acknowledgements
The studies reported here was supported in part by:• Waseda University Grant for Special Research Projects (Special Research B) /Title: Production of English Question Sentences by Japanese Learners ofEnglish: Improvements through Automatization / PI: Yasunari Harada /Number: 2016K-022• Waseda University Grant for Special Research Projects (Basic Research) / Title:
Test and Training of Syntactic Processing for Improved Production of English
Question Sentences by Japanese Learners of English / PI: Yasunari Harada /Number: 2016K-028• Waseda University Grant for Special Research Projects (Basic Research) / Title:
Automatization and Proficiency Improvement among Japanese EFL learners ofEnglish through enhancement of language processing short-term memory / PI:Yasunari Harada / Number: 2015K-025• JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science) Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research (B) / Title: Autonomous mutual learning process by Japanese EFL
learners through interaction / PI: Yasunari Harada Number : 15H03226• JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science) Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research (A) / Title: An investigation of the automatization process in second
language processing with respect to noticing, attention and interactivealignment / PI: Hirokazu Yokokawa / Number : 26244031(C) Copyright 2002-2015, Y.
Harada, et. al.

All Rights Reserved.

1March 5th, 2017 (Saturday) Building 8, Waseda University
Learning to Communicate in English through Interactions:
Promoting and Prompting Japanese University Students toAsk and Answer Questions in English
JELES-47: the 47th Annual Meeting of the English Language
Education Society of Japan

Yasunari HARADA
harada@waseda.jp
Miwa MORISHITA
miwa@gc.kobegakuin.ac.jp

purpose of this talk
• Do we have research questions?
– Certainly yes, if it’s a talk on our research results.
• How correctly can our students produce questions?
• Does proficiency levels influence / interact with accuracy?
• What are the causes of this difficulty? Are they important?

– Maybe not, if it’s a talk on our educational practice.
• How can we promote our students to ask questions?
• How can we enhance students’ knowledge and performance?

• integration: dichotomy is only apparently real
– learning and testing– research and education– data collection (for research) and practice for learningneed for integration in college-level English

language education (and testing) today• knowledge (grammar / vocabulary) and performance(online processing)– disparity between OQPT and VET scores– production and reproduction of questions• integrated tasks in language tests– Versant English Test
– TOEFL iBT• integration in college curriculum– problems inherent in skill-based classes– trends in English language textbooks– integration of language and computer education– integration of language and liberal arts education(C) 2002-2015, Y. Harada andothers.

All Rights Reserved.

4

significance of simultaneous learning• effectiveness of project-based learning– hour of comprehensive study in the new study outline
 Students today love group work.
– cross-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary learning– importance of project management skills• necessity for learning methodology / tools /contents at the same time
– calculus and mechanics / R and statistics– prolog and logic / logic programming and featurebased syntax and semantics– learning English to learning in English• avoid proliferation of courses– no need for omnibus courses– reduction of courses(C) Copyright 2000-2015,
Yasunari HARADA et. al.

All Rights Reserved.

5three major roles English teachers are expected
to perform in Japanese college education today• enhance students’ English proficiency (exitrequirement)– what kinds of skills and / or proficiency needed ?
• reading / writing / listening / speaking• fluency / accuracy / logic / persuasion• pragmatics / socio-linguistic factors / awareness of BA• enhance students’ general academic skills– integrate available information and think critically– write logically / speak persuasively– learn to quote and cite and give proper references– learn to use computers and networks• enhance students’ general interactive skills– College students are afraid if they can make friends.
– too afraid to take chances and talk to each other6

purpose of our teaching practice• Effective communication results incontinued and successful exchange ofquestions and answers.

• Successful learners must be ready toform and utter questions on the fly.
• Students must be promoted andprompted to produce questions ininteractive environments.
7

Why is it so important to be able to ask complex
and accurate questions in English communication?
• challenges: global human resource development
initiatives in Japan• introduction or adoption of four-skills tests forcollege entrance and beyond• acquisition of communicative competence
 one of the most important objectives of English
language learning / education in Japan- as set forth by MEXT
- in the recognition of teachers and students• asking the right question at the right time: an integral part of oral interactions.
• “communicative approaches”
 less training in grammar

approaches to improve students’question formation (1st year)• oral response practice: exposure to 300 questions
twice in 30 class sessions over a year
– groups of three with a video camera and 10 question
cards and peer evaluation forms 30 times a year
– questioner: reads one question card aloud twice– respondent: 10 seconds to think and 45 seconds toanswer– time-keeper: keeps time and video record– respondent and time keeper evaluates– change roles with the next question card
– everyone writes a 500 word essay in 30 minutes(C) Copyright 2002-2012, Y.
Harada, et. al.

All Rights Reserved.

9

spring semester of 1st-year students• shift and rotate seat assignment• submission of homework and activity record:
essays: topic / length / time to finish
extensive reading: pages read / time spent• oral response practice• essay writing / essay review and revision• watching CNN / EnglishCentral / STO dictation• questions: reproduction / conversion / circle tasks• homework– completion of essay / revision– extensive reading with graded readers / chapter books/ picture books(C) Copyright 2001-2011,
Yasunari Harada et. al.

All Rights Reserved.

10fall semester of 1st-year students• shift and rotate seat assignment• submission of homework and activity record:
essays: topic / length / time to finish
extensive reading: pages read / time spent• oral response practice• small-group presentations on topics discussed• essay writing / essay review and revision• watching CNN / EnglishCentral / STO dictation• questions: reproduction / conversion / circle tasks• homework– completion of essay / revision– extensive reading with graded readers / chapter books/ picture books(C) Copyright 2001-2011,
Yasunari Harada et. al.

All Rights Reserved.

11self-evaluation• can read one graded reader book / chapter book /picture book in one week
• can write a 400- / 300- / 200-word essay in half hour
• can start responding to a question in 10 seconds• can keep responding to a question for 45 seconds• can respond to a question coherently• can respond to a question with examples or reasons• can respond to a question with reasonable eye-contact/ smile(C) Copyright 2001-2011,
Yasunari Harada et. al.

All Rights Reserved.

12

approaches to improve students’question formation (1st year)• oral response practice: exposure to 300 questions
twice in 30 class sessions over a year
– groups of three with a video camera and 10 question
cards and peer evaluation forms 30 times a year
– questioner: reads one question card aloud twice– respondent: 10 seconds to think and 45 seconds toanswer– time-keeper: keeps time and video record– respondent and time keeper evaluates– change roles with the next question card
– everyone writes a 500 word essay in 30 minutes(C) Copyright 2002-2012, Y.
Harada, et. al.

All Rights Reserved.

13pedagogical findings after the facts• importance of audience for authentic communication– Students read the question aloud to be answered.
– Students respond to be heard and understood.

• inherent information gap– Respondents are not to look at question cards.
– Responses are personal experiences and opinions.

• game-like setting and recording devices as scaffolding– realistic constraints such as response time
– easier than ordinary pair activity• Japanese students low in communicative competence(C) Copyright 2001-2009,
Yasunari Harada et. al.

All Rights Reserved.

14

approaches to improve students’question formation (1st year)• video jam session– everyone watches video clips of their own
choice on CNN web site
– 2 or 3 pages of PowerPoint slides in 5 min.
– presentations within groups of four (or less)– each student is expected to pose at least
one question for one presentation– video record the entire interactions

approaches to improve students’question formation (1st year fall)• small group presentations– several pages of PowerPoint slides based on
immediately preceding oral response practice– presentations within groups of four (or less)– each student pose one question for one
presentation– video record the interaction

reality check: our methodology• Three tests, with Tera bytes of language data:
1. Versant English Test (spoken English)
2. Versant Writing Test (written English)
3. Oxford Quick Placement Test

• Freshman students at Waseda University• Administered Versant four times and OQPT
three times in academic year 2015-2016– April, July, October*, December

Versant English Test
• Spoken English Test , 17 minutes• Automated scoring with ASR• Optimized for English learner speech patterns
including Japanese learners of English• Overall + four subscores– Sentence Mastery– Vocabulary– Fluency– Pronunciation

Versant English Test
• High frequency vocabulary in conversation(Most frequent 8,000 words in SwitchboardCorpus）• Relatively simple structures and expressions• Items recorded at natural conversation paceby amateur native English speakers• Focus on the ability to “listen, then speak” inreal-time (=facility in spoken English)• Psycholinguistic approach(C) 2002-2013, Y. Harada andothers.

All Rights Reserved.

19

Versant Writing Test
• Written English Test , ~40 minutes• Automated scoring with Latent SemanticAnalysis• Overall + four subscores– Grammar– Vocabulary– Organization– Voice & Tone
– Reading Comprehension

Oxford Quick Placement Test
• Paper and pencil version (CD-ROM version
includes listening)• Focuses on Vocab, Grammar, Usage• 30 minutes, 60 multiple choice items (max 60points)• Recommended to be combined with speaking
and writing test
• Concordance with CEFR levels(C) 2002-2013, Y. Harada andothers.

All Rights Reserved.

21

The relation of the VET, VWT, and OQPT to the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
VET

VWT

OQPT

CEFR
level

CEFR level description

79-80

77-80

55-60

C2Mastery (Upper advanced)

69-78

67-76

48-54

C1

Effective proficiency (Loweradvanced)

58-68

54-66

40-47

B2

Vantage (Upper intermediate)

47-57

44-53

30-39

B1

Threshold (Lower intermediate)

36-46

30-43

18-29

A2

Waystage (Elementary)

26-35

20-29

10-17

A1

Breakthrough

0-9<A1(Beginner)

20-25

Versant Descriptive Statistics (Overall)
N = 53; Only freshman students who had both VET and VWT scores all four times
Versant English Test (VET)
VET

April

July

Sept

December

Mean

38.89

41.47

40.57

42.42

SD

6.77

6.45

6.18

5.54

Min272925

31

Max55

6256

60

Versant Writing Test (VWT)
VWT

April

July

Sept

December

Mean

41.45

44.08

44.51

47.75

SD

7.32

8.17

8.00

7.94

Min

20

20

2222

Max

6266

6467

Mean Scores of VET, VWT Overall Scores
80
70
60
VET

50

VWT
40
30
20April

July

Sept

December

For both VET and VWT, the differences in mean scores
between April and December are statistically significant(p<0.01)

Mapping VET scores to CEFR levels
N=53

CEFR
A1A2
B1
B2
C1C2

April
July
Sept
December19 (35.8%) 9 (17.0%) 10 (18.9%) 6 (11.3%)
27 (50.9%) 36 (67.9%) 36 (67.9%) 35 (66.0%)
7 (13.2%) 6 (11.3%) 7 (13.2%) 11 (20.8%)
02 (3.8%)01 (1.9%)00000000
April-September: More than 80% is A1 and A2
December: Changed to A2 and B1

Mapping VWT scores to CEFR levels
N=53

CEFR
A1A2
B1
B2
C1C2

April
July
Sept
December
3 (5.7%)
1 (1.9%)2 (3.8%)2 (3.8%)32 (60.4%) 22 (41.5%) 21 (39.6%) 10 (18.9%)
16 (30.2%) 25 (47.2%) 23 (43.4%) 30 (56.6%)
2 (3.8%)5 (9.4%)7 (13.2%) 10 (18.9%)0001 (1.9%)0000
April-Sept: More than 80% is A2 and B1
December: B1 is more than 55%; A1 and B1 are
the same number

Oxford Quick Placement Test
Descriptive Statistics
The same 53 freshman students.
April: One student did not take OXPT
December: 3 students did not take OQPT

April
(N=52)

July(N=53)

December(N=50)

Mean37.08

38.06

38.24

SD

6.57

5.98

6.44

Min

202521Max

50

4850

Mapping OQPT scores to CEFR levels
CEFR
A1

April(N=52)
0July(N=53)
0December(N=50)
0A2
B1
B2

7 (13.5%)
4 (7.5%)3 (6.0%)25 (48.1%) 25 (47.2%) 27 (54.0%)
19 (36.5%) 21 (39.6%) 16 (32.0%)C1C2

1 (1.9%)0

3 (5.7%)04 (8.0)0

April-December: B1 and B2 have morethan 80% of the students

Thank you for your attention.
Any QUESTIONS?
miwa@gc.kobegakuin.ac.jp
harada@waseda.jp