ISSN: 2434-8821

JAAL in JACET
Proceedings
Vol. 4ISSN 2434-8821

JAAL in JACET Proceedings
Volume 4
The Fourth JAAL in JACET Conference (JAAL in JACET 2021)
4th December 2021, Online

JAAL in JACET Proceedings, Volume 4
Published by the Japan Association of College English Teachers (JACET)JAAL in JACET Committee
Director-in-Charge
SATO,Takehiro (Nagoya University of Foreign Studies)
Advisory Board
ODA, Masaki (Tamagawa University)
AIKAWA, Masao (Kyoto University of Foreign Studies)
HARA, Takayuki (Kagoshima University)
ISHIKAWA, Tomokazu (Tamagawa University）
WATANABE, Atsuko (Bunkyo University)
Editorial Board
IMAI, Takao (Nanzan University)
YAMANAKA, Tsukasa (Ritsumeikan University)
YAMANISHI, Hiroyuki (Chuo University)
KATO, Yoshitaka (Chubu University)
Reviewers
AIKAWA, Masao (Kyoto University of Foreign Studies)
ARAKI, Tamao (University of Miyazaki)
HARA, Takayuki (Kagoshima University)
ISHIKAWA, Tomokazu (Tamagawa University)
IWAMOTO, Noriko (Toyo University)
KAMIJO, Takeshi (Ritsumeikan University)
KANAMARU, Toshiyuki (Kyoto University)
MASWANA, Sayako (Tokyo University of Science)
NAGAO, Akiko (Ryukoku University)
NAKAGAWA, Yuya (Mie University)
SAKABE, Toshiyuki (Hokkaido University of Science)
SAKAMOTO, Kiyo (The University of Shiga Prefecture)
SASAO, Yosuke (Kyoto University)
TAKAHASHI, Hiroshi (Fuji Women’s University)
YAMADA, Hiroshi (Takachiho University)
YAMADA, Masaki (Sapporo Otani University)
YAMANAKA, Tsukasa (Ritsumeikan University)
YAMAZAKI, Atsuko (Digital Hollywood University, Graduate School)
YOSHIKAWA, Hiroshi (Chukyo University)

Editorial Office
The JACET Office
Address: 55 Yokotera-machi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 162-0831 JAPAN
Phone: +81-3-3268-9686 / Fax : +81-3-3268-9695
E-mail: jacet@zb3.so-net.ne.jp

Japan Association of Applied Linguistics in Japan Association of College English
Teachers (JAAL in JACET) Proceedings, Volume 4
The Fourth JAAL in JACET Conference (JAAL in JACET 2021), 4th December 2021,
OnlinePublished by the Japan Association of College English Teachers (JACET)First published on 31st March 2022
ISSN: 2434-8821
Cite as: JAAL in JACET Proceedings, 4
Copyright © 2022 by JACET
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or republished in any
form without permission in writing from JACET.
The articles published herein do not reflect the opinions of JACET.

Contents
Articles in English
Design Principles for Asynchronous Classes
ASABA, Mayumi and LAVOLETTE, Elizabeth ································································· 1
Investigating an Invisible Returnee/kikokusei From Translanguaging Perspective―The Complexity of
Identity Formation―
HORI, Yaeko and SUGIHARA, Yumi ············································································· 8Studying Abroad and Its Effects on L2 Brain Structures
TAURA, Hideyuki ·································································································· 16
Negotiation of the Degree of Engagement―Conversation Analysis of a College English Learning Activity―
HAYANO, Kaoru ··································································································· 24
Working Toward Group Accomplishment Through a Proposal Sequence―Conversation Analysis of aCollege English Learning Activity―
KUROSHIMA, Satomi ···························································································· 30
Students Expressing Difficulties in Group Activities―Conversation Analysis of a College English Learning
Activity―
ENDO, Tomoko ····································································································· 38
Needs Assessment for a University STEM English Course―Perspectives From Students, Discipline
Faculty, and English Faculty―
KAWANO, Madoka and FUKUCHI, Kentaro·································································· 45
Effects of Feedback Type on the Quality of L2 Learners’ Revised Essays―Comparison of Peer Feedback
and Automated Writing Evaluation―
HATAKEYEMA, Yukako ························································································· 53
Teaching Linguistic Landscape Research―Encouraging Learner Cognition About Language Practices―
JONES, Marc········································································································ 60
Hindering Factors in the Reading Comprehension of Small Groups―Conversation Analysis of a College
English Learning Activity―
MASUDA, Masanobu ····························································································· 65

Articles in Japanese
日本の大学における EAP 教員を対象とした自己評価ツールの開発
マスワナ紗矢子・渡寛法・山田浩・飯島優雅・高橋幸・金丸敏幸・寺内一・田地野彰 ······ 72
高大連携英語ライティング指導―PBL とプロセス・ライティングを通じた教師と生徒の学び―
山下美朋・藤岡真由美・山中司 ·············································································· 78
日本人初級英語学習者の文産出に見られる日本語の主題卓越型構造からの転移に関する一考察―日本語の二重主語文に焦点をあてて―
橋尾晋平 ············································································································ 86
4 技能テスト結果からみる『9 マス英会話』のトレーニング効果
石川希美・山田政樹・坂部俊行・内藤永 ·································································· 94
航空機操縦士のための英語教材開発―日本語母語話者の外国語訛りに対する脆弱性の検証―
西川惠・縄田義直 ······························································································· 100
英語教育支援システム Zoroe を用いた英語リスニング指導の一考察
照井雅子・溝渕昭二 ···························································································· 108
獣医学生の英語ニーズ―質問紙とインタビュー調査から―
山本佳代・荒木瑞夫 ···························································································· 115

Design Principles for Asynchronous Classes
ASABA, Mayumi* and LAVOLETTE, Elizabeth***Kyoto Sangyo University
masaba@cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp**Kyoto Sangyo University
betsy@cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp
Abstract
This paper reports design principles implemented in two asynchronous English-medium content-based
lecture courses taught by the authors at a university in western Japan. The first author taught a course
focused on concepts related to understanding different cultures, and the second author taught a course
about varieties of English used around the world. The course content was designed based on previous
research (e.g., Guo, Kim, & Rubin, 2014) and second language acquisition theory (comprehensible input,
Krashen, 2009). The authors first explain the principles concerning recommendations for video length,
instructor presence, technical quality, and content. Furthermore, how these principles were implemented
and adapted according to the content and format of each course is explained. Students’ perceptions ofeach element is also discussed based on the findings of a pilot study that researchers conducted about theflipped classroom model. Finally, this paper concludes with pedagogical implications for improving
course materials for asynchronous English-medium content-based classes as well as suggestions for
updating the principles and further studies to explore students’ perceptions of the course content.
Keywords: Asynchronous learning, Materials design, Online learning, Flipped learning
1. Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the need to shift
to online learning at institutions worldwide, and Kyoto
Sangyo University is no exception. While Zoom and othervideo conference systems such as Teams were the tool ofchoice for many, not all classes could be taught
synchronously. The university policies for online teaching
have continued to change over the last two years to meet theneeds of students’ safety and learning opportunities.
Accordingly, in the academic year of 2021, instructors in the
Faculty of Foreign Studies were required to teach certainclasses asynchronously, including the two focal courses in thecurrent study, which were taught by the researchers.
The pandemic and the university policies that continue
to change each semester made us uncertain about whether inthe future, we would be able to recycle some of the teachingmaterials we had developed for an asynchronous format. As
we were planning our approach to teaching each course, wewere concerned about creating materials that could be usedboth online and offline. With that in mind, we createdmaterials that could be adapted to a flipped learning model.
In the flipped classroom model, what is traditionally done ina classroom and what students normally do outside theclassroom are flipped. That is, outside the classroom, students
study course materials by watching video-recorded lectures,and then they come to class to participate in activities, such as
discussions and problem-solving tasks (e.g., Nouri, 2016;
Vitta & Al-Hoorie, 2020). We thought this teaching model
would make it possible to adapt our teaching and course
materials in a flexible manner in any of the three given
scenarios: face-to-face, synchronous, and asynchronous

instruction.
However, developing such learning materials was
relatively unfamiliar to us. Therefore, we first developed
principles for making asynchronous course materials that
support student learning to the greatest extent possible, witha focus on videos. In this paper, we first introduce theprinciples we developed based on previous research andsecond language acquisition theory. Then, we discuss how we
implemented and adapted the principles in each of the courses
while providing students’ perceptions of each element basedon the findings of a pilot study we conducted about flippedclassroom learning. Finally, this paper concludes with
implications for creating course materials for asynchronous
teaching and flipped classrooms.
2. Background
Undergraduate students in the Faculty of Foreign
Studies at Kyoto Sangyo University, aged between 18 and 23
years, were enrolled in two discrete asynchronous Englishmedium content courses that the researchers taught in the fallsemester of 2021. The goals of each course included language
learning in addition to content learning. The first researcher
was the instructor for the course “Introduction to Intercultural
Understanding” (IU), and the second researcher was the
instructor for the course “World Englishes” (WE). The
students majored in various language studies, including
English, European languages (French, Italian, and Russian)and Asian languages (Chinese, Korean, and Japanese). There
were 33 students enrolled in IU and 38 students in WE. The
researchers created and shared the course content weekly withthe students in each class.

1

The first author taught IU, in which students learned
various concepts about cultural aspects, such as stereotypes,
discrimination, and communication in both English andJapanese. The majority of students in this course majored in
Asian languages, such as Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. It
was the first time that the instructor had taught this course andwithout meeting students in person, the instructor wasconcerned about the students’ English proficiency. Therefore,
based on the suggestion of Butzkamm (2003) that the L1should be used systematically and the findings of a previous
study about L1 use in L2 classrooms by Copland andNeokleous (2011), the instructor used Japanese mainly fortwo purposes: translating and explaining key terms andanswering questions. Moreover, students used Ibunka Rikai
Nyumon (Fujisawa, 2013), written in Japanese, as the
textbook. In the first week of the lesson, introductory videos
about the instructor and the class were posted. Every week,
the instructor created and posted between two and four videos
on Microsoft Stream and an assignment on Microsoft Teams.
The content of the assignment varied each week. However,
the most common type of assignment was created in
Microsoft Forms, and it consisted of both comprehension
questions about the content of the textbook and the videos in
addition to discussion questions, in which students wereasked to make a connection between the course content andtheir experiences. In the morning on Thursday each week,
when the class was scheduled to take place, the instructor
posted instructions for what students were expected to do forthe lesson. Typically, students were instructed to read an
assigned chapter in the textbook, watch the assigned videos,
which were embedded and linked, complete and submit a
Microsoft Form consisting of questions (the assignment), andpreview a chapter assigned for the following lesson. The
deadline for each assignment was enforced and was
Wednesday midnight of the following week. The instructor
gave a score and returned students’ work within 48 hours ofthe deadline. Sometimes instructional videos, such as how toshare a document with other people and how to post acomment on Microsoft Teams, were also posted.
The second researcher taught WE, in which students
learned about varieties of English spoken around the world
and English language history. Most of the students were
English majors, and the course was taught fully in English.
The instructor had taught the course previously, both inperson and online. The instructor used Moodle (the course
management system) to make content available to students
each week on Thursday morning. All tasks were due thefollowing Thursday at 18:15, which was the end of theassigned class period. An introductory video posted in thefirst week of the course showed students how to complete thework each week by clicking each link in Moodle in order andwatching the video or completing the quiz, questionnaire, orother assignment. A typical lesson contained about 4 to 6
videos of about 1 to 4 minutes each. Each video was followed
by a computer-graded quiz, or in some cases, quiz questions
were directly embedded in the videos. At the end of eachlesson, students played a quiz game (Kahoot) to review thecontent. They then completed a questionnaire in which theywrote about what they found interesting about the content andoptionally, asked any questions. The instructor responded toall questions, maintaining student anonymity, in a video thatwas posted for all students to view in a future lesson. Students
were able to repeat most course content as many times as they
liked, including watching the videos, completing thecomputer-graded quizzes, and playing the review games,
even after the deadline had passed. Questionnaires andinstructor-graded assignments could only be completed once,
and their deadlines were enforced.
3. Development of Design Principles
To create the course materials for the two courses
described above, we referred to four design principles. In
developing these principles, we relied on both empiricalstudies and second language acquisition (SLA) theory. First,
we looked at the results of a large-scale empirical study ofmassive open online courses (MOOCs). MOOCs generally
use video lectures, and the research of Guo, Kim, and Rubin(2014) provides insight into the features of videos that are themost engaging for learners. They analyzed 6.9 million video
watching sessions on the edX MOOC platform, focusing onfour math and science courses. They measured “engagement”
by the time that learners spent watching the videos andwhether the learners attempted to answer multiple-choice
quiz questions within 30 minutes of watching. Based on thisanalysis, they made recommendations for designing engaging
videos (Table 1, left column). Given the differences between
the MOOCs and our courses (e.g., existing lecture videos vs.
creating new ones, science vs. humanities, MOOC vs.
university), we interpreted the recommendations to fit ourcontext, as shown on the right side of Table 1.
Table 1
Recommendations for Engaging MOOC Videos (Guo, Kim, &Rubin, 2014, p. 42) and Our Interpretation

2

Recommendations from
Guo, Kim, & Rubin (2014)

Our interpretation

Segment videos into
chunks shorter than 6
minutes.

Record short videos, under
6 minutes in most cases.

Display the instructor’shead at opportune times inthe video.

Include the instructor’s
face in every video. Onlyat the beginning of thevideo is enough in mostcases, but some video
types (e.g., pronunciation
practice) should show the
instructor’s facethroughout the video.

Try filming in an informal
setting.

The only settings available
to us were informal (e.g.,kitchen, office).

Khan-style tablet drawing
tutorials are moreengaging than PowerPoint
slides or code screencasts.
Introduce motion andcontinuous visual flow
into tutorials, along withextemporaneous speaking.

show their enthusiasm for the topic. In terms of technicalquality, videos do not require a professional studio with hightech recording and editing equipment. However, audio andvideo should be clear. Finally, content: visuals, text, and audio
should be used to make input comprehensible. Quizzes shouldbe frequent (ideally after each video segment) to support
student learning. These quizzes also serve to inform students
about what they did not understand so that they can review
materials and ask questions.

Not applicable. The
instructors did not have thetablets needed to create
Khan-style tutorials. We
would consider using thisstyle in the future,
although the potential
extraneous cognitive load(e.g., Nguyen & Clark,
2005) for L2 learners
should be considered.

Even high quality prerecorded classroom
lectures are not as
engaging when chopped
up for a MOOC.

Not applicable. We did nothave any pre-recordedclassroom lectures.

Coach instructors to bringout their enthusiasm andreassure [them] that they
do not need to purposely
slow down.

Enthusiasm: We agree that
this is important.
Slowing down: Speaking
at a slow (but not
unnatural) pace may help
learners understand the L2.

For lectures, focus moreon the first-watch
experience; for tutorials,
add support for rewatchingand skimming.

Lectures: Focus on thefirst-watch experience,that is, do notunnecessarily spend time
adding bookmarks or titles
within videos to support
rewatching and skimming.
Tutorials: Not applicable.

4. Pilot Study
To explore students’ perceptions of the asynchronouscourse content, we conducted a pilot study. Delivering
engaging asynchronous lessons requires critical reflection(Ekmekci, 2013). We hoped that gaining insight into theusefulness of the design principles from the student
perspective would provide us an opportunity to reflect on our
teaching, improve it, and potentially add to the principles.
Data were collected online over 12 weeks in IU and 9 weeks
in WE.
Two types of English and Japanese bilingual
questionnaires were used to examine students’ perceptions of
the course content, including a background questionnaire andweekly questionnaires. In the first lesson, students’background information and their expectations for the courses
were explored (Table 2). The questionnaire included 15
multiple-choice items divided into three parts: student
background, experiences with flipped classrooms, andexpectations of the course. The weekly questionnaires
included six to eight items related to the course content andassignments for each week, divided into two sections. Items
in the first section were related to how much time theparticipants spent completing classwork. If the participants
responded that they did not complete all of the assignments,
they were asked to provide reasons. The second section
concerned how many assigned videos the participants
watched and how many times the participants watched each
video. Students could write comments about video lectures.

The next empirical study we considered concerned not
the videos themselves, but the quizzes based on them.
Quizzes to check understanding are a usual feature of bothflipped learning and asynchronous online courses, such as
MOOCs. Szpunar, Jing, and Schacter (2014) investigated theeffect of testing students once after a 21-minute lecture video
versus dividing the lecture into 5-minute segments, eachfollowed by tests. They found that interpolating testing withlecture videos resulted in improved student performance on a
final cumulative test. This suggests that frequent quizzes may
be more effective for our students’ learning as well.
We also incorporated SLA theory in developing ourdesign principles. Krashen’s (2009) input hypothesis statesthat comprehensible input is necessary for learners to acquirea language. Therefore, we used images (static and dynamic),
text, and audio to support students in understanding meaningin our videos.
Based on these empirical results and SLA theory, wedeveloped design principles in the following categories: video
length, instructor presence, technical quality, and content.
First, video length: Videos should be under six minutes, andlonger videos should be chunked into shorter segments.
Offering short videos also supports frequent quizzing by
providing more opportunities to insert quizzes. Next,
instructor presence: The instructor’s face should appear ineach video. To make videos engaging, the instructor should

Table 2Students’ Background Information for Each Course

3

Introduction to
Intercultural
Understanding

World Englishes

GenderMale 4
Female 8

Male 2
Female 11
No response 2

Major

English 2
Europeanlanguages 1
Asian languages 9

English 8
European languages
4
Asian languages 1
No response 2

Reasons
for taking
the course

This class isrequired. 3
I am interested in
the topic. 7

This class isrequired. 6
I am interested in
the topic. 8

I want to become
an English teacher.
2
Other 2

supplementary material, in which the instructor gave an
example of a concept discussed in another video in the samelesson. There are two reasons why the videos used in thiscourse were longer than the ones in the other course. First,
delivering lectures in both English and Japanese made thevideos longer. The second reason concerns various concepts
introduced in the class, such as stereotypes and values. The
instructor attempted to clarify the meaning of each concept,
which could be abstract and confusing for some students, byproviding examples. Sometimes the instructor createdseparate videos to introduce examples as supplementary
videos, but other times the examples were included in themain lecture videos.
The findings of the pilot study indicate that theparticipants did not find the videos to be overwhelmingly
long. None of the participants discussed issues related tovideo length in either course. Moreover, some students
reported that they watched all or some videos more than once.
For example, 4 students responded that they watched some ofthe videos twice or more in Weeks 4 and 7 in WE, and 5
students responded that they watched some of the videos
twice or more in Week 5 in IU. One student in WE
commented that “I can understand it after watching video
lectures several times” (Week 5). Even though there were no
specific comments concerning video lengths, the video
lengths did not prevent students from watching the videos
multiple times.

I want to become an
English teacher. 1

27 out of 71 students who were enrolled in the courses(12 students in IU and 15 students in WE) completed thebackground questionnaire. Moreover, the number of students
who completed the weekly questionnaires in the first author’s
course ranged from one to 13, and in the second author’s
course, four to 20. Although some students who did notcomplete the consent form nevertheless completed some of
the weekly questionnaires, note that their data was eliminated.
We attribute the low number of responses to the fact that thedata collection was solely conducted online in an
asynchronous course.
5. Implementation of Design Principles
Below, we describe how we implemented the four
design principles (video length, instructor presence, technicalquality, and content) in each of our classes. We considered ourcourse content and student English proficiency level andadapted the principles according to our contexts of teaching.
5.1 Video length
We created short videos. In WE, each video was
generally under 4 minutes. Figure 1 shows a screenshot of the
Moodle page for a lesson on Hawaiian Creole English. Videos
are indicated in parentheses, including the length of the video
in minutes and seconds. All instructional videos are under
three minutes, and the video titled “Room Service,” which is
not a lecture, but gives students an opportunity to listen to
Hawaiian Creole English, is just over 4 minutes long.

5.2 Instructor presence
We created videos that showed students that the
instructor was always present. In WE, the instructor appearedin every instructional video. In many videos, she appeared
only in a short introduction at the beginning of the video (10to 15 seconds) in full screen, and the majority of the video
was a slideshow with voiceover. In other videos, such as those
focused on pronunciation, the instructor appeared throughout
the video as a small inset (e.g., Figure 2).

Figure 1
Excerpt of Moodle Page for World Englishes

Figure 2
Screenshot of Video Including Inset of Instructor

In IU, the instructor appeared and stayed throughout
every video. She did not use a virtual background, and she
positioned her face next to the main screen (e.g., Figure 3).
She also used gestures and different facial expressions as she
explained ideas and concepts to show her enthusiasm about
each topic. The instructor attempted to simulate her typicalIn IU, videos were generally five to six minutes long,which was longer than the ones used in WE. The length of thelongest video was 13 minutes, posted during Week 10, whena guest speaker spoke about LGBTQ+ issues in an interview
with the instructor. The shortest video was 2 minutes of4

face-to-face class, in which she would interact with students
on a personal basis through personalized examples andfeedback. The examples often concerned the instructor’s
personal experiences with different cultures both in Japan andoverseas. Moreover, the instructor gave personalized
feedback and responses and asked questions to individual
students along with assigning a grade when returning theirwork in a timely manner, which is one of the essential
components for students to feel teacher presence (Ekmekci,2013).

(Figure 2) and edit videos. The editing interface (Figure 4)
allows many options, but the instructor generally only cut out
mistakes. The videos were uploaded to Screencast-omatic.com, and links were posted on Moodle.
Figure 4
Screenshot of Screencast-o-matic Video Editor

Figure 3
Screenshot of Video with Instructor on the SideIn IU, the videos were recorded at home using
Microsoft Teams. Once recording was complete, the videos
were edited on QuickTime player. The only editing was totrim the beginning and the end of the video. Then the videos
were uploaded to Microsoft Stream.
Only one comment in the weekly questionnaire
indicated a problem related to technical quality. One
participant from IU said, “Everything is easy to understand,but there are parts that are difficult to hear the sound” (Week4). Even though only one participant brought up this issue, itis necessary to ensure the sound quality of every video whenrecycling them in future classes.

Finally, the instructor created an environment in which
students could experience the presence of people other than
the instructor, such as their classmates and guest speakers. For
some of the assignments, students were required to work with
their classmates. For example, in one assignment, students
needed to respond to discussion questions and comments on
their classmates’ responses in a discussion board the
instructor created on Microsoft Teams. In another assignment,
students worked in a group to present a proposal for a project
assigned by the instructor. They were not only required to givea presentation but also submit evidence of their collaborative
work, such as brainstorming and an outline. Moreover, theclass welcomed two guest speakers. They were both chosen
based on the topics covered in the lesson, and they answeredquestions posed by the instructor and students in an online
interview. The first guest speaker spoke about his experienceliving in various countries for work, and the second guest
speaker discussed LGBTQ+ issues.
One response from a weekly questionnaire in IU
indicated a positive effect the instructor's presence had on
students. The comment said “I appreciated seeing the
instructor in every video” (Week 5). Furthermore, this
respondent said, “The video with the guest [discussing his
experiences living in various countries for work] was very
helpful to learn about real experiences” (Week 5). The firstauthor has reasons to believe that students appreciated thepresence of the guest speakers. However, no questions
directly addressed this topic, and we plan to improve thispoint for the updated questionnaire.

5.4 Content
We endeavored to make the input in the videos
comprehensible. In WE, the instructor explained vocabulary
using images, text, and audio. So, even if students could not
fully understand the explanation in English, they could
understand the meaning from the images (e.g., Figure 5).
Figure 5
Screenshot of Video With Support to Make Input Comprehensible(World Englishes)

5.3 Technical quality
We did not use a professional studio or editing softwareto record. For WE, the second author recorded in her home oruniversity office using Screencast-o-matic. This software
makes it possible to include an inset video with the screencast

Similarly, in IU, the instructor’s priority was to ensure
students’ understanding of the reading and the videos. The
instructor did this by using images and simple text as well as
speaking slowly and repeating key words several times (e.g.,5Figure 7
Quiz Embedded in a Video Using H5P

Figure 6) as well as using Japanese to translate and explain
key terms and concepts.
Most comments in the weekly questionnaires
concerned the course content. Comments from IU included“It was easy to understand” (Week 1), “Because there werePowerpoint slides shown, and there are many figures,
everything is easy to understand” (Week 3), and “Because theinstructor explains by using Japanese also, everything isbasically easy to see” (Week 4). In WE, one comment
indicated that it was easy to understand the content. However,two comments related to the language and content
demonstrated that it was difficult to understand the lecture.
One comment said, “Those without Japanese subtitles weredifficult to understand.” Because none of the videos had
Japanese subtitles and the instructor only taught the class inEnglish, this may be the student’s way of indicating that theystruggled to understand the content when not supported in the
L1. The other comment said, “The last video that introduced
all kinds of IPA was difficult to understand because they were
all there at once” (Week 1). This student seems to have foundthe content cognitively overwhelming. Based on thesecomments, the instructor will consider how the language canbe made more comprehensible and the content in each video
can be simplified in future iterations of the course.

6. Discussion and Conclusion
The COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized the futilityof predicting the future. The researchers planned to teachflipped classes and conduct research on students’ perceptionsof these classes. However, for reasons outside our control, wewere unable to teach either in the classroom or in online
synchronous sessions, making flipped learning impossible.
We are hopeful that classes can be held face-to-face in Springand Fall 2022, but new viral variants may cause new waves
of infection, again disrupting our plans. For that reason, it isincreasingly important to not only plan for learning andteaching based on best practices developed for prepandemic
learning conditions (e.g., flipped learning), but also develop
learning materials that can support students as new learning
conditions arise. In this case, we adapted our learningmaterials to the changing circumstances, and we will need tocontinue to think flexibly about teaching and research in the
coming years. Relying on our design principles, which are
based on empirical results and SLA theory, helped us to createsound learning materials, and we believe that they will also
be useful to other instructors.
Because of the lack of empirical research on effective
video lectures in humanities in general and for L2 English
learners in particular, we were limited in the literature that we
could refer to in developing our design principles. Despite thislimitation, we consulted the existing evidence and referred to
SLA theories during development. Therefore, we believe that
other instructors can refer to these design principles to create
effective asynchronous course content. Teaching an
asynchronous class may seem overwhelming, especially for
those who are teaching a course in this format for the firsttime. However, we hope that these principles can help
teachers navigate the process more efficiently and effectively.
Moreover, our exploration of how we adapted the principles
according to different contextual factors, such as students’English proficiency and class content, provides pedagogicalimplications for those who teach in various contexts. By
focusing on these four aspects of principles concerning video
length, instructor presence, technical quality, and content, wehope that teachers can design asynchronous course materials
that can be recycled even when all classes go back to face-toface instruction.
Of course, testing the effectiveness of the designprinciples in action is an important step. Toward that goal, we
conducted a pilot study of student opinions about andFigure 6
Screenshot of Video With Support to Make Input Comprehensible(Introduction to Intercultural Understanding)Quizzes were frequent. In WE, each instructional video
was generally followed by a quiz (see the “Tasks” in Figure1). To reduce grading time for the instructor, most quizzes
were computer graded. Most were delivered within Moodle,
but others were embedded within videos using H5P (Figure7) or gamified using Kahoot. Students were not restrictedfrom accessing the lecture videos or other course content
while completing the quizzes, and they could repeat thequizzes as many times as they liked. Only the highest score
was considered in grading.
Three quizzes were assigned in IU. Quizzes weresimilar to assignments in that they were also created in
Microsoft Forms and shared on Microsoft Teams. Students
were given one week to complete the quiz and were allowed
to refer to the textbook and all the videos while completing
quizzes. Because the quizzes only consisted ofcomprehension questions, they were graded automatically on
Microsoft Forms.

6

Teaching
Research,
Advanceonlinehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820981403

experiences with the materials we developed based on theprinciples. We will continue to improve our course materials
based on the findings. Furthermore, one important aspect of
instructional design that is not included in our principles isaccessibility. In future revisions of the principles, we would
like to consider universal design and how to create materials
that are effective for all learners, regardless of disabilities orlearning differences.
If the instructional context allows, in the 2022
academic year, we will teach each course in a flipped format.
We plan to revise our research design based on the pilot study
and conduct further research on students’ perceptions of thematerials and experiences in the flipped classroom. The study
will not only examine students’ perceptions of the course
content, but also shed light on student perceptions of flipped
learning, a type of learning that our students have little
experience with, according to our preliminary data from thepilot study. We hope that this investigation will ultimately
lead to more effective learning outcomes for our students thatcan be generalized to other student populations. The designprinciples laid out in the current report provide a foundation
for this ongoing research and may also prove useful to otherresearchers and educators.
References
Butzkamm, W. (2003). We only learn language once. The role of themother tongue in FL classrooms: Death of a dogma. Language
Learning Journal, 28(1), 29–39.
Copland, F., & Neokleous, G. (2011). L1 to teach L2: Complexities
and contradictions. ELT Journal, 65(3), 270–280.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq047
Ekmekci, O. (2013). Being there: Establishing instructor presence inan online learning environment. Higher Education Studies,3(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v3n1p29
Fujisawa, I. (2013). Ibunkarikainyumon [Introduction to
Intercultural Understanding]. Tokyo, Japan: Kenkyusha.
Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production
affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC
videos. In A. Fox, M. Hearst, & M. T. H. Chi (Eds.), L@S ’14:
Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning @ scale
conference (pp. 41–50). New York, NY: The Association for
Computing Machinery.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2556325.2566239
Krashen, S. D. (2009). Principles and practice in second language
acquisition. http://www.sdkrashen.com/
Nguyen, F., & Clark, R. C. (2005). Efficiency in e-Learning: Proveninstructional methods for faster, better, online learning.
Learning Solutions, 1–7.
http://www.clarktraining.com/content/articles/Guild_ELearning.pdf
Nouri, J. (2016). The flipped classroom: For active, effective andincreased learning—Especially for low achievers.
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
Education, 13(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-0160032-z
Szpunar, K. K., Jing, H. G., & Schacter, D. L. (2014). Overcoming
overconfidence in learning from video-recorded lectures:
Implications of interpolated testing for online education.
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition,3(2014), 161–164.
Vitta, J. P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2020). The flipped classroom insecond language learning: A meta-analysis. Language

7

publication.

Investigating an Invisible Returnee/kikokusei
From Translanguaging Perspective―The Complexity of Identity Formation―
HORI, Yaeko* and SUGIHARA, Yumi***Keio University
jelly88fish@gmail.com**Keio University
sugiyumi@sfc.keio.ac.jp
Abstract
While inspired by transnationalism, identity research in applied linguistics, including the ones related toreturnees (kikokusei), is considered complex internal/external phenomena having multiple relationalities.
However, the heterogeneity inherent in a kikokusei experience tends to remain invisible; while being
viewed as a ‘bilingual’, having additive/mixed identities, i.e., linguistic (the first and the second) andcultural/social identities. Further, a kikokusei is often analyzed by utilizing preexisting categories andbinary framework (e.g., nationality, languages, home vs. guest). The current research investigates akikokusei from translanguaging perspective and employs a phenomenological methodology. The datacollected by in-depth interviews were thematically analyzed and then contextualized with other data (e.g.,
participant observation, online correspondences). The results reveal the participant’s inconsistent uses ofcategories/labels/binary frameworks in interpreting the world and the self; her perceptions towards
language(s)/linguistic features and communication were entwined with other features/relationships thatmattered to her. Above all, an elucidated life theme was pivotal in keeping herself balanced and nurturing
her future goal. Lastly, we suggest applied linguists decenter (named) languages in capturing a morenuanced understanding of linguistic features diffused in identity formation. Such shift may have
implications for policy/practice in (language) education, and generate potential in contributing totransdisciplinary identity research in human science.
Keywords: criticality, identity, translanguaging, phenomenological approach, transdisciplinary research
1. Introduction
The two authors, the first author involved in English
language teaching (while being a Ph.D. candidate) and thesecond in Japanese language teaching, have a common
concern as to how applied linguists regardless of theirdifferent expertise on language could contribute to identity
research in the form of concerted efforts in human science.
Thus, in exploring such research, the first author attempted to
conduct a longitudinal experience research targeting
university students in the second author’s seminar classes at a
private university in Japan, in which Japanese and English
languages are regarded as academic languages. Paradoxical
as this may sound at this point, in the end we would like toargue that applied linguists need to decenter (named)
languages in order to refocus how language, or linguisticfeatures, play roles in one’s identity formation while entwinedwith other features/relationships that matter in life. In support,
we present a case focusing on one student, who would usually
fall in the category of ‘returnees/kikokusei’1 in Japan, i.e.,
students who return to Japan after a long-term living abroad
experience, in often cases due to being children of expatriates(e.g., Kanno, 2000). Despite their increasing population(MOFA, 2019), Nae (2019) calls returnees “hidden
immigrants” (p. 168) for they remain invisible among otherJapanese people. In what follows, we start by briefly
reviewing the relevant literature in explaining neworientations emerging in identity research in applied
linguistics. Then, we provide a rationale for choosing
translanguaging for the theoretical framework, i.e., a holistic
conceptualization which enables us to see each
returnee/kikokusei as an entire being (with cognitive as well
as physical capacity) embracing a unitary repertoire ofmultilingual, multimodal, multisemiotic and multisensual
resources (cf. Li, 2018). Subsequently, we explain why wechose a qualitative inductive methodology, namely,
Interpretative
Phenomenological Analysis
asthemethodological framework. Thereafter, we describe thecurrent research and present the research results and ouranalysis, which unveil the research participant’s complex
relationships to linguistic features in her identity formation
based upon her life trajectories and life course. Lastly, we
conclude by presenting suggestions and implications forapplied linguists in furthering efforts in transdisciplinary
identity research in today’s unsettled world (cf. The Douglas
Fir Group, 2016; Li, 2018).
2. Conceptualizing Identity Formation as Complex
Internal/External Phenomena

82.1 Plural identities
For more than three decades, identity in social science,
including applied linguistics, has generally been seen as
plural while influenced by social constructionism (e.g.,
Berger & Luckmann, 1979), so-called poststructuralists’theories (e.g., Derrida, 1988; Foucault, 1988) andpostcolonial theories (e.g., Bhabha 1990; Hall, 1990). That is
to say, identities are not fixed but fluid as they are discursively
co-constructed and negotiated in social space (cf. Block,2007). In fact, a substantial body of research on plural
identities have been producing valuable data in applied
linguistics, highlighting how language learners/users as alegitimate agency in the society are able to create their own
identities (e.g., linguistic, social, cultural, community/local
and global identities) amid political/social/cultural power(e.g., Blackledge & Pavlenko, 2001; Kanno & Norton, 2003;
Omoniyi & White, 2006). Also of note is that theories in
psychology under the influence of social constructionism(e.g., Markus & Nurius, 1986; Harré & van Langenhove,1999) were also made use of in the research.
Since the 1980s, studies on “returnees/kikokusei” aswell have been accumulating important data fromsociocultural perspectives (cf. Bennet, 1998). While primarily
targeting Japanese who returned from so-called Englishspeaking countries (e.g., the United States of America/USA,
Canada, the United Kingdom/UK, etc.), the studies
demonstrated that, despite rich bilingual and biculturalexperiences, returnees tend to go through hardship; they feel
marginalized in readjusting to Japanese society while being
perceived as ‘ideal speakers of native (English) language’(e.g., Yashiro, 1995; Kanno, 2000, 2003; cf. Kubota, 1999).
Further, Kanno (2003) reported that, due to the dilemma,
some returnees positioned themselves between the first
language/culture (L1/C1) and the second language/culture(L2/C2), which made the line between the dual framework
blur and produced multicultural identities. Besides, someresearchers point out that other possible variables should betaken into consideration such as different countries returnees
have lived in (besides English-speaking countries), different
languages they have encountered (besides English), different
ranges of time spent abroad, and so on (e.g., Yoshida,
Matsumoto, Akashi, Akiyama, Furuie, Ishii, & Moriyoshi,
2009; Ford 2009; Nae, 2019).
In the next subsection, we summarize a further
development of identity research in applied linguistics whilereferring to discussion germane to transnationalism generated
in sociology and anthropology.

Generally, these conceptualizations go beyond fixed notionsof language as a code; social practice is considered not merely
outputting codes, or code-switching/simple mixing of codes.
This means that language users deploy different
communicative resources at their disposal in social practices
including linguistic, para-linguistic, extra-linguistic, semiotic
items/things, and sensual resources. Indeed, numerous
sociolinguistic research applied these conceptualizations andilluminated the multifarious resources mobilized incommunication by research targets (could be called bilinguals,
multilinguals or transnationals) which indexed theirdimensions of identity (e.g., Blackledge & Creese, 2017; Zhu,
Li, & Jankowicz-Pytel, 2019).
The rise of new conceptualizations stated above is an
important backdrop against which new orientations in identity
research have emerged while further stimulated by the
discussion of transnationalism. Transnationalism has been
discussed across disciplines in human science for some time.
It emphasizes the contemporary phenomena of mobility
regarding people, things, money, and information in theaccelerated globalizing world with the advancement of
information technologies (cf. Vertovec, 2009). Various
researchers in sociology and anthropology demonstrated how
immigrants in their everyday life transgress and transcend
preexisting binary territorial framework rooted in the modern
nation-state boundaries, such as countries between
home/there and guest/here (in online and offline spaces) (e.g.,
Burrell, 2003; Levitte & Glick Schiller, 2004). Regarding
identity research, Glick Schiller (2012), a social
anthropologist, argues that researchers need to be criticallyaware of inequalities and marginalization in the world today
and try not to solidify the power of certain institutions,education, and media, which tend to exploit identity
categories (i.e., nationality, ethnicity, race, gender andreligion). Thus, identity research must be attentive to“individual beingness with multiple simultaneous various
connected interrelationships” (p. 527), i.e., multiple
relationalities (p. 529). She then calls for the need to developa theory of identity formation as phenomena, encompassing
peoples’ consciousness to social performance. In so doing,
she maintains that divorcing from the methodologicalnationalism, which normalizes the divide between native andforeign, is indispensable. What’s worth noting here is thatphenomenological methodology as psycho-social approachhas been discussed and applied in advancing identity research(e.g., Burrell, 2003; Nishihara, 2010). (The discussion of
methodology will be explored in section 3).
Inspired largely by this line of discussion above,
identity formation in applied linguistics is now consideredsomething holistic, “the juxtaposition between the self and theother, the personal and the social nature, stability and situatedaccomplishment, and product and process” (Zhu 2017, p. 1).
Accordingly, many find it unsatisfactory to examine andanalyze identity by preexisting categories/labels (e.g.,nationalities, the first and the second languages/learners, etc.),
additive combination of these categories (such as hyphenatedexpression, Asian-female second language learner), andbinary framework (home vs. host/guest, majority vs. minority,

2.2 Identity as complex internal/external phenomena
As applied linguistics deals with real-life issues
concerning language, people and communication,
globalization, and transnationalism, are its fundamental
concern (e.g., Duff, 2015). Actually, reflecting the reality ofpeoples’ communication in the globalizing world, novel
conceptualizations of language appeared in the past decade orso (e.g., polylingualism by Jörgensen, 2008; metrolingualism,
Otsuji & Pennycook, 2010; translingual practice,
Canagarajah, 2013; translanguaging, García & Li, 2014).

9

the first language/culture vs. the second (or third)
language(s)/culture(s)) (e.g., Arnaut, 2012; De Fina & Perrino,
2013; Duff, 2015; Zhu, 2017). As for methodology, althoughphenomenological approach is still a minority in applied
linguistics (cf. Jeong, 2019), some researchers discuss its
potential to avoid methodological nationalism (e.g., Holliday
and McDonald, 2019) and some apply/adapt it in theirresearch (e.g., Busch, 2012).
In this section, we reviewed literatures to outline theresonance between sociology/anthropology and applied
linguistics in conceptualizing identity formation as thecomplex phenomena with multiple internal/external andonline/offline relationalities. We also underline that suchconceptualization challenges us to develop a holistic theoryof identity formation and methodology with reference tophenomenological methodology. In the next section, we share
our theoretical and methodological decisions in our research.

moment analysis methodology, in analyzing their interview
data they adapted a qualitative inductive phenomenologicalmethodology, specifically, Interpretative Phenomenological
Analysis (IPA) established in applied psychology (Smith,Flowers & Larkin, 2009). As Zhu and Li (2016) acknowledge
that it is impossible to capture ever-transforming phenomena
which both researcher and research participants are part of,they refer to the hermeneutic analysis (double hermeneutic),i.e., the researcher can only try to make sense of theparticipants trying to make sense of their world (Smith et al.,2009). (IPA’s thematic analysis is explained later in thissection.) The results revealed the diversity of experiences ofindividuals within the same Chinese diaspora families in the
UK. Each individual’s stories were uniquely fused with theirown experiences, histories and imagination. Zhu and Li(2016) call for the need to conduct longitudinal life
experience research and to contextualize interview data withother ethnographic data in order to interpret why they
(research targets) feel the way they feel, and why they dothings the way they do (p. 654).
Therefore, in responding to these needs, we conductedlongitudinal life experience research targeting a university
student who is categorized as a returnee/kikokusei, or, aJapanese ‘bilingual’, by taking translanguaging as thetheoretical framework. The research question focused in thispaper is “how is/are a returnee’s relationship(s) to linguisticfeatures intertwined with other features/relationships in her
life?” In answering the question, we chose IPA as our
methodological framework not only for the interview analysis
but throughout the research in further pursuing the necessary
inductive nature in identity research.
Due to the space limitation, we cannot afford to explain
IPA in detail, but we illustrate key points relevant to our study.
Phenomenology fundamentally concerns the structures ofhuman consciousness as experienced physically andemotionally from the first-person point of view.2
Phenomenological methodologies concern describing
phenomena as they manifest themselves in peoples’
subjective experiences by questioning taken-for-granted
assumptions in peoples’ life (e.g., van Manen, 2014). IPA3
defines experience as “a person’s relatedness to a given
phenomenon”, i.e., a person’s positionality in relation tosomething (something they become conscious of), such as
culture, language and locale (Smith, et al., 2009, p. 195-196).
IPA’s basic steps for thematic analysis are: 1. reading and rereading of transcribed interview data, 2. initial examination
by closely looking at the data concerning descriptive,
linguistic, and conceptual aspects, 3. letting subthemes andsuperordinate themes emerge, 4. searching for connections
across emergent themes by contextualization of the interview
data with the other data), 5. moving to the next case, and 6.
looking for patterns across cases (drawn from/partly
summarized, Smith et al., 2009, pp. 82-107). That is to say,instead of taking categories/labels/framework used byresearch targets at their face value, IPA enables researchers tointerpretwhy
thetargets
madecertaincategories/labels/framework relevant in expressing theirexperiences including who they are.

3. Theoretical and Methodological Framework
Regardingtheoreticalframework,
wefindtranslanguaging particularly suitable for our research (one of
the novel conceptualizations of language introduced in theprevious subsection 2.2.). The main reasons are as follows.
Translanguaging was initially conceptualized based
upon classroom observation on bilingual children withimmigrant backgrounds (e.g., García, 2009; cf. Baker, 2011)
and contributed to a shift from the traditional way of“bilingualism”, which regards (named) languages as separate
codes/linguistic systems (such as English and Spanish), to“dynamic bilingualism”, considers not the sum of two named
languages but unitary repertoire from which language
learners are free to exploit linguistic features strategically tocommunicate effectively (García, 2011). With theemancipatory motivation, Li further theorized thattranslanguaging regards people as entire beings withcognitive and physical capacity, and people create
internal/external inclusive space through and bytranslanguaging (i.e., translanguaging space, cf. Li, 2011).
That is to say, translanguaging gives us a 3D (time/space) lens,so to speak, to holistically see the intersectionality between
the creative and critical moments that peoples engage inexternal social spaces (online/offline) by transcending diverse
meaning-making systems (in which multilingual, multimodal,
multisemiotic and multisensual resources are orchestrated) as
well as internal transformation in mind, resulting in changes
in subjectivities, perceptions, beliefs and ideologies.
As a matter of fact, there have been research employing
translanguaging in investigating identity work, mainly
targeting people normally categorized as ‘immigrants’ in the
UK while employing a methodology called Moment Analysis(e.g., Li & Zhu 2013; Zhu and Li, 2016; Zhu and & Li, 2019).
Moment analysis is proposed by Li (2011) in investigating theinclusive translanguaging space (mentioned above), therefore,
it requires data from multiple sources through sociolinguistic
ethnographic methods as well as self-report methods such as
interviews and diaries.
The research of our particular interest among the
research above is one by Zhu and Li (2016). While employing

10In the following sections, we describe research context
and the research participant, then present research results andour analysis.

immediate past, the present and the future. The interview data
were transcribed (both verbal and nonverbal aspects) andthematically analyzed step by step. Thus, the analysis of theinterview data was contextualized with other data collectedby the methods, which consequently elucidated her life theme.
Thereafter, the data was further analyzed through atranslanguaging perspective, i.e., the intersectionality
between social practice/identity performance and internaltransformation based upon the participant’s personal history.

4. The Current Research
4.1 Research context and research participant
The research took off the ground in the fall of 2019―
before the coronavirus pandemic emerged―and continued till
the fall of 2021 when so-called the fifth wave was ending inJapan. As mentioned in Introduction, some students in thesecond author’s seminar classes volunteered to participate in
the research while recruited through LINE (online app) shared
among the teacher and students. The interview was conductedin May, 2020, in the middle of the first self-quarantine periodwith the strictest set of restrictions (so far). The research
participant focused in this paper belonged to the specificcourse (we call it ‘global course’ in this paper) which allows
students to take classes and write a thesis in either academic
language (Japanese or English). The participant in question
was finishing her senior year. During the spring break, due tothe pandemic she was prolonging her stay at her parents’house in Kobe city in Hyogo prefecture (henceforth pref. will
be used) (one of the major cities in kansai area/western Japan).
According to what she wrote and said, she was born in Japan(Osaka), and, due to her father’s business transfer she moved
to the USA (Ohio)(approximately when she was 2 to 4 years
old, henceforth “-”) participated in Steiner Waldorf School,4
returned to Japan (Kobe)(4-8), in a local kindergarten and anelementary school, and moved to Korea (Seoul) (8-10) in a
Christian international school and then to Singapore (1017/18) in an American school, and re-returned to Japan instarting her university life (Kanagawa pref.).

5. Results and Analysis
The inductive thematic analysis of the interview data
exposed the participant’s salient relationships including one
to her mother, friends (including a boyfriend), religion(Christianity), gender (as a female university in Japan),perceived cultural norms/behaviors (Japanese social
manners), nature/ecology, and essential resources (water,food and mask) concerning the pandemic situation. Indeed,
the contextualization of data put to the fore her core
theme/relationship to her own self with/in nature/ecology; herlife goal, to be ‘an ambassador of sustainable earth’ (herexpression), was propelled by the theme. We will return tothis at the end of this section, but we must first present theanalysis illustrating her relationships to linguistic featuresamid other features/relationships in her life with a particularanalytical focus on her uses of preexisting (or creating)categories/labels and/or binary framework.
Due to the space limitation, we concentrate on excerpts
by the participant. Excerpts originally expressed mainly inJapanese were translated into English by the authors, except
for the parts the participant herself meshed both Japanese andEnglish features (the Japanese parts are translated into
English in parentheses). Also, complementary explanations
are put in parentheses by the authors. Henceforth, “I” will be
used to maintain the subjective interpretation of the firstauthor.

4.2 Data collection
Having taken IPA as the methodology, building rapport
with research targets was crucial in enhancing a researcher’sinterpretation. So, the first author began sharing experienceswith the participant by employed methods such as offline
participant observation on and off campus (including fieldnotes, video/photo taking), online correspondences (throughemails, LINE, and other text messaging), and also a collectionof materials/information used in and out of classrooms (cf.
digital ethnography5, Underberg & Zorn, 2013). When the
researcher felt the rapport was more or less built, in-depth
interviews were conducted without predetermined set
questions pertaining to named languages or cultures, or any
identity categories for that matter. This allows both, theresearcher and the participant, to subjectively engage in thetime/space reflecting respective and shared memories (cf.
Warrier, 2013; Holliday & MacDonald, 2019). At the
beginning of the interview, the first author asked theparticipant how she wanted to use linguistic features tocommunicate, and she chose to start with Japanese features
although in the online correspondences she chose to use
English features. Interestingly in both cases, she beganmeshing both features. We started the interview by talking
about the self-quarantine situation and this led us to university
life, and then we leapt back and forth between the distant and5.1 The university life; The adept uses of preexisting
categories/labels, and binaries.
First of all, it is worth noting that the participant
observation exhibited that translanguaging, i.e., the dynamic
communication/identity performance, was a natural part ofher social life. She (unconsciously or pragmatically)
mobilized linguistic, modal, semiotic features whilesocializing, mingling and enjoying the time together withother students (who could not be categorized without inside
information). When she recalled experiences during heruniversity years though, she used rather adeptly the binary
framework between Japanese and English and preexistingsocial labels. For instance, she explained that the reason she
returned to Japan for college was “because I lost Japanese…I
did not want to lose English language either, I wanted to study
English language as I study Japanese language”. She also
explained that the reason for choosing the global course was
because it was for ‘kikokushijo (meaning kikokusei/returnees)’and ‘foreigners’. In an email correspondence, she exposed the
difficulties she went through in blending her life in Japan. She
described that it was a ‘cultural shock’ to see all the Japanese11university girls always dressed up with perfect curly
hairstyles. And she tried to rationalize why she quit theuniversity’s dance club; she wrote in English:
Well, they praised my English ability and all…but I havea feeling that some people are kind on the surface but
aren’t genuine.…in Japan I guess being nice to everyone
is the 礼儀 (courtesy) so sometimes the way they talked
to me felt not so genuine but the 礼儀 which was hardfor me to grasp.
In addition, she also tried to explain why she broke up withher boyfriend who had little overseas experience:
We did have a lot in common. We are both from thekansai-area and our parents grew up in the same area as
well, …, I think that’s what attracted me to him at first.
But as we dated, I realized that many of our values didn’talign, and I guess I couldn’t fully be myself because I
couldn’t speak in English to him. At first, I thought it
didn’t matter but I guess it does? … one of my two
mother tongues?
As you may recall, her interpretations above echo with thestudies on ‘returnees’ mentioned earlier (in section 2.1.),
which underlined the returnees’ dilemma in relation to the‘between’ conception of L1/C1 and L2/C2. However, whenlooking at her life trajectories in a longer span, a morenuanced understanding of her dilemma began to surface. In
support, I begin with exploring her categorization of “twomother tongues”.

‘kansai dialect’ and ‘American English’ during her short stayin the USA were accompanied by positive embodied emotions(cf., Swain, 2006). Thus, what she experienced was not two
distinct language varieties of named languages, Japanese andEnglish, but she utilized the extant two terms which werecalled upon later in her life trajectory in interpreting her
perception of mother tongues to me.
In the next subsection, I illustrate how she inadolescence encountered other politically/socially establishedcategories(suchas‘standard’and‘native’languages/speakers) and learned to use them as she felt
internal and external tensions.
5.3 Learning, using and creating categories/labels
When she returned to Japan from the USA (Kobe, 4 to8), she attended a local kindergarten and elementary school.
She mentioned that she never knew there is such a thing as‘standard Japanese’ (beside her perceived kansai dialect) and‘native speakers of English’ whom she met at English
conversation school which her parents thought would be
beneficial to maintain her English ability. When she was justabout to get familiar with life in Japan, the family had to leave
Japan for Korea (Seoul, 8 to 10).
In Korea, she participated in a Christian international
school and her stories in this period started from ‘I hated it’ to‘I loved it’. She recalled that at the beginning she hated theschool and was always crying. She said she was assessedbadly at exams because she could not read and write based onthe ‘standard English’ model. What made her feel even worse
was that she was judged as a deficient speaker of English
somewhat inferior to some Korean students who spoke‘international English’. Socializing was not easy, either. She
used to tell a lie to everybody in English that she was a
Christian to blend in with the school friends. But as shesocialized with students from diverse backgrounds in and outof school, she began to make friends. She wrote in the email:I had friends from Nigeria, Brazil, India, Holland, theU.S., and much more. I had never been in such aninternational environment, but I loved it!
She then wrote about Christianity, “although I did not fully
understand the bible, I learned how to send appreciation forothers, things, in my heart’. To note, the positive use of‘international’ was kept throughout the memories inadolescence and university life.
Looking back on the years in Korea, she summarizedthat she had a critical shift; she made a decision to depart from‘always crying self’ to ‘independent self’. With a sense ofaccomplishment which seems to have given her internal
strength, she moved to Singapore (10 to 17/18) andparticipated in an American school. The memories in
Singapore were generally on a positive note. ‘It was fun!’, she
repeatedly expressed. At school, she took Chinese language
as an elective subject and picked up Korean language because
she was deeply hooked on Korean dramas. Interestingly, sherevealed rather cheerfully how her friends used to make amockery out of her ‘American English’ by creating an
expression ‘super American’, she said:
I lived in America and went to an American school,

5.2 “My two mother tongues?”—Simultaneous emergence ofresources in mind/bodyWhen she talked about her memories in the USA (2-4
years old), she shared her memories of participating in a
Waldorf school. She said that the forest was the students’classrooms while they touched and engaged with trees andinsects, etc. And she said that her two mother tongues were‘kansai Japanese dialect’ and ‘American English’ andcontinued:(According to my mother), for a month or so, my brotherand I did not speak at all… but in two months, we werespeaking fluently at home and at school.
In an email correspondence she further explained in English:(At school) we communicated with hand gestures andfacial expressions, sometimes crying sometimes
laughing with friends. Even though we were the only
ones who weren’t able to speak, everybody was still sowelcoming and kind, so we never felt lonely or
isolated!... Honestly, I don’t think you necessarily haveto speak to communicate, your feelings, body touch,hand gestures, and facial expressions tell so much!
As the excerpts above show, she used the verb ‘speak’ relating
to linguistic features and ‘communicate’ for the wholeassemblage of resources/features. And she tried to express
that she experienced all, including linguistic, modal, semiotic,
and sensual features, simultaneously as resources tocommunicate with others. Such phenomena corroboratetranslanguaging, that a human being embraces one repertoireas an entire being with cognitive and physical capacity (cf. Li,2018). Moreover, I could sense that her memories relating to12

people say that I speak ‘totally’ American English, notlike Japanese, but ‘super American’, they say, … evenmy accent in Chinese was taken as ‘American’!
As demonstrated above, in adolescence she met with various
political/institutional/social/cultural categories in social life,
and the additional named languages/linguistic features wereembedded in the growing-up experiences. She seemed toembrace her ‘super American English’ while providing the
logic of exploiting ‘America’ as a country category and‘American’ as a label for the school/institution. In an email,she, as the present self, further described how she perceives
her own American-ness as opposed to Japanese people, shewrote in English:
I think my American-ness comes not only from mypronunciation, but also from the way I dress, the way I
act, and my sense of humor, all different from Japanesepeople… a sarcastic sense of humor Japanese people
don’t seem to have …which is so sad!
In the last subsection below, I go back to university life
mentioned at the beginning of this section and present further
interpretation of her relationship to language andcommunication.

when I’m with my family, or friends who speak both
Japanese and English, sometimes with Korean andChinese words and expressions.
The excerpt above supports what Otheguy, Garcia and Reid,(2015, p. 281) say about translanguaging, “deployment of a
speaker’s full linguistic repertoire without regard for watchfuladherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries
of named (and usually national and state) languages”.
And she continued as if talking to herself while grappling with
abstract terms by mixing both English and Japanese features:
The people who are closest to me in my life somehow
ends up having similar vibes or experiences as me, thus
having similar values as me. …結局、自然の中で遊んでたとか、日本にいても常に自然の中にいて、、、趣味も自然とで、…今の自分の（環境）問題意識もあるのかなって。森ですね！Vibes! もう森が大好き。
(Translation: After all, I was playing in nature, I’msurrounded by nature even in Japan, …my hobbies arewith nature, too, … all these may relate to my awarenessof ecological issues, I love forests! vibes! I just love
forests so much!)
In LINE (online app) correspondence, she confessed:…I love nature because it is so healing to the body…
Whenever I feel stressed, I would just go to the park, layon the grass and read, …Of course human connection isimportant, but I can’t enjoy those moments of humanconnection, without having peaceful time to myself,
where I reflect, and enjoy my own company in the vibes.
As you see above, the relationship to ecology/nature for her
is not just an escape route, but the core in balancing herself
with multiple relationalities. By creating the meta-position,
she seems to feel safe and comfortable as she liberates herself
from the need to translate her thoughts and feelings into words(categories/labels) based on social norms and common sense.
As I noted at the beginning of this section, this relationship to
ecology/nature seems to propel her to imagine her future goal,
to be ‘an ambassador’ of sustainable earth. In fact, upon
graduation, she is currently working for an ‘international
environmentally-friendly company’ (her expression).
To sum up, in this section, based upon the nexus of
online and offline data through the rapport building between
the researcher and the research participant, we tried to shed abroader light on the participant’s life trajectories (childhood,adolescence, and university life) while illuminating why she
made certain categories/labels and framework relevant in
expressing the world and herself. The results revealed that thereasons
behindtheinconsistentusesofcategories/labels/framework were reflection of her dilemma,
subsuming intricacies and contradictions. In the dilemma, herinterpretations of own relationships to language/linguisticfeatures were never about named languages/varieties, but
always her own perceptions diffused in other relationshipsthat mattered in her life. Nevertheless, it was an epiphany for
us to realize that in order for her to come to terms withmultiple internal/external relationalities, the relationship toherself to/with ecology/nature was central. This reminded usof the importance of conducting identity research without

5.4 Vibes matter; “Being 100% myself”
I highlighted earlier that she was adeptly using thecategories, labels, and binary framework in expressing heruniversity life. Yet, as the interview proceeded, she exhibitedher struggle in expressing her relationship to people, whether
they are Japanese or not. She said:
After all, friends (in the global course) became the mainones because I feel comfortable around them. Um, I getalong with ‘intaa (an abbreviation ‘international
students’ in Japanese)’ ones. Well, this is you know, a bit(implying that she is anticipating the discriminatory
connotation the forthcoming word would have), but …
there are many Asian friends. Of course, there are whiteones and American ones, but for some reason, the closest
ones are Asian…I cannot become that close to really
American ones, kind of different vibes, or different
values, or, interests maybe. They like parties and stuff,
and I’m not that type.
There are differences, if not contradictions, in the way she
uses the label ‘American’. ‘American ones’ in the excerpt
above relating to (national) category, ‘American-ness’ as
opposed to ‘Japanese’ and ‘American’ used for ‘super
American English’ (the last two cases in the previous
subsection). Further, as much as she drew on her dual
framework between ‘Asian’ and ‘white ones and American
ones’ in the excerpt above, the attempt does not seem to add
up in describing why she thinks she feels comfortable with‘intaa’ friends.
In one email correspondence written towards the end of
the research, she tries to describe when she feels most
comfortable:
I can get along with most people on the surface level,…I recently realized that when I am 100% being myself,
somehow both the Japanese and English languages
come out of my mouth, naturally… I am most myself

13researchers’ own assumptions about what is communication.

Husserl’s (1859-1938), and others such as Martin Heidegger (18891976),
Merleau-Ponty(1908-1961)(https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/phenomenology/).
3 IPA’s three underpinning philosophies are phenomenology (e.g.,
Husserl), hermeneutics (e.g., Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Ricoeur,etc.) and ideography (focusing on individuals’ subjective experience,
not aiming for generalization, Smith et al., p. 29-33).
4 The school was initially inspired by Rudolf Steiner and the firstschool based on his philosophy was established in Germany in 1919
(currently, over 1000 schools exist in more than ninety countries
worldwide) (https://www.steinerwaldorf.org/).
5 Digital ethnography is considered an offshoot of ethnography,“representing real-life cultures through combining the characteristicfeatures of digital media with the elements of story”’ (Underberg &Zorn, 2013, p. 10).

6. Conclusion
The current longitudinal research (before and during thecoronavirus pandemic situation) attempts to explore identity
research in the new orientations targeting a university student
categorized as a returnee/kikokusei, in answering the researchquestion, “how is/are a returnee’s relationship(s) to linguisticfeatures intertwined with other features/relationships in her
life?” While we acknowledge the limitation of only
presenting one case, it is safe to say that we were able to sharea glimpse of the heterogeneity in the participant’s life
experiences as an entire being, with cognitive and physicalcapacity, always with emotions. In these experiences,linguisticfeaturesareinseparable
from
other
features/relationships in life and played important roles informing and transforming her perceptions and beliefs towards
language and communication. Nonetheless, the core
relationship for her was with/to ecology/nature, which
propelled her to envision her future goal. If it hadn’t been fortranslanguaging and IPA, some of the data might haveremained invisible.
To some extent, the results of the study may help us
answer the question raised in Introduction, “how applied
linguists regardless of their expertise on language cancontribute to the identity research in human science?” We
argue that it is essential to be aware that named languages arepolitically/institutionally established categories and they arenever homogeneous (whether Japanese, English, or others).
Therefore, while we are not denying the existence andmeaning of named languages, they should not be used as apriori in investigating identity formation as the complex
internal/external phenomena. Instead, we can refocus how
linguisticfeaturesareinteracting
with
other
features/relationships in one’s sense-making in life course andtrajectories. We believe that applied linguists, with ouraccumulated knowledge and experience, and the novel
conceptualizations of language such as translanguaging, cancontribute to broadening the way language andcommunication are seen in other disciplines and play animportant role in accumulating identity research in the neworientations as concerted efforts in human science by way oftransdisciplinary research. Such efforts would be valuable inbetter understanding what people are going through,especially in the radically unpredictable pandemic situation.
Moreover, by acknowledging each human being as an entire
being with a rich and unique repertoire, whether a teacher ora student (cf. Otheguy, Garcia and Reid, 2015; Li, 2018), we
can yield useful ideas in reconsidering pedagogicalenvironment and practice in (language) education without
exacerbating inequalities and marginalization.

Acknowledgements
We are very grateful for the anonymous reviewers’ valuablecomments which helped us revise the paper. We also have deep
appreciation for the support by Prof. Li Wei, who is the external
supervisor of the first author’s PhD thesis.
References
Arnaut, K. (2012). Super-diversity: elements of an emerging
perspective. New Diversities, 14 (2), 1–16.
Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education andbilingualism. Multilingual Matters.
Bennett, M. J. (1998). Basic concepts of intercultural
Communication. Intercultural Press.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1979). The social construction of reality.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Bhabha, H. (1990). The third space. In J. Rutherford (Ed.), Identity:community, culture, difference (pp. 207–221). Lawrence &Wishart.
Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2017). Translanguaging and the body.
International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(3), 250–268.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.131580
Block, D. (2007). The rise of identity in SLA research, post Firth andWagner (1997). The Modern Language Journal, 91, 861–874.
Burrell, K. (2003). Small-scale transnationalism: Homelandconnections and the Polish “community” in Leicester.
International Journal of Population Geography, 9, 323–335.
Busch, B. (2012). The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied
Linguistics, 33(5), 503–523.
Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes
and cosmopolitan relations. Routledge.
Canagarajah, S. (Ed.). (2017). Routledge handbook of migration andlanguage. Routledge handbooks in applied linguistics.
Routledge.
Clarke, S., Hoggett, P., & Hahn, H. (Eds.). (2008). Object relations
and social relations: The implications of the relational turn in
psychoanalysis. Karnac Books.
Cohen, R., & Fischer, C. (Eds.). (2019). Routledge handbook of
diaspora studies. Routledge.
De Fina, A., & Perrino, S. (2013). Transnational identities. Applied
Linguistics, 34(5), 509–515.
The Douglas Fir Group (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for
SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal,
100, 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12301
Duff, P. (2015). Transnationalism, multilingualism, and identity,
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 35, 57–80.
Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self. In L. H. Martin, H.
Gutman., & P. H. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the self: A

Notes
1 In this paper, we chose to use 帰国生/kikkokusei instead of 帰国
子女/kikokushijo in avoiding any discriminatory connotations thecharacter 女/female in 帰国子女/kikokushijo may generate.
2 A school of phenomenology is generally associated with Edmund

14

Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying
translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A
perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3),281–307.
Othman, J., & M. Lotfie, M.M. (Eds.). (2019). Research design for
language studies. University of Malaya Press.
Otsuji, E., & Pennycook, A. (2010). Metrolingualism: Fixity andfluidity in urban language mixing. International Journal ofMultilingualism, 7, 240–254.
Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (Eds.). (2004). Negotiation ofidentities in multilingual settings. Multilingual Matters.
Pennycook, A. & Otsuji, E. (2014). Metrolingual multitasking andspatial repertoires: ‘psizza mo two minutes coming’. Journalof Sociolinguistics 18, 161–84.
Rutherford, J. (Ed.). (1990). Identity: Community, culture, difference.
Lawrence & Wishart.
Swain, M. (2006). The inseparability of cognition and emotion insecond language learning. Language Teaching, 46(2), 195–
207.
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative
phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research.
Sage.
Underberg, N. M., & Zorn, E. (2013). Digital ethnography:
Anthropology, narrative, and new media. University of Texas
Press.
van Manen, M. (2014). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving
methods in phenomenological research and writing. Left
Coast Press.
Vertovec, S. (2009). Transnationalism. Routledge.
Warriner, D. S. (2013). It’s better life here than there: Elasticity andambivalence in narratives of personal experience.
International Multilingual Research Journal, 7(1), 15–32.
Yashiro, K. (1992). On the foreign language maintenance of theJapanese returnee students. Intercultural Communication
Studies, 2(1), 57–64.
Yoshida, T., Matsumoto, D., Akashi, S., Akiyama, T., Furuie, A.,
Ishii, C., & Moriyoshi, N., (2009). Contrasting experiences inJapanese returnee adjustment: those who adjust easily andthose who do not. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 33(4), 265–276.
Zhu, H. (2017) New orientations to identities in mobility. In
Canagarajah, S. (Ed.). Routledge handbook of migration andlanguage. Routledge handbooks in applied linguistics (pp.
117–132). Routledge.
Zhu, H., & Li, W. (2016). Transnational experience, aspiration andfamily language policy. Journal of Multilingual andMulticultural Development, 37(7), 655–666.
Zhu, H., & Li, W. (2019). Translanguaging and diasporicimagination. In R., Cohen, & C. Fischer (Eds.), Routledge
handbook of diaspora studies (pp.106–112). Routledge.
Zhu H., Li, W. & Daria Jankowicz-Pytel, D. (2019). Intercultural
moments in translating and humanising the socio-legal system,
Language and Intercultural Communication, 19(6), 488–504.

seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 16–49). University of
Massachusetts Press.
Ford, K. (2009). Critical Incidents in the experiences of Japanese
returnees. Language and Intercultural Communication, 9(2),63–75.
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global
perspective. Blackwell/Wiley.
García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language,bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Glick Schiller, N. (2012). Situating identities: towards an identities
studies without binaries of difference. Identities: Global
Studies in Culture and Power, 19(4), 520–532.
Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (Eds.) (1999). Positioning theory.
Sage.
Hall, S. (1990). Cultural identity and diaspora, In J. Rutherford (Ed.),
Identity: Community, culture, difference (pp. 222–237).
Lawrence & Wishart.
Holliday, A., & MacDonald, M. (2020). Researching theintercultural: Intersubjectivity and the problem with
postpositivism. Applied Linguistics, 41(5), 621–639.
Jeong, H. (2019). Phenomenology. In J. Othman, & M. M. Lotfie(Eds.), Research design for language studies (pp. 9–30).
University of Malaya Press.
Jørgensen, J. N. (2008). Polylingual languaging around and amongchildren and adolescents. International Journal ofMultilingualism, 5 (3), 161–176.
Kanno, Y. (2000). Bilingualism and identity: The stories of Japanese
returnees. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 1(1), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050008667697
Kanno, Y. (2003). Negotiating bilingual and bicultural identities:
Japanese returnees between two worlds. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kanno, Y., & B Norton, B. (2003). Imagined communities andeducational possibilities: Introduction. Journal of language,
identity, and education, 2 (4), 241–249.
Kubota R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses:
Implications for applied linguistics research and ELT. TESOL
Quarterly, 33 (1), 9–35.
Levitte, P., & Glick Schiller, N. (2004). Conceptualizing
simultaneity: A transnational social field perspective onsociety. International Migration Review, 38(3), 1002–1039.
Li, W. (2011). Moment Analysis and translanguaging space:
Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chineseyouth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1222–1235.
Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language.
Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30.
Li, W., & Zhu, H. (2013). Translanguaging identities and ideologies:
Creating transnational space through flexible multilingual
practices amongst Chinese university students in the UK.
Applied Linguistics, 34(5), 516–35.
Markus, H. & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American
Psychologist, 41(9), 954–969.
MOFA. (2019). Kaigai zairyū hōjin-sū chōsa tōkei (Annual Reportof Statistics on Japanese Nationals Overseas). Retrieved fromhttps://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/toko/page22_003338.html
Nae, N. (2019). Japan’s cross cultural kids (CCK) and their quest for
identity. Cogito, Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 9(1),161–176.
Nishihara. K. (2010). ‘Living together’ and phenomenologicalsociology: Perspectives on Asia, living-together, institution
and the theory of intersubjectivity. Hosei University
Repository, Shakaishirin, 56(4), 65–78.
Omoniyi, T., & White, G. (Eds.). (2006). The sociolinguistics ofidentity. Continuum.

15

Studying Abroad and Its Effects on L2 Brain Structures
TAURA, Hideyuki
Ritsumeikan University
htaura@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp
Abstract
The effects of studying abroad (SA) have been mainly researched from the linguistic perspectives ofaccuracy, fluency, vocabulary, strategies, motivation, pragmatics, and identity. Only one research study
to date has addressed the issue neuro-linguistically, using ERP. The current study first attempts to explore
whether L2 neurocognitive processing undergoes any change after the participant has resided in the target
language milieu for about a year. For this purpose, an fNIRS device is used to measure hemodynamicchanges in L2 processing for the first time in SA studies. Secondly explored is the issue of language
distance - whether the linguistic changes reported in the literature (mostly alphabetical language
combination as seen, for instance, in Anglophones learning Spanish in Spain) are applicable to Japaneselearners of English (typologically distant languages) on SA programmes. Three Japanese learners ofEnglish were tracked - a senior high school student and two post-graduate students in their twenties, whoeach spent a year in an English-dominant environment. These participants sat for data collection twice once prior to their sojourn in the L2 country and secondly upon arrival back in Japan, to obtain
spontaneous spoken and written data along with brain activation data. The results overall showed
linguistic improvement in spoken/written fluency, vocabulary (the type count), and writing skills. The
hemodynamic data were mostly indicative of more efficient execution of L2 production post-SA. Thus,
the year-long SA experience seems to enhance both linguistic proficiency and neurocognitive processing.
Idiosyncratic features, however, also emerged in every aspect of fluency, vocabulary, writing skills, andbrain activation, which is interpreted as supportive of the Complex Dynamic Systems Theory.
Keywords: study abroad, L2 proficiency, brain activation, fNIRS, idiosyncrasy
1. Introduction
The effects of studying abroad (SA) from the viewpointof second language acquisition (SLA) seems to have first
captured marked academic attention in 1995 when The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad was first published.
A decade later in 2006, Dufan and Churchill edited a volume
Language Learners in Study Abroad Context which covered
topics from pragmatic competence to learning strategies,
individual differences, and socialization in connection withSA experiences. Another decade later in 2015, Study Abroad
Research in Second Language Acquisition and International
Education was published. Then two years later in 2017, a
special issue Study Abroad in Contemporary Times: Toward
Greater Methodological Diversity and Innovation was
published by international journal SYSTEM, in which
methodological issues such as fluency, lexical sophistication,and L1 and L2 use were dealt with. The following year 2018
saw a state-of-the-art volume edited by Sanz and MoralesFront The Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad Researchand Practice, which comprehensively covered both
dependent variables such as oral fluency and complexity andindependent variables such as the length of stay and age. Thus,
the discipline of SA has been explored as a solid sub-field of
SLA until COVID-19 spread across the world in late 2019,
which hindered language learners from undertaking SA
experiences, engaging only with on-line methods form theirhome country. This was motivation to summarize our own

studies on SA to investigate the benefits obtained fromphysical SA experiences from both linguistic and neurolinguistic perspectives.
2. Literature review
The topics that SA studies have tackled to date can beroughly classified into the following categories: 1) Sub-skills:
oral fluency (e.g., Di Silvio, Diao, & Donovan, 2016; Wright,2018), pronunciation (e.g., Diaz-Campos, 2004), vocabulary& grammar (e.g., Zaytseva, Perez-Vidal, & Mirapleix, 2018),
reading (e.g., Dewey, 2004) and writing (e.g., Sasaki, 2011),
2) Willingness to communicate (e.g., Kang, 2014), 3)
Learning strategies (e.g., Adams, 2006; Gong, Gao, Li, andLai, 2021), 4) Learner beliefs and personal growth (e.g.,
Amuzie&Winke,
2009;
Juraev,
Kiatkawsin,
Mukhammadieva, and Kim, 2022), 5) Attitude andmotivation (e.g., Jackson, 2016), 6) Cultural sensitivity (e.g.,
Steppe, White, Keen, Blake, and Thompson, 2022), 7) Socialand cultural aspects of language learning (e.g., Kinginger,2013), 8) Pragmatics (e.g., Ren, 2015), 9) Identity (e.g.,
Dressler and Dressler, 2016), and 10) Comparison between“at home” and “gone abroad” (e.g., Freed, Segalowitz, &Dewey, 2004; Marijuian, 2018).
Regarding research designs, Jackson (2016) states thatSA studies mostly focus on learners who take language
courses in the host country and participate in scheduledcultural activities in the afternoon and on weekends, spanning16

only a few weeks. This inspired us to design a pilot study thatspans much longer than several weeks. We followed aJapanese learner of English who, upon graduating from ajunior high school in Japan where she had studied English forthree years, decided to go to Australia for further education.
Our data collection involved yearly oral interviews – the firsttime after a year and 5 months, the second time 2 years and 5
months, and the third time 3 years and 5 months after she
began to live in Australia. The collected data were analyzed
in terms of sub-skills - complexity (the average number ofwords in a sentence), fluency (the average pause duration),and morpho-syntactic accuracy. As Figure 1 shows, hercomplexity index alone progressed linearly as her stay inAustralia lengthened, whereas her fluency and accuracy
underwent a temporary deterioration at the second datacollection session before they picked up at the third session.

The results of our pilot study seem in line with theComplex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST) which is acombined transdisciplinary label for the Complexity Theory(Larsen-Freeman, 2017) and the Dynamic Systems Theory(de Bot, Lowie, and Verspoor, 2007), sharing the same viewthat language progression and regression is adaptive, complex,
dynamic, systematic, but chaotic, non-linear, and variable innature. The CDST emphasizes obtaining longitudinal andvaried types of data, which turned our focus not only towards
linguistic, sociolinguistic, and motivational aspects but also
on neuro-linguistic aspects. To date, Feretta-Stutenberg andMorgan-Short (2018) are the only researchers who have taken
a neuro-linguistic approach to SA experiences. They tracked
20 Anglophones who were taking a 15-week semester-long
SA programme in L1 Spanish-speaking countries by adopting
a pre-/post-test design. The participants were supplied with anelicited imitation task to measure their L2 Spanish proficiency
along with grammaticality judgement tests to obtain eventrelated potential (ERP, an electroencephalogram) data. The
results showed that 1) higher pre-departure proficiency leads
to greater gain through the SA experiences, and 2) there wereno statistical differences in ERP. To date, no studies on theeffects of SA experiences have been carried out examining
hemodynamic changes using fMRI (functional magnetic
resonance imaging), fNIRS (functional near-infrared
spectroscopy), or PET (positron emission tomography).
Based on the theoretical framework of the CDST, thecurrent study adopts a longitudinal design and explores both
linguistic and neuro-linguistic effects of SA experiences. The
following two research questions are formulated.

Figure 1
Complexity, fluency, and accuracy
Complexity: #words/sentence

lyr5m

2yr5m

3yr5m

Fluency: pause duration (ms)

lyrSm

2yr5m

RQ 1: Do Japanese learners of English exhibit any similar
characteristics to learners of linguistically similar languages
in SA programmes, as reported in the literature?
RQ 2: Are any hemodynamic changes observable in L2 use
after a-year-long SA experience?

3yr5m

Accuracy (%)

lyr5m

2yr5m

3. Method
3.1 Participants
Three Japanese learners of English participated in thisstudy: (A) a senior high school student (15;11-17;01), (B) apost-graduate student (23;10-24;09), and (C) another postgraduate student (29;03-30;02). A was a 10th year HS student
when she first went to Canada, while B and C were 2nd year
MA students majoring in English Education. They were all
immersed in an English-speaking milieu for 11 to 15 months,
attending local high school and university, respectively.

3yr5m

When asked for possible reasons for this discrepancy,
she retrospectively replied that in her second year at anAustralian high school she realized her friends’ English wasmuch more sophisticated than hers, which prompted her toimprove her English qualitatively. This led her to use more
complex structures such as relative clauses, which contributed
to producing longer sentences but in turn resulted in longer
pauses (dysfluency) and inaccuracy at the second session.
Her-year-long effort, however, ended in more complex, fluent,and accurate oral production in English at the third session.
This pilot study which examined complexity, fluency, andaccuracy was reinforced by the participant’s own
retrospective comments, confirming how important it is tocollect longitudinal data and to interpret them fromtriangulated perspectives.

3.2 Data collection
Data collection took place twice for individual
participants: the pre-test within a month prior to theirdeparture, and the post-test within a week after their return toJapan. On each occasion, linguistic and neuro-linguistic data
were collected.
3.2.1 Linguistic data
A wordless picture book "Frog, where are you?"17

(Mayer, 1969) was used to elicit spontaneous narrative data
as each participant followed the pictures without any time
limitation (Figure 2), telling a story. Collected audio data
were transcribed for a lexical analysis and additionally
underwent a fluency analysis using sound editing software
Audacity 3.1.3.

undergoing both letter and category verbal fluency tasks(VFT) in Japanese and English (Figure 5). The raw data
underwent the procedure of standardizing the data first,
followed by subtracting the rest task from the experimental
task in oxygenated hemoglobin (Oxy-Hb), to make intra/inter-personal comparison possible.

Figure 2
Frog, where are you?

Figure 4
Probe alignment

; -

-

-I

I

111!1

! ....
.•-1~'

Spontaneous written data were collected while theparticipants individually wrote a story about a picture takenfrom the Test of Written Language (TOWL-3, Hammill &Larsen, 1996), the task lasting 15 minutes (Figure 3). The
TOWL-3 examines three aspects of basic writing rules(Contextual Conventions - CC), grammar and vocabulary(Contextual Language - CL), and story development (Story
Construction - StC). In addition, its age-conversion matrix
enables researchers to identify whether or not eachparticipant's writing level is equal to his/her monolingual
counterparts in the USA. The written transcripts were
examined for fluency and lexical analyses as well.

Figure 5
VFT

4. Results
4.1 Linguistic data
4.1.1 Oral fluency
After staying in the English dominant milieu for abouta year, each participant spoke at least 100 ms faster as seen in
the higher ratio of speech duration of the total task duration(time/word and speech rate% in Table 1).

Figure 3
Prompt picture (TOWL-3)

Table 1
Oral narrative dataAtime/word (ms)

3.2.2 Neuro-linguistic data
A functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS)
machine, Shimadzu OMM-3000, was used to collect data
every 115 ms from 42 channels covering the brain regions of
the IFG (Inferior Frontal Gyrus), ACC (Anterior Cingulate
Cortex), DLPFC (Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex), SMG(Supramarginal Gyrus), and pre-SMA (pre Supplementary
Motor Area) (Figure 4). This study places a particular focus
on the left IFG - the motor speech (Broca's) area, due to thetype of data collected from the three right-handed Japaneselearners of English.
fNIRS data were collected when each participant was

B

C

PRE

POST

PRE

POST

PRE

POST

783.0

607.4

817.4

559.4

759.6

668.1

speech rate (%)

46.3

59.7

46.3

53.5

49

55.8

intra-sentence pause (ms)

800.3

668.8

967.887931

724.2

730.0909091

633.1

inter-sentence pause (ms)8886.56561.76136.56448.1 5713.428571 7107.1#words/sentence

24.5

18.1

16.2

21.6

15.4

19.1

The picture is not entirely straightforward, however,when the pauses are classified into two types according toCenoz (2000) who claims that intra-sentential pauses are due
to lexical retrieval while inter-sentential pauses are caused bysentence/message construction, excluding pauses lasting lessthan 200 ms that are physiologically caused. The average
intra-sentential pause times went down in A, B, and C,
signifying that their lexical retrieval became faster.

18

Table 2
Spontaneous writing data (TOWL-3 age-converted scores)
A
B
C

Meanwhile, the average inter-sentential pauses showed thatthe high school student stopped for a shorter time thanpreviously, which is not the case with the university students
who paused longer inter-sententially at the second session.
Excerpts from the high school student's transcription
are provided below with pause durations in red.

PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST

Pre (A): 2,321 Then 2,480 the 380 a boy found something
1,010 that was 608 the frog 930 and 850 they are with 380
ah 345 he was 581 with 290 his family...
Post (A): 2,624 And when he 402 look behind the 217 bigtree 701 there was frog’s family 217 and there was, 446
there, 234 there was his frog...

CC

8

10

7

8

8

10

CL

10

10

11

13

13

14

StC

10

8

8

8

8

9

Quotient

96

96

94

98

98

106

A closer look at the data revealed individual differencesin the improvement of writing skills. The high school student(1) used many more subordinating conjunctions such as
unless and if, which led to a greater number of complex
sentences, and (2) made a narrative, instead of simply
describing the picture. The university students B and C both
identified a greater number of objects in the prompt picture in
the post-test session while a more vivid story development
was related by C. Therefore, SA experiences seem to haveenhanced writing skills, although it may have varied in degree
dependent on each participant's pre-departure proficiency.

Thus, due to the SA experience, everyone's oral fluency
improved but in different ways - faster but shorter sentencesdelivered by the high school student and faster and longer(more complex) sentences spoken by the two post-graduate
university students.
4.1.2 Writing proficiency
TOWL-3 examines three aspects of CC, CL, and StC,
which are converted into an overall writing proficiency
Quotient. Each score is regarded as age-appropriate inEnglish writing skills when it falls within the range of 8 and
12 in the former three sub-components and between 90 and
110 in the Quotient score. CC, CL, and StC are comprised ofabout 10 sub-sections each such as "All sentences begin witha capital letter" and "Capitalize proper nouns" in CC,"Fragmentary sentence" and "Vocabulary selection problem"in CL, and "Characters show emotions" and "Express somemoral or philosophic theme" in StC.
Below are writing samples from B and C.

4.1.3 Vocabulary
The number of Types (different words) and Tokens(total word volume) is summarized in Table 3. Additionally,
two types of lexical density indices are calculated as TTR(type/token ratio) and LD (lexical density of content, notfunction, words). The number of Types and Tokens as well as
TTR and LD overall either stayed the same or increased
among the three participants, regardless of the modality of
spoken or written data.
In the second phase, the level of the vocabulary used in
the spoken and written data was examined, using the British
National Corpus. The most frequently used 1,000 words byEnglish native speakers are labeled as K1, and the next 1,000
words are called K2. As summarized in Table 4, the threeparticipants mostly increased in the number of types used inboth their spoken and written production.

Pre (B): ...That's what they had to deal with and that's theway they survived. Now, we, human beings, can get foodeasily, which is not the way they used to do...
Post (B): ...So many people went outside of the earth andvisited various kind of planets that have possibility ofcontaining rich amount of resources. They have built abasement for searching resources in each plant they visited tomake it easier to work on their project...
Pre (C): There is a village called happy town. One day, oneof the people living there got a rumor that big monsters werecoming close to the village...
Post (C): People are always passionate about discoveringsomething new. While most people live on earth, some people
are searching for another planet to live in...

Table 3
Lexical analysis on spoken and written dataA

B

C

PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST
Spoken TypeAfter their SA experiences, all the participants scoredin the age-appropriate range (Table 2), which is impressive (C,in particular), considering their NS counterparts constantly
improve their writing skills during high school or tertiary
education. Even though A stayed at Quotient 96, she
improved her writing skills because at the post-test she was ayear older which required her to obtain higher raw scores tobe converted into 96.

59

81

111

112

132

141

Token
TTR*

I

147
0.40

217
0.37

432
0.26

388
0.29

430
0.31

515
0.27

ILD**

0.37

0.40

0.44

0.38

0.44

0.41

Written Type
Token
TTR

I

83
219
0.38

98
207
0.47

83
141
0.59

114
198
0.58

87
157
0.55

78
111
0.70

ILD

0.45

0.43

0.47

0.49

0.56

0.54

*TTR = Type Token Ratio, **LD = lexical density of content words

Thus, SA experiences seem to contribute to lexicaldevelopment in both oral and written modalities.

19

Table 4
Lexical levels

Figure 6
Oxy-Hb change in the English letter task

Spoken

1.00

BNC

PRE

B
C

K1
K2
K1
K2

98

POST

covering

Level Type Token rate (%)
K1
56
136
92.5
A
K2
3
11
100.0

covering

0.50Type Token rate (%)
73

198

91.2

6

7 14

97.7

347

89.4

29

96.9

-1.00

478
28

92.8
98.2

-1.50

396

91.7

92

9

28

98.2

9

117
6

379
11

88.1
90.7

127
10

7

7

0.00

1111 1. - I
-■

A pre
-0.50

A post

B pre■ E letter

WrittenPRE
BNC
covering
Level Type Token rate (%)
K1
78
208
95.0
A
K2
5
11
100.0
K1
72
126
89.4
B
K2
5
6
93.7
K1
79
140
89.2
C
K2
2
5
92.4

.

7

r·

■ J letter

I

Figure 8
C’s Oxy-Hb mapping change from pre (left) to post (right)

Figure 9
B’s Oxy-Hb mapping change from pre (left) to post (right)

5. Discussion
5.1 Linguistic findings
Oral fluency improvement was observed by all theparticipants after their SA experiences as seen in many
previous studies such as Wright (2018) and Collentine andFreed (2004), though their strategies varied with A shortening
sentences and B and C making sentences longer and more
complex. In a strict sense, it appears that only the two postgraduate students improved their oral fluency by using more
complex structures.
When examining writing skills, everyone scored in the
age-appropriate range on the TOWL-3 post-test, whichcoincides with Sasaki's claim (2011) that SA experiences
lasting over 8 months anchor intrinsic motivation in theparticipants driving them towards self-initiated L2 writing
practices thus improving proficiency. Individual differenceswere also revealed in the writing samples: (1) A's writing
improvement was evident in the more frequent use ofsubordinating conjunctions resulting in more complex
sentences, and in the narrative writing style instead of simply
describing items in the prompt picture, and (2) B and C shared
a common improvement in mentioning more objects in the
picture, though they differed in the vividness of the story plot
in which C surpassed B.
Productive lexical knowledge improvement manifested
itself in the type count in the spoken and written data, whilevariabilities were observed in the token count and lexicaldensity. Zaytseva, Perez-Vidal, and Miralpeix (2018),

Table 5
Summary of Oxy-Hb
SD0.62040.50630.67240.31600.5616
0.34400.70460.27000.4905
1.54900.68140.7124

Ire

Figure 7
A’s Oxy-Hb mapping change from pre (left) to post (right)

POST
covering
Type Token rate (%)
87
190
91.8
7
11
97.1
94
172
86.9
127 15
94.5
64
93
83.8
47
7
90.1

4.2 Neuro-linguistic data
The analysis of the fNIRS data in the left IFG issummarized in Table 5 and Figure 6 where the mean fNIRS
values (mMmm) are compared between pre- and post-tests
under each VFT condition. It was predicted that as the stay in
the English dominant community lengthened, it would be
more difficult to activate Japanese (more Oxy-Hb needed),
which in turn would result in less Oxy-Hb values in the
English VFT. This prediction was fulfilled by A and C in bothlanguages, whereas B's Japanese showed this but not in the
English letter task.
The fNIRS data in the left IFG are also presented in
Figures 7 to 9 in the form of brain mapping that indicatesmore brain activation when the color is yellow to red and lessactivation when it is green to navy blue.

Participant Task
M (mMmm)
E letter pre
0.6652A
post
0.4847
J letter pre
0.4818post
0.7551
E letter pre
0.0380B
post
0.7751
J letter pre
0.1847
post
0.3468E letter pre-0.6332
C
post-1.2952
J letter pre
0.1149post
0.4299. .-B postt-testst(72)=3.323, p<. 01t(72)=-2.675, p<. 01t(72)=-8.754, p<. 01t(72)=-2.299, p<. 05t(72)=3.016, p<.0 1
t(72)=-2.568, p<. 05

20

reviewing several studies on L2 vocabulary acquisition and
SA experiences, argue that the findings are indeterminate,
depending on modality and lexical indices - some show nochange in written lexical richness while others show more
lexical diversity in writing than in speech, thoughcontradictory findings are also reported. The current study
provided these additional findings: (1) some lexicaldevelopment in both spoken and written modalities, which
contradicts Zaytseva et al. (2018) where SA experiences arefound to be more beneficial for written productive vocabulary
than oral production, (2) mixed results in the token countamong the three participants, which is inconsistent with
Barquin's (2012) study where participants in a three-month
SA programme improved in the token count in the written
modality, and (3) better lexical density in speech at the posttest than the pre-test, which reflects Barquin's (2012) sixmonth SA group.

appears that A tended to speak faster, making her sentences
shorter while the university students focused on both thefluency and the complexity of their sentence production.
A second idiosyncratic feature involves the writing
skills of the participants. Table 6 summarizes the writing
fluency measured in the time needed to write a word.
Table 6
Written fluency
A
PRE

B
POST

PRE

C
POST

PRE

POST

time/word (ms) 4109.6 4347.8 6383.0 4545.5 5732.5 8108.1

B was the only participant whose average writing speed(fluency) improved from 6,383.0 to 4,545.4 ms in comparison
with A's stable level (4,110 to 4,348 ms) and C's worsened
fluency (5,733 to 8,108 ms), which makes a sharp contrast to
the improvement in oral fluency of over 100 ms shared among
everyone (Table 1). Examining the writing quantity, C
produced noticeably less (157 to 111 tokens) while A
maintained a similar level (219 to 207) and C scored a 140%
increase (141 to 198) in token numbers (Table 3). Considering
C's enhanced Quotient scores (from 98 to 106 in Table 2), thisparticipant possibly focused more on morpho-syntactic
accuracy, vocabulary selection, and story development, which
resulted in higher overall writing (Quotient) scores but in lessproduction. Sasaki (2011) argues that SA experiences do notlead to linear progress in writing skills based on a longitudinal
study which tracked 28 Japanese EFL university students who
spent 1.5 to 11 months in English-speaking countries.
A third idiosyncrasy was captured in B's higher brain
activation in English. It was expected that with higher English
proficiency (fluency, vocabulary, and writing skills) after the
SA experience, brain activation would be lower, however thiswas not demonstrated. This is in line with Faretta-Stutenberg
and Morgan-Short's study (2018) which revealed individual
differences in ERP, though the study failed to reveal any
statistical differences between pre-/post-tests when
examining a group of 20 Anglophones.

5.2 Neuro-linguistic findings
The fNIRS data analyses revealed that English
production was significantly easier and Japanese was moredifficult post-SA, apart from one exception where B found it
more difficult to produce English at the post-test. FarettaStutenberg and Morgan-Short's ERP study (2018) showed nosuch statistical differences post-SA. The difference in thefindings of the two studies may have result from several
different independent variables, including the SA duration(almost 12 months in this study vs 12 to 15 weeks), the typeof tasks used (productive verbal fluency task in this study vsreceptive grammaticality judgement task), and the type ofdevices to measure L2 neurocognitive processing(hemodynamic changes with higher spatial resolutions in thisstudy vs ERP with higher temporal resolutions). However, thetwo studies shared in common individual differences of theparticipants who underwent similar programmes.
Overall, SA experiences that last for almost a year seemto enhance linguistic proficiency in terms of fluency,
vocabulary, and writing skills. This improvement did not
induce more brain activation, but on the contrary higher
proficiency was realized by less energy consumption by thebrain, indicating a change in cognitive processing caused by
the year-long SA experience.

6. Conclusion
Overall, positive SA effects are clearly observed
linguistically and neuro-linguistically but individual
differences or idiosyncrasies emerged as well, lending
support to the CDST where language progression issystematic and linear but at the same time non-linear andvariable. In explaining the reasons for individual differences,predeparture proficiency and age are two major confounding
variables which need to be validly differentiated by including
a greater number of participants. Admitting this shortcoming,
the findings in this study are summarized below as answers to
the research questions.

5.3 Idiosyncrasies
The whole picture, however, was not straightforward as
typically exemplified by B's unexpected higher brain
activation upon arrival back to Japan, when not only neurolinguistic but also some linguistic data clearly showed
individual or idiosyncratic differences.
The first instance was mentioned earlier in the oral
fluency analysis (4.1.1) when A's improvement was in shorter
inter-sentential pauses. This tendency was totally opposite to
the university students who had longer pauses in the post-test.
The three participants shared a common feature in theirfluency indicated by a faster lexical retrieval (intra-sentential
pauses), but this differed at sentence boundaries. Whenconsidering the number of words in each sentence (Table 1),
the total decreased for A but increased 1for B and C, so it

RQ 1: Do Japanese learners of English exhibit any
similar characteristics to learners of linguistically similar
languages in SA programmes, as reported in theliterature?

21Oral fluency improved as the literature shows whereas
improvement in both spoken and written vocabulary (the type
count) is only partially in line with the literature. There weredifferences in modality (written or spoken) and the SA
duration. Individual differences were also observed as theliterature shows, no matter which aspect of the L2 was looked
at.

approval for this study was granted by Ritsumeikan University (衣笠-人-2010-10 & 2012-4).
References
Adams, R. J. (2006). Language Learning Strategies in the Study
Abroad Context. In M. A. DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.),
Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 259–292).
Multilingual Matters.
Amuzie, G. L., & Winke, P. (2009). Changes in Language Learning
Beliefs as a Result of Study Abroad. System, 37, 366–379.
Barquin, E. (2012). Writing Development in a Study Abroad Context.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universitat Pompeu Fabra,
Spain.
Collentine, J., and Freed, B. (2004). Learning Context and its Effects
on Second Language Acquisition: Introduction. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 26(2), 153–171.
De Bot, K., Lowie, W., and Vespoor, M. H. (2007). A Dynamic
Systems Theory Approach to Second Language Acquisition.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7–21.
DeLoach, S. B., Kurt, M. R., and Olitsky, N. H. (2021). Duration
Matters: Separating the Impact of Depth and Duration in Study
Abroad Programs. Journal of Studies in International Education,25(1), 100–118.
Dewey, D. P. (2004). A Comparison of Reading Development by
Learners of Japanese in Intensive Domestic Immersion andStudy Abroad Contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
26(2), 303–327.
Di Silvio, F., Diao, W., and Donovan, A. (2016). The Developmentof L2 Fluency during Study Abroad: A Cross-Language Study.
Modern Language Journal, 100(3), 610–624.
Diaz-Campos, M. (2004). Context of Learning in the Acquisition of
Spanish Second Language Phonology. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 26(2), 249–273.
Dressler, R., and Dressler, A. (2016). Linguistic Identity Positioningin Facebook Posts during Second Language Study Abroad: One
Teen's Language Use, Experience, and Awareness. The
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 22–43.
Faretta-Stutenberg, M., and Morgan-Short, K. (2018). Contributionsof Initial Proficiency and Language Use to Second-Language
Development during Study Abroad: Behavioral and EventRelated Potential Evidence. In C. Sanz & A. Moreles-Front(Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad Research andPractice (pp. 421–435). Routledge.
Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The
Language Contact Profile. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 26, 349–356.
Gong, Y., Gao, Z., Li, M., Lai, C. (2021). Cultural Adaptation
Challenges and Strategies during Study Abroad: New ZealandStudents in China. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 34(4),417–437.
Hammill, D. D., and Larsen, S. C. (1996). Test of Written Language(3rd edition). Pro-ed.
Jackson, J. (2016). The Language Use, Attitudes, and Motivation ofChinese Students Prior to a Ssemester-Long Sojourn in an
English-Speaking Environment. Study Abroad Research inSecond Language Acquisition and International Education, 1,
4–33.
Juraev, O., Kiatkawsin, K., Mukhammadieva, I., Kim, J. (2022).
Looking Abroad for Growth: A Study of International Student's
Symbolic Motivations in Attending South Korean Universitites.
Sustainability, 14. 213.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Kang, D. M. (2014). The Effects of Study-Abroad Experiences on
EFL Learners' Willingness to Communicate, Speaking Abilities,

RQ 2: Are any hemodynamic changes observable in L2
use after a-year-long SA experience?
Significantly less brain activation was observed in twoof the participants, which implies they were able to produce
English more easily after the SA period.
The significance of this study lies in the research design
which attempted to focus on multifaceted proficiency,
particularly the productive side, rather than simply focusing
on fluency, accuracy, or vocabulary. It included underresearched areas of writing skills and hemodynamic changes
in the brain. Improvements in L2 linguistic proficiency andmore efficient neurocognitive processing seem to haveconcurrently taken place.
Implications based on this finding encompass the needfor a valid assessment of SA participants' pre-departure L2
proficiency which is found to be a significant predictor ofgains in various linguistic domains such as oral fluency,
pragmatics, and grammar (Zaytseva, Perez-Vidal, andMiralpeix, 2018). While idiosyncrasies are always present,
identifying any issues in L2 proficiency prior to departure
enables the issues to be addressed during SA. This results inthe best possible attainment for each participant, whether it
may be fluency, accuracy, or complexity. Furthermore, on thestudents' return, teachers need to be aware that students will
benefit from being provided with classes where they canmaintain or even reinforce the skills they have gained, as the
CDST predicts that relocation in original linguistic milieu
inevitably leads to deterioration of such acquired skills sooner
or later.
In the COVID-19 environment, the majority of SA
programmes have been canceled and some have shifted to online mode (Liu and Shirley, 2021). Comparing 'at-home' to'gone abroad' programmes, Freed, Segalowitz, and Dewey(2004) argue that proficiency gains obtained by the lattersurpass that of the former. Future studies could test this issueby (1) controlling programme duration (DeLoarch, Kurt, andOlitsky, 2021) and (2) examining both behavioral andneurocognitive aspects (Faretta-Stutenberg and MorganShort, 2018; Sanz and Morales-Front, 2018). In addition,
future research should also integrate L1 proficiency as
McCormick (2018) claims that L1 phonological working
memory and L1 writing skills exert a serious impact on the
L2.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the participants who took part in this study. This
research was partially funded by the JSPS Grants-in-Aid for
Scientific Research (B#19H01291) and the International Institute of
Language and Culture Studies, Ritsumeikan University. Ethical22and Participation in Classroom Interaction. System, 42, 319–332.
Kinginger, C. (Ed.). (2013). Social and Cultural Aspects ofLanguage Learning in Study Abroad. John Benjamins.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2017). Complexity Theory: The Lessons
Continue. In L. Ortega & Z. H. Han (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook ofLanguage Attrition. OUP.
Liu, Y., and Shirley, T. (2021). Without Crossing a Border: Exploring
the Impact of Shifting Study Abroad Online on Students'
Learning and Intercultural Competence Development during the
COVID-19 Pandemic. Online Learning Journal, 25, 182–194.
Marijuan, S. (2018). Making a Difference through Talk: Spanish
Heritage Language Learners as Conversation Partners in a
Hybrid Study Abroad Program. In C. Sanz & A. Moreles-Front(Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad Research andPractice (pp.329–342). Routledge.
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? Dial Press.
McCormick, T. (2018). Psycholinguistic, Cognitive, and UsageBased Approaches to Study Abroad Research. In C. Sanz & A.
Moreles-Front (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad
Research and Practice (pp.36–46). Routledge.
Ren, W. (2015). L2 Pragmatic Development in Study AbroadContexts. Peter Lang.
Sanz, C., and Morales-Front, A. (2018). The Routledge Handbook ofStudy Abroad Research and Practice. Routledge.
Sasaki, M. (2011). Effects of Varying Length of Study-Abroad
Experiences on Japanese EFL Students' L2 Writing Ability andMotivation: A Longitudinal Study. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 81–
105.
Steppe, J., White, M. K., Keen, D. L., Blake, B. J., and Thompson,J. (2022). The Role of Debriefing in a Community Heath Study
Abroad. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 33(1), 105–109.
Wright, C. (2018). Effects of Time and Task on L2 Mandarin
Chinese Language Development during Study Abroad. In C.
Sanz & A. Moreles-Front (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook ofStudy Abroad Research and Practice (pp.166–180). Routledge.
Zaytseva, V., Perez-Vidal, C., and Miralpeix, I. (2018). Vocabulary
Acquisition during Study Abroad: A Comprehensive Review of
the Research. In C. Sanz & A.
Moreles-Front (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad
Research and Practice (pp.210–224). Routledge.

23

Negotiation of the Degree of Engagement―Conversation Analysis of a College English Learning Activity―
HAYANO, Kaoru
Japan Women's University
hayanok@fc.jwu.ac.jp
Abstract
When learners are put into a group to work together on a task in the EFL classroom, they appear to go
through a process of implicitly “feeling out” how engaged they are going to be as a group. Using themethodology of conversation analysis, this study documents the interactional processes through which agroup of learners in a college EFL classroom negotiate the degree of engagement they are going to invest
in group work in the language classroom at university. Through the sequential analysis of video-recordedinteractions during group work activities, it is shown that learners in a group orient to engagement in two
respects: engagement with interacting in the target language and engagement with working on the giventask material. Learners employ implicit means to negotiate the degree of engagement in these two respects
via an exchange in adjacency pairs, with one party making a proposal and another accepting it. The
findings are discussed to consider possible interference by educators to facilitate learner engagement.
Keywords: Groupwork, Learner–learner interaction, Engagement, Negotiation, Conversation analysis,
Adjacency pair
1. Introduction
In foreign language education, group work is deemed acompelling method for ensuring opportunities for learners tointeract in the target language. However, the implementationof group work in the classroom does not always yield
fulfilling, constructive moments of learning. Among the manypotential obstructors of effective group activities isparticipants’ reluctance to engage in group work. Even when
individual learners are motivated to be fully engaged, they
may surrender to the fear of being identified as a swot or a“show off” (Tomita, 2011) and refrain from displaying fully
engaging attitudes at the outset. Consequently, they often go
through a process of “feeling out” one another, using rather
implicit interactional practices to negotiate how they are toapproach the assignment and to what extent they are to beengaged with the group work. The goal of this paper is to
apply the methodology of conversation analysis to document
the interactional processes through which a group of learners
in a college EFL classroom negotiate the degree ofengagement they, as a group, invest in activities.

Storch’s (2002) study on the patterns of interaction in ESL
pair work and their correlation with the language
development achieved through the pair work. Storch labeledinteraction in each pair as collaborative, expert/novice,dominant/dominant or dominant/passive based on the natureof contributions parties in the pair make and found thatknowledge transfer was more likely to be accomplished incollaborative
andexpert/novice
pairs
than
in
dominant/dominant or dominant/passive pairs.
While Storch’s work insightfully showed that different
patterns of pair work interaction led to different learning
outcomes, their analysis was concerned about theinteractional patterns that had already been established todominate the pair. What was left outside the scope of theirstudy is how a pair of learners came to interact the way theydid, and that is the research question this study pursues. By
closely examining the early stage of group work interaction,
during which participants feel out and negotiate how they are
to approach the given task, this study attempts to contributeto the body of literature on the nature of pair/group work
interaction in the language classroom.
In so doing, the focus is placed upon one important
aspect of pair/group work interaction—the degree ofengagement that learners in a group invest as a group.
Engagement is defined by Philip & Duchesne (2016: 51) as“a state of heightened attention and involvement, in which
participation is reflected not only in the cognitive dimension,
but in social, behavioral, and affective dimensions as well.”As this definition indicates, it is recognized that engagement
is a multidimensional, complex construct and the variety of
its aspects have been discussed in the literature. Whilescholars have considered the importance of the social and2. BackgroundStudies have identified factors that are consequential to
the success (or failure) of group work in the foreign language
classroom, including the nature of the task that groups ofstudents are given to work on (Cohen, 1994; Duff, 1986; Gasset al., 2005) and the language proficiency of the learners(Cohen, 1994; Williams, 1999). In addition to these somewhat
predetermined conditions of group work interaction, aspects
of interaction that emerge as learners interact are also foundto matter to the work’s outcome (Damon & Phelps, 1989;
Storch, 2002). Of particular interest to the current study is24interactional aspect of learners’ engagement, to date, there has
not been an attempt to apply conversation analysis to
document the interactional processes through which a groupof learners negotiate how they are to be engaged with thegroup work activities. Analyzing video-recorded learner–
learner interactions in group work in college EFL courses, I
demonstrate how learners negotiate and agree on the degreeof engagement with regard to two aspects of group work:
engagement with the activity of interacting in English and thatwith the task material provided for the group work.

corpus. In particular, early phases of group work interaction,
where participants implicitly negotiate how engaged they aregoing to be as a group, because, although the negotiation canreemerge at later phases, this was found to be the central locus
of such negotiation. Target utterances in the data wereanalyzed by reference to the sequential organization in which
they were produced. The action and interactional import ofeach utterance was thus identified with the focus placed upon
how it contributed to the negotiation of the degree ofengagement in a given context.

3. Methodology
3.1 Data
The data examined in this paper come from two sets ofvideo-recorded learner–learner interactions in EFL
classrooms at universities in Tokyo. The video recordings
were made during class periods of EFL courses for freshmen.
Students were put into groups of 3 or 4 to work on tasks
assigned by the instructor of the course.

4. Analysis
Among the variety of aspects of engagement discussed
in the literature, two aspects were observably negotiated at an
early phase of group work interaction: engagement ininteracting with one another in the target foreign language,
English, on the one hand, and engagement in working on thecontent of the task material, on the other. In what follows, I
report the findings of the analysis in these two interrelated but
distinguishable aspects of learner–learner interactions.

Participants
The participants were students in EFL courses offered at two
universities in Tokyo. Of the eight participants who are citedin this paper, three (Excerpts 3 and 6) are students majoringin English and their English proficiency level is estimated tobe B1 in the CEFR scale. The other five (Excerpts 1, 2, 4 and5) are students of various majors and their English proficiency
level is estimated to be B1 or B2. All the participants gave
written consent to participate in the data recording.

4.1 Negotiation of engagement with the use of EFL
Let us first consider how learners negotiate the degreeof engagement they are to invest in terms of interacting in thetarget language. Interaction is organized in adjacency pairs—
pairs of utterances produced by two interactants, the first ofwhich (a first pair part, FPP) initiates a sequence by making
the production of a specific type of response (a second pairpart, SPP) relevant (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973). It is throughadjacency pairs that interactants establish mutual
understanding and agreement, and the degree of engagementa group of learners invest in the use of English in group work
is no exception. Excerpt 1 is a case in point. In lines 1–9, Abe
and Baba discuss in Japanese how they are to calculate thescore of their study motivation by answering the list ofquestions given in the worksheet. In line 11, however, Abeasks Baba if they are “supposed to do this” (i.e., discuss thematerial in the group) in English.

Tasks
In one of the two sets, from which Excerpts 3 and 6 are taken,
learners were told to suppose that there was a budget intended
to be used to innovate their campus to make it more appealing
and to write a brief proposal to apply for the budget. In theother set of the data, from which Excerpts 1, 2, 4 and 5 aretaken, students were told to discuss, based on what they had
read in class, their learning motivation and learning styles―
whether they were visual, auditory, or tactile learners―andlearning methods they have found effective or ineffective forthemselves. In both datasets, the task was presented byinstructors as one intended to give them opportunities to
speak and discuss the topic in English. They were encouraged
to interact in English.

【Excerpt 1】
1 Abe:<juukyuu ka> kakezan janain desu yone kore
19... It’s not multiplication, is it?
2 Baba:(janai)It’s not.
3(0.5)
4 Baba:tashizan da yone↓:It’s addition, right?
5(.)
6 Abe:
tashizan[( )Addition ( )7 Baba:[un da yone
Yeah, it is.
8(2.2)
9 Baba:
( )
10
(3.0)
11 Abe: → kore wa ingurisshu de suru beki (na n desu ka)
Are we supposed to do this in English?
12 Baba: → ((nods))

The video recordings were transcribed following theconvention originally developed by Gail Jefferson (2004)
with some adoptation based on the system Lonrenza Mondada(2019) developed to represent embodied behaviors (seeAppendices A and B for the symbols used in the transcripts).
All the names used in the transcripts are pseudonyms.
3.2 Analytical framework
Using the methodology of conversation analysis, theframework developed to document interactional competence
and structures of social interaction (Heritage & Atkinson,
1984; Schegloff, 2007), this paper provides a qualitative
analysis of exemplary interactions that are excerpted from the

25

13
(4.4)
14 Baba: → How was your score?

8
9 Iki:
10
11 Iki:12 Oda?:iki:
13 Iki: →14→
15
16 Aida:17
aida:
18 Aida: →Abe’s turn in line 11 is formatted as a question regarding what
language the students are expected to speak while working in
the group. However, questioning is not all that the turn does.
The act of bringing up what is expected of them by the
instructor in this context is understandable as a proposal of
meeting the expectation by interacting in English, althoughdesigned to sound uncommitted and unwilling. Baba
responds to this via a nod (line 12), with which Baba appears
to both confirm the question and accept the proposal. This
analysis is supported by the fact that Baba, the recipient of the
proposal, does indeed initiate the next sequence in English(line 14). Therefore, the adjacency pair in lines 11–12 not only
implements a question–answer sequence but also a proposal–
acceptance sequence through which a decision regarding thelanguage they are going to speak throughout the ensuinginteraction is made.
In the above case, a language switch from Japanese to
English is accomplished through an adjacency pair, with the
FPP proposing the switch, although in an implicit manner, andthe SPP accepting it. This is as explicit as the negotiation gets
as far as the data examined in this study is concerned. In othercases, learners negotiate whether or not to interact in English
more subtly. In Excerpt 2, three students are about to start
discussing the results of the questionnaire regarding theirlearning style (whether they are a visual, auditory, or tactile
learner). Iki does not produce an utterance that is hearable asa proposal for interacting in English. Instead, he simply
initiates an exchange in English (lines 1, 3–4). This utterance
is not immediately reciprocated by a response in English:
Aida registers it with a “newsmark” response (i.e, a responsethat indicates that a prior turn’s talk is news for the recipient)(Jefferson, 1981) produced in Japanese (line 5) and a Japanese“change-of-state” token (i.e., a token that conveys that its
producer has undergone a change in their current state ofknowledge or information) (Heritage, 1984) (line 7).
However, Aida and Oda refrain from producing further, more
substantial utterances in Japanese, but instead wait for Iki totake another turn. In fact, Iki's utterance in lines 3–4, withrising intonation at the end of the turn, does not sound like acomplete statement on its own but rather like a preface to whatcomes next, which turns out to be the question in lines 13–14.
Once this question is produced and a response is officiallymade relevant, this solicits Aida’s response in English.

(0.5)#a:::::#(1.0)#˚a:::˚#+h h h+smiles
When:: when you::: learn somethi:ng (2.8)
do you:: listen to: (0.4) something?
(0.4)
(n::)
*(0.2)*shakes head “no”
No.

Unlike Excerpt 1, where the proposal of interacting in English
was produced in Japanese, in Excerpt 2, there is no utterance
dedicated to making the proposal, and the exchange is simply
initiated in English. However, we can see that the sameoutcome is achieved through the same procedure: one learnerproposes interacting in the target language, and anotheraccepts the proposal. Through this exchange, learners engage
themselves in interaction in English without having to
produce a turn devoted to proposing or accepting it.
It should also be noted that the tokens of interjectionthat Iki produces in lines 1, 9, and 11 all sound more like theEnglish filler “uh(m)” than the Japanese filler “ee:”.
Therefore, these tokens not only display that the speaker is in
the process of thinking and that an utterance is forthcoming,
they also project that it is an English utterance that isforthcoming. They thus get Iki’s coparticipants aligned with
Iki’s project of initiating a sequence in English.
In contrast, learners negotiate and agree on the use ofJapanese instead of English in Excerpt 3. One of the threelearners in the group, Kido, suggests an idea for the use of thefictitious budget to innovate the campus in Japanese in line 1
and another in line 9.
【Excerpt 3】
1 Kido: → Eki kara motto chikaku shite hoshii(I) want (the campus) closer to the station.
2 Hara:mgH!
3 Kido:e[hhehhe .gh .hh moo chitto nanka
ehhehhe .gh .hh Something a bit more
4 Sano:
[hh!
5
(0.5)
6 Hara:
(.hh)
7
(1.0)
8 Sano:.hh hh hh
9 Kido: → >a< basu o::, (0.4) muryoo ni shite hoshii.
Oh bus, (I) want it free.
10(0.4)
11 Sano: → a[a↑:::::::::↓:
12 Kido: → [ehhehhe $xxxxxx kara(h)no$ h h hehhehhe From XXXXXX station
13(0.5)
14 Hara: → furii basu (0.3) furii: basu puri:izu=“Free bus, (0.3) Free bus, please,”【Excerpt 2】
1 Iki:
#a::#
2
(1.5)
3 Iki: → nn. We:: all (0.4) #ah:# aren’t:
4→ auditory type?
5 Aida:aa honto?,
Oh really?,6#(2.2)
aida: #(looks at his and the others’ answers on theworksheet.)
7 Aida:
oo::

26

10
11 Iki:12 Oda?:13 Iki:
14
15
16 Aida:17
18 Aida:15 Kido: → =mita[i(h)na(h)something like that,
16 Sano:[H H H H
17(4.0)
18 Kido:ato nanka aru ka↓na
Is there anything else?
The idea Kido suggests in line 1 (“I want (the campus) closer
to the station”) is treated as nonserious and met with laughter
by Hara (line 2). Kido then suggests another idea in line 9,that she wants the bus (to the campus) to be free. To this end,
Sano produces a prolonged token of the Japanese change-ofstate interjection aa (line 11). Thus, here, the use of Japaneseis initiated and reciprocated through the sequence ofproposals and acknowledgements.
Hara’s turn in line 14 consists of an English sentence(furiibasu (0.3) furii: basu puri:izu “Free bus, (0.3) Free bus,
please”). However, with the Japanese quotation marker
mitaina (line 15) supplied by Kido, it is framed as quoted
speech embedded in a Japanese utterance, and most probably
as something that they could write down in the proposal,
though jokingly with the construction too crude for theoccasion and for the proficiency of the participants. Thus, thisbrief use of English phrasing does not serve as a proposal of
switching to interacting in English but rather as an attempt totranslate the proposed idea into an English expression so thatthey can write it in the worksheet.
The analysis so far suggests that learners do not simply
speak in whichever language they prefer when interacting ina group. Instead, they propose the use of either language,
which is, more often than not, accepted by the other membersof the group. The proposal is often not formatted as astraightforward proposal of using either language but as aquestion or a proposal on another matter. The recipient canthen accept the proposal by responding to the question or
proposal in the same language.

(1.0)#˚a:::˚#hhh
When:: when you::: learn somethi:ng (2.8)
do you:: listen to: (0.4) something?
(0.4)
(n::)
*(0.2)
No.

As we observed earlier, Iki produces tokens of an English
filler (a::: instead of e:::) to show that he is in the process of
producing an English utterance. What the tokens convey inaddition in this particular context, where there is no script toread or a question to answer, is that he is constructing anutterance to make a spontaneous, genuine comment orquestion of his own. Indeed, what comes next is anobservation that Iki has made about the answers that he andhis interlocutors wrote down in their worksheets (“We:: all(0.4) #ah::# aren’t: auditory type?”) (line 3). The newsmark
and the change-of-state token Aida produces in reaction tothis (lines 5 and 7) appear to display his genuine surprise andinterest. The subsequent question by Iki (“When:: when you:::learn somethi:ng (2.8) do you:: listen to: (0.4) something?)(lines 13-14) is again a “genuine” question that he constructed
himself based on the common trait he had found among themembers in his group (that none of them is an “auditory” typeof learner). Although Aida provides only a minimum answer
to this question, the sequence leads to an exchange in which
the learners talk about their learning styles and shareexperiences in English.
Excerpt 5 ensues shortly after the exchange in Excerpt
1. Prior to the excerpt, Abe and Baba shared the results of thequestionnaire on the worksheet regarding their preferredlearning styles. This is followed by some intervening talkinvolving the third member of the group, who admitted inJapanese that she had failed to do the homework and was notready to contribute to the discussion (data not shown). Abe
and Baba then start to discuss the material without the third
member, now switching back to English in line 1.

4.2 Negotiation of engagement with the given task
This section turns to the other aspect of engagementwith group work, namely, engagement with the task material
provided by the instructor. To consider how learners in agroup negotiate this aspect of engagement, let us reexamine
Excerpts 2 and 3, in addition to Excerpt 5.
First, consider Excerpt 2, represented again with some
simplification below.

【Excerpt 5】
1 Abe:So eh
2(.)
3 Baba:A:nd score is natural for you?
4
(0.4)
5 Baba:[Visual.
6 Abe:[Mmm
7 Baba:(Visual)8(0.7)
9 Baba:( ) do you feel (0.4) you:: study (
)?
10
(1.4)
11 Baba:A↓h vi[sually?
12 Abe:[I ↑think I study (0.2) visually but
13(0.2) and ordinary like I am a tactile person.
14(0.8)
15 Baba:Yes. We don’t have.<I feel (0.2) I I: study:
16
in >tactile style but< (0.4) (>according-<)【Excerpt 4】(Partial reproduction of Excerpt 2)
1 Iki:
#a::#
2
(1.5)
3 Iki:
nn. We:: all (0.4) #ah:# aren’t:
4
auditory type?
5 Aida:aa honto?,
Oh really?,6#(2.2)
7 Aida:
oo::
8
(0.5)
9 Iki:#a:::::#

27

17
18
19 Abe:eh::m from this test, I (0.4) likevisual [style=and you, too so.
[H H H H H

18 Kido:ato nanka aru ka↓na
Is there anything else?

Kido’s initial, nonserious suggestion (line 1) sets the tone forthe subsequent exchange to be nonserious. This utterance isformatted as a sentence that could constitute the minimal or
initial statement to write down in the proposal they aresupposed to submit at the end of the group work. Although
Kido retracts this initial suggestion (line 3) and makes analternative suggestion (line 9), she uses the same format
appropriate for writing then. In addition, Kido proposes
moving on to consider if there is any other possible way ofusing the fictitious budget instead of further discussing theone she has just proposed (ato nanka aru ka↓na “Is there
anything else?”, line 18). Through these utterances, Kido
displays her orientation to quickly making a list of possible
ideas and then selecting one to present as their proposal. Haraaligns with this when she offers an English translation of
Kido’s second suggestion (line 14), as if to suggest that there
is no need to discuss it further and that they are ready to write
the idea down as their proposal.

In line 3, Baba asks, “A:nd score is natural for you?” Thequestion is meant to address whether the score they obtained
as the result of the questionnaire captures their disposition as
they understand it. As it turns out, Baba wants to ask thisquestion because he does not feel that the score accurately
represents his disposition; it shows that he is a visual learner
but he feels he is a tactile learner (lines 15–18). This question
by Baba is produced when Abe’s utterance has yet to come tocompletion (line 1). The act of interrupting another’s ongoingutterance to produce a question may be taken as an indicationthat this is an earnest question. When this question does notconvey its intended meaning and does not solicit the answer
it was looking for, Baba reconstructs the question (line 9) andthen accounts for why he has asked this question, sharing how
he felt about the score (lines 15–18).
In the context where they have been instructed to talkabout the results of the questionnaire and the learning
methods they have found effective, Baba is criticallyaddressing another aspect of the material (the adequacy of thequestionnaire) and initiating an exchange on it. This brief
exchange therefore reveals Baba’s engagement with thematerial, which is then reciprocated by Abe: he responds toBaba’s question with an explanation of how he analyzes his
own learning style. Through this brief exchange, therefore,
Baba and Abe establish an agreement that they are to consider
the task material critically and seriously.
Excerpt 6, which we examined earlier as Excerpt 3,
presents a contrasting case.

5. Discussion and Conclusion
In the context of foreign language education, student
engagement is usually discussed as an aspect of an individual
learner’s attitude and behavior that is predictive of academic
achievement. In this paper, I suggested that engagement canbe viewed and analyzed as an interactionally negotiated andachieved construct. When put into a group to work together,learners do not just exhibit different degrees of engagement
as individuals, but rather a certain degree of engagement isdisplayed and proposed in the first pair part of an adjacency
pair, which is often accepted and reciprocated in the second
pair part. The FPP may explicitly address the issue and be
dedicated to the negotiation of how engaged they will be(Excerpt 1). Alternatively, it can constitute a question or
proposal on a different matter, in which case, the stancedisplay regarding engagement is done as an additional“second-order” business (Levinson, 2013). It has also beenshown that learners negotiate engagement in two respects:
engagement with discussions in the target language andengagement with the task material. It can thus be concluded
that the level of engagement of a group of learners is notnecessarily determined by individual learners’ attitudes but isan interactional outcome.
One implication is that, if the degree of engagement ofa group is negotiated in interaction, there may well be room
for interference. Educators may be able to direct the learners’
interaction such that it encourages and facilitates engaging
participation by the members of the group. For instance,
rather than simply telling them to interact in English,
instruction on how to formulate the initial utterance to open a
discussion may give them an easy way in. Some instructional
input on fillers and newsmarks in the target language may also
prove useful.
While group work activities have undeniable benefits
in the language classroom, every educator should be awarethat group work interactions can be frustrating or even

【Excerpt 6】(The reproduction of Excerpt 3 with some
simplification)
1 Kido: → Eki kara motto chikaku shite hoshii(I) want (the campus) closer to the station.
2 Hara:mgH!
3 Kido:e[hhehhe .gh .hh moo chitto nanka
ehhehhe .gh .hh Something a bit more
4 Sano:
[hh!
5
(0.5)
6 Hara:
(.hh)
7
(1.0)
8 Sano:.hh hh hh
9 Kido: → >a< basu o::, (0.4) muryoo ni shite hoshii.
Oh bus, (I) want it free.
10(0.4)
11 Sano:a[a↑:::::::::↓:
12 Kido: → [ehhehhe $xxxxxx kara(h)no$ h h hehhehhe From XXXXXX station
13(0.5)
14 Hara: → furii basu (0.3) furii: basu puri:izu=“Free bus, (0.3) Free bus, please,”
15 Kido: → =mita[i(h)na(h)something like that,
16 Sano:[H H H H
17
(4.0)

28

https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00103

stressful for learners if learners with different expectations
and attitudes are put together in a group. However, thefindings presented in this paper suggest that differences in theparticipants’ expectations do not have to lead to disastrousgroup work; whether to be engaged or not is continuously
subject to negotiation and change.

Appendix A: Symbols used in the transcripts (based on Jefferson,
2004).
a falling or final intonation contour?
a rising intonation contour,
a slight rise-fall intonation contour?,
a slight rise in intonation contour↑/↓
marked pitch rise or fall[]
overlap=
a single, continuous utterance by a same speaker withno break or pause/ the production of the subsequent talk“latched” to the preceding(0.5)
pause (length in tenths of a second)(.)
micropause:
the prolongation or stretching of the preceding soundhhaudible out-breath.hhaudible in-breath(h)within-speech aspiration#
creaky voice quality$
smiley voice quality
˚word˚markedly quiet/soft voice<word> slow speech rate
>word< fast speech rate

Acknowledgements
This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (Grant number
18K00791). I thank Tomoko Endo for generously sharing her data.
References
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for
productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1),1–35. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001
Damon, W. & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three
approaches to peer education. International Journal of
Educational Research, 13, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/08830355(89)90013-X
Duff, P. A. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Talking task
to task. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learners: Conversation insecond language acquisition (pp. 147–181). Newbury House.
http://hdl.handle.net/10125/38571
Gass, S., Mackey, A. & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based
interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language
Learning, 55, 575–611.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00318.x
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its
sequential placement. In J.M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.),
Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp.
299-345). Cambridge University Press,
Heritage, J. & Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Introduction. In J. Maxwell
Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action:
Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 1–16). Cambridge
University Press.
Jefferson, G. (1981). The abominable 'ne?': An exploration of postresponse pursuit of response. In P. Shroder (Ed.) Sprache dergegenwaart (pp. 53–88). Pedagogischer Verlag Schwann.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an
Introduction. In G.H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis:
Studies from the first generation (pp. 13-23). John Benjamins.
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In T. Stivers& J. Sidnell (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp.
103–130). Wiley-Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch6
Mondada, L. (2019). Conventions for multimodal transcription.
Retrieved from https://www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodaltranscription
Philp, J. & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in
the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
36, 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000094
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A
primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica,
8, 289–327. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work.
Language Learning, 52, 119–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/14679922.00179
Tomita, Y. (2011). The role of form-focused instruction: Learnerinvestment in L2 communication. PhD thesis. University ofToronto.
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language
Learning, 49, 583–625.

Appendix B: Symbols used for multimodal transcripts (based on
Mondada, 2019)
Symbols #, +, and * are used to indicate the onset of nonverbal
conduct indicated in gray.

29

Working Toward Group Accomplishment Through a Proposal Sequence―Conversation Analysis of a College English Learning Activity―
KUROSHIMA, Satomi
Tamagawa University
skuroshi@lab.tamagawa.ac.jp
Abstract
With the current emphasis on the role of English as a global lingua franca, skill- and knowledge-based“Can Do” statements for assessment have been proposed for replacement with a more interaction-based
approach. Drawing on the research framework of conversation analysis, the current study will elucidate
students’ interactional competence by analyzing their interaction during a group work task, such as
reordering conversational utterances or choosing a suitable thesis statement, in a college English
classroom. The study will examine how student participants offered their opinions and candidate answers
for a given task to contribute to collaborative work. Special focus is given to a proposal sequence, whereparticipants negotiated and displayed their knowledge about the task at hand. For instance, to validate
their proposed answer, the students demonstrate their practical knowledge about how a conversation isorganized. In addition, the proposal speakers display their sensitivity to their relative knowledgeability inproposing their opinion, as how they propose distributes different rights and obligations for having aunified answer among group members. As an implication of the study, the task design to elicit theirinferential work in their first language discussion is considered for the assessment of their interactional
capability.
Keywords: Group work, Interactional competence, Conversation analysis, Proposal sequence,
Knowledge
1. Introduction
Reflecting on the role of English as a lingua franca(ELF) in global communication without relying on Standard
English norms, there has been much debate about how we canand should assess our students’ communicative capability as
an ELF user beyond taking a behavioristic approach such as
using “Can-Do” descriptors of Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching,assessment (CEFR) (Ishikawa & McBride, 2019; Oda & Toh,
2019; Toh, 2016). In alignment with what Jenkins and Leung(2019) proposed—innovating the traditional notion ofassessment with a standardized English proficiency test using
Standard English as a normative criterion—I would like topropose consideration of learners’ interactional competence
in discussion with their peers in our daily lessons, especiallythose in the students’ first language.
The MEXT’s official curriculum guidelines, whichwere announced in 2018, calls for “Proactive, interactive, anddeep learning,” promotes students’ active and autonomous
learning through peer discussion (Asakawa et al, 2020); sincethen, college academic English classes have also been
designed to promote students’ active and autonomous
learning experiences by incorporating peer discussion on the
topic of the lesson, task, and/or assignment (Asakawa et al.,2020). While the beneficial aspect of group discussion isemphasized, as it requires students to be active “users” ofEnglish rather than an audience, we lack sufficient scientificevidence to show its effectiveness and outcomes in terms ofcommunicative teaching. As one step toward a scientificaccount of conducting active learning as part of our daily
lessons through group discussions in English classrooms, I
would like to examine how group work in peer discussions isorganized as one particular social activity and what methods
participants use to undertake interactional and practical tasks
for achieving pedagogical goals in class. In particular, thefocus of this study is on how students propose and negotiate
their ideas and opinions to the others in a group as it has asaliency in a group discussion for working on a language task.
2. BackgroundA large body of interaction research for second
language acquisition (SLA)/language learning has been doneon the interaction between students and teachers inclassrooms (Markee & Kunitz, 2015; Mondada & Pekarek
Doehler, 2004; Seedhouse, 2004; Sert, 2013); however, a few
studies have looked at the organization of a peer discussion.
The few exceptions include studies by Jakonen and Morten(2015) and Jakonen, Szabó, and Laihonen (2018), which
explored peer interactions of students in an immersion history
class in Finland; the former study described the participants’stance display toward knowing/unknowing of the materials at
hand, while the latter investigated playful translanguaging
practices in a classroom context, where a single target
language was the norm for the medium language. The former
is especially relevant to the current study. The participants ina peer discussion often initiate knowledge-related actions,30

such as an information request/confirmation request to show
their asymmetric knowledge status. Such a display ofknowledge status could contribute to the development of thesequence as they try to reduce the knowledge gap among them.
This may have been the case for our participants, despite thecontext of the classroom being much different (i.e., an English
language classroom interaction by the speakers who share
their first language). Previously we have shown that ourparticipants also displayed their orientation to one another’s
displayed/claimed knowledge status, and their distributed
rights and obligations to make decisions on their unified
answer as a group are visibly shown in the design of a turn
(Kuroshima, 2020; Kuroshima & Endo, 2021).
The focus of this study is on how participants in an
English language class use linguistic, embodied, andartifactual resources in peer interactions to participate in agroup discussion assigned by the instructor in the course of
doing pedagogic tasks. Thus, the study aims to demonstrate
what kind of interactional practices should be observed while
participants are demonstrating their interactional competencein the action sequence, addressing their future courses ofactions as decisions of a group (cf. Stevanovic & Peräkylä,2012).

each other in a classroom. However, “Hello” can also be ananswer to a summons embodied through a phone ringing if it
is positioned at the opening of a phone conversation(Schegloff, 1968). Thus, both the position and composition ofa turn mutually prompt recipients to analyze and judge arecognizable action, which will be the main analytic point of
this paper.
4. Analysis
4.1 Practical Problem in Peer Discussion
An observable practical problem that the participants
face during group discussions for a task is how to present theiridea as a candidate answer to other group members. When atask is designed to have an expected “correct” answer, themembers display their orientation to having a unanimous
answer as a group (i.e., mutual agreement), even if such
instruction is not explicitly given. Furthermore, because thiskind of activity requires all participants to agree on one
possible answer, each speaker carefully presents a candidate
answer by selecting different practices for addressing theirown and others’ different knowledge statuses. In general, a
proposed candidate answer presupposes certain knowledge
that is relevant for an educational task; thus, it is recognized
as a knowledge-based action (Nishizaka, 2021). Interestingly,
such action construction—displaying a different stancetoward their knowledge status—can then attribute different
rights and obligations to each participant in the decisionmaking process.
Generally speaking, if both the speaker and the recipient
have a congruent view regarding their knowledge status, thesequence used to seek agreement does not expand (cf. Hayano,2011), as in Excerpt 1. Here, the group is working on how to
respond in the following conversational situation: “Yourcoworkers invite you out for dinner, but you don’t want to go.”At this point, group members A and D discuss how to respondto a prompt. When A proposes an idea in line 2 by formulating
a possible answer they can adopt and asks if the recipient canagree, thereby assuming that the recipient would have moreor less enough knowledge to judge the proposal, D
immediately accepts it as a reasonable answer in line 3, which
confirms that they both have equal procedural knowledge (i.e.,
the general and commonsensical knowledge about how to do
things) (Nishizaka, 2008) about how to negatively respond tosuch an invitation.

3. Data and Methodology
The conversational data analyzed for this study
comprise 157 minutes from 6 different naturally occurringgroup discussions collected by the researcher in a college
academic English class in Japan. The participants’ consent
was obtained prior to the recording. Each group comprised 4–
6 students, and their discussions, which lasted about 25
minutes each, were related to the pedagogical tasks given by
the instructor. The tasks were typically designed to have a“correct” answer, such as reordering conversationalutterances or choosing a suitable thesis statement, which was
aimed at orienting the participants to inferential work, and thelogic behind the conversational sequence and a writing, rather
than at exchanging personal opinions among group members.
In total, 80 proposal sequences where student participants
offer and negotiate their candidate answers for a given task tocontribute to the collaborative nature of the work for theirdecision-making were identified and collected; some were
further transcribed based on the conventions of CA for
detailed analysis (Jefferson, 2004; Mondada, 2019).
Drawing on the conversation analysis (CA) researchframework, the current study presents its preliminary findings,
which elucidate how student participants offer and negotiate
their opinions and candidate answers for a given task tocontribute to the collaborative nature of the work. To
determine how group work discussion is organized, we needto investigate students’ lived experiences of doing group worktasks. In CA, Schegloff (2007) argued that we (as analysts)
need to describe what each participant is doing at a particular
moment. The position and composition of a turn is an
important resource for participants to produce and understandrecognizable actions in talk and interactions. For instance, theutterance “Hello” is recognizable as a greeting action when it
is positioned at the beginning of two friends’ encountering

Excerpt 1 [1191]
01
(1.0)
02 A:
mata sasotte ne:: toka (ni suru?)
again invite P etc ALL do‘How about “Invite me again”?’
03 D:
a::: ii ne.
ITJ good P‘Oh, sounds good.’
04
(0.5)

However, as their stance towards a different knowledge status
would figure differently in the interaction (i.e., claiming tohave more/less knowledge than the recipient), a proposed
candidate answer would make a different type of response31relevant in the next slot by selecting a various format in theinitiation of a course of action (Schegloff, 2007). In thefollowing, I show how such a knowledge-based action(Nishizaka, 2021) is differently designed so that it can
distribute different rights and obligations to determine afuture course of action among participants (Stevanovic &Peräkylä, 2012, 2014), which could lead to an agreement on
a “unified” group answer in the current case.

13 D:
14
15 A:
16 D:

4.2 Proposed candidate answer with downgraded knowledge
statusThe participants often proposed a candidate task
answer by downgrading their claim. A downgraded proposal
not only makes a response relevant, such as agreement or
disagreement, but also claims that the speaker does not havethe right to decide future courses of action, leaving thedecision up to the recipients’ judgment. Excerpt 2 is a case inpoint. In this segment, a student group of five from the Social
Science Department is engaged in reordering conversationalutterances from a movie. Soon after they start to be engaged
in the discussion of a possible order, D starts to propose one
idea to the group in line 04. In this turn, D downgrades her
claim by negatively formulating a question with chigau“wrong.” Her orientation to the mitigated claim is also shownvia her laughter token, which occurs in the same turn. At theend of the turn, she directs her gaze at C, who had proposed
another order prior to this segment. The selected next speaker,
C, takes the next turn to show her interest in hearing more
about D’s idea in line 7, which confirms that she lacks enoughknowledge about the proposed idea to immediately
agree/disagree. Thus, D explains the order in lines 10–16.

17 C:
18 A:
19 D:
20
21 B:
22 A:

‘Oh, does the man ask first?’[otoko no hito ga sore to:::man GEN person NOM that and‘The man said “that and”’(1.0)[aa::: >soo yuu koto ka.<ITJ
so say thing Q‘Oh, (I) see.’[black coffee mi[ta(h)[ina(h) hhh
like‘”black coffee” or something like that’[un, un, [un, un‘Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.’[a::: >soo ja nai?<
ITJ so COP NEG‘Oh, isn’t it right?’
atteru kana.
right Q‘Is that correct?’(0.5)
go ban?
five number‘No. 5?’un.
‘Yeah.’((B starts writing it down.))

With D’s account of her original idea here, other members are
now able to access it and assess its plausibility. As a result, C
and A agree with D in lines 17 and 18. Once the agreement
occurs, D acknowledges it by shifting her displayed stance tomore positive about her proposal in line 19 and from line 21
the notetaker B starts recording it as an official answer. Thus,by asking the recipients to consider the downgraded candidate
answer with an explanation of how the speaker reached suchan answer, the recipients were able to examine the candidate
answer and reach a decision as a group.
As shown, the proposal action of one’s idea/claim witha downgrade makes it relevant for the recipient toagree/disagree. Due to its knowledge-based construction of a
proposal action in the current educational context, therecipient of a proposed idea is expected to have enoughknowledge to agree/disagree. Because the speaker of the
proposed candidate answer mitigates their claim with adowngrade, they do not claim to have the rights to determine
the answer; rather, they require others to either agree ordisagree as a matter of negotiation for the decision making(Steavanovic & Perakyla, 2012). However, when the recipient
displays a lack of knowledge to immediately respond, as inthis case, the speaker is then held accountable for how theyreach the possible answer to inform the recipient of the logic
and knowledge they have, so that they can make their own
judgement. If the explanation is considered plausible by therecipients, it would normally conclude their discussion as
observed in this case.

Excerpt 2 [1188][0:41]
01 B:
can I get a tall cha::i? ((writes down))
02 C:
*n:
b
*starts writing
03
(8.0)
04 D:
% ¥a:nd a large black coffee% wa¥ chiga(h):? %hhh .hh
TOP wrongd%looks at WB% at A% covers
her mouth‘Is “and a large black coffee” wrong here?’05 D:%chigau k(h)a:wrong Qd%looks at C
‘It’s wrong.’
06
(0.5)
07 C:
na:ni::
what‘What is it?’
08 A:
tsugi, mu[zui na:．
next difficult P‘Next one is difficult.’
09 C:
[(
[ )
10 D:
[nanka::, (0.5)‘Well,’
11 D:
josei ga::, (1.0) chai: chai chooda::i ttsutta ato ni::,lady NOM
give.me QT said after at‘After the lady (1.0) said “chai tea please,”’12 A:
a, otoko ga[saki ni kiku no?
ITJ man NOM first at ask Q

4.2 Proposed candidate answer through assertion of aclaim
The opposite case is shown in Excerpt 3. The
proposing speaker does not downgrade their claim. Instead,

32

18

they assert their ideas and opinions to other group members.
As a consequence, the speakers demonstrate their knowledge
status by claiming the right to determine the possible answer
on behalf of others unless it is challenged. In most of the caseswith speaker assertion, the recipients acquiesce to the asserted
idea.
As another example in Excerpt 3, a group of students
is engaged in developing a conversational response to theprompt “You are at a coffee shop, and you want to know whatkind of coffee the shop has.” The group happens to be a
mixture of second- and first-year students in humanities. This
excerpt is taken from when they started to work on thisparticular prompt with the teacher’s announcement to shift tothe next question in lines 1 and 4. As soon as looking at the
prompt on the whiteboard, E produces a sentence that can behearable as a candidate answer (line 3). As E brings her gaze
toward A, A anticipates what should follow and thus
collaboratively completes E’s turn in line 5 (Lerner, 1991).
However, A’s contribution is dismissed, as E reconstructs thepossible answer in lines 9 and 11. Notice E’s construction ofher turn is an assertion instead of a question or other format
without accompanying elements in her turn construction suchas a tag question (~ja nai? ‘isn’t it?’) but only presenting thepossible answer. As E gazes at A, this turn is constructed as areattempt of the prior turn, in which E and A just collaborated.

a
19 E:
e
20 A:
21 E:
22
23 E:
e
24 A:
25 D:
26 E:
d
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

Excerpt 3 [1190][10:29]/AUDIO[9:33]
01 T:
Now, number three?
02 A:
What?
03 E:
What *kind of coffee [.hhhe*looks at A-->04 T:
[a::: Number two ne.
‘Oh, the number two.’
05 A:
in your:- coffee shop?
06*(0.2)e*nods and looks at the D’s note
07 E:
u:n.
‘Yeah.’08 A:
ah, so::: +(2.0) ˚˚nandaro˚˚ koohii no shurui.+a+starts tilting his upper body+looks at WB‘What is it? A kind of coffee.’
09 E:
What kinds of coffee have,e>>nods and looks at A-->
10 A:
aa.
‘Oh.’
11 E:
+uh:: do you ha:ve?*e*closes her eyesa+starts nodding
12 A:[uh::m,
13 E:
[*a,
‘Oh,’
e
*tilts her head and rolls up her eyes
14*(2.0)e*looks at D’s note
15 A:
futsuu ni::,‘Simply,’
16 E:
un(h) hhh
‘Yeah.’17 A:
are da yo. (2.5) kirimanjaro toka*ja nai- dame da yone?
that COP P

eKilimanjaro

all
E:
D:
E:
A:
E:
D:

ka- +kake nai mon ne?
write NEG thing P+points towards D’s note-->‘(We) can’t write it, right?’*ii n ja nai?
good SE COP NEG*points at D’s note‘Isn’t it fine?’
kakWhat(0.8)[>nante< *nante kiku]ka dakara::
how
how ask Q so*self-grooms her hair‘It’s about how, how we are going to ask so’[Kilimanjaro coffee?]a.
‘Oh.’%soo, gomen ne.
sosorry P
%crosses out something on her note and writes-->‘Right, sorry.’%(2.0)%everyone is looking at D
What kind of::
What kind, of, coffee
coffee::(3.5)
Kilimanjar(h)o::(0.2)
do you:: (1.5) ha::ve?
(1.0)
do::

However, soon after the reattempt, E displays her noticing
something and thinking through a change-of-state token(Heritage, 1984) and her bodily orientation in line 13 andlooks at the notetaker D’s note to display her engagement withthe task in line 14. Without E’s continuation forthcoming, at
this point, A offers a different idea with a downgrade due toits difficult spelling by pointing at D’s note to show hisorientation to the legitimacy of his proposed answer andexplicitly seek for agreement (lines 15–18). Thus, similar to
Excerpt 2, the recipient’s judgement is made relevant. E then
immediately disagrees with A in line 19 by asserting it innegatively formatted question (Heritage, 2002). Then, fromline 23 by asserting that what A alternatively proposes isirrelevant to the task while specifically pointing at the samenote. When notetaker D hears E’s rejection, D claims torecognize something (Heritage, 1984) and crosses out
something on her note and writes again, which is
acknowledged by E in line 26 (soo ‘right’). Thereby, what D
does here seems to do with what E proposes. Subsequently,
by apologizing, E indicates that her answer has been accepted
as an official answer of the group. As D starts writing in line
26, everyone displays their orientation to her writing in line
27. By doing so, they demonstrate their acquiescence to E’s
proposed answer. E then verbalizes the possible candidate
answer in lines 28–34 as a guide for D’s writing to confirm
the official status of the answer being their unified response.
As we can see in this excerpt, when a speaker proposes

etc COP NEG no.good COP P*glances at A
‘Isn’t that a case?’ ‘Not like Kilimanjaro, right?’

33

27 C:

a candidate answer to the group while claiming to haveenough knowledge via an assertion format, the recipient’s
response is made irrelevant, and the group will acquiesce tothe proposed idea unless they have another idea, as in A’s
move in this example. Thus, speaking with assertion displays
orientation to having the right to determine future courses ofaction on behalf of others. We can further confirm thatthrough the design of a knowledge-based action, speakers areable to exercise their rights to determine a future course ofaction, and others accept such exercising of those rights
unless they have grounds to refute the proposed idea.

c
28
29 C:
30 D:
31 D:
d
32 D

4.3 Knowledge status to determine the proposed answer
Finally, we would like to further confirm thatknowledge about the matter in question is grounds forexercising the right to determine future courses of action ingroup discussions. In Excerpt 4, four students are discussing
a task in which they are supposed to compare two examples
of a thesis statement and decide which one is better and why.
When confirming the difficulty of the task in lines 20 and 21
as both candidates look plausible, deciding on their answer isoccasioned. Then, C initiates the discussion by proposing B
as a possible candidate while looking at the whiteboard in line
22. However, she immediately downgrades her proposal byclaiming not to have enough knowledge, thereby reducing
commitment to her proposed answer (Kuroshima & Endo,2021). At the end of her turn, she also refers to the possibilityof B as a non-answer and in this way, she constructs it as a
weak proposal. In lines 23–26, D endorses C’s proposal bypresenting a logic of her own and thus demonstrating her
knowledgeability of the material. C agrees with D’s claim inline 27 by collaboratively completing D’s turn (Lerner, 1991),
and they confirm that they have a unified answer. At that point,
the notetaker C herself begins recording D’s candidate answer.

33 C:
34 A:
a
35 D:
d
36
37 D:

d
24 D:

25 A:
26 D:
d

(.)
[naze?
‘Why?’[de so‘And so-‘.hhh nan te yuu no, saisho kara *naganaga
what QT say FP first from at.length‘How can I say, if (we) say (it) at length,’*looks at each other with C
shaberu to[::,speak if[un, un, u::n‘Yeah, yeah, yeah.’a:[::::.
‘Oh:::::.’>>looks at D-->[*nanka:, kiiteru hoo mo::,likelistening side also
‘Like, the readers also’*looks at A-----------,,,,(.)*nani ga [daiji+na no ka waka’n nai, u::n, soo.
what NOM important

d
38 C:
c
39 D:

NML Q know

NEG ITJ

so‘do not know what is important. Yeah, right.’*looks at C’s note-->[short +sentence?
+starts writing-->
u::n, soo. (0.8) dekirudake miji:kai:, bun de:::,ITJ soas.much.as.possible short sentence by‘Yeah, right. (0.8) in a short sentence as much as possible,’

40 C?:
41 D:

Excerpt 4 [GOPR1195][00:42]/[R07_0013]
20 D:*docchi na no ka [nawhich COP NML Q FP
‘I wonder which one.’d*turns to WB-->
21 C:[docchi na n daroo: ne::which COP NML maybe FP‘Which one would (it) be?’c>>looks at WB
22 C:
B:: ja nai? (0.2) e:: wakan nai.<B ja [nai kamo.
COP NEG ITJ know NEG COP NEG maybe
23 D:[+B ga ii.
NOM good‘B would be good.’+starts writing down-->

42 C:
43 A:
44
45 D:
c
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55

‘Isn’t (it) B?’(0.2) ‘Well, (I) don’t know.<(It) may not be B.’[>*e demo areda yone<

ITJ but that COP FP‘Well, but isn’t that a case?’*looks at A---,,,,,,,*saisho no bunsho- shu[choo to shite wa::,
first GEN text- statement QT do:TE TOP‘As the first text- statement,’*looks at C----------,,,,,.....at A-->[un un.
‘Yeah. Yeah.’
B no [hoo ga ii
ki
ga suru.*
GEN side NOM good feeling NOM do‘(I) have a feeling that B would be better.’,,..*looks at C’s note

56

D:
C:
D:
C:
D:
A:
C:

˚˚sou iu koto ka.˚˚
so say thing Q‘I see.’iroiro setsumee shita hoo ga [ii tte([yuu ka]
various explanation do way NOM good QT say Q‘various explanations would be better, or,’[un,un. [kanketsuni ne?
ITJ ITJ briefly
P‘Yeah, yeah, briefly, right?’[un, un．un, un.
‘Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.’(0.8)
Easy to understand na n ja +nai?
+tilts her upper body to D toindicate hearing problem‘Wouldn’t (it) be easy to understand?’Easy to understand.
(.)<Easy> to:::,(.)
under[stand.
[<under:::>stand? hhh(.)
stand.
hai.
‘Okay.’(1.0)

In line 29, C first addresses the task question of “Why” to D,

34

thereby treating her response as an official unified opinion of
the group and attributing D with the knowledge necessary forthis matter. D then accounts for the answer (lines 31–52),
which further demonstrates her answer’s status as official.
While C continues to write down D’s explanation by agreeing
with her, A also agrees with D in line 43, yet B remains silent.
Furthermore, in line 45, D completes her turn in a negativeinterrogative as an action of assertion. Finally, D guides C’s
writing with her proposed account from line 46. In doing so,
D accepts the attributed knowledge status by demonstrating
what she knows, and the other parties acquiesce to D’s
exercising her claimed rights to determine their official
answer, while C does not assert to have such rights implicatedin her original proposal in line 22.
This example demonstrates that, rather than aproposing party, a more knowledgeable participant can exert
their rights to determine the plausibility of a proposed answer,
while others who do not claim any knowledge acquiesce tothe presented proposal.

We also observed that when participants account for
how they come to have a candidate answer (i.e., when they
are explaining their exploration process to other members),
they demonstrate it as procedural knowledge that is necessary
for addressing various social occasions, for instance,developing an appropriate response to a conversational moveor producing a better and reasonable thesis statement byreference to “the mastery of natural language”—
understanding and producing the commonsense knowledge ofeveryday affairs as observable and reportable phenomena(Garfinkel & Sacks, 1972). Such knowledge has beenpresented and accounted for as propositional knowledge tothe recipients when they need to negotiate their opinions inthese excerpts. This kind of empirical evidence can support
the claim that peer discussion in groupwork is beneficial forboth the participating learners and the teachers in terms of
their inferential and reasoning work designedly involved inthese pedagogical tasks.
Relatedly, the last point of discussion suggests thatgroup discussions are one locus for participants todemonstrate their mastery of natural language in the target
language, even if they explain the process in their native
tongue. The accountability and observability of concerted
actions (e.g., interpreting a thesis statement) enable therecipients to engage in practical reasoning (Garfinkel, 1967)
and therefore let all the participants accountably undertake apedagogical task. Such displayed interactional capability
should be one type of assessment method of a group work forthe purpose of active learning in the future.

5. Discussion/Conclusion
Based on the above observations, the following
discussion can be concluded. The practical task forparticipants who are expected to work with others in a groupis how to communicate a possible answer with other members.
The action of proposing such an answer to a pedagogical task
to the group would imply that the speaker has certain
knowledge and is able to use logic to conclude that the answer
is plausible. Given this feature, the proposing party faces apractical problem of how to claim and present theirknowledgeability given the claimed knowledge status relative
to their recipients. Thus, they (at times) display reduced
commitment by downgrading their claim to avoid such an
implication and seek the recipient’s agreement. In this way,
the recipients of a proposal are also expected to have enoughknowledge to assess the plausibility or reasonableness of the
proposed answers. As such, when a speaker demonstrates
their knowledge status in proposing their ideas to the groupthrough an assertion action, the recipients either disagree or
acquiesce to the proposed idea unless they claim to haveenough knowledge to reject the proposal.
Additionally, the speakers of a proposed candidate
answer are expected to have the rights and obligations todetermine their future course of action in initiating a sequence
for their decision-making. This is true even when there are no
attributable different statuses in terms of their social roles andidentities to exercise the rights and obligations to do so as in
the current context because they are all students and there
were no specific predetermined roles among them. In otherwords, because this type of decision-making activity isorganized as fundamentally knowledge-based, how a speaker
and a recipient claim their knowledge status relative to eachother in constructing their action of proposal becomes
consequential to how they reach mutual agreement on a
possible answer. Through the proposing action for a decisionmaking activity, the speakers also need to address theimplicated knowledgeability which is a necessary ground forsuch social rights and obligations.

6. Implications
In a monolingual foreign language classroom, students
often conduct discussions in their native language, which may
be due to their reluctance to participate in the discussion in
the target language. However, the data analyses suggest thatparticipants’ interactional capability can be observed byfocusing on ways in which they display their understandingof producing a course of action and infer the normative
organization necessary for addressing the pedagogical tasks
for their practical purposes. Thus, as long as the tasks aredesigned to elicit the students’ inferential work and reasoning
when they present their ideas, there is an advantage to
conducting a group discussion task in their native language.
In doing so, the students can focus on the discussion of theirprocedural knowledge without having difficulty of
formulating what they want to say in the target language.
Acknowledgements
This study is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number
JP18K00791.
References
Asakawa, K, Tajino, A, & Oda, M. (Eds.). (2020). Eigo Jugyo Gaku
no Saizensen [New Frontiers in Classroom ELT Research].
Hitsuji Shobo.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Polity.
Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practicalactions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoreticalsociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 160–193). Kegan

35

Paul.
Hayano, K. (2011). Claiming epistemic primacy: yo-marked
assessments in Japanese. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J.
Steensig (Eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (pp.
58–81). Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (2002). The limits of questioning: Negativeinterrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of
Pragmatics,
34(10–11),
1427–1446.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00072-3
Ishikawa, T., & McBride, P. (2019). Doing justice to ELF in ELT:
Comments on Toh (2016). Journal of English as a Lingua
Franca, 8(2), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2019-2026
Jakonen, T., & Morton, T. (2015). Epistemic Search Sequences inPeer Interaction in a Content-based Language Classroom.
Applied
Linguistics,
36(1),
73–94.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt031
Jakonen, T., Szabó, T. P., & Laihonen, P. (2018). Translanguaging as
Playful Subversion of a Monolingual Norm in the Classroom. In
G. Mazzaferro (Ed.), Translanguaging as Everyday Practice (pp.
31–48). Springer International Publishing.
Jefferson, G. (1984). On the organization of laughter in talk about
troubles. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures ofSocial Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 347–369).
Cambridge University Press.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an
introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis:
Studies from the First Generation (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins.
Jenkins, J., & Leung, C. (2019). From mythical “standard” tostandard reality: The need for alternatives to standardized
English language tests. Language Teaching, 52(1), 86–110.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000307
Kuroshima, S. (2020). Confirming Oneʼs Understanding through te(yuu) koto: Negotiation of Knowledge and Understanding inGroupwork for English Learning Activities. Proceedings of the
22nd Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan.
Kuroshima, S. & Endo, T. (2021). Epistemic downgrading in a
proposal sequence: Cases from EFL classroom interactions inJapan. International Symposium on Conversation Analysis ofEnglish Learning Activities.
Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress.
Language in Society, 20(3), 441–458. https://doi.org/DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572
Markee, N., & Kunitz, S. (2015). CA-for-SLA Studies of Classroom
Interaction: Quo Vadis? In N. Markee (Ed.), The Handbook ofClassroom Discourse and Interaction (pp. 425–440).
Mondada, L. (2019). Conventions for multimodal transcription.
Retrieved from https://www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodaltranscription
Mondada, L., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Second language
acquisition as situated practice: Task accomplishment in thefrench second language classroom. The Modern Language
Journal, 88(4), 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.00267902.2004.t01-15-.x
Nishizaka, A. (2008). Bunsansuru Shintai [Distributed Body].
Keisoshobo.
Nishizaka, A. (2021). Seeing and knowing in interaction: Two
distinct resources for action construction. Discourse Studies
23(6), 759-777.
Oda, M., & Toh, G. (2018). Significant Encounters andConsequential Eventualities: A Joint Narrative of Collegiality
Marked by Struggles Against Reductionism, Essentialism andExclusion in ELT. In B. Yazan & N. Rudolph (Eds.), Criticality,
Teacher Identity, and (In)equity in English Language Teaching :Issues and Implications (pp. 219–236). Springer International

Publishing.
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings.
AmericanAnthropologist,
70(6),
1075–1095.
https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A
primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The Interactional architecture of the language
classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Blackwell.
Sert, O. (2013). “Epistemic status check” as an interactional
phenomenon in instructed learning settings. Journal of
Pragmatics,
45(1),
13–28.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.005
Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic Authority inInteraction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2014). Three orders in theorganization of human action: On the interface between
knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social
relations.
LanguageinSociety,43(2),
185–207.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404514000037
Appendix A
Transcript conventions developed by Gail Jefferson (2004).
pitch fall?
pitch rise,level pitch↑↓ _marked pitch movement underlining emphasis
truncation[]
overlap=
latching of turns(0.5)
pause (length in tenths of a second)(.)
micropause:
lengthening of a soundhhhaudible out-breath.hhhaudible in-breath(h)within-speech aspiration, usually indicating laughter#creaky voice quality¥
smiley voice quality<word> slow speech rate
>word< fast speech rate
Appendix B
Multimodal transcript conventions developed by Lorenza Mondada(2019)**
Descriptions of embodied movements are delimited
between++two identical symbols (one symbol per participant’s lineof action) and are synchronized with corresponding
stretches of talk/lapses of time.
*-->
The action described continues across subsequent lines-->*
until the same symbol is reached.
>>
The action described begins before the extract’s
beginning.
-->>
The action described continues after the extract’s end.
....
Preparation.
-----Full extension of the movement is reached andmaintained.
,,,,,
Retraction.
ava
Participant doing the embodied action is identified
when (s)he is not the speaker.
fig
The exact moment at which a screen shot has beentaken is indicated36Appendix C
Glossing List
ACC
Accusative
ALL
Allative
COP
CopulaGEN
Genitive
ITJ
Interjection
NEG
Negation
NOM
NominativeP
Particle
POL
Polite speech level/Polite suffix
Q
Question particle
QT
Quotative particle
TE
Verb TE-form
TOP
Topic marker

37

Students Expressing Difficulties in Group Activities―Conversation Analysis of a College English Learning Activity―
ENDO, Tomoko
The University of Tokyo
endotomoko@g.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Abstract
Students engaging in group activities sometimes have trouble comprehending the given material, which
may prevent their active participation in ongoing activities. This study examined how students express
and solve their difficulties in understanding while interacting with group members through conversation
analysis methodology. Video recordings of group activities of approximately 135 min were used as data
for the study. First, the timing of the questions and answers were analyzed. The analysis revealed that thetiming of the questions varied. In most cases, the questions were asked soon after a task question was read
aloud; in some cases, students asked questions in a delayed time. It was also observed that questions asked
in group work might facilitate discussion and trigger reconsideration of other members’ understanding of
the given material. This study suggested that students’ questions during group work activities should be
encouraged by assigning predetermined roles to the students.
Keywords: group work, conversation analysis, questions, trouble in understanding, students’ roles
1. Introduction
In college English classes, group work activities areoften introduced to secure students’ opportunities to use
English, especially speaking. Students are divided into small
groups and given tasks to work on together. While it is argued
that group work can lead to a deeper understanding ofacademic content if students are guided properly (Bloome2015), it is often the case that students have trouble
understanding the material. For the smooth progress of group
work activity, having difficulty understanding the given
material might seem to be an obstacle. However, close
examination reveals that students’ challenges inunderstanding the material may allow the peer students tounderstand the material better. This study examined how
students express and solve their difficulties while interactingwith group members through conversation analysis
methodology. This study aimed to document that students’expressing difficulty in group work activities is beneficial forthe group members’ collaborative learning.

is the IRE sequence (Initiate-Response-Evaluation sequence),a peculiar sequence commonly observed in teacher-student
interaction (Mehan, 1979). Recent multimodal analysis of theclassroom has revealed that bodily behaviors such as raisinga hand and gaze also form patterns peculiar to teacher-student
interaction (Sert, 2019; Waring & Carpenter, 2019; Ishino2021). The interaction between a teacher and students isgenerally a one-to-many interaction with a clear knowledge
gap – the teacher knows more than the students – and suchasymmetry in number and epistemic status makes the teacherstudent interaction different from ordinary conversation.
In contrast, student-student interaction may seem to becloser to ordinary conversation, as the participants are
generally of the same age and background, especially in EFL
classes in Japanese universities. The fact that the participants
are engaged in a learning activity affects the shape of theinteraction in various ways. Using multimodal resources suchas gaze and body direction, students show their(un)willingness to participate (Evnitskaya & Berger 2017; Ro& Burch, 2020) and their epistemic stance (Jakonen &Morton, 2015; Sert & Jacknick, 2015; Sert & Walsh, 2013).
These studies have shown that students learning together inthe same classroom may have different degrees ofunderstanding, and a low degree of understanding may resultin withdrawal from participation in the ongoing activity.
Students may show their difficulty in understanding invarious ways; they can be silent or say I don’t know. While
being silent or saying I don’t know can indicate a reluctanceto participate (Sert & Walsh, 2013), asking questions to solve
the problem in understanding may facilitate a discussion on
the material at hand. From the perspective of other students
who understand the material with no trouble, explaining to apeer student can be an opportunity to deepen their

2. Background
The research framework of conversation analysis (CA)(Sacks et al., 1974; Sidnell, 2010; Sidnell & Stivers, 2012;
Clift, 2016) has provided various fundamental concepts foranalyzing talk-in-interaction, such as turn-taking, adjacency
pairs, sequence organization, participation framework, andepistemics. These notions have been introduced in theanalysis of interaction in various institutional settings,
including medical counseling, courts, service encounters(Antaki, 2011), and language learning and L2 pedagogy is oneof the most well-studied fields of applied CA (Gardner, 2012;
Jacknick, 2021; Seedhouse, 2004; Wong & Waring, 2021).
The classroom has unique features. A classic example

38

understanding. Students asking questions may provide a
valuable interactional site for a deeper understanding of thematerial. This study investigated how students ask questions
during group work activities. Specifically, the timing ofquestions, answers, and consequences of the question-answer
sequence were analyzed.

contexts were transcribed in finer detail following the CA
transcription system developed by Jefferson (2004).
Subsequently, questions from the worksheets are calledtask questions to distinguish from real questions that students
ask other group members to request information regarding thetask question. In most cases, students first read a task question
aloud, and the other students gave their answers. In Week 5,
the task questions were statements such as ‘I have a strong
sense of purpose,’ but reading aloud the sentence works as aquestion in that it requires the answer – in this activity, thestudents were asked to say their ratings from 1 to 5 based on
the degree of agreement. Some students changed thestatement into question (i.e., ‘Do you have a strong sense of
purpose?’). The task questions on Week 6’s worksheet wereinterrogative word questions, polar questions, andinterrogative sentences (see Appendix C).

3. Data and Methodology
The data for this study were taken from conversations
videotaped during group activities in an elective seven-weekEnglish course in a university in Tokyo. The theme of thecourse was the psychology of language learners. Somechapters from Dörnyei and Ryan (2015) were distributed asreading materials, and supplementary materials such asvideo/audio lectures or worksheets were also used each week.
The primary goal of the course was reading comprehension,
but the instructor designed the course to help students develop
the four skills of reading, writing, listening, and speaking
through the assignments and activities. Each class started with
the instructor’s lecture on the assigned reading material,
followed by activities that varied depending on the day. The
data recording was done on Weeks 5 and 6 when students
were divided into small groups to work on activities using aworksheet (see Appendix C for the details of the worksheets).
The students enrolled in the course were first-year
students from various sections in the liberal arts program.
Since the students in this university start studying their majorfrom the third year, no one in the class majored in English
literature or related fields at the time of recording. Their
English level varied, approximately CEFR B1 to B2. The
general course title was Intermediate English, but as mostelective courses were called Intermediate English in thisuniversity (only a very limited number of Advanced English
courses were offered), the name of the course meant little tothe instructor or the students. The members of the groups for
activities were changed each time. Some students seemed toknow each other from outside the class, while other students
only met in the class.
At the beginning of the group work activities, thestudents were instructed to take turns to read the questions
aloud and say their answers with reasons or examples so thatthey could practice speaking English. Worksheets were takenfrom authentic materials, i.e., from a study skills handbook
for native speakers (Week 5) and an English textbook written
in English. Therefore, reading comprehension was also
intended to be the aim of using the worksheet, but this aim
was not explicitly shared with the students. The topic for
Week 5 was motivation, and the topic for Week 6 was learning
styles. A total of 16 groups were videotaped while they were
engaged in group work. The conversations of five relatively
active groups, 135 minutes in length, were transcribed andanalyzed.
From the transcripts, 15 interrogative word questions
were identified. The collected 15 questions included
questions articulated in English (e.g., What does this mean?
or What’s diagram?) and in Japanese (e.g., nijuuban dooiu
imi? ‘What is the meaning of number 20?’ or akutibitiizu tte
nani? ‘What are activities?’). The utterances and surrounding

4. Analysis
4.1 Timing of question
The timing of the question varied; in most cases, astudent asked a question before any reaction related to the taskquestion, while in other cases, a question was asked after thegroup members reacted to the task question. In Example (1),Suzuki, who read aloud a question sentence on the worksheet(line 1), asked a question regarding a part of the task question
before other group members responded (line 4).
(1) [Week 6: Learning style Q.2]
01 SUZ:
02
03
04

Do your choices match your learning style?
your choices,(1.1)
your choices tte no wa doo yuu koto?
QT GEN TOP how say thing‘What does your choices mean?’

After reading aloud the task question, “Do your choices matchyour learning style?” in line 1, Suzuki immediately repeated“your choices.” No one said anything during the 1.1-second
pause in line 3, and Suzuki asked in Japanese, your choices
tte no wa doo yuu koto? ‘What does your choices mean?’ inline 4. The task question in line 1 is the first pair part (FPP)
that makes a corresponding second pair part (SPP) relevant,but before the SPP of any form was produced, the person who
produced the FPP started a new sequence by asking a question.
In Example (2) below, after Murai asked a task questionin lines 1 and 2, no one answered for 2.8 seconds.
Subsequently, Shigaki said “What does this mean,” asking
about the question’s meaning (lines 4 and 7).
(2) [Week 5: Motivation Q.4]
01 MUR:
02
03
04 SHI:
05
06 MUR:
07 SHI:Ah, do you set yourself (.) clear targets forcompleting tasks?
(2.8)
What does this(.)
>I don’t [know. < hh[mean.

Murai’s question is an FPP to which other members are39

expected to produce an SPP. However, Shigaki asked aquestion that worked as a new FPP to be responded to. Here,
Shigaki problematized the task question, ‘Do you set yourself
clear targets for completing tasks?’ The words used in thistask question are simple, but the sentence’s meaning as awhole is not clear to Shigaki. Murai also had trouble
understanding, as shown in his prompt answer, I don’t know,
produced before Shigaki finished articulating his question.
Example (2) is different from Example (1) in that theperson who asks the question is not the same person as theone who reads aloud the task question. Still, these two
examples can be treated as one type because the question is
asked before any action is taken in response to the taskquestion. It is appropriate for participants to ask a question
before they start answering the task question, as having
difficulty understanding a part or the whole of task questions
is an obstacle to answering the task question.
In some cases, however, a participant asked a question
regarding the task question after the group had started
tackling the task question. Example (3) shows a case in point.
This group consists of three students: Iki, Suzuki, and Yoshida.
In line 1, Iki proposes to move on to Question 4, and he reads
aloud the task question, “Which activities from today’s lesson
match your learning style” in lines 3 and 4. Although Iki hastrouble understanding the referent of “activities,” his problem
is not explicitly stated until line 13. From lines 1 to 12, theparticipants are looking at their worksheets.

elaborated. Furthermore, Iki’s utterance in line 9 is notaddressed to a specific recipient. It is in line 13 when Iki asksa question to the other members of the group, shifting his gazefrom the worksheet to the group members.1
Students may ask questions with delayed timing. In theexample below, Sato asks a question after the other groupmembers finished answering the task question. This groupconsists of four students: Iwai, Yoshida, Nishino, and Sato.
Before the excerpt, they worked on task question #19, ‘I use
criticism as a spur to doing better.’ Task question #20 is ‘I
manage anxieties and crises of confidence.’(4) [Week 5: Motivation Q.20]
01 IWA:
02
03 YOS:
04 IWA:
05
06 NIS:07
08 YOS:
09
10 YOS:

I manage (.) anxieties and crises (0.3) of confidence.
(1.0)
I manage anxieties and crises of [confidence[crises (.) of confidence(1.8)
Three.
(1.0)
One. ((Yoshida puts his pen on the table.))(4.0)
supaa hakusha shigeki tte kaitearu.
spur spur stimulus QT written‘For spur, (the dictionary) says “spur,” “stimulus”.’
11(1.6)
12 SAT: ˚a˚
13(5.0)
14 SAT: nijuuban dooiu imi?
number.20 how meaning‘What is the meaning of question #20?’(3) [Week 6: Learning style Q.4]
01 IKI: Shall we move to question (.) four?
02(0.4)
03 IKI: Which ac- tivitie:s fro:m today’s lesson match04
your: learning style.
05(0.8)
06 SUZ: u::n=‘Uhm’
07 IKI: =un‘Yeah’
08(0.5)
09 IKI: akutibitiizu ka.
activities Q‘Activities…’
10(4.6)
11 IKI: ˚aa::˚
‘Uhm’
12
(2.0)
13 IKI: *tte kore aku↑tibitiizu tte na↑ni?
QT this activities
QT what‘What are activities here?’iki*looks at Suzuki/Yoshida

In line 1, Iwai reads task question #20 aloud, which Yoshidarepeats after a 1-second pause. After Nishino says ‘Three’ inline 6, Yoshida says ‘One’ and puts his pen on the table, andthen he mentions the meaning of a word in task question #19.
These behaviors indicate that Yoshida has finished working
on task question #20.
As task question #20 is the last item on the list, theparticipants did not have the following question to move on.2
Next, Sato, after a long pause, asked about the meaning oftask question #20 in line 14. Because other members had
stated their answers, asking the meaning of the task question
at this position implies returning to an already closed
sequence. Thus, Sato’s question is a delayed question.
In this section, I showed that the timing of the questions
varied. Generally, a question is asked soon after a taskquestion is read aloud. Cases like (3) and (4) are rather rare,
but these cases show that students have more opportunities to
ask questions than teacher-student interaction. When ateacher asks a question to a student, the option for the student
is to answer the question or to say they do not know theanswer. It would not be easy for a student to ask a question
regarding the teacher’s question, let alone after the question
sequence proceeds. In group work activity, in contrast,
students can decide the pace and content of the question aslong as they are working on the task given to them.

After Iki read the task question aloud in lines 3 and 4, none of
the group members answered, but they did not ask a question
either. Suzuki produced an interjection u::n, showing that hewas now thinking. In line 7, Iki says un ‘yeah,’ and after a 0.5second pause (line 8), he switches to Japanese. In line 9,
Akutibitiizu ‘activities’ is in Japanese katakana pronunciation,
and a Japanese question particle ka is added at the end of theutterance. This utterance problematizes the word activities,
but at this point, the exact nature of Iki’s trouble is not

4.2 Answer to question and the consequence of question
In most cases, an answer to a question is provided

40

immediately after the question. Let us examine how thequestion in the last example is responded.

this activity is that participants may answer the task questions
without understanding the meaning of the task question. Inline 6, Nishino answers the task question by saying his rating,three, but it does not guarantee that he understands the fullmeaning of the question. Hearing Nishino’s answer, Yoshida
gives his answer in line 8. Iwai says nothing, but he marks his
response on his worksheet. It is possible that the threemembers, Yoshida, Iwai, and Nishino, were not fully
confident of their interpretation of the task question but
decided to give the rating to finish the task. The question Satoasks in line 14 gives them the opportunity to reconsider theirunderstanding, thereby facilitating their discussion on thismatter. In this way, a question may have more effect thanmerely retrieving an answer.
Sometimes, a question asked by a group member andthe subsequent sequence make another member aware that
their understanding is incorrect. The example below is a more
extended version of Example (1). The task question Suzuki
reads in line 1: Do your choices match your learning style? isthe second question in Section 12 of Week 6’s worksheet (SeeAppendix C). This question presupposes that the students
have answered the first question, ‘Which activities in exercise
10 do you enjoy doing?’ and the phrase your choices in ‘Do
your choices match your learning style?’ refers to answers to
the first question. Suzuki has trouble understanding what ismeant by your choices and asks in line 4.

(5) (Continued from (4))
14 SAT: nijuuban dooiu imi?
number.20 how meaning‘What is the meaning of question #20?’
15 YOS: un?
‘huh?’
16 SAT: nijuuban dooiu imi?
‘What is the meaning of question #20?’
17(3.5)
18 YOS: >nanka sono< jishin ga yuraidemo::,
INJ FIL confidence NOM shaken.CONC
19
daijoobu kadooka jane(h)?
finewhether TAG‘Well, (it is) whether you are fine even if you lose
your confidence, isn’t it?’20(.)
21 SAT: ah[:::‘Oh’
22 YOS: [wakaran.
understand.NEG‘I don’t know.’

After Sato asked about the meaning of question 20, Yoshidafirst said un?, which works as an open-class repair initiator(Drew, 1997). Sato, taking Yoshida’s trouble as a hearing
problem, repeated the question in precisely the same format
as in line 16. After a 3.5-second pause, Yoshida starts
explaining the meaning of the task question.3
By asking the question, Sato revealed having difficulty
understanding the task question. Note that other members
who did not ask a question might have had similar difficulty
but did not make it public. Let us again see the beginning of
the sequence:(7) (longer version of (1))
01 SUZ:
02
03
04

Do your choices match your learning style?
your choices,(1.1)
your choices tte no wa doo yuu koto?
QT GEN TOP how say thing‘What does your choices mean?’05(1.0)
06 IKI:choi[ces
07 SUZ:[ichi de eranda koto?
one DAT select.PST thing‘The one I chose in 1?’
08>doo yuu koto?<
how QT thing‘What does it mean?’09
Do your [choices
10 YOS:[kono- [*kore de eranda
yatsu ga::.
this this DAT select.PST thing NOM
yos*points at the list used in exercise 10‘This- the one you chose in this one’11 IKI:[choices kono
choices this
‘Choices, this’12(0.8)
13 YOS: *sono [kotae to au ka.
that answer with match Q‘matches that answer or not.’yos*points at the table used in exercise 6
14 SUZ:[aa::
15 IKI:[aa:::: soo iuINJ that QT‘Oh, that,’
16
e?=
INJ

(6) (partially replicated from (4))
01 IWA: I manage (.) anxieties and crises (0.3) of confidence.
02(1.0)
03 YOS: I manage anxieties and crises of [confidence
04 IWA:[crises (.) of confidence05(1.8)
06 NIS: Three.
07(1.0)
08 YOS: One. ((Yoshida puts his pen on the table.))After Iwai read the task question aloud, nobody answered forone second. This length of lapse is not rare in this activity andhas been observed in other groups as well; however, in thiscase, Yoshida repeats the whole, and Iwai repeats a part of thetask question. Their repetition of a part of or the wholequestion seems to indicate their difficulties interpreting thetask question. They did not proceed to produce an answer tothe task question. Yoshida and Iwai, however, did not ask
questions to clarify the meaning of the task question.
Sato’s question in line 14 might have a goodconsequence for other group members. As the worksheet was
taken from a study skills handbook for native speakers (orpeople who study in English), the expressions in the sentenceswere not adjusted to EFL learners. The potential problem of41

17 SUZ:
18
19 IKI:
20 SUZ:
21 IKI:
22 SUZ:
23 YOS:
24 IKI:
25 YOS:
26 IKI:27‘Oh?’=a, jaa (.) attenai.
INJ then match.NEG‘Oh, then it doesn’t match.’(2.0)
e, choi- choices aredakara[::‘So’[soo iu koto.
that QT thing‘That’s what it means.’<go[ing>[ichi de eranda
yatsu [ga::one DAT select.PST thing NOM‘The one you chose in question 1’[aa[kocchi ni atteru ka.
this DAT match Q‘matches this or not.’[aa.
aa::::.

these utterances to indicate Iki’s trouble in understanding;Suzuki started explaining (lines 20 and 22), and Yoshidarepeated the explanation (lines 23 and 25). Iki produced thechange-of-state token aa in lines 24, 26, and 27, showing that
he finally understood.
This example shows that a question asked in group
work may trigger the reconsideration of another member’s
understanding of the given material. If it were not for Suzuki’squestion, Iki would overlook his misunderstanding. Asking
questions in group work activities can therefore be beneficial
for other group members.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
This study examined how students engaged in group
work activities expressed difficulties by asking questions. It
was shown that the timing of the question varied, with somecases of delayed questions. The analysis also revealed that thequestion-answer sequence could make another member of thesame group realize their incorrect understanding, thus
prompting a deeper understanding of the material.
Asking questions is not the only way to express
difficulties. Being silent or repeating the task question may,in some cases, be the indication of trouble, as participants do
not produce the expected following action of answering thetask question. The action of asking a question differs fromother ways of expressing difficulties in that a question makes
an answer as the relevant next action. A question is argued tohave a more potent force to solicit a response than other types
of FPP, such as announcements or assessments (Stivers &Rossano, 2010). In addition, asking a question presupposes
asymmetry in epistemic status. Those who ask questions
position themselves as having less knowledge (“K-”) than therecipients of the questions. The participants who the questions
are addressed to are positioned as having more knowledge(“K+”) than the questioners, and as such, they become
obliged to provide answers (Heritage 2012). Asking questions
can thus facilitate interactions among group members.
Unlike the inherently asymmetrical relation between
teacher and students, the relation among students is basicallyequal; since the students were taking the same course, theywould generally assume that their English is more or less on
the same level. The assumed symmetry between students
regarding their English proficiency might provide a safe
environment for the students to ask questions when they havetrouble with the material. Also, since they are students, they
are not in the position of assessing each other. Asking aquestion may reveal a problem, but their course grade will not
be affected.
Questions asked by students have advantages overquestions from teacher to students. Questions from a teacher
is in principle a comprehension check. That is, a teacher asksa question to a student aiming to see whether the student cananswer the question and to add necessary explanations. In
order to ask questions with that purpose, the teacher needs not
only to know the answers to the questions but also to makethe questions about items that the students might have trouble
with. However, teachers may not always successfully judge
their students’ state of understanding. Students may be having

Suzuki correctly guessed the meaning of your choices,
as shown in his confirmation-asking question in line 7, ichi deeranda koto? ‘The one I chose in 1?’. His problem isconnecting your choices, or the answers to question 1 (which
activities on the list he likes) with your learning style, which
was identified in exercises 6 to 9. When Yoshida answers
Suzuki’s question in lines 10 and 13, he points at different
parts of the worksheet to indicate that the phrase your choices
refers to the answers for exercise 10. In contrast, the phrase
your learning style refers to the answers in exercise 6. To thisembodied explanation, Suzuki produces a change-of-state
token (Heritage, 1984) aa::, which conveys that Suzuki’s
cognitive state changed and his trouble is resolved. Suzuki
starts saying aa:: before Yoshida completes his turn, but thisis because the contrast between kore ‘this’ in line 10 and sono‘that’ in line 13 is crucial in distinguishing your choices andyour learning style.
Because Suzuki asked and Yoshida answered thequestion, the interaction might appear to be only between
these two participants. However, the group had one moremember, Iki, who also participated in group work. Though hefailed to take the floor, Iki produced fragmental utterances inlines 6 and 11 (choices and choices kore ‘choices this’). As hereacted to other participants, what he attempted to do at thesepoints is not comprehensible; he might have wanted toexpress his difficulty or to answer Suzuki’s question. In
contrast, when Yoshida produced the latter part of his answer
in line 13, Iki took the position of the recipient. In line 15, Iki
also produced the change-of-state token aa::, but louder andlonger than Suzuki. After the token, Iki immediately
continued to say soo iu ‘that,’ which seems to be thebeginning part of soo iu koto ‘that’s what it means’. However,
he cut it off and says e?, an interjection that is used to express
the doubtful/questioning stance of the speaker (Hayashi 2009).
While Suzuki moved on to answer the task question by sayingthat his choice does not match his style (line 17), Iki repeatedthe interjection in line 19 and started saying a sentence,
choices are. Other members, Suzuki and Yoshida, interpreted42Evnitskaya, N. & Berger, E. (2017). Learners’ multimodal displaysof willingness to participate in classroom interaction in the L2
and CLIL contexts. Classroom Discourse 8(1), 71–94.
Gardner, R. (2012). Conversation analysis in the classroom. In J.
Sidnell & Stivers, T. (Eds.), The handbook of conversation
analysis (pp. 593–611). Wiley-Blackwell.
Hayashi, M. (2009). Marking a ‘noticing of departure’ in talk: Ehprefaced turns in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics
41, 2100–2129.
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its
sequential placement. In Atkinson, M., Heritage, J. (Eds.),
Structures of social action. (pp. 299–345). Cambridge University
Press.
Heritage, J. (2012). The epistemic engine: Sequence organizationand territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social
Interaction 45(1), 30–52.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
Ishino, M. (2021). Teacher’s embodied mitigation against allocatingturns to unwilling students. Classroom Discourse.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2021.1918194
Jacknick, C. M. (2021). Multimodal participation and engagement:
Social interaction in the classroom. Edinburgh University Press.
Jakonen, T., & Morton, T. (2015). Epistemic search sequences inpeer interaction in a content-based language classroom. Applied
Linguistics, 36(1), 73–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt031
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an
introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis:
studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins.
Kuroshima, S. & Endo, T. (2021). Epistemic downgrading in a
proposal sequence: Cases from EFL classroom interactions inJapan. International Symposium on Conversation Analysis ofEnglish Learning Activities.
Mehan. H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in theclassroom. Harvard University Press.
MEXT. (2019). Curriculum Guidelines (“Courses of Study”) forHigh
Schools.
Retrievedfromhttps://www.mext.go.jp/content/1384661_6_1_3.pdf
Ro, E. & Burch, A. R. (2020). Willingness tocommunicate/participate’ in action: A case study of changes in arecipient’s practices in an L2 book club. Linguistics andEducation 58, 100821.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest
systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.
Language 50(4), 696–735.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The Interactional architecture of the language
classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Blackwell.
Sert, O. (2019). Mutual gaze, embodied go-aheads, and theirinteractional consequences in second language classrooms. In
Hall, J.K. & Looney, S.D. (Eds.), The embodied qccomplishmentof teaching (pp. 142–159). Multilingual Matters.
Sert, O. & Jacknick, C. M. (2015). Student smiles and thenegotiation of epistemics in L2 classrooms. Journal of
Pragmatics 77, 97–112.
Sert, O & Walsh, S. (2013). The interactional management of claimsof insufficient knowledge in English language classrooms.
LanguageandEducation27(6),
542–565.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2012.739174
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. WileyBlackwell.
Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.) (2012). The handbook of conversation
analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.
Stivers, T. & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on
LanguageandSocialInteraction
43(1),
3–31.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258

problems that their teachers do not expect. It is also possiblethat the questions from teachers are too easy and do not assist
students in deepening their understanding of the material.
When students ask questions by themselves, by contrast, they
can decide what to ask, therefore the questions are about
things which they really have difficulty with. If the students
can formulate questions by themselves, they are trying tosolve problems through their own agency, which will lead to“agentive, dialogic and deep” learning that is advocated by
MEXT (the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology) in the Curriculum Guidelines (MEXT 2019).
The observation in this study suggests that students
engaged in group work may have an opportunity to deepen
the understanding of the material when a group member asksa question. To encourage students to ask more questions,assigning predetermined roles might be effective. In theactivities examined in this study, no explicit instruction
regarding the role was given, thus role-taking was left to thestudents’ spontaneous decision. In this setting, students’personality might have affected the frequency of asking
questions – extroverted students might have asked morequestions than introverted students. Roles such as discussion
leader might provoke the sense of responsibility andawareness regarding the group members’ understanding.
When students are able to monitor their own cognitive state
and realize the nature of the trouble they have, they are only
one step away from understanding the material. Throughcollaboratively working on questions from peer groupmembers, students can share and overcome the difficulty andreach more precise and deeper understanding.
Notes
1
For a more detailed multimodal analysis of this example, please see
Endo (2022).
2
The students were instructed to rate their motivation for English
first and rate their motivation for their favourite subjects.
3
As shown in line 22, Yoshida downgrades his epistemic stance. This
type of downgrading is repeatedly observed in our data (Kuroshima& Endo 2021).
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant number
JP18K00791.
References
Antaki, C. (2011). Applied conversation analysis: Intervention andchange in institutional talk. Palgrave Macmillan.
Bloom, D. (2015). The role of talk in group activity in classrooms.
In Markee, N. (Ed.) The Handbook of Classroom Discourse andInteraction. (pp. 128–141). Wiley.
Clift. R. (2016). Conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Cottrell, S. (2013). The study skills handbook (4th edition). Palgrave
Macmillan.
Dörnyei, Z. & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language
learner revisited. Routledge.
Drew, P. (1997). ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to
sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of
Pragmatics 28, 69–101.
Endo, T. 2022. Multimodal conflict resolution: A conversation
analytic study of a group work activity in English class. Komaba
Journal of English Education, 13, 27–49.

43

Waring, H. Z. & Carpenter, L. B. (2019). Gaze shifts as a resource
for managing attention and recipiency. In Hall, J. K. & Looney,
S. D. (Eds.), The embodied work of teaching. (pp.122–141).
Multilingual Matters.
Wong, J. & Waring, H. Z. (2021). Conversation analysis and second
language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/EFL teachers. Routledge.

Listening, Speaking and Study Skills, Oxford University Press p.29)
Exercise 6. Listen to the sentences and decide if you agree ordisagree with each one. Write your answers in the table. Agree = A
disagree = D not sure = ?
(The sound file contains 12 statements that are the characteristics ofthree learning styles. The answers to statements 1 to 4 are to be
written on column a, 5 to 8 on column b, 9 to 12 on column c.)
Exercise 7. Listen and find your three scores. Write them in the table.
Exercise 8. Listen and write the names of the learning styles a—c in
the table.
Exercise 9. Work with a partner. Compare and discuss your scores.
Do you agree? Think of three ways you can use this information.
Exercise 10. Work with a partner. Look at the list of learning
activities. Which do you think are best for each learning style? Write
A (Auditory), V (Visual), or T (Tactile).
Items on the list: listening to documentaries, using diagrams andpictures, doing practical classes, taking notes, going on trips, using
different colour pens, doing role plays in class, making models,
recording lectures and notes, talking in groups.
Exercise 11. Listen and check your answers.
Exercise 12. Work with a partner. Answer the questions.
1. Which activities in exercise 10 do you enjoy doing?
2. Do your choices match your learning style?
3. What other activities would be good for your learning style?
4. Which activities from today’s lesson match your learning style?

Appendix A: Glossing symbols
CONC
Concessive
DAT
DativeFIL
FillerGEN
Genitive
INJ
Interjection
NEG
Negation
NOM
Nominative
PST
Past tense
Q
Question particle
QT
Quotation marker
TAG
Tag question
TOP
Topic marker
Appendix B: Transcription symbols,
continuing intonation.
terminal intonation (falling)?
rising intonation[ ]overlapping speech:
lengthening(.)
micro pause(2.1)
long pause and its length in seconds
truncated speech=
latching (no gap between two lines)ºsoft voice___
loud voice↑sudden rise in pitch<>
slowed down speech><accelerated speech
Appendix C: Worksheets
Week 5 [Motivation] (From Cottrell 2013: 111)
How strong is your motivation? Make a frank evaluation of yourown motivation. Rating: 1 = low; 5 = high.
1. I have a strong sense of purpose.
2. I know my reasons for study.
3. I am clear how my study will benefit my life.
4. I set myself clear targets for completing tasks.
5. I am driven to achieve well.
6. I can get going quickly when I sit down to study.
7. I have strategies for getting myself down to work.
8. I stay focused once I sit down to study.
9. I always complete work by the deadline.
10. I create the time I need to complete tasks well.
11. I set personal challenges that inspire me.
12. I take pleasure in achieving milestones/goals.
13. I study well even when I don’t feel like it.
14. I keep going even when things get tough.
15. I give thought to how to keep myself inspired.
16. I find ways of making study sessions enjoyable.
17. I make the subjects I study interesting to me.
18. I avoid actions that might sabotage my study.
19. I use criticism as a spur to doing better.
20. I manage anxieties and crises of confidence.
Week 6 [Learning Styles] (From Headway Academic Skills Level 1,

44

Needs Assessment for a University STEM English Course―Perspectives From Students, Discipline Faculty, and English Faculty―
KAWANO, Madoka* and FUKUCHI, Kentaro***Meiji University
mkawano@meiji.ac.jp**Meiji University
kentaro@fukuchi.org
Abstract
In today’s world, the need for personnel trained in STEM disciplines such as data science, programming,AI, and human interface has become increasingly important. English communication skills and academic
literacy are an essential part of the curriculum where such personnel are educated. However, since theseareas are relatively new, needs assessments of students and stakeholders are yet to be explored andclarified. In this study, needs for undergraduate students at a private university in Tokyo were re-examinedin light of substantial changes in society and education. In 2020 and 2021, we, a team of both language
faculty and STEM professors planned and conducted a series of needs assessment in a collaborative effort.
In this paper, we will discuss the findings from the semi-structured interviews on the use of English inseminars and STEM classes from the perspective of EAP within ESP. Nine students, seven STEM faculty
members, and three English faculty members participated. Qualitive analysis of the transcribed data
revealed a wide range of language needs perceived by the three stakeholders. It is hoped that this study
contributes to curriculum planning that reflects the voices of the various stakeholders.
Keywords: needs assessment, STEM, faculty collaboration, semi-structured interviews, open-coding
1. Introduction
Needs assessment of an ESP program plays a vital rolein the design of its curriculum and materials. According toBrown (1995), needs assessment is defined as “the systematiccollection and analysis of all information necessary fordefining and validating a defensible curriculum” (p.36). In
ESP programs where students often have specific goals andexpectations related to their academic majors or their future
career paths, it is crucial to investigate such demands orrequests before and during course planning andimplementation.
The authors, faculty members in a STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) department of a
private university in Japan, have been attempting to elucidate
the student needs in the academic disciplines of STEM suchas computer science, data management, human computerinteraction, and AI which are rapidly progressing andevolving in diverse directions. The department has regarded
ESP, especially EAP in ESP as an essential component ofeducation. The curriculum was planned and established in an
attempt to enable students to conduct research, write areport/paper, and present/participate in academic conferencesin English. Some of the third- year students would present
their papers in English at international conventions, which
requires students of proficiencies in EAP within ESP. In suchcases, the students would make themselves familiar withacademic conventions such as writing abstracts andpresenting papers. Since STEM is a relatively new discipline,
needs assessments of students and stakeholders are yet to be

explored and clarified. Therefore, the authors designed acomprehensive needs assessment: first, in a previous study,
they conducted questionnaire surveys enquiring about the useof English in seminars, conferences, and other academic
activities (Kawano, Elwood, & Fukuchi, 2021). The survey
revealed that students and STEM professors generally sharedsimilar perceptions about the necessity of English in writing,presentation, and speaking skills. On the other hand, reading
and vocabulary are areas that are highly valued only byprofessors. These findings are rather general, and further indepth research through interviews was deemed to be prudent.
Few qualitative studies have been conducted to analyze
the programs of higher education in Japan. In engineering
education, Okano interviewed 10 students and analyzed thedata in a qualitative method using the software MAXQDA(2013). In his study, communication patterns and social
aspects of the engineering department at a university werediscussed. In a later study, Sawaki (2017) conducted semistructured interviews with six faculty members at a university
with EMI courses in mathematics and earth science;
participants protocols were categorized in the six broad
themes such as description of content courses, language use
activities involving reading in English. These studies yieldedfindings from in-depth analyses of data from multiple
perspectives, situated in the context of the disciplines.
Therefore, the authors decided to adopt the semi-structuredinterview format and to analyze the data using suchqualitative approaches.
In this study, the focus of research was placed upon the45

present needs of the students in seminars and in content
classes rather than on daily communicative necessities or
holiday overseas trips. Hyland categorized the processes ofneeds assessment at higher education into two stages, present
situation analysis and future situation analysis (2006). This
study mainly analyzes the present situation of students,
though future situation may be included and referred to whennecessary. In order to clarify the present situation of students,
the authors collected information from the three groups ofstakeholders: the students, STEM faculty and English faculty.
Students are the major factor of the research, and STEM
professors are best equipped with the knowledge as to what
English skills are required of the students. Also, they haveexperiences as students in the STEM academia. English
faculty were also interviewed as they coordinate andimplement ESP courses. The interviews of the three parties
are analyzed qualitatively as a needs assessment of an ESP
program for STEM students. This paper aims to:1) compare and contrast the needs perceived by threestakeholders to construct an ESP program for STEM students,
2) extract the objectives to be included in an ESP program for
STEM majors, and
3) propose a model of needs assessment.

department. By triangulating the perspectives of multiple
stakeholders, the authors hoped to explore what English skills
are expected of the STEM personnel.
As the most important stakeholder group, 8 STEM
students volunteered to participate; they are enrolled in thethird- or fourth-year undergraduate course, or in the first- or
the second year of the graduate course. The international
students, S3 and S7, have been enrolled for three years in thedepartment where Japanese is the medium of instruction, andhad no difficulty expressing themselves in Japanese. At theinterviews, upon being allowed to choose between English
and Japanese and to switch between two languages, theychose to speak in Japanese. The student profiles are
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
Profiles of Students
Pseudonym Year

Other Languages
and Background
S1
M2
Japanese English
English (Overseas
S2
M1
Japanese
returnee)
S3
3
ChineseJapanese, English
S4
M2
Japanese English
S5
4Japanese English
English, Spanish,
S6
4
Japanese
ItalianJapanese, English,
S7
3
Chinese
Italian, Spanish
English (Studied
S8
M2
Japanese at a university in
US for a year)
Note. CEFR levels were self-reported.

2. Method
This study was conducted at the STEM faculty of a
private university in Tokyo. Established in 2013, the facultyincludes the three departments of mathematical sciences,
frontier media science, and network design. Most of thecontent classes are taught in Japanese. In the undergraduate
English curriculum, students take EAP courses in their firsttwo years, and then a presentation course in their third year.

L1

CEFR
B2/C1
B2/C1
B2/C1
A2
B1/B2
B2/C1
B2/C1
B2/
C1

Second, seven STEM professors participated in interviews.
They are all full-time faculty members of this department.
Their profiles were shown in Table 2.

2.1 Procedures
As interview procedures, semi-structured interviews
with students and faculty members were conducted in theacademic year of 2020. Interviewers including one STEM
professor and two English professors who asked corequestions about (a) the use of English in seminars andconferences, (b) (self)-evaluation of current English
proficiency, and (c) expectations about and requests for the
STEM program. Although these topics were included,
participants were encouraged to express themselves freely ininterviews. For example, on the second topic of evaluating
English proficiencies, the students talked about how and what
they were doing to improve English outside school. For thethird topic, English professors referred to the existing English
programs of the department. An interview took from 30 to 60
minutes. As for the language of interviews, all students and
STEM faculty members were interviewed in Japanese, while
English professors were interviewed in English. The
protocols were recorded using Zoom and transcribed in thelanguage of the interview.

Table 2
Profiles of STEM Faculty Members
Pseudonym

L1

Research Areas

PF

Japanese

Human Computer Interaction

PK

Japanese

Sensitivity Informatics/Soft Computing

PNak

Japanese

Statistical Science

PNas

Japanese

Media Informatics/Database

PNi

Japanese

General Mathematics

PR

Japanese

Measurement Engineering

PT

Japanese

Power Engineering

As the other stakeholder group, three English faculty
members profiled in Table 3 have taught in this department
for a few years. They are experienced EFL instructors andcurriculum coordinators.

2.2 Participants
In this study, he three parties of interests were recruited
as informants: 8 students, 7 STEM faculty members whoteach content courses, and 3 English instructors of the46

Since STEM faculty members had few opportunities toobserve listening and speaking skills, they did not comment
much on these skills. Two professors pointed out that thestudents are not willing to communicate or speak up even in
Japanese. As for presentation skills, depending on the areas ofstudy, undergraduate students may or may not have chances
to participate in international conferences. If they do, it seems
they practice hard in advance. One professor observed thatstudents practiced ten times for a conference presentation yet
they had difficulties communicating with non-native speakers
at the conference.
On the other hand, the STEM professors offered
numerous comments about reading. First, most of thereadings in seminars and content classes are conference
papers, which are usually shorter than full-length papers.
Since the latest research in their fields is published asconference papers, the students have to stay abreast of sucharticles while getting accustomed to their styles. Reading andtechnical vocabulary are considered essential English skills.
Second, they expect students to be more careful in adopting
reading strategies; when reading experiment procedures, it isimportant to read intensively and precisely, while in readinga 300-page manual, students should skim and scan the text.
Third, professors notice wide differences among student
levels of English. Two of them mentioned that they givedifferent reading tasks, depending on the levels of English.
Advanced students can grasp the meaning of the passages
accurately, yet beginner-level students might struggle with thesame texts. As for writing, professors often observed the useof translation apps. One professor suggested teaching writingby evaluating the products of such software. Students’ writing
skills seem to be far from satisfactory when submitting a
proposal to an international conference, with much advisingand editing necessary.

Table 3
Profiles of English Faculty Members
Pseudonym

L1

Research Areas

PF

Japanese

Foreign Language Education

PR

EnglishForeign Language EducationPT

EnglishForeign Language Education

2.3 Analyses
The transcriptions were analyzed in two qualitative
methods―categorizing in a matrix of language skills andopen-coding. First, the data were analyzed in a matrix withcategories of five skills: listening, speaking, presentation,
reading, and writing. This way, the data would reveal whatskills are considered important. Two raters read the transcripts
and categorizes the utterances into skills to ensure thereliability.
Then the transcriptions were analyzed with an opencoding system, a grounded theory approach (Locke, 2002;
Strauss and Corbin, 1994); in this analysis, the key concepts
were identified and coded using NVIVO (the latest version asof 2021). In this inductive approach which originated insociology, utterances are labeled according to certain codes.
Then the codes are compared and contrasted closely (Hidaka,
2019; Sato, 2008) for further analysis. In these procedures,some patterns and characteristics of communications which
are not obvious on the surface at the first coding will be
revealed. Also, the relationship of codes will be investigated
and the hierarchy of codes and labels will be established.
3. Results
3.1 Matrix of skills
3.1.1 STEM students
Transcribed utterances were categorized into five skills(Appendix A). Listening was perceived differently, dependingon the students: one student had difficulty with nonstandard
English at a conference, while others indicated that they
managed to listen to and understand lectures well. Students
found university communication classes fun and interesting,with one student answering that she learned how to speak
academically, yet another noting that explaining specialized
information to a lay audience was a challenge. One graduate
student expressed the difficulty that he faced with at aninternational conference; he recalled that he was frustrated
when he could not respond well instantly in Q and A sessions.
Five of eight students referred to the presentation course—
required for the third-year students—as effective and useful.
Students had mixed attitudes towards reading; technical terms
were difficult for a couple of respondents. Reading andtranslation tasks in the first-year student classes were boring
to a couple of students, and others mentioned the use ofmachine translation such as Google Translate and DeepL was
helpful in saving time and energy.

3.1.3 English faculty
English faculty members noted that listening skills had
improved during the first two years of undergraduate
education (Appendix C). In comparison, three of themcommented that speaking needs to be improved. They hopestudents would be more confident and proficient inspontaneous conversations. They acknowledge that thepresentation course for the Year 3 students where students
work in groups is effective and practical. As for reading, one
interviewee thought that students enjoyed reading
departmental materials recommended by STEM faculty. At
the same time, another mentioned that extensive reading andvocabulary practice should be incorporated. Three of themhad different perspectives on writing. One said process
writing was beneficial for students, as high school graduates
needed to be taught paragraph writing and also the structureof English academic discourse(s). The others thought reading
and writing abstracts were important. They had mixed
feelings about the use of translation apps in writing
instructions.

3.1.2 STEM faculty
The interviews with STEM professors werecategorized with the same framework of matrix (Appendix B).

3.1.4 Triangulation of three stakeholders
In the initial step, the researchers sorted the data of the47three stakeholder groups into the matrix of language skills;
then they triangulated the findings by comparing andcontrasting the matrices.
As for listening, students and English faculty seem tobe satisfied with the current curriculum, and no strong
opinions were expressed. Complicated or highly academic
contents may be difficult to comprehend; since content
courses and seminars are in Japanese, they may not feel thelack of listening ability. An exception is listening to nonnative speakers at an international conference.
In contrast, speaking is one area where students, STEM
professors, and English professors have anxieties and issues.
The students felt that they do not have opportunities to speak
English in daily life and even in classes they may stay quiet.
One student expressed she does not know the appropriatenessof her speech in register and in politeness; another mentionedthat he cannot enjoy lunch in English at an international
conference.
Third, the current curriculum which includes
presentation skills has been well received. All the parties were
aware of the importance of being able to present in English;“presentation” includes not only speaking in public, but alsoorganizing the content, preparing handout or PPT files,delivering speech, and self-evaluating the presentation. All
these processes need to be practiced.
Fourth, reading turned out to be a controversial topic
for the participants. Students had mixed attitudes towards
reading, depending on their background and level of English.
Low-level students and also L3 speakers who read English as
the third language seem to have difficulty in reading.
Advanced students are confident in reading; technical terms
can be comprehended with the help of dictionary and certain
resources in the disciplines. On the other hand, STEM
professors judge the current reading proficiency as lesssatisfactory than expected. According to a couple ofinterviewees, students do not read precisely or accurately;others mentioned that they cannot read error messages ofprogramming. English faculty members do not haveopportunities to observe students as STEM professors do, sothey seem to have limited views towards the reading abilityof students.
Lastly, the three parties seem to judge writing as theweakest skill among English skills. Students do not seem toeven consider writing as an essential skill, as now they havemachine translation to rely on. STEM professors feel that thestudents should be able to evaluate writing though. They do
not expect students to write a paper or a thesis in English,
unless students who are proceeding to masters or doctoral
courses volunteer to write in English. The longest writing
passage they are expected to do is an abstract and visual aidsof presentations such as PPT slides or posters. These
perceptions towards listening, speaking, presentation, reading,
and writing are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4
English Skills Perceived by Three Stakeholders
Students
STEM
faculty
Listening
OK
OK
Speaking
Needs
Needs
improvement improvement
Presentation
Very useful
Very useful
ReadingOK
Needs
improvement
Writing
OK
Needs much
improvement

EnglishfacultyOK
Needs
improvement
Very useful
OK
May
need
improvement

3.2 Open-coding
Following the matrix analysis of skills, open-coding
was conducted to explore wider dimensions of the needs
assessment. At first, all the utterances of the interview data
were first labeled with codes with 1.6 NVivo. For example,
the following utterances between the interviewer and an
English faculty member PF were first imported into NVivo
and coded sentence by sentence. The researchers noticed
underlined words and coded this excerpt as materials,
motivation, vocabulary, and expressing in plain English.
Then they labeled these sentences as materials, motivation,
vocabulary, and speaking, which were designated as “codes.”After the initial coding, the researchers examined the codesand posited their relationships and hierarchy of codes. In theexample below, initial codes were underlined words/phrases.
Then, they were abstracted into upper codes indicated afterarrows: materials, reading, motivation, vocabulary andspeaking.
Interviewer: What materials do you use for→materials
your undergraduate course?
PF: I have to use the common course book.
→materials
Also, I assign reading of a short articles on→reading, material
computer science in daily news which seem tomotivate students. In this way, the vocabulary→motivation→vocabulary
is not super technical, and students learn how
to express their fields in plain English.
→speakingIn this way, attributes of all the transcribed data were labeledwith initial codes and then abstracted into upper codes. These
coding processes were carefully followed and examined by
two researchers. The utterances of one interviewee had
approximately 11 to 27 initial codes with a range of 26 to 334
references. Then these codes were further scrutinized andabstracted into 19 upper concepts1 in total. In particular, 5 ofthem (machine translation, reading strategies, academic

48

literacies, spontaneous Q and A, and experience-basedlearning) seemed the key factors of ESP curriculum
development, as they had high frequencies of references in
the interviews. These factors should be taken into
consideration in designing an effective ESP program.

The professor hoped students will use English as a tool to
obtain information.
Reading is a challenge for some students. For instance,
S7 responded that she does not know which words areimportant and which are not; S4 answered it took him a longtime to figure out the message of the materials in seminars.
Their views seem to match those of STEM professors

3.2.1 Machine translation
One code which emerged as the analysis progressed
was the use of machine translation. Students seem to have nohesitation in using such apps; for instance, S3, a Chinese
native speaker, noted that she has long used Google Translate
and has started to use DeepL recently to translate threelanguages, English, Japanese and Chinese, having beenadvised to do so by her seminar members. STEM professors
seem to observe students occasionally use machinetranslation both in reading and in writing. PK and PR referredto the tendency that students enter an entire text in an app andaccept the translation without checking or editing it. PK
mentioned that students need to use such apps selectively andwisely as tools. He observed most students use such tools“poorly” so they need to be taught systematically how to use
those systems. PR stated that the use of machine translation is
not necessarily a problem, as it can be helpful when widelyused. PNak, who is a specialist in AI, stated that students
needed to still nourish intuition towards English, like children
acquire some sense or intuition towards numbers. Otherwise
when something goes wrong with AI translation, humanbeings are not able to check its errors. One English faculty
member expressed concern about machine translation in 2020
and 2021 that when online classes had become the norm for
English classes, it was very difficult to evaluate writing as
students had no reluctance using translation software. In L2
writing, it has become a challenge for English instructors tocope with the prevalence of the new technology.

3.2.3 Academic literacies
Some STEM professors pointed out that academic
literacies should be nourished along with language skills. For
example, SNak expressed concerns about the lack of basic
academic skills.
SNak: Though it depends on the students, there are
students who do not know how to write a short reporteven in Japanese. They do not know how to present what
they are studying. It is not a matter of English education.
Also, students need to learn research skills such as locating
existing literature, skimming abstracts, and collaborating ingroups. A couple of STEM professors responded that if suchbasic literacies had been taught and acquired in Japanese,
conducting research in English at seminars would becomeless challenging.
3.2.4 Spontaneous Q and A
Students and professors have the same awareness thatthey had difficulty thinking and speaking in English
spontaneously. S1 mentioned that he had difficulties at aposter session:
Interviewer: Did you have difficulties in poster
sessions?
S1: [I felt] frustrated when I could not respond wellin English in Q and A.
Interviewer: Could you explain the situation?
S1: [I] could not think of technical words instantly.

3.2.2 Reading strategies
STEM professors argued that reading is an essential
skill. Students should read extensively and intensively in a
way to suit the purpose of their reading. They should read anarray of materials from papers, software manuals, and evenerror messages encountered in programming; this means thatstudents should adjust reading strategies, depending on their
purposes. However, students and English professors did
not mention this. An example is a 300-page manual thatsome students tried to read carefully from page 1, which
was a surprise and a disappointment for PN, a STEM
professor. Another example is found in a protocol of PF; hestated that students do not pay enough attention to the detailed
procedures of experiments. Noticing articles such as “a” and“the” makes a big difference in understanding the proceduresof experiments.
This leads to the motivation or an attitude to read in
English. PN said that some students do not even try to read
English texts, no matter how simple they are. For instance, a
student did not read short and simple instructions to download
or install some service, giving up entirely reading them. Somestudents seem to have a kind of mental block in which they
completely stop thinking the moment they see English texts.

In another example,
Interviewer: Have you had difficulties in English
classes?
S3: In group work, we have different levels
and attitudes. Some classmates try hard toparticipate in conversations, but some do not.
Some seem to be thinking for long before
starting to speak up, or they are searching for
expressions or vocabulary in mind. Then theyremain silent after all.
As these excerpts illustrate, students feel that they lackthe proficiency to engage in spontaneous communication.
STEM professors suggested that experience and practice may
be the only solution.
3.2.5 Experienced-based learning
It was noted that experienced-based learning, or
learning through experiential processes should be included in
an ESP program. A few students mentioned that they enjoyed
the third-year classes focusing on poster-presentations. They49

liked the collaborative nature of group work. In that course,
they chose research topics, wrote abstracts, created posters,
and presented them. Although the classes were demanding,the students completed the required tasks, which gave them asense of achievement.
In another instance, attending an international
conference seemed to motivate students and to provide an
opportunity to practice English as a means of communication.
PN stated that attending a conference is a lot of work forstudents in terms of preparation; however, it gives students
opportunities to present a paper in public and the experienceleads to confidence at the end of the presentation. PT
mentioned that students at a conference would meetparticipants from different background and with a variety ofEnglishes. Although attending a conference is beyond theEnglish curriculum, students would learn from actuallyexperiencing communication in authentic situations andmotivate students afterwards. S1 raised an example of such a
moment:for them to evaluate how well students are prepared inacademic writing. By comparing and contrasting the threestakeholder groups, it was found that there was a gap in theperceptions of the students’ English skills. In particular,
STEM professors posed issues that were not noted by students
or English education professionals, but which should be taken
into consideration in revamping the current ESP curriculum.
As the second approach, the open-coding analysis
yielded issues which were not manifested by the survey or thematrix analysis. Of the 19 higher codes that emerged from theinitial codes as is in the Section 3.2, eleven codes were labeled
as the factors related to ESP proficiency (Figure 1). In thischart, the first hierarchy in gold cells represents the key
factors directly related to ESP proficiency, which
encompasses skills and attitudes required in academic
discourse(s) and communication in STEM disciplines. They
are presentation skills, spontaneous Q and A skills, reading
strategies, academic literacies, and confidence. In other words,
the first hierarchy illustrates that an ESP course for STEM
students should ideally include presentation skills,
spontaneous Q and A skills, reading strategies, and academic
writing. In addition to such skills, students are expected todevelop academic literacies in and out of English classes. It isalso hoped that students acquire confidence in using English
through experience-based learning (Anderson, Boud, &Cohen, 1999).

Interviewer: You said that you were frustrated
because you could not respond well in the Q and
A session. Could you explain more about that? You
have your poster in front of you, and couldn’t you
use it?
S1: I did not include the basic concepts asbackground in the poster, though that was what was
asked of me then, and it took me by surprise. My
study was a new experiment in my field, and I was
ready to explain about my research, but not thecontext.

Figure 1
Factors of Curriculum Planning for STEM

In this excerpt, the student S1 might have handled thesituation better in Japanese; however, having experienced thisdilemma would greatly benefit him in his next presentation ata conference.
4. Discussion
Interview transcripts were analyzed qualitatively in two
ways; first, the analysis using the skill-based matrix was
conducted and revealed gaps of needs felt by the threestakeholder groups, though there were similarities among
them. As is summarized in Table 4, the three groups expressedthat listening skills may be adequate to participate inacademic communications, while speaking skills need much
improvement. In particular, it is hoped that students build
skills and learn strategies of spontaneous Q and A sessions.
They all evaluated the presentation courses offered in thedepartment to be quite helpful and effective. On the other
hand, reading and writing are perceived differently among thethree groups. STEM professors viewed these skills as needing
improvement. As for reading, English faculty members areless concerned about reading than STEM professors are.
Since STEM faculty members regularly guide students inseminars and academic events, they know best about how
students should perform. In terms of writing, STEM
professors find the levels of students far from satisfactory.
English faculty felt that writing needs improvement, but
without knowing what is expected of students, it was difficult.

-------In the second hierarchy indicated in silver, cells are subcategories of the key factors. Reading for the gist, reading
accurately, machine translations, and technical vocabulary are
sub-categories of reading strategies for STEM students.
Depending on the purposes of reading, students need to learn
to adopt an appropriate way to read. When reading wholebooks or entire manuals of programming, they might skim thetext and scan the important information; for procedures ofexperiments and research results, they would pay attention to
every word and phrase to understand the message accurately.
Machine translation is a subcategory of reading and ofwriting as well, as it was revealed that students would50

occasionally use machine translation to browse websites andto write reports. International students would use AI
translation to deal with three languages in academic contexts.
The students have no hesitance towards entering a whole
Japanese passage into translation apps. From the perspectiveof language teaching experts, it seems that students are notlearning to think in English or to think by themselves; on thecontrary, in delegating this task to apps, they are becoming
dependent on them, which seemingly runs counter to how
language learners should proceed. Given the prevalence andcontinued refinement of such apps, however, an
accommodation with them may become necessary in the
future.
In addition, the technical vocabulary of STEM,
connected to academic writing, is another area which shouldbe paramount in an ESP curriculum. Since a corpus or
database of STEM vocabulary has not been compiled, at least
to the knowledge of the authors, students have to look up
online resources or to seek advice from their seminar
professors to learn technical terms. It is hoped that some tools
or systems of STEM vocabulary will be developed in the near
future.
Lastly, the factor of confidence connects to experience;
students will gain confidence by experiencing meaningful andrealistic activities in English. Attending online international
conferences would motivate students to study English, andeven pseudo-presentations in classes and seminars represent
opportunities for such experiences.

perceptions of the three stakeholder groups of an ESP
program.
Notes
1 Upper concepts are reading for the gist, reading accurately,
machine translation, reading strategies, academic literacies,
spontaneous Q and A, experience, wide differences of levels, English
test qualifications, non-native speakers, technical vocabulary,grammar, literature search, presentations, poster sessions,international conferences, confidence, and motivation.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research (C)20K00816. We express our gratitude to two anonymous
reviewers for their constructive suggestions.
References
Anderson, L., Boud, D., & Cohen, R. (1999). Experience-basedlearning. In Foley, G. (Ed.). Understanding adult education andtraining (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A
systematic approach to program development. Heinle and Heinle.
Brown, J. D. (2016). Introducing needs analysis and English for
specific purposes. Routledge.
Hidaka, T., Kasuga, H., & Kanzaki, M. (2019). Shitsuteki kenkyuho
mapping [Qualitative research method mapping]. Shinyosha.
Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes. Routledge.
Kawano, M., Elwood, J., & Fukuchi, K. (2021, December 3-5).
Needs assessment of professors and students as an initial phaseof designing a university STEM English course. 19th Asia TEFL
International Conference 2021, Online.
Locke, K. (2002). The grounded theory approach to qualitative
research. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Measuring andanalyzing behavior in organizations: Advances in measurementand data analysis (pp. 17–43). Jossey-Bass.
Okano, T. (2013). A study of uniqueness of engineering education in
graduate school in Japan from the field of international
cooperation in higher education. Journal of JSEE, 61,18–22.
Sato, I. (2008). Shitsuteki deta bunsekiho [Qualitative method of data
analysis]. Shinyosha.
Sawaki, Y. (2017). University faculty members’ perspectives on
English language demands in content courses and a reform of
university entrance examinations in Japan: A needs analysis.
Language Testing in Asia, 7(13) https://doi.org.10.1186/s40468017-0043-2
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: an
overview. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook ofqualitative research (pp. 273–285). SAGE Publishing.

5. Conclusion
This study included three purposes; the first of which
was to compare and contrast needs perceived by the threestakeholder groups. By involving all the parties in thisresearch, the study found new perspectives on the needs of
STEM students. The second purpose was to extract objectives
to be included in an ESP program for STEM majors. Two
approaches of qualitative analyses seem to suggest thefollowing goals be included: (a) spontaneous conversations
on the areas of expertise, (b) comprehension of machinetranslation and how to incorporate it into language learning,(c) reading strategies suitable for the purpose of reading, and(d) study skills and research methodology. Hopefully thesecomponents can be taught and experienced both in andoutside of English classes.
The third purpose was to propose a model of needs
assessment of an ESP curriculum. This study is different fromexisting research which were conducted with language
teachers and students. Inviting the faculty members of theparticular faculty or area to participate in needs assessment isstrongly recommended as they themselves have experience inand knowledge about academic discourse(s). This study
revealed that content experts and language professionals have
similar and different perceptions and expectations towards
learning English. It might be time consuming to organize
interviews with busy professors, yet asking about thesituations that students would face gives in-depth insights
towards program design. It is hoped that this study serves as
an example of needs assessment which incorporated the51

Appendix A: Matrix of English Skills Perceived by Students
Listening

S1

Had d ifficulty in listening
to non-standard English at aconference.

S2

S3

Speaking

English requires training oflistening as it is different
from Chinese or Japanese.

Learned academic way of
speaking. Glad to have a
NS instructor in English
class.
Uni speaking classes wereinteresting andcommunicative.

Presentation

Reading

Writing

Presentation in English
classes helpful.
Haddifficulty in quickly
responding in Q and A
Creating posters in English
and in Japanese were goodexperiences.

Had no problem.

Had practiced writing
for university
entrance exams

Have used Google
Translate and recently
started using DeepL.

Assignments ofacademic essay
writing were helpful.

Reading aloud builds
confidence. Uni generalreading class wasboring and didactic.

Would like moreguidance/feedback on
grammar andexpressions ofacademic discourses.

Answering questions about Making and presenting a
the poster, especially by lab poster in English was theprofessor was difficult.
most beneficial activity.
S4

S5

S6

Listening takes time, as hehas to think while helistens.

Simplifying technical
Making poster helpful;concepts for lay audience is group members not good at
difficult.
English, so he did most of
the work himself and thus
learned a lot of English
Uni 1st year class too easy; Enjoyed a challenge of
Jr High level “Let’s say that presenting on cognitivein English.”science in English. Speaks
Self-study is difficult tooften "in a messy way" incontinue. (e.g. listening to daily conversations, and
TED Talk)
picks inappropriate topics
Listening such as TOEFL Uni classes were good and Making posters in English
listening is not a problem. fun.
at the 3rd -year class wasfun, not so difficult.

S7

S8

Kept up with classes in US; Had no difficulties in US
Good to know how to use
lots of solving problems
uni. Got message crossed English as a means toand matching answers.
by speaking slowly andexpress academic contents.
clearly. Time needed togenerate English got
shorter.

Appendix B: Matrix of English Skills Perceived by STEM
Faculty Members
PF

Listening
Complicateddiscussions inthe specialized
areas aredifficult tofollow.

PK"Waste of time" totranslate in English
classes. Translatingin lab isdifficult,though I can readacademic pap ers withdictionary.
Read an article to writea thesis in English andlearned many technicalterms
Uses Google translate
and dicti onary whenreading papers in
English, but reads
repeatedly tounderstand the message
Reading takes time.
Cannot judge where toread carefully andwhere to skip in E. Now
reads both E and J
articles, but they havedifferent structures;
dealing with threeacademic languages ischallenging.
Technical vocabulary
difficult. Reading got
tough as courses
progressed to 400.

Speaking

Presentation
Ss can prepare and present.
They somehow get themeaning across.

Some students do
not wish tocommunicate withothers even in
Japanese.

PNak

Writing a poster inEnglish was difficult.
Wrote emails in
English to seminar
professor.
Google Translate
saves time andenergy.

Thinks in Chinese towrite in English. J andE have different
styles; writing is theweakest skill.
Translating English(L2) to J (L 3) isdifficult.

Writing short rep orts
were no problem, as
contents were
evaluated.

PNas

Discussion with int’l Poster presentations are good
students are infor high level students. Low
English. Undergrad levels might not be benefitted.
Ss are still difficult
to keep up with thediscussions

PNi

Participants in conferences
practice hard. They gain skills
and confidence.

PR

Listening isbetter thanspeaking, as it isa part of entrance
exams.

Ss do not speak evenin Japanese. They do
not speak up, andhave never taught todo so in education.

In seminar, Ss practicepresentations in Japanese. In
his areas, undergrad Ss do notreach the level to present inconferences.

PT

Difficult tounderstandNNS.

Ss need morepractices orexperiences.

Difficult to talk with NNS
especially for low level Ss.
High levels ar e managing. Ss
rehearse in advance.

ReadingSs lacks reading details
accurately. (experiment
procedures). They often readproceedings rather than full
papers or books.

Ss do not read by themselves,
nor check the machinetranslation. They are
reluctant in obtaining info
through English. Ss mostly
read 8 page conference
papers.
Not willing to read in
English. They do not readerror message ofprogramming. They do notknow the concordance oftechnical terms.
Ss have basic reading skills
and vocabulary. Ss should
read conference papers on AI
and machine learning. In
some areas, the latest
research are all published in
English.
Though the levels aredifferent, Ss generally readand understand math related
papers. The levels vary inJapanese to begin with. Sometry to read 300 page manual
intensively from the
beginning. Some cannot readerror messages in TeX.
Some have resistance against
English.
Reading articles is
indispensable inunderstanding the seminars.
There are many technicalterms inprofessional/academic
communications. Ss needpractice reading them.
Ss can read with dictionary.
They read articles of a few
pages in seminars.

Writing
Ss are poor in academic
writing. Some cannot write
Englishsentencesproperly. They do not edit
the products of machinetranslation. They havedifficulties in Japanese
academic writing.
Ss know all the sentences
into translation apps.

Low level Ss lack basic
skills, and have enormous
difficulties in writing apaper in English.
Proofreading services areused before conferences.

Some Ss use machinetranslation, and others do
not. The use of such app is
not necessarily bad. Sscannot write logically evenin L1.

Ss write PPTs and papers
in English for a
conference. Introduction isimportant, so he teaches
how to write intro.

Appendix C: Matrix of English Skills Perceived by English
Faculty Members
EK

Listening
Third-year students
have become
accustomed to classes
conducted in English.
They have acquired
how to ask questions
and how to clarify.

EE

EC

52

There seems to be anincrease of about a stepon the CEFR scale withregard to Reading &Listening ability fromyear 1 to year 3.

Speaking
Some Ss seem lessconfident and lesscomfortable inspeaking up in class.

Presentation
Required course s in thethird year is useful as apreparation to theirprofessions or academic
paths.

Impromptu speaking
remains challenging(e.g., in the Q&A)

With the reliance oncontent material,presentations can bequite challenging, but it’salso good practice topresent technicalvocabulary in English.

Listening skill >Spoken skill . Weekly
dialogue memorization
drills may help.

Reading
Departmental
materials seem tomotivate Ss. They
enjoy reading, as they
have some schema.

Writing
Reading > Writing
Some Ss enjoy“processwriting” at uni.

Writing abstracts is goodpractice and requires students
to focus and polish both theirEnglish and the abstract ’s
structure.

Extensive reading
program with social
support and teacher
guidance may be ideal.
Vocabulary should beenhanced too.

It is hard to evaluate writing
skills these days.

Effects of Feedback Type on the Quality of L2 Learners’ Revised Essays―Comparison of Peer Feedback and Automated Writing Evaluation―
HATAKEYEMA, Yukako
Ochanomizu University
hatakeyama.yukako@ocha.ac.jp
Abstract
This paper examines whether and how second language writers’ revisions improve their essay quality.
Specifically, it explores the effects of feedback type—peer feedback or automated writing evaluation(AWE)—on four writing aspects, namely, content, organization, language, and format, as in Allen andKatayama (2016) and on revision behaviors and revision effectiveness. The 30 participants of thisresearch were L2 learners of English in two essay-writing classes given online in academic year 2020.
The two classes were equivalent in English proficiency and received the same instruction except feedbackon their drafts: Class A (n=12) received peer feedback, whereas Class B (n=18) received feedback fromAWE software, CriterionⓇ. Two experienced raters rated each aspect of the essays’ drafts and finals, andthe researcher identified and categorized the writers’ revisions by aspect. From the statistical analysis
using SPSS 27, it was found that both classes made significant gains in the overall essay quality and thatsignificant improvement was made in more aspects by Class B. Both classes’ revisions centered on‘content’ and ‘language’ aspects. AWE feedback was found more likely to trigger effective ‘content’revisions, while peer feedback had different and complementary advantages.
Keywords: peer feedback, peer review, automated writing evaluation (AWE), L2 writing, revisions
1. Introduction & Literature Review
Getting feedback plays a crucial role in writers’
revisions of drafts to improve their quality. In second
language (L2) writing pedagogy, peer feedback has been used
as a classroom activity to help L2 writers enhance the qualityof writing. Another type of feedback that has increasingly
attracted attention recently is automated writing evaluation(AWE), or computer-generated feedback, which is a webbased writing evaluation service that gives “immediate
diagnostic feedback” on writing (ETS, 2021). Progress inlanguage processing technologies has made “holistic scoresand corrective feedback instantly available” (Zhang, 2020,
p.1).
1.1 Peer feedback
Peer feedback is also called peer response or peer
review. It utilizes “learners as sources of information and asinteractants for each other in such a way that learners assume
the roles and responsibilities more typically taken on by aformally trained teacher, tutor, or editor, in commenting on
and critiquing each other’ s draft in both written and oral
formats in the process of writing” (Liu & Hansen-Edwards,
2018, p.1).

2000), obtaining additional and different feedback from thatgiven by the instructor (Ferris, 2018; Mendonça & Johnson,
1994; Rollinson, 2005; Villamil & Guerrero, 1998), having
meaningful interaction with peers and collaborative learning(Mendonça & Johnson 1994; Tsui & Ng, 2000), having
enhanced motivation by supportive, informal, and lessauthoritative feedback (Rollinson, 2005), and having thesense of ownership of their own texts (Tsui & Ng, 2000;
Villamil & Guerrero, 1998).
The benefits of peer feedback for reviewers are widely
discussed as well. In fact, Ferris (2018) maintains that the
primary purpose of peer review is “to benefit the reader”(p.102), and Lundstrom and Baker (2009) claim that peer
review improves the reviewers’ writing ability more than thatof the receivers of feedback. Peer review raises theirawareness of the strengths and weaknesses of their writing
through comparison with others’ writing (Mendonça &Johnson, 1994; Tsui & Ng, 2000), helps them learn from peers’
writing (Mendonça & Johnson, 1994), helps them become
critical reviewers of their own texts (Berg, 1999; Ferris, 2018;
Rollinson, 2005; Sommers, 2013; Yu & Hu, 2017), andstimulates the reviewers by reading peers’ writing(Hatakeyama, 2010; Mendonça & Johnson, 1994).

1.2 Benefits of peer feedback
Research to date has revealed various benefits of peer
feedback for writers and reviewers. The benefits for writers
include having enhanced awareness of their readers(Mendonça & Johnson, 1994; Rollinson, 2005; Tsui & Ng,

1.3 Limitations of peer feedback
While there are many benefits of peer feedback,research unveiled some limitations, with varying degrees.
One often-discussed limitation is writers’ lower uptake ofpeer comments than that of teacher comments, driven by their53

lack of trust in peers’ ability to provide feedback (Tsui & Ng,
2000). Indeed, the writers’ preference for teacher feedback
over peer feedback was voiced by a participant in a semistructured group interview with Japanese university students(Hatakeyama, in press). On the contrary, L2 writers’ high(80%-100%) uptake of critical feedback into their revisions
was observed in a Japanese university (Hatakeyama, 2021).
Moreover, Min (2005) reports the higher uptake of peercomments after providing learners with intensive peer-review
training, which shows the positive effects of training in thisregard.
Another limitation is reviewers’ reluctance in giving
feedback due to the lack of grammatical knowledge or fear ofgiving inappropriate comments (Srichanyachon, 2011). In
addition, reviewers’ reluctance in initiating critical comments
not to break group harmony was found with Chineseparticipants in the US, compared to Spanish participants(Carson & Nelson, 1996). Regarding this point, marked
individual differences were found from the researcher’s semistructured interview of university students in Japan(Hatakeyama, in press). Two participants did not finddifficulty in giving or initiating critical feedback. At the sametime, one felt a little nervous. The other was initially hesitantto give critical feedback, driven by the fear of being seen as
not a likable person and the difficulty in communicating
online. Yet, the four participants in the study shared such
feedback strategies as giving compliments before giving
critical comments, giving concrete suggestions instead of
merely pointing out the areas for improvement, andcommunicating the feedback as one reviewer’s personalcomment, especially when they are not confident enough intheir feedback.

integration of AWE and teacher assessment as beneficial inthat teachers could focus more on meaning, offsetting thelimitations of AWE. The authors maintain that that learnerproficiency and learning goals (e.g., advanced or
fundamental) be considered in implementing AWE.
Japanese university students of intermediate English
proficiency were found to regard AWE’s strength as theability to grasp the structure of the entire texts, while pointing
out its less user-friendly, unclear, unprioritized, and difficultto-understand feedback (Hatakeyama, in press). One
participant in the study suggested integrating AWE and peerinteraction to maximize the benefit. The need for training,
including demonstrations and communicating AWE’s
strengths and weaknesses, has become apparent from thestudy.
1.5. Comparison of learner engagement by feedback typeLai (2010) compared how Taiwanese learners ofEnglish used peer feedback and AWE for revisions and how
they self-evaluated the improvement made with the help of
the two types of feedback. As for revisions, the learners were
found to have used AWE feedback on ‘content anddevelopment’ most frequently, followed by ‘focus andmeaning,’ and used peer feedback on ‘mechanics andconvention’ most frequently, followed by ‘language use andstyle.’ The learners’ self-evaluation of the improvement
revealed positive attitudes toward both types of feedback, butthey perceived the effectiveness of each differently. The
learners in this study found AWE feedback on ‘organization’
most helpful and ‘mechanics and convention’ least helpful
while finding peer feedback on ‘mechanics and convention’and ‘language use and style’ most helpful and ‘focus andmeaning’ least helpful.
In their case study, Tian and Zhou (2020) compared
how learner uptake of feedback and engagement withfeedback differ by the types of feedback—AWE, peer, andteacher—in an online EFL writing class in China. The fivelearners went through three revision stages before submitting
the final products: revisions after receiving AWE feedback,peer feedback, and teacher feedback, respectively. It was
found that the learner uptake of AWE feedback (n = 909), allsurface-level feedback, was low (24.2%). The uptake of peer
feedback (n = 170), two-thirds of which was surface-level
feedback, was medium (55.3%), and that of teacher feedback(n = 143), two-thirds of which was meaning-level feedback,was high (85.3%). Detailed examination of learner behavior
revealed that learner engagement with feedback varied,
implying that individual and contextual factors influenced
their feedback uptake decisions.
The above two studies are part of the growing body ofresearch comparing peer and AWE feedback from various
perspectives, including feedback characteristics, learner
uptake, learner engagement, revision strategies, and learnerperceptions. In this context, this study aims to contribute to
the field of writing research by comparing the effectivenessof the two feedback types in improving learners’ written texts
and learners’ revision behaviors.

1.4 Automated writing evaluation (AWE)AWE programs’ overall validity has been found to behigh in large-scale standardized writing tests (Warschauer &Ware, 2006). In writing classrooms, many advantages of
AWE programs have been acknowledged: helping language
learners to solve language-related problems in writing,enabling them to have learner autonomy, and enablingteachers to allocate more time to writing instructions insteadof marking essays (Zhang, 2020).
Despite these positive effects, some drawbacks of AWE
when used in writing classes have been discussed byresearchers: causing learners to focus more on the surface
features of writing (e.g., grammar and spelling) than content
development, promoting formulaic writing, failing to spot
illogical writing, and generating unspecified feedback (Chen& Cheng, 2008; Jingxin & Razali, 2020; Zhang, 2020). Li etal. (2014) report that high scores given by AWE did notnecessarily correlate with instructors’ scores, implying some
limitations in AWE’s feedback. This result coincided with the
instructors in this study’s low trust in high AWE scores andhigh trust in low AWE trust.
As for learner perception, Chen and Cheng (2008)
report that advanced Taiwanese learners of English had
somewhat negative perception of AWE, partly due to its
limitations in feedback. On the other hand, they accepted the54

2. Research Design
2.1 Research questions
This study aims to answer the following researchquestions.
1) Do learner revisions of drafts after receiving feedback
improve the overall quality of their essays?
2) Does the type of feedback (peer or AWE) affect different
aspects (content, organization, language, format) ofimprovement in essay quality?
3) Are there differences in revision behaviors by feedback
type (peer or AWE)?
4) Are there differences in the effectiveness of revisions ofeach aspect on the improvement of each aspect byfeedback type (peer or AWE)?

In Class B, in which the students received feedback
from AWE, the students were given approximately 15
minutes in class to receive AWE feedback and individuallyconfirm its content. After the individual time, they shared theAWE feedback in pairs to clarify questions and uncertainties
for about five minutes, using Japanese. After receiving initial
feedback, they could—although not required to—revise theiressay and receive additional AWE feedback outside of class
up to four times per essay.
Regarding the prior experience of peer review (ClassA) and receiving AWE feedback (Class B), based on the
researcher’s observation of the students’ show of hands inclass, about one-third of Class A had some experience of peer
review before taking the course. No student in Class B had
prior experience of receiving AWE feedback.
The students in each class belonged to the same faculty,
each of which consisted of five (Class A) or four (Class B)
departments. Therefore, some, who belonged to the samedepartment or took the same class(es) in the previous year,
seemed to know one another. On the other hand, many had
not been acquainted with one another at the beginning of thecourse. Hence, the researcher took measures to get them tointeract with one another in class through such activities as
paired conversation, sharing answers to textbook questions inpairs, and brainstorming ideas for essays in small groups.
There were a few to several opportunities for the students tocommunicate with peers in each class.

2.2 Research context
The context of this research is an essay-writing course
for sophomore students in a women’s university in Japan in
the academic year 2020. The course was taught online due tothe COVID-19 pandemic. In this course, the students used theprocess writing approach to write five different types of
essays of 300-500 words in a 13-week semester. Morespecifically, using three weeks for each essay from idea
generation to submission, they went through pre-writing,outlining, drafting, reviewing, revising, and submitting
processes. In the drafting stage, students typically wrote theirdrafts, formatted the page, and checked their grammar using
Grammarly, an online grammar checking tool. The use ofGrammarly was to let them focus more on content andorganization in the reviewing stage. In the reviewing stage,
the students received feedback on their drafts to help themrevise their essays in the revising stage. After submitting thefinal essays, they received teacher feedback with scores.
The researcher taught two classes of this course
concurrently in the same manner except for one difference:
the type of feedback in the reviewing stage. Class A received
peer feedback, while Class B received feedback from
Criterion®, one of major AWE programs. Although Criterion®
has the function of providing scores, this function was not
used to control the nature of feedback: making AWE feedback
similar to peer feedback.
In Class A, in which peer review was conducted, thestudents were randomly put into pairs, exchanged their drafts
online, and were given approximately 20 minutes in class toreview their partners’ drafts, to take notes, and to exchange
feedback orally. One writer received feedback from one
reviewer per essay. The random matching of pairs was
renewed for each essay type (i.e., peer-reviewing opportunity)
so that the writers were able to receive feedback fromdifferent reviewers throughout the semester. Before eachpeer-review session, a guided sheet with checkpoints—
covering the learning outcomes of each essay—was
distributed online and explained. However, the students were
not required to check all the points for feedback. Rather, they
were given room to freely express their thoughts on what they
liked, what they did not understand well, and how to improvethe essay. The language used for giving and receiving
feedback was Japanese, the students’ first language.

2.3 Participants
The participants of this study were 30 female
undergraduate students who took the course and gave consent
to the researcher using their written work for research. There
were 12 participants from Class A (language and humanity
majors) and 18 from Class B (human life science majors). The
participants’ English proficiency ranged across A2 and B1 in
CEFR, as measured by their TOEFL ITP scores. There wereno significant differences in their scores between the twoclasses.
2.4 Data collection
Out of the five essays, the third (comparison-contrast,C-C) and fourth (cause-effect, C-E) essays were used as data.
Each essay type’s drafts and finals were rated and examined.
2.5 Rating of essays
The essays were rated using the rubric on a four-point
scale in Allen and Katayama (2016). The scale ranged from 0
to 3, with ‘0’ being the highest in quality (i.e., requires norevision) and ‘3’ being the lowest (i.e., requires a lot ofrevisions). The rating was given from four aspects of writing:content, organization, language, and format. ‘Content’ refers
to meaning-related issues (e.g., idea development),‘organization’ refers to structure (e.g., the appropriate
location of texts), ‘language’ refers to grammar, register, andstyle, and ‘format’ refers to formatting and mechanics (e.g.,spelling, capitalization, punctuation).
Two raters, one being the researcher, rated the drafts
and finals of the two types of essays. Both raters were L2

55

writers of English with more than ten years of teachingexperience in academic writing in tertiary education. Afterconfirming the rubrics in the practice session, they
individually rated the essays, compared their rating, anddiscussed the differences until reaching 100% agreement.

aspects with statistical significance were medium to large(between 0.52 and 1.22).
3.3 Revision behavior differences by feedback type
As Table 2 shows, both classes’ both essay types
became longer on average, but without statistical significance
except for Group B's C-C essays. Both types of class A’s
essays were longer than those of Class B on average, although
there were marked individual differences (i.e., large standard
deviation) in both classes. There was no statisticalsignificance in the wordcount differences from drafts to finals
between the two classes.

2.6 Data analysis
To answer the first and second research questions, thedifferences in rating of drafts and finals of two essay types byaspect and class were analyzed using SPSS 27. Paired t-tests
were conducted, and effect sizes were calculated using
Hedges’ g due to small sample sizes.
Regarding the third research question, the differences
between drafts and finals in wordcount were first analyzed.
Then Mann-Whitney’s U-test was conducted to find thedifferences between classes as the data were not normally
distributed. In addition, the participants’ revisions by aspect
were tracked according to Allen and Katayama (2016)’sclassification and were analyzed using the non-parametricMann-Whitney U test as well.
As for the fourth research question, the correlation
between revisions and improvement by aspect was calculatedusing Spearman's (ρ=rho) since the data were not normally
distributed.

Table 2
Wordcount Summary by Class and Essay TypeClassA (Peer Feedback)
F!nal

Final

lmprv

Eff Size

Content

1.25

1.00

0.25

0.53

1.22

0.78

0.44 ..

0.85

Organization

1.42

1.00

0.42°

0.78

1.00

0.67

0.33"

0.67

Language

2.17

1.92

0.25

0.53

1.94

1.61

0.33"

0.67

1.09

Dlfl

Dlff

C-C

351 (38.9)366 (36.3)

15

320 (88.1) 339 (81.2)

20·

C-E

366 (64.7)

376 (51.2)

10292 (89.9) 316 (58.2)

25

for C-E),

The numbers In parentheses refer to standard deviation.
•p < .05.

Table 3 displays the participants’ revisions, categorized
by class, essay type, and aspect. As a general trend, morerevisions were made in C-E essays than C-C essays in bothclasses. The revisions consisted mainly of ‘language’ and‘content’ aspects in both classes’ both essay types, and there
were very few instances of ‘organization’ revisions per se.
There were large individual differences in the number ofrevisions, as seen in standard deviations.
When compared, Class B made somewhat larger
number of revisions than Class A, although without statisticalsignificance. As for differences in terms of aspect, Class B
made more revisions in ‘content’ in both essay types, andClass A made more revisions in ‘format’ in C-E essays.
However, no statistical significance was confirmed.

ClassB (AWE Feedback)

lmprv
Eff Size
Draft
Comparison-Contrast
Essay

Final

Final

Class A (n=l2 for both essay types; Class B (n=l8 for C-C and n•l6

Table 1
Essay Improvement Summary by Class, Essay Type, and Aspect
Draft

Class B (AWE Feedback)
Draft

Draft

Note. C-C means comparison-contrast essays. C-E means cause-effect essays.

3. Results
3.1 Improvement of overall essay quality after revisions
The analysis revealed that both classes (Class A: peer
feedback; Class B: AWE feedback) made gains (between 0.33
and 0.45) in the overall quality of both essay types between
their drafts and finals, all with statistical significance andlarge effect sizes (between 0.9 and 1.31). See Table 1 fordetails.

AspectClass A (Peer Feedback)

Essay

Table 3
Essay Revision Summary by Class, Essay Type, and Aspect

Format

1.83

1.25

0.58"

1.72

1.39

0.33"

0.67

Average

1.67

1.29

0.38""
1.10
1.47
Cause-EffectEssay

1.11

0.36"""

1.13

Content

1.33

1.08

0.25

0.53

1.25

0.88

0.37

0.45

Organization

1.25

1.00

0.25

0.53

1.63

1.19

0.44"

0.52

Language

2.17

1.75

0.42"

0.78

1.94

1.56

Content

1.83 (1.46)

40.0%

2.50 (3.30)

1.92

1.50

0.78

2.00

1.38

1.22

Organization

0.17 (0.55)

3.6%

0.17 (0.37)

2.9%

Average

1.67

1.33

0.42"
0,33••

0.38""
0.62···

0.73

Format

1.31

1.70

1.25

0.45 ..

0.90

Language

1.92 (2.29)

41.8%

2.44 (2.24)

42.3%

Format0.67 (0.85)

14.5%

0.67 (0.88)

11.5%

Total

4.58 (3.84)

100.0%

5.78 (4.30)

100.0%

Content

1.92 (2.14)

27.7%

3.19 (5.53)

Organization

0.00 (0.00)

0.0%

0.00 (0.00)

0.0%

Language

3.33 (6.79)

48.2%

3.00 (2.32)

41.4%

AspectClass A (Peer Feedback)Average (SD)%Class B (AWE Feedback)Average (SD)%Comparison-Contrast (C-C) Essay

Note. lmpr refersto improvement,and Eff Size refers to EffectSize (Hedges' g).

ClassA (n:::12for both essaytypes);ClassB (n:::18for Comparison-Contrast;
n:16 for Cause-Effect),43.3%

Cause-Effect (C-E) Essay"P< .05. .,...p< .01. "Hp< ,001.

3.2 Improvement of aspects by feedback typeAs can be seen in Table 1, Class A showed significant
improvement in the ‘organization’ and ‘format’ aspects of CC essays and in the ‘language’ and ‘format’ aspects of C-E
essays. On the other hand, Class B showed significant
improvement in all aspects of both essay types except the‘content’ aspect of C-E essays. The effect sizes of those

44.0%

Format1.67 (1.65)

24.1%

1.06 (1.09)

14.7%

Total

6.92 (6.84)

100.0%

7.25 (6.81)

100.0%

Note. SD stands for standard deviation.
Class A: n=l2 for both essay types; Class 8: n=l8 for C-C; n=l6 for C-E.

56

3.4. Effectiveness of revisions on essay improvement
How did revisions on each aspect contribute to theimprovement of each aspect of the participants’ essays?
‘Content’ revisions were found to be strongly correlated to theimprovement in the ‘content’ aspect of Class A’s C-E essays
and Class B’s both essays with statistical significance. Strong
correlations were also found between ‘content’ revisions andthe ‘language’ improvement of Class A’s C-C essays and‘organization’ improvement of Class B’s C-E essays, bothwith statistical significance. It was also found that ‘content’revisions were adversely correlated to format improvement inClass A’s C-E essays with statistical significance.
‘Organization’ changes did not lead to significant
improvement in any aspect of any of the essays. ‘Language’revisions were found to be moderately correlated to the‘language’ improvement in Class B’s C-C essays and strongly
correlated to the ‘language’ improvement in Class A’s C-E,
both with statistical significance. ‘Format’ revisions were
found to be strongly correlated to ‘format’ improvement inClass A’s both types of essays with statistical significance.
Table 4 shows the details.

The result seems to imply that AWE feedback is more
effective than peer feedback with the participants in this study.
One possible reason is that the amount of feedback may belarger in AWE feedback. Since AWE provides a considerable
amount of feedback almost instantly, the writers could receive
a lot of AWE feedback on structure (i.e., ‘organization’),language, and punctuation (i.e., ‘format’). On the other hand,peer feedback probably took the reviewers’ time to read andreview the partners’ drafts. Limited time might have been left
for them to produce feedback, and the amount of peer
feedback might have thus been smaller than AWE feedback.
Regarding this point, whether the time allocated to peer
feedback was enough is worth examining because the(perceived) shortage of time could have impaired theeffectiveness of peer feedback.
Second, different from peer feedback in which
feedback was given orally, the feedback from AWE could be
revisited and reexamined, and the users could further revise
their drafts multiple times in the program and check whether
the additional revisions were effective (cf. 2.2. ResearchContext). This circular process with additional feedback
could have motivated them to improve their essay quality
through revisions. On the other hand, after peer review, thewriters made revisions based on peer feedback and bythemselves, without any additional device to check theeffectiveness. In this regard, enabling the writers to obtain
additional feedback can also be considered, just as theircounterparts could receive additional AWE feedback.
Third, AWE gives feedback specifically andsystematically on ‘organization,’ ‘language,’ and part of‘format’ aspects of essays. The AWE’s ‘organization’
feedback color codes thesis statements, supporting details,
and concluding sentences, which helps the users objectively
recognize their essay structure. The finding echoes Lai (2010)
in that L2 learners found AWE’s organizational feedback
effective and counters Chen and Cheng (2008) to a certain
extent that their participants perceive the limitations of AWE
feedback. Regarding ‘language’ and ‘format’ aspects, AWE
gives feedback on grammar, transition signals, repeated useof same words, spelling, and punctuation. On the other hand,since the peer reviewers are language learners, there arelimitations in systematically noticing all the ‘language’ and‘format’ errors. Being pressed for time, they might not havereviewed the organization critically. Here, learner proficiency
could have played a certain role. While Chen and Cheng(2008) reported advanced learners’ dissatisfaction with AWE
feedback, the participants in this study who were intermediateor lower-intermediate in proficiency benefited from AWE
feedback.
One surprising finding to the researcher was that peer
feedback was not superior to AWE feedback in ‘content’improvement. The peer-feedback group did not show any
significant improvement in ‘content’ in any of the two essays,
while the AWE-feedback group showed significant
improvement in ‘content’ in one of the two. In fact, theparticipants had been instructed to check their grammar
before each feedback session, which was aimed to let thereviewers focus on ‘content’ and ‘organization’ in peer review.

Table 4
Revision-Improvement Correlation by Class, Essay Type, and Aspect
Improvement
Class A (Peer Feedback)RevisionsContent

Org

Lang

Class B (AWE Feedback)FormatContent

Org

Lang

FormatComparison-Contrast (C-C) Essay

Content

0.40

0.33

0.66'

0.33

0.62"

0.11

0.29

0.27

Org

0.52

0,36

0.52

0.26

0.20

0.32

-0,32

0,00

Lang

0.49

0,08

0,38

0.18

0,13

0,06

0,50'

0.01

Format

-0.19

-0.06

0.41

0.69'

-0.02

0.18

-0.04

0.28
0.24

Cause-Effect (C-El Essay

Content

0.78"

0.52

O.Q3

-0,59'

0.80"

0.72"

0.33

Org

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

Lang

-0,15

0.23

0.92'"

0,37

0.14

0,07

0.17

-0,04

Format

-0.09

-0.29

0.13

0.63'

0.10

0.13

0.18

0.41

Note. Org refers to organization,and Lang refers to language,Class A: n-12 for both essay types; Class B: n-18 for C-C and n-16 for C-E.
'p

< ,05, "p < ,01.

4. Discussion
4.1 Improvement of overall essay quality after revisions
The fact that learner revisions after receiving feedback
contributed to the enhanced overall quality of both essay
types shows the effectiveness of providing L2 writers withthird-party feedback before getting them to revise their drafts.
Both types of feedback prompted them to interpret the
feedback and revisit their own drafts for improvement. The
finding supports the practice of process writing embeddedwith feedback in L2 writing pedagogy.
4.2 Improvement of each aspect by feedback type
Both classes’ both essay types showed improvement in
all aspects, but their statistical significance varied. In short,while improvement in each aspect with statistical significancewas generally observed with the AWE feedback group, theimprovement with statistical significance was foundsomewhat sporadically with the peer feedback group.

57

Yet, peer review turned out to be less effective in this regard.
One possible explanation is that, as in Lai (2020), AWE
feedback on ‘organization’ might have been effective in
helping the L2 writers to notice the need to add or revise
content, which eventually lead to ‘content’ improvement.
Another possible explanation is that the peers could not
produce feedback that triggered L2 writers to change the‘content,’ in part due to hesitation to give critical comments(Carson & Nelson, 1996; Hatakeyama, in press;
Srichanyachon, 2011). The fact that peer feedback was done
online could have caused additional difficulty incommunication in feedback sessions (Hatakeyama, in press).
In other words, the online environment could have prevented
them from having lively and interactive feedback sessions as
in face-to-face classes, especially when they were notacquainted well with each other. In addition, the reviewers’
perception of time limitation could have influenced their
feedback to focus more on surface features than content
development, either consciously or unconsciously.
Moreover, the reviewers might not have been
experienced or confident enough in giving feedback oncontent development. With individual differences inpersonality, peer-review experience, confidence, criticalthinking ability, and L2 proficiency, some of them might nothave been ready to comment on ‘content.’ Providing themwith samples and with opportunities to simulate feedback inpeer-review training as shown in Min (2005) may prove
effective to help them feel ready for the task and become more
confident and critical reviewers.

improvement of not only ‘content’ but also other aspects ofessays, such as ‘organization’ and ‘language.’ This could
imply that providing effective feedback that triggers content
revisions may have paramount importance in enhancing theessay quality. The findings show that AWE feedback on‘organization’ seems to be more effective than peer feedback
with the participants in this study, as in Lai (2010).
Another phenomenon worth noting is the positiveeffect of ‘format’ revisions on ‘format’ improvement foundonly with the peer feedback group. The peers possibly gavesuggestions on what they learned, such as punctuation rules,
formatting conventions, and citations. It is also possible thatthe writers noticed their own shortcomings by reading theirpartners’ drafts. In either case, this positive effect endorses
some of the advantages of peer feedback: meaningfulinteraction and collaborative learning for L2 writers(Mendonça & Johnson 1994; Tsui & Ng, 2000), or learningfrom peers’ writing (Mendonça & Johnson 1994) andawareness of their own strengths and weaknesses (Mendonça& Johnson 1994; Tsui & Ng, 2000) for reviewers.
What caused the adverse correlation between ‘content’revisions and ‘format’ improvement in peer feedback group’s
one essay type? Perhaps when the writers added sentences,
they might have made some punctuation, spelling, formatting,or citation errors. Unlike those who received AWE feedback,they had no opportunities to receive additional feedback otherthan Grammarly, so their enhanced ‘content’ could haveresulted in less accurate ‘format’ quality.
As has been illustrated above, it was confirmed in thisstudy that both peer and AWE feedback are effective meansof feedback, with varying degrees. It was also found that peer
feedback and AWE feedback are somewhat complementaryin terms of the aspects. If this is the case, enabling L2 writers
to receive both types of feedback may be worth exploring.
Tian and Zhou’s (2020) scheme of having multiple revision
stages can be considered if there is time and resources. Chen
and Cheng’s (2008) scheme of integrating AWE and teacher
feedback provides a clue for pedagogy.

4.3 Revision behavior differences by feedback type
Both essay types in both classes became longer afterrevisions, although mostly without statistical significance,with large individual differences, and without significant
differences between classes. The result implies marked
individual differences in revision behavior, including how
much content was added and how the ideas were elaborated.
Although the factors behind these behavioral differences areout of the scope of the paper, learner motivation as well as
external factors, such as assignments in other classes andextra-curricular activities, among many, could have played arole.
The revisions mainly consisted of ‘language’ and‘content’ aspects, with ‘format’ revisions in some instances.
There was no statistical significance between classes. Thisfinding is different from some literature (e.g., Jingxin &Razali, 2020) claiming that AWE feedback could lead
learners to focus more on the surface features of texts than oncontent development; the participants in this study who
received AWE feedback focused on ‘content’ as well.
Although AWE feedback did not provide feedback on‘content’ per se, the writers in this study might have used
AWE feedback on ‘organization’ as an important source of
feedback to improve their ‘content,’ just as the participants in
Lai (2010) did.

5. Conclusion
The study has revealed the effectiveness of both peer
and AWE feedback for L2 writers’ essay revisions. With theparticipants in this study, AWE feedback was found to be
more comprehensive in improving various aspects of L2
writers’ drafts. The participants’ revisions centered on the‘content’ and ‘language’ aspects, with some on ‘format’ inboth feedback types. The only aspect in which peer feedback
consistently showed effectiveness over AWE feedback was‘format’ revisions.
The study has limitations, such as the small sample sizewith 30 participants and the narrow range of participant
proficiency (CEFR A2-B1). In addition, participant
personality, the atmosphere or dynamics of each class, theparticipants’ major field of studies were not controlled.
Moreover, the participants’ prior experience of peer review,which could affect their feedback and revision behaviors, was
not considered. Furthermore, the lessons were given online,
not face-to-face, and the peer feedback was provided orally,

4.4 Impact of revisions on essay improvement
In this study, revisions in ‘content’ contributed to the58Li, Z., Link, S., Ma, H., Yang, H., & Hegelheimer, V. (2014). The
role of automated writing evaluation holistic scores in the ESL
classroom. System, 44, 66–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.02.007
Liu, J., & Hansen Edwards, J. G. (2018). Peer response in second
language writing classrooms. (D. Belcher & J. Liu Eds.) (2nded.). The University of Michigan Press.
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive:
The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
Mendonça, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review
negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction.
TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745–769.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587558
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer
reviewers. System, 33(2), 293–308.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class.
ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003
Sommers, N. (2013). Responding to student writers. Bedford/St.
Martin’s.
Srichanyachon, N. (2011). A comparative study of three revision
methods in EFL writing. Journal of College Teaching &Learning, 8(9), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v8i9.5639
Tian, L. & Zhou, Y. (2020). Learner engagement with automatedfeedback, peer feedback and teacher feedback in an online EFL
writing
context.
System,91,
1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102247
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit
from peer comments?. Journal of Second Language Writing,9(2), 147-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)000229
Villamil, O. S., & Guerrero, M. C. M. de (1998). Assessing theimpact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied linguistics,
19(4), 491–514. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.491
Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation:
Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching
Research, 10(2), 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr190oa
Yu, S., & Hu, G. (2017). Understanding university students’ peer
feedback practices in EFL writing: Insights from a case study.
Assessing Writing, 33, 25–35.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.03.004
Zhang, Z. V. (2020). Engaging with automated writing evaluation(AWE) feedback on L2 writing: Student perceptions andrevisions.
AssessingWriting,43,
1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.1004391

not in writing, both of which could have affected the results.
Given the characteristics of each feedback type foundin this study, future studies may explore how to maximize theeffectiveness of feedback by experimenting with various
ways and combinations of feedback. Comparing peer ‘or’
AWE feedback with peer ‘and’ AWE feedback can be one
option. In addition, a questionnaire survey can be conducted
to understand the perception and thoughts of L2 writers.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number
20K00772. I would like to express my greatest appreciation to Dr.
Sanae Oda-Sheehan, whose dedicated cooperation in essay rating
made this research possible. I am also immensely grateful to the twoanonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of themanuscript, which helped me improve the quality of this paper.
References
Allen, D. & Katayama, A. (2016). Relative second language
proficiency and the giving and receiving of written peer
feedback.
System,56,
96–106.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.12.002
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer review response on
ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of
SecondLanguage
Writing,8(3),215–241.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G.L. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptionsof ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 5, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S10603743(96)90012-0
Chen, C-F. E. & Cheng, W-Y. E. (2008). Beyond the design ofautomated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices andperceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes.
Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 94–112.
http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num2/chencheng/
ETS. (2021). The Criterion® online writing evaluation service.
https://www.ets.org/criterion
Ferris, D. R. (2018). Building a writing curriculum. In J. M. Newton,
D. R. Ferris, C. C. M. Goh, W. Grabe, F. L. Stoller, & L.
Vandergrift (Eds.), Teaching English to second language
learners in academic contexts: Reading, writing, listening, andspeaking. (pp. 89–105). Routledge.
Hatakeyama, Y. (2010). Changes made in a Theme Writing class:
The importance of students’ perceptions. ICU Language
Research Bulletin, 25. https://lrb.info.icu.ac.jp/home/volume25–2010
Hatakeyama, Y. (2021). Peer feedback comments and revision
strategies of L2 writers: Insights from the analyses for theirreflection texts. Journal of the Ochanomizu University English
Society, 10, 5–22.
https://teapot.lib.ocha.ac.jp/records/2000177
Hatakeyama, Y. (in press). Peer review: Student perspectives andstrategies found from a semi-structured interview. Journal of
the Ochanomizu University English Society.
Jingxin, G. & Razali, A. B. (2020). Tapping the potential of Pigai
automated writing evaluation (AWE) program to give
feedback on EFL writing. Universal Journal of Educational
Research, 8(12B), 8334–8343.
https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.082638
Lai, Y.H. (2010). Which do students prefer to evaluate their essays:
Peers or computer program. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 41(3), 432–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678535.2009.00959.x

59Teaching Linguistic Landscape Research―Encouraging Learner Cognition About Language Practices―
JONES, Marc
Toyo University
jones056@toyo.jp
Abstract
First-year students on an English medium instruction course at a private Japanese university wereassigned linguistic landscape analysis fieldwork in order to foster academic literacies in order to preparethem for study abroad. Linguistic landscape work is by its nature interdisciplinary, which matches theneeds of the department. It also validates the use of students’ existing multilingual repertoires. Students
collected data from sites of their own choosing after instruction in linguistic landscapes and basic
scientific method. Post-hoc theme analysis (Joffe & Yardley, 2004) appeared to be the most useful way toanalyse data after collection. On the basis of subjective observation, students’ awareness of language
usage, semiotic value of language choices improved. Additionally, the students were inducted into a
Community of Practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991), by carrying out a research practice with academic rigour
despite being at an early stage in their studies. Problems faced involved student choices toward
convenience over rigour in their work, and difficulties in data coding. Students should be encouraged toundertake ‘inconvenient’ research to develop skills in discussing findings about the linguistic landscapethat may be difficult to either classify or interpret.
Keywords: academic literacy, linguistic landscape, research methods
1. Rationale
The students that I teach on an English-medium
instruction (EMI) course in Japan are expected to achieve
highly in their programme, and of course have an excellent
grasp of English for academic purposes and be able tomanipulate the language based on what they wish tocommunicate. In their second year they are expected to study
overseas on exchange programmes, taking standard Englishmedium courses in universities in countries where English is
an official language as well as countries where it is anadditional language. In addition, they will take classes invarious disciplines within the social sciences and humanities
where they will be expected to have sufficient academic
literacy to complete work to a satisfactory level, and therefore
require skills to read a range of texts and engage with them
intellectually. To foster these skills, which require adequate
motivation to study about language, a group fieldwork project
on linguistic landscape research was assigned to the students
in the class. The students were enrolled at a private university
in Tokyo in a department with a large intake of international
students (ratio of domestic to international students 70:30 ineach cohort). The domestic students are expected to complete
one year of academic exchange at an overseas university in
EMI as opposed to Bridge programmes, although there has
been some flexibility regarding this. The course taught was a
one-semester course in the first semester, based upon
language, culture and society, with a broad remit for
instructors. The groups taught during this project were one
group receiving all core English classes taught by me, and one
group receiving two core classes in the first semester only byme with the remainder divided between other instructors. This
course was somewhat unique compared to other firstsemester core courses in that the other English courses werelargely skills-centred rather than content-centred, while thesecond semester courses were centred explicitly on English
for Academic Purposes in order to prepare students for
multidisciplinary academic studies conducted in English.
By investigating the use of Japanese English in situ as
a valid communicative practice (Rowland, 2013), I assumed
that students would develop skills to log and discuss
unfamiliar forms of the language and also literacy practices
they may regard as unconventional. As they gain these“strategies for reading the new and unfamiliar” (Cope andKalantzis, 2009, p.177), obviously one of the goals ofteaching a foreign/academic language or a new linguistic
practice, it was assumed that confidence in academic literacy
would develop sufficiently to the level where fullparticipation in their exchange programme with few problems
could be reasonably expected. In view of such expectations, I
decided upon a pedagogy based on multiliteracies. Academic
multliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009) are important todevelop at the university level because it is at this level thatstudents are expected to be more self reliant and more specificin the aid they seek from teaching staff. In EMI courses
students may encounter difficulties in aspects related to
linguistic knowledge and also content knowledge, and when
difficulties in both linguistic as well as content knowledge
occur, it may become discomforting for students who had
been academically successful in high school to find that theyneed to actively seek help and to consolidate teaching by60

reading around the topic independently.
The earliest example of linguistic landscape study is
Masai’s (1969) survey of signs around the Shinjuku district ofTokyo. The linguistic landscape is all around us, whether
acknowledged or not, possibly noticed, possibly surreptitious,
subliminal. An example of the surreptitious nature of thelinguistic landscape is provided by Sergeant (2009), detailinga study participant’s adamant insistence that “Despite
commuting to work in the center of town, during the courseof which she would almost certainly have come acrossEnglish-language display in advertisements and on anassortment of civic signs, she always answered in the negative
for that section of the questionnaire” (p. 137). Differences inlanguages, as well as language use and orthographies can beobserved and evaluated for their communication intents andoutcomes. The methodologies to be used are not completely
agreed upon. Backhaus (2007) conducted a study of signs inTokyo, similar to that of Masai (1969) but with a focus onmunicipal signs as well as commercial signs. Blommaert(2013) criticizes Backhaus' study of Tokyo as“overwhelmingly quantitative” and goes on to state the casefor more qualitative study because “signs are necessarily
addressed as multimodal objects rather than as linguistic ones”(p. 35). However, methodology should be decided based upon
the context of the site and the nature of data possible to obtain.
The fieldwork project brief was merely to investigate
two possible contexts to contrast, to introduce the students toa low-stakes research project that is inherently
interdisciplinary. This is entirely congruent with theinterdisciplinary nature of the students’ programme, thus it
was predicted that they would be motivated to undertake theproject. In turn, it was intended that students would likely
display understanding of how language is actually used ingiven situations, and be able to provide evaluations of suchlanguage use in English, which would at least meet andpossibly surpass learning objectives for the project.
Another reason to conduct fieldwork on the linguistic
landscape is that it validates the use of students’ existing
multilingual repertoires. For example, looking around mostmajor streets in Japan, one can see shop signs written in kanji,katakana, hiragana, and romaji. For some of those shops theirsigns may actually be in English rather than romaji (forexample ‘cleaning’ on many dry cleaners’ signs); additionallymany restaurants serving international cuisines may use
different orthographies as well as Japanese and/or English. By
limiting students to the local environment near their home ortheir university, they have a relevant contextual environmentand by surveying the landscape for the languages used, they
are likely to find languages that they know, usages that arefamiliar as well as unfamiliar, and perhaps even languages
with which they are unfamiliar.
These usages of languages would need to be analysedin some way and post-hoc theme analysis (Joffe & Yardley,2004) appeared to be the most useful way to do this. I haveused this in my own research (Jones, 2020a, 2020b) andtherefore it would be, if not simple, certainly possible toadvise students in this process. It is also, for group work, anaffordance for making complex group decisions using

English, through checking the coding and justifying coding
decisions.
By using presentation to the rest of the class as theultimate ‘research output’, there would be an affordance forad hoc explanation of raw data (i.e. photographs of thelinguistic landscape), and also further negotiation of discourse
choices in organising the flow of the presentation as a group.
2. Teaching Sequence
Teaching linguistic landscape research ran over fourweeks with two classes of 23 students (N=46). The initialteaching took place in a 90-minute period reading Chesnut
and Curran (2020). The reason this article was chosen is that
it is accessible yet academic, and the subject matter (coffee
shops in different neighbourhoods of a capital city) was
familiar to the first year students, which facilitated quick
understanding. During and immediately after reading, there
were discussions to examine assumptions regarding thesocioeconomics and demographics in relation to the target
markets for the coffee shops in Seoul and how this may or
may not relate to other commercial activities in the city andhow this may be similar or different in Japan.
The following lesson was dedicated to working withgroups to design an appropriate linguistic landscapefieldwork project. Students were assigned to investigate
language(s) in use, in two or more comparable situations or
locations. They were instructed on basic premises of thescientific method for conducting fair tests, such as surveying
sites at approximately comparable times of the day and week
(i.e. conducting surveys on weekdays at the same time of day
and not during special events), and surveying the same sizearea of sites. Students were advised to be systematic and use
smartphone cameras to capture data, to take notes on site andto then transfer data into spreadsheet software for coding. In
the interim time students conducted their surveys of thelinguistic landscape. After completing data collection in theareas they chose, students would then need to code data inorder to present their findings. One lesson was dedicated tocoding instruction and effective presentation of findings.
Coding instruction consisted of showing a few fictional model
data points and modelling through talk-aloud how to code themodel data points. Students then spent the lesson time coding
data and nascent plans of presentations.
Students independently chose the sites for their surveys,
with instructor advice and approval prior to data collection.
Students choices included: signs around railway stations;restaurant menus, similar to the study of coffee shop menus
in Chesnut and Curran (2020); restaurant and retail store signhoardings; and cinema signage. All fieldwork was carried out
in Japan, mostly in Central Kanto with the exception of onesite in Ueda, Nagano.
3. Positive Outcomes
The outcomes of the fieldwork was expected tofacilitate an increase in academic communication skills in agroup presentation based upon language use in culturalcontext. Based upon prior experiences teaching similar
lessons to roughly similar cohorts of students, the cohort in61

question produced work that generally met or exceeded
expectations, although limitations are detailed below insection 4. The expectation was that by undertaking the
research projects, students could follow their own interests inrelation to linguistic landscapes and, in turn, making deeper
connections to the concepts involved than may have been thecase through lecture and discussion alone. It also provided apreliminary input regarding research literacy and how tocommunicate research findings using English in shortacademic presentations. While students took part in question
and answer sessions following their presentations, it is mybelief that richer discussions took place in smaller groups
outside the hybrid classroom environment, the evidence beinga depth of understanding related to the concepts listed above.
This level of understanding was beyond that of most first-year
students I had previously taught. Awareness of language
usage, semiotic value of language choices were explained andjustified based upon the context, such as language use as
decoration or orthography and readability. Here, language
choices refers not only to register choices in one language but
also use of languages other than Japanese. However, on thebasis of subjective observation, there was a greater awarenessof discourse norms for different field, tenor & mode (Halliday& Hasan, 1976) displayed in presenting the fieldwork results
than the students had displayed prior, such as the emotional
responses felt by people viewing posters, based upon registersof languages. Students also showed a deep awareness oflanguage use embedded in social context, particularly social
stratification, and as a marker of socioeconomic status and/or
cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986). Some students also
considered the language use by creators of the texts in theirsurveys as a deliberate act, though not always deeply
considered. Examples of this would be the decorative use ofEnglish, or errors in Chinese translation (Kasamura et al. in
preparation). As a welcome surprise, some students claimed
to reflect upon their own language usage in writing forcommunicative outcomes in emails and essays. In theirpresentations, students gave consideration of the situatedlanguagepractices
based
upon
socio-geographic
considerations. Some examples of these are students
researching the demographic differences between two of thewards of Tokyo; the purposes that people are likely to havewhen going to a place (e.g. tourism, work, social), the waysthat different languages use syntax for noun modification, theuse of highly situated language (i.e. ramen shops using kanji
which most Japanese would not know the reading of), as wellas commercial concerns. At least one of these aspects wascommented upon by groups that had not entirely understood
the assignment or verified what was expected.
However, the most interesting outcome of the study
was the induction of the students into a Community ofPractice (Lave & Wenger, 1991), that is, into academic
practice by carrying out a research practice with academic
rigour despite being at an early stage in their studies, that is in
the first semester of their first year of a bachelor’s degree(Japanese gakushi). This is not fully-fledged research as such
although Kasamura et al. (in preparation) is one project thatwill be developed as a journal article, it is a form of“legitimate peripheral participation” where learners “movetoward full participation in the sociocultural practices of acommunity” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 29) in order to develop
mastery of skills required in the community. As such, learners
take on the role of novice, associating with other novices, andsharing some of the behaviours of members of the communityof researchers: conducting fieldwork, justifying rationales,
producing proposals, etc.
Wenger (1998) notes that not only do practices becomesustained through participation but also “In the process ofsustaining a practice, we become invested in what we do as
well as in each other and our shared history. Our identities
become anchored in each other and what we do together.” (p.
89). Therefore, inducting students into linguistic landscaperesearch means that we invest in them the confidence that they
are able to become a valid part of the research community.
Furthermore, even the work that fell below the expected levelof performance was acceptable because newcomers “arelikely to come short of what the community regards ascompetent engagement. Only with enough legitimacy can all
their inevitable stumblings and violations become
opportunities for learning” (Wenger, 1998. p. 101). That is,
without the learning affordances provided through trying andfailing (to do as intended, not failing a course of study), thestudents are unlikely to develop their academic literacies andskills. Seeing the effort put into the projects and the missteps
taken through not clarifying tasks and processes was
frustrating at the time both for myself and the students
involved, but ultimately resulted in learning how not toundertake research.
4. Drawbacks and Difficulties
While the above section may cause readers to believethat this project was universally undertaken with diligenceand due process, this was not the case. As with all student
projects there is conflict between what the instructor intends
and student priorities, both on an individual student as well asa group basis. Most often this manifested itself in student
choices toward convenience over rigour in their work. One
way that this may be mitigated in future work is by providing
a rubric in advance, although one risk of doing so is thatprojects may lack creativity. However, it must be borne inmind that the students are in the early stages of their academic
career, as well as participating in their course during a global
pandemic, which rendered in-person attendance rather
unpredictable to say the least.
An additional difficulty faced was that the data coding
process was not always done well within classes, though bothclasses had groups that carried out their coding if not
meticulously or at least logically. I was contacted by email
regarding the coding process, but in seeing the coded data andreports of the coding processes in presentations, it was
obvious that this was the main difficulty for students. Rather
than using mock data to model decisions, it may be more
profitable to use a full dataset. This could be gathered in anafternoon by an instructor or group of instructors and would
be able to be reused in future iterations of the project.
Additionally, it could be beneficial to consider learner62cognition, which could be assessed and corrected in wholeclass work with a dataset. Certainly some of the difficulties inthis project were self-created due to the knowledge that data
gathering and coding themselves would be time-consuming
ventures and thus mistakenly believing that assigning moretime to these processes would be better. In order to maximise
time and efficiency, an efficient teaching sequence for datacoding would likely be as follows: i) choose from preset codes
to determine the most appropriate code from limited choices;ii) coding in groups and comparing to other groups withteacher feedback; iii) ‘free’ practice on a subset of data withteacher feedback when completed. At this point, sufficient
practice would likely have been undertaken for students to beable to apply skills learned to their own data.

certainly develops multiple academic literacy practices andsecond language literacy practices also.
6. Conclusion
The project task cycle is certainly repeatable, albeit
with changes to be made. More intensive modelling of datacoding and staging of instruction is essential in order to raise
the overall standard of work, and for those who would alreadybe likely to be successful, to increase their confidence andwork rate. It may be worthwhile to use previous work as
model task (c.f. Long, 2015), from previous student cohorts
with permission, or else using data gathered by the instructor.
This would allow students to explore difficulties in data thatthey are not personally invested in and therefore they may bewilling to make the mistakes necessary to gain the most
optimal learning experience and complete coding of their own
data with more confidence and proficiency.
Additionally, more ‘inconvenient’ research should be
encouraged, in order to provide greater challenge to learners
and bring about a real need to discuss findings about the
linguistic landscape that may be difficult to either classify orinterpret. It is in these moments of difficulty that the learningof skills develop, although such difficulty needs to bebalanced with students’ time available for study and also
motivation and orientation toward task completion,
particularly at difficult times such as during a pandemic.

5. Discussion
On reflection, the project was an overall success,particularly because the students’ use of English tocommunicate research developed very quickly at an earlystage of their higher education. However, this is a subjective
assessment, and thus future work should attempt to provide
an objective assessment of gains in English skills and/or
academic literacies. While coding provided difficulties for the
students, and it is obvious that more intensive work on thiswould render projects more successful overall, it is importantto leave room for uncertainty. It is therefore desirable for the
next cohort of students to have more direct instruction oncoding, requiring more instructor-intensive work, and morepractice, such as mock coding exercises, requiring more
student-intensive work. Confirmation, verification andclarification of task guidelines and parameters are key
academic skills to develop, yet if the opportunity for using
these skills is limited, this results in a lack of fluency, andpossibly even reluctance, in their use. By providing
affordances for confirming details, verifying requirements
and clarifying task parameters, academic multiliteracies canbe developed.
However, while there are obvious difficulties involvedin the project, it may be compared with similar undergraduate
projects, such as Migration, Identity, and Translation Network(MITN) (2021) at Warwick University. While those projects
were undertaken within set locales in the city of Coventry, thesites to be studied were all chosen independently by thestudents. Arguably this is more likely to lead to a learning
experience in evaluating research sites than if research sites
were chosen by the instructor. However, it is certainly worth
considering briefly interviewing passers-by to collect opinion
data on aspects of the linguistic landscape in order to gainricher data and to discuss and communicate such data inacademic English. Furthermore, such work would develop
academic literacies. As Cope and Kalantzis (2009) posit “Oneof the fundamental goals of a pedagogy of multiliteracies is
to create the conditions for learning that support the growthof this kind of person: a person comfortable with themselves
as well as being flexible enough to collaborate and negotiatewith others who are different from themselves in order toforge a common interest” (pp. 173–174). While not explicitly
part of a pedagogy of multiliteracies per se, the project

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Ian Willey for his useful question during thepresentation of this work.
References
Backhaus, P. (2007). Linguistic landscapes: A comparative study ofurban multilingualism in Tokyo. Multilingual Matters.
Blommaert, J. (2013). Semiotic and spatial scope: Towards amaterialist semiotics. In M. Böck, N. Pachler, & G. R. Kress(Eds.), Multimodality and social semiosis: Communication,
meaning-making and learning in the work of Gunther Kress (pp.
33–42). Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.),
Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education(pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
Chesnut, M., & Curran, N. M. (2020). Americano, latte, or English:
What do menu languages in Korean coffee shops tell us about
the meaning of English today? English Today, online advancepublication, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078420000401
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies,
new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164–
195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800903076044
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English.
Longman.
Joffe, H., & Yardley, L. (2004). Content and thematic analysis. In D.
Marks & L. Yardley (Eds.), Research methods for clinical andhealth psychology (pp. 56–68). SAGE.
Kasamura, I., Kikuchi, J., Nishimura, T., & Jones, M. (inpreparation). Analysis of the linguistic landscape of Japanese‘family restaurant’ dessert menus.
Jones, M. (2020a). Investigating English language teachers’ beliefs
and stated practices regarding bottom-up processing instruction
for listening in L2 English. Journal of Second Language
Teaching&
Research,8(1),52–71.
http://pops.uclan.ac.uk/index.php/jsltr/article/view/590

63

Jones, M. (2020b). English language teachers’ stated beliefs andpractices regarding task-based language teaching and listening.
Konin
Language
Studies,8(4),369–390.
https://doi.org/10.30438/ksj.2020.8.4.2
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate
peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based
language teaching (1st ed). Wiley-Blackwell
Masai Y. (1969). Gengo betsu, mohi betsu ni mita Shinjuku ni okeru
shisetu eimono no meishou to kambankoukoku [Names andsignboards of the establishments in Shinjuku by languages andletters]. Shien, 29(2), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.14992/00001050
Migration, Identity, and Translation Network (MITN). (2021, June23). Migration, Identity, and Translation Network (MITN).
Landscaping Project Blogs.
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/mitn/events/multidiv/lands
capingprojectblogs/
Rowland, L. (2013). The pedagogical benefits of a linguistic
landscape project in Japan. International Journal of Bilingual
Education
andBilingualism,
16(4),
494–505.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.708319
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language
learning.
Applied
Linguistics,
11(2),
129–158.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
Seargeant, P. (2009). The idea of English in Japan: Ideology and theevolution of a global language. Multilingual Matters.
Wenger, É. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning,
and identity. Cambridge University Press.

64

Hindering Factors in the Reading Comprehension of Small Groups―Conversation Analysis of a College English Learning Activity―
MASUDA, Masanobu
Kyoto Sangyo University
masuda41@cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp
Abstract
The present study applied conversation analysis (CA) methodology to analyze the peer-decision making
processes in small college English class groups and reveal their interactive learning activity processes.
The examined data comprised 13 discussions by six different groups of three to six in two universities on
34 textbook-based question items. The analysis identified two factors that were preventing the participantsfrom focusing on the comprehension exercise intentions. First, it was found that the participants wereoverly focused on word-level meanings, even when the meaning was not relevant to the question
discussed, which distracted them from attending to other relevant factors, and second, there appeared tobe misguided leadership because of inappropriate comprehension strategies. Two pedagogicalremediations are suggested. First, pre-reading activities such as the explicit introduction of relevant words
and exercises featuring these words could focus student attention on the discourse level, rather than onword or sentence level comprehension, and second, sharing each student’s thoughts at the start of the
discussion would ensure equal participation and provide opportunities for more hesitant students toexpress their thoughts, such as using the round robin method.
Keywords: Conversation analysis, Reading comprehension, Small group learning, Pre-reading
activities, Round robin method
1. Introduction
Small group activities have widely been used inlanguage learning classrooms. A variety of positive effects are
expected for small group learning, including a greater
opportunity to practice, reduced student anxiety, and better
comprehension through metalinguistic reflection. However, it
has not been fully explored how learning is (not) achieved ingroup interaction, or what factors promote or hinder learnerinteraction leading to better achievement. This study applies
conversation analysis (CA) to provide group learning processdescriptions for reading comprehension, and is aimed at
identifying what factors hinder students’ comprehension
despite their contribution to group discussion.

reading comprehension for second language learners (Adams& Oliver, 2019; Philp et al., 2014). Several studies haveconfirmed that students have positive attitudes toward
studying the target language through interactive group
activities (Kobayashi, 2010; Wada, 2013 for English, andTateoka, 2005 for Japanese). Tateoka (2005) also illustrated
that interactive peer reading led students to monitor theirunderstanding and acquire reading strategies and wider
perspectives. In terms of achievement, Ghaith (2003) foundthat students who studied in cooperative learning groups had
statistically significant higher English as a Foreign Language
reading comprehension. Hisatsugi (2018) examinedinteraction in peer reading activities with CA methodology
and described an agreeing practice in which students equalize
epistemic imbalance.
Aside from a small amount of studies like Tateoka(2005) and Hisatsugi (2018), the actual group reading
comprehension learning processes have not been exploredalthough identifying successful group learning processes isimportant. Kamekura (2016) examined the causes of active
learning failures and concluded that they were difficult to
identify because any failure needed to be identified based on
the specific situation, the aims of the active learning activities,
and the study subject. Because it can illuminate interactional
processes and focus on the actions’ organization, CA
methodology (Sacks, 1992), which was employed in thisstudy, has been successfully used to describe collaborativeinteractive activities (Drew & Heritage, 1992). The CA scope
is not limited to verbal content as it also includes inter-speech

2. Background
Small group activities have been found to have avariety of language learning benefits. Three benefits widely
recognized are listed below. First, students have a greater
opportunity to practice in small groups than in whole classactivities (Adams & Oliver, 2019; Fushino, 2019; Long &Porter, 1985; Ur, 2012). Second, the relatively intimate small
group setting reduces student anxiety, which can motivate
more active participation (Adams & Oliver, 2019; Fushino,
2019; Long & Porter, 1985; Tateoka, 2005). Third, themetalinguistic reflection through collaboration can better
develop communicative abilities (Adams & Oliver, 2019;
Fushino, 2019; Philp et al., 2014) and understanding about thecontent of materials (Tateoka, 2005).
There has been relatively little research on group65

silences, nonverbal actions, and other paralinguistic features,such as speech prosody and stress. A close analysis of these
moment-by-moment interactive features can provide emic
descriptions and relevant participant perspectives (Carroll,
2005; Jakonen & Morton, 2015). When CA researchers
engage with practitioners, the outcomes can be applied to
improving services (Antaki, 2011; Waring & Creider, 2021).

students to access and retrieve information in the text or
integrate and interpret what they read, but not to go so far as
to reflect and evaluate, standing back from a text and relating
it to their own experience1. Students spoke Japanese, theirfirst (or at least shared) language, in discussion. Because thetask required the students to express metalinguistic thoughts,
they were not asked to have discussions in English, so thatthey could express and understand each other’s thoughts
better2.

3. Methodology
3.1 Participants
The small group discussions in general education
compulsory English reading classes were videotaped foranalysis. The video recording took place in two universities
in the Kansai region. The classes in University A include firstyear intermediate (400–500 on the TOEIC® Listening &Reading Test score) and second-year elementary (300–400 on
the TOEIC® L & R Test score). All the classes comprised
students in a variety of majors, including foreign studies. The
number of students per group was three or four. The class in
University B comprised nutrition major first-year students,
and were estimated to be elementary level. The number ofstudents per group was five or six. In both universities, theinstructor formed groups by taking such factors as English
language proficiency, personality, and relationships into
consideration.

3.3 Data collection
Only the groups in which almost all participants madecontributions to the task were selected for the analysis, where
almost all referred to three or more students out of three orfour group members for University A, and four or more
students out of five or six group members for University B.
Unlike some other groups (not analyzed here), theparticipants in these groups consulted dictionaries, madeinferences to seek comprehension, and tried to contribute to
the discussion; that is, they did not just claim a lack ofknowledge or take a free ride without making any statements.
Therefore, the hindering factors found in the data were notdue to participant unwillingness; rather, the problems wereassociated with a lack of knowledge of appropriate words andgrammar, use of inappropriate reading strategies, or poor task
designs.
The examined data comprised 13 discussions (two in
University A and 11 in B) by six different groups (two in A
and four in B) on 34 textbook-based question items (eight in
A and 26 in B). The discussions for each question item
continued for around one to eight minutes, with the total time
examined being around 68 minutes. The interaction in thedata was transcribed in detail using CA transcription symbols(Appendices A and B) and the decision making processes in
it were analyzed using CA methodology.

3.2 Class activity procedure
In University A, students worked on the passages ortext-message chains (40-230 words) in workbooks for
TOEIC® L & R Test. Most of the passages concerned business
context, such as notices and arrangements between colleagues.
All the question items required multiple (four) choice answers.
In some classes, the students were asked to prepare theanswers beforehand, and in other classes, they individually
worked on the items in class, after which they had discussions.
For each passage (which was accompanied by two to fourquestion items), the students were engaged in group
discussion first, for about five minutes. They were asked toachieve consensus about the answers to the question items
and the reasons for them. The discussion was followed byvolunteer students expressing the opinion of his/her group inclass and a lecture by the instructor afterwards. Three or four
passages were covered in a class in this manner.
In University B, students worked on the passages (270370 words) to introduce features of the United Kingdom, suchas geography, places of interest, and culture. Most of thequestion items required true-or-false answers, with a few
other items requiring recognition of a part of speech, a subject,
and a verb. About 25 words were picked up on the worksheetby the instructor and the students were asked to check their
meaning before the class, but they were not required to workon the questions in the textbook beforehand. At the start ofeach class, they were given about 25 minutes for a passage(which was accompanied by six or seven question items) inwhich they collaboratively worked on the items and reachconsensus about the answers. A lecture by the instructor basedon the answers of each group followed the group discussion.
In both universities, the question items required the

4. Analysis
For 11 question items out of the total 34, the students
managed to reach correct answers through constructive
discussion based on the reasons provided by the groupmembers. For the other 23 items, the data analysis revealed
two factors that prevented participants from reaching thecorrect comprehension conclusions. The transcription
symbols and the question items in the excerpts are listed inAppendices A to C. All student names in the excerpts arepseudonyms.
4.1 Excessive adherence to word meaning
As shown in Excerpt 1 (University A), in which thediscussion was based on prepared answers, the participants
focused on the meanings of the words even when this was not
relevant to the question item. In the excerpt, they were
working on question 12 (What does the e-mail suggest about
Ms. Wong?), for which there were four choices. Before theexcerpt, Osato had given a reason for her choice B answer;
therefore, in the excerpt, Komura is considering theappropriateness of her choice D answer.

66

Excerpt 1 [1C30R9-4b_0207-0244]
01
HORI: suspend
02
(0.2)
03
KOMU: suspen(d)
04
(.)
05
HORI: susp(h)en [hh .hh hh=
06
OSA:[nhuhuhu .hh (0.4)
07
HORI: =h[.hh .hh
08OSA:[.hh >(tabun) kaite aru kaite aru.< .hh“Perhaps ((the word ‘suspend’)) iswritten ((in the passage)).”
09 →
(2.1)
((HORI consults his electronic dictionary
placed between himself and KOMU, andthey look into the screen.))10
KOMU: e docchi yaroo“Which is it?”
11
(2.1)
12 → KOMU: >wa< imi me↑ccha aru ya:n.=“There are many definitions, aren’t they.”
13
HORI: =ya:.
((“Yes” / response cry))
14(0.2)
15 → HORI: ↓a: ichiji teki:_ (.) ichiji ↑chuudan
16 →su[ru toka tte (aru)“Temporary- A definition says, ‘to stop
temporarily.’”17
KOMU: [re- reser↑vation kara:.
“From reservation”
18(0.4) ((OSA nods))
19
KOMU: ee(h). (.) e. he? .hh((response cry))20(3.1)
21 → KOMU: °u:↑:n enki?°“Postponement?”
22
(1.2)
23
TAKA: .hh= ((sniff))
24 → KOMU: =<en>↑ki kana.
“Postponement, I suppose.”
25(.)
26 → HORI: °en[ki°“Postponement.”
27
OSA:
[her_
28
(3.2)
29
HORI: °a::::.°((response cry))
30
(3.7)
31
KOMU: ¥chigau jan.¥“((My choice D answer)) is incorrect.”definition enki [postponement] (line 21, which is probably theverb form enki suru [to postpone] in reality), Komura thinks
it is a suitable meaning for the passage (line 24) and rejects
her original answer D (line 31). After this excerpt, theparticipants agreed that the answer was B without any further
consideration.
It appeared that Komura had made a judgment on themeaning for suspect based on the definition she found as there
was no other relevant factor seen in the excerpt, that is, thedefinition enki [postponement] would have been a decisive
factor in Komura’s rejection of her original answer. Because
the same phrase suspend one’s reservation is used both in thepassage (we…have had to temporarily suspend yourreservation, paragraph 2, lines 3–4) and choice D (She hassuspended her reservation.), the meaning for suspend would
probably be the same; therefore, word meaning, in this case,was not relevant to determining the correct answer. If theparticipants had paid greater attention to the differences
between the sentences, namely the subjects, they would haveconcluded that choice D was not the answer. (The subject wein the passage referred to Park Hill Hotel, a hotel the e-mailsender Ms. Kim worked for, while the [s]he in choice D
referred to the recipient Ms. Wong, who worked for Redson
Realtors.) Although it is appropriate to consult the words inthe choices for greater comprehension, word meaning is notalways a relevant factor, and excessive adherence to word
meaning can distract students from attending to other factors.
Although there was no other instance as clear as
Excerpt 1, a variation of the factor discussed in this section
was seen in two other discussions. In those discussions,students paid greater attention to the characteristic of a proper
noun in the passage when it was not relevant to the question
item being discussed. For example, students discussed
whether the proper noun DTY was kikaku [an enterprise/aproject], kaisha [a company], or soshiki toka sooyuu guruupu
kee no koto [an organization or that sort of group], which was
not relevant to judging whether the choice She works for DTY
was correct.
4.2 Misguided leadership based on inappropriatecomprehension strategies
Excerpt 2 (University B) reveals that one participant istrying to better comprehend the question item when anotherparticipant starts to lead the discussion and suddenly jumps toa conclusion based on an inappropriate comprehension
strategy, which results in his peer ceasing to try to determine
the answer. In Excerpt 2, the participants are working on atrue-or-false (T or F) question and are trying to confirm themeaning for statement 1 (The population of Northern Irelandis 60 million.). The tiers, k_hands, k_r-hand, and k_gaze, in
Excerpt 2 are respective descriptions for the nonverbal both
hand actions, right hand actions, and gaze direction ofKamada. The multimodal transcription symbols for these tiers
are given in Appendix B.

Because of the several inaudible utterances in theimmediately preceding part in Excerpt 1, it was difficult todetermine how the participants had arrived at line 1; however,
it is evident that they are concerned about the word suspend
in choice D that Komura has chosen. Horiuchi consults his
dictionary (line 9) with Komura to determine the meaning forsuspend (lines 9, 12, 15, 16, and 21). After noticing theExcerpt 2 [KU-Data 1_0420-0439]
01
MARU: ↑hyaku:?
“Hundred?”

67

02

KAMA: se[nman]“Ten million”
03
NAGA: [↑million wa:][: hyakuman ja
04>nakatta kke<.
“‘Million’ means hyakuman [=million],wasn’t it?”05
MARU:[°(senman)°“Ten million”
06
KAMA: hyakuman¿“A million?”
07 →
*(.)
k_hands *reach for a dictionary in front of herself...
08 → KAMA: milli↑o::*n ((singing))
k_hands ..............*tap the dictionary with fingers andare held in the air---------09
HARI: demo sa:. [a“But”
10
KAMA:[*million aru kedo na“‘Million’ is...”k_hands --------------*retract backward...
11°ko*[ko ni.°]*“...here.”k_hands ........*
k_r-hand*points to the worksheetwith right middle finger*
12
MARU:*[↑°hu:]*13
hu:*‡n.°=((response cry))k_r-hand ......*‡reaches for the dictionary andtaps it with middle finger on the
points indicated by thesymbol #-->16‡Figure 1
14(.)
15
SIRO: kore nan #no mi[se yane #n.
((Playing smartphone games))“What shop is this?”
16 → KAMA:[shirabe (na#i to ne)=“((I/we)) have to consult”
k_r-hand ----------#----------------------#----------17 ⇒ HARI: =ha:i at#teru to omoi ma:su [ko#re.
“I think it is true.”18
KAMA:[i #i tok_r-hand ---------#---------------------------#--19
omoi%masu%[( )] %“((I/You)) think it is fine”
20 ⇒ HARI:[Ti ] #%i.
“T.”k_r-hand --------------------------#held on the dic
k_gaze dic---%.........%wrksht%...> 22
21
(.)
22
KAMA: Ti%i *(ni/ne).
“T.”k_r-hand ------*retracts backward...>24
k_gaze ....%textbook--23(.)%(.)
k_gaze ----%.....

24

KAMA: Ti%i ni shitoku wa.
“I’ll choose T.”
k_gaze ...%worksheet-----25(1.7)
k_r-hand writes a circle on her worksheet
26 ⇒ HARI: e, >nanka< ichiban ue no hoo ni
27 ⇒sa↓:[:¿“On the top”
28
KAMA:
[so yanen. an nen.
“Yes, it’s there.”
Figure 1
The position of Kamada’s finger on the dictionary in line 13

Immediately preceding the excerpt, the participants had
confirmed the meaning of population in statement 1 and were
trying to confirm the meaning of million. While population
had been included in the words the participants had beenrequired to check beforehand, million had not. After theuncertainty about the meaning of million becomes observable(lines 1–6), Kamada starts to consult her dictionary (lines 7–8), which is a relevant action at this point. She retracts her
hands (lines 10–11) when she notices the word million in thepassage reproduced on her worksheet (paragraph 1, line 2),
but reaches for the dictionary again and taps it several times(lines 13–20). The position of her finger on the dictionary(Figure 1) indicates that she is probably pressing thedirectional pad or the enter key, that is, she is looking up a
relevant definition in the dictionary. To summarize thedescription above, Kamada is consulting the dictionary for themeaning of million, suspends this action during lines 10–11,
and then moves her gaze away from the dictionary in line 20.
After this point, she does not look at her dictionary again until
the participants conclude that the answer is T, which is 17
seconds after the completion of this excerpt.
The excerpt revealed that Kamada stopped her work
because of Harima’s statements in lines 17 and 20 indicatingthat he had determined the answer. Harima treats hisstatement in line 17 as public by placing the attention getterhai [yes in literal translation] in the turn-initial position anduttering it with stress. Along with his assertive prosody (stressand turn-final falling intonation) in line 20, the statementssound more like a declaration of the final answer than just a
personal thought.
Harima’s leadership here, however, was not based on
appropriate comprehension. He claims that the word(s) instatement 1 found in the passage (lines 26–27), which is
acknowledged by Kamada (line 28), are the reason for his
judgment that the answer is T3. However, the repetition of thesame words in the statement and the passage do not guarantee
an agreement on the sentence meaning. To come to the correct68conclusion, which was F, the students needed to comprehend
the reference to [t]he population (paragraph 1, line 1) andinterpret that the population referred to the population of [t]heUnited Kingdom in the preceding sentence, not of Northern
Ireland as in statement 1. This interpretation required topic
structure comprehension that the description of the United
Kingdom rather than just Northern Ireland was to be
developed in the paragraph.
Therefore, only focusing on the same word(s) in the
text and the question is an inappropriate comprehension
strategy. Kamada probably had this strategy in mind as she
stopped consulting her dictionary after noticing the word
million in the passage (lines 10–11). Kamada was alsooriented to what was needed for the comprehension (line 16)
and started consulting the dictionary again; however, she
stopped again when Harima boldly stated the (apparent)
answer. Excerpt 2 indicated that a strongly imposed
leadership can prevent other participants from applying
appropriate strategies. Such misguided leadership appeared in
two other discussions. Excessive dependence on repetition of
the same words in the statement and the passage, if not understrong leadership, distracted students from reaching correct
comprehension in three other discussions.

discussion. Encouraging the students to bring prepared
comprehension notes could also be an effective method toconnect their preparation to the group contribution as it could
facilitate an individual expression of their thoughts andprovide the content for collaborative and inspirational peerinteractions (cf. Sekiya, 2017; Tsuda, 2015).
6. Conclusion
This study employed CA to analyze the peer-decision
making processes of small groups in Japanese college English
classes. There are some limitations for this study. Data size
was rather small, so identifying a wider variety of hinderingfactors using more data would be a viable target for future
research. Standardizing the data according to proficiency, age,or question types and comparing the results could be anotherdirection. Developing CA findings into activity designs withfocus on specific reading skills might also be an approach forresearchers to use in future investigations.
Despite these limitations, this study identified twohindering factors in the reading comprehension of small
groups and provided corresponding remediation suggestions.
The CA revealed the interactive learning activity processes
and confirmed its applicability to language pedagogy. Beingaware of student interactions can enhance a teacher’s
sensitivity to students’ group learning.
The first hindering factor identified was an excessive
focus on word meaning, which distracted the students fromthe other relevant factors. To overcome this focus, pre-reading
activities, such as the explicit introduction of relevant words,
explanations to confirm relevant sentence construction, andexercises featuring these words, could be conducted to ensurea group focus on the discourse level comprehension.
The second hindering factor was misguided leadershipbased on inappropriate comprehension strategies. Strongly
imposed leadership can stop other participants from applying
appropriate strategies. Therefore, encouraging each student toshare their thoughts at the start of the discussion could ensure
equal participation and make them less hesitant to express
their thoughts.
The present study was unique as it limited the analysis
target to relatively active groups in which almost all
participants made contributions. By limiting the analysis
target, the study was able to focus on the academic
competence or task design difficulties rather than student
unwillingness to which failure in small group learning is often
attributed.

5. Pedagogical Implications
The analysis in the previous section revealed the two
small group reading comprehension hindering factors ingroups when almost all participants are making task
contributions, for which two pedagogical remediations areproposed in this section.
5.1 Pre-reading activities at the word or sentence level
As revealed in Section 4.1, uncertainty about word
meanings can be a distracting factor because students fail tofocus on the required discourse level comprehension.
Therefore, pre-reading activities, such as the explicit
introduction of relevant words and exercises featuring them,
could resolve word-level uncertainty. Explanations andexercises to confirm relevant sentence constructions could
also allow students to focus on the discourse levelcomprehension, such as logical structure or references.
5.2 Expressing each student’s thoughts at the start of the
discussion
In Excerpt 2 (Section 4.2), Harima’s strongly imposed
leadership distracted Kamada from taking appropriate actions.
Therefore, encouraging each group member to share theirthoughts at the start of the discussion could be a good solution,such as using the round robin method, which requires students
to take turns to briefly express their ideas and ensures equal
participation (Barkley et al., 2014; Kagan, 2003). Allowing
each student to express their opinions before the discussion issettled would make students less hesitant to express theirthoughts4 and prevent suppression by stronger participants.
The round table method for which students take turns to write
something down could be another possible variation.
Preparation before class would also allow groupmembers to express their thoughts at the start of theNotes
1
The levels of reading mentioned here are quoted from the aspects
in PISA 2009 reading framework (OECD 2010) which basicallypresumes reading of texts printed on paper.
2
Erikawa (2012) encourages a flexible language choice in classactivities depending on various factors such as the target language
proficiency, orientation of the students, and required level ofcommunication.
3
Although it was not observable in the data which word(s) Harima
was referring to, Kamada was pointing at million in the passage on
her worksheet in line 28.
4Letting each student express their thoughts could also be effective69

in encouraging students to take individual accountability, which isan essential component of cooperative learning (Johnson et al.,2002). Mizokami (2018) stressed the significance of providing
opportunities for each individual student to express their thoughts
prior to peer discussions to promote the acquisition andcomprehension of knowledge.

akutibu raningu [Active learning in the view of failure cases].
Toshindo.
Kobayashi, K. (2010). How does interaction activate participation in
my EFL reading classes? Jacet Kansai Journal, 12, 128–138.
Long, M. H. & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk,and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207–228. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586827
Mizokami, S. (2018). Akutibu raningu gata jugyo no kihon kei toseito no shintai sei [Basic form of active learning class andstudent embodiment]. Toshindo.
Mondada, L. (2019). Conventions for multimodal transcription (Ver.
5.0.1). Retrieved fromhttps://www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodal-transcription
OECD (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do:Student performance in reading, mathematics and science, 1,
PISA, OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450-en
Philp, J., Adams, R. & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction andsecond language learning. Routledge.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation, I & II. Blackwell
Publishing.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A
primer in conversation analysis, 1. Cambridge University Press.
Sekiya, Y. (2017). Ko-kyodo-ko no gakushu saikuru [Learning
cycle: individual-collaborative-individual]. Retrieved fromhttp://smizok.net/education/subpages/atoin_00002(ko-kyodoko).html
Tateoka, Y. (2005). Hitori de yomu koto kara pia ridingu he:
Nihongo gakushu sha no dokkai katei to taiwa teki kyodo
gakushu [From reading alone to peer reading: Reading
comprehension process of learners of Japanese and dialogic
collaborative learning]. Tokai Daigaku Shuppankai.
Tsuda, H. (2015). Kyodo gakushu no seikou to shippai wo wakeru
mono [Positive and negative factors that affect collaborative
learning]. Rimediaru kyoiku kenkyu [Journal of the Japan
Association for Developmental Education], 10(2), 143–151.
https://doi.org/10.18950/jade.10.2_143
Ur, P. (2012). A course in English language teaching (2nd ed.).
Cambridge University Press.
Wada, T. (2013). Kyodo gakushu rinen wo toriireta eigo ridingu
jugyo [Applying cooperative learning principles in English
reading classes]. Aichi-ken-ritsu Daigaku Daigaku-in Kokusaibunka-kenkyuka Ronshu [Bulletin of the Graduate School ofInternational Cultural Studies, Aichi Prefectural University], 14,
25–44. http://doi.org/10.15088/00001583
Waring, H. Z., & Creider, S. C. (2021). Micro-reflection onclassroom communication: A FAB framework. Equinox.

Acknowledgements
This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number
18K00791. I am deeply grateful to two anonymous reviewers fortheir valuable suggestions and comments on an earlier version of thispaper.
References
Adams, R., & Oliver, R. (2019). Teaching through peer interaction.
Routledge.
Antaki, C. (2011). Six kinds of applied conversation analysis. In C.
Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Intervention andchange in institutional talk (pp.1–14). Palgrave Macmillan.
Barkley, E.F., Major, C. H., & Cross, K. P. (2014). Collaborative
learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty (2nd ed.).
Jossey–Bass.
Carroll, D. (2005). Vowel-marking as an interactional resource inJapanese novice ESL conversation. In K. Richards & P.
Seedhouse (Eds.), Applying conversation analysis (pp.214–234).
Palgrave Macmillan.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in
institutional settings. Cambridge University Press.
Erikawa, H. (Ed.). (2012). Kyodo gakushu wo toriireta eigo jugyo nosusume [Encouragement of English language class to introduce
collaborative/cooperative learning]. Taishukan Shoten.
Fushino, K. (2019). Eigo kyoiku to kyodo gakushu [English
padagogy and cooperative learning]. In Nihon kyodo kyoiku
gakkai [Japan Association for the study of cooperation in
education] (Ed.), Nihon no kyodo gakushu [The study ofcooperation in education in Japan] (pp.243–265). Nakanishiya
Shuppan.
Ghaith, G. (2003). Effects of the learning together model ofcooperative learning on English as a foreign language reading
achievement, academic self-esteem, and feelings of school
alienation. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3), 451–474.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2003.10162603
Hisatsugi, Y. (2018). Pia ridingu ni okeru chishiki no sogo koi tekitassei: Kuritikaru ridingu ryoku ikusei wo mezashita katsudo no
kaiwa bunseki [Interactional achievement of knowledge in peerreading: Conversation analysis of activities intended to nurture
critical reading skills]. Gengo bunka kyoiku kenkyu [Studies ofLanguage and Cultural Education], 16, 177–198.
https://doi.org/10.14960/gbkkg.16.177
Jakonen, T., & Morton, T. (2015). Epistemic search sequences inpeer interaction in a content-based language classroom. Applied
Linguistics, 36(1), 73–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt031
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an
introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis:
Studies from the first generation (pp.13–31). John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (2002). Circles oflearning: Cooperation in the classroom (5th ed.). Interaction
Book Company.
Kagan, S. A. (2003). A brief history of Kagan structures. Retrieved
fromhttps://www.kaganonline.com/free_articles/dr_spencer_kagan/2
56/A-Brief-History-of-Kagan-Structures
Kamekura, M. (2016). Shippai jirei kara manabu daigaku deno

Appendix A: Transcript symbols (based on Jefferson, 2004 andSchegloff, 2007)=
Turn transition with no break between themor continuous utterance by the same speaker[
Overlap onset
]
:
wor-

End of overlap
Prolongation of the immediately prior sound(the more colons, the longer the prolongation)
Cut-off(number)

Silence (represented in tenth of a second)(.)
hBrief silence (less than 0.2 second)
Outbreath or laughter(the more h’s, the longer the duration)
Inbreath (the more h’s, the longer the duration)

.h

70

(h)

Plosiveness or laughter within word

¥word¥

Smiley voice

↑word
↓word
?

High pitch
Low pitch
Rising intonation (not necessarily questioning)¿

Rising intonation (rise weaker than '?').

Falling intonation,

Continuing intonation_

Flat intonation>word<<word>

Rushed speech
Slowed speech

word

Stressed syllable°word°( )(word)

Softer soundinaudible speech (the longer the parenthesis is, thelonger the duration)
Uncertain hearing(A/B)

Uncertain candidate hearings((word))Transcriber's description→ or ⇒

Target line of analysis

Appendix C: Question items discussed in the excerpts
Excerpt 1(from Nishitani, A. & Wong, J. G. (2018). Effective approaches togrammar and reading on the TOEIC® test (new ed.). Asahi
Shuppansha.)
Questions 12-15 refer to the following e-mail.

000---,,,,To:

Ms. Evel n Won , Reclson Realtors <ewon @redson.co'.m
0 =>========;Frum:[ Michelle Kim <mkim@events.parkhill.com> ===-=========;[ November 1

Date:

Subject: I URGENT:Your Event Reservation

Dear Ms. Wong:
I am writing to you regarding your reservation for the Gramercy Ball Room and four
associated conference rooms. As per our telephone discussion on October 10th, I sent you
copies of your event plan with a request for appro\·a\ and signature by October 28th. - [lJ [n order to hold your room reservations we require you to sign and return copies of therental contract to us together with a 40% deposit of the total estimated cost of the event. To
date, we have not received copies of your signed ennt contract and deposit and regretfully
have had to temporarily suspend your reservation. - [2] -(The following three paragraphs are omitted.)
12. What does the e-mail suggest about Ms. Wong?
(A) She is currently out of town.
(B) She has consulted with Ms. Kim before.
(C) Her job is buying and selling houses.
(D) She has suspended her reservation.

Appendix B: Multimodal transcript symbols (based on
Mondada, 2019)**
Embodied actions delimited between two identicalor % %
symbols....
Action’s preparation...>n*E-mail*~

Action’s preparation continued until the line numbernAction’s apex reached and maintained
Action’s retraction

Excerpt 2(from Minehane, G. (2009). Door to Door. Perceptia Press.)(Interest
The United Kingdom is made up of England, Scotland, Wales,and Northern Ireland.The population
today is about 60 million.The U.K.is a great place to visit, and you will no doubt wish you had more time
to explore. Geographically speaking, the U.K.is not large, but cosmopolitan cities with their modern
attractions compete with world renowned historical sites for your attention.

(The following three paragraphs are omitted.)
Exercise 1: Are the following statements True (T) or False (F)?
1.The population of Northern Ireland is 60 million.

71日本の大学における EAP 教員を対象とした自己評価ツールの開発
マスワナ紗矢子*・渡寛法**・山田浩***・飯島優雅****・高橋幸*****・
金丸敏幸******・寺内一*******・田地野彰*********東京理科大学
maswana@rs.tus.ac.jp**日本大学
watari.hironori@nihon-u.ac.jp***高千穂大学
h.yamada@takachiho.ac.jp****獨協大学
yiijima@dokkyo.ac.jp*****科学技術振興機構
sachi.takahashi@jst.go.jp******京都大学
kanamaru@hi.h.kyoto-u.ac.jp*******高千穂大学
hajime@takachiho.ac.jp********名古屋外国語大学
tajino@nufs.ac.jp
要旨
本研究では、日本の EAP 教員を対象としたコンピテンシー自己評価ツールのプロトタイプを作成し、EAP 教員に使用してもらうことでその有効性を検証することを目的とした。まず、英国で広く用いられている TEAP コンピテンシー枠組み（BALEAP, 2008）に挙げられている EAP
教員の資質・技能・知識の項目について、それらが日本の高等教育においても適切であるかを
3 名の EAP 教員に聞き取り調査を行った。調査結果に基づきコンピテンシー項目を修正し、自己評価ツールのプロトタイプを作成した。10 名の国内大学の EAP 教員に自己評価ツールを使用してもらい、10 段階のリッカート尺度で、知識・理解が「全くない」から「十分にある」、
技能が「全くできない」から「十分にできる」での評価および具体的な実践についての回答を得た。今後はより多くの EAP 教員からデータを収集し、項目の適正化を図る必要があるものの、EAP 教員の職能開発のための支援リソースとしての可能性が示された。
キーワード：EAP、TEAP、BALEAP、教員養成、自己評価ツール
1.

はじめに
EAP 教育の国際的な需要の高まりを受け、様々な
EAP 研究が国外だけでなく日本国内でも行われ始めている。日本の学士課程の EAP 教育においては、英語教
育と専門教育の連携や、日本人学生に適した EAP 教材
を含むカリキュラム設計・運営の指針となる質保証指標、および体系的な EAP 教員養成などに係る課題が指摘されている（飯島他, 2016；一般社団法人大学英語教
育学会 EAP 調査研究特別委員会, 2018）。そのため、Iijima, et al.（2021）は、日本の EAP 教育に適した汎用的な質保証モデルと EAP 教員コア・コンピテンシーの枠組みの開発を目的とした研究を進めている。現在、日本には EAP プログラムを対象とした質保証の枠組みが存在しないため、海外の認証評価基準や枠組みの内容を検討し、それらの運用実態についての調査を行い、日本の高等教育の文脈で活用できる枠組みプロトタイプの開発、そして有用性の検証が求められている。現在広い範囲で使用されている EAP プログラムの認証システ
ムの一つに、英国の EAP 教員学会 BALEAP（British
Association of Lecturers in English for Academic Purposes）
による認証評価システムがある。BALEAP の認証評価システムには、2 種類あり、EAP プログラム全体を対象とする Accreditation Scheme（2016, 2018）と、現役 EAP
教 員 個 人 を 対 象 と す る 職 能 開 発 の た め の Teaching
English for Academic Purposes（TEAP）Scheme（2008, 2014）がある。後者は「BALEAP TEAP コンピテンシー枠組み」と も 呼 ば れ 、 ポ ー ト フ ォ リ オ 形 式 で Associate
Fellow/Fellow/ Senior Fellow と 3 つの段階があり、それ

72

ぞれの段階で認証を受ける。
「BALEAP TEAP コンピテ
ンシー枠組み」（2008）では、TEAP コンピテンシーは“the technical skills and professional capabilities that ateacher needs to bring to a position in order to fulfill its
functions completely.”（p. 2）と定義されている。TEAP コ
ンピテンシー枠組みは、表 1 の 4 カテゴリー11 項目で構成され、各項目について教員が有すべき知識と能力、それらを示すエビデンスとなりうるものが記載されている。これらのコンピテンシー項目に沿ったエビデン
スを積み重ねていくことで、EAP 教員としての職能開発を行うことを目的としている。
表1
BALEAP TEAP コンピテンシーの主項目
学術的実践

カリキュラム開発

1. 学術的文脈
2. 専門分野による違い
3. アカデミックディスコース
4. 個人による学び、発展、自律性

8. シラバスとプログラム開発
9. テクストの処理とテク
スト産出

EAP 学生プログラム実施

5. 学生ニーズ
6. 学生の批判的思考
7. 学生の自律

10. 教育の実践
11. 評価の実践

日本においても、EAP 教員の育成・研修は重要であり、
表 1 のような運用実績のあるコンピテンシー項目を参考にしつつ、日本の文脈に適した枠組みの開発が求められている。

ンシー枠組みに基づいた科目構成をしていること、そして授業のリフレクションライティングが TEAP 認証に必要なポートフォリオとして使用できるよう配慮されていることが分かった。また、英国では EAP 教員養成が BALEAP TEAP コンピテンシーに依拠した形で行われていることから、日本においても EAP 教員を養成する際に、コンピテンシーの枠組みを支援リソースとして活用できる可能性が示された。
一方で、英語科目が学士課程の卒業要件に含まれることが多い日本と、EAP 科目が大学の授業開始前の準備コースで扱われる英国とでは EAP 教育の位置づけが異なっている。また、日本の大学では EAP 教員が研究者であり、専門分野は英語教育関連分野とは限らない
場合が多いことにも注意が必要である。他にも TESOLなどの一般英語教育の知識や能力をすでに持つ人を対象とする英国の枠組みとは異なり、日本の枠組みでは英語教育の基礎的な項目を含まなくてはならないこと
や、EAP 教育では一般的な用語も日本語では馴染みがない可能性があることも考慮する必要がある。さらに、
日本では、BALEAP Scheme のように EAP 教員が知識や指導技能の証拠となる実践のエビデンスを積み重ねて能力を高め、EAP プログラムの質保証を行うことの必要性が認識されているとは言い難い状況である。よって、EAP 教員のコンピテンシー枠組みが、J-POSTL のように自己評価ツールの形で提供され、各教員もしくは各プログラムの改善活動で利用されるようになれば、教育の質向上に寄与することが期待できる。
3. 研究
3.1 目的
本研究の目的は、日本の EAP 教員を対象としたコン
ピテンシー自己評価ツールのプロトタイプを作成し、EAP 教員に利用してもらうことで、その有効性を検証することである。

2.

先行研究
日本の文脈に即した英語教員の職能開発に参考になるものの代表としては、JACET 教育問題研究会（2014）
による『言語教師のポートフォリオ』（Japanese Portfolio
for Student Teachers of Languages; J-POSTL）がある。JPOSTL は英語教師の成長のための省察ツールとして提供されており、教職課程の学生から現職の教員まで幅広く活用できる。一方で EAP 指導に特化した側面には対応していない。
EAP 教員コア・コンピテンシー枠組み開発に関する研究では、マスワナ他（2019）が BALEAP TEAP コンピ
テンシー枠組み（2008）の日本語翻訳作業を通した項目精査を行った。また、マスワナ他（2021）は、英国で提供されている EAP 教員養成コースの現状把握を目的として、質問紙調査および聞き取り調査をコース運営者
に対して行った。EAP 教育の目的や質保証の方法に加え、EAP 教員が備えるべき知識、スキル、経験、そして
BALEAP が開発した枠組みの使用方法などについて質問した。調査対象となった英国の EAP 教員養成コース
では、BALEAP TEAP コンピテンシーがシラバスと教材の基盤となっていること、教員養成コースがコンピテ

3.2 方法マスワナ他（2019）に基づき開発した、日本の大学における EAP 教員を対象とした自己評価ツールの修正を目的として、日本の大学で教える EAP 教員（3 名、日本人）にツールを使用してもらい、項目や文言を検討した。オンライン・グループインタビュー形式で 2021 年
6 月に行った。教員 3 名の内訳は EAP 指導年数が 1～4
年が 1 名、15～19 年が 1 名（学生として EAP 教育を受けた経験あり）、20 年以上が 1 名（教員として EAP 教
育の指導研修を受けた経験あり）だった。
次に、修正した自己評価ツールに関して、EAP プロ
グラムもしくは EAP 科目を提供する日本の大学で教える EAP 教員（10 名、日本人）に使用協力を依頼した。
表 2 は、本調査に回答した 10 名の EAP 教員のプロフィールである。その内訳は、EAP 指導年数が 1～4 年が2 名、5～9 年が 2 名、10～14 年が 3 名、15～19 年が 1
名、20 年以上が 2 名であった。この中で、学生として73

EAP 教育を受けたことがある者は 9 名だったが、教員として EAP 教育の指導研修を受けた経験がある者は 1
名だった。

4. 結果
4.1 評価ツールについての聞き取り結果
マスワナ他（2019）に基づき開発した自己評価ツール
が日本に適用可能かについて、EAP 教員 3 名への聞き取り調査で検証した。主な問題点として調査協力者から挙げられたのは、以下のとおりであった。
(1) EAP 教員の教育歴や指導歴に関する項目がない。
(2) 知識と能力の項目の関連性が不明瞭である。
(3) 能力を示す具体的な指標が分からない。
(4) 具体的にどのような資格が日本で求められているか分からない。
(5) 意味が理解しにくい項目がある。

表2

調査協力者のプロフィール
EAP 指導年数

EAP 教育を受けた経験

EAP 指導の研修を
受けた経験

A

1-4 年

あり

なし

B

1-4 年

あり

なし

C

5-9 年

あり

なし

D

5-9 年

なし

なし

E

10-14 年ありなし

F

10-14 年ありなし

G10-14 年ありあり

H

15-19 年ありなし

I

20 年以上ありなし

J

20 年以上ありなし

以上の結果を受けて自己評価ツールに変更を加えた。
(1) 属性項目の追加（EAP 教育、EAP 指導研修を受けた経験、EAP プログラム運営の経験）(2) 知識と能力を明示的に関連付けた配置(3) 各項目について具体的に工夫していることを問う
項目の追加(4) 日本の大学で EAP 教員に求められる資格や経験を問うセクションの追加(5) 元の文言に説明追加、文言の言い換え 1

自己評価ツールの回答項目の概要は表 3 のとおりである。項目数は全部で 165 あり、大きく 5 つに分類される。表 1 にある「BALEAP TEAP コンピテンシー枠組
み」（2008）を参考にして、日本の文脈に合わせて作成した EAP 教員としての資質・能力に関わるセクションは 4 つある。その 4 つのセクションはさらに 2 から 4
つの小さな項目から構成されており、全部で 11 の小項目が含まれている。この 11 の小項目には、EAP 教員としての知識・理解・技能を自分自身がどの程度身につけていると思うかを 10 件法で尋ねる質問が 77 問、各項目に関わる授業中の具体的な指導法について、実践しているものを選択式で尋ねる質問が 41 問、これと同じ内容を記述式で尋ねる質問が 1 問、合計で 119 問の質問が含まれている。残りの 46 問は回答者のプロフィー
ルや、本自己評価ツールへの感想を選択式および記述
式で尋ねるものである。
本調査は 2021 年 9 月から 11 月にかけて Google Forms を使用して実施した。

4.2 評価ツールによる自己評価結果
今回の調査では、10 名の EAP 教員に自己評価ツールの質問に回答してもらい実際に自己評価を行ってもらった。経験年数による違いを明確にするために、調査協力者を新人（1～4 年、2 名）、中堅（5～19 年、6 名）、
ベテラン（20 年以上、2 名）の 3 つのグループに分類
し、評価結果をまとめたものが表 4 である。項目によって下位項目の数が異なるため、合計点ではなく平均点（10 満点）を記載する。
表4

各項目の自己評価平均

表3

自己評価ツールの概要
大分類
学術的実践
に関する能力EAP 学生に関する能力カリキュラム開発
に関する能力プログラム実施に関する能力プロフィール、
感想

小分類
項目
1-4
項目
5-7
項目
8-9
項目
10-11
―

10 件法

選択式

記述式

32 問

20 問

1問

15 問

9問

0問

14 問

4問

0問

16 問

8問

0問

0問

37 問

9問

74

1-4
年

5-19
年

20 年
以上

1. 学術的文脈

7.3

7.7

8.4

2. 専門分野による違い

4.7

7.1

8.1

3. アカデミックディスコース

6.2

7.9

9.0

4. 個人による学び、発展、自律性

6.4

8.0

9.1

5. 学生ニーズ

5.0

7.0

7.1

6. 学生の批判的思考

7.0

7.3

9.0

7. 学生の自律

5.8

6.9

8.8

8. シラバスとプログラム開発

4.5

6.4

8.5

9. テクストの処理とテクスト産出

6.3

7.7

8.9

10. 教育の実践

5.5

7.6

8.8

11. 評価の実践

4.5

6.7

1.9 「学生支援」に関する大学の方針についての知
識・理解

7.9

図1

2.2 ディスコース・コミュニティ内の聴衆についての知識・理解

自己評価平均のレーダーチャート

8.1 さまざまな EAP シラバスの種類についての知
識・理解10.1-2A4 学習スキルを授業で指導している他の（言語）スキルに結び付けることができる。
11.1 EAP 評価のさまざまな形態についての知識・理解

図 1 は結果を見やすく可視化したものである。結果から、経験年数と平均値が比例する傾向が見られた。全体
的に点数が高かったものは「1.学術的文脈」と「6.学生の批判的思考」で、全グループが平均点 7 以上であり、特に「1.学術的文脈」は新人とベテランの点差が少なかった。 一方で、全体で平均点の低かった項目は「5.学生ニーズ」と「11.評価の実践」で、「8. シラバスとプログラム開発」と「2. 専門分野による違い」は新人とベテランとの点差が大きかった。
4.3 自己評価ツールに対するコメント
自己評価ツールのコンピテンシー項目に関する調査
協力者の記述コメントには以下のようなものがあった。
EAP 教員に必要とされる資質や要素を大変詳しく記述し、網羅している。
自己評価ツールを使った感想については以下のものがあった。

自分の知識や経験の足りないところを確認することができました。
EAP 教員に必要な資質や行うべきことについて、知りたいという動機づけにもなる。
一方で、「EAP 教員」および 「EAP カリキュラム」「EAP
科目」について EAP が何を意味するのか曖昧である、全体の項目数が多いといった指摘があった。
さらに、各セクション末尾にある「質問の理解が難しいと感じた項目」についての回答から、項目の表現や項目自体を再検討する必要が示された。3 名以上が分かりにくいと回答した項目は以下の通りである。

75

5. 考察
5.1 EAP 教員コンピテンシーに対する自己評価
今回の調査では 10 名が行った自己評価を、新人・中堅・ベテランの 3 グループに分けて分析した。その結果、経験を重ねると自己評価が高まる傾向が見られた。
平均して自己評価の高かった「1. 学術的文脈」と「6. 学生の批判的思考」については、今回協力を依頼した EAP
教員が研究者でもあり、学術的な背景をすでに有していることが理由と推測できる。
EAP プログラムの質保証のためには、新人の自己評
価が低い項目に焦点をあてた職能開発を考える必要がある。本調査での新人 2 名ともに 10 点中平均が 4 点台であった項目は「2. 専門分野による違い」「8. シラバスとプログラム開発」「11. 評価の実践」の 3 項目であった。
「2. 専門分野による違い」と「8. シラバスとプログ
ラム開発」については、EAP 教員は指導の経験を積む
過程で、シラバスやプログラム開発を担当することになり、専門教員とのコミュニケーションを通して専門分野による違いも学ぶことが多い。EAP 教員自身の専
門分野は熟知しているが、他の分野については知らな
い教員は、異なる学部の学生を担当して学生の専門に適した EAP 教科書・教材を使用することにより、専門分野による違いを認識することもある。一方で、日本の大学では EAP カリキュラム開発・運営や専門教員とのコミュニケーションを担う EAP 教員は非常に限られている現実もある（飯島他, 2016）。この状況においては、専門分野による違いを説明する EAP 教員支援のための資料を準備したり、専門教員に各自のディスコース・コ
ミュニティの特徴を説明してもらう機会を設けたりすることも有効であろう。
「11. 評価の実践」については、ベテランを含め 10 名の平均点が最も低い項目の 1 つであった。本調査の「11.
評価の実践」は、EAP 教育における評価の概念についての知識・理解から、評価ツールの設計、一貫した評価の実施、そして適切なフィードバックまでを含んでおり、採点のみを指すものではない点も自己評価が低かった理由の一つと考えられる。自己評価ツールにおいて、「評価の実践」にどのようなコンピテンシーが含まれるか、その実施のエビデンスはどのようなものかについて具体的な説明を当該項目内に含める必要があるだろう。

に把握することも可能になる。
また、この自己評価ツールを使うことで、授業中にどのような指導をすれば EAP 教育を実践している証拠となりうるのかを把握することもできる。そして、教員経験年数ごとに分類して結果を表示することによって、他者の結果と自分の結果を比較することが可能になり、自分自身に不足している知識やスキルを理解し、短期的および長期的な視点から自己の職能開発の計画を立てることができるようになる。
最後に、自己評価結果は EAP プログラムを運営する際の参考資料になり得ると考えられる。日本の大学英語教育プログラムは、少数の専任教員と多数の非常勤教員で構成されていることが多く、非常勤教員の資質・能力を適切に把握して適切な担当科目を決定することは容易ではない。そこで自己評価ツールを利用してもらうことで、各教員の資質・能力を具体的に把握することが可能になる。非常勤教員にとっては、履歴書や業績などだけでは示すことができない EAP 指導力を、勤務先に伝えることにつながる。また、EAP プログラム改
善のために、自分が所属している大学の EAP 教員グループの経験年数などに基づいて教員研修で扱うべきテーマを決定する際にも役立つと考えられる。このように、本研究で紹介した自己評価ツールは、EAP 教員としての資質・能力の向上のみならず、EAP プログラム
運営・改善にも貢献することが期待される。

5.2 今後の自己評価ツール開発
調査協力者の記述コメントから今後の自己評価ツー
ル開発の課題が明らかになった。まず、「EAP カリキュ
ラム」「EAP 科目」「EAP 教員」といった自己評価ツー
ルで使用する EAP 教育に関連する語の定義づけの検討が必要である。日本においては EAP が意味するところは幅広く、大学ごとに異なるのみならず教員間でも解釈が違う場合も多い。EAP の定義だけでなく、他にも4.3 で示したように「学生支援」や「ディスコース・コ
ミュニティ」など、対象の範囲が分かりにくい項目が存在する。その要因の一つとして、日本の EAP 教員は授
業外の大学の支援活動や自分の専門分野以外の学術コ
ミュニティを十分に把握することが難しい状況が考えられる。日本で広く利用できる自己評価ツールを作成するためには、何を想定した質問なのか共通理解が成り立ちにくい日本の文脈を考慮する必要がある。日本
での使用を目的として日本語の自己評価ツールを開発したが、以上のことを踏まえると、項目の数を含め、より分かりやすいコンピテンシー項目になるよう自己評
価ツールをさらに改善する必要がある。また、現在のツールではエビデンスが大まかな基準程度にとどまっているため、客観的な指標として運用するためにはエビデンスの具体化が必要である。
しかし本研究で重要なのは、日本の EAP 教員の職能開発に向けて開発した本プロトタイプが 5.1 に記述のとおり、自己評価ツールとして機能したことである。調査協力者のコメントから、コンピテンシー枠組みを自己評価ツールとして使用することで、EAP 教員に必要な知識と技能を把握することができたことがうかがえた。また、EAP 教員としての資質・能力を具体的に理解し、EAP 教員の資質向上への動機づけのツールともなる可能性も示された。BALEAP によって開発されたコ
ンピテンシー項目が、修正を経て、日本でも自己評価ツールとして適用できることが示されたと言える。日本
語で開発されたことにより、EAP 教員間のみならず大学の他の教員や部署との共通理解を促すツールともな
りうる。
今後は自己評価結果をレーダーチャートで可視化することにより、EAP 教員としての知識、理解、技能について、自分と他の EAP 教員との差を一目で把握することができるようになることを目指している。今回の調査では 10 名の EAP 教員は 1 度だけしかアンケートに回答していないため、横断的な結果しか得られていな
い。今後、本論文で示したようなレーダーチャートを保管しておき、1 名の教員が期間を空けて複数回アンケー
トに答えることができれば、自分自身の成長を縦断的6.

まとめ
本研究では、日本の EAP 教員を対象としたコンピテ
ンシー自己評価ツールのプロトタイプを作成し、EAP教員に使用してもらうことでその有効性を検証した。
調査から、コンピテンシーが備わっている項目とそうでない項目を明らかにすることができ、また、経験年数によって異なる傾向があることも分かった。自己評価
ツールとしての有用性が示され、「BALEAP TEAP コン
ピテンシー枠組み」は、適切な修正を加えれば日本でも有効であることが示唆された。
今回の調査結果から新人の平均点の低かったコンピ
テンシー項目（「「2.専門分野による違い」と「8.シラバ
スとプログラム開発」）およびすべての教員に共通して課題となっている項目（「11.評価の実践」）については、
今後支援リソースを重点的に準備することを検討する必要がある。新人が低評価をつけた項目については、中堅・ベテランが自己評価ツールで示した指導実践例を参考にしてもらうことも可能である。今後より多くのEAP 教員からデータを収集し、コンピテンシー項目の適正化およびツールの使いやすさの改善を図ることで、日本の文脈で広く使うことのできる EAP 教員支援ツー
ルが実現するであろう。
注
1
説明追加および言い換えの例は以下のとおり。
1.5：「印刷物・電子メディア・口頭のジャンル（講義、セミナ

76

ー、学会発表など）」といった、大学でよく使われている知識の伝達と出版形態についての知識・理解」（下線部追加）3.4：「意味論と語用論」→「語の意味と使用」
10.1-2A5：「学生の IT スキルを向上させるために、学術的な活動で IT がどう使われているかの慣習を反映させた形で、IT を授業で導入することができる。
」元の文は「IT を授業に結び付
けて、IT スキルを向上させ、学術的慣習を反映できる。
（ integrate IT into delivery, to enhance IT skills and reflect
academic practices）」
謝辞
貴重なコメントをくださった査読者の方々に感謝申し上げます。本研究は JSPS 科研費 JP19H01286 の助成を受けたものです。
参考文献
BALEAP. (2008). Competency framework for teachers of English
for Academic Purposes. https://www.baleap.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/04/teap-competency-framework.pdf
BALEAP. (2014). TEAP accreditation scheme handbook.
https://www.baleap.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/TEAPScheme-Handbook-2014.pdf
BALEAP. (2016). Accreditation scheme (BAS) handbook. 2016
Edition.
https://www.baleap.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/BAS-Handbook-25-04-2016.pdf
BALEAP. (2018). Accreditation scheme (BAS) handbook.
https://www.baleap.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/BALEAPBAS-Handbook-January-2018-v-2.pdf
飯島優雅・渡辺敦子・マスワナ紗矢子・渡寛法・堀晋也・高橋幸・金丸敏幸・田地野彰・寺内一. (2016).「日本の大学における学術英語カリキュラムの現状と課題―実態調査結果を踏まえて―」『京都大学高等教育研究』22, 95–98.
Iijima, Y., Maswana, S., Watari, H., Yamada, H., Takahashi, S., &Kanamaru, T. (2021). Developing quality assurance benchmarks
and professional development schemes for EAP education in
Japan [Manuscript submitted for publication].
一般社団法人大学英語教育学会 EAP 調査研究特別委員会.
(2018)．
「大学英語教育の質保証に向けた EAP カリキュラ
ム実態把握調査」研究成果最終報告書（2014 年度～2017年度）．
https://www.eiken.or.jp/center_for_research/pdf/bulletin/vol99/
vol_99_17.pdf
JACET 教育問題研究会. (2014). 「言語教師のポートフォリオ」
http://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jacetenedu/JPOSTL.htm
マスワナ紗矢子・渡寛法・飯島優雅・渡辺敦子・高橋幸・金丸敏幸・田地野彰・寺内一. (2019).「日本における EAP 教員
コンピテンシー枠組み構築の試み―BALEAP 学会による枠 組 み の 日 本 語 試 訳 を 通 じ て ― 」 JAAL in JACET
Proceedings, 1, 46–51.
マスワナ紗矢子・渡寛法・飯島優雅・渡辺敦子・高橋幸・金丸敏幸・田地野彰・寺内一. (2021).「EAP 教員コンピテンシ
ー枠組みと教員養成コース―英国の取り組み―」JAAL in
JACET Proceedings, 3, 71–77.

77

高大連携英語ライティング指導―PBL とプロセス・ライティングを通じた教師と生徒の学び 1―
山下美朋*・藤岡真由美**・山中司****立命館大学
mihoron@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp**大阪府立大学
mfujioka@las.osakafu-u.ac.jp***立命館大学
yaman@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp
要旨
高等学校では、大学で重視されるパラグラフ・ライティングなどのライティング技能に特化した指導が必ずしも行われているわけではないと報告されている（Yasuda, Oi & Itatsu, 2014）。そこで本稿では、高校と大学の教員が協働で授業案を考え、高校現場で実践した高大連携指導の一つを報告する。具体的には、生徒は SDGs（持続可能な開発目標）に関連したテーマを選び、問題点と解決法の複数パラグラフを、アウトラインから初稿、改訂稿に至るプロセスで書いた。
そこに大学教員が各生徒にフィードバックを与え、言語的側面と論理構成面の両方の向上を促した。この活動において、高校で一つの課題にじっくりと考えて取り組む指導や、プロセス・
ライティングを行う必要性が伺えた。本稿では、授業の詳細と、生徒及び高大の教員にとってどのような学びがあったかについても報告する。本研究から得られた知見は、今後の高大連携
英語ライティング指導について多くの示唆を与えるものになった。
キーワード：アカデミック・ライティング、高大連携、授業実践、フィードバック
1. はじめに高校現場では、来年度から新学習指導要領（2019）が全面的に施行され、発信力を高めるライティング授業
や、論理的思考力を養成するための新課目「論理・表現」
が導入される。しかし、4 技能の中でもアカデミック・
ライティングの指導は十分ではないと報告されており（山岡, 2019）、その理由として Hirose & Harwood（2020）
は、1）国立大学の二次試験を除いて大学入試にライテ
ィングがないこと、2）学習指導要領は指導すべき内容
のみで、指導方法について詳しい説明がないこと、3）
高校現場が抱える様々な問題（フィードバックを行うにはひとクラスの生徒数が多いこと、時間がないこと、
ライティングに適した教材が少ないことなど）を挙げている。しかし、大学入学後の学生の英語で書く力、特に「論理的に書く力」の欠如が指摘されている（Yasuda,2006 他）ため、高校から大学につながるライティング
指導は必須である。そこで本稿の筆者らは、英語ライテ
ィング指導を高大の教員がともに考え実践する授業研
究を始めた。2 特に、高校の教員はアカデミック・ライ
ティングの指導を行う教育を受けた経験が少ない（Hirose & Harwood, 2020)ことも指摘されており、ライティング指導を行ったことのある大学教員が高校教員
とともに指導案や教材を作成し、高校の現場で実践することは意義あること思われた。特に、筆者らの研究で78は、同学習指導要領に記載のある「叙述文」「説明文」
「描写文」
「意見文」
「論証文」を、まず１パラグラフから徐々に複数パラグラフで構成されたエッセイにしていく段階的な指導を提案しており、実践に基づいた効果や課題を探る。そして、最終的には、蓄積した教材リ
ソースを改善してまとめ公開し、研修を通して教員の指導力向上に資する予定である。本実践は、当初から大学教員が一方的に指導の伝達をするのではなく、大学教員も実践を通して高校の教員に学び、大学の教育に活かす目的もあった。高大連携の指導は、両者の良好な関係なくして効果は得られない（堀・坂尻, 2021）。
本稿では、2021 年度に行った実践のひとつを報告する。この授業では、高校現場ではまだ定着していないとされるプロセス・ライティング、とりわけフィードバッ
クから書き直しをさせる過程に力を入れた。実践研究を通して、見えてきた課題、更には生徒、高校教員、そして大学教員にもたらされた様々な学びや気づきについて詳述する。これらは今後行っていくべき高大連携
ライティング指導について示唆の富むものであった。
2. 先行研究と本研究の進捗状況
これまでにも大学教員が中学生・高校生を対象として英語ライティングの指導効果を見る研究は行われている（田畑・大井, 2012 他）。しかし、高大の教員が協働して授業案を考え、その指導がもたらした効果や意義を考察した実践研究は少ない。日本語のアカデミッ
ク・ライティング教育においては、大阪大学の堀他（2020）が、京都鳥羽高校の教員と協働で行った事例がある。本事例では、生徒は、探究授業の過程で、大学教員からパラグラフ・ライティングの指導を受けたことで、研究課題を深めることができ、更には研究に対する意欲や自己肯定感を高めることができた。また、指導側の高校教員は、大学教員とともに課題研究の様々な様
式や教材を開発し、指導力が高まったと報告されている。本プログラムの堀・坂尻（2021）は、アカデミック・
ライティング教育において、大学教員が高校教員向けの FD 活動に携わったり、高校の教員とともに不足している高校生向けの教材開発に積極的に関わったりして、高校と大学が良好な関係を構築する必要があると述べている。
本研究を進めるにあたり、実践授業の根拠としたのは、2022 年度から全面的に実施される高等学校新学習指導要領の内容である。この度の改訂では、「コミュニ
ケーションを志向した資質・能力を醸成することを目指」し、身近な生活や社会的な話題について、１パラグ
ラフから複数のパラグラフの論理的な文章を書くことを目指している。しかも、「発想から推敲まで段階的な手順を踏みながら」（第 2 章 外国語科の各科目 第 5
節「論理・表現Ⅰ」書くこと, p. 100）と記載され、書く内容のブレインストーミング、アウトライン化、モデル文を利用した理由や根拠の示し方や表現を学ぶこと、書いた後の修正や訂正をすること、などが提案されている。これはプロセス・ライティング（Flower & Hayes,
1981 他）の手順であり、書いたものを良いものにしていく過程として大学のアカデミック・ライティングの授業などでは広く行われている。また、指導要領の同箇
所には、「意欲の向上につながる適切で効果的なフィードバックをすることが大切であり、文法だけでなく内容面についても読み手に伝わる書き方の観点からフィードバックするなど、生徒が更に書きたいと思えるよ
うな指導の工夫が重要である（筆者による要約）」とも書かれている。しかしながら、筆者らが本研究に先立って 50 名の高校英語教員にアンケートを行った結果では、多くの教員が、書く前の準備に時間を取らず、書きっぱ
なしで訂正はしない、またフィードバックをしてもほ
とんどの場合、語彙や文法の間違いを指摘して返却するだけであることが明らかであった（山下・長倉, 2021）。
ライティングにおけるフィードバックは、“the messages
students take from feedback become an important aspect oflearning.”（Hyland, 2013, as cited in Hyland, 2019, p. 6）とされ第二言語習得を促し、また独力で達成困難な課題を学習者が達成できるように教師が手助けする
scaffolding（Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976）と見なされて重要視されている。また、書き直しにつなげるためには、個々人の習熟度に応じたフィードバックが必要で、間79違いを指摘するだけでなく提案もセットにする、そして情意面、特に「褒める」「励ます」などの肯定的なア
ドバイスが効果的である（Hyland, 2019）。これらはまさに指導要領が求める「意欲の向上につながるフィード
バック」であると言える。
2020 年度に始まった本実践研究は、感染症による休校や授業の遅れから計画変更を余儀なくされたが、2021 年度は複数の高校で実践を行うことができた。本稿で報告するのは、そのうちの一つ「SDGs をトピックとした問題解決型の意見文」の実践である。この授業では、生徒に問題点と解決法の複数パラグラフを、アウトラインから初稿、改訂稿に至るプロセスで書かせた。これは高校教員の希望、また先述のアンケート結果から、プロセス・ライティング、特にフィードバックを得て書き直しをさせる過程を高校現場に導入する意義があるとして取り組んだ。次項からその詳細である。
3. 授業実践
3.1 背景と授業目標
今回の対象校は、兵庫県の公立高校である。公立高校には珍しい単位制であり、生徒は必修単位を除いて自由に科目を選択できるようになっている。対象としたのは、「実践英会話」で 2 年生 3 名、3 年生 8 名の小規
模な混成クラスで、本授業は英検準 2 級以上が対象である。
担当の T 先生は、事前のアンケートで、高校での勤務経験は 10 年以上、ライティング指導は非常に重要だとして、選択授業では積極的に取り入れていると答えていた。T 先生によると、本クラスでは、SNS の是非を問う意見文や、学校行事の案内文など与えたプロンプ
トに沿って 1 パラグラフ程度書かせる指導を行っていた。しかし、アウトラインは作成させず、書いたものに教員がコメントをして修正版を書かせる指導は数回程度であった。必修の英語表現の授業では、ライティングをさせることはあっても、書かせて文法・語彙の間違いを指摘するのみで修正の提出はないとのことであった。
今回の実践では、T 先生が、これまで時間の制約などから行っていなかったフィードバックと書き直しにじっくり取り組ませたいと希望されたため、プロセス・ラ
イティングの流れを踏襲し、筆者ら大学教員 3 名が初稿にフィードバックを与えることにした。トピックは他教科で既に扱ったため馴染みやすいとして SDGs の17 の課題目標からひとつの問題を取り上げ議論させる
問題解決型の意見文とし、以下の目標を設定した。
1）2 パラグラフ 200 ワード程度の problem-solution essay
を書く（その問題を知らない読み手を意識する、
problem-solution の論理性に着目する、論理的なつなぎ言葉を必要に応じて入れる）。
2）SDGs の観点から世界（日本）に起こっている問題を自分事として捉え、実行可能な解決法を考える。
3）自分で書いたものをフィードバックに基づいて修正

図1

できるようになる。

授業スライドの一例

3.2 授業の流れ
授業は 9 月末から 11 月にかけて 5 回（1 回 50 分×2
つまり 5, 6 時間目）に渡って行われた。後に述べるが、当初は 3 回を予定していたが、様々な理由により 2 回延長した。授業内容は本稿の筆者らが T 先生と話し合
いで決め、授業案と教材を作成し、T 先生の意見を取り入れながら修正を繰り返した。コロナ禍の実践であったため、授業案は Google ファイルで作成し、必要に応じて Zoom で確認し合った。T 先生のファイルへの詳細なコメントにより、授業の流れや生徒らの様子が知れたため、授業案の修正がスムースに行われたことは幸いであった。以下は、T 先生が行った授業の流れである。
1 回目：導入 SDGs 関連の問題を喚起させる英文を読み、要約文を書く。
授業では、まず生徒に SDGs に関連した問題に着目させるため、Asahi Weekly に掲載された短いニュース記事を読ませた。そして内容の理解ができたかを確認するために 50 ワード程度の要約文を書かせた。

3）問題点を解決するための具体的な解決法が記述されているか
4）問題点と解決法のつながりはできているか
このアウトラインは一旦回収され、筆者の一人が論理的な流れに対してコメントを赤で記入して返却した。

2 回目：問題解決型エッセイの導入からアウトラインを書く。
導入として、環境問題の一例を示し、原因と結果、そしてどのような解決策が行われているかを生徒から引き出すようにして授業は進められた。具体的には、アマゾンの熱帯雨林が過去十数年で消失している事実を示
す Google Earth Timelapse を見せ、それがなぜ生じているのか（原因：森林伐採）、またそれによる影響（結果：大規模火災や温暖化など）をクラスで話し合わせた。そして解決策として、地元の NGO 団体のホームページを見せ、彼らが行っている植林や啓蒙・募金活動などを紹介した。この導入部分を動画などを見せながら丁寧に行ったのは、生徒たちに SDGs の問題を自分事として捉えてもらいたかったからである。そしてパラグラフがトピックセンテンス（TS）, サポーティングセンテンス（SS）で構成されていることを説明した後に、2 パラグ
ラフから成るモデルエッセイを一文ずつ正しく並べ替えるゲームをしてから、内容理解と、問題解決型意見文の論理構成やつなぎ言葉などについて説明した。
図 1 は、授業で使用したスライドの一部である。
2 回目の授業の後半では、pre-writing 活動を行った。
まず、グループで SDGs で解決すべき問題についてブレーンストーミングさせ、アイデアを出し合い問題点を整理させた上で、各々にエッセイのアウトラインを書かせた。その後、ペアでお互いのアウトラインにコメン
トをし合う活動を入れた。このとき、以下の 4 点を確認させた。
1）パラグラフ構造を意識しているか（TS, SS など）
2）問題点は明確か

80

3 回目：アウトライン修正後、初稿を書く。
2 回目の授業でアウトラインが未完成、もしくは修正を要求された生徒は再度見直してから、初稿に取り掛かった。初稿に対しては、筆者 3 名が上記の 4 点を中心に、論理・内容・言語的側面に関してフィードバックを行った。肯定的なコメントも適宜入れるようにした。
4 回目：修正稿を書く。
各自、初稿に対するフィードバックのコメントを反映するため熟考の後、必要な修正と加筆を行った。また、初稿段階で解決策まで書けていない生徒がいたことから、また生徒の希望があったため、この修正稿に対しても、筆者 3 名がフィードバックを行った。
5 回目：大学教員の全体フィードバックと最終稿提出
実践の最終日は、最終稿を提出してもらい、生徒らに授業へのアンケート調査に協力してもらった。また、筆者の一人が動画で全体フィードバックを行った。動画
は主に、生徒への労いや今後の学習への応援メッセー
ジを伝えるものであった。
3.3 生徒の課題への教員の対応
今回の実践では、当初、初稿のみに大学教員からフィードバックを行う予定であったが、生徒の進捗状況を見て、また彼らからの要望で、アウトライン、初稿、修正稿の 3 回に渡り行った。方法は、生徒の課題に直接書き 込 む か 、 ワ ー ド の 文 書 に し た Written corrective
feedback である。フィードバックは、先述の 4 点を中心に、論理と内容、読み手の理解を妨げる語彙・表現・文法エラーへの指摘を行い、初稿に対しては具体的な解決法の提案を入れる場合もあった。しかし、これらのコメントを直接生徒に返却するか、または種々選択する

かは、高校教員の T 先生の判断に委ねた。現場の状況に即したフィードバックをすることが妥当であると判断したからである。その結果、T 先生は、初稿へのコメ
ントを生徒の習熟度に応じて、以下のように 3 グルー
プに分け対応された。

けで十分に指摘された意味を理解し、書き直しも自力でできると判断された。一例として生徒の初稿と修正稿を見てみる。以下の初稿では、フードロスの問題を取り上げた問題パラグラフに続き、第 2 パラグラフで解決法が書かれているが、TS を含む最初の部分（下線部）
が不明瞭、かつ企業、個人レベルでの解決策といった複数の話題が詰め込まれたパラグラフになっている。

1. フィードバックを紙で渡して「それをもとに修正稿を書きなさい」とのみ指示をしたグループ
2. フィードバックを紙で渡す＋ある程度まとまった量の英語を書いているが、アウトラインにかなりの修正が必要であるため少し時間がたってから（本人に考えさせてから）修正したアウトラインや構想を一人ずつ聞いて少し助言をしたグループ
3. フィードバックを紙で渡す＋アウトラインをまだ完成できていなかったので、授業の最初にアウトライ
ンを T 先生と本人とで話し合って（助言はしたが最終決定は本人。
）そのあと英語を書かせたグループ
また、アウトラインと修正稿段階では、コメントは返却し、あくまで生徒に委ね、生徒から質問があった場合のみ適宜対応はしたが、T 先生からの修正の促しは特になかったということであった。後のインタビューで、この対応に対して T 先生は、
「あくまで生徒の作品なので、内容などの細かいコメントはしない方が良いと思いました。
」と答えている。
4. 実践結果
今回の実践から得られたデータは、生徒の段階毎の課題、生徒の振り返りアンケート、T 先生の授業へのイ
ンタビューでの振り返りであった。本稿では、生徒の課
題に関しては全体的な傾向を説明するにとどめ、生徒の学び、そして高校のライティング指導に対する高校
教員ならびに大学教員の気づきや学びについて詳述し、
プロセスライティングの指導を高校現場に導入すること、そして高大連携指導について考察する。
4.1 生徒の課題の変化と顕著な困難点
生徒のエッセイの変化において顕著であったのは、
総語数の伸びである。初稿から最終稿の語彙数の伸びは平均で 107 ワードであった。初稿では半分の生徒が解決策まで書けていなかったが、フィードバックを得ながら時間をかけることで、全ての生徒が、最終稿では平均 251 ワードの 2 パラグラフが書けていた。また、「論理的な流れ」や「具体的な根拠を示す」ことを目標にして、これらを中心にフィードバックを行ったため、全体的につなぎ言葉の意識的な使用や、根拠データや具体例を入れた説得性のある英文ができていた。これは数回のフィードバックと書き直しの結果と言えよう。
特に、T 先生が生徒の習熟度をしっかり把握していたために、3 グループに異なる初稿のフィードバックを行い、効果が見られた点には着目しておきたい。グループ
1 はフィードバックコメントが書かれた紙を与えるだ

81

For many years, people are wasting a large amount of food.
The world loses 1.3 billion tons of food every year. Developed
countries are losing a lot of food, and poor countries can’t getenough food. Surprisingly, Japan is one of the countries that
disposes huge amount of food. One years’ food loss in Japanis 612 tons…（省略）…What can we do to reduce food loss?
There is two kinds of food loss. That is mainly fromdomestic, the other is from companies. Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries is responsible for solving
waste from companies. They are working on various solutions.
For example, prohibition of overproduction, extension of useby date and selling defective products cheaply. We also have
many solutions to reduce food loss in daily life. For example,
don’t buy too many food, checking the food in the fridge, andusing freezing food. In addition, now there are various uniqueways to reduce food loss. Do you know “food drive” and“doggy bag”?...（省略）…Small efforts at home change life,
society, and the world.（下線は筆者による）これに対して大学教員からは、「第 2 パラグラフの第一文は TS であれば意味がよくわからない。2 種類のfood loss はどうつながるのか？」「解決法では企業レベ
ル、個人レベルでできることを分けよう。
」といったコ
メントを返した。本生徒は T 先生の指示どおり一人で再考し、修正稿では 2 パラグラフ目を以下のように修正してきた。TS に SDGs のゴールを記し、日本における企業の取り組みと個人でできること、そして高校生ができることから自分の問題へと落とし込むことができている（下線部）。生徒はアンケートで「初稿段階での、文構造や TS に関するアドバイスが役立った」と述べている。
SDGs has set the goal of significantly reducing waste bypreventing, reducing, and recycling by 2030. In Japan, theMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries is asking forcompanies to work on this goal. For example, somecompanies prohibit overproduction, extend use-by date andsell ill-shaped food cheaply.
On the other hand, we also have many solutions to reducefood loss in daily life. For example, people don’t buy too
many foods, check the food in the fridge and use frozen food.
In addition, some high school students are working on the
project to reduce food loss. They hold an event to share leftover vegetable in their area. These are small efforts in daily
life but they may be able to change society and the world.（下線は筆者による）

また、グループ 3 の場合は、リサーチに時間が掛かかったうえに、情報を統合して英文にするのに時間を要していた。そのため、以下の生徒は、初稿段階で 39 ワードの問題点しか書けていない。アフガニスタン紛争という大きな問題を取り上げ解決の方向が見えなくなっていたようである。

供たちに）教育を与える」と堂々巡りの議論を提示していたり、「寄付をする」といった経済的な解決策のみ示すなど、フィードバックで指摘されて修正を試みるも、効果的な解決法まで思考が深められない生徒がいた。

There are countries and regions in the world where conflicts
are still unsolved. Children live in such places suffer fromvarious problems. For example, Afghanistan. First problem
with life. 6,500 children were died, 15,000 children were hurt
by conflict.
これに対して筆者らは、「完璧さも重要だが、時間内に一定量書くことも必要」「大掛かりな内容にしないで解決法を一つに絞ってはどうか？難民問題？」などとコメントし、T 先生は生徒と解決策について話し合った。
その結果、以下のように、紛争地の子供の窮状に焦点を置いた展開となり、募金活動を解決策とする 222 ワー
ドの修正稿となった。
There are countries and regions in the world where conflicts
are still unsolved. Children living in such places suffer fromvarious problems. Afghanistan is the most famous conflictzone. The most big problem in Afghanistan is hurting children
by conflicts. According to UNICEF, 6,500 children died,15,000 children were harmed by the armed conflicts. Children
suffer every day for fear of the consequence of conflicts…（省略）…
As of countermeasure for these problems, some enterprises
are to donate some refugee support organizations. I thinkthese problems are difficult for us high school students tosolve. But, there are ways to solve them as much as possible.
For example, interesting in international conflict issues,participating in related events and fundraising…（省略）

4.2 生徒の学び（アンケート結果から）エッセイに関しては、今後の課題も見えてきたが、今回最も注目すべきは、プロセス・ライティングに初めて取り組み、フィードバックを得て何度も修正を繰り返したことが、ライティング活動に対して生徒に前向きな意欲を喚起できたことである。それらをアンケート結果から明らかにする。
生徒には、5 回目の授業時に、今回のライティング授業に関するアンケートを Google form で実施した。回答者は 11 名であった。ここでは、授業での学び、フィードバック活動、高校と大学の教員が一緒に行う授業について尋ねた項目に絞り結果を報告する。
表 1 は、質問項目 1『今回の授業で理解できたと思うことを選んでください。
』と、質問項目 2『質問項目 1 のなかで理解はしたが、書くときに難しいと思ったことは何ですか？』（ともに複数回答可）の回答である。
表1

授業での学びと困難点

この生徒はアンケートで「初稿段階では、解決法に迷っていたので今後どのように進めていくか具体的なアドバイスがもらえて良かった」と記述している。いずれの生徒も、初稿段階での適切なフィードバックが役立ったと言える。また、肯定的なコメントをどの生徒にも必ず入れるように意識したことも功を奏したのではないかと思われる。例えば、「Problem の書き出しは素晴ら
しい」「解決法について考えるのは今後の学びに必ず生きてくるので頑張ってほしい」「高校の段階でここまで書けると次はもっと複雑な英文も書けるだろう」など
褒め、頑張りを促すようなコメントである。
一方で、指導を入れても TS が不明瞭のままであった
り、問題がなぜ生じているのか原因の把握が弱く、問題そのものの解決につながらない解決策が書かれている例が見られた。前者に関しては、4.4 で後述するが、TSが明確でなく、パラグラフの定着が難しいことを示していた。また、後者の例では、「貧しくて学校に行けない子どもたちがいる」事実に対する解決策として、
「
（子

質問項目

1. 理解
できた

パラグラフの構造（トピックセン
テンス、サポーティングセンテン
スがあること）パラグラフ内に論理的な流れを作ることパラグラフ間に論理的な流れ（Problem-Causes-Solution の論理的な流れ）を作ること
主張を支持する情報を入れること解決策に具体的な情報を入れること
パラグラフをつなげる言葉があ
ること 3
英語のライティングにはアウトラインから最終稿を書くプロセ
スがあること（それをすること）

10

2. 書いてみ
たら難しか
った
2

7

5

8

6

5

4

5

4

2

6

7

3

生徒が、授業で学び理解できたと答えた項目には、「パラグラフの構造」「英語のライティングにはアウトラインから最終稿を書くプロセスがあること（それをすること）」「パラグラフ内に論理的な流れを作ること」「パラグラフ間（問題と解決法）に論理的な流れを作る
ことがあった。しかし、「パラグラフの構造」「英語ライ
ティングにプロセスがあること」を除いては、理解はできたが書いたときに難しいと感じていた生徒が多かっ82

たようである。また、「主張を支持する情報を入れること」「解決策に具体的な情報を入れること」、「つなぎ言
葉を入れること」は理解できたと答えた生徒が半分しかおらず、書いた際にも難しさを感じており、問題点から解決法の論理的な流れを作ることや、つなぎ言葉の使用、または具体的な支持情報を入れることに苦労したことがわかる。

とを実感できたので、もっと時間をかけてエッセイを作り上げていきたいと思いました。
・ 普段はライティングの課題を出されても返ってきて終わりというような感じだったので今回何回も書き直したり、ここまで具体的なアドバイスを頂けたのは初めてだったので最終稿まで書き終えたと
きは達成感がありましたし、自分のライティング能力が上がった気がしました。
・ 途中でアドバイスをもらうことで、行き詰ったりう
まく書けなかったりしても、最後は伝えたいことが全てかけて良かったです。

質問項目 3『今回は大学の先生方からエッセイに対してフィードバックコメントをもらいましたが、役立ちましたか？役立ったとすれば、どの段階でのコメントがもっとも役立ちましたか？』

本質問に対しては、初稿（8 名）アウトライン（2 名）
最終稿（1 名）と圧倒的に初稿に対するフィードバックが役立ったと答えていた。初稿で役立ったこととしては、次の回答があった。
・ 文構造やトピックセンテンスに関するアドバイス・ 問題と解決策に繋がりがないというコメントで書いていた時には気が付かなかった矛盾などが発見できました。
・ 初稿ではすべての内容を書ききることはできなかったのですが、今後どのように進めていくべきか、
具体的な提案が役立った。
これらから、初稿段階で、つながりや内容の具体的提案が役立ったことがわかる。
質問項目 4『今回の課題をやり終えたあなたの気持ちは
以下のどれが最も近いですか？』

この質問は、今回の活動がこれまでに比べると非常に要求が高かったのではないかとの懸念から聞いてみたが、以下に見られるように意欲を高めたことが明らかであった。
・ 要求されるレベルが高かったけど挑戦してみたいと思った。
（参加者 11 名全員）
・ はじめはできないと思っていたけれど、何回もやり直しを繰り返せば英語が書けるようになることが
分かった。
（8 名）
・ はじめはできないと思っていたけれど、思ったよりも自分が英語が書けることが分かった。
（3 名）

回答の下線部分にあるように、これまでの課題では修正を要求されなかったため、完成できないまま提出していた可能性が伺えた。それを時間をかけてでも最後まで書いた経験が彼らには貴重であったようである。
また、今回の活動への自由コメント欄には次の感想があった。
・ 今まではトピックを見たら英語でいきなり書き始めてしまって、途中で行き詰まることが多かったけ
ど、はじめに日本語で考えをまとめたり、文の構造を考えてから書き始めると良い作文ができることがわかりました。似た形式の違うお題でもまた挑戦
してみたいです。
・ 日本語でエッセイを書く時との大きな違い知りました。自分の書いた文章に評価をしていただく、という経験が、人生で初めてで、新鮮でとてもためになりました。ほかのテーマでもいろいろなエッセイに挑戦してみたいです。
・ 今までは、エッセイを書いてもアドバイスを頂くことしかなかったけれど、それをもとに書き直す事で、自分のできていないことが明確になると学びました。また、自分のエッセイを褒めて頂いたことで、自分の英語力に自信を持つことができたし、さらにレベルアップしたエッセイを書きたいと思うようになりました。
・ 文法的な指摘だけではなくエッセイの内容を指摘していただくことで、エッセイの書き方をより深く学べました。
これらから、生徒は複数パラグラフのライティングにおいて、論理的なつながりや根拠情報を入れるのに難しさを感じ、実際に彼らには困難なタスクであったことがわかった。しかし、プロセス・ライティングやフィードバックを得て書き直しをしたことでより深く自分たちの課題に向き合い、最後まで書いたことで意欲を高めることができたことも明らかであった。指導者側
も、「（修正コメントだけでなく）肯定的なコメント（褒める、励ます、など）」を与える重要性も再認識できた。

初稿では 50 ワードも書けなかった生徒も、コメントを受けて度々修正し、最終稿で 200 ワード以上ものエッセイが書けたことは自信になったと思われる。これについては次の項目の回答からも言える。
質問項目 5『今回は何度も書き直してアイデアを練り直す過程をみましたが、こうして書いたことに対して思うことを書いてください。
』

4.3 高校教員の学び（授業の振り返りから）次に T 先生から得られたインタビューの内容を記述

・ 考えれば考えるほど、エッセイが良くなっているこ83

する。まず、今回の実践に対して T 先生は、
「これまで高校のライティング指導でしていなかったこと（プロセス・ライティング、フィードバック、書き直し）を再確認した」と述べられた。Hirose & Harwood（2020）また筆者らのアンケート調査でも明らかとなった高校現
場での様々な制約からのアカデミック・ライティングの指導不足が伺えた。
また、「書かせる前の思考の訓練（思考の言語化）が不足している」とも述べられ、これまで生徒はトピックを与えられてすぐに書き始めていた習慣があり、prewriting 活動の時間を持つ必要性が改めて認識されたと言う。この点については、生徒自身のアンケートのコメントにも同じ気づきがあった。
更には、今回のように「（高校では）じっくり考えて書かせる指導が少ない」とも指摘しており、ライティン
グはその過程で思考を醸成させる（大井, 2008）と言われているにも関わらず、高校では限られた時間内での書かせっぱなしの活動になっている懸念が感じられた。
この点に関しては、英語表現の教科書のライティング
タスクが文法事項の穴埋めや、一文から数行の和文英訳が多いことも関係があるかもしれない。一方で、T 先
生は、「プロンプトを与えて書かせる場合は、教員は準備ができるが、今回のように自由に書かせる場合にはゴールや方向性が予測できない不安がある。
」と仰っており、教員側の意識の問題や、指導の限界があるのかもしれず、大学教員が一緒に指導を考えることができるのではないかと思われた。事実、T 先生は「大学の先生方の知見に触れることができるのは高校教員にとって非常に有益である。
」と本実践から先生自身の学びがあった、と述べられていた。
4.4 大学教員の学び
まず、本研究の目的である英語ライティングの観点から気づいたことを述べる。率直な感想として、効果的な英文をパラグラフの中で書くというのは高校生には大変な作業であり、指導に多くの時間を要するということが分かった。上述のとおり、初稿からの語数の伸びやフィードバックに従って内容を大きく追加したなどの変化は喜ばしいことであった。しかしながら、調べたことを追加することに集中するあまり、英語表現、特に問題と解決策の各パラグラフの Topic Sentence (TS) が機能しない例が見受けられた。例えば、途上国で医療サービスの不足により、子どもが十分に育たない問題を書いている例では、明確な TS が見当たらず、問題パラグラフが Recently, they decreasing people but they do not
become nothing. 「このような人は減っているがいなくなってはいない」という意図の英文で終わっていた。この場合、トピックセンテンスを明確にして、Lack ofaccess to basic medical service is a serious problem. というように書くようアドバイスをした。また、アフリカで読み書きのできない子どもが多い問題を扱った例におい

84ては、解決策パラグラフの最初が We can solve someways. という不十分な表現になっており、その後に第１の解決策の具体例が紹介されていた。そのため、TS を
There are many ways to solve the problem.と直すようフィードバックを与えた。
これらはほんの一例であるが、他にも問題、解決策各
パラグラフにおいて TS が入っていなかったり明確でなかったりする例が多々見らえた。明確でないとは、つまりトピックに対するアイデアが提示されていないということである。
しかしながら、英語として本当に効果的なトピック
センテンスを書くという作業は大学生にとっても大変である。ましてや、パラグラフの概念を始めて学ぶ高校
生にとってはなおさら困難な作業であることは言うまでもない。今回の一連の指導を通じて、高校生へのパラ
グラフ・ライティングの指導にはもっと多くの時間を要することがわかった。本来はトピックセンテンスの書き方を練習だけに集中する時間も取りたいが、時間的制約もあると思われるため、今後はアウトラインと初稿作成の段階でトピックセンテンスの書き方にも注意を向けさせるような指導上の工夫が必要であると思われる。
最後に、今回の実践をより広い文脈から振り返り、展
望的観点からその示唆を論じてみたい。
日々の授業が営まれる高校の教室という「場」は、まさにオートポイエーシス論（マトゥラーナ・ヴァレラ,
1991）が語るところの「閉じた系」を成しており、高校教員、生徒それぞれのアクターが、各々の役割期待に基づきコミュニケーションを繰り返している。一般的に、大学教員に比べ、高校教員が生徒と授業等を通して接する時間は圧倒的に長く、指導的に関与する領域も大きい。したがって授業は、高校教員と生徒が日々積み重ねた人間関係が色濃く反映され、自律的である。これ自体は素晴らしく、時にカウンセラーとして、時に指導者として、あるいは運営者や解決者として（岩田, 2008）、
高校教員が大きな役割を担っている教育の現場は実に魅力的である。
一方で、高校教員への役割期待が大き過ぎるが故に、授業は授業だけでなくなり、生活指導や進路指導など、教えることに集中できない環境が、教室という「場」に必然的に備わってしまう。また、密なコミュニケーションが形成した閉鎖的環境が、新たな取り組みや関係性を構築させにくくしている可能性もあるだろう。
今回の実践で行ったことは、そうした閉じた系である教室に、大学教員という異質な変数を入れ込むことで、いわば内部環境を強制的に活性化させる端緒を与えたと言える。事実、大学教員は、普段大学生にするよ
うな、手加減なしのライティングのフィードバックを生徒に実施したが、彼らは皆へこたれず、普段以上のモチベーションで取り組み総語数を伸ばした。これは大学教員が新たな役割期待を持ったアクターとして機能

し、教室に存在するコミュニケーションに変化を促した結果であると考えられる。これは、実のところ大学教員が高校教員ぶらなかったが故に成功したことであり、高校教員を尊重した上で、自分たちの立ち位置をうま
く見つけられた結果であると考えている。
大学教員が高校教員と協働し、高校の授業改善に取り組むことには一定の意義があると思われ、本取り組
みもその証左の一つである。しかしそれは、閉じた系を持ち、自律的に循環する高校の教室という「場」に、大学教員が時に露骨に関与することを意味し、高校教員と生徒、あるいは生徒間の関係に正負の影響を与え得ることを自覚しなければならない。仮に、大学教員が権威的に関与するだけならば、高校教員の役割は歪められてしまう。また、大学教員が高校教員のように授業外の内容にまで口を出すのであれば、それは越権である。
今後、大学教員が高校の現場で種々活動する機会は増えるであろうし、一方でそれは期待されていることでもある。しかし、そのやり方を間違えれば、せっかくの良好な高校教員と生徒との関係に傷をつけたり、何の授業改善にもつながらない可能性があることを十分留意しておくべきであろう。
5. まとめ
本稿は、兵庫県の公立高校で行った高大連携ライテ
ィング指導について詳述した。また本実践を通して、生徒、高校教員、大学教員それぞれが得た気づきや学びについても記載した。今回、SDGs をトピックとした問題解決型の意見文に取り組んだ生徒らは、プロセス・ライ
ティングの過程で大学教員から数回のフィードバック
を受け、修正を繰り返しため、最終稿では総語数を伸ばすことができた。また、本活動を通して生徒の意欲向上
や取り組みへの自信も伺えた。一方で、高校生に複数パラグラフを論理立てて書くことや、適切なトピックセ
ンテンスを書くことの難しさも見つかった。今回は少人数の選択授業での実践であり、通常クラスで同様の実践を行うのは難しいかもしれない。しかし、高校段階
でじっくり取り組むライティング活動が少ないことが伺え、高校の現場の状況に応じた段階的かつ継続的な指導を入れる必要性が伺えた。筆者らは、限られた指導
時間のなかであっても、一年に数回は、生徒に認知的に負荷の高いタスクを与え、プロセス・ライティングの過程で「深く考えて書く」機会を与えることを提案したい。
そのために、高校教員と大学教員が、現場に合ったライ
ティング指導をともに考える利点は大きい。本実践では、今後の高大連携の取り組みにおいて高校教員と大学教員の関係性についても、示唆を得る機会となった点は強調しておきたい。堀・坂尻（2021）が指摘したよ
うに、両者の良好な関係なくして効果は得られず、筆者らの実践研究を通して高大の教員がより良いライティ
ング指導についてともに考え、協力体制を築いていけることを切に願う。

85

注
1
当初の予定では、本稿タイトルにあるように、実行可能な解決法を考え実践する Project-based learning（PBL）型の授業を考えていた。しかし生徒のライティングの困難さから書かせることに注力せざるを得ずプロジェクトには至らなかった。
2
筆者らの実践研究の経緯については、「高大連携の英語ライティング指導と指導書作成への取り組み」（山下美朋・藤岡真由美, JAAL in JACET Proceedings Vol. 3, 101-107）に詳しい。
3
本項の結果はアンケートの回答方法の不手際から回答者に混乱を招いたことが想像される。しかし、つなぎ言葉は難し
いと感じた生徒がいたことを重要視した。
参考文献
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of
writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.
https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
Hirose, K., & Harwood, C. (2020). Factors influencing English as aforeign language (EFL) writing instruction in Japan from ateacher education perspective. In L. Seloni, & S. H. Lee (Eds.),
Second language writing instruction in global contexts (pp. 71–
90). Multilingual Matters.
堀一成他. (2020).「高大連携により取り組む高校生に対するア
カデミック・ライティング教育の実践」.『大阪大学高等教育研究』, 8, 51–60.
堀一成・坂尻彰宏. (2021).「第 3 章大阪大学が進めるアカデミ
ック・ライティング高大接続」 .春日美穂他 (編).『あらためて、ライティングの高大接続』(pp. 75–86). ひつじ書房.
Hyland, K. (2019). Second Language Writing. Cambridge
University Press.
岩田康之. (2008).「Ⅰ部第 2 章 教育改革の動向と教師の『専門性』に関する諸問題」. 久冨善之 (編).『教師の専門性とアイデンティティ: 教育改革時代の国際比較調査と国際シンポジウムから』(pp. 31–48). 勁草書房.
マトゥラーナ, H. R.・ヴァレラ, F. J. (1980). 河本英夫. (訳).
(1991).『オートポイエシス～生命システムとは何か』. 国
文社.
文部科学省. (2019).『高等学校学習指導要領（平成 30 年告示）
解説外国語編 英語編』. 開隆堂出版.
大井恭子 (編). (2008).『パラグラフ・ライティング指導入門 中
高での効果的なライティング指導のために』. 大修館書店.
田畑光義・大井恭子. (2012). 「中学生へのパラグラフ・ライテ
ィング指導の効果の検証」KATE Journal, 26, 79–91.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in
problem solving. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology,
17, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
山岡憲史. (2019). 『「論理的思考力・探究心」を育てるアカデ
ミック・ライティング―言語の枠を超えた「書く」指導のあり方』2019 年度立命館大学第一回教学実践フォーラム.
山下美朋・長倉若. (2021 年 8 月 7 日).『高等学校における英語ライティング指導の実態調査―学校では何が教えられているか？―』, 全国英語教育学会第 46 回長野研究大会.
Yasuda, S. (2006). Japanese students’ argumentative writing in
English: Characteristic weakness and developmental factors.
KATE Bulletin, 20, 1–20.
Yasuda, S., Oi, K., & Itatsu, K. (2014). Issues in teaching andlearning EFL writing in higher education in Japan. JABAET
Journal, 18, 51–71.

日本人初級英語学習者の文産出に見られる
日本語の主題卓越型構造からの転移に関する一考察―日本語の二重主語文に焦点をあてて―
橋尾晋平
名古屋外国語大学
smp.hashio@gmail.com
要旨
日本語の代表的な構文である二重主語文「X は Y が Z」は、日本人初級英語学習者にとって、英語で表現するのが難しいといわれている。X と Y や Z の間の修飾・被修飾の関係に応じて、二重主語文にはさまざまな構文が存在する。本論文では、日本人初級英語学習者である大学生
100 名に対し、和文英訳のテストを実施し、二重主語文のどのような性質が彼らの文産出を阻害するかを検討した。その結果、X と修飾・被修飾の関係にある Z である「かき料理は広島が本場だ」型の文のような格関係と構造の隔たりが大きい文は、英語で表現することが難しいと導けた。また、修飾・被修飾の関係を示す 2 つの語句の語順が日本語と異なる「辞書は白水社
がいい」型の文も英語で表しづらいと判明した。どちらの種類の文も、主題優勢によって基本
語順の日本語文が変形された文であるため、これらの文が英語のコピュラの文と同一視され、英語の文産出に転移されたことが示された。
キーワード：日本人初級英語学習者、二重主語文、学習者言語、転移、文産出
1. はじめに
日本語と英語は文構造が大きく異なり、その違いは、
日本人初級英語学習者 1 の英語による文産出をしばしば阻害することがある。習熟度の低い学習者ほど、目標言語である英語の知識不足により、学習者自身の母語である日本語を介して英語を理解しようとする傾向が強く、日本語の規則を無意識に英語での文産出にも応用してしまいがちであり、非文法的・非機能的な文を産出されてしまうことが多々ある。
日本語の代表的な構文の中に、二重主語文（doublesubject sentence）と呼ばれる構文があるが、Schachter andRutherford（1979）や小口（2016）によると、二重主語
文およびそれに類似した構文は英語に存在しないため、日本人初級英語学習者が二重主語文を英語で表現しようとするのは困難である（Hashio & Yamauchi, 2021）。一方で、野田（1996）が示すように、二重主語文にはさま
ざまな種類の文が存在するため、筆者が知る限りでは、二重主語文のどのような性質・特徴が英語での文産出を困難にするのかは十分に明らかにされていない。
本論文では、野田（1996）が整理した 6 種類の二重主語文のうち、初級レベルの学習者が英語で表現できることが望ましい 3 種類の構文に焦点をあて、日本人初級英語学習者である大学生 100 名に対して、これらの構文を用いた和文英訳のテスト調査を実施し、どの要因が日本人初級英語学習者文産出を困難にするのかを
検討する。

86

2. 理論的背景・先行研究
2.1 英語学習における母語の影響
Odlin（2003）によると、習熟度の低い外国語の学習者は、母語を外国語とリンクさせながら学ぼうとする
際に、目標言語の知識不足によって、母語に依存する傾向が強いため、母語の知識が外国語学習に影響を与えやすいと考えられている。このような既に獲得している言語の規則を外国語にも適用しようとすることを転移（transfer）という。
転移には、外国語の学習・習得に正の影響を与えるものと負の影響を与えるものの 2 種類があり、前者は「正の転移」と呼び、後者を「負の転移」と呼ぶ。正の転移
は、統語構造や語彙、音韻が類似しているとより生じや
すく、学習速度も速くなる傾向がある。例えば、日本語には、「象の鼻」の「の」という所有格-’s に対応する格助詞が存在しており、このような所有を表す語句における日本語の語順は、‘an elephant’s trunk’のように英語にそのまま転移させることができる。したがって、日本
語母語話者は所有格-’s をより早く習得できると指摘されている（Luk & Shirai, 2009）。
また、James（1980）や Jackson（1981）によると、転移は、母語・目標言語の特定の項目に関して、客観的な言語差の有無にかかわらず、学習者自身が似ていると判断された場合に生じる。本論文で取り扱う二重主語
文は、英語に存在しない構文であるが、日本人初級英語
学習者自身が日本語の「主題＋解説」の構造と英語の文の特徴であり、この述部に対する主体の部分 X を総主語という。
（3）では、「象」が総主語にあたり、主題を表示している部分であり、「鼻が長い」が述部・解説の部分である。

「主語＋述語」の構造を似ていると判断するため、二重主語文を含めた日本語の主題をもつ文を英語で表現しようとする際、日本語の構造が英語の「主語＋述語」の構造に転移してしまうのである。
2.2 日本語の主題をもつ文主題とは、文において説明が与えられるときの対象のことであり、「X は」から始まる文では、X がどのような属性・性質を持っているかについての説明が与えられる。（1）では、「インターネット」が主題となり、主題標識の「は」にマークされている。この文は、「た
くさんの情報が得られる」という「インターネット」の属性を示している。

(3) 象は鼻が長い。
野田（1996）などを参照すると、「X は Y が Z」という構造の文は、大きく分けて、以下の A～F の 6 種類あると指摘している。
A) 「この本は父が買ってくれた」型：格成文・副詞的成分が主題の文
B) 「象は鼻が長い」型：格成文の連体修飾部が主
題の文C) 「かき料理は広島が本場だ」型：述語名詞の連体修飾部が主題の文
D) 「辞書は新しいのがいい」型：被修飾名詞句が主題の文
E) 「この問題はとくのがむずかしい」型：従属節の中の成分が主題の文
F) 「このにおいはガスが漏れている」型：破格の主題の文(1) インターネット は たくさんの情報が得られる。
(主題) (提題助詞)(属性)
Li and Thompson（1976）や益岡（2019）によると、英語が「主語＋述語」を基盤とした主語卓越型言語（subject-prominent language）であるのに対し、日本語は「主題＋解説」を基盤とした主題卓越型言語（topicprominent language）に類型される。Hashio and Yamauchi（2021）によると、日本人初級英語学習者の多くは、英語での文産出を行う際、日本語の「主題＋解説」の構造が英語の「主語＋述語」の構造に転移する。
主題 X をもつ日本語文の特徴として、以下の（2a）～（2e）が挙げられる。

A タイプの文については、日本語の基本語順 SOV の文に主題化（topicalization）と呼ばれる操作を加えて変形したものである。
（4a）は（4b）の操作を通して生じている文であるが、野田（1994）によると、「この本」を主題化させるために、「この本」をコピーして文頭に置いて、主題標識「は」を後続させる。最後に、後ろの「この本を」を削除すれば、（4a）が導かれる。

(2) a. 主題となる名詞句 X は原則文頭に置かれる
b. 主題 X は主題標識「は」にマークされる
c. 空主語が認められる
d. 述語が代用される場合がある
e. 二重主語構造をとる場合がある(4) a. この本は父が買ってくれた。
（野田, 1994, p.
34）
b. 父が この本を 買ってくれた。
⇒ この本は 父が この本を 買ってくれた。
⇒ この本は 父が この本を 買ってくれた。
⇒ この本は 父が 買ってくれた。

Hashio and Yamauchi（2021）は、（2a）・（2d）が日本人
初級英語学習者の英語での文産出に負の影響を与え、日本人初級英語学習者は文頭の名詞句である主題 X を無意識に主語と同一視してしまう傾向があり、また、述語が表示されていない日本語文に関しては、表示されていない述語を補完しながら英語で表現するのは難し
いと指摘し、一方、（2b）・（2c）の日本人初級英語学習者の文産出への影響は相対的に小さく、従来いわれているような「は」と「が」の混同や空主語が日本人初級
英語学習者の文産出を阻害しないと主張した。

B タイプの文は、（3）のような文を指し、X が連体修飾部として Y を修飾する「［名詞］の」の「［名詞］」になっているパターンである。三上（1960）は、（5）のよ
うに、文頭の「X の」の「の」が「は」に交替する主題化の操作がなされていると指摘している。X の名詞には、性質や状態を表す形容詞的な名詞はあてはまらず、
Z には、「長い」のような性質や状態を表す形容詞があてはまることが多い。Y には、原則 X の部分・側面を示す名詞があてはまる。

2.3 二重主語文とその類型
2.2 で提示した（2e）の特徴を有する文が先述した二重主語文であり、二重主語文とは、「X は Y が Z」という構造の日本語文であり、「総主構文」と呼ばれることもある。
「X は」の部分が主題表示部分であり、「Y が Z」の部分が X の属性・性質を解説する述部にあたる。そして、この述部の中にも主述関係があることが、この構(5) 象の鼻が長い。
⇒象は鼻が長い。

87

C タイプの文は、（6a）のような文であり、（6b）の「広島がかき料理の本場だ」の述語名詞「かき料理の本場」
における連体修飾部「かき料理」が X として主題化されている。
（6b）では、「かき料理」を主題として表すた
めに、「かき料理」のコピーを文頭に置き、主題標識「は」を後続させ、後ろの「かき料理」を削除することで（6a）が生じる。Z には、「本場」など述語名詞があてはまるが、野田（1996）によると、述語名詞 Z は、特徴・中心・原因・目的・基盤・限度を示す。

b. 白水社の 辞書が いい。
⇒ 辞書は 白水社の辞書が いい。
⇒ 辞書は 白水社の辞書が いい。
⇒ 辞書は 白水社が いい。
(9) 辞書は新西和辞典がいい。
（野田, 1996, p. 57）
E タイプの文として、（10）における「この問題を解くの」の「この問題」という従属節の中の成分が主題になる型がある。また、F タイプの文の例として、（11）などが挙げられるが、（11）の「このにおい」のような主題は「破格の主題」と呼ばれ、ここまで見てきた例と異なり、何らかの形で｢は｣がマークする主題と述語部分の間に格関係が見られないタイプの文である。2(6) a. かき料理は広島が本場だ。
（野田, 1994, p. 35）
b. 広島が かき料理の 本場だ。
⇒ かき料理は 広島が かき料理の 本場だ。
⇒ かき料理は 広島が かき料理の 本場だ。
⇒ かき料理は 広島が 本場だ。

(10) この問題は解くのが難しい。
（野田, 1996, p. 189）

野田（1996）によると、「象は鼻が長い」構文のような B タイプの文では、修飾・被修飾の関係にある「象」と「鼻」が隣接しているが、C タイプの文では、修飾・被修飾の関係にある「かき料理」と「本場」が隣接することはない。したがって、B タイプの文に比べて、C タ
イプの文の方が、格関係と構造の隔たりが大きいといえる。
D タイプの文は、（7a）のような文を指し、（7b）の「新しい辞書」の被修飾名詞句「辞書」が主題 X となった
文であり、連体修飾語や形容詞にあたる Y が X を修飾している。野田（1994）は、（7b）のように、「辞書」のコピーが文頭に現れ、提題助詞の「は」が後続する。そして、後ろの「辞書」が名詞の代用形「の」に置き換わ
り、削除される。

(11) このにおいはガスが漏れているよ。（野田,1996, p. 75）
以上、ここまで 6 種類の二重主語文について概観したが、次節では、日本人初級英語学習者の二重主語文に関する誤用を取り扱っている先行研究を紹介する。なお、A タイプの文は、前節の（2a）～（2c）の特徴が反映されている文であるため、本論文では、二重主語文として扱わないこととする。また、本論文の研究対象は、日本人初級英語学習者であり、調査で用いる日本語文
も単文のみを取り扱っていくため、E・F タイプの文を日本人初級英語学習者が英語で表現するのは極めて困難であると想定されるため、本論文では取り扱わないこととし、本論文では、B・C・D タイプの文を扱うこととする。

(7) a. 辞書は新しいのがいい。（野田, 1994, p. 36）
b. 新しい 辞書が よい。
⇒ 辞書は 新しい辞書が 美味しい。
⇒ 辞書は 新しいのが 美味しい。

2.4 二重主語文に関する誤りの先行研究
日本人初級英語学習者が日本語の二重主語文を英語で表現する際の誤りについて、まず、小林（2008）は、以下の例において、学習者が（12a）を英語で表現する
際、（12b）や（12c）とは異なる（12d）のような誤りをすると指摘している。なぜ（12d）のような誤りが生じるのかに関しては、Sasaki（1990）や小林（2008）の指摘をまとめると、下記の（13）のようなプロセスが考えられる。

日本語において修飾・被修飾の関係を示す際、「新しい辞書」のように、修飾語・被修飾語の語順で表現されるのが一般的であるが、D タイプの文の場合、その語順が主題化の操作によって変形されていることが特筆すべき点である。
また、野田（1996）は、D タイプの文を Y の性質に応じてさらに 3 つに分類できると指摘した。
まず、（7a）のように、Y に名詞の代用形式がついたものが入るタイプである。
次に、
Y に名詞句が含まれるタイプがあり、（8a）のように、（8b）から導かれる際、「の」の代用が生じないタイプの文である。そして、Y と X が分離できないタイプがあり、（9）のように、「新西和辞典」が「辞書」の一つであるため、Y と Z は互いに切り離すことができない関係にある。

(12) a. 象は鼻が長い。
b. Elephants have long trunks.
c. Elephants’ trunks are long.
d. *Elephants are long trunks.
(13) a. 日本語文の「は」の前に「象」があるので、文頭に‘Elephants’を置く。
b. 「長い」‘be long’が続いて、‘Elephants arelong’となる。
c. 残った「鼻が」の‘trunks’を後ろに置かれる。

(8) a. 辞書は白水社がいい。
（野田, 1996, p. 56）

88

Hashio and Yamauchi（2021）が日本人初級英語学習者である大学生に対して実施した学習者言語に関する調査では、本論文における C タイプや D タイプの文である X が Y の修飾部である型の文は英語で表現するのが難しく、B タイプに該当する X が Y の被修飾部である型の文については、日本人初級英語学習者が正しい構造の英文を産出することは容易であることが示された。
一方、Hashio and Yamauchi（2021）は、X が被修飾部である型の文について、主題化の操作を加える前の「X のY が Z」のような文も英語で表現することが難しいと指摘しており、学生の解答を個別に分析した際、「ペンギンの脚は短い。
」を“*Penguin legs are short.”と訳した学生が多く、所有格の習得とも関わっており、二重主語文の誤りについては、転移による誤りよりも発達上の誤りと見るべきであると示唆した。
ただし、Hashio and Yamauchi（2021）の調査において、十分な数の二重主語文を用いることができず、また、Cタイプと D タイプの文についての結果・考察が混同しているため、前節で概観した二重主語文における X・Y・Z の語句の特徴や X・Y・Z の三者間の関係が英語による文産出に影響を与えるかどうかについて十分な結論が出ていない。したがって、本論文では、B～D タイプの二重主語文を刺激文とした調査を再度実施し、より精緻な結果が得られるように改善を行う。
3. 初級学習者の二重主語文の英訳に関する調査
3.1 目的Hashio and Yamauchi（2021）の調査を踏襲し、2.3 で整理した B～D タイプの二重主語文における X・Y・Zの語句の特徴や X・Y・Z の三者間の関係が日本人初級
英語学習者の文産出に影響を与えるかどうかを分析し、調査結果を踏まえて、ライティングやスピーキングの指導を行う際、日本人初級英語学習者がどのようにして二重主語文を正しく英語で表現できるようになるかについても検討を行う。
3.2 調査協力者
本調査は、まず、日本語を母語とする初級英語学習者である日本人大学生 108 名に対して実施した。後述のとおり、2 種類の調査票（α・β）を 54 部ずつランダムに配布している。配布したテストは、いずれも語句整序問題 10 題と和文英訳問題 10 題で編成されている。白紙の解答が 5 問以上ある協力者の結果を除外し、調査
票 α・β に解答した学生は、それぞれ 50 名で計 100 名分のデータを収集した。
3.3 調査票
どちらの調査票でも、後述する統計的分析のため、両方のテストで共通の語句整序問題を最初に 10 題出題した。それぞれのテストの 11～20 問目では、個別の和文英訳問題を 10 問ずつ出題した。先述のとおり、あるグ
ループには「象の鼻は長い」のような主題化の操作が行われる前段階の文を英訳させ、別のグループには「象は鼻が長い」などの主題化の操作が行われた後段階の文を英訳させることで、同じ英語が産出されると想定される文への対応を比較することを目的とした。
3.4 統計的分析
統計的分析を行うため、それぞれのテストで個別に出題される 20 の日本語文にタグをつける。例えば、「象は鼻が長い」型のような格成文の連体修飾部が主題の文については、以下の（14a）～（14d）のように、主題化の操作がなされる「前」の文を【B_1 前】・【B_2 前】とし、主題化の操作がなされた「後」の文、すなわち、二重主語文となった文を【B_1 後】・【B_2 後】とする。
ここでのアルファベットの B とは、2.3 でまとめた B タ
イプの B であり、格成文の連体修飾部が主題の文のことを指している。表 1 は、各調査票の個別問題で使用している文とそれらのタグを示したものである。
(14) a．ペンギンの脚は短い。
【B_1 前】（調査票 α で出題）
b．ペンギンは脚が短い。
【B_1 後】（調査票 β で出題）
c．あのカフェの紅茶は美味しい。
【B_2 前】（調査票 β で出題）
d．あのカフェは紅茶が美味しい。
【B_2 後】（調査票 α で出題）
表 1 各調査票の個別問題における日本語文のタグ
調査票 α の個別問題
調査票 β の個別問題
11. ペンギンの脚は短い。
11. Genius は良い辞書であ【B_1 前】る。
【D-3_1 前】
12. 広島はかき料理の本場 12. 野球は面白いスポーツ
だ。
【C_1 前】である。
【D-3_2 前】
13. あのカフェの紅茶は美 13. 新しいコンピュータは味しい。
【B_2 前】良い。
【D-1_1 前】
14. 今週の日曜日はその宿 14. 小さいみかんは美味し
題の締め切りだ。【C_2い。
【D-1_2 前】
前】
15. ラーメンは一風堂が美15. 一風堂のラーメンは美味しい。
【D-2_1 後】
味しい。
【D-2_1 前】
16. 漫 才 は ナ イ ツ が 面 白
16. ナ イ ツ の 漫 才 は 面 白い。
【D-2_2 後】い。
【D-2_2 前】
17. あのカフェは紅茶が美17. コンピュータは新しい味しい。
【B_2 後】のが良い。
【D-1_1 後】 18. その宿題は今週の日曜日が締め切りだ。【C_2
18. みかんは小さいのが美後】味しい。
【D-1_2 後】
19. 辞書は Genius が良い。 19. ペンギンは脚が短い。
【B_1 後】【D-3_1 後】
20. スポーツは野球が面白 20. かき料理は広島が本場だ。
【C_1 後】い。
【D-3_2 後】

アルファベットの C とは、C タイプの C であり、「かき料理は広島が本場だ」型の述語名詞の連体修飾部が主題の文を指し、D については、D タイプの D であり、89

「辞書は新しいのがいい」型の被修飾名詞句が主題の文を示しており、Y に名詞の代用形式がついたものが入るタイプ（D-1）
・「Y に名詞句が含まれるタイプ（D2）・Y と X が分離できないタイプ（D-3）の 3 種類を扱っている。
テスト回収後は、協力者が正しい構造の英文を産出できているかという観点で、正解および不正解の 2 値
的に採点した。部分点などは設けていないが、動詞の活用ミスや前置詞の選択ミスなどのように、文構造の理解と関係のない誤りについては正誤の判断と関係ないものとする。採点終了後、主題化の文産出への影響を検討するために、正誤データを用いて、「ペンギンの脚は短い」のような主題化の操作前の文と「ペンギンは脚が短い」のような主題化の操作後の文の間で英訳する難易度に差が生じるかについて、有意水準 5%のもとでカイ二乗検定を行う。

出されると想定している文のペア・グループを「B_1群」（B_1前・B_1後の組み合わせ）などのようにラベリングしている。
表 3 B_1 群の正解者数・不正解者数
調査票
正解
不正解
13 (26%)
B_1 前
α37 (74%)8 (16%)
B_1 後
β
42 (84%)
表 4 B_2 群の正解者数・不正解者数
調査票
正解
不正解
14 (28%)
B_2 前
α36 (72%)5 (10%)
B_2 後
β
45 (90%)
表 5 C_1 群の正解者数・不正解者数
調査票
正解
不正解
5 (10%)C_1 前
α
45 (90%)41 (82%)
C_1 後
β9 (18%)

4. 結果・考察
4.1 共通問題に関する結果
本節では、日本人初級英語学習者に対して、二重主語
文を導く主題化の操作の影響と英語で表現するのが困
難な主題をもつ日本語文についての分析結果について述べる。本論文では、2種類の調査票を用いて、Xグルー
プの学生に調査票αを割り当て、Yグループの学生に調査票βを割り当てているが、2つのグループの間において、文産出の能力に差がないことを示すために、両方のグループの学生に出題した10点満点の共通問題の平均
正解数について統計的分析を行う。表2は共通問題の平均正解数や標準偏差などの要約統計量を示している。

Group
X
Y

表 6 C_2 群の正解者数・不正解者数
調査票
正解
不正解
7 (14%)
C_2 前
α
43 (86%)32 (64%)
C_2 後
β18 (36%)
表 7 D-1_1 群の正解者数・不正解者数
調査票
正解
不正解
5 (10%)
D-1_1 前β45 (90%)15 (30%)D-1_1 後α35 (70%)
表 8 D-1_2 群の正解者数・不正解者数
調査票
正解
不正解
5 (10%)
D-1_2 前β45 (90%)17 (34%)
D-1_2 後α33 (66%)

表 2 共通問題の要約統計量
学生数
平均正解数
標準偏差
50
8.68
1.50
50
8.62
1.82

表 9 D-2_1 群の正解者数・不正解者数
調査票
正解
不正解
42 (84%)8 (16%)
D-2_1 前α38 (76%)
D-2_1 後β12 (24%)

共通問題の平均正解数に関して、2グループの間で差があるかを分析するために、平均の差があるかの検定を行う。まず、分散比のF検定を行ったところ、F = 0.68・
df = 49・p = 0.18となり、等分散が仮定されなかった。
そこで、Welchのt検定を行ったところ、t = 0.18・df =94・p = 0.86となったため、X・Yグループの間において、平均正解数の差がないということが示された。文産出の能力に差がないということが示され、今後の分析を行って問題ないと判断した。

表 10 D-2_2 群の正解者数・不正解者数
調査票
正解
不正解
42 (84%)8 (16%)
D-2_2 前α41 (82%)D-2_2 後β
9 (18%)
表 11 D-3_1 群の正解者数・不正解者数
調査票
正解
不正解
D-3_1 前β43 (86%)7 (14%)
D-3_1 後α27 (54%)23 (46%)

4.2 個別問題に関する結果
次に、主題化の操作の有無によって、文産出の難易度に変化が生じたのかを明らかにするため、表3～12において、テストで出題した全20問の日本語文のタグとどのテストで出題したかの情報、テストを解答した学生の正解者数と不正解者数をまとめている。また、B_1前とB_1後の間で正誤の差が検討するため、同じ英語が産

表 12 D-3_2 群の正解者数・不正解者数
調査票
正解
不正解
D-3_2 前β49 (98%)1 (2%)
D-3_2 後α
13 (26%)37 (74%)

これらのペアごとにカイ二乗検定を行った結果を表13 に示す。表 13 の x2 値と効果量 φ より、p 値が 0.05 を90

下回っており、かつ、効果量 φ が中程度・大程度にあたるのが、C_1 群・C_2 群・D-2_1 群・D-2_2 群・D-3_1
群・D-3_2 群であった。したがって、これらの日本語文のペアについては、主題化の操作の前後で正解・不正解「かき料理はの頻度に差が生じたと導けた。3 すなわち、広島が本場だ」のような述語名詞の連体修飾部が主題の文を英語で表現することが難しく、また、「辞書は新
しいのがいい」のような被修飾名詞句が主題の文のう
ち、Y に名詞句が含まれる文・Y と X が分離できない
文も英語で表現するのが難しいと判明した。一方で、二重主語文において、「象は鼻が長い」のような格成文の連体修飾部が主題の文は、必ずしも英語で表現することが困難でなく、また、「辞書は新しいのがいい」のよ
うな被修飾名詞句が主題の文において、Y に名詞の代用形式がついたものが入るタイプの文も英語で表現することは困難ではないということが示された。

とき、学生は「A は B だ」を“A is B”と訳すという知識をこの構文に適用してしまっていると推察され、2.4 の（13）でも示されているように、「その宿題」と「締め切り」の間に主述関係があるような（15d）が産出されてしまう。
(15) a. 今週の日曜日はその宿題の締め切りだ。
【C_2 前】b. This Sunday is the deadline for the homework.
c. その宿題は今週の日曜日が締め切りだ。
【C_2 後】d. *The homework is deadline this Sunday.
D タイプの文は、被修飾名詞句が主題となっているが、調査に参加した学生の多くは、（16a）を（16b）のように訳すことができたが、（17a）を（17b）のように訳すことができず、（17c）や（17d）のように訳してしまう。2.3 でも言及したように、D タイプの文では、修飾・被修飾の関係にある 2 つの語句の語順が主題化の操作によって変形されたため、Y と X の間の修飾・被修飾の関係を把握するのが難しいと思われたが、英訳のしやすさは構文によることが判明した。
タグが示すように、（16a）と（17a）の違いは、Y に名詞の代用形式がついたものが後続するかどうかであるが、調査結果を踏まえると、代用形式「の」が置かれている文を与えた場合、学生が Y と X の修飾・被修飾の関係に把握しやすくなると判明している。代用形式「の」が置かれていることで、「小さい」が何かを修飾しているということに気づきやすくなると考えられる
が、代用形式「の」が置かれていない場合、「一風堂」と「ラーメン」の修飾・被修飾の関係に気づけず、彼らの間で、「美味しい」のは「一風堂」なのか「ラーメン」
なのかが定まらないことが示された。

表 13 カイ二乗検定の結果
x2 値
p値
効果量 φ
B_1 群
0.964
0.326
0.098（小）
B_2 群
4.159
0.041
0.204（小）C_1 群
49.3160.000
0.702（大）C_2 群
24.2120.000
0.492（中）D-1_1 群
5.063
0.024
0.286（小）D-1_2 群
5.647
0.017
0.238（小）D-2_1 群
0.582（大）33.8570.000
D-2_2 群40.9760.000
0.640（大）D-3_1 群10.7140.011
0.327（中）D-3_2 群
51.9950.000
0.721（大）4.3 結果のまとめ
Hashio and Yamauchi（2021）が指摘したとおり、B タ
イプの二重主語文を英語で表現するのは比較的容易であることが導けている。小林（2008）などは、B タイプの文の誤用などを取り上げているが、日本人初級英語学習者が必ずしも英語で表現するのを苦手としている
わけではないことが判明した。X と Y は、Y が X の一部である関係にあるが、日本人初級英語学習者にとって、X と Y の関係はイメージしやすいと推察される。
また、日本語の修飾・被修飾の関係を示す 2 つの語句の語順は、英語の語順に転移しても誤りにはならないた
め、正の転移として働くことから、B タイプの文を英語で表現しやすいと主張する。
C タイプの文では、2.3 で言及したように、修飾・被修飾の関係にある「その宿題」と「締め切り」が隣接しておらず、格関係と構造の隔たりが大きい。多くの日本人初級英語学習者にとって、ここでの X と Z の修飾・被修飾の関係をイメージすることは難しい。例えば、多くの学生は、主題化の操作を行う前の文である（15a）を（15b）と訳すことは容易であるが、（15a）の「その宿題」を主題化した（15c）を与えた場合、（15b）ではなく（15d）のような誤った文を産出してしまう。この【D-1_2 後】(16) a. みかんは小さいのが美味しい。
b. Small oranges are delicious.
(17) a. ラーメンは一風堂が美味しい。
【D-2_1 後】b. Ippudo’s ramen is delicious.
c. *Ippudo is delicious for ramen.
d. *Ramen is delicious for Ippudo.
また、D タイプの文には、Y と X が分離できないタ
イプがあり、（18a）を（18b）のように工夫して訳すことができている学生も見受けられたものの、多くの学生は、X・Y・Z の間の関係を適切に把握することがで
きず、（18c）や（18d）のような非機能的・非文法的な文が産出されてしまっている。これらの誤用をみると、「辞書」と‘Genius’が分離できないために、それぞれの語句をどのように英文上で組み込むべきかを正しく判断できていないことが導けた。

91

(18) a. 辞書は Genius が良い。
【D-3_1 後】
b. Genius is a good dictionary.
c. *The dictionary is good for Genius.
d. *The dictionary has good Genius.

「ペンギンの脚は短い」を導出するように、英語の構造と異なる日本語文を英語で表現しやすいに日本語にパラフレーズする訓練を提案している。また、橋尾（2021）
は、主題をもつ日本語文を英語で表現する訓練を行う
際に、田地野（2008）の開発した意味順を用いて、日英語の違いについて視覚的に気づきを与える指導法を提案・実践した。この指導法では、二重主語文の英訳の訓練についても触れているが、本論文で明らかになったことを踏まえると、C タイプの文や D タイプの文の一部を重点的に練習する機会を設けることが大切であると主張する。
現在、習熟度にかかわらず、より実践的なコミュニケーション活動を行う英語教育の需要が高まっているが、円滑なコミュニケーションを行うためには、日英語の違いを踏まえたうえで、発話を行うことが求められる。
文部科学省の『学習指導要領』などでも「日本語と英語の違いに注意する」という趣旨の文言が盛りこまれているが、まずは、日本人初級英語学習者の母語である日本語についての「気づき」を促すことが今後の英語教育
にとって重要になってくると主張する。

以上より、英語で表現することが難しい二重主語文
は、日本人初級英語学習者にとって、X・Y・Z の間にある主述関係や修飾・被修飾の関係を把握しづらいという特徴を有している。修飾・被修飾の関係にある X とZ が隣接していない C タイプの文や、形容詞 Z が名詞
句 X を修飾している、あるいは、X と Y が主述関係にある D タイプの文は、英語の文構造と大きく異なるが、多くの日本人初級英語学習者は、これらの文と英語のコピュラの文を同一視してしまうため、負の転移が起きることで誤りが生じてしまうと示唆された。一方で、B タイプの文のように、修飾・被修飾の関係にある X と
Y は、構造上隣接しており、日本人初級英語学習者はその関係を比較的把握できると思われ、D タイプの文の中で、Y に代用形式「の」が後続する型の文の場合、Yと X の修飾・被修飾の関係を理解することは難しくないと判明した。

注
1
本論文における日本人初級英語学習者とは、日本語が母語で
あ り 、 ヨ ー ロ ッ パ 言 語 共 通 参 照 枠 （ Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching,assessment: CEFR）における「基礎段階の言語使用者」における A1 レベルの英語運用能力を持っている学習者と想定する。
2
野田（1996）によると、破格の主題をもつ文には、主題と後続部分とで何らかの要素が重複している重複型・主題と後続部分の間で何らかの要素が欠落している不足型・主題と後続部分の関係があいまいである漠然型の 3 種類があるとしているが、本論文ではこれ以上の言及を避ける。
3
効果量 φ の大きさの目安については、水本・竹内（2008）を参照している。

5. おわりに
本論文では、日本人初級英語学習者の二重主語文に関する文産出への影響について、和文英訳テストを行うことで検討した。二重主語文「X は Y が Z」における X・Y・Z の間にみられる主述関係や修飾・被修飾の関係は、構文のタイプに応じて異なるが、構造上、主述関係や修飾・被修飾の関係を意識化できない場合、日本語の二重主語文と英語のコピュラの文を同一視されてしまい、日本語の主題をもつ文が英語の文産出に転移し、二重主語文を英語で表現することが困難であると示された。特に、「かき料理は広島が本場だ」のおける「かき料理」と「本場」などのように X と Z の間に隔たりのある修飾・被修飾の関係や、「辞書は白水社がいい」や「辞書は新西和辞典がいい」における主題 X の「辞書」と形容詞 Z の「いい」の間の主述関係や修飾・被修飾の関係を理解するのは難しい。ただし、「辞書は新しいのがいい」などのように、Y に代用形式「の」が後続することで、日本人初級英語学習者の多くは、Y が何らかの名詞句と修飾・被修飾の関係にあることを把握でき、そのような二重主語文を正しく英語で表現できることが示された。したがって、X・Y・Z の間の主
述関係や修飾・被修飾の関係を把握する「手がかり」がないと、日本人初級英語学習者の英訳は困難になることが導かれた。
最後に、本論文で得られた知見を踏まえて、日本人初級英語学習者が転移を克服するための方策について論じる。筆者は、本論文で扱ったような構文が基本語順の文からどのように導かれたのかを理解することが重要であると考えており、吉田・柳瀬（2004）や伊東他（2010）
は、「ペンギンは脚が短い」より主題化の操作の逆から謝辞
第 4 回 JAAL in JACET 学術交流学会にて有益なコメントをくださった先生方および拙稿に対して貴重なコメントをくださった匿名の査読者の先生方に、心より謝意を表する。
参考文献
橋尾晋平. (2019).「大学生初級英語学習者の主語の習得に関する指導法の提案―主題標識「は」を含む助詞の意味に着目して―」同志社ことばの会記念論文集刊行会（編）『ことばとの対話―記述・理論・言語教育―』（pp. 297–306）.
英宝社.
橋尾晋平. (2021).「日本語の主題卓越型構造からの転移の克服に向けた意味重視の文法指導に関する一考察」JAAL in
JACET Proceedings, 3, 93–100.
Hashio, S., & Yamauchi, Y. (2021). A note on the influence of topic
prominence in Japanese on Japanese beginner-level EFL
learners’ interlanguage: An empirical study. In J. R. Jaskow &A. Wolanin (Eds.), Facing diversity in child foreign language
education (pp. 291–311). Springer.
伊東治己・中住幸治・西野恭平・藤原剛・堀田大輔・福島知津子・佐野美智代・中山里美. (2010).「高等学校における英92

語ライティング指導の実験的試み―主語選択に焦点を当てた和文英訳指導の有効性―」『鳴門教育大学授業実践研
究―学部・大学院の授業改善をめざして―』, 9, 47–55.
Jackson, H. (1981). Contrastive analysis as a predicator of errors,with reference to Punjabi learners of English. In J. Fisiak (Ed.),
Contrastive linguistics and the language teacher (pp. 195–205).
The University of Michigan.
James, C. (1980). Contrastive analysis. Longman.
小林亜希子. (2008).「国文法を利用した英文法教育の試み」『島
大言語文化：島根大学法文学部紀要言語文化学科編』, 25,
41–75.
小口悠紀子. (2016).「二重主語構文『X ハ Y ガ Z』の習得における母語の影響―構文と意味的制約の相違に着目して―」『日本語研究』, 36, 1–12.
Luk, Z. P., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Is the acquisition order ofgrammatical morphemes impervious to L1 knowledge?:
Evidence from the acquisition of plural –s, articles, andpossesive ’s. Language Learning, 59, 721–754.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00524.x
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1976). Subject and topic: a new
typology of language. In Li, C. N. (Ed.), Subject and Topic (pp.
457–461). University of Texas Press.
益岡隆志. (2019).「日本語の主題と主語―叙述の類型の観点から―」同志社ことばの会記念論文集刊行会 (編).『ことばとの対話―理論・記述・言語教育―』(pp. 35–51). 英宝社.
三上章. (1960).『象は鼻が長い』. くろしお出版.
水本篤・竹内理. (2008).「研究論文における効果量の報告のために―基礎的概念と注意点―」『英語教育研究』, 31, 57–
66.
野田尚史. (1994).「日本語とスペイン語の主題化」『言語研究』,
105, 32–53.
野田尚史. (1996).『「は」と「が」』. くろしお出版.
Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence. In C. J. Doughty, & M.
H. Long. (Eds.). Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.
436–486). Blackwell.
Sasaki, M. (1990). Topic prominence in Japanese EFL students’existential constructions. Language Learning, 40, 369–385.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00667.x
Schachter, J., & Rutherford, W. (1979). Discourse function andlanguage transfer. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 3–12.
田地野彰. (2008).「新しい学校文法の構築に向けて―英文作成
における『意味順』指導の効果検証―」小山俊輔・西堀わか子・田地野彰. (編).『平成 20 年度英語の授業実践研究』(pp. 8–21). 奈良女子大学国際交流センター.
吉田研作・柳瀬和明. (2004).『日本語を活かした英語授業のすすめ』. 大修館書店.

93

4 技能テスト結果からみる『9 マス英会話』のトレーニング効果
石川希美*・山田政樹**・坂部俊行***・内藤永*****札幌大谷大学
nozomi_ishikawa@sapporo-otani.ac.jp**札幌大谷大学
masaki_yamada@sapporo-otani.ac.jp***北海道科学大学
t-sakabe@hus.ac.jp****北海学園大学
naito@hgu.jp
要旨
英会話では事前準備なしの即時応答が課題となる。即時応答能力養成のために開発された『9マス英会話』（内藤, 2022）を用いた学習では、発話語数が増加し、論理的な発話展開が観察されている（Ishikawa et al., 2020､山田他, 2021）。しかし、この教材の言語技能全体への影響が不明なため、本研究では、50 名の学生を発話語数低・中・上位の各群に分け、学習前後に英語試
験とアンケートを課して 4 技能の伸長を分析した。その結果、「読む」と「聞く」は総じて伸びたが、「話す」は少しの下落、「書く」は低・中位群で大幅な下落が起きた。また、学習者は発話への抵抗感が薄れ、英語レベルが伸びたと感じていることが判明した。発話語数が全群で伸
びており、試験では測れない英語産出技能の変化が起きていること、『9 マス英会話』での練習を通じて正確に意味を理解する英語受容技能が伸長していることが示唆された。
キーワード：9 マス英会話、英語即時応答能力、発話語数、英語受容技能、英語産出技能
1. はじめにEAP 教育の国際的な需要の高まりを受け、様々な EA
国際展示商談会に学生を派遣した際に、「スピーキングの場面で学習者に起きているのは、予め用意した内容
を英語で伝えることは比較的円滑に発話することができるが、用意していない内容を発話する場面になると、
1) 話すべき内容が思い浮かばない、2) 話すべき内容は思い浮かぶが、即時に英語として表現することができなくなり、結果として、会話が途絶えて、沈黙に至る」（内藤, 2022）という事態を目の当たりにしてきた（Sakabe, 2015; 柴田, 2015）。これを踏まえて、応答する力を高めようと開発されたのが、「9 マス英会話」ト
レーニングである（内藤, 2022）。
社会的な現場で英語を使う時には、相手の話を聞き取りつつ、多様な事柄を処理していく臨機応変さが求められるが、沈黙してしまって何の応答もしないこと
は、相手とのコミュニケーションを最初から拒否していると受け取られる危険がある。Hughes & Reed（2017）は、英語でのやり取りにおいて、最も熟達した学習者でも途方にくれてしまうことがあるのは驚くことではな
いとしている（p. 167）
。EFL（English as a Foreign Language）の環境にある日本人学習者は、スピーキングに対する自信が低いことが指摘されている（Igawa & Forrester,2016）が、英語でのやりとりの機会を多くして経験を積
むことはもちろんだが、目の前にいる相手に通じたと94

いう達成感を得て自信をつけること、逆にうまくいかなかったときにどうしたらいいのかを考えたり・知ったり・気づくことといった総合的な経験の必要性がある。
また、4 技能（リスニング、リーディング、ライティ
ング、スピーキング）は、それぞれ別の技能であるが、言語発達において相互に関連もある。
「9 マス英会話トレーニング」では、図示された内容に関する発話語数が伸長するなどはこれまで確認されていたが、4 技能においてどういう影響がみられるのかは未検証であった。
本研究では、「9 マス英会話トレーニング」の前後で4 技能テストを受験させ、どのような技能が伸長してい
くのか、また相互関連性について統計的手法を用いて明らかにしていく。
2. 先行研究
スピーキング能力の評価については、テスティング
やタスクに基づく分野で研究が進められている（cf.
Bachman, 1990; Ellis, 2003 ）。 評 価 指 標 と し て CAF（Complexity：複雑さ、Accuracy：正確さ、Fluency：流暢さ）の 3 項目が用いられているが（Skehan, 1998）、
泉・門田（2016）は「複雑性」および「流暢性」の両面で、課題の反復による効果があると示唆している。また、ポーズの減少や 1 分当たりの語彙数が増えること（富田・小栗・河内, 2011, p. 176）
、異語数および総語数の増

2.2 「9 マス英会話」のトレーニング
9 マス英会話のトレーニング後では、一貫して発話語数が増加しており、事前テストと比較して 1.46 倍の伸
びがみられた（Naito et al., 2018; 山田他, 2021）。語数が少なかった学生も、複数の事柄を伝えようとするようになったためと思われる。また、学生の発話について質的に分析したところ、be 動詞を多用する傾向がみられた。事後テストは事前テストと比べ約 2 倍の使用数があり、センテンスで話すようになる傾向である。フレー
ズレベルの発話では、位置関係を言う、物の説明をしている傾向がみられ、事後テストでは、形容詞の使用が増えて、大きさ、色の説明を加えていることが明らかとなった。さらに、伝える順番につながりがみられ、論理的な組み立ての表れと考えられる（Naito et al., 2020）。
また、アンケート調査では、事後に、①英語を学ぶことが楽しいと思うようになる、②英語で話すことへの抵抗感が下がる、③学習者は、英語で話すスキルや考えるスキルが上がったと感じていることがわかった（Ishikawa et al., 2021; Naito et al., 2019) 。
しかし、これまでの先行研究では 9 マス英会話トレーニングは、スピーキング能力にのみ関係している変化なのか、つまり言語技能全体においてどのような影響があるかは調査できていなかった。

加など「流暢性」を示す指標が向上するという成果がある（杉浦他, 2013）。さらに、この 3 つの指標は相互に影響しあう関係にあること（Foster & Skehan, 1996; Ortega,1999）が論じられており、CAF 間で「トレード・オフ効果」が起こることが確認されている。
2.1 「9 マス英会話」
国際商談展示会における学生の即時応答能力の課題がきっかけとなって、「9 マス英会話」が開発されるに至った（内藤, 2022）。描写するタスクが、3×3 の 9 個のマス目に示されていたことから「9 マス英会話」と名づけられた。
具体的には、図 1 で示したように、9 マスに記された図柄を描写するタスクを用いて、ペア、またはグループ
で即時応答のやり取りを行っていくトレーニングタス
クである。その場で伝えるものが示されるため、何を言わないとならないかという点で負荷を下げつつ、どういう風に伝えると伝わるかを経験的にトレーニングすることに意識を向けさせている。
図1
9 マス英会話のやり方を説明するスライド

3. 本研究3.1 目的および研究対象者
本研究の目的は、9 マス英会話のトレーニングの前後に、4 技能テストを受験してもらい、このトレーニング
が 4 技能のどこに変化や影響がみられるのかを調査することである。また、事前のスピーキングテストの発話
語数の違いによって、3 つの群に分けて、グループごとにどのような特性がみられるかを調査した。
9 マス英会話とそれにかかわるスピーキングテスト、
アンケートは 3 大学 200 名を超える学生に実施している。4 技能テストについては、今回初の試みとなるため、パイロット調査として、200 名超のうちの 50 名（大学A: 16 名、大学 B: 16 名、大学 C: 18 名；1 年生: 44 名、
2・3 年生: 6 名）に対して実施した。

そして、やり取りの成立、つまり、①話した相手が正しく理解できるように伝えること、②聞き取る側も聞き直す、確認するなどを行い、積極的に参加して理解につとめること、の相互作用に注目している。タスクの内
容は、非常にシンプルで取り組みやすいものからスタートしながら、順を追って複雑な内容になっていく。最終的な目標である商品のようなモノを伝える際にも、色・形など基本的な語彙表現を組み合わせ、似たようなものに見立てて説明することを訓練する。また、即時応答が成立するためには、相手に理解してもらいやすいように話す必要が生じる。順序だてて話すことや、全体像を伝えてから細かな部分を伝えるといったスキルを実践していくようになる。
スピーキングのタスクの中でも、長いこと沈黙して何も言えない状態を脱して、ためらうことなく発話するという「流暢さ」を高めることを目的としたタスクであり、語句の発音、文法の使用にみられる「正確さ」について、先に教育的介入や指導をするものではない点
は、従来の英語教育とは大きな違いとなっている（内藤,2022）。

3.2 研究方法
9 マス英会話トレーニングの開始前（2021 年 4 月）と終了後（2021 年 7 月）に、スピーキングテスト、ア
ンケート、4 技能テストを実施した。9 マス英会話トレーニングの教材は 3 大学で共通した同一教材を使用している。
スピーキングテストは、発話語数を調べることを目的に、示された画像について 1 分間で説明するものである（図 2）。図を見ていない友達にできるだけたくさんの情報を伝えるように話すよう指示している。
また、アンケートは、事前アンケート 25 問、事後ア
ンケートは 9 マス英会話に関する質問内容を加えた 30
問で構成されている。大半は 6 段階のリッカートスケ

95

ールで、一部に自由記述がある（Ishikawa et al., 2021）。
図2

スピーキングテストの事前テスト（左図）と事後テスト（右図）で示された画像

4.2 アンケート調査結果分析
アンケート調査結果は、統計解析ソフト IBM SPSS
Statistics version 27（IBM, Armonk, NY, USA）を用いて統計分析を行った。6 段階のリッカートスケールとなっている項目の平均スコアを比較し分析した。各項目の平均値の比較には、独立したサンプルの t 検定を用いた。
9 マス英会話のトレーニングの前（事前）と 9 マス英会
話のトレーニングの後（事後）の差が 0.50 以上となっており、有意確率が.050 以下（p≦0.05）となっている
項目について、差があり有意となっていると判断し、分
析をした。
（表 1）
差の数値が高くなった項目からは、9 マス英会話トレーニングの後では「英語学習は楽しいと思えるようになった」、「自信を持って英語を話せるようになった」、「私は英語で説明するときには、（どのように説明するか）順序を考えるようになった」、「英語を学ぶうえで学
生同士のペアワークが好きになった」、「現在の英語レベルが上がっていると実感している」ようになったと考えられる。差の数値が低くなった項目からは「私は（9マス英会話のように）いきなり英語で話すことはつら
いと感じなくなった」と考えられる。

4 技能テストは、今回 GTEC Academic1 を使用した。
大学生が受験対象のテストであり、Computer-Based
Testing（CBT）であるためコロナ禍でも受験が可能であ
ること、さらに 4 技能の評価も詳細に示されるといったことを考慮した。
4. 結果と考察
4.1 スピーキング調査
9 マス英会話トレーニング前と後の 2 回に実施した
スピーキングテストの結果は、図 3 の通りである。事前テストでは、発話語数は 7 語～49 語、平均 21.5 語、標準偏差 10.092 となり、事後テストでは、9 語～67 語、
平均 35.24 語、標準偏差 13.842 となった。発話語数は 9
マス英会話トレーニング後に増加した。
図3

発話語数

語数

発話語数
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

表1

事前と事後のアンケート結果比較

事前項目（項目番号：事前/事後）
1. 私は人とコミュニケーションを取るのが好きだ
2. 私は英語学習は楽しい。
3. 私は自信を持って英語を話せるほうだ。
4. 私は英語の授業で間違っても気にならない。
5. 私は英語の勉強に抵抗を感じている。
6. 私は新しい英語の語
彙や表現を覚えようとしている。
7. 私にとって英語は覚えないと使えないものだ事後

図4

発話語数（グループごと）
発話語数（グループごと）
pre語数

語数

また、事前テストの発話語数によって、3 つのグループ（下位群①7～16 語（17 名）、中位群②17～26 語（19名）
、上位群③27～49 語（14 名））に分けて、その違いを比較した（図 4）。
平均語数については、下位群①は、事前 11. 88 語・事後 27.61 語、中位群②は、事前 21.3 語・事後 35.15 語、上位群③は、事前 36.25 語・事後 46.83 語で、どのグループにおいても発話語数が増加した。一方で、語数の増
え方は、ばらつきが広がる傾向が顕著である。

post語数

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

①

②

③

96

事前

事後

4.24

4.42

（N=50）
有意
確率
0.18
.452

3.42

4.20

0.78

.002

2.14

2.76

0.62

.004

3.46

3.64

0.18

.456

2.98

2.86

-0.12

.643

3.94

4.12

0.18

.380

4.46

4.06

-0.40

.124

差

8. 私は英語は相手がいるやりとりが大事だ
9. 私は英語でのやりとりでは相手によく確認をする
10. 私は英語で説明する
ときには、（どのように説明するか）順序を考える
11. 私が英語を学ぶうえで学生同士のペアワークは好きだ
12. 私は、英語で話すときには流暢さが大事だ
13. 私は自分の英語の発音の良し悪しは気になる
ほうだ
14. 私は（話している）相
手の英語の発音の良し悪しは気になるほうだ
15. 私は英語の学習は評
価が気になる方だ

4.52

4.88

0.36

.095

3.84

4.10

0.26

.278

3.76

4.30

0.54

.027

3.56

4.74

1.18

.000

4.00

3.76

-0.24

.267

3.98

3.88

-0.10

.683

2.64

2.68

0.04

.865

3.96

3.96

0.00

1.000

16. 私は（９マス英会話のように）いきなり英語で話すことはつらいと感じるほうだ。
17. 私はできるだけすば
やく英語で話して伝えることは不安に思う。
18. あなたの現在の英語レベルを示すものとして最もふさわしいと思うものを一つ選んでください。
19. あなたが大学生のう
ちに身につけたい英語力
はどの程度ですか

4.16

3.62

-0.54

.040

4.20

3.98

-0.22

.378

1.90

2.58

0.68

.000

4.02

4.22

0.20

.452

表2
4 技能テストスコア（技能別、総合）
平均点
最高点
事前
事後
事前 事後
Listening
95.0
100.6
166
153
Reading
81.9
86.9
156
142
Writing
104.9
98.4
154
153
Speaking
102.2
99.8
131
141
384.0
385.6
557
566
総合点

最低点
事前 事後
57
61
24
38
0
0
61
61
203
260

受容技能については、最低点も事後に上がっている。また、技能別に見た場合、スピーキングは事前・事後の両方で、最低点・最高点のスコア差が一番小さく、また、
事後の最高点の上昇があったことが他の技能と異なる特徴を示した。
各技能のどのような項目において事前・事後に違いが見られたかというと、リスニングでは、語彙の習得（聞き分けられる・理解できる語彙が増えた）、音素の聞き分けの項目でスコア増加があり、リーディングでは、保有語彙が増加、長文を読むことができるようになったことがわかった。スピーキングにおいては、文法（Grammar）、語彙（Vocabulary）、発音（Pronunciation）
はスコアが微増、評価者のネイティブスピーカーに通じたかどうかを示すタスクの達成度（Goal Achievement）
においては横ばいであった。ライティングは、文法でス
コアがあがり、タスクの達成度は横ばいであった。
これらのことから、どの技能においても、語彙、文法といった基礎的な部分が強化されたことがわかる。さらに、リスニングやリーディングといった受容技能においては、スコア増加につながったと考えられる。スピ
ーキングやライティングにおいては、タスク達成度には影響がみられなかった。
4.3.2 グループ別
発話語数の違いから 3 つのグループに分類して、GTEC Academic のスコアの状況をまとめると以下の通りになった。
下位群（表 3）は、全体の傾向と同様に、受容技能でのスコア増加が見られたが、産出技能ではスコアが下がっている。さらに、総合スコアも平均点が事後に少し下がった。

4.3 4 技能テスト
9 マス英会話トレーニングの実施前と実施後に受験させた GTEC Academic の結果、リーディングとリスニ
ングの受容技能は総じて伸びたが、予想に反して、スピーキングは全体として横ばいか少しの下落が起き、ライティングに関しては、発話語数が低位と中位の群に関しては大幅な下落が起きて、その語彙レベルはどの群でも落ちていた。

表3

下位群
平均点

4.3.1 グループ全体
4 技能テストの結果は、以下の表 2 の通りである。
4 技能テストにおいては、受容技能（リスニング、リーディング）は平均スコアが上がったが、産出技能（スピーキング、ライティング）では平均スコアが下がった。

事前
Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
総合

90.1
79.9
101.2
98.6
369.8

差
事後
93.1
84.4
94.5
95.0
367.0

3
4.5
-6.7
-3.6
-2.8

中位群（表 4）も、全体の傾向とほぼ同様に、受容技
能のスコアの伸びがみられるが、ライティングでは大

97

表6

きく平均点が下がった。

発話語数および GTEC Academic スコアの伸びの相関
表4

語

中位群
平均点
事前
Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
総合

90.3
71.6
105.2
100.7
367.7

語

差
事後
96.8
75.8
89.7
100.3
362.6

L

6.5
4.2
-15.5
-0.4
-5.1

R

0.018
0.901
0.116
0.424
0.235
0.100
-0.002
0.989
0.111
0.444

S
0.235
0.100
0.296
0.037
0.200
0.163
1

W
-0.002
0.989
0.147
0.308
0.403
0.004
0.177
0.220
1

(N=50)
総
0.111
0.444
0.668
0.000
0.753
0.000
0.533
0.000
0.712
0.000
1

有意確率の略

表5

上位群

Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
総合

1

R
0.116
0.424
0.387
0.005
1

0.387
0.005
S
0.296 0.200
0.037 0.163
W
0.147 0.403 0.177
0.308 0.004 0.220
0.668 0.753 0.533
0.712
総0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000
語：発話語数の伸び、L：Listening の伸び、R：Reading の伸び、
S：Speaking の伸び、W：Writing の伸び、相：相関係数、有：

上位群（表 5）は、スピーキングで平均点が 4 点ほど下がったことを除いては、平均点は上昇した。特に、総合スコアで平均点が 15.9 点と大きな伸びを示した。
以上の結果から、発話語数の多い群の方が、4 技能テ
ストにおいてもスコアの増加がより見られることが明らかとなった。

平均点
事前
事後
107.3
114.9
98.3
104.9
109.0
114.8
108.8
104.8
423.4
439.3

相
有
相
有
相
有
相
有
相
有
相
有

L
0.018
0.901
1

差
7.6
6.6
5.8
-4
15.9

4.3.3 テストの相関
発話語数テストの伸び、GTEC Academic の総合得点の伸び、リスニング得点の伸び、リーディング得点の伸び、スピーキング得点の伸び、ライティング得点の伸びの相関分析をした。統計解析ソフト IBM SPSS Statistics
version 27（IBM, Armonk, NY, USA）を用いて統計分析を行った。測定データの変数間の相関関係は、ピアソンの相関係数を用いて分析した。相関係数が 0.200 以上（r≧.20）となっており、有意確率が.050 以下（p≦0.05）となっている項目について相関があると判断し分析をした。
発話語数テストの伸びと GTEC Academic 各スコアの伸びはいずれも相関がなかった。GTEC Academic 総合
得点が伸びている場合はリスニング、リーディング、ス
ピーキング、ライティングのすべての技能別得点が伸びている。リスニング得点が伸びている場合は、リーデ
ィング、スピーキングも伸びている。リーディングが伸
びている場合はリスニング、ライティングが伸びている。スピーキングが伸びている場合はリスニングが伸びている。ライティングが伸びている場合はリーディ
ングが伸びている結果となった。
（表 6）

98

5. 考察
これらの GTEC Academic の結果をまとめると、9 マス英会話トレーニングの実施後、学習者は受容能力に注意深くなり、総じてこれらのスコアが上昇する一方で、語彙の使い方に質的な変化が起き、平易な単語、単純な文法構造で産出するようになった結果、産出能力のスコアが下降すると推測される。つまり、リスニングに注意が向き理解できると得点につながっていくが、産出においては、使える資源を最大限使おうとしても、資源が限定的で自由度が少ないと、語彙表現の豊かさなどが評価される項目ではスコアの下降という一種の「トレード・オフ効果」があり、全体とグループごとでスコア差の表れ方の違いとも関連している可能性があるとみている。
全体として、スコアの伸びは受容能力項目にみられる。高校時代までのインプットが、大学入学後でも 9 マス英会話を通じて使っていくことによって、スコアの伸びにつながっている可能性があるだろう。アンケー
ト結果の「英語レベルが上がっていると実感している」という点は主観的な印象にとどまっていたが、4 技能テ
ストにおいても一部それを裏付ける結果がみられた。
スピーキングは 4 技能テストのスコア差はほかの技
能と比べ小さい。発話語数は事後に全員が伸びている
が、伸びの程度は異なり、差が大きくなった。これは、9 マス英会話自体は、流暢さと即時に応答することを目標にしているが、GTEC Academic の評価ポイントとはマッチしていない点がある。9 マス英会話には慣れたものの、このテストで求められるタスクには十分対応していたとはいえない。スコアの下がった点は、より詳細な調査によって、学生が困っている点や苦手にしている点が明確になるかもしれない。

6. まとめ
即時応答力を養成することを目指して実施した「9 マス英会話トレーニング」によって、発話語数の伸びがみられ、即時に英語で話すことへの抵抗感の減少といった肯定的意見は有意に伸びていることから、英語に対する前向きな意識をもたせて、英語力の底上げが図られていると考えられる。さらに、4 技能テストからは、受容能力（リーディング、リスニング）において平均ス
コアの伸びが見られたが、産出能力（スピーキング、ライティング）においては平均スコアは下降した。
今回は、そのほかの英語学習の状況や、新型コロナ感染症の影響で大学によって授業形態が異なっていたことで、対面授業とオンライン授業が混在するなど授業
スタイルの違いといった要因はここでは検討していない（内藤, 2021）。
4 技能テストの受験者は 50 名という少数でパイロッ
ト調査段階であり、発話語数によって 3 群に分けて、技能ごとのスコアを比較した場合には全体スコアの状況と違いもみられることから、長期にわたる調査などさらなる研究が必要である。

結果について.
https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/1415043.h
tm
内藤永. (2021). 「Zoom を利用した遠隔『9 マス英会話』の実
践」ESP Hokkaido Journal, 4, 38–53.
内藤永. (2022). 「即時レスポンス能力を向上させるスピーキ
ング教材『9 マス英会話』の開発」『金子義明教授退官記念論集』(pp. 336–346). 開拓社.
Naito, H., Sakabe, T., Shibata, A., Ishikawa, N., & Yamada, M. (2018,
Oct. 26). 3x3 Table English Training Method for Improving a
Quick Response at Business Scenes [Poster Presentation]. ABC
83rd Annual International Conference, Miami, FL, United States.
Naito, H., Yamada, M., Ishikawa, N., Sakabe, T., & Shibata, A. (2019,
Oct. 24). 3x3 Table English Training Method for Improving a
Quick Response at Business Scenes, Part 2 [Poster presentation].
ABC 84th Annual International Conference, Detroit, MI, UnitedStates.
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral
performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1),109–148. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199001047
Sakabe, T. (2015). Difficulties in using English during an internshipabroad: An analysis based on speech data. ESP Hokkaido
Journal, 3, 1–7.
Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics,
18,
268–286.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500003585
柴田晶子. (2015). 「商談会通訳者へのアンケート結果から探る大学英語教育への示唆」ESP Hokkaido Journal, 3, 9–20.
杉浦香織他. (2013).「日本人英語学習者に対する絵 描写発話の繰り返し効果」『外国語教育メディア学会（LET）第 53
回（2013 年度）全国研究大会発表要項』, 192–193.
富田かおる・小栗裕子・河内千栄子. (編). (2011). 『英語教育学大系第 9 巻 リスニングとスピーキングの理論と実践－
効果的な授業を目指して』大修館書店.
山田政樹･石川希美･坂部俊行･内藤永. (2021).「実践的インタ
ラクションタスクトレーニングがスピーキング能力へ与える影響」ESP Hokkaido Journal, 4, 22–36.

注
1
GTEC Academic の詳細は、以下の URL に記載されている。
https://www.benesse.co.jp/gtec/general/lp_a/
なお、CEFR B1 レベルでリスニング 140 点、リーディング 120
点、ライティング 110 点、スピーキング 140 点、総合スコア
510 点とされている。
謝辞
ベネッセ i-キャリア上村明子氏、岡安芽莉沙氏、林玲志氏（あいうえお順）には GTEC Academic の実施と研究会におけるディスカッションにおいて実質的なサポートと、貴重な助言や示唆をいただいた。この場を借りてお礼申し上げる。
参考文献
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language
testing. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford
University Press.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task
type on second language performance. Studies in Second
Language
Acquisition,
18(3),
299–323.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047
Hughes, R., & Reed, B. S. (2017). Teaching and researching
speaking (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Igawa, J. & Forrester, D. (2016). University in English? Questionsof Confidence, The Language Teacher, 40(6), 9–13
Ishikawa, N., Yamada, M., Sakabe, T., & Naito, H. (2020, October
27–31) Text Mining to Analyze Spoken Vocabulary Tasks [Poster
Presentation]. ABC 85th Annual International Conference,
Online, United States.
Ishikawa, N., Yamada, M., Sakabe, T., & Naito, H. (2021). The
Effect of Practical Interaction Task Training on Learners’
Motivation and Attitudes: Usefulness of 3x3 table English
training. ESP Hokkaido Journal, 4, 1–21.
泉惠美子・門田修平. (編著). (2016). 『英語スピーキング指導
ハンドブック』大修館書店.
文部科学省. (2020). 令和元年度「英語教育実施状況調査」の99

航空機操縦士のための英語教材開発―日本語母語話者の外国語訛りに対する脆弱性の検証―
西川惠*・縄田義直***東海大学
megumi-nishikawa@tsc.u-tokai.ac.jp**航空大学校
nawata@kouku-dai.ac.jp
要旨
本研究は、日本人航空機操縦士・航空機操縦士訓練生（以下、訓練生）と管制官とのやり取りで必要となる無線交信における聴解力向上を目指す教材開発のために必要となる外国語訛り
への脆弱性の検証を目的とする。研究方法は、離着陸時に必要となる Automatic Terminal
Information Service（以下、ATIS）の聞き取りというタスクを用いた。具体的には、ATIS のスク
リプトを英語、日本語、及び中国語母語話者（以下、ENS、JNS 及び CNS）の 3 種類の管制官役が読み上げたものを訓練生・訓練修了者の 10 名に聞き取ってもらい、誤答を分析すること
で聞き取り阻害要因を検証した。分析の結果、JNS、ENS、CNS の順で正答率が高く、訓練生の日本語訛りへの慣れと中国語訛りへの脆弱さが明らかになった。
キーワード：English for Specific Purposes、English as a Lingua Franca、航空英語、外国語訛り
1. はじめに
現在、航空業界は新型コロナウイルス感染症拡大で需要が大幅に落ち込む厳しい環境下にある。しかし、今後予想されるコロナ禍からの回復や現役操縦士の大量退職を迎える「2030 年問題」等、長期的な観点から安定した操縦士の養成訓練は必要不可欠である。政府はその対策として、外国人操縦士等の採用枠の拡大や、独立行政法人航空大学校（以下、航大）や民間航空会社による社内養成に加えて私立大学における養成課程拡充により操縦士の養成・確保に取り組んでいる。私立大学の一部では日本国外にて英語で訓練を受けるケースもあり、訓練課程で必要な英語教育プログラム確立とそれに必要とされる語学教材開発の必要性が急激に高まっている（Nishikawa & Nawata, 2019）。
訓練生に加え、エアライン操縦士にとっても大きな課題であるのが業務遂行に必要となる言語（英語）能力の確保である。エアライン操縦士にとって国際航行の際の無線（Radiotelephony、以下、RT）交信中のミスコ
ミュニケ―ションは航空安全を脅かす要因となるのだ
が、航空需要拡大により操縦士の母語が多様化する中で外国語訛り（foreign / regional accents）にも頑強な RT
聴解力は新たな課題となりつつある。国際航行における RT での英語のやり取りは、母語の異なる者同士がミ
スなく意思疎通をはからねばならず、この点で English
as a Lingua Franca（以下、ELF）としての側面が強い。
操縦士としての生涯キャリアにおいて必要となるノ
イズに頑健な聴解力習得のためには訓練生の時点から交信音や外国語訛りへの露出を継続的に行う必要があり、実際に航大にて使用される教材ではアメリカ発音に加えて、日本から国際航行の多い地域で使用される言語である英・加・仏・露・豪・中・韓・インドネシア語等の母語話者の発音による読み上げで教材を作成している。訓練生が必要とする英語力については、主に①飛行中に必要となる RT での管制官とのやり取り、②飛行中機内で必要となる飛行教官とのやり取り、③飛行後の振り返りの時間である Post Flight Briefing（以下、PFB）で必要となる教官とのやり取り、の 3 種類である
ことがわかっている（西川, 2021; 西川・縄田, 2020;
Nishikawa & Nawata, 2019）。①は RT の規定に則った型（復唱）でのやり取りとなり RT 交信音等のノイズが大きい環境下で行うのが特徴で（西川, 2021）、職業目的のための英語（English for Occupational Purposes）となるのに対し、②及び③は飛行中に指導を受ける際や飛行後PFB の際に必要となり、風景描写・操縦動作の分析とい っ た 特 殊 目 的 の た め の 英 語 （ English for SpecificPurposes）の要素も大きいのが特徴となる（Nishikawa &Nawata, 2019）。訓練生用教材については、テキストと音声 CD を使ったもの（縄田・横山, 2011）や英語圏での訓練を想定したもの（イカロス・アカデミー, 2009）に加えフライトシミュレーションソフトと Virtual Reality（以下、VR）を使用した簡易的フライトシミュレータ
教材も開発されている（西川・縄田, 2021）。教材開発には今後も状況に特化したタスク収集が必要とされる。
また、RT 教材においては、外国語訛りへの意識と耐性を高め、頑強な RT リスニング力の養成という要素を加える必要がある（縄田, 2017）。

100

2. 先行研究2.1 操縦士が必要とする英語力
訓練生に必要な英語力は、主に飛行中と飛行後に必
要なリスニング力とスピーキング力であることがこれまでにわかっている。具体的な状況としては、飛行中の航空管制官（以下、ATC）と RT を通したやり取り（西川, 2021）、教官との機内でのやり取り（西川・縄田, 2021）、
及び飛行後の教官との PFB（西川, 2020; Nishikawa &Nawata, 2019; 西川・縄田, 2019）である。
飛行中の ATC との RT 交信については、1 回のやり取りあたりの情報量が多くなると、操縦士が ATC からの指示を復唱する際にコールサインの付け忘れや高度や速度を表す数字の誤りが増えることが特徴的である（西川, 2021; Estival & Molesworth, 2016）。
「情報量」とは、情報のピースを指し、例えば、高度（数字）＋機首
方位（数字）や進入方式＋滑走路（数字）といった情報
ピースの数と組み合わせが増えると情報量は多くなり、認知的負荷が高くなる。例えば、下の(1)に対して(2)は情報量が多いということになる。
(1) call sign, new altimeter setting 3023.
(2) call sign, new altimeter setting 3023, after passing 3,000,
turn right heading 020.
また、RT 交信では聞き誤りを防止するために指示内容を復唱する工程がある（日本航空機操縦士協会, 2011）。
この際の復唱エラーには、情報自体が消失している
omission タイプと、復唱はしているが内容が誤っている
mistake タイプがある。例えば、上記の(2)の指示を聞いた際に次の(3)を復唱したとする（カッコ内の箇所は復唱すべきであるがしなかったことを意味する）。
(3) call sign, new altimeter setting 3020,（after passing 3,000）,
turn right heading 020.
この場合、(3)の 3020 は mistake、after passing 3,000 は
omission となる。
ATC と操縦士の RT 交信においては、不明瞭な点があった場合は繰り返しや言い直しを依頼し、理解できるまで交信を継続することになるが、このような交信が増え認知的負荷が上がると、疲労が高まり操縦動作も含めたあらゆるパフォーマンスが下がる（Molesworth,
2016）。その結果、事故等の致命的なミスにつながりやすくなるとされる。RT コミュニケーションが航空安全を脅かすヒューマン・ファクターの一因として研究されるのはこのためである（Barshi & Farris, 2013）。
2.2 認知的負荷と外国語訛り（foreign / regional accents）
RT コミュニケーションは ELF ととらえられ、これまでにも非英語母語話者訛りを含めた言語的要因の影響について、やり取りの録音を会話・談話分析といった手法で分析されてきている。Tajima（2004）は、操縦業務

101

遂行に十分な英語力をそなえている非英語母語話者でも認知的負荷が高くなると、正確な RT コミュニケー
ションが困難になるとしている。また、訛りは、特に認知的負荷がかかるような場面では効率的なコミュニ
ケーションに大きな影響を与える（Tiewtrakul & Fletcher,2010）といった報告や、訛りのある操縦士は訛りのない操縦士よりも RT コミュニケーションにおいてエラーをおかすことが多く、着陸に向けての進入時と離陸時に最もミスは発生しやすい（Wu, Molesworth & Estival,2019）といった研究結果もある。
2.3 外国語訛りと発音
RT コミュニケーションにおける母語発音の転移を検証した研究報告としては Kim and Billington（2018）がある。この研究では、韓国にある国際空港で実際に起きた聞き取り違いにおける韓国語訛りの影響を分析している。
韓国語を母語とする ATC とフランス語を母語とする
操縦士とのやり取りの中で聞き取り間違いが起きたフ
レーズ“taxi forward and hold short（runway）16”を ATCの母語である韓国語の子音や母音、イントネーション
等の転移という観点から分析した。報告された母語転移による発音特徴は以下の通りである。
・“taxi”：（American English (AmE) /tæksi/）→ 韓国語では子音の連続は単純化されるため/ks/の/k/が発音されていない。
・“taxi”：最後の母音/i/（close front vowel）の前では /s/（歯茎摩擦音）が硬口蓋摩擦音になっている。
・“taxi”：母音/æ/が韓国語にないため/e/と発音している。
・“forward”：（AmE /fɔːrwərd /）/r/をそり舌接近音ではなくそり舌側面接近音で発音したため hold /hoʊld/と聞き間違えた可能性がある。
・“and”:（AmE /ænd/）/d/ が母音に置き換わっている。
・“hold”：（AmE /hoʊld/）語末の子音連続 /ld/ はまとめられ、鼻音や側音になるため、語末が鼻音になり/rʌn/runway と聞こえた可能性がある。
・“and hold short”： 読む速度が速い結果、 “short” →/ʃɔːrt/ではなく/ʃɔʔ/となり、/ɔː/が/ɔ/、語末が声門破裂音[ʔ]と発音されている。
・ポーズの挿入と音の高低（イントネーション）：taxi
forward（下がり調子）/（ポーズ挿入）/ and hold short 16（下がり調子）→ポーズの挿入と、意味まとまりには適当ではない音の高低により、まとまりの切れ目が不明
瞭になった可能性がある。操縦士は前半のまとまりが下がり調子で終わり、さらに続く後半との間にポーズが挿入されたため、重要な意味まとまりは前半で終わり、後半は滑走路番号のみと想定してしまった。その結果、後半の非常に重要な情報ピース“hold short”という指示を聞き逃した可能性がある。
・子音全般：母語転移による置き換え（l や r、鼻音、

側音、声門破裂音）がみられ、その結果音節や語末の聞
こえ方が変わってくる。

取りを取り上げることとした。
①出発準備（ATIS の聞き取り）
②地上走行
③離陸
④飛行
⑤着陸準備（ATIS の聞き取り）
⑥進入
⑦着陸
⑧地上走行
⑨エンジン停止

よって、以下の母語転移等がミスコミュニケーショ
ンにつながったと考えられる。
1. 母音の質変化
2. 母音の長さ変化
3. 子音の置き換え
4. ポーズ挿入
5. 音の高低6. 速度
また、Kim and Billington（2018）は RT コミュニケー
ションを阻害する大きな要因として、話者に訛りがあることに加えて聞き手が話者の外国語訛りに慣れていないこと、発音については母音の質とイントネーショ
ンの変化を指摘している。さらに、国際民間航空機構（ICAO）は「発音はミスコミュニケーションの要因となり得る」とし、目標とすべき発音を“widely used orunderstood accent and/or dialect”（ICAO, 2010）としているが、具体的な定義はしておらず、非英語母語話者は母語の発音特性について意識を高めるべきであると同時に、英語母語話者を含む聞き手側も訛りに対して意識を高めるべきで、訛りに対しての対策トレーニングや
テスト評価法は必然的に必要になるはず、とまとめて
いる。
3. 研究
3.1 研究課題
Kim and Billington（2018）の報告結果は韓国語発音転移の例であるが、本研究においては、特に、日本から国際航行の多い中国語訛りを取り上げて分析と検証を行うこととし、RT コミュニケーションにおける外国語訛
りの特徴を類型的にまとめられないかという視点から、以下の研究課題を設定した。
1. 訓練初期段階において飛行中に遭遇する RT 交信中に発生する外国語訛り（中国語）に対して、日本語母語話者である訓練生の RT リスニング力はどのような脆弱性 1 があるのか。
2. 外国語訛り（中国語）にはどのような特性があるのか。
3. 母語（日本語）訛りに対しての脆弱性はみられるのか。
4. 英語母語話者の発話に対しては、外国語訛りに比べてどのような特性がみられるのか。

ATIS は個々の航空機に与える共通した情報を録音し、特定の周波数で繰り返し地上から対空送信（放送）しているものであり、操縦士は離陸前と着陸前に対象空港について聞き取る必要がある。
ATIS 情報には通常、ATIS
局の識別（飛行場名）、情報の識別（Alpha から Zulu ま
での 1 語）、観測時刻、IFR 機 2 の進入方式、着陸滑走路／出発滑走路、滑走路の状態およびブレーキングア
クション、管制上必要な事項、運航に関する重要な情報、気象に関する情報、受信した旨を通報する指示、の事項が含まれる（日本航空機操縦士協会, 2020）。含まれる情報内容は基本的に上記の事項であるが、空港によって言い回しや単位や用語等の細部が異なる場合もある。
現在では、音声自動化装置が導入されている空港も多い。
訓練地を含めた北米の 4 空港で実際に送信された
ATIS のスクリプト（表 1）を作成した。表 1 下線部は全天空に対する雲の割合（雲量）に関する情報である。
空全体が雲で覆われている状態を雲量 8 とし、空全体に対する雲に覆われている部分の割合により 0〜8 までの整数で表す。few、scattered、broken、overcast といった用語が使用される。
FEW（few）：雲量 1/8~ 2/8
SCT（scattered）: 雲量 3/8~ 4/8
BKN（broken）：雲量 5/8 - 7/8
OVC（overcast）：雲量 8/8
なお、雲高（ceiling）とは、全天の 5/8 以上を覆う雲層であってその雲層の地表または水面からの高さが6,000 メートル未満のもののうち、最も低い雲層の雲低の地表または水面からの高さをいう。
雲量は、どの程度の高さかという高度（数字）の情報と組み合わされる。また、時刻や気温の情報が、情報量と複雑さという観点からは少なく単純であるのに対し、雲量や滑走路に関する情報（表 1 波線部）は多く複雑となり、聞き取りの際の認知的負荷も高くなる。今回の 4
空港のスクリプトでは、訓練空港のものが最も情報量が少なく、JFK、YQB、YWG の順で多くなっていく。

3.2 材料
訓練初期段階での飛行訓練基本工程は以下の①～⑨で、RT を通した ATC との交信はこのどの段階でも生じるが、この中から ATIS（飛行場情報放送業務）の聞き

102

表1
4 空港 ATIS のスクリプト

表2
4 空港 ATIS 内容に関する問い

空港

ATIS

問

訓練空港
（XXX）

XXX Tower Information Uniform, 1553Z, wind
340 at 8, visibility 8, light rain, ceiling 9,500
BKN, ceiling 14,000 BKN, temperature 17, dew
point 11, altimeter 3007.
（周波数、空港情報等省略）
Visual Approach runway 35L in use, landing,departing 35L and 35R. Advise on initial contact,
you have Uniform.

1

What is the information code?

2

Which direction is the wind from?

3

How strong is the wind?

4

How is the visibility?

5

What are the cloud conditions?

6

What is the temperature?

7

What is the dew point?

8

What is the altimeter?

9Which approaches are in use?

多・高

10

Which runway is in use for departure?

多・高

単語数：63（平均）ジョン・F・
ケネディ
国際空港
（JFK）

Kennedy Airport ATIS Information Lima, 2351
Zulu, wind 030 at 7, visibility 10, 6,000 SCT,
ceiling 8,000 BKN, temperature 17, dew point 7,
altimeter 3015, Approach ILS runway 31R,
Visual Approach runway 31L, departing runway
31L, you have Information Lima.

よって負荷が変動するが、一般的には高いことが多い。

Quebec City International Information Bravo,
weather at 0500 Zulu, wind calm, visibility 15,
5,600 SCT, 12,000 BKN, temperature 9, dew
point 6, altimeter 3006, IFR Approach, RNAV
Zulu or RNAV Yankee runway 24, arrival anddeparture runway 24, Inform ATC that you have
Information Bravo.

音声ファイルは Microsoft PowerPoint に埋め込み、表
示時間設定をして自動提示できるようにスライドを作成した。材料は全て訓練課程修了生とともに確認を行った。
3.3 参加者
参加者は、訓練開始前の訓練生 9 名及び北米にて訓練課程修了生 1 名である。訓練生 9 名の録音が分析対象で、修了者の結果は、問題の妥当性指標とした。研究目的と完全な自由参加である旨を説明し意思確認を行った上で実施した。訓練開始後に必要となる内容を盛り込み、訓練生にとっても有意味な参加時間となるよう配慮した。

単語数：45
ウィニペグ
国際空港
（YWG）

多・高

注. 9・10 番については、空港設備やその時間帯の気象条件に

単語数：40
ケベック
国際空港
（YQB）

情報量・負荷Winnipeg International Information Sierra,
weather at 0100 Zulu, wind 040 at 6, visibility 12,
FEW cloud at 2,500, FEW cloud at 13,000,
25,000 BKN, temperature 18, dew point 14,
altimeter 3013, cumulus scattered 3, IFR
Approach RNAV Zulu, Yankee or ILS 36, inform
arrival of requested approach on initial contact
frequency 119.5, landing and departing runway
36, simultaneous approach is in effect, caution
bird in the area, inform ATC that you have
Information Sierra.

3.4 手順と分析
以下の手順でデータ収集を行った。まずレクチャーと練習問題を実施した。

単語数：74

注. 滑走路に関する情報（波線部）は、進入方式＋滑走路番号の組み合わせで説明される。
RT での規定では five は fife、three は tree と読むことになっている。
時刻は世界標準時刻（Zulu 時刻）、風は方角と強さ（単位はノット）、視程はアメリカ・カナダでは法定マイル（statute mile）
で表される。

①ATIS についてのレクチャー（1 時間）②訓練地の ATIS（ENS）聞き取り練習（1 題×質問 10問）→メモを取り、Microsoft Forms に入力→送信③訓練地の ATIS
（ENS）
聞き取り練習（2 題×質問 3 問）
→メモを取り、Microsoft Forms に入力→送信
続いて、CNS 及び JNS の録音も加えて 4 空港の聞き取りを行った。
④訓練地の ATIS 聞き取り（CNS1 題＋JNS1 題＋ENS1
題＝3 題、質問各 6～8 問） →メモを取り、Microsoft
Forms に入力→送信⑤（訓練地以外）3 空港の ATIS 聞き取り（CNS2 題＋ENS1 題＝3 題、質問各 7 問）→メモを取り、Microsoft
Forms に入力→送信⑥（訓練地以外）3 空港の ATIS 聞き取り（CNS1 題＋これらのスクリプトを中国語母語話者（CNS）、日本
語母語話者（JNS）、英語母語話者（ENS）に音読してもらい（4 空港×3 話者）、録音、音声ファイルに編集した。録音前に実際の ATIS を聞いてもらい、読み方の特徴を再現できるよう何度か練習を行った。また、ATIS 内
容に関する質問（表 2）を ENS に音読してもらい録音
した。

103

JNS1 題＋ENS1 題＝3 題、質問各 7 問）→メモを取り、Microsoft Forms に入力→送信

2 番については、負荷は高くないはずだが、JNS にも誤答がみられた。

④～⑥のうち、特に正答率の低かった質問や話者間で差のみられたものについて誤答を分析することにより聞き取りを阻害した要因を検証した 3。インターネッ
ト環境や電子機器のトラブルが発生した場合等を考慮
して、④～⑥の各段階で解答フォームを確認し短い休憩を挟む形で実施した。
このように実施は 3 段階であったが、結果は④～⑥を 4 空港ごとに合算して集計した。
また、④⑤⑥それぞれの ATIS に対する質問が 10 問未満であるのは、疲労や認知的負荷の観点から実施に限界があり、各 ATIS を聞いた後の問い（表 2）の 10 問全てを実施してはいないからである。例えば、訓練地空港の ATIS では、問 2 は CNS と JNS によるものは実施したが、ENS のものはしていない（表 3 参照）。

表4
CNS・JNS による訓練地の ATIS 聞き取りの誤答（質問 2）

ENS

CNS
82.5
67.5

3空港

4.1 訓練地の ATIS
訓練地については型に慣れていることから訛りによる影響は他 3 空港と比べると低かった。情報量の多い 5番（表 2）の正答率が低く、また、CNS と ENS は JNSと比べて低かった（表 3）。高度（数字）の桁の誤りや高度と雲量の組み合わせの誤りがほとんどであった。

話者

正答率（％）

問

話者

正答率（％）

5

JNS
ENS
CNS

/
33.3
55.5

2

JNS
ENS
CNS

88.8
/
66.6

340

245 / 345/ 240

JNS

330

245

表5
JFK:CNS・JNS による ATIS 聞き取り（質問 5 と 9）の誤答

問表3
3 話者による訓練地の ATIS 聞き取りの正答率（質問別）

問CNS

4.3 誤答分析（訓練地以外の空港の ATIS）
以下、特に正答率の低かった質問について、JFK、YQB、YWG の順で話者の母語別に聞き取りを阻んだ要因の分析結果を説明する。
JFK の ATIS について質問 5 及び 9 が CNS で低く（22.2％）、JNS でも他の問いと比較すると低かった（44.4％）。誤答を分析した結果（表 5）、CNS では記入のないケースも多く、高度（数字）の誤りと雲量のomission が主であった。JNS では雲量の omission がほとんどであった（表 5）
。

47.4

訓練地

誤答例

4.2 訓練地以外の空港の ATIS
訓練地以外の空港（JFK、YQB、YWG）についても、正答率は JNS（82.5％）、ENS（67.4％）、CNS（47.4％）の順で高く、より差は開いたものの訓練地と同様の結果となった（図 1）。また、正答率は質問の種類によって異なる点も同様で、3 話者ともに情報量の多い 5 番（JNS：55.5％ ENS : 0% CNS:7.4％）と 9 番（JNS：44.4%
ENS：0% CNS:7.4%）が低く、CNS については加えて 2
及び 3 番（ともに 33.3％）も低いものがみられた。

図14 空港 ATIS（3 話者）正答率（％）比較

JNS
96.2
87.5
81.4

正解

2 番について、聞き取り阻害の要因を分析すると、3を 2 としている点があげられる（表 4）。これは、RT では three を tree と読む規則になっているので、録音での“tree four zero” の tree が “two four zero” に聞こえたためと考えられる。語頭に破裂音/t/がある場合、強く聞こえ、余計に聞き取りを阻害した可能性がある。また、
CNS による 340 の 0 を 5 としている例から（245 や 345）
“tree four zero”の four を “tree fife zero”と混同した可能性が考えられる。

4. 結果
正答率を比較した結果、訓練地・他 3 空港の ATIS ともに JNS、ENS、CNS の順で高かった。慣れている訓練
地の ATIS に対し、他空港の ATIS では情報量や型の違いにより負荷が高く差が開いた結果となった（図 1）
。

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

話者

5

正解
SCT 6,000, BKN 8,000

9ILS RWY 31R, Visual
Approach runway 31L

注. 「/」は実施なし。

104

話者と誤答例
CNS：38,000 / 7,000 SCT
JNS：BKN・SCT 無CNS：ILS 31R Visual 31R（複数名）/ Visual Approach 無JNS：ILS 31R Visual 31R（1名）

CNS について誤りや omission の要因は以下のようにまとめられる。

5 番について、誤りや omission（表 6）の要因は以下のようにまとめられる。

＜質問 5＞
・6,000 → seven と聞き誤り：摩擦音/s/の音が強く聞こえた【子音】
・BKN 8,000 → BKN omission：BKN が「ブロッキン」と発音されており、BKN と認識されなかった。
【母音の長さと質の変化】・意味チャンクではなく単語ごとに区切って読んでいるため、また、単語ごとに高低があり各区切りで下がり調子のため（6 / thousand / SCT / 8 / thousand / BKN) 桁の大きい数字や雲量の情報と高さの情報のまとまりがわ
かりづらく聞き取りにくい。【音の高低・イントネー
ション】
・読む速度が速い。

＜ENS＞
・fife thousand six hundred に対して six hundred / one
thousand five hundred / six thousand five hundred、またtwelve thousand に対して two thousand 等の誤答から、
ENS でも桁の大きい数字を区切って読むことにより意味チャンクがわかりづらくなると聞き取りを阻害する。
組み合わされる他の情報ピースの負荷が高まることと重なるとさらに影響は大きくなる。【ポーズとイント
ネーション】＜質問 9＞
・left を right と聞き誤り：/l/を/r/と発音している。
【子
音置き換え】
・left を right と聞き誤り：/left/の母音が/e/ではなく/ɑe/になり/rɑeft/と発音されたため right との聞き分けが難しい。
【母音変化】JNS については数字や雲量の omission が主であった。
典型的な日本語発音の転移がみられる音声であり、意味チャンクも ENS と比べると適当でない箇所もみられたが、CNS や ENS の正答率と比べると聞き取りへの影
響は少なかった。6,000 や 8,000 等の数字については「シックス」「サウザン/d/」「エイ/t/」「サウザン/d/」など、カタカナ表記での読み方であったため馴染んでいる JNS にとっては聞き取りを阻害する要因とはならなかったと考えられる。しかし、質問 9 の/r/ /l/の発音については JNS でも CNS と同様に子音の置き換えがあり、聞き取りを阻害した要因となったとようである。
YQB については、質問 5 及び 9 について CNS だけでなく ENS においても正解者はいなかった。訓練生に対して修了者による解答は全て正解であったことから RT
独特の読み上げ方への慣れや背景知識が大きく影響したと思われる。特に 9 番については発音より情報量の多さによる認知的負荷が影響したと考えられる。
表6
YQB:ENS・CNS による ATIS 聞き取り（質問 5）の誤答

問

正解

5
SCT 5,600,
BKN 12,000

話者と誤答例
ENS：5,600 → 600 / 1,500 / 6,500
12,000 → 2,000 / 20,000
BKN/SCT 無
CNS：5,600 → 6,500 / 1,500 / 5,300
12,000→1,000 / 30,000 / 10,000
BKN/SCT 無

105

＜CNS＞
・ENS と比較すると、twelve thousand に対して 1,000 /
3,000 / 10,000 といったように 2 が認識されていないと思われる誤答が目立った。twelve の語頭が破裂音/t/であるため RT 規則では tree と発音される three あるいは tenと聞き誤った可能性がある。また、破裂音/t/が摩擦音/s/と同様非常に強く発音されたため、余計に阻害要因になったと考えられる。
【子音】
・twelve thousand について、ENS は、RT 特有の読み上げ方に則り各単語を明瞭に発音している上で、意味チャンクでまとめている。つまり、twelve thousand を各語で明瞭に発音しながらも、twelve に強勢をおいているのに対し、CNS は twelve / thousand といったように単語間に短いがポーズが挿入され、それぞれの単語に音の高低があり下がり調子で読まれている。意味チャンクには適当ではない音の高低が聞き取りを阻害したと考えられる。
【音の高低・イントネーション】
YWG についても質問 5 及び 9 番については ENS・CNS
ともに正解者はいなかった。9 番については訛りではな
く進入方式に関する背景知識が要因であった。訓練生に対して修了者はほぼ正解したことから、背景知識やRT 交信への慣れも大きく影響したと思われる。また、
YWG の ATIS は 3 空港の中で最も情報量が多いため（表
1）、雲量と高度に関する情報（質問 5）についても組み合わせや情報ピースが他より多く、これも大きく影響したと考えられる。
情報量や負荷も影響した質問 5 や 9 に対し、YWG の
質問 2 及び 3 については、ENS では全員が正解した（100％）のに対し、CNS ではともに 33.3％であった。
よって、情報量や負荷とは関係なく発音が影響した可能性が高い。質問 2 番については無記入も複数みられた（表 7）。
質問 5 番の高度（数字）の誤りや雲量の omission の要因は JFK や YQB と同様と思われる。認知的負荷が上がると ENS についても two と three（tree）の混同と思われる誤答がみられた。
【子音】

表7
YWG:ENS・CNS による ATIS 聞き取り（質問 5・2・3）の誤答

問
5

正解
FEW cloud at
2,500, FEW
cloud at 13,000,
25,000 BKN

話者と誤答例
ENS：2,500→25,000 / 2,000 / 3,000
13,000→30,000 / 3,000 / 13,200
BKN/ FEW 無
CNS：13,000→32,500 / 3,000

2wind 040 (at 6)

CNS：04063(wind 040 at) 6

CNS：4 / 12 / 2

2 及び 3 番は情報量としては単純で少なく、実際にENS では問題なく聞き取れている。これはスクリプト（ 表 1 ） の “Winnipeg International Information Sierra,
weather at 0100 Zulu, wind 040 at 6, visibility 12,”に相当する箇所だが、040、6、と visibility 12 と混同していることから区切れが聞き取りづらかったと考えられる。
CNS の読み上げに対する誤答から下のいくつかの発音特徴が総合的に影響したと思われる。
・wind /wɪnd/ の母音/ɪ/が/ɒ/となり/wɒnd/と発音されている。
【母音質変化】
・zero four zero at six → “zero” は/ziːroʊ/ではなく/dʒiro/、“four” は/fɔːr/ではなく/hoɑː/と発音されている。
【母音の長さ・質変化】【子音】
・six → 語頭の摩擦音/s/が強い【子音】
・ENS は前置詞 at の語末の破裂音/t/がほとんど聞こえないのに対し、CNS は機能語も含めて 1 語単位で発音する傾向があり強い。
【子音】
・機能語である at が強く発音されたためリズムが崩れた。
【機能語の強弱・リズム】
・意味チャンクよりも単語ごとに区切って読むため語間にポーズが挿入され各語末が下がり調子となっている。
【ポーズ挿入・音の高低】
5. まとめと考察
聞き取りを阻害する要因について、以下のようにまとめられる。
1. 母音の質
2. 母音の長さ
3. 子音の置き換えや発音法
これらによって単語そのものが異なる単語に聞こえてしまうという点があげられる。また、以下の超分節的特徴も聞き取りに大きく影響することがわかった。
4. ポーズ挿入
5. 音の高低6. 機能語の強弱によるリズム
7. 速度

106

以上のように、CNS であっても先行研究である Kim
and Billington（2018）にて報告されている韓国語母語話者の英語発音特徴の要因とほぼ同一であることがわかる。今回観察された発音特徴が全て中国語発音の転移であるかについては今後さらに検証が必要であるが RT
交信においても聞き取りを阻害するレベルの音変化と問題にならない類のものがあり、類型化の手がかりとなる可能性が示された。飛行中のルーティン的状況であれば、限定的で使用フレーズも限られるため、母語ごとに発音転移特徴で類型化できる可能性も高い。今後
は、日本から国際航行の多い地域の中国語以外の言語についても調査を広げることで、より多角的知見が得られるであろう。
設定した 4 つの研究課題については、以下の結論となる。外国語訛り（中国語）に対して、JNS である訓練生の RT リスニング力はどのような脆弱性があるのかについては、母音の質・長さの変化、子音の置き換えや発音法、ポーズ挿入・下がり調子と音の高低・機能語の強弱によるリズム変化により聞こえ方が想定したものと異なると聞き取り阻害の要因となることがわかった。
外国語（中国語）訛りの特性については、/r//l/のような共通する阻害要因もあった一方で、JNS にはみられな
かった CNS のみの母音・子音変化が観察された。速度についても、JNS と比べて速く、個々の母音・子音要因だけでなく超分節的特徴とも重なると聞き取りに大きく影響を及ぼしていた。観察された変化が全て中国語の転移なのかについては今後さらに検証が必要である。
母語（日本語）訛りに対しての脆弱性については、正答率から ENS の発話よりも聞き取りやすいという結果となった。訛りがあったとしても、聞き手が慣れている
場合は聞き取り阻害要因とはならず、むしろ聞き取りやすい場合もある。日本における一般英語学習にも通じることであるが、英単語について綴り字と意味、発音はカタカナ式のものをセットにして学習すると、音のみを聞いた場合にその意味とのコネクションが強化されていないため結びつかない。リスニングで必要な単語については音と意味のコネクションを強化する必要がある（山内, 2021）。
外国語訛りに比べて ENS の発話に対してはどのような特性がみられるのかについては、JNS の発話よりも聞
き取りづらいが、CNS の発話よりは聞き取りやすいという結果から、日本語訛りへの圧倒的な慣れと比べると ENS の発音への慣れは低いことがわかる。外国語訛
りについても、訓練により慣れることである程度抵抗感は軽減でき、聞き取りにも効果がみられる可能性がある。
本研究での主な問題点としては、まず 1 点目としてATIS を読み上げた話者が CNS、JNS、ENS 各 1 名だけであった点が挙げられる。特に JNS にとって聴解が課題となった CNS については、出身地や英語教育履歴等についてより精査が必要である。2 点目は 3.4 の「手順と分析」でも触れたが 3 名の話者それぞれによる問い（表 2）の読み上げでの実施ができなかった点である。
今後、対象を他言語にも拡大していくにあたり、複数名の話者を用意し材料を精査した上で調査を行い、より妥当性・信頼性を高めていきたい。また、本研究は、最終目的である教材開発に向けた事前段階にとどまったが、今後は中国語発音の転移をより具体的に検証し、転移の起きやすい単語やフレーズを絞る必要がある。また、他言語についても調査を広げ、各言語の転移についても類型化し単語やフレーズを絞れば、それらが使用される状況でのリスニング訓練タスク開発が可能となり、操縦士生涯キャリアにおいて必要となる外国語訛
りへの意識と耐性を高め、頑強な RT リスニング力養成という要素を加えた教材開発へつながる。
RT 交信における外国語訛りに関する調査は、JNS の
みならず ENS も含めた操縦士・ATC にとっても、自らの訛りだけでなく他の訛りに意識を向ける資料となり、今後さらに多様な母語話者が参入すると予測される現場において、訓練の質向上と航空安全に貢献できるものと考える。
注
1
本論文においては「訛り」や「脆弱性」を以下の位置づけでとらえている。一般的状況での「訛り」は決して「悪」ではな
く、「矯正されるべきもの」ではない。ただ、航空安全の観点では、「訛り」は言語的ミスコミュニケーションの中でも特に安全を脅かす可能性のある大きな要因の一つとされ、欧米中心だった航空業界においては東・東南・南アジア地域への急拡大が進む中で、多様な「訛り」への強さも操縦士にとっては操縦技術と並んで心して対処すべき課題ととらえられる。
このように Lingua Franca としての英語の使用状況・場面が多種多様に広まるにつれ、新たに出現する使用状況によっては「訛り」の位置づけも柔軟にとらえ対応する必要があるのではないか、と考える。弱さに積極的に立ち向かい頑強な RT 聴
解力を鍛えるという観点からあえて「脆弱性」という表現を用いたが、決して「訛り」を悲観的にとらえているわけではなく、母語のアイデンティティも尊重しつつ多様な状況での英語使用が広まる今後の世界に積極的に参画していく自信の礎を築くための建設的なアプローチという意味も含まれている。
2
有視界飛行方式（VFR）に対して計器飛行方式（IFR）で飛行する航空機のことである。
3「誤答」を分析するという手法名は、「訛り」が「悪」というイメージとなる点が著者の意図とは異なることを補足したい。
本論文では話者の意図とは異なって聞こえる結果となった単語や文を「誤答」としたが、あくまでもより簡潔に分類・説明した上で言語学的に検証し、注の 1 点目で説明したように建設的な対応策を検討することが目的である。
謝辞
本研究は JSPS 科研費 19K00835 の助成を受けて行った。
参考文献
Barshi, I., & Farris, C. (2013). Misunderstandings in ATCcommunication. Ashgate.

107

Estival, D., & Molesworth, B. (2016). Native English speakers andEL2 pilots. In D. Estival, C. Farris, & B. Molesworth (Eds.),
Aviation English (pp. 140–181). Routledge.
ICAO. (2010). Manual on the Implementation of ICAO Language
Proficiency Requirements (2nd ed.). International Civil Aviation
Organization.
イカロス・アカデミー. (2009). 『フライト・トレーニングのための基礎英語』. イカロス出版.
Kim, H. & Billington, R. (2018). Pronunciation and comprehension
in English as a lingua franca communication: Effect of L1
influence in international aviation communication. Applied
Linguistics,
39(2),
135–158.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv075
Molesworth, B. (2016). Contextual factors impacting on aviation
communication. In D. Estival, C. Farris, & B. Molesworth (Eds.),
Aviation English (pp. 111–139). Routledge.
縄田義直. (2017).「Lingua Franca の観点からの航空英語教育」.
『外国語教育メディア学会第 57 回全国研究大会発表予稿集』, 192–193.
縄田義直・横山彰三. (2011).『航空留学のための ATC』. 鳳文
書林出版販売.
日 本 航 空 機 操 縦 士 協 会 . (2020). Aeronautical Information
Manual-Japan 2020 年前期版. 日本航空機操縦士協会.
日本航空機操縦士協会. (2011). 『ATC コミュニケーションハ
ンドブック』. 最終アクセス 2022 年 1 月 5 日. https://www.japa.or.jp/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ATC_Communication_Handbook_JP.pdf
西川惠. (2021).「飛行訓練における状況没入型教材開発のための無線コミュニケーションに関する検証実験」．
『大学英語教育学会 ESP 研究会年度レポート』, 22, 14–28.
Nishikawa, M., & Nawata, Y. (2019, May 8–10). Identifying theEnglish language skills required by non-native English speaking
pilot trainees during flight training [Conference presentation].
International Civil Aviation English Association ConferenceTokyo 2019, Chiba, Japan.
西川惠・縄田義直. (2020).「航空機操縦士訓練生は英語で何ができることが望まれるのか－日英 PFB 比較からみる必要な英語力－」. Japan Association of Applied Linguistics in Japan
Association of College English Teachers (JAAL in JACET)
Proceedings, 2, 95–102.
西川惠・縄田義直. (2021).「航空機操縦士訓練生に必要な英語力調査と没入型 VR 教材の検証」. The JACET International
Convention Proceedings: The JACET 60th Commemorative
International Convention, 258–259.
Tajima, A. (2004). Fatal miscommunication: English in aviation
safety.
World
Englishes,23(3),
451–470.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0883-2919.2004.00368.x
Tiewtrakul, T., & Fletcher, S. R. (2010). The challenge of regional
accents for aviation English language proficiency standards: A
study of difficulties in understanding in air traffic control–pilot
communications.
Ergonomics,
53(2),
229–239.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130903470033
Wu, Q., Molesworth, B., & Estival, D. (2019). An investigation into
the factors that affect miscommunication between pilots and air
traffic controllers in commercial aviation. The International
Journal of Aerospace Psychology, 29:1-2, 53–63.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24721840.2019.1604138
山内豊. (2021).「コンテンツ・シャドーイングとリピーティン
グが英文内容理解に与える影響」. 外国語教育メディア学会第 60 回全国研究大会口頭発表（オンライン）.

英語教育支援システム Zoroe を用いた
英語リスニング指導の一考察
照井雅子*・溝渕昭二***近畿大学
terui@kindai.ac.jp**近畿大学
mizo@info.kindai.ac.jp
要旨
第二著者が開発した英語教育支援システム Zoroe を用いて、第一著者が大学 1 年生 27 名に行ったリスニング指導に効果が認められたことを報告する。Zoroe のアラインメント機能を使え
ば、ディクテーションによって得られた英文を同一とみなされる単語同士が揃えられた形で一覧できる。本報告では写真 10 枚をそれぞれ描写する 4 つの選択肢の英語音声をディクテーシ
ョンさせ、写真問題 1 問毎にクラス全員の英文と流された音声（正解）の英文をアラインメン
トさせた結果を示し、自由に分析させた。自分だけでなく他の学習者のディクテーション結果と正解を一覧して分析できたため、語彙力不足と、書き取った文の単語の誤用や文法の破綻に気づき、冠詞と前置詞への意識が高まった。また、自らの誤りだけでなく、全体的な傾向も把
握できた。
「どこで」
「なぜ」聞き取れなかったのかに気づけたため、事後のリスニング問題では誤りを回避できた満足感や自信を持てることが示された。
キーワード：英語教育支援システム、リスニング指導、ディクテーション、学習者自律
1. はじめに
英語教育支援システム Zoroe は、英語教員がディクテーション指導を行う際に、複数の英文から誤りを見出すのに必要な時間と労力を軽減することを目的として、
自然言語処理を専門とする第二著者によって開発された。Zoroe の持つ英文アラインメント機能によって、複数の英文を単語単位で揃えて一覧表示できることが特長で、名前の由来ともなっている。
学習者がそのアラインメント結果を分析することで、ディクテーションで正解に至らなかった誤りそのものの気づきや、誤りの傾向の把握が容易になることから、第一著者が担当する大学 1 年生のクラスで Zoroe のアラインメント機能を活用したリスニング指導を行った。
「どこで」「なぜ」聞き取れなかったのかを学習者自らに気づかせることによる指導効果が認められたので、報告する。
2. 英語教育支援システム Zoroe
英語学習の一つの方法にディクテーションがある。
ディクテーションとは、英語の音声を聴き、それをそのまま書き取ることである。授業で指導する場合は、一つの文をすべて書き取らせ、正解（流された音声）とディ
クテーション結果を眼で比較することが一般的で、この一連の作業には時間がかかり、面倒だという印象がある。時間の制約や正誤の判定のしやすさから、一つの文のどこか（一か所または複数個所）の単語を空欄にし108て、その単語を書き取るよう指示することもある。
一つの文すべてをディクテーションさせると、問題としては難度が高くなるが、それは単に単語が正しく聞き取れなかったり書き取れなかったりしたというだ
けでなく、文を構成する力が問われる文法の誤りが含まれる場合があるためである。このような誤りを学習者が自覚できるとは限らず、自覚できていない場合は指導者による指導を受けることが望ましい。ここで、指導者の負担が課題となる。
ディクテーションでは、単一の英文に対して、結果として誤りとなる英文が複数得られる。問題数や学習者数が多くなると、複数の英文から誤りを見出すのに時間と労力を要する。英文の語数が多くなると、その状況はさらに悪化する。しかし、Zoroe がその状況を改善する。Zoroe には英文アラインメント手法によって複数の英文を単語単位で揃える機能があり、単語の誤用やその傾向の把握が容易になるからである。
Zoroe の英文アラインメント手法を評価するために、
次頁の 4.2.2 に示すように事前に作成したデータセット
を対象にアラインメントの精度を測定した。全 40 文の各文について、大学 1 年生 24 名がディクテーションしたものにその文を加えてアラインメントし、その結果の妥当性（整列している単語が文法的あるいは意味的に食い違いがないかどうか）を判断した。その結果、94.8%の単語や空白が妥当な配置であることを確認した。

3. 研究の背景と目的
3.1 リスニング力とディクテーションの意義
本稿では、リスニング力とは音声を単語として認識する能力と、その認識した単語の意味を理解する能力を総合したものと捉える。
リスニングのプロセスでは大きく「ボトムアップ処理」と「トップダウン処理」という 2 つのプロセスが同時に進行し、さらに相互補完関係にあるとされている（Field, 1999）。ボトムアップ処理とは個々の単語の理解や音声化によって理解を行うこと（門田, 2017）で、熟練していない学習者の場合はボトムアップ処理スキ
ルの育成がまず重要（Berne, 2004）だとされる。
リスニング指導では、このボトムアップ処理能力の育成が重要な課題となり、ボトムアップ処理を効率化する指導法の 1 つとして、音声を聞いてそれを文字に書き起こすディクテーションにリスニング力を向上させる一定の効果が認められている（Oller, 1971; Morris,
1983; Weir, 1993; Hughes, 2003 など）。また、ディクテー
ションは、聞き取った英文を書き取る時間が学習者に与えられるため、シャドーイングと較べて認知負荷が低いことが示されている（大木・和泉, 2015）。
つまり、ディクテーションは、習熟度が高くない学習者にとっては、音素の識別や単語の認知レベルを向上させることにおいて意義が認められると考えられる。
3.2 研究の目的
今回ディクテーション課題として取り上げたのは、
英語によるコミュニケーション能力を評価する世界共通テストとしてそのスコアが利用されることの多い）
TOEIC ® Listening & Reading Tests（以下「TOEIC ® L&R」の対策練習問題である。
1 枚の写真を描写する英文を選択するリスニング問
題で、解答の正誤に文法力の関与は大きくないとされる。ディクテーションにおける難語とは、主に内容語す
なわち未知語であり、語彙力がその結果に大きく影響を与えており、その内容語が語尾変化を伴った場合に、その語尾の書き取りが不完全である傾向が見られる（松岡・平本, 2006）。
言い換えると、日本語母語話者が異なる音声体系を持つ英語の音声情報を音素の識別や音の脱落などを踏まえて正しく書き取ることは極めて難しく、習熟度が高くない学習者においては、語彙力の不足によってさらに難しい課題となる。そこで、文法力の関与が少ないとされ、比較的短い単文である TOEIC ® L&R の写真描
写の音声を、写真からの視覚情報の助けを得ながらディクテーションさせることに学習効果が認められるのではないかと考えた。さらに不正解となった結果を分析することにより、音声に関して「どこで」「なぜ」聞
き取りが困難であったのかを学習者自身が客観的に分析できるのではないかと考えた。この問いには、英語教
育支援システム Zoroe のアラインメント機能を利用し109た分析が役立つことが予想されたため、以下の調査を
行った。
4. 調査
4.1 調査対象者
調査対象者（以下「参加者」）は、私立大学理工学部
生命科学科 1 年生で、必修科目である「英語演習 1」の受講生 25 名（男性 15／女性 10）である。在籍者は 27
名であるが、ディクテーションを行った授業 2 回のう
ち 1 回でも欠席した 2 名は、そのデータを調査に含めなかったため、参加者として計上していない。
参加者は、1 学年 98 人を習熟度別に 4 クラスに分けた下から 2 番目のクラスに在籍する。クラス分けには入学時に受験した初・中級者向けの TOEIC Bridge®
Listening & Reading Tests スコアを利用した。TOEIC ®
L&R のスコアに換算すると、クラスの平均は 358 点で、中央値は 355 点であった。ある程度の基礎力はあるものの、十分なコミュニケーションを行うことは難しい
初級者レベルと言える。
4.2 調査手順
4.2.1 ディクテーション教材
参加者が在籍する理工学部では、所属する複数の英語教員が著した 4 技能統合型のオリジナル統一テキス
ト『First Year in RIKO』を 2012 年より毎年適宜改定しながら使用している。この教科書には、所属する大学と学部に特化した内容の 18 のユニットに加え、TOEIC ®
L&R 対策のオリジナル練習問題「TOEIC Practice」が 6つ収録されており、その一部を利用した。
4.2.2 Zoroe による分析用データセット
本調査のため、2021 年度後期の Zoom によるリアル
タイムのオンライン授業内で以下の手順で得られた英文をデータセットとして利用した。参加者は 25 名で、それぞれが 40 文のディクテーションを行ったが、解答できなかった文（空白）が含まれる参加者もいたため、1 文に対し、ディクテーション結果が 25 人分に満たないものもあったが、おおよそ 1,000 文のデータとなった。
手順は以下のとおりである。
(1)「TOEIC Practice 6」の写真問題 10 問それぞれを参加者が事前準備なく解く(2) 「TOEIC Practice 6」の 10 問それぞれに写真を描写する英文選択肢が４つ読み上げられるため、それらを参加者各自が用意した紙に手書きする(3) 参加者が手書きした紙を携帯電話のカメラで撮影する(4) 参加者が Google Classroom の「課題」機能で、撮影した画像を提出する(5) 第一著者が携帯電話で利用できる OCR ソフト
CamScanner を使って、参加者が提出した写真の手
書き文字をテキストデータ化する(C) The woman is sweeping the bedroom.
(D) The woman is taking a nap on the floor.

(6) 第一著者がオンライン・ストレージサービスのDropbox 上に作成したフォルダで第二著者とデータを共有する(7) 第二著者がそのデータで Zoroe を利用する「bed」や「sleep」に関連する「pillow」「take a nap」
といった表現に混乱させられたり、「sleep」に発音や綴りが似ている「sweep」が含まれる選択肢があることに気づかせる問題である。

4.2.3 Zoroe の汎用性
Zoroe を利用する場合、そのデータセットを用意するにあたり、手書きのディクテーション結果をデータ化するのに大きな手間がかかるとする懸念があろうが、前項で示したように、昨今は無料か無料に近い安価な
OCR ソフトでも英文の再現率は非常に高く、簡単にデータ化ができる。また、読み上げソフトを利用することでも迅速にデータ化できる。データセットがあれば、Zoroe でアラインメントさせて一覧表示するのは一瞬の手間ですむ。

図3
問 9 で示された写真
9.

4.3 ディクテーション課題の例
以下の図 1 から図 3 にディクテーション課題の例を示す。読み上げられた文（正解）は下線で示した。
いずれも TOEIC ® L&R でよく見られる問題で、学習者が正誤答の解説時に注意すべき点が明確にわかるよ
う意図して問題作成されている。

ディクテーションさせた文は以下のとおりである。
(A) Cars are entering the freeway from both sides.
(B) Heavy traffic is going in one direction.
(C) The traffic is heavy in every lane.
(D) There are many vehicles on each side of the road.

図1
問 1 で示された写真

車や道路に関係する「car」「freeway」「traffic」「lane」「vehicles」「road」という単語が読み上げられたり、「Cars
are entering」「The traffic is heavy」「There are many vehicles」と状況説明の一部が写真で示される内容に合致していたりするため、混乱させられることに気づかせる問題
である。

1.

4.4 Zoroe のアラインメント機能を使った英文一覧
Zoroe によって、流された音声（正解）の英文と参加者に写真問題毎にクラス全員の英文をアラインメントさせた。参加者はその結果を図 4 で示すようなエクセ
ルファイルで確認した。
Zoom によるオンライン授業のため、Zoroe のアライ
ンメント機能を使って問 1 から問 10 の英文一覧を各問を 1 シートで表示し、同じ 1 つのエクセルファイル内で示した。見出しは、エクセルファイルに不慣れな参加者にもわかりやすいよう赤で示した。

ディクテーションさせた文は以下のとおりである。
(A) The woman’s carrying a box.
(B) The woman’s cutting her nails.
(C) The woman’s searching for a document.
(D) The woman’s standing in front of a cabinet.
「woman is」が「woman’s」と短縮されたために聞き誤ることがあることに気づかせる問題である。
図2
問 8 で示された写真
8.

ディクテーションさせた文は以下のとおりである。
(A) The dog has its head on the pillow.
(B) The dog is resting beside the woman.

110

図4
Zoroe のアラインメント機能を使った英文一覧
lo">
,.,.

., ......
.,

S

o<n,

-~

•

-

·•

-.,.f

.....-a..•-iiiiil-~-"".

_

IBll:II,...

~o,.,,, ... ,•-~-.,.........

--

されている。これが Zoroe のアラインメント機能である。
「The man is working under a car.」という読み上げ文に対して 24 名のディクテーション結果が得られた。

,
~A·

••

t,

.,.._.,,,..,,,-::';'~!

.,

IJ--'.

(1) 似た発音の単語「walk」と「work」という似た発音の聞き分けに注意を払ってもらいたいとする作問者の意図どおり、正しく「working」と書けたのは 13 名、3 名が「warking」と綴りを間違え、発音は似ているが意味が写真と合わない「walking」と書いた参加者が 8 名いた。
::-

(2) 前置詞
正しく「under」と書けた参加者は 18 名、「アン」という音につられたためか、3 名が「around」と書き、「and」「andrew’s」「on」と書いた参加者がそれぞれ 1 名いた。

注. 冒頭にマーカーで示した読み上げ文（正解）の下に参加者全員がディクテーションした英文が併記されている。

4.5 Zoroe でアラインメントされた英文一覧の分析
参加者は第一著者の指示に従って、Google Classroom
上で課題として配布されたエクセルファイル上で分析作業を行った。具体的には次項 5 の図 6 に示す。

(3) 冠詞の聞き取り
文法的には「a」でも「the」でも良い場面だが、読み上げられたのは「a」であった。無冠詞が 2 名、「a」と書けた参加者が 8 名、
それよりさらに多い 14 名が
「the」
と書いた。

5. 調査結果
5.1 参加者の分析結果
以下の図 5 は参加者が取り組んだ問 3 の写真で、ディクテーションさせた文は以下のとおりである。

図6

選択肢(D)のディクテーション結果（Zoroe 機能）
03-4

図5
問 3 で示された写真

03-4
03-4
03-4
03-4

3.

man

is

working

under

The

man

is

working

under

man

is

working

under

The

man

is

walking

under

The

man

is

working

a

car

-

car

+
the
+

car

a

car

under

the

car

03-4

The

man

is

warking

under

the

car

03-4

The

man

is

walking

under

a

car

The

man

is

warkingaround

the

car

The

man

is

walking

under

a

car

man

is

working

under

man

is

warking

under

03-4
03-4
03-4
03-4
03-4
03-4
03-4
03-4

+
The
+
The
+
The

man

is

walking

andrew’s

The

man

is

working

under

man

is

working

on

+
The
+
The
+

+
the
+
the
+
a

+
the
+
the
+

car
car
car
car
car

man

is

walking

under

The

man

is

walking

and

03-4

The

man

is

walking

under

the

car

03-4

The

man

is

workingaround

the

car
car

03-4

(A) The man is fixing a wheel.
(B) The man is taking a break.
(C) The man is walking around the car.
(D) The man is working under a car.

The

+
The
+

the

car
car

03-4

The

man

is

working

under

the

03-4

The

man

is

walking

under

a

car

03-4

The

man

is

workingaround

the

car

03-4

The

man

is

working

under

a

car

03-4

The

man

is

working

under

the

car

The

man

is

working

under

a

car

The

man

is

working

under

a

car

03-4
03-4

+

+

5.3 参加者による英文アラインメント結果の分析「どこで」「なぜ」聞き取れなかったのかを参加者が分析した内容を自由記載させた結果を表 1 に示す。
第一著者は参加者に対し、自分がディクテーションしたものに対してではなく、クラス全員分のディクテー
ション結果を概観して分析するよう助言した。

問題の大きな意図としては、「walk」と「work」という似た発音を聞き分けられないことがあることに気づかせることである。
ディクテーションをした前後に参加者はこの問いに2 回解答したが、ディクテーション前に準備なく解いた
際に正解の（D）と回答できたのは 55.6％（15 人/27 人）だった。
5.2 選択肢(D)のディクテーション結果（Zoroe 機能）
右上の図 6 に示した。冒頭が読み上げられた文（正解）の下に各単語の位置が揃うようにアラインメント

111

表1

図7

クラス全員分の英文アラインメント結果の分析

選択肢(A)のディクテーション結果（Zoroe 機能）

冠詞の区別

冠詞

冠詞と前置詞が間違っている人が多かった。

冠詞／前置詞aが書けていない。細かいところまで聞き取る！

冠詞

theとaがわかりにくいかなと感じました。

冠詞

本来はaなのに思い込みでtheと回答してしまっている人が多い。

冠詞aとtheの区別が出来ていない人が多かった。

冠詞aとtheの違いが分かっていない

冠詞

前置詞の聞き間違いが特に表れている文であること。

前置詞

underとaroundが聞き間違えやすい。

前置詞

underを聞き取れないと答えが変わってしまうと思うので前置詞は気を付けたい。

前置詞

underとandを聞き間違えている人が多い。そのあとのaが原因の一つだと思います。

前置詞

ここも同じく歩くと働くの区別が必要だと思う。

動詞

w eekとw alkの間違いが多い

動詞

w orkとw alkを聞き取れていない人が多い。

動詞03-3と同じくw orkingとw alkingの判断が難しいが写真を見ると車の下で働いているのがわかるので

03-1

The

man

is

-

fixing

a

wheel

03-1

The

man

is

-

fixing

a

wheel

a

03-1

The

man

is

-

fixing

03-1

The

man

is

-

picking -wheele
-

03-1

The

man

is

-

fixing

-

while

03-1

The

man

is

-

fixing

the

ウィーロー

03-1

The

man

is

-

fixing

-

wheel

03-1

The

man

-

fixed

-

-

-

03-1

The

man

is

-

fixing

the

wheel

03-1

The

man

is

-

fixing

the

feel

動詞

03-1

The

man

is

-

picinga-

本当にw alkとw orkは難しい。

動詞

w alkingとw orkingの発音が似ている。

動詞

03-1

The

man

is

-

fixingawii

w orkingとw alkingでややこしくなっている。

動詞

少し聞き取りにくい単語である。

動詞

助動詞の使い方品詞の呼び間違い

今回も正答率が高くやはり聞きなれている単語が多い。

肯定的な意見車の下が聞き取れた

肯定的な意見聞き取れている人が多い。

肯定的な意見

Xくん記載なし

記載なし

XXくん記載なし

記載なし

XXXくん記載なし

記載なし

写真と前後の文章によって判断できる。

ほとんどの参加者が真面目に課題に取り組み、その分析が示すように、聞き取れなかった原因をそれぞれ把握できており、「どこで」「なぜ」聞き取れなかったのかという誤りの原因を、自分だけの課題ではなく、起こり得る誤りの傾向として把握できていることがわかる。
特に、第一著者が以下二重下線を引いた「本来は a なのに思い込みで the と回答してしまっている人が多い」「under と and を聞き間違えている人が多い。そのあとの a が原因の一つだと思います」「03-3 と同じく workingと walking の判断が難しいが写真を見ると車の下で働いているのがわかるので写真と前後の文章によって判断できる」という分析は、この問題以外にもあてはまる
気づきがあったことが見て取れる。
5.4 ディクテーションの正確さと問題の正誤
TOEIC ® L&R の写真描写の問題は文法力の関与が少ないとされるが、上記図 6 の「選択肢(D)のディクテー
ション結果」や表 1 の「クラス全員分の英文アラインメ
ント結果の分析」コメントでも見られるように、参加者はディクテーションで完璧な英文を記述できていなくとも、正答を選択できていることもある。
同じ写真問題の選択肢(A) 「The man is fixing a wheel.」のディクテーション結果を（D）と参照させるために以下の図 7 に示す。

03-1

The

man

is

-

fixing

a

wheel

03-1

The

man

is

-

fixing

his

wheel

03-1

The

man

-

-

-

-

-

03-1

The

man

is

-

fixing

the

will

03-1

The

man

is

-

fixing

a

weel

03-1

The

man

is

-

fixing

-

wheel

03-1

The

man

is

-

fixing

a

wheel

03-1

The

man

is

fixed

in

a

-

03-1

The

man

is

-

fixing

on

wheel

03-1

The

man

is

-

fixing

-

wheel

03-1

The

man

is

-

fixing

the

wheel

03-1

The

man

is

-

fixing

a

wheel

03-1

The

man

is

-

fixing-wheel

紙幅の都合でまとめて記載するが、ここでも、(1) 似た発音の単語、(2) 前置詞、(3) 冠詞の聞き取りといった選択肢(D)と同様の誤りが見受けられる。ただし、この選択肢(A)の場合、22 名が「is fixing」か、正しく聞き取れなかったか綴りを間違えたそれぞれ 1 名が「ispicking / is picing」として動作が現在進行していることを示す一方、参加者の 2 名は「is fixed」と受動態で記述している。しかし正答率から判断すると、そうした文法の誤りは正誤には影響していないと思われる。TOEIC ®
L&R で高いスコアを取ることを望む英語学習者は多い
が、正誤に影響が少ないとしても、こうした文法項目を確認しながら英文を書く必要があることを指導する際にディクテーションは良い課題となり得る。
6. 誤った原因のカテゴライズ化
6.1 誤りの「原因リスト」
参加者のディクテーションの分析結果から、聞き取れなかったり、書き取ったものが誤っていたりした原因を以下の 3 点にカテゴライズし、「原因リスト」として示した。
(1) 文法自分が書き取ったものを見て、文法面から修正できるものはあるか（現在進行形なのに is が抜けていたなど）

112

図8

(2) 内容語
a. 字を見ても知らない単語だった
b. 字で見れば知っているのに聞き取れなかった
c. 発音がよく似た別の単語と間違っていた（work と walk など）
d. 字で見れば知っている単語で聞き取りもできたが、書く時につづりを間違えた（work を wark と書いてしまったなど）

参加者の分析例
,_,.<C!ilL'tcJZ

c--71

1

,bt;;,f;:_fJ'•L ,f;:_t:)O)(A) The woman's carrying a box

The woman c:irry the box.

(B) The woman's cutting her nails.

The woman.

(C) The woman's searching for a document

The woman searching document.

1(D) The woman's standing in front of a cabinet

The woman standing cabinet.

2(A) The bed hasn't been made yet

The bed hasn't been made it.

2(8) The curtains in the room are closed.

The cartains dosed.

2(C) There is a picture above the bed

There is a picture above bed.

2(D) There is a pile of sheets on the bed

Piled the sheets on the bed.

(B) The man is taking a break

The man is taking a bre:ik.

3(C) The man is walking around the car.

The man is waking around the car.

3(D) The man is working under a car

The man is working under car.

4(A) The woman has a pile of IX>oksin front of her The woman has a piled booh in from of her.

(A) The man is fi~ing a wheel(3) 機能語
e. 冠詞（a, the）の聞き取りができなかった
f. 前置詞（on, in, at, for など）の聞き取りができな
かった
g. 人称代名詞（I my me, you your, she her, he his him,
they their them, we our us, it its）の聞き取りができなかった
h. 指示代名詞（this, that, these, those）の聞き取りができなかったi. 不定代名詞（one, other, another, some, any, all, each,both, either, neither, none など）の聞き取りができなかった
j. その他

Jml!H::
W,-3"tJO)(a, b, C,j)

The man is fixing a wheel.

(B) The woman is checking out books from the

The woman is checking out books library.

(C) The woman is choosing a book from the shelf The woman is choosing a book.
4(D) The woman is stacking up books

5(A) The boy has his fingers extended

I l',!/!11CO),--I-"!'J)IU'il'J;l.1-

The woman staking up books.

The boy has fingers extended.

0

注. 「原因リスト」を別シートにし、適宜参照させた。

7. 学生の気づきと学習効果
7.1 誤った原因の分析を終えた感想
例を表 2 に示した。参加者は 10 問につき、それぞれ
4 つの選択肢が読み上げられたものをディクテーショ
ンし、そのすべての英文 40 文に対し、上記 6.2 の図 8で示した分析を行った。
その分析を終えた感想を表 2 に示す。全員が回答しているが、おおむね同じ感想と思われるものは冗長にならないよう代表例を示した。

6.2 カテゴライズした要因の自身の誤りへの適用
下図 8 に参加者の分析例を示した。左側に各問でそれぞれ読み上げられた 4 つの英文のスクリプトを記載
し、右側に参加者自身がディクテーションしたものを示した。
両者を比較し、誤った原因となるものを上記 6.1
で示した「原因リスト」から選ばせ、記号を記入するよう指示した。
図 8 内の１（C）は問 1 の正解にあたる「The woman's
searching for a document.」という英文だが、この参加者
は「The woman's searching document.」と書き取った。
これについて、原因と思うものとして「f」と記入しており、「前置詞（on, in, at, for など）の聞き取りができなかった」ということに参加者本人が気づいたことがわかる。ただし、document という名詞の前に冠詞 a が抜けていることについて、その原因として「e」も書く必要もあった。原因と思うものを 1 つだけ記入すれば良いというふうに指示を理解した可能性もあり、カテ
ゴライズ化を自身の誤りに応用するには、原因と考えられる項目をよりしっかり理解して解答する必要が示
唆された。

表2

誤った原因の分析を終えた感想例
自分の聞き取りを振り返ることで勉強になるなと思いました
解答と自分の解答の差をきちんと見ることが出来て良かったです
今回の授業でやり直したことを出来るだけ忘れないようにしたいですスクリプトと自分の回答を比べると全然違っていて驚いた／リスニングの自分の弱いところを確認できた
自分がリスニングでどのようなところが苦手なのかわかってよかったです
同じような間違いが多かったです／これからそこに気をつけてリスニングを聞きたいです
リスニングが聞き取れなかった原因をしっかり考えることが出来た
自分がリスニングで何ができていないかはっきりわかってよかった
前と同じ間違いをしていたので復習する
原因を考えるのはいい機会になったと思います
全然リスニングができていないので悔しいです／頑張りたいです／細かいところまで聞き取れるようになりたいです113

注. 読点は省略し、2 文以上の記載は文の間に「／」を挿入した。それ以外は参加者が記述したまま記載した。

7.2 分析後のリスニング問題への再挑戦結果
上記 6.2 の図 8 で示した分析を終えた後、再度同じ問題に再挑戦させた。特に、問 2、問 3、問 4 といった 1
回目に誤答率が高かった問題は、ディクテーションし、「どこで」「なぜ」聞き取れなかったのかを分析し、確認させたことで、正答率が顕著に上がった。
2 度目に解答した問題だったということを差し引いたとしても、図 9 に示すように、特に誤答率が高かった問題の正答率が顕著に上がったことで、ほとんどの参加者が「聞き取れた」「できた」という満足感や、自信が得られた喜びを授業終了前に毎回課している授業感
想フォームに書いていた。数字としては表しにくいが指導効果を実感を持って認めることができた。実際に、ディクテーション指導法を用いた授業が参加者のリス
ニング自己効力感を統計的に有意な差を持って向上させた例も報告されている（新本, 2020）。初級者レベルの学習者は英語への苦手意識が強く、「できた」と実感できる機会を増やすことが授業実践において重要だと考える。
図9

写真記述問題のリスニング結果（分析前後）

1fi5] (10,\\\;f,fij,\\()

7.19

9.12

8

10

No.

88.9

92.0

No.2

37.0

87.5

No.3

55.6

88.0

No. 4

40.7

88.0

No.5

85.2

96.0

No.6

88.9

92.0

No. 7

66.7

92.0

No.8

77.8

92.0

No.9

81.5

96.0

No. 1096.3

92.0

c:p9cffi

語の誤用に気づきやすくなり、（3）冠詞と（4）前置詞への意識が高まった。また、（5）文法の誤用の傾向をしっかりかけている例は多くはなかったものの、(1)から（4）と同様に、傾向を把握しやすかったことは見て取れた。また、指導者である第一著者が問題の解説時に文
法面の誤りを指摘する際に Zoroe のアラインメント機
能を用いた一覧を表示することによって理解を深める
助けとなった。
本稿の限界としては、Zoroe で扱ったデータ量は 25
名がそれぞれ 40 文をディクテーションしたもので、書
き取れなかった文を除くおおよそ 1,000 文だったため、より多くのデータ収集を行った上でのより詳細な分析が必要な点があげられる。また、本稿で扱った写真描写という問題の性質上、参加者は長い文や複雑な構造の文のディクテーションには挑戦していない。今後もう少し長い文でのディクテーションをさせた結果の分析も行いたい。第二著者は、将来的に、文の長さや構成にある程度の制限を設けた上での英作文の指導に Zoroe
を利用することを目指している。
本稿の限界と今後の課題を認めつつ、英語教育支援
システム Zoroe のアラインメント機能を用いたディク
テーション結果の分析によって一定の指導効果が認められたため、リスニング指導の一方法として提案する。
参考文献
Berne, J. E. (2004). Listening comprehension strategies: A review ofthe literature. Foreign Language Annals, 37(4), 521–531.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02419.x
Field, J. (1999). Bottom-up and top-down. ELT Journal, 53(4), 338–
339. https://doi-org.eres.qnl.qa/10.1093/eltj/53.4.338
近畿大学理工学部英語教育研究会. (2021).「TOEIC Practice 6」.
『First Year in RIKO 2021』. 成美堂.
門田修平. (2017). 『シャドーイング・音読と英語コミュニケーションの科学』. コスモピア.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for lanugage teachers (3rd ed.).
Cambridge Univrersity Press.
松岡博信・平本哲嗣. (2006) .「大学生の英語リスニングおよびディクテーションにおける困難点：TOEIC 問題演習結果の分析」. 『中国地区英語教育学会研究紀要』, 36, 79–88.
Morris, S. (1983). Dictation: A technique in need of reappraisal. ELT
Journal, 37(2), 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/37.2.121
新本庄悟. (2020) 「リメディアル教育が必要な大学生に対する.
ディクテーション指導と自己効力感に関する研究」. 『リメディアル教育研究』, 14, 73–77.
Oller, J. W., Jr. (1971). Dictatin as a device for teaching foreign
lanugage proficiency. ELT Journal, 25(3), 254–259.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/XXV.3.254
大木俊英・和泉祐貴. (2015) .「シャドーイングと速聴ディクテーション：どちらが音声知覚を向上させるか」.『白鴎大学
教育学部論集』, 9, 227–243.
Weir, C. (1993). Undersanding and developing lanuguage test.
Prentice Hall.

IEs$

注.. 受験日 2021 年 9 月 25 日（1 回目）と 9 月 29 日（2 回目）

8. まとめと今後の課題
第二著者が開発した英語教育支援システム Zoroe を用いて、第一著者が大学 1 年生 27 名に行ったリスニン
グ指導に効果が認められたことを報告した。
Zoroe のアラインメント機能を用いると、正解と自身や他の参加者のディクテーション結果を一覧して比較
でき、
「どこで」
「なぜ」聞き取れなかったのかが容易に把握できる。
聞き取れなかった原因の分析を行った結果、１つの文をディクテーションし、その都度答え合わせをするといった学習方法に比べ、Zoroe のアラインメント機能を用いることで学習者が自ら（1）語彙力不足と（2）単114

獣医学生の英語ニーズ―質問紙とインタビュー調査から―
山本佳代*・荒木瑞夫***宮崎大学
shi-yama@cc.miyazaki-u.ac.jp**宮崎大学
taraki@cc.miyazaki-u.ac.jp
要旨
大学レベルの English for Specific Purposes (ESP)の実践では、学部単位でカリキュラムが組まれることが多い。しかし、しばしば学部内にも多様性があり、どこまで特殊性（specificity）を追求すべきかという問題が生じる。本研究では、ある地方国立大学の農学部獣医学科の学生を対象に、ニーズ調査・分析を行い、ニーズの特定を行うとともに、特殊性の問題についても考察を行った。ニーズ調査は、57 名の 1～6 年生の学生に質問紙調査を行うとともに、7 名の 6 年
生の学生にインタビュー調査を行った。質問紙調査からは、専門を反映した教育内容への要望とともに、学年間の差異が見られ、専門課程が進むにつれてニーズが変化する部分があることが分かった。またインタビュー調査からは、4 年次の研究室所属時点で、学生の英語環境が劇的に変化するケースがあることが分かった。調査結果に基づき、カリキュラムの改善の方向と、特殊性を重視した大学レベルでの ESP の方向性について考察した。
キーワード：獣医学生、ニーズ、質問紙調査、インタビュー、ストラテジー
1. はじめにEnglish for Specific Purposes（ESP）でどこまで特殊性（specificity）を追求するべきかという問題は（Hyland,
2002; Basturkmen, 2006）、日本の大学英語教育での ESP実践でも頻繁に問題になる事柄だと思われる。大学レ
ベルの ESP の実践は、しばしば学部という組織を背景としてなされているが、学部の下位組織である学科の間に、専門性においてしばしば隔たりがあることは少なくない。とりわけ、近年ニーズが増している応用科学の分野では、様々な学際的な学部が作られてもいる。
農学も古くからある応用科学であり、農学部の学科
構成はしばしば多様性に富んでいる。本研究では、その中に含められることもある獣医学分野について、ニーズ分析を行うことで、具体的なカリキュラムの評価を行うとともに、大学レベルでの ESP の可能性についても考察する。
また本研究でのニーズ分析において、対象とするのは学生である。Brown（2016）が言うように、あらゆるニーズ分析は、対象が教員や社会のステークホルダーであっても、教育実践を改善することが最終目的であり、その受益者は学生である（p. 57）。本研究は具体的なカリキュラム改善も目指すものであり、学生のニーズを対象とすることとした。
その際、獣医学カリキュラムは 6 年制である点も、その他多くの農学系学術分野と比べて特殊性があると思われる。本研究では 6 年間の学生生活の中での学生のニーズの変化にも着目して調査・分析を行う。
1.1 英語カリキュラム
地方国立大学の一つ M 大学は、学生数 4,644 人、5 学部からなる中規模の地方国立大学であり、獣医学はその農学部獣医学科において講義がなされている（2021年度現在）。
獣医学科の学生定員は 1 学年 30 人であり、合計定員が 285 人の同学部 6 学科の中で、最も少ない。
M 大学の英語カリキュラムは、第 3 期中期計画の開始に合わせて 2016 年度に新たに基礎教育課程と専門課
程がより有機的に結びつくことを目指し、改革がなされた。本研究が行われた 2021 年度は 6 年目にあたり、中期目標の最終年度の節目の年にあたる。また、6 年制
でまなぶ獣医学生は、ちょうど新カリキュラムで学び始めた学生が卒業するタイミングにもあたり、この時点で学生の調査を実施することは意味がある。
M 大学の工・農・地域資源創成の 3 学部の英語関連のカリキュラムの主要な部分は、多言語多文化教育研究センターの英語教員が中心となりデザインおよび運営が進められている。同センターは学部ごとの英語科
目のデザインを行っており、農学部生向け英語科目は（1 学年約 280 名）、下記のように設定されている（表
1）
。

115

表1
M 大学の英語カリキュラム（2016～2021 年度／農学部生）

年次

セメスター

科目名・内容1

前期・後期

英語 Aa1・2（Reading/Writing）

1

前期・後期

英語 Ab1・2（Listening/Speaking）

2

前期または後期

英語 A3（学術英語基礎）2

前期または後期

英語 A4（専門コミュニケーショ
ン英語）

英語科目への要望（自由記述）を尋ねた。
2.2 インタビュー調査
筆者らが課外活動で接点のある獣医学生およびその知り合いに協力を呼びかけて雪だるま式に協力者を募
り、獣医学科 6 年生計 7 名が協力に応じてくれた。各 1名に対して 2 名の聞き手（筆者ら自身）が約 1 時間の半構造化インタビューを行った。インタビュー・ガイドとして以下のような質問を事前に用意し、聞き手がこのガイドの質問を中心にインタビューを行った（表 2）。

この科目構成は、2016 年の大学のカリキュラム改革の際に、多言語多文化教育研究センター（当時は語学教育センター）の教員による農学部の教務担当教員への同学部の英語ニーズの聞き取り調査を参考に策定した。
当時の調査結果によると、農学部では (a) 研究室単位での論文等の英文文献リーディング、(b) 海外研修先での英語プレゼンテーション、(c) グローバル化社会でのツールとしての英語スキル、(d) 就職時の英語資格試験、(e) 大学院進学者のためのアカデミック英語基礎のニーズがあることがわかった。また 3 年次には（6 年制の獣医学科では同種の科目は 4 年次）、専門課程の教員が教える「専門英語」が開講されており、1・2 年次の科
目では、基礎的な部分から（「英語 Aa1・2」「英語 Ab1・
2」）、専門への「橋渡し」的役割を果たすことを目指すこととした（「英語 A3」「英語 A4」）（荒木・山本, 2018）。
カリキュラム変更後の 6 年間は、6 年制の獣医学科に属する学生が入学から卒業までの期間とも合致する。
そこで筆者らは、1～6 年生まで全学年の獣医学生に質問紙調査を実施するとともに、2021 年度末に卒業予定の獣医学生 6 年生 7 名にインタビュー調査を実施した。
そのことで、専門課程を進んでいく獣医学生の「橋渡し」
としての英語教育の受け止め方を把握するとともに、卒業を控えた 6 年生が在学中にどのように英語に向き
あい、学習してきたかの全体像を得、課外活動も含めたより具体的な教育的介入・支援に資する知見を得ることを目的とする。
2. 方法
2021 年度後期の始めに、M 大学農学部獣医学科の協力を得て、同学科のウェブの掲示板を通じて、学生へのアンケート調査を行った。また、2021 年度 9 月下旬より、
順次獣医学科 6 年生にインタビュー調査を行った。
2.1 質問紙調査
農学部獣医学科の 1～6 年生の学部生に Google Formsを用いて匿名の質問紙調査を行なった。学年について尋ねる質問に加えて、(a) 現在考える卒業後の進路（自由記述）、(b) 授業に関する英語学習経験（複数選択）、(c) 受けてよかった/受けたい授業（複数選択）、(d) 使用して欲しい英語授業教材（複数選択）、(e) 身に着けたい
英語スキル（複数選択）、(f) 現在の英語力（選択）
、(g)

116

表2

インタビュー・ガイドの質問項目（トピック）
番号

質問項目

1

大学生の英語のニーズ

2

獣医師の英語のニーズ

3

学習方法（学習履歴）

4

自主学習

5

卒業後について6

宮崎大学の英語カリキュラムおよび課外活動についてトピック 1「大学生の英語ニーズ」については、大学生
活全体から、獣医学の研究室まで、様々なレベルでの英語ニーズについて尋ねた。また、トピック 2「獣医師の英語ニーズ」では、すでに就職活動や進学を決めた 6 年
生たちから見た（まだ経験していない）獣医師・獣医学研究者の英語ニーズを尋ねた。トピック 3「学習方法（学習履歴）」では、大学入学以前についても背景的情報として尋ねた上で、英語の一学習者としての学習履歴を尋ねた。トピック 4「自主学習」では、自身の学習スタ
イルや学習方法について尋ねた。トピック 5「卒業後について」では、卒業後を見すえて現在取り組んでいる英語学習や、卒業までに身につけたいスキルについて尋ねた。最後に、トピック 6「宮崎大学の英語カリキュラ
ムおよび課外活動について」で、記憶している限りでの特定の授業（活動内容）の評価や、授業内容の要望、大学主催の課外活動の評価、英語カリキュラム全体への要望について尋ねた。
インタビュー調査に応じた学生は、女性 6 名、男性 1名で、所属する研究室は学生 A さん、C さん、D さんが同一の研究室であるほかは、それぞれ異なる研究室に所属していた（表 3）。獣医学生は 4 年生の前期から特定の研究室に所属し、6 年生の最後に卒業論文を提出
する。

表3

タイミングで質問紙調査を実施できることの希少性の観点から、以下データの分析を進める。

インタビュー調査協力者の概要（いずれも獣医学科 6 年生）
学生 ID

性別

専門（所属研究室）

A

男性

産業動物伝染病防疫学

B

女性

獣医機能生化学C

女性

産業動物伝染病防疫学

D

女性

産業動物伝染病防疫学

E

女性

獣医寄生虫病学

F

女性

獣医病理学

G

女性

獣医解剖学

3.1.2 将来つきたい職業
質問紙で最初に尋ねたのは「将来あなたはどのような仕事につきたいと考えていますか」（自由記述、複数
回答可）という質問である。回答を、筆者らがカテゴリーに分けた上で集計した（図 2）。
「獣医師」の書き方は複数あり、実際の記述にできる限り沿って集計した。単に「獣医師」とした回答はそのままで集計し、
「小動物
獣医師」
「産業動物獣医師」「動物園・水族館獣医師」と具体的に回答している場合はそのように集計した。
図2

将来つきたい職業（複数回答可）
全学年

1
2

その他

3
5
2
7

無回答

1

研究職
企業

1
2

1
0

8

7

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

1300110010

5

公務員
国際機関

7

4210401010

動物園・水族館獣医師

130231301100

小動物獣医師
産業動物獣医師

14
1
9
1
0

1 年生 2 年生 3 年生 4年生 5 年生 6 年生

4411102030

獣医師

57

3220000011

n2633321110

2.3 分析
質問紙調査のデータは各質問項目の単純集計を行った上で、選択回答の質問について学年毎の解答傾向の異なりについて確認した。
インタビュー調査のデータは、逐語録を作成の上、質的内容分析を行った（高木, 2016）。まずインタビュー時の聞き手（筆者ら）のメモとインタビュー・ガイドからコードを作成し、そのコードをもとに逐語録データに筆者らがコーディングを行った。コーディング作業完
了ののち、コードのカテゴリー化を行い、カテゴリー間のつながりとその示唆について検討を行った。

パーセンテージ表示濃度の凡例

注. 各数値は度数を表わす。度数の背景に付した色の濃さは

3. 結果と考察
3.1 質問紙調査
3.1.1 回答者の学年
6 学年計 193 人の獣医学科の学生のうち、57 名が質問紙調査に回答した（回答率 29.5%）。1 年生 13 名、2年生 7 名、3 年生 12 名、4 年生 10 名、5 年生 8 名、6 年
生 7 名だった（図 1）。

各学年の人数（n）を全体とした時の度数のパーセンテージに基づく（パーセンテージの表示濃度の凡例は上図下部参照）。
この表記方法は、以下図 8 まで同様。

「小動物獣医師」などの下位分類も含め「獣医師」とした回答は計 48 件あり、複数回答も１つと数えた場合の全回答数 78 の 61.5%を占めた。これら臨床獣医師以外で比較的多かったのは公務員で（国家公務員や地方公務員を含む）、12 件あった。
「その他」に分類した回
答は、「貿易関係」（6 年生）、「サービス業」（5 年生）、「JA」（3 年生）、「野生動物保護」（2 年生）、「海外勤務」（1 年生）などがあった。
当然のことながら、「獣医師」を志望する学生が多い。
その一方で、臨床に携わらない形で専門知識やスキルを活かす「公務員」、専門を続ける「研究職」、国際的な活躍を目指す「国際機関」の志望が存在している。

図1

回答者の学年

5 年生， 8,14%
2 年生， 7,12%

3.1.3 これまで受けてきた英語の授業
次の質問「いままでどのような英語の授業を受けてきましたか？」については、基本的に同じカリキュラムの授業を受けている学生であるため、ある意味当然ではあるが、各学年の回答は似通ったものになった。
ただ、実際のカリキュラムでは 4 技能を盛り込んでいるものの、リーディング（57 人中 56 人、98.2%）とリスニング（57 人中 54 人、94.7%）の受信スキルとラ
イティング（57 人中 50 人、87.7%）の授業を比較的多回答率がやや低かったことの理由として、依頼をオンラインで行ったことが挙げられる。まず本調査の趣旨説明と協力依頼を農学部獣医学科長に行い、その獣医学科長から学科の全学生にメールによる一斉連絡がなされた。対面での実施に比べて、メールの見落としや主旨の伝達が十分うまくいかなかった可能性がある。
しかしながら、少なくとも回答者の学年のバランス
が比較的とれていることと、獣医学科生に一斉に同じ117く受けたと捉えられており、4 技能の中ではスピーキン
グのウェイトが一番小さかったと受け止められていた（57 人中 42 人、73.7%）（図 3）。カリキュラムにない
TOEIC®などの「試験対策」は低く出ている（57 人中 10
人、17.5%）。
「専門に特化した授業」は、1～2 年生カリ
キュラムを終えた上級生にある程度見られるが（全学年 57 人中 12 人、21.1%）、少なくない学生からは印象が薄いか、十分ニーズに応えていないと見なされていると推測される。

体で 13 名（22.8%）だった。1～3 年生に相対的に希望が多く（32 人中 9 人、28.1%）、就職活動等で必要になることもある 4～6 年生では必ずしも多くなかった（25
人中 4 人、16.0%）。
4～6 年生でその他に比較的多かったものとして「ディスカッション・ディベート」だった。1～3 年生では32 人中 7 人（21.9%）が選択したのに対し、4～6 年生
は 25 人中 10 人（40.0%）が選択した。研究室や学会等での英語で行われるディスカッションなどが背景にあると推測される。

図3
n
リスニング
リーディングライティングスピーキングプレゼンテーション
ディスカッション・ディベート
試験対策（TOEIC®, TOEFL®, 英検など）
時事英語

ビジネス英語
英語による専門の内容の授業
専門に特化した英語授業
文法

基礎の復習
その他

年
学 57-5456504240221010712-33201
全

これまで受けてきた英語の授業（複数回答可）

3.1.5 英語の授業で使ってほしい教材「英語クラスではどんな教材を使って欲しいですか」という質問に対して、全体で 46 名（80.7%）の学生が「獣医（学）に関する教材」と答えた（図 5）。この傾向は全学年に見られた。
一方、専門的に獣医学と関連が深いと言われる「医学に関する教材」への希望は、必ずしも多くなかった。学年間の差で言えば、1～3 年生の方がむしろ高く（32 人
中 12 人、35.0%）、4～6 年生は低くなる傾向が見られた（25 人中 3 人、12.0%）。
また、「TOEIC 学習教材」を希望すると回答したのは
57 人中 9 名（15.8%）で、就職が近いか就職活動を経た
4～6 年生よりも（25 人中 2 人、8.0%）、1～3 年生に多。
かった（32 人中 7 人、21.9%）

1 年生 2 年生 3 年生 4年生 5 年生 6 年生

13

7

13
13
10
1
1
1
1
5
2
1
0
1
0

7
7

g
5
1

7
5
5
3
2
0
0
2
0
3
2
0

12

10

8

7

12
10
6
6
12
10
7
7
12
9
6
6
10
8
3
5
10
7
4
3
5 ~ 3
2
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
3
5
3
1
「ず 5
2
4
5
4
2
2
0
0
0
0

パーセンテージ表示濃度の凡例

100% 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

3.1.4 受けたい／受けたかった授業「どのような英語クラスが受けたい／受けたかったですか？」という質問に対しては、「スピーキング」（57
人中 25 人、43.9%）、次いで「専門に特化した英語授業」とする回答が多かった（24 人、42.1%）
（図 4）
。

図5

英語の授業で使ってほしい教材（複数回答可）
全学年

57

13

7

12

10

8

リスニング
リーディング

16
15
13
25
14
17
13
7
15
17
24
4
7
2

5
3
1
5
2
3
4
3
3
3
5
1
1
2

2
3
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0

4
4
2
5
1
2
4
0
6
6
5 •
1
2
0

2
1
1
5
3
5
1
2
1
3
6_
0
0
0

2
1
3
1
3
3
3
5
3
4
2
3
1
2
1
0
3
1
1
3
3 ‑
5
.
1
1
2
2
0
0

100% 80%

60%

40%

20%

ライティングスピーキングプレゼンテーション
ディスカッション・ディベート
試験対策（TOEIC®, TOEFL®, 英検など）
時事英語

ビジネス英語
英語による専門の内容の授業
専門に特化した英語授業
文法
基礎の復習
その他

小説

1 年生 2 年生 3 年生 4年生 5 年生 6 年生

n

新聞記事

7

映画・テレビドラマ
TO 日 C 学習教材

TOEFL学習教材
その他

12

10

8

7

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

6‑23231100

全学年

科学一般・科学記享75‑04234010

医学に関する教材

受けたい／受けたかった授業（複数回答可）

13

8‑14223110

獣医（学）に関する教材

図4

1 年生 2 年生 3 年生 4 年生 5 年生 6 年生

10‑54216210

57

1148675310

n

パーセンテージ表示濃度の凡例「小説」「新聞記事」「科学一般・科学記事」などの、より一般性の強い素材への希望は、基礎教育課程を受
講中の 1～2 年生に多く、専門課程の学生（3～6 年生）の希望は相対的にやや少ない傾向が見られた（図 5）。

パーセンテージ表示濃度の凡例

0%

学年毎のパーセンテージで見ると、「スピーキング」
については、1～3 年生よりも（32 人中 12 人、37.5%）、
4～6 年生の方が相対的にやや多く希望が出ている（25
人中 13 人、52.0%）。
「専門に特化した英語授業」は 2 年生で希望する人が0 人だったが、それ以外は学年を通じて顕著なニーズの存在が推測される（全学年 57 人中 24 人、42.1%）。
また「試験対策」を授業でしてほしいという希望は全118

3.1.6 身につけたいスキル「英語のどのようなスキルを身につけたいですか」という質問に対して、「獣医学分野の論文が読める読解力」と答える学生が全体で 45 名（78.9％）おり、最も際立っていた（図 6）。専門分野に触れて日が浅い 1～2 年生
でも多くがこのスキルを選んだ（20 人中 18 人、90.0%）。
既に教員や上級生から専門課程の話を聞いている可能性も考えられる。

次に多かった「一般的な内容についてコミュニケー
ションが取れる会話力」（39 人, 68.4%）は、1～2 年生よりも（20 人中 11 人、55.0%）、3 年生以上で比較的より多く選ばれた（37 人中 28 人、75.7%）。また「獣医の学会や講演会でスピーカーとして話す力」や、「研究室（海外含む）で英語で意思疎通できる力」などの専門に関連の深いスキルも、比較的高学年の学生が多く選んだ（図6）。これらの項目を高学年の学生の方が多く選ぶ背景には、4 年次から所属する研究室での研究活動や留学生との交流なども影響していると推測される。

図8

図6

それぞれの内容は多岐にわたり、個別の授業に関する要望は本研究の目的を超える部分があるため、分類の上で最も多かった「専門分野に関連した授業・教材充実への要望」の内容を確認したい。
この中に含まれる回答には、既存の科目への肯定的評価も含まれる。まず、「専門獣医学に関する専門用語を導入して欲しいです」（6 年生）や「もっと専門的な英語や会話力を身につけたい」（6 年生）という指摘があり、専門語彙やスキルへのニーズが伺える。
「ある程
度自分の課題を持つようになる高学年で、英語での話の組み立て方や主張の伝え方の練習ができる講義が受けられたらいいなあと思います」（4 年生）という指摘
からは、具体的な英語ニーズが高学年に至ってから顕在化することが見て取れる。また「英語のオンライン講義を聞いて、修了証がもらえたもの（名前を忘れてしまいました）は、自分で勉強した感じがして、とてもよかったです」（3 年生）という指摘があった。ここで言及されている「オンライン講義」は、2020 年度のコロナ
禍で、2 年生必修英語科目で緊急導入した Coursera の無償提供に含まれていたものを指すと思われる。専門家の手によって作られ完成度の高い MOOCs のオンライ
ン講義は、専門性と英語を同時に求める学生のニーズを満たす可能性を示唆していると考えられる。

英語科目に関する要望（自由記述の分類に基づく）
全学年

全学年

5
7

1
3

7

1
2

1
0

8

資格試験対策への要望
英語授業のレベル設定に関する要望
ネイティブスピーカーの教員充実への要望
プレゼンやディスカッションの機会充実への要望

7

7
1
0

【聞く力】一般的なニュースが聞き取れるカ

その他

無回答
パーセンテージ表示濃度の凡例

3.1.7 英語力
「自分の英語力はどのくらいだと思いますか」という質問に対して、全体では「英検 2 級（CEFR B1 レベル;TOEIC 550～）」とする回答が多く（30 人、52.6%）、各学年の分布は比較的似通っているが、6 年生のみ、1 レ
ベル上の「英検準 1 級 （CEFR B2 レベル; TOEIC 785～）」とする回答が最も多かった（図 7）。
図7

自身の英語力英検 1 級 (CEFR C1 レベル， TOEIC 945 )

英検準 1 級 (CEFR 82 レベル； TOEIC 785 )
英検2級 (CEFR 81 レベル， TOEIC 550 )英検準 2 級 (CEFR A2 レベル， TOEIC 225 )英検3 級 (CEFR Al レベル； TOEIC 120 )英検 4級(CEFR Al レベル）

英検 5級

(CEFR Al レベル）
無回答

゜

盆」

L

6
3
2
2
2

パーセンテージ表示濃度の凡例

1 年生 2 年生 3 年生 4 年生 5 年生 6 年生

13

7

゜ I゜
゜
゜ ゜゜゜
゜

4
5
1
1

1
6

1
1

100% 80%

12

10

8

7

゜ ゜ ゜ ゜
゜゜ ゜゜
゜
゜
゜
゜
゜
゜ ゜

1
8
2

2
6

1

1
3
2
1
1

3
2
1

20%

0%

1

1

1

60%

40%

13

7

゜
゜゜
゜゜
゜

1

1
1

100% 80%【聞く力】獣医学分野の学会発表が聞き取れるカ

57

1 年生 2 年生 3 年生 4 年生 5 年生 6 年生

パーセンテージ表示濃度の凡例【聞く力】海外の大学で獣医関係の授業が受講できる英語力【総合】資格試験で高得点を取るカ

全学年

5
3

国際交流や交換留学制度充実への要望【書く力】ビジネス文書 (e-ma i l 含む）が書ける英語力n

専門分野に関連した授業教材充実への要望
一般英語への要望
成績評価に関する要望

1 年生 2 年生 3 年生 4 年生 5 年生 6 年生

【会話力】獣医学分野の研究者とミーティングができる会話カ【会話力】一般的な内容についてコミュニケーションが取れる会話カ【会話力】ペットや産業動物のオーナーと英語で意思疎通できるカ【会話力】研究室（海外含む）で英語で意思疎通できるカ【話す力】獣医の学会や講演会でスピーカーとして話すカ【読解力】獣医学分野の論文が読める読解力【読解力】読解カ一般的な新聞や小説が読める読解力【書く力】獣医学分野の論文が書ける英語力

57

個別の授業教員に対する要望身につけたいスキル（複数回答可）
nn

別の機会に筆者らが行った調査で、M 大学農学部 1
年生全体の英語習熟度で最も多いのは CEFR の A2 であることから考えると（荒木・山本, 2018）、今回回答した獣医学科の学生は相対的に英語習熟度が高いと言える。
3.1.8 英語科目に関する具体的な要望「大学で受講する英語科目について要望がありましたら、具体的にお書きください」という質問に対して、15 件の回答があった。それらの回答に対して、筆者らがその内容に応じて分類し、分類毎に集計した（図 8）
。

119

12

10

8

7

2
1

1

゜
゜゜
゜
゜゜゜

2

゜
゜
゜゜゜

1
1

60%

゜゜゜
゜゜゜
゜゜

40%

1
1

20%

゜゜
゜゜
゜
゜゜゜

0%

3.1.9 質問紙調査結果とその考察のまとめ
質問紙調査結果より、三つほど傾向が読み取れる。まず一つは「獣医師」「獣医学」という専門性と英語ニーズに強い関係が見られる点である。半数以上の学生は「獣医師」になりたいと考えており、多くの学生が専門としての「獣医学」に高い関心を持っている。しかし専門的には重複部分が多いとされる医学の教材を授業で使用することについての要望は限定的である。
「受けた
い／受けたかった授業」に関する回答での「専門に特化した英語授業」への強い要望や、「英語の授業で使ってほしい教材」の中の「獣医（学）に関する教材」で最も強い要望が見られた。また、「身につけたい英語のスキル」に関しても、「獣医学分野の論文が読める読解力」
が最も際立っていた。質問紙最後の自由回答でも、英語授業に「専門用語」を学ぶ要素を組み込むことや、英語で専門に関する議論ができるスキルを学びたいという
具体的な指摘があった。まず獣医学への関心があり、英語が獣医学の学習や研究に役立つものとして多くの学生に重視されていることが推測できる。
二つ目の傾向として、回答者の学年とその他の回答とのクロス集計から、学年による回答のギャップがい
くつかの項目で見られた。
「受けたい／受けたかった授業」に関する回答で全学年を通じて最も多かった「スピーキング」は、1～2 年生よりも上の学年でより求められる傾向にあった。「ディスカッション・ディベート」
は 4 年生以上でより強い要望が見られた。
「身につけたい英語のスキル」の、「一般的な内容についてコミュニ
ケーションが取れる会話力」、「獣医の学会や講演会でスピーカーとして話す力」および「研究室（海外含む）
で英語で意思疎通できる力」などのスキルにも、同様の傾向が見られた。質問紙最後の自由回答でも、「ある程
度自分の課題を持つようになる高学年で」ある種の英語スキルが必要となるとの指摘があった。
三つ目に、一般的な英語教材や資格試験対策の英語授業、一般的な英語スキル習得へのニーズは顕著ではないが、どちらかというと高学年よりも低学年で多いという傾向が見られた。獣医学生の中にも実際は企業への就職活動を行う人たちがおり、TOEIC などの資格試験のスコアを必要とする。今回の調査では資格試験対策へのニーズはむしろ低学年の方が高学年より多かった。1～2 年生の英語クラスで TOEIC 対策の授業を受けたとしても、そのスコアを 4～5 年後の就職には使えない。英語カリキュラムの設計においてはそのような 6年制の彼らの事情も考慮する必要があるだろう。
最後に、これらの傾向はまた、現行の英語カリキュラ
ムに対する回答者の見解の表れとしても受け取るべきである。
「受けたい／受けたかった授業」で「スピーキング」が多かったことは、現行のカリキュラムで「スピーキング」を取り入れている科目に、改善の余地がある
ことを示している。また同じ質問で「専門に特化した英語授業」の回答も多かったことは、プレゼンテーション
や論文の読み書きリテラシーなどを扱う EGAP（English
for General Academic Purposes）型の授業に改善の余地があることも示している。特に、「獣医（学）に関する教材」や「専門に特化した英語授業」への強い要望は、
ESAP（English for Specific Academic Purposes）を望む声
とも解釈できる。しかし、クラスサイズが約 40～50 人の現行の必修英語のカリキュラムでは、獣医学科のように 1 学年 30 名程度の学生グループにその専門に特化した ESAP クラスを作ることができないという根本的な制約がある。他学科のニーズも踏まえ、大学全体で解決策を見出すことが求められる。
次に、質問紙では汲み取れない細部を捉えるべく、6年生の獣医学生へのインタビューのデータを検討する。
3.2 インタビュー・データの分析
3.2.1 コーディングとカテゴリー化
逐語録データに筆者らがコーディングを行った結果、

120

最初の「コーディングの担当者間の一致度（inter-rater
agreement）」（セグメントの 90%以上が一致しているコーディングの割合）は、77.42%だった。その後、コーデ
ィングが一致していないセグメントについて、担当者間で議論し、コードの見直し、再度のコーディングのプ
ロセスを繰り返した結果、最終的には 100%一致した。
その後、再度コーディング担当者間で議論の上、複数のコーディングのカテゴリー化を行った。そこで現れたのは、以下のような主要テーマだった。
表4

インタビューから導き出された主要テーマ
テーマ

サブテーマ

英語のニーズ

英語の使用（卒業後）・一般論 (12)英語の使用（専門科目）(1)
英語の使用（研究室外）(2)
英語の使用（入学時～研究室以前）(5)
あったらよいと思う授業・教材 (26)

専門の学習

専門英語に初めて触れる体験 (4)
専門英語への向き合い方 (6)英語の使用（研究室）(29)
英語の使用（卒業後）(12)

自律的学習

資格試験に対する取り組み (9)
自分に合う学習方法 (14)ターニングポイント (10)注. 表中の括弧内の数字は該当するセグメントの数を表す。

上記の各サブテーマを、可能な限り具体的な言及とともに確認しながら、全体像の把握を試みる。
3.2.2 英語のニーズ
英語の使用（卒業後）・一般論 獣医学科卒業後に英語の使用機会があるか否かの問いに、「職種で異なる」（Bさん）とのことだった。臨床の獣医師については、英語は「必要ない」（C さん）、「使わない」（D さん）、「殆どの場合必要ない」（A さん）、「機会は少ない」（B さん）など、基本的に使用機会は少ないと考えられている。しかし「学会に参加すれば必要なこともある」（B さん）、「獣医の国際免許が取りたくなった時」は必要との指摘（E さん）もある。
「都会の動物病院では英語が必要。
オーナーが外国人だと英語が必要。でも、（就職内定先の）徳島は必要ない」（E さん）、「（英語を使用する機会が）あるとすれば研究職の場合」（A さん）、「欧米の治療を知りたい人（は必要）（A さん）」との指摘もあった。
また、臨床獣医師以外となると、「大学院、協力隊は使
うだろう」（E さん）、という指摘があった。参加者はほぼ一様に、一般論として獣医学科卒業生の英語使用機会は少ないと認識していた。
英語の使用（専門科目） また専門科目の講義でも英語が使われることはほぼないという認識だった。
英語の使用（研究室外） 研究室以外で、就職活動（Dさん）と留学生の補助で英語を使うことがある（F さん）。
英語の使用（入学時～研究室以前） 多くの獣医学生にとって研究室に入るまで、大学内では英語の必要性は低いようである。
あったらよいと思う授業・教材 専門に関わる部分と一般英語に関わる部分の 2 つに大きく分けられる。まず専門では、語彙やリーディング、スピーキングの力を伸ばす授業をもっと受けたかったと回答した。教材については、「動物の名前の単語集があると便利」（F さん）、「病理学解剖実習の時に、臓器の英語版があるとよい」（F さん）、「獣医系の学術的な海外との交流の機会が欲しい」（B さん）、「単語（専門語彙）をする必要がある」（A さん）、「3 年生ぐらいで、どのゼミでも共通するような biology で使用されるような英単語に触れておくとよかったかもしれない」（A さん）、「ゼミ（専門）によって、専門語彙が全く異なる。例えば病名やホルモンの名前など表現の違いを学んでおくとよい」（A さん）、など、語彙に関する教材へのニーズが高かった。
一般英語に関わる部分では、就職に向けた資格試験対策やリーディングの促進、視聴覚教材の導入、英語を使う機会提供への要望など、さらに多様なニーズが見られた。前提にある個人の英語学習ストラテジーにも多様性があることが推察される。
授業についての肯定的な評価も見られたが、それらは、英語を実践的に（ライティング/プレゼンテーション）使用するプログラムであった。
3.2.3 専門の学習
専門英語に初めて触れる体験 インタビュー参加者は皆、4 年生から「基礎系」の研究室に所属し、英語の論文を読む。その量と難しさにショックに近い経験をする人もいる。
「多く見積もって、30～40 くらいの論文。
文字の羅列に拒否反応がでた。
（その克服は、）１年越しだった」（G さん）、「どこから読んでいいのか分からな
かった」（A さん）、「始めは構成が理解できなかった。
IMRD の関係が。論文の中に書かれている予備実験がどのような位置づけなのか、わかっていなかった」（D さん）などの言及があった。また英語で発表をする研究室に所属する D さんは、
「15 分程度の先輩の発表が分からなかった。最初は何を言っているのかなーという感じ」とも述べた。
専門英語への向き合い方 最初にショックを受けた人も、遅かれ早かれそれを乗り越えた。「（その克服は、）１年越しだった。今は、どういう内容の論文を読もうかなと思って、検索をかけて、（自分で探して）自分で読むようになった」（G さん）、「プレゼンテーションのやり方は、先生のものを見本に作成した」（A さん）などの言及があった。また D さんは「（自分の）英語は全然うまくない」「（発表は）テンションが大事」とも述べる。
また「辞書を使ったり、Google 翻訳を使ったり。まずGoogle 翻訳にかけてみて、ところどころ意味をつかん

121

でから読むようにしている。
（G さん）」の言及があった。
英語の使用（研究室） 研究室によって差があるものの、4 年生以上の学生が多くの時間を過ごす研究室の英語環境が、彼らの英語使用を大きく左右することが見て取れる。
「ゼミは A さんと同じで、全て英語」（C さん）、「論文を読んできて皆の前で（英語で）プレゼンする」、「ゼミでは、プレゼンは日本語、スライドは英語、留学
生は英語」（F さん）、「（英語を使う機会は）論文を読む
ときや留学生との意思疎通。研究室内の発表は話すのは日本語も OK だが、スライドは英語（留学生がいるので）」（E さん）など発表を英語でするゼミがある。
また卒論を英語で書く場合も少なくない。ただ研究室によって事情は異なる。卒論を英語で書く研究室では、参加者が頭を悩ませていた。
研究室の中には、学部生に学会発表させたりジャー
ナルに投稿させたりすることもしばしばあり、「ジャー
ナル投稿は英語。病理学的用語とかは英語じゃないと絶対通じない」（F さん）などの言及があった。
英語の使用（卒業後） 一般論としては獣医学科の卒業
生（特に臨床獣医師）に英語ニーズはあまりないとした
参加者も、自身の就職先や今後の生活では英語学習を続けると述べた人が多かった。
「今後英語を使う場面としては、日本語の翻訳、本だけでは得られない情報―米英の雑誌、論文、教科書などを英語で読むことが考えられる」（G さん）、「使用説明書（海外から）を翻訳する仕事（をする）。顧客は研究者になるので、研究内容を理解し、機器を販売するため、論文を読むことが必要」（C さん）、「品質を管理（チェック）をする仕事（に就く）。プロトコルが英語なので、その会議や、品質チェ
ックの説明書翻訳、報告書を英語で作成、海外出張（デンマーク等）、社員の勉強会（週１回集まり英語で１時間おしゃべりしよう、というような会） などをする」（G さん）、「B 大学大学院へ進学し、将来的には獣医として海外（国際機関）で働きたい」（F さん）、「厚生労働省の技術職員で、国内・海外勤務がある。食品安全、公衆衛生に携わる。人と動物に共通する病気対策、輸入に携わる仕事、農薬についての海外とのやり取り（輸入されるものに含まれる農薬が基準値を上回っていないかなど）、海外と日本の窓口となるため英語は重要」（Bさん）、「就きたい仕事である「動物園」は必要ない。あるとすれば論文を読むこと」（E さん）など進路は様々だがそれぞれに何らかの英語ニーズが含まれていた。
3.2.4 自律的学習
資格試験に対する取り組み 企業や国際関係の独立行
政法人、国家公務員に内定した A さん B さん、C さん
は、就職に必要のためもあり TOEIC を受験した。トビ
タテ留学を希望していた D さんも TOEIC を受験し、卒
業後大学院に進学した後に留学を考えている F さんは
TOEFL を現在勉強中だった。また、A さんは「今はspeaking を伸ばしたいので IELTS を受け」て、学習の短期目標として資格試験を自律的に勉強していた。
自分に合う学習方法 参加者は英語の自律学習を行うにあたり、自己分析をしながら様々な学習ストラテジ
ーを用いていた。C さんと G さんは文法に苦手意識があったとのことだが、C さんは「文法が全くできなかった。助動詞から勉強した。形容詞とは？のレベルで、文法書を使って勉強した」という。その結果、「英語を聞くことに抵抗がなくなった。
」。D さんは、入るときに２つの候補があったが、英語が必須の〇〇ゼミに敢えて挑戦した。英語に苦手意識があったが、追い込めば、その環境に入れば勉強するだろうと思った」という。
ターニングポイント 参加者の多くは高度な自律性を身につけた学習者と言えるが、長い英語学習の過程の中で、多くがターニングポイントと言えるような経験をしていた。それが「留学生とのやり取りを重ねるなかで、研究室に入って半年くらいたったころ、「（自分は）英語で世界とつながれるな」と思った。その辺りから、留学に前向きになった」（D さん）のように獣医学の専門課程だった人もいれば、「大学 1 年の夏にベトナム研
修、終わりにフィリピン研修に参加した。帰国後、テス
トの点数が伸びず、落ち込み、奮起した」（A さん）のように大学の課外活動だった人もいれば、「（海外旅行に行くなどして、英語が使えると）世界が拡がるな、と実感した。それまで英語には苦手意識しかなかった」（Gさん）のように友達 2 人での私的な海外旅行だった人もいた。これらのターニングポイントは、その人が何かに参加することで得られていることが共通している。

例えば、英語学習のターニングポイントとなりうる体験型プログラムも含め、前半で自律学習者への成長を支援しつつ、後半の専門課程に備えられるような教育内容を整備するというカリキュラム改善の方向性が得られた。特に語彙サポートのニーズが顕著であった。
現行カリキュラムのへの反省として、学科レベルのニーズへの細やかな対応の必要性がある。オンライン型自律学習教材の活用の余地もあるが、クラスサイズの限界も存在する。他学科のニーズも踏まえ、大学全体で解決策を見出すことが必要である。

3.2.5 インタビュー調査結果のまとめ一般論として、獣医学生は卒業後はほとんど英語を使わない、とインタビュー参加者たちは考えていた。一方で、参加者自身は自律的な学習者で、卒業後に英語を使う職業か、勉強を続けたいと考えていた。
しかし、在学中 4 年次から所属する研究室では、多様で、高度な英語ニーズが存在している。多くの学生が、4 年次の研究室所属時に、英語論文や英語発表、留学生との交流などにおいて、劇的な英語使用の増加を経験する。その際、専門語彙が不十分であることが分かった。
また参加者たちは、比較的高い自律性を持った英語学習者だったが、独自のストラテジーで学習を進めていた。多くがその学習過程でターニングポイントとなる経験をしていた。その経験や時期は様々だったが、何らかの参加型のイベントに関連する点で共通していた。
3.3 質問紙調査とインタビュー調査をふまえての考察
本研究では、学部生の経時的変化に留意しながら、学生のニーズ分析を行った。質問紙調査からは基礎教育
課程と専門課程の間に回答のギャップが見られたが、インタビュー調査から、獣医学科では専門課程、特に研究室所属後の英語環境が大きく変わる傾向が見て取れた。そのような専門課程の進行に留意した英語教育カリキュラムが求められていることが示唆された。

122

4. 結論
質問紙の回答率が 30%を切っており、M 大学の獣医学科を必ずしも代表する数値とは言えないが、学年間の差異から得られる示唆は意義があると考える。
また、インタビューの協力者は雪だるま式に募集したため、やはり獣医学科を代表するには十分なサンプ
リングとは言えないが、カリキュラム全体を俯瞰できる 6 年生 7 名にインタビューできた機会とその知見は貴重なものが含まれていると考える。
本研究では獣医学生を、ことなる専門課程に位置するグループを比較することで、ニーズの変容に留意した調査を行った。インタビュー結果とあわせて、学生が学部課程を経る間に変化することと、英語学習もそれに応じて提供される必要があることが示唆された。
学部単位の ESP は、しばしばその中に多様性を含む。
農学部のような応用科学を主体とする学部はなおさら、その際のリソースの問題が改めて浮かび上がった。
「専門英語・語彙」や「専門に関わる教材」へのニーズについては、語彙教材やオンライン教材等での自律学習教材としての提供は有効だと考えられる。体験型のプログラムの提供も含めて自律学習者養成の視点も必要だと考えられる。
謝辞
本研究は JSPS 科研費 JP19K00913 の助成を受けたものです。
参考文献
荒木瑞夫・山本佳代. (2018).「宮崎大学における農学部生向け
基礎教育カリキュラムにおける EAP の実践」. 大学英語教育学会 EAP 調査研究特別委員会. (編).『「大学英語教育の質保証に向けた EAP カリキュラム実態把握調査」研究
成果最終報告書』(pp. 82–89), (公財)日本英語検定協会.
https://www.eiken.or.jp/center_for_research/pdf/bulletin/vol99/
vol_99_17.pdf
Brown, J. D. (2016). Introducing needs analysis and English forSpecific Purposes. Routledge.
Basturkmen, H. (2006). Ideas and options in English for SpecificPurposes. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: How far should we go?
English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 385–395.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00028-X
高木亜希子. (2016).「質的研究の進め方」. 浦野研・亘理陽一・
田中武夫・藤田卓郎・高木亜希子・酒井英樹.『はじめての
英語教育研究―押さえておきたいコツとポイント』研究社.