directing-their-own-learning/using-video-for-self-assessment/how-can-i-usevideo/
Microsoft (2022). Flip. https://info.flip.com/
Qureshi, B., Roseberry, J., & Qureshi, Z. (2019). Boosting intersubjectivity by digital video recording
project in EFL classes. Journal of English Language Teaching 4 (1), p-ISSN: 2541 -0326. e-ISSN:
2541-0334. https://journal.lppmunindra.ac.id/index.php/SCOPE/article/view/4977/2925
Sebba, J., Crick, R. D., Yu, G., Lawson, H., Harlen, W., & Durant, K. (2008). Systematic review of
research evidence of the impact on students in secondary schools of self and peer assessment(Vol. 1614T). EPPI-Centre. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:f5df1fd5-2bcb-47b1-8226-b38ba
2431019/download_file?file_format=pdf&safe_filename=Self%2BAssessment%2Breport.pdf&
type_of_work=Report
Sumardi, Adzima. R. & Wijaya. A. N. (2020). Digital Video Project: An Authentic Assessment toAssess Students’ Speaking Skills. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics 5 (1), 52-72.
eISSN: 2503-4197, pISSN: 2527-5070. http://indonesian-efl-journal.org/index.php/ijefll/arti
cle/view/217/pdf
Tailab, M. & Marsh, N. (2020). Use of Self-Assessment of Video Recording to Raise Students’
Awareness of Development of Their Oral Presentation Skills. Higher Education Studies 10,
16-28, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3499175

27

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Appendices
Appendix A
Debate Class: Reflection Journal
After each class, you will write a reflection journal due for the day after the class before 23:59 as a
Self-Study Task. Please use the following prompts to help you:
1. Do you think making videos helps you judge how you do in debate, for example:
	a. organization of arguments, b. quality of arguments, c. debate skills and d. Summaries?
Why?
2. Do you feel confident about judging how well you do in a debate? Why?
3.	
Using your notes (and classmates), write as much as you can about the other team’s
argument, for example their points, sources, and data.
4.	Use the proposition and position (affirmative/negative) you were given in class. You can use
your team’s arguments and sources. Write your speech with three points, each with a source
and include the summary. Also use Appendix A “Useful Expressions for Debate Skills” onpage 58.
5. Based on the proposition and position you were given at the end of class, find one point withsource(s) and data to support your argument. You will share it with your team in Lesson 7.
6.	
Optional: If there is anything else that you would like to comment on about the class, feelfree.
7. Include the word count.
**Remember to use page 8 and 9 of Becoming a Better Writer to format your journal correctly.
REFLECTION JOURNAL GRADING INFORMATION: 3 POINTS
Length 1 POINTS

Understandability 1 POINT

Due date 1 POINTS

Minimum length is written

Ideas could be understood

Submitted on time28

USING LEARNERSʼ VIDEO RECORDINGS FOR SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENTS

Appendix B
Sur vey 1First, record the Lesson 6 homework video on Flipgrid. Then, watch the Lesson 2 Flipgrid video.
Next, watch the Lesson 6 video. Use the Debate Rubric information on pages 62 to 63 to help you
complete the Lesson 6 Reflection Journal. After you have completed the journal, please answer thesequestions. You can complete this survey anytime after recording your video and submitting yourjournal for Lesson 6. Furthermore, at the beginning of Lesson 7’s class, I will also give you time tocomplete the survey. If you need to use Japanese, you can.
1. To judge the organization of my arguments is
A. easy		B. so-so		C. difficult

because (Optional):
2. To judge the strength of my arguments is:
A. easy		B. so-so		C. difficult

because (Optional):
3. To judge the debate skills used in my arguments is:
A. easy		B. so-so		C. difficult

because (Optional):
4. To judge my arguments’ summaries is:
A. easy		B. so-so		C. difficult

because (Optional):
5. Did watching the two videos help you to learn how to judge your performance?
A. Agree.

B. Not sure.		

C. Disagree.

Because (Optional):
6. Do you feel confident about judging your performance?
A. Agree.

B. Not sure		

C. Disagree29

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Because (Optional):
If you have other comments about judging Lesson 1 and 6’s videos, please share them here:

30

USING LEARNERSʼ VIDEO RECORDINGS FOR SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENTS

Appendix C
Debate Class: Reflection Journal
After each class, you will write a reflection journal due for the day after the class before 23:59 asa Self-Study Task. Please use the following prompts to help you:
1. Do you think it is easy to judge how classmates do in debate, for example:
	a. organization and quality of arguments, b. cross-examination, c. rebuttals, and d. final
summaries? Why or why not?
2.	Do you think watching your own video helps you to judge other students’ performance? Whyor why not?
3. Do you think making videos helped your performance in debates? Why?
4. Would you like to record a video of your performance again? Why or why not?
5.	Use the summary your team made in the lesson. Remember to include a. your team’s threepoints, b. the other team’s points, c. 1 or 2 rebuttals, d. the proposition, and e. your team’s
position in the summary. Also use Appendix A “Useful Expressions for Debate Skills’’ onpage 58.
6.	Based on the proposition and position you were given at the end of class, find one point withsource(s) and data to support your argument. You will share it with your team in Lesson 12
to prepare for the final debate.
7.	
Optional: If there is anything else that you would like to comment on about the class, feelfree.
8. Include the word count.
**Remember to use page 8 and 9 of Becoming a Better Writer to format your journal correctly.
REFLECTION JOURNAL GRADING INFORMATION: 3 POINTS
Length 1 POINTS

Understandability 1 POINT

Due date 1 POINTS

Minimum length is written

Ideas could be understandSubmitted on time31

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Appendix D
Sur vey 2First, record the Lesson 11 homework video on Flipgrid. Then, watch the Lesson 6 homework
video. Next, watch the Lesson 11 video. Use the Debate Rubric information on pages 62 to 63. You
can complete this survey anytime after recording the Lesson 11 homework video. At the beginningof Lesson 12’s class, I will also give you time to complete the survey. If you need to use Japanese, youcan.
1. Is it easy to judge the organization of the arguments?
A. Agree.

B. Not sure

C. Disagree

Because (Optional):
2. Is it easy to judge the strength of the arguments?
A. Agree.

B. Not sure

C. Disagree

Because (Optional):
3. Is it easy to judge the debate skills used in the arguments?
A. Agree.

B. Not sure

C. Disagree

Because (Optional):
4. Is it easy to judge the arguments’ summaries?
A. Agree.

B. Not sure

C. Disagree

Because (Optional):
5. Do you think watching your own video helps you to judge other students’ performance?
A. Agree.

B. Not sure

C. Disagree

6. Do you feel confident about judging your performance?
A. Agree.

B. Not sure

C. Disagree

Because (Optional):

32

USING LEARNERSʼ VIDEO RECORDINGS FOR SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENTS

7. Do you think making videos helped your performance in debates?
A. Agree.

B. Not sure

C. Disagree

Because (Optional):
8. Would you like to record a video of your performance again? Why or why not?
Answer:9. Feel free to share any other comments related to using videos to judge your performance.
Answer:33

【Teaching Practice Report】

Examining the Unit 3 Goals of English Discussion Class
Heather Woodward
Abstract
Commencing Spring 2020, textbook writers of Rikkyo University’s English Discussion Class (EDC) have divided
the course into three units: 1) sharing and supporting opinions, 2) organizing a discussion, and 3) challenging andevaluating ideas. However, EDC students might need more assistance than that offered by Kita et al.’s (2022)“What’s Your Opinion?” to achieve the third unit goal of challenging and evaluating ideas. In the EDC Handbook(2022), there also exists a lack of clarity regarding the relationship between the Unit 3 goals and the Unit 3
discussion skills. In this paper, I review the current textbook’s explanations of the Unit 3 discussion skills, present
alternative explanations, and thereafter, outline potential in-class activities. With these new explanations andactivities, students might gain a better understanding of how to use the third unit’s discussion skills for the purposeof challenging and evaluating ideas.
Keywords: EDC, Objectives, Challenging, Evaluating

Introduction
English discussion class (EDC) is a requirement for all first-year students at Rikkyo University.
The course is designed to improve academic discussion skills, communication skills, and spoken
fluency (Hurling, 2012). EDC textbook writers have divided EDC into three units: a) sharing andsupporting opinions, b) organizing a discussion, and c) challenging and evaluating ideas. These units
are further separated into discussion skills. Table 1 on the next page shows unit goals with discussion
skills and examples.
The first unit goal of sharing and supporting opinions featured in Table 1 has three discussion
skills: opinions, supporting opinions, and follow-up questions. Students demonstrate their competenceof sharing and supporting opinions by asking for and giving opinions, reasons/examples, andfollow-up questions in the discussion. The second unit goal of organizing a discussion has three
discussion skills of connecting ideas, joining a discussion, and changing topics. Students demonstrate
their ability to organize a discussion by using these skills during discussion. The last unit goal ischallenging and evaluating ideas. The discussion skills are different viewpoints, balancing opinions,and sources of information. During the discussion, students show the extent to which they canchallenge and evaluate ideas by using these three skills.
In the following sections, I discuss the problems with not providing definitions and examples forchallenging and evaluating ideas, then examine the current textbook explanations. After, I provide
new explanations with examples to mitigate these problems. Lastly, I present classroom activities thatmight help students gain a better understanding of the terms challenging and evaluating ideas.

34

EXAMINING THE UNIT 3 GOALS OF ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASS

Table 1
Unit Goals With Corresponding Discussion Skills and Examples From Kita et al. (2022)
Unit Goal

Sharing andSupporting Opinions

Organizing a
Discussion

Challenging and
Evaluating Ideas

Lesson No.

Discussion Skill

Examples1

Introduction to English Discussion Class

2

Opinions

In my opinion,… I think…
What do you think?

3

Supporting
Opinions

One reason/example is…
Why do you think so?

4

Follow-up
Questions

What…? Which…? How…?
Do you…? Can you…?

5

Test 1 on Sharing and Supporting Opinions

6

Connecting Ideas

I agree/disagree. You said…
What do you think of my idea?

7

Joining a
Discussion

Can I start? Can I say something?
Would anyone like to ask a question?

8

Changing Topics

What shall we discuss first/next?
Is there anything more to add?
So, we agree/disagree about…

9

Test 2 on Organizing a Discussion

10

Different
Viewpoints

From (X’s) point of view…
How about (X’s) point of view?

11

Balancing Opinions

One advantage/disadvantage of…
What’s one advantage/disadvantage?

12

Sources ofInformation

According to…
I read/heard/saw/learned…
Where did you read/see/hear that?

14

Test 3 on Challenging and Evaluating Ideas

Note. Information from What’s Your Opinion? 2nd Edition (Kita et al., 2022)

Challenging Ideas
Showing the relationship between the discussion skills and the unit goals can make the purpose
and use apparent to students, which facilitates a greater likelihood that students use the skills
appropriately. Without providing such clarity, students might not realize the unit goals. The last unit
goal, challenging and evaluating ideas, comprises the following three discussion skills: different
viewpoints, balancing opinions, and sources of information. Using the unit three discussion skills
does not necessarily equate to fulfilling the goal of challenging ideas because students can use themfor the purpose of supporting their own ideas. In the dialogue below, Aki uses viewpoints to support
her own idea while Ryo uses it to challenge Aki’s idea:• Aki: I agree with you. From the point of view of doctors, they believe that English is importantbecause if there is a tourist who gets injured and doesn’t speak Japanese, then the doctor canstill communicate with him.
• R yo: However, from the point of view of ambulance drivers, English is not so importantbecause paramedics are in the vehicle, and they are required to speak English.
Supporting ideas is important for the process of evaluation but challenging ideas using
viewpoints requires searching for views of people who disagree with each other. Yet only the lowest35

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

proficiency students (i.e., Level 4) have “challenging and evaluating ideas” translated in their
textbook.1 The Unit 3 goals have been translated to Takaku-tekina shiten to iken no hyōka (多角的な視点と意見の評価), which means evaluating multifaceted opinions and perspectives. This lack oftranslation or definition of “challenging ideas” for other levels is problematic because highly
proficient students might not be able to give a definition, even in their native language, of what itmeans. In the Collins Dictionary (2022), the writers define “challenging ideas” as questioning “truth,
value, or authority.” Providing a definition with examples to students of all EDC levels would be
advantageous because they can judge for themselves whether they, or their classmates, are using
Unit 3 discussion skills for the purpose of questioning.

Evaluating Ideas
Using Unit 3 discussion skills also does not necessarily equate to fulfilling the goal of evaluatingideas because students can use the discussion skills without weighing or judging the merits of theideas. For example, discussing advantages and disadvantages does not necessarily mean thatstudents are weighing advantages and disadvantages. Likewise, asking for sources of information
during discussion does not mean that students are determining which source is most trustworthy.
The step of students revisiting their initial opinions is necessary because the goal is to reassess
information in light of discussion skill use. The 2022 Handbook does note that students should give
their “opinion + assess” the ideas, but the goal of this paper is to be more specific than the current
textbook and handbook on what assess means in terms of the Unit 3 discussion skills, and when also
students should give their assessment during the discussion.
EDC students might struggle to provide a definition of evaluating on their own, so providing one
can help them gain a better understanding of what they should be doing during the discussion.
Evaluating can be defined as follows:• “…the making of a judgement about the amount, number, or value of something after thinking
about it carefully” (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2022)• “…the systematic determination and assessment of a subject’s merit, worth, significance,
using criteria governed by a set of standards” (Wikipedia Contributors, 2022)
The second definition includes the use of criteria as the means by which the evaluation issystematic, and doing so, more clearly differentiates it from simply giving opinions. Kita et al.’s(2022) textbook explanations do not define discussion skills in terms of making a judgment, andtherefore, they do not provide a set of standards by which students can evaluate a belief. They also
do not specify where exactly, within the discussion, students should be revisiting their initial opinions
to make a judgement.
In addition to not defining the terms for Levels 1-3, the textbook writers do not relate the terms
to each other so that students understand their connection. A high-quality evaluation requires thechallenging of the “truth, value, or authority” of different beliefs of the same issue. Therefore, it
might be important for students to know that they are to challenge ideas for the purpose of properly
evaluating them.

1 The translation is on the table of contents section on pages 3-4 of Level 4 textbook (See Kita et al., 2022).

36

EXAMINING THE UNIT 3 GOALS OF ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASS

Textbook Explanations of Unit 3 Discussion Skills
Table 2 shows the textbook explanations of Unit 3’s discussion skills from the EDC textbook,“What’s Your Opinion?” (Kita et al., 2022):
Table 2
Unit 3 Textbook Explanations from Kita et al. (2022)
Goals of Challenging
Discussion Skills
and Evaluating
Different Viewpoints

Balancing Opinions

Textbook Explanations

Asking for Different“…it helps you discuss different opinions on a topic.”
Viewpoints
Giving Different
Viewpoints“…it helps you discuss more than just your own opinions.”

Asking Others toBalance Opinions“…it helps everyone understand different sides of an idea or topic.”

Balancing Your
Opinions“…it helps you talk about the advantages and disadvantages ofdifferent ideas.”

Asking about
Information“…it helps you find out more about other people’s opinions andwhere their information came from.”

Giving Information“…it helps you support your opinions with evidence and facts from
TV, the internet, books, magazines, newspapers, other people, andpersonal experiences.”

Sources of Information

Note. Information from What’s Your Opinion? 2nd Edition (Kita et al., 2022)

These textbook explanations are not so clear insofar as how the discussion skills relate tochallenging and evaluating ideas. For example, the explanation for giving different viewpoints is that“it helps you discuss more than just your own opinions.” Even if students know the definitions ofchallenging and evaluating ideas, this explanation might still be difficult for students to understandhow discussing more than just your own opinions relates to challenging and evaluating ideas. As
there is no further explanation than the one presented in the textbook, students and instructors must
determine for themselves how to use these skills to fulfill the goals of challenge and evaluate ideas.
The textbook writers provide dialogues of the discussion skills to contextualize their use, butthere are no activities to help students identify when discussion skills are being used for the purposeof challenging and for the purpose of evaluating ideas. Explanations in the textbook and the handbook
are also unclear regarding whether all of the Unit 3 discussion skills can be used for both challenging
ideas and evaluating ideas. Therefore, instructors or students must also determine whether each skill
presented in Unit 3 can be used for either challenging or evaluating, or for both. This point isimportant because the meaning of challenging ideas is different from evaluating ideas, and thus, theway that we would use the discussion skills changes. This problem is explained in more detail in thenext section.

New Unit 3 Discussion Skill Explanations
To make the relationship between the discussion skills and the Unit 3 goal clearer than theprevious textbook explanations, Table 3 below shows new explanations with examples for each. They
are as follows:37多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Table 3
New Discussion Skill Explanations for Unit 3 Goals
Discussion Skills

Challenging ideas

Evaluating ideas

To challenge ideas using viewpoints, ask for or To evaluate ideas using viewpoints, after
give the opinions of people who disagree. discussing the views of people who disagree
Doing so uncovers potential weaknesses of the with each other, decide whose viewpoint is theidea.
most convincing.
Viewpoints

Example: “You said that emergency service
Example: “We discussed five viewpoints, and,workers should speak English, but how about
in my opinion, the most convincing views arefrom an ambulance drivers’ viewpoint? From
from emergency drivers and doctors. They
their point of view, paramedics, who are also inthink that emergency service workers do not
the ambulance, must speak English so learning
need to speak English, so I agree with theirEnglish is not necessary for drivers. What doopinion.”you think about that?”
To challenge ideas using balancing, ask for or To evaluate ideas using balancing, determine
give support for an opposing opinion. Doing so whether the good points outweigh the bad
expresses doubt about the idea.
points or vice versa.

Balancing
Opinions

Example: “You said that all emergency service
workers should speak English. Yet, what is a Example: “We discussed the advantages anddisadvantage of all emergency service workers disadvantages and found two advantages andspeaking English?”three disadvantages. Even though there are
Example: “You said that all emergency service some advantages, the disadvantages are moreworkers should not speak English. However, convincing, so all emergency service workers
one advantage is… What do you think about should speak English.”
that?”To challenge using sources of information, ask
To evaluate using sources of information,
where students have learned about idea.
decide which source is the most trustworthy.
Doing so questions the idea’s truthfulness.

Sources ofInformation

Example: “We discussed the sources of
Example: “You said that all emergency service information and I think that the strongest
workers should speak English, but how do you sources of information are from NHK andknow about that?”
BBC because those news organizations are
more trustworthy than social media.”

In Table 3, I separate challenging ideas from evaluating ideas because the different purposeschange the way that the discussion skills are used. For example, when students use balancing
opinions to challenge ideas, students ask for or give the opposite (e.g., if a student agrees with theidea, then students ask about its disadvantages and vice versa). When students use balancing
opinions for the purpose of evaluation, they first weigh the advantages and disadvantages. Thereafter,
they judge whether overall, there are more convincing advantages for the idea than disadvantages.
The same idea holds true for viewpoints and sources. They are used differently depending on their
purpose. Table 3 might help students understand the meaning of challenging and evaluating morethan Table 2 because Table 3 explicitly connects the use of discussion skill to the unit goals. It also
answers the question whether discussion skills can be used for both challenging ideas and evaluatingideas.
To help students with evaluating ideas, instructors can ask students to use the following
prompts, which are based on the Unit 3 discussion skills, during the summary section of the
discussion:• In my opinion, the most important stakeholders and experts are… and so I agree with them38

EXAMINING THE UNIT 3 GOALS OF ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASS

that...
• I believe that the advantages/disadvantages of… outweigh its disadvantages/advantages.
• I think that there are more reliable sources of information for the idea than against it.
For example, if students are discussing the idea that all emergency service workers should
speak English, then after they use viewpoints, balance, and sources, they can revisit their initial
opinion at the end of the discussion using the prompts above as a standard by which to evaluate
ideas. One disadvantage of having students openly evaluate at the end of their discussion is thatstudents do not cover as many topics as they do without evaluation because revisiting their initialbeliefs is more time-consuming. Evaluating might also be too cognitively challenging forlow-proficiency students because they must recall what other students have said. Therefore, theymight need to take notes during the discussion and have more scaffolding for the summary section(See Appendix for an example worksheet for Unit 3 discussion). Lastly, the new explanations are
divided into the categories of “challenging” and “evaluating,” and not divided into the categories of“asking for” and “giving” as is the case with Units 1 and 2, so there is a lack of consistency. Instructors
must decide whether the advantages of presenting these new explanations outweigh the disadvantagesof presenting them.

Unit 3 Activities
In this section, I explain activities to help students use viewpoints, sources of information, andbalancing to challenge and evaluate ideas.

Using Viewpoints to Challenge and Evaluate Ideas
On page 34 of the EDC Handbook (2022), writers recommend giving students time to think ofvarious viewpoints before the discussion to decrease their cognitive load. I recommend this activity
for the additional reason that instructors can ensure that students list relevant viewpoints ofstakeholders or experts. If not, students make a mistake of using any viewpoints. They might oftenask, regardless of the topic, “How about from the viewpoint of university students?” The problem
with this is, typically, stakeholders and experts have more convincing views than outsiders orlaypersons, so for the purpose of fulfilling the goal of evaluating ideas, students can spend time
researching ideas of stakeholders and experts during discussion preparation. Another problem isthat if the viewpoint is not from a stakeholder or expert, it is difficult to claim that that constitutes achallenge to ideas because it might lack relevance.
I also ask students to use contrasting words to clearly show that they are challenging ideas.
Instead of students asking “How about from ambulance drivers’ point of view?” they ask “But how
about from ambulance drivers’ point of view?” Instead of, “From the ambulance drivers’ point ofview…” They say, “However, from ambulance drivers’ point of view, they believe…” Using contrastingwords makes discussion assessment for instructors easier as using them signals that students areintending to use viewpoints for challenging ideas. The 2022 Handbook writers state that students canalso use viewpoints to support their opinions (i.e., one of the goals for Unit 1). Supporting opinionswith viewpoints helps students to better evaluate ideas. They might need to know not to use
contrasting words (e.g., however, yet) when they use viewpoints to support their own opinions.

39

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Using Balancing Opinions to Challenge and Evaluate Ideas
Students can evaluate ideas using balancing opinions by thinking of the most compelling
advantages and disadvantages, and then deciding whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
Instructors can write a list of advantages and disadvantages of an idea, and then have students judge
whether the advantages are more convincing than the disadvantages. Next, students can explain
their rationale for their decision. In addition to helping students to evaluate, the rationale helps
students to think deeply about the idea because their reasoning usually is based on their values or
principles of abstract ideas. For example, students might think that the advantages of studying
abroad for a year outweigh the disadvantages because they value new experiences more than theyvalue familiarity.

Using Sources of Information to Challenge and Evaluate Ideas
The EDC Handbook writers (2022) state that students can ask for sources of information tochallenge ideas using the phrase, “How do you know about that?” To use sources of information forthe purpose evaluating ideas, students must judge sources of information based on theirtrustworthiness. Without doing any research, students might overuse the phrase, “It’s from myexperience” to support their opinions. For discussion preparation, students can spend 5 minutes
researching one to two sources of information. In another activity, instructors can present a few
sources of information and have students discuss to what extent the sources are trustworthy.
Students have a required debate course next semester, and they spend time considering the reliabilityof their sources, but I still think that if the Unit 3 goal is to evaluate ideas, then discussion preparation
for researching sources of information is justifiable.

Conclusion
To conclude, EDC students might need more assistance to realize the Unit 3 goals of challenging
and evaluating ideas. Revising some of the textbook explanations can add clarity. Students also
benefit from certain activities such as researching sources of information, using viewpoints to thinkof challenges, and providing a set of standards for evaluating ideas. Although these revisions to the
textbook explanations are not without issues, by providing an explicit connection between the Unit 3
goals and discussion skills, students might gain a deeper understanding of how to use these skills forthe stated purpose.

40

EXAMINING THE UNIT 3 GOALS OF ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASS

References
Collins English Dictionary. (2022). Challenge the idea. Retrieved September 11, 2022, from https://www.collinsdictionar y.com/dictionar y/english/challenge-the-idea#:~:text=If%20you%20
challenge%20ideas%20or,truth%2C%20value%2C%20or%20authority
English Discussion Class Handbook (2022). Discussion Handbook. Tokyo, Japan: Rikkyo University.
Kita, S., Sturges, J. G., Arthurson, D., & Truxel, D. (2022). What’s Your Opinion? Interactive Skills for
Effective Discussion. Tokyo, Japan: Rikkyo University.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. (2022). Evaluation definition. Retrieved September 11, 2022,
from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/evaluate
Wikipedia contributors. (2022, August 11). Evaluation. Wikipedia. Retrieved September 11, 2022,
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaluation

41

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Appendix
Example Worksheet for Unit 3 Discussion42

【Teaching Practice Report】

An Intelligibility-Based Approach:
Teaching English Pronunciation Toward Comprehensibility
Ian Hart
Abstract
Rikkyo University’s Department of Foreign Language Education and Research (FLER) offers mandatory English
courses for first-year students. The students take a written exam to determine their English level, allowing them tobe assigned to a class with similar leveled students. During this course, students are taught how to use criticalthinking and research skills to produce speeches and presentations, cross-examine others, rebut others’ ideas, andprovide feedback. While students are graded on their production of such skills, feedback is not given on thelearners’ phonological production. With intelligibility and comprehensibility of spoken production being vital for thelearners to respond effectively to their classmates, the research questions whether more focus should be placed on
the teaching of pronunciation and, if so, what support can be provided by the teacher. This paper provides phonemic
and prosodic analysis of two learners who belong to the same class to determine whether differences in theirproduction influence comprehension and performance. After reviewing the results, conclusions are drawn, andsupport is provided by the beliefs of other researchers in the field to determine whether the teaching ofpronunciation is necessary.
Keywords: phonology, pronunciation, EIL, ELF Core, prosodic analysis

Introduction
For Japanese learners of English, it is important for them to make their pronunciation patterns
intelligible to others. For example, at Rikkyo University, all first-year students take mandatory
content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classes: discussion, debate, and presentation. Manyof skills taught in these classes require the learners to respond, challenge, and provide feedback on
their classmates’ ideas or spoken production. However, if the initial production is not intelligible due
to issues with pronunciation, this may have a negative effect on the tasks that follow. Japaneselearners face various challenges, especially in segmental phonology, as they must learn phonemesthat do not exist in Japanese. Furthermore, the presence of L1 transfer may have a negative influenceon phonemic production, as many contrasts between the Japanese and English sound systems exist.
One example is the Japanese writing system, which is based on a syllabary rather than a phonetic
system.
This paper analyzes the segmental and suprasegmental features in the spoken performance of
two learners with English as a second language. By comparing the learners’ performance to a
standard Received Pronunciation (RP) sample, divergences from the RP model will be highlighted.
Possible reasons for these variations will be discussed in relation to the phonological systems ofEnglish and Japanese, and teaching implications will be considered.

43

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

MethodParticipants
The learners in this study were first-year university students. They were enrolled in intermediatelevel language classes, with their level being decided by their Test for English International
Communication (TOEIC) score. Their scores fell into the same bracket (300-500). The TOEIC test is
the most widely used standardized testing system in Japan, designed to measure the everyday
English skills of people working in an international environment. The test consists of two equally
graded tests: Listening Test and Reading Test.
• Learner A spent 3 months on a homestay program in Hawaii. She had an interest in Hawaiian
culture and liked watching American movies.
• Learner B had never traveled abroad. Her interests were focused on Korean pop culture.
The participants were chosen, as the majority of first-year students are placed into intermediatelevel classes, and testing suggested that their English skills were of a similar level.
Procedure
The learners were given the model dialogue (Appendix, Table.1) in advance. They were allowed
to practice reading the dialogue to minimize hesitation, improve fluency, and check comprehensionof the content. Feedback was not given, as the aim was to record an accurate representation of theirspeaking ability. The recording was then transcribed both phonemically and prosodically forcomparison with a transcribed RP model (Appendix, Table.3 & Table.4).

Results
Analysis of Learners’ Speech: Segmental Features
When comparing the learners’ production with the RP model, clear deviances can be heard.
Furthermore, how certain phonemes are pronounced differ between the learners. Phonemes
represent the smallest distinctive speech sounds, which help us distinguish one word for another(Rogerson-Revell, 2011). Unlike with English, Japanese has a more limited phonemic inventory. For
example, Japanese employs fewer consonants and vowels and no diphthongs.
In this section, an analysis of the learners’ production of vowel and consonant phonemes will begiven:
VowelsCompared to English, which has twenty vowels, Japanese only has five, though these may be
distinctly short or long (Thompson, 2002). The non-existence of English vowels in Japanese meansthat Japanese speakers may shorten (or lengthen) English vowels if they do not exist in their nativelanguage phonological system (Baba, 2001). The articulation of English vowel sounds is dependent
on the placement of the tongue. When the front part of the tongue is raised, the vowels are definedas front vowels, and when the back part of the tongue is raised, they are called back vowels. As forJapanese vowels, Tsujimura (2013) provides a summary of the five Japanese vowels, listing them asa high-front /i/, mid-front /e/, low-central /a/, mid-back /o/, and a high-back central unrounded /u/44

AN INTELLIGIBILITY-BASED APPROACH: TEACHING ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION TOWARD COMPREHENSIBILITY(transcribed as /ɯ/). These five vowels can be observed in all three environments: initial, medial,
and final (Baba, 2001). Before analyzing the learners’ performance, it was important to understandthe difference between these phonological systems, as there is evidence of L1 interference
throughout the sample.
One problem that stands out is the appearance of the unrounded Japanese high-back vowel /ɯ/.
This is mostly evident in Learner B’s speech, as /ɯ/ sometimes follows consonants, as seen with thewords /gɯreɪt/ and /sæŋkɯs/ (Item.2), /hævɯ/ and /dɯrɪŋk/ (Item.4), and /gɯriːn/ (Item.6).
This problem also occurs when Learner A pronounces the word quite as /kɯwaɪt/, although, the/ɯ/ phoneme is less noticeable due to the rolling transition between phonemes. This issue is likely
to be caused by the learners’ L1 understanding of katakana syllabary. In Japanese, loanwords arereformulated using the writing system (katakana), which enforces rigid consonant+vowel codification
for spelling (Lesley, 2014). Thompson (2002) suggests that consonantal clusters rarely exist, as theJapanese syllable structure is very simple. Each vowel sound has an accompanying consonant,meaning the syllabic order in Japanese is generally consonant+vowel or vowel alone. Carruthers(2006) explains that this also applies to final position consonants, which causes them to beunintentionally extended with /ɯ/ or /o/ phonemes, as seen with /havɯ/ (Item.4 & 6). This is what
Thompson (2002) calls a “rounding-off vowel,” and Brown (2008) believes this has ramifications forEnglish syllable structure, as learners find it difficult to adjust their L1 tendencies.
A less noticeable problem is Learner B’s production of the monophthong /æ/, which is
pronounced as a low central /a/. It is advised that Japanese learners stretch or lengthen the familiar
vowel /a/ to obtain a vowel identical to /æ/. As Japanese speech, lip and jaw movements tend to beminimized (Thompson, 2002), and these features may carry over into English, making an open /æ/more difficult to produce. In Learner B’s case, this slight mispronunciation does not affectintelligibility. However, as Thompson points out, this issue may also occur with /ʌ/, which can cause
confusion in pairs like “lack and luck, match and much” (p.297).
The use of diphthongs or gliding, double vowels varied through the sample. While English
makes use of eight diphthongs, Japanese consider these phonemes to be two separate sounds ofequal length. Learner A’s pronunciation of /eɪ/ in the word make (Item.3) matches that of the RPmodel, as is her production of /əʊ/ in hope. She pronounces /aɪ/ in Hi (Item.1) and quite (Item.5)
with a pronounced glide to a half-close position in the mouth. Learner B also makes good use of /eɪ/in anyway (Item.4) but deviates from the RP model by using a central /əʊ/ in problem, instead of theback, open vowel /ɒ/. This may be because /ɒ/ does not exist in the Japanese sound system.
Similarly, in Learner A’s pronunciation of the word chocolate (Item.5), the final syllable is pronounced
as /leɪt/, rather than the RP /lət/. The abbreviation choco is commonly used in Japan, so the learner
may have unintentionally perceived chocolate as two separate words (i.e., choco and late).
Another deviance from the RP model is when Learner A pronounces the word your as /jʊer/(Item.3), instead of /jɔː/ (Strong form) or /jər/ (Weak form). As /jʊer/ is General American
pronunciation, this would suggest that her experience living in Hawaii may have influenced her
production of vowel sounds.
Consonants
There are sixteen Japanese consonants, which are referred to as nonsyllabics. Unlike withEnglish, Japanese does not have closed syllables, meaning they never end in a consonant (except forthe syllable nasal “n”). English has twenty-four consonants, including six plosives, two affricates, ninefricatives, three nasals, one lateral, and three approximants. The formation of consonant sounds are45

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

described in terms of the place of articulation (i.e., where the sounds are produced), the manner ofarticulation (i.e., how the sounds are produced), and the presence or absence of voicing (i.e., whether
or not there is a vibration of the vocal cords) (Rogerson-Revell, 2011). The most notably absent
consonants from Japanese are the dental fricatives /θ/ and /ð/ and the labio-dental fricatives /f/ and/v/. As these consonants do not exist in Japanese, they are often substituted for other consonants.
Thompson (2002) explains that /θ/ and /ð/ may be pronounced with alveolar fricatives /s/ and/z/ or post-alveolar fricatives /ʃ/ or /dʒ/. This is partly confirmed in the learners’ sample when
Learner B is unable to produce /θ/ at the start of thanks (Item.2) and think (Item.6). Instead, thepre-initial syllable is substituted with /s/, forming /sæŋkɯs/ and /sɪŋk/. This can be hard forJapanese learners. When asked to place their tongues between the lower and upper teeth, theysometimes incorrectly press both lips on the tip of the tongue or restrict the airflow with their teeth.
Learner A’s production of the /θ/ phoneme is more natural, as she successfully pronounces /θ/ inboth thanks (/θæŋks/) and think (/θɪŋk/) in Item.7.
When producing the consonant /f/, Learner B pauses before saying the word fine (Item.4). The
learner had difficulty situating her lower lip underneath her upper teeth. As she is unable to produce
the restricted air coming out from the gap, the /f/ phoneme is not fully produced. The transition
between two consonants, an alveolar fricative /z/ to a labiodental fricative /f/, proved difficult for thelearner. Learner A’s production of the /f/ consonant is closer to that of the RP model, for example,
when pronouncing the word fancy (Item.5).
Another common problem is the articulation of /v/ as a voiced bilabial plosive /b/. Learner B’s
production of /v/ in the word have (Item.4) seems to fall somewhere between a labio-dental /v/ anda bilabial /b/. Like with /f/, the friction between the lower lip and upper teeth is not fully detectable,
producing a word that sounds more like /habɯ/ than the RP model /hæv/. However, the friction ismore noticeable with the second use of have (Item.6). In this case, the learner’s lips do not makecontact. Learner A’s pronunciation of have (Item.7) provides a more natural-sounding production of
the /v/ phoneme.
The final problem is that the lateral approximant /l/ and the post-alveolar approximant /r/ aretypically conflated and pronounced as a Japanese /r/, which Thompson (2002) describes as “a flap
almost like a short /d/” (p.298). Japanese learners have difficulty producing the consonant /r/ as it
does not exist in the Japanese sound system. This means Japanese learners find it hard to produce/r/ at the start of words as they are required to curl the tip of the tongue backward, position it central
in the mouth, and move it up and down without touching the roof of the mouth. At the same time, thespeaker’s lips move forward while curling the tip of the tongue back inside their mouths. Completing
both movements simultaneously is very challenging for Japanese learners. Regarding the productionof the consonant /l/, Japanese learners have the opposite problem, where the forward movement of
the lips distorts the sound produced. It seems difficult for them to control the movement of their lips
and must be instructed to keep freeze their lips completely. This problem occurs when Learner A
pronounces the word actually (Item.7) as /ækʧʊeriː/. From the previous examples, the analysis has
shown that Learner A’s pronunciation follows the RP model quite closely. This would suggest that theissue with /l/ and /r/ production is a more difficult challenge to overcome.
Segmental Analysis: Summary
Learner A has a better mastery of English phonemes. Learner B tends to rely more on her
understanding of her native language phonological system. While remaining mostly intelligible, a
subsequent loss of accuracy may cause comprehension issues for listeners unfamiliar with Japanese46

AN INTELLIGIBILITY-BASED APPROACH: TEACHING ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION TOWARD COMPREHENSIBILITY

phonemic production.

Analysis of Learners’ Speech: Suprasegmental Features
When considering syllables and larger units of speech, it is important to analyze thesuprasegmental features. This is often referred to as the study of prosody, with features that form thebasis for important functions including articulatory shortcuts, rhythm, stress, and intonation (Roach,2010).
Assimilation
Assimilation happens when phonemes at word boundaries are influenced by each other, causing
either the final consonant of the first word to change sound (regressive assimilation) or the initialconsonant of the second word to be affected by the preceding word (progressive assimilation)(Rogerson-Revell, 2011).
During the learners’ performance, assimilation was rarely used. In Item.5, Learner A uses
regressive assimilation to change the /t/ of what to a /d/ sound, allowing smoother linking to thefollowing schwa /ə/. However, she fails to use progressive assimilation to produce /ʧ/ in /əbaʊ ̺ ʧuː/
(about you).
ElisionWhen sounds are not pronounced in connected speech, which would be pronounced if the word
occurred in isolation, this is called elision (Rogerson-Revell, 2011). Both learners make good use of
elision in unstressed syllables to produce more rapid speech. In Item.4, Learner B elides both the /t/and /d/, resulting in a glottal stop after each word to produce /wɒ ʃu wiː/ (what should we). Learner
A also elides /t/ to produce a more rapid connection between /dʒəs hæv/ (Item.7). Learner B elides/k/ at the end of drink (Item.4) and think (Item.6), which affects intelligibility. Although, this may nothave been intentional.
Weak Forms
Weak syllables are unstressed and typically contain a short vowel or schwa (Rogerson-Revell,2011). While the learners did use the schwa at times, especially when producing weak forms ofarticles, they did not use them enough to reduce unstressed vowels. For example, have waspronounced as /hæv/ rather than a weaker /həv/ and /frɒm/ instead of /frəm/ for the word from.
While some people may believe that the use of weak forms is not entirely necessary for L2 English
speakers, if learners are unaware that they exist, it may be difficult for them to understand speakers
who do use them (Roach, 2009).
Stress, Intonation, and Rhythm
While the Japanese are good at repeating stress/intonation patterns, there are limited parallels
between the prosodic systems of the two languages (Thompson, 2002). With English, intonation is an
important vehicle for meaning, helping the listener to “get a clearer picture of what the speakerintends to mean and fulfils many, overlapping functions, including attitudinal, grammatical, discursive
and pragmatic” (Rogerson-Revell, 2011, p. 179). While tones are only found on a small number ofprominent syllables in English, they can “affect the interpretation of an utterance in terms of the
speaker’s intended meaning” (Rogerson-Revell, 2011, p. 180).
An examination of the prosodic transcription of the learners’ performance reveals their47

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

placement of the tonic stress (i.e., most prominent stress point in the unit) mostly agreed with the RPmodel. There are some differences, in particular, at the end of items 1, 3, and 6. In all three utterances,a rising tone is incorrectly used on the final syllable of the unit. In Japanese, questions usually havea rise on the utterance-final question participle ka (Thompson, 2002). As Japanese learners aretaught the basic rule of using rising intonation with English questions, their knowledge of bothlanguages could help explain possible L1 interference. Unnatural use of rising tones is also evident
in items 5 and 8. Even though questions are not being asked, both learners A and B apply high-rising
pitch movement to words choco/late and prob/lem.
Apart from some other errors regarding the misuse of a fall-rise or rise-fall, stress at a syllable
level remains intelligible. Both learners follow similar stress patterns; however, Learner A’s
utterances would sound more natural to a native English speaker’s ears. Learner A has a morenatural-sounding rhythm. Roach (2010) explains that “in speech, we find that syllables take the placeof musical notes or beats” and “in many languages, the stressed syllable determines the rhythm”(p.36). If you clapped your hands at the point of each stress point, you would find that the time
between each stressed syllable would be quite regular. This is what Roach calls “stress-timed.” With
Learner A, the time between each stressed mark remains quite regular, producing a natural-sounding
rhythm. However, Learner B has difficulty maintaining regular stress-timed rhythm.
Suprasegmental Analysis: Summary
Both learners’ use of stress is generally acceptable. While stress is often applied to theappropriate tone units, intonation varies in accuracy, with tonic syllables often rising in pitch. LearnerA’s production sounds more natural due to better stress-timed rhythm. Assimilation and linking arelacking; however, elision is used and is accurate for the most part. Although, weak forms would help
to provide more natural sounding production.

Teaching Implications
Leather (1999) believes that native speaker listeners pay more attention to suprasegmentals thansegmental accuracy (Rogerson-Revell, 2011). Derwing and Munro (Derwig & Munro, 1997) conclude
that “improvements in NNS comprehensibility, at least for intermediate and high-proficiency
learners, is more likely to occur with improvement in grammatical and prosodic proficiency than asole focus on correction of phonemic errors” (Rogerson-Revell, 2011, p. 242). In schools, the use ofminimal pairs is sometimes used to teach the difference between word sounds; however, the analysis
questions the usefulness of such teaching approaches. In Levis and Cortes’ (2008) study of minimal
pairs in spoken corpora, their research suggests that “many minimal pairs in the textbooks probably
fail a very basic test of usefulness” (p.202). I often found that the learners are receptive to clear
explanations of phonemic differences; however, intelligibility issues occur, especially when speaking
with their NNS classmates. Jones (1997) comments on the overuse of phonemic drills and minimal
pairs and promotes a greater emphasis on the communicative function of suprasegmentals. For
functional intelligibility to be achieved, learners must understand how prosody operates in realistic
contexts. Greer and Yamaguchi (2008) suggest that dictation practice is useful to encourage reflection
on weak and strong forms, while Brown (2008) introduces the use of haiku writing to reduce L1
influence. Poetry is popular with researchers, as it can raise learners’ awareness of connectedspeech, consonant clusters, and stress placement (Makarova, 2006).
Based on the viewpoints highlighted above, various techniques were used in the CLIL classes48

AN INTELLIGIBILITY-BASED APPROACH: TEACHING ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION TOWARD COMPREHENSIBILITY

taught during the duration of this study. In the English presentation classes, rather than using
standard phonemic drills, the presentation of minimal pairs and phonemic differences was given
through gamified listening trees (Figure.1).
Figure.1
Gamified Listening Tree

Figure.2
Visual Presentation of Phonemes

Previous studies (e.g., Chou, 2014; Werbach & Hunter, 2015; Baptista & Oliveira, 2018; Hart,
2020) support the idea that by adding competitive elements to learning activities, both intrinsic andextrinsic motivation can be raised, resulting in improved learner input and output. The phonemic
differences between the minimal pairs were explained visually with diagrams (Figure.2), thenpracticed first by listening to the teacher and finding the correct answer, and then the learners
practiced reading the pairs while their classmates listened to find the answer. Points were awarded.
In addition, the video sharing app, Flipgrid, was used to record and share the learners’ presentations.
This allowed the learners to view themselves speaking and self-evaluate with a focus on bothphonemic and suprasegmental features. They also provided feedback on other learners’ presentations,making them aware of issues in comprehensibility from the perspective of a non-native speaker(NNS) while also commenting on vocal effect (e.g., pitch, stress, intonation, tone). With presentations
and debates being based around real-life issues, information was presented through videos of real-life
circumstances and conditions, showing how the language that they might potentially use operates inrealistic contexts. TED talks were very useful in showing students how prosody is utilized in effective
speeches and presentations.
By contrast, other researchers believe that the majority of communication breakdowns are due
to segmental errors, especially for NNS-NNS interactions. In today’s world, English is used as aninternational language between people who do not share a common native tongue. Crystal (1997)
estimates that less than a third of the world’s competent English speakers are native speakers,49

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

making them a minority. Widdowson (1994) explains that English belongs to everyone who speaks
it, not just to native-speakers. This is referred to as English as an International Language (EIL),
where the target community is “an international community in which all participants have an equalclaim to membership” (Jenkins, 2002, p. 85). Jenkins explains that EIL provides “the right for
speakers to express their (L1) regional group identity in English by means of their accent, as long as
the accent does not jeopardize international intelligibility” (p.85). This implies that learners do notneed to strive for standard pronunciation, such as RP. Instead, new international standards may beconsidered, replacing the native-speaker model. By re-evaluating core/non-core features of spoken
English, Jenkins (2000), creator of the English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) core, provides a set ofphonological and phonetic features that are important for intelligibility between NNSs. While thesefeatures require pedagogic focus for production, Jenkins suggests that many other items do notcause intelligibility issues and are unnecessary (e.g., weak forms, stress timing, word stress, andpitch movement).
These implications suggest that learners should be given a choice. If Japanese learners’ goals
are more relevant to EIL intelligibility, then less emphasis should be put on Standard English models,and more phonemic and prosodic errors should be tolerated. Furthermore, learners should be given
more exposure to non-native, localized accents of English, while teaching materials should bedesigned around an EIL foundation.

Conclusion
The analysis has been enlightening. While Learner A’s production followed more closely to the
RP model than Learner B’s, their individual goals were never taken into consideration. Learner B’s
production remained intelligible, for the most part, and she may not strive for native-like production.
I feel that I am in a better position to focus on the core items that may affect intelligibility from an EIL
perspective. Standard English norms remain as a teaching model, so there is a growing need for theincreased awareness of EIL/ELF standards in EFL classrooms. Furthermore, by raising theawareness of the phonological and prosodic differences between the learners’ L1 and English,
teachers are in a better position to achieve improved learner outcomes and more intelligible output.

50

AN INTELLIGIBILITY-BASED APPROACH: TEACHING ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION TOWARD COMPREHENSIBILITY

References
Baba, E. (2001). Native Language Influence on the Production of English Sounds by Japanese
Learners. The Reading Matrix, 1.
Baptista, G., & Oliveira, T. (2018). Gamification and serious games: A literature meta-analysis andintegrative model. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 306-315.
Brown, H. (2008). The reduction of extra syllables in Japanese EFL learners’ pronunciation throughhaiku practice. The Language Teacher, 32(2), 9-14.
Carruthers, S. (2006). Pronunciation difficulties of Japanese speakers of English: Predictions basedon contrastive analysis. Hawaii Pacific University TESOL Working Paper Series, 4(2), 17-24.
Chou, Y.-k. (2014). The Octalysis Framework for Gamification & Behavioral Design. Retrieved from
Yukaichou: https://yukaichou.com/gamification-examples/octalysis-complete-gamificationframework/
Crystal , D. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge City Press.
Derwig, T., & Munro, M. (1997). Accent, intelligibility and comprehensibility: Evidence from four
L1s. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 1-16.
Greer, T., & Yamauchi, M. (2008). Pronunciation tasks for academic study skills. The Language
Teacher, 32(10), 5-6.
Hart, I. P. (2020). Fostering Intrinsic Motivation through Intergroup Relationships. New Directions in
Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 8, 137-146.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Jenkins, J. (2002). A Sociolinguistically Based, Empirically Researched Pronunciation Syllabus forEnglish as an International Language . Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 83-103.
Jones, R. H. (1997). Beyond ‘listen and repeat’: Pronunciation teaching materials and theories ofsecond language acquisition. System, 25(1), 103-112.
Leather, J. (1999). Second-language speech research: An introduction. Language Learning, 49(1),1-37.
Lesley, J. (2014). A Phonological and Prosodic Analysis of English Pronunciation by Japanese
Learners. Hawaii Pacific University TESOL Working Paper Series, 12, 18-31.
Levis, J., & Cortes, V. (2008). Minimal Pairs in Spoken Corpora: Implications for Pronunciation
Assessment and Teaching. Towards adaptive CALL: Natural language processing for diagnostic
language assessment, 197-208.
Makarova, V. (2006). The effect of poetry on English pronunciation acquisition by Japanese EFL
learners. The Language Teacher, 30(3), 3-9.
Roach, P. (2009). English Phonetics and Phonology (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roach, P. (2010). Phonetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2011). English Phonology and Pronunciation Teaching. London: Continuum
International International Publishing Group Ltd.
Thompson, I. (2002). Japanese Speakers. In M. Swan, & B. Smith, Learner English (4th ed., pp.
296-309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsujimura, N. (2013). An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Blackwell.
Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2015). The gamification toolkit: Dynamics, mechanics, and components forthe win. Philadelphia: Wharton Digital Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 377-89.
51

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Context, community and authentic language. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4),705-716.

52

AN INTELLIGIBILITY-BASED APPROACH: TEACHING ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION TOWARD COMPREHENSIBILITY

Appendix
Table 1Model Dialogue

Table 2
RP Phonemic Transcription
A: ‖ ˈhaɪ ˈhaʊ wəz jə ˈtrɪp ˈjestədi ‖B: ‖ ˈgreɪt ˈθæŋks ‖ ˈwel ‖ əˈpɑːt frəm ə ˈbɪt əv ə dɪˈleɪ ɒn ðə ˈmæntʃɪstə ˈtreɪn ‖A: ‖ ˈwel aɪ həʊp ɪt ˈdɪdnt meɪk ju ˈleɪt fə jər əˈpɔɪntmənt ‖B: ‖ ˈnəʊ ‖ ɪt wəz ˈfaɪn ‖ ˈeniweɪ ‖ ˈwɒt ʃəd wi ˈhəv tə ˈdrɪŋk ‖A: ‖ aɪ kwaɪt ˈfænsi ə ˈhɒt ˈtʃɒklət ‖ ˈwɒt əbaʊt ˈju ‖B: ‖ mm aɪ ˈθɪŋk aɪl hæv ˈɡriːn ˈtiː ‖ aɪl ˈɡəʊ ənd ˈɔːdə ‖ ˈʃəl aɪ ‖A: ‖ ˈθæŋks ‖ ˈæktʃʊəli ‖ aɪ ˈθɪŋk aɪl dʒəst ˈhəv ə ˈkɒfi ɪnˈsted ‖B: ‖ ˈʃʊə ‖ ˈnəʊ ˈprɒbləm ‖ aɪl bi ˈbæk ɪn ə ˈmɪnɪt ‖Table 3
Phonemic Transcription Comparison
Item Learner
1.

A

2.

B

3.

A

4.

B

5.

A

6.

B

7.

A

8.

B

RP Transcription(including weak forms)

Learners’ Performance‖ ˈhaɪ ˈhaʊ wəz jə ˈtrɪp ˈjestədi ‖‖ ˈhaɪ haʊ wɒz jɔː trɪp jestəˈdeɪ ‖‖ ˈgreɪt ˈθæŋks ‖ ˈwel ‖ əˈpɑːt frəm ə ˈbɪt əv ə dɪˈleɪ ‖ ˈgɯreɪt ˈsæŋkɯs ‖ ˈwel ‖ əˈpɑːt frɒm ə ˈbɪt ɒv (ə)ɒn ðə ˈmæntʃɪstə ˈtreɪn ‖dɪˈlaɪ ɒn də ˈmænʧɪsta ˈtreɪn ‖‖ ˈwel aɪ həʊp ɪt ˈdɪdnt meɪk ju ˈleɪt fə jər ‖ ˈwel ‖ aɪ ˈhəʊp ɪ(t̚) ˈdɪdnt meɪk juː ˈleɪt fɔː jʊerəˈpɔɪntmənt ‖apɔɪntˈment ‖‖ ˈnəʊ ‖ ɪt wəz ˈfaɪn ‖ ˈeniweɪ ‖ ˈwɒt ʃəd wi ˈhəv tə ‖ ˈnəʊ ‖ ɪt (w)ɒ(z) ˈfaɪn ‖ ˈenɪweɪ ‖ ˈwɒ(t̚) ʃu(d̚) wiːˈdrɪŋk ‖ˈhabɯ tuː ˈdɯrɪŋ(k̚) ‖‖ aɪ ˈkuwaɪt ˈfænsiː æ ˈhɒ(t̚) ʧɒkəˈleɪt ‖ ˈwɒd əˈbaʊt‖ aɪ kwaɪt ˈfænsi ə ˈhɒt ˈtʃɒklət ‖ ˈwɒt əbaʊt ˈju ‖ˈjuː ‖‖ mm aɪ ˈθɪŋk aɪl hæv ˈɡriːn ˈtiː ‖ aɪl ˈɡəʊ ənd ˈɔːdə ‖ maːm aɪ ˈsɪŋ(k) aɪl habu ˈgɯriːn ˈtiː ‖ aɪl ˈgeʊ ənd‖ ˈʃəl aɪ ‖ɔːˈda ‖ ˈʃæl ˈaɪ ‖‖ ˈθæŋks ‖ ˈæktʃʊəli ‖ aɪ ˈθɪŋk aɪl dʒəst ˈhəv ə ˈkɒfi ‖ ˈθæŋks ‖ ˈækʧʊeriː ‖ aɪ ˈθɪŋk aɪl ˈdʒəs(t̚) hæv əɪnˈsted ‖ˈkɒfi ɪnsˈted ‖‖ ˈʃʊə ‖ ˈnəʊ ˈprɒbləm ‖ aɪl bi ˈbæk ɪn ə ˈmɪnɪt ‖53‖ ˈʃɜːr ‖ ˈnəʊ prəʊˈblem ‖ aɪl biː ˈbæk ɪn ə ˈmɪnɪts ‖多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Table 4
Prosodic Transcription Comparison
Line Learner

RP Transcription

Learners’ Performance1.

A‖ Hi how was your /trip yesterday? ‖2.

B‖ /Great |thanks. ‖ vWell, ‖ a|part from a |bit of a ‖ |Great ^thanks. ‖ ^Well, ‖ a|part from a |bit of (a)de|lay on the \Manchester |train. ‖de|lay on the \Manchester |train. ‖3.

A‖ |Well I hope it |didn’t make you |late for your ‖ /Well ‖ I |hope it |didn’t make you |late for youravppointment? ‖a|ppoint/ment? ‖

4.

B

5.

A

‖ I quite |fancy a |hot \chocolate. ‖ |What about \you? ‖ I |quite |fancy a |hot choco/late. ‖ |What a|bout/you? ‖‖

6.

B‖ Mm I |think I’ll have |green \tea. ‖ I’ll |go and ‖ Mm I |think I’ll have |green \tea. ‖ I’ll |go and|/\order, ‖ /shall I? ‖/order, ‖ shall I? ‖7.

A

‖ \Thanks. ‖ vActually, ‖ I |think I’ll just |have a ‖ \Thanks. ‖ vActually, ‖ I |think I’ll |just have a||\coffee in stead. ‖/coffee in stead. ‖8.

B‖ \Sure, ‖ |no \problem, ‖ I’ll be |back in a \minute. ‖ ‖ /Sure, ‖ |no prob/lem, ‖ I’ll be |back in a \minute. ‖||‖ Hi how was your trip yester/day? ‖||‖ \No, ‖ it was \fine. ‖ \Anyway, ‖ |what should we ‖ \No, ‖ it was \fine. ‖ vAnyway, ‖ |what should we|have to \drink? ‖have to /drink? ‖|54

【Teaching Practice Report】

Shared Inquiry and CLIL:
A Teaching Practice Report
James Carpenter
Abstract
The Shared Inquiry method is a form of collaborative learning that requires students to relate the themes in a
literary work to their own lives (Browning & Halvorsen, 1996). Some have argued that this method can support
foreign language students at Japanese universities to develop the four macro skills and improve critical thinking. In
this practice report, I review my experiences teaching Shared Inquiry to Japanese university students. First, I
describe my experiences teaching the course using materials published by the Great Books Foundation, which
originated the Shared Inquiry method, then using the materials I recently developed for a CLIL seminar focused onJapanese culture at Rikkyo University. At the end, I argue that the Shared Inquiry approach may be useful for
designing CLIL classes.
Keywords: Shared Inquiry, CLIL, Content-based Learning

The Shared Inquiry method is a form of collaborative learning that requires students to relate
the themes in a literary work to their own lives (Browning & Halvorsen, 1996). The method is basedon the “Great Books” seminars conducted at the University of Chicago (Great Books Foundation,
2021, p. 1). The question of whether the literary works chosen are objectively great is irrelevant. The
important point is that the works hang together around some common themes. To employ Shared
Inquiry, everyone must read the same passage before class and be prepared to discuss that passage
using examples from the text itself (Great Books Foundation, 2021). Some have argued that thismethod can support foreign language students at Japanese universities to develop the four macroskills and to improve critical thinking (e.g., Browning & Halvorsen, 1995; Browning & Halvorsen,
1996).
I have taught using Shared Inquiry in Japan for five years: three years with English majors at
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, next, in a twice-per-week lecture and discussion class at Rikkyo
University; and now in a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) seminar about Japaneseculture at Rikkyo University. CLIL courses, which are increasingly part of English language curricula
across Japan, usually require language teachers to teach content as a means to improve language
skills (Yamamoto & Nitta, 2021). Shared Inquiry is a useful approach for CLIL teachers because it
plays to their strengths. Teaching Shared Inquiry requires the ability to make complex ideas
comprehensible, create stimulating discussion questions, and encourage student-centeredness.
Conversely, Shared Inquiry does not require language teachers to pretend to be experts about things
which they are not. In what follows, I provide two examples of the Shared Inquiry method. First,
using materials published by the Great Books Foundation (2021), which originated the Shared
Inquiry method, and then with the materials I recently developed for my CLIL seminar.

Shared Inquir y Example 1
The following excerpts and discussion questions were adapted from the Shared Inquiry textbook
Introduction to Great Books 3, produced by the Great Books Foundation (1990). Below is an excerpt55

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

from the first reading in the book—A selection from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics:
The proper function of man, then, consists in an activity of the soul in conformity with a rational
principle or, at least, not without it. In speaking of the proper function of a given individual wemean that it is the same in kind as the function of an individual who sets high standards forhimself…On these assumptions, if we take the proper function of man to be a certain kind of life,
and if this kind of life is an activity of the soul and consists in actions performed in conjunction
with the rational element, and if a man of high standards is he who performs these actions welland properly, and if a function is well performed when it is performed in accordance with theexcellence appropriate to it; we reach the conclusion that the good of man is an activity of thesoul in conformity with excellence or virtue, and if there are several virtues, in conformity withthe best and most complete.
In a Shared Inquiry activity, students may be asked to discuss as many as 15 questions related
to a single reading. For brevity, the following is a discussion questions specifically related to theabove excerpt:
What do you think Aristotle means when he says that “good” for human beings is “an activity ofthe soul in accordance with excellence or virtue”? Do you think that behaving correctly isnecessary for your happiness?
Whereas the above excerpt from Aristotle would be difficult to parse even for native speakers ofEnglish, my experience has been that through discussing this question, students can grasp the basic
point that Aristotle is describing an understanding of happiness very different from theirs. The
typical Japanese college student likely equates happiness with the number of pleasurable states theyexperience (Tiberius & Hall, 2010). In contrast, Aristotle thinks that happiness is intimately connected
to correct behavior, or that happiness depends on adhering to principles that are always correct
regardless of how we feel about them. Students can interrogate their own beliefs about this further
via questions such as the following:• Is a good person automatically happy?
• Can happiness mean different things to different people?
• Can a person have his or her own idea about how to be happy?
Next, students read Mary Lavin’s short story On Happiness. After reading Aristotle, the following
excerpt provides an interesting contrast:
There was only one place Mother found rest. When she was at breaking point and fit to fall,
she’d go out into the garden—not to sit or stroll around but to dig, to drag up weeds, to movegreat clumps of corms or rhizomes, or indeed quite frequently to haul huge rocks from one
place to another. She was always laying down a path, building a dry wall, or making compost
heaps as high as hills. However jaded she might be going out, when dark forced her in at last her
step had the spring of a daisy. So if she did not succeed in defining happiness to ourunderstanding, we could see that whatever it was, she possessed it to the full when she was inher garden.
56

SHARED INQUIRY AND CLIL: A TEACHING PRACTICE REPORTOne of us said as much one Sunday when Bea and I dropped round for the afternoon. Father
Hugh was with us again. “It’s an unthinking happiness, though,” he caviled.
Once again, the students may be given many discussion questions about this short story;
however, the following question is directly related to the above excerpt:
Why does Mother have happiness “to the full” when she is working in her garden? Why does
Father Hugh call her happiness “unthinking”?
The view of happiness depicted here is likely closer to the students’ own view: That engaging insomething pleasurable without any obligation to conform to some standard of behavior is true
happiness (e.g., Frey & Vogler, 2019). Through discussion, students may recognize Aristotle’s
perspective smuggled into the story via the character of Father Hugh, who represents the position
that happiness and virtue are intertwined. Students can deepen their discussion further via questions
such as the following:• By talking so much about happiness, is Mother trying to teach her daughters how to be happy,
or is she trying to convince herself that she is happy?
• Must a person experience sadness to know true happiness?
• Why does Mother think that happiness has no value if it can be easily erased?
Later in the course, students will have the opportunity to think more about happiness; forexample, through discussing excerpts from John Dewey’s Human Nature and Conduct students will
be introduced to the view that happiness is not a choice but a habit, that is, that the difference
between happiness and unhappiness is related to how one directs their attention. In contrast, throughdiscussing a selection from Plato’s The Crito—which chronicles the ancient Greek philosopher
Socrates’ refusal to flee Athens and escape execution—the students will be introduced to the ideathat happiness is irrelevant. Rather, acting in accordance with a principle is the highest form of
human life.
A few points about Shared Inquiry can be gleaned from these examples. First, helping students
discuss complex, academic-level literary works to develop their language skills does not require
specialist-level knowledge about the historical context or original language. Second, encouraging
students to relate a literary work to their own lives can empower them to say more about it. L2
learners enrolled in a CLIL class can likely already express a lot about their lives; Shared Inquiry
encourages learners to bring those skills into the discussion of academic-level texts and themes.

Shared Inquir y Example 2
As noted above, the number of CLIL courses is increasing at many Japanese universities(Yamamoto & Nitta, 2021). During the 2022 academic year, I was allowed to pilot a new CLIL course
devoted to Japanese culture at Rikkyo University. As a longtime resident of Japan, I have an amateurinterest in Japanese culture; however, I am not an expert in Japanese studies. For this reason, I choseto develop the CLIL course using Shared Inquiry. My goal was to find representative texts that would
be familiar to students because they were assigned these texts in their junior high school or highschool classes. Table 1 below lists the texts I chose.
57

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Table 1
CLIL Texts“Speaking as an Unrealistic Dreamer” by Murakami Haruki“The Seventeen-Article Constitution” by Prince Shotoku“Esoteric and Exoteric Teachings” by Kukai“The Tale of Genji” (excerpts) by Murasaki Shikibu“Good and Evil” by Shinran“Meaning and Context” by Dogen“In Defense of the Japanese Way” by Motoori Norinaga“Conditions for Reform” by Yosano Akiko“Pure Experience” by Nishida Kitaro“The Rise of Women’s Movements” by Hiratsuka Raicho“The Classics Reborn” by Nakano Koji

Unlike in Example 1 above, I created all the course materials myself using a two-stage process:First, I found conceptually rich excerpts from English translations of the texts I chose and, in manycases, simplified the language for readability; second, I created discussion questions that either
focused on specific content in these excerpts or larger themes in the work. I relied on Heisig, et al.’s(2011) Japanese Philosophy: A Source Book for most of the translations; I also relied on Kasulis’ (2018)
commentary for some of my discussion questions. Below is an excerpt from my modified version of
the Kukai reading from Table 1 above:
Question: According to what you have said, teachings about the essence of Buddhism that are
beyond language and thinking are called esoteric, and anything else is exoteric. Is this correct?
Response: There are many definitions of exoteric and esoteric. Viewed from the perspective ofshallow teachings, deeper ones are esoteric and the shallow ones are exoteric.
…Exoteric teachings give medicine according to the capacity of the listener; its words are notuseless…[However] what I mean by esoteric is the ultimate, highest teaching. …Compared tothe esoteric teachings, the exoteric teachings are not true and real…This difference should beclearly understood.
Even on a casual reading, Kukai is clearly describing two types of knowledge: the exoteric andthe esoteric teachings. The following discussion questions adapted from Kasulis (2018) can help
students understand the distinction he is making:• Who knows more about clay? (A) a geologist or (B) a potter?
• Who knows more about language? (A) a linguist or (B) a poet?
• Who knows more about light? (A) a physicist or (B) a photographer?
• Who knows more about breath? (A) a pulmonologist or (B) a meditator?
Through discussing these questions, students can recognize that all the category A professions(geologist, linguist, etc.) make use of exoteric knowledge, that is, knowledge that is public andverifiable. In contrast, all the category B professions (potter, poet, etc.) make use of esotericknowledge, that is, knowledge based on direct experience that is incomprehensible to those without
similar experience. As the excerpt above indicates, Kukai views esoteric knowledge as superior to
exoteric knowledge. Students can discuss the implicates of Kukai’s argument further via questions
such as the following:
58

SHARED INQUIRY AND CLIL: A TEACHING PRACTICE REPORTOn the last page, Kukai writes “…Exoteric teachings give medicine according to the capacity of
the listener; its words are not useless…[However] what I mean by esoteric is the ultimate,highest teaching. …Compared to the esoteric teachings, the exoteric teachings are not true andreal…This difference should be clearly understood.” Are there really esoteric teachings? Ordoes Kukai just want power?
Next, students read an excerpt from Washburn’s (2015) translation of Murasaki Shikibu’s The
Tale of Genji. Whereas the entire translation is over 1000 pages, the following excerpt appears in
Chapter 55, which in Washburn’s translation is entitled “Fireflies.” Here, Genji is speaking to his
favorite consort Murasaki about a book she is reading:Genji studied the illustration. “How precocious children were back then. I was quite reserved bycomparison when I was their age ... a model of behavior, really.” In truth, he was fond of being
the model for all sorts of unheard-of behavior.
“You shouldn’t be reading love stories in front of [my daughter],” he continued. “She may not be
all that intrigued by some young girl holding a secret love in her heart, but she is destined to be
Empress, and it would be most unfortunate if she grew to accept the idea that it was normal forsuch affairs to actually take place.”…“People with shallow minds may imitate the behavior they read about in these stories, but theylook rather pathetic when they do,” Murasaki replied. “In The Tale of the Hollow Tree, theyoung Fujiwara Princess, Atemiya, is a prudent, dignified woman who never goes astray.
However, her manner is stiff and unyielding, she lacks feminine grace, and her story ends up
being just as bad an influence.”
Earlier in the story, Genji chastised another of his consorts—Tamakazura—for reading
superficial stories. In that part, Genji preached a view very similar to Kukai’s: That reading suchstories is only valuable insofar as they impart something about the true nature of reality. As the above
excerpt shows, when Genji shared his analysis with Murasaki, she indirectly criticizes him for being
shallow. Through discussing this passage, students can come to understand that Murasaki is
critiquing a philosophical anthropology, that is, a theory about what it is to be human, prevalentduring her time. Genji’s philosophical anthropology, based on the idea that there is no stable self,
denies human agency. Throughout the novel, Murasaki Shikibu criticizes the superficial belief
systems of her aristocratic—and especially her male—characters in this way.
Later in the course, students will have the opportunity to interrogate this critique in more detailwhile discussing works by Yosano Akiko and Hiratsuka Raicho, arguably the founders of Japanese
feminism. As a brief introduction, in her essay “The Conditions for Reform,” Yosano Akiko argues
that Japanese women must claim the agency that Genji—at least in the above excerpt—appears todeny them. In contrast, Hiratsuka Raicho asserts—in her essay “The Rise of Women’s Movements”
as well as other places—that the entire male-created system needs to be dismantled and rebuilt into
something else. Through reading both articles, learners can come to recognize that Japan has afeminist tradition, and that this tradition is in continuity with the emphasis on naturalness foundthroughout Japan’s intellectual history (Brown, 1993). Particularly in Hiratsuka Raicho’s writing, it isobvious that her view of feminism is deeply connected with basic, biological facts about being awoman—including the desire to have children.

59

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Final Thoughts
As noted above, Shared Inquiry allows language teachers to develop content-based courses thatplay to their strengths, that is, Shared Inquiry encourages teachers to read deeply and create
discussion questions that encourage student-centeredness; however, Shared Inquiry does not
require a teacher be an expert about all the literary works he or she will assign. Instead, this method
encourages teachers to select works that are conceptually rich and hang together around similar
themes. In the first example, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and Mary Lavin’s On Happiness sharethe common theme of happiness in human life. In the second example, Kukai’s philosophy of exotericand esoteric knowledge supplies two conflicting views about the nature of truth. Genji adopts theesoteric view that the only true knowledge is that which illuminates the Buddhist path; however, hisinterlocutors point out that this view is shallow and inaccurate. Indeed, conflicting views of how andon what basis we can know things flow through the Japanese intellectual tradition, including into
early expressions of Japanese feminism. In this way, Shared Inquiry can be an effective way todevelop a CLIL course because, whereas the emphasis is still on the content, the way students
engage with the content is primarily through invoking personal experiences and using their language
to talk about it. When level-appropriate, my experience has been that this is an extremely rewarding—and even addictive—way to teach CLIL.

60

SHARED INQUIRY AND CLIL: A TEACHING PRACTICE REPORT

References
Brown, D. M. (1993). The Cambridge history of Japan: Ancient Japan. Cambridge University Press.
Browning, C., & Halvorsen, J. (1995). The shared inquiry method for English language and literatureclasses in Japan. The Language Teacher, 19(9), 22-24.
Browning, C., & Halvorsen, J. (1996). Shared inquiry: A refreshing to critical thinking for EFL. The
Language Teacher, 20(9). https://jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/2046-shared-inquiry-refreshing-approach-critical-thinking-efl
Frey, J., & Vogler, C. (2019). Self-transcendence and virtue: Perspectives from philosophy, psychology,
and theology. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Self-Transcendence-and-Virtue-Perspecti
ves-from-Philosophy-Psychology/Frey-Vogler/p/book/9780367732653
Great Books Foundation. (1990). Introduction to great books 3. Great Books Foundation.
Great Books Foundation. (2021). An introduction to shared inquiry. Great Books Foundation. https://www.greatbooks.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/An-Introduction-to-Shared-Inquiry.pdf
Heisig, J.W., Kasulis, T.P., & Maraldo, J.C. (2011). Japanese philosophy: A sourcebook. University of
Hawaii Press.
Kasulis, T.P. (2018). Engaging Japanese philosophy: A short history. University of Hawaii Press.
Shikibu, M. (2015). The tale of Genji (D. Washburn, Trans.). W.W. Norton & Company. (Original
work published circa. 1021)
Tiberius, V., & Hall, A. (2010). Normative theory and psychological research: Hedonism,
eudaimonism, and why it matters. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(3), 212-225. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17439761003790971
Yamamoto, Y., & Nitta, R. (2021). Action-oriented approach to curriculum development in CLIL
courses: A theoretical and methodological framework. Journal of Foreign Language Education
and Research, 2, 122-135. 10.14992/00021272

61

【Teaching Practice Report】

The Formulation of a Classroom Observation Instrument for
Recording Purpose of Recording Error Correction in EFL Classes
Jason Murray
Abstract
The paper investigates error correction in English as a Foreign Language Discussion classes and methods
employed by teachers when addressing errors. The paper will begin with discussing general attitudes andperceptions toward error correction. The body of the paper primarily focuses on formulating an observation
instrument (OI), which is able to effectively record error corrections. From the results, the OI will be evaluated andmodified at three stages of the formulation. It is hoped that the formulations and analysis will improve the OI in
areas such as ways in which teachers navigate error correction through the stages of the lesson, ways in which theerrors are corrected, and the effectiveness (i.e., is the error likely to be repeated again?) of the correction. The
paper will conclude with an overall reflection of the investigation and will assess the effectiveness of the OI as a tool
for trainee teacher development purposes, with a focus on measuring error correction.
Keywords: error correction, English as a Foreign Language, teacher development, observation instrument

Introduction
One of the most important aspects in English as a Foreign Language class is error correction. It
is also considered invaluable for motivating students and assisting with learning. However, error
correction poses teachers obstacles when addressing errors. For instance, not all students like to becorrected, yet want to improve their accuracy and fluency. If the chosen correction is not given
correctly, it could potentially affect students’ confidence and inhibit fluency. The teacher also has toconsider how much error correction is adequate. Insufficient correction might leave students feelingdissatisfied, and potentially, the students will continue to make the same mistakes. In Hendrickson’s
1978 review of feedback, he asks a series of questions for the teacher to consider:
Should learners’ errors be corrected?
When should learners’ errors be corrected?
Which errors should be corrected?
How should errors be corrected?
Who should correct learner errors?
However, there have been many disputes among linguists over these questions. Lyster andRanta (1997) and Ellis (2001) provide us with examples of the various types of feedback. For example,
implicit, recast, clarification request, metalinguistic clues, elicitation, and repetition. From the various
types of feedback, past surveys have indicated that recast is the most common, though its
effectiveness is disputed. Recasts deploy repetition as correction. Mackay and Philip (1998) argue
that repetition is mechanical and question whether the student is simply repeating without learning.
Hornby and Sally (2009) provide a thought-provoking example by definition when separating thewords. For example, Error is a formal way of saying mistake, and Correction is a change from62

THE FORMULATION OF A CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT FOR RECORDING PURPOSE
OF RECORDING ERROR CORRECTION IN EFL CLASSES

something more accurate than it was before. With the aforementioned linguist’s comments
considered, we can say that the error is a violation to the set of rules, and as the linguists/teachers
write the EFL textbooks and set language rules for teaching and learning, it is the teacher’s role toaddress the errors. Furthermore, if students are being tested and evaluated on the set of rules fromthe textbooks, that alone justifies the importance of error correction. The aims of the investigation isfor teacher development purposes and to elucidate the practice of error correction in EFL classes. In
addition, it is hoped that the OI will facilitate in answering the research questions for this paper.

Research Questions
Which stage in the lesson did the error happen?
What was the language error?
Who corrected the error?
How was the error corrected?
How effective was the correction?
Obser vations: The class observations were conducted at Rikkyo University in Tokyo. The English
Discussion program promotes the Communicative Approach methodology and follows a unified
curriculum (Brereton, 2019). All the teachers tailor their lessons to ensure that the students have ahigh degree of student speaking time (SST) and for the classes to be as student-centered as possible.
On average, there are 10 students in each class. The English Discussion program is credit-based andis mandatory for all freshmen students. The class levels range from Level 1, the highest, to Level 4,
the lowest. Prior to the observations, the teachers were not given explicit details of the research as
not to influence their actions and impact the OI. The objectives for each lesson is for the Discussion
Skills (function language) and Communication Skills (comprehending, clarifying, and paraphrasing
language) to be incorporated in the discussions. An important consideration when planningobservations was to observe a variety of lessons and levels, which would enrich the gathered data asa result.

Obser vation Instrument Plan for Design One
Design One was organized to be as broad as possible; 4 columns were used. The first column
was the stage to record when the error took place. The second column focused on the language
errors. It was important to find out any patterns of errors, which would make the investigation morecomprehensive for the observer. The third column could identify the teacher’s correction strategy.
The effectiveness of the feedback given to students could also be noted. Furthermore, it would makeinteresting reading for the observer to see the various correction techniques. In the fourth column,
a Correction: Teacher/Student was included in order to be able to record the number of corrections
made by the either the teacher or the student.
Classes Obser ved: Three Discussion Classes - Level 2 (x1), Level 3 (x1) and Level 4 (x1).

63

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Observation Instrument - Error Correction
Level

Stage of Lesson

Class time

NumberStudentsofLanguage Error

Stage Key
F= 3-2-1 Fluency
P2= Practice 2
D1=Discussion 1
D2= Discussion 2

Correction Strategy

64

Design One

Correction:
Teacher/Student

THE FORMULATION OF A CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT FOR RECORDING PURPOSE
OF RECORDING ERROR CORRECTION IN EFL CLASSES

Evaluation of Obser vation Instrument Design One
Various data were recorded from the three observations. On reflection, it was challenging andtime-consuming writing the relevant information in the appropriate columns. The student’s utteranceswere also recorded. However, it was difficult to accurately record the teacher’s correction strategy.
Throughout the lesson, error corrections were missed due to constantly writing down data. Anotherarea of the OI that was over-looked was class notes, which would be beneficial when evaluating the
OI. After the first two observations, strategies were developed where specific references could be
used for the teacher’s feedback as opposed to writing in dialogue form. The reduced time spent
writing made it possible to assemble information much more accurately and comprehensively than
before. Recording information in the stage column was quite straightforward, and as expected,
corrections were always given after activities. The Correction: Teacher/Student column was proving
to be inconclusive. The lower-level classes were mainly teacher-centered as opposed to studentcentered. From the first two observations, 99% of the corrections were by the teacher. As a result, theCorrection: Teacher/Student column needed to be redesigned.
Classes Obser ved: Three Discussion Classes - Level 2 (x1), Level 3 (x1) and Level 4 (x1).

Obser vation Instrument Plan for Design Two
From the evaluation of Design One, significant changes needed to be made in order to measurequantitative data smoothly. After consideration, the stage box was not amended, as most of the classlevels were low Pre-Intermediate (Level 3) to Elementary (Level 4). The low-level classes were very
structured, and as a result, data could be measured accurately and without any restrictions.
Furthermore, as there is a lot corrective feedback variation from class to class, analyzing and notingthat many teachers felt comfortable when using a particular correction method significantly
influenced the recorded data on the OI. The correction strategy column was a concern and needed tobe refined, so noting all the different types of corrective feedback were made. The inclusion of a key
would reduce writing (i.e., recording letters as opposed to words), which would save considerable
time. The correction strategy key was implemented as follows (with meanings): EC= Explicit
Correction. The teacher makes it clear to the student that their utterance was incorrect and directly
corrects. R= Recast. The teacher informs the error implicitly and provides the correction.
CR=Clarification Requests. The teacher may indicate an error by asking the student to repeat the
information, pretending not to have understood the information. MC= Metalinguistic Clues. The
teacher does not directly give the correction but will ask a question directly referring to the incorrectutterance. E= Elicitation. The teacher will elicit the mistake by asking questions. Repeating thestudent’s utterance until the mistake. The teacher’s pause will indicate the error and allow thestudent to reformulate the utterance. There are similarities between metalinguistic clues andelicitation. The difference being that elicitation correction requires the student to repeat theirutterance. A metalinguistic clue requires only a yes/no response. A slight change was made to thecorrection column. The amendment enables the student’s response to the feedback and corrected/
uncorrected errors to be recorded.

65

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Observation Instrument-Error Correction

Level

Class
time

Numberofstudents

Stage

Stage Key

Design Two

Correction Strategy Key

F = 3-2-1 Fluency
P2 = Practice 2
D1= Discussion 1
D2 = Discussion 2

EC = Explicit Correction
R = Recast
CR = Clarification Requests
MC = Metalinguistic Clues
E = Elicitation

Correction Strategy

66

CorrectionKey

C = Corrected
U = Uncorrected

Correction

THE FORMULATION OF A CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT FOR RECORDING PURPOSE
OF RECORDING ERROR CORRECTION IN EFL CLASSES

Evaluation of Obser vation Instrument Design Two
Recording the errors were considerably easier for Design Two, and the amount of time writing
while observing lessons significantly reduced. As mentioned from the Design One evaluation, thestage column contributed to inconclusive results, as there were no clear-cut stages during the firsttwo observed lessons. The stage column worked effectively when the observed lessons werestructured. The low levels were much more structured, and a range of errors at various stages of thelesson could be recorded. The high levels tended to be more of a mixed bag or content-based
instruction, and there was not any variation between discussing the homework at the beginning of
the class to the wrap-up activity at the end of the class. While observing, all the abbreviated stages
had been included on Design Two without difficulty. Recording language errors significantly
improved. The errors could be noted with more accuracy than before due to the correction strategy
column. After each lesson, analyzing the errors and highlighting the types of errors in red pen were
made. Errors in areas such as pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary were accounted. Modifying
the language error column in order to reduce writing time and to monitor the types of errors wasconsidered. The size of the language error box needed improving, as there was insufficient space torecord dialogue between student and teacher accurately. The inclusion of the correction strategy
column made very interesting reading. Recordings of the correction strategies from each teacher
and the effectiveness of a particular strategy provided interesting analysis. For example, the mostcommon strategies used and the ones which were the most effective were clearly visible on the OI.
It was also interesting to note the variation of strategies used by teachers. For instance, in the firstobservation, 12 corrections were recorded and the recast strategy was used 9 times. In the second
observation, 10 errors were recorded and the elicitation strategy was used 6 times. It was clear thatsome teachers felt comfortable employing a particular correction strategy as opposed to using avariation of correction strategies. The correction column allowed recordings of the number ofcorrected and uncorrected errors. From the findings, comparing effective and ineffective correction
strategies was possible. Overall, the correction column was very successful and the results were very
useful, though the correction column could still be improved, which would make gathered data from
Design Three much more conclusive.
Classes Obser ved: Four Discussion Classes - Level 3 (x2) and Level 4 (x2).

Obser vation Instrument Plan for Design ThreeFor Design Three, sufficient writing space in the language error box was a consideration. It is
intended to include dialogue between student and teacher, which would help measure successful andunsuccessful error corrections. The correction method box and the stage box would remain the same.
The correction method box proved to be very successful in Design Two and saved crucial timemeasuring the information accurately. The stage box had been successful in structured lessons forlow levels. The majority of lessons observed have been structured low-level classes. For language
error, a tick system is included. The tick system would assist identifying the types of errors at speed.
Furthermore, being able to analyze the most frequent errors with clarity and the effectiveness of thecorrection would be advantageous. The correction box needed modifying in order to obtain more
conclusive data. An uptake key box was included. The uptake would focus on the student’s response
immediately after being corrected and the student’s actions from the teacher’s corrective feedback.
67

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Observation Instrument-Error Correction
Level

Class
�me

Number of
students

Stage Key

Uptake Key

F= 3-2-1 Fluency

TR=Teacher
Repaired
SR=Student
Repaired
U= Unrepaired

P2= Practice 2
D1= Discussion 1

Correc�on Method Key
EC= Explicit Correction
R= Recast
CR= Clariﬁcation Requests
MC= Metalinguistic Clues
E= Elicitation

Stage

D2= Discussion 2
Language Error Key
G= Grammar
V=Vocabulary

Stage

DIALOGUEStage

DIALOGUE

DIALOGUE

DIALOGUE

Language
Error
Correc�on
MethodUptakeLanguage
Error
Correc�on
MethodUptakeStage

P= Pronunciation
M=Miscommunication

Language
Error
Correc�on
MethodUptakeLanguage
Error
Correc�on
MethodUptakeStage

Design ThreeStage

DIALOGUE

Language
Error
Correc�on
MethodUptakeLanguage
Error
Correc�on
MethodUptake68

DIALOGUE

THE FORMULATION OF A CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT FOR RECORDING PURPOSE
OF RECORDING ERROR CORRECTION IN EFL CLASSESThe key would focus on the following three areas: The teacher repaired error correction (TR), a
student repaired error correction (SR), and unrepaired student error (U). In order to record the datasmoothly, accurately, and to be able to identify each error easily, the layout design needed to beamended. Using five boxes, the design would be much more compact. Four of the boxes, Stage,
Language error, Correction method, and Uptake, simply required a tick. The enlarged dialogue box
would allow writing the dialogue between the teacher and the student. Counting corrections
identified from previous observations, the average number of recorded errors were between 10/12.
OI Design Three can record six error corrections; therefore, at least two OI (12 errors) would be
required per lesson.

Evaluation of Obser vation Instrument Design Three
The findings from Design 3 were very conclusive, and the OI could be used more effectively
than that for the previous designs. The dialogue box proved invaluable, as it was possible to virtually
record the exact dialogue between the teacher and the student, and as a result, it helped assess theuptake accurately. As the key was abbreviated, the abbreviations could be easily memorized, so
recordings could be done without the need to refer to the key. Other notable data from the OI
indicated that effective correction would generally occur when the teacher asked questions directly
to the student. Elicitation was by far the most effective method of correction. The least effective
corrections occurred when the teacher gave feedback after speaking activities. For example, whenincorrect utterances were written by the teacher on the whiteboard. The students could identify theerrors in written form and in groups or individually, generally repairing the error that can be harmfulwhen learning a language. Although the uptake of these errors was SR (student repaired), it is more
likely that the student will repeat the error in the future. Furthermore, almost all recast and explicit
corrections were unrepaired. Overall, the Design 3 OI could function as intended. However, if I wereto make a further amendments, then recording data at various stages of the lesson would be aconsideration. For instance, omitting the Warm-up stage of the lesson as it generally provided
inconsequential data. On reflection, the uptake area of the OI has made me more aware as to how andwhen to give feedback. Although I am an experienced teacher, I now consider my own corrective
strategies when teaching with much more cognizance.

Conclusions and Implications
From this investigation, approaches and methods used in lessons varied considerably, which
greatly affected the OI. For instance, the OI was more effective when observing structured lessons,such as when employing presentation, plan, and production and test, teach, and test methodologies.
However, the OI was least effective during a content-based lesson. As a result, data were insufficient,and many areas on the OI were largely redundant. In addition, the data indicated that the number of
errors corrected contrasted considerably from teacher to teacher. That statistic could imply either
that some teachers are less concerned about correcting errors or that some teachers have received
comprehensive training and some teachers have not had adequate training. For further research inerror correction, the OI tool, after redesigning, could be used to pursue further investigations. For
instance, measuring the success/failure of the teacher’s error correction techniques and a morein-depth account of the methods of correction. The OI recorded five methods of correction. From theobservations, notes were also taken on teachers’ behavior. For example, some teachers were very
69

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

theatrical when addressing an error. For example, using over-the-top intonation as a way to draw thestudents’ attention to the error. The correction was applied by finger correction, head shaking, or
gesticulating. The errors were generally repaired. On reflection, the teacher’s strategies were very
effective, as errors were dealt with in a light-hearted manner. Overall, much insight on corrective
feedback techniques and the transformed OI served as a useful tool during the research. It is hopedthat the developed OI could assist a trainee EFL teacher for teacher development purposes tobecome more competent when giving effective error correction. As a result, the teacher would feel
more accomplished with gaining an overall understanding into error techniques, which would
generate more awareness and a good attitude toward learners’ error correction. The investigationfrom this paper indicated that the students’ need for error correction is essential for learning.
However, the argument remains that there is not one universal rule for all teachers to follow, thoughshowing understanding and sensitivity toward students’ feelings is recommended.

70THE FORMULATION OF A CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT FOR RECORDING PURPOSE
OF RECORDING ERROR CORRECTION IN EFL CLASSES

References
Brereton, P. (2019). Teacher perceptions of a working within a strongly unified curriculum, New
Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 7, 257-271
Ellis, R. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons, 51, 281-318.
Hendrickson, J. (1978). Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398.
Hornby, A. S., & Sally, W. (2009). Oxford’s Advanced Learners’ Dictionary. Oxford, England, Oxford
University Press.
Lyster, R. , & Ranta, L. (1997). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Mackay, A. , & Philip, J. (1998). The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.

71

【Teaching Practice Report】

How Masks Have an Impact on Communication
Jon Mahoney
Abstract
This study reflects on how wearing facial masks has an impact on communication. In total, 118 students took partin the study. A mixed methods approach was utilized to collect both qualitative and quantitative data in the form ofclass notes, interviews, and a Google Form, respectively. In general, students gave negative impressions aboutwearing masks, indicating that wearing them negatively impacted their ability to communicate smoothly with theirclassmates. For example, being unable to read the other person’s mood or nuance and having to use more bodylanguage to convey their feelings. Results from this study suggest that instructors need to be mindful of the impact
of wearing masks and should implement classroom strategies to compensate for this barrier in communication,such as effective seating arrangements, the issuance of name cards, attention to room temperature and acoustics,
and the wearing of transparent face masks.
Keywords: Masks, communication, impact

Introduction
Since the onset of COVID-19, the wearing of masks has become mandatory for all teachers andstudents in the Japanese education system. This radical change has been implemented rapidly andgenerally accepted by educators and students alike. While the benefits are clear, providing protection
from the COVID-19 virus, the drawbacks are complex and subjective. In this reflective study, theauthor explores the implications of this significant societal change and investigates how this newnormal is impacting communication in classes and discusses the mental processes simultaneously
taking place within this idiosyncratic environment. By investigating and analyzing the impact thatwearing masks has on students’ ability to communicate smoothly, the author will endeavor to provide
some pedagogical strategies that instructors ought to be cognizant of.
This study took place at a private University in Tokyo, Japan. A total of 118 students took part in
the study. All the students were participating in the discussion module, a 14-week course with theprimary goal of having students discuss present-day topics using a selection of marked language
skills. Instructors are required to encourage maximum verbal output from students and to facilitatebalanced and interactive discussions about current topics in English with their peers (Hurling, 2012).
Each class consists of around 10 students, with each member placed into classes with other memberswith a similar English competence. Preferably, 10- and 16-minute discussions take place in every
lesson and should be balanced, interactive and co-constructed by all participants.

Masks and Communication
During the height of the pandemic the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that
healthy people wear nonmedical masks to control the spread of COVID-19, such as, in settings where
physical distancing is unable to be achieved (WHO, 2020). This implies that peoples’ faces have been
obscured from one another. Our faces provide vital information of personal identity; —for example,
trustworthiness, attractiveness, age, and sex. All these visual factors enable an interlocuter to be able
72

HOW MASKS HAVE AN IMPACT ON COMMUNICATION

to gauge the other’s emotional state via expression analysis (Bruce & Young, 1986). Face masksroutinely worn during the COVID-19 pandemic to cover the mouth and the nose, envelop about 60 to
70% of the lower area of the face that is important for emotional expression and, consequently,
emotion reading. Significantly, these masks cover an area of the face that is vital for the effective
nonverbal communication of emotional conditions (Nguyen et al., 2021). Recognizing emotions ispivotal for social interaction. Explicitly, interpreting other people’s facial gestures is of paramountimportance during social development when children learn to interrelate with others (Denham et al.,2014).
Several studies have recently focussed on trying to understand the impact of face masks on
various aspects of social interaction and cognition (Carbon, 2020; Carbon and Serrano, 2021; Freudet al., 2020; Gori et al., 2021; Marler and Ditton, 2021; Noyes et al., 2021; Spitzer, 2020). Many of thesestudies have demonstrated the deleterious effects of masks on the recognition of facial emotion andidentity. The ability to see one’s facial movements is useful for knowing mental states and plays a partin cultivating empathy (Marini et al., 2021). Facial expressions play a vital role in communication andthe passing on of emotion across individuals. People judge the facial expressions of one another,which helps them forecast events and situations and allows them to develop suitable responses tothem (Mheildy, 2020). The importance of the role of facial expressions in communication would
seem to be apparent. One way to negate the impact of masks has been put forward by Marini et al(2021), who have argued that transparent masks that restore visual access to the mouth region havealmost no adverse effects on emotion recognition. In the next section, the history of masks in Japan
shall be reviewed.

Masks in Japan
Prior to the pandemic, mask usage was already well-established in Japan. Burgess and Horii(2012, p.1184) have argued that it is “socially embedded as a general protective practice” as a kind of“risk ritual.” Mask wearing seems to be a normal coping strategy for Japanese people and isadjustable to various kinds of risks and uncertainties (Horii, 2014). The genesis of this refuge inwearing masks in Japan is debatable. One credible impetus for the inception of this behaviour is theonset of Spanish Flu in 1918. Rice and Palmer (1993) have posited that this global pandemic brought
the nation of Japan together. By wearing a mask, it was a representation of a national defense against
an invisible threat. Another possible catalyst toward the road of mask dependency is the emergenceof hay fever in Japan. The ubiquity of Japanese cedar pollinosis increased 2.6-fold between 1980 and2000 (Kaneko et al., 2005). Significantly, around 80 per cent of those afflicted using “self-care”
methods of avoiding pollen (Okuda, 2003), with over 70 per cent of those wearing masks forprotection. (Dake et al., 2003). Furthermore, the outbreak of SARS in 2003 caused a notable rise in
the usage of flu masks in Japanese society, chiefly at international airports (Horii, 2014). While these
events seem to provide a timeline to masks being so widely adopted in Japan, there may be moredeeper reasons for their prevalence. Mask usage in Japan has developed into an ambiguous
behavioral adaptation concerning health risks, sometimes without a specific objective, which also
encompasses “cosmetic and comfort purposes” (Simonitch, 2012).

Methodology
After gaining consent from students via a research consent form stating my intentions, starting73

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

from week two, the author began taking notes in class on what he deemed to be any abnormal
behavior caused from wearing masks. For example, breakdowns in communication, unusual bodylanguage, or raised voices. In the final class of the semester, the author shared a Google Form withseven closed quantitative questions using the Likert scale and one open-ended qualitative question(see Appendix A), which asked the students to share their feelings on how wearing a mask has
impacted their ability to communicate throughout the semester. Students were also allowed to
discuss this topic in the final class of term. Research by Carbon (2020, p.6) posited that “face masks
may complicate social interaction as they disturb emotion reading from facial expression.” Theauthor intends to explore what impact wearing masks has on 1st-year Japanese university students,
who are required to interact smoothly in class in English in the discussion class module. The author
will also consider the pedagogical implications of the findings and how it may be possible to limit thenegative impact that masks have on communication.

Lookatme Masks
In lesson six, the theme of the lesson was culture. The author included a warm-up question: “Didyou have a custom of wearing a mask before COVID-19?” Most of the students indicated that they did
not but that they did wear them when they were sick to protect other people. Some students also
indicated that wearing masks in the wintertime helped them to keep warm. During these questions,the author often heard the students say that they strongly disliked wearing masks now, especially inthe heat of summer. Some of the ideas mentioned in this lesson by students included the following:
Wearing a mask is bad because we can’t make friends and remember names, but we must try ourbest.
I don’t like wearing a mask because I can’t tell who is speaking and I feel hot.
I want to see people’s expressions and enjoy speaking more.
Wearing a mask is good because we have facial equality.
The responses given by students in this activity prompted the author to experiment with using
Lookatme masks (see Appendix B) in two of his classes. In the previous academic year, the university
in which this study is conducted distributed transparent Lookatme masks to all teachers andstudents. All these masks were free of charge, and their usage was encouraged by the university but
not deemed as mandatory. Several emails were sent by the university to teachers and students thatthese masks were available, and all were encouraged to wear them. The author had issued Lookatme
masks to his students in the previous year and advised them to wear them if they wanted to, but noneof the students did so. This was perhaps influenced by the fact that the author did not set an example
of wearing the mask himself, since he felt unaccustomed to them. Being that this was during theheight of the pandemic and students had been studying online for over a year in most cases, this
response was perhaps understandable. The author proposed to students in two classes in this study
from week nine that they try wearing the masks for just one lesson and to see if they aided in theircommunicative abilities. The students agreed, and the university provided enough free masks for thetwo classes. The author began wearing a Lookatme mask from week eight and had noticed that
although students were initially surprised, they soon got used to the author wearing it. The author
also believed that they understood his instructions more easily and appreciated that they could see
his smile and facial reactions to their discussion performances.
74

HOW MASKS HAVE AN IMPACT ON COMMUNICATION

When the students in the two participating classes initially put the masks on, it was the first time
for them to see each other’s faces. Therefore, there was a mixture of excitement and nervousness. It
was soon apparent that students became relaxed wearing them and started to enjoy speaking to eachother with more freedom. In one class especially, it was noticed that all the students smiled for almost
the entire class and participated actively. Unfortunately, on the day of trying the masks for the firsttime in the other class, the weather was extremely hot and uncomfortable since there was a heatwave
in Japan at that time. Although very similar findings were produced, due to the heat the students took
longer to relax and enjoy seeing each other’s faces. At the end of each class, students were asked ifthey felt that the mask improved the smoothness of their speaking, and 19 out of 20 students agreed.
The students were advised that if they wanted to continue wearing the Lookatme masks for theremaining five classes, then they should bring one to the class and that it was completely theirchoice. In the following classes, three students in one class continued to wear the Lookatme masks
faces.While,
At theinend
each class,class, students
asked
if they thefelt Lookatmethat the mask
improveduntil the end of term.
theofotherjust one werestudent
broughtmask
and thesmoothness of their speaking, and 19 out of 20 students agreed. The students were advised thatwanted to wear it, but
becausethetootherclassmatesdone so,this student
swiftly putfive
the classes,
mask thenif they
wantedcontinue
wearinghad
the not
Lookatme
masks
for the remaining
away into their bag,indicating
to theoneauthorpeer
hadcompletely
played a rolein choice.
this. In the following
theyshould bringto thethat
class
andpressurethat it was
theirclasses, three students in one class continued to wear the Lookatme masks until the end of term.
While, in the other class, just one student brought the Lookatme mask and wanted to wear it,
but because the other classmates
had not done so, this student swiftly put the mask away into
Findings
their bag, indicating to the author that peer pressure had played a role in this.
In the final class of the semester, the students were asked to complete a Google Form to indicate
FINDINGS
their impressions of using masks throughout the semester.
A total of 118 students completed theform.
In the final class of the semester, the students were asked to complete a Google Form to
The first fourindicate
statements
to students
weredesigned
to foster
their general
their posed
impressionsof usingmasks
throughout
the semester.
A totalfeelingsof 118 ofstudents
wearing masks in completedclass. Thethe
resultsform.were reasonably ambiguous from the first statement poised to
The1first
fourshowsstatements
posed to students
designed
theirgeneralfeelings ofthe participants. Figure
belowthat students
did not wereclearly
indicatetoiffoster
masks
had
impacted
wearing masks
in class.
results
were reasonably
from the firstthatstatement
their ability to communicatesmoothlyin Theclass.
However,
there was aambiguous
marginal preferencemasks poisedto the participants. Figure 1 below shows that students did not clearly indicate if masks had
did have a negative
impact,their
withability
56 students(48%) indicating
thatinthey
had
and 48 students
impacted
to communicatesmoothlyclass.
However,
there was(40%)
a marginalindicating otherwise.
preference that masks did have a negative impact, with 56 students (48%) indicating that they
had and 48 students (40%) indicating otherwise.
Figure 1
Figure1
Wearing aamask
affectmy myability
to communicatesmoothly
in class in class
Wearing
maskdid
didnotnot
affectability
to communicatesmoothly

Wearing a mask did not affectmy ability to communicatesmoothly in class
50
40
30
20
10
0

Strongly Agree

Agree

NeutralDisagreeStrongly
DisagreeStatement two: “Wearing a mask in class made me feel comfortable,” provided similar
Statement two:
“Wearinga maskin class
made me(38%)
feel comfortable,”similarfindings,
witha majority
46 students
agreeing with provided
this and some
32 findings,
students (27%)
disagreeing
thisstatement.
Thisfindingcanbeattested
totheobvious
fact
that
masks
protected
with a majority 46 students (38%) agreeing with this and some 32 students (27%) disagreeing thisstudents from infection.
Statement three: “I often wanted to take my mask off in order to communicate smoothly”
also provided slightly agreeable data.
75 A total of 45 students (38%) agreed with this statement,with 36 students (32%) giving an opposite view. The observation by the author during class ofmany students often adjusting their masks lend credence to the fact that almost half of students
indicated that they had felt this compulsion.

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

statement. This finding can be attested to the obvious fact that masks protected students from
infection.
Statement three: “I often wanted to take my mask off in order to communicate smoothly” also
provided slightly agreeable data. A total of 45 students (38%) agreed with this statement, with 36
students (32%) giving an opposite view. The observation by the author during class of many students
often adjusting their masks lend credence to the fact that almost half of students indicated that they
had felt this compulsion.
The fourth statement posed to students provided clearer results. A total of 64 students (56%)
agreed that it was difficult to understand others when wearing a mask, with 33 students (30%)
indicating that it was not difficult. With this being a discussion class, in which it is very important tounderstand other’simportant
ideas andtoopinions
smoothly,a sizable
differencein thisopinion.
This perhaps
understandother’s thisideasisand
opinionssmoothly,is a sizable
difference inopinion.
Thisperhapsthat somestudents
were more
to wearing a masksuggests that somestudents
weremoresuggests
accustomed
to wearing
a maskthan accustomed
others.
than others.
Figure 22
FigureIt wasotherswhenwhenthey werea mask a maskItwasdifficult
difficulttotounderstandunderstandothersthey wearing
were wearing

It was difficult to understandothers when they were wearing a
mask
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Strongly Agree

Agree

NeutralDisagreeStrongly
DisagreeStatements five, six, and seven were designed to garner students’ feelings of how theStatements five,six, andsevenaffected
were designed
to garner
students’feelings
the wearing
ofagreed
wearingof masks
their behavior
duringthe class.
A totalofofhow
58 students(49%)
masks affected their
behavior
duringtheclass.
A
total
of
58
students(49%)
agreedwithstatementwith statement five: “I used more body language than usual when wearing a mask,” with only
students(23%)thandisagreeing,suggesting
thata students
were only
required
to exert more
five: “I used more28body
languageusual when
wearingmask,” with28 students(23%)energy
when
using
a
mask
to
make
their
opinions
understood.
disagreeing, suggesting that students were required to exert more energy when using a mask to
Regarding statement six, we can see a clear disproportionate response from students on themake their opinions
understood.
topic
of raising their voices in class. A total of 89 students (75%) agreed with the statement,with just 16 students (14%) disagreeing (see figure 3 below). Together with the extra usage ofbody language, the extra pressure of having to speak louder may play a role in students’performance and motivation.
Figure 3
I raised my voice more when wearing a mask

I raised my voice more when
wearing a mask
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

76
Strongly Agree

Agree

NeutralDisagreeStrongly
DisagreeStatements five, six, and seven were designed to garner students’ feelings of how the
wearing of masksaffected
their
behavior
the class. A total of 58 students (49%) agreed
HOW MASKS
HAVE
AN IMPACT
ONduring
COMMUNICATION
with statement five: “I used more body language than usual when wearing a mask,” with only
28 students (23%) disagreeing, suggesting that students were required to exert more energy
when usingsix,
a maskto makeopinions
understood. response from students on the
Regarding statement
we cansee theira cleardisproportionate
Regardingstatement
six,
we
can
see
a
clear
disproportionate
responsefrom students
topic of raising their voices in class. A total of 89 students (75%)
agreed with thestatement,with juston the
topic of raising their voices in class. A total of 89 students (75%) agreed with the statement,
16 students (14%)with
disagreeing(see figure
below). Together
with3 theextraTogether
usage ofwithbodyjust 16 students(14%)3disagreeing(see figure
below).
thelanguage,
extra usage ofthe extra pressureof havingto speaklouder
may playa role intostudents’performance
motivation.
bodylanguage,the extrapressureof havingspeak louder
may playand
a rolein students’performance and motivation.
Figure 3
IFigureraised3my voice more when wearing a mask
I raised my voice more when wearing a mask

I raised my voice more when
wearing a mask
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Strongly Agree

Agree

NeutralDisagreeStrongly
Disagree

The data gathered from statement seven regarding using eyes as a form of communication was
also unambiguous. A total of 74 students (62%) indicated that they did rely on more eye communication,
The data gathered from statement seven regarding using eyes as a form of communication
with just 16 students(14%)
indicating A
otherwise
figure4 below).
Thethatauthorpaidrely
particular
was also
unambiguous.
total of 74(seestudents(62%)
indicated
they didon more eye
communication,
just 16
students(14%) speaking
indicatingtests.
otherwise(see this,figurethe
4 below).
attention to the eye
movement ofwith
students
when
evaluating
By doing
author The
authorpaid
particularattention
to
the
eye
movementof
students
when
evaluating
speaking
tests.
could usually detect who was taking speaking turns smoothly.
By doing this, the author could usually detect who was taking speaking turns smoothly.
FigureFigure 44
II usedmore
to express
my opinions
usedmymyeyeseyes
more
to express
my opinions

I used my eyes more to express my
opinions
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Strongly Agree

Agree

NeutralDisagreeStrongly
Disagree

The final statement was chosen to collect students’ impressions of the teacher wearing atransparent mask in class. The author wore the Lookatme mask for the final six classes of term.
The results, with 74 students (63%) agreeing that they understood the teacher’s instructions
more clearly, pale in comparison with that of only 11 students (9%) disagreeing (see figure 5
below).
Figure 5
It was easier to understand the teacher’s
instructions when he was wearing the Lookatme
77mask

It was easier to understand the

10
5
0

Strongly Agree

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

Agree

NeutralDisagreeStrongly
Disagree第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

The final statement was chosen to collect students’ impressions of the teacher wearing a
The final statement was chosen to collect students’ impressions of the teacher wearing atransparent mask in class. The author wore the Lookatme mask for the final six classes of term.
transparent maskThein class.
The
authorwore theLookatme
mask
theunderstood
final six classesof term.
The
results,with74 students(63%)
agreeing
thatforthey
the teacher’s
instructions
more clearly,
in comparison
that of only
studentsinstructions(9%) disagreeing(see figure 5
results, with 74 students(63%)paleagreeingthat theywith
understoodthe 11teacher’smore clearly,
below).
pale in comparison with that of only 11 students (9%) disagreeing (see figure 5 below).
Figure 5

Figure It
5 was easier to understand the teacher’s instructions when he was wearing the Lookatme
It was easiermaskto understand the teacher’s instructions when he was wearing the Lookatme mask

60

It was easier to understand theteacher's instructions when hewas wearing the Lookatme mask

50
40
30
20
10
0

Strongly Agree

Agree

NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

There was an additional statement on the Google Form for the two classes who wore theThere
was an atadditional
statement
oncan
the see
Googlefor the(60%)
two classes
who wore the
Lookatme masks.
By looking
the figure
below, wethat Form
20 students
agreed that
Lookatme masks. By looking at the figure below, we can see that 20 students (60%) agreed
wearing the masks boosted their ability to communicate smoothly, with only two students (10%)
that wearing the masks boosted their ability to communicate smoothly, with only two students
indicating otherwise. Six students (30%) were neutral (see figure 6 below). Since most students had(10%) indicating otherwise. Six students (30%) were neutral (see figure 6 below). Since mosta favorable experienceof wearing
the masks,
the reasons
why almost
the students
did notwhy
continue
students hada favorable
experienceof wearing
the allmasks,
the reasonsalmost all thewearing themstudents
in the following
lessonscouldbedeemedascomplex.
did not continue wearing them in the following lessons could be deemed as complex.
FigureFigure6 6
WearingthetheLookatme
mask helped
to communicate
more smoothlymore smoothly
Wearing
Lookatme
mask mehelpedme to communicate

1210Wearing the Lookatme mask
helped me to communicate moresmoothly

8
6
4
2
0

Strongly Agree

Agree

NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

The final
was asking
open-ended,askingstudents
indicate
any positive
The final question
wasquestion
open-ended,
students
to indicate
any topositiveor negative
impactor negative
impact that they had felt about wearing masks in class. A total of 14 distinct advantages werethat they had felt about wearing masks in class. A total of 14 distinct advantages were stipulated by
stipulated by students. The most common were feeling relaxed and having peace of mind
(seven), followed by taking better care of pronunciation (four). Other noteworthy advantages
mentioned included no need for make-up(three) and being shy to show their faces (three). It is78
understandable that students should pinpoint that masks made them feel relaxed due to thehighly transmissible COVID-19 virus. The fact that students mentioned that they had toHOW MASKS HAVE AN IMPACT ON COMMUNICATION

students. The most common were feeling relaxed and having peace of mind (seven), followed bytaking better care of pronunciation (four). Other noteworthy advantages mentioned included no needfor make-up (three) and being shy to show their faces (three). It is understandable that students
should pinpoint that masks made them feel relaxed due to the highly transmissible COVID-19 virus.
The fact that students mentioned that they had to concentrate on their pronunciation more as anadvantage was unexpected and is one of few examples of how masks may improve a student’s
speaking ability.
Students specified significantly more disadvantages to wearing masks. The most common
included unable to see mouths, facial expressions, and emotions (41) and asking classmates to repeat
often (18). Having to speak with a loud voice (14) is perhaps linked to the fact that students had toconcentrate on their pronunciation more, thereby providing a possible caveat to this advantage. Hardto breathe and feeling hot (10) and difficult to make friends (four) were the other noteworthy
disadvantages mentioned. The students who claimed it was hard to breathe lends credence to a study
by Dooly et al. (1996), who reported that wearing a mask reduces the approximate value of maximal
oxygen uptake by about 10% in an individual.

Group Discussions and Inter views
In the final class of term, the final discussion questions were posed to the students: “What are
the advantages and disadvantages of wearing masks?,” and “How does wearing a mask impact oncommunication?”
The most common advantages mentioned fell in line with responses in the open-ended Google
Form question, such as protection against viruses and hay fever, no need to wear make-up, or noneed to shave and feeling less nervousness. However, some other noteworthy advantages were
given, such as from a shy person’s point of view, it was easier to start speaking everyone has abeautiful face, there was no need to show a fake smile, and students could hide their true feelings.
One student mentioned an advantage as “No mask, no life,” to which all the students’ classmatesagreed. The author later asked: “What do you mean by this?,” to which the student replied, “We havebeen wearing masks for three years, so we feel shy to take them off and change our faces.”
The most prominent disadvantages again correlated with the data from the Google Form, suchas can’t see people’s true feelings, feeling hot and hard to breathe, and must use body language
more. A few students mentioned that it was difficult to speak for prolonged periods because theirglasses steamed up.
Many students responded to the second question by saying that they couldn’t understandothers’ true feelings because they couldn’t see facial expressions. This prompted the author to ask
the question “How did this make you feel?”
Some of the responses to this follow-up question included the following:
It was difficult to express myself confidently.
I had to use gestures more to convey my feelings.
I was worried that they were disappointed about what I had said.
Because I couldn’t read the person’s mood, I felt anxious and confused.
It was difficult to predict how they would feel or react, so I felt anxious and hesitant.
The flow of the discussion was interrupted because I couldn’t understand classmates’ nuance.

79

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

The two classes who had participated in the Lookatme experiment were also asked the follow-up
question: “Why did you discontinue wearing the Lookatme masks?” Some of their responses
included:
The Lookatme masks helped us to communicate, but do we not have a custom of wearing thesemasks.
The Lookatme masks are uncommon. We first met wearing normal masks, so it was difficult tochange.
The shape of the masks is like a bird’s mouth. It was strange for us.
Three students continued to wear the Lookatme mask until the end of term. All these students
were male, suggesting that male students had less inhibition to show their faces. One of thesestudents gave some positive feedback of using the Lookatme masks.
I’m grateful for the Lookatme mask. Regular masks irritate my skin and make me feel hot. I also
wore my Lookatme mask walking to the station from campus and on the train. It is much better thana regular mask.

Classroom Behavior
Starting from the first classes of the semester, the author noted any abnormal behavior by
students that he felt was caused by wearing masks. Some of the main behaviors observed included
students speaking louder and gesticulating more frequently; awkward breakdowns in communication
when turn taking should have been smoother; frequent adjusting of masks whilst and after prolonged
periods of speaking; displays of exasperation in the amount of effort speaking while wearing a mask;
often using a folding fan or a portable electric fan to keep cool when speaking; a tendency for
extroverted students to maximize their facial visibility to others, in contrast to introverted students
who minimized their facial visibility as much as possible; an inability to remember each other’snames, which would take place when they had forgotten their name cards; raising hands to taketurns and pointing at themselves when speaking; looks of confusion as to who was speaking; frequent
requests for classmates to repeat their ideas.

Instructor’s Perspective
Masked faces are harder to recognize (Marini et al., 2021). This is no trivial matter. The author’s
ability to connect with students and create a collaborative environment in classes was impaired by thewearing of masks. If students forgot to bring their name card to class, the author would sometimes
find it difficult to remember names to the detriment of the classes’ atmosphere. During the semester,
the author had a variety of rooms that ranged from small to spacious and a variety of individual
differences in students, varying from highly extroverted to extremely introverted. The acoustics ofeach room is unique, as well as outside on campus or noise from other classes since all doors needed
to kept open to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. All these factors play a role in the ability of ateacher to be able to listen carefully and accurately to each class and individual. In addition, wearing
masks of all students undeniably made the teacher’s task of accurately hearing a student speak wasmuch more challenging. An additional barrier to understanding was that students wore various types
80

HOW MASKS HAVE AN IMPACT ON COMMUNICATION

and sizes of masks, making the tasks of deciding who is talking even more difficult. Most students
tended to use some form of body language or optic expression to make themselves understood moreclearly. However, a significant number of students did not employ such practices, confusing theauthor as to who was speaking. At such instances, the author had to pay significant attention todiscreet movements in the students’ eyes and masks to identify who was enunciating. The author
often felt that whilst wearing a standard mask, sometimes the students could not read his instructions
or feelings accurately. The author clearly noticed that when wearing the Lookatme mask, students
understood instructions much faster. It was noted that students focussed on the teacher’s oral
movements and facial gestures to garner deeper understanding of the lesson’s instructions andfeedback. It is the author’s opinion that showing a smile of approval or a grimace of disapproval is anextremely effective way of giving immediate feedback to students.

Discussion
The fact the students indicated feelings of frustration at not being able to read other student’s
emotions and true feelings is understandable. Since this study was carried out in a discussion class
where the main purpose is for students to maintain conversations and take turns smoothly meant thatthe masks clearly obstructed and hindered their performance. They made students feel anxious, hot,and tired due to extra body language being used. By contrast, with around a third of students
indicating that they felt comfortable wearing a mask and did not want to show their faces, thissuggests that Japan has an affinity with wearing masks, which dates back to a century ago. However,
the author wonders how detrimental this reliance on masks is for one’s communicative and social
development. And what is the impact on society itself? Do people become more detached from one
another? Will people be able to take off their masks and interact naturally again? One student
remarked “No mask, no life” and subsequently explained that they had been wearing masks for three
years, which equates to the entirety of their high school days, suggesting that wearing masks has
significantly impacted some students’ confidence and social skills. Adolescence, which begins withpuberty, is a phase in which physical changes such as changes in facial structure take place, alongwith cognitive, social development as well as changes in perception, motivation, and behavior(Negrea et al., 2019). It is also worth considering the impact on young children. They have perhaps
been unable to learn communicative facial cues in early childhood that are pivotal for smoothcommunication and have been part of human evolution. As was previously mentioned, communication
is a combination of voice, body language, and facial expressions. The possibility of breakdowns incommunication between people wearing masks cannot be underestimated. Some of the examples
that the participants in this study suggested show this is the case. In retrospect, the author shouldhave issued the Lookatme masks earlier in the semester.

Conclusion
There can be no doubt that COVID-19 has profoundly changed the world and has affected how
people interact with each other. Good speaking teachers create environments where students can
express themselves creatively (Nunan, 2015). Creating this environment has become morechallenging. A covered mouth restricts breathing and makes communicating less efficient, while alsointerfering with understanding. Trust, empathy, timing, and recognition are all negatively impacted
when a mouth is obscured. Furthermore, mask wearing creates a sense of acceptance and81

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

compliance, giving a feeling of reassurance in times of distress.
Since a high percentage of the students indicated that they wanted to see the teacher’s mouth
movements to gain deeper understanding of the instructions and word pronunciation, it isrecommended that teachers, especially those who are teaching an L2, consider wearing a facial
screen as opposed to a regular medical mask to facilitate this. For now, in Japan, masks are here tostay. It is crucial for teachers of English communicative classes to develop ways of facilitating
effective communication in masks while mask wearing remains prevalent, such as effective seating
positions with clear name cards in view, management of room temperatures, attention to room
acoustics, and an acute awareness of the sensitivity of students in this environment. Teachers will
also need to become adept at judging students’ communication and participation levels in class, suchas paying extra attention to their eye expressions, tone, and body language. More research in thisarea could be carried out to include the integration of video-based tools into class curricula, which
would allow students to become accustomed to speaking without a mask and to see other students’faces, which could possibly aid in diminishing students’ reliance on masks.

82

HOW MASKS HAVE AN IMPACT ON COMMUNICATION

References
Bruce, V., and Young, A. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British journal of Psychology 77 (3),(pp. 305-327).
Burgess, A. and Horii, M., 2012. ‘Risk, ritual and health responsibilisation: Japan’s ‘safety blanket’ ofsurgical face mask-wearing.’ Sociology of health & illness, 34(8), (pp.1184-1198).
Carbon, C. C. (2020). Wearing face masks strongly confuses counterparts in reading emotions.
Frontiers in psychology, 11: 566886.
Carbon, C.C., and Serrano, M. (2021). The impact of face masks on the emotional reading abilities ofchildren–a lesson from a joint school-university project. Iperception, 12(4): 20416695211038265.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20416695211038265
Dake, Y., et al. 2003. ‘Preventive care for Japanese cedar pollinosis,’ Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Tokyo,
46(1), (pp.51-56).
Denham, S. A., Bassett, H. H., Zinsser, K., and Wyatt, T. M. (2014). How preschoolers’ socialemotional learning predicts their early school success: developing theory-promoting,competency-based assessments. Infant Child Dev. 23(4), (pp. 426–454). https://doi.org/10.
1002/icd.1840
Dooly, C. R., Johnson, A. T., Dotson, C. O., Vaccaro, P., & Soong, P. (1996). Peak oxygen consumption
and lactate threshold in full mask versus mouth mask conditions during incremental exercise.
European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 73(3), (pp. 311-316).
Freud, E., Stajduhar, A., Rosenbaum, R. S., Avidan, G., and Ganel, T. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic
masks the way people perceive faces. Scientific reports 10(1), (pp. 1–8). https://doi.org/10.
1038/s41598-020-78986-9
Gori, M., Schiatti, L., & Amadeo, M. B. (2021). Masking emotions: face masks impair how we reademotions. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 669432.
Hurling, S. (2012) Introduction to EDC. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion,
1 (1), 1.2-1.10.
Horii, M. (2014). Why do the Japanese wear masks? Electronic journal of contemporary Japanesestudies, 14, (2).
Kaneko, Y., et al. (2005). ‘Increasing prevalence of Japanese cedar pollinosis: a meta regression
analysis,’ International archives of allergy and immunology 136 (4), (pp.365-371).
Marler, H., & Ditton, A. (2021). “I’m smiling back at you”: exploring the impact of mask wearing on
communication in healthcare. International journal of language & communication disorders,
56(1), (pp. 205-214).
Marini, M., Ansani, A., Paglieri, F., Caruana, F., & Viola, M. (2021). The impact of facemasks onemotion recognition, trust attribution and re-identification. Scientific Reports, 11(1), (pp. 1-14).
Mheidly, N., Fares, M. Y., Zalzale, H., & Fares, J. (2020). Effect of face masks on interpersonalcommunication during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, 582191.
Negrea, A. G., Grama, A., Sirbe, C., & Pop, T. L. (2019). Contemporary teenager and the risk of
non-communicable diseases. Journal of School and University Medicine, 6(3), (pp.15-20).
Nguyen, D. D., McCabe, P., Thomas, D., Purcell, A., Doble, M., Novakovic, D., Chacon, A. & Madill,
C. (2021). Acoustic voice characteristics with and without wearing a facemask. Scientificreports, 11(1), (pp.1-11).
Noyes, E., Davis, J. P., Petrov, N., Gray, K. L., & Ritchie, K. L. (2021). The effect of face masks andsunglasses on identity and expression recognition with super-recognizers and typical83

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

observers. Royal Society open science, 8(3), 201169.
Nunan, D. (2015). Teaching English to speakers of other languages: An introduction. Routledge: NewYork & London.
Okuda, M. (2003). ‘Epidemiology of Japanese cedar pollinosis throughout Japan,’ Annals of Allergy,
Asthma & Immunology 91(3), (pp. 288-296).
Palmer, E, and Rice, G. (1992). ‘“Divine wind versus devil wind” popular responses to pandemic
influenza in Japan, 1918-1919,’ Japan Forum 4(2), (pp. 317-328).
Simonitch, S. (2012). ‘More Japanese youth wearing surgical masks to hide their face,’ Japan Today[online], 4 December. Available from: https://japantoday.com/category/features/lifestyle/more-japanese-youth-wearing-surgical-masks-to-hide-their-face [Accessed 26 November 2022].
Spitzer, M. (2020). Masked education? the benefits and burdens of wearing face masks in schools
during the current corona pandemic. Trends in neuroscience and education, 20, 100138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2020.100138
World Health Organization (2020). Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19: Interim
guidance, 5 June 2020. World Health Organization.

84

HOW MASKS HAVE AN IMPACT ON COMMUNICATION

Appendix A
Student Sur vey
1.

Wearing a mask did not affect my ability to communicate smoothly.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

2. Wearing a mask made me feel relaxed and comfortable in class.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
3. I often wanted to make my mask off to communicate more smoothly.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
4. It was difficult to understand others when they were speaking in a mask.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5. I used more body language than usual when I was wearing a mask.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
6. I raised my voice more when wearing a mask.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
7. I used my eyes more to express my opinion.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
8. It was easier to understand the teacher’s instructions when he was wearing the Lookatme mask.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
9. **Wearing the Lookatme mask helped me to communicate more smoothly**
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
10.	Please leave any positive or negative comments about how wearing a mask impacted on yourability to communicate in class.
Note: Question nine was only asked to the two classes that wore the Lookatme masks85

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Appendix B
Appendix two

Lookatme mask
Lookatme mask86

【Teaching Practice Report】

Identifying and Learning From a High-Intermediate Class
Struggling From Foreign Language Anxiety
Jonathan Hennessy
Abstract
Anxiety can have negative effects on student participation in the language classroom, and intervention from theteacher may be required. This paper considers the research into how foreign language anxiety and public speaking
anxiety may influence language learners and reflects on a teaching journal of an intermediate English presentation
class that may have struggled as a result of their anxiety in the classroom. The class in question struggled withparticipation in lessons and when they did speak, often spoke very quietly. This was observed in all activities where
they were asked to speak in English, and it was particularly problematic during presentations. The author discusses
several attempts to address low participation as well as the teacher’s process in identifying anxiety as a likely causeof the classes’ struggles. While several activities and pieces of feedback were successful in temporarily increasing
participation, anxiety and shyness in the classroom continued through the semester. The paper concludes withplans and goals for working with students in future classes that suffer from foreign language anxiety.
Keywords: Anxiety, Presentation, Journal

Introduction
First-year students at Rikkyo University in Tokyo, Japan are required to take an English
presentation course during their second semester. They are expected to develop language skills
related to organizing and presenting on a variety of topics, and they are also asked to learn skills
related to giving an effective presentation, such as maintaining eye contact and controlling their voice
to be clear and engaging. While some students thrive and are able to give engaging presentations
while easily holding their audience’s attention, others struggle with anxiety when asked to speak in
a foreign language in front of so many of their peers. This paper reflects on a teaching journal kept
for one class where the majority of students never really seemed to be comfortable, despite being a
relatively linguistically proficient group.
While linguistic proficiency can be useful as a way for teachers to appropriately match theirlessons and goals to the students’ abilities, it does not necessarily reflect the students’ comfort withusing the language. Fear of speaking in public can also cause difficulties for learners regardless of
their proficiency and comfort with the language. I started keeping a journal as a result of a class thatwas the highest proficiency of my presentation classes seeming to struggle to participate and use
English in the classroom. My first thoughts questioned their motivation, but this paper will delve into
the research that suggests anxiety as a likely cause of the students’ struggles and will discuss myprocess for understanding and trying to help the class in question.

Literature Review
One reasonable expectation for a presentation class is that some students are likely to feel public
speaking anxiety. Public speaking anxiety is a common issue for many people (Bartholomay &Houlihan, 2016; Bippus & Daly, 1999; Furukawa et al., 2012; Pull, 2012). Public speaking anxiety is87

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

particularly prevalent among individuals with social anxiety disorder (Furukawa et al., 2012; Pull,2012) but can also be observed independent of other issues with anxiety (Furukawa et al., 2012;
Knappe et al., 2011). Different authors have estimated the prevalence of public speaking anxiety
differently. Stein et al. (2010) found public speaking fears in between 9% and 13% of people dependingon the location. Furukawa et al. (2012) found 7.3% of junior and senior high school students in one
prefecture in Japan. Bartholomay & Houlihan (2016) stated that the most severe form of public
speaking anxiety has a prevalence rate of 7%, while 25% to 30% of those in their study demonstrated
elevated levels of public speaking anxiety and 50% experienced moderate anxiety related to public
speaking.
Public speaking anxiety can have negative effects for those who suffer from it. Bartholomay &Houlihan (2016) noted that public speaking anxiety can be related to lower academic performanceand difficulty in employment. Faravelli et al. (2000) explained that avoidance of public speaking is avery common tactic to deal with the anxiety it causes. With the high prevalence of public speaking
anxiety, it is reasonable to expect many groups of students to have some struggles with a presentation
class where they are expected to speak in front of their classmates.
Foreign language anxiety can make it difficult for learners to participate in a language class, andin some cases, it can affect a learner’s ability to acquire the new language (Apple, 2013; Horwitz,
2002; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994; Ostman & Xethakis, 2021; Pappamihiel, 2002; Shachter, 2018;
Teimori et al., 2019; Woodrow, 2006; Yan & Horwitz, 2008). Apple (2013) explained that many
researchers have insisted that L2 anxiety is the result of low language skills in the learner’s L1,
whereas others have suggested that anxiety may instead be a cause of low L2 proficiency. Llinás &Garau (2009) observed higher-proficiency students demonstrating more anxiety than lowerproficiency students. MacIntyre et al. (2002) found that students with high levels of anxiety tended tounderestimate their abilities, whereas those with low anxiety overestimated themselves. Of particular
relevance to the class in question, anxiety among Japanese learners of English has been observed tobe higher than that in Western students learning English (Woodrow, 2006). Ostman and Xethkis(2021) also found that first-year university students were particularly prone to foreign language
anxiety.
The outcome of foreign language anxiety on learning is not entirely clear in the research. The
most common view is that anxiety has a negative influence on learning outcomes (Pappamihiel, 2002;
Woodrow, 2006; Yan & Horwitz, 2008). However, some authors have found no effect from anxiety(Llinás & Garau, 2009) or have found that when the anxiety is appropriately addressed thatdifferences in achievement can be significantly reduced (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994). Both Horwitz(2002) and Teimori et al. (2019) noted that anxiety can have negative effects but that it may also haveno effect or even positive effects in some cases. In terms of behavior, students with foreign language
anxiety may be resistant to speaking in front of their classmates (Ostman & Xethkis, 2021), and they
may avoid using certain types of language (Teimori et al., 2019). Woodrow (2006) found that anxiety
interfered with output in the classroom, and Pappamihiel (2002) reported that students would choose
not to respond or speak in the classroom. Yan & Horwitz (2008) found anxiety could even interferewith comprehension, with students reporting that they could not understand spoken instructions in
the classroom but could understand the same instructions later when listening to a recording.
The evidence does suggest that foreign language anxiety can be reduced. Communicative
activities and opportunities for conversation have been tied to reducing anxiety (Dykes, 2018;
Ostman & Xethkis, 2021; Watson, 2020), and Ostman & Xethkis (2021) specifically noted that making
friends in the classroom improved feelings of anxiety. Yan & Horwitz (2008) found that humor in the88

IDENTIFYING AND LEARNING FROM A HIGH-INTERMEDIATE CLASS STRUGGLINGFROM FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANXIETY

classroom could be tied to lower anxiety. Shachter (2018) even observed that anxiety decreased overthe course of a semester without any particular intervention.
Poor performance in a language class can also be tied to motivation. Anxiety can have negative
effects on motivation (Yan & Horwitz, 2008), but language learning motivation is also often tied to thelearner’s thoughts about their ideal L2 self (Aubrey, 2014; Hughes et al., 2020). Many students inJapan have few opportunities to use English, thus limiting the development of their ideal L2 self
(Takahashi, 2013). Hughes et al. (2020) explained that many second language learners are motivatedby a desire to integrate with the communities of speakers in their new language but that in an EFL
context, this motivation may not be present. However, teachers can address this potential lack ofmotivation in the classroom. Cowie and Sakui (2012) found that teachers believed that their actionsin the classroom could improve short-term motivation, although they were skeptical of long-term
improvements. Visgatis & Tada (2020) found that intervention and assistance from teachers lead to
improved student motivation. Watson (2020) found that genuine interest and praise from teachers
also had a positive impact on student motivation. Takahashi (2013) found that many students do havegoals but are more limited by their opportunities, which could allow teacher intervention to support
students in their achievement of those goals.

Discussion
The class that is targeted in this journal was in the level 2 proficiency band, the second highestof the four levels at the university. Teachers are told they can assume the students would have had a
TOEIC score between 480 and 680. Previous experience with students of this level was mostly
positive, with feedback often focused on meta skills rather than heavily focused on target language orparticipation. I began writing a journal about this class after the fifth lesson, and in that journal, I
wrote that the class seemed quiet and did not participate strongly in the online classes. I was hopefulthat the switch to face-to-face classes could be motivating, given that the students had not chosen
online lessons, but rather were forced into it by the pandemic. With the quick switch to in-personclasses, many classes were not comfortable in the first lesson on campus, but the continued strugglesof this class in the fifth lesson made me decide to keep a journal.

Lesson Five: First Face-to-Face Presentations
Students had presented to the class once during their online classes. They each prepared andgave a short self-introduction presentation in the second lesson. They prepared for their first face-toface presentation in the fourth lesson and gave the presentations in the fifth. These presentations
were clearly difficult for the students, though at the time it was not immediately clear to me as to thereason for their struggles. Many students were extremely quiet while giving their presentations to
the point that it was difficult to hear many of the presenters from the back of the room, even though
the rest of the class was silent as listeners. Most students also primarily looked at their notes, rather
than looking at their classmates while speaking. I wrote that it seemed like they did not want to begiving these presentations. Many presenters also failed to reach the required two-minute speaking
time. The content of the presentations and the relative fluency with which the students spokesuggested that their language ability was enough to succeed, but for some reason, they struggled toperform well. Most of my experience with other classes at this level had been positive, with one or
two students perhaps needing support due to shyness or anxiety, but nearly everyone in this class89

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

struggled with their presentations, and I decided to start keeping a teaching journal. At the time, I
could tell there was a problem, but I was unsure what was causing this behavior.

Lessons Six Through Nine: Lead Up to the Next Presentation
After seeing the students struggle with presenting in front of the class, I tried to make theclassroom atmosphere more comfortable. I hoped that if they enjoyed being in class more and felt
more relaxed, they would be able to participate more and speak more confidently. I believed that theabrupt switch from online classes to face-to-face could have been causing stress and discomfort for
students and so I tried to make the atmosphere in class more relaxed. My journals during this period
frequently describe the students as seeming to be shy in class but note that they behave differently
when they are trying to work in English versus when they speak together in Japanese. This behavior
was not limited to presentations but was observed with any activity where they had to speak English.
In the sixth lesson, students were quiet and even getting verbal replies to confirm understanding
was difficult. When asked to speak in English with a partner in a warm-up, most groups only stayedin English for a short time before switching to Japanese. I tried to make the atmosphere positive andsupportive. I gave praise for answering questions and gave away the answer to a few questions before
asking the students to answer. I hoped to reduce what I perceived as a fear of being wrong. This didseem to lead to students being willing to participate, but their energy remained low. At the end of thelesson, students were given ten minutes to discuss the possible topics for their next presentation andchoose what they wanted to present about. In my other classes, most students were able to choose a
topic in this time limit. However, none of the students in this class replied that they had chosen. It is
possible that they had chosen a topic but were unwilling to reply, but this made me question whether
the students were shy or extremely unmotivated. Their refusal to participate did remind me of lower
proficiency classes with low motivation and no desire to learn English.
In the seventh lesson, I decided to focus on speaking volume, hoping that since the students did
generally follow instructions that they might attempt to speak louder when the expectation was
explicitly stated. This did temporarily have a positive effect, with activities going better than inprevious lessons, but many students quickly returned to speaking quietly. I noticed that when we
finished our activities and students began working on their presentations and were allowed to use
Japanese to speak to their classmates, their energy and speaking volume increased dramatically. The
fact that they seemed to work well in Japanese but shut down when English was required suggested
to me that the problems likely were related to English use and comfort with the language.
The eighth lesson was the last lesson to prepare before the next in-class presentations. As usual,
students were shy and asking questions to the class yielded no responses. In this lesson, I met witheach student individually to discuss their script and give advice and feedback. In these one-on-one
discussions, the students seemed to match my expectations about their proficiency. They seemed tounderstand the feedback and could answer questions easily. During these meetings, students wereasked to practice their presentations and to speak with a medium volume, but participation andenergy was poor. At the time, I was confused how a class that seemed to be proficient in English
seemed unable to use English with confidence. However, in my journal, I did write that it was clear
to me that the students were shy about using English. I would mark this as the point that I was clear
they were fighting anxiety, even if I did not use those words in my journal.

90

IDENTIFYING AND LEARNING FROM A HIGH-INTERMEDIATE CLASS STRUGGLINGFROM FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANXIETY

Lesson Nine: Second In-Class Presentations
The next presentations took place in the ninth lesson, and students were given time to practicewith partners before presenting in the front of the class. My journal for this lesson notes that, whilestudents did practice, they were still very quiet and did not seem interested in their practice. In fact,
when I turned the projector on to begin preparing for presentations, the entire class stopped speaking
and practicing despite having time left. Fortunately, their presentations were somewhat improved
from the last time they presented to the class. In the fifth lesson, I had noted that several students
were nearly inaudible, whereas this time, none of the students were nearly that quiet. In my journal,
I wrote that students still seemed nervous and did not look comfortable in their presentations butthat they did seem to take the advice on speaking volume. I was hopeful that if I continued to give
specific advice, they could continue to improve for their final presentations.

Lessons Ten Through Twelve: Preparing for the Final Presentation
After the improvement in the students’ presentations, I decided to continue focusing on keeping
the classroom positive and on giving specific, actionable advice to help students improve. I did not yet
know how to improve their participation in activities, but I was hopeful that if I could make them feel
more comfortable at least I could make their final presentations a success.
In the tenth lesson, I used a vocal warm-up activity with all of my classes to help emphasize
speaking volume and gave instructions at each step to help students more easily speak at louder
volumes. This activity was well received in other classes, and the humor involved in making silly
noises in a warm-up seemed to help students relax. I was nervous about using the activity with thisclass as I was not sure that they would be willing to participate, but they did go along with the activity
and even followed the feedback about increasing their speaking volume between rounds. I tried tobuild rapport with the class by using a little Japanese to acknowledge that it could be embarrassing,and several students laughed in response. It is not possible to be sure whether the warm-up had apositive effect or if the students were just finally becoming more comfortable in class on their own,
but their speaking volume during group activities was improved. I noted that humor did seem to havea positive effect on their mood and shyness. However, in an activity designed to focus on eye contact,
the students were unwilling to correct mistakes made by their classmates. In this activity, students
were asked to read a passage aloud from the book but were instructed to only speak while looking attheir classmates and to stop their partner if they spoke while looking at the textbook. In otherclasses, the listeners were engaged and enthusiastic about catching their classmates’ mistakes, but
in this class, the listeners never stopped the speaker. Even in egregious examples, where the speaker
was clearly reading from the book without eye contact, the listeners would not say anything.
While preparing for the eleventh lesson, I noticed that the low energy and perceived shyness of
this class was affecting my feelings going into the class. I wrote in my journal that I felt like I just did
not want to work with them. I felt like I did not want to do the activities that I thought they would not
enjoy even though they seemed so successful with other students. I hoped that I could keep my own
feelings controlled so that I could help the students improve to the best of my abilities. In the lesson,
they did show some improvement from when I began keeping the journal. Students did not seem toparticularly enjoy activities, but they did participate willingly and their energy in class did seem
higher than previously. I wrote down that some students seemed to either not listen to or notunderstand instructions, as several students ignored the instruction to leave their books on the table91

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

for a practice activity. However, it is not clear that this was anything more than a small group of
students not listening carefully. In this lesson, students received some feedback on the outlines theysubmitted for their final presentation and the effort put into those outlines clearly varied considerably.
Several students put together a clear, detailed plan that showed thought and hard work, while others
failed to meet the minimum requirements of the assignment. At the end of the lesson, I emphasized
the benefit of really knowing your content in a presentation and shared some stories that caused
some positive reactions from the class, and I wrote in my journal that I hoped it would have an impact
on their preparation.
The twelfth lesson was the last lesson before we began final presentations. Most of the time wasspent practicing with small groups and meeting with me one-on-one for feedback on their scripts. My
notes for this lesson were brief, as so much of my time was spent one-on-one with the students. I did
write that, while students were willing to practice their scripts with their groups, they were very quiet
while doing so. I wrote that I was unsure if this was a sign of a problem or just normal behavior sincemultiple groups would have presenters speaking at the same time. I also noted that the overall
willingness of students to answer questions and speak up in class had improved since our first faceto-face lessons, and in my journal, I wrote that I hoped the final presentations would continue theimprovement I saw between the first and second in-person presentations.

Lessons Thirteen and Fourteen: Final Presentations
The final presentations began in the thirteenth lesson, after the university’s two-week wintervacation. I was pleased with the warm-up, and students did seem to have energy when working
together as a class. They were a little quiet while practicing with a partner, but it seemed that every
student was trying to practice. However, the actual presentations were not as successful as I had
hoped. Nearly all of the presenters failed to speak for the minimum required time, and most speakers
stared at their notes for the majority of their presentation, leading to poor eye contact. I also wrote in
my journal that no student spoke loudly enough for me to have considered it a good performance,
and a few were nearly inaudible from my position at the back of the classroom. I thought it waspossible that students were less energetic since they had just finished their winter holidays, but it did
not seem like the students were motivated or prepared.
We finished our final presentations in the fourteenth lesson, and there was no improvementfrom the previous week. Students were very quiet during the warm-up activity and practice and theirpresentations were poor. Again, most speakers failed to reach the minimum required speaking time,and nearly every speaker avoided eye contact, read from their notes, and spoke quietly. Two students
even had to be stopped and told that they were so quiet that I could not hear them and one of thosefailed to raise their voice even after being stopped. I wrote that it was difficult to judge whether the
students were shy, afraid, or just did not care about the class. I was disappointed that the improvements
I saw during the semester had entirely disappeared for the final presentations.

Reflection
Looking back on the class, reflecting on the journal, and considering the literature that I read tohelp understand this class, I am confident that foreign language anxiety was a major contributor to
the difficulty the students had performing in class. Initially, I had some thoughts about public
speaking anxiety, but the way that students struggled in groups and in activities that did not involve
92

IDENTIFYING AND LEARNING FROM A HIGH-INTERMEDIATE CLASS STRUGGLINGFROM FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANXIETY

presenting showed that it is not really possible to explain everything with just a fear of presenting. In
particular, what stands out to me is the dichotomy of their behavior when using English and their
behavior when they were allowed to speak Japanese. I would expect that any class would feel more
comfortable in their native language, but this class went between nearly silent and impossible to workwith to relaxed and energetic with the switch. The avoidance of participation and refusal to use thetarget language was as detailed by Pappamihiel (2002). There were certainly times in the class where
I considered motivation to be the culprit, but there were students who seemed to work hard outsideof class only to shut down when they needed to use English in class, suggesting that motivation could
not be the sole cause of their problems. It is possible that the students’ anxiety also reduced theirmotivation in class, as Yan & Horwitz (2008) noted.
My previous experience with students at this proficiency level led me to expect them to function
reasonably well in English, and while I would not have been surprised if some students were anxious
to start the semester, I was caught off-guard when the entire class struggled to participate. I had
expected that higher-proficiency students would be less anxious and better able to perform but, as
Llinás & Garau (2009) stated, there are cases where higher proficiency students are more anxious.
Learning this will better prepare me to more quickly identify cases when high-proficiency students
struggle from anxiety issues.
I have also learned that it is critical to address anxiety issues early and consistently. Shachter(2018) saw anxiety decrease over a semester without any particular intervention, but as I observedin this class, that cannot be counted on to be adequate. As Horwitz (2002) noted, teacher intervention
and support can help with anxiety, and there are a variety of options for helping to address anxiety,including using humor (Yan & Horwitz, 2008), using communicative activities (Dykes, 2018), andfostering friendship between students (Ostman & Xethkis, 2021). In this class I did see some impact
from activities and teacher feedback, but I believe that designing the course to identify and support
anxious students from the start would be more effective at improving their comfort and performance.

Conclusion
Reflecting on this semester and this one problematic class has helped me understand howclasses may differ from a teacher’s expectations and face challenges that the teacher did not expect
before the class began. I also have a better understanding of how foreign language anxiety can
impact performance in a language classroom, and I believe I can identify it more readily in the future.
From this experience, I have several changes that I plan to make to my teaching going forward.
First, I will separate my understanding of students’ proficiency level from my expectations about their
comfort in class. By avoiding this assumption, I should be able to do a better job quickly assessing aclasses’ needs. Second, I plan to adjust the syllabus design to give students more chances to work insmall groups and use English together. I believe that while students often do appreciate preparation
time for their presentations, reducing interaction time and chances to speak and be friendly withclassmates is not a trade-off I want to make. Finally, I want to investigate how I might be able tosupport students in dealing with anxiety through teacher modeling and interaction. Specificallytargeted feedback did seem to improve student performance temporarily, and humor also temporarily
seemed to increase participation. I believe that making this a focus for future journals and research
could continue to improve my ability to help students who struggle in the language classroom.

93

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

References
Apple, M. T. (2013). Point-to-Point: A Reply to “A Critique to ‘Using Rasch Analysis to Create andEvaluate a Measurement Instrument for Foreign Language Classroom Speaking Anxiety’ ”.
JALT Journal, 35(2), 210-213. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTJJ35.2-5
Aubrey, S. (2014). Development of the L2 Motivational Self System: English at a University in Japan.
JALT Journal, 36(2), 153-174. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTJJ36.2-1
Bartholomay, E. M., & Houlihan, D. D. (2016). Public Speaking Anxiety Scale: Preliminary
psychometric data and scale validation. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 211-215.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.026
Bippus, A. M., & Daly, J. A. (1999). What do people think causes stage fright?: Naïve attributions
about the reasons for public speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 48(1), 63-72.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529909379153
Cowie, N. & Sakui, K. (2012). Three Tales of Language Teacher Identity and Student Motivation.
JALT Journal, 34(2), 127-150. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTJJ34.2-3
Dykes, R. (2018). Syllabus Design and Foreign Language Anxiety. JALT Postconference Publication,
2017(1), 65-70. https://jalt-publications.org/articles/24346-syllabus-design-and-foreign-langua
ge-anxiety
Faravelli, C., Zucchi, T., Viviani, B., Salmoria, R., Perone, A., Paionni, A., Scarpato, A., Vigliaturo, D.,
Rosi, S., D’adamo, D., Bartolozzi, D., Cecchi, C., & Abrardi, L. (2000). Epidemiology of social
phobia: a clinical approach. European Psychiatry, 15(1), 17-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/s09249338(00)00215-7
Furukawa, T. A., Watanabe, N., Kinoshita, Y., Kinoshita, K., Sasaki, T., Nishida, A., Okazaki, Y., &Shimodera, S. (2012). Public speaking fears and their correlates among 17,615 Japaneseadolescents. Asia-Pacific Psychiatry, 6(1), 99-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5872.2012.
00184.x
Horwitz, E. (2002). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21,
112-126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190501000071
Hughes, L. S., Vye, S., & Ray, D. (2020). The L2 Motivational Self System: A Replication Study. JALT
Journal, 41(1), 5-28. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTJJ42.1-1
Knappe, S., Beesdo-Baum, K., Fehm, L., Stein, M. B., Lieb, R., & Wittchen, H.-U. (2011). Social fearand social phobia types among community youth: Differential clinical features and vulnerability
factors. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 45(1), 111-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.
2010.05.002
Llinás, M. M. & Garau, M. J. (2009). Effects of Language Anxiety on Three Proficiency-Level Coursesof Spanish as a Foreign Language. Foreign Language Annals, 41(1), 94-111. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01010.x
MacIntyre, P. D. & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The Subtle Effects of Language Anxiety on Cognitive
Processing in the Second Language. Language Learning, 44(2), 283-305. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01103.x
MacIntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Clément, R. (2002). Biases in Self-Ratings of Second Language
Proficiency: The Role of Language Anxiety. Language Learning, 42(2), 265-287. https://doi.
org/10.1111/0023-8333.81997008
Ostman, D. & Xethakis, L. (2021). Social Anxiety in Japanese Learners: Implications for English
Education. JALT Postconference Publication, 2020(1), 152-160. https://doi.org/10.37546/
94

IDENTIFYING AND LEARNING FROM A HIGH-INTERMEDIATE CLASS STRUGGLINGFROM FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANXIETY

JALTPCP2020-19
Pappamihiel, N. E. (2002). English as a Second Language Students and English Language Anxiety:
Issues in the Mainstream Classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 36(3), 327-355.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171530
Pull, C. B. (2012). Current status of knowledge on public-speaking anxiety. Current Opinion in
Psychiatry, 25(1), 32-38. https://doi.org/10.1097/yco.0b013e32834e06dc
Shachter, J. M. (2018). Tracking and Quantifying Japanese English Language Learner Speaking
Anxiety. The Language Teacher, 42(4), 3-7. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTTLT42.4-1
Stein, D.J., Ruscio, A. M., Lee, S., Petukhova, M., Alonso, J., Helena, L., Benjet, C., Bromet, E.,
Demyttenaere, K., Florescu, S., de Girolamo, G., de Graaf, R., Gureje, O., He, Y., Hinkov, H.,
Hu, C., Iwata, N., Karam, E. G., Lepine, J., Matschinger, H., Browne, M. O., Posada-Villa, J.,
Sagar, R., Williams, D. R., & Kessler, R. C. (2010). Subtyping social anxiety disorder indeveloped and developing countries. Depression and Anxiety, 27(4), 390-403. https://doi.
org/10.1002%2Fda.20639
Takahashi, C. K. (2013). Ideal L2 self and university English learners: An interview study. The
Language Teacher, 37(6), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTTLT37.6-1
Teimori, Y., Goetze, J., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Second language anxiety and achievement: A metaanalysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 363-387. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0272263118000311
Visgatis, B. & Tada, M. (2020). Tracking and Influencing Learning Motivation. JALT Postconference
Publication, 2019(1), 136-143. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTPCP2019-17
Watson, R. J. (2020). Learner Motivation From a Teacher Perspective. JALT Postconference
Publication, 2019(1), 151-159. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTPCP2019-19
Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and Speaking English as a Second Language. RELC Journal, 37(3),308-328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206071315
Yan, J. X. & Horwitz, E. K. (2008). Learners’ Perceptions of How Anxiety Interacts With Personal andInstructional Factors to Influence Their Achievement in English: A Qualitative Analysis of EFL
Learners in China. Language Learning, 58(1), 151-183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.
2007.00437.x

95

【Teaching Practice Report】

Overcoming Barriers to Student Wellbeing in the Classroom:
Utilizing Universal Design for Learning Principles in Lesson
Planning, Content, and Delivery
Matthew Alexander Hartley
Abstract
Recent global events such as the COVID-19 pandemic have brought the mental wellbeing of university students tothe forefront of many educator’s minds. However, they are not, nor should they be expected to be, experts in
psychological matters. Therefore, the question becomes as follows: what can educators do to support the wellbeingof students? Taking a social psychology model of disability to understand student behaviors, this paper applies
Universal Design for Learning principles to common English language class activities, and based on a teaching
journal kept by the author, evaluates their perceived impact on student wellbeing. Comments and suggestions formodifications and accommodations are then offered in order to aid teachers who seek to embed student wellbeing
into the design and delivery of their English language curricula.
Keywords: Curriculum design, equality, mental health, psychology, wellbeing

Introduction
Awareness of mental health and wellbeing related issues in society has grown in recent times, atleast in part due to global events such as the COVID-19 pandemic (United Nations, 2021). In thetertiary education sector, these challenges have become particularly acute: one study found that in2020–2021, more than 60% of university students met the criteria for at least one mental healthproblem, a rise of almost 50% since 2013 (Dopp et al., 2013). In addition to the intrinsic wellbeing
impacts incurred by the affected individual, there is also the effect that mental health has on learning.
For instance, students with such problems are not only less likely to complete individual modules andget passing grades than those without mental health difficulties (Richardson, 2015), they are also
more likely drop out of university altogether (Brown, 2016). Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic
has only exacerbated these concerns. One report noted that 80% of respondents said their mental
health had deteriorated during the Coronavirus pandemic (Young Minds, 2020), with young adults
aged 18–24–that is, the age of most university students–at greatest risk of suffering from hopelessness,loneliness, and suicidal thoughts (Mental Health Foundation, 2020).
Therefore, having established that challenges to mental wellbeing experienced by university
students are significant in number, have a detrimental effect on learning outcomes, and have been
exacerbated by recent global events, the need for educators to reflect on mental wellbeing is arguably
greater than everRegarding terminology, while “mental health” and “wellbeing” are often used synonymously,
wellbeing is a wider concept of which mental health belongs to and refers to “a state of happiness andcontentment, with low levels of distress, overall good physical and mental health and outlook, orgood quality of life” (American Psychological Association, n.d.-b). Moreover, some advocate for a
focus on wellbeing rather than mental health. As Houghton and Anderson (2017, p.7) contend,“…not everyone who experiences a decline in their wellbeing would associate that with a ‘health’96

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO STUDENT WELLBEING IN THE CLASSROOM:UTILIZING UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING PRINCIPLES IN LESSON PLANNING, CONTENT, AND DELIVERY

concern. Moreover, we wish to draw a distinction between mental wellbeing, which we all have, anda mental health problem which only some of us would identify as experiencing.”
In other words, a focus on wellbeing is more inclusive and therefore has greater application, widening
the potential benefits of actions that consider it.
Although this paper will discuss concepts around wellbeing, the aim is not to diagnose or assess
students for mental health problems, or even to have knowledge of related terminology beyond alayman’s definition. Rather, it is hoped that by exploring common wellbeing concepts in the context
of the language classroom, individual educators will be better equipped to support the wellbeing of
all learners. If serious concerns about student wellbeing do occur, advice should be sought from therelevant support department of the individual instruction.

Background
Barriers to Wellbeing
In order to discover how wellbeing can be addressed through curriculum design and delivery, it
is first necessary to explore various ways in which learning can impact wellbeing at the classroom
level. One useful concept here refers to barriers to wellbeing (Oliver 1996). Rooted in the social modelof disability, this approach focuses on the environmental, structural, and attitudinal barriers that
affect a disabled individual’s inclusion and progress in life (Oliver, 1996). Related to this, Lister, Seale,and Douce (2021) discuss a comprehensive array of wellbeing issues in an educational context intheir taxonomy of barriers and enablers to wellbeing. This detailed work recognizes the multivariate
environmental, skills-related, and study-related aspects of wellbeing in learning. Although it isbeyond the scope of this paper to cover the work in this field in-depth, a selection of the principal
themes identified by Oliver (1996) in particular will be identified and introduced below, along withassociated major wellbeing concerns.
Identity. The link between identity and wellbeing is long accepted in psychology. There are
innumerable ways through which the classroom experience may impact identity; however, as astarting point, based on Tajfel’s (1981) influential work, conceptions of identity in the classroom
might consider the learner’s personal identity (allowing them opportunities to know and express
themselves and their preferences); group identity (letting them participate in group activities in ways
they like and are comfortable with); and demographic identity (through awareness and representation).
As this can lead to more positive self-conceptions and higher self-esteem, a focus on identity from theformulation stage of lesson planning can therefore help teachers not only to avoid putting up barriers
to their students’ wellbeing but also design activities that promote it (Bliuc et al., 2017).
Belonging. As Vygotsky (1978) noted, learning is a social process and interactions are key.
These social interactions (and therefore learning) inevitably involve the formation of groups–fromuniversity wide cohorts, to particular classes, and also formal or informal study groups withinclasses–at which point a sense of belonging becomes an important consideration. Skipper and Fay(2019) argued that if we feel accepted and valued by other members of a group, we are more likely
to seek and develop stronger relationships with them, which will in turn lead to improved wellbeing.
The reverse is also true. If we feel like we do not belong, our mental energy is taken up by thesefeelings, leaving less space for learning (Eisenberger & Cole, 2012). Indeed, many studies have97

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

linked sense of belonging with student performance (OECD, 2000). The responsibility then again
falls on educators to focus on belonging in the classroom through cultivating a sense of community
wherever possible, explicitly encouraging a supportive atmosphere, and representing students’
identities in lesson activities and materials if possible.
Powerlessness. This refers to “state in which individuals either lack or believe that they lackcontrol or influence over factors or events that affect their health (mental or physical), personal lives,or the society in which they live” (American Psychological Association, n.d.-a). The connection to
wellbeing is clear, in that when people feel like things are outside their control, their wellbeing ischallenged and they are more at risk of mental heal problems (Cheng et al., 2013). Among university
students, those who believe they have control over their lives are more likely to be proactive in theirlearning, whereas those who do not believe they have control are more likely to experience passivity
and feelings of hopelessness (Khumalo & Plattner, 2019). An initial way to address this is therefore
to find ways to give a sense of power back to students. Studies have shown that whether this is realor simply perceived control is not important, and the wellbeing outcomes are the same (Khumalo &Plattner, 2019). Giving choice over topics, questions, or other classroom details amount to what
Scrivener (2012) calls “small bursts of democracy” (p. 115) that can make students feel empowered
and heard. Meanwhile, it has long been argued that explicitly emphasizing that academic failures andsuccesses are connected to individually controllable things such as effort, rather than uncontrollable
things such as intelligence or natural ability, can also promote a sense of control (Dweck, 1975).
Stress and anxiety. Stress and anxiety are intrinsically connected, with stress described as the
response to a threatening situation and anxiety as the reaction to that stress (Mental HealthFoundation, 2018). While stress can sometimes be positive (when it is “pressure” to motivate
achievement), it can also have negative impacts if there is too much of it. Indeed, the statistics related
to university students and stress and anxiety are alarming. During the COVID-19 pandemic, one
meta-analysis suggested that the occurrence of anxiety reached 29%, and that stress prevalence
reached 23% (Wang et al., 2021). When looking at cases without diagnosis or treatment, the figures
become even starker: 84% of students said they felt overwhelmed, 79% felt exhausted, and 46% felt
hopeless (Samuolis et al., 2015). The relevance for learning outcomes is clear in that anxiety andstress are clearly related to lower academic performance (Kitzrow, 2003). There are, of course, arange of personal, cultural, and circumstantial influences on stress and anxiety that fall outside theclassroom and therefore outside a teacher’s influence. However, by being aware of and encouraging
coping strategies in their learners, teachers can still have a positive effect. One tactic is problemfocused coping, where students ask for and receive help on a difficult, stress-inducing task (Clarke,
2006). Another is emotion-focused coping, where the stressful task (and therefore the stressful
feeling) is avoided altogether (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988). Moreover, in further evidence of theimportance of belonging, how connected a student feels to their school has also been shown to playa role in ameliorating stress and its effects (Gilman & Anderman, 2006).
Social anxiety. A particular kind of anxiety worthy of its own mention is social anxiety. This
discomfort or fear of social situations or events can for some be a barrier to everyday wellbeing as it
manifests itself in discomfort or even complete avoidance of certain tasks. As the classroom
environment is, in principal, unavoidably social, this type of anxiety is especially relevant for academic
performance. It has been found to impair academic educational achievement in particular due to98

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO STUDENT WELLBEING IN THE CLASSROOM:UTILIZING UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING PRINCIPLES IN LESSON PLANNING, CONTENT, AND DELIVERY

reduced concentration levels in the classroom (Leigh et al., 2021) as well as how it effects
communication with instructors, peers, and overall student experiences (Archbell & Coplan, 2022).
However, it is important not to assume that the “solution” to social anxiety is simply morecommunication and group participation for the concerned individual. Research also shows that thatsome students simply prefer to work alone where possible and may achieve more as a result (Hoodet al., 2021).

Universal Design for Learning
It will be evident to anyone who has spent even a short amount of time in a classroom that every
learner is different. Still, while acknowledging that there is no “one-size-fits-all” strategy foraddressing classroom wellbeing, the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (CAST, 2018) can yet
provide a useful guiding framework for those seeking to cultivate a teaching space with student
welfare at its heart. At its core, it encourages flexibility in teaching and learning and can aid a teacher
in making their classrooms more comfortable for all. All learners can benefit from UDL principles,not only those with identified wellbeing issues. UDL achieves this by focusing on three key areas:
multiple means of engagement, multiple means of representation, and multiple means of action andexpression. Due to limitations in the scope of this paper, only a brief overview of UDL’s main tenets
will be offered before discussing how they can be put into practice in the classroom.
Multiple means of engagement. Offering multiple means of engagement may take the formof giving students a diverse and authentic lesson experience with chances to work alone or in groups.
This should be implemented with the individual’s autonomy in mind, not forced on them.
Multiple means of representation. This can involve providing learning materials and content
in different modes (i.e., audio, video, written, etc.) so that learner autonomy and comfort can berespected, allowing them to choose the format they prefer wherever possible.
Multiple means of action and expression. Related to the above, multiple means of action andexpression are simply connected to giving students the opportunity to choose how they prefer todemonstrate their learning. This may include allowing them to record a video instead of presenting
in front of the class or answering a topic through a writing assignment rather than a speaking
assignment. This must be balanced with individual class or institutional-level grading and assessment
criteria.

Methodology
To explore specific ways in which UDL can be employed to overcome various classroom
wellbeing barriers, this paper will continue by describing various activities included in typical English
language lessons. Then, based on the author’s real reflections on teaching these activities, they will
be reviewed in light of their potential wellbeing impacts, and suggestions will be made for changes.
Finally, more general thoughts on possible intersections of English language classes and wellbeing
will be examined, and further amendments will be offered. These views were recorded in a reflective
teaching journal, which is a useful means for educators to scrutinize their classroom behaviors,
attitudes, and outcomes (McDonough, 1994). Principally, the three cognitive dimensions of reflective99

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

teaching were analyzed: reflection for action, reflection in action, and reflection on action-in otherwords, interrogating one’s instruction before, during, and after the event (Schon, 1983). It is thenhoped that the reader will gain a practical understanding of how to embed mental wellbeing in theirown curricula.

Discussion
Quizzes
A short paper-based quiz may be given to students in order to assess completion of homework
reading tasks. A standard number of minutes is given for this activity, and the filled-out answer sheets
are exchanged with a classmate for immediate peer grading. However, when carried out in thisstandard way, this activity does not follow UDL guidelines. Firstly, the lack of flexibility and autonomy
afforded may make learners feel powerless, and secondly, grading each other’s work can also havewellbeing impacts. While peer grading is an established time-saver for teachers (Sadler & Good,
2010), studies have suggested that having other learners know and judge their performance can bea source of anxiety (Weisi & Karimi, 2013).
To make this stage of the lesson more wellbeing-friendly, alternative methods of homeworkassessment should be considered. One possibility is to ask students to journal their reflections on thereading assignment instead of taking a quiz, which could allow freer expression, potentially helping
them feel empowered because, as Baik et al. (2017) argue, it allows them to align their responses
with their own personal interests. A second benefit is that by giving learners the chance to keep
possession of their journals themselves, they provide a differentiated form of self-assessment
through which progress over time can be reflected on and self-monitored, which are important partsof the UDL (CAST, 2018). A final benefit here is that it removes the need for peer grading and any
associated anxiety. If teachers do wish to continue using quizzes to monitor homework completion,
consideration should at least be given to marking the answer sheets themselves.

Speaking Fluency
Speaking-focused classes such as English Discussion Class regularly have students completinga speaking fluency activity that involves standing up for a total of 15 minutes, taking turns speaking
on unrehearsed topics. First and foremost, asking students to stand for 15 minutes here may bephysically difficult for those with impairments. Officially, there are both formal and informal
institutional channels through which students may make their teachers aware of any problems they
may have with standing up for extended periods, such as disclosing a physical disability to thestudent support office. However, in practice, many individuals are reluctant to do so for reasons
including fear of stigma and a lack of awareness of available support and accommodations(Thompson-Ebanks & Jarman, 2017). In its present form, this activity therefore puts up what Lister,
Seale and Douce (2021) refer to as a physical space barrier to learning–as this physical activity isunrelated to the learning outcomes, it can easily be removed from the lesson. A simple adjustment
would be to arrange the desks in the classroom to permit students to carry out this speaking activity
while sitting, making the lesson less physically demanding.
Furthermore, typically, the speaking prompts at this point of the lesson are defined by theteacher, with students offered no autonomy. Denying students the chance to utilize their decision100

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO STUDENT WELLBEING IN THE CLASSROOM:UTILIZING UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING PRINCIPLES IN LESSON PLANNING, CONTENT, AND DELIVERY

making ability may further contribute to a sense of powerlessness. An alternative would be to offer a
range of questions related to the topic for the students to choose from while making sure the choices
are simple enough to follow, and enable learners to express their true selves.

Asking Students to Volunteer Answers to the ClassAt various points in a lesson, the teacher may select individuals to briefly present their ideas
about the topic to the whole class. The goal of this activity may be to check comprehension or shareinteresting comments with other students. Indeed, on the surface, this may seem like a harmlessroutine event in any classroom; however, it does raise wellbeing concerns. It has been suggested
that, especially for English language learners, the pressure of having to speak un-prepared in front of
the class can actually cause significant feelings of stress and anxiety (Mak, 2011).
Refraining from routinely asking students to speak unrehearsed can easily eliminate this sourceof anxiety, and to alternatively assess their understanding of the material, the teacher could monitor
the students’ speaking and write down any noteworthy ideas. The teacher themselves can sharethese ideas with the class. Although monitoring accurately can be challenging, particularly with large
class sizes, if done with care, the teacher will still be able to understand the strengths, weaknesses,
and areas of comfort of a class. They will therefore be able to take into account the diverse learning
profiles within a particular group while also meeting the learning outcomes of the lesson plan
(Tomlinson et al., 2003).

Group Work (Debates, Discussions, Presentations, etc.)
Group work in particular is a known source of stress for students. For example, the process ofgroup formation has the capacity to significantly affect feelings of inclusion during an activity, as wellas impact anxiety levels and overall classroom comfort (McPherson et al., 2019). Moreover, these
activities may be further problematic for learner wellbeing, as they often do not easily allow forreasonable alternatives or adjustments and due to the potential for ambiguity and lack of clear
structure (University of Kent, 2016).
A direct way to remove some ambiguity from group formation is for the teacher to assign
groups. Although this method may take away some autonomy, the wellbeing benefits may be aworthwhile tradeoff. Similarly, the teacher could allot clear roles within the group to further reduce
uncertainty–for example, deciding in advance which members will ask questions, who will control
the slides, and who will present each point in a debate, etc. Moreover, close attention should be paid
to both individual group members’ behaviours and also to wider group dynamics. In order tominimize negative social and learning experiences, the teacher could disrupt alpha-pairs, promoteequal participation, and encourage quieter members to contribute in non-pressuring ways (Gilbert,2016).
In addition, after the groups have been formed but before the group work begins, an icebreakershould be carried out. A suggested activity here is to ask students to share 3 important facts about
themselves. However, students should be made aware that they can share as much or as little as is
comfortable and may skip this activity if they wish. In allowing the students to speak about theiridentity in this way, wellbeing is promoted through the building of cooperative relationships (Barret,2014).

101

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Exams
A final frequent activity in English classes is the exam–either assigned in-class or as a take-hometask. No matter the form, the link between exams and wellbeing problems is long-established, with
one study noting that they were the number one source of stress for UK school children (Kyriacou& Butcher, 1993). Similarly, anxiety and negative feelings toward exams have been found to affectboth a learner’s ability to perform and also self-estimations of ability (Zwettler et al., 2018). An activity
that replaces the exam with a written assessment could reduce stress on the student as it allows fora more flexible completion of the task (CAST, 2018).

Further Considerations
The Need for Reasonable Accommodations
A key point to bear in mind throughout lesson planning and delivery is the need foraccommodations to be made for students with different abilities, preferences, and comfort levels. At
all times, teachers should approach their duties with flexibility so that wherever possible, all students
can participate effectively while still meeting the learning outcomes. A concrete example is thatstudents may, after communication with the teacher or student support staff, submit alternative
forms of assessment. This may take the form of submitting a speaking task in written form or being
able to complete a task as part of a pair. Such inclusive lesson design can minimize the negative
effects of the classroom experience and enhance a learner’s wellbeing (Gaydarov, 2014).

Clear Goals and Processes
As mentioned above, ambiguity can be a major source anxiety in the classroom, especiallyamong foreign language learners (Dewaele & Shan, 2013). Simply put, being unsure of what to do orwhat is expected of them can make students uncomfortable. An important step toward mitigatingthese negative feelings is to make sure lesson plans–including instructions, tasks, and learning goalsconform to SMART criteria. This requires that tasks be simple, measurable, achievable, relevant, andtime-bound. Using this framework to reduce ambiguity can make students feel more confident in theclassroom and therefore reduce the risk of negative wellbeing effects (Fulmer, 2017).
Practically speaking, the purpose of each individual task should be made clear at each stage ofthe lesson. This can be done verbally during the class and also in written form in a syllabus distributed
before a course begins. Along similar lines, making the learning outcomes known in advance(through the institution’s online portal) and reinforcing them by repeating them at the start of class
can improve the learners’ metacognition and empower them to make strategic decisions, which put
them in control of their own learning.

Barriers to Implementation
In terms of challenges that an educator may face when preparing and teaching a wellbeing
focused curriculum, the additional time commitment needed is one concern. For instance, toconsistently and effectively adhere to UDL criteria would necessitate “a thoughtful, slow, andrigorous process […requiring] enough time for ideation, iteration, high-quality media production,
102

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO STUDENT WELLBEING IN THE CLASSROOM:UTILIZING UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING PRINCIPLES IN LESSON PLANNING, CONTENT, AND DELIVERY

and formative assessments” (Abramenka-Lachheb et al., 2021, p. 17). There may also be institutionallevel barriers. Teachers must consider whether or not they have the freedom to design or adapt
lessons as they wish; the assessments may be fixed by entities outside their control, and some of therequired resources may be unavailable. As Scott (2018) summarized, new approaches are “often
contingent on teachers’ liberties to use inclusive instructional strategies” (p. 1).
Lastly, students themselves may be reluctant to embrace different styles of learning or
assessment. The source of this resistance can be rooted in a culture’s learning and social norms. In
Japan, for example, education is typically expected (by providers and students) to be “top-down” orteacher-led (Nemoto, 1999). Teachers employing more student-centered, UDL-focused lesson plans
may be met with skepticism, as this style may vastly differ from what students are used to.

Conclusion
Educators seeking to tackle the challenges of implementing a curriculum that is mindful of
student welfare would do well to heed the words of Freire (2000), who advocated for respectful
dialogue between students and teachers. His principles for positive communication included equality
in interactions; humility in respecting a student’s knowledge and dignity; faith in both your own andothers’ abilities; critical thinking in approaching knowledge; and hope by way of an optimistic attitude
toward student abilities and outcomes. If these messages are followed, the learner is more likely tohave a positive classroom experience. Indeed, overcoming such challenges is a key part of theteacher’s role in terms of promoting institutional change through research and practice and helping
students to feel the emotional and educational benefits that can be attained through curriculum
design.

103

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

References
Abramenka-Lachheb, V., Lachheb, A., de Siqueira, A. C., & Huber, L. (2021). Instructional designers
as “first responders” helping faculty teach in the coronavirus crisis. Journal of Teaching and
Learning with Technology, 10(1).
American Psychological Association. (n.d.-a). Powerlessness. In APA dictionary of psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/powerlessness/
American Psychological Association. (n.d.-b). Well-being. In APA dictionary of psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/well-being/
Archbell, K. A., & Coplan, R. J. (2022). Too anxious to talk: Social anxiety, academic communication,and students’ experiences in higher education. Journal of emotional and behavioral disorders,30(4), 273-286.
Baik, C., Larcombe, W., Brooker, A., Wyn, J., Allen, L., Brett, M., ... & James, R. (2017) Enhancing
Student Wellbeing: A Handbook for Academic Educators. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
Barrett, G. (2014) ‘Deconstructing Community’, Sociologia Ruralis, 55(2).
Bliuc, A. M., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2017). The role of students’ social identities in fosteringhigh-quality learning in higher education. Self and social identity in educational context. New
York: Routledge.
Brown, P. (2016). The Invisible Problem?: improving students’ mental health (p. 66). Oxford: Higher
Education Policy Institute.
CAST (2018) Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/
Cheng, C., Cheung, S., Chio, J. H. and Chan, M. S. (2013). Cultural meaning of perceived control: A
meta-analysis of locus of control and psychological symptoms across 18 cultural regions.
Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 152-88.
Clarke, A. (2006). Coping with Interpersonal Stress and Psychosocial Health Among Children andAdolescents: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 35(1), 10-23.
Dewaele, J. M., & Shan Ip, T. (2013). The link between foreign language classroom anxiety, second
language tolerance of ambiguity and self-rated English proficiency among Chinese learners.
Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 47-66.
Dopp, R. R., Lipson, S. K., & Eisenberg, D. (2013). Mental health among late adolescents and young
adults from a population-level and clinical perspective. Adolesc Med State Art Rev, 24(3),573-596.
Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned
helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 31(4), 674-85.
Eisenberger, N. I., & Cole, S. W. (2012). Social neuroscience and health: neurophysiologicalmechanisms linking social ties with physical health. Nature neuroscience, 15(5), 669-674.
Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R. S. (1988) The relationship between coping and emotion: Implications fortheory and research. Social Science Medicine. 26(3), 309-17.
Freire, P. (2000) Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum.
Fulmer, S. M. (2017) Should I share my learning outcomes with students? https://www.learningscientists.
org/blog/2017/10/4-1/
Gaydarov, K., 2014. Psychological wellbeing in the context of inclusive education. International
Journal on New Trends in Education &amp; their Implications (5)3.
Gilbert, T. (2016). Assess compassion in higher education? Why and how would we do that?. LINK:
University of Hertfordshire.
104

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO STUDENT WELLBEING IN THE CLASSROOM:UTILIZING UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING PRINCIPLES IN LESSON PLANNING, CONTENT, AND DELIVERY

Gilman, R., & Anderman, E. M. (2006). The relationship between relative levels of motivation andintrapersonal, interpersonal, and academic functioning among older adolescents. Journal of
School Psychology, 44(5), 375-391.
Hood, S., Barrickman, N., Djerdjian, N., Farr, M., Magner, S., Roychowdhury, H., ... & Hull, K.
(2021). “I like and prefer to work alone”: Social anxiety, academic self-efficacy, and students’
perceptions of active learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(1), ar12.
Houghton, A. M., & Anderson, J. (2017). Embedding mental wellbeing in the curriculum: maximising
success in higher education. Higher Education Academy. 68.
Khumalo, T. & Plattner, I. E. (2019). The relationship between locus of control and depression: A
cross-sectional survey with university students in Botswana. South African Journal of Psychiatry.
25.
Kitzrow, M. A. (2003). The mental health needs of today’s college students: Challenges andrecommendations. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 41(1), 167-181.
Kyriacou, C. and Butcher, B., 1993. Stress in Year 11 school children. Pastoral Care in Education,
11(3), 19-21.
Leigh, E., Chiu, K., & Clark, D. M. (2021). Is concentration an indirect link between social anxiety
and educational achievement in adolescents?. PloS one, 16(5), e0249952.
Lister, K., Seale, J., & Douce, C. (2021). Mental health in distance learning: a taxonomy of barriersand enablers to student mental wellbeing. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance ande-Learning, 1-15.
Mak, B., 2011. An exploration of speaking-in-class anxiety with Chinese ESL learners. System, 39(2),202-214.
McDonough, J. (1994). A teacher looks at teachers’ diaries. English language teaching Journal 18,
57-65.
McPherson, E., Collins, T. and Gallen, A.M. (2019). Inclusive Group Work for Module Designers.
https://weblab.open.ac.uk/incstem/incstem-data/uploads/2019/11/designing-group-workguidance.pdf
Nemoto, Y. (1999). The Japanese education system. Parkland, FL: Universal-Publishers.
Mental Health Foundation. (2018). Stress. https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/a-to-z/s/stress.
Mental Health Foundation. (2020). Coronavirus: The divergence of mental health experiences during
the pandemic. https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/our-work/research/coronavirus-divergencemental-health-experiences-during-pandemic
Nemoto, Y., 1999. The Japanese education system. Parkland, FL: Universal-Publishers.
OECD. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation: Results from PISA
2000. https://www.oecd.org/education/school/programmeforinternationalstudentassessment
pisa/33689437.pdf
Oliver, M. (1996). The social model in context. In Understanding disability (pp. 30-42). Palgrave,
London.
Richardson, J. T. (2015). Academic attainment in students with mental health difficulties in distanceeducation. International Journal of Mental Health, 44(3), 231-240.
Sadler, P.M. & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self-and peer-grading on student learning. Educational
assessment, 11(1), 1-31.
Samuolis, J., Barcellos, M., LaFlam, J., Belson, D., & Berard, J. (2015). Mental health issues and theirrelation to identity distress in college students. Identity, 15(1), 66-73.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic105

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Books.
Scott, L.A., (2018). Barriers with implementing a Universal Design for Learning framework. Inclusion,
6(4), pp.274-286.
Scrivener, J. (2012). Classroom management techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skipper. Y. and Fay, M. (2019) “Why Not Me?” The extent to which students’ academic identity impacts
their sense of community and mental health, SRHE Research Report. London, Society for
Research into Higher Education. https://srhe.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/YSkipperMFay-SRHE-Research-Reoprt.pdf
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Thompson-Ebanks, V., & Jarman, M. (2017). Characteristics of Undergraduate Students with
Disabilities: Disability Disclosure and Academic Persistence. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 4(2).
Tomlinson, C. A, Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., Conover, L.
A. & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating Instruction in Response to Student Readiness,
Interest, and Learning Profile in Academically Diverse Classrooms: A Review of Literature.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 27 (2-3), 119-45.
United Nations (2021, October 9). The Pandemic accelerant: how COVID-19 advanced our mental
health priorities. https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/pandemic-accelerant-how-covid-19-adv
anced-our-mental-health-priorities
University of Kent (2016) Assessment and feedback. https://www.kent.ac.uk/teaching/assessment/
index.html
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard
university press.
Wang, C., Wen, W., Zhang, H., Ni, J., Jiang, J., Cheng, Y., ... & Liu, W. (2021). Anxiety, depression, andstress prevalence among college students during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Journal of American college health, 1-8.
Weisi, H. &amp; Karimi, M. N. (2013). The effect of self-assessment among Iranian EFL learners.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 731-737.
Young Minds (2020, Summer) Coronavirus: Impact on young people with mental health needs. https://www.youngminds.org.uk/media/04apxfrt/youngminds-coronavirus-report-summer-2020.pdf
Zwettler, C., Reiss, N., Rohrmann, S., Warnecke, I., Luka-Krausgrill, U. and Van Dick, R. (2018). The
relation between social identity and test anxiety in university students. Health psychology open,
5(2).

106

【Teaching Practice Report】

Pleasure Reading:
Incorporating CLIL Into an Extensive Reading-Based Course
Michael Peragine, Christopher Mattson
Abstract
The goal of this paper is to introduce the pedagogical methodology in which Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL) was incorporated into Pleasure Reading, an extensive-reading based course for L2 university
students in Tokyo. Described simply, the course can be seen as having two strands: students read self-selected
literature and learn content selected by the instructor. After devising a method of teaching content to analyze
literary texts, the authors structured their lessons based on the principles of CLIL, mainly Content, Communication,
Cognition, and Culture, or the 4Cs. Activities were scaffolded using Bloom’s revised taxonomy, moving from lowerorder thinking skills (LOTS) to higher-order thinking skills (HOTS). Visual and graphic organizers wereincorporated to aid the comprehension of authentic texts and higher-level content. The paper concludes with asample lesson handout designed using the aforementioned principles.
Keywords: pleasure reading, extensive reading, graded readers, EFL, CLIL

Introduction
Pleasure Reading is an elective course within the Independent Module at Rikkyo University. The
course is aimed at helping L2 sophomores, juniors, and seniors improve their reading skills throughextensive reading. The class is designed to help students find English books they wish to read in
English and make it a pleasurable experience. Students choose graded readers based on theircurrent reading level and complete various assignments based on those readings. While it is up to
the assigned teacher how best to achieve course objectives, typically this course includes activities
such as in-class reading, discussion of selected books, and written or oral assignments that bothsummarize and analyze the material being read. This paper addresses the attempts of the authors to
implement a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) framework for the Pleasure Reading
course in order to more effectively engage students in the understanding and enjoyment of literature.
Perhaps it is best to start with a shared definition of pleasure reading, which the National
Literacy Trust describes as follows:
Reading for pleasure refers to reading that we to [sic] do of our own free will anticipating thesatisfaction that we will get from the act of reading. It also refers to reading that having begun at
someone else’s request we continue because we are interested in it. It typically involves materials
that reflect our own choice, at a time and place that suits us. (Clark & Rumbold, 2006, p. 6)
Similarly, students in the Pleasure Reading course select books at the request of their teacher,although they are expected to read both in the classroom and independently outside of class. Choice
is an essential component of this extensive-reading course. It should be no surprise that the books
young people find most interesting are the ones they have chosen for themselves. Gambrell (1996, p.
21) reports that when children were asked to talk about the books they enjoyed most, “over 80%
107

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

responded that they had self-selected the books from the classroom libraries.” While students in the
Pleasure Reading course are free to choose their reading materials, it is generally recommended thatthey select graded readers, which are adaptations of literature from various cultures designed to help
L2 students improve their reading skills. With thousands of level-appropriate titles available from theschool library, it is hoped that students will come away feeling motivated by the experience of selfselecting their reading materials for class.
At least part of what separates the Pleasure Reading course from more conventional EFL
courses is its emphasis on extensive reading (ER) and the extensive reading of literature in particular.
The term “extensive reading” was first used by Harold Palmer in his attempt to differentiate between
texts for “intensive reading” in which “each sentence is subjected to a careful scrutiny,” whereas inextensive reading “book after book will be read through without giving more than a superficial andpassing attention to the lexicological units of which it is composed” (1917, p. 205). Day and Bamford’s(2002) principles for teaching extensive reading are built on this concept further by emphasizing theuse of easy-to-read texts that are self-selected by students from a variety of topics and materials, witha focus on speed, reading enjoyment, and limited teacher interference, encouraging teachers to play
the role of guide as students read both independently and silently. With regard to reading materials,
Tsang and Paran (2021, p. 2) remind us that in the L2 context, there “has been a widening of theconcept of literature and literary texts,” referring to McRae’s (1991) description of literature as
having either a capital ‘L’ for traditional works of the literary canon or a small ‘l’ for more modern
works “ranging from fantasy and young adult novels.” Within the L2 classroom, all of these works are
considered classroom literature and are encompassed within the spectrum of graded readers.
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in and acknowledgment of the benefits ofsuch literature in the L2 contexts. Takase (2012) notes that various studies have shown the beneficial
effects of ER, including proficiency gains not only with discrete skills but also gains with the positive
affect and self-confidence that stem from self-selected, extensive reading of literature. Secondarylevel EFL students, as documented by Tsang, Paran, and Lau (2020), tend to be quite positive about
the use of literature in the EFL classroom. A few of the improvements that extensive reading ofliterature provides are “becoming independent of others” as well as promoting confidence andmotivation (Walker, 1997, p. 124).
It is also important to note that while Yang (as cited in Paran, 2008) found “language improvement
in classes using literature in contrast with classes that did not,” the classes that “experienced
traditional teacher-centered lecturing on literature’’ had “a sharp drop in attendance” (p. 472).
Moreover, a study by Tsang and Paran (2021) found that while learners generally have a positive
attitude toward the use of literature in the L2 classroom, they occasionally experienced loweredlevels of motivation when teacher-selected texts were considered poor or uninteresting. Thesestudies remind us that to achieve the full benefits literature can bring to the L2 classroom, adherence
to the principles of extensive reading–such as limited teacher interference and the provision of
student self-selected materials–is essential.

The Role of CLIL in Pleasure Reading
Content and Language Integrated Learning is defined by Coyle, Hood, and Marsh as “a dualfocused approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of bothcontent and language” (2010, p. 1). Graddol differentiates CLIL from English-medium instruction(EMI) by stating that “the learner is not necessarily expected to have the English proficiency
108

PLEASURE READING: INCORPORATING CLIL INTO AN EXTENSIVE READING-BASED COURSE

required to cope with the subject before beginning study” (2006, p. 86). This distinction is fitting
considering that Pleasure Reading—as part of the forthcoming framework of CLIL courses under thesubheading of Global Communication—will follow the mandatory freshman-level courses while
preceding most EMI courses, which are generally taken near the end of the undergraduate program(Figure 1). CLIL is typically categorized into two main types: hard and soft. Hard CLIL, also known asstrong CLIL, refers to a content-led approach, whereas soft CLIL, alternatively known as weak CLIL,
describes language-led approaches (Ball, Kelly, & Clegg, 2015, p. 26-27). In other words, hard CLIL
freshman-level courses while preceding most EMI courses, which are generally taken near thecourses might beand somewhat
comparedwith softinto
CLIL
endcontent-heavyof the undergraduate
program closer(Figureto1).immersion
CLIL is typically
categorized
twocourses
main types:that utilize more
scaffolding
languageskills. CLIL,
Courses
suchtoasa Pleasure
Reading
hardand soft. while
Hard emphasizing
CLIL, also known
as strongreferscontent-led
approach,whereassoft
CLIL,
alternatively
known
as
weak
CLIL,
describes
language-led
approaches
would fall somewhere in between, but with a heavier emphasis on content than mandatory courses(Ball,
Kelly, & Debate,
Clegg, 2015,
p. 26-27). andIn otherwords,&hard
CLIL allcoursesmighttypicallybe contentsuch as English
Discussion,
Presentation,
Reading
Writing,of whichheavy and somewhat closer to immersion compared with soft CLIL courses that utilize more
provide scaffolding
such while
as sentence
stems
to assistscaffoldingemphasizing
languageskills.spoken
Coursesand/or
such aswritten
Pleasurecommunication.
Reading would fall
Therefore, it canbe said that
Pleasurebut
Readinga course
shouldonplace
more
an emphasis
on itssuch
somewhere
in between,with a asheavieremphasiscontent
thanofmandatory
courses
as English
Discussion,
Debate, Presentation, and Reading & Writing, all of which typicallycontent than thesemandatory
courses.
provide scaffolding such as sentence stems to assist spoken and/or written communication.
Therefore, it can be said that Pleasure Reading as a course should place more of an emphasis
Figure 1.
on its content than these mandatory courses.
Four-year curriculum framework (Yamamoto & Nitta, 2021, p. 126)

Figure 1. Four-year curriculum framework (Yamamoto & Nitta, 2021, p. 126)
The authors’ pedagogical goal was to apply the principles and frameworks of CLIL to the
The authors’ pedagogical goal was to apply the principles and frameworks of CLIL to
Pleasure Reading course. While students were expected to engage with the readings, having a fullthe Pleasure Reading course. While students were expected to engage with the readings, having
understanding aoffull
theunderstanding
text was notofnecessary.
is to say thatof learning
typical of
the text wasThat
not necessary.
That theis todiscrete
say that learning
the discrete
grammar- and vocabulary-based
courses
was not partcoursesof the wascurriculum.
full engagement
typical grammar- andvocabulary-based
not part ofHowever,the curriculum.
However, fullengagementwiththematerial
was
required
in
the
form
of
pair
and
group
activities
and writtenwith the material was required in the form of pair and group activities and written assignments.
assignments. Students were not tested on their reading in traditional ways, like vocabularyStudents were not tested on their reading in traditional ways, like vocabulary checks, but rather
checks, but rather assessment was conducted through students’ writing. Students wereassessment wasexpected
conducted
through students’Students
were
expectedunderstanduseandto understandand use writing.
the literary
conceptstaughtin thetocourse,such asandgenre
symbolism,
was assessedreports, oralandpresentation,
and/or regular
the literary concepts
taughtandin thisthe course,such inas theirgenrewritten
and symbolism,
this was assessedindiscussion-based
activities.
their written reports, oral presentation, and/or regular discussion-based activities.
The guiding principles of CLIL are content, communication, cognition, and culture, also
The guiding principles of CLIL are content, communication, cognition, and culture, also termed
termed the 4C’s by Coyle et al. (2010). The starting point and foundation is the first C: content.
the 4C’s by Coyleet al. (2010). The
starting
andandfoundation
first broad
C: content.
Communicationis thesecondpoint
aspect,while thisisisthea veryaspect,Communication
for the purposes of
CLIL instruction,“it involves
in language
using
in a way
whichinstruction,is different“itfromis the second aspect,
and while thisis a verylearners
broad aspect,
for thepurposesof CLIL
languagelearning
lessons”(Coyle,
2005,
p.
5).
Learners
arechallengedtousehigher-orderinvolves learners in language using in a way which is different from language learning lessons”
thinking skills with cognition, the third principle, and culture (or to be more specific(Coyle, 2005, p. 5). Learners are challenged to use higher-order thinking skills with cognition, theinternational cultures and multicultural focus) completes the framework. These four aspects
third principle, should
and culture(or to be more
specificinternational
culturesandmulticultural
focus)
not be considered
as a linear
processor as separate
from oneanother;
indeed, throughout
the coursework,
the four
4C framework
focusesnot
on betheconsideredinterrelationshipall fourorofas
thesecompletes the framework.
These
aspects should
as a between
linear process
principles toward the broader goals of integrated learning and language learning (Gierlinger,n.d.). Nitta and Yamamoto (2020) take this one step further in their reconceptualized 4C
109

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

separate from one another; indeed, throughout the coursework, the 4C framework focuses on theinterrelationship between all four of these principles toward the broader goals of integrated learningand language learning (Gierlinger, n.d.). Nitta and Yamamoto (2020) take this one step further intheir reconceptualized 4C framework (Figure 2), in which “Culture is given a superordinate role ofintegrating the other Cs,” essentially structuring the curriculum in such a way that Content,Communication, and Cognition occur through Culture as opposed to alongside it. In this way, students
acquire intercultural
skills by(Figure
understanding“other“Culture
cultures is(Content),
communicatingwithframework2), in which
given a superordinate
role
of others
integrating the otherstructuring
the curriculumin such aallway
Content,
Communication,
and(Communication),Cs,”
andessentiallylearning criticalthinkingskills (Cognition),of thatwhich
contributetoCognitionoccur
through
Cultureas
opposedtoalongside
it.
In
this
way,
students
acquiredeveloping competency to negotiate and solve complex social problems (Culture)” (Nitta &skills by understanding“otherwith
cultures(Content),
Yamamoto, 2020, intercultural
p. 52). This reconceptualizationfits naturally
Pleasure
Reading communicating
because of its with others(Communication),andlearning
criticalthinkingskills(Cognition),
all of which contribute toemphasis on graded readers that naturally introduce cultural concepts through the perspectives ofdeveloping competency to negotiate and solve complex social problems (Culture)” (Nitta &foreign characters within a global community. By learning basic concepts of literary analysis
Yamamoto, 2020, p. 52). This reconceptualization fits naturally with Pleasure Reading because(Content), discussing
both teacher
and peers(Communication),
applyingcultural
critical thinkingof itswithemphasison graded
readersthat naturallyand
introduce
concepts through theskills to produceperspectives
written and of
oralforeign
projects(Cognition),
students
bothengage
with
and
begin
to concepts ofcharacters within a global community. By learning basic
internalize new global
perspectives.
literary
analysis (Content), discussing with both teacher and peers (Communication), andapplying critical thinking skills to produce written and oral projects (Cognition), students both
engageFigure
with 2.
and begin to internalize new global perspectives.
Nitta & Yamamoto’s Reconceptualized 4C framework

Figure 2. Nitta & Yamamoto’s Reconceptualized 4C framework

While Pleasure Reading would not necessarily be considered soft CLIL, at least not to the extent
While Pleasure Reading would not necessarily be considered soft CLIL, at least not toof the aforementioned mandatory courses, a certain amount of scaffolding is necessary to ensure
the extent of the aforementioned mandatory courses, a certain amount of scaffolding is
maximum effectivenessof thethroughout
individualoflessons.
Brunercited in Coyle,necessaryto course
ensure aims
maximum
effectivenessthe course
aims(asthroughout
individual lessons
1999) coined the term
“scaffolding”
to Coyle,refer to 1999)“the provisionof temporary,adjustable tosupportis provision ofBruner(as cited incoined theterm “scaffolding”
refer thatto “theprovided by a teacher
to assiststudents indeveloping
extendingskills”(p. 60).students
Ball, Kelly,
temporary,adjustablesupportthat isandprovidedby atheirteacherto assistin developing andtheir skills”
Ball,
Kelly,and Klegg
remind useffort
that tostudents
within the CLIL
and Klegg remindextending
us that students
within(p.
the60).
CLIL
context“makemore cognitive
fulfil thecontext“make
more
cognitive
efforttofulfiltheacademic
demandsofthesyllabus,probably
academic demands of the syllabus, probably because they are more aware of the gap between their
becausethey arerequired
more aware
the gap
betweentheir
cognitive
andwhythe itlanguage
requiredcognitive level andthe language
to nailofdown
theirlearning”(2015,
p. 55).level
That’s
is
to
nail
down
their
learning”(2015,
p.
55).
That’s
why
it
is
up
to
the
teacherstomakeeffortsto
up to the teachers to make efforts to reduce this cognitive gap through a process of careful lesson
reduce this cognitive gap through a process of careful lesson planning.
planning.
One aspect of scaffolding that should be carefully considered is the cognitive skills
One aspect ofscaffoldingthat should
be carefullyis theCognitive
cognitive skills
skills areneededtoneeded to complete
the tasks
within considereda CLIL lesson.
essentially“thinkingcomplete the tasks
withinwhich
a CLILinclude
lesson. (1)Cognitive
skills are
essentially“or“thinkingskills,”whichskills, such as
skills,”information
processing,concretethinking
include (1) information
processing,“or concreteinformation,”
thinking skills,(2)such
as identifying
and “suchorganizing
identifying
and organizing
abstract
thinking,
as reasoning andcreativethinkingand
andhypothesizing,”
synthesis, “for (3)example,we useinformation,” (2) hypothesizing,”
abstract thinking,(3)“such
as reasoning
creativewhen
thinking
andour knowledge
toimagine,tosolve
problems,
and
to
think
of
new
ideas,”(4)enquiryskills,synthesis, “for example, when we use our knowledge to imagine, to solve problems, and to think of “for example
when skills,
we askquestionsplan
to do research,”
skills,new ideas,” (4) enquiry“forexample,andwhen
we how
ask questions
and planandhow(5)
to evaluation
do research,”and “for example

when we use criteria to comment on how good our work is” (Bentley, 2010, p. 20). Bloom’s(1956) revised taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) organizes these skills into six main110
areas in order of cognitive complexity:
Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing
Evaluating, and Creating. To help students deal with the cognitive load, teachers of CLIL
should carefully organize lessons in a conceptual hierarchy from lower-order thinking skills

PLEASURE READING: INCORPORATING CLIL INTO AN EXTENSIVE READING-BASED COURSE(5) evaluation skills, “for example, when we use criteria to comment on how good our work is”(Bentley, 2010, p. 20). Bloom’s (1956) revised taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) organizes
these skills into six main areas in order of cognitive complexity: Remembering, Understanding,
Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating. To help students deal with the cognitive load, teachersof CLIL should carefully organize lessons in a conceptual hierarchy from lower-order thinking skills(LOTS) to higher-order thinking skills (HOTS). For example, early in the lesson, students might beasked to recall facts or concepts (Remember) related to the lesson’s target, which prepares them toclassify new but related information (Understand) and inevitably to use that new knowledge(Applying) to complete level-appropriate tasks. Remembering, Understanding, and Applying not only
require LOTS, but also serve to prime students for the challenges ahead requiring HOTS. For
example, in the second half of the lesson, students might be asked to compare and contrast what they
have learned (Analyzing), judge which is better for a given situation (Evaluating), and write their own
example (Creating) to be presented to the peers. Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating are HOTS andshould therefore be utilized in the latter half of the lesson. By organizing a lesson from LOTS to
HOTS, students will be better prepared to contend with the cognitive load of content-rich CLIL
lessons.
Another form of scaffolding that can aid student learning is the use of concept mapping to break
down complex content. Phil Ball (n.d.) points out that CLIL learners, especially adults, will face aconcept-language gap in which they may struggle with the cognitive demand of materials due to alack of language skills, particularly when dealing with authentic texts that are conceptually andlinguistically complex. This point is reiterated by Nitta and Yamamoto (2020), who remind us that inmost CLIL courses, “learners are required to understand linguistically and conceptually demanding
texts and use low-frequency academic vocabulary and complex structures, which are hardly used ineveryday conversation.” To help students cope, visual or graphic organizers such as mind maps,
t-charts, tables, and Venn diagrams can be used to help CLIL students categorize information as ameans of connecting ideas to better understand information (Bentley, 2010, p. 43). Although theseorganizers can be used at various stages of a lesson, the authors of this paper used them during thepresentation phase while introducing new content, mainly to support authentic reading passages or
short lectures that introduce key concepts. One added benefit of using graphic organizers is thatthey help to deal with the level gap within mixed-ability elective classes. Carol Ann Tomlinson
describes how the use of organizers can help teachers overcome the challenges of differentiatedinstruction:
Some students, even of older ages, find it very difficult to read text or listen to a lecture andcome away with a coherent sense of what it was all about. For such students, it can be quite
useful to work with a visual organizer that follows the flow of ideas from the text or lecture. Not
only might such organizers help them focus on key ideas and information, but they may also
help some learners see how a teacher or author develops a line of thought. (2001, p. 77)
Although mixed-ability learners may not necessarily understand every word of an authentic text or
lecture, after collaborating with their peers to complete a graphic organizer, it can be reassuring forteachers to see that all students were able to come away with a conceptual understanding of the key
points of the lesson.
While graphic organizers may help tackle the challenges of authentic teacher-selected texts,
students are free to choose their extensive-reading materials, and thus, a certain amount of111

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

scaffolding will still be necessary to ensure the success of students’ choices. For this reason, graded
readers can be implemented as a form of scaffolding within the Pleasure Reading course. However,at the onset of class, it is necessary that teachers provide guidance on how to choose graded readersthat are at an appropriate level for each student. This can be done using placement tests such as
those provided by Oxford University Press and the Extensive Reading Foundation. Students can also
be encouraged to follow the Extensive Reading Foundation’s “Five-Finger Rule,” which is based on asimilar concept by Hiebert & Reutzel (2010). According to this method, students can open a selfselected book to any page, read it, and count the number of unfamiliar words. If there are two to three
new words, this would be an appropriate level, while four words might be considered challenging but
acceptable if the book seems interesting to the student. However, one or less could be considered too
easy, whereas five or more should be ruled out due to its difficulty. While students should be
encouraged to take note of newly learned words in their reading records, they also need to understandthat the goal of the course is to read without a dictionary.

A CLIL Lesson for Pleasure Reading  In terms of assessment, Pleasure Reading was set apart from traditional courses in that there
was no testing of students on the reading material; the instructors wanted the course to live up to its
name and actually be pleasurable, and tests, many students would argue, are not pleasurable. Similar
activities that L2 students are frequently tasked with, for example, cloze activities such as gap fills,
were not used. Instead, the focus was placed on discussion-based activities centered around literary
devices that help students to analyze the texts in a more meaningful way. Since the stories students
self-select are written at their level, there were no quizzes to determine if they had achieved 100%
comprehension. Instead, the instructors wanted students to deeply engage not only with the text but
also with their peers. As Paran posits, “Our fundamental goal as language professionals is to expand
and enrich the lives of our students and the society in which they live” (Paran, 2008, p. 469). The 4Cs
were used in the Pleasure Reading Course in the following ways:
Content (Literary Devices). As Coyle emphasizes, when explaining best practices in CLIL
curriculum planning, “the content is the starting point of the planning process” (Coyle, 2005, p. 4).
Lectures, slideshows, and handouts were the media by which students learned the content, which
focused on various literary devices. This portion of the class was generally teacher-centered, thoughwith frequent comprehension checks with partners and groups that were implemented with graphicorganizers. The lectures on literary devices included topics such as genre, theme, character, etc., andthese dimensions of literature were taught with little to no emphasis on conventional grammar andvocabulary. Aside from the topics and concepts themselves (i.e., “genre”) as novel vocabulary terms,
the pedagogical focus lay in defining and exemplifying the topic and, ultimately, having students
apply and synthesize those ideas through the lens of their own chosen graded readers. Students
were given handouts (see Appendix), either a hard or digital copy via Google Docs, and thesecontained activities geared toward providing students with a steady progression of complexity andcognitive skills.
Communication (Discussions). Focus was also placed on student-to-student interaction as
opposed to teacher-centered instruction when possible. For this reason, students frequently
discussed content in pairs and groups. These activities ranged from simple, low-order skills like112

PLEASURE READING: INCORPORATING CLIL INTO AN EXTENSIVE READING-BASED COURSE

remembering and understanding and progressed to higher-order skills such as creating andevaluating. L2 discussions were at the core of many class activities, from Warm-up and Pre-reading
Questions at the start of the class (i.e., “What kind of books was it?”) to collaborative pair and groupprojects in which students used higher-order thinking.
Cognition (Discussions/Production/Book Reports or Presentations). As Coyle emphasizes, for
CLIL to be effective, students must use HOTS and “construct their own understanding and bechallenged” (2005, p. 5). In Pleasure Reading, these skills were demonstrated in discussions and alsoin projects such as book reports, in which students applied their knowledge of literary concepts andother material toward a summative evaluation of their graded reader. Course activities also included
creative writing, either individually or in pairs/groups, which utilized communication skills as well as
the highest-order thinking skill of creating. Other “high-order” class projects involved students
creating short skits based on their readings and performing them in class.
Culture (Foreign Graded Readers). Just as Nitta and Yamamoto’s framework depicts the
Culture aspect as encompassing the other three, this principle applied for the graded readers
students chose in the Pleasure Reading course. By choosing foreign-language readers (all were
English-language books), students were engaged in reading content, not just outside their L1
language but also outside their L1 culture. Most graded readers were from Anglosphere countries(U.K., U.S., Canada, Australia, N.Z.) but not all; many selections were from various countries aroundthe world. The cultural context plays an important role in the course; if we treat the readings as“cultural artifacts,” then they provide “authenticity, cultural value, and meaning” (Coyle & Meyer,
2021, p. 151). With regard to LOTS and HOTS, the authors structured lessons keeping Bloom’s
revised taxonomy in mind. This can be demonstrated by following the sample lesson handout(Appendix). The initial stages of the lesson focus primarily on the use of LOTS, whereas the final
project culminates in the use of HOTS. By looking at these stages in order, one can see how the 4Cs
and scaffolding have been implemented:

Pre-Reading (Communication)
The first stage of the lesson is simply a communication-based warm-up activity. Students are
asked to recall a book or film, which relates to Bloom’s taxonomy’s lowest-order thinking skill of
remembering. The pre-reading questions are intended to lead students toward the topic of genres by
asking them to consider whether they often read/watch similar kinds of books/films. While thepurpose of the course is to discuss students’ extensive reading, the authors frequently used movies
as a way to help students connect with and become interested in the lesson’s theme. However, theemphasis was always placed on “stories,” as the literary analysis tools taught in the class could beapplied to both literature and film. For example, if the lesson’s theme is characters, it does notnecessarily matter whether students talk about characters in Hamlet (play), Harry Potter (film/book), or Howl’s Moving Castle (animation) because the focus would be on terminologies such asprotagonists, antagonists, and static/dynamic characters. Therefore, films can be a useful bridge forconnecting with course content.

113

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Reading (Content/Communication/Cognition/Culture)
In the second stage of the lesson, the main content about genres is introduced with an authentic
text based on an online article (Urban, 2022). However, scaffolding has been provided in the form ofa graphic organizer to assist with cognition. The examples provided in the text reference works suchas The Epic of Gilgamesh (ancient Mesopotamia), Romeo & Juliet (16th century England), and The
Diary of Anne Frank (20th century Netherlands), which could be further explored in order toenhance the cultural aspect of the 4Cs. This activity relates to the second level of Bloom’s taxonomy,
Understanding (LOTS), because students are being asked to both explain and categorize. Before
reading, students scan the article to find the definition of the word “genre” and then paraphrase its
meaning in their own words. They then read the article while categorizing the four Literary Genres(Figure 3). This can be done independently or in pairs; however, to make the activity morecommunicative, students should be encouraged to help each other while comparing their answers
with their classmates before revealing the correct answers. Communication with peers also helps toaddress level gaps when dealing with mixed-ability classes.
Figure 3.
Answer key for Reading section
Literar y Genre

Key Features

Type(s)Poetry-lines and stanzas
epic poem-figurative and rhythmic language about emotionaland heartfelt ideas

Fiction-figurative language-sentences and paragraphs-punctuation and grammar

Drama-a kind of fiction but differs because it is intended a play
to be performed for an audience

Non-fiction-It is not fake.
-It comes from real life

ExampleThe Epic ofGilgameshmystery, fantasy, and I am a Cat
science fiction(by Natsume Soseki)Romeo and Juliet

Newspapers, diaries, Anne Frank: Diary ofand biographies
a Young Girl

Vocabular y (Content/Cognition)
Depending on student levels, the third section may be skipped in favor of something morechallenging. Alternatively, it could be assigned for homework or used for review in the subsequent
lesson. Both the Vocabulary and Identifying Genres sections expand on topic content by adding
terminology that aids cognition, thus solidifying concepts for the upcoming discussions. This lowerlevel activity simply asks students to match images with key vocabulary, again covering Bloom’s
taxonomy’s second level of understanding (LOTS). It’s worth noting that in higher-level classes
where this activity was skipped, many students opted to complete the task anyway due to theintrinsically fun nature of matching activities.

Identifying Genres (Content/Cognition)
This activity is a slightly more challenging alternative to the vocabulary-matching activity. The
task asks students to identify the genre using a one-sentence clue, which again falls under theBloom’s taxonomy category of understanding (LOTS). For higher-level students, this activity can be114

PLEASURE READING: INCORPORATING CLIL INTO AN EXTENSIVE READING-BASED COURSE

taken one step further by providing slightly longer excerpts from authentic texts and asking students
to identify the genre based on keywords, for example:
Mr. Ollivander moved closer to Harry. Harry wished he would blink. Those silvery eyes were a
bit creepy. “Your father, on the other hand, favored a mahogany wand. Eleven inches. Pliable. A
little more powerful and excellent for transfiguration. Well, I say your father favored it—it’sreally the wand that chooses the wizard, of course. (Rowling, 1997, p. 82)
From this Harry Potter excerpt, students should be able to identify the genre as fantasy fiction basedon keywords such as wand, wizard, and transfiguration. The authors used excerpts from otherauthentic texts such as Dracula (horror/gothic fiction), Treasure Island (adventure), Pride andPrejudice (romantic fiction), The War of the Worlds (science fiction), and The Adventure of the SpeckledBand (mystery).

Project (Content/Communication/Cognition)
The final stage of the lesson requires students to use cognition and communication to apply what
they have learned to dramatize a genre of interest. As this lesson would most likely be taught early
on in the course, teachers may also opt to have students write their own short excerpt in a specificgenre, thus sparing them the potential discomfort of having to perform in front of unfamiliar peers
while still achieving the objectives of the activity. To complete the project requires several steps, allof which necessitate HOTS with regard to Bloom’s taxonomy. Students compare their favorite genres
through discussion, create a short skit of a favorite genre in pairs, perform their skits whileclassmates identify the genre, and evaluate their own performances, all of which require students toanalyze, create, and evaluate. For the self-evaluation, students should be offered targeted questions
such as the following: “Did you feel good about your performance? Why or why not? Could yourclassmates guess the genre? If so, what clues helped them? If not, what other clues could you haveprovided?” The activity concludes with teacher-fronted feedback including keywords that could
further enhance genre identification.

Conclusion
As more Japanese universities begin to incorporate CLIL-based courses into their undergraduate
programs, it becomes essential for instructors to consider how to best implement its essential
principles. While language-heavy courses such as debate may take a more soft-CLIL approach andcontent-heavy courses such as chemistry require a more hard-CLIL approach, a course in extensive
reading with mixed-ability students ends up falling somewhere in between, creating uniquechallenges in terms of lesson planning and curriculum development. Therefore, the authors of thispaper hope that sharing the pedagogical methodology used for designing lessons will create a
dialogue between others facing similar challenges. In some respects, the authors found certain
aspects regarding scaffolding to be commonplace in most EFL lessons, although the means of doing
so differs in its use of Bloom’s revised taxonomy to structure lessons from LOTS to HOTS.
Nonetheless, the concept itself is far from foreign. However, an area of particular interest has been
the implementation of the 4Cs, which remains at the heart of CLIL itself. Furthermore, anunderstanding of the Nitta and Yamamoto’s reconceptualized 4C framework (2020) in which Content,
115

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Communication, and Cognition occur through Culture is useful when devising lessons that both
highlight and supplement the cultural aspects of both graded readers and lesson content.
While this paper focuses mainly on the application of CLIL in the planning of a lesson on genres,
further research is necessary to better understand the impact of CLIL on the overall course outlineof curriculums based on extensive reading. For these reasons, the authors plan to continue theirresearch into CLIL to improve future iterations of the Pleasure Reading course. The future aim of thisproject is to report on the author’s methodology of curriculum development by introducing thespecific content taught to improve students’ literary analysis skills. It can then be demonstrated thatby teaching these skills, students will be able to improve the quality of course assignments such as
in-class discussions, book reports, and presentations. In addition, further details will be provided on
the research conducted in hopes of better understanding the students’ perspectives of the newly
implemented course content.

116

PLEASURE READING: INCORPORATING CLIL INTO AN EXTENSIVE READING-BASED COURSE

References
Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2016). Putting CLIL into Practice (UK ed.). Oxford University Press.
Ball, P. (n.d.). Activity types in CLIL. Macmillan Education Limited. https://www.onestopenglish.
com/clil/article-activity-types-in-clil/500800.article
Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT (teaching knowledge test) course: CLIL module. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Gambrell, L.B. (1996). Creating classroom cultures that foster reading motivation. The readingteacher, 50, 14-25.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next (Vol. 62). London:British Council Publications.
Clark, C. & Rumbold K. (2006). Reading for pleasure: A research overview. National Literacy Trust.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge,
UK: University Press.
Coyle, D. (2005). CLIL: Planning tools for teachers. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.
Coyle, D. (1999). Supporting students in content and language integrated learning contexts: Planningfor effective classrooms. In Learning through a foreign language (pp. 46-62). CILT (Centre forInformation on Language Teaching and Research).
Day, R. & Bamford, J. (2002). Top ten principles for teaching extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 14(2), 136-141.
Gierlinger, E. (n.d.) The 4c’s model – Do Coyle, CLILingmesoftly. https://clilingmesoftly.wordpress.
com/clil-models-3/the-4-cs-model-docoyle/
Hiebert, H. E., & Reutzel, D. R. (2010). Revisiting silent reading: New direction for teachers andresearchers. Newark: International Reading Association.
McRae, J. (1991). Literature with a small “l”. Macmillan.
Nitta, R., & Yamamoto, Y. (2020). Reconceptualizing CLIL from transformative pedagogy perspective:
Pilot debate study in English language curriculum. Journal of Foreign Language Education andResearch, 1, 47-62.
Palmer, H. E. (1917). The scientific study & teaching of languages: A review of the factors and problems
connected with the learning and teaching of modern languages, with an analysis of the various
methods which may be adopted in order to attain satisfactory results. London: George G. Harrap& Company.
Paran, A. (2008). The role of literature in instructed foreign language learning and teaching: An
evidence-based survey. Language teaching, 41(4), 465-496.
Rowling, J. K. (1997) Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. New York: Scholastic Press.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tsang, A. & Paran, A. (2021). Learners’ views of literature in EFL education from curricular andassessment perspectives. The Curriculum Journal, 32(3), 459-474.
Tsang, A., Paran, A., & Lau, W. W. F. (2020). The language and non-language benefits of literature inforeign language education: An exploratory study of learners’ views. Language Teaching
Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820972345
Urban, J. (2022, Jan. 18). Types of literary genres. Study.com. https://study.com/learn/lesson/
literary-genres-types-characteristics-examples.html
117

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Walker, C. (1997). A self access extensive reading project using graded readers (with particularreference to students of English for academic purposes). Reading in a foreign language, 11(1),121-149.
Yamamoto, Y. & Nitta, R. (2021). Action-oriented approach to curriculum development in CLIL
courses: A theoretical and methodological framework. Journal of Foreign Language Education& Research, 2: 122-135.

118

PLEASURE READING: INCORPORATING CLIL INTO AN EXTENSIVE READING-BASED COURSEAppendix
Example Handout for Lesson on Genres

2

TALKING ABOUT LITERARY GENRES

Reading for Pleasure

Our Favorite Stories
1. Pre-reading

Think about the last movie you watched and answer the following questions:
What was the movie’s title?
What was the movie about?
What kind of movie was it? (i.e., horror)
Did you like or dislike the movie? Why?
Do you often watch similar kinds of movies? Why or why not?

•
•
•
•
•

Now, think about the last book you read and answer the following questions:
•
•
•
•
•
•

What was the book’s title?
What was the book about?
What kind of book was it?
Did you like or dislike the book? Why?
Do you often read similar kinds of books? Why or why not?
Are the books you enjoy reading similar or different to the movies you watch?

119

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

2. Reading

Skim the article and find the meaning of the word “genre.”
Can you explain it in your own words? Do you know how to say it in Japanese?

What is a Literary Genre?
Have you ever had a friend suggest a movie to go see, but you responded, “I'm not in the mood for that?”
What did you mean? Was it a scary movie and you were in the mood to laugh? Was it a sad movie, but you
wanted some action? If so, then you already know about genres. A genre is a term that translates from the French
to mean “kind” or “type,” so it refers to any works that share certain characteristics. When choosing a book toread, just like choosing a movie, it is important to know the genre because readers will already have certain
expectations before they begin to read. The term literary genre makes it clear that you're talking about books andwriting. In literature, there are four main genres to help the reader focus their expectations for the piece. These
genres are poetry, drama, fiction, and non-fiction. However, these genres can be broken down even further.
The oldest of all the literary genres is poetry. Unlike other genres, poems are typically written in lines andstanzas instead of sentences and paragraphs. They may use figurative and rhythmic language to express emotionaland heartfelt ideas. Early epic poems were longer and described the extraordinary deeds of characters as they
deal with gods and other supernatural forces. The oldest epic poem is the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was written
over 3000 years ago. Another literary genre that utilizes figurative language is fiction. However, unlike poetry,fiction is organized into sentences and paragraphs with proper punctuation and grammar called prose. It is usuallybroken up into chapters, as well. Fictional stories are about events that didn’t really happen, so mystery, fantasy,
and science-fiction novels are full of imaginary characters. Natsume Soseki famously used a cat as the main
character in his fictional novel I Am a Cat! Drama, on the other hand, is a kind of fiction but differs because it isintended to be performed for an audience. Shakespeare’s most famous play, Romeo and Juliet, dramatizes the
tragic romance of two young lovers born into feuding families. If fiction is fake, then non-fiction is the opposite: itcomes from real life. When you read the newspaper, you are reading non-fiction. Other examples include diaries
and biographies. For example, Anne Frank: Diary of a Young Girl is the diary of a teenage girl who hid from theGermans in World War II. After her death, her family published the diary without changing her words. What Anne
wrote was real. It was her life, and a great example of non-fiction.
Libraries and bookstores use literary genres as a way to separate books into different sections, like"classics" or "mysteries." Therefore, to help you find the book that’s right for you, we will discuss the kinds ofliterary genres you like (and dislike) reading!
*adapted from Study.com

Literary Genre

Key Features

Type(s)Example*epic poem
I am a Cat(by Natsume Soseki)Drama
It is not fake.
It comes from real life.

120

PLEASURE READING: INCORPORATING CLIL INTO AN EXTENSIVE READING-BASED COURSE

3. Vocabulary

Match the picture with the correct genre.

comedy••fantasy••

horror

•

•

war

•

•

history••

thriller••mystery••

biography••

romance••tragedy••science fiction••

Do you know of any other genres?

121

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

4. Identifying Genres

Complete the crossword puzzle using the vocabulary and clues below.

science fiction
fairy talemythromancebiography
mystery122

westernadventure
horrorhistorical fiction

PLEASURE READING: INCORPORATING CLIL INTO AN EXTENSIVE READING-BASED COURSE

5. ProjectWork in pairs or small groups. First, you will talk about books, films, and comic
books that you like. Please be sure to identify genre. (i.e., “My favorite comic book is
One Piece. It’s an adventure story. The reason I like it is…”) Then, you will choose abook that you have all read (or want to read) and introduce it to you classmates.
First, discuss these questions with your classmates:••••

What is your favorite book? What is its genre? Why do you like it?
What is your favorite film? What is its genre? Why do you like it?
What is your favorite comic book? What is its genre? Why do you like it?
Is there a book, film, or comic book that you all like?

Next, you will perform a scene from your favorite book, film, or comic book.
However, you won’t tell its title or genre. Your classmates will try to guess.
With your group, please do all of the following:
1. Choose a book, film, or comic book you all know.
2. Select a scene you all want to act out*.
3. Decide who will play each character.
4. Create a short script of your scene.
5. Enact a scene from your classmates’ chosen book or film (1-2 minutes per group)
6. Ask your classmates to guess the genre.
*It’s also okay to create your own imagined scene that’s not from a book, film, or comic.

123

【Teaching Practice Report】

Opening Translanguaging Spaces:
Facilitating Bilingual Development in an English Discussion
Class
Omar Shelesh
Abstract
This teaching practice report documents the experimental implementation of the bilingual pedagogy oftranslanguaging in an undergraduate English discussion program at a Japanese university, with the primary aim
being to facilitate bilingualism and the development of a bilingual identity among learners. This intervention
specifically focuses on how translanguaging practices can be integrated into an established teaching context whileproviding learners with opportunities or spaces to utilize their native linguistic resources to enhance their experienceof learning English discussion.
Keywords: translanguaging, English discussion, bilingualism, Japanese university

Introduction
This teaching practice report details the implementation of a bilingual pedagogical practice in anexperimental classroom-based intervention in an undergraduate English discussion program at aJapanese university, with the primary goal being to promote bilingualism and, more specifically, thegrowth of a bilingual identity among learners.
Although open to wide interpretation, the terms bilingual and bilingualism most often refer to“the use of two or more languages (or dialects) in everyday life” (Grosjean, 2013, p.5), and it isgenerally accepted that a bi- (or multilingual) person is an individual who knows, uses, and is fluent
to various degrees in two or more languages. Going by this definition, it could be said that the stateof being bilingual suggests a certain level of mastery of a foreign, second, or other language (L2) and,
therefore, achieving bilingual status is something that L2 learners should be encouraged to strive forand even embrace. This view has been espoused by academics, such as Ofelia García, who argue that
foreign language learners—irrespective of their actual level of language proficiency—should berecognized as “emergent bilinguals” (García, 2009). This condition requires that an L2 learner isnurtured through routine exposure to bilingual pedagogical practices, which not only serve tobolster their self-identity as a capable and competent user of foreign languages but also work to raise
their cognitive awareness of the interrelationship between their native language (L1) and the foreign
language(s) they are studying.
Such an enviable situation, however, stands in stark contrast to the reality of the author’s
personal experiences of teaching tertiary-level L2 learners in Japanese universities, where it is clearthat while bilingualism, as a concept, is understood by most learners, the prospect of personallyattaining bilingual status is not something the majority could conceive of or would feel comfortable
adopting as part of their sociolinguistic identity. This appears to be a common phenomenon among
native Japanese L2 learners and has been documented in recent research (see Turnbull, 2021). Thissentiment is further compounded by the fact that general foreign language education programs (andEFL in particular) adhere to the policies of language segregation (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017), which are
124

OPENING TRANSLANGUAGING SPACES: FACILITATING BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASS

deeply embedded in their teaching methodologies, both at the practitioner and institutional level.
Therefore, in an effort to reverse this trend, the primary purpose of the current teachingpractice report is to document the integration of a bilingual pedagogical practice within an English
discussion course context and promote the development of bilingualism amongst L2 learners. By
providing learners with spaces to utilize their native linguistic resources, it is hoped that this courseof intervention works to strengthen attitudes and beliefs in their abilities as competent and confident
bilingual Japanese-English speakers.

Translanguaging: A Bilingual Pedagogy
What is required to achieve the stated objective is the deployment of an effective bilingual
pedagogy, one which provides a foundation upon which the practice of normalizing the combined andintentional use of multiple languages can transform the process and experience of foreign language
learning. This is where translanguaging comes into prominence. A concept initially conceived by Cen
Williams in the Welsh language as trawsieithu (Williams, 1994), it is the bilingual practice ofstrategically combining the use of two languages within a single subject lesson. The English versionof the term, translanguaging was subsequently introduced by Colin Baker (2001), who outlinestranslanguaging as “the process of making meaning, shaping experiences, gaining understanding
and knowledge through the use of two languages” (Baker, 2001, p. 288). In a practical sense, thesubject content is presented in one language, after which learners can demonstrate theirunderstanding by producing it in another. The benefits of this are twofold: it promotes a more
complete understanding of the subject matter whilst supporting the development of the L2 (Baker,
2001, as cited in García & Lin, 2017). Further delineations of the concept were made by García and
Lin (2017) to reflect different theoretical perspectives on how languages are learned, with distinctions
drawn between weak translanguaging and strong translanguaging (García & Lin, 2017, p. 124). Weaktranslanguaging (as practiced in educational contexts) essentially preserves boundaries between
named languages; however, it also views these boundaries as flexible, fluid linguistic spaces where
the exchange and transfer of information and meaning occur among bilingual learners and theirlearning environment. The strong form of translanguaging (as practiced by bilinguals in any context)
views all named languages as being part of a single, holistic linguistic system, underpinned by auniversal grammar structure. Bilingual speakers can freely navigate through this system using all
linguistic resources available, enabling them to effectively and appropriately communicate in any
given interactive context. The perspective of a single linguistic system is also espoused by
Canagarajah (2011a), who describes translanguaging as “the ability of multilingual speakers to
shuttle between languages, treating the diverse languages that form their repertoire as an integrated
system” Canagarajah (2011a p.401). Other important theoretical distinctions come from Cenoz and
Gorter (2022), who recognize spontaneous translanguaging—to denote the communicative events ofbilingual speakers that occur naturally (and beyond a teacher’s control)—and pedagogicaltranslanguaging—the controlled and deliberate implementation of teaching strategies designed toactivate a learner’s bi-/multilingual skill set. The notion of learners engaging in purposeful, teacherdirected bilingual pedagogical practices is also conceptualized in the research of Jones (2017), who
designates this as Cognitive Academic Translanguaging.
In light of the stated aims of this teaching practice report and the theories outlined here, it
should be stated that no particular form or method of translanguaging will be given preference overanother in the process of planning and implementing bilingual pedagogical practices. This will allow
125

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

for flexibility as different strategies are considered in terms of their potential practical application
within the discussion lesson setting.

The Need for Translanguaging Spaces
As the title of this report declares, the objective is to facilitate bilingual pedagogical practices
through the use of spaces (opportunities) for translanguaging. The necessity to create such spacesin this educational context alludes to the possibility of unfavorable, even hostile reactions that await
emergent bilingual learners in foreign language classes who engage in what might be ordinarily
natural behavior to them. Whilst framing the situation this way is somewhat extreme, it is notunrealistic, as Canagarajah (2011b) points out, bilingual learners often conduct translanguaging
discreetly amongst each other and out of sight of the teacher, possibly fearing negative repercussions
if they are “discovered.” Therefore, there are virtually no safe spaces for these learners. This may be
an unfortunate but inevitable consequence of the longstanding language separation/segregation
policies that permeate foreign language education (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017). This means that thelearners’ L1 is largely isolated and/or ignored whilst foreign language skills are being taught.
Language separation practices stem from theories about the potential risk of errors due to L1“interference” (Lott, as cited in Bhela, 1999, p.22; Ooi & Abdul Aziz, 2021), which is often cited asjustification for using such methods.
Fortunately, however, proponents of pedagogical translanguaging have come to vigorously
defend the concept of translanguaging spaces, citing the importance of teachers consciously andproactively creating spaces to foster healthy translingual competency in and amongst bilingual
learners (see Canagarajah, 2011b; Wei, 2011). Bonacina-Pugh et al. (2021) also draw some useful
insights on this subject from their analysis of translanguaging practices in foreign language education,
forming the conclusion that, “… as teachers open up spaces for translanguaging practices, students
can creatively interact with each other, engage with their own text, and together find solutions for the
linguistic problems they encounter; and ultimately, students can develop the target language thatthey are learning” (Bonacina-Pugh et al., 2021, p.24, my emphasis).
Therefore, it is upon this theoretical basis that the author set out to create viable translanguaging
opportunities in the given teaching context, which will manifest in the form spaces, both physical—in
the sense of time and place—and cognitive, as in the mind of learners (Wei, 2011).

Teaching Context and Participants
The teaching context featured in this report is an English language discussion course provided
by Rikkyo University in Tokyo. All first-year freshmen students are required to take Discussion class,a weekly 100-minute-long class consisting of practical, topical discussion-based lessons, conducted
over a 14-week semester. The relatively small (ten student) teaching groups are arranged according
to ability level (I-IV) based on students’ TOEIC scores. Students study oral functions frequently
utilized in discussions, namely Discussion Skills phrases (e.g., “What’s your opinion?” and “In my
opinion…”, etc.) and Communication Skills phrases (e.g., “Could you repeat that, please?” and “Do you
understand?”, etc.), developing their ability to contribute to the exchange of ideas. The course
adheres to a unified lesson format and communicative teaching approach, comprising four mainteaching stages: The Fluency stage, the Function Presentation stage, the Practice stage, and two
Discussion stages. These are taught in conjunction with the aforementioned Discussion and126

OPENING TRANSLANGUAGING SPACES: FACILITATING BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASS

Communication Skills.
In light of the stated aims of this report, an examination of the syllabus design, teachingapproach and objectives of the course was conducted. It revealed that the program does not expressly
reject bilingualism or bilingual development in learners. However, neither does it accommodate it.
This is evident in the founding documentation, authored by Hurling (2012), which, by omission,
appears to implicitly advocate monolingualism through the aforementioned general language
separation/segregation practices in EFL teaching. This influence can be seen in both classroom
practice and research within the Discussion class program: The course follows a strictly
communicative teaching approach, and instructors are strongly encouraged to conduct classes as animmersive English language experience; learners are also required to use English at all times
throughout lessons whilst receiving and following directions from instructors in English. Furthermore,
in-house action research has often focused on the development of effective strategies to deter and/or
suppress learners’ use of L1.
These were influential factors when it came to selecting a suitable participant teaching group as
the subject of study and intervention: any potential candidate class would have to have alreadyaccepted and adapted to the principles of an immersive, monolingual environment by demonstrating
a consistent use of English throughout lessons. Equally, however, to fulfill the stated objectives, theparticipants would also need to be willing to contemplate issues relating to their bilingualism as wellas participate in any bilingual activities required by the intervention.
Therefore, based on these criteria, the group selected was a single, Level-II ability class,consisting of 10 (majority female) native Japanese speakers with combined TOEIC listening andreading scores ranging from 480 to 679. The students were judged by the author to be above averagein terms of English language proficiency and attitude toward learning and, most importantly, capableof maintaining an English-only environment during lessons. Moreover, learners were willing to share
their opinions on the subject of bilingualism, which the author gauged through informal discussions
with individual participants. This yielded largely predictable results, as it was revealed that thebilingual label was not what the majority of students felt comfortable associating themselves with,even if they commanded a higher level of English proficiency. Amongst the most frequently cited
reasons were, (1) a lack of self-belief in their English language ability and (2) not wanting to appear
boastful in front of peers by proclaiming to be bilingual. As mentioned previously, the denial ofbilingual identity seems to be a common stance amongst native Japanese learners of English,
particularly at the tertiary level (see Turnbull, 2021). Nevertheless, the students’ professed
reluctance to identify as bilingual would be advantageous for this study, as it established a contextual
foundation upon which bilingual pedagogical practices could be implemented and provide
opportunities for evidencing the impact of the intervention.

MethodFrom a methodological perspective, collecting and recording evidence of this type of practicalintervention would be most effectively achieved through a reflective teaching journal. Journaling is aform of qualitative, longitudinal data collection that can be documented in the form of retrospective
field notes as well as incorporating reflections on and for action (Murphy, 2014). This would enable theauthor to document and respond effectively to what was being observed whilst students were
engaging in translanguaging during the intervention period.
The intervention and reflection period for this teaching journal officially took place in lesson 7,
127

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

with lessons 1 through 6 being used purely for class observation, evaluation, and planning. In
addition, unofficial observations were made from lesson 8 onwards. Furthermore, to meet theobjectives and develop an appropriate interventional strategy, the following initial research question
was proposed: What are the practical planning considerations when designing pedagogicaltranslanguaging activities on an English discussion course? In response, the author made reflective
notes during observations of lessons 1-6, which gave rise to further guiding questions to evaluate
potential areas for creating viable translanguaging spaces within a standard discussion lesson:
1. Considering the practicalities of physically accommodating translanguaging spaces (both spatiallyand temporally) in class, how will it be possible to implement pedagogical translanguaging
activities without unduly disrupting classroom management, lesson stages, and/or timing?
2. Is there potential for the course to accommodate pedagogical translanguaging strategies (that is,mental/cognitive translanguaging spaces) without disrupting or undermining learners’ ability toachieve the functional, linguistic objectives of the course?
Therefore, in response to the above questions, it was necessary to consider the purpose andcompatibility of each of the planned stages of a typical Discussion lesson, that is for their potential toaccommodate the physical (spatial) and temporal adaptations required for pedagogical translanguaging
Figure 1.
Lesson Stages Identified as being Compatible with Pedagogical Translanguaging Activities.
Discussion classlesson stage/
activity

Is it potentially compatible with pedagogicaltranslanguaging activities? How?

Description/purpose[1] QuizAn 8-question, multiple-choice test
based on homework reading fromthe textbook.

[2] Fluency

Interactive speaking and listening
Yes—learners can easily be directed to discuss warm-up
warm-up pair work activity, using
questions (written in English) using L1.
questions based on the lesson topic.

[3] Presentation

First exposure to the new target
language (Discussion andCommunication Skills phrases).

No[4] PracticeSemi-controlled pair work practiceof target language.

Yes—a short plenary activity can be added wherelearners are directed to translate the target language(English Discussions Skill phrases) into L1, followed by
the second practice of the same questions but conductedentirely through L1.

[5] Discussion 1
Preparation

Generate ideas/topical content,
ready for the following discussion.

No[6] Discussion 1

Interactive, free-production group
activity utilizing target language(with scaffolding).

No[7] Discussion 2
Preparation

Generate ideas/topical content,
ready for the following discussion.

[8] Discussion 2

Interactive, free-production group
activity utilizing target language(no scaffolding).

No

Yes—specific organizational Discussion Skills phrases
can be deployed as an L2 phrasal framework, throughwhich learners can conduct their discussions but express
the content of their ideas through L1.

Note. The stages judged to be most suitable for this purpose were the Fluency stage [2], the Practice stage [4], the final
Discussion Preparation stage [7], and Discussion stage [8].

128OPENING TRANSLANGUAGING SPACES: FACILITATING BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASS

activities. All stages of a standard Discussion class lesson have been outlined in the following table
and include those stages identified as being compatible with pedagogical translanguaging activities(see Figure 1).

Teaching Journal
The following section of this report documents the experimental implementation of pedagogicaltranslanguaging activities for each of the lesson stages previously identified as being compatible withsuch practices. Each stage will be designated as an Intervention which is followed by a Rationale
section (explaining the intended pedagogical strategy for creating the translanguaging space), a
Recorded experience/event section (detailing what exactly transpired whilst implementing thestrategy), and concluded by a Reflection section (a discussion segment exploring thoughts and ideas
produced in response to what occurred during the intervention).

Reflective Teaching Journal Entries for Lesson 7
Inter vention: Lesson Stage [2]—Fluency
Rationale:
Opening Translanguaging Space No. 1
The Fluency (or warm-up) stage involves learners working in pairs and orally responding to 3questions based on the lesson topic (see Figure 2). It has been a standard procedure for students todiscuss all questions in English, and from experience, question three (Q3) [Share three interestingideas or facts from the reading] has never been popular among students; their interaction rate falls,
and the answers given are always short and lacking in detail. Therefore, as a question that was
producing very little student engagement, I judged that there would be minimal disruption to thelearning if I were to commit this question to become the first weak or pseudo-translanguaging spacein the lesson by making the students discuss Q3 in Japanese only. This would also serve as an
icebreaking event at the start of this lesson to subtly introduce the legitimate use of L1 into thecourse.
To aid the students’ understanding of this intentional change, I produced a visual presentation
slide to direct students to switch to using L1 for Q3 (see Figure 3).
Recorded Experience/Event:
When introducing the warm-up questions, I asked the students to answer Q3 in Japanese only.
Figure 2.
Textbook-based Warm-up Questions to Activate Schemata on the Lesson Topic.

From: Kita et al., (2022). What’s Your Opinion? Interactive Skills for Effective
Discussion Book II (2nd ed., p. 48).

129

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Figure 3.
Presentation Slide Displaying Warm-up Questions withAdditional Directions to Open Translanguaging Space 1.

Adapted from: Kita et al., (2022). What’s Your Opinion?
Interactive Skills for Effective Discussion
Book II (2nd ed., p. 48).

The students were slightly confused by this instruction, pausing and looking at me withexpressions that appeared to say, “Why do you want to hear us speak Japanese?” I had to repeat
myself, trying to do my best to appear confident in assuring them that this was a legitimate partof the lesson. I revealed the adapted presentation slide, which reinforced my verbal instruction,
after which they accepted the direction without further question and proceeded with the activity.
Not surprisingly, when using L1, there was a definite uptick in interaction when they reachedQ3, with some pairs continuing to talk after the three-minute timer had elapsed. Overall, they
appeared relatively comfortable switching from English to Japanese mid-way through an activity.
Reflection: Lesson Stage [2]I have tentatively labeled this as a pseudo-translanguaging space, as the overall warm-up activity
facilitates the very weak translanguaging practice of abruptly alternating L2-L1 between questions.
There is also a mild form of translanguaging that takes place within the interactive exchanges of Q3
itself; students read the English text whilst also discussing it in Japanese, in a process similar to thatwhich Baker (2011) alludes to in his definition of translanguaging.
Whilst I had anticipated students would switch over from using L2 to L1 (Japanese) quite
willingly, I did not anticipate that I myself would initially feel slightly awkward and somewhat
professionally negligent about asking them to use L1 in an English language class. It appears as
though I may require some psychological reconditioning to become more comfortable during thisperiod of administering and implementing pedagogical translanguaging practices.
Overall, it appears as though we have mutually accepted that L1 can be used in Discussion class;
it is no longer to be kept “hidden” in fear of reprimand, as observed by Canagarajah (2011b).
Therefore, I will incorporate this new translanguaging space in subsequent lessons. However, there
are adaptations to be made for future lessons: to ensure students have remained on task throughout
the activity, I will nominate some of them to provide verbal feedback to me (in English) at the end of
the activity about what they discussed in Q3. This additional English reproduction stage will bring
the practice more in line with Baker’s translanguaging notion of learners “processing and digesting”
the content (Baker, 2011, p.289). Furthermore, I must think about how to better explain the purposeof these interventions to students, specifically why they must use their L1.

130

OPENING TRANSLANGUAGING SPACES: FACILITATING BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASSInter vention: Lesson Stage [4]—PracticeRationale:
Opening Translanguaging Space No. 2
The Practice stage usually involves the semi-controlled practice of the Discussion Skill phrases(see Figure 4), using specially selected extended practice questions designed to elicit the target
Discussion Skills phrases (see Figure 5). Again, as with all stages of the lesson, it has been a standard
procedure for students to discuss all questions using the target language in English. This stage
always appears to be one of the most productive in terms of achieving its objectives; therefore, I was
reluctant to interfere directly with the processes of this stage. However, I judged that further
reinforcement of target language acquisition could be achieved with the addition of some type of
consolidation activity involving the students’ L1 in a strong translanguaging space immediately after
the L2 practice activity. Using Cenoz and Gorter’s (2022) theory of raising learners’ “metalinguistic
awareness” (Cenoz & Gorter, 2022, p.31), I devised a simple two-step activity that involved students
translating the target language (Discussions Skill phrases) into Japanese (the opening of atranslanguaging space), followed by a free practice of the same practice questions but conductedcompletely in Japanese. I produced another visual presentation slide to prompt students to translate
the target language phrases as well as initiate practice of the same questions but using L1 (see Figure
6 and Figure 7). This will form the second translanguaging space.
Recorded Experience/Event:
After students completed the regular practice activity, I asked them something to the effectof, “So, does anyone know how to say these Discussion Skill phrases in Japanese?” They had
never been asked this type of question about the Discussion Skills phrases, and once again, theylooked around at each other, appearing perplexed as to why the teacher was interested inhearing them speak Japanese. After about 30 seconds of talking amongst themselves, several
Figure 4.
Textbook-based Target Language Discussion Skills Phrases for Lesson 7.

From: Kita et al., (2022). What’s Your Opinion? Interactive Skills for
Effective Discussion Book II (2nd ed., p. 48).

Figure 5.
Textbook-based Practice Stage Questions.

From: Kita et al., (2022). What’s Your Opinion? Interactive Skills for
Effective Discussion Book II (2nd ed., p. 49).

131

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Figure 6.
Presentation Slide Displaying the Target Discussion Skills Phrases
with Additional Directions to Open Translanguaging Space 2.

Adapted from: Kita et al., (2022). What’s Your Opinion? Interactive
Skills for Effective Discussion Book II (2nd ed., p. 48).

Figure 7.
Slide Displaying Additional Prompts to Initiate Practice of the Same
Questions Using L1.

Adapted from: Kita et al., (2022). What’s Your Opinion? Interactive Skills
for Effective Discussion Book II (2nd ed., pp. 48-49).

students volunteered a translation of the phrases. Not being a competent Japanese speaker
myself, I tried my best to repeat what I had heard (to the amusement of the students) and thenI asked back, “Does everyone agree that these translations are correct?”, to which they all
nodded (but, of course, I had no idea if they were right). Students were even more surprised by
my next instruction: “You can now discuss any of the practice questions again, but in 100%
Japanese—don’t forget to use the translated Discussion Skills”. After another silent pause, I
gradually began to hear a trickle of Japanese phrases, interspersed with giggles. The L1 they
were producing sounded slightly stilted as if they were making a cognitive effort to spontaneouslytranslate all previously learned Discussion Skills as well as apply the newly acquired target
language phrases. I then revealed the presentation slide to students as additional guidance andcement understanding, after which the exchanges soon turned into full-blown L1 discussions,accompanied by bursts of raucous laughter. After the 2-minute activity had finished, students
appeared to be in a state of amused bewilderment. I asked them how it felt to use the Discussion
Skills in Japanese, to which I received replies like, “weird” … “interesting” … “unnatural.”132

OPENING TRANSLANGUAGING SPACES: FACILITATING BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASS

Reflection: Lesson Stage [4]As per standard lesson procedures, students always learn and apply the target language inEnglish; however, this activity forced them to engage in subsequent practice of the target language,
but through L1 (Japanese). I have tentatively designated this process as L1 retropracticing. The L1
retropracticing process allowed them to remap and further assimilate the target language using the
cognitive architecture of their L1, enhancing their metalinguistic awareness following Cenoz and
Gorter’s (2022) notion. Moreover, I felt this activity took students experientially beyond the usualsubject matter limitations set by their English language abilities, as they could use L1 to articulate
and explore ideas more deeply (ideas that could be imported back into English discussions later on).
This intervention appeared to lower students’ affective filter, as it evoked a range of emotional
and physiological responses (for example, laughter) promoting a more relaxed learning environment
and possibly increasing students’ willingness to communicate (WTC) (McCroskey, 1992). Furthermore,taking only a total of 4 minutes, incorporating this activity directly after the practice stage had
minimal impact on overall lesson timing and pacing.
Adaptions to be made for future lessons: I need to ensure that students are able to makeappropriate translations of the target language into Japanese. Therefore, I shall prepare pre-translated
target language phrases, ready to present as confirmation. Finally, I need to think about how I, as theteacher, can close this translanguaging space to transition more smoothly to the next stage.
Inter vention: Lesson Stage [7]—Discussion 2 Preparation
			Lesson Stage [8]—Discussion 2
Rationale:
Opening Translanguaging Space No. 3
Stages 7 and 8 are closely linked, that is, the Discussion 2 Preparation stage enables students togenerate content and ideas, ready to use in the un-scaffolded, free-production Discussion 2 stage. I
deemed that it may be beneficial to create the final space across these two stages in a single
translanguaging activity that would resemble a preparatory hybrid L1–L2 (Japanese-English)translanguaging discussion just before the main discussion. This consists of deploying the functionaltarget language, that is, organizational English Discussion Skills as an L2 framework of phrases,around which students can conduct their discussions and add the L1 content of their ideas. I
anticipate that I will encounter difficulties verbally articulating what I need the students to do for the
Figure 8.
Presentation Slide Introducing the Hybrid Discussion with Questions
and Discussion Skills Phrases to Open Translanguaging Space 3.

Adapted from: Kita et al., (2022). What’s Your Opinion? Interactive Skills for
Effective Discussion Book II (2nd ed., pp. 48, 51).

133

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Figure 9.
Presentation Slide Displaying a Model Translanguaging Hybrid
Discussion Pattern.

Adapted from: Kita et al., (2022). What’s Your Opinion? Interactive Skills
for Effective Discussion Book II (2nd ed., p. 48).

hybrid discussion; therefore, I produced two more visual presentation slides, the first to open thetranslanguaging space (see Figure 8) and the other to model the discussion pattern structure so thatstudents can engage in the translanguaging task more efficiently (see Figure 9).
Recorded Experience/Event:
After successfully completing the Discussion 1 stage, I warned the students that they weregoing to need to use their Japanese language skills to prepare for the final Discussion stage. The
reaction to this was mixed, but I got the overall impression that they were curious and wanted totry out whatever I had planned. This practice was completely new to them, but after displaying
the model presentation slide, I asked two of the more confident students to demonstrate an
exchange, after which the whole group was keen to begin. As with the intervention at stage 4,
there was considerable excitement and elevated levels of interaction, especially when making
the L1-L2 switches. The hybrid discussion ended after 5 minutes, at which point the discussion
groups appeared sufficiently energized with ideas, ready to conduct the discussion again in
English. Subsequent spoken use of the target language (Discussion Skills) by students, on thewhole, was produced accurately and with very little hesitation. Discussions also appeared toprogress in a more sustained manner, with students wanting to speak right up until the final bell.
Reflection: Lesson Stage [7] & [8]Many aspects recorded in the previous intervention stage were present in this stage also, suchas enhancing metalinguistic awareness, lowering the affective filter, and enabling students to fully
explore and share ideas and content knowledge through L1, before exercising them in English.
Moreover, this particular hybrid discussion task allowed students to experience a strong form ofdeliberate, teacher-directed translanguaging, designated as Cognitive Academic Translanguaging(Jones, 2017).
Incorporating this activity directly after the Discussion 1 stage had minimal impact on overall
lesson timing and pacing, taking only a total of 5 minutes. I will, therefore, include this in subsequent
lessons as the final safe translanguaging space in the lesson plan.

134

OPENING TRANSLANGUAGING SPACES: FACILITATING BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASS

Conclusion
This report set out to document the practical considerations of applying pedagogicaltranslanguaging practices through the creation of translanguaging spaces in an English discussion
course in a Japanese university setting. Judging by the findings made during the writing of theteaching journal, it is important to consider not only what translanguaging practices should be
employed but how such practices may be incorporated within a course without unduly impacting thepre-existing pedagogical infrastructure. Once these aspects have been considered, however, theprocess of designing and applying context-appropriate pedagogical practices based on the latest
translanguaging theory can result in both observable and convincing outcomes. For example, asreported in the reflective journal here, the application of an effective pedagogical translanguaging
discussion activity (the intervention at Stages 7 and 8) enabled learners to comfortably switch
between English and Japanese in a planned and deliberate manner (Jones, 2017). This means thatstudents could achieve the aims inherent to the Discussion class, that is, to demonstrate the ability toengage with the task cognitively on multiple linguistic levels and to simultaneously synthesize theirknowledge of the Discussion Skills patterns in English (Hurling, 2012). Moreover, during thispreparatory phase of the discussion, as students were interacting in L1, this constituted a legitimate
form of strategic planning and rehearsal, as defined by Ellis (2005, 2009). Therefore, as the resulting
oral performances demonstrated, the bilingual pedagogical practice of translanguaging can produce
learners who are noticeably more stimulated, confident, and primed to express their views in thecontext of a monolingual English discussion.
Despite these apparent successes, however, certain aspects remain unclear and could not be
addressed in this report, such as the issue of identity: did exposure to pedagogical translanguaging
practices, as demonstrated in this teaching context, in any way persuade learners into becoming
more accepting of their bilingual status? This is a complex issue, and it would be impossible to gauge
this from data gathered from the narrow, short-range interventional study presented here. However,whilst I doubt that any significant progress has been made, I believe that through the course oftranslanguaging, the learners’ internal L1–L2 barrier (established over years of segregated language
instruction) has been partly “disrupted” (García, 2009). This disruption, caused by the controlled
practice of incorporating two languages into a single academic task, has potentially triggered a shift
within learners; a shift in the balance of power between the L1–L2 dichotomy, an equalization of
languages, so to speak, which, on a subconscious level, could work to cultivate a learner’s bilingual
identity over the longer term.
The results of this interventional study and the body of current literature make it abundantly
evident that more empirical inquiry in this field is both necessary and feasible. Furthermore, it ishoped that the results of any future study could potentially lead to changes in other curricular
contexts offered by Rikkyo University, such as the English debate course, where students would be
able to benefit from exercising their inherent bilingual abilities and all from the safety of atranslanguaging space.

135

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

References
Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (3rd ed.). Clevendon:
Multilingual Matters LTD.
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Bhela, B. (1999). Native language interference in learning a second language: Exploratory casestudies of native language interference with target language usage. International Education
Journal, 1(1), 22-31.
Bonacina-Pugh, F., Da Costa Cabral, I., & Huang, J. (2021). State of the art review on translanguaging
in education. Language Teaching, 54(4), 439-471. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000173
Canagarajah, S. (2011a). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research andpedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2(2011), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110239331.1
Canagarajah, S. (2011b). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies oftranslanguaging. Modern Language Journal, 95:401-417
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2017). Minority languages and sustainable translanguaging: threat oropportunity? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(10), 901-912. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1284855
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2022). Pedagogical Translanguaging (Elements in Language Teaching).
Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2005). Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. Language Learning &Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11
Ellis, R. (2009). The Differential Effects of Three Types of Task Planning on the Fluency, Complexity,
and Accuracy in L2 Oral Production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474-509. https://doi.
org/10.1093/applin/amp042
García, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective (1st ed.). WileyBlackwell.
García, O., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2017). Translanguaging in bilingual education. In O. García & A.M.Y. Lin(Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education (Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol. 5),
117-130. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer International Publishing.
Grosjean, F. (2013). Bilingualism: A short introduction. In Grosjean, F. & Li, P. (Eds.), The
psycholinguistics of bilingualism (Vol. 2nd, p. 5). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hurling, S. (2012). Introduction to EDC. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion,
1(1), 1.2-1.10.
Jones, B. (2017). Translanguaging in Bilingual Schools in Wales. Journal of Language, Identity &Education, 16(4), 199-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2017.1328282
Kita, S., Sturges, J., Arthurson, D., & Truxal, D. (2022). What’s Your Opinion? Interactive Skills for
Effective Discussion Book II (2nd ed., pp.48-51). Tokyo, Japan: DTP Publishing.
McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate scale.
Communication Quarterly, 40(1), 16-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379209369817
Murphy, J. M. (2014). Reflective teaching: Principles and practices. In M. Celce-Murcia & D. M.
Brinton (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed.) (pp.613-629).
Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage.
Ooi, W. Z., & Abdul Aziz, A. (2021). Translanguaging Pedagogy in the ESL Classroom: A Systematic
Review. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development,
136

OPENING TRANSLANGUAGING SPACES: FACILITATING BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN ENGLISH DISCUSSION CLASS

10(3). https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarped/v10-i3/10816
Turnbull, B. (2021). Am I bilingual? Reporting on the self-reflections of Japanese EFL learners.
International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(5), 1327-1348. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006921
1019467
Wei, L. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities bymultilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1222-1235. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.035
Williams, C. (1994). Arfarniad o Ddulliau Dysgu ac Addysgu yng Nghyd destun Addysg Uwchradd
Ddwyieithog [An evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingual
secondary education]. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Wales, Bangor. https://
research.bangor.ac.uk/portal/files/20574535/null137

【Teaching Practice Report】

Using CLIL to Design Elective University Courses
Tanya L. Erdelyi
Abstract
Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) has become increasingly popular worldwide over the last few
decades. It is generally described as teaching content in a language not native to the learners. In this paper, I
provide a report on how I used the principles of CLIL to design two university elective courses. Using contentrelated vocabulary and a combination of authentic and original materials, the courses were designed to provide
students with the opportunity to explore content while speaking, writing, reading, and listening to English. Activities
were designed to support students with low-level English proficiency commonly found in these mixed-level classes
as well as provide students of all English proficiency levels interesting and meaningful interactions with the course
theme, lesson topics, and other students. First, I briefly explain some of the CLIL-related theories on which I based
many of my course design and classroom interaction decisions. Then, I outline the syllabus and lesson plans for thetwo courses. I conclude the report with some informal classroom observations and recommendations forincorporating CLIL into university elective courses.
Keywords: Content and language integrated learning; CLIL; elective courses

Introduction
Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is an educational approach where anon-language content course is taught in a language generally different from the learners’ first(Coyle et al., 2010; Dalton-Puffer, 2011). CLIL does not necessarily require an equal division ofsubject and language education; instead, it is an interwoven fusion between the two (Coyle et al.,2010). CLIL is generally associated with bilingual education and content-based instruction. Focus on
implementing CLIL in the classroom and subsequent studies on CLIL emerged from European
countries in the mid-1990s (Coyle et al., 2010; Nikula et al., 2016). Soon after, CLIL began spreadingworldwide (Coyle et al., 2010; Graham et al., 2018). Some common characteristics of CLIL educationin Asia, as well as other parts of the world, are that the target language is generally English, and thecontent is generally given more emphasis as the teachers tend to be non-native English speakers
teaching their subjects of expertise, with additional language lessons provided by language experts(Dalton-Puffer, 2011).
However, that does not mean that language in CLIL classrooms is completely ignored. In fact,
just as CLIL is a union between content and language education, so too is the support that CLIL
teachers provide. With regard to support in a CLIL environment, teachers utilize several strategies.
One common strategy is scaffolding, the process of experts providing novices with support toaccomplish tasks beyond their abilities (Bruner, 1976, as cited in Lyster, 2007). Mahan (2022) createda framework from some of the existing literature on CLIL for analyzing scaffolding in CLIL
classrooms. They settled on three aspects of scaffolding: prior knowledge, supporting materials, andacademic language. In their study, they found that content teachers in the natural sciences,
geography, and social sciences use a variety of scaffolding strategies such as activating students’prior knowledge, supplying supporting materials, and giving academic language prompts forunderstanding content and accomplishing tasks. In terms of strategies used for error correction,
138

USING CLIL TO DESIGN ELECTIVE UNIVERSITY COURSES

recasting is a common and often preferred practice. Recasting involves repeating a student’s
erroneous utterances using the correct grammar and vocabulary in the hopes that the student will
notice the difference (Lyster, 2007). Recasting is used to keep students on topic with minimal
interruption, allowing them to hear academically correct models that match and allow students tocheck their ideas. However, the main focus of recasting in a CLIL setting is often not on correction
but on semantic paraphrasing (Mohan & Beckett, 2001 as cited in the study by Lyster, 2007, p. 95).
Furthermore, the outcomes of CLIL are difficult to identify (Dalton-Puffer, 2011; Graham et al.,2018). Studies that focus on the outcomes of CLIL tend to focus more on language as it can moreeasily be measured quantitatively than content (Dalton-Puffer, 2011; Nikula et al., 2016). Additionally,studies that focus on language acquisition due to CLIL are often confounded by other factors such as
pre-existing language knowledge or language acquisition that might be contributed to accompanying
language courses (Dalton-Puffer, 2011). Further mixed results on language acquisition show thatmany of the studies are conducted on elective courses that tend to draw students with higher
motivation and aptitude in language learning (Bruton, 2011). However, of the 25 articles exploring
CLIL language outcomes analyzed by Graham et al. (2018), most showed that the CLIL students
performed equal to or better than non-CLIL students on tests. As for content learning, as most CLIL
classes are filled with content-rich videos and other visuals, CLIL students have an easier chance ofcomprehending the content (Graham et al., 2018).
The purpose of this paper is to report on two English elective courses I designed and taught
using the fundamentals of CLIL. I begin with an explanation of the students, courses, lessons,activities, and materials while providing justifications for many of my design choices. Next, I offersome informal observations of the CLIL classes, along with some possible recommendations for
those who wish to teach courses that are more aligned with the CLIL approach.

Course and Lesson Design
The following is a description of the students as well as the course and lesson designs. As this ismerely a report on the CLIL courses and lessons I designed and taught, the descriptions of thestudents are based on observations I made while teaching; I do not have any objective evidence about
their actual language abilities or comprehensive knowledge of each students’ department or major.

Students
The students enrolled in these elective CLIL courses were second-, third-, and fourth-year
university students from different departments studying several different majors in a private Japanese
university. Their first language was Japanese. The students also differed greatly in English language
proficiency, ranging from fairly fluent speakers of English to those who sometimes struggled to form
complete sentences depending on the complexity of the topic.

Course Design
I designed two elective courses, both taught in the same semester. The students in each course
met for 100 minutes once a week for 14 weeks. The Language and History course had 11 students,
and the Japanese Studies Through English course had 25 students. Each elective course was taught
entirely in English. I used the same general design for each course’s syllabus and the same general139

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

format for each lesson across both courses. Each lesson during weeks 1-7 and 9-13 focused on adifferent topic related to the theme of the course. Each course also had a midterm and final
presentation assignment in weeks 8 and 14, respectively. On the same day as the midterm and final
presentations, the students submitted a one-page single-spaced reaction paper that included a
one-paragraph summary of the lectures and homework readings for each lesson leading up to theassignment (weeks 1-7 for the midterm and weeks 9-13 for the final), along with an opinion paragraphreacting to some of the topics they had studied throughout the course. Table 1 contains the syllabus
for the Japanese Studies Through English course. Table 2 shows the Language and History syllabus.
Table 1
Syllabus for a Japanese Studies Through English Elective Course
Week

Topic

Homework Due

1

Course Introduction; What is Cool Japan and Soft Power?
Reading Skills; Writing summaries

2

Japanese Traditional Culture and Past Influences; Lecture; Discussion; Note
Reading & Summary
Taking Skills

3

Japanese Films; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

4Japanese Martial Arts; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

5Japanese Food; Lecture; Discussion; Presentation Skills

Reading & Summary

6Japanese Music; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

7Japanese Fashion; Lecture; Discussion

Prepare for Assignment 1

8Assignment 1 – Presentation 1 (small groups)

Presentation 1/Reaction 1

9Japanese Subcultures; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

10Japanese Manga; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

11Japanese Anime; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

12Japanese Cosplay; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

13

Japanese Video Games; Lecture; Discussion

Prepare for Assignment 2

14

Assignment 2 – Final Presentation (small groups)

Presentation 2/Reaction 2

Table 2
Syllabus for the Language and History Course
Week

Topic

1

Course Introduction; Origins of Language; Reading Skills review; Writingsummaries review

Homework Due

2Origins of Speech and Writing; Lecture; Discussion; Note Taking Skills review Reading & Summary3

Languages of the World; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

4

Language Diversity; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

5

History of English; Lecture; Discussion; Presentation Skills

Reading & Summary

6

Etymology (word origins); Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

7

Place and People Names; Lecture; Discussion

Prepare for Assignment 1

8Assignment 1 – Mini-Presentation (small groups)

Presentation 1/Reaction 1

9Language Change; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

10

The Electronic Revolution; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

11

Political Correctness; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

12

Dying Languages; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

13

Modern Languages; Lecture; Discussion

Prepare for Assignment 2

14

Assignment 2 – Final Presentation (small groups)

Presentation 2/Reaction 2

140

USING CLIL TO DESIGN ELECTIVE UNIVERSITY COURSES

Lesson Design
Each lesson followed the same general format containing four to five tasks or discussions. I
chose this uniformity because I find that when working with mixed-level classes, routines foster
confidence in students with low-level proficiency in the target language as they know what is
expected of them in each lesson. Activities for the lessons were chosen to maximize the students’
exposure to the content as well as all four language skills (i.e., speaking, listening, reading, andwriting).
For each lesson, the students sat in the same group of three to four learners for the duration of
the lesson, with new group configurations at the beginning of each lesson. The lessons began with areview of the previous lesson’s topic. The discussion was facilitated by questions that focused onreviewing the main messages and supporting ideas of the previous lesson’s content. Next, thestudents engaged in a warm-up discussion or activity to activate the pre-existing vocabulary andknowledge the students have on the topic, a form of scaffolding as mentioned in the study by Mahan(2022). Following the warm-up discussion, I gave a mini-lecture on the weekly topic. As they listened
to the lecture with accompanying visuals on slides, the students took notes using the note-taking
skills taught during lesson two. Each lecture contained a video on the lesson’s topic to give thestudents an opportunity to practice listening to natural expressions and speaking speeds in authentic
materials; this choice was made to help students gain a richer understanding of the content (Graham
et al., 2018). Closed captioning subtitles were turned on to help students with low-level proficiency inEnglish process the information. After the lecture, the students compared their notes to fill in gaps inthe information they might have missed, along with identifying the main messages and supporting
ideas about the topic. I encouraged the students to include these main messages and ideas in theirsummary writing homework, a weekly assignment the students completed in order to help write
their mid-term and final reaction papers. The note-taking discussion also helped students with
low-level proficiency in English notice any missed key points, confirm what they had heard, anddiscuss what they had just learned. The final discussion for each lesson focused on that week’s topic,
including questions about their opinions as well as questions that allowed the students to discuss the
topic critically as recommended by Dalton-Puffer (2006 as cited in the study by Lyster, 2007, p. 92)
as comprehension questions tend to limit student responses. Many of the lessons also ended with ashort instructive activity on a skill that might be needed for a future activity or assignment (e.g., notetaking, summary writing, paragraph writing, presentation script writing, slide design, etc.). Finally,
students were given an authentic text on the following week’s topic to read and summarize in writingfor homework. Figure 1 shows a sample lesson plan from the Japanese Studies Through English
course. The structure of the lesson in this plan closely aligns with most of the lessons taught during
these two courses. The main difference between each lesson, besides the topic, included variationsin the types of tasks completed during the warm-up phase and the special skill often taught at the endof the lesson. These lesson plans were also distributed to the students weekly as worksheets andoften included visual images related to the topic of discussion for that week that the students would
critically analyze and discuss.
At the end of each discussion activity (tasks 1–4 on the lesson plan), the students sharedinteresting information, ideas, and opinions from their group’s discussion with the rest of the class.
To avoid a lack of volunteers as well as give each learner the opportunity to report back to the class,the students played rock paper scissors after each discussion to decide who would share. The student
who lost the game had to report to the class. To prevent nervous students from not knowing what to141

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Figure 1
Figure 1
Sample Lesson Plan from the Japanese Studies Through English Course.

Sample Lesson Plan from the Japanese Studies Through English Course.

Lesson 10 - JSTE 6/17 (F)_____________________________________________________________________
1. Review Discussion from Last Lecture
1. How has Japan influenced other countries with Japanese subcultures?
2. What ideas and values from Japanese subcultures do you think would be a good message
for people overseas to help them understand how Japanese people think?
3. What are the main messages/ideas from last week’s lesson?
2. Warm-up Discussion about Japanese Mangaa. Look at the manga and comics on the table at the front of the room. Make notes. Then,discuss the following with your partners: What are the similarities and differences you cansee between the Japanese manga and English comics? What are the similarities anddifferences you can see between the Japanese manga and English translations of manga?
Japanese Manga

English Manga Translations

English Comics

3. The Influence of Japanese Manga Lecturea. Please listen to the mini-lecture.
b. Take notes and write down questions you have.
c. Compare your notes with those of your partners. Write info you might have missed.
d. What ideas from today’s lecture would you include in a 1-2 sentence summary?
4. Weekly Topic Discussion - In small groups, answer the following questions:a. What were the most interesting things you learned from today’s reading & lecture?
b. Do you read Japanese manga? Why or why not? If yes, what manga do you read?
c. What Japanese manga do you think are popular in Japan? Why?
d. What Japanese manga do you think are popular overseas? Why?
e. What can people overseas learn about Japan from manga?
5. Paragraph Writing - Structure and Topic Sentencesa. Let’s look at the “Paragraph Writing” worksheets.
6. Any questions?

Homework

Read the Homework Reading and write a short summary for Fri., June 24 (13:25). Write thesummary on the Summary Doc that you linked to the Gateway Document.

Note: Students received a copy of the lesson plan for each lesson.

Note: Students received a copy of the lesson plan for each lesson.

At the end of each discussion activity (tasks 1–4 on the lesson plan), the students sharedinteresting information, ideas, and opinions from their group’s discussion with the rest of theshare,class.
I gave30-second
to confer
partners
about what
they should
Toaavoida lackpreparationof volunteerstime
as wellas givewith
eachtheirlearnerthe opportunity
to report
back say.
to theclass,
the students
playeda rock
paper scissors
after each discussion
to from
decidethe
whowouldStudents
who
reportedback after
discussion
were subsequently
exemptednext
few rockshare.
The
student
who
lost
the
game
had
to
reporttotheclass.
To
prevent
nervousstudents
paper scissors rounds. Thus, most students only had to speak to the entire class once per lesson,from not knowing what to share, I gave a 30-second preparation time to confer with theirunlesspartners
they raised
volunteer
information
ran outbackof groupwho
had not
abouttheirwhathandthey toshouldsay. Students
whoorreported
after amembers
discussion
weresharedyet as we exempted
completedeach
or papertask. scissors
These group
allowedstudents
subsequently
fromthediscussion
next few rockrounds.reports
Thus, most
students
only the
had
to
speak
to
the
entire
class
once
per
lesson,unlesstheyraised
their
hand
to
volunteerchance to speak English and to hear what other groups in the class were talking about. The reports
information
ran outof responses
group members
hadgrammar
not shared
we completedvocabularyeachalso allowed
me toorrecast
theirusing who
properandyettheascontent-related
discussion or task. These group reports allowed students the chance to speak English and to(Lyster, 2007) that was often mentioned during the lecture.

Obser vations and Recommendations
The following observations and recommendations are based on casual observations I madewhile teaching the two CLIL elective courses.
142

USING CLIL TO DESIGN ELECTIVE UNIVERSITY COURSES

Obser vations
One of the most impressive observations I made during these two CLIL elective courses was theabsence of spoken Japanese. Students with varying English language proficiency levels in bothcourses spoke only English for the full 100-minute lessons across all 14 weeks during group work,
discussions, presentations, and when addressing the entire class. Surprisingly, the students chose to
speak only English on their own volition as I had never explicitly instructed them to do so. Perhaps,
the nature of the course compelled them to communicate only in English. It could also be due to thehigher motivation and language learning aptitude of students drawn to English electives as mentioned
by Bruton (2011). Another observation was the frequent assistance the students with high-level
English proficiency provided those with lower proficiency in English. This action was facilitated andperhaps encouraged by the consistent confirmation checks I had built into each lesson. Lastly, it
should be noted that the students consistently provided insightful observations and critiques on theweekly topics rather than a mere regurgitation of the facts they had learned.

Recommendations
Based on my observations while teaching these two CLIL courses, I would like to make a few
recommendations. To begin with, CLIL lessons have the possibility of providing a much-needed relief
from rigid English lessons that focus mainly on grammar, translation, test strategies, and single
language skill building (e.g., listening courses). Additionally, elective English classes based on anunderlying core content (e.g., Japanese Studies Through English, Language and History, World
Heritage Sites) provide an excellent foundation for applying CLIL practices. Finding a way toimplement some core CLIL practices into the aforementioned rigid English lessons might be a
productive next step. Should a teacher decide to design and implement a CLIL course or lesson,proper scaffolding should be provided for the mixed level of English proficiency these classes often
have. Lesson activities should be designed to allow students a chance to critically analyze andcomment on the content in order to get a deeper understanding of the topics of discussion (DaltonPuffer, 2006 as cited in Lyster, 2007, p. 92). Finally, it might be possible for both content and language
teachers to be encouraged to use their expertise to teach CLIL elective courses at the university
level.

143

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

References
Bruton, A. (2011). Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due to CLIL?
A reply to Lorenzo, Casal and Moore (2010), Applied Linguistics, 32(2), pp. 236-241. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr007
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge
University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles?.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182-204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092
Graham, K. M., Choi, Y., Davoodi, A., Razmeh, S., & Dixon, L. Q. (2018). Language and content
outcomes of CLIL and EMI: A systematic review. Latin American Journal of Content andLanguage Integrated Learning, 11(1), 19-37. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2018.11.1.2
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Mahan, K. R. (2022). The comprehending teacher: Scaffolding in content and language integrated
learning (CLIL). The Language Learning Journal, 50(1), 74-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571
736.2019.1705879
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., & Lorenzo, F. (2016). More than content and language: The
complexity of integration in CLIL and bilingual education. Conceptualising Integration in CLIL
and Multilingual Education, 101(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-004

144

多言語教育実践ジャーナル投稿規定
概要：センター内の言語科目における実践報告を年 1 回出版
Ⅰ．投稿資格1． 執筆者は（共著の場合はファーストオーサーのみ）、原則として現職の外国語教育研究センター所属
教員とする。特別号、特集号などの場合はこの限りではない。
2． 投稿論文はそのカテゴリーを問わず 1 教員につき 1 本までとする（共著による論文も１本と数える）。
ただし、投稿論文数によっては、ジャーナル＆リサーチ委員会による決定を経て掲載号・論文枚数等の調整を受ける場合がある。
3． 投稿論文は過去に出版されておらず、他のジャーナルに現在投稿されているものではないこと。
Ⅱ．使用言語原稿執筆にあたっては、センターに所属する教員が広く互いの教育実践及び知識の共有を活性化するにあたり、センター言語科目群に属する日本語、朝鮮語、中国語、フランス語、ドイツ語、スペイン語及び英語での投稿を認める。
Ⅲ．執筆要項
投稿原稿は未公版のものに限る。
1． 原稿の種類は下記の区分に属するものとする。
授業実践報告：外国語教育研究センター内における言語科目全般における授業実践の報告及び所感や、タスクやアクティビティ等、授業における体験や経験に基づいた報告を行う。可能であれば実践に関連する理論的枠組みと関連づけること。
2． 書式は以下の項目全てをできる限り厳守すること。
（1）原稿サイズ
A4 版を使用し、上下各 19mm、左右各 16mm ずつあける。
42 字 ×43 行、横書きで、フォントは MS 明朝、12 ポイントを使用。
（2）字数
授業実践報告：6000－8000 字程度
図表、参考資料、参考文献、注、Appendix など全て含める。なお、図表については、明瞭なもの
を当該個所へ貼りつける。貼り付けられない場合は、別ファイルを用意し、挿入個所を明示する。
（3）原稿タイトル
18 ポイントでセンタリングし、各文字を太字にしたスタイルに従う。フォントは上記書式に従う。
（4）氏名
右寄せ、ゴシック体で 12 ポイントとする。タイトルとの間は 1 行あける。
（5）要旨
全ての原稿に、要旨と 3 ～ 5 項目のキーワードをつけること。要旨は 500 字程度で執筆すること。
書式は、左右 15mm ずつ全行インデントし、フォントは MS 明朝、11 ポイントを使用する。尚要
旨の言語は執筆言語に関わらず英語あるいは日本語とする。
（6）本文への註釈は、対応する註記を各ページの下に 9 ポイントで表記する。
Ⅳ．原稿の提出
原稿の提出は、指定の Google フォームに必要事項を入力のうえ、投稿内容を収めた電子媒体をアップロードし、送信すること。

145

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Ⅴ．脚注および参考文献の形式
原則的に APA（第 7 版）スタイルを用いること。英語以外の言語に関しては、APA（第 7 版）にできる限り準拠し執筆者の責任において同一論文の中で齟齬のないよう確認すること。
Ⅵ．投稿開始及び締切日
投稿の受付は毎年９月秋学期の開始から行う。初稿の提出締め切り日は 11 月末日とする。
Ⅶ．査読に関して当該ジャーナルへの投稿に対する査読は行わない。ただし基本的な内容及び体裁のチェックをジャーナル＆リサーチ委員会が行い、掲載可否を判断する。
Ⅷ．校正及び再提出
内容及び体裁のチェック後、当該ジャーナルのスコープから著しく逸脱する内容や体裁に問題がある場
合、投稿者に対し校正及び再提出の依頼を行う。校正依頼を受けた執筆者は、原稿の校正を行い、校正依頼を受けた日から起算して 2 週間以内に再提出を行うものとする。校正後の原稿はジャーナル＆リサ
ーチ委員会による最終確認を経て掲載可否の判断を行うものとし、執筆者に結果を通知する。なお出版社より体裁等の追加の修正依頼があった場合は、再度の校正を執筆者に依頼する場合がある。
Ⅸ．出版
当該ジャーナルは毎年 3 月に出版される。
Ⅹ．CiNii 及び立教リポジトリへの登録掲載された論文は、立教大学を通して CiNii（国立情報学研究所論文情報ナビゲーター [ サイニィ ] ）及び立教大学学術リポジトリに登録される。
Ⅺ．その他の要件
1． 原稿料は支払わない。
2． 掲載された論文の著作権は、原則として立教大学外国語教育研究センターに帰属する。ただし、著者が著者自身の研究・教育活動に使用する際は、許可なく使用することができるものとする。
3． 万が一出版後、剽窃等の不正が発覚した場合は当該論文をジャーナルから削除する。

146

Journal of Multilingual Pedagogy & Practice
Manuscript Submission Guidelines
Scope: The journal annually publishes reports of teaching practice related to courses
taught in FLER.

I.

Eligibility
1. Contributions to the journal are primarily limited to individuals affiliated with Center for
Foreign Language Education & Research (FLER). In the case of co-authored papers, thisrequirement applies only to the first author. Exceptions may be made for special editions.
2. A maximum of one contribution per issue is accepted (co-authored papers are also counted
as one contribution). Due to space limitations, your submission may be considered for
publication in a later issue, or you may be asked to reduce the length of the submitted
article.
3. Work submitted to the journal should not have been previously published and should not be
under consideration for potential publication by other journals.

II.

Language
In order to effectively share knowledge and research activity amongst FLER-affiliatedinstructors, we accept manuscripts written in one of the following languages: Japanese, Korean,Chinese, German, French, Spanish, and English.

III. Content and Formatting GuidelinessContributions are limited to previously unpublished work.
1. We accept contributions in the following area:
Practical Teaching Reports: Reflective reports on your teaching practice in any language
courses at the Center for Foreign Language Education and Research. Reports should include
a reflection, and detailed descriptions of tasks and/or activities. Make sure to establish aclear connection between your teaching practice and theoretical/pedagogical rationale
where possible.
2. Please ensure to follow all formatting guidelines listed below:(1) Size: Use A4-sized paper, leaving margins of 25mm at the top and bottom and of 25mm
on both sides of the text. The letters in the text should be Times New Roman 12 point,
single-spaced.
(2) Length: Teaching Practice Reports should be approximately 3000-5000 words in length
including graphs, charts, the reference list, and appendices. Graphs and charts shouldbe embedded in the text. However, if it is difficult to do so, please submit as a separate
file, but leave space and indicate where they should go in the text.
(3) T itle: The title should be in 18 point and centered following the capitalization rules. Font
as above.
(4) Author’s name: The name of the author/s should be indented to the right side andwritten in Times New Roman 12 point. Leave one line between the title and the name of
the author/s.
147

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）(5) Abstract: Manuscripts should be accompanied by a 150-250 word abstract in either
Japanese or English, which includes 3 to 5 keywords for the article at the bottom. For theabstract, the text should be indented 15mm from the left and right and written in Times
New Roman 11 point.
(6) Footnotes: Footnotes should be placed at the bottom of each page, in 9 point.
IV. Manuscript Submission
To submit a manuscript, fill in the necessary details in the designated Google form, upload theelectronic file containing the article content, and submit.
V.

Footnotes and Referencing
The author is responsible for consistently adhering to APA (7th edition). If the manuscript iswritten in any other language but English, adopt APA style format as much as possible, andmake sure that the style used is consistent throughout the manuscript.

VI. Call and Deadline for Submission
Submissions begin at the beginning of every fall semester. The deadline for submission is thelast day of November.
VII. Peer Review
Submissions to the journal will not undergo peer review. However, the Journal & ResearchCommittee will check the basic contents and appearance and determine whether to accept it for
publication.
VIII. Revision and Resubmission
After checking, if the content deviates significantly from the scope of the journal or there is aproblem with the format, the author will be requested to revise and resubmit. Authors who havereceived a revision request shall revise the manuscript and submit it again within two weeks
from the date of receiving the request. A final review will be conducted by the Journal &Research Committee to determine if the work is publishable. The author will be notified of thedecision once the final review is completed. The author may be asked to further revise themanuscript if there is any stylistic/format issue.
IX. Journal Publication
The journal is published annually in March.
X. Registration on CiNii and Rikkyo Repositor yContributions to the FLER Journal will be registered on the national CiNii database and the
Rikkyo University Academic Repository.
XI. Other conditions
1. No remuneration is offered to the author(s).
2.	The copyright of articles published in the FLER Journal resides with Center for Foreign
Language Education & Research, Rikkyo University. However, the author(s) retains the rightto use his/her work for future research and/or educational purposes without permission.
148

投稿規定・Manuscript Submission Guidelines

3.	If any plagiarism or misconduct is discovered after the work is published, the published work
will be removed from the journal.

149

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）【執筆者・Authors 】

Adam Roarty
Adam Roarty is a lecturer in English education at the Center for Foreign Language Education and Research.
He has been teaching English as a foreign language in Japan for over 8 years. His research interests include
intercultural communication, self-regulated learning and computer assisted language learning.
Andrew Tyner
Andrew Tyner is a lecturer at the Center for Foreign Language Education and Research. He has taught higher
education courses and developed course and testing materials for over ten years, both in Japan and the UnitedStates. He is interested in lesson structures and timing in the ESL classroom as well as in the broader
theoretical and neurocognitive underpinnings of ESL education.
Andrew Warrick
Andrew Warrick is an English Teacher at Rikkyo University in Tokyo, Japan. He earned his M.A. in Sociology
from the University of Hawaii at Manoa in 2010, and has been teaching English in Japan since 2007. His
research interests include cognitive overload, CALL, WTC, and curriculum design. He has been a member of
the Japan Association of Language Teaching since 2019.
Devon Arthurson
Devon Arthurson works as an adjunct lecturer at Rikkyo University. Previous to that, she taught at highschools in Osaka. Devon earned her Bachelor of Social Work from the University of Manitoba and completed
her Master of Arts in Integrated Studies from Athabasca University. Her current teaching and researchinterests include fostering learner autonomy and providing a platform for students' voices. Her volunteer
activities include social justice issues such as poverty alleviation and awareness-raising about humantrafficking.
Heather Woodward
Heather Woodward is an instructor at the Center for Foreign Language Education and Research. She hastaught higher education courses in Japan for over 4 years and is currently conducting research on spoken
fluency and mobile application development. She is also interested in the optimization of material development
for EFL learners.
Ian Hart
Ian Hart is a lecturer in English education at Rikkyo University’s Center for Foreign Language Education andResearch. He holds a master’s degree in Applied Linguistics and TESOL, a bachelor’s degree with honors in
Design, and has taught at universities such as Waseda University and Toyo University. His research interests
include technology-enhanced language learning, instructional design theory, and learner motivation.
James CarpenterJames Carpenter has an MA in TESL and an M Ed in educational technology from Northern Arizona
University. He has taught ESL in the US as well as EFL in Japan. His research interests focus around how
people learn in unique situations. He is currently an instructor in Rikkyo University.

150執筆者・AUTHORS

Jason Murray
Jason Murray has worked in Education over the past 23 years in Japan and the UK. His roles have been mainly
in teaching EFL. In addition, other roles include a SENCO (Special Educational Needs Co-Ordinator) and an
Adjunct Professor in Visual Arts. He is presently a Lecturer in English Education at Rikkyo University inTokyo. His areas of research and interest include micro-teaching (for teacher development purposes) andsociolinguistics.
Jon Mahoney
Jon Mahoney is lecturer in English education at the Center for Foreign Language and Research. He has taught
higher education courses in the Tokyo area for over five years, and is currently conducting research on how toenhance critical thinking skills in Japanese university students. Other areas of research he is interested ininclude, CLIL, English as a lingua franca and the usage of virtual exchanges.
Jonathan Hennessy
Jonathan Hennessy has a master’s degree in TESOL from Central Connecticut State University and works as a
Lecturer in English Education at Rikkyo University. He has taught English in Japan since 2012, working at
junior and senior high schools before joining Rikkyo in 2019. His research interests include pragmatics, with a
specific focus on turn-taking, floor management, and interaction, as well as student perceptions and beliefs in
the classroom.
Matthew Alexander Hartley
Matthew Alexander Hartley is an adjunct lecturer at the Center for Foreign Language Education and Research.
He has developed and taught a range of English language courses at various institutions in Japan. He holds an
MA in Japanese Studies and an MSc in Applied Psychology. His current research interests are centered aroundmental health and wellbeing in the classroom. He is also interested in accessibility and equality in higher
education.
Michael Peragine
Michael Peragine is an adjunct lecturer in the Center for Foreign Language Education and Research at Rikkyo
University. He holds an M.A. in English and Creative Writing, a B.A. in Education with a concentration in
Literature and teaching certifications in both California and New York (Pre K-6 & English 7-12). His current
research fields are peer feedback, student motivation and extensive reading.
Christopher Mattson
Christopher Mattson is an adjunct lecturer in the Center for Foreign Language Education and Research at
Rikkyo University. He holds an M.S. in Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum from Drexel University, and a B.A.
in English and German from the University of Arkansas. His research interests are in literature, film, andextensive reading.
Omar Shelesh
Omar Shelesh is a lecturer in English education at Rikkyo University’s Center for Foreign Language Education
and Research. He holds a Postgraduate Certificate in Education from the University of Cambridge and has
developed and taught higher education courses in Japan for over 7 years. He is currently conducting researchon bilingual pedagogical practices.

151

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Tanya L. Erdelyi
Tanya L. Erdelyi is an adjunct lecturer at Rikkyo University’s Center for Foreign Language Education andResearch. She has over 10 years of experience teaching academic writing and academic research to undergrad
and graduate students, and developing curricula and teaching materials for various second language courses.
Tanya’s current research interests include academic writing for second language learners, content andlanguage integrated learning (CLIL), and language immersion.

152

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻（ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, Vol. 3 ）
発行日

発行者

2023 年 3 月 1 日

立教大学 外国語教育研究センター（Center for Foreign Language Education and Research, Rikkyo University）〒 171-8501

製

作

東京都豊島区西池袋 3 －34 －1

株式会社 遊文舎〒 101-0061

ISSN 2436−2204

東京都千代田区神田三崎町 2 －20 －7

水道橋西口会館 8F©2023 立教大学 外国語教育研究センター

3

Vol.

MARCH 2023

JOURNAL OF
MULTILINGUALPEDAGOGYAND PRACTICE