The Effects Group Activities andSelf-Reflection have on Engineering
Students in the English Classroom
August 29, 2019
JACET @ Nagoya Institute of Technology

Yumi Nakamichi
Faculty of Engineering
Hokkaido University

1Outline

1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Method
4. Results and Discussion
5. Conclusion

2
1. Introduction

English Education Program
Center for Engineering Education Development(CEED)

Faculty of Engineering
Founded in 2005

1. Introduction

Brush-Up English Courses

Non-accredited, extracurricular
6 classes per term
Spring Term

Summer Term

Spring Quarter

Summer Quarter

AprilJune

SummerIntensiveSummer Vacation

AugustOnce a week→ Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter Quarters
Intensive Course→ Summer and Spring Breaks3

1. Introduction

4Repeaters
12 / 177 students in 2015
6 classes per term

Is this enough?
2,200 – 2,500 hours
to acquire a certain proficiency level of English for theJapanese speakers(Inagaki 2005; Hiromori, 2015)

1. Introduction

5Science/Engineering Students• Not comfortable using English• Great amount of time for the engineering study• Not many opportunities to study/restudy
English• Applying for companies that do not require
English skills(Terui, Suzuki, & Truscott, 2016）

6
2. Literature Review1. Portfolios
2. Motivation and Self-Determination Theory2. Literature ReviewPortfolios

72. Literature Review

8Portfolios in Educationa collection of documents to self-assess bycollecting, selecting and reflecting(Mineishi, 2001, 2002)

Types of Portfolio• working portfolios• display/showcase/best works portfolios• assessment portfolios(Mineishi, 2001, 2010)

2. Literature Review

9European Language Portfolio (ELP)

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages(CEFR)
Portfolio as a pedagogical function• Reflect on objectives, ways of learning, success• Plan learning• Learn autonomously(Schneider & Lenz, 2015)

2. Literature Review

10Portfolios Used in Education
Universities• Emoto (2015, 2017) Iwate University, Mie University, and Saga UniversityHokkaido University• Nitobe School, Graduate School of Life Science
In language classrooms• Nakatake & Sakurai (2016) Work well especially when used in class• Hojo, Matsuzaki, & Takahashi (2016), Hojo, Kato & Matsuzaki (2017) accept portfolios
favorably, Help autonomy• Funabashi (2005) Connect study inside the classroom to outside, Accomplish theirgoals• Huang & Hung (2010) Improve speaking• Uno & Uto (2011) Learn from other students, Motivate students to learn more andlearn continuously• Aliweh (2011) Help students by reflecting, Need comparison between experimentaland control group• Nakagawa (2015) Need comparison between experimental and control group, Needboth quantitative and qualitative analysis

2. Literature Review

Motivation and Self-Determination Theory11

2. Literature Review

12

Motivation

whatever drives learners to stay engaged in studying(Kawai, 1999)

Influence of motivation
99 per cent of language learners who really want tolearn a foreign language (i.e. who are reallymotivated) will be able to master a reasonable
working knowledge of it as a minimum, regardless of
their language aptitude.
(Dörnyei, 2001)
University of Nottingham https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/english/people/zoltan.dornyei

2. Literature Review

Self-Determination Theory

Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M., (1985, 2000)• Organismic Integration Theory• Basic Psychological Needs Theory13

2. Literature Review

14

Motivation and Self-Determination Theory

Organismic Integration Theory
Behavior

Nonself-Determined

Self-Determined

行動

非自己決定的（他律的）

自己決定的（自律的）Motivation

Amotivation

Extrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic Motivation

動機づけ

非動機づけ

外発的動機づけ

内発的動機づけRegulatory Styles

Non-Regulation

調整スタイル

無調整

External

Introjected

Identified

Integrated

Regulation

Regulation

Regulation

Regulation

外発的調整

取り入れ的調整

同一視的調整統合的調整

Intrinsic Regulation

Lack of Motivation

Controlled Motivation

Autonomous Motivation

動機づけの欠如

統制的動機づけ

自律的動機づけ

Lowest Relative Autonomy
相対的自律性低内発的調整

Highest Relative Autonomy
相対的自律性高Ryan & Deci (2000)，Sakurai (2009)
Modified by the author

2. Literature Review

15

Motivation and Self-Determination Theory

Basic Psychological Needs TheoryNeeds

How tofulfil theneed(Hiromori,2016)

Autonomy
have students
take charge

Competence
Relatedness
review
interact, assess
accomplishment others, and vices and self-assess versa
critically3. Method

16

Relationship between Portfolios and Self-Determination Theory
Need forPortfolio

Preceding Studies
Mineishi (2001, 2002), Funabashi (2005), Lo

Autonomy

Collect, Select and Reflect(2010), Nakatake & Sakurai (2016), Yoshishige(2016), Hojo, Matsuzaki, & Takahashi (2016),
Hojo, Kato & Matsuzaki (2017)

Competence Self-assess by reflection

Relatedness Learn from othersInokawa (2006), Matsuzaki & Hojo (2007),
Huang & Hung (2010), Nakagawa (2015)

Uno & Uto (2011), Aliweh (2011), Hojo &Matsuzaki (2013), Tsuda (2017)

2. Literature Review

17

Relationship between Portfolios and Self-Determination Theory

Needs

Autonomy

How tofulfil theneed

have students
take charge

review
interact, assess
accomplishment others, and vices and self-assess versa
criticallyReflect onobjectives, waysof learning,
success
Plan learning

Self-assessing by Group workcollecting,Peer review
selecting andreflecting(Hiromori,2016)

PortfolioCompetence

Relatedness

3. Method

Research Questions

RQ1
Do portfolios satisfy the need for autonomy?
RQ2
Do portfolios satisfy the need for competence?

RQ3
Is the need for relatedness satisfied by adopting peer
review in the reflection process?

18

3. Method

19

3. Method

••
•
•
•
•

Mixed-Methods Research
Convergent design
Questionnaire of Hiromori (2006) 42 questions
Portfolio as tool
Questionnaire at the end
Microsoft Excel 2016, BellCurve for Excel(version 2.21)

3. Method

20Portfolio
Noticing• It was good to think about the goal for the next class. 次の目標などを考える上でよかったように思います。
• I could identify what I should work on next time. 次の学習で、気をつけたい点を明確にしておくことができまし。たAttitudes• I could give meaning to the 120 minutes of the class time. 120分間に持たせる意味について考えるようになった。
• I tried to use what I had learned in class after I went back to my lab. 研究室に戻ってからもこのクラスで学んだことを意識できた。

3. Method

Portfolio21

3. Method

3. Method

Questionnaire - Hiromori (2006)
Psychological needs• 6 questions each for autonomy, competence, andrelatedness

Motivation development• 5 questions each for intrinsic regulation, introjected
regulation, external regulation, and non-regulation• 4 questions for identified regulation.

22

3. Method

3. Method

Participants: 49 engineering students (34 m, 15 f)
Class: speaking activities
Period: June to November 2018
Group

Experimental group

Control group

#30

19

Intervention

Portfolio in class

No portfolio

23

4. Results and Discussion

Results

Pre-Post Comparison of Satisfying the Needs
for Autonomy, Competence and Relatedness
Competence

Autonomy2024

Relatedness
19.53

18.79

1922.05
22

19

20.26
21.37

20

19.16

17

17.05
17.47

18
17

1818.2115

17.33

14.93

18.00
1616PrePost

13PrePortfolio Group

Post

Pre

Non-Portfolio Group

Post

24

4. Results and Discussion

Answers to the Research Questions

RQ1
Do portfolios satisfy the need for autonomy?
RQ2
Do portfolios satisfy the need for competence?

RQ3
Is the need for relatedness satisfied by adopting peer
review in the reflection process?

25

4. Results and Discussion

The Effects of Portfolios

How did reflection affect your English
learning?

26

4. Results and Discussion

The Effects of Portfolios
Noticing

It was good to think about the goal
for the next class.

I could identify what I should workon next time.

Attitudes

I could give meaning to the 120
minutes of the class time.

I tried to use what I had learned inclass after I went back to my lab.

27

4. Results and Discussion

The Effects of Portfolios
Motivation

I want to do better next time.

It motivated me to study English.

Competence

I could organize my thought,
what I can do and what I
cannot do.

I could try to keep doing the good
job that I did last time.

28

4. Results and Discussion

The Effects of Portfolios
Noticing from othersI feel I could have done better whensomeone mentions ‘it’s a shame you
didn’t do it. I know you can,’ I can
accept this kind of comment as apositive enforcement.

Comments from my classmates
help me realize something that I
did not notice when I study bymyself.

29

4. Results and Discussion

The Negative Comments on Portfolios

30

4. Results and Discussion

Discussion• No portfolios, no recollection in control group• Questions need to be reviewed

31

32
5. Conclusion

Quantitative and qualitative data show
through self-reflection and peer reviews theengineering students• found portfolios favorable• more motivated.
The basic needs were satisfied in portfolio
group.

5. Conclusion

Educational Implications

Merits of portfolios• It does not take much time to introduce.
• Students tend to favor portfolios.
But• Teachers need to be careful when
explaining how to self-reflect.

33

5. Conclusion

34

After the survey

21 students from the portfolio-adopted class/ 27 students
continue to study English.
As of December, 2018

35
References
1. Aliweh, A.M. (2011). The effect of electronic portfolios on promoting Egyptian EFL college students’ writing competence andautonomy. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 13(2), 90-132.
2. Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
3. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Huang, H.-T. D. & Hung, S.-T. A. (2010). Effect of electronic portfolios on EFL oral performance. Asian EFL Journal. 12(2), 192-212.
5. Inagaki, S. (2005). How long does it take for Japanese speakers to learn English? Osaka Prefecture University Language andculture. 4, 19-29.
6. Lo, Y.-F. (2010). Implementing reflective portfolios for promoting autonomous learning among EFL college students in Taiwan.
Language Teaching Research. 14(1), 77-95.
7. Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and wellbeing. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
8. Schneider G. & Lenz, P (2015). European Language Portfolio: Guide for Developers. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/ceed-eep01pc/Downloads/European_Language_Portfolio_Guide_for_Developers.pdf
9. 井之川睦美（2006）．「言語教育におけるポートフォリオ－その理論と研究手法としての可能性－」『言語教育研究法研究部会「言語教育研究法」研究成果報告会』 Retrieved from www.tufs.ac.jp/common/pg/gengo_yousei/data/ppt/inokawa.ppt
10.植野真臣・宇都雅輝（2011）．「他者から学びを誘発するeポートフォリオ」『日本教育工学会論文誌』35(3), 169-182.
11.江本理恵（2015）．「高等教育機関における大規模かつ持続的な教育支援システムの運用に関する考察」『教育システム情報学会誌』32(1), 111-122.
12.江本理恵（2017）．「複数のシステムを組み合わせたeポートフォリオシステムの開発における考察」『日本教育工学会 第33回全国大会』
13.河合靖（1999）．「外国語自律学習研究の3要素：動機づけ，学習スタイル，学習ストラテジー」『言語文化部紀要』 37, 68-85.
14.津田ひろみ（2017）．「英語が好きでない学習者の動機づけを目指す共同学習の試み」．『実践女子大学紀要CLEIPジャーナル』 3,63-77.

36
References
15.照井雅子・鈴木直弥・Truscott, G.（2016）．「理工系大学院生に対する実践的英語教育プログラムの構築」『工学教育』64(5), 123127.
16.中川洋子（2015）「大学英語教育におけるラーニング・ポートフォリオの実践」『駿河台大学論叢』51, 63-71.
17.中竹真依子・櫻井千佳子（2016）．「英語教育における学習ポートフォリオの活用 : 自律的学習者の育成に向けて」『武蔵野大学教養教育リサーチセンター紀』6, 65-76.
18.廣森友人（2006）．『外国語学習者の動機づけを高める理論と実践』東京：多賀出版．
19.廣森友人（2015）．『英語学習のメカニズム―第二言語習得研究にもとづく効果的な勉強法』東京：大修館書店．
20.舟橋宏代（2005）．「ポートフォリオを利用したフリートークの「会話」授業」『鈴鹿国際大学紀要』12, 161-173.
21.北條礼子・松崎邦守（2013）．｢小学校外国語活動におけるポートフォリオを活用した５年生児童の動機づけを高める授業の設計とその効果｣『上越教育大学紀要』33, 285-294．
22.北條礼子・松崎邦守・高橋駿（2016）「小学校外国語活動における5年生児童の動機づけを高める授業の設計とその効果２：文字指導とポートフォリオのカンファレンスに注目して」『上越教育大学研究紀要』35, 195-203.
23.北條礼子・加藤絵里・松崎邦守（2017）「小学校外国語活動における4年生児童対象のポートフォリオを活用した文字学習の授業設計とその効果」『上越教育大学研究紀要』37(1), 173-182.
24..松崎邦守・北條礼子（2007）「ポートフォリオを教授ツールとして活用する授業設計の検討―K看護専門学校における英語のライティング学習を事例として―」『日本教育工学会論文誌』31(1), 69-77
25.峯石緑（2001）．「英語教育における教授ツールとしてのポートフォリオ」『日本教科教育学会誌』23(4), 39-48.
26.峯石緑（2002）．『大学英語教育における教授手段としてのポートフォリオに関する研究』広島：溪水社．
27.峯石緑(2010)．「第７章 学習者の自己省察・自律を促すポートフォリオ」小嶋英夫・尾関直子・廣森友人（編）．『成長する学習者 学
習者要因と自律学習』東京：大修館書店．
28.吉重美紀（2016）．「英語の授業におけるポートフォリオの活用」『鹿屋体育大学学術研究紀要』52, 25-33.