ISSN 2436-2204

多言 語 教 育
実践 ジャーナル

1

Vol.

MARCH 2021

JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGYAND PRACTICE

立教大学

外国語教育研究センター

Center for Foreign Language Education and Research, Rikkyo University

『多言語教育実践ジャーナル』創刊に寄せて
山本有香（外国語教育研究センター・副センター長）

2020 年 4 月、立教大学の外国語教育の実践と研究活動の融合を推進する先進的な組織として外国語教育研究センター（Center for Foreign Language Education and Research: FLER）が設立されました。その実践と研究活動の融合を象徴するのが『多言語教育実践ジャーナル』です。
「実践」と「研究」の融合を実現させるには、共通の理念を土台に、各授業の達成目標を設定し、そのための教育方法や手段、そして評価方法を詳細に検討する必要があります。
本ジャーナルでは、各言語統一シラバスという共通の枠組みの中で、同じ達成目標を目指しながらも、クラス個別のニーズに合わせて創造的な教育活動の設計・実施・評価方法を実施した実践的な事例が紹介されています。どのように理論と実践を有機的に結びつけるか、このジャーナルへの論文を作成するプロセスから、
これまでにない新たな視点が生まれるかもしれません。具体的な実践現場に根付いた研究活動を通じて、ここで発表される論文がよりよい立教大学の外国語教育活動への発展はもちろん、外国語教育全般の発展へと貢献することを期待しています。
また、本ジャーナルは、「英語」教育のみに焦点を当てるのではなく、多言語主義に基づき、本学における外国語教育全般で展開されている示唆に富む独創的な授業事例を知ることができます。こうした知見は、
私たちが目指すグローバルな視点を持った外国語教育活動の貴重な材料になると信じています。
末筆ではございますが、ここに刊行に当たり、執筆に携わって頂いた担当教員の皆様を始め、編集に携わって頂いた教職員の皆様に改めてお礼を申し上げます。

iFor ward
Yuka Yamamoto(Deputy Dean of the Center for Foreign Language Education and Research)

In April 2020, the Center for Foreign Language Education and Research (FLER) was established
as a leading institution to integrate foreign language teaching practices and research activities at
Rikkyo University. The creation of the Journal of Multilingual Pedagogy and Practice symbolizes theintegration.
To bring together “practice” and “research,” it is essential to set clear goals for each class basedon the underlying philosophy of foreign language learning. With that aim in mind, we should also
examine in detail the teaching approaches, methods, and ways we evaluate successes and failures.
Accordingly, every article in this journal presents a case of language teaching practice within theframework of a unified curriculum while showcasing how each teacher designed, implemented, andevaluated each class to achieve shared goals and objectives. The unique contributions made to thejournal help us understand how to connect theory and practice from a new perspective and to learn
about thought-provoking and original teaching approaches, which extend to not only English but
other foreign languages. The journal’s inclusiveness is undoubtedly the hallmark of multilingualism
upheld in our institution.
I hope the journal will serve as a bridge between theory and practice. I also hope it will contributeto foreign language education activities at Rikkyo University and beyond.
In closing, I would like to thank all the writers, editors, and contributors who have made thispublication possible.

ii目次 / Table of Contents『多言語教育実践ジャーナル』創刊に寄せて・Forward························································································································· 山本 有香・Yuka Yamamoto i【授業実践報告・Teaching Practice Report】

Identifying the CEFR-J Levels of the Reading Texts Introduced
in a Course for Current English 1 (Reading)······················································································································································Aika Miura

1

Finding Time: Reflections on English Discussion Lesson and Activity Timing
in the Shift to Online Lesson During the COVID-19 Pandemic··············································································································································Andrew Tyner

16

Challenges and Adaptive Strategies to Teaching English Debate Online·········································································································································· Andrew Warrick

23

Studentsʼ Opinions About Peer Teaching·········································································································································Devon Arthurson

29

A Blended Approach to Flipped Learning for Teaching Debate······································································································· Heather Woodward & Laura Padfield

44

Using Asynchronous Discussion Board Forums to Complement Online Discussion Classes················································································································································Jon Mahoney

56

Synchronous Online Discussion Forums as a Supplement to Video Discussions
in an Online English Discussion Class····································································································································· Jonathan Hennessy

65

授業内課題としてのグループプレゼンテーション···················································································································································· 松本 旬子

74

授業活動における Kahoot! の活用 ―対面授業とオンライン授業での実践を通して··················································································································································· 若杉 莉末

82

投稿規定・Manuscript Submission Guidelines ···························································································

91

執筆者・Authors················································································································································

96

iii

【Teaching Practice Report】

Identifying the CEFR-J Levels of the Reading Texts Introduced
in a Course for Current English 1 (Reading)
Aika Miura
Abstract
The study investigates the difficulties of the reading materials covered in an optional course for reading current news
articles, and examines the validity of introducing authentic materials without making pedagogical amendments.
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)-based Vocabulary Level Analyzer (CVLA),
which analyses the text level according to the four indexes based on the CEFR-J Wordlist, was used to assign the
CEFR-J levels to the texts from the two types of course materials: (i) news articles in the assigned textbook and (ii)current online articles regarding the Sustainable Developmental Goals and the COVID-19 pandemic selected by theenrolled students. While the length of the articles was controlled in the edited textbook accompanied by various
scaffolding activities to ensure a deep understanding of the materials, no pedagogical adjustments were made to theauthentic articles. The quantitative analyses indicated that there were no major differences in the difficulties between
these two text groups; most of the texts were assigned as C1 and C2, the most advanced levels in the CEFR-J.
Keywords: Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), CEFR-J, CEFR-based
Vocabulary Level Analyzer (CVLA), text level

Introduction
This paper investigates the difficulties of the reading texts introduced in a course entitledCurrent English 1 (Reading) in the spring semester of the 2020 academic year. The course targeted 24
sophomore, junior, and senior students at Rikkyo University, and was conducted completely online via
Zoom. In this course, along with nine units from the assigned textbook titled, Meet the World: English
Through Newspapers 2020 published by Seibido (Wakaari, 2020), each student was asked to choose acurrent newspaper article on the Internet, present an oral summary of the article using PowerPoint
slides, and submit a written summary at the end of the course. Although the reading materials fromthe assigned textbook were edited to control the number of words of the text in each unit, and various
scaffolds (e.g., Japanese translations for some vocabulary, a short summary with listening activities,
and true-or-false quizzes) were provided to help students understand the content, the texts derived
from the online news articles selected by the students were authentic and not pedagogically controlled
by the teacher. To assess the validity of introducing authentic materials to the course, this study
identifies the difficulty level of every text the students encountered in this course using a web-based
tool called the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)-based Vocabulary
Level Analyzer (ver. 1.1) (CVLA) (Uchida, n.d.; Uchida & Negishi, 2018), and examines the differences
between the controlled texts in the published textbook and authentic texts from online news sites.

Course Description
The target course is Current English (1) Reading, which was taught by the author in the springsemester of the 2020 academic year. In 2020, Rikkyo University took the special measure to conduct
all English courses online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, this course was taught remotely,1

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

using the online video communication tool Zoom. This course was one of the minor (i.e., optional)
subjects for sophomore, junior, and senior students, and 24 students were enrolled. Table 1 describes
the course objective and contents, which follow the unified syllabus of this course provided by Rikkyo
University.
Table 1
Objective and Contents of the Course
Objective

Contents

The aims of this course are for students toread, understand, and then discuss both
domestic and international English-language
news articles while learning about a variety
of topical issues.

This is a low-intermediate English reading course. Students willlearn to read and understand English-language news articles, either
online or via print media, building on the reading strategies learned
1
in R&W1 . Students will also build their vocabulary and further
enhance the discussion skills learned in their first year while learning
about a variety of topical issues, both domestic and global.

Following the standard course objective and contents provided by the unified syllabus describedabove, two types of reading materials were given, as follows.
1.
The textbook titled, Meet the World: English Through Newspapers (Wakaari, 2020) was
assigned, as it was a suggested coursebook in the unified syllabus provided by Rikkyo
University. Nine out of 20 units were covered. Each unit contains an article published by Jiji
Press, and so on, in January 2019. As written in Table A1 in the Appendix, the token, whichis the total number of words contained in each text, ranges from 239 to 355.
2.
Twenty-four news articles selected from the Internet by the students were shared in class.
Each student was asked to select a news article on current issues, especially regarding
the Sustainable Developmental Goals (SDGs) and/or COVID-19 pandemic. Twenty-threearticles were published between March and July 2020, except for the one released in
January 2018, as shown in Table A2 in the Appendix. The main sources of the articles
include The Japan Times, BBC, CNN, National Geographic, and NHK. The token of eacharticle differs greatly, ranging from 421 words to more than 2,000 words. The author madea corpus containing these texts (i.e., the focus corpus explained below) in the Sketch Engine(Lexical Computing CZ s.r.o., 2020), which is an online text analysis tool. Using this tool,
keyword analyses (i.e., identifying individual words appearing more frequently in thefocus corpus than in the reference corpus) were conducted. The English Web Corpus 2015
(enTenTen15), which is a web text corpus containing 13 billion words created in 2015,
was used as a reference corpus. The top four single keywords in the focus corpus were
coronavirus (appearing in 17 texts), lockdown (in nine texts), pandemic (in 15 texts), andpreprint (in one text), and the top four multi-word keywords were social distancing (in 10
texts), labor shortage (in two texts), coronavirus pandemic (in three texts), and coronavirus
crisis (in three texts).
The articles from the first group were given for the detailed reading activity with various activities
accompanied as mentioned in the Introduction section, while those from the second group were used
to let the students have opportunities to read for gist (i.e., skimming). The Results and Discussion
1“R&W1” is an abbreviation of the course titled “Reading & Writing 1,” which was one of the compulsory courses for firstyear students at Rikkyo University.

2

IDENTIFYING THE CEFR-J LEVEL S OF THE REA DING TEXTS INTRODUCEDIN A COURSE FOR CURRENT ENGLISH 1 (REA DING)

section describes detailed textual features of both groups. Tables A1 and A2 in the Appendix provide
the source, headline, token, and date of publication of the articles.
Tables 2 and 3 describe how each unit or authentic article was taught and covered.
Table 2Standard Lesson Plan Using the Assigned Textbook
Activity

Pre-study at home

Details• The sections from “Before reading 1” (i.e., introduction to the target topic in Japanese)and “Before reading 2” (i.e., keywords introduction in Japanese and English)• Reading a given article
2• The sections from “While reading 1” (i.e., taking notes instructed in Japanese), “While
reading 2” (i.e., matching the topic of each paragraph with phrases in Japanese), “While
reading 3” (i.e., gap filling exercise of the summary of the article), and “While reading5” (i.e., true-or-false quiz to check the understanding of the content)

Class• The teacher gives feedback on the pre-study at home.

Post-study at home

• Online quiz via Blackboard (i.e., the university’s Learning Management System): The
sections from “After reading 1” (i.e., completing sentences by changing the orders ofwords with Japanese translations) and “After reading 2” (i.e., matching given words
and the definitions)Note. Wakaari (2020)

Table 3Standard Lesson Plan Using the Students’ Selected Articles on Current Issues
Participant

2

Activities

Presenter(once per student)

1. Find an online news article on current issues regarding the SDGs and/or
COVID-19, and post the URL on the forum (keijiban in Japanese, or discussion
board) on Blackboard, where everyone can share comments with other classmates.
2. Present an oral summary of the article using PowerPoint slides.
3. Submit a written summary (plus their own opinions, if necessary) of the article inmore than 450 words by the end of the course.

Audience(every class except for when
they are the presenters)

1. Scan/browse the selected articles before class.
2. After class, post comments/thoughts/opinions about the presentation on the forum
on Blackboard in more than 50 words of English.

Presenter & Audience(every class)

The teacher gives a supplementary explanation on the content and vocabulary after
the presenter has completed their presentation.

The “While reading 4” section contains a listening activity to check the answers for “While reading 5,” which was coveredin class.

3

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

Preceding the lessons described above, the teacher provided the following lessons as a series of
introductory lectures:
1.
Lesson 1: Introduce various websites of the world news (e.g., BBC and CNN), news inJapan (e.g., The Japan Times and The Japan News by The Yomiuri Shimbun), and world
science news (e.g., National Geographic and Science News for Students), totaling 17 sites,and explain the key concepts and vocabulary of the SDGs, such as 17 goals, five Ps (people,
prosperity, planet, peace, and partnership), and keywords (e.g., sustainable, inclusive, andresilient) (United Nations, n.d.).
2.
Lesson 2: Review the various reading skills learned in R&W courses (e.g., previewing,
scanning, skimming, and annotating) and introduce a sample article regarding the SDGs
and COVID-19 (Solberg & Akufo-Addo, 2020).
3.
Lesson 3: Instruct how to give a presentation online using Zoom and review various reading
skills (e.g., identifying the main ideas, summarizing, etc.)
4.
Lesson 4: Instruct how to write a summary based on the presentation (e.g., writing an essay
and formatting)

Background to the Study
The CEFR describes what language learners can do at different stages of their learning, andessentially divides language proficiency into six levels, A1 and A2 (i.e., Basic User), B1 and B2 (i.e.,
Independent User), and C1 and C2 (i.e., Proficient User), and has been widely used worldwide as aframework for language learning, teaching, and assessment (English Profile, n.d.; Council of Europe,2020). For anyone involved in English language education, such as material writers, test developers,
teachers, and teacher trainers, the English Profile (n.d.) offers online tools, such as the English
Vocabulary Profile (EVP) and the English Grammar Profile (EGP), providing information about the
CEFR level of words, phrases, idioms, collocations, and grammatical forms. In Japan, the CEFR-J wasdeveloped by adapting the CEFR for English language teaching in Japan (Tono, 2013; Tono, 2020;
Tono & Negishi, 2020). The A and B levels were subdivided, and the Pre-A1 level was added to theoriginal CEFR as follows: Pre-A1, A1 (A1.1, A1.2, and A1.3), A2 (A2.1 and A2.2), B1 (B1.1 and B1.2),B2 (B2.1 and B2.2), C1, and C2 (Tono, 2013; Tono, 2020). Several resources based on the CEFR-J are
available on the website, including the whole CEFR-J package, the CEFR-J Wordlist, and the CEFR-J
Grammar Profile. In the present study, the CEFR-J Text Profile, which is an online application tool
called CVLA (Uchida, n.d.; Uchida & Negishi, 2018), was used to assign the CEFR-J levels to thereading texts introduced in the course.

Method and Procedure
First, the articles of the assigned textbooks and the ones selected by the students from online
news sites were all transformed into TXT files. The pages of the target units from the textbook were
scanned using Optical Character Recognition, and only the main articles were manually extracted.
Regarding the online articles, the headline, date of publication, name of the author, captions of photos
and pictures, and links and headlines of related articles were deliberately excluded by the author, but
the subtitles and words inserted in tables and figures were included in the TXT files.
According to Uchida and Negishi (2018), CVLA assigns one of the 12 CEFR-J levels (Pre-A1 to
C2) based on four textual indexes calculated from the input text using regression models, concerning
4

IDENTIFYING THE CEFR-J LEVEL S OF THE REA DING TEXTS INTRODUCEDIN A COURSE FOR CURRENT ENGLISH 1 (REA DING)

the characteristics of the sentence structure and vocabulary. This system is based on the Corpusbook
Corpus compiled by the CEFR-J project, which is composed of data from EFL/ESL textbooks createdunder the CEFR framework (Uchida & Negishi, 2018; Tono, 2013; Tono, 2020; Tono & Negishi, 2020).
While the aforementioned EVP devised by the English Profile only allows the user to identify the
CEFR level of the vocabulary, CVLA provides the estimated difficulty of English passages of listening
and reading materials.
Figure 1 shows the interface of CVLA. The user simply pastes a text in a space, entering thespecified password. Note that the text should not exceed 2,000 words for analysis.
Figure 1
The Interface of CVLAThe CVLA outputs the result in four types of information: (i) text with the colored CEFR-J level3
assigned to each word (see Figure 2); (ii) a table with the result of the estimated text level andscores of the four indexes (see Figure 3); (iii) a bar chart showing the proportion of CEFR-J levelsof the content words, such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs (see Figure 4); and (iv) a tableshowing the distribution of the raw frequencies of the content words according to the CEFR-J levels(see Figure 5).

3

EVP is used for C level words (Uchida & Negishi, 2018) as the CEFR-J Wordlist does not contain any C1 or C2 words (Tono,2020).

5

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

Figure 2
A Sample Result of Article No. 4: A Text With the CEFR-J Level Assigned to Each Word

Figure 3
A Sample Result of Article No. 4: The Estimated Text Level and Measure of the Four Indexes

Mode: R
CEFR

ARI

VperSent

AvrDiff

BperA

A1

5.73

1.49

1.31

0.08

A2

7.03

1.82

1.41

0.12

B1

10.00

2.37

1.57

0.18

B2

12.33

2.88

1.71

0.26

Input

10.68

3.59

1.90

0.43

Estimated level

B1.2

C2

C1

C2

Estimated Text Level:C1

Figure 4
A Sample Result of Article No. 4 Selected by Student D: A Bar Chart Showing the Proportion of CEFR-J Levels of theContent Words
CEFR levels
A1

A2

B1

B2

C1

C2

NA

ALL
Noun
Verb
Adjective
Adverb
0

100

200

300

400

6

500

600

700

IDENTIFYING THE CEFR-J LEVEL S OF THE REA DING TEXTS INTRODUCEDIN A COURSE FOR CURRENT ENGLISH 1 (REA DING)

Figure 5
A Sample Result of Article No. 4: The Distribution of Raw Frequencies of Content Words According to the CEFR-J Levels

POS/CEFR

A1

A2

B1

B2

C1

C2

NA

Noun

99

43

65

29

1

0

60

Verb

89

25

22

15

1

1

13

Adjective

39

24

12

7

2

2

14

Adverb

42

17

8

3

1

0

3

The estimated text level, shown below the table in Figure 3 (i.e., C1), was determined according
to the four indexes of textual features: Automated Readability Index (ARI), VperSent (i.e., verbs per
sentence), AvrDiff (i.e., the average of word difficulties), and BperA (i.e., the ratio of B-level content
words to A-level content words). The scores of the four indexes are further described in the Resultsand Discussion section.
The ARI produces an appropriate representation of the US Grade Level (from scores 1 to 14)(Wikipedia, 2018). For example, Article No. 4 selected by Student D in Figure 3 indicates a score of
10.68, which corresponds to a US Grade Level of between the 10th (aged 15 to 16) and 11th (aged 16
to 17) grade. CVLA output the estimated level as B1.2 based on the ARI measure.
The score of VperSent is the average rate of verbs contained in each sentence. A high score forthis index means that the target sentences are composed of complex constructions, such as the useof passive tense, gerund, and past particle, and that the level of the text can be lowered using simple
constructions (Uchida & Negishi, 2018). For example, Article No. 4 shows a score of 3.59, which was
assigned as C2 level.
The AvrDiff index shows the average word difficulties when content words assigned as A1 levelare given a score of 1, A2 words are given a score of 2, B1 words score 3 points, and B2 words score 4,
based on the CEFR-J Wordlist, which was created in the CEFR-J project and contains 7,815 words in4
total (Uchida & Negishi, 2018). The score of Article No. 4 was 1.9, and the estimated level was C1.
The BperA indicates the ratio of B-level content words to A-level content words, and the text levelcan be lowered using fewer B level words (Uchida & Negishi, 2018). In Figure 3, the score of Article
No. 4 was 0.43, which was assigned as C2 level.

Results and Discussion
Overall Results of the Estimated CEFR-J Levels
Of the articles in the assigned textbook, five were identified as C1 level, and four articles as
C2 level. Among the collection of online articles selected by the students, one article was assigned
as B2.2, nine as C1, and 12 as C2. Since CVLA does not accept texts exceeding 2,000 words, thearticles chosen by Students I and L in Table A2 were excluded from the analyses. Figures 6 and 7
show the indexes of ARI, VperSent, AvrDiff, and BperA, as well as the estimated CEFR-J level of the4

Words assigned as C1 or C2 level are regressively estimated.

7

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

textbook and online articles. The number of the x-axis indicates the serial number of each article.
The scores of the CEFR-J levels were determined according to the calculations where B2.2 received
a score of 4.5, C1 scored 5, and C2 scored 6. The ARI scores in both plots fluctuate compared to theother indexes, which is likely because the index is sensitive to sentence and word lengths (Uchida
and Negishi, 2018). The ARI measures tend to correspond with the VperSent scores, especially in
Figure 6, indicating that readability could be influenced by the structures of sentences. Regarding the
AvrDiff and BperA indexes, there were no big differences among all the texts in either group.
Figure 6
Four Indexes and CEFR-J Level of the Articles in the Assigned Textbook
25

Score

20
15
10
5
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Serial Number of Text
ARI

VperSent

AvrDiff

BperA

CEFR

Figure 7
Four Indexes and CEFR-J Level of the Articles Selected by the Students
25

Score

20
15
10
5
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Serial Number of Text
ARI

VperSent

AvrDiff

BperA

CEFR

Comparing Articles No. 3 (with the headline “Virus Forcing Rethink of Japanese Way of Businessat Toyota, CEO Says” from The Japan Times, totaling 469 words) and No. 4 (with the headline “Science
Speeds Up During Coronavirus Pandemic—But at What Cost?” from CNN, totaling 1,236 words), theestimated CEFR-J levels were B2.2 for No. 3 and C1 for No. 4. The length of No. 3 was approximately

8

IDENTIFYING THE CEFR-J LEVEL S OF THE REA DING TEXTS INTRODUCEDIN A COURSE FOR CURRENT ENGLISH 1 (REA DING)

2.6 times shorter than that of No. 4. However, according to the scores of VperSent and ARI, Article
No. 3 is likely to be more difficult than Article No. 4; the scores of VperSent and ARI for Article No. 3
were 4.75 and 13.4, respectively, while those of Article No. 4 were 3.59 and 10.68, respectively. In fact,
the No. 4 text was written with simpler structures than No. 3, but the content intuitively seemed much
more challenging and unfamiliar to the students than that of No. 3. The topic of No. 4 was preprint
servers, such as bioRxiv and medRxiv, which was a hot topic in the news of COVID-19, while that of No.
3 was the Japanese corporate culture (e.g., genchi genbutsu, or go and see for yourself) influenced by
COVID-19.

Distribution of Vocabular y According to the CEFR-J Levels
Figures 8 and 9 show the distribution of vocabulary (i.e., content words, such as nouns, verbs,
adjectives, and adverbs) according to the CEFR-J levels of the articles in the assigned textbook andthe ones selected by the students. The ratio of A1 vocabulary was the highest, followed by A2, B1, NA(not applicable), B2, C1, and C2 in the texts in both groups. This tendency is evident in the distributionof content words in each part-of-speech category in Figures 10 and 11. Therefore, it can be assumed
that the vocabulary assigned as A1, A2, and B1 levels accounted for a major portion of the newspaper
articles in general, regardless of the length of texts.
Figure 8
Distribution of Vocabulary According to the CEFR-J Levels of the Articles in the Assigned Textbook
40%
35%
30%

29.78%
24.71%

Ratio

25%

20.07%

20%

14.93%

15%
9.78%

10%
5%

1.45%

0%

0.29%

CEFR-J levels
A1

A2

B1

B2

C1

9

C2

NA

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

Figure 9Distribution of Vocabulary According to the CEFR-J Levels of the Articles Selected by the Students
40%

37.00%

35%
30%

Ratio

25%

21.40%

20%

18.30%

15%

13.19%

10%

8.34%

5%
0%

1.11%

0.67%

C1

C2

CEFR-J levels
A1

A2

B1

B2

NA

Figure 10
Distribution of Content Words (Nouns, Verbs, Adjectives, and Adverbs) According to the CEFR-J Levels of the Articles in
the Assigned Textbook

Category

Noun

206

Verb
Adjective

172

110
59

88
55

40 24

74

154

79

17

108

30 23

69

Adverb 36 26 9
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Tokens
A1

A2

B1

B2

C1

C2

NA

Figure 11
Distribution of Content Words (Nouns, Verbs, Adjectives, and Adverbs) According to the CEFR-J Levels of the Articles
Selected by the Students

Category

Noun

1803

Verb

1335

588

Adjective

617

469

Adverb639

300 130

0

1184
503

1130

504

80

908

279 246410 157 367

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Tokens
A1

A2

B1

B2

10

C1

C2

NA

6000

IDENTIFYING THE CEFR-J LEVEL S OF THE REA DING TEXTS INTRODUCEDIN A COURSE FOR CURRENT ENGLISH 1 (REA DING)

To examine whether statistically significant differences existed between the articles in theassigned textbook and the ones selected by the students from the Internet in terms of the distributionof the CEFR-J level vocabulary in each category, chi-square tests were conducted. The results of thesetests showed that significant differences were evident in the categories of verbs (x 2 = 21.9, df = 4, p <.001, Cramer’s V = .05781) and adjectives (x 2 = 17.18, df = 4, p < .01, Cramer’s V = .06156), except for
the C1 and C2 categories, whose expected values were less than five. In terms of verbs, the ratio of A1
vocabulary was higher in the articles chosen by the students (accounting for 44.38%) than that of theassigned textbooks (33.43%), but the vocabulary assigned as A2 and B1 tended to be more frequent in
the textbook (26.75% and 22.49%, respectively) than in the articles chosen by the students (19.55% and16.72%, respectively). NA verbs appeared slightly more often in the students’ articles (8.18%) than in
the textbook (6.99%). The students’ articles also tended to contain more A1 adjectives (30.02%) than
the textbook (23.69%), but the ratio of NA adjectives in the students’ was lower (17.86%) than that of
the textbook (27.71%).
5
Finally, the most frequently appearing nouns in both groups, which tend to be topic-sensitive,
are described in relation to the assigned CEFR-J levels. The outcome derived from the Sketch Engine
indicates that the top six nouns in the assigned textbook were year (16 occurrences), China (14), ice(13), percent (13), hydrogen (13), and visitor (11). The words except for China (NA other), percent andhydrogen (NA content words) were A1 or A2 vocabulary according to CVLA. By contrast, the top sevenfrequent nouns in the students’ articles were people (119), country (73), year (70), pandemic (56),health (52), government (52), and coronavirus (50). The words except for pandemic and coronavirus(NA content words) were all assigned as A1 or A2.

Conclusion
This paper examined the validity of introducing authentic news articles selected by students
compared with texts provided in the published textbook by identifying the text levels that CVLA
assigned to them: that is, the CEFR-J levels. In the assigned textbook, the number of words in eachtext was controlled and/or articles of the same length were deliberately chosen for publication. On theother hand, as the texts selected by the students were completely authentic without any amendments
made by the teacher, the length of the texts differed greatly. It was assumed that the authentic texts,
which normally targeted advanced English-speaking readers, could have been more challenging to
the students than the controlled texts in the textbook. However, according to the results retrieved
from CVLA, most of the texts were identified as either C1 or C2 level, and the distribution of the
CEFR-J levels in the content words of both groups turned out to be very similar according to theresults shown in Figures 8 and 9. Between the texts from the assigned textbook and the authentic
articles selected by the students, statistically significant differences were only observed in the ratio ofverbs and adjectives except for the C1 and C2 vocabulary. The proportion of A1 verbs and adjectives
tended to be higher in the authentic articles than in the textbook, as Figures 10 and 11 show.
In conclusion, based upon the quantitative analyses of the textual difficulties identified by CVLA,no major differences between both text groups of newspaper articles were observed in terms ofthe difficulties according to the assigned CEFR-J levels, even though the majority of the authentic
articles selected by the students were published after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and initially

5

The top three frequent verbs in both groups were be, have, and say.

11

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

assumed to contain more NA vocabulary than the textbook articles.
From a pedagogical viewpoint, with the author having been a teacher of this course, some of the
topics of the authentic articles chosen by the students were challenging. The topic of preprint servers
was one example as discussed in the Results and Discussion section. As almost most of the articles
dealt with topics related to COVID-19, the content tended to be technical and varied, covering topics
including business, economy, politics, health care, medical treatment, education, and society, which
required certain background knowledge to have a full understanding. Nevertheless, each student
was only asked to introduce their chosen article in class, and the other students (i.e., the audience)
only needed to browse or skim the article beforehand (which was not compulsory) and to write shortcomments or state opinions on the presentations they heard afterwards. Doing so should have given
the students sufficient opportunities to become familiar with the current topics in relation to the
SDGs and the COVID-19 pandemic, and to identify their classmates’ individual interests from theirselections.
As for future pedagogical implications, teachers could instruct the students to choose articles
of a certain length that are appropriate to their proficiency levels, to ensure every student has equal
preparation time. The enrolled students in this course were initially instructed to submit a 450-word
written summary of the selected article, but a few students chose articles containing less than 450
words. Therefore, a solution was made by instructing them to add their opinions and/or refer to theirclassmates’ comments on the forum as part of their summary.
For future additional analyses, the text level of the students’ written summaries as well as theircomments on the forum could also be analyzed to examine how they managed to paraphrase theinformation given in the introduced articles in the course, which may represent a mediation aspect,
the recent addition to the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2018).

12

IDENTIFYING THE CEFR-J LEVEL S OF THE REA DING TEXTS INTRODUCEDIN A COURSE FOR CURRENT ENGLISH 1 (REA DING)

References
Automated Readability Index. (2018, August 23). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.
php?title=Automated_readability_index&oldid=856199533
Council of Europe. (2018). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching,assessment: Companion volume with new descriptors. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volumewith-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989
Council of Europe. (2020). The CEFR levels. https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-europeanframework-reference-languages/level-descriptions
English Profile. (n.d.). What is the CEFR? https://www.englishprofile.org/the-cefr
Lexical Computing CZ s.r.o. (2020). Sketch Engine. https://www.sketchengine.eu/
Solberg, E., & Akufo-Addo, N. A. D. (2020, April 23). Why we cannot lose sight of the Sustainable
Development Goals during coronavirus. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/
agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-pandemic-effect-sdg-un-progress/
Tono, Y. (Ed.). (2013). Can-do risuto sakusei katsuyo: Eigo toutatsudo shihyou CEFR-J gaido bukku[CEFR-J guidebook: Making and applying can-do lists]. Taishukan.
Tono, Y. (2020). CEFR-J. http://cefr-j.org/
Tono, Y., & Negishi, M. (Eds.). (2020). Kyozai tesuto sakusei no tame no CEFR-J risosu bukku [CEFR-J
resource book to develop materials and tests]. Taishukan.
Uchida, S. (n.d.). CVLA: CEFR-based Vocabulary Level Analyzer (ver. 1.1). http://dd.kyushu-u.
ac.jp/~uchida/cvla.html
Uchida, S., & Negishi, M. (2018). Assigning CEFR-J levels to English texts based on textual features.
In Y. Tono & H. Isahara (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4 th Asia Pacific Corpus Linguistics Conference(pp. 463–468). http://dd.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~uchida/APCLC2018_UchidaNegishi_web.pdf
United Nations. (n.d.), Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
Wakaari, Y. (2020). Meet the world: English through newspapers 2020. Seibido.

13

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

Appendix
Table A1
Articles from the Assigned Textbook
Unit

Specified
SourceHeadline

Token

Date of
Publication

1

Jiji

Japanese companies in rural areas facing difficultyin hiring graduates

283

January 13,
2019

2

N/A

Foreign visitors go on record shopping spree

278

January 18,
2019

3

N/A

Niigata rice exports to China start

291

January 9,
2019

4

AFP-Jiji

India plans manned space mission by 2021

309

January 13,
2019

5

AFP-Jiji

Saudi teenager ‘under the care’ of U.N. agency

316

January 8,
2019

6

AP

Shenzhen switches to electric cars

325

January 9,
2019

7

N/A

Frog calls may help improve telecom technology

239

January 9,
2019

8

N/A

Japan to power fishing boats with Toyota’shydrogen fuel cells

346

January 4,
2019

9

N/A

Study: Greenland ice melting four-fold faster thandecade ago

355

January 26,
2019

Table A2
Articles Selected by the Students
Student

ArticleNo.

SourceHeadline

Token

Date of
Publication

A

1

The JapanTimes

LDP panel considering five-year transition
plan for September school year start421

May 19,
2020

B

2

CNN

Cats can infect other cats with coronavirus,
researchers find477

May 13,2020

C

3The Japan
Times

Virus forcing rethink of Japanese way ofbusiness at Toyota, CEO says

469

May 31,
2020

D

4

CNN

Science speeds up during coronavirus
pandemic—but at what cost?

1,236

May 15,
2020

E

5

CNN

Hungarian leader’s outrageous power grab

1,006

April 3,
2020

F

6

The Japan
Times

COVID-19 crisis takes toll on children’s
cafeterias for disadvantaged

1,092

May 8,
2020

14

IDENTIFYING THE CEFR-J LEVEL S OF THE REA DING TEXTS INTRODUCEDIN A COURSE FOR CURRENT ENGLISH 1 (REA DING)

Student

ArticleNo.

SourceHeadline

Token

Date of
Publication

G

7

CNN

Climate change and coronavirus: Fivecharts about the biggest carbon crash

1,664

May 5,
2020

H

8

The Japan
Times

Europe’s broken tourism industry struggles
to save the summer

1,017

May 16,
2020

I

N/A

Quarts

The coronavirus pandemic is reshaping
education

Exceeding
2,000

March 30,
2020

J

9

Time

How South Korea’s nightclub outbreakis shining an unwelcome spotlight on the
LGBTQ community

1,346

May 14,
2020

K

10

The ASEAN
Post

Hate and discrimination in a pandemic
world

1,276

May 12,
2020

L

N/A

Daily Mail

More evidence emerges that smokers areprotected from coronavirus

Exceeding
2,000

May 11,
2020

M

11

CNN

Coronavirus is causing a flurry of plastic
waste. Campaigners fear it may be permanent

1,184

May 4,
2020

N

12

The Japan
Times

COVID-19 versus Japan’s culture ofcollectivism

856

May 4,2020

O

13

UN News

UN leads call to protect most vulnerablefrom mental health crisis during and after
COVID-19

1,299

May 14,
2020

P

14

National
Geographic

Kids are having pandemic dreams too

1,067

May 11,
2020

Q

15

CNBC

No lockdown here: Sweden defends its
more relaxed coronavirus strategy

1,113

March 30,
2020

R

16

NHK

Coronavirus hits Rohingya refugee camp

445

June 4,
2020

S

17

The Japan
Times

Abuses still abound in labor-strapped
Japan’s foreign ‘trainee’ worker system

1,075

January 2,
2018

T

18

BBC

Coronavirus: How New Zealand relied on
science and empathy

1,381

April 20,
2020

U

19

National
Geographic

Your daily commute won’t ever be the
same

1,466

May 11,
2020

V

20

BBC

How coronavirus is driving a revolution in
travel983

May 16,
2020

W

21

BBC

Coronavirus: Will we ever shake hands
again?

1,594

May 6,
2020

X

22

National
Geographic

Education interrupted. Years lost. Students
face ‘cruelty’ of new visa policy

1,369

July 19,202015

【Teaching Practice Report】

Finding Time:
Reflections on English Discussion Lesson and Activity Timing in
the Shift to Online Lessons During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Andrew Tyner
Abstract
In this paper, I reflect on lesson structure and timing changes in the transition to online lessons for my English
discussion classes during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The focus is largely on my compression of lesson sections
to achieve lesson and class goals within a greatly reduced in-class timeframe. I find that, despite significant differences
between the in-class and online lesson environment, the core objectives of the course may still be met. I explore
the manner in which the core elements of the course were preserved in the transition to the online format while
addressing the shifts in the teacher-student and student-student in-lesson dynamics that resulted from this transition.
Keywords: timing, lesson structure, COVID-19, online lessons

Introduction
In response to the COVID-19 global pandemic, and with the intention of ensuring student andfaculty safety, Rikkyo University, my workplace, made the decision to conduct classes online (throughthe use of various platforms including Zoom) for the Spring and Fall 2020 semesters. In this paper, I
shall focus on timing-related changes to my Spring semester English discussion classes. Prior to thischange, English Discussion classes would meet on campus for 100-minute lessons with approximately
10 students per class. These on-campus lessons consisted of various sections to present language
skills (i.e., asking for opinions, giving sources of information, etc.), provide for practice of thoseskills, and provide an extended period during which students demonstrate their ability to produce
the aforementioned skills within the context of two group discussions. This standard format, as I am
tempted to describe it, allows a great deal of time for fine-tuning regarding language use.
In contrast to the 100-minute format, my online lesson format included a 40 minute online
portion, delivered through the Zoom platform, followed by a 60 minute offline portion, during whichtime students completed various assignments and tasks on their own. The online portion involved
only 4-5 students at a time, as opposed to the full class of 8-10 in a traditional face-to-face lesson, and,
therefore, necessitated conducting the various lesson stages twice per class in order to accommodate
all students. Part of the logic for this division was the reality of limited network access on part ofthe students, as many students connect via cellular networks and, particularly in Japan, often havestrict limits on data usage. Another reason was logistics. If I am to fully assess student performance,
particularly in the production phase during which all students speak together for a continuous 12-15
1
minutes, I must not divide my attention between entirely separate breakout rooms.
The technical aspects of the modifications of the class are sensible enough, I think. However, fromthe outset of the Spring semester, I harbored some concern that students might be at a disadvantage

1

A breakout room is a sub-grouping of individuals within a Zoom meeting. Breakout rooms allow for concurrent pair andgroup work.

16

FINDING TIME: REFLECTIONS ON ENGLISH DISCUSSION LESSON AND ACTIVIT Y TIMING IN THE SHIF T TO
ONLINE LESSONS DURING THE COVID-19 PA NDEMIC

as a result of being in a Zoom lesson as opposed to a real-world lesson. This is not because of any
bias against technology or its increasingly prevalent role in the classroom, but simply because any
individual student will have, as a consequence of the changes outlined above, less time actively
speaking, as compared to students in the in-class lessons as well as less time to receive and act upon
feedback. Through reflection on the actual class outcomes, I wish to determine if my concerns were
founded. In other words, I wish to determine the extent of disadvantages of the online format, more
specifically, the lesson timing choices I made to adapt to it, regarding student performance. Further,
I wish to determine what lessons may be derived from my experiences in the Spring 2020 semester,which may inform my choices with regard to online and on-campus courses in the future.

Discussion
Virtually all changes to the format of my English Discussion lessons can be attributed to reduced
time. The pace of the 100-minute in-class lesson was leisurely by comparison. In the 40-minute online
class, my focus was always on providing the basic steps of presentation of language skills, practice,and production in as efficient a manner as possible. One example of this efficiency was the use of the
textbook often in conjunction with succinct PowerPoint presentations to introduce skills. Certainly,
I would have used the textbook anyway, but perhaps while eliciting some of the information fromstudents. Likewise, I am not opposed to the use of PowerPoint presentations, but I found that they
began to fill a space that may formerly have involved very short speaking activities paired with focused
feedback to highlight the correct use of and necessity for a given skill. A form of these short speaking
activities was incorporated into subsequent sections of the lesson; however, the fact remains that that,from the start of the lesson, the structure had become more top-down.
Does this mean that the class was less student-centered? There are several points to consider. In
the online classes, just as in the on-campus classes, student speaking time accounted for the greatest
part of the lesson by far. However, necessity dictated that portions of the lesson that had formerly
been reflective, that would have required students to examine their own use or non-use of skills,
became to a greater extent times for teacher-fronted feedback. This was in the interest of always
getting to the next speaking section so that students could act upon feedback and continue to refine
their skill use. Further, more concise, more generalized feedback is not necessarily bad. Indeed, it has
been found by some researchers to be more effective than “specific and elaborate feedback” (MurilloZamorano & Montanero, 2018, p.140). In my online classes students were at least as able to act uponteacher-fronted feedback as students had been able to act upon student-fronted feedback in the past.
So, again, we might ask whether or not the changes outlined above constitute actually being lessstudent-centered. I would say no. The student and their utterances remain the core of the class, but itwould be fair to say that the changes to the class structure made it less reflective, less introspective.
2
I have written previously about the value of student introspection . Teacher-fronted feedback
is often viewed by students as being of greater value than other forms of feedback (Harland, et al.,2017). However, I have found that when students reflect upon their specific strengths and weaknesses
in a discussion, they are typically able to devise some means for improvement. Indeed, I made thisintrospective self-feedback a feature of all my in-class discussion lessons. In the 40-minute online
portion of my classes, it was not possible to incorporate very much of this component. If, for instance,2

Tyner, A. (2020) Self and Group: Dynamics of Reflection in Student-to-Student Feedback, New Directions in Teaching and
Learning English Discussion, 8, 65-70.

17

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

a student reflects for a minute or so and then reports feedback about their own performance to apartner for two minutes, and their partner does likewise, even without taking into account the logistics
of creating breakout rooms and monitoring those breakout rooms, it is clear that across multiple
discussions, this feedback would take an excessively significant portion of the class time. However,the classes are not 40 minutes in total, they are 100-minute classes divided between online and offline
sections.
Indeed, to say that the lesson has been pared down to some minimal amount is to neglect theoffline portion of the class. The 40 in-class minutes represents a condensed version of the in-classlesson structure. However, the offline portion is largely a new addition. Homework is nothing new.
However, in this case, students are expected to complete a greater volume of work as a substitute forin-class time.
In my English discussion classes, the non-homework offline assignments usually, almost
exclusively, consisted of writing assignments. These assignments involved reflection on the lesson’s
3
theme and provided students a chance to explore the topics involved in a more personal manner while
utilizing the language skills taught in the course to communicate their ideas. These writing activities
often included students’ reflections on their strengths and weaknesses with regard to the language
skills taught in the class, whether or not a given assignment was meant to specifically address thesepoints. I was very happy to see this. I was able to respond individually to students via email if they had
specific questions or concerns, and I was able to more generally incorporate feedback into lessons
for classes that had a comparatively large number of questions or which had noted a substantial
number of strong or weak points. In other words, I was able to validate students’ introspective selffeedback and provide more effective and actionable feedback as a result of this introspection. I could
accomplish the same goal as had been previously accomplished by in-class self-reflective student
feedback. Granted, the timing for this had changed. Feedback stemming from student writing camethe subsequent week rather than immediately following a given activity. However, as the skills taught
in the course are cumulative, they are built upon and continuously used, this feedback could, arguably,
be just as actionable one week as another.
If the lesson structure, class dynamic, and feedback methodology all changed without apparent
harm to the goals of the course, were there any changes necessitated by the shift to an online classformat that had a negative impact? Yes, one. However, it is difficult to characterize the exact natureof the impact.
In a study of face-to-face, online, and hybrid classes that combined elements of the former
two, Ritter, et al. (2010) found that “a greater sense of community was perceived by students who
received all or some face-to-face contact with their professors” (p. 96). In Ritter’s study, using theClassroom Community Scale, students in online classes scored lower on classroom communityand connectedness. However, Ritter goes on to note that, “There was no statistically significant
difference…in students’ perceptions of learning across all three structures” (p. 96). These findings
directly parallel my experiences with the online discussion course.
While I did not conduct a formal analysis as Ritter et al. did, I could feel, distinctly, a lessened
sense of community amongst the students. This is not to say that the students did not get along with
one another or that they did not participate well, they did. However, there was little time in class for

3

Each weekly lesson focused on a theme. These themes were explored prior to class in a reading assignment. In class,
the theme, along with its accompanying reading assignment, provided background and context for the various speaking
exercises as well as the lengthier student discussions.

18

FINDING TIME: REFLECTIONS ON ENGLISH DISCUSSION LESSON AND ACTIVIT Y TIMING IN THE SHIF T TO
ONLINE LESSONS DURING THE COVID-19 PA NDEMIC

light, casual discussion. The course was focused on learning and using particular language skills, andas a direct result of the time limitations and lesson structure changes outlined above, there was hardly
any time to spare for the type of socializing one might expect in a classroom setting.
Indeed, the students could successfully discuss a variety of topics, though by observation, andconsideration of comments made in student writing, it seems unlikely that many classmates would
characterize their connection to their classmates as particularly close. In dealing with me, students,
who in my experience would have become more comfortable speaking with me about class-related
topics, often maintained a very formal tone, especially in their emails. This formality may be partiallythe result of formal writing habits, or it may be related to the fact that most students in the class werefirst year, first semester students unsure of the requisite level of formality. In any event, though it
seems almost impossible to quantify, the mood of the class was clearly changed by the transition tothe online format, and likely also by the choices I made with regard to class structure in the face ofthe time limitations previously outlined.
That said, students, by the end of the semester, commonly noted in their writing, their emails,
and in-class utterances, that they felt they had improved as speakers and that they were more able touse the language skills taught in the course to communicate about a range of issues. My observationsof their performance supported this analysis. They had improved as speakers. However, the social
dynamic that typically existed in on-campus lessons, which made the discussions increasingly
friendly as the course progressed, was largely absent in this case. What precisely, if anything, waslost by this is a matter for a more in-depth future analysis. I might suggest that the limitation of one’s
discussion to a relatively formal tone means that one gains experience being formal, but as the rangeof discussion topics and partners in one’s life is likely to be varied, experience beyond formality would
be of significant use.

Conclusion
At the outset of this semester, I was concerned, not that the lessons could not be successfully
conducted in the manner described above, but that such changes to the lesson delivery method might
be detrimental to student performance. I worried that without the full in-class time and the benefits of
the highly interactive real-world classroom setting, the students might be at a serious disadvantage.
In short, this has not been the case.
Looking at overall student performance, indeed by almost any metric, it is clear that students
were able to perform at a level roughly analogous to students of their same ability levels in past, inclassroom, lessons. Overall class grades were roughly the same as in previous semesters for mostclasses, and somewhat improved for others. This finding is supported by others, such as Diaz (1999),
who found “no significant differences” (p. 130) between classes delivered in a classroom setting andthose delivered remotely through the use of multimedia technology. I observed, taking into accountall 11 separate discussion classes I taught in the Spring semester, no classes that demonstrated amarked diminution in assignment/discussion scoring. This is, however, not to say that there is nodifference between the two types of lessons.
Indeed, there are certain benefits conferred by being physically in-class for 100 minutes, chief
among these is the luxury of time. Practice sections can be repeated. Discussion sections can belonger. Again, because of a greater amount of available time, in-class feedback can be more interactive
and, as outlined above, more introspective. All these things are the result, simply, of having moretime. The time pressure inherent to a 40-minute lesson encompassing the basic lesson stages of19

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

presentation, practice, and production while also maximizing the students’ speaking time means thatsome things must be compressed, others omitted.
In my experience, the switch to Zoom lessons has meant paring the lessons down to only the mostessential features. It has also meant even more preparation on my part. In a classroom, I could easily
place a great deal of content on the whiteboard over the course of the 100 minutes of the lesson, butnow, even with a whiteboard feature available, time pressure has led me to create succinct slideshow
presentations to accompany the initial presentation of skills. This is only one example, and slideshow
presentations are not bad, but doing something like using a pre-prepared slideshow is less interactive
than other in-class options might be. This is indicative, I think of the overall difference between my
Zoom lessons and in-class lessons. The student to student communication dynamic is largely intact.
The students can communicate at length with their peers. However, the teacher-student dynamic isdifferent. It is clipped, and necessarily so. If we are to reserve as much time as possible for students’
speaking, we must, as instructors, speak as little as possible while remaining effective as instructors.
This begs the question, is it a bad thing to speak less? As long as a teacher is able to guide students
effectively towards improvement, I think the answer is no.
If my concerns about the effect of online discussion lessons on student performance wereunfounded, what positive lessons have I learned from the experience? Three come readily to mind.
The first has been, at least indirectly, noted several times throughout the course of this article. To
reduce a lesson to the most essential elements is not a bad thing, as long as this reduction is donewith care to preserve the maximum possible student speaking time while still providing adequate
guidance. Second, technology itself can be a great help. This is not simply a trite endorsement of thedigital age. Rather, the implementation of online assignment delivery, at least for written work, andthe use of online tools to manage and document said assignments can greatly streamline all involved
processes. Grading and grade management will, undoubtedly, continue to occupy a great deal ofteachers’ time, but I certainly plan to continue the use of online assignment tools even after in-classlessons resume.
The third lesson I learned is related to the one distinct negative point discussed above, namely,
the apparent lessened sense of community and camaraderie amongst the students. In the current
semester, fall 2020, I am teaching two types of courses, Presentation and Debate. In these courses,
I have tried, to what extent I can, to lessen the impact of this effect. I have tried to foster a greater
sense of community in class. I have changed the ratio of in-class and offline class time in favor oflengthier online sections. I have also encouraged group work and collaboration. Both approaches
have their drawbacks. In the case of the former, students face the same data limitations as in theprevious semester, so the choice to lengthen online time must be a careful and calculated one. In thecase of the latter, while I can encourage collaboration outside of class, I cannot monitor or evaluate
the effectiveness of this collaboration except by its result, though I should note that the results have4
been positive so far .
The challenges faced by students and teachers as many classes have transitioned to online
environments during the COVID-19 global pandemic are very real. However, it is worth noting thatthe trend over recent decades, particularly the last 20 years, is towards a university experience thatblends traditional classroom-taught lessons and online lessons. Moskal, writing in 2006, noted that,

4This is to say that the quality of student work produced through collaboration has been high. The effects on camaraderie
are more difficult to quantify; however, I have noted a far larger proportion of students who refer to their classmatesdistinctly as ‘friends.’

20

FINDING TIME: REFLECTIONS ON ENGLISH DISCUSSION LESSON AND ACTIVIT Y TIMING IN THE SHIF T TO
ONLINE LESSONS DURING THE COVID-19 PA NDEMIC“Net generation-students … [have] lifestyles that involve frequent use of personal, mobile, and digitaltechnologies…Today’s college students have grown up expecting everything to be available online”(p. 26). Today, in 2020, online technologies have become fully integrated into the lives of many, if not
most, students. It seems likely that the dual realities of increasingly prevalent networked technologies
and a world that seeks a way forward in the face of uncertainties and crises will turn more and more
towards online courses.

21

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

References
Diaz, D.P., & Cartnal, R.B. (1999). Students’ learning styles in two classes: Online distancelearning and equivalent on-campus, College Teaching 47(4), 130–135. https://doi.org/10.
1080/87567559909595802
Harland, T., Wald, N, & Randhawa, H. (2017). Student peer review: Enhancing formative feedback
with a rebuttal. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(5), 801–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1194368
Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., Upchurch, R., Hartman, J., & Truman, B. (2006). Assessing online learning:
What one university learned about student success, persistence, and satisfaction, Peer Review,
8(4), 26–29.
Murillo-Zamorano, L.R. & Montanero, M. (2018). Oral presentations in higher education: A comparisonof the impact of peer and teacher feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,
43(1), 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1303032
Ritter, C., Polnick, B., Fink II, R., Oescher, J. (2010). Classroom learning communities in educational
leadership: A comparison study of three delivery options. The Internet and Higher Education
13(1-2), 96–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.11.005

22【Teaching Practice Report】

Challenges and Adaptive Strategies to Teaching English
Debate Online
Andrew Warrick
Abstract
Rikkyo University implemented a new 14-week English Debate course for all first year students in the 2020 Fallsemester. At the same time, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic resulted in many classes being conducted online, with
the newly created English Debate course among them. Online learning environments can present many challenges
for students, and among them is cognitive overload. Information overload is an ever-present problem in second
language classes, and this can be compounded when these classes are taught online. In an effort to improve student
outcomes by reducing cognitive overload, several course and lesson design principles were employed. This paper
reflects on the strategies used to reduce cognitive overload among students in an online English Debate course at
Rikkyo University with the aim of improving overall student retention. Finally, conclusions are drawn from thesestrategies that can serve to inform the future creation of course materials for English Debate, as well as using online
learning spaces.
Keywords: cognitive overload, online instruction, course design

Introduction
Due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, many universities in Japan switched to online instructionin the Spring 2020 semester in order to reduce the risk to students and university staff of contracting
the disease. With the pandemic still ongoing, Rikkyo University allowed only a limited selection ofclasses to resume face-to-face instruction in the Fall semester. However, English Debate, a newly
introduced class for all freshman students, would be conducted online. The course was designed tohave 20 students meet once a week for 100 minutes over the 14 week Fall semester, with the aim ofteaching them how to argue a position in a debate, refute the ideas of the opposing side, as well as thinkcritically and apply research to support their opinions. When the English Debate course was originallyconceived, it was intended for students to meet on campus and for lessons to be conducted in person.
The very nature of a debate class, wherein participants must present arguments to, and listen to thosegiven by, an opposing side requires inter-person communication among teams of students. Under
normal circumstances, this fact could already make the class difficult to run smoothly depending on
students’ willingness to communicate, for as Osterman (2014) found, Japanese university students canhesitate to communicate with each other in class for a variety of reasons. However, the circumstancespresented by COVID-19 meant that the class had to be adapted to an online teaching environment.
At the same time, with English Debate being a new class, teachers had to build a curriculum anddesign lessons from the ground up in order to meet the objectives of the course. The combinationof creating a syllabus and lesson plans for an entirely new course with teaching a debate class in an
online learning environment presented a distinct set of challenges that had to be considered andresolved in tandem, while ensuring that course goals were met.
Online classes meant Internet connectivity issues, both for students and for myself, and on
several occasions, Wi-Fi problems resulted in stuttered or dropped connections to Zoom, the online23

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

conferencing platform I used for my classes. Students would also connect to Zoom lessons late, oremail me and say they had no Internet and thus would have to miss class. Another problem with online
classes was in supervising students. Zoom allows for breakout rooms, so that groups of students canwork with their team on a given segment of a debate, but it becomes impossible for a teacher to bein every room at once with only one device. This lead to situations where I would enter a room andfind students with their cameras and microphones turned off, obviously not contributing to their teamor even being engaged in the lesson. With the exception of Wi-Fi genuinely failing, these problems
are not exactly unique to the online teaching environment. Students will come late, or miss classcompletely, with in person lessons as well. Students can also disengage from group work and “turnoff” when in a live class, though it is much easier to see that happening and nudge them back into
participation when sharing a physical classroom with them.
Cognitive load is another problem that exists both in the physical English learning classroom,and the digital one. However, the problems of cognitive load can be compounded by the very natureof the online learning environment. Chen et al. (2011) found that some learners can more easily
feel cognitive overload in an online learning environment because of English skill deficiencies andinadequate computer and technical skills, as well as individual learning styles and preferences.
Students who are using a second language (L2) to perform another task must process content
about that task and understand their L2 simultaneously. The weaker a student’s L2 ability, the moredifficult this becomes. The aim of course design and the creation of lesson materials in the context ofclasses where students perform another task in their L2 is therefore to reduce the cognitive load theyexperience as much as possible.

Discussion
In this paper, I outline some of the design principles I employed in creating my course plan
and lesson materials for the online lessons of English Debate at Rikkyo University in the Fall 2020semester, with the aim of reducing students’ cognitive load and improving the quality of the learning
experience. Below, I outline four of the strategies I used to reduce cognitive load in my English Debateclasses: “chunking” information, doing pre-task activities, allowing the use of L1 during preparation
activities, and creating opportunities for frequent practice.

Chunking Information
It is very important to introduce new material in small pieces so that students can process it.
Harrelson and Leaver-Dunn describe this as “chunking”, or “grouping information into small,
manageable units” (Harrelson and Leaver-Dunn, 2003). How much each learner can intake at once,or the size of the “chunks” is based on their knowledge and expertise. In the context of an English
debate course, this means that students with a stronger command of English, or prior familiarity withdebates, are able to handle learning more at once. For Rikkyo University’s English Debate classes,
I expected a great deal of variance in this regard based on my prior experience teaching English
Discussion at the university. Even though students are grouped according to TOEIC scores, not all
students have the same prior experience communicating in English.
To make things manageable for students of any level, I structured the pacing of the course andmade introducing content gradual, similar to the English Discussion class of the Spring semester.
Each component of a debate (affirmative and negative team speeches, cross-examination, refutations,24

CHALLENGES A ND A DAP TIVE STR ATEGIES TO TEACHING ENGLISH DEBATE ONLINE

replies, and closing statements) was taught separately in its own lesson. In later lessons, I addedcomplexity to some segments of debate, such as teaching more advanced cross-examinationquestions, but this was always done a little at a time so as not to overburden students with new content
and confuse them. In each lesson of the first half of the course, I introduced three to five pieces ofdebate terminology related to the corresponding stage of the debate the students would learn thatlesson. Following this, I sometimes had students put what they learned into practice by doing workin pairs or small groups, and then finally the students would have a debate, using the terminology
and expressions associated with each stage they had learned up to that point. To also make doing
the early activities and debates easier, I made sure the handouts I created were scaffolded. In theearlier lessons, I provided many hints in the handouts and a partially filled-in template to follow. These
handouts allowed students to concentrate on learning the process of the debate stages and not haveto worry about English grammar or spelling as much. Then, in later lessons, I removed the hints fromthe class handouts and left a blank template. Major and Calandrino (2018) believed that delivering
short and manageable content for learners to consume engages adult learners who want to apply
their knowledge to solve a problem and connect with others. By limiting the instruction portion of myclasses, students had more time to practice and apply the debate skill “chunks” they had learned in agiven class, thereby enhancing their understanding and making the debate skills easier to internalize.

Doing Pre-Task Activities
So that students could spend more class time debating or using skills to practice a particularportion of a debate, I often used a pre-task activity that they would complete outside the classroom.
I did not want students to struggle in class to brainstorm ideas for a particular debate topic, so I
assigned homework whereby students would have to post reasons agreeing or disagreeing with adebate topic on an online debate website: www.kialo-edu.com. After showing students how to createan account and use the website, I put up links on each debate class Blackboard to debate topics on
Kialo. I then asked students to post on both the agreeing and disagreeing side of the topic, so thatno matter what side they were on in the following class, they would be able to draw upon an idea
they had already thought of, as well as those suggested by their classmates. By making the in-classdebate topic of the following class similar to the one students had done as homework, I could reduce
the preparation time spent making opening speeches, and thus allow more time for other parts of thedebate during class.
Research by Tonkin et al. (2019) found that doing pre-task activities like this outside of theclassroom in a flipped teaching style helped reduce the cognitive load of students in the L2 classroom.
With students thinking of reasons that agree and disagree with a debate topic prior to the class,they can feel less pressure to do so in class, and thereby be less intimidated by their peers who may
think of reasons faster than them. This helps create a more balanced learning environment in which
everyone has an idea to share, reducing the hesitation many students may feel in communicating intheir L2 through an online platform such as Zoom.

Allowing the Use of L1 During Preparation Activities
While students were able to quickly think of ideas for in-class debate topics because of the pretask activity, they still had to discuss with their group which reasons were best. Following this, they
had to think together to come up with examples and do research to support their arguments. This
25

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

meant they had to talk amongst their group to choose the reasons their team would use, and thenwork together to support them. In addition to this, team members would work together again toprepare refutations to the points put forth by the opposing side. I placed the students in each groupin separate breakout rooms in Zoom while they were preparing. While they were preparing supports
for their arguments or making refutations to the other team’s points, I permitted them to use their L1
in order to facilitate the sharing of ideas.
Research by Bruen and Kelly (2014) found that allowing students to use their L1 in the language
classroom can reduce cognitive load during activities, since it allows classmates to explain difficult
concepts to each other more easily. In a debate setting, this can help students explain to theirclassmates certain words they intend to use in the team speeches, or words that were used by the
opposing team in their speech. Ochi (2009) also reported that the use of L1 in the classroom can help
students more easily recall things. In the context of an English Discussion class, this can prove useful,because students make refutations to the arguments of the other team, and being able to recall andexplain the other team’s points is important in doing so.

Creating Opportunities for Frequent PracticeHarrelson and Leaver-Dunn (2003) suggested that frequent practice helps reduce cognitive load
by moving things from short-term memory into long-term memory. As students rehearse particular
debate activities, be it segments of a debate, or even a full debate, the activities become more secondnature and they no longer have to think about what they need to do, or how to do it. This helps them
become more successful at performing those skills, since they can devote more effort to concentratingon what they are doing.
With some preparation done outside of class, and only a short time spent introducing newcontent or reviewing previous material, more English Debate class time can be spent on pair andgroup activities to reinforce debate skills, or actually debating. By allowing time for two full fiveversus-five debates each class, students can complete all portions of a debate every lesson, therebybuilding familiarity with the structure of a debate, as well as improving the analytical and responsive
skills needed to make refutations and replies. Students also listen to the debate of the two otherteams, further reinforcing what they have learned by watching others do it. There is also typicallyenough time in class that I can devote a portion of the beginning to an activity that enhances students’proficiency in a particular segment of a debate, such as researching information quickly to support
ideas, making refutations, or replying to the other team’s refutations. By doing these focused tasks
in addition to a full debate each lesson, students can increase their expertise in debating. Van Gog
et al. (2005) recommended that activities to enhance a certain aspect of a skill should be done in anauthentic context to enhance the whole skill, but this will only work to reduce cognitive load andimprove performance if learners are motivated and make an effort. When applying this principle
to debate instruction, it is therefore important to make activities designed to practice particularelements of a debate as similar as possible to an actual debate, while at the same time making certain
students are not intimidated by their L2. It is here that teachers must be sure to provide meaningful
and constructive feedback, while also keeping student motivation high.

Conclusion
Debating in an L2 can be a daunting task for anyone, because they must work to process the26

CHALLENGES A ND A DAP TIVE STR ATEGIES TO TEACHING ENGLISH DEBATE ONLINE

vocabulary and grammar of their second language, as well as the content of what the other teamis saying in the debate, in order to be able to respond. To help reduce the burden on students, it isimportant for teachers to consider strategies for reducing the cognitive load on their students when
designing their course and creating lesson materials. Key things to consider are breaking course
content into smaller and more manageable chunks, assigning pre-task activities, allowing the use of
L1 during preparation, and creating sufficient opportunities for students to practice and apply what
they have learned so they can improve their skills.
Online instruction can come with many benefits, such as the means for students to quickly
research facts and ideas to support their points, and the means for teachers to create and sharematerials more quickly through the use of their computer than they would otherwise be able to do ina typical classroom. This can make assigning and reviewing online pre-task activities easier and help
students who may struggle to think of several reasons for a given idea, or reasons that run contrary
to their personal viewpoint.
During the age of online instruction, it can be difficult to judge student attentiveness due to their
webcam positioning, the nature of screen sharing, and computer performance issues. At the sametime, it is important to be aware that not all students may be well suited to online learning, and some
may experience mental fatigue more quickly in an online class than in an in-person class as a result of
the draining nature of conferencing software. With this in mind, teachers need to design their online
courses so as to reduce cognitive overload as much as possible among their students, by being more
mindful of the quantity of material covered in a single class.
It can be very easy for language teachers to feel distant and detached from their students and fall
into the trap of overexplaining things because of the inherently less personal nature of online classes.
Webcams make it difficult to see the looks of understanding and looks of confusion on students’faces that many teachers would be able to recognize easily in an in-person class. However, it is stillvital for language teachers to remember their role as a facilitator, and guide the students throughthe learning process while providing targeted feedback so that students understand what they needto do to improve. This will ensure they make a conscious effort with each attempt, which also helps
them move their understanding of the language and skills from their short-term memory to theirinternalized repertoire, thereby reducing their cognitive load.
This paper has looked at some strategies for reducing cognitive load within the context of online
English Debate classes at Rikkyo University, but the overall principle behind these strategies can be
employed in other situations—whether it is teaching another subject or doing in-person classes. Of
course, there are other effective ways of reducing cognitive load in the classroom, such as employing
collaborative learning strategies and scaffolding, but it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss
those.

27

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

References
Bruen, J. & Kelly, N. (2014). Using a shared L1 to reduce cognitive overload and anxiety levels in theL2 classroom. The Language Learning Journal. 45(3), 368–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571
736.2014.908405
Chen, C.-Y., Pedersen, S., & Murphy, K. L. (2011). Learners’ perceived information overload in online
learning via computer-mediated communication. Research in Learning Technology, 19(2), 101–
116. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v19i2.10345
Harrelson, G.L., & Leaver-Dunn, D. (2003). Four tips to manage cognitive overload. International
Journal of Athletic Therapy and Training, 8(1), 47–49. https://doi.org/10.1123/att.8.1.47
Major, A., & Calandrino, T. (2018). Beyond chunking: Micro-learning secrets for effective online
design. FDLA Journal, 3(13). https://nsuworks.nova.edu/fdla-journal/vol3/iss1/13
Ochi, Y. (2009). The role of L1 in facilitating L2 production. Interpreting and Translation Studies, 9,
123–140. http://jaits.jpn.org/home/kaishi2009/pdf/10-ochi.pdf
Osterman, G.L., (2014). Experiences of Japanese university students’ willingness to speak English inclass: A multiple case study. SAGE Open, 4(3). 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014543779
Tonkin, K., Page, S., & Forsey, M. (2019). Managing cognitive load with a flipped language class:An ethnographic study of the student experience. Foreign Language Annals. 52(3), 551–575.
https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12412
van Gog, T., Ericsson, K., Paas, F., & Rikers, R. (2005). Instructional design for advanced learners:
Establishing connections between the theoretical frameworks of cognitive load and deliberate
practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 73–81. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF02504799

28

【Teaching Practice Report】

Students’ Opinions About Peer Teaching
Devon Arthurson
Abstract
Peer-teaching allows students to teach their classmates to not only deeply explore the topic that they are teaching, but
to also develop their empathy, motivation, communication, group-work, and time-management skills. Furthermore,by incorporating a reflective component into the activity, students can have more awareness of the benefits and about
how the experience may help them in their futures. Over a 10-week period, two classes prepared, participated in,and then reflected on the activity of teaching their classmates. This study will explore the data from the students’reflection papers. The students wrote about the experience of teaching in regard to what they learned, how theexperience will help them in the future, advice they would give to others about peer teaching, and if peer teaching
was a positive or negative experience. Also, possible ways for instructors to use peer teaching will be discussed, as
well as the benefits to instructors about knowing more regarding students’ opinions about teaching practices.
Keywords: peer teaching, students teaching students, student voices

Introduction
This paper will examine students’ opinions about teaching their peers. Peer teaching canfoster learner autonomy and increase students’ knowledge of the content being taught (Benson,2011). Moreover, other skills can also be developed, such as time management, group work, andcommunication. Many teachers and instructors may see the value in peer teaching; however, if
learners do not see the value in the activity, peer teaching may be seen as a burden of only negative
aspects. This study will present students’ opinions about peer teaching and what they learned frompeer teaching. The project and data from the students’ reflection papers will be presented. The study’s
strengths and limitations will be discussed. For those instructors interested in using peer teaching inlessons, this paper also provides some suggestions or activities that can be used or adapted for theirown practice and students.

Literature Review
Peer teaching in ESL and EFL in Japan seems to be an area that is not often explored in practice or
research. However, two studies have shown the benefits and positive results of using peer teaching in
English language learning. In a study done by Bradford-Watts (2011), peer teaching was implemented
at a compulsory English oral communications course at a university in Kyoto. The students reported
13 benefits of the experience as goal-setting, planning, cooperation, and communication. According to
Bradford-Watts, “it would appear that peer teaching is an effective means of student-centered, sociallyconstructed instruction for the foreign language classroom” (p. 34). Though not in Japan, a peerteaching study of English education students at an Indonesian university presented similar benefits,
and further included additional benefits with improved teaching skills, increased confidence, andmore peer interaction (Sunggingwati, 2018). According to Sunggingwati, “Peer teaching is considered
as an effective way of learning” (p. 150). Other benefits of having students control the planning of theclassroom activity can result in increased language learning and autonomy (Benson, 2011, p. 164). To
29

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

further make the activity more meaningful to the learners, it seems that incorporating reflecting on
the experience is significant. A study by Deacon and Croker (2006), done in Japan of an English classwhich used peer teaching, emphasized that student reflection of the process was noted as an importantcomponent of peer teaching (cited in Benson, 2011).
However, further literature clearly stating the practice and benefits of peer teaching seems
limited. More literature is present about learner-autonomy-fostering activities such as peer mentoring,or tutoring with a student who is more of a mentor, with advanced skills than the other student or
students (Lingley, 2017). Peer feedback and review activities also appear more commonly, with two
students checking each other’s language abilities in writing activities (Lee, 2010; Yakame, 2005).
Peer teaching does frequently appear in relation to collaborative and cooperative learning as ways of
implementing the activity (Rienovita et al., 2018; Sunggingwati, 2018; Whitman & Fife, 1988). In the1988 report Peer Teaching: To Teach is to Learn Twice, Whitman and Fife state, “In seeking to describe
the psychological basis for the benefits of peer teaching, no general theory to account for observablebenefits has been presented” (p. 27). In addition, Benson refers to peer teaching as “experiments”
which are difficult to measure in regards to learning gains (p. 167). Peer teaching research does
appear more often in other fields such as medicine, but there is limited published information related
to EFL or ESL. Nonetheless, what does exist states it is a positive activity, though it appears lacking
in unification and data, particularly student voices.

Design and Procedure
This section will outline the design and procedure of the peer-teaching project. For two university
classes, students were required to work in groups of four to five to teach their classmates for one lesson
as a mid-term project. A detailed outline of the steps of the project will be presented to hopefully giveother instructors or teachers suggested ways to introduce peer teaching into their lessons, which canbe adjusted to fit the needs of the teacher and students, in addition to the course’s aims. The following
table is the schedule of activities leading up to and during the peer teaching activity and assignment
deadlines.
Table 1
Class Schedule for Peer Teaching
Lessons

Activities

Lessons 1-9

The instructor modeled the structure of the classes.

Lesson 10

Students received the peer-teaching assignment and discussed their ideal classroom activities.

Lesson 11

Students’ individual presentation activity based on another assignment was done. At the end of thepresentations, students were assigned to their groups and chose the lesson to teach.

Lesson 12

Planning time to work on the lesson outlines, slides, and to find other teaching materials. Instructor feedback
and advice was given during the lesson. By the end of the lesson, students were expected to send a draft oftheir lesson outline.

Lesson 13

Students revised their outline draft based on instructor feedback and continued the planning process. At theend of the lesson, students submitted the outline and slides so the instructor could set up their lessons andmaterials on the class’ shared drive.

Lessons
14-19

Groups peer-taught the lessons. After the lesson, those who were not peer teaching were required tocomplete an entry in a reaction table in response to their classmates’ lesson. Those who taught worked on
their reflection papers.

Lesson 20

The reflection paper was due.

Lesson 21

The reaction table was due.

30

STUDENTS ʼ OPINIONS ABOUT PEER TEACHING

The planning process began in lesson 10, after students were taught nine lessons most ofwhich followed the same structure, when students received the peer-teaching assignment which
outlined the structure for lessons 12 to 19. They were also given the due dates for the three partsof the assignment: (a) planning and teaching activity, (b) reflection paper about the peer-teachingexperience, and (c) reactions to each lesson that their peers taught. Also in lesson 10, students were
given examples of possible pair, group, and class activities, and asked to decide which they felt wereideal. They shared that pair interviews, group discussions, and vocabulary quizzes would be best.
In lesson 11, students were assigned to their groups, which had on average four members. Students
used an outline to plan their lessons, and this was completed and submitted before the deadline at theend of lesson 12. Please see the Appendix. This outline included the assigned lesson, learning goals,
ways to achieve the goals, materials such as videos or articles that the students felt could help theirclassmates understand the topic more deeply, and classroom activities that could help with criticalthinking and to synthesize the topic being taught. Students were also given a slide template the sameas the instructor used to create their own slides that would help guide their lessons.
The first part of the peer-teaching assignment put emphasis on not only the actual teachingaspect, but also on preparation time and research about the topic being taught with supplemental
materials other than the textbook. Students used the textbook which was the basis for most of thecontent used from the beginning of the class. Using a textbook which students were familiar withcan lessen the decision making done regarding topics and activities. Students were also given theanswer key for the unit that they taught. In regards to language usage, students taught the lesson
completely in English. However, during the planning time, Japanese could be used, but since there
were international students in the classes from countries such as China, Taiwan, and Korea, somegroups also did the planning using English. In these cases, students seemed to become more familiar
with the English related to the topic being taught.
Each group was responsible for teaching their peers, but within each group, members would
be responsible for certain activities in the lesson, such as the textbook reading, textbook activities,
question-and-answer checking, presentation of discussion questions, and eliciting comments aboutgroup discussions. The activity seems to increase unity within the groups, as they were required towork with the same peer-teaching members not only when teaching, but also when being taught by
their classmates, as students sat in groups. Those teaching were required to teach for 90 minutesof the 100-minute class. At the beginning of the lesson, the instructor took attendance, and after thepeer-taught lesson finished, the remaining time was for students to work on the lesson reactions
or teaching reflections. Each peer-taught lesson seemed to go quite smoothly, with those teaching
adhering to their outlines and those being taught mostly focusing on the lessons. In the second partof the peer-teaching assignment, the peer teachers were required to reflect on the experience. Their
reflections will be discussed more extensively in the Data Collection and Analysis section.
The third part of the assignment was when the students who were not peer teaching wererequired to write a reaction about what they learned from the peer-taught lesson. They also wrote
about the things they liked about peer-teaching groups, or things that they would like to do when theypeer teach based on the peer-teaching group’s practice. This enabled students when receiving a peertaught lesson to think more deeply about the experience, share what they felt were the classmates’
strong points, and perhaps even incorporate their students’ teaching practice into the lesson that theywould teach if they had not yet peer taught a lesson. In Lesson 21, students were required to submit
the table, which contained three to four rows based on the number of times that they received a peertaught lesson.
31

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

Hopefully the above project provides a guide that could be modified for students of different ages
and classes with varying levels of English proficiency. Furthermore, it appears that peer teaching insmall groups, rather than in pairs or individually, allowed for students to share the responsibility andlessen the anxiety of teaching. In the groups, the members all seemed to be active in the preparation
process and had equal roles as teachers. So it is suggested when using peer teaching, particularly if itis the first time for the class, to use groups. It seems that as long as students have an understanding of
the lesson’s structure, a clear outline for the expectations of the activity, adequate instructor support,
and time to prepare, peer teaching can be a positive experience.

Methodology
Participants
The 35 participants were from two different classes at a liberal arts university in Tokyo during
the 2019–2020 Fall semester. The study gathered data from the 36 of 38 students who were present
for the final class when a consent form was given to ask for permission to use their reflection papers.
One student was absent on the day assigned for peer teaching, so was unable to contribute data.
The first class was a mandatory advanced English presentation class for first-year interculturalcommunications. Most of the 21 students were returnees having TOEIC scores of over 700. Thesestudents had also been together in the previous Spring semester and were taught by the same
instructor. The second class was an elective cross-cultural communications class for 15 second- tofourth-year students from various faculties. This semester was the first semester that all the students
had studied together. Most of the students in the elective class had lower English proficiencies than
the first-year students. Both the classes met twice a week for 100-minute lessons for 14 weeks.
The two classes were not focused solely to learn English skills but to gain academic content
through English and learn about various issues across different cultures. For example, the textbook
topics ranged from overfishing to renewable energy, economic equality, telecommuting, social media,
body language and customs, individualism, politeness, and communication styles. This is important
to note because it appears that most literature about peer teaching in an EFL or ESL setting is forskill-based lessons.

Instruments
The instrument used to collect data was a reflection paper, the second part of the peer-teachingassignment. Again, as noted by Decon and Croker (2006), reflection can be useful in peer teaching(cited in Benson, 2011). The section of the paper focusing on peer teaching was comprised of the
below prompts, which were to be answered in a paragraph:1.
Things you learned from teaching2.
Ways the experience will help you in the future3.
Advice you would give others about teaching4.
Reasons it was a positive or negative experience
All responses were written in English. The students’ responses were divided into the four
prompts and then coded for themes. The prompts were to explore the values students perceived
from the activity, how peer teaching may help them outside of the classroom in other activities and intheir future, their advice for other students about peer teaching, and their opinion of the experience.
32

STUDENTS ʼ OPINIONS ABOUT PEER TEACHING

It seems it would be valuable to learn not only students’ reflections but more about how students
connect peer teaching to their futures, as this could give more merit to the activity. In addition, to
continue the teaching component, asking their advice to share with other students, as well as the
instructor, was significant, as it could guide future classes that incorporate peer-teaching activities
and the instructor’s teaching practice.

Data Collection and Analysis
As this was not a survey, it is important to note that there were challenges in the data analysis.
Due to the differences between the proficiencies of the two classes, and even amongst the students
in each class, there were variations in the data gathered from the reflection papers. It appeared thatsome students did not clearly understand the prompts, while some directly answered the prompts oreven gave responses that could be interpreted for multiple prompts. Also, for some of their answers,
there was an overlap with the answers, and multiple answers for each prompt were also possible.
During the literature review, few articles shared student voices about teaching their peers.
According to the 2005 report Research as empowerment?, “Research is a competitive activity and it
can be hard to share power” (Toronto Group, p. 17). Bogdan and Biklen (1998) define giving voice
as a way to empower groups that might not have the opportunity to share (as cited in Ashby, 2011).
It seems that presenting students’ qualitative data is a positive way to share power with learners byproviding a site for their opinions to be shared with a wider audience other than just their teacher. The
following section will focus on giving voice to the participants’ opinions in their own words. At times,
their English is not always grammatically correct, but it is understandable.

Findings
Prompt 1
Students answered that the things they learned from teaching were primarily teaching skills,
the importance of student engagement, and communication skills, as can be seen in Figure 1. The
need to be prepared, consider the lesson from the learner’s perspective, and to have confidence whenteaching were also shared. Some shared that there were challenges to peer teaching.

33

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

Figure 1
Participants’ Responses to Prompt 1
1. THINGS YOU LEARNED FROM TEACHING
12
11Frequency

10

9

8

8

6

6

4

4

4
3

2

2

2
1

Te
a

ch
in
g

Sk

ills
En
S
ga t
ge ud
m en
en t
C
om
t
m
un
ic
a
Sk tion
ills
Pr
ep
ar
at
io
n
S
Pe t
rs udepe n
ct ts’
iv
e
C
on
fid
en
ce
Su
pp
le
Le me
ar nt
n a
At ing l
m
o
C sph
re e
at re
io
G
n
ro
up
Ac -W
tiv o
iti rk
es
G
ro
up
W
or
k
N
ot
An
sw
er
ed

0

1

ThemesOf the 11 responses for Teaching Skills, below is a selection of direct student responses:• By being a teacher of the English class, I was able to learn that the teacher should be patient until
the students to be[come] quiet before moving onto the next section. This is really important, since[the] teacher should not leave any student behind, and be responsible of making them understandthe content.
• [The] teaching activity was difficult for me. I had many mistakes and the things I regret. HoweverI think accepting my mistakes and practising hard with confidence is the good way to help me in
the future.
Student engagement, particularly the challenges of keeping their classmates attention, was also
perceived as an important thing learned from peer teaching, with nine responses. Below is a selectionof direct student responses:• [M]aking the students active is important.
• [D]ifficult to attract the audience’s attention.
• Some of the students participated in the class actively and we actually felt their passion. However,there were also some students seem[ed to be] not interested in our class; they were chatting or
using phones.
• [I]t was quite challenging for me to make students concentrate and enjoy the class. Their focus
didn’t last for long; hence, teachers are required to make students enjoy the class.
Two students responded that atmosphere creation was learned from the peer-teaching experience.
The response of a student who taught a lesson about overfishing is as follows:• We thought the atmosphere of the classroom was important, so we decided to play music related
to [the] ocean, yet everyone knows. Consequently, the atmosphere was great and they focused on
their work.
The data appears to indicate that these students viewed the teacher as not just needing theknowledge of the topic under study, but the ability to engage students by gaining their attention and

34

STUDENTS ʼ OPINIONS ABOUT PEER TEACHING

trying to motivate them. They viewed that learning the importance of good communication skills,
utilizing supplemental learning materials, and creating an environment where the students could be
comfortable learning could all increase the learner’s motivation. Having confidence aided throughsufficient preparation, and considering lessons from the learner’s perspective, such as ensuring
students clearly understand what the teacher is conveying, was also viewed as significant.

Prompt 2
Students shared 13 different ways that they felt the experience of peer teaching would help themin the future, as can be seen in Figure 2.
Figure 2
Participants’ Responses to Prompt 2
2. WAYS THE EXPERIENCE WILL HELP YOU IN THE FUTURE
87Frequency

6

6

6
5

5

4

4

4

4
3

2

sw

pt
N

ot

An

ce

H

er
ed

ce
an

um

or

1

Ac

p-

ro
u
G

1

lf-

em
ag

1

Sk en
i t
W lls
or
k
Le
Sk
ad
ills
er
sh
ip
Sk
Kn
ills
o
To w
pi led
c
Ta ge
ug of
ht
C
al
m
ne
ss

y
th
pa
an

Em

M
em
Ti

n

ic
a
Pr
Sk tion
ep
ills
ar
at
io
n
Sk
ills
C
on
fid
en
ce

C

om

m

un

ar

at

io

ills
Sk

Pr
ep

g
in
ch
Te
a

1

Se

1

0

Themes

The following are a selection of student responses, which range from the application of teachingskills, the most frequent theme, in other settings such as a part-time job or club activity, to a deeper
understanding of the fundamentals of teaching.
• Since I am thinking to apply for a part-time job of a teacher at [a] cram school, this experience
will be helpful for me to keep in mind [of] how I can engage with students and create a fun, active
and motivational class.
• The experience will help me in the future when I am teaching others during the circle [activity].
Since I belong to the hula circle and I have been dancing for more than ten years, I have a lot ofchances to teach and give some advice to my friends [about] how to dance. Because of this, I want
to improve my teaching skills so they will understand easier. Since I had improved my teachingskills [a] little bit, I would like to try to teach others more.
• I think it is important to not only saying the word but also let everyone remembering a new thingin during the class.

35

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）• To make the students focus in the lesson is definitely the most important aspect in teaching a class.
The second most frequent theme was preparation. Students shared that preparing adequately forthe peer teaching activity influences their understanding of the requirements for teaching, in addition
to improving their teaching abilities. The following is a selection of student responses:• However after standing in the opposite position it made me recognize how tough planning classes
are as a teacher. I believe it will help me massively in the future.
• The 1 point is that preparedness is highly important. The reason is that I thought [it] is that there
are many factors to organize the class well. For example, confidence, [a] loud voice, eye contact
and etc. All of that is caused by good preparedness. Good preparedness leads [to] confidence. So I
think preparedness is very important in some aspects even [in the] future.
Empathy also appeared as a theme in the ways that peer teaching would help students in their
future, by providing them with a deeper understanding of the teacher’s perspective. This could
potentially change their future behavior as students. Below is a selection of direct student responses:• We had this chance to observe the classroom from a teacher’s perspective and realized that beinga teacher is definitely not easy work.
• Moreover, this experience would help me by changing [my] attitude toward[s] classes. I could
understand how hard it is to lead classes from the teacher’s point of view, which makes me joinclasses more actively.
• [F]rom now on I will be able to have a new perspective. When I take classes I am now able tothink of the teacher’s point of view.
In answering the above prompt, students had the opportunity to consider the ways that they felt
peer teaching could benefit them in their futures, potentially adding more value to the experience.

Prompt 3
This section focuses on how students would advise other students in the process of peer teaching.
When the answers were first examined, it seemed many might be under the umbrella of teachingskills. However, in further analysis of the responses to this prompt, the students provide more detailed
explanations of what they believe constitutes good teaching skills as ways to successfully engage andcommunicate with students. Therefore, instead of “teaching skills”, student engagement, preparation,group work skills, and communication skills appear with the most frequency in the students’ writing,as can be seen in Figure 3.

36

STUDENTS ʼ OPINIONS ABOUT PEER TEACHING

Figure 3
Participants’ Responses to Prompt 3
3. ADVICE YOU WOULD GIVE OTHERS ABOUT TEACHING
10

10Frequency

8
6
4
2

6
5

5
4
3

3
2

2

2
1

1

En
ga St
ge ud
m en
en t
t
Pr
ep
ar
Ti
at
m
io
e
n
M
an
ag
em
en
C
om
t
m
un
ic
a
G
Sk tion
ro
up
ills
-W
or
k
Sk
ills
C
on
fid
en
ce
N
ot
An
sw
er
ed
Su
pp
l
M em
at en
er ta
ia l
ls
C
al
m
ne
ss
G
ro
u
Ac p-Wtiv oiti rk
es
Re
w
St ar
ud di
en ng
ts
Pa
tie
nc
e

0

ThemesIn regard to student engagement, below is a selection of direct student responses:• Based on this teaching experience, I would advise others to increase engagement with students
and create an active-learning class. Because I believe motivation is the key for students to have[a] positive attitude to learn about new things.
• [Y]ou should think about how to make students interested in the topic that you are going to teachbeforehand.
• [A]dvice I would give others about teaching is to make students participate during class.
• To make the students focus in the lesson is definitely the most important aspect in teaching a class.
Preparation appeared the second most frequently in the student responses. In regard to student
preparation, below is a selection of direct student responses:• I learned that enough preparation is important.
• What I would give others [advice] about teaching is that just prepare and practice.
In regard to communication, students shared an understanding of the importance of non-verbal
skills as well as the volume and tone of voice to communicate more effectively. Below is a selection of
direct student responses:• I think if we managed the class with [a] smiling and high tone, students took the class [with]more interesting. … I have to be strict and give instructions politely and easily.
• I recommend that when you are teaching, please have eye contact with your students and also
increase your speaking volume.
• To be a good teacher, except having enough professional knowledge of educating, we realized thatthe ability of taking interactions with students is also important.
Other themes students viewed as significant were being confident, calm, and patient. This canbeen seen in their direct responses as follows:• I would like to give advice to students whose going to teach others not to be afraid.

37

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）• And I would say, the fact which you should be patient should be an advice to others considering
that, including myself[,] many of us tend to rushed the class.
• So if I need to give advice about teaching I would suggest[to] be calm and methodical.
Students’ responses to the above prompt provided a deeper understanding of their perceptions ofwhat they believe constitutes good teaching practice.

Prompt 4
This prompt’s responses are divided into two sections. Most of the students directly answeredthat the experience was positive and gave reasons. Nonetheless, some students did not provide a
direct answer but gave reasons which seem to indicate the experience was positive. This section will
explore the responses that directly answered that peer teaching was a positive experience, which
can be seen in Figure 4. The theme that appeared the most frequently was teaching skills, which wasshared by 10 students. It is important to note that students expressed that they did not only learn
skills regarding ways to better interact with and motivate students, but also shared that they enjoyed
the experience and may even pursue teaching as a career.
Figure 4
Participants’ Responses to Prompt 4 as a Positive Experience
4. REASONS IT WAS A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE: Positive (24 STUDENTS)
15

10

5

5

5
4

4
3

e
nc
Pa
tie

en
t

M
an

ag

em

n

1

e

os
At
m

1

m

ph
er
e

Vi
ew
N

1
C
re
at
io

ew

po
i

Sk
ills
hi

p

ec
ts
ad
er
s

Pr
oj

G

Le

ic
a
Sk tion
ro
ills
up
-W
or
k
Em
Sk
pa
ills
th
y
Re
Te
ac
he
r
Pr
ep
ar
at
io
n

c
of

C
om
m

e
le
dg

un

To
pi

ills
Sk
ng
ow

Kn

1
nt

1

0

Ti

2

Te
ac
hi

Frequency

13

Themes

A selection of the students’ responses is below:• By being a teacher of the English class, I was able to learn that the teacher should be patient until
the students to be quiet before moving onto the next section. This is really important, since [the]teacher should not leave any student behind, and be responsible of making them understand thecontent.
• It was a positive experience because I learned about how to teach, and it will be very helpful forme if I become a teacher in the future.

38

STUDENTS ʼ OPINIONS ABOUT PEER TEACHING• By experiencing teaching in front of the class today,..., [I] could realize how amazing andpleasure[able it is] when students react actively.
• The positive point was that I could enjoy teaching because it was the first time to teach in English.
• I felt teaching experience was positive and valuable because I became more interested in teachingothers and I learned that even though it is not easy to teach others but I felt it was worth doing it.
• Overall, I thought [a] student-led class was a positive experience because even though I always
teach junior high school students as a part-time job, giving a lecture to university students was[a] totally different experience than I expected. In this way, I have come to consider that teachers
have to be flexible with the way of teaching and the ages of students.
The second most common theme was increased knowledge of the topic taught, with five
responses. Students appeared to focus more intently on the topic in the role of teacher than that of
the role of student. A selection of students’ responses is below:• Moreover, I could read the textbook much deeper than usual.
• Of course, I got to earn more knowledge about the economy than before.
• It was a good experience because it was a good opportunity to ... think about what way is effective
to understand topics.
The second most common theme was communication skills, with also five responses. They wrotethat good communication is directly connected to others’ increased level of understanding regarding
what is shared by the speaker, or in this case, the peer-teacher. A selection of students’ responses isbelow:• I needed to speak clearly for students to easily understand and grasp the concept. This experience
will help me to explain to others about something easily and understandably.
• It was a good experience because it was a good opportunity to talk in front of everyone and think
about what way is effective to understand topics.
For the students who directly stated that peer teaching was a positive experience, there wereover 10 different themes which demonstrate the value of the activity.
In this section, the responses from eight students who did not directly state if the experience ofpeer teaching was positive or negative will be examined. It seems that their responses indicate thatthe experience was a positive not a negative one, as these students responded that peer teachinggave them more awareness of confidence, group-work skills, communication skills, preparation,
motivation, and teaching skills, which can be seen in Figure 5. First, in relation to confidence, thefollowing responses indicate either a gain in confidence, or what is necessary to do to demonstrateconfidence.

39

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

Figure 5
Participants’ Responses to Prompt 4 Not Directly Answered as a Positive or Negative Experience
4. REASONS IT WAS A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE: Not Answered Directly
But did not Write Negative Comments About the Experience (8 STUDENTS)
2

2

2

2

Frequency

1.5

1

1

1

1

1

0.5

Sk

/A

Te
a

ch
in
g

iv
at
ot
M

N

ills

n
io

n
io
ar
at

un

Pr
ep

n
ic

at

io

W
or
k
pC

om

m

ro
u
G

Sk

ills
Sk

en
ce
on
fid
C

ills

0

ThemesBelow are the two student responses:• However, I could have confidence a little by this teaching.
• What’s not good about [my] lecture is [I am] nervous, my weak voice and I should teach withconfidence.
Next, group-work skills were expressed by two students as something learned from theexperience of peer teaching. Below are their direct responses:• However, I think the group balance was the best of 4 teams. We could cooperate with each other,so we could lead a class on schedule.
• What’s good is dividing roles properly and proceeding according to plan.
One student expressed their increased awareness of the importance of being well prepared forthe lesson. The response is as follows:• We think out ways in the teaching. First, before [the] lecture, we make a time for discussing
because we want you [the students being taught] to talking freely without [the] lecture’s thinking.
Second, before watching [the]video, we tell you about discussion questions for understanding
easily.
As mentioned previously, peer teaching influences the students’ motivation not only in the role ofteacher, but also in the role of the student, as can be seen with the below response:• Thus, I think I need to do my best both in the lesson and when working as a teacher.
Even for the students who did not directly answer if peer teaching was a positive or negative
experience, they were able to recognize the significance of communication, motivation, group work,
preparation, and teaching skills through the activity.

40

STUDENTS ʼ OPINIONS ABOUT PEER TEACHING

Discussion
This section will focus on the importance of gathering data from students and what it can reveal,in addition to how this activity can be used with a variety of students and classes. Also, the factorsthat may have influenced the data will be discussed. In this project, students were able to act asteachers, and were then asked to reflect on their experience. Their data provided insight into theiropinions, which helped the instructor understand alternative perspectives on teaching practice. As
teachers, it seems that it may quite often be the case that our primary focus is on the class aims
and our own areas of interest in teaching practices. However, in gathering students’ perspectives onteaching, the teacher’s practice can incorporate what students value as significant for educators to do.
Working at the university level, it was surprising that students felt that instructors were responsible
for motivating the students. This was in contrast to my experience as a university student, wherein I
felt that the motivation to learn was intrinsic, with the student being solely responsible for maintaining
their own motivation. Another area of interest is not only what students viewed as important forteachers to do, but what they felt was significant to do when they were peer-teaching. For example, aswith atmosphere creation through music, and other ways of possibly increasing student engagement.
Students’ responses gave new perspectives about teaching.
Based on how the performance of these students, it is possible that with sufficient preparation
time, direct modeling by the teacher, and clear criteria, most students should be able to adequately
peer teach. However, the teacher’s willingness to foster learner autonomy by allowing to have control,
and the student’s willingness to be more autonomous in an activity such as peer teaching, will also
influence the outcomes. Possible limitations are that these students either had a higher level of English
in the mandatory class or quite a strong interest in developing their English in the elective class. As
a result, teaching their peers using English was not as challenging as it could be for learners of lower
proficiencies, or those having less interest in learning and using English. Furthermore, students
may potentially share different themes learned from the peer-teaching experience based on theirperceptions of teaching due to their values and expectations, as well as in relation to the class that theypeer teach. The instructor’s role in guiding the class before and during peer teaching, in addition to
the instructor’s perception as to what peer teaching is, will also influence the activity.

Conclusion
In this study, peer teaching was viewed as a positive experience by the participants, that can resultin increased communication, group-work skills, teaching skills, confidence, motivation, and empathy.
Peer teaching can also give students the chance to consider teaching as a possible career path, andhow skills related to teaching may transfer to their futures. If the teacher implementing peer teachingin their practice also asks their students to share about the experience, the teacher can potentiallygain more awareness into their learners’ values and beliefs in respect to teaching. Peer teaching in
EFL and ESL is a research area for further exploration, particularly in regards to students’ voices.

41

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

References
Ashby, C.E., (2011). Whose “voice” is it anyway?: Giving voice and qualitative research involving
individuals that type to communicate. Disability Studies Quarterly, 31(4). http://dx.doi.
org/10.18061/dsq.v31i4.1723
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
Boud, D. (2002). What is peer learning and why is it important? Stanford University. https://tomprof.
stanford.edu/posting/418
Bradford-Watts, K. (2011). Students teaching students? Peer teaching in the EFL classroom in Japan.
The Language Teacher, 35(5), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALT TLT35.5-3
Lee, N. S. (2010). Written peer feedback by EFL students: Praise, criticism and suggestion. Komaba
Journal of English Education, 1. 129–139. http://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/eigo/KJEE/001/129139.pdf
Lingley, D. (2017). The power of peers: NPRMs in the EFL classroom. Journal of Inquiry, 106, 185–
195. http://doi.org/10.18956/00007769
Rienovita, E., Taniguchi, M., Kawahara, M., Hayashi, Y., & Takeuchi, Y. (2018). Implementationof interactive peer learning environment enhances learners’ self-esteem and self-efficacy.
International Journal of Learning Technologies and Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–24. http://
www.iaiai.org/journals/index.php/IJLTLE/article/view/227
Sunggingwati, D. (2018). Cooperative learning in peer teaching: A case study in an EFL context.
Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v8i1.11475
Toronto Group. (2005). Research as empowerment? Joseph Roundtree Foundation. https://www.jrf.
org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/1859353185.pdf
Whitman, N. A., & Fife, J. D. (1988). Peer teaching: To teach is to learn twice (ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report No. 4). The George Washington University. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED305016.pdf
Yakame, H. (2005). The role of peer feedback in the EFL writing classroom. ARELE: Annual Review
of English Language Education in Japan, 16, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.20581/arele.16.0_101

42

STUDENTS ʼ OPINIONS ABOUT PEER TEACHING

Appendix
Assignment 2: Lesson Outline
Group Members:
Unit Number and Topic:
Date:
Things that you want the students to learn in your class:Ways that you will help the students learn those things:
Materials & Estimated Time:
Activities:

43

【Teaching Practice Report】

A Blended Approach to Flipped
Learning for Teaching Debate
Heather Woodward & Laura Padfield
Abstract
Rikkyo University administrators have given instructors in the newly created department of Foreign Language
Education and Research (FLER) more flexibility and control over how to implement their English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) courses. Additionally, FLER has created a required debate course for first-year students, so an
essential avenue of pedagogy and practice is required to explore approaches to teaching debate that can mosteffectively address the course aims. We describe how to implement one type of blended approach to flipped learning
based on an instructional framework by Fries, Son, Givvin, and Stigler (2020), which is based on cognitive learningtheory and follows a more sophisticated version of the Task-Teach-Task (TTT) approach. There are many ways toflip a classroom, and every instructor who chooses to flip their classroom does so differently (Bergmann & Sams,2012). With that in mind, we encourage instructors to consider this type of blended approach for their future debateclasses, or at least, we hope that by reading this paper, instructors contemplate ways to adapt and incorporate someof the approach’s aspects into their debate courses.
Keywords: CALL, flipped learning, Practicing-Connections Hypothesis, debate

Introduction
Flipped learning has gained the attention of educators worldwide in many academic fields (Webb& Doman, 2016) and has become popular with English Language Teaching (ELT) researchers (Turan& Akdag-Cimen, 2020). It is an instructional approach that introduces course content outside ofclass time. Rather than listening to the instructor explain debate concepts in class, students use theadditional class time to connect concepts, debate, and reflect. On the other hand, blended learning
is a type of instructional approach which combines both face-to-face instruction and online materials.
One of the most popular flipped learning approaches involves students watching online instructional
videos outside of class time (Hockly, 2017). Flipped learning can therefore be considered a type of
blended learning; however, it does not necessitate digital integration. For Rikkyo University’s English
Discussion Class (EDC), students review the textbook readings before class to activate their schemata
on the topics in class. The content aspect of EDC is flipped, but not blended (i.e., the textbook is notonline). For this reason, we include both terms “flipped” and “blended” to describe this approach as
the flipped aspect of the approach utilizes online material.
Although the approach has gained popularity (Turan & Akdag-Cimen, 2020), the appropriatenessof the approach for ELT contexts has been called into question (Johnson & Marsh, 2016). Kerr (2020)states that flipped learning assumes the presentation portion of the lesson consumes a significant
amount of class time, which is why Johnson and Marsh (2016) write that flipped learning does not at
first glance seem to provide much benefit to ELT as the explanations provided in ELT classes usually
do not represent a large proportion of time (Kerr, 2020). Likewise, the explanation portion of debate
should not constitute a significant amount of class time; however, early proponents of flipped learning,
Bergmann and Sams (2012) state that flipped learning is more akin to a mindset rather than a single

44

A BLENDED APPROACH TO FLIPPED LEA RNING FOR TEACHING DEBATE

method. Conceived in this way, flipped learning focuses attention away from the teacher and redirects
it to students and their learning process (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). Focusing more attention on thestudents and their learning process can promote personalization, active learning, and engagement(Kerr, 2020). In the next section, we discuss Kerr’s categorization in more detail.

Discussion
Benefits of Flipped Learning
Kerr (2020) categorizes the three main advantages of flipped learning to students and their learning
process: personalization, active learning, and engagement. Kerr writes that flipped learning canincrease personalization by (a) helping with students learning difficulties; (b) encouraging students
to work at their own pace; (c) providing a wider range of study material choices; and (d) delivering
individualized support. A blended approach to flipped learning can help students with disabilities.
Technology such as video subtitles and text-to-speech software can usually meet the students’ needs
more easily than face-to-face classrooms (Kerr, 2020). As Young (2020) writes, instructors should
espouse an interactional disability model, which adapts the environmental learning conditions to meetthe needs of the language learners with disabilities. One example is to allow students to work at theirown pace to learn the concepts via out-of-class self-study assignments.
A blended approach to flipped learning allows for more adaptable conditions in the learning
environment; for example, if students do not understand the presentation, they can pause and rewatch the video, and instructors can also offer a variety of ways for students to learn material suchas audio recordings, slideshow presentations, videos, the textbook, or ideally, a combination sothat students have more choices regarding how they learn the course content. If instructors use
a Learning Management System (LMS) such as Blackboard or Google Classroom, they can give
students personalized feedback on their self-study assignments, and with different modalities ofcommunication, students can choose how they want to communicate with instructors. In this way,
instructors come to class already informed as to which students understand the concepts and which
students need more support and can pair students to others to help them understand the concepts.
In addition to increased personalization, Kerr (2020) writes that flipped learning can increase active
learning by (a) helping students with higher order thinking skills; (b) increasing student to student
interaction; and (c) offering more chances for feedback. If lower-order skills such as remembering andunderstanding are accomplished before class, there is additional time for students to focus on higherorder skills such as analyzing, evaluating, and creating (Kostka & Marshall, 2017). Kostka and Marshall(2017) write that higher-order skills necessitate a more active role from students, and increasing student
interaction also provides chances to receive feedback. Kerr states that flipped learning can provide aspace for increase engagement by (a) facilitating students’ ownership of their learning process; (b)mitigating any management issues in the classroom; and (c) assisting communication between theinstitution and students (or for younger students, their caregivers). The underlying belief is that students
assume more ownership over their learning process compared to traditional classroom methods such as
Present, Practice, and Produce (PPP) because they are able to choose “time, place, path, and/or pace” oftheir learning (Staker & Horn, 2012). Therefore, they might feel more accountable for their performanceand contributions in class (Johnson & Marsh, 2016). If blended approaches to flipped learning makestudents feel more accountable for their own learning, instructors should introduce instructional guides
on how to improve study habits (e.g., good time management practices) as some students might need45

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

additional support with the increased expectation of independence and self-reliance.
We add two additional aspects of engagement to Kerr’s (2020) list specifically for blended
approaches to flipped learning in a Japanese EFL setting: (d) intercultural communication and (e)educational tech skills. If instructors blend the classroom, they can incorporate online programs toenhance learning; for instance, online virtual exchange programs such as the International Virtual
Exchange (IVE) Project, offer students with the chance to communicate with university students
from different countries and cultures potentially increasing students’ intercultural understanding, orat least, virtual exchanges acclimatize students to other cultures (Hagley, 2016; Hagley & Cotter,2019). MEXT (2011) states:
Foreign language proficiency required in a global society can be defined as capability of smoothcommunication with people of different countries and cultures using languages as a tool. The
capability of smooth communication implies, for example, confident and active attitude toward
communication with people of different countries and cultures as well as accurate understandingof partner’s thoughts and intentions based on his/her cultural and social background, logical,
and reasoned explanation of one’s own views, and convincing partners in course of debates.
1

The IVE Project, funded by a Japanese kaken grant , provides a space for students to improve theircommunication with university students from different countries and other cultures by using English
as a tool for communication to develop confidence and a positive attitude (Hagley & Thomson, 2017).
Communicating with foreign students about topics can enhance in-class discussions and debates
because students can incorporate the different perspectives of foreign university students in their
discussions and debates.
Likewise, students might use their PCs and smartphones for entertainment purposes without
fully tapping into their educational benefits, so we also add educational tech skills to the list ofengagement for a blended approach to flipped learning. An example of educational tech skills islearning advanced online search techniques to do research. Another tech skill is utilizing educational
programs to help students learn different aspects of debate. For instance, Kialo Edu is a free, online
resource that facilitates collaboration by providing a space for structured and rational debate (Kialo,2020). Students can research their position regarding a debate proposition, then add their research totheir class’s Kialo. In addition, they can add links to their source of information, support their claims
with additional evidence, and provide a refutation and rebuttal. Students can rate individual claims
according to their impact factor as well as from different viewpoints. If there is a claim that students
do not understand, they can flag it as unclear to notify the writer of the claim. Kialo also has a chatbox so debate teammates can coordinate directly on the webpage. With a blended approach to flipped
learning, instructors can integrate these online programs to scaffold debates more effectively.

Drawbacks of Flipped Learning
We have discussed Kerr’s (2020) three main benefits of flipped classrooms: potential increases
in personalization, active learning, and engagement. Kerr (2020) also states four main challenges offlipped learning: students who (a) do not complete the self-study assignments, (b) have ineffective

1

Kaken grants are funded to develop scientific research in Japan46

A BLENDED APPROACH TO FLIPPED LEA RNING FOR TEACHING DEBATE

study habits, (c) technology issues, and (d) prefer a traditional style lecture. Furthermore, Kerr
(2020) notes that there has been more enthusiasm from instructors than statistical evidence forgreater learning outcomes. For example, Kerr (2020) cites three meta-analyses: Cheng et al., (2019),
Låg and Sæle (2019), and van Alten et al., (2019). These meta-analyses find only a small correlation
between flipped learning and increased learning outcome (Kerr, 2020). In a study that more carefully
controlled outside variables, the results also show that flipped learning benefits only some students’learning outcomes while not benefitting others (Setren et al., 2019). Setren et al. (2019) note thatstudents’ learning gains are only short-term, and that flipped learning can actually widen the learning
outcome gap between stronger and weaker students.
In a recent meta-analysis of 61 second language learning studies, Vitta and Al-Hoorie (inpress) find that flipped learning approaches outperform traditional style approaches with a nearto average effect size compared to other reported research effect sizes in second language studies
and accounting for publication bias. They also report only a slight decrease in flipped learning’s
effectiveness for long-term interventions with no difference between whether the flipped approach
uses videos or more interactive approaches (Vitta & Al-Hoorie, in press). However, they state thatlow proficiency students might experience difficulty with flipped learning as they could struggle toengage with the target language material on their own for a sustained period of time (Milman, 2012;
Vitta & Al-Hoorie, in press). In terms of Kerr’s main challenges, struggling to maintain engagement
might lead to incomplete self-study assignments and a preference for traditional style lectures. Vitta
and Al-Hoorie (in press) recommend preparing materials that are engaging yet accessible to low
proficiency students and perhaps integrating more of students’ first language into instruction andadditional support. Lastly, they reported that the greatest effect on learning outcomes are for skillbased and procedural knowledge and the lowest are for vocabulary, standardized tests, and reading(Vitta & Al-Hoorie, in press). Debate is skill-based, so these results suggest that flipped learning canbe beneficial for this type of course.
Lawson, Davis, and Son (2019) state that research moving forward should not focus on whether
to flip, but rather how to flip more effectively; namely, research on blended approaches to flipped
learning should provide theoretical justifications to support the approach. The instructional design
framework developed by Fries, Son, Givvin, and Stigler (2020) help students build an understandingof complex concepts in domains such as science and math. They used their framework to create astatistics course. The framework is based on the cognitive learning theory in educational psychology,
which describes knowledge as mental representations and information processes. Expert knowledge
differs from novice knowledge insofar as the organization of experts’ knowledge is characterized as‘coherent, interconnected, and reflective of the relational structure of the domain’ (Fries et al., 2020).
Ideally, instruction should help students to build relationships between a few concepts that are at thecore of understanding the domain (Fries et al., 2020). Consequently, experts can use their knowledge
flexibly and creatively as they are able to apply their knowledge to other situations or contexts (Frieset al., 2020). Not all flipped classrooms are based on the same learning theory (Lawson, Davis, &Son, 2019). For instance, a simple blended flipped learning method entails instructors posting videos
for students to watch before the lesson. Watching videos or reading a passage in a textbook can be
an active learning process, but not necessarily. Students need to actively make connections between
concepts to build understanding of the domain and transfer their understanding to novel situations.
Fries et al. (2020) provide a clear and easy to follow framework that can be applied to other complex
domains such as debate.

47

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

Practicing-Connections Hypothesis
Fries et al. (2020) tackle the question of how to create instructional learning experiences to help
students understand and transfer their knowledge to novel situations. Transferability is a key aspectof understanding. Students who can transfer knowledge successfully use what they know “creatively,
flexibly, fluently in different settings or problems” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2006). Expert knowledge
differs from novice knowledge insofar as the organization of experts’ knowledge is characterized as“coherent, interconnected, and reflective of the relational structure of the domain” and consequently,
experts can use their knowledge flexibly and creatively as they are able to apply their knowledge
to other situations or contexts (Fries et al., 2020). Ideally, instruction should help students to build
relationships between a few concepts that are at heart of understanding the domain (Fries et al.,2020). To develop students’ transferrable knowledge, they need to practice connections between
three components: real-world contexts, core domain concepts, and important representations within
the domain (Fries et al., 2020). Practicing-Connections Hypothesis states that students must be able
to connect all three components for knowledge that they can use creatively and flexibly (Fries et al.,2020). As students connect core domain concepts to other ideas, situations, and representations, theirunderstanding deepens and their knowledge “becomes more transferable” (Fries, et al., 2020).

Debate Course Aims
The debate course aims for students to understand debate concepts and develop critical thinking
skills, research skills, subject-matter knowledge, and team-building skills (Debate Committee, 2020).
Students learn debate concepts by learning how to create arguments, ask cross-examination questions,take notes, create propositions, and refute claims (Debate Committee, 2020). They improve criticalthinking skills by examining and creating arguments on topics from various viewpoints, and they
develop research skills by researching multiple and reliable sources to support their argument (Debate
Committee, 2020). The committee also notes that the more sources of information that students canfind, the better, and that these sources of information should highlight different viewpoints on the
topic so that students can receive a ‘balanced knowledge of the subject’ (Debate Committee, 2020).
Additionally, students can improve subject-matter knowledge by ‘preparing for and conducting adebate’ (Debate Committee, 2020).
In this section, we connect the three key concepts of core domain concepts, real-world concepts,
and key domain representations to the debate course. Firstly, the core domain concepts of debate areresearch skills, critical thinking skills, and team-building skills. Subject-matter knowledge, which istechnically considered to be a debate course aim, is a product of researching and critically thinking
rather than a core domain concept. Secondly, the real-world contexts in which students benefit fromstrong research, critical thinking, and team-building skills encompass nearly every aspect of theirlives. These contexts can be categorized into four spheres: personal, professional, societal, and global.
Personal includes financial and relationship decisions as well as building friendships. Professional
includes occupational responsibilities and choices. Societal and global issues can include voting on or
taking a stand for or against political issues concerning Japan and other countries. Lastly, key domain
representations of debate are the online program called Kialo Edu, and the debate organizational
steps (i.e., argumentations, cross-examinations, refutation, rebuttal, summaries). These are key
representations as each of the core debate concepts (e.g., critical thinking, research skills, teambuilding skills) can be connected to their structures for any debate.

48

A BLENDED APPROACH TO FLIPPED LEA RNING FOR TEACHING DEBATE

Procedure
Application to Debate
Fries et al. (2020) create a three-step process for instructional design to: (a) create productive
struggle, (b) make connections explicit, and (c) make opportunities for deliberate practice withvariation and gradual increased complexity. This three-step process essentially matches the
instructional approach Task-Teach-Task (TTT) with the added sophistication of eliciting connections
between representations, core domain concepts, and real-world contexts. The first step in applying
framework to debate is to simplify debate’s organizational process. Fries et al. (2020) state that concepts
usually need simplification for beginners; however, instructors should not oversimplify them to theextent that they introduce fallacies or misconceptions (Fries et al., 2020). The point of introducing asimplified version of debate is to get students debating (i.e., creating a productive struggle) and thenintroducing areas that they need help with retroactively.
At the instructional level, students choose a familiar topic (e.g., homework or school uniforms).
When the primary author collected over 480 student-generated propositions, propositions concerning
the topics of homework and school uniforms topped the list as most popular debate topics. Next,
instructors tell students that the Affirmative Team (AFF) defends the statement (e.g., students shouldwear school uniforms) and the Negative Team (NEG) argues against the statement. Instructors groupstudents into AFF and NEG, then instruct students to collectively think of three reasons to support
their team’s position and create one challenge question to ask the other team about their position.
Instructors should hand a list of facts, data, and examples to each team explaining the pros and consof school uniforms. After, instructors show the steps on the whiteboard (figure 1).
Figure 1
Simplified First Round of Debate (Steps 1 through 4)

1. AFF gives three reasons
2. NEG asks one question
3. NEG gives three reasons
4. AFF asks one question

While students are following the steps, instructors make notes on what students can improve(e.g., sub-skills of research skills, critical thinking skills, collaboration). When students finish the firstround, students separate into their own teams, instructors ask students work as a team to (a) recall
the three reasons the other team gave, (b) choose the weakest argument, and (c) explain why it is theweakest. After they finish, instructors ask teams to create a summary of their position’s idea. Next,
instructors show the steps on the whiteboard (figure 2).

49

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

Figure 2
Simplified Second Round of Debate (Steps 5 through 10)

5. NEG explains one weakness of AFF reason
6. AFF replies
7. AFF explains one weakness of NEG reason
8. NEG replies
9. NEG summarizes
10. AFF summarizes

While teams participate in debate, instructors monitor and write feedback. After the teams finish,they can discuss which steps in the debate were easy and which were more difficult. Instructors cangive students a short list of discussion and communication functions that the students learned in theprevious semester’s discussion course (e.g., asking for viewpoints, asking for repetition, providing
sources of information, giving viewpoints) and ask students to circle the functions that they or theirteammates used during the debate.
Then, instructors elicit Practicing-Connections Hypothesis’ questions (figure 3) to help students
connect representations, core domain concepts, and real-world contexts. This addition to TTT adds
more complexity to the framework and more closely connects the method to cognitive learning theory.
Figure 3
Questions for Practicing Connections
1. Which discussion skills might you use for each step during the debate? Why? (representation)

2. What are critical thinking skills? (core domain concept)
3. Why does using these discussion skills enhance critical thinking? (core domain concept)

4. What are some real-world situations that you use these discussion skills? (real-world contexts)
5. What are some real-world situations that you use critical thinking skills? (real-world contexts)

Some students who have lower English proficiency skills might not be able to answer thesequestions in English, but they can work as a team to answer these questions. They can also answer thequestions in Japanese and instructors can help them translate their answers into English. Instructors
should prepare answers to the questions in advance, but be open to students’ own interpretations.
At home, students watch a video presentation or slideshow presentation on an aspect of debate thatthey had difficulty with during the lesson. This instruction should be determined based on the debate
performance and students’ own feedback of their performance. In the next class, students debate
again, but this time, they focus on incorporating more discussion and communication skills as wellas what they learned at home from the instructional video to add layers of complexity to the debateorganization. In the next section, we discuss a blended approach to flipped learning at the curricular
unit level of instruction and connect it to Kialo Edu and the IVE Project.

Application to a Blended Approach to Flipped Learning
One way to help students transfer their knowledge to real-world contexts inside and outside ofclass is by flipping and blending. Doing so does not only to assist with transfer, but also helps students

50

A BLENDED APPROACH TO FLIPPED LEA RNING FOR TEACHING DEBATEwith pre-task planning to prepare for in-class debate. Below is a curricular unit cycle:
Table 1Curricular Unit Debate Cycle
Cycle

Step

LocationStage

1

During Lesson /Cont. from
Step 8Engage a productive struggle (e.g., simplified form of debate) or after
a full debate unit cycle, engage in productive struggle of sub-skills(e.g., create a proposition, practice notetaking)2

Receive feedback on productive struggle (self, peer, instructor)

3(Cont. from
Step 8)Make connections between representations, core domain concepts,
and real-world contexts via questions instructor creates (PracticingConnections Hypothesis)

4

Outside of Class

Receive instruction (relates directly to in-class feedback) and take aquiz on LMS

5
6

Utilize online application (e.g., Kialo Edu and IVE Project)
During Lesson

Discuss self-study assignments (ask any questions about them)

7

Engage in slightly more complex debate practice (i.e., attempt tointegrate instruction into debate)

8

Receive feedback on complex debate practice (self, peer, instructor)

During this lesson (table 1), students engage in a simplified form of debate (step 1), reflect on
the debate and receive feedback (step 2), and then based on the feedback, connect one sub-skill (e.g.,
discussion functions) to different concepts, contexts, and representations (step 3). At the beginningof the semester, instructors also need to help students understand how to access the LMS, submit
assignments, use IVE Project and Kialo Edu. They can use pre-made videos and assign it as a selfstudy assignment. The primary author also gives students preparation time during class before theproductive struggle and complex practice so that teams can divide roles, choose arguments, rehearse,
or find their graphs or charts to present. Instruction (step 4) should include high quality videos andpresentations that last five to seven minutes (Choe & Seong, 2016). One presentation should also
cover only one skill, so that the duration remains short. To check whether students have completed
the video or presentation, instructors can attach a short online quiz (e.g., usually only two or threequestions) on students’ LMS.
Students apply concepts on interactive applications such as IVE Project. There, they could
discuss in-class debate topics with students from other universities to collect different viewpoints
for their sources of information for debates (step 5). Instructors can request that students ask theirprofessors for sources of information. They can use Kialo Edu to add their arguments for and against
the proposition and link their sources of information to the site to share information with theirclassmates (step 5). Throughout the week, instructors grade their self-study assignments. Having
instructors give personalized feedback can help students find ways to strengthen their argument.
Students should be able to complete the weekly self-study assignments in roughly 30 to 40 minutes

51

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

once they become more familiar with the format. The length of what they write depends on theirproficiency, but most importantly they incorporate the sub-skills that they learn from instruction.
Vitta & Al-Hoorie (in press) recommend that instructors add more support for lower proficiency
students. In addition, they can collaborate with their teammates to complete the assignments.
For the next lesson, students briefly discuss what they learned during their self-study
assignments with their classmates including ideas on where or how to incorporate the instruction into
debate (step 6). If they have any questions, they can ask them before or during debate preparation(step 6). Instructors assign students to the affirmative or negative positions, then they work with
their teammates to plan for debate (step 7). Students receive either self-feedback, peer-feedback,or instructor feedback on their debate performance (step 8). After instructors have two options,either they can choose a sub-skill to focus on (e.g., creating a proposition) or they can go directly
to making connections. If students struggle with the rebuttal stage, then instructors should ask
students practicing connection questions that relate to rebuttals (e.g., why are rebuttals importantfor developing critical thinking skills? Why are they important for research skills? In what real-world
situations do you use rebuttals? Where on Kialo Edu can you write rebuttals?). Alternatively, once
students have practiced a simplified debate and roughly understand where each sub-skill fits within
the organizational structure, for the productive struggle stage, instructors could focus on different
aspects of the debate (e.g., practice note taking or creating propositions) with feedback in between
each aspect (see dotted arrow to step 1).

Traditional Approaches
In contrast, a traditional approach to teaching debate is to compartmentalize each subskill or step,presenting it in isolation, without simplification, decontextualized from the holistic debate organization
before students even participate in their first debate. The problem with this approach is that students
might have difficulty connecting the isolated skill to the corresponding step in the debate because
most likely, they have not formed a strong mental schema of debate organization without having firstpracticed it. Having students participate in debate, even a simplified form of it, as shown the example
above, can foment a clearer and stronger mental schema of debate organization, which can help themto connect the core debate skills and sub-skills to that mental schema much more effectively than any
table, video, or presentation about debate organization can do so on its own. Any later instruction thatis provided should be building more complexity onto this key representation framework retroactively,
according to students’ needs (e.g., introducing terminology such as rebuttal and cross-examination
along with different techniques to improve their skills as well as time limits so that students ask morethan one cross-examination question).
Lastly, students using more traditional approaches such as PPP might find it difficult to identify
the aspects of debate they need to improve. Identifying areas of weakness is difficult partly because
traditional methods tend to predetermine the content that students review before testing their ability to
do so. Even when students practice after presentation, they might feel a false sense of accomplishment
because they might not be able to connect what they learned to the right stage in the debate. In
addition, if instructors want students to take more ownership over their own learning, then they need
to offer students more choices (e.g., control over the topic of the debate and control over the topic
of instruction). Incorporating methods such as TTT and a blended approach to flipped learning canprovide more flexibility and choice for students to become independent learners. For example, in the52

A BLENDED APPROACH TO FLIPPED LEA RNING FOR TEACHING DEBATE

first debate, even though it was simplified, students in the primary author’s debate class reflected thatdoing research was an important aspect for debate because their personal experiences alone were notas persuasive as providing statistics.
Students who come to their own conclusions about core domain concepts in the first debate
lesson means that they have more opportunities to transfer their learning between lessons as they
have more classes to do so. More opportunities early transfer can allow students to focus on otheraspects of debate such as how to formulate cross-examination questions, how to read graphs andcharts, and how to avoid committing informal logical fallacies, which are presently not components ofRikkyo University’s debate curriculum. Students are able to come to these conclusions even though
they were using a simplified model. If students come to that conclusion themselves, then the idea
is more memorable and hopefully more transferrable than if the idea originated from instructors.
They also might be more willing to participate in self-study activities out of the classroom when the
instruction matches their beliefs because they realize a need for it.

Conclusion
In this paper, we explained the terminology “flipped” and “blended” and then discussed someof the advantages and disadvantages. After, we explained the debate course’s overall aims and lastly,
described how to implement one type of blended approach to flipped learning based on a framework
by Fries, Son, Givvin, and Stigler (2020). One of the main ideas of the approach is to start with asimplified version of a debate organizational list and then gradually introduce more complexity into
the framework based on student needs. The second main idea is for students to use programs such as
Kialo and IVE Project to transfer what they learned from instruction into other contexts. The last idea
is for students to practice making connections between real-world contexts, core domain concepts,
and key representations. We recognize that our field of ELT is in the post-methods and approaches era;
however, sharing different methods and approaches to teaching courses can provide more guidance
to instructors who would like it. We argue that this approach can maximize Kerr’s (2020) categories
of active learning, personalization, and engagement more effectively than traditional approaches. We
encourage other instructors to use this approach and hope that instructors can find other ways ofintegrating the Practicing-Connections Hypothesis into their classes.

53多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

References
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day.
International Society for Technology in Education.
Cheng, L., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Antonenko, P. (2019). Effects of the flipped classroom instructional
strategy on students’ learning outcomes: a meta-analysis. Education Technology Research andDevelopment. 67(4), 793–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9633-7
Choe, E., & Seong, M. H. (2016). A case study of the flipped classroom in a Korean university general
English course. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 71–93. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1129484.pdf
Commission on the Development of Foreign Language Proficiency. (2011). Five proposals and specificmeasures for developing proficiency in English for international communication. MEXT. https://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2012/07/09/1319707_1.pdf
Debate Committee. (2020). Debate instructor handbook fall 2020. Center for Foreign Language
Education & Research, Rikkyo University.
Fries, L., Son, J. Y., Givvin, K. B., & Stigler, J. W. (2020). Practicing connections: A framework to guide
instructional design for developing understanding in complex domains. Educational Psychology
Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09561-x
Hagley, E. (2016). Making virtual exchange/telecollaboration mainstream – large scale exchanges.
In S. Jager, M. Kurek, & B. O’Rourke (Eds.), New directions in telecollaborative research andpractice: selected papers from the second conference on telecollaboration in higher education (pp.
225–230). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2016.telecollab2016.511
Hagley, E., & Cotter, M. (2019). Virtual exchange supporting language and intercultural development:
Students’ perceptions. In F. Meunier, J. Van de Vyver, L. Bradley, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL
and complexity – short papers from EUROCALL 2019, (pp. 163–168). Research-publishing. net.
https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2019.38.1003
Hagley, E., & Thomson, H. (2017). Virtual exchange: Providing international communication
opportunities for learners of English as a foreign language. Journal of Language and Culture of
Hokkaido, 15, 1–10 http://www3.muroran-it.ac.jp/hlc/2017/01.pdf
Hockly, N. (2017). Researching with technology in ELT. ELT Journal, 71(3), 364–372. https://doi.
org/10.1093/elt/ccx019
Johnson, C., & Marsh, D. (2016). The flipped classroom. In M. McCarthy (Ed.), The Cambridge Guide
to Blended Learning for Language Teaching (pp. 55–67). Cambridge University Press.
Kerr, P. (2020). Flipped learning (Cambridge Papers in ELT). Cambridge University Press. https://w w w.cambridge.org/gb/f iles/9115/9438/9974/CambridgePapers _in_ ELT-Flipped_
Learning_minipaper_ONLINE.pdf
Kialo. (2020). Kialo Edu—The tool to teach critical thinking and rational debate. https://www.kialoedu.com/
Kostka, I., & Marshall, H. W. (2017). Flipped learning in TESOL: Past, present, and future. In
Information Resources Management Association (Ed.), Language Learning and Literacy:
Breakthroughs in Research and Practice (pp. 124–144). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/9781-5225-9618-9.ch007
Låg, T., & Sæle, R. G. (2019). Does the flipped classroom improve student learning andsatisfaction? A systematic review and meta-analysis. AERA Open, 5(3), 1–17. https://doi.
org/10.1177/2332858419870489

54

A BLENDED APPROACH TO FLIPPED LEA RNING FOR TEACHING DEBATE

Lawson, A., Davis, C., & Son, J. (2019). Not all flipped classes are the same: Using learning science todesign flipped classrooms. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 19(5), 77–104.
https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v19i5.25856
Setren, E., Greenberg, K., Moore, O., & Yankovich, M. (2019). Effects of the flipped classroom:
Evidence from a randomized trial. EdWorkingPaper, 19(113). https://doi.org/10.26300/zypwdq26
Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K–12 blended learning. Innosight Institute. https://eric.
ed.gov/?id=ED535180
Turan, Z., & Akdag-Cimen, B. (2020). Flipped classroom in English language teaching: A systematic
review. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(5–6), 590–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958
8221.2019.1584117
van Alten, D. C. D., Phielix, C., Janssen, J., & Kester, L. (2019). Effects of flipping the classroom onlearning outcomes and satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.05.003
Vitta, J. P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (in press). The flipped classroom in second language learning: A metaanalysis. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820981403
Webb, M., & Doman, E. (2016). Does the flipped classroom lead to increased gains on learning
outcomes in ESL/EFL contexts? The CATESOL Journal, 28(1), 39–67. https://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/EJ1111606.pdf
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Examining the teaching life. Educational Leadership, 63(6), 26–29.
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar06/vol63/num06/Examiningthe-Teaching-Life.aspx
Young, D. (2020). Guide to Systematizing Support for Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary
EFL. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 13(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2020.13.1.2

55

【Teaching Practice Report】

Using Asynchronous Discussion Board Forums to Complement
Online Discussion Classes
Jon Mahoney
Abstract
This paper reflects on the usage of online asynchronous discussion boards as a tool to improve students’ online
discussion classes by allowing them to interact and prepare their discussion opinions and ideas. In total, twentynine students took part in the study. I employed a mixed methods approach in order to garner qualitative data in
the form of notes taken in class by myself of students’ utterances during online Zoom classes, and students’ written
participation in the online forums. In addition, quantitative data was collected via a Google form survey issued in
the final lesson of the semester. Overall, the students gave positive responses to the usage of the discussion boards(DBs), and the inclusion of this tool seems to have benefitted the online classes. The paper concludes with somecontemplation of the effectiveness of using DBs as a tool to complement online discussion classes, as well as myreflective thoughts on the process as a whole.
Keywords: Online, discussion boards, forum, asynchronous

Introduction
This study took place at a private university in Tokyo, Japan. Due to onset of the COVID-19
pandemic, there was an urgent need for universities worldwide to provide online classes for theirstudents. This university was obliged to switch to online classes due to the sudden outbreak in Japan
in mid-March, which was a few weeks before the scheduled beginning of term. Therefore, the startof term was set back until May in order for the university to rethink their delivery of lessons. The
participating students were all enrolled in the English Discussion Center (EDC) module, a 14-week(adjusted to 12-week) course wherein students are required to discuss contemporary topics using
a variety of marked language functions. The main goal of the course is to encourage maximum
verbal output from students, and is designed to improve their ability to have balanced and interactive
discussions about current topics in English with their peers (Hurling, 2012). Each class consists ofnine or ten students, with each student placed into classes with other students of a similar English
competence. Ideally, 10- and 16-minute discussions take place in every lesson, and should be balanced,
interactive and co-constructed by all participants. However, due to the classes moving online and theimplications this change brought, achieving this optimum scenario became more demanding.
Each student was required to attend one 45-minute Zoom class per week. In a conventionalsemester, classes would be 100 minutes, and I would be able to monitor all of the students effectively
by walking around the two groups, listening, and writing what they say. After the class, I would be able
to give verbal feedback via the whiteboard and facilitate student-to-student feedback. Since the classes
were online, I split the students into two 45-minute classes in order for me to be able to monitor themeffectively and give appropriate feedback. Since these classes were much shorter than usual, students
were required to study the chapter and topic of the textbook themselves before each lesson, as wellas the language functions that they were expected to use.

56

USING ASYNCHRONOUS DISCUSSION BOA RD FORUMS TO COMPLEMENT ONLINE DISCUSSION CL ASSES

Usefulness of Discussion Boards
DBs have long been the focus of an abundance of research. One of the main benefits ofutilizing discussion boards is they allow students the opportunity to interconnect at their own pace,giving them time to think carefully about their contributions and edit them prior to entering thediscussion (Biesenbach-Lucas, 2003; Ortega, 1997). In addition, they prevent dominant students frommonopolizing the discussions, which can take place in face-to-face discussions (Ortega, 1997). Online
discussions also provide a platform for ESL (English as a Second Language) students to achieve
new levels of linguistic competence and express ideas in their own words (Biesenbach-Lucas, 2003).
Furthermore, they can practice new language in a supportive learning environment (Kahmi-Stein,
2000; Wilson & Stacey, 2004).
Moreover, St. John and Cash (1995) highlighted some additionally related benefits to DBs in
online second language learning. They argue that students can correct their lexical mistakes by
noticing differences in their usage and that of their peers. This implies that their peers of a higher
language competence are unwittingly providing feedback and scaffolding to them. This in turn resultsin the learner being able to boost their pragmatic competence swiftly by adopting their peer’s usefulexpressions.
Therefore, it would seem that students have additional time to reflect on the language being used
and the ideas being exchanged, allowing for deeper consideration of the topic. Lamy and Goodfellow(1999, p. 43) termed this as “reflective conversation,” whereby students interact unprompted, whileremaining attentive and conscious on form in their contributions.
Gerbic (2006) offers three distinctions we can make between online DBs and face-to face lessons.
The first is the lack of visual cues. This may lead to some misunderstanding in meaning. Face-to-face
discussions may be more competitive and require more confidence for students to agree or disagreewith one another. In addition, compared with free flowing synchronous settings, the learner hastime to reflect and reply with more consideration. Finally, the emphasis is on reading and writing,compared to speaking and listening. Satar and Özdener (2008) offered that Computer-meditatedcommunication could offer students a safe environment to practice and evaluate themselves, while
also noticing benefits for speaking skills.
Although there is much support for the use of DBs in research literature, with regard to studies
about DBs in a Japanese university setting, the results have been somewhat mixed. Miyazoe andAnderson (2010) reported that students found the formation and expression of their ideas in DBs
as both useful and challenging. Meanwhile, Neilsen (2013) also relayed that Japanese university
students found DBs to be useful, but that some had reported that they did not appreciate the extra
work outside of the classroom.
In addition to the citations I have referred to above, I felt that in the unique situation that students
found themselves in, which was being unable to come to campus and having to work from home inisolation, the DBs would provide them with an outlet to connect. I also felt that it would be a useful
tool for them to practice using the marked language functions in the textbook and sharing their ideas
online about the topics before the Zoom lessons took place.

Procedure
Since this was the first time that the discussion course was to take place online, I felt that it was
important for the students to be able to connect with each other and practice using the discussions57

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

skills online in a non-judgmental setting. Bikowski and Kessler (2002, p. 27) define a DB, as an “anelectronic forum in which people with common interests can share comments and questions on
specific topics.”
The discussion classes had weekly topics that the students were required to discuss in weekly
Zoom classes. I decided to set up the DB on the Blackboard learning management system page of themodule. Students could easily access this by logging into their university webpage. Initially in week
one, I created the first discussion forum as a means of allowing students to introduce themselves tomyself and all of the other students before the first lesson began. I initiated a thread (a response to apost), and wrote my introduction as an example follow. I noticed that all of the students made a goodeffort with this. Thereafter, I created weekly forums related to the topics of each weekly lesson fromthe textbook “What’s Your Opinion,” (for example, social media; foreign customs) and initiated athread with a question. When creating and interacting on the forums, I took into consideration somerecommendations by Northover (2002) who outlined a number of factors essential to the success ofinteraction in an on-line discussion, including making discussions that are challenging and interesting,giving feedback and encouragement, and ensuring that the learning from the DB is realistic andmeaningful to the student.

Research Method
Using a single case-study research methodology, this research employs mixed method datacollection. A Google form survey was issued to students in the last lesson of the course, requiring
responses to five-point Likert scale based questions, and comprised eight statements written in
English to which students indicated their level of agreement or disagreement. I felt this was themost efficient way to collect data from the participants, and I estimated this form would take around
5 minutes to complete, which would not put too much stress on the students. The survey contained
eight statements. Each statement had five agreement options, from 1-5, providing a reasonable
spectrum of response options. A neutral option acting as the midpoint of the rating was included sothat students would not feel obliged to choose a positive or negative answer if they did not have an
opinion about a given question.
Qualitative data was collected in the form of students’ online DB posts, and their utterances
made in the Zoom discussion lessons. Thematic analysis was the method chosen for analyzing thequalitative data, which Braun and Clarke (2006, p. 6) state is “a method for identifying, analyzing andreporting patterns (themes) within qualitative data.” I chose this method because of its flexibility, as
this allowed me to delve deeply into the data gathered of the small sample of participants (28, one
student did not consent to the survey).

Findings and Student Comments
General Findings
The participants overwhelmingly gave positive feedback and responses to usage of the DBs.
The two main advantages mentioned were finding new ideas about the topics, and being able to use
the DBs as a place to organize their ideas before the Zoom classes. Some of the other advantages
mentioned by the participants included feeling happy about getting agreement and replies, can readanytime, can compare and carefully consider classmates’ opinions before classes, being helpful to58

USING ASYNCHRONOUS DISCUSSION BOA RD FORUMS TO COMPLEMENT ONLINE DISCUSSION CL ASSES

prepare and practice, can develop writing and grammar skills, and do not have to worry about Wi-Fi
trouble. I will now consider some of the main advantages mentioned by participants, and then othernoteworthy themes that arose from the data gathered.

Finding New Ideas
In total, students explicitly changed their written opinions seven times on the DBs. This number
seems low, since, 96.4% of students, agreed with the statement on the Google form “Using the DB
allowed me to discover new ideas about a topic from my classmates” (see appendix). The relatively
low changing of written opinions may be due to it being time consuming for them to write. I wanted
the DBs to be a place where students could delve into the topics deeply and to develop critical thinking
about the topics before they discussed them. I did not ask the students to write changing opinions on
the forums, but I did urge them to ask follow-up questions. Here are a few of the examples:Hi (name) I had a different opinion, but I was very sympathetic to your opinion. Certainly, we canexperience many things in university life, so I think going to university will improve our skills.
I never thought about that until you mentioned! I agree with you. I think it is important to have
purpose or dreams in life.
I thought I could learn about foreign culture in two months, but after hearing (name)’s opinion, I felt
it might be short in two months. Since the culture students can experience differs from season to season,
I think it would be better for them to study abroad for a longer period.
I totally agree with you. As you said, it is difficult for Japanese to hug with others and stay awake on
the train. I did not know that we could not sleep on the train. Thanks for giving new opinion!
These examples of students changing their opinions in the forum, whilst also issuing praise to
the original person who had the idea or opinion suggests that the forums were collaborative andsupportive. It may also be some indications of the students thinking more deeply and developing
critical thinking skills about the topics, and supports research by Ware (2004).

Organizing Ideas and Thinking Deeply
Another of the main advantages given by participants was that they could organize their ideas
and think more deeply about the topics by getting various perspectives before the Zoom discussions
took place. In the statement “Using the DB was troublesome and did not help my Zoom discussions”,
92.8% of the students disagreed, suggesting that they were a useful tool for them. Some advantages
mentioned by students on the DBs are displayed below:
One advantage of using a discussion board is we can organize our own opinion before the lesson.
Having the opportunity to think about the topic in advance is very important for a good discussion.
I agree with you, (name). As you said, discussion board is good place to think deeply about the topic.
In addition, I also believe we can find new perspective from our classmate’s thought.
Getting various perspectives is interesting. I always check before the class and learn different pointsof view about the topic.
The main advantages reported by students seem to indicate that the DBs encouraged students to59

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

consider the topics more deeply and developed their critical thinking skills before the Zoom lessons
took place. In a conventional face-to-face class, students may not have considered the topics so muchbeforehand and would have had to think about the topics in the classroom a lot faster. Therefore, theDBs helped allow students to envisage what they would like say in the online Zoom discussions on
the various topics.

Different Verbal Opinions in Zoom Discussions
Students would usually give their same idea or opinion from the forums in the Zoom verbal
discussions. However, students gave different verbal opinions in the Zoom discussions from theiropinions in the DBs 16 times throughout the semester. This may have been due to changing theiropinions about a topic between the time that they participated in the forums and the verbal discussions,or not being willing to or unable to disagree with students during the verbal discussions. This may
also be partly attributed to the high ratio (96.4%) reported by participants that they found new ideas
about topics through participating in the forums which corroborates research by Ware (2004).

Who Starts and Finishes
In all of the classes, a pattern emerged of who would start the discussion in the thread, and who
would usually go last. In the fifth statement “It was difficult to start the discussion threads on theDB”, 60.9% of students agreed with this (see appendix). Spread across the three classes in this study,
there were six male students (20.7%) and 23 female students (79.3%). Out of the 36 online discussions,
three male students started the discussions a total of 20 times (55.6%), and were last to contributejust four times (11.10%). Six female students started the DBs 16 times in total (44.4%) and were last
to contribute 32 times (88.8%). This would suggest that the male students were more willing to beassertive and give their initial opinions at the start of each thread. In addition, 20 students did not start
any of the discussions (68.9%) which suggests that most students were reactive rather than assertive.
This pattern could be related to one of the difficulties of using DBs reported by students, which was
finding a different idea from other students. Therefore, perhaps some students were motivated toparticipate early in order to be the first to share their idea, and not have to simply agree with othersor spend time thinking of their own original idea or opinion.

Frequency of Agreement
In the three classes, there was a clear pattern of students agreeing with each other. When giving
instructions about the DBs, I encouraged learners to reply to each other and to ask follow-up questions,following Nielsen’s (2013) suggestion. Out of 433 entries onto the forums, students used the phrase“I agree/partly agree with you (or name) 203 times (46.8%). Participants only used the phrase “Idisagree with you/name” eight times (1.85%). Indirect disagreeing terms were used 30 times (6.93%),such as “I think”, “I understand, but” and “I don’t think so.” Participants often complimented eachother before disagreeing. For example:
Though my opinion was different from yours, I think you have a great opinion and I think so too alittle. In Japan, I think there is a tendency to put emphasis on educational background when you take anemployment examination or job interview. So going to university is advantageous to you in job hunting.
60

USING ASYNCHRONOUS DISCUSSION BOA RD FORUMS TO COMPLEMENT ONLINE DISCUSSION CL ASSES

Difficulties in Disagreeing
In the final online discussion of the term, the participants discussed “What are the advantages
and disadvantages of using discussion forum?” The main disadvantage mentioned was that it wasdifficult to disagree with fellow classmates. A few of the opinions given are shown below:
I think there are both aspects. An advantage is that I can find a new opinion from my classmates.
However, a disadvantage is it is difficult to disagree with others’ opinion.
I agree with you, (name)! As you said, we tend to agree with classmates because we can only readtheir feelings from their words. So, I usually try to speak politely.
Another disadvantage is that it is difficult to disagree with others opinion. Because we cannot meetface-to-face, I worry that I may offend someone.
Disagreeing was difficult. Japanese people worry about what other people think. The Corona situation
has made things worse, so we tend to agree with other people’s opinions more.
However, students did not indicate this clearly on the Google form survey. In the statement “Itwas difficult to disagree with my classmates on the DB” (see appendix), 39.3% of students agreed withthis statement. The relatively high ratio of students that agreed with this statement could be related
to the relatively high amount of ambiguous and indirect disgreeing phrases that were used in theforums.
Some of the other difficulties mentioned included not being able to read classmates’ feelings
from expressions, difficult to express opinions accurately, having to take time to be careful about
spelling and grammar, and time differences between individual replies, which support findings by
Neilsen (2013). This final difficulty mentioned leads to me considering that synchronous DBs could
be an interesting route to explore in future research.

Giving Praise to Increase Motivation
At the beginning of each class when I was introducing the topic, I would praise some of theinteresting ideas that they had discussed on the forums before the class. In the early lessons, I noticed
that students who had given minimal participation on the forums seemed to be uneasy or embarrassed
that they had not contributed more. After a few weeks, students seemed to realize that participating on
the forums was a good chance for them to hone their ideas in preparation for the verbal discussions.
Prior to the main verbal discussions taking place, I would remind them that they could use the sameideas from the forums. The forum topic question was the same as the main discussion a total of fivetimes. In addition, I made a final comment on each DB thread, praising the interesting points that they
had made and sometimes asking an additional question for them to consider before they began their
Zoom lessons. It is unclear if this had any effect, as there was no noticeable change in the volume of
their content on the DBs. However, the online Zoom lessons did become more and more animatedand dynamic as the semester progressed.

Connecting in the Pandemic
In contrast to how some students mentioned a difficulty of communicating on forums during
the COVID-19 pandemic, some participants reported how the forums had benefited them during this61

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

time. This is one written statement made by a student in the final DB of the semester:
The advantage of using a discussion board is that I could learn new and interesting things frommy classmates. I think learning new opinions from my classmates will give me a broader perspective.
An acquaintance told me that I should interact with a variety of people during my college years. While I
cannot meet classmates due to Corona, I think this discussion board has been a tool to get in touch witha variety of people.
This quote suggests that students were not only practicing for their discussions in written form,
but that they could also experience some connectivity during the isolating times of online learning.
This could be linked to Dörnyei’s proposed L2 Motivational Self System (2009), which argued thatlearners are motivated to learn a second language when they want to create a desirable self-image ofthemselves through integration.

Conclusion
It would seem that overall the inclusion of the DB forums into the online discussion lessons wasa success. The asynchronous nature of the forums allowed participants ample time to gather ideas
and form their opinions about the weekly topics before class. Samovar and Porter (2001) argue that
disagreeing with others in Asian cultures is seen as confrontational and undesirable, where harmony
is highly sought after. Although many of the students reported on the forums and verbally in thelessons that disagreeing with their peers was difficult for them, these views were not reflected so
explicitly in the anonymous quantitative survey. This may suggest that stating that disagreeing wasdifficult for them was a convenient and acceptable answer, since some of the participants mentionedthat it is difficult for Japanese people to disagree because they worry what others think.
The reporting by students that the forums helped them to find new ideas about topics, organize
their ideas and use the forums as a place to practice seems to advocate further usage of forums infuture classes, and supports claims from Kahmi-Stein, (2000); Wilson and Stacey (2004) and Lamy
and Goodfellow (1999). The claim by some students that the forums also helped them with grammar,
spelling and vocabulary would also support this, and lends credence to Biesenbach-Lucas (2003) and
St. John and Cash (1995).
Using DBs may also provide a place for students to connect with their peers during the pandemic.
The contemporary topics were pertinent to their lives. Creating tasks that allow the learner to connect
to English using the ideal self, facilitates knowledge creation that is meaningful and requires thelearner to make opinions and think critically in English (Yashima, 2009). Keeping in mind that the
primary goal of the discussion classes is oral output, asynchronous interaction does lack a variety ofpragmatic information, for instance, gestures and intonation (Satar & Özdener, 2008). Nevertheless,due to the current necessity of online learning, this reflective study would tentatively suggest that DBforums are conducive with weekly discussion classes.

62

USING ASYNCHRONOUS DISCUSSION BOA RD FORUMS TO COMPLEMENT ONLINE DISCUSSION CL ASSES

References
Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2003). Asynchronous discussion groups in teacher training classes: Perceptionsof native and non-native students. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 24–46.
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v7i3.1843
Bikowski, D., & Kessler, G. (2002). Making the most of discussion boards in the ESL classroom.
TESOL Journal, 11 (3), 27–30.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research inpsychology, 3 (2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.),
Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.
org/10.21832/9781847691293
Gerbic, P. (2006). On-campus students’ learning in asynchronous environments. [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. Deakin University.
Hurling, S. (2012). Introduction to EDC. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion,
1(1), 1.2–1.10
Kahmi-Stein, L.D. (2000). Looking to the future of TESOL teacher education: Web based bulletinboard discussions in a method course. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 423–455. https://doi.org/
10.2307/3587738
Lamy, M.-N., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). “Reflective conversation” in the virtual language classroom.
Language Learning and Technology, 2(2), 43–61. https://doi.org/10125/25042
Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions of online writing:
Simultaneous implementation of a forum, blog, and wiki in an ELF blended learning setting.
System, 38(2), 185–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.03.006
Nielsen, B. (2013). Students’ perceptions and learning outcomes of online writing using discussion
boards. JALT CALL Journal, 9 (2), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v9n2.152
Northover, M. (2002). Online discussion boards-friend or foe? In ASCILITE, 477–484.
Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research
agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning and Technology, 1(1),82–93. http://doi.org/10125/25005
Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (2001). Communication between cultures (4th ed.). Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Satar, H. M., & Özdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency andanxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 595–613 http://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00789.x
St. John, E., & Cash, D. (1995). Language learning via e-mail: Demonstrable success with German. In
M. Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language
learners (pp. 191–197). University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Ware, P. D. (2004). Confidence and competition online: ESL student perspectives on web-based
discussions in the classroom. Computers and Composition, 21(4), 451–468. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compcom.2004.08.004
Wilson, G. & Stacey, E. (2004). Online interaction impacts on learning: Teaching the teachers to teachonline. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.14742/
ajet.1366
Yashima, T. (2009). International posture and the ideal L2 self in the Japanese EFL context. Motivation,
language identity and the L2 self, 86(1), 144–163. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691293-008
63

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

Appendix
Question

1. Using the DB allowed me to discover new ideas
about a topic from my classmates.

2. Using the DB helped me prepare and practice
my ideas for the Zoom discussions.

3. By using the DB, I could learn interesting thing
about my classmates.

4. I felt happy when someone replied to myanswers on the DB.

5. It was difficult to start the discussion threads on
the DB.

6. It was difficult to disagree with my classmateson the DB.

7. I felt sad if someone disagreed with my opinion
on the DB.

8. Using the DB was troublesome and did not help
my Zoom discussions.

Agree/ Disagree

Number of
students

Percentage

Strongly Agree

21

75%

Agree

6

21.4%

Neutral1

3.6%

Disagree00Strongly Disagree00Strongly Agree

17

60.7%

Agree

11

39.3%

Neutral00Disagree00Strongly Disagree00Strongly Agree

17

60.7%

Agree

6

21.4%

Neutral4

14.3%

Disagree1

3.6%

Strongly Disagree00Strongly Agree

11

39.3%

Agree

11

39.3%

Neutral6

21.4%

Disagree00Strongly Disagree00Strongly Agree

2

7.1%

Agree

15

53.6%

Neutral5

17.9%

Disagree6

21.4%

Strongly Disagree

2

7.1%

Strongly Agree

5

17.9%

Agree

6

21.4%

Neutral932.1%

Disagree828.6%Strongly Disagree00Strongly Agree

0

0

Agree

3

10.7%

Neutral5

17.9%

Disagree

13

46.4%

Strongly Disagree

725%Strongly Agree

0

0

Agree

0

0

Neutral2

7.1%

Disagree

16

57.1%

Strongly Disagree

10

35.7%

64

【Teaching Practice Report】

Synchronous Online Discussion Forums as a Supplement toVideo Discussions in an Online English Discussion Class
Jonathan Hennessy
Abstract
This paper details the use of a synchronous online discussion forum activity as a supplemental activity used alongsidevideo discussions in an online English discussion class. A rationale is provided for the choice of activity as well as
the decision to have students participate synchronously. The author reflects on the progress shown by students intheir forum discussions and considers ways that the challenges that were observed could be addressed in future
implementations of the activity to allow for greater opportunities for learning. The author also considers the potential
influence that participation on the online discussion forum may have had on the ability of the participants to genuinely
interact with each other in their video discussions. The author concludes that the activity did help students learn tointeract with each other and functioned well as a preparatory activity for their video discussions, but did not observe
an impact on their turn-taking ability or their ability to discuss each other’s ideas in their video discussions.
Keywords: synchronous online discussion forum

Introduction
All first-year students at Rikkyo University are required to take an English Discussion Class(EDC) designed to improve their ability to discuss contemporary topics in English with their peers(Hurling, 2012). Since its inception, the class was always taught in person and students were expectedto participate in face-to-face discussions on a topic provided to them each lesson, allowing for the lesson
to be driven by student-to-student interaction. However, in the Spring 2020 semester, the lessons were
taught entirely online due to the spread of the novel coronavirus in Japan. Concerns about students’
access to the technology required to participate in extended online video lessons meant that manyteachers split their classes into two groups. This allowed each group to have a shortened video lesson
taught synchronously on the Zoom platform supplemented with other activities that students would
be expected to complete independently.
When choosing an activity to pair with the video lessons on Zoom, many teachers ended up
selecting an online discussion forum activity. This allowed the activity to still include student-tostudent interaction and to be targeted at improving the ability to have discussions in English. Whileusing online discussion forums in place of face-to-face discussions is not truly an equivalent exchange,
the use of online discussion forums has been observed to be beneficial for speaking skills (Satar &Özdener, 2008). Coffin and Donohue (2014) also assert that the structure of online discussion forums
allows for fluidity similar to that of a conversation, further supporting their use in a discussion class.
Using online discussion forums also provided the teacher an opportunity to use some of theirbenefits to address challenges previously observed in the EDC and in Japanese learners of English.
Students in the EDC have struggled with turn taking in discussions (Young, 2015; Hennessy, 2020).
Hennessy (2020) also observed that intermediate students struggled with discussing ideas introducedby other speakers, noting that instead of collaborating, they would share multiple ideas in one speaking
turn and fail to take further turns on a given topic. Williamson (2019) suggested cultural influences65

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

may drive Japanese speakers’ difficulties with turn taking and Young (2018) suggests pedagogicalintervention may be necessary to address these issues. Online discussion forums are inherently
interactive activities and Murphy (2004) found that, while learners would usually start by only stating
their own perspectives, they would eventually progress to responding to the perspectives of others.
In addition, Coffin and Donohue (2014) suggest that discussions on online discussion forums tend
to move away from the starting issue and into other ideas presented by the participants. If this holds
true, then the online discussion forum could be a powerful tool to help students learn to collaboratein their discussions.
Of course, using an online discussion forum would still present issues that would need to beaddressed. Uneven participation can be a significant drawback to using forums, with the discussions
being driven by a few active participants while others contribute little (Coffin & Donohue, 2014), andstudents often find that their contributions to the discussion forum are left without a response (Coffin& Donohue, 2014; Thomas, 2002). While the expectation may be that discussions should naturally
move away from the starting topic, it is likely that if students frequently do not receive a response to
their comments that this drift may not happen. As EDC classes are small, usually 10 students or fewer,
uneven participation could also lead to a struggle for interaction if too few students are active on theforum. A lack of responses could lead to the discussion forum reinforcing the students’ struggles with
turn-taking if they adjust by sharing more information in a single post, further reducing the chancefor collaboration. This means that it is necessary for the forum activity to feature an emphasis on
interaction and replying to classmates to encourage genuine interaction.
While discussion forums are usually asynchronous activities (Abrams, 2003; Shenker, 2019), with
Shenker (2019) in particular noting the advantages of allowing more flexibility and time to think andplan contributions to the forum, there is some evidence that synchronous use of computer-mediatedcommunications can be more beneficial for increasing the quantity of output in face-to-face interactions(Abrams, 2003). One could also speculate that synchronous participation could reduce the impact ofvaried schedules on participation and could even help reduce the number of posts that do not receivea reply as it would be less common for participants to add comments after other participants had
stopped using the forum. Japanese learners of English have been observed to question the extra workrequired to participate in an online discussion forum (Nielson, 2013) and as the students in the EDC
were participating in online lessons due to a global pandemic, not by choice, I believed that asking
them to participate during normal class times as opposed to asking them to fit more work into the restof their schedule might help improve participation.
This paper reflects on the use of a synchronous online discussion forum activity with three
10-student classes of intermediate learners of English in the Rikkyo EDC. It considers both thedevelopment of their discussions on the forum using the Blackboard learning management system,
and any impacts the forum may have had on their spoken discussions on Zoom. The focus for thesemester was specifically on improving student-to-student interaction and collaboration both on the
online discussion board and in their spoken discussions on Zoom.

Discussion
Procedure
The synchronous discussion forum activity was used in 11 of the 12 lessons during the semesterwith the only exception being the first lesson, where students were only asked to post a self66

SYNCHRONOUS ONLINE DISCUSSION FORUMS AS A SUPPLEMENT TO VIDEO DISCUSSIONS IN A N ONLINEENGLISH DISCUSSION CL ASS

introduction. In each lesson all students joined a Zoom meeting at the beginning of the class to allow
an opportunity for the teacher to give feedback from the previous lesson and to explain the focus of
the lesson, including both the topics of discussion and any target language that was being introduced
or reviewed. The entire class was together for approximately 10 minutes before being split into two
equally sized groups. Each group would participate in both an online discussion forum activity using
the Blackboard learning management system, and an interactive video lesson using Zoom. One groupbegan on Zoom where they practiced the target language and participated in a spoken discussion
before moving to Blackboard to complete the online discussion forum activity, whereas the othergroup would have the same lesson but in the opposite order: participating on the forum before theZoom lesson. The Zoom lessons were approximately 40 minutes long and students were expected toparticipate in the online discussion forum for 45 to 50 minutes. I would review the discussion forum
from the group that started with that activity before they began their Zoom lesson to give any feedback
that I believed would help with their video discussion and I gave advice to the group that began on
Zoom to help them in their discussion forum. The groups did not change between activities in a single
lesson but were shuffled week-to-week to allow students to work with all of their classmates over thecourse of the semester and to experience using the discussion forum both before and after the Zoom
lesson. This also addressed a common student complaint about online discussion forums mentioned
by Shenker (2019) regarding the inability of students to change groups during the semester.
The discussion forum was set up prior to the start of class with between four and eight starter
threads about a topic similar to the one that would be discussed in the Zoom lesson, and based on
one of the discussion preparation activities from the in-house textbook, “What’s Your Opinion.”
These starter threads were refined throughout the semester to help encourage discussion and, by
the end of the semester, I made the decision to limit the forum to four starter threads as it seemed
to increase student-to-student interaction. In general the discussion board was intended to be a free
discussion based on these starting topics and the role of the teacher was to set expectations, checkfor comprehension before the activity began, and provide feedback when it was finished. As it seemed
like most students began the semester with little to no experience in using a discussion forum inthis way, it was critical to be clear in setting expectations and goals for the students to ensure active
participation and to encourage interacting with their classmates’ ideas. Feedback was tailored to eachgroups’ strengths and weaknesses to ensure that they understood when they were succeeding andwhen there were areas that could be improved.
Students were given a period of time during which they were expected to continuously participate
in the forum, and they were given a post count goal for each lesson starting approximately halfway
through the semester. While it was not expected that all students would reach the goal in every
lesson, and their grades were not reduced for failing to reach the goal, it was a useful benchmark
to help students understand the expectations regarding participation. Students were also explicitly
instructed to begin by sharing their own ideas and then to interact with their classmates by agreeingor disagreeing, asking questions, and answering questions directed at them. This was emphasized
throughout the semester to encourage students to allow their discussions to move away from only
answering the initial questions, as supported by Coffin and Donohue (2014) who suggested online
discussion forums often drifted away from the starting topic, and to help reduce the number of posts
left without a response as was observed by both Coffin and Donohue (2014) and Thomas (2002).

67

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

Early Reflections
At the beginning of the semester students struggled with turn-taking and interaction in their
Zoom discussions as expected and described by Hennessy (2020). They would often share theiranswer in a single speaking turn and would rarely speak again on a topic after another student took
the floor. Few students responded to ideas brought up by a classmate and even fewer would do so ifthey had already taken a turn on the topic. This was especially clear when students left disagreements
or different opinions entirely unexplored. In one Zoom discussion students were discussing whether
it was easy or difficult for university students to be independent and, while four of the five participants
agreed that it was difficult, the fifth disagreed. However, after that student shared their differing
opinion the group moved onto the next question rather than exploring the difference of opinion.
The online discussion forum activity also had issues with unbalanced participation, and there waslittle genuine interaction early in the semester, as Coffin and Donohue (2014) and Thomas (2002)
had previously documented. In early lessons it was not uncommon for one or two students to havedramatically fewer posts on the forum than their classmates, and students frequently shared theiropinions on a topic and then did not write anything else in that thread. For example, in one class four
students replied to the forum thread asking if they thought that going to university after high school
was a good idea and shared their opinions but none interacted with their classmates’ replies, despite
sharing similar reasoning. However, the discussion forums did provide some examples of attempts
at genuine interaction early in the semester as well. In the same lesson that students were discussing
going to university after high school they also discussed getting a full-time job instead. Two students
were observed trying to interact with each other’s ideas in the following exchange.
Student A: I think it is not good idea. It’s mainly because we can’t study enough until high school.
Student B: I agree with you. But there are many people who can’t go to university or vocational
school due to financial reasons. What do you think about those people?
Student A: I think those people don’t have to go to university or vocational school. But, if they don’t
want to get a fulltime job and want to learn more, their parents should give them some support.
While this was only a basic interaction it was an example of students learning from eachother’s ideas and replying to new information presented by other speakers even after stating theirown opinions. Early feedback was centered around identifying examples of success like this to help
students understand what success looked like, and students were praised for interacting with theirclassmates’ ideas on the discussion forum and in their video discussions. Missed opportunities werealso brought up to help students see when they had chances to improve.
As the semester continued students did seem to increasingly be capable of having more in-depth
discussions, especially on the discussion forum. In the fifth lesson students were discussing the topic
of being homesick when working abroad and had two separate comment chains stemming from one
student’s initial reply. In one chain the original poster had a back-and-forth conversation with one
other student about how they were able to overcome homesickness in an experience traveling. In
the second chain (included below) three more students joined in to discuss how the types of foodavailable in a country they were visiting could impact their ability to adjust to living there.
Student A: I have been abroad two times. First is Country A, where I felt homesick because of foodsof there. Second is Country B. I didn’t feel homesick so much, so I think I wouldn’t be homesick if I

68

SYNCHRONOUS ONLINE DISCUSSION FORUMS AS A SUPPLEMENT TO VIDEO DISCUSSIONS IN A N ONLINEENGLISH DISCUSSION CL ASS

lived and worked abroad.
Student B: Why do you think you didn’t get homesick in Country B?
Student A: First, staying Country B was homestay between two weeks, while Country A was 1
week staying in university and hotel for studying culture and language. I could communicate withhost family deeply. Second, I didn’t hate foods in there more than Country A’s. However, there weresome foods I wasn’t able to stand. By the way, what do you think of my idea?
Student C: I think Country A’s foods use many Chinese medicine, so you couldn’t get use to theirfoods
Student D: I agree with you. On the other hand, I heard Country B’s food is easy to get used to.
Student C: But I like Country A foods, because I think it’s smell is bad, however taste is good.
In all three classes that were observed, this kind of extended interaction became increasingly
common in the online discussion forum activity but was rarely seen in Zoom. In a few cases I was able
to provide feedback based on successes in an online discussion forum activity and see students attempt
to talk about their classmates’ ideas in the following Zoom discussion. However, this behavior did notcontinue beyond the lesson in which the feedback was given, which suggested that the improvementson the forum were not helping in the video discussions.
Unfortunately, while I tried to focus my feedback on praising successful interactions, a large
amount of feedback in the early lessons had to be focused on participation as it was common to findsome students participating actively for the duration of the activity while others would simply post
their own answers and then stop participating. While this was expected based on the research, thediscussion groups being capped at a maximum of five participants meant that poor participation fromany students could impact the ability of other students to have meaningful interaction due to theoverall reduced activity.

Setting Goals and Making Adjustments
As the semester continued I felt that many students were making significant progress with their
discussions on the forums but still believed that poor participation from some members was an issue
that wasn’t being resolved by the feedback I was providing. In the fifth lesson several students in one
class made 10 or more posts on the discussion forum while another student had only five and yet
another student had only two. It was also common for some students to begin the activity immediately
while others did not make their first post until 10 or 20 minutes later. This not only impacted theperformance of the less active students but gave the students who were participating actively fewer
opportunities for interaction. Starting in lesson seven I provided each class with a goal for the numberof posts they should try to make during the activity to address this problem. This goal started at
10 posts and was eventually raised to 12. I also included a goal of asking at least two questions inthat lesson and added other goals related to answering questions and agreeing or disagreeing withclassmates later in the semester. Setting this clear expectation for students did seem to help improveparticipation in these classes. All observed classes increased the total post count following theaddition of a goal. One class increased from 113 total student posts to 120 in the first lesson they were
given a goal, and to 136 in the following lesson. Another class increased from 101 to 128 to 136, andthe third class increased from 81 to 82 (with one student being absent and thus lowering the total
number of participants for the lesson) to 106. In addition, in the first week that the goals were added
only three students of the 29 who were present had seven or fewer posts, while the minimum was six.
69

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

Participation generally remained at this increased level throughout the semester which allowed me
to focus my instructions and feedback on the goal of genuine interaction.
Following this improvement, it became easier to find examples of interaction on the online
discussion forums and to encourage students to continue this behavior. Noticing how students often
built their replies entirely on the information presented in the original post without trying to movethe discussion to a new idea led me to try an activity where each student was asked to write only one
sentence per post. This activity did increase the number of questions students asked but they still
usually let the student who made the original reply lead the direction of the discussion by answering
those questions, as opposed to building on the ideas themselves. Later, I focused my feedback onwhich sections of their discussions would be interesting to discuss further to attempt to help themspot missed opportunities. This had more of an impact as students began to try to add interesting
information to their classmates’ ideas, especially on the online discussion forum. In one group, allfive students chose to participate in the thread discussing whether giving more vacation time wasa good way to improve the work-life balance of employees. They allowed the discussion to drift alittle, mentioning laws about vacation time in Europe, wondering if too much free time was boring,and showing concern for economic issues if workers had too much vacation time. The excerpt here
demonstrates how this group’s discussion developed:
Student A: I think Japanese people don’t have enough vacation time than other countries.
Student B: I think so too, but having so much free time is boring, isn’t you?
Student A: Surely, we may be boring, but many of Japanese workers have only two week summer
vacation. It is short for me. How about from your point of view?
Student C: I also think Japanese summer vacation is too short for workers, but if it becomes longer,
workers maybe don’t want to work (more) than now.
Student B: I think if workers don’t work, they can’t live, so after all they will work.
Student C: What you said is true, however in our society has a hikikomori or NEET problem, how
do you think about it?
The drift of topic from work-life balance to a concern about excess time off leading to an
unwillingness to work was only one way that this forum post evolved but still demonstrated
significant improvement from early in the semester. In a different lesson another class was discussing
the advantages and disadvantages of social media as it related to news and information and had adiscussion about the relative importance of the ease of access to information as it compared to thedangers of finding false information. They were able to continue this discussion by asking for potential
solutions and bringing up the necessity of media literacy to deal with the problems created by social
media. These improvements continued, and by the end of the semester I was fairly satisfied with thediscussions that students were having on the discussion forum.
Another realization came later in the semester when it became clear that students were having
more in-depth discussions when they were given fewer overall topics to discuss. When they had
an excess of options for discussion they tended to have superficial discussions about all of theoptions, whereas when they had fewer topics to discuss they would ask more questions and share
more information about each. Following this realization all of the forums were limited to four starter
threads. Following this change the discussions seemed more consistently interactive and interesting
but unfortunately, the change came too late in the semester to evaluate exactly how the discussions
improved.
70

SYNCHRONOUS ONLINE DISCUSSION FORUMS AS A SUPPLEMENT TO VIDEO DISCUSSIONS IN A N ONLINEENGLISH DISCUSSION CL ASS

Impact on Spoken Discussions
As students improved on the online discussion forum it was possible to look at their video
discussions on Zoom and to look for potential parallels that could indicate a positive effect comingfrom what they were learning from the forum. Early in the semester it was clear that students were
struggling with both the video discussions and the forums and, while I was hopeful that the forum
would help students to have more interactive discussions simply due to how discussion forums
worked, that wasn’t the case. While the forums were always able to serve as a reasonable warm-up
or a place to practice something that was difficult during the Zoom discussion, it was necessary tohelp students build up the skills for successful online forum discussions before they could have any
carryover to their video discussions.
Towards the end of the semester it did seem that students were showing more interaction on
both the online discussion forum and in the video discussions. One group had an excellent video
discussion about the use of robots and artificial intelligence as solutions to the problem of Japan’s
aging population. They discussed the benefits of reducing the work needed to be done by humans,considered the negative of lost jobs, brought up examples of service industry jobs that were alreadybeing done by robots, and generally had an interesting interactive discussion. However, this was nota consistent improvement among groups. My notes from one of the final lessons for another classshowed that students were having great, interactive discussions on the forum, but in video discussions
they were still answering questions and then not speaking again until the topic was changed. This
inconsistent improvement in video discussions, contrasted with the more universal improvements inthe online discussion forum, makes it unreasonable to suggest that the success in the forums was acause of the improvements in their video discussions.

Student Feedback
In the final lesson, the discussion forum activity focused on the students’ opinions of the activity.
In general they seemed to think that the forum was useful as preparation for their spoken discussions
and that they were able to think of more ideas and get a better understanding of their classmates’ ideas
by discussing on the forum before having their spoken discussion. This may not be any different fromhaving another speaking activity for discussion preparation, but it was good to see that students did
find it helpful.
More interestingly, some students also felt that the discussion forum allowed them to have
deeper discussions than they were able to in their video discussions. One student wrote that they did
not have to worry about the timing when discussing in the forum and another student noticed thatthey often participated for a much longer time than in their video discussions. Some other students
wrote that they were able to take more time to understand their classmates’ ideas and explain theirown ideas which made it easier to interact with each other on the forum. Other students found taking
turns more difficult on the forum, noting that sometimes the discussion would move on while they
were writing their opinion and they would feel like they contributed too late. When combined withother frustrations expressed by the students such as losing track of comments, struggling to findunread comments, and posting the same idea as someone else, it seems likely that students’ lack offamiliarity with using online discussion forums in this manner impacted their ability to make the bestuse of the forums. However, the positive points such as being able to discuss more deeply on theforum also suggest that it may be possible to use this activity in the future to emphasize this behavior

71

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

for video or face-to-face discussions. While students did still struggle with turn-taking in their video
discussions this semester they may still have improved in their ability to discuss a topic more deeply
from the online discussion forums. While this may be in part due to the added challenges of having
their discussions online instead of in person, it also means that more teacher intervention would benecessary to create carryover between the two activities.

Conclusion
Over the course of the semester students did improve in their discussions using the online
discussion forum and they self-reported the ability to learn from each other and interact with eachother’s ideas on the forum. While students struggled with many of the issues common to discussion
forums such as uneven participation (Coffin & Donohue, 2014), posts without replies (Coffin &Donohue, 2014; Thomas, 2002), and early attempts being dominated by comments limited to thestudents’ own perspectives (Murphy, 2004), they improved significantly in response to instruction
and feedback. While many of the improvements that students made to their forum discussions would
have also been a positive change in their video discussions, there seemed to be little transfer between
the activities. It was not clear if the forum activity had any impact on the video discussions beyond use
as a preparatory activity.
As an option to allow for student-to-student interaction while face-to-face interaction is limited,online forums did seem to be an effective tool for teaching some of the key parts of discussion andbuilding up the ability of students to discuss contemporary issues in English, as is a goal of the
EDC (Hurling, 2012). This activity could be enhanced by improving instruction and setting goals totarget participation and interaction from the start, and by limiting the starting topics from the first
lesson. I would like to try this activity again with those adjustments and see if it is possible to see
success with the forums earlier in the semester and thus be able to draw on those successes to help
students develop their ability to take turns and interact more successfully in video discussions or faceto-face discussions. This could increase the value of the online discussion forum activity in a speaking
focused class such as the EDC.

72

SYNCHRONOUS ONLINE DISCUSSION FORUMS AS A SUPPLEMENT TO VIDEO DISCUSSIONS IN A N ONLINEENGLISH DISCUSSION CL ASS

References
Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance inGerman. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/15404781.00184
Coffin, C. & Donohue, J. (2014). “I feel very new to it and very inexperienced”: Semantic orientation,
semiotic mediation, and the genres and registers of online discussion forums. Language
Learning, 64(1) 205–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12042
Hennessy, J. (2020). Teaching journal: Reflections on developing interaction and improving turn-taking
in high-intermediate students. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 8,
23–29.
Hurling, S. (2012). Introduction to EDC. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion,
1(1), 1.2-1.10.
Murphy, E. (2004). Recognising and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4). 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.00071013.2004.00401.x
Nielson, B. (2013). Students’ perceptions and learning outcomes of online writing using discussion
boards. The JALT CALL Journal, 9(2). 131–147. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v9n2.152
Satar H. M. & Özdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency andanxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal. 92 (4). 595–613. http://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00789.x
Shenker, T. (2019). The effects of group set-up on participation and learning in discussion forums.
Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1634103
Thomas, M.J.W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion
forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.02664909.2002.03800.x
Williamson, J. (2019). A pragmatics explanation for Japanese-English turn-taking contrasts and theneed for pedagogical intervention: A response to Davey Young’s TLT article. The Language
Teacher 41(1). 14–18. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALT TLT43.1-3
Young, D. (2015). A conversation analysis of the acquisition and use of turn-taking practices in an
English discussion class. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 3. 320–
329 https://doi.org/10.14992/00015992
Young, D. (2018). Contrastive models for turn-taking in English and Japanese. The Language Teacher
42(3). 9–12. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALT TLT42.3-273【授業実践報告】

授業内課題としてのグループプレゼンテーション
松本

旬子

要旨
本稿は、2020 年度春学期の「中級 1」の授業実践報告ならびに授業内で取り入れたグループプレゼンテーションの学習効果の考察である。本授業におけるグループプレゼンテーションの最大の効用は、オンライン授業で、
ペアワー
クやグループワークをしても盛り上がりに欠けていたクラスの雰囲気を一転したことである。グループでのまとまった作業が学生間の交流をもたらすこととなった。加えて、スペイン語力が決して高いとは言えないクラスであっても、学生同士が協力し、互いの足らない部分を補い合えば、テーマに沿ったプレゼンテーションを準備し完成し得ることも明らかになった。プレゼンテーションに類するアクティビティの学習効果の高さはこれまでにも広く評価されてきたが、学習者に一定レベル以上のスペイン語力が求められ、少人数クラスでないと実施は現実的ではないと言った指摘もあった。そのような中で、本授業におけるグループプレゼンテーション実践が、これらのアクティビティが有する弱点を克服する可能性を示した意義は小さくなく、今後より洗練され幅広い授業で活用されていくことが期待される。

キーワード： プレゼンテーション、スペイン語、第二外国語、学習効果、グループ

はじめにコロナ禍の 2020 年度春学期、立教大学ではすべて授業がオンラインで実施された。本稿は、その中で「気持ちよく」終了した「スペイン語中級 1」（以下「中級 1」とする）の授業実践報告である。
初回に学生にはカメラオンを依頼し、当初 3 分の 2 以上が応じて臨んでいた。ところがカメラオフの人がいるとそれが伝染して行く。このクラスで最終回まで筆者と共にカメラオンだった学生は 1 人だった。顔が見えない、反応がわからない授業に徐々には慣れたが大変やりづらい。さらに、学生のスペイン語レベルは
多少のばらつきはあるものの全般的に低く、作成していたシラバス・準備していた授業内容の修正が続く。
また、学習意欲にも差がある。学習意欲とスペイン語レベルを考慮しつつペアワークやグループワークをさせるが、教員もオンライン授業に不慣れなうちは思い通りに運ばないことも多い。受講者の中には前年度までの知人友人もいたようだが、大方が知らない者同士なようで、それが要因かアクティビティをさせても捗らないペア（グループ）が見受けられる。教員として焦りを覚えるほど「盛り上がらない」、運営の難しい授業となっていた。このまま「中級 1」の授業を終わらせるわけにはいかない、何とかしなければ、と追い込まれた状況で、授業内アクティビティにグループプレゼンテーションを行うことを決めた。これが学期終盤で、本授業の雰囲気を一変させたのである。授業実践報告としてこの収穫をまとめ、今後に向けた考察を行うのが本稿の目的である。

先行研究
英語のプレゼンテーションの学習は「語彙や文法などの英語基礎力はもちろん、ライティングやレシテー
ションの力、表現力や他者とのコミュニケーション能力など、さまざまな要因がからむ複雑かつ総合的なもの」（菱田 2017:17）である。プレゼンテーションの授業を通して様々な英語スキルの習得が可能な上に、学生アンケートの結果によれば動機付けの観点からも効果が期待できる授業形態だと結論する研究もある（藤。しかし一方で、Iwai（2012）や岩井（2014）以前には、プレゼンテーションの実践と学習効果
田他 2009）74

授業内課題としてのグループプレゼンテーション

を実証データに基づいて検証した研究はないとされ、これらの研究でも両者の間に一定の相関は認められた
ものの、調査上の課題も多く、今後さらなる研究発展が望まれる分野であると述べられている。
しかしながら、学習効果測定等の検証は発展途上であるものの、プレゼンテーション学習の有用性が高い
ことは広く教員に共有されており、また上記をはじめとする英語における研究に鑑みれば、言語の種類を問
わずあらゆる言語学習においてその効果が期待できる学習方法であると言えるだろう。
スペイン語学習については、学生に自分の自由な発話（モノローグ）を録画させるアクティビティの学習。また効果の高さに関する報告がある（Alfonzo de Tovar & Cotrina (2018), García & Escandón (2020) 等）
筆者は、あらかじめ原稿を準備させ、それに関連した映像をつける動画作成を授業内個人課題とし、これま1でいくつかのクラスで実施して来た 。教員の主観的な評価に基づくものであり科学的な検証は行えていないが、これらの経験からその利点は実感している。動画作成のアクティビティでは、あらかじめ原稿を準備させるので語彙力や文法力・書く力も鍛えられる。また繰り返し原稿を読み上げると学習者本人が自身の「エラー」に気付くようになり、筆者の当初の狙いであった発音やイントネーションも改良される。これらの結果を踏まえると、プレゼンテーションに限らず、自発的な発話の録画や原稿を読み上げる形の動画作成もプ
レゼンテーション同様に、外国語の力を広く伸長する学習方法であると言えるだろう。
しかし自発的な発話（モノローグ）をさせるというアクティビティには、学生のスペイン語力が CEFR（外国 語 の 学 習・ 教 授・ 評 価 の た め の ヨ ー ロ ッ パ 言 語 共 通 参 照 枠（Common European Framework ofReference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment））基準 B1 程度に達していないと実施困難であるという短所もある。1 人で数分話し続けるのは容易なことではない。大学で第二外国語としてスペイン語を学ぶ場合、このレベルに達する学生は決して多くはない。そこで大学で第二外国語としてスペイン語を学ぶクラスに於いては、上述のあらかじめ原稿を準備させる動画作成を筆者は推奨してきた。このアクティビ
ティであれば、学生のスペイン語力が A2 程度でも成立することがこれまでの経験からわかっているためである。とはいえ、弱点もある。Matsumoto (in press) でも指摘したように、まず原稿を書き、発音に注意
しながら読む練習を繰り返して動画を作成するアクティビティは、教員の負担を増大させるのだ。書くときも、読むときも、ひとりひとりに対して何度も、丁寧に指導する必要があるので、大人数のクラスで課題として採用するには適さないのだ。

授業実践報告2020 年度春学期の「中級 1」概要
「中級 1」の授業は週 2 回、1 回 100 分の授業から成る。週 2 回を 1 人の教員が担当することもあるが、今回はスペイン人教員（金曜 1 限）と筆者（火曜 2 限）がペアで週 1 回ずつ担当した。2020 年度春学期のシラバスに掲載した情報（一部抜粋）は表 1 の通りである。
テーマは週単位で設定されており、筆者のクラスで関連する文法や語彙の復習をし、それらを発展させてスペイン人教員のクラスで練習する形で進める予定であった。しかし 2020 年度春学期は通常より 2 週間遅れて始まり、授業は 12 週となった。テーマを取捨選択しなければならなくなったことに加え、既述の通り
多くの受講者のレベルが想定よりも低かったために（シラバス作成時は CEFR の A2 程度を想定していた）
復習に時間を要したことで、実際には表 2 の内容で授業を行った。なお、表 2 は筆者担当の火曜 2 限の授業内容であるが、進度はペアのスペイン人教員とは毎回授業報告をし合い、進捗状況に応じて細かく調整していた。

1

Matsumoto（in press）は 2018 年度にこのアクティビティを行った 1 クラス 6 名の動画を、中間言語分析の視点から分析し、その学習効果をまとめたものである。

75

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

表12020 年度春学期「中級 1」シラバス
授業の目標

主な目標は 1 年次に学習したスペイン語の知識を定着させ、会話力と理解力を高めることです。

授業の内容

毎回一つのテーマを取り上げます。内容を理解し、文法や用語を身につけた上で、会話をします。
1. 自分の家族、大学、住んでいる地域、趣味、日常生活について紹介します。
2. 来日する観光客に対して、日本の魅力や交通手段などの説明を皆で考えます。
3. ペアでお互いに誘い合う会話を作ったり、グループで旅の計画を立てたりします。

授業計画

成績評価・基準

1

Presentación.

2

Mi familia/mis amigos.

3

Mi casa/mi barrio.

4

Mi Universidad.

5

Mis aficiones.

6¿Qué haces normalmente?

7

Repaso y test.

8¿Qué atractivos tiene Japón para los turistas extranjeros?

9Comparaciones: 1. Japón vs. otro país. 2. Tokio vs. otra ciudad.

10

El transporte en Tokio.

11

Hacemos un plan de viaje.

12

Ocio: Cine, conciertos, teatro, exposiciones, deportes, etc.

13

Regls en los lugares públicos: tren, biblioteca, cine, etc.

14

Repaso y test.

授業内ワーク（40%）
、小テスト& プレゼンテーション（30%）、最終テスト（30%）

表22020 年度春学期「中級 1」（火曜 2 限）実際の授業内容

授業内容

1

Presentación 1.

2

Presentación 2. Mi familia/mis amigos.

3

Mi casa/mi barrio 1.

4

Mi casa/mi barrio 2.

5

Mis aficiones.

6

Repaso y mini-test 1.
¿Qué haces normalmente? 1.

7¿Qué haces normalmente? 2.

8Repaso y mini-test 2.
¿Qué atractivos tiene Japón para los turistas extranjeros? (naturaleza y ciudad)

9¿Qué atractivos tiene Japón para los turistas extranjeros? (comida) 1.
Preparación para presentación 1.

10¿Qué atractivos tiene Japón para los turistas extranjeros? (comida) 2.
Preparación para presentación.

11

Presentación.

12

Repaso y test.

76

授業内課題としてのグループプレゼンテーション

受講者は 24 人であった。内訳は男性 7 人、女性 17 人、学年別では 1 年生 1 人、2 年生 16 人、3 年生 6 人、4年生 1 人である。
」を扱った際に気づきがあった。日本
第 8 回の授業で「外国人観光客にとっての日本の魅力（自然と街）がテーマになったとたん学習の捗りが良いのだ。それまでのテーマも学習者にとって身近なものであったはずだが、それは教員の考え方なのかもしれない。自国の文化についてスペイン語読み、聴き、理解することが学習者のモチベーションにつながるのであれば、それを掘り下げるべきだ。そこで翌週以降のテーマを引き続き日本とすることにした。そして、当初評価に盛り込む予定であったテキストに沿ったペアワークのプ
レゼンテーションをやめ、その代わりにもう少し時間を割いてグループプレゼンテーションを行うことにしたのである。

プレゼンテーションの内容
受講者 24 人をランダムに 3 人 1 組のグループに分け、第 9 回・第 10 回の授業の一部をプレゼンテーションの準備の時間とした。「外国人観光客にとっての日本の魅力（食べ物）」での学びを活かし、テーマは「日本の食べ物の紹介」とした。テーマ選びの参考として全員で資料 1 の「日本料理」のテキストを読み、プレゼ
ンテーション準備の参考のために（日本料理の紹介ではないが）資料 2 の “Mi receta de gazpacho” の動画
発表形式に関する指示はしなかった。
を視聴した。準備時間が限られていたため発表は 2-3 分を目安としたが、各グループのテーマと内訳は表 3 の通りである。
表3

グループ内訳とテーマ・発表形式
メンバー

テーマ

発表形式

1

2 年女・3 年女・3 年男

素麺

動画

2

2 年女・2 年女・2 年女

きりたんぽ

パワーポイント3

2 年女・2 年男・3 年女

肉じゃが

パワーポイント4

2 年女・2 年女・3 年女

納豆

パワーポイント5

1 年女・2 年女・2 年男

お好み焼き

パワーポイント6

2 年女・2 年女・2 年男

蕎麦・味噌汁・すき焼き

パワーポイント7

2 年女・2 年男・3 年男

納豆

パワーポイント

8

2 年男・3 年女・4 年女

お好み焼き

パワーポイント

資料の 1 つが動画であったためか、グループ 1 が動画を作成した。その他の 7 つのグループはプレゼンテーション形式で、パワーポイントの画面を画面共有で見せつつ各自が分担箇所を発表する形式をとった。また

7 つのグループがテーマを 1 つに決めた上で担当を分けていたのに対し、グループ 6 のみが発表者個人がテーマを選び、グループ内で内容や時間を調整して発表した。
評価は教員のみが個別・グループ別に行い、表 1 に示された比率で成績に反映した。

77

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

所感と考察
グループプレゼンテーションを準備し発表する過程で、グループ内にまとまりがうまれ、さらにクラス全体の雰囲気が大きく好転した。これが本授業におけるグループプレゼンテーション実践の最大の収穫である
ことは紛れもないが、この理由を整理し、所感と考察を加えて、今後の授業運営につなげていきたい。

1）希薄だった履修学生同士の関係が深まった
テーマ決めから相談することが、単純な交流の時間にもなったと考えられる。会話練習などのペアワーク
やグループワークを行っても首尾良く機能していると言い難かったのは、オンライン授業内での知らない者同士のアクティビティだったためだろう。たとえオンライン授業でなくても、履修者が知らない者同士の際はアイスブレイクが不可欠であることが示されたと言える。
そして今後オンライン授業が継続されるならば、教員は必ず念頭に置いておくべき点であろう。
加えて、特筆すべきは 1 グループが実際に集まって動画を作成した点である。パワーポイントに合わせて原稿を読みあげる形のプレゼンテーションより、完成した動画を流す方が事前の準備が多く、煩雑で、時間がかかるものである。そのような労力を惜しまなかったことはもとより、1 グループの動画撮影の経緯がクラス全体の良い雰囲気作りに貢献した。テーマとして取り上げた「素麺」の動画を作成するにあたり、自主的に流し素麺会を企画し、そこで実際に流し素麺を行い、その様子を撮影したのである。流し素麺会はクラス全員が誘われ、感染防止に注意しつつ、自由に希望者が集まる形をとった。実際には会ったことのない人が多い中、1 グループの 3 人に加え他グループからも 3 人が参加、そこに筆者も冒頭の 30 分だけ様子を見に駆けつけ、結果 7 人が参加する撮影の会合となった。コロナ禍でグループを超えた良い交流の機会までもが、グループプレゼンテーションの準備のおかげで設けられたのである。

2）協力して発表することで絆が生まれた
単純な交流の時間となった（1 ））ばかりではなく、協力して 1 つのものを作り上げることでグループ間に絆も生じさせていた。たとえ短いプレゼンテーションであったとしても、役割を割り振り、自分たちなりに画像や伝える内容に工夫を凝らした上で準備する必要があったため、履修学生同士連携せざるを得なかっただろう。特に、伝えたい事を伝えるためのスペイン語力が個々人では十分でなくとも、互いに補い合うことで、今の自分たちが使えるスペイン語を駆使し、グループ全員の力を合わせて表現を編み出す場面が多く見られた。学生にとっても大きな自信になったようだ。
なお、複数のテーマを扱ったグループよりもテーマが 1 つの方が、またテーマが 1 つでも分担を決めた後は個人で作業したグループよりも、それぞれの原稿内容まで踏み込んで共に考えたグループの方が、結束が強かった印象を受けた。したがって、協力を重視するならば、今後は準備を始める前に発表の枠組を明確に決めておく必要がある。またグループ内のメンバー全員が同じくらいの発話量になるよう原稿を考えさせるのも重要だ。

3）評価を課さないと他グループの発表を純粋に観賞する
今回、評価は教員のみで学生間では行わなかったためか、自分たちが発表する時以外はリラックスして、他のグループのプレゼンテーションそのものを楽しんでいる様子が伺えた。同じテーマだったグループ同士
は、そのアプローチの違いを興味深く観賞していたようだ。
先行研究の中には、学生同士で評価を行わせることにより切磋琢磨したと結論づけるものもあるが（García& Escandón 2020)、言語の学習効果を学生同士が評価し合うのは適当ではないと筆者は考える。学生が互いに言語能力の伸長を測り合うのは不可能だと思うのだ。
学生間の評価を導入する場合は、プレゼンテーショ
ン全体の印象や取り組みについてに限定するのが妥当ではないか。

78

授業内課題としてのグループプレゼンテーション

4）グループ間でのテーマ調整は必要ない
事前のチェックをしなかったために、発表の瞬間までテーマはグループ内でのみ共有されていた。その結果、同じテーマになったグループもあったが、料理の材料や作り方の説明、食べ方の説明、由来の紹介など
その内容は多岐にわたり、異なるアプローチであったため、お互いの発表を興味関心を持って聞けたようだ。
あとから発表する方にやりにくさはあるかもしれないが、グループの個性が出たので、今後もテーマのグルー
プ間調整は不要であると感じた。テーマ選びで重要なのは、与えられた内容ではなく、能動的な準備を促す
ために本人たちが望むものとすることであろう。

5）グループであれば CEFR A2 レベル未満程度でも活用できるアクティビティである
本授業のような CEFR の A2 に満たないレベルの学生が大半のクラスであっても、プレゼンテーションを
グループ単位で行うことで、授業内で実践できるアクティビティであることが証明された。個別でプレゼン
テーションを行うには言語力不足であったとしも、グループならば互いに協力し補い合うことができ、実現可能である。

6）学習効果を期待するには十分な発表準備時間が必要である
しかし、今回は十分な事前準備時間はなくすぐに発表となったため、スペイン語力の伸長は観察されなかったと言えるだろう。プレゼンテーションを通してそれぞれの履修学生が自身のスペイン語力を豊かにするた
めには、Matsumoto（in press）で指摘したように、教員によるチェックが伴う、原稿作成と読み上げの練習が欠かせないのだろう。発表者が反復練習の中で自身の自己点検が行えるようになっていく、この過程が言語力を大きく伸ばすに違いないのだ。

7）グループプレゼンテーションは教員の負担軽減につながる
教員負担の面から考えると、プレゼンテーションにしても動画作成にしても、個別ではなくグループで行
うことでそれが多少軽減され、さまざまなクラスで導入しやすくなるだろう。学習の実りも大きいけれども教員負担も大きいこれらのアクティビティを、ある程度規模の大きなクラスでも実施し得る見通しがついたと言えよう。
しかし上述のように（6））学習効果を期待するには十分な準備時間が必要であり、そこには教員のフィードバックが不可欠であることから、やはりある程度の教員の負担は否めない。

おわりに本授業実践報告からの学びはおおまかに 3 つに大別される。1 つ目はオンライン授業におけるグループプ
レゼンテーションの役割だ。それまでのオンライン授業の雰囲気を一変させ、授業内のペアワークやグルー
プワークでは培われず希薄だった学生同士の関係を深いものとした。2 つ目は、これまでの想定よりも幅広い授業におけるプレゼンテーション実施の可能性が示されたことだ。個別ではなくグループで行えば、言語
レベル・クラス規模の双方でより広い範囲で実践できるアクティビティとなり得る。そして 3 つ目は、言語面での学習効果を重視するならば十分な準備時間が不可欠である事だ。本授業ではプレゼンテーション準備に充てた時間がわずかであり、教員による事前チェックもなかった。そのため各々のスペイン語力に伸長が見られたとは言い難い結果となったが、逆に原稿を書くにも読み上げるにも、見直しと反復練習が重要であり、それによって言語力が養われることが確認されたとも言える。
プレゼンテーション等のアクティビティの導入で教員の負担が増すのは否めないが、今回グループで行うという新たな取り組みをしたことで、その負担縮小の可能性も示された。外国語教育の先端を行く英語教育の研究を参考に、このような高い学習効果が認められるアクティビティが英語以外の外国語教育の場で少しずつ実践され、今後ますます精査されたアクティビティとなって多くのクラスで導入されていくことを期待する。

79

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

参考文献
岩井千秋（2014）「英語によるオーラル・プレゼンテーションの指導効果の探索的検証­学習者の言語算出面の変化に焦点を当てて­」『大学英語教育学会中国・四国支部研究紀要』11, 142-155.
尚真貴子・福地恭子・小波津フェルナンド・又吉パトリシア・上池リリア（2020）『ディエゴと日本再発見！
­初級スペイン語­新版』朝日出版社 .
菱田信彦（2017）「アクション・リサーチを活用した高等学校における英語プレゼンテーションの学習」『川
村学園女子大学研究所紀要』28(1), 15-31.
藤田玲子・山形亜子・竹中肇子（2009）『学生の意識変化に見る英語プレゼンテーション授業の有用性』「東京経済大学人 文 自然科学論集」128, 35­58.

Alfonzo de Tovar, C. & Cotrina Cayo, L. (2018) ¿Cómo mejorar la expresión oral en estudiantes asiáticos
atravesó de los entornos virtuales? Libro de resúmenes de XXIX Congreso Internacional de ASELE, 32.
García Ruiz-Castillo, C. & Escandón, A. (2020/11/27) Videoconferencia: “El feedback en la enseñanza en
línea: Una oportunidad para la reflexión y el diálogo”. https://sites.google.com/view/coloquiofeedback/temario?authuser=0
Iwai, C.（2012）Enhancing critical assessment ability through oral presentation. In A. Stewart & N. Sonda, JALT 2011 conference proceeding, 241­250. https://jalt-publications.org/proceedings/articles/（Eds.）
1746-enhancing-critical-assessment-ability-through-oral-presentation
Matsumoto, J（in press）Análisis de la interlengua hablada de los estudiantes japoneses de español como
segunda lengua extranjera. Volumen temático ASELE 2020.
NEEM 1 / NEEM Básico – Unidad 5 Mi receta de gazpacho – subtitulado (2014/2/10) https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=GyGtLGMee_M80

授業内課題としてのグループプレゼンテーション

資料 1『ディエゴと日本再発見 !­初級スペイン語­新版』p.90

資料 2
動画 “Mi receta de gazpacho” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyGtLGMee_M)81【授業実践報告】

授業活動における Kahoot! の活用―対面授業とオンライン授業での実践を通して
若杉

莉末

要旨
本稿は、Kahoot ! というゲーム型教育用システムの役割について、対面授業とオンライン授業での実践を通して得られた知見の報告である。Kahoot ! は競争を伴うゲームであるため、どちらの授業形態であっても学習者同士で互いに良い刺激が与えられ、モティベーションを向上させる効果があると思われる。また、効率面においても、

Kahoot ! ゲームを授業に導入することによって、気分転換ができ、集中力を高めることができると考えられる。さらに、教員が学習者の知識に対する理解度を確認し、即時にフィードバックを与えることによって、学習者の効率的な知識の定着を促進させることができるのではないかと推察した。一方、学習者の自らの問題作りによって、知識に対する理解度をより深めることが出来る。対面授業とオンライン授業では、それぞれデバイスやネット環境が異なることから、それに関する注意点と課題についても報告した。分析の結果、どの授業形態においても、Kahoot !
の活用が有効であることが確認できたが、両形態を比較すると対面授業より、オンライン授業のほうが Kahoot ! の役割が大きいのではないかという仮説が得られた。

キーワード： Kahoot !、オンライン授業、ゲーム要素、モティベーション向上、学習内容の定着

はじめに
近年、通信技術を利用したコミュニケーションは当たり前のようになっており、教育現場においても ICT（Information and Communication Technology）を盛んに取り入れるようになってきている。しかし、数多くの学習用システムやアプリケーションの中で、どれを教育活動に取り入れるかは教員にとって一つの課題であると言えよう。そこで、筆者は Kahoot ! というゲーム型教育用システムに注目した。

Kahoot ! は、2013 年にノルウェーで開発されたオンラインプラットフォームであり、そのウェブサイトによると、毎年約 10 億人利用されていると言われている。Kahoot ! が登場して以来、小学校から大学まで、多くの教育機関に利用されるようになってきた。現在では使用される科目についても、数学分野から医学分
野に至るまで、様々な分野において幅広く使われるようになった。そのため、これまで多くの教育用ウェブ
サイトやアプリケーションが開発されてきたが、その中でも、Kahoot ! はゲーム型教育用システムとして学習者の間で特に高い人気が得られているという調査結果がある。Kahoot ! は、学習者のモティベーションと学力を高める効果があることから、Kahoot ! を利用したゲーム型学習に関する研究を行うべきであると述べられていた (Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2017)。

Licorish(2018) らは、Kahoot ! は学習者の教室でのラーニングの質を高める効果があり、とりわけ教室での活気や学習者のモティベーションなどが改善されていたと報告している。また、教育用ゲームを取り入れることにより、学習者の注意力が散漫になるのを最小限にし、ティーチングとラーニングの質を高めることができたという。一方、Grinias (2017) は、ICT ツールを使用することで、教員が瞬時学習者の知識に対する理解度を把握することができると指摘しており、Kahoot ! を使用することを提案している。そこで、筆者
は、2019 年の秋学期の対面授業と 2020 年のオンライン授業において Kahoot ! を取り入れることとした。本稿は、その実践についての報告である。

82

授業活動におけるKahoot!の活用―対面授業とオンライン授業での実践を通して

Kahoot ! の使い方について
Kahoot ! を使用するにあたっては、まず教員がそのウェブサイトに登録し、教員としてのアカウントを持つ必要がある。会員として登録する際に無料か有料かを選択して使用することとなる。無料で使用する場合、クイズ問題を出題する際に作成できる機能は限られているものの、学習者の内容の理解度を確認するためのクイズとして用いるのには十分であると思われる。一方、有料の会員になると、並べ替えや文字の書き込みなどのクイズもできるようになり、教材としての簡単なスライド作りから、
パワーポイントのスライドのアッ
プロードまでできる機能が使用できる。こうした機能によって、新しい学習内容を展開しながら、クイズを作成することが出来るようになる
教員は授業開始の前に、Kahoot ! のウェ
では、
簡単に Kahoot ! を使った授業の進行について説明する。まず、ブサイトにてクイズ問題を準備しておく。授業中、教員が同ウェブサイトから、あらかじめ準備したクイズを起動し、それを教室内のプロジェクトスクリーンに映し出す。学生は、各自が持っている携帯端末に、プ
ロジェクトスクリーンに映されているピンナンバーを入力し、さらに自分のニックネームも書き込む。教員は全員が入力したのを確認してから、スタートボタンを押す。すると、スクリーンに早押しクイズの選択肢問題が映し出される。一方、学生の端末にはクイズに答えるためのボタンが表示される。各問題が終了する
たびに、正解とともに正解者と不正解者の人数がそれぞれ表示されるのである。また、正解する時間の短かったトップ 5 名のニックネームも問題ごとに表示され、その得点が付けられる。全問が終了した際には、合計点が最も高かったトップ 5 名のニックネームが表示され、画面上で表彰が行われる。

対面授業における試み
筆者は、これまで TOEIC の授業を行う際に、語彙や Part 5 の学習活動において Kahoot ! の早押しクイズを取り入れてきた。これまで何度となく学生の反応を観察したことがあるが、その際、多くの学生がKahoot ! に対してポジティブな態度があることが見受けられた。そこで、TOEIC の Part 5 のような学習だ
けでなく、通常の語学授業においても応用できるのではないかと考えていた。筆者は、リーディングとライ
ティングのスキルを教えた際、学生によってスキルの定着が不安定で、なかでもレベルの低いクラスにおいては、定着が特に難しいと感じていた。そこで、Kahoot ! の早押しクイズを取り入れて、楽しく学習をリピートすることによって、スキルの定着を図ろうと考えたのであった。

Kahoot ! の取り扱い方法
リーディングとライティングの授業における Kahoot ! を用いる方法と目的については、以下の通りである。
（1）学生の英語力の確認
授業のはじめに、その日に取り扱う学習内容の中に、すでに高校などで勉強してきた内容について早押しクイズを作ることで、高校で学習した内容の理解度を確認することを目的とする。
（2）テキストに対する理解を確認
リーディングとライティングの授業で使っていたテキストには多くの練習問題が載っている。それらの問
題に少し手を加えて、Kahoot ! の早押しクイズ問題を作成することにより、テキストの知識の復習や定着の確認をすることができる。
（3）授業の進行につれて、常に新しい知識の定着を確認する

Kahoot ! の有料バージョンを用いることで、クイズ問題を作るだけでなく、内容を説明するスライドも作成し、アップロードすることができる。新しい内容をスライドで説明し、その後、すぐにクイズによってその新しい知識の定着を確かめるという方法にて、スライド毎に学生の学習内容に関する理解度を確認することができる。
83

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）（4）学生のクイズ問題作りにより知識の理解度を深める
学習した内容について、学生にクイズ問題を作らせ、知識の理解度をより深めさせようとするものである。
また、自分が作成した問題がクイズに出ることによって、授業への参加やモティベーションの向上を高めていく効果が期待できる。
（5）雰囲気作り・気分転換

100 分の授業の中で、Kahoot ! が学習内容の定着だけでなく、教室の雰囲気作りや学生の集中力を保つた
めにも役に立つことができるのではないかと考えられる。より効果を上げるためには、Kahoot ! を行うタイ
ミングと頻度も考える必要がある。通常、一つのクイズを実施する場合には、授業のちょうど真ん中の時間に行い、二つのクイズを実施する場合には、前半と後半に分けるように工夫する。
図1

図2
Kahoot ! ゲームによって、知識の理解を深めた

Kahoot ! ゲームによって、授業中の気分転換ができた
35

5

5

0

0

そう思わない

10

あまりそう
思わない

10

どちらとも
いえない

15

多少そう思う

15

そう思う

20

そう思わない

20

あまりそう
思わない

25

どちらとも
いえない

25

多少そう思う

30

そう思う

30

14

10

12

5

10

0

8

そう思わない

15

あまりそう
思わない

16

どちらとも
いえない

20

多少そう思うKahoot ! ゲームの問題を作ることによって、いい復習ができた

図4
Kahoot ! ゲームの問題を作ることによって、ゲームは一層楽しくなった

そう思う

図3

6
4
2

そう思わない

あまりそう
思わない

どちらとも
いえない

多少そう思う

84

そう思う

0

授業活動におけるKahoot!の活用―対面授業とオンライン授業での実践を通して

5

0

0

そう思わない

5

あまりそう
思わない

10

どちらとも
いえない

10

多少そう思う

15

そう思う

15

そう思わない

20

あまりそう
思わない

20

どちらとも
いえない

図6
Kahoot ! ゲームを授業にもっと取り入れるべきだ

多少そう思うKahoot ! ゲームはめんどうだと思うときがある

そう思う

図5

学生の反応
学期末に、学生に対して Kahoot ! についてのアンケートを行った。アンケート集計結果は、図 1 から図 6のとおりである。
図 1 から図 6 まで示したように、学生は Kahoot ! ゲームをよく受け入れてくれたことがわかる。特に授業中の気分転換や知識理解においては、Kahoot ! ゲームが大好評のようであった（図 1 と図 2）。クイズの問題
は教員が作成するが、中間や期末の復習を行うときには、学生が作成したこともあった。それに対する学生の反応については、図 3 と図 4 で示したように、復習できたとか、知識を深めることが出来たといった回答が多かった。Kahoot ! をやるには、学生が各自で端末とネット環境を備える必要がある。もし、ネット環境
が不安定の場合にクイズに参加すると時間がかかり反応が遅くなるときがある。こうした煩わしさに対する学生の態度については図 5 に示したが、さほど面倒だとは思っていないようである。毎回の授業で、

Kahoot ! を一回やることについては、図 6 が示したように、学生はもっとやりたがっていたようである。
教員から見た学生の変化
筆者はそれまでに教室の中で、様々なゲームを学習の中に取り入れたが、ICT ツールを使うデジタルゲー
ムを取り扱うのがはじめてであったため、Kahoot ! を授業に取り入れようとしたときに、少し不安があった。
しかし、その不安は学生の輝いていた目つきに一気に飛ばされた。いくつかの例を挙げて、学生の授業中での様子を紹介していく。
（1）Kahoot ! ゲームに参加することで、学生全員が学習活動に集中できた。その上、早押しクイズによる得点を争うため、勝つ時の歓声や負けるときの悔しさのため息などが、教室内で溢れていた。
（2）一つのゲームは約十分で終わるが、終わったときに、時々もう一回やりたいと学生からの反応が多く挙がってきた。また、授業中に、「先生、今日 Kahoot ! をやらないの ?」と学生が聞いてくることがあった。
（3）図 1 から図 6 までのデータの中に、英語の学力が低いクラスも含まれている。そのクラスには、時々「も授業に集中しない学生がいたが、Kahoot ! ゲームになると、全員が集中することができたようで、
う一回やりたい」という声もよく挙がってきた。
（4）Kahoot ! ゲームの内容に関する質問が少しずつ増えてきたようであった。

85

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）（5）次回 Kahoot ! ゲームで実施する問題を学生に作らせていたが、普段の教科書の課題より真剣に取り込んでいたようであった。また、学生が問題を作るときのコツをお互いに真似して学び合う傾向が見られた。

オンライン授業での Kahoot ! の活用について
前節で示した図 1 から図 6 までは、対面授業が実施されていた 2019 年秋学期のデータである。2020 年春
学期からは、全クラスオンライン授業が実施されるようになり、筆者もすべてのクラスで Zoom による双方
配信リアルタイムの授業を行うこととなった。リーディングとライティング 1 と TOEIC の授業において対面授業と同様に Kahoot ! ゲームを取り入れた。学期末にアンケートも実施した。同アンケートの集計結果は、
図 7 から図 11 に示したとおりである。これを図 1 から図 6 までのデータと比較すると、Kahoot ! に対する学
生の反応は、オンライン授業においても対面授業とは大きな差がないのではないかと考えられる。

オンライン授業における Kahoot ! ゲームに対する学生の感想
学生の感想について、いくつかの共通する項目を抜粋して、分類してまとめると以下の通りである。
（1）Kahoot ! が楽しい

Kahoot ! をやることで、オンライン授業も楽しく受けることができた。
（2）授業への集中や知識理解について
オンラインだとやはり集中力が続きにくいので、ゲームが途中に入ると嬉しく感じ、同時に授業の理解も深められた。また、このオンライン授業という環境下でも皆と繋がっている感じがする。教室で学ぶより、教えられた知識が残りやすいと感じた。そして、時間制限やハイスコアを意識して、問題文をテンポよく読もうとしたりして集中力が高い状態で学習できた。リーディングスキルを学んですぐ Kahoot! で確認できたので、特に間違えたところについては確実に理解できたと思う。

15

25

10

20

5

15

0

10
5

そう思わない

あまりそう
思わない

どちらとも
いえない

多少そう思う

そう思う

0

86

未回答

30

そう思わない

20

あまりそう
思わない

35

どちらとも
いえない

図8
Kahoot ! をやることで、授業に集中できた

多少そう思うKahoot ! をやることによって、授業中の気分転換ができた

そう思う

図7

授業活動におけるKahoot!の活用―対面授業とオンライン授業での実践を通して

14

25

12

20

10

15

8

10

6

5

4

0

2

未回答

そう思わない

あまりそう
思わない

どちらとも
いえない

多少そう思う

そう思う

0

そう思わない

30

あまりそう
思わない

16

どちらとも
いえない

図 10
Kahoot ! をやることによって、知識理解が深まった

多少そう思うKahoot ! をやることによって、モティベーションが上がった

そう思う

図9

図 11

Kahoot ! を毎回やった方が良い
25
20
15
10
5

そう思わない

あまりそう
思わない

どちらとも
いえない

多少そう思う

そう思う

0（3）ゲーム性についてゲームがあるのとないのでは参加しようと思う気持ちが全然違った。理解を深めながら、周りと良い意味で競い合うことができた。正解できないと悔しくて、次は頑張ろうと思えた。
（4）その他
個人的にはあまり好きではないが、知識を深めることに関しては効果があったと思う。また、気楽に息抜きとして楽しめたが、適当に押していることもあったりして、一問間違えてしまうとモティベーションが下がってしまうことがある。

87

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

Kahoot ! の実施にあたっての課題（1）安定するインターネット環境と使用できるデバイス

Kahoot ! を実施することにあたっては、インターネット環境と学生自身の端末が必須条件である。教室での対面授業の場合、キャンパス内の WiFi を利用することで、学生が持っている携帯またはパソコンなどの端末を使用することができるため、大きな問題がなかった。しかし、オンライン授業の場合には、Zoom で授業を受けるために一つのデバイスを使うことになり、Kahoot ! ゲームに参加するためには、もう一つの別のデバイスが必要となる。学生はパソコンで Zoom の授業を受けながら、携帯端末で Kahoot ! ゲームに参加
するのが最も理想的である。もしパソコンのみで Kahoot ! ゲームに参加する場合であっても、パソコンの画面を二つに分け、「Zoom 画面（クイズ問題を見るための画面）」と「クイズを答えるためのボタンの画面」
を作ることで、ゲームに参加することができる。しかし、学生が携帯一台しか所有していない場合には、ゲームには参加できないことになる。そのため、筆者は、オンライン授業で Kahoot ! を実施する際、事前にアンケートを行い、すべての学生が二つ以上のデバイス（パソコン、iPad、携帯等）を持っていることを確認してから、Kahoot ! を授業に取り入れたのである。
オンライン授業の場合、もう一つ問題となるのがインターネット環境である。筆者は Zoom の授業を行う
際に、常に WiFi ではなく有線を使っていたため、Zoom から Kahoot ! ゲーム立ち上げる際に、一度もトラブルが発生することはなかった。しかし、Zoom から Kahoot ! を使用する場合には、安定したインターネッ
ト環境が必要となると考えられる。また、学生のインターネット環境がそれぞれ異なっていたため、ゲームを開始する際に時間がかかる場合があった。そうした状況が発生した際の対応について学生と事前に話し合っておいた方が、授業がスムーズにいくと思われる。
（2）実名か匿名か

Kahoot ! ゲームに参加する際に、ニックネームを入力する必要がある。筆者は、これまで匿名と実名（ファーストネームのみ）を両方使ったことがある。p. 87（4）や、また図 1 から図 11 までに示したたように、少数ではあると思われるが、Kahoot ! のような競争し合うゲームが苦手な学生がいるようである。そのため、こうした学生にとっては、匿名の方が参加しやすいのではないだろうかと思われる。一方、実名のファーストネームでの参加であれば、教員が学生それぞれの理解度を確認できるため、その後の個別指導などもできるようになり、クラス全体の学力向上につながる。

オンライン授業で Kahoot ! を使うメリット
オンライン授業において、Kahoot! をやる際に、匿名で名前を入力するようにしたところ、当初学生たち
は何となくニックネームをつけていた。しかし、何回か実施していく中で、ニックネームでその時々の気持
ちや考えを表すようになってきた。つまり、学生たちはお互いのニックネームを見て、それに答えるような
ニックネームを付けるようになったのである。こうしたニックネームの画面はまるで掲示板のように、学生同士がコミュニケーションを取り合っているようにも思えた。これは、オンライン授業において学生同士の交流を生み出す貴重な活動となっているのではないかとも考えられる。

考察
本節では、上記に述べたことを踏まえて、学習活動における Kahoot ! の役割について分析して考察を行う。
「ゲームを教育に利用する長所と短所」について、意欲面、効果面、効率面と環境面に藤本氏（2015a）は、Kahoot ! の役割を探っていきたい。
焦点を当てて行われていると述べていた。本考察もこの四つの面に関して、
また、対面授業とオンライン授業における Kahoot ! の効果を比較してみよう。

88

授業活動におけるKahoot!の活用―対面授業とオンライン授業での実践を通して（1）意欲面「学習活動への意欲を高めやすい点」は , ゲームの最も基本的な長所として認
藤本氏（2015a, p. 239）は、識されているという。前述の二つの学生を対象としたアンケートの結果から、Kahoot ! は、ほかの教育に利用されるゲームと同様に、学生のモティベーションを向上させることができると考えられる。また、ゲームの難易度を調節することによって、英語学習が不得意な学生も勝つチャンスがあるので、学習意欲の向上にもつながりやすい。一方、図１から図 11 までのアンケート結果と p. 87（4）のコメントに示されたように、
わずかであるが、Kahoot ! を好まない学生もいるので、授業を行う際にそれを忘れてはいけないのである。
（2）効果面リーディングとライティングのスキルを定着させる際に、Kahoot ! は効果的であると考えられる。それは藤本氏（2015a, p. 240）が述べられていたように「フィードバックを通した学習改善を起こしやすい」ということである。学生と教員が双方向での確認を通して、即時のフィードバックができ、知識の定着をはかる「ゲームで勝つことを優先して学習が疎かにされやことができると思われる。一方、藤本氏（2015a）は、すい」と指摘されていた。本事例においてもわずかではあるが、こうした現象も見られることから、注意が必要であろう。
（3）効率面藤本氏（2015a）は、効率面における長所と短所を指摘していたが、Kahoot ! ゲームにおいては、効率面に関する短所は特に見られなかった。本報告が取り上げた一つのゲームは、10 問から 15 問であり、フィー
ドバックの時間を含めても約 10 分から 15 分間と割と短時間で終了するためである。
（4）環境面

Kahoot ! を利用するにあたっての環境面については、前述の p. 88（1）のとおりである。
（5）対面授業とオンライン授業における Kahoot ! の相違
対面授業では Kahoot ! を実施する際に、全員が同じ場所にいるので、ゲームが盛り上がっているのが目に見える。一方、オンライン授業の場合は、学生一人でパソコンの画面をみてやっているので、ゲーム性は対面授業より欠けているのではないかと考えていた。ところが、学生の声を聞くと、むしろオンライン授業でやる Kahoot ! の役割のほうが大きいと思われる。オンライン授業では、特にカメラオフの場合に、学生一人が教員と授業をやっているように感じる。そこで、Kahoot ! を取り入れることによって、ほかの学生と競争し合うのが見えて、学び合う仲間とのコミュニケーションも取れるのである。これは、オンライン授業を受ける学生にとって、とても大事であると考える。

これからの課題
本報告は、 対 面 授 業 と オ ン ラ イ ン 授 業 に お け る Kahoot ! の 役 割 を 考 察 し た。 両 授 業 形 態 に お いて、

Kahoot ! の役割の重要性が改めて確認できた。また、筆者は、対面授業より、オンライン授業のほうがKahoot ! の役割が大きいのではないかという仮説を立てた。仮説の検証には、さらに詳細なデータを用いて確認することが必要だと考えられることから、今後さらなる研究が必要であると考える。

89

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

参考文献
藤本徹（2015a）ゲーム学習の新たな展開 . 放送メディア 研究 , (12), 233–252.
藤本徹（2015b）ゲーム要素を取り入れた授業デザイン枠 組の開発と実践 . 日本教育工学会論文誌 , 38(4),351–361.
山内真理 (2017) Kahoot! による学生参加の促進 ­ゲーム要素による学習態度の変容コンピュータ＆エデュ
ケーション (43). 18–23.

Bicen, H. & Kocakoyun, S. (2017). Determination of university studentsʼ most preferred mobile application
for gamification. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues. 9(1), 18­23.
Grinias, J.P. (2017). Making a game out of it: Using web-based competitive quizzes for quantitative analysis
content review. Journal of Chemistry Education. 94, 1363–1366. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.
7b00311
Licorishl. S. A., Owen H. E., Daniel, B. & George, J. L.,(2018). Studentsʼ perception of Kahoot!ʼs influenceon teaching and learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning. 13(9),1­13.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-018-0078-8

90投稿規定・Manuscript Submission Guidelines

多言語教育実践ジャーナル投稿規定
概要：センター内の言語科目における実践報告を年 1 回出版
Ⅰ. 投稿資格

1.

執筆者は（共著の場合はファーストオーサーのみ）、原則として現職の外国語教育研究センター所属
教員とする。特別号、特集号などの場合はこの限りではない。

2.

投稿論文はそのカテゴリーを問わず 1 教員につき 1 本までとする（共著による論文も 1 本と数える）。
ただし、投稿論文数によっては、ジャーナル＆リサーチ委員会による決定を経て掲載号・論文枚数等の調整を受ける場合がある。

3.

投稿論文は過去に出版されておらず、他のジャーナルに現在投稿されているものではないこと。

Ⅱ. 使用言語
原稿執筆にあたっては、センターに所属する教員が広く互いの教育実践及び知識の共有を活性化するにあたり、センター言語科目群に属する日本語、朝鮮語、中国語、フランス語、ドイツ語、スペイン語及び英語での投稿を認める。
Ⅲ. 執筆要項
投稿原稿は未公版のものに限る。

1.

原稿の種類は下記の区分に属するものとする。
授業実践報告：外国語教育研究センター内における言語科目全般における授業実践の報告及び所感や、タスクやアクティビティ等、授業における体験や経験に基づいた報告を行う。可能であれば実践に関連する理論的枠組みと関連づける事。

2.

書式は以下の項目全てをできる限り厳守すること。

（1）原稿サイズ

A4 版を使用し、上下各 19mm、左右各 16mm ずつあける。
42 字 43 行、横書きで、フォントは MS 明朝、12 ポイントを使用。
（2）字数
授業実践報告：6000-8000 字程度
図表、参考資料、参考文献、注、Appendix など全て含める。なお、図表については、明瞭なもの
を当該個所へ貼りつける。貼り付けられない場合は、別ファイルを用意し、挿入個所を明示する。
（3）原稿タイトル

18 ポイントでセンタリングし、各文字を太字にしたスタイルに従う。フォントは上記書式に従う。
（4）氏名
右寄せ、ゴシック体で 12 ポイントとする。タイトルとの間は 1 行あける。
（5）要旨
全ての原稿に、要旨と 3 〜 5 項目のキーワードをつけること。要旨は 500 字程度で執筆すること。
書式は、左右 15mm ずつ全行インデントし、フォントは MS 明朝、11 ポイントを使用する。尚要
旨の言語は執筆言語に関わらず英語あるいは日本語とする。
（6）本文への註釈は、対応する註記を各ページの下に 9 ポイントで表記する。
Ⅳ. 原稿の提出

1.

原稿は電子メールにて、ジャーナル＆リサーチ委員会宛（fler_journal_submission@ml.rikkyo.ac.jp）に送信すること。

2.

提出書類は、次の通りとする。

91

（1）投稿原稿

１部（A4 版）

（2）カバーシート ( 以下の情報を記載の事 )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（第 7 版）スタイルを用いること。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。
Ⅵ. 投稿開始及び締切日
投稿の受付は毎年９月秋学期の開始から行う。初稿の提出締め切り日は 11 月末日とする。
Ⅶ . 査読に関して当該ジャーナルへの投稿に対する査読は行わない。但し基本的な内容及び体裁のチェックをジャーナル＆リサーチ委員会が行い、掲載可否を判断する。
Ⅷ . 校正及び再提出
内容及び体裁のチェック後、当該ジャーナルのスコープから著しく逸脱する内容や体裁に問題がある場
合、投稿者に対し校正及び再提出の依頼を行う。校正依頼を受けた執筆者は、原稿の校正を行い、校正依頼を受けた日から起算して 2 週間以内に再提出を行うものとする。校正後の原稿はジャーナル＆リサーチ委員会による最終確認を経て掲載可否の判断を行うものとし、執筆者に結果を通知する。尚出版社より体裁等の追加の修正依頼があった場合は、再度の校正を執筆者に依頼する場合がある。
Ⅸ . 出版
当該ジャーナルは毎年 3 月に出版される。
Ⅹ. CiNii 及び立教リポジトリへの登録掲載された論文は、立教大学を通して CiNii（国立情報学研究所論文情報ナビゲーター [ サイニィ ]）及び立教大学学術リポジトリに登録される。
Ⅺ. その他の要件

1.

原稿料は支払わない。

2.

掲載された論文の著作権は、原則として立教大学外国語教育研究センターに帰属する。ただし、著者が著者自身の研究・教育活動に使用する際は、許可なく使用することができるものとする。

3.

万が一出版後、剽窃等の不正が発覚した場合は当該論文をジャーナルから削除する。

92

投稿規定・Manuscript Submission Guidelines

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

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

II. Language
In order to effectively share knowledge and research activity amongst FLER-affiliated instructors,
we accept manuscripts written in one of the following languages: Japanese, Korean, Chinese,
German, French, Spanish, and English.
III. Content and Formatting Guidelines
Contributions are limited to previously unpublished work.
1. We accept contributions in the following area:
Practical Teaching Reports: Reflective reports on your teaching practice in any language
courses at the Center for Foreign Language Education and Research. Reports should include
a reflection, and detailed descriptions of tasks and/or activities. Make sure to establish aclear connection between your teaching practice and theoretical/pedagogical rationale
where possible.
2. Please ensure to follow all formatting guidelines listed below:(1) Size: Use A4-sized paper, leaving margins of 25mm at the top and bottom and of 25mm
on both sides of the text. The letters in the text should be Times New Roman 12 point,
single-spaced.
(2) Length: Teaching Practice Reports should be approximately 3000–5000 words in length
including graphs, charts, the reference list, and appendices. Graphs and charts should beembedded in the text. However, if it is difficult to do so, please submit as a separate file,
but leave space and indicate where they should go in the text.
(3) 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 and written
in Times New Roman 12 point. Leave one line between the title and the name of theauthor/s.
(5) Abstract: Manuscripts should be accompanied by a 150–250 word abstract in either

93

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻 （JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 1）

Japanese or English, which includes 3 to 5 keywords for the article at the bottom. For theabstract, the text should be indented 15mm from the left and right and written in Times
New Roman 11 point.
(6) Footnotes: Footnotes should be placed at the bottom of each page, in 9 point.
3. Manuscripts should be submitted electronically to the Journal & Research Committee atfler_journal_submission@ml.rikkyo.ac.jp
4. The following are required at the time of submission.
(1) An electronic copy of the manuscript.
(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 used in the article.
(c) Category: Select an appropriate category for your submission(d) Language: Indicate the language which the author teaches irrespective of thelanguage used in the manuscript.
IV. Footnotes and Referencing
The author is responsible for consistently adhering to APA (7 th edition).
V.

Call and Deadline for Submission
Submissions begin at the beginning of every fall semester. The deadline for submission is thelast day of November.

VI. Peer Review
Submissions to the journal will not undergo peer review. However, the Journal & ResearchCommittee will check the basic contents and appearance and determine whether to accept it for
publication.
VII. Revision and Resubmission
After checking, if the content deviates significantly from the scope of the journal or there is aproblem with the format, the author will be requested to revise and resubmit. Authors who havereceived a revision request shall revise the manuscript and submit it again within two weeks fromthe date of receiving the request. A final review will be conducted by the Journal & ResearchCommittee to determine if the work is publishable. The author will be notified of the decisiononce the final review is completed. The author may be asked to further revise the manuscript if
there is any stylistic/format issue.
VIII. Journal Publication
The journal is published annually in March.
IX. Registration on CiNii and Rikkyo Repositor yContributions to the FLER Journal will be registered on the national CiNii database and the
Rikkyo University Academic Repository.

94

投稿規定・Manuscript Submission Guidelines

X. Other conditions
1. No remuneration is offered to the author(s).
2. The copyright of articles published in the FLER Journal resides with Center for Foreign
Language Education & Research, Rikkyo University. However, the author(s) retains the rightto use his/her work for future research and/or educational purposes without permission.
3. If any plagiarism or misconduct is discovered after the work is published, the published work
will be removed from the journal.

95

【執筆者・AUTHORS】

Aika Miura, Ph.D.
Aika Miura, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Center for Foreign Language Education and Research at
Rikkyo University. She has been involved with English Language Teaching for business people and tertiary
education in Japan for over twenty years. She received her doctoral degree from Tokyo University of Foreign
Studies in 2019. Her main research interest includes interlanguage pragmatics and corpus linguistics.

Andrew Tyner
Andrew Tyner is a lecturer at the Center for Foreign Language Education and Research at Rikkyo University
in Tokyo, Japan. He is interested in finding the most effective means to deliver, or other wise facilitate,actionable, performance-based student feedback. He is also interested in optimization of lesson structures forlearners of English as a second language.

Andrew Warrick
Andrew Warrick is an English Teacher at Rikkyo University. He obtained his M.A. in Sociology from the
University of Hawaii at Manoa in 2010, but has been teaching English in Japan since 2007. His researchinterests include CALL, WTC, and curriculum design. He has been a member of the Japan Association of
Language Teaching since 2019.

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 inter-cultural elements in the learning environment.
Her volunteer activities include poverty alleviation and awareness-raising about human trafficking.

Heather Woodward
Heather Woodward earned her M.S.Ed in TESOL from Temple University in 2018. Heather taught in China,
Vietnam, and Japan before joining Rikkyo University in 2019. Her academic interests include TBLT, CALL, andmaterial development.

Laura Padfield
Laura Padfield is earning her MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT at Nottingham University. Laura had taught
EFL at universities in Tokyo and Yokohama, and has also taught in the UK, Vietnam and Europe. Their
academic interests related to teaching include syllabus design, intercultural communication, and CALL.
Outside of ELT, they are interested in political and media and social media discourse and language and gender.

Jon Mahoney
Jon Mahoney is a lecturer in English education at Rikkyo University. He has been teaching English in Japanfor over 12 years. He achieved a MEd in TESOL from Sheffield Hallam University in 2018. His main researchinterests include English as a lingua franca, CLIL and developing critical thinking skills.

96執筆者・AUTHORS

Jonathan Hennessy
Jonathan Hennessy has a masterʼs degree in TESOL from Central Connecticut State University and is 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 are centered aroundorganic use of language and turn taking and how activity design and teacher intervention can help students
understand how to better navigate their conversations and discussions.
松本

旬子（マツモトジュンコ）

慶應義塾大学法学部専任講師、拓殖大学商学部准教授を経て、2020 年 4 月より立教大学外国語教育研究センター准教授。人文学博士（清泉女子大学）、外国語としてのスペイン語教育 DEA (Diploma de Estudios Avanzados)(Universidad Antonio de Nebrija)。専門はスペイン語教育、スペイン語音声学。主たる研究は、日本語母語話者によるスペイン語の二重子音や母音の発話・知覚、その教育。

若杉

莉末 （ワカスギ

リモ）

立教大学外国語教育研究センター教育講師。研究分野は、会話分析と第二言語習得における個人差である。大学での教育・研究だけでなく、これまで、日本の小・中・高等学校での教育実践により、学習者のモティベーショ
ンの向上や知識定着のための様々な授業活動に関する知見を有している。また、第二言語習得における異文化
理解についても関心がある。

97

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第1巻（ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, Vol. 1 ）
発行日

発行者

2021 年 3 月 1 日

立教大学 外国語教育研究センター（Center for Foreign Language Education and Research, Rikkyo University）〒 171-8501 東京都豊島区西池袋 3 − 34 − 1

製作

株式会社インターブックス〒 102-0073 東京都千代田区九段北 1−5−10

ISSN 2436-2204©2021 立教大学 外国語教育研究センター

1

JOURNAL OF
MULTILINGUALPEDAGOGYAND PRACTICE

Vol.

MARCH 2021

Center for Foreign Language Education and Research,
Rikkyo University