日 本 言 語 テ ス ト 学 会（JLTA）
第 22 回（2018 年 度）全 国 研 究 大 会 発 表 要 綱
Handbookofthe 22nd Conferenceofthe Japan Language Testing Association

Conference Theme:
Evaluating Language Assessments in Japan

日 時：2018年9月8日（土）14:00－17:15 ～ 9月9日（日）9:00－18:00
会 場：北海学園大学豊平キャンパス〒062-8605 札幌市豊平区旭町4丁目1番40号
http://hgu.jp/guide/access/主 催：日本言語テスト学会 事務局〒270-1695 千葉県印西市平賀学園台1-1
順天堂大学さくらキャンパス 小泉利恵研究室
TEL: 0476-98-1001 (代表) FAX: 0476-98-1011 (代表)http://jlta.ac/
協 賛 (Co-sponsor)：JALT (Japan Association for Language Teaching) Testing and Evaluation
Special Interest Group (TEVAL SIG: http://teval.jalt.org/)

北海道胆振東部地震のために、2018 年度全国研究大会は中止となりました。そのため、本要綱に記載の発表は、未発表の扱いとなります。
The 2018 Annual Conference of the Japan Language Testing Association was canceled due to the 2018
Hokkaido Eastern Iburi earthquake. Therefore, presentations on this conference program were
accepted but were not presented. Thus presentation elsewhere is acceptable.

全 国 研 究 大 会 本 部 委 員 (Annual Conference Committee)
渡部 良典 / Yoshinori WATANABE
小泉 利恵 / Rie KOIZUMI
片桐 一彦 / Kazuhiko KATAGIRI
横内 裕一郎 / Yuichiro YOKOUCHI
深澤 真 / Makoto FUKAZAWA
田中 洋也 / Hiroya TANAKA
藤田 智子 / Tomoko FUJITA（上智大学 / Sophia University）（順天堂大学 / Juntendo University）（専修大学 / Senshu University）（弘前大学 / Hirosaki University）（琉球大学 / University of the Ryukyus）（北海学園大学 / Hokkai-Gakuen University）（桃山学院大学 / St. Andrew’s University）

全 国 研 究 大 会 運 営 委 員 (Annual Conference Steering Committee)
藤田 智子 / Tomoko FUJITA
印南 洋 / Yo IN’NAMI
金子 恵美子 / Emiko KANEKO
木村 哲夫 / Tetsuo KIMURA
熊澤 孝昭 / Takaaki KUMAZAWA
田中 洋也 / Hiroya TANAKA
谷 誠司 / Seiji TANI

（桃山学院大学 / St. Andrew’s University）（中央大学 / Chuo University）（会津大学 / University of Aizu）（新潟青陵大学 / Niigata Seiryo University）（東洋大学 / Toyo University）（北海学園大学 / Hokkai-Gakuen University）（常葉大学 / Tokoha University）

全 国 研 究 大 会 実 行 委 員 (Annual Conference Executive Committee)
田中 洋也 / Hiroya TANAKA
笠原 究 / Kiwamu KASAHARA
浦野 研 / Ken URANO
藤田 智子 / Tomoko FUJITA
印南 洋 / Yo IN’NAMI
金子 恵美子 / Emiko KANEKO
木村 哲夫 / Tetsuo KIMURA
熊澤 孝昭 / Takaaki KUMAZAWA
谷 誠司 / Seiji TANI

（実行委員長・北海学園大学 /Committee Head; Hokkai-Gakuen University）（北海道教育大学 / Hokkaido University of Education）（北海学園大学 / Hokkai-Gakuen University）（桃山学院大学 / St. Andrew’s University）（中央大学 / Chuo University）（会津大学 / University of Aizu）（新潟青陵大学 / Niigata Seiryo University）（東洋大学 / Toyo University）（常葉大学 / Tokoha University）

研 究 発 表 審 査 委 員 (Paper Presentation Abstract Reviewer)
金子 恵美子 / Emiko KANEKO
藤田 智子 / Tomoko FUJITA
印南 洋 / Yo IN’NAMI
田中 洋也 / Hiroya TANAKA（会津大学 / University of Aizu）（桃山学院大学 / St. Andrew’s University）（中央大学 / Chuo University）（北海学園大学 / Hokkai-Gakuen University）

Table of Contents（目次）
1. Conference Schedule Overview（大会日程表）

2

2. From the JLTA Office: Information for Conference Participants（学会事務局からのお知らせ）

11

3. Abstracts（発表要旨）

14

4. Workshop Information（ワークショップ情報）45

5. Conference Venue（会場マップ）

47

6. Advertisement/Commercial Exhibit Sponsors（広告・展示協賛企業）
49

1

1. Conference Schedule Overview
Day 1: September 8, 2018 (Saturday)
14:00－17:15 Workshop (Conducted in Japanese)(13:30 －“Bayesian Statistics and its Application to Foreign Language Education Study”
Registration)
Kunihiro KUSANAGI (Hiroshima University)
Hokkai-Gakuen University, Toyohira Campus (D31, 3rd floor, 7th building)
15:00－18:00 Board Meeting(with 10 min.
break)(D40, 4th floor, 7th building, Hokkai-Gakuen University)

Day 2: September 9, 2018 (Sunday)
8:20－
Registration
Opening Ceremony
9:00－9:15
9:25－9:55
Presentation I
10:00－10:30 Presentation II
10:30－10:45 Break
10:45－12:00 Keynote Speech
12:00－13:40 Lunch Break
13:40－14:10
14:15－14:45
14:50－15:20
15:20－15:40
15:40－17:10
17:20－17:40
17:40－18:00
18:20－20:20(Hallway, 3rd floor, 7th building)(D30, 3rd floor, 7th building)(D31, D40, D41, D42, D50, 7th building)(D31, D40, D41, D42, D50, 7th building)(Hallway, 3rd floor; D405, 4th floor)(D30, 3rd floor, 7th building)(D40, D41, D42, 4th floor, 7th building;G’Café, Hokkai-Gakuen Kaikan Hall)(JLTA Committee Meetings)(D30, 3rd floor, 7th building)Presentation III(D31, D40, D41, D42, D50)
Presentation IV(D31, D40, D41, D42, D50)
Presentation V (Institutional Member Presentations)(D31, D40, D41, D42, D50)
Break(Hallway, 3rd floor; D405, 4th floor)
Symposium(D30, 3rd floor, 7th building)Closing Ceremony & JLTA Best Paper Award Ceremony(D30, 3rd floor, 7th building)
JLTA General Business Meeting(D30, 3rd floor, 7th building)Banquet(G’Café, Hokkai-Gakuen Kaikan Hall)

Commercial Exhibits:
Lunch Room for Participants:
Break Room (after 10:30):
Family Waiting Room:Headquarters:
D401, D402, D403, D404, 4th floor; hallway, 3rd floor
D40, D41, D42, D405, 4th floor; G’Café, Hokkai-Gakuen Kaikan Hall
D405, 4th floor
D501, 5th floor
D502, D506, 5th floor

Complimentary refreshments are available in the 3rd floor hallway and the 4th floor D405 in the 7thbuilding.

2

Program of the 22nd JLTA Conference
September 9, 2018 (Sunday)
8:20－
Registration
Conference Attendance Fee:

(Hallway, 3rd floor, 7th building)
JLTA Members & JALT TEVAL SIG Members: ¥1,000
Non-members: ¥3,000; Graduate students: ¥1,000
Undergraduate students (with a proper student ID): Free

8:30－

Registration for Commercial Exhibits

9:00－9:15

Opening Ceremony(D30, 3rd floor, 7th building)
Coordinator: Tomoko FUJITA (St. Andrew’s University)
Greetings: Yoshinori WATANABE (JLTA President; Sophia University)
Seiji UENO (Dean, Faculty of Humanities, Hokkai-Gakuen University)

9:25－10:30

Presentations I and II (Presentation: 20 minutes; Discussion: 10 minutes)(D31, D40, D41, D42, D50, 7th building)
Break(Hallway, 3rd floor; D405, 4th floor)

10:30－10:45(Hallway, 3rd floor, 7th building)

10:45－12:00

Keynote Speech(D30, 3rd floor, 7th building)
Coordinator: Yoshinori WATANABE (Sophia University)
Title: An Ethics-based Approach to the Evaluation of Language Assessments
Lecturer: Antony John KUNNAN (University of Macau)

12:00－13:40

Lunch BreakLunch Room for Participants: D40, D41, D42, D405, 4th floor, 7th building;G’Café, Hokkai-Gakuen Kaikan HallJLTA Committee Meetings: D30, 3rd floor, 7th building

13:40－15:20

Presentations III, IV and Institutional Member Presentations (V)(Presentation: 20 minutes; Discussion: 10 minutes)(D31, D40, D41, D42, D50)
Break(Hallway, 3rd floor; D405, 4th floor)

15:20－15:40
15:40－17:10

Symposium(D30, 3rd floor, 7th building)
Theme: Evaluating Fairness and Justice of University Entrance English Examinations inJapan
Coordinator Hidetoshi SAITO (Ibaraki University)
Panelist 1
Hidetoshi SAITO (Ibaraki University)
Commercial English Language Test Agencies’ Views on their Own Tests
in Relation to Washback Effects on Teaching and Testing: Part 1
Panelist 2
Yo IN’NAMI (Chuo University)
Commercial English Language Test Agencies’ Views on their Own Tests
in Relation to Washback Effects on Teaching and Testing: Part 2
Panelist 3
Yasuyo SAWAKI (Waseda University)
Linking Commercial English Language Assessments to the CEFR andUsing them for Admission Decision-Making: Challenges and Future
Directions
3

DiscussantAntony John KUNNAN (University of Macau)

17:20－17:40

Closing Ceremony & JLTA Best Paper Award Ceremony(D30, 3rd floor, 7th building)
Coordinator: Tomoko FUJITA (St. Andrew’s University)
Best Paper Award Recipient: Paul WICKING (Meijo University)

17:40－18:00

JLTA General Business Meeting(D30, 3rd floor, 7th building)Selection of the chair
Reporter: Rie KOIZUMI (JLTA Secretary General, Juntendo University)
Kazuhiko KATAGIRI (JLTA Vice Secretary General, Senshu University)
Yuichiro YOKOUCHI (JLTA Vice Secretary General, Hirosaki University)
Makoto FUKAZAWA (JLTA Vice Secretary General, University of the
Ryukyus)18:20－20:20

Banquet(G’Café, Hokkai-Gakuen Kaikan Hall)
Coordinator: Tetsuo KIMURA (Niigata Seiryo University)

4

大会日程表第 1 日目：2018 年 9 月 8 日（土）14:00－17:15 ワークショップ:(13:30－受付) ベイズ統計とその外国語教育研究への応用（日本語で実施）
講師：草薙 邦広 （広島大学）
場所：北海学園大学豊平キャンパス 7 号館 3 階 D31
15:00－18: 00 役員会(10 分休憩)（北海学園大学豊平キャンパス 7 号館 4 階 D40）

第 2 日目：2018 年 9 月 9 日（日）8:20－
受付9:00－9:15
開会行事
9:25－9:55
研究発表 I
10:00－10:30 研究発表 II
10:30－10:45 休憩
10:45－12:00 基調講演
12:00－13:40 昼食

13:40－14:10
14:15－14:45
14:50－15:20
15:20－15:40
15:40－17:10
17:20－17:40
17:40－18:00
18:20－20:20（7 号館 3 階エレベーターホール）（7 号館 3 階 D30）
（7 号館 3 階 D31, 4 階 D40, D41, D42, 5 階 D50）
（7 号館 3 階 D31, 4 階 D40, D41, D42, 5 階 D50）
（7 号館 3 階通路奥、4 階 D405）（7 号館 3 階 D30）
（7 号館 4 階 D40, D41, D42, D405,
北海学園会館食堂 G’Café）（JLTA 委員会）
（7 号館 3 階 D30）
研究発表 III（7 号館 3 階 D31, 4 階 D40, D41, D42, 5 階 D50）
研究発表 IV（7 号館 3 階 D31, 4 階 D40, D41, D42, 5 階 D50）
研究発表 V (賛助会員発表)（7 号館 3 階 D31, 4 階 D40, D41, D42, 5 階 D50）
休憩
（7 号館 3 階通路奥、4 階 D405）
シンポジウム（7 号館 3 階 D30）
閉会行事＆JLTA 最優秀論文賞授与式（7 号館 3 階 D30）
JLTA 総会（7 号館 3 階 D30）
懇親会
（北海学園会館食堂 G’Café）

協賛企業展示：7 号館 4 階 D401, D402, D403, D404＋7 号館 3 階通路奥
一般参加者昼食：
7 号館 4 階 D40, D41, D42, D405＋北海学園会館食堂 G’Café
休憩室 (10 時半以降)： 7 号館 4 階 D405
家族控え室：
7 号館 5 階 D501
大会本部：
7 号館 5 階 D502, D506
※無料の飲み物やお菓子は、7 号館 3 階通路奥と、4 階 D405 にございます。

5日本言語テスト学会第 22 回全国大会プログラム
2018 年 9 月 9 日（日）
8:20－
一般受付
（7 号館 3 階エレベーターホール）
学会参加費：JLTA 会員・JALT TEVAL SIG 会員 1,000 円、未会員 3,000 円
大学院生 1,000 円
学部生無料（学生証提示を当日受付でお願いします）
8:30－

企業展示受付（7 号館 3 階エレベーターホール）

9:00－9:15

開会行事
総合司会
挨
拶

9:25－10:30
10:30－10:45（7 号館 3 階 D30）
藤田 智子（桃山学院大学）
渡部 良典（JLTA 会長・上智大学）
上野 誠治（北海学園大学人文学部学部長）

研究発表 I・II（発表 20 分, 質疑応答 10 分）（7 号館 D31, D40, D41, D42, D50）
休憩
（7 号館 3 階通路奥、4 階 D405）

10:45－12:00

基調講演（7 号館 3 階 D30）
司会：渡部 良典（JLTA 会長・上智大学）
演題：An Ethics-based Approach to the Evaluation of Language Assessments
講師：Antony John KUNNAN (University of Macau)

12:00－13:40

昼食
一般参加者昼食控室：7 号館 4 階 D40, D41, D42, D405, 北海学園会館食堂 G’Café
JLTA 委員会：7 号館 3 階 D30

13:40－15:20

研究発表 III、IV、賛助会員発表 (V) （発表 20 分, 質疑応答 10 分）（7 号館 3 階 D31, 4 階 D40, D41, D42, 5 階 D50）
休憩
（7 号館 3 階通路奥、4 階 D405）

15:20－15:40
15:40－17:10

シンポジウム（7 号館 3 階 D30）
テーマ：Evaluating Fairness and Justice of University Entrance English Examinations inJapanコーディネーター： 齋藤 英敏（茨城大学）
パネリスト 1 ：齋藤 英敏（茨城大学）
Commercial English Language Test Agencies’ Views on their
Own Tests in Relation to Washback Effects on Teaching andTesting: Part 1
パネリスト 2：
印南 洋（中央大学）
Commercial English Language Test Agencies’ Views on their
Own Tests in Relation to Washback Effects on Teaching andTesting: Part 2
パネリスト 3：
澤木 泰代（早稲田大学）
Linking Commercial English Language Assessments to the CEFR
and Using them for Admission Decision-Making: Challenges
and Future Directions
6

討論者：

Antony John KUNNAN (University of Macau)

17:20－17:40

閉会行事＆JLTA 最優秀論文賞授与式（7 号館 3 階 D30）
司会
藤田 智子（桃山学院大学）
2017 年度 JLTA 最優秀論文賞受賞者 Paul WICKING (Meijo University)

17:40－18:00

JLTA 総会（7 号館 3 階 D30）
議長選出
報告
小泉 利恵（JLTA 事務局長・順天堂大学）
片桐 一彦（JLTA 事務局次長・専修大学）
横内 裕一郎（JLTA 事務局次長・弘前大学）
深澤 真（JLTA 事務局次長・琉球大学）

18:20－20:20

懇親会
司会
木村 哲夫（新潟青陵大学）（北海学園会館食堂 G 堂学園会館）

Presentation Overview
Time

Part

D31

D40

D41

D42

D50

D30

9:25 －
9:55
10:00 －
10:30

I

GROGANCOLLIER†

飯村

浜谷

ANTLE

JI*

II

WICKING

KOIZUMI,IN’NAMI, &FUKAZAWA

FUJITABATES

MATSUMOTOJEONG*----KUNNANKANZAKI

USAMI

--

髙波

大澤 & 大澤--青山

上村 & 辰巳

--

--

--

10:30 －
10:45
10:45 －
12:00
12:00 －
13:40
13:40 －
14:10
14:15 －
14:45

14:50 －
15:20

15:20 －
15:40
15:40 －
17:10

Break
--

--

--

KeynoteLunch Break

III

深澤

IV

SAVILLEZHOU,DUNLEA,NEGISHI, &YOSHITOMINAKAMURA

MATSUDA,IMURA,NAKANISHI,& HERKEOKA,
TAKEBAYASHI,V

SAVILLEO’SULLIVANHIRAI,
MAEDA, &KATO
平野 & 木下

Break
--

--

--

*KELTA delegate presentation†Assessment practice presentation

7

SymposiumPresentation Details
D30, 3rd floor, 7th building
Keynote speech chair
Yoshinori WATANABE (Sophia University)
Keynote speech summary
Hideaki OKA (University of Tsukuba)
Symposium summary
Hiroki MAEDA (University of Tsukuba)
Part
Presenter (Affiliation)
Title (Page)
Investigation into Validity ofI
Paraphrasing Task as a Writing
9:25－ Nan-Young JI (Korea Polytechnic University)
Performance Test Item for EFL
9:55
Learners* (p. 20)
Developing
II
Multimedia-Assisted Military
10:00－ Taeyoung JEONG (The Korea Military Academy)
10:30
English OPI* (p. 21)
An Ethics-based Approach to
10:45－ Keynote speech
the Evaluation of Language
Lecturer: Antony John KUNNAN (University of Macau)
12:00
Assessments (p. 14)
III----------13:40－
14:10------------

V------------

14:50－
15:20
15:40－
17:10

Symposium: Evaluating Fairness and Justice of University
Entrance English Examinations in Japan

IV
14:15－
14:45

Coordinator: Hidetoshi SAITO (Ibaraki University)

Introduction (p. 16)

Panelist 1: Hidetoshi SAITO (Ibaraki University)

Commercial English Language
Test Agencies’ Views on their
Own Tests in Relation to
Washback Effects on Teaching
and Testing: Part 1 (p. 16)

Panelist 2: Yo IN’NAMI (Chuo University)

Commercial English Language
Test Agencies’ Views on their
Own Tests in Relation to
Washback Effects on Teaching
and Testing: Part 2 (p. 18)

Panelist 3: Yasuyo SAWAKI (Waseda University)

Linking Commercial English
Language Assessments to the
CEFR and Using them for
Admission Decision-Making:
Challenges and Future
Directions (p. 19)

Discussant: Antony John KUNNAN (University of Macau)*KELTA Delegate presentation

8

D31, 3rd floor, 7th buildingPart
I

Presenter (Affiliation)
Myles GROGAN (Kansai University)

Title (Page)
Grading the Grades: An Investigation into
Classroom-based Compulsory University EFL
Assessment (p. 22)
How Japanese Students Conceptualize andExperience University Assessment (p. 23)

9:25 －
9:55

IIPaul WICKING (Meijo University)

10:00 －
10:30

III

深澤 真 (琉球大学)

日本における大学英語入試問題は変わったか(p. 24)

Nick SAVILLE (IELTS)

The Impact of IELTS in Japanese Higher Education(p. 41)

Nick SAVILLE (IELTS)

Keeping IELTS Fit for Purpose: The Future of
Learning and Assessment (p. 42)

13:40 －
14:10

IV
14:15 －
14:45

V
14:50 －
15:20

D40, 4th floor, 7th buildingPart
I

Presenter (Affiliation)
Nicholas COLLIER (Ritsumeikan Uji Junior
9:25 － and Senior High School)

Title (Page)
Implementing CEFR-J Standards for Interactive
Communication Speaking Assessments in Large
High School Courses† (p. 25)
Holistic and Analytic Scales of a Paired Oral Test
for Japanese University Students (p. 26)

9:55

Rie KOIZUMI (Juntendo University)
Yo IN’NAMI (Chuo University)
10:00 －
Makoto FUKAZAWA (University of the
10:30
Ryukyus)
Yujia ZHOU (Tokyo University of Foreign
Studies)Jamie DUNLEA (British Council)
III
13:40 － Masashi NEGISHI (Tokyo University of
14:10
Foreign Studies)
Asako YOSHITOMI (Tokyo University ofForeign Studies)
Keita NAKAMURA (Eiken Foundation ofIV
14:15 － Japan)
II

Collecting A Priori Validity Evidence During theDevelopment of a Computer-based Speaking Test
for Japanese University Entrance Purposes (p. 27)

A Validation Study of New Business Speaking Test
(p. 28)

14:45

VBarry O’SULLIVAN (British Council)

Dependable Innovation: The Aptis Approach to
Testing Speaking (p. 43)

14:50 －
15:20

†Assessment practice presentation

D41, 4th floor, 7th buildingPart
I

Presenter (Affiliation)
飯村 英樹 (群馬県立女子大学)

Title (Page)
リスニングテストにおいて受験者を引きつける錯乱肢の特徴 (p. 29)

Ryoko FUJITA (Juntendo University)

Japanese EFL Learners’ Speech-in-Noise Listening
Comprehension Process: Use of Context (p. 30)

9:25 －
9:55

II
10:00 －
10:30

9

Sae MATSUDA (Setsunan University),
Makoto IMURA (Osaka Institute ofIII
Technology)
13:40 －
Noriko NAKANISHI (Kobe Gakuin
14:10
University)
Michael HERKE (Setsunan University)
Hideaki OKA (University of Tsukuba)
Naoki TAKEBAYASHI (University
IV
Tsukuba)
14:15 －
Akiyo HIRAI (University of Tsukuba)
14:45
Hiroki MAEDA (University of Tsukuba)
Takeshi KATO (University of Tsukuba)
平野 琢也 (株式会社アルク)
V
14:50 － 木下 あおい (株式会社アルク)

Fluent Readers to Fluent Speakers?: The Effect ofOral Reading Practice on the Speaking Ability of
Science Majors (p. 31)

The Validation of an English Test of Criticalof Thinking Ability for EFL Learners (p. 32)

高校生の英語スピーキング力と英語学習実態との関係―スピーキングテスト TSST を使用した 3 年間追跡調査の最終年度報告― (p. 43)

15:20

D42, 4th floor, 7th buildingPart
I

Presenter (Affiliation)
浜谷 佐和子 (関西大学)

Title (Page)
日本人英語学習者のための統語処理の自動化
度テストの作成 (p. 33)

Daniel BATES (Asia University)

Evaluating English Pronunciation Assessment at aJapanese University (p. 34)

Masaya KANZAKI (Kanda University ofInternational Studies)

Test-Takers’ Reactions to TOEIC L&R and S&W:
An Interim Report (p. 35)

髙波 幸代 (東洋大学)

多肢選択式スペリングテストの和訳提示は学習者の解答に影響を与えるか (p. 36)

青山 智恵 (ケンブリッジ大学英語検定機
構)

ケンブリッジ英語検定の波及効果と AI 技術を活用した新テスト「リンガスキル」のご紹介(p. 44)

9:25 －
9:55

II
10:00 －
10:30

III
13:40 －
14:10

IV
14:15 －
14:45

V
14:50 －
15:20

D50, 5th floor, 7th buildingPart
I

Presenter (Affiliation)
Joshua Brook ANTLE (Tsuda University)

Title (Page)
A Vocabulary Depth Test for Words within the1000 Most Frequent (p. 37)

9:25 －
9:55

II
10:00 －
10:30

III

Emiko
MATSUMOTO
University)(Juntendo Vocabulary Selection in TOEFL iBT Textbooks:
Compared with Word Lists (p. 38)
Japanese English Learners’ CEFR Receptive andProductive Vocabulary Knowledge--a Case Study
Using Cambridge B1 Preliminary Speaking Tests-(p. 39)
潜在回帰モデルの導入による拡張名義反応モデルの日本語テストデータへの適用 (p. 40)

Hiroko USAMI (Tokai University)

13:40 －
14:10

IV
14:15 －
14:45

V
14:50 －
15:20

大澤 公一 (京都大学)
大澤 理英 (関西外国語大学)
上村 武司 (ピアソン・ジャパン株式会社)
辰巳 律子 (大阪市立西高等学校)

Progress テスト - 高校への導入事例 (p. 44)

102. From the JLTA Office: Information for Conference Participants
Registration
1. There is no need to register in advance.
2. The conference registration site is Hallway on the 3rd floor of the 7th building.
3. The conference attendance fee is ¥1,000 for members (including institutional members) and ¥3,000 for
non-members (¥1,000 for non-member graduate students and ¥0 for non-member undergraduate
students).
4. If non-members apply for membership at the registration desk, the conference attendance fee will be¥1,000. The JLTA annual membership fee is ¥8,000 for a general member and ¥5,000 for a student
member. The admission fee for the JLTA membership is ¥1,000.
5. Please wear your conference name card strap throughout the conference.
6. The banquet fee is ¥3,000. The banquet registration is conducted at the registration desk. There is no
pre-conference registration. The banquet will be held at the G’Café in the Hokkai-Gakuen Kaikan Hall.
(See the map on p. 47).
7. The conference handbook is available at the registration desk on the day of the conference and is notsent by post in advance.
Family Waiting Room
1. A family waiting room is available for family members (junior high school age and above) who are notattending the JLTA events but are accompanying an adult(s) attending the events.
2. Desks and chairs are available, but the room is not air-conditioned.
3. As no JLTA or care staff is present in the room, its use is limited to people from junior high school age
and above and at their own risk.
4. Members of a participant’s family who do not attend presentations or lectures and only use the family
waiting room are exempt from the conference attendance fee. Please ask for a “participant’s family”
tag at the registration desk when your family member registers for the JLTA events.
5. The family waiting room is at D501 on the 5th floor in the 7th building. Complimentary refreshments
are available in the 3rd floor hallway and room D405 in the 4th floor, in the same building. Feel free toenjoy them.
Lunch and Participants’ Lounge, Etc.
1. Please use rooms D40, D41, and D42 on the 4th floor in the 7th building and G’Café in the
Hokkai-Gakuen Kaikan Hall for lunch.
2. Complimentary refreshments are available in the 3rd floor hallway and the 4th floor room D405, in the
7th building.
3. There are two convenience stores (FamilyMart and Seicomart) and several restaurants within a five-minutewalk, but some restaurants do not operate on Sundays. The on-campus cafeteria does not operate on
Saturdays and Sundays.
Accommodation
We are afraid that we provide no accommodation services through our association. Please makearrangements by yourself.
Smoking
Smoking is prohibited on campus.
11

Emergency Contact E-Mail Address: rie-koizumi@mwa.biglobe.ne.jp (Rie KOIZUMI)
Received e-mail messages will be automatically forwarded to her mobile phone.

To Presenters
1. Presenters will have 20 minutes to present their paper, followed by 10 minutes for discussion.
2. There will be no chair person in the presentation room. A time keeper will show you the time left.
3. Please register at the registration desk first. Please go to the designated room 5 minutes prior to thestarting time of the presentation.
4. Presenters are expected to bring a PC. There will be an audio terminal connector (for PC connection
through a stereo mini plug) and a D-sub 15-pin cable in the presentation room. If necessary, please
prepare an HDMI to VGA adaptor. Mac users should bring their own Mini DisplayPort to VGA
Adapter. Third-party adapters do not work properly sometimes.
5. Eduroam or other Wi-Fi Internet access is not available.
6. Please bring handouts in case your PC or the projector does not work.
7. If you need a letter of invitation, contact Rie KOIZUMI (JLTA Secretary General) at
rie-koizumi@mwa.biglobe.ne.jp

学会事務局からのお知らせ
大会参加者へのご案内■受付
1. 事前申し込みは必要ありません。
2. 受付は、7 号館 3 階エレベーターホールで行います。
3. 学会参加費は、会員 1,000 円（個人・賛助会員を含む）、未会員 3,000 円（ただし大学院生は1,000 円、学部生は無料）です。
4. 未会員の方でも、受付で入会手続きを行えば学会参加費は 1,000 円となります。JLTA 年会費
は、一般会員は 8,000 円、学生会員は 5,000 円、入会費は 1,000 円です。
5. 学会中は、名札をお付けください。
6. 懇親会費は 3,000 円です。当日受付でお支払いください。事前受付はありません。懇親会は北海学園会館食堂 G’Café にて開かれます（マップ p. 47 参照）。
7. 参加者の方には、『JLTA 第 22 回（2018 年度）全国研究大会発表要綱』を受付で配布します。
『要綱』は事前に郵送しませんので、ご注意ください。
■家族控室
1. 参加者のご家族（中学生以上）のための控室を設置します。発表・講演等には参加しない家族が待機できる部屋です。
2. 机や椅子はありますが、冷房はついていません。
3. スタッフも配置しませんので、自己責任での中学生以上のご利用に限定させていただきます。
4. 発表・講演等には参加せず、家族控室のみ利用される参加者ご家族は、大会参加費は無料です。参加者が受付する際に、「参加者ご家族」用の名札を受け取ってください。
5. 家族控室は 7 号館 5 階 D501 にあります。無料の飲み物やお菓子は、7 号館 3 階通路奥と、4階 D405 にあり、参加者ご家族の方もお召し上がりいただけます。
■昼食・休憩室等
1. 昼食・休憩室として、7 号館 4 階 D40, D41, D42, D405、北海学園会館食堂 G’Café をご利用く
ださい。
2. 無料の飲み物やお菓子は 7 号館 3 階通路奥と、4 階 D405 にございます。
12

3. 週末につき、学食の営業はありません。徒歩 5 分以内の場所に、コンビニエンス・ストアが 2
件と、レストランが数件あります。レストランは、週末営業していない可能性があります。
■宿泊
宿泊の斡旋はいたしておりません。
■喫煙キャンパス内は建物外も含め、禁煙です。
■緊急連絡先の E メールアドレス rie-koizumi@mwa.biglobe.ne.jp（小泉利恵、JLTA 事務局長）
携帯電話の E メールアドレスに転送されます。

発表者へのご案内
1.
2.
3.
4.

20 分の発表と 10 分の質疑応答の時間があります。
司会者はおりません。タイムキーパーが残り時間を提示します。
受付を済まされ、発表開始 5 分前には、発表会場にお越しください。
ご発表にはご自分のコンピューターを持参してください。音声ケーブル (ステレオミニプラ
グによる PC 接続用) および RGB ケーブル (D-sub15 ピン) は発表会場にあります。必要に応じて、HDMI から VGA への変換用アダプター、並びに Mac 用のケーブルはご自身でご準備ください。持ち込んだアダプターは機能しないことが時折あります。
5. Eduroam およびその他の Wi-Fi インターネットへの接続は提供しておりません。
6. 予測できない不具合に備え、ハンドアウトのご持参をお勧めします。
7. 出張依頼状などが必要な方は、rie-koizumi@mwa.biglobe.ne.jp (小泉利恵, JLTA 事務局長) まで
ご連絡ください。

13

3. Abstracts (発表要旨)
Keynote Speech (D30, 3rd floor, 7th building)

10:45－12:00

An Ethics-based Approach to the Evaluation of Language Assessments
Antony John KUNNAN (University of Macau)
akunnan@umac.mo, akunnan@gmail.com
The dominant 20th century approach to the evaluation of language assessments was the Standards-based
approach. The Standards most evaluators referred to were the APA, AERA, NCME Standards (1999; 2014)or the derivative ILTA, ALTE or EALTA Standards. These Standards considered the center-piece of theirevaluations to be evidence from studies of validation, reliability and consequences. In the early part of the
21st century, the Argument-based approach (proposed by Bachman, 2005; Bachman and Palmer, 2014)
emerged as a new approach that used the Toulmin way of structuring arguments (with claims, warrants,
backing and rebuttal). Their emphasis of this approach was to include consequences and to clarify
evaluation procedures using Toulmin’s framework. The reviewers who used the Standards-based andArgument-based approaches published their evaluations in the Mental Measurements Yearbook, Language
Testing and Language Assessment Quarterly. These published evaluations have many deficiencies in criticalways: they were mainly descriptive (not evaluative), they were insider evaluations (not independent as theauthors are often the testing agencies’ collaborators), they did not have test performance data (for secondary
analyses), they accepted the test agencies’ claims rather than evaluate the assessment against principles (forexample, of fairness, justice, etc.), and they were lacking in any intellectual foundation (as test agencies did
not explicitly state their ethical beliefs).
To remedy this situation, I am proposing an ethics-based approach to assessment evaluation. In thisapproach, a principled basis for fairness of assessments and justice in institutions is used as a frameworkthat in turn is used to develop the Principle of Fairness and Principle of Justice. Procedurally, Toulmin’s
structuring of arguments is used: Principles, claims, warrants, backing, qualifier, and rebuttals or
counter-claims. I will examine three claims from Principle of Fairness (Opportunity to Learn,
Meaningfulness, and Absence of bias) and one claim from Principle of Justice (Consequences). I will
provide evidence of support for the various claims and also offer rebuttals of claims. The claims examinedare (1) opportunity-to-learn in the classroom of two automated essay evaluation software (Vantage
Learning’s MY Access! and Pearson’s WriteToLearn), (2) meaningfulness in terms of consistency anddependability and the internal structure of a placement test (UCLA’s New ESL Placement Examination), (3)absence of bias in terms of differential item functioning based on age (in the Cambridge English Language
Assessments’ Certificate in Advanced English), and consequences (of the U.S. Naturalization Test).
Analyses used were correlations, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, Item Response Theory andexpert judgments. These studies showed that some test agencies’ claims could not be supported andrebuttals or counter-claims could be entertained. In other cases, more independent research studies areneeded to find evidence to support or rebut claims. I will conclude with some remarks regarding rights andresponsibilities of test takers and test users.

Bio
Antony John KUNNAN is a language assessment specialist. His research interests are fairness of tests andtesting practice, assessment literacy, research methods and statistics, ethics and standards, and language
assessment policy. After completing his Ph.D. from UCLA in 1991, he was awarded a post-doctoral
14

fellowship at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor for a year. From 1992 until 2013, he was assistant,associate and full professor at California State University, Los Angeles. In 2006, he received a Fulbrightscholarship to Tunghai University, Taiwan where he was a visiting professor and scholar. He also wasprofessor (and now Honorary Professor) at the University of Hong Kong and a professor at Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore. From 2016, he has been Professor of English and Associate Dean of
the Faculty of Arts and Humanities at the University of Macau.
He has served in many capacities at the international level: as secretary-treasurer and president of theInternational Language Testing Association. He was the founding president of the Asian Association for
Language Assessment, and the founding editor of Language Assessment Quarterly (2003-2013). He was amember of the TOEFL Committee of Examiners and the New TOEFL (now iBT) at Educational Testing
Service, Princeton, and a research consultant at the University of Cambridge English Language Assessment
where he conducted research workshops and projects.
His latest publications include: edited volumes The Companion to Language Assessment (in 4 volumes,
Wiley, 2014), Language Testing and Assessment (in 4 volumes, Routledge, 2014) and Talking about
Language Assessment (Routledge, 2015) and authored book Evaluating Language Assessments (Routledge,2017).
Note: The first and second paragraphs of this bio statement were adapted from the University of Macau’s
website: https://fah.umac.mo/staff/staff-do/antony-kunnan/15

Symposium (D30, 3rd floor, 7th building)

15:40－17:10

Evaluating Fairness and Justice of University Entrance English Examinations in Japan(日本の大学入試英語科目における fairness と justice の考察)

Coordinator
Panelists

DiscussantHidetoshi SAITO (Ibaraki University)
Hidetoshi SAITO (Ibaraki University)
Yo IN’NAMI (Chuo University)
Yasuyo SAWAKI (Waseda University)
Antony John Kunnan (University of Macau)

Introduction and Paper 1: Commercial English Language Test Agencies’ Views on their Own
Tests in Relation to Washback Effects on Teaching and Testing: Part 1
Coordinator and panelist: Hidetoshi SAITO (Ibaraki University)hidetoshi.saito.cldwtr@vc.ibaraki.ac.jp
This symposium is a three-part report of a recent survey of six testing agencies whose commercial English
language tests have just been endorsed for use as part of the revised Japanese university entrance exam
system starting in 2021. This will be followed by Dr. Antony Kunnan’s comments on the issues we willraise.
According to this reform plan, both commercial proficiency tests and the new Common Test for English
language will be used until 2023, and then MEXT (the Ministry of Education, Culture, Science, andTechnology) plans to withdraw the new Common Test and replace it entirely with commercial proficiency
tests, including CELA, Eiken, TEAP, GTEC, IELTS, TOEFL, and TOEIC. This change will most likely
generate unexpected consequences, either positive or negative, that require serious consideration beforehand.
We (Saito, In’nami, & Sawaki) have decided to “preliminarily evaluate” the English language tests
developed and administered by the six agencies using Kunnan’s principles of fairness and justice (2018).
Using his principles along with Toulmin’s argument approach, one can evaluate the feasibility of test andargue for and against its use for intended purposes and consequences.
The six agencies responded to the questions concerning issues that the test-takers and theirteachers—immediate stakeholders with minimum language assessment literacy—might wonder about: thetests’ potential use and consequences. The questions were targeted at revealing communicability of the test
agencies’ current thoughts and practice about the future test use. Our “evaluation” necessarily contains
speculative arguments, because the new exam system has yet to be implemented. A large part of the claims,
warrants, backing, and rebuttal may necessarily be temporary and interpreted with a grain of salt.
Nevertheless, we are confident of the significance of our preliminary evaluation because of the magnitude of
impact the reforms will have on more than 500,000 high school students and their parents alike.
The first question in the survey was “What do the agencies think about minimizing the potential risk theirtest may pose of narrowing the curriculum and teaching to the test?” I will discuss their responses (claims)
based on Kunnan’s principle of justice: subprinciple 1, which states that “an assessment institution ought tofoster beneficial consequences to the test-taking community” (2018, p. 80).

16

Bio
Hidetoshi SAITO currently teaches pre- and in-service English teachers and graduate students at Ibaraki
University. His most recent papers have appeared in Language Assessment Quarterly and JALT Journal(both in 2017), and he has just completed a chapter for a book on CLIL assessment (to appear). His researchinterest includes formative assessment, CLIL, and discussion instruction. He is also on the editorial team of anationally approved junior high textbook series, New Horizon.

17Symposium Paper 2: Commercial English Language Test Agencies’ Views on their Own Tests
in Relation to Washback Effects on Teaching and Testing: Part 2
Yo IN’NAMI (Chuo University)
innami@tamacc.chuo-u.ac.jp
Based on Kunnan’s principles of fairness and justice (2018), this presentation reports on a preliminary
evaluation of the English language tests developed and administered by the six agencies, and their use aspart of the nationwide university entrance examination system. In particular, of the five questions we posedin the survey administered to the six agencies, this presentation reports on responses to Questions 2 through4.
Question 2 asked: “Research has shown that when such tests are used for entrance examination purposes,
students could mainly focus on test preparation, consequently narrowing the content they learn. Do you
have any advice for examinees regarding this point?” Question 3 asked: “Additionally, what initiative do
you think should be taken to have beneficial effects on high school teachers and examinees? Please describe
the current plan and direction for the future plan.” Question 4 asked: “How would you respond to
examinees when they point out that your test(s) include(s) vocabulary that exceeds the 5,000 words thathigh school graduates should know as specified in the New Course of Study beginning from elementary
school starting in 2020?” Questions 2 and 3 concerned Kunnan’s Principle of Justice: subprinciple 1, whichstates that “An assessment institution ought to foster beneficial consequences to the test-taking community”(p. 80). Question 4 concerned Kunnan’s Principle of Fairness: subprinciple 1, which states that “anassessment institution ought to provide adequate opportunity to acquire the knowledge, abilities or skills tobe assessed for all test takers” (p. 80).
After analyzing responses to Questions 2 through 4, the presentation will indicate the extent to which eachtest could serve as part of the nationwide university entrance examination system, along with areas ofconcern or interest that have emerged in the process of analyzing the responses.
Bio
Yo IN’NAMI is a Professor of English at Chuo University, Japan. He is interested in meta-analytic inquiry
into the variability of effects and the longitudinal measurement of change in language proficiency. His mostrecent publications include a special issue on language assessment in Japan in Language Assessment
Quarterly, co-edited with Rie Koizumi, Yasuyo Sawaki, and Yoshinori Watanabe, and an article on second
language comprehensibility development in Language Learning, co-authoring with Kazuya Saito,
Jean-Marc Dewaele, and Mariko Abe. He has been co-editing a book with Eun-Hee Jeon on theoretical andmeta-analytic investigations into components of L2 reading, writing, listening, and speaking.

18

Symposium Paper 3: Linking Commercial English Language Assessments to the CEFR andUsing them for Admission Decision-Making: Challenges and Future Directions
Yasuyo SAWAKI (Waseda University)
ysawaki@y.waseda.jp
This presentation focuses on the final question included in the survey conducted with the six testing
agencies contributing their commercial English language assessments to the score reporting system for the
new university entrance examination administered by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science,
and Technology (MEXT): “Test takers’ scores on your test will be converted to the levels of the CEFR
(Common European Framework of Reference for Languages; Council of Europe, 2001). How would you
respond if a test taker asks how accurate the score boundaries between the different CEFR levels are foryour test?” This question mainly concerns two aspects of Kunnan’s (2018) Principle of Fairness (p. 80).
One is Sub-principle 2, the degree to which test score interpretation is meaningful and consistent for all test
takers. This issue is relevant because it is important to communicate to test takers and other stakeholder
groups each assessment’s purpose, target population, construct representation, and design. Doing so would
help stakeholders understand that caution should be exercised when directly comparing scores on thevarious assessments from one another through linking them to a common standard such as the CEFR. The
other is Sub-principle 4, the degree to which the standard-setting procedures employed to link those
assessments to the CEFR are appropriate for equitable decision-making. The standard-setting procedures
and their results that those agencies report determine the quality of the information presented in the scoreconcordance table between the assessments and the CEFR levels prepared by MEXT. This would in turn
tremendously impact test takers because individual universities specify their admission requirements basedon the concordance table and use the assessments’ scores for student admissions.
In this session, the presenter will first summarize survey results on this question and issues of considerationthat emerge from them. This is followed by a proposal of potential future directions for building andsupporting a fairness argument (1) by enhancing the standard-setting practice on which MEXT’s
concordance table is based; (2) by facilitating stakeholders’ understanding of similarities and differencesamong the assessments and how the concordance table should be interpreted and used in defining
admission requirements; and (3) by planning and conducting empirical validation studies of this new score
reporting system by the collaboration of MEXT, the testing agencies, and universities.
Bio
Yasuyo SAWAKI (Professor, Faculty of Education and Integrated Arts and Sciences, Waseda University)
currently teaches various undergraduate- and graduate-level courses in language assessment, teacher
training, and academic English at Waseda University. Her research interests include diagnostic English
language assessment and feedback, source-based writing, and English medium instruction. Sawaki is acurrent board member of the Japan Language Testing Association, Secretary/Treasurer of the Asian
Association for Language Assessment, and member of the editorial advisory boards of the Language
Testing and Language Assessment Quarterly journals.

19

Paper Session
D30, 3rd floor, 7th building Part I (9:25-9:55)
Investigation into Validity of Paraphrasing Task as a Writing Performance Test Item for EFL
Learners
Nan-Young JI (Korea Polytechnic University)*KELTA delegate presentation
Paraphrasing quality has proven to be highly associated with two major linguistic components: lexicalcompetence and syntactic competence (McCarthy, Guess, & McNamara, 2009). Nonetheless, few attempts
have been made to view the skill as a window through which learners’ inter-language can be estimated.
How learners manipulate sentence structures and vocabulary in retelling may represent their current level oflanguage proficiency. Therefore, with an aim to verify whether paraphrasing tasks are legitimate as awriting test item to accurately identify the learners’ productive language abilities, a correlation study was
conducted with 364 test-takers ranging from grade 7 to university freshmen. The scores the learners earned
from paraphrasing tasks were compared with those obtained from self-assessments of their English abilities
in the case of the secondary school students and from TOEIC in the case of the university students.
Paraphrase rating scales adopted in this study were developed by school teachers, considering the range of
Korean secondary students’ English proficiency. It has been revealed that paraphrasing task has the potential
as a valid writing test item as proven by statistically significant correlation coefficients between two sets ofscores.

20

D30, 3rd floor, 7th building Part II (10:00-10:30)
Developing Multimedia-Assisted Military English OPI*
Taeyoung JEONG (The Korea Military Academy)*KELTA delegate presentation
The goal of this study is to develop a Multimedia-assisted Military English Oral Proficiency Interview(ME-OPI) that firstly accesses officer-candidates’ English proficiency, and secondly establishes
decision-making procedures for selecting personnel to be sent abroad. Because the cadets and officers of the
ROK (Republic of Korea) Army have frequent missions that require interaction with foreign military
officers, especially with US officers, it is imperative that they are equipped with good command of military
English; hence this study is highly relevant to the operations of the ROK Army. In line with this, the goal of
English education in the Korea Military Academy—the four-year college training and educating
officer-candidates of ROK Army—is to prepare cadets with the necessary degree of English fluency for
combined military operations with allied forces. While there are several commercial English proficiency
tests in the market, few of them measure candidates’ military English proficiency. Moreover, administering
general English tests for military purposes can cause serious validity issues. To achieve the goal of thisresearch, the researcher analyzes both the current English curriculum of the Korea Military Academy andthe evolving needs of the Army Headquarters to produce an authentic, valid and reliable English proficiency
test. The researcher then develops a ME-OPI according to Hughes’ ten-step test development procedures(2003). Finally, the ME-OPI is validated and calibrated to better function as a useful tool to access speaking
proficiency within a military context. This study concludes that current commercial English proficiency
tests have a rather limited practical use when administered for military purposes, since they do not containany sections that measure test-takers’ linguistic or communicative competence in military terminology. On
the other hand, the ME-OPI, particularly if enhanced with authentic images and sounds, proves to be a valid,
as well as reliable, tool to distinguish able officers and cadets that can better function in a military context
where the official language is English. This study further suggests that current cutting-edge technology,
including AR (artificial intelligence) or VR (virtual reality), could also be incorporated with the ME-OPI
system to construct a more authentic testing environment.

21

D31, 3rd floor, 7th building Part I (9:25-9:55)
Grading the Grades: An Investigation into Classroom-based Compulsory University EFL
Assessment
Myles GROGAN (Kansai University)
This presentation explores the premise that classroom-based assessment is distinct from other forms of
testing and assessment. In Japanese universities, approaches to English courses and their assessment may
reflect the uniqueness of the institution. Course designers and class teachers are left to deal with thisuniqueness, sometimes in the face of conflicting goals and needs. This mixed-methods case study describes
a listening and speaking course at a single private university over three years. It aims to begin suggesting
theory specific to classroom-based assessment by more thoroughly describing different aspects of grading
processes, and the implications that may be specific to different university EFL classes.
Three methodological approaches were used to reach different sections of the academic community. First, asnowball sampling approach allowed full-time teaching staff, faculty members, and administrators toparticipate in semi-structured interviews following themes discovered in the data. Through a process ofcoding, memoing, and constant comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), a broad picture of the different
components that may influence grading was gained. A second data strand came from interviews with
part-time teachers, who created performance scales based on a small sample of their students at each of thescore levels (S, A, B, C) from a single course (see Jankowicz, 2003). These scales provided insight into
what respondents’ grades may reflect. Finally, four classes of students sorted a range of opinions about
grading and grading process. Following factor analysis, the results provided a range of student perspectives
complementing the previous two data strands.
The semi-structured interviews revealed a degree of isolation within the academic community. The actuality
and beliefs about how the institution operated, the obligations that each person believed they owed different
stakeholders, and the consequences of grading activities seemed to shape grading processes. Althoughlanguage proficiency and content were used to create a narrative of ability, strong elements of process andprocedure also suffused grading activities, albeit in different formats. Difference in process seemed to stemfrom what teachers believed to be in the long-term interest of the students, balanced against the possibilityof institutional conflict. Students taking part in the process were aware that different instructors gradeddifferently, and reactions varied. Although some reacted negatively, many accepted this to a lesser or greater
extent as part of academic life. Once the grade was assured, they seemed more focused on either the
intrinsic or extrinsic benefits the classes themselves may bring.

22D31, 3rd floor, 7th building Part II (10:00-10:30)
How Japanese Students Conceptualize and Experience University Assessment
Paul WICKING (Meijo University)
Since the turn of the century there has been increasing interest in the ways that educational assessment canencourage or discourage effective learning processes. Much of this interest has centered around formative
assessment, and those practices which can promote student learning through the act of being assessed. Inorder to do that, formative assessment necessarily taps into the affective and cognitive dimensions oflearning, touching upon students’ feelings, motivations, beliefs, attitudes and conceptions surrounding
learning and assessment. The purpose of the present study is to gather and analyze Japanese students’conceptions and experiences of assessment, in order to lay the foundation for assessment practices that canbetter promote learning.
This study is mixed methods research, integrating data from both quantitative and qualitative sources.
Original data was gathered at Japanese universities via two instruments. The first was a multidimensional
self-report survey, which was administered on a volunteer sample of 613 Japanese university students, ofwhich 552 valid cases were drawn. The second data collection instrument was a narrative frame. The use ofnarrative frames for eliciting qualitative data is a method first developed by Barkhuisen and Wette (2008) to
explore university English teachers’ experiences in China. In essence, a narrative frame is a series ofsentence starters, connectives and sentence modifiers which scaffold the writer and guide him/her toconcentrate on certain features of his/her narrative story. The narrative frame data were drawn from eightintact EFL classes held in three different Japanese universities. In total, 219 students completed the narrative
frame.
Analysis of the survey results was performed with IBM SPSS version 22. To begin with, a table ofdescriptive statistics was generated. Next, a factor analysis was conducted, which revealed a 7 factor
solution to explain how these students conceived of assessment. The narrative frame data was put through aprocess of qualitative content analysis. A coding frame was first developed, following a strategy ofsubsumption, after which it was input into NVivo for Mac and then triangulated with the survey data.
The results indicate that Japanese students approach formative assessment tasks in a way that is at odds withpopular Confucian categories. Students did not seem to be highly competitive, they valued practical skill
over book knowledge, and familial obligation was not a strong factor in educational motivation. The
presentation concludes with pedagogical implications for teachers seeking to conduct formative assessmentwith Japanese students.

23

D31, 3rd floor, 7th building Part III (13:40-14:10)
日本における大学英語入試問題は変わったか
深澤 真（琉球大学）
本研究は、Brown and Yamashita (1995) と Kikuchi (2006) をもとに、大学英語入試問題を(1) 読解問題の難易度、(2) テスト問題の出題形式、(3) 測られている技能の観点から分析する。これまでの研究結果と比較することで、過去 20 年間で大学入試がどのように変化してきたかを明らかにする。
上記の研究と同じ国公立大学 10 校、私立大学 10 校の 2016 年英語入試問題、および同年のセンターテスト英語問題を対象とした。分析は、Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level などのリーダビリティ
指数を算出するとともに、記述統計を活用して行った。
分析の結果、読解問題の難易度は国公立大学でこの 20 年間で難化傾向にあることがわかった。
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level は、1994 年、2004 年、2016 年の国公立大学大学入試英語読解問題でそれぞれ 9.11, 10.98, 11.68 であった。また、私立大学の英語読解問題では、2004 年から 2016 年で9.62, 10.74 と難化傾向であった。
テスト問題の出題形式については、まず reading/writing, translation, listening の３つの技能に分類し、次に多肢選択式（multiple-choice）や空所補充（fill-in）など細かな分類を行った。reading/writing
では、多肢選択式が主な出題形式であり、私立大学英語入試問題で一貫して増加していた（74.39%,81.12%, 81.77%）。新しい傾向として私立大学で英文を英語でまとめる新しい形式の問題が見られた。translation では、国立大学で英語から日本語へ訳をする問題が増える傾向にあった一方で、日本語から英語への訳の問題は減少傾向にあった。Listening では、多肢選択式問題が国公立大学、私立大学とも一貫して増加傾向にあった。
測られている技能の観点からの分析では、テスト問題は receptive、productive、translation の３つの技能に分けられた。receptive な技能を問う問題は、私立大学で 2004 年以来 9 割以上となっており、国公立大学でも一貫して増加していた（33.6%, 38.9%, 54.96%）。一方、productive な技能を問う問題は、国公立大学、私立大学とも一貫して減少していた。
この 20 年間で、読解問題はさらに難化するとともに、受容技能を問う問題は増加していた。
コミュニケーション能力の育成に重点を置いている現在の高等学校学習指導要領とより合致した入試問題が求められる。

24

D40, 4th floor, 7th building Part I (9:25-9:55)
Implementing CEFR-J Standards for Interactive Communication Speaking Assessments in Large
High School Courses†
Nicholas COLLIER (Ritsumeikan Uji Junior and Senior High School)†Assessment practice presentation
In recent years there has been a move towards greater use of skill-based assessment in Japan. This has beenin part due to changes in policy from MEXT and a greater awareness that the Japanese English education
system does not explicitly prepare students for communicative needs in English (Shillaw, 2017). The
CEFR-J has been proposed as a “can-do”-based system of standards to be used by institutions for the
instruction and assessment of students’ English ability (Nagai and O’Dwyer, 2011). However, introducing
new assessment practices to an organization or language course can be a daunting task. The teachingpractitioner may be presented with large numbers of candidates, poorly-understood standards or goals,
teams of assessors to train, pre-existing practices and many other impediments. This presentation seeks toshare elements of good practice in developing a series of speaking tests focusing on interactive
communication. Using the example of a single assessment, it proposes practical approaches to speaking
assessment. The presentation will discuss selection of standards, creation of rubrics, interlocutor scripts andtest procedures, standard-setting for assessors, monitoring of standards and feedback on performance toindividual students. Using the approach outlined in this presentation, teachers and administrators will gain afunctional approach to implementing CEFR-J standards in assessment and instruction.

25

D40, 4th floor, 7th building Part II (10:00-10:30)

Holistic and Analytic Scales of a Paired Oral Test for Japanese University Students
Rie KOIZUMI (Juntendo University)
Yo IN’NAMI (Chuo University)
Makoto FUKAZAWA (University of the Ryukyus)
Spoken interaction is increasingly highlighted in the English as a foreign language context in Japan, as issuggested by its explicit inclusion in the Course of Study (Japanese national curriculum of English forsecondary schools), to be implemented in 2020 and onward. However, effective methods of assessing
spoken interaction, particularly in classroom assessment, have not been extensively examined. Of possible
test formats for assessing oral interaction, including conversations between (a) an examiner and a learner,(b) two learners, and (c) three or more learners, one viable format in classroom assessment is (b) a paired
oral test format, where two students talk or play assigned roles based on instruction cards. This format has
been used to elicit relatively natural oral interaction between two people with similar status and is believed
to generate positive washback on students’ learning (Galaczi & ffrench, 2011). We have previously
developed paired oral tasks and a holistic rating scale for Japanese university students and presented
positive evidence for the validity of interpretations and uses of test scores (Koizumi, In’nami, & Fukazawa,
2016). However, previous research suggests that, although a holistic scale produces fairly reliable scoresand is more efficient than an analytic scale, it lacks the diagnostic information to help improve futurelearning and teaching that the analytic scale offers (e.g., Brown, 2012). Therefore, in order to provide two
scale types that function adequately for our test, this study reports on the development of an analytic scale,examines its quality using a multifaceted Rasch analysis, and compares it with our holistic scale.
Students at four Japanese universities (N = 121) with novice to intermediate English proficiency levels took
a paired oral test. As part of the instruction in an English class, they paired up and completed three to 10
tasks that required each pair to talk for two to three minutes. Their interactions were recorded separately foreach task and marked by one or two trained raters from a pool of four, using a holistic scale and a newly
developed analytic scale. The latter was developed based on Nakatsuhara (2007) and consisted of four
categories: Pronunciation & intonation, Grammar & vocabulary, Fluency, and Interactive communication.
Each scale was awarded 1–3 points. The ratings were analyzed using a separate multifaceted Rasch
measurement for each scale. The preliminary analysis showed a positive functioning of the rating scales.
Similarities and differences of the scales and possible directions for future research will also be discussed.

26D40, 4th floor, 7th building Part III (13:40-14:10)
Collecting A Priori Validity Evidence During the Development of a Computer-based Speaking Test
for Japanese University Entrance Purposes
Yujia ZHOU (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies)
Jamie DUNLEA (British Council)
Masashi NEGISHI (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies)
Asako YOSHITOMI (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies)
To foster positive washback on English education, the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science, and Technology (MEXT) has announced a new policy of encouraging universities to use four-skill
English tests for entrance purposes (MEXT, 2017). In response to this call, Tokyo University of Foreign
Studies (TUFS), in collaboration with the British Council, is developing a computer-based speaking test:
British Council TUFS-Speaking Test for Japanese Universities (BCT-S). The joint development project,drawing on the British Council’s expertise in developing and delivering the online speaking component of
Aptis, offers one potential solution to the challenges faced by Japanese universities upon introducing an
independent speaking component for university-specific exams.
This presentation reports on one part of the development process: a pilot study carried out in April 2018 tocollect validity evidence of BCT-S to inform further test development and contribute to a validity argument
prior to the administration of the operational tests. Different types of a priori validity evidence weregathered to address the following research questions:
RQ1: a) Do tasks targeting different levels of proficiency demonstrate different levels of empiricaldifficulty?
b) Are tasks that target the same level of proficiency comparable in difficulty across test forms?
RQ2: What are TUFS students’ perceptions of BCT-S?
RQ3: To what extent does BCT-S elicit language functions targeted in the test specifications for each task?
Ninety-eight TUFS undergraduates took BCT-S in April 2018. Two forms of the test were randomly
assigned to the students, whose responses were recorded and scored by trained raters using task-specificholistic rating scales. Their speech samples were transcribed. Immediately after the test, students completed
a questionnaire that elicited their perceptions of BCT-S regarding test validity, testing procedure, and test
content; 20 students participated in follow-up interviews.
Multi-faceted Rasch analysis found the tasks performed adequately with regard to the relationship between
targeted proficiency level and empirical difficulty. However, some content-related differences in difficulty
were identified for the highest-level task. Regarding students’ perceptions of BCT-S, they were satisfied
with the test validity and testing procedure, but expressed concerns related to the test environment such as
the voices of other students as well as confusion caused by certain unclear test prompts (photos andquestions). These results along with those of function analyses are reported in detail in the presentation, andthe implications of the findings for future test development are discussed.

27D40, 4th floor, 7th building Part IV (14:15-14:45)
A Validation Study of New Business Speaking Test
Keita NAKAMURA (Eiken Foundation of Japan)
Test validation has become an important part of test development because it is becoming increasingly
important for test developers to conduct validation studies to ensure the proper use of tests and theinterpretation of the results for a particular group of stakeholders (Chapelle et al., 2006).
This study presents the result of a series of studies to collect validity evidence of the newly developed
speaking test of English for business purposes. The author starts from result of 1) needs analysis and task
development, 2) trial study to check testing-time and task difficulty, 3) scale development study based onreference group, 4) concurrent validation study of the new test with other tests, and finally 5) the limitationand the implication of the study.
Based on the needs analysis, the new test was designed to have three parts, part 1, 2, and 3. In part 1, test
takers were asked to provide their job-related basic information such as what they do and likes/challenges of
their current job. In part 2, test takers were asked to read both texts and graphs and summarize the issue andgive a possible solution. In part 3, test takers were asked to read text and graphs to give their opinions to thegiven topic. Through those parts, interviewer was asked to rate test takers’ both English Language Skills(ELS) and Business Performance Skills (BPS).
A total of 39, 398, and 626 adult learners of English took part in the study 2), 3) and 4), respectively. In
study 2), each participant took the prototype task and filled in the questionnaire which asked them their
responses to the testing time, task instruction, and task difficulty. In study 3), test reliability and item-levelfactor structure of the new test were investigated using Mplus 7.4 (Muthen & Muthen, 2015). In study 4),
relationship with EIKEN and BULATS speaking were investigated in terms of correlation coefficient. In
study 3), test takers from various fields of work (e.g. IT, education, or service industry) participated in thisstudy. The test reliability was 0.99, while the correlation between the two rating criteria, Business
Performance Skills (BPS) and English Language Skills (ELS) was 0.96.
In this presentation, the details of study results would be presented and, the limitation and the implication of
the study would be discussed.

28

D41, 4th floor, 7th building Part I (9:25-9:55)
リスニングテストにおいて受験者を引きつける錯乱肢の特徴
飯村 英樹 (群馬県立女子大学)
多肢選択式テストの作成において、重要かつ困難な作業は有効な錯乱肢を複数作り出すことである。錯乱肢の有効性は、項目分析の結果から得られた弁別力と反応頻度の２つの観点から評価される（Fulcher, 2010）。弁別力はどの程度、能力の高い受験者と低い受験者を分けることができるかを表す指標であり、頻度はどの程度（何人）、受験者から選ばれているかを表す指標である。言語テスト作成におけるガイドライン（例：Haladyna & Rodriguez, 2013）では、錯乱肢をもっともらしく（plausible）することが必要だと述べられている。
本研究の目的は、多肢選択式リスニングテストにおける錯乱肢の魅力度（もっともらしさ）を構成する要因を明らかにすることである。使用するデータは、日本人大学生約 200 名が受験した
TOEIC リスニングセクションの Part 2（応答 30 問）、Part 3（会話 30 問）、Part 4（モノローグ30 問）である。錯乱肢の魅力度の要因として、応答問題では５つの要因（同語・派生語・音声的
類似・語彙的連想・応答キーワード）、会話およびモノローグの問題では６つの要因（同語・類語・派生語・否定語・音声的類似・限定詞）を設定し、重回帰分析を行った。
分析の結果、応答問題においては、上位群、中位群とも錯乱肢の魅力度を予測する有意な要因は見出せなかったが、下位群においては応答キーワードと語彙的連想の２つの要因が有意であった。会話およびモノローグの問題では、上位群では同語と派生語、中位群では同語、下位群では同語・限定詞・派生語が有意な要因となった。しかしいずれの場合においても、説明率は低かったため、発表時には更なる分析についても言及する予定である。

29

D41, 4th floor, 7th building Part II (10:00-10:30)
Japanese EFL Learners’ Speech-in-Noise Listening Comprehension Process: Use of Context
Ryoko FUJITA (Juntendo University)
Background noise significantly affects language learners’ listening comprehension. Notably, past studies
have suggested that even bilingual speakers who acquired their target language at an early age have poorer
listening comprehension than native speakers under noisy conditions (Rogers, Lister, Febo, Besing, &Abrams, 2006; Shi, 2010). Field (2008) argued that listeners need to draw heavily on context information
to recognize words. Although some past studies have focused on background noise and listening
comprehension, few have been conducted in the EFL context.
In a study that focused on Japanese EFL learners, Fujita (2016) found that contextual information aided theparticipants’ listening comprehension when the noise level was moderate; however, their listening
comprehensibility deteriorated as noise levels increased. The current study builds on that study, which used
a quantitative approach for its experiment. It employed a qualitative method and analyzed the listening
comprehension process on a smaller scale by investigating learners’ use of context information undervarious noise conditions.
The participants of this study included seven Japanese undergraduate students whose English proficiency
levels were high-intermediate. The Speech-Perception-in-Noise (SPIN) test (Kalikow, Stevens, & Elliot,1977) was used. The SPIN test includes a list of sentences, with the last word in each sentence serving as
the target word. The target word is either predicted with contextual cues or unpredicted without contextual
cues. Four signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) conditions (SNR = 0, 5, 10, 15) and also without a noise condition
were added to the SPIN test.
Data were collected using think-aloud protocol procedures. The participants were asked to verbally reportwhat they were thinking during the SPIN test. After the listening session, they were individuallyinterviewed, and they answered questions about the background noise and their use of context informationin listening. The think-aloud protocol data as well as their answers to the SPIN test were carefully
examined.
The findings showed that learners used contextual information by focusing on the phrases that immediately
preceded the target word. They tried to use context information in similar ways for high-predictable andlow-predictable sentences. Regarding noise levels, they used context information less frequently in quiet
and very noisy conditions than they did in moderate noise conditions. Based on these results, theimplications will be discussed in the presentation.

30

D41, 4th floor, 7th building Part III (13:40-14:10)
Fluent Readers to Fluent Speakers?: The Effect of Oral Reading Practice on the Speaking Ability of
Science Majors
Sae MATSUDA (Setsunan University)
Makoto IMURA (Osaka Institute of Technology)
Noriko NAKANISHI (Kobe Gakuin University)
Michael HERKE (Setsunan University)
This study attempts to examine whether repetitive input and output using children’s picture books can help
university science majors improve their speaking skills. Seventeen science majors had nine 90-minuteclasses where they read and listened to Oxford Reading Tree, followed by shadowing, repeating, andreading the story aloud. Three types of online tests－Progress, Versant, and OPIc－and original speaking
tests were also conducted before and after the treatment. By the end of the term, the students read 61 books
and 4,257 words on average; when the repetition was counted, they read/spoke 304 books and 21,236
words. Pre- and post- online tests yielded mixed results: While Progress did not show as much
improvement as in the previous study (Matsuda, Imura, and Nakanishi, 2017), Versant results displayed
higher average scores. The OPIc results, on the other hand, revealed that only three students reached one
level higher than their original level. The original speaking tests included Reading a Paragraph Aloud,Describing a Picture A, Describing a Picture B, Describing a Picture Sequence, and the recorded sound data
were later transcribed and analyzed. The recordings of the pre- and post- paragraph reading task wereanalyzed by using Phoneme Counter (http://noriko-nakanishi.com/phoneme/). The result indicatedimprovements in the participants’ pronunciation, especially with consonants. However, problems remainedwith the phonemes that are often difficult for Japanese native speakers, such as /θ/, /v/, and /ð/. Also, theanalysis of speaking test data using Praat (http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/) showed significant gains inseveral fluency measures in Reading a Paragraph Aloud, though no significant gains were observed in theother tests. Finally, a vocabulary software analysis (www.lextutor.ca) of the transcripts of the pre- andpost-treatment picture description tests showed slight increases in the number of word families, types andtokens used, as well as in the number and length of word strings. Overall, the results suggest that thetreatment was effective in improving some aspects of oral fluency although the results may have been
limited by the high dropout rate (29%). Further research is needed to analyze the participants’ responses
collected through Moodle surveys during the experimental period and find out what the students werefeeling during the treatment.

31

D41, 4th floor, 7th building Part IV (14:15-14:45)
The Validation of an English Test of Critical Thinking Ability for EFL Learners
Hideaki OKA (University of Tsukuba)
Naoki TAKEBAYASHI (University of Tsukuba)
Akiyo HIRAI (University of Tsukuba)
Hiroki MAEDA (University of Tsukuba)
Takeshi KATO (University of Tsukuba)
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT, 2016) states that criticalthinking ability should be developed through both English and Japanese educational curricula. However,there has as yet been no attempt to measure such ability in English education. Thus, in the present study, we
have developed a test called the English Critical Thinking Test (ECTT), currently comprised of 20
multiple-choice items, which measures not only English ability but also critical thinking ability. To evaluate
the validity of the test, we built a validity argument according to a framework proposed by Chapelle,
Enright, and Jamieson (2008) that consists of six inferences (domain definition, evaluation, generalization,
explanation, extrapolation, and use). A total of 81 Japanese first-year university students participated in thisstudy. As for the first inference, namely, domain definition, based on previous studies on critical thinking
skills, we defined the target domain as having three subcomponents: consistency, analysis, and inference. In
addition, we set the target English proficiency at level B1 of the CEFR. The backing for the warrant of theevaluation inference was obtained from item analysis. We excluded several low-discrimination items. Also,using the Rasch modeling, item-fit statistics were confirmed within the acceptable range; two misfit
participants were dropped for the following analyses. In regard to the generalization inference, Cronbach’s
α coefficients were relatively lower than expected due to the lack of items and participants, a result whichsuggested a need for further investigation. The backing for the warrant of the explanation inference wasgathered by conducting factor analysis. As a result, three expected factors, consistency, analysis, andinference, were extracted. Additionally, the results of a questionnaire asking the participants which abilities
they thought they used supplied strong backing for the explanation inference. As the backing for the warrantof the extrapolation inference, a series of Pearson’s correlation analyses was performed among the ECTT,
the Japanese Critical Thinking Test (JCTT), an external criterion test, and the English Proficiency Test
(EPT). The results showed that there was a correlation trending toward significance between the ECTT and
the JCTT (r = .22) as well as a significant correlation between the ECTT and the EPT (r = .36). The sixth
inference, namely, utilization, was justified by providing the test outcomes of the three subcomponents andelucidating the interpretation of these scores to the participants. Overall, this pilot study found that the
ECTT measures both critical thinking ability and English proficiency, but it is more effective at measuring
the latter.

32

D42, 4th floor, 7th building Part I (9:25-9:55)
日本人英語学習者のための統語処理の自動化度テストの作成
浜谷 佐和子 (関西大学)
昨今の社会における情報化、ボーダレス化を考慮すると、日本人英語学習者が流暢に英文読解を行う必要性は、ますます高まっていると言える。流暢な読解とは、完全な意見の一致は見ていないが、速く正確な読解と定義するのが通例となっている。
読解は複雑なプロセスを経る作業であり、上位レベルと下位レベルの構成要素に分けて考えられることが多い。流暢に文章を読解するには、読解の下位レベルプロセス、つまり(1)語認識、(2)
統語処理、(3)語や統語の情報を文レベルの意味単位に構築するプロセス、のすべてが自動化する必要があるとされている。しかし、統語処理の自動化と流暢な読解との関係についての研究はあまり行われておらず、統語処理の自動化を測るテストもほとんど実施されていない。本研究ではこれを測るテストの作成を目的とする。
異論はあるが、第二言語の習得は、宣言的な知識の習得から始まって練習を重ねることにより徐々に手続き的知識へと移行し、やがて自動化するという理論がある。また、宣言的知識は明示的、そして手続的知識は潜在的な性質を持つと考えられている。R. Ellis (2005)は、時間制限のある文法性判断テスト(Timed Grammaticality Judgment Test)は潜在的知識を測るとしたが、DeKeyser(2003)は自動化された明示的知識も同時に測っているとした。したがって、TGJT で統語知識の自動化の度合いを概ね測ることができると本研究では考えた。そして、TGJT を基に、読解との関係を調べることを考慮して、主に話し言葉で使用される文法項目を書き言葉で使用される項目に置き換え、また中・上級日本人英語学習者を対象とすることを考慮して、中級文法テキストの例
文等を参考にして 68 問からなる「日本人英語学習者のための統語処理の自動化度テスト」を作成した。
大学生 74 名を対象にパイロットテスト(1)を実施、分析した結果、信頼性係数αは 0.685、各設問についての点二系列相関係数は複数問についてマイナス数値が算出された。マイナス数値の設問については原因を考察して修正を行い、パイロットテスト(2)を実施する。今回の発表はパイロ
ットテスト(1)について行う。

33

D42, 4th floor, 7th building Part II (10:00-10:30)
Evaluating English Pronunciation Assessment at a Japanese University
Daniel BATES (Asia University)
Pronunciation has long been neglected in both general skills ESL textbooks and during speaking
assessments among English Language teachers. The purpose of this research is to show the current attitudes
and practices among teachers towards assessing pronunciation within the English Language department of aJapanese university. It will look at differences in attitude, method and application of pronunciationassessment among faculty members within the department, and ruminate upon the divergence between
some of the teacher’s survey responses and actual practices when assessing their students speaking skills on
General English and Communication English courses.
Descriptive research was undertaken for this presentation, first through surveys given to teachers throughout
the Centre for English Language at Asia University, Tokyo, in order to gauge the general attitudes towards
pronunciation teaching and assessing. After which, one-on-one interviews were given to a number of the
respondents to get a more in-depth take on their practices in the classroom. Finally, observations of
speaking assessments were undertaken to underpin any similarities or differences between teacher’s
attitudes and their application during assessment. The goal of this process is to show what current practices
are being undertaken when assessing pronunciation within the context of English language learning within
Japanese higher education and to gauge what might be considered as ‘best practice’ among the differing
styles and rubrics used for the assessment of pronunciation.
Results show a divergence of attitudes and practices among teachers regarding pronunciation assessment.
While teachers at this particular university are using the same course materials, the general assessment of
the students is left up to the individual teachers. This has resulted in a range of importance being put uponpronunciation in speaking assessments, ranging from no weight on pronunciation at all, to specificallydesigned rubrics being used to asses for both segmental and suprasegmental features. Here, the presenter
speculates on why such divergence is found in pronunciation and considers whether such variations would
be found in other language skills. Finally the presentation looks at some practical ways of how
pronunciation might be included more successfully in the assessment of such general English classes.

34D42, 4th floor, 7th building Part III (13:40-14:10)
Test-Takers’ Reactions to TOEIC L&R and S&W: An Interim Report
Masaya KANZAKI (Kanda University of International Studies)This interim report presents the first-year results of a three-year study in which test-takers’ reactions to the
TOEIC Listening and Reading test (TOEIC L&R) and TOEIC Speaking and Writing tests (TOEIC S&W)
are examined. Bradshaw (1990) and Coniam (1999) emphasized the importance of examining test-takers’
reactions to tests, suggesting that useful insights can be gained by doing so. Similarly, Shohamy (2001)
pointed out that test-takers’ reactions can be a great source of information. The purpose of this study is toinvestigate test-takers’ reactions to TOEIC L&R and S&W with a view to estimating the effects of suchtests on high school students when commercially available tests are integrated into university entrance
examinations in Japan.
In the first year of the study, TOEIC L&R, a paper-and-pencil test with 200 multiple choice questions, andTOEIC S&W, a computer-based test, were administered to 98 students attending a private Japanese
university specializing in foreign languages. The tests were given in the Institutional Program (IP) on
campus over two consecutive days (L&R on the first day and S&W on the second). The participants took
part in the study on a voluntary basis in exchange for a monetary reward of 5,000 yen. After the tests, an
18-item questionnaire was administered to elicit participant reactions. The test scores were analyzed fordescriptive statistics and correlations, and the questionnaire results were examined.
Overall, the participants reacted positively to TOEIC S&W. For example, out of 98 participants, 85
indicated that taking TOEIC S was fun, and 73 indicated that taking TOEIC W was fun. In addition, 88 and
89 of them said they would like to take TOEIC S and TOEIC W again, respectively. Moreover, 81 and 77 of
the participants respectively said that TOEIC S and TOEIC W had increased their motivation for learning
English. These positive results may be due to the facts that the overall English ability of the participants was
relatively high and their participation was voluntary. If the tests had been administered to students who wereless proficient in English and unwilling to take the tests, it is probable that their reactions would not havebeen as positive. However, the results suggest the possibility that speaking and writing tests can havepositive effects on learners if the difficulty level of a test matches the proficiency level of learners.

35D42, 4th floor, 7th building Part IV (14:15-14:45)
多肢選択式スペリングテストの和訳提示は学習者の解答に影響を与えるか髙波 幸代 (東洋大学)
英語を外国語として学ぶ日本においてはスペリング習得への関心はあまり高くなく、スペリン
グ学習は英語授業のなかでも補足的な位置づけとなる傾向がある。しかし、Graham and Santangelo（2014）によるメタ分析によれば、スペリングの指導を初期段階から行うことが、スペリングやリーディング、音韻認識の向上に貢献するという結果が得られており、英語学習においてスペリ
ングの知識は無視できない役割を担っていることが伺える。本研究では、日本人英語学習者のス
ペリング能力に関する診断的評価を行った先行研究（Takanami, 2014, 2017; 髙波, 2015）に基づき、信頼性が高かったテスト形式 2 種（書き取り・多肢選択式）を抽出した。EFL 学習者が対象であることを考慮し、多肢選択式スペリングテストには「和訳提示（L1 提示）」を含む新たな形式を作成した。多肢選択式スペリングテストにおける和訳の提示は受験者のパフォーマンスにどのような影響を与えるか、という調査質問に答えていく。
調査協力者は英語専攻の日本人大学生 75 名。(a)語彙サイズテスト、(b)書き取りテスト、(c)多肢選択式和訳なし、(d)多肢選択式和訳あり、の順で約 40 分間の調査が 2017 年に行われた。参加者の推定平均語彙サイズは 5,200 語であり、この結果から受験者を 3 群に分けてグループ×テス
ト形式で 2 要因（３×３）の分散分析を行ったところ、有意な交互作用が見られた。その後の分
析から、書き取りテストの正答率は語彙サイズの影響を受けるが、再認課題の 2 形式では正答率における差が無く、和訳提示の有無はパフォーマンスに影響を与えないという結果が得られた。
しかしながら、ラッシュ・モデルによる分析では、多肢選択式スペリングテストにおける和訳提示の有無によって項目難易度に差が見られていた。和訳提示は正確な解答を導き出すための補助となる場合とそうでない場合とがあり、それが単語の特徴によるものである可能性も示唆された。
この結論を補強するために、新たに収集したデータを含む再分析の結果を当日報告する。

36

D50, 5th floor, 7th building Part I (9:25-9:55)
A Vocabulary Depth Test for Words within the 1000 Most Frequent
Joshua Brook ANTLE (Tsuda University)
Vocabulary knowledge can be divided into two general categories: receptive and productive. Receptive
vocabulary knowledge is the ability to understand words when encountered in a reading or listening text.
The ability to recall an L1 translation for the target word is another aspect of receptive knowledge.
Productive knowledge is the ability to use a word when writing or speaking in the second language. It is
generally believed that receptive knowledge precedes productive knowledge (Zhou, 2010). Another way tocategorize vocabulary knowledge is by using the terms vocabulary breadth and depth. Vocabulary breadthrefers to the number of words which are familiar to a language learner. It is relatively easy to assess throughtests which ask for a translation or matching exercises; however, vocabulary depth is much more difficult tomeasure (Milton, 2010). Vocabulary depth refers to how well a given word is known. There are many
aspects of vocabulary depth, such as its spelling, pronunciation and register. For this study, I will befocusing on the ability to use the targeted word productively in different contexts with common collocates.
The purpose of this study is to design a productive vocabulary test targeting problematic yet common typesof English words and phrases. The aspects of vocabulary knowledge which will be tested are: delexicalized
verbs, polysemous nouns, idioms and frequent collocations. Delexicalized verbs are verbs whose meaningchanges depending upon the context and collocation. Example of these verbs are ‘take’, ‘make’, ‘have’ and‘get’; they are the some of the most common words but also some of the most problematic for English
language learners. Polysemous nouns have different meaning senses which can only be determined fromthe context and/or collocations in which they are used. Every vocabulary item on this test is within the 1000
most common words on the New General Service List (Browne, C., Culligan, B. & Phillips, J., 2013). This
assessment includes cloze and multiple-choice type questions, and each item will only have one correct
answer. Three native-speaking judges will assess the test items to ensure there are no alternative answers
possible and to ensure that the context given for each question is sufficient enough to elicit a correct
response from test takers who have productive ability with the target word. This is currently a work inprogress.

37D50, 5th floor, 7th building Part II (10:00-10:30)
Vocabulary Selection in TOEFL iBT Textbooks: Compared with Word Lists
Emiko MATSUMOTO (Juntendo University)
This presentation will compare the vocabulary lists of several TOEFL iBT® textbooks with general wordlists and examine the degree of difficulty of vocabulary found in each section of TOEFL iBT. It will also
outline the importance of learning vocabulary in raising TOEFL iBT scores for both TOEFL teachers andtest-takers. The presentation will offer an effective approach to studying for the TOEFL iBT.
The presentation will be modeled on the research conducted by Matsumoto (2018) in which TOEFL ITP
books and five word lists were analyzed. This current research compares the difference between vocabulary
lists in several TOEFL iBT books with five word lists such as Oxford 3000, JACET 8000, General Service
List, Academic Word List and the TOEIC Service List.
Although the TOEFL ITP and TOEFL iBT are somewhat similar, they are used for separate purposes andadministered differently. The TOEFL iBT test is a high-stakes assessment test administered by ETS(Educational Testing Service). Institutions use TOEFL iBT test scores to make decisions, such asuniversity-level student admission. On the other hand, TOEFL ITP tests are administered by institutions or
through the ETS preferred network and used for specific purposes including placement, monitoring
progress and other in-house purposes. Recently there has been discussion in some universities over theeffectiveness of mandatory TOEFL ITP on the scores of students taking TOEFL iBT. This presentation willaddress these concerns.
The methodology for the research is as follows: Words from the vocabulary lists of several TOEFL iBT
textbooks are chosen and inputted onto a spread sheet. The vocabulary from each section of TOEFL iBT arematched between each other in addition to the general word lists mentioned above. The matching rate is
calculated using the vlookup function on the spread sheet. The matching rate between the sections of the
TOEFL iBT as well as the general word lists is analyzed for the degree of difficulty each lists procure. This
presentation will provide the results of this research for example, in the listening conversation part, thevocabulary tends to be easier than what I predicted. However, in the reading comprehension part, the levelof difficulty is almost the same as I predicted.

By comparing and examining the difficulty of vocabulary, it’s my hope, as an instructor and author ofseveral TOEFL ITP and TOEFL iBT books, this research will lead to more effective strategies of raising
students’ TOEFL iBT scores.

38D50, 5th floor, 7th building Part III (13:40-14:10)
Japanese English Learners’ CEFR Receptive and Productive Vocabulary Knowledge--a Case Study
Using Cambridge B1 Preliminary Speaking Tests-Hiroko USAMI (Tokai University)
Recently, vocabulary knowledge has been researched in the context of the Common European Frameworkof Reference for Languages (CEFR; Council of Europe, 2001). In the framework of the English Profile
Programme (EPP), the English Vocabulary Profile (EVP) assigns six CEFR levels to individual meaningsof each word and phrase. However, this CEFR level is assigned based on learners’ written, that is,
productive, vocabulary knowledge. However, vocabulary knowledge has been discussed in terms of both
receptive and productive knowledge of vocabulary (e.g. Melka, 1997; Laufer, 1998), but this topic has notbeen enough researched in terms of CEFR.
The aim of this study is to compare the receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge of approximately
150 Japanese English learners. Receptive vocabulary knowledge was examined by administering the CEFR
Vocabulary Test, which consists of 60 multiple choice vocabulary questions from the Japanese University
Entrance Exams Corpus. In addition, the participants’ paired conversations for the Cambridge B1
Preliminary Test from the CEFR Learner Corpus were examined in terms of productive vocabularyknowledge. Both overall and vocabulary CEFR levels of the paired conversations were evaluated byprofessional CEFR raters. In addition, the conversations were statistically analysed in terms of type, token,
and type/token ratio as well as the percentage of words from each CEFR vocabulary level used in theirconversations.
Results revealed that the participants’ receptive vocabulary knowledge was relatively high, indicating an
average CEFR Vocabulary Test score of approximately 60%; the participants even answered approximately
50% of the C2 level correctly. In contrast, their productive vocabulary knowledge in the paired
conversations was much lower, because they could not frequently use vocabulary from above the B2 level.
The correlation between their receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge was relatively low. I hopethese findings will be utilised to improve students’ productive vocabulary knowledge in their speaking.

39D50, 5th floor, 7th building Part IV (14:15-14:45)
潜在回帰モデルの導入による拡張名義反応モデルの日本語テストデータへの適用
大澤 公一 (京都大学)
大澤 理英 (関西外国語大学)
項目反応理論（Item Response Theory, IRT; Lord, 1952 et al）の拡張である名義反応モデル（Nominal
Response Model, NRM; Bock, 1973）においては、多肢選択式のテスト項目に対する受験者の反応
それ自体を用いて、潜在特性（能力）値 theta の受験者 i がテスト項目 j の選択肢 k に反応す
る期待選択確率 P_jk (theta_i) がモデル化される。NRM では、テスト項目への反応を正誤パタンのような二値型（正答＝1、誤答＝0）にも、順序性（大小関係）を保持した評定値のような多値型（例：優＝4、良＝3、可＝2、不可＝1）にも採点はしない。あくまでも、特定の選択肢に反応（選択）したかどうかという情報そのものを項目反応データとして利用するという部分にモデルの特徴がある。本研究では、大学修学能力試験「日本語 I 」、日本留学試験「日本語（読解）」、日本語能力試験（文字・語彙、文法、読解）に出題された非音声領域の既出 757 項目による韓国
語母語話者を対象としたモニター試験データ（n=4,647）の一部に対して NRM を適用した。その際、潜在特性に対する潜在回帰モデルを NRM に導入し、性別、居住都市、学校段階などの複数の外生変数による潜在特性の相別解析を NRM による IRT 尺度化と同時に行った。その上で、各テスト項目における選択肢の期待選択確率が、受験者の日本語能力のレベルによってどのように変化するのかを分析した。期待選択確率の推移が韓国語母語話者にとって特徴的であり、日本語
教育学的にも有効な分析が可能であると思われるテスト項目をサンプルとしていくつか取り上げ、韓国語母語話者による選択反応であるという点に留意しながら、各テスト項目の特性を、言語学あるいは日本語教育学の観点から定量的および定性的に考察を行った。

40

Parts IV and V: 賛助会員発表 (Institutional Member Presentations) (14:15-14:45
and 14:50-15:20)
D31, 3rd floor, 7th building Part IV (14:15-14:45)
The Impact of IELTS in Japanese Higher Education
Nick SAVILLE (IELTS)
This session looks at the impact of IELTS on learning in higher education in Japan. I will present findings
from a study which investigates whether IELTS exerts a positive impact on productive language skills,
study habits and motivation.
Traditional approaches in Japan have been criticised for placing too much emphasis on rote learning and notenough on skills development, with speaking skills being particularly neglected. Therefore, one of thereport’s most important washback hypotheses concerned productive skills, and whether using IELTS for
higher education in Japan might foster better learning of speaking and writing, including greater spoken
fluency and more effective interactive communication.
In the research design, about 200 undergraduate students were recruited to take IELTS as the measure oflanguage proficiency, with the test administered on two occasions to investigate learning gains. A
mixed-methods approach with survey and interviews was used to collect relevant contextual information,
including test-takers’ experiences and perceptions.
In summary, the report sheds light on the potential benefits of using IELTS – a four-skills test with anemphasis on communication skills – in a Japanese educational context. It appears that preparing for IELTS
not only provides clear goals and motivation for Japanese learners of English, but also fosters good study
habits without excessive cramming or test preparation activities (i.e. an absence of negative washback). The
report suggests that there is indeed positive washback of the kind originally suggested by the developers of
IELTS. It demonstrates that IELTS encourages Japanese students to develop their productive skills, andprovides clear evidence that they do make measurable proficiency gains.

41D31, 3rd floor, 7th building Part V (14:50-15:20)
Keeping IELTS Fit for Purpose: The Future of Learning and Assessment
Nick SAVILLE (IELTS)
In this session, I will give an overview of how IELTS, the International English Language Testing System is
kept relevant to the needs of stakeholders, promotes learning and incorporates new technology.
The owners of IELTS - British Council, IDP: IELTS Australia and Cambridge Assessment English – haveto ensure that the test conforms to the highest international standards of language assessment. In 2017 over
3 million IELTS tests were taken in over 140 countries. The test is available up to 4 times a month and up to
48 times a year. Over 10,000 organisations recognize IELTS worldwide, and professional bodies,
immigration authorities and other government agencies. With such huge numbers comes great
responsibility because IELTS is helping millions of people each year realise their language ambitions forstudy, work or immigration, and recognising organisations and authorities rely on IELTS as a genuine proofof English language ability.
In an increasingly complex world, the future of assessment presents both challenges and opportunities.
Cambridge Assessment English conducts ongoing research to ensure that IELTS continues to be fit for
purpose and have a positive impact on test takers and users. Technological advances can help this happen.
For example, a recent study by Berry et al (2017) compared IELTS speaking exams conducted face to faceand delivered by laptop, and found no significant difference in scores. Such findings have implications forequality of opportunity in that they may facilitate the delivery of exams to remote areas. Another current
study is using video and data collecting software to understand rater perceptions of speaking ability anddecision making. As we build greater capability with reliable automated assessment, the swifter and more
flexibly we can respond to stakeholders’ evolving assessment needs.
The affordances offered by technology as it becomes more sophisticated, supported by high quality research,
will enable us to develop a fully integrated learning and testing system to meet the evolving assessment
needs of test takers and enhance even further the positive impact of IELTS on education and society.

42D40, 4th floor, 7th building Part V (14:50-15:20)
Dependable Innovation: The Aptis Approach to Testing Speaking
Barry O’SULLIVAN (British Council)
The British Council has been involved in English language teaching and testing ever since its foundation
over 80 years ago. The formal move into testing came in 1941, with the signing of an agreement with
Cambridge University (then known as UCLES) to provide technical expertise in test development to that
University. Since the British Council had quickly built expertise in English language teaching (it was amainstay of their Royal Charter) and the UCLES approach was very much driven by language learningtheory and practice and had by then become very well established (they published their first English
proficiency test in 1913) this partnership was not at all surprising. What is perhaps surprising to someobservers, is the fact that the British Council’s contribution to the partnership over the years was not simply
confined to advising on test content, but extended to the realm of innovation in test design, development
and delivery.
In this paper, I will reflect on a number of key innovations, placing them in their historical context as well as
focusing on the impact they had, both at the time and on ongoing language testing practice. The spread oftime encompassed by the innovations discussed offers an insight into the historical and contemporary
impact of the British Council on language testing. This long-term commitment is testament to the British
Council’s role as a leader in the area, particularly when considered alongside the organisation’s ongoing
research and development activities. In short, this paper reflects on the past, present and future of the British
Council in English language testing and assessment.

D41, 4th floor, 7th building Part V (14:50-15:20)
高校生の英語スピーキング力と英語学習実態との関係―スピーキングテスト TSST を使用した 3年間追跡調査の最終年度報告―平野 琢也 (株式会社アルク)
木下 あおい (株式会社アルク)
大学に入学してくる学生が、高校でどの程度の英語力をどのように身につけたか、中でもスピーキング力はどの程度あるのか、ご関心をお持ちの先生方も多いと思われます。しかし高校生のスピーキング力に関する調査研究はまだ少ないのが実情です。そこでアルク教育総合研究所では、高校 3 校のご協力の下、高校生約 300 人のスピーキング力を、2015 年度から 3 年間に渡り追跡調査しました。調査には、「その時、その場」で話す英語の運用能力を測定する、アルクのスピー
キングテスト TSST（Telephone Standard Speaking Test）を使用。TSST を受験した高校生とその学校の英語の先生方にはアンケートにも協力いただき、学習状況や指導状況も合わせて調査しました。その結果、高校 1 年次から 3 年次にかけてスピーキング力が向上した生徒の多かった学校、
また、同一学校内でスピーキング力が向上した生徒は、「学習時間」や「学習内容」に一定の特徴があることが分かりました。今回はその結果を発表いたします。高校生のスピーキング力の推移やその背景を調べた本調査が、大学の先生方や学会関係者の皆様にお役立ていただければ幸いです。
43

D42, 4th floor, 7th building Part V (14:50-15:20)
ケンブリッジ英語検定の波及効果と AI 技術を活用した新テスト「リンガスキル」のご紹介
青山 智恵 (ケンブリッジ大学英語検定機構)「ケンブリッジ英語検定を活用して得たスキルは他の試験にも通用する、汎用性の高いスキルを育てる試験である」ことを、中国河北省の約 10 年間に及ぶインパクト・スタディや北星学園
大学短期大学部の事例を通じてご紹介します。また、ケンブリッジの新しい 4 技能テスト「Linguaskill（リンガスキル：ケンブリッジ英語検定 4 技能 CBT）
」は、国際基準 CEFR レベルを
迅速かつ正確に判定できるオンライン英語能力テストで、ライティングテストは AI を活用した自動採点システムによりパフォーマンス評価が行われます。
「4 技能テストの結果について 48 時
間以内の成績返却が可能」「受検者ごとに出題が異なるアダプティブ（コンピュータ適応型）テスト」「CEFR レベル Pre A1 から C1 以上まで判定」「ケンブリッジ英語検定および IELTS との成績比較を可能にする Cambridge English スケールによるスコア（82～180 以上）表示あり」など、革新的な特徴を持つ新 CBT について、受検者の反応等を交えてご紹介させていただきます。

D50, 5th floor, 7th building Part V (14:50-15:20)
Progress テスト - 高校への導入事例
上村 武司 (ピアソン・ジャパン株式会社)
辰巳 律子 (大阪市立西高等学校)
2015 年に販売開始をしました技能英語運用能力テスト、Progress は、紆余曲折ありながらも年間受験者数は 5,000 人を超えるまでとなりました。現在 Progress を採用している機関の多くは大学である一方で、大学入試改革に伴い４技能をどのように評価していくのかという観点から、近年では高等学校からの問い合わせや導入依頼が急増しております。大阪市立西高等学校では、本
年度より、英語科の生徒を対象に Progress を導入いただきました。同校では、まず各生徒が受検する Progress のレベルを決定するために Placement Speaking を事前に実施し、その後 Progress を定期的に受検する、という方法で運用を進めております。
この発表では、Progress の概要を説明するとともに、大阪市立西高等学校英語科の辰巳律子先生をお招きし、同校への Progress 導入の経緯と、受験した生徒たちに Progress がもたらす影響などをお話しいただきます。

44

4. Workshop Information（ワークショップ情報）
題目：「ベイズ統計とその外国語教育研究への応用」（日本語で実施）講 師 草薙 邦広（広島大学）
司 会 平井 明代（筑波大学）
日時：
2018 年 9 月 8 日（土）14 時 00 分～17 時 15 分 (15 分の休憩を含む)
場所：
北海学園大学豊平キャンパス 7 号館 3 階 D31
参加費： 1,000 円
定員：
30 名（申し込み順）
参加条件： ハンズオンセミナーでは以下の計算環境を前提とします。
（a）OS Windows 7 以上のバージョン、または MacOS X 以上のバージョン、または
近年の Linux OS（b）Microsoft Excel やそれに準じる表計算ソフトウェア（c）R 3.0.0 以上のバージョン；以下からダウンロード可能（https://cran.ism.ac.jp/bin/windows/base/）（d）統計ソフトウェア JASP；以下からダウンロード可能（https://jasp-stats.org/）

目的：
1. ベイズ統計の基本を特に頻度主義との違いから理解する。
2. 従来の t 検定、分散分析、重回帰分析、相関分析といった基礎的な手法のベイズ統計的代替法を習得する。
手順：
1. 講義 1: ベイズ統計の基本
2. ハンズオンワークショップ 1: ベイズ統計を試してみる
3. ハンズオンワークショップ 2: ベイズ統計を使った外国語教育研究
4. 講義 2: より高度なモデリングへ申し込み方法：1. 定員に達するまで申し込み可能です。ワークショップを円滑に進めるため、下記 URL にアクセスし、以下の情報をご登録ください。
https://goo.gl/forms/4FWTlCSiPDYMzXfb2
2. 上記の申込方法で不具合がある場合はメールでの受け付けも致します。下記の情報を藤田亮子（順天堂大学）r-fujita@juntendo.ac.jp まで e-mail でご連絡ください。
(1) 氏名・所属・e メールアドレス(2) ベイズ統計に興味があるのであれば、それはどうしてか教えてください。
(3) ベイズ統計を使用して、どのような研究実践をしたいか教えてください。
(4) 講師へのご質問（希望者のみ）(5) その他、ワークショップまたは JLTA ワークショップ全体に対して何かご要望がありましたら
お書きください。
（希望者のみ）45

Workshop Information

Bayesian Statistics and its Application to Foreign Language Education Study(Conducted in Japanese)
Lecturer: Kunihiro KUSANAGI (Hiroshima
University)
Chair:
Akiyo HIRAI (University of Tsukuba)
Date: September 8, 2018 (Saturday), 14:00－17:15 (with a 15-minute break)
Venue: Hokkai-Gakuen University, Toyohira Campus (D31, 3rd floor, 7th building)Attendance Fee: ¥1,000
Maximum Number of Participants: 30 (first-come, first-served basis)
Prerequisite: All participants must bring a computer with:（a）a later version of Windows 7 or MacOS X, or recent version of Linux OS.
（b）Microsoft Excel or other spreadsheet software.
（c）R 3.0.0 or later; downloadable from (https://cran.ism.ac.jp/bin/windows/base/)（d）statistical software JASP; downloadable from (https://jasp-stats.org/)
 Objectives
1. To understand the basics of Bayesian statistics by contrasting it with frequentism.
2. To learn Bayesian statistics as an alternative to classical statistical methods such as t test, ANOVA, multiple
regression, and correlation analysis.

1.
2.
3.
4.

Procedure
Lecture 1: Basics of Bayesian statistics
Hands-on Workshop 1: Trying Bayesian statistics
Hands-on Workshop 2: Foreign language education study using Bayesian statistics
Lecture 2: Implications for more advanced modelling How to register
1. Registration is open until the maximum capacity is reached. To facilitate the workshop process, please go to
the following website and fill in your name, affiliation, and e-mail address. Also, please answer thesequestions.
https://goo.gl/forms/4FWTlCSiPDYMzXfb2
2. If you cannot register using the above website, please email Ryoko Fujita (Juntendo University) at
r-fujita@juntendo.ac.jp

Let us know the following information when you register the workshop.
(1) Your name, affiliation, and email address.
(2) Reason(s) for your interest in Bayesian statistics.
(3) Kinds of research that you would like to conduct in the future using Bayesian statistics.
(4) Questions to the instructor, if you have. (Optional)(5) Requests for this workshop, or JLTA workshops in general. (Optional)46

5. Conference Venue
キャンパスマップ (Campus Map)

47

7 号館フロアマップ (7th Building Floor Map)

協賛企業展示Exhibits

Keynote speech,
Symposium
受付
Registration

Sept. 8:Workshop

協賛企業展示Exhibits (D401,
D402, D403,
D404)

休憩室
Break Room

家族控え室
Family WaitingRoom

女性用トイレは 1 階、3 階、5 階に、男性用トイレは 2 階、4 階、6 階にあります。
Female restrooms are on the 1st, 3rd, and 5th floors; male restrooms are on the 2nd, 4th, and 6th floors.

48

＜協賛企業・法人・団体の一覧（50 音順）＞
株式会社 アルク ＊ALC PRESS INC.
http://www.alc.co.jp/
IELTS ＊
British Council, IDP: IELTS Australia, Cambridge Assessment English
https://www.ielts.org
株式会社 教育測定研究所 ＊The Japan Institute for Educational Measurement, Inc.
https://www.jiem.co.jp/
VELC 研究会（事務局 株式会社 金星堂） ＊Research Group for Visualizing English Language Competency
http://www.velctest.org/index.html
グローバル・コミュニケーション＆テスティング（GC&T） ＊Global Communication &Testing Co.
https://gc-t.jp/
ケンブリッジ大学英語検定機構 ＊Cambridge Assessment English
https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/jp
一般財団法人 国際ビジネスコミュニケーション協会 ＊The Institute for International Business Communication
https://www.iibc-global.org/
JALT TEVAL SIG (Japan Association for Language Teaching, Testing and
Evaluation Special Interest Group)https://teval.jalt.org/
北海学園大学
Hokkai-Gakuen University
https://hgu.jp/
ピアソン・ジャパン株式会社 ＊Pearson Japan
http://www.pearson.co.jp/
ブリティッシュ・カウンシル
British Council
https://www.britishcouncil.jp/exam/aptis
ベネッセコーポレーション ＊Benesse Corporation
http://www.benesse-gtec.com/cbt/
49

We would like to greatly acknowledge 12 companies, organizations, and groups fortheir support.
本大会にあたり以上の 12 の企業・法人・団体様より大会運営のご支援を賜りました。厚く御礼申し上げます。
Commercial Exhibits（展示協賛企業）＊
Exhibits are located in the hallway on the 3rd floor and in D401, D402, D403, andD404 on the 4th floor in the 7th building.
展示は、3 階通路奥、および 4 階 D401, D402, D403, and D404 で実施いたしております。

This conference is supported in part by Hokkai-Gakuen University. Our special
gratitude also goes to Hokkai-Gakuen University for making its campus available as
the venue for the 22nd Annual Conference of the Japan Language Testing
Association.
本大会開催にあたっては、北海学園大学から一部補助を受けております。また、
今大会の実施にあたりまして、
北海学園大学より会場の無償提供を始め、ご支援・ご協力を賜りました。誠にありがとうございました。

The next year’s annual conference will be held in autumn 2019 at Niigata Seiryo
University in Niigata. The conference schedule will be announced via the JLTA
website as soon as the details become available. We look forward to seeing you
there.
2019 年度の日本言語テスト学会全国研究大会は、2019 (平成 31) 年秋に新潟青陵大学で行われます。詳細が決まり次第、JLTA のホームページでお知ら
せいたします。ご参加のほどよろしくお願いいたします。

日本言語テスト学会 (JLTA) (2018 年度) 全国研究大会発表要綱
Handbook of the 22nd Conference of the Japan Language Testing Association
発行日：2018 年 8 月 1 日
発行：日本言語テスト学会 (JLTA)
会長：渡部良典 (上智大学)
事務局：〒270-1695 千葉県印西市平賀学園台 1-1 順天堂大学
さくらキャンパス 小泉利恵研究室
TEL: 0476-98-1001 (代表)FAX: 0476-98-1011 (代表)E-mail: rie-koizumi@mwa.biglobe.ne.jp
編集：全国研究大会実行委員会
印刷：株式会社国際文献社〒162-0801 東京都新宿区山吹町358-5
TEL: 03-5937-0249
FAX: 03-3368-2822

50