2

2021

2
2021

目次 / Table of Contents【研究論文・Research Articles 】

Japanese EFL university student attitudes and engagement in a flipped learning course
in combination with synchronous online classes
Adam Roarty

3

Deborah Maxfield

22

Devon Arthurson

37

Jeffrey Mok

52

Jonathan Hennessy

68

Ian Hurrell

87

Impact of Group Cohesion on Anxiety and Online Task Performance:
A Correlational Exploratory Analysis

Students’ Opinions about Reflection Journals

Ontological and Pedagogical Re-consideration of CLIL:
Thoughts on Concept, Course Design, and Assessment

Platform Preferences for Video Content in a Flipped Classroom:
Students’ Perceptions of YouTube as a Platform for Learning

An exploratory study into student attitudes toward peer review activities
in an advanced academic writing class

To What Extent Do the Topics on a Japanese University Discussions Course Support Fluency Building?
Russell Minshull 105
Action-Oriented Approach to Curriculum Development in CLIL Courses:
A theoretical and methodological framework
Yuka Yamamoto & Ryo Nitta 122
从构式看 “V 了一天（的）N” 与 “V 了 N 一天 ”
李

菲 136

【研究報告・Research Briefs 】

Student Perception of Asynchronous Semi-Anonymous Peer Feedback Efficacy
in Online EFL Presentation Classes
Alex Blumenstock & Michael Peragine 146
Error and Mistake Correction in the English Language Classroom
John Paul White 154

Un ejemplo del uso de canciones en la clase de E/LE para los japoneses
Junko Matsumoto y Leidy Cotrina Cayo 160
Maintaining Discourse Competence in a Synchronous Online Discussion Board Activity
Justin Rooks 166
Developing social presence in online classes: a Japanese higher education context
Satchie Haga & Joshua Rappeneker 174
課題からみた中国語オンライン授業の問題点
白方直美 184【書評・Book Review 】

CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Do Coyle, Philip Hood, and David Marsh.
Cambridge University Press, 2010. X + 173pp
Kevin Thomas 195【外国語教育研究センターシンポジウム開催報告

2020-2021 】

前書き
三島雅一 197
立教大学外国語教育研究センター開設記念シンポジウム開催報告
グローバル社会で「生き抜く力」を育てる外国語教育
198
第二回立教大学外国語教育研究センターシンポジウム開催記念寄稿
CEFR から外国語学習評価を考える

茂木良治 209
複言語主義に基づく第二外国語教育―資質・能力論を手がかりに考える―境

一三 213「スペイン語学習のめやす」とスペイン語教育実践「 CEFR 」
大森洋子 219
大学中国語教育の現状と実践、そして課題
西香織 224

大学における韓国語教育の現況と問題点
中島

仁 230

新多

了 236

グローバル社会を生き抜く力としての「複言語能力」―英語教育の視点から

執筆者・Authors 

243

投稿規定・Manuscript Submission Guidelines 247【Research Article】

Japanese EFL university student attitudes and engagement
in a flipped learning course in combination
with synchronous online classes
Adam Roarty
Abstract
Flipped or blended learning has grown in popularity recently with its focus on student-centered learning and use oftechnology. The current study introduced a flipped learning approach in combination with synchronous online classes
at a Japanese university during the COVID-19 pandemic. 106 first year students participated in this study. A mixed
methods approach was adopted with quantitative (post-course survey, usage statistics from Blackboard) andqualitative (group discussions) data collected and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results suggested students
viewed flipped learning favorably, the main advantages noted were that they felt well-prepared for classes, perceived
improvements in their English abilities and valued the increased chances for interaction. Additionally, many students
perceived improvements in their ability to self-regulate their learning. However, a decline in engagement with flipped
learning materials was seen as the course progressed. Whilst engagement declined with some materials, there wasconsistently high engagement with graded materials which suggests incorporating flipped learning tasks into student
grades may be one way to ensure students remain engaged.
Keywords: flipped learning, engagement, self-regulated learning

Introduction
Whilst active learning is not a new concept, only recently has it grown in popularity in Japan (Itoand Kawazoe, 2015). With the development of technology, there are now more ways students can be
active in the learning process. Blended learning, as defined by Garrison and Vaughan (2008, p.5), is“the thoughtful fusion of face to face and online learning experiences” and has seen increasing
popularity in education as institutions utilize learning management systems to deliver content(Siemens, Gašević and Dawson, 2015). One method of blended learning is flipped learning wherein
students are introduced to new materials before class, which they study independently. Mehring(2015) defined the flipped classroom “as one where the instructor moved lecture content previously
presented in class to the online environment” (p.10). Many researchers include or emphasize the useof technology in their definitions of flipped learning (e.g Chen Hsieh, Wu, and Marek, 2017; Hung,2017; Mehring, 2014; Turan and Cimen, 2019), and for the purpose of this study I will also use thisdefinition.

Literature Review
Recent reviews of flipped learning in English foreign language (EFL) learning have foundimprovements in student satisfaction, motivation, engagement, and language abilities when compared
to traditional classrooms (Turan and Cimen, 2019; Grgurovic, 2017; Vitta and Al-Hoorie, 2020). In a
study of Japanese university students using a flipped learning method, Mehring (2015) noted
students became more active learners as compared to passive roles in previous traditional classrooms,

3外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

particularly due to having additional interaction opportunities with other students in an online forum.
Whilst the use of online forums is not unique or integral in flipped learning, the method’s integration
with technology entails such tools are readily available to complement the flipped classroom. The
increased opportunities for interaction given by use of online forums may be of particular value forJapanese EFL students. Mack (2012) noted some reasons students at a Japanese university did notparticipate in class discussions, for example, they felt uncomfortable speaking in front of others, orthey could not respond quickly enough. In a study comparing the motivation of Japanese students toengage in face-to-face or online communication, Freiermuth and Jarrell (2006) found most students
preferred online chats as this environment was perceived as more comfortable and less threatening.
Abe and Mashiko (2019) also reported that Japanese students participating in an exchange with
Filipino students found text chats more enjoyable than video chats. Utilizing online forums may be
one way to engage Japanese students who display a reticence to speak English. In online forums,
students have more time to formulate their ideas and can work at their own pace. Freiermuth andHuang (2012) found that use of an online chat tool improved Japanese and Taiwanese EFL students’
willingness to communicate as well as other factors relating to motivation. Further, use of aninternational virtual exchange forum saw Japanese university students improve their interactional
confidence and motivation to learn EFL (Hagley, 2020). Miyazoe and Anderson (2010) and Hirschel(2012) similarly reported positive views of online forums to aid Japanese students’ EFL learning.
In addition to online forums, videos are often used in the flipped classroom. Mehring and Leis
(2018) emphasize that videos are not essential to flipping a classroom but more important is thecreation of a student-centered learning environment. Videos, however, are conducive to creating thisenvironment. Unlike one-way lectures in the classroom, students may use the videos at their own
pace, pause, rewind and replay to aid comprehension. Leis (2016) found that a flipped learning
method delivered via videos accessible on mobile increased Japanese EFL students’ confidence inlistening and speaking and made students less passive and more productive in speaking.
Yet, there remains concern as to whether Japanese students are ready to engage in online
environments. Mehran et. al (2017) found Japanese university students were generally unwilling totake either fully online or blended English courses due to a perceived lack of digital literacy skills.
This is not unique to Japanese students. In a study comparing online and face-to-face classes at auniversity in California, Ni (2013) found higher rates of failure in online courses (10%) compared toface-to-face courses (4%). One of the main drawbacks of online courses is the lack of social interaction
and there is evidence that students report greater course satisfaction and greater success, in termsof grades, in online courses which include synchronous interaction (Duncan, Kenworthy, andMcNamara, 2012; McBrien, Rui and Jones, 2009).

Research Questions
Whether ready or not, the COVID-19 pandemic forced many institutions across Japan to movetowards an online environment and thus provided a unique opportunity to assess how well students
can adapt to this method of learning. This study aims to explore the attitudes of Japanese first-year
EFL university students towards one method of online learning, flipped learning in combination withsynchronous online sessions. The research questions were as follows:
1. 
What are Japanese EFL university students’ attitudes to the use of flipped learning in
combination with online classes?
2. How do students independently engage with flipped learning materials through Blackboard?

4

Japanese EFL university student attitudes and engagement in a flipped learning course in combination with synchronous online classes

Whereas previous studies in flipped learning in EFL in Japan have combined the model by using
technology to complement face-to-face sessions, this study looked at student attitudes towards the
combination of a flipped learning method with synchronous online sessions conducted using Zoom.
The second research question looks at engagement in terms of behavioral engagement with theflipped learning materials provided through Blackboard.

Methodology
Context
This study focuses on an English discussion course for first-year students at a private university
in Japan. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, classes were moved online. Previously, classes wereplanned for 100 minutes in groups of 9-10 students; however, to reduce strain on student internet
connections and allow teachers to effectively monitor discussion groups, the faculty recommended
classes to be split into two groups of 4-5 students for 40-minute weekly sessions conducted overZoom. The recommended way to deliver the class in this new structure is compared to the flipped
method chosen in Table 1 below.
Table 1Comparison of the traditional method and flipped method for delivery of the discussion course
Traditional Method

Flipped Method

Reading about the topic (before class)

Reading about the topic (before class)Lesson overview and check-in (in class)Presentation of discussion or communication
skill (before class)Presentation of discussion or communication
skill (in class)Videos related to the topic (before class)

Practice of discussion or communication skill(in class)

Discussion about the topic on an online forum(before class)Preparation for discussion (in class)Lesson overview and check-in (in class)

12-minute Discussion (in class)Peer-to-peer reflection on this week’s
discussion or communication skill and goal
setting (in class)

Brief teacher-fronted feedback (in class)

20-minute Discussion (in class)Set homework (in class)
Written or recorded assignment (after class)Peer-to-peer Feedback (in class)Set homework (in class)

Learning Materials
A battery of online materials was designed on the learning management system, Blackboard,which is integrated into the university’s website. The materials included an announcements page
with information about each class; slides which presented new discussion and communication skills;
videos relating to the content of the discussion topics with quizzes based on these videos; an online
forum; quizzes based on content related readings; and a grades page where students could checkscores from quizzes, lessons and receive feedback comments from the instructor.

5外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Data Collection
This study implemented a mixed-method triangulation approach (Cresswell and Plano Clark,
2018). Quantitative data was collected from a post-course survey completed online and usage
statistics from Blackboard. This data was combined with qualitative data collected from recordedgroup discussions and analysed thematically.

Participants
The participants in this study were 106 first-year university students taking an English discussion
course at a private Japanese university. All students were taught by the same teacher who is also theresearcher. Of the 106 students asked to participate, 97 students completed the post-course survey.
The students consisted of 11 classes and each class was separated into two discussion groups of fouror five students. This made a total of 22 discussion groups. All students participated in the discussions,however, in four groups one student did not consent to the discussion being recorded. Data fromthese groups is not included which left a total of 18 discussion groups which were recorded andanalyzed. A total of 92 students participated in these group discussions. Comments have been takenfrom the discussion groups and the speakers have been anonymized with numbers based on theorder they spoke in the discussion. Finally, all 106 students agreed to usage statistics from Blackboard
being collected.

Post-Course Sur vey
The post-course survey (see Appendix A) consisted of 18 items designed with a number offactors recommended by Dornyei (2003) taken into consideration such as the length, presentation
and wording of the items. Items 2 to 14 were assessed using a 6-point likert scale. It has beensuggested that Japanese tend to respond neutrally to survey items (Matsuura, Chiba and
Hilderbrandt, 2001; Kimura, Nakata and Okumara, 2001) so it was decided to remove the neutral
option to obtain a clearer indication of students’ attitudes. The survey was translated to Japanese but
also included the original items in English. The translation was checked by three native Japanese
speakers who were also instructors on the course and were therefore well placed to know, not only if
the translation made sense, but also if the students were likely to respond appropriately. A pilot test
was conducted with one group of students, and there were no apparent problems with completion.

Blackboard Usage Statistics
Data was also collected from Blackboard in order to measure how often and for how long
students accessed flipped learning materials. The in-built course reports tool on Blackboard allows
instructors to track the amount of time spent on the course and the number of clicks per student per
week as well as the area of the course students accessed.

Group Discussions
Qualitative data was collected from recorded group discussions at the end of the course. The
group discussions were held in the same style as the regular discussions students participated in

6

Japanese EFL university student attitudes and engagement in a flipped learning course in combination with synchronous online classes

throughout the semester - a 20-minute discussion conducted through Zoom with teacher observation
but no intervention. After allowing the students to discuss the topic at length together, the teacher(also the researcher) asked a few follow-up questions to obtain information not covered in thediscussion. If students had not already discussed details of the time they spend using materials on
blackboard or strategies they employed, the teacher asked, “How long did you usually spend on
Blackboard each week?” and “When you were using the materials on blackboard, did you use any
strategy to help you?” Otherwise, students had a free discussion with no teacher intervention.
Students had already received their final grades, and it was made clear that nothing they said would
affect their grade. Throughout the course, students were also made aware that the content of their
discussions was not graded, and they were free to express any opinions freely. These group
discussions, recorded with student consent, were analyzed using a thematic networks approach(Attridge-Stirling, 2001), and the emerging themes were reflected upon with reference to thequantitative data.

Results
The results have been separated into the following two sections:
1. Student attitudes towards the flipped learning method
2. Actual engagement with the flipped learning method
After analysis of the recorded group discussions, the emerging themes were reflected upon withreference to the survey data and Blackboard usage statistics.

Student attitudes towards the flipped learning method
The first research question aimed to uncover student attitudes towards using a flipped learning
approach in combination with online classes. There were four main themes identified in student
attitudes:
1. Students felt better prepared for classes and perceived improvements in English skills
2. Students valued the increased opportunities for interaction given by flipped learning
3. Students perceived improvements in their self-regulated learning
4. Students felt the flipped method was demanding

Students felt better prepared for classes and perceived improvements in English
skillsTo survey item seven (“I felt more confident to join discussions after using the materials on
Blackboard”) students showed a high level of agreement as shown in Table 2 below

7

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Table 2
Responses to survey item 7 (“I felt more confident to join discussions after using the materials on Blackboard”)
Rank Value

Response

Total Responses

1

Strongly Disagree

0

Mean Response

4.98

2

Disagree2Standard Deviation

0.92

3

Slightly Disagree

34Slightly Agree

21

5

Agree

39

6

Strongly Agree

31

This increased confidence to join the class discussions appeared to come from doing more
preparation before the class which is central to the flipped approach. Feeling better prepared was themost commonly noted advantage of flipped learning in the group discussions with 56 of the 92
students who participated commenting on this. Comments focused on learning discussion skills
through the lesson slides and increasing knowledge about the topic through watching videos,reading, and doing independent research as well as using the forum to learn new ideas fromclassmates. For example:“We can prepare our idea or discussion skills before class, and we can actually use this during class,so this is advantage.” (32)
“Before we have this discussion class, we can share our ideas and I could reconsider my own ideas
by reading your ideas so (the forum) was really good for me.” (52)“I thought by doing all the assignments on Blackboard we would be able to have more fruitful
discussions, we can provide examples from what we see in the video and what we learned about it
so it can be more productive” (84)
The combination of a variety of activities such as videos, the forum and presentations about thediscussion skills before classes appeared to be viewed favorably. Table 3 below shows the responses
to survey item two (“Please indicate how useful each area of Blackboard was for you (1=not useful at
all and 6=very useful)”). All materials which students accessed on Blackboard were perceived to be
useful.
Table 3
Perceived Usefulness of Areas on Blackboard

Area of Blackboard
Announcements
Lessons
VideosReading Quizzes
Forum
My Grades

8

Mean Usefulness
5.4
5.25
5.32
5.17
5.3
5.27

Standard Deviation
0.93
0.87
0.8
0.75
0.89
0.99

Japanese EFL university student attitudes and engagement in a flipped learning course in combination with synchronous online classes

In the group discussions, 27 comments focused on the usefulness of having the materials online
with the possibility of reviewing materials such as,“I think watching videos or posting the forum is better simply because it is more interesting than abook and it is easy to watch videos, so I think online homework is better for us.” (46)
“On the Blackboard we can…we can always see the, you know, material so I could review thosematerial after the class like after one month or after two months but usually if we go to the campus,
I think unless we take a note, we’re gonna lose those material or what we learned in the lesson so I
think it was pretty good way to use Blackboard.” (59)
It seemed to be a benefit of using online materials that they can be accessed not only before
classes but also after classes. Generally, students perceived the use of technology in the flipped
learning method as beneficial to their learning with 23 students commenting on the advantage offlipped learning in improving a wide range of English skills through the use of technology, forexample,“The advantage of this class is improved English skills, not only speaking but also writing andlistening when using the forum or the reading quiz or videos.” (74)
“I think improving English skill is one advantage. For example, reading the textbook improves out
reading skills, watching videos improves our listening skills and speaking in discussion improves
our speaking skills.” (13)In summary, students viewed the method as good preparation for their in-class discussions, andthe range of activities delivered through Blackboard was also perceived to improve a range of English
skills.

Students valued the increased interaction opportunities given by flipped learning
Another major theme to emerge was the desire for interaction with classmates. With classes
being conducted online, students were unable to meet their new classmates. Students appeared toappreciate the additional opportunities for interaction which using the flipped learning method
provided. The highest rate of agreement in the survey was from item number 9 (‘In the zoom session,
most of the time was spent interacting with classmates’) with no students disagreeing with this.
Table 4Student responses to survey item 9 (‘In the zoom session, most of the time was spent interacting with classmates’)
Rank Value
1

Response
Strongly Disagree

Total Responses
0

Mean Response

5.53Standard Deviation

0.61

2

Disagree03Slightly Disagree

04

Slightly Agree

6

5

Agree

34

6

Strongly Agree57

9外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

The use of the flipped learning model allowed the majority of class time to be focused on
student-to-student interaction. In the group discussions reflecting on the course, 33 students
commented positively on the opportunities for interaction. Students appeared to value the change
from presenting new material in class to before class as this freed up time for more interaction, forexample,“By doing flipped learning we can have more time to talk in the class. It makes the atmosphere morerelaxed and friendly. If we do learning with slides in this class, it means that we cannot have muchtime to talk with each other so it helped us.” (68)“This class had many discussion on zoom with classmates but other classes have no interaction withclassmates so I enjoyed this class.” (16)On average, students also indicated agreement with survey item 11 (“I had more chances to interact
with classmates by using Blackboard”) although there was far more disagreement with this item (23students).
Table 5

Responses to survey item 11 (“I had more chances to interact with classmates by using Blackboard”)

Rank Value

Response

Total Responses

1

Strongly Disagree

0

Mean Response

4.13

2

Disagree

12Standard Deviation

1.14

3

Slightly Disagree

114

Slightly Agree

36

5

Agree

28

6

Strongly Agree

10

As shown previously, the majority of the students perceived the forum to be useful and students
commented on this in the group discussions, for example,“I think forum worked really well to get more interaction with classmates.” (58)The higher rate of disagreement with this item is perhaps reflective of the students’ desire formore synchronous interaction. The interaction on Blackboard was asynchronous in forum posts andseemed to be valued less highly than the synchronous Zoom sessions.

Students perceived flipped learning as improving self-regulated learning
There were indications that the flipped method had a positive effect on making students more
active in the learning process and improving their self-regulated learning (SRL). Firstly, students
showed fairly strong agreement with survey item 6 (“Using Blackboard on this course helped me tolearn more actively”) as can be seen in Table 6 below.

10Japanese EFL university student attitudes and engagement in a flipped learning course in combination with synchronous online classes

Table 6
Responses to survey item 6 (“Using Blackboard on this course helped me to learn more actively”)
Rank Value

Response

Total Responses

1

Strongly Disagree

0

Mean Response

4.58

2

Disagree2Standard Deviation

0.93

3

Slightly Disagree

94Slightly Agree

32

5

Agree

39

6

Strongly Agree

15

This suggests that students believed the method gave increased autonomy and control overtheir learning. Students also showed strong agreement with survey item 8 (“I Improved myindependent study skills on this course”)
Table 7
Responses to survey item 8 (“I Improved my independent study skills on this course”)
Rank Value

Response

Total Responses

1

Strongly Disagree

0

Mean Response

4.61

2

Disagree1Standard Deviation

0.88

3

Slightly Disagree

94Slightly Agree

30

5

Agree

42

6

Strongly Agree

14

This appears to indicate that students believed they could successfully deploy task strategies
during the course. A total of 20 different comments were made on topics relating to SRL in the group
discussions. Some example comments are included below which focused on self-regulation andimprovement of task strategies such as time management.
“We can improve time management skill is advantage of flipped learning.” (6)“I think that flipping learning makes us think more by myself so I think flipping learning will makeus improve our thinking so I think it is advantage of flipping learning.” (77)
However, some students lacked confidence in their own strategies, with 15 students making
comments which showed either a lack of actual skills or low self-efficacy.
“We have to manage our time to study before the class so it is difficult for me to do that.” (48)
“I also think that difficult to understand when studying alone is one problem.” (31)There seemed a common belief that while flipped learning might suit some students, others may
struggle with this style of learning. As one student commented,“I think it really depends on how much students are diligent or not.” (72)11

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Overall, whilst some students may have struggled with the added responsibility of the studentcentered, flipped approach, most students felt that their study skills were enhanced, and the majorityof students responded positively to survey item five (“I feel more self-confident in learning English
after this course”) as can be seen in Table 8 below
Table 8
Responses to survey item 5 (“I feel more self-confident in learning English after this course”)
Rank Value

Response

Total Responses

1

Strongly Disagree

0

Mean Response

4.68

2

Disagree1Standard Deviation

0.87

3

Slightly Disagree

64

Slightly Agree

33

5

Agree

40

6

Strongly Agree

17

This would suggest that the course increased self-efficacy among many students. The flipped
method implemented in this course allowed more class time to be dedicated to peer-to-peer reflective
activities after group discussions. Students appeared to find this useful as indicated by responses tosurvey item 10 (“Reflecting on my discussion skills with classmates on zoom helped me to improve”).
As can be seen in Table 10 below, only three of the 97 survey respondents showed any disagreementwith this statement.
Table 9
Responses to survey item 10 (“Reflecting on my discussion skills with classmates on zoom helped me to improve”)
Rank Value

Response

Total Responses

1

Strongly Disagree

0

Mean Response

5.02

2

Disagree1Standard Deviation

0.82

3

Slightly Disagree

2

4Slightly Agree

20

5

Agree

45

6

Strongly Agree29

Had the flipped method not been used then it is unlikely there would have been time for thispeer-to-peer feedback stage of the lesson.

Students felt flipped learning was more demanding
Some students felt that the flipped method was too demanding of students and perhaps moredifficult than traditional methods. A total of 30 students made comments in their discussion about
flipped learning increasing their workload, for example:“Flipped learning spends more time studying about the basic information in the topic before class so
we can say it is hard work.” (81)
A number of these comments related to the increased workload of flipped learning being

12

Japanese EFL university student attitudes and engagement in a flipped learning course in combination with synchronous online classes

exasperated by doing online classes, for example:“I think disadvantage of flipped learning is more work for students and difficult to manage time
because we have many homeworks because of coronavirus. Sometimes it was hard to do many
homeworks before class and we must do homework before class, not after so I can’t submit late afterclass. I think it is difficult.” (30)
It seemed that students were feeling overloaded in other classes which led to the belief thatflipped learning was more work for students, for example:“I think more work for students is the disadvantage because all other classes were online lessons so
there are too many tasks. I was busy with tasks every day, so I want teachers to reduce the amountof tasks next semester.” (78)There seemed to be a perception that online learning in general increased the workload on
students. Additionally, the change to the more student-centered approach of flipped learning may
have led to some students feeling overwhelmed as they may have been accustomed to more passive,
teacher-led instruction during high school.

Actual Engagement with the Flipped Learning Method
The Technology Assessment Model (TAM) has been widely used to predict use of technology(Lee, Kozar, Larsen, 2003) and in the context of EFL in Japan, Dizon (2016) showed Japanese
students’ intention to use technology to assist their EFL learning was influenced by its perceived easeof use and perceived usefulness. As shown, students viewed the materials on Blackboard as generally
useful. In addition, responses to survey item 3 (“Please indicate how difficult or easy each area ofBlackboard was for you to use (1=very difficult and 6=very easy)”) signaled that students found thematerials easy to use as can be seen in Table 10 below.
Table 10Perceived ease of use of Blackboard areas

Area of Blackboard

Mean Ease of Use

Standard Deviation

Announcements

5.6

0.74

Lessons

5.41

0.92

Videos5.45

0.8

Reading Quizzes

5.37

0.89

Forum

5.3

0.88

My Grades

5.39

0.81

Announcements (5.6), videos (5.45) and lesson slides (5.41) were ranked as the easiest to use
areas. To compare this to actual use, data relating to behavioural engagement was gathered throughBlackboard statistics in terms of average time spent on the course and average number of clicks. The
data revealed students spent an average of 4.28 hours per week using Blackboard for this course.
Blackboard will only log students out after three hours meaning students may have been logged in
but not actually active on the platform. In the group discussions, students were asked to estimate how13外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

long they spent using materials on Blackboard each week on average and the majority reported
spending around one or two hours. As very few students reported using Blackboard for as much as
4.28 hours, it seems that this figure was taking into account a large chunk of idle time when students
were not active on the platform.

Time per student(hours)

Figure 1.
Average time spent on Blackboard per student per week
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Semester Week

The average number of clicks was also extracted from Blackboard’s course evaluation tool andshowed an average of 50 clicks per student per week.
Figure 2.
Average number of clicks per student per week on Blackboard
Av.Clicks Per Studebt

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Semester Week

Weekly average time spent and number of clicks on Blackboard decreased, particularly after
week one (Figures 1 and 2). The sharp decline from week one to two may be due to students
familiarizing themselves with the platform in the first week. This might have led to longer time spenton the site and clicking on different areas to see how to use each section. From week two onwards,
there continued to be a steady decline as can be seen in comparing the number of clicks from week
two (69) with week ten (51). This may have been due to increased efficiency as students became
more proficient at navigating the site, but other data extracted revealed some areas of the site inparticular saw a drop in engagement. Students completed reading quizzes, video quizzes andparticipated in the forum on a consistent basis throughout the course. Figure 3 below shows thenumber of students who completed these tasks each week as well as the number of students who
accessed the lesson slides.

14

Japanese EFL university student attitudes and engagement in a flipped learning course in combination with synchronous online classes

Figure 3.
Weekly percentage of students accessing areas of Blackboard
No.of Students Accessing(%)

100
80
60
40
20
0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Semester Week
Reading Quiz

VideosForum

Lesson Slides

Completion of the reading and video quizzes as well as participation in the forum was over 90%
throughout the course and showed no sign of decline. The lesson slides, however, were accessed by
fewer students as the course progressed. The main difference between the lesson slides and thevideos, reading quizzes and forum would appear to be the grading. As was reported, students ranked
the lesson slides as just as useful as other areas such as videos, the forum and reading quizzes.
Additionally, as shown in Table 10 above, the lesson slides were viewed as just as easy to use as theother areas. However, use of this section did not directly affect students’ grades. Scores on thereading quizzes, video quizzes and participation on the forum were all integrated into students’
overall grades. This appeared to facilitate student usage in these areas.

Discussion
This study aimed to assess student attitudes towards flipped learning in combination withsynchronous online classes as well as measure how students accessed learning materials throughBlackboard. Students were generally positive about the method, which aligns with previous researchwhich found positive attitudes towards flipped learning among Japanese EFL students as well as
linguistic improvements (Mehring, 2015; Leis, 2016; Hirschel, 2012; Dizon, 2016). These previous
studies integrated the flipped method in combination with face-to-face classes, but it would appear
many of these benefits persist when combined with synchronous online sessions. The variety ofactivities introduced to students through Blackboard such as videos, quizzes and use of an online
forum were viewed favorably, which confirms previous research showing Japanese EFL students
may be engaged through these type of activities as they are enjoyable and may be used at learners’
own pace (Yamauchi, 2009; Hirschel, 2012; Miyazoe and Anderson, 2010).
The flipped method also encouraged more autonomous learning, and there were indications thatstudents improved their self-regulated learning. Similar benefits in the improvement of SRL skills
have been noted by previous studies utilizing technology in the learning process with Japanese EFL
students (Kondo et. al, 2012) whilst introduction to SRL techniques such as goal setting and selfevaluation have been shown as ways to improve EFL learners’ SRL (Cleary and Zimmerman, 2004;
Tsuda and Nakata, 2013). The flipped method adopted allowed more time to be spent in class onthese reflective activities and less time spent passively listening to the teacher.
In addition, the integration with technology gave more opportunities for interaction via an online
forum and Zoom. The use of such communicative technology may be of particular benefit to Japanese15外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

EFL students who are low in confidence in speaking English. Previous studies have shown online
platforms such as asynchronous forums can improve Japanese EFL students’ willingness tocommunicate and motivation to learn English (Freiermuth and Huang, 2012; Hagley, 2020;
Freiermuth and Jarrell, 2006; Abe and Mashiko, 2019).
Another finding was that students’ use of flipped learning materials declined during the course.
Similar declines in engagement have been noted with flipped learning as courses progress (Heronand Thompson, 2019; Chen, Wang, and Chen, 2014; Abeysekera and Dawson, 2015; Admiraal et al.,2017). In this course, ungraded materials which saw a decline in usage. Kondo et. al (2012) also noteda decline in engagement with a mobile learning device among Japanese EFL students when grades
were no longer directly related to its use. Extrinsic motivation such as test scores and passing
courses has been found to be high in Japanese EFL students, particularly lower-level students(Fukada, 2018; Fukada, 2019; Konno, 2011). This course was mandatory for all students, so it isinevitable there would be some students who are low in motivation. For these students, engagement
may be facilitated by making assignments part of students’ grades as almost all students accessed allof the graded materials throughout the course.

Limitations and Future Research
The study used a fairly small sample size of 106 students and took place over only one semester.
A study over a longer period of time may provide greater insight into the factors that engage students
in online learning environments. The context of the study which took place under COVID-19
restrictions may also have heavily influenced student attitudes so a future study in a post-COVID era
may provide more insight. Further investigation is needed to determine the reason some students
disengaged with materials. It was believed that this was due to the materials not being part of student
grades; however, a further study is needed to investigate how determining a factor grades are forengagement. This study also saw some indications that flipped learning may increase students’ SRL
skills; however, a further study could measure this in more detail with pre and post-tests to determine
to what extent SRL skills are enhanced by flipped learning. Finally, there was no control group in thisstudy. A control group taking the class in a traditional style would allow better insight into the effectsof flipped learning on student attitudes and engagement.

Conclusion
Although there were limitations to this study, it provides some support for the move towards
more student-centered learning environments and the incorporation of technology into EFL in Japan.
Students had largely positive attitudes towards the flipped learning method in combination withsynchronous online classes. In particular, the approach offered a way of maximizing the limited classtime for interaction, which was highly valued. The combination of synchronous and asynchronousinteraction also had benefits. Students perceived improvements in a range of linguistic skills as wellas in their SRL skills and showed high engagement in the method with almost all students using theonline forum, videos and quizzes every week to prepare for their discussions. However, a decline inengagement was seen with lesson slides which presented new discussion skills to students online. In
addition to this decline in engagement, some students found the method more demanding, whichsuggests it may be important to assess learners’ readiness for online learning before its
implementation. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many institutions have been forced

16

Japanese EFL university student attitudes and engagement in a flipped learning course in combination with synchronous online classes

online at short notice; however, in this situation including as many interactive activities as possible
would appear to mitigate some of the problems of online learning.

References
Abeysekera, L., and Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom:
Definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research and Development, 34(1),1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934336
Admiraal, W., van Vugt, F., Kranenburg, F., Koster, B., Smit, B., Weijers, S., and Lockhorst, D. (2017).
Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology into K-12 instruction: Evaluation of atechnology-infused approach. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(1), 105–120. https://doi.
org/10.1080/1475939X.2016.1163283
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001) Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative
Research, 1 (3), pp. 385-405. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F146879410100100307
Chen, Y., Wang, Y., and Chen, N. S. (2014). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model
instead? Computers and Education, 79, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.004
Chen Hsieh, J. S., Wu, W.-C. V., and Marek, M. W. (2017). Using the flipped classroom to enhance
EFL learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1–2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09588 221.2015.1111910
Cleary, T. and Zimmerman, B. (2004). Self-Regulation Empowerment Program: A school-based
program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in
the Schools. 41. 537 - 550. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10177
Dizon, G. (2016). Measuring Japanese EFL Student Perceptions of Internet-Based Tests with theTechnology Acceptance Model. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 20(2),1-17. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1113906
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration, andProcessing, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. http://www.drronmartinez.
com/uploads/4/4/8/2/44820161/dornyei_questionnaires_2003.pdf
Duncan, K., Kenworthy, A. and McNamara, R. (2012). The Effect of Synchronous and Asynchronous
Participation on Students’ Performance in Online Accounting Courses, Accounting Education,
21:4, 431-449. doi 10.1080/09639284.2012.673387
Freiermuth, M. R., and Huang, H. (2012). Bringing Japan and Taiwan closer electronically: A look at
an intercultural online synchronic chat task and its effect on motivation. Language Teaching
Research, 16(1), 61–88. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1362168811423341
Freiermuth, M. and Jarrell, D. (2006) Willingness to Communicate: Can On-Line Chat Help?
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 162, 190-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2
006.00113.x
Fukuda, A. (2018). Examining the relationship between self-regulated learning and EFL learners’
proficiency. Intercultural Communication Review, 16, 17-31. https://rikkyo.repo.nii.ac.jp/?act
ion=pages_view_mainandactive_action=repositor y_view_main_item_detailanditem_
id=15919anditem_ no=1andpage_id=13andblock_id=49
Fukuda, A. (2019). What Less-Proficient EFL Learners Tell Us about Their Language Learning:
Qualitative Analysis of Self-Regulated Learning. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied
Linguistics, 23(1), 103-126. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1224176.pdf
Garrison, D. R. and Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended Learning in Higher Education. San Francisco:17

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Jossey-Bass
Grgurovic, M. (2017). Blended language learning: Research and practice. In Chapelle, C. and Sauro,S. (Eds.). Handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning. Wiley-Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118914069.ch11
Hagley, E. (2020). Effects of Virtual Exchange in the EFL classroom on Students’ Cultural andIntercultural Sensitivity, Computer-Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal, 21(3),74-87. http://callej.org/journal/21-3/Hagley2020.pdf
Harumi, S. (2011). Classroom silence: Voices from Japanese EFL learners. ETL Journal, 65, 260-269.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq046
Heron, M. and Thompson, H. (2019) How do Trainee Teachers Engage with a Flipped Learning
Approach?, Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35:2, 92-106. https://doi.org/10.
1080/21532974.2019.1568326
Hirschel, R. (2012). Moodle: Students’ perspectives on forums, glossaries and quizzes. The JALTCALL Journal. 8. 95-112. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v8n2.136
Hung, H.-T. (2017). Design-based research: Redesign of an English language course using a flippedclassroom approach. TESOL Quarterly, 51(1), 180–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.328
Ito, H. and Kawazoe, N. (2015). Active Learning for Creating Innovators: Employability Skills beyond
Industrial Needs. International Journal of Higher Education. 4. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.
v4n2p81.
Kimura, Y., Nakata, Y., and Okumura. T. (2001). Language learning motivation of EFL learners inJapan: A cross-sectional analysis of various learning milieus. JALT Journal, 23(1), 48-67.
https://jalt-publications.org/files/pdf-article/jj-23.1-art3.pdf
Kondo, M., Ishikawa, S., Smith, C., Sakamoto, K., Shimomura, H and Wada, N. (2012) Mobile
Assisted Language Learning in university EFL courses in Japan: developing attitudes and skills
for self-regulated learning. European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning,24(2): 169–187. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344012000055
Konno, K. (2011). The Relationship Between L2 Selves, Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation and MotivatedBehavior of Japanese EFL Learners. ARELE: Annual Review of English Language Education in
Japan, 22, 345.
Leis, A. (2016). Flipped Learning and EFL Proficiency: An Empirical Study. TELES Journal. 36. 77-90.
https://www.academia.edu/25820758/Flipped_Lear ning_and_EFL_Proficiency_An_
Empirical_Study
Mack, L. (2012). Does every student have a voice? Critical action research on equitable classroom
participation practices. Language Teaching Research, 16(3), 417-434. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F
1362168812436922
Matsuura, H., Chiba, R., and Hilderbrandt, P. (2001). Beliefs about learning and teachingcommunicative English in Japan. JALT Journal, 23(1), 70-89. https://jalt-publications.org/
files/pdf-article/ jj-23.1-art4.pdf
Matsushita, K., (2018), An invitation to deep active learning. In Matsushita, K. (ed.) Deep Active
Learning: Toward Greater Depth in University Education. Singapore: Springer Nature. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811056598
McBrien, J., Rui, C. and Jones, P. (2009). Virtual Spaces: Employing a Synchronous Online Classroom
to Facilitate Student Engagement in Online Learning. International Review of Research in Openand Distance Learning. 10. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.605
Mehran, P., Alizadeh, M., Koguchi, I., and Takemura, H. (2017). Are Japanese digital natives ready18

Japanese EFL university student attitudes and engagement in a flipped learning course in combination with synchronous online classes

for learning English online? A preliminary case study at Osaka University. International
Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 1-17. https://
educationaltechnologyjournal. springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41239-017-0047-0
Mehring, J. G. (2015). An exploratory study of the lived experiences of Japanese undergraduate EFL
students in the flipped classroom. (Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University). https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/etd/526/
Mehring, J., Leis, A. (Eds.). (2018). Innovations in flipping the language classroom: Theories andpractices. New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Google Scholar
Miyazoe, T., and Anderson, T. (2010). Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions of online writing:
Simultaneous implementation of a forum, blog, and wiki in an EFL blended learning setting.
System, 38(2), 185-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.03.006
Ni, A. Y. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of classroom and online learning: Teaching researchmethods. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 199-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523680
3.2013.12001730
Osterman, G. L. (2014). Experiences of Japanese university students’ willingness to speak English inclass. SAGE Open, 4(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2158244014543779
Siemens, G., Gašević, D., and Dawson, S. (2015). Preparing for the digital university: A review of thehistory and current state of distance, blended, and online learning. http://linkresearchlab.
org/PreparingDigitalUniversity.pdf
Takeuchi, O. (2008) Metacognition to eigogakusyu [Metacognition and EFL teaching]. In: Kotera, S.
and Yoshida, H. (eds.), Specilist ni yoru eigokyouiku no riron to ouyou [EFL theories andpractices by SLA specialists]. Tokyo: Shohakusha, 79–92. https://www.kansai-u.ac.jp/fl/
publication/pdf_department/08/115ikeda.pdf
Thornton, P. and Houser, C. (2005) Using mobile phones in English education in Japan. Journal ofComputer Assisted Learning, 21: 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00129.x
TOEFL Equivalency Table. (2020, August 25). Retrieved from URL: https://www.englishcollege.pl/user files/file/TOEFL%20Equivalency%20Table%20-%20TOEIC,%20TOEFL,%20IELTS%20
Score%20Comparison%20Chart.pdf
Turan, Z., and Akdag-Cimen, B. (2019). Flipped classroom in English language teaching: A systematic
review. Computer Assisted Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1584
117
Tsuda, A. and Nakata, Y. (2013). Exploring Self-Regulation in Language Learning: A Study ofJapanese High School EFL Students. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7 (1),72-88. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1088692
Vitta, J. and Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2020). The flipped classroom in second language learning: A metaanalysis. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820981403
Yamauchi, M. (2009). Integrating internet technology into the EFL classroom: A case study.
International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 5(2), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.5172/ijpl.5.2.3
Yashima, T. (2000) Orientations and motivations in foreign language learning: A study of Japanesecollege students. JACET Bulletin, 31, 121-133. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110003726709

19

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Appendix A
Post Course Sur vey Questions
1. By doing the materials on Blackboard, what English skills could you improve? (Tick all that apply)ブラックボード上の教材を活用することで向上した英語スキルは次の内どれですか？（当てはまるものを全てチェックしてください。
）
Speaking
Reading
Discussion Skills

Listening
Writing
Communication Skills
Vocabulary

2. Please indicate how useful each area of Blackboard was for you (1=not useful at all and 6=very
useful)ブラックボードの各セクションがどの程度役に立ったかレベル 1 からレベル 6 で回答ください。（レベル 1：全く役に立たなかった～レベル 6 とても役に立った）
1. Not at all
2. Not useful/ 3. Not very
4. A little
5. Useful/役
useful/全く役 役に立たなか useful/あまり役 useful/少し役 に立ったに立たなかった ったに立たなかった に立った

6. Very
useful/とても
役に立った

Announcements/
お知らせ
Lessons
VideosReading Quizzes
Forum
My Grades/成績表(学生用)

3. Please indicate how difficult or easy each area of Blackboard was for you to use (1=very difficultand 6=very easy) ブラックボードのそれぞれのセクションがどの程度使用しやすかったか答えてください。
1. Very
2. Difficult /difficult/とて 使用しづらかも使用しづら った
かった
Announcements/
お知らせ
Lessons
VideosReading Quizzes
Forum
My Grades/成績表(学生用)

20

3, A little
4. Quite easy/ 5. Easy/使用 6. Very easy/difficult/少し 少し使用しや しやすかった とても使用し使用しづらか すかった
やすかった
った

Japanese EFL university student attitudes and engagement in a flipped learning course in combination with synchronous online classes

4. I feel more self-confident in learning English after this course.
このコース修了後、英語を学ぶことに対して自信がついたと思う。
5. Using Blackboard on this course helped me to learn more actively
本コースでブラックボードを使ったことで、よりアクティブに勉強することができた。
6. I felt more confident to join discussions after using the materials on Blackboard.
ブラックボード上の教材を授業前に使用したことで、ディスカッションに参加する自信がついたと思う。
7. I improved my independent study skills on this course.
本コースを通して、自己学習スキルが向上した。
8. In the zoom session, most of the time was spent interacting with classmates.
Zoom セッションでは、大半の時間がクラスメートと意見交換する時間に充てられていた。
9. Reflecting on my discussion skills with classmates on zoom helped me to improve.
Zoom でクラスメートとディスカッションスキルについて振り返りをしたことは、自分自身のスキル向上に役立った。
10. I had more chances to interact with classmates by using Blackboard.
ブラックボードを使うことでクラスメートと交流する機会が増えた。
11. I felt I could communicate with the teacher through Blackboard if I had any problems.
何か問題があった際に、ブラックボードを通して講師とコミュニケーションを取れると感じた。
12. Receiving feedback on Blackboard helped me to improve my discussion skills.
ブラックボード上でフィードバックをもらったことは、ディスカッションスキルの向上に役立った。
13. I felt less nervous about speaking English on zoom than face-to-face.
対面より、ズーム上で英語を話す方が緊張しないと感じた。
14. It was easier to communicate on zoom than face-to-face.
対面より、ズーム上の方がコミュニケーションがとりやすいと感じた。
15. Are you male or female? あなたの性別を選択してください。
16. What level were you on the discussion course?
本コースにおけるあなたのクラスのレベルを選択してください。
17. What was your score on the TOEIC or CASEC test before this course?
本コースに受講前の TOEIC もしくは CASEC の点数を教えてください。
18. What is your major? あなたの専攻は何ですか？

21

【Research Article】

Impact of Group Cohesion on Anxiety and Online Task
Performance: A Correlational Exploratory Analysis
Deborah Maxfield
Abstract
This exploratory research examines impacts of the use of teams in online Debate and Presentation courses. Prior
research from both psychological and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) perspectives has theorized relationships
between group cohesion, task performance, and anxiety. Forming cohesive groups can affect social identity (Turner
et al, 1979), self-esteem (Cast & Burke, 2002), and anxiety (Lee & Robbins, 1998), as well as foster motivation in asecond language (L2) learning environment (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003), but these elements may be affected bylearning in an online context. A 26-item questionnaire gathered quantitative data regarding student experiences with
online small group learning, including perceptions of group cohesion and efficacy, and the impacts of these on socialand L2 anxiety. Results indicated that cohesive groups with a positive social climate benefitted in terms of task
achievement and reduced L2 anxiety across differing proficiency levels. Correlational analysis revealed strong
relationships between the effects of teams on affective concerns and L2 use, which suggests that working withcohesive teams may foster motivation by improving students’ learning experience (Dörnyei, 2009). Based on thesefindings, suggestions for future study and recommendations for improving outcomes in future courses will be
discussed.
Keywords: L2 anxiety, group cohesion, teamwork, group norms, L2 online learning

INTRODUCTION
Theoretical Background
In an effort to improve English communication skills at universities across Japan, the Ministryof Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) has long encouraged the use of acommunicative language teaching (CLT) approach within EFL classes (Tahira, 2012; Yoshihara et al.,2020). As part of many CLT-based courses, students need to participate in interactive tasks, during
which social group dynamics can impact successful task performance (Poupore, 2013). In the case ofgroup-based tasks, one measure that can mediate success is the level of “group cohesion”, or unity,of a group, which is a measure of its members’ commitment to the group and of how comfortable
they feel together (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003).
Group cohesion can be challenging to define due to the diverse nature of the various groupmemberships that together form our sense of social identity (Tajfel & Turner,1985), from one’s partin family and social groups, to one’s sense of national identity. Meta-analysis of psychological research
into group cohesion (Cota et al., 1995) found it to be a dynamic process that is mediated by thetendency to remain united while pursuing group goals, which is in part bounded by the values andbehaviours of its group members towards their task or goal, and in part by its members’ resistanceto any disruption in achieving their aims (p. 577). A further meta-analysis investigated the relationshipbetween the cohesiveness and performance or productivity of a group (Evans & Dion, 1991), finding
a positive and stable correlation between these across various studies into different types of groups

22

IMPACT OF GROUP COHESION ON ANXIETY AND ONLINE TASK PERFORMANCE: A CORRELATIONAL EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS(e.g., research participants, sports teams, or business organizations). Evans and Dion (1991)
concluded that although other factors will certainly influence performance, such as the metrics bywhich success is measured, cohesion has reliably proven to be essential for groups to succeed ontasks or otherwise attain good performance. Other research within psychology has found that feelingone is part of a cohesive ingroup can increase self-esteem through a shared sense of pride in groupmembership (Turner & Tajfel,1979) and reduce anxiety (Lee & Robbins,1998). Group cohesion is ofparticular importance within Japan, due in part to lasting cultural influence from Confucian values ofharmony and obedience (Trommsdorff & Iwawaki, 1989). Henrich et al.’s (2010) landmark metaanalysis on psychological differences between various societies found that East Asians tend to view
themselves in terms of roles and relationships with others and generally possess greater motivations
to conform to group norms (p. 71). The emphasis on socialization and group identity begins at an
early age, in which “children learn that they are part of a group and that without the group identity
they do not exist” (Sugihara & Katsurada, 2002, p. 450).
Emotions such as anxiety are modulated by the amygdala, a region of the brain responsible forresponding to emotional stimuli, particularly to anything perceived as threatening or a source of
danger (Toates, 2011). Reducing anxiety may have beneficial effects on task performance, particularly
within educational settings, due to the amygdala’s effect on long-term memory (McGaugh et al,1996), as successful recall of information tends to be adversely affected by strong emotional statesaccompanying the target recall stimuli (Koster et al., 2005). Tasks are processed within working
memory, a set of cognitive systems termed ‘executive functions’ (Miyake et al., 2000) that control
what information is currently held in an activated state by switching between ‘updating’ currently
necessary information for the task, and ‘inhibition’, or removal of irrelevant information and stimuli(Friedman & Miyake, 2004). Anxiety and other negative emotional states, such as depression, reduce
the effectiveness of the inhibition function (Joorman, 2006). If the ability to ignore irrelevant
information and focus on a given task is worsened, then working memory capacity (the amount of
information that can simultaneously be processed, recalled or activated) is reduced (Derakshan &Eysenck, 2010). Thus, from a psychological standpoint, working within a cohesive group increases
self-esteem, reduces anxiety, benefits task performance, and may improve memory, all of which
could be beneficial to students within an L2 learning environment.
Anxiety and group cohesion have also been investigated within the EFL literature. Anxiety tends
to be defined as ‘trait anxiety’, how likely one is to feel anxious in any situation, or ‘state anxiety’, thelikelihood of feeling anxious in a particular situation (Ueki & Takeuchi, 2012), such as when speaking
a foreign language, often termed ‘L2 anxiety’. Cohesive groups can alleviate both L2 anxiety andsocial anxiety, benefitting L2 learners as anxiety reduces not only their self-confidence and willingness
to communicate in an L2 (MacIntyre et al., 1998) but also how effectively they can process or produce
it (Poupore, 2013). Cohesion also affects learner motivation; in Clement et al.’s (1994) Foreign
Language Behaviour and Competence model, group cohesion correlated with positive evaluations of
the learning environment (such as peer group and teachers), forming a key area of motivation
separate from the learner’s own integrative motivation. This suggests that working with a cohesiveand highly motivated group could help to foster motivation even in less-motivated learners. Ushioda(2003) argued that supportive interpersonal relations from a peer group and a positive learning
environment are necessary for fostering motivation in Japanese students, and similar observations
on the importance of group cohesion for motivation have been made in other East Asian L2 learning
environments such as Taiwan (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003) and South Korea (Poupore, 2013).
Moreover, the social norms or values of a group can have a direct impact on classroom atmosphere23

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

in an L2 learning environment, with implications for student participation and motivation (Maxfield,
2020; Peragine 2019).

The Current Study
In 2014, MEXT announced plans to improve English-language fluency and communicative ability
through its English Education Reform Plan, which recommended that universities conduct classes inEnglish and focus on ‘higher language skills’, including presentations, debates, and negotiations(MacWhinnie & Mitchell, 2017). These governmental guidelines were followed at Rikkyo University
in Tokyo, in which lecturers were asked to teach two new courses, Debate and Presentation, startingfrom 2020. What had not been foreseen was the spread of Covid-19, and the subsequent governmental
request for universities to switch to an emergency online method of learning. As a result, in the 2020
Fall semester, both Debate and Presentation courses were taught via Zoom, an online videoconferencing platform.
Both were required semester-length courses for freshman students that met weekly for a total of
14 weeks, with around 20 students in each class. Based on previous psychological and EFL researchon the potential benefits of cohesive groups for reducing anxiety and improving L2 learning outcomes(Clement et al., 1994; MacIntyre et al., 1998; Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003; Poupore, 2013), students
were assigned to work in regular groups (hereafter termed ‘teams’) of around five students. Eachteam worked together for large parts of weekly lessons over the course of three to four weeks, withthe expectation that remaining in the same teams would encourage peer support and bonding
between students and thereby both reduce anxiety and foster motivation.
At the end of these courses, students were surveyed about their experiences of working inteams, with questions on their perceptions of group dynamics (or ‘social climate’, as defined by
Poupore, 2013), group cohesion and efficacy, and impacts on social and L2 anxiety. Exploratory
research questions aimed to investigate:
1. Whether the use of an online method of learning affected L2 anxiety and/or social anxiety
2. Whether the use of teams allowed students to form cohesive groups
3. Whether working in teams affected students’ L2 anxiety and/or social anxiety
One element that was particularly of interest was whether there are advantageous aspects ofusing teams that could be incorporated into future face-to-face and/or online classes. Comparisonswere also drawn on whether students in higher or lower proficiency levels (Level 2 or 3 respectively)
reported differing anxiety levels, experiences of learning English online, or experiences of working
with familiar groups. Noels (2013) concluded that the two factors necessary for engendering
motivation were competence (the learner’s ability to complete a task) and relatedness, defined as “asense of security and connection” (p. 20) between the learner and others. Although higher-level
students may have greater L2 competence, similar levels of motivation may be observed if lower-levelclasses compensated for the effects of reduced competence by developing greater groupcohesiveness. Previous observations conducted by the researcher indicated that building rapport
within the class increased peer assistance with unknown L2 vocabulary items and improved
participation in group discussions (Maxfield, 2019). Hence, prior to data collection, it was
hypothesized that differences might be noted between class level, such that:• Level 3 students would report greater L2 anxiety than those in Level 2

24

IMPACT OF GROUP COHESION ON ANXIETY AND ONLINE TASK PERFORMANCE: A CORRELATIONAL EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS• Level 3 students would report greater cohesiveness than those in Level 2.

METHODAt the end of the 2020 Fall semester, a total of 98 students enrolled in Debate (N = 55) and
Presentation (N = 43) classes responded to an online questionnaire on their affective and social
experiences of online learning. Questions were translated into the students’ L1, Japanese, to minimize
potential misunderstandings.
Most questions were multiple choice items utilizing a six-item Likert scale. Likert responses
were converted into numeric data (strongly disagree = 1, slightly disagree = 2… strongly agree = 6) for
statistical analysis in SPSS to find overall trends including mean, standard deviation, Pearson’s r
correlations between items, and quantify comparisons between student proficiency levels (Level 2 or
3). Negatively worded questions (such as “I did not feel comfortable talking with teammates” werereverse-coded in SPSS to maintain comparability between positively and negatively worded items.
Questions relating to the three different hypotheses under investigation were randomly ordered,for which some questions employed different wording of the same concept to maximize reliability. A
further question type required students to select one to three words from a list of options that best
described their overall affective state whilst working with their teams, and in the class in general. It
was hoped that these questions could help to summarize general attitudes or cover aspects of student
experience missed by the multiple-choice questions.

RESULTS
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Overall Data, Mean Responses by Class Level, and Differences in Means Between Levels
Expressed as a Percentage (Mean Diff.)
Overall Data
Question Item%
agreement

Mean

Speaking English online is easierthan speaking English face-to-face

69.4%

I felt more anxious when speaking
English online than speaking English
face-to-faceComparisons by Class Level
SD

Level 2
Mean

Level 3Mean

Mean diff.

4.01

1.36

3.84

4.05

5%

49.5%

3.47

1.26

3.16

3.55

11%

I felt anxious about talking toclassmates online before I started
this class

71.1%

4.30

1.39

4.00

4.37

9%

After studying in this class, it wasless scary than I had expected

85.7%

4.47

1.03

4.53

4.46

-2%

I often feel anxious in face-to-faceconversations

63.3%

3.82

1.30

3.37

3.92

14%

I feel less anxious about studying
English online after taking this class

85.7%

4.31

1.07

4.16

4.34

4%

It was easy to make friends with my
teams

77.6%

4.30

1.25

4.11

4.34

5%

Working with a team helped me inthis class

93.9%

5.10

0.92

5.11

5.10

0%

I enjoyed working with my teams

91.9%

4.99

0.96

4.84

5.03

4%

25

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

There was good teamwork in ALL of
my teams

91.9%

4.90

0.98

4.84

4.91

1%

Talking with my teammates helped
me to feel less anxious in class

91.9%

4.96

0.98

5.05

4.94

-2%

I felt relaxed when speaking English
with my teammates

75.5%

4.42

1.08

4.63

4.37

-6%

I felt more relaxed when speaking
English with my teammates thanother students in class

69.4%

4.41

1.21

4.42

4.41

0%

Talking with teammates online wasmore relaxing than I expected

82.7%

4.70

1.06

4.79

4.68

-2%

Working with a team helped me tospeak English

55.6%

4.82

0.94

4.74

4.85

2%

I felt relaxed with my teammates

91.8%

4.90

0.96

4.95

4.88

-1%

R: I did not like working with thesame people over several lessons

26.8%

-2.75

1.40

-2.63

-2.78

5%

R: It was difficult to talk with my
team

22.4%

-2.46

1.37

-2.37

-2.48

5%

R: My teammates rarely / neverhelped me

20.4%

-2.20

1.62

-1.84

-2.29

20%

R: Sometimes my teams did not work
well together

24.7%

-2.69

1.35

-2.78

-2.67

-4%

R: I did not feel comfortable talking
with teammates

32.0%

-3.01

1.20

-2.89

-3.04

5%

R: I did not feel comfortable using
English with teammates

32.0%

-3.01

1.20

-2.89

-3.04

5%

Group Mean – positive items

4.49

4.41

4.51

Group Mean - negative items

-2.69

-2.57

-2.72

Table 2
Pearson’s r Correlations Between Questionnaire Items (Negative)
R: My
R: It was difficult
teammates
to talk with myrarely / neverteamhelped me
R: I did not liker
working with thesame people overSigseveral lessons
R: It wasdifficult to talkwith my team
R: My
teammates
rarely / neverhelped me
R: Sometimes
my teams did
not work welltogether26r

R: Sometimes
my teams did
not work welltogether

R: I did not feel
comfortable
talking withteammates

R: I did not feel
comfortableusing English
with teammates.305**.331**.453**

.227*

.227*

.002

.001

.001

.026

.026

1

.436**.459**.453**.453**

.001

.001

.001

.001

1

.285**.340**.340**

.005

.001

.001

1

.368**.368**

.001

.001

Sig
r

-

Sig

-

r

-

-

Sig

-

-

IMPACT OF GROUP COHESION ON ANXIETY AND ONLINE TASK PERFORMANCE: A CORRELATIONAL EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS

R: I did not feel
comfortable
talking withteammates

r

-

-

-

Sig

-

-

-

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

1.998**.001**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 3
Pearson’s r Correlations Between Questionnaire Items (Positive)
It waseasy tomakefriends
with my
teams
After
r
studying inthis class, it
was lessscary than Sig
expected
It was easyr
to makefriends withSig
my teams
Workingrwith a teamhelped me
Sigin this class
I enjoyed
workingwith myteams
There wasgood
teamworkin ALL of
my teams
I feltrelaxedwhen
speaking
Englishwithteammates
Talkingwithteammates
online wasmorerelaxing
than I
expected

Workingwith aI enjoyed
teamworking
helped me with myin this
teams
class

I feltThere was relaxed
when
good
teamwork speaking
in ALL of English
my teams withteammates

Talkingwithteammates
online wasmorerelaxing
than I
expected

Working
I feltwith arelaxedteam
helped me with myteammatesto speakEnglish

.099

.133

.173

.099

.294**.490**.292**.280**

.331

.190

.089

.330

.003

.001

.004

.005

1

.400**.535**.361**.439**.386**.213*.293**

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.036

.004

1

.699**.592**.348**.369**.605**.689**

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

1

.669**.561**.455**.558**.574**

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

1

.361**.339**.437**.574**

.001

.001

.001

.001

1

.559**.442**.442**

.001

.001

.001

1

.516**.512**

.001

.001

-

r

-

-

Sig

-

-

r

-

-

-

Sig

-

-

-

r

-

-

-

-

Sig

-

-

-

-

r

-

-

-

-

-

Sig

-

-

-

-

-

27

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Workingrwith a teamhelped me
to speakSig
English

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

1.702**.001**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Results shown as p = .000 have been rounded up to p = .001).

Word Choice Data
While most items on the questionnaire utilized a six-item Likert scale, students were also asked
to respond to the questions “Which words best match your experience in class?” and “Which words
best match your experience with teams?” by choosing up to three words from a list. This was offered
as a way for students to rapidly summarize their general attitude or isolate common emotions felt ineach condition, whether in class as a whole, or whilst working with their team. The possible answer
options were “fun, friendly, happy, relaxed, calm, scary, silent, bored, anxious”, with a total of 284
words being selected in response to “Which words best match your experience in class?” and 290
used to answer “Which words best match your experience with teams?”.
Figure 1.
Word Choice Data: How Students Described Experiences ‘In Class’ or ‘In Teams’
90
80

83

70

79

77
68

60
50

52
46

40
30

34

30

26

20

20
10

14

0
fun

happy

friendlyrelaxedIn Class(N=284)

9

calm

13

7

scary

4

12

silentanxious

In Teams(N=290)

DISCUSSION
Overall Findings
On the whole, results suggest that the majority of students found working with a team helpful
and enjoyable during the course, with 93.9% of students agreeing that “working with a team helped

28

IMPACT OF GROUP COHESION ON ANXIETY AND ONLINE TASK PERFORMANCE: A CORRELATIONAL EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS

me in this class” and 91.9% agreeing that “I enjoyed working with my teams”. Thus, it seems likelythat students regarded their teamwork to have facilitated task performance and that the majority
experienced a positive social climate through the formation of cohesive groups.
Although many students reported that “I felt anxious about talking to classmates online before I
started this class” (71.1%), it appears that afterwards a high proportion reported feeling less anxiety
than they had predicted, as 85.7% agreed that “after studying in this class, it was less scary than I had
expected”. A majority believed that “speaking English online is easier than speaking English face-toface” (69.4%), but there was no clear consensus on how L2 anxiety was affected by online learning,as around half (49.5%) agreed that “I felt more anxious when speaking English online than speaking
English face-to-face”. Taken together, these results imply that although most students found using an
L2 online slightly easier than they did face-to-face, studying online did not greatly affect L2 anxiety.
Some students still felt L2 anxiety by the end of the course, with 32% agreeing that “I did not feel
comfortable using English with teammates”, suggesting that the use of teams did not greatly mitigate
L2 anxiety for all students. A minority also reported feeling social anxiety even with their teams,
agreeing with statements such as “I did not feel comfortable talking with teammates” (32%) or “it wasdifficult to talk with my team” (22.4%). However, it should be noted that the majority of students
disagreed with these sentiments. As 93.9% of students felt that “working with a team helped me” and91.9% had “enjoyed working with teams”, it seems that even some of the students who felt
uncomfortable with their team still recognised that they had benefitted from the experience.

Correlational Analysis – Negative items
A correlational analysis was also conducted to uncover further relationships between
questionnaire items (Table 2). Pearson’s r correlations were determined via SPSS and wereinterpreted using Dancey and Reidy’s (2007) recommended classifications for psychology or social
sciences, in which correlations can be termed perfect (r = 1), strong (r = .7 – .9), moderate (r = .4 –.6), weak (r = .1 - .3), and zero (r = 0).
The strongest relationship found was r = 1.00 (perfect) between “I did not feel comfortable
talking with teammates” and “I did not feel comfortable using English with teammates”. All
respondents had provided matching answers to both questions, strongly suggesting that social andL2 anxiety may have compounded each other in teams with a poor social climate, whereas cohesive
teams reduced both types of anxiety. Both of these questionnaire items also correlated moderately
with “it was difficult to talk with my team” at r = .45. This would fit with previous findings indicatingthat L2 anxiety significantly impacts social climate, as “learners with high L2 anxiety produced lesslanguage and contributed less to creating a positive group work climate” (Poupore, 2013, p. 114).
Moderate correlations were found between “it was difficult to talk with my team” and othernegatively coded items, such as “sometimes my teams did not work well together” (r = .46) or “myteammates rarely / never helped me” (r = .44). This suggests that feeling comfortable with a teamwas the most basic requirement, without which further social benefits, such as reducing L2 anxiety
or providing peer-to-peer assistance, could not occur.
However, these values do not mean that general student experience of teams was poor, as therelatively low mean values of the negatively-coded items (-2.02 to -3.01) indicate that the majority ofstudents tended to disagree with these statements. For instance, 75.3% of students disagreed with thestatement that “sometimes my teams did not work well together”, and 79.6% of students did not
believe that “my teammates rarely / never helped me”.

29

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Correlational Analysis – Positive items
Conversely, a strong correlation was found between “working with a team helped me to speak
English” and “I felt relaxed with my teammates” (r = .70), implying students felt that a comfortablesocial climate had a major impact on L2 use (Table 3). This could have been either that students weremore willing to communicate in cohesive groups or that teammates were more likely to offer L2
assistance within cohesive groups. Another strong correlation was found between “working with ateam helped me in this class” and “I enjoyed working with my teams” (r = 0.70), which was mirroredin the high mean (5.1 and 5.0) scores on both items.
Moderate correlations were also found between “working with a team helped me in this class” /“I felt relaxed with my teammates” (r = .69) and “I enjoyed working with my teams” / “I felt relaxedwith my teammates” (r = .57). These suggest that a relaxed and enjoyable social climate, such as canbe found in a cohesive group, was related to successful task performance. If accurate, this conclusion
would fit with existing literature on the importance of cohesion for motivation and successful task
performance (Evans & Dion, 1991). Students’ general agreement that “there was good teamwork in
all of my teams” is evidenced by its high mean (4.9) and by the correlation with “working with a teamhelped me in this class” (r = .59). This indicates that productive teamwork was seen by students as
an essential part of effective learning in these courses, as well as a major part of whether they
enjoyed the task, as “good teamwork” correlated quite strongly with “I enjoyed working with myteams” at r = .67.
Although many students had agreed that “talking with my teammates helped me to feel lessanxious in class” (M = 5.0), it produced only low to moderate correlations with other items such as“working with a team helped me in this class’’ (r = .42) and “I enjoyed working with my teams” (r =.36). It is possible that students may have interpreted “talking” in this question as meaning ‘chatting
about task-irrelevant topics’ and therefore did not relate this to “working”.
In relation to the research questions,
1. Whether the use of an online method of learning affected L2 anxiety and/or social anxiety
2. Whether the use of teams allowed students to form cohesive groups
3. Whether working in teams affected students’ L2 anxiety and/or social anxiety
the correlational data indicates that the use of teams had allowed students to bond with others andform cohesive groups and, to a lesser extent, had some positive effects on L2 and social anxiety.
However, no strong or moderate correlations were found between items relating to an online methodof learning and L2 or social anxiety, suggesting that students’ perceptions of anxiety were neither
positively nor negatively affected in any significant way by a switch to online learning.

By Class Level
o
o
o
o

30

In comparison with Level 3 students, Level 2 students tended to experience:
6% less L2 anxiety with teams (I felt relaxed when speaking English with my teammates)
2% less social anxiety with teams (Talking with my teammates helped me to feel lessanxious in class)
2% less anxiety than expected (After studying in this class, it was less scarythan I had expected)
1% better team performance (There was good teamwork in ALL of my teams).

IMPACT OF GROUP COHESION ON ANXIETY AND ONLINE TASK PERFORMANCE: A CORRELATIONAL EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS

o
o
o
o

Compared with Level 2 students, Level 3 students experienced:
20% less assistance from teams (My teammates rarely / never helped me)
14% higher social anxiety (I often feel anxious in face-to-face conversations)
11% higher L2 anxiety online (I felt more anxious when speaking English online thanspeaking English face-to-face)
9% higher social anxiety pre-class (I felt anxious about talking to classmates online
before I started this class)

Although original hypotheses had predicted that
• Level 3 students would report greater L2 anxiety than those in Level 2• Level 3 students would report greater cohesiveness than those in Level 2,
responses when split by class level generally differed to a fairly minor degree. The largest percentage
difference found was 20% (My teammates rarely / never helped me), while several items differed byonly 5% or less.
It would appear that Level 3 students had felt higher L2 anxiety in an online environment andhigher social anxiety, both in general and in anticipation of the course. Therefore, the hypothesis that
‘Level 3 students would feel greater L2 anxiety than those in Level 2’ appears to have been somewhat
accurate.
Level 2 students reported significantly better team performance, as well as somewhat reduced
L2 and social anxiety when working with their teammates, than Level 3 students. This could be
related to the higher levels of L2 anxiety felt by Level 3 students: Poupore (2013) reported asignificant relationship between L2 anxiety and learner’s interpretations of a group dynamic, withmore anxious learners being more likely to perceive the group dynamic negatively, whereas lessanxious learners (such as Level 2 students) may take a more positive view of the social climate.
Therefore, the initial hypothesis that ‘Level 3 students would report greater cohesiveness than thosein Level 2’ to compensate for reduced competence was proven incorrect. While different ability levels
may gain different benefits from teamwork, it seems that lower-level classes will not necessarily feela greater degree of cohesiveness.

Word Choice Data
The most commonly chosen words (Figure 1) for both the ‘in class’ and ‘in teams’ condition was“fun” (83 in class/79 in teams) with “friendly” at a close second (68 in class / 77 in teams). Therefore,
it seems likely that the majority of students felt there was a positive atmosphere overall, with ‘inteams’ slightly higher than ‘in class’ on both measures. Word choice data also suggests that students
tended to feel more relaxed when working with their teams (52) than they generally did in class (30).
This could be a good indication of cohesiveness if students had tended to feel more relaxed with themore familiar, close-knit group of their team. Furthermore, a much higher proportion of students
reported feeling more “anxious” in class (46) than they had when working with their teams (20).
The Word Choice data implies that while student experience was positive overall, as evidenced
by the high scores for both “fun” and “friendly”, the ‘in class’ experience was markedly more“anxious” and less “relaxed” than the ‘in teams’ experience. In terms of learning environment, this
could suggest that teams were cohesive and supportive learning groups in which students felt morerelaxed due to a familiar, close-knit social climate. However, it could also be that students felt moreanxious when gathered as a class if they were aware that they could all be observed by the teacher.

31

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

A further potential explanation for this could be that students felt greater social anxiety ‘in class’ dueto the online environment. When working in teams, students were put into Zoom breakout rooms
where they could enjoy relative privacy during team discussions, yet when they came together as awhole class, students would all appear on the same Zoom screen and therefore be observable to all
20 of their classmates.
One potential way to reduce this anxiety could be to encourage students to use their cameras inbreakout rooms to allow for smoother discussions and improved social bonding via non-verbal social
cues (such as nodding, smiling, or laughing with classmates); however, students should be informedthat those who feel nervous about using their camera in front of a larger group may turn it off. Whilst
this may benefit students with anxiety, many online educators may feel disheartened when faced witha wall of blank screens, particularly as they cannot gauge from student expressions or reactions
whether students are attentive, listening, engaged, comprehending, or even present at the keyboard.
The effect of camera use on L2 and social anxiety in an online learning environment is perhaps one
that could be better understood through further study.
Regardless of whether classes are conducted online or face-to-face, teachers can aim to mitigate
L2 and social anxiety in the early stages of group formation by developing a learning environment inwhich students feel comfortable both with each other and with the teacher, such as throughicebreaker activities to build acceptance and trust (Poupore, 2013). For instance, allowing teams tochoose their own group norms that embody the ideal L2 classmate (Peragine, 2019) during the first
lesson together could increase students’ sense of belonging via deliberately building a unified group
identity, and hence increase the cohesiveness of newly established teams.

CONCLUSION
By offering positive L2 learning experiences, teachers can have a major effect on both students’motivation and anxiety (MacWhinnie & Mitchell, 2017). While not all students may enter an EFL
classroom with intrinsic motivation, working within a cohesive and supportive group can foster
motivation (Ushioda, 2003) Regardless of ability level, an overwhelming majority of students reported
that they had found working with a team helpful (93.9%) and enjoyable (91.9%). There was also
widespread agreement that students felt less L2 anxiety when talking with their team (69.4%),
providing further support for prior findings that cohesive groups reduce anxiety (Poupore, 2013).
Results indicate that the majority of students had been able to form cohesive groups by making
friends (77.6%) and felt relaxed with their teams (91.8%). Correlational analysis of “working in a teamhelped me to speak English” and “I felt relaxed with my teammates” (r = 0.70) strongly suggests thata positive social climate improved L2 performance when students were able to form cohesive groups.
High mean scores across differing ability levels demonstrate a widespread belief that “talking withteammates helped me to feel less anxious in class”, which implies that working with teams reduced
anxiety. However, correlation and mean-difference data did not reveal major relationships between
anxiety and online learning, indicating that the switch to online classes had not majorly affected L2
or social anxiety.
In response to the exploratory research question regarding whether working in teams had
affected students’ L2 anxiety and/or social anxiety, the main finding was that social climate was thebiggest factor in whether teams reduced students’ L2 anxiety and/or social anxiety. Moreover,student interpretations of social climate (i.e., whether they could “feel comfortable talking withteammates”) had a moderate effect on student perceptions of whether they were able to successfully

32

IMPACT OF GROUP COHESION ON ANXIETY AND ONLINE TASK PERFORMANCE: A CORRELATIONAL EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS

collaborate on tasks (“sometimes my teams did not work well together” / “my teammates rarely/
never helped me”). As the strongest correlation found was between “I did not feel comfortable
talking with teammates” and “I did not feel comfortable using English with teammates”, it seems the
key to productive and mutually beneficial teamwork is that students must feel comfortable before any
further benefits of teamwork can occur. This finding clearly indicates the importance of icebreakeractivities geared towards building a learning environment that is conducive to mutual help andsupport. The MEXT guidelines for English education currently in place show a clear ministerial
preference towards developing students’ fluency and “higher” language skills, including presenting
and debate, (MacWhinnie & Mitchell, 2017); however, from the students’ affective standpoint,meeting the pressing psychological need to feel a sense of belonging to a social group (Dovidio et al.,2009) cannot be overstated. While teachers may be under pressure to satisfy ministry or curricula
objectives, such as teaching vocabulary or critical thinking skills, one of the most importantcomponents for achieving these is first establishing a comfortable L2 environment and allowing
students the opportunity to bond and build mutual trust with peers (MacWhinnie & Mitchell, 2017).
Only from this starting point can cohesive and therefore productive teams develop; and without asupportive team, students will not be able to meet further demands placed on them, such as providing
L2 vocabulary assistance or effective and suitable peer-to-peer feedback.
Icebreaker activities are generally not awarded a preeminent place within a curriculum, yet inmany situations, the adage that ‘first impressions count’ holds true. This is not to claim that the first
lesson with a class will necessarily set the stage for the entirety of the course, as group dynamics canimprove, decline, or fluctuate over the course of a semester (Maxfield, 2020). However, setting up ateam with a set of actionable, democratically selected group norms could help to not only create a
productive team (Peragine, 2019) but also create a shared or superordinate identity (Dovidio et al.,2009) that can increase team cohesion and mitigate the effects of social anxiety. As this study has
shown a strong correlation between L2 anxiety and social anxiety, it is conceivable that any classroom
activities that aim to reduce social anxiety may also diminish L2 anxiety.
This study shows that in an EFL classroom that depends on collaborative efforts, establishing a
comfortable learning environment and building rapport between students must be a priority and nota secondary outcome of other educational activities. As teachers play a key role in creating andmaintaining the atmosphere of a class (MacWhinnie & Mitchell, 2017), recommendations forteachers of similar courses in future include encouraging student identification as part of a team andgiving teams the opportunity to autonomously select productive group norms, such as through theuse of Peragine’s (2019) Ideal Classmate activity.

Limitations and Recommendations for Further Study
Limitations of the current research include a potential sampling bias created by the optional
nature of the questionnaire. It is conceivable that only the more motivated students responded, as
students driven only by extrinsic motivational factors, such as grades, may not have answered. All ofthe questionnaire data reported came from the same sample of student responses, and therefore
results may not be applicable to the entire population of Debate or Presentation students or to thoseundertaking similar English-language courses in other institutions.
In defence of the results found by this study, however, at N = 98 the sample was as large andrepresentative as possible, forming around 49% of the number of students taught by the researcher,and included learners across the spectrum of proficiency levels. Due to the low p-values (p < .001)

33

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

found on all major correlations reported upon, it is extremely unlikely that chance or sampling error
were solely responsible for the results found. In the current study, data were gathered at only a single
point towards the end of the semester; however, in future, presenting questionnaires pre-, during,and post-semester would allow for motivation, anxiety, and cohesiveness to be measured dynamically(Poupore, 2013).
Further avenues for research could include investigating the ideal group size for these classtypes, or perhaps within the EFL classroom as a whole. Future research could also investigate
whether grouping students by different factors (e.g. randomly, by character type, by ability level, orwith students choosing their own groups) has any effects on cohesion. Depending on how theseclasses are conducted in the future, comparisons could also be drawn between online and face-to-facelearning environments.

REFERENCES
Cast, A. D., & Burke, P. J. (2002). A theory of self-esteem. Social Forces, 80(3), 1041-1068.
Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994). Motivation, self‐confidence, and group cohesion in
the foreign language classroom. Language learning, 44(3), 417-448.
Cota, A. A., Evans, C. R., Dion, K. L., Kilik, L., & Longman, R. S. (1995). The structure of groupcohesion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6), 572-580.
Dancey, C. P., & Reidy, J. (2007). Statistics without maths for psychology. Pearson education.
Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M. W. (2010). Introduction to the special issue: Emotional states,
attention, and working memory. Cognition and Emotion, 24(2), 189-199.
Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. Motivation, language identity and the L2 self,
36(3), 9-11.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Shnabel, N., Saguy, T., & Johnson, J. D. (2009). Recategorization andprosocial behavior: Common ingroup identification and a dual identification. Psychology ofhelping: New directions in intergroup prosocial behaviour. Wiley-Blackwell.
Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small groupresearch, 22(2), 175-186.
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control
functions: a latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(1), 101
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral andbrain sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83.
Joormann, J. (2006). Differential effects of rumination and dysphoria on the inhibition of irrelevant
emotional material: Evidence from a negative priming task. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
30(2), 149-160.
Koster, E. H., De Raedt, R., Goeleven, E., Franck, E., & Crombez, G. (2005). Mood-congruent
attentional bias in dysphoria: maintained attention to and impaired disengagement fromnegative information. Emotion, 5(4), 446.
Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (1998). The relationship between social connectedness and anxiety, selfesteem, and social identity. [Editorial]. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45 (3), 338–345
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness tocommunicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern

34

IMPACT OF GROUP COHESION ON ANXIETY AND ONLINE TASK PERFORMANCE: A CORRELATIONAL EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS

Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.
MacWhinnie, S. G., & Mitchell, C. (2017). English classroom reforms in Japan: A study of Japanese
university EFL student anxiety and motivation. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign
Language Education, 2(1), 1-13.
Maxfield, D. (2019). “I can’t English!”: Reflecting on motivation and participation within a discussion
class context. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 7, 48-54.
Maxfield, D. (2020). Go Team! A pilot study into group norms and cohesion. New Directions in
Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 8, 160-167.
McGaugh, J. L., Cahill, L., & Roozendaal, B. (1996). Involvement of the amygdala in memory storage:interaction with other brain systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(24),13508-13514.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The
unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe”
tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49-100
Ning, H., & Hornby, G. (2014). The impact of cooperative learning on tertiary EFL learners’
motivation. Educational review, 66(1), 108-124.
Noels, K. A. (2013). Learning Japanese; Learning English: Promoting motivation through autonomy,competence and relatedness. In M.T. Apple, D. Da Silva, T. Fellner (Ed.), Language Learning
Motivation in Japan. (pp. 15-34). Bristol, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.
Peragine, M. (2019). Idealizing L2 classmates to combat amotivation, calculate motivation deviation,and foster group cohesiveness. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 7,(pp. 168-178).
Poupore, G. (2013). The influence of L2 motivation and L2 anxiety on adult learners’ socio-affective
conditions and language production during communicative tasks. The Asian EFL Journal
Quarterly, 15(3), 93-128.
Sugihara, Y., & Katsurada, E. (2002). Gender role development in Japanese culture: Diminishinggender role differences in a contemporary society. Sex roles, 47(9), 443-452.
Tahira, M. (2012). Behind MEXT’s new course of study guidelines. The Language Teacher, 36(3), 3-8.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. Psychology ofIntergroup Relations, 6-24.
Toates, F. (2011). The brain: basics of structure and role. Biological psychology. 3rd edition. PrenticeHall/Pearson Education.
Trommsdorff, G., & Iwawaki, S. (1989). Students’ perceptions of socialisation and gender role inJapan and Germany. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 12(4), 485-493.
Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in
ingroup favouritism. European journal of social psychology, 9(2), 187-204.
Ueki, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2012). Validating the L2 motivational self system in a Japanese EFL
context: The interplay of L2 motivation, L2 anxiety, self-efficacy, and the perceived amount of
information. Language Education & Technology, 49, 1-22.
Ushioda, E. (2003). Motivation as a socially mediated process. Learner autonomy in the foreign
language classroom: Teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment, 90-102.
Yoshihara, R., Kurata, A., & Yamauchi, A. (2020). Reflective journals to explore struggles anddifficulties of novice Japanese EFL university instructors. Reflective Practice, 21(1), 81-93.

35

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

APPENDIX
Questionnaire for Students€ Presentation€ Debate€ Level 2€ Level 3€ I do not want to give my level

Anxiety
I felt anxious about talking to classmates online before I started this class
Before I took this class, I felt anxious about starting it
Talking with classmates online was more relaxing than I expected
I often felt anxious in class
I often feel anxious in face-to-face conversations
This class was scarier than I expected
After studying in this class, it was less scary than I had expected
I feel less anxious about studying English online after taking this class
It is easier to speak English online than face-to-face
Speaking English online is easier than speaking English face-to-face
I felt more anxious when speaking English online than speaking English face-to-face
Familiar Groups (Teams)
It was easy to make friends with my teams
Working with a team helped me in this class
I enjoyed working with my teams
There was good teamwork in ALL of my teams
I did not like working with the same people in several lessons
I felt relaxed with my teammates
Sometimes my teams did not work well together
My teammates rarely / never helped me in class
I made friends with people in my teams
It was difficult to talk with my team
I did not feel comfortable talking with teammates
I wanted to stay with the same team all semester
Familiar Groups (Teams) and Anxiety
Talking with my teammates helped me to feel less anxious in class
I felt relaxed when speaking English with my teammates
I felt more relaxed when speaking English with my teammates than with other students in classWorking with a team helped me to speak English
I did not feel comfortable using English with teammates
Word choice questions:
Which words best match your experience with teams:
fun scary nervous worried relaxed calm happy friendly
Which words best match your experience in class:funscary nervous worried relaxed calm happy friendly

bored

36

bored

silentsilent【Research Article】

Students’ Opinions about Reflection Journals
Devon Arthurson
Abstract
Reflection journals are an activity that can enable students to develop various skills through habitual writing
practice. In this study, 55 first-year university students from two debate and two writing online EFL classes were theparticipants. For a 12-week period, students were assigned a weekly reflection journal with prompts concerning thecontents of the lesson, self-assessment of their performance, and goal-setting for the next lesson. The data wascollected in the form of a final reflection journal for lesson 13 at the end of the semester. The themes that appeared in
the data about reflection journals are related to writing skills, reflection, and self-awareness. Additionally, there was anincrease in most learners’ writing output, a better understanding of the lessons’ contents, and more motivation toachieve their goals. Though most learners wanted to do the activity in the future, some did not. Their data concernedtime, the level of difficulty, and forgetting the contents written from the previous lesson’s journal.
Keywords: goal setting, journal writing, learner autonomy, reflection, self-regulated learning, student motivation

1. Introduction
According to Benson (2011): “Reflection is a complex construct” (p. 104). It is not simply
remembering an event but bringing that event into the present for examination. Writing journals can
aid in reflecting (Hashemia & Mirzaeib, 2015, p. 104). In English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
lessons, for learners reflection journals for lessons can act as a multifaceted tool based on theprompts the journal contains. For instance, journal prompts can ask learners not only to recall what
was taught in the lesson, but to ask them to assess their performance, set learning goals, determine
ways to achieve those goals, and possibly help increase their motivation. Such prompts can act as
scaffolding to help the learners to accomplish reflection. Questions to assist the learners with thispotentially challenging activity could be asking them to recall the contents taught, what they knew
previous to the lesson, about challenging points presented, and how the topics may help them in their
future. The prompts can allow the learners to have more control over their learning, thus being anactivity that can foster learner autonomy. The practice of looking back at a lesson and then writing
about it would seem to not only cause the learners to remember what is learned, but to decide what
points that they assign priority to.
For EFL instructors, reflection journals can be an effective way for instructors to assess theirlearners’ performance in lessons as instructors can construct the journals to grade writing ability,
confirm that the learning points were understood, and remembered. In online lessons, this can bevaluable particularly for educators who have limited experience with this teaching style. Somestudents may be reluctant or feel overwhelmed to articulate a summary of the lesson or about any
unclarity of the lesson’s contents in a foreign language. This may be further exacerbated when thelearner is asked to share in the foreign language under study to the instructor and in front of theclass. A possible alternative to this, is implementing reflection journals as they can be a site forstudents to concretely share their responses to such instructor inquiries. Additionally, setting37

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

reflective journal writing as a weekly task can develop the learners English writing skills throughpractice as well as create a writing routine. This qualitative study will share university students’
responses about how reflection journals affected their English language proficiency, goal-setting,motivation, and their advice on ways to improve the activity.

2. Literature Review
Reflection or self-reflection is a practice with multiple benefits to aid learning other than justrecalling the topic under study. Benson (2011) argues the complexity of reflecting as being layered
with an introspective, retrospective, or prospective process that is context-bound and goal-oriented(p. 106). Learners’ self-reflection period can be a time for assessment on their performance, and if
their goals were fulfilled which can shape the way they perform in the future (Panadero, 2017, p. 3).
Reflection can also foster autonomous learning as the learners gain awareness about their learning
conduct and how that influences the achievement of their learning goals (Benson, 2011, p. 109). In all
fields of study ranging from sociology to education to mathematics, self-reflecting aids in learners’
growth in development (Hashemia & Mirzaeib, 2015). However, it seems that EFL and reflection has
limited data about its practice and benefits.
Journal writing can be a useful tool to guide learner self-reflection as well as encouraging selfregulation, self-knowledge, and potentially motivation in learning. Self-regulated learners need to set
their goals, decide learning plans, monitor their process, and evaluate their performance (Cheng,
2011, p. 2). For university students, particularly first-year students, self-regulated learning could be
an important foundation to the start of this period of their lives, providing them with more
opportunities to prepare for adulthood by making choices and encouraging lifelong learning after
graduation. In regards to learner motivation, writing reflection journals can also be a positive
influence. According to Dörnyei’s (2003) framework for motivational teaching practice, the following
was listed: “1. Creating the basic motivational conditions; 2. Generating initial student motivation; 3.
Maintaining and protecting motivation; and 4. Encouraging positive retrospective self-evaluation” (p.
23). Journal writing can be a tool for this as it is a venue for students to share their opinions andexperiences (Hashemia & Mirzaeib, 2015, p. 104). Moreover, reflection journals can containquestions or prompts related to self-assessment. As instructors, Cheng states: “Teaching is not justabout providing students with knowledge but also about helping students to develop their intrinsic
motivation and self-efficacy and enhance their learning values” (2011, p. 2). Reflection journals canplay a significant role as instructors create environments for shaping learners into self-regulated
learners with intrinsic motivation to learn.
In Japan research about reflection and EFL has been done in the past, such as with Bray andHarsch 1996’s article Using reflection/review journals in Japanese classrooms. Two more recent
studies have also been performed. A study by Yabukoshi (2020) had participants at a Japanese
university use reflection journals in their English class with the concrete goals of their TOEIC testscores before and after the semester (p. 758). However, this study only had four participants, so it
seems reflection journals and EFL learning in Japan would benefit from more research especially incases where the goals are more abstract. Another study done in a Japanese university by Morita(2020) also used reflection journals to collect data from 78 participants. Students were given prompts
to write about the lesson’s details, or their emotions or thoughts during the lesson (Morita, 2020).

38

Students’ Opinions about Reflection Journals

Additionally, though 10 years have passed since Teaching and Researching Autonomy’s publication(Benson, 2011), there still seems to be limited research on reflection’s influence on language
learning, for instance, on what and how the learners focus their reflections. Research regarding
reflection journals in EFL settings is an area requiring further exploration.

3. Methods
The self-reflection journals were used in online lessons. Over the 16-week semester of fall 2020,
from lessons 2 to 13, students were required to write a self-reflection journal as a task that needed tobe completed outside of the lesson and submitted by the end of the day for each weekly lesson.
Online lessons were as learner focused as possible with an aim to incorporate both input and output
skills. However, it was challenging to assess what students felt that they gained from learning.
Reflection journals were implemented for the instructor to better understand students’ opinions andto grade their participation through the submission and evaluation of answering the prompts,
understandability, and formatting. In lesson 1, students were given a sample by the instructor of areflection journal through an online-learning platform. Explanation about formatting reports was alsopresented in lesson 1 using the writing textbook Becoming a Better Writer (2017). The textbook wasalso reviewed in future lessons based on the learners’ needs.
The prompts followed a pattern of a review of the class, self-assessment, goal-setting, andwriting skills development to encourage self-regulated learning. The majority of prompts remained
unchanged and to guide students to write about the lesson. In lesson 2 and 3, no required word count
was required. See Appendix A & B for lesson 3’s tasks for both classes with prompts and rubrics.
However from lesson 4, at least 100 words were required which gradually increased to 150 to 175
words by lesson 12. See Appendix C & D for lesson 11’s tasks for both classes with prompts andrubrics. The instructor mainly focused on assessing if the formatting was done correctly, all prompts
were answered, and the required word count was met. Common formatting errors were shared in thelesson as well as individually on the online-learning platform during the grading process. If the word
count was below the requirement, comments were also made to the learners on the platform. The
reflection journal was an activity where the students decided what was given priority such as thelesson content that was included in their summaries, how they self-assessed their performance, andtheir goals for the next lesson. Self-determination of the content also provided students with more
opportunities for self-regulated learning.

Research Questions
1. Which English skills did writing reflection journals help the students to develop?
2. What was their opinion about writing reflection journals and did they have a previous
experience with writing reflection journals?
3. Did the journals help students with remembering the lessons?
4. Did writing goals in their journals motivate students to achieve those goals?
5. What was the learners’ feedback about the activity?

39

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Participants
The participants consisted of 55 first year students from four mandatory EFL classes at a liberalarts university in Tokyo. Two were debate classes with a total of 26 of the 35 students consenting to
the study. Two were writing classes with a total of 29 of the 40 students consenting to the study. Bothdebate classes and one writing class had learners with TOEIC scores from 280 to 479. The otherwriting class had TOEIC scores from 480 to 699. All online classes had lessons once a week for 100
minutes. Both mandatory classes in fall term were continuations from the spring semester, withdiscussion class progressing to debate class, and reading class progressing to writing class. This
ensured that students had the opportunity to develop English input and output skills. Being that thiswas their second semester and based on their TOEIC scores, it appeared that all students should be
able to write their journals in English.

Instruments
The second-last lesson of the term is when the data was collected from students in the form of
their lesson 13 reflection journals. These journals were also submitted through the online-learning
platform. See Appendix E for the prompts. As with the other reflection journals, students received ascore but were told that their participation in the study would not affect their score. It was further
explained that this journal was for the instructor to learn more about how to better implement theactivity for future classes. Selected and unedited student responses will be shared in the next section.

5. Results
The lesson 13 reflection journal entries of 55 students were analyzed for themes. On average,
each student wrote 172 words with the highest word count at 309 and the lowest at 103. All journal
entries were completed in English. Though some errors appeared, the answers were understandable
and some entries will be referred to unedited. The following subsections detail the most frequent
themes and the number of times that they appear in the journal entries as well as the samples of thestudents’ responses.

Question 1
For question 1, all students answered that writing journals helped to develop their English skills.
For writing skills, 53 of 55 students agreed, with the majority stating these following themes in theorder of their frequency: the development of writing proficiency appearing 38 times, the creation of awriting habit appearing 25 times, and writing opportunity appearing 7 times. In addition students
shared other skills that were also developed: reading appearing 5 times, speaking appearing twice,creativity appearing once, and thinking appearing once. Below is a selection of student responses:
That’s because before this class started, I didn’t have custom to write English sentence, so I
changed my custom regarding writing English…. Also, I could get imagination skill because I must
consider sentence when I was writing journal.
From writing skill’s point of view, in reflection journal, we should write over the 175 words every
week. So, we have more chances to write English. Therefore, I can write the English sentences better

40

Students’ Opinions about Reflection Journals

than ever. And I have been looking up words when I write the reflection journal. So, my vocabularyincreases… And from speaking skill’s point of view, I can speak English well because of my increased
vocabulary.
Writing reflection journals helps with my English writing skills because it was very difficult forme to write reflection in English, but I am able to write it quickly little by little.

Question 2
For question 2, 49 of the 55 students answered that their opinion of the experience of writingreflection journals was positive. Their reasons are these most predominant themes which are listed
in the order of their frequency: the development of writing proficiency appearing 20 times, reflectionof the learning process appearing 16 times, analysis of their performance appearing 13 times, and achallenge of their abilities appearing 6 times. Five students answered the experience was negativewith the majority writing it was either time consuming or there was time pressure with the deadline.
One student answered that the experience was both negative and positive, while two students did not
answer. Below is a selection of student responses:
It is because by writing a sentence, I was able to reconfirm my thoughts. Also, even if I do to write
English in another class, I think that I can write smoothly by using the English writing method I
learned in the Reflection Journal. By writing about class, you can organize the learned content.
My experience with reflection journals has been positive because I could practice to write English
paper. I didn’t have many opportunities to write long English sentences. The reflection journals weregreat opportunities for me.
Experience with reflection journals has been negative because I’m not good at writing English. I
took 1-2 hours to write to it.
This is because I was very busy when I have a part-time job on Wednesday. I would like thedeadline to be by Thursday [instead of Wednesday].
Only three students had previous experience writing reflection journals. One responded that it
was in the previous semester’s English discussion class, another responded that it was in a Japaneseclass, and the last responded that it was in an unspecified class.

Question 3
For question 3, writing reflection journals helped most students to remember the lesson’scontents with 49 of 55 students responding positively. Their reasons are these most predominantthemes which are listed in the order of their frequency: an opportunity to review appeared 48 times,
time to process what is learned appeared 13 times, and analysis of their performance appearing 3
times. One student answered that writing journals did not help with remembering the lesson, while
five students did not directly answer the question. Below is a selection of student responses:
I think that I can write smoothly by using the English writing method I learned in the Reflection
Journal. By writing about class, you can organize the learned content.
I think it help me remember the things that were taught. When I wrote it, I read this classtextbook and remember what teacher and friends said.

41

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Writing about class was helpful for me to remember the things that were taught because I had toreview them. I checked things I learned and the textbook’s page. As a result, I looked at the textbook
twice in one lesson, and I remembered better.
Thanks to this, I will never forget the opinion that everyone was saying. I was able to summarize
the weaknesses in the class.
Writing about the class don’t help me remember the things that were taught. Some can beremembered without writing, others cannot.

Question 4
In regards to learning goal setting and motivation to achieve the goal, 40 of 55 students answered
positively. Their reasons are these most predominant themes which are listed in the order of theirfrequency: analysis of their performance appearing 15 times, awareness of their goals appearing 15
times, and clarity of their goals appearing 12 times. Below is a selection of student responses:
I think writing a goal for the next class give you more motivation or energy to do the goal. By
reflection on the class, I remember what I could not do and try to do it next time.
Moreover, writing a goal for the next class give me more motivation or energy to do the goal. It
is because once I have set goals, I was able to know what to do in advance.
Writing about the class and a goal for the next class helped me remember the things that were
taught and give more energy to do the goal because the goal was clear and it was easy to settle byreviewing.
Also, writing a goal for the next class give me motivation to do the goal. Because, I could find my
faults and make an effort until the next class.
The number of students who answered that writing journals did not help with motivation were
14. Eight students wrote that their goals were forgotten, so the goals could not be achieved.
Appearing one time each were the themes of repetitiveness, unawareness, and unnecessary to write
goals in the journals. Below is a selection of student responses:
Writing a goal for the next class didn’t give me more motivation or energy to do the goal. That’s
because I kept trying to learn and understand the things that were taught without writing a goal.
Writing a goal for the next class don’t give me more motivation or energy to do the goal. It wasalways the same goal.
No, my motivation didn’t increase, because I forget my goal in the next class.

Question 5
Student feedback about the activity for the instructor was directly answered by 53 of the 55
students. Their feedback was extremely beneficial as it was the instructor’s first time to use theactivity. There were 42 students who responded that they wanted to do the activity again. The reasonsfor their positive response are in the themes that appeared most frequently: the development English
proficiency appearing 19 times, time to process what is learned appearing 14 times, analysis of theirperformance appearing 7 times, and providing motivation appearing 4 times. Below is a selection of
student responses:

42

Students’ Opinions about Reflection Journals

I’d like to do class journals in other class because this journal can help me with my English skills.
I wrote about the class in a reflection journal. This reminded me of what I learned. Because I
remembered the lesson to write this, and I was able to review it by looking at the textbook. I also
wrote the goals for the next lesson each time. I think writing this has boosted my motivation. Because
I was able to take classes with my own goals in mind. Considering these things, I thought it would
be better to write a reflection journal in other classes as well.
I would like to do reflection journals again in other classes. Because to remember the class by
writing is good to get good study motivation.
I want to do this task in other classes as well. The reason is that I realized my growth.
There were 11 students who responded that they did not want to do the activity again. The mostfrequent themes are as follows: the activity was too challenging for their abilities appearing 4 times,
time consuming appearing 3 times, and the format was too restrictive appearing twice. Below is aselection of student responses:
I would not like to do reflection journals. Because it was very hard to finish on that day. I think
it is good to reduce the total number of words.
Reflection journals have many merits, but I would not like to do reflection journals again inother class. I’m not good at writing in English, so it is hard to write every week.
I don’t want to do a reflection journal if it’s the same shape[format].
I didn’t know what to do next time, so it was difficult to set goals for the next lesson. I think thishomework is very meaningful, but the deadline was tight because the class day was a busy day with
part-time jobs. So I don’t really want to do this in another class.

6. Discussion
The most frequently appearing themes were the development of writing proficiency, the creationof a writing habit, a writing opportunity, an opportunity to review, reflection of the learning process,time to process what is learned, analysis of their performance, a challenge of their abilities, awarenessof goals, and clarity of the goals. These themes can be further simplified into writing skills, reflection,and self-awareness. Other areas to consider about the reflection journals are its level of difficulty,
time issues, and the necessity for review.
Firstly, the themes related to writing skills could be categorized as the development of writing
proficiency, the creation of a writing habit, and writing opportunity. As students were required tosubmit their journals on a weekly basis for a 13-week period, they were probably able to develop theirwriting skills with this habitual practice. As the word count increased from 100 to 150 words for thewriting class and 175 words for the debate class, the expectation of writing more was presented. It
seemed that for debate classes, due to multifaceted skills that were taught, it was less challenging formost learners to write more words as the lesson tasks were more goal-based. Additionally, there wasless instructor-speaking time, and more learner speaking, listening, reading, and writing time about
possibly more engaging topics. For instance, students as a group had to prepare for a debate basedon a student-generated proposition by researching the topic, deciding their argument, debating, andobserving other classmates’ debate. Each class ended with comments from both the instructor andthe classmate observers of the debate regarding each group’s performance. In contrast, the writing43

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

class’ topics may not have been as engaging and there was more instructor-speaking time than in thedebate lessons. Hussien et al. (2020) recommend giving learners freedom in the writing topics ofreflection journals (p. 3493). However, it may be either that the students may be uncertain about what
is appropriate to write about or share too freely about topics that are unrelated to the class if noprompts are provided. It seems that incorporating more opportunities for learners to connect withthe topics in the writing class, such as with short pair or group discussions, could help them toincrease their writing output or word count in their reflection journals. This may also aid in decreasing
the level of difficulty of the task if the learners have a greater connection to the topics. However, it
seems that the topic under study may have a considerable influence on increasing writing output
based on learners’ interest and engagement, particularly for online learning.
Secondly, the themes related to reflection could be categorized as an opportunity to review,reflection on the learning process, and time to process what is learned. By giving students time toprocess the lesson’s contents, they can absorb those contents, then determine the points that they
feel to be significant, and record them in the reflection journal. There was concern that extending thedeadline may cause the students to forget the lesson’s contents, thus the learners were expected tosubmit their journal before the end of the lesson’s day at 23:59. “Reflection leading to action can beunderstood as a cognitive basis for control over learning management” (Benson, 2011, p. 106). To
create an environment to do so, an overly restrictive deadline may not permit learners to accomplish
a deep and meaningful reflection. Therefore, based on the comments provided by some learners thatthe day of the lesson for submission created too much stress, future lessons with reflection journals
will extend the due date.
Thirdly, the themes related to self-awareness could be categorized as the analysis of theirperformance, a challenge of their abilities, awareness of their goals, and clarity of their goals. In the
study by Yabukoshi (2020), TOEIC test scores were used as concrete goals aiding in determining thepotential effectiveness of reflection journals with the before- and after-writing journals’ scores as ameasurement (p. 763). The goals were very concrete with test scores, however, this study does not
examine the actual goals set by learners. Additionally, in this study there was little guidance given to
students about how to set and accomplish learning goals. With debate class, since feedback wasgiven from the instructor and students about the group’s performance, for those learners it may havebeen more clear if their learning goals were achieved. However, it could be that too much outside
influence may cause learners to feel less confident in setting their own goals. It seems that based on
future uses of the activity, the learners’ responses to the goal-setting prompts will indicate whether
guidance is necessary and if the instructor should give suggestions based on the lesson’s learning
objectives. In the data, some learners responded that after writing about their learning goals, thesegoals were forgotten by the next lesson.
As most learners felt that writing reflection journals was a positive activity, it will be used in otherclasses. With future reflection journals, the students will be encouraged to review their journals
either before or at the start of the lesson. Since this was the instructor’s first time to use reflection
journals as well as to teach online, gathering data from learners has proven to be beneficial in
shaping future applications of this activity.

44

Students’ Opinions about Reflection Journals

7. Conclusion
Reflection journals in EFL lessons can be an effective tool for not only developing learners’
writing skills, but for potentially fostering learning autonomy and increasing motivation through goalsetting to increase self-regulated learning. In addition, with a shift to online learning, these journals
can be beneficial to instructors to better understand their students’ comprehension of the lesson’scontents and objectives. Self-reflection journals can also be a measurement of the success or failureof the lesson’s learning goals. Soliciting learner feedback about the activity is useful for shaping
journals that are more meaningful with tasks that are achievable. Self-reflection journals and EFL isa research area for further examination.

References
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy (2nd ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
Bray, E. & Harsch, K. (1996). Using reflection/review journals in Japanese classrooms.
The Language Teacher 12(12). Retrieved May 16, 2021 from https://jalt-publications.org/tlt/
articles/2076-using-reflectionreview-journals-japanese-classrooms
Cheng, E. C. K. (2011). The role of self-regulated learning in enhancing learning performance. The
International Journal of Research and Review 6 (1), 1-16. ISSN 2094-1420. Retrieved May 5,
2021 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285320862_The_role_of_self-regulated_learning_in_enhancing_learning_performance
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory,
research, and applications. Language learning, 53(S1), 3-32. Retrieved May 5, 2021, fromhttps://www.academia.edu/37020201/Attitudes_Orientations_and_Motivations_in_
Language_Learning_Advances_in_Theory_Research_and_Applications
Hashemia, Z. & Mirzaeib, M. (2015) Writing on enhancing EFL medical students’ reflections,attitudes, and sense of self. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 199, 103 – 110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.493
Hussein, H. A. R. A, Al Jamal, H. D. A. H., & Sadi, I. (2020). Students’ reflective journals and creative
writing in EFL. Universal Journal of Educational Research 7(2), 3484-3495. Retrieved May 5,
2021 from https://www.hrpub.org/download/20200730/UJER23-19516265.pdf
Morita, S. (2020). Self-reflections for growth: Developing self-regulated learners in discussion class.
New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 8, pp. 187-197. Rikkyo University:
Tokyo.
Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research.
Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1-28. Retrieved May 5, 2021 from https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/316542562_A_Review_of_Self-regulated_Learning_Six_Models_and_Four_
Directions_for_Research
Yabukoshi, T. (2020). Self-regulated learning processes outside the classroom: Insights from a casestudy of Japanese EFL students. The Journal of Asia TEFL 17(3).758-777. Retrieved May 16,
2021
from
http://journal.asiatefl.org/main/main.
php?main=1&sub=2&submode=3&PageMode=Jour nalV iew&inx_jour nals=65&inx_
contents=838&s_title=Self_Regulated_Learning_Processes_Outside_the_Classroom_
Insights_from_a_Case_Study_of_Japanese_EFL_Students
Yokomoto, K., Kato, C. T., Paydon, S., Saito Y., Togo, M. & , Yuka Yamamoto, Y. (Eds.). (2017).

45

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Becoming a better writer: A guide to developing academic writing skills, (3rd ed.). Tokyo: Rikkyo
University.

46

Students’ Opinions about Reflection Journals

Appendix A
Debate Class Reflection Journal Lesson 3
After each class, you will write a class reflection journal due the day of the class before 23:59 as a
Self-Study Task. Please use the following prompts to help you:
1. Summarize the main points learned in class.
2. What did your team do well in the debate? (Please give reasons and examples)
3. What did the other team do well in the debate? (Please give reasons and examples)
4. What can your team do to improve the debate?
5. What is important when making rebuttals?
6. What is important when judging a debate?
7. A goal for the next class.
8. Include the word count. (Write over 100 words in your paragraphs).
IMPORTANT: Answer the prompts in full sentences and in paragraph form on the next
page. If you do not do this you can only get 1/5.
**Remember to use page 8 and 9 of “Becoming a Better Writer” to format your journal correctly.
REFLECTION JOURNAL GRADING INFORMATION: 5 POINTS
Prompts
2 POINTS

Understandability
1 POINT

Formatting
2 POINTS

All prompts were answered

Ideas could be understandFormatted correctly (BBW page 8-9)47

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Appendix B
Writing Class Reflection Journal Lesson 3
After each class, you will write a class reflection journal due the day of the class before 23:59 as a
Self-Study Task. Please use the following prompts to help you:
1. Summarize the main points learned in class.
2. Information you already knew before class and when you learned about it.
3. Information that you just learned about in the class.
4. Surprising or interesting things you learned in the class.
5. Something surprising or interesting a classmate or classmates said in the class.
6. Ways the information will help you in university and/or in the future.
7. Any points that you do not know or understand about the topic.
8. Anything else you would like to share about.
9. A goal for the next class.
10. 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: 5 POINTS

48

Prompts
2 POINTS

Understandability
1 POINT

Formatting
2 POINTS

All prompts were answered

Ideas could be understandFormatted correctly (BBW page 8-9)

Students’ Opinions about Reflection Journals

Appendix C
Debate Class Reflection Journal Lesson 11
After each class, you will write a class reflection journal due the day of the class before 23:59 as a
Self-Study Task. Please use the following prompts to help you:
1. How did your team members do in the debate? What were your team’s strong points? What wereyour team’s points to improve?
2. How did the team you debated against do in the debate? What were the team’s strong points?
What were the team’s points to improve?
3. What did you do well in the debate? What do you want to do differently in the next debate?
4. Did your team or the team you were debating against win the debate? (Please give reasons andexamples about organization, argumentation, rebuttal and presentation style).
5. What was most interesting or surprising about this lesson?
6. Did your opinion about gender inequality change after the debate? Why or why not?
7. What is important when judging a debate?
8. What do you think can be done to improve gender inequality? For example, what can individuals
do, groups, communities, countries, the world?
9. A goal for the next class.
10. Include the word count. (Write over 175 words in your paragraphs)**Remember to use page 8 and 9 of “Becoming a Better Writer” to format your journal correctly.
REFLECTION JOURNAL GRADING INFORMATION: 5 POINTS
Prompts
2 POINTS

Understandability
1 POINT

Formatting
2 POINTS

All prompts were answered

Ideas could be understood

Formatted correctly (BBW page 8-9)49

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Appendix D
Writing Class Reflection Journal Lesson 11
After each class, you will write a class reflection journal due the day of the class before 23:59 as a
Self-Study Task. Please use the following prompts to help you:
1. Summarize the main points learned in class.
2. Surprising or interesting things you learned in the class.
3. Any points that you do not know or understand about the topic.
4. Which English skill or skills did you use the most in class (reading, writing, listening or speaking)?
5. Which English skill or skills did you use the least in class (reading, writing, listening or speaking)?
6. Prompt specific to the a textbook topic
7. Prompt specific to another textbook topic
8. A goal for the next class.
9. Include the word count. Write over 150 words.
**Remember to use page 8 and 9 of “Becoming a Better Writer” to format your journal correctly.
REFLECTION JOURNAL GRADING INFORMATION: 5 POINTS

50

Prompts
2 POINTS

Understandability
1 POINT

Formatting
2 POINTS

All prompts were answered

Ideas could be understood

Formatted correctly (BBW page 8-9)

Students’ Opinions about Reflection Journals

Appendix E
Debate and Writing Classes Reflection Journal Lesson 13
After each class, you will write a class reflection journal due the day of the class before 23:59 as a
Self-study Task. Please use the following prompts to help you:
1. Did writing reflection journals help with your English skills (writing, reading, listening, speaking)?
If yes, which skills and why? If no, why not?
2. Have you done reflection journals in other classes before? If yes, when and for what class?
3. Has your experience with reflection journals been positive or negative? Why? For example?
4. Did writing about the class help you remember the things that were taught? Why or why not?
5. Did writing a goal for the next class give you more motivation or energy to do the goal? Why or
why not?
6. Would you like to do reflection journals again in other classes? Why or why not?
7. Do you have any advice about writing reflection journals?
8. Anything else that you would like to share related to reflection journals.
9. 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: 5 POINTS
Prompts
2 POINTS

Understandability
1 POINT

Formatting
2 POINTS

All prompts were answered

Ideas could be understood

Formatted correctly (BBW page 8-9)51

【Research Article】

ONTOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL RE-CONSIDERATION OF
CLIL: THOUGHTS ON CONCEPT, COURSE DESIGN,AND ASSESSMENT
Jeffrey Mok
Abstract
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is facing some form of identity and practice crisis where teachers
may not know where to place and practice it. Just where is the “Goldilocks” of CLIL in the sea of soft and hard CLIL?
How do we teach both content and language together in the classroom? This paper presents the problematization of
CLIL, reconsiders its conceptual understanding of content and language, and proposes a cleaner conceptualization. In
addition, it illustrates what a CLIL course can look like, based on the re-consideration, in the design of the course aim
and learning outcomes, classroom pedagogy and assessment. The examples will demonstrate how content andlanguage are clearly intended and taught together, attaining a neither soft or hard CLIL to what it means to be justright.
Keywords: CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), EFL (English as a Foreign language), theory, course
design, classroom practice, assessment

Introduction
In the field of foreign language learning, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has
been touted as a “well-recognized and useful construct for promoting L2/foreign language teaching”(Cenoz et al., 2013, p. 16) and an “increasingly acknowledged trend in foreign language teaching”(Pérez Cañado, 2012, p. 319). In the field of teaching content and language, CLIL is argued as “not a
new form of language education. It is not a new form of subject education. It is an innovative fusionof both” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 1). Seen as one that “synthesizes and provides a flexible way of applying
the knowledge learnt from these various approaches” (Mehisto et al., 2008), CLIL has become abyword and much sought-after approach in English as a Foreign language (EFL) teaching.
However, there have been several issues facing CLIL. Issues such as curriculum design,classroom practice, linguistic ability of teachers, or types of materials used have led to the questioningof its conceptualization and pedagogical practice (Marsh et al., 2015). Bruton (2013) criticized its
conceptual framework to have a “convenient vagueness” (p. 588) while Cenoz, Genesee and Gorter(2013) thought it to be “internally ambiguous” (p. 244). As a result, the implementation suffers fromlack of clarity (Cenoz et al., 2013, p. 13), and there is a call to know “what it looks like in practice”(Bruton, 2012, p. 524).
Occam’s razor dictates that theories should not be multiplied unnecessarily, and that thesimplest version of the theory should be preferred over more complex ones. It is with this motivationthat this paper seeks to understand CLIL and suggests some practical considerations. Anothermotivation was borne out of my teacher training sessions with CLIL teachers. Having taught othereducational approaches such as team-based learning, active learning, problem-based learning, andlanguage teaching courses such as task-based learning, communicative language learning, my CLIL
workshops tend to garner more ontological struggles and classroom frustration. The recurrent

52

ONTOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL RE-CONSIDERATION OF CLIL: THOUGHTS ON CONCEPT, COURSE DESIGN, AND ASSESSMENT

questions pertained to what CLIL really is, with so many concepts and labels. Further, how do wepractically integrate language teaching in a CLIL class and yet incorporate the “4Cs” (Coyle et al.,2010, p. 41), “language triptych” (p. 36), basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS), andcognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1984).

CLIL
CLIL, “a dual-focused educational approach”
CLIL emerged out of the sociocultural and cognitive perspectives of EFL with the backdrop of
the early pace setters: sheltered instruction, immersion, and bilingualism that led to content-based
instruction (CBI), then content-based language teaching (CBLT), language across the curriculum(LAC), and English Medium Instruction (EMI). CLIL, as a terminology, was coined and popularized
in the mid-1990s by the European Network of Administrators, Researchers and Practitioners(EUROCLIC) (Coyle, 2007). Clearly, CLIL seeks to differentiate itself from the several previous
iterations and labels. However, I believe that the choice of a single umbrella term (Cenoz et al., 2013;
Dalton-Puffer et al., 2014) may not be so important after all, once we understand the many different
nuanced approaches in the content and/or language driven continuum (Met, 1998). CLIL, or any
other label, after all, seeks to teach language and content.
CLIL is “a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for thelearning and teaching of both content and language. That is…there is a focus not only on content,
and not only on language. Each is interwoven.” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 11). So, clearly both content andlanguage are emphasized. Further, CLIL is differentiated to more than just teaching content andlanguage; it has an elevated notion of “not simply education in an additional language; and it iseducation through an additional language” (p. 12). This means that the development of the mind
(cognition), self (culture), soft skills (communication), and with others (community) in theclassroom/school (context) are to be learned with the target language. This extended notion of CLIL
grew to appendage these other ‘C’ concepts. This was why Coyle et al. (2010) came up with the “4Cs”(p. 41) framework of planned integration of content, cognition, communication, and culture, with theadditional focus on cultural awareness within the context of the classroom. The Bloom Taxonomy(Krathwohl, 2002) was included to specify the cognition and the awareness of cognition in teachingcontent. The prevalent socio-cultural zeitgeist of today’s educational practice demanded theinteractional (group work) and intra-personal (reflection) elements in the form of context, culture,and later community into the conception of CLIL. But how are we to know or express these elementsin the CLIL? Language plays a key role in teaching and learning content, cognition, communication,and culture. Thus, three types of learning via language (language of learning, language for learning,
and language through learning) were added to CLIL, called the “Language Triptych” (Coyle et al.,2010, p. 36). This represented how language is learned through an interrelated perspective.
Cummins’ (1984) BICS and CALP were incorporated to help language awareness of the Language
Triptych (Coyle et al., 2010). From the early days of simply acquiring a foreign language in order tounderstand content (knowledge), learning a foreign language has now morphed into an “education
through an additional language” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 12). A very conflated notion indeed.

53

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

CLIL, what are you?
And yet, Coyle (2010) distinguished CLIL from CBLT in that CLIL is “without an implied
preference for either” (p. 545) content or language, unlike CBLT. However, how can one begin a classor design a course with both content and language? This is perhaps the vagueness and ambiguity that
Bruton, and Cenoz et al., were talking about. This is also perhaps why the implementation oscillated
from the content-driven CBI (or soft CLIL as it has come to be known) to the language-driven
thematic language classes (or hard CLIL) (Ball et al., 2015), but rarely hitting the sweet spot. So,
where is the Goldilocks of CLIL, where it is just right? Moreover, with Coyle et al.’s (2010) descriptionof CLIL as “one size does not fit all—there is no one model for CLIL” (p. 14), the understanding andpractice of CLIL have been left wide open. While CLIL was conveniently conceptualized with its
idealized notions of its wholeness and its integrated parts (content, communication, cognition,
culture, context, and community), much was left unexplained on what and how they are to be
ontologically and pedagogically understood.
In second language acquisition (SLA), where noticing and output hypotheses (as examples) areessential components for language acquisition and, similarly, cognitive and socio-constructivism arefor knowledge construction, where does each part gets noticed and cognitively and sociallyconstructed? Or are they left to chance, incidental learning (Marsick et al., 2017), or immersion(where CLIL is seen as closely connected to immersion, see Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Genesee &Lindholm-Leary, 2013)? Conceptually, and more so practically, where do the lines, albeit flexible, end
for each part and begin with another? The conceptualization of these CLIL components is not justtesting the understanding of CLIL but also testing the practice of CLIL. For instance, what is therelationship among cognition and culture and others? And how do the other Cs, context, andcommunity, relate to teaching and learning? These questions are often asked by practitioners whose
time, competency, and resource are often an issue. As a result, while the notion of integration has
been championed, it has struggled with different perspectives (Nikula et al., 2016). In a startlingrevelation after studying thirty European countries’ CLIL programs, Lagabaster and Sierra (2010)concluded that “different labels are used in different contexts. Thus, CLIL can mean many things andcreate much confusion in the mind of the reader” (p. 368).

CLIL’s woes
It is, then, no secret that CLIL suffers from practical issues. These include considerable numberof learners having problems understanding the English-medium lectures, which were related to themeaning of words, unfamiliar vocabulary, and note-taking (Hellekjaer, 2010). There were also
detrimental effects on content learning due to the inadequate competence of English teachers toteach content (Marsh et al., 2000). “CLIL affects the way the students learn the content because of
the added extra cognitive burden represented by the presence of the L2…” (Coonan, 2007, p. 643).
As a result, some research showed no differences in longitudinal studies (Admiraal et al., 2006;
Vollmer et al., 2006). While there were favorable reports of CLIL in learners learning the language
better than non-CLIL classes, the evidence has been a mixed bag.
The shift from “second language programs in which lessons are organized around subject
matter rather than language points” (Lightbown & Spada, 2006, p. 197) to one that is of equal footing
has posed competency challenges to the language or content teacher. It is not hard to see why thisidealized notion of CLIL is fraught with difficulties. Teachers’ competence in both content and54

ONTOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL RE-CONSIDERATION OF CLIL: THOUGHTS ON CONCEPT, COURSE DESIGN, AND ASSESSMENT

foreign language teaching is hard to find. Swain (1996) observed this about CBI: “there is a lot ofcontent teaching that occurs where little or no attention is paid to students’ target language use; andthere is a lot of language teaching that is done in the absence of context laden with meaning” (p. 530)
and this probably still holds true even for CLIL today. Hoare (2010) and Kong (2009) reported thelack of content depth, link between content and language, and clear language objective integrated
into the content. They also had an imbalance of focus, resources, and well-designed curricula (Kong& Hoare, 2011). Indeed, “teachers must know and know how to teach is comprised of both subject
matter content and language.” (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012, p. 254). My fear is that in most wellmeaning CLIL classes, they are masquerading as content-driven EMI classes or language-driven
English classes with thematic content.
Most CLIL classes today are designed from the language perspective. Known as “hard CLIL”,
these courses have thematic topics or disciplines, and the classes (and textbooks) begin with target
vocabulary, pre-reading, or listening language exercises. The classes are mostly designed withteaching the four skills and vocabulary in mind, and the content is still the means to an end(language). In addition, the content is often simplified or reduced in scope and depth compared to aregular content non-CLIL course. Cammarata and Tedick (2012) summed it well, “We have yet tounderstand, however, what balancing content and language really means for the teachers themselves.”(p. 251).

Conceptual re-consideration
Having foregrounded the problematization of CLIL’s ontological and pedagogical issues, how do
we move forward? Let us return to the original conception of CLIL where the focus is only bothcontent and language, which are “interwoven” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 11). What CLIL was originallyconceptualized should remain as the starting point. As it is not a new approach (Navés, 2009), CLIL
should be simply re-casted as: teaching both content and language together. But what of the 4 Cs (or5?), Language Triptych, BICS and CALP and Bloom’s Taxonomy? Thought (cognition) and language(communication) are so inextricably interwoven (Vygotsky, 1986) that it may be unnecessary to label
them separately. Similarly, for content and cognition, what is content (knowledge or information) if it
is not first thought of (remember or create), constructed (understanding, apply, analyze, or create),
or interpreted (evaluate) in the mind (cognition)?

I think, therefore I speak (content).
In fact, Coyle et al. (2010) stated that content provides the means for thinking to occur andrepresented in the triadic interconnectedness of content, language, and cognition. As such, when weteach content, we teach the thinking with it. This is because the teacher is concerned with learner’s
understanding of the content and its application. And when we assess the learner on content, we
assess the remembering, understanding, application, analysis, evaluation, and creation (Bloom
taxonomy) of the disciplinary knowledge. As we can see, content cannot exist without cognition, andseparating them will decontextualize either one. Similarly, when we teach language, we are alsoteaching the thinking with it. When we teach reading skills (as an example of the four language
skills), we teach learners how to identify (analyze and evaluate) the main idea (skimming) and details(scanning) and infer (predicting) the meaning of words and ideas of the author. Skimming andscanning involve analysis and evaluation. Predicting involves analysis, evaluation, and creation.

55

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Assessing language also means we assess the learner’s ability to remember and understand thedisciplinary vocabulary (terminology), to apply the disciplinary manner of writing and speaking, andto create the disciplinary forms of text and speech. Language, just like content and cognition, is
equally interwoven with cognition.
Therefore, when we are teaching either content or language, we do teach cognition as well. In
the educational scene, these are known as thinking skills or recognized as critical or creative thinking(others may include problem solving skills). Teaching thinking skills outside of content is akin toteaching language in a decontextualized manner. Ontologically then, cognition is inextricably
connected to both language and content. This then means that when we think of content andlanguage, we should be thinking of content with cognition and language with cognition. There is noneed to dichotomize them. This streamlining of thinking has implications to the pedagogical issues
which we will discuss later.
Having re-considered the ontological understanding of both content and language with cognition,
it is useful to re-visit the relationship between content and language. Coyle et al.’s (2010) dual focus
of content and language may be presumed due to the coming together of both disciplines andtradition, but some clarity to their relationship will aid us in our practice of CLIL. Advocates of theimmersion programs will argue that content and language are interwoven, and language is bestacquired the immersion way. After all, disciplinary knowledge (content) is understood and createdthrough language. In fact, content is represented by language, without which, it cannot be understood
nor communicated. Content needs language to be visible. Content and language then, appear to be
ontologically inseparable. And by extension, if we argue for the nonseparation of cognition with
content and language, should we not be consistent and argue for the nonseparation of content andlanguage?
Therefore, ontologically speaking, content and language are interwoven and learned together,whether in a content or language. class Here, we make a distinction between what is learned andwhat is acquired. In a content immersion (e.g., EMI) class, learners learn the disciplinary content
and acquire the target language through using the language without an explicit focus on the language
structures. In these classes, we also acquire language through listening and speaking the target
language (Krashen, 1981). In a language class, learners learn the target language through using
general knowledge and acquire content implicitly. What is learned is assessed, but what is acquired
is not assessed. However, there is linguistic content in a language class such as parts of speech or
terminologies (e.g., patterns of organization, cohesive markers, reading skills, etc.), which are taught
but not necessarily assessed as content.

Understanding CLIL in a continuum.
Despite Coyle et al.’s (2010) confidence that CLIL “is an innovative fusion of both (content andlanguage)” (p. 1), it is really not all that new. Navés’ (2009) remark, “Integrating content and language
is not new. It has been used for decades under different labels” ....not only helps to demystify theelevated notion of CLIL but also helps us see what CLIL really is. In the early days of shelteredinstruction and immersion programs and later CBI classes, the starting point was not from language
learning perspective but content. The goal was to have learners to be able to learn content throughthe target language. Language lessons ran parallel to support the content classes. The idea was thathaving reached a certain sufficient level of the language through these parallel or pre-content classes,
the learners would be able to understand the content and acquire the language in the target language-

56

ONTOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL RE-CONSIDERATION OF CLIL: THOUGHTS ON CONCEPT, COURSE DESIGN, AND ASSESSMENT

medium content classes. Language lessons sought to raise the proficiency levels of the learners withthe explicit teaching of language structures, components, and use. Understanding CLIL together
with all the other labels in a content and/or language-driven continuum (adapted from Met, 1998, p.
1) helps us appreciate the many different nuanced approaches to teaching content and language(Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Where CLIL is with other labels of teaching content and language
Soft CLIL

CLIL (just right)

EMI, CBICBLT

Hard CLIL
ESP, EAP, LAC

Content - driven
Immersion, Content course

Language - driven
Language classes
with thematic
content

Language classes withgeneral knowledge
used for practice

Dedicated language classes that familiarize learners to the target language of the content suchas English for Specific (ESP), English for Academic Purposes (EAP), and LAC are considered as
hard CLIL where language is the starting point (language driven) of the course aim. At the other endof the continuum, content classes are conducted in the target language, with content as the starting
point and language being acquired but neither explicitly taught nor assessed. In the middle where
the sweet spot of CLIL is, CBLT, which essentially shares the same ideology as CLIL (Cenoz, 2015),
perhaps offers a perspective where the starting point is content with language teaching coming
alongside.

Content and language can sometimes be separated.
As argued earlier that content and language are interwoven, should content and language belabelled separately, apart from historical and disciplinary reasons? This is where the pedagogicalturn argues for them to be seen differently from the learning perspective. Disciplinary knowledge (interms of vocabulary or terminology) has different representations in different languages. As such,learning content in a target language will be new to the learner even though the very same knowledge(in L1) has already been understood. In this respect, the content clothed in target language is and canbe considered different content. As a result, cognitively, the mind recognizes the L2 representation as
different from the L1 representation and, therefore, is seen separate. There are then two different‘content’ as it were. This phenomenon happened in multilinguistic settings where a common L1 is notafforded in a classroom as is the case and nature of CLIL classes. Second, when language is taught,
it is learned from a form-focused perspective. Form-focused learning demands attention to structuresand components peculiar to language. For example, grammar rules, genre moves, speech acts,
etymology, idiomatical expressions are some examples of these linguistic structures that are clearly
different from the target content taught in a CLIL class. Also, these linguistic structures belong a
different content domain of the field of linguistics. As such, language can be seen as a different‘content’, both representationally in a multilinguistic setting and structurally in knowledge
construction. And thus, language can be conceptualized differently from content. Therefore,57

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

ontologically, while there are clearly no hard lines drawn between these three: content, language, andcognition in a common (L1) language, content and language do have pedagogical distinctiveness due
to foreign language acquisition and multilinguistic settings. Seeing content and language pedagogicallydifferent while recognizing them as ontologically interwoven helps in our practice of CLIL.
How do we weave in other Cs, culture, context, and community? When content, language andcognition are taught, as in any learning situation, they are situated in the culture of the content, thelanguage it is expressed in and the cognition that is demanded of it. When a Chinese teaches Physics
in China, the teacher uses Chinese to explain the concepts using the Chinese textbook and Chinese
expressions and examples. This teaching context would be very much different from anothercontext, say in India, or anywhere else in the world. The context can be different also if the Chinese
Physics class is taught in Beijing or Hong Kong. And the community of learners and teachers thatlearn from each other will also be very different from place to place. While I have illustrated thedifferent cultures, contexts and communities that are embedded in different learning environments,
there are also disciplinary content cultures that different disciplines conduct themselves. The waythat humanities create, construct, and share its knowledge is different from the way the sciences do.
These cultural conventions and expressions are different and are communicated and thought out inthe classrooms driven by the content. In order words, the content, language, and cognition that are
taught are contextualized and encultured in the disciplinary culture, local context, and learning
community of the learner. Of course, each of these notions, culture, context, and community are
fluid, with each overlapping and including one another that it can be difficult to draw hard lines
between them. These are useful concepts to be acknowledged in any learning environment, but weshall not seek to include them in the pedagogical considerations as they are inherently embedded in
the learning environment.

Practical considerations
Having re-considered how content, language, and cognition can be understood in context andculture, we now turn to pedagogical considerations of this understanding in the CLIL classroom. As
intimated earlier to the Occam’s Razor’s principle, keeping the CLIL conceptual framework simple
will better serve practitioners to faithfully apply CLIL as well reaping the benefits that CLIL offers. As
mentioned earlier, when we teach and assess content and language, we also teach the cognition
behind them and assess them embedded in disciplinary culture, context, and community. This section
will now illustrate pedagogical implications of this re-considered conceptual framework.

Writing CLIL Aims and Learning OutcomesLet me use a soon-to-be-adopted CLIL course at Rikkyo University to illustrate why and how
content and language can be taught and assessed. I will also explain the differences between a CLIL
and a non-CLIL course in the aims and learning outcomes (LOs). This course, CLIL Ecology, is to betaken by students at the CEFR B2 level with the intent to reach C1 level. The course aims and LOs
are listed below:
This course aims to create an awareness of and concern about the ecology and its associatedproblems, with the goal for students to discuss these issues and present possible solutions in English.
Students will learn the extent of these current global ecological challenges, their impact on ecology
and human life, and their personal responsibility through collaborative learning and problem solving.

58

ONTOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL RE-CONSIDERATION OF CLIL: THOUGHTS ON CONCEPT, COURSE DESIGN, AND ASSESSMENT

Students will also acquire critical thinking skills and appropriate English expressions to effectively
communicate these ecological issues through discussion and presentations.
At the end of the course, students will be able to (LO1-3):
1. Identify and explain the concerns about the extent of the current ecological challenges, theirimpact to ecology and human life including personal responsibility.
2. Evaluate and propose solutions to current ecological problems through collaboration.
3. Identify arguments, nuances and implied meaning of texts and digital media on current
ecological issues.
As we can see, the course is very much described like a content course with some differences. The
inclusion of the words, “in English” and “appropriate English expressions” (see above), specify toreaders that English is the communication mode of this course and in particular, the receptive skillsof the target language. The productive language skills of “to discuss these issues and present” and“to effectively communicate” indicate the language abilities to be performed in this course. These
inclusions are significant to CLIL especially when it is conducted in a non-English speaking
environment. If it is conducted in an English-speaking environment, these words would have been
unnecessary. Explicitly stated words such as these are helpful in conveying the target language, andacquisition and production are part of the aim of the course. These words are also meaningful
without having to include technical jargon such as ‘CLIL’ and yet stay true to the emphasis on bothcontent and language.
Attention can be drawn to a specific set of cognition, though not necessary, in the stipulated
words of ‘acquire critical thinking skills’ and ‘problem solving’. But these inclusions are notnecessarily ‘CLILish’ but are also found in non-CLIL content descriptions of the aims. Likewise,
words, ‘through collaborative learning and problem solving’ and ‘through discussion and presentations’stipulate the learning process context and learning community, which can also be found in non-CLIL
courses.
A point to note is these ‘through’ language productive output, ‘discuss…and present…’ and‘through discussion and presentations’. Although they may also be found in carefully written
non-CLIL courses’ aims, the implicity of the language focus is made explicit with the words, “inEnglish” and “appropriate English expressions”. Thus, stating the latter in the description issignificant, drawing the reader’s attention to these communicative modes of learning, including
assessment. But here in the aim, we can already see how interwoven the language (‘discuss theseissues’ and ‘present solutions’), the content (‘discuss these issues’ on ‘awareness of and concern about
the ecology’) and cognition (‘discuss these issues and present possible solutions’) are.
Having declared what entails in the course aims, how do we tell what exactly is to be taught andassessed? The course cannot possibly teach all that has been mentioned and assess them. LOs are
not only where these can be clearly observed and measured but also where CLIL elements are madeexplicit. This is where the students are expected to demonstrate their learned competencies by theend of the course. All the LO’s have observable verbs, ‘identify’, ‘explain’, ‘evaluate’ and ‘propose’.
What teachers can observe are not just the content (‘extent of’, ‘impact to’, ‘personal responsibility’and ‘current…problems’) but the language (‘explain’ and ‘propose’) which includes cognition(‘identify’, ‘explain’, ‘evaluate’ and ‘propose’). Again, we can see how the content, language andcognition are seen as together, not separated.
While LO1 and LO2 (Figure) may appear to be atypical of a content non-CLIL course, it is theinclusion of LO3 that reveals the language components that are expected to be learned and therefore
taught. In identifying “arguments, nuances and implied meaning of texts and digital media”, this59

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

competency clearly involves both listening and reading (or viewing) skills (which incidentally is a
CEFR descriptor (number 85) for a communicative receptive skill). Some non-CLIL courses may
have this type of outcomes but having this here clearly heighten the language focus.
But what of ‘discuss’ and ‘present’? And ‘collaborative learning’, ‘problem solving’ and ‘criticalthinking’? Since ‘discuss’ is not found in the LOs, it is expected to be taught nor assessed, and‘present’ can be counted under ‘explain’ and ‘propose’ if that is the design of the course. Both ‘explain’and ‘propose’ can be observed either as an oral presentation or written report. ‘Collaborative learning’and ‘problem solving’ are seen as the means rather than an end to be assessed in LO2. And ‘criticalthinking’ is the larger category of ‘identify’, ‘explain’, ‘evaluate’ and ‘propose’.
The materials and teaching plans for language structures are now then designed from thecontent. This suggests that the relevant language structures in the content, which otherwise would
not have been taught in a regular content class, are now equally intended as LOs for the learners. For
example, in social science disciplines such as sociology, economics, geography, or history, thediscussion or report writing style are included as a LO in the course. Or in the hard sciences, suchas biochemistry, medicine or physics, science communication presentation or scientific hedging are
to be taught. This also suggests that regular academic content is used as text or material for learningof the language. In the more language driven CLIL, the thematic content, or general knowledge
approach should be replaced by academic and disciplinary knowledge that are taught in regular
content classes. So, in terms of what is taught, a CLIL course uses non-CLIL content and havelanguage learning outcomes in its teaching.

“What it looks like in practice”- driver and co-driver.
Skehan’s (1998) flexible wielding of the focus on fluency and form in language learning areuseful for our consideration here. Form focused is to pedagogically draw “attention to the forms andstructures of the language within the context of communicative interaction… by giving metalinguistic
information, simply highlighting the form in question, or by providing corrective feedback”(Lightbown & Spada, 2006, p. 199). While Skehan was balancing the teaching of fluency with form,
Lyster’s counterbalanced instruction (Lyster & Mori, 2006) sought to provide a useful direction of“systematically integrating content-based and form-focused instructional options” (pp. 3-4). Thiscounterbalanced approach helps us to see how language can be taught within a content class.
So then, we can illustrate this counterbalanced approach with content as the driver and languageas the co-driver. This is a pedagogical distinction in order for both content and language to be taught
together in the classroom. The driver takes a certain direction, and the co-driver comes in as andwhen there is a need to advise or point out certain things that the driver may have missed. In
addition, sometimes during the journey, the co-driver may take over the driving for a while for thedriver to take a rest. This section will now suggest three ways on how and when language is ‘driven’
alongside content.
a. Language is taught episodically as an intervention.
Gibbons’ (2015, p. 227) hourglass analogy on how teachers can focus on language as a study and
Lyster’s (2018, p. 99) instructional sequence for CBLT offer us an approach when to teach language
and when content takes precedence. As the analogy suggests, a CLIL class can begin with the content
teaching but is “narrowed” at some points to teach the language at the appropriate time. These are
the times when the teaching of the content necessitates an etymological understanding or a

60

ONTOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL RE-CONSIDERATION OF CLIL: THOUGHTS ON CONCEPT, COURSE DESIGN, AND ASSESSMENT

subsequent communicative act. It begins with the whole (content class) and moves to the parts(language episodes). Comparisons can be drawn from Long’s (1991) “focus on form” (p. 46) during
the focus on meaning in a communicative learning activity. In a similar fashion, a time out can becalled on the content teaching, to detour to a language structure teaching and subsequently return tothe content teaching. This can mean a language activity or mini lecture to “notice” (Schmidt, 1990)
and explicate the language structure. The language activity may include enhanced input, noticing
and awareness tasks, production practices, and negotiation for feedback (Lyster, 2007). Here, Lyster(2007) mentioned the use of prompts and recasts. These can both emerge incidentally or pre-planned
as a language outcome in the class.
These focus on form moments are by no means ad hoc or incidental but are pre-planned at theclassroom level and at the course design level, and as indicated by the language LOs. These
interventions may last for a few minutes to draw learners’ attention to the form, or a 15-minuteepisode of language learning activity to an entire lesson. While planned by the instructor, language
learning may also be requested by learners during the teaching of content, a dedicated time todeliberate and focus on the linguistic form. Thus, language teaching becomes episodic and serves asinterventions to the linguistic needs of the content and learners’ feedback.
b. Language episodic teaching is engendered by the context of the content teaching.
The content taught serves as the context for the language teaching in the classroom. Because
the teaching of language is not incidental but purposeful, the episodic language lessons are plannedinterventions driven by the contextual needs of the content. For example, at the course design level,in preparation for writing a scientific report or presentation in a week’s time, the teaching of thewriting or oral presentation takes place during the previous weeks. Or at the classroom level, where
the problem solution pattern of organization or collocations of technical vocabulary is needed to be
explicated to deepen the understanding of the content, they are taught episodically at that point. The
context of the content teaching can come from the design of the content before class, learners’
feedback, and instructor’s observations during class.
The context of the content teaching (the linguistic form and meaning, conventions and currency,
academic and professional practice, etc.,) engenders the design (both before and during thesemester) of these episodic language teaching in the class and course. Socio-culturally, the learners
in the classroom, the instructor responsible for that class, and the affordances in the classroom are
the cultural elements that shape the context as well. Thus, a CLIL course uses the content context todesign the language learning activities, and the context also affords the emergence of these episodic
language teaching that is specific to the class. The context engenders the language teaching.
c. Language is taught inductively.
In language-driven CLIL classes (or regular language classes), language structures are taught as
principles or forms at the beginning followed by examples and explanations. Take the grammar formor vocabulary as examples, the grammar is introduced first as a rule at the sentence level or a
pre-reading word list is first given. These language structures are then explained and practiced until
they are understood, before they are seen in the larger context, a reading text or chapter. However,in a dual-focused CLIL class where the content is first introduced, the language structures are
induced, or they emerged from the context of the content. Learners encounter the grammar structure
or vocabulary in the content first before these language structures are made aware of and focused onas an episodic study. Language learning is induced from the content and not de-contextually taught.

61

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

In CLIL, learners see the whole (language and content) before they see the parts (language incontent). Learners do not learn the parts first before seeing how they fit the whole.
Learning language in this manner has several advantages. First, language is learned in acontextualized manner which prolongs memory, provides relevance, and engages interest. Second,learners see the direct connection and the ‘interwovenness’ between language and content. Third,
language is learned in a ‘naturalistic’ setting where learners encounter the ‘reality’ of language use in
an authentic situation of an academic or real-world text, face a cognitive conflict of unresolved
understanding of text, and receive help to understand and learn the knowledge (and language) of the
text. This process of learning fits well in the sociocultural constructivist and interactionist theories oflearning (Vygotsky’s (1986) Zone of proximal development, mediation, scaffolding, and activity).

CLIL lesson plan
Table 1 shows an illustration on how and where the input and output of content and language arefacilitated. The lesson begins with the input (1) of a content text where learners seek to understandthe content in the target language. Besides grappling with the new disciplinary content, the learneris also facing the vocabulary and idiomatic expressions of the discipline. Once the learners havefinished reading the text, they are quizzed (2) on their understanding of the content and language
components inherent in the text. Here, the instructor must be selective and design the language goalof this class into the quiz questions. The quiz consists of equal, if not similar, number of questions oncontent and language. This is where the language focus begins at the output level. Learners are cued
to notice the language components when answering these language questions. This is CLIL at work.
Table 1
Example of a CLIL Lesson Plan
Learner activity

Where content and language are taught

1 Read text

Content text in target language

2 Quiz on text

Equal number of quiz questions on content and language

3 Discuss answers with instructor Equal amount of time spent on discussing content and language questions.
45

Listen to mini lectures

6 Review lesson

Instructor explains content (from text) to fill the knowledge gaps.
Instructor explains language structures derived from text.
Instructor reviews both content and language

The discussion of the answers (3) next allows learners to surface their knowledge gaps of not justcontent but also language. This is followed by mini lectures from the instructor to explain further theconcepts if necessary. This is also where the language components are introduced (5) and focused
where they may not be apparent especially when the general attention has been on the content. It is
important to note that the introduction of the language component is not teaching a new andunrelated language structure. The language structure emerges from the text that was read. For
example, in teaching patterns of organization, the pattern that the content text uses will be discussed
and not from another text. This way, learners can see how interwoven content and language are andtheir relevance to each other. As evidenced in this lesson plan (Table 1), language is taught alongsidecontent in an episodic manner derived from content.

62

ONTOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL RE-CONSIDERATION OF CLIL: THOUGHTS ON CONCEPT, COURSE DESIGN, AND ASSESSMENT

Assessment drives learning and therefore teaching.
No discussion on the practice of teaching approach is complete without having some thoughts
on assessment. The assessment is arguably the reason for task performance and learning whether
we see it as an end (of learning) or as the way to learn (for learning) (Black, & Wiliam, 1998). Whenthe teacher ignores either the content or language (and cognition for that matter) in the assessmentof an assignment, the learner will take the cue from assessment. As a result, whether in a CLIL or
non-CLIL class, the assessment must remain true and assess the intent and outcomes of the course.
As such, for a CLIL course to be true to its intent, both content and language must be assessed, andequally.
In the assessment of a CLIL course, equal if not similar weighting of grades should be accorded
to content and language. And this is often not stipulated in the description of assessments orassignments. By extending to both equally, this stipulation will not only ensure the assessors’
attention to both without neglect one over the other, but also draws learners’ attention that language
is equally important. This stipulation can be best expressed in the marking rubric where they aretaken as the reference point for assessing learners’ output. Taking the rubric example (Table 2) of apresentation assignment in the proposed Ecology CLIL course, we can see the clear inclusion of thecategory of language and that it is equally valued in terms of the allocation of criteria. This may alsotranslate into similar or equal weighting for each criteria of the final grade for a learner presentation.
The inclusion of marking criteria for language is often missing in non-CLIL courses.
It is noteworthy to point out that what is assessed is the content and language learned and notwhat is acquired. When learners work in groups (community), they acquire collaborative orcooperative skills, but these skills are not assessed as they were not explicitly taught, unlike content
and language. What has not been explicitly stated in the aim, learning outcomes, and assessment
criteria should not be assessed so as to be true to what is intended and negotiated with the learner.
This is also known as constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2011) in course design where the aim,
learning outcomes, teaching, learning activities, and assessment are aligned.
Table 2
Example of Marking rubric of a CLIL Environmental course

Assessment rubric for Presentation

Content

Knowledge of deforestation,
biodiversity loss, waste
disposal, climate change,pollution, etc.

Assessment criteria
Identifies appropriate concerns about the actual
extent of a current environment challenge, its
impact to both environment and human life.
e.g., identifies key issues, evidence, and reality of theecological problem.
Evaluates appropriately and sufficiently a current
environmental problem.
e.g., identify and analyze the struggles, controversies,
opportunities, and criteria to assess the situation to
redress the ecological problem.

63

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Content
Communication/ Language

Knowledge of deforestation,
biodiversity loss, waste
disposal, climate change,pollution, etc.

Produces appropriate and logical ideas or
solutions to a current environment problem.
e.g., Generates practical answers and ways to reduce,
stop, prevent, or reimagine the management of theecological problem.

Procedural knowledge on
global and personal response

Identifies an appropriate and logical personal
responsibility to a current environment challenge.
e.g., Presents a practical and personal plan in responseto an ecological problem.

Coherence and organization

Expresses coherently and cohesively the concernsof, and solutions to a current environment
challenge.
e.g., Produces clear, smoothly flowing, well-structured
language, showing controlled use of organizational
patterns, connectors, and cohesive devices. (CEFR1297)*

Clarity and multimodal media

Produces clear and well-structured texts andvisuals of a current environment challenge.
e.g., Shows organized, relevant, intelligible, andsignificant information with relevant examples in
multimodal media. (CEFR 317)*

Confidence and gestures

Appears calm, relaxed, and does not need to think
about content when signing.
e.g., Demonstrates confidence in public speaking with
relevant gestures and presence. (CEFR 1761 and 1762)*

Vocabular y and idiomatic
expressions

Uses appropriately the range of technicalvocabular y and idiomatic expressions common to
the field of environment.
e.g., Presents words and phrases that are specific to theacademic language and professional practice ofenvironmentalists. (CEFR 1156)** The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2018)

As we can see, in the assessment, when we judge a learner’s content, we are judging how the learner‘identifies’, ‘evaluates’, and ‘produces’ knowledge that is appropriate, real, logical, and sufficient to bedeemed satisfactory. The appropriacy, logic, reality, and adequacy of knowledge presented is qualityof the cognition of identifying, evaluating and production. Likewise, for language, how the learner‘expresses’, ‘produces’, ‘appears’, and ‘uses’ the language and language related devices also
demonstrate the quality of the cognition of application. Each of the language criteria is taken from andreferenced to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages Descriptor Scheme(Council of Europe, 2018) with the corresponding number code and level.

64

ONTOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL RE-CONSIDERATION OF CLIL: THOUGHTS ON CONCEPT, COURSE DESIGN, AND ASSESSMENT

Conclusion
In our re-consideration of the current understanding of CLIL, we have pared CLIL to essentiallythe teaching and learning of the two, content and language. We have shown how inseparable andinterwoven content, language, and cognition are. The other concepts of culture, context, andcommunity are situated and interwoven in the teaching of content, language, and cognition. They are
all essentially relational and contextualized and contingent on the content taught and language use.
Pedagogically, we have illustrated how content and language can be taught together with theillustration of content as the driver and language as the co-driver. CLIL teachers need to concern
themselves with designing a content class with a language focus at appropriate and critical junctures,teaching language episodically and inductively for learners to learn the content through and with thelanguage. This begins with the design of the course aims and learning outcomes with explicit
mention of the target language. The teaching is also designed with content (the whole) as thestarting point, interspersed with focus on form (language use), but engendered from content. The
assessment is also designed with explicit measurement of language components that are equallyweighted on content and language. This not only distinguishes itself from non-CLIL classes but also
ensures learners’ attention as to what is valued in a CLIL class. We believe that this is what CLIL
ought to look like in practice.
There is, of course, more to be discussed regarding the ontological relationship of the other Cs
that this paper did not have the space to do so adequately. There is also more to be detailed in theclassroom practice at the pedagogy level. CLIL is an approach with much of the pedagogy of learning
left to the interpretation of practitioners. It is with hope that this paper has contributed in some ways
to streamline the clarity of what CLIL is and how it can be demonstrated in the classroom.

Reference
Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the
Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation,
12, 75–93.
Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University Press.
Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. (4th Ed.). McGraw Hill
Education & Open University Press.
Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1),
7–74.
Bruton, A. (2012). Is CLIL so Beneficial, or Just Selective? Re-evaluating Some of the Research.
System, 39, 523-532.
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the Reasons Why ... And Why Not. System, 41, 587-597.
Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. (2012). Balancing Content and Language in Instruction: The Experienceof Immersion Teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96. 153-289.
Cenoz J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the sameor different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8-24.
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F. & Gorter, D. (2013). Critical Analysis of CLIL: Taking Stock and Looking
Forward, Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262.
Coonan, C. M. (2007). Insider views of the CLIL class through teacher self-observation-introspection.
The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 625-646.

65

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Coyle, D. (2007). Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a connected research agenda
for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10,543-562.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge
University Press.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. England:
Multilingual Matters.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014). “You Can Stand Under My Umbrella”:
Immersion, CLIL and Bilingual Education. A Response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013).
Applied Linguistics, 35. 213-218.
Genesee, F., & Lindholm-Leary, K. (2013). Two case studies of content-based language education.
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1.
Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in
the mainstream classroom (2nd ed.). Heinemann.
Hellekjaer, G. O. (2010). Language Matters: Assessing lecture comprehension in Norwegian Englishmedium higher education. In C. D. Puffer, T. Nikula & U. Smit, Language use and language
learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 233-258). John Benjamins.
Hoare, P. (2010). Content-based language teaching in China: Contextual influences on implementation.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31(1), 69–86.
Kong, S. (2009). Content-based instruction: What can we learn from content trained teachers’ andlanguage-trained teachers’ pedagogies? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(2),229–263.
Kong, S., & Hoare, P. (2011). Cognitive content engagement in content-based language teaching.
Language Teaching Research, 15 (3), 307-324.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Pergamon Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4),212-218.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences thansimilarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–375.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot,
R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp.
39-52). John Benjamins.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. John
Benjamins.
Lyster, R. (2018). Content-based language teaching. Routledge.
Lyster, R., & Ballinger, S. (2011). Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns acrossdivergent contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 279-288.
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 28, 269-300.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Kong, C. K. (2000). Late immersion and language of instruction in Hong
Kong high schools: Achievement growth in language and non-language subjects. Harvard
Educational Review, 70, 302-346.
Marsh, D., Perez Canado, M. L., & Padilla, J. R. (2015). CLIL in Action: Voices from the Classroom.
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

66

ONTOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL RE-CONSIDERATION OF CLIL: THOUGHTS ON CONCEPT, COURSE DESIGN, AND ASSESSMENT

Marsick, V. J. & Watkins, K. (1990). Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace. Routledge.
Marsick, V., Watkins, K., Scully-Russ, E., & Nicolaides, A. (2017). Rethinking informal and incidental
learning in terms of complexity and the social context. Journal of Adult Learning, Knowledge
and Innovation, 1.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated
learning in bilingual and multilingual education. MacMillan.
Met, M. (1998). Curriculum decision-making in content-based language teaching. In J. Cenoz & F.
Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 35-63).
Clevedon. Multilingual Matters.
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., & Lorenzo, F. (2016). More than Content and Language:
The Complexity of Integration in CLIL and Bilingual Education. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P.
Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education (pp.
1–25). Multilingual Matters.
Nikula, T., & Mård-Miettinen, K. (2014). Language learning in immersion and CLIL classrooms. In J.
Östman & J. Verschueren, Handbook of Pragmatics, John Benjamins.
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: past, present, and future. International Journalof Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315-341.
Pérez Cañado, M. L., & Padilla, J.R. (2015). Introduction and Overview. In D. Marsh, M. L. Pérez
Cañado & J. R. Padilla (Eds.), CLIL in Action: Voices from the classroom (pp. 1-9). Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11,
129-158.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1996). Integrating language and content in immersion classrooms: Research perspectives.
The Canadian Modern Language Review, 52, 529-548.
Vollmer, H. J., Heine, L., Troschke, R., Coetzee, D., & Kuttel, V. (2006). Subject specific competence
and language use of CLIL learners: The case of geography in grade 10 of secondary schools inGermany. ESSE8 Conference, London, UK.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press.

67

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）【Research Article】

Platform Preferences for Video Content in a Flipped Classroom:
Students’ Perceptions of YouTube as a Platform for Learning
Jonathan Hennessy
Abstract
This paper details the use of the flipped classroom paradigm with teacher-created videos in a new mandatory English
debate class at a Japanese university. It investigates the perceptions of the students with regards to the use of video
instruction as well as their perceptions and preferences with regards to the platform used for sharing the videos.
Three surveys were distributed asking students about their perceptions of using YouTube for learning with videos
and compared their views on YouTube versus compared to the Blackboard learning management system common in
their university classes. Students were found to have positive views of the flipped classroom, and the videos wereconsidered useful for preparation and review in the context of this course. Their perceptions of YouTube as a platform
for learning were also generally positive and became more positive after being provided with videos for the class. By
the end of the course, it was clear that most students had a preferred platform for the videos, and while YouTube wasmore popular than Blackboard, there was a sizable group that preferred Blackboard. The researcher concludes that
YouTube is a valid choice for distributing video instruction in a flipped classroom, but that providing multiple
platforms could be beneficial in meeting the needs of all students in a given course.
Keywords: Flipped Classroom, YouTube, Student Perceptions

INTRODUCTION
In the Fall 2020 semester, Rikkyo University introduced English Debate as a new mandatoryclass for all first-year students. The continuing coronavirus pandemic necessitated that the class was
conducted entirely online, and the course had to be modified from the expected plan to accommodate
these online lessons. The course design included introducing different stages of a debate to students
as “debate skills” combined with practice activities for each skill and frequent group debates.
Teachers generally were expected to teach the lessons using Zoom for live video lessons but wereencouraged to consider making adjustments to the lesson plan to include offline or asynchronouscomponents in order to reduce the consecutive screen time required of the students. Making use ofboth face-to-face class time and separate online activities is referred to as blended learning (Fabbian
et al. 2017), and while the entire class was taught online, splitting between a live video call and otherasynchronous activities is certainly a similar style of teaching. From there, the researcher decided tomake use of the flipped classroom, the practice of introducing new material to students prior to theirclass time through the use of technology (Wu et al. 2017), so that the traditional classroom/
homework concept is flipped (Overmeyer, 2012).
Flipped classrooms often use videos for students to learn or review content independently
outside of class (Lin and Huang, 2018), and they often rely on teacher created videos (Overmeyer,2012). The time in class is then generally more focused on activities and interaction with the teacher
to reinforce the content learned prior to the lesson (Overmeyer, 2012; Basal, 2015; Moravec et al,
2010; Lin and Huang, 2018). Blended learning and the flipped classroom design have been supported
as effective methods of instruction in the current body of research. Benefits of the flipped classroom

68

PLATFORM PREFERENCES FOR VIDEO CONTENT IN A FLIPPED CLASSROOM: STUDENTSʼ PERCEPTIONS OF YOUTUBE AS A PLATFORM FOR LEARNING

and blended learning include increased motivation (Hsieh et al, 2017), improved teacher-student
feedback and interaction (Fabbian et al. 2017), increased study time (Hung, 2015), increased
engagement with the material (Jamaludin, 2014), and increased learner autonomy (Han, 2015).
Fabian et al. (2017) noted that it increases the flexibility for students, and Basal (2015) explained thatthe flipped classroom allows for students to learn at their own pace and that the ability for students
to prepare in advance can help to overcome time limitations in the classroom and increase student
participation during class time. The general format of a flipped classroom and its benefits seemed
particularly relevant to the new English Debate class as it was expected that students would vary in
the amount of time necessary to grasp the concepts that would be presented. The increased flexibility
and potential for students to work at their own pace during the introduction of new content could be
expected to allow for better participation and interaction, as well as more advanced learning during
the live video lessons without the need for extended instruction during a video lesson, which would
be useful to some but unnecessary for others. Wu et al. (2017) supported this idea, noting that theflipped classroom allows for more advanced learning during class time.
Flipped classrooms and blended approaches have also been found to improve learner outcomes.
Wu et al. (2017) found improved oral proficiency and increased ability to use what was learned
among the students who had learned with a flipped classroom. Hsieh et al (2017) found flipped
instruction increased students’ knowledge and oral ability with idioms. Moravec et al (2010) observedthat moving presentation of new material to pre-class assignments combined with activities in class
resulted in significant student learning gains. Ahmad (2016) saw improvements to listening
comprehension with flipped learning. Bhagat et al (2016) found video instruction to outperform inclass instruction. In general, the research suggests that video lessons and the flipped classroom havea positive effect on student learning and the ability to use what they have learned.
Flipped classrooms have also been found to be generally well received in terms of student
perceptions. Sweeney (2010) noted that many students already use technology to find information forschool or for their own interests. Other studies have found that students respond well to using
technology in their lessons. Lin and Huang (2018) found that the students in their study accepted andwere motivated by mobile learning. Goertler (2009) reported that students were engaged andentertained by computer-mediated communication and that it had a positive effect on their attitudes.
Gaughan (2014) noted that students stated that videos before class helped them prepare. Hseih et al.
(2017) claimed that flipped instruction with online interaction motivated students.
However, not all research into flipped classrooms and blended learning is positive. Wilcox(2009) noted that not all students have a positive view of video instruction and that students’ beliefs
about their own role and what counts as language learning could influence the effectiveness of video
learning. Bartholomew and Reeve (2018) found a disconnect between how students expected to use
mobile devices for learning and their actual use and noted student concerns about distraction.
Fabbian et al. (2017) found that students expressed concern about reduced interaction with theteacher and that not all students saw the connection between the two modes of instruction. Delozier(2017) looked at effectiveness of video lectures and did not find any difference between instruction
through videos and in person lectures and suggested that any difference was the result of freeing up
class time. This could suggest that studies that found video lectures to outperform in class lectures
may have done what Fabbian et al (2017) cautioned against and simply added extra work to thecourse instead of replacing in-class instruction with computer-mediated instruction. The specifictechnology being used in the classroom can also be important in designing a flipped classroom. Levy
(2009) noted that the users’ ability to understand and use a platform is more important than the69

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

actual capabilities of the platform in a flipped classroom. Rubin et al. (2013) stated that students’satisfaction with the learning management system they used predicted course satisfaction. This cancause problems if teachers are not careful. Fabbian et al. (2017) highlighted that not all students intheir study were easily able to make effective use of the technology provided for a flipped class.
Overall, it seems that the research indicates that if appropriate attention is paid to students’abilities and perceptions with regards to the learning platforms that are used, a flipped classroom
could be an effective tool for introducing new content to the English Debate class when combinedwith live video call lessons for more advanced practice of the learned concepts. In this study, students
were provided with videos created by the researcher to introduce and review the concepts they were
expected to learn for the course. The videos were provided on two platforms: Blackboard, a learning
management system which students were familiar with due to its use by the university for online
courses in the previous semester, and YouTube, with the expectation that the majority of students
would be familiar with due to personal use. With the importance of students’ ability to use a platform(Levy, 2009) and their satisfaction with a learning management system being important for course
satisfaction (Rubin et al. 2013), students were surveyed three times throughout their semester about
their perceptions of YouTube as a platform for video lectures. In the third survey, they wereadditionally surveyed about their preferences and perceptions of YouTube compared to Blackboard
and their general perceptions about the use of video instruction in a flipped classroom in the context
of this online English Debate course.

RESEARCH DESIGN
A total of 17 videos were created by the researcher for the course. These videos were used bothfor introducing new concepts, such as constructing arguments or making a rebuttal for a debate, andfor reviewing the concepts later in the semester. Videos were shared with students following mostclasses, and students were asked to complete a simple assignment on Blackboard to test theirunderstanding of the concepts being taught with the videos. As the videos were intended to replacein class instruction, students were asked to watch the videos and complete the online assignment intheir own time prior to the next class, but the live video lessons were shortened to account for newcontent being introduced outside of class time. All videos were provided on two separate platforms.
They were available for download through the Blackboard learning management system, and they
were also available on YouTube. The YouTube links were provided at the same time as the files were
uploaded to Blackboard. Students could be expected to be familiar with Blackboard as they would
have used it in the previous semester of online courses, and the researcher expected that most
students would be familiar with YouTube due to personal use. The videos were uploaded and sharedeach week following the live Zoom class, and students were directed to them through both anannouncement on Blackboard and a simultaneous email. Students were told that they could watch
the videos on either platform and there was no instruction to suggest that either option was better or
preferred.
Five classes consisting of a total of 95 students participated in these classes, and all of them wereasked to complete three surveys. The first survey was shared after the second lesson, the second
survey after the 6th lesson, and the final survey after the 13th lesson. Of those 95 students, 70
consented to having their answers used for research and completed all three of the surveys. The
surveys were shared on Blackboard and were given as homework assignments. Data from students
who did not give their consent but still filled out surveys and data from students who did not complete70

PLATFORM PREFERENCES FOR VIDEO CONTENT IN A FLIPPED CLASSROOM: STUDENTSʼ PERCEPTIONS OF YOUTUBE AS A PLATFORM FOR LEARNING

all three surveys were removed prior to downloading and analyzing the results. The first survey
asked students about their familiarity and experience with YouTube as well as their perceptions ofYouTube as a platform for learning. It also asked them to share their perceptions both prior tostarting the course and their current perceptions after having watched two sets of videos. The second
survey asked only for their current perceptions after the 6th lesson. The third survey again asked fortheir current perceptions, but also asked for their actual use of the videos and their thoughts about
YouTube and Blackboard as platforms for sharing and watching the video lectures. The questions
and answers for the three surveys can be seen in Appendices A, B, and C at the end of this paper. As
the students were not native English speakers, the surveys were all shared with a Japanese translation
to improve the chances that students could understand and accurately answer the questions.

DATA
First Sur vey
In the first survey students were asked about their familiarity with YouTube as a platform as wellas their perceptions of it as a platform for learning. They were asked to give their perceptions frombefore starting the class as well as their current thoughts after watching two sets of videos for thecourse. The full list of questions for the first survey can be found in Appendix A. Out of 70 respondents
62 said they were familiar with YouTube as a platform, 7 said they were not, and 1 student did not
answer. Furthermore, 38 said they had used YouTube for a class before with 32 saying they had not.
In addition, 58 answered that they had previously used YouTube to learn something themselves
while only 12 answered that they had not done so. This matched the expectations in course designthat most students would be familiar with YouTube and that many of them would have experience
using it to learn something. The fact that more than half had previously used YouTube for a class was
not expected, but further supported the idea that students might be comfortable using it for thiscourse.
Yes

No

Unanswered

Are you familiar with YouTube and how to use the platform?

62

7

1

Have you ever used YouTube for a class before?

38

32

0

Have you ever used YouTube to learn something by yourself before?

58

12

0

Figure 1. Experience with YouTube

Students gave their perceptions of YouTube as a platform for learning on six scales. They used
a 5-point Likert scale to rate their perceptions of YouTube for usefulness, helpfulness, trustworthiness,
professionalism, ease of use, and convenience. Prior to distributing the surveys, the researcher
hypothesized that these six responses could be grouped into three constructs: usefulness/
helpfulness, trustworthiness/professionalism, and ease of use/convenience. All unansweredquestions were removed from the data, and the responses were checked using Chronbach’s alpha.
Using the data of students’ perceptions prior to the class, usefulness and helpfulness had a
Chronbach’s alpha coefficient of .652, trustworthiness and professionalism had a coefficient of .755,
and ease of use and convenience had a coefficient of .569.
With the data for students’ current perceptions after viewing two sets of videos, usefulness andhelpfulness had a coefficient of .811, trustworthiness and professionalism had a coefficient of .742,
71

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

and ease of use and convenience had a coefficient of .586. These coefficients suggest that the
responses for usefulness and helpfulness were reasonably strongly correlated as were the responses
for trustworthiness and professionalism. It is reasonable to accept that these questions can begrouped as asking for the same underlying construct and can be discussed together. Ease of use andconvenience, however, were less strongly correlated and should be considered separately inevaluating this data. Chronbach’s alpha coefficient for these constructs in the later surveys will bementioned with that data, but the conclusion remained consistent with students’ perceptions ofusefulness consistently being correlated with their perceptions of helpfulness, their perceptions oftrustworthiness being correlated with professionalism, and their perceptions of ease of use not being
strongly correlated with convenience.
Figure 2 below breaks down the responses by question for the students’ perceptions of YouTube
as a learning platform prior to beginning the class. To calculate the mean and standard deviation, theresponses were given a numerical value from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very) and the “I don’t know”
responses and unanswered questions were removed.
I don’t know
/ unanswered

Not at all

Very little

So-so

Quite a bit

Very

Mean
(1-5)

SD

Useful

4

0

2

25

27

12

3.74

0.10

Helpful

3

1

3

21

34

8

3.67

0.10

Trustworthy

1

1

7

29

26

6

3.42

0.10

Professional

2

1

11

26

25

5

3.32

0.11

Easy to Use

3

0

6

18

30

13

3.75

0.11

Convenient

3

0

4

10

39

14

3.94

0.09

Figure 2. Starting Perceptions of YouTube as a Learning Platform

This suggests that students began the class with a neutral to positive view of YouTube as alearning platform.
The next chart breaks down the students’ responses by question for their perceptions ofYouTube after being provided with the first two sets of videos. The mean and standard deviation areagain calculated on a 1 to 5 scale, with the “I don’t know” responses and unanswered questions being
removed.
I don’t know /Not at all
Unanswered

Very little

So-so

Quite a bit

Very

Mean
(1-5)

SD

Useful

1

0

1

12

37

19

4.07

0.09

Helpful

2

1

0

12

33

22

4.10

0.10

Trustworthy

1

1

0

10

41

17

4.06

0.09

Professional

1

1

1

27

25

15

3.75

0.10

Easy to Use

1

0

0

7

32

30

4.33

0.08

Convenient

1

0

0

5

36

28

4.33

0.07

Figure 3. Perceptions of YouTube as a Learning Platform After Early Videos

This shows a small improvement in the students’ perceptions of using YouTube for learning inall surveyed categories. An unpaired t-test was used to compare the responses since it was necessary
to remove the unanswered questions from the data, and it showed that all changes were statistically72

PLATFORM PREFERENCES FOR VIDEO CONTENT IN A FLIPPED CLASSROOM: STUDENTSʼ PERCEPTIONS OF YOUTUBE AS A PLATFORM FOR LEARNING

significant at p≤.05. The comparison is shown here in Figure 4.

Mean
Variance
Observations
Hypothesized Mean Differencedft StatP(T<=t) one-tailt Critical one-tailP(T<=t) two-tailt Critical two-tailUsefulness
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 2
3.74
4.07
0.62
0.51
66
69
0
130
-2.542
.007
1.657
.012
1.978

Professionalism
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 2
3.32
3.75
0.79
0.75
68
69
0
135
-2.871
.002
1.656
.005
1.978

Ease of Use
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 2
3.69
4.33
0.96
0.43
68
69
0
117
-4.495
>.001
1.658
>.001
1.980

Mean
Variance
Observations
Hypothesized Mean Differencedft StatP(T<=t) one-tailt Critical one-tailP(T<=t) two-tailt Critical two-tailTrustworthiness
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 2
3.42
4.06
0.72
0.53
69
69
0
133
-4.750
>.001
1.656
>.001
1.978

Convenience
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 2
3.94
4.33
0.60
0.37
67
69
0
125
-3.276
.001
1.657
.001
1.979

Helpfulness
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 2
3.67
4.10
0.65
0.63
67
68
0
133
-3.133
.001
1.656
.002
1.978

Figure 4. Before Class vs. After Lesson 2: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal VariancesThis suggests that while students began the class with a neutral to positive impression ofYouTube as a learning platform, their perceptions became more positive when they were provided
with teacher-created videos in a university course.
Students were also given the opportunity to share their thoughts in a free form answer, and mostwho chose to respond gave generally positive comments. Several students appreciated the ability toview a video or a video section more than once, and several others commented on its convenienceand ease of use. One student also commented that they appreciated that the in-class time could beshortened with the use of YouTube. Most of these positive comments did not suggest that YouTube
was superior to other platforms but suggested that the students did respond well to the flippedclassroom style.
There were, however, a few less positive comments as well. Two students suggested the videos
could be hard to understand, and another noted that they were unable to discuss with their classmatesto assist in understanding content. One student stated that they found the videos boring. Given the73

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

overall positive reaction to the videos, it is reasonable to suggest that continuing to improve thequality of videos would be a reasonable way to address these concerns.

Second Sur vey
The second survey was used to track students’ changes in perceptions after having moreexperience using YouTube in a flipped classroom during the semester. They were asked the samequestions as in the first survey based on their perceptions of YouTube at that particular time. The fullsurvey can be seen in Appendix B. Chronbach’s alpha again found that usefulness/helpfulness andtrustworthiness/professionalism were strongly related with coefficients of .891 and .829, respectively.
Ease of use and convenience were again not strongly related with a coefficient of .404. Figure 5 below
details the students’ perceptions of YouTube as a learning platform following the 6th lesson.
I don’t know /Unanswered

Not at all

Very little

So-so

Quite a bit

Very

Mean
(1-5)

SD

Useful

1

0

1

13

28

27

4.17

0.09

Helpful

0

0

3

12

26

29

4.16

0.10

Trustworthy

0

0

3

16

30

21

3.99

0.10

Professional

0

0

1

22

31

16

3.89

0.09

Easy to Use

1

0

0

9

21

39

4.44

0.09

Convenient

1

0

3

7

25

34

4.30

0.01

Figure 5. Perceptions of YouTube as a Learning Platform After Sixth Lesson

Comparing this data to the results from the first survey using an unpaired t-test shows that theperceptions remain improved from the pre-course data with p≤.05, but the data do not show any
statistically significant change from the responses given after the first two lessons. The comparison
to the before class opinions is shown below but the comparison to after lesson 2 is omitted as it is not
significant.
Usefulness
BeforeClass

Professionalism

After
Lesson 6

BeforeClass

Ease of Use

After
Lesson 6

BeforeClass

After
Lesson 6

Mean

3.74

4.17

3.32

3.89

3.69

4.43

Variance

0.62

0.62

0.79

0.60

0.96

0.51

66

69

68

70

68

69

Observations

0

0

0

df

Hypothesized Mean Difference

133

132

123

t Stat-3.181-3.964-5.058P(T<=t) one-tail

.001

>.001

>.001

t Critical one-tail

1.656

1.656

1.657

P(T<=t) two-tail

.002

>.001

>.001

t Critical two-tail

1.978

1.978

1.979

Figure 6. Before Class vs. After Lesson 6: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

74

PLATFORM PREFERENCES FOR VIDEO CONTENT IN A FLIPPED CLASSROOM: STUDENTSʼ PERCEPTIONS OF YOUTUBE AS A PLATFORM FOR LEARNING

Trustworthiness
BeforeClass

Convenience

After
Lesson 6

BeforeClass

Helpfulness

After
Lesson 6

BeforeClass

After
Lesson 6

Mean

3.42

3.99

3.94

4.30

3.67

4.16

Variance

0.72

0.71

0.60

0.69

0.65

0.74

Observations

69

70

67

69

67

70

Hypothesized Mean Difference

0

0

0

df

137

134

135

t Stat-3.945-2.646-3.4085

P(T<=t) one-tail

>.001

.005

>.001

t Critical one-tail

1.656

1.656

1.656

P(T<=t) two-tail

>.001

.009

.001

t Critical two-tail

1.977

1.978

1.978

Figure 6 Continued

Written comments showed multiple students suggesting that they appreciated the convenience of thevideos and the ability to watch parts that they found difficult more than once. However, one student
said that they would prefer to be taught directly by the teacher, and a few students expressed theneed to be careful to be sure that the information was accurate.

Third Sur vey
The third survey (see Appendix C) continued to ask about the students’ perceptions of YouTube
as a learning platform but additionally asked further questions about their actual usage of YouTube
and Blackboard for watching the videos, as well as their preferences between the two. Looking attheir perceptions of YouTube as a learning platform, Chronbach’s alpha again showed usefulness/
helpfulness and trustworthiness/professionalism to be valid groupings with coefficients of .815 and.776, respectively. Ease of use and convenience continued to be poorly correlated with a coefficientof only .503. The table below details the students’ responses about their perceptions of YouTube as alearning platform at the end of the semester, following the 13th of 14 total lessons.
I don’t know /Not at all
Unanswered

Very little

So-so

Quite a bit

Very

Mean
(1-5)

SD

Useful

1

0

1

15

27

26

4.13

0.10

Helpful

0

0

1

12

26

31

4.24

0.09

Trustworthy

0

0

1

17

27

25

4.09

0.10

Professional

0

0

1

18

25

26

4.09

0.10

Easy to Use

1

0

0

5

18

46

4.59

0.08

Convenient

1

0

0

7

24

38

4.39

0.10

Figure 7. Perceptions of YouTube as a Learning Platform at End of Semester

Using an unpaired t-test to compare this data to the previous results again found that the data
were different from the students’ perceptions that they reported holding before beginning the classwith p≤.05, but it was not statistically significantly different from the perceptions they reported as
current in either the first or second survey. The comparison to the before class perceptions is again

75

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

shown in the following chart, while the comparison to the survey responses from after lessons 2 and6 is omitted as it is not significant.

Mean
Variance
Observations
Hypothesized Mean Differencedft StatP(T<=t) one-tailt Critical one-tailP(T<=t) two-tailt Critical two-tailUsefulness
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 13
3.74
4.13
0.62
0.64
66
69
0
133
-2.829
.003
1.656
.005
1.978

Professionalism
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 13
3.32
4.09
0.79
0.69
68
70
0
135
-5.205
>.001
1.656
>.001
1.978

Ease of Use
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 13
3.69
4.59
0.96
0.39
68
69
0
114
-6.411
>.001
1.658
>.001
1.981

Mean
Variance
Observations
Hypothesized Mean Differencedft StatP(T<=t) one-tailt Critical one-tailP(T<=t) two-tailt Critical two-tailTrustworthiness
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 13
3.42
4.09
0.72
0.66
69
70
0
137
-4.727
>.001
1.656
>.001
1.977

Convenience
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 13
3.94
4.39
0.60
0.73
67
70
0
135
-3.193
.001
1.656
.002
1.978

Helpfulness
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 13
3.67
4.24
0.65
0.62
67
70
0
134
-4.194
>.001
1.656
>.001
1.978

Figure 8. Before Class vs. After Lesson 13: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

The majority of the comments about using YouTube for learning in the third survey werepositive, as in the previous surveys, with several students liking the ability to re-watch the videos, andothers stated that they liked the ability to study anywhere and in their spare time. One student did
report that they thought it was “bad for the body,” but this is likely a stronger concern given that thestudents were online for most or all of their classes this semester.
In addition to continuing the same line of questioning, the third survey (see Appendix C) asked
questions about the students’ actual use of the videos on YouTube and Blackboard and theirpreferences between the platforms. Students reported on how many of the videos provided they
watched with most students, 56 of the 70 respondents, stating that they watched all of the videos
provided.

76

PLATFORM PREFERENCES FOR VIDEO CONTENT IN A FLIPPED CLASSROOM: STUDENTSʼ PERCEPTIONS OF YOUTUBE AS A PLATFORM FOR LEARNING

56

3

2

3

6

<Unanswered>

only a few

about half

most of themall of them

Figure 9. Responses to: How many of the videos that were Provided did you watch?

The students also generally reported that the videos were helpful to them in preparing for theirlessons, with 57 out of 70 respondents saying they were “quite a bit” or “very” helpful and only one
student responding negatively.
32
25

9
3

1

<Unanswered>

Very little

so-soQuite a bit

Very

Figure 10. Responses to: How helpful were the videos for preparing for your lessons?

Students also were asked about their use of the videos for reviewing a concept later in thesemester. This was not assigned as a required activity for them, but it was suggested as a good way
to review before debate tests. Nearly all students reported doing this at least once or twice, with 13
even claiming to do it frequently.
28
23
13
3

3

<Unanswered>

NeverOnce or twice

sometimes

Quite a bit

Figure 11. Responses to: Did you go back and watch any videos again to review something because you
wanted to?

Students also reported on the helpfulness of the videos for review later in the semester, withmore than half having a favorable opinion.

77

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

31
19
3<Unanswered>1

2

Not at all

Very little

so-so

14

Quite a bit

Very

Figure 12. Responses to: How helpful were the videos for reviewing something later in the semester?

In general, the student responses suggested that the videos were used by nearly all students in
preparation for their classes, and their perceptions of the videos as a method for preparation were
overwhelmingly positive.
Students also gave answers about their preferred platform between YouTube and Blackboard.
The graph below shows that both platforms were used by students, and more students answered thatthey used both platforms than either platform exclusively.
28
17
3<Unanswered>21

1
I didn’t watch any
videosBlackboard

YouTubeBothFigure 13. Responses to: Did you watch videos on YouTube, Blackboard, or both?

When asked about which platform they used more, the results showed that students did seemto have a clear preference with, 59 out of 70 respondents stating that they did use one platform morethan the other. YouTube was slightly more popular than Blackboard in this data set, but the numbers
were fairly close.

27

3<Unanswered>32

7
1
I didn’t watch any
videosAbout the same

Blackboard

YouTubeFigure 14. Responses to: Did you watch more videos on YouTube or on Blackboard?

When asking students about their preferred platform, YouTube was a more popular choicecompared to the reported usage.

78

PLATFORM PREFERENCES FOR VIDEO CONTENT IN A FLIPPED CLASSROOM: STUDENTSʼ PERCEPTIONS OF YOUTUBE AS A PLATFORM FOR LEARNING

35

13
3
<Unanswered>18

1
I didn’t watch any
videosAbout the same

Blackboard

YouTubeFigure 15. Responses to: Did you prefer YouTube or Blackboard for watching videos?

The data for platform usage suggest that students were fairly evenly mixed in terms of using theplatforms at least once. In evaluating the data for the question “Did you watch videos on YouTube,
Blackboard, or both?” a chi-squared goodness of fit test was run after removing the “unanswered”
and “I didn’t watch any videos” responses. No statistically significant difference was observed
compared with expectations that the three choices would be evenly represented. Evaluating the
responses regarding which platform they used more found that students did in fact have a preference
for one platform over the other. A one-sample proportion test was used to compare the answers of“About the same” with “Blackboard” and “YouTube” together and found that it was statisticallysignificant at p≤.05. Most students did have a platform that they used more. However, running a
one-sample proportion test comparing only the Blackboard and YouTube answers yielded resultsthat were not statistically significant, meaning that within this sample there was no clear choice interms of which platform was more used. The data regarding student preferences were more
conclusive. A one-sample proportion test again confirmed that more students had a preferred
platform versus those who liked both platforms about the same. When comparing Blackboard andYouTube another one-sample proportion test found that students overall had a statistically significant
preference for YouTube compared to Blackboard at p≤.05.
Qualitative data were also collected regarding the reasoning behind the students’ preferences
between the platforms. Interestingly, many of the responses for either platform stated that it waseasier and more convenient to use that platform. Of the 18 students who preferred Blackboard, 17chose to write in reasons for their preference and all of them could fit into the categories of being
easier or more convenient. Some had specific reasons, including the video announcements being
sent through Blackboard made it easier to use Blackboard, the ability to watch the video withoutswitching pages on their browser, and the fact that they did their lessons on their computer which did
not have YouTube installed. Furthermore, 34 of the 35 students who preferred YouTube also leftcomments, with 24 fitting into the category of being easier or more convenient (including 9 responses
mentioning technical benefits such as lower data use and the fact the videos did not need to be
downloaded). Seven more responses were related to the fact that the students were used to using
YouTube. The remaining 3 responses were “Because I can review back video freely,” “I don’t have a
special reason,” and “It is because, there are various videos.”DISCUSSION
It was clear from the data that students do hold a mostly positive view of YouTube as a platform
for learning. Their responses were generally positive across all six surveyed dimensions: helpfulness,
usefulness, professionalism, trustworthiness, convenience, and ease of use. The ability to group79

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

helpfulness with usefulness and professionalism with trustworthiness according to Chronbach’s
alpha further increases the confidence we can hold in the results for those constructs. Ease of use
and convenience must be considered separately, but the data still suggest that students had positive
views of YouTube with regard to both. Looking at the students’ perceptions over the duration of thecourse, they started with a neutral to positive view of YouTube but reported viewing it more positively
after making use of the videos provided for class. The new mostly positive perceptions continued forthe duration of the class with the final survey showing very similar results to the first survey where
they gave their perceptions after only two lessons. This suggests that the teacher created videos thatwere provided to students had a positive effect on their perceptions of using YouTube for learning.
The data that were collected does not give insight into why their perceptions changed, but further
research could be done to try to determine what factors do impact the students’ views of a platform
after they begin using it.
Looking at the responses more granularly, nearly all of the students had a neutral to positive
view of YouTube with regards to the helpfulness/usefulness construct as well as to ease of use andconvenience. These positive perceptions were further supported in the final survey when thestudents who chose YouTube as their preferred platform frequently cited its convenience or ease ofuse as the primary reason for their preference. However, despite the overall positive perceptions withregards to the professionalism/trustworthiness construct, a significant number of students reported
beginning the class with a somewhat negative view of YouTube for this construct. The later surveys
did show a change to a more positive view in regard to professionalism and trustworthiness, but it isnecessary to note that some students are likely to be hesitant to trust YouTube content initially. Thisis further supported by a few open-ended responses where students expressed the need to checksources and be careful of incorrect information. This is unlikely to be a concern for teachers using
self-created materials but may be something that needs to be accounted for when using content fromother sources.
The final survey also suggested that students held generally positive views of using videos in aflipped classroom during a semester where classes had to be taught remotely due to the ongoingpandemic, and further supported the idea that their views of YouTube as a learning Platform weregenerally positive. A majority of students reported using the videos and finding them helpful for
preparing for class. With 62 of 70 respondents reporting that they watched most or all of the videos,and 57 out of 70 saying that the videos were “quite a bit” or “very” helpful in preparing for theirlessons, it seems reasonable to accept that the students generally did find the videos beneficial.
Furthermore, 64 out of 70 reported watching videos again voluntarily for review, with 13 stating they
did so “quite a bit,” and 45 said they found the videos “quite a bit” or “very” helpful for reviewing laterin the semester. Only a few students chose to leave qualitative comments on the use of videos, but
those comments were positive as well, including one student stating they wanted to continue thisstyle of learning, another liking the fact that they could “look back,” and one more appreciating theability to re-watch videos to help with understanding. While the overall perception of the flippedclassroom was not the main purpose of this study, confirming that the students generally did like theformat is important when evaluating their perceptions of using the YouTube platform for the class. Ifthey generally disliked using videos in a flipped classroom, then having a positive view of YouTube
would not be a particularly useful takeaway.
The final survey also allows us to compare the two platforms, YouTube and Blackboard, thatwere used in the course. In terms of actual usage, most students used both platforms at some point
during the course. Of those who only used one platform, it was a fairly even split between Blackboard

80

PLATFORM PREFERENCES FOR VIDEO CONTENT IN A FLIPPED CLASSROOM: STUDENTSʼ PERCEPTIONS OF YOUTUBE AS A PLATFORM FOR LEARNING

and YouTube. However, when asked about which platform they used more, it was very clear thatmost students used one platform more than the other. Furthermore, 59 out of 70 respondents statedthat they used one platform more than the other, and 7 said they used both platforms about equally.
Of the remaining 4, 3 did not answer and 1 student did not watch any videos. While more students
did report using YouTube more often than Blackboard, it was not a statistically significant difference,
implying the two platforms were used about equally.
While there was no significant difference in terms of which platform students used more often,
the difference in preferences was much stronger. The difference between the 35 students who
preferred YouTube, the 18 who preferred Blackboard, and the 13 who liked both equally wasstatistically significant. This means that in the sample it is fair to say that students did prefer YouTube
to Blackboard. Interestingly, the reasoning was similar independent of the preferred platform.
Qualitative data suggested that students based their preference primarily around ease of use andconvenience. The students who reported liking both platforms equally also explained this by statingthat both platforms were easy to use and convenient. While this preference was clear in the data, it isworth noting that there were still 18 students in the sample who preferred Blackboard and thispreference should not be disregarded. YouTube and Blackboard are both acceptable options forsharing videos for a flipped classroom, but as the qualitative responses show, they have different
strengths. YouTube is a platform that students are more likely to be familiar with and comfortableusing: it loads quickly and allow students to start watching a video right away, does not require
students to download files, and depending on the teacher’s ability to compress a video file, may
require less data as well. On the other hand, students found that Blackboard was sometimes moreconvenient as the announcements and assignments were also shared through Blackboard and somestudents appreciated the ability to download the video files. Given the specifics of this course it
seems that the decision to make the videos available through both Blackboard and YouTube wassuperior to requiring the students to use one particular platform. Overall, the data from these surveys
suggest that YouTube is a reasonable option for delivering instruction in a flipped classroom, but thatit may be reasonable for teachers to consider making content available on more than one platform ifthey are able to do so.

CONCLUSION
Providing videos for pre-class preparation as part of a flipped-classroom design was generally
well received by the students, and providing the videos on two platforms, Blackboard and YouTube,turned out to be a good decision. The majority of students reported using the videos to prepare forclass and finding them helpful for preparation and for review, including review not given as an
assignment. While some students used both platforms to watch videos, it was clear that most students
did use one platform more than the other, though it was closely split between Blackboard andYouTube. Students’ preferences, however, did clearly favor YouTube. Investigating students’
perceptions about YouTube as a platform for learning found that they had a neutral to positive viewof it at the start of the class, and after being provided with videos on YouTube for the class, they
seemed to view it more positively. This does suggest that providing content through YouTube for a
flipped classroom in a Japanese university is a reasonable decision. One benefit of using YouTube
was the fact that nearly all students were familiar with the platform and had experience using it forlearning, but it was also popular due to its ease of use and convenience. It would be interesting to see
if these results could apply to other platforms that teachers may introduce to students that are easy

81

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

to use but that students are not familiar with before the class.
It is also important to note that while YouTube was the preferred platform, it was not universally
preferred, and other students preferred Blackboard for reasons very similar to the reasons theirclassmates preferred YouTube. This could be interpreted to suggest that teachers who are able toprovide content through multiple platforms should consider doing so in order to provide easieraccess to their content to all of the students in their class. While this may not be practical forinteractive assignments where students may need to communicate with each other and may not workwhen teachers need to collect responses from students, it does seem that providing a variety of ways
to access content such as videos is a positive decision for students.

References
Ahmad, S. Z. (2016). The flipped classroom model to develop Egyptian EFL students’ listening
comprehension. English Language Teaching, 9(9). 166-178, https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.
v9n9p166
Bartholomew, S. R. & Reeve, E. (2018). Middle school student perceptions and actual use of mobile
devices: Highlighting disconnects in student planned and actual usage of mobile devices inclass. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(1). 48-58, https://www.jstor.org/
stable/10.2307/26273867
Basal. A. (2015). The implementation of a flipped classroom in foreign language teaching. Turkish
Online Journal of Distance Education, 16(4). 28-37, htps://doi.org/ 10.17718/tojde.72185
Bhagat, K. K., Chang, C. N., & Chang, C. Y. (2016) The impact of the flipped classroom onmathematics concept learning in high school. Journal of Educational Technology and Society,19(3).134-142, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/jeductechsoci.19.3.134
DeLozier, S. J. & Rhodes, M. G. (2017). Flipped classrooms: A review of key ideas andrecommendations for practice. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 141-151, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10648-015-9356-9
Fabbian, C., Emanuela, Z. C., & Maja, G. (2017). Lessons learned: Design and implementation of
Italian blended language courses. Italica, 94(2). 314-353, https://www.jstor.org/
stable/44983583
Gaughan, J. E. (2014). The flipped classroom in world history. The History Teacher, 47(2). 221-244,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43264225
Goertler, S. (2009). Using computer-mediated communication (CMC) in language teaching. Die
Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 42(1). 74-84. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1756-1221.2009.
00038.x
Han, Y. J. (2015). Successfully flipping the ESL classroom for learner autonomy. NYS TESOL Journal,2(1). 98-109. http://journal.nystesol.org/jan2015/Han_98-109_NYSTJ_Vol2Iss1_Jan2015.pdf
Hsieh, J. S. C., Wu, W. V., & Marek, M. W. (2017). Using the flipped classroom to enhance EFL
learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1-2). 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588
221.2015.1111910
Hung, H. T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1). 81-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.9
67701
Jamaludin, R. & Osman, S. Z. M. (2014). The use of a flipped classroom to enhance engagement andpromote active learning. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(2). 124-131. https://core.ac.uk/

82

PLATFORM PREFERENCES FOR VIDEO CONTENT IN A FLIPPED CLASSROOM: STUDENTSʼ PERCEPTIONS OF YOUTUBE AS A PLATFORM FOR LEARNING

download/pdf/234635267.pdf
Levy, M. (2009) Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal,
93. 769-782. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00972.x
Lin, C. J. & Hwang, G. J. (2018). A learning analytics approach to investigating factors affecting EFL
students’ oral performance in a flipped classroom. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,21(2). 205-219. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26388398
Moravec, M., Williams, A., Aguilar-Roca, N., & O’Dowd, D. K. (2010). Learn before Lecture: A
strategy that improves learning outcomes in a large introductory biology class. CBE Life
Sciences Education, 9(4). 473-481. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-04-0063
Overmeyer, J. (2012). Flipped Classrooms 101. Principle (September/October), 46-47. https://www.
naesp.org/sites/default/files/Overmyer_SO12.pdf
Rubin, B., Fernandes, R., & Avgerinou, M. D. (2013). The effects of technology on the community ofinquiry and satisfaction with online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 17. 48-57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.006
Sweeny, S. M. (2010). Writing for the instant messaging and text messaging generation: Using newliteracies to support writing instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(2). 121-130.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20775367
Wilcox, K. C. (2009). The impact of student beliefs on the effectiveness of video in developing crosscultural competence. CALICO Journal, 27(1). 91-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.11139/cj.27.1.91100
Wu, W. C. V., Hsieh, J. S. C., & Yang, J. C. (2017). Creating an online learning community in a flippedclassroom to enhance EFL learners’ oral proficiency. Journal of Educational Technology &Society, 20(2). 142-157. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/90002170

83

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

APPENDIX A: Sur vey 1
1. Are you familiar with using YouTube and how to use the platform?
		a. Yes		b. No
2. Have you ever used YouTube for a class before?
		a. Yes		
b. No
3. Have you ever used YouTube to learn something by yourself before?
		a. Yes		
b. No
4. Before starting this class, how useful did you think YouTube was for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
5. Before starting this class, how professional did you think YouTube was as a platform forlearning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
6. Before starting this class, how easy did you think it was to use YouTube for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
7. Before starting this class, how trustworthy did you think YouTube was for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
8. Before starting this class, how convenient did you think it was to use YouTube for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
9. Before starting this class, how helpful did you think that YouTube was for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
10. Now, how useful do you think YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
11. Now, how professional do you think YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
12. Now, how easy do you think it is to use YouTube for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very		
13. Now, how trustworthy do you think YouTube is for learning? Not at all – Very little –So-so – Quite a bit – Very
14. Now, how convenient do you think it is to use YouTube for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
15. Now, how helpful do you think that YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
16. Do you have any other comments about using YouTube for learning?
____________________________ (Open Ended Response)
17. Do you have any comments about how your thoughts about using YouTube for learning havechanged this semester?
___________________________ (Open Ended Response)84

PLATFORM PREFERENCES FOR VIDEO CONTENT IN A FLIPPED CLASSROOM: STUDENTSʼ PERCEPTIONS OF YOUTUBE AS A PLATFORM FOR LEARNING

APPENDIX B: Sur vey 2
1. Now, how useful do you think YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
2. Now, how professional do you think YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
3. Now, how easy do you think it is to use YouTube for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
4. Now, how trustworthy do you think YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
5. Now, how convenient do you think it is to use YouTube for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
6. Now, how helpful do you think that YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
7. Do you have any other comments about using YouTube for learning?
____________________________ (Open Ended Response)
8. Do you have any comments about how your thoughts about using YouTube for learning havechanged this semester?
___________________________ (Open Ended Response)85

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

APPENDIX C: Sur vey 3
1. Now, how useful do you think YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
2. Now, how professional do you think YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
3. Now, how easy do you think it is to use YouTube for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
4. Now, how trustworthy do you think YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
5. Now, how convenient do you think it is to use YouTube for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
6. Now, how helpful do you think that YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
7. Do you have any other comments about using YouTube for learning?
____________________________ (Open Ended Response)
8. Do you have any comments about how your thoughts about using YouTube for learning havechanged this semester?
___________________________ (Open Ended Response)
9. How many of the videos that were provided did you watch?
None – only a few – about half – most of them – all of them
10. How helpful were the videos for preparing for your lessons?
Not at all – very little – so-so – quite a bit – very
11. Did you go back and watch any videos again to review something because you wanted to?
Never – once or twice – sometimes – quite a bit – very often
12. How helpful were the videos for reviewing something later in the semester?
Not at all – very little – so-so – quite a bit – very
13. Did you watch videos on YouTube, Blackboard, or Both?
YouTube – Blackboard – Both – I didn’t watch any videos
14. Did you watch more videos on YouTube or on Blackboard?
YouTube – Blackboard – About the same – I didn’t watch any videos
15. Did you prefer YouTube or Blackboard for watching videos?
YouTube – Blackboard – About the same – I didn’t watch any videos
16. Why did you prefer the website you chose?
____________________________ (Open Ended Response)86

【Research Article】

An exploratory study into student attitudes toward peer review
activities in an advanced academic writing class
Ian Hurrell
Abstract
Much research has lauded peer review activities for their focus on collaborative learning and learner development.
However, other research has indicated that students can find commenting on their peer’s work a difficult andintimidating process. This exploratory study investigates the experiences and attitudes of a group of freshman
students in an advanced English academic reading and writing class in a Japanese University on a peer review activity
they conducted as part of their assignment to write an academic research paper. Results from a post-activity
questionnaire were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach. These results indicated that students felt the feedback
they received from their partners was useful to help them improve their writing. Moreover, there were signs that thepeer review activity helped the participants to gain a better sense of audience awareness as well as encouraged themto reflect more deeply on the writing process in general. However, students also reported that they felt that theyneeded more training to confidently comment on their partner’s paper. In addition, there were indications thatdifferent proficiency level between the peer review partner’s caused some difficulties. After reporting the results of
the questionnaire, the implications for future peer review activities are also discussed
Keywords: Peer review; EFL academic writing skills; Collaborative learning; Learner autonomy; Mixed methods
exploratory research

Introduction & Literature Review
Since the 1980s, peer review activities have been well researched and are now advocated to thepoint that they are almost required in any educational courses focused on developing written
composition skills (Berg, 1999; Hedge, 2001; Hu, 2005; Min, 2005; Rollinson, 2005; Saito, 2008; Hu &Lam, 2010). At its core, peer review is an activity in which writers read each other’s work, critique it,
and then provide feedback to their peer, with an aim to making iterative improvements to eachwriter’s compositions collaboratively (Tsui & Ng, 2000; Zhu, 2001; Hu 2006). These activities cameinto favor as thinking around writing instruction shifted from being product-oriented to processoriented and are deeply rooted in Vygotskyian sociocultural and social interactionist theory(Vygotsky, 1978, 1986; Paulus, 1999; Swain, 2006; Hu 2006). Under this theory, learners engage innegotiating the intention and meaning of their ideas within their Zone of Proximal Development(ZPD) to mutually scaffold each other’s compositions and make improvements (De Guerrero &Villamil, 2000; Hanjani & Li, 2014). As a result, it is theorized that this social interaction allows thewriter not only to improve the quality of their compositions, but also develop the cognitive skills to
become fundamentally more competent and autonomous writers by engaging learners more actively
in the writing process (Villamil & de Guerrero 1996; De Guerrero & Villamil, 2000; Tsui & Ng, 2000;
Rollinson 2005).

87

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Benefits of peer review
In addition to the merits mentioned above, there has been a great deal of research which has
shed light on a variety of possible benefits of learners engaging in peer review activities. Firstly, peer
review brings a sense of audience awareness. As the writer knows their work will be reviewed by anauthentic audience of their peers, this encourages the writer to consider and compose their writing
with the needs of their audience in mind (Hu, 2005; Rollinson, 2005). It has been reported that thishelps to make writing assignments more meaningful than assignments that are reviewed solely by
the instructor whose feedback may feel more cold and distant (Rollinson, 2005). It can also engendera more positive attitude towards the writing process and develop skills that will be helpful to themwhen engaging in real-world writing tasks (Stanley, 1992; Berg, 1999).
Secondly, much research indicates that engaging in peer review encourages the development ofself-reflective and critical reasoning skills (Caulk, 1994; Berg, 1999; Tsui and Ng, 2000; Rollinson,
2005; Miaoa, Badger, & Zhenc, 2006; Saito, 2008). When reviewing their partners work, the reviewer
is required to engage in critical reading skills and consider what constitutes good writing practice ata deep level. Therefore, by providing advice to their peers, this helps their partner to improve theirwriting and may help the reviewer to notice weaknesses in their own writing (Miaoa, Badger, &Zhenc, 2006). In addition, when negotiating feedback with their reviewer, the writer needs to consider
the advice that is given critically and evaluate its validity (Berg, 1999). It has been suggested that thistwo-way process of reviewing and negotiation of feedback aids learners in developing into more selfreliant autonomous writers than teacher-fronted feedback, which is often accepted verbatim without
the engagement of any critical faculties (Caulk 1994; Rollinson 2005; Tsui & Ng, 2000).
Finally, there is evidence that peers can provide high-quality feedback that is comparable to, andsometimes superior to, feedback provided by the teacher (Zamel, 1985; Caulk, 1994; Falchikov &Goldfinch, 2000; Saito & Fujita, 2004). It has been noted that through extended negotiations, peer
reviewers may be able to give more specific feedback (Zamel, 1985). In addition, as peer reviewer areusually engaged in the same writing tasks, peer feedback can often be perceived as more sympathetic
and specific than teacher feedback that can come across as overgeneralized, perplexing, andjudgmental (Caulk, 1994). To illustrate this, Caulk (1994) found that 89% of the comments made by
the reviewers in his class were useful in helping their peer partners to improve their writing, he also
found very little damaging advice given by their peer partners. Interestingly, he also found that 60%of the students in his class had made suggestions that he did not consider when reviewing the papers
himself.
In summary, as a result of writing for a real audience; engaging with the writing process at a
deeper more cognitive level; and receiving detailed and supportive advice from their peers, it can besuggested that peer review activities have numerous benefits for helping learners to develop into
better writers.

Difficulties of implementing peer review activities
The studies outlined above exhort the benefits of peer review activities. However, much research
points to the difficulties of implementing these activities in language classrooms. Firstly, despite thefinding mentioned previously, which suggested that the majority of advice provided by peer reviewers
is of high quality, there is also evidence that reports contradictory findings. For example, a study
conducted by Connor and Asenavage (1994) found that only 5% of suggestions made by their peers

88AN EXPLORATORY STUDY INTO STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD PEER REVIEW ACTIVITIES IN AN ADVANCED ACADEMIC WRITING CLASS

actually made their way into the writer’s subsequent drafts. Other studies have indicated that somestudents often struggle to give meaningful comments as they lack the knowledge to identify valid
issues with their peer’s work (Leki, 1990; Lockhart & Ng, 1993; Tsui & Ng, 2000). This results incursory or so called ‘rubber stamp’ advice which is of little use (Stanley, 1992). Consequently, it is
widely agreed that in order for peer review activities to be successful, learners must first engage in
extensive training activities to learn how to identify issues when reviewing a composition, how to givemeaningful comments and how to engage with their peer effectively when discussing their review(Stanley, 1992; McGroarty & Zhu, 1997; Villamil & de Guerrero, 1998; Berg, 1999; Paulus 1999, Min,
2005; Rollinson, 2005; Saito, 2008).
The second obstacle to the effective implementation of peer review activities is the perceptionsof the students. Students may lack trust in their peer’s comments. Several studies have found thatstudents often have a preference to receive feedback from their teacher whose feedback they
perceived to be more authoritative (Sengupta, 1995; Zhang, 1999; Tsui & Ng, 2000). Moreover, thereis evidence that some students can find the act of criticizing their peers work and having their own
work scrutinized by their peers an uncomfortable experience, which risks having detrimental on
their confidence and motivation (Nelson & Carson, 1998; Liu & Sadler, 2003). This seems to be anissue, particularly in EFL contexts. (Nelson & Carson, 1998; Hu, 2002; Levine et al, 2002; Min, 2005).
For instance, a study by Levine et al (2002) found that Israeli students in an EFL context tended towrite briefer comments and reported a low level of satisfaction with the activity compared with theircounterparts studying in an ESL context in the US. In addition, several studies have reported
apprehension to peer review activities in Confucian cultures wherein students may be reluctant to be
critical of their peers work in order to maintain group harmony, and have a tendency to highly value
feedback of teachers over that of their peers (Nelson & Carson, 1998; Hu, 2002; Rollinson 2005). As
a result, it has been strongly suggested that instructors should try to raise awareness of the benefitsof peer review; provide demonstrations of peer review comments and use non-threatening practiceactivities; and provide close support to the peer review groups with any issues they might have sothat their students can better understand what is expected and develop more positive attitudes
toward the activity (Jacobs et al, 1998; Hu, 2005; Rollinson, 2005).
The final complication is the significant amount of class time that it takes to conduct peer review
activities. As has been mentioned above, in order for peer review activities to be successful, it isrecommended that students engage in extensive preparation and training activities. For example,
Min (2005) conducted 4 hours of in-class modeling and demonstration activities to prepare her
students for peer review as part of her study. This commitment of classroom time may not be feasible
within the constraints of many learning programs (Rollinson, 2005).
To summarize, in order for benefits of peer review to be fully realized, a great deal of care must
be taken to address the possible difficulties that both students and teacher might encounter. Training
activities should be provided so that students can understand how to effectively review their peer’s
writing; instructors should raise their students’ awareness to the benefits of peer review and provide
support to their students to engender a positive attitude to peer review activities; and teachers shouldorganize their learning programs to provide ample time for these preparation activities.

Thesis statement
Given the benefits and difficulties of using peer review activities outlined above, this study
explored the attitudes toward peer review of a group of students in an advanced academic reading89

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

and writing class at a Japanese University. After undergoing training and then reviewing their peers
work, the students completed a questionnaire. The purpose of this questionnaire was to (1)investigate how effectively the students felt they could review their partners report and whether the
students felt they learnt anything themselves from reviewing their partner’s work and (2) how useful
the students felt the comments they received were for improving their reports.

Methodology
Participants & Writing project over view
The participants in this study consisted of 20 freshman students enrolled in an Advanced English
program at Rikkyo University Niiza Campus, Japan. The Advanced English program is an advanced
skills based course that aims to prepare students for transition into an international academic
environment. This study was conducted during the spring semester of the program, which focuses
on developing academic reading and writing skills, and it should be noted that due to the COVID-19
pandemic all classes were held online via the Zoom web conferencing platform. During this semester,
the students complete two writing projects which take the students through the academic writing
process. This study focused on the first writing project. In this project, students had to write apersuasive essay on a topic of their choice. The students first researched information on the
background of their topic and researched three distinctive ideas as to why their topic is interesting,with an aim to persuading the reader of their report to become interested in their topic too. Fromtheir research, the students then created an outline for their report and then were given instruction
on how to construct each paragraph of their essay, including; one background paragraph withcitations; one body paragraph for each of their three main ideas with citations; a conclusion paragraph;and a references section. Once their first draft was completed, the students then prepared for thepeer review activity.

Peer Review procedure
The peer review activity consisted of three 100-minute classroom sessions. As was mentioned in
the literature review, without adequate training, students with little experience of peer review
activities can encounter many difficulties (Stanley, 1992; McGroarty & Zhu, 1997; Villamil & de
Guerrero, 1998; Berg, 1999; Paulus 1999, Min, 2005; Rollinson, 2005; Saito, 2008), and of the 17
students who completed the questionnaire, only 3 had done any form of peer review before.
Therefore, the first session, consisted of peer review training activities. The training started with anawareness raising activity, sometimes referred to as the ‘propaganda phase’ of peer review training(Rollinson, 2005). Here the students discussed what they thought the possible difficulties andbenefits of doing peer review would be. Consistent with the literature outlined earlier, many students
were worried that their linguistic level was not sufficient to correct their partners work and that they
may not be able to understand the ideas in their partner’s reports. At this point, as has been suggested
in numerous studies, the students were instructed that their role is not so much to correct theirpartners paper. Rather, they should focus their attention primarily on the reviewing the structuralelements that were covered in class, and the development of the ideas in their partner’s report rather
than correcting lexical mistakes (Leki, 1990; Stanley, 1992; Min, 2005). As for the benefits possible ofpeer review, ideas from the students quite naturally tended to focus on how they could receive90

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY INTO STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD PEER REVIEW ACTIVITIES IN AN ADVANCED ACADEMIC WRITING CLASS

comments that might help to improve their report. At this point, the instructor tried to raise thestudents’ awareness to the fact that peer review is a two-way-street and that the reviewer can also gainmuch from the reviewing process, such as reflecting more deeply as to what constitutes a goodparagraph and possibly even picking up useful ideas that the reviewer used to improve their own
composition of the paragraphs in their own reports (McGroarty & Zhu, 1997; Berg, 1999; Rollinson,
2005; Saito, 2008).
After completing the awareness-raising activities the students then completed a practice activity
where students worked in groups to analyze and review a sample paragraph that had deliberate
deficiencies for the students to find (Hu 2005, Rollinson 2005). The students first analyzed whether
the structural elements of the paragraph were present and then look at the content of the ideas to see
if any improvements could be suggested. In addition to providing critical advice to improve theparagraphs, students were also encouraged to give positive comments as to what they felt to be thestrengths of paragraph. Students were also asked if they could find any grammatical or lexical
corrections in the language, as there has been some evidence that giving form and content feedback
at the same time does not have an adverse effect on student revision (Ashwell, 2000). However, it was
reinforced that students should chiefly attend to commenting on the structural aspects and thecontent of the paragraph and that it was fine if they made no comments on form at all.
After completing the training in the first classroom session, the students were given until thenext classroom session to get their reports ready for review. In the second session, the students were
put into pairs randomly to do the peer review as previous research has recommended that working
in pairs is more comfortable for the students and also allows more opportunity for detailed discussion
than larger groups (Nelson & Murphy, 1992; Paulus, 1999). The initial plan for the second session
was that the peer review partners would first briefly present their reports paper to each other orally
and then spend the first half of the 100-minute session individually reviewing their partner’s paperusing a specially designed review sheet, similar to the one they used for the training exercise (seeAppendix A for a copy of the review sheet). Then they would spend the second half of the session
discussing their comments together. However, after checking in with the students at the halfway
point, it was clear that the students needed significantly more time for review their partner’s reports.
Therefore, the decision was made to extend the time to review until the end of the class, and then thestudents were given until the next classroom session to complete their reviews. In the final classroom
session, the students joined with their review partners to discuss the comments that they made on
their review sheets. While the students were discussing, the instructor checked in with each groupperiodically to address any questions and give assistance. After concluding their discussions, thestudents were then given time to make amendments to their drafts based on the comments given by
their peers, after which they submitted their updated drafts to the instructor and complete aquestionnaire on their experiences with the peer review activity.

Questionnaire & Analysis
Once the peer review activities were concluded, the students were asked to complete aquestionnaire with questions relating to their experience with the peer review activity. Out of the 20
students in the class, 17 students completed the questionnaire. The questionnaire employed a mixed
methods approach, using Likert questions to gather statistical information on the student’s
experiences in the peer review activity and open ended questions to gather more detailed qualitative
data on the student’s experiences in the peer review activities. These results were then analyzed to91

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

find trends in the student’s responses. A copy of the questionnaire form adapted from the Google
Form can be found in Appendix B. The questionnaire consisted of three sections. The first section
covered ethical considerations and asked the participants agreement to take part in the study andthat they were over 18 years of age. The second section focused on the participant’s experience
reviewing their partner’s work. The participants were asked how difficult they found reviewing thestructure, content, and language of their partner’s report. They were also asked what they felt was
their biggest difficulty with the peer review, as well as how much they felt they learnt themselvesfrom reviewing their partner’s paper. The third section of the questionnaire focused on how useful
the participants found the feedback that they received from their peers; asked the participants to rate
how useful they found the feedback; asked what they felt was the most useful piece of feedback theyreceived; and asked if they had any suggestions that might improve the peer review activity.

Results & Discussion
This section will report on and discuss the responses given by the participants in thequestionnaire. Data from the Likert questions will first be presented and then discussed using
responses for the open ended questions and how the results relate to the literature. The implicationsof these results will be discussed at the end of this section.

Peer reviewing their partner’s paper
In the first section of the questionnaire, the participants answered questions relating theirexperiences reviewing their partner’s reports. Questions 2-4 asked the participants to rate howdifficult they found it to review the structure, content, and language of their partner’s reports on ascale of 1 (very difficult) to 5 (very easy). The results of these questions can be seen in Fig 1 below.
12
10

10

9

8
6

6

5

4

3

3
2

2
0

5
3
2
1

0

1
0

1

2

Structure

3

4

Content

Language

05

Figure 1. Difficulty the participants felt in reviewing the structure, content, and language of theirpartner’s report

From these results, we can see that the majority of participants found reviewing the structure of
the report the easier of the three criteria, with 11 out of 17 responding 3 or above; 6 responding 2 andno one responding 1. In addition, this was also the only criteria where any participant responded that92

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY INTO STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD PEER REVIEW ACTIVITIES IN AN ADVANCED ACADEMIC WRITING CLASS

they found it very easy (5). These results indicate that even if students have issues with commenting
on the content and language of their peer’s report they can still provide valuable feedback fromchecking that all the structural elements are present. On the other hand, the participants foundreviewing the content and language of their partner’s reports more challenging. With 12 out 17
respondent reporting that they found it either very difficult (1) or difficult (2) for both criteria.
There were two major themes from the open ended questions that may shed some light on why
many of the participants felt this way. First of all, despite a full 100-minute class room session oftraining on peer review techniques, several of the participants commented that did not feel that they
had the skills to comment confidently on the content of their peer’s report. For example:“It was difficult for me to review the content of my partner’s paper. because I didn’t know what was
the point to correct and how to advice the content”“Advising about the wording was the difficult part because it was hard for me to express why it
looked weird.”“when I read the partner’s one, I couldn’t understand the meaning of the contents, and tell her it isa little difficult to understand so put it the detail more. then she asked me what contents should I
put? but I couldn’t answer clearly. I can feel its writing is difficult to read but tell how to improvethe contents is very difficult for me even I know some tip from teacher.”“I feel guilty when I don’t think the report is that good, but it doesn’t come up with any usefulsuggestions. And I don’t know how to make my language more friendly”.
This supports the idea from the literature that extensive training is necessary for students togain the skills and confidence to give meaningful comments on their partner’s work (Stanley, 1992;
McGroarty & Zhu, 1997; Villamil & de Guerrero, 1998; Berg, 1999; Paulus 1999, Min, 2005; Rollinson,
2005; Saito, 2008).
Second, several of the participants felt that the proficiency level of their partner’s report was “toogood”, so they could not find anything to comment on, and their own proficiency level was not goodenough to comment on their partner’s report. For example:“Because there was a good article in front of me, it was little difficult to find poor things.”“Giving good advices, because my partner had a good report and little to say about its content“My friend’s report looked really good, so it was little bit hard for me to find what sentence toimprove on her report”“There was perfect paragraph so I was supposed to say advice but it was hard to find the advice it isdifficult for me that I find some points to fix about my partner’s report”“Giving advice was so difficult, because my partner was so excellent.”“Making comments was the most difficult because I didn’t have confidence about my English skill

93

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

and I didn’t know much about other’s topic. Also, I was concerned about whether I misunderstoodother’s concept.”
There were also other comments that students of higher proficiency felt uncomfortable about
making critical comments of their partner’s report.
“The balance of good comments and improvement points [was difficult] because if there are more
improvement points it is good for my partner but I think he or she might lose his or her confidence.”
As for what might account for these comments, one possible explanation might be that students
in the Advanced English program are selected based on a TOEIC placement test, which only tests
the students’ receptive reading and listening skills. This means that students in the advanced English
program can vary quite widely in their productive spoken and written skills. In fact, observing thework the students were producing whilst composing their first drafts, the proficiency gap between
some of the students was quite apparent, which might account for the comments above. Unfortunately,
it is hard to find any studies that focus on conducting peer review activities with student of differingproficiency levels, so it is difficult to connect these findings with the literature.
Question 6 of the questionnaire, asked the participants whether they felt that they could learn
anything themselves from reviewing their partner’s report on a scale of 1 (nothing at all) to 5 (verymuch). The results of this questions can be seen in Fig 2 below.

12
10

10
8
6

5

4
2

2
0

0

0

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 2. How much did you learn from reviewing your partner’s paper?

From these results, we can see that despite the difficulties that many of the students reported
feeling in reviewing their partner’s report, the vast majority of the of the participants responded thatthey were able to learn something from the reviewing process, with 10 out of 17 responding 4 and 5
responding the maximum 5. This is interesting as it suggests that the participants felt they were able
to gain a lot more out of the peer review activity themselves than they were able to give to theirpartners, which in turn indicates that the message of peer review activities being a two-way-street as
supported in the literature was successfully received by the participants (McGroarty & Zhu, 1997;
Berg, 1999; Rollinson, 2005; Saito, 2008).

94

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY INTO STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD PEER REVIEW ACTIVITIES IN AN ADVANCED ACADEMIC WRITING CLASSAgain there were two prevalent themes in the open-ended responses that help to illuminate
these results. Firstly, many participants felt that they could learn various aspects of structure,content, and language from reviewing their partner’s reports that they could transfer to their own
reports. For example:“It was very easy to read her essay like her [construction of] body paragraphs were well connected.”“My partner was used a lot of citations, so I learned that how to use citation like her.”“I learned the languages such as good vocabulary and sentence, and the importance of using details,
especially the numbers.”“The way my friends used the phrases was great, so I want to utilize them next time.”“I could learn a lot of good vocabularies I couldn’t come up with”
These quotes were interesting as many of these points, such as use of citations and how to
structure a body paragraph, were covered in the classroom when they were composing their firstdrafts. This supports idea from the literature that peer feedback can often be perceived as more
sympathetic and specific than teacher feedback that can come across as overgeneralized, perplexing,
and judgmental (Caulk, 1994). More interestingly, there were several comments that indicated thatstudents were engaging in a deeper level of self-reflection. For example:“I could find not only my partner’s good and bad point but also mine. It was very valuable for me”“I could see from her report that there was interest and enthusiasm for the topic, which I lacked”“This was my first time reading other’s personal writing, so I could know that there are many
patterns in writing reports.”“Because my partner’s topic was the thing I never learned of, everything was new for me and herEnglish and writing skill was enough for me to learn about that topic”
These comments were very interesting to see as they tie in very closely with the ideas exhorted
by Vygotskyian sociocultural and social interactionist theory that the social interaction through peer
review activities not only allows the writer to improve the quality of their compositions, but also
develop the cognitive skills to become fundamentally more competent and autonomous writers(Villamil & de Guerrero 1996; De Guerrero & Villamil, 2000; Tsui & Ng, 2000; Rollinson 2005).

Receiving feedback from their peers
The second section of the questionnaire focused on how useful the participants felt the feedback
that they received from their peer review partner was for improving their reports. Question 8 of thequestionnaire asked students to rate how useful they found the feedback they received on a scale of
1 (not useful at all) to 5 (very useful). The results of this questions can be seen in Fig 3 below.

95

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

10

9

9
8
7

6

6
5
4
3

2

2
1
0

0

0

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 3. How useful was the feedback you received from your peer review?

Again, it was very interesting to see that despite many of the participants reporting that theyfound it difficult to review and make comments on their partner’s papers, the overwhelming majorityof the respondents found the feedback they received to be useful with 9 of 17 responding 4, and 6
responding the maximum 5. These results reinforce the idea that the students may haveunderestimated their ability to comment on their partner’s paper and they were, in fact, able to give
better comments that they thought.
The response to the open ended question revealed two themes as to what the students founduseful from the comments they received from their peers. Firstly, many quite naturally commented
that the comments they received were useful to help them make improvements to the structure,content and language of their paragraphs. For example:“About the topic sentence because I completely forgot about it”“Adding citations to all of the paragraphs not just writing with my knowledge I already have”“The content of the report suddenly turned negative, so I think it is better to write more introductions”“In the feedback, I was suggested to add some specific numbers and that was useful to make myreport more persuading.”“Make more long and complex sentence. Because I realized that I was not using skills for writing
good sentences like using adjectives and relative pronouns.”
As was mentioned before, all of these points were covered comprehensively in class activities
when the teacher instructed the students on how to compose their first drafts. However, throughtalking with their peers these aspects seemed to become more apparent. This further reinforces theassertion from the literature review the peer comments have the power to be more impactful thanteacher comments that may feel more distant (Caulk 1994). Moreover, the students also gave many
comments that the feedback they received helped them to gain a better appreciation of the reader’s
perspective of their ideas. For example:96

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY INTO STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD PEER REVIEW ACTIVITIES IN AN ADVANCED ACADEMIC WRITING CLASS“My partner advised me from different viewpoint from mine. And, I can learn which is easy anddifficult for others to understand.”“When I finished my report, I thought that it was perfect and nothing to change, but I don’t know asa reader, what do they think about it or is there anything hard to read.”“The feedback about some sentences that my partner didn’t understand was the most useful. because
I could know that I could understand it myself, but others couldn’t.”“I think the most useful thing for me is which parts of the report are interesting, because I just wantto get the word count.”
These comments were fascinating because this corresponds with many studies that claim thatpeer review activities encourage the writer to consider and compose their writing with the needs oftheir audience in mind, which helps to make writing assignments more meaningful than assignmentsthat are reviewed solely by the instructor (Stanley, 1992; Berg, 1999; Hu, 2005; Rollinson 2005).
Particularly, the comment “I think the most useful thing for me is which parts of the report areinteresting, because I just want to get the word count” strongly indicates that through talking about
their report with their peer, this student’s attitude toward their composition had changed from being
merely a required assignment for their class, to viewing their report as a meaningful piece of writing.

Implications for the future peer review activities
The results from the questionnaire have raised some implications for how the author willconduct review activities in future classes. Firstly, it seems that a single 100-min classroom session oftraining activities seems insufficient to prepare the students for peer review activities. This wasreflected in the responses to the final question of the questionnaire where students were asked how
they felt their peer review experience could be improved. For example“I thought I need know how to write report well before doing peer review otherwise I couldn’t reply
his or her report with confidence.”“Trying to give more detailed advices for the partner.”“I don’t have enough information to do peer reviewing so that makes me difficult”“practicing to put my opinion into words by discussing even the smallest things”
However, trying to find the time to conduct more training activities in an already busy syllabus
is a challenge. In addition, students also reported, somewhat contradictorily, that they found thecomments they received to be very useful. Therefore, without a frame of reference of what constituted
useful feedback, it may be the case that the students did not realize that the feedback that they were
giving was actually much better that they thought. This follows the literature that students particularly
in EFL contexts tend to find critiquing their partner’s work an uncomfortable experience (Nelson &Carson, 1998; Hu, 2002; Levine et al, 2002; Min, 2005). Moreover, 14 out of the 17 respondents

97外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

reported this was their first time to do peer review activities; their lack of confidence may simply bea result of their lack of experience and this lack of confidence may correct itself naturally as student
gain more experience with peer review in subsequent writing projects.
This being said, it is useful to find whatever ways possible to make the student’s peer review
experience more positive. One possible solution is to not only rely on one dedicated training session
to prepare students for peer review, but to incorporate reviewing practice activities into other lessons
in the syllabus too. For example, when teaching students how to write an introduction, the instructor
could have students review and comment on a sample paragraph. This would not only give students
some experience of reviewing paragraphs before the peer review training session, but may have theadded benefit of being an effective and learner-focused way to have student learn about what
constitutes a good paragraph. Another idea could be to share the results of this study, during the‘propaganda phase’ of the peer review training. This may help to raise awareness to the fact that thecomments they make may be more useful than they realize and that the purpose of peer review is not
so much to correct every aspect their partner’s report but to engage their peer in discussion to findout where improvements might be made collaboratively (Tsui & Ng, 2000; Zhu, 2001; Hu 2006).
Finally, another important implication of these results is the need to deal with group dynamics
and proficiency differences within the peer partner groups. Several of the participants mentionedthat their partner’s papers were so well written that it was difficult to find anything to comment on.
Some also felt uncomfortable about being overly critical of their partners reports when they foundmany issues. It is difficult to say for sure that differences in proficiency were responsible for thesecomments. However, if this is the cause of the issue, then it may be useful for the instructor to view
students’ drafts before the peer review activity, and then pair students of similar proficiency level
together. However, It has been commented that this may deny the opportunity for students of lowerproficiency the chance to learn from reviewing a report of higher proficiency (Hu, 2005).
Moreover, some students commented that it would be helpful to have time to get to know theirpartners better before reviewing their report.
“If I become more friendly with partner, it will be very helpful for us”“The balance of good comments and improvement points because if there are more improvement
points it is good for my partner but I think he or she might lose his or her confidence. It depends on
people’s personality but I didn’t know my partner well. So, that was the most difficult thing for me.”This problem was exacerbated by the fact that all classed at the university were being held
online via the Zoom web-conferencing platform due to the global COVID-19 pandemic at the time ofthis study, so students had little opportunity to talk with their classmates and naturally build
interpersonal relationships with each other outside of class during the semester. It was suggested tothe students that the peer review partners try to meet outside of class via Zoom so that they could get
to know each other better, but it is hard to know how many groups actually did this. One idea is totry to find some class time to incorporate ice breaker activities into the peer review training sessions
so that students have the opportunity to build some rapport with their partners. Another idea, could
be to allow students to form their own groups. However, as mentioned above, there is some evidence
that in these situations students of similar proficiency tend to form pairs among themselves, which
results in less proficient writers losing the chance to benefit from viewing the work of students with
better writing skills (Hu 2005). This is not an easy problem to solve, and there seem to be few

98AN EXPLORATORY STUDY INTO STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD PEER REVIEW ACTIVITIES IN AN ADVANCED ACADEMIC WRITING CLASS

detailed studies that deal with this issue in the literature. However, it will be interesting to look more
into how to develop better relationships between peer review partners and experiment with different
techniques in future peer review activities.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the results of the post-activity questionnaire reflected a lot of the benefits
purported in the literature. There was evidence that the participants felt they were able to receive
useful feedback from their peers to improve their reports. Furthermore, there were also indications
that through engaging with their partners, some were able to gain a sense of audience awareness,
which made their assignment more meaningful and also reflect more fundamentally on the writing
process as a whole. This reinforces the notion that peer review activities are a two-way-street, wherestudents not only provide advice to their partners but can also gain a lot themselves through thereviewing process. However, some of the common difficulties associated with implementing peer
review activities were also present in the results. Many of the participants reported that they did not
feel confident and found it difficult to make comments on the ideas in their partner’s reports,
supporting the assertion in the literature that students need extensive training before engaging inpeer review activities. In addition, there were indications that differing proficiency levels between thepartners was also causing some issues with lower-proficiency partners struggling to find points
comment on their partner’s papers and higher-proficiency students worrying that they might hurt
their partner’s feelings if they were too critical. Therefore, care should be taken to make sure thatpeer review partners can build rapport and feel comfortable with reviewing each other’s work. To
conclude, the results of this exploratory study leave this author with no doubt that peer review
activities hold great value for improving students’ writing skills in a multitude of respects, and I lookforward to experimenting more with these activities in future writing classes.

References
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple draft composition
classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method?. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 9(3), 227 257.
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing
quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241.
Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly,28(1), 181–8.
Connor, U. and Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: how much
impact on revision?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 257–76.
De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer
revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51–68.
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis
comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322.
Hanjani, A. M., & Li, L. (2014). Exploring L2 writers’ collaborative revision interactions and theirwriting performance. System, 44(1), 101–114.
Hedge, T. (2001). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative99

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93–105.
Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research,
9(3), 321–342.
Hu, G., & Lam, S. T. E. (2010). Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Exploring
peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional Science, 38(4), 371–394.
Jacobs, G.M., Curtis, A., Braine, G. & Huang, S.Y. (1998). Feedback on student writing: taking the
middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 307–17.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: issues in written response. In Kroll, B., editor, Second
language writing: research insights for the classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 57–68.
Levine, A., Oded, B., Connor, U., & Assons, I. (2002). Variation in EFL - ESL Peer Response. TESL
EJ, 6(3). Retrieved from: https://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume6/ej23/ej23a1/ .
Liu, J. & Sadler, R.W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditionalmodes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3):193–227.
Lockhart, C. & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in peer response groups: stances, functions, and content.
Language Learning, 45(4), 605–55.
McGroarty, M. E., & Zhu, W. (1997). Triangulation in classroom research: A study of peer revision.
Language Learning, 47(1), 1–43.
Miaoa, Y., Badger, R., & Zhenc, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a
Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179–200
Min, H. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293–308
Nelson, G.L. & Carson, J.G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer responsegroups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 113–31.
Nelson, G.L. & Murphy, J.M. (1992). An L2 writing group: task and social dimensions. Journal of
Second Language Writing,1(3),171–93.
Paulus, T.M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 8(3), 265–89.
Saito, H. (2008). EFL classroom peer assessment: Training effects on rating and commenting.
Language Testing, 25(4), 553–581
Saito, H., & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writingclassrooms. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 31–54.
Sengupta, S. (1998). Peer evaluation: “I am not the teacher.” ELT Journal, 52(1), 19-28.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 1(3), 217–33.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In H.
Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp.
95–108). London, England: Continuum.
Tsui, A.B.M. & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of
Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–70.
Villamil, O.S. & de Guerrero, M.C.M. (1998) Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing.
Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491–514.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101.
Zhang, S. (1999). Thoughts on some recent evidence concerning the affective advantage of peer

100

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY INTO STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD PEER REVIEW ACTIVITIES IN AN ADVANCED ACADEMIC WRITING CLASS

feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 321-326.
Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 10(4), 251–76.

101

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Appendix A – Peer review form
Introduction
Starts with an EFFECTIVE hook

O/△/X

Contains DETAILED Background information with CITATIONS

O/△/X

Contains a CLEAR thesis statement

O/△/X

Good points Advice

Body 1
Contains a CLEAR Topic sentence

O/△/X

Contains DETAILED reasons and examples to support the ideas with
CITATIONS

O/△/X

Contains a GOOD Concluding sentence

O/△/X

Good points Advice

Body 2
Contains a CLEAR Topic sentence

O/△/X

Contains DETAILED reasons and examples to support the ideas with
CITATIONS

O/△/X

Contains a GOOD Concluding sentence

O/△/X

Good points Advice

Body 3
Contains a CLEAR Topic sentence

O/△/X

Contains DETAILED reasons and examples to support the ideas with
CITATIONS

O/△/X

Contains a GOOD Concluding sentence

O/△/X

Good points Advice

Conclusion
Restates the thesis in DIFFERENT words

O/△/X

Summarizes the main ideas in DIFFERENT words

O/△/X

Ends with a POWERFUL final message

O/△/X

Good points Advice

References
All citations are Referenced at the bottom

O/△/X

References are written CORRECTLY

O/△/X

102

AdviceAN EXPLORATORY STUDY INTO STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD PEER REVIEW ACTIVITIES IN AN ADVANCED ACADEMIC WRITING CLASSAppendix B – Questionnaire form adapted from the online Google form
Peer review feedback form
I am currently writing a research paper on the peer review activity we conducted in yourAdvanced English 1 class, and I would like to collect some feedback from you about the review. I
would greatly appreciate it if you could answer a few questions on your experiences in the peer
review activity, and could you please provide as much detail as possible on the questions where you
have to write an answer.
Participation in this study is voluntary and you may withdraw your participation at any time. No
personal information will be collected and your responses will be anonymous. In addition, youranswers to these questions will have no effect on your grades.
If you would like to ask me any questions about this research, please contact me at xxx@
rikkyo,ac,jp. if you would like to ask questions to someone else about this research, please contact
the head of Journals and Research, Prof. Richard J Sampson, at xxx@rikkyo.ac.jp
Do you understand the content of the research, and give your consent for your responses being usedin an academic research paper?
YesNo
Are you over 18 years old? (students under the age of 18 cannot take part in the study)
YesNo
Did you take part in the peer review activity (those who answer no cannot take part in this study)
Yes
No

Peer reviewing your partner’s paper
1) Have you ever done a peer review before this class?
YesNo2) How difficult was it for you to peer review the STRUCTURE of your partner’s paper
Very Difficult 1 2
3
4
5 Very Easy3) How difficult was it for you to peer review the CONTENT of your partner’s paper
Very Difficult 1
2
3
4
5 Very Easy

103

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

4) How difficult was it for you to peer review the LANGUAGE of your partner’s paper
Very Difficult 1
2
3
4
5 Very Easy5) What was the biggest difficulty you faced in the peer review activity and why?
6) How much did you learn from reviewing your partner’s paper?
Nothing at all 1
2
3
4
5 Very much
7) Please explain your answer to question 6

Receiving feedback from your peer8) How useful was the feedback you received from your peer review?
Not useful at all 1 2
3
4
5 Very useful9) Please explain your answer to 810) What was the most useful piece of feedback that you received and why?
11) How could your peer review experience be improved? (Please make at least one suggestion)

104

【Research Article】

To What Extent Do the Topics on a Japanese University
Discussions Course Support Fluency Building?
Russell Minshull
Abstract
This paper presents research exploring teacher and student attitudes towards the topics used on a first year university
discussion course in Japan. The research was designed to explore the suitability of topics as related to the key course
goal of fluency, but also to gather opinion in a more general sense. Students completed qualitative surveys about the
topics, answering questions related to the constructs of engagement and background knowledge. They also wrote
short comments on the topics, which shows their opinions in a more qualitative way. Further to this, eight discussion
course teachers were interviewed on their attitudes towards the topics. The results of the research were synthesised
against the goal of fluency, and some common themes are extracted and analysed in the following paper. Among the
major themes, there is strong evidence that familiarity is the most important element in a successful topic on thecourse. There is also evidence that student background knowledge of certain topics might be mixed, suggesting
further support might be beneficial. Finally, students show evidence of content learning from discussing the topics,
learning that previously might have been overlooked by faculty.
Keywords: Topics, background knowledge,

Introduction
This paper aims to shed light on the opinions of various stakeholders on the topics used on a
discussion course at a Japanese university.
When it comes to teaching speaking, it seems like there is a wealth of research published on thelanguage and skills that are involved in speaking in various situations. While this is undoubtedly
valuable, it seems that in contrast there is a scarcity of research done on the topics of conversation
students discuss. Research tends to focus more on how students speak as oppose to what they speak
about. However, topic selection in such classrooms is surely important. For example, if the topic does
not engage students, then their motivation to speak will surely decrease. Likewise, if a topic isdifficult for students then they will be less willing and able to discuss it.
However, while many teachers have probably observed such issues, specifying what theseissues could be is perhaps rather complex. Discussing a topic might be difficult for students, butwhat makes it difficult? What kind of topics are motivating or demotivating to my students? Why docertain topics seem to work particularly well with certain students? What are students learning fromdiscussing these topics?
Therefore, the motivation of this research is to investigate the topics used in the discussions
textbooks. Firstly, to attempt to establish the suitability of the topics based on the main course
outcomes. Secondly, to look at attitudes towards the topics of key stakeholders on the course in amore general sense, in order to help start investigating this under-researched area.

105

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Topics in Curriculum Design
Published advice on curriculum design places a high emphasis on topics (Nunan, 1988 ; Ur,
1996; Richards, 2001). For example, Ur (1996, p.90) points out that many textbooks base theirsyllabus around topics.
Nunan offers a survey to explore the possibility of basing content-selection on learner’s interests(1988, p.148), and Deckert (2004) also suggests finding a consensus on which topics interest
students. He claims this is relatively easy in homogenous classes, but can be a challenge when
students come from various backgrounds and have different goals (2004, p.80). He also suggests
students will appreciate a role in the selection of topics. Kouhotova (2006, p.36) suggests that using
a variety of topics will maintain engagement, and cautions against using topics that are particularly
abstract.
Other published works advise careful consideration of topics when drafting materials. Rubdy(2014) advises a holistic approach, recommending topics that can evoke learner interest, and that canenrich learners’ knowledge and personality. Others say that the topic chosen in language classes canhelp students gain general and academic knowledge (Deckert, 2004, p.80).
In English for Specific Purposes, there is an ongoing debate over whether topics should be
student-selected, teacher-selected or selected via negotiation between stakeholders. According toBenesch (2001, p.77), each method offers benefits. Teacher-selected topics will give students
experience in fulfilling external requirements, which reflects many academic situations. Studentselected topics offer benefits to autonomy and the possibility of sharing a wider variety of information
with the class, whilst negotiated topics allow students to participate in democratic decision-making,which is also a critical skill. She (2001, p.80) recommends that a flexible approach to topic selection
is beneficial, and that students and teachers should be encouraged to reflect on course topics in orderto build a critical discourse on the themes we use in the classroom.
Brown and Adamson (2014, p.14) advise against changing topics regularly in academic settings
as this can hinder the development of ideas, and that basing studies around a single topic over anumber of lessons will provide “deeper rather than broader coverage” (2014, p.16).
In Japan, a survey revealed that students view topics about both everyday life and social issues
as appropriate for learning English, whereas teachers view everyday life topics as slightly more
appropriate (Matsuura, Chiba, & Hilderbrant, 2001). Watanabe’s (2006) study finds that JapaneseHigh School students generally prefer casual, everyday topics over topics based on social issues. Shesays that this supports the government-mandated target of high school students becoming proficientin conversations about daily issues (2006, p.130).
There seems to be lack of research that focuses on how individual topics impact students, butthere is literature that focuses on how a lack of knowledge of a topic can affect speaking performance.
Leong and Ahmadi (2017) believe this lack of knowledge to be detrimental, resulting in more L1 anda lack of willingness to communicate (WTC). Tuan and Mai (2015) found that both teachers andstudents strongly agree with this notion, and Riasati and Rahimi (2018) argue that students will bewilling to communicate about topics that are familiar to them and interesting. Finally, Vongsilla andReinders (2016, p.3) cite various researchers who have demonstrated that students tend to lackconfidence discussing topics in which they lack background knowledge.

106

TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE TOPICS ON A JAPANESE UNIVERSITY DISCUSSIONS COURSE SUPPORT FLUENCY BUILDING?

Course Context
The course in question is a discussion course that takes place at a university in Japan. The
course is standardised via a textbook, meaning that each week lessons follow a similar format.
Students read a short text at home, before participating in a series of activities which lead to the main
speaking tasks, which are two group discussions. Faculty suggest these discussions last between 12
and 20 minutes and emphasise the importance of student talking time. To help with this, students
learn a new discussion skill each week. These skills are designed to help generate content (e.g.
giving examples, advantages/disadvantages) or organise the discussion (e.g. changing topics,
summarising). Students also learn skills designed to help negotiate meaning in case of communication
breakdown (e.g. paraphrasing).
The course is mandatory for first years, meaning that students with a wide range of ability levels
and major study areas take part. However, the ten classes assigned to me this year, and therefore theresearch participants, were all either placed at B1 (TOEIC 480-700) or A2(TOEIC 280-480) ability
levels of the CEFR scale according to a pre-course TOEIC exam given by the university.
One of the main designated outcomes of the discussion course is for students to improve theirgeneral spoken fluency and communicative competence in English. While there are various ways todescribe fluency, Hurling’s (2012) introductory paper to the course references Schmidt, who
discusses the idea of automatization throughout his paper, which in a language-learning context
means a user is able to retrieve lexis without effort. In a paper used in mandatory course training
pre-2020, Gatbonton & Segalowitz (1988, p.474) define this kind of fluency as being able to produce
language comfortably, at speed and without interference from other cognitive processes (Gatbonton& Segalowitz, p. 474). For example, if a student can speak at length without pausing to think ofvocabulary, then they could be said to have achieved a certain level of fluency.
Hurling (2012, p.1-2) writes that students need a substantial amount of practice time to develop
fluency, and therefore lessons are arranged for as much student to student interaction as possible.
The topics used this semester are shown in the table below:
Week

Topic

2

The Importance of Communication

3

Entering University

4

Independence

5

Living Abroad

6

Globalization of Japanese Culture

7

Japanese and Foreign Customs

8

Learning Foreign Languages

9

Social Media

10

Crime and Punishment

11

Social Issues

Methodology
As mentioned, the purpose of this study was to gather information on attitudes towards the
topics used on the discussion course. In order to achieve this, I sought opinion from both teachers

107

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

and students involved with the course.
A mixed methods approach was used. Student attitudes were gauged using a mix of qualitativeand quantitative questions. Quantitative data was obtained using 6-point Likert scale survey
questions, while qualitative answers were gathered with comments on the various topics. As for theteachers, a qualitative approach was taken in the form of semi-structured interviews.
The main research questions used were:- To what extent to the topics used on a Japanese university discussions course support the maincourse goal of fluency?
- What are the factors affecting student and teacher attitudes towards the topics used on thediscussion course?
The first question targets the specific course goal of fluency, in order to help gauge the suitabilityof the topics of the course. However, the second question aims to investigate topics in a more general
sense, in order to investigate what effect the topics have beyond the course goals. Together, theyshould help to inform a rounded view of discussion topics.

Main Constructs in the Research
I was unable to find any similar surveys asking students about individual topics in detail, andtherefore wrote my own. The constructs were chosen based on a mixture of my own experience,
background research (e.g. Leong & Ahmadi, 2017) and informal discussions with colleagues.
The initial surveys contained five constructs, but three - vocabulary, critical thinking andappropriacy – have been removed from the analysis due to issues with relevance to the researchquestion. Therefore, the remaining two constructs and the questions used to test them are shown
below:
1. Engagementi) The topic was interesting to discuss.
ii) The topic was fun to discuss.
Questions (i) and (ii) relate to engagement. Topics that are fun and interesting should engage
learners, and engaged learners will be active in a discussion. This kind of engagement should help to
support fluency-building activities.
In this case, the difference between ‘fun’ and ‘interesting’ is that ‘fun’ is more related toenjoyment, and ‘interesting’ is more related to intellectual engagement. I checked this with a native
Japanese speaker, who confirmed the difference to be similar in Japanese. However, I do think it ispossible that some students took them to be synonymous.
2. Background Knowledgeiii) I had enough background knowledge to discuss this topic.
Question (iii) is about background knowledge. This is important for speaking performance, in

108

TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE TOPICS ON A JAPANESE UNIVERSITY DISCUSSIONS COURSE SUPPORT FLUENCY BUILDING?

that students without knowledge of a topic will struggle to discuss it. On previous courses, it
sometimes seemed to me as if students lacked the knowledge or experience with a topic to discussin detail.
These constructs inform both the student surveys and the teacher interviews.

Student Sur veys (Quantitative)
The intention of the surveys was to quantify student feelings towards the discussion topics as
related to the constructs. Students answered the questions using a 6-point Likert scale (1=strong
disagreement 6=strong agreement). An example item is shown below:

Students answered on each topic (ten in total), according to the following schedule:
Round One: Topics 1, 2&3 (n = 96). Conducted in week 5.
Round Two: Topics 4&5 (n= 93). Conducted in week 9.
Round Three: Topics 6&7 (n = 96). Conducted in week 12.
Round Four: Topics 8, 9&10 (n = 88). Conducted in week 13.
As the topic review surveys were done on multiple occasions, the number of particpants varied
as indicated by the n= number above. 96 students participated in the research overall, althoughparticipation in individual surveys varied due to student absences.
Results were tallied as a whole and analysed. For the engagement constructs, answers weregrouped into positive and negative. A survey answer of 1-3 was considered to be a negative response,whilst 4-6 was considered to be a positive.
For the background knowledge question, results for all classes were analysed by mode andfrequency.
Results were also collated for each individual class, however, due to the general homogeneity ofclass ability level, as well as the nature of the results, I feel it is unnecessary to share individual class
results and instead just present the results of my whole cohort. Perhaps in the future, with a wider
range of abilities, analysis of individual classes would be worthwhile.

Student Comments (Qualitative)
The surveys also offered a section for comments. In the first two rounds (topics 1-5) of thesurvey, the prompt for this was “Do you have any comments about this topic?” Writing a comment
was optional and there was a low response from students. However, the comments that students did
make were revealing, and so I made them compulsory for rounds three and four. This came to forma significant part of the topic review.
For mandatory comments, I chose a sentence completion style, which was intended to provide
more focus than the previous open question. Students completed the sentence: “This discussion topic
was_____because______.”

109

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Students wrote their comments in Japanese, and comments were translated via Google Translate,
and then checked by a Japanese-English bilingual to ensure accuracy.
Comments were thematically coded and counted, with the most prevalent themes becoming the
subject of the relevant analysis.

Semi-Structured Teacher Inter views
In order to triangulate viewpoints, teachers were interviewed online. A semi-structured approach
was designed (see Drever, 2005), with several questions drafted and compiled onto a power point. In
order to test the interview format, I conducted a pilot interview with a teacher who is working in asimilar context at a different university. In the end, I interviewed eight Rikkyo discussion teachers.
These interviews covered a wide range of themes, often in each interview, and therefore were
not coded but rather I used my own judgement to decipher the more common or widely held
viewpoints of teachers. Also, the teacher interviews were conducted after the student research andtherefore was able to explore the teachers’ views on the student-generated themes from thequantitative research.

Topic Review Research Results
In the following sections, I present the results and analysis of the Topic review research.
Due to the one-sided nature of the results for the ‘fun’ and ‘interesting’ questions, I have decided
to present the results divided into positive and negative answers. Meaning that on the Likert scale, ascore of 1-3 is a negative response, and 4-6 is a positive response.
However, the ‘background knowledge’ question produced more nuanced results, and so I will
present this data as modes and frequencies while also referring to the results in terms of positive andnegative.

Engagement Constructs (‘fun’ and ‘interesting’)
For these two constructs, I decided to rank the topics in terms of popularity. This was done outof curiosity of which topics could be termed ‘most popular’ amongst our students.
Table 1Results of the Engagement Construct Questions
This Topic was Interesting
Ranking
1=

110

Topic
IndependenceThis Topic was Fun
Positive

Negative

Ranking

98%

2%

1

Topic
Independence

Positive

Negative

98%

2%

1=

Foreign Language

98%

2%

2

Customs

97%

3%

2

Customs

97%

3%

3

Foreign Language

96%

4%

3

Social Media

96%

4%

4

Social Media

95%

5%

4

Social Issues

95%

5%

5=

Living Abroad

91%

9%

5=

Globalization

94%

6%

5=

Globalization

91%

9%

5=

Entering University

94%

6%

6

Communication

90%

10%

6

Living Abroad

91%

9%

7=

Entering University

89%

11%

7

Communication

90%

10%

7=

Social Issues

89%

11%

8

Crime

89%

11%

8

Crime

76%

24%

TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE TOPICS ON A JAPANESE UNIVERSITY DISCUSSIONS COURSE SUPPORT FLUENCY BUILDING?

The immediately striking aspect of these results is how positive the students are about the
topics. The vast majority of students say that all of the topics are interesting and fun. This indicatesthat the topics used in the textbook are well received by students and this probably contributes
strongly towards engagement.
Table 2
Results of the Background Knowledge Question
Background Knowledge

Topic

Mode

Frequencies
1

2

3

4

5

6

Communication

4

0%

8%

26%

34%

23%

7%

Entering University

4

0%

2%

21%

37%

27%

11%

Independence

4

1%

4%

20%

32%

31%

10%

Living Abroad

5

1%

3%

16%

31%

38%

11%

Globalization

5

0%

6%

16%

25%

39%

14%

Customs

5

2%

3%

8%

39%

40%

8%

Foreign Languages

5

0%

3%

11%

35%

38%

13%

Social Media

5

1%

1%

13%

23%

49%

14%

Crime

3

1%

16%

33%

22%

19%

9%

Social Issues

4

2%

10%

17%

32%

30%

9%

Overall, students answered positively in this category, with half of the topics achieving a modeof 5, indicating that students feel they have a comfortable amount of background knowledge todiscuss the topic.
In the other half of the topics, the mode is 4, except for the Crime and Punishment topic where
the mode is 3. This could be interpreted as students feeling less comfortable with the topics in termsof their background knowledge.
The Independence (26%), Social Issues, (28%) and Communication (35%) topics have more thana quarter of students answering negatively. As there are ten students per class, this could mean there
are two or three students in each class/lesson who are struggling with their knowledge of these
topics.
Crime and Punishment stands out as the most difficult topic in this category. As mentioned, it
has a mode of 3, and over 50% of students feel negatively about their knowledge of this topic.
The frequencies of threes and fours for most topics are over 50%, indicating that although no
topic is particularly overwhelming (with the possible exception of Crime and Punishment) plenty ofstudents might not be particularly confident in their background knowledge of topics. From looking
at the frequencies, we might also say that classes will have a mixed level of background knowledge
on each subject.

Themes in Student Comments
The positivity of the quantitative survey results continue in the student comments, with positive
comments mainly relating to the familiarity of topics. There were also a significant amount of positive
comments on the theme of learning from the discussion content. Comments that were less positive
mainly focused on difficulties. The main reason given for difficulty in discussing a topic was a lack offamiliarity or knowledge. Apart from this, students sometimes mention that discussing a topic with111

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

various possible answers is difficult.
In the following section, these factors are discussed in more detail.

Topic Familiarity
Table 3
Quotes from students on the theme of topic familiarity
Quotation

Topic“This discussion dealt with social media, which is familiar to me, so I could discuss
it with a sense of ownership.”Social Media“Discussions on this topic were appropriate for us taking English lessons. Because
I was able to think like myself and get interested, and I was always able to talk about
my experience”

Learning Languages“It was easier to talk about topics that were close to me (such as university).”

Entering University

As demonstrated in the above quotes, familiarity or relevance was most often cited as a reason
students had a positive experience discussing a topic.
The comments often contain the Japanese word ‘みじか’(mijika), which when translated means‘familiar’. For example, in the Social Media topic, roughly 75% of comments say something positive
about familiarity or relevance. While perhaps not synonymous, familiarity and background knowledge
are closely related and therefore support the notion that discussions will be easier for students when
they have sufficient knowledge of a topic.
With topics that focus on everyday life, such as university-related and Japanese culture-related
topics, students seem to appreciate the ease with which they can participate in a discussion. With themore difficult topics (e.g. Crime and Punishment, Social Issues), they sometimes say that although
not familiar, the topics bear relevance to their lives.
For the Japanese and Foreign Customs topic, students say they enjoy discussing their own
culture, and the Learning a Foreign Language topic stokes interest as every student studies two
foreign languages in their first year at university.
It is likely that students finding familiarity or at least some relevance in the topics goes some way
to account for their overall popularity in the quantitative survey results.

Learning from Discussions
Table 4
Quotes from students on the theme of learning from discussions
Quotation

Topic“The topic was meaningful because I was able to reflect on the language learning I
am doing now”

Learning a Foreign
Language“It was interesting . This is because I was able to deepen my understanding of othercultures and learn about their differences from Japanese culture.”

Japanese and Foreign
Customs“It’s an interesting opportunity to listen to various opinions and learn a perspectivethat I didn’t think of, and to re-organize the adnvatages and disadvantages todeepen my thoughts on the situation in Japan.”Social Issues

The second most prevalent theme I identified was the expression of satisfaction with a topic
because students had learned something content-related from the discussions. As in the quotes112

TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE TOPICS ON A JAPANESE UNIVERSITY DISCUSSIONS COURSE SUPPORT FLUENCY BUILDING?

above, students use verbs such as ‘experience’, ‘reflect’, and ‘learn’ in order to describe content-basedlearning. This was quite consistent throughout the topics. For example, in the Learning a Foreign
Language class comments, several students seem positive about reflecting on their own language
learning. In the Japanese and Foreign Customs comments, students enjoyed learning about different
cultures and/or comparing foreign cultures to Japanese culture. Comments for university-related
topics say that it was good to think about being independent, and to ponder the bigger picture of why
they have come to university. Also, in the more serious topics (e.g. Social Issues and Crime andPunishment), some students describe considering certain issues for the first time.

Difficulties with Unfamiliar Topics
Table 5
Quotes from students on the theme of difficulties with unfamiliar topics.
Quotation

Topic“It was difficult. Because quite and punishment didn’t seem familiar to me, and I
never thought about the death penalty.”

Crime and Punishment“It was a difficult topic to speak in English because it is a topic that we don’t discussmuch in Japanese.”

Hikikomori“A little difficult because I was not very familiar with the customs of other countries.”

Japanese and Foreign
Customs

A lack of familiarity or knowledge is the most common reason given for difficulties in discussions.
Students sometimes say directly that they do not know enough about a topic, but more often say they
have not thought about it before or it is not something they discuss or think about often in Japanese.
Such comments were most common in the more abstract topics (e.g. Social Issues and Crime
and Punishment) but there were occasional comments occurring in most topics. For example, somestudents say they found discussing learning languages difficult because they lack knowledge in thatarea. At the same time, for most topics there are also comments saying they enjoyed the topic
because of its familiarity, showing that students probably have a mixed level of backgroundknowledge.
Personally, I find it interesting to see some students saying that hikikomori was a topic that they
have not thought about much, or they do not talk about in Japanese, as I had previously assumed it
to be familiar to these students.

Difficulties with Nuanced Topics
Table 6
Quotes from students on the theme of difficulties with nuanced topics, or topics where there are no easy answers.
Quotation

Topic“I thought the discussion on this topic was a huge problem. There were many
unanswered questions, so it was difficult to discuss.”

Social Issues“There was no correct answer, so it was difficult.”

Social Issues“It was difficult to decide my opinion in the discussion on this topic. Because there
were equally pros and cons about the death penalty.”

Crime and Punishment

113

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Especially in the more abstract Crime and Punishment and Social Issues lessons, a notableamount of students say they find it difficult when there is no easy answer. This could be connected
to a lack of knowledge or experience in these areas. If students have not thought about these issues
deeply before, then we cannot expect them to have a fully formed view on them yet.
However, this could also be interpreted as a critical thinking issue. Due to cultural andeducational background issues, it seems that students are conditioned during their previous
education to look for one right answer (Dunn, 2015 ; Reid, 1998, p.20), and these comments might
indicate difficulty when they have to evaluate several possible angles to an issue.
This could be something for discussions teachers to ponder, as critical thinking currently
occupies a more important role in university curricula than it had previously, both institutionally andnationally (see Mishima & Yamamoto, 2020).

Main Themes in the Teacher Inter views
In this section I present some themes of the teacher interviews. Teachers were named Teacher
A – Teacher H, and are represented in the quote tables below via this nomenclature.
The main point which teachers and students seem to agree on is that familiarity with a topic is
important, and a lack of familiarity or lack of knowledge hinders a discussion. Elsewhere, teachers
raised interesting issues about how the topic affects nuance in a discussion, and also raised a point
about the questions used in the textbook.

Teachers on Familiarity
Teachers cite general spoken fluency as the main goal of the course, and reported being
generally satisfied with the topics in this regard. Much like the students, teachers most often suggestthat relevant or familiar topics best support fluency building.
Table 7
Quotes from teachers on the theme of familiarity with topics.
Quotation

Interview“I guess the Entering University, Life at University, Becoming Independent topics (bestsupport fluency) as they’re able to talk quite a lot about those topics. I guess because
they’re all in that situation so it’s very relevant to their lives at the moment.”

Excerpt from Teacher Ainterview“I mean it’s important that they have something to say if the goal of the course is to getthem speaking as much as possible, it’s important that they’re able to say something
about the topic.”

Excerpt from Teacher Dinterview“I think just based on the design of the course because they’re being thrown into
discussions with very little prep ... . So for them to be able to generate ideas it needs tobe something that they can relate to ... . because it’s like a bit of a cognitive load where
you’re telling them you got to use these skills, but you’ve also got to introduce ideas thatyou’ve never thought about before.”

Excerpt from Teacher Finterview

Some teachers point out that having something to say is essential in discussions, so it is bestwhen students have a lot of opinions ready to go. One teacher connects the importance of topic
familiarity to the course structure: there is little time to prepare and students often need to produce
ideas instantly. If they need to think of original ideas immediately then their cognitive load is114

TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE TOPICS ON A JAPANESE UNIVERSITY DISCUSSIONS COURSE SUPPORT FLUENCY BUILDING?

increased and communicating becomes difficult.
Another interesting point made was that familiar topics not only aid fluency, but also seem tohelp students bond as they can identify what they have in common:
Table 8
Quote from teacher on a benefit of using familiar topics.
Quotation

Interview“Certain students would kind of relate to each other and comment on the same things;
they find those things in common. So it was more useful for bringing the students
together and improving the dynamic, just because they kind of had things in common”

Excerpt from Teacher Finterview

This could be important to the course, both in the sense of enjoyment and improving
communicative competence. In Brereton et al.’s study (2019, p.285), students on the course mostcommonly attribute a positive change in attitude towards speaking English to the atmosphere theyexperience in discussion classes.

Teachers on a Lack of Familiarity or Background Knowledge
Several teachers suggest that topics where there is a lack of familiarity to students prove to be
the least productive:
Table 9Quotes from teachers describing how unfamiliar topics cause students problems in discussions.
Quotation

Topic“...basically they hadn’t thought about it (Social Issues: Poverty) before, they didn’t
think it was possible to solve it, so it was just too abstract I think.”

Excerpt from Teacher Dinterview“They’ve really only got knowsledge about Japanese culture and the problem is (thecourse) doesn’t really give them the background knowledge to discus topics like foreign
customs and globalization of Japanese culture ......... I mean they’re able to talk aboutit, but I guess they could do with ......... different perspectives to discuss it in moredetail.”Excerpt from Teacher Ainterview“... lots of my students have got no experience of sudying abroad, they’re not reallythought about it, they’re first-year students ... the majority of my students, they’ve neverthought about this topic and it’s just ‘It is a good idea?’ ‘No, it's expensive.’”

Excerpt from Teacher GinterviewAs these comments show, teachers find that students have difficulty producing detailed
discussions on topics where they do not know enough. One teacher advocates for offering more
perspectives, perhaps suggesting scaffolding could support student ideas. In any case, there is astrong feeling that topics which students have not considered before tend to less productive.

115

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Teachers on Nuanced Discussions
Table 10
Quotes from teachers on the benefits of topics which provoke a nuanced discussion.
Quotation

Interview“It seemed like there was more to say (for advanced topics) and less uniformity ofideas kind of thing. It was like, do you think studying a foreign language is good?
Well, everyone thinks yes. So ... the ones where averyone’s ideas weren’t the same,
I think was what was interesting.”

Excerpt from Teacher Binterview“(Crime and Punishment as the best topic) ... I think the main thing that I like about
this lessons is it’s a good way for students to really understand how to have anuanced discussion.”

Excerpt from Teacher Einterview

Although teachers identify difficulties with more advanced topics, they also tend to point towards
such topics as the most interesting, primarily when that provoke more nuanced discussions. This
adds perspective to the student comments, which tended to say that more nuanced discussions canbe difficult. Perhaps teachers do not necessarily view this difficulty as unwelcome.
On a similar note, some teachers express dissatisfaction with discussions in which students give
short, repetitive answers:“Should everyone study abroad?”“No, it’s too expensive. Many students do not have money, so they can’t study abroad. What do you
think?”
This was an example given of unsatisfactory student dialogue, and several teachers expressed
frustration with this sort of brief exchange, which is apparently quite common. Some teachersconnect these shorter, repetitive answers to questions on topics where background knowledge isperhaps limited. As in the quote above, few students have experience studying abroad and therefore
sometimes cannot discuss the question at length. Teachers say students tend to gloss over suchquestions rather than consider them deeply. Some teachers point out that because they have to teacheach lesson 10 times or more, this frustration might be amplified, but most of the teachers seem
unsatisfied with discussions that elicit repetitive answers. Overall, my impression is that teachers
would like more depth in discussions.
However, a lack of depth to discussions might not be the fault of the topics used. Some teachers
suggest that the textbook could be the problem:
Table 11
Quote from a teacher discussing the limitations of discussion questions used in the textbook.
Quotation

Interview“I think the problem with the book is a lot of the questions don’t really lendthemselves to saying that much about the topic. A lot of the questions are very
simple ... in some of the questions in the book it could almost just be like a one-word
answer and then there’s not really anything to say.”Excerpt from Teacher Einterview

The above quote states that textbook questions, not the topics, are the issue and two otherinterviewed teachers also state a problem with some textbook questions. They say discussion
questions are sometimes written in a binary manner, which often elicits just a short answer fromstudents. The textbook does contain several binary questions, as shown in the table below:

116

TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE TOPICS ON A JAPANESE UNIVERSITY DISCUSSIONS COURSE SUPPORT FLUENCY BUILDING?

Table 12
Examples of Textbook Questions
Topic

Question

Page

Life at University

Is it important for students to plan for life after university?

27

Becoming Independent

Should all university students have a part-time job?

34

Living Abroad

Should everyone study abroad?

42(What’s your Opinion?, Fearn-Wannan; Kita & Sturges, 2020)

These are examples of closed questions, or questions that could be completed with yes/no orvery short answers. While questions such as these give students easy practice with target phrases,
they tend to elicit very brief discussions, which limits student use of target skills and the possible
development of ideas. It might well be that it is this kind of binary question, rather than the topic ofdiscussion, that results in repetitive answers. Therefore, teachers could find that rewriting binary or
closed questions into more open, or even task-based, type questions produces more nuanced
discussions, and that the topics do not necessarily need to be altered.

Other Teacher Inter view Themes
Elsewhere, teachers raise various issues related to the topics although there was not a lot ofconsensus on these points. Some teachers suggest that topics could be more academic, and/or
focused on current events, while another teacher advocated for topics that are more directly related
to students’ major areas of study. Although they acknowledge that such changes are not necessarily
required for fluency building, they suggest that topics along these lines could offer a more holistic
learning experience, suitable for the university environment.

Discussion
Familiarity and Prepared Ideas
Familiarity seems to be the most important factor in a successfully engaging topic on the course.
Students and teachers say that immediately familiar topics are engaging and motivating, and cite alack of familiarity when they say a topic is difficult. This is supported by research that states students
feel less confident when they are called upon to discuss topics they have little background knowledgein (e.g Tuan & Mai, 2015). Most commonly, writers say this affects student WTC. Kang (2004, p.283)
says that a lack of knowledge leads to students feeling insecure, because they worry that they will
struggle to follow the conversation, or that their lack of ideas will bring the conversation to an abrupt
halt. It seems likely that a lack of background knowledge does lead to lower WTC. Also, more
fundamentally, it seems logical that students will struggle to build an expansive discussion on topics
where they have little knowledge.
As it relates to the goal of fluency, I suspect the issues around familiarity and backgroundknowledge perhaps come down to one important thing: it really helps if students have ideas ready touse before they start a discussion.
Pre-2020, discussion course INSETT materials used a model of fluency by Gatbonton (1988),
known as creative automatization. This kind of fluency is achieved when speakers can express
themselves without interference from other cognitive processes. This can be related to Levelt’s117外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

model of articulation (1989, ret. from Griffin & Ferreira, 2006), in which the communication of an
idea occurs in three stages; conceptualization, formulation and articulation. In order to communicate,
you need to generate an idea, think of how to express it, and then physically express it. Each stage
requires mental resources, so if you have to spend time generating ideas, this detracts from yourability to express yourself. Therefore, in a course where the main goal is building spoken fluency,
perhaps it is best to have a topic where students will have ideas already formulated. In other words,
familiar topics.
The results of this research show that student topical knowledge levels are probably quite
mixed, and that in each lesson there might be a quarter of students or more who feel they are lacking
sufficient background knowledge. If students will not always have ideas ready, or indeed if some arelikely to be struggling with their background knowledge, then it is probably a good idea to offer themsome support.
The textbook already offers some support in this area via two regular activities: a homework
reading and discussion preparation activities. However, these methods are perhaps insufficient – thereading can be completed without much analysis of the issues, and the discussion preparation
activities are designed to be done as spoken activities, so the time dedicated solely to thinking in theclasses is actually quite low.
Due to Covid-19, some interviewed teachers used a flipped classroom this semester, utilisingidea-scaffolding methods such as articles and videos to help students develop opinions on the topics
before classes. This is one way of helping students to generate more ideas on the topics, and theteachers claim that these methods did seem to help somewhat. In future face-to-face courses, such
scaffolding maybe less desirable due to time constraints. However, teachers might find giving
students some kind of extra input on the topics prior to the class will help to support their ideas andin turn discussions might be more fluent.
If this kind of preparation is not desirable, then a more pragmatic solution could be to ask
students to think about discussion questions before the class. Perhaps it would benefit students to sit
and think for a more prolonged period of time, such as 15-20 minutes. Setting this as homework could
help students come to class with ready ideas.
While I doubt that we could hope to equalise student topical knowledge through input, perhaps
allowing all students extended time to generate ideas before class would allow students lacking inbackground knowledge to come to class feeling more confident.

Learning from Discussions
Having taught the course for two years without much focus on the content, it was very interesting
to see students describing content-based learning in their comments. Students describe various
critical processes such as comparing, reflecting, analysing and learning new information. Previously,
the strongly unified curriculum meant that less attention was paid to this kind of learning, because
teachers were focusing on how students were using the skills. However, this area of learning should
probably not be overlooked. Even without a teacher focus, students are experiencing the content of
the course and it might even be the key thing they take away from classes. If we consider that one ofthe primary purposes of a discussion is to learn by sharing opinions (Simpson, 1939), then a lack offocus on this kind of learning might be detracting from the potential of the course.
Some discussions teachers have previously found a lack of balance in the course structure, andsome students also find the heavy focus on skill use to be constricting (Brereton et.al; 2019, p.288).

118

TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE TOPICS ON A JAPANESE UNIVERSITY DISCUSSIONS COURSE SUPPORT FLUENCY BUILDING?

Teachers addressing the discussion content related to the topics could help balance focus between
the language and content, which could result in a more holistic experience for students in the future.
One way to do this could be to adapt the descriptors in the lesson outcomes. One descriptor in
the textbook is currently “Discuss Japanese and Foreign Customs”. This describes the activity,
but not what students might be learning from it. The experience could be better acknowledged bychanging it to: “Analyse Japanese Customs and compare them to foreign customs”. Students
can refer to this at the start of class, and reflect on it towards the end.
Another idea could be to use activity and lesson feedback time to have students reflect on theirexperience with the content. Questions such as “What did you learn about Japanese and Foreign
Customs today?” could help them to reflect on their content learning.

Limitations of the Study
This year my assigned classes were all roughly in the pre-intermediate and intermediate rangeof speaking ability. While this range tends to make up the bulk of the students who participate on thecourse, there are advanced level classes as well as beginner level classes. These classes might havedifferent views on the discussion topics, and could be surveyed in the future.
The constructs of ‘interesting’ and ‘fun’ were initially aimed at testing student engagement withthe topics. Due to perceived time constraints, only one question was used to test the backgroundknowledge construct. It is widely recommended that several questions per construct be asked inorder to obtain more valid results (Dornyei & Csizér, 2012). Therefore, while the results here might
be indicative, more investigation is needed to further establish the extent of the relationship between
these constructs and the topics.
Upon reflection, I might have been overly concerned with making the surveys quick to complete,and more questions based around these constructs would probably have been possible without using
too much time. This would probably have led to more reliable data.
Finally, it is regrettable that the comments were not compulsory from the first round. These
comments were insightful, and had a strong influence on the research. Indeed, there is plenty ofscope to expand the qualitative aspect of this research. For example, focus groups could allow for
deeper exploration into the student perspective on topics.

Conclusion
The textbook topics are popular with students, and the results of this study indicate that they are
happy discussing them. This indicates some measure of engagement, which in turn indicates thatthey are useful for the fluency building focus of the course. Familiarity seems to account for thisengagement, and the more relevant the students feel the topic is the more they seem to like it. It is
probable that such topics are the most suitable for fluency building, as students have more ideas
ready to use.
It is likely that individual student background knowledge varies on each topic, and I feel it would
probably be beneficial for students to have more time to explore the topics before class. Morededicated thinking time would allow them to have more ideas prepared going into discussions andthis would in turn allow them to focus on expressing ideas rather than formulating them.
While the textbook topics seem popular with students, it is not to say that teachers could not findvalue in changing or adapting them. However, it is worth bearing in mind the issues with familiarity119外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

and background knowledge, and ensuring students are supported accordingly.
While I believe that establishing that the topics are ‘fun’ and ‘interesting’ gives a measure ofengagement with the topics, further research could explore the idea of engagement with the course
on a deeper level. A topic could be fun and interesting, but not engage students enough to inspire a
discussion that expands for the 16 minutes that has traditionally been required on the course.
Research that measures how much discussion the topics tend to produce could give a more in-depth
indication of how engaging topics are.
Finally, this research has shown that students are learning from the content of the discussions.
Previously, the unified curriculum used on the course meant that less attention was paid to this
aspect of learning, and I believe teachers could probably deliver a more holistic experience byfocusing on the content learning taking place in discussions. Future research on this kind of learning
could investigate the benefits of this kind of focus.

References
Benesch,S. (2001). Critical English for Academic Purposes. (1st ed.). Routledge.
Brereton, P., Schaefer, M.Y., Bordilovskaya, A., & Reid, S. (2019). An Analysis of Student Survey
Results on Classroom Experiences and Learning Outcomes Within a Large-Scale English
Discussion Program. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 7, 272-297.
Brown, H. & Adamson. J. (2012). Localizing EAP in light of the rise of English-medium instruction at
Japanese universities. OnCue Journal, 6(3). 5-20.
Deckert, G. (2004). Guidelines for the selection of topical content in ESL programs. TESL Canada
Journal, 4, 73-88.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (2012). How to design and analyze surveys in SLA research? In A. Mackey& S. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide. (74-94).
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Drever, E. (1995) Using semi-structured interviews in small-scale research. A teacher’s guide. Edinburgh:
Scottish Council for Research in Education.
Dunn,J. (2015). Critical Thinking in Japanese Secondary Education: Student and Teacher
Perspectives. Critical Thinking and Language Learning, Vol 2 (3) (pp.29-39).
Fearn-Wannan, J ; Sturges, J ; Kita, S ; & Young, D (2020). What’s Your Opinion? (1st Ed). Rikkyo
University.
Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (1988). Creative automatization: Principles for promoting fluency
within a communicative framework. TESOL quarterly, 22(3), 473-492.
Griffin,Z.M. & Ferreira,V.S. (2006). Properties of spoken language production. In M.J. Traxler &M.
A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd Ed .21-659. Amsterdam:Academic
Press.
Hurling, S. (2012) Introduction to EDC. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion,
1, 1.1-1.10.
Kohoutová, İ. (2006). Teaching English to adults: Needs analysis, (Diploma Thesis). Charles University
in Prague Faculty of Education Department of English Language and Literature, Prague.
Leong, L.-M., & Ahmadi, S. M. (2017). An analysis of factors influencing learners’ English speaking
skill. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(1). 34-41.

120

TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE TOPICS ON A JAPANESE UNIVERSITY DISCUSSIONS COURSE SUPPORT FLUENCY BUILDING?

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). ACL-MIT Press series in natural-language processing.Speaking: From intention
to articulation. The MIT Press.
Matsuura, H., Chiba, R., & Hilderbrandt, P. (2001). Beliefs about learning and teaching communicative
English in Japan. JALT Journal, 23. 69-89.
Mishima, M. & Yamamoto, Y. (2020) Japanese English learners’ responses to English debate:
Insights from a pilot course. JAAL in JACET Proceedings. 2020. 2. 15-22
Reid, S. (1998). Teaching critical thinking. CELE Journal, 6, 17-22.
Riasati M.J. & Rahimi, F. (2018). Situational and individual factors engendering willingness to speak
English in foreign language classrooms. Cogent Education, 5:1, 1513313.
Richards, J. (2001). Curriculum Developments in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Rubdy, R. (2014). Selection of Materials. Developing materials for language teaching,(edited by
Tomlinson, B.). 37-57. Bloomsbury Academic.
Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying language fluency. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 14. 357-385.
Simpson, R.H. (1939) The 18 Major Purposes of Classroom Discussion. The Clearing House: A
Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 14:1. 25-26.
Tuan, N. H., & Mai, T. N. (2015). Factors Affecting Students’ Speaking Performance at Le Thanh
Hien High School. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 3. 8-23.
Ur, P. (1991). A Course in Language Teaching: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Vongsila, V., & Reinders, H. (2016). Making Asian learners talk: Encouraging willingness tocommunicate. RELC Journal, 1: 17.
Watanabe, Y. (2006). A needs analysis for a Japanese high school general English education
curriculum. Second Language Studies, 25(1), Fall 2006. 83-163.
West, R. (1994). Needs analysis in language teaching. Language Teaching 27, 1-19.
Young, D. (2016). Textbook Revision in the EDC Context: Readability and Topic Interest. New
Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion 4. 295 - 302.

121

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）【Research Article】

Action-Oriented Approach to Curriculum Development in CLIL
Courses: A theoretical and methodological framework
Yuka Yamamoto & Ryo Nitta
Abstract
In a contemporary society characterized by complexity, it is vital to develop students’ competences with action. Using
the action-oriented approach as the underlining basis, we designed an English Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL) curriculum at Rikkyo University to develop students’ competences throughout their four-year periodof study. The paper introduces the ongoing development process of the courses in this curriculum from theoreticaland methodological perspectives using an action-oriented approach. From the theoretical perspective, students’competences and actions need to be closely connected and mediated by action-oriented tasks. From the methodologicalperspective, we adopted the backward design approach. In designing the overall curriculum, we followed the threestages proposed by Wiggins and McTighes (2005)—identifying the desired results, determining acceptable evidenceof learning, and planning learning experiences and instruction. We believe our curriculum development process will
be valuable information for language-teaching professionals aiming to adopt the backward design approach for theircurriculum development and those who wish to design their syllabuses in accordance with the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages standards.
Keywords:Competence-based education, CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), Action-oriented approach,
Backward design, CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages)

Introduction
This paper presents our ongoing development process of the courses in the Content andLanguage Integrated Learning (CLIL) curriculum at Rikkyo university from both theoretical—on
what theoretical grounds and concepts the curriculum is designed—and methodological—how thecurriculum has been developed within our context—perspectives. As indicated by Richards (2017),
there are two parallel sources of influence on curriculum change. The first comes from within thefield of language teaching where “Scholars, pedagogues, and applied linguists have generated a bodyof assumptions and principles that serve as one source for reviewing approaches to language
curriculum design and implementation” (p. 4). Such internal sources of influence are motivated by afocus on ‘means’, aiming to improve teaching-practice quality. The other sources of influence are
more pragmatic, reflecting the demand from governments, educational and institutional authorities,
and students. These external sources of influence are concerned with ‘ends’, seeking to achieve
better outcomes. Our challenge as language-teaching professionals is to satisfy both necessities—
making an English language curriculum informed by cutting-edge research and theory and, at thesame time, reasonably responding to the pragmatic demands from students and various stakeholders.
For this challenge, we adopt an action-oriented approach to developing our English language
curriculum. The term was first introduced in the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages (CEFR). It views “users and learners of a language primarily as ‘social agents,’ i.e.,
members of society who have tasks (not exclusively language-related) to accomplish in a given set ofcircumstances, in a specific environment and within a particular field of action” (Council of Europe,
122

ACTION-ORIENTED APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN CLIL COURSES: A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

2001, p. 9). What is indicated in adopting this approach for curriculum development is planning backfrom real-world action involving language. It is of particular significance for language educators toconsider, in the initial stage of curriculum development, what our students as social agents need todevelop through learning English. This development direction is called ‘backward design,’ startingwith a description of learning outcomes as the basis for curriculum planning; decisions on
methodology and syllabus are developed from the outcomes (Wiggins & McTighe, 2006; Richards,
2013).
The action-oriented approach also emphasizes the significance of active participation in aclassroom as a learning community, suggesting that language learning cannot be achieved only
through knowledge construction but necessarily through engaging in situated experience. In thisview to language learning, the action is always situated, taking place in a context within which
activities take place—students are not containers to be filled with particular knowledge and skills but
agents willingly participating in certain activities (Sfad, 1998).
We first look at the external sources of influence on curriculum development by reviewing broad
educational perspectives. We then consider how education’s external demands can be organicallylinked to the internally motivated curriculum focusing on participation by taking the action-oriented
approach. On the basis of the theoretical perspectives, we present methodological perspectives—
how we have developed our English language curriculum in our context and how the theoretical andpedagogical principles are applied in our CLIL courses.

Theoretical Rationale
Toward Competence-Based Education
In search of the desired learning outcomes reflecting external sources of influence, what thesociety hopes students to ultimately attain, we first looked at broad educational perspectives tounderstand objectives of English language teaching “in light of larger movements within the domainof education” (Crookes, 2016, p. 64).
According to Cummins (2004), there are three distinct pedagogical perspectives: traditional,social constructivist, and transformative. Traditional pedagogy is primarily concerned with thetransmission of knowledge and skills, and social constructivist pedagogy aims to develop higherorder thinking skills through being engaged in tasks and projects. Social constructivist pedagogy has
been extended to a transformative pedagogy involving common characteristics but with different
orientations. That is, the first two perspectives are primarily instructional-oriented, but transformative
pedagogy focuses on social and identity-investment dimensions, enabling students to analyze andunderstand the social realities of their lives and their communities through collaborative criticalinquiry (Cummins, 2004).
Transformative pedagogy has been applied in various forms worldwide, most notably “KeyCompetencies,” involving three categories of ‘using tools interactively,’ ‘interacting in heterogeneousgroups’, and ‘acting autonomously’ (OECD, 2005). What is particularly significant in this pedagogy is
its focus on developing competences as a vital capacity in today’s globalized society confronted withvolatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. The world is entering a state of ‘super complexity’(Barnett, 2000), where various systems of the environment and our society grow increasingly
complex through continuous change. As a result, there is a move in education from a paradigm oflinearity and simplification of focus on knowledge to a paradigm of complexity focusing on123

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

competence (Piccard & North, 2019). In this reality, the critical question is no longer what skills or
knowledge should be taught but an attempt to bring about changes in students’ competences(Pikkarainen, 2014).
Developing competence is key to understanding contemporary education, but how competence
is defined is not so simple. In a general sense, competence is defined as the ability to do something
well (e.g., Cambridge Dictionary), but it has a more specific meaning from an educational objective.
As stated by OECD (2005), “A competency is more than just knowledge and skills. It involves theability to meet complex demands, by drawing on and mobilising psychosocial resources (including
skills and attitudes) in a particular context” (p. 4). In a similar vein, the CEFR defines competence as“the sum of knowledge, skills, and characteristics that allow a person to perform actions” (Council ofEurope, 2001, p. 9). Summarizing these definitions, competence is conceived as a multidimensionaland holistic concept consisting of knowledge, skills and attitudes (Piccard & North, 2019), and acapacity to apply these various resources to perform a specific action in an integrative manner.

Action-Oriented Approach
As reflected in this conceptualization, competence is inseparable from the action, being
inextricably linked to the action-oriented approach. Because competence is a wholly invisible internal
condition of the visible action (Piccard & North, 2019), the relationship between competence andaction is interdependent—actions are performed by using competences, while competences develop
as a consequence of dynamic interaction between “the object of study (language), the subject
learning it (language user), the action (language use) and the reflection (metacognitive/metalinguisticphase)” (Bourguignon, 2006, cited in Piccard & North, 2019, p. 52).
Understanding the significance of developing students’ competences through action, how canthis be achieved in the English language curriculum? Growing demand for competence-based
education makes us aware of the perspective of curriculum-as-product; “that is, the curriculum as a
document that contains a framework for teaching, materials development, and assessment and thatserves to direct and manage the enterprise of language teaching” (Richards, 2017, p. 13). The actionoriented approach encourages us to regard perspective of curriculum-as-process, reflecting theclassroom as a learning community; “Learning is not viewed as the mastery of pre-determined
content but as constructing new knowledge through participating in specific learning and social
contexts and through engaging in particular types of activities and processes” (Richards, 2017, p. 17).
Through engaging in communicative and cognitively demanding activities, they are likely to develop
their competences—a capacity to think in critical and reflective manners.
From the perspective of curriculum-as-process, the use of tasks, more specifically, actionoriented tasks, is prioritized to organize individual lessons or the syllabus of the entire curriculum. In
the CEFR, “[a] task is defined as any purposeful action considered by an individual as necessary toachieve a given result in the context of a problem to be solved, an obligation to fulfill or an objective
to be achieved” (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 10). A task offers opportunities to be engaged in“concrete experiences” (Piccard & North, 2019 p. 54) —making learners “carry out a set of
purposeful actions in a particular domain with a clearly-defined goal and a specific outcome” (Councilof Europe, 2001, p. 157).
Referring back to the definition of the action-oriented approach in the CEFR, task functions as
central and mediating roles—a competence is likely to develop by engaging in and acting on a task.
Through completing such tasks, students can develop their competences further in interactive and124

ACTION-ORIENTED APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN CLIL COURSES: A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

co-adaptive manners—they use their competences to achieve a required outcome in the actionoriented task by “tak[ing] into account the cognitive, emotional and volitional resources and the fullrange of abilities specific to and applied by the individual as a social agent.” (Council of Europe, 2001,
p. 9). In other words, student engagement and collaborative participation in tasks elicit certain
actions, which then require the functioning of relevant competences. By repeatedly performing atask, students are likely to develop their competences further in tandem with their development oflanguage proficiency.

Designing the Overall Framework
On the basis of the internal and external sources of influence, we have developed a universitywide English curriculum at Rikkyo University, within which students in various majors (e.g.,literature, economics, law, science) are required to study. Approaches of curriculum development
can be broadly categorized as forward design (moving from content to methodology to assessment),
central design (focused on classroom processes) and backward design (starting from outcomes andworking back to content) (Richards, 2013).
As we started by considering the outcomes or competences, we adopted backward design as aframework for the entire process, implementing content and tasks derived from the expected
outcomes. In this way, we can better clarify our courses’ goals and objectives, set appropriate
assessments, and construct meaningful, coherent lessons geared toward specific outcomes. It will
also lead to better student performance as they know what the expected goals are. As Richards(2013) stated, in the backward design, “the planning process begins with a clear understanding of theends in mind” (p. 22), so each activity or task is designed to lead to the end product.
Following Wiggins and McTighe’s framework (2005), we adopted three stages in designing ourcurriculum: 1) identifying desired results (i.e., identifying the needs, formulating the goals andobjectives), 2) determining acceptable evidence of learning (i.e., determining what and how toevaluate), and 3) planning learning experiences and instruction (i.e., defining the teaching approachand organizing the lesson plan). In the following sections, we explain how we conducted our
curriculum development in accordance with these three stages.

Stage 1: Identifying Desired Results
Understanding the socio-educational context. There was a strong need for curriculum
reform both in and outside the university to actualize competence-based education in ‘our’ local
context. In 2020, English became an official subject for fifth and sixth-grade students to introduce the
new Course of Study Guidelines by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, and Technology(MEXT). Due to the changes in early education, students are likely to spend more time oncommunicative skills in classrooms, which means that cognitively demanding and communicative
tasks are required at the university level (Nitta & Yamamoto, 2020). To provide continuity with theformer English language curriculum taught in primary and secondary education, we decided tomake a drastic curriculum reform at the university.
In line with this decision, Rikkyo University was selected for government funding from the Top
Global University Project (Type B: Global Traction Type) in 2014. Part of this curriculum reform
provides students an environment to develop their global perspectives within and outside Japan via
attending short study-abroad programs and internship programs (Rikkyo, n.d.). Along with sending125

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

students overseas and accepting more international students, each department is developing orplanning to create English Mediated Instruction (EMI) courses. Because English plays a crucial rolein the entire education at Rikkyo, there is a need for the English language curriculum to be moreclosely integrated with education across the university. With this necessity, one of our pedagogicalgoals is to prepare students to take their EMI courses offered by each department.
CLIL as a Pedagogical Framework. To bridge the gap between their first-year English
mandatory courses and their EMI courses offered by each department, we decided to provide CLIL
courses for second to fourth-year students as electives within our English Language Program. Figure
1 shows the vision of the overall English framework.

1st year English mandatory courses

2nd-4thyear Elective classes

English Debate

EMI courses
Global citizens

English Placement Test(4 Skills)

English Discussion

Reading&Writing

Presentation

CLIL courses

e-learning
Figure 1. Four-year curriculum framework (Adapted from Rikkyo Website)

CLIL is adopted as a pedagogical framework for our courses because it can usefully function asa bridge from the English language courses to the EMI courses. The approach can also be linked tothe competence-based teaching framework. We discussed in detail elsewhere (Nitta & Yamamoto,2020) in what ways CLIL principles can be applied to our courses in the curriculum; thus, we only
touch upon what is particularly relevant to the present discussion in this paper.
CLIL, defined as a dual-focused educational approach for the learning and teaching of bothcontent and language, involves four components: Content (subject matter), Communication(language learning and using), Cognition (learning and thinking processes), and Culture/Community(developing intercultural understanding and global citizenship; Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010). Firstand foremost, CLIL is content-driven, so the linguistic needs “will be generated from the specificneeds of the particular subjects taught” (Georgiou, 2012, p. 499).
Second, CLIL has an explicit focus on students’ cognitive development by using Bloom’s (1956)
taxonomy (revised by Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001). This model, consisting of six cognitive (i.e.,remember, understanding, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create) and four knowledge (i.e., factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge) dimensions, helps teachers consider which
cognitive processes and knowledge to focus on in their teaching.
Finally, cultural dimensions are emphasized in CLIL—not only restricted to “the four Fs” (food,fairs, folklore, and statistical facts) (Kramsch, 1991, p. 218) but also involving identity construction

126

ACTION-ORIENTED APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN CLIL COURSES: A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

because “culture determines the way we interpret the world and … we use language to express thisinterpretation” (Coyle et al., 2020, p. 390). Each of the four components is closely associated withcompetence-based education, in that students are expected to develop communicative(Communication), general and metacognitive (Cognition), and intercultural (Culture) competences
through CLIL courses.
Concerning our pedagogical goal—bridging to the EMI courses, it is helpful to refer to the ‘Scaleof Language and Content’ proposed by van Lier in which learners can develop their second language
in a stepwise manner over years of university study in accordance with the progress of their English
proficiency (Figure 2). With this scale, students’ opportunities to receive academic content matterare “systematically ‘phased in’ over time, with the number of hours of L2 [second language] content
instruction increasing with grade level” (Brinton & Snow, 2017, p. 11). The CLIL courses are
positioned between the mandatory courses and EMI courses. Following the steps from morelanguage-led (Point A) to more content-led (Point B) courses, or the mandatory through CLIL to the
EMI courses, content and language aspects are increasingly integrated as a whole within individual
students.
Point A

Point BLANGUAGE

Mandatory
Courses

CONTENT

CLIL Courses

EMI Courses

Figure 2. B
 luprint of Rikkyo curriculum based on van Lier’s Scale of Language and Content(Brinton & Snow, 2017, p. 8)

Identifying Needs from Faculty. Further specifying the desired learning outcomes, orcompetences, through the English language curriculum, we conducted interviews with faculty
professors from all ten academic departments and one degree program as one of the key stakeholders.
The primary purpose was to identify what outcomes (i.e., what competences) are expected throughthe English language curriculum and explore collaboration methods. The interviews revealed a wide
range of opinions and requests from each department, but the main findings can be summarized in
the following four respects:
1) Students’ academic language proficiency needs to be enhanced for taking the EMI courses.
However, highly specialized content areas are not required; instead, more general content courses(such as Literature, Psychology, Business) are preferred;2) Students are expected not only to learn English but also to broaden their perspectives throughlearning global issues (e.g., international relations, environmental issues, Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs)) and liberal arts content;3) There are varying levels of students’ English proficiency—not only between departments (e.g.,
English-related majors vs. other majors) but also within each department; and127

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）4) There are varying purposes of students’ learning English—such as to achieve high English
proficiency in all communication modes, focusing on developing English communication skills
and preparing for study abroad or job hunting.
The first finding confirmed the necessity to develop students’ academic language proficiency
and skills to prepare for more advanced EMI courses. For our curriculum development, however, it
was necessary to recognize to what extent content areas need to be specialized. With this respect,
there was no requirement from any departments for highly specialized CLIL courses closely linked
to their EMI programs. Instead, many interviewees suggested that courses involving less specialized
and more fundamental ideas and topics in academic fields were more beneficial, considering that the
English curriculum is open to any major.
The second finding concerns our primary aim of the interviews—identifying expectedcompetences through our curriculum. To broaden students’ perspectives, various key terms werereported in the interviews such as “diversity,” ‘tolerance to other cultures,’ ‘identity construction,’and ‘plurilungualism.’ These terms are associated with our teaching philosophy based ontransformative pedagogy, CLIL (in particular, Culture/Community of the 4Cs), and the CEFR. Thesealso seem to suggest many faculty professors regard English (or more generally foreign language)
education as opportunities to develop general and communicative competences. Also, many
interviewees emphasized the significance of developing a capacity to collaborate with others withdiverse backgrounds in various contexts. Findings 1 and 2 were used in deciding what content areas
should be covered in the CLIL courses.
Findings 3 and 4 suggest the necessity to offer courses for various types of students in terms of
their proficiency levels and interests and those preparing for EMI courses. In response to varying
students’ English proficiencies, we decided to offer ‘developmental’ CLIL courses in which students
improve their English in a stepwise manner. Regarding varying students’ purposes of learning
English, we decided to include areas of skill-focused and career-oriented courses and academic
studies.
Creating a Framework of CLIL Courses. On the basis of the interview results andcommunicating with other professors from the English Language Program, the CLIL courses werecategorized into three broad areas: Global Communication, Global Studies, and Global Career(Figure 3).
Global Communication was designed to further develop the academic language skills acquiredin their mandatory first-year courses using content areas such as ‘Advanced Presentation,’ ‘Advanced
Writing,’ and ‘Advanced Discussion and Debate.’ Other skill-based courses include ‘Self-directed andReflective Language Learning’ and ‘Multimodal Communication in English.’ We also decided to offerthe ‘Pleasure Reading’ class to further enhance their reading skills and ‘Current News throughEnglish Media’ class to make them aware of the world’s current issues. Another major decision was
to add a study abroad preparation program, including ‘Intercultural Studies.’ It also includes exampreparation courses, ‘TOEFL,’ ‘IELTS,’ and ‘Exam Speaking Preparation.’ The Global Communication
courses are regarded as a step in preparing to take more advanced courses in the following Global
Studies.
To further enhance students’ general and communicative competences, Global Studies was
designed so that there would be a gradual shift from language-driven to a more content-driven CLIL
curriculum. It is divided into two levels: ‘Introduction to Global Studies’ (i.e., soft CLIL programs)and ‘CLIL Seminars’ (i.e., hard CLIL programs). While the former outlines three broad main areasfrom Humanities, Social Science, and Natural Science, the latter focuses on a specific academic field

128

ACTION-ORIENTED APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN CLIL COURSES: A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Figure 3. Framework for elective courses

or content areas such as ‘SDGs,’ ‘Globalization and Business,’ ‘Tourism,’ ‘Japanology,’ ‘International
Relations and Politics,’ ‘Advertising and the Media,’ ‘Ecology,’ and ‘Language Learning.’ We tried tocreate a wide range of loose titles related to their learning in EMI courses in their academic
departments to make it appealing to students from all departments instead of a particular department.
Finally, Global Career was designed for students preparing for job hunting and planning to use
English in a business context. This includes ‘Business Speaking,’ ‘Business Listening and Reading,’and ‘Career Designing.’ We decided to keep the test-taking preparation programs due to students’practical needs to prepare for the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) in‘Business Listening and Reading.’
Figure 4 illustrates the revised blueprint of our curriculum based on the Scale of Language andContent. It involves sub-categories within the CLIL courses. Students are expected to develop their
linguistic and non-linguistic competences in stepwise manners by taking Global Communication
courses through ‘Introduction to Global Studies’ and ‘CLIL Seminars’ in Global Studies to EMI

Point A

Point BLANGUAGECONTENT

Global Studies
GlobalMandatory
Courses

Communication‘Intro to
G/SStudies’‘CLIL
Seminars’

EMI Courses

Global Career
Figure 4. R evised blueprint of Rikkyo curriculum based on van Lier’s Scale of Language
and Content (Brinton & Snow, 2017, p. 8)

129

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

courses. Along with these courses, students can take Global Career courses whenever they find it
necessary to prepare for their future job.

Stage 2: Determining Acceptable Evidence of Learning
To construct a competence-based curriculum, we adopted the updated version of CEFR (Councilof Europe, 2018). The CEFR helps students understand each course’s goals and objectives clearly sothat the “descriptions of the outcomes or targets students should be able to reach in different
domains of curriculum content, including language learning, and are generally specified in very
general terms” (Richards, 2013, p. 25). The CEFR perfectly matches our underlying belief that ourstudents are seen as social agents who can “mobilise their competences, including bothcommunicative language competences [i.e., linguistic, sociolinguistic, and pragmatic competence]and more general competences [i.e., declarative knowledge and sociocultural and interculturalcompetences; skills and know-how; existential competence, demonstrating openness; learning tolearn], and adopt strategies” (North, Angelova, Jarosz, & Rossner, 2018, p. 31).
The use of the CEFR is also beneficial for constructive alignment in which teaching methods andassessment tasks are closely aligned to the learning activities assumed in the intended outcomes. In
a constructively aligned curriculum, teachers set up a learning environment that supports theactivities appropriate to achieving the desired outcomes, which students construct meaning throughrelevant activities (Biggs, 2014). The CEFR could be usefully implemented as “a source of guidanceand benchmarks for language teaching, language learning, and language assessment” (North et al.,2018, p. 67).
To make the whole curriculum coherent and integrated, we set the target CEFR level in eachcourse. In so doing, all persons involved—students, instructors, and faculty staff—refer to commonly
defined levels of proficiency, which facilitate the transfer from one class to another (North et al.,2018, p. 6) and from CLIL courses to EMI courses in the university’s entire program. The use of the
CEFR is advantageous as a ‘common pedagogic metalanguage’ to help solve teachers’ isolation indifferent courses and different departments.
To explain how we create a constructively aligned syllabus, let us take ‘Introduction to Global
Studies A (Humanities)’ as an example. The target level of this course is geared toward CEFR lower
B2 level. This course was designed as a mediated course bridging from more language-led (i.e.,
Mandatory and Global Communication) courses to more content-led (CLIL Seminars and EMI)
courses (Figure 4).
The course aims to develop academic language proficiency through learning academic content
in English. It also aims for students to acquire essential language skills to comprehend academic
lectures. More specifically, the objectives of the course are for students to 1) understand a structured
lecture and take notes on major points; 2) understand and use most of the target specialist vocabulary
and academic vocabulary necessary to understand each lecture; 3) present their ideas, posequestions, further develop other people’s views and opinions in discussions and presentations; 4)compare and contrast various sources, classify information into different categories, and create
timelines/tables; 5) apply knowledge of the target academic field and make connections to their own
and other cultures in discussions and presentations; 6) show cooperative teamwork in discussion andpresentation.
Using the CEFR descriptors as a guide, the assessment’s shared framework, a rubric, wascreated for assessing the learners’ presentation skills (Figure 5). Rubrics are used as an assessment

130

ACTION-ORIENTED APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN CLIL COURSES: A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

tool to evaluate student’s learning performance and explains whether their performance matches thedescription in the rubric. Simultaneously, the criteria indicate students’ intended learning outcomesby the end of the course. Knowing their intended outcomes make it easier for students to set clear
goals and objectives and support student self-evaluation. Graves (2008) reported that “[f]orassessment to be integrated into classroom practice, it needs to be part of the learning experience inways that enable learners to see their progress and achievement” (p. 174).
The framework of the 4Cs (Content, Communication, Cognition, and Culture/Community) isreflected within the rubric for each criterion. To assess ‘content,’ students need to show they havelearned a particular topic within the target academic field. ‘Communication’ demonstrates students’communicative competence via the means of presentation. ‘Critical thinking’ shows their higherorder critical thinking skills (i.e., general and metacognitive competence) to analyze and evaluate themain issues presented. ‘Connections’ states their intercultural competence to connect with their own
experience or situations in their home country and other countries. ‘ Teamwork’ work shows
cooperative teamwork during poster presentations.
None 0

Poor 1

Fair 2

Good 3

Superior 4

Content

Showed noShowedSomewhat
understanding of minimum
showed they
the major points understanding of have learnedin the target
the major points and understoodacademic field.
in the target
the major points
academic field.
in the target
academic field.

Mostly showed
they havelearned andunderstood the
major points inthe target
academic field.

Showed they
have learned
and understood
the major points
in the target
academic field.

Communication

No
Minimum
Somewhatdemonstration of demonstration of demonstrated
their ideas using their ideas using their ideas using
effective
effective
effective
vocabulary and vocabulary and vocabulary andpresentation
presentation
presentation
techniques.
techniques.
techniques.

Demonstrated
their ideas
clearly in mostparts using
effective
vocabulary andpresentation
techniques.

Fully
demonstrated
their ideas
clearly using
effective
vocabulary andpresentation
techniques.

Critical thinking(analyzed andevaluated the main
issues)Didn’tDemonstrated
Somewhat
Demonstrated
demonstrate any minimum critical demonstrated
critical thinking
critical thinking. thinking.
critical thinking. in most parts.

Demonstrated
outstanding
critical thinking.

Connections
Didn’tRarely(associated issues or demonstrate any demonstrated
situations inconnections.
connections.
students’ homecountry and/or
other country)

Demonstrated
someconnections.

Demonstrated
connections inmost issues.

Demonstrated
connections to
all issues.

Teamwork

Demonstrated
teamwork insome part of thepresentation.

Demonstrated
teamwork inmost part of thepresentation.

Showedcooperative
teamworkthroughout thepresentation.

Showed no
teamwork.

Showedminimum
teamwork.

Figure 5. Example of group-presentation rubric131

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Stage 3: Planning Learning Experiences and Instruction
As presented thus far, we designed our curriculum based on the action-oriented approach todeveloping autonomous, interculturally competent agents by promoting their linguistic and cultural
diversity. In the action-oriented philosophy, “learning takes place in a context and evolves throughthe participants’ interaction and participation in that context” (Richards, 2013, p. 19). It is underlinedby the belief that learning is a non-linear process and emerges by participating in meaningfulactivities that are part of the classroom’s dynamic system (van Lier, 2007).
Each lesson was designed to accomplish tasks while learning a specific field’s content. Pair andgroup work are frequently used to negotiate and complete their tasks to develop general competences.
In action-oriented tasks, students are no longer passive recipients but actors and agents, “since theytake ownership of what needs to be done to reach the goal and what they have at their disposal tobuild on” (Piccard & North, 2019, p. 139). In the example course, students will learn the note-taking
strategies to record a lecture’s major points and use the content to engage in group discussions using
critical thinking skills to understand and analyze each lecture’s content. After each content
introduction, students will deliver presentations related to the topic covered in class.
As suggested by the course schedule (Figure 6) as well as the rubric (Figure 5), the course’ssyllabus is content-based, task-based, process-oriented, and skills-based. The syllabus is primarily
content-based because it is designed on the basis of Humanities-related content—Psychology,
Intercultural Communication, Sociology, and Linguistics. The syllabus can be regarded as task-based
because action-oriented tasks are designed in individual lessons and the entire syllabus. At the sametime, it can be regarded as process-oriented because it is based on the principle that “classroom
activities are not the means that result in the learning of language; rather, language is the means foraccomplishing classroom activities” (Graves, 2008, p. 160). In each class, students pool their language

Content

Academic skills

1

Introuduction to the course

2

Trips to become academically successful

Effective vocabulary learning strategies: Introducing
New Academic Word List

3

Psycology: The stages and symptoms of culture shock

How to take notes effectively 1: Finding major points
and outlining

4

Psychology: The secrets and becoming mentallystrongWhat is critical thinking?

5

Intercultural communication: How miscommunication
What makes a good presentation?
happens

6

1st group project7

Sociology: Why gender equality is good for everone

How to take notes effectively 2: Using symbols

8Linguistics: Do animals have language?

How to take notes effectively 3: Using abbreviations

9

Linguistics: The secrets of learning a new language

How to take notes effectively 4: Summarizing

10Linguistics:
learining

Explaining and creating visuals

Factors

affectingsecondlanguage

11 2nd group project
12 Preparing for the final project

Creating PPT slides

13 Final individual project
14

Wrap-up

Figure 6. Sample course schedule for Introduction to Global Studies A (Humanities)132

ACTION-ORIENTED APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN CLIL COURSES: A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

ability to engage in meaningful interactive group tasks such as creating and presenting a poster
presentation. Finally, the syllabus involves skills-based elements because each course introduces
academic skills such as note-taking and presentation skills to deepen their understanding of classcontent. In these multiple methods, “language becomes the means not only for carrying out tasks orusing skills but for learning new content” (Graves, 2008, p. 161).

Conclusion
We presented the ongoing development process of our CLIL curriculum at Rikkyo University
from theoretical and methodological perspectives. In a contemporary society characterized bycomplexity, it is vital to develop students’ competences with action. By taking the action-oriented
approach, we designed the new English curriculum at the university where students in various
majors develop their competences throughout their study period; students are viewed as social
agents, and situated actions are prioritized in a classroom. From the methodological perspective, we
adopted the backward design approach—starting with a description of learning outcomes, followed
by decisions on methodology and syllabus development.
In designing the overall curriculum, we followed the three stages proposed by Wiggins and
McTighes (2005)—identifying the desired results, determining acceptable evidence of learning, andplanning learning experiences and instruction. On the basis of the results obtained from interviews
with faculty professors, we constructed the CLIL framework that includes Global Communication,
Global Studies, and Global Career.
To set each course’s goals and objectives and make teaching and assessment constructivelyaligned, we adopted the updated version of CEFR (Council of Europe, 2018). Using the CEFR
descriptors as a guide, the rubric was created for assessing students’ activities in the example course.
Each lesson was designed to accomplish tasks while learning a specific field’s content to engage
students in language-using experiences as social agents. Pair and group work are used to negotiate
and complete their tasks.
Throughout this paper, we described our curriculum development process in depth, which, we
believe, will be valuable information for language-teaching professionals aiming to adopt the
backward design approach for their curriculum development and also those who wish to design theirsyllabuses by using the CEFR standards. It should be emphasized, however, that we are still halfway
through the entire curriculum development process; pilot courses, including ‘Introduction to Global
Studies,’ will soon be conducted as a significant step for starting the proposed new curriculum.
We will revise the curriculum by using feedback obtained from the pilot teaching. As succinctly
argued by North et al. (2018), “a curriculum or syllabuses, as a document, does not have a life of its
own. Unless and until it is enacted in teaching and learning experiences, there is no curriculum” (p.
8).” Therefore, the curriculum will be shaped and developed through the co-adaptive and evolving
relationship between the instructor, learners, and subject matter (Graves, 2008). In other words,
designing, planning, enacting, and evaluating should all interact and contribute to curriculum
development.

References
Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl (2001). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of
Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. NY: Longman.

133

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Barnett, R. (2000). Supercomplexity and the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 25: pp. 255-265.
Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education,
1: 5-22.
Bloom, B. S. (ed). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New
York: Longman.
Bourguignon, C. (2006). De l’approche communicative a l’ << approche communicationnelle >>: une
rupture epistemologique en didactique des langues-cultures [From the communicative
approach to the “communicational approach”: an epistemological break in the teaching of
languages and cultures]. Synergies Europe 1, 58-73.
Breen, M. P., & Candlin, C. N. (2001). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language
teaching. In Hall, D. R., & Hewings, A. (eds). Innovation in English language teaching: A
reading. London: Routledge.
Brinton, D. M. & Snow, M. A. (2017). The Evolving Architecture of Content-Based Instruction. In D.
M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), The Content-based classroom: New perspectives on integrating
language and content (pp. 2-20). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Brown, J.D. (2011). Foreign and second language needs analysis. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. J.
(eds.), (pp. 269-293). The Handbook of Language Teaching. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learningteaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learningteaching, assessment. Companion volume with New Descriptors. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Crookes, G. (2016). Educational perspectives on ELT: Society and the individual; traditional,
progressive and transformative. In G. Hall (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of English Language
Teaching (pp. 64-76). London: Routledge.
Cummins, J. (2004). Using information technology to create a zone of proximal development for
academic language learning: A critical perspective on trends and possibilities. In C. Davidson(ed.), Information technology and innovation in language education (pp. 105-126). Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press.
Georgiou, S. I. (2012). Reviewing the puzzle of CLIL. ELT Journal, 66/4, 495-504.
Graves, K. (2008). The language curriculum: A social contextual perspective. Language Teaching, 41(2): 147-181.
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1986). English for specific purposes: A learning-centered approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kramsch, C. (1991). Content and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nitta, R, & Yamamoto, Y. (2020). Reconceptualizing CLIL from transformative pedagogy perspective:
Pilot debate study in English language curriculum. Journal of Foreign Language Education &Research, 1: 47-62.
North, B., Angelova, M., Jarosz, E., & Rossner, R. (2018). Language course planning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
OECD (2015). The definition and selection of key competences: Executive summary. Retrieved
March 2021 from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf
Piccard, E. & North, B. (2019). The action-oriented approach: A dynamic vision of language education.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

134

ACTION-ORIENTED APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN CLIL COURSES: A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Pikkarainen, E. (2014). Competence as a key concept of educational theory: A semiotic point of view.
Journal of Philosophy of Education, 48 (4): 621-636.
Richards, J.C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward
design. RELC Journal, 44 (1): 5-33.
Richards, J.C. (2017). Curriculum development in language teaching (2nd edition). Cambridge;
Cambridge University Press.
Rikkyo University. (n.d.). Official website. Retrieved on February 3, 2020, from https://english.
rikkyo.ac.jp/global24/program/Sfad, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational
Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.
van Lier, L. (2007). Action-based teaching, autonomy and identity. Innovation in Language Learning
and Teaching, 1 (1): 46-65.
Wiggins, G., & Tighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association forsupervision and curriculum development ASCD.

135

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）【研究論文】

从构式看“ V 了一天（的）N ”与“ V 了 N 一天”
李菲

要旨「彼女を一日待った」と「宅配便を一日待った」は、中国語では二通の表現（構文）で言い表される。前者は、“ 等了她一天 ” のように名詞の「彼女」を「一日」の前に置き、“V 了 N 一天 ” の語順となる。後者は、“ 等了一天（的）快递 ” のように、名詞の「宅配便」を「一日」の後に置き、“V 了一天（的）N” の語順となる。本稿は、なぜ N が特定の人かモノかによって語順が異なるかについて、認知言語学や認知文法における「構文」の観点からその原因と意味上の差異について考察した。両構文の違いは、単に語順のレベルにとどまるものではなく、それぞれ構文として独自の意味特徴をもつ。“ 等了她一天 ” に代表される “V 了 N 一天 ” 構文は、話し手の “ 她 ”（ N ）に対する一種の心情（恩着せがましさ、または配慮）が感じられる。一方、“ 等了一天（的）快递 ” に代表される “V 了一天（的）N” は、動作主が VN の動作を行った結果何らかの影響を被ったことを含意する。この構文では、目的語の名詞が表すモノは特定的でないものが多いが、これは目的語を脱焦点化することで、より動作主やその被った影響を際立たせるためである。

キーワード：一天 時量補語 構文 認知文法 脱焦点化

1．引言学汉语的学生如果想把一句简单的日语「彼女を一日待った」（我等了她一天）正确地翻译成汉语，大致
需要掌握以下五个语法规则。（ 1 ）知道动词在前，宾语在后，才能造出“我等她”。
（ 2 ）知道动词在前，时量
补语在后，造出“我等一天”（而不是“？我一天等”）。
（ 3 ）知道动词带时量补语后，动态助词“了”一般是
放在动词的后边，才能造出“我等了一天”。1（4）知道动宾短语带时量补语时，时量补语在前宾语在后，例如“我等了一天快递”。
（ 5 ）最重要的是知道，如果宾语是确定的人的时候，要把宾语放到时量宾语前。这样才
会顺利造出“我等了她一天”（而不是“ ? 我等了一天她”）。
没有接触过汉语的人一定会觉得很繁琐。可这就是我们教汉语（学汉语）的人在教室里所面对的。笔者
对此有一些疑问。大家说汉语的时候，真的时时刻刻都在运用着这些大量的细腻的语法规则吗 ? 还有一个实际
一点的问题就是，为什么时量补语带宾语时语序这样复杂 ? 同样作为宾语，为什么“我等了一天快递”可以说，而“ ? 我等了一天她”很奇怪？如果只注意到语序，我们会产生一种错觉 ：“我等了她一天”这个句子就好像
是通过把“她”挪到“一天”前造出来的。因为除了“她”这样的人称代词以外，一般是时量在前，宾语在
“我等了她一天”和“我等了一后 2 。关于这些疑问，本文想从构式的观点进行探讨，通过考察指出以下观点。
天快递”这两个句子是两种不同的构式。二者有着完全不同的语义。在下文中，我们首先要确认二者作为不同
构式的可能性。在确认好这点后，重点对“ V 了一天（的）N ”句式进行语义（包括语用）上的描述，并探讨为什么“ ? 我等了一天（的）她”很奇怪。为了行文方便，以下把“我等了她一天”称为“ V 了 TA 一天”句，把“我等了一天快递”称为“ V 了一天 N ”句或“时量补语句”。

1动态助词“了”也可以放在句末 :“我等一天了”。不过这时的“了”表示的是新事态的发生。“我等一天了”一般被认为是“我等了一天了”的省略形式，而“我等了一天了”（“我等一天了”）表示的是「我等你，到现在为止已经一天了」。可见和日语
的「一日待った」更对应的是“我等了一天”。
2 《实用现代汉语语法》（刘月华·潘文娱·故韡 2001:620-621 ）在「时量补语」的第二小节「宾语的位置」里这样描述其语法规则。（ 1 ）当宾语是表示一般事物或抽象事物的名词时，一般位于时量补语后，补语与宾语之间还可以用“的”，有表示时间长的意味。
（ 2 ）宾语为表示确定的人的名词、代词时，一般位于时量补语前。

136从构式看“V了一天N”与“V了N（的）一天”

2．什么是构式
探讨“ V 了 TA 一天”和“ V 了一天 N ”到底是不是两种不同的构式，还要先谈一谈什么是「构式」。本
文所指的「构式」是认知语法学的一个重要概念。「构式」的具体定义虽然在众多认知语法学家之内也是因人
而异（王寅 2011:29 ），大体可以理解为形式与意义的惯用性的配对。斋藤·田口·西村 2015:87、大堀
2002:125-127 以英语的 the more， the more 比较级句式为例解释了构式（「構文」）。英语的“ the 比较级…
the 比较级…”（越…越…）的语义里包含了“条件”的意思－前半句的事态越被实现，后半句的事态也会随着
被同样程度的实现。可这种条件义却不能还原到句子的某个成分中去。所以斋藤·田口·西村 2015:87 这样定
义了构式。
したがって、「 the 比較級…，the 比較級…」という文法構造が「…すればするほど…」という慣習化された条件の意味と結びついていると考えるのが妥当である。このような形式と意味の慣習的な結びつきを構文と呼ぶ。
（所以， 应该说“ the 比较级… the 比较级…”这个语法形式与“越…越…”所表示的“条件”这个惯用义是连在一起的。我们把这种形式与语义的惯用性的配对称为构式。
）
认知语言学认为构式才是人们在掌握一种语言的过程中所需要的基本知识。语言中的各个成分都可以称
为构式。句式、熟语、短句、离合词都是一种构式。这些成分可以看做构式的基础在于，构式整体的语义无法还原到构式中的具体成分上（ Goldberg1995:4 ）。
历来人们一般认为一个句式的意思等于各个成分的语义的总和，也就是说语义关系是 1+1=2 的，非常透明。
这种透明的语义一般被称为句法语义（ syntactic meaning ）。生成语法认为句式一定都有其自身的 syntactic 上的语义。可是认知语言学对此持怀疑态度。因为任何语言中，一个词、一句话但凡是生活中人们频繁使用的，
语义都会非常复杂，一般都是多义词或多义句。从众多的语义中找出源于句法本身的、透明的语义恐怕没有那么简单。生成语法对语言的多义现象做出的解释是，一词多义（或一句多义）大多产生于语用上的各种场景，
并不是句法本身的原本的意思。所以便把这些不能还原于句法本身的不透明的惯用义作为语用义来处理。可认知语言学则要把这些不能还原到句法本身的语义也揽过来，同样作为句法（＝构式）的语义处理，不严格划分
语义义或语用义。野村 2018:5 指出 ：文の意味がその文に生じる複数の語彙項目がもともと―構文環境やコンテクストから独立してー有す
ると考えられる意味をその文の文法構造に従って組み合わせることによって、過不足なく得られるとき、その文の意味は完全に合成的であると言う。少し単純化して言えば、文が伝達するメッセージのうちで意味論が対象とする（言語知識に属する）のはそうした完全に合成的な意味であり、それ以外の部分は語用論の領域である（言語知識の問題ではない）とするのが生成文法的な考え方である。それに対して、認知言語学的な考え方に基づくと、文の意味の合成性は一般に部分的にしか成り立たず、そもそも完全に合成的な意味が自律した意味としての一貫性をもつと言えるかどうかも疑わしい。われわれが文の意味であると素朴に考えるものは言語外的な要因が決定的に関与して初めて成立するのが普通だからである。（句子的完全合成语义指 ：把句中的几个词项的原本语义－独立于语境或上下文－按照语法规则组建起来后得出的不多也不少的语义。简
单地说，在一句话所传达的信息中，生成语法认为语义学的研究对象是完全合成意（属于语言知识），其它部
分应该归于语用学（不是语言知识的问题）。相反，认知语言学认为语义的合成性只能部分成立。完全合成出来的语义能不能让其自治的语义一直没有变动还是个问题。因为通常我们一般人感受到的语义要靠语言外的知识的大力支撑才能成立。）
我们如果能这样理解语义的话，就会发现 : 每个频繁使用的词、句子都有很多语义，而它们往往都是惯
用于某个特殊场面，跟语言以外的要素紧密相连的。所以每个语言单位都可以看成是形式与语义的惯用性的配对，即构式。因此，我们这里要探讨的两个汉语句式 ：“ V 了 TA 一天”和“ V 了一天 N ”也可以被称为构式。

3．V 了 TA 一天
接下来还是需要具体地观察一下这两个句式在语义（包含语用）方面有什么差别。这里先看一看“ V 了TA 一天”。这个句式中，TA 的位置上一般都是人称代词，主要是“你、他、她”等。另外，V 的位置上的动137

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

词虽然没有限制，通过对 CCL 和 BCC 两个语料库上的语例观察发现 ：“找”（找了她一天）、“陪”（陪了她一天）、“守”（守了她一天）这三个动词常出现于“ V 了 TA 一天”。“陪”和“守”都有“看护”的语义。看护的近义
词“照顾”“照料”这两个双音节动词也出现在“ V 了 TA 一天”这个句式中。那么，我们能不能说“ V 了 TA一天”这个句式在具体的使用环境中比较倾向“看护”事件（ event ）呢 ? 这个问题不好回答。不过，至少我们可以说，汉语母语者一般听到“～了她（他）一天”这样的句子，会比较容易、迅速地想起“陪了她一天”“等
了她一天”这样的具体语例（ instance ）。而一般不会顺口举例“ ? 见了她一天”或是“ ? 听了她一天”这样的
句子。
其实，即使不参考语料库，只要是汉语母语者凭直感就会判断出“陪了她一天”“等了她一天”要比“ ?
见了她一天”“? 听了她一天”自然得多。能不能迅速地联想到一个具体例，和觉得其本身自然不自然紧密相关。
母语者能够联想到的句子通常都是自然的句子。所以我们可以说，“陪了她一天”“等了她一天”是“ V 了 TA
一天”句式的典型例。
“陪了她一天”也好，“等了她一天”也好，其实都包含了主语（说话者）对宾语的一种呵护、关怀、忍耐的感情。更准确地说应该是 : 说话者（主语）通过此构式意图彰显自己对宾语（ TA ）有多么的关怀与忍耐。
试比较当我们晚到或没能赴约时，对不住地问对方等了自己多长时间，对方的以下两种回答哪个会使我们觉得心理负担重一些。
A 我等了一天。
A ’我等了你一天。
笔者觉得 A ’句会让人心里更沉重。A ’有一种「我很期望你的到来，所以我一天什么都没做，只是在等
你」的含义。使用“ V 了 TA 一天”句式所产生的这种「恩着せがましい感」（受恩感）便是上边谈到的构式
所包含的不透明的语义。这种细腻的语义（或者说来自场面的语用义）一般是看不到的。也不能还原到成分中去。
这里我们可以换一个角度考虑问题。我们先站在生成语法的角度上，暂且承认“ V 了 TA 一天”有句法上的，或是字面上的意思。例如“我等了你一天”就是“我等你，等了一天”这个意思。表示的就是我等你所花的时间。那问题来了。为什么我们的语言可以有 A 和 A ’这两种表达方式？只假设句法上的意思（字面义）会造成 A 和 A ’的语义完全相同。可这又不太符合母语者的直觉了。因为毕竟 A ’句里有个“你”， A 和 A ’
的句法有差别。那么差别在哪儿？这样想来想去，我们会很为难。所以，能够找出 A ’句式独特的语义特征，
是区分二者最好的办法。
“ V 了 TA 一天”还有一个规则是，TA 的位置一般不能放无生命的名词。比如我们不能说“？我等了快递
一天”“？我找了书一天”这样的句子。如果宾语是无生命的，我们要把宾语挪到“一天”的后边句子才能成立。
所以，“ V 了 TA 一天”与“ V 了一天 N ”的区别似乎只在宾语的语序上。即确定的有生命的（主要是人）宾
语放在前，不确定的没有生命的宾语放在后。那么为什么汉语会有这样的区别呢 ?“ V 了 TA 一天”的语义特
征可以帮我们找到一个解释 ：说话者想要彰显自己对对方有多么的关怀与忍耐，那么对象必定会是人（或是已经拟人化的东西）。对一个没有生命的物质，无论我们耐心地等了多长时间，也不会向没有生命的物质倾诉。
所以“？我等了快递一天”“？我找了书一天”让人觉得奇怪。
认知语言学认为构式的句法都与语义紧密挂钩。而语义往往表现出的是我们对事态的一种看法，一种心情。这样看的话，笔者认为“我等了你一天”比“我等了一天”多了一种情感义。在具体的场景中，“我等了你一天”还可以表示“都怨你，我白白耽误了一天。
”这样的怨恨感。而这种怨恨感只能针对人，而不能针对物。
因为物质控制不了事态的发生，而人却是可以避免事态的发生的。所以，虽然“？我等了快递一天”很奇怪，“我等了快递小哥一天”要自然得多。因为我们可以把抱怨的感情释放在送快递的人身上 3 。关于“ V 了 TA 一天”
的语义，当然不止这一方面，这里暂且不谈。

3 “ V 了 TA 一天”的 TA 也可以是“我”。例如“等了我一天，累了吧”或“让你等了我一天，不好意思”。这时，“ V 了 TA 一天”
彰显忍耐的意思就变了方向。因为自己变成了宾语，“等了我一天，累了吧”所彰显的是别人对自己的忍耐与关怀。然后通过这种彰显来间接传达自己对主语（听话者）的歉意。

138从构式看“V了一天N”与“V了N（的）一天”

4．V 了一天（的）N
4.1 时量准定语句
接下来我们主要讨论“ V 了一天 N ”这个句式所包含的不透明的语义。“ V 了一天 N ”有一个非常相似的
句式“ V 了一天的 N ”。比较以下两个句子，有没有“的”似乎对语义没有影响。
（ 1 ）a 我等了一天的快递。
b 我等了一天快递。
在“ V 了一天的 N ”这个句式中，“一天的 N ”通常被称为“时量准定语句”，历来一直很受关注。时量
准定语句的研究之多是因为这个构式虽然有着“ N 的 N ”定语结构，但我们无法从前后的两个名词之间找到任何语义关系。例如“我等了一天的快递”中的“一天的快递”4 。形式与语义不对应是“V 了一天的 N”受瞩目的原因。相比之下，“ V 了一天 N ”在句法上比较透明（可分析性高），所以只是作为表示时间的句子而一带而过。我们先来看一下“ V 了一天的 N ”。为了行文方便，我们把“ V 了一天的 N ”称为“时量准定语句”，
把“ V 了一天 N ”称为“时量补语句”。
和“ V 了 一 天 N ”相 同，“ V 了 一 天 的 N ”中 的 N 一 般 都 是 光 杆 名 词 或 类 属 词（ 卢 军 羽・汪 国 萍
2020:27 ）。比较以下三个句子就能发现，N 的可识别度、有定性越高，句子就越难被接受。
（ 2 ）a 我洗了一天的衣服。
b ？我洗了一天的白衬衫。
c ？我洗了一天的这件白衬衫。
关于此现象，卢・汪 2020 ：24 在介绍了以往的一系列研究成果后，这样分析其原因。首先，时量准定语
句 在认知上反应了认知主体对事件持续时间的总括扫描（summary scanning）6 。可识别度、有定性高的宾语
5名词认知凸显性很高，不宜出现于表示总括扫描的结构里。如果笔者的理解正确的话，可以这样解释二位的观
点 ：时量准定语句（ex“V 了一天的 N”）是说话者对一件持续了一段时间的事件的一种概括叙述，不涉及细节，只是把事件当成一个整体来叙述。所以，在这种场合一般不会出现很具体的事物。反过来说，把宾语是什么说
得太具体的话，就涉及到了事件的细节，这和概括叙述是相违背的。
（ 2 ）a 是概括叙述，可是这时候，如果我
们把洗的衣服描述得很具体，描述其种类、颜色、是谁的东西等，就已经不能算是概括叙述了。所以（ 2 ）b
和（2）c 不成立 7 。能看出，卢・汪 2020 把时量准定语句里不能出现有生性（animate）
・有定性高的宾语这一句法现象，与构式的语义连接在一起，试图从语义上找到合理的解释。
卢・汪 2020 还提到了时量准定语句的另一个句法特征 ：构式中能够进入到 V 位置的动词受限制。例如“喜欢”等心理动词不能进入该句式。
（ 3 ）？我喜欢了三个月的小莉。
对于这个限制，二位也同样从语义上说明了原因。首先，他们提出时量准定语句作为一个构式，有着不能还原到成分当中去的主观评价义。这个主观评价义是表达主观上觉得事件持续时间量大。这一语义特征可以4并不是说所有“V 了一天的 N”中的“一天的 N”都是找不出语义关系的准定语句。例如“我开了一天的会”“我请了一天的假”
中的“ N 的 N ”是可以单独使用的定语句。
“一天的会”“一天的假”里“一天”表示的是“会”“假”的持续时间。
5 卢军羽・汪国萍 2020 是专门讨论时量准定语句的论文，所以考察对象的范围比本文宽。本文的考察对象主要是“V 了一天（的）N ”，也就是把时量限定于“一天”上。关于为什么限定考察对象，本文将在下文阐述。
6 卢・汪二位怎样理解 summary scanning（总括扫描）这个概念，我们不得而知。Langacker2008:111-112 有详细的解释。
Langacker 把人观察事态的方式分为两种 ：sequential scanning（连续扫描）和 summary scanning。这两个概念可以帮我们从语义上区分动词和名词。即动词是连续扫描事态，名词是总括扫描事态。时量补语句是动词句，所以能不能借用总括扫描的观点来分析，还要慎重一些。
7 “？我洗了一天的白衬衫”在一定场合下可以成立。例如当“白衬衫”所指的不是单数是复数（一大堆白衬衫）时，这句话就
可以表示“我一天一直在洗一大堆的白衬衫，别的事什么也没有做”。这里隐藏着一个很有意思的问题。即为什么“为了洗一件白衬衫花了一天时间”的时候，不能说“？我洗了一天的白衬衫”。可“一天都在洗一大堆白衬衫，别的事什么也没干”的时候，可以这样说呢？其实，我们从这里已经能够看出“ V 了一天（的）N ”的不透明的语义。这个构式不仅仅表示事件持续了一天，还可以表示「我们在一天中只在做一件事，其他的事什么也没顾上」。
“白衬衫”理解为复数时，我们就可以较容易
地想起这个语义。关于这个语义下文还会提及。

139

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

从表示时间量大的副词“好”“整整”等经常与时量短语连用中观察到。以下是该论文中举出的例子。
（ 4 ）在整整耙了一天的松叶和杂草之后，我拖着沉重的两腿疲惫不堪地走进屋里。
（ 5 ）他已在我们寨上看了好几年的门了。
（4）（ 5 ）都表达了说话者的一种主观上的「事件持续了很长时间」的感觉或评价。心理动词不能进入时
量准定语句也与此有关。卢・汪 2020 ：25 对此做出的解释是（如果笔者理解正确的话）: 时量准定语句要表
达一种“某件事做了很长时间”的主观义，动词就必须是能够持续一段时间的动作性词语，而心理动词是一种
心理状态，也就无法进入到该句式里。
其实不能进入到时量准定语句里的动词远不止心理动词。这里我们只要做一个中日比较，就能发现时量准定语句能表示的事件范围并不大。试比较以下的汉语“V 了一天的 N”句和日语的对应句“一日〜していた”。
（ 6 ）a 听了一天的音乐
b 一日音楽を聴いていた（ 7 ）a ？穿了一天的毛衣。
b 一日セーターを着ていた。
（ 8 ）a ？开了一天的电脑b 一日パソコンをつけていた仅从这三个例子也不难看出，日语“一日〜していた”能表现的事态要比时量准定语句广。而要解释（7）a 和（ 8 ）a 不能成立的原因，卢・汪 2020 所说的主观评价大这个语义特征似乎就帮不上什么忙了。如果该句式只表示“主观觉得事件持续时间长”的话，按理说（ 7 ）a 和（ 8 ）a 要表示的事态没有抵触什么。或许我们会想到，是因为“ V 了一天的 N ”大概只能表示动作的持续，而不是动作结果或状态的持续。这么想可以解释（ 7 ）a 和（ 8 ）a 的不成立，但日常生活中我们经常碰到下面的句子。这些都表示的是状态的持续。
（ 9 ）a 下了一天的雨
b 刮了一天的风c 发了一天的烧d 生了一天的气e 停了一天的电f 断了一天的网    可见我们还是要继续挖掘“ V 了一天的 N ”的看不到的语义。这里还有一个有意思的问题是，一般来讲，“穿了一天”或“开了一天”指的是动作带来的状态的持续，而不是动作本身的持续。例如以下两例。
（ 10 ）这件衣服我只穿了一天。
（ 11 ）走的时候忘关电脑了，开了一天。
不带宾语的（ 10 ）（ 11 ）可以成立，而带了宾语的（ 7 ）a 和（ 8 ）a 却不能成立。也就是说，同一个动词（“穿”“开”），可以进入“ V 了＋时量补语”句来表示状态的持续，却不能进入到与之相似的“ V 了＋时量补语＋的＋ N ”句里。我们应该怎样解释这个问题呢？如果只注意到时量准宾语句的句法上的字面义－表示事件持续的时间，恐怕很难找到答案。笔者认为这时最能帮助我们的还是构式语法观。虽然卢・汪 2020 也站
在此立场上看问题，笔者认为关于时量准宾语句的不透明的语义特征，还大有挖掘的余地。下面再看一看时量补语句“ V 了一天 N ”。

4.2 时量准定语句与时量补语句
由于时量补语句不仅是在形式上，还是在语义上都酷似时量准宾语句，往往大家也就不特意区分二者，不把二者当成两个不同的句式，只是觉得时量补语句和宾语之间可以加“的”，也可以省略“的”而已。想区分二者确实不容易。例如，与时量准定语句相同，时量补语句“ V 了一天 N ”的 V 位置上很少看见心理动词，
或是“穿”“开”这类能够表示状态持续的动词。
（ 12 ）？我喜欢了三个月小莉。
（ 13 ）？穿了一天毛衣140从构式看“V了一天N”与“V了N（的）一天”（ 14 ）？开了一天电脑可见，“ V 了一天 N ”与“ V 了一天的 N ”在对动词的限制，和能表示的事态的范围上都很相似。二者有时会出现在同样的场景或上下文中，这就使我们更难以说出区别在哪儿。
（ 15 ）a 干了一天活，手磨出泡了（ BCC ）b 干了一天的活，一天没吃饭，把衣服也挂破了！（ BCC ）（ 16 ）a 喝了一天咖啡，现在胃都不舒服了。
（ BCC ）b 喝了一天的咖啡，导致现在都还睡不着。
（ BCC ）
虽然本文没有余地考察二者在语义上的区别到底存在与否，不过通过在语料库上的检索还是能看出一些区别来。例如，笔者在 BCC 上分别检索了“吃了一天 N”和“吃了一天的 N”这两个句式。发现不仅总数上“吃
了一天的 N”的语例比“吃了一天 N”多，而且在宾语 N 的种类上，“吃了一天的 N”也超过了“吃了一天 N”。
从这一点我们可以推测，或许有些 N 只能出现在“吃了一天的 N ”中，而不能进入到“吃了一天 N ”里。试比较以下两例。
（ 17 ）a 我今天吃了一天的薄荷糖吃的我心情超级不好东西都不想吃了（ BCC ）b 我今天吃了一天薄荷糖吃的我心情超级不好东西都不想吃了（17）a 是 BCC 检索出来的例子。源于微博，没有标点符号，“得”写成了“的”8 。微博的语言口语较多，可见“吃了一天的 N ”是一种口语里常用的句子。把 a 改成 b 的句式后，不知道大家觉得同样自然与否。如
果答案是不自然的话，就证明了二者不是完全相同的句式。如果觉得同样自然的话，那对您来说已经没有必要区别二者了吧。本文在下文中不再提及二者的区别，把二者合并为“ V 了一天（的）N ”，将时量准宾语句纳入时量补语句里。

4.3 对自身的不良影响义
在确认了“ V 了一天 N ”和“ V 了一天的 N ”可以暂且作为一个构式处理后，接下来我们还是要继续挖掘“ V 了一天（的）N ”的那些“不为人知”的语义。4.1 留下的问题主要是 ：为什么“穿了一天”能成立，
而“穿了一天（的）毛衣”却成立不了？为什么和日语不同，汉语不能说“ ? 开了一天（的）电脑”？其实，
在 BCC 上检索，我们也能找到“穿了一天（的）N ”句式，只是 N 的种类有些特别。例如以下的两个例子。
（ 18 ）今天穿了一天圣诞老人的衣服热死我了（ BCC ）（ 19 ）穿了一天的高跟鞋，累垮了我们（ BCC ）    这两句的共同点是，“穿了一天（的）N ”的后半句都表达了因此而带来的对说话者自身的不良后果。除此之外，上一节举的三个 BCC 的语例也是同样，“ V 了一天（的）N ”的后边都跟着表示对身体带来的不良后
果的句子。
（ 15 ）a 干了一天活，手磨出泡了（ BCC ）（ 16 ）a 喝了一天咖啡，现在胃都不舒服了（ BCC ）（ 17 ）a 我今天吃了一天的薄荷糖吃的我心情超级不好东西都不想吃了（ BCC ）这样列出来，“ V 了一天（的）N ”的另外一个语义也就一目了然。很简单，“ V 了一天（的）N ”所描述
的都是对自身（或说话者）有直接不良影响的事态。“？穿了一天（的）毛衣”的不成立是因为我们很难想象
一个场景，在这个场景中“穿毛衣”这个普通的行为竟然会对我们自身带来不良影响。不过也不是完全不可能。
比如，我们在炎热的夏天，突然发现所有的衣服都被人偷走，只剩下一件毛衣的时候。这个时候，兴许我们可以这样说 ：（20）除了毛衣以外，我所有的衣服都被盗了。害得我大夏天的，穿了一天的毛衣。你看看起的这痱子。
（自编句）可见，能不能进入该句式的原因不在 V 表示的是动作还是状态，而跟“ V 了一天（的）N ”里的 VN 所
8

本文为了尊重原文，没有凭自己的理解加标点符号。关于能不能把社交媒体上的语言当作考察语言的资料，这是一个有争议的问题。笔者认为这些语言有适合语言考察的一面，也有不适合的一面。适于语言分析的地方是，反映了真实的语言和生活。
不适合的地方是没有上下文，语境很难掌握。

141

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

指的事态会不会对人身直接带来不良影响有关。在普通情况下，“穿毛衣”的有害性不显著。但当我们赋予它补助的情景时，“穿毛衣”的有害性就会变得显著，而被提升到大家的意识里。所以（20）要自然得多。可以说，“ V 了一天（的）N ”作为一个构式所含有的语义不是自治的。它在一定程度上，要靠周围的语境去帮助唤起这个语义。这一点在（ 20 ）上展现得很清楚。当 VN 本身缺乏构式要求的语义时，有没有语境的帮助就会决
定句子成立与否。
“？我开了一天（的）电脑”如果能唤起给说话者带来不良影响的场景，也是可以被接受的。
例如“开了一天的电脑，真费电”。不过，和“开电脑”比，“上网”更容易让我们联想起各种不良影响。
“上了一天（的）网”要比“开了一天（的）电脑”容易接受。
（ 21 ）上了一天的网，眼睛都红了（ BCC ）。
在 4.1 的（9）里，我们举了一些表示状态的“V 了一天的 N”。这些也都是会对人身带来不良影响的状态。
尤其是 c 和 d，“发烧”“生气”本身就是一种不良状态。e 和 f 表示的事态会对我们正常的工作生活带来影响。
a 和 b 表示的不良天气所带来的不良影响很广泛，难以限定在一方面上的。
（ 9 ）a 下了一天的雨
b 刮了一天的风c 发了一天的烧d 生了一天的气e 停了一天的电f 断了一天的网
“下雨”
“刮风”
“发烧”
“生气”
“停电”
“断网”都是离合词。VN 式离合词容易进入到“V 了一天（的）N”
中，是该句式的一大语法特征。除了（9）以外，BCC 上还可以找到由“输液”
“打针”
“打喷嚏”
“拉肚子”
“住
院”
“上班”等的离合词组建成的句子。离合词表示的不是一个具体的事件，而是一个事件的类型（ type ）。为
什么“ V 了一天（的）N ”所表现的都是这种事件的类型，而不是具体的一件事？本文将在下文探讨。
（ 22 ）a 输了一天（的）液b 打了一天（的）针
c 打了一天（的）喷嚏
d 拉了一天（的）肚子
e 住了一天（的）院
f 上了一天（的）班4.4 其他语义
尽管「对人身有不良影响」能够解释很多不成立的句子，但不能说所有的“ V 了一天（的）N ”都明确地包含这个语义。例如以下的例子，我们说不出准确的不良影响，而只能看出说话者对这些事态有一种“不耐烦”的心理。
（ 23 ）吃了一天的麦当劳，现在觉得好腻啊！（ BCC ）（ 24 ）下了一天雨 ..，烦死了（ BCC ）（ 25 ）给旅行社打了一天电话没人接，一气之下打到总社投诉！（ BCC ）（ 26 ）今天坐了一天地铁，1 号线真的是恶梦（ BCC ）（ 27 ）看了一天文献。。。。。坐等教授回信，急啊！！！！！！！（ BCC ）我们能从这些源于微博的句子里，感受得出说话者（发微博的人）的厌腻、焦躁的心情。这些句子的后
半句都明确地表达了这种心情。细想一下，以上的这几个例子其实都有一种夸张。一个正常的人，在日常的生
活中，24 小时都在做一件事是不太可能的。所谓的“V 了一天（的）N”，其实是指“一天一直在专注于一件事”
或“一天里的很多时间都花在了一件事上”。
“一天”的意思不只是“一天”，还有“整整一天”“一整天”的语义。因此，“ V 了一天（的）N ”也不只是表示时间的句子，它还表示了一种说话人的心情。这种心情尤其来
自于“一天”。
即使这样挖掘，可笔者觉得“ V 了一天（的）N ”的语义还是没有被穷尽。例如以下的几个“玩”“看”142从构式看“V了一天N”与“V了N（的）一天”

做动词的语例。说话人不仅不厌烦，反倒觉得很“尽情”
“过瘾”
“开心”
。
（ 28 ）今天玩了一天的游戏果然心里烦玩游戏最好了。
（ BCC ）
（ 29 ）昨天在家陪爸妈玩了一天的牌，呵呵，老人高兴我们才幸福啊。
（ BCC ）
（ 30 ）看了一天海贼王！爽！（ BCC ）（ 31 ）天气好冷不想出门在家看了一天电影也挺好的（ BCC ）一件事如果是我们非常喜欢并热衷于去做的，即使我们一整天一直都在做这件事，不但不会觉得厌烦，反而会觉得“尽情”“过瘾”。这就引出了“ V 了一天（的）N ”的另外一种语义扩张－“尽情”义。这和前面
的两个语义虽然是反方向的，但都反映了说话者对发生在自己身上的事件的一种心情 9 。我们可以把以上的“不
良影响义”
“厌烦义”
“尽情义”总结到一起，然后抽象“ V 了一天（的）N ”的语义特征。即“ V 了一天（的）N ”表示的是一件，发生在说话人自身上，给说话人带来了某种影响的构式。
就是这样抽象地概括，还是有一些“ V 了一天（的）N ”的语义让人捉摸不透。例如以下。
（ 32 ）昨天看了一天 coach，一个也没看上（ BCC ）（ 33 ）看了一天书，问题一大堆啊。。。（ BCC ）（ 34 ）上班看了一天电影，竟然还让两个领导都表扬了一番。
（ BCC ）
这三个句子里的“ V 了一天（的）N ”都表示了“说话者很长时间都在做 VN 这一件事”，但很难看出他
们的心情如何。这或许说明了不是每个语例都一定要含有同样的语义。虽然我们挖掘出了一些该构式的语义特征，但它们只是一个典型例（ prototype ）的典型语义特征而已。关于其它非典型的语义特征，还有待今后的考察。

5．宾语的脱焦点化
弄清了“V 了一天（的）N”的几个基本语义后，我们还要回到为什么“我等了一天快递”可以说，而“？
我等了一天她”不能说这个问题上。
“等快递”和“等她”这两件事似乎没有差别，都属于“等”的行为。可为什么我们在描述时，一定要运用两种不同的句式去区分它们呢？这里笔者想根据以上的几个语义特征来加以解释。
虽然“等快递”和“等她”在形式上并无差别，都是 VN 结构，但“等快递”表示的是一个事件的类型，而不是具体事件。它和（ 9 ）（ 22 ）中的离合词相同，都属于表示事态类型的惯用词。其实，这一点也是本文
中举的所有“ V 了一天（的）N ”的共同点。可以说，只有表示事态类型的 VN 才能出现在这个句式里。表示事态类型的 VN 的特点是 ：N 是光杆名词、类属词。而且不能是人物。这都说明该句式要求 N 必须凸显度低。
换句话说，只有 N 凸显度低，VN 才可以表示事态的类型。N 凸显度高，VN 就会像“等她”一样的具体事件
靠近。其实，很多 VN 式离合词，不要说凸显度的高低，N 离开了 V 都不能单独成词。例如“生气”“住院”
的“气”
“院”
。
相反，“等她”不是惯用词，而是一个表示具体事件的动宾短语。“她”是代词，说明了这个动宾短语已经 被 接 地 化（ grounding ）。是 一 个 已 经 和 具 体 的 场 面 及 人 物 连 接 到 一 起 的 事 件。关 于 接 地 化 的 概 念，
Langacker2008:259-309 解释得很详细。被接地化了的概念就会从一个抽象的类概念（ type ）转换到一个具体
的事例（ instance ）。这个事例是实际存在的，不是泛指的。所以，“等她”是实际发生的一个事件。它已经进
入到一个场景中，而且还牵涉着具体的人物。表示实际事件的 VN 是无法进入到“V 了一天（的）N”句式里的。
虽然从形式上解释清楚了为什么不能说“？我等了一天的她”，但我们还要把它和句式的语义连接起来。
以下，我们把上文挖掘出的语义与 VN 的句法特征列出来，整理一下。通过整理，我们能发现“ VN ”不能表示具体事件的原因是为了凸显说话者自身。
9一个多义词往往会有两种相反的语义。例如 Taylor2003 提到的 climb（爬）。climb 不仅可以表示向上的动作，有时也可以表
示向下的动作。例如以下两例。
a The boy climbed the tree.（ Taylor2003:108 ）b The boy climbed down the tree and over the wall. （ Taylor2003:110 ）这是 Taylor2003 在讨论语义扩张的可能性有没有限度，我们能不能预测扩张的方向时举的例子。目的是为了说明语义扩张往
往会向两个相反的方向发展，所以我们很难预测。“V 了一天（的）N”的两个相反的“厌烦义”和“尽情义”也验证了这一点。

143

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）［语义 1 ］某件事态发生在说话者身上，而产生人身上的不良影响。
［语义 2 ］因为一天都在做某种事，而产生厌烦心理。
［语义 3 ］因为一天可以只做自己喜欢的事，觉得非常过瘾。
［句法特征］VN 表示的是一种没有被接地化的、一种事态的类型。
［语义 1 ］～［语义 3 ］的共同点是 ：表示的都是有关说话者自身的亲身体验，受到的影响，或心情。这
里最重要的一点就是 ：构式强调的是施事（说话者）受到的影响，而不是宾语 N 受到的影响。
“ V 了一天（的）N ”只选择没有被接地化的 VN 做动词宾语，其实是有意地通过降低宾语的凸显度，来抬高施事（说话者）的凸显度。
Langacker2008:395 提到了这种 landmark defocusing（界标的脱焦点化）的现象。他举了一个古代那瓦
特语里的 object incorporation（宾语合并） 的现象。这个现象与汉语的离合词现象有共同点，即动词和宾语（吃肉）。当 naka（肉）进入到 kwaa（吃）里，和动词组建了一
组成了一个词。例如 naka-kwaa¸‘ eat-meat ’个词后，naka 就无法再加上 k- 这个前缀，也就无法被凸显。这么做，是在有意降低界标（宾语）的凸显度。
至于为什么会产生这种现象，文中没有提及。笔者认为大概是为了凸显 agent（施事）。例如，一个菜食主义者说“我不吃肉”时，什么肉不重要，重要的是这句话要传达的是“我是个菜食主义者”，一个关于“我”的信息。或许汉语里的大量 VN，以及和 VN 相关的句式，都可以看成是一个宾语的脱焦点化的现象。当然这个观点还有待证明。这些表示事态类型的 VN，出现在句式中，在一定程度上就是为了凸显施事（主语）所遭受
的某种影响。弄清了这一点，我们或许可以这样通俗易懂地解释为什么“？我等了一天的她”让人觉得很奇怪。
大家听到这个句子会觉得 ：从句式上看明明是要倾诉一些自己的事，怎么突然冒出了个“她”？这到底是要说谁的事呢？

6．讨论 “V 了一天（的）N” 的意义何在
本文需要讨论的问题大致都在以上得到了解释。或许大家还有个疑问 ：为什么这篇文章只讨论“ V 了一
天（的）N”这一个句式？汉语的时量补语句成千上万，为什么一定要把时量限于“一天”上？即使观察到“V了一天（的）N ”有一些构式特有的语义特征，那也不能草率地说时量补语句都有这些特征吧？确实，我们不能说所有时量补语句都有本文所挖掘的语义。至于只对这一个句式进行讨论的意义何在，要解释这个问题，最后还是要回到认知语言学的语法观上。
认知语言学认为人学习语言的过程是自下而上（ bottom-up ）。例如，我们先听到“给我看看”这个句子，
后来又听到“给我尝尝”、“给我听听”等，然后会发现都是“给我 VV”的句式。再后来又碰到“给爸爸看看”“给妈妈尝尝”，我们又总结出“给 S VV ”的句式。“给 S VV ”和“给我 VV ”、以及“给我 VV ”和“给我看看”之间虽然有 schema（基模）和 instance（具体例）的关系，但同样平等地存在于我们的语言知识里。我们不会为了说“给我看看”这句简单的话，先在大脑里想起“给 S VV ”这个公式，然后再代入“我”得出“给我VV ”，最后再代入“看”，重叠后得出“给我看看”这个解。“给我看看”和“给 S VV ”都储存于我们的语言知识里。
同样，“ V 了一天（的）N ”和时量补语句“ V 了时量（的）N ”之间虽然有 instance（具体例）和schema（基模）的关系，但“ V 了一天（的）N ”是一个独立的句式，它本身也是个 schema，也有很多的
instance（例如“我等了一天快递”“我吃了一天的麦当劳”等）。所以也值得去考察。而且观察语料库既可看出，“V 了一天（的）N”的语例数很多，可以把它看成是“V 了时量（的）N”的典型例（比如“我等了一天快递”
就要比“我等了三个小时快递”自然 1 0 ）。尽管不是所有的时量补语句都有着同样的语义，但应该说本文的考察结果是典型时量补语句的重要特征之一。这对今后考察其他时量补语句也会有帮助。本文的考察也证明了“V了 TA 一天”和“ V 了一天 N ”的差别不只在语序上。“ V 了 TA 一天”与“ V 了一天 N ”各自被储存在我们的语言知识里，而且有着不同的那些“不为人知”的惯用语义。
10 “V 了一天（的）N”的语例比其他时量补语句多的原因与“一天”的语法化有关。“一天”不仅表示“一天”，还可以表示“一整天”“整整一天”等。本文考察出的“ V 了一天（的）N ”的各种语义特征实际上与“一天”有很大关系。因为篇幅有限文
中没能予以详细的论述。

144

从构式看“V了一天N”与“V了N（的）一天”

参考文献

大堀壽夫 2002.『認知言語学』。東京：東京大学出版会。

斎藤純男，田口善久，西村義樹（編著）2015.『明解言語学辞典』。東京：三省堂。
野村益寛 2018.「認知言語学の文法観はどこが独自なのだろうか？」，高橋英光，野村益寛，森雄一（編）『認
知言語学とは何か？』。東京：くろしお出版。
刘月华，潘文娱，故韡 2001.《实用现代汉语语法》。北京 ：商务印书馆。
卢军羽，汪国萍 2020.《评价构式视角下的汉语时量准定语句式研究》，《外国语言文学》第 1 期 ：19-32 页。
王寅 2011.《构式语法研究（上下卷）》。上海 ：上海外语教育出版社。
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, John, R. 2003. Linguistic Categorization, 3 edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
rd145

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）【Research Brief】

Student Perception of Asynchronous Semi-Anonymous Peer
Feedback Efficacy in Online EFL Presentation Classes
Alex Blumenstock & Michael Peragine
Abstract
The goal of this study is to determine whether Japanese university students believed asynchronous semi-anonymous
peer feedback helped them improve their presentation skills in an online English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
presentation class. Previous studies regarding peer evaluation in EFL contexts rarely focus on oral presentations, and,to our knowledge, none focus specifically on students’ experiences in an online presentation course. In this study,
students of a lower-intermediate level presentation course at a Japanese university were regularly assigned peergroups and guided to provide scaffolded feedback using an anonymous online peer-evaluation system. At theconclusion of the course, opinions of the implemented feedback methods were collected via a survey that included
both Likert-type questions and open-ended questions. The results indicate that students had a generally favorable
perception of asynchronous semi-anonymous peer feedback in an online context. In conjunction with teacher and selfevaluations, implementing such peer evaluations may motivate an improved awareness of presentation skills as wellas meaningful peer interactions. However, further studies should be conducted to refine best practices.
Keywords: peer feedback, peer review, oral presentation, online, asynchronous

Introduction
Peer review is an area of research that has gained traction in the field of L2 education, particularly
with regard to student writing. Tsui and Ng (2000) explored a wide range of benefits to peer feedbacksuch as an enhanced sense of audience, raised awareness through the reading of peers’ writing,collaborative learning, and a fostered sense of ownership of students’ work—all of which may not be
achieved through the comments of one’s teacher. Despite numerous studies regarding the effects ofpeer evaluations in L2 writing courses, far less research has been conducted on its potential benefits
in contexts related to oral communication.
While peer groups may be able to accurately assess one another’s writing with the aid of a wellstructured and level-appropriate checklist, there may be discrepancies with regard to feedback
quality when it comes to oral communication. In studies of the effectiveness of self-, peer-, andteacher assessment on oral presentations, Nejad & Mahfoodh (2019) found a strong correlation
between peer- and teacher-ratings, whereas Saito (2000) reported a high level of consistency between
peer- and self-ratings. However, Shimura (2006) highlighted the role of L2 proficiency on peer
feedback, finding that assessments by upper-intermediate students most closely resembled the
instructor’s, while all proficiency levels correlated highly with regard to eye contact and gestures.
Despite variations found in different levels and contexts, research seems to indicate that students
respond positively to peer feedback on presentations (Nakamura, 2002; Nejad & Mahfoodh, 2019;
Saito, 2000).
When classes shifted online due the COVID-19 pandemic, not only was there a stronger need to
employ an online peer feedback system, but such a system could have some advantages over face-toface peer evaluation. Hosack (2003) posited that L2 learners found it difficult to suggest revisions

146

STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ASYNCHRONOUS SEMI-ANONYMOUS PEER FEEDBACK EFFICACY IN ONLINE EFL PRESENTATION CLASSES

that may appear critical of a peer’s work whereas anonymous feedback helped relieve anxiety about
the possibility of hurt feelings. In a related study at the same Japanese university, students took partin both face-to-face and anonymous peer feedback but reported less concern about making criticalcomments; however, female students overwhelmingly preferred anonymous feedback, suggestingthat even gender may affect the efficacy of peer evaluation (Coomber & Silver 2010). Furthermore,
the findings of Lu & Bol (2007) demonstrated that anonymous peers performed better on writing
performance tasks and provided more critical feedback than those participating in identifiable peer
review. Thus, the increased privacy of anonymous feedback may empower students who hesitate toprovide necessary constructive criticism. Furthermore, asynchronous feedback can be easilycollected, collated, and returned in a streamlined fashion, thus complementing teacher feedback andstudents’ self-reflection.
After ensuring our asynchronous peer feedback system was as easy to understand and use as
possible, we considered our implementation in terms of anonymity, peer groupings, and improving
peer feedback quality. From the perspective of learning outcomes, the aims of this project were as
follows:
1. Increase awareness of target presentation skills.
2. Motivate students to improve target presentation skills.
3. Increase student engagement in peers’ performances.
4. Increase opportunities for meaningful presenter-audience interactions.

MethodThis survey was conducted at a Japanese university on three freshman-level English Presentation
classes of lower intermediate proficiency (within the range of 280-479 combined TOEIC Listening &Reading scores). These classes were conducted online via Zoom due to COVID-19 response policies.
Students met for one 100-minute lesson each week over the course of a 12-week semester. Roughly
every other week, students gave prepared presentations on various topics. The aim of this compulsory
course was to improve presentation skills such as organizing presentations, supporting argumentswith evidence, using visual aids, and improving both verbal and non-verbal skills such as intonation,
gestures, and eye contact.
Before each presentation, students were assigned three peers and were instructed to pay close
attention to their presentations, with the intention of giving asynchronous feedback at the end of theround of presentations. After the presentations concluded, students engaged in self-reflection
activities in addition to providing feedback to their peers via Google Forms. The peer feedback was
divided into two components: guided questions for their assigned peers and awards voting for all of
their classmates.
The guided questions, which were called “T.A.G. Feedback” (Tell, Ask, and Give), instructed
students to respond to each of their three peers individually—to tell their peers something positive
about their presentations, ask a question about their peers’ presentations, and give advice on how to
improve their next presentation. In each category, the students were provided with sentence stems
to assist them in providing specific feedback to their peers (see Appendix A).
The voting component asked students to select the “smoothest” presentation, the “mostinteresting” presentation, and the presentation with the “most effective” slides. These categories
roughly correlate to the rubric’s categories of “physical elements,” “content,” and “visuals.” Thewinners of each category were announced in the following class, along with a brief explanation from147

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

the teacher about what made each presentation successful in its respective category. After students
submitted their peer feedback, the data was collated and returned anonumously via individualized
documents for presenters to review (see Appendix B).
The authors’ feedback systems were nearly the same, but there were some notable variations.
Regarding peer grouping, both assigned three peers. However, teacher B included a mid-semester
group presentation and asked students to provide T.A.G. feedback for each of the five groups. The“Ask” feedback questions were then used to practice Q&A skills. In addition, in the second half of thecourse, teacher B required students to directly ask at least two questions, which negated the need for“Ask” feedback. Therefore, students were required to provide “Tell” and “Give” feedback to allclassmates on days they had not been assigned to present.
Following the final lesson, students were asked to complete a survey via Google Forms about
the feedback they received throughout the course. The first ten questions (see Table 1) asked theextent to which students agreed or disagreed with the statements using a four-point Likert-type scale.
The survey concluded with the following two open-ended questions: (1) What did you like about thepeer feedback system? (ピアフィードバック・システムの好きなところは何ですか？) and (2) How
could the peer feedback system be improved? (どうすればピアフィードバック・システムがより良いものになると思いますか？).

Results & Discussion
Student responses to Likert-type survey items are presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1Student responses to Likert-type items on the survey (N=38)
No.

M

SD

1

The peer feedback system was easy to understand. ピアフィードバック・システムは分かり
3.63
やすかった。

Item

0.67

2

The peer feedback system was easy to use. ピアフィードバック・システムは使いやすかっ
3.53
た。

0.76

3

When I gave my classmates feedback, I tried my best to give them helpful advice. クラスメー
3.47
トのフィードバックを行う際は、参考になるようなアドバイスをするように心がけた。

0.56

4

I always read the feedback from my classmates. 常にクラスメイトからのフィードバックを3.05
読んで確認していた。

0.8

5

The feedback from my classmates helped me improve my presentation skills. クラスメートか
3.37
らのフィードバックは、プレゼンテーションスキルを向上させるのに役立った。

0.79

6

The awards (for smoothest presentation, most interesting presentation, and best slides)
motivated me to try my best. 各アワード(最もスムーズなプレゼンテーション、最も興味深 3.42
いプレゼンテーション、ベスト・スライド)がある事で、頑張ろうという気持ちになった。

0.83

7

I liked the peer feedback system. ピアフィードバック・システムが気に入った。

3.24

0.75

8

I improved my presentation skills this semester. 今学期で、プレゼンテーションスキルが向3.74
上したと思う。

0.6

9

I always read the feedback from my teacher. 常に講師からのフィードバックを読んで確認し
3.66
ていた。

0.75

10

The feedback from my teacher helped me improve my presentation skills. 講師からのフィー
3.71
ドバックは、プレゼンテーションスキルを向上させる助けとなった。

0.61

Note: 1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree

148

STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ASYNCHRONOUS SEMI-ANONYMOUS PEER FEEDBACK EFFICACY IN ONLINE EFL PRESENTATION CLASSES

Students reported having positive feelings about the presentation course overall, indicatingstrong agreement (M= 3.74[0.6]) with the statement that they improved their presentation skills in
the course. Regarding the peer feedback system, students indicated strong agreement that thesystem was easy to understand (M= 3.63[0.67]) and easy to use (M= 3.53[0.76]).
Survey results also indicated strong agreement that they tried to give each other helpful
feedback (M= 3.47[0.56]) and received helpful feedback (M= 3.37[0.79]), suggesting that students
were engaged and took their social responsibility to provide feedback seriously. However, students
indicated only moderate agreement that they always read the feedback from their classmates (M=3.05[0.8]), suggesting that presenter-audience interactions could be improved, perhaps byincorporating the reading of peer feedback into in-class assignments or self-reflection activities. In
contrast, students indicated strong agreement that they always read the feedback from their teacher(M= 3.66[0.75]). Likewise, participants indicated that teacher feedback was more helpful (M=3.71[0.61]) than peer feedback (M= 3.37[0.79]), which would seem to support Tsui and Ng’s (2002)
assertion that L2 students favor the feedback of instructors over peers. Despite this, one respondent
wrote, “I understand that other people concentrate [on] my presentation,” emphasizing the impact ofwhat Tsui and Ng (2000) described as an enhanced sense of audience. Students know that those wholack the motivation to pay attention will now be tasked with listening carefully to their ideas, which inturn compels speakers to improve their performance. However, it remains unclear whether thissentiment is applicable to the student-selected awards as participants did not elaborate on this aspectof peer-feedback despite strong agreement indicating such awards had increased motivation (M=3.42[0.83]).

Semi-Anonymous Feedback
Although students knew who their peers were, our system made it difficult to identify which
member of their peer group made a particular comment. In addition to the constraints of online
classes, our decision to partially anonymize peer feedback was motivated by research indicating L2
students tend to feel less hesitant about providing critical feedback anonymously (Hosack, 2003; Lu& Bol, 2007). Overall, our survey results support this notion. One student wrote:
I’m happy to know what I did well in my presentation, but more importantly, because it’sanonymous, I can ask people to point out exactly what I’m lacking and what I need to improveon, and conversely, I can honestly tell them what other people did well and give them advice. (自分のプレゼンの良かった点が分かるのも嬉しいですが、それ以上に、匿名であることもあって、自分の足りない点や改善が必要な点を的確に指摘してもらうことができ、反対に私からも他の方の良かったところやアドバイスを率直に伝えることができます。)
Two more students echoed this preference for anonymity, noting that they were happy to receive“candid” or “objective” opinions. In addition, another student wrote, “I think it would be better if I
could use chat, etc.” (チャットなどが使えたらよりよくなると思う). Although less anonymousthan our system, using a chat function would still provide increased privacy over direct face-to-face orvideo communication, as students wouldn’t see each others’ faces or reactions. Thus, some anonymity
appears to increase students’ comfort with giving and receiving peer feedback.

Peer-group Size
In attempting to strike a balance between over- and under-utilizing students’ attentive resources,149

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

we decided to use peer groups typically of four students in our peer-feedback process, with threepeers for each presenter. Student reaction to peer-group size was mixed. Many expressed that they
were happy to receive the attention of their peers, but a student in Teacher A’s class seemed to preferlarger peer groups: “I would prefer that the number of people giving feedback be more than three”(フィードバックを返す人の人数を三人から増やす).
However, as teacher B’s final presentations required students to provide feedback for up to ten
peers, students had differing opinions about peer-group size, with one student saying, “Reduce thenumber of people who write” (書く人数を減らす). Conversely, another student acknowledged thechallenge but seemed to find it worthwhile:
It may increase the workload for both of us, but I felt that I could develop my skills better if I
could get feedback from as many people as possible. (互いに負担は増えてしまうかもしれませんが、できるだけ多くの人からフィードバックがもらえると、より力を伸ばせるように感じました。)
In future iterations of this feedback system, it may be worth reconsidering the size of peer groups, assome prefer feedback from more peers while others might find it too taxing or unnecessary.

Guided Feedback (Tell, Ask, and Give)
When responding to peers, students were given guidelines in terms of the kind of feedback toprovide, along with sentence stems (see Appendix A). The aim of this guided feedback was tosimplify the process by providing points of focus for students while also enhancing the overall qualityof comments. Many students agreed that the prompts were helpful. One student wrote that “I can get
specific advice on how to improve my presentation skills” (自分のプレゼンテーションのスキルを上げる具体的なアドバイスを知ることができるところ). Two others commented on the structured
nature of the T.A.G. system by saying, “topics were still set, so I can advice classmate easily” and “thequestions were clear, and I was able to write my impressions more smoothly compared to tasks thatjust ask for a reaction” (質問が明確で、感想をかく課題よりスムーズにできた). However, otherstudents were more critical, saying, “I would like to get more specific advices” and “let me write more
freely” (もっと自由に書くことを決められるようにする). This would indicate that perhaps it
needed to be explicitly stated that the sentence stems were a guideline rather than a requirement,
which might provide guard rails for students with less confidence while liberating some students able
to express themselves more freely.

Conclusion
In face-to-face classes as well as online classes, peer review can be a valuable tool for helping
students reflect on their achievement of course objectives. As L2 students often lack confidence intheir own ability and may therefore hesitate to provide direct criticism, asynchronous peer feedback
may be preferable—even in face-to-face contexts, as students have time to independently reflect on
their peers’ performances. In addition, curriculum-oriented sentence stems can support students ingiving meaningful and specific feedback, though some students may prefer to write more freely. Yeton the whole, participants in this survey generally reported both providing and receiving helpful peer
feedback, suggesting overall approval of the system.
One downside of asynchronous feedback is that it needs to be read and applied after it isreceived. Although most students reported that they read their peers’ feedback, some reported that

150

STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ASYNCHRONOUS SEMI-ANONYMOUS PEER FEEDBACK EFFICACY IN ONLINE EFL PRESENTATION CLASSES

they did not. In addition, although students’ perceptions are that the feedback helped them improve,
whether the peer feedback actually impacted future performances is a question for further research.
In a relevant study discussing Japanese university students enrolled in a similar presentation course,
Shimura (2006) suggested that the proficiency of learners may impact their ability to provide accurate
and meaningful peer feedback. Indeed, variations among groups of learners may occur for any
number of reasons, so it may be difficult to draw broad conclusions about the efficacy of peer
feedback in terms of improving language or presentation skills.
While the survey would seem to indicate marked support for the system of feedback used in thisstudy, it cannot be overstated that peer feedback in isolation is not a silver bullet for increasing
students’ motivation to improve. Peer feedback can be valuable for obtaining a direct response fromone’s audience. However, teacher feedback, peer feedback, and student self-reflection should be seen
as complementary, as each yields a different perspective of the presentation and has the capacity toassist students in improving different aspects of their presentation abilities.
However, while most literature about peer review focuses on writing, it is important to do more
research on peer feedback as it relates to oral tasks such as presentation. Another needed directionof research is to further explore the relative values, strengths, and weaknesses of peer, self, andteacher evaluations and how they can better complement each other.

References
Coomber, M., & Silver, R. (2010). The effect of anonymity in peer review. In A. M. Stoke (Ed.),
JALT2009 Conference Proceedings, 621-631. Tokyo: JALT. https://jalt-publications.org/archive/
proceedings/2009/E063.pdf
Hosack, I. (2003). The effects of anonymous feedback on Japanese university students’ attitudes
towards peer review. Ritsumeikanhougaku bessatsu, 1, 297-322. http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/
cg/law/lex/kotoba04/Ian%20Hosack.pdf
Lu, R., & Bol, L. (2007). A comparison of anonymous versus identifiable e-peer review on college
student writing performance and the extent of critical feedback. Journal of Interactive Online
Learning, 6, 100-115. http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/6.2.2.pdf
Nakamura, Y. (2002). Teacher assessment and peer assessment in practice. Educational Studies, 44.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED464483
Nejad, A. M., & Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2019). Assessment of oral presentations: Effectiveness of self-,
peer-, and teacher assessments. International Journal of Instruction, 12, 3, 615-632. Retrieved
from http://www.e-iji.net/dosyalar/iji_2019_3_37.pdf
Saito, H. (2000). Peer, self, and instructor ratings of group presentations in EFL classrooms: A pilot
study. The Journal of Rikkyo University Language Center, 2, 76-86.
Shimura, Mika. (2006). Peer- and instructor assessment of oral presentations in Japanese university
EFL classrooms: A pilot study. Waseda Global Forum 3, 99-107. http://hdl.handle.net/2065/11344
Tsui, A. B., & Ng, M. (January 01, 2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?
Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 2, 147-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S10603743(00)00022-9

151

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Appendix A
Question items on the peer feedback form completed by students via Google Forms after
presentations.
Section 1 – TAG (tell/ask/give) feedback:1. TELL something you like about your classmate’s presentation (i.e. The best part of yourpresentation was...because... / One thing you did really well was...because... / I’m really impressed
with...because...)2. ASK something about your classmate’s presentation (i.e. Wh-...? / I wanted to know more about...
/ One thing that was not clear to me was... / What did you mean by...?)
3. GIVE a suggestion for improvement (i.e. To make your presentation better, I would suggest... /You need more/less...because... / Your presentations will be higher quality if you...)Section 2 – Awards:
1. Whose presentation was the smoothest? (i.e. appeared confident, good delivery, natural intonation,etc.)
2. Whose presentation was the most interesting? (i.e. you learned something new or surprising)
3. Whose slides were the most effective? (i.e. made the presentation more enjoyable or easier tofollow)

152

STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ASYNCHRONOUS SEMI-ANONYMOUS PEER FEEDBACK EFFICACY IN ONLINE EFL PRESENTATION CLASSES

Appendix B
Example of peer feedback as received by a presenter via Google Drive document.
TELL
The best part of your presentation was explaining because it is simple and clear to understand.
The best part of your presentation was speaking speed because it was easy to understand.
It’s a place I want to go, so it was fun to listen to.
ASK
I wanted to know more about attractions.
I wanted to know more about character.
Do you live in Osaka?
GIVE
To make your presentation better, I would suggest emphasizing.
You need more inflection of words.
I want you to speak a little more slowly.

153

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）【Research Brief】

Error and Mistake Correctionin the English Language Classroom
John Paul White
Abstract
This paper compares the mistake and error correction of three classes of Intermediate English language students
enrolled in Rikkyo University’s English Discussion Class, 2019. It begins by explaining the distinguishing
characteristics between errors and mistakes before outlining the aims of the English Discussion course and its focus
on fluency. The paper then describes a study that was conducted to determine which type of feedback led to thegreatest improvement in terms of grammatical accuracy among the students. Each of these classes received feedback
in a different way with Class 1 receiving feedback on their fluency, Class 2 receiving feedback on their fluency andaccuracy, and Class 3 receiving feedback on their fluency, accuracy, and additional grammar instruction from theteacher. The paper concludes with a comparison between the classes and makes suggestions that would help students
to improve their grammatical accuracy without having a detrimental effect on their risk-taking or fluency development.
Keywords: error correction, mistake correction, self-correction, accuracy, fluency

Introduction
Errors and Mistakes
Coskun (2010) stated that “there are many definitions of error made so far and there seems to
be no consensus on a single definition” (p. 1). Therefore, for the benefit of this paper, the author shalldefine what he considers to be an ‘error’ and a ‘mistake.’ An error is when a student is unaware ofwhat is generally considered accurate in the target language. It represents a gap in the student’s
knowledge as they simply do not know the correct form of a sentence or how to say something
accurately in the target language. However, a mistake is made when a student flouts what is
considered accurate by native speakers either by accident, forgetfulness, or a lack of caring. Thisimplies that they have studied the intended form previously but have neglected to use it accurately inthe moment. Therefore, once a student has been taught a grammatical form in English, it becomes a
mistake if they repeat the same error again. This is important because it means that whenever a
student makes an error, it should be within the purview of the teacher to educate them as to theaccurate grammatical form of that utterance. Conversely, in instances when a student has made a
mistake, they should be encouraged to correct it themselves. It is this teacher’s belief that thisprocess helps to foster an awareness of students’ own language accuracy, correct their own mistakes
in the moment, and leads to a higher level of proficiency in the target language.
As it is not always possible to know whether it is an error or mistake that has been made, theapproach to correction should be the same. For instance, student utterances should be written on thewhiteboard verbatim to be reviewed as a class after an activity has concluded. This allows every
student to participate in correcting erroneous utterances and gain a better understanding of thehabitual nature of any errors they make. Using this method, the students can focus on developing
their speaking skills before reflecting upon the accuracy of their statements once the activity has

154

ERROR AND MISTAKE CORRECTION IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

drawn to a close.

Accuracy and Fluency
The English Discussion Class is a compulsory course for all freshmen students at Rikkyo
University that aims to develop students’ fluency skills. Class sizes are limited to between seven andeight students and divided between four levels (Shelesh, 2020). The course makes use of discussion
and communication skills that allow students to assume either the role of a Listener who elicits
information from others or a Speaker who shares information (Centre for English Discussion Class,2017). For example, in Lesson 2 – Opinions, the Listeners can use phrases to ask for opinions while
the Speakers use phrases to respond. The course textbook also contains communication skills thatfeature periodically and encourage students to clarify, confirm, paraphrase, and negotiate meaning(Nakatani, 2010) whenever there is a breakdown in communication.
A key tenet of the course is to develop the students’ fluency skills (Schmidt, 1992) through aseries of discussion or fluency-based activities (Hurling, 2012). In particular, each lesson begins witha reduced version of Maurice’s 4/3/2 Fluency activity (1983) that was later popularised (Nation,1989) to help students focus on developing their fluency skills without worrying about accuracy.
Maurice originally explained that this activity was intentionally “designed to help intermediate andadvanced learners to speak more fluently in the target language.” (p.429). Therefore, the grammaticalarchitecture of the English language is not the focus of the course, and error correction is only
provided in situations that could impede comprehension. It is this teacher’s view, however, that both
fluency and accuracy are not mutually exclusive. There is room for the development for both, and it
is important for students to retain some level of accuracy to avoid the fossilisation of mistakes(Richards and Schmidt, 1985) or potentially misinterpreting what someone else has said.
To explore this idea, let’s consider an example from a lesson in which a group of students werediscussing petty crime. In this lesson, one student exclaimed “I had umbrella stolen,” meaning that
he had, at some point in his life, been the victim of an umbrella theft. However, as his classmates were
not familiar with the passive form of causative have (Leech, Cruickshank, and Ivanić, 1989) and thelack of a possessive pronoun or an agent, they assumed he was using the present perfect tense andmisinterpreted his utterance to mean that he had stolen the umbrella himself. In their eyes, he was
the perpetrator of a crime rather than the victim, which was the complete opposite of his intended
meaning. This resulted in a comedy of errors, with them yelling “That is terrible!” in admonishment
and him agreeing with them. It was only through teacher intervention and the demonstration of how
to confirm and clarify that both parties were able to realise their mistake.
After the discussion was over, the students were invited to compare the sentences “I have stolen
an umbrella” and “I had an umbrella stolen” to discuss the difference between the two. The students
were then shown some other examples of causative have in the passive form and practised making a
few examples of their own (e.g. “I had my nails painted”). The teacher also noticed that the students
began to use this form in later lessons when discussing things that they had had done for them byothers. An example being a student mentioning that they had had their hair cut at a salon.
This misunderstanding was one of the reasons that the author became interested in therelationship between form and function within the English Discussion Class and whether a healthybalance between the two could be reached. It could be argued that the students should have checked
understanding and negotiated meaning themselves, however, believing that they had accurately
understood one another they felt no cause to do so, and the discussion moved on regardless.

155

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Discussion
The Study
Over the course of a 14-week semester, the erroneous utterances of three intermediate-level
discussion classes were written verbatim in a teaching journal using a reflection-in-action approach(Murphy, 2014). Each utterance was written beside the name of the interlocutor in order to track the
habitual mistakes and errors of both the students individually and each class as a whole.
In doing this, it was clear that there were a lot of common errors and mistakes between membersof each class, and these errors were the same between all three classes. The most common mistakes
appeared to be subject verb agreement (SVA), comparative adjectives (CompAdj), and word choice(WordChoi). Within the journal, a shorthand note was written next to the students’ names for quick
and easy review at the start of each lesson. It also made it easier to see how often an individual
repeated these mistakes and whether they showed any improvement after receiving feedback or
instruction. A sample of some of these mistakes is shown below:

SVA

CompAdjClass 1

Class 2

“Old people is good at shogi.”“I think summer festivals is
important to celebrate.”“Children is better to talk tothan adults.”“Children is so foolish so I liketalking to children.”“We can make our body morestronger.”“The recommendation system ismore better.”“Talking to family is more
better.”“Sapporo is more colder than“I think children is more
Tokyo so I want to go.”interesting, more better to talk“I think the class in cram school to.”is more good.”“Children is more cuter than oldpeople so I like talking withthem.”“How do you think about thisquestion?”
WordChoi“What kind of music you usually
hear?”Class 3
“My friends is also atuniversity.”“They already has somepresentation skills.”“How do you think?”“Sometimes talking to old“Old people often claim me, so I people makes me feel boring
don’t like it.”when they talk for too long.”“I study Germany.”

If the students were to receive no feedback on the accuracy of these statements, it could be assumed
that they would make no improvement and these errors could potentially become fossilised (Richards
and Schmidt, 1985). To explore the relationship between accuracy, feedback, and improvement, theclasses received feedback in three different ways:
Class 1

Received no feedback on accuracy

Class 2

Received feedback on accuracy without grammar instruction

Class 3

Received feedback on accuracy with grammar instruction

As indicated, Class 1 received no feedback on the accuracy of their English. They only received
actionable feedback relating to the discussion and communication skills of the course. The only timethat errors were addressed and corrected was when they hindered meaning or caused some type ofcommunication problem. By contrast, Classes 2 and 3 were given feedback on the accuracy of theirEnglish, however, Class 3 was given additional grammar instruction to help them remember
grammatical points or rules. This was always done briefly and in the most simple and memorable way

156

ERROR AND MISTAKE CORRECTION IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

possible. For example, after making repeated mistakes with comparative adjectives, the teacher
wrote this on the whiteboard:
2 syllables or less=-er

3 syllables or more=

more -

After a brief explanation, the teacher ran a substitution drill to help the students practise conjugating
adjectives depending on how many syllables the adjective had. For example:
T: “Cold.”
S1: “Colder.”T: “Interesting”
S2: “More interesting.”
Irregular forms were practised once the students had become familiar with the grammar rule andtheir conjugations became consistently accurate. The irregular adjectives were ‘good, bad’ and‘boring.’ Class 3 was the only class to receive this additional type of feedback and instruction as it is
not usual to introduce or correct grammar in the English Discussion Class.

Feedback
According to Shute (2007), feedback can be praise, verification of accuracy, or an explanation ofa correct answer. There are various types of feedback, and they can be administered either
immediately or delayed until an activity is over. Narasaki’s (2016) research into student perception of
feedback within the English Discussion Class revealed that the majority of participants preferred toreceive feedback after discussions. Therefore, the feedback in this study was always delayed. This
helped to encourage students to correct their own mistakes and avoid any student from feelingsingled out if corrected on the spot. It also meant that everyone could benefit from the sameactionable feedback and implement it in later activities.
The process of correcting the utterances for Classes 2 and 3 involved first writing them on thewhiteboard before having students volunteer to correct them after their discussions had ended. Any
student was welcome to correct the utterances, but the teacher also made sure to ask for a newvolunteer each time. To help facilitate this process and highlight habitual errors, utterances weregrouped by form (e.g. SVA) and limited to a maximum of three so as not to overwhelm the students.
This was to show students that these errors were reoccurring and that they could correct themthemselves when speaking.

Self-Correction
Early in the semester, the students of all classes were shown how to correct their own mistakes.
This was done with a simple poster and demonstration from the teacher. The students were told thatwhenever they noticed that they had made a mistake, they should say “Actually...” and then correct
it themselves. The poster looked like this:157

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

ACTUALLY+[CORRECTION]

The students of all classes immediately began using this adverb to preface any correction that they
made, which helped them to sound more natural and fluent.

Results of the Trial
By the end of the semester, it was clear that Class 1 displayed the highest degree of habitualerrors and the fewest instances of self-correction. By contrast, Class 2 displayed a reduced degree ofrepeating mistakes but the highest degree of self-correction. Finally, Class 3 made the fewest
mistakes in later lessons and had the lowest degree of self-correction, which suggests they had fewer
mistakes to correct and therefore self-correction was not necessary.
In a similar study, Vickers (2006) stated that ‘explicit self-correction seems to be effective interms of gains in grammatical accuracy’ (p.9). Although, Vickers referred to the accuracy of writing,a similar conclusion can be drawn from the results of this study. Class 3 received additional feedback
on form and as a result showed the most improvement. They also succeeded just as well as the otherclasses in terms of fluency. As students are not graded on their accuracy in this course, there was nopressure for them to be more accurate other than a willingness to learn.
Additionally, a member of Class 3 made an interesting self-correction in a later lesson. Earlier inthe semester, he had asked ‘How do you think?’ to a classmate during an activity. However, after
being taught that this does not sound natural he corrected this same mistake in a later class bysaying “How do you think? ...Ah! What do you think? How about you?” This self-correction perhaps
reveals that because the phrases ‘How about you? What about you?’ and ‘What do you think?’ are all
similar, they became jumbled in the student’s mind as he tried to recall them. Initially when thestudent had first made this mistake and not understood why it was inaccurate, the teacher
demonstrated the difference by having him ask each question in succession. The teacher replied “I
think it is good” to ‘What’s your opinion?” and “I use my brain” to “How do you think?”

Conclusion
From this investigation, it is clear that Class 3 showed the greatest improvement in terms ofaccuracy and that this can be attributed to them receiving additional feedback relating to grammaticalform. This feedback and focus had no perceivable effect on their fluency, confidence, risk-taking, or
performance as they accomplished just as much as the other classes by the end of the semester. Thisfocus on accuracy meant that by the end of the semester, they no longer made any of the habitualerrors that they had at the start while Classes 1 and 2 still displayed some of these mistakes during
longer activities.
In the future, it would be interesting to repeat this study with a larger sample of students, a few
more control groups, and to structure activities to focus on form (Long, 1991, as cited in Kita, 2019)
through grammar-based activities, example dialogues, or grammar skeletons. As the course textbook
remains largely the same each semester, it would be easy to predict which grammar points students

158

ERROR AND MISTAKE CORRECTION IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

might make mistakes with and prepare accordingly. For example, as a pattern of mistakes could beseen throughout all classes for Lesson 2, a grammar scaffold, an explanation, or a simple reminder of
how to use auxiliary verbs with count/non-count nouns accurately (e.g. “Children are better to talkto.”) could be introduced at some point during the lesson.
The teacher-fronted feedback (Narasaki, 2016) certainly helped the students of Class 3 tounderstand the grammatical points. However, this feedback could also be accomplished in a more
self-reflective way by preselecting sentences that sound similar but can lead to confusion like “Whatdo you think?” and “How do you think?” or the catalyst for this study, “I had an umbrella stolen” vs.
“I have stolen an umbrella.”

References
Centre for English Discussion Class. (2017). Instructor Handbook. Unpublished internal document,
Rikkyo University.
Coskun, A. (2010). A classroom research study on oral correction. Humanizing Language Teaching
Magazine: 12(3) 1-12.
Hurling, S. (2012). Introduction to EDC. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion,
1(1), 1.2-1.9
Kita, O. (2019). Focus on form in English discussion class. New Directions in Teaching and Learning
English Discussion, 7, 142-152.
Leech, G., Cruickshank, B., and Ivanić, R., (1989). An A-Z of English Grammar & Usage, 6th ed.
Edinburgh: Pearson Education.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In K.D. Bot, R.
Ginsberg and C. Kramsch (eds.) Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective(pp. 39-52). Amsterdam, Holland: John Benjamins.
Maurice, K. (1983). The fluency workshop, TESOL Newsletter, 7, 429.
Murphy, J. M. (2014). Reflective teaching: Principles and practices. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M.
Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th edition)(pp. 613-629). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage.
Nakatani, Y. (2010). Identifying strategies that facilitate EFL learners’ oral communication: Aclassroom study using multiple data collection procedures. The Modern Language Journal,
94(1), 118-119.
Narasaki, B. (2016). Timing instructor feedback to increase student unity. New Directions in Teachingand Learning English Discussion, 4, 173-179. https://doi/10.14992/00016025
Nation, P. (1989). Improving English Fluency. System, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 377-384.
Richards, J.C., and Schmidt, R. (1985) Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 3rd
ed. Edinburgh: Pearson Education.
Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 14, 357-385.
Schute, V. J. (2007). Focus on formative feedback. ETS Research Report Series, 2007(1), 1-47.
doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2007.tb02053.x
Shelesh, O. (2020). Overcoming student reticence in a discussion class context. New Directions in
Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 8, 52-58.
Vickers, C. H., & Ene, E. (2006). Grammatical accuracy and learner autonomy in advanced writing.
ELT journal, 60(2), 109-116. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci097

159

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）【Research Brief】

Un ejemplo del uso de canciones en la clase de E/LE
para los japoneses.1
Junko Matsumoto y Leidy Cotrina Cayo
Resumen
En Japón, se cree que el español es una lengua extranjera que requiere menos esfuerzo de aprendizaje por lo que, enla enseñanza de E/LE, no se ha prestado mucha atención a las competencias fonético-fonológicas. Debido a esta falsa
creencia y a la reducida cantidad de horas de estudio de la lengua en el sistema universitario, muchos profesores de
E/LE se encuentran con estudiantes que carecen de una buena pronunciación a pesar de haber estudiado español
durante mucho tiempo. Por lo tanto, hay que señalar la conveniencia de determinadas actividades didácticas en clasepara mejorar la pronunciación de nuestros estudiantes. En este artículo, en primer lugar, se analizará la situación
actual de la enseñanza de la fonética de E/LE en Japón; y, en segundo, se hablará sobre la utilidad del empleo decanciones con el fin de que los estudiantes mejoren su pronunciación, proponiendo una metodología útil, motivadora
y divertida.
Palabras claves: pronunciación, pedagogía fonética, español, lengua extranjera, japonésIntroducción
Desde hace décadas en el campo de E/LE (español como lengua extranjera) se reconoce lo positivodel empleo de canciones en el aula. Hay varios estudios que lo confirman. Son Gil Toresano (2001),
Martínez Sallés (2002), Poch (2004), Abio (2010), Balmaseda Maestu (2011), Monreal Azcárate
(2011), Paz Doce y Barros Lorenzo (2011), Bravo (2015), etc.
Este artículo se centrará en el ámbito fonético, es decir, el uso de canciones en la pedagogía delespañol para japoneses. Vamos a proponer algunas actividades didácticas con una canción de ejemplo
y a desarrollar argumentos partiendo de los tres puntos siguientes: enseñar el ritmo, no alargar lasílaba tónica ni poner el acento en la sílaba átona.

Necesidad de trabajar con canciones en el aula con estudiantes japoneses
Según Martínez Sallés (2002), la música puede crear en el aula un ambiente lúdico, seguro y relajado
que permita a los estudiantes desinhibirse, adquirir confianza y, gracias a ello, conocerse lo suficiente
entre ellos como para perder el miedo a equivocarse al hablar en público. También, la música enclase ayuda a cohesionar el grupo y a crear señas de identidad común, lo que, por supuesto, motiva
a los alumnos a la hora de aprender el idioma.
Los profesores de español en Japón nos encontramos a menudo con estudiantes que, después dehaber estudiado E/LE al menos un año, no pueden comunicarse bien y carecen de una buena
pronunciación. En general, los estudiantes son «tímidos» y a algunos no les gusta hacer prácticas deconversación en español entre ellos porque sienten vergüenza. Asimismo, hay que tener en cuenta
1 Este artículo muestra los resultados parciales presentados por las autoras el 18 de abril de 2021 en SakurELE 2021 (Primer
Encuentro de Experiencias Prácticas en la Enseñanza de ELE) celebrado en el Instituto Cervantes de Tokio. Los resultados se
han reelaborado ampliando y profundizando en el tema.

160

UN EJEMPLO DEL USO DE CANCIONES EN LA CLASE DE E/LE PARA LOS JAPONESES

las condiciones del programa de estudio de una segunda lengua extranjera. En las universidades,
generalmente, se imparten una o dos clases de lengua extranjera a la semana, durante dos semestres.
Eso hace un total de unas 30 clases lectivas de 90 o 100 minutos por semestre. Por último, conviene
recordar que no existe ningún espacio ni situación, en el día a día de los estudiantes, en los que
puedan usar la lengua de forma real.
Frente al reto de vencer este serio dilema, creemos que es necesario aprovechar los aspectos
positivos de usar canciones en el aula: por un lado, para ganar un espacio adicional de práctica yfamiliaridad con la lengua meta; y, por otro, para enriquecer los contenidos de clase de forma
entretenida, motivada y, sobre todo, productiva desde el punto de vista del aprendizaje de la lengua.

Importancia de la enseñanza de la pronunciación
Los estudiantes japoneses afirman que existe el mito de la similitud entre los sistemas fonéticos deespañol y japonés2. A causa de esto, se subestiman las dificultades a las que se enfrentan para adquirir
una pronunciación adecuada. Cabe recalcar que muchas veces dichas dificultades no se conocen,
puesto que el docente asume que, de entrada, el estudiante japonés es reservado y no tiene
oportunidad de escucharlo hablar mucho en clase. No obstante, cuando el docente genera un
ambiente de confianza, es posible que los estudiantes comenten sus dificultades, pidan consejos ymanifiesten su descontento, con la intención de superar dichos obstáculos (Cotrina Cayo, 2018).
En las aulas de E/LE, desde niveles iniciales, se presta más atención a la gramática y a otros aspectosde la lengua, dejando de lado el trabajo de pronunciación. No obstante, el Plan curricular del Instituto
Cervantes (2006) se refiere al estudiante así:Cuanto más se aproxime su acento al modelo nativo, mayor será el grado de aceptación social —yadmiración encubierta— con que cuente, en tanto que una pronunciación claramente deficiente lesupondrá una gran traba en su vida profesional y en sus relaciones personales (p. 163).
Conocer la descripción de las características fonéticas y sus combinaciones no es suficiente, sino que
hace falta hacer hincapié en el funcionamiento del sistema acentual junto con la entonación, ya que elestudiante debe conocer tanto la parte descriptiva de los sonidos de la lengua que aprende, como las
características que implica el idioma que estudia. Asimismo, el profesor debe conseguir que el uso
que haga de la entonación se acerque lo máximo posible al de los hablantes nativos. Desde laperspectiva comunicativa, también se señala la importancia de la pronunciación en PCIC (2006), dela siguiente forma:
La calidad de la pronunciación viene determinada no solo por el dominio global que el alumno
demuestre de los rasgos suprasegmentales, sino también por la medida en que es capaz de servirse
con éxito de ellos adaptándolos a las diversas situaciones comunicativas en las que se halle (p. 167).

Pronunciación del español por los japoneses
No obstante lo anterior, no es exagerado afirmar que, hasta ahora, no hay apenas investigaciones
sobre la pronunciación del español en estudiantes japoneses de E/LE. Probablemente se deba a queel español y el japonés son lenguas que tienen el mismo sistema vocálico, pues ambas tienen cinco
vocales (a, e, i, o, u) y se asume la falsa creencia de que es fácil de aprender. Por eso no se le ha dado
mucha importancia a este ámbito, a excepción de la /u/, que en español es redondeada como la /o/,mientras que en el japonés la vocal [o] es la única redondeada. Por dicha razón, Hara (1990) señala
2 Véase la sección siguiente: Pronunciación de español por los japoneses.

161

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

un fenómeno interesante en la pronunciación de los estudiantes japoneses de E/LE en los que
aparece el ensordecimiento propio del dialecto de Tokio. Por ejemplo, se pronuncia «sperro» en vez
de «su perro»; se pronuncia «articlo» en vez de «artículo»; y se pronuncia «particlar» en vez de«particular». Hasta el momento, contamos con esta única aportación, que a nuestro parecer esinsuficiente, la cual señala que los japoneses deben estar atentos a la pronunciación de [u] española
para no utilizar [ɯ] japonesa en su lugar.

¿Qué se enseña a los japoneses con las canciones en español?
Visto lo anterior, aparte de la pronunciación de [u] española, ¿qué se debe enseñar a los japoneses?
Históricamente, en el japonés, solo se usaba la estructura de la sílaba (C)V (consonante y vocal). Por
haber tomado préstamos del chino y de otras lenguas extranjeras, el japonés actual acepta sílabas
cerradas como VC y CVC aunque su número sea muy limitado. En cualquier caso, sin importar si lasílaba es abierta o cerrada en japonés se expresa con una letra japonesa llamada mora (Kubozono,
1998). En las canciones japonesas, una mora suele coincidir con una nota musical mientras que, en
español, una sílaba coincide con una nota musical. Por ello, hay diferencia entre sus canciones.
A continuación, presentamos algunos ejemplos de la canción de «Draemon no Uta» para poderreconocer la diferencia de sistemas silábicos de ambas lenguas. La Figura 1 muestra cómo se canta
en japonés. La letra «ド(do) » coincide con la nota musical la, la «ラ(ra) » con la si, la «え(e) » con la
fa, la «も(mo) » con la mi, la «ん(n) » con la re. La Figura 2 es la versión en español. Conviene que
nos demos cuenta de que las diferencias entre la lengua materna y la que se aprende, en este caso la
mora en japonés y la sílaba en español, es sumamente importante. Además, con las canciones sepueden poner en evidencia claramente dichas diferencias sin necesidad de mucha teoría, como elprofesor Kimura señaló en su presentación en 20183.

Figura 1. «Doraemon no Uta» versión japonesa4 5

Figura 2. «Doraemon no Uta» versión española6

3 «Enseñanza de pronunciación española con ayuda de canciones originales» en el LXIV Congreso de la Asociación Japonesa deHispanistas celebrado en la Universidad Nanzan en octubre de 2018.
4 Todas las partituras mostradas en este artículo están tomadas del programa Musescore.
5 Se puede escuchar la canción en el siguiente link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh_2dmUTW6w.
6 Se puede escuchar la canción en el siguiente link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA78a7w8y-Q.

162

UN EJEMPLO DEL USO DE CANCIONES EN LA CLASE DE E/LE PARA LOS JAPONESES

Un ejemplo: uso de la canción «Paraíso» de Dvicio
En la presente sección, vamos a mostrar las ventajas de trabajar con una canción como material
didáctico con estudiantes japoneses y cómo hacerlo. Para ello, emplearemos la canción «Paraíso» delgrupo Dvicio (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HeEgdzDV3s).

Cómo usarla
Primero, enfocaremos la atención en el ritmo. Con la canción «Paraíso» podemos enseñar a losjaponeses el ritmo del español junto con el movimiento corporal, en este caso con palmas.
Para practicar el ritmo, es muy recomendable usar el anuncio de la cadena de comida rápida
McDonald’s que contiene un fragmento de la canción. (https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=mD76OAKQYto). Esta versión nos permite dar palmas al compás de la letra. En el aula,
podemos cantar la canción varias veces viendo el vídeo y dando palmas hasta que los estudiantes
sean capaces de cantarla de memoria, al menos la parte del estribillo.

Puntos importantes
1) Se dan palmas con una velocidad constante. Es importante saber qué sílaba o qué vocal coincide
con cada palmada. En la Figura 3, se puede observar que las vocales en negrita y subrayadas
coinciden con las palmas. De esta manera, podemos ayudar a los estudiantes a adquirir el ritmo delespañol.

Figura 3. Letras de canción con palmas

2) Con la ayuda del ritmo y las palmadas los estudiantes podrán captar el acento del español, ya quelos japoneses tienden a no intensificar, sino a alargar el sonido si tiene acento7. Según Iribarren(2005) en español cada sílaba tiene una misma duración, tenga acento o no. Por supuesto, en esta
canción cada sílaba no tiene la misma duración, pero es útil para practicar la pronunciación de una
sílaba tónica sin alargarla.
3) Los japoneses tienden a poner el acento en las palabras átonas. Por ejemplo, el posesivo «tu» de«tu paraíso» y el artículo definido «el» de «el paraíso» son átonas, pero muchos estudiantes acentúan
estas palabras átonas por interferencia de la lengua materna. Viendo la partitura de la Figura 4, sepuede notar que en esta canción las palabras átonas aparecen con las notas musicales más bajas enla melodía. Esto nos ayuda, sin mucha explicación, a acondicionar a los estudiantes para que eviten
acentuar las palabras átonas.
7 Aunque puede darse la tendencia de alargar las sílabas tónicas en la pronunciación de los japoneses, Matsumoto (2020)concluyó que no era preferible.

163

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Figura 4. Letras de canción con la melodía

Recapitulando, la canción «Paraíso» del grupo Dvicio tiene abundantes posibilidades de trabajar lafonética y la fonología de forma directa con nuestros estudiantes japoneses. En un primer momento,
los estudiantes tienen que escuchar la canción y, después, cantarla siguiendo las instrucciones delprofesor o ver el vídeo. De esta manera, las actividades didácticas con esta canción nos darán muy
buenos resultados. Lo importante es dar instrucciones claras para que los estudiantes puedan
entender y focalizar la atención en la acentuación.
Es importante elegir bien la canción. No es fácil encontrar una como «Paraíso», que tenga claramente
una melodía conforme a la regla de la pronunciación de español, aunque haya otras canciones en lasque alarga una átona por su melodía que son útiles y divertidas para trabajar en el aula. Aunque nose ha mencionado en este artículo, la canción «Paraíso» tiene muchas más posibilidades deaprovechamiento en el aula, por ejemplo, se puede usar para fomentar el conocimiento de la culturao preparar ejercicios gramaticales a partir de su letra. No obstante, se puede encontrar canciones
adecuadas a las actividades que se planteen en clase y es una labor muy estimulante en el trabajoprevio de los profesores. De hecho, es imprescindible preparar una canción apropiada para lo quequeremos enseñar.

Conclusión
Al estudiar una lengua extranjera, se tiende al principio a identificar los sonidos en función de lalengua materna. La labor del docente es señalar las diferencias y similitudes que hay entre la lengua
materna y la segunda lengua, ya desde niveles iniciales. Al respecto, Poch (2004) señala que: «No es
posible lanzarse a realizar los sonidos de la lengua extranjera si no se sabe, en primer lugar,
distinguirlos auditivamente en función del sistema perceptivo…» (p. 761). En este sentido, el empleo
de la música y la muestra explicita de la partitura para la discriminación de la acentuación llevada ala práctica permiten que los estudiantes japoneses adquieran una correcta pronunciación de forma
intuitiva. Por consiguiente, esperamos que esta propuesta abra posibilidades provechosas en la
pedagogía fonética para los estudiantes japoneses de E/LE.

Referencias Bibliográficas
Abio, G. (2010). 30 técnicas o más para trabajar con canciones en la clase de E/LE. Blog de Gonzalo
Abio – ELE. https://gonzaloabio-ele.blogspot.com/2010/09/30-o-mas-tecnicas-para-usarcanciones.html (último acceso: 20/02/2021).
Balmaseda Maestu, E. (2011). La canción latinoamericana en la enseñanza del español: música,
cultura y variación lingüística. Actas del XXI Congreso Internacional de la ASELE, 969-983.
Bravo, R. D. (2015). Las canciones en la enseñanza-aprendizaje de ELE en la era digital. Porta
Linguarum, 24, 203-214.
Cotrina Cayo, L. (2018). Tratamiento didáctico del desarrollo de la comprensión auditiva. Lingüística
Hispánica, 41, 11-30.
164

UN EJEMPLO DEL USO DE CANCIONES EN LA CLASE DE E/LE PARA LOS JAPONESES

Gil Toresano, M. (2001). El uso de las canciones y la música en el desarrollo de la destreza auditiva
en el aula de ele. Carabela, 49, 39-54.
Hara, M. (1990). Método de enseñanza de la pronunciación española a los alumnos japoneses. Actasdel segundo congreso nacional de ASELE, 371-379.
Instituto Cervantes. (2006). Plan curricular del Instituto Cervantes Niveles de referencia para el
español. Madrid: Instituto Cervantes.
Iribarren, M. C. (2005). Fonética y fonología españolas. Madrid: Síntesis.
Kubozono, H. (1998). Onseigaku・Oninron [Fonética y fonología]. Tokio: Kuroshio syuppan.
Martínez Sallés, M. (2002). Tareas que suenan bien. El uso de canciones en clase de ELE. Bélgica:
MECD / Consejería de Educación en Bélgica, Países Bajos y Luxemburgo.
Matsumoto, Junko (2020). Supeingo no boincho no ichi kousatsu -bogo washa no hatsuwa bunseki tochoon wo mochiita katakana hyoki kara [Una consideración de la duración de las vocales en
español -A través de un análisis del discurso en español y del uso de un símbolo de sonido largo
en la notación japonesa «katakana»]. The journal of humanities and sciences, 43, 65-81.
Monreal Azcárate, L. (2011). Aplicaciones didácticas de la música y sus textos en el aula de ELE.
Actas del XXI Congreso Internacional de la ASELE, 1167-1178.
Paz Doce, R. A. y Barros Lorenzo, R. (2011). De la música al texto en el aula de ELE: Una propuesta
didáctica. Actas del XXI Congreso Internacional de la ASELE, 1227-1237.
Poch, D. (2004). Los contenidos fonéticos-fonológicos. En Sánchez, J. y Santos, I. Vademécum para laformación de profesores. Enseñar español como segunda lengua (L2) / lengua extranjera (LE),735-765. Madrid: SGEL.

165

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）【Research Brief】

Maintaining Discourse Competence in a Synchronous Online
Discussion Board Activity
Justin Rooks
AbstractMoving to an online environment as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic necessitated a careful consideration about
how the aims of a language course could be maintained despite the disruption to regular classes. This paper outlines
how a synchronous online discussion board activity was used to maintain and develop the discourse competence ofEnglish language students at a university in Tokyo. It offers a three-point definition of discourse, explains why
discourse competence is crucial to the development of a second language learner’s ability, and analyzes an extractfrom an online discussion to find evidence of whether students were able to demonstrate a sound understanding of
discourse. Finally, there is a brief description of how students perceived the activity and a conclusion that points topotential areas of further study.
Keywords: Discourse, Discourse Competence, Discussion board, Synchronous,

Discussion
Developing a strong understanding of how language is used in context is essential for becoming
proficient in a second language. Almost everything we say is intended for a receiver, so when we
speak, we are conveying messages that serve a purpose connected to the context in which theutterance is made. This elaboration of language use is one way to define the concept of discourse,
though it does in fact carry a wide range of meanings related to a large number of academic fields.
Thornbury was right to point out that the concept is “slippery” as it eludes neat definition andembraces a wide range of linguistic and social phenomena (Thornbury, 2010). Here, discourse will be
understood in three key ways: as connected language, as language in use, and as language as a social
practice. Each one of these concepts will be used to consider student language use and to assess
more generally what can be considered their discourse competence. Discourse competence should bea familiar area of research in second language learning as it is part of a suite of competences thatcombine to make up a second language learner’s overall communicative competence. Communicativecompetence, developed by Hymes (1972) and elaborated by others (Canale, 1983; Celce-Mucia, 2007)
describes a person’s knowledge of when something is not only formally possible in a language butwhen it is also feasible, appropriate, and done in specific speech communities (Richards & Schmidt,
2002). Language use is made up of so much more than grammatical rules, and it follows conventions
and patterns that are essential to understanding actual instances of language used in specificsituations and contexts. According to Hymes “there are rules of use without which the rules ofgrammar would be useless (1972), and this position has been taken up in the field of second language
learning and acquisition ever since. Communicative competence and its pedagogical corollary
Communicative Language Teaching are central tenets in most modern teaching philosophies. In
addition, it has been argued (Celce-Mucia, 2007) that discourse is itself central to any understandingof communicative competence, and this centrality makes it all the more important when considering
what should be taught in second language classes and the methods used therein.

166

MAINTAINING DISCOURSE COMPETENCE IN A SYNCHRONOUS ONLINE DISCUSSION BOARD ACTIVITY

When we consider discourse as a series of connected utterances, we rely on the concepts oftextual coherence and cohesive devices. Halliday and Hasan (1976) suggested that spoken andwritten passages that connected to form a unified whole should be considered a text – a unit oflanguage above the level of the sentence. They analyzed how one utterance in a discussion, forexample, connected to previous and subsequent utterances to create a unified and connected unit.
There are a number of formal elements that make it possible for sentences to connect and form acomplete text. These include lexical and grammatical similarities and repetition, reference
expressions that create chains of reference throughout a text, as well as conjunctions that explicitly
draw attention to the type of relationship between two statements. These formal elements allow for
the interpretation of certain elements that are dependent on other elements for their meaning(Flowerdew, 2013). In addition to such formal elements, connections can be created when eachparticipant in a discussion makes utterances that are contextually suitable and appropriate. This
principle of cooperation was first expounded by Grice (1975) and helps us to understand how
language use is so often coherent in terms of manner, relevance, quality, and quantity. Helping asecond language learner to develop this understanding of language use is essential if they are to
become adept at using the language in a variety of situations. Moreover, they will need to understandthat there is more to producing and understanding language than producing and receiving a series ofgrammatically correct sentences.
Discourse also relates to the way speakers use a language, the purpose, intention, and functionof the utterances that they make. This approach to understanding discourse, and language generally,
was made popular by theorists like J.L. Austin (1962) and John Searle (1969). They recognized that
there are discernible functions below the formal layer of language that enact and achieve pragmatic
goals. People do things with language – they invite and offer, negotiate and assess, clarify and agree,
among many other things – and expect the receiver to respond accordingly and appropriately.
Invitations, for example, call for either an acceptance or a refusal and thus limit the amount ofpossible or preferable responses that can be made. Speech acts and their possible pairs help us
understand how utterances can cohere even when there is an absence of formal markers. Formal
links are not always necessary if people are able to identify the underlying purpose and function of anutterance and respond accordingly in terms of the context in which the utterance is made (Cook,
1989). When form diverges from function, however, or when speakers use indirect speech, second
language learners can experience difficulties, as they may not be as adept at determining the functionof an utterance without explicit formal clues (Cook, 1989). It therefore becomes important to develop
their understanding of language and raise their awareness in terms of its pragmatic nature andpossibilities. Focusing on functional language items in the classroom and giving students anopportunity to use and understand them therefore becomes a profitable experience. Discourse ismutually constructed and negotiated by its participants, and second language learners will not beable to participate equally without a certain level of discourse competence.
The third form of discourse is concerned with language as social practice, as Thornbury (2010)
described it, and suggests that social practices are encoded in language. Gee (1999) has further
expounded this understanding of discourse by suggesting that the function of language is to scaffold
the performance of social activities and a person’s affiliation within cultures and social groups. For
second language learners, this involves expressing their identity and a sense of belonging throughtheir use of the second language, as well as the ability to identify and respond to the cultural norms

167外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）of the language community into which they have entered. Discourse can reflect an array of different
identities clustered around concepts like gender, age, and class, to name but a few, and how society
has constructed the relationships between these different groups of people (O’Sullivan, Hartley,
Saunders, & Fiske, 1983). Language use therefore does more than perform certain acts likeinvitations and suggestions. It enacts a person’s identity and their willingness – or lack thereof - tobelong to certain groups and communities. Furthermore, the unit of meaning most commonly
associated with discourse, the text, is intertextual as it is related to and reflects the nature of otherexamples of the same genre of communication. Usually, these are shaped by specific rules andstandards that can be culturally specific. A student’s use of language can therefore reflect theiracceptance of and conformity to dominant social rules and norms. This is an area that can sometimes
cause problems for second language learners as they may lack the culturally specific backgroundknowledge needed to use language and discourse appropriately (Flowerdew, 2013). This can be
nurtured in the classroom, however, with appropriate instruction and practice, and along with theother aspects of discourse competence, should be an important teaching goal in any language course.

Context
All first-year students at Rikkyo University are required to complete a set of compulsory English
classes, including one that is focused on English Discussion. In these discussion classes students are
introduced to a variety of contemporary topics and a suite of discussion and communication skills
that facilitate their ability to talk about these topics. As the classes are small, comprising of aroundten students, there is ample opportunity for each student to learn, practice, and use the skills andimprove their discourse competence. The course emphasis the importance of co-constructing thediscussion, which means they must be sensitive to how their utterances connect to those of the otherstudents to form a unified text. They develop an understanding of language in use as the items
introduced each week are constantly related to the function that they perform. Finally, as each classcomprises freshman students, many of whom have never met each other before class, the students
find themselves in a position to engage in a variety of social practices: they can establish relationships,
enact values of good discursive behavior, and express not only their ideas, but a sense of theiridentity. The course is especially valuable to Japanese speakers of English who often begin the course
lacking not only in discourse competence but communicative competence more generally. Despite
the general move towards a more communicative approach to language learning and teaching, many
Japanese students have continued to experience being taught English at the level of the sentence andhave focused on grammatical competence as well as reading and writing ability as a measure of theiroverall linguistic proficiency (Kikuchi, 2006). It is therefore a valuable experience that fosters thestudents’ ability to become more complete language learners with a better understanding of what
language is and how it is used.
At least, this was the case until a decision was made to move all discussion classes online as aconsequence of the Coronavirus pandemic starting in 2020. It therefore became important to think
about how students at Rikkyo could continue to gain exposure to this valuable language input while
studying from home. It was decided that classes would be conducted at least partially via Zoom, andthat in doing so, students would still be given a considerable opportunity to engage in the kind of
speaking activities that promoted their discourse competence - albeit on a screen rather than face toface. However, part of the lesson was to be conducted using online resources other than Zoom, and168

MAINTAINING DISCOURSE COMPETENCE IN A SYNCHRONOUS ONLINE DISCUSSION BOARD ACTIVITY

this led to the activity discussed in this paper. The following is an explication of an activity that wasdeveloped on the discussion board feature of Blackboard. It is important to note that this was thethird iteration of the activity, as previous versions of the activity had been less successful in developing
the students discourse competence. Furthermore, it should also be noted that the activity represented
here focuses on the experience of students in the Level I and Level II cohort at Rikkyo. It is beyond
the purview of this research brief to elaborate the problems encountered in earlier versions of theactivity and the experience of students less proficient than the ones mentioned here.

Online Discussion Board Activity
The discussion board activity attempted to replicate the actual in-class discussion activity in an
online environment. Obviously, this presented a number of challenges: the participants werecommunicating via a computer rather than communicating face to face, and there is an obvious
difference in typing and writing messages instead of speaking. Nevertheless, it was thought that they
could discuss topics in real time with each other via the discussion board. Each group did the activity
either before or after their 40-minute Zoom lesson, so it either acted as a preparation for the Zoom
class or as a post-lesson extension. In terms of preparation, the students were given ten minutes tothink about a topic question on their own and complete a pre-discussion activity in the textbook. They
were then told to enter a group thread and discuss the topic together for about thirty minutes. The
target language and the topic were the same in both parts of the lesson. Each group consisted of twoor three students, as this gave each student a greater opportunity to co-create the discussion byincreasing the number of interactions they were able to make. Furthermore, it enabled them to use
the lesson’s discussion skills more often and thus promote their acquisition of some useful functional
language. The overall aim of the activity was to promote their discourse competence. The following
is a typical exchange between three members of a Level 1 class.
Excerpt from Discussion Board: Week 10 University students and social media
How does social media affect these areas of a student’s life?
Social life and hobbies
Studying
Family life and relaxing
1. A. How do you guys think social media affect our social life?
2.
B. I think by using social media, we can connect with people who have same hobbies.
3.
A. That is true. It is easy to look for people who have the same hobbies by using social
media, such as Instagram.
4.
C. Right. Thanks to social media, we can share our ideas and what we like more easily,
and then we can make friends all over the world!
5.
C. Social media has allowed us to do anything online, like we can take classes through ZOOM
and we can buy outfits online. What do you think?
6.
B. That is true! Without social media, stude can’t take classes in this situation, so it isnecessary for their lives.
7.
A. I totally agree with you. As you said, from the perspective of people who buy clothes
online can be more usuful for those who do not like face to face communication.

169

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

8. B. How about the affection to studies?
9.
C. Some students (including me) sometimes distracted by social media. When using it
effectively, social media works well.
10.
B. I agree with you. Social media annoys me when I’m studying, like the notifications
from line or Instagram.
11.
A. I totally agree with you. As you said, notification distract students whateversituation, and they feel stressed about it but they cannot avoid it because theywant to connected with other people.

Analysis
The students in this activity have clearly been able to co-create a good discussion in which they
respond to the topic question. Student A begins the discussion by first selecting a speaking point(social media’s influence on social lives) and inviting the others to respond. Her use of ‘guys’ as asalutation suggests that the other students are fairly well known to her, and her word choice operates
phatically in terms of establishing the social group. This is an excellent representation of discourse
as social practice in which identities and communities are brought about through language use.
Student B takes the following turn with her response, and it is cohesive in two ways: she connects
formally to the theme by repeating the lexical item ‘social media’ and also offers an appropriate
response to the question. She has recognized that the function of the opening question is asking for
an opinion and responds accordingly by opening her contribution with “I think…”. Her use of theterm “we” also reinforces the fact that these students share a common experience and belong to thesame social group. Student C also responds to the question and her opening “Right” serves both toindicate agreement with the previous statement as well as to pre-empt a discursive turn, which shethen proceeds to complete. This opening sequence establishes a good discursive base from which
the discussion can proceed, and even a short sequence like this suggests that these students have afairly high level of discourse competence.
In Line 5, however, we can see that Student C had previously responded to the question in Line1, but her response had not been noticed at the time by the other participants. It was an issue withthe medium of communication though and not one that reflects poorly on the students. In fact,
Student B eventually takes up this new line of discussion. Her emphatic response “That is true!” evenacts to reassure Student C, whose question had gone unanswered by the group, that this was not an
instance of conversational implicature of the type articulated by Grice (1975) and that her question is
one that Student B wants to discuss. It revolves around their shared experience of using Zoom andtaking classes online because of the pandemic, and once again it hints at the fact that these students
share an experience and belong to the same community. Student A also responds to Students C’squestion and connects to it lexically by repeating the term “online” and adds to the theme bycomparing it to “face to face communication”. Face-to-face communication would be a familiar topic to
all these students as it is something they had discussed in two previous lessons. Drawing on theirshared knowledge, even implicitly, once again marks this discussion as being held by people with ashared experience: students enrolled in a discussion class who communicate with each other online.
In terms of the target language that these students had been addressing in their discussion
course, there is evidence that this activity is giving them a good opportunity to repeatedly use a170

MAINTAINING DISCOURSE COMPETENCE IN A SYNCHRONOUS ONLINE DISCUSSION BOARD ACTIVITY

variety of functional items. In Line 7, Student A has combined a number of these into a single
utterance. “I totally agree with you” is a phrase she practiced in the second lesson of the course. “Asyou said…” comes from the sixth lesson in which students were encouraged to clearly markagreement by repeating what a previous speaker had said. Finally, by saying “from the perspective ofpeople who buy clothes online”, she is using a phrase from the previous lesson in which students
considered a variety of different points of view. She repeats most of this pattern in Line 11, whichsuggests a level of comfort in using these discursive structures in her output. There are enoughexamples in this excerpt to suggest that the activity was successful in providing students with theopportunity to practice these functional items and to develop their discourse competence. Though
brief, this analysis demonstrates that these students have a high degree of discourse competence ineach of the three areas outlined previously and that the activity has provided them with an opportunity
to develop it further.

Student Sur vey
To learn whether these students found the activity useful, they were asked to complete a survey(Appendix). Participants (n=41) were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed
with four statements regarding the activity and to respond to two open questions. For the first fourquestions they indicated their responses on a five-point Likert scale in which 5 represents strongly
agree and 1 represents strongly disagree. Question one asked whether the activity was enjoyable,
and students responded favorably with 91.9% indicating that they either strongly agreed or agreed.
Enjoyment may not necessarily indicate an activity’s usefulness, but it helps students stay motivated
if they have a positive attitude toward it. The following two questions asked students directly whether
the activity was useful and whether it helped them to use the discussion skills. Again, there was astrong endorsement of the activity’s efficacy with 87.4% reporting their strong agreement oragreement for Question 2 and 76.8% reporting the same for Question 3. As this was the main aim of
the activity, it was important to receive a positive response. The fourth question focused on thecommunication skills they had learned, and 67.9% said that the activity had helped them. For
Questions 5 and 6 in which students typed their responses to open questions about the advantages
and disadvantages of using the discussion board, a number of answers appeared numerous times.
The most common criticism was about the need to refresh the page in order to see any new responses
and the time lag between responses. The discussion board on Blackboard does not operate assmoothly as other familiar chat applications, and students seemed to have felt this keenly. In terms ofadvantages, one commonly reported answer was the ability to think more clearly about how toarticulate themselves. Again, this indicates how the discussion board activity is not as free flowing asa face-to-face discussion. Overall, the results were very positive and suggest that the students felt it
was a good use of their class time.

Conclusion
This research brief has outlined three key features of discourse competence and reviewed howthat understanding was applied in the development of an online discussion board activity. The activity
was generally successful in helping students in the Level I and Level II cohort at Rikkyo University
to develop and consolidate their discourse competence. They could connect to each other’sutterances, they demonstrated an understanding of the functional intention of language items, and171

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

were able to establish and maintain their discursive community. It would be rewarding to follow up
this initial investigation with a few other lines of inquiry. Specifically, it would be interesting to note
how lower-level students were able to manage this activity and to consider how it could be targetedto their needs. It would also be worth investigating any shortcomings in the activity, such as thereported technical concerns regarding Blackboard’s discussion board feature, and consider ways inwhich the students’ experience could be improved. Finally, it would also be of interest to note how
the language used on the discussion board differed from the language used in the classroom. Spoken
and written discourses have their own characteristics, and this could be compared in a future study.

References
Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J.
Richards, & R. Schmidt, Language and Communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman.
Celce-Mucia, M. (2007). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In
E. Alcón Soler, & M. P. Safont Jordà, Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning (pp.
41-57). Berlin: Springer.
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flowerdew, J. (2013). Discourse in English language education. New York: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method. London: Routledge.
Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. (P. Cole, & J. Morgan, Eds.) Syntax and Semantics, 3, 41 58.
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride, & J. Holmes, Sociolinguistics: Selected
readings (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Kikuchi, K. (2006). Revisiting English Entrance Examinations at Japanese Universities after a
Decade. JALT Journal, 28(1), 77-96.
O’Sullivan, T., Hartley, J., Saunders, D., & Fiske, J. (1983). Key Concepts in Communication. London:
Methuen.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics.
Harlow: Longman.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Thornbury, S. (2010). What can a corpus tell us about discourse? In A. O’Keeffe, & M. McCarthy, The
Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics (pp. 270-287). London: Routledge.

172

MAINTAINING DISCOURSE COMPETENCE IN A SYNCHRONOUS ONLINE DISCUSSION BOARD ACTIVITY

Appendix – Student Sur vey
I would like to learn more about how you feel about using the discussion board for your classes. Youranswers are completely anonymous, so please feel free to be honest. Thank you very much for yourparticipation.
Strongly agree		
非常にそう思う
Agree			 そう思う
Neutral			
どちらでもない
Disagree 			
そう思わないStrongly disagree		
全くそう思わない1. I think using the Discussion Board for classes is enjoyable. 私はディスカッションボードを授業で使うのは楽しいと思います
Strongly agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly disagree
2. I think using the Discussion Board for classes is useful. 私はディスカッションボードを授業で使
うのは役に立つと思います。
Strongly agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly disagree
3. I think using the discussion board helped me use the discussion skills. ディスカッションボード
はディスカッションスキルを使うのに役立った。
Strongly agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly disagree
4. I think using the discussion board helped me use the communication skills. ディスカッションボ
ードはコミュニケーションスキルを使うのに役立った。
Strongly agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly disagree
5. What are the disadvantages of using the Discussion Board?
ディスカッションボードの不利／不便な点は何ですか？
6. What are the advantages of using the Discussion Board? ディスカッションボードの強みは何で
すか？

173

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）【Research Brief】

Developing social presence in online classes:
a Japanese higher education context
Satchie Haga, Joshua Rappeneker
Abstract
This paper reports on research that explored two English as Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ experiencesdeveloping social presence in online learning at one private university in Tokyo, Japan. Qualitative data were collected
through teacher reflections and analyzed through the lens of the social presence model (Tu & McIsaac, 2002) andcultural dimension theories (Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 1980). The paper begins with a brief background on social presence
and cultural dimension theories. The teachers will then present their reports on their efforts to develop social
presence in their online activities within the dimensions of these models. Finally a discussion presents key themes on
how technology and pedagogical activities mediated social presence online in the Japanese context. The findings
suggest that technology and pedagogical activities expanded and mediated social presence, and that social presence
is reflexive to the frequency and depth of interaction. The theoretical implications result in a proposed modification to
the social presence model to reflect a reflexive relationship rather than the one way arrow that currently depicts therelationship.
Keywords: EFL, higher education, Japan, online learning, social presence

Introduction
Social presence, “the ability of participants to identify with a group, communicate openly in atrusting environment, and develop personal and affective relationships progressively by way of
projecting their individual personalities,”(Garrison, 2016, p. 25) is a critical component of effective
instructional design. With the rapid growth of the internet and emerging new online forms ofcommunication and learning, social presence is receiving increasing attention in education andcommunication research and has been examined both qualitatively and quantitatively (See, e.g.,
Biocca et al., 2003; Oztok & Brett, 2011; Richardson et al., 2017). Research demonstrates its influenceon student participation (Mazzolini & Maddison, 2007; Swan & Shih, 2005; Tu & McIsaac, 2002)
course satisfaction (Akyol & Garrison, 2008; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Hostetter & Busch, 2006;
Swan & Shih, 2005) and both actual and perceived learning (Hostetter & Busch, 2006; Joksimović etal., 2015).
Different students have different social preference strategies and needs (Lowenthal & Dunlap,
2018). Furthermore, research has demonstrated that perception of social presence and how it ismediated through technology can have some cultural influence (Tu & McIsaac, 2002). Although
there is some research that investigates cultural differences in the perception of social presence (e.g.
Lowry et al., 2010; Tu & McIsaac, 2002) the vast majority of research investigating social presence isconducted in Western educational contexts with white participants. Yet online education, andcomputer mediated forms of intercultural communication are rapidly expanding globally, not only in
education but in all industries. As such, this research examines two teachers’ attempts at developing
social presence in a Japanese online context.

174

DEVELOPING SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE CLASSES: A JAPANESE HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT

Dimensions of Social Presence
Synthesizing the research on social presence in the online environment, Tu and McIsaac (2002)
conceptualized a model consisting of two components of social presence (intimacy, and immediacy)that can be broken down further into three dimensions (social context, online communication andinteractivity) (Figure 1). Intimacy refers to physical proximity (e.g. maintained eye contact, bodyleading forward, etc.), while immediacy refers to the psychological proximity that can becommunicated both verbally and nonverbally (Tu & McIsaac, 2002, p.134). This model suggests thatby improving the three central dimensions (interactivity, social context, and online communication),
intimacy and immediacy are enhanced, thus affecting social presence and consequently interaction.

Social Presence
IntimacyInteractivity

Interaction

SocialContext

OnlineCommunication

Increase

Immediacy

Figure 1. Dimensions of Social Presence

Note. Reproduced from Tu and McIsaac (2002, p.132)

Interactivity refers to the types of activities, communication style, and the degree of interaction(Tu & McIsaac, 2002). Immediacy is related to this dimension whereby faster and more frequent
feedback can positively influence student perceptions of teacher social presence (Bialowas & Steimel,2019) . The way teachers and students communicate with each other can also affect social presence(Oyarzun et al., 2018; Yildiz, 2009).
Social context consists of elements such as task orientation, topics, social relationships, andsocial processes. These elements have been found to influence the degree of social presence. For
instance, the more public and focused on a task communication is, the more social presence will
decrease (Tu & McIsaac, 2002, p.134).
Online communication refers to familiarity and comfort with the language and the attributes ofcommunication online. When students receive training and are familiar with online communication
there is an increased degree of social presence (Tu & McIsaac, 2002). Also, typing speed or concerns
about how to communicate, or the process of receiving information can affect their social presence(Tu, 2002).

Cultural Dimensions
Hofstede’s (1980; 2010) cultural dimensions theory and Hall’s (1976) intercultural communications
framework, two models widely used in extensive research across many different fields, describe
aspects of intercultural communication (Hofstede et al., 2010; Kirkman et al., 2006; Kittler et al.,2011). Although there is some overlap in the concepts, they describe a spectrum of dimensions
across cultures. Japanese are placed on the high end of the dimensions with the characteristics in175

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Table 1 and Table 2.
Table 1
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
Dimension

High (Japan)

Power Distance -degree to which hierarchies exist and are
accepted

Hierarchies

Uncertainty Avoidance – degree of tolerance/avoidance of risk

Risk intolerantGroup vs Individual Orientation

Collectivism – group harmony,non-competitiveness prioritized

Restraint vs Indulgence

Restraint

Note. Adapted from Hoftede et al. (2010) to include dimensions focused within this study.

Table 2
Intercultural communication dimensions
Factors
Context

High (Japan)
Covert indirect messages
Non verbal codes
Reaction held
Strong in and out group distinction

Time

High commitment
Monochronic (single task orientation)Space

Private space large

Note. Adapted from Hall and Hall (1990).

Teacher Reports
This section reports on how two teachers develop online teaching activities based on thedimensions of social presence (Tu & McIsaac, 2002) and culture (Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 1980)

Incorporation of Social Presence Dimensions
1. Online communication – familiarity and comfort with using technology.
Teacher 1: Satchie Haga – assume no prior knowledge & step by step instructions
Every time I use a new technology or introduce a new task I assume students have no priorknowledge. Not only do I walk them through the task/tool, and do it together, I also create an
example task or question that tests their ability to do it in class so I can answer any questions
immediately before they work on a real assignment. I also have students work together in groups inbreakout rooms so that they can help each other resolve their issues.
Teacher 2: Joshua Rappeneker – technology use through applied activities
In the first week of class in Advanced English (a twice a week course designed to develop
academic English skills in the first year of university) I create groups randomly, and assign them the176

DEVELOPING SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE CLASSES: A JAPANESE HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT

task of creating a presentation within a single lesson. The theme is that they must explain a natural
phenomenon, such as magnetism or rainbows to an audience of elementary school children. The
requirements of the task mean that the students must learn to use Zoom to communicate, use shareddocuments such as Google docs to work on their slides simultaneously, and must be able to exchange
information with each other via the chat function of Zoom, or via email.
In the second class the students give the presentations, and then other groups take turns asking
follow-up questions. This brief task allows students to experience and overcome most of thetechnological hurdles that they will encounter during the semester, whilst working within a group.
Working in these groups also means that students have an incentive to use their cameras andmicrophones as much as possible, which I deeply encourage. Unlike Satchie above, I do not model
the use of the tools, but rather leave the students to solve the issues themselves in their groups andobserve – only stepping in to help if the students are truly ‘stuck’.
2. Interactivity—degree of interaction.
Teacher 1: Satchie Haga – synchronous (real-time classes), frequency and depth of interaction
I make an effort to enhance immediacy through interactivity by conducting my classes on Zoom
synchronously (in real time) with about 75% of the time spent engaged in interactive activities inbreakout rooms. This allows students to quickly ask me questions either using the chat feature orafter class. Also, I want them to have a way to interact with each other whilst working on tasks,
including those that don’t require speaking, so I put them in breakout rooms in small groups where
they can work together with camera on or off. This way they can ask each other questions if theyneed help or contact me using the help button and I will go to their room immediately.
I also noticed that classes such as debate or discussion with frequent interaction enabled more
opportunities and deeper exploration of ideas compared to classes such as eLearning where students
interacted only a few times. This limited opportunities to develop social presence and consequently
the depth of discussions remained superficial.
Teacher 2: Joshua Rappeneker – use of online discussion forums
Before the first class I have students write a brief self introduction on a ‘Getting to know you’forum. I make sure they include photos of things that interest them, and then ask each other follow
up questions. Also, each week students write their answers to discussion questions on a shared classforum, and they then reply to at least 3 other students (ideally those who have no replies yet). The
use of forums has the added benefit of ‘levelling the playfield’, so to speak. Whilst the more
extroverted and confident speakers tend to speak up more in Zoom sessions, forums (as an
asynchronous medium) allow students to compose and communicate their thoughts at their own
pace.

177

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

3. Social context—task orientation to social topics, relationships, and processes.
Teacher 1: Satchie Haga – encourage student camera use, develop social relationships beyond theclassroom
In order to develop the social context I strongly encourage turning the camera on. I respect
students’ preferences to have the camera off if they do not feel comfortable, or have technical issues
that affect communication over video (e.g. poor wifi connection). However, I promote the social
benefits of using video (i.e. that it can make it easier and more comfortable for others to speak when
they can see your reaction). Prior to entering every breakout session, I remind them of the benefitsof turning on the camera. This results in the vast majority of students speaking with cameras on
during chat sessions. Like Joshua describes below I have small breakout rooms, however, I had notconsidered students not feeling comfortable with only one partner, so I often had one-on-one rooms
as I wanted them to speak more deeply with each other. The time in one-on-one rooms is limited
usually to a maximum 5 minutes like in my face-to-face classroom tasks. After reading Joshua’sreport I realized that this might cause some anxiety for some students who may be partnered withsomeone they are not comfortable with, and have since changed the instructions I provide to
students prior to entering the breakout rooms to include informing them of how long they will be in
the room for, and to remind them of the help button they can use to contact me if they would likesome assistance or feel anxious.
I also enhance the social context and reduce psychological distance by encouraging communication
outside of classes. In the first class I conduct a survey to see if they want a class LINE group. I findthat the vast majority of students want a LINE group, so I ask for a volunteer to set up a group. Thisis a group I am not a member of, but a place where they can get in touch with each other if they haveconcerns or questions outside of class, and participation is voluntary. Also I create social tasks at the
beginning of the course and during breaks where they can meet each other. These tasks are notgraded because the sole purpose is social where they meet each other to develop their social
relations. For example, I ask them to meet with 3 people in the class to interview them. I provide
them with similar interview questions used in a face-to-face class interview activity, however rather
than ask them to do it in class I ask them to arrange to meet in their own time so that they can talkas long (or as short as they wanted). Although my classes are conducted in English I do not set
language requirements in these tasks so they can communicate freely in their preferred language.
Teacher 2: Joshua Rappeneker – small breakout rooms, microphones on, avoid one-on-one rooms, andlighthearted atmosphere that encourages experimentation
In breakout rooms I always strongly suggest that the students keep their cameras andmicrophones on. The reason for cameras is to maintain eye contact, or it’s Zoom equivalent. I havenoticed that students are more readily able to maintain conversational rhythms when they can see
each other. The reason for microphones being on the entire time, if feasible, is that it allows for morenatural reactions in conversation, for example laughing, gasping, etc. It’s been my experience that
this reduces the mechanical nature of Zoom discussions.
I also try to make sure to keep breakout rooms between three and four students if possible. I

178

DEVELOPING SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE CLASSES: A JAPANESE HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT

avoid one-on-one rooms for the most part, because unlike a classroom, in which students are awareof the space and others around them, being in a one on one break out room can feel a little
claustrophobic. As I am unable to monitor all breakout rooms simultaneously, I think it’s safer tomake sure at least three students are in a single room. Conversely, rooms with more than four
students often end up with at least one student silent for the majority of discussions.
Drawing pictures together
Another small and somewhat silly activity I like to do in early classes is to screen share a‘whiteboard’ via Zoom and during a short interval allow students to draw doodles on the board. It has
been my experience that students quickly warmup to the task, and feel somewhat relaxed afterwards.
It has the added benefit of teaching students how to annotate shared screens when working on
projects together.
Playing Werewolf
In the first few weeks of a class I try and play the social game “One Night Werewolf” via Zoom
at least a couple of times. The game is very simple – it involves secret roles and deception, and themain purpose of the game is to discuss which of the players is potentially a werewolf. The first time I
play the game in class I explain the rules to the students, and then tell them that it’s okay to use
Japanese. Whilst the end purpose of the game is to practice English conversation, the secondary
purpose of playing is to create an entertaining atmosphere, and encourage social ties between thestudents.

Incorporation of Cultural Dimensions
Teacher 1: Satchie Haga – collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, public and private space
In terms of the cultural dimensions, I noticed how Japanese students prefer to work in groups orwith a partner. This works well with establishing social presence as they are keen to know about eachother and interact together. However, it seems due to uncertainty avoidance, fear of losing face, andfear of breaking harmony it may be difficult for them to make the first move to create a LINE groupor connect with others. Also I noticed public and private domains have different meanings forJapanese whereby public space is an area where people can communicate to develop relationships,
but also there is a risk of losing face or breaking harmony in public forums (e.g. discussion boards,
or in front of the class).
As such, I use technology to negotiate public and private space, where I collect their “true”
opinion via anonymous forms or have them speak together in breakout rooms before revealing apublic opinion to the group. For example in the debate class I would have groups discuss together
their analysis of the debate they watched prior to revealing a public group decision about theiranalysis. The objective of public social tasks (e.g. discussion boards on Blackboard) is to enhanceharmony with others (e.g. revealing similar interests).
I also noticed that online tools create public space that can be perceived as more concrete thanspace created whilst speaking with someone in person. It seems that technology enables permanenceof video or text that can mediate communication. For instance, although some students appeared to179

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

be comfortable showing their face during video discussions, they were reluctant to be recorded. In
two of my classes I started the semester using FlipGrid, but I stopped using it when two students
asked me for alternatives for posting their video to the site. They did not mind posting videos to ashared folder in Google Drive that only they and I would see, but did not want the video to be posted
where everyone in the class could see it. Even whilst working on written collaborative documents, I
noticed that students preferred to work in breakout rooms to discuss what suggestions they werethinking of adding to the text rather than editing the document through the tracked changes features
outside of class.
Teacher 2: Joshua Rappeneker – restraint, collectivistic, public versus private space, & risk intolerance
Even more so than in a physical classroom, students appear reticent to answer questions posedto the class on Zoom. Instead of singling students out who may not be comfortable answering aquestion and thus potentially alienating the student, I first have the students break out into smallrooms and discuss their answers. Upon returning from the breakout rooms, I ask students first about
their group discussion, and only then about their own opinions.
For classes with a lot of group work, after the first couple of projects I have students answer aform with two questions: ‘Who would you like to work with on the next project?’, and ‘Who would you
not like to work with on the next project?’. The answers are kept secret. I then form the projectgroups making sure everyone is in a group with at least one person they would like to work with, andwith no person they do not wish to work with. So far, I have not had an unsolvable combination of
likes and dislikes (although one student listed themselves as someone they would prefer not to workwith!) The reason I make sure to do this when teaching online is that the social cues that makeassigning groups that will work together well in person are much harder to pick up over Zoom.

Discussion
This section discusses key themes based on the findings explained above.

Technology and pedagogical activities expanded social presence and “public” space
Technology expanded social and public space by providing more locations to communicate (e.g.
discussion forums, recorded videos, collaborative online documents) and increased permanence, sothat it could be viewed over time (e.g. recordings or text based vs spoken comments). Whenconsidered in terms of social presence this can expand opportunities to develop social relationships
through increased interaction regardless of physical location and time. However, expanding
opportunities to develop social presence also results in increased tensions in terms of private versus
public face whereby there may be concerns about future problems arising out of recorded text (e.g.
misunderstanding of peer review comments) or videos made today. Thus, pedagogical activities canbe used to expand social presence through technology. However, teachers should be cognizant that
although this expansion affords benefits, it can also increase opportunities for social tensions.

Technology and pedagogical activities mediated social presence and “public” space
Technology mediated social presence and public space both positively and negatively. Sound and180

DEVELOPING SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE CLASSES: A JAPANESE HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT

physical distance between people online is different from when meeting someone in person. Teachers
noticed that students were more reticent to share their opinion openly in front of a class on zoom
than a class in person. When all sound is muted the speaker is spotlighted so that both in audio andvideo they are on a more public display than if they are speaking from their seats and looking at theteacher and responding to a question. Also, reactions are muted and technical issues affectcommunication between people consequently affecting the psychological distance.
However, technology also enabled sharing opinions with reduced risk of losing public facethrough collecting private opinions efficiently and anonymously through online forms and polls. As
such pedagogical activities that incorporate this negotiation of public and private space can enhancesocial presence through encouraging more active anonymous participation. In addition, activities
spread out over time on online discussion forums appeared to enhance participation of students who
may be more reticent in speaking activities, and encouraged more depth to topics which required
more thought. As such, teachers should consider the social and psychological mediation that occurs
with the medium they choose to deliver the task.

The relationship of social presence and interaction is reflexive
This study confirms the relationship between social presence and interaction in the social
presence model (Figure 1) whereby increased social presence enhances interaction. In early online
classes students are reluctant to turn on the cameras, but after a couple of classes cameras are turnedon almost immediately when in the breakout rooms. In other words, increased social presence
affected willingness to communicate and trust, supporting previous research (e.g. Lowry et al.,2010). However, this study found that the frequency and depth of interaction also affects social
presence. The quality and extent of interaction between students affected their trust and willingness
to communicate and thus social presence. As such, we suggest the following modification (Figure 2)
to the model where the arrow indicates a reflexive relationship rather than one way flow.

Social Presence
IntimacyInteractivity

Interaction

SocialContext

OnlineCommunication

Increase

Immediacy

Figure 2. Proposed Modified Dimensions of Social Presence Model
Note. Our proposed modification to Tu & McIsaac’s (2002) model.

Conclusion
This study found that technology and pedagogical practices expand social space and mediate
communication. Social presence was enhanced online not only through increasing interactions but
also by removing face threatening barriers. Teachers can mediate the “private” and “public” views of181

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

communication through the media through which they choose to deliver activities. As teachers wemay understand our position of authority in the classroom and require our students to participate inactivities (e.g. video recordings or technology use) that may have a strong pedagogical value,
however these activities can also encroach on students’ privacy. More research that explores how tobalance privacy, pedagogy, and social presence online is recommended. Also, this research
confirmed that social presence influences interaction, however we found that the frequency anddepth of interaction also influences social presence. More research on the recursive relationshipbetween interaction and social presence is recommended. Although this research is limited to theimpressions of two Western educated English teachers, the findings may have pedagogicalimplications for those in similar contexts such as in other institutions in Japan, or other collectivist
cultures with high uncertainty avoidance and large private space, such as those in Asia and the
Middle East.

References
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an
online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teachingpresence. Journal of asynchronous learning networks, 12, 3-22.
Bialowas, A., & Steimel, S. (2019). Less Is More: Use of Video to Address the Problem of Teacher
Immediacy and Presence in Online Courses. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, 31(2), 354-364.
Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social
presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators & virtual environments, 12(5),456-480.
Garrison, D. R. (2016). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for researchand practice. Taylor & Francis.
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within acomputer‐mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3),8-26.
Hall, E. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York, NY: Doubleday/Anchor Books.
Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences: Germans, French, and Americans.
Yarmouth/Main: Intercultural Press.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 5).
Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind:
intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. McGraw-Hill.
Hostetter, C., & Busch, M. (2006). Measuring up online: The relationship between social presence
and student learning satisfaction. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1-12.
Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Kovanović, V., Riecke, B. E., & Hatala, M. (2015). Social presence inonline discussions as a process predictor of academic performance. Journal of computerassisted learning, 31(6), 638-654.
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of culture’s consequences: A
review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal ofinternational business studies, 37(3), 285-320.
Kittler, M. G., Rygl, D., & Mackinnon, A. (2011). Special Review Article: Beyond culture or beyond

182

DEVELOPING SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE CLASSES: A JAPANESE HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT

control? Reviewing the use of Hall’s high-/low-context concept. International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 11(1), 63-82.
Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2018). Investigating students’ perceptions of instructional strategies
to establish social presence. Distance Education, 39(3), 281-298.
Lowry, P. B., Zhang, D., Zhou, L., & Fu, X. (2010). Effects of culture, social presence, and groupcomposition on trust in technology‐supported decision‐making groups. Information Systems
Journal, 20(3), 297-315.
Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion
forums. Computers & education, 49(2), 193-213.
Oyarzun, B., Barreto, D., & Conklin, S. (2018). Instructor social presence effects on learner social
presence, achievement, and satisfaction. TechTrends, 62(6), 625-634.
Oztok, M., & Brett, C. (2011). Social presence and online learning: A review of the research.
Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human
Behavior, 71, 402-417.
Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course
discussions. Journal of asynchronous learning networks, 9(3), 115-136.
Tu, C.-H. (2002). The impacts of text-based CMC on online social presence. Journal of Interactive
online learning, 1(2), 1-24.
Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes.
The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-150.
Yildiz, S. (2009). Social presence in the web-based classroom: Implications for interculturalcommunication. Journal of studies in international education, 13(1), 46-65.

183

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）【研究報告】

課題からみた中国語オンライン授業の問題点
白方直美
Abstract
2020 School Year. In order to combat the spread of COVID－19, Rikkyo university held foreign language
classes online using Zoom throughout the year. For Chinese language classes, class instructors held twoclasses per week for each class during the fall semester. Grades were determined by having students submit
both written and voice－recording assignments created each time by the Chinese Language Program. The
authors analyzed essays and other written assignments from the fall semester and investigated areas inwhich student performance was lacking. Based on this discussion, we offer suggestions for how online
classes can be conducted more effectively.

Keywords: Online classes  Chinese language  Written assignments  Poor achievement Effective

0

はじめに

立教大学では 2020 年度新型コロナウィルス感染防止の観点から、外国語科目において ZOOM を使用したオンライン授業がおこなわれた。立教大学の第二外国語は 1 年間必修、週 2 回授業がおこなわれる。中
国語については、春学期は教育講師が自分の担当クラスとは関係なく複数クラスの授業を担当し、秋学期は各クラスの担当者が自分のクラスの授業をおこなうという形式をとった。学生は、春学期も秋学期も毎回授業後に中国語教育研究室が作成した録音課題と筆記課題の提出が求められ、各クラスの担当者が課題を採点
して成績評価した。そのため春学期は、授業実施者と課題採点者が異なる場合がほとんどであった。秋学期
は各クラスの担当者が授業と課題評価の両方を担当したので、この矛盾は解消された。筆者は、自分が担当した秋学期 3 クラス約 90 名の筆記課題のうち作文問題を中心にその誤答を分析し、特に中国語学習の基礎段階において必須でありながら習得できていない部分について考察した。

1

課題の構成と作文正答率

中国語の筆記課題は、中国語教育研究室が、全学統一で使用している教科書『協同学習で学ぶ中国語ステップアップ』の教授用資料付属の選択形式の小テストと、教科書の各課ドリルの作文問題を参考に作成した。
問題 A ～ D は選択問題で配点各 1 点、問題 E ～ G が作文で各 2 点、合計 10 点とした。作文の採点は、句読点と簡体字のミスがそれぞれマイナス 1 点、それ以外の間違いはマイナス 2 点という基準が示された 1 。この基準に従って採点した秋学期全 12 課の筆記課題の結果、筆者担当の 3 クラスで正答率が低かったものを順に表 1 に示す。

1

184

基準は中国語教育研究室主任が指示。

从构式看“V了一天N”与“V了N（的）一天”

表1
筆記課題作文の正答率
課 設問

問題

解答例

正答率（％）

6E

あなたは英語の歌を歌うのが本当にお上你英文歌唱得真好。－哪里哪里、你比我手ですね。―いえいえ、あなたの方がず（唱得）好多了。
っと上手です。

7.78

7

E

今日の夕飯は麻婆豆腐が食べたい？それ 今天晚饭你想吃麻婆豆腐还是想吃青椒肉
丝？
とも青椒肉丝が食べたい？

15.56

2

G

大学の向かいの寿司屋は高いし、美味し大学对面的寿司店又贵又不好吃。
くないです。

20.43

4

F

私の専攻は中国語なので、毎日 10 回本文 （因为）我的专业是汉语、所以每天（都）要读十遍课文。
を読まなければなりません。

20.88

6

G

彼女は小さい時から日本のアニメを見て、 她从小就看日本的动画片、现在日语说得
いま日本語を話すのが非常に流暢です。 非常流利。

21.11

10

F

誕生日プレゼントは家に持ち帰ってきま
生日礼物带回家来了。
した。

22.09

5

G

あなたたちの学校は駅からどれくらい遠你们学校离车站多远？－五百米左右。
いですか。－ 500 メートルくらいです。

23.08

3

G

田中さんは明日の午前、大学に中国語の田中明天上午去大学上汉语课。
授業を受けに行く。

30.43

12

F

弟は雨にぬれて風邪をひきました。彼は
弟弟被雨淋感冒了。他今天不能去打工了。
今日、バイトしに行けなくなりました。

31.11

12

G

子どもは学校のパソコンを壊してしまっ 孩子把学校的电脑弄坏了、所以被老师批评了。
たので、先生に叱られました。

31.11

2

語彙の問題

正答率が低かった課題について誤答個所を分析していくと、誤った語彙の使用が少なくないことがわかった。

2.1 「英語の歌」
正答率が最も低かった第 6 課 E「あなたは英語の歌を歌うのが本当にお上手ですね（你英文歌唱得真好）。
」の「英語の歌」の中国語は “ 英文歌 ” である。“ 英语 ” は春学期に使用した教科書『協同学習で学ぶ中国語
ビギニング』（以下、『ビギニング』）第 8 課に初出であるが、“ 英文 ” は『ビギニング』にも秋学期の『協同学習で学ぶ中国語ステップアップ』（以下『ステップアップ』）にも掲載されていない。
『ステップアップ』第 6 課に “ 你中文歌唱得怎么样（あなたは中国語の歌を歌うのはどうですか 2 ）？ ” という例文があるが 3 、この例文から推察して “ 英文歌 ” を解答するのはなかなか困難である。そのためか、“ 英语歌 ” の解答が 57.8
％ “ 英语的歌 ” の解答が 6.7％あった。“ 英文歌 ” と解答したのはほぼ 5 分の 1 にあたる 22.2％にすぎなか「中国語の歌」や「英語の歌」は、った。文字で書かれた中国語や英語を指す時は “ 中文 ” や “ 英文 ” を用いる 4 。
歌詞がその言語の文字で書かれたものであるから、“ 中文歌 ”、“ 英文歌 ” というべきである。「中国語」を表す “ 汉语 ” は『ビギニング』第 6 課、“ 中文 ” は『ビギニング』第 10 課に初出なので、“ 中文 ” を学ぶ
第 10 課で “ 汉语 ” との使い分けに言及するのがいい。そうすれば “ 中文书（中国語の本）”、“ 中文小说（中2 『協同学習で学ぶ中国語ステップアップ』教授用資料 p12 の日本語訳を引用
3 『協同学習で学ぶ中国語ステップアップ』p33
4 杉野元子・黄漢青著『大学生のための初級中国語 40 回』教授用資料 p115

185

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

国語の小説）”、“ 中文报（中国語新聞）” などのことばを正しく使うことができる。

2.2

回数表現

動作の回数を表す「～回」は中国語には複数あり、それぞれに使い分けがある。第 4 課 F「毎日 10 回本文を読まなければならない（每天都要读十遍课文）。
」の「 10 回」は、最初から最後までの全プロセスで 1回を表す“遍”を使わなければならない。しかし “ 十遍 ” と正しく解答したのは60.4％、“ 十次 ” が25.3％、“ 十回 ” が 6.6％あった。回数表現については、『ステップアップ』第 4 課の本文に “ 大概两、三次吧。
（ネットショッピングは週にたぶん 2、3 回かな）” とある 5 。また同じ第 4 課の文法表現の例文 “ 今天你读了几遍课文（今日あなたは何回教科書の本文を読みましたか）？ ”6 に “ 遍 ” が使われている。本文だけではなく、この例文及び教員の解説をしっかり学習していれば、この間違いは生じなかったように思う。

2.3

方位詞＋名詞

第 2 課 G「大学の向かいの寿司屋」は「方位詞＋名詞」であるが、方位詞が修飾語になって名詞を修飾す
る時、方位詞と修飾を受ける名詞の間にはふつう “ 的 ” を入れて「方位詞＋ “ 的 ” ＋名詞」としなければな「大学の向かいの寿司屋」は “ 大学对面的寿司店”となる。しかしこの “ 的 ” がなく、“ 大らない 7 。そのため、
学对面（一家）寿司店 ” と解答したのが半数近い 45.2％にのぼった。方位詞は『ビギニング』第 9 課で学”とドリルの作文問題に “ 上海火车站后面（上習するが、名詞と方位詞を組み合わせる例は“桌子上（机の上）
海駅の裏側）” があるだけなので、第 9 課で方位詞を学習する時に、「名詞＋方位詞」と「方位詞＋ “ 的 ”＋名詞」について詳しく説明する必要がある。

2.4

時間詞

第 3 課 G「田中さんは明日の午前、大学に中国語の授業を受けに行く（田中明天上午去大学上汉语课。）」の「明日の午前（明天上午）」を “ 明天早上（明日の朝）” と解答したのが 9.8％、“ 明天下午（明日の午後）”の解答が 4.4％あった。いずれも『ビギニング』第 1 課の最初のあいさつで学ぶものであるが、一部習得できていないことが分かる。

2.5

呼称「～君」、「～さん」

中国では親しい人を呼ぶ時、フルネームまたは漢字 1 字の姓の前に “ 小 ” や “ 老 ” をつけて呼ぶのが一般的である。第 1 課 F「劉君はアメリカ映画をたくさん見たことはあるが、日本映画は見たことがない（小刘看过很多美国电影、可是没看过日本电影）。
」の解答で、「劉君」を “ 刘 ” と訳したのが 15.2％、日本語をまねて “ 刘君 ” と訳したのが 7.6％あった。“ 小刘 ” と正解したのはほぼ半数の 47.9％、日本語漢字を書いた “ 小劉 ” が 16.0％あった。この項目は『ビギニング』第 8 課の例文 “ 小王（王君）” に初出であるが、教科書には説明がない。そのため『ビギニング』第 8 課を学習する際に授業担当者が説明しなければならないところであった。一方第 3 課 G で日本人の「田中さん」を “ 小田中 ” と書いた解答が 7 例（ 7.6％）あった。

2.6

親族呼称

“爸爸（父）”、“妈妈（母）”、“哥哥（兄）”、“姐姐（姉）”、“弟弟（弟）”、“妹妹（妹）”といった親族呼称
5 『協同学習で学ぶ中国語ステップアップ』p24
6 『協同学習で学ぶ中国語ステップアップ』p25
7 『現代中国語文法総覧』くろしお出版社 p45 『外国人学汉语难点释疑』 北京语言大学出版社 p71

186

从构式看“V了一天N”与“V了N（的）一天”

は基本語彙であるが、一部に混乱が見られた。第 5 課 E「兄は父より 2 センチ背が高く、私は兄よりさらに高いです（哥哥比爸爸高两公分、我比哥哥还高）。」では、“ 爸爸（父）” を “ 父 ” と解答したのが 4 例（ 4.4％）あった。“ 儿子（息子）” は『ステップアップ』第 10 課に出ており、第 10 課 E「彼は彼の息子にカメラを 1 台買ってあげました（他给他儿子买了一台照相机）。」では “ 儿子 ” の間違いはなかったが、第 11 課
E「お母さんは息子にゲームをさせず、宿題を書かせます（妈妈不让儿子玩儿游戏、让儿子写作业）。」で「息子」を “ 儿子（息子）” ではなく ” 孩子（子ども）“ と訳したのが 27.5％あった。また第 12 課 F「弟は雨にぬれて風邪をひきました（弟弟被雨淋感冒了）。
」では “ 弟弟（弟）” を “ 弟々 ” と書いたのが 2 例、“ 哥哥（兄）” が 1 例あった。
『ビギニング』第 4 課は家族紹介を中心に学ぶが、“ 弟弟（弟）”、“ 兄弟姐妹（兄弟姉妹）”、ひいては「祖父母」などの語彙が抜けており、親族呼称をまとめて覚える機会がなかったように思われる。一部は補充単語で補填したが、親族呼称は一度にまとめて教授して単語テストなどを実施する
ことにより、学習の初期段階で定着を図るべきであると思う。

2.7 「教える」の “ 告诉 ” と “ 教 ”
中国語の “ 教 “ は知識や技能など人に伝える意味での「教える」、一方 “ 告诉 ” は意志や情報を伝える意
味での「教える」である。第 8 課 F「あなたにひとつ良い情報を教えてあげる（我告诉你一个好消息）。」は「情報の伝達」なので ,“ 告诉 ” を使わなければならないところを “ 教 ” を使って解答したものが 22.4％あった。日本語では同じ「教える」でも、中国語は「何を教えるか」によって異なる動詞を使うことをしっか
り教えるべきである。

2.8“二”と“两“
中国語では数「 2 」を表現するのに、主に序数を表す “ 二 ” と、数量を表す “ 两 ” があり、厳格な使い分けが求められる。今回の課題で「 2 」に関する表現は第 1 課 E「昨日私はリンゴを 2 つ買いましたが、今日は買いませんでした（昨天我买了两个苹果、可是今天没买）。」、第 4 課 E「私はアメリカ文化に夢中で、最近は毎日 2 時間半アメリカ音楽を聞きます（我迷上了美国文化、最近每天都听两个半小时美国音乐）。
」、
第 5 課 E「兄は父より 2 センチ背が高く、私は兄よりさらに高いです（哥哥比爸爸高两公分、我比哥哥还高）。
」
が出題された。いずれも “ 两 “ を使用せねばならず、それぞれ “ 两个苹果（リンゴ 2 個）”、“ 两个半小时（2時間半）”、“ 两公分 ” または “ 两厘米（ 2 センチ）”“ が正しい答えである。
表2「 2 」を表す “ 两 ” の解答
第1課E

第4課E

两个苹果（リンゴ 2 個）两个半小时（ 2 時間半）

第5課E
两公分／两厘米（ 2 センチ）
8两公分60（ 65.9％）1（ 1.1％）

二公分

14（ 15.4％）

二个苹果

5（ 5.3％）2 公分

9（ 9.9％）二斤苹果

2（ 2.1％）两厘米3（ 3.3％）二厘米

1（ 1.1％）

2 厘米

1（ 1.1％）

两个苹果81（ 86.2％）

2 个苹果

两个半小时

79（ 86.8％）

上記の結果より、“ 两 ” については比較的よく習得できているとは思うが、正答が 100％になるよう徹底する必要がある。88100％でないのは、“ 两个小时 ”、“ 两个小时半 ”、“ 两个半时 ” などの解答があったからである。

187

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

3
3.1

文法の問題

連体修飾語を導く助詞 “ 的 ”

中国語では、人称代名詞が親族呼称や所属機関を修飾する時、日本語の「～の」に相当する “ 的 ” はふつう用いない。
第 5 課 G「あなたたちの学校」は “ 你们学校 ” であるが、“ 你们的学校 ”59 例（ 64.8％）、“ 您的学校 ”2例（ 2.2％）、“ 你的学校 ”5 例（ 5.5％）あり、“ 你们学校 ” と正解したのは約 4 分の 1 の 23 例（ 25.3％）だった。また第 4 課 E で「彼の息子（他儿子）」を “ 他的儿子 ” としたのが 46 例（ 53.5％）、第 2 課 F「私の故郷（我老家）」を “ 我的老家（家乡）” としたのが 31 例（ 31.3％）あり、“ 的 ” の省略が未習得である
ことがわかる。
逆に、“ 的 ” が必要な場合に “ 的 ” が使用されていなかった解答例もある。第 12 課 G「学校のパソコン」
を “ 学校电脑 ” が 11（ 12.2％）、第 2 課 G「大学の向かいの寿司屋」を “ 大学对面寿司店 ” が 42（ 45.2％）あった。
“ 的 ” については、『ビギニング』第 5 課の文法表現で学習するが、上述の “ 的 ” の省略について教科書の説明がなかったために、誤答が多かったと考えられる。春学期の第 5 課で文法を教える時に、“ 的 ” の省略についてしっかり補充して説明すべきであると思う。

3.2

前置詞 “ 从（～から）”9

前置詞 “ 从 ” は動作の時間や場所の起点を導く、非常によく使われる前置詞の一つである。第 3 課 E は、“ 是表3
第 3 課 E の誤答記述一覧
誤答例
不是从美国来的、从加拿大来的不是从美国来、她是从加拿大来不是从美国来、是从加拿大来的不是从美国来、从加拿大来的「～から来た」の表現

5（ 5.4 ）从美国来、从加拿大来1（ 1.1 ）跟是从美国来的不一样、是从加拿大来的

9188

解答数（％）

不是从美国来的、是从加拿大（的）从美国来、从加拿大3（ 3.3 ）不是从美国的、是从加拿大来的从美国、从加拿大来

1（ 1.1 ）从美国不来、从加拿大来的从美国不来、从加拿大来1（ 1.1 ）不是从美国、是从加拿大（来的）从美国、从加拿大（来的）2（ 2.2 ）不是从中国来的、她是从美国来的从中国来、从美国来1（ 1.1 ）95（ 5.4 ）不是来自美国、（而）是来自加拿大来自美国、来自加拿大

不是来自美国、她是来加拿大来自美国、来加拿大1（ 1.1 ）不是来美国、（她）是来加拿大不来美国、是来加拿大的

来美国、来加拿大10（ 10.9 ）不是美国来的、是加拿大来的

美国来、加拿大来

2（ 2.2 ）不是从来美国、是从来加拿大从来美国、从来加拿大3（ 3.3 ）不是跟来美国的、是跟来加拿大的跟来美国、跟来加拿大3（ 3.3 ）不是跟美国来的、是跟加拿大来的跟美国来、跟加拿大来1（ 1.1 ）不是来从美国、是来从加拿大来从美国、来从加拿大1（ 1.1 ）不来从美国、来从加拿大不来从美国、来从加拿大1（ 1.1 ）不是美国人、是加拿大人

不是美国人、是加拿大人

1（ 1.1 ）“ 来自 ” は正しい解答であるが、教科書で学んでいないので、不正解に分類した。

从构式看“V了一天N”与“V了N（的）一天”～的 ” 構文と絡めて、「彼女はアメリカから来たのではなく、カナダから来たのです。
」という作文が出題されたが、“她不是从美国来的、（而）是从加拿大来的。”と完全に正しく解答できたのは半数足らずの 47.8％だった。“ 从～来”の部分だけ見ても、表 3 のように様々なパターンの誤答があり、定着できていないことが分かる。
『ステップアップ』第 3 課に “ 他不是从中国来的（彼は中国から来たのではない）。”1 0 という例文があり、これが習得できていれば間違うことはないのであるが、前置詞 “ 从”の重要性やこれだけ多様な間違いがあることを考えると、“ 从 ” を独立した文法項目を立てて教える必要があると思われる。

3.3

補語

3.3.1

時量補語

時量補語は、日本語と語順が異なるために注意を要する文法項目のひとつである。日本語では「時間量＋目的語＋動詞（ 1 年間中国語を学んだ）」だが、中国語は「動詞＋時間量＋目的語（学了一年汉语）」の語順になる。第 4 課 E「最近は毎日 2 時間半アメリカ音楽を聞きます（最近每天听两个半小时美国音乐）」の正
答率は 38.5％、語順間違いは 7.7％だった。
3.3.2

回数補語

第 4 課 F「私の専攻は中国語なので、毎日 10 回本文を読まなければなりません（我的专业是汉语、所以每天都要读十遍课文）。」が出題された。「～回」の表現については前述の語彙の問題 1.2 で述べたので、主に回数補語で重要な語順「動詞＋回数＋目的語」についてみると、語順ミスは 4.4％でかなり少なく、主な間違いが “ 每天 ” の位置だったことを考えると、時量補語同様に回数補語の語順についても習得度が比較的高いと思われる。
3.3.3

様態補語

様態補語を使って解答する設問は、第 6 課 E「あなたは英語の歌を歌うのが本当にお上手ですね」、第 6課 G「（彼女は小さい時から日本のアニメを見て）いま日本語を話すのが非常に流暢です」、第 7 課 F「彼女は洋食を作るのがとても上手で、（私は残さず食べました）」、の 3 問ある。
”
第 6 課 E の「あなたは英語の歌を歌うのが本当にお上手ですね。」の解答例は “ 你（唱）英文歌唱得真好。
である。本論の語彙の問題 2.1 で述べた「英語の歌」の中国語訳以外での間違いを見ると、補語の部分の程度副詞の “ 真 ” を “ 很 ” としたものが 5.6％、また “ 很真好 ” の解答も 1 例あった。後半の「あなたの方がずっと上手です。」は様態補語と比較の両方を含むので難問である。解答例は “ 你比我（唱得）好多了 ” または “ 你（唱得）比我好多了 ”、目的語も含めて訳す場合は、“ 你比我唱英文歌唱得好多了 ” または “ 你唱
英文歌比我唱得好多了 ”、“ 你唱英文歌唱得比我好多了 ”1 1 、また “ 好多了 ” の部分を “ 好得多 ” としても同
じく正解であるため、正答例は理論的には 6 パターンあるが、こうした目的語を含んだ解答例はなかった。
第 6 課 G「彼女は小さい時から日本のアニメを見て、いま日本語を話すのが非常に流暢です（她从小就看
日本的动画片、现在日语说得非常流利）。
」の解答をみていくと、やはり補語部分の程度副詞の間違いが多く、“ 非常”を使わず “ 很 “ と解答したのが半数近くの 45.6％あった。またこの問題では、前節の主語が “ 她（彼女）” で、後節の主語が “ 我（私）” になるというミスが 6.7％あった。
第 7 課 F「彼女は洋食を作るのがとても上手で、私は残さず食べました（她西餐做得很好、我都吃光了）。
」の解答をみると、“ 做西餐得真好 ” のように目的語の後ろに動詞を繰り返していない解答が 6.7％あった。
またこの問題では後半の “ 我都吃光了 ” の “ 都 ” がなくても文法上間違いではないので、今回は正答に含めたために正答率が上がったが、“ 都 ” がなかった解答が非常に多かった。全体的にみて様態補語の習得度はわりと低いように感じられる。

10 『協同学習で学ぶ中国語ステップアップ』p21
11 『現代中国語文法総覧』くろしお出版社 p701『 HSK 语法指要与训练』北京大学出版社 p21

189

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

表4
様態補語の解答分析
設問番号

第6課G

第7課F

彼女は洋食を作るのがとて
あなたは英語の歌を歌うの いま日本語を話すのが非常も上手で、私は残さず食べが本当にお上手ですね。
に流暢です。
ました。

日本語
中国語

第6課E

模範解答例

你（唱）英文歌唱得真好。 现在日语说得非常流利。”

她西餐做得很好、我都吃光了。

“ 得 ” の前の動詞なし

1

1.1％

1

1.1％

6

6.7％

目的語の間違い

64

71.1％

2

2.2％

3

3.3％

程度副詞等補語の間違い

10

11.1％

49

54.4％

11

12.2％

様態補語を使わない

2

2.2％

7

7,8％

3

3.3％

3.3.4 結果補語
結果補語を含む作文課題は、第 7 課 F「私は残さず食べました（我都吃光了）。
」、第 10 課 G「宿題は書き終わりましたか（作业写完了吗）？」の 2 問ある。第 7 課の “ 吃光了 ” の正答率は 73.3％1 2 であるが、様態補語で述べたように、“ 都 ” がないものが半数以上の 66.7％あった。一方第 10 課の “ 作业写完了吗？ ”の正答率は 97.7％1 3 、これは第 10 課の本文やドリルに同様の問題があるために習得率が高かったと思われる。
表5
結果補語の解答分析
課題番号
日本語
中国語

模範解答例

第7課F

第 10 課 G

私は残さず食べました。

宿題は書き終わりましたか

我都吃光了。

作业写完了吗 / 写完作业了吗

正答

6“ 都 ” なし

“吃光了”

結果補語の使用ミス

“吃完了”

60
3

6.7％

84

97.7％

66.7％

－

－

3.3％

0

0％

結果補語を使っていない

3

3.3％

0

0％

補語の後ろの “ 了 ” の問題

14

15.6％

0

0％

3.3.5

方向補語

方向補語は、第 10 課 F「誕生日プレゼントは家に持ち帰ってきました（生日礼物带回家来了）。」、第 10課 G「持ってきて私にちょっと見せなさい（拿过来给我看看）。
」の 2 題出題されている。
第 10 課 F「誕生日プレゼントは家に持ち帰ってきました（生日礼物带回家来了）。」で間違いが多かったのは、「持ち帰ってきました（带回家来了）」を、“ 带回家去了 ” と解答したのが約 29％あった。日本語の「来た」をそのまま “ 来了 ” と訳せばいいのに、なぜ “ 去了 ” と解答したかはわからない。またこの問題は、“ 把 ”
構文を習っていない段階なので、目的語の「誕生日プレゼント（生日礼物）」を文頭に置き、「家に持ち帰る」
を “ 带回家来 ” と表現しなければならない。しかし目的語の「誕生日プレゼント（生日礼物）」を方向補語 “ 来 ”の後ろに置いた解答が 16.3％あった。これは、方向補語の目的語の位置を説明する時に、場所目的語は “ 来

12
13

190

この数値は “ 吃光了 ” のみ正しく書けた割合
この数値は「宿題は書き終わりましたか（ “ 作业写完了吗？ ”“ 写完作业了吗？ ” ）」の正答率

从构式看“V了一天N”与“V了N（的）一天”/ 去 ” の前、物の目的語は “ 来 / 去 ” の後ろと強調し、両者が同時に現れるこの設問のような場面を教えていなかったことに起因する。一方第 10 課 G「持ってきて私にちょっと見せなさい（拿过来给我看看）。」の “ 拿过来 ” の正答率は 90.1％1 4 、これは第 10 課に同じ文があるため 1 5 、正答率が高かったと考えられる。
表6
方向補語の解答分析
課題番号

第 10 課 G

誕生日プレゼントは家に持ち帰って持ってきて私にちょっと見せなさい
きました。

日本語
中国語

第 10 課 F

模範解答例

生日礼物带回家来了。

方向補語 “ 来 ” の使用ミス

27（ “ 去 ” ）31.4％

1（ “ 去 ” ）1.2％

方向補語 “ 来 ” を使っていない

6

7.0％

5

5.7％

目的語の位置間違い

16

18.6％

―

―

正解

25

29.1％

78

90.1％

3.4

比較

3.4.1

“ 比 ” を使う比較拿过来给我看看。

。
第 5 課 E「兄は父より 2 センチ背が高く、私は兄よりさらに高いです（哥哥比爸爸高两公、我比哥哥还高。
）」
この作文は、語彙の問題を除くと、文法的に大きな間違いはなかった。
第 6 課 E「いえいえ、あなたの方がずっと上手です（哪里哪里、你比我好多了）。
」については 3.3.3 の様
態補語でも述べたが、目的語を書かなくても日本語と同じように中国語に訳して “ 你比我好多了 ” または “ 你
比我好得多 ” を正解とすることができる。この部分を正しく書けたのは前者が 11.1％、後者が 6.7％だった。
3.4.2

比較の否定 “ 没有 ”

“ 没有 ” を使う比較の否定は作文には出題されておらず、第 5 課 C 「このパソコンはあのパソコンほど重くない。
」の中国語訳を選ぶ問題に 1 題出題され、正答率は 92.3％だった。
3.4.3

同程度の表現 “ 跟～（不）一样 “

第 3 課 F「中国の大学生は日本の大学生と違い、アルバイトをしたがらない人が多いです（中国大学生和日本大学生不一样、很多人不想打工）。
」同程度の表現は “ 跟～（不）一样 ” しか学んでいないが、“ 于～不同 ”
を使って解答したのが 2.2％、正答率は 65.2％だった。
）」これも “ 跟～一样 ”
第 5 課 F「日本の漫画は映画と同じくらい面白い。（日本的漫画喝电影一样有意思。
を使うが、正答率は 60.4％、“ 不比 ” を使用したのが 6 例（ 6.6％）あった。

3.5“ 是～的 ” 構文
“ 是～的 ” 構文はステップアップ第 3 課で学習する。課題作文では第 3 課 E「彼女はアメリカから来たの。」が出題されている。ここ
ではなく、カナダから来たのです（她不是从美国来的、（而）是从加拿大来的）は前述 3.2 前置詞で主に“从”の使い方を中心に述べたが、“ 是～的 ” 構文に着目して解答を分析すると、以下の表のようになる。

14 この数値は “ 拿过来 ” のみ正しく書けた割合
15 『協同学習で学ぶ中国語ステップアップ』p50

191

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

表7“ 是～的 ” 構文の誤答パターン
正解“不是～的、（而）是～的”13（ 14.1％）

前節に “ 的 ” を欠く“不是～、（而）是～的”3（ 3.3％）

後節に “ 的 ” を欠く“不是～的、（而）是～”3（ 3.3％）

前節後節ともに “ 的 ” を欠く“不是～、（而）是～”13（ 14.1％）

誤答合計

19（ 20.7％）“ 是～的 ” 構文は、すでに起こったことについて、起こった時間や場所などを取りたてて説明したり聞いたりする時に用いる構文で、“ 是 “ は省略できる場合もあるが、この問題のように「～ではなく、～である」と説明する文では“不是～的、（而）是～的”のいずれも欠かせない。にもかかわらず、“ 的 ” を欠いた解答が多かったことは、“ 是～的 ” 構文がかなり習得できていないことが分かる。

3.6

兼語文

兼語文は第 11 課に 2 題出題されている。
第 11 課 E「お母さんは息子にゲームをさせず、宿題を書かせます（妈妈不让儿子玩儿游戏、让儿子写作业。）。
」
語彙の問題以外で目立ったのは、使役の意味を表す動詞 “ 让 ” の後ろの目的語（すなわち兼語）が抜けていたことである。この文の前半は「息子にゲームをさせず」とあるために、「息子」が抜けていた解答はなかったが、後半の「宿題を書かせます」には日本語の「誰に」がないために兼語がない “ 让写作业 ” という解答が 13.2％あった。日本語には「誰にさせる」という目的語がなくても、中国語では「使役の対象」がな
いと兼語文が成り立たないことを注意すべきであった。
第 11 課 F「私にちょっと見せて下さい（让我看看吧）」この問題の本来の意図は、“ 让 ” を使う兼語表現をみるものであるが、第 10 課の本文 1 6 に “ 拿过来给我看看（持ってきて私にちょっと見せなさい）。」という文があるため、“ 让 ” ではなく “ 给 ” を使って解答したものが約半数の 49.5％あった。もちろん “ 给我看看。” も正解ではあるが、兼語文の習得を見るためには、違った問題にするべきであったと思う。

3.7

受け身文

受け身文は第 12 課に三題出題されている。E「誰が首相に選ばれたのですか（是谁被选为首相了）？」、
F「弟は雨にぬれて風邪をひきました（弟弟被雨淋感冒了）」、G「子どもは学校のパソコンを壊してしまっ（孩子把学校的电脑弄坏了、所以被老师批评了。
）」
たので、先生に叱られました。
F の正答率は 31.1％とやや低めではあるが、間違いは主に後半の「今日はバイトしに行けなくなった。
」にあり、前半の「弟は雨にぬれて風邪をひきました（弟弟被雨淋感冒了）」の受け身部分の間違いは “ 感冒 ”が抜けて “ 被雨淋了 ” としたのが 2 例のみあった。これは教科書の例文やドリル、読解に「雨に濡れて風邪をひいた」という表現が繰り返し出てくるために定着率が高かった。G の正答率は 31.1％で、この問題の間違いも主に前半の「子どもは学校のパソコンを壊してしまった（孩子把学校的电脑弄坏了）」にあり、後半の受け身表現の間違いは動詞の後ろの “ 了 ” がなかったのが 4 例、“ 了 ” を “ 过 ” としたのが 1 例、“ 老师 ”
を “ 妈妈 ” と書いたのが 3 例だった。これも「～に叱られた」という表現が教科書の例文やドリルに出て来たので、よく習得できていたと思う。

16 『協同学習で学ぶ中国語ステップアップ』p50

192

从构式看“V了一天N”与“V了N（的）一天”

3.8“ 把 ” 構文（孩“ 把 ” 構文は、第 12 課の G「子どもは学校のパソコンを壊してしまったので、先生に叱られました。
子把学校的电脑弄坏了、所以被老师批评了。
）」に出題され、正答率は 31.1％だった。教科書のドリルの作
文に「子どもはパソコンを壊してしまったので、お母さんに叱られました。（孩子把电脑弄坏了、所以被妈妈批评了。
）」と、ほぼ似たような問題があり、そのためか「学校のパソコン（学校的电脑）」を単に「パソコン（电脑）」としたのが 21.1％、「先生（老师）」を「お母さん（妈妈）」としたのが 3.3％あった。こうした語彙ミス以外で “ 把 ” 構文自体が理解できていないと思われる誤答は、以下のとおりである。
表8“ 把 ” 構文の誤答例“ 把 ” の後ろに動詞を置く孩子把弄坏学校（的）电脑。

2   （ 2.2％）

動詞の問題“ 了 ” がない

孩子把学校电脑弄坏。

4   （ 4.4％）“ 坏 ” がない

孩子把学校电脑弄了。

1   （ 1.1％）“ 弄坏 “ がない孩子把学校的电脑了。

1   （ 1.1％）孩子弄坏（学校的）电脑（了）。

4   （ 4.4％）“ 把 ” を使っていない
合計

12（ 13.3％）

表の結果より、“ 把 ” 構文が理解できていないと考えられるのは 1 割強だった。比較的習得が難しいと考えられている “ 把 ” 構文であるが、似たような問題がドリルにあったためか、習得度はわりと高かったと思われる。

4

簡体字の問題

ミスが多かった簡体字について、誤答率が高い順に以下の表に示す。
表9
簡体字誤答率
順位

簡体字

日本語漢字

誤答率（％）

1

着

着

42.2

2

博

博

36.7

3

晚

晩

34.4

4

喝

喝

34.1

5

乐

楽

31.9

間違えやすい簡体字について、筆者は新出単語を教える時に最大フォントの 96 を使用した PPT 画面を
ZOOM で写し、日本語漢字と対比させて注意を促したが、それでもやはり間違いが多かった。とりわけ “ 着（着）” や “ 晚（晩）” は、日本語漢字では 2 画で書く斜め線を、簡体字では 1 画で書かなければならないが、いつもの習慣で日本語と同じ漢字を書いた解答が多かった。また “ 博（博）” や “ 喝（喝）” のように、日本語漢字と微妙に異なる漢字については、特に重点的に注意を促していく必要がある。

193

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

5

まとめ

本論では、ZOOM を使ったオンライン授業中に提出された筆記課題を中心に、学習者が習得できていな
いと思われる部分を見てきた。単語習得の問題は特に深刻である。初級段階で当然知っておかなければならない単語 1 7 も間違えている例が多く、以前は一課毎に頻繁にやっていた単語テストができなかった状況を痛感した。単語については、単語テストができないオンライン授業の状況であれば、カメラをオンにして単語のディクテーションをやり、それを直ちにブラックボードに提出させる方法などをとるとことができる。文法は、教科書の本文やドリルなどで繰り返し出る表現はよくできているが、応用になると正答率が下がる。
この問題を解消するためには、特に教科書で詳しく説明されていない文法事項 1 8 を洗い出して練習問題を作成する。書かせるだけでなく、一つの文型を準備して単語を替えた口頭の入れ替え練習をやり、重要な構文については最低 3 回作文や並び換え等の練習問題をやると定着率が高まると思う。

6

おわりに

オンライン授業は、たとえ双方向であっても、学生一人一人の状況を細かく見ることはできない。教員は課題などで随時学習状況を把握し、指導していかなければならない。外国語学習、特に中国語のように日本人にとっては文字（漢字）で表記した文章は理解しやすいが、聞いてわからない、話せないという弱点をオンライン授業でいかに克服していくかは大きな問題である。立教大学では、筆記課題と交互に毎週録音課題（指定された文を読んで録音し提出する）を課し、担当教員がそれを採点してフィードバックする方式がとられた。学生がそのフィードバックをどれだけ真剣に受けとめたかが重要である。一部には友人と一緒に課題をしたり、筆記の作文課題で翻訳ソフトを使って解答したものなど、見えないからこその不安要素もある。
オンライン授業がいつまで続くかはわらないが、今後再度オンライン授業を実施することになった時に、質の高い教育を提供できるよう今回の経験を総括して問題点を洗い出し、将来のために準備することが大切である。

＜参考文献＞李偉

管虹

岩田好司著『協同学習で学ぶ中国語ビギニング』三修社 2020李偉

管虹岩田好司著『協同学習で学ぶ中国語ステップアップ』三修社 2020

杉野元子・黄漢青著『大学生のための初級中国語 40 回』教授用資料

白帝社 2013

劉月華

他著

相原茂

石田知子

葉盼雲

   北京语言大学出版社 1999
呉中偉編著『外国人学漢語難点釈疑』

彭小川

李守紀

韓志剛

張文賢編著『 HSK 语法指要与训练』北京大学出版社 2004

17
18

194

相原茂監訳 『現代中国語文法総覧』 くろしお出版社 1996
戸沼市子

共著『 Why ？にこたえるはじめての中国語の文法書』同学社 2008

王紅著『対外漢語教学語法釈疑 201 例』商務印書館 2006

親族呼称や “ 上午 ” などの時間詞
助詞 “ 的 ” をふつう使わない場合や前置詞 “ 从 ” の使い方など

【Book Review】

CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning.
Do Coyle, Philip Hood, and David Marsh. Cambridge University
Press, 2010. X + 173pp.
Kevin ThomasThis book aims to give the reader an overview of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated
Learning), its history, theoretical basis and practice. The first two chapters discuss the history of andcurrent trends in CLIL. The third chapter explores the theoretical underpinning of CLIL. Chaptersfour to seven provide a guide to putting CLIL into practice, including curriculum design, selection,
creation of CLIL materials, evaluation, and assessment. Finally, chapter seven devotes itself to a
discussion of the possible future of CLIL. CLIL has increasingly been adopted by Japanese
universities, with content being taught in English with the expectation of language being learnt
during the process (Brown & Bradford, 2017). However, to the authors’ knowledge, instructors onsuch courses are often not made explicitly aware that they are expected to teach CLIL and lackknowledge of the theoretical basis for and principled practice of such courses. This could be a danger
as the unprepared teacher may overlook the importance of either the language or content element
when planning or teaching. This book could be of great value to curriculum designers and instructorsof any course in which content is taught in English as a second or foreign language, and increased
proficiency is expected as a result of the course in addition to content knowledge.
Chapters one and two define CLIL and explain why many higher education institutions havedecided to adopt it to a lesser or greater extent. CLIL is defined as a teaching and learning process
in which content provision and language learning are intertwined. Although greater focus may beplaced on one or the other at different times, both elements must always be present. It is describedas not a pedagogy in itself but as an approach that allows the course designer or teacher (provider)to choose the best language supportive methodologies while delivering content in the desired second
or foreign language.
CLIL provision in English is argued to be attractive to university program designers as they
increasingly recognize the role of English in a globalized world, with English as a lingua franca. It has
been seen as a way of increasing students’ exposure to language in a context where time for explicit
language instruction is limited. Language educators, meanwhile, have been keen to employ it aslearning language. Content has been seen as aiding cognitive flexibility and encouraging language
retention. It has also been seen as increasing authenticity both in the method of language learning,which moves away from grammar-based curriculum, and the authenticity of materials used in class.
Unit three shows how a wide range of theory can be seen to support CLIL provision. Arguably,
the most useful theoretical approaches that can be employed when deciding how to put CLIL into
practice are “The Language Triptych” and “The 4Cs framework”. The language triptych can be used
to aid selection of the language presented and activities used in class to enable students to tackle
content and retain language. One point on the triptych is language of learning, which refers tolanguage students requiring access to the meaning of content. Teachers instead of relying on
grammatical instructions should consider the functional and notional levels of difficulty demanded by
the content. The second point of the triptych is Language for learning, which is the language students

195外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

will need to employ in the process of learning such as asking questions and debating. The third,
language through learning, focuses on how language retention can be encouraged through theinclusion of interactive activities in which students meaningfully engage with content.
The 4Cs framework, which has been described as providing principled and effective guidance to
CLIL providers (MacGregor, 2016), uses the concepts of communication, content, cognition, andcontext to help providers plan and put CLIL into practice. The 4Cs are used to guide teachers in theirinterweaving of content and language provision and allow them to analyse whether there is a gap
between student’s language ability and the demands of content material selected.
Chapters four to seven concern themselves with putting CLIL theory into practice. Chapter 4
presents a six-stage toolkit that can be used when designing a CLIL curriculum. It includes things to
consider when selecting content and material, how to analyse materials for generic traits that learners
need to be aware of and the language and skills student will need to engage with the content. How
best to develop needed skills and language is outlined, asking the provider to consider whether thisis best done through example, tasks or explicit language instruction. It is often repeated that there isno one way of teaching CLIL and that CLIL is a principled approach to integrating content andlanguage that can take many forms.
Chapter five gives guidance on the selection and possible adaptation of authentic materials to be
used in CLIL classes which is usually necessary due to the lack of available commercial material,
especially in Japan (Griffiths, 2019). It is advised to consider the suitability of materials from various
viewpoints considering any adaptions to be made and activities that will be needed to meet thecontent input such as awareness-raising activities on either language or content. Chapters six andseven are concerned with how to assess students and how to evaluate the course for future
improvements. How assessment should be weighted between content knowledge and language use
is discussed. Evaluation of the course is also framed in such terms, discussing how the different
strands of CLIL should be considered together when deciding how successful a course was.
The final chapter discusses the possible future of CLIL. As this book was first published over a
decade ago, some ideas might be out of date and superseded Do Coyle and Oliver Meyer’s Beyond
CLIL published in June 2021.
This book is thoroughly recommended for teachers who are attempting to teach content andlanguage at the same time, maybe unknowingly practising CLIL. The approach to detailed teachingis flexible in the fact that it isn’t a pedagogy, allowing the teacher to put their teaching style into the
CLIL classroom. However, the guidelines provided will allow the teacher to supplement their teachingstyle with principled and focused frameworks for effectively integrating content and language
provision.

References
Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2017). EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing approaches and goals. In P. Clements,
A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Transformation in language education. Tokyo: JALT. ISBN: 978-4901352-54-3.
Griffiths, M. (2019) Adapting and Scaffolding Texts in CLIL Material. In R. Debopriyo & J. Blake(Eds.), PanSIG Journal 2019 (pp. 117-131). Tokyo: JALT. ISBN# 978-4-901352-58-1.
MacGregor, L. (2016). CLIL Focus: An Interview with Professor Makoto Ikeda. The Language
Teacher, 20(1), 18-21. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTTLT40.1.

196

前書き
2020 年立教大学に発足した外国語教育研究センターは次世代の外国語教育推進する要となる組織として重要な役割を担っている。発足初年度には世界的パンデミックの蔓延を受け、その渦中にありつつも、教育と研究の推進を着実に行うべく邁進してきた。センターに所属する全ての教員・職員の方々にまず深く御礼を申し上げたい。
多岐に渡るセンターの活動において、知識と実践の共有の場として 2020 年 8 月 30 日には「グローバル
社会で生き抜く力を育てる外国語教育」と題して、オンラインによるセンター開設記念シンポジウムを開催した。また翌年 2021 年 7 月 24 日には、複言語主義に基づいた大学教育実践への取り組み～仏独西中朝英の教育現場から」と冠した第二回オンラインシンポジウムを開催した。
昨年そして本年度のシンポジウムでは外国語教育の最先端におられる著名な先生方、教育者、研究者の方々を招聘し種々の記念講演を行っていただいた。貴重なお時間をいただき登壇してくださった先生方に重ねて感謝申し上げたい。
本章では現在まで二度に渡って開催されたシンポジウムの報告とその先鋭的な内容を広く共有すべく、以下の先生方から御寄稿を頂いた。
立教大学外国語教育センター開設記念シンポジウム報告
新多了先生

外国語教育研究センター

センター長

第二回立教大学外国語教育研究センターシンポジウム開催記念寄稿
南山大学

茂木良治先生

慶應義塾大学境一三先生

明治学院大学

大森洋子先生

明治学院大学

西香織先生

東海大学

中島仁先生

立教大学

新多了先生

各先生方には新時代の外国語教育の在り方を様々な視点で論じて頂いている。本ジャーナルの読者の皆様には是非ともご一読頂きたい。
外国語教育研究センター准教授
外国語教育研究ジャーナル

編集責任者
三島

雅一

197

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

立教大学外国語教育研究センター開設記念シンポジウム

グローバル社会で「生き抜く力」を育てる外国語教育
2020 年 8 月 30 日（土）オンライン開催
急激に変化するグローバル社会の中で、子どもたちは知識・スキルだけでなく、自ら課題を発見し、批判的に考え、他者と協力しながら課題解決する力を身につけることが求められています。
「主体的・対話的で深い学び」を推進する新学習指導要領の策定や大学入試制度改革など日本の学校教育が大きく変わろうとす
る中、英語をはじめとする外国語教育はこれからどのような方向に向かっていくのでしょうか？
立教大学では外国語教育研究センター開設を記念して、これからの時代に子どもたちがたくましく生き抜
く力を育成するために、外国語教育が果たすべき役割について考えるシンポジウムを開催しました。

1．基調講演「グローバル社会で『生き抜く力』を育てる外国語教育」坪谷ニュウェル郁子（株式会社東京インターナショナルスクールグループ代表）
1.1

講演（要旨）

1.1.1

日本人の英語力は低いのか？

「日本人の英語力は低い」という声がしばしば聞かれる。その理由として、日本人は間違えるのが嫌い、目立つのが嫌いなど国民性を理由に挙げる人もいれば、日本社会では英語を使う必要性がないからという意見もある。また、学校の英語教育を理由にあげる人もいる。それぞれもっともなところがあるが、はたしてそうしたことだけが理由であろうか。
アメリカの国務省の基準では、英語母語話者にとって外国語としての日本語は最も難しい言語の一つであり、CFER の B1 レベルに到達するのに 2,760 時間かかったと報告されている。また、私が運営している学
童保育で実験的に 500 時間、1,000 時間、2,000 時間、3,000 時間での子どもたちの記録を取ってみたとこ
ろ、3,000 時間の時点で B1 レベルに達していた。
一方、日本の小学校、中学校、高校での英語時間は全て合わせても 1,000 時間弱が一般的である。さらに、日本の学校の 1 クラスの生徒数は、OECD 加盟国の中で最大規模に近い 40 名である。このクラスサイズで英語授業が 1,000 時間に満たないという現実を見ると、英語教育や日本の環境や国民性の問題というだけでは済まないのではないだろうか。
1.1.2

国際バカロレアの最終試験

国際バカロレアには上級コースと標準コースがある。標準コースの最終試験は、1 ）言語と文化、2 ）報
道と文化、3 ）将来の課題、4 ）世界規模での課題、5 ）社会的課題、6 ）文学の問題の 6 つのカテゴリーで構成される。
例えば、「言語と文化」では、「時間の経過とともに言語の何が変化したのか、その変化は良い変化か、悪い変化か？」という問いである。こうした質問に対して、英語で解答が求められる。
「報道と文化」では「マスメディアによって強調される固定概念には何があるのか？」、「世界規模での課題」では「全ての国はその国ならでは課題がある。総理大臣もしくは大統領に世界規模での課題に目を向けさせるため、あなたならどんな論理を使って納得させますか」といった問題である。こうした問題に対して、外国語である英語で、論理を組み立てて自分の意見を記述していく。これが国際バカロレアの大学入学審査における外国語試験である。
一方、日本の大学入学試験では空欄補充や選択式による出題が一般的である。私はここに外国語習得の 1
つの大きな課題があるのではないかと思う。穴埋め・選択式の試験が求める能力と、国際バカロレアの記述

198

グローバル社会で「生き抜く力」を育てる外国語教育

式の試験が求める能力には大きな違いがある。「あなたが生きている間に起こると思う変化について、最重要と思われることを 2―3 あげ、なぜそれらが重要であるのかを説明しなさい」という課題に対して、それに関連する知識を使い、論理的に考え、結論を出す力を持ち、さらにそれを外国語で表現し、コミュニケー
ションを取っていく。国際バカロレアの最終試験で求められるこのような力は、これからの社会でも求められる力ではないだろうか。
1.1.3

教育の目的

Educate（教育をする）という語の語源の 1 つに、「引き出す」という意味がある。つまり、それぞれの人が持っている輝く部分を見つけて引き出し花を開かせる、それが教育ではないだろうか。その花が開くことが、私たちの所属する社会への貢献である。そして、社会に貢献することによって、私たちそれぞれの人
生も充実する。それが教育なのではないか。
35 年間、私はたくさんの子供たちと出会ってきた。その中で確実に言えることは、子供たちは私たち人類の未来だということだ。教育は子供たちを変える力がある。つまり教育には未来を変える力がある。そのことを信じてこれからも教育を行っていきたい。

1.2

質疑応答

新多：
（ 2020 年）4 月からのコロナ禍の中で、どのように東京インターナショナルスクールでは対応されたのでしょう。
坪谷：かなり以前から、東京インターナショナルスクールでは ICT の活用が学校生活の一部になっていました。生徒たちはリサーチもレポートも、学校から貸与している PC や iPad などを利用して取り組んでいます。
スタディーログもあり、各生徒の記録もそこに残されていますし、それを保護者が見ることもできます。保護者とのコミュニケーションも全てオンラインでやっていくという形を取っていました。今回、2 月の 27 日に安倍総理から学校を閉めるようにという指示が出てから、2 日間だけ教員たちにどのようにオンライン授業を回していくのかという研修をした後、3 日目からは全面的に普段の授業どおりにオンラインでの授業が始まりました。
とてもスムーズにいき、大きな問題はありませんでした。ただ、あえて問題をあげると、私たちのところは年長さん（ 4 歳児、5 歳児）の子から学校が始まっていますので、「何時になったからこれにログインして」と子供だけで行うことは、なかなか難しいところがありました。生徒の時間管理を
保護者の皆さんにご協力をいただかなければならなかったという点が課題としてありました。
新多：これから始まる 9 月からの授業はどのような予定をされてますか。
坪谷：すでに学校の新年度が始まり、ほぼ全ての生徒が学校に戻ってきています。子供たちの顔が見られるので、私も毎日学校に行くことが楽しみなんです。
新多：ご講演の中で「自己肯定感を育てる」ということがとても大事であるというお話がありました。具体的に東京インターナショナルスクールで、生徒たちの自己肯定感を高めるために取り組まれておられることはありますか。
坪谷：東京インターナショナルスクールは、国際バカロレアのフレームワークを使っています。4 歳児から6 つの学際的な分野にわたっていろんな教科を 6 週間ずつ学習するというスタイルです。その学際的な分野・領域というのは、まず 1 つ目が「私たちって誰」、2 つ目は時間軸・地理軸の中で「私たち今どこにいるの」、3 つ目は「どうやって表現するの」、4 つ目は「どんな機能、どんな役割しているの」、
5 つ目は「どうやって組織化しているの」、最後が「地球を共有する方法」です。
その中の「私たちって誰」という領域を例に取ると、自分自身の性質や信念・価値観、個人的、身体的、精神的、社会的、そしてスピリチュアルに健康でいるということについて考えます。また、文化圏、家族、友人、コミュニティーを含めた人間関係、権利と責任、人間であるというのはどういう199

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

ことなのかという領域から－「普遍の真理」と私は呼んでいるのですが－コンセプトを選び、それに対して本質的な問いを投げ掛けます。その問いに対して生徒が追求していくのです。
例えば小学校 5 年生ですと、「学びって人間と他の世界を結び付ける人間の基本的な特性だよね」というコンセプトの下に、生徒に対して「学習って何？」、「脳はどんなふうに機能しているの？」、「人
間は変化に対してどう反応しているの？どう行動しているの？」という問いが投げ掛けられます。それに対して生徒は、自分なりに探求し、自分なりの答えを出し、自分の言葉でそれを伝えていくということを行います。
4 歳からずっとその教え方を続けていきます。そうすることによって、「自分って何だろう」ということが分かってくるのですね。そして、それが分かることで、「人ってみんな違うんだよね、違っていいんだよね」ということも分かるのです。ですから、自己肯定感を高めるために何よりも大切なことは、「自分って何だろう」という本質的な問いにしっかりと向き合っていくことなのではないかと私は思います。
新多：すごく本質的ですね。テクニックだけではなく、本質的な問いを繰り返し生徒たちに投げかけること
によって、次第に自己肯定感も高められていくということですね。こういった授業・教育を行うこと
を通じて、教える側もすごく鍛えられそうですね、
坪谷：そうですね。先生方も生徒と共に自分のことをもっと深く深く知るようにもなっていくのだと思います。
新多：ご講演の中で、国際バカロレアの思考力を求められる試験に対応していく、というご説明がありました。日本でも大学入試が大きく変わろうとしています。なかなか思考力を問う試験を作る・実施すること自体が大変ですが、こうした試験に生徒たちが対応できるように育てていくということもすごく大変なことではないかなと思います。最終的にこの国際バカロレアの高い思考力を求められる試験に対応できるようになるために、普段どのような活動を行っておられるのでしょうか。
坪谷：
「考える力」というのは基本的で大変重要な能力ですね。この考える力を身につけるためには、先ほども言ったように、普遍の真理、基本的で本質的な問いを投げ掛けることだと思います。そして、それを生徒一人一人がさまざまな手法で考えて、自分なりの答えに到達しなくてはいけない。それの積
み重ねの結果、考える力が身につくのだと思います。
考える力を半年や 1 年間で育てるのはなかなか難しいと思います。本当にこうした問いかけを積み重ねていく作業の結果、身に付くことだと思います。大変な作業ですが、考える力というのは、私たち人間にとって、最も素晴らしい力でもあります。ですから、それぞれの学校で、それぞれの教育者・先生方が、考える力を自らも身に付け、そして生徒にもそれをシェアしていくっていうことも大切だと思います。
新多：今回のシンポジウムのテーマでもある、「グローバル社会で生き抜く力」として最も大切な力は何でしょうか？
坪谷：自分のことを理解して、自分が好きなこと、得意なことを自覚すること。そして、それを生かして、
世界・社会がよりよくなる、より平和になることに貢献する、そういう人になりたいと思うこと。そしてそれを通して、自分の人生も充実させていく。そういう人になっていくということを、自分で理解し、それに向かって努力をすること。そうしたことが、これから先のグローバル社会で生き抜くた
めに最も大切な力だと思います。
新多：ありがとうございました。貴重なお話をいただきまして、どうもありがとうございました。

2．パネルディスカッション「新しい学力観」X「英語教育」小・中・高 英語教育現場の最前線
しばしば英語教育では流暢な英会話スキルの習得が成果として期待されます。しかし、国外では数十年前から「主体的、対話的で深い学び」を目指した外国語教育が実践され、国内でもいくつかの学校において「新200グローバル社会で「生き抜く力」を育てる外国語教育

しい学力観」（汎用的能力、コンピテンシー）を念頭においた英語教育が展開されてきました。
パネルディスカッションでは小中高の教育現場において先進的な英語教育を実践されている先生方にお集まりいただき、所属校の英語プログラムの特徴および日々の授業内容・方法についてご紹介いただきました。
パネリスト• 正頭英和 氏（立命館小学校教諭（英語科）
・ICT 教育部長）• 小泉香織 氏（渋谷教育学園幕張中学校・高等学校教諭）• Ian Daniels 氏（かえつ有明中・高等学校教諭、国際主任）• 植松久恵氏（広尾学園中学校・高等学校教諭、インターナショナルコース統括長）
司会・進行
新多

2.1

了（立教大学外国語教育研究センター・センター長、教授）

各発表に対する質問

新多：これから 4 名の皆さまにお集まりいただき、質疑応答を始めたいと思います。
正頭先生からは、マインクラフトを使った非常に興味深いプロジェクトベースの授業を紹介いただきました。通常の講義型の授業や、練習をたくさん行うスキル型の授業では得られない、プロジェク
トベースの授業のメリットは何でしょうか。
正頭：教科を学ぶ授業では、教える内容がはっきりしているのですね。つまり、答えがあるということなんです。1 ＋ 1 ＝ 2 っていうのは、明確に答えがあるわけです。そこで、1 ＋ 1 は 2 と教えてしまうのか、それとも「 1 ＋ 1 は何で 2 になるのだと思う？」という違いのようなものだと思います。
答えのあるものに対してどう向き合わせていくのかというのが、いわゆるこれまで教科を教えるということだと思っています。一方、PBL（ Project－Based Learning ）といわれるものは、単純に言うと、答えのないものにどう向き合っていくのかという「向き合い方」を教えていくものです。ですので、教師もどうなるか分からないようなものです。つまり、「どうなると思う？」って言われたときに、「さあ」としか先生が言えないようなこと。これからの世の中ではそういうことが増えてきます。
一番の違いはそういったところにあるかなと思います。
子供にとっては、モチベーションが全然違うかなと思います。授業をしていて一番のキーになっていくのはモチベーションです。PBL は、ある程度子供たちのモチベーションが担保された状態でスタートします。子供たちの興味があることからスタートしていくので、当然と言えば当然ですが。そこが一番の違いかなと思っています。
新多：ありがとうございました。ご発表の中でも「生徒たちが前のめりになる」という言葉がありましたが、そのようにエンゲージメントが高まってくることが、授業の中ですごく感じられるんですね。
正頭：そうですね。逆に言うと、「高まっているものしかやらない」というところがあります。「やりたくないことやらなくていいし」ということかもしれないですね。
あとは、ちょっと後付けになるかもしれませんが、あんまり僕自身が PBL の定義とか、一斉授業の定義とかにあんまりこだわっていません。これは「 PBL でやるぞ」と思ってやり始めたわけではなく、後から分析すると「 PBL っぽいね」となっただけです。子供たちのモチベーションを起源にしてプロジェクトをスタートさせたというだけの話ですね。ですので、あんまり「一斉授業だ」「 PBLだ」いう形に僕はそんなにこだわりがありません。何と評価してくださってもいいのですが、（結果的に）「 PBL ぽいね」と評価されているということかもしれません。
新多：小泉先生の授業の中で、「生徒の主体性をとても重視している」というお話がありました。生徒が主体的になるように具体的に工夫されていることは何でしょうか。

201

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

小泉：私は最初の下地づくりと、生徒たちが安心して発話できる環境づくりを一番大事にしています。クラスで発言するということは、日本語であっても簡単なことではありませんので。それを英語でただ積
極的にやりましょうと言っても、目的がはっきりなければ実現は難しいと感じています。
ですので、最初の 4 月の授業で、まず自分の体験を交えながら、将来生徒が英語を使う場面の話をします。例えば、私のイギリス留学時代に、周りがどんどん手を挙げて発言している中入っていけずにとても悔しい思いをしたという話をします。他には、ホテル勤務時代に英語を使って人と積極的に関わることがいかに求められていたのかという話もします。
その上で、生徒たちには、グローバルな舞台で堂々と活躍してほしいという私の願いを伝えます。
そのためにはやはり自分の意見を発信し、他の人と意見交換をする練習を積み重ねていく必要がある
ことや、将来の舞台に向けて練習できるのは今だからこそということ、また英語の授業こそがその経験の場になるんだという話を、最初にしっかりと伝えるようにしています。
それ以降は、生徒が安心して発言できる環境づくりを一番大事にしています。授業中に出てきた発言は絶対に否定することなく、必ず 1 つは具体的によかった点を取り上げて褒めるようにしています。
ですので、授業中生徒が出してくれる意見はどんな意見であってもクラス全体にとって価値があるということを、繰り返し生徒に伝えるようにしています。
同時に生徒たちの間でも、お互いのよかった意見を褒め合うような機会を日々の授業の中に散りばめています。例えば、グループディスカッションやペアワークのときには、褒めたり同意するような表現のインプットを十分に与えます。その上で、毎回の授業では、生徒の発話量が教師の発話量を圧倒的に上回るような授業を設計しています。
そうすると生徒たちは、自然とお互いの意見を尊重し合うような雰囲気をつくってくれます。英語の授業では、自分たちが英語を使うのは当たり前なのだという意識を持ってくれるようになったのかなと思います。ですので、私自身が何か特別に工夫してやるというよりは、私が最初に伝えた思いを生徒が素直に受け止めてくれて、日々の授業の中で一生懸命頑張ってくれた結果のように感じています。
新多：
（ダニエルズ先生の）いろいろ取り組まれているプログラムをとても興味深く聞かせていただきました。
その中でも、中 1・2 年の基礎的な内容段階から中 3 の（高度な）英語に移るときに、どのような工夫をされているのかお聞きしたいと思いました。中 3 のところで、生徒としては少しチャレンジングな内容になっていくのかと思いましたが、そのときにどのような工夫や助けをされているのでしょうか。
ダニエルズ：小泉先生と同じようなところから始まると思います。まず、安心安全な場をつくるために、中1、中 2、中 3 の最初に 1 年の目標をはっきりと生徒に話します。例えば、中 1 ならベースである A、B、C から始まるので、目の前にあることや、自分と自分の周りの世界について少し話せるように頑張りましょうと伝えます。何を勉強するかではなく、なぜその勉強をするのかについて素直に生徒と話し合いをすると、生徒はこれからの 1 年間をどう過ごしていくのか、よく見えてきます。
中 1 に入るとプラス 1 が少しずつできるようになり、それを中 2 につなげていきます。「アクティブコミュニケーション」と「アクティブリスニング」では、中 1 の最初の頃にパーソンを何にするかということ、そしてプラス 1 を付けるように促します。どんどんプラス 1 を付けると相手がそれを聞いてくれコミュニケーションが発展します。そして、相手と何か一致することが見つかるととても面白くなります。私はそれを聞きながら、何かフックをつかんでフォローアップしていきます。
中 3 に入ると「アクティブコミュニケーション、プラス 1 」ができるようになりますが、今度は単純にたくさんプラス 1 を付けるだけではなく、コミュニケーションは心から話すことが大切だということを伝えます。
例えば、中 1 と中 2 の ‘Have you ever been’ を教える授業では、‘I have been to Okinawa’ という話をします。「奥さんと一緒に 3 年前に行って楽しかった」と話そうとすると、いろんなことが心の中にあふれてきます。ですので、それを相手がもう少し理解しやすいように、「ビジュアル」、「シ202

グローバル社会で「生き抜く力」を育てる外国語教育

ンキング」、「パーソナル」を中心にしながら、「フィーリングス」をちょっと広げるように話します。
頭から話すのではなくて、ちゃんと相手に伝わるように心から話すことができるようなストーリーが大事だと伝えるようにします。生徒にとって、最初は本当に難しいと思います。けれども「 1 年間頑張ると絶対うまくできるようになる」、「こういう感じでやると上達するよ」というように生徒と約束をして進めていきます。
もう 1 つ大切なポイントは、何かを褒めることです。今年の目標をセッティングすることも大切にしますが、ワークの中で見えたことを褒めることも大事です。例えば中 1・2 でワークをしたときに生徒がどんどんプラス 1 を付けると「ああ、すごいね」と伝えます。そうすることで、いろんなきっ
かけが見つかります。
中 3 では、英語が楽しいかどうかよりも、なぜそんなにサッカーが好きかや、なぜそのことを大切にしているかについて周りに話していることを褒めます。
そのように、1 年の初め頃の話がすごく大切ですが、その中でワークを褒めると、生徒が「このクラスではこういう感じで頑張ることできる」という気持ちにつなげられると思います。
新多：何かコミュニケーションの本質を伝えているようなそんな感じがしました。ありがとうございます。
植松先生にはインターナショナルコースの SG（ Standard Group ）と AG（ Advanced Group ）の混合クラスをご紹介いただきました。とても面白いコースだと思いますが、実際には非常に異なる
英語力の生徒たちが一緒に授業の中にいるわけで、なかなか運営上大変なところもあるかなと思います。工夫されておられることや、このコースの生徒たちが身に付ける力などについてお話しいただけますでしょうか。
植松：スタンダードグループの SG と、アドバンストグループの AG という 2 種類のグループがあります。
この生徒たちの英語のレベルは確かに全く違いますが、SG は中学入試段階では英語ゼロベースで入ってきますので、その生徒たちの英語力を伸ばすことに注力すればいいレベルです。AG は主には帰国子女ですので、授業中は外国人から主要科目を学びます。ですので、通常授業のほとんどは外国人から学ぶインターナショナルスクールのような授業で学ぶ AG の生徒たちと、日本のカリキュラムで、英語だけ少し特化したカリキュラムで学んでいく SG の生徒に分かれています。
それぞれのグループの生徒たちが身に付けていく力は様々あります。SG は、多様なバックグラウ
ンドを持った AG の生徒たちと時間を共に過ごしますので、英語力はもちろん付きますが、それ以上に他文化理解や、個性を出す力がより身に付いていくように思います。
その SG が、入学時は英語ゼロベースで入学しますが、1 年ほどで英検準 2 級、2 級とどんどん取得していきますので、AG の生徒たちはそれに刺激を受けていると思います。それまで自分のために使っていた英語力を、学びたいと思っている SG の生徒たちに教える、人へ貢献するという観点が育まれているように思います。
新多：それぞれ得るものがあるところがすごく面白いなと思ってお聞きしていました。ありがとうございま
した。

2.2

コロナ禍での授業実施について

新多：このコロナ禍の中でどのように授業を実施されてきたか、ご経験をお話しいただければと思います。
正頭：子供たちが学校に来なくなったのは 3 月 2 日です。時の安倍首相が、もう学校での授業はちょっと難しいのではないかという話をされ、その翌週の月曜日が最後の登校日で 3 月 2 日から学校を閉じました。そうした中、全ての授業をオンラインで配信することを決めました。
その後子供たちが登校するようになったのは 6 月 22 日からですので、約 3 カ月か 4 カ月ぐらい子
供たちは家庭で勉強しました。なぜそれが可能だったかというと、1 人 1 台パソコンを持っていたことや、ICT を使った授業はすでに日常的に学校全体で取り組んでいたということが非常に大きかった203

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

かなと思っています。
ICT 教育部長の立場から、先生方に対して決めたルールは 3 つだけです。1 つ目は、授業動画を非同期型にしました。同期型の授業は絶対もたないと思いました。コロナは長期戦になりますから、同期型ではなくて動画配信型にしました。そして、45 分の授業をできるだけ短く、具体的には 15 分以
内にしてくださいとお願いしました。授業の動画の内容は短ければ短いほうがいいですよっていうことを言いました。
2 つ目は、授業をするときに先生の顔を出してくださいとお願いしました。パワーポイントを映してそこにナレーションを吹き込むという方法がありますが、それだと小学生の場合は集中力が続かず、聞かなくなると思いました。つまり、子供が知ってる先生が話しているんだよっていうことが動画の一番のメリットであるということです。
3 つ目は、著作権です。意外と学校のリアルな授業は著作権に関して正直なところルーズな先生がかなり多いのですね。ただ、動画はアーカイブとして残っていくので、記録として残る以上そこに対しては最大限の配慮をしなければいけません。
この 3 点だけをルールとして作って、あとは先生方の自由な形で授業をしてくださいとお願いしました。
小泉：私は中 1 ですので、最初に対面授業ができないという問題に相当悩みました。同じ中 1 の教員といろいろ考え、やはり生徒全員に確実に教育を提供することを最優先に考え、6 月までは授業動画を作って配信を行いました。本来ならばクラスメートと楽しく英語を使える時期に、自宅で 1 人パソコンの前で動画を見ることになる生徒のことを思うと、すごく胸が痛む思いでしたが、だからこそ、動画の中でどうすれば英語の楽しさを伝えられるのかを考えました。
オンデマンド動画でしたのでできることは限られていましたが、例えば私の海外の友人に協力をお願いして動画に一緒に登場してもらったりしました。他には、オーストラリアのホストファミリーがコロナ禍で子供たちの間ではやっている遊びの動画を送ってくれたので、その動画を使いながら、可算名詞、不可算名詞の説明をしたり。あとは学校が始まってから出会うことになる、ネイティブの先生の家族とインタビューを体験できるようにしたりして、何とか英語で世界が広がる楽しさを実感してもらいたいという願いで、生の英語に触れる機会を動画の中でできる限りつくりました。
ただやはり、私は生徒が主役となる授業を軸としてきたので、生徒の顔も見えない映像授業の期間
はやりたいことができていない感覚がずっと続いていました。ただ、幸いにも 6 月以降は、段階的に対面授業が再開され、今ではマスクとフェースシールドを使いながらペアワークや発表活動もしています。
最初はやはり生徒たちはクラスメートもよく知らず、授業の中で声を出すことなどもしてこなかったので、英語の授業で声を出すことに不安を感じている子も多かったのですが、やはり英語を使ってやりとりをすることの楽しさを実感してもらいたいという願いが私にありますので、ゲーム性がある
楽しい活動だとか、クラスメートのことを知れるような活動を重点的に入れていきました。
まだグループワークや教室中を歩きまわるような活動はできないのですが、安全な環境を確保しながら、できる限り今も英語を使ってクラスメートとやりとりができるような活動を取り入れています。
ちょっと今はまだ暑いので、この状況でマスクとフェースシールドはすごくかわいそうですが、生徒たちもだいぶ慣れてきてくれて、今ではスムーズにペア活動を行ってくれています。
対面授業をしながら、やはり授業は生徒と一緒につくっていくものだということをすごく実感しています。マスクやフェースシールドの上からであっても、生徒の表情や反応は読み取ることができる
ので、そういった反応が、私が準備してきた授業に命を吹き込んでくれているような感覚があります。
やはり生徒の反応があるからこそ授業が発展しますし、何より楽しいものになります。生徒を見ていてもクラスメートと一緒に授業の中で英語を使うからこそ見られる笑顔もあります。ですので、これからも生徒の安全面を最優先にしつつ、やはり対面だからできることを少しずつ増やしていきたい204グローバル社会で「生き抜く力」を育てる外国語教育と考えています。
ダニエルズ：かえつの場合は、去年 G Suite が学校に導入されました。ですので、生徒全員が Google アカ
ウントとかえつの E メールアドレスを持っていました。私が担当している高 1 では、今年から全員の BYOD（ Bring Your Own Device ）のプロジェクトが始まっていて、自分の機械を全員が持ってくる準備が整っていました。
そのような中、2 月末か 3 月の頭に学校がオンラインになりました。4 月には全員が G suite を使うことができる状態でしたが、先生と生徒がまだ慣れてない部分がありました。ですので、まず 4 月からゴールデンウイークまではオンライン授業にして、先生と生徒全員が機械に慣れることができる
ような授業を行いました。
5 月から 7 月 31 日まではほぼフルスケジュールで、月から金の 1 日 6 つ、各 40 分授業をセッティングしました。4 月のうちに多くの先生が Google Classroom などのいろんな機能に慣れることができるようになってきました。school Takt などのソフトも使い、いろいろな先生とワークショップをやったりしてコミュニケーションをしてきました。
「こういうこともできるよ、ああいうこともできるよ」という感じで、各教科、各学年でも話ができるようになりました。簡単なアンケートを取ってみると、やろうと思ったカリキュラムができていると答えた先生が 8 割ぐらいになっていました。例えば、数学の先生は黒板がわりに iPad をうまく使っていましたし、英語の先生もブレイクアウトルームをうまく使ってプロジェクトや、ペアワークとグループワークもうまくできました。
また、もっと大きいクラスでのスパイダー・ウェブ・ディスカッションも Zoom でうまくできました。ですので、オンラインになっても普段やっていることがほぼできたというクラスが多かったと思います。もちろん不安なところもいっぱいありましたけど。
植松：広尾学園では、4 月の当初からオンラインで授業がスタートしました。朝礼から 6 限まで通常の時間割どおり授業を実施しました。不便もありましたが、体育の先生もオンラインを上手に工夫して使いながら授業を展開していたと思います。グループディスカッションも、Zoom や Meet をいろいろ使いこなして、グループワークができていたように思います。

2.3

オンライン授業、対面授業それぞれの長所と短所について

新多：オンライン授業、対面授業それぞれの、長所と短所をどのように感じられておられるでしょうか。
正頭：ざっくり言うと、リアルの対面でしかできないことってあんまりないとは思います。ほんとにざっくり言うとですが。細かいところはいっぱいありますが。
ですので、オンラインのメリット、オフラインのメリットというディスカッションはあんまり意味がないと思っています。むしろオンラインのことの方が、1 対 n でできるので、たくさんできることが多いだろうなと思います。
ただ、現場の先生方があんまりオンラインが好きじゃない理由の 1 つに、モチベーションの問題があると思います。子供たちが 100％モチベーションがある状態だったら、オンライン、オフラインってあんま関係ないですよね。だけど、やっぱり子供たちは子供だから、その日によって、会う友達によって、先生と顔合わせることによって、さまざまな諸条件、変数によって、簡単に上下しちゃうのが子供たちです。そのモチベーションコントロールというところが、オンラインでは結構難しいかなと思っています。ですので、そのモチベーションが一番キーワードになってくるかなと感じています。
小泉：オンライン授業をした後に生徒にアンケートを取りましたが、意外にも 9 割以上の生徒が肯定的な意見でした。中でも目立ったのが、やはり動画はずっと残るものなので、いつでも見返すことができる

205

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）という理由が挙げられていました。これは事実で、例えば最初の週にアルファベットの音読みを 1 つずつ説明しました。教科書の音読をしていてうまく発音できない音があると、その動画に戻って音の発声の仕方を確認することができます。特に、今は授業中マスクを取ることができないので、口の形を示すことができません。ですので、映像授業のときに作った動画が今も役に立っています。
しかし、やはり英語は実際に他の人と一緒に使う経験を重ねることで力が付いてくると思っているので、一方的に配信するだけで、生徒の顔さえ見えない映像授業は最低限の教育を提供しているにすぎないかなと個人的に感じています。もちろん双方のやりとりができる、リアルタイム型のオンライ
ン授業であれば事情は変わってくると思いますが、やはりそれでも隣に仲間がいて、同じ環境を共有して、その場で一緒にやりとりを行ったり協力したりしていく経験を積み重ねてこそ、本物のコミュ
ニケーション能力が培われるのではないかと思います。
やはり人はコミュニケーションを取るとき、聞こえてくる言葉だけでなくて、その人の様子をよく観察して、困っていたら助けますし、言葉には出てこない本当の気持ちを察しようと、微妙な変化を感じ取りながらコミュニケーションすると思います。ですので、例えば声のトーンとか表情の微妙な変化などは、リアルタイム型のオンライン授業でも察するのが難しいのではないかなと感じます。
言語面と非言語面の両方の力を育ててこそ、思いやりがある国際人に育っていくのではないかと信じています。その両方を育てることができるのは、やはり実際に人との関わりの中で、どう言葉を使えばいいのか学ぶ経験を積み重ねることができる、それが対面授業なんじゃないかなというふうに思っています。
ダニエルズ：かえつで、今ネイティブの先生が私を含めて 9 人います。何かの会議の中で先生たちに、オン
ラインとオフラインのハイブリッドになって、何か変化があったかちょっと聞いてみました。もちろん、ICT スキルが一気にレベルアップしたところはすごく良いところですが、他によく聞かれた意見は、今まで普通の授業でプロジェクトをするとあんまり発言してなかった生徒が、オンラインになって急に宿題とかワーク、プレゼンテーションをすごくうまくやったりすることがあるということでした。
ですので、学校が対面授業になっても、オンラインでもできるようなワークが大切だとすごく感じています。あまり発言しない生徒にもフィットするような勉強の場をつくることはすごくよいことだと思います。
植松：どのような授業を展開するのかということもあるとは思いますが、受け手となる生徒がどちらが好き
なのか、対面が好きなのかオンライン授業が好きなのか、生徒の特性によるかなと思いました。また、教科の特性にもよるかと思います。やはり実技教科は対面がやりやすそうでした。一方で、数学など問題を幾つも重ねて実力を付けていく科目に関しては、どちらであっても教員の頑張りと、生徒たちの努力が相まって、例年と変わらない力を付けられたように思います。
5 月に、広尾学園のインターナショナルコースの生徒たちは、アドバンスト・プレイスメント（AP）という、アメリカの大学レベルのテストを受けますが、昨年の平均点と今年の平均点がほぼ変わらず、中には少し上がったものもありました。ですので、オンラインであっても質が保たれていたと言えます。

2.4

英語教育を通じて児童・生徒たちに身につけてもらいたい力

新多：今回のシンポジウムのテーマでもありますが、英語教育を通じて、どんな力を児童、生徒に身に付けてもらいたいとお考えでしょうか。
正頭：学校全体の教育として、いろんなことにチャレンジできる子を育てたいなと思っています。その中で数学の力が役立つこともあれば、国語の力が役立つこともあり、その中で英語の力が役立つこともあ206グローバル社会で「生き抜く力」を育てる外国語教育

るだろうなという認識の中でやっています。
英語教育だけで何かを完成させようと思ったことはありません。中には英語を使って、自分の挑戦を続ける子もいるだろうと思ってやっている感じです。ですので、英語はそれを伝えるための手段の1 つであって、全体として育てたいのは、子供たちがいろいろなことに失敗を恐れず挑戦できること。
それが、ずっと昔から変わらず掲げてる僕の信念かなと思います。
小泉：このシンポジウムのテーマでもありますが、やはり生徒に未来を幸せに生き抜く力を付けてもらいた
いと思っています。先ほどお話にもありましたけれども、やはりこれから生徒たちが生きる未来には、地球規模でさまざまな問題が複雑に絡み合って、知識だけでは解決できないことや、1 人だけでは答えが出ないことが今よりもさらに増えると考えられます。
グローバル化がますます進む中、さまざまなバックグラウンドを持った人たちと一緒に物事に取り組んで、新しい課題を解決していくことが求められると思います。その中で、周りに流されるのではなくて、しっかりと自分の意見を持って発信できる、同時に自分と異なる意見があったとしても、それを単に否定するのではなくて、1 つの意見として受け止めて、周りの人たちと一緒に協力して、最善の答えを導き出せるような、そんな力を付けてもらいたいと思っています。
英語の授業の中で、お互いに意見を伝え合ったり問題を探し出したり、他者と協力して課題を解決するといった活動全てが、きっと生徒たちにとって、これから将来英語を使う場面の疑似体験になると信じています。私は生徒たちには、単なる語学が堪能な人ではなく、その場を動かしていけるような人間力を兼ね備えた国際人になってもらいたいと願っています。ですので、そのためにクラスメー
トと一緒に、授業の中で英語を使う経験を通して、人との関わりの中でどう言葉を使っていくのを学
び取っていってもらいたいなと願っています。
ダニエルズ：すごく難しい質問ですね。5 年前に聞かれたら、多分答えが変わったと思います。そして、5年後にまた聞かれると、また答えが変わると思います。それでも、ベースはほぼ一緒で変わらないか
なと思います。
かえつが大切にしていることが 3 つあります。まずは「学び方を学ぶ」。次に、「自分軸を確立する」。
もう一つは、「共に生きる」です。この 3 つを大切にするプログラムを今かえつで作っています。
私の英語のクラスでどうやってそれらが英語に入ってくるかと言うと、まず将来の自分にとって英語が必要か必要でないかというより、グローバル社会で、常に英語が必要になると考えてもいいと思います。そして、その機会に自分が出会ったときにどう向き合うか。例えば、中学校、高校の英語の学びがすごく楽しくて、うまくできなかったことがあっても英語の授業楽しかったねっていうことが心に残っていれば、機会が目の前に現れたときに頑張ることができます。何かをつかもうとする時に、
ポジティブに向きあうことができます。各教科の先生としては、それがまずベースです。やっぱり英語が苦手でバイバイしてしまうと、すごくもったいないと思います。
2 番目は、コミュニケーションを大切にしたいということです。日本語でコミュニケーションする
ことと、英語でコミュニケーションするのとはちょっと違います。それを比較し、もう少しメタ認知力を働かせると、世界にはいろいろなことがあることが理解できます。自分の今までの当たり前が少しずつつぶれて、失敗しながらちょっとずつ自分が成長することがすごく大切だと思います。
最後は、英語の勉強をしながら、自己実現ができると、世界をもう少し素直に見ることができるよ
うになります。特に今の時代は SNS やいろんなことがあり、マーケティングもいろんな方法があります。その大変な世界で、自分が誰なのか理解できるような学びができるのが一番の理想だと思います。
植松：英語教育を通じてということもありますが、小中高の教育を通じて、日本の大学でも海外の大学でも、世界中の大学を選択肢に入れられるぐらいの力を付けてほしいと思っています。いったんそういう力

207外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）を付けて海外の大学での学びをすることができれば、大学卒業後も世界規模で自分の活躍の場を見つ
けようという視点になっているのではないかと思います。
そういう規模で考えて動ける勢いや心意気を持っていれば、何かやりたいものを見つけて動きだしたいと思ったときに、周囲からサポートを得たり、周囲を巻き込んでいく力を身につけているだろうと思います。それが今日のシンポジウムのテーマになっている、グローバル社会で生き抜く力なのではないかと思っています。
新多：外国語教育を取り巻く環境は、たくさん大きな問題がありますが、さまざまな場所で、同じような思いを持って日々活動されておられる先生がたくさんおられるということが分かり、私自身もすごく勇気付けられました。きっと今日ご参加いただいた方の中にも、同じような思いを持っていただいた方がおられるのではないかなと思います。今日感じたことを大切にして、また新しい挑戦をしていきた
いと思います。本日はどうもありがとうございました。

208

CEFRから外国語学習評価を考える

CEFR から外国語学習評価を考える
南山大学

茂木

良治

要旨
ヨーロッパの外国語教育向けに開発された CEFR は、新学習指導要領（外国語）において指導内容の設定に活用されたり、資格試験同士をつなぐ評価基準として利用されるなど、日本の外国語教育に多大な影響を与え続けている。
CEFR の提案する 6 段階の共通参照レベルはその利便性から外国語能力の指標として、例示的能力記述文は到達度測定のための客観的基準として採用されており、総括的評価ばかりを促進してしまっている。しかしながら、CEFR
はヨーロッパ言語ポートフォリオを刊行するなど、元来、学習改善を目的とした形成的評価も重要視している。本稿では、日本の初等・中等教育における新たな観点別学習状況の評価と関連付けながら、CEFR が提唱する言語評
価の在り方について顧みる。

キーワード：CEFR、学習評価、形成的評価、総括的評価

1．導入

本稿は、日本の外国語教育に多大な影響を与えている CEFR（ヨーロッパ言語共通参照枠）が外国語運用能力の評価についてどのような立場をとっているか再確認し、2019 年に提唱された日本の初等・中等教育における新たな観点別学習状況の評価を考慮しつつ、大学での外国語教育において、今後どのような評価方法が求められるか検討する。

2．CEFR の日本の外国語教育への影響
CEFR は、「ヨーロッパの言語教育のシラバス、カリキュラムのガイドライン、試験、教科書、等々の向上のために一般的基盤を与える」（ Conseil de l’Europe, 2001 : p.9; 吉島・大橋 , 2004:p.1 ）という目的のもと 2001 年にヨーロッパ評議会より刊行された。2004 年には日本語翻訳版である吉島・大橋編訳（2004）が刊行され、刊行から 20 年経過した現在でも外国語教育の分野に多大な影響を与え続けている。
CEFR は、複言語・複文化主義という言語・文化に関する思想、行動中心アプローチのような教授法、そして、6 段階の共通参照レベル（ A1 ～ C2 ）や例示的能力記述文（「～ができる」）のような具体的な評価
尺度など、政策面に関わるマクロなレベルから授業実践などミクロなレベルまで多岐にわたる内容を提案し、日本にている。日本では特に評価尺度に注目が集まり、日本語教育向けには『 JF スタンダード』1（ 2012 ）おける英語教育向けには『CEFR－J』2（2012）が CEFR 準拠の枠組みとして開発された。また、初等・中等教育における外国語（英語）教育の学習目標の基準として 6 段階の共通参照レベルは採用され、平成 29 年
告示の中学校および平成 30 年告示の高等学校の新学習指導要領において指導内容の設定に活用されている 3 。その他にも、大学入学共通試験における外部試験導入の動きの中で話題に上がったように、6 段階の共通参照レベルは多様な資格試験同士を対照するための基準としても活用されている 4 。
このように日本の外国語教育において、CEFR は外国語教育の到達目標を明示化する評価指標として利用
1 https://jfstandard.jp/pdf/web_whole.pdf （最終閲覧日：2021 年 9 月 25 日）
2 https://www.cefr－j.org/download.html （最終閲覧日：2021 年 9 月 25 日）
3 https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo3/056/siryo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/10/29/1363262_10.pdf（最終閲覧日：2021 年 9 月 25 日）
4 https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/117/shiryo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2016/05/24/1368985_15_1.
pdf （最終閲覧日：2021 年 9 月 25 日）

209

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

され、資格試験同士をつなぐ万能な客観的な評価基準のように見なされる傾向にあるが、6 段階の共通参照
レベルや例示的能力記述文はその利便性から CEFR が本来提唱している言語教育観から離れてしまっていないだろうか。そこで、次の章では CEFR は評価についてそもそもどのような立場をとっているのか改めて確認したい。

3．CEFR における評価
CEFR では第 9 章で評価について詳しく記述されているが、第 1 章に CEFR における評価の利点として、
以下の 3 点があげられている。
①テストや試験内容の特定化のために。
②特定の、話すあるいは書く言語行為との関連で、また教師、仲間あるいは自身による継続評価との関係で、学習対象の到達度の基準を決めるために。
③異なった資格認定方法を横断する形で、現存するテストや試験の比較が可能になるようにそれらの熟達度
レベルを記述するために。
（ Conseil de l’Europe, p.21; 吉島・大橋 p.19 ）①は CEFR 準拠の資格試験のことであり、英語ではケンブリッジ英検、フランス語では DELF・DALF、ドイツ語ではゲーテ・ドイツ語検定やオーストリア政府公認ドイツ語能力検定 ÖSD、スペイン語では DELEが該当する。これらの資格試験は世界的に広く実施されている。③についてはこれら多様な資格試験同士を対照するための基準として活用することであり、前述したように日本の英語教育ではこの③が特に推進された。一方で、利点の②にある「教師、仲間あるいは自身による継続評価」については日本の外国語教育では軽視される傾向にある。この継続評価とは、授業中の言語運用や課題やプロジェクトワークのパフォーマン
スを評価することであり、学習者の学習プロセスを評価し、授業計画の修正や学習者の学習改善のための形
成的評価のことを意味する。つまり、CEFR は到達度・達成度を評価する総括的評価のツールと見なされがちであるが、形成的評価も重視した立場をとっていることがわかる。しかしながら、日本では到達度測定のための客観的基準として採用され、総括的評価ばかりに注目し、促進してしまっている。
このような事情は、CEFR の本場であるヨーロッパにおいても同じ傾向がある。Huver & Springer（2011）によると、CEFR は形成的評価や自己評価に、より重要な地位を与えることで、評価実践の更新、文脈化、多様化を可能にする道具を潜在的には提供しているが、実際は資格のための評価ばかりを促進してしまっており、形成的評価のためにはほとんど活用されていない。CEFR には、6 段階の共通参照レベル、例示的能力記述文の他に、同時に刊行されたヨーロッパ言語ポートフォリオ（ ELP ）が評価ツールとして提案されている。これらの評価ツールは評価する側がどのような評価の観点に立つかで使い方が異なってくる。
これまで総括的評価と形成的評価について論じてきたが、これらの評価の観点の違いには評価のパラダイ
ムの相違が背景にある。Gipps（ 1994 ）によると、ある時点における学習者の能力を測定し、成績をつける総括的評価は、能力はテストにより客観的に測定できるとする精神測定学的パラダイムに基づいている。
一方で、学習者の学習改善を目的とする形成的評価は、学習を既存の知識を再構成する過程とみなす構成主
5

義的パラダイムに基づいている 。精神測定学的パラダイムでは、テストによる測定の結果を重視する。学期
末試験や資格試験など主に選抜や合否判定を目的とし、できる限り評価者の主観的判断を排除した客観性を重視した評価方法を採用する。外国語教育においては外国語の知識やスキルの測定などを得点化した量的データが活用される。一方、構成主義的パラダイムにおいては、学習の進み具合などを考慮し、学習の改善を
5 2 つのパラダイムについて、様々な論文で異なった用語で定義づけられている。例えば、Huver & Springer（ 2011 ）では精神測定学的パラダイムを「機械論的パラダイム（ paradigme mécaniciste ）」、構成主義的パラダイムを「全体論的パラダイム（ paradigme holistique ）」という用語を使用しており、松下（ 2012 ）では精神測定学的パラダイムを「心理測定学的パラダイム」、構成主義的パラダイムを「オルターナティブ・アセスメントのパラダイム」という用語を使用している。

210

CEFRから外国語学習評価を考える目的とした形成的で継続的な評価方法が採用される。学習プロセスを重視した評価であり、学習者間の選抜などには使用されず、主に教育的目的で活用される。また、評価者である教師の主観性を排除せず、教師は積極的に学習に介入することも可能である。ELP のようなポートフォリオ、学習者による自己評価、教師によるフィードバックのような内容を重視した評価法が代表的な例である。態度、異文化間能力、自律性など
客観テストでは測定困難な能力をも対象とすることができる。
このように対照的なパラダイムであるが、CEFR はどちらかのパラダイムに依拠することは提案していない。
むしろ、評価について論じられている CEFR の 9 章で、これらの対照的なパラダイムに基づいた評価方法のバランスとその統合について検討するように読者である外国語教育関係者に求めている。
「自分が採用している方法の中では、どのようにして、達成度の評価（学校、学習に基づく）と、熟達度の評価（実社会、結果に基づく）のバランスをとり、補完するか。さらには言語知識に加え、コミュニケーションの言語運用の評価がどの程度行われるか」（ Conseil de l’Europe, 2001:p.145; 吉島・大橋 , 2004:p. 205 ）「標準や基準の定義に沿った、授業コースの課題の継続評価と定点評価との統合の実現がどの程度要望され、その実現可能性がどの程度あるか」（ Conseil de l’Europe, 2001:p.145 ; 吉島・大橋 , 2004:p.
205 ）現在の日本における CEFR の受容のされ方は、精神測定学的パラダイムに基づいた総括的評価に重きが置かれすぎている。そのため、教育現場では資格試験で高得点を取るための試験対策ばかりが行われる危険性がある。そのようにならないためにも、CEFR が本来重視している構成主義的パラダイムに基づいた学習観や評価方法により価値を与え、教育現場に取り入れる必要があるだろう。

4．日本の初等・中等教育における学習評価
外国語教育に限らず、日本の初等・中等教育においても客観的テストによる総括的評価への依拠が課題となっている。中央教育審議会初等中等教育分科会教育課程部会による『指導生徒の学習評価の在り方について（報告）』（平成 31 年 1 月）において、学習評価について指摘されている課題の一つとして、「学期末や学年末などの事後での評価に終始してしまうことが多く、評価の結果が児童生徒の具体的な学習改善につな
がっていない」（ p.4 ）ということがあげられている。この課題を解決すべく、以下の引用のように、構成主義的パラダイムに基づいた指導と評価の重要性が指摘されている「指導と評価の一体化を図るためには、児童生徒一人一人の学習の成立を促すための評価という視点を一層重視することによって、教師が自らの指導のねらいに応じて授業の中での児童生徒の学びを振り返り学習や指導の改善に生かしていくというサイクルが大切である。
」
（中央教育審議会初等中等教育分科会教育課程部会，2019:p.4 ）この報告書では、学習評価と評定が明確に区別されている。学習評価は、「学校における教育活動に関し、児童生徒の学習状況を評価するもの」と定義されており、評定は評価の結果を総括した学期末の成績を表す。
上記のような学習評価観に立ち、新学習指導要領の下、「観点別学習状況の評価」に基づいて評価が行われる。
「知識・技能」「思考力・判断力・表現力」「主体的に学習に取り組む態度」の観点別学習状況の評価を実施し、これらの結果を総括して評定とする。このような 3 観点の学習評価を取り入れるため、以前のようにペーパーテストの結果に依拠した評価を行うのではなく、指導と評価の一体化を図るために、レポートの作成、発表、グループでの話し合いなどパフォーマンス評価を取り入れた多角的な評価が求められる。外国語教育であれば、学期末テストの点数だけで評価するのではなく、普段の授業内で行うペアワーク、グル211

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

ープワークやプレゼンテーションなどのパフォーマンスを評価し、評定へと反映させることになるだろう。
この日本の初等・中等教育における新しい評価方法の推奨は、CEFR が提案する 2 つの対照的なパラダイ
ムのバランスと統合を求めている評価方法に通じるものがある。また、この観点別学習状況の評価は 2022
年度から高等学校でも採用されるため、このような多角的な学習評価で学んできた生徒たちが数年で大学へと進学する。そのため、大学（の外国語教育）においても、総括的評価に終始した評価方法を改め、形成的評価を効果的に取り入れた授業をデザインしていかなければならないだろう。

5．結論

CEFR が提案する 6 段階の共通参照レベルや例示的能力記述文はその利便性から、日本においても、本場のヨーロッパにおいても到達度測定のための客観的基準として採用され、総括的評価ばかりを促進してしまっている。一方で、CEFR は構成主義的パラダイムに基づいた学習改善を目的とした形成的で継続的な評価方法も重要視していることを本稿では確認した。また、これら総括的評価と形成的評価のバランスを検討し、これらを統合したカリキュラムを構築することが CEFR の本来の言語教育観に近づくと考えられる。このよ
うな対照的な評価をどちらも重視するという評価観は日本の初等・中等教育における観点別学習状況の評価とも一致する部分が多い。今後は、大学での外国語教育においても、学期末テストによる総括的評価への過度な依拠から脱却し、授業内で学習者の学習改善を目的とした形成的評価を取り入れるなど、多様で多角的な評価が求められるに違いない。例えば、授業内で学習者が実践するプレゼンテーションやロールプレーなどはルーブリックによるパフォーマンス評価を行ったり、学習ジャーナルやポートフォリオを活用し、学習者が自身の学習プロセスを内省する機会を設け、学習者を形成的に評価するなど指導と評価を一体化した教育活動を積極的に取り入れていく必要があるだろう。また、このような形成的評価を活用すれば、外国語の学びを通して、自律性や異文化間能力など外国語の学びと関係の深い能力の養成も可能になるだろう。

参考文献

中央教育審議会初等中等教育分科会教育課程部会（ 2019 ）『児童生徒の学習評価の在り方について（報告）』https://www.mext.go.jp/component/b_menu/shingi/toushin/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2019/04/17/1415602_1_1_1.pdf（最終閲覧日：2021 年 9 月 25 日）
Conseil de l’Europe. （ 2001 ）Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues : apprendre,
enseigner, évaluer. Strasbourg : Conseil de l’Europe. 欧州評議会『外国語の学習、教授、評価のためのヨーロッパ共通参照枠』（吉島茂、大橋理枝訳・編）東京：朝日出版社．
Huver, E. & Springer, C.（ 2011 ）L’évaluation en langues, Nouveaux enjeux et perspectives. Paris: Didier.
Gipps,C. V.（ 1994 ）Beyond testing – towards a theory of educational assessment. London: Falmer Press. ギ
ップス , C. V.（ 2001 ）.『新しい評価を求めて－テスト教育の終焉－』（鈴木秀幸訳）東京：論創社．
松下佳代（ 2012 ）「パフォーマンス評価による学習の質の評価：学習評価の構図の分析にもとづいて」『京
都大学高等教育研究』18, 75－114.

212

複言語主義に基づく第二外国語教育 ―資質・能力論を手がかりに考える―

複言語主義に基づく第二外国語教育―資質・能力論を手がかりに考える―境

一三

Abstract
This paper gives an overview of the history and current state of non－English foreign language education in
Japan. It also examines what it should look like in the future. It takes as its basis Plurilingualism, aphilosophy advocated by the Council of Europe. We will also take as our guide the theory of learners’“Qualities and Abilities” proposed in the Courses of Study of MEXT. The future of foreign language
education in Japan should not be discussed in terms of individual languages such as English, German,
French etc., but should aim to develop plurilingual competence, intercultural understanding and citizenshipas a whole. What is important is the learners’ language and learning awareness. These should be nurtured
consistently from primary school through to university.

キーワード：CEFR、複言語主義、資質・能力論、言語意識、学習意識

0．はじめに本稿は、日本における「第二外国語 1 教育」の実態を概観し、今後のあるべき姿を検討することを目的とする。その際、欧州評議会の提唱する理念である「複言語主義」を根底に置き、文部科学省の学習指導要領で提示された「資質・能力」論を手がかりとする。

1．CEFR と複言語主義
日本で Plurilingualism という概念が「複言語主義」という訳語で議論の俎上に載るようになったのは、2001 年に欧州評議会によって公表された Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment（以下 CEFR とする）の日本語版『外国語の学習、教授、評価のためのヨーロッパ共通参照枠』が 2004 年に出版されてからであろう。それは、ある地域に複数の言語が共存しているが、それらが個々別々に存在し、関連したものと意識されていない状態を指す Multilingualism（多言語
主義もしくは多言語状態）と対比させられ、ある個人の中に複数の言語が互いに連関して存在している状態、また必要に応じてそれらを適宜使うことのできる能力を指す。
CEFR は、日本語版の出版以来、外国語教育、特に英語教育の世界に大きな影響を与えてきた。近年では、大学入学共通テストのための外部試験導入が議論されたが、そのレベルの相互比較のために CEFR の「言語共通レベル」が用いられた。
日本における CEFR の影響は欧州諸語教育ばかりでなく、外国語としての日本語教育にも見られたが、英語教育では顕著であった。しかし、そこに取り入れられたのは「共通参照レベル」と能力記述文といった部
分的な道具立てであり、CEFR の中心的な理念である複言語・複文化主義は等閑視された。CEFR はその道
具性にのみ注目が集まり、矮小化された。しかし、日本社会が多言語・多文化する今、必要なのは CEFR の理念を学び、それを日本社会に活かすことではないだろうか。
欧州評議会は第二次世界大戦後 1949 年に設立された国際機関であり、欧州における人権、民主主義、法
1 言語は、本来国境によって画されるものではなく、国家とは必ずしも重ならない。従って、学習と教育の対象となるもの
は「外語」とすべきであるが、本稿では「第二外国語」など、制度としての「外国語」が頻出するので、表記も全体としてこれに合わせる。

213

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）の支配の推進を図ることを使命としている。その根底には、EU と同様に不戦の思想があった。ヨーロッパに再び戦争を起こさないために、それぞれの国や地域が民主主義を中心とした共通の価値観を育み、相互理解を図り、ヨーロッパ・アイデンティティーを養成することが活動の根幹に置かれた。
ヨーロッパの言語政策が欧州評議会で扱われるのも、この相互理解のためである。そのためには隣人を知ることが必須のことであり、ヨーロッパ人が互いに隣人の言語と文化を学ぶことが不可欠の要素であると考えられた。欧州評議会の政策はこの方針の下に策定されるものであり、CEFR もまさにその一環として、およそ 40 年にわたる専門家の議論を踏まえ、英語版・フランス語版の両者を正本として 2001 年に出版されたのである。
このように CEFR の成立史を振り返れば、複言語・複文化主義こそが CEFR の中心的理念であり、これなくしては CEFR はないということが分かるであろう。私たちは、CEFR に言及し、そこから学ぶのである
ならば、単なる道具化にとどまらず、その根本的な理念をも理解した上で行うことが必要ではないだろうか。

2．新学習指導要領の理念とそれに立脚した言語教育
高等学校と大学の教育連携が議論されるようになってすでに久しく、様々な分野での連携も進んでいる。
しかし大学の言語教育に携わる者で、高校の教育現場に関心を持ち、実態を把握しようとしている教員はどれだけいるだろうか。本来、自分たちが受け持つ大学 1 年生が高校時代にどのような英語や英語以外の言語教育を受けてきたかを知ることは、大学の言語教育を十全に行うために不可欠のものであるはずである。よしんば高校の実態を知らなくても、高校教育の指針となる学習指導要領で何が謳われ、どのような言語教育が目指されているかを知ることは、大学教員とて避けて通れないことではないだろうか。
2021 年現在、新指導要領は中学校ではすでに全学年で実施され、2022 年には高校でも全学年で導入される。間もなく大学にも、この新しい指導要領で教育を受けた学生が入学してくる。大学教育がかれらの能力を十分に引き出し、伸ばすためには、かれらが受けてきた教育を知ることは不可欠であろう。
ここで、新指導要領の眼目となるところを略述する。新しい指導要領の骨格をなすのは、資質・能力論であるが、これそのものは前学習指導要領でも取り入れられていたものなので、実は取り立てて新しいものではない。しかし、それは今般の改訂で重要性を増したように思われる。今後はその十分な理解が求められ、教場への展開が進むであろう。
資質・能力は、以下の三つの柱からなる。（カッコ内は、中央教育審議会の答申による。
）中教審は、この三者は正三角形をなし、全体として「確かな学力」「健やかな体」「豊かな心」を総合的に捉えて構造化しているとしている。
1．知識・技能（何を理解しているか、何ができるか）
2．思考力・判断力・表現力等（理解していること・できることをどう使うか）
3．学びに向かう力・人間性（どのように社会・世界と関わり、よりよい人生を送るか）
これを言語教育に当てはめてみると、「知識・技能」は文法、語彙、音声に関する知識と読み・書き・聞き・話すの 4 技能 5 領域（以下 4/5 技能とする）が含まれるであろう 2 。言語知識だけでなく、対象となる文化
圏の文化・社会に関する知識もここに含まれよう。
「思考力・判断力・表現力等」は、身につけた「知識・技能」を実際の使用場面で適切に運用できる力ということだろう。言い換えれば、社会的存在として、各自がその時々の課題を解決するために、適切な言語運用をする力と言えよう。それはもちろん、口頭表現だけでなく、書き言葉表現も含む。文章を読んで適切な情報を獲得する、相手が必要とする情報を手紙や電子メールで送るということも身につけるべき能力と考えられるだろう。資料を読みこなし、自分の考えをまとめて口頭発表する、レポートや論文にまとめたり、口頭で議論するということもその延長線にあるだろう。
2 CEFR に倣って、「話す」を spoken production, spoken interaction に分け、全体を 5 技能とすることがある。文科省の提示する 4 技能 5 領域はこのことを意味する。

214

複言語主義に基づく第二外国語教育―資質・能力論を手がかりに考える―

さらに、「学びに向かう力・人間性」では、学習ストラテジーの獲得、学びについてのメタ認知能力の養成も対象となるだろう。また、社会・世界との関わりで言語能力を適切に発揮するためには、異文化間コミュニケーション能力の涵養と、その根底にあるべき他者、他文化、他言語に対して開かれた心と態度の養成も課題となろう。
この点に関しては、CEFR で提示され、2020 年の補遺版で議論が深化した Mediation という概念も参考になるだろう。筆者はそれを「つなぐ」という概念として考えるが、多様性が顕著になる社会においては、
話し言葉や書き言葉で、さらに機械翻訳を用いて、人と人をつなぐ力とそれに向けた積極的な態度を持ち、実践できる力を養うことが言語教育に求められることになるだろう。
しかし、現状を見れば明らかなように、これまでの中等教育の言語（英語）教育は「知識・技能」特に「言語知」を増やすことにエネルギーが割かれ、4/5 技能の養成も十分に行われてきたとは言えない。特に「話す」能力の欠如、もしくは低さが社会的に問題になってきた。このような＜実用的でない外国語＞（実質は英語）教育の背景には、高校、大学入試があると考えられてきた。
それ故に、4/5 技能育成があたかも新しい課題であるかのように扱われ、それは大学入試でも測られなけ
ればならないとされた。そのために各種検定試験などの外部試験を導入するというように議論が進んだのだ
が、それも実行可能性（公平性、客観性、比較可能性などを含む）を十分に検討しないまま動き出したために、2021 年 7 月末には文科省自身が撤回するということになった。
しかし、指導要領を見れば、言語教育は決して技能教育にとどまっていてはならず、その射程はすでにず
っと遠いところに置かれていたことが分かるであろう。4 技能の育成は、言語教育の一部分に過ぎない。そのことをメディアもまた世論も必ずしも理解していたようには見えない。多くの高等学校の現場もまた同様ではあるのだが、少しずつ変革の兆しはあるようだ。各県の研究指定校や高校教員を中心とする研究グルー
プなどでは、急速に研究と理念の共有が進んでいると思われる 3 。
このような新指導要領の下に育てられる生徒が、大学に進学してくることを目前にして、大学の現場はそれに対する準備ができているようには見えない。異文化理解能力、他者に開かれた態度を養成するためには、
日本語と英語という二重の単元語主義に閉じず、複言語主義に基づく教育が行われなければならないだろう。

3．複言語能力を養成するには何が必要か？
複言語能力養成の観点からは、対象となる言語を相互に分断せず、一体のものとして扱う必要がある。つまり、母語、英語とドイツ語、フランス語、中国語などがそれぞれ分断されていると考えるのではなく、それぞれが一人の学習者の中で結びつき、渾然一体のものとして複言語能力を形作っていると考えることが基本となる。
日本の教育制度の現状では、ほとんどの生徒・学生にとっては英語が初めての「外国語」である。今では小学校まで下りた英語学習を通して学習者が学ぶのは、母語とは異なる言語の存在であり、それによって形作られる思考や世界観が母語世界とは異なるということだろう。母語以外の言語に直面して、母語との比較をすることになり、それぞれが言語とは何かという問題に否応なしに晒される。つまり、そこでそれぞれの言語観が形作られるだろう。程度の差はあれ、Language Awareness 言語意識が養われるスタートとなる。
このように考えると、言語学習は母語学習を含めて分断されるべきではなく、ほとんどの人にとって初めての外国語である英語では特に、多言語学習に展開されることを想定した言語意識と Learning Awareness
学習意識、そして学習方略・技術の獲得が考慮されるべきであろう。
つまり、言語意識と学習意識の涵養がもっとも重要な課題として浮かび上がってくる。こうした力は、しかし受動的な姿勢・態度からは生まれない。教育現場では、学習者個人個人がそれぞれ課題を持つ社会的エージェントとして、それを解決する真正で有意味な活動を中心とする授業を展開しなくてはならないだろう。
3 これに関する研究活動の一つとして、慶應義塾大学外国語教育研究センターが受託した文部科学省「外国語教育強化地域
拠点事業」（ 2018 年度から「グローバル化に対応した外国語教育推進事業」に名称変更）がある。パフォーマンス課題・評価を中心的テーマとして、神奈川県と東京都の高等学校における多言語教育推進に関する研究を行っている。

215

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

今日の言語教育を巡る議論は、ようやくにして「思考力、判断力、表現力」の養成にまで届きつつあるように思われる。しかし、いまだ「知識・技能」の範囲に留まっている教育現場が多いようにも見える。4/5
技能教育は基本であるが、それは言語教育の一部に過ぎず、いかにそこから「思考力、判断力、表現力」そして「学びに向かう力・人間性」を育てる教育に展開するかが、これからの中心的課題となるだろう。

4．大学における「外国語」教育制度の変遷
現行の大学制度における「第二外国語」教育の淵源は、言うまでもなく 1948 年までの旧制学校制度で、大学（ 3 年制）進学者のために設置されていた高等学校（もしくは大学予科、どちらも 3 年制、以下合わせて旧制高校とする）という初期高等教育機関や、高等工業学校、高等商業学校などの専門学校で、ドイツ語とフランス語その他が教授されていたことである。
その目的は大学での専門教育で外国にルーツを持つ学問をスムーズに受容するために文献を読む力をつけること、そして論文を書く力をつけることであった。それは、幕末以来の西洋学藝の受容と日本化という差し迫った需要によるものであった。そこで主に要求されたのは、短期間に文法を習得して外国語の文献を読み、咀嚼し、日本語に翻訳する力であった。
これは、日本の近代化に不可欠なものであり、その意味で外国語教育は実需要があったと言ってよい。
1980 年代までは、大学 3・4 年次の専門課程で文献の講読などに必要だという理由で、旧制高校的な第一・第二外国語教育が（旧制高校を引き継いだ教養課程である）1・2 年次で継続されていた。第二外国語の履
修コマ数は、必ずしも法的に決まっていたわけではないものの、一般的には 1・2 年時とも 90 分通年 2 コマ、合計 4 コマ、8 単位という体制で授業が行われてきた。
しかし、1970 年代半ばには 18 歳人口の 25％以上が 4 年制大学に進学するという急速な高等教育の大衆化に伴って、それまでのような言語教育が大学で機能しなくなった。学部 3・4 年のゼミナールで英語以外の言語で文献購読することが（一部の専門領域を除いて）一般的ではなくなり、外来文献の日本化能力養成という第二外国語の実需要は消えていく。その中で、制度だけは継続するが、1980 年代にはそのほころびは明らかとなっていく。
そこに 1991 年、大学設置基準の大綱化（以下大綱化とする）が実施される。これまでは、大学での一般
教養科目、外国語科目、専門科目など、科目設定と必修単位数が文部省の厳しい縛りの下にあったが、大綱化により大学もしくは学部独自で科目の存廃、年次配当、単位の割り当て、必修単位の設定などが行えるよ
うになった。いわば大学カリキュラムの自由化と言っても良いものであった。
その結果、専門科目拡充の圧力の下、一般教養科目と外国語科目が主な対象となり、大幅な組み換えと削減が実行された。外国語科目では、文献講読や論文執筆（そして実社会での使用）に必要とされた英語の削減は小幅にとどまったものの、特に理系学部では、第二外国語は無用の長物とされ、廃止もしくは大幅なコ
マ数削減となった。コマ数が削減された現場では、いよいよ教育効果が上がらないものとされ、負のスパイ
ラルに陥った。
これまで概観したように、日本の英語以外の外国語教育は、明治期から第二次世界大戦後の新制大学発足
後に至るまで、基本的には英語と同様に西洋先進国の文物、特に学問を取り入れ日本化するための言語能力を養成するためにあった。しかし、理系を中心として、学問の英語化の進展とともに、英語以外の言語は学問言語としての利用可能性が低下し、教養・文化言語としての威信性は一定程度残ったものの、ゼミナールなどで使われなくなってくると、大学における「実用性」は著しく低下していくことになる。それでもなお、
1991 年に大綱化が実施されるまでは、強固な制度に守られて、大学では英語以外の外国語も学ぶことが当たり前と考えられてきた。しかしながら、1991 年以降の大学における第二外国語は、その目的、目標に関する十分な議論がないままに、なし崩し的に減少・存廃が決まったのである。

216

複言語主義に基づく第二外国語教育―資質・能力論を手がかりに考える―

5．終わりに：21 世紀に求められる英語以外の言語教育とは？
それでは、21 世紀の今日に求められる外国語教育とは、どのようなものだろうか。また、特に英語以外の言語教育に求められるものはなんだろうか。
筆者はそれを「共存のための言語教育」と捉えている。幕末以来の先進国の学問・文化「受容のための言語教育」、1980 年代以降の（日本の利害を担う）「発信のための言語教育」（鈴木 1999 ）4 はそれぞれ今後も必要とされるものであるが、重点は「共存」「共生」に移行させる必要があると考えている。その背景にあるのは、移民の流入と（コロナ禍で中断を余儀なくされているものの）インバウンドの観光客の増加による日本社会の急速な多言語・多文化化である。
こうした日本で、今日必要とされているのは、多様性を尊重し、他者に開かれた態度を持ち、新たに日本社会に参入する人々と共に生きることができる生徒・学生を育てることであろう。そのためには、身の回りに存在する言語・文化を異にする人々に関心を持ち、かれらと学び合うことが必須である。例えば小学校段
階では、同じクラスにいるベトナム人のクラスメイトの家では、どのようなものを食べ、どのように挨拶をし、どのような祭祀を行うか、に関心を持つことがその第一歩となろう。そのために必要なのは、英語で行う抽象的な異文化理解ではなく、自分のことばを使い、相手のことばに直に触れ、なんとか意思疎通することを経験することであろう 5 。
今行われるべきは、身近な他者と同じコミュニティーを共に作り上げる力を養う教育である。別の言葉で言えば、シティズンシップ教育となろう。そのために異文化間コミュニケーション能力が必要となるのであり、言語教育における技能の練磨はそれに資するものでなくてはならない。中等教育、高等教育でも言語教育をこの延長線上で継続し、高等教育においては特にコミュニティーのリーダーとして持つべき異文化理解能力、コミュニケーション能力の育成が図られなければならないだろう。
そこで、欧州評議会の CEFR が掲げる複言語主義、特に欧州評議会と EU の共通政策である 1 ＋ 2 言語政策が見直される必要がある。それは、ヨーロッパのすべての子どもが自分の母語以外に 2 つの言語を学ぶことによって、自分の地域以外に関心を持ち、ヨーロッパの言語・文化の多様性を学び、他者を知って尊重する態度を身につけることである。20 世紀の前半まで繰り返されてきた戦争を二度と引き起こさないという切実な願いがここにある。
それではこれからの日本で、言語教育をどのように進めるべきか。異文化理解能力・コミュニケーション
能力を育てるためには、1 ）言語意識、2 ）学習意識を高める教育を、小学校から大学まで継続的に行っていく必要があろう。
言語学習には、1 ）対象となる言語現象に関心を持ち、その仕組と背景にある考え方、またその社会における使用方法に興味を持つことが出発点となる。また、2 ）母語や、初めての外国語である英語を学習する
際に身に着けた学習技術や方略をそれ以降の言語学習に応用できるように、意識的に自分の学習を振り返ることができなくてはならない。つまり、学習に対するメタの視点を養うことが重要になるだろう。
このような、1 ）言語意識と 2 ）学習意識を学校教育の中で育てることは、学校という枠組みを出て社会人となった後も、自分が関心を持ったり、使うことが必要となった言語を自らの力で生涯に渡って学習することができることにつながるであろう。すなわち、言語学習における自律的学習者の養成である。段階別に考えると、以下のようになるだろう。
小学校では、言語・文化の多様性を知り、他者に対して開いた態度を養成する。特に、英語の教科化に伴い、3・4 年生に降りた外国語活動では、まずそこに力点を置いた教育が必要であろう。複数言語の教材を
6
与え、言語間の共通性や異質性に気づかせる教育 がそこに含まれる。5・6 年生の英語教育では、英語を学

4 鈴木（ 1999 ）は、「これまでの日本の外国語教育が欧米の先進文化の受容に偏り、自国の利益を国際間の交渉で主張できるような人材が育っていないことを問題とし、英独仏の 三言語は、今後は受信よりも発信に力点をおいた教育が必要であると主張した。
」境（ 2018: 151 ）5 ここで重要になるのが、日本語母語話者のやさしい日本語能力であろう。
6 スイス・ジュネーブ州で行われている EOLE 教育は、この点で参考になろう。

217

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

ぶと同時に相対的に見る眼を養う。日本語その他の言語の視点を取り入れ、英語を相対化する。
中学においては、英語以外の言語科目を選択可能にすることが望ましい。高校では、現在 7 校に 1 校は英語以外の言語科目を提供してはいるものの、学習者数は合計しても全体の 1.5％に満たないという状況を変え、すべての高校で英語ともう一つの言語を学ぶことを基本とするようにする。中等教育で複数言語を学ぶことは、世界的に見て一般的なことであり、それを実行に移すべきであろう。
他方、中等教育で英語＋ 1 の教育が全面的に実施されるまでは、大学における第二外国語という制度で、学生の英語以外の言語を学ぶ権利を確保し、遅まきながらも上記で述べた能力・態度を養成する機会をなくさないようにすることが必要であることは強調しておきたい。

文献

欧州評議会．吉島茂他訳．（ 2004 ）．外国語の学習、教授、評価のためのヨーロッパ共通 参照枠．朝日出版
社．
境一三．
（ 2013 ）．『ヨーロッパ言語共通参照枠』（ CEFR ）は日本の外国語教育に何をも たらしたか？ 複言語・多言語教育研究 , 1, 34–52．
境一三．
（ 2018 ）．日本の外国語教育の新たな姿を求めて : ヨーロッパの言語教育から学 ぶ．ことばを教える・こ と ば を 学 ぶ：複 言 語・複 文 化・ヨー ロッ パ 言 語 共 通 参 照 枠（ CEFR ）と 言 語 教 育（ pp．
149–170 ）．行路社．
鈴木孝夫．
（ 1999 ）．日本人はなぜ英語ができないか、岩波書店．
中央教育審議会．
（ 2016 ）．『幼稚園、小学校、中学校、高等学校及び特別支援学校の学 習指導要領等の改善及び必要な方策等について（答申）』https: //www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo0/
toushin/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2017/01/10/1380902_0.pdf.
同補足資料 https://www.mext.go.jp/component/b_menu/shingi/toushin/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2017/01/2
0/1 380902_4_1_1．pdf
奈須正裕．
（ 2017 ）．「資質・能力」と学びのメカニズム．東洋館出版社．
細川英雄，& ⻄山教行．（ 2010 ）．複言語・複文化主義とは何か：ヨーロッパの理念状況から日本における受容・文脈化へ．くろしお出版．
Council of Eruope. （2020）. Companion volume. Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment.

218

「CEFR」「スペイン語学習のめやす」とスペイン語教育実践「 CEFR 」「スペイン語学習のめやす」とスペイン語教育実践
大森洋子
要旨
本稿では、「 CEFR 」、およびスペイン語教育研究会作成の「スペイン語学習のめやす」を外観しながら、これらを授業の中に取り入れて授業実践を行ったら良いかについて、日頃の実践報告を行うものである。特に、「 CEFR 」に言及する際、特に 6 段階に分かれた Can－do 指標に関心が集まり、「 CEFR 」目的としている社会的存在としての学習者、また複言語、複言語能力の養成、および自律的学習者の養成という観点から、日頃授業で実践している事
柄を提示することを目的としている。第 1 に、実際に限られた時間、決められたシラバスの中でどのように言語活動の実践を行うことができるのかについて、第 2 に社会的存在としての学習者について、初級文法の中で行えるコ
ミュニケーション活動の大切さについての日頃の実践例の紹介、さらに授業から課外へとつなげることにより、さらに自律的学習へ繋ぐことができるのではないかということを提案している。昨今のコロナ禍の状況の中で遠隔授業が余儀なくされる中、学習者のモティベーションをどのように高めることができるのか、教員 1 人の活動がどのように今後連携されていけば良いのかについて考察を試みたものである。

キーワード：CEFR,  スペイン語学習のめやす、グラフィックシラバス、複言語能力、ポートフォリオ、ルー

ブリック評価O．はじめに外国語教育に携わる際に、CEFR（外国語の学習、教授、評価のためのヨーロッパ参照枠）は、いろいろなところで話題になっている。スペイン語についても 1980 年代後半からのスペイン語教育のセミナー等に参加する中で、その前身にあたる The threshold level for language learning in schools（ 1976 ）などに基づくアクティビティの例など、新しい視点を持つ教科書の例などに接する機会があった。その後、また2003 年に発足させたスペイン語教育研究会の活動の中で、CEFR の一部を読むなどの機会、またそれに基づいたスペインセルバンテス文化センターによる Plan Curricular del Instituto Cervantes に触れる中で、特に能力指標検討するに当たり、このような共通な指標があることにより、高校から大学へつながり、その他学習の継続を考えるとこのような指標は有効であるのではないか、しかしながら、日本におけるスペイン語教育（大学の第 2 外国語）の中で、A1 がかなり目標としては高いかもしれない、独自の指標があってもいいかもしれない。その結果、スペイン語学習のめやす、策定を計画することとなった。 特にその中では、国際文化フォーラム作成の「外国語学習のめやすー高等学校の中国語と韓国語教育の提言」も大いに参考にし、スペイン語学習のめやすを策定し、引き続いてそれらのめやすに基づく具体的なアクティビティの提案に至っている 1 。
本稿では、CEFR との関連ということを意識して、3 つの観点から授業実践ではどんなことができているか、
また課題について扱う。この中では特に授業ではどう活かしたらいいのかというのが問題、第 2 に、行動主
義、社会的存在としての学習者、という観点から、第 3 に自律学習姿勢、また複言語主義という観点からどんな実践を行うことが可能かを自分自身の授業実践に基づいて紹介する。

1 12 のテーマ（自分、家族について話す、日常生活、家族、都市と交通、日本とスペイン語圏の国々など）を設定し、それにそれぞれの到達目標（レベル表示）及び社会文化、語用論的な点に考慮入れながら、具体的な機能、語彙、文法をモデ
ル文とともに示す。なお、現在は、それらのアクティビティについて評価基準について検討を行なっているところである。

219

身の授業実践に基づいて紹介する。
外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）
1.2 巻（JOURNAL
CEFR, スペイン語学習のめやす➖授業との連携

それぞれのテーマについて提示しているアクティビティは、より実生活と繋がったことをテーマにしている。ここで問題として指摘したいのは、教科書、進度が決められている中で1．CEFR, スペイン語学習のめやす―授業との連携
どのように利用したら良いのか、共通シラバスの中で生かせる方法はあるのか、といった疑問
それぞれのテーマについて提示しているアクティビティは、より実生活と繋がったことをテーマにしていです。
さらに、文法事項の把握が必要な授業ではどのような利用が可能なのかということが問る。ここで問題として指摘したいのは、教科書、進度が決められている中でどのように利用したら良いのか、題になる。
共通シラバスの中で生かせる方法はあるのか、といった疑問です。さらに、文法事項の把握が必要な授業でさらに、共通シラバスでここの授業の内容が決められているときにどうするのか、どの程はどのような利用が可能なのかということが問題になる。
度このような活動を入れることが可能なのかということも問題も生じる。

さらに、共通シラバスでここの授業の内容が決められているときにどうするのか、どの程度このような活そこで、実際には、授業最初に授業で行う活動も含めて「グラフィックシラバス」を提動を入れることが可能なのかということも問題も生じる。

示し、何をどこまで学習するとどんな活動ができるかを示す形で実践できるだろう。グラフ
そこで、実際には、授業最初に授業で行う活動も含めて「グラフィックシラバス」を提示し、何をどこまィックシラバスとは、それぞれの回がどのように結びついているのかを図で表しながらコーで学習するとどんな活動ができるかを示す形で実践できるだろう。グラフィックシラバスとは、それぞれの
2

スの流れを示すシラバスと言える。

この方法を用いることで、学習内容が何を目標に向か

回がどのように結びついているのかを図で表しながらコースの流れを示すシラバスと言える 2 。この方法を用って構成されているかを示すことができ、いくつかの文法項目を使いながら具体的なテーマいることで、学習内容が何を目標に向かって構成されているかを示すことができ、いくつかの文法項目を使での表現活動を行うことができる。学生は、単にそれぞれの回に学習した文法事項がより身いながら具体的なテーマでの表現活動を行うことができる。学生は、単にそれぞれの回に学習した文法事項

近なテーマについて表現できることで学習成果に気づくことができたと言えるだろう。

がより身近なテーマについて表現できることで学習成果に気づくことができたと言えるだろう。

図 1：学生に示すグラフィックシラバスの一部（図 1 ：学生に示すグラフィックシラバスの一部）

図 1 では、第 6 回までを行うと、家族、友人について紹介する文章をまとめることができること、課題
ながら、具体的な機能、語彙、文法をモデル文とともに示す。なお、現在は、それらのアクティビティにになることを示している。このような形で、年間に4 回程度の表現活動を行なっている。いくつかの回ごとついて評価基準について検討を行なっているところである。
に表現活動を入れることにより、文法の説明時に表現活動に必要な語彙の積極的な導入などの工夫が可能となる。また、学生は、それぞれ何を目標に学習するのかを意識するようになるなどが観察される。
2
cf. 栗田佳代子、日本教育研究イノベーションセンター編著『インタラクティブ・ティーチングーあくて
イブ・ラーニングを促す授業づくり』(2017) 第 5 章参照

2．行動主義：社会的存在としての学習者
CEFR の特徴の一つとして、行動主義、社会的存在としての学習者ということを意識している点を挙げる
ことができる。外国語の授業は、さまざまなコミュニケーションの場と考えると、教室そのものが一つのコ
ミュニティと考えることができ、ペア、グループ活動を積極的に取り入れることが大切であると考える。簡単な文法問題でも教員の文法の説明などの理解をお互いに確認しながら問題を行うことで、自分の理解を確かめたり、分からないことを教え合ったりする場を提供することが可能である。ペアでの簡単なコミュニケーション活動については、最後に活動内容から得た結果をさらに大きなグループで報告しあう時間を持つこ
2 cf. 栗田佳代子、日本教育研究イノベーションセンター編著『インタラクティブ・ティーチング―アクティブ・ラーニング
を促す授業づくり』（ 2017 ） 第 5 章参照

220

「CEFR」「スペイン語学習のめやす」とスペイン語教育実践とで、作業がうまくいったかを学生同士で確認することもメリットの一つと考える。このような中で、さまざまな活動の中で協働作業の意識を高め合っていると言えるだろう。
なぜ、文法の中でのコミュニケーション活動の必要性については、「 CEFR 」において文法知識ではなく、文法能力の育成ということを分けて説明している点に注目したい。文法知識を一つの塊として考えるのではなく、常に、学んでいる文法がどこでどのように生かせるのかを考える必要があるのではないだろうか、そして学習者自身―学生が、文法を学びながら常に実際のシチュエーションを意識させることが、文法能力の育成にもつながると考えている。
文法を教える際に、単に形態論的情報、統語論、意味論的情報でだけなく、どんな状況で使われているのか、一つ一つの文が適切に解釈されるためにはどんな能力が必要なのかということを意識させることも大切である。文法を説明するための一つの単純な文でもどんな状況で使われるだろう、と考えるのは意味があるだろう。文法授業で使う例文では、特にその点を意識して学生に問いかけを行なっている。
実際のコミュニケーションを意識させるために、例えば、ビデオ等を使って提示することもあり、その中では、どんな状況で使われている会話かを意識させるだけでなく、ターゲットとなる表現だけでなく、実際の状況や文化的な側面、日本との違いなどに目を向けることにつながっていくと考えている 3 。

3．複言語主義、自律学習姿勢
CEFR では、特に 1 人の言語話者が特定の言語だけでなく、さまざまな言語能力を身につけることで、よりその言語能力が豊かになるという複言語主義を強調している。ヨーロッパの中でさまざまな言語について
自分の生活の中で必要とする言語を、自分の用途に基づいてその能力を伸ばしていくことが大切であるとする。第 1 節であげた言語能力指標もその概念に基づいて、自分が必要な能力をどのように伸ばしていく必要があるかを示したものとも言える。これが、自律学習姿勢にもつながり、どんな人もいくつかの言語の話者であると同時に言語の学習者でもある、既知の言語の知識がさまざまな言語活動を豊かにし、更なる言語習得に役立つだろうと思われる。 それが、生涯にわたって学んでいく必要があるということにつながるだろう。
大学で外国語を学習するときには、複言語ということを意識する大切な機会であると言えよう。英語を学習しているのであれば、新しく学習する言語との違いを意識し、それまでは、日本語としか比較しないような状況の中で、他の言語構造についても意識する機会に恵まれるだろう、また新しい言語を学ぶ環境では、
英語とは異なる言語知識、表現形式の違いを意識し、日本語の特徴への気づきにつながるだろう。英語にはない文法規則などを説明する際に、日本語や英語と比較して説明することを意識することで、新たな言語の特徴にも気づくことになる。それが、さまざまな言語を学習するためのコツ、学習ストラテジーを意識することになる。文法の授業でも単に文法規則、用例を示すだけでなく、他言語との比較、また表現形式の違いを考えさせる方法を導入することで、文法はむずかしい、暗記しなくてはならないのでつまらないなど日頃のマイナスのイメージを払拭し、言語を学ぶ楽しさを伝えることにもつながるのではないだろうか。このような方法は、学生同士の意見交換の機会をより多く与えることになり、文法からコミュニケーションへの橋
渡しにもなっていくだろう。さらに、英語に限らず日本語、個人個人が身近に接する言語への興味、注意喚起にもなり、学生の自主的な気づき、自律的な学習につながっていくと考える。
自律的学習姿勢の涵養は、限られた時間数の中で展開される大学における外国語教育の中では重要な意味を持っていると思われる。大半の場合に必修という枠の中で学習している状況では、学生が自ら興味を持ち、自発的に学習していく方向に向かせることが大きな目標となっている。このためには、常に、なぜ、何のために、何を目標に学習しているかを意識させることが大切であろう。最初は色々なきっかけで学習する言語
でも、色々授業活動の中から自ら目標を見つけて、さまざまな課外学や社会活動に積極的参加する学生を養成することが外国語教師の一つの大きな役割だと言えよう。
3 ビデオを使う際には、授業前に何度も視聴できるような課題を設定し、視聴のポイントを設問の形で提示しておく。このようにすることで、授業での課題達成が用意になるように工夫し、学生の達成感に留意するように工夫している。

221

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

一つの試みとしては、「ポートフォリオ作成」を挙げることができる。明治学院大学教養教育センターでは、「 MGU 外国語学習ポートフォリオ」を 2014 年に作成し、学生へ配布を試みたが、まずその実践の意味を学生があまり理解できなかったこと、さらに授業の中でそれを振り返ったり、何ができるようになったかをお互いに確認したりすることができなかったために定着には至らなかった。まずは、教室内での指導実践が大切であるということを実感した。
授業内では、まず自分が何を学習しているのか、何ができるようになったか、また何を復習する必要があるかという自分の学習の振り返りをさせることが大切などはないかと考えている。そのための実践として、授業の最初に、毎回の授業の目的、到達目標を確認すること、授業後に振り返りの記入し、それに対してのコメント記入、次の時授業での再説明などを実践している。全体的に見れば、簡単なコメントで終わる学習者も多い中、様々な気づき、前から気になっていた語がスペイン語だったんだという気づきのコメント、こんな語を聞いたことがあるが、これもスペイン語と関係あるといった新たな質問、などー自分の言語知識の構築に役立っているだろうと思えるコメントがあり、少しずつでも意味があるだろうと思っている。
最後に、さまざまな活動、課題を通じて、学生が到達目標を達成できたか、を把握すること、次に努力したいことを自分から考えることにつながるからである。大学の外国語授業の目的の一つに、自律学習姿勢の涵養を入れるとしたら、学びにつながる評価を念頭に、いくつかの課題で、ルーブリック評価を取り入れている。試験だけの評価だけでなく、実際に行った授業活動、振り返りシートなども参考することも必要だろう。
さらに、いくつかの課題では、ルーブリック評価を利用し、時間が許せば、添削、コメント後に再提出させることで、成果だけでなくプロセスも重要であることの気づきを促すことが大切と言える。 ルーブリッ
ク評価では、内容、構成、文法、語彙、独創性、文章構成などを評価の観点とし、一つ一つについて 3 つの尺度（例えば：内容、目標以上：学習した項目と文法、語彙を踏まえ、要求された内容を過不足なく盛り込
んでいる

構成、目標以上：要求された内容を、整理して提示し、文章としてまとまりがある , ）を示し、さらに全体的なコメントをつけて、評価できる点、また改善の余地のある点として示して返却する。何をどのように評価するのかに学生自身が慣れていかないと、なかなか自己評価、作成の段階において評価を利用するという習慣がつかないと言える。課題、その目標、さらにどんな点を重視するかを十分に説明すること
で、課題への取り組み意欲が向上するようである。

4．終わりにコロナ禍のなかで、対面授業からオンライン（同時双方向）への切り替えを余儀なくされ対面での学習を補うための色々なツールの使用など工夫がなされ、その仕様についても検討してきたが、実際にオンラインになることによってそれらのツールが役に立ったとも言える。LMS も単にファイルの受け渡し、簡単な復習チェックの問題などに特化して利用していたところから、音声ファイルの提出、発音確認など、授業外での学習を促すための色々な工夫ができることもわかった。学生の学習状況が LMS で集約されるために、自習学習がどれだけ進められているかもわかり、その都度コメントすることで自習（自律学習）の大切さも少しは伝わったのではないかと考えている。
この機会には、個人的な実践の話が中心で、これらの体験を教師同士が共有することで、より改善された
効果的な方法を模索できるのではないかと考えられる。まずは、一つの言語の中で、情報交換することによって、それぞれの教師の個性を生かしながら、同じ目標に向かっての教育ができると考えている。さらに、様々な言語間の授業実践報告を通して、今までにはない新しい視点をそれぞれの言語の教育にも生かせるだろう。
それぞれの言語に特徴的なことを自分が教える言語に当てはめるとどのように利用できるかを考えることで、更なる言語教育の発展が望めると期待している。

参考文献

Nilson B, Linda（ 2007）. The Graphic Syllabus and Outcomes Map: Communicating Your Course Jossey－Bass.
吉島 茂、大橋理恵

222

訳編（ 2014 ）『外国語教育 II, 外国語の学習、教授、評価のためのヨーロッパ共通参照

「CEFR」「スペイン語学習のめやす」とスペイン語教育実践枠』朝日出版社
栗田佳代子 編著（ 2017 ）『インタラクティブ・ティーチング』 河合出版
国際文化フォーラム編 .（ 2012 ）『外国語学習のめやす 2012 高等学校の中国語と韓国語教育からの提言』
https://www.tjf.or.jp/wp－content/uploads/2019/08/02meyasu2012_final.pdf（スペイン語参考文献）
Amenós Pons, J., Ahern, A. y Escandell Vidal, María V.（ 2019 ）Comunicación y cognición en ELE: la perspectiva pragmática. Edinumen.
Centellas Rodrigo, Aurora, et.al.（2021）. Español como lengua extranjera, Niveles de la lengua y actividades
comunicativas. Enclave.
. Lingüística aplicada Adquisición del español como lengua extranjera. Enclave.
―（ 2021）（参考文献：その他）
スペイン語の学習のめやす

http://gide.curhost.com/publicacionesJP.html

GIDE（ ス ペ イ ン 語 教 育 研 究 会 編 ）（ 2015 ）Un modelo de contenidos para un modelo de actuación Enseñar
español como segunda lengua extranjera en Japón.『言語運用を重視した参照基準「スペイン語の学習のめやす」日本における第二外国語としてのスペイン語教育』
GIDE（スペイン語教育研究会編）（ 2019 ）．Un modelo de actuación. Aplicaciones practices para la clase deespañol. 『スペイン語学習のめやす：教室活動への応用』

223

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

大学中国語教育の現状と実践、そして課題
西

香織

要旨
中国語を共通語または公用語とする国や地域では、特に 21 世紀以降、「国際言語としての中国語教育」を念頭に大きく改革を行っており、学習者の多様化（様々な学習目的、最終目標）に応じて中国語教育のあり方も多様化が進みつつある。一方、日本の大学における中国語教育は、全体的にはいまだに文法訳読法とオーディオ・リンガル教授法が中心であり、「コミュニケーション」「会話」と名の付く科目は 20、30 年前に比べて増えたものの、実際にはコミュニケーション能力の育成につながる教育はほとんどなされていないというのが現状である。大学の外国語
教育カリキュラムが縮小化傾向にある中、わずかな学修時間、限られた期間で学生にどんな力を身につけてもらい
たいのか明確にしておく必要がある。本稿では、大学第二外国語（共通教育）課程における中国語教育を概観した
うえで、主に筆者の勤務校を例にとり、大学中国語教育における複言語主義の導入と実践例を紹介し、その課題を指摘し、最後に、今後の展望、特に新型コロナ感染症収束後の中国語教育について述べた。

キーワード：中国語、複言語主義、多言語多文化共生社会、反転授業

い ま

1．日本の大学中国語教育の現在
日本の大学における中国語教育は、全体的には、いまだに文法訳読法（文法と語彙学習）、オーディオ・リンガル教授法（ Audio－Lingual Method。反復練習、構造中心の文型練習、機械的やりとり、暗唱）が席巻している。現在、日本で出版されている数多ある大学生向け中国語教材の圧倒的多数が文法シラバスによるものであること、本文が提示された後、文法の説明があり、口頭を含む文型の練習問題という形式からなる教材がほとんどであること、「会話」や「コミュニケーション」という名を冠する授業のシラバスに、実際には、発音練習の繰り返し、暗唱、やり取りの型を「覚える」などの記載が多く見られることからも、
21 世紀に入ってすでに 20 年以上過ぎた現在、一家に一台の固定電話から一人一台のスマートフォンへ、など、我々を取り巻く環境が大きく変わっていても、授業内容や形式にはさほど大きな変化がみられないことが分かる。日本の中国語教育は非常に長い歴史をもつ漢文教育の影響をとりわけ大きく受けていることもあり、とりわけ文法訳読法からの脱却が難しいのではないかと考えられる。
たとえば、アメリカの外国語教育が一旦、意味重視のコミュニカティブ・アプローチ（ Communicative
Approach ）一色に染まり、その反省から、形式（文法）も重視するフォーカス・オン・フォーム（ Focus－
on－Form ）という指導法が見られるようになったのとは対照的に、日本の中国語教育はコミュニカティブ・アプローチに染まることはなく、むしろ、これからコミュニカティブ・アプローチの導入を考えようとする
動きさえみられる。声を出して発音練習をすること、決まった型の会話練習をすることが学習者のコミュニ
ケーション能力を育成するという誤解が教師だけでなく学生にもいまだに根強くある。しかし、後になって学生は気づく。あんなに暗記したのに、現実のコミュニケーションの場では全く中国語でやりとりができな
いということを。そして教師のほうも気づき始めている。あれだけ文法をしっかりと教え、発音や会話の練習もみっちりしたのに、学生は全然「できる」ようになっていないではないかと。要は「できる」ようになる学習・教育をしていないからである。
い ま

2．中国語圏の中国語教育の現在
中国語圏の中国語教育は特に 21 世紀に入ってから目覚ましいスピードで変化を遂げており、「国際言語としての中国語」教育の改革、促進を国家レベルで行っている。中国語を公用語の一つとしているシンガポ

224

大学中国語教育の現状と実践、そして課題

ールでも、長らく英語教育が重視されてきたが、2009 年に当時の内閣顧問、李光耀（リー・クアンユー）
氏が中国語教育の推進を宣言したことで、大きく言語（外国語）教育の潮流が変わっている。
検 定 試 験 を 見 て も 改 革 の 動 き は 明 ら か で、中 国 で 現 在 行 わ れ て い る HSK（ 汉 语 水 平 考 试、Hànyǔ
Shuǐpíng Kǎoshì、Chinese Proficiency Test ）2.0、台湾で行われている TOCFL（華語文能力測験、Testof Chinese as Foreign Language ）はいずれも CEFR（ヨーロッパ言語共通参照枠、Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages ）を参考にした作りになっている。特に中国の HSK はもともとの 11 段階のレベル（ HSK1.0、1990 年から実施）から、CEFR に合わせ 6 段階のレベル分けに変更されたが（ HSK2.0、2009 年頃から実施、1.0 と 2.0 の混在期あり）、「設定されている級と CEFR のレベルが合っていない」（現実にはほぼ B2 レベルまでしか測れない）という批判が多く寄せられたこと、国際的な中国語教育のニーズがより高まったことなどから、CEFR や ACTFL（アメリカ外国語教育評議会、American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages ）の The Standards for Foreign Language Learning forthe 21st Century（21 世紀の外国語学習基準 1 ）を意識した、より世界標準に近い試験の設定を目的として、2021 年 7 月 に《 国 际 中 文 教 育 中 文 水 平 等 级 标 准 》（ Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards forInternational Chinese Language Education ）を施行し、まもなく 9 段階のレベルで、コミュニケーショ
ン能力を重視した HSK3.0 に移行する予定である。

3．明治学院大学の外国語教育カリキュラムと中国語の状況
筆者の勤務校（明治学院大学）を例にとると、共通教育科目としての外国語は 6 学部 16 学科のうちほぼ全ての学部・学科で 1 年次に週 2 回（ 90 分）の英語科目と同じく週 2 回の初修外国語（フランス語、スペイン語、ドイツ語、中国語、韓国語、ロシア語、正規留学生の場合は日本語）が必修になっている。ただし
2 年次にも外国語が必修になっているのはわずか数学科にとどまる。中国語の履修者は 2016 年度から急増しており、ここ数年は毎年度 2 ～ 4 クラスの増設をし、初年次の中国語履修者が 1000 名を超えている。新入生の 3 人に 1 人は中国語を初修外国語として選択していることになる。ただ、履修の動機を見ると、目覚ましい中国の発展、特に経済面の世界的な影響力により、家族や知人から中国語の履修を勧められて、など外発的動機づけによるものが多く、同じ漢字文化圏のため単位の修得が容易ではないか、という安易な考えで履修する学生が多いことも残念ながらまた事実である。これだけ多くの中国語履修者を有しながら、学内で実施する各種検定試験講座やランゲージ・ラウンジ、中国語圏への短期語学研修などの参加者が他の外国語に比べて著しく少ないという現実は内発的動機による履修者が少ないことの傍証となろう。

4．わたしの中国語教育、そして実践
4.1

わたしの中国語教育法と理念

筆者の大学での中国語教育経験は約 20 年で、前半 10 年と後半 10 年で教え方は大きく変わっている。はじめの 10 年は「自身の先生に習ったように教えることができる」ことを目標にしてきた。生教材などを積極的に取り入れるなど工夫は凝らしつつも、文法訳読法＋オーディオ・リンガル教授法を忠実に遂行してきた。
その筆者に大きな転機が訪れる。ふと自身の中国語教育を振り返り、自分は学生に何を身につけてもらいたくて中国語を教えているのか、その教え方は本当に学生の中国語能力を伸ばしているのか、を自分自身に問い直してみた。そして、自分のそれまでの教育法、指導法を全否定するに至った。自身のこのような変化
は、各外国語教育間で連携が見られるようになり、同じ「外国語教育」というくくりの中で日本の外国語教
育のスタンダードを考えようという動きがみられるようになったことと深く関係する。CEFR はもちろんのこと、『外国語学習のめやす』（国際文化フォーラム）にも大きな影響を受けた後、これらの指標を緩やかに
1 2015 年には、World－Readiness Standards for Learning Languages に改名。

225

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

運用し、Can－do 方式の授業に切り替え、文法シラバスによって編まれた教材の一課一課のアダプテーショ
ンを行い始めた。毎課、具体的なコミュニケーション目標を掲げて、最後にコミュニケーション・タスク（会話）として実践させ、それを評価することで、できることを一つ一つ増やすことに注力するようになった。
2013 年度からは前勤務校（北九州市立大学）の中国語専攻課程において、1 年次の第 2 学期に必ず課題解決型プロジェクト学習（ Project Based Learning ）を取り入れ、中国語母語話者への調査を行って、他の外国語クラスと連携・共有するプロジェクトをほぼ毎年度実施した。2019 年 9 月に現勤務校（明治学院大学）に移り、現在は第二（初修）外国語としての中国語教育に従事しているが、基本の授業方式は変わらず、2 年次にプロジェクト学習を実施している。また、初回の授業で、学生には次のような筆者の授業のコンセプトを伝えるようにしている。
・中国語母語話者を目標には「しない」こと
・現実のコミュニケーションを意識した、「使う」ための学習であること
・習い始めた今日この日から中国語の「使用者」であること
・母語を客観化、相対化するために外国語を学ぶこと。また、その学習は自分自身を知ることにつながること・AI（人工知能）が台頭する 21 世紀を生きるためのスキルと思考力を身につけるきっかけとすること
・特にここ日本で、異なる文化背景や価値観、考えを持つ人々と「共に生きるため」の方法を考える
こと
一見してわかる通り、これらは複言語主義や異文化間教育の理念や目的にかなり近いものである。

4.2

明治学院大学における教育実践（ 1 年次）

新型コロナウイルス感染症の流行により、2020 年 4 月から今日に至るまで勤務校の外国語授業は全て同時双方向型の遠隔授業を行っている。このコロナ渦により日本社会、そして世界規模でパラダイム・シフト（ Paradigm Shift ）が起きたことは、外国語教育・学習にとってはむしろ好ましい変化をもたらしたように思われる。遠隔授業が中心になったことで学生は現在そしてこれからを生きるために必要な ICT（情報・コ
ミュニケーション・テクノロジー）スキルを否応なく身につけることになり、これまでの常識が覆されたことで否応なく自身の持つ価値観や方法を見直す必要に迫られている。なによりも、筆者にはハードルが高いと感じられた日本の大学における反転授業がこの環境下でいとも容易く実現できた。現在の 1 年次の主な授業形態（事前・事後学修を含む）は、文法や語彙部分はコミュニケーション目標達成のために必要な「材料」
として、事前に筆者自作のビデオを視聴して学習しておいてもらい（文法ワークも事前に済ませてもらい）、
授業は意味も文法もすでに「わかっている」ことを前提に、コミュニケーション目標達成のための練習の場と位置付けている。2 課進むごとに 2 課分のコミュニケーション目標を使ったコミュニケーション・タスクの指示文（例：相手から名前・年齢・国籍・身分を聞き出す、食べたい料理や好き・嫌いな料理について述
べたり、食べた料理の感想を述べあったりする、など）を提示し、学生が考えたやり取り（テキストなどは一切見ずに実施）を録画した動画ファイルを LMS（ Moodle ）に提出させ、それを教員がルーブリックで評価したうえで一人一人に音声ファイル付きでフィードバックしている。もちろんタスクはシミュレーション
であり、どう現実と結びつけていくかは課題であるが、自分の頭でやり取りを考える作業は本文を丸暗記することとは全く別の作業となる。また、授業前に事前に実施してもらうビデオ視聴や文法ワークは授業終了
後にも何度も実施が可能となっており、わからなければ再度ビデオの解説を聞く、満点が取れるまで文法ワークを解く、など学生の自主的な学修に役立てられている。
以下は、学期終了時の 1 年生の授業に対する感想（一部抜粋）である。
（ 2020 年度第 1 学期終了時）
・この間、バイト先に中国の方が来られて、日本語で言うのを苦戦していらっしゃって、中国語で聞こうか迷いました。大げさかもしれませんが、あの時、世界が広がったような感じがしました！
・街のアナウンスで中国語が流れたときに、知っている単語を聞き取れると少し嬉しく感じます。こ226

大学中国語教育の現状と実践、そして課題の授業を通してさらにこれから学んでいきたいと思えました。
・今までは外で中国語を見ても素通りでしたが、今は何となくわかるのでとても楽しいし、うれしいです。
・自分の中に選択肢が増えた気がします。
（ 2020 年度第 2 学期終了時）
・ディズニーランドに行ったときに、前まではアナウンスで中国語が流れてる、という印象しかなかったのに、習ってから行くと、あっこれ知ってる単語が流れた！ と少しわかるようになって嬉しかったです。
・最近、身近に書かれた中文をなんとなくでも読めるようになり確実に力がついてきたのだと実感しています。
2020 年度第 1 学期は新型コロナウイルスの流行で急遽、遠隔授業となり、本格的な授業は 5 月の連休明けから始まった。実質的な学修期間は 3 ヶ月ほどであったにもかかわらず、短期間の中国語学修により「世界が広がった」「自分の中に選択肢が増えた」と感じた学生がいたことに筆者自身、驚きを隠せないでいる。
このように書いた学生たちは実際にわずか数ヶ月で驚くべき上達を見せており、同時に、時間数の限られた初修外国語教育であっても限りない可能性があることに気づかされた。

4.3

明治学院大学における教育実践（ 2 年次）

2 年次の中国語授業ではプロジェクト学習を全面的に導入している。中国語圏の大学とは時差が 1 時間で、
コロナ禍で互いに遠隔授業を行っていた時期には、授業中や昼休みに日本語専攻のクラスの学生と互いにイ
ンタビューを行ったり、ひとつのテーマでディスカッションを行うなど、主に Zoom を使用した同時双方向型の活動を導入した。各ブレイクアウト・セッションで、まずは自分の母語と目標言語で自己紹介などを行った後、日本語・中国語・英語のどの言語を用いてもよいからコミュニケーションを続けること、「他者とのつながり」を保ち続けることを学生に要求した。台湾や中国で日本語を学ぶ学生と自身の母語である日
本語あるいは共通の既習言語である英語で対話することなどは、これまでの「中国語」の授業ではあり得ないこととされてきたであろう。しかし、このような活動こそが複言語能力（ Plurilingual Competence ）の育成に大きく役立つものであり、異なる文化背景、価値観を持つ人々と多言語多文化共生社会において「共に生きる」ための基盤づくりともなる。遠隔授業により「つながる」活動に意義を持たせることが可能となったのである。
2020 年度第 2 学期は「コロナ禍の学生生活」を大テーマとしたプロジェクト学習を行い、3 チームが「コロナ渦での家族生活の変化」「コロナで変わった将来の夢」「コロナ禍の家での過ごし方」というテーマを選
んで、中国や台湾の大学生に調査を行い、日本語と中国語（ 1 チームは英語も）を併記したスライド（ PowerPoint 利用）を完成させ、他大学で同様の調査を行った韓国語クラスと共有し、互いの成果物にコ
メントしあった。2021 年度第 1 学期は、コロナ禍でなかなか海外旅行ができないことから、「コロナの流行が終わったらぜひ中国語圏の若者に行ってもらいたい観光スポットの紹介」を大テーマとし、実際に中国や台湾の大学生の生の声を聞いて観光地・観光スポットを絞り、そのスポットを日本語・中国語を（数チー
ムは英語も）使って紹介する成果物（ PowerPoint に音声を付けたビデオ、Instagram、Padlet などを利用）をチームごとに作成した。そして、台湾の大学で同様のプロジェクトを実施した日本語クラスとの間でPadlet を利用し成果物を共有しコメントしあった。
様々な WEB ツールを駆使して、中国語圏の学生とやり取りができたことは、学生たちにとって非常に大きな刺激となったはずである。たとえば、台湾や中国の学生たちがアニメやドラマ、歌（ポップス）などを含め、日本のことを非常によく知っており、ドラマなどで覚えた非常にこなれた日本語や英語を使うことに驚いたこと、その一方で、自分はどれだけ中国文化を知らないのか、どれだけ生の中国語が聞き取れないか、という「ショック」を受けたこともまた今後の学生たちの中国語学習に役立つはずである。また、各チームで作成した多言語対応の WEB アンケート調査には、オーストラリアやカナダなど世界各地に居住する中国227

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

語圏出身の学生も協力してくれた。このことは、中国語を使用する機会が世界に広く存在していることに気づく機会でもあったはずである。

5．日本で複言語主義を推進するにあたっての課題
5.1

学生の戸惑い・混乱

文法訳読法やオーディオ・リンガル教授法、あるいは受験のための外国語学習に慣れた学生は、これまでとは異なる方法での教授にしばしば強い混乱と困惑を覚える。特に、週 2 回あるうちの 1 回の授業と授業方式が著しく異なる場合には強いストレスを感じるようである。また、日本の学生は往々にしてディスカッ
ションや協働作業が苦手である。全国的にはグループ・ワークなどを含むアクティブ・ラーニング型授業を行う授業は増加傾向にあるものの、その流れと逆行するかのように受け身志向の大学生が増えていること、自らが主体的、能動的にかかわっていく必要のある活動に対して強い苦手意識、負担感、嫌悪感を抱く学生
が一定の割合で存在することがこれまでも指摘されている（近田・杉野 2015、赤堀 2017、ベネッセ教育
総合研究所 2017、西・李 2018 など）。目標言語の母語話者との対話に意義を見出せない様子も見られるため、諸活動を通して、学生にどんな能力やスキルを身につけてもらいたいのか、何を考えてもらいたいのかを明確にし、そしてそれは学生の将来にどのように役立つかがイメージしやすいようにしておく必要がある。

5.2

教材と理念の不一致、教育法の不統一

上述したように、少なくとも日本の大学や高校の中国語教材はいまだに文法シラバスによるものが圧倒的多数を占めており、コミュニケーション能力を向上させたり、インタラクティブな活動をするための教材開発が非常に遅れている。既存の教材を使って授業を行うとなるとかなりのアダプテーションが必要となるが、それは同時に、学生にとっては混乱の元となりかねず、教員の負担も確実に増加する。
また、少なくとも同じ大学で同じ言語（外国語）を教える教員間で共有されるべき理念・コンセプトが欠如していると、一方の授業では暗唱だけを求められ、一方の授業では「暗唱など不要」と言われる、という、学生にとっては甚だ迷惑な状況が起こりうる。日本では、言語（外国語）共通のスタンダードを作る・使う
以前に、まだまだ多くの壁が立ちはだかっているようである。教師はロボットではない。それぞれの個性を生かしユニークな授業を展開することは教師に与えられた権利であり義務でもある。しかし、学生をある言
語の「使用者」として育てるために、教員間である一定のコンセプトや理念、方向性は共有していく必要がある。

6．ヨーロッパと日本、そして CEFR ―今後の展望
新型コロナウイルス流行前の日本の状況は実はヨーロッパの状況にかなり近くなっていた。わざわざ海外に赴かなくとも、韓国や中国、台湾など近隣諸国から多くの観光客が日本に押し寄せ、街を歩いていて中国語あるいは韓国語を聞かない、見ない日はほとんどないほどであった。「ここ日本で中国語や韓国語を使う」
ことがかなり身近なものとして認識され始めていたのである。
一時的な滞在者だけではない。2020 年 6 月現在の日本の在留外国人計 2,885,904 名のうち、国籍別にみれば、中国・台湾籍計 861,806 名（ 801,357 名＋ 60,449 名）と中国語圏出身者が最も高い割合を占め、次いで韓国・朝鮮籍計 464,486 名（ 436,791 名＋ 27,695 名）が多い。国籍と母語が連動するとは限らないが、日本における中国語、韓国語（朝鮮語）使用者は決して少なくないと言える。つまり、CEFR あるいは複言語主義の理念などが、日本では、ヨーロッパ言語の教育よりもむしろ中国語教育や韓国語教育においてより受け入れられやすく実現されやすい環境になりつつあったのである。
新型コロナウイルスの流行が終息すれば、再び外国人観光客が戻ってくるであろう。しかし、外国語教育

228

大学中国語教育の現状と実践、そして課題のあり方はもう以前のようには戻らないし、戻ってはいけない。ポスト・コロナ時代にこそ複言語能力のニーズが高まるであろうし、その能力が期待され、発揮されるはずである。このコロナ禍は日本の言語（外国語）教育のあり方を大転換させる大きなチャンスなのである。

参考文献

赤堀侃司（ 2017 ）「アクティブ・ラーニングに関する意識調査と分析」『（教育テスト研究センター（ CRET ）年報』第 2 号、pp.8－18。
Byram, Michael（ 2008 ）From Foreign Language Education to Education for Intercultural Citizenship: Essays
and Reflections （Languages for Intercultural Communication and Education）, Channel

View

Publications Ltd.（細川英雄監修、山田悦子・古村由美子訳（ 2015 ）『相互文化的能力を育む外国語
教育―グローバル時代の市民性形成をめざして』大修館書店）
細川英雄・西山教行編（ 2010 ）リテラシーズ叢書 1『複言語・複文化主義とは何か―ヨーロッパの理念・状況から日本における受容・文脈化へ』くろしお出版。
西香织（ 2012 ）〈高校汉语教学离国际化、现代化还有多远？〉《全球语境下海外高校汉语教学》pp.217–23。
洪历建编、学林出版社。
西香織・李大年（2018）「プロジェクト学習を通した学生のアクティブラーニングに対する意識調査分析」『北
九州市立大学外国語学部紀要』第 147 号、pp.19－47。
西山教行・細川英雄・大木充編（ 2015 ）リテラシーズ叢書 4『異文化間教育とは何か―グローバル人材育成のために』くろしお出版。
大木充・西山教行編（ 2011 ）『マルチ言語宣言―なぜ英語以外の外国語を学ぶのか』京都大学学術出版会。
田原憲和編著（ 2019 ）『他者とつながる外国語学習をめざして―「外国語学習のめやす」の導入と活用』三修社。
近田政博・杉野竜美（ 2015 ）「アクティブラーニング型授業に対する大学生の認識―神戸大学での調査結果
から―」『大学教育研究（神戸大学大学教育推進機構）』第 23 号、pp.1－19。
當作靖彦・中野佳代子（ 2013 ）『外国語学習のめやす―高等学校の中国語と韓国語教育からの提言』公益財
団法人国際文化フォーラム。
中华人民共和国教育部、国家语言文字工作委员会（ 2021 ）《国际中文教育中文水平等级标准》（ GF0025－
2021 ）。
ベネッセ教育総合研究所（2017）「第 3 回

大学生の学習・生活実態調査報告書

速報版［2016 年］」（2021

年 7 月 1 日 閲 覧 ）。http://berd.benesse.jp/up_images/research/3_daigaku－gakushu－seikatsu_all.
pdf
出入国在留管理庁（ 2020 ）2020 年 6 月末在留外国人統計（公開日：2020 年 12 月 11 日、2021 年 7 月 1日閲覧）。
https://www.e－stat.go.jp/stat－search/files?page=1&layout=datalist&toukei=00250012&tstat=00
0001018034&cycle=1&year=20200&month=12040606&tclass1=000001060399

229

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

大学における韓国語教育の現況と問題点
中島

仁

はじめに
本稿では日本の大学における第二外国語としての韓国語教育の現況を述べる。専攻課程については扱わな
いこととする。それにあたりまず、日本の大学における韓国語教育の簡単な流れを整理し、その後、現在の教育状況・特徴・問題点・CEFR の指標導入等について述べる。さらに、例として筆者の所属する東海大学の韓国語カリキュラムを例に上げつつカリキュラム作成上問題となりうる点について論じる。

韓国語教育の流れ
大学での韓国語教育が拡大し始めたのは 1980 年代になってからであり、他の言語に比べると遅いと言える。
大村益夫（ 1984 ）によれば非専攻課程で韓国語が学べる大学は当時 43 校で、1990 年代以後に韓国語教育を実施する大学は急激に増加した。
NHK でも韓国語講座が 1984 年から「ハングル講座―アンニョンハシムニカ」という名称でテレビとラジオで始められるなど国内における韓国語教育の転換点とも呼べる時期であった。なお、2002 年 1 月には大学入試センター試験の外国語科目として韓国語が正式に導入された。
韓国語教育の実施状況について、国際文化フォーラム（ 2005:29,33 ）の調査結果を整理したものが次の
表 1 である。
【表 1】4 年制大学での韓国語教育実施状況

年度

開設校（校）

実施率（％）

1988

68

―

1993

90

―

1995

143

25.3

1998

215

―

2000

263

40.5

2001

285

42.6

2002

322

46.9

2003

335

47.7

この調査以降、大規模な調査が行われておらず 2021 年現在はさらに拡大していることが予想される。

230

大学における韓国語教育の現況と問題点

大学における韓国語教育の特徴
大学で教育されている韓国語科目の学習レベルは国際文化フォーラム（ 2005:53 ）によれば、入門から中級までがおよそ 85％を占める。級の区別基準が明記されていないため詳細はわからないが、あまり高いレ
ベルの授業までは行われず科目数も多くないことが予想される。조선어교육학회 한국어교육현황조사
분과회（2020:15）で示されている教養科目としての韓国語の履修者数が 3 年次から激減していることからもそれが裏付けられるだろう。つまり、1 年次に初級、2 年時に中級の授業が行われ、それ以降の科目が少ないのである。
また、多くの学生が小学校や中学校から学んできた英語と異なり、独学してきたり高校で学習したりした学生を除くほとんどの学生が全くの初習である。韓国語の表記にはハングルが用いられており、また発音も日本語母語話者にはあまりなじみがない閉音節が多いこと（英語の閉音節とも異なる）から、単語や文法などを覚える前段階として文字と発音を覚えるのに時間がかかるという特徴がある。多くの場合、週 2 回の授業で 1 カ月ほど、週 1 回の授業では 2 カ月ほど、実に 1 学期の授業の 3 分の 1 から半分ほどの時間が文字と発音を覚えるために費やされてしまうことになる。
学習動機に関しては 21 世紀に入ってからとそれ以前では大きく異なり、最近の履修者の傾向として「 K－POP・韓流（スター）に関心がある」、「食べ物や化粧品・ファッションに関心がある」、「韓国へ旅行に行った時に役に立ちそう」、「習いやすいと聞いたので、周りから勧められて」等が多くを占める。韓国語という言語自体にそれほど強い関心がなく、いざ学び始めてみると文字や発音が難しいということもあり、何とな
くやってみようということで始めてはみるが長く続かない学生が多い 1 。
このような理由もあり、CEFR の指標導入をすることは可能であっても、大学の第二外国語としての韓国語教育に実用・運営するのが難しい状況にあると分析できる。

CEFR の指標と資格試験
上で述べたような理由から、少なくとも大学の第二外国語としての韓国語教育において CEFR の指標が導入されている事例はないと思われる。その代わりに学習者の到達指標としてしばしば言及されるのが韓国語の資格試験の基準である。現在、日本で主に受けられている資格試験には（ 1 ）「ハングル」能力検定試験と（ 2 ）韓国語能力試験の 2 つがある。
「ハングル」能力検定試験は日本初の韓国語資格試験であり、1993
年の第 1 回が実施された。現在まで 54 回実施され、延べ出願者数は 45 万人を超えている。各級のレベルは表 2 の通りである 2 。
【表 2】「ハングル」能力検定試験の各級のレベル（1 級が最上級）級

5級

60 分授業を 40 回受講した程度。韓国・朝鮮語を習い始めた初歩の段階で、基礎的な韓国・朝鮮語をある程度理解し、それらを用いて表現できる。
・ハングルの母音（字）と子音（字）を正確に区別できる。
・約 480 語の単語や限られた文型からなる文を理解することができる。
・決まり文句としてのあいさつやあいづち、簡単な質問ができ、またそのような質問に答えることができる。
・自分自身や家族の名前、特徴・好き嫌いなどの私的な話題、日課や予定、食べ物などの身近なことについて伝え合うことができる。

1 学習動機に関しては朴珍希（ 2016 ）や授業内に行うアンケート資料（非公式）等による。東海大学の例で言えば、文字や発音から学ぶ「韓国語入門 1 」を履修して、その次段階である「韓国語入門 2 」に進む履修者はその半数にも満たない。
なお、履修は完全任意である。
2 ハングル能力検定協会 https://hangul.or.jp/231

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

4級

60 分授業を 80 回受講した程度。基礎的な韓国・朝鮮語を理解し、それらを用いて表現できる。
・比較的使用頻度の高い約 1,070 語の単語や文型からなる文を理解することができる。
・決まり文句を用いて様々な場面であいさつやあいづち、質問ができ、事実を伝え合うことができる。
また、レストランでの注文や簡単な買い物をする際の依頼や簡単な誘いなどを行うことができる。
・簡単な日記や手紙、メールなどの短い文を読み、何について述べられたものなのかをつかむことができる。
・自分で辞書を引き、頻繁に用いられる単語の組み合わせ（連語）についても一定の知識を持ちあわせている。

3級

60 分授業を 160 回受講した程度。日常的な場面で使われる基本的な韓国・朝鮮語を理解し、それらを用いて表現できる。
・決まり文句以外の表現を用いてあいさつなどができ、丁寧な依頼や誘いはもちろん、指示・命令、
依頼や誘いの受諾や拒否、許可の授受など様々な意図を大まかに表現することができる。
・私的で身近な話題ばかりではなく、親しみのある社会的出来事についても話題にできる。
・日記や手紙など比較的長い文やまとまりを持った文章を読んだり聞いたりして、その大意をつかむことができる。
・単語の範囲にとどまらず、連語など組合せとして用いられる表現や、使用頻度の高い慣用句や慣用表現なども理解し、使用することができる。

60 分授業を 240 ～ 300 回受講した程度。日常的な場面で使われる韓国・朝鮮語に加え、より幅広い場面で使われる韓国・朝鮮語をある程度理解し、それらを用いて表現できる。
・様々な相手や状況に応じて表現を選択し、適切にコミュニケーションを図ることができる。
・内容が比較的平易なものであれば、ニュースや新聞記事も含め、長い文やまとまりを持った文章
準2級
を大体理解でき、また日常生活で多く接する簡単な広告などについてもその情報を把握することができる。
・頻繁に用いられる単語や文型については基本的にマスターしており、数多くの慣用句に加えて、比較的容易なことわざや四字熟語などについても理解し、使用することができる。

2級

幅広い場面で使われる韓国・朝鮮語を理解し、それらを用いて表現できる。
・相手に対して失礼のないように表現を選び、適切にコミュニケーションを図ることができる。また、用件的に複雑な依頼や謝罪、批判などに関しても、適切に表現を選択し目的を果たすことができる。
・単語や言い回し、イントネーションなどの選択に現れる話し手の感情（ニュアンス）もほぼ理解することができる。
・公式な場面と非公式な場面の区別に即して適切な表現の選択が可能である。
・幅広い話題について書かれた新聞や雑誌の記事・解説、平易な評論などを読んで内容を理解することができる。また、取り扱い説明書や契約書、請求書や見積書、広告やパンフレットなど実用的な文を読んで、その意味を具体的に把握することができる。
・連語、慣用句、慣用表現はもちろん、ことわざや頻度の高い四字熟語についても理解し、使用できる。
・南北の言葉の違いなども多少理解することができる。

1級

幅広い場面で用いられる韓国・朝鮮語を十分に理解し、それらを自由自在に用いて表現できる。
・相手のみならず、場面や状況までを考慮した上で、的確に意図の実現ができ、報告書やエッセイなど、ほとんどのジャンルを考慮したスタイルの選択も可能である。
・職業上の業務遂行に関連する話題などについても取り扱うことができる。
・幅広い話題について書かれた新聞の論説・評論などの論理的にやや複雑な文章や抽象度の高い文章、様々な話題の内容に深みのある文章などを読んで、文章の内容や構成などを理解できる。
・要約や推論、論証や議論など、情報処理的にも高度なレベルが要求される処理を、韓国・朝鮮語を用いて行うことができる。
・類推の力を働かせて、知らない単語の意味を大体把握できる上、南北の言葉の違いや頻度の高い方言なども理解することができる。連語や四字熟語、ことわざについても豊富な知識と運用力を持ち合わせており、豊かな表現が可能である。

続いて、韓国語能力試験は韓国の教育部（日本の文部省に相当）の国立国際教育院が認定・実施する試験である。略称は TOPIK（ Test of Proficiency in Korea ）であり、級別の認定基準（全般）は以下の表 3 の通りである 3 。
3 https://www.kref.or.jp/examination/topik

232

大学における韓国語教育の現況と問題点【表 3】TOPIK の級別認定基準（6 級が最上級）
評価等級
1級

・自己紹介、買い物、飲食店での注文など生活に必要な基礎的な言語（ハングル）を駆使でき、身近な話題の内容を理解、表現できる。
・約 800 語程度の基礎的な語彙と基本文法を理解でき、簡単な文章を作れる。
・簡単な生活文や実用文を理解し、構成できる。

2級

・電話やお願い程度の日常生活に必要な言語（ハングル）や、郵便局、銀行などの公共機関での会話ができる。
・約 1,500 ～ 2,000 語程度の語彙を用いた文章を理解でき、使用できる。
・公式的な状況か非公式的な状況かの言語（ハングル）を区分し、使用できる。

3級

日常生活を問題なく過ごせ、様々な公共施設の利用や社会的関係を維持するための言語（ハングル）使用が可能。文章語と口語の基本的な特性を区分し理解、使用が可能。

4級

・公共施設の利用や社会的関係の維持に必要な言語（ハングル ）機能を遂行することができ、一般的な業務に必要な機能を実行できる。
・ニュースや新聞をある程度理解でき、一般業務に必要な言語（ハングル）が使用可能。
・よく使われる慣用句や代表的な韓国文化に対する理解をもとに社会・文化的な内容の文章を理解でき、使用できる。

5級

・専門分野においての研究や業務に必要な言語（ハングル）をある程度理解と使用ができ、政治・経済・社会・文化などの全般に渡った身近なテーマについて理解し、使用できる。
・公式的、非公式的且つ口語、文語的な脈絡に関する言語（ハングル）を適切に区分し、使用できる。

6級

・専 門分野における研究や業務遂行に必要な言語（ハングル）機能を比較的正確に、流暢に使用でき、政治・経済・社会・文化などの全般的なテーマにおいて身近でないテーマに対しても不便なく使用できる。
・ネイティブ程度までではないが、自己表現を問題なく話すことができる。

TOPIK Ⅰ（初級）

TOPIK Ⅱ
（中級・上
級）

評価基準

TOPIK のレベルと CEFR の対応関係に関して、国立国際教育院からの公式見解は発表されていないがYUN, Hee－Won（ 2016 ）では次の表のように述べている。
Korean Language

TOPIK IITOPIK I

CEFR

6th gradeC2

5th gradeC1

4th gradeB2

3rd gradeB1

2nd gradeA2

1st grade

A1

Proficient User
Independent User
Basic User

上記以外にも韓国語能力評価試験（ Korean Language Ability Test:KLAT ）2011 年韓国の文化体育観光部が認定した財団法人韓国語能力評価院韓国語研究所が実施している。日本では 2013 年に初めて試験が実施された。まだ受験者が少なく知名度も上記の 2 つに比べると低いが、唯一 CEFR に準拠していると明言している。CEFR に準拠した KLAT の評価基準は次のとおりである。

233

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）【表 4】KLAT と CEFR の対応 4
KLAT のレベルと級
初級
中級
上級

1級
2級
3級
4級
5級
6級

CEFR のレベル
A
B
C

CEFR の評価目安

学習時間（時）A1

入門

Breakthrough150 ～ 200 時間

A2

初級

Waystage400 未満B1

中級

Threshold

B2

中上級

Vantage

400 以上800 未満C1

上級

Effective Operational Proficiency

C2

最上級

Mastery

800 以上以上のような基準のうち大学における第二外国語教育の基準として参照できるのは「ハングル」能力検定
試験であれば 5 級と 4 級、（ 2 ）韓国語能力試験であれば初級ということになる大学が大多数を占めると考えられる。CEFR のレベルでは A1 ～ A2 程度と言うことができるが、それも 4 技能のレベルが均等にそろっているかとは言い難い。

カリキュラム作成上の問題点
ここではカリキュラム作成上、問題となりうる点を東海大学のカリキュラムを例に論じていく。東海大学
では一部の学部で韓国語の授業が開設されているが、基本的には語学教育センターが全学生対象に授業を開講している。履修に条件はなくどの科目でも自由に履修が可能である。21 年度に開講されている科目は以下の通りである。
韓国語入門 1,2

各 2 単位、週 2 回

韓国語会話入門 1,2

各 1 単位韓国語初級 1,2

各 2 単位、週 2 回

韓国語会話初級 1,2

各 1 単位韓国語中級 1,2

各 2 単位

韓国語会話中級 1,2

各 1 単位

韓国語上級 1,2

各 2 単位

韓国語表現法 1,2

各 1 単位

韓国語講読初級 1,2

各 2 単位

韓国語検定初級 1,2

各 1 単位

韓国語講読中級 1,2

各 2 単位

韓国語検定中級 1,2

各 1 単位韓国の言語と文化

2 単位、講義科目

専攻課程ではない大学での設置科目数としてはかなり多いのが特徴である。科目も会話・講読・表現法
等 5 の技能別に分かれているものもある。多くの大学では設置科目数がこれほど多いことはなく、ハングルの読み書きができ、ある程度の文法を身に付ける段階で終わってしまうことも少なくない。前でも述べたよ
うにハングルの読み書きができるようになるだけでも相当の時間を要する。それに加え発音の変化もありハングルで書かれている通りに発音しないことも少なくない。そのためまずはいかにハングルに慣れさせるかが非常に重要となる。読み書きがある程度自由に行えるようになれば、韓国語は助詞がある点や語順等、日本語と類似している点が多々あり、日本語の知識がある者にとっては非常に学びやすくなるからである。
韓国語教育における最も大きな問題とも言えるのは文法の記述方法である。その中でも品詞の設定や活用の記述方法は一定しておらず教材ごとに異なる 6 。科目ごとに記述方法が異なれば、学習者に不要な混乱を招き理解を阻害する原因となるため、東海大学では全くの初習者を対象とした「入門 1・2 」とその次段階の科目である「初級 1・2 」では同一教材を使用しその問題を回避している。活用に対しての理解がある程度
4 韓国語能力評価院 http://www.kets.or.kr/testinfo/jpn_testinfo.asp ？ pdiv ＝ 2
5 「表現法」は writing の授業である。
「上級」では 4 技能の全てを統合的に学ぶことができるようにしている。
6 中島仁（ 2021:153－156 ）の品詞、活用の記述法等参照。

234

大学における韓国語教育の現況と問題点

進めば、どの方法で説明されても理解に困ることはないため、それ以外の科目での教材の選定は担当教員に任せている。
それ以外には履修の順序や偏りも無視できない問題である。上記科目は履修の条件はなく初級を未履修でも中級の履修が可能となっている。それぞれの初級から中級へと履修し、最終的に上級科目に到達してもらうのが理想であるが、現状はかならずしもうまくいっていない。また、上の科目になるほど履修者間のレベルが開いてしまうという問題も多くの教員が抱えている問題だと思われるが、今のところ解決策がない状況
である。

おわりに
大学での韓国語教育が始まってからそれなりの時間が経過しているが、まだまだその基盤が整ったとは言い難い状況にある。ある程度のレベルに達した学生でも 4 技能の全てが同レベルに達している学生はほぼいないと言ってよい。4 技能をまんべんなく育成できる基盤を育てていくことが望まれる。それに加え、韓国語教育では今まで意識的にはほぼ行われてこなかったと言える複言語主義に基づいた教育によって多元的な視野、異文化に対する理解を身につけることも今後重要となってくるだろう。幸い韓国は日本から距離的にも近く文化的な接触も多い。日本に滞在している韓国人も多く、大学にいる留学生の中でも韓国人の占める割合はかなり多い。その一環として東海大学でも「会話中級」で韓国人留学生と日本の学生に協働学習を行う試みを 10 年以上前から行っている。今後もこのような取り組みを続けつつ他にもできることを模索して
いきたい。

参考文献

大村益夫（ 1984 ）「大学における朝鮮語教育の現状」、『季刊三千里』38 号、東京 : 三千里社
国際文化フォーラム（ 2005 ）『日本の学校における韓国朝鮮語教育 : 大学等と高等学校の現状と課題』、財
団法人 国際文化フォーラム中島仁（ 2021 ）『 NHK 出版これならわかる韓国語文法 入門から上級まで』NHK 出版
野間秀樹・中島仁（2007）「日本における韓国語教育の歴史」『韓国語教育論講座』第 1 巻、pp.69－93，東京：
くろしお出版。
朴珍希（ 2016 ）「日本における韓国語教育に関する研究－大学の韓国語学習者調査にみる現状と課題－」、『岡山県立大学教育研究紀要』第 1 巻 1 号、岡山大学
조 선 어 교 육 학 회 한 국 어 교 육 현 황 조 사 분 과 회（ 2020 ）“ 일 본 교 육 기 관 한 국 어 교 육 현 황 조 사 중 간보고서 ”, 조선어교육학회
YUN, Hee－Won. 2016 Common European Framework of Reference for Language （CEFR） and Test ofProficiency in Korean （TOPIK） International Journal of Area Studies 11:1,A Journal of Vytautas
Magnus University

235

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

グローバル社会を生き抜く力としての「複言語能力」―英語教育の視点から
新多

了

要旨
コロナ禍に象徴されるように、私たちは変化が激しく、将来の予測が困難な時代に生きています。このような複雑性に満ちたグローバル社会を生き抜く力の一つは、複言語能力です。学生たちの複言語能力を育てるために、英語教育には「言語教育の枠組み」と「教室の枠組み」を超えることが求められます。本項では、立教大学の新しい英語教育カリキュラムを例に、複言語能力を育てる外国語教育について考えます。

はじめに2020 年 4 月に立教大学に新しく外国語教育研究センター（ Center for Foreign Language Education
and Research: FLER）が設立されたことを記念して、2020 年 8 月 30 日にオープニング・シンポジウム「グローバル社会で生き抜く力を育てる外国語教育」を開催しました 1。当初は FLER 設立前の 2020 年 2 月 29
日に対面での実施を予定していましたが、新型コロナウィルス感染症まん延のため急遽延期を決定し、約半年後にオンライン開催しました。新型コロナウィルスが加速度的に、かつ地球規模で広がったのは、私たちが「グローバル社会」に生きているからです。また、これまでの常識では考えられないほどのスピードでワクチンが開発・製造されたのもグローバル社会であるからです。オープニング・シンポジウムのタイトルを「グローバル社会で生き抜く力を育てる外国語教育」と決めたのはパンデミック前のことでしたが、シンポジウム開催を前後して私たちがグローバル社会に生きていることを実感させられました。
コロナ禍に象徴されるように、私たちは変化が激しく、将来の予測が困難な時代に生きていますが、それ以前から現代は「 VUCA 時代」と呼ばれていました。
「 VUCA 」とは、Volatility（不安定さ）、Uncertainty（不確かさ）、Complexity（複雑さ）、Ambiguity（曖昧さ）の頭文字です。
このように、変化が激しく、複雑性に満ち、予測困難なグローバル社会で生き抜く力を育てるために、外国語教育に何ができるでしょうか？その問いに対する回答の一つが、今回の第 2 回シンポジウムのテーマである「複言語能力」ではないかと思います。本稿では、「複言語能力とは何か？」また、「英語教育が学生た
ちの複言語能力の発達にどのように貢献できるのか？」について、立教大学の新しい英語教育カリキュラムを例に考えてみたいと思います。

「伝統的教育」から「変容的教育」へ
複言語能力について説明する前に、まず大きな教育全体の枠組みについて考えてみましょう。19 世紀から 20 世紀は、伝統的教育観（ traditional pedagogy ）の時代でした。これは一言で言えば、知識の効率的な習得を目的とする教育です。効率性が重要ですので、教師主導、大人数の一斉授業で、事前に決められた知識を画一的に教授します。こういった教育法は、産業革命以降の大量生産・大量消費型社会では有効な方法であったかもしれません。
それに対して 21 世紀は変容的教育観（ transformative pedagogy ）の時代と呼ばれます（ Cummins,
2004 ）。変容的教育観の「変容」の対象は 2 つあります。一つは「自分」、もう一つは「社会」です。「自己変容（変革）」とは、自分自身のアイデンティティを構築することです。そして、常に自分を変革すること
1 オープニングシンポジウムの詳細は本誌特集記事をご覧ください。

236

グローバル社会を生き抜く力としての「複言語能力」―英語教育の視点からができる個人が集うことによって、社会をより良い方向に変えていくこと―社会変容（変革）―が可能となります。
ダイナミックに変化する現代のグローバル社会では、次々に新しい考えやツールが登場しますが、このような時代には学校で学んだことは遅かれ早かれ古くなってしまいます。つまり、何を学んだかよりも、そのプロセスでどのような力を身につけたか、そして、社会に出た後も学び続ける力・姿勢を身につけることがより重要です。
そのために、変容的教育観では知識の伝達だけではなく、生徒たちが自ら考える活動・体験を重視します。
つまり、自ら主体的に課題を設定し、解決のために行動し、振り返り、次の活動に繋げていく力を育てようとします。この学びのサイクルを繰り返すことで、どんな環境の変化にも適応し成長を続ける「生き抜く力」を身につけることができるのです。
世界各地で、この変容的教育観―21 世紀型教育―に基づく様々な枠組みやカリキュラムが提案されています。例えば、OECD（経済協力開発機構）の Key Competencies と呼ばれる 3 つの能力（ ‘use tools
interactively’（ 相 互 作 用 的 に 道 具 を 用 い る ）、‘act autonomously’（ 自 律 的 に 活 動 す る ）、‘interact inheterogeneous groups’（異質な集団で交流する）（ OECD, 2005 ）や、オープニング・シンポジウムの基調講演で、東京インターナショナルスクール理事の坪谷郁子氏にご説明いただいた「国際バカロレア」も変
容的教育観に基づく枠組みです 2。また、文部科学省の新しい学習指導要領の中で謳われている「主体的・対話的で深い学び」は、変容的教育観の日本における実践を目指した理念だと捉えることができます。そして、
こ の 第 2 回 シ ン ポ ジ ウ ム の テー マ で あ る CEFR（ Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages：ヨーロッパ言語共通参照枠；Council of Europe, 2001, 2018 ）は、変容的教育観の言語教育における具体的な実現を目指しています。

「複言語能力」とは？
CEFR は言語教育に様々な示唆を与えてくれますが、その中の一つ、「複言語主義」（ plurilingualism ）について少し詳しく見ていきましょう。私たちは立教大学の英語教育を通じて、学生たちにグローバル社会を生き抜く力を身につけてもらいたいと考えています。その一つが、複言語能力（ plurilingual competence ）です。
しばしば複言語主義は「多言語主義」（ multilingualism ）と混同されます。両者は表面的な現象は類似していますが、言語能力の捉え方が本質的に異なります。
多言語主義とは社会において様々な言語の共存を尊重する態度を意味します。例えば、日本各地に日本語
以外の様々な言語を母語とする人たちが集まるコミュニティがあります。日本社会の中でそれぞれのコミュ
ニティ内の言語使用や固有の文化を尊重する姿勢は、多言語主義の実践です。グローバル社会においてこのような姿勢が重要であることは言うまでもありません。その一方、他のコミュニティを尊重しすぎることで、

L1：日本語

L2：英語

L3：
スペイン語

Ln：X 語図 1：多言語能力2

坪谷郁子氏による講演概要は、本誌特集記事をご覧ください。

237

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

それぞれのコミュニティが孤立してしまい、周りの異なる言語・文化との交流が生まれにくくなってしまう
可能性もあります。
これを個人に当てはめると、多言語能力とは、複数の言語が個人の中で独立して存在している状態です（図1）。
多言語主義では「何ヵ国語話せるか？」という「数」が重要です。したがって、たくさんの言語を話せる人
がより多言語能力が高いと判断されます。また、それぞれの言語がどの程度話せるかは、ネイティブスピー
カーをモデルとします。つまり、ネイティブの発音や使用に近い、あるいはネイティブのように自然なコミュニケーションができるかどうかが重要な評価基準です。いわば、一人の中に複数のモノリンガルスピーカ
ーがいることを想定しているのが、多言語主義的な言語能力観です。
一方、複言語主義では、個人の言語能力は、様々な言語の部分的・複合的な能力の集合体と考えます。図2 のように、それぞれの言語は互いに影響を与え合っています。さらに、それぞれの言語能力は常に変化していて、必ずしも同じ程度の運用能力ではありません。
例えば、私の場合、英語で発表し、英語で論文を書き、英語で授業をします。このように英語を使って仕事をしていますが、日本語ほどには自由には使えないことを日々実感します。やはり、英語による表現の幅は限られますし、読み書きにかかる時間も余計にかかってしまいます。日本語もスキルによってばらつきがあり、書くことに比べると話すことは苦手です。英語の他に、スペイン語、中国語を少し学んだことがありますので、単語や短い表現など、断片的な知識があります。その他、フランス、ドイツ、ポルトガル、ベト
ナム、台湾など、外国を旅行したときには簡単な挨拶は覚え、そういった国の文化的習慣もある程度体験しています。
もし多言語主義の視点から私の言語能力を判断すれば、日本語と英語の 2 言語だけでしょう。しかし、複言語主義的な視点から考えると、英語はもちろん、その他の言語を学び、他言語・他文化の経験も自分の言語能力の重要なパートになっていることは間違いありません。つまり、私個人の内部ではそれまでに学び、使用してきた様々な言語が、複合的・複層的で、ユニークな複言語能力として形成されています。このように、複言語主義では一人一人異なる「ユニークな」能力を持っている点が強調されます。
「多言語主義」が「何ヵ国語を話せるか？」という数の問題であるのに対して、複言語主義は「言語を使って何ができるか？」という「質」を問題にします。つまり、複言語能力を育てる教育とは、言語を使って社会の中で達成できること（いわゆる Can－do ）を増やすことでもあります。表層的な英語の流暢さだけを目指すだけでなく、学生たちができることを増やし、様々な学習経験を通じて自分のアイデンティティを作っていく手助けをする―複言語主義と変容的教育観は本質的な点で理念を共有しています。

複言語話者
中国語

英語

日本語
スペ
イン語

ポルト
ガル語

ベト
ナム語
フラ
ンス語

図 2：複言語能力

2 つの “beyond”
複言語能力を育てるために、英語教育に何ができるでしょうか？ここでは 2 つの beyond に焦点を当てて考えてみたいと思います。一つは、「言語教育の枠組み」を超える、もう一つは「教室の枠組み」を超えることです。この 2 つの beyond について、立教大学の英語教育カリキュラムを例に説明します。

238

グローバル社会を生き抜く力としての「複言語能力」―英語教育の視点から「言語教育の枠組み」を超える
立教大学では創立 150 周年を迎える 2024 年に新しい英語カリキュラムをスタートさせます。英語カリキ
ュラムを開発する際には常に 2 つの beyond を意識しています。まずは、「言語教育の枠組み」を超えることについて考えてみます。
すでに説明した通り、伝統的な英語教育では英語の知識・スキルの習得を重視します。外国語を使うために、語彙や文法を理解し、流暢に使えるようにたくさん練習することは大切です。しかし、複言語主義ではその知識やスキルを使って「何ができるか」が問われます。この「何」に当たる部分を授業に取り入れていく必要があります。
「英語を使って何ができるか？」に応えるために、私たちのカリキュラムでは、CLIL（ Content andLanguage Integrated Learning ）を基盤としています。CLIL は、Content（内容）と Language（言語）の有機的統合を目指す言語教育アプローチです。
伝統的な英語教育では、まず言語能力の育成に特化した授業を行います。もちろん、あらゆる言語学習には何らかの「内容」が伴いますが、伝統的教育では内容はあくまで言語を習得するための手段と捉えます。
一方 CLIL の目的は、言語と内容を同時に学ぶことです。したがって、それぞれをバラバラに（あるいは順番に）学ぶのではなく、両者を有機的に統合する仕組みが大切です。
どうすれば有機的に統合したカリキュラムを構築できるでしょうか？言語と内容の有機的統合を考えるた
めに、van Lier の「言語 / 内容スケール」モデルが参考になります（図 3 ）。この図は、左側に行くほど言語教育の比重が高く、右に行くほど内容に関する教育の比重が高くなることを表しています。このモデルの一番下にある矢印が示すように、英語教育カリキュラム全体の枠組みの中で、言語の比重が高い授業（左側）から、次第に内容の比重が高い授業（右側）に進行することで、言語と内容の有機的統合を目指す仕組みが有効です。
Point ALANGUAGE

Point B

CONTENT

図 3：van Lier の「言語 / 内容スケール」モデル（Briton & Snow, 2017）

このモデルに私たちのカリキュラムを重ねると、図 4 のようになります。英語教育カリキュラムは、1 年次必修科目、2 年次以降の自由科目、さらに各学部で展開される EMI（ English Medium Instruction ）から構成されます。EMI は各学部の専門内容を英語で学ぶ授業です。図 4 に示した通り、1 年次必修科目では言語の比重が高く、2 年次以降の自由科目では Content の比重が高くなります。ただし、どちらか一方に偏るのではなく、それぞれのクラスの中でも両面がうまく融合していることが重要です。また、英語の習熟度や興味などは一人一人異なりますので、自由科目でも Language に高い比重を置いた科目も提供します。そして、最終段階である EMI 科目では、原則 Language の要素が含まれません 3。
CLIL の目的は、言語と内容の学習だけではありません。CLIL の本質は 4C（ Content, Communication,
Cognition, Culture ）の枠組みに集約されています。最初の 2 つの C（ Content, Communication ）は「内容」と「言語」を指します。内容と言語の有機的統合は CLIL 以外の様々な内容中心教授（ Content－Based
Instruction: CBI ）（ Briton & Snow, 2017 ）にも見られます。しかし、内容・言語学習と不可分な要素と3

立教大学英語教育カリキュラムの開発プロセスおよび詳細については、Yamamoto & Nitta（ 2021 ）をご覧ください。

239

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Point A

Point BLANGUAGECONTENT

自由科目（2－4 年次）

必修科目（1 年次）

学部 EMI 科目

図 4：立教大学英語教育カリキュラムの「言語 / 内容スケール」モデル（Yamamoto & Nitta, 2021）

して、さらに 2 つの C を明示的に示している点に CLIL らしさがあります。高度な言語能力を身につけるには、高度な思考力（ Cognition（認知））が求められます。認知は様々なレベルに分けられ、記憶、理解、適用などの「下位思考スキル」（ Lower－Order Thinking Skills: LOTS ）と、分析、評価、創造などの「上位思考スキル」（ Higher－Order Thinking Skills: HOTS ）に分類されます。CLIL の授業では学生が段階的に思考力を高められるよう、毎回様々な思考スキルを使うタスクを取り入れます。LOTS から HOTS へ段
階的に取り組むことで、高度な思考力を身につけていきます。
さらに、3 つの C は最後の Culture に包括されます。CLIL における Culture は、単なる外国文化理解だ
けではなく、広い意味で捉える必要があります。つまり、異なる国・地域はもちろん、自分とは異なる他者を深く理解し、共通の課題を解決するために協働する力です。つまり、Culture は変容的教育観の「自己・社会を変革する力」と密接に結びつきます（ 4Cs について詳しくは、Nitta & Yamamoto［ 2020 ］を参照）。
CLIL の 4C の枠組みは、必修・自由科目全てに反映されています。必修科目として、春学期に English
Discussion、 Reading & Writing 1、 e－Learning、秋 学 期 に English Debate、 English Presentation、Reading & Writing 2 を提供しています（図 5 ）。例えば、English Discussion で基本的な英語で議論する力を身につけた後、English Debate では様々なテーマに関する討論を通じて、より高度な内容・議論する
力―批判的思考力、論理的思考力、情報収集力―を身につけます。このように、それぞれの授業の中で、Content, Communication, Cognition, また、チームでの協働作業を通じて Culture がカリキュラムの中に組み込まれています（ Nitta & Yamamoto, 2020 ）。
1 年次の英語必修カリキュラム
英語ディベート
英語ディスカッション

英語プレゼンテーション

Reading & Writing
e-learning

春学期

秋学期

（週 3 コマ ×1 回 100 分）（週 3 コマ ×1 回 100 分）

まずは積極的に会話ができるように

英語で討論し、論理的に考える力を鍛える

図 5：立教大学の英語必修科目（立教大学ホームページより）240グローバル社会を生き抜く力としての「複言語能力」―英語教育の視点から「教室の枠組み」を超える
もう一つの Beyond である「教室の枠組みを超える」は、自由科目を使って説明しましょう。新しい自由
科目では、「グローバル 3 領域」（Global Communication, Global Studies, Global Career）を設定します。
一つ目の Global Communication 領域は、必修科目で身につけた英語力を土台として、英語による発展的な内容の授業を受講するための準備講座を数多く提供します。この中では「海外留学準備に関する授業」
も提供します。2 つ目の Global Studies は、英語で専門的内容を学ぶ力を身につける領域です。経済、エコロジー、ツーリズム、SDGs など、現代社会の重要なテーマについて英語を使って学ぶ科目を展開します。
最後の Global Career 領域では、卒業後グローバル社会で活躍するために必要な英語力の育成を目指す科目を提供します。
大学の学びは外の世界とつながって初めて意味を持ちます。したがって、新しい英語教育カリキュラムは外の様々な授業・活動と緩やかに連携することを意識しています。具体的には、学生たちが授業で学んだ力を使って、留学、学部 EMI、企業、地域社会で様々な活動に参加し、さらに、そうした教室外での経験を授業の中に持ち帰ってくることを期待しています（図 6 ）。こうした様々なネットワークが広がり、異なる経験を持った学生が対話・協働を重ねることで、学生たちがユニークな複言語能力を身につけることをねらいとしています。

留学

グローバル・
コミュニケーション領域
英語コミュニケーション力を高めるための講座

CLIL

学部 EMI

地域
コミュニティ

グローバル・
スタディーズ領域

グローバル・
キャリア領域

専門的・教養的な内容を英語を通じて
学ぶ講座

仕事で使う英語を学ぶ講座

企業

図 6：立教大学英語自由科目（立教大学ホームページより一部改変）

おわりに
本稿では、変容的教育観、複言語主義、CLIL、立教の英語カリキュラムについて説明してきました。新
しい英語教育カリキュラムは CLIL を基盤とし、CLIL は CEFR を、さらに CEFR は「変容的教育観」を土台として、いわばピラミッドのように積み上がっています（図 7；新多・山本 , 2020 ）。それぞれは異なる概念ですが、根本的な考えは共通しています。つまり、複雑でダイナミックに変化するグローバル社会で生き抜くために、学生たちが自らのアイデンティティを作り、社会をより良い姿に変えていく力を身につける

英語教育
カリキュラムCLIL
CEFR（複言語主義）
変容的教育観図 7：英語教育カリキュラムの理論的枠組み（新多・山本 , 2020）

241

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

教育です。
私たちが目指す英語教育の目的は、流暢な英語話者を増やすことではなく、グローバル社会で生き抜く力を育てることにあります。その一つが、複言語能力の育成です。日本語と英語だけでも複数の言語能力を持っていることにはなります。しかし、言語レパートリーが多ければ多いほど、個人の持つ複言語能力は、より豊かになります。したがって今後は様々な言語教育と連携することが外国語教育の大きなテーマの一つとなるはずです。立教大学では、2024 年には英語だけでなく、その他の新しい外国語教育（言語 B ）カリキ
ュラムもスタートさせます。両者が互いに影響を与え合い、協力して学生の複言語能力を育てる教育を実現したいと思います。

参考文献

新多了・山本有香（ 2020 ）「 CLIL と CEFR を融合した大学英語教育カリキュラムデザイン①」『英語教育 69（ 2020 年 12 月号）』．70－71 ページ
Brinton, D. M. & Snow, M. A. (2017). The Evolving Architecture of Content-Based Instruction. In D. M.
Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), The Content-based classroom: New perspectives on integrating language
and content (pp. 2-20). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning teaching,assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning teaching,assessment. Companion volume with New Descriptors. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Cummins, J. (2004). Using information technology to create a zone of proximal development for academic
language learning: A critical perspective on trends and possibilities. In C. Davidson (ed.), Information
technology and innovation in language education (pp. 105-126). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University
Press.
Nitta, R, & Yamamoto, Y. (2020). Reconceptualizing CLIL from transformative pedagogy perspective: Pilot
debate study in English language curriculum. Journal of Foreign Language Education & Research, 1:
47-62.
OECD (2015). The definition and selection of key competences: Executive summary. Retrieved March 2021
from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf
Yamamoto, Y and 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: pp.
122-135.

242

【執筆者・Authors 】
Adam Roaty
Adam Roarty has been part of the Centre for Foreign Language and Research at Rikkyo University since 2019.
He has been teaching English as a foreign language in Japan for seven years in a range of contexts. His
research interests include intercultural communication, motivation in language learning and self-regulated
learning.
Deborah Maxfield
Deborah Maxfield is currently serving as a Lecturer in English Education at Rikkyo University, Tokyo. While
gaining her MSc in Psychology, she became interested in how group dynamics can combine with cognitive andaffective states to affect learning outcomes, particularly in a second language environment. Her current
research focuses on how findings from social psychology, such as group cohesion, can be applied to boost
student motivation and reduce L2 state anxiety.
Devon Arthurson
Devon Arthurson earned her Bachelor of Social Work from the University of Manitoba and completed her
Master of Arts in Integrated Studies from Athabasca University. Devon taught in high schools in Osaka before
joining Rikkyo University first as an instructor and now as an adjunct lecturer. Her current teaching andresearch interests include fostering learner autonomy and providing a platform for students' voices. Her
volunteer activities include poverty alleviation and awareness-raising about human trafficking.
Jeffrey Mok
Jeffrey is currently a specially appointed Associate Professor at FLER, Rikkyo University. His researchinterests include but not limited to learning and teaching pedagogies, second language acquisition, technology
enhanced language learning, and communication skills. He was previously a senior faculty developer at
National Technological University of Singapore as well as a senior language specialist and a teacher trainer at
the Regional Language Centre, Singapore. He has conducted CLIL training for language teachers at RELC.
Jonathan Hannessy
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 organic use oflanguage, turn-taking, and how activity design and teacher intervention can help students navigate theirinteractions with others.
Ian Hurrell
Ian Hurrell has been an adjunct lecturer at Rikkyo University’s Center for Foreign Language Education andResearch since 2017. His research interests center around the implementation of learner development
concepts, such as learner autonomy and project based learning, to language teaching. He is also interested in
the development of world Englishes and the interplay between world Englishes and interculturalcommunication.

243

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Russell Minshull
Russell Minshull is an English Teacher at Rikkyo University. He has been working in Japan for ten years, andhas also taught in South Korea and the UK. He gained his MA in Professional Development in Language
Education in 2021 from NILE College in the UK. He also holds the Trinity DipTESOL. His main researchinterests include Needs Analysis, CLIL and English for Academic Purposes.
Yuka Yamamoto
Yuka (Maruyama) Yamamoto, Ph.D., Applied Linguistics, is a professor and Vice Dean of the Center for
Foreign Language Education and Research, Rikkyo University. She has extensive experience in designing
curriculum and creating textbooks. Her research interests are in EAP curriculum development, second
language vocabulary acquisition, and extensive reading.
Ryo Nitta
Ryo Nitta is a Professor and Dean of the Center for Foreign Language Education and Research, Rikkyo
University. He completed his PhD at the University of Warwick, UK. He has written several books on second
language acquisition and published widely in international journals. His research interests are language
learning motivation, task-based language teaching, and second language writing from the perspective ofcomplex dynamic systems.
李 菲 （リ フェイ）女，中国天津人。现为立教大学外国语教育研究中心教育讲师。研究领域为认知语法学、语义学、汉语语法学。
近年主要探讨汉语的态现象在句法结构上的表现，及汉语含动量词双宾构式的语义问题。研究方向为借助认知语法理论、类型学理论来客观记述汉语语法的语言普遍性及其特异性。
Alex BlumenstockAlex Blumenstock is an adjunct lecturer at the Center for Foreign Language Education and Research at Rikkyo
University. He has also taught in the United States and Osaka. He holds an M.A. in English and a TESOL
certificate, both from East Tennessee State University. His current research interests are peer feedback,student motivation, and online homework.
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.
John Paul WhiteJohn Paul White has been working as an English Language Professor at Rikkyo University’s Centre for Foreign
Language Education and Research (FLER) since 2017. Before joining Rikkyo University, he worked in both
England and Japan teaching English to speakers of other languages. His current research interests include thedevelopment of students’ critical thinking skills, content and language integrated learning, and strategic
teaching in English language learning.

244執筆者・AUTHORS

Junko Matsumoto
Junko Matsumoto es en la actualidad titular en el FLER (Center for Foreign Language Education andResearch) de la Universidad Rikkyo. Es especialista en fonética de la lengua española y la enseñanza de E/LE.
Es Doctora en Humanidades en la Universidad Seisen, tiene DEA (Diploma de Estudios Avanzados) en la
Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza del Español como Lengua Extranjera de la Universidad Antonio de Nebrija.
Leidy Yemire Cotrina Cayo
Leidy Yemire Cotrina es profesora parcial de la Universidad Rikkyo y en algunas universidades de Tokio. Es
colaboradora del Instituto Cervantes de Tokio también. Es Máster en Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza delEspañol como Lengua Extranjera de la Universidad Antonio de Nebrija, Máster en Didáctica de la enseñanza
del español, Universidad de la Rioja, Licenciada en educación primaria.
Justin Rooks
Justin Rooks is a Lecturer in English Education at Rikkyo University. He has been an English language teacher
for over fifteen years and has worked in universities in Australia and Japan. His research interests are centeredon the development of communicative competence in second language learners, with a particular focus on
discourse, pragmatics, and culture.
Satchie Haga
Satchie Haga is a full-time lecturer at Rikkyo University in their Center for Foreign Language and Education
Research. She has developed and taught higher education courses in the EFL context for over 10 years and iscurrently conducting doctoral research on Technology Enhanced Learning at Lancaster University. Her
research area examines intersectionality and sociocultural influence in technology mediated spaces.
Joshua Rappeneker
Joshua Rappeneker is an associate professor at Rikkyo University Centre for foreign language education andresearch. His work focuses on CALL and CLIL, and the interaction between technology and teaching practice.
The last two years of online teaching have provided significant opportunities and insight into these that hecontinues to study.
白方直美（シラカタナオミ）

北京の大学に 1 年半留学した後、中国広州市の華南師範大学に日本語教師として 2 年間勤務した。この間、広東地方で使用されている広東方言特有の音訳外来語に興味を持ち、研究を始める。帰国後大学院に進学し、標準中国語に影響を与え始めていた広東方言について修士論文を執筆した。修士課程修了後、兼任講師を経て、2018 年 4 月より立教大学教育講師として勤務し、現在に至る。
Kevin Thomas
Kevin Thomas is an adjunct lecturer at Rikkyo university. He has previously written on preparing students tostudy abroad, Olympic volunteer’s language needs and using social media in the classroom. He is currently
interested in CLIL and finding a balance between teaching language and exposing students to authentic
sources of information.

245外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

茂木

良治（モギ

リョウジ）

南山大学外国語学部フランス学科教授
専門は応用言語学，フランス語教育。論文に，「「フランス語の学習指針」策定のために―その理論的位置づけ」（『複言語・多言語教育研究』，2017 年），「日本のフランス語教育への CEFR の影響について－受容状況と今後の展開に関する一考察」（『ことばを教える・ことばを学ぶ』，2018 年）などがある。
境一三（サカイカズミ）

慶應義塾大学経済学部教授
専門は言語教育学，特にドイツ語教育，言語教育政策。著書に，『多言語主義社会に向けて』（共著，くろしお出版，2017 年），『ことばを教える・ことばを学ぶ』（共著，行路社，2018 年），論文に「オンライン授業の可能性について—コロナ禍状況での実践を振り返って—」（ドイツ語教育 25 号，2021 年）などがある。
大森

洋子（オオモリヒロコ）

明治学院大学教養教育センター教授
専門はスペイン語学（意味論，語用論），スペイン語教育。スペイン語教育研究会（ GIDE ）所属。
「スペイ
ン語の学習のめやす（ Un modelo de contenidos para un modelo de actuación ）」，および教室活動のプ
ロジェクト（ Un modelo de actuación. Aplicaciones prácticas para la clase de español ）に参加，主な研究対象にスペイン語の再帰動詞構造，動詞 ser, estar の比較などがある。
西

香織（ニシ

カオリ）

明治学院大学教養教育センター外国語教育部門主任，教授
専門は中国語教育，中国語学（語用論）。NHK ラジオ「ステップアップ中国語

共に生きる “ くらし ” の会話」講師。著書に『中国語の三人称代名詞 “ 它 ” に関する研究』（日中言語文化出版社，2019 年），論文に「基
於会話的日本漢語学習者理解型交際策略分析」（『世界漢語教学』，2017 年）などがある。
中島仁（ナカジマヒトシ）

東海大学語学教育センター准教授
専門は韓国語学。著書に『これならわかる韓国語文法』（NHK 出版，2021 年），『新みんなの韓国語 1・2』
（白帝社，2019 年）などがある。2014 年，2015 年に NHK ラジオレベルアップハングル講座，2017 年に
NHK ラジオまいにちハングル講座のテキスト執筆と出演。

246

外国語教育研究ジャーナル投稿規定
概要：言語教育に関する研究論文、研究報告、及び書評を年 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（共著による論文も一本と数える）。
ただし、投稿論文数によっては、Journal ＆ Research 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研究及び知識の共有を活性化するにあたり、原則として日本語あるいは英語での執筆を基本とする。朝鮮語、中国語、フランス語、ドイツ語、スペイン語による原稿執筆も可。
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、次のいずれかの区分に属するものとする。区分は執筆者が判断するが、ジャーナル &リサーチ委員会が確認し、必要に応じて、変更を促すこともある。
（1）研究論文：当該分野で一定の結論を出し、その分野に貢献すべき内容が分析、議論されているもの。
従って、執筆者は少なくとも、セクションとして導入と結論を明記し、先行研究を踏まえた当該論文の位置づけ、分析や議論（またはそれに代わるもの）にあたる記述を含めること。
（2）研 究報告：当該分野における研究の進捗状況を公表し、将来その分野において貢献すべき可能性のある研究経過をまとめたもの。
（3）書
 評：書籍や文献を紹介しまとめたもの。
2． 書式は以下の項目全て可能な限り厳守すること。
（1）原 稿サイズ
A4 版を使用し、上下各 25mm、左右各 25mm ずつあける。
横書きでフォントは日本語（ MS 明朝）、英語は（ Times New Roman ）12 ポイントを使用。その他の言語のフォントは同一論文内で齟齬のないよう当該言語における学術論文で一般的に使用されるフォントを選択し使用する事。行間は 1 行とし、本文は左揃えとすること。
（2）字 数
研究論文：20000 字程度
研究報告：6000 字程度
書

評：2500 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。

247

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

（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
3． 原 稿 の 提 出 は、電 子 メー ル に て ジャー ナ ル ＆ リ サー チ 委 員 会 宛 に（ fler_journal_submission ＠
ml.rikkyo.ac.jp ）に送信する事。
4． 提出書類は、次の通りとする。
（1）投
 稿原稿

1 部（ A4 版に印刷されたもの）（2）投 稿内容を収めた電子媒体（電子メールで送信）（3）カ
 バーシートa ）著者名（日本語の場合は日本語とカタカナ読みを併記すること）
b ）タイトル（日本語の場合はカタカナ読みも併記）c ）原稿区分d ）担当言語Ⅴ．脚注および参考文献の形式
原則的に APA スタイル（第 7 版）を用いること。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。英語以外の言語での執筆の際は、APA（第 7 版）の形式に可能な限り沿うよう配慮すること。剽窃を行わないよう十分に注意すること。
Ⅵ．投稿開始及び締切日
投稿の受付は毎年 4 月春学期の開始から行う。初稿の提出締め切り日は 6 月初週最終日とする。
Ⅶ．査読に関して研究論文カテゴリーへの投稿は、匿名の査読員 1 名による査読が行われる。査読は規定のルーブリック
を用いて行い、査読員は任意のコメント、修正案等を追記する事ができる。査読終了後 Journal ＆Research 委員会より、春学期終了前までに執筆者へ査読結果を報告し校正等の打診を行う。研究報告及び書評への投稿は原則として査読は行わない。但し基本的な内容及び体裁のチェックを Journal ＆Research 委員会が行い、掲載可否を判断する。
Ⅷ．校正及び再提出査読を受けた執筆者は、論文の校正を行い、秋学期第 1 週目末日までに再提出を行う。校正後の原稿はJournal ＆ Research 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。尚出版社より体裁等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 12 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、外国語教育研究センターへ掲載され、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。

248

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。

249

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Journal of Foreign Language Education & Research
Manuscript Submission Guidelines
Scope: The journal annually publishes research articles, research briefs, and book/article
reviews.
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, in principal, manuscripts written in either English or Japanese.
Manuscripts written in Korean, Chinese, French, German, or Spanish may be accepted.
III. Content and Formatting Guidelines
1. Contributions are limited to previously unpublished work.
2. Upon submission, authors are required to select one of the categories listed below for theircontribution. Appropriateness of the selected category will be reviewed by the Journal &Research Committee. You may be requested to change the submission category, if
necessary.
(1) Research Articles: An article which can be considered as making substantial contribution
to the relevant field through explicit analysis of data or theoretical discussion which leads
to a clear and sound conclusion. The author is expected to include an introduction
section in order to situate the research in reference to previous empirical research and/or theoretical discussion and a clear conclusion section well-connected to the researchfindings or discussion presented.
(2) Research Briefs: An article which reports an aspect of a research project underway at thetime of writing and demonstrates the potential of the topic for generating further
questions of interest or prospective contributions in the relevant field.
(3) Book/Article Reviews: A critical review of a published book or article relevant to thefield.
3. Please ensure to follow all formatting guidelines listed below. Authors who intend to write inJapanese should refer to the Japanese version of this document.
(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
and single-spaced. For Japanese Use (MS Mincho), for any other languages, use the font
type considered standard in the selected language. Use the same font consistently

250throughout the manuscript unless otherwise noted.
(2) Length: Research articles should be approximately 8000 words in length, including
graphs, charts, the reference list, and appendices. Research briefs should beapproximately 3000 words, and book/article reviews should be approximately 1000
words. Graphs and charts should be embedded in the text. However, if it is difficult to doso, please submit as a separate file, but leave space and indicate where they should go in
the text.
(3) Title: 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 Gothic 12 point. Leave one line between the title and the name of the author/s.
(5) Abstract: Manuscripts written in English should be accompanied by a 150-250 word
abstract in either English or Japanese, which includes 3 to 5 keywords for the article atthe bottom. For the abstract, the entire text should be indented 5 spaces 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
4. Manuscripts should be printed out and submitted by email in Word or equivalent format tothe Journal & Research Committee at fler_journal_submission@ml.rikkyo.ac.jp
5. 
The following are required at the time of submission. Be advised that submitted
manuscripts will not be returned:(1) An electronic version of the manuscript, which must be sent to the Journal & ResearchCommittee.
(2) A cover sheet containing the following information:(a) Author’s name: The name should be written in the same language as used in thearticle(b) Title: Use the same language as the article.
(c) Category: Select an appropriate category for your submission(d) Language: The language taught by the author irrespective of the language used in the
manuscript.
V. Footnotes and Referencing
The author is responsible for consistently adhering to APA (7th edition). Make sure to avoid
committing plagiarism.
VI. Call and Deadline for Submission
Submissions begin at the beginning of Spring semester. The deadline for submission is the last
day of the first week in June. Call for submission is circulated via SPIRIT email.
VII. Peer Review
All submissions to the research article category will be reviewed by one anonymous reviewer.
The review is conducted with a designated rubric and the reviewer may provide you withcomments and suggestions for further improvement of your work. After the review iscompleted, review results will be sent to the author from the Journal & Research Committee251

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

before the end of Spring semester. No peer review will be conducted for research briefs orbook/article reviews. However, the Journal & Research Committee will check if the submitted
work meets the journal submission guidelines and determine if the work is publishable.
VIII. Revision and Resubmission
After receiving the results of peer review, the author is expected to revise the manuscript forresubmission. The revised manuscript must be submitted by the end of the first week in Fallsemester. A final review will be conducted by the Journal & Research Committee to determine
if the work is publishable. The author will be notified of the decision once the final review iscompleted. The author may be asked to further revise the manuscript if there is any stylistic/
format issue.
IX. Journal Publication
The journal is published annually in December.
X. Registration on CiNii and Rikkyo Repositor yContributions to the FLER Journal will be published on the FLER webpage and 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 theright to use his/her work for future research and/or educational purposes without
permission.
3. If any plagiarism or misconduct is discovered after the work is published, the publishedwork will be removed from the journal.

252

外国語教育研究ジャーナル

第2巻（ JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, Vol. 2 ）
発行日

発行者

2021 年 12 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 2436−0325

東京都千代田区神田三崎町 2 －20 －7

水道橋西口会館 8F©2021 立教大学 外国語教育研究センター

22021