2023

25

202325

JACET KANSAI JOURNAL

THE JOURNAL OF THE KANSAI CHAPTER OF
THE JAPAN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE ENGLISH TEACHERS

EDITORIAL COMMITTEECHAIRPERSONNAKATA, Yoshiyuki (Doshisha University)
MEMBERS
KOGA, Tsutomu (Ryukoku University)
SASAO, Yosuke (Kyoto University)
TAMAI, Fumie (Doshisha University)
EDITORIAL OFFICE
TAKEDA, Rika (Ritsumeikan University)
NISHIMURA, Hiroko (Shunan University)
REVIEWERS
AKAMATSU, Nobuhiko (Doshisha University)
HATTORI, Keiko (Kindai University)
HOSOGOSHI, Kyoko (Kyoto Prefectural University)
ISHIKAWA, Keiichi (Kwansei Gakuin University)
ISHIKAWA, Shin’ichiro (Kobe University)
IZUMI, Emiko (Kwansei Gakuin University)
KAWANISHI, Kei (Mukogawa Women’s University)
KOBAYASHI, Ayako (Heian Jogakuin St. Agnes’ University)
KONNO, Katsuyuki (Ryukoku University)
MAKINO, Masaki (Kindai University)
MIHARA, Kei (Kindai University)
MIKAMI, Akihiro (Kwansei Gakuin University)
MIKAMI, Yuka (Nagoya University)
NABEI, Toshiyo (Kansai University)
SATO, Rintaro (Nara University of Education)
SATO, Yasuko (Kansai Gaidai University)
SHIMIZU, Yuko (Ritsumeikan University)
SUGIMURA, Junko (Hannan University)
TAKEUCHI, Osamu (Kansai University)
YAMAOKA, Kanako (Ryukoku University)
YAMASHITA, Miho (Ritsumeikan University)
YOSHIDA, Shinsuke (Kansai University)
YOSHIDA, Tatsuhiro (Hyogo University of Teacher Education)
YOSHIMURA, Masahiro (Ryukoku University)
Copying All content in this journal is protected by the Japanese copyright law. All rights reserved.
The material therein may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it isreproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context after permission has been granted fromthe Kansai Chapter of JACET. If any of the items with copyright in this journal are republished or
copied, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged.
Instructions for Contributors can be found via http://www.jacet-kansai.org/submission.html
or in the Appendices.
The articles published herein do not reflect the opinions of JACET Kansai Chapter or the JACET
Kansai Journal Editorial Committee.
© Kansai Chapter, The Japan Association of College English Teachers, 2023

JACET Kansai Journal

No. 25 March 2023
Editorial Note中田賀之Part Ⅰ
Invited Papers
大谷

泰照

1

この国の異言語教育のあり方を問い直す―「ウチからみた歴史」と「ソトからみた歴史」―
田地野

彰

19

英語教育研究のさらなる発展に向けて―システム思考で文構造を捉え直す―

USHIODA, Ema

31

Why We Do Language Education Research: Reﬂecting on Academic and Social Values
Part Ⅱ
Research Papers

UENO, Yuko

41

A Longitudinal Study on L2 Reading Among Japanese University Students:
The Eﬀects on Metacognitive Process in Self-Regulated Learning

TSUTADA, Kazumi

61

Writing Evaluation and Feedback: Inﬂuence on Argumentative Writing
Practitioner Research Paper

FUJIOKA, Cheena

81

Teaching an EFL Reading Class Using Banana Yoshimotoʼs Kitchen Online During the Covid Pandemic
Practitioner Note

USHIRONAKA, Yoko

100

Report on the Eﬀects of Introducing Literature Into the EFL Classroom Through Online Learning:
On the Prose of British LiteraturePart Ⅲ
Invited Articles ( 歷代支部長 )NOGUCHI, Judy
小栗
植松

115
116
117

裕子
茂男

研究会紹介
文学教育研究会（五十川 敬子・時岡 ゆかり）
学習英文法研究会（前川 貴史）
ESP 研究会（藤枝 美穂・スミス 朋子）「海外の外国語教育」研究会（二五 義博）
教材開発研究会（松村 優子・香林 綾子）
リスニング研究会（高橋 寿夫・神野 雅代）
リーディング研究会（星原 光江）
ライティング指導研究会（大年 順子）
授業学（関西）研究会（飯田 毅・村上 裕美）
科学英語教育研究会（村尾 純子）

118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127

Appendices『JACET 関西支部紀要』（JACET Kansai Journal）刊行規定『JACET 関西支部紀要』（JACET Kansai Journal）投稿要領

132
134

Kansai Chapter

The Japan Association of College English Teachers

JACET Kansai Journal 編集委員会より ー関西支部設立 50 周年を記念してー

この度，寄稿者や査読者，賛助会員の皆様のご尽力をもちまして，JACET 関西支部設立 50 周年を記念した『JACET 関西支部紀要』(JACET KANSAI JOURNAL)第 25 号を刊行する運びとなりました。編集委員会一同，関与してくださった皆さまに心より御礼を申し上げます。

何年か経った時に JACET 関西 50 周年という milestone にふさわしい記念誌だったと読者に思ってもらえるような構成と学術的な内容にするべく，編集委員会において検討を重ねて参りました。
これまでの JACET 関西支部のためにご尽力くださった関係各位に感謝するとともに，学会の歴史を振り返りつつ，今後の学会および英語教育のありようについて考えていただけるリソースとして，会員の皆様に共有いただけましたら幸いでございます。
記念するべき本号は，3 部構成となっております。Part 1 には，大谷泰照先生（大阪大学名誉教授），田地野彰先生（名古屋外国語大学教授・京都大学名誉教授），Ema Ushioda 先生（University of
Warwick, Professor）より，それぞれの観点から貴重な論考をお寄せいただきました。まさに今回の記念号の目的に合致した内容となっており，読者の皆様にとっても，少し立ち止まり，「今後の英語教育研究のありよう」についてお考えいただける貴重な機会となることでしょう。
Part 2 には，新たに設けられた４つの種別に対する投稿論文が収められています。今回，合計 9件の投稿（研究論文 1，研究ノート 2，実践研究論文 3，実践ノート 2，辞退 1）がありました。新
たな種別が設けられて最初の号になりますが，種別や目的に応じて，厳正かつ公正な査読の結果，研究論文 2，実践研究論文 1，実践ノート 1 が採択されました。
Part 3 には，40 周年記念号を参照しつつ，過去 10 年を遡り，支部長を務められた Judy Noguchi先生（神戸学院大学名誉教授），小栗裕子先生（関西外国語大学），植松茂男先生（大手前大学）よりいただきました寄稿文と 10 の各 SIG からの研究会活動報告が収められております。この 10 年の JACET 関西支部の活動の歩みをご確認いただけるものとなっています。
近年の英語教育研究の多様化は，著しいものがあります。研究法に於いても，例外ではありません。その例を一部挙げますと，共分散構造分析などの統計手法が用いられた研究が増加し，混合研究法が用いられた研究が当たり前のこととなる一方，グランデッドセオリー・アプローチやナラティブ・アプローチなど質的研究の多様化も進み，萌芽的なレベルでは当事者研究なども見られるようになりました。また，実践研究が増加してきたことで，「実践研究論文と研究論文」「実
践研究と実践報告」など整理されるべき事柄が一挙に増えました。この研究の多様化は「それぞれの研究が目指すべきことがより明らかになった」という意味では歓迎されるべきことではあります。しかし，それは同時に「該当の種別としての価値が正しく評価される基準やプロセス」が必要になることを意味します。編集委員会としましては，それぞれの研究が相応しい種別に投稿され，適切な種別として査読されることが必要と考え，当学会誌では投稿論文を「研究論文，研究ノート，実践研究論文，実践ノート」に分けて募集しました。
今後も，英語教育研究は多様化の一途を辿ることでしょう。会員の皆様には，研究の目的や特徴を明らかにし，より相応しい種別に投稿していただくようお願いいたします。投稿された論文が適切な種別で査読され，その実績が蓄積されることで，会員の皆様にとって「重要な研究成果発表の場」と思っていただける，そのような当学会誌になることを願っております。
紀要編集委員会委員長 中田 賀之
令和 5(2023)年 3 月

Part I

JACET Kansai Journal, 25, 1–18. (2023) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

この国の異言語教育のあり方を問い直す―「ウチからみた歴史」と「ソトからみた歴史」―１
A Critical Proposal on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of JACET Kansai
大谷泰照
大阪大学・滋賀県立大学

名誉教授

Abstract
The amount of effort, time and money put into English language teaching and learning probably
produces smaller result in Japan than anywhere else. ― Edwin O. Reischauer.
The blame for this ‘lamentable situation’ is usually laid squarely on the English teachers and theirteaching methods. But, strangely enough, little has so far been voiced by English teachers against thecriticisms leveled at them. And amazingly little has been written to describe, analyze and explain theextremely complicated state of English teaching in this country.
The purpose of this article is to examine the main factors which greatly influence language learningand which are very frequently overlooked in the discussion of English teaching in Japan.
キーワード：ソトからみた歴史，言語・文化的環境，国の教育政策，異文化接触
1. はじめに本年（2022 年）のこの国の英語教育界は，出版関係では月刊雑誌『英語教育』（大修館書店）
が創刊 70 年，学会では大学英語教育学会（JACET）が創立 60 年，そしてその JACET では関西支部が設立 50 年とそれぞれにキリのよい節目の年を迎えた。これをうけて，70 年，60 年，50 年の特集号や記念誌が刊行され，戦後の日本の英語教育の足跡を， それぞれの視点からあらためて振り返るための格好の機会になった。
特に JACET は，120 人ばかりの有志で発足した英語教師・研究者の研究集団が，今や会員数は2,200 人以上，全国に 7 支部をもつ日本有数の英語教師・研究者の学会となった。学会内では 44の研究会が活動を続け，かつての年次の「全国大会」もいまや年次の「国際大会」にまで成長した。すでに前世紀末にはアジア最初の AILA 世界大会を日本で主催して，それを見事に成功させ，
JACET の存在は広く国際的にも知られるまでになった。このような変化や実績をもって学会発展の輝かしい歴史と見做すことは，それ自体としては必ずしも思い上がった自惚れとは言えないであろう。
しかし，実はこのような見方は，いわば学会の「ウチからみた歴史」にすぎないという事実もまた，この機会に同時に冷静に自覚しておく必要があろう。これは，学会の「ソトからみた歴史」にも目を閉ざしてはならないことを意味する。言いかえれば，この国の異言語教育のあり方が，社会一般の目にはどのように映っているかを考えるいま一つの厳しい視点が不可欠であることを

1

大谷

泰照

意味する。念のため，JACET は，正真正銘の「一般社団法人」格を持つ学会である。
たとえば， 最近のわずか数年を振り返ってみても，もしも JACET が異言語に関する教育者・研究者の責任ある「学会」であるとするならば，おそらく知らぬ顔を決め込んではおられないはずの社会的に議論を呼んだ教育問題が少なくとも 2 つはあった。日本人の姓名のローマ字表記の問題と大学入試の民間英語試験導入の問題である。これらの問題に， JACET は学会として，はたしてどのように向き合ってきたのかを，この際，しっかりと思い返してみる必要があろう。
2. JACET の存在が問われる問題（Ⅰ）
2.1 日本人の姓名のローマ字表記
日本人の姓名のローマ字表記の問題については， 戦後も昭和が平成に変わる頃までのほぼ半世紀ばかりの間は，殊更に問題になることなどほとんどなかった。たとえば当時の文部省の中学・高校英語検定教科書は，そのすべてが申し合わせたように「名－姓」（Taro Suzuki）順の表記をとって， これに異論が出ることなどほとんど考えられもしなかった。しかし， Ezra F. Vogel のJapan as Number One （1979） がベストセラーになり，中曽根康弘首相の「アメリカの知識水準」
発言（1986）まで飛び出す日本経済の黄金期に入るころから，このローマ字表記を見直す動きが
広く社会的にも目立つようになった。ついに平成 12 年（2000 年），当時の文部省は国語審議会の答申をうけて，日本人の姓名のローマ字表記は「名－姓」から「姓－名」順に改めるよう「配慮」
し，[英語]教育界に対してもこの方針を生かすよう「希望」する通達を出した。その後もこの傾向は次第に強まり， 令和元年（2019 年）に至り，ついに文部科学省は「姓－名」順の推進を「徹底」することを「要請」する通達を関係各方面に出した。そして翌令和 2 年にはこれを政府の正式の方針と決定して，以後，国の公文書はこの「姓－名」順表記に従うことになった。
これに対して，この国の英語教育界はどのように反応したのか。平成 12 年の第 1 回目の通達のわずか 2 年後の平成 14 年には，当時の中学校の英語検定教科書は全 6 社が一斉に（もっとも，
New Crown （三省堂）だけは一足早く昭和 62 年から）それまでの「名－姓」順方式を廃して，完全に通達通りの「姓－名」順の方式に足並みをそろえてしまった。
検定教科書のこの突然の変化は，早速マスコミでも報じられて社会的にも話題になり，生徒や父母の間では少なからず戸惑いの声も聞かれた。しかし，英語教育関係の研究会や学会で，この問題がまともに議論の俎上に上ることはほとんどなかったといってよい。従来の「名－姓」順方
式が一体なぜ不都合であったのか。もしも不都合であるとすれば，なぜ半世紀以上もの間，その不都合な「名－姓」方式を堂々と教え続けてきたのか。英語教科書の編集者たちは，英語教育については国語審議会のメンバーよりもはるかにその道の専門家たちである。現場の英語教師たち
は， 言うまでもなく英語教育最前線のプロ集団である。その彼らが，なぜこれほどまでに簡単に
国語審議会の答申や文部（科学）省の通達を唯々諾々と受け入れてしまったのか。さらに，長年続けてきた教育方針を突然に，しかも一斉に転換するにあたっては， 教科書編集者は広く社会的責任として，また教師は教育現場の教育的責任として，それを明確に説明する必要があるはずである。平然と知らぬ顔の頬被りを通すことなど、とても許されるはずもない。

2

この国の異言語教育のあり方を問い直す –「ウチからみた歴史」と「ソトからみた歴史」–

国語審議会は，「名－姓」方式は「明治の欧化主義の時代に定着したもの」（答申）であって，本来は「人類の持つ言語や文化の多様性を人類全体が意識し，生かしていくべきである」（答申）と考え，欧化主義にゆがめられた「日本人の意識を変えることが一番の問題である」（審議会議
事録）と，これを明確に英語の「教育現場へのメッセージ」（審議会議事録）として指摘している。これは，日本人の姓名のローマ字表記は，単なる姓名の表記順という技術的な問題にとどまらず，実はさらに基本的な問題，いわば日本人の意識そのものの改革こそが最重要の問題である
ことを，特に英語教育の課題として強調されていることを見落としてはならない。
しかし，まことに不可解なことに，このような国語審議会の答申を鵜呑みにした文部科学省の通達に対して，この国の多くの英語関係学会は，そして JACET もまた，ほとんど何の反応も示
すこともなく沈黙を通した。たとえば「名－姓」方式は，本当に国語審議会や文部科学省が考える通り「明治の欧化主義の時代に定着したもの」なのか。明治の欧化主義より前の時代の日本人は，少なくともその大部分の平民は，「定着」するもしないも，苗字帯刀禁止令（享和元年，1801 年）によって，そもそも姓（氏）そのものを持つことすら許されていなかったではないか。
当時の日本人は一般に「百姓与助」や「漁師伝八」，「孫兵衛娘いと」や「平太妹よね」などと呼ばれていた。簡単に日本人名を「本来の形式」に戻すなどと言うが，おそらくいまだ定着していなかった「姓－名」には戻らないはずである。にもかかわらず，姓名のローマ字表記のあり方が，英語教育関係者の基本的な意識の問題として，名指しで改革を迫られている。とすれば少なくとも，文部科学省のこの新しい指導方針の通達について，英語教師・研究者の側からも，専門家集団として何らかの教育的で説得的な反応があるべきではなかったのか。それこそが学習者や父母を含む社会一般に対するわれわれの最低限の責任ではなかったのか。
日本人は，今こそ誇りを取り戻し，日本人本来の「姓－名」表記に立ち返らねばならないという文部科学省の通達は，たしかに日本人の「自尊心」を刺激して，日本人の立場からは異論を差し挟みにくい指摘であるかもしれない。当時の世相は，特にその傾向が顕著であった。たとえばその後（平成 24 年）には「日本を，取り戻す」は，自民党のキャッチコピーとなり，同党の政権公約のタイトルでもあった。同党は同年，このスローガンを掲げて衆議院総選挙を戦い，予想をはるかに超える国民の圧倒的な支持を得て政権の奪回を果たした。「日本を，取り戻す」とは「戦後の歴史から，日本という国を日本国民の手に取り戻す戦い」（安倍晋三『新しい国へ 美しい国へ』文春新書

2013）であると国民に熱く訴えかけた。

しかし，教育・研究の専門学会としての JACET には，このような時勢であればなおさらのこと，いたずらに民族意識を強調する心情的な風潮には偏らない，もう少し冷静で理性的な反応が求められているのではないか。姓名のローマ字表記の問題についても， たとえば，アイデンティ
ティ論や異文化接触論やコミュニケーション論などの専門的な知見に基づき，さらに歴史的・国際的な広い視点に立った英語教師・研究者集団としての責任ある反応である。あらためて言う。
いま，英語の教育現場に対しては，教育関係者の「意識改革」が公然と求められている。そんな新しい根源的な問いかけに対して，いまなお独自の考え方を明らかにした説得的な反応も示し得ないとすれば，その道の専門学会であるはずの JACET の存在理由そのものが厳しく問われかね

3

大谷

泰照

ないと考えるべきではないか。忘れてはならない JACET の「ソトからみた歴史」の 1 ページである。
なお，この問題についての筆者自身の基本的な考え方は，すでに別の出版物（大谷泰照『日本の異言語教育の論点―「ハッピー・スレイヴ症候群」からの覚醒』，第 5 章「姓名表記の考え
方：国語審議会の勧告をめぐって」（東信堂，2020）など）において明らかにしている。
2.2 大学入試への英語民間試験の導入
この数年，明らかに JACET の存在が厳しく問われ続けているいま一つの問題は大学入試への英語民間試験導入の問題である。この問題は，平成 25 年 10 月に政府の教育再生実行会議が， それまでの大学入試センター試験に代わる新テストの導入と外部検定試験の活用の検討を提言した
ことに始まる。これを受けて， 平成 29 年，文部科学省は大学入試に新テストを導入し，そのテストには英語民間試験を採用することを正式に発表した。ところが，この入試制度の「改革」については，実に様々の問題が噴出する結果となり，このままでは事実上収拾不能な深刻な事態に立ち至った。ついに新テスト導入直前の令和元年 11月になって，文部科学大臣自身が突然に「等しく試験を受けられる配慮など，自信を持っておすすめできない」と告白し，英語民間試験導入の見送りを決断せざるを得なくなった。
6 年もの準備期間がありながら，予定された新テスト発足のわずか 4 か月前という，いわば通常の感覚ではおよそ許されるはずもない直前の段階に入ってからの事実上の中止表明である。受験生をかかえる高校側も，受け入れ準備を進める大学側も，英語試験を実施する民間の事業者側も文字通りの大混乱に陥った。政府が勝手に暴走して勝手に頓挫するという弁解の余地もない大失態を演ずる結果になった。しかし，政府はこの事態を「自信を持っておすすめできない」と，まるで傍観者のように当事者意識をまるで感じさせない公式見解をもって切り抜けようとした。
しかし実は，こんな結果は，高校や大学の教育関係者からみれば，当初から十分に予見できたことであった。多くの問題が噴出したのは，むしろ当然すぎるほど当然の成り行きであった。今回は，従来の文部（科学）省や中央教育審議会などの曲がりなりにも教育界が関与する形ではな
く，もっぱら官邸主導の頭ごなしの強引なやり方が目立った。たとえば，政府の教育再生実行会
議は，唐突に TOEFL 導入を安倍政権の大学入試改革の目玉と位置付けながら，それを推進する
遠藤利明実行会議本部長自身は TOEFL そのものについての理解は必ずしも十分とはいえなかった。日本の大学入試と TOEFL の英語の質やレベルの違いについての認識すらも欠いていることが判明して（遠藤利明氏インタビュー『朝日新聞』朝刊 平成 25 年 5 月 1 日など），高校・大学側をひどく驚かせた。
文部科学省が令和 2 年度から始まる大学入学共通テストに正式に採用を予定した英語民間試験
は， 曲折を経てケンブリッジ英語検定，実用英語技能検定，GTEC，IELTS，TEAP，TOEFL，
TOEIC（のちに撤退）の 7 民間事業者の検定試験に落ち着いた。ところが政府が結局この民間試
験の「導入を見送ること」としたのは，「経済的な状況や居住している地域にかかわらず，等し
く安心して受けられるようにするためには， 更なる時間が必要」（文部科学大臣）であると，ま4この国の異言語教育のあり方を問い直す –「ウチからみた歴史」と「ソトからみた歴史」–

るで受験生への配慮のための導入見送りであるかのような説明が行われた。
たしかに，これらの民間試験には，地方では受験できないものも少なくなく，受験生は旅費や宿泊費を使って都市部の試験場まで出向かなければならない。共通テスト受験料以外にさらに民間試験の受験料も必要になり，その受験料も 5,000 円程度から 25,000 円を超えるものまで多様であり，しかも受験生はこの民間試験を 2 度受験することが求められる。受験生の地域格差や経済格差が無視できない問題として指摘されることになった。さらに，50 万人を超える受験生の試験と採点は民間業者に完全に委託されることになるが，これだけの受験生の試験会場の確保や厳正な採点業務が民間業者の力で行えるかどうかについても懸念や不安が広がった。現に採点者は学生アルバイトに頼るほかはないと本気で考えられているほどの異常な実態であった。
しかし，文部科学大臣は一言も触れていないが，今回の大学英語入試の「改革」で最大の問題
点は，このような試験実施の運営面の問題ではない。実は，多様な性格の民間試験の導入という発想そのもの危うさである。目的も内容もレベルも方法も全く異なる 7 種類もの多様な民間試験によって，受験生の学力を公平・公正に測定することがはたして可能であるのかという根本問題である。
たとえば TOEFL は，日本では年間 40 回以上もの試験を行っている。しかし，その TOEFL 一
種類の試験でさえも，毎回の新しい試験問題相互の難易度を均一に保つことがいかに困難な作業であるかは，日ごろテストを実際に行う教師ならすぐにわかることである。ところが，新テスト
では，目的も内容もレベルも方法も全く異なる 7 種類もの試験を導入する。それでいて，テストの公平性や公正性は特段の問題にもならなかったという。これでは疑義が噴出して，収拾不能に陥るのも致し方はない。
しかもその民間試験は，高校までの学校教育が依拠する学習指導要領を完全に度外視したものである。日本の中等教育のあり方には全く配慮を欠いた試験を，こともあろうに政府自身があえて大学入学試験に採用しようとしている。このように考えれば，今回の民間試験の導入がいかに無謀な試みであるかは当初からはっきりと見えていたことであった。
大学入試の改革， 特に英語入試のあり方については，これほどの混迷を深めた数年であった。
このような動きのなかで， 討議の埒外に置かれた教育関係者からは，当然，多くの懸念の声が出た。たとえば，令和元年（2019 年）6 月には， 荒井克弘大学入試センター名誉教授・東北大学名誉教授ら大学関係者有志から「2021 年度大学入学共通テストにおける英語民間試験の利用中止に関する請願書」が国会と文部科学省に対して提出された。
しかしこのような時期， この混迷の中で大きく期待されたのは，文字通り「大学英語教育」関
係の唯一の「学会」である JACET の指導的役割であった。伝統と実績を持つ英語教育・研究の専門学会として，JACET ならば，当然，国の指針となる建設的で説得的な提言が可能であり、こんな混乱は十分に回避できたはずである。研究実績を積んだ Testing 専門の研究部会まで持つ学会である。民間試験に深く関わるメンバーを会員にもつ JACET であれば，なおさらのことである。これもまた，JACET の「ソトからみた歴史」の一コマである。

5

大谷

泰照

2.3 雑誌編集者・新聞記者の眼に映った日本の英語教育
2021 年（令和 3 年）の年末，研究社の津田正さんが定年まで 4 年を残して静かに社を去った。
研究社といえば明治 40 年創立の 100 年をはるかに超える歴史を持つ英語関係の老舗出版社で，少なくとも 20 世紀のわが国の英語教師・研究者ならば，同社の出版物の世話にならなかった人はほとんどいないはずである。その研究社には代々名物編集者が少なくなかったが，とりわけ津田さんは英語・英文学界にも記憶される名編集者として知られた。
弱冠 20 歳代で『現代英語教育』の編集長に抜擢されて同誌を大きく刷新し, さらにはかつて福原麟太郎や外山滋比古が永らく育てた『英語青年』の編集長も立派に勤め上げた。広く英文学・
英語学・英語教育に通じた編集者で，伝統ある老舗にあっても， 視点は常に広く斬新であった。
言語・文学関係の研究会や学会も，そんな津田さんを招いて意見を仰ぐこともめずらしくなかった。
しかし，大学のかつての「英文学科」が， 今世紀に入るころから「英語コミュニケーション学科」「英語文化学科」「国際英語学科」「グローバル・コミュニケーション学科」などと大きく変容し，大学でも「使える英語」が幅を利かせるようになるにつれて，この老舗出版社にもその影響が強く及ぶことが増えた。まずは『現代英語教育』（平成 11 年休刊）が，そして『時事英語研
究』（平成 13 年休刊），さらには研究社創立以来の大看板であり，対英米戦争の最中も刊行を絶やさなかった『英語青年』（平成 21 年休刊）までが，次々と休刊に追い込まれた。これで，研究社のすべての英語関係雑誌が姿を消したことになる。英語関係者にとっては文字通り衝撃的な「事件」の連続であった。さらには，津田さんが力を注いだわが国の英語学・英米文学・英語教
育界の動静を記録した『英語年鑑』までが，令和 3 年をもって終刊に追い込まれてしまった。60年も続いたいわばわが国の英語関係アーカイヴの終焉であった。
津田さんからは丁寧な退職の報せが届いた。年々，人文学系の出版が難しくなり，出版人としてのやり甲斐のある仕事がしにくくなったという。そんな多少の絶望感もあっての早期退職の決断であったのかもしれない。英語教育についての感想も述べられていた。私信を引用する無礼をお許し願いたいが，「30 年たっていろいろなことが変わりましたけれど，英語教育を巡る問題はじつはほとんど何も変わっていないのではないか，という気もいたします」という指摘にドキリとした。時代は大きく変転するが，この国の英語教育は目立った動きもなく，相も変わらず国民的要望には応えていないということであろう。
「英語の研究社」の編集者として，激動の時代を身をもって体験する津田さんの眼には，歴史的にみたこの国の英語教育はこのように映っているのであろう。目先の日々の変化に押し流されがちな教育現場の教師の側からは，とかく見落としがちな，しかし見落としてはならない大局的な視点である。
2022 年（令和 4 年）1 月には，刀祢館正明さんの『英語が出来ません』（KADOKAWA）が出た。
刀祢館さんは『朝日新聞』の元編集委員で「英語忍者」のニックネームまである名物記者である。
英語関係といえば刀祢館さんが取材し，記事を書き，まとめた論説も多い。
本書は，そんな刀祢館さんが，やはり津田さんとほぼ同じ時期，同じ 30 年ばかりにわたる取6

この国の異言語教育のあり方を問い直す –「ウチからみた歴史」と「ソトからみた歴史」–

材を続け，新聞記者の眼に映ったこの国の英語教育の姿を伝えるものである。
取材範囲の広さはさすがである。多様なテーマを多角的な視点から，面倒な問題も平明なこと
ばで，文字通り「読ませる文章」である。思わずうならせるコメントも少なくなかったが，筆者にとってとりわけ印象深かったものの一つが「公平公正より英語力ですか」の問いかけである。
令和 3 年度から始まるはずであった大学入学共通テストの英語に，7 種類の民間試験を導入す
る問題について，そのあまりにも杜撰な政府の計画ぶりに，著者は「公平公正よりも英語力です
か」と叫ばずにはおられなかった。英語の「聞き」「話す」力の向上は，この国にとっては試験の公平さや公正さを犠牲にしても目指すべきより高い価値であるのかという基本的な疑問である。
これは実は，この国の学校教育における異言語教育のイミとあり方をあらためて考え直す根本的な問いかけである。
民間英語試験導入という今回の政府の大学英語入試「改革」には強く批判的な刀祢館さんであるが，しかし，日本のこれまでの英語教育のあり方についてもまた厳しく批判的な目をもつ。
「ずっと「英語，英語」と言ってきたわりには，全体として成果があがっているようには，どうも見えない」と，口調はおだやかであるが，英語はこの国では長い間， 常に課題であり，問題であり続けたことを問題とする。本書のタイトルも，ずばり『英語が出来ません』と言い切っているほどである。
雑誌の名編集者も新聞の名物記者も，日本の英語教育の現状については「英語が出来ません」「英語教育を巡る問題はじつはほとんど何も変わっていないのではないか」と手厳しい。これはまぎれもなく，この国の英語教育のあり方に対する深刻な異議の申し立てではないのか。
このように考えると，英語教育の専門学会である JACET にいま厳しく問われているのは，単に教育現場の「ウチからみた歴史」にとどまらず，以上のような広く社会的な「ソトからみた歴史」にいかに向き合うかという問題ではないのか。JACET の「ウチからみた歴史」からは，「ソトからみた歴史」に迫ることは必ずしも容易ではないことがわかる。
「英語が出来ません」状況の改善のためにまず JACET が取り組むべき問題は，「英語が出来ません」状況をありのままに直視し，この状況がなぜこれほど長い年月にわたって放置され続けてきたのかを，専門学会の責任として明らかにすることではないのか。
3. JACET の存在が問われる問題（Ⅱ）
3.1 「英語が出来ません」症候群
平成 26 年（2014 年）9 月 26 日，文部科学省の英語教育のあり方に関する有識者会議は「今後の英語教育の改善・充実方策について 報告 ―グローバル化に対応した英語教育改革の五つの提言」を発表した。
この有識者会議は，当時この国の第一線で活躍する英語教育関係者を中心とする有識者 11 人で構成されていた。平成 26 年 2 月から 9 回の会議を重ねて，新しい時代の小学校から大学までの英語教育のあり方を総合的に再検討して，その結果を今後必要と考えられる 5 つの「改革」として提言した。
「改革」の内容は以下の通りである。

7

大谷

泰照

改革 1. 国が示す教育目標・内容の改善
改革 2. 学校における指導と評価の改善
改革 3. 高等学校・大学の英語力の評価及び入学者選抜の改善
改革 4. 教科書・教材の充実
改革 5. 学校における指導体制の充実
これらの「改革」案は，確かにいずれも現状の改善のためには無視できない具体的で重要な提言であり，しかも，これまでこの国で発表された数ある英語教育改善のための提言のなかでは，
おそらく最も詳細で説得的なものと言うことができるかもしれない。しかし，それにもかかわらず残念に思わざるを得ないことは，これらの 5 つの｢改革｣案は，この国の長年の疑問｢日本人はなぜ英語が出来ないのか｣に対する有効な回答とはなっていないことである。少なくとも，これら 5 つの｢改革｣案が首尾よく完全に実現されたとしても，日本の英語教育の｢欠陥｣が除去できるとは思えないからである。英語教育の尺度であるかのように信じられている TOEFL の得点が飛躍的に上昇するとはとても考えられない。その意味では，この提言は｢改善｣案ではあっても ｢改革｣ 案とはとうてい呼べそうにない。
それは，このように考えてみると分かりやすい。今回の有識者会議の 5 つの「改革」案は，そのほとんどが， 教員の指導法の改善など教員のあり方に関する提言であるといってよい。つまり，
英語教育の最大の欠陥は教員にあると言っているに等しい。しかしその教員は，その力量や努力がそのまま発揮できる無気圧・無重力の自由な環境に置かれているわけではない。場合によっては，教員をとりまく環境によって教員の力量が抑圧され，努力が阻害されることは十分にあり得る。まことに不思議なことに，今回の 5 つの｢改革｣案は，教員のあり方に大きく影響をあたえる
この環境の問題自体にはほとんど全く踏み込んではいない。われわれは，教員の力量次第で学校教育はいかようにも変わり得ると簡単に考えすぎてはいないか。確かに教育に果たす教員の役割の大きさはいうまでもないが，教員の指導法さえ劇的に改善すれば，この国の特に英語教育もまた劇的に改善されると考えるのは，いささか楽観にすぎるというほかはない。
この国では一般に，特に英語の教員だけは指導能力も指導熱意も極端に欠けていると考えられているようである。その証拠に，文部科学省は平成 15 年（2003 年）から，「英語教員の指導力向上及び指導体制の充実」をうたい，「中・高等学校の全ての英語教員に対する集中研修」を課する施策を開始した。また平成 27 年（2015 年）からは「英語教員の英語力・指導力強化のための調査研究事業」にも着手した。しかしその文部科学省が，たとえば中学・高校のすべての数学教員に対して集中研修を課したり， 数学教員の数学力・指導力強化のための調査研究事業を始めたという話は聞かない。同じ教育現場の教員でありながら，英語と数学ではなぜこれほどまでに大きな差が出るのか。英語教員は数学教員に比べて，明治以来 1 世紀以上もの間一貫して，揃いも揃って無能者の集団であり続けてきたのか。また，この国の大学の教員養成は，英語の教員養成については数学の教員養成にくらべて格段に劣等な教育しか行ってこなかったといえるのか。文
部科学省も英語教育関係者も，こんな当然すぎるほど当然の疑問を持つことはないのであろうか。

8

この国の異言語教育のあり方を問い直す –「ウチからみた歴史」と「ソトからみた歴史」–

考えてみれば，夏目漱石，島崎藤村，芥川龍之介，鈴木大拙，西脇順三郎，土井晩翠，中野好夫など日本を代表する第一級の知性も，かつては英語教員として教壇に立った。しかし今日の英語教員や英語教育は「国賊」（国松善次・滋賀県知事当時）や「犯罪的」（藤原正彦・お茶の水女子大学教授当時）などの罵声さえも浴びせられるまでになった。
有識者会議は提言の冒頭で，日本人の学習者に対して，さも当然のことのように「アジアの中でトップクラスの英語力を目指すべき」であると英語教育の目標を明確に掲げている。しかし，
これは，本当に有識者会議として真剣な言語文化論的・教育学的討議を重ねた末にまとめられた提言なのであろうか。まず何よりも，このような目標が文部科学省のいやしくも「有識者」を名乗る会議から提言されること自体にも驚かされるが，それ以上に，このような目標を果たすことを求められた現場の英語教員からも，さらには英語教育専門学会からも何の疑義も異論も出てこない事実にはよりいっそう驚かされる。
今日，「アジアの中でトップクラスの英語力」をもつと考えられているのは疑いもなくシンガ
ポール人である。近年の TOEFL の結果では，シンガポールの得点は常にアジアでは最高であり，全世界でも上位 3 指にも入る高得点である。その結果，シンガポールは｢アジアの英語教育の優等生｣などといわれ，同じアジアの日本人が学ぶべき理想のお手本のように考えられがちである。
現に，平成 11 年（1999 年），小渕恵三首相の私的諮問機関 ｢21 世紀日本の構想｣懇談会の河合隼雄座長は，新しい時代の日本の異言語教育のあり方を考えるためにわざわざシンガポールまで出向いて，｢建国の父｣ Lee Kuan Yew に面会して教えを乞うた。河合はその結果，英語を事実上の第1 公用語とする｢シンガポールの実情｣に触発されて（『朝日新聞』平成 12 年 4 月 4 日），翌年 1 月，
英語をわが国の第 2 公用語にすることを検討しようという衝撃的な報告書を出した。
言うまでもなく，日本人にとっては，英語は単に中学や高校で週 3〜4 時間学ぶ外国語教科（English as a foreign language: EFL）にすぎない。英語は日常の生活言語（English as a second
language: ESL）でもなければ，公用語でもなく，学校の教育言語でもない。ところがシンガポー
ルは，独立までの 130 年以上もの間英語国の植民地であった経験をもち，いまも英語がまぎれもなく国の公用語であり，日常の生活言語である。その上，英語は学校教育の教育言語であり，シンガポール国立大学の教育・研究もほとんど完全に英語のみで行われているといってよい。ところが日本は，アジアではめずらしく英語国の植民地であった経験を持たない。日本の中学・高校
では日本語以外の言語を教育言語としている学校は極めて稀であるし，東京大学の教育・研究も，
そのほとんどは日本語で行われていると言っても言い過ぎではない。英語の占める位置はこれほ
どまでに日本とは対照的なシンガポールである。そんなシンガポールでは今日，シンガポール人の本来の民族語の華語，マレー語，タミル語が使えない若者が増えていることが国の大きな社会問題になっているほどである。しかも，忘れてならないことは， 天然資源の乏しいシンガポール
では人こそが貴重な資源と考えられ，教育に対する熱意の高さが際立っていることである。日本
では国家予算に占める教育関係費の割合はわずか 5%程度（世界最低レベル）に過ぎないが，「教育立国」シンガポールでは実に国家予算の 20%にも及ぶ（世界最高レベル）ほどの潤沢さである。
わが国の有識者会議は，われわれもまたそのシンガポール人と同等の英語能力を身につけるこ

9

大谷

泰照

とを当然のことと考えている。つまりわれわれは，両国の言語・文化的環境の違いを完全に無視したこんな目標が，少なくともわが国の学校普通教育としてはいかに乱暴な目標であるかに気づくべきではないのか。これは中学・高校の週 3〜4 時間の体育の授業時間に，たとえば野球を選択して訓練をうけたからといって，ただちに野球を専門の職業として，連日その練習や試合に明け暮れるプロ野球選手と同等の野球の技能を身につけることを目標にすることにも似た乱暴さである。この期待に沿えないことをもって， わが国の英語教育や体育教育を欠陥教育呼ばわりしたり，英語教員や体育教員の力量や熱意の不足と責めたてることはできない。日本人は一般に韓国語（朝鮮語）能力試験（TOPIK）には世界最高の得点を挙げるが， それならば同じ外国語である
英語の TOEFL でも世界最高の得点がとれないはずはないと考えるのと同断である。いやしくも責任あるプロの異言語教育関係者なら，心して陥ってはならない危険なアナロジーである。
実はこれは，教員・学習者の能力や努力を超えた｢言語・文化的環境｣に関わる問題であって，この環境は学習者の外国語学習の成否に最も大きく関わる条件であるとさえ言える。そして，このような言語・文化的事実に目覚めること自体が， 実は学校外国語教育における異文化理解そのものではないのか。有識者会議は，専ら教員の指導法など教員のあり方には厳しくこだわりながら， 外国語学習の成果を大きく左右するこの重要な条件には全く無関心であるようにみえる。
いまひとつ， 外国語学習の成果に大きく影響を与える条件でありながら有識者会議が無関心であるのは「国の教育政策」である。この「国の教育政策｣によって，日本の小・中学校教員はOECD 諸国の中では他に例を見ないほどの「過労死ライン」を超える過酷な教育環境に置かれている。しかも，教育効果に大きく関わる担当クラスの規模（クラス・サイズ）は， これまたOECD 諸国中，韓国と並んで最大である。そして何よりも，わが国の国家予算に占める教育関係費の割合は，OECD 諸国中でも長年にわたり最低であり続け，しかも年とともにさらに漸減傾向を続けている。この OECD 諸国の中で最も劣悪な教育環境の改善もまた，教員の能力や努力を超えた問題である。日本の外国語教育の改革を本気で考えるのであれば，｢教員のあり方｣ 以外に，さらに少なくともこれら「言語・文化的環境」と「国の教育政策」の 2 つの重要な条件を同時に論じることは必要にして且つ不可欠である。これらの 3 条件を総合的に検討することによって，はじめて｢日本人はなぜ英語が出来ないのか｣ の永年の疑問に的確に答えることが可能になる。
つまり，われわれは，「日本人はなぜ英語が出来ないのか」という根源的な問題に真剣に向き合い，その原因を究明する努力を過去 1 世紀以上もの間怠ったまま今日に至っていると言わざるを得ない。いたずらに新しい教授法という絆創膏ばかりを追い求めて，それらを手当たり次第に貼りまくり，効き目が少ないとか，貼り方が悪いとかを，明治の文法訳読法から最近の CLIL にいたるまで実に延々と論じてきた。言いかえれば，目先の対症療法こそが療法のすべてであると信じ込み，より根源的な原因療法にはほとんど関心を払っては来なかったと言えるのではないか。
3.2 言語・文化的環境
3.2.1 IEA データの考え方
日本人の普通の大学生なら，ほぼ 100%が掛け算の九九は言える。しかし，そんな話をしても，10この国の異言語教育のあり方を問い直す –「ウチからみた歴史」と「ソトからみた歴史」–

アメリカの大学では，まず日本人のほら話と思われて容易に信じてはくれない。事実，アメリカの大学生を調査してみると，実に彼らの 40%近くが掛け算の九九は言えない。そのことを今度は日本の大学で話すと，これまたアメリカ帰りのほら話と思われてしまう。
日本人とアメリカ人のそんな算数能力の違いを，おそらく史上初めて国際的な資料で明らかに示したのが 1964 年（昭和 39 年）の第 1 回 IEA 国際数学教育到達度調査であった。世界の先進 10か国の 13 歳生徒（中学 2 年生）のテストで，日本は他の参加国を大きく引き離して第 1 位の成績をおさめた。アメリカの実に 2 倍近い高得点であった。敗戦国日本のこの結果は世界を大いに驚かせ，日本の「数学学力世界一」は広く国際的に注目されることになった。1981 年（昭和 56 年）には第 2 回目の同調査が先進 20 か国に対して行われたが，その調査でも日本は他国を全く寄せ付
けない最高点を挙げた。そしてこの回もアメリカの成績は 14 位の低位にとどまった。なお，IEA
13 歳向けテストは，日本でいえば主として小学校レベルの算数の四則計算中心のテストと考えてよい。
これ以後，海外では，日本人の「高い数学学力」の秘密を探ろうとする動きが目立つようになった。イギリスの科学誌 Nature（1982 年 5 月 20 日）は日本人の知能指数（IQ）の高さによるものとみる論文を掲載し，アメリカの心理学専門誌 Psychology Today（1983 年 9 月）は日本の教育
ママの教育的熱意の結果であることを特集し，また来日中の IEA の Torsten Husén 会長は日本の数学教師の資質の高さに負うものと記者団に語った（『毎日新聞』昭和 58 年 9 月 10 日夕刊）。「秘密」の決着はいまだついていないが，Time 誌（1990 年 6 月 4 日）はこんな日本人中学生を‘Computer‐brained superhumans’ と高く評した。IEA のこの到達度調査は， その後も継続していて，少なくとも 2015 年までに 8 回も行われてきた（表 1）。
この表で注目すべきは， 単に日本が常に高得点を挙げ続けているということではない。ましてや， それをもって‘superhumans’などと己惚れることではない。もしもわれわれが，仮にも異言語教育のプロであるとするならば，この際，欠くことができないのは，何がこのような結果を生んだのか，その本当の原因を慎重に問いただそうとする謙虚な姿勢ではないのか。
特に第 3 回以後の結果で明白なように，得点順位の最上位群（網掛け）は，毎回，ひとつの例
外もなく常に漢字文化圏に属する国・地域のいわば「指定席」になっているという事実である。
しかも，漢字文化圏以外の国・地域とは相当の点差をつけての最上位群である。これは，上記の知能指数説や教育ママ説や数学教師説よりもむしろ，算数の学習については，漢字文化圏の学習者が，個々の国・地域や学校の数学教育の現状とはほぼ無関係に，圧倒的に有利な環境にあることを示しているとみるべきであろう。なお，第 1 回目に同時に行われた 17 歳生徒（高校 3 年生）のテストでは，日本人高校 3 年生の成績は 12 か国・地域中 6 位にまで大きく落ち込んでいる事実も見落としてはならない。
それは具体的には漢字文化圏では，①世界でも最も簡明な数詞体系と完全な 10 進法，②簡潔で記憶に便利な乗法九九，この 2 つを併せ持つことが，特に四則計算の学習には圧倒的な強みであると考えられることである。これは数学教育の問題であると同時に，すぐれて異言語教育の問題でもあることに気付く必要がある。言いかえれば，言語・文化的環境の問題である。これは，

11

大谷

泰照

いうまでもなく教育成果として誇るに足る問題とは必ずしも言えない。なお，高校 3 年生の場合には，③ 本来ヨーロッパ語を象って作られた近代数学の数式、すなわち大きくヨーロッパ語に偏った数式が漢字文化圏の受験生には不利に働いた結果と考えざるを得ない。
この問題についての詳しい私見は，すでに別の機会に発表済みであるため，本稿では， 単に以下の資料をお示しすることをもって，この国における英語教育問題を新しい視点から再検討するための一つの「提言」とさせていただきたい。

（東信堂より許可を得て，大谷（2020, p. 50）より再掲載）

12

この国の異言語教育のあり方を問い直す –「ウチからみた歴史」と「ソトからみた歴史」–

3.2.2 TOEFL データの考え方
日本人の根強い「英語が出来ません」症候群のまさに「国際的根拠」と一般に見做されているのが TOEFL のデータである。この英語テストは，IEA の数学調査と同じ 1964 年（昭和 39 年）に始まり，北アメリカの大学への留学を志す非英語母語話者に課せられる英語運用能力テストである。
図 1 はコンピュータ操作の熟達度には影響されることのない PBT について，全 34 年間の主要国の得点の推移を示したものである。

（東信堂より許可を得て，大谷（2020, p. 70）より再掲載）
一見して明らかな通り，日本の得点は一貫して低位にとどまり，ほとんど上向くことはなかった。たとえば，PBT 最終段階 1997-98 年度の日本の得点は，世界 169 か国・地域中 155 位， アジ
ア 25 か国・地域中では文字通り最下位であった。
たしかに，このような TOEFL の結果は，日本の英語教育の「非能率さ」の「動かぬ証拠」と見做されるのもやむを得ないのかもしれない。時には国の体面に関わるとさえ言われる。数学教
育が「世界最高」のこの国で，英語教育だけは文字通り「世界最低」といわれ，「欠陥教育」と

13

大谷

泰照

呼ばれるようになった。国民の期待を裏切り続ける日本の英語教育や英語教師が「犯罪的」や「国賊」などと指弾されるようにもなる。令和 4 年 8 月 8 日の文部科学省の「英語教育・日本人の対外発信力の改善に向けて（アクションプラン）」にも，TOEFL 以外に IELTS や TOEIC の成績
まで棒グラフで詳細に示して，「各種の英語資格・検定試験において，我が国の平均スコアは諸外国の中で最下位クラス」と大きく見出しがつけられている。
しかし，もしも JACET が異言語教育の専門家集団であるならば，IEA のデータの場合と同様に，TOEFL のデータついても，もう少し広い視点に立った専門家集団らしい見方も示せるのではないのか。たとえば，図 1 の国・地域別の曲線をよくみると，上層，中層，下層のほぼ 3 層に分かれていることが分かる。しかし，その各層には明らかな特徴が認められないか。上層に位置するのは，インド・ヨーロッパ語族のなかの英語と同属のゲルマン語派の国（オランダ，ドイツ）と旧イギリス植民地（シンガポール）である。中層にはインド・ヨーロッパ語族のイタリック語派の国（フランス）と旧英米植民地（インド，フィリピン）が入る。ところが下層には， 非インド・ヨーロッパ語圏で，欧米の植民地非経験国（韓国, 台湾, タイ, 日本）と旧イギリスの植民地で，しかし中国返還が間近かの地域（香港）が並ぶ。
このように眺めると，実は TOEFL は世界の諸言語からみた英語との言語的距離を得点差によって明瞭に示していると考えることができるのではないか（大谷泰照「国際的にみた日本人学生の英語学力｣『英語教育』大修館書店 昭和 51 年 6 月 参照）。TOEFL を行う ETS 自身が発表したItem Performance across Native Language Groups on the Test of English as a Foreign Language（Alderman& Holland，1980）は，TOEFL 項目の実に 88%近くが受験者の母語によって影響を受けるという事実を明らかにした。これは，すべての学習者が英語を同じ条件で学んでいるという従来の俗信を糺し，学習者の母語次第で，英語学習の難易度に大きな差が生じるという重要な事実を示すものである。
ここで，昭和 59 年（1984 年）以来，世界の日本語学習者のために行われてきた日本語能力試
験（JLPT）の結果を調べてみると興味深いことが分かる。日本語能力試験では，TOEFL の得点の低い漢字文化圏の国・地域ほど高い得点をあげ, 逆に TOEFL 得点の高いインド・ヨーロッパ語
圏の国ほど日本語の得点は低くなり，ほぼ完全に TOEFL の裏返しの結果になっている。TOEFL
では，日本人と同様に，相対的に得点の低い韓国の受験者が，彼らの言語と高い類似性をもつといわれるこの日本語の能力試験では，常に世界最高の得点をあげている。また JLPT の韓国版である韓国語（朝鮮語）能力試験（TOPIK）をみると，その最上級の 6 級合格者は圧倒的に日本人で占められている。日本人の韓国語（朝鮮語）習得能力が「世界一」とさえいわれる所以である。
この結果もまた，学習者の母語と学習言語との言語的距離の関係をはっきりと裏付けているとい
えよう。
TOEFL とは逆に，英語からみた世界の諸言語との言語的距離を示していると考えられるアメリ
カ連邦政府の外務職員養成機関である外務研究所（FSI）の調査も参考になる。FSI はその長年の異言語教育の経験から，英語の母語話者からみて世界の主要言語の習得には難易度別に 5 つのカ
テゴリー が認められると考えている。そして，それぞれの言語圏で職務達成可能な程度の語学力，

14この国の異言語教育のあり方を問い直す –「ウチからみた歴史」と「ソトからみた歴史」–

具体的には話し言葉 S3（中程度）と書き言葉 R3（中程度）を習得するために要する訓練期間・所要時間を表 2 のように見積もっている。この表では，日本語については特にアステリスク（*）
を付して， 一貫して英語母語話者にとって「極端に困難な言語（languages which are exceptionallydifficult for native English speakers）」に区分して，そのなかでも「とりわけ困難な言語（moredifficult than other languages in the same category）」と特記していることを見落としてはならない。
FSI で日本語を習得するアメリカ政府の外務職員が，日本語をオランダ語のように容易に習得できないことをもって， 自らを欠陥学習者と恥じ入る必要はないことが分かろう。

（東信堂より許可を得て，大谷（2020, p. 82）より再掲載）
このように考えると，IEA や TOEFL の結果をそのまま日本人の学力や能力の表れとみる従来の考え方を疑い， 視点を大きく引いて，むしろ学習者の個別の言語・文化そのものが数学や異言語の学習に深く関りを持つという新しい観点が必要ではないか。そしてこれこそが， 近年の日本人が陥りがちな「いわれのない優越感」と，併せて「いわれのない劣等感」を克服するために不可欠な発想と考えるべきではないか。
この問題についても，詳しい私見はすでに別の機会に発表済みである。本稿では，上記の資料をお示しすることをもって，この国における英語教育問題を新しい視点から考え直すための一つの「提言」とさせていただきたい。
3.2.3 国の教育政策
日本の異言語教育の改革を考えるために，「言語・文化的環境」とともに見落としてはならな
いいま一つの条件は「国の教育政策」である。

15

大谷

泰照

第 2 次世界大戦が戦後の世界に遺した最大の教訓の一つは，結局は異文化理解の地道な努力を重ねる以外には，戦争回避のカギは存在しないとみる非常に厳しい反省であった。そんな反省から，EU のような戦前には想像もできなかった「不戦共同体」がこの地球上に実現するまでになった。当然，異文化理解のための異言語教育の充実・強化は各国の国際的責任とさえ考えられるようになった。EU 各国では「母語＋2 言語」の習得がハイスクール卒業までの目標となり，また
かつては英語帝国主義の元凶などと目されたアメリカでさえも，いまや「英語＋1 言語」の習得
が 21 世紀の国民的目標となった。日本近隣の韓国・中国・台湾などの異言語教育の強化ぶりも，実に目を見張るものがある。
ところが，このような世界の圧倒的な動向に真っ向から逆行しているようにみえるのが戦後のわが国の歩みである。少なくとも戦後の世界で，中等教育段階の外国語教育を一貫して削減・縮小し続けてきた国は，日本を除いて他にはほとんど見当たらない。いまや日本は，世界の主要 46か国の中では，中学・高校段階の外国語時間数が最少の国である。その上この国は，文字通り英語一辺倒で，英語以外の外国語にはほとんど関心を示さないことでも際立っている。
しかし，わが国の教育の本当の姿は，ただひたすら現状を凝視することによっては決してみえてこない。現在の教育の実態は，学習指導要領や文部科学白書によっても，必ずしも正確にうかがい知ることはできない。
たとえば，国の教育的熱意を測る何よりのバロメーターは，一般には教育予算であると考えられる。しかし今日のわが国の教育予算の実態は，表 3，表 4，表 5 のように少し視点を引いて，時間的（歴史的）・空間的（国際的）な距離をおいた広い立場から眺めることによって，はじめてこれほどまでに貧弱である実態がいくらかでも鮮明にみえてくる。
表3

OECD 30 か国中主要 8 か国の対 GDP 比高等教育関係予算（％）（日本：30 か国中 30 位）

国名

フィン

デンマ

スウェ

フラン

アメリ

ーク
1.8

ーデン
1.6

ス

カ

割合

ランド
1.9

1.3

韓国

イギリ

日本

OECD
平均

0.5

1.1

ス
1.0

0.7

0.7

―OECD. Education at a Glance. （2013）.
表4

OECD 30 か国中主要 8 か国の対 GDP 比教育関係予算（％）（日本：30 か国中 30 位）

国名

デンマ

フィン

スウェ

イギリ

フラン

アメリ

ーク
7.6

ランド
6.4

ーデン
6.3

ス

ス

カ

割合

5.9

5.8

5.1

韓国

日本

OECD
平均

4.8

3.6

5.4

―OECD. Education at a Glance. （2013）.
表5

日本の国家予算に占める教育関係費の年度別割合（％）（調査･作成:大谷泰照）

年度
割合

1955
11.8

1965
13.0

1975
12.4

1980
10.6

1985
9.2

1990
7.6

1995
8.7

2000
7.7

2005
7.0

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

6.1

6.0

6.0

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

－大蔵省・財務省年度別『統計表一覧』により大谷泰照算出（東信堂より許可を得て，大谷（2020, pp. 94–95）より再掲載）

16

この国の異言語教育のあり方を問い直す –「ウチからみた歴史」と「ソトからみた歴史」–

わが国の教育予算は，戦後の世界の多くの国々と同様に年々増加・充実しているものと思いのほか，実は国際的にはまことに異常なことに，ひとりわが国だけは逆に年を追って確実に減少を続けてきた。しかも，すでに長年にわたりこのような世界最低の状況が続いている。これは目先の動きにとらわれた短期的・国内的な視点からはとうてい見えてこない事実である。おそらく，わが国の教育的熱意のありようを，これほど如実に示すものは他に考えられない。
その上，OECD 加盟 30 か国中でも， GDP 比では並外れて「最少」（第 30 位）の教育予算を組みながら，わが国の児童・生徒の学力だけは逆に「世界一」を目指すことが求められる（『平成25 年度文部科学白書』第 2 部第 4 章）。つまり，わが国の教育現場では，教育条件は世界最劣悪であっても，教育成果だけは世界最高の成績をあげることが期待されている。
この教育予算の貧弱さは，公立中学・高校段階の過大なクラスサイズ（OECD 25 か国中最大）や「過労死ライン」と文部科学省自身も認める公立中学・高校の教員の労働強化（OECD34 か国
中最悪）を生み，ひいては教員養成制度の遅れ（中学校教員の大学院修了者：EU50.0%，韓国
37.4%，台湾 59.8%，日本 7.5%）という 2010 年代の状況とも無関係ではない。このようなこの国の（外国語）教育の悲惨な状況は，まぎれもなくこの国独自の教育政策によるものであり，いうまでもなく個々の教員の能力や努力をはるかに超えた問題である。
いま，異言語教育に関わる教育者・研究者の専門学会としての JACET に求められるのは，歴史的にも国際的にもより広い見地に立ち，このようなこの国の実際の状況を直視し，少なくともこの現状をこれ以上放置しないという厳しい自覚でなければなるまい。
4. 組織的な異文化接触の構造
学校の外国語教育を建設的な組織的異文化接触と呼ぶとすれば，その対蹠点にあるのは破壊的な組織的異文化接触としての軍事的戦争である。この組織的異文化接触は，その勝敗・成否を左右する 3 層の構造を持つ。これを条件 1，条件 2，そして条件 3 と呼ぼう。
組織的異文化接触の最も破壊的な形態としての「戦争」において，勝敗に関わる条件 1 とは「軍事的国力」である。国の地勢や資源や経済力などの国を支える基本的で総合的な軍事的力量である。条件 2 は「軍事的政策」である。国の開戦をはじめ， 戦略・戦術の立案能力や洞察力である。これは， 優れた軍師団の有無と言ってもよい。そして条件 3 が「軍人の軍事的資質」である。これは軍人の軍事的能力や戦闘意欲そのものである。このようにみると， 銃後の国民は一般に，戦争の勝敗を決するのは，最前線で命をかけて華々しく戦う「軍人の軍事的資質」であると簡単に考えがちである。しかし， 特に近代の「組織的な」異文化接触においては，勝敗の帰趨を決するのは， 実は 条件 3 よりもむしろ条件 2， そしてとりわけ条件 1 であることを，われわれは太平洋戦争の悲惨な体験から， まさに徹底的に思い知らされたはずである。
一方，組織的異文化接触の最も建設的な形態としての学校の「外国語教育」について，その成否にかかわる条件 1 とは「言語・文化的環境」である。学習者の母語と学習言語との言語・文化的距離，および植民地などの異文化接触の度合いなど， 歴史的・地理的偶然から学習者の置かれた基本的な生活環境に関わる問題である。「戦争」の条件 1 の場合と同様に，これはいわば決定

17

大谷

泰照

的な条件であり，学習者の能力や努力を超えた問題である。条件 2 は「国の教育政策」である。
国の高度の教育方針や熱意に関わる問題で，時の為政者の考え方が色濃く反映しがちである。
「軍事的政策」の場合と同様に, 為政者の立案能力や洞察力が教育成果に大きく影響する。そして条件 3 は「教員と学習者の資質」である。教育現場における教員と学習者の能力や努力そのものが厳しく問われる問題である。しかし，われわれは一般に，日常，教室で目にするこの条件 3こそが外国語教育の成否を決定する唯一・最大の条件であるかのように思い込みがちである。しかしこれもまた，戦時中の教員と学習者の優れた能力と努力が，条件 2・条件 1 次第で，いかに簡単に歪められ，いかに簡単に損なわれてしまったかを想い返してみる必要があろう。
このように考えることによって明らかになるのが， 今日のこの国の外国語教育のあり方や過去の対外戦争の結果を検討するために必要不可欠な条件とは，単なる目先の対症療法（条件 3）にとどまらないという事実である。一般にはほとんど省みられることはないが，むしろ，その対症療法そのものを支えて，その対症療法を生かしも殺しもするさらに基本的な原因療法（条件 1 および条件 2）に着目することの必要性である。言いかえれば， 外国語教育の成否は，そして「英語が出来ません症候群」もまた，ひとえに教育現場の教員と学習者の資質次第で決まり，あるいは戦争の勝敗はひとえに最前線の軍人の資質次第で決まるかのような支配的な論調がいかに短絡的であり，いかに総合的判断を欠いたものであるかを示すものである。そして以上に述べたように，特に破壊的な形態の異文化接触のあり方を通して，建設的な形態の異文化接触の構造をもまたあらためてより鮮明に浮き彫りにすることができる。
JACET の「ウチからみた歴史」では，とかく顧みられることの少なかった歴史のいま一つの側面にスポットを当てて，あえて 50 周年記念の「提言」とさせていただく。
注
1. 本稿の基本的な考え方は， かねてより以下のような機会に発言し続けてきた私見に拠ることをお断りする。
大谷泰照「‘Happy Slave Syndrome’ からの覚醒 ―「海外の外国語教育」研究会―」 JACET
Kansai Journal No.20, 2018.
大谷泰照『日本の異言語教育の論点―「ハッピー・スレイヴ症候群」からの覚醒』 東信堂
2020.
引用文献
大谷泰照（2018）.「‘Happy Slave Syndrome’ からの覚醒 ―「海外の外国語教育」研究会―」
JACET Kansai Journal, 20, 35–46.
大谷泰照（2020）.『日本の異言語教育の論点―「ハッピー・スレイヴ症候群」からの覚醒』
東信堂.
Alderman, D. L., & Holland, P. W. (1980). Item performance across native language groups on the
TOEFL. In TOEFL Research Report Series, (vol. 9, pp. 1–106). Educational Testing Service.

18

JACET Kansai Journal, 25, 19–30. (2023) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

英語教育研究のさらなる発展に向けて―システム思考で文構造を捉え直す―
Expanding ELT Research:
Reinterpreting English Sentence Structure Through Systems Thinking
田地野彰
名古屋外国語大学

Abstract
How can ELT research potentially be developed? The present paper approaches this question bymeans of systems thinking, referring to an epistemology that is characterized by key concepts suchas emergence, hierarchy, and communication. In doing so, ELT research is viewed as a humanactivity system which deals with a purposeful activity that can exist in the real world. In this article,
English sentence structure, which is a major element of English pedagogical grammar, is taken as
an example. A review of the literature on grammar instruction in ELT reveals that English sentence
structure is often taught by employing five or seven patterns. For communicative purposes, thisarticle approaches and reinterprets English sentence structure from a semantic perspective so thatthese five or seven patterns can be consolidated into one. In addition, this paper demonstrates how
this meaning-based approach can make it possible to arrange English grammar in two dimensions
and teach and/or learn it systemically.
キ－ワ－ド：意味順，システム思考，指導の体系化，文構造，文法俯瞰図1. はじめに
本稿では，英語教育研究のさらなる発展のための一つの手法として「システム思考」（systems thinking）を紹介する 1 。ここでシステム思考とは，盤石な理論的基盤と豊富な適用事例に支えられたソフトシステム方法論（Soft Systems Methodology: SSM）の探索プロセスの中心的役割を担うものである（参照，Checkland, 1981）。具体的には，英語の文構造を事例として，その捉え直しのプロセスをシステム思考により概観し，今後の英語教育研究におけるシステム思考の活用可能性について考察することを目的とする。
英語の文構造の指導には，これまで「5 文型」を用いた指導（以下，「5 文型指導」）が一般的であった 2 。しかしながら，この 5 文型指導については，文法の説明においては一定の評価はあるものの，学習や使用における問題や記述的不備なども指摘されている。たとえば，全国の国公立高校に通う高校 3 年生を対象とした文部科学省の大規模な英語力調査（文部科学省，2017）によれば，4 技能のテストのうち，とくに「話すこと」と「書くこと」において（無回答者を含めた）無得点者の割合がそれぞれ 18.8%，15.1%であったと報告している。つまり，これらの生徒は意味が伝わる英文をつくることができないのである。
この結果は，我々英語教育に携わる者にとっては決して看過できるものではない。いま，

19

田地野

彰

文構造の指導法を見直す必要があるのではないだろうか。
2. システム思考
本稿で紹介するシステム思考とは，典型的なソフトシステムアプロ－チとしてのソフト
システム方法論（Checkland, 1981）の探索過程で用いられる手法である。ここで「システム」とは，複数の要素が相互に依存し関連づけられ一体性・全体性を形成するものであり，階層構造と創発特性，通信，制御の言葉で特徴づけることができる（Checkland, 1999）。従って，「システム思考」とは，多数の要素が絡む対象（問題状況）をこれら階層性や創発特性などにより特徴づけられたシステムとしてみなす一つの認識論であると言える（Checkland, 1999）。
2.1 ソフトシステム方法論（Soft Systems Methodology: SSM）
英語教育研究のように複数の人間が関与し，時として利害が対立するような問題状況では，因果関係が明確に構造化されておらず，通常「正解」を求める数学や物理学を理論モデルとしたシステム工学的なハ－ドシステムアプロ－チでは必ずしも対応できない。このような状況で求められるのがソフトシステムアプロ－チである。このアプロ－チの特徴の一つは，対象となる問題状況を，複数の構成要素が一体性・全体性を形成するシステムとして認識する態度であり，そこでシステム思考が求められる。全体性を強調するこの考え方の起源はギリシャ時代にまで遡り，とりわけ「階層性」と「創発特性」は重要な特性である。一般に，複数の要素が絡むシステムにおいては，レベルの異なる階層があり，（水素と窒素の合成物であるアンモニアのように）上位レベルは下位レベルよりも複雑であり，下位レベルでは存在しないような性質（創発特性）で特徴づけられる。
このソフトシステム方法論は，チャ－チマン（Churchman, 1968）の社会システム設計や
エイコフ（Ackoff, 1974）の社会システム科学の思想的流れを受け継ぎ，また多様な分野での豊富な適用事例にも基づいており，形の整った方法論である（木嶋，1999）。言語教育研
究への SSM の導入の示唆もあり（Holliday, 1990），Tajino（2002）や Tajino et al.（2005）など事例研究も増えてきている（参照，Tajino, 2019）。
2.2 ソフトシステム方法論（SSM）の 7 ステ－ジモデル
この SSM においては，一連の意図的活動からなる問題状況として，英語教育研究は「人間活動システム」（human activity system）としてみなされる。現実世界の意図的行動で行われる意思決定というのは，我々のモノの見方や解釈，特定の価値システムに基づいてなされるものであり，その記述や分析においては各関与者の世界観の明示が求められる。ここではその探索プロセスとして用いられる伝統的な 7 ステ－ジモデルを紹介する。

20

英語教育研究のさらなる発展に向けて – システム思考で文構造を捉え直す –図 1 ソフトシステム方法論：7 ステ－ジモデル（参照, Checkland, 1999, p. 27）

この探索プロセスにおいては，まず複雑な問題状況を認知・表現し（現実世界: Stage 1と Stage 2），次にさまざまな関与者の世界観をもとに基本問題定義を作成しアコモデ－ト
を行い，概念モデルを構築する（システム思考: Stage 3 と Stage 4）。なお，概念モデル（Stage4）はこの基本問題定義に基づいて構築されることから，基本問題定義の作成は重要である。
構築された概念モデルは現実世界に照らし合わされ，それが望ましく文化的に実行可能なものであるかどうかの検証を経て，最後に実行に移される（現実世界: Stage 5 から Stage7）。もっとも，新たに発生しうる問題状況に対応すべく，この探索プロセスはさらに継続される。
次節では，文法教育への適用事例として，問題状況の認識（Stage 1）からシステム思考の基本問題定義の作成と概念モデルの構築（Stage 4）までの探索過程を概観する。
3. システム思考による文構造指導の捉え直し
3.1 問題状況（Stages 1 & 2）－いま，なぜ文構造指導か？
英文法教育において文構造指導は極めて重要である。英語は固定語順言語（a fixed-wordorder language）と呼ばれるように（例，Pinker，1994），「語句の順序が変わると，意味も変わる」という特性があり，「語句の順序」（語順）の誤りは，文意や意志の伝達に大きな支障を与える全体的誤り（global error）であるとされている（Burt, 1975; Burt & Kiparsky, 1974）。
上述のとおり，全国の国公立高校 300 校の約 6 万人（「話すこと」は約 1 万人）の高校 3年生を対象とした平成 29 年度の文部科学省の英語力調査（2017）によれば，4 技能のテス
トのうち「話すこと」と「書くこと」での無得点者（ゼロ点）の割合がそれぞれ 18.8%と15.1%であったと報告している。また，高校 1 年生（約 1,000 人）を対象とした民間教育機
関の調査によれば，「文法が難しい」，「英語の文を書くのが難しい」が英語学習のつまずきの主な原因のそれぞれ 1 位，2 位と上位を占めている（ベネッセ教育総合研究所，2020）。

21

田地野

彰

これらの問題を解決・改善するための方策がいま求められている。
英語の文構造指導はこれまで 5 文型を用いて行われるのが一般的であった。しかしながら，この 5 文型は学習者にとって必ずしも使い勝手が良いとは言えず，コミュニケ－シ
ョンや理論的観点から記述的不備が指摘されている（川原, 2021a; 中村, 2018）。たとえば，第 1 文型（SV）として扱われている “She lives.” だけでは十分に意味は伝わらない（「場所」情報は一般に修飾語句扱いとされている）。これを副詞相当語句（adverbial）として扱った 7 文型を提唱する英文法書も少なくない（例，Quirk 他，1985）。
3.2 システム思考（Stages 3 & 4）－新しい文法指導法の開発にむけてSSM では，まずある状況が問題として認知され，そこに関わる人々がその問題状況をどのように認識しているかを表現する。上記のような問題状況を学習者や教師たち関与者はどのように捉えているか？たとえば，次のようなシステムとして捉えることができよう。
1) 学習者の視点
・文法用語を介さずに文を作成できるシステム
・文構造を視覚的に学習できるシステム
2) 教師の視点
・学習者の産出技能（「話す力」「書く力」）を育成するシステム
・体系的に文法を指導できるシステム
3) その他の関与者の視点
・文構造の階層性に対応しうるシステム
・文法事項間の関係性を示すシステム（文法俯瞰図の提示）
これらの基本問題定義は，たとえば以下のようにアコモデ－トできるであろう。
アコモデ－トされた基本問題定義（Stage 3）「教師が所有する，目的語や補語などの文法用語を介さず，学習者が必要以上に難し
く感じることなく，意味が伝わる英文をつくることを支援する文構造指導システム」
この基本問題定義は，「文法用語を介さずとも，学習者が比較的容易に意味から直接，文を作成することができるという信念」により支えられている。
図 2 アコモデ－トされた文構造指導

文 法 用 語 を 難 し く 感 じ ，英 文 を 作 成

文構造指導することができない学習者

文 法 用 語 を 介 さ ず ，英 文 を 作 成 す る
ことができる学習者

22英語教育研究のさらなる発展に向けて – システム思考で文構造を捉え直す –概念モデル（Stage 4）では，図 2 の中央に位置する「文構造指導」は，入力から出力への変換過程（transformation process）における活動の連鎖として表現される。なお，活動間の論理的依存性や因果関係は矢印を用いて示される。
4. 新しい文構造の指導－「意味順」の提案
文法用語を介さずに意味から直接英文を作成するためには，文構造へのアプロ－チを見直す必要がある。文が意味単位（meaningful unit）で構成されているという視点（参照，deOliveira & Schleppegrell, 2015）を導入し，コミュニケ－ションの観点から文構造を捉え直したのが「意味順」である。本節以降は，SSM における Stage 5 から Stage 7 までの内容を示唆すべく，現実世界での意味順の活用例を概観する 3 。
4.1 「意味順」とは
意味順とは，英文を構成する「意味のまとまりの順序」のことであり（例，田地野，1995,
1999, 2011），コミュニケ－ションに必要な情報要素である 5W1H（龍城，2006; Hasan, 1988）に対応しうる「ゆるやかな文構造システム」として捉えることができる。意味順を活用した指導法・学習法は，構想・開発からすでに 40 余年が経っており，これまで小中学生から社会人までを対象とした種々の教育機関において用いられ，その教育効果の検証も行われてきている（例，奥住，2016; Smithers & Gray, 2020; Yamada, 2019） 4 。基本的に「意味順」
は次の順序を指す 5 。
「意味順」「だれが」「する（です）」「だれ・なに」「どこ」「いつ」＊オプションとして「どのよう（にして）」「なぜ」なお， 3 番目の要素である「だれ・なに」の中点「・」は＜and/or＞を意味するものである。つまり，（5 文型の SVC や SVO のように）どちらか一方の場合もあれば，（5 文型の SVOO や SVOC のように）両方を必要とする場合もある。なお，両方の場合は，一般に「だれニ・なにヲ」（表 1 を参照）や「だれヲ・なんト」「だれガ・なんダ／どんなダ」などを意味する。なお，「意味順」はあくまで「順序」を指すものであり，この順序（流れ）に沿って柔軟に対応することが重要であり，語句を厳密に各要素（「ボックス」）に振り分けることが目的ではないという点は留意すべきである。
また，疑問文の助動詞や疑問詞，重文や複文の接続詞に対応すべく「玉手箱」（英語版
では「α」）を設けることもあり（表 2），重文や複文のように接続詞を用いる場合には，
意味順を 2 段（以上）用いることができる（表 3）。以下は，意味順の活用例である。
表 1 単文玉手箱

Dr. Leech taught me English grammar in the U.K. 45 years ago.
だれがする（です）

だれ・なに

どこ

いつ

Dr. Leech

taughtme English grammar

in the U.K.

45 years ago.

23

田地野

彰

表 2 疑問詞疑問文 Why did you go there yesterday?
玉手箱

だれが

する（です）Why did

you

go

だれ・なに

どこ

いつ

there

yesterday?

どこいつ

表 3 複文 I think that she needs a new bag.
玉手箱
that

だれが

する（です）

I

think

she

needs

だれ・なに
a new bag.

表 3 のとおり，意味順を用いれば，主節と従属節（斜体部分）の区別を視覚的に示すことができる（文構造の階層性への対応）。
4.2 「意味順」と 5 文型・7 文型
従来，文構造の指導は，日本においては 5 文型を用いた指導が一般的であるが，意味順
は，表 4 が示すとおり，これら 5 文型や 7 文型にも対応しうるものである。
表 4 「意味順」と 5 文型・7 文型との互換性
文型

だれがする（です）

1She

smiled.

だれ・なに

2

She

is

a pilot.

3

She

plays

the violin

4

She

gave

me

a present

5

She

calls

him

Billy.

6

She

lives

7

She

put

注：（

どこ

いつ

(every day).
(in her office)(yesterday).

in Osaka.
her bagon the table(just now).

）はオプション。5 文型は 1～5 の文，7 文型は 1～7 の文に対応。

このように，意味順は 5 文型・7 文型と互換性がある。では，これら五つ（または七つ）の文型を一つにまとめることで，なにか利点はあるのだろうか。
4.3

2 次元での文法整理（文法俯瞰図の提示）

従来の英文法の教科書や学習参考書などでは，一般に，時制や助動詞，不定詞などの文
法事項間のつながりや関係性は示されていない。つまり，各文法事項は概ね等価値とみなされ並列化されている。こうした配列については特に合理的な理由はなく慣習的に行われてきたとの指摘がある（Ellis, 2006）。このような状況では，「 文法はどこから学べばよいか」という質問が学習者から寄せられる（Sinclair, 2010）のも不思議ではない。
これに応えるものとして文法を 2 次元で整理する（参照, 斎藤，2007; Culler, 1976）。図
3 は，意味順を基軸として，それぞれの文法事項を意味順の各要素に関連づけた文法俯瞰図である（例, 田地野，2011, 2019） 6 。

24

英語教育研究のさらなる発展に向けて – システム思考で文構造を捉え直す –図 3 文法俯瞰図（参照, 田地野，2019, p. 58）

名詞・冠詞・代名詞など

動詞・時制・進行形・完了形・助動詞など

形容詞・名詞・不定詞・動名詞・現在分詞・
過去分詞・比較など

前置詞・副詞などだれがする（です）

だれ・なに

どこ

いつ

注：複数の意味順要素に関係する文法項目については代表的要素に関連づけてある。

4.4 「意味順」のまとめ
意味順の特徴として，まず，目的語や補語といった学習者にとって難解とされる文法用語を介さずに英文を理解し作成することができ，しかも 5 文型や 7 文型を用いた主要な文
構造指導法との互換性があるという点を挙げることができよう。
また，品詞とその役割，文中での語句の働きを直感的に捉えることができるということも意味順の大きな特徴の一つであろう。たとえば，“I played soccer this morning.” における “this morning” の働きであるが，これは伝統文法，あるいは伝統文法に基づく英語教
育では通常，副詞（句）として教えられている。しかしながら，この語句を副詞（句）として捉えることができるのは，文全体を解釈する力が事前にあり，解釈した結果によるところが大きい。この “morning” は，辞書によれば「名詞」としての記述が一般的であり，さらに “this” という限定詞・指示形容詞がつく性質は名詞という語彙範疇が持つ性質である。実際，理論言語学や欧米の主要な英文法書（例, Aarts, 2011; Huddleston & Pullum, 2002）
では，この “this morning” は通常名詞として分類される。語彙範疇の性質と統語的性質との混同は学習者に混乱を招くことにもなりかねない。意味順ではこの “this morning”
を「いつ」要素として扱うため，この種の混乱を避けることができよう（詳しくは川原, 2021a,
2021b を参照のこと）。
ほかにも注目すべき特徴はあるが，本節では最後に「文構造の可視化」と「文法俯瞰図の提示」を挙げておきたい。たとえば，表 3 の複文の例のように，意味順を 2 段用いることで主節と従属節の区別（文構造の階層性）を視覚的に示すことができる。さらに，図 3が示唆するとおり，意味順を基軸とすれば 2 次元での文法整理が可能となり，英文法の俯瞰図を提供することができる。この文法俯瞰図は，シラバスや教材の開発，学習診断などの際に参考になるであろう。

25

田地野

彰

5. 「意味順」の活用－文法指導の体系化に向けて
5.1 意味順を活用した 2 次元での指導例
上述のとおり，意味順を英文のヨコ軸（基軸），そして文法事項を各要素に関わるタテ軸として捉えれば，たとえば以下のような指導が可能となる 7 。
5.1.1 ヨコ軸（意味順）の指導例
意味順に沿って語句を並べれば，おおむね意味が伝わる英文をつくることができる。複文の場合は，表 3 で見たように，意味順を 2 段（以上）用いれば，主節と従属節の区別も視覚的に可能となり，複文もつくりやすくなるであろう。
表 5 複文の指導例
玉手箱

だれが

する（です）

だれ・なに

If

I

had

a million dollars,I

would travel

どこいつaround the world.

注：従属節を 1 段目（斜体部分）に，主節を 2 段目に示す。
5.1.2 タテ軸（文法事項）の指導例
表 6 は助動詞の指導例である。助動詞は「する（です）」に関わる文法事項として，文中における位置づけも理解しやすくなるであろう。
表 6 助動詞の指導例
玉手箱

だれが

する（です）

I / You

take

だれ・なに

どこ

いつ

the exam.

will takecan takemay takeshould takemust take

5.2 複数の意味順要素を用いた指導例－学びの創発特性を期待して複数の意味順要素を関連づけた指導も可能である。たとえば，図 4 は「する（です）」と「いつ」を関連づけた時制と相の指導例である。

26

英語教育研究のさらなる発展に向けて – システム思考で文構造を捉え直す –図 4 指導の体系化（参照, 田地野, 2019, p.61）

このように複数の要素を関連づけて指導を行えば，学びの創発特性も期待できるであろう。
6. おわりに
本稿では，英語教育研究のさらなる発展に向けて，英語の文法教育・文構造指導を事例としてシステム思考の活用可能性について考察した。具体的には，コミュニケ－ションの観点から新しく開発された文構造指導法（「意味順」指導法）の開発過程を，システム思考を用いて概観した。意味順は， 5 文型や 7 文型に対応するものとして文構造を対象としているが，従来の文構造指導が抱える課題を克服しうるものである。この意味順を用いて英語の文構造パタ－ンを一つにまとめることで 2 次元での文法整理が可能となる。この文法整理により，文法を俯瞰し，文法事項間の有機的関係性を示すことは学習者にとって大きな意味を持つ。つまり，学習者にとって難しいとされる文法学習の体系化が可能となり，学びの創発特性も期待できる。文法教育はコミュニケ－ションの観点からも重要であるが，文法には例外も多く，決して形の整ったものではない（Crystal, 2004）。しかしながら，文法そのものを変えることはできなくとも，学習者にとって学びやすくなるように文法を整理することは可能である（Tajino, 2018）。こうした整理はシンクレア氏（Sinclair, 2010）の指摘にもあるように，「文法はどこから学べばよいか」と悩む英語学習者にとって必要であろう。なお，意味順を活用した「ゆるやか」な文構造指導法は，多様な学習者要因や教育環境などにも柔軟に対応しうるものである。ただし，そのゆるやかさゆえ，指導にあたっては教師一人一人の裁量に委ねる部分もあり，創意工夫が求められるであろう。
最後に，英語教育研究の事例として本稿では文法教育を扱ったが，その他の研究分野においても解決・改善すべき課題は少なくない。今後は，そうした課題や問題状況に対してもシステム思考による新しい視点の導入が期待される。

27

田地野

彰

注
1

本稿の内容の一部は，一般社団法人大学英語教育学会第 3 回授業学研究大会（2022 年
1 月 22 日に開催），および外国語教育メディア学会九州・沖縄支部第 49 回支部大会（2022 年 6 月 25 日に開催）での筆者の基調講演の内容に基づいている（テーマはそれぞれ「システム思考で英語授業をとらえ直す－ティーム・ラーニングと「意味順」指導
を中心に」，「 明日の授業に活かす「意味順」英語指導－文法指導の体系化を目指して」）。

2

文型指導については，伊東（2019）を参照のこと。

3Stage 5 以降の事例については，田地野（2021）を参照のこと。中学校や高校，大学における授業実践事例が紹介されている。

4

意味を重視した文構造の指導法については他にも提案されている。詳細は，田地野・金丸（2021）を参照のこと。

5 「意味順」の英語版は，WHO－DOES (IS)－WHO(M)/WHAT(HOW)－WHERE－WHEN（オプションとして HOW と WHY）とされている（Tajino, 2018）。
6

Tajino（2018）は，3 次元での文法整理も試みている。

7

本稿では，文部科学省と民間教育機関による大規模調査結果から，産出技能（「話すこと」と「書くこと」）を中心に論じたが，意味順は受容技能（「聞くこと」と「読むこと」）の育成にも期待できる。たとえば，述語動詞の項構造を活用したタスクを用いて最初の二つの要素（「だれが」「する」）からその後に続く情報を予測することができるであろう（参照，田地野，2012, p. 170）。
引用文献

伊東治己（2019）．『入門期からの英語文型指導－チャンク文型論のすすめ』研究社．
奥住桂（2016）．「意味順」英語指導法〜コミュニケ－ションにつながる学習英文法指導」『平成 29 年度 埼玉県英語教育研究会紀要』101–110．
川原功司（2021a）．「5 文型と「意味順」」田地野彰（編）『明日の授業に活かす「意味順」
英語指導－理論的背景と授業実践』(pp. 63–85). ひつじ書房．
川原功司（2021b）．
「統辞論からみた「意味順」」田地野彰（編）『明日の授業に活かす「意味順」英語指導－理論的背景と授業実践』(pp. 39–62). ひつじ書房．
木嶋恭一（1999）．
「ソフトシステム方法論とは何か」『日本ファジィ－学会誌』11（3），369–381.
斎藤兆史（2007）．『英文法の論理』日本放送出版協会．
田地野彰（1995）．『英会話への最短距離』講談社．
田地野彰（1999）．『「創る英語」を楽しむ－「暗記英語」からの発想転換』丸善株式会社．
田地野彰（2011）．『〈意味順〉英作文のすすめ』岩波書店．
田地野彰（2012）．「学習者にとって「よりよい文法」とは何か？－「意味順」の提案－」
大津由紀雄（編）『学習文法を見直したい』(pp. 157–175). 研究社．
田地野彰（2019）．「英文法指導を再考する－二次元での文法整理を通して－」藤岡克則・
北林利治・長谷部陽一郎（編）『ことばとの対話－理論・記述・言語教育－』(pp. 53–
65). 英宝社．

28

英語教育研究のさらなる発展に向けて – システム思考で文構造を捉え直す –田地野彰（編）（2021）．
『明日の授業に活かす「意味順」英語指導－理論的背景と授業実践』
ひつじ書房．
田地野彰・金丸敏幸（2021）．
「「意味順」の意義と活用－英文法の整理と英語指導の体系化－」田地野彰（編）『明日の授業に活かす「意味順」英語指導－理論的背景と授業実
践』(pp. 3–37). ひつじ書房．
龍城正明（2006）．『ことばは生きている―選択体系機能言語学序説』くろしお出版.
中村捷（2018）．「5 文型は学習上役に立たない」池内正幸・窪園晴夫・小菅和也（編著）『英語学を英語授業に活かす－市河賞の精神を受け継いで』(pp. 119－136). 開拓社.
ベネッセ教育総合研究所（2020）．
「ダイジェスト版高 1 生の英語学習に関する調査＜2015–2019 継続調査＞」https://berd.benesse.jp/up_images/research/all4.pdf
文部科学省（2017）．『平成 29 年度英語教育改善のための英語力調査事業報告（高校 3 年生）』https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/1403470.htm
Aarts, B. (2011). Oxford modern English grammar. Oxford University Press.
Ackoff, R.L. (1974). Redesigning in the future. Wiley.
Burt, M. K. (1975). Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 53–63.
Burt M. K., & Kiparsky, C. (1974). Global and local mistakes. In J. H. Schumann & N. Stenson(Eds.), New frontiers in second language learning (pp. 71–80). Newbury House.
Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Checkland, P. (1999). Soft systems methodology in action: Includes a 30-Year Retrospective. John
Wiley & Sons.
Churchman, C. W. (1968). The systems approach. Dell Publishing Co.
Crystal, D. (2004). Rediscover grammar (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.
Culler, J. (1976). Saussure. Fontana.
de Oliveira, L. C., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2015). Focus on grammar and meaning. Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly,
40(1), 83–107.
Hasan, R. (1988). The analysis of one poem: Theoretical issues in practice. In D. Birch & M. O’Tool(Eds.), Functions and styles (pp. 45–73). Edward Arnold.
Holliday, A. (1990). A role for soft systems methodology in ELT projects. System, 18, 77–84.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language.
Cambridge University Press.
Pinker, S. (1994). Language instinct. W. Morrow and Co.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the
English language. Longman.
Sinclair, C. (2010). Grammar: A friendly approach (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Smithers, R. W., & Gray, J. W. (2020). Enhancing the quality of life in lifelong learners: The
influence of a meaning-order approach to pedagogical grammar on motivation and selfefficacy. Applied Linguistics Review, 11(1), 129–149.
Tajino, A. (2002). Transformation process models: A systemic approach to problematic team-

29

田地野

彰

teaching situations. Prospect, 17, 29–44.
Tajino, A. (Ed.). (2018). A new approach to English pedagogical grammar: The order of meanings.
Routledge.
Tajino, A. (Ed.). (2019). A systems approach to language pedagogy. Springer Nature.
Tajino, A., James, R., & Kijima, K. (2005). Beyond needs analysis: Soft systems methodology formeaningful collaboration in EAP course design. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
4, 27–42.
Yamada, H. (2019). Applications of a meaning-order approach to pedagogical grammar to English
education in Japan: Toward the collaboration of English and Japanese education. JAAL-inJACET Proceedings, 1, 1–7.

30

JACET Kansai Journal, 25, 31–39. (2023) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

Why We Do Language Education Research:
Reflecting on Academic and Social Values
Ema Ushioda
University of Warwick
Abstract
In this short reflective piece, I explore the fundamental question of why we dolanguage education research. With close reference to my own subfield of inquiry(motivation) within language education research, I highlight the academic values
and purposes that shape our work, and I develop the case that we should give
more priority to the social values and purposes that our research should have. I
discuss what taking a more socially responsive approach to researching language
education may entail in terms of how we frame our research questions and ourrelationships with the people involved in our research.
Keywords： academic and social values, research relationships
1. Introduction
I am pleased and honoured to have been invited to contribute to this special
issue marking the 50th anniversary of JACET Kansai, as the chosen themes ofthis commemorative issue resonate strongly with my own thinking about language
education research. In this short reflective piece, I will focus on the key thematicquestion of why we do language education research and critically explore thevalues and purposes underpinning our research. Specifically, I will develop thecase that we as language education researchers need to be more mindful of thesocial values and purposes that our research should have and indeed prioritize,
beyond its academic values and purposes. I will develop these reflections inrelation to language education research in general, but will reference in particular
the subfield of research on motivation in language education. This is because itis the subfield with which I am most familiar, having specialized in language
motivation research for the past thirty years. My reflections in this paper build
on ideas from a book I have published in which I propose a more socially
responsive ethical agenda for research on language learning motivation (Ushioda,2020).
2. Values and Purposes of Our Research
All of us who engage in language education research would no doubt regard
our research as having an applied orientation, in the sense of producing
knowledge that can be applied to informing and enhancing language education
131

Ema, Ushioda

practice and policy within our local or national contexts or even beyond thesecontexts. In the Japanese educational context, this applied principle isfundamental to JACET, which “conducts research on theories and practices ofEnglish language education and related areas and aims to contribute to theimprovement, progress, and development of college English education” (Japan
Association of College English Teachers).
Typically, the potential applications of our research are framed in terms ofpractical implications or recommendations for teachers, educators or policymakers, and we usually summarize these at the end of our empirical papers, after
we have presented and discussed our findings. However, distilling a set of
implications for policy or practice from our research does not necessarily meanthat our research is designed primarily with such practical objectives in mind.
More usually, our research aims primarily to contribute to the general body ofacademic scholarship with a view to shaping knowledge, theory development andunderstanding within our field of inquiry, and we seek to achieve this aim bydisseminating our work among the scholarly community through academic
publications and conferences.
Within my own subfield of research on motivation in language learning, forexample, the aim of developing, validating, expanding and refining ourtheoretical accounts of motivation to strengthen their explanatory power has long
been a consistent driving force. The evolution of language learning motivation
research over several decades has been characterized by the increasing
diversification of theoretical frameworks, beyond the original dominance of asingle explanatory model—i.e., Gardner’s (1985) socio-educational model. This
theoretical diversification has been largely shaped by the changing global
linguistic landscape in the 21st century where English has assumed hypercentral
status (De Swaan, 2001) as the most widely spoken second language; and where
linguistic borders have steadily eroded through complex flows of people,
communication and information in today’s world of mobility, migration, digitaltechnologies and virtual environments. This changing global linguistic landscapehas clearly impacted on language education policy and practice, and on the
motivation to learn English as well as other languages (Ushioda, 2017), and hence
we have sought to develop and refine our theoretical accounts of motivation toensure greater explanatory power in contemporary contexts of language education.
It is on the basis of these theoretical models and their empirical validation invarious language learning contexts that we then seek to distil relevant practical
implications, such as recommendations for using certain types of pedagogicalstrategies to support students’ motivation in the classroom.
In essence, the research we do in language education is necessarily shapedby academic values and purposes in terms of the quality and rigour of our research232Why We Do Language Education Research: Reﬂecting on Academic and Social Values

and the significance of the contribution we make to scholarship and knowledge
development in our field. Our research is also underpinned by social values andpurposes in terms of its meaningfulness and relevance for target stakeholders suchas teachers and students, and the guidance we can give to enhancing theirpractices and experiences. However, as my preceding discussion of motivation
research illustrates, these twin values and purposes are not evenly balanced but
tend to be positioned in a hierarchical relationship. Within this hierarchy,
academic values and purposes generally take priority, since it is on the basis of
its academic quality, rigour and significance that our research is evaluated. This
raises an ethical question about why we do language education research, if it is
not primarily for the purpose of benefiting the people who are engaged in teaching
and learning languages. In the next section, I will critically explore this ethicalquestion, with particular reference again to my own subfield of motivation
research.
3. Systems-Based Versus Person-Focused Approaches to Language
Education Research
At the heart of this ethical question about the priorities driving our research
is a fundamental concern that, as language education researchers, we are perhaps
more interested in abstract theoretical constructs, systems and processes than weare interested in students, teachers and their social realities. Of course, ourresearch interest in theoretical perspectives makes sense, since our purpose is toanalyse phenomena, such as language learning processes and the internal andexternal factors affecting these, and to develop robust theoretical explanations
that can be empirically validated in a particular educational setting andgeneralized across other contexts, or at least find resonance and applicability inother contexts. However, this implies that our interest in the actual educationalsettings where we locate our research may be somewhat superficial and possibly
even somewhat expedient. In effect, we negotiate access to certain schools andclassrooms because they can usefully serve our data collection purposes orprovide a suitable context for empirically examining our theorizations, and notnecessarily because we are intrinsically interested in these specific teaching andlearning communities in themselves. In other words, our research tends to take a“systems-based” rather than “person-focused” approach, where the emphasis ison theorizing systems and processes rather than on addressing people’s actual
local needs and priorities.
3.1 Systems-Based Approaches to Motivation ResearchWith reference again to my own subfield of motivation research, it was oneof its chief proponents, Dörnyei (1994), who first drew attention to our333

Ema, Ushioda

overwhelming preoccupation with “motivation” as an abstract theoreticalconstruct or system, in contrast to our limited focus on “motivating” or on what
language teachers try to do in the classroom. Dörnyei must certainly be credited
for his significant efforts to make motivation research more relevant to the needs
and practices of language teachers, which he sought to achieve mainly bytranslating abstract theory and research into pedagogical principles for teachers
through various professional development texts (e.g., Dörnyei, 2001; Dörnyei etal., 2016; Dörnyei & Kubanyiova, 2014).
Yet, over the thirty years since Dörnyei drew attention to this distinction
between “motivation” as a theoretical system and “motivating” as pedagogicalpractice, it seems that systems-based approaches to researching and theorizing
language learning motivation have continued to dominate. In the most recent
decade, for example, this emphasis has been illustrated in the shift from linear
models of motivation to the adoption of complex and dynamics systems (CDST)
approaches to theorizing and investigating motivation (e.g., Dörnyei et al., 2015),
in alignment with the development of complexity thinking perspectives acrossapplied linguistics more generally (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). Taking a
CDST approach can help capture the complex ecology of how processes ofmotivation may evolve in organic interaction with the social environment.
However, Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008) have themselves acknowledged
the challenge of accommodating individual agency and intentionality withincomplex systems analyses of human behaviour, since such analyses tend toassume a high level of abstraction. As a consequence, when we read CDST
accounts of language learning motivation, we often find that there can be a
distancing or dehumanizing effect whereby the focus is on self-organizing
motivational systems, interacting components and processes, rather than on actual
people and their lived experience, individuality and behaviour (for an excellent
critical discussion on humanizing complexity research in TESOL, see Pinner &Sampson, 2022).
Our continuing emphasis on systems-based rather than person-focused
approaches to motivation has also been illustrated in recent expansions of ourtheoretical frameworks to take account of the learning of additional or multiple
languages rather than just a single L2. Such expansions have partly been in
response to the “multilingual turn” (May, 2014; Ortega, 2013) in language
education research that highlights recognition of multilingualism as thenormative reality in many 21st century societies. This theoretical expansion has
given rise, for example, to concepts of an ideal multilingual self or a multilingual
ideal (Henry, 2017; Nakamura, 2019), in parallel with Dörnyei’s (2009) original
concept of an ideal L2 self. It has also given rise to analyses of motivational
interactions and interferences among the various languages being learnt (e.g.,434Why We Do Language Education Research: Reﬂecting on Academic and Social Values

Thompson, 2013; Thompson & Erdil-Moody, 2014). In essence, our emphasis here
is on refining our theorizations to integrate motivational sub-systems for different
languages and the interactions among these, which reflects our core theoreticalinterest in motivation as a psychological construct or system. However, as I havediscussed elsewhere (Ushioda, 2020), motivation research tends not to engage
with the more critical sociological aspects of the multilingual turn, and to
examine contemporary contexts of multilingualism and their impact on the
motivational choices, challenges and constraints that people learning andteaching languages experience.
3.2 Reflecting on Our Priorities
While my critical reflections have concentrated on my own subfield of
motivation research, the ethical question about the theoretical (rather than socialand pedagogical) priorities driving our work would certainly seem to apply moregenerally across the field of language education research. In fact, according toOrtega (2018), the subdomain of motivation research within the field of instructed
SLA is one where the links to classroom practice are more fully developed thanin other subdomains. The general lack of connection between academic researchand classroom practice is a criticism that has been commonly voiced (e.g., Sato
& Loewen, 2018; Spada, 2015) in recent years, and should prompt us to reflect
carefully on where our priorities really lie in language education research. For
her part, Ortega (2005) has cogently argued for a transformative ethical lens thatinterrogates our reasons and purposes when we engage in research on language
learning and teaching, and that evaluates this research in terms of its social utility
for relevant communities of teachers and learners. With this in mind, in the next
section I will reflect on what taking a more socially oriented person-focused
approach to language education research would entail.
4. Towards a Person-Focused Approach to Language Education Research
In my view, making our research socially relevant to the educational
communities where we locate our inquiry is more than a matter of distilling
general principles for practice from our theoretical and research insights. If wewish to take a person-focused rather than systems-based approach to language
education research, we will want to focus on people and their social realities,
rather than on abstract theoretical systems we construct within which these people
and social realities become reduced to depersonalized and generalized elements.
Moreover, we will want to shape our research to address the situated needs,
questions and priorities of teachers, learners or other relevant stakeholders inthese communities, instead of framing the research in terms of our own theoreticalquestions and priorities. This is a simple but highly significant point that Larsen535

Ema, Ushioda

Freeman (2015) has emphasized. In practical terms, this is likely to entail aprocess of groundwork where we engage directly with the communities concernedin order to understand their perspectives and the issues that matter to them. We
can then design our research in a socially responsive manner to explore theseissues, provide analytical insights, guide pedagogical experimentation, enhancepractice and quality of experience, or bring about positive change and action.
Among other things, taking such an approach to designing our research has
important implications for (a) how we frame our research questions, and (b) how
we manage our relationships with the communities involved in our research.
4.1 Framing Our Research Questions
If we want to maintain our focus on people and their social realities, it
seems important to consider framing our research questions in terms of people
and their perspectives, behaviours and experiences, rather than in terms oftheoretical constructs, variables and their relationships. Thus, for example,
instead of asking “how does motivation (or anxiety, self-efficacy, aptitude, etc.)
relate to oral performance in class?”, we might ask “what kinds of motivation do
students bring to speaking activities in class?” or “how do teachers motivate
students to participate in speaking activities?” In other words, teachers andstudents are thematized or assigned to agent or patient roles in the semantic
formulation of our research questions. This helps to ensure that we sustain aholistic perspective on people and what they do and how they perceive andrespond to experience in their local social realities; and that we attribute agency
and intentionality to these people rather than to abstract depersonalized systems
and variables which can assume a theoretical life of their own in some accountsof classroom research.
4.2 Managing Our Research Relationships
Importantly too, if our research aims to address people’s situated needs andpriorities, the nature of their role and positioning within our research takes on asomewhat different dimension from the traditional positioning of research
participants as data providers or as subjects or objects of inquiry. After all, thecore members of this teaching and learning community who are involved in our
research will have a vested interest in the processes and outcomes of the research,
and an instrumental role in shaping these processes and outcomes. This meansthat our relationship with the key individuals involved in our research needs tobe collaborative, defined by a shared set of objectives. From our perspective as
researchers, this will entail thinking carefully about power relationships and how
these are likely to affect the way teachers and students engage with us and how
we engage with them. Fundamentally, it seems important that our research
636Why We Do Language Education Research: Reﬂecting on Academic and Social Values

relationships emphasize mutual respect and interdependence, based on the nonhierarchical principle that researchers, teachers and their students each bringdifferent forms of knowledge and experience which are valuable to the overall
research enterprise.
4.3 The Value of Practitioner Research
So far I have framed my reflections in terms of our relationship as
researchers with the teaching and learning communities we research. In addition,of course, there is a strong place for practitioner research in this kind of personfocused approach to exploring locally relevant priorities and concerns. After all,teachers are ideally situated to identify the issues that matter to them in theirpractice, to engage directly with their students to understand their perspectives,
and to pursue various forms of practitioner inquiry and pedagogicalexperimentation to bring about positive change or enhance the quality of life intheir classrooms. As Consoli and Dikilitaş (2021) have highlighted in theirintroduction to a special issue of Educational Action Research, there is now anincreasing emphasis on promoting practitioner research across the field of
language education. This is reflected, for example, in a growing volume ofprofessional development texts providing guidance to teachers on various forms
of practitioner inquiry such as action research (e.g., Burns, 2010) and exploratory
practice (e.g., Hanks, 2017). In this connection, it is excellent to see that the
JACET Kansai Journal has similarly been promoting practitioner research andopening up a space for disseminating such work, as highlighted in its Volume 23
published in March 2021.
5. Concluding Remarks
I began my reflections by briefly referencing JACET’s core principles ofcontributing to society and shaping the enhancement of college English educationin Japan. Through my critical discussion of how these social purposes and values
do not always take centre stage in our academic research, I have sought to raiseawareness of how we can make our research more socially responsive to thesituated needs and priorities of teaching and learning communities. Ultimately,
this is surely why we do language education research.
References
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guidefor practitioners. Routledge.
Consoli, S., & Dikilitaş, K. (2021). Research engagement in language education.
Educational Action Research, 29(3), 347–357.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2021.1933860
7
37

Ema, Ushioda

De Swaan, A. (2001). Words of the world: The global language system. Polity
Press and Blackwell.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom.
Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.2307/330107
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom.
Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda(Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42).
Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z., Henry, A., & Muir, C. (2016). Motivational currents in language
learning: Frameworks for focused interventions. Routledge.
Dörnyei, Z., & Kubanyiova, M. (2014). Motivating learners, motivating teachers:
Building vision in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. D., & Henry, A. (Eds.). (2015). Motivational dynamics
in language learning. Multilingual Matters.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The roleof attitudes and motivation. Edward Arnold.
Hanks, J. (2017). Exploratory practice in language teaching: Puzzling aboutprinciples and practices. Palgrave Macmillan .
Henry, A. (2017). L2 motivation and multilingual identities. Modern Language
Journal, 101(3), 548–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12412
Japan Association of College English Teachers. (n.d.). JACET Principles.
https://www.jacet.org/about_jacet/jacet-principles/
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Research into practice: Grammar teaching andlearning. Language Teaching, 28(2), 263–280.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000408
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied
linguistics. Oxford University Press.
May, S. (Ed.). (2014). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, andbilingual education. Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Nakamura, T. (2019). Language acquisition and the multilingual ideal: Exploring
Japanese language learning motivation. Bloomsbury Academic.
Ortega, L. (2005). For what and for whom is our research? The ethical astransformative lens in instructed SLA. Modern Language Journal, 89(3),427–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00315.x
Ortega, L. (2013). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress,
transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning,
63(Supplement 2013), 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00735.x
Ortega, L. (2018, April 10–13). What is SLA research good for anyway? [Plenary
838

Why We Do Language Education Research: Reﬂecting on Academic and Social Values

presesntation]. The 52nd international conference of the International
Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language, Brighton,
England .
Pinner, R. S., & Sampson, R. J. (2022). Humanizing TESOL research through thelens of complexity thinking. TESOL Quarterly, 55(2), 633–642.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.604
Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2018). Do teachers care about research? The researchpedagogy dialogue. ELT Journal, 73(1), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy048
Spada, N. (2015). SLA research and L2 pedagogy: Misapplications and questionsof relevance. Language Teaching, 48(1), 69–81.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144481200050X
Thompson, A. S. (2013). The interface of language aptitude and multilingualism:
Reconsidering the bilingual/multilingual dichotomy. Modern Language
Journal, 97(3), 685–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12034.x
Thompson, A. S., & Erdil-Moody, Z. (2014). Operationalizing multilingualism:
Language learning motivation in Turkey. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 19(3), 314–331.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.985631
Ushioda, E. (2017). The impact of global English on motivation to learn otherlanguages: Towards an ideal multilingual self. Modern Language Journal,
101(3), 469–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12413
Ushioda, E. (2020). Language learning motivation: An ethical agenda forresearch. Oxford University Press.

939

Part II

JACET Kansai Journal, 25, 41–60. (2023) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

A Longitudinal Study on L2 Reading Among Japanese University
Students:
The Effects on Metacognitive Process in Self-Regulated
Learning
UENO Yuko
Graduate School, Doshisha Women’s College of Liberal Arts

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to explore the metacognitive process in L2 reading.
Seventy-five university students enrolled in a study abroad program participatedin this study. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, a longitudinal study was
conducted to measure metacognition from multiple perspectives. The study in
the Intensive Reading Class investigated the impact on how learners selfmonitor the reading process and control learning. For quantitative data, aquestionnaire about metacognitive reading strategies was conducted in the
Spring term and the Fall term, and factor analyses were performed to see thechanges in the reading process through SPSS.28.0. As for qualitative data,
students’ reflective comments were analyzed using NVivo.12.0. to see how thestudents self-monitor their reading process. Interviews were carried out with 17
students to see how they coordinated their learning process. The results showedthat the students had acquired more effective reading strategies, which led tohigher scores on TOEFL iBT at the post-test stage. The study indicates thatstudents who can coordinate both self-monitor and control learning improved
significantly their English reading ability. This implies that the metacognitive
process in self-regulated learning could be an important factor in L2 reading.
Keywords： metacognition, academic reading, self-regulated learning,longitudinal study, mixed methods
1. Introduction
Grabe (2009, p. 15) defines reading as an interaction between a reader anda writer. Comprehension occurs when the reader extracts and integrates various
information from the text and combines it with what is already known (Koda,
2005, p. 4). In university education, it is important to cultivate academic
reading ability because reading comprehension is a critical skill for getting themost out of lectures and carrying out research. Therefore, university students
are required to improve their academic reading skills.

141

UENO, Yuko

1.1 Metacognition in Reading
Metacognition is generally defined as thinking about thinking and plays animportant role in reading. Flavell (1979; 1987) identifies metacognition as
metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. Metacognition works asa cyclical process, while metacognitive knowledge and regulation interact witheach other. It is necessary to coordinate the metacognitive process to achieve
the goals of learning. Figure 1 illustrates the mechanism of the metacognitive
process in reading.
Figure 1
Mechanism of metacognitive process in reading

Metacognition
Awareness of Reading
Metacognitive Knowledge

self

task

Cyclical Process(Interact each other)strategies

Management of Reading
Metacognitive Regulation

monitoring

control(An example)(self)My reading speed is slow.

(task)If I enrich my vocabulary, it will be faster to read a text.

(strategies)

It is necessary to write and memorize for vocabulary acquisition.

(monitoring) There were many unknown words in the text.
I need to increase my amount of linguistic knowledge.
(control)I will guess the meaning of unknown words from context when reading.
I will not only write but also listen to 20 words every day.

Note. Figure 1, after the Classification of Metacognition devised by Sannomiya (2021, p.15).

Metacognition in reading involves thinking about the reading process.
Akita (2008) explained that metacognitive knowledge in reading is theknowledge about cognition that consists of three categories: self, task, andstrategies. Thus, metacognitive knowledge involves awareness of one’s reading.
On the other hand, metacognitive regulation is the ability to manage one’s
reading process. It can be classified into metacognitive monitoring and control.
Metacognitive monitoring in reading represents cognitive processing activities
such as noticing, checking, or evaluating one’s reading process. That means
242

A Longitudinal Study on L2 Reading Among Japanese University Students:
The Eﬀects on Metacognitive Process in Self-Regulated Learninglearners ask themselves about the effective strategies or the necessary skills fortheir reading. Therefore, metacognitive monitoring could be interpreted as areflection on the reading process. On the other hand, metacognitive control inreading works after monitoring. It represents cognitive processing activities
such as revising goals, plans, and strategies. In addition, metacognitive
regulation can be divided into pre-, during-, and post-stages. Metacognitive
monitoring and control may operate at each stage (Sannomiya, 2008; 2021).
It is considered that the metacognitive process might work not only whenreading a text but also when coordinating the learning process actively. For
instance, some learners are aware that vocabulary is important when reading atext. They noticed their lack of vocabulary by monitoring the reading process.
After the monitoring, they memorized 20 words every day for self-study. Such a
metacognitive process that coordinates the learning process is embodied in selfregulated learning.
1.2 Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning
Ito (2013) stressed that metacognition plays a core role in self-regulated
learning. It is a learning style in which learners reflect on their learning
process and try to achieve their own goal of learning actively. Self-regulated
learners plan, set goals, organize, self-monitor, and self-evaluate at various
points during the process of acquisition (Zimmerman, 1986).
A common concept of self-regulated learning has emerged through thenotion of active participants who are “metacognitively, motivationally, andbehaviorally active in their learning” (Zimmerman, 1990, p. 4). In addition to
the metacognitive process, other processes such as motivation and behavior may
be involved in the learning cycle. Therefore, self-regulated learning would help
learners achieve the goal through that cycle. It can be stated that metacognitive
regulation has a great influence on the management of one’s learning cycle.
1.3 Metacognition and Linguistic Knowledge in L2 Reading
Researchers emphasize the importance of linguistic knowledge such as
vocabulary or grammar knowledge in L2 reading. Hamid et al. (2020) suggested
that grammatical and vocabulary knowledge influenced learners’ reading
comprehension. Zhang (2012) examined the contribution of vocabulary andgrammatical knowledge to L2 reading comprehension. The study found thatvocabulary knowledge related significantly to reading comprehension more thangrammatical knowledge. In addition, it showed that size and depth ofvocabulary are related to reading comprehension. Akbari (2014) mentioned thatknowledge of structure was regarded as having less to do with comprehending atext but rather was more concerned with levels of other components such as
343

UENO, Yuko

vocabulary, background knowledge, and reading strategies; however, Akbari
stressed the role of grammar in L2 reading and the importance of structural
knowledge. Grabe (2009) highlighted that vocabulary and syntactic knowledge
are crucial components of FL reading comprehension. Kremmel et al. (2017)
explored the role of phraseological knowledge in contributing significantly toforeign language reading performance. From the above, although the previous
studies found that linguistic knowledge such as grammar and vocabulary make asignificant contribution to L2 reading, they did not mention the relationshipbetween linguistic knowledge and metacognition in L2 reading. In other words,
they have not discussed how learners worked metacognitive regulation:
monitoring and control, and how they acquired linguistic knowledge that isnecessary for reading comprehension. To be more precise, learners reflect on
their reading process and understand their situations. After monitoring, they
control their learning such as how they acquire vocabulary knowledge. Thus,
the metacognitive process might function to increase the amount of linguisticknowledge, which is involved in self-regulated learning. Learners should not
only reflect on the importance of linguistic knowledge but also control theirlearning to increase the amount of vocabulary and grammatical knowledge.
Hence, it could be considered that the metacognitive process in self-regulated
learning that coordinates the learning process is essential for reading
comprehension.
Although previous studies show that there is a weak relationship between
metacognition and L2 reading (e.g., Jeon & Yamashita, 2014; Kimura, 1999;
Mori, 2020), these studies have not investigated how learners coordinated themetacognitive process. In short, the studies have not conducted an integrated
investigation from both perspectives of metacognitive monitoring and control. It
might be said that metacognition is a mental process; therefore, a longitudinal
study combining qualitative and quantitative studies is necessary to collect
more precise data. Metacognition includes the ability to reflect on, understand,and control one’s learning (Schraw & Dennison, 1994). It means that onlyreflection on the reading process might be inappropriate to investigate
metacognition. It can be said that it is significant to use multiple ways tomeasure metacognition from wide perspectives. Hence, this paper focuses on
metacognitive regulation: metacognitive monitoring and control in L2 reading.
The study investigates how university students reflect on their way of readingand how they coordinate their learning process to increase the amount of
linguistic knowledge or what they do to acquire academic reading skills. The
study aims at suggesting what factors are causing progressive changes inEnglish reading ability.

444

A Longitudinal Study on L2 Reading Among Japanese University Students:
The Eﬀects on Metacognitive Process in Self-Regulated Learning

Research Questions
1. How do university students monitor and change their way of reading
including their English reading ability?
2. Is the metacognitive process in self-regulated learning related to English
reading ability?
2. Methodology
2.1 Participants
The participants were 75 first-year university students in the Kansai areaof Japan. Their department included the program of study abroad for about ayear, from the Fall semester of the second year to the Spring semester of thethird year. Therefore, they took some specific classes that are necessary tobolster the four academic English skills, listening, reading, speaking, andwriting. Within 10 months of entering university, they were required to gethigher scores on TOEFL iBT.
2.2 Class Design
The study was administered in the Intensive Reading Class I / II from2020 to 2021. The class consisted of 45-minute lessons, twice a week, 30 weeks
a year. An instructor guided students in developing reading strategies foracademic reading to achieve the goals. I observed the class as a teachingassistant for a year.
One of the goals of the department to which the participants belonged wasto acquire academic reading skills and cultivate reading ability during the four
years of university including study abroad. Therefore, the instructor set thefollowing six course objectives in the class: 1) to become autonomous readers
and read text critically, 2) to gain reading strategies, 3) to increase and utilize
vocabulary, and to guess the meaning of a word or phrase from the context, 4)
to improve grammatical knowledge and understand structures in the passage, 5)
to understand the construction of academic paragraphs and discourse, and 6) toobtain and improve academic reading skills.
The instructor used online teaching materials, articles from English
newspapers, and the textbook of TOEFL iBT. Before class, students wererequired to read some materials and finish the worksheets. The average out-ofclass learning time took about 90 minutes a week. During class, they took a
vocabulary quiz, read new materials, checked the answers with partners, anddiscussed topics with them. At the end of each class, they reflected on theirreading for a few minutes. This facilitates self-monitoring enabling the students
to develop their reading skills and deepen their understanding of the reading
topics. The instructor checked the worksheets and made comments on them.
545

UENO, Yuko

2.3 Materials
The following four materials were used: TOEFL iBT scores, aquestionnaire on metacognitive reading strategy use, an open-ended reflective
comment, and an interview. For Research Question 1, two types ofquestionnaires were administered to see how the students self-monitor theirreading process in the Spring term and the Fall term. One of the questionnairesconsisted of 27 items, which were statements about what people did when theyread academic texts. It was a self-report measure scored on a five-point Likert
scale, ranging from five points (strongly agree) to one point (strongly disagree).
It contained three reading stages: pre-reading (3 items), during-reading (17items), and post-reading (7 items). In designing the questionnaire, I referenced
the metacognitive reading strategy items used by some researchers (Carrell,
1989; Grabe & Stoller, 2013; Ikeda & Takeuchi, 2003; Karbalaei, 2010;
Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002) and combined the strategies taught in the class (seeAppendix). The other was an open-ended questionnaire. The question asked“Remember the texts you read in this reading class during the Spring (Fall) term.
How did you read the texts? Reflect on your reading process.” As a pilot study,
five colleagues took the questionnaire to ensure the reliability and flow ofquestions. There was no need for revision. However, it took more time to fill inthe questionnaire than I had expected. Therefore, the investigation time was set
for 15 minutes.
For Research Question 2, interviews were carried out with 17 students
chosen randomly to see how they regulated metacognitive monitoring andcontrol. The questions in the interview were as follows; “How did you read thetexts and change the way of reading?” and “How did you increase linguisticknowledge or what did you do actively except for homework?” I used scoresfrom the TOEFL iBT taken at the end of the Spring term (pre-test) and the Fall
term (post-test) to see if there were differences between them.
2.4 ProceduresThis longitudinal study was carried out for about a year and a half. The
participants took the TOEFL iBT in June 2020 (pre-test) and in December 2020
or January 2021 (post-test). Due to COVID-19, the Spring term was conducted
via online classes. Therefore, the surveys were administered at the beginningand the end of the Fall term in person. I visited the classes to obtain theparticipants’ consent and to explain the procedure of the questionnaire. It took
about 15 minutes to complete it. Regarding the interviews, I contacted eachparticipant individually by e-mail before studying abroad and conducted themfrom July to September 2021.

646

A Longitudinal Study on L2 Reading Among Japanese University Students:
The Eﬀects on Metacognitive Process in Self-Regulated Learning

2.5 Data Analysis
For Research Question 1, a paired-samples t-test was employed to examine
if there is a difference between the pre-test and the post-test of TOEFL iBT.
The questionnaires of reading strategies were analyzed by SPSS. 28.0. First, thereliabilities of the questionnaire were calculated. Second, factor analyses were
performed with a maximum likelihood method with varimax rotation.
Concerning the open-ended questionnaire, NVivo. 12.0 was used to categorize
their reflective comments on the reading process into three nodes: bottom-up
processing (e.g., read sentence by sentence), top-down processing (e.g.,skimming, making inferences), and others (e.g., take notes, read aloud).
For Research Question 2, the contents of the interview were recorded withthe consent of each student. After the interview, I summarized the students’changes in the reading process and the contents of their out-of-class learning.
The out-of-class learning in this study represents how students conducted selfstudy, not including homework. In addition, based on the concept of selfregulated learners by Zimmerman (1986), this study defines a self-regulated
learner as a learner who has set a clear goal and has a high motivation to
improve in English, which shows the learner who take control of their learning(e.g., I used a textbook every day; I memorized the vocabulary on the train
every day). Whereas a non-self-regulated learner is defined as a learner who is
not willing to improve their reading skills, which is an example of a learner who
does not take control of their learning (e.g., I did not do anything except for
homework; I did my homework, but I did not do anything else because I wasbusy). I divided the 17 students into two groups: self-regulated learners (Group
A: n = 11) and non-self-regulated learners (Group B: n = 6). To check whether
the grouping is appropriate, I first analyzed the interview data one by one anddiscussed the grouping with two colleagues, which proved the greater reliability.
Then, a paired-samples t-test of each group was employed to examine if there isa difference between the pre-test (Spring term) and the post-test (Fall term) of
TOEFL iBT respectively.
3. Results
3.1 Research Question 1
As shown in Table 1, there was a significant difference between the pretest and the post-test, which suggested that reading instruction contributed to
students’ English reading ability (t (74) = 2.79, p < .007, d = 0.32). However,
the effect size was relatively small and the score difference between the pre-test
and the post-test was only about two points. The result showed that there was
not a big difference.

747

UENO, Yuko

Table 1Means and Standard Deviations of TOEFL iBT Section Scores
Section (30)Pre-test (Spring Term)
Max MinM
SD

Post-test (Fall Term)
Max Min
M
SD

P

Cohen’s dReading

23

2

11.7

4.6

23

1

13.2

4.7

.007

0.32

Listening

20

1

11.9

4.2

23

1

13.4

4.2

.009

0.36

Speaking

22

7

13.5

2.8

22

1

14.6

3.1

.002

0.37

Writing

21

7

14.4

3.0

23

8

15.9

3.3

<.001

0.46

Note. N = 75.
For quantitative data, the same questionnaire was administered at the
beginning of the Fall term to examine the reading process used in the Spring
term. In conjunction with this, it was also administered at the end of the Fall
term to observe changes in the reading process. After collecting the data, thereliabilities of the instrument were examined by using Cronbach’s Alphareliability analysis (Spring term: α = .74; Fall term: α = .76). These provided an
acceptable coefficient ( Dancey & Reidy, 2020, p. 450), which shows thequestionnaire used in the study seem to be reliable. Then, I tried several factor
analyses by SPSS. 28.0. As a result, it produced four factors with eigenvalues
greater than 1.0 and factor loading (> |.40|) with varimax rotation. The reason
why I used the varimax rotation was that it was the most common way ofrotating ( Dancey & Reidy, 2020, p. 460) and the result of its rotation was
suitable to make interpretation of the factors.
Table 2 shows the number of factors after factor loading. The
questionnaire had 27 items in total. However, the 10 unclassified items (items 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, 20, 24) in the Spring term and the 8 unclassified items(items 1, 2, 5, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20) in the Fall term were eliminated because thesevalues of factor loading were lower. As shown in Table 2, the total
accumulation of the factors accounted for 36.2% (Spring term) and 39.4 % (Fallterm). Consequently, almost the same factors were extracted in both analyses.
The results revealed that there was not a big difference from extracted items,
though the orders of Factors 2 and 3 changed in the Fall term.
I labeled four factors as follows. Factor 1 was labeled “Interactive
Reading”, which consists of both bottom-up processing such as paying attention
to discourse markers (item 9) or sentence structure (item 7), and top-down
processing such as making inferences (items 6 and 8). Factor 2 in the Springterm and Factor 3 in the Fall term are the items that deepen the text
comprehension including the post-reading stages such as predicting the writer ’s
848

A Longitudinal Study on L2 Reading Among Japanese University Students:
The Eﬀects on Metacognitive Process in Self-Regulated Learning

intentions (item 19), critiquing the author (item 22), and thinking about myinterpretation deeply (item 23). I labeled it “Deeper Reading.” Factor 3 in the
Spring term and Factor 2 in the Fall term were named “Metacognitive Reading.”
All the extracted items were at the post-reading stage, which reflects on theirreading process such as judging how well purposes for reading were met (item26). I suppose that the element of bottom-up processing might be included in
Factor 4. For instance, “paying attention to the types of each verb (item 16),
sentence structure (item 7), or pronouns (item 14)”. Learners read ahead inorder to finding out major information or checking the types of each verb. It
could be interpreted as reading by sentences rather than grasping the meaning ofa text from the whole text. Hence, I named Factor 4 “Bottom-up Reading.” Insummary of the factor analyses, the students’ awareness of reading strategy use
would not change between the Spring term and the Fall term. It is consideredthat almost all students had acquired some strategies in the Spring term.
Table 2
Results From Factor Analyses at Spring Term and Fall Term
Spring Term

Fall Term

Factors

Items

V (%) Cronbach’s α

Factors

Items

V (%) Cronbach’s αF1(IR)

6,7,8,
9,10

11.3

.79

F1(IR)

3,4,6,8,
10,11,24,25

13.8

.86

F2(DR)

13,18,19,
22,23,27

10.3

.80

F2(MR)

26,27

8.7

.70

F3(MR)

21,25,26

7.8.69

F3(DR)

17,19,21,
22,23

8.5

.74

F4(BR)

15,16,17

6.8.68

F4(BR)

7,13,14,16

8.4

.74

Total

17

36.2

.74

Total

19

39.4

.76

Note. IR = Interactive Reading; DR = Deeper Reading; MR = Metacognitive Reading; BR= Bottom-up Reading, V (%) = Variance (%).

For qualitative data, Table 3 illustrates the results of their reading processby NVivo.12.0. In the Spring term, students made reflective comments on both
top-down (50%) and bottom-up processing (48.2%). In the Fall term, top-down
processing (65.2%) was seen the most; bottom-up processing produced only
seven comments (7.4%), which is “paying attention to sentence structure.”

949

UENO, Yuko

Table 3
Reading Process at Spring Term and Fall Term by NVivo.12.0.
CodingName

ExamplesBottom-up

Read sentence by sentence, Pay attention tosentence structure

Top-down

Skimming, Making inferences, Readparagraph, Predict from the heading

Otherseach

Read aloud, Take notes, Start reading after
confirming the questions, Never give up

Spring Term
N of
%
C

Fall Term
N of
%
C

56

50

7

7.4

54

48.2

62

65.2

2

1.8

26

27.4

112

100

95

100

Note. N = 75, N of C = the number of comments.

The result indicated that it is important for the students to acquire topdown processing in academic reading. In addition, other strategies such as“reading aloud” and “taking notes” were produced. It implied that each student
might find and use more effective reading strategies.
Concerning the interview data, all the students changed their way ofreading effectively by reading instruction throughout the class. For example,
Student A-5: “In the Spring term, I translated each sentence into Japanese. I wasable to answer the questions because I learned how to paraphrase in the Fallterm.” Student A-3: “I read sentence by sentence. In the Fall term, the teacher
explained how to read a text. I could read focusing on paragraphs, topic
sentences, and sentence structure. The way of reading changed gradually, andthe reading speed got fast.” In addition, not all of the students changed frombottom-up processing to top-down processing. For instance, Student A-1: “Iread roughly in the Spring term. Then I could gist the whole meaning of a text
and its features by paying attention to each paragraph. In the Fall term, I
focused on sentence structure.” Student B-3: “I read each paragraph in the
Spring term. I guessed the content from the title in the Fall term.”
In summary, the results suggested that reading instruction influenced thestudents’ awareness, which led to higher reading scores on TOEFL iBT. The
result of the factor analyses indicated that the students had acquired somereading strategies both bottom-up and top-down processing in the Spring term.
Then, the reflective comments analyzed by NVivo. 12.0. revealed that theyacquired more effective reading strategies by individuals in the Fall term.
Moreover, the contents of the interview showed that the students chose theirappropriate reading strategies and utilized them. The qualitative results impliedthat their metacognitive process operated when reading an academic text.

1050

A Longitudinal Study on L2 Reading Among Japanese University Students:
The Eﬀects on Metacognitive Process in Self-Regulated Learning

3.2 Research Question 2
Table 4 displays the result of TOEFL iBT divided by Groups A and B. As
shown in the result, there was a significant difference between the pre-test andthe post-test of Group A, which suggested that students who controlled learningtended to improve their English reading ability (Reading Score: t (10) = 5.44, p< .001, d = 1.49; Total Score: t (10) = 7.82, p < .001, d = 1.53).
Table 4Means and Standard Deviations of TOEFL iBT Divided by Groups A and B
Reading Section (30)G

Pre-test
M
SD

Post-test
M
SD

A

10.3

4.34

16.1

B

13.7

6.38

12.5

Total (120)Pre-test
M
SD

Post-test
M
SD

p

d

1.49

49

9.11

63.2

9.40

<.001

1.53

0.24

56.5

14.4

50.8

13.5

.230

0.41

p

d

3.37

<.001

4.18

.493

Note. G = Group, A = self-regulated learners (n = 11); B = non-self-regulated learners(n = 6), Pre-test = Spring term; Post-test = Fall term, d = Cohen’s d.

The students in Group A (self-regulated learners) who continuously
engaged in conducting self-study improved significantly not only their readingscores but also their total scores in the post-test. It is considered that their
metacognitive process operated successfully. On the other hand, there was not asignificant difference in Group B (non-self-regulated learners). In the pre-test,
the students in Group B achieved higher scores than those in Group A. It
indicated that their English proficiency in Group B had been higher than thoseof Group A at the pre-test stage. It could be interpreted that the students inGroup B had acquired more vocabulary or grammatical knowledge than those inGroup A. However, the non-self-regulated learners in Group B decreased theirscores at the post-test stage. It implied that they did not coordinate themetacognitive process to improve their reading skills. The result indicates thatthe metacognitive process in self-regulated learning could be an importantfactor in English reading ability.
Table 5 displays the reading scores of TOEFL iBT in the pre-test and thepost-test of Group B (non-self-regulated learners). From the interview, thestudents in Group B (n = 6) reflected on their necessary reading skills as
follows: increase the amount of vocabulary (B-1, B-2, B-3, B-5); read a text fast
(B-4, B-6); acquire structural knowledge or syntax knowledge (B-1, B-5).
However, all of them did not conduct self-study. This indicated that thestudents’ metacognitive control did not operate after monitoring. Accordingly,
their scores did not raise significantly. Meanwhile, the two students (B-1, B-2)
1151

UENO, Yuko

increased their scores in the post-test. The result from research question 1
showed that the students improved their reading scores of TOEFL iBT
significantly at the post-test stage. It suggests that homework and instruction inclass might contribute to enhancing their English reading ability to a certain
degree.
Table 5
Reading Scores of TOEFL iBT of Group B
Non-self-regulated learners
Pre-test
Post-test
B-1
11
14
B-2
9
11
B-3
14
13
B-4
6
5
B-5
19
17
B-6
23
15
Note. reading section (30), Pre-test = Spring term; Post-test = Fall term.

The following two students (B-5, B-6) reflected on their reading during
the interview. They understood themselves and self-monitored their reading;however, they did not control learning. Student B-5, the non-self-regulated
learner had decreased scores (reading scores: 19 to 17 points; total scores: 63 to
52 points). It is considered that Student B-5 did not work on the metacognitive
control. Therefore, that student was not successful in raising the scores on
TOEFL iBT at the post-test stage. They reflected on their learning process andexpressed their state of mind. Their conversation was spoken in Japanese, which
I them translated into English.
An interviewer: How did you increase linguistic knowledge or what did you do
actively except for homework?
Student B-5: I have been burned out with the university entrance exam, so I have notstudied English hard since entering the university. I asked myself to dosomething, but in the end, I did not do anything except for homework.
Recently, I cannot concentrate even when reading, the vocabulary of
TOEFL is difficult, and I cannot read and understand the syntax ofcomplicated sentences, then I give up reading. I need to review what I
learned in high school, but I do not know how to do it by myself.

Student B-6 is a non-self-regulated learner who decreased scores at the
post-test stage (reading scores: 23 to 15 points; total scores: 76 to 59 points).
Their reading score was the highest at the pre-test stage of all students.
1252

A Longitudinal Study on L2 Reading Among Japanese University Students:
The Eﬀects on Metacognitive Process in Self-Regulated Learning

However, their motivation to improve in English was not higher than in highschool. That student reflected on their reading including their experience fromhigh school.
Student B-6: I had nothing for reading skills. I was good at reading. In high school, I
focused on reading long texts fast and comprehending the texts foruniversity entrance exams. I think my reading speed got faster naturally
because I read a lot of academic texts.

The reading scores on TOEFL iBT were both (B-5, B-6) high in the pretest. I surmise that they had already acquired some reading skills because theystudied English in high school very hard. However, they did not conduct selfstudy for reading skills after entering the university, which affected the posttest. This indicates that it is necessary to coordinate not only the metacognitive
process that monitors reading but also the process that controls learning.
Table 6
Reading Scores of TOEFL iBT and Contents of Self-Study of Group A
Selfregulated
learners

Contents of self-study

PretestPosttest

A-1

I used a textbook every day.
I read the same passages for 20 minutes.

6

16

A-2

I read one passage for 20 minutes. I memorized thevocabulary with a red sheet on the train every day.

2

12

A-3

I reflected on what I made mistakes. I read one passage andrecorded the time. I listened to vocabulary repeatedly.

6

15

A-4

I used a textbook before the test.
I reviewed the reading class.

12

20

A-5

I read BBC News to increase my background knowledge.

16

23

A-6

I listened to Super Eigo and TED Talks in my spare time.

12

19

A-7

I reflected on a textbook for the next learning every time.
I wrote unknown words in a vocabulary notebook.

10

16

A-8

I read online news to increase my background knowledge.
I memorized vocabulary related to prior knowledge deeply.

9

13

A-9

I used a textbook.
I reflected on the reading topic.

13

14

A-10

I used shadowing to read aloud.

16

17

A-11

I wrote an essay three times every day.

12

13

Note. reading section (30), Pre-test = Spring term; Post-test = Fall term.

1353

UENO, Yuko

Table 6 displays the reading scores of TOEFL iBT in the pre-test and thepost-test of Group A (self-regulated learners) and describes the contents of selfstudy. From the interview, the students in Group A reflected on their necessary
reading skills as follows: increase the amount of vocabulary (A-1, A-3, A-5, A-6,
A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11); read a text fast (A-4, A-7); practice TOEFL iBT (A-2);
increase the grammatical knowledge (A-3); get the gist of a text (A-4); becareful about time allocation (A-6); cultivate the inference ability (A-7); learn
by reading aloud (A-10). As shown in Table 6, the students in Group A
conducted self-study and controlled learning after monitoring. They used somematerials such as a textbook, a vocabulary book, and online news to learn
actively through out-of-class learning. In addition, most students built up
academic vocabulary for TOEFL iBT and raised their scores to a significant
degree. It may be suggested that it is necessary to increase the amount of
linguistic knowledge to improve reading comprehension. It indicates that the
metacognitive control to coordinate their learning process after monitoringmight be an important factor in English reading ability.
The following two students (A-3, A-6) reflected on their reading during theinterview. Their conversation was spoken in Japanese, which I them translated
into English. Student A-3 is a self-regulated learner who did self-study
continuously and improved the scores (reading scores: 6 to 15 points; total
scores: 41 to 62 points). That student had set a clear goal and had a highmotivation to raise the scores on TOEFL iBT.
An interviewer: How did you increase linguistic knowledge or what did you do
actively except for homework?
Student A-3: I realized that my TOEFL score was low when talking with my classmates.
I set the goal for more than 60 points in total. I used a textbook andread one passage for 20 minutes. I recorded the reading time andreflected on it every time. I listened to vocabulary repeatedly for twohours on the train.

Student A-6 is a self-regulated learner who got a high score at the posttest stage (reading scores: 12 to 19 points; total scores: 59 to 66 points). That
student had already developed their learning style from high school. Their
metacognitive process operated successfully.
Student A-6: When I was in high school, I listened to the CD many times recorded by
ALT (Assistant Language Teacher) for a speech contest. I focused onlistening rather than writing. I listened to Super Eigo (e-learning) andTED Talks in my spare time rather than sitting at my desk.
14
54

A Longitudinal Study on L2 Reading Among Japanese University Students:
The Eﬀects on Metacognitive Process in Self-Regulated Learning

In summary, the results from research question 1 showed that the students
acquired more effective reading strategies after learning in class, which
enhanced their reading scores significantly; however, the effect size wasrelatively small between the pre-test and the post-test. This means that it might
be difficult to conclude that only the changes in their way of reading
contributed to improving the students’ English reading ability. The results fromresearch question 2 found that self-regulated learners who controlled learning
improved their scores greatly and linguistic knowledge such as vocabulary or
grammatical knowledge could be an important factor in reading comprehension.
This suggests that the metacognitive process in self-regulated learning might
contribute to the changes in English reading ability. Accordingly, the cycle ofmetacognitive monitoring and control could be an essential factor in L2 reading.
4. Discussion
As an overall tendency, although the students in the study improved theirEnglish reading ability throughout the class, the difference in the reading scores
between the pre-test and the post-test was only about two points. On the other
hand, the self-regulated learners in the interview who regulated their learning
process raised their reading scores on the TOEFL iBT greatly. Thus, it isnecessary to regulate the metacognitive process in self-regulated learning inorder to acquire academic reading skills. The self-regulated learners in the
study intensified their academic vocabulary using the materials such as TOEFL
textbooks or online materials, which improved their reading scores on TOEFL
iBT significantly at the post-test stage. Accordingly, the role of metacognitive
control in self-regulated learning has a great influence on linguistic knowledge
for reading comprehension. That might be caused by a factor raising the readingscores of TOEFL iBT significantly. Indeed, the reading section of TOEFL iBT
would require a higher level of reading comprehension, academic vocabulary,complex sentence structure, and various kinds of genres. It indicates that it is
not easy for students to raise scores on TOEFL iBT within 10 months. In theinterviews, the students seemed to find it difficult to overcome the vocabulary
and structural knowledge of the text. In the reflective comments, most students
noticed the importance of linguistic knowledge in reading by monitoring theirreading process. Thus, linguistic knowledge is an important factor in reading
comprehension. It might be said that this supported the previous research(Akbari, 2014; Grabe, 2009; Hamid et al., 2020; Jeon & Yamashita, 2014;
Kremmel et al., 2017; Zhang, 2012). However, the study does not mention only
the importance of linguistic knowledge. The results found that it is important tocoordinate the metacognitive process in self-regulated learning to strengthen
linguistic knowledge. Learners should bolster their academic reading skills or
1555

UENO, Yuko

linguistic knowledge that is necessary for reading comprehension while working
on metacognition in self-regulated learning. It is indispensable to increase theamount of linguistic knowledge through both in- and out-of-class learning whileworking on metacognitive regulation which monitors students’ reading process
and controls their learning.
Although the previous reviews reported that metacognition is a weakcorrelate in L2 reading (Jeon & Yamashita, 2014; Kimura, 1999; Mori, 2020),
this study resulted in highlighting the importance of metacognition in L2
reading through quantitative and qualitative data. The result found that both
metacognitive monitoring and control might be critical in L2 reading. The study
expanded the perspective of metacognition and investigated the metacognitive
process in self-regulated learning that coordinates students’ learning process.
Regarding the qualitative data, the interviews explained how the students
reflected on their reading process and changed their way of reading throughout
the class, and then increased the amount of vocabulary or developed academic
reading skills while working on metacognition. As Schraw and Dennison (1994)
mentioned above, metacognition includes the ability to reflect on, understand,and control one’s learning. Thus, retrospective data such as interviews orreflective comments should be collected to investigate metacognition via mixed
methods.
In addition, learners’ motivation has a great impact on self-study andachieving their own goals. The interviews indicated that the students who got
lower scores in the pre-test tended to feel anxiety because they had to raise theirscores higher within 10 months for study abroad. Therefore, their motivation to
improve in English would be high. The facilitative anxiety made the students
motivated to their learning enhance. On the other hand, it could be morechallenging for the students who got higher scores at the pre-test stage to raiseor keep the scores. It is necessary for them to have the facilitative motivation tocontrol learning. Hence, their motivation would be an important element tocontrol learning for the development of reading skills.
5. Conclusion
This paper discusses a progress report on a longitudinal study. The study
focused on the metacognitive process in L2 reading. The findings are as
follows; 1) University students change their way of reading to more effective
and higher-level processing throughout the reading class. This facilitatesenhancing their English reading ability, 2) Metacognitive monitoring andcontrol that coordinate their learning process in self-regulated learning might
contribute to improving learners’ English reading ability.
As for the pedagogical implications, not only the metacognitive process
1656

A Longitudinal Study on L2 Reading Among Japanese University Students:
The Eﬀects on Metacognitive Process in Self-Regulated Learningthat monitors learners’ reading process but also the process to control theirlearning is an important factor in reading comprehension. The metacognitive
process in self-regulated learning includes planning, organizing, self-monitor,and self-evaluation. This is a mental process and is often self-reported in the
study. Hence, it is significant to analyze this via mixed methods such as
quantitative and qualitative data. Furthermore, conducting a longitudinal study
would contribute to the necessity of analyses from multiple viewpoints.
In the study, there are limitations. First, the sample size of the interviews
was not large. The students were chosen randomly for interviews for this study.
It was difficult to compare the students because they were not of the sameproficiency across the two groups. More interview data would be collected forfurther study to analyze more precise data. Second, this study focused on only
the metacognitive process. It is important to integrate motivation and behavior
in self-regulated learning. These omissions should be remedied in a follow-up
study.
Metacognition plays a crucial role to cultivate academic reading ability. A
further longitudinal study will be undertaken to investigate how the interviewed
students have coordinated their metacognitive process in self-regulated learning
for L2 reading during studying abroad.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge Professor Tsuyoshi Iida, Doshisha Women’sCollege of Liberal Arts for their sincere advice and thank Esta Tina Ottman ,who is a researcher at CISMOR Doshisha University for their precious
suggestion. I also would like to appreciate my sincere gratitude to theanonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.
Notes
1 Part of this paper was orally presented at the 47th Hokkaido Academic
Conference, the Japan Society of English Language Education (JASELE) held
online in August 2022.
References
Akbari, Z. (2014). The role of grammar in second language reading
comprehension: Iranian ESP context. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 98, 122–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.397
Akita, K. (2008). Bunshou no rikai ni okeru metaninchi [Metacognition inreadingcomprehension].
In
M.
Sannomiya(Ed.),
Metaninchi
gakushuryokuwo sasaeru kouji ninchi kinou [Metacognition Higher
cognitive function to support learning ability (pp. 97–109)]. Kitaojishobo.
1757

UENO, Yuko

Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading.
The Modern Language Journal, 73, 121–134.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb02534.x
Dancey, C., & Reidy, J. (2020). Statistics without maths for psychology (8thed.). Pearson.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of
cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the Nature and Development ofMetacognition. In F. Weinert, & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition,
Motivation and Understanding (pp. 21–29). Erlbaum.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice.
Cambridge University Press.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2013). Teaching and researching reading (2nd ed.).
Routledge.
Hamid, R., Manda, M., Yassi, A., & Jubhari, R. (2020). Dominant influence of
linguistic knowledge in EFL reading comprehension: Schemata analysis.
Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(12), 6715–6721.
https://www.hrpub.org/journals/article_info.php?aid=10172
Ikeda, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2003). Can strategy instruction help EFL learners to
improve reading ability? : An empirical study. JACET Bulletin, 37, 49–60.
https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1050282677887930752
Ito, T. (2013). Jikochousei no junkantekisaikuru to metaninchi [Cyclical processof self-regulated learning and metacognition]. In M. Seo (Chair),Jikochouseigakushu
tometaninchi[Self-regulated
learning
andmetacognition]. Japanese Association of Educational Psychology, 55, 142–
143. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/pamjaep/55/0/55_S142/_pdf
Jeon, E. H., & Yamashita, J. (2014). L2 reading comprehension and its
correlates: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 64(1), 160–212.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263679141_L2_Reading_Compre
hension_and_Its_Correlates_A_Meta-Analysis
Karbalaei, A. (2010). A comparison of the metacognitive reading strategies usedby EFL and ESL readers. The Reading Matrix, 10(2), 165–180.
https://readingmatrix.com/articles/sept_2010/alireza_karbalaei.pdf
Kimura, Y. (1999). Metacognitive awareness training and reading
comprehension of Japanese EFL learners. JACET Bulletin, 30, 45–58.
https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1520853834872379392
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic
approach. Cambridge University Press.

18
58

A Longitudinal Study on L2 Reading Among Japanese University Students:
The Eﬀects on Metacognitive Process in Self-Regulated Learning

Kremmel, B., Brunfaut, T., & Alderson, J. C. (2017). Exploring the role ofphraseological knowledge in foreign language reading. Applied Linguistics,
38(6), 848–870. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv070
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitiveawareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2),249–259. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249
Mori, A. (2020). The relationship between the effect of instruction for reading
strategies using self-reflection and EFL reading proficiency. CELESJournal, 49, 103–110. https://doi.org/10.20713/celes.49.0_103
Sannomiya, M. (Ed.). (2008). Metaninchi gakushuryokuwo sasaeru kouji ninchi
kinou [Metacognition: Higher cognitive function to support learning
ability]. Kitaojishobo.
Sannomiya, M. (2021). Metaninchi de manabuchikara wo takameru:
Ninchishinrigakuga tokiakasu koukatekigakushuhou [Enhancing the abilityof learning by metacognition: An effective learning strategy that cognitive
psychology solved out]. Kitaojishobo.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475.
http://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
Zhang, D. (2012). Vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language
reading comprehension: A structural equation modeling study. The Modern
Language Journal, 96 (4), 558–575.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01398.x
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key
subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4), 307–313.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(86)90027-5
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement:
An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243775466_SelfRegulated_Learning_and_Academic_Achievement_An_Overview

1959

UENO, Yuko

Appendix: Questionnaire About Metacognitive Reading Strategies
This is an English translation version. The questionnaire in the study was
conducted in Japanese.
Pre-reading

disagree ← → agree

1.Specifying a purpose for reading
2.Previewing the text
3.Predicting the content of the text from the title, caption, or prior knowledge

1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4
4

5
5
5

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5

During-reading
4.Connecting text to background knowledge
5.Summarizing information in my own wo rds
6.Making inferences from context
7.Pay ing attention to sentence structure
8.Guessing the meaning of unknown words from context
9.Pay ing attention to discourse markers to see relationships
10.Pay ing attention to keywords to grasp the whole meaning of a text
11.Reading by paragraph
12.Translating each sentence into Japanese
13.Paying attention to the same meaning but different words
14.Paying attention to the pronouns
15.Paying attention to the difference between major and minor information
16.Paying attention to the ty pes of each verb
17.Reading ahead rather than reading back
18.Reading aloud to help comprehension easier
19.Predicting the writer's intentions
20.Reading a text in English without translating into Japanese
Post-reading
21.Checking comprehension
22.Critiquing the author
23.Thinking about my interpretation of the whole meaning of a text deeply
24.Identify ing difficulties
25.Taking steps to repair faulty comprehension
26.Judging how well purposes for reading were met
27.Reflecting on what has been learned from the text

20
60

JACET Kansai Journal, 25, 61–80. (2023) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

Writing Evaluation and Feedback:Influence on Argumentative Writing
TSUTADA Kazumi
Kansai Gaidai College

Abstract
This study examines the influence of the prior announcement of evaluation and feedback
methods (on accuracy and content) on students’ argumentative essays. For this purpose,the participants, whose grammatical knowledge was in the same range, were divided
into two groups (Group A and Group B). Different strategies of evaluation and feedback
were announced before the actual writing (“accuracy and content” for Group A and“only content” for Group B). The essays were scored, and the influence of grammaticalknowledge on these essays was quantitatively analyzed for Group A and Group B
independently using structural equation modeling (SEM). Results showed that theparticipants’ grammatical knowledge was more efficiently utilized for argumentative
essay writing when it was announced beforehand that their essays would be evaluatedonly on content (Group B) rather than on both accuracy and content (Group A). From
the questionnaire survey results, many Group A students admitted that they had
difficulties balancing between accuracy and content. Meanwhile, many Group B
students acknowledged that it encouraged them to focus on content and enhance theirargumentative skill although their attention to accuracy seemed to remain to some extent.
In this context, the study results seem to imply that English writing instruction mustreconsider the traditional evaluation focus on accuracy to become more oriented toward
content and comprehension.
Keywords： evaluation, feedback, accuracy, content, structural equation modeling(SEM)
1. Introduction
In this rapidly evolving society, it has become more important than before to beable to effectively communicate and argue out one’s opinions. Particularly, as writing
is now centrally situated as a crucial means of communication due to the rapid spreadof electronic communication, the significance of argumentative writing, which
communicates the writer’s opinions, has come to the fore. An important question in thiscontext is whether such argumentative writing skills have been adequately developed inJapanese English education. The point is whether students are appropriately guided to
improve their argumentative skills in writing without excess burdens regarding accuracy.

61

TSUTADA, Kazumi

Many studies have examined strategies to help enhance students’ argumentative writing
skills, including evaluation and feedback methods. However, most of them shed lighton the effect of evaluation and feedback for revision of the first drafts. Accordingly, thisstudy attempted to experiment on the effects of prior announcement of evaluation andfeedback strategies on argumentative essays. It divided students into two groups: one
notified of evaluation and feedback on “accuracy and content” (Group A), and the otheron “content only” (Group B). It then compared how much their grammatical knowledge
was reflected in each group’s argumentative essays. Results of the quantitative analysis
using SEM showed that the grammatical knowledge was reflected on argumentative
essays more efficiently in Group B than in Group A. By showing the benefits of theprior announcement of “content only” evaluation and feedback methods, this study
elucidates that allowing students to focus on content during writing gives them space toapply their grammatical knowledge more effectively. Although this study only offers asnapshot of classroom activities, it can hopefully serve as a future reference for writing
instructors as one of the possible alternatives.
1.1 Latest Trends and Theoretical Background
From sociocultural perspectives, Vygotsky (1986) emphasized that in humanbeings, argumentation is crucial for not only social communication but also cognitive
development. In addition, Andrews (2000) argued that in democratic societies, theability to express and defend one’s position is significant to attain active citizenship.
Furthermore, argumentation seems to have become more important in the present age ofvolatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA). Additionally, 21 st Century
Skills advocated by Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (ATC21s) 1emphasize critical thinking skills, which are required by the younger generations tobecome independent social citizens. Taking these phenomena into account, it seems
relevant to reflect these elements in English education in Japan. In other words, it needs
to be considered that English must be taught and learned to equip Japanese students withEnglish capabilities that meet demands such as critical thinking, as specified by the 21 st
Century Skills. Accordingly, it is necessary to guide students toward becoming criticalthinkers and writers; this is a principal reason that this study assigned argumentative
essays other than any other genres of writing. It is compatible with Andrews’s (2010)claim that argumentative writing skills should be a common and necessary task in higher
education.
From pedagogical perspectives, Jackson (1986) advocated the term“transformative pedagogy.” He claimed that English pedagogy is divided into two
categories, transformative pedagogy and mimetic pedagogy. Transformative pedagogy
illuminates how to express oneself with one’s acquired English, over mimetic pedagogy
that focuses on English knowledge. More recently, Yoshida (2020) argued that students

62

Writing Evaluation and Feedback: Inﬂuence on Argumentative Writing

must have the ability to express themselves, rather than focusing on accuracy, so thatthey could become English users in the true sense, instead of remaining English learners.
He advocates the Open Sea Model, which is tolerant of mistakes and allows students tocompose their argument while mitigating the burdens of accuracy. This contradicts hisother model, designated as the Fish Bowl Model, which is intolerant of grammaticalerrors, forcing writers to keep focusing on accuracy. In the former model, he declaresthat the content of communication be prioritized over its accuracy. This seems
compatible with what is demanded in the 21st Century Skills described earlier and could
be applied to argumentative writing in English, which is targeted in this study.
Regarding experimental studies which shed light on consciousness toward content inwriting, Aoki (1991) investigated the influence of content-focused direction (designatedas “global consciousness”). His study led to the discovery that students who were given
the content-based direction instead of form-based direction were more coherent
irrespective of their English writing proficiency. Accordingly, it was consideredworthwhile to examine whether this study would bring about the results compatible withthose by his study.
In this study, argument is represented by the word “content” as this study targets
argumentative writing; thus, the content should represent the extent ofargumentativeness. Accordingly, this study is an attempt to investigate the method thatcan possibly make students more oriented toward content in writing.
1.2 Objectives
With these needs in mind, it might be meaningful to examine how instructors canproperly guide students toward being better writers of argumentative essays, from theperspectives of evaluation and feedback strategies. For this purpose, this study
investigated whether the effect of students’ grammatical knowledge on theirargumentative essays differs according to evaluation and feedback strategies. As one of
the strategies to attain this goal, this study shed light on prior instructions of evaluationand feedback for argumentative writing and examined its influence on their final
argumentative essays. Specifically, this study attempted to explore the possibility thatstudents’ grammatical knowledge might be more effectively reflected in argumentative
essays, when they are made aware earlier that their essays would be evaluated on“content only,” than on both “accuracy and content.” This might release them fromburdens of accuracy while writing. It should be noted that this study does not mean todeny the importance of accuracy. In fact, many researchers in the past have claimed that
attention should be paid to both accuracy and content. For instance, Ferris and Hedgcock(1998) demonstrated evidence of error gravity, claiming that error correction should
help enhance writers’ linguistic abilities, and content, contributing to effective
communication in written essays. However, as an exploratory attempt, it seemed

63

TSUTADA, Kazumi

worthwhile to examine the influence of the prior announcement of evaluation andfeedback methods, as the results might lead to improving their argumentative writing
skills.
Although many studies have investigated the influence of evaluation and feedback
for rewriting, very few have examined the influence of prior announcement ofevaluation and feedback methods, which makes this study unique and significant.
To investigate the influence of prior notification of evaluation and feedback
methods, this study posited two research questions with two groups, one notified ofevaluation and feedback for both “accuracy and content,” and the other “content only”:
1. What is the influence of prior announcement of evaluation and feedback methods,
on students’ argumentative essays?
2. What can be found from student responses in questionnaire surveys?
2. Methods
2.1 Participants
The participants for this study were originally 364 university students in Japan,of which five outliers were excluded to make the final number of participants 359;
outliers are those whose scores are very different from the rest (Kline, 2011). They were
removed because their writing scores were distinctly low, and did not belong to thegroup of samples the study would investigate. In most cases, unfinished essays were
submitted due to lack of motivation or time constraints, making their written argument
unclear or logically inconsistent, with low accuracy. Although the participants had
different majors, they were all from the humanities department. Their English
proficiency was between intermediate and upper-intermediate with the mean TOEFL
ITP score of around 500 for the first-year students, and around 510 for the second-year
students although the specific data of each student was unavailable. Regarding theirprevious experience of learning paragraph or essay writing strategies, neither first-year
nor second-year students had such required courses. In fact, most of them said they had
not learned paragraph writing or essay writing in an explicit way. However, many ofthem said that they were sometimes required to write argumentative essays as a part ofclassroom activities or assignments. They were from twelve classes (six first-yearclasses and six second-year classes) that the author taught through three years. The
principal objectives in these classes were to improve English proficiency in general. As
the specific curricula were entrusted to the instructor, it was decided that all twelve
classes would aim to learn English, through the latest social issues, using real time
English. Along with reading, listening, and speaking tasks, argumentative writing onsocially controversial issues was assigned to them under almost identical environments,
as one of the assessment factors for their school records. Consent to the use of any data64

Writing Evaluation and Feedback: Inﬂuence on Argumentative Writing(grammatical test scores, essays, and survey responses) was obtained from theparticipants.
2.2 Procedures
2.2.1 Writing Instruction
Participants were asked to write on one of the two themes, given on the spot, withaccess to computers and internet. The themes were selected according to sociallycontroversial subjects, at the time of writing. The specific themes given were “English
Education at Elementary School in Japan” and “Casino in Osaka” for the first year,“Nuclear Power as Energy Source for the Future” and “Economic Recovery with Go to
Travel” for the second year, and “Nuclear Power as Energy Source for the Future” and“Thoughts on Elderly Drivers” for the third year. The selection of the themes needs
careful attention to appropriateness for participants’ English proficiency. For theparticipants in this study, it was decided that writing on social issues was applicable
given the average TOEFL ITP score of around 500 to 510.
After deciding on the theme, they were required to collect data from websites toquote in their writing, and organize their essays in the first 30 min, followed by another30 min to actually write their essays. After the total allotted time of 60 min, their essays
were submitted via the school website platform. Regarding use of dictionary for writing,the pendulum has swung between approval and disapproval in various aspects. However,
Weigle (2002) argued that the traditional knowledge-based approach seems to haveshifted to another paradigm to shed light on communicative competence. Tono (2001)
also claimed that the dictionary is a valuable language resource and effectively assists
writers in demonstrating their optimum performance in practical communication. In
addition, Martin (2008) argued that the use of dictionary might help reduce thepsychological burden of the writers as they have a rich resource at hand. According to
all these theories, the use of dictionaries was permitted for this study. However, no
machine translation was allowed, and they were warned that any suspicion of the use ofmachine translation would invalidate their writing scores. In addition, they were notified
that their essays were to be scored and included in their school records, which usually
increases their motivation to write.
2.2.2 Evaluation and Feedback
To explore the difference of the influence of grammatical knowledge on
argumentative essays, based on the prior announcement of evaluation and feedback
strategies, the participants were divided into two groups. One group was notified ofevaluation and feedback on both “accuracy and content,” and the other of “content only”
with blind assessment on the accuracy of their essays (Table 1). Each group was equallyorganized, with the students from three first-year classes and three second-year classes,

65

TSUTADA, Kazumi

coming to a total of twelve classes.
Table 1
Evaluation and Feedback IndicesGroup AGroup B

Evaluation

Accuracy(Local accuracy andglobal accuracy)
Content

Accuracy (blind)(Local accuracy andglobal accuracy)
Content

Feedback

Accuracy

None

Content

Content

First, the evaluation of accuracy was conducted from two perspectives: local andglobal accuracy. Local accuracy refers to sentential grammatical accuracy, while global
accuracy is assessed based on the extent of comprehensibility or communicativeness ofeach individual sentence. Regarding the indices for global accuracy, “comprehensible”
refers to the extent of understanding of English itself, and “communicative” indicates
how well each sentence conveys a writer’s intention. Meanwhile, content evaluation
was administered, according to the cohesion and degree of argumentation of an essay,
including how well it demonstrates the writer’s opinion of their chosen theme. Each ofthese assessments was conducted by two native English speakers (NS) using a 5-point
Likert scale (Likert, 1932). The sum of the scores given by the two raters was used as
final data for the subsequent analysis. These two raters are professional English teachers
who have been teaching at universities in Japan, including writing instruction, for morethan eight years. They have assisted research by the author in the past few years, in asimilar way. Prior to the evaluation, the definition of the respective index (local accuracy,
global accuracy, and content), and the rubrics for each of the indices (Appendix 1) were
provided to each of them. Five anchor essays were also given to familiarize them withthe evaluation criteria. In addition, all the tasks were completed independently, with nodiscussion on the evaluation tasks between the two, as the raters did not know each other.
For feedback on the local accuracy of Group A, the raters made grammatical corrections
on essays (although not all of the errors were actually corrected), and for feedback oncontent, they described their holistic impression on the overall extent of argumentationand clarity of their essays. Meanwhile, for Group B, only comments on content were
provided to the students.
2.2.3 Analysis
The results of writing evaluation were quantitively analyzed using structural

66

Writing Evaluation and Feedback: Inﬂuence on Argumentative Writing

equation modeling (SEM) to help understand the influence of evaluation and feedback
strategies on students’ argumentative essays. SEM is a useful method for theory testingand development, and “provides a basis for making meaningful inferences about
theoretical constructs and their interrelations, as well as avoiding some specious
inferences” (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988, p. 411). Because SEM is a large-sample
technique (Kline, 2011, p. 11), a large enough sample size (182 students from Group A
and 177 from Group B) was secured to satisfy the conditions for a SEM analysis. As ananalysis tool, this study used the EQS for SEM. To assess the fit of the SEM models,the following statistics were checked: χ 2 statistics, comparative fit index (CFI), rootmean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR). According to Kline (2011), CFI is considered a normed index with arange of 0–1, and a model indicates the best fit when RMSEA is zero, a good fit withvalues less than .05, reasonable fit with .05–.08, and poor fit when it is .10 or above.
The SRMR is considered an acceptable fit, with a value of less than .08. Althoughcaution is required about the overgeneralization of these approximate fit indices, thesecutoff criteria are treated as golden rules by many researchers.
Figure 1 shows the base model for this study. First, Test 1, Test 2, and Test 3 arescores of grammatical questions which can generally indicate the participants’
declarative knowledge of English (although it is not always appropriately represented
by test scores). Test 1 (30 multiple questions) was to select a correct option, Test 2 (20multiple questions) asked the participants to select one correct sentence from among
three sentences, and Test 3 (30 questions) was to find and correct an error in eachsentence (Appendix 2). These tests were administered within a limited time, with 20 sec.
for each question. The scores of these three tests were represented by the latent variable“grammatical knowledge” for SEM analysis.
The three observed variables, local accuracy, global accuracy, and content, were
the sum of scores given by the two raters, respectively, which are represented by thelatent variable “argumentative essays.” This model is to investigate the influence ofgrammatical test scores (or grammatical knowledge) on argumentative writing skills,
based on the supposition that grammatical knowledge has certain influence on writing
skills. Accordingly, with this base model, two identical models were constructed for thetwo groups, and compared to examine the difference in the effect of grammaticalknowledge on argumentative essays between the two groups. Although no such model
had been found in previous research, it was considered theoretical to use this base model
to examine the difference of the effect of evaluation and feedback methods, bycomparing the influence of grammatical knowledge using the same model for the twogroups.

67

TSUTADA, Kazumi

Figure 1
Base model for SEM
Local accuracy
Argumentative

Global accuracy

writing skills

Content
Test 1

Grammatical

Test 2

test scores

Test 32.2.4 Student Survey
Upon completion of the writing procedure, participants were asked to answer aquestionnaire, so that the results could be investigated from students’ perspectives,
instead of only examining the numerical results. They were comprised of three questions(originally in Japanese) (Appendix 3), with a box for open-ended comments (Table 2).
Table 2
Survey Questions
Multiple Questions
Group A and GroupB
Q1
How often have you experienced argumentative writing asclassroom assignments? (Select one)
(Often, sometimes, a few times, rarely, never)Q2
What are the most common writing evaluation criteria you
have received? (Select two)
(Vocabulary, grammar, content, organization, total length)
Q3
What did you focus on during writing this time? (Select two)
(Vocabulary, grammar, content, organization, total length)
Open-ended comments
Group A
Comment on the evaluation and feedback criteria (accuracy:
50%; content: 50%)
Group B
Comment on the evaluation and feedback criteria (content:
100%)

68

Writing Evaluation and Feedback: Inﬂuence on Argumentative Writing

While showing the numerical results for responses to Questions 1–3, the openended comments were analyzed using text mining for detailed investigation of students’direct voices from objective perspectives. Text mining extracts meaningful insights fromtextual resources, and captures key concepts; it is useful as it could avoid subjective
interpretation of the resources by the analyzer (Higuchi, 2017). For this study, the KH
Coder (Ver.3.Beta.05a) 2 developed by Higuchi was used to explore the overall view ofstudents’ comments.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Descriptive Statistics
Table 3 indicates the descriptive statistics of all observed variables for the SEM
analysis. Skewness and kurtosis were all within ±2, which indicated normal statistical
distribution.
The scores of grammatical tests 1–3 were a little higher for Group B for all threetests, as shown in Table 3. However, the multiple comparison results revealed that there
was no significant difference between the two groups (for all of three tests) when α level
was adjusted to 0.017 using the Bonferroni correction (.032, .054, and .089,
respectively). This means that the declarative knowledge of English, assessed throughthe grammatical test scores, for Groups A and B, was nearly at the same level. Thisshould be a crucial factor to help appropriately compare the influence of the evaluationand feedback strategies, on the written essays, between the two groups.
With regard to the evaluation of global accuracy, local accuracy, and content by
NS raters, a divergence of scores was found in three cases. It generally seemed difficult
to avoid such problems, as evaluation is necessarily affected by the subjective
perspectives of the raters, even when it was made based on rubrics (McNamara, 2000).
Accordingly, when a discrepancy of two points was found in the 5-point Likert scale,the essays were delivered to the same raters again, discussed in detail with the author,
and reevaluated. For this study, the principal reason for the discrepancy was the lengthof essays. In fact, these three cases had total words of around 120 words compared withthe entire mean of 385 words. This caused one rater to give low evaluations, while theother rater evaluated these cases highly when they were communicative enough. Thiscertainly requires revision of the rubrics in subsequent studies. As a result ofreevaluation, the interrater reliability turned out to be .74, .74, and .75 for Group A,
and .75, .74, and .74 for Group B for local accuracy, global accuracy, and content,
respectively. These were considered the acceptable level of reliability coefficients when
taking into account a small number of scales (five scales) for evaluation.

69

TSUTADA, Kazumi

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics of Group A (N = 182) and Group B (N = 177) by Measure
N
Group A
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3Local
accuracy
Globalaccuracy
Content

182

Group B
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3Local
accuracy
Globalaccuracy
Content

177

Mean

SD

Min.

Max.

Skewness

Kurtosis

α

18.42
14.02
17.67
7.89

4.08
3.09
5.36
0.72

11
5
9
6

27
21
28
10

0.23
−0.08
−0.02
0.09

−0.82
−0.84
−1.16
0.5

.74

7.00

0.96

5

9

0.07

−0.86

.74

7.13

1.13

6

10

0.61

−0.66

.75

19.29
14.64
17.75
7.05

3.55
3.05
5.08
0.84

12
7
6
6

26
23
27
9

0.09
−0.15
−0.22
0.20

−0.96
−0.54
−0.94
−0.95

.75

8.01

0.70

6

10

−0.12

0.97

.74

7.51

0.81

6

10

0.16

0.09

.74

Note. α is a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha indicating an interrater reliability between
evaluation by the two raters.
First, the evaluation scores for local accuracy were 7.89 for Group A, and 7.05
for Group B, with a difference of 0.84. This seemed generally reasonable because GroupA students were presumably pressed for errorless writing, as much as possible, as theyknew that errors would downgrade their evaluation. Meanwhile, it can be assumed thatGroup B students were released from grammatical pressure and a resulting lower grade,as grammatical accuracy did not affect their writing evaluations. Second, the global
accuracy scores were 7.00 for Group A, and 8.01 for Group B, with a difference of 1.01,
which was larger than that of local accuracy. This means the extent of thecomprehensibility or communicativeness at a sentential level was much higher forGroup B than for Group A. This seemed to indicate that Group B students were more
conscious of conveying content by making individually meaningful sentences thanGroup A students. Group A students might have spent more attention checking theirlocal accuracy, within the limited time, than Group B students. Finally, the evaluationof content was 7.13 for Group A and 7.51 for Group B, with a difference of 0.38. The

70

Writing Evaluation and Feedback: Inﬂuence on Argumentative Writing

extent of difference was smallest among the three factors (local accuracy, global
accuracy, and content). This went against the author’s expectations, as it seemed likelythat Group B students could more strongly concentrate on content with less burden on
local accuracy. However, as shown in a later section on students’ responses, Group B
students paid a certain level of attention (although lower than Group A) to local accuracy,even if they knew that it would not be an evaluation criterion for their writing. Thisseemed to be caused by their previous experience about writing evaluation, which often
focused on local accuracy, and might have prevented Group B students from paying
more attention to content.
3.2 SEM Analysis
Figure 2 shows the results of the SEM analysis for Group A, and Figure 3 forGroup B, using the same base model. Table 4 indicates the model fit statistics for GroupA and Group B, respectively. Mardia’s coefficients were −1.47 and 0.12 for Group A
and Group B, respectively, which indicated that both data were multivariate normal.
With Group A, χ 2 was 17.09 (df: 8, p<.05), CFI was .97, RMSEA was .08 (.02–.13), and
SRMR was .045. With Group B, χ 2 was 13.47 (df: 8, p=0.1), CFI was .98, RMSEA
was .06 (0–.12), and SRMR was .04. Anderson and Gerbing (1988) argue that what mostaffects the model fit is the sample size, and the χ 2 value is favorably affected by themodel complexity. With regard to Group A (p < .05), although the value of RMSEA (.08)
was higher than the threshold value for a good fit of less than .05, it was acceptable asa reasonable value (.05–.08) (Kline, 2011). Accordingly, when taking into account the
sample size and relative simplicity of the model, for Group A (p < .05), the results
indicate a moderate fit, although marginal at best. Since all other values of Group A andall values of Group B met the good fit criteria, it was assumed that the model could be
adequately used for the subsequent analysis for both groups.
Figure 2
SEM result for Group A
.84

D
.61

Local accuracy.79

Argumentative.65

essaysGlobal accuracy

.76

.58

Content.81.55

Grammaticalknowledge.77

Test 1.70

Test 2.85

71

Test 3

.64
.71
.52

E
E
E
E
E
E

TSUTADA, Kazumi

Figure 3
SEM result for Group B
.79

D
.63

Argumentative.23

essays.79.62

Grammaticalknowledge

Local accuracy.78

Global accuracy.97

Content.61.87

Test 1.66

Test 2.79

Test 3

.49
.75
.61

E
E
E
E
E
E

Table 4Model Fit Statistics for Groups A and B
17.09

df
8

p
< .05

CFI
.97

13.47

8

0.1

.98

χ2
Model forGroup A
Model forGroup B

RMSEA
.08(.02–.13).06(0–.12)

SRMR
.045
.040

The SEM analysis with the base model showed that the path coefficients, fromgrammatical knowledge to argumentative essays, were .55 and .62 for Group A andGroup B, respectively. Supposing that grammatical knowledge was in the same range,
the result illuminated that the effect of grammatical knowledge on argumentative essays
differed, according to the evaluation and feedback strategies announced prior to writing.
It was clear that, participants in Group B, notified to be given “only content” evaluationand feedback methods, were able to more effectively reflect their grammaticalknowledge in their argumentative essays. However, it was less effectively reflected in
the argumentative essays by participants in Group A, who were informed on the“accuracy and content” evaluation and feedback. In addition, it would be meaningful to
examine the difference of factor loadings, from argumentative essays to “content”
between the two groups. What was noticeable was that it was much larger with GroupB (.79), compared to Group A (.58). With much smaller residuals for this variable, it
could lead to a result where the influence of argumentative essays, on the variable“content,” was higher with Group B. From another perspective, “content” is more
conspicuously represented in the argumentative essays.
In conclusion, regardless of all the divergence in those specific factor loadings

72

Writing Evaluation and Feedback: Inﬂuence on Argumentative Writing

between the two groups, the path coefficients from grammatical knowledge toargumentative essays turned out to be different according to the evaluation and feedback
strategies announced in advance. Despite a relatively small difference of the pathcoefficients, it became clear that when students were informed that their essays would
be evaluated solely on content, they were able to use their knowledge more effectively
for writing argumentative essays, rather than when notified that their evaluation would
be on accuracy and content. In the context of argumentation skills becoming morecrucial in the present society, and skills for arguing on social issues or representing
one’s opinions in writing are likely to come to the fore, the results of this study may
give rise to a reconsideration of giving content-focused evaluation and feedback
instruction prior to writing.
3.3 Student Survey
Table 5 demonstrates the numerical results of questions 1 to 3. Question 1 asked
the previous experiences of argumentative writing, and only a little more than ten
percent of them often wrote argumentative essays, nearly half of them sometimes,around 20 percent experienced it only a few times, and nearly 20 percent rarely had such
experiences. In fact, the frequency of argumentative writing, as classroom assignment,
seemed to be heightened, when compared with the previous data taken by the author(Tsutada, 2020). It seemed to reflect the current transition of English writing
instructions, which has more concerned with the need for improving argumentation.
However, it is a significant concern that more than a few students had rarely experienced
argumentative writing. Next, the responses to Question 2 distinctly showed thatvocabulary and grammar were the most frequent indices for writing evaluation in thepast for both groups. This tendency has remained unchanged since a similar data wastaken a few years ago by the author (Tsutada, 2021). Finally, with regard to the responses
to Question 3, it seemed reasonable that more students paid attention to grammar inGroup A than Group B, and more students were concerned with content in Group B.
However, it should be noted that more than 26 percent of Group B students attended togrammar, despite the fact that it was not evaluated for their school records. This seemed
to be related to their previous history of writing evaluations, which was asked in
Question 1. It was assumed that they were not accustomed to focusing only on content,
without concerns about grammar.
Next, the open-ended comments for both groups were analyzed, using the KH
Coder. The questionnaire, which was originally answered in Japanese, was latertranslated by the author into English, for this study. First, general words such as “think,”“write,” “feel,” and “see” were excluded, to focus on the content of writers’ comments,
and then words were extracted from written comments in the questionnaires. Table 6
indicates the five most frequent words in the questionnaires, for Group A and Group B,

73

TSUTADA, Kazumi

respectively. It showed that Group A expressed the same level of consciousness about“accuracy,” “content,” and “grammar,” which illuminated their divided concern
between accuracy and content. Meanwhile, with Group B students, the word “opinion”
came first, and “my” came second, which was used as in “my opinion” and “myargument.” This seemed to indicate their concerns about their own thoughts. It was also
found that the word “argument” was extracted as one of the most frequent words. Thisseemed to indicate Group B’s higher interest in argumentation.
Table 7 demonstrates the characteristic descriptions in the comments. Overall,Group A students were presumed to find it difficult to commit themselves equally togrammar and content within a limited time while recognizing the importance of bothfactors. However, some said that the accuracy evaluation was much more familiar tothem, and worried about how content would be assessed. In Group B, many admitted
the importance of content in writing, and were mostly affirmative about being evaluatedsolely on content. Some shared that it was good because they were able to concentrateon content without too much concern about grammatical accuracy. Meanwhile, others
confessed that they prefer their essays to be evaluated, not only on content, but also
accuracy. This seems fairly natural because most of them were not accustomed to theirwriting being evaluated only on content throughout their education at school.
Table 5Results of Multiple Questions (N = 359)
Question 1

Often

Sometimes

Group AGroup B

11.60
14.29
Vocabulary
22.93
22.57
Vocabulary
23.48
22.86

45.30
48.57
Grammar35.08
37.43
Grammar
45.86
26.86

Question 2
Group AGroup B
Question 3
Group AGroup B

A few
times
23.67
20.00
Content
15.47
13.43
Content
22.38
38.00

Rarely

Never

18.78
16.57
Organization
11.05
9.14
Organization
5.25
10.00

0
0
Length
15.47
17.43
Length3.04
2.29

Note. Question 1: How often have you experienced argumentative writing asclassroom assignments?; Question 2: What are the most common writing evaluation
criteria you have received?; Question 3: What did you focus on during writing this time?

74

Writing Evaluation and Feedback: Inﬂuence on Argumentative Writing

Table 6The Number of Occurrences of Top-five Extracted Words in Comments
Group
Group AGroup BTop-five extracted words
Accuracy:
49
Opinion:55

Content:
48
My:
49

Grammar:48
Content:
49

Opinion:32
Evaluation:
45

Evaluation:
29
Argument:
36

Table 7
Characteristic Descriptions in Comments
Group A
 Both accuracy and content are important (48).
 It was difficult to organize my opinion while paying attention togrammar and content at the same time (41).
 I prefer evaluation of accuracy to that of content (15).
 I was worried how content is evaluated (35).
Group B
I was able to concentrate on expressing my opinions (53).
Showing my own opinions is more important than grammar (46).
I was not familiar with content only evaluation, which made me
confused (31).
I realized a lack of argumentative skill to show my opinions (22).

Note. The number in parenthesis indicates the number of students who wrote the relevant
comments.
4. Conclusion
This study examined the influence of the prior announcement of evaluation andfeedback methods, on argumentative essays written by Japanese students in English.
The results of SEM analysis showed that the students’ English knowledge (represented
by their grammatical test scores) was more efficiently reflected in their argumentative
essays for Group B than for Group A. Although the difference in the path coefficientswas relatively small, the factor loading from argumentative essays to content was muchlarger for Group B, which indicated that content was a more crucial factor inargumentative essays for this group. This result is generally compatible with thatelicited in Aoki’s (1991) study (although the experimental methods differ) whichconcluded the students wrote more coherent essays when they were told they did nothave to worry about grammatical errors.
The students’ survey also yielded several observations. First, their experiences ofargumentative writing remain insufficient, and the students have so far gone through75TSUTADA, Kazumi

grammatical and vocabulary evaluation most frequently. This seemed to deflect theirattention to focus on grammar and vocabulary in actual writing. In fact, even when
students of Group B knew that their essays were not to be evaluated on grammar andvocabulary, their attention to these components remained relatively high. It seemed
rather difficult for them to divert their attention from grammar, and instead concentrateon content. With regard to the prior announcement of evaluation and feedback methods,
it seemed that many students (both from Group A and Group B) were confused about
the high percentage of “content” evaluation. Even with Group A, some students
considered the score of 50% for content evaluation as being high. They generally
seemed to be uneasy about their essays being largely evaluated on content. However,many of Group B students claimed that evaluating essays, based only on content, isuseful to enhance their argumentative writing, and effective for their future. Many said
they were able to concentrate on content, and it helped them make their essays rich andmore argumentative. These findings answer the research question 2 of this study.
In conclusion, this study examined the influence of evaluation and feedback
strategies with participants whose grammatical knowledge was in a similar range
according to the grammatical test scores. Regarding the three factors of argumentative
writing skills, Group A surpassed Group B for local accuracy, and Group B outweighedGroup A for global accuracy and content. However, as shown in the survey results, manyof Group B students were not able to adequately focus on content diverging theirattention from grammatical accuracy even if grammar was not to be evaluated, which
reduced the difference of content evaluation between the two groups. However, theimportant finding of this study was that students’ grammatical knowledge was more
efficiently reflected in their argumentative essays when they were notified, in advance,that their essays were to be evaluated only on content, instead of the dual criteria ofaccuracy and content. This answers the research question 1 of this study. It is true thatthe difference of .07 is not large enough to make such a claim. In this sense, it is crucial
to revise and update the experimental procedures before repeating the experiments,
including how prior instruction is to be made more appropriately, with more participants,
to obtain more reliable and dependable results.
In fact, there are several limitations to this study. First, as the themes ofargumentative writing for this study were decided to reflect the recent social events, thewriting prompts varied for respective school year. As it is generally difficult to deny the
influence of difference of the topics, it is necessary to consider how this influence could
be reduced in future studies or look for a possibility to collect sufficient size of writing
samples written under the same title. The second concern is about writing evaluation
strategies, including rater training and rubrics. As there were a few cases of divergencein evaluation by the two raters, a reexamination of the strategies is necessary, including
a more detailed investigation of the evaluation criteria. In fact, the definitions of the76

Writing Evaluation and Feedback: Inﬂuence on Argumentative Writing

terms “comprehensible” and “communicative” in the rubrics need to be reexamined asthey might have confused the raters a little about their distinction when they embarked
on the evaluation. It is essential that the terminology in the rubrics be more clearly
defined.
Notwithstanding its limitations, this study suggests the need to reconsider
evaluation and feedback strategies, including the prior announcement of the methods.
Although this was the first attempt to investigate the influence of prior announcementof writing evaluation and feedback on argumentative essays, it is hoped that it will help
instructors reconsider how to guide students to improve their argumentative essays
which has become much more crucial in the present society so that students would
become independent social citizens with confidence.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by JPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP19K13282. I would
like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments andsuggestions in revising this article.
Note
1 https://resources.ats2020.eu/resource-details/LITR/ATC21s
2 Retrieved from https://khcoder.net/.
References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Andrews, R. (2000). Introduction: Learning to argue in higher education. In R. Andrews,& S. Mitchell (Eds.), Learning to argue in higher education (pp. 1–14).
Heinemann.
Andrews, R. (2010). Argumentation in higher education. Improving practice throughtheory and research. Routledge.
Aoki, N. (1991). The effects of ‘global consciousness’ on coherence of English
compositions of Japanese student writers. ARELE: Annual Review of English
Language Education in Japan, 2, 101–109. https://doi.org/10.20581/arele.2.0-101
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process,and practice. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Higuchi, K. (2017). A two-step approach to quantitative content analysis: KH Codertutorial using Anne of Green Gables (Part II). Ritsumeikan Social Science Review,
53(1), 137–147. http://doi/10.34382/00003731
Jackson, P. W. (1986). The practice of teaching. Teachers College Press.

77TSUTADA, Kazumi

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford
Press.

Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology,
140, 1–55.
Martin, E. (2008). Dictionary use in foreign language writing exams: Impact andimplications. John Benjamins Co.
McNamara, T. (2000). Language testing. Oxford University Press.
Tono, Y. (2001). Research on dictionary use in the context of foreign language learning:
Focus on reading comprehension. Niemeyer.
Tsutada, K. (2020). Correlations between syntactical knowledge and writing
performance among Japanese English learners. Journal of Inquiry and Research,
111, 73–90. https://doi.org/10.18956/00007908
Tsutada, K. (2021). How local accuracy influences global accuracy in the context ofargumentative writings produced by Japanese university students. Journal of
Inquiry and Research, 113, 81–98. https://doi.org/10.18956/00007954
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press.
Yoshida, K. (2016). The fish bowl and open seas models revisited: the role ofinternational English. Kwansei Gakuin University Repository, 124, 29–38.
Appendix 1: Criteria for the Evaluation of Argumentative Writing Skills
Local Accuracy
5
Each sentence is grammatically good with few errors that do not interferewith comprehension.
4
Each sentence is generally grammatically good with few errors thatsometimes interfere with comprehension.
3
Each sentence is moderately grammatically good with occasional errors.
2
1

Each sentence is poor with many errors that sometimes interfere withcomprehension.
Each sentence is poor with many errors that often interfere withcomprehension.

Global Accuracy
5
Each sentence is highly comprehensible and communicative. (Reader canalways understand what a writer is trying to communicate in a sentence.)
4

3

Each sentence is acceptably comprehensible and communicative. (Reader
can understand most of what the writer is trying to communicate in a
sentence.)
Each sentence is moderately comprehensible and communicative. (Reader

78

Writing Evaluation and Feedback: Inﬂuence on Argumentative Writing

can moderately understand what the writer is trying to communicate in a
sentence.)
Each sentence is not sufficiently comprehensible or communicative.
(Readers can understand about half of what the writer is trying tocommunicate in a sentence.)2

1

Each sentence is barely comprehensible and communicative. (Reader canunderstand little about what the writer is trying to communicate in a
sentence.)

Content
5

Argument is fully demonstrated with sufficient supporting ideas

4
3
2

Argument is relatively highly demonstrated with supporting ideas.
Argument is moderately demonstrated with supporting ideas.
Argument is not sufficiently demonstrated with insufficient supporting
ideas.

1

Argument is not demonstrated.

Appendix 2: Examples of Grammatical Tests
Test 1 (Select a correct option.)

Those who purchase concert tickets will be charged a service fee ___ they pay by cash orby credit card.
(A) even(B) despite(C) although(D) whether

In addition to fine dining, the ABC Inn provides every amenity ___ for small or large
business conferences.
(A) necessity(B) necessarily(C) necessary(D) to necessitate

The national library contains numerous items ___ the history of the renowned global
enterprises.
(A) document(B) documents(C) documentary(D) documenting

Test 2 (Select one correct sentence)(A) The XYZ Mart will hold a sale in December to clear out an excess of holiday supplies.
(B) The XYZ Mart will hold a sale in December clear out an excess of holiday supplies.
(C) The XYZ Mart will hold a sale in December cleared out an excess of holiday supplies.
(A) According to the city planning director, the municipal art center must be completely
demolished before construction on a new center begin.
(B) According to the city planning director, the municipal art center must be completely

79

TSUTADA, Kazumi

demolished prior to construction on a new center begin.
(C) According to the city planning director, the municipal art center must be completely
demolished before construction on a new center begins.
(A) The hotel manager has instructed the cleaning staff who avoid operating equipment before
9:30 A.M. because of complaints regarding noise.
(B) The hotel manager has instructed the cleaning staff to avoid operating equipment before
9:30 A.M. because of complaints regarding noise.
(C) The hotel manager has instructed the cleaning staff to avoid operating equipment before
9:30 A.M. because complaints regarding noise.

Test 3 (Correct errors)Despite one would not expect it, ice cream sales are highest in the winter season and lowest
in the summer. (Despite

Although)One of a manager’s most valuable assets are his ability to say no. (areThe data should be transferred to the hard drive which it can be safely stored until we needit. (which it can

1

2
3
4

is)

which can)Appendix 3: Questionnaire (Original)
これまで学校の課題としてどの程度の頻度で Argumentative writingを経験しましたか？
（しばしば、時々、数回、ほぼなし、なし）
これまでに最もよく受けたライティングの評価基準は何ですか？
（語彙、文法、内容、構成、長さ）
今回のライティングで最も注意を払った項目は何ですか？
（語彙、文法、内容、構成、長さ）
今回、事前に通知を受けたライティングの評価基準について自由に述べてください。

80

JACET Kansai Journal, 25, 81–99. (2023) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

Teaching an EFL Reading Class Using Banana Yoshimoto’s
Kitchen Online During the Covid Pandemic
FUJIOKA Cheena
University of Marketing and Distribution Sciences

Abstract
This article describes the use of contemporary Japanese literature translated into
English for a university EFL reading class, conducted online during the
pandemic. For the academic year 2020, Banana Yoshimoto’s international best
seller, Kitchen (1988/2018), was selected for the course. Although the author
had used this novella in her reading classes during the mid-2000s, it was
revived online using Zoom under the pandemic. The authentic literary text alongwith various tasks using graphic organizers was used in order to build thestudents’ comprehension of the story and the characters hoping to foster theirlanguage skills, critical thinking skills, and empathy. A comprehensive classsurvey as well as data from the assigned tasks, the class observations, and theanswers to the comprehensive essay test conducted at the end of the course
provided positive support for the method of using this particular literatureduring the pandemic for enhancing the students’ empathy and critical thinking
skills in particular.
Keywords: contemporary Japanese literature, English translation, empathy,
content-based literature instruction, Zoom
1. Introduction
Using literature used to be the dominant medium in teaching EFL at theuniversity level in Japan until the 1980s. However, for the last three decades,
teaching methodology has widely shifted from grammar-translation method
using western literature to more practical, communicative methods for the
purpose of fostering L2 learners’ four skills of English and preparing them for
English proficiency tests such as the TOEIC and EIKEN in today’s increasingly
globalized world (Carter, 2007; Kuze, 2012; Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology, 2003). Under such circumstances, since the2000s the author has intentionally advocated more interactive, integrated
approach using literary texts, including the English translation of Japanese
literature such as Banana Yoshimoto’s international bestseller, Kitchen(1988/2018) and Yukio Mishima’s short story for teaching Japanese EFL
students at the university level, and already reported its educational and181

FUJIOKA Cheena

emotional benefits for them (Fujioka, 2007, 2016). During the Covid pandemic,
in the times of uncertainty, the author came to revive the intensive reading
course using Yoshimoto’s Kitchen over Zoom. Therefore, through content-based
literature instruction, the aim of this article is to present the impact of the useof literature from L2 learners’ culture on their emotional domain as well as theirlanguage learning in the age of anxiety.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Benefits of Using Literature and Why Use Japanese Literature?
As the author previously described (Fujioka, 2007, 2008), researchers
contend that carefully selected literature motivates L2 learners to read bydealing with the subjects they are concerned about, and provides moremeaningful contextualized language, “models for communication” throughplenty of “examples of real-life language in different situations,” (Hill, 1986, ascited in Ghosn, 2002, p. 175) and vicarious emotional experiences that may
foster their empathy and tolerance (Ghosn, 2002; Hadaway et al., 2002;
McCloskey & Stack, 1996). Besides such impact on L2 learners’ language
learning and emotions, teaching literature fosters their cognitive domain as well.
That is, literature enhances critical thinking skills, stimulates imagination, andoffers opportunities to use their creativity through reflective activities and tasks(Babaee & Yahya, 2014; Fisher, 2003). According to the present study in auniversity in Thailand, when studying literature, critical thinking skills are
viewed as essential to analyze characters, themes, and critical issues shown in
the literary text, and students improved their critical thinking skills as well as
reading skills a great deal after using literature along with literary activities(Kaowiwattanakul, 2021). Lastly, in addition to “valuable authentic material,”“cultural enrichment,” and “language enrichment,” the most compelling effectin the use of literature stated by Collie and Slater (1987, pp. 3–6) is the“personal involvement” that occurs among L2 learners as follows:
When a novel, play or short story is explored over a period of time, theresult is that the reader begins to ‘inhabit’ the text. He or she is drawn into
the book. … The reader is eager to find out what happens as events unfold;he or she feels close to certain characters and shares their emotional
responses. (pp. 5–6)
This way L2 learners would be intrinsically motivated to read through such avicarious emotional experience. Therefore, they might get personally engaged inreading the story even more.
McKay (1982), however, notes when implementing literature in L2 learning,whether it succeeds or not is up to the literary works that are chosen. This isdue to literature’s structural complexity, its particular use of language, and a282

Teaching an EFL Reading Class Using Banana Yoshimotoʼs Kitchen Online During the Covid Pandemic

specific cultural perspective reflected. Thus, here, among literature, thetranslated version of contemporary Japanese literature was intentionallyselected as a beneficial medium for teaching young adult Japanese EFL students.
As the author has previously discussed (Fujioka, 2007, 2008, 2016), thepossible benefits to use literature from their own culture for encouraging L2
learning are:1) it is refreshing and fun to read Japanese literature which is
widely read overseas; 2) compared to Western classical or modern literature thathas been usually used, it would be easier to identify with characters and plot
development within the framework of their own culture; 3) without the barrierof cultural differences, meanings of vocabulary may be more easily surmised
from the context; and 4) accordingly, their anxiety and frustration level inreading literary texts in English will be significantly reduced and, therefore,
grasping the content better for L2 learners can be expected. Consequently, L2
learners’ motivation to read a literary text might be increased a great deal.
2.2 Why Use Yoshimoto’s Kitchen?
Considering all the benefits described above, Yoshimoto’s international
bestseller, Kitchen was selected among contemporary Japanese literature.
According to an online survey conducted in Japan amid the Covid pandemic in
2021, it is reported that young people’s loneliness was the most remarkable
among different groups of the generations (Sakata, 2021a, 2021b). Significantly,
half of the Japanese in their 20s and 30s revealed that they were feelingloneliness in their daily life, yet since the pandemic began, more than 50–60%
of those responded they had been feeling loneliness more frequently. In such
unprecedentedly uneasy times worldwide, this literary text might have beeneven more suitable for Japanese university EFL students to read due to thesubjects that she deals with including, “love and friendship, the power of homeand family, and the effect of loss on the human spirit” (“Banana Yoshimoto,”
2021, p. 2). Moreover, recovering from the loss or despair, that is, healing, isanother theme in her works including Kitchen, written in the first-person
narrative which makes readers get into them more easily, and their proximity to
the main characters might become closer. Most interestingly, Keen (2007), theauthor of Empathy and the Novel, has pointed out that readers would be more
likely to have empathetic responses toward characters’ negative emotions suchas suffering, grieving and experiencing painful obstacles, even if these don’t
match their own experiences precisely. Hence, L2 learners may react more
empathically to the characters through identifying with them as they go throughthe rough situations described in the story. Under the anxious times of the world
pandemic, therefore, their empathic reactions may be intensified even more. As
a result of this vicarious emotional experience, they may be able to understand3
83

FUJIOKA Cheena

the feelings that others have in difficult situations which may help themunderstand and endure their own difficulties and frustrations.
3. Methodology
3.1 Participants
The participants were non-English majors (sophomores to seniors
belonging to seven different faculties including law, sociology, and policy
studies) at a private university located in western Japan. One section of an
intensive reading course, English seminar 1/2 was involved in two continuous
semesters (spring and fall) of the academic year 2020. In the spring semester 42
sophomores enrolled, while 39 sophomores to seniors did in the fall semester
excluding the number of the students who dropped out from the class during thesemesters. According to the class survey conducted on the first day and theirperformance, their English proficiency level ranged from high beginner/lowintermediate to high-intermediate (410–750 on the TOEIC). Additionally, 12participants had the second grade of EIKEN and one participant had the prefirst grade. Due to the pandemic, online teaching was suddenly implemented
using Zoom. The class met once a week for 90 minutes online from home or
campus throughout the year (except for the first day of the fall semester). They
were required to turn their video camera on to participate in class.
3.2 Teaching Material and its Purpose
Yoshimoto’s Kitchen translated by Megan Backus was selected for thecourse. Although there are some mistranslations in her translation, the English
version, full of vivid expressions, seems to convey the characters’ emotions
more directly to the reader. This makes the translated version appear to be evenmore touching than the original text. As the author has previously described(Fujioka, 2007, 2008), the following are the reasons to select this literary
fiction for this course : 1) since it was published in the 1980s, it has been
widely read both domestically and internationally and highly recognized as
Japanese literature; 2) as the main characters are university students like the L2
learners, it is anticipated that they would easily be able to relate to them;
therefore, their motivation to read can be increased; 3) the themes expressed in
the story such as family, facing loneliness, overcoming despair, caring forothers, and becoming independent are suitable for the young readers who live intoday’s chaotic Japan; 4) there are numerous practical expressions anddialogues that penetrate the hearts of the L2 learners which are suitable forreading aloud and the reader ’s theater in the classroom in terms of L2 learningand emotional benefits; and 5) through the characters, the story shows themsome role models who have compassion for others and positive ways of life.
484

Teaching an EFL Reading Class Using Banana Yoshimotoʼs Kitchen Online During the Covid Pandemic

The last three elements may be even more appreciated and beneficial in terms ofteaching resilient skills during the pandemic, in particular. Regarding thecomplexity of this literary fiction, according to Yohan (2006), it is suitable forL2 learners who are targeting 600 on the TOEIC.
3.3 Teaching Procedure
Part one of the literary fiction (Kitchen) was covered in the springsemester, and Part two (Full Moon) was covered in the fall semester. The
lessons using the two continuous semesters were conducted over Zoom. Due tothe ranged English proficiency of the students and the complexity of the text,
the main instruction language was English, but often supported by Japanese to
explain the details and complicated things. Likewise, students were encouraged
to write in English for their assigned tasks, but some of the tasks were allowed
to use Japanese by their choice. The instructor attempted to conduct the online
lessons as closely as possible to in-person teaching in the following manner:
1. Assign students to read the next section which would be covered in class;
2. Begin each class with having a volunteer student summarize the previous
section studied. Help the student as necessary;
3. Read a few pages of the story aloud to students with emotion and also ask
for some volunteers to do so. Then, in order to check their comprehension
and personal interpretations, ask some factual and inferential questions.
While reading the story, discuss the characters’ actions, behaviors, andwords with the class by asking their personal reactions and sharing the
instructor ’s perspectives with them so that they can deepen theirunderstanding;
4. In the following week after each assigned task is submitted, have them share
their work and discuss various ideas in small groups for about 7 minutes byusing Zoom’s function of the breakout rooms. Each student is encouraged toshow their submitted work by using the screen-sharing and to discuss it in
the group. Pop in as many groups as possible to check if they are actively
participating while encouraging more interactions if necessary;
5. After sharing their work in groups, show a few students’ works as an
excellent sample to the whole class by using the screen-sharing function.
Then, tell them some outstanding points of those, ask other students’impressions of them, and have the students comment on their own
exceptional work if time permits;
6. Toward the end of the fall semester, as a group work, have them role-play ascene that they select from the entire story for about 5 minutes in thereader ’s theater. Each group is required to get together and practice outside
the class online; and585

FUJIOKA Cheena

7. When finishing reading the whole story, discuss the ending, what would
happen to the main character after this, and more as the whole class as longas time is allowed.
3.3.1 Tasks
The instructor used the university’s online Learning Management System(LMS) to give assignments and to contact the whole class or an individual, andto have them submit their work. The tasks using various graphic organizers
developed by the instructor were assigned as out-of-class work due to thelimited time of the class in the following order. As the author has described
before (Fujioka, 2016), graphic organizers are a useful pedagogical tool that
may take the forms of “graphs, diagrams, or illustrations; however, graphicorganizers are commonly left blank for students to fill in” (Lane, 1999, p. 19)
such as a Venn diagram. They are regarded as effective for enhancing students’cognitive competence by assisting them to comprehend, absorb, and reveal theirideas (Dillon & Johnson et al., as cited in Lane, 1999). Most tasks below werepreviously used in her classes excluding Task 10 and 13 (Fujioka, 2007, 2008).
1. Mind-mapping a kitchen (pre-reading task)
Aims: to activate prior knowledge, thinking skills
Introduce a mind-map by showing students how to make one, and then havestudents draw a mind-map to show what a kitchen means to them writing key
words and/or short phrases.
2. Completing the timeline of Kitchen (Part 1/Part 2) (see Appendix B)
Aims: to enhance comprehension, scanning, summarizing
Students complete the table of a timeline which consists of the two columns:
time and events. In the timeline table, some particular times along with theevents have already written as clues or samples. While reading the story, they
fill in the main events that occur in the story, using short sentences. The firstevent should be done in class, and the rest of them are completed by students.
3. Describing my favorite place in this world
Aims: to enhance thinking skills, writing, empathy
After reading the first few pages of the story where the main character claims
and describes her favorite place in this world is the kitchen, have students
describe their own favorite place, particularly, in the house adding somecolorful illustrations and the reasons for their choice.
4. Drawing the Tanabes’ kitchen
Aims: to enhance comprehension, scanning, imagination
After reading the scene where the main character describes the Tanabes’
kitchen that she was impressed with, have them draw a picture of the kitchen
and around it as accurately as possible using color pencils and label some of686Teaching an EFL Reading Class Using Banana Yoshimotoʼs Kitchen Online During the Covid Pandemic

the vocabulary such as a refrigerator, a sink, and a sofa. For those who are
not good at drawing, using some free pictures found on the Internet or frommagazines is another option.
5. Listing the menu from Kitchen
Aims: to enhance scanning, writing, empathy
Throughout the story, various kinds of foods are mentioned or described.
Therefore, have students list all those foods from the story in the table which
consists of the three columns: page number (indicating where each foodappears), menu, and (you) like it or not (checking their preference). This task
is connected to Task 12, writing their own recipe from the story later.
6. Comparing and contrasting Yuichi & Sotaro (see Appendix A)
Aims: to enhance comprehension, critical thinking skills, writing, empathy
By using an organizer, Venn diagram, firstly have students compare andcontrast Yuichi and Sotaro who are involved with the main character, Mikage
in terms of their personalities, physical characteristics, and more. Then,
female students are asked, “Which of the two characters would you like to go
out with? Male students respond to “Which of the two characters can you
relate to?” Each student writes opinions, with reasons, below the diagram.
7. Writing reflections on Kitchen (Part 1/Part 2)
Aims: to enhance comprehension, writing, critical thinking skills, empathy
At the end of each semester, students look back to the story of Part 1 and Part
2 respectively by writing in the tables consisting of: the page number, myfavorite scene/lines of the story from Part 1/Part 2 (quote it), and how thismade me feel/why I like this part of the story.
8. Personal project (implemented at the end of the spring semester)Aims: to enhance writing, critical thinking skills, creativity, personalization
Students make their own projects from which they can select one of thefollowing: a) writing the summary of the story (Part 1) in English with some
type of art inspired by the story or b) making a “obi” which is a wraparoundband for the book with a catch phrase or a short introduction of the story andan illustration that would make the reader feel like reading it (for this option,
students may use Japanese, and are recommended to use computer graphics).
Students are given two weeks to turn in their work.
9. Casting Kitchen
Aims: to enhance comprehension, critical thinking skills, writing
Have students cast suitable actors/actress for the movie/drama, Kitchen
imagining themselves as a producer. Each student selects appropriate
actors/actresses for the main six characters and the soundtrack music to be
used, and write the concrete reasons for their choices in the table.
10. Drawing the most impressive scene so far
787

FUJIOKA Cheena

Aims: to enhance comprehension, empathy, imagination, creativity
While reading Part 2 (Full Moon) of the story, have them choose and draw
the most impressive scene for them using color pencils in one of thefollowing: a) draw a scene labelling some vocabulary and add the reason
why they chose this specific scene, or b) draw a four-panel comic strip using
the exact conversations from the story.
11. Filling in the character web
Aims: to enhance comprehension, writing, critical thinking skills
Toward the end of the story, students select the most impressive character toanalyze his/her personalities and characteristics by filling in the weborganizer where they enter the character ’s name in the middle and four
different descriptive words about the character in the box connected to thename like a web. Under each descriptive word they select, they explain why:
they may use the character ’s own words/actions, the narrator ’s words, ortheir own ideas from the story.
12. Writing a recipe from Kitchen
Aims: to enhance scanning, writing, personalization, empathy
After listing all the foods from this story (Task 5), have them select one dishto write the recipe adding some illustrations or photographs to better show
the process of cooking. Each student is encouraged to actually make the dishchosen from the Internet, a cookbook, or their family recipe to share.
13. Reader ’s theater (group project)
Aims: to enhance speaking, empathy, imagination, creativity
Toward the end of the second semester, students role-play a scene that theychoose from the entire story for about 5 minutes in groups of about 5 people
in the reader ’s theater. They are required to meet outside the class in orderto make the script adopted from the story (to be submitted to the instructor)
and to practice their own lines online in each group. After all theperformances, have them vote for the MVP (class award) group.
4. Results
4.1 Questionnaire and the Results of the Questionnaire
In order to understand the pedagogical outcomes of this reading course, on
the final day of the academic year of 2020, a Likert-type self-reportquestionnaire with two open-ended questions in Japanese developed by the
instructor (see Table 1) using Google Form was given online to the students (N= 37) who had taken the class for the fall semester. Prior to this, informed
consent was obtained from the students who participated in the questionnaire,using Google Form after the author orally explained the aims of this study tothem, as well. The 10 items of the questionnaire were conducted with a five888

Teaching an EFL Reading Class Using Banana Yoshimotoʼs Kitchen Online During the Covid Pandemic

level modulated response scale ranging from strongly disagree (1), disagree (2),neither agree nor disagree (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5). The students
choose the number (1–5) that indicates their opinion for each question. These 10
items of the questions are divided into four categories: 1) the effect of using
contemporary Japanese literature translated in English; 2) the effect on thestudents’ emotions; 3) the effect on their L2 and cognitive skills; and 4) the
impact of the group work over Zoom. Items 11–12 were open-ended questions
where the students would enter the most effective task for them out of all thetasks along with the reason, and their personal feedback to this course. Totally,
37 students participated in the questionnaire, and all the students answered
every question item. Microsoft Excel was used to process the data. The
following table indicates the results of the class survey (N = 37) on this course.
Table 1
Distribution of Item Responses
Percentage of Students
Selecting Option
Item Category and Numbe r

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

M

SD

1. I enjoy ed reading Kitchen in English.

2.7%

8.1%

8.1%

37.8%

43.2%

4.11

1.05

2. I think using contemporary Japanese literature in
English as a reading text is good.

8.1%

0%

13.5%

21.6%

56.8%

4.19

1.20

3. I could empathize with the characters and/or theirsituations.

2.7%

5.4%

21.6%

37.8%

32.4%

3.92

1.01

4. The words that the characters said touched myheart.

5.4%

2.7%

8.1%

24.3%

59.5%

4.30

1.10

5. Through this course, my reading proficiency has
improved.

2.7%

2.7%

35.1%

48.6%

10.8%

3.62

0.83

6. Through this course, my vocabulary has improved.

2.7%

8.1%

32.4%

43.2%

13.5%

3.57

0.93

7. Through this course, my listening proficiency has
improved.

8.1%

27%

37.8%

21.6%

5.4%

2.89

1.02

8. Through this course, my critical thinking skills
and imagination have been enhanced.

5.4%

2.7%

21.6%

35.1%

35.1%

3.92

1.09

9. Presenting the reader’s theater was meaningful.

8.1%

8.1%

29.7%

27%

27%

3.57

1.21

10. Sharing student works and having discussions by
the breakout room over Zoom was meaningful.

8.1%

8.1%

24.3%

24.3%

35.1%

3.70

1.27

Effect of Using Contemporary Japanese Literature

Effect on L2 Learners’ Emotions

Effect on L2 and Critical Thinking Skills

Effect of Gro up Work over Zoom

Note. The response options were as follows: (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) neither agree nor
disagree, (4) agree, and (5) strongly agree.

989

FUJIOKA Cheena

As shown in Table 1, the first category of the question items (Items 1–2)
indicates the impact of using contemporary Japanese literature as a readingmaterial. 81% of the students answered agree (4) and strongly agree (5) to thequestion whether they had enjoyed reading this Japanese literary fiction in
English (Item 1: M = 4.11, SD = 1.05). Using the translation of contemporary
Japanese literature as a reading text was viewed as favorable by 78.4% of thestudents (Item 2: M = 4.19, SD = 1.20). The overall mean of these question
items was 4.15, which shows using Japanese literature in English translation,
this novella, in particular was effective to use in a university EFL course.
The second category of the question items (3–4) focused on this particularliterary fiction’s impact on the students’ emotions. 70.2% of the students
admitted that they could empathize with the character(s) and/or their situationsin the story (Item 3: M = 3.92, SD = 1.01). Most remarkably, those who revealed
that they were touched by the character (s)’ words in the story gained the mostagreements, 83.8% from them with the highest mean of 4.3 of all (Item 4: SD =1.10). The average mean of these items was 4.11 indicating that quite a few
students were emotionally affected by the character(s) of this story who went
through despair.
The third category (Items 5–8) was about the effect on their L2 learning aswell as critical thinking skills and imagination. As for the improvement on theirreading skills (Item 5: M = 3.62, SD = 0.83) and vocabulary (Item 6: M = 3.57,
SD = 0.93), received moderate agreements of 59.4% and 56.7% respectively.
Meanwhile, those who felt their listening skills improved was limited; 27%(Item 7: M = 2.89, SD = 1.02), despite the instructor’s attempts to conduct thelessons in English as much as possible. However, the enhancement on theircritical thinking skills and imagination was much better recognized; 70.2% ofthem agreed (Item 8: M = 3.92, SD = 1.09). The total mean of this section
turned 3.5 implying this course was somewhat beneficial on fostering their L2
learning and yet more noticeable for cognitive domain.
Regarding the group work over Zoom was the last category of the question
items (Items 9–10). Performing the reader ’s theater in groups was positively
approved by 54% of the students (Item 9: M = 3.57, SD = 1.21). Likewise,
sharing their assigned works as well as having group discussions in small
groups by using the function of breakout rooms counted 59.4% of theaffirmative feedback (Item 10: M = 3.7, SD = 1.27). The overall mean was 3.64,
indicating that these group tasks/activities were moderately effective for them.
Figure 1 shows the distribution of the students’ responses to each question item,
while Figure 2 indicates the overall mean in each category of the question items.

1090Using the breakout rooms was meaningful
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

strongly
disagreedisagreeneither
agree norKitchen
disagree Online
agreeDuringstrongly
agree Pandemic
Teaching an EFL
Reading
Class Using
BananaYoshimotoʼs
the Covid

Figure↓1５） グラフの外枠を少し濃くしていただき、文字・数字も読み易い様に少し濃くしてFigure 2
修正後ください。なぜか下の枠が消えておりますが、全部外枠は入れてください。
Resultsof each item of the questions
4.2

4.15

4.11

Mean

I enjoyed reading Kitchen in English
4Using Japanese literature as a text is good
3.8
I could empathize with the character(s)

3.64

Item

3.6touched by the character(s)' words
I was

3.5

My reading proficiency has improved
3.4

My vocabulary has improved
3.2
My listening proficiency has improved3
My criticalthinking skills were improved
1. Effect of
2. Effect on L2
3. Effect on L2
Reader's theater was meaningfulcontemporary learners' emotions learning andUsing theJapanese
breakoutliteraturerooms was meaningful(2 items)
critical thinking(2 items)↓

strongly disagree0%disagreeskills20% (4 items)
40%

neither agree nor disagree

4. Impact of thegroup work overZoom (2 items)

60%

agree

80%

100%

strongly agree

Figure 2修正後
Figure 1 と同じく、外枠を少し濃くして、文字・数字も少し濃くしてください。

Results of each category of the questions
4.2

4.15

4.11

4

Mean

3.8

3.64

3.6

3.5

3.4
3.2
3

1. Effect ofcontemporary

Japanese literature(2 items)

2. Effect on L2

3. Effect on L2(2 items)

critical thinking

learners' emotions

learning andskills (4 items)

4. Impact of thegroup work overZoom (2 items)

4.2 Results of the Open-Ended Questions
4.2.1 Most effective tasks selected by the students
For Item 11, the students chose the most effective task of all the tasks thatwere assigned to do for this course and explained the reasons of their choices
briefly. The following three tasks were recognized as the most beneficial by
them. The most favored task was Task 2 (see Appendix B): Filling in the
11
91

FUJIOKA Cheena

timeline of Kitchen (Part 1/Part 2), supported by 9 students. For the reasons
why they selected this task, one student stated (translated from Japanese into
English by the author hereafter), “Organizing the story chronically was very
effective to get to know the story deeply.” This task seemed to assist them tokeep tracking the story and to understand the plot as they progress with thestory.
The second most effective task chosen by 8 students was Task 9: Casting
Kitchen. This has always been one of the tasks that students get personallyengaged and then they enjoy sharing their choices in groups and as the wholeclass a great deal. Meanwhile, this task tells how much they understand eachcharacter through casting with the reasons. One student responded, “By casting
the actors and actresses myself, my understanding for the story was deepened.”
Finally, the third most effective task supported by 7 students was Task 7:
Writing reflections on Kitchen (Part 1/Part 2). At the end of each semester, they
seemed to be able to reflect on the story deeply by selecting their favorite
quotes. For instance, the lines chosen by the students the most (n = 8) werewhat Eriko (a transsexual who saves the main character, Mikage, who has
become an orphan after losing her grandmother) said: “But if a person hasn’t
ever experienced true despair, she grows old never knowing how to evaluate
where she is in life; never understanding what joy really is. I’m grateful for it”(Yoshimoto, 1988/2018, p. 41). Another line favored by them (n = 7) was
Mikage’s heartbreaking words: “I implored the gods: Please, let me live” (p. 35).
Through this task, many students revealed their inner feelings inspired by thosecharacters’ positive, often, philosophical messages of life as well as the cry of
their hearts that they learned from them. One student stated in the survey, “Byreflecting on the story at the end of each semester, it gave me an opportunity toappreciate the story once more.”
Among all the tasks, Task 10: Drawing the most impressive scene so far
and also Task13: Reader ’s theater were the ones that were implemented for thisliterary text for the first time. Both of them turned out to be the fourth mosteffective tasks that the students chose. For Task 10, one student reflected, “Byactually drawing a picture, I came to think about the scene concretely.”
Meanwhile, another student responded to Task 13, “Performing the reader ’stheater was a lot of fun. It was good to work together as a group.”
4.2.2 Feedback from the students
For the last item 12, the students wrote their personal feedback to thiscourse briefly. All the students who answered the class survey (N = 37) entered
their comments. As shown in Table 2, the positive feedback counted 35,
categorized into 8 focuses including the deep appreciation for having read this12
92

Teaching an EFL Reading Class Using Banana Yoshimotoʼs Kitchen Online During the Covid Pandemic

story (n = 15), and for Japanese literature in English translation (n = 5),
enjoyment in their assigned tasks (n = 5), and the improvement of their L2 (n =5). On the other hand, only two students were negative feeling a burden on thequantity of assigned tasks. For several students who joined the class from thesecond half of the academic year, it might have been quite challenging tounderstand the whole story well. Here are some actual comments from thestudents translated from Japanese into English by the author:
 Compared to the assignments in any other course that I have taken
before, personally, I had more fun doing the work of this course, so I
had a lot of fun taking this class.
 Beyond the scale of a course, I was able to enjoy this novella, and also
to learn something important for the rest of my life through this class.
 I could foster my creativity and thinking skills by expressing my own
ideas through the assigned tasks; therefore, this was an excellent
lecture.
 As this class was the only one in which I was not passive, it was fun
every week.
Table 2Student Feedback on This Course (N = 37)
Categorized student feedbackn

I enjoyed reading this story.
Reading Japanese literature in English translation was interesting.
The assigned tasks were fun to do/effective.
I felt the improvement of my L2 learning.
Sharing our assigned tasks with classmates was beneficial.
I could focus during the class.
The amount of the assigned tasks was too much for me.
I was absorbed into this class.
I was deeply impressed with the story dealing with death.

15
5
5
5
3
2
2
1
1

Note. Students’ comments might contain more than one category ; thus, the total of the feedback
exceeds 37.

5. Discussion
Judging from the class survey results, despite a large quantity of assigned
tasks, most students seemed to be well content with the course overall. Theremay be several factors in bringing these positive outcomes. First, despite thegloomy theme such as the death of close persons described throughout the story,
the students could feel the warmth of people from the characters. The plot
contains a love triangle among the characters who are university students likethemselves. Furthermore, reading a story dealing with such a dark theme
13
93

FUJIOKA Cheena

including loneliness was especially relevant to read during this pandemic time
when their own loneliness might have been intensified without being able tohave their usual life. As a result, most students appeared to be absorbed inreading this story, feeling empathy with the character(s) or their uneasy
situations, and/or to be healed while reading the story. Some students, forinstance, commented in their reflections that they felt better about their own
problems after reading as they were inspired by the character(s)’ words and/or
actions where they are struggling to overcome their hardships. Likewise, others
answered the question, the significance of having read Kitchen during the
pandemic in the final exam as follows: “Due to the pandemic, now that we feeldeath closer than ever, I could read Mikage’s mind more easily and empathizewith her words;” “Reading this story helped me have hope for the future during
the pandemic;” and “This story told me we can recover from sadness throughconnections with other people.”
Additionally, it is important to note that many of the students seemed to
be deeply moved by the character, Eriko who is Yuichi’s transsexual mother.
She becomes the main character, Mikage’s “source of mental support andcomfort” due to her constant encouragement to her (Dollase, 2011, p. 765) when
she is in despair. Most interestingly, more than half of the students chose Erikowhen they selected one character that they liked from the story to analyze by
Task 11 (Filling in the character web). This character had always been popularin the author ’s previous classes, but this time even more students seemed toappreciate her strength and great tenderness during the pandemic. It is also
invaluable for them to read the story where they encounter characters who
belong to LGBTQs, one of the current social issues. Through the characters, thisstory provides them not only the sense of healing or comfort, but also somehope of how diverse relationships such as in the LGBTQ communities canbroaden our understanding and acceptance of all human relationships.
What is more, while visualizing and personalizing the story by creative
tasks and reflective writing, the students’ empathy, critical thinking skills, andcreativity seemed to be enhanced. By fostering those, their intrinsic motivation
appeared to be increased as well. For Task 12: Writing a recipe from Kitchen,for example, it was amazing that there were more students—including malestudents—who actually made a dish which appeared in the story and provided
both the recipe in English and photographs showing the process of their cooking.
Moreover, having them share their assigned works in small groups by thebreakout rooms function of Zoom encouraged them to interact with and learn
from one another. This was even more appreciated in the time of pandemic when
the students could not meet and interact with their peers in person. In addition,
displaying a few of the most outstanding works selected by the instructor to the1494Teaching an EFL Reading Class Using Banana Yoshimotoʼs Kitchen Online During the Covid Pandemic

whole class through the Zoom screen-sharing function turned out to be inspiringand beneficial for them as they could view other interpretations and striking
creativity of peers. Lastly, using different graphic organizers, for the assigned
tasks, appeared to be a useful method for helping students comprehend what
they read, appreciate the story, and overall, enhance their cognitive competence
and empathy.
Regarding the limitations of this course taught online, the instructor could
not give any pop quizzes that would be normally given during in-person
teaching nor could student work be returned after grading with comments.
Instead, the instructor had to give the overall comments on the task to the entire
class and to offer an opportunity to ask their grade personally after class. As forthe class survey, if a few specific question items regarding the effect of having
read this literary text during the pandemic had been included, this study would
have provided more specific results in this regard. Conducting a pre-lesson
questionnaire would also have been effective to show the impact of the course
more precisely. More importantly, if this study had included a control group toprovide for comparative analysis, the effect of teaching EFL with literature andattendant activities and tasks would have been clearer and in greater detail.
Finally, it should be noted that there may have been some Pygmalion effectconcerning the students’ comments in the class survey.
Since the students were not tested at the beginning and end of the academic
year, no accurate measure could be given of the course’s effectiveness inincreasing their English proficiency. The focus of the instruction was onunderstanding and appreciating the content of the literary text.
6. Conclusion
This paper examined the benefits of content-based literature instruction
using the English translation of contemporary Japanese literature, Kitchen(Yoshimoto, 1988/2018), for teaching Japanese university EFL students during
the Covid pandemic. Although the author implemented this instruction a few
times in the past (in 2005 and 2007), this time it happened to be revived online
using Zoom amid the pandemic; hence, the instruction was modified to besuitable for online teaching. According to the results of the class survey using
Kitchen, conducted for the first time, as for the effect of this content-based
literature instruction, the impact on the students’ emotions was the most evident.
It was the most apparent that quite a few students could identify with thecharacter(s), and particularly, they were inspired by their compelling, thoughtprovoking, and emotional words. As a consequence, the impact on theiraffective domain was widely shown in their works, reactions in class, andanswers to the comprehensive essay questions in the final exam. Most
15
95

FUJIOKA Cheena

importantly, among the works they submitted, there were many more works
displaying their high quality of creativity, critical thinking skills, andimagination than the author had expected. This has indicated the potential ofliterary texts that bring out L2 learners’ both creative and critical thinking skills.
To conclude, despite some disadvantages of online teaching, Yoshimoto’s
Kitchen, a masterpiece of contemporary Japanese literature from the 1980s,
proved to be still an effective teaching medium for bringing hope to today’s L2
learners who live in the times of uncertainty during the pandemic, as well.
Reflecting on the choice of using this novella again, what is significant is how
well the content allowed the students to vicariously experience and express theemotions of social isolation and loneliness brought by the pandemic. Throughthese lessons, therefore, the power of literature to nurture L2 learners’ empathy
as well as resilience was recognized again, and hence, hopefully, this reminds
us of the real value of using literature in language teaching.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to three anonymous reviewers
for their thoughtful and helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.
Notes
1 This paper is a modified version of the oral presentation given online at the
JACET 60th Commemorative International Convention on August 28th, 2021.
2 Task 11 (Filling in the character web) was adopted from McCloskey & Stack,1996, p. 155.
3 The question items of the survey were translated from Japanese into English
by the author.
References
Babaee, R., & Yahya, W. R. B. W. (2014). Significance of literature in foreign
language teaching. International Education Studies, 7(4), 80–85.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n4p80
Banana Yoshimoto. (2021, October 11). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/BananaYoshimoto
Carter, R. (2007). Literature and language teaching 1986-2006: A review.
International
JournalofApplied
Linguistics,
17(1),
3–13.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2007.00130.x
Collie, J., & Slater, S. (1987). Literature in the language classroom: A resource
books of ideas and activities. Cambridge University Press.
Dollase, T. H. (2011). Choosing your family: Reconfiguring gender and familial
relationships in Japanese popular fiction. The Journal of Popular Culture,16
96Teaching an EFL Reading Class Using Banana Yoshimotoʼs Kitchen Online During the Covid Pandemic

44(4) 755–766. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5931.2011.00861.x
Fisher, R. (2003). Teaching thinking: Philosophical enquiry in the classroom(2nd ed.). Continuum.
Fujioka, C. (2007). Teaching EFL with contemporary Japanese literature: A
literature-based approach using Banana Yoshimoto’s Kitchen. Journal of
Literature in Language Education, 1, 1–11.
Fujioka, C. (2008). A literature-based approach to EFL classes utilizing Banana
Yoshimoto’s novels: Kitchen and Goodbye Tsugumi. Himeji Dokkyo
Daigaku Kyoshoku-katei-kenkyu, 18, 57–82.
Fujioka, C. (2016). Selecting the English translation of modern Japanese
literature in an EFL reading course: Yukio Mishima’s short story,“Swaddling Clothes.” JACET Kansai Journal, 18, 86–105.
Ghosn, I. K. (2002). Four good reasons to use literature in primary school. ELT
Journal, 56(2), 172–179.
Hadaway, N. L., Vardell, S. M., & Young, T. A. (2002). Literature-based
instruction with English language learners, K-12. Allyn & Bacon.
Kaowiwattanakul, S. (2021). CEFR based learning approach: Using literature toenhance EFL students’ reading skills and critical thinking skills. English
Language Teaching, 14(11), 66–79. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v14n11p66
Keen, S. (2007). Empathy and the novel. Oxford University Press.
Kuze, K. (2012). Communication noryoku ikusei ni tsuite no ichi kousatsu:
bungaku kyouzai wo mochiita eigo jyugyou kara [A reflection on fosteringcommunication ability: English classes using literary texts]. Gengo-jyou
hou-kagaku, 10, 73–89.
Lane, K. (1999). Graphic organizers for active learning: Goal for reading andwriting. The Language Teacher, 23(5), 19–21.
McCloskey, M. L., & Stack, L. (1996). Voices in literature: Silver. Heinle &Heinle.
McKay, S. (1982). Literature in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4),529–536.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2003). “Eigoga tsukaeru nihon jin” no ikusei no tame no koudou keikaku [Action planfor the cultivation of the Japanese who can use English].
https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo3/004/siryo/040316
01/005.pdf
Sakata, A. (2021a, June). Social insight: Wakamono no nakani fukuramu kodoku[The loneliness that swells in the youth]. NRI Public Management Review(Vol. 215). https://www.nri.com/-/media/ Corporate/jp/Files/PDF
Sakata, A. (2021b, July 12). Shingata corona uirusu ryukoni kakawaru
seikatsuno henka to kodoku ni kansuru chousa houkoku [Report on the
17
97FUJIOKA Cheenachange in life and loneliness related to the Covid pandemic]. Nomura
Research Institute, 1–12.
https://www.nri.com/-/media/Corporate/jp/Files/PDF
Yohan (March & April, 2006). Yosho-tsushin. [News of western books] (Vol.15).
Yoshimoto, B. (2018). Kitchen (M. Backus, Trans.). Faber & Faber. (Original
work published 1988)
Appendix A
Task 6: Comparing and contrasting Yuichi & Sotaro
Yuichi or Sotaro
Directions: 1. Compare and contrast the two male characters from Kitchen, Yuichi andSotaro (for instance, their personalities, physical characteristics, family
backgrounds, what they like, etc.) in the Venn diagram below.
2. After doing the 1, For a male student, which of the two characters can you
relate to? And why? For a female student, which of the two characterswould you like to go out with? And why? Write your answer in aparagraph below.

Yuichi

Sotaro18
98Teaching an EFL Reading Class Using Banana Yoshimotoʼs Kitchen Online During the Covid Pandemic

Appendix B
Task 2: Filling in the timeline of Kitchen (Part 1/Part 2)
Timeline of Kitchen

Part 1

Directions: List the main events of the story in order in short sentences.

Time

Events

Spring- Mikage’s grandmother dies.
- Mikage spends every night in the kitchen as it is the only place
where she can sleep.
- She realizes she has to move to a smaller apartment, but she isunable to pull herself together.

A spring
afternoon- Yuichi shows up at her apartment suddenly and offers her totake her in. She cannot say no to him.

Thatevening- She goes to his apartment where she falls in love with the
Tanabes’ kitchen and sofa.
- Yuichi’s mother, Eriko, who is actually his father, comes home fora few minutes to tell her to stay with them.
- While Mikage is stunned to see her, Yuichi tells her that she isreally his father and why his father turned into his mother.

The next
morning- She makes brunch for Eriko and herself.
- She decides to live with Yuichi and his mother until she canfind another place to live.

One day inher old
place- When she goes back to her old apartment, she gets a phone callfrom her old boyfriend, Sotaro. Then, they meet in a café where
he tells her that Yuichi’s ex-girlfriend slapped him because of
Mikage.

Afterliving for amonth- Mikage writes change-of-address cards with Yuichi’s help.
While making those, she brings up about his old girlfriend andhe gets upset.
- She feels that she touched him and that she might end up falling inlove with him. Yet, she feels that she has to move out because sheknows that she is causing a problem between him and his old
girlfriend.



The nextday- After having cleared out of her old apartment for good, shebursts into tears on the bus for the first time after her
grandmother’s death.
- Mikage and Yuichi have the same dream at the same time.

Oneevening- Eriko tells Mikage her philosophy of life, and she has hope for her
future.

Note. The events in bold are already entered as clues, and students complete the rest of
the main events. This is the sample answer.

19
99

JACET Kansai Journal, 25, 100–114. (2023) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

Report on the Effects of Introducing Literature Into the EFLClassroom Through Online Learning:
On the Prose of British Literature 1
USHIRONAKA Yoko
KINDAI University

Abstract
The aim of this paper is to report the effects of introducing literature as ateaching material into the EFL classroom, as a way of educating through online
learning. The use of English literature in EFL classrooms in universities has
been decreasing in recent years. It is doubtful whether this tendency reflects theneeds of students. As the basis of this study, from July 2009 to February 2010
an English poem was introduced into the classroom as an example of English
literature. The results showed that students believed that this introduction of aliterary text as a teaching material made learning interesting. With this in mind,
from May to August 2020, several British prose texts were introduced into two
EFL classrooms through on-demand online learning. A total of 60 undergraduate
students were surveyed on their opinions of literary texts as materials for the
study of English. The students learned English by reading prose, listening toaudio recitation materials, and watching adaptations and videos of authors’
hometowns. Thus, students experienced works from both auditory and visualperspectives. This paper, therefore, aims to report the effects of introducing
literary texts as a part of teaching materials through on-demand online learning.
Keywords： literary texts as materials, British literature, prose, on-demand
online learning
1. Introduction
In recent years, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, andTechnology set the goal of developing practical communication skills in foreign
language education. Corporations tend to focus on TOEIC scores, while theteaching of literature is decreasing in English college education. Because
English education policy in Japan emphasizes communication abilities, it has
been stated that literature is disappearing from English textbooks as educational
material (Erikawa, 2004). I raise the question of whether moving away fromusing literature in college education truly benefits students.
In this study, the preliminary consciousness perception questionnaires thatwere conducted in 2008 and 2009 are concisely described first. Second is the
1100Report on the Eﬀects of Introducing Literature Into the EFL Classroom Through Online Learning:
On the Prose of British Literatureclassroom practice observation, the core of this study, in which literature wasused as teaching material in an online EFL classroom part of a general
education course taught in 2020. Third, the survey results and discussion
focusing on the students who utilized literary texts to study English arepresented. The aim of this paper is to clarify the potential development of
implementing literary textbooks based on the results of the student surveys.
1.1 Previous Studies
Many literary scholars have emphasized the benefits of using literary texts
as teaching materials. Saito et al. (2004) claimed that literature is the bestteaching material and highlighted the importance of cogitating about utilization
methods. To increase the efficiency of the learning methods used in English as a
Second Language (ESL), Maley (1987) suggested using poetry and songs, Sage
(1987) recommended implementing poetry and short novels, and Kuze (2015)
demonstrated the effectiveness of using short stories in university EFL
composition classes.
Mano (2004) described how one of the purposes of English education iscultivating language sensibility. Lazar (1993) stated that utilizing a literary text
in a class yields satisfactory results, especially when students are required toshare their emotions and opinions. Ishida (2009) asserted the importance ofreading, interpreting, and criticizing literary texts with insight and sympathy.
Watari (2003) pointed out that literary materials contribute to personality
development.
Takahashi (2009), on the state of literary materials, described how
overseas language education had a movement to remove literary materials after
the 1950s, but those materials were re-evaluated around the 1980s. She stated
that, in Japan, which is currently on the minority side in implementing literarymaterial-based English education, some English teachers are gradually
reassessing the value of these materials. Takahashi (2015) indicated the problemof the limited interpretation of practical communication skills tied toutilitarianism, and literary materials are apposite for developing communication
skills.
1.2 Preliminary Research
I believe that literary materials must be included in English education.
The consciousness perception questionnaire has been administered to students
to elicit their thoughts on literature being used as teaching material since 2008.
This questionnaire, which serves as preliminary research, targeted 232 students
from three private universities between April and September of 2008. The
purpose was to determine their views on English literature (e.g., novels, poems,
2
101

USHIRONAKA, Yoko

essays, and short plays) used as teaching materials. As a result, 62% ofparticipants (144 students) answered that they favored literature. Consequently,
I used English poetry in the EFL classroom during general education courses,
targeting 99 students at two private universities between July 2009 andFebruary 2010, and conducted the questionnaire again. Based on statisticallyprocessed quantitative work, using the Pearson coefficient of the correlation
formula, the numerical data indicated that implementing English poetry inEnglish education increased the learners’ awareness of literature as teachingmaterials (Ushironaka, 2011).
Confirming the results of this preliminary research, which found thatliterature implementation in English education increased students’ awareness, I
have continuously used British and American poetry, prose, and novels of
various genres in the EFL classroom as part of general education courses. The
experimental classroom practice with literary teaching materials was publishedin Ushironaka (2013). This practice incorporated cooperative learning to discuss
the interpretation of literary texts as a group. The following description will
explain the method used in the practice to introduce the prose of British
literature as a teaching material through on-demand online learning in 2020.
This study aims to answer the following research questions: (1) Dochanges occur in students’ perceptions before and after implementing literarytexts as teaching materials? (2) What kinds of changes were indicated in thestatistics based on the quantitative analysis? (3) What was the students’ actual
state of mind, as determined by qualitative data?
2. Method
2.1 Participants and Materials
A total of 60 students, who were sophomores, juniors, or seniors studying
literature, culture, or arts at a private university participated in this study. They
were divided into two classes. Each class included students majoring inJapanese literature, performing arts, plastic arts, culture, history, or culturaldesign. Neither class included students majoring in English or British-American
literature. These EFL classrooms were general education electives and werenamed English for Specific Purposes (ESP) 1 and 2 for the first and second
semesters, respectively.
The EFL classes in this department’s second language curriculum include
English 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B, English 3 and 4; English for Study Abroad 1 and 2;
TOEIC 1 and 2, TOEIC 3 and 4; TOEFL 1 and 2; and ESP 1 and 2. While thedepartment’s second language curriculum does not include literature classes, the
ESP courses use a wide range of genres as teaching materials to deepen
students’ specific knowledge, and the two EFL classrooms examined in this3102

Report on the Eﬀects of Introducing Literature Into the EFL Classroom Through Online Learning:
On the Prose of British Literature

study used literary materials. This was the first time most of these students took
a literature class.
The Poetry and Prose of British Literature (Seimiya, 2011) was used as a
textbook in all 30 consecutive lectures, and prose and British literature tales
from this textbook were selected as teaching materials. Although the first pieceof literature introduced in class was a play rather than prose, the class read
Shakespeare from the 16th century and literary texts from the 17th, 18th, 19th,and 20th centuries. They also read parts of a specific passage from the Holy
Bible, as well as excerpts from the masterpieces of John Bunyan, Jane Austen,
Emily Brontë, Thomas Hardy, D.H. Lawrence, and Virginia Woolf. Each excerpt
consisted of approximately 400 to 500 words from the original text.
2.2 ProceduresClass sessions were delayed due to the coronavirus outbreak; therefore,
the first semester ’s 15 sessions were held between May and August 2020, andthe second semester ’s 15 sessions were held between September 2020 andJanuary 2021. All classes were conducted through on-demand online learning;
per school policy, the Google Classroom platform was used as the learning
management system (LMS).
The objectives of these classes include gaining an understanding of themeaning of each word, thoroughly analyzing the structure of phrases, anddeveloping a reading comprehension technique that builds accuracy and fluency.
The objectives further include learning about the historical backgrounds of theliterary texts as well as their authors, and understanding the rhythm of thelanguage, authors’ characteristics, and the characters in the novel, so thatstudents build a greater appreciation for what they are learning.
Students were expected to spend 90 minutes on each class and 90 minutes
preparing and reviewing (i.e., 3 hours in total each time). They were expected to
devote 60 minutes to preparation, reading excerpts from the original texts of theworks, looking up unfamiliar words and attempting to translate them in theirown words to the extent possible, and getting their notebooks ready for class.
After that, they were expected to dedicate 30 minutes to review, summarizing
the main points of the lectures in their notebooks, organizing their notes
regarding what they had learned watching lecture videos, and repeatedly
practicing reading the works aloud to memorize important words and phrases.
Literary texts were presented in three stages, “historical periods andliterary work,” “reading,” and “learning about authors and their work throughimages,” and students took an average of three sessions to complete each text.
Japanese was used to present and discuss the pieces. Before reading, students
received text-and video-based outlines of British literary history to give them a4
103

USHIRONAKA, Yokobasic understanding of the eras in which these literary works were created(“historical periods and literary work”). Each student individually translated theoriginal texts of approximately 400 to 500 words and submitted them asassignments. It was allowed to use previous translations for reference. They
were encouraged to develop their own creativity by studying the translators’
ideas. Students then viewed videos of teacher demonstrating phrase reading(“reading”) and were encouraged to take notes to revise their translations asnecessary.
Students also received pronunciation teaching materials to read aloud foreach literary text because these classes emphasize listening as well as reading.
They repeatedly listened to the pronunciation materials and submitted brief
papers on their newly gained knowledge. To ensure that students had
opportunities to exchange opinions on the content of their studies and interact
with teacher, their views, interpretations, and opinions on each literary work
were later shared in PDF format with teacher comments. Students responded
particularly enthusiastically to reading the characters from Shakespeare’s plays
aloud. During these listening sessions, some expressed a strong interest in
rhythm and tempo, breathing pauses, and dialog breaks (37% of participants,i.e., 22 students), and how sounds conveyed the characters’ emotions (30% ofparticipants, i.e., 18 students). Moreover, the classes utilized numerous soundand image materials, such as websites, allowing students to listen to music
adapted from the literary works in question.
DVDs of film adaptations of literary works were edited on Zoom anduploaded to help students understand the entire stories and their characters.
Additionally, images of authors’ birthplaces and story settings were presented todeepen their understanding of these literary works (“learning about authors andtheir work through images”). Furthermore, to improve their listening skills,
after perusing the original works, students were required to dictate lines fromthe adapted movies or dramas.
The specific characteristics of online learning described above augmented
students’ appreciation of reading with auditory and visual media. This approachalso conveyed to students the message that literature is the art of words, andthat, therefore, they should enjoy it multi-directionally: visually, auditorily, andemotionally.
2.3 Evaluation Method
The evaluation methods used in these classes included “Assignments with
Tests” created in Google Forms. For each lesson, a Google Forms’ 10-minutequiz was given to check students’ understanding of authors, important
vocabulary, sentence structure, and grammar.
5104

Report on the Eﬀects of Introducing Literature Into the EFL Classroom Through Online Learning:
On the Prose of British Literature

Meanwhile, for the translation assignments, teacher presented answers
with explanations, provided supplemental materials, and delivered overall
reviews that highlighted common mistakes, excellent translations, and creativeideas. Then, using the Google Classroom “private comments” function, teacher
gave students individual feedback for each assignment and prompted them tocorrect grammatical and vocabulary mistakes. However, each student’s
sensibility was respected, and interesting word choices and ingenious ideas
were highly evaluated. Students also used the “private comments” function to
ask questions and share their opinions about the readings, making the teacherstudent communication in these classes more proactive than in face-to-faceclasses.
2.4 Research Method
Students answered the consciousness perception questionnaire using
Google Forms, reporting their thoughts about studying English through literarytexts.
For one semester, 60 students in two EFL classrooms participated. They
all completed the same questionnaires, identifying their names before and after
studying English using literary texts as instructional materials. Allquestionnaires were in Japanese and students were informed about the research
purpose, assured that their responses would not affect their grades, andinstructed to select responses on a five-point scale. Questions covered theirinterest in literature as teaching materials, whether they liked or disliked this,and the reasons. In addition, a free-writing section was provided where students
could state their forthright opinions about studying English using literary texts,
with an emphasis on prose and novels. Questions were as follows:
Statement. I like British literature (e.g., prose, novels) written in English.
Dislike–reason 1. British literature is of no practical use.
Dislike–reason 2. English as a qualification, such as the TOEIC, is importantfor seeking employment.
Dislike–reason 3. British literature is too difficult for the EFL classroom.
Dislike–reason 4. British literature does not interest me.
Like–reason 5. British literature is practical and useful.
Like–reason 6. The modern trend of emphasizing the TOEIC and other testscores is not interesting.
Like–reason 7. I have some favorite British literature writers.
Like–reason 8. Literature is not difficult in the EFL classroom.
Like–reason 9. British literature is interesting.
The five-point scale was as follows: (1) Strongly disagree; (2) Disagreeslightly; (3) Neither agree nor disagree; (4) Agree slightly; (5) Strongly agree.
6105

USHIRONAKA, Yoko

I have failed to extrapolate the problem of unreliability caused by thedifferent number of reasons for Dislike and Like (four for Dislike and five forLike) until this point in 2022. As a future task, I must improve the questionnaire
by adding Dislike-reason such as “I have no favorite British literature writers.”
Answers to the first questionnaire, prior to the implementation of theliterary texts, were collected from June 6 to June 19, 2020, and answers to thesecond questionnaire were collected after the implementation of the literarytexts, from July 25 to August 5, 2020. In total, 56 students answered the firstquestionnaire, and 57 answered the second. Due to the nature of elective
subjects, not all students attended both the first and second semesters. Thus, thefirst semester ’s statistics were compiled.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Comparison of the Results before and after the Implementation of
Literary Texts
The Pearson coefficient of the correlation formula was used for statisticalprocessing as an analytical method. Results before and after the implementationof literary texts in the EFL classroom are shown in Table 1 and Table 2, andcorrelation data that indicate high numbers are compared and examined.
Table 1

Statement. I like
British literature

Like –
reason 9

Like –
reason 8

Like –
reason 7

Like –
reason 6

Like –
reason 5

Dislike –reason 4

Dislike –reason 3

Dislike –reason 2

Dislike –reason 1

Statement.
I likeBritishliterature

The Results of Questionnaire before the Implementation of Literary Texts(British Prose and Novels) in the EFL Classroom in the First Semester 2020

1.000

Dislike – reason 1-0.210

1.000

Dislike – reason 2

0.451-0.323

1.000

Dislike – reason 3

0.969-0.167

0.501

1.000

Dislike – reason 4

0.283

0.710

-0.116

0.216

1.000

Like – reason 50.183-0.478

0.928

0.256

-0.342

1.000

Like – reason 6

0.453-0.461

0.932

0.539

-0.392

0.881

1.000

Like – reason 7-0.0450.949-0.302-0.0010.623-0.526-0.3581.000

Like – reason 8

0.116

0.927

-0.228

0.107

0.902

-0.470-0.417

0.899

1.000

Like – reason 90.337-0.489

0.798

0.484

-0.398

0.872

0.859

-0.488-0.479Note. Shaded cells mine. The same is true for Table 2.
7
106

1.000

Report on the Eﬀects of Introducing Literature Into the EFL Classroom Through Online Learning:
On the Prose of British Literature

High correlation numbers with a significance level of 5% ±0.811 or above
are shaded. The highest number in Table 1 is 0.969. It is assumed that students“like” literature by nature, but they think that literature is “too difficult” for the
EFL classroom.
Table 2

Statement. I like
British literature

Like –
reason 9

Like –
reason 8

Like –
reason 7

Like –
reason 6

Like –
reason 5

Dislike –reason 4

Dislike –reason 3

Dislike –reason 2

Dislike –reason 1

Statement.
I likeBritishliterature

The Results of Questionnaire after the Implementation of Literary Texts(British Prose and Novels) in the EFL Classroom in the First Semester 2020

1.000

Dislike – reason 1-0.362Dislike – reason 2

0.746 -0.453

1.000

Dislike – reason 30.749 -0.041

0.266

1.000

Dislike – reason 4-0.2360.831 -0.397

0.214

Like – reason 5

0.778 -0.479

0.982

0.325 -0.328

1.000

Like – reason 6

0.948 -0.454

0.914

0.549 -0.383

0.916

Like – reason 7

0.068

0.882 -0.262

0.396

0.764 -0.275 -0.105

1.000

Like – reason 8-0.2100.885 -0.352

0.178

0.989 -0.297 -0.342

0.816

Like – reason 90.751 -0.545

1.000

0.988

1.000

0.222 -0.478

0.982

1.000
1.000

0.916 -0.355 -0.435

1.000

After the implementation of literary texts, the highest correlation of scorechanges that were detected were as follows:
Change 1: Reason 2, “English as a qualification, such as the TOEIC, is
important for seeking employment” and Reason 5, “British literature is practicaland useful,” showed a strong correlation (0.982).
Change 2: Reason 2, “English as a qualification, such as the TOEIC, is
important for seeking employment” and Reason 9, “British literature isinteresting” had a strong correlation (0.988).
Change 3: Reason 4, “British literature does not interest me” and Reason 8,“Literature is not difficult in the EFL classroom” had a strong correlation(0.989).
Change 4: Reason 5, “British literature is practical and useful” and Reason 9,“British literature is interesting” had a strong correlation (0.982).
Table 2 shows correlations of 0.980 or above in the four cells. In
8107

USHIRONAKA, Yoko

particular, the following two cells, shaded cells 0.988 and 0.982, indicate thegreatest changes. After the implementation, numbers indicating the correlation
between Reason 2, “English as a qualification, such as the TOEIC, is importantfor seeking employment,” and Reason 9, “British literature is interesting,”
greatly increased, by 0.190 points (Change 2). Numbers indicating thecorrelation between Reason 5, “British literature is practical and useful,” andReason 9, “British literature is interesting” also greatly increased, by 0.110
points (Change 4).
When focusing on “English as a qualification” and its “practical use,” thenumbers indicating the correlation between Reason 2, “English as aqualification, such as the TOEIC, is important for seeking employment” andReason 5, “British literature is practical and useful” slightly increased, by 0.054
points, reaching a high of 0.982 (Change 1). These numbers suggest thatstudents discovered a sense of practicality in literature after using literary texts.
Furthermore, focusing on the largest changes, the following two changes
greatly exceeded the previously mentioned Change 2, which increased by 0.190
points and Change 4, which increased by 0.110 points.
Change 5: The correlation of Statement, “I like British literature,” and Reason
3, “British literature is too difficult for the EFL classroom,” greatly decreased,by 0.220 points (0.749).
Change 6: The correlation of Statement, “I like British literature,” and Reason
6, “The modern trend of emphasizing the TOEIC and other test scores is notinteresting,” greatly increased, by 0.495 points (0.948).
The results prove that Statement, “I like British literature,” and Reason 3,“British literature is too difficult for the EFL classroom,” which had the highest
correlation (0.969) before the implementation of literary texts, which is shownin Table 1, no longer indicate a strong correlation (Change 5). Also, thecorrelation of Statement, “I like British literature,” and Reason 6, “The modern
trend of emphasizing the TOEIC and other test scores is not interesting,” wasmerely 0.453 in Table 1, but increased to 0.948 (Change 6). These changes
suggest that preconceived ideas of British literature being “too difficult” faded
and positive (“like”) feelings increased.
3.2 Student Comments
Given the results of the quantitative data analysis, I turned to the language
data from the free-writing section to develop a better understanding of students’perspectives. The following student comments were confirmed by a third party
to be an accurate translation of the original Japanese comments.

9108

Report on the Eﬀects of Introducing Literature Into the EFL Classroom Through Online Learning:
On the Prose of British Literature

Table 3The Results of Questionnaire (Free-writing Excerpts) before the
Implementation of Literary Texts (British Prose and Novels) in the EFLClassroom in the First Semester 2020
Disadvantages of implementing literary texts
・I am fond of English literature, but it takes an excessive
It takes too long toamount of time because it is too complex to comprehend.
comprehend・ I enjoy reading translated literature in Japanese, but
reading it in English while translating on my own takes
too long to enjoy.
・ I am not certain if I can use learned phrases from
Unfamiliar wording literature in my ordinary conversations.
and phrasing
・ Classical literature contains numerous obsolete English
words that are no longer used. Therefore, I believe thatthey are not practical to learn.
・ Literary English seems more difficult compared tomodern English that is used in the TOEIC because alarge number of vocabulary and meanings in British
literature are no longer in use today.
・ I become confused because I don’t recognize some
Cultural differences words, or some parts in grammar are omitted.
・The names of characters are confusing, and it is difficult
Literature is
to visualize various scenes due to cultural differences.
confusing
Advantages of implementing literary texts
・I am excited about the class. Because I am familiar with
Expectations fromliterature due to my performing arts major.
familiarity
・ I will enjoy the class because I like reading theatricalplays.
Impulse for・I am excited because I am new to literature.
exploration that・ I look forward to studying authors, story contexts, andoccurs from trying
expressive words and phrases in English because I havesomething for thenever read English literature.
first time・The knowledge of British literature, including the names
Interests in refined of well-known works, that I will gain in this class will
education, profound enable me to discuss various topics with people fromoverseas to develop and expand my communication.
expression, and・I
am interested in studying English literature because itrhythm in English
demonstrates the characteristics and rhythm of the
English language.
・
Studying English from literature and understanding
Richness in stories
stories allows me to overcome my reluctance towardlearning English.
・Studying English while reading novels is worthwhile to
me.

10
109

USHIRONAKA, Yoko

Before the implementation, the disadvantages of literary text materials
suggested students’ concerns of English literature being old-fashioned and of
low practicality. Their comments included that it takes too long to comprehend
literature, difficulties with unfamiliar phrasings, and cultural differences.
Conversely, advantages before the implementation suggested the students’
expectations of literary texts. Their comments included: “I am familiar withliterature due to my performing arts major,” “I am excited because I am new toliterature,” and “I am interested in discovering refined education, profoundexpressions, and rhythm in English.” In addition, some comments indicate
students’ elevated interests regarding the content of stories. They believe thatthe storyline can overpower their reluctance to learn English. Below are thestudents’ comments after the implementation.
Table 4The Results of Questionnaire (Free-writing Excerpts) after the
Implementation of Literary Texts (British Prose and Novels) in the EFLClassroom in the First Semester 2020
Disadvantages of implementing literary texts
・I was not able to discuss interpretations of literature withother students as much as I would have liked due to thenature of online learning.
It takes too long ・I could have enjoyed studying English twice as much if I
didn’t have a tremendous amount of assignments.
to read・ Because of my lack of confidence in English, reading
It is too difficult
usually takes too long for me to even start liking it.
to comprehend ・ I had a difficult time understanding the expressions ofbygone days, as well as figurative expressions inliterature.
Advantages of implementing literary texts(for convenience, letters have been added to the students’comments)
Owing to thea. Although it was online learning, I enjoyed every weekly
uniqueclass because it was easy to follow by utilizing images.
characteristic of b. I assumed British literature was a difficult subject, but
online classthe videos enabled me to enjoy studying it.
c. Listening to the reading of plays on YouTube allowed me
Easier to visualize
to easily visualize, thus enabling me to have greaterwith images andinterest in literature.
videosd. Although communication was all done online, thecomments on assignments I received from my teacher
motivated me. I truly enjoyed this class.

11
110

Report on the Eﬀects of Introducing Literature Into the EFL Classroom Through Online Learning:
On the Prose of British Literaturee. The class was not only enjoyable but also extremely
Can gain a refined
encouraging for gaining knowledge.
education while f. In the first questionnaire, I responded by saying that I
studying English
saw it as a disadvantage; that due to cultural differences,it would be difficult to understand the context of stories.
However, I felt that it was far more beneficial to learn
about the cultures and history of English-speaking
countries through literature than rote memorization.
g. Religious elements are usually not described in Japanese
literature. Therefore, I enjoyed learning about different
cultures with religious backgrounds.
Enjoyable because h. This class allowed me to study English while readingof its storyline
stories; I felt more familiar with the language.
i. Studying through literature enabled me to enjoy andpersistently continue to study, even though it wasdifficult.
j. I enjoyed the context of the literary works.
Figurative, unique k. Figurative expressions in the Holy Bible wereexpressions,fascinating.
sensibility,
l. In this class, I learned that English has its characteristics
profoundness,and effusive expressions that cannot be easily describednumerousin Japanese.
possibilities
m. This class allowed us to learn the benevolence andprofoundness of English literature, which is not usually
read in textbooks that merely contain grammaticallycorrect English.
n. I learned that one phrase can send different impressions
depending on how each reader translates it. English is
abstruse.
Surprisingly not o. When I first started this class, studying English withtoo difficult
British literature seemed interesting, but difficult.
However, as the class progressed, I found it not too
difficult as long as I didn’t neglect my research.
Before implementation, opinions, such as “it takes too long to read” and“it is too difficult to comprehend,” were recorded, but after implementation, thenumber of opinions expressing disadvantages decreased to roughly half: before
implementation, 11 of the 56 students expressed disadvantages, and 6 of the 57
students did so after implementation. Concurrently, several students reported
difficulties in studying online for the first time. The number of assignments was
reduced, and interactive communication opportunities utilizing Google Forms
were created to improve the situation in the second semester.
The advantage of an on-demand online classroom included frequent use ofimages and videos on YouTube and other video distribution platforms,
effectively enabling students to easily visualize and understand the literature(refer to a. – d.).
12
111

USHIRONAKA, Yoko

Literary texts also contributed to not only the learning of English but alsoenriching students’ understanding of other fields, such as culture, history, andreligion (refer to e. – g.). Even though the class was difficult, interesting contexts
of novels and the strong storylines of the literature motivated students tocontinue their efforts to learn English (refer to h. – j.). Students also appeared toenjoy learning about unique expressions and phrases, the profoundness ofsentences, an abundance of emotional expressions, and the possibilities ofnumerous interpretations of stories (refer to k. – n.). Furthermore, some students
addressed the unexpectedness of finding literature not difficult to understand aslong as they did not neglect their research (refer to o.).
The students’ actual state of mind, as revealed by the language data,
corresponded with the results of Changes 5 and 6, indicating that using
literature can reduce students’ mental images of British literature being “toodifficult” and increase their feelings of “I like it.” Figure 1 depicts the evidence
for increasing such positive feelings (“like”).
Figure 1
Comparison of the Number of Students Who Answered “Like” before and after
the Implementation of Literary Texts as Teaching Materials

This graph indicates the comparison of students’ answers to the statement,“I like British literature,” before (left) and after (right) implementing literarytexts. Figure 1 shows that the neutral answer of “neither” (3) decreased, andaffirmative answers of “like,” such as (4) and (5), increased, thus proving that
more students chose “like” after implementing literary texts.
Shakespeare’s plays were particularly popular among the students, which
13
112

Report on the Eﬀects of Introducing Literature Into the EFL Classroom Through Online Learning:
On the Prose of British Literature

may be because the pronunciation materials used were not those attached to the
textbook but the voices of actors on stage, providing a stronger impact. Emily
Brontë’s Wuthering Heights (1847) and Thomas Hardy’s Tess of thed’Urbervilles (1891) were also favored given the adaptations of literary works.
Through images, imaginative students could empathize with the story.
4. Conclusion
This study revealed that students’ perceptions of British literature changed
before and after implementing literary texts as educational materials in ondemand online EFL classrooms, indicating that the correlation between
enjoyment and benefit increased. Students were initially concerned that British
literature was highly difficult and impractical. Nonetheless, upon using literarytexts in the classroom, they realized that literature does not contain obsolete
English. Literature enabled students to comprehend history, religion, education,and other cultures. They recognized that literature is useful in their daily
English usage. Moreover, the decreased correlation between “I like it” and “it is
too difficult” demonstrated students’ realization that using literary texts was not
too difficult, and they appreciated literature with a compelling storyline andrich vocabulary, thereby increasing their interest in literature.
Literature has a rich meaning that can allow us to affirm and discuss eachindividual’s ideas over correctness or incorrectness. Using literary materials canpromote and enhance individuality. Obtaining affirmation will motivate students
and increase their interest in the English language; thus, literary materials are
crucial. This is my response to the question of whether moving away from using
literature in college education truly benefits students. I believe that language
education must value the mind and cultivate critical thinking skills and artistic
sensibility.
Finally, the conception that literary texts take too long to enjoy may stemfrom today’s emphasis on efficiency. This is a topic I would like to discuss
further with students and other teachers. Although this study focused on
quantitative data, more detailed analyses of language data should be conducted
and compared to qualitative study results to increase research validity. Future
research on how to facilitate positive emotions, such as “like,” “enjoyable,” and“beneficial,” can further improve English education utilizing literary texts topromote methods for creating effective classrooms in the digital transformation
age and must be pursued incessantly.
Acknowledgements
I am deeply grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions
and insightful comments.
14
113

USHIRONAKA, Yoko

Note
1 This study was orally presented at the JACET 60th Commemorative
International Convention held online from August 27th to 29th, 2021.
References
Erikawa, H. (2004). The disappearance of literature from English textbooks. The
English Teachers’ Magazine, 53(8), 15 – 18.
Ishida, H. (2009). English literature in English education. Brontë Newsletter ofJapan, 75, 1.
Kuze, K. (2015). Using short stories in university composition classrooms. In M.
Teranishi, Y. Saito, & K. Wales (Eds.), Literature and language learning in
the EFL classroom (pp. 182–196). Palgrave Macmillan.
Lazar, G. (1993). Literature and language teaching: A guide for teachers andtrainers. Cambridge University Press.
Maley, A. (1987). Poetry and song as effective language-learning activities. In
W. M. Rivers (Ed.), Interactive language teaching (pp. 93 – 109).
Cambridge University Press.
Mano, Y. (2004). Class practice using literature as a teaching material(university). The English Teachers’ Magazine, 53(8), 27 – 29.
Sage, H. (1987). Incorporating literature in ESL instruction. Prentice Hall.
Saito, Y., Kaiki, Y., Muroi, M., & Nakamura, T. (2004). Literature is the bestteaching material: How to use it in English classes? The English Teachers’
Magazine, 53(8), 6 – 14.
Seimiya, M., & Seimiya, K. (Eds.). (2011). The poetry and prose of British
literature. Nan’un-do.
Takahashi, K. (2009). Literature and language education: Focusing on the caseof English education. In Y. Saito (Ed.), Language and literature (pp. 148 –
171). Asakura Publishing.
Takahashi, K. (2015). The possibilities of literary materials in English teachingin Japan. Hituzi Syobo Publishing.
Ushironaka, Y. (2011). Report on the effects of introducing English literature
into the EFL classroom: On the poetry of British literature. JACET Kansai
Journal, 13, 74 – 85.
Ushironaka, Y. (2013). Report on the effects of introducing English poetry into
the EFL classroom through cooperative learning. Kobe English Language
Teaching, 28, 69 – 85.
Watari, C. (2003). Is literature not teaching material? Brontë Newsletter ofJapan, 59, 3.

15114

Part III

Reminiscing and Reaffirming
Judy Noguchi（2010〜2014年度 支部長）
While serving as Chapter President of JACET Kansai, I wrote five articles for theNewsletter. Was I on the right track with what I said about a decade ago?
The first for No. 52 (2010) was entitled “Trusting Tradition, Channeling Change.”
JACET was about to celebrate its 50th anniversary and the Kansai Chapter its 40th . I
remembered something my university advisor said: “A chain is only as strong as its
weakest link.” I called on members to place trust in the JACET tradition but prepare tochannel change to make the Kansai Chapter community “chain” even stronger.
Newsletter No. 56 (2011) came after the Eastern Japan earthquake-tsunami disaster. I
asked “What can JACET do for you?” but concluded by saying that the more you do for
JACET, the more you yourself will learn and gain.
No. 60 (2012) asked “Whose English should we teach?” English as a Lingua Franca(ELF) was gaining attention as a global paradigmatic shift in the conceptualization ofEnglish. ELF is used to communicate with people from different language backgrounds
in a variety of situations. This means that the English our students use “may not be
native-like speech but it does need to be understandable. It may not be grammaticallyperfect but it does need to be accurate. It may not be unique and creative but it does
need to be rhetorically accessible.”No. 64 (2013) discussed the theme of the JACET 52nd International Convention:“Collaboration and Relativization in English Language Education” which was to be heldat Kyoto University. “‘Relativization’ refers to the recognition of English as being‘relative’ to its usage rather than being ‘absolute.’ As college English teachers, we must
face the reality that our students will be competing on a global stage when they leave
the university in four to six years. …We MUST prepare them to be able to meet thechallenges that they will be facing.” This can be done by collaborating with a wide rangeof colleagues involved in various areas of language and communication research.
The last one, No. 68 (2014), discussed “The A in the PAIL of Communication.” I
use the acronym PAIL to help students identify the important features of the texts they
are studying. P is the “purpose” of the text, A is the intended “audience,” I is the“information” it contains, and L is its “language features.” For example, the package
insert for a medicine, which is to be read by the patient, would have different
information and use different language features from a text describing the same
medicine that is aimed at healthcare professionals.
I think what I said is still relevant today. Also, I treasure the many experiences I
have had with so many JACET members from Kansai and all over Japan. Thank you!

115

支部設立 50 周年に寄せて
小栗 裕子 (2015〜2018 年 支部長)
関西支部設立 50 周年おめでとうございます。私が長年所属していた大学には「英語教育」を専門とする教員が少なく，JACET での大会や講演会が研究をする上で大きな支えとなりました。特に支部大会は学問的な刺激と共に毎回違った大学で開かれるので，会場を見学することも楽しみの一つでした。関西支部は他支部と比べて立地条件に恵まれています。それは年 2 回開催される大会がどの県からも大体日帰りできる距離にあるからです。
大会を企画運営する側になって京都・滋賀地区，大阪・和歌山・奈良地区，兵庫地区の 3地区で順次開催されていることを知りました。また学会で活躍されている先輩の女性会員の存在も大きな励みになっていました。
JACET は私にとって一つの「世界」だったような気がします。研究企画委員として支部大会の運営に携わったこと，そして企画をする面白さを味わったこと。幹事として支部を運営する側の大変さを実感したこと。何かをお願いした時，「はい，いいですよ」と快く引き受けてくださった多くの会員の存在。JACET Kansai Journal (JKJ) の編集委員長として毎
年発行日に間に合うのか「締切」に追われた 5 年間だったこと。その発行の裏で査読委員の先生方の迅速な働きがあったこと。支部長として多くの方から温かいご支援をいただいたこと。特に幹事の先生方の献身的な支えで無事 4 年間を終えることができたこと。これ
らの活動を通して良き研究「仲間」や「師」と仰ぐ先生方に出会えたことは 私が JACETに入会していなければ決して叶わなかったことです。関西は常に 600 人近くの会員を有する勢いのある支部です。この「活気」溢れる支部が継続されることを願っています。
ところで，ここ 2，3 年コロナ禍の中で学会の運営は大きく変わってきましたが，支部長の植松茂男先生を中心に幹事の先生方にも大変なご苦労があったことでしょう。また 2020
年開催予定だった同志社大学での第 59 回国際大会の中止も残念でした。前年度から大会準備委員会を立ち上げ，テーマや招待講師についてはすでに決定するまでの段階になっていましたが，ご尽力くださった会場校の植松先生や中田賀之先生はじめ委員の先生方はさ
ぞ落胆なさったことでしょう。前回京都大学で開催されて大盛会だった第 52 回大会（2013）
が懐かしく思い出されます。59 回大会も開催されていれば同様に盛り上がっていたことでしょう。昨今オンラインでも会議や講演が広く行われるようになってきました。コロナの経験を活かし，海外の講演者とオンラインでの参加が可能になっています。
ちょうど 10 年前 JKJ 14 の編集委員会で「関西支部設立 40 周年を記念して」と題する特集号を企画しました。「関西紀要の歴史」によると 1992 年設立 20 周年を迎えた支部が独自の「研究紀要」を刊行することになり，立ち上げ以降の活動記録をまとめたとあります。翌年の第 2 号はその当時の 10 の研究グループが参加をしてその成果を報告しています。研究会の活動期間が 2 年だったのでしょうか。隔年の刊行が第 9 号まで続き，その間編集委員会が発足し，第 10 号から JACET Kansai Journal と 名称も変更になりました。JKJ
12 より支部ホームページからこれら紀要の内容を見ることができます。関西支部はここまで多くの方々のご尽力で 50 周年を迎えることができたのだと，心よりお慶び申し上げま
す。
1
116

コロナ禍とともに植松 茂男 (2019 年度〜現在 支部長）
小栗裕子先生の後任として，2019 年度から 2022 年度まで支部長を拝命しました。初年度
2019 年の支部大会は 11 月に同志社大学で開催され，UBC の久保田竜子教授を基調講演者として招聘，京都大学の柳瀬陽介先生，関西学院大学の寺沢拓敬先生に特別講演をいただき，クリティカルな視点から英語教育を省察する機会に恵まれました。
しかしながら，翌 2020 年明け以降，新型コロナウイルス感染症が相次いで報告され，3月には WHO が COVID-19 パンデミックを表明する事態となりました。各大学では政府の緊急事態宣言と「3 密の回避」を受け，新学期開始に苦慮しました。テクストも販売できないまま，学期が始まることも珍しくなかったと思います。宣言は 5 月末には一旦解除となりますが，8 月にかけて再び大流行。未曾有の混乱が社会を襲いました。私の勤務校でも戸惑いと試行錯誤の連続でしたが，Zoom や Teams などを利用した遠隔授業のスキルが徐々に共有されはじめ，後期は少し安定した授業運営が行えるようになりました。しかしながら，これは先の見えないトンネルに入ったばかりでありました。その後，今日まで凡
そ 3 年間にわたり，世界で 6 億人以上が罹患し 650 万人以上の死者を出している(WHO,2022.10.8 執筆時点)コロナ禍に，まだ出口は見えません。ようやく 2022 年 4 月から，ほとんどの大学で授業形態がリモートから対面に戻りました。一日も早いコロナ収束を心の底から願うばかりです。
JACET 関西でも毎年 3 回開催される支部講演会が，2020 年度第 1 回(6 月)は中止に追い込まれました。さらに 8 月に開催予定であった第 59 回 JACET 国際大会(於，同志社大学)も，5 月には中止の方向に舵取を迫られました。50 名体制で 1 年以上をかけ準備に勤
しんだ組織委員会の長として，まことに無念でありました。一方で 11 月の支部大会は，研究企画委員の先生方のご尽力で，インターネット・オンデマンド形式により無事開催が叶い，従来を上回る参加者数が記録されました。他支部の JACET 会員の参加も目立ち，遠隔のメリットを知らされたものです。以後，JACET 本部・支部を問わず，インターネット（オンライン）会議がスタンダードとなりました。2021 年度は支部大会のテーマ自体が「ポストコロナを見据えた英語教育」に決まり，文字通りコロナ禍でも怯まない学会の士気を示しました。2022 年度支部大会は，従来（11 月下旬）から日程を変えて，2023 年 3 月 4 日（土）に「台頭するテクノロジーと変わりゆく価値観を見据えた英語教育」と題してハイブリッドで無事開催されました。
最後になりましたが，私のような者が碌々と関西支部長職を 4 年間続けられたのは，まことに精緻なお働きでいつでも私を支えてくださった，副支部長・幹事・研究企画委員・支部役員の先生方，コロナ禍にかかる激務の中，支部でのご発表・投稿にご尽力いただいた支部会員の先生方のおかげです。皆さまのお力添えで任期を何とか全うできました。心から感謝を申し上げます。2023 年度以降も

門田修平支部長を中心とする新体制のもと，関西支部の益々の発展を心から祈っております。

117

文学教育研究会「英語教育を人間教育の立場から考える」という観点に立ち，英語教育学・英語学研究者の視点と英米文学研究者の視点の双方から，大学英語教育における効果的な文学教材の使用を研究している。例年 4 月，6 月，10 月，12 月の年 4 回，同志社大学烏丸キャンパス，今出川キャンパスにおいて主として第 4 土曜日の午後に例会を開催しているが，2020 年度
以降は新型コロナウィルス感染症の蔓延状況を考慮し zoom によるオンラインで例会を開催している。例会では様々な先生方に講演，発表をしていただいている。2020 年 10 月例会では南カリフォルニア大学の名誉教授，Stephen D. Krashen 先生にアメリカから zoom による講演（タイトル "Teaching English through Literature”）をお願いした。また最近では，
毎年 6 月は多読をテーマにした例会となっている。メイスン紅子先生（四天王寺大学短期大学名誉教授），Rob Waring 先生（ノートルダム清心女子大学），高瀬敦子先生（岩野英語塾），稲垣俊史先生（同志社大学）等々，多くの先生方に講演，発表をお願いした。それ以外の例会は，文学教育と英語教育，表現音読劇でできる文学教育，英語教育における文学
素材－IT 時代の楽しみ方への提案－，『訳す』から『読む』へ－オーウェルの『動物農場』
を使用して－，俳句の英訳を読む，Roald Dahl を原文で読む，等々様々なテーマの講演，発表を聞く機会となっている。
出版活動に関しては，有志によって研究書や文学素材を利用した大学用教科書が出版された。『文学教材実践ハンドブック―英語教育を活性化する―』（吉村, 2013）は 2014 年にJACET 賞を受賞した。対面での JACET 全国大会では SIG のポスター発表を継続して行ってきた。それ以外では，AILA Beijing (2011)，AILA Brisbane (2014)において有志によってポスター発表を行った。今後も「英語教育を人間教育の立場から考える」をテーマにして幅広い視点から研究活動を行いたいと考えている。
引用文献
吉村俊子, 安田優, 川端彰, 奥村真紀, 杉村醇子, ジョーンズ, S. （2010）『ミステリーを読んで英語のスキルアップ』英宝社
吉村俊子, 安田優, 石本哲子, 斎藤安以子, 坂本輝世, 寺西雅之, 幸重美津子 (編著)（ 2013）『文学教材実践ハンドブック―英語教育を活性化する―』英宝社
吉村俊子, 安田優, 時岡ゆかり, 西納春雄, 石原堅司, ジョーンズ, S. （2016）『ミステリー
を読んで英語のスキルアップ 2』英宝社
吉村俊子, 時岡ゆかり, ジョーンズ, S., 平田三樹子, ティーター, J., 伊藤佳世子 （2019）『ミステリーを読んで英語のスキルアップ 3』英宝社（五十川敬子・時岡ゆかり）

118

学習英文法研究会
本研究会は，英語学・言語学の研究がどのように文法教育に応用できるかという視点から，教育現場における効果的な英文法指導を模索している。成果公表のための書籍出版の計画が始動したことに伴い，今後ますます活発に活動していきたい。以下ではこの 10 年の活動を振り返る（2019 年度はコロナ禍のため例会は中止となった）。
2013 年度

例会（3/27, 近畿大学）吉田幸治（近畿大学）「受験英語と英語学」，出水孝典（神戸学院大学）「日英語の移動表現の違いとその意味合い」
2014 年度 第 1 回例会（7/12, 関西外国語大学）平井大輔（近畿大学）「生成文法研究の成果を英語教育へ」，山梨正明（関西外国語大学）講演「認知言語学から外国語教育を考える」 第 2 回例会（2/7, 大阪市立大学）西脇幸太（岐阜県立岐阜北高等学校）「動詞 eat の目的語省略」，藤川勝也（富山大学）「Factual possibility/Theoretical possibility を表す助動詞の用法について」「現代英語の叙述属
2015 年度 第 1 回例会（12/26, 大阪市立大学）山本修（大阪市立大学）
格形式に関して」，吉田幸治（近畿大学）「因果関係と構文」，討論会「英語学研究と大学
英語教育」司会・進行 吉田幸治（近畿大学）

第 2 回例会（2/27, 近畿大学）平井大輔（近畿大学）「削除現象の一側面」，山本武史（近畿大学）「形容詞の比較級の語形について」「第 2 文型 SVC
2016 年度 第 1 回例会（9/24, 大阪市立大学）板垣浩正（大阪大学大学院）
として用いられる知覚動詞における補語の制約について」，名和俊彦（関西大学（非））「学
習英文法とは何か?」

第 2 回例会（12/26, 大阪市立大学）西脇幸太（岐阜北高等学校）「学習者に軸足を置いた学習英文法研究」，和泉悠（日本学術振興会特別研究員・京都大学）講演前半「言語研究者のための言語哲学入門」講演後半「固有名の意味論」

JACET

関西支部講演会（3/11, 大阪電気通信大学）住吉誠（摂南大学）「規範と英語の実態」
2017 年度 第 1 回例会（12/27, 大阪市立大学）吉田幸治（近畿大学）「英文法研究と英米文化の指導」浅井良策（大阪大学特任研究員）「結果句の役割に注目した英語結果構文の意
味的分析」

第 2 回例会（2/24, 大阪市立大学）学習英文法座談会

2018 年度 第 1 回例会（12/27, 大阪市立大学）藏薗和也（大阪工業大学）「コーパスを活用した類義語研究と英語教育」，山本修（大阪市立大学）「Be 以外のコピュラを述語とする
叙述属格文」

第 2 回例会（3/15, 大阪市立大学）森直哉（同志社大学大学院）「日本語英語学習者における英語音声処理への日本語の影響」，家口美智子（金沢大学）「歴史的な発達から見る存在文」「So-inversion construction
2020 年度 例会（2/23, オンライン）徳永和博（大阪大学大学院）の機能再検討」，松田佑治（立命館大学）「大学英語教育における TOEIC® L&R Test の語
法文法の体系化を巡って」
2021 年度 例会（3/12, オンライン）山内昇（大同大学）「speaking of ø の語用論」
2022 年度 JACET 関西支部講演会（11/19, オンライン）滝沢直宏「英語学習文法研究と例
文データベースの構築」（前川貴史）

1
119

ESP 研究会
今から 10 年前の 2012 年，関西支部設立 40 周年記念の JACET Kansai Journal で新田香織
元代表が，1999 年に野口ジュディー先生と深山晶子先生のもとに 15 名のメンバーが集って ESP（English for Specific Purposes）研究会が設立されたこと，そしてその後の十数年に渡る活動を振り返っていらっしゃいます。その報告からさらに 10 年。現在は，新型コロナ
ウィルス感染症拡大の影響で 2020 年 2 月の対面実施を最後に，年 2～3 回オンラインでの研究会を行っていますが，メーリングリストのメンバーは 120 名を超え，研究会の連絡以
外にも関連学会やその他の情報提供の場となっています。
研究会の形式としては，ESP の研究報告や教育実践報告だけではなく，ESP 関連の論文を読んで討論するジャーナルクラブや，研究用ソフトウェアの使用方法に関するワークシ
ョップ，ESP のご経験が豊富な先生をお迎えしての Q&A セッションなど，様々な形態を試みています。
2014 年度の活動では，Wiley-Blackwell 社から Brian Paltridge, Sue Starfield 編集による The
Handbook of English for Specific Purposes が 2012 年に出版されたのを機に，関連する章の要約とタスクやディスカッションを交えたワークショップを，「ESP と教育：ジャンル分析，評価方法」,「ESP と言語スキル：語彙（＋4 skills）」,「ESP 研究と方法論：コーパス研究，
共通語としての英語と ESP」，「ESP 研究と実践：専門分野や資料へのアクセス，デジタル世代の英語学習」の 4 回シリーズで野口ジュディー先生に行っていただき，ESP を体系的に学ぶよい機会となりました。
2017 年度には関西支部講演会の企画を担当し「理系 ESP の教材開発と活用」と題して，医学，工学，生命科学系の ESP の実践教育に関わっている先生方によるシンポジウムを開催し，各先生方がご自身の職場で学生のニーズに真摯に向き合って日々実践を重ねておられる様子を支部の皆様と共有させていただきました。
近年は，コーパスを利用した ESP 語彙研究やツール開発，SNS やデジタルツールを利用した教授法，機械翻訳の利用とライティングなど，時代を反映した教育を実感する発表や，
日本語教育の専門家を交えた言語の境界を越えた実践コミュニティについての研究，芸術分野に目を向けた ESP 研究の報告，CLIL 型アプローチ，教科教員との連携など，ESP の裾野の広がりを感じさせる研究発表が続いています。
コロナ前は研究会後の懇親会や全国大会時には他支部との交流を積極的に行っていただけに，会員間の親交の場が作りにくい状況が続いていることは大変残念ですが，創意工夫を凝らしつつ，これからの 10 年を見据
えて次の世代に引き継ぐことができればと考えています。
（藤枝美穂・スミス朋子）

年度

代表

副代表

2011-2012

桐村亮

照井雅子

2013-2014

照井雅子

服部圭子
上村バッケス尚美

2015-2016

上村バッケス尚美

浅井静代
服部圭子

2017-2018

浅井静代

藤枝美穂

2019-

藤枝美穂

スミス朋子

120

「海外の外国語教育」研究会
海外の外国語教育研究会は，英語に限らず，ドイツ語，フランス語，中国語や韓国語など，広く外国語（異言語）教育全般を研究対象としている。具体的には，本研究会の目的
は，教育政策，教育行政，カリキュラム，教科書制度，教員養成，教員研修，評価システ
ムなど，海外の教育政策を調査，分析し，日本に資する点を考察することである。なぜ海外の外国語教育なのかというと，世界の外国語（異言語）教育の現状を，国際的な視点で見ることにより，今日の我が国の外国語教育の問題が見えてくるからである。多角的な視点から日本の外国語教育を問い直し，研究成果を積極的に発信および提言していこうというのが本研究会の伝統的な姿勢である。
以上の目的に沿う形で，本研究会は出版と例会の開催を軸として活動を行ってきた。出版には多くの会員が 1～2 か国を担当して関わり，これまで主要なものは 3 冊あるが，一番最近のものは 2015 年に発行された（詳細は本研究会ホームページ参照）。例会は主に会員による研究発表の場であり，しばしば出版テーマともリンクすることが多かったが，ここ 10 年では年に 3～4 回の開催となっている。会員は主に関西地区の大学，小・中・高等学校教員で総数 30 名ほどであり，コロナ禍前の会場は，京都や大阪の大学等の施設を利用していた。例会への参加者は 10 数名の少人数になることも多かったが，発表時間，特に質疑応答の時間を長くし１つのテーマに関して会員同士で徹底的に議論するというのが本研究会の特徴であった。それは，しばしば例会後の懇親会の場にも持ち込まれ，毎回密の濃い情報交換ができていたように感じる。コロナ禍以降この 2～3 年はこのような対面式の例会の場は失われたが，オンライン開催では参加者が非会員の方も含め 50 名以上になることもあり，発表者も国内の遠方の方や海外の研究者も容易に招聘できるという利点はあった。
次に，出版のテーマとも関連する本研究会の研究活動を 2 つ事例として紹介したい。第1 は「世界の外国語教育政策」についてである。ここでは，世界の教育政策，教育行政，学
校制度，（外国語）教員養成・現職教育，外国語の指導方法・教材などを調査し，日本の外国語教育の現状と比較した。調査対象とした国は，EU 諸国や東アジアの国々などである。
さらに，日本での「小学校の外国語活動」の始まりを受けて，海外における初等教育を含めて，中等教育，高等教育における外国語教育，外国語教員養成，現職教育に関する制度・政策についても調査し，国際的に見た日本の教育体制を問い直した。第 2 は「海外の外国語教員の養成」についてである。ここでは日本の外国語教育にとって最も深刻で急務を要する問題を教員養成ととらえ，海外 20 の国・地域に焦点をあて，それぞれの外国語教員養成の現状を調査した。現地でのインタビューを含む多様な方法で収集した資料を基に，それぞれの国・地域の実情と問題点をまとめ，順次発表した。そして，国際的な視点から見た日本の外国語教員養成の問題点を指摘し，今後の外国語教員養成の在り方を考察した。
今後の展望としては，コロナ禍で海外調査や授業観察に行けず中断していた次の出版計
画の再開である。諸外国の最新の外国語教育を，言語・文化的背景，教育予算，教員の労働条件等の点から比較し，日本における教育環境の実態を問い直す試みを行いたい。また，
以前の本研究会の良さを生かすため，対面式での例会の復活も検討中である。
（二五 義博）
1
121

教材開発研究会
本研究会は，関西支部 SIG の中でも歴史の長い研究会であり，発足以来，大学生を対象とした効果的な英語学習教材の研究開発を目的として，リーディング，4 技能，CALL，ラ
イティング，プレゼンテーション，語彙，リメディアル，スピーキング，TOEFL 対策など
多 様 な 教 材 の 研 究 ・ 開 発 に 携 わ っ て き た 。 2010 年 以 降 に 限 っ て も ， Technical Skills forExtensive and Intensive Reading『英語コミュニケーション力アップは多読と精読から』（英宝社, 2010），『連想バブルで覚えるボキャブラリー』（英潮社フェニックス, 2011），Academic
Presentation （三修社, 2013），English Locomotion『参加して学ぶ総合英語』（成美堂, 2015），
Exchange Views!『 意見交換のための英語－リーディングからスピーチへ』（三修社，2017），
Global Gateway『国際教養のための英語：はじめての TOEFL』（南雲堂，2018）などの教科書を出版してきた。
活動成果が出版として具現化され，成果物として保存・記録されることは大きな収穫であり，当研究会の有形財産であるが，それに至るプロセスも重要で，教材開発に関する討
議や意見・情報交換なども会員にとって貴重な経験である。さらに，教材のデザインや開発に不可欠な理論の構築やアイディアの発掘のために，2019 年から会員や会員以外のゲス
トスピーカーを迎え，多彩な学際的話題に関する SIG 講演会やワークショップを開催してきた。
上記のような学術的活動により知的視野が広がり，思考の糧が得られたことも無形財産となっているが，本研究会の主軸となる教材の研究・開発の分野では，大学英語教育現場での実情やニーズを反映した教材作成を今後も続けて行く。さらに英語教育を取り巻く時
代の潮流を理解した上で，単に流行に翻弄されることなく，時代の要請を先取りし，最前線の学識を取り入れた教材開発を目指していく。例えば，Power Presentation（ 三修社，2005）を発刊した頃，プレゼン教材は皆無に近かったが，本研究会では visual tools も援用した総合的なプレゼン能力の開発の必要性をいち早く察知して取り組んだ。これは一例に過ぎな
いが，今後も，コロナ禍で進んだオンライン教材や文部科学省が推進しようとしているデ
ジタル教科書など時代の流れを見据えながらも大学教育に適切な教材開発に取り組みたい。
さらに，上記の SIG 講演会などで得られた知見などを活かし，学際的な分野での理論や概念を背景とした教材を研究・開発することが重要であると考えている。例えば，前述のプレゼン教材では学習者の自律性（learner autonomy）涵養の必要性，リメディアル教材のEnglish Locomotion では多重知能理論（Multiple Intelligence: MI），即ち言語能力のみならず様々な知能の運用を考慮に入れて開発された。本研究会は様々な専門分野の会員から構成されていることから，英語教育・応用言語学のみならずより学際的な観点により，幅広い
学術分野からの知見を視野に入れた教材研究・開発に取り組む所存である。
（松村優子・香林綾子）

122リスニング研究会
当研究会は JACET 設立後，最も早く誕生した研究会の一つで，結成以来，リスニングの重要性に対する認識を高め，英語教育におけるリスニングの研究や実践に取り組んできた。
主な活動の成果はリスニングテスト開発，リスニングストラテジーや音声処理に関する研究や大学生用教材開発などに結実している。
2011 年度 JACET 関西支部第 3 回講演会（2012 年 3 月 3 日）では「大学生のリスニング
ストラテジー使用と習熟度の関係について」と「日本人学習者のリスニングとスピーキン
グにおける英語のリズム」という二部構成のシンポジウムを企画した。その後，教材開発
プロジェクトを始動させ，2015 年 2 月に Power-Up English<Pre-Intermediate>（南雲堂）を刊行した。本書は大学生用英語総合教材 Power-Up English シリーズの第 5 作目にあたる初級編である。研究会のメンバーによる本書の実践報告に基づく総括に加え，リスニングや音声処理に関する研究プロジェクトにも着手し，2015 年度 JACET 関西支部第 3 回講演会
（2016 年 3 月 5 日）では「リスニングに於ける日本人 EFL 学習者の語連鎖と韻律情報の処理に関する研究」というテーマで発表を行った。再度，教材開発の気運が盛り上がり，
主なプロジェクトとしてリスニングストラテジーを重視した総合教材の開発を立ち上げ，
2019 年 4 月 に は ， 総 合 教 材 セ メ ス タ ー シ リ ー ズ の 第 1 作 目 と な る Power-Up College
English<Basic>（南雲堂）を発刊し，2020 年度 JACET 関西支部第 2 回講演会（2020 年 10月 17 日）では「開発テキスト Power-Up College English <Basic> の実践報告とリスニングに関する多角的な実証研究について」というタイトルでの発表を行った。
2021 年 4 月には第 2 作目の Power-Up College English<Intro>（南雲堂）を刊行し, 当面
は，引き続き教材開発プロジェクトを軸に活動を展開して参る所存である。既刊教材の検証を行い，一つの方向性としてこれまでのインプット中心の枠組みからアウトプットにつながる要素をも内在し，教育現場のニーズに応えた教材作りを目指したい。また，時間的余裕が生じるようであれば，メンバーによる研究発表やミニ講義を随時取り入れていければと願っている。
（高橋寿夫・神野雅代）

123

JACET リーディング研究会
本研究会は言語処理のプロセスに着目しながら，日本人 EFL 学習者の読解システムについて理解を深めること，そして L2 の読みの諸理論に基づいた効果的なリーディング指導を探求することを目的として活動しています。特に，処理の自動化，読みの流暢性を主なテーマとして，その観点から L2 読解プロセスの詳細を掘り下げるだけではなく，シャドーイング・音読の流暢性への効果，読解効率向上のための練習，多読の効果などを含めてリーディング授業の実践面に関わるテーマに関連した研究も重要視しています。原則として毎月 1 回，実証・実践研究発表と輪読の二本立てで研究会を開催しています。 研究発表
はリーディング研究に偏らず，幅広い分野に注目し，多面的・多角的な視点から様々な側面を柔軟に捉え，議論し探究し続けています。また，小学校英語の義務化に伴い，小中高
大の統合的英語教育の発表も増え，議論は多岐にわたります。 輪読本は，Working Memory
in SLA Processing / Zhisheng Wen, Malice Borges Mota and Arthur McNeil（ワーキングメモリと SLA の関係性をもとに 2 つの研究領域の統合を目標としている），Reading in the Brain：
New Science of How We Read / Stanislas Dehaene（脳がどのように読みを獲得するか，言語を処理するか，言葉を解読する無意識のメカニズムの存在などを明らかにしている），
Teaching and Testing L2 Interactional Competence / M. Rafael Salaberry and Silvia Kunitz（会話分 析 内 で 相 互 作 用 能 力 に 関 す る 様 々 な 理 論 的 視 点 の 包 括 的 概 要 を 提 供 し て い る ） ， The
Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning / John W. Schwieter and Alessandro Benati（第二言語学習に関する研究の包括的調査およびその性質と教育的示唆，言語学や心理言語学など
認知的アプローチからの著名な理論と方法がテーマ別に整理されている）など 10 冊以上，多数の文献を共有してきました。専門分野に関するお互いの知見を深め，意見交換を通して 更 に 活 発 な 研 究 会 の 発 展 を 目 指 し て い ま す 。 定 例 会 以 外 の 大 会 は ， 2012 年 10 月 に
JACET 関西支部リーディング研究会企画特別シンポジウム「英語の読みにおける自動化を求めて」のテーマで開催，2018 年 3 月に JACET 英語語彙・英語辞書・リーディング研究
会の合同研究会を開催しました。昨年度 2022 年 3 月には米国（バトラー後藤裕子/ペンシ
ルバニア大学教育大学院言語教育学部教授）との Zoom による遠隔での講演会が実現しました。
コロナ禍におけるオンラインでの研究会活動に加え，今年度からは対面と両立させた「ハイブリッド型」へと移行が容易に行われました。 次年度以降もこの形態を維持しながら，With コロナの新しい常識に向き合い活動を続けていきたいと思います。また，近年，隣接する学問領域の協業的研究が盛んになったことを踏まえ，既存の専門の枠にとらわれず変化に対応できる柔軟性を持ち，専門性を欠くことなく変化に対応する能力を併せ持つことを目指し，さまざまな広範な視点から学際的な研究を推し進め，今後もさらに活動の幅を広げて行きたいと考えています。
（星原 光江）124

ライティング指導研究会
JACET 関西ライティング指導研究会は，関西地方の大学・短大英語教員を中心に 1993 年に設立され 2023 年に 30 周年を迎える歴史ある研究会である。過去 10 年間の活動を振り返ると，COVID-19 が発生する以前は，国際舞台で活躍できるグローバル人材育成が多くの大学に期待されていた。そのような大学教育の中で，当研究会は，プロセスライティン
グアプローチを基盤とした協働ライティング等の実践研究に取り組んできた。研究成果は2 年ごとに発刊される研究紀要にまとめ，2020 年度には第 14 号を発刊している。2019 年に刊行された『中・上級英語ライティング指導ガイド』は，研究会を通じて知得した理論や概念をもとに，会員たちが日々のライティング授業の中で実践してきた指導方策やアク
ティビティーをまとめた成果である。さらに，2021 年度第 2 回 JACET 関西支部講演会では，COVID-19 によるパンデミック以降，オンライン授業が標準化されていくなかで，現在の研究プロジェクトテーマである「遠隔授業でのライティング指導」のもと，４名の会員が各自のオンライン授業の実践を講演した。
今後の当研究会の活動を展望するうえで，改めて大学を取り巻く環境を考えざるを得ない。現在，ICT を活用して人々の生活を改善させていくという DX (Digital Transformation)
化が社会を挙げて推進され，この効率性と生産性の向上というビジネスモデルが教育にも大きな影響を与えている。ライティング授業においてはこれまでも ICT を活用した資料収集や学習者同士の協働ライティングは実践されてきた。しかし，この DX 化とこれまでのICT を活用したライティング授業との大きな違いは，ともすれば DX 化の方に主軸が移り，指導する教員と学習者が補足のようになってしまう危険性をはらんでいることではないだ
ろうか。AI 搭載の機械翻訳や自動採点ツールの進化は目覚ましく，ライティング指導では課題の作成過程や評価で取り入れている事例が数多く報告されている。確かに，DX 化は，教員と学習者の双方にとって利便性や効率性の面からは有益であり，取り入れるべきツールであることはもはや議論の余地はないであろう。しかし，最終目標をどこに置いて活用すべきなのか，また日々の授業のなかで教員と学習者が，どのような共通理解を持ってツールを使用するべきか，当研究会の研究・実践活動を通して注意深く観察し検証していきたい。
どのように社会が変化し DX 化が推進されようと「書く」という行為の本質は，思考を展開し，整理し，伝えていくという社会的な行動であることに変わりはない。あくまでも「書き手」と「読み手」の双方向の交流があって，価値観や意見が交換され社会が構築されていく。我々ライティングを指導する教員は，学習者の英語で「書く」という行為をサポートする立場であり，これこそ当研究会の礎を築いた先達が訴えた基本理念である。その理念を堅持しつつ，今後も大学のライティング指導の推進に少しでも貢献することが出来ればと思う。
（大年順子）

1125

授業学（関西）研究会
授業学（関西）研究会は 2005 年に 2 年間の期限付きで行われた JACET 授業学研究委員
会での研究から始まった。全国から公募した実践された優れた授業選出の研究を通して，本研究会初代代表が学習者目線からみた「よい授業・わるい授業」をアンケート結果に基づきまとめたものが，同委員会から出版された『高等教育における英語授業の研究―授業
実践例を中心に』（2007, 松柏社）に収録された。この研究を委員会活動終了後も継続し，よりよい授業とより深い学びを考察する機会となるポートフォリオの研究と開発へと進め，科研費採択（挑戦的萌芽研究 2009-2011, 基盤研究 C2012-2017）の支援を受け種々のポー
トフォリオ開発と報告を行ってきた。これらの研究活動から関西における授業学研究の拠点を確立するよう勧められ，授業学（関西）研究会は 2015 年に発足した。関西支部の規約により研究会代表は 2 年毎に交代する決まりから，8 年目を迎えた 2022 年現在で，4 回代
表交代を行いながら（表 1），授業改善に真摯に向き合う熱心なメンバーとこれまで研究活動を進めてきた。
「 失敗から学ぶ」授業改善，Reflective Teaching, および Exploratory Language
Practice（EP 論）に根差した授業改善と研究に加え，現在は，学習者中心の英語教育の研究と社会的に授業学研究での貢献を模索している。
今後日本の高等教育は今までにない大きな変化を迎える。日本の高等教育は少子化による学生数の減少により確実に変化して行く。それは今までにない大きな変化である。文部科学省がどんな立派な英語教育の目的と目標を掲げ，英語教育政策を打ち出しても，入試改革を試みても，各大学が入学者受け入れ方針，教育課程編成方針，学位授与方針を掲げても学生の心に響かない英語の授業は無意味である。学生を知り，学生の将来を考え，限られた時間の中で学生の英語に対する興味と関心を喚起し，生涯学んで行こうとする意欲と態度を育てることが求められる。そのためには，教師自身が自身の授業をより良いものにしようとする意志，自身の実践を振り返る力，そして常に学ぼうとする意欲と態度が必要である。その機会を与えてくれるのが授業学の研究会活動である。授業学の研究会活動
を通して，他の実践を知り，理論と実践を結び，発展させることができる。また，自身の授業を語り，他の助言によって授業観を育てることができる。そのような地道で確実な道を歩んで行きたい。
表1

授業学（関西）研究会代表及び副代表

年度

代表

副代表

2015-2016

村上裕美（関西外国語大学短期大学部）

2017-2018

岡田伸夫（関西外国語大学）

村上裕美（関西外国語大学短期大学部）

2019-2020

村上裕美（関西外国語大学短期大学部）

工藤泰三（名古屋学院大学）

2021-2022飯田

村上裕美（関西外国語大学短期大学部）

毅（同志社女子大学）（飯田 毅・村上裕美）

1
126

科学英語教育研究会
当研究会は，主に大学学部生および大学院生に対する，ESP の指導について学ぶ研究会として 2015 年に発足した。ESP を基礎から学びたい方向けの会として現在まで活動を続けている。現在年に平均 1~2 回程度研究会を行っている。現在の会員数は約 10 名であるが，ESP 教育の一助となればと願い，地道な研究を続けている。今後も会員数を増やし，基礎的な ESP の知識共有ができる取り組みを行っていく。
研究会のこれまでの軌跡（紙面の関係で 2020 年までを記載）：
2015 年度 第 1 回

第 1 部 模擬国際会議見学 大阪工業大学学生による科学研究発表/ 第2 部「模擬国際会議開催の試み」深山晶子（大阪工業大学）：「メ2016 年度 第 2 回「理系大学院生向け自律学習支援の試み」村尾純子（大阪工業大学）
ディア乱立時代におけるサイエンス知識の構築」野口ジュディ―（神戸学院大学） 第 3 回「医・生命科学系大学院における Progress Report の指導」幸重美津子（京都大学再生医科学研究所/京都外国語大学・専門学校）：「理工系大学院生向け英語自学自習ツールについて」
尾鍋智子（大阪大学）第 4 回「理系大学院生へのライティング指導の試み」 尾鍋智子（大阪大学）：「工業高等専門学校における英語自律学習の模索」 西川幸余（奈良工業高等専門：「英学校）第 5 回「コーパスと ESP ライティングのこれから」仁科恭徳（神戸学院大学）
語音声教育に役立つ補助ツールとは？」松田紀子（大阪工業大学）
2017 年度 第 6 回「ニュース記事を用いた課外学習の実践」玉田麻里子（大阪工業大学）：「医学部生への医学英語リーディング指導」浅野元子（大阪医科大学

大阪大学大学院）

第 7 回「自律型 EBP 教材作成の試み」照井雅子（近畿大学）：「AntCorGen の使用経験の共有」浅野元子（大阪医科大学）第 8 回「ジャンル概念に基づいた英語アカデミックライテ
ィング指導」藤岡 真由美（大阪府立大学）：「機械翻訳とポストエディットの現状について」
浅野元子（大阪医科大学）第 9 回「機械翻訳を使用した EFL 学習者のライティングプロセス」西山幹枝（東京医療保健大学 東京大学大学院）青田庄真（東京大学大学院）松田紀子（藍野大学）：機械翻訳ワークショップ

村尾純子（大阪工業大学）

2018 年度 第 10 回「英語特有の周波数域に注目した聴覚トレーニング」原田洋子（大阪府立大学）：前回の課題に基づき機械翻訳課題に関する今後の話し合い “Japanese Controlled
Language Rules to Improve Machine Translatability of Municipal Document”という論文を使用
第 11 回「技術英語教育おける機械翻訳の活用」矢野浩二朗（大阪工業大学）：機械翻訳課
題 に 関 す る 今 後 の 話 し 合 い (前 回 の 続 き ) “Japanese Controlled Language Rules to Improve
Machine Translatability of Municipal Document” という論文を使用 第 12 回「大学生の機械
翻訳体験－実態調査報告」蔦田和美（関西外国語大学短期大学部）：「学習ツールの初年次
教育での利用の可能性」玉田麻里子（大阪工業大学）
2019 年 度

第 13 回 “Obama's Jokes and Metaphorical Expressions in the White House

Correspondents' Dinner (2009-2016)” 友繁有輝（大阪工業大学）：“The Evolving of Scientific
Communication”-- Scientific communication がなぜ重要かを考えた上で 1665 年からどのように進化しているかのご発表と，これからの言語教育についての議論

野口ジュディ（神戸学院大学）第 14 回「AI 時代の英語教育」新田香織(近畿大学)
2020 年度 第 15 回（省略） 2021 年度

第 16 回（省略）
1
127

現在に至る

（村尾純子）

Appendices129英語教科書のご案内

ハイブリッド教科書で確かな英語力を養成する
印刷版と電子版を合わせて効果的な学習ができるのが、ハイブリッド教科書です。
それぞれが持つメリットを活かすことで、相乗効果を発揮します。

Creative Reader &Creative Reader Plus

卯城祐司・Robert Juppe・Andrew Jorn 著● ｢嘘のような本当の話」が学習者を授業に引き込
み、英文を読むことの面白さを教えます。
● 英文読解ストラテジーがクイズ形式で楽しく学
べ、授業の活性化にも有効です。
● アウトプットのための段階的な設問構成で英語運
用力も無理なく養成できます。
■全15 Unit■付属教材: 音声、教授用書、小テスト

印刷版・電子版（電子書籍） 電子版（電子書籍）

Speak Out! & 準拠アプリ

靜 哲人・Anthony Allan 著● 動画と準拠アプリで発音指導をサポートし、英語嫌いを英語
好きにします。
● ４技能を連携して学習ができ、効果的に確かな英語基礎力が養成できます。
● 学習者がリアルに感じられる英文素材で、授業への積極的な参加を促します。
■全15 Unit■付属教材: 動画、音声、教授用書、小テスト

印刷版・電子版（電子書籍）※詳しくは弊社ホームページをご覧の上、審査用見本をご請求ください。

クリエイド・ラーニング株式会社

130

https//creaidlearning.co.jp

東京都千代田区神田小川町 3-22
成 美 堂 2023 年 度 新 刊 の ご 案 内 〒101-0052
TEL 03-3291-2261 / FAX 03-3293-5490

Global Perspectives
Listening & Speaking Book 1

A COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH TO THE TOEIC®
L&R TEST Book 2: Intermediate

Global Perspectives
Listening & Speaking Book 2

BEST PRACTICE FOR THE TOEIC® L&R TEST............................. 定価 2,750 円(本体 2,500 円+税 10%) .............................. 定価 2,530 円(本体 2,300 円+税 10%)............................. 定価 2,750 円(本体 2,500 円+税 10%)−Advanced− ........... 定価 2,750 円(本体 2,500 円+税 10%)

Meet the World 2023
Let's Read Aloud & Learn English for Science -English
through Newspapers-.............................. 定価 2,750 円(本体 2,500 円+税 10%) .............................. 定価 2,310 円(本体 2,100 円+税 10%)

Our Science ......... 定価 2,530 円(本体 2,300 円+税 10%) Rethinking the World -Dare to KnowTrend Scope ....... 定価 2,640 円(本体 2,400 円+税 10%)Global Business Case Studies.............................. 定価 2,640 円(本体 2,400 円+税 10%).............................. 定価 2,200 円(本体 2,000 円+税 10%)

Flow: Reading Without Borders.............................. 定価 2,640 円(本体 2,400 円+税 10%)

CBS NewsBreak 6 .. 定価 2,860 円(本体 2,600 円+税 10%)

株式会社

成 美 堂

●書籍の情報はホームページでもご覧になれます。

CLIL: Discuss the Changing World 2.............................. 定価 2,640 円(本体 2,400 円+税 10%)

URL: https://www.seibido.co.jp e-mail: seibido@seibido.co.jp

タスクで教室から世界へ［ブック１］／［ブック２］

Getting Things Done [Book 1] / [Book 2]―Tasks for Connecting the Classroom with the Real World
田村 祐／ Paul Wicking 編著
横山友里／松村昌紀／小林真実／加藤由崇 著[Book 1] 定価 :1,870 円（本体 1,700 円＋税）
[Book 2] 定価 :2,200 円（本体 2,000 円＋税）

コミュニケーション・タスクのアイデアとマテリアル
Task-Based Language Teaching の研究知見をふまえて開発された教材集

教室と世界をつなぐ英語授業のために
加藤由崇／松村昌紀／ Paul Wicking 編著
横山友里／田村 祐／小林真実 著
ISBN︓978-4-384-05940-3

定価 :3,080 円（本体 2,800 円＋税）

〒 150-0001 東京都渋谷区神宮前 2-2-22
TEL 03-3405-4511 FAX 03-3405-4522 https://www.sanshusha.co.jp

131

『JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要』（JACET Kansai Journal）刊⾏規定（2017 年 12 月 1 日改定）
１．刊⾏趣旨JACET 関⻄⽀部は⽀部会員に研究発表の機会を提供し，もって⽀部の研究活動の活性化に資するべく，研究紀要を刊行する。
２．刊⾏物の名称
本紀要の名称は『JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要』（JACET Kansai Journal）とする。なお，巻号は従前刊行物より継続とする。
３．刊⾏物の内容『JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要』には，投稿原稿及び委嘱原稿他を掲載する。
４．紀要編集委員会の設置『JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要』刊行事務のために，JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要編集委員会を置く。
５．刊⾏経費『JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要』の刊行経費は，JACET 関⻄⽀部予算で充当する。
６．詳細規定『JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要』に掲載する論⽂に関する詳細規定は，JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要編集委
員会において「投稿要領」として定める。
７．規定の改廃
本規定の改廃は，JACET 関⻄⽀部役員会において行う。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
2008 年 12 月制定
2015 年 3 月 7 日改定
2017 年 12 月 1 日改定

132

JACET Kansai Journal Publication Policy(Revised December 1, 2017)
1. Aims
JACET Kansai Chapter’s journal serves as a medium for publication of research by its
Chapter members and thus promotes research activities.
2. Journal title

The journal is entitled JACET Kansai Journal (JKJ).
3. Contents of Journal

JACET Kansai Journal (JKJ) publishes submitted papers, invited papers, and other works.
4. Establishment of the JKJ Editorial Committee
JACET Kansai Chapter establishes the JKJ Editorial Committee to publish JACET Kansai

Journal (JKJ).

5. Publication expenses
JACET Kansai Chapter bears publication expenses of JACET Kansai Journal (JKJ).
6. Submission guidelines
The JKJ Editorial Committee determines submission guidelines and procedures for JACET

Kansai Journal (JKJ).
7. Amendment

Amendment of this Publication Policy (Japanese version) will be subject to approval by the
JACET Kansai Chapter Executive Committee. The English version will conform to theJapanese version.
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
Established December, 2008
Revised March 7, 2015
Revised December 1, 2017133

『JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要』（JACET Kansai Journal）投稿要領（2022 年 6 月 18 日改定）
第１条

投稿者の要件

１項 投稿者は投稿時において JACET 関⻄⽀部会員でなければならない。
２項 ただし，第 2 著者以下は，他⽀部に所属する JACET 会員であってもよい。
３項 投稿者および連名著者に学会費の未納がある場合，投稿は受理されない。
第2条

投稿原稿の要件

１項 他誌に投稿中もしくは他誌に掲載済みの原稿の投稿は認めない。
２項 同一人物を第 1 著者とする複数の原稿の投稿は認めない。

３項 各種学会等での口頭（ポスター）発表に基づく原稿は審査対象となるが，原稿末尾に口頭（ポスター）発表の事実を正確に記載するものとする。
第3条

投稿原稿の種別

１項 投稿原稿は，大学等における英語教育およびその関連分野に関わる内容のものとする。
２項 投稿原稿は下記の 4 種類とする。

(1) 研究論文（前項で定める分野に関する学術論文。関連する先行研究に基づき，適切な研究手法を用いて，実証的または理論的に新しい発見や洞察を提供するもの)(2) 研究ノート（前項で定める分野に関する簡易な学術報告。理論・研究方法・内容において妥当性があり, 今後の発展に期待が持てるもの）(3) 実践研究論文（大学等における英語教育の実践研究に関する論文。授業改善やカリキュラ
ム改革などの実践について，先行事例または理論的な背景を踏まえた理由づけと，具体的根拠を持った実践の記述や省察を提示することにより，教育改善や実践研究の発展に寄与する知見を提供するもの）(4) 実践ノート（大学等における英語教育の実践報告）（前項で定める分野に関する簡易な実践報告。授業改善などの実践について，先行事例または理論的な背景を踏まえた理由づけと，具体的根拠を持った実践やアイデアを提示する
ことにより，教育改善や実践の発展に寄与する知見を提供するもの）(5) SIG 報告 （SIG での研究活動報告）

第4条

投稿原稿の分量

１項 投稿原稿の分量は以下の通りとする。
(1) 研究論文（20 ページ以内)(2) 研究ノート（15 ページ以内）(3) 実践研究論文（20 ページ以内)

134

(4) 実践ノート（15 ページ以内）(5) SIG 報告 (6 ページ以内)

２項 投稿原稿の分量には，タイトル，概要，キーワード，引用文献，図表などをすべて含むものとする。

３項 紀要編集委員会による書式等の修正指示をふまえて修正を行う場合も，1 項に定める制限を超えないこととする。

第5条

投稿原稿の作成

１項 使用言語は英語または日本語とする。

２項 投稿原稿の執筆にあたっては，紀要編集委員会が作成する当該年度の投稿用テンプレートを使用し，テンプレート記載と書式チェックリストのルールに厳密に従うこととする（テンプレートやチェックリストについては，JACET 関⻄⽀部ウェブサイトを参照のこと）。
投稿時には,原稿とともにチェックを終えたチェックリストも提出する。

３項 投稿原稿において，投稿者の氏名や所属，また，本人が特定できる引用文献や謝辞などは一切記載しないこととし，これらが入るべき場所に同等量の空行を挿入しておく。
第6条

投稿の⽅法

１項 投稿者は，投稿に先立ち，JACET 関⻄⽀部ウェブサイト上のオンライン投稿フォームより必要事項を入力し，送信する。
２項 投稿者は，期日までに，(a)投稿原稿(MS Word ファイル)と(b)その PDF ファイルおよび(c)書式チェックシートの計 3 ファイルを紀要編集委員会事務局宛に送信する。

３項 前項で定める送信メールの件名は「JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要投稿：氏名（所属先大学等名）」とする。また，メール本体に氏名・所属・職名・原稿題目・メールアドレスを明記する。

第7条

投稿原稿の受理１項 紀要編集委員会は，投稿された原稿の書式等を確認し，必要に応じて，修正・再提出を求める場合がある。
２項 修正を求められた場合，投稿者は，別途指定する期日までに修正原稿および修正報告書を提出する。期限に遅れた場合は投稿を辞退したものとみなす。

３項 紀要編集委員会は，前条に基づく修正が不十分であると判断した投稿原稿を不受理扱いとすることができる。

第8条

投稿原稿の審査１項 研究論文，研究ノート，実践研究論文, 実践ノートについては，原則として 3 名の査読委員による査読を行い，その結果をふまえ，紀要編集委員会において採否の判断を行う。

２項 1 項に定める審査の過程で原稿種別の変更を求める場合がある。
３項 1 項に定める審査の過程で原稿内容の修正を求める場合がある。この場合，投稿者は，指定135

された期日までに修正原稿および修正報告書を提出する。期限に遅れた場合は投稿を辞退したものとみなす。

４項 SIG 報告については，査読委員による査読は行わず，編集委員会において投稿要件と内容の確認を行い，採否の判断を行う。

５項 4 項に定める内容の確認の過程で所定の修正を求める場合がある。
第9条

投稿原稿の著作権

１項 『JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要』に掲載された原稿の著作権は本学会に帰属する。

２項 投稿者等が，『JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要』に掲載された⾃⾝の原稿の複製・転載・公開を行おうとする場合は，事前に本学会の承認を受けることとする。

３項 前項により原稿の複製・転載・公開を行う場合は，「本論文の著作権は一般社団法人大学英語教育学会に帰属する」旨を明記するものとする。

４項 投稿者の所属する大学等が，『JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要』に掲載された原稿を機関レポジトリ
等に収録しようとする場合は，事前に本学会の承認を受けることとする。

５項 前項の依頼があった場合，本学会は，発行後 1 年以上経過したものについては機関レポジ
トリへの収録を認めることとし，経費は請求しない。

６項 投稿者は，投稿原稿が採択・掲載された場合，上記の 1 項〜4 項を了承したとみなす。
第 10 条

本要領の改廃本要領の改廃は紀要編集委員会において行う。
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
2005 年 6 月制定
2007 年 6 月改定
2008 年 12 月改定
2009 年 6 月 25 日改定
2011 年 6 月 5 日改定
2014 年 3 月 8 日改定
2016 年 2 月 24 日改定
2017 年 12 月 1 日改定
2018 年 5 月 5 日改定
2019 年 11 月 11 日改定
2022 年 6 月 18 日改定

136

JACET Kansai Journal Submission Guidelines(Revised June 18, 2022)
I. Requirements for contributors
1.
2.

Authors must be JACET members.
If the first author is a Kansai Chapter member, coauthors can be JACET members of other3.

Manuscripts can be submitted by Kansai Chapter members in good standing who have paid

chapters.

their dues for the current year.

II. Requirements for manuscripts
1.

2.
3.

All manuscripts must be original and must not have been published elsewhere, nor be underconsideration for publication (including overseas journals).

Only one manuscript can be submitted by each contributor as the first author.
If the research has been presented orally or as a poster and this is so indicated, the manuscript
can be considered for publication. However, presentation details (location, date, and name ofconference) must be included in the submission.

III. Manuscript type
1.

2.

Manuscripts should be related to research on English education at the tertiary or other levels.

Manuscripts regarding other relevant areas are also accepted.
Four types of manuscripts will be accepted for submission:(1) Research Papers: Academic papers concerning any research field(s) stipulated in III-1,

which contain sufficient review of existing literature, employ appropriate research methods,
and provide new empirical or theoretical findings/insights;(2) Research Notes: Short academic reports concerning any research field(s) stipulated in III-1,
with theoretical, methodological, and content validity that demonstrates the promise of
future research progress.

(3) Practitioner Research Papers: Academic papers related to practical research on English

education at the tertiary or other levels, which contain sufficient information of theoreticalbackground or previous practice examples, offer innovative practices or provide concrete
evidence to help promote a deeper understanding of practices, and thereby contribute toeducational improvement and practical research development;(4) Practitioner Notes: Short academic reports related to teaching English pedagogy at thetertiary or other levels, which contain theoretical background information or previous

practice examples, offer innovative practices or ideas that contribute to educational
improvement and practice development.

137

(5) SIG Reports: Short reports about research activities in SIG.
IV. Manuscript length1.

Manuscript length should be as follows:(1) Research Paper̶no longer than 20 pages;(2) Research Note̶no longer than 15 pages;(3) Practitioner Research Paper̶no longer than 20 pages;(4) Practitioner Note̶no longer than 15 pages;

2.
3.

(5) SIG Report̶no longer than 6 pages

Manuscript length includes title, abstract, keywords, references, and any figures, tables, or othermaterials.

Revised manuscripts cannot exceed the manuscript length stated above.

V. Manuscript formatting
1.
2.

Manuscripts can be written in either English or Japanese.
All manuscripts should be prepared using the current template and format checklists preparedby the JACET Kansai Journal (JKJ) Editorial Committee (For the template and checklists, please

see the JACET Kansai website). Upon manuscript submission, the checklist should also be

3.

submitted.

All manuscripts should be prepared without the author name(s), affiliation(s), or

Acknowledgments which might reveal personally identifiable information. Leave an equivalentamount of space for adding the information later.

VI. Submission
1.

2.

3.

All contributors must complete a submission form on the JACET Kansai website.

All contributors must send three files by email to the JKJ Editorial Committee office: (a) the

manuscript as an MS Word document, (b) an additional copy as a PDF, and (c) the format
checklist prepared by the JKJ Editorial Committee.

All contributors must use the following subject item template for the email message: Paper

submission to JACET Kansai Journal: Corresponding author name (corresponding author
affiliation). Also, the email message should include the following information: Author name(s),author aﬃliation(s) and position(s), manuscript title, and authorʼs email address.

VII. Acceptance of manuscripts
1.

The JKJ Editorial Committee may request contributors to revise their manuscript.

2.

Contributors must submit their revised manuscripts along with revision notes by the deadline.
The JKJ Editorial Committee does not accept late submissions.

138

3.

Failure to follow the JKJ Editorial Committeeʼs requirements could result in a rejection of thesubmission.

VIII. Review of manuscripts
1.

2.
3.

4.
5.

Research Papers, Research Notes, Practitioner Research Papers, and Practitioner Notes are

subject to peer review by at least three scholars. The JKJ Editorial Committee will decideapproval of manuscripts based upon the results of the peer review.

During the review process, the JKJ Editorial Committee reserves the right to request a change
in the manuscript type.

During the review process, the JKJ Editorial Committee reserves the right to request therevision of manuscripts. Contributorsʼ failure to submit by the deadline will be considered a
withdrawal.

SIG Reports are not subject to peer review. However, the JKJ Editorial Committee will ensurethat all requirements are completed and that contents follow the JKJ standards.

During the process described in VIII-4, the JKJ Editorial Committee reserves the right torequest the revision of practitioner reports.

IX. CopyrightIf the manuscript is accepted for publication in JACET Kansai Journal:
1.

JACET will hold the copyright for all work(s) published in JACET Kansai Journal.

2.

Anyone, including the author(s), who wishes to reproduce, reprint, or republish the work in

JACET Kansai Journal, must obtain permission from JACET.
3.

Anyone, including the author(s), who wishes to reproduce, reprint, or republish the work in

4.

When a request is made for the work in JACET Kansai Journal to be published through the

JACET Kansai Journal, must clearly state that JACET holds the copyright.

repository of the authorʼs institution or another institution, permission from JACET must be
obtained.

5.
6.

Permission to publish in the repository shall be granted one year after the issue of JACET Kansai

Journal has been published. This will be granted at no cost.
Authors who do not accept the above conditions (stated in IX-1 through IX-4) must withdraw
their manuscripts before publication.

X. Amendment

Amendment of these Submission Guidelines (Japanese version) will be made by the Editorial

Committee of the JACET Kansai Journal. The English version will conform to the Japanese version.
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

139

Established June, 2005
Revised June, 2007
Revised December, 2008
Revised July 25, 2009
Revised June 5, 2011
Revised March 8, 2014

Revised February 24, 2016
Revised December 1, 2017
Revised May 5, 2018
Revised November 11, 2019
Revised June 18, 2022

140

JACET Kansai Journal 25（JACET 関西支部紀要 第 25 号）
2023 年 3 月 31 日発行
編集・発行：大学英語教育学会 (JACET) 関西支部
〒525-8577 草津市野路東１−１－１
立命館大学 びわこ・くさつキャンパス
アクロスウイング 4 階
竹田

嘱託職員室内里香

E-mail: jacetkj＠gmail.com
URL: http://www.jacet-kansai.org/
代

表者：植松 茂男

ISSN 1880-2281

JACET Kansai Journal

No. 25 March 2023
Editorial Note中田賀之Part Ⅰ
Invited Papers
大谷

泰照

1

この国の異言語教育のあり方を問い直す―「ウチからみた歴史」と「ソトからみた歴史」―
田地野

彰

19

英語教育研究のさらなる発展に向けて―システム思考で文構造を捉え直す―

USHIODA, Ema

31

Why We Do Language Education Research: Reﬂecting on Academic and Social Values
Part Ⅱ
Research Papers

UENO, Yuko

41

A Longitudinal Study on L2 Reading Among Japanese University Students:
The Eﬀects on Metacognitive Process in Self-Regulated Learning

TSUTADA, Kazumi

61

Writing Evaluation and Feedback: Inﬂuence on Argumentative Writing
Practitioner Research Paper

FUJIOKA, Cheena

81

Teaching an EFL Reading Class Using Banana Yoshimotoʼs Kitchen Online During the Covid Pandemic
Practitioner Note

USHIRONAKA, Yoko

100

Report on the Eﬀects of Introducing Literature Into the EFL Classroom Through Online Learning:
On the Prose of British LiteraturePart Ⅲ
Invited Articles ( 歷代支部長 )NOGUCHI, Judy

小栗
植松

115
116
117

裕子
茂男

研究会紹介
文学教育研究会（五十川 敬子・時岡 ゆかり）
学習英文法研究会（前川 貴史）
ESP 研究会（藤枝 美穂・スミス 朋子）「海外の外国語教育」研究会（二五 義博）
教材開発研究会（松村 優子・香林 綾子）
リスニング研究会（高橋 寿夫・神野 雅代）
リーディング研究会（星原 光江）
ライティング指導研究会（大年 順子）
授業学（関西）研究会（飯田 毅・村上 裕美）
科学英語教育研究会（村尾 純子）

118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127

Appendices『JACET 関西支部紀要』（JACET Kansai Journal）刊行規定『JACET 関西支部紀要』（JACET Kansai Journal）投稿要領

132
134

Kansai Chapter

The Japan Association of College English Teachers