ISSN 2188-8612

ISSN 2188-8612

JACET International Convention
Selected Papers
Volume 2

JACET CONVENTION 2014
The 53rd International Convention
Theme: Fostering English Communicative Competence for Peace and Friendship

August 28 – 30, 2014
Hiroshima City University

JACET International Convention Selected Papers, Volume 2
Published by the Japan Association of College English Teachers (JACET)JACET Selected Papers Committee
Senior Director-in-Charge
NOGUCHI, Judy Tsutae (Kobe Gakuin University)

Director-in-Charge
MATSUOKA, Hironobu (Yasuda Women’s University)

Editorial Board
Chair
HIRAMOTO, Satoshi (Yasuda Women’s University)
HIGUCHI, Akihiko (Kagoshima University)

PENG, Virginia (Ritsumeikan University)

INGULSRUD, John Eric (Meisei University)

TAJINO, Akira (Kyoto University)

IWANAKA, Takahiro (International Pacific University)

TAKAHASHI, Sachi (Kyoto University)

KANAMARU, Toshiyuki (Kyoto University)

TOMITA, Kaoru (Yamagata University)

KANAZAWA, Yoko (Hoshi University)

TSUDA, Sanae (Professor Emeritus, Tokaigakuen University)

KOYAMA, Toshiko (Osaka Ohtani University)

UENISHI, Koji (Hiroshima University)

NAITO, Hisashi (Hokkai-Gakuen University)

YOKOYAMA, Yoshiki (Hokkaido University of Education)

Advisory Board
CATES, Kip A. (Tottori University)

SMITH, Craig (Kyoto University of Foreign Studies)

JACET Prize & Academic Publication Selection Committee
Director-in-Charge
TERAUCHI, Hajime (Takachiho University)

Head
OZEKI, Naoko (Meiji University)

Vice-Head
KOJIMA, Hideo (Bunkyo University)

Reviewers
HIROMORI, Tomohito (Meiji University)

NOMURA, Kazuhiro (Kobe City University of Foreign Studies)IZUMI, Shinichi (Sophia University)

SHIMIZU, Yuko (Ritsumeikan University)

KAMIMURA, Taeko (Senshu University)

SHIOZAWA, Tadashi (Chubu University)

KAWAI, Yasushi (Hokkaido University)

SUZUKI, Chizuko (Nagasaki Junshin Catholic University)

KAWANO, Madoka (Meiji University)

TOMITA, Kaoru (Yamagata University)

KOMIYA, Tomiko (Okazaki Women’s University)

YAMAZAKI, Atsuko K. (Shibaura Institute of Technology)

MURANOI, Hitoshi (Tohoku Gakuin University)

YASUDA, Sachiko (Kyushu 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 March, 2016
ISSN 2188-8612
Copyright © 2016 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.

Message from the Editorial Board Chair

This second volume of the JACET International Convention Selected Papers presents
papers from the JACET (Japan Association of College English Teachers) 53rd International
Convention (2014), held at Hiroshima City University, Japan, from August 28 to 30. This
convention was held shortly after devastating landslides hit the Hiroshima region on August
20th. We wish to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to those who sent theircondolences and donations and, above all, heartwarming encouragement.
This collection of Selected Papers from the convention features an invited paper writtenby plenary speaker Professor Kip Cates and a paper by a conference presenter. Professor
Cates provides us with invaluable insight into the role that college English teachers can playin promoting peace and friendship. The paper by Mr. Yoshitaka Kato highlights the
instructional value of transcription and proof-listening in the teaching of speaking.
Our call for papers from convention presenters was responded to by many participants
with papers covering a wide range of topics. However, to maintain the highest quality suitable
for an international audience, the Editorial Board had very stringent guidelines which resulted
in the acceptance of only two papers.
As the Chair of the Editorial Board, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to thereviewers, the Editorial Board members, and all of those involved in the publication of thissecond volume of the JACET International Convention Selected Papers.

Satoshi Hiramoto
Chair, The Editorial Board of the JACET International Convention Selected Papers, Volume 2VContents

Message from the Editorial Board Chair ························································ V

Invited Papers

Building Bridges of Peace and Friendship: The Role of College English Teachers························································ Kip A. Cates ····

2

Selected Papers

Transcription and Proof-listening: Investigating Effective Speech Reflection····················································· Yoshitaka Kato ···· 24

Submission Guidelines ··········································································· 42

Invited Papers

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 2 (2016), 2–22

Building Bridges of Peace and Friendship:
The Role of College English Teachers

Kip A. Cates
Tottori University

Abstract
This article argues that college English teachers have a special role to play in promoting peaceand friendship through integrating ideas from the fields of global education, peace education,and education for international understanding into their classroom teaching. The author
discusses the costs to society of violence and militarism, and describes UNESCO’s 1974
Recommendation on Education for International Understanding, Cooperation and Peace. To
promote peaceful classrooms, he argues that teachers should draw on approaches such ascommunicative language teaching, content-based instruction, cooperative learning, andhumanistic education as well as promote critical thinking about stereotypes andgeneralizations. Beyond the classroom, he describes ways to develop international
understanding via out-of-class tasks and fieldtrips. The article outlines the special role that
English can play in promoting peace in Asia and describes the author’s experiences ofdesigning Korea-Japan penpal programs and an annual Asian Youth Forum. He argues thatteacher training in peace education can help to promote international understanding anddescribes opportunities for professional development. The article ends by noting that 2014
was the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of World War I and calls on college English
teachers to promote tolerance, friendship, and peace in our communities, countries, and thewider world.

Keywords: peace, friendship, global education, international understanding

2

Cates, K. A.
Building Bridges of Peace and Friendship

Introduction
We live in a world of violence, from bullying in schools to racial conflicts to wars
between nations. These clashes are fueled by stereotypes, prejudice, ethnic hatred, distorted
education, and nationalistic media as well as by aggressive governments, militarized societies,
and a powerful arms industry. World military spending is currently estimated at $1.7 trillion,
with Japan ranked among the top 10 spenders. This money goes in part to fund the world’s
16,000 nuclear weapons, 640 million guns, and 50 million landmines (SIPRI, 2015). The
impact of this has been described by a former American president as follows:
The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers,
the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. Every gun that is made, every
warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those whohunger and are not fed, from those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953 Presidential Address (as cited in Larson, 1987, p. 62)

Personal BackgroundMy interest in seeing language as a bridge of peace and friendship between peoples andcountries comes from my background and experience. As a college student in Canada, I took
part in youth exchange programs between English-Canadians and French-Canadians. This
made me realize the value of language as a means of building bonds of friendship between
individuals and communities in my own nation.
I grew up with family stories of World War I, World War II, and the battles against
Japan and Germany. As a result, at university, I decided to specialize in enemy languages—
German and Japanese—to understand the causes of war and to learn how wars can beprevented. Before coming to Japan to teach English in 1979, I spent a year in Europe working
at international youth camps in Sweden and Germany. These camps brought together young
British, French, German, Spanish, and other young people with the aim of promoting

3

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 2 (2016), 2–22

friendship, respect, cross-cultural understanding, and a sense of European citizenship. These
formative experiences have all contributed to the work I do in promoting peace and friendshipthrough English language teaching.

The Role of Education
The mission that we have as educators has been outlined in UNESCO’s
Recommendation on Education for International Understanding, Cooperation and Peace(UNESCO, 1974). This calls on teachers of all subjects in schools around the world topromote:an international dimension and a global perspective in education at all levels;

understanding and respect for all peoples, their cultures, values, and ways of life;awareness of the increasing global interdependence between peoples and nations;abilities to communicate with others;awareness of the rights and duties of individuals, social groups, and nations towards eachother;

understanding of the necessity for international solidarity and co-operation; andreadiness on the part of the individual to participate in solving the problems of his/hercommunity, country, and the world at large.

The Role of Language Teaching
Promoting peace and friendship has always been a prominent language teaching
objective. Rivers (1968), for example, mentions a 1933 report which proclaimed the value ofstudying foreign languages as “breaking down barriers of provincialism while building up a
spirit of international understanding and friendliness, leading toward world peace” (p. 261).
How does foreign language teaching encourage peace and international understanding?
In the 1980s, a special committee to examine this question was set up by the German

4Cates, K. A.
Building Bridges of Peace and Friendship

Commission for UNESCO. Its report, International Understanding through Foreign
Language Teaching (Classen-Bauer, 1989), argued that foreign language teaching promotesinternational understanding in the following four distinct ways.
1. Promote students’ knowledge of other cultures and ways of thinking.
2. Serve to break down national stereotypes and prejudices which stem from inadequate or
superficial knowledge.
3. Enable students to acquire oral and written skills resulting in improved language
proficiency. This helps to reduce misunderstandings, prevent conflicts, and promote
effective communication across cultures, leading to individual enrichment and thefacilitation of cultural, political, and economic exchanges between nations.
4. Enable learners to see their language and culture from an international point of view. By
acquiring foreign language competence, students become less ethnocentric, can better
identify with others, and become able to share their personal thoughts, values, lives, andcultural heritage with others.
The most significant attempt to outline the role of foreign language teaching inpromoting international understanding is UNESCO’s Linguapax Kiev Declaration (UNESCO,
1987). This made the following four specific recommendations to the world’s language
teachers.
1.

Be aware of their responsibility to further international understanding through theirteaching.

2.

Increase language teaching effectiveness so as to enhance mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and co-operation among nations.

3.

Exploit extra-curricular activities such as pen-pal programs, video exchanges, andoverseas excursions to develop international understanding.

4.

Lay the basis for international co-operation through classroom co-operation using
language teaching approaches responsive to students’ interests and needs.

5JACET Selected Papers Vol. 2 (2016), 2–22

As Rivers has pointed out, much traditional language teaching makes vague references
to promoting peace and tolerance. However, this has often remained wishful thinking.
It may be well to ask whether international understanding, let alone world peace, (has)been promoted by the considerable amount of foreign language teaching in the world.
Diligent learning of foreign words and phrases, laborious copying and recitation ofirregular verb paradigms, and the earnest deciphering of texts in the foreign language
can hardly be considered powerful devices for the development of international
understanding and good will. (Rivers, 1968, p. 262)
If we expect our college English teaching to promote peace, friendship, andinternational understanding, we must include these objectives explicitly in our language
programs, materials, and methods.

Exploring New Fields
One key step in achieving this aim is to explore fields such as global education, peaceeducation, and education for international understanding. Exploring related fields to help
improve our teaching is nothing new. Good teachers have always gone to other disciplines tolearn new ideas, techniques, and resources. Teachers who wish to deepen their knowledge ofgrammar turn to the field of linguistics. Teachers interested in motivation turn to the field of
psychology. In the same way, if we are serious about teaching English to promote peace,friendship, and international understanding, we need to turn to the fields which specialize inthese areas.
Education for International Understanding aims to build knowledge, respect, andcuriosity about the peoples and countries of the world. Education for international
understanding can provide language teachers with ideas, techniques, and resources forteaching about peoples, customs, and cultures, and for creating teaching units on Asia,
Africa, Ainu, and Aborigines.

6Cates, K. A.
Building Bridges of Peace and FriendshipPeace Education deals with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to build apeaceful world. Peace education can provide language teachers with ideas, techniques,
and resources for designing lessons on topics such as war, peace, conflict, violence, andon peacemakers such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King.



Global Education aims to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to become
responsible world citizens. Global education can provide language teachers with ideas,
techniques, and resources for designing lessons on global awareness and social
responsibility, and on global issues such as AIDS, refugees, and world hunger.

Global Education
Much of my work over the past 30 years has dealt with global education and language
teaching. Global education has been defined as “education which promotes the knowledge,
attitudes and skills relevant to living responsibly in a multicultural, interdependent world”(Fisher & Hicks, 1985, p. 8). Another definition states that “global education consists ofefforts to bring about changes in the content, methods and social context of education in order
to better prepare students for citizenship in a global age” (Kniep, 1985, p. 15). As an approachto language teaching, global education aims at enabling students to effectively acquire a
foreign language while empowering them with the knowledge, skills, and commitment
required by world citizens for the solution of global problems (Cates, 1990, p. 3). It also poses
the critical question of “What is our responsibility as language teachers in a world of war,poverty, prejudice, and pollution?”
The goals of a global approach to education are divided into the four domains ofknowledge, skills, attitudes, and action (Cates, 2000, pp. 241–243). Knowledge about theworld, its peoples and problems is the first goal. If we want students to work for a peacefulworld, they must at least know the nature of world problems, their causes, and viable
solutions. Acquiring skills necessary to solve world problems is the second goal. These

7

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 2 (2016), 2–22

include communication skills, critical and creative thinking, problem solving skills, informed
decision-making, and the ability to see issues from multiple perspectives. Acquiring global
attitudes is the third goal. These include global awareness, an appreciation of other cultures,
respect for diversity, a commitment to justice, and empathy with others. The final goal isaction—participation in the local and global community to work for a better world.

Content Areas
If we wish to promote peace and international understanding through English, whatkinds of content should we address? I suggest that we integrate our classroom teaching with
topics from three main content areas: geographic literacy, world themes, and global issues.


Geographic literacy aims at promoting a basic knowledge of the peoples and countries of
the world. This is no simple task. Many teachers have encountered students who cannot
find their way around a world map or who think that the language of Latin America is
Latin. Luckily, geographic illiteracy is a curable disease and a growing number oflanguage teachers are working to address this. Some have designed EFL courses aboutcountries of the world while others work to bring information, understanding, andexcitement about the world’s peoples, regions, and cultures into their classes.

World themes refer to international topics that are shared by people around the world but
expressed in different ways. These include daily life topics such as world greetings, world
food, and world music as well as broader themes such as world flags, world languages,
and world religions. Teaching these multicultural themes in content-based English classes
allows students to see what the world’s people share in common while comparing anddiscussing cultural differences.



Global issues involve helping students to develop an understanding of important world
problems, such as war and peace, human rights, world hunger, and the environment. As
American global educator Willard Kniep (1987) argues, if young people are to be truly

8Cates, K. A.
Building Bridges of Peace and Friendshipinformed about their world, their education must engage them in inquiry about thecauses, effects, and potential solutions to the global issues of our time (p. 69).

The Dual Syllabus
Global education does not happen through good intentions alone. It must be planned
for, prepared, and consciously taught. Students cannot learn what you do not teach. It does not
do any good, for example, to teach English grammar and hope that students somehow become
more international as a result. Rather, a good global language teacher must sit down and write
up a dual syllabus comprising: (a) a set of language learning goals and (b) a set of global
education goals. Once these are listed, the teacher’s job is to design effective, enjoyable classactivities that achieve both sets of objectives in an integrated, creative way. For college
teachers interested in furthering peace and friendship, this means that our English language
classes should include specific objectives to promote these aims.

In the Classroom
Designing classrooms which ensure effective language learning while promoting peaceand friendship requires integrating ideas, materials, and techniques from a variety of areas
within the field of English language education. These include approaches such ascommunicative language teaching (Littlewood, 1981), content-based instruction (Brinton,
Snow, & Wesche, 1989), cooperative learning (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1998), andhumanistic education (Stevick, 1990). By introducing a student-centered dimension to theirclassrooms which features “caring-and-sharing” (Moskowitz, 1978), language teachers canhelp to create a “peaceful classroom” (Smith, 1993).
A variety of ideas, activities, and materials exist to help us promote peace andfriendship in our college English classes. Some EFL teachers design lessons on themes suchas the Nobel Peace Prize. Others work with peace education videos such as Rainbow War

9

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 2 (2016), 2–22

(Rogers, 1985) which visually dramatize the need for tolerance and understanding. Someteachers adapt ideas from peace education texts such as Drew (1995) and Harris and Morrison(2003). Yet others develop content-based units to promote peace through literature (Tanaka,
2015), design project-based courses on peace heroes (Yphantides, 2010) or create their own
peace-themed textbooks (Brooks & Fox, 1994).

Generalizations and Stereotypes
If we wish to teach for peace and friendship, we need to address the issue of prejudice
and discrimination. Prejudice and discrimination have their roots in oversimplified
generalizations of foreign peoples and nations. These are often perpetuated by the mass
media. On TV, radio, the Internet, and newspapers, people talk about the Arabs or theAmericans, or the Japanese without noting how diverse these groups really are. In their book
Global Teacher, Global Learner, British educators Pike and Selby (1988) emphasize the needfor students to be able to analyze media statements which generalize about other nationalities.
All or Some?
Does a newspaper or book speak of, for example, ‘the French’ when it really means ‘theFrench government’ or ‘many French people’ or ‘some French people’? (Pike & Selby,
1988, p. 269)
Another issue that English teachers should address is the topic of stereotypes. EFL
students all too easily pick up mistaken images from the media and from those around them.
Writers such as Ross (2011) and Shaheen (2001) have documented the distorted stereotypesof Arabs, Asians, and other groups that fill our TV shows, movies, and magazines. The
negative impact that these stereotypes have on cross-cultural communication and international
relations have been described by language educators such as Houghton, Furumura, Lebedko,and Li (2013) and Mathieson (2015). Our students need to be given the chance to analyze theimages that appear in the media—as well as in our textbooks and teaching materials—and10

Cates, K. A.
Building Bridges of Peace and Friendshipencouraged to critically compare the stereotypes they find to reality.
Stereotypes include the distorted ways in which others see us. A good examples of thiswas shown in a special issue of TIME magazine entitled How the World Sees Japan (TIME,
2001). The cover portrayed the confused image of a typical Japanese family: a samurai father
with a topknot, sword, and cell phone, a geisha mother in kimono carrying a Gucci bag, and aJapanese child playing with his robot dog, with cherry blossoms and Mount Fuji in the
background. All that was missing was Ichiro, Godzilla, and a few ninja. This tableau indicatesthe kind of distorted images people tend to hold of other cultures—images often created,presented, or spread by the media.
Global educators use a variety of resources to help students go beyond stereotypes andsee the world as it really is. These include DVDs such as Young Voices from the Arab World(AMIDEAST, 1998) which introduces the daily lives of Arab teenagers in the Middle East,
the Families of the World series (Families of the World, 1995–2015) and the United Nations
series What’s Going On? (UN Works, 2003) which features Hollywood celebrities such as
Richard Gere, Angelina Jolie, and Meg Ryan who introduce global issues such as street
children, landmines, and AIDS.

Beyond the Classroom
Out-of-class tasks can be an effective way to help students begin to see English as atool for building friendly relations, not just as a school subject or a set of rules to memorize
for tests. Contact assignments that engage learners with the local community are one suchtask. Each year at my university, for example, I give a Golden Week holiday assignment
where students have to go out, talk to a stranger, then write an English report on theirexperience (Cates, 1989). Students find that this homework can impact their lives ininteresting ways. Some talk to international students on campus and make friends from Asia,
Africa, or Europe. Some chat up the opposite sex and get a new boyfriend or girlfriend. Yet

11

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 2 (2016), 2–22

others strike up conversations with local business people and get job offers as a result. Overthe past 25 years, I have assigned this task to over 5,000 students and have watched themgrow as confident communicators.
Arranging penpal or keypal programs is one way to get your students using English tocommunicate with young people around the world. Setting up an English World Citizen clubor study group is another idea. Some schools have students write English letters to foster
children from Third World countries. Yet others hold English charity events on campus toraise money to remove Cambodian landmines, to help African AIDS victims, to assist Iraqi
children, or to re-build earthquake damaged schools in Nepal.
Some colleges add an international dimension to their school festival through English
speech contests on global themes or by inviting English guest speakers from groups such as
UNICEF. Others arrange volunteer activities where students pick up litter on local beaches orparticipate in charity walk-a-thons to end world hunger—all while using English in an out-ofclass context.
School trips are a further way to promote international understanding. Language study
tours to the U.S. and Australia can include projects on social issues to broaden students’experience beyond homestays, sightseeing, and shopping. As educators such as Hinkelman(1993) have shown, taking students to destinations such as India, the Philippines, or Korea
can improve their English and promote mutual understanding as they learn about life indeveloping countries or in neighboring Asian nations.

International Events
Education beyond the campus means giving students opportunities to use their language
skills, increase motivation, and raise awareness through real-world experiences. One way tomove students from the classroom into the real world is to involve them in international
events. For teachers eager to get their students involved, there are dozens of opportunities

12Cates, K. A.
Building Bridges of Peace and Friendshipavailable, ranging from overseas work camps and Model United Nations events to round-theworld cruises on Peace Boat and volunteer programs in Africa and Latin America.
At the national level, there are many events that college students can join. Each
October, for example, I take 10–15 university students to Tokyo to attend Global Festa. Thisannual 2-day event is Japan’s largest gathering of non-governmental organizations involved
with global issues, Third World development, and international cooperation. During thefestival, students explore theme zones dedicated to human rights and peace, visit booths run
by the 200 organizations taking part, learn about NGOs working to eliminate landmines, meetstaff from organizations such as Médecins Sans Frontières, and talk to Japanese Peace Corps
volunteers fluent in English who have just returned from countries such as Bangladesh,
Guatemala, or Algeria.
What do students gain from this kind of fieldtrip? They learn that we live in a world fullof diverse peoples, countries, and problems. They encounter Japanese volunteers who careabout world issues and who are working for a better future. In addition, they learn that tocooperate across borders to solve global issues they need to speak English—the global
language.
Giving students a chance to use language skills in real-world situations outside schoolis an invaluable experience that can promote personal growth, global awareness, and language
learning motivation. Educating beyond the classroom, whether at the local, national, orinternational level, can be an exciting challenge and a valuable part of our work as English
language educators.

Peace in Our Neighborhood
If we truly want to build a world of peace and friendship, we need to start in our own
neighborhood—East Asia. A number of opinion polls show the challenges that teachers facein building good relations with neighboring nations. Two recent surveys, for example, found13

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 2 (2016), 2–22

that 76% of people in South Korea and 90% of people in China held unfavorable views ofJapan (Genron NPO, 2013; Pew Research Center, 2013). There is an urgent need to work forbetter relations between China, Japan, and Korea, a task that college English teachers can help
to promote.
My first experiment in promoting peace through English was a pen-pal program
between Japan and Korea that a colleague and I started in 1991 (Cates, 1999; Nihon-kai
Shimbun, 1991). This began with 50 Japanese students from our university and 50 Korean
students from our sister university. The program resulted in a rich series of exchanges whichaccomplished our dual aims of improving students’ English writing skills while building
mutual understanding between Korean and Japanese youth. The program led to overseas visits
where students met their pen-pals face-to-face in Korea. Earlier this year in 2014, I happened
to meet one of the original Japanese students—now in her 40s—who had been part of our firstwave of EFL pen pals. Amazingly, she and her Korean partner were still writing to each other!
They had kept in touch for 25 years, had traveled overseas to visit each other, had married
separately in their 30s, and then brought their families together to continue the exchange.

The Asian Youth Forum (AYF)
Part of my current work taking Japanese students into the world involves the Asian
Youth Forum (AYF), an initiative which I founded in 1989. This annual event, organized bycollege English teachers, brings together EFL students from across Asia for an exciting weekof seminars, workshops, and social events aimed at promoting cross-cultural communication,building international friendships, breaking down stereotypes, and discussing global issues—
all through the medium of English-as-an-Asian-language.
Over its 15 year history, 13 different AYF events have been held in locations such as
Seoul (Korea), Bangkok (Thailand), Taipei (Taiwan), Vladivostok (Russia), and Manila (thePhilippines). Each event is a unique gathering of Asian youth. AYF 2008 in Tokyo, for14

Cates, K. A.
Building Bridges of Peace and Friendshipexample, was hosted by the Japanese Association for Language Teaching (JALT) and brought
together 110 students from 16 Asian countries, including Bangladesh, Cambodia, China,
India, Pakistan, Singapore, and Vietnam.
These AYF events have given over 700 Asian youth the chance to learn about eachother’s countries, explore global issues, and make cross-cultural friendships. Attending thisAsian Youth Forum is a life-changing experience. The students who take part in each AYF
event not only improve their English skills but also broaden their horizons, deepen theirunderstanding of other cultures, and begin to see themselves as Asian citizens with animportant role to play in working for a better future.
My work in youth exchange has mainly involved using English to promote better
relations among young people in Asia. There are many other examples of how English
teachers have worked to promote peace between peoples and countries. One recent initiative
was described by McCloskey (2014) who described the role of English in bringing together
youth from hostile communities in Eastern Europe for an international EFL peace camp.
Examples like this show the potential of English teaching for promoting peace and friendshipin various regions of the world.
International friendship, trust, and respect can only be achieved through the actions ofdedicated people in countries around the world. College language educators have a specialrole to play in promoting mutual understanding by providing opportunities for international
exchange—through English—which bring together young people from neighboring countries
and conflict regions.

Teacher Training
Teacher training is another area where important peace education initiatives have takenplace. Forhan (1996), for example, described an EFL teacher training course which brought
together Israeli and Palestinian English teachers for professional development and mutual

15

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 2 (2016), 2–22

understanding.
The organization the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) has
shown its commitment to promoting international understanding through a series ofworkshops which introduce English teachers to experts, resources, and ideas from the field ofpeace education. These have included TESOL Day at the United Nations (TESOL’91, NewYork) at which UN personnel instructed English teachers on how to integrate peace issues
into their classrooms and TESOL Day at the Carter Center (TESOL’93, Atlanta, Georgia)
where teachers attended workshops on conflict resolution run by peace education experts. In
1995, a TESOL Summer Institute on Peace Education was held which gave English teachers
around the world a chance to learn the latest approaches for promoting peace through ESL.
My own involvement in English teacher training has ranged from peace education
workshops in Lebanon and Costa Rica to global education talks in Vietnam, Pakistan, and
Hungary. For 17 years, I taught a course entitled Trends: Global Issues for the MA-in-TESOL
program of Teachers College, Columbia University at its Tokyo campus. This gave graduate
students the chance to explore fields such as global education, peace education, and education
for international understanding, then go on to design and teach model English lessons onthese themes at their schools. If we want to effectively teach English for peace and friendship,
similar courses need to be introduced in teacher training programs around the world.

Professional Development
Learning about concrete ways to promote peace and friendship through EFL can be an
exciting aspect of professional development. One way is to explore the fields of global
education, peace education, and education for international understanding through books,
websites, and publications. Another way is to take part in workshops, seminars, andconferences, whether in Japan or overseas. One such event is Peace as a Global Language(PGL) <www.pgl.com> an annual conference which brings together peace educators,

16

Cates, K. A.
Building Bridges of Peace and Friendship

activists, and NGOs. Other events include the International Institute on Peace Education(IIPE) <www.i-i-p-e.org> held each summer in a different world region and the Institute forIntercultural Communication <www.intercultural.org> which offers courses on cross-cultural
understanding, empathy, tolerance, and peace.
A further step is to join a special interest group active in this area. The oldest of these is
JALT’s Global Issues in Language Education Special Interest Group (GILE SIG) which I
chair. This features a quarterly newsletter, a website, and an active program of presentations
around Japan. Similar groups overseas include the Global Issues Special Interest Group (GISIG) of the International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language(IATEFL) in England, and the Social Responsibility Interest Section (SR-IS) of TESOL in the
United States. Of course, JACET’s Kanto Chapter also has its own special interest group on
Global Education/ Education for International Understanding. All of these groups issue
publications, run websites, and provide ideas, activities, and resources that can assist
interested language teachers.
JACET members wishing to learn more about recent trends in this field are invited tosubscribe to the quarterly Global Issues in Language Education Newsletter<www.gilesig.org> which I publish. This provides news and updates on how language
teachers around the globe are working to integrate global awareness, peace, and friendshipinto their language teaching. Interested teachers are welcome to contact me for a free copy ofthe newsletter or to subscribe.

This Time, This Place
The challenge of college English educators to teach for a world of peace has been
articulated in UNESCO’s constitution which states “since wars begin in the minds of men, it
is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed” (UNESCO, 1946) andby educators such as Maria Montessori who wrote that “establishing lasting peace is the work

17

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 2 (2016), 2–22

of education; all politics can do is keep us out of war” (Montessori, 1949).
What Japan—and every country—needs is young people with language skills, crosscultural awareness, and international experience who can join with others in our global village
to work for a peaceful future. College English teachers have a key role to play in thisimportant task.
The year 2014 marked the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of World War I, a massive
tragedy that devastated Europe, traumatized a generation, and led to the deaths of 16 million
people. The year 2015 marked the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, a horrific war
which resulted in incredible human suffering, massive destruction, and the deaths of 80
million people around the globe.
These anniversaries present a chance for us as college language teachers to reflect on
the past, look to the future, and renew our commitment to building bridges of peace andfriendship through English. The 2014 JACET convention in Hiroshima was a special
opportunity for all of us to reach out, join hands, and begin working together to promote
P.E.A.C.E.—Peace Education for Action through Communicative English.
If language educators are to help overcome the stereotypes, prejudice, war, and violence
that haunt our world, we need to rethink our approaches to curriculum design, teaching
methods, classroom materials, and teacher training. The fields of global education, peaceeducation, and education for international understanding can help us to build peacefulclassrooms and schools while promoting tolerance, friendship, and mutual understanding in
our communities, our countries, in Asia and the wider world.

References
AMIDEAST. (1998). Young voices of the Arab world [DVD]. New York: AMIDEAST.
Brinton, D., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based second language
instruction. New York: Newbury House.

18Cates, K. A.
Building Bridges of Peace and Friendship

Brooks, E., & Fox, L. (1994). Making peace. New York: St. Martins Press.
Cates, K. (1989). Personal growth foreign language homework. Journal of the Faculty ofGeneral Education, 23, 219–235. Retrieved from http://repository.lib.tottoriu.ac.jp/Repository/metadata/2420
Cates, K. (1990). Teaching for a better world: Global issues in language education. The
Language Teacher, 14(5), 3–5.
Cates, K. (1999, October). English for inter-Asian understanding. Paper presented at Korea
TESOL 1999 conference, Seoul, Korea.
Cates, K. (2000). Global education. In Byram, M. (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language
teaching and learning (pp. 241–243). London: Routledge.
Classen-Bauer, I. (Ed.). (1989). International understanding through foreign language
teaching. Bonn: German Commission for UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.
unesco.org/education/pdf/35_58.pdf
Drew, N. (1995). Learning the skills of peacemaking. New York: Jalmar Press.
Families of the World. (1995–2015). Families around the world [DVD series]. Ohio: MasterCommunications.
Fisher, S., & Hicks, D. (1985). World studies 8-13: A teacher’s handbook. Edinburgh: Oliver& Boyd.
Forhan, L. (1996). Israeli and Palestinian educators collaborate to strengthen EFL programs
and professional cooperation. Global Issues in Language Education Newsletter, 22, 14–
15. Retrieved from http://gilesig.org/newsletter/22col.htm
Genron NPO. (2013). Japan South Korea joint opinion poll. Retrieved from http://www.
genron-npo.net
Global Issues in Language Education Special Interest Group, the Japanese Association for
Language Teaching. (1991–present). Global Issues in Language Education Newsletter.
Retrieved from http://www.gilesig.org

19

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 2 (2016), 2–22

Harris, I., & Morrison, M. (2003). Peace education. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
Hinkelman, D. (1993). Overseas tours to research social issues: Language learning throughexperiential education. Special Issue of the Language Teacher on Global Education,
XVII(5), 5–10.
Houghton, S. A., Furumura, Y., Lebedko, M., & Li, S. (2013). Critical cultural awareness:
Managing stereotypes through intercultural (language) education. Newcastle:
Cambridge Scholars.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1998). Cooperation in the classroom.
Edina, NM: Interaction Book Company.
Kniep, W. (1985). A critical review of the short history of global education. New York: Global
Perspectives in Education.
Kniep, W. (1987). Next steps in global education. New York: American Forum for Global
Education.
Larson, J. (1987). Seeds of peace: A catalog of quotations. New York: New Society.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mathieson, P. (2015). Dealing with stereotypes in the Japanese EL classroom. Global Issues
in Language Education Newsletter, 96, 14–16. Retrieved from http://www.gilesig.org/
gile-newsletter-96-july.pdf
McCloskey, M. (2014, March). Story-telling to prevent another genocide. Paper presented at
TESOL conference, Portland, USA.
Montessori, M. (1949). Education and peace. Chicago, IL: Henry Regerny.
Moskowitz, G. (1978). Caring and sharing in the foreign language class. Boston: Heinle andHeinle.
Nihon-kai Shimbun. (1991, June 13). Rinkoku no wakamono buntsu de shinko [Promoting
friendship with penpals in neighboring countries]. Nihon-kai Shimbun.

20

Cates, K. A.
Building Bridges of Peace and Friendship

Pew Research Center. (2013). Global attitudes survey. Retrieved from http://www.pewglobal.
org/2013/
Pike, G., & Selby, D. (1988). Global teacher, global learner. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Rivers, W. (1968). Teaching foreign language skills. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rogers, B. (1985). Rainbow war [Video]. Los Angeles: Pyramid Video.
Ross, S. (2011). Images that injure: Pictorial stereotypes in the media. New York: Praeger.
Shaheen, J. (2001). Reel bad Arabs: How Hollywood vilifies a people. USA: Olive Branch
Press.
SIPRI. (2015). Trends in world military expenditures. Stockholm: SIPRI. Retrieved fromhttp://www.sipri.org
Smith, C. (1993). The peaceful classroom. Mt. Rainier: Gryphon House.
Stevick, E. (1990). Humanism in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tanaka, K. (2015). Teaching peace and the atomic bombings in the EFL classroom. Global
Issues in Language Education Newsletter, 94, 12–13. Retrieved from http://www.
gilesig.org/gile-newsletter-94-february.pdf
TIME. (2001, April 30). Special issue: How the world sees Japan. Time Magazine.
UNESCO. (1946). UNESCO constitution. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (1974). Recommendation concerning education for international understanding,cooperation and peace. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/
education/nfsunesco/pdf/Peace_e.pdf
UNESCO. (1987). Linguapax Kiev declaration on “Content and methods that could
contribute in the teaching of foreign languages and literacy to international
understanding and peace.” Paris: UNESCO.
UN Works. (2003). What’s going on? [DVD series featuring global issues and Hollywood
celebrities]. Available from https://unp.un.org/bookshop/browse0d6b.html?sid=12&oid=021

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 2 (2016), 2–22

Yphantides, J. (2010). Think local, act local: Designing a peace education course. Global
Issues in Language Education Newsletter, 75, 17–18. Retrieved from http:// gilesig.org/
gile_newsletter_75_april.pdf

22Selected Papers

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 2 (2016), 24–40

Transcription and Proof-listening:
Investigating Effective Speech Reflection

Yoshitaka Kato
Kyoto University

Abstract
The present study aims to investigate how teachers should encourage learners to reflect on
their own speech in order to improve their speaking skills. Specifically, this study compared
the effects of two different types of speech reflection: transcription and proof-listening.
Although transcription has gained much attention due to its positive effects on improving
speaking skills, few studies have been conducted on proof-listening. Listening to recorded
speech, however, may be sufficient for quick speech reflection. In the study, a total of 52
university students in Japan were divided into two groups. Both groups reflected on theirspeech under each condition (i.e., transcription or proof-listening), followed by the same task
repetition, and completed a questionnaire about their attitudes toward the assigned activity.
The findings indicated that proof-listening had more immediate effects on the improvement ofspeech accuracy; the proof-listening group tended to paraphrase the original utterances more
dynamically, whereas the transcription group focused more on revising the original errors.
Regarding learners’ reaction to the assigned activity, however, the questionnaire results
revealed that the transcription group found the activity more interesting despite its
time-consuming nature. Pedagogical implications of both types of reflection and suggestions
for further research will be presented.

Keywords: speaking, reflection, transcription, proof-listening

24Kato, Y.
Transcription and Proof-listening

Introduction
Fostering ‘good’ speakers of English is one of the primary purposes of English
education in Japan. Although the word ‘good’ can be interpreted differently depending on the
educational context, recent task-based language teaching research suggests one possiblemodel of an ideal L2 speaker in terms of speaking complexity, accuracy, and fluency, termed
CAF (Housen & Kuiken, 2009). A ‘good’ English speaker in this context therefore can be
defined as well-rounded, speaking accurately as well as fluently with rich grammar andvocabulary.1 However, it is still considered difficult to develop learners’ speaking skills withbalanced CAF. Skehan (1996, 1998) argues, for example, that the difficulty may derive fromhuman’s limited attentional capacity, which results in trade-off between form and meaning
during task performance. By utilizing insights on effective educational interventions,language teachers are expected to foster speakers of English with balanced development.
One typical speaking exercise in the language classroom is task repetition (e.g., Bygate,2001), which can be defined as “repetition of the same or slightly altered task—whether thewhole tasks, or parts of a task” (Bygate & Samuda, 2005, p. 43). Bygate (2006), on the basisof Levelt (1989)’s speech model, stated that learners become familiar with a task during
repetition, and thus their attention shifts from the content to the form. Previous studies haveinvestigated the effects of task repetition, finding that even simple repetition of a task
improves learners’ speaking fluency and/or complexity to some extent (e.g., Ahmadian, 2011;
Bygate, 1996, 2001; Date & Takatsuka, 2012; Gass, Mackey, Alvarez-Torres, &Fernández-García, 1999; Lynch & Maclean, 2000). However, the effects were not always
consistent regarding the improvement of accuracy (Ahmadian & Tavakoli, 2011; Ellis, 2009).
One possible reason for this is that learners do not notice their own mistakes2 (as opposed toerrors) though they are treatable when noticed. Implied from this is the importance of
post-task activities, which stimulate learners’ attention to their own mistakes.
As a post-task activity, speech reflection has recently been assisted by the development

25

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 2 (2016), 24–40

of technology. One type of speech reflection is transcription, which requires learners to write
down their recorded speech word for word. Previous studies have shown that transcribing
one’s own speech leads to the improvement of speaking skills, especially in accuracy (Lynch,
2001, 2007; Mennim, 2003, 2007, 2012; Stillwell et al., 2010; Stones, 2013) and learners tend
to find transcription worthwhile as a post-task activity (Lynch, 2007; Stillwell et al., 2010).
Given the large amount of time and effort required for transcription, however, it needs to befurther investigated whether learners really need to “see what they meant” (Lynch, 2001) inorder to effectively reflect on their own speech. Listening to their own recorded speech, forexample, might suffice for learners’ quick reflection. Lynch himself, as one of the research
pioneers on transcription, actually noticed that point and called this proof-listening (named
after proof-reading), which “involves learners recording, reviewing, and ‘editing’ their own
speech” (Lynch, 2001, p. 125). Although he decided not to adopt this reflection in his classdue to practical problems, its effects are worth investigation because proof-listening is also
likely to elicit rich comments from learners and is in fact popular among them (p. 125). As far
as the author is aware, no studies have been conducted so far to examine the effects ofproof-listening. The present study therefore attempted to differentiate the effects of two
different types of speech reflection: transcription and proof-listening. This led to the following
two research questions.

RQ1. How do transcription and proof-listening affect the improvement of speaking accuracy?
RQ2. How do learners react to these two types of speech reflection?

The second question was added because a student-based retrospective evaluation isindispensable as “a task can only be said to have worked if the students have found it
enjoyable and/or useful” (Ellis, 1997, p. 39).

26

Kato, Y.
Transcription and Proof-listening

Methods
Participants
The participants were 52 second-year undergraduate students in Japan. Their averagelevel of English proficiency was intermediate, with a mean score in the TOEFL® Practice Test
(Educational Testing Service, 1999) of 91.4 (SD = 16.65), which is approximately 64–70 in
the TOEFL iBT® test. They were randomly divided into the transcription group and theproof-listening group. In the speech performance before the treatment, these two groups wereconfirmed equivalent in terms of their speaking ability measured by CAF (see Appendix A forthe detailed results of the statistical analysis). Before the study, the participants were told thatthe task results would not affect their grades, and only students who signed written
informative consent forms participated in this study.

Materials
For the purpose of this study, the following two materials were prepared: a speaking
task and a questionnaire.
Speaking task. This study adopted a TOEFL iBT® typed integrated task (Educational
Testing Service, 2009; see Appendix B for the task used in the study), in which learners wererequired to “understand academic lectures or texts and then to prepare spoken responses that
demonstrate understanding of such stimulus material” (Lee, 2006, p. 132). This task waschosen because the class targeted at acquiring the language skills necessary in academic
contexts, and the participants showed interest in this type of integrated tasks. Considering the
purpose of the study, the task was partially modified (i.e., learners were allowed to spend
more time in answering the question) so that they could prepare sufficient outputs for thefollowing speech reflection.
Questionnaire. A further material used in this study was a questionnaire, which
consisted of four multiple-choice questions. This questionnaire was conducted so as to27

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 2 (2016), 24–40

supplement the present study by better understanding learners’ own evaluation of speechreflection activities. Specifically, the questionnaire asked whether or not the assigned speechreflection was useful (Q1), enjoyable (Q2), time-consuming (Q3), tiring (Q4) with afive-point Likert scale.

Procedures
The present study used a between-group design with two types of speech reflection as
an independent variable (see Figure 1). The number of participants was 27 in the transcription
group and 25 in the proof-listening group. Both groups were asked three times in total tosummarize what they read and listened to. Between the second and third performance, thelearners in the transcription group were asked to transcribe their recorded speech while thosein the proof-listening group were asked to listen to their recorded speech, as much as possible
within five minutes. All the speech was recorded using the Movie Teleco software installed on
their computers. Because the aim of this study was to compare the pure effects of speechreflection, no feedback was provided regarding their speech performance during the study.

Figure 1. Procedures of the study.

Data Analyses
Speech data. All the recorded speech was first transcribed by the author and checked

28

Kato, Y.
Transcription and Proof-listeningby another rater, a near-native speaker of English, who started her PhD studies in Japan after
completing high school in Australia and a master’s course in the UK. She was judged as an
appropriate rater in this study due to her excellent knowledge about English (e.g., sheobtained a perfect 990 score in TOEIC just before this study was conducted), and her
unfamiliarity with ‘Japanese English’ was considered fair for speech evaluation. Following
the procedure of Koizumi (2005), the transcription was conducted with a policy of listening tolearners’ speech “sympathetically by taking the context into consideration” (p. 13). The rater
was then asked to identify errors in speech by distinguishing local errors from global errors.
This study defined local errors as errors that “affect a single element of the sentence” and“usually do not hinder communication” (e.g., errors in noun and verb inflections, articles) andglobal errors as errors that “affect the overall organization of the sentence” and “hindersuccessful communication” (e.g., word order, sentence connectors) (Burt, 1975, p. 61). Bothtypes of errors were then further labeled as revised errors or avoided errors for the deeper
understanding of error revision by the participants. This point will be fully discussed in the
Results section.
Questionnaire. Regarding the four multiple-choice questions in the questionnaire, thedifferences between the two groups were statistically analyzed by non-repeated t-tests. The
statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS version 20.0.

Results
Speech data
Figure 2 shows speech accuracy (measured by the number of error-free AS-units perunit) changed after the treatment in the transcription and the proof-listening groups. Bothgroups were originally equivalent in the level of speech accuracy, but after the treatment, asignificant difference was found between groups with a medium sized effect (t (50) = -2.42; p= .019; d = .68). This result implies that proof-listening assisted learners in speaking more

29

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 2 (2016), 24–40

accurately while transcription did not or made them less accurate.

0.40

speaking accuracy

0.35

0.37

0.31

*

0.30
0.25

0.31

0.24

0.20
0.15
0.10

proof-listening

0.05

transcription

0.00
2nd time(before the treatment)

3rd time(after the treatment)

Figure 2. Speech accuracy (the number of error-free AS-units per unit) changed after thetreatment. The solid line represents the transcription group while the dotted line represents theproof-listening group. * p < .05.

For a further analysis of the error revision, the percentages of local and global errors
revised after the treatment were calculated (see Table 1). As a result, regarding local errors,
the transcription group was found to encourage more appropriate revision of local errors thanthe proof-listening group with a small sized effect (t (50) = 2.04; p = .046; d = .41); whereas
regarding global errors, no difference was found between the two groups (t (50) = 0.59; p= .559; d = 1.05). This result suggested that transcription did assist the learners in revisinglocal errors more successfully than proof-listening, though the effects were not broad enoughto emerge as an improvement of speech accuracy.

30

Kato, Y.
Transcription and Proof-listening

Table 1
Percentages of the Revised Errors
Transcription (n = 27)

Proof-listening (n = 25)

Local errors

32%

Global errors

26% (10/39)

25% (7/28)

Total

30% (53/175)

23% (30/128)(43/136)

23%(23/100)

Table 2 shows the percentages of local and global errors avoided after the treatment.
Here, the avoided errors refer to erroneous expressions that were not used in speech after thetreatment. The result indicates the following trends; regarding local errors, proof-listening
tended more to encourage avoidance of local errors than transcription, though only a marginal
difference was found between the two groups with a medium sized effect (t (50) = -1.91; p= .062; d = .63); and regarding global errors, no difference was found between the two groups(t (50) = 0.61; p = .547; d = .13).

Table 2
Percentages of the Avoided Errors
Transcription (n = 27)

Proof-listening (n = 25)

Local errors

13%

Global errors

36% (14/39)

36% (10/28)

Total

18% (31/175)

33% (42/128)(17/136)32%(32/100)

When the avoidance occurs, paraphrased expressions are used instead. Therefore, theresults of Table 2 indicates that the learners in the proof-listening group tended more to decide
not to use the expressions they were not confident in and paraphrased more dynamically what

31

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 2 (2016), 24–40

they said after their speech reflection than those in the transcription group. This dynamic
paraphrasing seemed to have led to the improvement of speech accuracy.

Questionnaire
Results from the questionnaire provided insights into better understanding of theparticipants’ experience of speech reflection. Table 3 summarizes their responses to themultiple-choice questions (Q1–Q4), including the mean and standard deviation.

Table 3Results for the Close-ended Questionnaire Items (Q1–Q4)
Transcription

Proof-listening

M (SD)

M (SD)t (45)pd

Q1. Useful

3.86 (1.04)

3.44 (1.04)

1.39

.171

.40

Q2. Enjoyable

3.09 (0.97)

2.44 (0.96)

2.31

.026*

.67

Q3. Time-consuming

3.86 (0.99)

2.08 (0.86)

6.60< .001***

1.93

Q4. Tiring

2.73 (1.24)

2.72 (1.20)

0.02

.984

.01

Note. The score ranges from 1 (do not agree at all) to 5 (strongly agree). The valid answers
were 22 in the transcription group and 25 in the proof-listening group. * p < .05. *** p < .001.

The t-test results showed that significant differences were found between groups onwhether the speech reflection was enjoyable or not (Q2) with a medium sized effect (t (45) =2.31; p = .026; d = .67) and time-consuming or not (Q3) with a large sized effect (t (45) =6.60; p < .001; d = 1.93). These results indicate that the learners in the transcription group,compared to those in the proof-listening group, found their speech reflection more worthwhile
despite its time-consuming nature.

32

Kato, Y.
Transcription and Proof-listening

Discussion
The quantitative analysis of the speech data indicated that transcription andproof-listening had different effects on the improvement of local errors. The learners in thetranscription group, more so than those in the proof-listening group, revised the original errors
they made prior to reflection and restated their speech with more attention to grammaticalcorrectness. A further qualitative analysis of the speech data suggested that transcription
assisted in revising local errors such as singular-plural errors and article errors, which wasconsistent with previous studies (e.g., Mennim, 2003; Stillwell et al., 2010). Some examples
are given below.

Example 1: revision of singular-plural errors(before transcription) …the listening passage provides two example.
(after transcription)…the listening passage provides two examples.

Example 2: revision of article errors(before transcription) Listening passage shows two actual examples.
(after transcription) The listening passage shows actual examples.

Despite these positive revisions, however, transcription did not lead to an improvementof speech accuracy. This may have been caused by relatively small-scale revisions; somemistakes remained in the same AS-unit even after revisions, which prevented the effects fromemerging in the measured speech accuracy.
On the other hand, proof-listening led rather to the avoidance of local errors andtherefore more dynamic paraphrasing of the original sentences than transcription. Examples
are given below.

33

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 2 (2016), 24–40

Example 3(before proof-listening) In the listening passage, it is said that two points.
(after proof-listening) In the listening passage, two examples are given.

Example 4(before proof-listening) The reading passage says that when the one know that they are visible
to others, their activity is affected by this.
(after proof-listening) The reading passage says that the presence of others tend [sic] to alter
the way people behave.

Although the paraphrasing of the erroneous speech did not always lead to theimprovement of speech accuracy as some of the learners made different mistakes in the newly
paraphrased sentences (see Example 4), the effects of dynamic paraphrasing throughproof-listening seemed to outweigh these non-positive revisions (see Figure 2). Avoidance orparaphrasing in the abovementioned speech could be described as communication strategies(e.g., Tarone, 1981) that L2 learners use to convey their intended meaning. Thus,
proof-listening may have potential benefits when teachers decide to prioritize communicative
aspects rather than grammatical development of their students’ performance.
Regarding the learners’ reaction to the reflection activities, the questionnaire results
revealed that they showed more positive attitudes toward transcription despite its
time-consuming nature. This finding was consistent with that of the previous studies (Lynch,
2007; Stillwell et al., 2010). The participants in this study seemed to be motivated to revise
their speech through the transcription activity. However, it may not be concluded from only
this evidence that proof-listening does not have any motivational merits. For example, the factthat 60 percent of the participants in the proof-listening group chose 4 (agree) or 5 (strongly
agree) in the five-point Likert scale in Q1 (usefulness) suggests that almost as many of them34

Kato, Y.
Transcription and Proof-listening

found proof-listening useful as those in the transcription group. Both types of reflection
therefore can be included in the teaching options by practitioners.
Despite the findings described so far, this study has to admit some limitations. First, thelimited numbers of global errors made in the original speech might have affected the results
obtained in this study; contrary to the revision of local errors, no difference was found in therevision of global errors. Second, in order to raise the reliability of the study, long-term
studies need to be conducted for other participants, tasks, and educational settings. Thesestudies would help us to examine more effective use of speech reflection.

Conclusion
The aim of the present study was to investigate how teachers can encourage learners toreflect on their own speech in order to improve speech accuracy. Specifically, this study
attempted to differentiate the effects of two types of speech reflection (transcription andproof-listening) and clarify the need for learners to ‘see what they meant’ (Lynch, 2001)
during reflection. Evidence from the speech data and the questionnaire supported positiveeffects of both types of speech reflection; transcription can motivate students to revise theirown utterances and lead to successful revisions of local errors, whereas proof-listening tends
to encourage more dynamic paraphrasing of the original sentences, which may have more
immediate effects on the improvement of speech accuracy. These findings suggest apossibility of combining both ways of reflection rather than adhering to one of them. By
making full use of the merits of seeing and listening to recorded speech, practitioners mayhelp their learners to develop well-rounded speaking skills.

Acknowledgement
The author would like to express his sincere gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for theirvaluable comments and suggestions.

35

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 2 (2016), 24–40

Notes
1

In this study, the following measures were used to analyze fluency, accuracy, and(syntactic) complexity under the definition of Housen and Kuiken (2009) and Ellis (2009).
First, fluency was defined as “the ability to process the L2 with native-like rapidity” (Housen& Kuiken, 2009, p. 461). This was measured by words per minute. Second, accuracy wasdefined as “the ability to produce error-free speech” (p. 461). This was measured by the
number of error-free AS-units per unit. Third, complexity was defined as “the capacity to use
more advanced language” (Ellis, 2009, p. 475). In this study, syntactic complexity wasmeasured by the numbers of words per AS-unit.
2

Errors and mistakes are supposed to be differentiated but it is not easy to do so as

fixed terms such as ‘local errors’ and ‘global errors’ include both errors and mistakes.
Therefore, in the subsequent sections, this study decided to use these terms (i.e., errors andmistakes) interchangeably whenever the meaning is clear in context.

References
Ahmadian, M. J. (2011). The effect of ‘massed’ task repetitions on complexity, accuracy andfluency: Does it transfer to a new task? The Language Learning Journal, 39(3), 269–
280. doi:10.1080/09571736.2010.545239
Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online
planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral
production. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 23–49.
doi:10.1177/1362168810383329
Burt, M. K. (1975). Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 53–63.
doi: 10.2307/3586012
Bygate, M. (1996). Effect of task repetition: Appraising the development of second language
learners. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp.

36

Kato, Y.
Transcription and Proof-listening

136–146). Oxford: Heinemann.
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In
M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second
language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow: Longman.
Bygate, M. (2006). Areas of research that influence L2 speaking instruction. In E. U. Juan &A. M. Flor (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language
skills (pp. 159–186). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In R.
Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in second language (pp. 37–74).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Date, M., & Takatsuka, S. (2012). Effects of task repetition on oral performance of the sametask and a new task of the same type. Annual Review of English Language Education in
Japan, 23, 345–360. Retrieved from http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110009603314
Educational Testing Service. (1999). TOEFL practice tests Volume 2. Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
Educational Testing Service. (2009). The official guide to the TOEFL iBT with CD-ROM (3rded.). Singapore: McGraw Hill.
Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials. ELT Journal, 51(1),36–42. doi:10.1093/elt/51.1.36
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency,
complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474–509.
doi:10.1093/applin/amp042
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Fernández-García, M. (1999). The effects oftask repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49(4), 549–581.
doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00102
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language

37

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 2 (2016), 24–40

acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. doi:10.1093/applin/amp048
Koizumi, R. (2005). Speaking performance measures of fluency, accuracy, syntactic
complexity, and lexical complexity. JABAET Journal, 9, 5–33.
Lee, Y. W. (2006). Dependability of scores for a new ESL speaking assessment consisting ofintegrated and independent tasks. Language Testing, 23(2), 131–166.
doi:10.1191/0265532206lt325oa
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lynch, T. (2001). Seeing what they meant: Transcribing as a route to noticing. ELT Journal,
55(2), 124–132. doi:10.1093/elt/55.2.124
Lynch, T. (2007). Learning from the transcripts of an oral communication task. ELT Journal,
61(4), 311–320. doi:10.1093/elt/ccm050
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling forclassroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 221–250.
doi:10.1177/136216880000400303
Mennim, P. (2003). Rehearsed oral L2 output and reactive focus on form. ELT Journal, 57(2),130–138. doi:10.1093/elt/57.2.130
Mennim, P. (2007). Long-term effects of noticing on oral output. Language Teaching
Research, 11(3), 265–280. doi:10.1177/1362168807077551
Mennim, P. (2012). Learner negotiation of L2 form in transcription exercises. ELT
Journal, 66(1), 52–61. doi:10.1093/elt/ccr018
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied
Linguistics, 17(1), 38–62. doi:10.1093/applin/17.1.38
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Stillwell, C., Curabba, B., Alexander, K., Kidd, A., Kim, E., Stone, P., & Wyle, C. (2010).
Students transcribing tasks: Noticing fluency, accuracy, and complexity. ELT Journal,

38

Kato, Y.
Transcription and Proof-listening

64(4), 445–455. doi:10.1093/elt/ccp081
Stones, T. P. (2013). Transcription and the IELTS speaking test: Facilitating
development. ELT Journal, 67(1), 20–30. doi:10.1093/elt/ccs051
Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL Quarterly,
15(3), 285–295. doi:10.2307/3586754

Appendix A: Results of the Speech Performance Before the Treatment
Transcriptiona

Proof-listeningb

M (SD)

M (SD)t (50)

pd62.22 (14.00)

58.17 (17.42)

.93

.358

.26

0.31 (0.23)

0.31 (0.24)

-.03

.973

.00

11.08 (2.00)

11.08 (2.52)

.01

.992

.00

Fluency(words per minute)Accuracy(number of error-free AS-units per unit)

Syntactic Complexity(number of words per AS-unit)

Note. an = 27. bn = 25.

Appendix B: The Task Used in the Study
This integrated task consists of the following three procedures.
1. Reading
Social Interaction
People deal with each other every day. This interaction is at the heart of social life. The studyof social interaction is concerned with the influence people have over one another’s behavior.
People take each other into account in their daily behavior and in fact, the very presence ofothers can affect behavior. For example, one principle of social interaction, audience effects,
suggests that individuals’ work is affected by their knowledge that they are visible to others,

39

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 2 (2016), 24–40

that the presence of others tends to alter the way people behave or perform an activity.

2. Listening(The lecture lasts for approximately one and a half minutes.)

3. Speaking
Question: How does the information in the listening passage add to the information in thereading passage? (This section was adapted for the purpose of the study.)

Note. From The Official Guide to the TOEFL iBT with CD-ROM (3rd ed.) (p. 274), by
Educational Testing Service, 2009, Singapore: McGraw Hill. Copyright 2009 by Educational
Testing Service. Adapted with permission.

40Submission Guidelines

JACET International Convention Selected Papers, Vol. 2
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 18, 2014
Submission Deadline: 11:59 PM Japan Time, January 9, 2015
Submission Form:
http://www.jacet.org/2014convention/spsubmission/submission.html
A. Requirements
1. A paper must be based on a presentation (oral or regular poster presentation) given at the
JACET 53rd International Convention and the first contributor must be a member of
JACET. All other contributors must have also presented the work at the JACET 53rd
International Convention.
2. A paper based on a plenary lecture may be submitted as an Invited Paper (by invitationonly).
B. Editorial Policy
1. JACET Selected Papers, a refereed, open-access electronic journal, encourages submissionof articles on methods, pedagogical research, and topics of significance to teachers ofEnglish.
2. Manuscripts submitted to JACET Selected Papers must not have been previously published,
nor should 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
in any 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.

42

C. Guidelines
1. Manuscripts should not exceed 30 pages on A4 paper, including abstract, references,
figures, tables, and appendix.
2. All manuscripts must be in English.
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 in English (no more than 200 words), and key words (nomore than 5 words).
3.8 For pagination, use Arabic numerals placed in the upper right-hand corner of each page.
3.9 Delete any textual references that refer to the author(s) and substitute with “*****”.
D. Submission Procedure
1. All contributors must complete a submission form on the JACET website, which can beaccessed from 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 fullname as in the following examples: suzukimasao or smithjohn. Submit the PDF fileby clicking “choose file” on the submission form.
2.2 If there are more than four authors, write all authors’ information on a separate file andsend 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 theappropriate acknowledgements are included in their manuscript.

F. Copyright
1. JACET holds the copyright of the articles published in JACET Selected Papers.

43

2.

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

44