ISSN 2434-8112

国際教育交流研究
International Education and Exchange Research

第7号

福井大学
University of Fukui

国際教育交流研究

第7号〈研究論文〉

文末表現「である」に関わる読みの困難さ― 非漢字系中級学習者の教育系論文読解過程のデータより ―


桑原

陽子

1

洋平，髙木

裕子

13

芳子

31

〈実践・調査報告〉

コーディネーター職にある日本語教師のキャリア形成― 大学及び日本語学校の専任・常勤教員 5 名を対象として ―


佐藤

綾，片野

ALTの専門的力量形成を支える省察的協働実践研究：
第一言語と第二言語によるふり返りと実践記録作成を通じて

ティップトー・ウィリアム，半原

日本の国立大学における課題探究プロジェクト教育においてのメンタリングとファシリテーティング:
地域創生のための PBL プログラムの紹介と学生の声によるコース成果の質的分析


ヘネシー・クリストファー

５１〈研究ノート〉

英語コミュニケーションにおける学習意識の支援：
2 つの大学英語コースからの比較研究結果


ロンバルディ・イヴァン

67

International Education and Exchange Research

Vol.7〈Research paper〉

Reading Difficulties Associated with Sentence End Expression “Dearu”－From Data Concerning Reading Comprehension Process of a Non-kanji
background Intermediate Japanese Learner－


KUWABARA Yoko

1

〈 Practice and research report 〉

Career Development of Japanese Language Teachers in Coordinator Positions:
For five full-time faculty members from Japanese universities and a Japanese
language school


SATO Aya, KATANO Yohei, TAKAGI Hiroko 13

A Study of Reflective Collaborative Practice Supporting the Professional
Development of ALTs:
From Reflection and Writing a Practice Record in First and Second Languages


TJIPTO William, HANBARA Yoshiko 31

Mentoring and Facilitating Project-Based Learning at a Japanese National
University:
An Introduction to a PBL Program for Community Revitalization and a Qualitative Analysis of Course Outcomes Using Student Voices


HENNESSY Christopher 51〈 Research note 〉

Supporting English learning awareness in spoken interaction throughcourse design:Comparative findings from two student cohorts


LOMBARDI Ivan 67

文末表現「である」に関わる読みの困難さ

文末表現「である」に関わる読みの困難さ－非漢字系中級学習者の教育系論文読解過程のデータより－

桑原

陽子
要

旨

本研究では、非漢字系中級学習者 1 名の教育系論文読解過程のデータから、文末表現「である」
を正しく読むことが難しかった事例を 3 つ取り上げる。名詞修飾説中の「である」、「である」の過去形「であった」、「でもある」「ではある」のような助詞を含む「である」である。その読解過程を具体的に記述しながら、正しく読むことが難しかった原因について分析する。その上で、「である」体で書かれた論文を効率的に読めるようになるために、「である」についてどのような知識を学習者に提供する必要があるかについて考察する。
キーワード：「である」、読解、教育系論文、非漢字系中級学習者

1 ．はじめに1 - 1 ．研究の目的「である体」とは日本語の文体の 1 つであり、論文など特定の読み手を意識していない書きことばだけに使われる（日本語教育学会, 2005）。日本語の論文は、一般的に「である体」で書かれる。日本語学習者が「である体」について学ぶのは、ほとんどの場合、論文の書き方を学ぶときで、「です」で終わる丁寧体を「である」に置き換えるという知識が与えられるにとどまる（e.g., 浜田・平尾・由井,
1997）。その結果、多くの学習者が、「である体」で書かれた文章の読み方について十分に学ぶ機会が与えられないまま、論文を読み始める。
そのため、文末表現「である」は、日本語で書かれた論文を読みはじめた中級日本語学習者にとって、
読みづらさの原因の 1 つである。桑原（2020）では、非漢字系中級学習者 1 名の論文読解プロセスを縦断的に調査し、学習者が「である」に対して読みづらさを感じていることを報告した。この学習者は日
本語の論文を読んだり書いたりする指導は受けておらず、論文の文末表現「である」について「嫌い」と話している。そして、調査を開始してから 1 年 3 か月後頃までは、文末表現「である」を自分にとってわかりやすい表現に言い換えて読んでいた。このような言い換えをするのは、読んだ内容を理解し覚えておけるようにするためであるという。たとえば、次のような言い換えが行われていた。
（ 1 ） a．
「構成していこうとしたのである」→「構成していこうとしたのです」→「構成していこうとしたんです」
b．
「考えているのである」→「考えているんです」―1―

国際教育交流研究第7号

c．「用いたものである」→「用いたものです」
d．「考えていたのであるが」→「考えていたのですが」→「考えていましたが」


桑原（2020）p.188より

しかし、その 1 年 7 か月後の調査では、（ 1 ）のような言い換えをほとんどしなくなり、それについて次のように述べている。
（ 2 ）「である」には慣れたので自動的に無視しているんだと思う。文の途中に出てくるとき以外は無視している。日本人はしゃべるときは「である」は使わないで、書くときには出てくる。
書き言葉になると文の最後に出てくる。文末に出てくる場合は無視しているが、文中に「である」があったら他の意味があると思って気をつける。


桑原（2020）p.188より

このコメントからは、学習者が文末表現「である」に慣れ、自動的に無視できるほどに難しさを感「でじなくなっていることがわかる。しかし、この学習者の読解プロセスを観察したデータの中には、ある」を無視できるようになった後でも、読むことが困難であった「である」がいくつか存在する。
本稿では、非漢字系中級学習者の読解を縦断的に観察したデータの中から、「である」を含む文がス
ムーズに読めなかった事例のうち、特に「である」の読みづらさについて学習者が言及したものを取り上げ、その読解プロセスを具体的に記述する。具体的には次の 3 つである。
（ 3 ） 名詞修飾節中の「である」（ 4 ）「である」の過去形「であった」（ 5 ） 助詞を含む「である」「生徒会長である田中」のようなものである。これは、同格を表す助詞「の」によって「生（ 3 ）は、徒会長の田中」のように言い換えることができる。（ 4 ）は、文末表現「である」の過去形で、「参加者は約300名であった」のようなものである。（ 5 ）は、「それは彼の長所でもある」「それは彼の長所でさえある」のように「である」と助詞「も」「は」「さえ」などがいっしょに使われるものである。
このように文末表現「である」の解釈や読み方について学習者が言及した事例を詳細に記述することにより、「である体」で書かれた文章を読めるようになるために、「である」の指導において何に留意すればよいか考察する。
1 - 2 ．調査の概要
本研究の調査対象者は、桑原（2020）の調査対象者と同じ非漢字系中級学習者 1 名で、調査当時日本の大学院で教育を研究していた。この調査協力者を桑原（2020）と同じく「学習者A」とする。学
習者Aの母語は英語である。

―2―

文末表現「である」に関わる読みの困難さ

学習者Aに対する論文読解プロセスの調査は、2015年11月から2019年 8 月までの約 3 年 9 か月の間に計16回実施している。調査を開始した2015年11月に、学習者Aは所属大学内の日本語の中級クラス
で『みんなの日本語中級I』を学習中であった。2016年 3 月以降、日本語の授業を受ける機会がなかったが、2018年 4 月に学内の日本語の試験で中上級相当と判定されている。
桑原（2020）と同様に、学習者Aには論文を読みながら考えていることを英語で話してもらい、その様子を録画した。調査には英語と日本語の通訳者 1 名が参加している。毎回の調査では、常に前回の調査で読んだところの続きを読んだ。調査中の学習者Aは普段通りに自分のペースで論文を読んでおり、同じ部分を自分が納得できるまで何回も繰り返して読んだり、メモを取ったり、必要があれば前回までに読んだところを参照したりしている。また、インターネットの辞書や翻訳サイト、スマー
トフォンのアプリなども、普段と同じように使って読んだ。
調査で読んだ論文は（ 6 ）と（ 7 ）である。どちらも学習者Aが自分の研究のために読む必要のあ
る論文である。
（ 6 ） 桝原有紀・遠藤光彦・吉田千春（2010）「学年プロジェクト」『研究紀要第38号 学びを拓く≪
探究するコミュニティ≫（ 3 年次）〜学びの必然性を問う〜』（福井大学教育地域科学部附属中学校）pp.227-234.
（ 7 ） 松木健一（2004）「ロングスパンの学習活動を支える物語としての記録」福井大学教育地域科
学部附属中学校研究会著『中学校を創る 探究するコミュニティへ』pp.187-192
また、学習者Aはこれらの論文の発行者である中学校の教育実践に参加した経験があり、論文が書かれた背景についてある程度の知識があった。
次節からは、学習者Aにとって読むことが困難だった「である」について、具体的な読みのプロセ
スを記述しながら、なぜ正しく読むことが難しかったのかについて考察する。本論文で引用するコメ
ントは、学習者Aが話したことをそのまま記したものである。日本語で話した部分は日本語で、英語で話した部分は英語で示す。ただし、フィラーは必要に応じて削除する。また、それぞれの事例がいつの調査のものかについては、［］内に示す。

2 ．名詞修飾節中の「である」
学習者Aにとって読むことが難しかった名詞修飾節中の「である」の事例は、（ 8 ）の下線部分である。
「 3 年間の学びのスタートである」が「テーマ決定」を修飾する修飾節である。調査で読んだ論文の中に、このような名詞修飾節中の「である」は他になかった。
（ 8 ） 12名で構成される実行委員が中心となって、第 1 学年118名一人一人の思いを大切にすることを考え、壁にぶつかりながらも話し合いを重ね、 3 年間の学びのスタートであるテーマ決定にチャレンジする姿を追った。
（桝原有紀・遠藤光彦・吉田千春, 2010, p.228）［第 4 回調査：2017年 7 月］

―3―

国際教育交流研究

第7号

最初にこの文を読んだとき、「 3 年間の」からの部分について、学習者Aは次のように話した。
（ 9 ） 学びのスタートであるテーマ。スタートで。As a start. あるテーマ決定にチャレンジする姿。
「学びのスタートであるテーマ決定」を、「学びのスタートで」「あるテーマ決定に」のように、不適切に区切っている。筆者が「スタートとテーマ決定の関係は？」と質問したところ、次のように答えた。
（10） The decision of the theme is actually part of the start of the three year learning.
この理解は正しい。しかし、（ 8 ）を読んで得た情報をもとにこのように答えたのではなく、当該中学校に関する知識をもとに答えている可能性があったので、「それは文を読んでわかったことですか」と質問した。すると、文が長いからうまく説明できないとしか答えられず、「である」が同格を表していること、「である」までが修飾節であることのどちらについてもまったく言及がなかった。
しかし、その後、（11）のように「スタート」と「テーマ決定」の関係について正しく把握することができた。（12）は、学習者Aが参照したウィズダム英和辞典の「である」の説明である。
（11）	テーマ決定にチャレンジする姿。 3 年間の学びのスタートである。What isである？
［ウィズダム和英辞典で「である」を調べる。］“be”. OK. There.［「–である」の 2 番目の意味【同格を表す】を指す。］
	“my father, a writer”. So ①it’s a description. ②It’s like a noun. ③Remove the である。
3 年間の学びのスタート、テーマ決定にチャレンジする姿を追った。
（12） ―である
1 【断定・指定などを表す】
be.（⇨ ― です）▶ 彼は大阪大学の学生である

He is a student at Osaka University.

2 【同格を表す】▶ 作家である私の父

my father, a writer / my father, who is a writer.

（11）では、（ 9 ）と異なり「である」を 1 つのまとまりとしてとらえている。そして、辞書を使って意味を調べ、それが同格を表すことを確認している。“my father, a writer” は、（12）の例文「作家である私の父」の英語訳を読み上げたものである。
「作家である私の父」と「 3 年間の学びのスタートであるテーマ決定」の構造が同じであると考え、（11）の下線部分①では「 3 年間の学びのスタートで「 3 年間の学びのスターある」が「テーマ決定」を修飾していることに言及している1。下線部分②は、トである」が（12）の例文中の名詞 “a writer”にあたることを指している。英語に合わせて「 3 年間
1

調査中の学習者Aは名詞修飾節に言及する際にdescriptionという表現を使うことが多い。

―4―

文末表現「である」に関わる読みの困難さの学びのスタートである」を名詞として扱えるように、下線部分③では「である」を削除しようとしている。これらのコメントからは、辞書で意味を確認するまで、学習者Aは同格を示す「である」の用法を知らなかったことがわかる。
（11）のように「である」の正しい理解に到達するためには、（ 8 ）の内容に関する筆者とのやりとりが必要であった。
（ 8 ）は文が長い上に、「チャレンジする」「追った」の主語の特定が難しい。そのため、誰がチャレンジするのか、誰が何を追ったのかについて何回か学習者Aに質問しなければならなかった。（11）のコメントはその過程のものである。そのため、筆者からの質問がなければ「である」を辞書で調べなかった可能性が高い。
3 ．過去形「であった」「である」の過去形「であった」も、学習者Aにとって読むことが難しい表現であった。
（13）では、文末の下線部分「であった」を正しく理解することができなかった。
（13） いきなり学年目標を決めるのではなく、理想の学年像をいくつかにしぼった上で、それらを満たす目標を決めるというのが討論会部門で話し合った進行の仕方であった。
（桝原有紀・遠藤光彦・吉田千春, 2010, p.228）［第 4 回調査：2017年 7 月］

下線部分「であった」について、学習者Aは次のように読んでいる。
（13）の文は 1 回読んだだけでは理解できず、何度も繰り返して読んでおり、a.は最初に読んだとき、b.は 2 回目、c.は 3 回目である。
（14） a．目標を決めることというのが、討論会部門で話し合った進行の仕方です。でありました。
b．それらを満たす目標を決めるというのが、進行、進行 is progressの仕方です。
c．それらを満たす目標を決めるという…のが、討論会部門で話し合った進行の仕方であった。でありました。であった。でありました。であった。
a.とb.はどちらも「です」と言い換えている。「であった」と時制は異なるが、意味的に大きな違いはない。しかし、c.では「であった」の意味をどう考えるかについて迷い始めた様子で、何度も繰り返し読み上げた後で、スマートフォンの辞書Yomiwaで「あった」を調べた。そして「あった」には「あった」「合った」「会った」の 3 つがあることを確認した上で、次のように話している。
（15） I don’t know if it’s であった、であう、or である。
（13）の下線部分「であった」は、「出会う」あるいは「出合う」の過去形なのか「である」
つまり、の過去形なのかがわからないという。そして、これについては最後まで答えを出すことができなかった。
「であった」を正しく理解することができなかったのは、その元の形に「である」「出会う」といった複数の候補があったことによる。

―5―

国際教育交流研究

第7号

そして、その複数の候補から適切な解釈を選ぶことができなかったのは、文全体の構造を把握することができなかったからだと考えられる。
（13）は文が長く、特に主語にあたる名詞節が長い。
「いきなり」
から「目標を決めるというの」までが主語の名詞節で、途中 2 か所に読点がある。そのため、「〜が〜であった」という単純な構造の文であるにもかかわらず、それを正しくとらえるのは非常に難しい。
さらに、「しぼる」の意味を誤解したため、「というのが」までの前半部分の意味を正しく理解できなかった。
（13）の「しぼる」は、「取り上げる範囲を狭める」という意味だが、学習者Aは「レモンを絞る」の「絞る」だと考えており、「理想の学年像をいくつかにしぼった」を「理想の学年像をいく
つか脳をしぼって考え出した」と比喩的に解釈した。さらに、「それを満たす目標を決める」を「生徒たち（＝それ）が満足する目標を決める」と誤って解釈した。このように、文の前半を正しく理解できず、前半と後半をうまく結びつけられなかった結果、文末「であった」を「でした」以外の意味で解釈しなければならないのではないかと考え始めたようである。
（13）以外の「であった」が正しく読めていることも、文全体の理解の難しさが（13）の「であった」の解釈を困難にした可能性を示唆する。
（13）以外には次の 2 つの「であった」があったが、どちらもほぼ正しく文の意味を理解しており、「であった」につまずくことはなかった。
（16） 学年目標決めの際にも意見が偏り、否定的な意見が飛び交う場面を経験しているため、議論は十分にしたいと考えながらも、上手くしぼれるか不安な様子であった。
（桝原有紀・遠藤光彦・吉田千春, 2010, p.232）［第 9 回調査：2018年 1 月］

（17） 子どもたち自身が 3 年間を振り返って、有意義な活動であったと実感できるよう、今後の活動を支援していきたい。
（桝原有紀・遠藤光彦・吉田千春, 2010, p.234）［第 9 回調査：2018年 1 月］

4 ．助詞を含む「である」
4 - 1 ．でもある
助詞を含む「である」の 1 つ目の事例は、（18）の下線部分「でもある」である。
（19）は文末の「でもある」について初めて言及したときのコメントである。
（18） 中学校の教師間に根深く形づくられてきた教科の壁が崩れる瞬間でもある。
［第12回調査：2018年 4 月］
（松木健一, 2004, p.189）（19） 壁。It’s a problem. It’s just read that there’s a が. And because it’s a が、this is あります。
（19）からは、学習者Aが「壁」のあとに「が」があることを理由に、（18）を「〜がある」という存在文だととらえていることがわかる。しかし、「壁が」は文末の「ある」ではなく「崩れる」に係っているため、「崩れる瞬間」をどう解釈するかが問題となった。（20）は、学習者Aのその後のコメントである。コメントはa.からc.の 3 つに区切って示す。

―6―

文末表現「である」に関わる読みの困難さ（20） a．I think because it’s が, this is just the setting. 何々があります。
b．But it’s でも。So that means it’s in connection with something.

瞬間で。

c．You don’t have space. If there’s a space between でも, I would know if it’s「で」「も」あります、か「でも」あります。I don’t understand.
なんで？

教科の壁。教科の壁。壁だから、「崩れる瞬間」「で」、「も」「あります」「でもあります」。I don’t know.
a.では、「崩れる瞬間」は「教科の壁がある」ことの状況（setting）を説明しているのだろうと考えている。そして（18）は「〜があります」という存在文だと再確認している。
しかし、b.で「でも」をどう考えればよいかがわからなくなっている。
「でも」は何かとつながっているのだろうとは考えているが、それが何かはわからない。c.からは、「でもある」について、「で」と「も」の間に意味の切れ目があるのか、「でも」でひとまとまりなのかわからず悩んでいる様子がわかる。このように、a.からc.のいずれも文末「でもある」から「ある」を取り出して、存在を表す動詞「ある」だととらえていることが共通している。そのことが、正しい読みを妨げた原因である。
動詞「ある」の前に助詞「も」が置かれた場合、その意味は累加（日本語記述文法研究会編, 2009）で、たとえば「授業もある」「場合もある」のように「も」の前には名詞相当のものがなければなら「も」が並んで置かれることはなく、学習者Aがc.で言うようにない2。動詞「ある」の前に助詞「で」「で」と「も」の間で意味的に切れることはない。そのような知識を持っていないことも、正しい読みを妨げたと言えるだろう。
また、（18）は文の構造をとらえるのが難しい。長い名詞修飾構造に加え、述語「瞬間でもある」の主語が省略されている。さらに学習者Aは、「瞬間」が理解しづらく、辞書的な意味のmomentではな
くopportunityのような意味で考えないと辻褄が合わないと話している。このように、文構造と意味を把握することが難しいため、文末の「でもある」をどう解釈すればよいかわからなかったと考えられる。それは、3.の「であった」がうまく読めなかった事例と同様であろう。
学習者Aは、最終的には（18）の意味を正しく理解することができた。正しい理解に至ったのは、文頭から「崩れる」までが「瞬間」を修飾する長い名詞修飾構造であることを正しく把握することができた直後であった。
なお、（18）の約 1 年後の調査では「でもある」を含む文がほぼ正しく理解できていた。文の構造を正しく把握できており、「でもある」で読みが止まったり、悩んだりしている様子はなかった。
4 - 2 ．ではあった
助詞を含む「である」の 2 つ目の事例は、（21）の下線部分「ではあった」である。（22）はそれに対するコメントである。
2

KOTONOHA「現代日本語書き言葉均衡コーパス」<https://shonagon.ninjal.ac.jp/search_form>で比較的文体が近いと考えられる「白書」を対象に「もある。
」で検索した場合、293例が抽出される。そのうち28例は（18）同様の「〜でもある」であり、その他はすべて「［名詞相当］＋もある」である。

―7―

国際教育交流研究

第7号（21） もちろん、子どもたちが主体の活動であるから、子どもたちが決めたテーマの追求を支援していくつもりではあった。
（桝原有紀・遠藤光彦・吉田千春, 2010, p.234）［第 9 回調査：2018年 1 月］

（22） もちろん、子どもたちの主体の活動であるから、子どもたちの決めたテーマの探究を支援していくつもりではありました。であった。ではある。What isでは？ ではあった。ない。ではありません。ではありました。である。
（22）の下線部分では、「ではあった」から「では」だけを取り出して、それが何を表すのかがわからないと言っている。その後、否定形「ではない」「ではありません」にも「では」が使われていることを手がかりに試行錯誤しているが、最後まで正しく解釈することができなかった。この日の調査の最後に「ではあった」について筆者が解説したところ、学習者Aは「ではある」「ではあった」のように「である」と助詞「は」がいっしょに使われた表現を学習したことがないことがわかった。
学習者Aは（21）のすぐ後に出てくる次の 2 つの「ではある」を含む文は、ほぼ正しく意味を理解していた。この 2 つの文を読んだのは、同じ日に（21）を読んだ後のことであり、筆者が「ではある」
について解説する前である。
（23） a．技術科の教師以外、映画に関する知識や技術を持っている教師はいないため不安ではある
ものの、「映画」というテーマは活動が一目でわかる。
b．子どもたちが主体ではあるが、教師側には 3 年間の見通しがなければならない。
［第 9 回調査：2018年 1 月］
（桝原有紀・遠藤光彦・吉田千春, 2010, p.234）「ではある」の用法を知らないにもかかわらず、（23）の 2 文につまずかなかったのは、「は」を読み飛ばしても辻褄の合う解釈が可能だったからだと推測される。たとえばa.では、意図的かどうかは明らかでないが「は」を読み飛ばして「不安であるものの」と読み上げ、“So that, a little, give them
不安”と話している。この解釈は間違っていない。b.については、「主体ではあるが」と読み “So eventhis is an independent activity for students”とコメントしている。いずれも、どの程度「は」を意識していたかは不明であるが、前後の文脈と齟齬のない解釈ができてしまったため、そこで読みを止める必要がなかったのであろう。
（21）の「ではあった」だけにつまずいた理由はデータからは不明である。
（21）と（23）の違いは、（21）の「であった」が助動詞「つもりだ」の過去形であること、文中ではなく文末に使われていることが挙げられるが、それがどのように読みに影響するかについては別途調査が必要である。
5 ．考察
学習者Aが正しく読むことができなかった、あるいは難しかった「である」の事例を 3 つ挙げ、読みのプロセスを記述した。2.の同格を示す「である」は、学習者Aにとって初めて見る用法であり、辞書を使用することで用法を正しく理解することができた。また、4.の助詞を含む「である」についても、学習―8―文末表現「である」に関わる読みの困難さ

者Aは「ではある」のような用法があることを知らなかった。このことから、同格を示す「である」と助詞を含む「である」は、論文を読むために取り出して学習する必要があることが示唆される。
特に、助詞を含む「である」は、助詞によってどのようなニュアンスが加わるのかを知らなければ、論文の筆者の評価を読みとることができない場合がある。たとえば、（23）は、実は筆者は子どもたちが決定したテーマに対して満足しておらず、それが「支援していくつもりではあった」の助詞「は」に表れている。文脈からもそのような否定的な評価は読み手に伝わるが、「は」によってそれが明確になっている。助詞を含む「である」をどう読むかについての知識は、そのような筆者の評価を読みとるという深い読みのために必要であろう。
次に、3.「であった」と 4 -1.「でもある」の事例からは、文構造の把握の難しさが文末「である」の解釈に大きく影響することが示された。読解プロセスからは、文全体の構造を把握するのが難しく意
味がわからない場合、別の文脈ではつまずくことがない文末の「である」に対して「別の意味を持つ
別の表現なのではないか」と疑い始め、正しく読むことができなくなる様子がうかがえた。
たとえば、（13）の「であった」については学習者Aが次のような知識を持っていれば、そのような難しさを克服することができたのではないだろうか。
（24） 論文においては「出会った」がひらがなで書かれることはない。そのため「であった」とひらがなで書かれていれば「だった」「でした」以外の意味はない。
この知識があれば、「もしかしたら他の意味があるのではないか」「 2 つの解釈が考えられるが、どちらが正しいのだろうか」という迷いは生じない。学習者Aは、（13）を読んでいるときに「あった」
を辞書で調べながら、「漢字で書いてくれたら楽なのに」という趣旨のコメントをしている。しかし、（24）の知識があれば辞書を調べる必要はない。
また、（18）の「でもある」については、次のような知識が必要であったと考えられる。
（25）「ではある」「でもある」のように「で」と「ある」の間に助詞が使われることがある。この場合、「ある」は存在を示す動詞「ある」ではない。ただし、「どこにでもある」「いくらでもある」のような「疑問詞（＋助詞「に」）＋でも」の場合は例外である。
この知識があれば、（20）のように、日本語の文の構造としてありえないものを想定して迷うということもないであろう。文末表現の意味が確定すれば、それをもとに文全体の構造や意味を分析的に読むことができたはずである。
学習者Aが（ 2 ）で言及しているように、学習者は「である体」に慣れるのに時間がかかる。本研
究の分析からは、単なる過去形の「であった」であっても、それほど簡単に読み進められるわけではないことがうかがえる。さらに、助詞がいっしょに使われる「でもある」「ではある」に対しては、想像以上に読むことに困難を感じることが示された。
構造がうまくとらえられない文に遭遇した場合、文末の「である」を含む述語部分を正しく解釈で―9―

国際教育交流研究第7号

きることは、文全体の正しい解釈の第一歩であろう。文末表現を適切に解釈できないということは、その文の述語が確定しないということである。述語が確定しなければ文全体を適切に読むことはできない。このように考えると、「「である」は丁寧体「です」あるいは普通体「だ」と同じ意味だ」という知識は、論文を書く時には有用であっても、論文を読む場合には不十分だと言える。効率的に論文を読むという視点から、（24）（25）のような具体的な知識を提供することが必要だと考える。
引用文献
桑原陽子（2020）「日本語学習者の読解過程の縦断的研究」野田尚史編『日本語学習者の読解過程』
pp.183-201. ココ出版
日本語文法記述文法研究会（2009）『現代日本語文法 5 』くろしお出版
日本語教育学会（2005）『新版日本語教育事典』大修館書店

浜田麻里・平尾得子・由井紀久子（1997）『大学生と留学生のための論文ワークブック』くろしお出版― 10 ―

文末表現「である」に関わる読みの困難さ

Reading Difficulties Associated with Sentence End Expression “Dearu”－From Data Concerning Reading Comprehension Process of a Non-kanji background
Intermediate Japanese Learner－

Yoko KUWABARA
In this study, three cases of the reading process of Japanese text were discussed, in which aJapanese language learner at an intermediate level with a non-kanji background had difficulties inreading the sentence end expression of “dearu” correctly in academic papers written on the topic ofeducation study. The three cases of “dearu” discussed here were the one in noun modifying clauses,
its past tense form of “deatta,” and the one that includes particles, such as in “demoaru” or “dewaaru.”
The reading comprehension process was specifically described, and the reasons the participant had
difficulties in reading them correctly were analyzed accordingly. In addition, what kind of knowledge
should be necessary for Japanese language learners to become able to read academic papers written
in the “dearu” style efficiently was discussed based on the analysis results.
Key words: “dearu,” reading comprehension, education study paper, intermediate level learner with a
non-kanji background― 11 ―

コーディネーター職にある日本語教師のキャリア形成

コーディネーター職にある日本語教師のキャリア形成－大学及び日本語学校の専任・常勤教員５名を対象として－佐藤 綾・片野 洋平・髙木 裕子
要

旨

本稿はコーディネーター職にある日本語教師のキャリア形成の径路と、その継続や選択に影響する要因を探ることを目的として行った、インタビュー調査の結果について報告する。本稿の調査対象者は、日本の大学及び日本語学校の専任または常勤教員 ５ 名である。その ５ 名に対して、
半構造化インタビューを １ 名につき ２ 〜 ３ 回行い、その結果をTEA（複線径路等至性アプロー
チ）の手法を用いて分析した。結果として、大学時代における原体験、大学院への進学、日本語教育に従事していた国からの帰国等が共通した径路として見出せた。また、キャリアの継続・選
択に影響を与える要因はキャリア形成の時期によって異なっていることがわかった。
キーワード：日本語教師、コーディネーター、ライフキャリア、キャリア形成、複線径路等至性アプローチ

１ ．はじめに現在の日本語教師の現状について、文化庁国語課（2021）によれば、ボランティアも含めた30代以下の日本語教師は全体の14.8%にしか過ぎず、日本語教育振興協会（2020）の調査においても30代以下の日本語教師は28.8%であったという。また、日本語教育振興協会の同調査では経験年数が １ 〜 ３ 年未満の教師が全体の23.6%であり、それが ３ 〜 ５ 年未満になると15.8%と減少し、さらに、10年以上の教師は全体の30.4%に過ぎない。これらは、今後の日本語教育を担うべき若手の日本語教師と呼べる層が少なく、またそのキャリアの継続が難しいという日本語教育の現状を表している。しかしながら、日本語教育業界の維持や発展を考えれば、若手を含む日本語教師にはそのキャリアを断念せずに続けていってもらう必要があるだろう。そして、そのためには、日本語教師のキャリア形成をどう支えていくかを考える必要があるのではないだろうか。
そのためには、まず、日本語教師のキャリア形成がどのようなものであるのかということを知る必要があるが、これについてはあまり明らかになっているとは言い難い状況がある。日本語教師のキャリア形成については、ヤマモト・押谷・遠藤（2006）が非常勤日本語教師の23名（平均39.6歳）のキャ
リア形成のパターンを見たり、奥田（2011）が ３ 名（教師歴 ７ 年、10年、20年）の「内的キャリア（働くことの価値をどこにおき、どのような仕事人生を送ろうとしているのかと言うキャリアの主観的側面）」を見たりしている。また、末吉（2012）は非常勤日本語教師 １ 名（教師歴 ７ 年）のキャリア形
成を日本の社会構造との関わりで分析し、布施（2019）は転職して日本語教師になった ４ 名（教師歴― 13 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

約 ２ 年）のキャリア形成を、TEAを用いて明らかにしている。しかし、これらの研究はそれぞれの視点が違ってること、対象者の日本語教師歴がそれほど長くないということ、そして、そもそも、まだ研究の数があまり多くないということから、日本語教師のキャリア形成の全体像や実態が詳しくはわ
かっていないと言える。
２ ．研究の概要
2 - 1 ．研究の目的
上記のようなことを背景とし、本研究（以下、本科研）は科学研究費の助成を受けて、『ライフキャ
リアから見る日本語教師のキャリア形成とその支援に関する基礎的研究』という題目のもと、日本語教師のキャリア形成はどのようなものであるのかを明らかにし、そのキャリア形成を支える方策を考え出すための基礎資料を作ることを目的に研究を進めている。
ところで、「キャリア形成」について、『社会学小辞典』（2005）は「個人が職業上の地位・役割を獲得しながら、職業人としての諸能力やアイデンティティを形成していくこと」と定義するとともに、それを規定するものとして、「職業組織の地位・役割をめぐる諸条件と個人の職業に対する態度や価値意識さらには家族や地域社会での役割などの諸条件」を挙げている（p.113）。また、宮城（2001）は「キャリア」について、「近年ではキャリアの概念を『個人の人生・生き方とその表現法』であるとし、単なる職業・職務内容・進路にのみ留まらず幅広く全体的・統合的にライフ・キャリアを捉えるようになってきた」（p.12）と述べている。これらのことから、「キャリア」や「キャリア形成」について
は、単に仕事上の出来事だけではなく、それを取り巻く諸条件を含むその人の人生や生き方までも含めて見ていく必要があると考えられた。本科研では「ライフキャリア」を「人生や生き方を視野に入れた全体的・統合的なキャリアのあり方」と定義し、「ライフキャリア」の視点から日本語教師のキャリア形成を総体的に見ていくこととした。
2 - 2 ．研究の方法
2 - 2 - 1 ．複線径路等至性アプローチ（Trajectory Equifinality Approach: TEA）
その方法として、本科研では複線径路等至性アプローチ（Trajectory Equifinality Approach: TEA）を用いる。TEAとは、複数の異なる径路を通ったとしても同じ到達点（＝等至点）に達するという「等至性」の概念に着目した質的研究法の一つである。そのTEAの特徴は「ある個人のライフに生じた出来事とともに発生する心的な緊張関係とその場に働く記号をとらえ直し、過去・現在・未来へと続く非可逆的時間（Irreversible Time）のなかで径路（Trajectory）として描き、個人の実存に基づくモデルを構成することである」（安田・サトウ：2022; p. ２ ）という。このTEAは ３ つの要素から構成されており、それは対象選定の理論である「歴史的構造化ご招待（Historically Structured Inviting:、人間の時間経過とともにある文化化の過程を記述する技法である「複線径路等至性モデル
HSI）」（Trajectory Equifinality Model: TEM）」、人間の内的変容過程を理解するための理論である「発生の三層モデル（Three Layer Model of Genesis: TLMG）」である（安田・サトウ：2017；p.12）。
本科研においてTEAを用いる理由は、上述のTEAの特徴に見られるように個人のライフに関わる物事を描き、モデルを構成できるということ、TEMが等至点に焦点を当て、「そこに至る人の行動や― 14 ―

コーディネーター職にある日本語教師のキャリア形成

発達、選択や認識の変容・維持の様相を過程と発生を捉える観点から歴史的・文化的・社会的文脈と時間の中で描き出すこと」を目指している（安田ら：2015；p.31）ことから、日本語教師のキャリア形成を総体的に見ることができると考えたためである。さらに、TEAを用いて日本語教師のキャリア形成をモデル化できれば、どのような時にどのような支援が求められるかを可視化することができるのではないかと考えたためである。
2 - 2 - 2 ．研究対象
本科研では、このTEAを用いて、①コーディネーター職にある日本語教師、②コーディネーター職にない日本語教師、③日本語教師を辞めた元日本語教師の ３ つの属性の者を対象としてインタビュー
調査を行う。
2019年の『日本語教育人材の養成・研修の在り方について（報告）改訂版』において、コーディネー
ト業務の有無によって「日本語教師」と「日本語教育コーディネーター」に分けられていることから、本科研においても同様に①コーディネーター職にある日本語教師、②コーディネーター職にない日本
語教師に分けて見ることとした。③については、日本語教師を継続している人と比較することでキャリアを選択、あるいは断念する要因にどのような違いがあり、またどのような支援があれば継続できていたのかを見ることができると考え、研究の対象とした。
なお、『日本語教育人材の養成・研修の在り方について（報告）改訂版』では「日本語教育コーディ
ネーター」を「日本語教育の現場で日本語教育プログラムの策定・教室運営・改善を行ったり、日本
語教師や日本語学習支援者に対する指導・助言を行うほか、多様な機関との連携・協力を担う者」としている（p.19）。明確な定義づけはないが、組織に属している日本語教師でそのような職務を担うのは専任または常勤の雇用形態の教員であると考えられるため、本科研では、専任や常勤の日本語教師
を「コーディネーター職にある日本語教師」と捉える。
また、①と②については少なくとも15年以上の経験を持つ者を対象とすることにしたが、それは、ある程度長い期間でのキャリア形成を見なければ、どのような出来事や選択が継続に繋がるかを見られないと考えたこと、そして、筆者らの研究過程において、当初10年以上の日本語教師を対象とする予定だったが、約10年の経験がある日本語教師に調査を行なったところ、日本語教師を続けるか決められていない者がいたことから10年ではまだキャリアが安定しない可能性があると考えたことによる。
調査は、それぞれの属性につき、 ９ ± ２ 名を対象として行うが、それは安田・サトウ（2012）が、「TEMによる研究の対象者数は、 １ 人、 ４ ± １ 人、 ９ ± ２ 人、16± ３ 人、25± ４ 人という具合で、異なる質を生み出しうる」（p. ６ ）とした上で、「 １ ／ ４ ／ ９ の法則」を提唱し、 ９ ± ２ 名を対象とする
ことで径路の類型を把握することができるとしたためである。
３ ．本稿の位置付けと目的
筆者らは、「 ２ ．研究の概要」で述べた目的や方法により研究を進めているが、本稿においては、上述の ３ つの属性のうち、まずは、①コーディネーター職にある日本語教師について見ていく。また、本科研では、最終的には ９ ± ２ 名に調査を行うが、本稿ではその途中の段階の、 ５ 名の日本語教師の調査の結果について報告する。上述の「 1 ／ 4 ／ 9 の法則」によれば、 ４ ± １ 名を見ることで経験の― 15 ―

国際教育交流研究

第7号

多様性を見ることができるということから、本稿では類型化の前段階として、コーディネーター職にある日本語教師のキャリア形成の傾向を探ろうと考えたためである。
上記のことから、本稿はコーディネーター職にある日本語教師 ５ 名を対象として、そのキャリア形
成の径路と、その継続や選択に影響する要因を探ること、そして、類型化への示唆を得ることを目的とする。
４ ．調査の概要
4 - 1 ．調査協力者
調査協力者は、日本語教師歴が長く（15年以上）、かつ、コーディネーター職にある専任または常勤の日本語教師 ５ 名である。それぞれの詳細な属性は表 １ を参照されたい。
表１

調査協力者の属性および調査の実施

属性

調査協力者

A

B

C

D

E

主な勤務先

大学

日本語学校

大学

大学

大学

日本語教師歴

29年

34年

32年

23年

17年

調査

年代

50代

50代

50代

40代

40代

性別

女

女

女

女

男

調査時期

2018年
４、５、６月

2021年
８ 、10、12月

2021年
５、７月

2021年
９ 、12月

2022年
３ 、10、11月

インタビュー
時間

平均72分

平均76分

平均62分

平均70分

平均86分

4 - 2 ．調査の手順
調査に際しては、事前に調査協力者に研究の目的を説明し、個人情報の保護およびデータの取り扱
いに関する説明を行なうとともに書面でデータ使用の許可を得た。その上で、半構造化インタビュー
を ２ 〜 ３ 回実施し、その様子を録音および録画した。インタビューの １ 回目では協力者がどのようなキャリアを経てきたか確認しながら、そのキャリアを選択することになったきっかけや要因について尋ね、インタビュー終了後は録音データを文字化した上でTEM図を作成した。 ２ 回目以降のインタビューでは、初回のインタビューに基づいて作成したTEM図を見ながら確認を行なうとともに、キャリア形成についてより詳細に聞いておく必要があることを尋ねていった。初回同様、その録音データを文字化した上で、TEM図の修正を行ない、精緻化を図った。
調査の実施時期は2018年 ４ 月から2022年11月であり、インタビューの平均時間は約73分である（表１ 参照）。
５ ．分析方法
分析にあたっては、調査協力者毎にTEM図を作成してから、それら ５ 名分のTEM図を統合した。以下では、TEMに関する概念を説明した後、TEM図の作成について述べる。

― 16 ―

コーディネーター職にある日本語教師のキャリア形成

5 - 1 ．TEMに関する概念
TEM図を描くために必要な概念について述べる。まず、複数の異なる径路を通ったとしても達する
同じ到達点を等至点（Equifinality Point： EFP）
、その補集合的事象を、両極化した等至点（Polarized
EFP：P-EFP）という。さらに、等至点に至るまでに複数の径路が発生・分岐するところを分岐点（Bifurcation Point：BFP）、ある状況や行動・選択に至る上でほぼ必ず通るポイントのことを必須通過
点（Obligatory Passage Point：OPP）という。また、EFPに向かう個人の行動や選択に制約的・阻害的な影響を及ぼす社会的な力を社会的方向づけ（Social Direction：SD）、一方でEFPに向かう有り様をうながしたり助けたりする力を社会的助勢（Social Guidance：SG）と呼ぶ（安田・サトウ：2017）。
TEM図を描き出すために必要な概念と、本稿における意味を表 ２ に示す。本稿ではEFPを「現在の日本語教育に関わる働き方に落ち着く」とし、P-EFPを「働き方の模索を続ける」とした。その理由として、当初、EFPを「日本語教師を継続する」、P-EFPを「日本語教師をやめる」としていたが、本稿の調査協力者においては、現在の職場や働き方に落ち着くまでとそれ以降では起きる出来事や考え方に違いが見られたため、まずは現在の働き方に落ち着くまでの径路等を可視化し整理したいと考えた。
表２

分析のためのTEMの概念と本稿における意味

EFP（等至点）

現在の日本語教育に関わる働き方に落ち着く

P-EFP（両極化した等至点）

働き方の模索を続ける

BFP（分岐点）

キャリアの選択肢が生じた点

OPP（必須通過点）

日本語教師であれば経験するであろうポイント

SD（社会的方向づけ）

現在に繋がるキャリアの継続・選択を阻害する要因

SG（社会的助勢）

現在に繋がるキャリアの継続・選択を促進する要因

5 - 2 ．TEM図の作成
個々のTEM図の作成にあたっては、インタビューの音声を文字化し、そこから意味のまとまりに
よって切片化及びラベリングを行った。それらを上述のTEMの概念に当てはめ、時系列に沿ってプロットして作成した後、複数回のインタビューによりTEM図の精緻化を図った。
５ 名分のTEM図を作成した後、TEM図の統合を行った。統合にあたっては、 ５ 名のTEM図を比較し、そこに共通する出来事を抽出して、それらをOPPまたはBFPとして改めて捉え直し、そのOPP、BFPを元に統合TEM図の骨組みを作成した。OPPやBFP以外の出来事については複数名で共通するものや特徴的なものを統合したTEM図に記載していった。SDとSGについては、５ 名の調査協力者の、同時期に現れたSD、SGを意味内容によって分類してラベリングを行い、TEM図に記載した。なお、
本稿においては、 ２ 名以上に共通して見られたSD、SGのみを統合したTEM図に記載しており、個々の調査協力者にのみ見られたものは今回の分析の対象からは除外している。
６ ．分析結果
6 - 1 ．TEM図の分析
５ 名のTEM図を統合したところ、図 １ のようになり、OPP及びBFPで時期区分を行ったところ、 ４― 17 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

図 １ ．統合したTEM図― 18 ―

コーディネーター職にある日本語教師のキャリア形成期に分かれた。以下では、それぞれの時期ごとに記述していく。
１ ）第 １ 期：萌芽期（BFP１: 大学卒業まで）
この時期においては ５ 名ともが日本語教師や海外に興味を持ち始めていることから萌芽期とした。
まず、大学入学（OPP１）以前に、B以外は言語や日本語教師、海外に興味を持ち始めていたが、そのうち、A、D、Eは「家庭環境（SG１）」の影響で言語や日本語教師、海外に興味を持ったり、そうする
ことを応援されたりしていた。大学入学（OPP１）の際は、「言語や言語教育に対する興味（SG２）」により、C、D、Eは日本語教育や言語学系の専攻を選択した。
大学在学中には、 ５ 名ともが現在のキャリアにつながる原体験（OPP２／ A, B, D: 海外旅行・留学、
C: 日本語の授業見学、E: 教員・先輩の話や姿）を経験しており、そこにはA以外は「教員からの影響（SG４）」が見られた。また、AとBが早い時期から「海外志向（SG６）」になったり、Cが日本語教育を専攻したりしていた背景には、「国際関係の活発化（SG３）」や、「バブル期（SG５）」という時代背景があった。
A、C、D、Eは在学中に就職活動を行ったが、そこには、C、D、Eについては「周囲の影響（SD１）」があったという。大学卒業（BFP１）後の進路選択は、A、B、Cは「バブル期（SD3／ SG５）」の影響を受けており、一方、DとEは自身でも「モラトリアム（SG７）」だったとして、大学院進学という選択を行なったが、モラトリアムは第 ３ 期の初めくらいまで続いていた。
２ ）第 ２ 期：基礎作り期（BFP１: 大学卒業〜OPP３: 修士号取得）
大学卒業（BFP１）後、Aは一般企業に就職して退職した後、海外で日本語教育を始め、BとCは日本語学校に就職して、それぞれの日本語教師キャリアを開始させた。その後、退職や転職等を経て大学院（修士課程）に入学（BFP２）した。一方で、Dは直接、Eは研究生を経て大学院（修士課程）に入学（BFP２）した。入学後は、それぞれが大学院で現在の土台となるような経験をし、修士号取得（OPP３）に至る。第 ２ 期は全員が日本語教師として働き始めたり日本語教師に必要な知識や経験の土台を作っていることから基礎作り期とした。
この時期に日本語教師としてのキャリアを開始したA、B、Cに関しては、「仕事の面白さ（SG９）」が日本語教師を続ける促進要因となっていた。さらに、AとBについては、「日本語教師としてのスキルを伸ばしたい」「チャレンジしたい」という思いと共に、「このままここにいるとだめになるという危機感」「現在の日本語学校に勤務する意味を見出せない」から別の機関に移りたいという「成長欲求（SG10）」が見られ、加えて、「外国への興味（SG11）」が見られた。その反面、労働環境の悪さや学生の問題などの「職場環境（SD４）」が日本語教師を続ける阻害要因となっていた。また、この時期に結婚したBとCに関しては、「結婚による環境の変化（SD５）」がキャリア継続の阻害要因、日本語教育を続けやすい土地であった「夫の異動先」（SG８）が促進要因として見られた。
５ 人全員が大学院（修士課程）に入学（BFP２）したが、その背景には、教員や上司、家族等、「周囲の後押し・環境（SG15）」がある。なお、第 ２ 期から第 ３ 期にかけて、ある程度 ５ 人に共通して現れている促進要因として、「経済的基盤・余裕（SG12）」、「周囲の人とのつながり・刺激・サポート（SG13）」、「メンター的存在（SG14）」が見られた。
３ ）第 ３ 期：キャリア模索期（OPP３: 修士号取得〜BFP３: 帰国）― 19 ―

国際教育交流研究

第7号

修士号取得（OPP３）後、AとBとEは海外での日本語教育を開始または再開し、Cは博士課程修了
後、Dは博士課程進学後の留学及び修了後に海外での日本語教育に携わる。なお、CとEは海外に出た理由として、当時海外における日本語教師経験が重視されていたことから自身も行く必要があると考えた（SG20:キャリア形成における海外経験の重要性）という。第 ３ 期はそれぞれが様々な経験を重ねながら、自身のキャリアのあり方を模索していることからキャリア模索期とした。
この時期のキャリアの継続の促進要因は多くある。まず、海外で働くことや進学には「家族の理解・協力（SG17）」があり、また、海外で働く「やりがい／面白さ（SG23）」を感じてもいた。そして、この時期の少し前くらいから次の第 ４ 期にかけて、自分の能力や専門性と仕事の関係性を意識した要因「能力に応じた良い待遇（SG16）」は自分の能力を評価して良い待遇で遇してくれる職が現れてくる。
場を選択することに繋がり、また、「自分の専門性（SG19）」を活かした仕事をしたいという思いや、「職場と自身のマッチング（SG25）」という、自分自身の持つ経歴や能力がその職場に活かせると考えたり、その職場が求めるものが自分自身に備わっているのかを見極めたりしている要因が現れていた。さらに、自身の人生とキャリアとの兼ね合いを考えていることを窺わせる要因として「キャリア形成における海外経験の重要性（SG20）」（上述）、「年齢（SG22）」、「将来への見通し（SG24）」が見」については、自分の年齢を意識してどうあるべきかを考えたり、あるいは、られた。
「年齢（SG22）
何かをするにも年齢制限を実感する体験をしたりということがあったという。また、それと関連して「将来への見通し（SG24）」として、将来的にどこに住むか、自分のキャリアをどうしていきたいかということを考えていた。これらに加えて、全員が、この時期に「他者からの声がけ（SG21）」により海外において日本語教師としての何らかの仕事を得ている。
上記のような促進要因が見られた一方で、阻害要因としては「現地の居心地の良さ（SD６）」という、海外で勤務していた際に居心地の良さからそこにい続けようと思ったことがあり、また、「別業種への誘い（SD７）」という日本語教師以外の職への勧誘もあった。さらに、この時期に本格的に日本語教師を始めたDとEは学校の体制が整っていなかったり、学生があまりよくなかったりするなどの「職場環境（SD９）」が阻害要因となっていた。
この時期に博士課程に進学したCとDに関しては、研究に対する意欲や研究に対する自信という「研究心（SG18）」が見られた一方で、研究がうまく進まない「研究不振（SD８）」によって、自信を失う様も見られた。
５ 名全員が海外での日本語教育を経て、日本に帰国する（BFP３）。それを促したものとして、職」、自場の人間関係や労働環境の悪さなどの「職場環境（SG26）」、さまざまな「家庭の事情（SG27）
身の「年齢（SG22）」、「将来への見通し（SG24）」があった。BとEには「次の働き先を決めていない（SD10）」という阻害要因は見られたものの、帰国を後押しする要因の方が強かったようだ。
４ ）第 ４ 期：国内キャリア模索期（BFP３: 帰国〜EFP: 現在の働き方に落ち着く）
日本への帰国（BFP３）後、Cはすぐ現在の職場に就職できたが、それ以外の ４ 名は現在の職場に就職（OPP４）するまでに、Aは日本語学校に一旦就職、Bは地域の日本語教育に携わったり、大学、日本語学校で非常勤として勤務したりした後、博士課程に進学、DとEは大学において有期の常勤職として勤務するという径路を辿った。その後、各々が現在の職場で試行錯誤を続け、現在の働き方に落ち― 20 ―

コーディネーター職にある日本語教師のキャリア形成着くというEFPに至っている。第 ４ 期は、それぞれが日本語教師としての経験を積み、キャリアをある程度確立していたものの、国内での雇用が不安定だったり、日本における自分自身の人生や働き方をどうすべきかを模索していたため、「国内キャリア模索期」とした。
第 ４ 期は、A、B、Eは「家庭の事情（SG27）」により勤務地を決定している。また、職を得るに当たっては、既に現在の職を得ていたC以外は全員、「他者からの声がけ（SG28）」があった。また、その際には第 ３ 期にも見られた「職場と自身のマッチング（SG25）」の結果、自分にならできる、ある
いはやりたいと思ったようである。これらに加えて、Cは全国に留学生センターが作られたり、Eは留学生30万人計画が推進されたりという「日本の政策（SG29）」の影響を受けた。
この時期、C以外の ４ 名は現在の職場に就職するまでに、有期雇用や財源の枯渇による雇用終了、ポストの少なさなどの「不安定な雇用事情（SD11）」によりキャリアの継続に不安を抱いた。
6 - 2 ．SD（社会的方向づけ）、SG（社会的助勢）
本稿ではSDを「現在に繋がるキャリアの継続・選択を阻害する要因」、SGを「現在に繋がるキャリアの継続・選択を促進する要因」と意味づけた（表 ２ 参照）。統合したTEM図には、それぞれ11のSDと29のSGが見られた。ここでは、キャリアの継続や選択に影響する要因として、これらのSD、SGを整理していくが、SDとSGは「同じ事象であっても、人によっては促進的に働く場合もあれば阻害的な影響を及ぼす場合もある」（安田・サトウ：2012；pp.34-35）こと、「時間経過の中で、SDになることもあればSGになることもある」（安田ら：2015；pp.38-39）ことから、SDとSGを合わせて見た。その上で、似たものをまとめ、ラベリングを行った。また、佐藤・片野・髙木（2022）ではSDとSGを、自分自身で変えたり、意図して得ることができない、または難しい外在的な要因を「外的要因」、自身の内面に関わるものを「内的要因」として分けて見たため、本稿でも同じ手順を踏む。
6 - 2 - 1 ．外的要因
以下では「外的要因」とした各ラベルにどのようなSD、SGが分類されたかを説明する（表 ３ 参照）。
① 他者からの影響・支え
大学時代に「周囲の影響による就活（SD１）」があったり、「教員からの影響（SG４）」によって様々な経験をしたりしていた。大学院進学にあたっては家族や教員からの後押しや大学院に進学した先輩が周囲に多かったなどの「周囲の後押し・環境（SG15）」が見られた。第 ２ 期から第 ３ 期の途中にかけては同僚や大学院の仲間など「周囲の人とのつながり・刺激・サポート（SG13）」、指導教員や上司」がキャリアの継続を支えていた。
などの「メンター的存在（SG14）② 他者からの声がけ
第 ３ 期と ４ 期に見られ（SG21、28）、海外、国内それぞれで職を得ることに繋がっていく様子が窺えた。
③ 家族
調査協力者の興味関心が「家庭環境（SG１）」に影響を受けていたり、結婚に伴った「結婚による環境の変化（SD５）」や「夫の移動先（SG８）」によってキャリアの継続が左右されている様子が窺えた。
大学院進学にあたっては「周囲の後押し・環境（SG15）」が影響しているが、その中には家族の後押しも含まれている。そして、博士課程への進学や海外で日本語教育に従事することには「家族の理解・協力（SG17）」があった。また、日本への帰国や日本での勤務地の決定には「家庭の事情（SG27）」が― 21 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

大きく関わっていた。
④ 経済的基盤
第 ２ 期から ３ 期にかけて、大学院で学んだり、日本語教育に携わり続けるにあたって、家族の経済的基盤や奨学金などの確保などが見られた。
⑤ 職場環境労働環境の悪さや学生に関する問題、職場の人間関係などの「職場環境」の要因が日本語教師として働き始めた比較的初期（A、Bは第 ２ 期、D、Eは第 ３ 期）に現れており、これが日本語教師の継続を阻害する要因になることが窺えた。また、第 ３ 期の「帰国」にあたっては、「職場環境」によって日
本語教師をやめるというよりは、帰国を促す要因として作用していた。
⑥ 異なる選択肢への誘惑
ここで見られた「異なる職業選択（SD２）」「現地の居心地の良さ（SD６）」「別業種への誘い（SD７）」はいずれも、そこでそれらの要因に導かれていたら、現在日本語教師ではなかったり、現在の勤務地
表３
ラベル

①

②

③

④
⑤

⑥

⑦

他者からの影響・支え

他者からの声がけ

家族

経済的基盤
職場環境

異なる選択肢への誘惑

時代・社会背景

キャリアの継続・選択に影響した外的要因
時期

番号

SD/SG

１

SD１

周囲の影響による就活

１

SG４

教員からの影響

２

SG15

周囲の後押し・環境

２-３

SG13

周囲の人とのつながり・刺激・サポート

２-３

SG14

メンター的存在３

SG21

他者からの声がけ

４

SG28

他者からの声がけ

１

SG１

家庭環境

２

SD５

結婚による環境の変化

２

SG８

夫の異動先

２

SG15

周囲の後押し・環境

３

SG17

家族の理解・協力

３-４

SG27

家庭の事情

２-３

SG12

経済的基盤・余裕

２

SD４

職場環境

３

SD９

職場環境

３

SG26

職場環境

１

SD２

異なる職業選択２-３

SD６

現地の居心地の良さ

３

SD７

別業種への誘い

１

SD３

バブル期

１

SG３

国際関係の活発化

１

SG５

バブル期

１-３

SG７

モラトリアム４

SD11

不安定な雇用事情

４

SG29

日本の政策
注）網掛け部分はSD― 22 ―

コーディネーター職にある日本語教師のキャリア形成や働き方にはなっていない可能性があった。
⑦ 時代・社会背景
A、B、Cが日本語教育や海外に興味を持ったり、日本語教師になった背景には「バブル期（SD３、SG５）」や「国際関係の活発化（SG３）」があったり、DとEが大学院進学を選択したのには自身が「モラトリアム（SG７）」であったということがある。モラトリアムについては、高学歴化やバブル崩壊のような時代や社会構造の変化との関連で捉えられる（片瀬：2010, 髙坂：2016など）ことから、「時
代・社会背景」に分類した。第 ４ 期には「不安定な雇用事情（SD11）」があるが、ここには時限付きの財源でプロジェクトが動いたり、有期雇用が増えたりするといった社会状況が背景にある。一方で、「日本の政策（SG29）」で全国に留学生センターができたり、留学生30万人計画が進められたりする、
日本語教師にとっては追い風になるようなものもある。
6 - 2 - 2 ．内的要因
以下では「内的要因」とした各ラベルにどのようなSD、SGが分類されたかを説明する（表 ４ 参照）。
① 個人の志向性
ここには「言語や言語教育に対する興味（SG２）」や「海外志向（SG６）」「外国への興味（SG11）」というものが含まれ、個々人が何に興味があるか、どういう志向を持っているかに関する要因であった。
② 内発的動機づけ「人が仕事そのものに感じる面白さ、やりがい」（p.118）
内発的動機づけとは、荒木（2006）によれば、であり、「知的好奇心や自己の有能さ、自己決定といった人間の感情に密接したやる気」（p.121）であるという。そのような定義から、「仕事の面白さ（SG９）」「成長欲求（SG10）」「やりがい／面白さ（SG23）」を「内発的動機づけ」とラベリングした。
③ ライフキャリアプラン
ここには自分のライフを踏まえたキャリアプランに関するSD、SGが分類された。
「キャリア形成における海外経験の重要性（SG20）」は主に仕事上のキャリアを踏まえてのものだったが、「年齢（SG22）」
や「将来への見通し（SG24）」については、自分の年齢ではキャリアを含めて自分自身がどうあるべ
表４
ラベル
①

②

③

個人の志向性

内発的動機づけ

ライフキャリアプラン

キャリアの継続・選択に影響した内的要因
時期

番号

SD/SG

１

SG２

言語や言語教育に対する興味

１-３

SG６

海外志向

２

SG11

外国への興味２

SG９

仕事の面白さ

２

SG10

成長欲求

３

SG23

やりがい／面白さ

３

SD10

次の働き先を決めていない

３

SG20

キャリア形成における海外経験の重要性

３

SG22

年齢

３

SG24

将来への見通し注）網掛け部分はSD― 23 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

きか、将来日本に住むか海外に住むか、自分のキャリアを今後どうしていくべきかなど、自分の人生を踏まえた仕事の仕方についての考えがあったようである。
「次の働き先を決めていない（SD10）」については、本来であれば次にどうするかを決めて動くのが望ましいが、日本への帰国にあたっては、それ以上に強い要因が働いていたようである。
6 - 2 - 3 ．その他
本稿では、SDとSGを「外的要因」「内的要因」に分けてみたが、そのどちらにも分類できないと考えられるものが二つあった。
① 自分と仕事の関係性
これは調査協力者が自分自身と仕事の関係を考えたものとなっていた。
「能力に応じた良い待遇（SG16）」については、自分の能力や経歴に適当な待遇を得たいという思いから、相応の待遇で遇してくれる職場を見定めていた。また、「自分の専門性（SG19）」については、自分の専門性を活かした仕事がしたい、あるいは、オファーされた仕事は自分の専門性が活かせるものであるかどうかと考えており、仕事における自分の専門性に対する誇りのようなものが見られた。さらに、「職場と自身のマッチング（SG25）」については、自分自身の持つ経歴や能力がその職場に活かせると考えたり、その職場が求めるものが自分自身に備わっているのかを見極めたりしている様子が見られた。
② 研究
研究については、第 ３ 期のキャリア模索期に博士課程に進学したCとDにのみ見られたもので、「研究心（SG18）」により、自信をつけたり、教育実践との関連で研究を進めたりしていた一方で、「研究不振（SD18）」によって、自信を失う様子も見られた。「研究」に関わるものに関しては、CとD以外には見られなかったが、CとDの職業アイデンティティと深く関わるものであると考え、記載した。
6 - 2 - 4 ．SDとSGの時期の分布
分析の過程において、キャリアの継続・選択に影響したそれぞれの要因が見られた時期に、ある程度の偏りがあることが窺えたため、時期ごとに整理した結果、表 ６ のようになった。
「時代・社会背景」と「家族」はどの時期においても見られたことから、キャリアを選結果として、
択・継続する上では、これらの影響を受け続けるということが考えられる。
キャリア形成の前半には上記の二つに加え、「他者からの影響・支え」「個人の志向性」「異なる選択肢への誘惑」が見られた。特に、第 １ 期の萌芽期から第 ３ 期のキャリア模索期まで「個人の志向性」
や「他者からの影響・支え」が見られることから、これらがある程度その人の人生を方向づけ、キャ
表５
ラベル
①

②

自分と仕事の関係性

研究

キャリアの継続・選択に影響したその他の要因
時期

番号

２-３

SG16

SD/SG
能力に応じた良い待遇

３

SG19

自分の専門性３-４

SG25

職場と自身のマッチング

３

SD８

研究不振

３

SG18

研究心
注）網掛け部分はSD― 24 ―

コーディネーター職にある日本語教師のキャリア形成

リア形成を支えた可能性が窺えた。一方で、キャリアが定まっていない段階では「異なる選択肢への誘惑」によって、日本語教師を辞めたり、現在とは異なる日本語教師としてのキャリアを歩んだりしていた可能性も窺えた。
他者との関連では第 ３ 期の前半くらいまでは「他者からの影響・支え」がキャリアの継続や選択に影響を与えていたが、同時期くらいから「他者からの声がけ」によって職を得ることに繋がっていた。
このことは第 １ 期から ４ 期まで常に「他者」の存在がキャリア形成に影響を与えていることを示しており、キャリア形成においては他者との関わりが重要であることが窺える。
次に、日本語教師としてのキャリアが比較的浅い第 ２ 期と第 ３ 期に見られた要因として「経済的基盤」「内発的動機づけ」「職場環境」があった。進学や様々な経験をするにあたっての「経済的基盤」
や、やりがいや仕事の面白さ、日本語教師としての成長欲求などの「内発的動機づけ」というのは、キャリアを重ねていく際の土台になるのかもしれない。一方、「職場環境」に関しては、日本語教師を開始して間もない時期においては阻害要因として働いていることから、継続を断念させる要素になりうるということが窺えた。
「自分と仕事の関係性」については、日本語教師としての経験を重ねると見られるようになり、第 ４期にはほぼ全員に見られる。
「ライフキャリアプラン」については、第 ３ 期に見られるが、これはある程度キャリアを積み、様々な判断を下さなければならない年齢になってきていることが重なって、この時期に見られやすいと推測される。
「研究」については、CとDが博士課程に進学した第 ３ 期に見られ、キャリアの模索と密接な関係にあることが窺える。一方で、Bも第 ４ 期に博士課程に進学しているものの、研究に関する要因は見られなかったことから、ある程度キャリアが確立している段階になるとキャリア形成に大きな影響を与える要因とはならないのかもしれない。

表６
第 １ 期：
萌芽期

SDとSGの時期ごとの分布

第 ２ 期：
基礎作り期

第 ３ 期：
キャリア模索期

第 ４ 期：
国内キャリア模索期

時代・社会背景（外）家族（外）他者からの影響・支え（外）他者からの声がけ（外）個人の志向性（内）異なる選択肢への誘惑（外）経済的基盤（外）内発的動機づけ（内）職場環境（外）
自分と仕事の関係性（他）
ライフキャリアプラン（内）研究（他）※ １ 表中の（外）、（内）、（他）はそれぞれ「外的要因」「内的要因」「その他」を意味する。
※ ２ 各期の途中から現れる／現れなくなっているSD/SGは、表においても途中から／途中まで記載― 25 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

最後に、時期ごとに見てみると、第 １ 期は「個人の志向性」以外は、全て外的要因となっており、萌芽期は外部の影響を受けやすいということ、第 ２ 期については、第 １ 期よりも影響を受ける要因が増えるということが窺える。第 ３ 期はすべての要因の影響を受けていることから、さまざまなことを考慮に入れながらキャリアを模索していると考えられる。そして、第 ４ 期には内的要因が見られないことから、第 ３ 期までにある程度自分自身が定まり、その上で、自分を取り巻く状況との兼ね合いでキャリアを選択しているのではないだろうか。
７ ．まとめ本稿は、コーディネーター職にある日本語教師 ５ 名を対象として、そのキャリア形成の径路と、その継続や選択に影響する要因を探ること、そして、類型化への示唆を得ることを目的として調査、分析を行った。以下では、分析の結果わかったこととそこから窺えることをまとめる。
１ ）キャリア形成の径路統合したTEM図から見られた、 ５ 名に共通する経路としては「大学入学（OPP１）」後、大学時代に「原体験（OPP２）」を経験し、「大学卒業（BFP１）」後は、各々の経験を経て「大学院（修士課程）入学（BFP
２）
」、「修士号取得（OPP３）」に至り、その後はいずれも海外での日本語教育に従事して「帰国（BFP３）」、
その後、「現在の職場に就職（OPP４）」して、「現在の働き方に落ち着く（EFP）」に至るというものである。
ここから可能性として考えられるのは、大学時代など比較的早い時期に現在のキャリアにつながる原体験をしたこと、大学院に進学したこと、海外における日本語教育経験が、現在の専任や常勤職の地位を得ることに何らかの役割を果たしているのではないかということである。早い時期に原体験を経験しておくことで、その後の行動や選択が動機づけられるであろうし、大学院進学によって自分の専門性や、メン
ター・仲間などの人的リソースを得ることにも繋がったことが推測された。また、海外における日本語教
育経験も職を得るにあたっては何らかの評価の対象になっていることも考えられる。そのような意味において、今回共通した径路というのは現在の職を得るのに重要であった可能性もあるのではないだろうか。
２ ）キャリアの継続・選択に影響する要因「 ６ - ２ ．SD（社会的方向づけ）、SG（社会的助勢）」において、11のSDと29のSGが、さらに11のラベルに分類されること、それらが「外的要因」「内的要因」「その他」に分けられることを見た。そして、11のラベルの時期の分布を見た結果、時期によって見られる要因が少しずつ違っていることがわかった。例えば、第 １ 期である萌芽期には外的要因が主であること、第 ２ 期（基礎作り期）と第 ３ 期（キャリア模索期）においては内発的動機づけや職場環境、経済的基盤という要因が出てくること、第３ 期には第 １ 期、 ２ 期の様々な要因が見られつつもライフキャリアプランに関わる要因が出てくること、第 ４ 期は主に自分を取り巻く環境に関する要因が出てきていたことなどである。これらのことか
ら、その人がキャリア形成のどの段階にいるかによっても、支援の仕方が違ってくるということが窺えるのではないだろうか。
「時代・社会背景」「家族」、そして、「他者」に関する要因については、今回の ５ 名のキャリ
また、ア形成のすべての時期において関わってきていた。これらはいずれも、外的要因であるため、変えることはできない、あるいは変えることは難しいが、これらが自分自身に関してどのような状況にある― 26 ―

コーディネーター職にある日本語教師のキャリア形成のかについて自覚的である必要があるのではないだろうか。
なお、「職場環境」については、キャリアの継続を断念させたり、職場を変えさせたりする要因になっていたことが窺えた。これは布施（2019）などの先行研究においても同様のことが言及されており、この点に関する実態調査や改善策、対処法などを検討する必要があるように思われる。
３ ）類型化への示唆
本稿では ５ 名の調査協力者のインタビューデータを分析し、統合したTEM 図を作成した。その際、40代と50代では影響を受けている時代や社会背景が違っているためか、初期のキャリア形成に違いが見られ、また、大学時代の専攻が日本語教育や言語系である協力者とそうでない協力者にも違いが見られた。そのようなことから、類型化にあたっては、年代や専攻によって分けて見ていく必要性があることが窺えた。
８ ．今後の課題
本稿では、 ５ 名の調査協力者の調査結果を通して、コーディネーター職にある日本語教師のキャリア形成の傾向が見られたと考えられる。しかし、 ５ 名中 ４ 名が大学教員であったため、今後は大学以外に勤務する日本語教師に対する調査を行いたい。
また、今回、複数名に共通するSDとSGのみを取り上げて分析したが、それにより個別具体的な要因が捨象されてしまったため、より具体的な支援策を考えるためには、個々のSD、SGを改めて詳細に見ていく必要があるかもしれない。
付記：本研究はJSPS科研費（課題番号21K00622）の助成を受けています。
参考文献
荒木淳子（2006）「第 ３ 章 動機づけの理論」『企業内人材育成入門 人を育てる心理・教育学の基本理論を学ぶ』（中原淳編著）, ダイヤモンド社
奥田純子（2011）「日本語教師のキャリア形成―日本語教育機関の教師へのインタビューを手がかりに」『異文化間教育』33, pp.60-80, 異文化間教育学会
片瀬一男（2010）「モラトリアム人間の就職事情」『東北学院大学教養学部論集』156, 1 -24, 東北学院
大学学術研究会
髙坂康雅（2016）「大学生活の重点からみた現代青年のモラトリアムの様相：「リスク回避型モラトリ
アム」の概念提起」『発達心理学研究』第27巻第 ３ 号, pp.221-231
佐藤綾・片野洋平・髙木裕子（2022）「日本語教師のキャリア形成とその形成過程に影響する要因の分析」『国際教育交流研究』第 ６ 号, pp.13-28
末吉朋美（2012）「日本語教師のキャリア形成 : 日本の社会構造における性別役割」『待兼山論叢』46,pp.97-114, 大阪大学大学院文学研究科
日本語教育振興協会（2020）『令和元年度日本語教育機関実態調査 結果報告』
濱嶋朗・石川晃弘・竹内郁郎編（2005）『社会学小辞典』有斐閣― 27 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

布施悠子（2019）「初任日本語教師キャリア形成過程の可視化の試み」『日本語教育』173, pp.46-60
文化審議会国語分科会（2019）『日本語教育人材の養成・研修の在り方について（報告）改定版』
文化庁国語課（2021）『令和 ３ 年度日本語教育実態調査報告書 国内の日本語教育の概要』
宮城まり子（2001）『キャリアカウンセリング』駿河台出版社
安田裕子・サトウタツヤ（2012）『ＴＥＭでわかる人生の径路-質的研究の新展開-』誠信書房
安田裕子・サトウタツヤ（2017）『ＴＥＭでひろがる社会実装-ライフの充実を支援する-』誠信書房
安田裕子・サトウタツヤ編著（2022）『TEAによる対人援助プロセスと分岐の記述

保育，看護，臨

床・障害分野の実践的研究』誠信書房
安田裕子・滑田明暢・福田茉莉・サトウタツヤ編（2015）『TEA 理論編

複線径路等至性アプロー

チの基礎を学ぶ』新曜社
ヤマモト・ルシア・エミコ・押谷祐子・遠藤清佳（2006）「日本語教師のキャリア形成：非常勤の事
例について」『日本語教育方法研究会誌』13（ ２ ）, pp.52-53― 28 ―

コーディネーター職にある日本語教師のキャリア形成

Career Development of Japanese Language Teachers in Coordinator Positions:
For five full-time faculty members from Japanese universities and a Japanese language school

SATO Aya, KATANO Yohei, TAKAGI Hiroko
This paper reports on the results of interview surveys conducted with Japanese language
teachers in coordinator positions to explore their career development and the factors that influence
their continuity and choices. The subjects of the survey for this paper are five full-time faculty
members at Japanese universities and a Japanese language school. The authors conducted two to
three semi-structured interviews with each of these five individuals, and the results were analyzed
using the TEA（Trajectory Equifinality Approach）. As a result, the authors found common paths
to be the formative experience in university, entering graduate school, and returning from a country
where they were involved in Japanese language education. In addition, it was found that, dependingon the stage of career development, the factors influencing career continuity and choice differ.
Key words: Japanese language teacher, Coordinator, Life career, Career development, Trajectory
Equifinality Approach― 29 ―A Study of Reflective Collaborative Practice Supporting the Professional Development of ALTs

A Study of Reflective Collaborative Practice
Supporting the Professional Development of ALTs:
From Reflection and Writing a Practice Record in First andSecond Languages

William Tjipto, Yoshiko Hanbara
Abstract
Japan implemented a Special skilled worker immigration program starting from April 2019.
It is extremely important to discuss how to support the professional competencies and Japanese
language acquisition of those workers. In this study, we focus on assistant language teachers (ALTs)
working as professionals in Japan and consider the development of ALTs’ professional competences
and Japanese language education. First, the background and issues of ALTs are summarized fromprevious studies. Next, as an attempt to provide language education that supports the competencebuilding of ALTs, we report on our approach and result of “reflection and documentation in first
language (English) and second language (Japanese)”. The procedure is as follows.
(1) The ALT talks about their own practices to a Japanese speaker in his/her second language(Japanese), and the Japanese speaker transcribes it and makes a record of it.
(2) The ALT makes a record in their first language (English) based on what was said to the Japanese
speaker and the Japanese record.
(3) The ALT talks about their own practices in Japanese to the Japanese speaker based on the English
record, and the ALT and Japanese speaker collaborate in reconstructing the Japanese record.
(4) Based on the reconstruction and discussion, the ALT further develops and reconstructs theirEnglish record.
In this practice, which was conducted over several sessions, the ALT talked about thedevelopment of his activities in the community. The ALT was able to develop his own roles and deepen
their confidence and competency as an ALT, and the Japanese speaker was able to consider the
ALTs’ situation as her own. In the future, we would like to expand this approach to technical interntrainees and foreign staff supporting students with foreign roots, while further examining the natureof language education that supports professional competence building.
Keywords: A LT, English, foreign language education, professional development, collaboration― 31 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

1. Introduction
Japan established a new resident status in 2019 called the “Specified Skilled Worker (SSW)” visa
in order to bring in foreign workers into the country and provide training and receive additional
labor workers. These workers are specialized into one of 14 fields from nursing care to agriculture.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs established a goal of 345,150 workers from 2019-2023, but as ofAugust 2022, only 73,512 of those visas have been filled in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic andsubsequent travel closures as a result.
With border restrictions decreasing over the past few months, the remainder of those visas will
likely be issued to new waves of foreign immigrants seeking to work and train in various professional
fields in Japan. The MoFA has stipulated that these workers need not be trained in their respective
fields prior to coming into Japan, so some may have little to no professional background. Further, inorder to naturalize in Japan, these workers will need to adopt Japanese not only to acclimate betterat their workplaces, but also to help them in their daily lives and the families of these foreign workers
who will also arrive.
In order to support these workers, the authors of this research considered various ways tosupport their language development alongside their professional development. Working in the
Department of Professional Development of Teachers at the University of Fukui, they focused on
their specialty of working with foreign teachers.
2. Background2-1. Foreign Teachers: ALTs
Within the Japanese context, the descriptive term of “foreign teachers” is often implied to be
the work of ALTs, as they are the most numerous in the country. ALTs are Assistant Language
Teachers, an assistant who is considered the language expert in the classroom, providing assistanceto a primary Japanese teacher. In a classroom, they often “team teach” and each are tasked inT2 (secondary or assistant) and T1 (primary teacher) roles, respectively. English is currently themain focus of foreign language instruction in Japan, so most ALTs are from or have had extensive
experience in countries that have English as a native or Official Language.
There are an estimated 6000 JET ALTs in Japan as of 2019 (JET Programme, 2022) andcountless more hired by dispatch companies such as Interac who have 3300 (Interac, 2022) or by
local Boards of Education. Their influence goes beyond language instruction, since they bring theirculture, nationality, and experiences along with their language ability, as even according to the JET
Programme (2022), their purpose is to “promote internationalisation in Japan’s local communities
by helping to improve foreign language education and developing international exchange at thecommunity level.” This can be seen as quite critical in Japan, where ethnic Japanese constitute 98%of the population (World Atlas, 2022), so encounters with foreign-born or foreign-raised people can be― 32 ―

A Study of Reflective Collaborative Practice Supporting the Professional Development of ALTs

extremely low outside of major cities. This is the reason why many of these ALTs are dispatched
into all areas of the country, even to smaller, more rural towns.
An ALT has a varied work life and it largely depends on a combination of a wide variety ofreasons, such as the ALT, the school and staff, the local Boards of Education, and even historicallyin some cases. In an elementary school, work largely depends on preparing and running games andvocabulary practice, occasionally working as the main T1 role during these activities. Junior highschool ALTs more often work strictly in the T2 role, helping the Japanese Teacher of English (JTE).
A high school ALT almost always works as a T1 role with higher ability levels or instructions given
strictly in English. Further tasks outside the classroom are dependent on the role the ALT has
positioned themselves at school.
This leads us to the official work of the ALT in English education. Most often and traditionally,an ALT provides the work of a live “tape recorder,” essentially having students repeat words orsentences from the textbook after the ALT. ALTs frequently prepare simple games, activities, andworksheets to reinforce or introduce vocabulary or grammar. An oft-repeated mantra of ALTs is“Every Situation is Different” (ESID) because of all these aforementioned factors.
As mentioned, many ALTs are dispatched into all corners of Japan. The number of foreign
people in a community can be as low as 4.22 out of 1000 people (Statista, 2022) in some areas like
Akita. With the largest minorities being Korean, Brazilian, followed by Filipino (The Translation
Company, 2022), the likelihood of an English learner encountering and interacting in person with anative English speaker can be quite slim. Therefore, the presence of ALTs in these communities canbe even more critical.
Grassroots Internationalization is to increase global awareness at a local person-to-personlevel and it is one of the major aims of the JET Program (Wain, 2011) and other dispatch companies(Interac, 2022). As it is one of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, internationalization of Japan in order topromote tourism, integrate foreign workers, and increase Japan’s presence in the international stage
moving forward will once again become more critical as the COVID-19 situation reduces in severity(MOFA, 2021). So as important as English education is, cultural understanding will have relevancetoward the future.
To that end, ALTs are encouraged to become a part of their local community, not only to
spread English, but to share culture and bridge understanding between different people in different
contexts.
2-2. BarriersMoving from different countries poses various challenges that prevent social integrationand educational development within a workplace. We consider these as barriers to overcome; notinsurmountable, but nonetheless potentially difficult to surpass without focused effort, training, or experience.

― 33 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

2-2-1. Understanding Cultures
There are wide differences in cultures between neighboring countries, but there are likely
even more differences between people from distant places around the globe. While it would be
impolite to discuss a whole country of people with stereotypical blanket statements, nonethelessthere are marketed differences in general between groups of disparate people.
As Japan and other Asian countries are often remarked as being quite different from otherforeign, notably western, countries, differences in cultures can mean different communication styles,
leading to different management or collaborative styles. Bridging this first step is one such barrier toovercome simple misunderstandings and communication issues.
2-2-2. Understanding Japanese Schools
Given that most ALTs are from countries where English is an Official Language, their schools
where they work often have different systems from their home countries. Japan derived much of
their Meiji-era school system from Prussian origins, although post-war era systems are said to bemodeled after the American school system. Despite that, it is difficult for typical American ALTs
to slot comfortably in the Japanese workplace and understand the deeper differences that havedeveloped unique to Japan in the last 100 years. Understanding the events, processes, and subtle
daily events is an important component of cultural integration. On a brief comparison between
Japanese and American schools, Studt comments, “differences between the two are so significant andso striking that they dwarf whatever similarities that do exist” (Studt, 2014). Curriculum not onlyis quite different in Japan than in many western countries, each school has marked differences andculture. Failing to understand these aspects of schools could mean potential failure to be accepted asa professional teacher.
2-2-3. Language Barriers
As a general statement, most Japanese people are not fluent enough in English to havenormal, daily conversations with foreigners who can only speak English. In order to adapt toa Japanese workplace, going beyond strict use of English and basic Japanese phrases becomes
extremely important and critical to adapting into the workplace, as there are many things that
occur daily in staff rooms which necessitate the use of Japanese. Among many ALTs who may feel
alienated, bridging the language gap by studying Japanese is one method they have to feel moresocially connected (Komisarof, 2006).
2-2-4. Time Constraints
Another unique aspect for ALTs and similar contract workers is the overarching, looming
problem of time, as the length of their immigration visa is dependent on their job contract offer. Job― 34 ―

A Study of Reflective Collaborative Practice Supporting the Professional Development of ALTs

contracts are commonly renewed annually and are finite. However, ALTs also face a unique problem
as the assistant in the classroom as they do not carry the lead in unit lessons or other primaryteacher responsibilities, so their time in classes are also similarly limited in comparison.
2-2-4-1. Time in Classroom
As ALTs are deemed “assistants,” they are not strictly essential in the continued day-today function in usual classrooms. By strict guidelines, they are not allowed to be teaching solo ina Japanese classroom because they lack a legal teaching license. As a result, they also do not haveto perform responsibilities such as give homework, evaluate overall student progress, and conduct
formal testing. They are often asked in junior high and elementary schools to have equal class timeover the number of classes in a given school, so this may mean dozens of different classes or more ina week for larger schools. Moreover, the ALTs in rural areas may be spread out over several schools
necessitating perhaps even less than once a week visit, per class.
This results in ALTs having little or no consistent time in any given classroom, limiting
their time in the classroom to develop curriculum or reaffirm useful educational skills. Some ALTs
bemoan that without detailed knowledge of each class and in order to minimize preparation between
classes, they often reuse the same or similar lessons or activities across schools and sometimes acrossdifferent grades. The repetitive nature of these lessons or activities limits the challenges of lesson
or curriculum implementation and management. In addition to their own professional detriment, thisinconsistency also limits the efficacy of their working relationship with JTEs and students.
2-2-4-2. Contractual Limits
As briefly mentioned, the length of an ALTs’ contract is usually an annual renewed affair
with their visa stay in Japan tied to that contract. MEXT-sponsored JET ALTs often have either amaximum of three to five years or even less, depending on the rules set by the prefecture and local
boards of education. Some private dispatch ALTs or direct-hire ALTs may have no permanent set
limit on renewed contracts, however, but it varies greatly with every company and school.
In any case, the contractual limits of most ALTs, with a perceived emphasis of “assistant,”
create a sense of a temporary position, leading to the feeling of being an impermanent, temporary
worker (Komisarof, 2006; Slagoski, 2014). They may feel uninvolved in the classroom and are unable
to develop their careers as a result of this temporal position, even though there may be some who
may wish to follow the career path within Japan (Slagoski, 2014) or further develop professional teamteaching pedagogy (Crump, 2007).
3. Professional Development
Professional workers need to keep their skills sharp in order to continually meet new challenges― 35 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

arising from their work and problems they may encounter on a daily basis. Teachers, ALT orotherwise, are among many of these professionals that need to keep working on their progress inorder to meet new educational developments and challenges in teaching amidst new curriculum
mandates and advancing technology that occupies the daily lives of their students.
3-1. DPDTThe authors of this research are currently employed at the University of Fukui Graduate Schoolin the Department of Professional Development of Teachers (DPDT). Their aims are to update andimprove the skills of in-service teachers and prepare new teachers with knowledge shared fromothers. They focus on modern education curriculum development, student inquiry-based learning, andfostering new ideas through collaboration and sharing in lesson study.
3-2. Reflection
Reflection is the action of thinking deeply and critically about one’s own work and experiences.
It is one important aspect to recognizing one’s own progress, experience, and proficiency, much
like viewing our past through a mirror. "Through reflection, he can surface and criticize the tacit
understandings... and make new sense of the situation of uncertainty or uniqueness...” (Schön, 1983,p.61). Reflections can be done over a short term, such as after a lesson, or long term, looking back overmultiple lessons or years. Beyond looking at one’s own teaching and process, the act of reflecting isimportant for the practitioner to consider student progress, learning, and reactions. Thinking backcan help one understand what approaches worked and why and, more importantly, it is necessary to
face future challenges better.
The importance of reflection is not necessarily to be critical of one’s own failures, rather it is
to take the positives and learn from ways that worked successfully and how students responded.
This reflection allows one to avoid the same or similar problems and overcome them for the next
time. According to Schön, this is called “reflection-on-action,” a post-reflection that all successful
professionals exercise
3-3. Practice Record
One important method to reflecting, retaining, and disseminating knowledge to a wider teachingaudience is through utilizing practice records. These reports are a record of the whole of a teacher’s
practice, including notes of the process, planning, methodology, and materials that goes into a lesson,and further, the results of those classes post-lesson. For teaching practitioners, keeping a practicerecord allows them to detail their own work, allowing for deeper reflection to better prepare for
future lessons. These practice records also serve as a benefit to the wider teaching community byhelping other teachers follow their journey, perhaps spurring new ideas and hints in others.

― 36 ―

A Study of Reflective Collaborative Practice Supporting the Professional Development of ALTs

As well as any lesson could go, the need to note student progress and reaction is an importantpart of practice records in relation to student-centered learning. Details of in-lesson student
observations such as focusing on the students’ reactions to directions, how they interacted with eachother, and how students approached and learned within the lesson, can be hugely beneficial for future
review. Practice records allow the teacher and others to look back and reflect on lessons from thestudents’ points of view, as well.
3-3-1. Practice Records of ALTs
While practice records can be beneficial for any practicing teacher, it can also benefit ALTs
uniquely in their job because of the nature of their assistant position relative to the JTEs. Since theroles as T1 and T2 often rotate fluidly in a well-run team-teaching class, the focus and attention of thestudents may alternate between the teachers. Writing and keeping a practice record detailing thesesituations can help them gain insight into the students’ learning and teacher roles in lessons. Theremay be times where two “chefs in the kitchen” of a classroom confuse the students, so reflecting on
those lessons are important for subsequent reflections.
ALTs occasionally are tasked to submit short report summaries to their superiors, but usually
after a term or some duration of time. They do not typically write long, detailed practice records,
so it is unusual to find those who have. One ALT who recently graduated from the University of
Fukui Master of Education program wrote a long-term practice record detailing his past, present, andfuture progress as an ALT. Ryan’s record was beneficial for himself as he could detail the strides,
struggles, and challenges he encountered in concurrently teaching and studying in their graduate
program. In reflecting on his record and sharing his experiences in writing and reviewing practicerecords, he noted, “...all of my knowledge, experiences, and life-long lessons I have gained thus far
came full circle. I garnered valuable insight while piecing together my past and considering how it
connected to my present and future as a teaching professional” (Thorton, 2022).
Through his written practice records, any reader would be able to stitch together the strides hemade during his time as a graduate student. His practice records showed his progress learning andstudying from others, but more importantly, readers are also able to review and follow his process,adding to the collective knowledge of education.
Although the sharing of practice records for ALTs is not widespread, there is potential forbenefits for ALTs to read and share such reports.
3-4. Collaboration
An important aspect of professional improvement is collaboration with other teachers. Wenger
et al. have often discussed the need for professional collaboration, working with others to learn fromthe community as a whole (Wenger et al., 2002). This includes not only veteran members with years― 37 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

of experience, but also inclusive groups of varied skill levels and backgrounds to collaborate and work
toward finding new solutions. These dynamic social structures form not only to resolve problems, butalso exist to continually feed the cycle of professional improvement.
As ALTs are members of the education community in Japan, they may also have ideas theybrought from their home country to share to other veteran Japanese teachers. Charmoyl, an ALT
working at Japanese elementary schools, also reflected positively about his work with other teachers.
“...the talks between staff of assorted levels of experience and different subjects of focus allowed me tore-evaluate my practice through a broader lens, and realise the true importance of my actions in theclassroom… I feel accomplished and more confident about my future as an English teacher” (Roopen,2022). The community of teachers he shared with helped his future career and perhaps his uniqueexperiences also contributed back to the Japanese teaching community.
Talking and sharing in discussion groups are one way for these groups to collaborate freely.
Professional group discussions are open and free, where members pose questions to the others in thegroup regarding their practice, seek advice, and give input in a non-critical, constructive ways. Rather
than one or two members strictly taking the lead as discussion leaders, they are considered more as“facilitators” in the discussions, guiding the topics forward when necessary, or metaphorically hands
off when others are organically taking the reins.
3-5. ALT Professional Development
ALTs seeking to improve their educational knowledge and skill set in Japan face hurdles, butthere remain many who are looking to continue their careers in education or even as an ALT. While
there are individual strategies that an ALT can employ to overcome aforementioned barriers, we aregoing to focus on one potential method that may benefit three major aspects to greater professional
development in Japan.
3-5-1. ALT Training
ALTs often come from non-educational degree backgrounds, so they may not necessarily
have the basic educational groundwork necessary to teach as a primary teacher or even simply how
to connect with students at a grassroots level. For JET ALTs, most are given a multi-day seminarin Tokyo and Interac, a large private dispatch company, gives approximately the same training inregional areas (JET Programme, 2019; Interac, 2022). They are offered semi-annual seminars, but thisis also often short one- or two-day affairs; hardly enough to cover the gamut of topics and challenges
that striving ALTs face. This abbreviated training does not give ALTs the full complement they needto really know teaching pedagogy.
Outside of the required training events, some ALTs can learn from others teachers in online
gatherings (Wang, 2021) that have become more accessible due in no small part to the COVID-19― 38 ―

A Study of Reflective Collaborative Practice Supporting the Professional Development of ALTs

pandemic. With the exception of such cases, ALTs are often left without other methods to study andlearn.
3-5-2. Language Development
JTEs and direct co-workers may often be the ALTs’ source of intercultural connection,correlating directly with job satisfaction. However, ALTs work with JTEs who often can speak
English to varying degrees and they may have to interact with other Japanese staff on a daily basis.
Komisarof found that some Japanese may tend to avoid speaking with non-Japanese in order to avoid
language issues stemming from lack of English ability (2006).
As previously mentioned, one roadblock to job satisfaction as an ALT in Japan is acceptanceby the staffroom. To feel connected in the staffroom professionally often requires interaction
with other teachers who have lesser ability, such as other subject teachers, the principal, etc.
Without higher Japanese language ability, it becomes difficult to truly make lasting friendships andconnections (Crump, 2007).
All this stresses a need for Japanese L2 language improvement for ALTs hoping to makedeeper inroads in their schools and with their careers.
3-5-3. Collaboration with Staff
One such method to better adapt to another culture is through the staff of the school. Slagoski
notes that the ALTs’ relationship with the staff (co-workers) was a key point on how they learned
about the school culture (2014).
4. Collaborative Development
The authors’ goal was to improve professional development and language learning throughcollaboration and practice records, creating a simple method to improve the knowledge, skills,
and language ability of the ALT who may seek to become more professionally capable at theirjob. Though these following steps may seem simple, they can be the basis of important building
foundations to further the careers of foreign professionals in Japan.
The methodology was to simultaneously benefit both the ALT and Japanese teacher throughthe writing of practice records in both English and Japanese and through discussions surrounding the
ALT’s practice in Japanese. The discussions would involve the ALT and a Japanese teacher aiding
their practice, perhaps a JTE or another Japanese staff member with English ability.
In this study, the ALT in question has been in-practice for eight years with a Japaneseability equivalent to the Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) by the Japan Foundation, N3
Intermediate, though through daily use, listening and conversational ability may be considered N2
Upper Intermediate.

― 39 ―

国際教育交流研究

第7号

The Japanese teacher in our trial is Ms. Hanbara, a Japanese language teacher and a staff
member at the University of Fukui. Her background as an educator is focused on Japanese language
education for foreign-born students. Her English-speaking ability may also be considered upperintermediate compared to most Japanese, but neither member is absolutely native in the others’
mother language.
4-1. Methodology
4-1-1. Initial Discussions
The first part of their methodology starts with the ALT sharing their teaching practice,
revealing their past work, their accomplishments and challenges, and even their future goals. The
topic of these initial exchanges can be left intentionally vague, encouraging open-ended discussion
from the ALT and freely allowing the ALT to circle in on the issues most concerning theirprofessional work. They can choose to focus on aspects they are proud of, are seeking to improve, or
perhaps challenges they are engaged in.
The Japanese teacher will provide support for the ALT, working as a “facilitator” to guidethe practice sharing forward, probing questions or seeking comments that generate ideas. During
the sharing session, the Japanese teacher listens intently and transcribes notes on the discussion,
encouraging further open-ended discussion from the ALT.
These discussions will be largely done in the ALT’s L2 language, Japanese in this case. Even
if the Japanese level of the ALT is limited, they can explain as much as they are able, borrowing
English words to fill their knowledge gaps as needed. The Japanese teacher will support them during
this time with traditional learner language support techniques, such as rephrasing and providingthem with the vocabulary organically as the ALT describes their practice.
The initial sharing and insight of the ALT’s practice, with assistance from the Japanese teacher,can be considered the spring from which the basis of the upcoming practice record flows. The ideasthat have been recalled or drawn through the discussions can encompass a wide-range of topics withmany not yet fully formed in the first step.
4-1-2. Practice Records
The next step will be primarily individual work, as the ALT will write the first draft of theirpractice record in English, based on further reflection, recalled episodic memories, and the discussions
made between the ALT and the Japanese teacher previously. The Japanese teacher will similarly
concurrently start to form a Japanese version of the ALT’s practice record from the previous
discussions and notes taken.
Although this step has little interpersonal communication, utilizing practice records are anecessary part of professional reflection. Writing the practice record creates a report of the work

― 40 ―

A Study of Reflective Collaborative Practice Supporting the Professional Development of ALTs

done by the ALT and forms a manuscript to later share with others regarding their teaching,learning, and improvement cycles. Most importantly, reflection is the practice by which professionals
become aware of their implicit knowledge and learn from their experience (Schön, 1983).
4-1-3. Further Discussions
During the process of writing, whenever convenient to the ALT and Japanese teacher,they can elect to further discuss the practice record throughout the planning and rough stages.
Using the forming English practice record as a base, the ALT will further discuss their practice inJapanese with the Japanese teacher. The Japanese teacher, as before, will listen and make notes,
also in Japanese. The Japanese teacher can also probe the ALT further, deepening their reflection
and prompting more ideas or specific clarifications. This will hopefully lead to additional leads andthoughts that the ALT could not have realized without this process.
This step has several different facets, all of which are meant to benefit both parties. The ALT
can gain new knowledge of their own practice through deeper discussion and different perspectives,
while improving their Japanese fluency. They will likely have learned new Japanese vocabulary
from the Japanese teacher relating to their work. The ALT can then reinforce these words throughdiscussion with other school colleagues or in classes. This will heighten their thinking process andperhaps lead to new realizations for future lessons by opening ways to engage with other Japanese
staff.
The Japanese teacher will also learn more about the struggles and experience from the
ALT, creating new perspectives they perhaps would have not obtained without deep discourse into
ALT practices. They will also have more information to write down in their notes to build their own
version of the ALT’s practice record in Japanese. Having this record will potentially provide newsources of knowledge of ALTs’ practice for other Japanese teachers who may seek to learn more,since there is comparatively much less information about ALTs working in Japan than there isstrictly about English language education (Crump, 2007).
4-1-4. Further Review
This fourth, but effectively not final step, will allow the ALT to further reflect upon their own
practice. The ALT will continue to add to their practice record from the discussions, questions, and
new insights gained from speaking with the Japanese teacher in step 3. The Japanese teacher will
also refine the practice record in Japanese. This will lead to deepening and improving the reflectionsof both parties as they proceed with the practice records.
As part of the continual, long-span improvement cycle, the previous step 3 and writing in step 4
may be done repeatedly throughout the process of writing the two practice records, whenever either
party needs and when time allows. This casual flexibility can help build additional rapport between― 41 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

the teachers, leading to further acculturation of the ALT and working practice of the Japaneseteacher in a mutual, collaborative effort. Moreover, this process can be further continued beyond
the needs of the practice record, as both parties can gain new knowledge from discussions and thewriting process.
4-2. Improvement through Discussion and Writing
Following the methodology presented above, the following section is dedicated to following
the ALT and the Japanese teacher’s actual experience in summarized form, in a compacted, practicerecord format. This may enable the reader to have a better understanding of the process that took
place over several months.
4-2-1. Initial Discussions
The purpose of professional development was a desire that started with the ALT and hishope to improve his ability, as he is seeking not only to improve his current occupation, but also his
work continuing into the future. A Japanese teacher volunteered to help his journey, as her own
teaching experiences revolves around Japanese language education and she has hopes to develop
knowledge to help skilled foreign workers.
In the initial online discussion, the Japanese teacher asked the ALT to briefly describe hispractice to her in Japanese. Once he started talking about his projects, she inquired if he had anyother things he had done as an ALT that he didn’t previously write about in his practice record forhis master’s degree. This broad question led him to focus in on some of the things he left out of his
record.
The ALT then started to focus on several major projects he had led that didn’t necessarily
fit his previous practice record, but through the process of describing, he realized the value ofrecalling to paper those aspects of his recent career. Most importantly he shared his years of leading
the Wakasa English Seminar, an annual gathering that saw the attendance of dozens of junior highschool students from seven local schools. He encountered several challenges surrounding planning,
implementing, and reflecting post-event in hopes of improving subsequent years. He also recalled
specific learning episodes with some new ALTs that created deep impressions on his teaching career.
4-2-2. Practice Records
After the first initial discussion, both the Japanese teacher and ALT progressed withtranscribing the ALT’s experiences into the first forms of the practice record. As the ALT wrote,
the practice record became longer and longer. He came to the realizations how those interactions
supporting other ALTs became a backbone of his previous practice record in regards to theformation and improvement of ALT communities within the prefecture. He began to reflect in― 42 ―

A Study of Reflective Collaborative Practice Supporting the Professional Development of ALTs

the record differently than he had before, realizing that also his own improvement cycle occurred
naturally through his engagement with English learners outside the classroom, becoming the main
theme of this writing.
4-2-3. Further Discussions and Further Review
Once a mutual time was available, both the ALT and the Japanese teacher came back
together online several short times to discuss the progress of their writing. The ALT followed his
own writing and discussed it with the Japanese teacher in Japanese. The teacher asked for details
about those outside the classroom experiences, leading to the ALT to add several projects over
his ALT career. Without such discussions, he would not have recall his experience with an English
eikaiwa group that he felt was only a small part of his community engagement. The Japanese teacher
encouraged the inquiry and helped the ALT realize that this was also a valuable volunteer experiencethat engaged with adult learners in different ways outside his time as a junior high school teacher.
Although the process may continue further, for the purposes of this ALT’s practice record,
the process continued over two months with several discussions occurring. Each time the ALT
was asked to describe his writing in Japanese, the teacher provided feedback and inquired further
into details. The ALT noted that recording his learning and teaching journey helped him to recall
important learning episodes to realize the lessons he learned throughout.
4-3. Results Analysis
The authors of this report find the results of the practice records and the positive communicationa subjective advancement in professional development, adding to educational knowledge andstrengthening rapport between the two teachers. There are some limitations of this research andmethodology that they would first like to address. The scope of the current research was extremely
limited with only one sample size and only focused only around the work of an ALT, with only one
method implemented, and there were no measurable, quantitative data results from the research.
This methodology follows closely with the continuous improvement cycle, as both parties learn
and share in discussions, put the information down in writing practice records, and further discussagain. While it is difficult for us to measure exactly how much professional development and language
learning occurred empirically, the process and the final practice records in Japanese and English
present a strong case toward showing the positive benefits for both teachers. Both practice records
evolved significantly from humble initial opening dialogues, through the discussions, which directly
contributed to more detailed content within the records, suggesting that deeper learning throughadditional reflection was shown.
For the ALT, the initial discussions started the groundwork for the whole, approximate 40-page
paper. By being asked questions and probed for feedback and comments, the ALT was able to recall― 43 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

details and projects he was involved in or helped to organize. This likely encouraged deeper thinking
in the ALT’s teaching practice and further discussions after the first led to revisions and additionalchanges and improvements through the writing. This improvement is also seen in the practice record
itself, deepening and expanding over the weeks these discussions occurred.
For the Japanese teacher, she was also able to ask questions, understand the ALT’s experiences
and struggles, and further encourage the ALT’s practice in the discussions. Her new knowledge
results were reflective in her own report of the ALT’s projects. Through these discussions andreport, combined with her past work involving other foreign-born workers, her new insight can beapplied in the future with other foreign students, teachers, and workers.
As for Japanese L2 learning for the ALT, it was also similarly difficult to quantitatively measure
the improvements made through the discussions and subsequent reflections. Since the discussions
were held in Japanese, the ALT speaking about their educational experiences in the L2 target
language allowed him to use, listen, and actively think in the target language, leading to sharpened
practical verbal skills. This likely contributed to language confidence in the ALT, especially despite
mistakes, the encouragement of the Japanese teacher understanding the conversation greatly
improved the ALTs’ outlook in continued subsequent discussions. The ALT was able to learn new
words related to education, increasing his vocabulary for use at his base school and deepening his
knowledge of his own work and of the Japanese education system.
4-3-1. Professional Development
The main goal of the discussions was to provoke reflective thought into the educational practiceof the ALT, encouraging them to think about their lessons and duties more. The questions posed by
the Japanese teacher not only challenge the ALT, but also provided the viewpoints from a Japaneseteacher. These new views can shed new insights into the job of the ALT they may not have been
consciously aware of. Further, as shown through the final practice record, the ALT also was able
to generate more ideas through the writing process and subsequent discussions surrounding theirpractice.
The practice record also serves as a tool for professional development for other readers in the
future, as others will be able to follow the practice, progress, and process of the ALT through reading
it and understanding his views and experiences. The details contained may provide future readerswith hints for their own practice as ALTs and increase their understanding about English educationin Japan, through the mindset of one individual’s experiences.
4-3-2. Language Development
Typical ESL or EFL learners build much of their initial language ability through practical meansof studying and talking about subjects at school (in the case of ESL) or through connections of their― 44 ―

A Study of Reflective Collaborative Practice Supporting the Professional Development of ALTs

daily life (in the case of EFL learners). In much the same way, professional (adult) learners can expand
their language ability and make improvements in their work by learning through discussion andreflection in L1 and L2.
The ALT in this example had a functional baseline level of Japanese ability, but they lacked
many words and confidence to explain their practice in Japanese to other non-English-speaking
teachers. They had been used to talking largely with other JTEs or ALTs about their practice inEnglish. Through this process, the ALT was assisted by the Japanese teacher and gained greater
confidence in speaking through actual speech rather than merely thinking or writing compositions.
These impromptu, free-flowing conversations between the ALT and the Japanese teacher naturally
led the ALT to utilize his Japanese language knowledge to convey past lessons and express
ideas about theoretical educational concepts. Developing L2 language through ALT professional
development can be a pragmatic way to draw out and instill useful, professional environment
language skills.
4-3-3. The ALT’s Personal Reflection
I worked as an ALT for eight years at a single base junior high school and studying Japanese
in a Master’s Degree program in Japan, but I still felt lacking in terms of overall confidence in myprogress as a teacher in a predominantly Japanese workplace.
While it had not changed my life overnight, I nonetheless left each discussion session
invigorated with confidence in my speaking ability in Japanese, despite the previous belief that I could
not string the words to convey many events in my work history. Words that I had not known I tried
to explain, while Ms. Hanbara did her best to understand and provide me with the more appropriate
vocabulary befitting of the topic.
But most importantly, it slowly dawned on me that I had forgotten many aspects of my workoutside my official ALT job title. I participated, joined, and led many events in my time thus far that
I didn't think were particularly exciting or contained valuable stories, at least not enough to compile
in a practice record. Shortly before this collaborative effort, I had written a long-term practice recordof my work as an ALT, including as much of my work as I felt was relevant, leaving many of theseoutside stories on the cutting room floor, so to speak. However, talking with Ms. Hanbara gave me an
insight to the subtle learning aspects of each event that I had not fully realized.
For example, I had left out of my graduate record my time as the ALT and seminar leaderof the Wakasa English Seminar. After talking with Ms. Hanbara, I realized that it was more than afootnote in my ALT career; I had not only encouraged greater participation of the ALTs, I had grown
the student attendance to nearly twice the initial size, and I always received positive comments fromall the attendees, JTEs, and ALTs alike. This was a learning episode that was part of improving mypractice that I didn’t initially believe was relevant or deserving enough to be included.

― 45 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

5. Future
5.1. Further Research
The authors recognize the numerous limitations of this current research paper and its ability tofulfill the promises of professional development and language improvement in other cases. Although
the methodology and logic are sound, it will need to be tested with a larger sample size of foreign
ALT subjects. As suggested in the introduction to ALTs, Every Situation Is Different, so thepersonal subjective views, professional skillset, knowledge, L2 language ability, working motivations,and beyond are all different for each ALT from different backgrounds. Their working relationshipwith others like a supporting Japanese teacher can greatly affect the results of a collaborative
methodology as detailed here. The process will need to be refined for other cases and expanded inscope with verifiable data.
5.2. Wider Applicability
It is important to recognize that the current scope of this collaborative practice is limited to
ALTs and Japanese teachers. Looking toward the future, there is potential for utilizing similar
methodologies for improving the practice of other professional foreign workers. The authors arelooking to further develop this methodology and find ways to adapt it to technical trainees, foreign
students, and other in-service foreign professionals working in Japan.
The concept of having Japanese professionals working closely with technical trainees and otherforeign students can similarly show positive results for professional development, allowing foreign
workers to learn more about their occupation from veteran professionals while simultaneously
learning Japanese. This can also benefit the Japanese professionals, as they can learn the process ofthe trainees and find new ways to understand their profession and development, perhaps allowing fortheir own reflection and streamlining in the future.
Further, there may be other ways to have collaborative efforts in other fields through suchprofessional discussions. We believe this can be one tool to build, share, and develop professional
knowledge through similar efforts.
References
Crump, A. (2007). Examining the Role of Assistant Language Teachers on the JET Programmewithin the Context of Nihonjinron and Kokusaika: Perspectives from ALTs. Retrieved
December 28, 2022, from https://www.academia.edu/9283919/Examining_the_role_of_
Assistant_Language_Teachers_on_the_JET_Programme_in_Japan
Foreign Policy. (2021). Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved December 28, 2022, from https://www.
mofa.go.jp/policy/index.html
History. (2019). JET Programme. Retrieved December 28, 2022, from http://jetprogramme.org/en/history― 46 ―

A Study of Reflective Collaborative Practice Supporting the Professional Development of ALTs

Japan to raise caps for skilled foreign workers at manufacturers. (2022). The Japan Times. Retrieved
December 28, 2022, from https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/08/30/business/japanforeign-workers-covid-visas/
Komisarof, A. (2006). Facilitating Positive Acculturation Outcomes Among American Sojourners
Teaching in Japanese Schools. Retrieved December 28, 2022, from https://k-ris.keio.ac.jp/html/
publish_file/100000064/10964645_pdf_input_1.pdf
Japanese Ethnic Groups. (2022). The Translation Company. Retrieved December 28, 2022, fromhttps://thetranslationcompany.com/resources/language-country/japan-japanese-language/
japanese-ethnic-groups.htm
Number of registered foreign nationals in Japan in 2020, by prefecture. (2022). Statista. Retrieved
December 28, 2022, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/687916/japan-foreign-residentsnumber-by-prefecture/
Roopen, C. (2022). Lesson Material and Material Lessons: Supporting Students English Study
Through Lesson Material. Japan: University of Fukui Department of Professional
Development of Teachers Graduate School.
Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. U.S.A.: Basic Books, Inc.
Slagoski, J. (2014). The adjustment process of sojourning English language teachers. University of Iowa
Research Online. University of Iowa.
Studt, Brin. (2014). A Comparison of American and Japanese Senior High Schools:
Homerooms, Homeroom Teachers, and the Sense of a “Home Base” for Students. Memoirs of Shonan
Institute of Technology, Vol. 49, No. 1, 137-150.
Teach English in Japan. (2022). Interac. Retrieved December 28, 2022, from https://interacnetwork.
com/why-be-an-alt/teaching/Thorton, R. (2022). The Golden Rule and Education Practice: Motivating Members of School
Communities Through Fostering Reciprocal Respect. Japan: University of Fukui Departmentof Professional Development of Teachers Graduate School.
Tjipto, W. (2022). Improving My Practice as an ALT: Community, Communication, andCollaboration in the DPDT Program. Japan: University of Fukui Department of Professional
Development of Teachers Graduate School.
Wain, M. (2011). The JET Program’s Legacy of Community-Level Exchange. Japan Spotlight, May /June 2011, 48-49.
Wang, L., Chihara, & Matsuda. (2021). Professional Development and Supportive Practices for Inservice ALTs Aiming to Become Full-time School Teachers: A Case Study of ALT Graduate
Students in the Middle Leader Course of United Graduate School for Professional Developmentof Teachers (in Japanese), Studies in and on Teacher Education, Vol. 14, 81-93.
Wang, L., Kuziw, M. (2021). Developing Community of Practice of ALTs and School Teachers: Design― 47 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

and Management of Monthly Online Edu Café 2020.1 ~ 2021.12. Studies in and on Teacher
Education, Vol. 14, 141-160.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., Snyder, W. M., (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice.
Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
What Languages Are Spoken In Japan? (2022). World Atlas. Retrieved December 28, 2022, fromhttps://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-languages-are-spoken-in-japan.html― 48 ―

A Study of Reflective Collaborative Practice Supporting the Professional Development of ALTs

ALTの専門的力量形成を支える省察的協働実践研究：
第一言語と第二言語によるふり返りと実践記録作成を通じて

ティップトー・ウィリアム、半原芳子
日本では2019年に新たな在留資格である「特定技能」が創設された。受入れのあり方に関わって、かれらの専門的力量をどのように支えていくかの議論は極めて重要である。本研究では、日本で専門職として働く外国語指導助手（ALT）に着目し、ALTの専門職としての力量形成とその日本語教育の在り方を考える。まず、ALTの歴史的背景及び課題を先行研究から整理する。次に、専門職の力量形成を支える言語教育の試みとして筆者らが取り組んだ「第一言語（英語）と第二言語（日本語）による省察とその記録化」の取り組みとその成果を報告する。取り組みの手順は次の通りである。
1 ．ALTが日本語話者に第二言語（日本語）で自分の実践を語り、それを日本語話者がそのまま文字にする。
2 ．ALTは日本語話者に語ったこと及び日本語の記録をもとに第一言語（英語）で記録を作成する。
3 ．ALTは英語の記録をもとに自分の実践を日本語話者に日本語で語り、ALTと日本語話者が協働で日本語の記録を再構成する。
4 ．ALTは再構成された日本語の記録をもとに英語の記録をより発展的に再構成する。
複数回に渡り取り組まれた本実践では、ALTにより地域での活動の展開が語られた。そして、その活動の展開をあらわす英語と日本語の記録がそれぞれ作成された。ALTは自身の役割を発展させ、自信とコンピテンシーを深めると共に、日本語話者はALTの状況を自分事として考えるようになった。
今後、この取り組みを技能実習生や外国ルーツの児童生徒を支援する外国人スタッフに展開しながら、専門職としての力量形成を支える言語教育の在り方をより吟味していきたい。
キーワード：ALT、英語、外国語教育、専門的力量形成、協働― 49 ―

Mentoring and Facilitating Project-Based Learning at a Japanese National University

Mentoring and Facilitating Project-Based Learning
at a Japanese National University:
An Introduction to a PBL Program for Community Revitalization anda Qualitative Analysis of Course Outcomes Using Student Voices

Christopher Hennessy
Abstract
The author and a colleague in previous research defined the roles and the relationships in a
STEM Project-Based Learning (PBL) course in English between the course stakeholders –the students, the language instructors, and the engineering experts – in terms of ‘mentor’ and‘facilitator’ instead of the traditional role of ‘instructor’. In this paper, the author will first describe
as education practice a community revitalization PBL course of seven students conducted from
October 2021 to February 2022 in which the objective was to work with a local experiential
nature organization to develop regional promotion through multiple SNS platforms. Then, using
qualitative research methods conducted through an online questionnaire implemented at the startand end of the course, the author will explain how the students perceive their own relationships
with the course instructor and content instructor (i.e. members of a participating localorganization) to understand students’ predicted and realized perceptions of learning outcomes
and relationships in the course. Specifically, the qualitative analysis indicates that students inthis community revitalization PBL course see the course instructors mainly as facilitators who
support their metacognitive needs of students and the local organization members as mentors
who help develop their concrete skills. The author will finish by explaining how a mentoring/facilitating paradigm can be used to better explain the relationships students in a PBL course
have with other course stakeholders, leading to higher quality project-based learning and active
learning education.
Keywords: p
 roject-based learning, PBL, active learning, community revitalization, Fukui Prefecture

1. Introduction
In preparation for the 21st century, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, andTechnology (MEXT) has in part sought the development of problem-based learning, which according
to O’Donnell and Hmelo-Silver (2013) shares many facilitated collaborative inquiry characteristics― 51 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

with project-based learning (PBL): the main difference being problem-based learning focuses on “illstructured” problems and project-based learning focuses on a “driving question” at the outset (p.
12). Within Japanese higher education as an education achievement target for the “[d]evelopment ofabilities for social and vocational independence” and the promotion of innovative educational
content and methods for cultivating students’ academic abilities through active learning (Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2013).
In response, a large number of universities all over Japan have sought to incorporate
PBL education into their curriculums. The School of Global and Community Studies (GCS) at the
University of Fukui was established in 2016 and is one example of this overall trend of PBL in higher
education within Japan, having PBL as one of its three main pillars of education (School of Global andCommunity Studies, n.d.a). The GCS website even states: “Through a curriculum centered on ProjectBased Learning, students will understand society in the real world and acquire the independent skills
to adapt to changing circumstances while developing critical thinking skills and decision-making forpursuing and solving challenges” (School of Global and Community Studies, n.d.b). Reflecting this focus
on PBL education, PBL courses at GCS are mandatory for students every academic year, with six
semesters of PBL coursework required for graduation.
The author, as a faculty member of GCS since its inception, has designed and instructeda PBL course for second-year students based on the promotion of Fukui since 2017. Previously,
the author had designed and instructed STEM PBL courses for the engineering department at
the University of Fukui over a number of years. In research associated with this engineering PBL
education, the author with a colleague developed and utilized a hybrid mentor/facilitator paradigm
for analyzing and understanding course stakeholder relationships in a PBL course based on HmeloSilver and DeSimone’s (2013) definition of facilitator and Dawson’s (2014) elements in defining amentor relationship (Hennessy & Malcolm, 2021).
In this paper, the author has two main objectives. First, to describe and document the PBL
course implemented from October 2021 to February 2022 as education practice for use by other
instructors. Second, using the mentor/facilitator paradigm expressed above, to qualitatively analyze
student voices through an online questionnaire in order to understand longitudinally students’
predicted and realized learning outcomes and relationships in the course, which again can be used tocreate a paradigm with which other instructors may refer to in development of a PBL course.
2. Literature Review
2-1. What is Project-Based Learning?
Project-based learning can be identified in different naming conventions through much of
education history, but many present-day iterations often are seen to stem from early 1900s American
education and, specifically, John Dewey’s advocacy for experiential, action-based education in the― 52 ―

Mentoring and Facilitating Project-Based Learning at a Japanese National University

early 20th century. The PBL trend during the 1900s in education was part of a larger education
paradigm promoting “experiential, democratic and social behaviorist ideals” (van Lier, 2006, p. xi). In
more modern day thought and on the need for PBL in education, Capraro, Capraro, & Morgan (2013,p. 2) state project-based learning is “composed of several problems students will need to solve. It
is our belief that PBL provides the contextualized, authentic experiences necessary for students toscaffold learning and build meaningfully powerful science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
concepts supported by language arts, social studies, and art.”
However, the above explanations do not give us a concrete list on what exactly is PBL as adefinition. Prince and Felder (2006) offer eight key characteristics for specific definition of PBL
education: (1) teams of students, (2) open-ended assignments, (3) resembles professional life, (4)students formulate solution strategies, (5) measure approach against goal/result, (6) broad scope,
several problems, (7) end product is central, and (8) applying integrated knowledge (not acquiring). It
is with these overarching theories of early PBL as well as these eight characteristics that the author
has designed both STEM PBL – which focuses on engineering-focused design problems and projects– and non-STEM PBL – which in the author’s case focuses on regional revitalization problems andprojects – curriculum over the last nearly 10 years. Furthermore, research often does not look at therelationship and roles of stakeholders in a PBL class, which, if defined, could lead to more effectiveplanning and implementation of PBL courses. Particularly this definition of role aspect is a major goalof this research paper.
2-2. Facilitator/Mentor Paradigm for STEM PBL
2-2-1. Facilitator
In Hennessy and Malcolm (2021), the authors offered a theoretical framework based on afacilitator/mentor paradigm to understand the relationships between different stakeholders involvedin a STEM PBL course (=language instructors, engineering experts, and students) within anengineering PBL course. Through the experience of the authors of Hennessy and Malcolm (2021), theauthors of that paper found that traditional instructor-student teaching paradigms were not sufficientin defining the relationships of the stakeholders in the multiple STEM PBL courses they co-taught– which again they felt lowered the quality of the experience for all stakeholders. Specifically, theauthors of that paper looked to Hmelo-Silver and DeSimone’s (2013) concept of “facilitator” withincollaborative learning to override the idea of “instructor” within an inductive learning process that isprominent in PBL education. Specifically, Hmelo-Silver and DeSimone (2013) state that facilitators are“expert learners, modeling good strategies for learning and thinking rather than providing content
knowledge” (p. 373). However, the engineering experts (content instructors) were not “facilitators” asthey had no real knowledge of how to teach language. A different model was necessary to understandtheir relationship dynamic.

― 53 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

2-2-2. Mentor
To gain an understanding of the relationship between the engineering experts, who may moregenerally be known as content instructors, and students, the authors through extensive literature
research looked for different ways to define person-to-person roles in the world and ultimately turnedto the field of mentoring. Dawson (2014) provides a meta-analysis on mentoring and how to define
the concept, condensing an extensive amount of previous research into 16 “elements” that framedwhat a mentoring relationship model entails: (1) Objectives: the aims or intentions of the mentoringmodel, (2) Roles: a statement of who is involved and their function, (3) Cardinality: the number of eachsort of role in a mentoring relationship, (4) Tie Strength: the intended closeness of the mentoring
relationship, (5) Time: the length of a mentoring relationship, regularity of contact, and quantityof contact, (6) Relative Seniority: the comparative experience, expertise, or status of participants,(7) Selection: how mentors and mentees are chosen, (8) Matching: how mentoring relationships arecomposed, (9) Activities: actions that mentors and mentees can perform during their relationship,(10) Resources and Tools: technological or other artifacts available to assist mentors and mentees,(11) Role of Technology: the relative importance of technology to the relationship, (12) Training: hownecessary understandings and skills for mentoring will be developed in participants, (13) Rewards:
what participants will receive to compensate for their efforts, (14) Policy: a set of rules and guidelines
on issues such as privacy or the use of technology, (15) Monitoring: what oversight will be performed,
what actions will be taken under what circumstances, and by whom, and (16) Termination: howrelationships are ended. Essentially these elements exhaustively frame and describe a mentoring
relationship and what goes into identifying one, committing to one, nurturing one, and ending one.
2-2-3. STEM PBL Facilitator/Mentor Paradigm
Using these concepts of “facilitator” and “mentor,” Hennessy and Malcolm (2021) were able todelineate the relationships that occur between language instructors, content instructors, and students
in a STEM PBL course context. Specifically, the authors found clear connection to the language
instructors as facilitators to the students and the content instructors (engineering experts) as mentors
to the students. There was also a mentoring relationship between the language instructors andthe content instructors, as content instructors lacked specific language teaching knowledge, and so
regularly turned to the language teachers in order to learn how to teach the engineering language inEnglish. Figure 1 encapsulates the breadth of these relationships.

― 54 ―

Mentoring and Facilitating Project-Based Learning at a Japanese National University

Figure 1 : STEM PBL Facilitator/Mentor Paradigm (Hennessy & Malcolm 2021)
A major limitation of this paradigm though is it is based on analysis of personal reflectionsof the language instructors themselves and interviews with the content instructors; student voices
were not directly taken into account as the paradigm was developed well after the relevant courses
had ended. Specifically, Hennessy and Malcolm (2021) used qualitative research method with recordedinterviews of content instructors and their own reflections in order to develop this paradigm.
Through this paradigm expressed in Figure 1, the author will analyze a non-STEM PBL
course to validate the robustness of the paradigm. The non-STEM PBL in this case is a regional
revitalization PBL project in which students promote a local area. Non-STEM PBL differs to STEM
PBL in that students work to solve more social-oriented issues, compared to STEM PBL in which
students seek to solve technical, engineering issues. Furthermore, as will be explained below, theauthor will use qualitative research methods to analyze student perceptions of the relationships
between the course stakeholders, and thereby filling in some of the gap of the previous researchstudy conducted by Hennessy and Malcolm (2021).
3. Description of a Community Revitalization PBL Course at a Japanese National University
3-1. Project-Based Learning at the School of Global and Community Studies
As stated above, the School of Global and Community Studies at the University of Fukui has
project-based learning education as one of its three core learning models, which can correspond withthe expectation for higher education by MEXT regarding the development of social independence.
Current incoming students can expect to have PBL courses through First Year to Third Year,― 55 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

with many still taking mandatory or even elective PBL courses in Fourth Year. Though they cantake many forms and themes, all PBL courses are involved with community revitalization as an
overarching theme in the face of dwindling population in rural areas of Japan such as Fukui.
First Year PBL courses feature lectures by faculty on specific skills necessary for successful PBL
community engagement, such as interviewing and presentation, often with scaffolded organization
recruitment (i.e. the faculty will locate and set up interview hearing with community organizations
on behalf of the students) and low-stake end products (ex. public presentation, report, etc.) at the endof the second semester. Second Year PBL Courses are usually higher stakes, with students expected
to be more independent in their fieldwork and end product development. Also, there is a greater
range of nearly 10 projects to choose from (ex. Fukui Prefecture local culture/product promotion withvideos, bus tours to lesser-known areas of interest in Fukui Prefecture, dissemination of local history
through planned events, etc.). Third Year PBL courses take an even more academic stance in its
classwork through readings on theory, particularly with service learning and PBL. Students also havea choice of continuing PBL education in their Fourth Year as an elective or through their graduation
thesis work. In addition, students who study abroad can design and implement their own PBL plan
during their time abroad and gain credit based on a report and presentation they offer after returning
back from abroad.
In short, PBL education is not only stated as a pillar of the education policy at the School of
Global and Community Studies, it is clearly implemented as such through the number and variety ofcourses required of students within a PBL-based curriculum.
3-2. The DEEP Fukui Project3-2-1. What is the DEEP Fukui Project?
The author along with a colleague has designed and implemented a one-year PBL course for
Second year students every year since 2017, the start of such courses for Second Year students.
They title it “The DEEP Fukui Project,” which often has content change year by year based on
student ideas and available resources, but in general seeks to promote lesser-known aspects of Fukui
culture to a broader audience, often through English for an international audience. Some examples
of projects include the creation of English pamphlets featuring local sake producers to be placed in
major tourist areas inside and outside of Fukui Prefecture, the development of Wikipedia English
webpages informing about Fukui Prefecture places of interest/culture, or videos highlighting lesserknown aspects of Fukui culture.
3-2-2. The DEEP Fukui Project – October 2021-February 2022
Because of the COVID-19 Pandemic, the DEEP Fukui PBL course in academic year 2021
only implemented outside fieldwork for the autumn semester, and thus was essentially reduced to a

― 56 ―

Mentoring and Facilitating Project-Based Learning at a Japanese National University

half-year project. Some key characteristics of this iteration of the course were firstly, there were two
GCS faculty (including the author) in charge of designing the course. These faculty had recruited anorganization which creates and promotes events and experiences involving nature in the Rokuroshi
Heights area of Ono City, which is about one hour from the University of Fukui. This area has anumber of facilities for enjoying nature, but a very low number of overall visitors to the area, andso falls into the realm of community revitalization. Prior to the start of this project, all Second-Year
students received explanations of the various PBL courses to choose from, and so students knew
about the theme of Ono City nature promotion beforehand. For this project, there were seven Second
Year Students who chose to join. In general, the class met every other week for two periods, thoughoften students did fieldwork during class time.
Once the course began, students met with the head of the nature organization multiple times
early on, and through these discussions, determined a limited plan given the reduced time for thecourse in which they would produce content (text, pictures, video) promoting the organization and
Ono City nature areas through SNS mediums (Instagram and YouTube). Specifically, students in
two teams of three and four would participate in a number of the organization’s activities two times.
The first time would be to just experience the activity. Afterwards, they would collaborate as ateam and with the head of the organization on how to best document and promote the event via
SNS. They would then join the same activity again except this time they would document the eventwith pictures or video using their previous knowledge to gain best content. They would take theircontent, discuss it again with the organization, and then upload the curated content onto various SNS
platforms. Each team would complete this cycle (Figure 2) a total of two times.

Figure 2 : The cycle of activity participation by students for a community revitalization PBL― 57 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

Students would be graded on the quality of the objectives they set for themselves initially aswell as the end product measured against those objectives. Furthermore, they were required tokeep a record of all activities they did in pursuit of their goals for this project as well as reflections
on their experience throughout the semester (it should be noted that all assignments were collected
via Google Classroom). Finally, the students as an end product (besides for content produced for SNS
purposes) would create a 30-minute presentation to be given to the community at large at the end of
the semester.
4. Listening to Student Voices through Qualitative Analysis
As stated above, a major limitation of the engineering PBL course as facilitator/mentor paradigm(Figure 1) was the fact that there was no direct data from students contributing to the analysis
for the framework. In this paper, the author will analyze students’ feedback regarding relationshipperceptions through a questionnaire with content created based on some of the more pertinentelements of the mentor model developed by Dawson (2014). The author will then apply the analysis to
the STEM PBL Facilitator/Mentor Paradigm (Figure 1) validating or refining a paradigm with which
other instructors may refer to in development of a PBL course
4-1. Pre- and Post-Course Questionnaire
For the purposes of this research the author wanted to know what students wanted from theirrelationship with the course instructors and the organization members beforehand were, and what
they ultimately thought was learned through the relationship dynamics after the course was ended;essentially what the students expected to get and what did they actually end up getting. In orderto achieve this, the author implemented a longitudinal questionnaire, with the first questionnaire
being implemented before the start of the course (October 2021), and the second questionnaire being
implemented after the course was finished (February 2022). Both questionnaires were virtually
identical except for the tense of verbs to express expectation of what would happen (October 2021)
and what they believe actually happened (February 2022) for them in the course (i.e. future and past).
The questionnaire was given via Google Forms and all seven students produced responses. The
questionnaire was given in English and Japanese, and answers were mixed in English and Japanese.
4-2. Development of Questionnaire based on Dawson (2014) Mentoring Elements
For creating the actual 12 questions on the questionnaire, the author referred to Dawson(2014) mentoring elements In Hennessy & Malcolm (2021) as this study is a cornerstone of theparadigm developed. In the 2021 study, the authors identified six particular elements (shown in green
outline in Figure 3) from Dawson’s mentoring model that were necessary in defining the relationshipbetween content instructor and student in the PBL facilitator/mentor paradigm. From those six― 58 ―

Mentoring and Facilitating Project-Based Learning at a Japanese National University

elements, the author used three of them (Objectives, Roles, Activities) to extrapolate questions
necessary for understanding student expectations and perceptions of relationships in the pre-classand post-class questionnaires. The author chose these three as the other three elements questions
as the other elements (Relative seniority, Matching, Tie Strength) delved into relational aspects not
represented in the STEM PBL Facilitator/Mentor Paradigm. Specifically, from Objectives, questions
regarding the goals for the students in the course and what they will learn were extrapolated. From
Roles, questions asking to define relationships and the roles of different stakeholders were developed.
Finally, from Activities, a question asking about the activities in the class was developed. These
overarching questions and from which mentoring elements they were extrapolated from are shownin Figure 3.

Figure 3 : Extrapolation of questionnaire content (blue) from mentor elements (green)
4-3. Data Analysis Method － Constant Comparative Analysis
The author, in analyzing the questionnaire, utilized the constant comparative analysis researchmethod developed in grounded theory approach in order to develop and support any emerging
themes within the data (Holton et. al 2017). This approach allows for as unbiased interpretation ofdata within qualitative research, as well as shows clear commonalities between data. The process
begins with initial coding of all responses in the questionnaires. These generated codes are further
refined as they were tested against the labels discovered in other participants’ responses, leading toa saturation of concepts. This saturation leads to selective codes and core categories that connect theperspectives of the students, while at the same time dropping any potential codes or core categories
that are not at least somewhat universal among informants. The results of a selective coding process
will be presented in the next section.
It should be mentioned that grounded theory research usually ends with an overarching theory― 59 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

that connects all the codes into categories which further connects categories into some relationshipstatus. This final step is beyond the scope of this paper due to limitations of data collected andspace given for this paper. However, even with merely arriving at the selective coding level, we canunderstand some of these codes as projected themes that can be used in future research.
5. Initial Analysis and Projected Themes
5-1. Pre-Class Questionnaire (October 2021) – Student perceptions of expected outcomes ofcommunity revitalization PBL
Constant comparative analysis of these seven completed questionnaires revealed the following
selected codes with the number of occurrences for each code in parentheses: promotion skills(6), teamwork (8), self-reliance (7), critical thinking (4), problem-solving (8), and communication (9).
Codes that exceed the number of students means that at least one student had multiple instancesof that code; however no code was considered salient unless a majority of students (more than 4)
were attributed with that code. An example of the analysis method can be shown in the following
statement from Student C, in which the author has inserted relevant codes in brackets:
Student C: “Using a variety of mediums to communicate ideas effectively [communication] to
the world by working with other people and organizations for developing clear ideas[critical thinking; problem-solving]. In this PBL course, we want to promote (thisorganization) [promotion skills] through our own experiences and I believe we canachieve this goal.”
What these codes initially suggest is that students have specific goals that they have thought
about to better themselves through this course. It should be noted that the distribution of these codes
was attributed in the responses to both the course instructors and the local organization members(i.e. the content experts). This perceived unity between course instructors and content experts as
equitable knowledge keepers by the students may be explained as students not necessarily knowing
which of these two instructor-level stakeholders would be able to relay these skills to them.
5-2. Post-Class Questionnaire (February 2022) – Student perceptions of realized learning outcomes
and relationships with the local organization
Constant comparative analysis of these seven completed questionnaires revealed the following
selected codes with the number of occurrences for each code in parentheses: local knowledge (5),event planning/management (4), communication (8), promotions via SNS (7), video/picture shooting(5), and collecting data (4). Examples of the analysis method can be shown in the following statementfrom Students A and B, in which the author has inserted relevant codes in brackets:― 60 ―

Mentoring and Facilitating Project-Based Learning at a Japanese National University

Student A: “They gave us advice on how to take pictures and video [video/picture shooting] .”Student B: “They taught us in the most complete way the fun of enjoying local nature [local
knowledge].”
These codes suggest that the students’ perceived that they learned are more concrete skills
from the local organization members (content instructors). Also, it should be noted that in contrast
to the results of the October 2021 questionnaire, in which students could not clearly delineate a
different between the skills acquired from course instructors and content instructors, students for the
February 2022 questionnaire (which features basically the same questions) clearly defined the rolesof the instructor-level stakeholders and assigned specific skills obtained from them.
5-3. Post-Class Questionnaire (February 2022) – Student perceptions of realized learning outcomes
and relationships with the course instructors
Constant comparative analysis of these seven completed questionnaires revealed the following
selected codes with the number of occurrences for each code in parentheses: support (5), self-reliance(7), problem-solving (6), time management (5), project management (6), and presentation (4). Examplesof the analysis method can be shown in the following statement from Students C, D, and B, in which
the author has inserted relevant codes in brackets:
Student C: “[Their role is] showing us how to go forward with the project [problem-solving; project
management] and support us when we are stuck [support].”Student D: “Supporting the students engaged with this PBL project [support].”Student B: “How to organize a project [time management; project management].”
These codes suggest that students learned more metacognitive skills from the course
instructors. Two interesting conclusions from this are: (1) again the students now differentiate theoutcomes from and roles of course instructors compared content instructors (local organization
members) and (2) the types of skills learned from each (concrete versus metacognitive) suggest an
even distribution to the point of mutual exclusivity among the instructor-level stakeholders. In otherwords, the Course Instructors teach one type of thing and the Content Instructors teach a different
type of thing.
6. Discussion
The codes and themes generated through constant comparative analysis of the longitudinalquestionnaires of the seven students presented in this paper have some suggestive results on
their own, such as a possible metacognitive/concrete mutual exclusivity among instructor-level― 61 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

stakeholders in the PBL facilitator/mentor paradigm described in Figure 1. Furthermore, it isinteresting that Students could not seem to imagine a differentiation between Course Instructor andContent Instructor (local organization members) in terms of who would convey what skills before
the course began in October 2021. Also, the severe differentiation between codes from October 2021
questionnaire results and February 2022 results suggest Students are not very accurate in predicting
what their learning outcomes will be in this type of community revitalization PBL course.
In attempting to connect the data results in this study directly to the PBL facilitator/mentor
paradigm in Figure 1, it is suggestive that PBL Course Instructors working with outside Content
Instructors are viewed by students as facilitators of the course content (i.e. guiding the logistics),
which helps bolster the paradigm. In addition, it seems Content Instructors are viewed by students asmentors who provide concrete skills and information necessary to get to the end product of the PBL,
and the personal goals of the student.
However, data from the community revitalization PBL course presented above suggests that
Course Instructors have some mentor-like aspects to the relationship in terms of motivating Students
towards completion of the project, as well as providing support when “stuck” (mainly exhibited in
the code labelled support). In this way, the PBL facilitator/mentor paradigm as it stands loses somevalidity since in the case of the engineering PBL, there were clear differentiations between the roleof Course Instructor (facilitator) and Content Instructor (mentor) with regards to Students.
One relationship not mentioned in the research of this paper is the mentor aspect that Course
Instructors may have with Content Instructors as shown in Figure 1. Though only based on personal
experience, the author believes this relationship in general still holds for a community revitalization
PBL course as usually Content Instructors are professionals in the community and not in educationand course design; ultimately, they look to the Course Instructor for guidance on how to identify andconvey skills to Students necessary for a successful PBL project.
Still, even if there is some overlap in the roles between mentor for Students among the Course
Instructors and Content Instructors, it is useful to have the PBL facilitator/mentor paradigm forunderstanding what each of these instructor-level stakeholders can do for Students. This paradigm
helps ensure that the Course Instructors of a community revitalization PBL course, who usually also
serve as the course designer, can predict and prepare what they should prepare as Course Instructor;
can mentor and advise the Content Instructor in identifying skills pertinent to accomplishing tasks
for the PBL and aiding them in effectively relaying those skills to Students; and finally can create
readiness in the Students at the beginning of the course for acquiring the skills necessary forsucceeding in the PBL project.
7. Conclusion
In this paper, the author described as education practice a community revitalization project-― 62 ―

Mentoring and Facilitating Project-Based Learning at a Japanese National University

based learning course at a national university in order to share knowledge with other educators
endeavoring to use project-bases learning in their own circumstances. In addition, the author sharedinitial qualitative data results of informants (students) from this class that suggests they see thecourse instructors mainly as facilitators who support their metacognitive needs of students and the
local organization members as mentors who help develop their concrete skills. Understanding thisparadigm can be useful in PBL education as it defines the roles of each stakeholder in the course,which can be used to maximize how certain skills are conveyed to students and to prepare thestudents themselves for the inductive process associated with participating in a PBL-based course.
There were limitations to the research; specifically, data from this community revitalization PBL
course was based only on seven students’ experiences over a relatively short period of time comparedto the normal course timeline. Also, unlike the author’s previous research working with engineering
PBL education, this iteration did not have any data from the instructors. The knock-on effect of thisis that when working with grounded data the researcher may jump to wrong conclusions or nothave enough direction to move on to later parts of the theory-building process that is emblematic ofgrounded theory qualitative research.
Working from the current point, though, the author can move forward with further qualitative
research enquiry of subsequent iterations with the community revitalization PBL class, particularly
now that the COVID-19 situation has been relaxed somewhat within Japan and the world. On thepracticum side of things, the author, based on this research coupled with previous research andexperiences, is envisioning some different models for PBL education models when designing andimplementing PBL education at the university level to aid other instructors in this active learning
education model to help achieve the goals of Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, andTechnology by 2030.
References
Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. (2005). The project framework: A tool for language, content, and skills
integration. ELT Journal, 59(2), 108–116.
Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Morgan, J. R. (2013). STEM project-based learning: An integrated
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics approach (2nd Ed.). Sense Publishers.
Dawson, P. (2014). Beyond a definition: Toward a framework for designing and specifying mentoringmodels. Educational Researcher, 43(3), pp. 137–145.
Hennessy, C. & Malcolm, W. (2021). Mentor or facilitator: Defining relationships in an English for
specific purposes project-Based learning classroom context. International Education andExchange Research (5), pp. 29-43.
Hmelo-Silver & DeSimone. (2013). Problem-based learning: An instructional model of collaborative
learning. In The international handbook of collaborative learning, Hmelo-Silver et al. (eds).

― 63 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

Routledge. pp. 370-386.
Holton, Judith & Walsh, Isabelle. (2017) Classic grounded theory: Applications with qualitative andquantitative data. Sage Publishing.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2013). Measures based on the fourbasic policy directions. https://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/lawandplan/title01/
detail01/sdetail01/1373805.htm
O’Donnell & Hmelo-Silver (2013) What is collaborative learning?: an overview. In The international
handbook of collaborative learning, Hmelo-Silver et al. (eds). Routledge. pp. 1-16.
Prince M. J. and Felder R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions,comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), pp. 123-138.
Ravesteijn W., De Graff E., & Kroesen O. (2006). Engineering the future: The social necessity ofcommunicative engineers. European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(1), pp. 63-71.
School of Global and Community Studies. (n.d.a). Keys to learning. http://www.gcs.u-fukui.ac.jp/
feature/School of Global and Community Studies. (n.d.b). Key 2: Engagement in local community issues. http://
www.gcs.u-fukui.ac.jp/eng/keys_to_learning/key2/
van Lier, L. (2006). Foreword. In Project-based second and foreign language education: Past, present,
future, Beckett & Miller (eds.). Information Age Press. pp. xi-xvi.

― 64 ―

Mentoring and Facilitating Project-Based Learning at a Japanese National University

日本の国立大学における課題探究プロジェクト教育においてのメンタリングとファシリテーティング:
地域創生のための PBL プログラムの紹介と学生の声によるコース成果の質的分析


ヘネシー・クリストファー
著者と前回の研究における同僚は、英語での STEM 課題探究（PBL）コースにおけるステークホ

ルダー（学生、語学教員、工学分野の専門教員）の役割とその関係性を、教員を従来の「インストラ
クター」としての役割ではなく「メンター」及び「ファシリテーター」としての観点から定義した。
本稿ではまず、教育実践として、2021年10月から2022年 2 月に実施され 7 名の学生が参加した地域創生PBL コースについて説明する。このコースは、地域での自然体験を推進する団体と協力し、複数のSNS プラットフォームを介した地域の広報手段を開発することを目的として実施した。次に、コースの開始時と終了時のオンラインアンケートに基づく質的調査を踏まえ、学生が授業前に期待した、また授業後に達成した学習成果と関係者の役割を理解するため、受講者がコースのインストラクター及びコンテンツ・インストラクター（協力団体の関係者）との関係をどう捉えたかを説明する。具体的には、質的分析によると、この地域創生PBLコースの学生は、主にコースのインストラクターを学生のメタ認知的ニーズを支援するファシリテーターと見なし、コンテンツ・インストラクターを具体的なスキルの習得を支援するメンターと見なしたようである。最後に、メンタリング/ファシリテーティ
ング パラダイムを使用して、PBLコースの学生とその他ステークホルダーとの関係をより明確に示し、より質の高い課題探究プロジェクトの実施とアクティブ・ラーニング教育を実現する方法を説明する。
キーワード：課題探究プロジェクト、課題解決型学習、アクティブラーニング、地域創生、福井県― 65 ―Supporting English learning awareness in spoken interaction through course design

Supporting English learning awareness in spoken
interaction through course design:Comparative findings from two student cohorts

Ivan Lombardi
Abstract
This paper investigates the influence of course design on the perceived development inEnglish expression of two student cohorts (2021 and 2022) enrolled in a semester-long English
communication course at the University of Fukui. The results presented in this paper are part ofa wider research project on language learning awareness and satisfaction in first-year university
students. The English Communication course is designed for intermediate-level students tosolidify their B1-level competence and bridge into the B2 (high-intermediate) level. The course
design includes periodical reflection and performance reviews to help students visualize theirimprovements. The data analyzed in this paper was collected via two sets of mid-term andend-of-term surveys. All four surveys were conducted through online questionnaires targeting
the whole student population. The results combined suggest that the structure of the English
communication course was instrumental to the students’ language learning awareness (77% in
total, with higher values in the second half of the course for both student cohorts). An analysis of
the open-ended responses reveals that students across both cohorts were able to visualize theirprogress in English speaking, especially in terms of (1) fluency; (2) confidence; (3) pronunciation;(4) vocabulary; (5) grammar.
Keywords: language learning awareness; English communication; progress tracking; course
design; EFL

1. Introduction“I am not sure my English has improved” is a comment that can break a language teacher’s
spirits. Long hours of preparation and care, the mental and physical effort of teaching in the classroom,and the endless homework checks may feel to have been in vain if the students do not perceive an
increment in their English proficiency at the end of a school term. This is even more tragic whenshifting points of view and thinking of what should have been a learning opportunity for students. Did
they waste their time in an English class that did not teach them anything of value? If any progress― 67 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

was made, why is it so hard to gauge from the inside, especially in the short span of a semester?
The research presented in this paper describes one attempt to increase language learningawareness in first-year students at a Japanese national university through course design and theresults of two years of implementation. The intervention presented focuses on the development ofcommunicative abilities, notoriously the most ephemeral and hard-to-track of language skills, which astrong focus on spoken interaction. As part of their coursework, students are actively asked to track
their progress by reflecting on their challenges and achievements after each class meeting and areprompted to review their performance at different times throughout the semester. The results of thisrecurrent routine across two student cohorts suggest that an increased focus on review and progress
tracking is instrumental to language learning awareness for almost all students surveyed.
2. Literature review
This research project acknowledges multiple theoretical underpinnings, from the notion of
language learner well-being (Oxford 2016) to the idea of self-efficacy and perceived control in language
learning (Kissling and O’Donnell 2015). Central to the facet chosen for this research report is thestrategy of promoting vision in language learners; popularized by Dörnyei and Kubanyiova (2014), thisconcept is defined as a language learner’s mental image of themselves having achieved a languagerelated goal. Vision entails “a strong sensory element: it involves tangible images related to achieving
the goal” (Dörnyei and Kubanyiova 2014, 10) and must be operationalized through strategies that canbe either self-directed or, as in the case of the current research, facilitated by a language instructor.
A key factor in transforming a learner’s vision into execution is, in this context, L2 learningawareness (Hadfield and Dörnyei 2013), which can be thought of as a learner’s ability to understandtheir language achievements over time and map their progress on a timeline. L2 learning awarenessis also sometimes known as “self-perceived language/linguistic progress” (Arvidsson et al. 2018).
While there are a number of strategies that are thought to be conducive to language learningawareness, most focus on the development of L2 writing, where the technique of the portfolio
provides a natural and tangible “proof” of the development of a learner’s ability to write in a foreign
language. Researchers have attempted to recreate the workings of a portfolio by having language
learners record themselves and review their spoken production; successful attempts like Huang andHung (2010) and Yastibas and Yastibas (2015) have influenced the research design and methods below
as well as the routine presented in the next section as part of the course design.
3. Course design and logistics
Basic English Communication is a compulsory course for first-year students at the School of
Global and Community Studies at the University of Fukui. The course meets for a total of 45 hours,
divided into 30 class meetings of 90 minutes each over two quarters (one semester). As part of their― 68 ―

Supporting English learning awareness in spoken interaction through course designorientation to the School, students are asked to self-assess their ability and confidence in speaking
English based on the revised CEFR descriptors for spoken monologue and spoken interaction (Councilof Europe 2018); the self-assessment results are then analyzed and used in the function of a placement
test. Students who qualify for the section subject to this research generally assess themselves asintermediate to high-intermediate (B1 to B2) users of English when considering the macro-categoryof overall oral production. Each cohort, however, has a small number of outliers (usually 2 to 4) who
completed part or all of their previous studies in an English-speaking environment and thus havehigher proficiency overall. The course is designed based on the CEFR descriptors to solidify a B1level proficiency for all students in the first seven weeks of instruction and bridge into B2-level topics
and tasks in the remaining eight weeks. English Communication is understood to be firmly centeredon spoken interaction and communication-style building activities. In their first term, students also
attend separate courses designed to practice English listening, reading, and writing. To maximize thetime spent talking, the class size is kept small. In 2021, 21 students were enrolled in the first quarterand 22 in the second quarter; in 2022, the class size was 22 in both quarters.
The typical class meeting is structured in three separate moments. The first 45 to 60 minutes see
the students working in pairs and engaging in speaking activities revolving around a series of questions
about themselves or topics of their immediate interest. The remaining third of the class consists oflanguage expansion activities (15 to 20 minutes) and personal reflection (10 minutes). Students arealso required to complete two homework tasks available through the course online platform (Google
Classroom), usually a vocabulary consolidation task or creative reuse of the target language and anaudio or video review of their performance in the class. At the halfway point of each quarter, students
are allotted one full class meeting to complete a midterm speaking activity and a survey on their wellbeing as students of the course. This survey inquires about students’ satisfaction with course contents,
pace, and overall design, as well as their overall perceived performance and perceived language or skill
development – the latter being the subject of the present research. At the end of each quarter, students
are asked to (1) create a portfolio of their highlights in the class and (2) work in pairs and create aconversation in English informed by their learning achievements and best performances of the quarter.
4. Research design and methodology
The research design is built within the methodological framework and conventions ofpractitioner research or action research. The researcher follows a set cycle, adapted from Rose,
McKinley, and Briggs Baffoe-Djan (2020), that involves preparation (planning), implementation,observation, and consequent reflection. Research methods applied to the framework are qualitative,
and the primary data collection tools utilized are class surveys and semi-structured interviews. The
subset of the research described in this paper, focusing on language learning awareness, is conducted
through four questionnaires administered via a web-based platform (Google Forms) for easy access― 69 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

and data collection and analysis. The first set of two questionnaires targeted the 2021 cohort halfway
through their first quarter (May 2021, n=21) and again in the middle of their second quarter (July
2021, n=22 ). The same pattern was applied the following year (May 2022, n= 22, and July 2022,
n=22 ) to ensure that the data across the two cohorts could be compared.
Two survey items, worded similarly across all four questionnaires, are of primary interest to
this research paper. Question 10 is an open-ended question inquiring directly about student language
learning awareness:
Think about yourself as a speaker of English before starting this course. If you don't remember, you
can watch your first videos of yourself in Google Classroom. Do you perceive any difference in theway you use or speak English compared to [one month] [three months] ago? Answer in as much detailas you can. This is a moment for you to evaluate your progress.
Question 11, on the other end, is a closed-ended question in linear numeric response format
asking students to evaluate, on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (very well), the effectiveness of the course
design in raising language learning awareness:
One of the goals of this course is to make your progress in English speaking more visible (easier tounderstand or perceive). So far, how would you say this course accomplished this goal?
The answers to the open-ended question 10 have been collected verbatim (resulting in a datasetof 3779 words), anonymized, and analyzed by the researcher to generate descriptive codes using thethematic coding technique described in Rose, McKinley, and Briggs Baffoe-Djan (2020). The coding
process was done by hand due to the frequent spelling inconsistencies (e.g., vocabrary for “vocabulary”)
and writing idiosyncrasies (e.g., pronouns, suggesting a link with English grammar, used instead of“pronunciation”) found in the answers, which made adopting automated scripts problematic. The initialprocess of descriptive coding resulted in ten themes reflecting some perceived areas of improvement(including the lack thereof) on the part of the students. Further refinements of the codes identified thefollowing recurring themes: fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar, confidence, other, and negative.
• Fluency, a descriptor often found verbatim in the data, is understood from the student
comments as a misnomer for the speed of word retrieval and the rate of speech.
 ocabulary encompasses perceived improvement in vocabulary range and availability when speaking.
• V• Pronunciation reflects improvement in pronunciation awareness and accuracy.
• Grammar is found verbatim in the data but never described in detail; it is understood as anincreased awareness of English morphology and syntax.

― 70 ―

Supporting English learning awareness in spoken interaction through course design• Confidence conflates comments referring to perceived changes in willingness to communicate
and consciousness of one’s abilities in carrying a conversation in English.
• Other is a catch-all theme that includes uncategorized or minor data points, e.g., enjoyment or
reading aloud.
• Negative collects all instances of students suggesting no difference in their perceived progresscompared to the previous months.
The answers to closed-ended question 11 have been collected and grouped into three categories(negative,1-2; neutral, 3, and positive, 4-5) to understand the general feeling of the respondents
towards the effectiveness of the course structure.
5. Findings and discussion
This section will report the results of four questionnaires (May 2021, July 2021, May 2022, andJuly 2022) and draw connections regarding the development of language learning awareness between
the first and second questionnaires for each cohort. Subsequently, it will attempt to compare theresults between the two cohorts to highlight underlying themes, challenges, and achievements.
5-1 Student voices on language learning awarenessQ10: Think about yourself as a speaker of English before starting this course. If you don't remember,you can watch your first videos of yourself in Google Classroom. Do you perceive any difference inthe way you use or speak English compared to [one month] [three months] ago? Answer in as muchdetail as you can. This is a moment for you to evaluate your progress.
5-1-1 May 2021
Table 1 : May 2021 survey results (respondent n=21; code n=37).
Code

n

%

Sample answer

fluency

1027

Maybe, I can become to speak in fluency than before. Of course, I still often
stop saying.

vocabulary

9

24.3

I think my English now is better than one month ago. As I have learned a lotof vocabulary, I managed to use a variety of expressions and vocabulary inconversation.

pronunciation

3

8.1

There is a difference part of pronunciation, I think. I did not care about mypronunciation at First. But I influenced by my classmates and [name of instructor].

grammar1

2.7

It became little better than a month ago because I could memorize some newwords, use some unfamiliar grammars and so on.

confidence

12

32.4

I was a little hesitant about speaking English because I wasn't good atit.However, I gradually enjoyed speaking English throughout the classes.

other

0

0

N/A

negative2

5.4

I cannot use enough vocabulary and speak fluently, but I'm sure it.

― 71 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

Students completing the first questionnaire have been university students for only five weeks.
For many, a course like English Communication, heavily focused on spoken interaction, is an entirely
new experience. This is especially true of students who have attended high school in Japan, where
the main objective is customarily the development of reading and listening abilities. This idea, whichis represented in the data (e.g., I think my English fluency has improved a litte compered to one month
before. When I started taking the speaking class, I was not accustomed to speak English because I didn't
have much opportunities in high school. However, taking class twice a week has helped me become
accustomed to speak English), explains in part why almost one-third of the students mentioned anincrease in their confidence in using English to interact with their peers.
Similarly, 27% of the respondents mention fluency as one of their more visible improvements,
likely as a consequence of having more opportunities to use spoken English, e.g.,
Finally, I can talk with people more naturally. Thanks to many opportunities of speaking such asclass and homework, I can improve my speaking skills.
Vocabulary is a close third in the ranking; however, it should be noted that none of the mentionsof gains in vocabulary is found in isolation but rather paired with another theme (confidence, fluency,
or pronunciation). This suggests that students are aware of their word and expression repertoire
extending but may feel this is a natural by-product of their augmented exposure to English
conversation. This finding is of particular interest since, especially in the first quarter, vocabularybuilding is a prominent feature in the course design.
Perceived improvements in pronunciation and grammar have a lower representation in thedata at this stage, with 8.1% and 2.7%, respectively. Negative voices also account for 5.4% of thestudent comments. The two students who felt they fell short of their goals for the quarter mentioned
insufficient vocabulary and grammar in one case and worries concerning their pronunciation andaccent, which they felt had not developed since the beginning of the course.

― 72 ―

Supporting English learning awareness in spoken interaction through course design

5-1-2 July 2021
Table 2 : July 2021 survey results (respondent n=22; code n=35).
Code

n

%

Sample answer

fluency11

31.4

I feel my speaking more fluent, and I can come up with correct grammar
instantly.

vocabulary

4

11.4

I also feel that I am able to use more difficult expressions than before.

pronunciation

8

22.9

I think some of pronunciation was improved. It is because of thepronunciation practice that started in the second quarter. It really practicaland useful.

5.7

I think I have become more confident and relaxed while speaking. My
grammar and pronunciation has also improved in a way although they arestill not 100% perfect. I think these changes are positive and I am happy
with my performance.

grammar2

confidence

9

25.7

First time, if I don't the English words which I want to say to my partner,
I will sometimes use Japanese. But now, I am changed. Even if I face introuble, I try to tell my partner by using my own words. I guess that this is
my big changes in this class.

other

1

2.9

My reading speed has increased.I want to keep this reading speed, to add
more sentences and to add more time.

negative

0

0

N/A

Three months after enrolment, and two months after the previous survey, the 2021 student
cohort has gained awareness of their progress particularly in terms of fluency, confidence, andpronunciation. As in the previous reflection, the perceived improvement in fluency is relevant, with
31.4% of respondents mentioning a visible difference compared to their English-speaking selves of afew months prior. Upon closer inspection of the data, student comments in this category mention thewords natural more often compared to the May survey, e.g.,
English is becoming more natural.
My performance looks very natural and fluent.
I notice I become to use more natural English.
I feel that my speaking skill is getting better and natural.
This suggests that the revision of their own performance helped the students realize the positive
outcomes of their efforts and brought them closer to their vision (Dörnyei and Kubanyiova 2014).
Confidence is a close second in the data. Student comments focus on their increased ability to use
English for longer speaking tasks and avoiding code-switching when possible:― 73 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

I have improved my skill to plan a good conversation. Besides, I could say that I really feel more
confident to have a conversation spontaneously.
I can speak longer now than the first time; I think I am having more confidence to talk with mypartner only in English.
Compared to the previous survey, student comments on their achievements are rather consistent.
Pronunciation features much higher in the ranking compared to the May survey (22.9% versus
the previous 8.1%). This increase was expected as the focus on the course in the second quarter
shifted from vocabulary building to spoken intelligibility (pronunciation training based on the English
as a Lingua Franca Core, see Walker 2010); if anything, the figure was expected to be even higher,
given that the training took almost half of each class meeting. Notwithstanding, students mention it
directly as a factor leading to increased awareness of comprehensible pronunciation:
I learned the correct pronunciation of some words at the pronunciation workshop. In particular, “l”
and “r”. As a result, I think my change is positive.
I think some of pronunciation was improved. It is because of the pronunciation practice that started
in the second quarter. It really practical and useful.
Awareness of vocabulary gains is commented upon less than in the previous instance. While
it is true that the course design shifted from explicit to implicit vocabulary learning, it is also truethat the class discussion topics were crafted following the CEFR B2-level descriptors and thus more
abstract in nature, shifting away from the students’ immediate knowledge and requiring more criticalthinking and meaning negotiation. It is possible that some less common lexical items (e.g., indecisive,
to settle on, irrational, inevitable, resistance, representation) may have been obscure or hard to reusein a different context for some, or even most, students. Perhaps as a consequence, none of the four
respondents who mentioned direct improvements in vocabulary give further detail:I used a lot of vocabulary that I have learned in the classes.
I also feel that I am able to use more difficult expressions than before.
Grammar improvements are again a minor but present factor. The other theme includes anotherwise uncategorized comment on reading speed, which can be understood from context as the― 74 ―

Supporting English learning awareness in spoken interaction through course design

speed of reading a script aloud. This is a one-off activity that students performed for logistic reasons(practicing how to upload a video onto Google Classroom). Nevertheless, at least one student found it
instrumental to the awareness of their progress.
5-1-3 May 2022
Table 3 : May 2022 survey results (respondent n=22; code n=31).
Code

n

%

Sample answer

fluency7

22.6

I think that I learned to speak English faster day by day.

vocabulary

6

19.4

Compared to one month ago, I can use new words. Through English
communication class, I could have better vocabulary.

pronunciation

7

22.6

I think I have grown up in terms of pronunciation and fluency. My English
was terrible, probably because I was nervous at the beginning of this course.
However, by talking to many people throughout this course, my English
traceability has disappeared a little. By listening to many people's English,
my pronunciation is getting better and better.

grammar1

3.2

I was able to learn grammar that I didn't remember until now, and I wasable to speak English more confidently and activity than before.

confidence

929

I feel much more confident when I spoke so I am not afraid to talk anymore.
No matter how bad my grammar or pronunciation is, I will still keep talking
because talking is practicing!

other

1

3.2

I perceive differences like strength in how I use or speak English compared
to one month ago.

negative

0

0

N/A

The 2022 cohort wrote comparatively fewer and less detailed comments than their peers of theprevious year, resulting in a smaller number of codes. The numerical difference is minute and could
be attributed to randomness. However, it is worth noting that the average self-assessed English
speaking competence of this cohort was closer to a lower intermediate than a full-fledged B1 level –an outcome that has been confirmed in the first weeks of the course. This makes it possible, albeit
unlikely, that the students had a lower ability to express their perceived changes in awareness inEnglish. A further hint that this could be a possibility is the heavy reliance on machine translation1 towrite the daily reflections and, at times, to complete the surveys (which explains why, on the surface,the 2022 comments use overall more comprehensible English).
1

The course syllable neither encourages not discourages the use of machine translation. Tools like Google

Translate and DeepL were available to the 2021 cohort as well, but it can be assumed that not all students
were aware of their existence or willing to use them as part of their toolkit for their English language classes,
though a few students could be spotted using these tools on occasion. Within the 2022 cohort, the awarenessand use of machine translation seems more widespread and deemed acceptable as a classroom practice.
This could reflect either a study practice developed during the COVID-19 pandemic, since the 2022 cohort
experienced almost two years of online instruction during high school, or possibly advice given by senior
students or found in social media platforms.

― 75 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

Despite the differences in starting proficiency, as well as visible differences in class behavior
and learning motivation between the two cohorts, the survey results of May 2022 are comparable tothe previous year’s. Confidence in their ability to use English is again the most noticeable element of
improvement for 29% of the respondents. Despite that, confidence is quoted in isolation only in two
instances:
I think that mental growth is great, especially, I am less nervous about communication in English
than one month ago. Therefore I became able to speak English calmly.
I feel much more confident when I spoke so I am not afraid to talk anymore. No matter how bad mygrammar or pronunciation is, I will still keep talking because talking is practicing!
Other realizations of increased confidence are, instead, paired with vocabulary (mostly), fluency,
and pronunciation; the comments also often lack detail, e.g.,
I think I am more confident talking in English compared to before.
I feel a little more confident when I speak English.
A possible explanation for this, other than the potential difficulty mentioned above, is that
respondents may have been feeling a generic “sense of improvement” in their confidence but could
not quantify it when thinking of their high school L2-speaking selves or reviewing the video evidenceof their performances from a month prior. It is also possible that some may not have reviewed past
audio and video recordings as suggested.
The two categories fluency and pronunciation accounted for 22.6% each in the analysis of thesurvey data. The tag fluency attaches to several comments in which students discuss their perceived
improvement in the rate of speech and the ability to speak without unnecessary pauses:
Compared to one month ago, I think the skill of speaking without hesitation and pauses improve verymuch.
I think my English speaking speed has become more natural than the time before the start of thiscourse.
I think that I learned to speak English faster day by day.

― 76 ―

Supporting English learning awareness in spoken interaction through course design

Overall, the student reflections regarding this theme are very much in tune with those of theprevious year, suggesting that the students’ augmented awareness of their developing fluency is adirect consequence of more opportunities to talk in English during class. Pronunciation, on the other
hand, is recognized by more than twice as many students, compared to the previous cohort, as apoint of improvement. As in the case of confidence, however, little further detail is provided to help
with the analysis. Only two students give concrete (but minimal) information about their increased
awareness:
I think my pronunciation has changed. It became more natural than before.
I think my pronunciation such as intonation is improved.
One possible reason students could not elaborate more on their sense of improvement inpronunciation may be the lack of a pronunciation model or standard to refer to. As the course focuseson spoken interaction, the only term of comparison for a student is their discussion partner for the
day and potentially the instructor – neither of which, in the case presented, speaks English as theirfirst language. This possibility is further corroborated by another student’s comment, highlighted
verbatim above, and whose relevant segment states:
By listening to many people’s English, my pronunciation is getting better and better.
While learning awareness in terms of vocabulary was slightly lower in 2022 compared to 2021,
the comments are consistent with those of the previous cohort. Vocabulary gains accompany otherperceived improvements (confidence or fluency) and are stated generically, as in the following
strikingly similar examples:
I feel a little more confident when I speak English. Also, I think the number of vocabulary increased.
I think my vocabulary increased and I have confidence when I talk in English.
It can be postulated that students reviewing their earlier performances focus more on “howthings are said” rather than “what is being said.” This would explain why students are, on average,
more aware of their progress in traits that pertain to communicating in English rather than the
English language per se (i.e., vocabulary and grammar). As a matter of fact, grammar was mentioned
only once in the May 2022 survey, as it was in 2021. One further uncategorized (unclear) comment isrepresented in the other category.

― 77 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

5-1-4 July 2022
Table 4 : July 2022 survey results (respondent n=22; code n=34).
Codefluencyn%10Sample answer

29.4

I think the most prominent improvement is the speed of my speaking. I
really surperised with how fast I can speak now compare with defore.
Literally amazing improvement and I rarely feel uncomfortable when I
spoke. More likely to expresse myself naturally and comfortably.

vocabulary

5

14.7

Three months ago, I only knew vocabulary at the level of a high school
student, but I didn't remember many vocabulary words.Also, when I was
speaking, I stumbled into conversation, and I often hardened without being
able to express what I wanted to express well. But, Three months later,
however, now I can speak more fluently than I did three months ago, andI'm studying my vocabulary little by little.

pronunciation

10

29.4

I came to give attention to pronunciation such as R, L, F, and V.

grammar3

8.9

Yes I have change a lot. I pay more attention to my grammar when I am
talking. So, I finally can get rid of my slang when I am speaking English withclassmates.
I think I improved the way I react in a conversation, the way I connect orcontinue a conversation, and my speaking speed. When I started this class,I didn't know how to react to something that my parter said, but now I feelthat I'm better at reacting.

confidence

6

17.6

other

0

0

N/A

negative

0

0

N/A

Reflections are overall more considerate in the last survey of 2022, with more students
adding detail to their comments. Upon analysis, it was found that the two descriptors fluency andpronunciation topped the ranking with 10 occurrences (29,4%) each. Students who elaborate on theirprogress in fluency express satisfaction with their improvements, over the semester, in either rate of
speaking or diminished hesitation while interacting with their conversation partner in English:
I think the most prominent improvement is the speed of my speaking [ … ]. More likely to expresse
myself naturally and comfortably.
[…]. Also, my first speaking record was too slow in terms of speaking speed, but I felt that my recent
records have been more fast and smooth.
I think I have improved my grammar and fluency. I rarely buffer during the conversation compared
to before.
I became confident in speaking in English without much hesitation.

― 78 ―

Supporting English learning awareness in spoken interaction through course design

Since fluency has been consistent in both the number of mentions and content across all four
surveys, it can be assumed that the combination of the course structure and the class routine has
been instrumental for students of both cohorts to their awareness of progress in English speaking.
A similar conclusion can be drawn for pronunciation when comparing the July 2021 and 2022
survey results. The class time spent on the study and practice of ELF pronunciation contributed
decisively to the students’ awareness (often referred to as “consciousness,” likely a direct translationof the Japanese word ishiki ) of the positive changes in their English speaking, as the following
comments suggest:
I was able to distinguish the pronunciation of R and L, and I became conscious of the movement of
the mouth.
I am able to speak in English more accurately thanks to the pronunciation workshop in thecommunication class. I will practice pronunciation to speak clearly from now on.
I came to give attention to pronunciation such as R, L, F, and V.
I think my consciousness for pronounce became better because of the pronounce class.
The analysis of the tag confidence also leads to similar numerical results when comparing the2021 and 2022 cohorts. The latter group of students, however, does not give further detail on whatcaused their increased awareness, making a qualitative comparison difficult. The only respondent
who elaborates (whose comment is reported verbatim in the table above) mentions a perceivable
improvement in their backchanneling abilities, suggesting increased confidence in responding
correctly to spoken interactions in English. Interestingly, this is the only mention of backchannelingacross all four surveys.
Despite vocabulary being represented in 17.6% of the coded data, mentions of perceived
vocabulary gains in the July 2022 survey suffer from the same lack of detail as in the three previous
surveys. As was true above, vocabulary learning awareness does not seem to be a standalone
accomplishment for students. In this survey, in fact, it is found paired twice with fluency andfour times with pronunciation, strengthening the idea that students, when reflecting, do not think
and recall all of the words and expressions they learned but rather evaluate and appreciate thedevelopment of their range of expression as a whole. Therefore, it is likely that the tool adopted forthis research is not suitable for quantifying vocabulary growth awareness beyond a general sense of
improvement. A better tool for this could be an objective vocabulary test.
Finally, in July 2022 grammar was mentioned three times – the highest number across the four

― 79 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

surveys for the theme. However, only one student delves into further detail on the nature of theirperceived improvement:
Yes I have change a lot. I pay more attention to my grammar when I am talking. So, I finally can
get rid of my slang when I am speaking English with classmates.
With this comment, the student emphasizes how they became aware of their conscious use ofgrammar rules when talking in English and the fact that this positively affects their ability to express
themselves. This resonates with the instructor’s impression at the end semester, when students
were, on average, more accurate in all their speaking and language consolidation tasks. In the data,
however, only the student above seems to have recognized and appreciated this change in theirperformance – also when comparing answers across all four surveys.
5-2 Course design influence on language learning awarenessQ11: One of the goals of this course is to make your progress in English speaking more visible (easierto understand or perceive). So far, how would you say this course accomplished this goal?

May 2021 (n=21 )July 2021 (n=22 )May 2022 (n=22 )July 2022 (n=22 )Figure 1 : Visual representation of Q11 results.

In May, the 21 respondents of the 2021 cohort evaluated the course design overall positively(1=0 ; 2=1; 3=4; 4=13 ; 5=3 ). The positive range (defined as the combination of 4 and 5, 16 ) outweighs
the neutral option (4) and the negative range (defined as the combination of 1 and 2, 1). Two months
later, the same group of students reevaluated how the course design highlights learning progress
more positively (1=0 ; 2=0 ; 3=5; 4=6 ; 5=11; n=22 ; ), with half of the group selecting very well as their― 80 ―

Supporting English learning awareness in spoken interaction through course design

option. When looking at ranges, however, the distribution is substantially unchanged (positive, 17;
neutral, 5; negative, 0).
One year later, the new cohort of 2022 (n=22 ) evaluated the course design for the first time inMay, resulting in the following distribution: 1=0 ; 2=0 ; 3=6; 4=9 ; 5=7 (n=22 ), which translates to arange comparable with the previous iterations of the questionnaire (positive, 16 ; neutral, 6 ; negative,0). The July survey resulted in students selecting the moderately positive choice more often at theexpense of the neutral and extremely positive options: (1=0 ; 2=0 ; 3=4; 4=13; 5=5; n=22 ; ). This
causes the range to shift slightly towards the positive end (18 ; neutral, 4; negative, 0 ).

Figure 2 : Numerical representation of Q11 results.
While the data above will need a round of interviews to be corroborated, similar results acrossthe four surveys suggest that the course design as a whole has a crucial influence on students’language learning awareness. When looking at the positive range, in fact, 77% of the responses
indicate that the course accomplished its goal. The figure is lower in May for both cohorts (74.4% –76.2% in 2021 and 72.7% in 2022) than in July (79.5% – 77.2% in 2021 and 81.8% in 2022), suggestingthat some elements of the course design that were strengthened or implemented anew in thesecond quarter may have helped the students realize their progress more evidently. Correlating
this result with findings from the previous question, it could be hypothesized that, since fluency andpronunciation were the most noticeable positive developments for students in July, course activities
like pair discussions and pronunciation training were instrumental upon review and reflection to theirgeneral language learning awareness. This hypothesis will need to be verified with further research;
the researcher has taken the necessary steps to interview a representative sample of the 2022

― 81 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

students as per the original broader research design, while interviews with a representative sampleof the 2021 cohort were completed in the last academic year.
6. Conclusion
Both teachers and students in any language course expect some degree of learning. While tests
and their scores can provide snapshots of evolving language competence and thus help quantify
learning, they can only contribute to learning awareness when a benchmark is in place. Such abenchmark is not available for students practicing their ability to communicate in English dueto the transient nature of spoken communication. To address the lack of progress awareness inspoken interaction in English, the researcher has devised a course design involving a consistentroutine of reflection and review. Students of the course in 2021 and 2022 were surveyed in May
and June on their class well-being, satisfaction, and perceived language learning. Student answers
on their language learning awareness suggest that the course workings are functional in helping
to keep track of their progress as speakers of English as a lingua franca. In particular, the course
design contributed to an increased perception of their improvement in the following categories
ranked in decreasing order: (1) overall fluency; (2) confidence in using English for communication; (3)pronunciation; (4) vocabulary range and ease of access; (5) grammatical accuracy.
This study could count on responses from all the students taking the course; thus, it is thought
to include all participants’ ideas and perspectives. However, it must be pointed out that the data
presented and analyzed above is derived from two questions, one of which was closed-ended, part offour wider-reaching questionnaires. As such, the results can only shed minimal light on the complex
and multifaceted process of the students’ perceptions of progress in English speaking. In addition, thetwo relevant questions appear towards the end of the questionnaires (respectively 10 and 11 out of
14), which may partly explain some short and less detailed student answers. It is possible that some
respondents experienced survey fatigue due to both length and the fact that all questions were asked
in English. To address these limitations, the researcher is in the process of interviewing students
about their accomplishments and struggles related to using English for communication. In addition,
further iterations of the survey will be distributed with bilingual (English-Japanese) questions.
References
Arvidsson, Klara, June Eyckmans, Alexandra Rosiers, and Fanny Forsberg Lundell. 2018. “SelfPerceived Linguistic Progress, Target Language Use and Personality Development during
Study Abroad.” Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International
Education. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sar.16024.arv.
Council of Europe. 2018. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
Teaching, Assessment. Companion Volume with New Descriptors. Bruxelles: Council of― 82 ―

Supporting English learning awareness in spoken interaction through course design

Europe.
Dörnyei, Zoltán, and Magdalena Kubanyiova. 2014. Motivating Learners, Motivating Teachers.
Building Vision in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hadfield, Jill, and Zoltán Dörnyei. 2013. Motivating Learning. London: Routledge.
Huang, Danny, and Shao-Ting Hung. 2010. “Implementing Electronic Speaking Portfolios: Perceptionsof EFL Students.” British Journal of Educational Technology 41: E84–88. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00996.x.
Kissling, Elizabeth M., and Mary E. O’Donnell. 2015. “Increasing Language Awareness and SelfEfficacy of FL Students Using Self-Assessment and the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines.”
Language Awareness 24 (4): 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2015.1099659.
Oxford, Rebecca L. 2016. “Powerfully Positive: Searching for a Model of Language Learner WellBeing.” In Positive Psychology Perspectives on Foreign Language Learning and Teaching,edited by Danuta Gabryś-Barker and Dagmara Gałajda, 21–37. Cham: Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32954-3_2.
Rose, Heath, Jim McKinley, and Jessica Briggs Baffoe-Djan. 2020. Data Collection Research Methods
in Applied Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Walker, Robin. 2010. Teaching the Pronunciation of English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Yastibas, Ahmet Erdost, and Gülsah Cinar Yastibas. 2015. “The Use of E-Portfolio-Based Assessment
to Develop Students’ Self-Regulated Learning in English Language Teaching.” International
Educational Technology Conference, IETC 2014, 3-5 September 2014, Chicago, IL, USA
176 (February): 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.437.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP21K13052.

― 83 ―

国際教育交流研究第7号

英語コミュニケーションにおける学習意識の支援：
2 つの大学英語コースからの比較研究結果
ロンバルディ・イヴァン
本論文は、福井大学国際地域学部の英語コミュニケーション講座にて、2021年度と2022年度に渡り、学生が感じたスピーキング能力の上達具合にコースデザインが与える影響を調査したものである。なお、本件は、より広い研究プロジェクトの一部として、大学 1 年生における言語学習意識と言語上達に対する満足度に関する結果を示したものである。英語コミュニケーション講座は、B1（中級）レベ
ルの学生が同レベルの能力を固め、B2（中上級）レベルへの橋渡しをするために設計されている。講座構成には、定期的な振り返りとパフォーマンスレビューが含まれており、学生が自分の向上を可視化できるようになっている。本論文で分析するデータは、中間および期末の 2 組のアンケートによって収集されており、 4 つの調査はすべて全学生を対象としたオンラインアンケートで実施された。その結果、当講座の構造が学生の言語学習意識に寄与していることが示唆された（合計77％、両年度ともコース後半で高い値を示した）。また、自由記述欄を分析した結果、両年度とも、特に ① 流暢さ、
② 自信、③ 発音、④ 語彙、⑤ 文法の観点から、英語での会話の進歩を可視化することができたことが明らかになった。
キーワード：言語学習意識、英語コミュニケーション、進捗管理、コースデザイン、ELF― 84 ―

【執筆者紹介】桑原 陽子（福井大学 語学センター・准教授）
佐藤 綾（福井大学 語学センター・准教授）
片野 洋平（長岡技術科学大学 工学研究科・講師）
髙木 裕子（実践女子大学 人間社会学部・教授）
ティップトー・ウイリアム（福井大学 連合教職大学院・特命助教）
半原 芳子（福井大学 連合教職大学院・准教授）
ヘネシー・クリストファー（福井大学 国際地域学部・講師）
ロンバルディ・イヴァン（福井大学 国際地域学部・講師）【編集委員】
佐藤 綾（福井大学 語学センター・准教授）

国際教育交流研究第7号

2023年 3 月３１日発行

編

集

発行者

国際教育交流研究編集委員会
福井大学国際センター・語学センター〒910-8507
電話

福井市文京 3 丁目 9 番 1 号

0776-27-8406（国際課）