＜ Research Note ＞

A new approach to reading/
discussion focused language learning
David Williams

The problem of English language tertiary education in JapanOn hearing that Japanese students entering tertiary education have completed more than 1000
hours of formal English language study an outsider to Japan might conclude that these students
would be able to process and understand all manner of English language material from everyday
speech to newspapers and novels. However, despite lengthy and comprehensive studies ofgrammar, vocabulary and yakudoku translation, the evidence suggests most students in Japanlack the skills fundamental to effective language production (Gorsuch, 1998).
To make language skills operational assumes a strong grasp of lower order lexis. This should
include a strong foundation in vocabulary (Nation, 2006), a working knowledge of grammar, as
well as associated cultural knowledge and other paralinguistic skills (Elley, 1991). However,students in Japan have not been afforded much opportunity to practice language at secondary
school level, and have had little exposure to language in its wider cultural context. Instead, themajority of students acquire a skewed language knowledge profile that highlights details andpassive skills over active and global aspects of the language reducing the likelihood of building astrong basis for language communication. Part of this problem may be explained by the university
entrance exams – which require advanced translation skills but lack practical application –ensuring that secondary school students rarely consolidate lower order language skills, or develop
a pleasure reading habit (Guest, 2008). Furthermore, free discussion, debate and critical thought
are rarely tested in such examinations and thus students enter university with few of the skills
considered to be important for the world beyond academia. This set of circumstances has createda well understood problem in language teaching; university students with high order grammar
and translation skills but poorly developed discussion and thinking skills.
In a bid to rectify this situation and make English more communicative and relevant to the realworld, the adoption of simplified language text books in Japanese universities has been
widespread over the past 20 years. Many argue however that this has been unsuccessful inmaking English more practical. This is because simplification – or perhaps more critically,‘dumbing down’ – has tended to dilute content and lower the bar of language complexity rather
than raise students’ discussion capabilities. The result has been de facto remedial lessons ofsecondary school standard in a university setting (Mori, 2002) which de-motivate students－ 65 －

(Agawa et al., 2011). Based on the fact that some 29 research papers presented at the 2010 Japan
Association for Language Teachers Conference focused on motivation it is clear this problem ispervasive in L2 instruction throughout Japan (JALT, 2010).

New approaches to second language acquisition in Japan
More recent approaches to address the overall problem of making English more practical have
set up new SLA tools and methods, established curricular with a focus on choice, and offeredcontent courses through an English medium (CLIL). These are often implemented throughmultimedia-based learning or CALL but given that, even today, many students exhibit inertia
towards information technology it is not surprising that perhaps the strongest foothold amongst
these new approaches has been made by a more traditional book-based idea known as extensive
reading (ER). ER, as outlined by Day & Bamford (2002), is reading that is both “pleasurable” and“easy”. Within this, teachers “guide” students to “read as much as possible” while acting as
students’ reading “role models” (see Table 1). In this sense ER goes against the central tenets ofyakudoku as the former combines student autonomy, familiar lexis and comprehensible input(Krashen, 1982). Extensive reading’s adoption into the university curricular can thus be seen as asea change in the conventional wisdom of SLA in Japan (Grabe, 2011; Mason, 2006).

Table 1: Ten Principles of Extensive Reading (after Day & Bamford, 2002).
1

Reading material is easy

6

Reading is its own reward

2

A variety of reading is available

7

Reading is individual & silent.

3

Reading is selected by students

8

Teachers orient and guide students.

4

Learners read as much as possible

9

The teacher is a role model reader.

5

The purpose of reading is related topleasure and understanding.

10

Reading speed is faster rather than slower.

Implementation of ER at tertiary level has developed from simply being something that ‘certain
teachers do’, to being fully integrated into the curriculum. At Kyoto Sangyo University theuniversity-wide ER program of 3000 students integrates the innovative Moodle TMS reader withER, and as a result of collaboration amongst its staff ER is an official component of students’
grades (Robb, Kano & Claflin, 2011). This example notwithstanding it is more typical for ER to besmaller in scale and to be attached more generally to a university library, an individual teacher,used as an adjunct to classroom learning (such as through book reports), or as in-class silent－ 66 －

sustained reading (SSR). The uptake of ER has thus largely depended on teachers’ enthusiasm,
co-operation between administrators and educators, and the financial merits of investing in ER
over other forms of L2 study. Thus in many ways, ER has had to validate its merits to tertiary
language education by demonstrating that its inherent “ease”, “pleasure”, and “self-determinism”
are the keys to L2 success (Day & Bamford, 2002). Despite skepticism about the efficiency of ER
by some language professionals (Bruton, 2002; Macalister, 2008; Wells, 2011), the range of
research supporting its efficacy (Bell, 2001; Constantino et al, 1997; Elley, 1991; Hafiz & Tudor,
1989; Janopoulos, 1986; Mason, 2006; Nation, 1997; Robb & Susser, 1989; Williams, 2009), andthe number of universities where it can now be found make the ER approach a hard one to ignore.

Extensive reading and literature circles: A personal journey
In 2003, against this background, and while searching for a new way to motivate students, I
purchased my first set of graded readers (Penguin Reader series levels 2 and 3), and although I
had included ER in my teaching repertoire for two years previously this was the first time tomake it an integral part of a course and to have sourced it with my own budget.
I first used the ER titles as an adjunct to a general English course. The approach was very
simple: students selected a book during class and were asked to read it over a two week period. At
the end of the first week students wrote a book (summary) report based on the first 15-20 pages
they had read, and made a prediction about the following 15-20 pages they were to read in thefollowing week (each title consisted of 30~40 pages). In the second week students wrote a second
summary and final comment report. This approach would, I thought, give me both a homeworktask to include as part of student assessment and - through the prediction activity - a ‘warmer’
task to ensure students had something of personal interest to discuss at the beginning of class.
Surprisingly, the homework task was a big hit with students (Williams, 2005), but when it cameto the ‘discussion’ as a prelude to classroom activities I came across a well known problem in SLA
education: students did not know how to talk (Wollmann-Bonilla, 1994)!
At this same time I was introduced to an idea Mark Furr - a colleague at the time - was pilotingwith ER known as the ‘EFL literature circle’ (Furr, 2004). This circle, he told me, allowed students
to think about, discuss, and analyze the books within a framework created by a series of role
sheets (Kim, 2003). It sounded too good to be true but due to the relatively complex set of
instructions on each role sheet (Furr suggests six roles for fiction), I was skeptical about how wellit would work. Sensing this, Mark invited me to watch his ‘literature circle’ class in action andwithin just a few minutes I was asking him for copies of the role sheets! What I saw were students
I had previously thought of as shy and reticent, presenting and arguing points, raising questions－ 67 －

and refuting others’ ideas. By the following semester I had started my own literature circles, andmy classroom had been transformed.

Developing literature circles for content: the CBRCOne year after my introduction to literature circles, institutional reorganization meant I wastransferred from teaching general English courses to instruction in advanced content basedclasses, classes for which literature circles seemed irrelevant. However, based on the success ofthe circle approach and the applicability of ER to content (Shang, 2006), I felt my new teaching
duties presented an opportunity to adapt the fiction model and make content morecommunicative and engaging (Macalister, 2008; Poulshock, 2010). After a few adjustments toFurr’s original six fiction reading circle roles, I created a four person content-based reading circle,
the CBRC (Williams, 2011).
In brief the CBRC - like its fiction-based counterpart - gives students a chance to: lead thegroup (group leader); suggest and justify important vocabulary from the text (word master);provide a summary of the text (summarizer); and assess the similarities and dissimilarities
between the culture represented by the text and that of the students (culture connector). The
importance of each of these roles to SLA is highlighted by the research of Ward et al (2008),
Nation (2006), Bell (2001) and Brown (2009) respectively. Moreover, as the material is graded,reading is manageable and students are able to express themselves individually in discussion.
This latter point I felt was particularly pertinent to content-based materials for even though thecourses I was teaching were labeled ‘advanced’ (a TOEFL score of 500 or more was required)students still lacked vocabulary and conceptual cultural knowledge to read and comprehend
intensive content materials and then discuss them. However, by using an extensive content-based
reading text I expected the CBRC would replicate the heightened level of interest and motivation(Rouault & Eidswick, 2011) as well as the “virtuous circles of learning” (Nuttall, 1982, p.168) I
had seen in the fiction-based approach. I was not to be disappointed.

Towards an understanding of the content-based reading circle
I first employed the CBRC in an advanced language class which examined contemporary
aspects of British culture. The results in terms of student engagement during class were beyond
expectation. Indeed it seemed the CBRC worked even better than the fiction-based approach! I
had, however, no concrete proof of this, and despite the growing popularity of the reading circle
among language instructors, I found little EFL research data relating to reading circle, its roles,－ 68 －

or students’ perception of the approach. I thus decided in 2009 to undertake a survey of twogroups of students who were using CBRC as their main mode of English language instruction.
The results of this research have been published elsewhere (Williams, 2011), however its findings
inform the current research and are of some value to review here.
Firstly, concerning the roles, students expressed a strong preference towards the culture
connector and group leader roles; the summarizer role by contrast was seen as largely irrelevantwith some students arguing extensive texts were already summarized. From this it seems clear
students enjoy sharing the cultural elements of a text and to taking responsibility for learning.
Secondly, the most widely reported benefit of the CBRC was as a means to improve overall text
understanding and cross cultural issues. For the improvement of vocabulary however the CBRC
was less highly evaluated. In agreement with previous research (Brown, 2009; Furr, 2007; Shang,2006; Wiencek & O’Flahaven, 1994; Willis & Willis, 2009), the novel, fun and engaging aspects ofreading circles were highlighted suggesting the CBRC approach is equal in popularity to thefiction-based one.
Despite student support for a reading circle approach in content-based instruction, I wasdisappointed at the relatively poor transference of the summary role from the fiction-based circle.
I had anecdotal evidence to confirm this but felt it would be of some benefit to research it further
in order to make the role more suited to non-fiction material. This idea took a stronger form at aworkshop where a participant suggested a role that would summarize the group discussion rather
than the text itself (Williams, 2010). My proposal was for a new role that could work both intandem with the summarizer or as its replacement, thus opening up the possibility of a fiveperson content-based circle. One function of the new role was to review the discussion, but it wasalso created with the aim of encouraging reflection and promoting critical thought. In this way
the circle would have a mechanism to balance and check what had been said, and to further
assess any contentious or controversial CBRC contributions. According to Rozzell (2010), such an
approach is a key to maximizing the use of extensive reading materials and with this in mind I
developed the role of group secretary.

A new role for the CBRC – the group secretary
In common with other members in the CBRC, the group secretary receives a copy of the text toread for homework together with a role sheet (see Appendix A) to fill out. However, unlike other
CBRC roles, the group secretary only needs to write notes on the role sheet during the circle
discussion itself with points he/she considers to be important, or that would benefit from further
discussion or reflection. Once the CBRC discussion finishes, the group secretary uses these notes－ 69 －

to recap the main points, query individual speakers and offer his/her own perspective on the text.
By doing so, students are able to revisit the text, develop deeper critical thought, or have theopportunity to reposition their stance on statements already made in the discussion stage of the
CBRC. I expected the group secretary to be a great success.

Research rational/ methodology
In order to examine how well the group secretary was received by students and also to find out
whether students preferred a 4 or 5 person reading circle (i.e. with group secretary) data wasgathered from a group of students (n=33) studying at a national university who were using the
CBRC as the mode of instruction. A 15 - item questionnaire (see Appendix B) which mirrored theauthor’s 2009 study (but that included items to elicit views of the group secretary) was developed
and administered to all 33 students. Respondents were informed of the purpose of thequestionnaire and were given 30 minutes to complete it. Numerical coding of items was made andanalyzed using EXCEL. Responses made in Japanese were translated by the author.

Results
The Roles
As shown in figures 1 and 2 the most popular roles were the group leader and culture collector.
Some 37% of students voted group leader as their favourite role, while culture collector received
27%. Meanwhile, word master, summarizer and group secretary were ranked top by 15%, 12%
and 9% of students respectively. Roles ranked as least favourite were group secretary (61%) andsummarizer (24%); just 3% of students voted either the culture collector or group leader as theirleast favourite role. The tendency to favour the culture connector and group leader roles over thesummarizer replicates the findings of the author’s previous study (Williams, 2011).
Group
Secretary9%
Summary
12%

CultureConnector
3%
Word

Group
Leader37%

Group
Leader3%

Master9%

Word
Master15%
CultureConnector
27%

Summary
24%

Figure 1: Popularity of roles ranked first.

Group
Secretary
61%

Figure 2: Popularity of roles ranked last.
－ 70 －

One explanation for the discrepancy in role popularity is that certain roles were perceived ashaving more work attached to them. Highlighting this issue, one male student mentioned‘depending on the role, the amount of preparation you have to put in varies quite a lot.’ Meanwhile,the low popularity of some roles may have been due to the value the role was perceived to give thediscussion. In this case students felt unwilling to invest homework time in something they felt
would not be given high priority in class. Relating this to the case of the word master one malestudent stated, ‘the words from the word master weren’t always picked up in discussion so it felt
like a waste of time, also you cannot ask any questions in the discussion so the role isn’t very
interesting.’ Similarly, the summarizer role was seen as ‘difficult’. These examples may indicate aweakness in using previously simplified ER materials as input for a discussion focused
content-based course. In the case of the word master students often seem to feel they should belearning content (i.e. high order vocabulary) rather than using the text as a means to generate
discussion. At the same time texts that are by their very nature simplified seem to pose someproblems for students tasked with summarizing.
By contrast, such issues did not apply to the culture connector as students felt it was the rolethat energized the discussion. As one female student said, ‘Through the culture connector we canunderstand and rethink about our own culture. Also because we have to read the text carefully tofind connections with our culture, we can make interesting cultural comparisons.’ Equally,
students found the leader role attractive as one student remarked, ‘I could run the discussion as I
wanted.’ This did not suit all students however, as one male mentioned, ‘When I was the groupleader I wasn’t really sure how to keep the time between questions’, whilst another indicated it
was hard to ‘manage’ the discussion as leader. These comments intimate that it is not simply thelanguage or content students need to consider in the CBRC but also that they need to ‘manage’other logistical and paralinguistic considerations.

The group secretary
As the results in figures 1 and 2 show the 4 person reading circle was preferred to that which
included a group secretary (54%). This preference was not unanimous however as some 33% voted
for a circle which included the group secretary (11% stated no particular preference). The
principal reasons given for these preferences are summarized in table 2 below.

－ 71 －

Table 2: Viewpoints about the 4 and 5 person circle.
Viewpoints supporting the 5 person circle

Viewpoints supporting the 4 person circle

It is good to get feedback on your performance[from the group secretary]. Feedback [from thegroup secretary] raises motivation.

[As a group secretary] it was sometimes hard to
give a critical account.

The discussion flows better [with a groupsecretary]

The group secretary cannot participate in thediscussion so the role is too limited.

You get nervous in a good way when you know
someone [i.e. the group secretary] is listening
actively.

If there is a group secretary we get nervous andcannot speak freely.

A new point of view is introduced to thediscussion [through the group secretary].

Group secretaries didn’t always catch the flowof discussion correctly and only commented
superficially.

Note: words in bold are the author’s emphasis.
The utterances shown in table 2 clearly demonstrate that while opinion about the utility of thetwo circle approaches is split, four central themes can be observed concerning the inclusion orabsence of the group secretary role. These are: ‘feedback’; ‘discussion flow’; ‘tension’ and‘comments’.
‘Feedback’ relates not only to the individual feedback students could receive from their peers
during the discussion, but also the quality of the feedback. In some cases it seems groupsecretaries lacked the necessary language and/or knowledge skills to provide the deep criticalthought sought by some CBRC members and this led some students to doubt the rationale for agroup secretary. In addition to feedback the group secretary also raised students’ awareness of
how the role could assist with the ‘flow’ in the discussion. As shown in table 2 the role can help
fluency in the CBRC and may be effective in assisting weaker group leaders. Employing a 5
person circle also alerted students to issues related to consciously speaking in front of a group,particularly where one member (the group secretary) was not contributing to the discussion. Thisappears to have been motivating for some but unnerving for others. In the latter case this may
have compromised the discussion circle’s cohesion and reduced some of its effectiveness as ameans to illicit frank comment and ideas. Allowing the group secretary to comment during thediscussion may be one way to overcome this. Finally, inclusion of a 5th member critically reviewing
and analyzing the discussion highlighted the importance of having multiple viewpoints or‘comments’ in a CBRC.
From these observations - and the numerical data of figures 1 and 2 - it seems the groupsecretary role may require some adjustments. Other literature circle practitioners have had few
problems with 6 member reading circles so it seems unlikely that the size of the circle per se is the－ 72 －

source of any dissatisfaction. Instead, as the comments above indicate the issue may be that thegroup secretary is a non participative role during the discussion. To allow the group secretary to
act together with the group leader in questioning and confirming during the discussion rather
than after it would be one possible way to remedy this. By doing so anxiety or nervousness felt bysome circle members about a group secretary who merely listens and writes during the discussion
would be reduced. A second proposal is for teachers to proactively set up circles of students withsimilar abilities. The system used during the current research allowed students to mix with as
many of their peers as was possible but for some weaker students it seems this was a source ofunease. By actively streaming students of similar L2 abilities would help to reduce anxiety
amongst weaker students, but could also help to reduce the dissatisfaction felt by higher ability
students. Such streaming is however somewhat controversial as one of the main pillars of successof the discussion circle is to give each student the sense that they have an equally valuable
contribution to make to the discussion; by proactively creating ability-based discussion circles
could have a negative influence on class cohesion and also make a diagnostic test necessary and indoing so remove the fun, magic and enjoyment elements central to the success of the reading /discussion circle.

Students’ views of the CBRC
Figure 3 outlines questionnaire items 8-13 and describes what students think of the CBRC as ameans to improve some key language targets. The targets under scrutiny here were (i)understanding a text (understand), (ii) development of vocabulary and collocations (vocabulary),(iii) cross cultural awareness (xculture), (iv) critical thinking skills (crit. think), and (v) overalllanguage development (overall). Again represents students’ interest in using CBRC in language
classes in the future.
Based on a linear 5-point scale where 1 was ‘strong agreement’, and 5 ‘strong disagreement’,
students indicated the CBRC as a beneficial means to develop all five targets. The most effective
were perceived as xculture (mean = 1.5), and understand (=1.7). At the same time, crit. think andoverall delivered mean scores of 1.9. The language target perceived as least effectively served by
the CBRC was vocabulary (= 2.8). These results are almost identical to the author’s previous
research (Williams, 2011) and, with the exception of vocabulary development, show that
respondents strongly or very strongly believe CBRC are a good way to develop key areas of SLA.
Future usage of CBRC was also supported by the data with a mean score of 2.0 for again.

－ 73 －

AgainOverall

Crit. Think

Xculture

Vocabulary

UnderstandLikert Scale

1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Figure 3: CBRC and 5 key SLA attributes.
Note: (Likert Scale) 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4= disagree
Open ended responses given at the end of the semester support the data in figure 3 andhighlight the fact that most students looked forward to learning through a CBRC approach. The
only source of concern was no different to introducing any other new learning technique and was
described by a female student who stated, “I was nervous about my ability to participate in agroup. I haven’t been in a lesson like this in Japanese language so I wasn’t confident [I would be
able to manage with the content and the English]”. Others were more enthusiastic at this earlystage and looked forward to a new challenge, as mentioned by a positive male student, “I thought
CBRC would be a good idea because we [students] will not be lazy and we can know how
important it is to have responsibilities”.
At the end of the semester only one respondent retained any uneasiness towards CBRC and it
was more typical for students to view CBRC positively. Typifying this attitude one male student
stated, “I think my English skill has grown more than in other English language classes”. A highdegree of satisfaction was also associated with using the CBRC. As one female student mentioned,“I was never bored in this lesson, it was good to be able to make friends with other people in theclass”.
Overall CBRC were seen as motivating, stimulating and practical. In explaining the motivating
element a male student claimed, “[In a CBRC class] you don’t end up sleeping when you’re in agroup. Usually in this kind of class you get together with your friends and finish the task without
getting serious about the content. But because we have a role sheet and we changed groups, wewere serious and made friends with other people in the class”. Students also felt CBRC gave them－ 74 －

something stimulating and different. Concerning this, a second year male remarked, “The 90
minutes felt very short. Having the teacher answer questions after the discussion is a very goodidea. You can get a lot from this kind of class compared to one where one teacher is talking tomany students at once”. Finally, CBRC were also seen as being more practical than otherapproaches to L2 studies, one male student stated, “I’m strongly opposed to the ways of studying
English in Japan in which you can’t learn how to speak in English, so this class was great in termsof speaking English. Usually we don’t get an opportunity to use English so it was very good”.
These results show students have a strong affinity for CBRC, appreciate its strengths, andenjoy the approach as a means to study language. Student respondents also offered some valuablesuggestions to help improve CBRC further. Foremost amongst these was the need for the groupsecretary role to be more participative. As discussed above this may be possible by combining therole with the group leader or by allowing the group secretary to act as a leader when necessary.
Other useful suggestions were: to have greater control on the time for discussion; for the task to
be more accessible to weaker students (perhaps through a simplified role sheet), and for there to
be a stronger component related to writing. In the case of the last suggestion, weekly assessmentof the written role sheets (rather than tri - weekly basis, as made here) might be a way tofacilitate this.

Discussion
As a new approach to making the learning of more engaging, practical and student centered,
the literature circle derivative, content-based reading circle is widely supported by students as ameans for them to get closer to text meaning and also closer to their peers. As shown here,
students enjoy the fun aspect of the learning environment and to being given a real chance to lead,find out, and discuss the text as they understand it. It is motivating, practical and stimulating. In
this sense the CBRC can work the same “magic” that Furr (2007) describes for the fiction based
literature circle.
The addition of the new experimental role (group secretary) described here, shows that many
students enjoy taking a critical role in a group of their peers and relish the opportunity to assessothers comments and to have their own comments assessed by others. This view tends tocontradict more traditional sociological analyses of Japanese learners which emphasize
ambivalence towards leadership, critical thinking, or individual initiative (Burrows, 2008) andoffers us some insight into the deficiencies of the traditional top-down classroom approach adopted
in Japan and many Asian countries. The results of the current research can thus act as a first step
to refocus L2 instruction such that students become more involved in the learning process.
－ 75 －

The role sheets distinguish reading circles from other reading/discussion approaches to L2
studies, but according to the results here not all the roles were equally popular. The popularity ofgroup leader and culture connector may have been in response to the majority of respondents
being both motivated and enthusiastic about English studies, and in many cases being confidentof their discussion skills. Written responses showed that less able students embraced these more
output focused roles less enthusiastically. A second reason for the high popularity of the groupleader, culture connector, and CBRC more generally was the cross cultural nature of the subject
matter. It is thus perhaps to be expected that students would rate the inherently cross cultural
approach highly. What remains unanswered is how to make the word master, summarizer andgroup secretary more inclusive. Moreover how can we rationalize the differences in ability andensure all students are comfortable with the approach?
As mentioned above, a first step towards answering this question is to make each role equallyparticipative. The group secretary should therefore be seen not simply as a summarizer of the
discussion but also as a sub - leader who can contribute to critical thought during the discussion
as well as after it. The difficulty will lay with whether this dual role will be too much of a burdensince it would require simultaneous leadership and critical examination of speech. Equally, theword master role needs to be more motivating as an output task. One possible way might be toutilize word master selected vocabulary as the basis for an in-class quiz or peer assessed quiz. In
this way, word masters will feel their work is valued and any discussion of the context andbackground to vocabulary can be enhanced. As well as making the roles more participative andrelevant the question of different student abilities remains. As one means to satisfy stronger
students I offer an open-class ‘anything goes’ Q&A after the circle discussion during which
students can ask content-based questions directly to me. This I have found a very successful way
to engage the stronger, and/or more confident students but how much weaker student gain fromthis is unclear. Simplifying the role sheet may also offer a way to help weaker students,
particularly those with weaker verbal output skills and stronger passive written orcomprehension capabilities.
Brown (2009) has shown that the success of the literature circle approach is the result of the
fun and anticipation found in the classroom. The results of the current research fully concord withthis and show that CBRC success is as much to do with the motivation it provides as the fun it
encourages. By introducing the group secretary to the CBRC, critical thinking was more visible
and students could experience the pressure and more realistic environment of being listened to by
a person who did not contribute to the discussion (in the capacity of professional presentation, or
meeting such ‘pressure’ is commonplace). Despite the ambivalence towards the new role by somestudents with some fine tuning it can be powerful means for students to understand, develop and－ 76 －

practice critical thinking, analysis and leadership skills; skills that are in widespread demand inboth academia and the world of employment.

Conclusion
With clearly defined tasks the content-based reading circle (CBRC) creates a new learning
context for using content-based materials in SLA. This new context is challenging, but at thesame time makes for greater student involvement and language productivity. As the current
research shows, students view the CBRC as a very effective way to undertake content based
studies in English and in the majority of cases are enthusiastic towards it. By employing a morecritical thought based role such as the group secretary, the CBRC becomes an even more powerfulmeans to enhance content-based learning and gives language facilitators a new tool with which to
make L2 studies more practical, stimulating and relevant to students.

References
Agawa, T., Abe E. et al. (2011). Preliminary study of demotivating factors in Japanese university English
learning. The Language Teacher, 35(1), 11-16.
Bell, T. (2001). Extensive Reading: speed and comprehension. The Reading Matrix, 1(1).
Brown, H. (2009). Literature circles for critical thinking in global issues classes. The Language Teacher,33(10), 16-17.
Bruton, A. (2002). Extensive Reading is reading extensively, surely? The Language Teacher, 26(1), 23-25.
Burrows, C. (2008). Socio-cultural barriers facing TBL in Japan. The Language Teacher, 32(8), 15-19.
Constantino, R., Lee, S.Y., & Krashen, S. (1997). Free voluntary reading as a predictor of TOEFL scores.

Applied Language Learning, 8(1), 111-18.
Day, R., & Bamford, J. (2002). Top ten principles for teaching extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign

Language, 14(2), 136-41.
Elley, W. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language. Language Learning, 41, 375-411.
Furr, M. (2004). Literature circles for the EFL classroom. Proceedings of the 2003 TESOL Arabia Conference,

Dubai. United Arab Emirates: TESOL Arabia.
Furr, M. (2007). Reading circles: moving great stories from the periphery of the language classroom to its
centre. The Language Teacher, 31(5), 15-18.
Gorsuch, G. (1998). Yakudoku EFL instruction in two Japanese high school classrooms: an explanatory study.

JALT Journal, 20(1), 6-32.
Grabe, W. (2011). Extensive reading: Why isn’t everyone doing it? Keynote speech at first ER World Congress,－ 77 －

Kyoto Sangyo Univ., Sept 2011.
Guest, M. (2008). A comparative analysis of the Japanese entrance senta shiken based on a 25-year gap. JALT

Journal, 30(1), 85-104.
Hafiz, F., & Tudor, I. (1989). Extensive reading and the development of reading skills. ELT Journal, 43(1),
4-11.
JALT, (2010). Creativity: think outside the box. Conference Handbook for the 36th International Conference,
Nagoya, Nov. 2010.
Janopoulos, M. (1986). The relationship of pleasure reading and second language writing proficiency. TESOL

Quarterly, 20(4), 763-68.
Kim, H.R. (2003). Literature circles in EFL curricula: establishing a framework. The English Teacher (32),Retrieved from <www.melta.org.my/ET/2003/2003-1.pdf>.
Krashen, S.D. (1983). The natural Approach: language acquisition in the classroom. Alemany Press: San
Francisco.
Macalister, J. (2008). Integrating extensive reading into an English for academic purposes program. The

Reading Matrix 8(1), 23-34.
Mason, B. (2006). Free voluntary reading and autonomy in second language acquisition: improving TOEFL
scores from reading alone. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2(1), 2-5.
Mori, R. (2002). Entrance examinations and remedial education in Japanese higher education. Higher

Education, 43, 27-42.
Nation, P. (1997). The language learning benefits of extensive reading. [On-line]
Available:<http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/97/may/benefits.html
Nation, P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language

Review, 63(1), 59-82.
Nuttall, C. (1982). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. London: Heinemann Educational.
Poulshock, J. (2010). Extensive graded reading in the liberal arts and sciences. Reading in a Foreign

Language, 22(2), 304-322.
Robb, T., & Susser, B. (1989). Extensive reading vs. skills building in an EFL context. Reading in a Foreign

Language, 5(2), 239-51.
Robb, T., Kano, M., & Claflin, M. (2011). An implementation of Extensive Reading with 3000 students: How

we did it. Presentation at First ER World Congress, Kyoto Sangyo Univ., Sept 2011.
Rouault, G., & Edswick, J. (2011). Judging books by their covers and more: components of interest in graded

readers. Presentation at First ER World Congress, Kyoto Sangyo Univ., Sept 2011.
Rozzell, R. (2010). Class Readers: the learner’s perspective. Global Japanese Studies Review, Meiji University,2(1), 51-76.
Shang, H. (2006). Content based instruction in the EFL literature curriculum. The Internet TESL Journal,－ 78 －

12(11), Retrieved from <itesj.org/Techniques/Shang-CBI.html>.
Ward, D., Wade, L., & Dowling, A. (2008). Pushing the student centered envelope: a corporate meeting-style
approach. The Language Teacher, 32(9), 13-15.
Wells, P.

(2011). Gain without pain: a critical examination for the case of extensive reading. Presentation at

the 10th JALT PanSIG Conference, Matsumoto, May 2011.
Williams, D.A. (2005). Extensive reading as homework: what students really think. Presentation at Japan
Association for Language Teaching, 31st International Conference, Shizuoka, Nov. 2005.
Williams, D.A. (2009a). Revisiting the extensive reading effect on TOEFL scores. In A. Stoke (Ed.), JALT 2008

Conference Proceedings 1168-1179. Tokyo: JALT.
Williams, D.A. (2009b). Literature circles and non-fiction texts. English Connection, 13(4), 28.
Williams, D.A. (2010). Using literature circles in a content-based course. Workshop for JALT Gunma Chapter,
Kyouai University, June 2010.
Williams, D.A. (2011). Student reactions to literature circles in content based instruction. Proceedings of Pan

Asia Conference 2010, Seoul, Korea, 219-228.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2009). Task-based language teaching: some questions and answers. The Language

Teacher, 33(3), 3-8.
Wiencek, J., & O’Flahaven, J.F. (1994). From teacher-led to peer discussions about literature: suggestions formaking the shift. Language Arts, 71, 488-98.
Wollman-Bonilla, J. (1994). Why don’t they “just speak”? Attempting literature discussion with more and lessable readers. Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 231-58.

Appendix A. Group Secretary Role Sheet
Name:
Topic:The group secretary’s job is to listen to the comments/ contribution of other members in thegroup and to review and evaluate what was said at the end of the discussion. As well as reviewing
what each member said you should add comments / questions of your own. For example, you may
disagree with the points emphasized by the summarizer; or want to raise questions the groupleader did not raise. Alternatively you may want more details about word master word choices, orto clarify any cultural comparisons made by the culture connector. You should also evaluate theperformance of each speaker.
During the discussion, take notes and write any thoughts that come to mind.
－ 79 －

Write your ideas about each speaker below to help you review each role (THINK: contents –questions - evaluation).
1. Group leader:

2. Summarizer:

3. Word Master:

4. Culture Connector:

Appendix B. Research questionnaire
In this class we studied English texts using a role sheet and discussion group. This approach is
known as a literature circle. I would like to know your opinions about this.
Please answer the questions below to help me understand what you think about literaturecircles (written answers may be in English or Japanese). Use question 15 for any additionalcomments.
Thank you for your help, your opinions are very valuable.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Have you used a literature circle approach in a language class before?
How did you feel when you first knew we would use literature circles for this class?
How do you feel now that you have finished the course?
How long did you usually spend reading and preparing your role for class?
Please rank the 5 roles in order of preference. Briefly explain your answer.
－ 80 －

For questions 6-13 mark one of the five responsesa)

I strongly agreeb)

I agreec)

I neither agree nor disagreed)I disagreee)

I strongly disagree

6a. I enjoyed the group leader role.

6b. I enjoyed the word master role.

6c. I enjoyed the summarizer role.

6d. I enjoyed the culture connector role.

6e. I enjoyed the group secretary role.
7. Which circle did you prefer, with the group secretary or without?

Explain your answer.

8. Literature circles are a good way to understand a text.
9. Literature circles are a good way to learn about vocabulary and collocations.
10. Literature circles are a good way to develop cross cultural awareness.
11. Literature circles are good for developing critical thinking skills.
12. Literature circles are good for overall English language development.
13. I would like to study English again by using literature circles.
For questions 14-15 write your answer in the space provided.
14. In your opinion, how do literature circles compare to other ways of studying a text?
15. Do you have any other comments OR suggestions concerning our use of literature circles?
Many thanks for taking the time and effort to answer this questionnaire.
David Williams－ 81 －

＜研究ノート＞

ディスカッションを用いたリーディングスキル習得の新たな方法
ウィリアムズ・デイビッド
要 旨
日本の言語学習において英語をより実践的なレベルに向上させるには、エクステンシブリーディング（ER）が最も有効な手法であると考えられる（Robb, Kano & Claflin 2011）。現在、ER の教材としてフィクションとノン
フィクションがある。
その 2 つの教材を使用することのより「英語を」学習するのではなく、「英語で」学習することが可能になる。
リテラチャ―サークル（Furr, 2004）は学生が「英語で」学習できる環境を提供する手法の 1 つである。
本論では筆者がリテラチャ―サークルを、物語の内容をベースとしたコンテントベーストリーディングサークル（CBRC（Williams, 2009b）にどのように応用したかを述べている。そしてリサーチによって得たデーターから批判的思考法が言語学習にとっていかに大切かを検証する。その結果から多くの学生が CBRC を行うときは指導者抜きの批判的思考法を好むこと実証された。結論として言えることは、学生らが自分たちで「英語で」学習する
際に、リーディングとディスカッションは学習をより刺激的に、またより刺激的なものにするうえで重要な役割を果たすということである。

－ 82 －