ISSN 2188-8612

JACET International Convention
Selected Papers
Volume 5

JACET 56th (2017) International Convention
English in a Globalized World: Exploring Lingua Franca Research and Pedagogy

August 29 – 31, 2017
Aoyama Gakuin University

JACET International Convention Selected Papers, Volume 5
Published by the Japan Association of College English Teachers (JACET)JACET Selected Papers Committee
Director-in-Charge
KAWANO, Madoka (Meiji University)

Editorial Board
Chair
OKUGIRI, Megumi (University of the Sacred Heart)

Deputy Chair
KAWAI, Yasushi (Hokkaido University)

SATO, Natsuko (Tohoku Institute of Technology)

DALSKY, David (Kyoto University)

KURAHASHI, Yoko (Tokai Gakuen University)

HAENOUCHI, Hiroko (Nihon University)

NALL, Matthew (Miyagi University)

HIRAMOTO, Satoshi (Yasuda Women’s University)

PENG, Virginia (Ritsumeikan University)

IIDA, Atsushi (Gunma University)

TAKAHASHI, Sachi (Kyoto University)

ITO, Mika (Tokai University)

TOMITA, Kaoru (Yamagata University)

KANAMARU, Toshiyuki (Kyoto University)

TOYA, Mitsuyo (University of the Ryukyus)

KANEKO, Emiko (University of Aizu)

WISTNER, Brian (Hosei University)

KANEKO, Jun (Yamagata University)

Advisory Board
CHEW, Phyllis Ghim-Lian (Nanyang Technological University)
SEIDLHOFER, Barbara (University of Vienna)

JACET Prize & Academic Publication Selection Committee
Head
OZEKI, Naoko (Meiji University)

Vice-Head
IWAI, Chiaki (Hiroshima City University)ii

Reviewers
BABA, Tetsuo (Tokyo Gakugei University)

NOMURA, Kazuhiro (Kobe City University of

FUJIOKA, Mayumi (Osaka Prefecture University)

Foreign Studies)

HIRAKAWA, Makiko (Chuo University)

OGURI, Yuko (Kansai Gaidai University)

IKENO, Osamu (Ehime University)

OISHI, Harumi (Gifu Shotoku Gakuen University)

ITO, Harumi (Kansai Gaidai University)

SAKAI, Hideki (Shinshu University)

IZUMI, Shinichi (Sophia University)

SHIKANO, Midori (Nanzan University)

JIMBO, Hisatake (Professor Emeritus, Waseda University)

TAJIKA, Hiroko (Tsuda University)

KATAGIRI, Kazuhiko (Senshu University)

TAKAGI, Akiko (Aoyama Gakuin University)

KIMURA, Matsuo (Aoyama Gakuin University)

UEMATSU, Shigeo (Doshisha University)

KINOSHITA, Toru (Nagoya University)

WATANABE, Yoshinori (Sophia University)

KOJIMA, Hideo (Bunkyo University)

YAMANE, Shigeru (Kansai University)

KOMIYA, Tomiko (Okazaki Women’s University)

YAMATO, Ryusuke (Kyoto Sangyo University)

LEIS, Adrian (Miyagi University of Education)

YOSHIDA, Kensaku (Sophia University)

MURANOI, Hitoshi (Tohoku Gakuin University)

Cover Design
KASUNO, Shin-ichi
Editorial Office
The JACET Office
Address: 55 Yokotera-machi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 162-0831 JAPAN
Phone: +81-3-3268-9686 /Fax: +81-3-3268-9695

E-mail: jacet@zb3.so-net.ne.jp

First published in August, 2018ISSN 2188-8612
Copyright © 2018 by JACET
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or republished in any form without
permission in writing from JACET.
The articles published herein do not reflect the opinions of JACET.

iii

Contents
Invited Papers*
English as a Lingua Franca: Why is it so Controversial?
······················································Barbara Seidlhofer

2

Lingua Francas and World Orders: The Place of English in a Globalized World·············································Phyllis Ghim-Lian Chew

25

Selected Papers

Research Articles
The Effects of Overseas Study on Japanese University Students: Challenges andOpportunities in the Development of Intercultural Competence and Impacts on Future
Career······························································ Misa Fujio

50

Non-native Preservice English Teachers’ Lexical Usage and Interactional Patterns inTranscriptions Coded on COLT Part B Scheme······························· Noriaki Katagiri and Yukiko Ohashi

80

Student Views of the Monolingual Method···················································· Shigeko Shimazu

111

Children’s Sound-Letter Recognition Knowledge Predicts High Self-Evaluation of English
Abilities: Analyses of Questionnaires and Tests Given to Japanese Elementary SchoolChildren································· Makiko Tanaka and Hiromi Kawai

130

Practitioner Report

Examination of Beneficial and Enjoyable Pronunciation Activities··························································· Junko Chujo

157

Symposium Paper

Person-in-Context Theory and Spirituality in the Japanese College EFL Contexts:
Implications from Theory, Survey, and ELT Practice···············Masao Kanaoka, Ema Ushioda, Atsuko Watanabe,
and Chihiro Kato 178

Submission Guidelines ············································································ 199* The two papers are contributions from the plenary speakers of the JACET 56th
International Convention (2017, Tokyo) at Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan,
from August 29 to 31, 2017.

Invited Papers

Seidlhofer, B.
English as a Lingua Franca

English as a Lingua Franca: Why is it so Controversial?

Barbara Seidlhofer
University of Vienna

Abstract
As networks of digital communication have vastly extended over recent years and changed all
our lives, whether we like it or not, so the use of English has spread to become a global
lingual franca as the means for this communication. This is not a matter of dispute. What has
been, and still is, a matter of dispute, however, among sociolinguists and language teachingprofessionals alike is whether this phenomenon warrants serious study. The study of English
as a lingua franca has given rise to a good deal of controversy, and objections have beenraised both about its sociolinguistic validity in theory and about its pedagogic relevance inpractice. In this paper I will consider these objections, and suggest reasons why reactions tothe study of ELF communication have so often been dismissive, not to say hostile. I will thengo on to argue that what makes ELF study so controversial is that it challenges received ideas
which are no longer in accord with the changed realities of the contemporary globalised
world, so that what makes it controversial is precisely what justifies it as a significant area ofenquiry. An understanding of the nature of ELF communication necessarily calls into
question taken-for-granted assumptions that have hitherto informed how English has been
described and taught. These assumptions are deep-rooted, often sustained by tradition andvested interests, and they cannot simply be ignored. ELF study is controversial because it
undermines a sense of security in established ideas and practices. So I will also argue that it isimportant to consider how traditional assumptions can be acknowledged and some continuity
retained in ELF study, particularly when following its pedagogic implications through topractical implementation.
2

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 2-24

Keywords: English as a lingua franca, community, variety, globalization,
language use and learning

Introduction
The JACET 56th International Convention was dedicated to the theme “English in a
Globalized World: Exploring Lingua Franca Research and Pedagogy”. The convention
abstract stated:

As the extent and diversity of English use continue to rapidly grow, we need toreconsider ELF by situating it clearly against the backdrop of a globalized world withconsiderations for issues in applied linguistics and language teaching.

This is what this paper seeks to do. It is true of course that the widespread use ofEnglish as a lingua franca (ELF) is a fact that we cannot but acknowledge (for a succinct
explanation see the introduction to Murata, 2016). It is generally recognized that asinternational contacts such as in business and academia and networks of digitalcommunication have vastly extended over recent years and changed all our lives, whether welike it or not, the use of English has spread to become a global lingual franca as the
predominant means for this communication.
So this is not a matter of dispute. However, what has been, and still is, a matter ofdispute, particularly among sociolinguists and language teaching professionals, is how thisphenomenon is to be understood, and whether it is justified to take it seriously in terms ofresearch and pedagogical implications. The description of the theme of this convention statesvery clearly that JACET has decided this is indeed worth serious study. And it should be
noted that in Japan ELF research and thinking about implications for education policy and3

Seidlhofer, B.
English as a Lingua Francapedagogy have been particularly strong over recent years (see D’Angelo, 2018). This isevidenced, for instance, in the founding of the JACET ELF SIG and JACET ELF SIG
Journal, the Waseda ELF Research Group and Waseda Working Papers in ELF, the CELFIL(Content and ELF Integrated Learning) project (Hino, 2015), the English as a lingua franca
program at Tamagawa University (Oda, 2017), Japanese data in the Asian Corpus of English(ACE), edited volumes on ELF with international publishers (e.g. Murata, 2016), international
research projects and individual PhD projects at numerous Japanese universities, and an
impressive number of contributions from Japan in recent issues of the Journal of English as a
Lingua Franca.
Nevertheless, ELF has remained a controversial matter. So it seems appropriate, toenquire into why this should be so, and to show how insights into what is so controversial
about ELF might actually open our eyes to what is so significant about ELF as both an area of
research and as an orientation to teaching English in today’s globalized world.

Earlier Controversies
In 2003 I edited a book called ‘Controversies in Applied Linguistics.’ The first sectionof the book dealt with controversies concerning the global spread of English, with
contributions from Randolph Quirk and Braj Kachru, Robert Phillipson and other scholars
focusing on world Englishes. The most striking manifestation of the spread of English was
not then represented, for the study of ELF was in its infancy at that time – the VOICE project
was founded a year or two later. If I were to revise this 2003 book, ELF would figure very
prominently. For not only has it developed as an extensive area of study, but it has also givenrise to a great deal of controversy. The idea that ELF is a phenomenon that warrants serious
study still has not, on the whole, found favour with sociolinguists. Researchers in the field ofworld Englishes have tended to see it as somehow undermining the integrity of their own
work. But what has met with the most hostile reaction has been the suggestion that ELF might
4

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 2-24

have possible implications for practical pedagogy. There is something about the very idea of
ELF that raises the hackles of those concerned with TESOL and at times provokes them into
surprisingly intemperate rejection. Why, it is of interest to ask, should this be so? What is thissomething in ELF that is so unacceptable, so provocative, and so annoying? We might
actually start with a controversy that I did include, very prominently, in my 2003 book, theclassic exchange between Randolph Quirk and Braj Kachru published in the journal English
Today. The starting point of this controversy was a lecture Professor Quirk delivered nearly
30 years ago, in Tokyo, at the JALT Conference 1988.
To summarize briefly, Quirk1 forcefully argued in this 1988 lecture that any
manifestations of English that do not belong to some community or other as a property, i.e.
varieties of ENL or nativised world Englishes, are not worthy of attention because no matter
how widespread and socioculturally significant they are as a means of communication, they
are not institutionally established, and their speakers are only capable of what he calls‘performance varieties’ full of errors that are in need of correction. This is because hemaintains that communicative effectiveness depends on correctness in terms of the norms ofnative speakers and/or Standard English (which he conflates). So for Quirk, native speakers
are at the centre of the universe when it comes to English—no matter who uses it, wherever inthe world it is used, and for whatever purposes. And after deploring a tendency he has
observed in various teaching contexts ‘to permit learners to settle for lower standards than thebest’ (p. 9) he concludes his paper like this:Certainly, if I were a foreign student paying good money in Tokyo or Madrid to betaught English, I would feel cheated by such a tolerant pluralism. My goal would be toacquire English precisely because of its power as an instrument of international
communication.

5

Seidlhofer, B.
English as a Lingua Franca

The “instrument of international communication” here is assumed to be Standard
English, equivalent to native-speaker English, and this assumption of the legitimacy of nativespeaker centrality marginalizes all other users of the language as ‘foreign.’ This attitude
comes across particularly clearly in the reference Quirk makes here to “a foreign student
paying good money in Tokyo or Madrid”. For the “foreign student” is of course not aforeigner in his or her own country, but referred to as such by the native speaker of English
talking about the teaching of ‘his’ language in a country that is foreign to him—a primeexample of ‘native-centrism’ that is particularly striking if we remember that the paper is thewritten record of a lecture delivered in Tokyo, where very obviously it was the (English
native) speaker that was the foreigner.
Well, you might say, this happened 30 years ago, and surely things have changed
drastically because the world has changed due to globalization, and because consequently therole and use of English in the world have changed and the “instrument of international
communication” that Quirk talks about has become an object of study by the name of ELF.
But how much has really changed?
It seems to me that when looking at the reasons why ELF research and particularly the
discussion of its (potential) implications for teaching are a matter of lively controversy, thevery same issues are still at stake today as those I have highlighted in my short discussion of
Quirk’s 1988 lecture. So I propose to have a closer look at what is controversial about ELF
today, particularly from a pedagogical perspective, i.e. which objections have been raised byteachers of English (or those speaking on their behalf, e.g. teacher educators/ ‘trainers’). In
doing so, I am not claiming to have any complete answers, let alone ‘solutions’ or ‘recipes,’but my main objective is to provide some insights into what has been perceived asproblematic about ELF and to argue, at the same time, that what makes it controversial isprecisely what justifies it as a significant and necessary contemporary area of enquiry. The
main questions I intend to address, then, are the following:
6

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 2-24-

How is ELF defined, how is it different from familiar concepts of ‘native’ and world
Englishes varieties?

-

What is controversial about the study of ELF communication and the pedagogic
implications this might have? Here the focus will mainly be on the concepts
community, variety and competence.

-

How is the widespread use of ELF relevant to thinking about English language
teaching?

World Englishes and ELF
Kachru’s (e.g. 1992) familiar concentric circles of world Englishes represent a historicaland geographical model of the global distribution of English, with English as a native
language (ENL) in the Inner Circle, English as a second language (ESL) in the post-colonial
Outer Circle, and the Expanding Circle, where English is taught and learnt as a foreign
language (EFL). Despite substantial criticism from various quarters (e.g. Bruthiaux, 2003;
Pennycook, 2009; Yano, 2009) the model has remained very popular. However, it is notsuited for representing how ELF is being used in today’s world. In spite of this, in discussionsof the plurality and diversity of Englishes in the world (and their implications for pedagogy)
we often encounter the two phenomena mentioned in one breath, as if they wereinterchangeable: ‘world Englishes and ELF’. However, there is an important difference
between the two concepts that is often overlooked: Kachru’s model focuses on thedelimitation of distinct (national) varieties of English, especially in the Outer Circle, as ahallmark of their independence, so that discrete entities such as Singapore English or Nigerian
English are recognized as varieties in their own right precisely because they can be shown tobe their own endonormative Englishes, independent of the language of the former colonizers.
In contrast, ELF cannot be identified with any of the Kachruvian circles, it does not constitute7

Seidlhofer, B.
English as a Lingua Franca

a variety. It thus does not come about through delimitation and separation of communal
identities but, on the contrary, through its function as a means of transcultural communicationthat cuts across all three circles. ELF interactions can take place in, and involve speakers
from, any of the three circles.

Observing ELF Interactions
Most if not all of the recent descriptive work in English linguistics has been based oncomputer corpora, predominantly those capturing English as a native language (ENL) andreflecting the usage of so-called educated, predominantly British and American native
speakers of the language. In addition, corpora have been compiled of an array of varieties ofEnglish mostly in postcolonial settings where English is an official additional language, andthus have made possible descriptive work in the field of World Englishes. The scope of these
corpora is primarily defined by reference to particular speech communities residing in certain
countries or regions. The assumption here is that the usage of the speakers belonging to thesespeech communities represents different varieties of the language—Canadian English, East
African English, Hong Kong English, and so on (see ICE, the International Corpus ofEnglish, and e.g. Kortmann & Schneider, 2008).
All these corpora of various Englishes thus focus on manifestations of the language inparticular territories. However, since the first decade of the current millennium, corpora havebecome available that capture ELF interactions, i.e. the essentially extraterritorial use ofEnglish for international/intercultural communication. ELF does not fit the essentiallygeographical concept of varieties tied to speech communities mentioned above, defined as it isas the common means of communication chosen by speakers from different linguacultural
backgrounds. ELF is used among people that may be native or non-native speakers ofEnglish, but the demographic and sociolinguistic reality today is that the vast majority of ELF
users have first languages other than English. This means that countless interactions
8

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 2-24

worldwide take place every day in which only a small minority of native speakers of English,
if any, participate.
It is these interactions that can now be studied by making use of ELF corpora, and so
empirical research on ELF usage has been gathering momentum (Seidlhofer, 2012). There are
now three professionally compiled corpora that are explicitly designed for the investigation of
ELF communication: VOICE, the Vienna–Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE,
see e.g. Seidlhofer, 2011), ELFA & WrELFA, the Helsinki-based corpora of English as a
Lingua Franca in Academic Settings (see e.g. Mauranen, 2012), and most recently ACE, theAsian Corpus of English (see e.g. Kirkpatrick, 2016).
While effective communication had hitherto been assumed to necessarily involve
conformity to the standard code and to the conventions of native speaker usage, thedescriptive findings that have been emerging from ELF corpora indicate that ELF speakers
are clearly capable of communicating without conformity. Linguistically ‘incompetent’though many of them may be by reference to the norms imposed by teaching and testing, they
have a strategic capability for making effective communicative use of the linguistic resourcesat their disposal. For the pedagogy of English, this suggests that the objectives for language
learning might be revised to focus attention not on the production of language forms that
conform to the norms of native speaker competence and conventions of usage but on thecommunicative process itself, dissociated from such conformity, whereby learners candevelop a capability for exploiting the potential of the language beyond (mere) linguistic
proficiency (for further discussion, see Seidlhofer, 2011, chapter 8).

Controversies about ELF
So what is so controversial about ELF, what are the objections to it? I will proceed bytaking note of critical, dismissive or even hostile reactions voiced by applied linguists,

9Seidlhofer, B.
English as a Lingua Franca

textbook authors and language educators and published in various books and journals, andthen go on to consider how these relate to actual research on ELF communication.
The objection that is most persistently raised has to do with the linguistic status of ELF.
ELF, it is said, is not a variety of English because its usage is fluid and irregular and cannot
be systematized. This being so, it is not to be taken seriously as something to be(socio)linguistically studied.
An anecdote illustrates this view very clearly. In the year 2000 at an English studies
conference in Helsinki, I was invited to contribute to a symposium convened by a scholar at
Oxford University and one of the key researchers of the British National Corpus. After mytalk, in which I had announced my plan to compile the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus ofEnglish, VOICE, his immediate reaction was: “Why on earth do you want to build a corpus ofinteractions people carry out via ELF? That is not a language!”
I still remember how surprised I was to get this reaction, amidst a conference that was
actually being held via ELF, with delegates from a large number of first language
backgrounds, and an unexpected response from an experienced and leading figure of corpus
linguistics - a new technology designed precisely for observing the rich reality of actual
language use – so why did ELF not qualify? Because it did not qualify as an institutionalized
variety. So this corpus linguist disqualified it for the same reasons that Quirk had put forward
more than twenty years earlier.
This is the orthodox view, namely that linguistics and sociolinguistics work with
notions of specific, well-defined varieties of particular languages, and these are what
descriptive linguists describe and what gets encoded in dictionaries and grammars. This is so‘normal’ that most people are not even aware of it. So it is that ‘languages‘ appear as welldefined entities on school timetables, and we ask such questions as: “Do you speak
German/English/Japanese?” - as if you either had or had not acquired them. The notion of ‘alanguage’ or ‘a variety’ with well-defined formal characteristics is a convenient and
10

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 2-24

comfortable one, given authority by linguistic and sociolinguistic description, andrepresenting a way for speakers to mark their identity as members of a community.
And of course it is the case that particular languages and varieties are conventionallyalways perceived to be firmly based in specific communities that ‘own’ them, and use themfor the expression of their communal identity. The idea of a speech community as the setting
for language use and language development is well entrenched – both in folk ideas andsociolinguistics, and also experientially through our primary socialisation. It seems normal tous that a certain speech community, e.g. the one we grow up in, is a “local unit” (Hymes
1962, see below) that speaks ‘its variety’, and that (only) the members of this group are thelegitimate speakers of this variety.
There is strong sense that the ‘indigenous’ members of a particular speech community,
the native speakers, are the only really legitimate speakers of a language. They serve as basis
for linguistic theorizing, as informants for linguistic description and as authorities forlanguage teaching.
And of course in the conventional view of language teaching, you need a model basedon a particular variety, making reference to a particular speech community (with its particular
culture included in the package), that can serve as the target. And the obvious model is one
that has been fully and reliably described on linguistic authority.
So models for teaching have been traditionally based on those varieties of English thatare associated with native-speaking communities. So teachers are asked: “Do you teach
British or American English?” With reference to teaching, it is ‘Standard English’ that isnormally understood as the taken-for-granted reference entity, codified in reference works andteaching materials. This represents the language in a state of suspended animation, kept
apparently stable so that the codified forms can be approximated to, and emulated, bylearners. Their success is then measured to the extent that they conform to this idealised

11

Seidlhofer, B.
English as a Lingua Franca

model. The assumption is that their ability to communicate in ‘the’ language depends on suchconformity. But how valid is this assumption?
In the decade between 2000 and 2010, empirical research into how speakers fromdifferent first-language backgrounds use English as a lingua franca as their chosen means ofcommunication gained momentum, and this research has demonstrated that communicative
effectiveness clearly does not depend on conforming to correctness or the norms of usage ofnative speakers. But this poses a problem for teacher educators and writers of textbooks andreference works who have hitherto assumed that the only English that is pedagogically valid
is one that can be codified as an established variety. Since ELF is not a variety, it can have nosuch validity. This is the view expressed by Michael Swan, author of the bestselling PracticalEnglish Usage published by Oxford University Press:

It is … hard to see how ELF can be considered a language (or a set of language
varieties) in its own right. … NNS English has nothing like the relative homogeneity
found in the Englishes of NS communities; nor can one identify substantial NNS
subgroups whose English is homogeneous in this way. For ELF to have a linguistic (asopposed to sociolinguistic) identity, it must surely exhibit its own distinctive andsubstantial system of linguistic conventions, even if these are more flexible and diffuse
than those of a mother-tongue variety. (Swan, 2012, p. 385f)

It stands to reason that if teaching is seen to require a well-defined target model in the
shape of (the forms of) a particular variety, and (as we have seen above) ELF is foundwanting in that it is not a variety, this leads to the objection that “ELF cannot be taught”.
Another objection to ELF is the reverse of this. It is raised by those who mistakenly supposethat ELF is a variety. And the point made here is that it is a deficient version of the languagethat should be avoided because it encourages incompetence and in effect short-changes
12JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 2-24

learners by selling them defective linguistic goods. These are some representative examplesof this objection:… both teachers and students … would be obliged to embrace and foster a variety ofEnglish which up to now they have learnt to treat as inferior and by doing so risk
undermining their academic self-image and limiting their professional aspirations.”(Sowden, 2012, p. 92)

Any attempt to define ELF as an entity distinct from native-speaker norms is doomedfrom the outset. If native speakers are no longer to be the model, who is? Kofi Annan?
Angela Merkel? You non-native speaker teachers out there? And, if so, then WHICH ofyou? Or is the Nigerian security guy at my university who almost none of my students
ever seem to be able to decipher? Or is it the Somali cab driver I had drive me to the
airport last week, who spoke broken pidginised English?
(Hugh Dellar’s Blog: https://hughdellar.wordpress.com/category/language-and-cultureelf/page/2/)

It may be surprising to encounter such a vitriolic public outburst by a teacher andteacher trainer at the University of Westminster, London. However, if we consult thecurrently most powerful language education policy document, the all-pervasive Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), we find statements in it that
actually seem quite compatible with Dellar’s tirade, such as this extract from the Illustrative
Scale for B2 Conversation:

13

Seidlhofer, B.
English as a Lingua Franca

Can sustain relationships with native speakers without unintentionally amusing or
irritating them or requiring them to behave other than they would with a native
speaker. (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 76, emphasis added)

This fixation on native-speaker competence in the CEFR seems out of place, especiallywhen it comes to the global role of English in the 21st century, an era of globalization andheightened mobility. On the other hand, it is precisely the important role that English has allover the world that forms the basis of the huge so-called ‘international’ English language
teaching and testing industry dominated by British and U.S. American publishers. Therefore,
another reason for resisting the overdue acknowledgement of the reality of ELF is the vested
interests described by a senior figure in English language teaching (ELT):

To stand any chance of widespread adoption as a teaching norm, ELF needs to be
accepted in educational circles, particularly in publishing and in test design. There islittle sign that this will happen any time soon, and for very compelling practical andfinancial reasons. Neither ELT publishers nor examination boards can see any profit inkilling the goose that lays the golden eggs, namely a standard variety of English, infavour of installing a fledgling ugly duckling with dubious public support among
learners, teachers or sponsors. (Maley, 2009, p. 194, emphasis added)

It is easy to see that the questioning of ideas that have been, after all, foundational inlanguage teaching / ELT and have long represented the solid basis for curricula, reference
works, textbooks and tests can be unsettling if one has been operating with these certainties.
So one can assume that most of the objections we have seen arise from a genuine concern
about coping with recent current developments in the global role of English and in the(socio)linguistic research that investigates this, and so need to be taken seriously. Things have
14

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 2-24

after all been changing at a pace that is difficult to keep up with. But the social conditions andrelationships between language and society out of which the notions of community andvariety developed have undergone radical change in recent decades. They are themselves,
therefore, in need of quite radical reconsideration.

Objections Reconsidered
So what can we say in summary so far? First of all, it is true that ELF is not a variety: it
has no clearly defined, local and ‘stable’ community of users, no speech community in theconventional sense as described by Dell Hymes:“a local unit, characterized for its members by common locality and primaryinteraction” (Hymes, 1962, p. 30, emphasis added)

ELF users come from a great variety of primary communities and communicate across awide and indeterminate network of interaction. It thus follows that ELF interactions takecorrespondingly variable linguistic forms.
Importantly, what this also entails is that there can be no (formally defined)‘competence in ELF’ in the same way as there is competence in an ENL or a world Englishes
variety.
Again in consequence, there is no entity ‘ELF’ as such that can be taught: ELF is notformally defined but functionally, as “any use of English among speakers of different first
languages for whom English is the communicative medium of choice” (Seidlhofer, 2011, p.
7).
Taking these facts into account, how are we to react to the objections raised andpresented above? Obviously, they would only hold if one were to accept that:15

Seidlhofer, B.
English as a Lingua Franca-

language in use must always take the form of varieties-that it must always be associated with particular speech communities-

that therefore what cannot be systematized by reference to established concepts is tobe disregarded.

But as already been mentioned, we need to ask whether, or to what extent, theseconcepts of variety and community are (still) valid, particularly in the case of the global
language English. Over recent years, the need for language professionals to face up to thefacts of globalization has become increasingly evident: the need to “productively recast hotly
debated sociolinguistic issues”, and particularly “the hottest possible one: English in theworld” (Blommaert, 2010, p. 182). While Blommaert’s The Sociolinguistics of Globalization
does not directly engage with ELF research and its pedagogical implications, its main theme
is eminently relevant to our concerns here:

I believe that globalization forces us – whether we like it or not – to an aggiornamento[a bringing up to date] of our theoretical and methodological toolkit. Much as
modernism defined most of the current widespread tools of our trade, the transition
towards a different kind of social system forces us to redefine them. Such an exercise,
however iconoclastic it may seem at first, cannot be avoided or postponed. (Blommaert,
2010, p. xiii)

In this sense, recognising the reality of ELF is indeed to recognise the reality ofcontemporary life, and to accept that traditional concepts require rethinking. With reference tothe notion of speech community mentioned above, we need to find more appropriate
alternatives that do not depend on “common locality and primary interaction” (Hymes, ibid.).
Many communities are actually virtual communities, and those whose members do
16

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 2-24

communicate face-to-face may better be characterized as Communities of Practice(Seidlhofer, 2007; Wenger, 1998) or Transient International Groups (TIGs) (Pitzl, 2018).
Instead of thinking of distinct language varieties, contemporary communication may better be
described as engaging in translanguaging (García & Li Wei, 2014) via mobile resources(Blommaert, 2010) in a continuous process of adaptive variation (Widdowson, 2015).
For these reasons, the objections to ELF highlighted above actually serve as usefulindicators as to precisely what is so significant about it – in grappling with the new reality ofEnglish in the world, they challenge us to think again about the nature of language andcommunication.

ELF and ELT
How can one take account of this new reality in the teaching of English? Have
challenges to conventional concepts in sociolinguistics led us to also challenge conventional
ideas about pedagogy? As we have seen above, the overarching, and quite defensive, question
among ELT practitioners seems to be, “How do you teach something so unsystematic andelusive as ELF?” It seems that while it may have generally been accepted in these quartersthat ELF should prompt sociolinguistic re-thinking, not many are happy to accept that ELF
should prompt pedagogic re-thinking. The reasons given, and eloquently articulated in theextract from Swan (2012) quoted earlier, are that teaching requires something stable andsystematic, a model to emulate, as presented in works of reference, etc. The objection, then, isthat ELF use is so various and indeterminate that ‘ELF’ cannot be taught as a formal model.
And yes, if one thinks of teaching as getting learners to conform to ‘NS competence’ – asprescribed in textbooks, reference works, curricula, tests, then this objection would be valid.
But while teaching towards the (elusive) goal of ‘NS competence’ may seem realistic for theteacher, for the learner it is unrealistic: although this is what is taught it is usually not what
is learnt.
17

Seidlhofer, B.
English as a Lingua Franca

Why should this be so? In his direct response to Swan’s (2012) concerns, Widdowson
explains:

One can understand why M[ichael] S[wan] spends so much time arguing that ELF is nota language or a variety that can be codified as a model, for in the conventional view oflanguage teaching that he espouses, if it cannot provide a model for learners to conform
to, then it can have little if any pedagogic significance. And if one accepts this view, heis absolutely right. But the essential point is that ELF research with its association oflearning and use suggests a radical alternative to this conservative way of thinking.
What this research shows is how using and learning are dynamically inter-related.
(Widdowson, 2013, p. 192, emphasis added)

Using and Learning Inter-related
The descriptions of ELF interactions that are now available show us what ELF users(can) really do with the language they have learnt, and they reveal that many of the formal
properties of ENL are not necessary for communication. Since most ELF speakers are(former) learners of English as a foreign language, such descriptions indicate what learners
actually achieve as an adaptive communicative capability, not what they are expected toperform in their emulation of native-speaker linguistic competence – and what they very
rarely do achieve as an outcome of years of learning, anyway. Therefore, observed
characteristics of ELF usage can give us important pointers to how priorities might be shiftedin setting learning objectives. In particular, they could indicate certain communication
processes and strategies that might be focused on as having greater saliency or potential foruse, especially in international contexts – and they can also help us realize that many ENL
linguistic features that we tend to spend a great deal of time and effort on are surplus tocommunicative requirement (cf. Seidlhofer, 2011, chapter 8; Widdowson, 2016).
18

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 2-24

What we see in ELF is the communicative process whereby English and other linguistic
resources are effectively used to negotiate meanings and human relationships - a
communicative process crucial to the complex interactions between communities andindividuals in the current globalized world. One can be dismissive of all this as pedagogicallyirrelevant:English as a lingua franca … is the description of the phenomenon that people aremaking use of their imperfect L2 repertoire to communicate more or less effectively ininternational and intercultural contexts. This is interesting and revealing but does notnecessarily have implications for teaching. (Kuo, 2006, p. 217)

But it is surely more reasonable to suppose that how people actually use English in thereal world should have some bearing on how learners are encouraged to learn it, and should
lead teachers to give some critical thought to how far established ideas remain tenable.
Reflecting about old and new concepts in ELT pedagogy, they might conclude that thetraditional objective for learning as the acquisition of linguistic competence in ENL /Standard English may need to be revised and that an ELF perspective suggests that a more
realistic objective for learning is the development of a communicative capability(Widdowson, 2016) for exploiting linguistic resources, with the pedagogic focus shifting fromformal correctness to functional appropriateness.
I am, of course, not suggesting that actual teaching priorities and procedures for theirimplementation will, or can, radically change overnight. But as reflective practitioners
teachers of English can reflect on exploring the following possibilities:•

Emphasising communicative appropriateness in learner behaviour rather thanconformity to correctness as a matter of principle.
19

Seidlhofer, B.
English as a Lingua Franca•

Giving differential emphasis to formal features of English by reference to theircommunicative value.

•

Exploiting the learners’ own language experience by translation and code mixing
activities, bearing in mind that they are already communicatively capable in their own
language(s) and can therefore extend this capability by drawing on English as aresource to extend their communicative repertoire.

•

Prioritizing aspects known to be important for international intelligibility.

•

Giving more time to communication strategies, proactive listening andaccommodation skills and less to getting the linguistic forms right.

•

In general, thinking of language learners as language users and allowing them toexercise their communicative capability without cramping them into conformity.

•

Making teaching reactive to learning and not the other way round.

Conclusion
This paper has suggested that what is objected to in ELF points us precisely to what isso significant about it – in recognising it as the new reality of English in the world, it prompts
us to think again about the nature of language and communication and therefore also about
objectives in ELT. Thinking through issues of ‘community’, ‘variety’ and ‘competence’ andhow they relate to ELF constitutes a complex but necessary challenge. Rather than denial,
what we need, as English language professionals, is awareness of ongoing changes due toglobalization, to be able to confront them in a pro-active way and develop our thinking so thatis more in key with the contemporary world.

20

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 2-24

Note
1 I wish to emphasize that although I disagree with Randolph Quirk’s views expressedin his 1990 paper, I do so not in any spirit of disrespect, and I fully acknowledge his
unique life-long scholarly contribution to the study of English.

References
Blommaert, J. M. E. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bruthiaux, P. (2003). Squaring the circles: issues in modeling English worldwide.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 159–78. doi:10.1111/1473-4192.00042
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
D’Angelo, J. (2018). The status of ELF in Japan. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker, & M. Dewey(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca, (pp.165-175). Abingdon:
Routledge.
García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hino, N. (2015). Toward the development of CELFIL (Content and ELF integrated learning)for EMI classes in higher education in Japan. Waseda Working Papers in ELF, 4, 187198.
Hymes, D. (1962). The ethnography of speaking. In T. Gladwin, & W. C. Sturtevant (Eds.),
Anthropology and human behavior (pp. 13-52). Washington, DC: AnthropologicalSociety of Washington.
Kachru, B. B. (Ed.). (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL:
University of Illinois Press.

21

Seidlhofer, B.
English as a Lingua Franca

Kirkpatrick, A. (2016). The Asian Corpus of English – introduction to the special issue.
Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 5, 225-228. doi:10.1515/jelf-2016-0017
Kortmann, B., & Schneider, E. W. (Eds.). (2008). Varieties of English (4 vols.). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Kuo, I-C. (2006). Addressing the issue of teaching English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal,
60, 213-21. doi:10.1093/elt/ccl001
Maley, A. (2009). ELF: a teacher’s perspective. Language and Intercultural Communication,
9, 187-200. doi:10.1080/14708470902748848
Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murata, K. (Ed.). (2016). Exploring ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts:
Conceptualization, research and pedagogic implications. Abingdon: Routledge.
Murata, K., & Jenkins, J. (Eds.). (2009). Global Englishes in Asian Contexts: Current andFuture Debates. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Oda, M. (2017). CELF Reflection: A Journey to the Establishment of a University ELF
Program. JACET ELF SIG Journal, 1, 3-17.
Pennycook, A. (2009). Plurilithic Englishes: Towards a 3D model. In K. Murata, & J. Jenkins(Eds.), Global Englishes in Asian Contexts (pp 194-207). Abingdon: Routledge.
Pitzl, M.-L. (2018). Transient international groups (TIGs): exploring the group anddevelopment dimension of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 7, 25-58.
doi:10.1515/jelf-2018-0002
Quirk, R. (1990). Language varieties and standard language, English Today, 21, 3-10.
doi:10.1017/S0266078400004454
Seidlhofer, B. (Ed.). (2003). Controversies in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

22

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 2-24

Seidlhofer, B. (2007). English as a lingua franca and communities of practice. In S.VolkBirke, & J. Lippert (Eds.), Anglistentag 2006 Halle Proceedings (pp. 307–318). Trier:Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Seidlhofer, B. (2012). Corpora and English as a lingua franca. In K. Hyland, M.H. Chau, &M. Handford (Eds.), Corpus Applications in Applied Linguistics (pp. 135-149). London:
Continuum.
Sowden, C. (2012). ELF on a mushroom: the overnight growth in English as a Lingua Franca.
ELT Journal, 66, 89-96. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccr024
Swan, M. (2012). ELF and EFL: are they really different? Journal of English as a Lingua
Franca, 1, 379-389. doi:10.1515/jelf-2012-0025
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (2013). ELF and EFL: What’s the difference? Comments on Michael
Swan. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2, 187-193. doi: 10.1515/jelf-2013-0009
Widdowson, H. G. (2015). ELF and the pragmatics of language variation. Journal of English
as a Lingua Franca, 4, 359-372. doi: 10.1515/jelf-2015-0027
Widdowson, H. G. (2016). Competence and capability: rethinking the subject English. In K.
Murata (Ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts:
Conceptualization, research and pedagogic implications (pp. 213–223). Abingdon and
New York: Routledge.
Yano, Y. (2009). The future of English: Beyond the Kachruvian three circle model? In K.
Murata, & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Global Englishes in Asian Contexts (pp. 208-225).
Abingdon: Routledge.

23

Seidlhofer, B.
English as a Lingua Franca

Corpora:ACE. 2014. The Asian Corpus of English. Director: Andy Kirkpatrick. Project coinvestigator: Wang Lixun. http://corpus.ied.edu.hk/ace .
ELFA. 2008. The Corpus of English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings. Director:
Anna Mauranen. http://www.helsinki.fi/elfa/elfacorpus .
ICE. International Corpus of English. http://ice-corpora.net/ice/
VOICE. 2013. The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version 2.0 online).
Director: Barbara Seidlhofer; Researchers: Angelika Breiteneder, Theresa Klimpfinger,
Stefan Majewski, Ruth Osimk-Teasdale, Marie-Luise Pitzl, Michael Radeka.
https://www.univie.ac.at/voice/
WrELFA 2015. The Corpus of Written English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings.
Director: Anna Mauranen. Compilation manager: Ray Carey.
http://www.helsinki.fi/elfa/wrelfa.html

24

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 25-48

Lingua Francas and World Orders:
The Place of English in a Globalized World

Phyllis Ghim-Lian Chew
Nanyang Technological University

Abstract
This paper offers an alternative paradigm in understanding and appreciating English as a
Lingua Franca (ELF) in the wake of globalization and its accompanying shifting priorities inmany dimensions of modem life, such as politics, economics, world orders, and last but notleast, the recent emergence of English as the dominant lingua franca in the world. A model iscreated which argues that history is a theatre for the realization of lingua francas, be it tribal,
city, national or global. The model shows the present as derived from the past and as a bearerof future possibilities. ELFs which arrive on the scene later are laid layer by layer on earlier
ones. The model shows how languages evolve either vertically through the forces of
evolution or horizontally through social contact. This paper begins with some theoreticaldebates in World Englishes (WEs) and includes, as a means of fleshing out the model, asociolinguistic case study.

Keywords: English, lingua francas, world orders, complexity, globalization

Introduction
Kachru’s (1985) “expanding circles” model has greatly contributed to ourunderstanding on the sociolinguistics of the global spread of English and the existence ofdynamic varieties of World Englishes (WEs). However, it has attracted criticisms pertaining
to its relevance in an increasingly globalized world where identities are no longer pre-given25

Chew, P. G. L.
Lingua Francas and World Orders

or tied to nationalist policies (Pennycook 2003), where “inner circles” of Englishes can nolonger be thought of as the “original” owners (Bruthiaux (2003); and where the referential
fuzziness within “ESL” and “EFL” hinders its practicality as an effective model (Nayar,1997). Seidlhofer (2001) laments that the model is unable to inform and explain the bulk ofcommunication between increasingly large numbers of non-native speakers in the world
today.
While critics have been handy with the broom, an alternative model capable ofmatching important synchronic and diachronic developments have yet to emerge. For
example, while globalization is intimately involved with the spread of WEs and ELF, one
problem is that it is often discussed as if it were a recent phenomenon relating primarily toworld financial markets and technological advances in information and travel (Giddens
1999, p. 10). To be fair, Mignolo (2000) has a longer perspective – tracing it back to the16th century with the beginning of transatlantic exploration and the consolidation of Western
hegemony (p. 236). However, both Giddens and Mignolo have typically viewed time within
a history of European and American imperialism and thereby run the danger of not
acknowledging the diversity and locations of globalization, such as the roles played by
Arabic, Chinese, Russian and Japanese empires (cf. Rodrik, 2007). I believe that WEs and
ELF is best studied under the wider umbrella of evolving lingua francas (LFs) and World
Orders (WOs) and that the first step towards understanding linguistic phenomenon in a
wider frame is to free ourselves from our own historical time, national-regional boundaries,
and cultural perspectives. We should focus instead on dialectal, proficiency and functional
ranges based on a sociolinguistic description of context and informed by cross-disciplinary
discourses such as socio-politics and anthropology.
Rather than positioning WEs through a flat Kachruvian and static time frame, weshould be conscious that language, like all things, is never static despite the tendency by the
Greeks to view it as such. For Aristotle, movement and change apply only to the attributes,

26

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 25-48

and never to the substance of objects; change being secondary rather than primary. In
contrast, in the Chinese worldview, change is primary, not secondary; and all things either
make progress or lose ground and everything moves forward or backward. In addition,
while the Western worldview is dualistic, dividing the world into two opposing groups suchas “matter and form” and “reality and reason”, the Chinese worldview, is a circular one. The
Biography of Feng Yi, written in the East Han Dynasty narrates: “What is lost at sunrise canbe regained at sunset” (cited in Zuo, 2001, p. 4). When a language is lost, that loss can bemade up in other ways as time rotates. Hence, while the West emphasizes the synchronic
opposition between loss and gain, the Chinese worldview combines the two through adiachronic perspective and encloses the opposition. In other words, phenomena such as
language variation-loss-shift- revival-maintenance, etc. are intricately connected and form
part of the wider circle of language change, language loss and language gain.
Language change may be viewed as a result of lexical diffusion (Labov, 1994), a
phenomena whereby individuals tend to homogenize their linguistic behaviour with respect
to similar parts of the lexicon. This diffusion among related words occurs because of thetendency of the brain to be efficient – that is, to use rules as much as possible in producing
language.
To study WOs, a longitudinal stand and diachronic perspective will enable us to“stand back” and survey language changes. There are advantages of bringing together andfinding linguistic patterns across world orders, cultures, classes and races, which are often
thought to be incompatible. A study of analogical linguistic patterns across the globe isadvantageous, not just to understand the linguistic practices of the past but also that of thepresent and the future. The discovery of patterns can raise questions, build links andgenerate predictions. Such a perspective takes into account cultural, ideological, andpolitical factors as important agents of change. In other words, the universal rhythms of therise and decline of LFs are often due to the particular language’s response to meeting new27

Chew, P. G. L.
Lingua Francas and World Orders

sets of challenges in liminal or transitional periods when one WO replaces another.

Lingua Francas and World Orders: An Alternative Model
One effect of lexical diffusion is the evening out of irregularities and extremities.
Indeed, heterogeneity is evened out historically through the complexity principle, leading toa kind of integration and bonding of diverse lingua-cultures, resulting in a “unity amidst
diversity”. In line with the science of complexity and quantum physics, language change isseen as moving “from chaos to order”: in the direction of holistic integration of more andmore diverse elements (Chew, 2013). Languages which arrive on the scene later are laid
layer by layer on earlier ones. Cavelli-Sforza (1994) has argued that languages evolve either
vertically through the forces of evolution or horizontally through social contact. In Figure 1,
social change is depicted as a spiral moving relentlessly onwards enclosing broader levels
as time progresses. To understand this better, we may divide this momentum into broad
historical periods, which within themselves contain various sub-periods. The analogy of atelescope may be helpful here. From the telescopic small end, one can peer into bigger andbigger concentric circles – such as looking into a future time; and from the telescopic large
end, one looks into smaller and smaller circles – such as looking backwards into time.

Figure 1. A model of evolving world orders and their respective periods of luminalities(shaded areas show liminality)

28

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 25-48

Figure 2. A model of evolving world orders and their respective periods of liminalities(indicated in the white bands)

Historical developments begin with the birth of the family, the advent of tribal society,the birth of city-states and eventually the nation and global state. Accompanying thisevolving development of WOs, are their associated emergence of dominant LFs, such as
Greek during the WO of city states, or Arabic during the WO of nation states -- LFs that will
enable peoples in each WOs to retain group variation in language, religio- socio-politicalculture and yet be able to communicate with diverse peoples speaking diverse languages.
We will begin with the world order of the family. As migrating families movegeographically apart due to increasing population and land pressures, the once familial
language will inevitably diverge into various sub-languages. Hence, all human varieties oflanguage can be traced backwards or “vertically” to some proto languages. While this is one
form of linguistic stratification along the vertical genealogical axis, there is another along the29

Chew, P. G. L.
Lingua Francas and World Orders“horizontal” or geographical axis. An existing language is thus a compromise among several
forms of speech from these vertical and horizontal dimensions. Of course, the further backthe “borrowing” or influence takes place, the more difficult it is to separate the horizontal(geographical) results from the vertical (evolutionary) ones.
With time, thousands of families are spread over a wider area. In the original family, it
was very simple: everyone has their own idiolect but there might be discerned a preferred
idiolect, a “proto-LF” -- belonging perhaps to the patriarch or the most articulate member ofthe group which most aspired to emulate (Deutscher, 2005). When distances were large, thepassage of time ensured that the language evolved to suit the specific needs of that particularfamily, soon making this proto-LF unintelligible to other families around them, whose own
languages have also evolved around their contextual-environmental needs. Large families
grow to become tribes or clans, which are organized largely on the basis of kinship andlineage usually sharing a common culture and language. Such groupings allow a finer
division of labour and protection, the fruits of which are advantageous to all. Different tribes
need an LF to communicate between themselves over issues such as agricultural, hunting
and fishing rights. Usually the tribe which is the most powerful will have its language usedas the LF. For example, the tribes in Arabia before the coming of Islam in the 8 th Century,
were a mixture of nomads, cultivators and traders grouped by a tightly knit system. There
were constant quarrels between the tribes and blood feuds were endemic particularly overscarce land and resources. Eventually, the intense competition among them led them to thelogical conclusion that one “super-tribe” should predominate so that their diverse
competitive energies would be better used to the advantage of all (cf. Manning, 2005).
“Super tribes” founded the early city-states, which are usually part of larger areas,such as those of ancient Greece, namely, Athens, Sparta and Corinth. For example, King
Menes (2300 BC), united tribal settlements in both the upper and lower Nile regions andunderstandably, his tribal language became the LF of the region since it was best able to30

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 25-48

sponsor education, military service, trade and a common religion – in short, leading to theintegration of the various tribes of Egypt. As for the languages of the subjugated tribe(s)they would be ranked according to the tribe’s socio-political prowess. The amount of power
one tribe has over the other tribes within a city-state would often be manifested by themechanisms and means by which linguistic forms are sanctioned and what language(s) are
deemed to be legitimate in varying settings. In time, some tribal languages would be lost as
their once fierce loyalties become gradually assimilated under the city-state.
Always, with each WO, there are three operational layers, the past, present and future,each of which is associated with a LF (see Figure 3). In other words, if one was the “average”
Ahmed living in a city in a time when the WO was hat of the city state, one would most likely
be trilingual: using the tribal mother tongue with family, the tribal LF for use within the tribe,and the more "prestigious" LF to communicate with the elites of the city state. If one were aslave from a subjugated tribe, one would likely be speaking the “less valued” tribal tongue.
Yet, if one were the leader of the slaves and the intermediary between the ruler and theruled, one is likely to attempt to speak the LF of the city-state. In addition, there are others
who might have to speak more than three languages especially if they had migrated fromanother unrelated city-state; and yet others who will only speak one language because the
LF of the time coincided with their mother tongue as well as their tribal and city tongue. The“power” of the super-tribe in charge of the city-state, corresponds directly to the power of its
language, which is the LF of all the subjugated tribes under its purview.

31

Chew, P. G. L.
Lingua Francas and World Orders

Figure 3. Language change: A tribe to city state scenario.

As city-states flourished, they also became increasingly competitive, e.g. the earliest
cultivations in Egypt and Mesopotamia consisted of small city-states, which were often inarmed conflict with one another. History repeats itself and once again, for a more permanent
solution to end the perpetual warfare, a “super” city state will emerge to unite all thecontending cities to form a “nation” held together this time not so much by culture and/or race
but by solidarity to some common principle. For example, the Arab group of city-states wasunited by the Arabic language to form the Arab nation. We know that the Assyrians, Copts,
Syrians, Chaldeans and Egyptians are not Arabs, but as they all began to study the LF(Arabic), it became their “national” identity. Similarly, although there are many religious
groups in Syria such as Orthodox, Mussulman, the Dorzi, Nestorians, who consider
themselves Arabs as they all speak Arabic, in reality some of them are Greeks and Jews (cf.
Hanson, 2000).
In the WO of the nation state, we see once again, the citizenry of previous city-states,
held together under the banner of nationhood, attempting to speak the LF of the nation withvarying accents. Once again, there will be migrants from more remote areas of the “nation,”
who are likely only to speak in the LF of the previous city-state world order, hence sufferinga temporary loss of symbolic capital until the “national” LF is mastered. In emergent world32

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 25-48

orders, be it the time of the city-state or the nation-state, new varieties of the LF are often
birthed when groups of people speaking different languages are in constant contact. At suchtimes, there may come into existence a pidgin, which may later become elaborate and growinto a language in its own right. In the liminal periods between world orders, languagechange are evident: while some languages are birthed, others gradually disappear. Yetothers, as noted in Aithison (1992), “commit suicide,” such as when the speakers of the old
language continue speaking it but gradually import forms and constructions from thedominant LF, until the old one is no longer identifiable as a separate language.
In every emerging world order, the greatest undertaking for the individual is to makehimself understood - and the “linguistic solution” (Godenzzi, 2006) is often the mastery of the
LF, so as to survive the structural changes of the new WO that the individual finds himself. In
a nation state scenario, the LF is usually the one belonging to the most powerful city-state thathas managed to coerce the others into its fold just as the LF of a tribal state is usually the
belonging to the super-tribe which had subjugated all the states under its jurisdiction. The
reasons for learning the LF are instrumental -- that is, a concern for efficiency, relevance andsurvival in the new economy.
In the nation state scenario, the LF will find itself in the forefront of change. Hence,
LFs are never stable, standardized varieties nor politically neutral. It is often changed byspeakers bringing a wider repertoire of both linguistic and non-linguistic experiences fromother linguistic and cultural backgrounds. They are more prone to undergo linguistic
simplification and reduction; hence, pidginized and creolized forms may appear as more
and more diverse people gravitate to learn it. Its users are characterized by phonetic,
morpho- syntactic, lexical and discursive diversity.
With time, and as more and more nation states come into existence, familiar problems
once again begin to surface, as those faced by tribes and city states in the historical past. In
19th century Europe, for example, the worst clashes came when people of different33

Chew, P. G. L.
Lingua Francas and World Orders

languages and cultures were living together. The conflict and quarrels between nations
became so frequent that two World Wars resulted when bands of nations aligned
themselves ideologically on either side in an effort at supremacy. This state of perpetualunrest and extreme competitiveness motivated leaders to look for a “new world order” thatwould channel national energies in a fairer and less destructive way - hence the birth of the“super” nation state, i.e. the global state. A familiar realization begins to surface – that is,that the integration of nation states under one global umbrella would be mutually beneficial
since it would not only decrease military expenditure and destructive wars but also allow
environmental preservation for the common good. Hence, once again, the liminal periodbegan to see the familiar discussion as to which language belonging to which super-nation
will emerge as the global LF.
While history may march on towards increasing complexity and integration of larger
and larger diverse groups of people, it should be noted that it is possible to traverse
backwards on the spiral -- temporarily at least. For example, nationhood can become
excessive involving contempt, hatred and violence against peoples of other cultures and thiswould deter them coming together as a global state. Another example is that while themasses are destined to move with the flow of evolving WOs, there will always be groups ofpeople at each evolving bands, who will prefer to stay in their existing WO. Hence, looking
backwards into our spiral model, we may discern groups which are living under previous
world orders either out of necessity, choice or accident. For example, while the 18 th and 19th
century saw the rise of nations, there were still groups which continued to live in tribal
orders. Today, as nations begin to globalize, there will be some who prefer to retreat throughpolitical and/or geographic seclusion.

The Liminal Periods
Between each world order, such as the transition from tribes to city-states or city to

34

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 25-48

nation states, are the liminal periods, characterized by ambiguity and interdeterminacy. It is aperiod of transition where one’s sense of identity dissolves to some extent, bringing about
disorientation. Liminal periods are also periods of greatest contacts when family,commercial, cultural and other types of exchanges occur between populations that speak
different languages. Such periods promote bilingualism and/or the emergence of mixed
modalities and of the inevitable growth of LFs.
Each luminal period will see a new LF rising to the fore in relation to others, e.g. in2000 BC, Akkadian replaced Sumarian. It is also a familiar phenomenon for one language
to serve as lingua franca or language of special function (religious, commercial) over alarge area of many languages as Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Arabic and French has done. Also,
the beginning of each luminal period will see several contenders for LF status. For example,
in the early 20th century, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, French, German were all contenders for
global LFs.
Today, we live in one such frontier and at this historical bar, we are typicallyexperiencing two concurrent, intensifying and opposing processes – globalization andlocalization. There are two opposing macro-cultural orientations – one perceiving linguistic
globalization as an evil which runs counter to the cultural interests of local, indigenous or
minority language groups (cf. Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000); while the other perceiving linguistic
globalization as pragmatically advantageous in the nurturing of synergy and cooperativeness(cf. Brutt-Griffler, 2002).
Different emotions are evident in the pre- and post-liminal periods. At the pre-liminal
period, people are totally against new LFs as they are suddenly confronted by social,economic and political changes. Difficult questions come to the fore such as: “Is it better tobelong to one nation among competing nations or to a united world?” and “In which
conditions do we have the greater opportunity for our own personal development?” come tothe fore. By the post-liminal period, however, one LF will have clearly emerged as the35

Chew, P. G. L.
Lingua Francas and World Orders“victor” and this in turn attracts more people to learn it. Success breeds success especially as
communication hinges on working more and more across existing borders.

Caveats
At this juncture, a caveat must be added to the discourse of WOs and LFs. While it ispossible to extrapolate linguistic patterns on the basis of new system sciences, this does notmean that the extrapolation has the force of necessity in the real world. This is because theevolutionary logic exhibited in history is the same as the logic in the sphere of nature, which
has more to do with probability and not necessity. Therefore, although a global state is thenext world order, it is not guaranteed.
Indeed, the short term may be beset by a reversal of our spiral. Deviations andfluctuations of all sorts are not unexpected as the historical process always manifests a highdegree of randomness and chance in its unfolding (Lazlo, 1989). If short term reversals andfluctuations that change our way here include nuclear or environmental catastrophes, thelong-term future would also be affected. For example, if there is such a disaster, this would
lead to a great reduction in human population and may trigger a dark age of isolated warring
communities. If the degradation is not permanent, the surviving communities would
eventually, after some time, become prosperous and grow populous again and would once
again, after the temporary setback, set out towards the path of globalism through multiple
processes of differentiation and integration.
But if there were permanent damages to vital processes in the life-sustaining
environment, and the globe becomes uninhabitable or habitable only to low population
density, this will result in the disappearance of our spiraling model. However, this is by no
way an anomaly in evolution since 99% of all the species that had one time inhabited thisplanet have now become extinct; and a large proportion of the culturally specific humangroups and their respective languages that arose in the history of humanity have likewise

36

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 25-48

vanished. Only the geographic time scale of the die-out would be new.

Case Study: Fujian, Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC)
The PRC has been chosen to exemplify our study of LFs and WOs, as it can be said tobe a microcosm of the world, being a multicultural, multi-religious and multilingual nation.
Countless little traditions e.g. folklore, cuisine, festivals, clothing, etc. exist under theumbrella of a “great tradition”. Since antiquity, different regional “dialects” have coexistedwith different LFs – which are varieties of Chinese used by dominant groups in various
capitals, such as Beijing, Nanjing or Xian. For example, when the classics Shu jing (thebook of history) was written, it was done in ‘yayan’ (elegant speech), the LF used during theWestern Zhou (1100-771 BC). In the Southern Song dynasty (1127-1279 AD) thevernacular which became the LF was based on the dialect of Jinling (today’s Nanjing),
When Dadu (today’s Beijing) was designated as the capital by the Yuan emperor, the LF
gradually shifted to Northern Mandarin. When these strong centralized regimes faltered anddisintegrated every few centuries, China would be carved into contending states and its
linguistic priorities reshuffled. China’s linguistic history is therefore the story of a congeriesof Chinese languages; some forgotten while others continue to command great political andcultural significance.
There are 22 centrally governed provinces in China out of a total of 33, and it is ironicthat there are more scholarly data on the languages of the smaller subgroups of Papua New
Guinea than on the languages spoken in each of these provinces. I have decided to do a
linguistic survey of Fujian province not least because there is a dearth of research in this areaor the fact that its linguistic fortunes is prototypical of other Chinese provinces; but also
because it is the author’s ancestral home where she has had opportunities for ethnographic
research. Fujian borders Zhejiang to the north, Jiangxi to the west and Guangdong to thesouth, and Taiwan to the east, and has a population of 38 million. 1 Broadly, all the37

Chew, P. G. L.
Lingua Francas and World Orders

multifarious languages of Fujian can be put under the category of Min, one of the many
Southern Chinese languages. Min can then be further subdivided into 7 dialects - some ofwhich are mutually unintelligible such as that of Minbei (the north, e.g. Fuzhou) and Minnan(the south, e.g. Hokkien). Minnan will be our focus here and it can be further divided into
sub-languages of the different regions in Fujian itself, some of which are not mutually
intelligible (See Figures 4 & 5). Due to their considerable dialectal variation, theclassification of these sub-languages of Minnan has confounded linguists so this preliminary
analysis will be necessarily superficial and occasionally anecdotal. The Chinese are also
averse to discussing “languages” and prefer to use fanyan (dialects) to refer to Chinese
multilingualism, despite the existence of mutual unintelligibility. I will show that the Fujian
topography affords a rich and layered sociolinguistic study of languages (and LFs) in a
backdrop of successive periods of language attrition, preservation and maintenance.

Figure 4. The languages of China (Only Min and Kejia are spoken in Fujian).

38

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 25-48

Figure 5. The Minnan language tree, many of which are mutually unintelligible.

The first peoples in Fujian were families of Austronesians living along the Min River
which subsequently evolved into tribes or clans (Ma, 2002). These tribes were relatively
isolated from China proper even when it was first united under its first Emperor, Qin, in 221
BC. In time, they were forcefully held together by powerful tribal kings who founded citystates in Fujian, such as, Fuzhou, Nanping and Quanzhou (Xu, 1992) by uniting individual
tribes. Their little city kingdoms shattered during the Han dynasty when huge forces weresent by sea in 11 BC to bring Fujian’s little kingdoms under that of China proper.
Nevertheless, as distances were vast, these city-states were left very much to themselves andbehaved more like semi-independent tributary states with their own languages and cultures.
Not surprisingly, it took quite some time before spoken Min became Sinicized because theway plurality is shown in current Minnan pronouns reflect influences from local aboriginal
languages such as Tai and Miao, which like the Min languages, use separate forms for
singular and plural pronouns. Other variants of ancient Chinese non-Han sounds have also
been found in Minnan (Zhou, 2006).
For centuries, Fujian has always been the unwitting recipient of refugees from thenorth. Pursued by invaders from further north, the Wu people from the vicinity of present
day Shanghai made Fujian their home during the Jin dynasty (265-42 AD). These
immigrants comprising of eight families settled in Fujian, intermarried with the local people

39

Chew, P. G. L.
Lingua Francas and World Orders

and adopted/modified their languages to their liking. Another large scale migration happened
in 317-22 CE when a huge population from the north followed en masse the court of Ji
Yuandi to Nanjing and Zhongjian. Such mass migrations meant that Minnan was no longer
calmly evolving vertically from parent to offspring but also horizontally through contact
with external forces (Mountain et al, 1992). As the northern migrants were always militarily
more powerful, many features of their language were absorbed into Minnan. In suchturbulent times, language change took place either forcibly (e.g. through an edict by theinvading army) or voluntarily (e.g. from a desire to enjoy the political, social and cultural
capital of the new WO). Such migrations led to a mix of initially divergent populations andcertainly contributed to a complexity of genetic and linguistic pictures. Archaeologicalevidence (ibid.) points to Minnan acquiring more and more Sinitic features, including
borrowings of specific words, sounds and some grammatical rules (Guo, 2002).
However, those who resisted the linguistic change forced on them by Chineseemperors would find it more attractive to migrate further inland into the hills, andmetaphorically backwards into our spiral, to the areas not originally occupied. Suchmigratory hordes would retain much of their original languages. Not surprisingly, there arestill Min tribes, such as the She, which still remain tribal in organizational structure
linguistically fossilized by choice, that was aided by difficult terrain facilitating little outsidecontact (Wang, 1998). Yet other groups became stagnated at the city-state level, forexample, the cities of Longyan and Zhangping in southwestern Fujian, where there still
exists distinct non-Sinicized sub varieties of Minnan language. In particularly harsh politicalconditions, such as during the Taiping rebellion where up to 90% of the inhabitants in sometowns and cities of Fujian were reportedly killed, streams of migrants would migrate outside
the province for better protection. In their efforts to settle in new places, the Min migrants
would willingly assimilate features of the foreign tongue to theirs, hence evolving new
varieties of Min that would be further modified with each passing generation. For example,

40

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 25-48

in Shangrao, Jianxi, and particularly in the city of Cangshan, only parts of the Minnan
population can speak their original mother tongue. Simultaneously, as they left their original
fertile lands, such lands became available for people who live in shacks coming down fromthe hills; or other settlers from nearby provinces who would help fill the gap and who wereregarded as relatively more “desirable” by the invading army (Jiao, 2007). Their languages
would then undergo a further process of assimilation and acculturalization.
Fujian’s fortunes peaked during the Song dynasty (960-1279) when the region around
Quanzhou became a major city of world significance, as recounted by the Italian traveler,
Marco Polo. From here, Chinese explorers reached as far as the east of Africa or even
America (Menzies, 2004). Indeed, it was the staging and supply depot of Admiral Zheng
Ho’s naval expedition. Hence, the preeminence of Quanzhou also meant the rise of its city
tongue to LF status. The people from the other cities of Fujian, such as Wuyushan, Sanming
and Ningdei flocked to its shores attracted by its culture and wealth. Their version of Minnan
was variant and sometimes unintelligible, so they gravitated to Quanzhou LF (QLF) as the“linguistic solution” to further their economic and cultural aspirations. An LF was needed
not just to communicate with the people of Quanzhou but also amongst themselves. During
such times, code-mixing, code-switching, as well as different varieties of standard QLF
proliferated. Diglossia was practiced. On formal occasions, the QLF and Nanjinghua(Nanjing was then the imperial capital) functioned as official or “H” languages while other“subjugated” city tongues were used for informal, intimate and “L” occasions (cf. Brown,2004).
While the linguistic profile so far narrated has been that of an oral world, the written
script was a part of the “H” group of languages, which would distinguish a high official froma low one. Writing is preserved, otherwise Cantonese, Minnan, etc. would all become
foreign languages, unintelligible to Mandarin speakers. However, in writing Chinesecharacters, Minnan speakers also have a tendency to add a sizeable number of special

41

Chew, P. G. L.
Lingua Francas and World Orders

characters unique only to Fujian province and sometimes used in informal writing (just like
Cantonese). Despite the linguistic fluency of Quanzhou elites, Nanjing’s (then the symbolic
centre of Chinese culture and language) efforts to teach the officials in Quanzhou theirdialectal pronunciation were of limited success. Minnan speech continues to be unintelligible
to the northerners and in 1728, the Qing emperor, Yongzheng, issued a decree requiring all
government officials to learn Mandarin (the northern LF) because of communication
problems among government officials from different provinces (Li, 2006).
Amoy (present day Xiamen) overtook Quanzhou in importance when the latter’s
harbour began to silt up. Hence, migrants moved south to the port city of Amoy in the 19th
century, hence making standard Amoy rather than standard Quanzhou, the LF of Fujian (cf.
Chen, 2001). Then, Amoy was one of the five treaty ports open to foreign commerce and amajor centre for the export of tea and the import of opium. It was a city where many tongues
co-existed (tribal, city, the imperial tongue) and there was a prevalence of code-mixing andcode-switching. People from various villages, towns, regions and cities in Fujian, e.g. the
Hakkas from Southwest Fujian or Shantou would learn Amoy as a means of economic
survival. Pidgin English was also spoken as Amoy city attracted many Europeans, Arabs andJews.
In the 20th century, the Chinese nationalists, influenced by the European concept ofnationhood, attempted to promote a national language as a means of communication. Here,putonghua (“common speech”), originally a low-class variety of Mandarin from the northwhich came into general use at the end of the Qing dynasty, and had the connotation of
being an adulterated form of the standard Guoyu (“national language”) then spoken, waschosen as the “standard” oral base of a pan-China LF (Chen, 1999). The idea of an LF waspropelled further in 1958 when Premier Zhou En Lai initiated a decree to implement
putonghua as the medium of instruction for all schools from first grade to university
throughout China. Where Fujian was concerned, this was a radical move in view of the fact

42

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 25-48

that putonghua and Minnan were mutually unintelligible. It also came at a time when mostlanguage teachers in the south were as unfamiliar with the Beijing speech as their students(cf. Guo, 2004). Nevertheless, persistent efforts to implement the language has paid off -today, in Fujian, it is possible to shop, buy a train ticket or ask street directions by using only
putonghua, a far cry from the 1970’s where many Minnan tongues were spoken. However,while intra-regional migration in the 20th century has homogenized the Min tongues, there
are still mutually unintelligible tongues, such as Minbei and Minnan. There has been someresistance to the imposition of putonghua, viewed as a language of northerners, cultural
elites, hegemonic or dominating political parties but these are less played out in the streets(humorously) than on local television. Fujian television may use Minnan as a form of
humorous contrast to the powerful north and occasionally to maintain the cultural hegemonyof Fujian. In this respect, Minnan is used as the signifier of the historical past, the intimate
and domestic, the mundane, uncultured and philistine behavior (Gunn, 2006).
While nationhood has engendered the slow death of many Minnan tongues in the past
two generations, significantly, it has taken place without bloodshed and street protests
probably because Minnan is not replaced but is just “coated” with yet another layer. Hence,in the alleys and more intimate settings of Xiamen, most southerners still speak the same
“dialects” as their grandparents. Further inland, in Fujian, there also remain well-definedcommunities within the larger sub-language groups, as the Fujian hills have protected theirlanguages from being too quickly assimilated by the succession of Chinese LFs. But even
there, the technological locutions of new ways of life of a “new” global WO will eventuallyreach the most intimate levels of language.
We should be careful not to view Minnan only in opposition to putonghua because
putonghua itself has been contested and is always straining against its own division andmultiplication in order to fulfill a mission to overcome the local cultural hegemonies andtheir contests for status (Guo, 2004). Movements to promote putonghua as an LF have also43

Chew, P. G. L.
Lingua Francas and World Orders

varied during this time and from place to place in the degree they have sought to dominate
literature and mass media or elected to accommodate local languages. Like ELF, putonghua
itself is spoken in many different accents and dialects, some more prestigious than others.
What began as a limited dialect has now become a conglomerate of mushrooming regionalvarieties, united only by the grammar and core vocabulary of the written script. In the past
century, it absorbed many words from the surrounding languages so as to widen its function
and there are, inevitably, progressive embellishments in the way of local vocabulary.
Interestingly, at the heart of linguistic discussion in China today, it is no longer
putonghua, the national LF, but rather the emergent global LF of the new WO. There is agreat impatience on the part of Fujianese to master what is considered “the next LF”, hence
the mushrooming of private schools offering to teach English in one way or other. Not
surprisingly, in Xiamen, as with other coastal cities of China, enrollment in private schools
are way above the national average, as these cities are fuelled by the presence of foreigners
and faster economic growth. In such environments, questions such as that posed by Seidlhofer(2006): “How can one promote a common language of the community while supporting equal
rights for all community languages at the same time?” is best replaced by “How can one learn
the LF of the age quickly so as to ensure everyone has an equal chance of living well?” This
is not just the general pragmatic attitude of the Minnan peoples but of the majority Chinese in
China.

Conclusion
Elsewhere (Chew, 1999), I have argued that an unfortunate aspect of the world debate
on culture is the emphasis which some have placed on the preservation of culture, almost
with the same attitude that one has towards the preservation of museum pieces. While allkinds of loss, including language loss, is a situation deserving of the greatest empathy,
sometimes sacrifices are necessary for the collective good in view of the inevitability of44

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 25-48

Change. While the widespread use of English gave English-speaking nations a head start in
the world arena, this will only be relevant initially. As more and more non-native speakers
begin to learn English from an early age, they will naturally compete with traditional native
speakers for literary and journalistic prizes. The mechanistic view that English is incorrigiblypermeated with imperialism is rather stereotypical since it denies the dynamic and complex
social-economic potential of language change. A language must be at the service of thepeople who use it. Historically, the adoption of LFs has often not been viewed as a threat tothe existing languages but as a key to a share of the period’s symbolic power. Hence, thegrowth in the use of English should be seen more as part of a complex process of evolutionof world orders rather than as mere linguicism.
The rise of the big blue marble has become the icon of the age we live in, whether werealize it or not. It is the backdrop to television news, the logo for international conferences,
sports events and for commercial enterprises. However, whenever there is change, there isresistance. Therefore, it is not surprising that we are also witnessing a worldwide increase innationalistic and ethnic fervor. Poststructuralists are generally suspicious towards meta
narrative. There is a tendency to reject universalism, although in science the more universal
a theory the more truthful it is. These developments are the final efforts of various segmentsof humanity to establish and affirm their present respective national boundaries. From a
psychological perspective, this is an essential aspect of the development of human societies,
as well as for a human individual. But humanity’s journey towards ever-greater complexity
and integration moves on, propelled by the science of complexity; and by some stroke of its
own sheer good future, ELF seem to be bound up with the new world order. Suffice to say,English should not rest comfortably on its laurels as the fortunes of LFs rise and fall in thetheatre of history with remarkable regularity.

45

Chew, P. G. L.
Lingua Francas and World Orders

Note
1Retrieved on 11 February 2016 from: http://population.city/china/adm/fujian/References
Aitchison, J. (1992). Language change: progress or decay? (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
Univeristy Press.
Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Bruthiaux, P. (2003). Squaring the circles: issues in the modelling of English worldwide.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 159–178.
Cavalli-Sforza, L. (1994). An evolutionary view of linguistics. In M. Y. Chen, & J. L. Tseng(Eds.), In honor of William S. Y. Yang Interdisciplinary studies on language andlanguage change (pp. 17-28). Taiwan: Pyramid Press,.
Chen, P. (1999). Modern Chinese history and sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chen, Bi Jia (editor in chief). (2001). Minnan fangyan·Zhangzhouhua yanjiu. (Minnan
Dialect·A Study of Zhangzhouhua) Beijing, China: Zhongguo wenlian chubanshe (陈碧加，闽南方言·漳州话研究. 北京：中国文联出版社）
Chew, P. G. L. (1999). Linguistic imperialism, globalism and the English language. Aila
Review, 13, 37-47.
Chew, P. G. L. (2013). Emergent Lingua Franca. The politics and place of English. London
and New York: Routledge.
Deutscher, G. (2005). The unfolding of language: An evolutionary tour of mankind’s greatest
invention. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway world: How globalization is reshaping our lives. London:
Profile Books.

46

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 25-48

Godenzzi, J. C. (2006). Spanish as a Lingua Franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
26, 100-122.
Gunn, E. M. (2006). Rendering the Regional: Local languages in contemporary ChineseMedia. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
Guo, L. (2004). The relationship between putonghua and Chinese dialects. In Z. Minglang, &S. Hongkai (Eds.), Language policy in the People’s Republic of China: Theory andpractice since 1949. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hansen, M. H. (ed.) (2000). A comparative study of 30 city state cultures; an investigation. A
collection of revised papers contributed to a symposium held January 5-9, 1999 at the
Copenhagen Polis Centre, with some additional contributions. Denmark: Kgl. Danske
Videnskabernes Selskab.
Jiao, T. (2007). Neolithic of Southeast China: cultural transformations and regional
interactions. New York: Cambria Press.
Kachru, B. (1985). Standard, codification, and sociolinguistic realism: The English languagein the outer circle. In R. Henry, & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world:
teaching and learning the language of literatures (pp. 11-30). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change. Cambridge. Mass: Blackwell
Laszlo, E. (1987). Evolution. The grand synthesis. Boston: New Science Library.
Ma, C. Q. (2002). Min Tai fangyan de yuanliu yu shanbian. (Origin and Evolution of the
Dialects in Fujian and Taiwan) Fuzhou, China: Fujian renmin chubanshe (马重奇，闽
台方言的源流与嬗变. 福州：福建人民出版社）
Manning, P. (2005). Migration in World History. London: Routledge.
Menzies, G. (2004) 1421: The year China Discovered America. New York, NY: Harper
Perennial.
Mignolo, W. (2000) Local histories/global designs: coloniality, subaltern knowledges, and47

Chew, P. G. L.
Lingua Francas and World Orders

border thinking. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mountain, J. L., Wang W. S., Du, R., Yuan, Y. C. & Luca, L. (1992). Congruence of genetic
and linguistic evolution in China. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 20, 214- 326.
Nayar, P. B. (1997). ESL/EFL dichotomy today: Language politics or pragmatics? TESOL
Quarterly, 31, 9-37.
Pennycook, A. (2003). Global Englishes, Rip Slyme, and performativity. Journal of
Soiolinguistics, 7(4), 513-515.
Rodrik, D. (2007). One economics, many recipes: globalization, institutions and economic
growth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a Conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a
lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 133-156.
Seidlhofer, B. (2006) English as a Lingua Franca in Europe: Challenges for Applied
Linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 3-34.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic Genocide in Education or Worldwide Diversity andhuman rights. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wang, Y. (1998). A study of migration policy in Ancient China. Chinese Journal of
Population Science, 7(1), 27-38.
Xu, C. (1992) Min nan bai hua zi. Beijing: Yu wen chu ban she.
Zhou, J. (2006). The rise of agricultural civilization in China: the disparity between
archeological discovery and the documentary record and its explanation. In V. H. Mair,(Ed.), Sino Platonic Papers, no. 175. University of Pennsylvania.
Zuo, B. (2001). Lines and Circles. West and East. English Today, 67(17), 3-8.
藍雪霏 , 閩台閩南語民歌硏究 / 藍雪霏著. 福州市 : 福建人民出版社. 2003. 第1
版. Min tai min nan yu min ge yan jiu / Lan xue fei zhu

48Selected Papers
Research Articles

Fujio, M.
The Effects of Overseas Study on Japanese University Students

The Effects of Overseas Study on Japanese University Students:
Challenges and Opportunities in the Development of Intercultural Competence
and Impacts on Future Career1)

Misa Fujio
Toyo University

Abstract
This study investigated various challenges and opportunities that five Japanese university students
faced during and after their study in the UK, with a focus on the development of their language andintercultural competence. This study, as part of a larger project, analysed data from two focus groups
conducted in the middle of their study in the UK and one year after in Japan, in order to discuss not
only their challenges and opportunities during the study but also how to connect their study resultswith their career in Japan. The first phase study analysed their comments in the first focus group,
using the Modified Grounded Theory Approach (M-GTA). As a result, nine concepts were obtained,
revealing that the participants faced various challenges not only at the individual level such asdifficulty in speaking up in the tutorial, but also at the institutional level partly caused by the
weaknesses of both Japanese and British educational systems. The second phase study, analysingcomments in the second focus group, suggested a need for possessing academic expertise before
studying abroad and for post-study to further improve the gains from studying abroad.

Keywords: study abroad, language competence, intercultural competence,
connection to career, M-GTA

50

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 50-79

Introduction
Under the ever-increasing pressure for globalisation, the Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) in Japan issued a report in 2011 which highlighted thequalifications needed for global human resources, with particular emphasis given to language ability(that implies English) and ability to understand different cultures (that is, intercultural competence)(MEXT, 2011). In order to foster global human resources, MEXT and related organisations now
strongly encourage Japanese students to study abroad; as a result, an increasing number ofuniversities have initiated overseas study programmes. On the other hand, the number studying
abroad has reportedly been decreasing since the peak of 2004 (MEXT, 2011), due to various reasons,
including the anxiety of studying abroad and insufficient financial support (Funatsu, 2012). A closer
look at the breakdown of those studying abroad revealed that the numbers undertaking short-term
study has been on an upward trajectory, though.
The present study is part of the author’s Scientific Research (C) project investigating thequalifications needed for global human resources (hereafter, globally-minded leaders) and thechallenges and opportunities of fostering the global workforce. In this project, the author has
conducted a series of interviews and focus groups, not only with university students, but also withbusiness people or academic staff working overseas. In this particular study, however, the author will
focus on what kind of challenges and opportunities five Japanese university students faced during
their study in the UK for nearly one year, with a major focus on the development of interculturalcompetence, and how they reflected their study after they came back to Japan, by comparing two
focus groups conducted in the middle of their stay and after they came back to Japan.

Literature Review
In this literature review section, the author will summarise previous findings from research on
studying abroad (SA), and then on intercultural competence, which is one of the focal points of thisstudy. The limitations of the previous studies and the future research agenda will be clarified at the51

Fujio, M.
The Effects of Overseas Study on Japanese University Students

end of each section.

Previous Studies into Studying Abroad
Starting with a seminal publication edited by Freed (1991), the role of the study abroad
programmes for second language acquisition has been rigorously discussed. Some studies focusedon the programmes themselves, and others compared these programmes with studying-at-homeprogrammes. The challenge DeKeyser (1991) pointed out in the publication, how to connectclassroom instructions to study abroad programmes and vice versa, still remains a big research topic.
Recently studies in this field have been expanding from the initial focus on the participants’language competence (such as fluency) or pragmatic competence (focusing on speech acts) tolearning strategies, affective factors (anxiety or willingness to communicate, in particular) or even to
the context of the SA programmes (such as how the participant is involved in her host family or in
local networks), as reviewed extensively by Churchill and DuFon (2006).
Although almost all previous studies have reported the participants’ gains in the abilities
investigated, the gains reported have varied from study to study, depending on the participant or thecontext of the SA programme; therefore, as Churchill and DuFon (2006) pointed out, “thegeneralizations that may be made across programs are disappointingly few” (p. 27).
Kinginger (2013), overviewing the research trend of SA studies, pointed out the limitations ofprevious studies and the future research agenda. They include the necessity of bridging research into
language-related outcomes and sociocultural outcomes. Considering the tendency that the former,
research into language skills, has traditionally been conducted in a form of experiment while thelatter, research into sociocultural outcomes, tends to employ an ethnographical and qualitative
approach, the bridge indicates an integration between quantitative and qualitative approaches. In
addition, Kinginger points out that research into long-term study is still lacking.
Recently, studies with Japanese participants have started to sharply increase in numbers. Manyof the studies have investigated the outcomes of specific language skills through an overseas study.
52

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 50-79

For example, Tanaka and Ellis (2003) focused on the development in grammar, Kimura (2009)
studied listening comprehension through a short-term stay of two to three weeks, while Sasaki(2007) investigated the development of the participants’ writing ability over years. Other studies
combined language skills and affective factors; for example, Kimura (2012) focused on the changes
in the participants’ writing skills and willingness-to-communicate (WTC) through a short-term study
and the relationship of the two, revealing that the participants’ writing score and WTC did notnecessarily correlate. Otsuka and Negishi (2009) researched the effects of a short-term study on
fluency as well as anxiety in English use and in English classrooms. Although the participants
showed improvement in fluency and reduced anxiety, no definite relationship between fluency andanxiety was observed. As for long-term observation of one year, Fujio (2011) investigated theparticipants’ fluency, use of communication strategies as well as turn-taking style with theinterlocutor, a native speaker of British English. She reported that one of the participants did notshow much improvement in fluency nor turn-taking style, which might be attributed to the native
speaker’s over-confident attitude that made the Japanese participant a more passive listener.
All of the above studies have reported some improvement in the skills investigated eventhrough a short-term study abroad. However, few studies employ post-study tracking to understandhow the participants’ gains are maintained or even improved after they come back to Japan. One ofthese studies is Fujio (2014), which disclosed that the two participants, who improved significantly
in fluency, complexity and use of communication strategies through a short-term study abroad in her
previous study (Fujio, 2013), dropped in all three elements in a year, especially in fluency. This study
suggests the importance of connecting a SA programme with classroom education after they comeback to Japan.
Reviewing the previous studies, the challenges in SA research and the future research agenda
can be summarised as follows:

53

Fujio, M.
The Effects of Overseas Study on Japanese University Students

1)

Increasing the number of studies investigating the effects of long-term SA programmes;

2)

Increasing the number of studies combining language and sociocultural outcomes;

3)

Clarifying the benefits gained from SA and any negative influence, if any;

4)

Observing the benefits from both quantitative and qualitative points of view;

5)

Identifying personal differences that promote or slow down the participants’ gains;

6)

Observing more contextual factors such as influence by host family;

7)

Identifying what Japanese universities should provide for their students in order to connect
a SA programme with classroom education.

Intercultural CompetenceIntercultural competence is a widely used but a very complicated term to define and has been
investigated across several disciplines, including Communication Studies, Applied Linguistics,
Intercultural Communication, or International Business Management. Terms such as InterculturalCompetence, Intercultural Communicative Competence, or Cross-cultural Communication
Competence are more or less interchangeably used, with a significant overlap in definition. Some
researchers, such as Byram (1997), demarcate Intercultural Competence (IC) from Intercultural
Communicative Competence (ICC), regarding the former as the ability to interact with people fromanother country in the speaker’s own language, and the latter as the ability to communicate withpeople from different cultures in a foreign language. On the other hand, some researches use anumbrella term to discuss the components in common. For example, Spencer-Oatey and Franklin(2009) use the term, Intercultural Interaction Competence (ICIC) as an umbrella term, and define it
as “the competence not only communicate (verbally and non-verbally) and behave effectively andappropriately with people from other cultural groups, but also to handle the psychological demands
and dynamic outcomes that result from such interchanges” (p. 51).
Competence also displays many different facets, depending on the research focus, from thecomponents, developmental stages, assessment of the competence, to the degree of adaptation to the54

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 50-79

host country. Among these categories, the first type focusing on the components has been mostfrequently investigated (e.g., Byram, 1997; Gudykunst, 2004) and here the author will summarise
two representative models which are particularly related to the present study.
One of the models most frequently referred to in the field of Applied Linguistics is that of
Byram (1997). In his model, in addition to linguistic, sociolinguistic, and discourse competences (cf.,Canale & Swain, 1980; Van Ek, 1986), intercultural competence plays an especially important role.
It consists of knowledge, skills, and attitude as discussed in many other models (cf.,Ting-Toomey,
1999; Gudykunst, 2004), with the skill element further divided into skills of interpreting and relating(the ability to interpret new data from another culture and relate it to that from one’s own) and skillsof discovering and interacting (the ability to discover new knowledge in interaction), followed by
one more element, critical cultural awareness. Although his model had significant impact in the fieldof Applied Linguistics, it is sometimes pointed out to be “less applicable to non-school contexts,
where more immediate results are desired” (Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009, p. 69) and thecomponents still seem to be too abstract.
The model used to identify the development of the participants’ intercultural competence in thepresent study is that of Spencer-Oatey and Stadler (2009). This model provides a more detailed
breakdown of the components and includes a relational aspect such as ‘rapport building’ whose
importance was reiterated by the participants in the current study, and a communicative aspect suchas ‘communication management’ that incorporates the ability to choose the most appropriate
language or to establish communication networks. In this model, the authors used the term,intercultural competency, and the following four categories. (The author, however, has retained theterm, intercultural competence, in this study for familiarity).
1) Knowledge and ideas
information gathering / new thinking / goal orientation / synergistic solutions

55

Fujio, M.
The Effects of Overseas Study on Japanese University Students

2) Communication
communication management / language learning / language adjustment / active listening /attuning / building of shared knowledge and mutual trust / stylistic flexibility
3) Relationships
welcoming of strangers / rapport building / sensitivity to social, professional context /interpersonal attentiveness4) Personal qualities and dispositions
spirit of adventure / self-awareness / acceptance / flexibility / inner purpose /coping / resilienceThe author will come back and refer to this model in the later analytical section. Here, at theend of this section, she will summarise some challenges from previous studies.

1) The components in some of these models are too abstract to enable accurate identification.
Therefore, for comprehensive understanding and instruction of these components, somecontext should be provided.
2) Since this line of research has mainly developed in North America and Europe, thedifficulties of using English seems to be underestimated. In the Japanese educational
context, it will be more practical to combine intercultural competence with language andcommunicative competence.
3) For the same reason, the applicability of these models to the Japanese context should be
more widely discussed.
With regard to 3) above, Yamamoto and Tanno (2002) discuss the applicability of theIntercultural Development Inventory (IDI), a questionnaire to measure intercultural competencedeveloped by Hammer, Bennette and Wiseman (2003), to Japanese university students, concluding
56

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 50-79

that some modification will be needed for them to understand the questions well enough.
When measuring intercultural competence, a questionnaire such as IDI has been the mostwidely recognised method. However, as the author pointed out in 1) above, it is not easy to answer aquestionnaire when sufficient context is not provided. In order to resolve this difficulty, a qualitative
approach will be more useful. For example, Spencer-Oatey and Davidson (2014) suggests “The 3R
Tool” to develop intercultural sensitivity, a weekly report consisting of 3Rs: Report the facts of what
happened, Reflect on why it happened, and Re-evaluate after discussing with others. This isespecially insightful in that the report includes the re-evaluation stage through a discussion of thefacts with a partner, hopefully from different backgrounds, which allows the writer to compare
his/her interpretation with the partner’s.
In the present study, the author chose a qualitative approach to investigate the challenges andopportunities of five Japanese students studying in the UK, as will be explained in detail below.

Methodology
As summarised above, previous studies on SA programmes had a tendency to haveinvestigated either language competence or sociocultural aspects including intercultural competence,and consequently studies investigating both are still limited. Therefore, the author designed researchwhich allows her to observe both aspects by using a qualitative approach, instead of presetting theframework such as using a questionnaire.

Research Aims of the Present Study
As mentioned in the Introduction, this study is part of a big research project investigating thequalifications needed for globally-minded leaders, and the present study focused on and investigatedthe changes, challenges, and opportunities of five Japanese university students studying in the UK
for a year. The main aims of the present study are:57

Fujio, M.
The Effects of Overseas Study on Japanese University Students

1) to identify the challenges and opportunities of the participants in their study abroad;2) to identify what kind of education is needed before and after their study abroad;3) to identify the qualifications needed for globally-minded leaders, from the viewpoint of aJapanese university student.

Data Collection
In order to ensure the research project was as deep and objective as possible, the author
collected multiple data. Specifically, the following five different types of data were collected fromthe participants. The major data was collected in London from October 2015 to March 2016, when
the author stayed in the UK on sabbatical.

1)

Two different types of questionnaire at the beginning and the end of research period;

2)

Three semi-controlled interviews in English with a native speaker of British English;

3)

Post-interviews with the author in Japanese immediately after the three interviews;

4)

A Focus group among the participants in the middle of their stay;5)

A Focus group among the participants after they returned to Japan.

First, the questionnaires were administered to observe the participants’ backgrounds in relation
to their English education in Japan and communicative experiences using English. The second one,
three interviews in English were conducted in order to observe their improvement in language
competence (such as fluency) and strategic competence (such as the use of communication
strategies), as well as their changes in intercultural competence which would be reflected in what
they actually talked about in the interviews. They were conducted at the beginning of the first term
(October 2015), the second term (January 2016), and at the end of the second term (March 2016).
The third, the data in post-interviews conducted with the author in Japanese, was collected to further
observe the gaps between what they intended to say and what they actually said in the English
58

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 50-79

interviews. Also, it worked as an important opportunity to disclose how they were feeling about theirstudy in the UK. The last two, focus groups further revealed the challenges and opportunities of theirstudy abroad. The first focus group was held in January 2016, in the middle of their stay and second
one was completed within one year, in order to further evaluate their changes after they came back toJapan. It would have been ideal if another focus group had been conducted when the third term
ended and they came back to Japan, that is, either June or July 2016. However, practicality did notallow the author to conduct the focus group earlier; the timing of their return to Japan varied fromperson to person and their schedule always conflicted until the end of February in 2017 when thesecond focus group was finally conducted. It turned out, however, that the end of February was very
timely because it gave the participants sufficient time to reflect on their study abroad and consider
their future career through their job-seeking activities.
To investigate various challenges and opportunities through overseas study and its impact on
their future career in the present study, the author focused on the data 4) and 5) above and used otherdata to further interpret their opinions presented in the two focus groups. The advantages of using a
focus group will be elaborated upon later.

Participants
The five research participants joined this project, in response to my research advertisement
which was distributed in a pre-session class just before the first term by a professor at a college in
London, an acquaintance of the author’s. Therefore, they all attended the same college in London,
with different majors as summarised in Table 1. The author explained the details of the project toeach of them, and received their signature on a consent form, which stipulated that the data would
solely be used for research purposes and they clearly understood the project.
All of the participants had very similar backgrounds in Japan; they all came from a famous
public or private Japanese university; they all had very good English proficiency (including speaking
skills) before they came to the UK, which was proven by their qualifications; and they had no prior
59

Fujio, M.
The Effects of Overseas Study on Japanese University Students

overseas experiences except short trips. All the participants joined an undergraduate programme
except M1 who belonged to a Foundation Course, in which students study general subjects while
improving English; however, he also took some professional courses such as International Business,
Media and Social Science.

Table 1
Details of Research Participants

F1
F2

Grade

Major in JapanClasses Selected in the UK

Qualifications

2nd

International

4 (Development Studies, Business,

TOEIC 955

Liberal Arts

Politics)

IELTS 7.0

International

4 (International Relations, Politics,

TOEIC 960

Sociology

Economics)

IELTS 7.0

Development

4 (Development Studies, Natural

TOEIC 780

StudiesResources, Development

IELTS 7.0

3rd

F3

4th

Economics, African Studies
M1

2nd

Sociology

Foundation Course + International

IELTS 6.0

Business, Media, Social Science
M2

3rd

Anthropology

4 (Anthropology, Development

IELTS 6.5

Studies)
Note: F shows a female and M shows a male student, respectively.

Focus Group as a Research Method
The term, focus group, derives from “focused group discussion” (Eriksson & Kovalainen,
2008, p. 173) and is defined as “a group of individuals selected and assembled by researchers to
discuss and comment on, from personal experience, the topic that is the subject of the research”(Powell & Single, 1996, p. 499); therefore, it is a method effective in particular to collect opinions ona specific topic. Compared to an interview, a focus group has an advantage in collecting acomparatively large amount of information in a limited time frame and the topic discussed can be
developed through interaction among the participants.
60

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 50-79

Some researchers point out that a focus group provides better insights when conducted amonga homogeneous group in terms of gender, generation, etc. (e.g., Morgan, 1997). With regard to thenumber of participants, less than 10 is generally considered to be ideal; otherwise, there might besome participants who feel uncomfortable to speak up in a group.
In the present study, considering all the five participants had similar backgrounds in that they
were studying at the same college in the UK, without particular previous overseas experiences, theauthor chose a focus group for data collection.
The first focus group was conducted in January 2016 and lasted for 1 hour and 34 minutes andthe second one in February 2017 for 1 hour and 27 minutes. As is often the case in a focus group, theauthor assumed the role of facilitator and asked the following same questions in both focus groups
except Question 1 which was only asked in the first focus group. In order to make the discussion
more active, these focus groups were conducted in Japanese.

1. Background information (affiliation, reasons for overseas study, career plans);
2. What are/were the most exciting experiences during their study in the UK;
3. What are/were the most challenging experiences during their study in the UK;
4. What kind of skills or abilities they have improved the most;
5. What are/were the differences between Japan and the UK in university education;
6. What are the qualifications needed for globally-minded leaders.

Analytical Method
In the first phase analysis, all of the comments presented in the first focus group (during theirstay in the UK) were transcribed and analysed, using the Modified Grounded Theory Approach(M-GTA). M-GTA was developed by Kinoshita (2003), based on the Grounded Theory Approach(GTA) founded by Glaser and Strauss (1967), and it is increasingly applied to studies in the field ofApplied Linguistics or Intercultural Communication.
61

Fujio, M.
The Effects of Overseas Study on Japanese University Students

M-GTA shares the basic notions with GTA; therefore, it is an approach grounded on the data,
instead of setting some fixed framework beforehand. That is the main reason the author used thisapproach for analysis in the current study, in which she intended to observe and categorise all thechallenges and opportunities presented in the focus group, instead of categorising them into pre-fixedgroups with prior assumptions. M-GTA sets a clear and systematic analytical process so that all thedata can be analysed until the researcher reaches a “theoretical saturation,” a point of not being able
to sort out data any longer, signalling the end of the analysis (Kinoshita, 2003, p. 143).
In M-GTA, worksheets are used for clearer and simpler analysis, instead of fragmenting thedata as conducted in the GTA, which might possibly make the analysis too complicated. In the firststage, “Open Coding” or the stage that considers all possible interpretable coding based on raw data
(Kinoshita, 2003, p. 156), all the comments are sorted out into several worksheets, each of which
stands for each concept. Each worksheet consists of 1) the name of the concept, 2) the definition of
the concept, 3) variations (actual comments), and 4) theoretical memo. In the theoretical memo, allnoticed or possible other interpretations are written down. Through this process, all possible
interpretations can be reviewed and converged into several concepts.
In the next stage, “Selective Coding” or the stage that considers the relationship between
concepts (Kinoshita, 2003, p. 211), related concepts are categorised into bigger groups. Then, theresults are shown as a figure as well as a story line, a verbal report of the figure.
With regard to the analysis of the second focus group (hereafter called as the second phaseanalysis), the author used the categories gained from the first focus group (the first phase analysis)
and compared the participants’ comments so that the differences between the two focus groups will
be highlighted.

Analytical Results
First Phase Analysis
Open coding. In the first stage, Open Coding, nine basic concepts are formed, which are
62

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 50-79

summarised with each definition in Table 2, to be identified at a glance.

Table 2Nine Concepts2) and Definitions

Concepts

Definitions

Importance of speaking up andSpeaking up itself is very important in a

giving opinions

study abroad.

 Lack of opinions

The fact that the participants don't have theirown ideas on the topics is one of the reasons
why they cannot speak up easily.



Logicality of English

The logicality of English sometimes
facilitates their comprehension or presenting
disagreements in English (rather thanJapanese).

Differences in educational system(UK strengths)

Good points in the UK Educational systemthat facilitates their study

Differences in educational system

Weak points in the UK educational system(UK weaknesses)that slows down their study



Aptitude to survive overseas

Aptitudes necessary to survive in a foreigncountry

National differences in coping

Differences by nationality in the degree of
coping with classmatesNew findings of own culture

Studying abroad has become a good
opportunity to discover new aspects ofJapanese society.

Anxiety over the results of the

How much they can gain through this study

overseas study

or how they can connect their progress to afuture career has become a worry.

Below, actual comments (variations)3) will be presented for each concept, although they are
limited to only two or three, due to the space limitation.

1Importance of speaking up and giving opinionsl

In the tutorial session, I’m always overwhelmed [by the other participants]. [For example]
even if the tutor presents the correct answer, some students show disagreement, saying “Oh63

Fujio, M.
The Effects of Overseas Study on Japanese University Students

I'm thinking this way because...” It’s so logical that sometimes the tutor cannot respond to it
right away. (F2)l[The degree of] speaking up individual opinions is different [from Japan]. Although we also
have a seminar system in Japan in which nearly ten students discuss, the most important part isthe summary by the professor at the end [rather than our discussion itself]. (M2)2Lack of opinionsl

In my case, [I lose the timing to speak up] partly because I think over the topic and partly
because I have no opinions at all. Since in Japan I was passive in the classroom and focused on
remembering what was taught, I cannot think of my own ideas. (F3)l

I want to cut in at least once in a tutorial class. But I always wonder if I can say this at thistiming and if it’s logical enough. So, I often end up asking a question. I’m not sure if it’s causedby my language ability or lack of opinions. Perhaps both. (F2)3)

Logicality of EnglishlAs for reading, the structure of English articles is easier for me to understand and I canremember the content better. Actually I had a very hard time with [same type of] articles
written in Japanese. They are too abstract to get the point. (F3)lWhile discussing in Japanese, I feel it a little hard to disagree with others. But in English, I cansay more easily, like “but there is another way of thinking.” In English, I say what I cannot say
in Japanese and [in this sense] my personality changes by the language used. (F2)4)

Differences in educational system (UK strengths)l

In Japan, many Japanese students are passive in the classroom and active learners are rather aminority. Here [in the UK], students ask questions spontaneously, not just getting informationfrom professors. Even in daily life, they tend to pay more attention to current issues, and that is
a very different point. (M2)64

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 50-79l

One of the reasons [why the students here are eager to learn] is that their academic
undergraduate achievement is very important for their career, because many of them go on to a
postgraduate. Also, what they major is directly related to their job. (F3)

5) Differences in educational system (UK weaknesses / Japanese strengths)l

A friend studying in the US has to submit a short essay or take a short test every week. But inthe UK we have only two reports in a year and term-end exams. So, the opportunities for output
is rather limited, compared to the US. (F1)l

In the UK, even though we stay silent in the tutorial, we can still survive. (F3)lProfessors here seem to have more time for research while Japanese professors spend moretime with their students, including teaching, office hours, and seminars. I appreciate the timethat Japanese professors dedicate to us. (M2)6Aptitude to survive overseaslI’m a passive person by nature. Although I didn’t much realise it in Japan, it’s not good here [inthe UK]. It’s very important to be more spontaneous and to take an initiative. (F1)l

I have some friends who are not happy with their life in the UK. For example, even a door isbroken, the owner just leaves it for a long time. In a way, rather insensitive people [to thesetroubles] may be suitable [to stay abroad] than those who stick to Japanese way. (F2)l

In order to compete globally, we should have at least one ability we are confident with. If so, itbacks up our identity and we may speak up [more actively], utilising the ability. (F3)7National differences in copingl

I’m wondering if nationality may influence who we make friends with. There are somenationalities that I can sympathise, such as Koreans, Germans or East Africans. But I don’t
have close British, French or Italian friends yet. (F3)l

It is easier to speak to Asian students because the speed of their English is slower [than that ofnative speakers] and their English proficiency is more or less similar. (M2)65

Fujio, M.
The Effects of Overseas Study on Japanese University Students

8New findings of own culturelWhen I’m asked about Japan, I cannot explain it well. When I’m with my flat mates, I’m
surprised at how well they know about their own countries. (M1)lWhen we discuss the positioning of Japan [during and] after the War, my classmates criticise
the Japanese imperialism without hesitation. While I was in Japan, I did not get muchinformation nor have much debate [on this topic]. As there are many Korean and Chinese
students, I can listen to various ideas from different perspectives. (F2)9Anxiety over the results of the overseas studylI’m a little concerned if my English ability is really improving. I read a lot and now I canunderstand more words, but the words I can understand and I can actually use are different. So,
I wonder if I can obtain English ability worth studying abroad before I leave here. (F2)l

I cannot still join a large group conversation, especially of native speakers. They use a lot ofslang, political and social background or proper names I’m not familiar with. (F3)l

How I can connect what I’m studying here to my future career in Japan is the biggest challenge
for me. I have five more months and what I can get through this study and bring back to Japanis what I’m worried the most. (F3)

All the comments above have a lot of suggestions for the English education in Japan,
including both individual challenges and organisational challenges. Before moving on to the author’s
discussion, the analysis in the selective-coding will be presented here.
Selective coding. In the next stage, Selective Coding, related concepts are categorised into
bigger groups. According to Kinoshita (2003), this is the stage in which the researcher’s ability andinterpretation is most displayed. The author categorised the concepts into four groups, which issummarised in Figure 1.

66

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 50-79

Figure 1. Selective coding results.

As shown in Figure 1, the participants faced many challenges, consisting of not only
individual challenges such as difficulties to speak up and anxiety over the results, but also
institutional challenges stemming from both Japanese and UK educational weaknesses (No. 7,
National differences, was categorised here because some participants mentioned the difficulty oftalking to British or native-speaker classmates.). There are some factors, however, that help them inthe classroom and in daily life, which includes logicality of English, their aptitude to survive
overseas, and new findings of their own culture.
Summary of the first phase analysis. In addition to the above explanation of theselective-coding results (story-line), the author would like to summarise the most important points
gained from the first phase analysis.
In the group of individual challenges, the difficulty of speaking up in the tutorial wascommented on by all of the five participants. It is noteworthy that their lack of an opinion on the
topic being discussed was repeated as a reason for the difficulty. They reiterated that since Japanese
university students are accustomed to being passive in the current Japanese educational system, they
have a hard time to develop their own ideas on the topics discussed in the tutorial. In addition,
67

Fujio, M.
The Effects of Overseas Study on Japanese University Students

several participants asserted the importance of having professional knowledge in the academic
context, as represented by the comment in 6) aptitude to survive overseas. Enhancing the academic
level itself will be an important challenge for the future Japanese higher education.
In addition to the challenges at the individual level, the students have faced with those at theinstitutional/national level, the weaknesses of the British educational system as well as those of theJapanese system. They include fewer chances to speak English than in the US, and difficulty incoping with British classmates. As presented above, the latter is partly due to their hesitation
stemming from their language ability as represented by the comments 7) and 9) above. Consideringthat all the participants have a very good command of English (which is proven in their English
qualifications), this must be an even more significant problem for the Japanese university students
studying abroad with lower proficiency.
Lastly, in terms of intercultural competence, they commented on their new discovery on theirown (Japanese) culture as well as their gains in aptitude, such as acceptance of, flexibility to, andcoping with British culture (See the comments in 6) Aptitude). Therefore, in the model of
Spencer-Oatey and Stadler (2009) presented in the section of Literature Review, they realised some
improvement in the components of the personal qualities and dispositions in this first focus group,that is, during the first four months since they came to the UK; specifically, they commented on‘acceptance,’ ‘flexibility,’ ‘coping’ and ‘resilience’ in the model. On the other hand, the participants
were still struggling with speaking up in the tutorial (i.e., ‘communication management’ in themodel) or making friends with European or British classmates (i.e., ‘rapport building’ in the model).
Thus, this first phase analysis disclosed that the participants recognised some improvement in theirintercultural competence in the category of ‘personal qualities and dispositions,’ but not necessarily inthat of ‘communication’ and ‘relationships.’
Second Phase Analysis
With regard to the second focus group, the author analysed their comments based on the
categories derived from the first focus group, that is Figure 1, so that their changes will be compared68

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 50-79

and highlighted. The analysis starts with their individual challenges, institutional challenges, andtheir success factors. As the second focus group was conducted after they came back to Japan andwhen some of them were involved in job-seeking activities, their comments displayed moreindividual variations than the first focus group when they attended the same college and were facedwith similar types of challenges.
Challenges at the individual level. In the first focus group, all participants commented on the
difficulty of speaking up in the tutorial and commented much less on other aspects of language
competence. In the second focus group, the author asked the same question, about their improvement
in language, communicative, and intercultural competence. With regard to language competence, theperception if having improved varied from person to person, as indicated by Table 3.

Table 3
Language Ability Perceived to have Improved
Listening Speaking

Speaking

Reading

Writing

Vocabulary(Informal) (Formal)
F1













F2













F3













M1













M2













Notes:  indicates "particularly improved" and  "improved."  includes both cases when
they answered "not in particular" or "not as much as expected".  shows no comments.

As previous studies have disclosed, there is no consensus in the language ability students cangain through an overseas study. Similarly, in the present study, the perception of improvement varied
from person to person. This possibly stems from the individual differences, not only in actual
improvement but also in their perception, as implied by the following comments.

69

Fujio, M.
The Effects of Overseas Study on Japanese University Studentsl

The improvement in listening is difficult to judge, because even if I cannot perfectly understandthe interlocutor, I can still continue a conversation. So, I can’t tell how much I really improvedin listening. (F2)l

My listening comprehension depends on the interlocutor. There were some classmates I
couldn’t understand well. They used a lot of slang or academically difficult vocabulary. (F3)

Likewise, F2 and F3 commented that they could not enrich their vocabulary as much as they
had expected. First of all, the vocabulary used in lectures is limited, so their overall vocabulary did
not increase across the fields. Second, even though they became familiar with some vocabulary
through reading, they could not actually use them as their own vocabulary. In other words, they
could not improve their vocabulary enough to change it from their passive vocabulary to active one.
The gaps between their actual improvement and their perception will be an interesting research topic
and will be investigated in the author’s separate studies.
There are, however, two points in common among all the participants.
The first point is that they still find it difficult to speak English in a formal situation, group
discussions in particular, in spite of the fact that some participants recognised their conversation
skills improved remarkably. This might suggest that speaking in a formal situation, including how totake turns, should require specific education, in addition to conversational fluency.
The next point they all recognised is that they do not have to speak English like a native
speaker and they feel more relaxed now to speak English (at least in daily conversation), released
from their own expectation for “perfect English.” They learned this point through their own
experiences of hearing many immigrants or international students speaking English incorrectly but
eloquently.
With regard to another individual challenge revealed in the first focus group, anxiety over the
results, especially how to connect the study to their career, there were two opposite opinions
presented. On the one hand, they all learned that UK society is more flexible than Japanese society
70

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 50-79

and there are more options they can choose after they graduate from university, including moving on
to postgraduate study. On the other hand, F1 revealed her conflicts after she came back to Japan;
there are still fewer chances for female students in Japanese corporations even though she hopes toutilise her English proficiency. Also, as M1 commented, university support after overseas study isvery short in supply. Although many universities provide pre-study programmes, post-study
programmes are paid much less attention. This will be the point to be reformed in the future, and will
be discussed again in the section of Discussion.
Challenges at the institutional/national level. Their comments about institutional
challenges, in other words, the weaknesses/strengths of the Japanese and British educational systems
were nearly the same as the first focus group (See 4) and 5) in the open-coding section). As for theadvantages of the British educational system, they repeated the importance of the discussion style in
the tutorial as represented by the following comment by F2.

l

We can learn more in the British system [than in the Japanese system]. Having a discussion
really activates my brain. Through discussions, we can get new ideas from other students.
Combined with mine, they become new stimulations. How long the topic stays in my brain
is completely different [from the cases without discussions]. (F2)

On the other hand, there are also opinions disclosing some dissatisfaction with the British
educational system.

l

The essay writing in the UK or Europe has a fixed pattern, using theoretical evidence or
citation of previous studies much more than in Japan. When we [follow this pattern and] put
pieces like a puzzle, we can reach a reasonable conclusion and we can get a pass, as long as
the essay satisfies logical consistency. But whether the conclusion is really practical or feasible
is not assessed, at least at the undergraduate level. I felt a little dissatisfaction in that point and,71

Fujio, M.
The Effects of Overseas Study on Japanese University Students

when I came back to Japan, I showed the essay to my Japanese supervisor. He asked me,“What do you think [rather than making a conclusion based on previous studies]?”, but I was
not able to rewrite it. (F3)This comment and a very similar one by F2 are insightful in that they imply that there might
be a limitation in teaching the Western-style essay writing, just focusing on logical thinking, and apossibility of utilising the advantages of Japanese seminar system, in which a professor and his/hersupervisees spend more time together and are more closely tied; therefore, the professor understands
his/her supervisee’s personality and their way of thinking more deeply.
Success factors. In the first focus group, three concepts of logicality of English, aptitude tosurvive overseas, and new findings of own culture, were categorised as factors that helped them bothin classroom and daily life in the UK. The largest difference in the second focus group was related toaptitude to survive overseas. Unlike the first focus group, they did not mention national differences
as a challenge and, instead, regarded the difficulties in coping with as individual differences, as
represented by the following comments.

l

Although I was thinking British people are detached and difficult to cope with, I realised thatthey are more open than I thought at the very end of my stay. I realised that, once we become
friends, they are very warm. (F3)lRegardless of being British or not, we have similarities and differences in values. (F2)

These comments disclose that they somewhat changed their perception from connecting theircommunicative difficulties with national differences to relativising them as personal differences. In
the model of Spencer-Oatey and Stadler (2009) presented above, they gained ‘new thinking’ in the
category of ‘knowledge and ideas,’ and improved ‘rapport building’ in the category of‘relationships.’
Also, some of the participants commented on the development of ‘self-awareness’ in the category of72

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 50-79‘personal qualities and dispositions,’ as a result of living by themselves, away from their family.

Discussion
The analytical results above indicate that Japanese students studying abroad (at least in theUK) may have triple-facet burdens: their individual challenges such as how to develop language orintercultural competence; how to cope with educational challenges caused by the weaknesses of both
Japanese and the host country’s educational styles; and how to overcome challenges at the affective
level, such as hesitation in speaking to British classmates, caused by huge gaps in English
proficiency between native-speakers and non-native speakers.
In this section, the author will further discuss and highlight some of the implications reported
in the previous section which might be utilised in Japanese higher education.
The first implication is related to how to alleviate challenges at the affective level. As indicatedby the comment in 6) Aptitude, possessing academic advantage seems to be a useful solution. If they
study the related fields (even in Japanese) before they start a SA, they will be confident in theirknowledge and be able to speak up more actively; otherwise they would bear the double burdens incomprehension, that is, both language and the content, which will lead to hesitation, fear, andpressure to speak up in the tutorial. The importance of learning content as well as the target language
seems to be consistent with current trends in English education in Japan, as reflected in increasing
attention to new methods such as CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning).
Another possibility might be a gradual exposure to English-speaking environment. It might beeffective to start a first step with a programme conducted in countries where English is not used as
the mother tongue or one involving only non-native speakers. In an interview with the author, F3
shared her unique and beneficial experience that contributed to improving her English proficiency
before she came to the UK, specifically, her experience as a student ambassador to an international
conference held by a non-profit organisation. In this project, as all other participants were non-native
speakers of English, she felt relaxed to speak up and gained confidence in exchanging opinions with73

Fujio, M.
The Effects of Overseas Study on Japanese University Studentsthem.
The second implication is related to SA programmes. It is especially important for individual
participants to set clear purposes of their study and choose the most appropriate programme. In thecurrent study, although all the participants appreciated their SA experience, they attributed the main
benefits to their major and new thinking about their future options, not necessarily the developmentof language competence. The following comments in the second focus group include interestingobservations.

l Comparing other SA programmes focusing on English with ours [joining an undergraduate
programme], the former is more likely to improve English itself and skills measured by score.
My friends who joined a language programme in the US for 3 to 5 months are now morefamiliar with useful expressions and achieve better scores. So, in terms of improving English,
our way of studying may not be the best. (M2)l I wanted to speak to my flat mates more. But I had to spend a lot of time preparing for classes
and avoided speaking to them when I’m tired. If my workload had been smaller like alanguage programme, I might have had more chances to speak. (F3).

Another point arising in the second focus group regarding SA programmes is post-study
environment. Both F1 and F2 revealed that, although they could not speak up in the UK as they
wished, now in Japan they can speak up more in discussions, partly because the peer pressure theyfelt in the UK when surrounded by higher proficiency students is now removed. As implicated by
DeKeyser (1991), there may be another phase to further improve their language competence after
they come back to Japan. Therefore, post-SA programmes should be further investigated.
The third implication is how to make the most of the strengths of Japanese higher education.
As presented in the analysis section, some participants appreciated the Japanese seminar system andthe relationship between the professor and supervisee in Japan. Other participants showed a sort of74

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 50-79

dissatisfaction with the Western way of essay writing. Although the importance of logical thinking
underlying the essay writing in English is unquestionable, it might be more beneficial to incorporate
something additional in the Japanese higher education. One possible option will be to incorporate aholistic point of view. As Nisbett and Miyamoto (2005) point out, Anglophone people tend to havean analytical point of view, which tries to analyse objects in pieces, while Asian people have aholistic one, trying to understand objectives as a whole through maximising the five senses. The
importance of enhancing “sensitivity” based on the five senses both in education and incommunication is argued for by Yanase (2016), not overemphasising the intellectual side that isbasically supported and measured by evidence, numbers or logics. Recently there is a movement to
try to master a foreign language by enhancing sensitivity (e.g., Murakami, 2017). The author also
believes that the English education in Japan could have wider perspectives, instead of just following
the trends of English speaking countries.

Conclusion
The current study has presented findings from two focus groups as major data, consisting offive Japanese university students studying in the UK for one year. It has revealed important
challenges facing Japanese students, not only at the individual level but also at the institutional levelcaused by the weaknesses of both Japanese and British educational styles. It has also highlighted the
difficulties they have faced after they returned to Japan, suggesting the importance of connecting a
SA programme with post-SA programmes in Japan.
The current study, however, has limitations in respect of size and representation, in that all theparticipants were high proficiency students even before they studied in the UK and low proficiency
learners were not included, even though the richness of description is most likely transferrable tovarious participants and situations.
In order to meet the various needs of this age of globalisation, many more studies are needed,both qualitatively and quantitatively, in order to reveal the challenges and opportunities students face75

Fujio, M.
The Effects of Overseas Study on Japanese University Students

during SA programmes as well as pre- and post-SA instruction in Japan so that students will
maximise their gains through SA programmes.

Acknowledgements
The current study is part of a research project supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number
JP15K02764. The author is also indebted to the research participants, who provided her withvaluable data, and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. Any flaws and mistakesthat remain in this article solely lie with the author.

Notes
1

The title of this paper was modified from that of the paper presentation at the 56th JACETWorld Conference, “The longitudinal changes of intercultural competency throughoverseas study and impact on future career,” considering that the current study discusses
not only the participants’ intercultural competence, but also more broader issues, such as
challenges caused by the Japanese and British education systems.

2

They are numbered just for convenience, not indicating any priority. The relationshipamong the concepts are formed in the next Selective Coding stage.

3

The comments were translated by the author in a way as close as how they were actuallycommented. In order to make them easier to understand, some information was added inbrackets. The initial in the parentheses shows the speaker.

References
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Canele, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
76

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 50-79

Churchill, E., & DuFon, M. A. (2006). Evolving threads in study abroad research. In M. A. DuFon,& E. Chyrchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 1-27). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1991). Foreign language development during a semester abroad. In B. F. Freed(Ed.), Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom (pp. 104-119). Lexigton,
MA: DC Health and Company.
Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2008). Qualitative methods in business research. London: SAGE
Publications.
Freed, B. F. (1991). Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom. Lexington, MA: D.C.
Heath and Company.
Fujio, M. (2011). Communication strategies in action: The negotiation, establishment, andconfirmation of common ground. Tokyo: Seibido.
Fujio, M. (2013). Positive effects of short-term overseas programs on Japanese university students’English communication. Keieironshu (Toyo University), 82, 13-27.
Fujio, M. (2014). The retention and attrition of English ability by Japanese university students withshort-term overseas study experience. Keieironshu (Toyo University), 84, 25-39.
Funatsu, H. (2012). Kaigai ryugaku no douki zukuri. [How to motivate overseas study - Importanceof Bridge Programs.] Web Magazine, Ryugaku Koryu, 14, 1-11.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.
Gudykunst, W. B. (2004). Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication (4th ed.).
London: SAGE Publications.
Hammer, M.R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: Theintercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27,
421-443.

77

Fujio, M.
The Effects of Overseas Study on Japanese University Students

Kimura, K. (2009). The influences of studying abroad on language proficiency and the use oflanguage learning strategies: In the case of a three-week English program. KATE Bulletin, 23,
47-58.
Kimura, K. (2012). Changes of writing fluency and the affective factors behind them: In the case of
the short-term overseas program participants. KATE Bulletin, 26, 53-65.
Kinginger, C. (2013). Introduction: Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad.
In C. Kinginger (Ed.), Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad (pp.
3-15). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kinoshita, Y. (2003). Guraundeddo seori apurouchi no jissen [Modified Grounded Theory
Approach]. Tokyo: Kobundo.
MEXT (2011). Gurobaru jinzai no ikusei ni tsuite [How to foster Global Human Resources]
Retrieved from www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo3/047/.../1316067_01.pdf
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. California: SAGE Publications Inc.
Murakami, H. (2017). Kansei wo takameru eigo kyoiku [English education to enhance sensitivity through a musical workshop]. A workshop at Kansai Gaidai University.
Nisbett, R. E., & Miyamoto, Y. (2005). The influence of culture: Holistic versus analytic perception.
Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 467-473.
Otsuka, K., & Negishi, J. (2009). The effect of a two-week study abroad program on speaking
fluency and the relationship among fluency, English use anxiety, and English classroom
anxiety. KATE Bulletin, 22, 35-46.
Powell, R., & Single, H. (1996). Focus groups. International Journal of Quality in Health Care, 8(5),499-505.
Sasaki, M. (2007). Effects of study-abroad experiences on EFL writers: A multiple-data analysis. The
Modern Language Journal, 91, 602-620.

78

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 50-79

Spencer-Oatey, H., & Davidson, A. (2014). The 3R Tool: Developing evaluation sensitivity inintercultural encounters. Retrieved fromhttp://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc.al/globalpad/openhouse/interculturalskills/
Spencer-Oatey, H., & Franklin, P. (2009). Intercultural interaction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Spencer-Oatey, H., & Stadler, S. (2009). The global people competency framework. Warwick
Occasional Papers in Applied Linguistics, 3, 1-36.
Tanaka, K., & Ellis, R. (2003). Study-abroad, language proficiency, and learner beliefs about
language learning. JALT Journal, 25(19), 63-85.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: The Guilford Press.
Van Ek, J. A. (1986). Objectives for foreign language learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Yamamoto, S., & Tanno, D. (2002). Applicability of the intercultural development inventory: Toward
the development of Japanese version. School of Management and Economics Aomori PublicCollege Journal, 7(2), 24-42.
Yanase, Y. (2016). Eigo kyoiku no kiban toshiteno kansei ni tsuiteno rironteki seiri [Theoreticalreview on sensitivity as a basis of English education]. Paper Presented at the 47th CASELE
Conference at Okayama University.

79Katagiri, N., & Ohashi, Y.
Non-native Preservice English Teachers’ Lexical Usage and Interactional Patterns in Transcriptions Codedon COLT Part B Scheme

Non-native Preservice English Teachers’ Lexical Usage and Interactional
Patterns in Transcriptions Coded on COLT Part B Scheme
Noriaki Katagiri
Hokkaido University of Education
Yukiko Ohashi
Yamazaki University of Animal Health Technology

Abstract
This exploratory quantitative case study attempted to analyze non-native preservice English
teachers’ target language use based on interactional patterns. We accumulated 14 non-native
preservice English teachers on teaching practice demonstration during the years 2014 through2016. We collected approximately 9,500 spoken English tokens, and 6,000 preservice teacher
turns. We examined their spoken English tokens in genuine English utterances that excluded
mixture of L1 and L2 utterances, and quantified distributions of teacher verbal interactions infive features classified in the Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching Observation
Scheme (COLT) Part B coding scheme. The word frequency level measured by the
benchmark wordlist showed that over 90% of the spoken tokens were distributed in the first
2,000 most frequently used words on the wordlist. N-gram analyses indicated the L2 phrases
were classified mainly as instructional phrases used in the language classroom. The COLT
coding revealed that the verbal interactions were less communicatively oriented due to thesignificance of giving information style than requesting information. The interaction coding
also suggested that the L2-led interactions created relatively more communicative style due tothe L2 significance in the not pseudo but genuine questions.
Keywords: preservice teachers, interactions, COLT, transcription, lexical usage

80

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 80-110

Introduction
Research BackgroundEver since the governmental plan to “cultivate Japanese citizens to be able to use theEnglish language” in 2002, the English education reform plans have not seemed to havecaught up with its original goal. One of the most propellant measures of the reform plan is thecurrent course of study by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology, Japan (MEXT), which stipulated that English should be principally taught
through English in high school (MEXT, 2013). However, English proficiency of the highschool English teachers is not sufficient. According to the MEXT’s progress report on thereform plan, the English language proficiency of junior high school English teachers with
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) “B2” (Council ofEurope, 2001, p. 24) or higher amounted to 32% (MEXT, 2017). Also, the use of L2 (English)
more than half of the class period resulted in Year 7, 72.3%; Year 8, 70.1%; Year 9, 66.8%(MEXT, 2017). Thus, empowering in-service teachers in lower and upper secondary schools
is necessary (MEXT, 2014). Such need is urgent because the next course of study to be
implemented in 2020 (MEXT, 2017) will mandate the junior high school English teachers toteach in English through English as well.
On the one hand, the current English education setting in secondary schools which
requires the in-service English teachers to conduct communicative lessons in the target
language, on the other hand, however, it is not until preservice teachers go on-site teachingpractice that preservice teacher educators know their actual teaching skills. Conventionally,preservice teachers receive training in teaching practicum which usually lasts for as long as afew weeks to a month. Thus, the default value of teaching skills can be measured through thispracticum period. If we obtain the default value of the preservice teachers on the teachingpracticum, we will be able to propose relatively more effective teacher training programs.
Such programs will lead to producing preservice teachers with relatively better teaching skills
81Katagiri, N., & Ohashi, Y.
Non-native Preservice English Teachers’ Lexical Usage and Interactional Patterns in Transcriptions Codedon COLT Part B Scheme

when they are in service in the future. This is the inspiration for our research, and therefore,
we attempted to analyze how preservice teachers conduct their lessons in the teachingpracticum.
The Target Language Use
When we observe English lessons in secondary schools, we primarily focus on how
communicative the English lesson is and how much the target language (TL), i.e., the English
language, the English teacher uses. These two viewpoints are intertwined, and thus
inseparable to analyze because the communicative language teaching (CLT) cannot be done
without utilizing the TL during the L2 lesson. According to Spada and Fröhlich (1995), thetarget language (L2) "must be used" for the L2 development (p. 21).
In the 1980s, studies were conducted regarding preservice teachers in Japan. Osato(1980) attempted to improve preservice teachers’ teaching skills through developing audiovisual teaching materials for communicative practice in the classroom. Ondo (1982) analyzed
English language classroom interactions by examining eight preservice English teachers bytallies segmented by four-second in the talk length. The results revealed the average ratio of
63.3% in preservice teacher talk in “foreign language” (Ondo, 1982, p. 247). Ondo andFujimori (1983) compared one preservice teacher's interactions with those of an experienced
in-service teacher and found the English language use resulted in; preservice vs. in-service =57% vs. 61%.
Regarding the in-service teachers, we do not have much recent TL use data besides theone announced by the MEXT (2017). The MEXT collected the data using the 3-point Likert
scale although the data collection was nationwide. If the TL use had been quantified based on
the TL utterances, we would have obtained the more precise description of how the in-service
English teachers use the TL. Katagiri and Kawai (2013) quantified the utterances of in-service
teachers' English in upper secondary schools and concluded that native teachers of English

82

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 80-110

assisted non-native English teachers to have communicative English lessons. Katagiri (2016)
collected five in-service teachers' TL utterances in lower secondary schools and argued thatthe use of the TL in junior high school in-service English teachers was 63.6%. Katagiri andOhashi (2017) reported that the use of TL in junior high school preservice English teachers
was 32.9% based on six preservice teachers’ entire utterances.
Communicative Language Teaching Analyses
Researchers created language classroom analysis schemes to date. A brief chronologicallisting of the classroom analysis method examples includes the Interaction Analysis
Categories (FIAC) of Flanders (1970), the hierarchical classroom discourse structure
proposed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), the communicative orientation of language
teaching observation scheme (COLT) developed by Spada and Fröhlich (1995), and the Self
Evaluation of Teacher-Talk framework (SETT) invented by Walsh (2006). The FIAC uses
matrices to analyze teacher-student interactions. Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) exemplified
the initiation, response, and follow-up (IRF) patterns of teacher-student interactions structured
in the classroom discourse. The IRF model formed the basis of language classroom analyses
afterward and especially affected corpus-based classroom analyses. The COLT Part B uses
classroom transcriptions to analyze communicativeness of language teaching, i.e., how“communicatively oriented” the interactions in the classroom are (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995, p.
7). Spada and Fröhlich (1995) proposed time sampling procedures due mainly to the difficultyof obtaining full transcripts of lessons because obtaining them is very time-consuming work.
Evaluation and Application of COLT Scheme
The COLT has been proved to be reliable classroom analysis schemes. For example,
Aoki, Ishizuka, Yokoyama, Sakai, and Kawai (2008) used COLT Part B and examined thecommunicativeness of the university English language programs. They analyzed the teacherstudent interactions coded on the COLT Part B scheme by incorporating sequential analyses(Markee, 2000). They concluded that the COLT Part B was an effective method to analyze
83Katagiri, N., & Ohashi, Y.
Non-native Preservice English Teachers’ Lexical Usage and Interactional Patterns in Transcriptions Codedon COLT Part B Scheme

different teaching style of English university instructors. Katagiri and Kawai (2015) adapted
the COLT Part B coding categories and developed a numerical coding using full transcripts.
They enabled quantifying the literal coding with less labor. Ishizuka and Ohnishi (2016)
invented the Online Platform for Transforming Foreign Language Research (CollaVOD) byembedding the COLT Part A scheme in the video system that researchers teacher trainers, aswell as teacher trainees, can share the same lesson analyses online. The CollaVOD systemincreased the versatility of language classroom analyses. Sano, Katagiri, Sakai, and Shimura(2017) proved that COLT Scheme serves as a useful reflection tool for high school teachers.
These research findings suggest that COLT could be considered to be a reliable tool for
analyzing language classrooms. Therefore, the COLT scheme should serve as one of theestablished measurements for evaluating the communicativeness in language teaching.
Research Questions
Built upon the facts discussed in the preceding sections that said the unsatisfactory
outcome of the English language reform, and the lack of data regarding the preservice English
teachers’ potential to conduct CLT lessons, it is of great interest to seek answers to thefollowing research questions (RQs):
RQ1. How much target language (L2: English) do preservice teachers use?
RQ2. How communicative are preservice teachers in conducting their English classes?

Materials and Methods
Participants
Fourteen preservice teachers studying at a national university of education in Japan
participated in the study. We collected the preservice teachers’ classroom speech throughopportunity sampling over three years, 2014 through 2016. The preservice teachers werejuniors (the third year in college) with English language proficiency equivalent to CEFR B1

84

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 80-110

when the data collection took place. We explained the purpose of the study and obtained
consent forms from each participant. All the preservice teachers attended the teachingpracticum in September. We estimated that this period in the teacher training was appropriate
for the data collection because the preservice teachers had completed the courses that
qualified them for teaching English at junior high schools and they would not have further onsite teaching practice after this period. Six of the participants (two males and four females)taught Year 7 (the first year in junior high school), another six of them (two males and four
females) taught Year 8 (the second year in junior high school), and the rest two (two females)taught Year 9 students (the final year in junior high school). The participants covered all
three-year grades in junior high school despite a discrepancy in their allotment in the teachingpracticum1.
Procedure
Table 1 lists the five research steps to examine the 14 participants’ (preservice English
teachers’) teaching demonstrations in their teaching practicum. The procedure consists ofthree stages; the first stage is collecting the participants’ data through video recording their
Table 1
Research Procedure and Methods
Stage

Step

Data collection

1
2

Process the data
3
4
Analyze the data
5

Purpose

MethodObtainpreservice
teacher Video record lessons
English lesson demonstration
Quantify the target language use Transcribe utterances of thepreservice teachers.
in the lesson
Encode the full transcripts with Adapted COLT Part B scheme(numerical coding)
COLT Part B featureslevel distribution:
Analyze their English words and 2Wordav8an.plword levels
2N-grams: AntConcb
Characterize verbal interactions Quantitative analyses of the
between the preservice teachers numerical coding
and the students

Note. av8an.pl is a Perl script that runs on Terminal, a utility software attached to Mac OSX.
b
AntConc is computer software, which runs on Windows, Mac OSX, and Linux, created byLaurence Anthony. It is downloadable free at http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software.html.
teaching demonstration (Step 1). The following stages are twofold. The second stage
85

Katagiri, N., & Ohashi, Y.
Non-native Preservice English Teachers’ Lexical Usage and Interactional Patterns in Transcriptions Codedon COLT Part B Scheme

processes the obtained data. In this stage, we quantified the transcription (Step 2) to examine
the language use and coded the transcription using the COLT Part B scheme (Step 3) foranalyzing the verbal interactions of the participants. The third stage analyzes the processeddata in Steps 2 and 3. We used computer software to calculate word usage (Step 4) andexamined the communicativeness of the preservice teachers’ lessons (Step 5) by the coded
verbal interaction of the participants.

Results and Analyses
Preservice Teacher Language UseThis section overviews the participants’ teaching demonstrations by observing thelanguage use in their teaching demonstrations after Step 2 (Table 1). We transcribed theparticipants' teaching demonstration video recording, tabulated the transcripts by teacher
turns, and coded their language use for Japanese (L1), English (L2), and the mixture of L1and L2 (Mix). Figure 1 shows a coding spreadsheet sample. The transcripts were tabulated in
the spreadsheet turn by turn.

Codingnumber1

04536%513
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

!55'3$0%'4 '$%*'3$0&456&'05
42''%*11&/130+0)'7'3910' 
11&/130+0)+44+4*+01$0&3
$/'310$0&4*+/+:6 
11&/130+0) 
11&/130+0) 18$3'916 
;/(+0' 
;/*60)39 60)39 $&$0+,+-$0/'&$91 #*$5;4(13.60%* 
63393+%'))%63393+%'

Off task Off task"  
Targetlanguage

Information
gap

Sustained
speechReaction toform/message

Incorporationof student
utterances

L1

Giving Info.
Predict.

MinimalForm

Sustained

Message

Repetition

---

---

Paraphrase

---

---

Comment

-----

-----

Expansion
Clarif. request

Correction*

2

---

L2

3

---

Mix

4

---

---

5
6

-----

-----

Giving Info.
Unpredict.
Request Info.
Pseudo requ.
Request Info.
Genuine requ.
-----

7

---

---

---

---

---

Elab. request

2

1

1

0

0














'$%*'3
56&'05%1&+0)%1&+0)
3'23'4'05$5+10 3'23'4'05$+0






















Figure 1. Numerical coding sample on the spreadsheet aligned with the transcripts.

86JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 80-110

Table 2 shows the quantitative summary of the participants' teaching demonstration by
the data collection years (2014, 2015, and 2016).
Table 2The Number of Teacher Turns/Concatenated Numerical Coding Cases
Year

Participant ID(Grade)Turn Count by Target language use

L2
ratio
(%)

L1

L2

Mix

Turn count(n=6,059)

1 (Y9)

230

161

0

391

41.2

2 (Y7)

397

283

0

680

41.6

3 (Y8)

111

13

1

125

10.4

4 (Y7)

205

121

0

326

37.1

5 (Y9)

147

59

71

277

21.3

6 (Y7)

472

373

0

875

42.6

7 (Y8)

133

47

6

186

25.3

8 (Y8)

119

180

80

379

47.5

9 (Y8)

374

85

51

510

16.7

10 (Y7)

596

76

98

270

28.1

11 (Y8)

128

240

97

465

51.6

12 (Y7)

123

452

77

652

69.3

13 (Y7)

163

269

42

474

56.3

14 (Y8)

147

196

106

449

43.7

M

238.9

182.5

44.9

432.8

38.1

SD

156.1

129.3

42.8

203.1

16.2

Minimum

111

13

0

125

10.4

Maximum

596

452

106

875

69.3

2014

2015

2016

Note. L1=the number of turns spoken in Japanese. L2=the number of turns spoken in
English. Mix=the number of turns containing L1 and L2. Y=a year grade that theparticipant taught, e.g., "Y7" indicates the first year in junior high school.

87

Katagiri, N., & Ohashi, Y.
Non-native Preservice English Teachers’ Lexical Usage and Interactional Patterns in Transcriptions Codedon COLT Part B Scheme

Regarding the participants’ L2 use based on the turn frequencies, their L2 ratios ranged
from 10.4% to 69.3% (M=38.1% and SD=10.4%). A Friedman test was conducted to evaluate
differences among the three target language use groups, i.e., L1, L2, and Mix. The test results
showed significance (χ2 (2, N = 14) = 16.72, p < .001). The Kendall coefficient ofconcordance of .59 indicated fair differences among the three language types. Follow up
pairwise comparisons were conducted using a Wilcoxon test. While more L1 and L2 wereused than mixed (p = .001; p = .003, two-tailed), no statistical difference was observed
between the L1 and the L2 (p = .272, two-tailed). These results indicate that although theparticipants displayed lower tendency in their use of the Mix (the mixture of the L1 and theL2 in their utterances), they were not likely to use either of the L1 or the L2 moresignificantly than the other regarding turn frequencies based on the language use.
Lexical Analyses
Following the research Step 4 (Table 1), this section displays the results of lexical
analyses of the participants based on. We examined the word levels examined on thebenchmark wordlist and analyzed the N-grams of the preservice teachers’ L2 utternaces.
Firstly, Figure 2 shows the result of the participants’ word level distribution based on
the JACET 8000 basic word list2. The word list classifies eight levels each level containing
1,000 words with Level 1 (most frequent) words, Level 8 (least frequent), and unlisted words
as Level 9.
The word frequency level measured by the JACET 8000 wordlist showed that over
90% of the spoken tokens were distributed in the first 2,000 most frequently used words on
the wordlist, and the almost 95% covered by the 8,000 words in the wordlist. The remaining
5% contained words outside the range of the wordlist, proper nouns, and contracted forms.
According to McCarthy (1999), a “sudden drop” (p. 235) can be observed in the word list in
the most frequently use words ranked from the top down to 1,800th - 2,000th in rank.

88

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 80-110

Ratio
%

McCarthy (1999) explains these most frequently used words can serve as core words. A study
100
80
60
40
20
0

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Word Level 84.9125.511 1.802 0.828 0.126 0.409 0.21 0.451 1.289
Figure 2. Word level distribution on JACET 8000 words.

by Katagiri (2016) yielded the similar results when he examined five junior high school inservice non-native teachers of English. The participants in this study showed the samecharacteristic in their L2 lexical usage, and thus, used such core lexical items to teach English
in their practicum.
Secondly, we made N-grams (N=2, 3, and 4), and examined frequency distributions.
The N-grams displayed skewed distributions (Figures 3 through 5). To be more precise, The

0N-gram frequency distributions also show the “sudden drop.”

Rank by frequency
Figure 3. Bi-gram frequency distribution of the preservice teachers’ L2 utterances.

In the N-gram frequency ranks (Figures 3 through 5), approximately the first five ranks
seem to be the rank that initiates the drop, and after this rank, the N-gram frequency appears
89Katagiri, N., & Ohashi, Y.
Non-native Preservice English Teachers’ Lexical Usage and Interactional Patterns in Transcriptions Codedon COLT Part B Scheme

to subside gradually. Thus, the N-grams that appear in approximately top 10 most frequent Ngrams may be significant phrases that may constitute core phrases for the preservice teachers.
Tables 3 and 4 list such core phrases (see also Appendix A and Appendix B for more tri-

Frequency

grams and four-grams respectively).

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1

3

5

7

9

11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Rank by frequency

Frequency

Figure 4. Tri-gram frequency distribution of the preservice teachers’ L2 utterances.

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1

3

5

7

9

11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Rank by frequency

Figure 5. Four-gram frequency distribution of the preservice teachers’ L2 utterances.

The most frequently used bi-grams (Table 3) seem to indicate core phrases that include
action verbs such as sit (rank 3), repeat (rank 4), let (rank 9), and look (rank 12) that theparticipants used to conduct their lessons in English. The other bi-grams in the table can also
be categorized as classroom management words to interact with the students, for example,

90

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 80-110

down please (rank 10), very good (rank 11), and how about (rank 21). We must note,however, that mustn t is ranked second because this bi-gram was one of the grammatical items
dealt with at the time of the data collection (around September) when we recorded theparticipants’ Year 8 English lessons. Such context-dependent N-grams need careful attention
when analyzing the data.

Table 3
Top 30 Bi-grams
Rank
Frequency
Bi-grama
Rank
Frequency
Bi-gram1
146
16
36
do youare you
2
66
17
33
mustn tok sit3
54
18
32
sit down
i will453
1930
repeat after
want to
5
52
20
29
it s
you like
6
51
21
26
thank youhow about
7
49
22
25
after meyou have
8
45
23
24
don t
give you
9
45
24
24
let s
he is
10
43
25
24
down please
is my
11
41
26
24
very goodokay so
12
40
27
24
look atthe desk
13
40
28
24
you must
this is
14
39
29
23
stand upready set
15
39
you must (not)30
23
set goaNote. Bi-grams in contracted forms are shown without contraction character ’ (anapostrophe) due to the software processing to delimit words, and therefore, mustn t
represents mustn't or must not. Thus, it s, don t, and let s represent it’s (it is), don’t (do not),and let’s (let us) respectively.

The tri-grams and four-grams (Table 4) appear to follow the same direction as the bigrams because we can observe the same action verbs and content words. For example, pairsof repeat after me (tri-gram rank 1) and ok repeat after me (four-gram rank 4), and sit downplease (tri-tram rank 2) and ok sit down please (four-gram rank 1). Such examples indicate thecore phrases that the preservice teachers used to manage their English lessons through thetarget language.

91

Katagiri, N., & Ohashi, Y.
Non-native Preservice English Teachers’ Lexical Usage and Interactional Patterns in Transcriptions Codedon COLT Part B Scheme

Table 4
Top 10 Tri-grams and Four-grams
Rank
Frequency
3-gram1
49
repeat after me2
43
sit down please3
39
you mustn ta
433
ok sit down
524
do you like6
22
do you have622
do you want
6
22
ready set go
622
you want to10
21
how about you

Rank
1
2
3
4
4
4
7
7
7
7

Frequency
33
22
14
13
13
13
12
12
12
12

4-gramok sit down please
do you want toyou want to be
i will give you
ok repeat after mewhat do you wantback to your seatget one million yen
go back to yoursit down please how

Note. amustn’t is interpreted by delimiting the contraction, and came out as a bi-gram mustnt, which should indicate must not.

These N-gram analyses seem to indicate the core phrases that the preservice teachersuttered relatively more frequently among their L2 turns to conduct their English lessons. Theinteractions when the preservice teachers used such expressions can be defined as the
managerial mode that intends to “organize the physical learning environment” and thematerials mode to “provide language practice around a piece of material” (Walsh, 2006, p.
66). We can conclude that the preservice teachers primarily intended to conduct their lessons
in the L2 when they used L2 at all, although their varying L2 ratios (ranging from 10.4% to69.3%) may not be as high as expected by the MEXT’s stipulation (Table 2).
Verbal Interactions
COLT Part B coding categories and features. Table 5 lists the COLT Part B
categories and features for coding teacher verbal interactions. The COLT Part B has six
features (shown in the column heads) such as target language use, information gap, andsustained speech. Each category, except for off task, and includes several categories indicatedby the corresponding coding number in the first column. For example, the category L1 in thetarget language use feature is coded as “1”, and the category giving information
92

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 80-110

unpredictable is coded “2” in the information gap feature. Thus, the categories that are
represented literally are numerically coded according to the feature they belong to. Suchnumerical coding will be locally tabulated for quantifying the categories. Table 5 has the turncounts of the categories underneath each feature. For example, the turn count of the L1
amounts to 2,758, and so does that of giving information unpredictable category 1,456.

Table 5COLT Part B Coding 6 Features with Categoriesa and Verbal Interaction Count

Codingnumber

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Off Off task
task

TEACHER VERBAL INTERACTION
Targetlanguageuse

Information gap

Sustained
speechb

Reaction
to form/
message

Incorporation of
student utterances

L1

Giving Info. Predict.

MinimalForm

Correctionc

40
2,758
2,142
5,178
2,388
1,629
GivingInformation--- L2
Sustained Message Repetition
Unpredictable
2,641
1,456
700
904
288
RequestInformation--- Mix----- Paraphrase
Pseudo request
659--- ----- ----- ----- ---408
Request Information
Genuine request
331-------

27------ Comment------ Expansion------ Clarification
request------ Elaboration
request

607
39
20

53
Note. L1=Japanese language. L2=English language. Mix=the mixture of L1 and L2.
Info.=information. Predict.=Predictable. aAdapted from Katagiri and Kawai (2015). bSpadaand Fröhlich (1995) define “minimal” as the turn whose length is less than a few words longand “sustained” as consisting of at least three main clauses. cCorrection is to be coded 10 for
the sake of global coding from category concatenation since Spada and Fröhlich (1995)
explained that this feature usually co-occurs with the other features in the same category, i.e.,
incorporation of student utterances.
Teacher verbal interaction. The numerical tabulation with categories coded locallywas then concatenated to produce global numerical coding. We tabulated 262 global coding
patterns among the 6,059 preservice teacher verbal interactions. Table 6 shows the 20 most93

Katagiri, N., & Ohashi, Y.
Non-native Preservice English Teachers’ Lexical Usage and Interactional Patterns in Transcriptions Codedon COLT Part B Scheme

frequent verbal interactions of the preservice teachers in the concatenated numerical coding in
the first column and the literal coding in the fourth column. The numerical global coding
results were obtained by concatenating the numerical coding of the six features. The local
numerical coding results in the six features (except for the off-task) represent six-digit
numerals so that we can quantify the teacher verbal interactions. For example, if a teacher

Table 6
Teacher Verbal Interaction CountCOLT Part B
Numerical
coding(N=262)Frequency(N=6,059)

211000599

121000597

2

L1/Giving Info. Unpredict/Minimal

111000595

3

L1/Giving Info. Predict./Minimal

101000549

4

L1/Minimal

201000474

5

L2/Minimal

221000384

6

L2/Giving Info. Unpredict./Minimal

201204121

7

L2/Minimal/Message/Comment

241000116

8

L2/Request Info. Genuine requ./Minimal

231000112

9L2/Request Info. Pseudo requ./Minimal

321000105

10Mix/Giving Info. Unpredict./Minimal

131000102

11

L1/Request Info. Pseudo requ./Minimal

311000101

12Mix/Giving Info. Predict./Minimal

10120097

13

L1/Minimal/Message

30100097

13

Mix/Minimal

22200096

15

L2/Giving Info. Unpredict./Sustained

12200077

16

L1/Giving Infro. Unpredict./Sustained

10120475

17

L1/Minimal/Message/Comment

11200068

18

L1/Giving Info. Predict./Sustained

20200055

19

L2/Sustained

20020453

20

L2/Message/Comment

Rank
COLT Part B literal coding
1 L2/Giving Info. Predict/Minimal

Note. L1=Japanese language. L2=English language. Mix=the mixture of L1 and L2.
Info.=Information. Predict.=Predictable. Unpredict.=Unpredictable.

94

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 80-110

turn is literally coded “L1/Giving Information Unpredictable/Sustained/Message/,” its
globally coded numeral will be “122200.” Through this conversion, we quantified thepreservice teacher interactions coded on the COLT Part B numerical coding scheme.
We argued that the preservice teachers used L2 to conduct lessons in English based on
the lexical analyses, but the lexical analyses did not include how they led lessons in the L1 or
the Mix. These 20 coding patterns (Table 6) include interactions made up of eight L1
utterances (40.0%), nine L2 utterances (45.0%), and three Mix utterances (15.0%). The roughestimation of the language use ratios falls in the L2 use ratio range (10.4%-69.3%). Suchlanguage use ratios observed in the global numerical coding imply that the preservice
interactions might behave in the similar manner to their lexical usage we witnessed in thepreceding sections.
Figure 6 illustrates the raw frequency coding occurrences by language use. Like thelexical frequencies (Figure 2) and the N-gram frequencies (Figure 3 through 5), the preservice
teachers’ verbal interactions represented by the target language use show sudden drops (withthe Mix showing a less steep curb). Considering these drops, ranks around 5 to 15 appear tobe the ones that distinguish the core interactional patterns of the preservice teachers.

Raw frequency

600
500
400
300
200

L1
(n=112)L2(n=92)
Mix(n=53)

0

1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
37
40
43
46
49
52
55
58
61
64
67
70
73
76
79
82
85
88
91
94
97
100
103
106
109
112

100

Frequency rank
Figure 6. Raw frequency coding occurrences by language use.

95

Katagiri, N., & Ohashi, Y.
Non-native Preservice English Teachers’ Lexical Usage and Interactional Patterns in Transcriptions Codedon COLT Part B Scheme

Tables 7 through 9 respectively display the top 20 COLT Part B (literal) coding
patterns of the preservice teacher interactions with their students. These three tables show thatamong the top 20 coding patterns, the information gap feature such as giving information andrequesting information majorly constitutes the verbal interaction patterns despite the target
language use (L1=75.0%; L2=70.0%; Mix=65.0%).
The global coding shown in Tables 7 through 9 illustrated the verbal interactional
patterns consisting of more information gap features than the others. Such patterns can be

Table 7
Top 20 COLT Part B Literal Coding by L1 Frequency
Frequency Rank L1 Rank
Literal coding(N=6059)
597
595
549
102
97
77
75
68
52
49
45
24
22
21
20
20
19
19
16
14

2
3
4
11
13
16
17
18
21
23
24
40
43
44
46
46
49
49
54
55

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

L1/Giving Info. Unpredict/Minimal
L1/Giving Info. Predict./Minimal
L1/Minimal
L1/Request Info. Pseudo requ./Minimal
L1/Minimal/Message
L1/Giving Infro. Unpredict./Sustained
L1/Minimal/Message/Comment
L1/Giving Info. Predict./Sustained
L1/Request Info. Genuine requ./Minimal
L1/Sustained
L1/Message/Comment
L1/Minimal/Message/Repetition
L1/Sustained/Message/Comment
L1/Request Info. Genuine requ./Sustained
L1/Minimal/Comment
L1/Request Info. Pseudo requ./Sustained
L1/Minimal/Form/Comment
L1/Giving Info. Unpredict./Minimal/Message
L1/Minimal/Form
L1/Request Info. Pseudo requ./Minimal/Message

Note. L1=Japanese language. L2=English language. Mix=the mixture of L1 and L2.
Info.=Information. Predict.=Predictable. Unpredict.=Unpredictable.

96

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 80-110

Table 8Top 20 COLT Part B Literal Coding by L2 Frequency
Frequency Rank
L2
Literal coding(N=6,059)
Rank
1
1
L2/Giving Info. Predict/Minimal
599
52
L2/Minimal
474
6
3
L2/Giving Info. Unpredict./Minimal
384
7
4
L2/Minimal/Message/Comment
121
85
L2/Request Info. Genuine requ.
116
96
L2/Request Info. Pseudo requ./Minimal
112
15
7
L2/Giving Info. Unpredict/Sustained96
19
8
L2/Sustained
55
20
9
L2/Message/Comment
53
25
10
L2/Giving Info. Predict./Minimal/Form/Repetition
41
26
11
L2/Request Info. Genuine requ./Sustained
40
27
12
L2/Minimal/Form/Repetition
37
28
13
L2/Minimal/Repetition
36
29
14
L2/Request Info. Pseudo requ./Minimal/Message
33
31
15
L2/Minimal/Message/Repetition
31
31
15
L2/Giving Info. Predict./Minimal/Message/Repetition
31
33
17
L2/Giving Info. Predict./Sustained
29
33
17
L2/Request Info. Genuine requ./Sustained/Message/ Comment
29
36
19
L2/Sustained/Message/Comment
27
37
20
L2/Giving Info. Predict./Minimal/Message/Comment
26
Note. L1=Japanese language. L2=English language. Mix=the mixture of L1 and L2.
Info.=Information. Predict.=Predictable. Unpredict.=Unpredictable.
Table 9Top 20 COLT Part B Literal Coding by Mix Frequency
Frequency Rank
Mix
Literal coding(N=6,059)
Rank
Mix/Giving Info. Unpredict./Minimal
105
10
1
Mix/Giving Info. Predict./Minimal
101
12
2
Mix/Minimal
97
13
3
Mix/Giving Info. Unpredict./Minimal/Form
51
22
4
Mix/Request Info. Pseudo requ./Minimal
33
29
5
Mix/Giving Info. Unpredict./Sustained
29
33
6
Mix/Giving Info. Predict./Sustained
25
38
7
Mix/Giving Info. Unpredict./Minimal/Message
23
41
8
Mix/Sustained
1949
9
Mix/Minimal/Message
1455
10
Mix/Sustained/Message/Comment
12
58
11
Mix/Request Info. Pseudo requ./Sustained
12
58
11
Mix/Request Info. Genuine requ./Sustained
1258
11
Mix/Minimal/Repetition
9
68
14
Mix/Minimal/Comment
870
15Mix/Minimal/Form
870
15
Mix/Minimal/Message/Comment
870
15
Mix/Giving Info. Predict./Minimal/Form/Comment
6
81
18
Mix/Giving Info. Predict./Minimal/Message
6
81
18
Mix/Request Info. Pseudo requ./Minimal/Form
6
81
18
Mix/Request Info. Genuine requ./Sustained/Message/Comment681
18Note. L1=Japanese language. L2=English language. Mix=the mixture of L1 and L2.
Info.=Information. Predict.=Predictable. Unpredict.=Unpredictable.
97

Katagiri, N., & Ohashi, Y.
Non-native Preservice English Teachers’ Lexical Usage and Interactional Patterns in Transcriptions Codedon COLT Part B Scheme

regarded as forming the fundamental language classroom discourse structure made up of IRF
sequences. The preservice teachers conformed to the language teaching norm in this regard.
There might be an issue in calculating the language use by turns because of the lengthof the turns can fluctuate. However, among these top 20 coding patterns shown in Tables 7through 9, the minimal speech ratio (minimal turn frequency vs. sustained turn frequency) ineach target language use resulted in 89.4% for L1 (2079 vs. 257), 87.5% for L2 (1925 vs.
276), and 80.5% for Mix (475 vs. 115). Thus, we approximated that the target language use
ratios were reflected by the turn frequency count.
Giving vs. requesting information. Table 10 shows the results of the Chi-squared testcomparing the giving information and requesting information. The preservice teachers usedsignificantly more giving information interactions than requesting information ones. Thisimplies that the preservice teachers were more likely to teach, tell, and give answers to thequestions they asked in their teaching demonstrations.
Table 10
Statistical Testing on Giving vs. Requesting Turn Count
TargetTurn
Language Use
count
Information(Mix
L1 L2 Mix excluded)
Gap
COLT Part B coding
p-value
Giving Info. Predict/Minimal 595 599 101
Giving Info. Predict./25
Sustained 18 29
Giving2,395
Information Giving Info. Unpredict/
597
384
105
MinimalGiving Info. Unpredict./29
p = .0000
Sustained 77 96** (p<.01)
Request Info. Pseudo requ./
102
112
33
MinimalRequest Info.Pseudo requ./312Sustained 20
Requesting
466
Information Request Info. Genuine requ./52
1162MinimalRequest Info. Genuine requ./12
Sustained 21 40
Note. L1=Japanese language. L2=English language. Mix=the mixture of L1 and L2.
Info.=Information. Predict.=Predictable. Unpredict.=Unpredictable.

98

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 80-110

Predictable vs. unpredictable and pseudo vs. genuine. Table 11 shows the results of
the Chi-squared test comparing the categories in the same information gap feature. To be
exact, we examined predictable information and unpredictable information (in the giving
information category) and also compared pseudo request and genuine requests (in therequesting information category).
Table 11
Statistical Testing on Pseudo (Predictable) vs. Genuine (Unpredictable) Turn Count
Target Language Turn countp-value
Information
Use
COLT
Part
B
coding
(Mix
(Mix
Gap
L1
L2 Mix excluded) excluded)
Giving Info. Predict./Minimal
595 599 101
1,241
Giving Info. Predict./Sustained
18
29
25
Givingp= .0394
Information Giving Info. Unpredict.
* (p<.05)
597
384
105
/Minimal
1,154
Giving Info. Unpredict.
77
96
29/Sustained

Request Info. Pseudo requ./33
Minimal 102 112
237
Request Info. Pseudo requ./20
312Sustained
Requestingp= .4817
Information Request Info. Genuine requ./ns (.10<p)52 1162
Minimal229
Request Info. Genuine requ./21
40
12Sustained
Note. L1=Japanese language. L2=English language. Mix=the mixture of L1 and L2.
Info.=Information. Predict.=Predictable. Unpredict.=Unpredictable. As for the giving information category, the preservice teachers used significantly moregiving predictable information interactions than unpredictable. This result indicates that thepreservice teachers were more likely to provide answers to the questions and confirm thecontent of the lesson materials. In this respect, the verbal interaction patterns of the preservice
teachers were less communicative because the interactions did not base the communicatively
genuine needs between the preservice teachers and their students.
Regarding the requesting information category, the preservice teachers did not show astatistical difference between their use of pseudo requests and genuine requests. However,considering the significantly less use of the requesting information interactions than that of99

Katagiri, N., & Ohashi, Y.
Non-native Preservice English Teachers’ Lexical Usage and Interactional Patterns in Transcriptions Codedon COLT Part B Scheme

giving information interactions, we can safely judge that the preservice teacher demonstration
lessons were still not quite communicatively oriented.
Information gap interactions and the target language use. We saw the preservice
teachers’ language use focusing on the L2 turn frequency and the L2 lexical frequency
distribution based on frequency levels and the L2 N-gram characteristics. We also examined
the preservice teachers’ interaction patterns based on the COLT Part B coding features andcategories. This section examines whether the preservice teachers’ target language use
differentiated the verbal interaction patterns.
Table 12 displays the results of the Chi-squared tests on the COLT Part B global codingof the preservice teachers’ information gap verbal interaction count based on their target
language use. All but the “Giving Info. Predict./Sustained" coding showed significance in thepreservice teachers' target language use. These must have resulted from mainly the lower
quantity of the Mix usage than the L1 and the L2 except for "Request Info. Pseudo requ./Sustained.”
Table 12
Statistical Testing Results on COLT Part B Coding Count by Language Use
Frequency by target
language use
L1
L2
Mix
COLT Part B coding
Chi-squared test
2
Giving Info. Predict/
595
599
101
x (2)= 380.004, p < .01
Minimal2
Giving Info. Predict./1829
25
x (2)= 2.584, ns
Sustained
2
Giving Info. Unpredict/
597
384
105
x (2)= 336.382, p < .01
Minimal2
Giving Info. Unpredict. /779629
x (2)= 35.419, p < .01
Sustained
2
Request Info. Pseudo requ./
102
112
33
x (2)= 44.952, p < .01
Minimal2
Request Info.Pseudo requ./20312x (2)= 12.401, p < .01
Sustained
2
Request Info. Genuine requ./52
116
2
x (2)= 115.259, p < .01
Minimal2
Request Info. Genuine requ./2140
12x (2)= 16.796, p < .01
Sustained
Note. L1=Japanese language. L2=English language. Mix=the mixture of L1 and L2.
Info.=Information. Predict.=Predictable. Unpredict.=Unpredictable.
100

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 80-110

Table 13 displays the results of the Chi-squared tests using the same data set that
excluded the Mix count. If we disregard the Mix usage due to the significantly low quantityand examine the target language use effect on the preservice teachers' interactions, we will see
the L1 use had significantly more "Giving Info. Unpredict./Minimal” and “Request
Info.Pseudo requ./ Sustained,” which is to indicate that the preservice teachers depended on
the L1 to disclose unknown information and to ask referential questions rather than the L2.
Table 13
Statistical Testing Results on COLT Part B Coding Count by Language Use (Mix Excluded)
Frequency bytarget language use
L1
L2
COLT Part B coding
Chi-squared test
Giving Info. Predict/Minimal
595
599 p = .4654, ns (.10 < p)
Giving Infro. Predict./Sustained

18

29 p = .0719, + (.05 < p <.10)

Giving Info. Unpredict./Minimal

597

384 p = .0000, ** (p < .01)

Giving Info. Unpredict. /Sustained

77

96 p = .0855, + (.05 < p < .10)

Request Info. Pseudo requ./Minimal

102

112 p = .2693, ns (.10 < p)

Request Info.Pseudo requ./ Sustained20

3 p = .0002, ** (p < .01)

Request Info. Genuine requ./ Minimal

52
21

116 p = .0000, ** (p < .01)
40 p = .0102, * (p < .05)

Request Info. Genuine requ./ Sustained

Note. L1=Japanese language. L2=English language. Mix=the mixture of L1 and L2.
Info.=Information. Predict.=Predictable. Unpredict.=Unpredictable.

The L2 may have more significantly affected the preservice teachers in their use of“Request Info. Genuine requ./ Minimal” and “Request Info. Genuine requ./ Sustained”
interactions. Although the preservice teachers used the significantly smaller number ofrequesting information interactions than those of giving information (Table 10), they seemed
to incorporate more referential questions in the L2 whether the questions were minimal orsustained when they used the L2 to interact with the students. On the one hand, the preservice
teachers tended to depend on the L1 in “Giving Info. Unpredict/Minimal,” and on the other
hand, they used the L2 to initiate interactions coded as “Request Info. Genuine requ.”101Katagiri, N., & Ohashi, Y.
Non-native Preservice English Teachers’ Lexical Usage and Interactional Patterns in Transcriptions Codedon COLT Part B Scheme

Discussion and Conclusion
Answers to the Research Questions
Our research findings will give answers to the two research questions we proposed. We
will discuss the answers with evidence found in our research results.
RQ1. How much target language (L2: English) do preservice teachers use?
The preservice teachers' choice of the target language use in our data varied among theparticipants (Table 2). The L2 use ratios by turns among the participants ranged from theminimum of 10.4% to the maximum of 69.3%. These varying L2 use ratios may not be able
to generalize the preservice teachers’ L2 use. However, if we focus on each participant’s
target language use, we will see that the preservice teachers’ use of the L1 and the L2 use did
not show a significant discrepancy, but showed significantly less use of the Mix over the L1
and L2. In this sense, the preservice teachers should be encouraged to incorporate more L2
runs when teaching English.
The preservice teachers’ L2 use seemed to correspond to the general lexical frequency
appearances which show the sudden drop after the first 2,000 words in the benchmark word
list (Figure 2). The N-gram analyses also witnessed the same tendency in the most frequently
used N-grams (Figures 3 through 5). The preservice teachers used the core L2 lexical items to
conduct their teaching demonstrations when they had opportunities to have verbal interactions
with their students in the L2 (Tables 3 and 4).
RQ 2. How communicative are preservice teachers in conducting their English classes?
Measuring the communicativeness based on the information gap category andanalyzing the interaction results imply a general answer to this question. The preservice
teachers were more likely to conduct English lessons by using significantly more giving
information verbal interactions than those consisting of requesting information (Table 10).
This tendency shown in the information gap category statistically proved to be more giving

102

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 80-110

predictable information style rather than giving unpredictable information style (Table 11).
Thus, the preservice teachers’ English lessons are less communicatively oriented thanotherwise since the genuine communication relies on exchanging unpredictable information
rather than predictable information.
Comparing the target language use showed significance in the information gap category
features (Table 12). Excluding the interactions made up of the Mix, the mixture of the L1 andthe L2, due to relatively lower occurrences than the other two, and focusing on the L1 and theL2 revealed the significantly more frequent use of “Request Info. Genuine request” in the L2
than the L1 whether the interactions were minimal or sustained (Table 13). This implies thatfor genuine communicative purposes, the preservice teachers utilized more L2 than L1wheninteracting with the students. Therefore, we conclude that although the preservice teachers
were not so communicatively oriented as the MEXT’s expectation in terms of the L2 use,
they were more communicative once they resorted to the L2 to initiate communicativeinteractions with the students. However, considering the approximately even use of thepreservice teachers’ L1 and L2 turns, the quantity of the L2 communicative turns coded as“Request Info. Genuine request” needs multiplying.
Limitations and Future Research Proposals
We are aware of at least four limitations to our research. We will state these limitations
to enhance the quality of the future research to be proposed in this section.
First, since the present research is a case study to have a glimpse of preservice
teachers’ communicativeness in their teaching demonstrations by obtaining the data throughopportunity sampling, we could not estimate a specific number of participants until we
finished sampling the data from all the participants. More participants would enable us toobtain a new insight into the preservice teacher interactions based on the degree of their L2
use for example. We need to have a wider variety of preservice teachers who teach different

103Katagiri, N., & Ohashi, Y.
Non-native Preservice English Teachers’ Lexical Usage and Interactional Patterns in Transcriptions Codedon COLT Part B Scheme

school grades, and preferably who teach at different times of the school year so that they will
have interactions with the students in different stages of language development.
Second, the COLT Part B coding had revealed relatively fewer cases of reaction toform/message and incorporation of student utterances appearing with the information gap
categories such as giving info features and requesting info features (Tables 6 through 9).
However, basing the interaction analyses on the feature, “form/message” should have been
more emphasized due to the skewed occurrences of the form usage over the message focusedinteractions of the preservice teachers (Table 5). If we assist the preservice teachers to initiate
more message-oriented interactions as well as "incorporating the student utterances" such asparaphrase, expansion, and elaboration request categories in the COLT Part B scheme, wewill evaluate how much communicativeness the preservice teachers develop in conducting
their English language lessons. Analyzing the lessons focusing on the materials and the use offour language skills would give us new perspectives regarding the preservice teachers’communicativeness. The COLT Part A (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995) coding features such as“participant organization,” “content control” and “student modality” can examine suchqualitative features. Synthesizing the COLT Part A analyses with the present study results
would enhance the precision of interpreting the interactions between the preservice teachers
and their students.
Third, we were unable to examine the verbal interactions among the same year grades(Year 7, 8, and 9) due to the insufficient number of the participants for us to conduct
statistical analyses. Analyzing the verbal interactions based on the year grades that thepreservice teachers taught might have yielded findings that would have been more clear-cut.
In this sense again, we need to have more participants in the future research, or we must atleast keep on accumulating samples of teaching practicum demonstration of preservice
teachers who will contribute to the research.

104

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 80-110

Finally, it would have been pedagogically more beneficial to include the student verbal
interactions. The primary focus of this case study was on the preservice teachers’ teachingdemonstrations, and thus, we dealt with the preservice teachers’ verbal interactions
exclusively. However, since in the IRF discourse model R usually represents the students’
responses, incorporating the students’ verbal interactions with the preservice teachers would
reveal cases why the preservice teachers used more L1 than L2, and whether the preservice
teachers’ L2 genuine questions triggered communicative interactions with the students.
Analyzing teacher-student interactions sequentially, for example, could be a possibility of the
future research.
Pedagogical Implications
Based on the research findings regarding the preservice teachers’ verbal interactions,
we will propose the following two points to be instructed to the preservice teachers who are tocarry out the next course of study's guideline that stipulates teaching the English language inprinciple through English at the lower secondary level.
Firstly, it would be advisable for preservice teacher trainers to encourage the preservice
teachers to incorporate more genuine questions in the L2. We found the L2 superiority in theverbal interaction quantity to the L1 in genuine questions. The focal point was that the L2
interactions were found to be significantly smaller in number. If the preservice teachers are toincrease the L2 genuine questions in teaching, they will be able to conduct morecommunicative English lessons, and their students will eventually benefit from such a
communicative language teaching style.
Secondly, it would be better for the preservice teachers to control the interactions to be
more message oriented. Although the global coding did not show co-occurrences of form or
message features with the information gap features, the local counting of the form (n=2,338)
and that of the message (n=904) deserve attention (Table 5). The majority of the preservice
teachers’ verbal interactions were uttered (and therefore coded) in either L1 or L2 (Table 2),105Katagiri, N., & Ohashi, Y.
Non-native Preservice English Teachers’ Lexical Usage and Interactional Patterns in Transcriptions Codedon COLT Part B Scheme

resulting in the preservice teachers having depended on the L1 for instructing and teachinglessons with giving information interactions to instruct and teach lessons (Tables 10 and 11),and on the L2 for having communicative interactions (Table 13). The preservice teachers'
preferred use of the form interactions to the message interactions might support thedominance of giving predictable information interactions over asking genuine questions. If
preservice teachers are to utilize more message-oriented interactions, they will be more likely
to conduct more communicative English lessons.

Notes
1

It was practically impossible to control the allotment of the preservice teachers due tothe teaching practice system in Japan. Usually, the preservice teachers are arbitrarily
assigned to teach a specific (year) grade based on the mentors whom they will beassigned to in the teaching practicum.

2

The current version of the JACET 8000 basic word list was renewed in 2016. We used
the previous generation of the JACET 8000 published in 2003 for our analyses due
mainly to the compatibility of the results shown in the previous studies using thepredecessor of the current version.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees for their constructive comments and also to
the participants for contributing their transcripts to this study. This study was supported in partby the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI Grant Number 15K02778.

106

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 80-110

References
Aoki, C., Ishizuka, H., Yokoyama, Y., Sakai, Y., & Kawai, Y. (2008). COLT Part B Niyoru
Komyunikeishon wo shikoushita eigo puroguramu no jyugyou bunseki [Analyses ofEnglish Language Classes That Seek English Communication Programs]. Research
Bulletin of English teaching, 5, 1-25.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/
source/framework_en.pdf
Flanders, N.A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Ishizuka, H., & Ohnishi, A. (2016). Freely accessible online language teacher training
platform. ICERI2016 Proceedings. Retrieved fromhttps://library.iated.org/view/ISHIZUKA2016FRE
Katagiri, N., & Kawai, G. (2013). Lexical types and tokens found in the classroom speech ofnative and non-native English language instructors in a Japanese high school.
Acoustical Science and Technologies, 32(2). 94-104. doi: 10.1250/ast.34.94
Katagiri, N., & Kawai, G. (2015). Tabulating transcripts and coding on COLT part B scheme
to quantify classroom interaction analysis categories. HELES JOURNAL, 14. 23-41.
https://doi.org/10.24675/helesje.14.0_23
Katagiri, N. (2016). Feasibility of using translated middle school non-native instructor
utterances in L2 lessons. ARELE, 27, 109-124. https://doi.org/10.20581/arele. 27.0_109
Katagiri, N., & Ohashi, Y. (2017). Analyses of non-native preservice English teacher vervalinteraction at Japanese middle schools. International Journal of Language Learning
and Applied Linguistics World, 15(4), 1-16.
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McCarthy, M. (1999). What constitutes a basic vocabulary for spoken communication?
Studies in English Language and Literature, 1, 233-249. Retrieved from http://www.
107Katagiri, N., & Ohashi, Y.
Non-native Preservice English Teachers’ Lexical Usage and Interactional Patterns in Transcriptions Codedon COLT Part B Scheme

cambridge.org/us/esl/touchston…
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. (2013). Gurobaruka
ni taioushita eigo kyoiku kaikaku jisshikeikaku [English Education Reform Plancorresponding to Globalization]. Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/
houdou/ 25/12/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2013/12/17/1342458_01_1.pdf
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. (2014). English
Education Reform Plan corresponding to Globalization. Retrieved from http://www.
mext.go.jp/en/news/topics/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/01/23/ 1343591_1.pdf
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. (2017). Heisei 28
nendo eigo kyoiku jisshi jokyo chosa (chugakko) no kekka [Results of English Language
Education Progress Report on Junior High Schools]. Retrieved from http://www.mext.
go.jp/component/a_menu/education/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2017/04/07/1384236_03.
pdf
Sano, A., Katagiri, N., Sakai, Y., & Shimura, A. (2017). Assessing the effectiveness of the
COLT scheme as a reflection tool for high school teachers of English. JACETInternational Convention Selected Papers, 4, 85-114.
Ondo, C. (1982). Eigoka kyoiku jisshusei no kyoju kodo no bunseki (1) [Analyses ofPreservice Teacher Behaviors in English Education Department (1)]. Bulletin of
Graduate School of Education, Okayama University, 59, 243-251.
Ondo, C., & Fujimori, K. (1983). Eigoka kyoiku jisshusei no kyoju kodo no bunseki (2)[Analyses of Preservice Teacher Behaviors in English Education Department (2)].
Bulletin of Graduate School of Education, Okayama University, 63, 117-123.
Osato, F. (1980). Eigoka kyoiku jisshusei no eigo noryoku to shido gijutsu no kaizen (1)[Toward Planning a Curriculum for Improving Student-Teachers’ English Ability and
Performance (1)]. Saga daigaku kyoikugakubu kenkyu ronbunshu [Journal of the108

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 80-110

Faculty of Education, Saga-University]. 28, 39-451
Sinclair, J. M, & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used byteachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spada, N., & Fröhlich, M. (1995). COLT communicative orientation of language teachingobservation scheme, coding conventions and applications. Sydney: Macquarie
University.
Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating Classroom Discourse. New York: Routledge.

109

Katagiri, N., & Ohashi, Y.
Non-native Preservice English Teachers’ Lexical Usage and Interactional Patterns in Transcriptions Codedon COLT Part B Scheme

Appendices

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
6
6
10
11
11
13
13
15
16
17
17
19
19
19
22
22
22
22
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26

Appendix A

Appendix B

Top 26 Tri-grams

Top 30 Four-grams

Freq
49
43
39
33
24
22
22
22
22
21
20
20
18
18
17
16
15
15
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12

3-gramrepeat after me
sit down please
you mustn ta
ok sit down
do you likedo you have
do you want
ready set go
you want to
how about you
do you know
raise your hand
are you readywhat do you
please stand up
you must not
ok repeat after
ok thank you
here you arewant to bewhere is my
i will givemustn ta eat
switch the roll
will give you
back to yourdown please how
get one million
go back tois my penok do youok very good
one million yen
ready go ok
stand up please
thank you very
to your seat

Rank
1
2
3
4
4
4
7
7
7
7
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
30
30

Freq
33
22
14
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
9

4-gramok sit down please
do you want toyou want to be
i will give you
ok repeat after mewhat do you wantback to your seatget one million yen
go back to yoursit down please how
are here you are
do you have any
down please how about
here you are here
please how about you
thank you very muchwhere is my pen
you are here you
you mustn ta eat
after me you mustnb
again you mustn ta
day is it today
me you mustn ta
ok are you readyonce again you mustnb
repeat after me youtc eat too muchwhat day is it
you have any questions
look at the blackboard
sit down please ok

Note. Freq=Frequency. amustn’t is interpreted bydelimiting the contraction, and came out as a bigram mustn t, which should indicate must not.
b
mustn results from mustn’t, which is separated into
mustn and t by the computer software’s decontraction process. ct comes out of not which isseparated from the contracted form mustn’t.

aNote.
Freq=Frequency.
mustn’tisinterpreted by delimiting the contraction,and came out as a bi-gram mustn t, whichshould indicate must not.

110

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 111-129

Student Views of the Monolingual Method

Shigeko Shimazu
Tamagawa University1

Abstract
Owing to globalization, the demands of communicative skills in English have increased.
Consequently, the monolingual method has prevailed in English teaching and learning, which
focuses on learners’ interactions with other people and environment to nurture communicativeskills in English. This study explores students’ experience and opinions about the monolingual
method in depth in semi-formal interviews. The result showed that two students supported themethod while seven students did not; five students had mixed views and saw advantages anddisadvantages. This study discusses possible impacts of the monolingual method on English
education.

Keywords: the monolingual method, globalization, mother tongue, accuracy, fluency

Introduction
In the last few decades, through migration, economic exchange, and access to digitalcommunication, several varieties of English have arisen due to the global need of vernacularlanguage (i.e. English). In reality, global competition at work (e.g. an official use of English atwork) and in education (e.g. internationalization of education) appears to be fierce.
Concomitantly, the omnipresence of English as a lingua franca entered Japan and the Japanese
government set the goal of promoting communicative skills at all levels in 2002. This national

1

The author’s current affiliation is Komazawa University.

111

Shimazu, S.
Student Views of the Monolingual Method

effort was led by curriculum reforms. One was the JET program which invites native English
speakers to teach in Japan and to introduce their cultures. Also, textbooks were revised andadapted to include more communicative dialogues. At the university level, many universities
created language programs that implicitly focus on English as an International language.
Consequently, English Medium instruction (hereafter the monolingual method) has
become popular around the world. In European higher education, English as a Medium of
Instruction (EMI) is defined as the use of English language for content among students andteachers from different language background (Smit, 2016). The monolingual method in thisstudy is defined as use of English for English study which is originated from this belief in
forging communicative skills by using the target language. Squarely, English teachers arefacing two main problems: 1) the task of selecting teaching methods, materials, and models of
discourse and 2) assessment (e.g. accuracy or fluency). However, the author posits that while
L2 learners are confronting with a lack of English milieu in life, the effect of the monolingual
method is unclear. Therefore, there is a need for a critical awareness toward language teaching
and its effects in class. The aim of this study is to explore the Japanese students’ experiences
and their views on whether or not they support the monolingual method of English study. The
monolingual method in this study including two returnees’ comments refers to teach and learn
English as a foreign language in English. What follows will provide the conceptual
framework and results of this study and the possible implications for English study.

Background of the Study
Traditionally, in Japan, university entrance examination is one of academic goal in
Japan and that English is considered to be one of the most important subjects to be qualified
to higher education. Takahashi (2004) wrote that, in the year 2000, around 95% of junior highschool graduates in Japan advanced to senior high school, 70 % of which went on to
universities or colleges. Woolfolk, Hughes, and Walkup (2008) wrote, “The average six year 112

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 111-129

old has a vocabulary of 8.000 to 14.000 words growing to about 40.000 by age 11” (p. 68),
while the curriculum decreed by the Ministry of Education, culture, Sports, Science andTechnology (hereafter MEXT) covers only 2,300 at the time of graduation from high schools.
This means that there is insurmountable gaps between native and nonnative speakers’
vocabulary size while communicative skills are being neglected in class. It implies that EFL
does not exist in instructional isolation, but it is closely connected and intertwined with awhole range of issues in national economy, politics, education and culture” (Makovara &Rodgers, 2004).
In reaction to the global changes, MEXT set the goal of communicative skills in English
which is seen as a tool for the workforce in the capitalist society (Byram, 2008). It appears
that Japanese students have shouldered many expectations from home, school and society
until they entered the universities. Keeping in mind these students’ dilemma, this raises thequestion whether this aim matches with that of the learners. What challenges are facing thestakeholders as to the monolingual method? The study aims to find students’ perspective
beyond market mechanisms. What follows will provide the conceptual framework and theresults of this study, and the possible implications of English study.

Literature Review
Due to the global spread of English, the governments of non-native speaking countries
have undertaken education reforms (Phillipson, 2009) including Early English education,monolingual instruction and an increased number of native English teachers. Globally, in
non-native speaking countries, teaching higher education in English (EMI) in content studies
has become popular in many non-English speaking countries (Tamtam, Gallagher, Olabi, &Naher, 2012). Without consensus about its effects, many schools encourage English only
instruction of English study (hereafter the monolingual method). Squarely, English teaching
and learning principles have been studied by numbers of researchers. There are three113

Shimazu, S.
Student Views of the Monolingual Method

perspectives on the use of the monolingual methods: 1) the method would have positive
impacts; (Hashimoto, 2004, p. 2) 2) There should be reverse effects in learning (Bjorkman,
2017; Hornberger, 2005; Matsuura, Fujieda, & Mahoney, 2004; Weschler, 1997); and lastly, 3)L1 use would be necessary (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Liao, 2006).
Firstly, Cummins (n.d) wrote that the mother tongues and target language should be
kept separately which emphasizes instructional use of the target language (TL) encourage
students to think in the target language with minimal interference from L1. This principle
initially gained widespread acceptance more than 100 years ago (Howatt & Widdowson,2004). In much similar vein, Tamtam et al. (2012) and Hashimoto (2004) support the method
and noted that graduate students who learned through English only instruction would havehigher chances of recruitment．Correspondingly, in Europe, the monolingual method aims topromote internationalization of higher education to expose the learners with students withdifferent cultures (Muszynska, & Gomez, 2015; Smit, 2014). Concomitantly, learners are
expected to develop intercultural attitudes in global era by studying in teams of the students
from diverse societies (Glatza, 2015). Despite various advantages of the monolingual method,a number of problems are reported (Nha & Burn, 2014). The learner is expected to be activein the monolingual class (Horwitz, 1999). Its goal is to develop communicative competence,
which is the ability to use English in a social setting (Hymes, 1970). However, at present,code-switching, and phonological and grammatical accommodations of L1 are heavily
penalized whereas Standard English is still widely seen as the ideal goal for English as aforeign language (Murata & Jenkins, 2003), which raise the question of assessments. Nha andBurn (2014) wrote that the rapid spread of the monolingual methods does not imply successowing to lack of competent teachers, students’ English proficiency, and inadequate support
including time and teaching materials. Howritz (1999) pointed out that the impacts oftranslation vary with the different target language learning, he also noted that EFL learners
support guessing which implies that it is difficult to use English without any errors. Nha and
114

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 111-129

Burn (2014) argues that English only instruction has mixed results because the method relies
on personal factors including teachers’ and students’ English proficiencies. Consequently, ittakes more time to comprehend the same context. According to Glatza (2015), in Austria, theimpact of English only instruction is intercultural experience rather than content learning.
Muszynska and Gomez (2015) considered that success of education is measured by the results,
and he examined bilingual education in four countries (Poland, Spain, the Netherlands andBelgium). The result showed that teachers’ qualification is the greatest issue for implementing
the bilingual method while students’ achievements vary. They emphasize the urgent need forteacher’ training and material development. In sum, as Maybin (1993) noted, English studying
involves not only language skills but also culture.
Thirdly, Matsuura, Fujieda, and Mahoney (2004) noted that the students prefer theuse of mother tongue (hereafter L1) in class. Wescheler (1997) studied the monolingual
method in a Japanese school and reported that Japanese schools are not ready for its
implementation because of a lack of dedicated time for EFL. While there is a lack teacher’
English language proficiency, teachers’ affect in EFL is higher than in other subjects (Horwitz,
1999). Importantly, as language catches up with cognition in late infancy and early childhood
Bowerman and Levinson (2001) and that there is a lack fairness. The study (Shimazu, 2013)shows that the family environments in early days has long term effects on leaners’
psychological and academic performances. Lastly, another important issue is learners’ beliefs
about language learning (Horwitz, 1999). In Japan, owing to a lack of English milieu, most
EFL learners have instrumental motivation rather than integrative motivation (Horwitz, 1999).
While these positive/negative views in debates are impacting in the above quotations, theauthor feels that efficiencies of the monolingual method would be entwined to learners’
environment and motivation rather than culture differences or ability. The next section willconsider the research methods used in this study.

115

Shimazu, S.
Student Views of the Monolingual Method

Present Study
Methods
In order to investigate the question in a new/original way, my approach was to ask thestudents’ opinion about EFL. The reason for this is that a direct experience of EFL and thestudents’ views of EFL would give insight into the realities of EFL.
Data Analysis
The data analysis aims to identify students’ ideas and ideologies by inferring from thesemantic context and the students’ experiences. The goal is to identify the contexts and themeanings of themes found during the data analysis. Finally, the extracted data are used toanswer the research questions.
Tools of Data Analysis
Thematic analysis emphasizes the similarities and differences of the data (Breakwell,
Hammond, Fife-Schaw, & Smith, 2008). The benefit of the thematic analysis is in its
flexibility and it is useful method to report experiences, meanings, and the reality of theparticipants (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The data analysis of this research is data driven andfollowed steps of the inductive thematic analysis from the constructivism paradigm byreviewing the data by reading transcriptions many time to feminize the data to search for theimportant themes from the contexts of the students’ answers. The tools of this research
include opening codes to generate initial codes, axial coding to compare and contrast students’voices, and to link emerged themes together in relation to the main theme. Prevalence
emerges from the data which are not to be used to determine right or wrong from the numberof the different speakers, but to look for areas unknown to the researchers from a
constructivism paradigm.
Participants’ Profiles
The participants were 7 BA, 6 MA and 2 PhD students at Japanese universities. It was
the first contact with all the interview participants, thus it was possible to maintain neutrality
116

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 111-129

and avoid bias. In order to protect participants’ anonymity and confidentiality, details of thelocation of the interviews and detailed demographic data will not be included. However, taken
together, the participants came from different high school backgrounds which includes public
and private schools in metropolitan, local, and overseas areas. The participants’ academic
background includes mathematics (1), linguistics (1), psychology (1), international relations(3), Arabic language study (1), pharmacy (1), and humanities (1).
Procedure
From the pilot study, it was found that interview locations would affect the result.
Owing to the first gatekeeper at the university, the interviews started in the reserved meetingroom at the department of engineering on August 3rd. There was some difficulties in finding
more participants. But it was possible to interview the students until the data saturation
arrived.
Data Transcription
For the first transcription, I went through several listening of the same content to get
preliminary ideas. I checked the first transcription back against the recordings for accuracy
and found that some interview questions were not collected from two interviewees because
those interviews took place late at night due after attending a seminar for English teachers in
Asian countries. Later, the two students to ask for the second interviews to clarify the content
of the first interview. Additionally, during the reading of the data, it was found that somestudents’ answers were not clear. Then, e-mails were sent for following-up questions and all
students except one replied with gratitude quickly.
Findings
Hereafter, the data analysis will begin with the first main question and the students’views on the principles of EFL. They are introduced in three groups: neutral views which
include general statements (e.g. advantages or disadvantages): followed by supporting
opinions for a principle and then disagreements with the principle. This is a broad
117

Shimazu, S.
Student Views of the Monolingual Method

categorization and used as a means of organizing the data by grouping the students.
“I learned English by the monolingual method at my junior and senior high schools and thestudents naturally adapted to English-only classes, and they took it for granted. Gradually,
when we advanced to higher grades, students started to prepare for university exams. Then, atsenior high school, teachers began using Japanese for explanations because Japanese waseasier for students to understand cognitive meanings and their translation. In the monolingualclass, students understand surface meanings but they cannot check accuracies. Then, it isdifficult to develop logical thinking. For example, a teacher’ explaining in Japanese is morepersuasive to understand grammar rules and its applications than in English. Therefore, it israther hard to choose the language of instruction. In reality, it is important to have bothmonolingual and bilingual instructions. (Ms.)”
This student (1) learned English by the monolingual method at her private school andwas neutral in her view. It is useful to note that many private integrated schools have theirown school goals and most students at this type of school are from affluent families. The
general point the student is making is that the use of the monolingual method prevents
learners from getting a thorough understanding of grammar and meaning and so although shesays students adapted naturally to this method, it has weaknesses and therefore bothmonolingual and bilingual methods are needed. This corresponds with the two goals which
MEXT pursue; i.e., communicative skill at junior high school and accurate reading foruniversity entrance exams at senior high school. She stated that Japanese students are now
behind on both goals of its dual objective.
Another student (2) also took a mixed view but pointed out the lack of feasibility in themonolingual instruction:“The idea is neither good nor bad. Because beginner students cannot understand English at all
and lesson by half measure is not good. Furthermore, there are not enough competent teachers
to teach English by the monolingual method. It takes time for students to learn English by
118

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 111-129

only English. (Mr.)”
This student (2) took the view that Japanese schools are not ready to use the monolingual
method. For example, there is a lack of competent teachers for English – only class. He
focused on the problem of understanding which the first student had commented on: thestudents may not understand the contents well if it is taught only in English. Finally, he said
that, it takes time to promote the method and, since the classroom time is limited, the efficacyof the monolingual method may be obstructed by a lack of teachers’ readiness and students’proficiency levels.
The other student (3) attended an international school and was also uncertain:“The suitability of the monolingual method depends on students’ ages. I was only six years
old when I attended an international school without any English knowledge, and this earlystart contributed to my smooth transition. However, I am not sure if students understandgrammar concepts at an early age. I was able to be familiar with learning English because I
was learning in English. In Japanese school, it is good to mix both bilingual and monolingual.
(Ms.)”
This student (3) began attending an international school at the age of six and agreed withstudent 1 that she adapted ‘smoothly’, but she also agreed with Student 1 that students at earlyage do not understand the logic of grammar. She does not say if this is a problem in the waythat student 1 does, but she agreed that both methods are necessary, as the both previous
student have stated. This student and the others seem to believe that, at elementary school, themonolingual method might be better at learning a language - an issue we shall discuss underresearch question 2.
Now, the data analysis turns to students who agreed with the method. Student (5)described her view from a socio-cultural perspective. Even though she begins by expressing areservation, she goes on to express her support for this approach:“The monolingual method is not always the best method. Nevertheless, it is suitable for119Shimazu, S.
Student Views of the Monolingual Method

Japanese students who are shy especially for Japanese students to practice using English.
Students tend to use Japanese language whenever it is available. Japanese society is very
conservative to people from different cultures. For example, how many students can help
foreigners in trouble by saying “Can I help you?” When I was China, when I could not speak
Chinese well, but Chinese people helped me. In the research room, we share space withforeign students and Japanese students are reluctant to mix with students from different
countries. It is only a matter of time to get used to intercultural communication. (Ms.)”
This student (5) visited China and France for her internship, and agreed that the monolingual
method is good for Japanese because of their reticence. She implies that because Japanese
students are shy and Japan is a conservative society when dealing with foreigners, they would
benefit from the English-only class. In another part of the interview, she described thepsychological sensitivity of Japanese students as compared to students in China and France
and wished that the students would increase their communicative competence by themonolingual method. She seems to imply that the method would affect students’ personality
and make them less shy.
Another student (6) talked about her experience in Arabic language class and contrasted
with her experiences of learning English:“From my experience, one American lecturer from Protestant church taught English
conversation by the monolingual method whereas the most English course is taught inJapanese. I think monolingual method is better to improve English, but it creates gap between
fast learners and slow learners. The monolingual is more difficult in small class. Before I
entered the university, I had not experienced monolingual method at schools. Now, I attended
an Arabic language course by the monolingual method. In the class, when students do notunderstand a meaning well, the teachers use gestures to help students to convey meanings, toget image and convey feelings well. The monolingual method takes a longer time and higher
costs. But it would be an effective way to learn a language naturally. (Ms.)”
120

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 111-129

This student (6) agreed with the student 1 and 2 in that English-only instruction is not always
easy for students to understand the contents. However, she supported the monolingual method
because it would improve English proficiency with the increased exposure. Interestingly, she
supported monolingual class in larger class where the students are passive learners whereas ina small class, the monolingual method creates gaps in the level of understanding between
beginners and advanced leaners of English. Then, contrasted with other students (1.2), she had
a more positive attitude toward the monolingual class, because she was impressed by NETsversatility of using gestures to make students understand what is happing in class and helps
lift the students out from anxiety and dismay in English only classes. Ultimately, she
supported the monolingual method in higher education.
Student (7) described some advantages of the method:“I think the monolingual method is useful because we can learn how to think in English. It isdifficult to speak English unless we change our cognitive mode into English. But at university,
many students have to think in L1 first and change to L2. Meanwhile, it is rather difficult toswitch two languages at a time. Let me see...But NETs do not use Japanese in class. So…I
still think it is more comfortable for students to have a mother tongue. When I was learning
French in England, I felt it more comfortable if a French teacher spoke some English in class.
For example, when the teacher asked the students “Do you have any questions?”, even if
someone had a question, he/she would not know how to ask the question in English or theywould be caught in fears that if he made a language mistake, suspect that other students would
correct his errors. Thus, the monolingual method would be compound fears to the student.
(Mr.)”
This returnee (7) learned French in the U.K. and described an advantage of the monolingual
method in that students are expected to think in English in the monolingual class and it would
be better not switch languages. However, he worries that students would be placed in fear in
English only class to ask helps in the class that inhibits effective learning. This shortfall of the121Shimazu, S.
Student Views of the Monolingual Method

Japanese students’ reticence may present in class with students with different English
proficiencies. It implies that the students learning would be muted with anxiety. However, in
another question, he described English only class in the direct method and said that English
only instruction would be difficult for public school at early age, but suitable for advanced
learners for higher motivations and goals. It implies that advantages of the monolingual
methods run in proximity to its disadvantages.
Now, the data analysis will turn to look at the students’ views who mainly disagreed
with the monolingual method.
The next student (8) pointed out the importance of fairness:“I am not in favor of the monolingual method because it will widen gaps among students andit would be more damaging than helpful. (Mr.)”
This student (8) learned English for the first time at Junior high school and said that themonolingual method widens the gap between learners. The implication seems to be thatteachers would not treat students equally, which creates discrepancy between fast learners andslow learners. He implied that levels of English proficiency differ at schools because parents
send their children to private language lessons to prepare children for competitive academic
environment, while some others’ English exposure is limited in EFL at school. It may also
imply that the monolingual class has a relation with socio-cultural perspective.
For the monolingual method in beginners’ class, a student (9) disagreed by talking of its
lack of efficacy:“The monolingual method is inefficient. For instance, we look at ‘apple’; we will know its
meaning at the first glance. In turn, it is difficult to contextualize texts without Japaneseexplanations. Therefore, it is more effective to give meanings with verbs and nouns inJapanese. I am in doubt to expect noticeable progress in only English. Nevertheless, themonolingual class could be effective to certain extent. (Mr.)”
This student (9) said that it is faster to explain in Japanese for young learners. He also said
122

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 111-129

that it is difficult to have a concrete idea without mother tongue, a theme we saw even among
those in favors above. Therefore, he implied that mixing both Japanese and English makes
meaning more explicit that symbolic including linguistic, development does not cause infants’concept formation.
The next student (10) talked about the mismatch between different cultures:“At school, English only instruction...At junior high school; it is difficult to learn a new
language in monolingual method because students do not have any linguistic knowledge tounderstand English. I worry that English-only class would create mismatches. What shall I
say...? I mean that English language conveys different feelings from Japanese language andthat it is difficult to understand English without using our mother tongue. Hence, I do notprefer the monolingual method. (Mr.)”
This student (10) also focuses on the difficulties of understanding, but adds the idea that
languages convey different feelings, that it is difficult to communicate with people whose has
different levels of English proficiencies. However, he added that different languages convey
different meaning which supports linguistic externalism (i.e. Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) in that
language control thoughts. Thus, he considered that the monolingual method is not good forcompulsory education.
In order to improve these situations, another student (11) suggested:“Let me see... if a classroom goal is to develop output skills (i.e. speaking and writing), themonolingual method is suited. In this case, teachers need to give students reminder notes inJapanese (e.g. test schedules) to avoid possible miscommunications. I guess that an efficacyof the method depends on the learning goals. If the goal is input skills (e.g. grammar,
pronunciation), it is more efficient to use Japanese explanations. (Mr.)”
This student (11) said that the feasibility of the monolingual method depends on the goal. He
suggested that Japanese explanations are more effective to provide receptive skills (i.e. input

123

Shimazu, S.
Student Views of the Monolingual Method

skills in his term). Then, he referred to a need of ‘reminder note’ in Japanese to ensure
students’ levels of comprehension and interpretation.
By contrast, the other student (12) said:“The monolingual method is difficult for beginners to understand English meanings.
Therefore, memories become fuzzy and difficult to store in a long-term memory. Therefore,
explanations in students’ mother tongues are important. Indeed, translation is important as
well. (Ms.)”
This student (12) began learning English at her primary school and said that the challenge ofusing English all the time in class is too ambitious. She offered some support for some otherstudents’ views in that the learners would fail to understand learning the context fully in themonolingual classes, and that this factor likely decides the levels of students’ linguisticknowledge, which it would be assumed to be a lack of knowledge for later use. Therefore, sherecommends teaching English through mother tongue to build concrete understanding. She
might indirectly imply that it is difficult to develop language skills at school with themonolingual method.

Results and Discussion
This study investigated students’ opinions about the monolingual method. The data
showed that few students had attended schools that used the monolingual method during their
compulsory education. However, in the interviews, students were aware of the advantages ofusing the monolingual method including extensive exposures to English and the opportunity
to use English for students who tend to suffer from a culturally inherited reluctance to use
English. Nevertheless, few students expressed trust in the applicability of English only
instruction. The reasons include 1) impracticality (i.e. lack of teachers, large size class, andstudents’ insufficient comprehension skills), 2) inefficiency (i.e. it’s faster to explain in

124

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 111-129

mother tongue) 3) impracticalness (e.g. a shortage of English lessons), 4) misunderstandings
may take place between speakers of different languages and cultures, or among students withdifferent language proficiencies. In addition, 5) students cannot check accuracies of theirunderstandings. Students’ memories become unclear and they fail to develop skills tocontextualize the knowledge into different situations. Lastly, 6) Japanese students preferred tohave a comfortable atmosphere in the class and thus errors corrections become problematic in
the monolingual class. In other words, L1 use in EEL classes is useful in the process oflearning a foreign language in EFL environment.
In sum, it is suggested that the monolingual method, in most learners’ opinions, isgood for elementary school when students are less self-conscious and enjoy using English inclass. Gradually, students prefer to have both Japanese and English instructions to ensure
accurate understanding. It can be summarized that understanding language and culture isinterrelated (Widdowson, 1997; Widdowson, 2003). Finally, the study supports García (2009)that the success of a monolingual method depends on the social environment rather than on
the pedagogy.

Implications
This study focused on the specific aspects of the monolingual which are expected to bepossible solutions to improve communicative skills in English and the way the theory would
be implemented into practice. As has been discussed above, the effectiveness of themonolingual method has been entirely different in various areas of education. For example,
the mixed results of this study imply that the mere exposure to English does not develop
English skills. In particular, the efficacy of English only instruction depends on age and levelsof learners’ proficiency. Another notable finding is that the mastering of communicative skills
is not a canonical outcome at school, but integrated skills at school and outside schooling.
This study concludes that higher education, although higher education is highly
125

Shimazu, S.
Student Views of the Monolingual Method

structured in terms of the formal curriculum and both cumulative and exit assessment, hastraditionally been less systematized in terms of imparting learning approaches and techniques.
This relatively laissez-faire attitude means that individuals were, in effect, the freeholders of
their own intellectual epistemology. Then, the students are receivers of the curriculum and theefficacies of the method vary individually. It implies that levels of attainment are always
mediated social, cultural and individual environment. Considering that many students are
suffering from a lack of English exposure, flexible use of L1 is important to avoid
miscommunication, which may be coincide with “separate bilingualism” termed by Creeseand Blackledge (2010). In order to grasp how English only instruction is accepted in EFL
classroom in Japan, further studies are necessary.

Acknowledgement
I acknowledge the support by the anonymous referees with gratitude. My acknowledgement
would also be incomplete without the recognition of the students who reported their views.

References
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Penguin,
Harmondsworth, 149-183. Penguin books, London England: Retrieved fromhttp://perflensburg.se/Berger%20social-construction-of-reality.pdf.
Bjorkman, N. (2017). English –medium instruction and English as a lingua franca in Swedish
higher education: Processes and agent, debates and realities, Joint workshop: The 7th
Waseda ELF International Workshop and The 3rd EMI-ELF Workshop. Tokyo: Waseda
University.
Bowerman, M., & Levinson, C. S. (2001). Language acquisition and conceptional
development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research
126

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 111-129

in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
Breakwell, M. G., Hammond, S., Fife-Schaw, C., & Smith, A. J. (2008). Research methods inpsychology, 3rd edition. London: SAGE.
Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship,
essays and reflections. London: Multilingual Matters
Cummins, J. (n. d). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingualclassrooms, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Toronto,
U.S.A., Retrieved fromhttp://www.aclacaal.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/7-vol-10-no2-art-cummins.pdf
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanaugeing in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy
for learning and teaching, The Modern Language Journal, 94, 105-115.
García, O. (2009). En/countering indigenous bilingualism, Journal of Language, Identity, and
Education, 8, 376–380.
Glatza, K. M. (2015). Exploring the roles of English: English as a lingua franca in master’s
programs at WU Vienna University of Economics and Business. The 32nd International
Conference of the Spanish Association of Applied Linguistics (AESLA), Language
Industries and Social Change. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 173,
119–124.
Hashimoto, S. (2004). Foreign language education in Japan, A Japanese perspective, policy
forum: Global approaches to plurilingual education, 28-29 June. Strasbourg, France:
Council of Europe.
Hornberger, N. H. (2005). In Creese, A. and Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanaugeing in thebilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching, The Modern Language
Journal, 94(1), 103-115.
Horwitz, K. E. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners' beliefs
about language learning: A review of BALLI studies, foreign language education,
127

Shimazu, S.
Student Views of the Monolingual Method

System, 27, 557-576.
Howett, A. P. R., & Widdowson, G. H. (2004). A history of English language teaching, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hymes, D. H. (1970). Linguistic method in ethnography: Its development in the United States.
In P. Garvin (Ed.), Method and theory in linguistics (pp. 225-232), New York: The
Hague: Mouton.
Liao, P. (2006). EFL learners’ beliefs about and strategy use of translation in English learning,
RELC Journal, 37(2), 191-215.
Matsuura, H., Fujieda, M., & Mahoney, S. (2004). The officialization of English and ELT in
Japan: 2000, World Englishes, 23(3), 471-487.
Makarova, V., & Rodgers, T. (2004). English language teaching: The case in Japan,
Munchen: Lincom, Europa.
Maybin, J. (1993). Language and literacy in social practice. Bristol, UK: The Open
University.
Mcveigh, J. B. (2004). Foreign language instruction in Japanese higher education, The
humanistic vision or nationalist utilitarianism? Arts and Humanities in Higher
Education 3(2), 211–217.
Murata, K. & Jenkins, J. (2003). Global Englishes in Asian contexts, current and future
debates. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Muszynska, B., & Gómez, P. M. E. (2015). The implementation of effective dual-language
programs, Revista de lengidas para fines especificos. Retrieved January 7, 2018 fromhttp://acceda.ulpgc.es/bitstream/10553/15521/1/0233536_00021_0005.pdf
Nha, T. T. V., & Burn, A. (2014). English as a medium of instruction: Challenges for
Vietnamese tertiary lecturers, The Journal of Asia TEFL, 11(3), 1-31.
Phillipson, R. (1992). EFL; The native speakers’ burden? ELT Journal, 46(1), 12-18.
Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic imperialism continued, London: Routledge.
128

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 111-129

Shimazu, S. (2013). Japanese students’ EFL experience: The role of the students’ voice, MEd
Thesis, Durham, UK: University of Durham,
Smit, U. (2016). Classroom discourse in EMI: On the dynamics of multilingual practices,
EMI-ELF workshop, February 27, 2016, Tokyo: Waseda University.
Takanashi, Y. (2004). TEFL and communication styles in Japanese culture. Language, Culture
and Curriculum, 17(1), 1-14.
Tamtam, A. G., Gallagher, F., Olabi, A. G., & Naher, S. (2012). A comparative study of theimplementation of EMI in Europe, Asia and Africa. Procedia- Social and Behavioral
Science, Vol Number, Page Numbers.
Smit, U. (2014). English-medium education in multilingual university settings: A
sociolinguistic examination of interactive explaining in the classroom, Language andcontent integration: Toward a conventional framework, Academy in Finland. Retrieved
February, 19, 2017 from http://conclil.jyu.fi/.
Weschler, R. (1997). Use of Japanese (L1) in the English classroom: Introducing thefunctional-translation method, Internet TESOL Journal. Retrieved fromhttp://iteslj.org/Articles/Weschler-UsingL1.html.
Widdowson, H. G., (1997). EIL, ESL, EFL: Global issues and local interests', World Englishes,
16(1), 135-146, cited in Byram, M. & Hu, A. (2013), Routledge encyclopedia of
language teaching and learning, 220-223. London: Routledge.
Widdowson, H. G., (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Woolfolk, A., Hughes M., & Walkup, V. (2008). Psychology in education. Harlow, England:
Pearson Longman.

129

Tanaka, M., & Kawai, H.
Children’s Sound-Letter Recognition Knowledge Predicts High Self-Evaluation of English Abilities

Children’s Sound-Letter Recognition Knowledge Predicts
High Self-Evaluation of English Abilities: Analyses of Questionnaires andTests Given to Japanese Elementary School Children

Makiko Tanaka
Hiromi Kawai
Kanda University of International Studies

Abstract
This study investigated English vocabulary and sound-letter recognition knowledge ofJapanese elementary school children and their perceptions of their English abilities. The
Vocabulary Test and the Sound-Letter Recognition Test were conducted, and questionnaires
were administered to the 5th and 6th graders, totaling 3,240, in a city’s 54 public elementary
schools in Chiba, Japan. The study examined 1) children’s English abilities measured by the
Vocabulary Test and the Sound-Letter Recognition Test, 2) their perceptions about theirEnglish abilities, and 3) if 1) and 2) were correlated. The results of the tests showed that
English abilities of the 6th graders were significantly higher than those of the 5th graders.
Factor analysis of the 13 items in the questionnaire culminated in three factors: 1) motivation
to improve English, 2) interests in English and English classes, and 3) their self-evaluation of
their English abilities, and the result of the Sound-Letter Recognition Test was mostpositively correlated with the children’ self-evaluation of their English abilities. A multiple
regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between the self-evaluation of
their English abilities and the four predictors (vocabulary, sound-letter recognition
knowledge, motivation to improve English, and interests in English and English classes). The
study concludes that higher sound-letter recognition knowledge contributes to children’s
positive self-evaluation about their English abilities.
130

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 130-155

Keywords: EFL elementary school education, vocabulary knowledge,
sound-letter recognition knowledge, self-evaluation of English learning

Introduction
This study investigated English vocabulary and sound-letter recognition
knowledge of Japanese elementary school children and their perceptions of their English
abilities. The Vocabulary Test and the Sound-Letter Recognition Test were conducted, andquestionnaires were administered to the 5th and 6th graders, totaling 3,240, in Funabashi city’s
54 public elementary schools in Chiba, Japan. The ultimate objective of the research was to
examine effects of the current English education policy for elementary schools supervised by
the Funabashi board of education and help them prepare for English education for the coming
year 2020 when English will be incorporated into elementary school curriculum as an official
subject.
Funabashi city’s 54 elementary schools were designated as curriculum special schools(Kyoikukatei-tokureikou) in the year 2006, and since then English has been taught as an
official subject from the 1 st grade. The city’s board of education has developed their original
curriculum and a unified textbook to be used in all elementary schools in the city. Funabashi
city had been investigating the effects of its education policy to validate its objectives andenhance children’s communication abilities. Since 2016, however, the current researchers
succeeded the city’s project and began a large-scale investigation in cooperation with theboard of education.
The study examined 1) children’s English abilities measured by the Vocabulary Test
and the Sound-Letter Recognition Test, 2) their perceptions about their English abilities, and3) if 1) and 2) were in any way correlated. The questionnaire was administered to investigate
children’ perceptions about English activities, English classes, and their self-evaluation of
their English abilities.
131

Tanaka, M., & Kawai, H.
Children’s Sound-Letter Recognition Knowledge Predicts High Self-Evaluation of English Abilities

The current research is critical as the results show what children have learned fromcurrent English materials, the city’s original English textbook as well as from Hi, friends! 1 &2 (MEXT, 2012), how much they progress over the course of a year, and if the current
education helps children acquire skills to read and write alphabet and simple English words.

The Previous Studies
Since Foreign Langue Activities became mandatory for the 5th and 6th graders in 2011,
no comprehensive research on elementary school children’s English achievement has been
conducted; that is, effects of English education under the name of Foreign Language
Activities is not known. There is lack of research because Foreign Language Activities is not
an official subject, currently elementary school teachers with no credentials to teach English
are engaging in teaching English, and there is no valid method of assessing children’s English
abilities. In addition, the current English education aims to foster children’s ability to“communicate” as stated below in the guidelines (MEXT, 2008), but what constitutes
children’s communication abilities is not certain.

Overall objectives of Foreign Language Activities
To form the foundation of pupils’ communication abilities through foreign languages
fostering a positive attitude toward communication, and familiarizing pupils with thesounds and basic expressions of foreign languages (MEXT, 2008).

It is, however, essential to investigate children’ English abilities, as it will provide
teachers with knowledge about how they can help children enhance their English skills. In
assessing children’s L2 development, the size of vocabulary is often tested as learning a
useful vocabulary is central for young learners in foreign language learning at primary level(Cameron, 2001), and it is one of the determinants of L2 development (Langeland,
132

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 130-1552012). Indeed, vocabulary acquisition is so critical that middle school children with poor L2
vocabulary knowledge are at risk in terms of L2 development (Roessingh & Elgie, 2009).
Since elementary school English education in Japan also focuses on learning words at an earlystage, testing their vocabulary knowledge from the textbook is valid to evaluate if they haveacquired English successfully. As for the method of assessing children’s vocabularyknowledge, Sylvén and Sundqvist (2016) claim using a multiple-choice format as it is easily
administered and scored.
In addition to vocabulary, children need to be able to read alphabet letters as reading
and writing simple words will be introduced into the elementary school English curriculum in
2020. As with vocabulary, knowledge about sounds and letters is an indicator of later successin English learning. Research shows that phonemic awareness, “an understanding that speech
is composed of a series of individual sounds” (Yopp, 1992, 1995), and phonics, letter-soundrelationship (Ehri & Nunes, 2002), are the basics of literacy development. Alphabet
knowledge, the ability to name the letters of the alphabet, is a well-established predictor ofchildren’s later literacy skills (Piasta, Petscher, & Justice, 2012; Share, Jorm, Maclean, &Matthews, 1984; Treiman, Tincoff, & Richmond-Welty, 1997).
The National Reading Panel (2000) conducted a meta-analysis of phonemic awareness
instruction, and the subsequent research claimed that phonemic awareness should be taught as
it enhances reading and spelling ability significantly among young children (Ehri, Nune,
Willows, Schuster, Yaghoub-Zadeh, & Shanahan, 2001). These studies suggest that
instructions of alphabetic knowledge enhance children’s ability to recognize letterscorresponding to spoken sounds, and therefore, phonemic awareness has great effects on theirlater academic performance. According to Allen-Tamai (2010) and Zygouris-Coe (2001), it isimportant to foster L2 children’s awareness of sounds before teaching phonics, in whichchildren are taught that an alphabet sound corresponds to an alphabet letter. In Funabashi city,
it is obligatory to teach alphabet knowledge and basic phonics, and these are incorporated in133

Tanaka, M., & Kawai, H.
Children’s Sound-Letter Recognition Knowledge Predicts High Self-Evaluation of English Abilities

the city’s elementary school English curriculum.
According to Cameron (2001), both vocabulary knowledge and phonological awarenessare extremely important for L2 children in the early stage of learning. ‘Sounding out’ awritten word or building up from its component letter or morpheme sounds of vocabulary thatthey know will speed up recognition of alphabet, and it also develops children’s ability to hear
L2 individual sounds and syllables in words, rhymes, chants, and songs.
MEXT (2015) conducted a nationwide survey to investigate the outcomes and problemsof Foreign Language Activities after it was incorporated into elementary school curriculum in2011. Seventy-two percent of the upper grades public elementary school children responded
that they liked English, and around 80% of the first year junior high school students
responded that English classes in elementary schools were helpful to them to learn English in
the junior high schools. Regarding reading and writing, around 70% of the first-year students
in junior high schools answered that they wanted to learn skills to read and write simple
words and sentences while in elementary schools. Tanaka and Kawai’ survey (2017) revealed
that 66.1% of elementary school teachers believed that 5th and 6th graders wanted to read
English. Their survey also showed that 55.1% out of 265 elementary school teachers from
Chiba Prefecture, Fukui Prefecture, and Edogawa-Ward in Tokyo believed that elementary
school children wanted to write English. Although these elementary school teachers seemed
to realize their pupils’ desire to read and write English, it was also revealed that these teachers
did not know the basic method of how to teach children how to read and write alphabet lettersand simple words. Thus, the present study investigated elementary school children’s
emotional state toward studying English and self-evaluation of their English abilities.
In addition to these research backgrounds, considering a large number of participants
exceeding 50 elementary schools in this study, researchers administered two types ofreceptive tests and a questionnaire.

134

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 130-155

Research Questions
The importance of knowing children’s knowledge of vocabulary and sound-letter
recognition at an early stage of L2 learning and their perceptions about English language
learning led the researchers to the following research questions:
RQ1: What is the vocabulary knowledge of the 5th and the 6th grade children?
RQ2: What is their sound-letter recognition knowledge?
RQ3: Is there any relationship between their vocabulary knowledge and sound-letter
recognition knowledge?
RQ4: What are their perceptions of English classes?
RQ5: What are the perceptions of their English abilities?
RQ6: Is there any relationship between English abilities and their self-evaluation about
their English abilities?

MethodParticipants
The participants in the present study were 5th and 6th grade children from Funabashi
city’s 54 elementary schools. Each elementary school chose one 5 th and one 6th grade classes
and conducted both the Vocabulary Test and the Sound-Letter Recognition Test andadministered the questionnaire sent via the Funabashi board of education. The total number ofchildren who participated was approximately 3,241 (Table 1), which amounted to 30% of all
the 5th (5,303) and the 6th (5,452) grade children (10,755 children in total) in the city in 2016.
The percentages of the participants who took each test and the questionnaire are shown in thebrackets below the number of the participants. The number of children who took the tests andwho answered the questionnaire differed due to the absence when the test or the questionnaire
was administered. The mean ages were 128.3 months for the 5th graders, and 141.1 months forthe 6th graders.
135Tanaka, M., & Kawai, H.
Children’s Sound-Letter Recognition Knowledge Predicts High Self-Evaluation of English Abilities

Table 1
Participants in This StudyN
Mean age
Vocabulary
The number of the participants

Sound-Letter Recognition
Questionnaire

Grade 5

Grade 6

128;3

141;1

1,587
(30.0%)
1,593(30.0%)
1,589(30.0%)

1,654(30.3%)
1,648(30.2%)
1629(29.9%)

Total

3,240
(30.1%)
3,241(30.1%)
3,218(29.9%)

Instruments
Tests. The following two types of tests, the Vocabulary Test and the Sound-Letter
Recognition Test were developed by the researchers in order to evaluate English
achievements of the city’s elementary school children. The Vocabulary and the Sound-Letter
Recognition Tests were conducted in class during the regular class hour under the guidance of
homeroom teachers. The teachers were to follow the recording on CD, and the tests took
about 40 minutes.
The vocabulary test. The Vocabulary Test assessed children’ knowledge of English
words frequently appeared in the textbook developed by the Funabashi city board ofeducation and Hi, friends! 1 & 2 (MEXT, 2012). The test had two parts, Part A and Part B,
each containing 14 items. In Part A, children listened to a word and chose one picture out of
three that defined the meaning of the word (a multiple-picture choice). In Part B, children
listened to three words and chose one word that matched a picture on the test sheet (amultiple-word choice). Test samples are shown in Appendix A and the list of vocabulary inAppendix B. A multiple-picture choice and multiple-word choice test formats were used inorder to raise the construct validity of the tests.

136

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 130-155

The sound-letter recognition test. The Sound-Letter Recognition Test was developed
to examine children’s ability of reading alphabet letters and words that they learned atschools. It also measured the ability to connect basic English sounds to alphabet letters withreal words and nonsense words. The test had 35 items with five parts: matching onset soundswith uppercase letters (five items), matching onset sounds with lowercase letters (five items),
word recognition (five items), recognition of alphabet names in lowercase letters (five items),
and matching non-word onset sounds with lowercase letters (15 items). Test samples areshown in Appendix A.
Questionnaire. The items of questionnaire included if children are enjoying studying
English (emotional state), if they understand English taught in classes (cognitive state), if theywant to learn how to read and write simple English words (their desires for learning to read
and write), and if they feel their English is improving (self-evaluation of their English
abilities). The questions for reading and writing simple English words were included to find if
the current phonics instruction of the city showed any effect on children’ ability to read andwrite simple words, and if not, to suggest how the city can prepare children how to read andwrite when English becomes a mandatory regular subject in 2020 in which basic reading andwriting will be taught. Children were to respond on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 =“the least likely,” to 5 = “the most likely.” Table 2 shows the question items.

137

Tanaka, M., & Kawai, H.
Children’s Sound-Letter Recognition Knowledge Predicts High Self-Evaluation of English Abilities

Table 2
Descriptive Analysis of Questionnaire Items
Question items

Grade

N

M

SD

5

1589

3.80

1.014

6

1625

3.68

1.023

5

1587

3.98

.936

6

1627

3.85

.955

5

1589

2.87

1.085

6

1628

2.93

1.125

5

1592

3.92

.929

6

1629

3.93

.940

5

1530

3.61

.959

6

1593

3.53

.941

5

1575

3.12

1.312

6

1620

3.38

1.246

5

1560

3.19

1.561

6

1603

3.59

1.442

5

1570

4.48

.892

6

1619

4.48

.835

1

Do you like studying English?

2

Do you enjoy studying English?

3

Is it difficult for you to study English?

4

Do you understand what you study in English
classes?

5

Do you understand what an ALT is saying?

6

Can you read simple English words?

7

Can you write simple English words?

8

Do you want to be able to read simple English words?

9

Do you want to be able to write simple English
words?

5

1571

4.48

.904

6

1617

4.48

.843

you want your teachers to teach you how to read
10 Do
and write simple English words?

5

1575

3.96

1.015

6

1616

3.90

.995

Do you want to be able to pronounce English
11 correctly?

5

1576

4.33

.937

6

1615

4.32

.865

5

1568

3.43

1.142

6

1619

3.36

1.120

5

1566

3.66

1.056

6

1622

3.59

1.058

12 Do you speak English actively in class?
13 Do you feel that your English has improved?

Procedure
One of the authors is an advisor of the city’s English Education Promotion Committee
and suggested in-depth analysis of the children’ English abilities, attitudes to study English so138

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 130-155

that the current researchers could provide evidence-based suggestions to advance English
education of the city. The authors prepared consent forms to the city’s 54 elementary school
principals and to homeroom teachers and asked them to distribute to the children’s parents tocooperate on the present project.
Data collection. A university’s TESOL teacher who is a native speaker of General
American English participated in recordings of the test scripts. All the test materials wererecorded in a university studio on ROLAND R-05 recorder ver. 1.03 WAV-24bit. The
sampling rate of the model pronunciation recording was 48.0 kHz. The recorded materials
were written to CDs. All the test materials, the questionnaire, CDs, and instruction manuals
were sent from the city board of education to each elementary school. The tests and thequestionnaire were administered under the guidance of the homeroom teacher.
Where there were more than two classes for the 5th or the 6th grades in a school, theschools had a leeway to choose one class for each grade and conduct the tests and thequestionnaire at their convenience. Participants took the tests and responded to thequestionnaire in July 2016. After the tests and the questionnaire were conducted, all the test
materials and the questionnaires were sent back to the board of education and from theredelivered to our university research center.
Data analysis. After the data collection, all the test items were marked on a binary
scale: 1 as correct and 0 as wrong. All the questionnaire items were marked on the 5-point
Likert scale. Both the test items and the questionnaire items were statistically analyzed using
SPSS.

Results
Results of the Tests
Table 3 shows descriptive analysis of the two tests. The value of Cronbach’s α for each139

Tanaka, M., & Kawai, H.
Children’s Sound-Letter Recognition Knowledge Predicts High Self-Evaluation of English Abilities

test showed satisfactory reliability. The mean values of the 6th grades were higher than thoseof the 5th graders in both tests. The mean values of the Vocabulary Test were higher thanthose of the Sound-Letter Recognition Test for both graders.

Table 3
Descriptive Analysis of the Two Tests
Tests
Vocabulary (28 items)
Sound-Letter Recognition (35 items)

Grade

N

M

SD

5

1,587

20.7 (73.9%)

4.44

6

1,650

23.2 (82.8%)

3.97

5

1,589

22.7 (64.8%)

5.95

α
.804

.849
6

1,646

26.1 (74.5%)

4.93

Note. The numbers of the participants in each test differ from ones in Table 1 due to someabsences and a lack of data.

Figure 1. Grade difference in the Vocabulary
Test

Figure 2. Grade difference in the SoundLetter Recognition Test

T-tests were conducted to compare the differences between the two grades in the two
tests. There was a significant difference between the two grades in the Vocabulary Test: t(3,238) = -16.03, p = .000. Cohen’s effect size value (r = .27) suggested small practical
140

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 130-155

significance. In the Sound-Letter Recognition Test, there was a significant difference between
the two grades; t (3,239) = -18.05, p = .000. Cohen’s effect size value (r = .30) suggested
medium practical significance. These tests showed that the 6th graders gained significantly
higher scores than the 5th graders in the two tests. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the differences
between the grades in each test.
Results of the Questionnaire
Table 2 shows descriptive analysis of the questionnaire. Item 8 (if they wanted to beable to read simple English words) and Item 9 (if they wanted to be able to write simple
English words) gained the highest mean scores followed by Item 11 (if they wanted to be able
to pronounce English correctly). Item 3 (if it was difficult for them to learn English) gained
the lowest mean score. Table 4 shows a cross-tabulation table of the percentage per point ineach grade.
While the rates of the participants who chose 4 and 5 on the 5-point Likert scale in Item
6 (if they could read simple English words) were 44.7% in Grade 5 and 55.6% in Grade 6,
and those in Item 8 were 89.6% in Grade 5 and 90.1% in Grade 6. While the rates of theparticipants who chose 4 and 5 in Item 7 (if they could write simple English words) were
54.8% in Grade 5 and 67.8% in Grade 6, those in Item 9 were 89.2% in Grade 5 and 89.9% in
Grade 6. The rates of the participants who chose 4 and 5 in Item 11 were 85.4% in Grade 5
and 84.8% in Grade 6.

141

Tanaka, M., & Kawai, H.
Children’s Sound-Letter Recognition Knowledge Predicts High Self-Evaluation of English Abilities

Table 4
Cross-tabulation of the Questionnaire Items
5-point Likert
Item

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Questions

Grades
1

2

3

4

5

5

3.3%

5.2%

28.0%

35.4%

28.0%

6

4.2%

6.0%

29.8%

37.0%

23.0%

5

2.1%

2.8%

23.9%

37.6%

33.5%

6

3.0%

3.4%

26.4%

40.3%

26.9%

5

9.9%

28.9%

33.2%

20.4%

7.6%

6

9.8%

27.4%

33.2%

19.4%

10.2%

Do you understand what you are
studying in English classes?

5

2.8%

3.8%

18.7%

47.4%

27.3%

6

2.9%

3.9%

18.9%

46.0%

28.3%

Do you understand what an ALT issaying?

5

3.9%

5.8%

32.6%

41.0%

16.7%

6

4.0%

6.3%

36.3%

39.9%

13.6%

Can you read simple English
words?

5

14.2%

21.0%

20.2%

27.6%

17.1%

6

10.2%

16.4%

17.9%

36.7%

18.9%

Can you write simple English
words?

5

21.6%

20.9%

2.6%

26.5%

28.3%

6

13.0%

17.6%

1.6%

32.6%

35.2%

Do you want to be able to read
simple English words?

5

2.5%

2.0%

5.9%

24.1%

65.5%

6

1.9%

1.6%

6.4%

27.0%

63.1%

Do you want to be able to write
simple English words?

5

2.9%

1.6%

6.4%

23.0%

66.2%

6

2.1%

1.2%

6.7%

26.6%

63.3%

Do you want your teachers to teachyou how to read and write simple
English words?

5

3.6%

3.4%

21.9%

35.9%

35.2%

6

3.6%

2.6%

25.9%

36.4%

31.5%

Do you want to be able to pronounce
English correctly?

5

3.0%

1.6%

10.0%

30.3%

55.1%

6

1.6%

1.6%

12.0%

32.4%

52.4%

Do you speak English actively inclass?

5

7.8%

12.1%

26.3%

36.5%

17.3%

6

7.0%

14.9%

28.0%

34.9%

15.2%

Do you feel that your English has
improved?

5

5.0%

9.3%

20.4%

45.2%

20.0%

6

5.7%

9.0%

23.2%

44.5%

17.6%

Do you like studying English?

Do you enjoy studying English?

Is English difficult for you?

142

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 130-155

Factor Analysis
The explanatory factor analysis was conducted to determine the factor structure. The
maximum-likelihood estimation with Promax rotation method along with Kaiser
normalization was employed. Factor loadings over .50 appear in bold. Three factors wereextracted. Factor 1 was named as Motivation to learn English, Factor 2 as Interest in English
classes, and Factor 3 as Self-evaluation of English abilities. The reliability of each factor was
calculated, with the Cronbach’s α coefficient as shown in Table 5: Factor 1 was .898, Factor 2
was .843, and Factor 3 was .807.
Table 6 shows descriptive analysis of these three factors as variables. The 5th graders
gained higher scores on 1. Motivation to learn English and 2. Interest in English classes than
the 6th graders, while the 6th graders gained higher scores on 3. Self-evaluation of English
abilities than the 5th graders. The points of Likert scale in Item 3 in 3. Self-evaluation ofEnglish abilities were reversed as the question of the item asked if English was difficult forthe participants. T-tests were conducted to compare the differences between the two grades inthe three variables. There was a significant difference between the two grades in 2. Interest in
English classes: t (3137) = 2.544, p = .011, and in 3. Self-evaluation of English abilities; t(3015) = -6.366, p = .000. Cohen’s effect size value showed 2. (r = .05) and 3. (r = .12),
which suggested small practical significance.

The Relationship Between the Variables
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient was conducted for all the five variables as shown in
Table 7. The correlation value index .70 < |r| < 1.0 is regarded as very strongly correlated, .40< |r| < .70 as positively correlated, .20 < |r| < .40 as weakly, and 0 < |r| < .20 as almost
uncorrelated. In case of a questionnaire, the correlation value r between .30 and .50 isinterpreted as positively correlated (Dörneyi, 2007). Thus, there was a positive correlation
between Motivation to learn English and Interest in English classes (r = .544), Interest in143

Tanaka, M., & Kawai, H.
Children’s Sound-Letter Recognition Knowledge Predicts High Self-Evaluation of English Abilities

English classes and Self-evaluation of English abilities (r = .473), Self-evaluation of English
abilities and Vocabulary (r = .448), Self-evaluation of English abilities and Sound-Letter
Recognition (r = .518), and Vocabulary and Sound-Letter Recognition (r = .671). There was a
weak correlation between Motivation to learn English and Self-evaluation of English abilities(r = .350), Motivation to learn English and Vocabulary (r = .255), Motivation to learn English
and Sound-Letter Recognition (r = .227), Interest in English classes and Vocabulary (r= .338), and Interest in English classes and Sound-Letter Recognition (r = .320). Although
Motivation to learn English and Interest in English classes showed a weak correlation
between test variables Vocabulary and Sound-Letter Recognition, Self-evaluation of English
abilities showed a stronger correlation with Vocabulary and Sound-Letter Recognition.
Next, a Multiple Regression Analysis was conducted to examine the relationshipbetween Self-evaluation of English abilities and four other variables. A significant regression
equation was found (F (4, 2960) = 464.902, p < .000) with an R2 of .385. As Table 8 shows,
all the four independent valuables had significant p values (p < .000). Among the independent
variables, Sound-Letter Recognition had the most positive regression weight, indicating thatthe scores of the Sound-Letter Recognition test were predictors of Self-evaluation of English
abilities followed by Interests in English classes.

144

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 130-155

Table 5The Result of the Explanatory Factor Analysis (N = 3,218)
Factor 1
Motivation tolearn English

Factor 2
Interest in
Englishclasses

Factor 3
Self-evaluation ofEnglish abilities

.468

.375

.908

.465

.365

.793

.500

.357

.696

.457

.298

1. Do you like studying English?

.488

.899

.526

2. Do you enjoy studying English?

.471

.880

.459

4. Do you understand what you are studying in
English classes?

.421

.663

.638

13. Do you feel that your English has improved?

.421

.593

.409

12. Do you speak English actively in class?

.384

.532

.462

.336

.450

.846

.302

.377

.756

5. Do you understand what an ALT is saying?

.359

.533

.637

3. Is English difficult for you?

-.174

-.402

-.544

.898

.843

.807

Items
9. Do you want to be able to write simple English
words?
8. Do you want to be able to read simple English
words?
11. Do you want to be able to pronounce English
correctly?
10. Do you want your teachers to teach you how to read
and write simple English words?

6. Can you read English alphabet letters and simple
words?
7. Can you write English alphabet letters and simple
words?

Reliability Cronbach’s α.920

Table 6
Descriptive Analysis of Three Factors
Factors
1. Motivation to learn English
2. Interest in English classes
3. Self-evaluation of English abilities

145

Grade

N

M

SD

5

1,562

17.3

3.25

6

1,607

17.2

3.09

5

1,536

18.8

3.97

6

1,603

18.4

3.96

5

1,491

12.8

2.86

6

1,564

13.4

2.68

Tanaka, M., & Kawai, H.
Children’s Sound-Letter Recognition Knowledge Predicts High Self-Evaluation of English Abilities

Table 7
Correlation among the Five Variables
Variables

1.

2.

3.

4.

1. Motivation to learn English

1

2. Interest in English classes.544**

1

3. Self-evaluation of English abilities.350**.473**

1

4. Vocabulary.255**.338**.448**

1

5. Sound-Letter Recognition.227**.320**.518**.671**

5.

1Note. ** p < .01.
Table 8Result of the Multiple Regression Analysis
Multiple regression weights

Variables
Dependent

Independent

B

SEB

β

p

3. Self-evaluation of English abilities

2.581

4. Vocabulary

.059

.013

.092

.000

5. Sound-letter Recognition

.168

.010

.344

.000

1. Motivation to learn English

.084

.015

.096

.000

2. Interest in English classes

.198

.012

.283

.000

To summarize the results, the two tests showed that the 6th graders performed
significantly better than the 5th graders. The three factors were determined in thequestionnaire. It showed that the 5th graders were more motivated to learn English andsignificantly more interested in English classes than the 6 th graders. The 6th graders, however,self-evaluated significantly higher in their English abilities than the 5 th graders. The overallcorrelation analysis showed moderate and weak correlations among the variables. The
146

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 130-155

Multiple Regression Analysis found that the ability of English sound-letter recognition was
the most predictive variable of the participants’ self-evaluation about their English abilities.

Discussion and Conclusion
The research questions of this study were: (1) What is the vocabulary knowledge of the
5th and the 6th grade children? (2) What is their sound-letter recognition knowledge? (3) Isthere any relationship between their vocabulary knowledge and sound-letter recognition
knowledge? (4) What are their perceptions of English classes? (5) What are the perceptions of
their English abilities? and (6) Is there any relationship between their English abilities andtheir self-evaluation about their English abilities? In order to find the answers to the researchquestions, the researchers examined 1) children’s English abilities measured by the
Vocabulary Test and the Sound-Letter Recognition Test, 2) their perceptions about theirEnglish abilities, and 3) if 1) and 2) were correlated. The researchers also conducted a
Multiple Regression Analysis to examine the relationship between children’s self-evaluationof their English abilities, and four other variables: vocabulary knowledge, sound-letter
recognition knowledge, motivation to learn English, and interest in English classes.
As for RQ1, the 5th graders achieved 73.9%, and the 6th graders, 82.8% of the
Vocabulary Test. This indicates that children have successfully learned vocabulary they were
taught in the original textbook of the city and Hi, friends! 1 & 2. The result of the t-test
showed that the 6th graders’ test scores were significantly higher than those of the 5 th graders.
Furthermore, as Figure 1 reveals, the distribution of the 5th graders was negatively skewed, or
skewed to the left (mean>mode), showing the scores fell toward the higher side of the scaleand very few low scores. The distribution was even more skewed negatively for the 6th
graders. On the whole, we can conclude from the result that children can get significantly
higher scores within a year teaching and that the current instructions in Funabashi elementary
schools are successfully implemented hitherto.
147

Tanaka, M., & Kawai, H.
Children’s Sound-Letter Recognition Knowledge Predicts High Self-Evaluation of English Abilities

RQ2 was about the children’ sound-letter recognition knowledge. Overall, their scoresof sound-letter recognition knowledge were lower than those of vocabulary. However, theresults of the test for the 6th graders were significantly higher (74.5%) than those of the 5th
graders (64.8%). Both of these scores were more than 60% correct, which may indicate effectof the city’s English curriculum that incorporated basics of phonics instruction in its textbook.
Further research, however, is necessary to explain what contributed to the test result. That is,children may have received phonics instructions after school in a language school, and that
may have influenced the scores of the Sound-Letter Recognition Test. Moreover, the effect ofteaching vocabulary on sound-letter recognition knowledge is not yet known. Children may
have acquired sounds of letters by a ‘look and say’ method as well as a ‘sound out’ each lettermethod.
The same tendency was observed in the distribution of the 5 th and 6th graders. The
distribution of the Sound-Letter Recognition Test in Figure 2 showed more negatively skewed
for the 6th graders. Lower level children seem to eventually get better in a year of instructions.
As for RQ3, the correlation between vocabulary knowledge and sound-letter
recognition knowledge was .671, which indicates that those who had good knowledge ofvocabulary scored higher in the Sound-Letter Recognition Test. This also indicates that if
children had low knowledge of vocabulary, teachers could not expect them to have highsound-letter recognition knowledge. This may suggest that teaching vocabulary stressing
sounds be very important.
Items 1, 2, 4, 12, and 13 address RQ4 as they indicate their perceptions about andinterest in English classes. Children seem to like less (Item 1) and enjoy less (Item 2) in the
6th grade than in the 5th grade, and although they seem to understand what they study in
English classes (74.7 % for the 5th graders, and 74.3% for the 6th graders answered 4 or 5 inthe scale in Item 4), they don’t seem to feel that their English has improved as much (65.2%
for the 5th graders, and 62.1% for the 6th graders in Item 13). Three factors (Motivation to148

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 130-155

learn English, Interest in English classes, and Self-evaluation of English abilities) showed thatthe 5th graders were more motivated to learn English and significantly more interested in
English classes than the 6th graders. Moreover, what is problematic is that children are notactively speaking English (53.8% for the 5th graders and 50.1% for the 6th graders in Item 12),which is more serious for the 6th graders. Further inquiry is necessary to find the causes of thetendency to become less active, less interested in English, and less enjoying studying English.
We need to do further research if children’ being less active speaking English is aphenomenon particularly seen for the 5th and 6th graders. Since one of the objectives of the
English education stipulated by the MEXT is to cultivate willingness to communicate inEnglish, this tendency must seriously be taken into consideration for improvement.
RQ5 was about children’s self-evaluation of their English abilities. The 6th graders
responded that they could read simple English words better (55.6% when 4 and 5 are
combined in Item 6) than the 5th graders (44.7%). The 6th graders responded that they could
write simple English words better (67.8% when 4 and 5 are combined in Item 7) than the 5th
graders (54.8%). However, more 6th graders (29.6%) than the 5th graders (28.0%) responded
that English was difficult (Item 3).
This drew attention of the researchers to two points. The children study the same
chapters of the textbook developed by the Funabashi board of education for two years. That
is, Grade 6 children learned the same parts that they learned when they were in Grade 5.
Theoretically, the 6th graders should feel easier as they had studied the same parts in theprevious year, but it was not the case. Another point is that, the 6th graders, nevertheless, feltthat they could read and write better when compared with the 5 th graders. We assume that
more emphasis might have been placed on reading and writing in the 6th grade, but further
research needs to be done to find what factors led children to achieve better in reading andwriting. Interestingly, although they responded that English was more difficult, that they
understood what an ALT was saying less (Item 5), and that they felt their English had
149

Tanaka, M., & Kawai, H.
Children’s Sound-Letter Recognition Knowledge Predicts High Self-Evaluation of English Abilities

improved less than the 5th graders (Item 13), the 6th graders still evaluated their English
abilities higher.
Lastly, RQ6 inquired if there was any relationship between their English abilities andtheir self-evaluation of their English abilities. Among the three variables, Self-evaluation ofEnglish abilities showed higher correlation values with Vocabulary (r = .448) and SoundLetter Recognition (r = .518) than Motivation to learn English and Interest in English classes.
A notable point is that the ability of English sound-letter recognition was the most predictive
variable of the participants’ Self-evaluation of English abilities as the multiple regression
analysis showed (β = .344). When children understood sound-letter relationship, theyevaluated their English abilities higher than when they scored well on the Vocabulary Test.
Equally, children’ motivation was not as high a predictor of self-evaluation of English
abilities. On the contrary, Interest in English classes was the second to Sound-Letter
Recognition (β = .283). Since the value of R2 in the multiple regression analysis showed only
38.5%, the participants with both high scores on Sound-letter Recognition test and high points
on a Likert scale for Interest in English classes may have contributed to higher points for Selfevaluation of English abilities.
The results indicated that children’s sound-letter recognition knowledge predicted
higher self-evaluation about their English abilities both in the 5th and 6th grades. Motivation isregarded to play an important role in language acquisition. However, in this study, it did not
help children have high self-evaluation in their English abilities. Teaching English so thatchildren can enjoy and be motivated to study English and helping them understand so thatthey feel that their English has improved are important determinants for children to be
confident in their English abilities. The need for a good instruction is especially important forthe 6th graders as their interests in English and English classes show a tendency to decline.
In conclusion, as the researchers mentioned earlier, children do want to learn to read
and write as Item 8 (if they wanted to read simple English words) and Item 9 (if they wanted
150

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 130-155

to write simple English words) gained the highest mean scores. If children were able to read
and write, especially in the 6th grade, they may have perceived that their English had
improved more, considering that their sound-letter recognition knowledge predicted high selfevaluation of their English abilities, and their English may have actually improved more.
Ministry of Education, as well as prefectural and municipal boards of education, andelementary schools are strongly advised to incorporate teaching of reading and writing
systematically into the elementary school English education.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the elementary school teachers and students inFunabashi city, Chiba, Japan. We would also like to express our gratitude to the Funabashi
Board of Education. We also appreciate three anonymous reviewers’ valuable comments.

References
Allen-Tamai, M. (2010). Shougakkou eigo no kyouiku-hou: Riron to jissen [English educationin elementary schools: Theory and practice]. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Dörneyi, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Ehri, L., Nunes, S., Willows, D., Schuster, B., YaghoubZadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001).
Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the
National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250–287.
Ehri, L. C., & Nune, S. R. (2002). The role of phonemic awareness in learning to read. In S.
J. Samuels, & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction(3rd ed.), (pp. 110-139). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
151

Tanaka, M., & Kawai, H.
Children’s Sound-Letter Recognition Knowledge Predicts High Self-Evaluation of English Abilities

Langeland, S. A. (2012). Investigating vocabulary development in English from grade 5 tograde 7 in a Norwegian primary school. In A. Hasselgreen, I. Drew, & S. Bjørn (Eds.),
The young language learning: Research-based insights into teaching and learning, pp.
131-143. Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget.
MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology) (2008). Shougakkou
gakushu-shidou youryou kaisetsu: Gaikokugo katsudou hen [A commentary of the
Course of Study for Foreign Language Activities in elementary schools].
Retrieved fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/
2009/06/16/1234931_012.pdf
MEXT (2012). Hi, friends!1. Tokyo: Tokyo Shoseki.
MEXT (2012). Hi, friends! 2. Tokyo: Tokyo Shoseki.
MEXT (2015). Shougakkou eigo no genjou seika kadai nitsuite [The present condition,
outcomes, and issues of English education in elementary schools]. The Document 3-4
in Education Planning Special Department. Retrieve fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo3/053/siryo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/
2015/05/25/1358061_03_04.pdf
National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to
read: An evidenced-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and
its implications for reading instruction. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, and National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development.
Piasta, S. B., Petscher, Y. J., & Laura, M. (2012). How many letters should preschoolers inpublic programs know? The diagnostic efficiency of various preschool letter-naming
benchmarks for predicting first-grade literacy achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 104(4), 945-958. doi:10.1037/a0027757
152

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 130-155

Roessingh, H., & Elgie, S. (2009). Early language and literacy development among young
English language learners: preliminary findings from a longitudinal study. TESLCanada Journal, 26(2), 24-45. doi: https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v26i2.413
Share, D. L., Jorm, A. F., Maclean, R., & Matthews, R. (1984). Sources of individual differencesin reading acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1309-1324. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1309
Sylvén, L. K., & Sundqvist, P. (2016). Validation of a test measuring young learners’ general
L2 English vocabulary knowledge. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth andLanguage), 10(1), 1-23. Retrieved fromhttp://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_10_1/sylven_sundqvist.pdf
Tanaka, M., & Kawai, H. (2017). Japanese elementary school teachers’ perceptions onteaching alphabet and its implications. JASTEC Journal, 36, 107-121.
Treiman, R., Tincoff, R., & Richmond-Welty, E. D. (1997). Beyond zebra: Preschoolers'
knowledge about letters. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(4), 391-409. doi:org/10.1017/S0142716400010900
Yopp, H. K. (1992). Developing phonemic awareness in young children. The Reading
Teacher, 45(9), 696-703. Retrieved from http://cell.msmc.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/02/Developing-phonemic-awareness-in-young-children1.pdf
Yopp, H. K. (1995). A test for assessing phonemic awareness in young children. The Reading
Teacher, 49(1), 20-29. Retrieved fromhttp://www.sevenhillscharter.org/docs/phonemicawarenessarticles/paatestforassessingp
honemicawarenessinyoungchildren.pdf
Zygouris-Coe, V. (2001). Phonemic awareness: FLaRE document #2-001. Orlando, FL:
Florida Literacy and Reading Excellence Center, University of Central Florida.
Retrieved from https://education.ucf.edu/mirc/Research/Phonemic%20Awareness.pdf

153

Tanaka, M., & Kawai, H.
Children’s Sound-Letter Recognition Knowledge Predicts High Self-Evaluation of English Abilities

Appendix A. The Vocabulary Test and the Sound-Letter Recognition Test
The Vocabulary Test
《パート A》
問題これから、英語の単語を聞いてその意味に近いと思うものを、3 つの絵の中から 1 枚選
んでその絵の下の番号に○をつけてください。
各問題の単語は 2 回ずつ読まれます。まずは例
題からやってみましょう。
例題：《パート B》
問題これから問題の答え方を説明します。各
問題にはひとつの絵が描かれています。その絵について３つの単語を聞いて、その絵に合っている単語の番号に○をつけてください。３つの番号は言われません。問題は 2 回くり返されます。まずは練習問題をやってみましょう。
例題：

1
1.

2.

2

3

3.

The Sound-Letter Recognition Test
問題１放送を聞いて、絵を表す最初のアルファベットに◯をつけてください。問題は 2 回ず
つ読まれます。まずは例題をやってみましょう。

問題 2 放送を聞いて、絵を表す最初のアルファベットに◯をつけてください。問題は 2 回ず
つ読まれます。まずは例題をやってみましょ
う。

例題：

例題：

A

S

H

m

R

問題 3 放送を聞いて、絵を表す英語に◯をつけてください。問題は 2 回ずつ読まれます。まずは例題をやってみましょう。

f

c

n

問題 4 聞こえてきたアルファベットに◯をつけてください。アルファベットは 2 回ずつ読まれます。まずは例題をやってみましょう。

例題：

tog
dog

bog
pog

例題

問題 5 これから何語でもない単語が聞こえてきます。最初の音を表すアルファベットに◯をつけてください。単語は 2 回ずつ読まれます。
まずは例題をやってみましょう。

例題

s

f

z

h

154

c

g

j

y

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 130-155

Appendix B. The List of Vocabulary Used in the Vocabulary Test
Part APart Bambulance

fire station

bicycleruler

breakfast

headachecastlesing

dentisthungryfifteen (15)table tennis

eggplant

Social Studies

fly a kite

templeelbow

triangle

giraffetired

eraserWednesdayglue

turn left

February

whale

hospitalwash my face155

Selected Papers
Practitioner Report

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 157-176

Examination of Beneficial and Enjoyable Pronunciation Activities

Junko Chujo
Tokyo Denki University

Abstract
This study examines beneficial in-class, tailored pronunciation activities for Japanese
university learners of English in a class setting with 30-40 students. In the first step of thestudy, 16 major course activities were designed and developed, placing a special focus on thelearners’ affective phase to promote and accelerate their acquisition. These activities had three
types of step by step foci for the learners to acquire intelligible pronunciation: gain knowledge
of articulation of selected consonants, articulate the target consonants, and stabilize the target
consonants. These activities were then implemented in freshman English classes for one
semester. Finally, the activities were evaluated via survey by the students after the
pronunciation instruction based on two points of view: the activities the students felt mosthelped improve their pronunciation and the activities which students found most enjoyableand engaging. The student evaluation-based examination findings will help educators to selectlarge classroom based pronunciation activities that help their students attain an intelligible
level of pronunciation with world-wide interlocutors.

Keywords: pronunciation, instructional design, activity, affective phase

Introduction
As members of a globalized world, Japanese students need to be able to actively
communicate with confidence in English without depending on interlocutors to infer what ismeant from an unintelligible utterance. In Japanese English instruction, while researchers
157

Chujo, J.
Examination of Beneficial and Enjoyable Pronunciation Activities

have pointed out the lack of pronunciation instruction and identified it as a problem,
instructional teaching strategies, procedures and actual material for pronunciation instruction
have yet to be standardized.
A major component of standardized curriculum is the textbook. Sobkowaiak (2012)
states that textbooks determine a major part of classroom teaching. Tergujeff (2015) alsoemphasizes the importance of textbooks in ELT, especially in teaching English pronunciation.
Derwing, Diepenbroek, and Foote (2012) state that many teachers have limited training andconfidence; therefore, they depend on the textbook when teaching pronunciation. This
circumstance applies to the field of Japanese English education as well. Textbooks include acollection of pedagogically selected and organized activities. Because of this, a good first stepin the development of a pronunciation textbook would be to design and develop pronunciation
activities specifically for Japanese English learners which take into full consideration the
English related traits of Japanese English.
This study examines beneficial in-class, tailored pronunciation activities for Japanese
university learners of English in a class setting with 30-40 students. This is part of an
instruction design which was conducted through the process of analysis, design, development,
implementation, and evaluation from 2010 to 2015 (Chujo, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2012a,
2012b, 2013a, 2013b, 2015a, 2015b, 2016a, 2016b, 2017a, 2017b). In this specific study, 16major course activities were designed and developed based on a three step foci goals for thelearners to be able to achieve intelligible pronunciation of selected target consonants. Using
research literature from the field, target consonants were selected and prioritized based on
those sounds which most compromise Japanese English learners’ communication (Kenworthy
1987, Avery and Ehrlich 1992, Uchida 2008, Simizu, in Walker 2010, Rogerson Rewell2011).
In this design and development, the learners’ affective phase was given top priority.
Designing and developing activities which lower the Japanese university English learners’
158

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 157-176

anxiety toward articulating the English sounds by creating a secure and comfortable classatmosphere is crucial in order to help students achieve intelligible pronunciation through theexplicit approach.
These activities were implemented in non-English major freshman English classes forone semester. The activities were then evaluated via survey by the students at the end of thepronunciation instruction based on two points of view: the activities the students felt mosthelped improve their pronunciation, and the activities which students found most enjoyableand engaging.

Theoretical BackgroundIn contrast to a 20-year-old comment indicating that a change towards including
pronunciation instruction was already fairly advanced (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, Goodwin, &Griner, 2010), Setter and Jenkins (2005) take the view that pronunciation instruction still does
not have a secure place in most language curriculums. That is, the late acceptance ofpronunciation as a crucial element in language teaching has led to a delay in adopting
approaches that reflect the new view. Naiman (1992), on the basis of practical experienceteaching at the community college level, says that “[…] if pronunciation was not given aseparate class it often did not get taught at all.” He concludes that “it was often left to the end
or totally neglected” (p. 164).
The reason for this neglect, Naiman claims, is that the teachers themselves are notsecure in teaching pronunciation compared to other aspects of English because they lacktechnical knowledge about English sounds and are self-conscious. As a result, they “fe[el]extremely uncomfortable teaching pronunciation” (Naiman, 1992, p. 164) and think “it [is]safer not to do it” (Naiman, 1992, p. 164). Gilbert (2008) points out another misguided
teaching approach, where “some teachers try hard to teach pronunciation as if it was a coursein phonetics, and this also tends to discourage both teachers and students” (p. 43).
159

Chujo, J.
Examination of Beneficial and Enjoyable Pronunciation Activities

In the field of material development as well, the tendency has often been to set
pronunciation instruction aside or to neglect it altogether. Marks (2006) reported that, evenwhen pronunciation is included in course books, it is as a side note or afterthought. Although
the message that pronunciation instruction is a key element for building communicativecompetence seems largely to have been received, teachers and material developers, on thewhole, still have not capably put it into actual practice. Ohtaka (1996) states that the need forEnglish pronunciation instruction in Japanese English education is widely recognized, but that
it is rarely offered in actual classrooms.
Regarding instructional styles for pronunciation teaching, Naiman (1992) favors theidea of teaching pronunciation as a separate class or as its own section of a general English
class. Naiman reports that when he provided instruction that was communicative, learners
were engaged and felt that the instruction was fun. When they began to realize the importanceof pronunciation through actual communication experiences, they were eager to learn more.
Shizuka (2009) compares the current status of pronunciation within Japanese English
education to that of other language skills. He claims that all ELT teachers should situate
pronunciation at the core of their instruction from the beginning, since pronunciation is thebase or root skill for English learning.
A nationwide survey on English teaching focusing on frequency of pronunciation
practice was recently conducted by MEXT (2013); 218 high schools responded. Regarding
frequency, 64% of administrators answered “frequently” and 25% “sometimes” for Oral
Communication I classes. However, this data might need further analysis. On the basis ofresults like these, Arimoto (2005) identified three typical characteristics of so-called
pronunciation instruction in the actual Japanese English classroom, namely that 1) there was
no explicit, systematic teaching with the IPA; 2) teachers would play model sounds on a tapeor CD to students (or speak themselves); and 3) students would repeat what they heard.
Arimoto pointed out that what these students were typically doing did not amount to real
160

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 157-176

accent correction but simply the passive repetition of words, like parrots, with questionable
results for learning.
As can be seen from Arimoto’s points, pedagogical approaches to and priorities forEnglish pronunciation are not well developed in Japan, even at the compulsory educationlevel. This is one of the challenges for pronunciation instruction.
Another factor that inhibits L2 pronunciation learning in Japan is related to certain
cultural traits of the Japanese people, such as shyness, a tendency to embarrassment, andadherence to a group mentality. Hughes (1999) states that these traits discourage JapaneseEnglish learners from venturing to practice their speaking. In teaching English oral
communication (and EFL in general), the psychological domain represented by these cultural
attributes needs consideration, especially in terms of classroom culture.
For optimal pedagogical outcomes, activities should take into consideration thesociocultural background and classroom culture of the students, as well as their emotions
regarding, attitudes towards, and degree and type of motivation for English learning. As statedby Richard-Amarto (2010), the variables associated with the affective domain, depending on
the context in which they operate, can have either a positive or a negative influence on L2
learning. Richard-Amarto (2010) states that “attitudes, motivation, and level of anxiety are
central to the affective domain” (p. 153, italics in original). The affective domain is generally
considered “very important in education and training” (Heinich, Molenda, & Russell, 1993, p.
104).

Design and Development
The first step in designing the material was to determine the instructional goals for the
students. In terms of consideration of learnability and teachability in one semester, the focus
was put on the following three progressive goals. Students should be able to 1) gain apractical basic knowledge of the manner of articulation for selected consonants; 2) articulate161

Chujo, J.
Examination of Beneficial and Enjoyable Pronunciation Activities

the selected consonants; and 3) stabilize the practiced sounds to be able to apply them invaried environments using a reading script in a consciously controlled environment.
To effectively achieve these instructional goals for students, the pedagogical activities
were designed and developed based on the following major five core guiding key principles.
1. Give high priority to consideration of learners’ psychological orientation. Create asecure and comfortable environment to lower learners’ anxiety level. Foster aconfident and positive attitude toward communication in English.
2. Make a minimal selection of phonetic features. Give priority to the sounds thatmost commonly compromise learners’ intelligibility (that is, sounds that receive
the most negative influence from the target learners’ L1, in this case Japanese).
3. Introduce and manage materials carefully and systemically (e.g., in terms of levelof difficulty and phonetic target items). Repeat activities with small, incremental
changes to help learners gain confidence and familiarity with them.
4. Focus on instilling applicable practical knowledge while limiting the use oftechnical jargon to only the most convenient and useful terms. Overuse ofphonetic jargon is likely to reduce learner motivation; however, appropriate useof technical terms increases learner understanding (which terms are appropriate
may vary with learners’ age and cognitive development). Explicit explanations
with appropriate use of phonetic jargon and concepts foster noticing and increase
motivation to learn and to practice pronunciation. Use allotted instruction time for
actual pronunciation and for phonetic theory.
5. Develop materials that will help learners become autonomous in their learning by
developing self-monitoring skills. This is a very important goal, especially once
learners leave the classroom. When intelligibility is compromised in a real-life
conversation, learners will be able to repair the compromised utterance based on
the knowledge they have acquired and practice they have undergone in class. To
162

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 157-176

realize this goal, use of the explicit approach is crucial, so that the learners canmonitor their pronunciation based on their acquired knowledge and correction
strategies.
On the basis of the principles and goals, presented above, based on the research
literature presented in the introduction, the following ten consonants were selected as target
phonemes for the design and development of the activities. Some classes present one soundand others multiple sounds, beginning with the notoriously and stereotypically difficult
consonants that most compromise communication due to the L1 influence, namely /l/ and /r/,followed by /w/, /f/, /v/, /θ/, /ð/, /s/, /z/ and /ʃ/.
The pedagogical principles and the target phonetic features were identified anddeveloped into activities which had three types of progressive goal foci for the learners toacquire intelligible pronunciation as stated in the beginning of this section. They were
implemented in the classrooms throughout multiple semesters for formative evaluations.
Evaluations were conducted to examine its effectiveness through data collection (recording
performance evaluations, written surveys and classroom observations). The material level,organization of implementation process and activity amount was adjusted in the process.
The finalized in-class activities were as follows: 1) tongue twisters with rhythm(including marking and counting the target consonant(s)), 2) articulation (1): explanation ofarticulations in Japanese, 3) articulation (2): explanation of articulations using visual aids(presentation with photos and drawings), 4) self-pronunciation check with mirror, 5)
practicing phonemes with background rhythm (see Appendix A), 6) dictation of words andphrases, 7) reading aloud with dictated words and phrases with background beat, 8) chants(produced by the author and extensively containing the target consonants), 9) minimal pairlistening and reading aloud with rhythm, 10) confusing sentences with picture: listening
exercises (see Appendix B), 11) topic dialogue (1): long, story based, fill in the blank type ofdictation, listening comprehension and reading out loud, 12) topic dialogue (2): short, topic
163

Chujo, J.
Examination of Beneficial and Enjoyable Pronunciation Activities

based, fill in the blank type of dictation, listening comprehension and reading out loud, 13)
discussing communication breakdown reasons (see Appendix C), 14) identifying the target
features in pop songs and practicing the target sounds through singing, 15) accessing
authentic information: obtaining authentic materials online that include the target phonetic
sounds to identify and practice the target sounds in authentic context (see Appendix D), and16) self- and peer-monitoring with a video recording. To aid in the retention of covered target
materials and to reinforce the newly learned ability, take-home assignment activities were also
designed and developed (activities 12, 14 and 15). All the activities and pronunciation soundmodels created (a total of 132 sound files) were downloadable from a password-protectedwebsite during the study.

Participants and Procedures
The developed 16 pedagogical activities were implemented in two freshman English
classes at a national university in Japan for summative evaluation. Both classes werecompulsory electives. The class sizes were 29 (12 male, 17 female) and 31 (10 male, 21
female), yielding a total of 60 students. Their majors were International Studies, Humanities,
Law, Education, Economics, and Regional Development Studies. Among the 60 students, 59
agreed to participate in the research.
The target sound(s) were introduced to the students in the class in the order as describedin Figure 1.

/l/, /r//w//f/, /v/

TargetSounds/θ/, /ð//s/, /z/, /ʃ/
Week

1

2,3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Note. Underline (__) = Explicit instruction, Dotted line (_ _) = Implicit instruction
Figure 1. Instruction schedule.
164

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 157-176

Each class session was completed as laid out in Figure 2. The allotted instruction timefor each activity differed slightly depending on the difficulty of the target sounds.

IO
AT
A

IO
AT
A

IO
AT
A

1
6

2
4

Review→

3
10

Tonguetwisterwith rhythm→

Articulation(1) and (2)4
3→

Self-pronunciation
check with mirror

5
8→

Rhythmicreading ofphonemeswithbackgroundrhythm

6
5

7
15

8
3

9
10

10
6

Tonguetwister(marking
andcounting thetargetsound(s))

Dictation ofwords andphrases

Reading aloudwith dictatedwords andphrases withbackgroundbeat

Minimal pairlistening andreading aloud withrhythm,confusing sentencewith picture

Chants→11
17
Topic dialogue (1)Emi’s story

→

→

→

12
3
→

Discussing
communication
breakdown
reasons

Note. IO = instruction order, AT = activity time (in minutes), A = activity
Figure 2. Instruction schedule.
The class met once a week for 16 weeks for 90 minutes per session. The present authorand developer served as instructor. The entire instruction process was held in English.
Attendance rate for the course averaged 99.75%.
After the semester of instruction, the presented 16 activities were evaluated byparticipants from two points of view. First, participants were asked to choose which activities
they felt most helped improve their pronunciation, and second, they were asked in which ones
they were most interested and enjoyed engaging. All 16 activities were listed in the survey,
and participants could select a maximum of six points, giving each selected activity one point.

165

Chujo, J.
Examination of Beneficial and Enjoyable Pronunciation Activities

Results
Table 1 presents the ranking of the activities felt by participants to be beneficial for
pronunciation improvement.

Table 1
Ranking of Activities in Terms of Benefit to Articulation

Ranking

Activities

Total Points(n = 58)

1

Articulation (2): Presentation with Photos and Drawings

54

2

Articulation (1): Explanation in Japanese

43

3

Self- and Peer-Monitoring

35

4Dictation of Words and Phrases

32

5

Tongue Twisters

23

6

Chants22

7

Self-Pronunciation Check with Mirror

21

7

Minimal Pair Listening and Reading Aloud with Rhythm21

9

Topic Dialogue (2): Dialogue Dictation*

19

10

Rhythmic Reading of Phonemes

15

11

Topic Dialogue (1): Dialogue Dictation (Emi’s Story)

14

12

Reading with Dictated Words and Phrases with Background Beat

13

12

Discussing Communication Breakdown Reasons

13

14

Pop Song with Finding Target Sounds*

815

Confusing Sentence Dictation with Picture

7

16

Accessing Internet Sources*2

Note. * = Take-home assignment activities.
166

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 157-176

These results show that the activity regarded as most beneficial (with 54 points out of a
possible 58) was the articulation (2) activity (explanation with presentation of photos anddrawings). This activity was rated even more helpful than the articulation (1) activity(explanation in Japanese), which earned a total of 43 points and came in second. The
monitoring activity (35 points) placed third, followed by dictation of words and phrases (32points). Tongue twisters (23 points) and chants (22 points) were ranked fifth and sixth. The
self-pronunciation check using the mirror (21 points) tied for seventh position with minimal
pair listening and reading aloud with rhythm.
The second survey question investigated which pedagogical activities were the mostinteresting and enjoyable for participants. Table 2 presents the results by rank.

Table 2
Ranking of Activities in Terms of Interest and Enjoyment
Total
Ranking

Activities

Points(n = 58)

1

Chants48

2

Tongue Twisters

46

3

Topic Dialogue (1): Dialogues Dictation (Emi’s Story)

34

4

Reading with Dictated Words and Phrases with Background Beat27

5Topic Dialogue (2): Dialogues Dictation*

21

6

Self- and Peer-Monitoring

20

7Dictation of Words and Phrases

19

8

Articulation (2): Presentation with pictures and drawings

18

167

Chujo, J.
Examination of Beneficial and Enjoyable Pronunciation Activities

9

Articulation (1): Explanation in Japanese

169Discussing Communication Breakdown Reasons

16

11

Rhythmic Reading of Phonemes

15

12

Minimal Pair Listening and Reading Aloud with Rhythm

13

13

Pop Song with Finding Target Sounds*

12

13

Accessing Internet Sources*12

14

Self-Pronunciation Check with Mirror

7

14

Confusing Sentence Dictation with Picture

7Note. * = Take-home assignment activities.

The activities regarded as most enjoyable and interesting were chants (48 points),
tongue twisters (46 points), topic dialogue (1) (34 points), reading dictated words and phrases
with a background beat (27 points), and dictation (21 points). The self- and peer-monitoring
activity was ranked sixth. In other words, it was found that participants most enjoyedrhythmic activities and activities in which they could apply learned pronunciation knowledge
and skills in dialogue in real-life situations.

Pedagogical Implications
The findings of this survey have five significant implications for classroom
pronunciation instruction in Japanese university English learners. First, participants foundimages and detailed descriptions of how to form a sound extremely useful. Furthermore,among two explicit approaches, the learners found the visual presentations more helpful thana description with words even if it is in Japanese.
Second, the monitoring activity was ranked third in spite of the fact that it was held
only twice during the instruction, indicating that it had a large impact on participant learning.
Being able to hear and see their production gave participants a better indication of the sound168

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 157-176

produced than merely imagining the outcome. In addition, even though the video recording
required close-up-self performance and it was anticipated that seeing oneself and showing therecording to a classmate might be uncomfortable for the students, the activity ranked sixth interms of interest and enjoyment.
The third notable outcome was the high ranking of chants and tongue twisters in bothelements. It is helpful if chants and tongue twisters are intentionally designed to bephonetically challenging in order to help students master the target skill, allowing them topractice the target sounds intensively. The high rank of these activities indicates that theyshould play a crucial role in pronunciation instruction if it to be successful for Japanese
university students.
The fourth notable finding is detected by examining the activities of topic dialogue (1)and topic dialogue (2) in each of the results. Both activities are fill-in-the-blank conversationstyle; one has parentheses in a longer story and the other has a very short communication
between two people. However, from the students’ work experience, it is clear that thesesimilar activities give a different impression and feeling when they are asked to categorize thepronunciation activities. This finding is significant for the balance of beneficial and enjoyable
activities.
The fifth finding is that even though the large variety of students’ opinions was foundin the survey, one should not ignore the students’ feelings or the variety of reaction byrefusing to look at the lower ranking activities. The point of this teaching report is to examine
effective activities for a group; however, it also reveals a difference in interest amongindividual students. To take this point into account, it would be prudent to present a variety ofactivities in order to provide more opportunities for the learners to engage in learning withhigh motivation. Each learner’s preferred learning style is different; therefore, a variety ofactivities should provide all or most learners with opportunities to employ their favoredlearning strategies.
169

Chujo, J.
Examination of Beneficial and Enjoyable Pronunciation Activities

Conclusion
This study revealed what kind of pedagogical strategies/activities are beneficial and/or
enjoyable for Japanese university learners of English in large classroom based instruction.
The activities were examined empirically through an actual semester long implementation.
The data presented in this study have valuable implications for constructing effective
materials for teaching pronunciation. Utilizing these findings for pronunciation curriculum
and course design and material development should lead to more successful pronunciation
instruction. Even in educational situations in which structured pronunciation teaching is under
severe time constraints, utilizing these top-ranked activities is likely to bring about the best
possible outcome. It is hoped that this research will contribute to the formulation of an
optimal and systematic form of instruction in pronunciation within Japanese English
education and ultimately promote the development of oral communication skills among
Japanese English speakers.

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my anonymous reviewers who
dedicated their time and effort to make this manuscript much stronger. Their insightful advice
and deep understanding of the importance of English pronunciation teaching in JapaneseEnglish education encouraged me to finalize the manuscript to this level. I would like also
show my gratitude to those professionals who have been and are still now understanding,encouraging and believing in what I meant to realize in my research and in the everyday
teaching ground. With all the professionals who I have mentioned, I am very grateful that the
publication of this piece will have opportunities to convey the message that English
pronunciation teaching is an important element in the field of Japanese English university
education. Last but not least, I would like to thank Sanshusha Publishing for this presentation
opportunity.
170

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 157-176

References
Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (1992). Teaching American English pronunciation. Hong Kong:
Oxford University Press.
Arimoto, J. (2005). Hatsuonshidou ni okeru kyoushi no yakuwari. Ayashii hatsuonshidou no
shoutai [The reality of English phonetic education: Truth of questionable instruction].
The English Teachers’ Magazine, 54(10), 27–30.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton D. M., Goodwin, J. M., & Griner, B. (2010). Teachingpronunciation: A course book and reference guide (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Chujo, J. (2011a). Incorporation and evaluation of jazz chants instruction in Japanese
university English classes. In M. Pinto & D. Shaffer (Eds.), KOTESOL Proceedings
2010 (pp. 83–96). Seoul, Korea: Korea TESOL.
Chujo, J. (2011b). Lingua franca to shiteno eigodeno koto komyunikeshion o mokuhyo tosuru kyozaikaihatsu eno kiso chosa [Fundamental research for the development ofcommunication skills in a lingua franca]. Kanazawa University Resource Studies, 4,
109–114.
Chujo, J. (2011c). Welcome to the community of world Englishes! Toyama, Japan: Jun
Corporation.
Chujo, J. (2012a). The necessity of systematic English phonetic education at the tertiary level
in Japanese education. In A. Stewart & N. Sonda (Eds.), JALT 2011 Conference
Proceedings (pp. 681–690). Tokyo: The Japan Association for Language Teaching(JALT).
Chujo, J. (2012b). Pronunciation instruction for ELF communication. In R. Jackson (Ed.),TESOL in context (special edition S3)—TESOL as a global trade: Ethics, equity andecology. Retrieved from the Australian Council of TESOL Associations’ (ACTA)
website: http://www.tesol.org.au/Publications/Special-Editions
171

Chujo, J.
Examination of Beneficial and Enjoyable Pronunciation Activities

Chujo, J. (2013a). Pronunciation pedagogy for Japanese learners. FLLT Conference
Proceedings: 3rd International Conference on Foreign Language Learning andTeaching, 2(1), 447–455.
Chujo, J. (2013b). Now I got it! A fun guide to English pronunciation. (n.p.): Author.
Chujo, J. (2015a). Now I got it! A fun guide to English pronunciation (Rev. ed.). (n.p.): Author.
Chujo, J. (2015b). Intelligibility among Japanese EFL Learners: The need for pronunciation
practice. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), JALT 2014 Conference
Proceedings (pp. 272–283). Tokyo: The Japan Association for Language Teaching(JALT).
Chujo, J. (2016a). Influence of pronunciation monitoring on affective variables by L2
learners. In M. Pinto & D. Shaffer (Eds.), KOTESOL Proceedings 2015 (pp. 53–67).
Seoul, Korea: Korea TESOL.
Chujo, J. (2016b). Effects of explicit instruction on pronunciation knowledge for Japanese
university students. Thai TESOL Journal, 29(2), 67-87.
Chujo, J. (2017a). Now I got it! A fun guide to English pronunciation. (New ed.). Shibuya,
Japan: Sanshusha.
Chujo, J. (2017b). Effects of pronunciation instruction for Japanese university English
Learners. Korea TESOL Journal, 13(1), 153-175.
Derwing, T. M., Diepenbroek, L. G., & Foote, J. A. (2012). How well do general-skills ESL
textbooks address pronunciation? TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 22-44.
Gilbert, J. B. (2008). Teaching pronunciation using the prosody pyramid. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Heinich, R., Molenda, M., & Russell, J. D. (1993). Instructional media and the newtechnologies of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Hughes, H. (1999). Cultivating the walled garden: English in Japan. English Studies, 80(6),556–568.
172

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 157-176

Kenworthy, J. (1987). Teaching English pronunciation. London: Longman.
Marks, J. (2006). Pronunciation in coursebooks again. Speak Out! 36, 33–35.
MEXT [Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science & Technology, Japan]. (2013).
Heisei 24nenndo gaibukenteishiken no katsuyouniyoru eigoryku no kensyou.
Houkokusyo [The 24th year of Heisei Examination of English ability utilization
through the outer English examinations]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/amenu/kokusai/gaikokugo/icsFiles/afieldfile/2013/03/28/13323
93_1.pdf.
Naiman, N. (1992). A communicative approach to pronunciation teaching. In P. Avery & S.
Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching American English pronunciation (pp. 163–171). Hong Kong:
Oxford University.
Ohtaka, H. (1996). English speech sounds education in Japan: Its history and a prospect. K. G.
Studies in English, 25, 87–111.
Richard-Amarto, P. (2010). Making it happen (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2011). English phonology and pronunciation teaching. London:
Continuum Press.
Setter, J., & Jenkins, J. (2005) State-of-the-art review article. Language Teaching, 38(1), 1–
17.
Shizuka, T. (2009). Eigo jugyou no shin gi tai [Mind, skills and performance of English
classes]. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Sobkowaiak, W. (2012). This is Tom = /zyzys’tom/. Pronunciation in beginners’ EFL
textbooks then and now. Research in Language, 10(1), 111-122.
Tergujeff, E. (2015). Good servants but poor masters. On the important role of textbooks inteaching English pronunciation. In E. Waniek-Klimczak & M. Pawlak (Eds.),
Teaching and researching the pronunciation of English. Heidelberg: Springer. 107117.
173

Chujo, J.
Examination of Beneficial and Enjoyable Pronunciation Activities

Uchida, K. (2008). A benefit of pronunciation training: How orally practicing unfamiliar
phonemes can positively affect aural identification of these phonemes. Tottori
Environmental University Bulletin, 6, 39–48.
Walker, R. (2010). Teaching the pronunciation of English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

174

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 157-176

Appendix A
Practicing phonemes with background rhythm
Practice saying Part A below with the beat. Then, create B and model it for yourpartner. Exchange it with your partner and practice his/her Part B.

< Rhythmic Reading Aloud Practice >A/θ/ /θ/ /ð/ /θ/ / /ð/ /θ/ /ð/ /θ/ /ð/ /θ/ /θ/ /ð/ / /θ/ /ð/ /θ/ /ð/ / /θ/ /ð/ /θ/ /ð/ /ð/ /θ/ /θ/ /ð/ //θ/ /θ/ /ð/ /θ/ / /ð/B

Appendix B
Confusing sentences with picture (listening exercises)
Listen to the two sets of four statements. Write down the four sentences for eachquestion and then select the statement (from A to D) that best describes what you
see in the pictures. Each sentence is repeated twice.

(A) Children are washing a vase.
(B) Children are waiting for a bath.
(C) Children are waiting for a bus.
(D) Children are washing a bus.
Answer:C(Answers are written in italics.)

175

Chujo, J.
Examination of Beneficial and Enjoyable Pronunciation Activities

Appendix C
Discussing communication breakdown reasons・・・ HELP NEEDED ・・・

Emi ordered vanilla ice cream in a store. However, what she received was banana
ice cream. Give her phonetic advice and help her order vanilla ice cream. Help Emi
by making some pronunciation suggestions on how to improve her English
pronunciation.

Appendix D
Accessing authentic information
Here are some fast-food chains. Visit their websites and read their menus. Then,find and write down two items from the menus of two restaurants for both A and
B. All of the selected items need to contain the sound /l/ or /r/.

A. I’d like to try

B. I’d like to try
and

at

and

.
at

< STARBUCKS USA >http://www.starbucks.com< YOSHINOYA USA >http://www.yoshinoyaamerica.com/< PANDA EXPRESS USA >http://pandaexpress.com/< DUNKIN’ DONUTS >https://www.dunkindonuts.com/< MCDONALDS USA >http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/home.html

176.

Selected Papers
Symposium Paper

Kanaoka, M., Ushioda, E., Watanabe, A., & Kato, C.
Person-in-Context Theory and Spirituality in the Japanese College EFL Contexts

Person-in-Context Theory and Spirituality in the Japanese College EFL
Contexts: Implications from Theory, Survey, and ELT Practice

Masao Kanaoka
Kagoshima University
Ema Ushioda
University of Warwick
Atsuko Watanabe
Bunkyo University
Chihiro Kato
Yokohama City University

Abstract
Self, identity, and context play a central role in guiding a new paradigm of L2 motivation
research. In this regard, Ushioda’s (2009) a person-in-context relational view
(person-in-context theory: PICT) plays a pivotal part in guiding the new research perspective.
Interestingly, PICT and spirituality (inner spiritual growth) resonate with each other: they bothconcern self-development, i.e., whole person development. Following Ushioda’s theoreticalguidance on the organic alignment of PICT and spirituality, three reports (on a survey and twocontrasting examples of ELT practices at particular Japanese universities) were presented in a
symposium at the JACET 56th International Convention in Tokyo. The reports concern the
difficulty and the feasibility of PICT-spirituality-amalgamated ELT in the Japanese college
context. In the survey, students from four universities (N=388) suggested an unclear
message/response to PICT-spirituality ELT. In a public university’s EFL program, it provesdifficult to accommodate PICT and spirituality due to the school’s educational policy
targeting enhanced TOEFL scores. In contrast, the English for liberal arts (ELA) program at a

178

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 178-197

Tokyo-based Christian university underscores the essence of PICT and spirituality, thus
tailoring ELT and language learning practices towards healthy self-development (i.e.,well-rounded character formation as a global citizen).

Keywords: L2 motivation, PICT, spirituality, whole-person development, Japanese college
context

Introduction
A Person-in-Context Approach to L2 Motivation: Towards Whole-Person Development
In many educational contexts in the 21st century including Japan, the motivationalrationale for learning second or foreign languages is often framed in terms of the utility valueof acquiring skills and certification in English or other important languages (Ushioda, 2017b).
Utility value here is defined with reference to the competitive economic benefits that language
skills can bring to the individual and society, through facilitating socio-economic mobility andaccess to desirable jobs, opportunities and resources. As Kubota (2016) critically comments,
the “contemporary trend of language teaching and learning, which is influenced by aneoliberal focus on the pragmatic development of measurable skills, sidelines dispositional
aspects of communication” (p. 468). In other words, the emphasis is on acquiring, testing andcertifying language skills and knowledge for “human capital development” (p. 469) in today’s
globalized economies, rather than on fostering appropriate attitudes, ethical values andcommunicative dispositions for “mutual understanding and peaceful co-existence in asustainable global society” (p. 478).
To some extent, prevailing theoretical accounts of L2 motivation may have unwittingly
contributed to serving the above-noted largely instrumentalist emphasis in language education
by defining L2 motivation with reference to the value of learning languages for personally,socially or professionally desirable ends. These desirable ends are encapsulated in

179

Kanaoka, M., Ushioda, E., Watanabe, A., & Kato, C.
Person-in-Context Theory and Spirituality in the Japanese College EFL Contexts

well-known theoretical concepts such as instrumental orientations (Gardner & Lambert, 1972),
extrinsic motivation (Noels, 2001), investment and social capital (Norton, 2013), and ideal
and ought-to L2 selves (Dörnyei, 2009).
The question posed in this symposium paper is whether, in the Japanese college context,
it may be possible to promote an orientation to learning English that is not focused solely on
the instrumentalist acquisition and certification of skills and competencies, but that connects
more deeply with students’ broader personal development and ‘ethical self-formation’ (Clarke& Hennig, 2013) as socially responsible and globally engaged citizens. In other words, canmotivation for learning English be brought to connect with cultivating ‘inner spiritual growth’(Astin, Astin & Lindholm, 2011) in college students, as young people who are looking toshape their lives with a sense of meaning and purpose and contribute to society?
Prevailing theoretical accounts of L2 motivation tend to focus rather narrowly on
language learning in isolation from the broader context of human motivation and life in which
it is embedded, and to define people in rather one-dimensional terms as ‘L2 learners.’
Consequently, theoretical attention is not readily drawn to the wider dimensions ofwhole-person development and inner spiritual growth in the analysis of L2 motivation.
In response to these limitations, Ushioda (2009) has advocated a more holistic‘person-in-context’ approach to L2 motivation, where the focus is on language learners as real‘people’ (rather than abstract bundles of variables) who are living their lives in particularsocial and cultural contexts. While Ushioda’s person-in-context theory (PICT) was essentiallydeveloped as an alternative approach to conceptualizing and researching L2 motivation andnot necessarily with educational applications in mind, this symposium paper takes the viewthat PICT may be relevant to pedagogical considerations for connecting students’ L2
motivation with their personal development and spiritual growth.
As Ushioda (2009) describes, PICT focuses on the unique individuality of people, withparticular histories, identities, and personalities, who are living their lives in specific social

180

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 178-197

and cultural contexts, and who continuously shape and are shaped by these contexts. Theseare people who are engaging with the world with various goals and motives, among which
motivation for language learning constitutes just one small part. Taking such a criticallyauthentic standpoint, the question for language educators is whether students’ motivation for
language learning can become meaningfully integrated with these broader life goals, values
and priorities. With a PICT approach to L2 motivation, we are thus encouraged to take aholistic view of how motivation for language learning may shape and fit within a person’s
whole sense of being, values, and purpose in life.
From a pedagogical perspective, such a holistic view may help to focus students’attention on how learning English can connect with their broader motivations and aspirations
to lead personally fulfilling, meaningful, and socially responsible lives, and not simply beequated with acquiring skills and competencies for their own economic advancement andemployability.
If students’ English learning experience brings them to see the development of English
proficiency as a means of personal growth and self-expression, and as a means of enablingengagement with social and global issues of concern to them, their motivation for learning
English may align more strongly and authentically with their aspired values and sense of
purpose in life. In the reports to follow, we explore these perspectives and possibilities inrelation to English language programs in three different university settings in Japan, anddiscuss the implications arising therefrom.

Student Perspectives from Four Universities: Desire for PICT-and-Spirituality-Involved
ELT vis-à-vis Currently Engaged ELT at College
Noting PICT and its wider perspective of embracing spirituality towards whole-person
development, as explained in the abstract, a questionnaire survey was conducted in 2014,
targeting first-year college students (N=388) from four universities in Japan (2 national, 1181

Kanaoka, M., Ushioda, E., Watanabe, A., & Kato, C.
Person-in-Context Theory and Spirituality in the Japanese College EFL Contexts

public, 1 private) in the second semester after the students’ actual experience of college lifeand English classes in the first semester. The aim of this survey was two-fold: exploring thepossible linkage of (1) college ELT and PICT and spirituality, and (2) L2 use capability and
PICT and spirituality.
The first aim targets two types of college ELT style: the style desired by the students, andthe style actually being administered in class as perceived and recognized in the students’ eyes.
Concerning the administered ELT, in the questionnaire, a note was added indicating that thisstyle normally uses a textbook (a conventional model printed by publishing companies) as themain material in the classroom. To some extent, this method may be peculiar to traditional
Japanese ELT including the college context. Approximately 90 percent of the students (n =347) responded in this part. In other words, some students who suggested the use of an
original textbook prepared by the instructor or the school, or use of other materials, were
excluded as these teaching methods might correlate to PICT and spirituality, such as the
English language program at International Christian University to be explained later in thisarticle.
In the ELT-focused questionnaire, three target aspects were provided and labeled G1 –G3, for which two questions were given respectively, utilizing a Likert-type scale of fivedifferent levels (1 = not applied/true at all, 2 = not applied/true basically, 3 = neither/no idea,
4 = applied/true basically 5 = applied/true very much).
G1 (Instrumentalist Perspective) relates to instrumentalist emphasis, such as cramming
knowledge and intensifying memorization practice for taking quizzes and exams. Broadly,
this type of ELT has been prevailing in Japan, as seen in Juken-style ELT (Ushioda, 2013).
There, functional and instrumental aspects are emphasized for the quest of numericallyevidenced rigid learning outcomes (e.g., test scores). G2 (PICT Perspective), on the other
hand, concerns themes aimed at whole person development by focusing on self-in-society
contexts (Ushioda, 2009), such as a person as a college student put in the current academic

182

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 178-197

context; also a person as a prospective social citizen/being with a professional/occupational
life after graduation. Relevantly, G3 (Spirituality Perspective) values tasks for the nurture of
inner self (inner spiritual part), such as personal beliefs and sense of values in the college
context (Astin, Astin & Lindholm, 2011), while taking career plans and life goals (real-life
contexts) into account (Baker, 2003). In exemplifying these accounts, as stated above, tworelevant questions were provided (six questions in total). They targeted ELT style aimed athaving college students cram knowledge (Q1) and intensify memorization (Q2) for taking
tests; working on themes for promoting critical thinking towards self-maturity (Q3) and for
identifying crucial relations between themselves and real societies (Q4); engaging in tasks inorder to establish their own beliefs and values (Q5) and to map out their career plan or goal
after graduation (Q6). In examining the yielded responses for the two ELT styles on thequestionnaire (desired ELT: α = .709) (administered ELT: α = .607), t-tests were applied(power (1-β) = 0.99) and presented the following results (Table 1).
Table 1
Responses for Desired ELT and Administered ELT
Desired ELT (N=388)
M
SD

Administered ELT (n=347)
M
SD
t

p
d
G1 Instrumentalist(Q1-Q2 computed) 2.51
0.97
3.01
1.02
-6.71
.000*
0.50
Q1. CKTT
2.73
1.13
3.17
1.11
-5.35
.000*
0.88
Q2. MTT
2.29
1.23
2.84
1.33
-5.77
.000*
1.10
G2 PICT(Q3-Q4 computed) 3.08
1.03
2.71
1.04
4.77
.000*
0.35
Q3. TCTSM 3.06
1.11
2.74
1.15
3.75
.000*
0.64
Q4. TSS
3.10
1.14
2.68
1.13
4.94
.000*
0.84
G3 Spirituality(Q5-Q6 computed) 2.90
1.03
2.52
1.32
4.31
.000*
0.32
Q5. TBV
2.95
1.12
2.57
1.96
3.29
.001*
0.76
Q6. TLO
2.85
1.20
2.48
1.16
4.20
.000*
0.74
Note. CKTT: Cramming Knowledge for Taking Tests; MTT: Memorization for Taking Tests; TCTSM:
Theme for Critical Thinking towards Self-Maturity; TSS: Theme for Self-in-Society; TBV: Tasks forBeliefs and Values; TLO: Tasks for Life-Orienting. Bonferroni adjustment was applied for six tests (p= .008: p < .005*).

Several salient results are observed from the table. In G1, while not in a positive range,
administered ELT is more likely to be connected with the instrumentalist perspective ascompared to the desired ELT. In G2, although at a neutral/unclear level, the curiosity for PICT183

Kanaoka, M., Ushioda, E., Watanabe, A., & Kato, C.
Person-in-Context Theory and Spirituality in the Japanese College EFL Contexts(in desired ELT) was found stronger than the reality of currently employed ELT (inadministered ELT). A similar orientation also emerges in G3, with the results remaining at aslightly negative level. Broadly, it can be suggested that the administered ELT tends to be
more connected with the instrumentalist perspective, rather than the PICT- spirituality
orientation. In contrast, while still in a neutral position or a slightly negative level, theintroduction of PICT and spirituality has been more supported in the desired ELT as comparedto the administered ELT.
Following the first aim, the second research focused on exploration of the students’
self-rated L2 use capability to describe who they really are and what they will and ought to be.
Accordingly, the questionnaire survey adopts a comprehensive stance of investigating from asurface/introductory level to an inner/spiritual one. Eight questions (levels) were provided,using a similar scale (1 = I can never do it at all, 2 = I cannot do it basically, 3 = neither/noidea, 4 = I can do it basically, 5 = I can do it very well). Level [1] asks about gender, age,birthplace, hometown, high school name (alma mater) [Personal Profile]. [2] asks whether the
students can state their college name, faculty and department in English [Affiliation and
Major]. [3] concerns specific information, asking whether they can explain their academic
interests or research areas in their major [Interested Academic Field in Major]. [4] pertains topossible self, that is, a concrete career plan or goal after graduation [Career Goal after
Graduation]. [5] relates to the explanation of idealistic self-image in the context of college life
[Idealistic, Ought-To-Be Self-Image]. [6] focuses on the inner spiritual part [Personal Beliefs
and Sense of Values]. [7] asks whether the students personally cherish an important message
in English towards whole-person development, specifically in the form of an aphorism orproverb from a speech address, autobiography, and other textual messages created byhistorically prominent persons [Cherished Aphorism for Self-Development]. Following [7],the last [8] asks whether they have a self-created aphorism for inner spiritual growth[Self-Created Aphorism for Self-Development].

184

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 178-197

To recapitulate, [1]-[8] concerns who I am, what I will be, what I ought to be. This self
and identity-focused aspect is substantially valued in a new perspective of L2 motivation andL2 learner autonomy (e.g., Ushioda, 2011), as well as in spirituality-involved good character
education at a tertiary level (e.g., Arthur, 2010). It is therefore worthwhile to emphasize theauthentic or the ultimate aim of L2 use in association with better knowing the true meaningand purpose of living in this world (i.e., ontology with attention on raison d’être), as well as
in crystalizing and enriching the necessarily important inner spirit (i.e., axiology with focus
on personal beliefs and sense of values). Table 2 exhibits the yielded responses (α = .881).
Table 2
8 Levels of Self-Rated L2 Use Competence: Focusing on Self and Identity (N=388)
Skewness

Kurtosis

Levels

M

SD

(SE)

(SE)

[1] Personal Profile

3.77

1.12

-.94 (.12).20 (.24)[2] Affiliation and Major

3.11

1.27

-.19 (.12)-1.09 (.24)[3] Interested Academic Field in Major

2.52

1.17

.44 (.12)- .67 (.24)[4] Career Goal after Graduation

2.49

1.18

.43 (.12)- .81 (.24)[5] Idealistic, Ought-To-Be Self-Image

2.30

1.13

.59 (.12)- .44 (.24)[6] Personal Beliefs and Sense of Values

2.21

1.12

.66 (.12)- .42 (.24)[7] Cherished Aphorism

1.91

1.04

1.18 (.12).91 (.24)[8] Self-Created Aphorism

1.80

0.98

1.28 (.12)

1.34 (.24)

As witnessed from the numerical results and relevant configuration, in terms ofself-perceived L2 use capability, there emerge no positive responses (i.e., learning outcomes)
in fully describing the whole person from a surface/explicit level to an inner/spiritual level.
Except for the first two introductory levels (which are neutral), the other levels graduallybecame lower, and this negative orientation has become more evident in the deeper level ofself-expressiveness (i.e., truly associated with the underpinnings of PICT and spirituality).
Implications for College ELT and L2 Use Competence
As witnessed from the students’ response, ELT styles (both desired and administered)pertaining to PICT and spirituality were not positively accepted nor fully implemented, and a

185

Kanaoka, M., Ushioda, E., Watanabe, A., & Kato, C.
Person-in-Context Theory and Spirituality in the Japanese College EFL Contexts

lower/insufficient level of L2 use capability became evident as it came closer to the essential
part of PICT and spirituality. Despite good academic standards in hensachi (deviation value)and good school reputation, the students have difficulty explaining who they really are andwhat they ought to be as a whole person. Noting this reality, it essentially needs to underscore
ontology (raison d’être in a wider life context) and axiology (crystallization of solid beliefs
and values towards personally fulfilling, meaningful, and socially responsible lives) in L2
motivational development. By doing so, authentic rationales for L2 motivation and L2 learner
identity will be convincingly and conceivably exemplified and substantiated through thecollege learners’ eyes.

Mission and Dilemma at YCU: TOEFL 500 as a Compulsory Requirement vs. Critical
Consideration for Introducing PICT and Spirituality
Yokohama City University (YCU) provides a unique EFL program called PracticalEnglish (PE), which requires all students to reach TOEFL 500 before advancing to the thirdyear. Currently more than 95 % of the students pass the course in two years. Many of themmove on to the next step: Advanced Practical English (APE). Some students have shown
outstanding performances at events such as at the National Presentation Contest and the Law
Moot Court Competition, winning the highest awards. Thanks to the successful results
indicated by the TOEFL passing rate and achievements by distinguished students, theuniversity has a very good reputation among high school students and corporate recruiters.
However, the English program has both advantages and disadvantages, both of which arelinked to the issue of L2 motivation, in particular related to PICT and spirituality.
Goals and Features of PE
YCU is a small-sized public university located in Yokohama. The school mission is tocontribute to society, the international city of Yokohama, and to produce graduates who canwork actively with a global vision and mindset. To this end, the goal of PE program is “to186

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 178-197

develop the practical skills necessary to function effectively in English in college level liberalarts classes at YCU.” The features of the current PE curriculum are as follows: 80%
attendance policy; 3 lessons per week plus e-Learning; lessons conducted entirely in English;
small class size; focus on using English; class levels based on proficiency test scores;
instructors with M.A. in TESOL; unified syllabus and textbooks; TOEFL-ITP and speaking
tests as end-of-semester exams.
When the PE program was initiated in 2005, no clear goal was presented to students andteachers, and the focus in the class was primarily on test taking strategies. Therefore,
misdirected students sought only scores of TOEFL or TOEIC to pass PE and their study style
was indistinguishable from that utilized during high school days in order to pass entrance
exams for university. From the outset, the PE program was exam-oriented, and students’attitudes towards English study were relatively negative. Consequently, the passing rate of thefirst students of this program was only 70.4%, which meant many students could not advanceto the third year. Then YCU established the Practical English Center to manage the whole
program and revise the curriculum from an exam-oriented to a communication-oriented one.
Since the establishment of the PE Center, students have been very active in class under thepedagogical policy of ‘communicative approach.’ In this regard, YCU has successfullyenhanced the classroom setting not only as a ‘place to learn,’ but also as a ‘place to use’English.
Effects vs. Issues on PE program in Relation to Developing L2 Motivation
When the PE Center investigated the correlation between L2 motivation of PE/APE
students and their TOEFL scores, it was revealed that APE students in general were more
motivated than PE students; however, improvement of APE students’ TOEFL scores wasmuch lower than that of PE students. This result arises from the fact that PE is a required
subject and every student must take the credit for promotion to the third year; meanwhile,
APE is an elective subject and grades and TOEFL scores are not counted for the promotion.

187

Kanaoka, M., Ushioda, E., Watanabe, A., & Kato, C.
Person-in-Context Theory and Spirituality in the Japanese College EFL Contexts

Because of this, PE students study hard out of fear of repeating the second year; however,such pressure provides negative impacts on their L2 motivation. On the other hand, APE
students, who don’t study so hard and are released from the pressure of exam scores orrepeating the same grade, show a positive L2 motivation. Based on this fact, it is fair to saythat the PE program has been achieving good results owing to the harsh requirement of
TOEFL 500, whereas the APE program has been yielding less desirable results, probably
because of its irrelevancy to such a requirement.
Although YCU has successfully enhanced the pedagogical approach in EFL curriculumfrom exam-oriented to student-centered and communication-focused, the learners’ L2
motivation—especially in PE students—still remains exam-oriented. Most PE students learn
English driven by extrinsic motivation, such as test scores and promotion to the third year,
while lacking intrinsic motivation—for instance, self-fulfillment and self-development. Thisis true of APE students as well. Most APE students continue to study English to obtain goodscores on TOEFL, IELTS, and TOEIC for purposes of studying abroad and job hunting, which
essentially corresponds to extrinsic motivation. Indeed, they lack a conception of what theywant to do after improving their English skills and how they want to make use of those skills
after coming back from study abroad programs, or after finishing university. Furthermore,they lack a perspective of how they want to develop themselves (i.e., whole-person
development including inner spiritual growth) through studying English. This motivational
issue might be applicable not only to YCU students but also to other Japanese college students
whose main concern is to gain good scores on certified tests.
Implications for Introducing PICT and Spirituality in PE/APE
In language education, authentication and enhancement of college learners’ L2
motivation must be as significant a concern as curriculum design and ELT methodology. In
this regard, Ushioda (2008) points out that “externally regulated motivation (the traditional‘carrot and stick’ approach) can have short-term benefits only” (p. 22), insisting that the real

188

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 178-197

educational aim is to generate each learner’s own motivation ‘from within the self.’ This
notion exactly applies to YCU’s EFL curriculum, which lacks a perspective of life-long
education. The Council of Europe’s (2001) Common European Framework of References for
Languages (CEFR) asserts “language learning is a lifelong task” (p. 5), essentially resonatingwith the perspective of PICT. Hence, YCU students should not stop studying English after
obtaining target scores on tests or getting required credits at their universities. Scores or
credits should not be the main goals for students, but rather transit points to them. In otherwords, their ultimate goal should be personal development and spiritual growth as globallyengaged citizens.
The PE and APE programs of YCU follow the philosophy of the CEFR in considerationof action-oriented approach and communicative language teaching. With respect to long-termgoals and intrinsic motivation, however, the programs have never escaped from the traditionalmode of L2 teaching and learning strategies in Japan. This is a dilemma. The mission of YCU,
as mentioned earlier, lies in fostering future global human resources; not principally inhelping students achieve the immediate goal of a good TOEFL score. Reflecting on thismission, YCU needs to modify the EFL curriculum so that English as the target language canbe employed not only as a tool for communication, but also as a vital agent for humandevelopment, including fostering real global citizens from YCU.

Seeking Tangible Impacts of PICT and Spirituality: Pedagogical Challenge at ICU
Through ELA Program
International Christian University (ICU), a private liberal arts university in Tokyo, offers
the English language program English for Liberal Arts (ELA). Including ELT, this program
essentially values the underpinnings of PICT and spirituality, mindful of ICU’s solid missionof fostering well-matured and well-rounded college students. That is, students are encouraged
to develop as ‘true’ global citizens acting beyond geographical borders and complex

189

Kanaoka, M., Ushioda, E., Watanabe, A., & Kato, C.
Person-in-Context Theory and Spirituality in the Japanese College EFL Contexts

ideological and sociocultural disparities arising from evolving global communities.
The ELA is a program for new students enrolling in ICU in April. In other words, before
the students embark on their studies in College of Liberal Arts, the ELA serves as aprerequisite learning experience in the university. The ELA aims at equipping students withskills necessary for their study in College of Liberal Arts as well as enhancing their English
proficiency. In this milieu, the mission of the university is emphasized in tune with thelearning goals of ELA.
ICU articulates its mission as “the establishment of an academic tradition of freedom,and reverence based on Christian ideals, and the education of individuals of conscience,
internationally cultured and with a strong sense of citizenship in a democratic society” (seeICU webpage: https://www.icu.ac.jp/en/about/commitment.html). The university engages inrealizing this mission through three different commitments as manifested in the school motto:
academic (university), Christian, and international.
The academic commitment is a mission to pursue truth, to preserve academic freedom,and to enrich inner freedom. The commitment contends that the university has a responsibility
to defend the academic community from external constraint and coercion. Following thisemphasis, students are encouraged to “think, critique and make reasonable judgments as
individuals serving truth and freedom, against any external restraint and coercion” (see ICU
webpage: https://www.icu.ac.jp/en/).
The Christian commitment is engaged in the belief that a Christian institution in higher
education has a distinct contribution and responsibility to the world. Anchored in this belief,
ICU cherishes this aphorism: “Knowledge that is discovered and taught is not an end in itself
but carries with it certain implications, such as the responsibility for improving society” (seeICU webpage: https://www.icu.ac.jp/en/about/commitment.html).
The third commitment, international, reflects the founding sprit of the university. ICU
was established in 1953 shortly after the end of WWII. Based on reflections on the war,

190

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 178-197

together with the importance of dialogue for mutual understanding of different views, notions,
ideologies, and perspectives, this commitment urges ICU students to encounter and appreciate
diverse backgrounds through dialogue. For this end, language proficiency is dispensable andJapanese and English are both official languages at the university.
In exemplifying the definition of L2 learner and L2 use in the ELA, the ELA READER,an ICU original textbook, plays a vital role. The collected readings in this book, essentiallyreflecting the essence of PICT and tailored for ICU students’ spiritual growth, are allocatedinto three progressive stages: ‘Discovery,’ ‘Inward Bound,’ and ‘Outward Bound,’ i.e., truly
designed for the process of self-development. In collaboration with this constructive stage, a
trajectory of L2 use practice called ‘ELA Journey’ is provided for the students1. In each stageof self-development, prepared reading materials (themes and contents) are compiled into asequentially progressive/developmental order so that productive arguments and dialogues canbe fostered through higher order thinking (see Figure 1).
In other words, the themes in each stage are aimed at ‘one big, important story as awhole,’ while facilitating the accumulation of cognitive and linguistic skills through intensive
reading and follow-up negotiation of meanings with peer learners. As witnessed from theseaccounts, the ELA journey is in concert with PICT and spirituality: rendering students as‘self-reflective intentional agents, with goals and motives, engaging with the world and living
their lives’ (Ushioda, 2017b). In fact, prepared readings encourage ICU students to reflect onthemselves in the journey of self-development, while encouraging a solid sense of a learnerof English.
In ‘Discovery,’ the main theme is the critical and creative mind: educational values. In
one of the readings, “What Every Yale Freshman Should Know,” for instance, the students
learn the differences of studying at high school and university. They recognize that university
is a place where curiosity should be encouraged and communication must be expected. They
also understand that university is a place where any pursuit of truth needs to be appraised.

191

Kanaoka, M., Ushioda, E., Watanabe, A., & Kato, C.
Person-in-Context Theory and Spirituality in the Japanese College EFL Contexts

Thus, they develop academic and scholarly minds then try to communicate to the world
through what they have found out in solid conviction.
In ‘Inward Bound,’ the main topic is identity and patterns of humanity: culture,
perception and communication. Here, the students engage in an exploration into themselves,
asking questions such as: what it means to have a certain nationality, and what it means to beborn and brought up in a particular context. Motivated by these authentic questions, they look
into themselves inwardly (i.e., spiritually) through a metaphysical lens. Through the readings,
they ponder upon how perception and recognition of differences among people can begenerated, while becoming more attentive to the role and function of dialogue in diverse
backgrounds.
In ‘Outward Bound,’ the students grapple with ethical and socio-philosophical issues,
while reflecting on the crucial meaning of being a human and social being. The main theme is
ethics and idealism. To illustrate, through a reading topic “Human Security—Protecting andEmpowering the People,” the students must discuss what it means to be a global citizen, i.e., aperson who assumes responsibility for the well-being of other people. To this end, thestudents’ thoughts, minds, beliefs, and values are fixed onto the immediate context, such as
their family members and classmates. Such spirituality is also directed towards geographicaland geopolitical borders in the world, and towards chronological constraints such as time,
history, and era. With such a thought-provoking context, and using English as an arguablecommunicative tool, the students endeavor to envision a highly promising human society.

192

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 178-197

Stages
ThemesDiscovery
The critical andcreative mind:
educational values

ReadingszzzzCollege thinking
Yale freshman
Propaganda
Introduction toargumentationz Introduction toliterature

Inward Bound
Identity and patternsof humanity: culture,
perception, andcommunicationz Interculturalcommunicationz Perception of selfz Charged languagez Nonverbal
communicationz Issues of race

Outward Bound
Ethics and idealismz Introduction to
ethicsz Bioethics
z Euthanasia
z Visions of the
futurez Human security

Figure 1. Outline of the ELA READER: Complied by ICU ELA (2014).

ELA manifests English not as a foreign language, but as a language through which ICU
students should become able to achieve healthy personal development. Indeed, English is thelanguage to better know the self and develop a good sense of identity. It is an organic agent bywhich the students can learn more about important truths through deeper discussion anddialogue. In extracurricular activities, they use English to communicate with ICU teachers in
out-of-class periods. Thus, they ‘shape and are shaped by the context and this takes placethrough the use of English’ (Ushioda, 2017b).
Implications: Importance of Organic Integration of Christianity, ELA, PICT, andSpirituality
To recapitulate, ELA is an English language program, whose aim is to improve students’English proficiency as well as enticing L2 learners with the study of liberal arts. It is
underpinned by the holistic educational principles of promoting whole person development,
as discussed in the introduction.
As can be seen from the construction of the ELA READER, and through the ELA
journey, the academic duty of ICU students is to achieve inner spiritual growth and form awell-conceived self-identity as college L2 learners. Hence, the importance of mutual
understanding and dialogue is emphasized not only for the quest of ethical humanity, which

193

Kanaoka, M., Ushioda, E., Watanabe, A., & Kato, C.
Person-in-Context Theory and Spirituality in the Japanese College EFL Contexts

should be kindled by the spirit of public philosophy, but also to nurture social responsibility
and commitment as a global citizen. To this aim, ELA does value the enhancement of L2
communicability, and self-development as well. Consequently, for ICU students, developing
L2 motivation is equivalent to becoming a person living in socially, globally, andeducationally thought-provoking contexts.

Conclusion
Traditional L2 motivation research concerns the utility value and instrumentalist aspects
of developing language skills, while recognizing native speakers of English society as an
idealistic target language community and external reference group. However, in the newperspective of language learning motivation for both English and languages other thanEnglish (LOTEs), “more humanist educational values of self-development, linguisticenrichment” (Ushioda, 2017a, p. 474) need to be underscored. In this regard, it is suggested
that PICT and spirituality have a grave mission of trying to redress the balance of theprevailing power struggle in our ever-expanding global society (e.g.,socio-political-and-economic vs. socio-philosophical) and in higher education (e.g., utilitarianand instrumental vs. humanitarian and spiritual in tune with ontology and axiology). PauloFreire, a world-renowned historical educator, once said: “the teacher’s thinking isauthenticated only by the authenticity of the students’ thinking” (Freire, 2000, p. 77).
Traditional paper-based college entrance exams rarely evaluate students’ L2 proficiency
in relation to the expression of beliefs, values, and philosophy of life from a wider/holistic
viewpoint extended to the realm of ethics, humanism, civic virtues, and public philosophy.
Unfortunately, such an unbalanced foreign language education seems to remain prevalent in
the Japanese college context, as partially and fully exemplified in the first two reports in thispaper. However, as elaborated in the third report, there are possibilities for engaging Japanese
students in a more holistic approach to language learning, personal growth, and spiritual

194

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 178-197

development as well-rounded global citizens, in keeping with the principles of PICT andspirituality thoroughly discussed in this paper.
As long as language concerns logos, pathos, and ethos, it is imperative to take amulti-layered view of L2 learning and L2 motivation. Accordingly, we highlight an emergent
ELT agenda in the Japanese college context anchored in the following research perspective:
How motivation for learning English should become integrated within each college learner’s
sense of being, values, beliefs, and purpose in life. Our view is that this is a critical mission in
the Japanese college context, if our aim as educators is to help foster globally responsible,
mature and reflective citizens with a sense of spiritual purpose in life. Nosce te ipsum (knowyourself), and Cito maturum, cito putridum (soon ripe, soon rotten)—these Latin sayings, oraphorisms, remind us of the importance of this aim in higher education, no matter what
historic era we live in.
Note
1Concerning the ELA Journey and its three stages, the idea and utilized terms werecreated by Mr. Michael Kleindl, ELA Instructor of ICU.

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for anonymous reviewers’ productive comments and precise guidance
for the modification of the earlier manuscript. Also, the three authors belonging to Japanese
universities are grateful to Dr. Ema Ushioda’s (University of Warwick, U.K.) extensive
contribution: joining the symposium as a panelist, also forging this manuscript in an effort tosubstantiate arguably vital points and perspectives mentioned in the symposium. Much of the
progress attained in the symposium and this publication is indebted to her thought-provoking,productive feedback and scholarly guidance. This manuscript constitutes part of an interim
scholarly report in a research program supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research(JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 16K02846).

195

Kanaoka, M., Ushioda, E., Watanabe, A., & Kato, C.
Person-in-Context Theory and Spirituality in the Japanese College EFL Contexts

References
Arthur, J. (2010). Of good character: Exploration of virtues and values in 3-25 year-olds.
Exeter, U.K.: Imprint Academic.
Astin, A., Astin, H., & Lindholm, J. (2011). Cultivating the spirit: How college can enhance
students’ inner lives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baker, D. (2003). Studies of the inner life: The impact of spirituality on quality of life.
Quality of Life Research, 12 (Suppl. 1), 51-57.
Clarke, M., & Hennig, B. (2013). Motivation as ethical self-formation. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 45(1), 77–90. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2012.715386
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.),
Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Bristol, U.K.: Multilingual
Matters.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary Edition). New York:
Continuum.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language
learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
ICU ELA. (2014). THE ELA READER. Tokyo: International Christian University.
Kubota, R. (2016). Neoliberal paradoxes of language learning: Xenophobia and international
communication. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37, 467–480.
doi: 10.1080/01434632.2015.1071825
Noels, K. A. (2001). New orientations in language learning motivation: Towards a contextual
model of intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations and motivation. In Z. Dörnyei& R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 43–68).
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

196

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 5 (2018), 178-197

Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.).
Bristol, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.
Ushioda, E. (2008). Motivation and good language learners. In Griffiths, C. (Ed.), Lessons
from good language learners (pp. 19-34). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University
Press.
Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self andidentity. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2
self (pp. 215–228). Bristol, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.
Ushioda, E. (2011). Motivating learners to speak as themselves. In G. Murray, X. Gao., & T.
Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy in language learning (pp. 11-24). Bristol,
U.K.: Multilingual Matters.
Ushioda, E. (2013). Foreign language motivation research in Japan: An ‘insider’ perspectivefrom outside Japan. In M. Apple, D. Silva, & T. Fellner (Eds.), Language learning
motivation in Japan (pp. 1-14). Bristol, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.
Ushioda, E. (2017a). The impact of global English on motivation to learn other languages:
Towards an ideal multilingual self. Modern Language Journal, 101(3), 469–482. doi:
10.1111/modl.12413
Ushioda, E. (2017b, August). A person-in-context approach to L2 motivation: Towards
whole-person development. In M. Kanaoka (Chair), Integration of person in context
theory (PICT) and spirituality: Aimed at establishing tangible self-awareness of L2
motivation toward self-and-language maturity. Symposium conducted at the JACET
56th International Convention at Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo.

197

Submission Guidelines

JACET International Convention Selected Papers, Vol. 5
SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
Manuscripts for the JACET International Convention Selected Papers (JACET Selected Papers) will
only be accepted by online submission. Please read the following guidelines carefully.
Important Dates:
Submission Form Open: October 6, 2017
Submission Deadline: 11:59 PM Japan Standard Time, January 10, 2018
Submission Form:
http://www.jacet.org/selected-papers-submission2017/
A.

Requirements

1.

A paper must be based on a presentation (oral or regular poster presentation) given at the JACET
56th International Convention and the first contributor must be a member of JACET. All othercontributors must have also presented the work at the JACET 56th International Convention.

2.

A paper based on a plenary lecture may be submitted as an Invited Paper (by invitation only).

B.

Editorial Policy

1.

JACET Selected Papers, a refereed, open-access electronic journal, encourages submission of thefollowing:-Research Articles on pedagogy and topics of significance to teachers of English-Symposium Papers on relevant issues to teachers of English (one per symposium)-Practitioner Reports to share findings and insights

2.

Manuscripts submitted to JACET Selected Papers must not have been previously published, norshould they be under consideration for publication elsewhere.

3.

Manuscripts which do not conform to the guidelines will not be considered for review.

4.

Only one paper can be submitted by each contributor.

5.

The Editorial Board of JACET Selected Papers reserves the right to make editorial changes inany manuscript accepted for publication to enhance clarity or style. The corresponding author
will be consulted if the changes are substantial.

6.

Paper offprints will not be provided.

C.

Guidelines

1.

Manuscripts on A4 paper, including abstract, references, figures, tables, and appendix, should notexceed 30 pages for Research Articles, 20 pages for Symposium Papers, and 15 pages for
Practitioner Reports.

2.

All manuscripts must be in English.

199

3.

All submissions to JACET Selected Papers must conform to the requirements of the Publication
Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th edition.
3.1 Prepare manuscripts using Microsoft Word (2003 or later).
3.2 Use 12-point Times New Roman font.
3.3 Leave margins of 2.5 cm on all sides of every page (A4 size, 210 mm × 297 mm or 8.27 in
× 11.7 in). There are 26 lines to a page.
3.4 Do not justify right margins.
3.5 Do not use running heads.
3.6 Create a paper without the author name(s).
3.7 Include the title, an abstract (no more than 200 words), and keywords (no more than five
keywords; a multiple-word key phrase can be counted as one keyword).
3.8 Acknowledgements should not be included at the time of submission.
3.9 For pagination, use Arabic numerals placed in the upper right-hand corner of each page.
3.10 Throughout the entire manuscript including references, both author name(s) and their
publication information should be substituted with "*****."

D.

Submission Procedure1.

All contributors must complete a submission form on the JACET website, which can be accessedfrom the Submission Guidelines.

2.

Contributors must follow the instructions below.
2.1 Transform the Word file manuscript into PDF format, saving it under the author’s full nameas in the following examples: suzukikaoru or smithkerry. Submit the PDF file by clicking“choose file” on the submission form.
2.2 If there are more than four authors, write all authors’ information on a separate file and send
to the JACET office by e-mail: Author names, affiliation, membership number, postal code,
address, telephone number, and e-mail address.
(JACET e-mail address: jacet@zb3.so-net.ne.jp)
2.3 Do not include a cover sheet.

E.

Contributor’s Responsibility

1.

Contributors are responsible for the content of their manuscripts.

2.

Contributors are responsible for obtaining permission to reproduce any material such as figures
and tables for which they do not own the copyright, and for ensuring that the appropriate
acknowledgements are included in their manuscript.

F.

Copyright

1.

JACET holds the copyright of the articles published in JACET Selected Papers.

2.

Anyone, including the author(s), who wishes to reproduce or republish an article, must obtain
permission from JACET. Also, it should be clearly stated that JACET holds the copyright.

200