ISSN 2188-8612

JACET International Convention
Selected Papers
Volume 6

JACET 57th (2018) International Convention
Assuring Quality Learning Outcomes in Primary to Tertiary English Education for Globalization

August 28 – 30, 2018
Tohoku Gakuin University

JACET International Convention Selected Papers, Volume 6
Published by the Japan Association of College English Teachers (JACET)JACET Selected Papers Committee
Senior Director-in-Charge
OZEKI, Naoko (Meiji University)

Director-in-Charge
KAWANO, Madoka (Meiji University)

Editorial Board
Chair
SATO, Natsuko (Tohoku Institute of Technology)

Deputy Chair
OKADO, Hiroko (Meijo University)

DALSKY, David (Kyoto University)

NALL, Matthew (Miyagi University)

GILNER, Leah (Aichi University

PENG, Virginia (Ritsumeikan University)

HAENOUCHI, Hiroko (Nihon University)

SATO, Takehiro (Nagoya University of Foreign Studies)

HIRAMOTO, Satoshi (Yasuda Women’s University)

TAKAHASHI, Sachi (Kyoto University)

ITO, Mika (Tokai University)

TOYA, Mitsuyo (University of the Ryukyus)

KANAMARU, Toshiyuki (Kyoto University)

YOKOYAMA, Yoshiki (Hokkaido University of

KANEKO, Emiko (University of Aizu)

Education)

KANEKO, Jun (Yamagata University)

Advisory Board
HANKS, Judith (University of Leeds)
ITAGAKI, Nobuya (Shokei Gakuin University)
NOGUCHI, Judy (Kobe Gakuin University)

JACET Prize & Academic Publication Selection Committee
Senior Director-in-Charge, HeadOZEKI, Naoko (Meiji University)

Director-in-Charge, Vice-Head
IWAI, Chiaki (Hiroshima City University)ii

Reviewers
AIZAWA, Kazumi (Tokyo Denki University)

MIYAHARA, Masuko (International Christian

AKIYAMA, Tomoyasu (Bunkyo University)

University)

BABA, Tetsuo (Tokyo Gakugei University)

NAKATA, Yoshiyuki (Doshisha University)

FUJIOKA, Mayumi (Osaka Prefecture University)

NITTA, Ryo (Rikkyo University)

HAYASHI, Chiyo (Kunitachi College of Music)

OHMORI, Yujitsu (Aichi Prefectural University)

HOSHINO, Yuko (Chiba University)

OTOSHI, Junko (Okayama University)

IRIE, Kay (Gakushuin University)

SAIDA, Chisato (Yokohama National University)

ISHIKAWA, Yasushige (Kyoto University of Foreign

SHIMIZU, Katsumasa (Nagoya Gakuin

Studies)

University)

ITO, Harumi (Kansai Gaidai University)

TAKAHAHI, Kiyoshi (Miyagi University of

IZUMI, Shinichi (Sophia University)

Education)

JIMBO, Hisatake (Professor Emeritus, Waseda University)

WATANABE, Atsuko (Bunkyo University)

KASAHARA, Kiwamu (Hokkaido University of

WATANABE, Yoshinori (Sophia University)

Education)

YAMANE, Shigeru (Kansai University)

KATAGIRI, Kazuhiko (Senshu University)

YAMASHITA, Junko (Nagoya University)

KAWANARI, Mika (Meikai University)

YAMATO, Ryusuke (Kyoto Sangyo University)

KIMURA, Matsuo (Aoyama Gakuin University)

YOSHIDA, Kensaku (Sophia University)

KONNO, Katsuyuki (Ryukoku University)

YOSHIKAWA, Hiroshi (Chukyo University)

MASUWANA, Sayako (Mejiro University)

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

First published in August 2019
Copyright © 201911111 by JACET
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or republished in any form without
permission in writing from JACET.
The articles published herein do not reflect the opinions of JACET.

iii

Contents
Invited Papers*
Involving Everyone in Enhancing Quality of Life in Language Education: Explorations andInsights from Praxis······························································· Judith Hanks 3Assuring Quality Learning Outcomes in Primary to Tertiary English Education in Japan:
Focusing on the Notion of Foreign Language Proficiency··························································· Nobuya Itagaki 29
Preparing our Students for a Rapidly Evolving World··························································· Judy Noguchi

53

Selected Papers
Research Articles
Exploring EAP Teacher Cognition in Written Corrective Feedback······························································ Akari Hirano 71
Assuring the Quality of Classroom Life Through Exploratory Practice: Learners’ Experiences······················································· Takaaki Hiratsuka 101
Investigation of the Learning Process for English Wh-Question Intonation: Japanese Learners···························································· Aya Kitagawa 119
Exploring College Student Views on the Use of the First Language in English
Language Teaching: The Case of Scholarship Students························································· Takaharu Saito  153
Frequency of Asking Personal Questions: A Case of Japanese EFL Learners at a University inTokyo···································· Haruka Toyoda and Emi Fukasawa 179

Submission Guidelines ··········································································· 210

* The three papers are contributions from the plenary speakers of the JACET 57th
International Convention (2018, Sendai) at Tohoku Gakuin University, Sendai, Japan,
from August 28 to 30, 2018.

Invited Papers

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 3-28

Involving Everyone in Enhancing Quality of Life in Language Education:
Explorations and Insights from Praxis

Judith Hanks
University of Leeds, UK

Abstract
This paper probes the potential of practitioner research (specifically Exploratory Practice) tocontribute to theoretical and practical developments in quality learning outcomes in language
teaching for a globalized world. It considers approaches to learning, teaching and researchingin language classrooms in diverse situations, and examines the ways in which practitioner
researchers have worked towards their goals of encouraging quality learning outcomes. It
concludes that there is no ‘one solution for all’, arguing instead that the highest quality
learning outcomes must focus on motivation, agency, active learning, self-efficacy and thedesire to continue learning. Successful outcomes are then predicated on the co-production ofknowledge with/by learners, teachers, and researchers as they explore their own praxis.

Dedicated to the memory of Craig Smith. He was a warm and gentle man with delightful
humor and keen intelligence. He is greatly missed.

Keywords: Practitioner research, exploratory practice, quality of life, wellbeing, collegiality

Introduction
Debates around ensuring quality of learning outcomes in language teaching in an era ofglobalization are of urgent concern for the field. Yet until recently, the potential of3

Hanks, J.
Involving Everyone in Enhancing Quality of Life in Language Education: Explorations and Insights from Praxis

practitioner research to contribute to theoretical and practical developments has been
overlooked. In this paper I orient my discussion to the theme of the 57th JACET Convention:‘Assuring Quality Learning Outcomes in Primary to Tertiary English Education for
Globalization.’ I examine how quality learning outcomes in English education might beencouraged and explore ways in which practitioner researchers around the world have worked
towards this goal. In doing so, I highlight the fact that there is no one solution to fit all
situations, but rather a range of contextually appropriate approaches which might productively
be explored for and by the practitioners most affected by any changes: learners and teachers.
An initial question to consider concerns what is meant by quality learning outcomes. How
quality is defined, how learning is defined, and how outcomes are decided upon andmeasured, are central to the debate. Each definition is at once influenced by, and a reflectionof, a cultural construct: in other words, they reflect / are influenced by the ways in which
quality of learning, and of outcomes, are constructed. I posit that the highest quality learning
outcomes are integral to, and emanate from, highly motivated learners and teachersinvestigating praxis. Such outcomes include active learning, confident use of language, andthe desire to continue. Quality learning outcomes, then, are enticing, empowering, andsustainable. They are intimately connected to notions of respect, mutual development, andcollegiality as knowledge is co-produced with, by, and for the learners themselves.
These themes are explicitly expressed in the Exploratory Practice framework of principles
for practitioner research as described below (Allwright & Hanks, 2009). This framework
prioritizes enhancing quality of life and working for understanding as learners, teachers, andall those involved in language learning share their puzzles, their investigations, and theirfindings (see Hanks, 2017a, 2019). Including all participants (learners, teachers, curriculum
developers, teacher educators and policy-makers) working together to investigate pedagogic
practices in primary, secondary and tertiary education thus provides an innovative approach toanalyzing the processes of learning and teaching.
4

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 3-28

Seven principles for inclusive practitioner research
The ‘what’ issues:
1. Focus on quality of life as the fundamental issue.
2. Work to understand it, before thinking about solving problems.
The ‘who’ issues:
3. Involve everybody as practitioners developing their own understandings.
4. Work to bring people together in a common enterprise.
5. Work cooperatively for mutual development.
The ‘how’ issues:
6. Make it a continuous enterprise.
7. Minimise the burden by integrating the work for understanding into normal pedagogic
practice.
(Allwright & Hanks, 2009, p. 260)

This paper examines how we might involve everyone in enhancing not only quality oflearning outcomes, but also quality of life in language education. It shines a light on theinsights that practitioners have gained from exploring practices, and their contributions totheorizing their pedagogy in different institutions in different parts of the world. The paper
encompasses work ongoing in in Brazil, China, Japan, Turkey, the UK and othergeographically situated cultures. Concurrently, it includes institutional cultures: primaryschools, secondary schools, universities and teacher training colleges (tertiary) and private
language schools. The broader literature (see Hanks, 2019, for a state-of-the-art overview)encompasses a range of disciplinary cultures, e.g. teaching English as a Foreign Language(EFL); English for Academic Purposes (EAP), Modern Foreign Languages (MFL), Second
Language Acquisition, and Teacher Education as well as Business Studies, Healthcare, and5

Hanks, J.
Involving Everyone in Enhancing Quality of Life in Language Education: Explorations and Insights from Praxis

Psychology. Studies encompassing institutional and disciplinary distinctions are included, as I
consider here the conference theme of ways in which quality learning outcomes in primary totertiary education for globalization may be assured.

Quality of learning outcomes; Quality of life
Historically, the field has moved from ideas about teachers researching their classrooms as
part of curriculum development (Stenhouse, 1975), to those linking research and pedagogy(Prabhu, 1987; Allwright, 1993; Hanks, 2017b). Powerful arguments have been made for thevalue of practitioner research (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001; Johnson & Golombek, 2011), since
it is contextually relevant to educators and theoretically grounded, tethering theory to practice.
Borg (2013) rightly suggests that practitioner research “has undeniable transformative
potential to enrich and improve the work of teachers, the experience of learners, and theeffectiveness and credibility of organizations” (p. 230). However, Borg’s focus is narrow,focusing only on the contribution of teachers as practitioner-researchers. He overlooks theagency potential (Gieve & Miller, 2006) of learners involved in learning and teaching. We
know, for example, that learners are “not just communicators and problem solvers, but whole
persons with hearts, bodies, and minds, with memories, fantasies, loyalties, identities”(Kramsch, 2006, p. 251). This has begun to have a significant impact on the way we now
view learning, teaching, and practitioner research. Arguably, the quality of learning outcomesis governed by the commitment of practitioners to fully engaging with pedagogy, andexploring their praxis to the fullest, with curious and open minds.
In the search for enhanced quality of learning outcomes, the notion of competence inlanguage teaching and learning has frequently been cited. The field has moved from a focus
on communicative competence (Hymes, 1972) which dominated discussions in Applied
Linguistics for decades, and remains relevant in language teaching/learning today, tosymbolic competence (Kramsch, 2006) and intercultural competence. Understanding
6

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 3-28

intercultural competence is part of a complex, nuanced view of the world which encompasses
classrooms, and language classrooms in particular. As Kramsch (2011) argues that "Whilecommunicative competence is characterized by the negotiation of intended meanings inauthentic contexts of language use, intercultural competence has to do with far less negotiable
discourse worlds"(p. 354).
For quality learning outcomes in language teaching/learning to be assured, these different
competences need to be kept in play. Learners, and their teachers, navigate their way throughthese ‘less negotiable discourse worlds’ with difficulty, if they attempt to do so separately as
individuals. If, on the other hand, we can acknowledge the complexities of this matrix, andcollaborate actively, then there is a greater chance of success in the attempts of learners,
teachers and researchers to understand these dynamic interactions.
Such a perspective is influenced by recent work on intercultural communication (Holliday
et al., 2010). Holliday (2013) posits that ‘small cultures’ are created by people locally, where
they co-create rules of behavior, in keeping with their (newly formed) social group. Language
classes are examples of such small cultures in the process of formation. Each class is uniquein terms of the people within it, their interests, concerns and enthusiasms. They may accept
international, national, and institutional assumptions about what constitutes a ‘class’ or what
consists of appropriate classroom behavior from learners or teachers. And they create theirown rules of behavior and interaction. These are unique to each group of people as they work
co-operatively to co-produce their knowledge of learning and teaching.
As Allwright and Hanks (2009) argue, “learners are both unique individuals and social
beings who are capable of taking learning seriously, of taking independent decisions, and ofdeveloping as practitioners of learning” (p. 15). This proposition foregrounds the agency oflearners in assuring quality learning outcomes in language education. It is only with or
through the learners’ contributions that learning/teaching goals can be achieved. In other7

Hanks, J.
Involving Everyone in Enhancing Quality of Life in Language Education: Explorations and Insights from Praxis

words, the learners, alongside the teachers (and others), make a significant contribution to theways in which a class is conducted, hence to the learning and teaching within it, and thus tothe quality of learning outcomes.
The notion of teachers and learners working together as practitioners who are not theobjects of study, but rather active agents in developing understandings of learning andteaching (see Allwright, 2003; Tajino, 2009) is crucial if learning outcomes are to go beyond
mechanical (and possibly unrealistic) statements of ‘by the end of the lesson they will havelearned the present perfect’ or similar. Co-production of knowledge, with the aim ofdeveloping mutual understandings, is encapsulated in Exploratory Practice, where "students
and teachers [and others] engage in constructing rules of interaction, social positioning andsocial interaction, and mutually acceptable/ understandable ways of behaving" (Hanks, 2017a,
p. 276). As they do so, and as they begin to articulate their ideas to one another, practitioners
are “developing an enriched ‘classroom awareness’, by which the nature of the experience ofclassroom life becomes positively enhanced” (Gieve & Miller, 2006, p. 41). Hence the drive
for all those involved in language education to develop their understandings from practice;and share their understandings for practice (see Johnson & Golombek, 2011; Yoshida et al.,2009). The goal of ‘quality learning outcomes’, then, is nothing less than enhanced Quality ofLife in the classroom, for quality of life, in the shape of motivation (Ushioda, 2016), selfefficacy (Wyatt & Dikilitaş, 2015) and wellbeing (Hanks, 2019) is the key to learning
effectively.
The following section discusses examples of studies which involved learners, teachers,
teacher educators, curriculum developers in different institutions around the world. Ranging
from primary to secondary to tertiary education, and including curriculum design and teacher
education as well as learning and teaching in EAP, EFL, and MFL, the studies show learners
and teachers using their agency to theorize their own practice, whilst prioritizing learning andteaching.
8

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 3-28

Methodology
The methodology used in these Exploratory Practice studies was flexible and adaptableenough to be contextually appropriate for each setting. Essentially qualitative in conception,
the approach exemplifies van Manen’s (1990) argument that “to do research is always toquestion the way we experience the world” (p. 5), and to “investigate experience as we live it
rather than as we conceptualize it” (p. 30). It welcomes the “socially constructed nature of
reality, the intimate relationship between the researcher and what is studied, and thesituational constraints that shape inquiry” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003, p. 13), and this results inthe prize of “messy, uncertain, multivoiced texts” (p. 38) which reflect the complexities ofresearch in language education.
As a methodological approach, Exploratory Practice also builds on Soft Systems
Methodology or SSM (see Checkland & Poulter, 2006; Tajino, 2019). The latter promotes a
flexible and culturally sensitive approach to research which is deliberately holistic. According
to Tajino & Smith (2005), SSM encourages a view of research methodology whichemphasizes people and processes as complex and dynamic, and which includes all rather thanselecting a few. As Kato and Dalsky (2019) point out, SSM has clear resonances with
Exploratory Practice: they both share “respect for the participants and seek to elicit their
voices in the process of creating a shared understanding among them” (Kato & Dalsky, 2019,p. 125). Developing understanding is prioritized as a guiding principle of Exploratory
Practice, as Hanks (1999; 2009; 2017a) has elucidated, with the aim of encouraging curiositydriven, practitioner-led research which inquires into contextually-appropriate puzzles set by
the learners and teachers themselves.
Exploratory Practice aims to integrate research and pedagogy (see Hanks, 2017b) so thatlearning and teaching are not interrupted, but are rather foregrounded as practitioners(learners and teachers, curriculum designers, and others) use their normal pedagogic activities
9Hanks, J.
Involving Everyone in Enhancing Quality of Life in Language Education: Explorations and Insights from Praxis

to include puzzlement and explorations. This is done by using ‘Potentially Exploitable
Pedagogic Activities’ or PEPAs, as explained by Moraes Bezerra & Miller (2015). By taking
a familiar classroom activity such as a class survey or poster presentation, and re-purposing it
to illuminate a puzzle as identified and investigated by the practitioners themselves, enquiries
are qualitatively and creatively conducted to gain deeper understanding of the issue at hand(see also Miller, 2009; Soares, 2008). In the case studies below, I will explore the methods
used and the insights gained as practitioners engage in this process-oriented form of research.
Exploratory Practice, then, is a methodological innovation: one whereby, in an actively coproduced enterprise, practitioners set the research agenda, work together to investigate whatpuzzles them, collaborate on collating and analyzing the findings, and discuss theirinterpretations. Phenomenological and interpretive in conception, it is subtly radical in theway it levels the playing field to include learners as well as teachers to abrogate the act of
research and own not only the methods, but also the findings (see Wyatt et al., 2016).
Exploratory Practice is a developmental step on from Freire’s (1973) ideas of criticalpedagogy in that despite its mild appearance, Exploratory Practice promises a radical re-thinkof the ontology and epistemology of research itself.
In each of the cases discussed below, practitioners were invited to provide their accountsof their research. They started by puzzling about their own experiences of language learningor teaching and began to form research questions. This enacts Principle 2 above “Work tounderstand [classroom life], before thinking about solving problems” (Allwright & Hanks,
2009, p. 260). In line with Principles 5, 6 and 7, participants then worked “cooperatively formutual development" making it a sustainable and ongoing activity which was integrated into
their “normal pedagogic practice” (Allwright & Hanks, 2009, p. 260). Practitioners talked
about, and in many cases wrote about, their work in a thoroughly dialogic (see Bakhtin, 1986)
approach to collaboratively analyzing and disseminating their findings.

10

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 3-28

New views on ethics
As with all research, there were ethical dilemmas to address which went beyond the usualissues of informed consent, voluntary participation, right to withdraw, confidentiality andanonymity. For example, students and teachers were keen to use their own names and wanted
to be recognized as the authors of their own work. To anonymize them would be to deny theiragency and reinforce the old hierarchy of research structures.
On the other hand, some neophyte researchers (particularly learners) may not have been
fully aware of the consequences of being named. And even though they were given ample
information, they may not have fully understood that in giving consent, their words might becited in different contexts (e.g. large international conferences). Therefore, they were invited
to select their preferred pseudonyms, and before publication, I revisited individuals to checkthat they were still willing to be published. One student in particular, who told a deeply
personal story, had originally suggested the use of her real name, but readily agreed to a
pseudonym. Three years later (as she was embarking on a PhD of her own) she told me she
had a better understanding of the wider ethical/practical implications and was pleased with the
choice of the moniker.
I posit that there is a rarely-considered ethical principle of ensuring that the contributionsof learners, teachers, teacher educators, and curriculum developers, are fully recognized. The
informed insights from these practitioners are as useful, if not more so, than those of a thirdparty researcher who can only scratch the surface of the complex world of classroom learningand teaching. A more egalitarian approach is needed: one which promotes the co-productionof knowledge as a joint enterprise, and which fully acknowledges the contributions of thosetaking part. Following discussions with the participants I therefore provide here practitionerresearcher names as they themselves wished them to be published.

11

Hanks, J.
Involving Everyone in Enhancing Quality of Life in Language Education: Explorations and Insights from Praxis

Education for globalization: Studies from around the world
In considering the notion of language education for globalization, I discuss a number ofstudies situated in schools and universities in Brazil, Japan, Turkey, and the UK. Exploratory
Practice invites learners, alongside teachers, curriculum developers, teacher educators andpolicy-makers, to puzzle about their experiences and this surfaces important questions about
motivation, learning and wellbeing.

Primary education
Caroline de Andrade is a teacher working in a primary school in a community in Rio deJaneiro which struggled with issues of crime, drugs, gang warfare and poverty. Caroline
started by describing her situation as a young teacher endeavouring to teach English to her
pupils: “They used to say that they hated me and they hated English too. It was the strongest
resistance that I had ever seen” (Andrade, 2017, p. 150). She was puzzled about the behaviorof her pupils, asking: Why are some students not interested in learning English? Some of the
problems surrounding this issue appeared intractable, yet familiar to many teachers.
Nevertheless she wanted to understand what was happening.
She therefore proposed a ‘Potentially Exploitable Pedagogic Activity’ or PEPA (seeMoraes, Bezerra & Miller, 2015) to her class. This followed the Exploratory Practiceprinciples of involving everyone to work for mutual development to understand before
attempting to problem-solve. Caroline integrated her investigation into the pedagogy, by
adapting a revision activity for language items that students had previously studied as part ofthe syllabus: ‘expressing likes and dislikes’. Here, she adapted the activity by sharing her
puzzle, and asking them to write their likes and dislikes related to the classroom. Theiranswers were surprising. She had assumed that they were inured to the ongoing noise, mess,and even fighting, in the class, but their responses indicated a desire for calm; she had
assumed that their destructive behavior towards the course book (tearing out pages or
12

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 3-28

throwing the book on the floor) indicated a dislike for the book. Yet they said they found thecharacters interesting and fun. Tellingly, the students expressed surprise that their teacher
genuinely wanted to listen to their opinions, and, perhaps as a result of being given space toshare their views, their motivation gradually appeared to increase. As Caroline puts it, "Thegroup finally had a voice in the English class and they started to show some motivation. […]They kept on misbehaving at the school, but observing the small changes, I started to feel
more motivated too" (Andrade, 2017a, p. 152).
Despite their difficult circumstances, the children and the teachers came to school:
education still continued, and although nothing could solve these major problems, they could
gain understanding of one another’s perspectives. In doing so they developed a mutual
respect and a basis for making these small, but incremental changes towards a more hopeful
way of engaging with learning and teaching, actively using their collective and separate
agencies to make life in the classroom more liveable.
A defining characteristic of Exploratory Practice is to promote puzzling over problemsolving (see Hanks, 1999, 2009, 2017a for further discussion of the differences between
puzzlement and problems). One outcome, sharply relevant for learning, is that puzzles can go
beyond negative settings to incorporate positive thinking, as above, as the following narrativefrom Walewska Braga shows.
Also working as a teacher in Rio de Janeiro, Walewska describes her work with 11-year
old children in her class. Their puzzle was: Why do we have English classes only once a
week? (Braga in Allwright & Hanks, 2009, p. 186). Walewska was a seasoned Exploratory
Practice teacher and therefore invited the children to investigate. The children prepared
questions as a group, and went to interview the school principal and the person in charge ofcurriculum and scheduling. Interestingly, although these two were willing to be interviewed,
the children felt that “students’ opinions on their schedules were not welcomed” (Braga,13

Hanks, J.
Involving Everyone in Enhancing Quality of Life in Language Education: Explorations and Insights from Praxis

2009, p. 187). Nevertheless, the class continued working to understand the issue oftimetabling, and even used their English lessons (they were learning English lexis for days of
the week and school subjects) to create their own idealized timetables. Research and language
learning were integrated in order to probe the question, develop the children’s understandingsof language and real-world issues. Motivated learners, relevant language learning anddeveloping self-efficacy, were the truly high quality learning outcomes.

Secondary education
There is a rich seam of work reporting Exploratory Practice in secondary education invarious contexts, most notably Brazil, Japan, Jordan, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates(see Gunn, 2003; Gunn, 2009; Hanks, 2019; Miller et al., 2015; Tajino et al., 2016). I will
focus here on one story only: one told, in part, in the students’ own words.
Carlos Magno and Daniela Lemos da Silva were high school students studying English at astate secondary school in Rio de Janeiro. They became interested in Exploratory Practice, andwanted to present their work at a local event for learners and teachers held at a nearby
university. Their puzzle, which intrigued many others, was: Why do we cheat? They began byinterviewing their classmates, and found a wealth of information, not only about methods ofcheating in exams but also about the consequences of being caught. Not satisfied with this,they also interviewed teachers, who also admitted cheating to help some students for a varietyof reasons. As Carlos (translated by Walewska Braga) put it:

For some students the subject is difficult to study and learn and they cheat, for others
cheating is a habit […]. Good grades are important: no one wants to fail. We all
agreed that cheating is wrong, students have to study. It is important for our future.
(Magno & Braga, 2009, p. 210)

14

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 3-28

It is worth noting, again, that the aim in Exploratory Practice is to understand thephenomenon under scrutiny, not necessarily to solve the problem. In this case, understanding
the reasons for cheating was far more important, for both learners and teachers.
Carlos and Daniela did not stop there, however. Their group continued their work tounderstand the phenomenon of cheating, and the narrative was extended to consider society atlarge:We also noticed that a lot of people misbehave outside the school. There are a lot ofwrong things happening and we may compare them to cheating in tests […] people
parking their cars on the sidewalks, people throwing papers and cans through thewindows, on the streets, the elderly being disrespected, so many wrong things(Magno & Braga, 2009, p. 210)

When the time came to present their poster, Daniela reported that she and another pupil(Patricia) did the talking because Carlos was uncomfortable or shy with the public
performance aspect of a presentation.
The learning outcomes from this activity may not have been ones that were directly
specified in the curriculum in terms of language, but formation of questions, and the four
skills of speaking, listening, reading, and writing were clearly being practised. In addition, thelearning outcomes encompassed higher level skills of critical thinking, citizenship andengaging with wider issues in society.

Tertiary education
The bulk of recent developments in Exploratory Practice have taken place in studies
situated in higher education institutions. Space precludes extensive discussion here but see
15

Hanks, J.
Involving Everyone in Enhancing Quality of Life in Language Education: Explorations and Insights from Praxis

Dikilitaş and Hanks (2018); Hanks (2015a; 2015b; 2019); Slimani-Rolls and Kiely (2018) for
details of more studies. Here, I will focus on the stories of just a few from empirical work coproduced with learners and teachers of EAP.
Working as a teacher, director, researcher, on a 10-week summer pre-sessional
programme, I encountered Val (a pseudonym). She was an Iranian student in a class ofinternational students preparing for post-graduate studies at a British university. The students
and their teacher had embraced the notion of Exploratory Practice and were keen to try it out.
In the first week, they began puzzling about their experiences of learning languages; theyshared their puzzles and began to refine their questions in small groups. Val, however, was
one of two students who wanted to work alone. She stated that she wished to investigate her
puzzle: Why do I feel anxiety about studying at a British university? She appeared painfully
shy, and had difficulty in expressing her feelings – in fact when listening to the audio
recording of her interview, there were many hesitations, and some parts were so quiet or
muffled that it was impossible to hear:

Val: As a general … [indecipherable]… anxiety. … Now, er, I, er, because I’m
studying in Britain… anxiety. Whether I can do my… can I understand my lecturers inclass… when my course start… because that time, er, professors just er, expect us to
do a lot of works in essays, research. [Speaking clearly and firmly:] This is anotherlanguage. It is not my own language. That’s why… I’m worried … the other reason
for my anxiety is that: can I do my assessment in my essays, my research correctly if
I… [trails off into silence].
(Hanks, 2017a, p. 286)

Val and her teachers wondered if anxiety was contributing to her difficulties in speaking.
But rather than trying to ‘solve’ the problem of speaking fluently (see Hanks, 2017a, on the
16JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 3-28

need to move away from ‘quick-fix solutions’ and towards understanding), we worked tocomprehend the issue of debilitating anxiety.
Supported by her teachers (myself included) Val read more about issues of anxiety – why
was it so prevalent? She arranged appointments to interview her future lecturers to find out
what would be expected of her once she began her Master’s degree, and she talked to her presessional teachers and classmates. The fact that they took her question seriously, andsupported her in her quest to understand more, seemed to give her more confidence. After
four weeks, she had already developed more fluency and was accessing her considerable storeof language more easily. She even gave a poster presentation to the rest of the class, in which
she spoke eloquently about her findings thus far:

Val: This poster is … depend on my, my background about IELTS exam which I resat it twice and be-became the same [result]… and so … that time I … missed myself-confidence about English language. But at the moment I, er, I feel much better.
(Hanks, 2017a, p. 287)

She noted that the anxiety other students had reported to her during her research activity
stemmed from differences in environment, teaching methods, accents, and cultures. This she
contrasted with her readings of the literature, which indicated that students typicallyexperience cycles of anxiety. In a small epiphany, she pinpointed her own disappointing
results in an English language examination (IELTS) as having undermined her confidence.
When she found that others had also suffered anxiety, and was supported by her classmates
and teachers in taking the issue seriously, she was able to move from a debilitating sense of
self-criticism, towards becoming active in this new environment. She developed her own

17

Hanks, J.
Involving Everyone in Enhancing Quality of Life in Language Education: Explorations and Insights from Praxis

agency by grappling with anxiety as a very real emotion and beginning to understand where itcame from.
The micro learning outcome was a deeper understanding of the anxiety she (and manyother students) struggled with; she established ownership of those enmeshed emotions, andshe began a journey towards empowerment of, and by, herself, in conjunction with others.
The macro learning outcome was an enhanced quality of life for Val in particular, as her
anxiety decreased, and confidence increased, and for all those who were able to learn fromher experience through her presentations and discussions.
In Japan, there are examples of work at the forefront of developing praxis in EAP. Stewart
et al. (2014), for example, examined the notion of Exploratory Practice as process-oriented
explorations conducted by learners and their teachers. Stewart worked over several years with
her learners in tertiary education (undergraduate English-major students at a university) who
used their ‘Zemi’ class to investigate their puzzles, develop their research skills, and,ultimately, write their graduation thesis. The students had read a combination of researchtexts, both traditional and those promoting more radical ideas, and began to engage in thekind of critical questioning that is all too rare in the academic world. The Exploratory Practice(EP) framework of principles for practitioner research particularly intrigued them, "thestudents were also surprised by EP terminology. “What do they mean by ‘Quality of Life?’
asked Junsei. ‘ And why do they use ‘working for understanding’ when they mean research? ’added Kazu" (Stewart et al., 2014, p. 137). The students began to probe these questions, witha robust and rigorous intellectual approach. Their findings were not only relevant to their own
development; the students also explicitly stated that they wanted to collaborate with theincoming cohort (a year junior to them) to help them grapple with issues relevant to novice
researchers.
In this thoroughly dialogic study, Stewart went beyond reporting her work, to engage indialogue with her students and with two commentators: Croker and Hanks. She wove into the18

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 3-28

argument their responses to questions posed by the students and herself. For example, Croker
was asked to consider the question of whether Exploratory Practice should be defined as
research or practice. He concluded that it is different from traditional definitions of both andproposed a broader definition which could be more inclusive of non-mainstream approaches
to research. Meanwhile Hanks was asked about the meaning of Quality of Life (QoL), which
had deeply puzzled the students. She responded by highlighting the inclusivity andsustainability of the work, which had aided these neophyte researchers in their journey of
discovery:

What you say about the feelings of ownership and belonging that you and yourstudents ‘cherished’ is (to me) the essence of QoL. […] EP’s approach empoweredthem to make their own decisions about learning with a view to developing not only as
language learners, but also as budding researchers.
(Stewart et al., 2014, p. 143)

Stewart concludes the chapter with a critical reflection on a process that took more than
two years with several cohorts of students in her ‘Zemi’ class. They stumbled, as all
researchers do; but, like all good researchers, they learned from these missteps for the future.
The learning outcomes encompassed a high level of critical thinking; questioning andanalyzing as a sustainable and ongoing process integrated into language learning.
Moreover, Stewart discovered that the students had been continuing their work
unbeknownst to her, and without any instructions, over their summer holidays. They had
continued in their ‘research circles’ working independently, to gather and analyze data, and toprovide peer feedback to one another on their drafts of their theses. Stewart concludes,"‘Quality’ whether of life or learning, is elusive and ephemeral […] What [EP] does offer,19

Hanks, J.
Involving Everyone in Enhancing Quality of Life in Language Education: Explorations and Insights from Praxis

given time for frank and open discussion, is a principled approach to democratic and inclusive
learner development" (Stewart et al., 2014, p. 146).

Curriculum design
Work has begun to investigate the potential of including learners and teachers in theprocesses of curriculum design. Writers have discussed ways in which teachers and learners
puzzled about, and contributed to, the construction of the syllabus and, more broadly, thecurriculum, in their various institutions.
In Turkey, Biçer (2018) began by wondering why learners’ voices were not included in thedesign of a Foundation Year course at his university. He encouraged his colleagues to attend
presentations given by his students, and highlighted a major advantage, "it was reallysatisfying to practice alongside my students as one big investigation unit and probe into sucha problematic but often avoided subject. I began to see it through their eyes"(Biçer, 2018, p.
154)
Meanwhile, in the UK, Bond (2017) began by investigating her own puzzle about
curriculum design. Explicating her own position as an influential person in the (re-)design ofthe curriculum in her institution, she argues that the curriculum can, through Exploratory
Practice, become “a dynamic space for empowerment and for dialogic and dialectic learning”(p. 11). Like Biçer above, she involved pre-sessional students as key developing practitioners(see Allwright & Hanks, 2009) who helped colleagues (learners, teachers, and curriculum
designers) in developing clear learning outcomes, discussing core aims, values and principles
as a new curriculum was jointly developed. Bond claims that the learning outcomes included
a built-in reflexivity to the new syllabus, and a responsiveness to student needs. These, sheargues, led to greater student ownership, and more teacher engagement, which, in turn, led to
improved relationships and better understandings of different points of view.

20

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 3-28

Their work is built on a much earlier study in Japan. Here, Smith (2009) worked with
undergraduate students to collaborate in building a new syllabus in their university. These
learners contributed to the design of a new EAP curriculum over four iterations, as they met
key personnel who were designing and implementing a new syllabus. The students reported
positive reactions to their suggestions, and experienced a renewed sense of self-efficacy since
their voices had clearly been heard, and changes could be traced to their influence. Smithhighlights the potential for positive co-production of knowledge that this inclusive approach
to curriculum design promises.
In each of the above cases, it is noteworthy that the quality of learning outcomes weresignificantly affected by mutually respectful collaboration, and this affected their quality oflife. For example, Bond cites better understanding and improved relationships, while Biçer
notes more empathy and mutual comprehension. Smith breaks new ground and concludes that
there is “joy in the companionship of a few kindred spirits working together on projects thatthey believe in” (Smith, 2009, p. 110).

Conclusions
In considering ways of assuring quality learning outcomes in this increasingly globalized
world, we need to question our own pre-conceived ideas about who does what in language
education. Teachers, learners, curriculum designers and all those involved in language
education, can develop their own agency as key players in the game. The insights thatpractitioners can provide are essential for a deep understanding of the educative process. The
studies cited above exemplify ways in which teachers and learners can set the research
agenda, investigate collaboratively, and disseminate findings of immediate relevance to theirown settings. What emerges, though, is a need to re-conceptualize the very essence of ‘quality
learning outcomes’. No longer focusing on surface-level linguistic items or interactions, these21

Hanks, J.
Involving Everyone in Enhancing Quality of Life in Language Education: Explorations and Insights from Praxis

outcomes can now be conceptualized as higher level skills such as advanced critical thinking,nuanced interpersonal negotiations, and thorough, well-reasoned argument.
Too often we read of learners’ debilitating anxiety, or teachers’ lack of wellbeing, yet the
global search for solutions is found wanting. Traditional third-party research means that bothlearners and teachers are positioned as powerless in making decisions about what happens in
the classroom. As a result, they “do not dare reflect on macro discourses which they believe
are beyond their control” (Hiratsuka, 2016, p. 110). But they can, and do, manage to makeindependent decisions and implement changes within their sphere of influence. As Hiratsuka
also argues, these micro-level shifts through Exploratory Practice can “enrich their lessons”(Hiratsuka, 2016, p. 110) and lead to a more critically aware approach.
Motivation is cited as central to successful language learning, and Ushioda (2016) argues
that engaging learners as active agents in exploring their learning experiences is one way of
encouraging highly motivated students. This chimes with Tajino and Smith, who explain,"When teachers and students share the construction of their learning environment in aharmonious team-learning partnership, the full collaborative potential of team teaching may
be realized" (Tajino & Smith, 2016, p. 23). I would go even further, arguing that we might
position learners as experienced ‘knowers’ who can pass on their knowledge of what it is tobe a learner so that others may benefit. In order for this to successfully be implemented, an
atmosphere of trust is required. This is because Exploratory Practice “re-conceptualizes the
epistemology of research itself as more than a search for solutions; EP reminds us of theendeavor to understand (Heidegger, 1962; Dreyfus, 1991) language, culture and education”(Hanks, 2019, p. 35). Although this may be a difficult step for more entrenched researchers toaccept, it points the way to the kind of creative, dynamic, dialogic research that the 21st
century requires.
I conclude that the communicative, symbolic, and intercultural issues encountered whilst
working for deeper understandings across cultural borders are central to quality of life, and
22

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 3-28

hence learning opportunities, for all those involved in language education. Involving everyone
in collegial, curious inquiry not only develops a sense of self-efficacy and wellbeing, but alsoenhances Quality of Life. These are, in fact, the quality learning outcomes needed for
education in a globalized world.

References
Allwright, D. (1993). Integrating 'research' and 'pedagogy': Appropriate criteria and practicalpossibilities. In J. Edge & K. Richards (Eds.), Teachers Develop Teachers Research (pp.
125-135). Oxford: Heinemann.
Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory Practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language
teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 113-141.
Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The Developing Language Learner: An introduction to
Exploratory Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Andrade, C. (2017). Exploratory Practice and group 1403’s likes and dislikes. Narrative in J.
Hanks (2017a), Exploratory Practice in Language Teaching: Puzzling about principles
and practices (pp.150-152). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Biçer, K. (2018). Exploratory Practice as a way of fostering learner autonomy. In K. Dikilitaş
& J. Hanks (Eds.), Developing Language Teachers with Exploratory Practice:
Innovations and explorations in language education (pp. 141-156). London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Bond, B. (2017). Co-constructing the curriculum through Exploratory Practice. The Language
Scholar (2), 1-14.

23

Hanks, J.
Involving Everyone in Enhancing Quality of Life in Language Education: Explorations and Insights from Praxis

Borg, S. (2013). Teacher Research in Language Teaching: A critical analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Braga, W. (2009) Walewska’s first story: Why do we have English classes only once a week?
Narrative in D. Allwright & J. Hanks (2009) The Developing Language Learner: An
introduction to Exploratory Practice (pp.186-187). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for action: A short definitive account of soft
systems methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. Chichester:
Wiley.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2003). Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative
Materials (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA; London: Sage Publications Inc.
Dikilitaş, K., & Hanks, J. (Eds.). (2018). Developing Language Teachers with Exploratory
Practice: Innovations and explorations in language education. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Dreyfus, H. L. (1991). Being-in-the-World: A commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time,
Division 1. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: Seabury Press.
Gieve, S., & Miller, I.K. (2006). What do we mean by 'Quality of Classroom Life'? In S. Gieve& I.K. Miller (Eds.), Understanding the Language Classroom (pp. 18-46). Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Gunn, C. (2003). Exploring second language communicative competence. Language Teaching
Research, 7(2), 240-258.
Gunn, C. (Ed.) (2009). Exploring TESOL Practices in the Arabian Gulf. Dubai: TESOL Arabia.
Hanks, J. (1999). Enthusiasm, puzzlement, and exploratory practice. International House
Journal of Education and Development (7), 14-16.
Hanks, J. (2009). Inclusivity and collegiality in Exploratory Practice. In T. Yoshida, H. Imai,
Y. Nakata, A. Tajino, O. Takeuchi, & K. Tamai (Eds.), Researching Language
24

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 3-28

Teaching and Learning: An integration of practice and theory (pp. 33-55). Bern: Peter
Lang.
Hanks, J. (2015a). 'Education is not just teaching': learner thoughts on Exploratory Practice.
ELT Journal, 69(2), 117-128.
Hanks, J. (2015b). Language teachers making sense of exploratory practice. Language
Teaching Research, 19(5), 612-633.
Hanks, J. (2017a). Exploratory Practice in Language Teaching: Puzzling about principles andpractices. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hanks, J. (2017b). Integrating research and pedagogy: an Exploratory Practice approach.
System, 68, 38-49.
Hanks, J. (2019). From research-as-practice to exploratory practice-as-research and beyond.
Language Teaching 52(2), 143-187.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Oxford
Blackwell.
Hiratsuka, T. (2016). Actualizing Exploratory Practice (EP) principles with team teachers inJapan. System, 57, 109-119.
Holliday, A. (2013). Understanding Intercultural Communication: Negotiating a Grammar of
Culture. Abingdon: Routledge.
Holliday, A., Hyde, M., & Kullman, J. (2010). Intercultural Communication (2nd ed.).
Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Hymes, D. (1972). Introduction. In C.B. Cazden, V.P. Joh & D. Hymes (Eds), Functions ofLanguage in the Classroom (pp xi-lvii). New York: Teachers College Press.
Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (Eds.). (2011). Research on Second Language Teacher
Education: A sociocultural perspective on professional development. New York:
Routledge.
25

Hanks, J.
Involving Everyone in Enhancing Quality of Life in Language Education: Explorations and Insights from Praxis

Kato, Y., & Dalsky, D. (2019). Interaction in the language classroom: a systems approach. In
A. Tajino (Ed.), A Systems Approach to Language Pedagogy. (pp. 121-132). Singapore:
Springer.
Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competence to symbolic competence. Modern
Language Journal 90(2), 249-252.
Kramsch, C. (2011). The symbolic dimensions of the intercultural. Language Teaching 44(3),354–367.
Magno, C. & Braga, W. (2009). Carlos Magno’s story: Why do we cheat? (pp. 210-212)
Narrative in D. Allwright & J. Hanks (2009), The Developing Language Learner: An
introduction to Exploratory Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Miller, I. K. (2009). 'Puzzle-driven' Language Teacher Development: The contribution of
Exploratory Practice. In T. Yoshida, H. Imai, Y. Nakata, A. Tajino, O. Takeuchi, & K.
Tamai (Eds.), Researching Language Teaching and Learning: An integration ofpractice and theory (pp. 77-93). Bern: Peter Lang.
Miller, I. K., Côrtes, T. C. R., de Oliveira, A. F. A., & Braga, W. (2015). Exploratory Practicein Initial Teacher Education: Working collaboratively for understandings. In D. Bullock& R. Smith (Eds.), Teachers Research! (pp. 65-71). Faversham: IATEFL ResearchSpecial Interest Group.
Moraes Bezerra, I. C. R., & Miller, I. K. (2015). Exploratory Practice and new Literacy Studies:
Building epistemological connections. Pensares em Revista, 6, 90-128. Prabhu, N.S.
(1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slimani-Rolls, A., & Kiely, R. (Eds.). (2018). Exploratory Practice for Continuing
Professional Development: an innovative approach for language teachers: London:
Palgrave Macmillan.

26

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 3-28

Smith, C. (2009). Developing a new English for academic purposes course: Administratorteacher-student collaboration. In T. Yoshida, H. Imai, Y. Nakata, A. Tajino, O.
Takeuchi, & K. Tamai (Eds.), Researching Language Teaching and Learning: An
integration of practice and theory (pp. 95-113). Bern: Peter Lang.
Soares, D. (2008). Understanding class blogs as a tool for language development. Language
Teaching Research, 12(4), 517-533.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London:
Heinemann.
Stewart, A. with Croker, R., & Hanks, J. (2014). Exploring the principles of Exploratory
Practice: Quality of Life or Quality of Learning? In A. Barfield & A. Minematsu (Eds.),
Different Cases: Different Interests (pp. 132-148). Tokyo: JALT Learner Development
SIG.
Tajino, A. (2009). Understanding Life in the Language Classroom: A systemic approach. In T.
Yoshida, H. Imai, Y. Nakata, A. Tajino, O. Takeuchi, & K. Tamai (Eds.), Researching
Language Teaching and Learning: An integration of practice and theory (pp. 115-130).
Bern: Peter Lang.
Tajino, A. (Ed.). (2019). A Systems Approach to Language Pedagogy. Singapore: Springer
Nature.
Tajino, A., & Smith, C. (2005). Exploratory Practice and soft systems methodology. Language
Teaching Research, 9(4), 448-469.
Tajino, A., & Smith, C. (2016). Beyond team teaching: An introduction to team learning inlanguage education. In A. Tajino, T. Stewart, & D. Dalsky (Eds.), Team teaching andteam learning in the language classroom: collaboration for innovation in ELT (pp. 1127). Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge.

27

Hanks, J.
Involving Everyone in Enhancing Quality of Life in Language Education: Explorations and Insights from Praxis

Tajino, A., Stewart, T., & Dalsky, D. (Eds.). (2016). Team Teaching and Team Learning in the
Language Classroom: Collaboration for innovation in ELT. Abingdon: Routledge.
Ushioda, E. (2016). Language learning motivation through a small lens: A research agenda.
Language Teaching., 49(4), 564-577. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice:
Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching Lived Experience: Human science for an action sensitive
pedagogy. New York: State University of New York Press.
Wyatt, M., Burns, A., & Hanks, J. (2016). Teacher/practitioner research: Reflections on an
online discussion. TESL-EJ http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume20/ej77/ej77int/, 20(1), 1-22.
Wyatt, M., & Dikilitaş, K. (2015). English language teachers becoming more efficacious
through research engagement at their Turkish university. Educational Action
Research, 24(4), 550-570.
Yoshida, T., Imai, H., Nakata, Y., Tajino, A., Takeuchi, O. & Tamai, K. (Eds.). (2009).
Researching language teaching and learning: An integration of practice and theory.
Bern: Peter Lang.
Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner Research. In V. Richardson (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Teaching (4th ed., pp. 298-330). Washington: American
Educational Research Association.

28

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 29-52

Assuring Quality Learning Outcomes in Primary to Tertiary English
Education in Japan: Focusing on the Notion of Foreign Language
Proficiency1
Nobuya Itagaki
Shokei Gakuin University
Abstract
English education has been criticized in the sense that most Japanese learners of English as aforeign language (hereafter referred to as EFL) have failed to become as proficient in English
as they are supposed to. The question is, however, whether or not this criticism is reasonablegiven the fact that there is little consensus on the notion of foreign language proficiency ofJapanese EFL learners. It is, therefore, of central importance to make clear the notion offoreign language proficiency with regard to Japanese EFL learners. This paper attempts topropose a theoretical model of foreign language proficiency in which several issues could be
discussed both theoretically and practically in connection with the national curriculum ofEnglish education in primary school through tertiary college/university.

Keywords: curriculum of English education, domain-specificity of foreign language
skills, foreign language proficiency

Introduction
There is little consensus on the question of how foreign language proficiency should be
defined in the context of English education in Japan. This question is of central importance,
provided that English education is about to start from grade three in primary school in Japanand most Japanese students are supposed to study English as a foreign language from grade
three through the first or second year of university (a total of 10 -12 years). Therefore, this29

Itagaki, N.
Assuring Quality Learning Outcomes in Primary to Tertiary English Education in Japan:
Focusing on the Notion of Foreign Language Proficiency

paper aims to (a) provide a theoretical framework in which foreign language proficiency,
skills, and expertise can be described and explained; (b) address a natural approach forJapanese EFL learners to become proficient and skillful in English, specifically in terms of
the four basic skills; (c) address the learning difficulties Japanese EFL learners experience inattaining proficiency in English, specifically how to cope with the learning issues associatedwith the “domain specificity” of the four basic language skills and the difference between
spoken and written language; and (d) propose a hypothetical curriculum of English educationfrom grade three through to post-secondary college/university (i.e., about 11-12 years), while
taking into consideration the points argued in (a), (b), and (c).

Foreign Language Proficiency: Knowledge and Control Questions
It has been argued that the notion of language proficiency, competence, or expertise
could be conceived of as “multi-dimensional” (e.g., Bialystok, 1991, Cummings, 1984; Snow,1991). The question is: How many and what dimensions should be assumed to compriselanguage proficiency? This paper takes a cognitive position, specifically using an“information processing model” in the sense of Ellis (2015, p. 175): That is, language
proficiency and language skills could be described and explained in terms of language
knowledge and control of language knowledge (e.g., Anderson, 2015; Bransford, Brown, &Cocking, 1999; Carroll, 2008; Ellis, 2008; McLaughlin & Heredia, 1996).
Following this line of reasoning, Bialystok (1990, 1991, 2001, 2002, 2011) and
Bialystok and Barac (2012) have attempted to describe and explain language proficiency andskills, whether in first, second, or foreign language contexts and whether speakers aremonolingual, bilingual, or trilingual, in terms of two language processing dimensions ofknowledge and control. The knowledge dimension concerns the qualitative and structural
aspects of linguistic knowledge representation; and the control dimension concerns the accessand application of the linguistic knowledge necessary to perform certain language skills (e.g.,
30

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 29-52“oral greetings,” “reading and writing,” and “delivering lectures”) under the condition oflimited cognitive resources of attention. Bialystok (1991) referred to these two processing
components as “analysis of linguistic knowledge” and “control of linguistic processing,”
respectively (p. 116).
Bialystok (2001) goes on to define the notion of language proficiency as “the ability tofunction in a situation that is defined by specific cognitive and linguistic demands, to a levelof performance indicated by either objective criteria or normative standards” (p. 18). To be
more specific, the “cognitive and linguistic demands” means how much “analyzed
knowledge” of the target language and how much “control” of the knowledge language
learners are supposed to attain to perform particular language skills or tasks (e.g., greetings,
everyday conversation, reading and writing poetry, delivering lectures, and so on). In otherwords, the notion of language proficiency, competence, or expertise should be conceptualized
as the intersection of the two language processing dimensions, “analysis of knowledge” and“control of knowledge.” Furthermore, Bialystok (2001) attempts to explain gains in language
proficiency as follows: “The two processing components are considered to be the mechanisms
by which language proficiency improves through age, experience, and instruction. They arealso the mechanisms which are responsible for a language learner’s ability to carry out
various language functions” (p. 116).
In short, the author argues that language proficiency has two fundamental questions: the“knowledge question” of what kinds of knowledge underlie language usage and the “control
question” of how language knowledge is used and controlled. This view is clearly manifested
in Bialystok’s two-dimensional conceptualization of language proficiency and skills (also see
Roehr-Brackin, 2018). The next question is how the two-dimensional model of language
competence can be applied to the description and explanation of English proficiency ofJapanese EFL learners.

31

Itagaki, N.
Assuring Quality Learning Outcomes in Primary to Tertiary English Education in Japan:
Focusing on the Notion of Foreign Language Proficiency

Two-Dimensional Model of Language Proficiency of Japanese EFL Learners
This paper aims to provide a theoretical framework for the description of language use
and proficiency of Japanese EFL learners, following Bialystok’s (1991, 2001) twodimensional model of language proficiency, command, and expertise and Ellis’ (2008) fourtype representations of second language knowledge2. The framework is composed of two
vertical and horizontal axes and the vertical and horizontal axes represent the knowledge
component and the control (or process) aspect of language use and proficiency of Japanese
EFL learners. More specifically, the X (horizontal) and Y (vertical) axes indicate thequalitative shift or change of knowledge representation and the automaticity of the access anduse of the knowledge, respectively (see Figure 1)3. This paper is exclusively concerned withthe knowledge question (i.e., the X axis), providing a theoretical framework in which
language use and proficiency of Japanese EFL learners could be explained4.
The question is then how to conceptualize knowledge representation in connection withJapanese EFL learners. In the literature of cognitive psychology and second language
acquisition, the following notions of language knowledge have been proposed:(a) “declarative knowledge” and “procedural knowledge” (Anderson, 2000, 2015;
DeKeyser, 2017);(b) “unanalyzed knowledge” and “analyzed knowledge” (Bialystok, 1991, 2001);(c) “implicit knowledge” and “explicit knowledge” (Ellis, 2008, 2015; Itagaki, 2003);(d) “acquired knowledge” and “learned knowledge” (Krashen, 1982, 1985);(e) “development of metalinguistic awareness” (Itagaki, 2003; Itagaki, Sugiyama &Kubota, 2003; Roehr-Brackin, 2018; Suzuki & Itagaki, 2007); and(f) “formula-based knowledge” and “rule-based knowledge” (Itagaki, 2017; Skehan,
1998; Wray, 2002, 2008).
These notions are based on different theoretical assumptions of knowledge and memory(Squire, 1987, 1992). The question is this: Which could be most applicable for the32

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 29-52

descriptions and explanations of the language proficiency and skills of Japanese EFL
learners? In this paper, I argue that the notion of formula-based and rule-based knowledge
should be more relevant to the conceptualization of knowledge of Japanese EFL learners thanthe others5.

Foreign Language Proficiency: From Formula-Based to Rule-Based Knowledge
It is possible to assume that the knowledge representation of Japanese EFL learners
would advance from less structured, conscious, formal, and abstract to more structured,conscious, formal, and abstract (Anderson, 2015; Bialystok, 2001; Ellis, 2008, 2015). Thisdevelopmental shift could be characterized as an umbrella notion of “from less elaborated tomore elaborated.” Turning to the above notions of language knowledge, the notion of“formula-based” and “rule-based” knowledge can be judged to be more applicable, comparedwith others, for the description of the knowledge development of Japanese EFL learners. Thatis, the formula-based and the rule-based knowledge can be assumed to be less and more,
respectively, elaborated in that the former is less structurally, consciously, formally, andabstractly represented knowledge than the latter. Some examples will be described later.
Following this line of reasoning, the X (horizontal) axis represents the knowledge
elaboration continuum, that is, from formula-based to rule-based knowledge of Japanese EFL
learners (see Figure 1). More importantly, language knowledge of EFL learners should beassumed to be a knowledge complex of formula-based and rule-based knowledge, withproportions depending on language development. In other words, the knowledge
representation of Japanese EFL learners is a mixture of partially formula-based and partiallyrule-based knowledge. Primary school EFL learners, compared with secondary school EFL
learners, can be characterized as relying on far more formula-based language knowledge andsecondary school EFL learners will have gradually acquired rule-based knowledge in addition
to formula-based knowledge (Bialystok, 1991, 2001; Ellis, 2008, 2015; Reber, 1967).
33

Itagaki, N.
Assuring Quality Learning Outcomes in Primary to Tertiary English Education in Japan:
Focusing on the Notion of Foreign Language Proficiency

The question is why these two basic types of knowledge representation, formula-based
and rule-based, needs to be assumed in Japanese EFL learners6. First, some foreign/second
language learners can comprehend and say “I like dogs,” even though they are not aware of
the grammatical structures of “subject,” “verb,” “object,” and “subject + verb + object.” Inother words, their language knowledge should be considered to be implicit rather than
explicit, suggesting that their language knowledge should be claimed to be formula-based(e.g., “I like + dogs / animals / cats and dogs / pizza / apples …”) rather than rule-based (e.g.,subject + verb + object, subject → “I / he / she ...,” verb → “like / love / feed / …, object →dogs / cats / apples …” …) (Bialystok, 2011; Ellis, 2008, 2015). Second, formula-based
expressions are characteristic of very beginning language learners, whether foreign or second(Ellis, 2015; Hakuta, 1976). Third, formula-based teaching and learning are necessary in thatgrammar structures are sometimes beyond explicit teaching and learning. In other words,
some grammar rules such as the use of articles are simply too complicated to teach and learn
in an explicit manner (Ellis, 2008, 2015). Fourth, a first step in socio-cultural communication
is simply to expand a speaker’s repertoire of expressions by learning formulaic chunks (Wray,
2008). Fifth, one has formula-based as well as rule-based learning mechanisms and theselearning processes are basically consistent with the notion of “holistic processing” and“analytic processing” in the sense of Wray (2008, p. 14) and “exemplar-based learning” and“structure-based learning” in the sense of Skehan (1998, p. 53)7. Given these lines ofreasoning, it is plausible to assume formula-based and rule-based knowledge to underlie
language proficiency of Japanese EFL learners as shown in the X axis of Figure 1.
Another question is how formula-based knowledge could be turned into rule-basedknowledge. Formulaic expressions need to be analyzed into grammatical rules, if necessary,
which is a major part of language proficiency development. This paper suggests that inaddition to explicit grammar teaching, cognitive processes such as “analogy,”“generalization,” and “abstraction” may play major roles in analyzing formulaic units to34

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 29-52

create grammatical rules; that is, an elaboration process of “from formula-based to rule-basedknowledge representation” (Anderson, 2000, 2015; Tomasello, 2000; Wray, 2002, 2008).

Natural development of Foreign Language Skills
There is no doubt that some language skills take longer to learn than others. Some foreign(and second) language learners never learn to read (and write) in the target language, eventhough they do not have problems with basic oral conversation; the opposite can also occur.
This is particularly true for foreign language learning, less true for second language and leasttrue for L1 acquisition (e.g., Bialystok, 1991, 200; Ellis, 2008, 2015; Roehr-Brackin, 2018). It
is important to make clear that the four basic foreign language skills, oral and written skills,
and metalinguistic skills should not be considered to be equally easy or difficult to learn. This
paper addresses the following questions: (a) As in L1 acquisition, is it possible for Japanese
EFL learners to acquire English skills in the order of “from everyday conversational throughliterate (reading and writing) to metalinguistic skills”? and (b) Does learning basic
conversational skills necessarily guarantee that a learner will be able to learn to read or write
the target foreign language and vice versa?
It has been argued that first language syntactic competence is generally acquired prior to
primary school education (i.e., at the age of around six or seven) (Lenneberg, 1967; Harley,2014). Through school education, specifically L1 subject classes, children learn to read andwrite, hopefully acquiring metalinguistic skills. Thanks to school education, one is in generalcapable of acquiring L1 skills of conversational through literate to metalinguistic skills (e.g.,
Bialystok, 1991, 2001; Roehr-Brackin, 2018). This is not usually the case, however, for secondand especially for foreign language learning (e.g., Ellis, 2008, 2015).
Based on these considerations, I propose the notion of “natural development of language
skills,” presented in Figure 18. Everyday conversational skills can usually be performed on thebasis of a lower level of elaborated knowledge (i.e., mainly formula-based) and control
35

Itagaki, N.
Assuring Quality Learning Outcomes in Primary to Tertiary English Education in Japan:
Focusing on the Notion of Foreign Language Proficiency

processes; reading and writing skills basically need a higher level of elaborated knowledge (i.e.,a complex of formula-based and rule-based knowledge) and control processes; andmetalinguistic skills (e.g., to revising and accounting for grammatical errors) should be basedon much higher levels of elaborated knowledge (i.e., mainly rule-based) and automatized
control processes which can retrieve and use appropriate grammatical knowledge. This “naturaldevelopment of foreign language skills” is indicated by the diagonal line in the Figure 1.

Natural Development of
Foreign Language Skills
High Automaticity
Writing

Low

ReadingHigh
Elaboration

Elaboration

Metalinguistic Skills(e.g., “haiku,” “poetry,”“debates,” “translation,”
Basic Everyday Conversation

Low Automaticity“oratory,” and so on.)Figure 1. Natural development of foreign language skills

Independence and Learning “Walls” Among Foreign Language Skills
As stated earlier, the natural development of four language skills is in general the casefor first language acquisition, but not necessarily the case for second language acquisition andparticularly for foreign language learning. These phenomena should be discussed inassociation with the “domain specificity,” “transfer,” or “transfer appropriateness processing”
36

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 29-52

of cognitive skills (e.g., Anderson, 2000, 2015; Ellis & Shintani, 2015; Morris, Bransford, &Franks, 1977).
It is highly conceivable for Japanese EFL learners to learn everyday conversational
skills but not reading and writing skills of formal documents or vice versa. Similarly, we musthave come across the following cases of learning English as a foreign language:(a) At some fast food shops, some individuals can orally order what they want to eat
although they are unable to read the menu;(b) Other individuals can read the menus in restaurants, but cannot read articles or
editorials of English newspapers and school textbooks;(c) Some people can read school and college textbooks, but they cannot write research
papers or term papers;(d) Some people are able to understand lectures at school and college, but they would
have tremendous difficulty chatting (i.e., small talk) with friends over a cup ofcoffee;and(e) Some people can enjoy chatting with friends, but would not be able to follow
lectures at school and college.
These examples lead to the following two premises on which the discussions below are
based:(a) “Independence” among foreign language skills (domain-specificity of cognitive
skills): Each foreign language skill is of different ease or difficulty to learn in thesense that each skill is based on each different level of elaborated knowledge (i.e.,the X axis) and automatized control (i.e., the Y axis) of the language;(b) “learning walls” among foreign language skills: There is no guarantee thatlearning conversational skills makes it possible to learn to read and write thelanguage and vice versa9. These phenomena of independence and learning walls
37

Itagaki, N.
Assuring Quality Learning Outcomes in Primary to Tertiary English Education in Japan:
Focusing on the Notion of Foreign Language Proficiency

among foreign language skills are shown in Figure 2. The independence andlearning walls should be considered major learning difficulties facing Japanese EFL
learners.

Natural Development ofHigh Automaticity

Foreign Language Skills

Learning“wall”Low

High

Elaboration

Elaboration
Learning“Wall”
Learning“Wall”

Low Automaticity

Figure 2. The independence and “learning walls” among foreign language skills

A Hypothetical Curriculum of English Education in JapanI propose the following five broad groups of foreign language skills on the basis of thetwo-dimensional model of foreign language proficiency, the natural development of language
skills, and the independence and the “learning walls” among language skills:
Oral 1: rudimentary everyday conversational skills, which are part of spoken English.
The Oral 1skills can generally be performed on the basis of a low level of elaborated
knowledge (i.e., exclusively formula-based knowledge) and in either an automatic way (e.g.,“one-word” formulaic chunks such as “How are you?” “I’m fine.” and “Nice to meet you.”)or somewhat non-automatic (or controlled) way (e.g., rather complicated formulas such as “I
38

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 29-52

want to be a musician / nurse / doctor …” and “I study math / English / science … on Monday/ Tuesday / Wednesday / …”) 10. This Oral 1 should be a primary goal of English activities
and education at primary and junior high school (i.e., grades 3 through to 6 and on to 8 or 9)
in Japan.
Reading 1 and Writing 1 (R 1+W 1): reading and writing skills that are linguistically
based on Oral 1 (e.g., reading and writing skills based on Oral 1). Accordingly, the R 1 and W
1 skills should be considered to be linguistically related to basic spoken English, and can be
performed on the basis of formula-based knowledge and a somewhat lower level ofautomaticity of control. It follows that the R 1 and W 1 skills should be a basic goal of
English teaching at primary school (grades 5 and 6) and junior high school (grades 7, 8, and
9) in Japan.
Reading 2 (R 2): reading skills as a major part of written English (e.g., reading
newspaper articles, scientific reports, and so on) which are linguistically beyond the R 1
described above11. These R 2 skills are performed on the basis of an intermediate level ofelaborated knowledge (i.e., both formula-based and rule-based knowledge) and automaticity
of control. Developing the R 2 skills is usually a goal of English teaching at high school andpostsecondary school (possibly from around grade 9 through to college).
Writing 2 (W 2): writing skills as a major part of written English (e.g., writing
critical/argumentative reports, research reports, and so on) which are linguistically beyond theW 1 mentioned above. The W 2 skills are performed on the basis of an intermediate level ofelaborated knowledge (i.e., both formula-based and rule-based) and automaticity of control.
Strengthening the W 2 skills should be a goal of English teaching at high school andpostsecondary school (possibly from around grade 9 through to college).
Oral 2: most advanced oral skills which orators and eloquent speakers or lecturers musthave mastered (including persuasive debates and discussions). This paper also assumes that
Oral 2 is linguistically based on R 2 and W 2 in the sense that, compared with other skills,
39

Itagaki, N.
Assuring Quality Learning Outcomes in Primary to Tertiary English Education in Japan:
Focusing on the Notion of Foreign Language Proficiency

Oral 2 is performed on the basis of a much higher level of elaborated knowledge (i.e., notonly formula-based but also rule-based knowledge including pragmatic and metalinguistic
rules) and automaticity of control. In other words, Oral 2 might be the most difficult language
skill to learn. Accordingly, Oral 2 skills should be an ultimate goal of English education atsenior high school and college (presumably from grade 10 through to postsecondary
students).
It is also important to note the following dependency and independency among the five
types of foreign language skills:
dependence relationships: Oral 1 – (R 1 and W1), R 2 – W 2, and (R 2 and W 2) –Oral 2 in which the former should be considered to a kind of prerequisite for the latter.
independence relationships: Oral 1 – (R 2 and W 2), R 2 – W 2, Oral 1 – Oral 2 inwhich learning the former does not necessarily lead to learning the latter.
Another aspect of these five types of foreign language skills concerns the question ofwhether skills are “natural” or “problematic” (in the sense of Bereiter and Scadamalia, 1987,
p. 4) ones. The former skills are generally acquired through ordinary living or experiences,including classrooms, while the latter takes a long time and sustainable efforts (it could takeover 10 years) to learn. The Oral 1, R1 and W 1 skills could fall into the “natural ability” with
the R 2, W 2, and Oral 2 skills as “problematic ability.” (also see Cummins, 1984, 1986)
Figure 3 presents the natural development of the five types of foreign language skills asa hypothetical curriculum of English education for Japanese EFL learners.

40

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 29-52

Oral 1
Oral 1→ (R 1 + W 1)

from spoken“Natural Ability”

to written

Oral 1→ (R 1 + W 1) → R 2
1tahurOral 1

Oral 1→ (R 1 + W 1) → R 2 → W 2
Oral 1→ (R 1 + W 1) → R 2 → W 2 → Oral 2“Problematic Ability”
Oral 1

Knowledge (Elaboration of Knowledge) andPractice (Automaticity of Control)

Figure 3. A Hypothetical Curriculum of English Education in Japan (“→” indicates that theformer should be a prerequisite for the latter.)Let us to summarize the hypothetical curriculum of English education in Japan from thefollowing four perspectives: (a) teaching goal (i.e., which type of language skills to teach andlearn), (b) language knowledge (formula-based and/or rule-based), (c) teaching and learning
style (implicit and/or explicit)12, and (d) language creativity (formula-based and/or rulebased)13.
Grades 3 and 4(one 45-minute lesson a week and a total of 35 lessons a year)(a) goal: Oral 1;(b) language knowledge: formula-based knowledge dominant;(c) teaching and learning style: implicit teaching based on and learning from participating inand experiencing English activities as formula-based knowledge;(d) creativity: formula-based creativity by manipulating formulas in a creative way.
41

Itagaki, N.
Assuring Quality Learning Outcomes in Primary to Tertiary English Education in Japan:
Focusing on the Notion of Foreign Language Proficiency

Grades 5 and 6(two 45-minute lessons a week and a total of 70 lessons a year)(a) goal: Oral 1  (R 1 + W 1);(b) language knowledge: formula-based knowledge dominant;(c) teaching and learning style: implicit, as formula-based knowledge, teaching based on andlearning from participating in and experiencing English activities including very basic
reading and writing as well as Oral 1;(d) creativity: formula-based creativity by manipulating formulas in a creative way.
Grade 7 (first year of junior high school)(four 50-minute lessons a week and a total of 140 lessons a year)(a) goal: Oral 1  (R 1 + W 1);(b) language knowledge: largely formula-based but also a very early stage of rule-basedknowledge focused on basic grammar rules of this stage;(c) teaching and learning style: mainly implicit teaching and learning as formula-basedknowledge but also, if necessary, explicit teaching and learning of a very basic grammar
rules as rule-based knowledge;(d) creativity: mainly formula-based and slightly rule-based creativity.
Grades 8 and 9 (second and third years of junior high school)(four 50-minute lessons a week and a total of 140 lessons a year)(a) goal: Oral 1  (R 1 + W 1)  R 2;(b) language knowledge: still largely formula-based but also somewhat rule-based knowledge
focused on basic grammar rules of this stage;(c) teaching and learning style: still mainly implicit teaching and learning as formula-basedknowledge but also, step by step, explicit teaching and learning of basic grammar rules asrule-based knowledge;(d) creativity: both formula-based and rule-based creativity.
42

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 29-52

Grades 10, 11, and 12 (senior high school)(six-eight 50-minute lessons a week and a total of 210-280 lessons a year)(a) goal: Oral 1  (R 1 + W 1)  R 2  W 2  Oral 2;(b) language knowledge: a mixture of formula-based and rule-based knowledge;(c) teaching and learning style: both implicit teaching and learning as formula-basedknowledge and explicit teaching and learning of somewhat advanced grammar rules asrule-based knowledge;(d) creativity: both formula-based and rule-based creativity.
The First and Second Years of College(in general two 90-minute lessons a week and a total of 60 lessons a year)(a) goal: Oral 1  (R 1 + W 1)  R 2  W 2  Oral 2;(b) language knowledge: a mixture of formula-based and rule-based knowledge and hopefully
rule-based knowledge should be much larger than those of grades 7 through to 12
students;(c) teaching and learning style: both implicit teaching and learning as formula-basedknowledge and explicit teaching and learning of advanced grammar rules as rule-basedknowledge;(d) creativity: both formula-based and rule-based creativity and hopefully rule-based
creativity should be much greater than those of primary and secondary school students;

Concluding Remarks
As stated earlier, English education has been strongly criticized in Japan. It is also truethat some Japanese EFL students have failed to develop a sufficient command of English. To
be honest, most of the criticisms do not seem to be constructive and helpful. It is not possible,
however, to identify the answers to the problems with English education in Japan and how it
should be improved unless we have a more reasonable conceptualization of foreign, not
43Itagaki, N.
Assuring Quality Learning Outcomes in Primary to Tertiary English Education in Japan:
Focusing on the Notion of Foreign Language Proficiency

second, language proficiency from the perspective of English education in Japan. In thisrespect, I do hope that this paper will provide some insights into the notion of proficiency ofJapanese EFL students.

Notes
1. This paper is a written summary of a plenary presentation delivered at the 2018 JACET
Convention. The content of the paper is also a revised and expanded version of Itagaki (2002,
2005, 2011, 2017).
2. Ellis (2008) does not make a clear distinction between knowledge and process. He argues
that second language knowledge should be conceptualized with reference to the following two
aspects of language knowledge: “implicit” versus “explicit” and “controlled” versus“automatic” which, he claims, are inherent characteristics of language knowledge. It is clear,
however, that the former refers to qualitative aspects of language knowledge while the latter
indicates how automatically language knowledge can be accessed and used. It is possible,
therefore, to assume that Ellis’s four-type of knowledge representations could be interpreted
as a kind of two-dimensional model of language learning and proficiency.
3. Cummins (1984, 1986) and Snow (1991) also proposed their own dimensional models of
language proficiency and command. Cummins (1986) attempted to explain the notion of
language proficiency from the perspective of the relationship between language and thought,
specifically two dimensions of “context-embedded or reduced” and “cognitively demandingor undemanding.” However, the relationship between language and thought would be too
broad to describe each specific language use and skill. Snow attempted to define the notion of
proficiency in terms of three task-related dimensions of “background knowledge (e.g., shared
or not shared),” “information load (e.g., simple or complex),” and “audience (e.g., present or
distant).” Although task complexity and performance would be explained in terms of the three
dimensions, the question of how the model explains the language proficiency development
44

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 29-52

from everyday oral conversational through literal to advanced oral tasks remains to beanswered.
4. There is a broad consensus on the issue of how the automaticity of the access and use of theknowledge could be achieved. This issue has two basic questions: How much time would
language skills take to acquire and how one is supposed to practice language skills? In regard
to the latter, Ericsson (2003) proposed the notion of “deliberate practice” which plays acrucial role in acquiring cognitive skills. The deliberate practice is basically composed ofthree types of cognitive processes, “learning,” “performance,” and “metacognitive.” For moredetails, see Ericsson (2003) and Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer (1993).
5. The notion of “formula-based” and “rule-based” knowledge representations can beconceived to be more inclusive than others in that formula-based knowledge are more “nondeclarative,” “unanalyzed,” “implicit,” and “non-metalinguistic” than rule-based one. It canbe argued that foreign (and second) language knowledge could be assumed to be a complex ofthese two basic types of knowledge (Ellis, 1994, 2008, 2015; Shaken, 1998; Reber, Allen &Reber, 1999).
6. Several terms and definitions have been proposed. I decided to use the term “formula” or“formulaic expressions” and as its definition, to follow Wray (2008, p. 12): “a word or word
string, whether incomplete or including gaps for inserted variable items, that is processed likea morpheme, that is, without recourse to any form-meaning of any sub-parts it may have. …
the mental lexicon contains not only morphemes and words but also many multiword strings[formulas], including some that are partly lexicalized frames with slots for variable material,
treated as if they were single morphemes.” In addition, I defines the notion of formula-basedknowledge as “implicit” in the sense that EFL learners are neither aware of nor explicitly
taught their grammatical structures.

45

Itagaki, N.
Assuring Quality Learning Outcomes in Primary to Tertiary English Education in Japan:
Focusing on the Notion of Foreign Language Proficiency

7. In this respect, Skehan (1998, p. 53) and Ellis (2008, 2015) proposed two independent
learning processes of “a dual-mode system,” whereby one can process and learn both
exemplars and a rule system as language knowledge (also see Anderson, 2000; Harley, 2014).
8. In this paper, basic conversation can be claimed to be learned before reading and writing
skills in the sense that the former requires lower levels of knowledge elaboration and control
processes than the latter. Likewise, spoken language is in general mastered before written
language and metalinguistic skills such as “composing poetry.” In addition, the term of“natural development of language skills” was not specifically used in Bialystok (1991,2011). I opted to use this term, but the term of “natural” is not based on the “nativist view”
of language acquisition.
9. The term “learning wall” may be similar to the notion of “fossilization” in the sense that at
a certain point, language learners will not make any further discernable progress. The notionof “learning walls” is proposed, however, from a cognitive perspective of the twodimensional model of proficiency of foreign language: That is, each different language skill
can be performed on the basis of each different level of elaborated knowledge andautomaticity of control. For example, “oral chatting,” “reading and writing,” and“simultaneous interpretation” would be based on lower, middle, and higher levels ofelaborated knowledge and automatized control of knowledge, respectively. Even though alearner may be very good in chatting, he or she may fail to learn to read and write formal
documents; or vice versa. This discontinuity is what the “learning walls” are intended tomean.
10. There are no decisive criteria, however, for judging whether utterances and sentences areformula-based or rule-based (Ellis, 2008, 2015). As far as Japanese EFL learners at grades 3
through to 6 (possibly 9) are concerned, two types of formulaic expressions are of relevance:(a) “routines which are totally unanalysed units and learned as wholes” (Ellis, 2015, p. 81)
and (b) “patterns, which consists of a chunk with one or more open slots” (Ellis, 2015, p. 81).
46

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 29-52

I chose to focus on these two types of formulaic expressions (i.e., “routines” and “patterns”),
whereby Oral 1 skills could be described and explained (also see Hornby, 1975; Pawley &Syder, 1993; Yamaoka, 2006).
11. The distinction between spoken and written English is not based on any theoreticalbackground. I simply assumes that written language is linguistically more formal andcomplicated in terms of both vocabulary and sentence structures. It follows that spoken
language is more formula-based and less rule-based than written language, which is consistent
with the two-dimensional model of foreign language proficiency described earlier.
12. Formulaic expressions, whether “routines” or “patterns,” can be assumed to be part of
implicit knowledge in the sense that, although learners are not aware of their grammaticalstructures, they can easily access and use them (Ellis, 2008, 2015). On the other hand, rulebased knowledge is usually a result of explicit teaching and learning of each grammar rule.
13. I claim that language creativity can be either formula-based or rule-based in the sense thatutterances or sentences are made by manipulating formulas or grammar rules in a creative
way. The “creative way” here includes the case where the same expressions are used indifferent contexts or situations, as well as the case where novel expressions are produced bymanipulating formulas such as routines or patterns and grammar rules. It must be admitted,
however, that in reality, it is quite difficult to distinguish between formula-based and rulebased creativity, depending on how much each utterance or sentence depends on either
formula-based or rule-based knowledge (Wray, 2002, 2008).

References
Anderson, J. R. (2000). Learning and memory (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Anderson, J. R. (2015). Cognitive psychology and its implications (8th ed.). New York:Worth Publishers.

47

Itagaki, N.
Assuring Quality Learning Outcomes in Primary to Tertiary English Education in Japan:
Focusing on the Notion of Foreign Language Proficiency

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second language use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bialystok, E. (1991). Metalinguistic dimensions of bilingual language proficiency. In E.
Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 113-140). Cambridge
University Press.
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bialystok, E. (2002). Cognitive processes of L2 users. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2
user (pp. 147-165). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Bialystok, E. (2011). How analysis and control lead to advantages and disadvantages inbilingual processing. In C. Sanz & R. P. Leown (Eds.), Implicit and explicit language
learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 49-58).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Bialystok E., & Barac R. (2012). Cognitive effects. In F. Grosjean & P. Li (Eds.), The
psycholinguistics of bilingualism (pp. 192-213). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Carroll, D. W. (2008). Psychology of language (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher
Education.
Cummins, J. (1984). Language proficiency, bilingualism and academic achievement. In J.
Cummins (Ed.), Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment andpedagogy (pp. 130-151). San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.

48

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 29-52

Cummins, J. (1986). Language proficiency and academic achievement. In J. Cummins & M.
Swain (Eds.), Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research and practice (pp.
138-161). London: Longman.
DeKeyer, R. (2017). Knowledge and skill in ISLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 15-32). New York:
Routledge.
Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit
and explicit learning of languages (pp. 79-114). New York: Academic Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2015). Exploring language pedagogy through second language
acquisition research. London: Routledge.
Ericsson, K. A. (2003). The acquisition of expert performance as problem solving. In J. E.
Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 31-83).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice inthe acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406.
Hakuta K. (1976). Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language
acquisition. Language Learning, 26, 284-297.
Harley, T. A. (2014). The psychology of language: From data to theory (4th ed.). New York:
Psychology Press.
Hornby, A. S. (1975). Guide to patterns and usage in English (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

49

Itagaki, N.
Assuring Quality Learning Outcomes in Primary to Tertiary English Education in Japan:
Focusing on the Notion of Foreign Language Proficiency

Itagaki, N. (2002). Ninchishinrigaku to eigokyoiku: Gengochishiki no giron to shite[Cognitive psychology and English teaching]. Proceedings of the 56th Conference, 105110.
Itagaki, N. (2003). Meijitekichishiki to anjitekichishiki no jissyoutekikenkyuu:
Bunpouchishiki no rironka to bunpousidou no kanten kara [An empirical study of
explicit and implicit knowledge: Conceptualization of grammatical knowledge andgrammar teaching]. Miyagi kyouikudaigaku gaikokugo kenkyuu ronshyuu [Papers ofForeign Language Studies at Miyagi University of Education], 3, 45-56.
Itagaki, N. (2005). Eigojissengaku no tame no eigo jyukutatsuka riron: Bialystok (1991,
2001) no gengonouryoku jukutatsuka riron ni tsuite [On the notion of English language
proficiency as a part of foreign language pedagogy]. Matsuhata Kinichi sensei taikan
kinen iinkai (Ed.). Eigokyouikujissengaku [Foreign language pedagogy].
Itagaki, N. (2011). Eigonouryoku no rironka to jukutatsuka: Syouchuukou no eigokyouiku no
kisoriron to shite [On the conceptualization of English language proficiency: A basic
theory of English teaching at primary through high school to tertiary college]. Miyagi
kyouikudaigaku gaikokugo kenkyuu ronshyuu [Papers of Foreign Language Studies at
Miyagi University of Education], 6, (31-45).
Itagaki, N. (2017). Syoutyuukoutougakkou no eigokyouiku no setsuzoku: Teikei hyougen
izongata unyounouryoku kara bunpou izongata unyounouryoku [On the continuity ofEnglish education from primary through high school to tertiary college]. Miyagi kyoiku
daigaku gaikokugo kenkyuu ronshyuu [Papers of Foreign Language Studies at Miyagi
University of Education], 9, 21-31.
Itagaki, N., Sugiyama, M., & Kubota, Y. (2003). Analysis of metalinguistic talk in grammar
exercises: On the basis of the theoretical framework of the output hypothesis. ARELE:
Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 14, 31-40

50

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 29-52

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985), The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.
McLaughin, B., & Heredia, R. (1996). Information processing approaches to research on
second language acquisition and use. In W. C. Ritchie & T. J. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbookof second language acquisition (pp. 213-228). New York: Academic Press.
Morris, M., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer
appropriate and physical events. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16,519-533.
Pawley, A., & Syder, H. F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection
and nativelike fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language andcommunication (pp. 191-226). London: Longman.
Reber, A. S., Allen, R., & Reber, P. J. (1999). Implicit versus explicit learning. In R. J.
Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of cognition (pp. 475-513). Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Roehr-Brackin, K. (2018). Metalinguistic awareness and second language acquisition.
London: Routledge.
Skehan, P. (1998). Cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Snow, C. E. (1991). Language proficiency: Towards a definition. In G. Appel & H. W.
Dechert (Eds). A case for psycholinguistics cases (pp. 63-89). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Squire, L. R. (1987). Memory and brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Squire, L. R. (1992). Declarative and nondeclarative memory: Multiple brain systems
supporting learning and memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 4, 232-243.
51

Itagaki, N.
Assuring Quality Learning Outcomes in Primary to Tertiary English Education in Japan:
Focusing on the Notion of Foreign Language Proficiency

Suzuki, W., & Itagaki, N. (2007). Learner metalinguistic reflections following output-oriented
and reflective activities. Language Awareness,16, 131-146
Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74,
209-253.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Yamaoka, T. (2006). On the importance of imitation and repetition in foreign language
learning. ARELE, 17, 1-10.

52

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 53-68

Preparing our Students for a Rapidly Evolving World
Judy Noguchi
Kobe Gakuin University (Professor emerita)
Abstract
The ability to communicate via a lingua franca has never been as important as it is today. The
number of English users is estimated to be about 1.5 billion, while those using it as a native
language amount to less than 400 million. Thus, interactions using English are likely to occur
among ELF (English as a lingua franca) users. As language educators, how can we prepare
our students for such real-life situations? Another factor that cannot be ignored in thelanguage classroom today is our rapidly evolving global society, which is undergoing what
has been called the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This brings to the fore two other issues:
what will our students need for jobs in the 21st century and how do we work with Generation
Z students who are digital natives. This paper will try to suggest answers to the threequestions of how to prepare students to master the English that they will need for life in the
21st century, how to motivate the generation of students in universities today, and how todecide on what kind of English to teach.

Keywords: English as a lingua franca, English for specific purposes, discourse
community, genre, corpus linguistics

Introduction
The world is changing and we have entered the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Schwab,2016). In the First, humans harnessed water and steam power, and in the Second, began using
electric power. The Third ushered in a digital age from around 1990 (Baldwin, 2018). The
Fourth is predicted to converge physical, digital and biological worlds. The term was used in2016 at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Professor Klaus
53

Noguchi, J.
Preparing our Students for a Rapidly Evolving World

Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum (2016) states(emphasis mine):

This Fourth Industrial Revolution is, however, fundamentally different. It ischaracterized by a range of new technologies that are fusing the physical, digital andbiological worlds, impacting all disciplines, economies and industries, and evenchallenging ideas about what it means to be human.

In Japan, the Cabinet Office (2014) announced its vision for Society 5.0 in which theInternet of Things will connect people and things and there will be advances in technology tohelp overcome social issues and free humans from toilsome work. The current informationsociety has begun to use cloud computing technologies but it still relies on people toindividually access cyberspace by themselves. Society 5.0 is predicted to herald aconvergence of cyberspace and physical space with sensors automatically accessing artificial
intelligence systems in cyberspace to automatically make optimal choices, for example, in
automatic driving systems or automated factories.
The question thus arises of how can we prepare our students to deal with such a rapidlychanging world. The World Economic Forum (2016:3) reports that

By one popular estimate 65% of children entering primary schools today will ultimately
work in new job types and functions that currently don’t yet exist. Technological trends
such as the Fourth Industrial Revolution will create many new cross-functional roles forwhich employees will need both technical and social and analytical skills.

On a more positive note, Manyika (2016) notes that

54

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 53-68

A 2011 study by McKinsey’s Paris office found that the Internet had destroyed 500,000
jobs in France in the previous 15 years—but at the same time had created 1.2 million
others, a net addition of 700,000, or 2.4 jobs created for every job destroyed. (p. 3)

Thus, technological advances do not necessarily mean that there will be fewer jobs but that
there will be new jobs that we at present do not know about.
To prepare for education in the 21st century, The Partnership for 21st Century Learning
was founded in the United States in 2001 by a coalition of people from business, educationand policymaking (“The Partnership for 21st Century Learning” ). The coalition includes the
U.S. Department of Education and organizations such as AOL Time Warner Foundation,
Apple Computer, Inc., and Microsoft Corporation Learning and Innovation Skills. They
proposed The P21 Framework for 21st Century Learning which identifies three areas ofimportant skills: life and career skills, learning and innovation skills (4Cs of critical thinking,communication, collaboration and creativity), and information, media and technology skills.
These skills are supported by knowledge of key subjects as well as 21st century themes, suchas global awareness and literacy in financial, civic, health and environmental topics. Whatmost concerns those of us in English language teaching is the fostering of communication
skills in our students.

English education in Japan
In a globally connected world, having a common language is essential for communication
with people from other countries. As English is the current lingua franca, let us now consider
the situation of English education in Japan, which is offered from elementary school to upper
secondary school as part of the compulsory education system (MEXT, 2014). The former
president of the JACET (Japan Association of College English Teachers), Jimbo (2012) notedthat there are two pillars of English education at the tertiary level: English as a liberal arts
55

Noguchi, J.
Preparing our Students for a Rapidly Evolving World

subject to foster responsible global citizenship and English for specific purposes as afoundation for communication in specific disciplinary fields. Much effort has been expended
in promoting English education but those teaching English in Japan are confronted with threemajor problems: (1) the students are not meeting target goals, (2) the students in schools today
are of a different generation, with different mindsets, from the instructors, and (3) English as a
lingua franca is difficult to define clearly for teaching purposes.
In April 2018, The Japan Times, an English-language newspaper, ran an article entitled“English proficiency at Japan’s middle and high schools falls far short of government
targets.” These targets were set using tests from the Eiken Foundation of Japan, which are themost widely used in country. Junior high graduates were expected to reach an Eiken Grade 3(A1 on the Common European Framework of Reference, or CEFR) or higher and high school
graduates to achieve Eiken Grade Pre-2 (CEFR A2) or higher. However, only 40.7 percent of
third-year junior high school students attained the target level with the level falling to 39.3
percent for third-year senior high school students.
The second problem arises from the fact that the students in tertiary education today arechildren raised during the Third Industrial Revolution. They have been dubbed by many
names but the one used here will be Generation Z (Chun et al., 2017; Haynes, 2010). They are
digital natives and spend a lot of screen time obtaining information from web sources. They
have a short attention span, which some have called an “acquired attention deficit disorder”(Fudin, 2012). Generation Z displays a stronger reliance on visual forms and expects instantresults and constant feedback (Chun et al., 2017). These students have been told that they are“special,” should be “themselves” and should be “happy.” This contrasts greatly with theirinstructors who are often called Baby Boomers (Haynes, 2010). They were trained to obey
authority, work hard and do their best. The gap between generations is not something new but
the one occurring today is probably wider than those experienced in the past because of therapidity of societal change.
56

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 53-68

The third issue is that of the diversity in what is accepted as “English” today. It is not theAmerican/British native speaker versions but any intelligible form of the language. Thisevident from the new descriptors announced for CEFR in 2018. All notations of “native”
speaker in the 2001 framework have been replaced in various ways to show that if theinteraction is mutually intelligible, it would be acceptable. Here are some examples of thesechanges (CEFR, 2018) (underlining mine):•

Overall Listening Comprehension, C2
Has no difficulty with any kind of spoken language, whether live or broadcast,delivered at fast native speed. à Can understand with ease virtually any kind of
spoken language, whether live or broadcast, delivered at fast natural speed.

•

Understanding conversation between native speakers à Understanding conversation
between other speakers, B2+
Can keep up with an animated conversation between native speakers. àCan keep up with animated conversation between speakers of the target language.

•

Sociolinguistic appropriateness, C2
Appreciates the sociolinguistic and sociocultural implications of language used bynative speakers and can react accordingly. à Appreciates virtually all thesociolinguistic and sociocultural implications of language used by proficient
speakers of the target language and can react accordingly.

While CEFR encompasses all languages, if we focus on English, which is used in many
dialects and varieties, this means that many forms would be acceptable if intelligible among
the interlocutors. This is understandable because of the 1.5 billion speakers of English today,
only about 375 million are native speakers (Myers, 2015). The majority of English users relyon this language to communicate with other non-native English speakers.
57

Noguchi, J.
Preparing our Students for a Rapidly Evolving World

Thus, the questions facing English language educators today are: (1) how can we raise theEnglish ability of our students; (2) how can we work with Generation Z students to preparethem for a world that we do not yet know; (3) how do we decide what kind of English to teachin an ELF world.

The Model 21st Century Language Learner
What is important for language learning in the 21st century? CEFR (Council of Europe,
2018) states the following (underlining mine):

The methodological message of the CEFR is that language learning should be directed
towards enabling learners to act in real-life situations, expressing themselves andaccomplishing tasks of different natures. Thus, the criterion suggested for assessment iscommunicative ability in real life, in relation to a continuum of ability. (p. 27)

Clearly, the aim is to have learners be able to actually use the language to accomplish what
they wish to do. How can this be done? Hunston (2012) characterized the model 21st century
language learner as being motivated, self-directed and informed. Motivation arises whenpeople realize that they are no longer “learners” but active “users” of the language. They
should be self-directed in that they understand what they need to know about the language inorder to attain their goals. The third feature of “being informed” means that they know whattools they can use to aid their efforts at learning the language. How can we as language
teachers have our students become motivated, self-directed and informed users? Here I would
like to suggest that the answers can be found in work that has been done in the field ofEnglish for specific purposes (ESP).

A brief introduction to English for specific purposes (ESP)58

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 53-68

The concept of language being used in various ways for specific purposes has always beenwith us. That is why we use different registers or levels of formality when addressing ourfriends, colleagues or superiors. However, as an academic concept, the development of ESP
can be traced back to the 1960’s when a need for a lingua franca arose in response tointernational business activities (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). Belcher (2004) in “Trends inteaching English for specific purposes” discusses the three major influences shaping ESP as
being sociodiscoursal, sociocultural and sociopolitical. The important point to note here is that
all terms begin with “socio,” indicating that for ESP, “no community, no language.”
The first ESP feature of being sociodiscoursal has a wealth of research starting withconcepts of genre analysis proposed by John Swales in 1990 and 2004. Another form of ESP,New Rhetoric (Bazerman & Paradis, 1991; Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995), arose fromcomposition studies in North America, with a stronger focus on the writers themselves. The
third major approach was from the Systemic-Functional Linguistics work based on the
Sydney School (Halliday 1992; Leckie-Tarry, 1995) which tends to place more emphasis on
the texts themselves. For more information on these movements, the Belcher review (2004) isstrongly recommended. In this paper, I will focus on the genre analysis concepts of Swales(1990, 2004) and show how they can be developed for effective language teaching in various
university situations.
The central ESP concept of “genre” can be defined as a communication event that isrepeatedly used by members of a discourse community composed of people interested inachieving common goals. Communication is essential for these people to discuss, debate
about and coordinate their thoughts and actions to achieve their goals, for example, inbusiness activities or academic research. To raise the efficiency of communication, the genres
develop distinct patterns of rhetoric and lexicogrammar. To delineate the rhetoricalframeworks in texts, Swales (1990) introduced move analysis, while Hyland (2001, 2003),
Cortes (2004) and others have published many papers on lexical bundles, multiword
59

Noguchi, J.
Preparing our Students for a Rapidly Evolving World

expressions and hint expressions that use corpus linguistic methods (McEnery & Hardie,
2012) to identify frequently used lexicogrammatical patterns.
The second ESP feature of sociocultural refers to connections with the discourse
communities in which the language is being used. For example, the work of Lave and Wenger(1991) considers situated learning in which novices are offered scaffolding in their attempts toenter expert communities. Trying to find ways to aid learners has led to much work in English
for academic and occupational purposes. The third socio-political feature of ESP considers
critically examining its effects on discourse (Master, 1998). This includes research on theimplications of the dominant use of English and how this affects speakers of other languages
in gaining a voice in their discourse communities. Work has been done on English as a lingua
franca as well as English has an additional language.

How ESP can help the 21st century language user?
As stated above, the aim is to foster the development of motivated, self-directed andinformed language users. ESP can foster motivation by preparing students to become active
language users in their target discourse communities, whether it be in business, academia orother situated settings. ESP can help students acquire a sense of self-direction by acquiring
genre awareness which can support language learning throughout their lifetime. ESP canshow how to stay informed by using language analysis tools and taking advantage of usefulwebsites and other resources.
Here, let us examine some specific examples. In the first case study, first- and second-year
pharmacy majors (about 60 per class) were given quizzes at the beginning of every class tolearn the technical vocabulary they would need to understand texts in the medical sciences. In
order to raise motivation for what could be a trying task, the ideas, as discussed by Grabe(2009), were very effective: (1) involve students in the choice of texts and tasks, (2) build
student self-confidence to raise their chances for success by providing support to aid students
60

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 53-68

as necessary, (3) create a pleasant and cooperative atmosphere, and (4) generate “flow.” (p.
192) In the first year, the students were given quizzes in which they had to choose technicalterms from a list to complete a sentence such as “She went to the (orthodontist) for braces tocorrect the alignment of her crooked teeth.” In the second year, the students were invited tooffer their own sentences for inclusion in the quizzes. They worked in groups of three to fiveto find words with Greek or Latin affixes in technical terms in the medical sciences and thencreate sentences using these words. The sentences from the groups were edited in class with
explanations. The students were then told to re-examine them in preparation for a quiz using
some of the student-created sentences.
A second example of raising student motivation involved second-year students in liberalarts. The class of about 20 students wrote opinion letters to a reader’s forum in an Englishlanguage newspaper published in Japan. The task entailed a four-week cycle: (1) they worked
in groups to read and analyze the features of the published letters, (2) reported on referencematerials relevant to the topic assigned for the following month, (3) presented their letterdrafts to the group/class for discussion, and (4) turned in a final draft which could also be sent
voluntarily to the newspaper. This task offered a number of benefits. First, it allowed thestudents to deal with whole texts (about 300-word opinion letters) for a real audience. Second,
students were made aware of the features of the published letters: methods of persuasion(reference to authority, examples), organization, length. The third benefit was learning about
how to gather ideas and references, not only from published materials and websites but also
from personal interviews and other innovative options. The students gained self-confidence insharing their information, ideas and texts with others in the class and in getting feedback tohelp them shape their ideas and revise their writing. Those whose letters were actually
published experienced the thrill of seeing their ideas in print.
ESP can support learners in gaining self-direction. Here is an example of fourth-year
students in various science fields who worked with a textbook introducing various genres
61

Noguchi, J.
Preparing our Students for a Rapidly Evolving World

useful for science and technology, ranging from safety rules to lab manuals, science featurearticles and research paper abstracts. Students were told about the OCHA-PAIL approach(Noguchi, 1997, 2003) to understanding genre texts. OCHA is an acronym for observe,classify, hypothesize and apply, and PAIL for grasping the purpose, audience, informationand language features of genre texts. By observing the genre features and classifying them,
students can hypothesize about how they can effectively use them and then apply them fortheir own purposes. For example, as students majoring in sciences should be able to explain
their research to laypeople, learning about the science feature article to introduce cutting edge
research is very useful. Examination of this genre shows that it usually has a catchy title and ahook to capture the interest of the reader in the first sentence or two. More details are thengiven and the article ends with a concluding statement about the impact of the research in ourdaily lives. After understanding the features characterizing a science feature article, thestudents wrote their own articles on topics that interested them in their respective fields.
The third characteristic of a successful 21st century learner is to be informed about how
they can become successful users of the language they wish to acquire. This is where genre
analysis plus corpus linguistic tools are most effective. Noguchi (2003) describes a master’s
degree course in engineering where students learn how to analyze a research article for genre
moves and also practice using concordance software to discover how words and phrases areused to respond to their specific needs. Small-scale personal corpora built for specificpurposes can be useful for focused searches to aid writing in a second language. In a class toteach the writing of the research article, students are instructed to collect articles from
reputable journals in their research field. These are articles that they would most likely bereading to support their own research. How to conduct a genre analysis is explained with thestudents working with articles that they themselves have included in their corpora. Students
are also asked to make a “corpus discovery” by using concordance software with their corpora
to find frequently used expressions or to compare words with similar meanings, for example,
62

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 53-68“conduct/perform/run experiments”; “investigate” and “examine”; “demonstrate” and“show.”
As can be seen from the above examples, ESP offers many ways to motivate learners,
encourage their self-direction and show how they can acquire information to support theirlearning journey.

How can we work with Generation Z students?
The students in universities today are Generation Z people who differ in their perspectives
and expectations from those who teach them. In order to effectively reach them, Haynes(2010) suggests that we assimilate technology, give feedback and coach them, include
students in decision-making processes and expect students to collaborate with each other. The
examples described above show how these suggestions can be realized. When possible,
conducting classes in classrooms with access to computers allows immediate feedback andpromotes instruction on the use of corpora, concordance software and other useful web tools.
When doing genre analyses or choosing texts to work with, students are encouraged to selectmaterials that interest them. Students work in groups to share information and collaborate
with each other. All of this promotes a high level of motivation and self-direction.

What kind of English should we teach?
With English as a lingua franca being accepted over a “native speaker” model, the question
arises of what kind of English should be taught. In considering this, let us turn to research inexperimental social psychology:

Processing fluency, or the subjective experience of ease with which people process
information, reliably influences people’s judgments across a broad range of social
dimensions. (Alter & Oppenheimer, 2009, p. 219)
63

Noguchi, J.
Preparing our Students for a Rapidly Evolving World

While some may argue that the genre analysis approach and encouraging the use of frequently
used expressions to present moves in genre texts can stifle creativity, in ESP, the creativity is
not in the wording but in the ideas that are being presented. Dressen-Hammouda (2008) in
describing how novices attain expertise in their disciplines states:…it is argued that genre-based courses should also include instruction about both the target
discipline's specialist knowledge frames as well as the implicit cues that help readers andwriters reconstruct them. (p. 233)

For those wondering about “nativeness,” Tribble (2017) opines:

I would…hold that a focus on expertise in academic communication liberates the EAPWI(English for academic purposes writing instruction) teacher from a false dependence on (orinsecurity in relation to) nativeness, and makes possible the development of teaching
programmes which will provide practical, timely and effective means for supporting ourstudents' development as academic writers. (p. 40)

Conclusion
This paper, based on a plenary address given at the 57th JACET International Convention,
has pointed out the rapid changes occurring in society today and the importance of a lingua
franca for communication with people around the world. The problems facing English
education in Japan include the ineffectiveness of the system that has hitherto been in
operation, the generation gap between students and instructors, and the variety of ELF forms
considered acceptable today. To resolve these issues, using an ESP approach was suggested
with the presentation of examples of how it has been successfully used in various university
64

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 53-68

classes to motivate students, encourage their self-direction and show them how to become
informed about their language learning process to lay the basis for life-long learning.

References
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form ametacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13 , 219-235.
Baldwin, R. (2018, December). If this is Globalization 4.0, what were the other three? World
Economic Forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/12/if-this-isglobalization-4-0-what-were-the-other-three/
Bazerman, C., & Paradis, J. (Eds.). (1991). Textual dynamics of the professions: Historicaland contemporary studies of writing in professional communities. Madison, WI: The
University of Wisconsin Press.
Belcher, D. D. (2004). Trends in teaching English for specific purposes. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics, 24, 165-186.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication:
cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cabinet Office, Government of Japan. (2014). Society 5.0. Retrieved fromhttp://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/society5_0/index.html
Chun, C., Dudoit, K., Fujihara, S., Gerschenson, M., Kennedy, A., Koanui, B., Ogata, V., &Stearns, J. (2017, June). Teaching generation Z at the University of Hawai’i. Paper
presented at the IAFOR International Conference on Education—Hawaii 2017, Hawaii.
https://www.hawaii.edu/ovppp/Leaders/files/2015-2016Projects/PELP_GenZ_PaperV.6.0-5.4.16.pdf
Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples
from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 397-423.

65

Noguchi, J.
Preparing our Students for a Rapidly Evolving WorldCouncil of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Retrieved fromhttp://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf
Council of Europe (2018). CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors. Retrieved fromhttps://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989
Dressen-Hammouda, D. (2008). From Novice to Disciplinary Expert: Disciplinary Identity
and Genre Mastery. English for Specific Purposes, 27 233-252.
English proficiency at Japan’s middle and high schools falls far short of government targets.
(2018, April 7). The Japan Times. Retrieved fromhttps://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/04/07/national/social-issues/japans-high-schoolenglish-proficiency-falls-short-government-targets/#.W23H4tL7RaQ
Fudin, S. (2012, March 29). Gen Z & what does it mean in your classroom?
USCRossierOnline. Retrieved from https://rossieronline.usc.edu/gen-z-what-does-it-meanin-your-classroom/
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1992). How do you mean? In M. Davies & L. Ravelli (Eds.), Advances insystemic linguistics: Recent theory and practice (pp. 20-35). London and New York:
Pinter Publishers.
Haynes, C. (2010, December). Generation gaps in medical education: Implications forteaching and learning. MedEd eForum. Retrieved fromhttps://scs.msu.edu/facdev/eforum/Generation_Gaps_in_Medical_Education_Implications_for_Teaching_Learning.html.
Hunston, S. (2012, November) Motivated; self-directed; informed – the model language
learner in the 21st century. Plenary lecture given at JACET Kansai Chapter 2011 40th
Anniversary Conference, Nishinomiya, Japan.
66

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 53-68

Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centred
approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic writing. Written
Communication, 18, 549-574.
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 12, 17-29.
Jimbo, H. (2012, June). Back to the basics of university English education. Plenary lecture
given at JACET Kansai Chapter 2012 Spring Conference, Toyonaka, Japan.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leckie-Tarry, H., & Birch, D. (Eds.). (1995). Language and context: A functional linguistic
theory of register. London and New York: Pinter.
Manyika, J. (2016) Technology, jobs and the future of work. Retrieved from McKinsey
Global Institute Briefing Note: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employmentand-growth/technology-jobs-and-the-future-of-work
MEXT (2014). English Education Reform Plan corresponding to Globalization. Retrieved
from
http://www.mext.go.jp/en/news/topics/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/01/23/1343591_1.p
df
McEnery, T. & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Myers, J. (2015, October). Which languages are most widely spoken? World Economic
Forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/10/which-languages-aremost-widely-spoken/
Noguchi, J. (1997). Materials development for English for specific purposes: Applying genre
analysis in EFL pedagogy. English Teaching, 52, 303-318.
67

Noguchi, J.
Preparing our Students for a Rapidly Evolving World

Noguchi, J. (2003, September). Teaching ESP writing: OCHA in a CALL class. Cybermedia
Forum. Retrieved from https://www.cmc.osaka-u.ac.jp/publication/for-2003/40-45.html
Schwab, K. (2016, January). The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to
respond. World Economic Forum. Retrieved fromhttps://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-meansand-how-to-respond/
Schwab, K. (2018, February). Don’t underestimate the value of dialogue. World Economic
Forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/dont-underestimatethe-value-of-dialogue/
Seidlhofer, B. (2005). Key concepts in ELT: English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 59,
339-341. doi:10.1093/elt/cci064
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
The future of jobs. (2016). Retrieved from http://reports.weforum.org/future-of-jobs-2016/
The Partnership for 21st Century Learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/ourwork/p21-framework68Selected Papers
Research Articles



JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 71-100

Exploring EAP Teacher Cognition in Written Corrective Feedback

Akari Hirano
Kyoto University

Abstract
Written corrective feedback (WCF) has been thoroughly studied in terms of its effectivenessand students’ perceptions in the contexts of English for General Purposes (EGP), althoughteachers’ cognition of their feedback practice in the context of English for Academic Purposes(EAP) remains relatively unexplored. This study examined teachers’ cognition of their
feedback practice in an EAP context in order to examine what teachers regard as effective
feedback, why they regard certain feedback as effective, and what kind of gaps exist between
such effective practice and actual practice. Qualitative data were collected from semistructured interviews with five instructors who taught academic-English courses in the UK.
The interview data suggested that a teacher who has extensive EAP teaching experience may
think feedback should focus on corrections beyond the sentence-level although focusing onsuch corrections can be difficult when teachers are used to the type of feedback delivery in
EGP contexts or when students’ proficiency is at lower level. The interview data also
revealed that the gaps are caused by time constraints, teaching context, and the level ofstudents’ proficiency. In order to overcome the gaps, the present study suggested several
potential strategies teachers might employ, including the use of collaborative feedback
activities.

Keywords: WCF, feedback, teacher cognition, EAP

Introduction71Hirano, A.
Exploring EAP Teacher Cognition in Written Corrective Feedback

Although there is a growing body of literature that recognizes the importance of
feedback in English Language Teaching (ELT), researchers have primarily focused on
students’ preferences or the impact of feedback on students’ writing accuracy, and thus someuncertainty remains about the perspectives of teachers. teachers’ perspectives. As previous
research has been student-focused, this trend can also be seen in the specific context of
written corrective feedback (WCF) studies where more attention has been paid to students’assessment of each other’s writings, otherwise known as peer feedback. Teachers’ feedback
remains important, however, as it has been reported that the students may prefer teacher
feedback to peer feedback (Lee, 2015; Tsui & Ng, 2000; Yang, Badger, & Yu, 2006; Zhang,1995) or prefer a combined mode of peer and teacher feedback (Zhao, 2014). WCF is acommon strategy employed in ELT writing instruction, which has traditionally tended tofocus on grammatical error correction (e.g., Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Truscott, 1996, 1999),
especially in the context of English for General Purposes (EGP). Although there has been an
increasing interest in WCF, it has most often been studied in terms of its effectiveness tolearners’ grammatical development or surface errors (e.g., Ferris, 1999, 2003; Hyland &Hyland, 2006; Truscott, 1996, 1999, 2007) and as yet little is known about feedback in
English for Academic Purposes (EAP) where feedback regarding argument, style andacademic-conventions are of importance in addition to surface error corrections.
Teacher cognition can be defined as “the complex, practically-oriented, personalized,
and context-sensitive networks of knowledge, thoughts and beliefs that language teachers
draw on in their work” (Borg, 2006, p. 272) and is important as their intent and focus affectthe practices (Borg, 2001; Burns, 1992; Mori, 2011). Teacher perceptions are considered to bea subcategory of the broader term teacher cognition. Although it is difficult to distinguisheach concept from the others, for example, to distinguish belief from knowledge, teacher
cognition is an overarching term that is able “to embrace the complexity of teachers’ mental
72

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 71-100

lives” (Borg, 2006, p. 50). Teacher’s cognition regarding WCF is of interest because one of
the few studies investigating teacher cognition suggested that examining teacher cognition incorrective feedback research may make the research findings more relevant to teachers andthus help them to make a difference in classrooms (Mori, 2011). Another study regarding
teachers’ perspectives revealed that there is a gap between what teachers think is effective andthe kind of feedback they actually give (Lee, 2009). Since it is not clear what causes this gap
between their practice and cognition, further research is needed to investigate the nature ofsuch mismatches, which is what the current study aims to explore. In order to explore theteachers’ cognition, this study set out to examine the following research questions:
1. What do teachers regard as effective WCF, and why do they regard certain WCF as
effective in EAP contexts?
2. What kind of gaps exist between such effective practice and actual practice, andwhy do such gaps arise?

Literature Review
While feedback has often been studied in terms of its purpose, form and effectiveness,
little attention has been paid to teachers’ cognition regarding their own feedback practices,
especially in EAP contexts. As teaching context is a crucial factor that can affect bothteachers’ cognition and practice, it is important to examine this issue at various educational
levels, and to consider contextual constraints (Lee, 2009; Lee, Leong, & Song, 2017), such asclass size, teaching load, and institutional policy. Apart from the contextual constraints,
another factor that may influence teachers’ cognition is the perceived needs and capabilitiesof their students. Some teachers have reported that feedback is useful only when the feedback
matches the students’ proficiency and when it addresses the needs of the students (Lee et al.,2017). Although little research has been conducted in tertiary contexts (Lee et al., 2017),
much WCF research has been conducted in EGP contexts including secondary schools
73

Hirano, A.
Exploring EAP Teacher Cognition in Written Corrective Feedback(Northcott, Gillies, & Caulton, 2016). These two contexts, however, differ greatly in terms of
the aims and skills expected to be acquired. As EAP instruction has a particular aim, which is,“equipping students with the communicative skills to participate in particular academic andcultural contexts” (Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002, p. 2), the feedback delivery and the content
of feedback should be specifically designed for the context.
According to Seviour (2015), year-round pre-sessional EAP courses in the UK aredesigned to help students learn the academic language required for their chosen undergraduate
and postgraduate programs. Although process-oriented writing is valued in such pre-sessionalcourses, it can be time-consuming to give formative feedback several times over the process.
As the courses are often short-term, such as five weeks, it may not be possible to give
students sufficient time to reflect on feedback and revise their essays accordingly (Seviour,2015). Another issue is that feedback that takes into account the students’ disciplines can bedifficult in practice (Seviour 2015; Northcott et al, 2016). Teachers may feel uneasy when
they have to give WCF on discipline-specific writing which they are not familiar with
(Northcott et al, 2016) and thus they may not give feedback according to students’ disciplines
or they may give only general feedback (Seviour, 2015).
In contrast with EAP writing, WCF in ELT writing has been thoroughly researched,especially with a focus on how it should be provided in order to be effective (Bruton, 2009;
Hartshorn et al., 2010; Kang & Han, 2015). As much of the previous research has been
conducted in EGP settings, WCF in the literature tends to focus on the accuracy andcorrection of grammar and spelling (Northcott et al., 2016). Despite such studies, however, it
is unclear whether WCF can improve the grammatical accuracy. Truscott (1996, 1999, 2007)
claimed that error correction on grammar does not help improve a new piece of writing,although it may improve the accuracy of the revision of subsequent drafts. Ferris (1999,
2003), however, stated that WCF can improve the accuracy of new drafts and thus may lead
74

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 71-100

to improved abilities of students. Although they tried to evaluate the effectiveness of WCF on
the grammatical accuracy of the learners’ writings, Hyland and Hyland (2006) indicated that
there is a lack of evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of such WCF due to the inconsistency
in the research contexts, populations, and research designs.
Despite an uncertainty about the effectiveness of WCF in general, much debate has
focused on the specific effects of direct and indirect feedback styles. Direct feedback typicallyprovides correction of linguistic form or structure and may include the indication of
unnecessary words and phrases, missing words, the correct form, the grammar rules, andexamples of correct usage, while indirect feedback is typically provided with underlines orcircles on errors and thus writers must correct the marked errors by themselves (Bitchener etal., 2010). Indirect feedback is suggested to be more effective for the development of writingskills, especially in long-term learning because learners have to go through a reflection andproblem-solving process (Lalande, 1982). Direct feedback tends to be preferred by students(Chandler, 2003) because they can see their errors corrected soon after writing and thus it iseasier for them to revise. Indirect feedback may not be effective for learners at lower levels as
they may need a certain level of linguistic competence to correct their own errors (Hyland &Hyland, 2006). Similarly, indirect feedback is reported to be effective for treatable errors(Ferris, 2006) that “occur in a patterned, rule-governed way” (Ferris, 1999, p. 6), which
include problems with verb tense, subject-verb agreement, run-ons, fragments, articles. Direct
correction, on the other hand, should be given for untreatable errors (Ferris, 2006) for which
there are no “set of rules students can consult to avoid or fix those types of errors” (Ferris,
1999, p. 6) which include problems with word choice, idioms and the sentence structure(Hyland & Hyland, 2006) and for advanced errors (Bitchener et al., 2010). Although there isextensive research regarding the grammatical error corrections, teachers’ cognition regarding
feedback has not yet been thoroughly investigated, especially in EAP contexts. The current

75Hirano, A.
Exploring EAP Teacher Cognition in Written Corrective Feedback

study therefore examines teachers’ cognition regarding WCF in EAP contexts and considers
contextual constraints that may have caused the gap between their cognition and practice.

Methodology
This study employed a qualitative approach to examine teacher cognition regarding
WCF. As well as their cognition, the study examined factors that affected such cognition
including academic background, training experience, and EAP teaching experience.

Participants, Research Context and Sampling Method
The current study was conducted in a language teaching center in a university in theUK, which offers both general and academic English courses for international students andstaff. The students at the language teaching center can choose courses from EAP, EGP andskills-based courses including International English Language Testing System (IELTS)
preparation courses. The EAP program is aimed at those who wish to improve their academic
English skills before starting a degree course in the UK, or students who wish to improvetheir English in a university setting. Students are placed in classes according to theirperformances in a placement test. Class time is 20 hours per week and class size isapproximately eight to 15 students. There are three semesters in a year and the data collection
was conducted in the Semester Three, which lasts for two months.
Five teachers of academic English from the center were asked to participate in thisstudy by email and then interviewed for 30 to 40 minutes. Their responses were audiorecorded and transcribed for the qualitative analysis. Whereas Teachers A, B, C and D were
native speakers of English, Teacher E was a non-native speaker (see Table 1). Every teacher
had more than 12 years of ELT experience and at least four years of EAP teachingexperience. Teachers A, B, and C were teaching both year-round pre-sessional courses and76

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 71-100

dissertation-writing courses in the semester when the interview was conducted. Teachers A,
B, D, and E responded to the questions based on their teaching experience in year-round presessional courses and Teacher C talked about the dissertation writing courses for masterstudents as he was not teaching writing in the year-round courses. Teacher E talked about
IELTS preparation courses, while Teachers A, B, and D talked about general academicEnglish courses. In the interview, the teachers were asked to explain the kind of feedback theygave on the students’ writings and what they thought effective feedback should focus on, how
they thought it should be given in the EAP courses they were teaching. They were also asked
to explain what experience may have affected the cognition. A consent form was sent by
email to potential participants and also presented before the interview. The researcher
provided participants with clear information about the research and how the data would be
used. It was also clarified that participants had the right to refuse or to withdraw at any time.
Table 1
Biography of Teachers
CoursesNS or NNS

Teacher A

Year-roundpre-sessional

Teacher B

Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher E

NS

Teaching
experienceof English
20 years

Teaching
experienceof EAP
5 years

Year-roundpre-sessionalNS

20 years

10 years

Dissertation
Writing
courseYear-roundpre-sessional
Year-roundpre-sessional(IELTS
preparation)NS

25 years

6 yearsNS

13 years

8 years

NNS

18-20 years

4 years

77

Post-graduate
studiesMSc TESOL(completed ayear before)
Languagetesting andassessment
MSc(Distant, inprogress),
CELTA
MSc TESOL,
DELTA
MSc TESOL(in progress)
MSc TEFL (13years ago)

Hirano, A.
Exploring EAP Teacher Cognition in Written Corrective Feedback

In addition to the interview data, WCF was collected from Teachers A, B, and C andanalyzed by triangulation to see whether emergent themes from the WCF correspond tothemes in the interview data. Teachers A and B provided WCF from pre-sessional courses
and Teacher C provided WCF from the dissertation writing course. Although WCF was notcollected from Teacher D and E, all the important themes emerged from the interview data
was supported by WCF collected from Teacher A, B, and C because the response from
Teacher D and E were similar to Teacher A, B, and C. For WCF collection, an informed
consent form was handed to the students by the teacher and those who agreed to provide theirwritings with WCF submitted the signed form to the teacher, which was then collected by the
researcher.

Data Analysis
This study employed thematic analysis to analyze the transcribed interview data and
WCF on students’ writings. This analysis includes the process of categorizing data based on
the commonalities, differences and relationships within data to search for aggregated themes(Gibson & Brown, 2009). The feedback used for the analysis included underlines, codes,
symbols, and written comments that, “constitutes a meaningful unit” within or beyond thesentence-level (Lee, 2008, p. 14). In order to meet the needs of the EAP context, thedefinition of WCF in this study was expanded to include corrections of sentence structure andthe use of academic conventions and argumentation in addition to corrections of grammaticaland lexical issues following the definition of WCF suggested by Northcott et al. (2016). All of
the data from interview and the WCF were anonymized and any description that could
identify individuals was avoided when including teachers’ responses from interviews orcomments from WCF relevant to the points of discussion.

78

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 71-100

The WCF given by Teacher A, B, C was analyzed by the researcher to see how theteachers’ cognition may have affected their feedback practice and how their cognition wasreflected in their practice. Examples of WCF given by Teacher A and Teacher B are provided
in Appendix G (WCF 1, Teacher A) and Appendix H (WCF 2, Teacher B). Because Teacher
D and Teacher E only gave WCF handwritten on assignments and returned them to students
immediately after they submitted the assignments, it was not possible to collect textual
instances from all the teachers. Teachers (A, B, D, and E) gave WCF on relatively short texts,
such as one-paragraph essays or essays which consisted of multiple paragraphs. Teacher C
gave WCF on sections of a dissertation. All teachers tended to give detailed andcomprehensive WCF on all aspects of writing assignments, despite having limited time toprovide WCF.

Results and Discussion
The themes that emerged from the interview data included direct and indirect feedback,corrections of errors beyond the sentence-level, and positive comments (see Table 2,
Teachers’ belief regarding the components of effective WCF). The data also revealed that thegaps between the ideal practice and actual practice may be caused by time constraints,
teaching context, and the level of students’ proficiency. The parts of the interview scripts
which are relevant to the discussion in this section are introduced in the Appendices. Several
themes emerged from the analysis of WCF, including a preference for positive comments
combined with suggested improvements and direct feedback with clear indications of correct
forms or suggestions of alternative expressions, which corresponded to the interview data.
The analysis of data also indicated that teachers could use indirect feedback for simple
grammatical errors to encourage students to think for themselves.

79

Hirano, A.
Exploring EAP Teacher Cognition in Written Corrective Feedback

Table 2Teachers’ belief regarding the components of effective WCF
Direct or indirect
Teacher A

Direct feedback withsuggestions ofalternative
expressions

Teacher B

Teacher C

Teacher D
Teacher E

Direct when they do
not have time andindirect when they
have time to discuss
feedback
Indirect with error
codes for low-level
errorsCorrections of errors
beyond the sentencelevel
Feedback should focus
on construction of theargument andcoherence, cohesion, aflow of information andargument
Corrections of cohesion
and information flow ismore important thanhighlighting errors

Feedback should focus
on coherence

Positive comments
Highlight the praiseworthy aspect

Give positive
comments and avoid
excessive corrections

Combine positive
comments and advice
for improvement
Give positive
comments



Direct and Indirect Feedback
While direct feedback provides the student with the correct form, indirect feedback
only indicates that the student has made an error, often by underlines, symbols, and codes.
This indirect feedback often requires follow-up sessions in which students ask questions toteachers and teachers clarify what the feedback meant. Although the terms of “direct” or“indirect” were not explicitly stated, Teacher D remarked, for example, his feedback includes
error codes, which are categorized as indirect feedback, and both Teacher A and C tended togive corrections with alternative expressions and detailed explanations, which are direct
feedback (Bitchener et al., 2010). Teacher C, however, considered indirect feedback to be
80JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 71-100

more effective than direct feedback when he had time for follow-up sessions as students are
required to correct errors by themselves. This view may have come from his researchknowledge as he often explained with terms and concepts from corrective feedback research,which he said was useful in their current teaching practice. Teacher C stated that in thedissertation-writing course he usually gave direct feedback because he did not have time to
discuss feedback in the classroom, whereas in other courses, he usually gave indirect
feedback as he had time in class to discuss it with the students (see Appendix D: Transcript 4,
Teacher C-1). Because of the lack of time and therefore opportunities for asking questions, hebelieved that WCF should be direct. In other classes where students have time to ask theteacher questions, he tended to simply underline and mark to indicate something wasincorrect, so that students had to take time to process it by themselves. For example, forsimple errors (including treatable errors) such as tense systems, he is more likely to giveindirect feedback to encourage their reflection. This may be because indirect feedback isreported to be effective for treatable errors (Ferris, 2006) and also for the development ofwriting-skills and self-monitoring ability, as learners have to go through a reflection andproblem-solving process (Lalande, 1982). Teacher C also stated that indirect feedback was
not helpful unless there was a follow-up session. Although the teacher’s remark was focusedon indirect feedback, such a belief corresponds to the research finding that WCF may, “fallshort of meeting students’ needs if there are no opportunities for follow-up discussion andclarification” (Ferris et al., 2013, p. 323). Teacher A, on the other hand, seemed to consider
direct feedback effective, as she believed that feedback should provide alternative expressions
and indications of how learners might correct the errors, although she was aware that someteachers only highlight errors (for further details, see Appendix A, Transcript 1, Teacher A).
She also explained that students would not look at the feedback again once they find out thatit does not include clear indications of how they should correct the errors or how they can
improve. She stated that this view may come from her past experience with students. It may
81Hirano, A.
Exploring EAP Teacher Cognition in Written Corrective Feedback

take time, however, to give such specific and detailed WCF. Teacher A expressed her concernthat her choice of feedback may have been affected by time constraints, which may imply that
her ideal practice was not always possible (see Appendix A). Teacher A also indicated thatshe gave direct feedback, but because it takes time, it was easier to explain orally after simply
marking mistakes, rather than trying to explain them in written comments. As teacher’s
feedback shows, Teacher A tended to give long and detailed handwritten comments on
students’ texts, which may be one of the reasons Teacher A preferred oral feedback (seeAppendix G).Teacher E thought that the feedback should be specific and detailed since thefeedback she used to receive as an international student in the UK was not informative, so thisexperience as a learner influenced her cognition. Teacher D expressed his belief that heshould give indirect feedback with error codes and not giving correct forms, as he knew, intheory, that he should not give the correct answer.
…so depending on my expectations of the student and the level, my feedback doeschange, for example, with lower levels, I do generally use error codes and I write onthem… and I know in theory we shouldn’t be correcting their work… so I usuallyindicate that on the piece of paper. [...] if it's an error which I know the student should
already know, I don't even indicate whether it’s grammar or not, I might underline itwith an exclamation mark which basically means, ‘watch out, you made a mistakeagain’… (Teacher D’s comments, see Appendix F: Transcript 6)

Corrections Beyond the Sentence-level
In EAP writing, teachers’ WCF seemed to focus on beyond-sentence-level corrections,
including cohesion, coherence, overall structure, and flow of the argument. The following
example is from Teacher B’s feedback in which he advised that the student should clearlystate in the introduction that they were going to discuss the topic later in the paragraph as the82JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 71-100

student had begun discussing a new topic in the second to last paragraph without mentioning
it in the introduction:
You make some good points that are nicely supported by examples. The end of theintroduction could, however, have been better. The paragraph on Korea appears very
suddenly. You could have said in your introduction that you would discuss the effects ofglobalization on Korea. Overall, though, well done! (Teacher B’s feedback)As Teacher B reported, the teacher tried not to correct every single error and tried to “readthrough the whole text” first, even though the approach was not always successful.
Sometimes I try to read the whole… beginning with the whole text first but if, forexample, the introduction is really bad… you are just going to pause and start correctingthat introduction, because you know, the introduction sets up the rest of your text… It isquite a difficult thing for a language teacher to have a habit to get into… to read throughthe whole text without instantly jumping up and trying to correct something, to begin
with. (Teacher B’s comments, see Appendix C, Transcript 3)
Teacher B thought corrections of cohesion and information flow to be more important thanhighlighting errors and expressed that cohesion, “is a very important aspect of writing because
it’s writing beyond the sentence-level.” As he had the longest EAP teaching experienceamong the participants, he explained how his feedback has changed from the time when he
was teaching in EGP contexts, which shows how teaching experience in EAP context has
affected his feedback. The teacher also pointed out there is a type of teacher who looks within
the sentence-level, whereas an alternative approach is to read the whole text first and see ifthey can follow the ideas because problems in writing do not necessarily come from thelanguage, but they may arise from issues with the information flow or cohesion. Teacher A
stated that she tried to focus on “the overall construction of the argument and coherence,cohesion within paragraphs, whether or not they have managed to create a clear flow of83

Hirano, A.
Exploring EAP Teacher Cognition in Written Corrective Feedback

information and of argument” through the text. Teacher E mentioned that she tried to give
WCF on coherence as it is one of the criteria of IELTS exam.

Positive Comments
Regardless of their backgrounds, including both research interests and teachingexperience, all teachers reported that effective feedback should focus on the positive aspectsof writing. Teacher A stated that an instructor should highlight the praise-worthy aspects ofwriting. Teacher B valued positive aspects as he believed simply pointing out mistakes could
be demotivating for students. Teacher D said teachers should give comments to acknowledge
what the learners did well because he would expect such comments if he was the student. The
teacher further explained that he tried to indicate areas that needed improvement after he gave
positive comments.
…generally I do the whole thing of writing some positive things to, two or threepositive things, are then there is, “but…”, “watch out with… singular and plural or verb
noun agreement”, that kind of thing, or we will look at referencing in more detail in the
future lessons, whatever… or, “look at this online” or, “look back the notes on this” butgenerally I do that…(Teacher D’s comments, see Appendix F)
This cognition echoes their practice as positive comments followed by advice for
improvements, often indicating a specific action the student would have to take, has beenfound in WCF of Teachers A, B and C (see Appendix G, WCF 1, Teacher A and Appendix H,
WCF 2, Teacher B). Positive comments were frequently given in overall comments by theteachers, an example of which is as follows:
You have done well at providing a strong topic sentence, good supporting sentenceswith clear explanation and examples and your concluding sentence connects well back84

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 71-100

to the topic sentence. You need to continue to work however on more careful
proofreading to enhance basic grammatical and spelling errors. (see Appendix G)
This echoes the findings which state that instructors’ positive comments enhance motivationand lead to improvement in students’ writing (Northcott et al., 2016).

Factors Affecting WCF Practice
As for Research Question 2, the data revealed that gaps exist between the teachers’ ideal
practice and actual practice and that such gaps are caused by time constraints, teachingcontext and the level of students’ proficiency (see Table 3). In line with previous studies(Junqueira & Payant, 2015; Lee, 2009), the interview data here showed that the teachers
tended to consider time constraints as one of the most important factors affecting theirpractice. Teacher A, C and D mentioned time constraints several times in their responses
when they were explaining the gap between their ideal practice and the actual feedback theygave in the classroom. Teacher C stated that he gave direct feedback, as there was not enoughtime within his current class for students to take time to process indirect feedback. When
asked about effective feedback, the teacher said it depends on students and how much time hehas. Teacher A stated she preferred going through writing together with students face-to-face,
but that it was not always possible because of time constraints.
As WCF shows, Teacher A tended to give long and detailed handwritten comments on
students’ texts, which may be one of the reasons teacher A preferred oral feedback (seeAppendix G). Teacher D reported that he was very impressed with the detailed feedback theyreceived as a student and wished he could give such detailed feedback to their students, but it
was not possible because he does not have sufficient time. As discussed in the literature
review, in short-term EAP courses, it is difficult to give students sufficient time to reflect on
feedback (Seviour, 2015), which may have affected the teachers’ WCF practice.

85

Hirano, A.
Exploring EAP Teacher Cognition in Written Corrective Feedback

Table 3
Factors Affecting Teachers’ Feedback PracticeTime Constraints
Teacher A

Face-to-facefeedback is notpossible because oftime constraints

Teacher B

Experience in EGP
contexts makes it
difficult for theteacher to give
WCF beyond thesentence-level.

Teacher CTime constraints
make it difficult togive indirect WCF,
which the teacher
considers effective

Teacher D

It is not possible togive the detailed
WCF because oftime constraints
Face-to-facefeedback is notpossible because oftime constraints

Teacher E

Teaching Context

The Level ofStudents’
Proficiency
For lower-level
students, thefeedback may
concentrate heavily
on the sentencelevel grammar
correction
With lower-level
students, theycannot look at alarger picture of thetext especiallywhen it contains
many errors

Giving feedback oncontent is morechallenging in EAPcontexts because
the content may bedisciple-specific

As well as time constraints, teaching context, and past teaching experience in different
contexts had an influence on teachers’ feedback and thus led to the gap between their practiceand cognition. One of the examples of such gaps is that it can be difficult for teachers to focus
on corrections beyond the sentence-level because they are used to focusing on sentence-level
corrections. Teacher B said it is difficult to read through the whole text first without
correcting errors because he used to focus on sentence-level corrections and grammatical86

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 71-100

accuracy in the EGP context and thus such experience might have influenced the way hegives feedback. Another gap which seemed to arise in the EAP context was that althoughteachers try to give feedback on the content, it can be challenging to do so in disciplines
which teachers are not familiar with, because, as Teacher B said, the content is moreadvanced, complex and specialized than in EGP contexts. Teacher B stated that whereas in
EGP courses, they focus on correction at the sentence-level with a detailed coding system, in
EAP courses they focus more on clear communication (see Appendix B: Transcript 2,
Teacher B). As the teachers need to comment on such aspects of learner writing, Teacher C
stated that they have to, “wrestle with the content” for, “things with the specific purposes.”
The teacher further explained why it is difficult to comment on the content, providing an
example of giving feedback on writing from disciplines he was not familiar with.
For science… I don’t know anything about those. I feel it’s difficult for me to commenton that. And also I think as well, the tasks that students have to do, for example writing
dissertations, they are really complex that, teachers giving more feedback on content ismore challenging, because you have to have a good idea of what the task is. With
general EFL context, the tasks are generally much simpler. So they are easier toanalyze, to anticipate areas where students have problems. (see Appendix E: Transcript
5)
Teacher C, who was teaching dissertation-writing courses, mentioned the complexity ofwriting making it more difficult to give feedback. When asked if he thought he had to give
feedback on anything that was related to students’ disciplines, he said he could only give
feedback within the areas he was familiar with, but Teacher C stated:
In some occasions, when something appears, for example, too simplistic, I can write acomment, ‘Are you sure about this? This seems too simple to me. Are you sure it is aseasy as it is? Or is there more to this?’ When it comes to writing about insufficientdepth, details I can guess something is insufficient. (see Appendix E)
87Hirano, A.
Exploring EAP Teacher Cognition in Written Corrective Feedback

This partly echoes the findings that teachers may not give feedback on the content that are
specific to students’ disciplines because of the lack of exposure to the genres (Seviour, 2015),
but the interview revealed that the teachers may try to give comments on contents about thesufficiency of the information in general.
The final factor that causes the gaps between teachers’ practice and cognition is thelevel of students’ proficiency. Although the reported cognition showed that teachers think
feedback should focus on corrections beyond the sentence-level, they may not be able tofocus on such aspects with lower-level learners. Teacher A said, for students with lower levelof proficiency, the feedback may concentrate heavily on the sentence-level grammar
correction even though the teacher tries to give feedback on coherence, cohesion, flow of
information, and the overall construction of the argument. Teacher B stated that he tries tolook beyond the sentence-levels, but with lower-level students, he cannot look at the larger
picture of the text especially when it contains too many errors because these errors distract theteacher from following the flow of the arguments (see Appendix C: Transcript 3, Teacher B2).

Conclusion
One of the research questions the current study examined was the kind of WCF thatteachers regard as effective, and the reasons they regard certain WCF as effective. Theinterview data indicated that all teachers consider positive feedback effective no matter what
their backgrounds are. However, teachers’ backgrounds, including their teaching experienceand research interests, may have affected their cognition of feedback practice. Anotherquestion the present research explored was the gaps that exist between what teachers consider
as effective practice and their actual practice, and the reasons such gaps arise. One of the gaps
revealed is that even when indirect feedback is more effective, direct feedback is preferred
88

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 71-100

because teachers do not have time for the necessary follow-up sessions that indirect feedback
requires. The gaps may also arise because of the backgrounds of teachers and students: giving
feedback on the content can be challenging when they do not have any experience or
knowledge in the discipline; focusing on the corrections beyond the sentence-level can bedifficult when teachers are used to the feedback delivery in EGP context or when students arelower level.
There are several potential strategies teachers might employ to overcome the gaps
between the ideal practice and actual practice, which this study has illuminated. Teachers may
be able to focus on the advanced issues such as corrections on the cohesion, coherence andstructure by using automated writing evaluation such as Criterion® Online Writing
Evaluation Service developed by Educational Testing Services (ETS), which will improve theaccuracy of the students’ writing and minimize the tasks of teachers. Alternate strategy is thatteachers could give feedback in pair, for example, one teacher giving feedback on
grammatical corrections and the other focusing on the coherence, overall structure, flow of
the argument. Since the teaching context is one of the most important factors affecting their
feedback, the teachers are required to make the right choice for the right context as reported in
the interview. As the current study examined the cognition and practice of five teachers in a
specific context in the UK, the findings may be limited due to the small sample size andlimited number of textual instances. In order to increase the generalizability of the findings, it
is recommended that further research be undertaken with greater sample sizes or in different
educational contexts.

References
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition
and writing. New York: Routledge.

89

Hirano, A.
Exploring EAP Teacher Cognition in Written Corrective Feedback

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2
writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing,19(4),207-217.
Borg, S. (2001). Self-perception and practice in teaching grammar, ELT Journal, 55(1), 2129.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education research and practice. London:
Continuum.
Bruton, A. (2009). Designing research into the effect of error correction in L2 writing: Not sostraightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 136–140.
Burns, A. (1992). Teacher-beliefs and their influence on classroom practice. Prospect, 7(3),56–66.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in theaccuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 12(3), 267–296.
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response toTruscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–10
Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for L2 students. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- andlong-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.),
Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual
L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307–329.
Gibson, W., & Brown, A. (2009). Working with qualitative data. London: SAGE.
90

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 71-100

Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson,
N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL
Quarterly, 44, 84–109.
Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: Issues and directions. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 1(1), 1–12.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts andIssues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Junqueira, L., & Payant, C. (2015). I just want to do it right, but it's so hard”: A novice
teacher’s written feedback beliefs and practices. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 27, 19–36.
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2
written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18.
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language
Journal, 66, 140–149.
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ WCF practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85.
Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and WCF practice. ELT Journal,
63(1), 13–22.
Lee, M. (2015). Peer feedback in second language writing: Investigating junior secondary
students’ perspectives on inter-feedback and intra-feedback. System, 55, 1–10.
Lee, H. H., Leong, A. P., & Song, G. (2017). Investigating teacher perceptions of feedback.
ELT Journal, 71(1), 60–68.
Mori, R. (2011). Teacher cognition in corrective feedback in Japan. System, 39(4), 451–467.
Northcott, J., Gillies, P., & Caulton, D. (2016). What postgraduates appreciate in online tutor
feedback on academic writing. Journal of Academic Writing, 6(1), 145–161.

91

Hirano, A.
Exploring EAP Teacher Cognition in Written Corrective Feedback

Seviour, M. (2015). Assessing academic writing on a pre-sessional EAP course: Designingassessment which supports learning. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 18,
84–89.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language
Learning, 46, 327–369
Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 55, 437–455
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write
accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.
Tsui, A., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of
Second Language Writing 9(2), 147–170.
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback ina Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179-200.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writingclass. Journal of Second Language Writing,4(3), 209-222.
Zhao, H. (2014). Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing. ELT
Journal, 68(2), 155-168.

Appendix A: Transcript 1, Teacher A(A=Teacher A; I=interviewer)I:

What kind of feedback do you give on students’ writing?

A: I think there are lots of different aspects I will focus on when I’m giving feedback, and it
may depend a little bit on the level of the students’ proficiency, which aspects I mightchoose to make the main focal point of feedback, so for lower level students, thefeedback may concentrate quite heavily on the sentence-level grammar correction and
92

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 71-100

correction of linguistic vocabulary errors etc... also, sentence structure, word order... eventhough with higher level students, I will try to give some kind of feedback that focuses
more on the overall construction of the argument and coherence, cohesion withinparagraphs whether or not they've managed to create a clear flow of information and ofargument like through the text.
I:

I would like to know what you think about the effective feedback, how the feedback should
be given to be effective and why… in the case of this course.

A: I think in terms of effective feedback, I think it's important as a tutor to highlight the
aspects of the writing… the way you can see as being praiseworthy so, you know, topoint out to the student what things they've done well in the text and why you consider
they managed to achieve that successfully, let’s say, and… also to highlight the areas thatyou feel they need to work on to identify errors.
…I personally, generally choose to provide the student with an alternative. Someteachers just like to highlight a particular... what they consider an error or an issue of thewriting and highlight that as an error or an issue but without offering the students theirown suggestion as to how to correct it. I tend to provide some kind of indication as tohow I would best… go about correcting that issue or error because my personal view...
and maybe this comes from past experience with students is that, with some students, if
you don't give them with some kind of indication as to how they might correct that issue
or error they probably won't go away and think about it themselves… you know, They
will look at the writing they’ve handed back to them, give it a glance a few minutes, put itaway and won’t look at it again.
… I will give a little brief explanation as to why, that tense, for example, it’s more
appropriate then the tense the students have used, but it also depends a little bit on theamount of time I have as a teacher within my working day allocated to give feedback to

93

Hirano, A.
Exploring EAP Teacher Cognition in Written Corrective Feedback

individual students. Sometimes, your choice of feedback of how much time of feedback
you give may be based on a time constraint.
…I think, in terms of what I think is genuinely most effective, often my preference,but this isn’t always possible, again, because of time table constraints is that…mypreference of giving feedback to a student on their writing, would be to be able to sit
down face-to-face, individually with the student and go through the piece of writing
together and explain verbally to the student, elicit, if possible, from the student, thestatement, why something is an error or what they think is wrong with the structure or theparagraph or what they could have done to improve the clarity, let’s say, of the argument.

Appendix B: Transcript 2, Teacher B(B=Teacher B; I=interviewer)I:

I would like to know what kind of the experience motivated you to think in that way, whatkind of experience motivated you to give feedback in the way you are currently doing
including teaching experience, postgraduate studies.

B: I think it's changed quite significantly, because when I started off as an English teacher, I
was largely teaching general English and there's no… the end of this theme isn't verymuch focused on... like a sentence-level correction, grammatical accuracy and using
these detailed code systems for students ‘WW= wrong’ word ‘SP= spelling’ and all thatkind of thing and then as I became more involved in English for academic purposes I
spent most of my time teaching EAP and quite often with in-sessional students as well,dissertation writing education courses.
I’m also thinking more about the ability to communicate clearly but also meeting their
expectations sometimes of academic discourse, so it’s something that understanding
about maybe how writing is assessed within master’s program, in-sessional programmes.
94

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 71-100

So, thinking about that, and… really what can help students most in terms of improving
their writing. Does it really help students if you spend ages focusing on articles when you
can get proof-readers to check that sort of things, perhaps. And I think that's been …
approach is probably been informed by research into feedback because There’s quite a lotof research that actually I was reading, for example using code system, does notnecessarily work, have little impact on the quality of students’ work, highlighting where
errors are, can be useful, but you don’t need to do it often when you can offer a lot more,so that’s maybe one thing.

Appendix C: Transcript 3, Teacher B-2
I:

When you focus on this specific EAP courses, do you think you first focus on the overallside (beyond the sentence-levels) or do you go from (focusing on) specific points (within
the sentence-level) to overall side?

B: Sometimes I try to read the whole… beginning with the whole text first but if, forexample, the introduction is really bad… you are just going to pause and start correctingthat introduction, because you know, the introduction sets up the rest of your text… It isquite a difficult thing for a language teacher to have a habit to get into… to read throughthe whole text without instantly jumping up and trying to correct something, to begin
with.

Appendix D: Transcript 4, Teacher C-1(C=Teacher C; I=interviewer)I:

What kind of students’ texts do you give feedback on? Is it like a short paragraph or...?

C: They… their instructions for this group are to write… They’ve been told that I have 30
minutes of time to give feedback. If they send me that’s long, I can only give global
feedback. If they give me something short, I can give detailed feedback, but at the95

Hirano, A.
Exploring EAP Teacher Cognition in Written Corrective Feedback

moment I’m giving quite detailed feedback… detailed and unfocused feedback. Usually,(in this course) very explicit because I haven’t got the time. Usually, I give implicit
feedback with my own classes when I know that I have time in class to discuss it withthem in a conferencing situation. But with these students, I don’t have time to discuss itwith them, so I’m more explicit.
I:

Because your students do not have time to ask questions…?

C: So, ‘Please ask me questions if you don’t understand something, please ask me, but there
isn’t enough time because we have so much to do, in such little time, there isn’t the time,with previous classes though, where I had more time, I’ve given implicit feedback,perhaps underlining things and circling things and then I ask the students to analyse, totell me what they think. I’ve just indicated something is not right, but they have to do thehard work to identify where it is, and if they can’t and they can ask me, but that takes
class time, and with course, currently, I don’t have time.

Appendix E: Transcript 5, Teacher C-2
I:

When comparing this dissertation writing courses and other general EFL classes, do you
think your feedback should be different? (given in different ways)

C: There are some features of academic writing which may not apply in more generalcontext. So I find myself…things like citation, paraphrasing, summarizing, these areperhaps more central to academic discourse than they are outside, but really, outside,
whatever, wherever the gaps are, between what students can do and ideally what students
want to do, I think everything is relative, I think with something with EAP. Is that theyoften, the content is at more advanced level, it’s a different discipline, sciences, social
sciences and other discipline, it maybe something that I don’t understand, so that can bedifficult.
96

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 71-100

General English of course you… things from everyday life, things form newspapers orsocial encounters or things like that, things teachers are familiar with, but again, things
with the specific purposes you have to wrestle with the content. For science… I don’tknow anything about those. I feel it’s difficult for me to comment on that. And also I
think as well, the tasks that students have to do, for example writing dissertations, they
are really complex that, teachers giving more feedback on content is more challenging,
because you have to have a good idea of what the task is.
With general EFL context, the tasks are generally much simpler. So they are easier toanalyse, to anticipate areas where students have problems. With something much more
complex, there are so many different areas you have to anticipate and maybe… types of
discourse you are not familiar with, for example, science report, I’ve never written
assignments on science, I’ve never read them. So that’s very difficult to teach.
I:

Do you think you have to give feedback on anything that is related to their disciplines?

C: …There’s no way I can do that. They know the subject more than I do…In someoccasions, when something appears, for example, too simplistic, I can write acomment, ’Are you sure about this? This seems too simple to me. Are you sure it is aseasy as it is? Or is there more to this?’ When it comes to writing about insufficient depth,
details I can guess something is insufficient. And I imagine you could write more about
this.

Appendix F: Transcript 6, Teacher D(D=Teacher D; I=interviewer)I:

I would like to know what you think about the effective feedback and which aspect of thestudents’ writing the feedback should focus on and to be effective in this in the case ofthis specific yea-round EAP course.

97

Hirano, A.
Exploring EAP Teacher Cognition in Written Corrective Feedback

D: It’s a difficult one, I mean, it depends on the class, it depends on the level, it depends on
the individual student as well, it really does, I give different feedback for each student
because I know, once you work with the students for a while, I know maybe the things
they're trying to improve and they've been successful so I can give credit for that or
maybe there's something in particular that I’ve told them to ‘focus on this’… a lot ofstudents, the concept of citation and referencing even just how to write a reference list,
for example, they’re not getting it for whatever reasons, so depending on my expectationsof the student and the level, my feedback does change, for example, with lower levels, I
do generally use error codes and I write on them…
…I know in theory we shouldn't be correcting their work so generally I indicate… so I
usually indicate that on the piece of paper. If it’s, for example, if it’s a lower level student
and I think probably they're not going to make… get this word sometimes I do, I'll
actually write the correction as well, not across all of it, but I will sometimes write thecorrections, and sometimes, again, expectations of the students, if it's an error which I
know the student should already know, I don't even indicate whether it’s grammar or not,I might underline it with an exclamation mark which basically means ‘watch out, youmade a mistake again’, I might underline it and then they can see there's something
wrong with it, I won’t tell them whether it’s grammar, singular, plural, things like that, sothey have to work it out, and again, it depends on the level of the students, that sort of the
micro feedback of individual things.
…generally I do the whole thing of writing some positive things to, two or threepositive things, are then there is ‘but…’, ‘watch out with… singular and plural or verb
noun agreement that kind of thing, or we will look at referencing in more detail in the
future lessons, whatever… or ‘look at this online’ or ‘look back the notes on this’ but
generally I do that… I do comments on the page, there’s a little comment about the98

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 71-100

content and I will actually respond to the content of the text but also the overall structure,organization and then one or two things to think about for the next essay. Appendix G:
WCF 1, Teacher A
99

Hirano, A.
Exploring EAP Teacher Cognition in Written Corrective Feedback

Appendix H: WCF 2, Teacher B

100

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 101-117

Assuring the Quality of Classroom Life Through Exploratory Practice:
Learners’ Experiences

Takaaki Hiratsuka
Tohoku University

Abstract
This article reports on an aspect of a study which focused on the effects of practitionercentered research in the form of Exploratory Practice (EP) on language learners’ practices. EP
is a viable way for language learners to cultivate their own understanding of classroom life. In
total, 76 high school students participated in the present study. They experienced an EP
endeavor over the course of four months, involving three cycles with two components: (a)classroom observation and (b) reflective class. Among the participants, four focal participants
took part in individual interviews and pair discussions as part of the endeavor as well. Data
were collected with two qualitative methods: individual interviews and pair discussions. An
analysis of the data indicated that the experiences during the EP (being observed in theirclasses, participating in reflective classes, sitting for interviews, and joining pair discussions)helped the focal student participants to apply the three fundamental EP issues (i.e., the ‘what’,‘who’, and ‘how’) in their learning. That is, they began to place emphasis on understanding
their lessons, collaborate with each other for mutual development, and regard EP as acontinuous enterprise. Suggestions for future EP research are also given.

Keywords: Exploratory Practice (EP), language learners, quality of classroom life101

Hiratsuka, T.
Assuring the Quality of Classroom Life Through Exploratory Practice: Learner’s Experiences

Introduction
Practitioner research is a practitioner-initiated systematic inquiry into teaching andlearning practices at the grassroots level. One kind of practitioner research called Exploratory
Practice (EP) is the research of, for, and by teachers and learners within their idiosyncratic
contexts. EP is championed as a sustainable framework that provides a viable way for
language teachers and learners to cultivate their awareness about the quality of theirclassroom lives through grappling puzzles that arise from their shared endeavors (Allwright,
2005; Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Hanks, 2017a). In this approach, language teachers andlearners can enhance the quality of classroom life by placing value on a contextualized
understanding of their lives – both inside and outside their classrooms – over lesson
efficiency or student test scores (Gieve & Miller, 2006). ‘Puzzles’ are born out of curiosity
and require collaborative work to be understood and addressed, as opposed to ‘problems’ that
simply render generalizable solutions (Hanks, 2009). It can thus be said that “EP draws on
ideas of empowerment, as practitioners (learners and teachers) identify what puzzles them
about their language learning/teaching experiences, and use their pedagogic practices as tools
for investigation” (Hanks, 2017b, p. 38). At the heart of EP is an egalitarian value that
promotes learners, teachers, teacher educators, and all of those involved with language
teaching and learning to be treated equally and therefore encouraged to explore their teaching,learning, and research activities collaboratively.
Literature now exists that documented successful cases of EP in a variety of contexts
around the world (e.g., Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Hanks, 2017a, Yoshida, Imai, Nakata,Tajino, Takeuchi, & Tamai, 2009). However, what is noteworthy, given the equal weight EP
attaches to both teachers and learners, is that there are relatively few EP studies which focus
specifically on learners. The focus of this study is therefore the effects of an EP endeavor
particularly on language learners’ experiences, beliefs, and practices. It is hoped that thisstudy contributes to knowledge about how the language learners’ EP experiences enable them102

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 101-117

to develop into practitioners of learning, and not just targets of teaching (Allwright & Hanks,2009). In addition, this study aims to provide strategies for future EP endeavors.

Exploratory Practice (EP)EP is conceptualized as a practitioner-oriented research that seeks to enrich the quality oflife in the classroom whilst following the three fundamental EP issues: the ‘what’, ‘who’, and‘how’ (Allwright & Hanks, 2009). The ‘what’ issues represent an attempt to emphasize theunderstanding about the intricacies of language classroom tasks and lives. Slimani-Rolls andKiely (2014), for instance, carried out an EP study, valuing the ‘what’ issues, with eight
university teachers in UK. In the study, the teachers observed video clips of their own lessons
and discussed puzzles that arose from that viewing. As a result, the teachers gained insights
into their classroom interaction and acquired a set of classroom analysis tools for reflective
practice. The ‘who’ issues seek to give voice to all the participants concerned in order toincrease inclusivity, collegiality, and mutual development. An example of this is an EP study
conducted by five university ESL instructors in USA (Best, Jones-Katz, Smolarek,
Stolzenburg, & Williamson, 2015). They conducted the research in collaboration with theirstudents on the outcomes of the feedback the students received on their writing. They foundthat the students felt a great amount of anxiety about their grades and that they desired moreface-to-face interactions with their teachers. Based on the findings, the researchers called forthe need to create time and space for teachers and students to share their opinions andconsolidate their relationships. The ‘how’ issues concern the importance of minimizing theextra workload required to carry out EP research and making the endeavor a continuous
professional development opportunity. In an academic preparation course in Australia, forexample, Rowland (2011) incorporated his research into his curriculum. He asked his students
to compare their language learning experiences with the findings of some research literatureon the matter. He concluded that the EP endeavor allowed him to perceive his students as103

Hiratsuka, T.
Assuring the Quality of Classroom Life Through Exploratory Practice: Learner’s Experiences

critical language experts in their own right and that he could gain this understanding throughnormal curricular activities. Hiratsuka (2016a) gave particular consideration to the threefundamental EP issues (i.e., the ‘what’, ‘who’, and ‘how’) and explored the EP experiences of
two pairs of team teachers in two public high schools. His study revealed the unique ways thateach individual teacher adopted and/or resisted the three EP issues during their EP journeys.
Although they are as yet not substantial, attempts have also been made to delve into the EP
experiences of language learners. In her EP study, Chu (2007) gave her students theopportunity to decide on what they want to learn in class, a rare practice around the world but
having the potential to give students power and responsibility for their own learning. She
investigated the reactions of her students by eliciting feedback on the course as well asgathering student journals and worksheets. Based on the data, she argued that it is crucial totry to thoroughly understand teaching and learning practices, as opposed to finding solutions
to problems, and to focus on students’ strengths, as opposed to their weaknesses. Hanks(2015) reported the perspectives on EP of learners who were studying in an EAP program in
UK. The findings suggested that EP was feasible in an EAP context and that the participating
learners appreciated the new responsibilities given to them as explorers of their own
classrooms. Most germane to the present study, Hiratsuka (2016b) documented how an EP
process transformed the learning practices of Japanese high school students. His study
concluded that the students became empowered learners and researchers because (a) they
began to provide alternative learning methods, (b) they gave opinions about future learning,(c) they became highly involved with the research activities, and (d) they made suggestions
for further research.
Although there are many similarities, this study differs from Hiratsuka (2016b) in some
important ways. First of all, the focus of this study is the learners’ experiences specificallyrelating to the three EP issues (i.e., the ‘what’, ‘who’, and ‘how’). Another key difference isthe unique contribution this study makes through its discussion in which I introduce three104

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 101-117

strategies for successful EP endeavors. The following is the research question formulated forthe present study: In what way did the participating students of an EP endeavor follow andachieve the three EP issues (the ‘what’, ‘who’, and ‘how’)?

Methodology
The participants in a larger study of which this study is part were: (a) two pairs of teamteachers—each pair consisting of a Japanese teacher of English (JTE) and a foreign assistantlanguage teacher (ALT)—from two public high schools, Sakura High School and TsubakiHigh School (all the names of schools, classes, and participants in this article arepseudonyms); and (b) 76 second-year high school students from the two classes that each pair
was teaching at the time of data collection. The teachers took part in an EP endeavor which
consisted of three cycles over the course of four months with five components: (a) classroom
observation, (b) pair discussion, (c) focus group discussion, (d) EP story writing, and (e)individual interview (see Hiratsuka, 2016a for details). The students participated in an EP
endeavor which also consisted of three cycles over the course of four months but with twocomponents: (a) classroom observation and (b) reflective class. In other words, the students
were observed in their English classes by me (the visiting researcher) three times in eachschool. The observation opportunity facilitated my familiarization with the teachers’ andstudents’ practices in their classroom environments. In the reflective classes, which were held
three times in each school, the students had the opportunity to listen to my talks about English
language teaching and learning, watch a five-minute clip taken from the previous observed
class, and write feedback sheets whereby they expressed their thoughts, ideas, and wishes
about their teachers’ practices and their own learning (see Hiratsuka, 2014).
Sakura High School was a vocational high school, and Tsubaki High School was a liberalhigh school. Each JTE in those schools chose a class on which to focus for the larger study(i.e., 2A in Sakura and 2B in Tsubaki). While 2A was a general course where the students
105

Hiratsuka, T.
Assuring the Quality of Classroom Life Through Exploratory Practice: Learner’s Experiences

took three English classes a week, 2B was an international course where the students had six
English classes a week. After the participating classes were selected, I asked the JTEs tochoose two focal students from each class according to the following process. The first step inchoosing the focal students was to randomly list the students from the class who were notbusily engaged with club activities after school hours. They would possibly have more time toparticipate in the required activities for the EP endeavor (i.e., individual interviews and a pairdiscussion). The second step was for the JTEs to divide the list into a male list and a female
list. For the final step, I asked the JTEs to choose the third student from the top of each list
(i.e., one male and one female from each class). As a result, Kanon (female) and Tatsuya(male) were chosen at Sakura, whereas Sayaka (female) and Yousuke (male) were selected at
Tsubaki. Kanon was a Student Council member, Tatsuya was a Soccer club member, Sayaka
was a Japanese Culture club member, and Yousuke was a Student Council member. In thesame manner as Hiratsuka (2016b), this paper reports only on the four focal students. The
four focal participants took part in individual interviews and pair discussions as part of theendeavor as well. In other words, the focal student EP endeavor was consisted of: (a)classroom observation, (b) reflective class, (c) individual interview, and (d) pair discussion,and the data of this study were collected via individual interviews and pair discussions. At the
beginning and the end of the EP endeavor, I interviewed each focal student in Japanese forapproximately 60 minutes. Also, at the midpoint of the EP endeavor, the two focal students ateach school and I had a discussion in Japanese for about 30 minutes, respectively. As theinitial data analysis, I transcribed all the interviews and discussions, and translated them into
English while making every effort to maintain the meaning of the utterances of theparticipants. A content analysis approach (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007) was then employed togroup the data into fewer and broader codes, categories, and finally themes.

106

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 101-117

Findings
EP hinges on the three issues (i.e., the ‘what’, ‘who’, and ‘how’) (Allwright & Hanks,2009), and the goal of any EP endeavor is for the participants to adhere to them within their
particular research contexts. The ‘what’ issues focus on the quality of classroom life bybroadening everyone’s understanding of what is occurring in the language classrooms. The‘who’ issues involve bringing everybody together to enhance inclusivity, collegiality, andmutual development. The ‘how’ issues relate to minimizing the participants’ workload in EP
research and raising the possibility of continued exploration. I present below how theparticipants in this study followed and achieved the principles of the three issues within theirrespective and shared EP endeavors.

The ‘what’ issues
Of the four focal students, Sayaka and Yousuke at Tsubaki in particular recognized theimportance of the ‘what’ issues and showed evidence of it over the course of the EP endeavor.
For example, Sayaka remarked in her final interview that the experience encouraged her tothink about her classes:
I never thought of what sort of class I wanted to be in before. A class is a class. I just
had to take it. That’s how I felt. But I began to become interested in certain things
more and more. Based on the experience I have had this semester, I now know that aslong as I am interested in something, I will spend time and learn a lot about it.
Through the EP endeavor, Sayaka took on a more reflective stance with regard to herlearning. As a result, she became aware that she could invest time and energy for meaningfullearning when what she learns matches what she is interested in. The other focal student at
Tsubaki, Yousuke, placed emphasis on the lives of teachers and students in the classroom andattempted to understand them better. During his final interview, he described what he learned

107

Hiratsuka, T.
Assuring the Quality of Classroom Life Through Exploratory Practice: Learner’s Experiencesfrom my talks during the reflective classes, one of which was related to the noticing
hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990):
I didn’t necessarily think I was learning English per se in the endeavor, but you weretalking about things that were directly related to English learning…. I made many
discoveries, which I normally cannot in usual classes…. I was like, “Oh, this isnoticing!” I was noticing ‘noticing’. And your talk was about making learning directly
relate to our life experiences.
He appreciated a different type of ‘learning’ during the EP, which encompassed a broader
issue connected to the quality of classroom life in language classrooms. In the EP, he waslearning about how to learn English (“things that were directly related to English learning”)
rather than learning the specifics of the English language itself, as is ordinarily done when
English is taught as a school subject (“learning English per se”). He also saw how learning
was directly related to personal life experiences outside the classroom (see also Hiratsuka,
2016b).

The ‘who’ issues
In this study, all the participants seemed to have embraced the ‘who’ issues. Kanon at
Sakura, for instance, gave considerable thought in her final interview to what others (i.e.,other students and their teachers) might feel and experience:
Kanon: Not all the students share the same ideas or opinions, right? So, teachers
should listen to their students’ opinions as much as possible. I think teachers need tohave the ability to deal with different students’ needs and ideas…. I don’t thinkteachers grow as professionals if teachers always impose their opinions on theirstudents….
Researcher: What can we do to include students’ opinions?

108

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 101-117

Kanon: If I were a teacher, it might be troublesome, but I would write down questions
on the blackboard and have my students answer them. And rather than correcting theiranswers right away, I would have everyone answer the questions and elicit the reasonsfor their answers.
By putting herself in her teachers’ shoes, Kanon explored teacher and student
development. She imagined herself being a teacher and offered one way to increase
inclusivity in the classroom through her suggested activity. She also promoted a more
equitable method of teaching whereby she suggests that the teacher will grow if he or sheallows opinion sharing in the classroom. Like the participants in Chu’s (2007) and Hank’s(2015) studies, she became a key practitioner of learning through reflecting and imagining.
The other focal student at Sakura, Tatsuya, reflected on the value of collaboration between
students. He commented on Kanon’s input in his final interview: “I am glad I could listen to
somebody else’s opinion in the pair discussion.... I could understand what the other student
was thinking … and refer to it”. The opportunity for listening and sharing within EP activities
gave Tatsuya the chance to view the learning environment from another’s perspective. Sayaka
also mentioned how having a discussion partner made her EP experience worthwhile. We had
the following exchanges in her final interview:
Sayaka: When I had the pair discussion with Yousuke, I was simply amazed at how
much he could talk. I was thinking, “I cannot talk like this” (laugh). Like it or not, myideas were influenced by Yousuke’s ideas.
Researcher: Do you think the discussion with him influenced your English learning?
Sayaka: Yes. I think I changed my thinking.
The shared reflection on learning within the EP endeavor helped Sayaka to learn from her
peer and to more fully understand what English learning means. In his final interview,
Yosuke, evoked the spirit of the ‘who’ issues by saying:109

Hiratsuka, T.
Assuring the Quality of Classroom Life Through Exploratory Practice: Learner’s Experiences

I think only people can change people…. For example, when we prepare for university
entrance examinations, if one person takes the preparation seriously, two people start
to take it seriously…. In our classroom, the first thing we can do is to talk to a groupof people around us and suggest some things. And gradually from there, theconversations will spread to others like, “Oh, what about this?”
Yosuke thought that the students could take learning more seriously and generate moreideas when they communicate with other peers and share their thoughts because “only people
can change people”. This quote reflected two findings from previous EP works: the first being“the pleasure of being in a position to help others” (Hanks, 2015, p. 126) and the second
being the benefits that arise from providing opinions and exchanging ideas as a responsible
decision-making practitioner (Chu, 2007).

The ‘how’ issues
In this study, several features of the EP endeavor seemed to have led two students inparticular, Sayaka and Yousuke, to consider the ‘how’ issues. For instance, Sayaka mentioned
in her final interview the advantages of having three cycles:
I was extremely nervous to be observed by you at first…. I initially thought I had toshow my best behavior…. Probably at the very beginning, all of us were feeling likethat. But you came a couple of times, right? Then gradually everybody became like,“Oh, he is here again”, just like that.
Even though she initially felt she had to be on her “best behavior” in the observed classes,
after I visited her classroom a couple of times she no longer felt pressured and took part in theclasses as usual. This corresponds to the ideals of the ‘how’ issues in the EP world: theendeavor was a continuous enterprise and did not create an extra burden for the participants.
Yousuke and I specifically discussed the three EP issues in his final interview. This110

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 101-117

discussion prompted insightful opinions about the issues, and he expressed the need foragency in the classroom in order to continue the journey:
What you are hoping to achieve seems to be a very good environment…. It would be
ideal to have a situation with students and teachers working together, but it is very
difficult at the moment in this current situation…. What would we do? Where can westart? …. Even a small action can make people aware…. Of course, we need some key
experiences like this endeavor. But first we need someone to be the key person. We
can start from there, and then one person becomes two people, and two people becomefour people and so on…. Also, teachers and students need to have a collegial
relationship…. The harmony in the classroom, or the chemistry in the air, they all
have to pre-exist. Can we do it? … I cannot picture exactly yet … but we need to takefurther action soon.
He agreed with the egalitarian values that underpin EP in that an ideal environment is one
where students and teachers can work together collaboratively to create quality within
language classrooms (“It would be ideal to have a situation with students and teachers
working together”). However, he believed that his current situation was not conducive tocreating such an environment. Yet, it was evident from this quote and his overall positioningthat Yousuke wanted to be “the key person” in the near future to continue the EP experience.
Importantly, he wanted to make a harmonious classroom where small changes create
opportunities for growth (“even a small action can make people aware”; “I cannot picture
exactly yet … but we need to take further action soon”).

Minimal effects
I have shown above that all the student participants, although varyingly, provided evidenceof embracing the EP issues over the course of the endeavor. However, it is to be expected that
the EP would, at times, have only a ‘minimal effect’ to zero effect on the participants’111

Hiratsuka, T.
Assuring the Quality of Classroom Life Through Exploratory Practice: Learner’s Experiences

practices. Johnson (2009) states that “when human agency plays a central role indevelopment, there are always differences in how different people react to the same set ofcircumstances [EP experiences] at different times” (p. 116). This phenomenon was also
reported in the study by Hiratsuka (2016a).
There were occasions in this study when the participants, most evidently Kanon andTatsuya, did not always follow the EP issues. Kanon, for example, described her experience
with the pair discussion as follows: “Although it might be the case that he [Tatsuya] had thesame opinion, I thought he might have been thinking different things. So, I could not really
say what I was thinking in the discussion”. Kanon was concerned about her partner’s opinions
to the extent that she could not freely express hers and failed to work cooperatively for mutual
development. Tatsuya made some worrisome comments during his interview. Even though hereported to have benefitted from the EP endeavor by realizing that he could learn a lot fromteam-taught classes conducted by JTEs and ALTs, and he began to like team-taught classes
more than before, at the end of the endeavor he still had a negative attitude towards JTEs. He
regarded their solo classes as useless for his future: “The usual classes by Japanese teachers
will not be useful at all when we go to foreign countries. I read it in a book somewhere. So, I
want to have a real foreigner in the classroom”. This positioning of the JTE classes as uselessis counter to the EP issues of working cooperatively for mutual development. The EP did notseem to encourage him to challenge the premise he held. In the worst case scenario, the EP
experience might have in fact ‘facilitated’ the native speaker fallacy (Phillipson, 1992) andled him to think that team-taught classes with a foreigner are better than JTEs’ solo classes.

Discussion
The literature on EP studies has reported that EP endeavors promoted the enrichment ofmany student participants’ quality of classroom life. In particular, those participants inprevious EP studies demonstrated their capabilities to advance their understanding of their112

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 101-117

own learning. It has been argued that the EP approach is more beneficial for assuring thequality of classroom life than other approaches that focus on finding quick solutions totechnical problems (Chu, 2007). Student participants also reported that they welcomed new
and increased responsibilities as developing learners in their contexts (Hanks, 2015).
Furthermore, they demonstrated that they had become empowered learners and researchers byproviding alternative learning methods and making suggestions for further research(Hiratsuka, 2016b). In the present study, Sayaka and Yosuke in particular embraced the‘what’ issues by taking a reflective stance towards their learning and, through this, learned
more about how to learn, i.e., developing their meta-learning capabilities. All the focal
students cherished the ‘who’ issues. For example, Kanon and Tatsuya used reflective andimaginative practices to suggest activities that would increase inclusivity while Sayaka and
Yosuke championed the egalitarian values of EP by promoting collaboration among all thepeople concerned in the classroom. Finally, Sayaka and Yosuke in particular adhered to the‘how’ issues by noting the benefits of greater familiarity between the participants and theresearcher and, in the case of Yosuke, the possibility of continued agency, under the conditionof there being a key person. Considering the findings from the previous EP studies as well as
those of this current study, I now suggest three strategies for raising the likelihood of successin future EP journeys.
First, I recommend that, at the outset of and throughout the EP research, the participants
understand explicitly what participation in it entails and precisely what the three EP issues
aim to achieve. In this study, there were occasions in which Kanon and Tatsuya in particularwere not sure about the goals or purposes of the EP activities and did not adhere to some of
the core principles in the three EP issues (see also Hiratsuka, 2016a). At the beginning of an
EP study, the three EP issues should be explained to all the people involved, and theirunderstanding should be checked. Subsequently, there should be an opportunity to negotiate
the terms and their involvement in the study. They should then be reminded as often as113

Hiratsuka, T.
Assuring the Quality of Classroom Life Through Exploratory Practice: Learner’s Experiencespossible during the study about the three EP issues and, as the study evolves, make concrete
links from immediate experience to each EP issue. Second, EP participants need to be told toaccept that some ambiguity and uncertainty will prevail within their unique contexts. That is,each EP practitioner should take ownership of their endeavor by planning, executing, andevaluating their endeavor in their own ways whilst taking into account all the affordances andlimitations of their particular contexts. It is essential to recognize that there is no one style,process, or activity that can perfectly embody the ideals of the three EP issues; in other words,
researchers and participants alike need to be flexible and be prepared to learn by trial anderror (see Chu, 2007; Hiratsuka, 2016b).
Finally, as Hanks (2017a) addressed repeatedly, in EP it is of utmost importance togenerate and maintain trust among the participants. As exemplified in the case of Kanon inthis study, EP cannot fulfill its true potential when there is a lack of trust between theparticipants. Whether it is between the researcher and participants, between teachers andstudents, or amongst teachers and students, trust needs to be built through increasing
familiarity with each other. This can be enhanced by sharing our honest intentions anddisclosing our vulnerabilities to each other, for example, through the use of a discussion
activity. This high level of trust promotes the sharing of ideas and thoughts between
participants as well as advancing empathy for each other. These three suggestions ofincreasing clarity of the goals, accepting a degree of ambiguity, and building trust are likely to
improve the chances of success in the EP endeavor.

Conclusion
An inquiry-based EP endeavor, like the one documented in this paper, has proven to havethe potential to enable students to realize the three EP issues (‘what’, ‘who’, and ‘how’) andtherefore enrich the quality of their classroom lives. Nonetheless, EP research is still in its
infancy and requires a significant amount of growth and refining before it can more
114

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 101-117

consistently increase the quality of classroom life in a variety of contexts around the globe.
Researchers should thus continue to “critically examine EP as a subject in its own right, as alens through which to see the world, developing their, and our, understandings of thisinnovative new form of practitioner research” (Hanks, 2017, p. 10). My desire is that thisarticle and other EP research can inspire more language teachers and students to engage in EP
endeavors with a better understanding of the three EP issues, a strong sense of ownership of
their own EP, and a great deal of trust in each other.

Acknowledgements
I owe an important debt to my anonymous reviewers for providing helpful comments on
earlier drafts of this manuscript and also to the participants for generously sharing their time,interest, and ideas.

References
Allwright, D. (2005). Developing principles for practitioner research: The case of exploratory
practice. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 353-366.
Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learner: An introduction to
exploratory practice. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Best, K., Jones-Katz, L., Smolarek, B., Stolzenburg, M., & Williamson, D. (2015). Listening
to our students: An Exploratory Practice study of ESL writing students’ views of feedback.
TESOL Journal, 6, 332-357.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction totheory and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Chu, P. (2007). How students react to the power and responsibility of being decision makers
in their own learning. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 225-241.
Gieve, S., & Miller, I. K. (2006). Understanding the language classroom. Hampshire,115

Hiratsuka, T.
Assuring the Quality of Classroom Life Through Exploratory Practice: Learner’s Experiences

England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hanks, J. (2009). Inclusivity and collegiality in exploratory practice. In T. Yoshida, H. Imai,
Y. Nakata, A. Tajino, O. Takeuchi, & K. Tamai (Eds.), Researching language teaching
and learning: An integration of practice and theory (pp. 33-55). Bern, Switzerland: Peter
Lang.
Hanks, J. (2015). ‘Education is not just teaching’: Learner thoughts on Exploratory Practice.
ELT Journal, 69(2), 117-128.
Hanks, J. (2017a). Exploratory Practice in language teaching: Puzzling about principles andpractices. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hanks, J. (2017b). Integrating research and pedagogy: An Exploratory Practice approach.
System, 68, 38-49.
Hiratsuka, T. (2014). A study into how high school students learn using narrative frames. ELT
Journal, 68(2), 169-178.
Hiratsuka, T. (2016a). Actualizing Exploratory Practice (EP) principles with team teachers inJapan. System, 57, 109-119
Hiratsuka, T. (2016b). Transforming the practices of Japanese high school students:
Empowerment arising from Exploratory Practice (EP). Scripsimus, 25, 1-23.
Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New
York: Routledge.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Rowland, L. (2011). Lessons about learning: Comparing learner experience with language
research. Language Teaching Research, 15, 254-267.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Slimani-Rolls, A., & Kiely, R. (2014). ‘We are the change that we seek’: Developing
teachers’ understanding of their classroom practice. Innovations in Education and
116

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 101-117

Teaching International, 51, 425-435.
Yoshida, T., Imai, H., Nakata, Y., Tajino, A., Takeuchi, O., & Tamai, K. (Eds.). (2009).
Researching language teaching and learning: An integration of practice and theory. Bern,
Switzerland: Peter Lang.

117



JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 119-151

Investigation of the Learning Process for English Wh-Question Intonation:
Japanese Learners

Aya Kitagawa
Keio Senior High School

Abstract
This study investigated the difficulty, likelihood and order of Japanese learners learning
English intonation for wh-questions. The data was collected from three native speakers ofEnglish, eight learners of English who had lived for more than a year in an English-speaking
country, and nineteen learners of English who had not. They were analyzed according to
phonological, phonetic and semantic dimensions, using acoustic analysis. These dimensions
each involved the location of the nucleus, its pitch peak and valley, and its pitch range, andthe use of the nuclear tone. The results showed that the phonological and phonetic dimensions
were more difficult to learn than the semantic dimension, which was most likely to be learned
and was learned faster than the other two dimensions. There was also a greater likelihood oflearning the phonological dimension than the phonetic dimension. This study did not
successfully present clear evidence to determine the order in which the phonological andphonetic dimensions were learned, probably because their learning is closely intertwined. A
further study will reveal whether there is a preferred order for learning these dimensions.

Keywords: wh-questions, intonation, Japanese learners of English,

Introduction
The different realization of the tonal use for wh-questions and yes/no questions in
119

Kitagawa, A.
Investigation of the Learning Process for English Wh-Question Intonation: Japanese Learners

English has been frequently highlighted in English education in Japan. What is intriguing andsignificant about the learning of this element of pronunciation is that questions requiring ananswer from the hearer are commonly given with a rise in Japanese, no matter what type ofquestion they are. The cardinal principle for the English intonation where wh-questions are
spoken with a fall, as taught in Japanese schools, is therefore difficult for students to learn
intuitively. Halliday and Greaves (2008) attributed the difference between wh-questions andyes/no questions to the polarity, stating that the unmarked realization of wh-questions is a
non-polar interrogative. That is to say, unlike yes/no questions, there is no uncertainty in whquestions as to the polarity, and they are a type of statement that requires the hearer to fill inthe missing piece of information. The lack of uncertainty leads wh-questions to be reasonably
said with a fall in English; however, this argument will not apply to Japanese wh-questions.
This study considers how the linguistic and conceptual difference in the realization of
intonation for wh-questions between English and Japanese could have an effect on learning
English.

Literature Review
Theoretical Backgrounds
Although there have been an increasing number of studies on the learning of theintonation of a target language in recent years, no theoretical model for the learning of
intonation has been fully established. However, there have been two promising evolving
models proposed, the Perceptual Assimilation Model for Suprasegmentals (PAM-S; So &Best, 2014) and the L2 Intonation Learning Theory (LILt; Mennen, 2015). This study adopted
the latter because it was applicable to the productive aspect of learning. Another advantage ofthis theory is that some assumptions of the LILt stem from those suggested by influential
learning models in the field of second language (L2) pronunciation learning, the Speech
120

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 119-151

Learning Model (SLM; Flege, 1995), the Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM; Best, 1995)
and the PAM-L2 (Best & Tyler, 2007). This expands the applicability of this working model.
The essence of the LILt (Mennen, 2015) is that it attempts to characterize similarities
and differences in intonation between the first language (L1) and L2 in four dimensions: thephonological, phonetic, semantic and frequency. There are various linguistic items that these
dimensions could cover; for instance, they each concern on which syllable the nucleus isplaced, how tones are phonetically realized in terms of the alignment, slope or height, what
each intonation pattern means, and how frequently each tone is used.
To best of the author’s knowledge, there is no data available regarding the frequency inuse of a fall for Japanese wh-questions. A rise is overwhelmingly dominant for questions inJapanese. Thus, the present study examined the learning of intonation in the phonological,
phonetic and semantic dimensions. The literature is reviewed regarding the intonation ofEnglish and Japanese in each dimension.

Phonological Dimension
A fundamental difference between English and Japanese in the phonological dimension
lies in the pitch accent, and it leads each language to allow different pitch patterns. This isshown in Figure 1 (Igarashi, 2015, partially revised), which typologically compares theintonation systems of the two languages based on MAE-ToBI (Beckman & Elam, 1997;
Beckman, Hirschberg, & Shattuck-Hufnagel, 2005) and X-JToBI (Maekawa, Igarashi,
Kikuchi, & Yoneyama, 2004) transcribed under the framework of autosegmental-metricaltheory. Although this study is not based on the theory, these transcriptions are used here toillustrate a direct comparison between the two languages.
First, the pitch accent is lexical in Japanese, meaning that the location of the pitchaccent is lexically fixed. In contrast, the pitch accent in English can be placed on any word, as
121

Kitagawa, A.
Investigation of the Learning Process for English Wh-Question Intonation: Japanese Learners

the nucleus goes on any syllable in the utterance, which suggests that it is post-lexical.
Secondly, English and Japanese have different types and numbers of the pitch accent in theirinventory. Figure 1 shows that Japanese has only one type of pitch accent, H*+L, and the

Figure 1. Intonation systems of English and Japanese. Adapted from “Intonation,” by Y.
Igarashi, 2015, Handbook of Japanese phonetics and phonology, p. 560. 2015 by Walter deGruyter.

language even allows an unaccented accentual phrase. However, English has far morevarieties of pitch accent. Thirdly, the X-JToBI (Maekawa, Kikuchi, Igarashi, & Venditti, 2002;
Maekawa, Igarashi, Kikuchi, & Yoneyama, 2004) framework defined two levels of prosodic
phrasing in Japanese (Igarashi, 2015): the accentual phrase (AP) and the intonation phrase(IP). While the IP is the domain within which pitch range is specified (Igarashi, 2015), the AP,
consisting of at most one pitch accent, serves to delimit a tonal pattern. The English
intonation system, however, is typically considered to have a one-level prosodic phrasing, theIP. Finally, the presence of boundary pitch movements (BPMs) is unique to Japanese. BPMs,
realized as a pitch movement containing a rise at the beginning, appear at the end of the AP or
IP to “contribute to the pragmatic interpretation of the utterance” (Igarashi, 2015, p. 544) suchas a question, continuation or emphasis. Igarashi (2015) classified BPMs into four groups, as
in Figure 1, although their classification varies from study to study (Kim, 2015). Such pitch
movement, limited to the final position of the prosodic phrase, does not occur in English.
Prior studies have demonstrated that the first two of these differences in pitch accent
122

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 119-151

could affect the way that Japanese learners learn the phonological dimension of intonation.
Saito and Ueda (2011) summarized four major types of errors in the nucleus location;
pronouns such as I especially, interrogatives, attributive adjectives and negatives are foursyntactic categories on which the nucleus is placed in utterances produced by Japaneselearners of English. Although they did not provide empirical data, Maeda (2005) performed
an experiment and analyzed the data acoustically, reporting that less proficient Japaneselearners of English tended to locate the nucleus on the interrogatives and pronouns. This
clearly shows the effect of the difference in the pitch accent between English and Japanese.
That is to say, English speakers have to place the pitch accent depending on the context,
which is difficult for Japanese learners. This was also discovered by Joto (1983).

Phonetic Dimension
The phonetic dimension of intonation represents the realization of the pitch contour,
including the pitch alignment, pitch peak and valley, and pitch range. It is frequently argued
that Japanese learners speak English monotonously with a flat pitch, and previous studies
have generally agreed that they use a narrow pitch range (Joto, 1983; Maeda, 2005; Sato,
1999; Todaka, 1994) with some studies presenting the opposite finding (Aoyama & Guion,2007). Study of the phonetic dimension will therefore focus mainly on pitch range here.
In terms of the phonetic realization of intonation, English and Japanese are somewhat
similar in that both generally have an overall downward pitch movement to the end of the IP.
However, they differ in that Japanese is more remarkable for its downstep whereas English
involves declination. Both occur within the domain of the IP, but downstep is more systematicin that each AP is compressed when it is preceded by another accented AP, with the height of
the low pitch almost steady (Igarashi & Koiso, 2012). Declination is the phenomena in whicha fundamental frequency (F0) is gradually lowered toward the end of the utterance. Figure 2
123

Kitagawa, A.
Investigation of the Learning Process for English Wh-Question Intonation: Japanese Learners

displays a schematic illustration of this difference.
The negative interference of the compression of the pitch range due to downstep inJapanese could result in Japanese learners using a narrow pitch range when speaking English.
For example, Nariai and Tanaka (2012) acoustically and statistically investigated therealization of English intonation produced by native English speakers and native Japanese

Figure 2. Schematic illustration of declination and downstep.

speakers, and found that the pitch range of the Japanese speakers was smaller than that of thenative English speakers in 88% of the utterances. They also argued that the Japanese speakers
generally spoke utterances with a higher pitch on the function word and a lower pitch on thecontent word, compared to the native speakers. In contrast, the Japanese speakers had a wider
pitch range at the end of declaratives, which was not heard at the end of interrogatives.
Maeda (2005) found that less proficient Japanese learners of English place theprominence on the wh words and pronouns with a higher F0, a greater pitch change and alonger duration. This implies a failure to produce utterances with a native-like wide pitch
range on the nucleus for wh-questions. According to Maekawa (1997), there is a higher peakon wh words in wh-questions in Japanese, with the last peak less clear and less prominent.
This could lead to the findings in Maeda.

Semantic Dimension
The semantic dimension of intonation involves the way that the intonation is realized to124

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 119-151

convey a certain linguistic meaning (Mennen, 2015): the type of the nuclear tone used for whquestions is within the scope of the semantic dimension. The difference is notable between
English and Japanese in this dimension. As mentioned above, wh-questions are implemented
with a rise in Japanese. Despite the fact that a rising contour is not always evident at the endof the utterance (Maekawa, 1997), Igarashi (2015) maintained that a scooped rise of the four
BPMs, LH%, typically expresses questions. In contrast, a fall is a default nuclear tone for whquestions in English (Watanabe, 1994;Wells, 2006).
Unlike Japanese, however, there are multiple candidates for the nuclear tone of whquestions in English, including a rise and a fall-rise. While a fall-rise is less common, the riseused for wh-questions is known to be an encouraging rise that makes a spoken utterancesound more gentle, kindly, encouraging, sympathetic or deferential (Wells, 2006). A rise forwh-questions also has the effect of expressing negative emotions such as ridicule, sarcasm,
complaint or criticism (Watanabe, 1994). In addition, the use of a rise for wh-questions iscommon in Belfast English, where 94.4% of wh-questions were spoken with a rise and 5.6%,
with a fall, according the report by Grabe (2002). A fall is therefore not a unique, fixed
nuclear tone for wh-questions in English.
Despite all this, this study defines a fall as the default nuclear tone used for English whquestions, as described in Watanabe (1994) and Wells (2006), which Japanese learners arerecommended to learn for the following reasons. One is that a fall is, in fact, still the first
choice for the nuclear tone in English wh-questions. According to Grabe (2002), apart from
Belfast English, British English generally prioritizes a fall in all tones, with the frequency of afall ranging from 55.6% in London to 83.3% in Bradford. Watanabe (1994) even claimed thata rise is only used for 10% of the wh-questions at most, with this use of a rise slightly more
frequent in British English than in American English. The other reason is that this study
placed more emphasis on the examination of how Japanese learners learn intonational aspects
125Kitagawa, A.
Investigation of the Learning Process for English Wh-Question Intonation: Japanese Learnersof English that are different from those of Japanese. Joto (1983) claimed that Japaneselearners of English had difficulty using a fall for wh-questions. This implies that the different
realization of the semantic dimension between the two languages concerning the tonal use in
wh-questions could interfere with Japanese learning of English intonation.

Research Questions and Hypotheses
The present study examined Japanese learning of intonation in the production ofEnglish wh-questions in the three dimensions, defining the location of the nucleus as alearning item of the phonological dimension, the pitch peak and valley of the nucleus, and its
pitch range as learning items of the phonetic dimension, and the use of a fall for a nuclear
tone as a learning item of the semantic dimension. The following three research questions
were addressed according to the definition of a native-like realization appropriate for learning
intonation:
1. How difficult is it for Japanese learners of English to achieve a native-like intonation
pattern for wh-questions in English, in each of the three dimensions?
2. How likely are Japanese learners of English to achieve a native-like intonation pattern foreach dimension?
3.

In what order do Japanese learners of English tend to learn a native-like intonation
pattern when these three dimensions are compared to one another?

The first and second research questions concern the difficulty and likelihood of Japaneselearners learning to produce a native-like intonation pattern for wh-questions in English. The
third research question dealt with the order of learning to achieve a native-like intonation
pattern from the perspective of the three dimensions. Based on the similarities and differences
between the two languages and the prior studies described in the literature review section, thisstudy constructed hypotheses regarding the first and second research questions as follows:
126

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 119-151

1. It would be difficult for Japanese learners of English to learn to realize a native-likeintonation pattern for wh-questions in all three dimensions.
2. It would be most unlikely for Japanese learners to achieve a native-like realization of
intonation for wh-questions in the phonological dimension, but it would be more likely inthe phonetic dimension and most likely in the semantic dimension.
All three dimensions were predicted to be equally difficult, but the hypothesis on thelikelihood of learning varied. It was hypothesized that the phonetic dimension would be more
likely to be learned than the phonological dimension, because previous research such as
Maeda (2005) and Nariai and Tanaka (2012) suggested the inappropriate placement of a highpitch by Japanese learners. This implies that a corrected placement of the pitch peak could
enhance the learning of English intonation in the phonetic dimension by Japanese learners,
and contribute to the learning of both pitch peak and pitch range. The semantic dimension
was, furthermore, hypothesized to be the most likely learned of the three dimensions, because
a fall involves the Japanese tonal inventory, and the use of a fall for wh-questions in English
is one of the most frequently taught elements in English education in Japan.
For the third research question, Japanese learners were predicted to have different
degrees of difficulty in learning English intonation for wh-questions depending on thedimensions, and to have a preferred order for learning them, as found for Korean learners by
Jun and Oh (2000). However, this study did not propose a hypothesis on the exact order due
to a lack of earlier studies directly addressing this issue.

MethodParticipants
Three groups of males participated in the experiment: a group of native speakers ofEnglish, of Japanese learners of English who had lived in an English-speaking country and127

Kitagawa, A.
Investigation of the Learning Process for English Wh-Question Intonation: Japanese Learners

been exposed to English either in a local school or international school for more than one
year, and a group of the other Japanese learners of English whose English proficiency falls in
the A1 or A2 level of CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001). The average age for the two Japanesegroups was 18.13 and 18.05 years old, respectively. The first group, or the native-speakergroup (Group N), served to demonstrate the productive realization of wh-questions in English
as a reference. The second group, the Japanese returnees (Group JR), represented the Japaneselearners of English who were expected to provide the productive realization at a level thatJapanese learners of English could achieve at a later stage in the learning process. The final
group, or the rest of the Japanese learners of English (Group JL), was expected to typify theJapanese learners of English who would show a common level in their productive realization.
Group N consisted of three native speakers of English who were teaching English to
Japanese learners of English, two of whom spoke General American and one of whom spoke
General Australian. The two American English native speakers were from the states ofCalifornia and Colorado. The Australian native speaker was from Melbourne. They allreported themselves as speakers of standard English with no strong local or social accents.
This study allowed the native speakers with different accents to provide a reference because
the participants of Groups JR and JL had been exposed to various English accents.
Groups JR and JL comprised eight and nineteen native speakers of Japanese,respectively. The eight participants of Group JR varied as to the country in which they had
stayed, the length of residence, and their age of arrival. Three lived in the U.S., two in
Singapore, one in the U.K., one in Canada and one in the Philippines. The average length ofresidence was 6.97 years, ranging from 1 to 15, and the average age of arrival was 4.13,
ranging from 0 to 16.

Materials
128

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 119-151

The present study employed three passages from Wells (2006) as experimental
materials. Wells provided these passages in the section titled Passages for Analysis: Getting
breakfast, Books and Cornwall. These were supplied with a model answer so that readers
could learn how each part of the utterance is pronounced regarding the three linguistic
intonation systems, tonality, tonicity and tone. This enabled the experimenter to analyze theintonation patterns used by Groups JR and JL, while examining whether Group N performed
in a model way.
The seven wh-questions that appeared in these passages were excerpted and analyzed astarget sentences, although the participants were required to read the whole passage aloudsince the context determines acceptable intonation patterns. The target sentences are describedin Table 1. The bold and underlined syllables in the table correspond to those on which Wells(2006) proposed the nucleus should be placed, and where a fall is commonly used.

Table 1
Target Sentences
A
B
C
D
E
F
G

Target sentence
Excuse me, | where do I get breakfast?
Where’s that?
Which books?
Why?
And how was it?
So what did you do during all this rain?
What’s that?

Passage
Getting breakfast
Getting breakfast
Books
Books
CornwallCornwallCornwallPhonol.
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓

Phon.
✓
✓
✓
✓

Sem.
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓

✓

✓

Note. Sentence A is divided into two IPs, as shown by a vertical line, and the second IP was a target of analysis.
Phonol. = phonological dimension; Phon. = phonetic dimension; Sem. = semantic dimension.

The ticks in Table 1 show which sentences were tested for which dimensions. Since
Sentence D is a one-word sentence, there was only one candidate for the nucleus, andtherefore, this sentence was not analyzed for the phonological dimension. Similarly,
Sentences C and F were excluded from the analysis of the phonetic dimension because they129

Kitagawa, A.
Investigation of the Learning Process for English Wh-Question Intonation: Japanese Learners

differ from the other sentences in that the nucleus is followed by another content word.
Sentence F was not analyzed for its semantic dimension either, because two of the participantsof Group N located two nuclei in the utterance by dividing it into two IPs unlike the model
suggested by Wells (2006), as will be reported in the results section.

Recording and Procedure
The materials written in English were distributed beforehand, with the Japanesetranslations. The participants of Groups JR and JL read aloud both English and Japaneseversions, while those of Group N read an English version only. Groups JR and JL wereallowed to choose which version to read first. These materials were printed on A4 paper, andplaced around 15 cm to 20 cm away from the microphone on the table. The participants andthe experimenter were alone in the recording session, so as to avoid background noises. Theirdata was recorded at a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz, 16 bit, using a digital recorder, Roland-09,
and a condenser microphone, SONY ECM-MS957.

Acoustic Measurements and Analyses
The acoustic analyses were conducted using Praat (Boersma & Weenink, 2015), a
software for acoustic analyses. The target sentences were first manually annotated based on
the waveform and spectrogram. Then, the location of the nucleus for the phonologicaldimension, the peak and valley of the nucleus and its pitch range for the phonetic dimension,and the type of the nuclear tone for the semantic dimension were analyzed. The analysis of
the phonetic dimension depended on the realization of the phonological and semantic
dimensions, as described below. Hence, when the nucleus was not placed on the word as in
the model answer supplied by Wells (2006) and/or a non-fall was used, the target sentences
concerned were not analyzed for their phonetic dimension.
130

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 119-151

Analysis of the nucleus location was based on a visual inspection of where the mostdynamic pitch movement occurred on the pitch contour with the help of the auditory
impression. After identifying the nucleus, the tone used was categorized into a fall, rise, fallrise or level by listening to the utterance and examining F0. Although O’Connor and Arnold(1973) categorized the English tones into seven groups, the present study adopted four
categories by classifying a high fall, a low fall and a rise-fall as a fall. This was because they
are subtypes of the fall that differ in the pitch height or movement at the start of the fall,according to Wells (2006). Even if the nucleus was on a different syllable from that proposedby Wells, analysis of the semantic dimension was carried out as long as the nucleus wasplaced somewhere within the same IP. However, when only the utterance was spoken with afall on the exact nucleus, as suggested by Wells, the pitch peak and valley were measured in
Hertz (Hz) to examine the phonetic dimension. The pitch range was calculated from thesevalues and expressed in semitones (ST), a musical scale. This scale was used to make itpossible to consider the characteristic auditory sense.

Statistical Analyses
Statistical analyses were conducted after the above analyses to investigate whether
there was a statistically significant difference in the use of the intonation pattern in whquestions among Groups N, JR and JL, and to address Research Question 1, about thedifficulty of learning, and Research Question 2, about the likelihood of learning. The former
was discussed based on the comparison of the realization between Group N and Group JL;
and the latter, on that between Group JR and Group JL. Table 2 presents a summary of thevariables with their levels of measurement, units and scales.

131

Kitagawa, A.
Investigation of the Learning Process for English Wh-Question Intonation: Japanese Learners

Table 2
Variables for the Statistical Analyses
Dimension
Phonological
Phonetic
Semantic

Variables
Score of the nucleus
Pitch peak
Pitch valley
Pitch range
Score of the nuclear tone

Level of measurement
Unit
IntervalInterval
HzInterval
HzInterval
ST
Interval

Scale
0-6

0-6

Scores for the nucleus, adopted as the variable for the phonological dimension, wereobtained by counting the number of target sentences in which the nucleus was placed on thesyllable, as suggested by Wells (2006). If all nuclei were appropriately located, theparticipants scored six, the highest possible score. The same applied to the semantic
dimension, which involves whether a fall was used for a nuclear tone in the target sentences.
A Kruskal-Wallis test was carried out using these variables, with the scores as the
response variables and the groups as the explanatory variables, in order to examine whether
there was any significant difference among the three groups. This test was followed by aMann-Whitney U test, a post-hoc test, when a significant difference was yielded (Field,2009). Because this post-hoc test was conducted three times, the α level was set at .00167 in
this analysis by applying a Bonferroni correction (Field, 2009). A one-tailed Man-Whitney U
test was performed because the hypotheses were directional in the present study, where GroupN was predicted to outperform Group JR, and Group JR, to outperform Group JL, taking their
linguistic experience of English into account. Groups N, JR and JL differed in sample sizes
and their data violated the assumption of normality; therefore, these non-parametric tests were
performed.
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to investigate whether
the groups significantly differed according to the phonetic dimension. Three variables, thepitch peak, the pitch valley and the pitch range, were used in a MANOVA, as the response
132

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 119-151

variables and the three groups as the explanatory variables. As mentioned above, sample sizes
widely differed between the three groups, and so a non-parametric MANOVA(PERMANOVA) was also conducted using PAST (Hammer, Harper, & Ryan, 2001a, 2001b)
to see if the results obtained by a MANOVA were reproduced. As this is not a standard
method, however, the results produced by the MANOVA will be reported when both results
were comparable. One thing to be noted is that the data used for the test depended on the
results of the phonological and semantic dimensions. Therefore, the test was carried out
excluding the data where the nucleus was not placed on the appropriate syllable and/or a nonfall was used. When a MANOVA identified a statistical difference between the groups, a posthoc test was performed using discriminant analysis to locate the difference. The contributionsof the variables to the discrimination of the groups were judged from the structural matrix ofthe correlation between the variables and each discriminant function. With no decisive
standard in the interpretation of the correlations, this study followed the convention describedby Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), where those higher than .33 were interpreted as correlatedwith the function.
In order to address Research Question 3, about the order of learning, skill mastery
profiles were created by focusing on the learning of each participant, rather than on theoverall tendency of the learners. To this end, all participants were classified as a master or
non-master as to each attribute. A master or non-master was defined by labeling the data
which fell within 2 standard deviations (SD) of the mean of Group N as a master, and theother data as a non-master, by reference to the method adopted by Flege, Yeni-Komshian, andLiu (1999), which attempted to label the non-native speakers as native-like or not. The
phonetic dimension was examined using the three variables, and the participants were labeled
as a master as long as they were defined as a master for all variables.

133

Kitagawa, A.
Investigation of the Learning Process for English Wh-Question Intonation: Japanese Learners

Results
Phonological Dimension
The descriptive statistics of the results of the phonological dimension are presented inTable 3. As you can see from the comparison of the mean values, the three groups differed tosome degree. The difference between Groups JR and JL was more remarkable than thatbetween Groups N and JR, which was reflected by the results that that none of the participantsof Group JL achieved a full score for this dimension. This indicates that no participants inGroup JL successfully located the nucleus on the appropriate syllable.

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics of the Phonological Dimension
Group
N
JR
JL

n
3
8
19

M
5.33
4.50
2.74

SD
0.47
0.71
0.91

Max.
6
6
4

Min.
5
4
1

The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to examine whether the difference between the threegroups was significant. The results showed that the scores of the nucleus significantly
differed, H(2) = 17.47, p = .000. These results meant that a post-hoc test was conducted to
identify where the difference was among the three groups. According to the results of a onetailed Mann-Whitney test, there was no significant difference between Group N (Mdn = 5.00)
and Group JR (Mdn = 4.00), U = 4.50, z = -1.65, p = 1.00, r = -.50. In contrast, Group JL(Mdn = 3.00) differed significantly from Group N, U = 0.00, z = -2.83 p =.001, r = -.60, andfrom Group JR, U = 12.50, z = -3.52, p =.00, r = -.68, with Group JL performing more poorly
than Groups N and JR.

Phonetic Dimension
134

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 119-151

Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics for the phonetic dimension. One participant ofGroup JL failed to provide any data for the phonetic dimension; therefore, there were 18 data
points available for this group. Comparisons of the values between the groups showed that
there was a notable difference in the pitch peak and pitch range. The pitch peak of Group N
was much higher than that of Groups JR and JL. A similar trend was noted for the pitch range;
Group N used the widest pitch range of the three groups, with the mean value of Group JR
closer to that of Group N than Group JL was. The pitch valley demonstrated a different
tendency, in that Group JR produced the lowest value, followed by Group JL and Group N inthis order. These results were shared with all target sentences.
A one-way MANOVA and a one-way PERMANOVA, a non-parametric version of aone-way MANOVA, were carried out to examine whether there was a significant difference inthe pitch peak, pitch valley and/or the pitch range between the groups. The results of bothtests revealed a significant difference between the groups. Using Pillai’s trace, the threegroups differed at a significant level, F(6, 50) = 4.43, p = .001, ηp2 = .35. Following this, adiscriminant analysis was conducted to identify which groups differed in which variables. The
analysis statistically found two functions; the first function and the second function eachexplained 74.6% of the variance, canonical R2 = .47 and 25.4% of the variance, canonical R2
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics of the Phonetic Dimension
Group
N
JR
JL

n
3
8
18

Pitch peakMSD
195.3327.33
131.9827.91
130.47
16.37

Pitch valleyM
SD
106.17
22.94
84.16
12.94
96.95
11.47

Pitch range
M
SD
10.89
4.11
7.69
2.51
5.16
2.00

Note. Not all participants provided the data to be analyzed because some failed to locate the nucleus
appropriately and/or use a fall. The number of participants whose data was analyzed for each target sentence wastherefore as follows; N = 2, JR = 6, JL = 5 for Sentence A; N = 3, JR = 7, JL = 11 for Sentence B; N = 3, JR = 7,
JL = 13 for Sentence D, N = 3, JR = 7, JL = 6 for Sentence E; N = 3, JR = 8, JL = 17 for Sentence G. The valuesof the pitch peak and valley are expressed in Hz and those of the pitch range, in ST.

135

Kitagawa, A.
Investigation of the Learning Process for English Wh-Question Intonation: Japanese Learners= .22. When combined, these two functions significantly discriminated the groups with aWilk’s lambda value of .41, χ2(6) = 22.17, p = .00. After removing the first function, thesecond function alone set the groups significantly apart, with a Wilk’s lambda value of .77,
χ2(2) = 6.49, p = .04. It follows that each of the two functions contributed to thediscrimination of the groups. The canonical discriminant function plot in Figure 3 and thegroup centroids in Table 5 revealed that the first function distinguished Group N from Groups
JR and JL. They also showed that the second function contributed to distinguishing Group JR
from Groups N and JL.

Figure 3. Canonical discriminant function plot for rhythm.

The structural matrix in Table 5 indicates the correlations between the variables and thediscriminant functions, where the pitch peak and pitch range highly loaded onto the first
Table 5Structural Matrix for the Correlations Between the Variables and the Two Discriminant
Functions
Function
Variable1
2
Pitch peak
.98-.14
Pitch range.71.70
Pitch valley.26-.82
Note. The variables with the absolute value of correlations with the corresponding functions of .33 and above
were highlighted in bold.

function (r = .98 and r = .71). This result indicates that Group N differed from Groups JR and
136

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 119-151

JL in that Group N produced the target sentences using a wider pitch range, with the pitch
peak reaching higher, when interpreted considering the values shown by Table 4. In contrast,
the high loadings of the pitch valley (r = -.82) and the pitch range (r = .70) in the opposite
direction were observed for the second function. The second function contributed to theseparation of Group JR from Groups JL and N, as mentioned above, meaning that the function
characterized how Group JR realized the intonation for wh-questions phonetically. Taking
into account that Group JR used the lowest peak valley of the three groups, as in Table 4, it
could be interpreted that the group widened a pitch range by lowering the pitch as much as
possible.

Semantic Dimension
Table 6 shows the descriptive statistics of the semantic dimension, which concerns thescore for the nuclear tone. Sentence F, So what did you do during all this rain?, was notincluded in this analysis because two participants of Group N placed two nuclei, dividing theutterance into two IPs, as mentioned in the method section. From what can be seen in thetable, there seemed to be no profound difference between Groups N and JR although theydiffered from Group JL. The scores of the participants in Group JL ranged widely, from zero
to six.
Table 6
Descriptive Statistics of the Semantic Dimension
Group
N
JR
JL

n
3
8
19

M
5.67
5.38
4.11

SD
0.47
0.48
1.65

Max.
6
6
6

Min.
5
5
0

One thing to be noted before reporting the results of the statistical tests is that there wasonly one case in which a participant from Group N spoke the target sentence with a non-fall.
137

Kitagawa, A.
Investigation of the Learning Process for English Wh-Question Intonation: Japanese Learners

This participant used a rise for Sentence A, Excuse me, where do I get breakfast? In contrast,
the rest of the sentences produced by this participant had a fall, and the other two participantsof Group N spoke all the target sentences with a fall.
The Kruskal-Wallis test was performed just as it was conducted for the phonologicaldimension. The results indicated that the groups significantly differed in the scores for the
nuclear tone, H(2) = 5.83, p = .046. A one-tailed Mann-Whitney test was thus carried out as a
post-hoc test. However, no group differed significantly from the others: between Group N(Mdn = 6) and Group JR (Mdn = 5), U = 8.50, z = -0.83, p = .42, r = -.25; between Group N
and Group JL (Mdn = 4), U = 11.50, z = -1.67, p = .08, r = -.36; between Group JR andGroup JL, U = 40.00, z = -1.97, p = .023, r = -.38.

Skill Mastery Profiles
The learning profiles of the three dimensions of intonation, which focused on individual
participants, are summarized in Table 7. The numbers given in the second row stand for the
profiles, where 1 and 0 represent a master and non-master, respectively. In total, there werenine possible profiles, into which each participant was classified.
The results of the skill mastery profiles can be summarized into the following six
points. First, all three participants in Group N fell into Profile 111, meaning that they were
defined as masters of all three dimensions. Secondly, the most common profile among theparticipants ofTable 7
Skill Mastery Profiles
Group
N
JR
JL

n
3
8
19

111
3

110

101

Skill Profile
011
100

3

2
2

010

001

000

2

3
6

9

Note. There were eight profiles, where 1 and 0 each stand for a master and a non-master. Attributes areordered from the phonological skill to the phonetic skill to the semantic skill.

138

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 119-151

Group JL was Profile 000, as observed for nine participants. This means that nearly half theparticipants of the group failed to master any dimension of intonation. Thirdly, as for GroupJL, more participants were defined as masters of the semantic dimension than the otherdimensions. Six participants and two participants each had Profile 001 and Profile 011, theformer having mastered the semantic dimension only and the latter, the phonetic and semantic
dimensions. Fourthly, learning the semantic dimension also characterized Group JR; allparticipants had mastered the semantic dimension as seen in all three profiles found for Group
JR, Profiles 101, 011 and 001. Fifthly, learning the phonological and phonetic dimensions
produced mixed results. Group JL had no master of the phonological dimension whereas four
participants were defined as masters of the phonetic dimension. In contrast, Group JR had
three participants who had mastered the phonological dimension and two participants who
had mastered the phonetic dimension, and all had mastered the semantic dimension. Finally,
the participants of both Group JR and Group JL had some variations in the profile, which
implied the presence of individual differences in the learning process.

Discussion
Phonological Dimension
The results of the phonological dimension demonstrated that Group N and Group JR
did not differ significantly from each other, and that both groups did differ from Group JL.
This means that it was difficult for the Japanese learners to learn this dimension of intonation,
but that they were likely to learn it. At an earlier stage of learning, especially, it would be
difficult and nearly impossible to achieve a native-like realization of the phonologicaldimension, or the nucleus location, in producing wh-questions; however, as learners learn
more, probably both more intensively and extensively, Japanese learners would be able tolearn to place the nucleus in a native-like manner. Therefore, the results of the phonological139

Kitagawa, A.
Investigation of the Learning Process for English Wh-Question Intonation: Japanese Learners

dimension upheld the hypothesis on the difficulty of learning, but not that on the likelihood oflearning.
A more careful examination of the scores of the nucleus implied which type of nucleus
location was difficult for Japanese learners. The first rule regarding the location of the nucleus
is that it is placed on the primary stressed syllable of the last content word although it is also
determined by other factors such as the focus and the sentence components. The target
sentences were categorized into two according to this basic principle: the sentences in which
the nucleus goes on the primary stressed syllable of the last content, and the others. The
former category included Sentences A, B, and G, and the latter, Sentences C, E and F. Whenthe results were scrutinized in terms of this classification, it was far more difficult for theJapanese learners to place the nucleus on the appropriate syllable when it had to go on thesyllable of the non-last content word. It follows that the nucleus location was a difficult
learning item when the utterance did not follow its first and foremost principle that thestressed syllable of the last content word bear the nucleus. The mean values of the scores of
the nucleus for Sentences C, E and F were 2.33 for Group N, 1.50 for Group JR and 0.89 forGroup JL out of 3 maximum points. The values for the sentences in which the nucleus isplaced on the stressed syllable of the last content word were 3.00 for Group N, 3.00 for GroupJR and 2.35 for Group JL out of 3. The nucleus location is determined by the factors such as
old information for Sentence C, the sentence pattern of a wh-word + be verb + pronoun for
Sentence E, and adverbs and adverbial phrases of time and place for Sentence F (Wells,
2006). These determinants locate the nucleus on a non-final word of the utterance, which was
found to be a difficult learning item for Japanese learners.
However, the Japanese learners in this study did not necessarily locate the nucleus on
the wh words although Saito and Ueda (2011) and Maeda (2005) suggested that their
participants did. Instead, more than half of the participants in both Group JR and Group JL
140

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 119-151

failed to place the nucleus on the wh word for Sentence C, Which books?, despite the modelthat the nucleus goes on which in this sentence (Wells, 2006). The syllable that bore thenucleus for most participants in Group JL for Sentence E was also it rather than how. No
participant placed the nucleus on what in Sentence F. Because this target sentence, unlike themodel (Wells, 2006), tended to bear two nuclei on do and rain by being divided into two IPs
in the data of the majority of the participants, including two native speakers, the acceptabilityof placing the nucleus on rain needs to be more carefully examined in a further study.
Nevertheless, a general tendency found in the results here demonstrates that the nucleus is notalways on wh words in the Japanese learners’ production of wh-questions. These results
require more comparable studies to discuss why this research did not corroborate priorfindings.
A more evident finding was, instead, that the less experienced Japanese learners tended
to locate the nucleus on the last syllable of the utterance, which applied to all target sentences
produced by Group JL. This was even true of Sentence A, where eight participants out ofnineteen in Group JL placed the nucleus on fast in breakfast, a bi-syllabic word whose
primary stress occurs on the first syllable. Taking this into consideration, Group JL had notlearned the basic principle of the nucleus location, but located it on the last syllable of theutterance. If this claim is reasonable, it suggests that the use of BPMs in Japanese could betransferred to the realization of the phonological dimension of intonation in production by
Japanese learners. As described in the literature review section, BPMs carry prosodic
meanings, such as question, continuation and emphasis. This linguistic function of the last
syllable of the prosodic phrase is stubborn even in the realization of the prosody in their target
language. The results produced here indicated that the transfer of this would be difficult to
avoid, but could be smoothed out with enough experience of the target language.
Phonetic Dimension
141

Kitagawa, A.
Investigation of the Learning Process for English Wh-Question Intonation: Japanese Learners

The results obtained revealed that Group N used a wider pitch range by setting the pitch
peak at a higher pitch than Groups JR and JL. This suggests that the phonetic dimension of
intonation was difficult for the Japanese learners to realize, meaning that the results bore out
the hypotheses regarding the difficulty of learning. The finding confirmed what was argued in
Maeda (2005) and Nariai and Tanaka (2012), and it could be claimed that a narrower pitch
range was used in the realization of the phonetic dimension, as for the production by Japaneselearners. The results here, moreover, indicated that a lower pitch peak could lead to a limited
pitch range, which would be in part due to the downstep described in the literature review
section. However, a failure to use a wide pitch range does not necessarily stem from thelinguistic deviance of the target language from a learner’s native language. Kainada andLengeris (2014) reported that the Greek learners of English, whose data was acousticallyanalyzed, used a narrower pitch range in the realization of English intonation than the native
speakers, despite the finding that Greek and English did not differ in the pitch range. There
could thus be multiple reasons for Japanese learners to use a narrower pitch range than native
speakers.
The hypothesis on the likelihood of learning was only partially supported. Group JR
was found to use a different strategy than Group N to widen the pitch range in producing whquestions with a fall; Group N used a high pitch peak whereas Group JR lowered the pitch.
Neither of the tendencies was observed in Group JL, and it would be reasonable to suggestthat this is a strategy used by Group JR to realize a native-like intonation in the phonetic
dimension. The overall pitch remained within a narrow range, however, with the pitch peaklower. Taken together, this study interpreted the results to suggest that learning the phonetic
dimension of intonation was not unlikely, but only likely to a limited degree.

Semantic Dimension
142

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 119-151

The Mann-Whitney test did not confirm the significant difference yielded by the
Kruskal-Wallis test. This is partially because of the unbalanced sample size of the threegroups, which needs to be amended and tested more rigorously in further research. Because
the location of the difference was not exactly identified, this study decided to focus more on
the results of the Mann-Whitney test. This offered a provisional suggestion that the learningof the semantic dimension of intonation was easy for Japanese learners of English in using afall for a nuclear tone of wh-questions, and that they were likely to learn this dimension.
Henceforth, the hypotheses that the semantic dimension of intonation would be difficult forJapanese learners, but that they would be likely to learn how to realize it in a native-likemanner were supported. Learning the semantic dimension of the intonation tested in thisstudy involves the link between the types of pitch accent and their meaning. One of thepossible interpretations of these results would be that it is relatively easy to learn to realize thesemantic dimension of intonation, at least when it comes to adjustments to relink the existing
pitch accent, a fall, with another meaning.
On the other hand, it was true that some participants in Group JL failed to use a fall for
all target sentences, including one participant given zero for the score of the nuclear tone as in
Table 6. Accordingly, the study revealed that while Japanese learners generally learn to use afall for wh-questions with relative ease, some prefer to use a non-fall. As reported in the
results section, one of the participants in Group N used a rise for Sentence A, Excuse me,where do I get breakfast?, which was also observed for two participants in Group JR and nine
participants in Group JL. Although these cases could not be seen as a total failure of the use of
the nuclear tone, the dominant use of a fall for the target sentences analyzed suggests that afall was reasonably the default tone for wh-questions as defined in the literature review
section, considering that the participants of Group N spoke the rest of the seventeen
utterances (three native speakers multiplied by six target sentences minus one utterance with a143

Kitagawa, A.
Investigation of the Learning Process for English Wh-Question Intonation: Japanese Learnersrise) with a fall. This is why it is worth taking a closer look at the data for Group JL,
regarding the use of a non-fall as a lack of learning to use the default tone for wh-questions.
The scores of the nuclear tone ranged from 5 to 6 for Group JR, which means that theymostly selected a fall for wh-questions. A rise was also used by two participants of Group JR
for Sentence A, and exceptions included a level for Sentence B and Sentence E, and a fall-risefor Sentence D, where one case was found for each. In contrast, although a rise was defined as
the non-default tone for wh-questions as mentioned above, the tone was most frequently usedby Group JL. Nine, three, seven, four, six and one participant spoke Sentences A, B, C, D, E
and G with a rise, respectively. The second most common non-fall among Group JL was alevel; three participants used the tone for Sentence C and one participant, for Sentences A, B,
D and G, respectively.
A relatively frequent use of a rise for wh-questions was observed for Group JL, andcould be attributed to the dominant use of a rise for questions in Japanese; it is a negativetransfer of the tonal use. Although a rise is an acceptable nuclear tone for wh-questions(O’Connor & Arnold, 1973; Watanabe, 1994; Wells, 2006), the use of a rise by Group JL
represents a lack of learning in the semantic dimension of intonation, taking into account thatGroup JR spoke the majority of the target utterances with a fall. Six participants out ofnineteen in Group JL used only one type of non-fall for more than half the target sentences;
three participants used a rise for three target sentences, one participant, for four target
sentences and one participant, for six target sentences, while one participant used a level forthree target sentences. It would be less plausible to argue that these participants intentionallydistinguished the use of a fall from that of a non-fall depending on the context, considering
the tonal use observed in Groups N and JR. Hence, more reasonably, the Japanese learners’
use of a non-fall for wh-questions in English could be caused by a lack of learning thesemantic dimension of intonation. Joto (1983) suggested that Japanese learners had difficulty
144

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 119-151

in using a fall for wh-questions in English, which was corroborated by the present study.

Skill Mastery Profiles
The most evident result of the skill mastery profiles was that the semantic dimension
was the best learned of the three dimensions. This applied to Groups JR and JL. It suggeststhat the results of the skill mastery profiles confirmed the findings presented in the results
section, that the semantic dimension was easy and that Japanese learners were likely to learn
when aiming to achieve a native-like realization of English intonation for wh-questions.
Accordingly, the Japanese learners tended to learn the semantic dimension of intonation first,
followed by the phonological and phonetic dimensions.
It was hard to determine, however, whether the phonological or phonetic dimension
came first in the learning process. This was because not only did they indicate the presence ofindividual differences within the groups in the learning process, but also produced mixed
results when Group JR and Group JL were compared. The learning profiles of Group JL
showed that they tended to have mastered the phonetic dimension slightly faster than thephonological dimension, whereas those of Group JR presented indecisive findings regarding apreferred order of the learning. This seemingly contradicts the findings discussed in the
results section, that the phonological dimension was more likely to be learned than thephonetic dimension. However, the results were literally interpreted and simply suggests thepossibility that the phonetic dimension is somehow easier for the Japanese learners at an
earlier stage of learning, but that once the phonological dimension is being learned, thelearning of the phonetic dimension is restrained, as the learner has more experience withEnglish. Because these two dimensions are closely related to each other, linguisticallyspeaking, this relationship might have a connected effect on the process of learning
intonation. The question of whether this interpretation is justified or which dimension tends to145

Kitagawa, A.
Investigation of the Learning Process for English Wh-Question Intonation: Japanese Learners

come faster when learning English intonation for wh-questions needs further investigation.

Limitations
The present study comprehensively investigated Japanese learning of wh-questions
from different dimensions, successfully providing some pedagogical implications for thefield. However, a few methodological limitations must be noted. One concerns theparticipants; the sample size of the native speakers was especially small compared with that of
the Japanese learners of English, and the participants were all male. Although the participantsof Group N tended to show a consistent within-group pattern as to the production of whquestion intonation, future research with a balanced and large sample size in each group will
confirm the findings of this study, and the same is true regarding gender-balanced
participants. The other limitation involves the experimental materials. This study suggested
that learning the phonological dimension is difficult for Japanese learners when producing
utterances where the nucleus is on a non-final word. In order to support this finding, further
studies in which the number and type of the target sentences are specifically designed areneeded. They could also contribute to revealing the order in which the phonological andphonetic dimensions are learned, to which this study did not give a clear answer.

Conclusion
This study examined the learning of intonation for wh-questions by Japanese learners in
the phonological, phonetic and semantic dimensions. The location of the nucleus wasanalyzed for the phonological dimension, the pitch peak and valley of the nucleus and its
pitch range, for the phonetic dimension, and the use of the nuclear tone, for the semantic
dimension in order to address three research questions about the difficulty of learning, thelikelihood of learning and the order of learning. The findings of the study, based on an
146

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 119-151

acoustic analysis, were as follows. The dimensions all varied as regards the difficulty oflearning; the phonological and phonetic dimensions were difficult whereas the semantic
dimension was easy. Similarly, the likelihood of learning varied between the dimensions; thesemantic dimension was obviously most likely to be learned, followed by the phonologicaldimension, and the phonetic dimension was least likely to be learned of all. Regarding theorder of learning, the semantic dimension was learned faster than the other two dimensions.
On the other hand, the learning of the phonological dimension and the phonetic dimension,and their relations were unclear. Although further research is needed to reveal the whole
picture of the realization of English intonation and its learning, the findings in this study have
implications for both the learning and teaching of intonation for wh-questions.

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to anonymous referees who made constructive
comments and valuable suggestions. My special thanks go to all researchers who patiently
listened to my poster presentation and took their time to discuss it. Last but not least, I am
always grateful for the seminar members who are willing to give me informative advice, andencourage me.

References
Aoyama, K., & Guion, S. G. (2007). Prosody in second language acquisition: Acoustic
analyses of duration and F0 range. In O.-S. Bohn & M. J. Munro (Eds.), Language
experiences in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp.
281-297). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Beckman, M. E., & Elam, G. A. (1997). Guideline for ToBI Labelling (Version 3). Retrieved
from http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~agus/tobi/labelling_guide_v3.pdf
147

Kitagawa, A.
Investigation of the Learning Process for English Wh-Question Intonation: Japanese Learners

Beckman M. E., Hirschberg J., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2005). The original ToBI systemand the evolution of the ToBI framework. In S.-A. Jun (Ed.), Prosodic typology: The
phonology of intonation and phrasing (pp. 9-54). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In W. Strange(Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research(pp. 171-204). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception:
Commonalities and complementarities. In M. J. Munro & O.-S. Bohn (Eds.), Second
language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech perception andproduction (pp. 13-34). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2015). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer
program]. Version 6.0.05, retrieved 8 August 2015 from http://www.praat.org/
Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Press Syndicate of the University ofCambridge.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (3rd ed.). London, UK:
SAGE.
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W.
Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language
research (pp. 233-277). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language
acquisition. Journal of Memory and Learning, 41, 479-491.
Grabe, E. (2002). Variation adds to prosodic typology. In B. Bel & I. Marlien (Eds.),
Proceedings of Speech prosody 2002, Aix-en-Provence, 127-132.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Greave, W. S. (2008). Intonation in the grammar of English. London,
148

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 119-151

UK: Equinox.
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T., & Ryan, P. D. (2001a). PAST: Paleontological statistics
software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica, 4(1), 9.
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T., & Ryan, P. D. (2001b). PAST (Version 2.17) [Computer
program]. Retrieved from http://nhm2.uio.no/norlex/past/download.html
Igarashi, Y. (2015). Intonation. In H. Kubozono (Ed.), Handbook of Japanese phonetics andphonology (pp. 525-568). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Igarashi, Y. & Koiso, H. (2012). Kumatsukyokaionncyo no pitch range ni ataeru yoin:“nihongo hanashikotoba corpus” no bunseki [Factors affecting pitch ranges of boundary
pitch movements: An analysis of the Corpus of Spontaneous Japanese]. Proceedings of
the Second Workshop of Corpus Japanese Linguistics, 15-24.
Joto, A. (1983). Some intonational characteristic of Japanese learners of English. Bulletin of
Chugoku Junior College, 14, 136-143.
Jun, S-A., & Oh, M. (2000). Acquisition of second language intonation. Proceedings of the
6th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing: Vol. 4, 76-79.
Kainada, E., & Lengeris, A. (2014). The acquisition of English intonation by native Greek
speakers. In N. Lavidas, T. Alexiou, & M. Areti (Eds.), Major Trends in Theoretical andApplied Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 20th ISTAL, 1, 141-156.
Kim, (2015). Nihongo gakusyusya no intonation kenkyu no tembo: Kankokugo to nigongo no
kumatsukyokaioncyo ni chumokushite [Prospects of Japanese learners’ intonation
studies: Focusing on Korean and Japanese boundary tone]. Tsukuba Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 22, 38-51.
Maeda, M. (2005). Intonation and duration in English questions of Japanese speakers.
Language, 28, 59-88.
Maekawa, K. (1997). Nihongo gimonshi gimombun no intonation [Intonation of wh-questions
149

Kitagawa, A.
Investigation of the Learning Process for English Wh-Question Intonation: Japanese Learners

in Japanese]. In Onsei bumpou kenkyukai [Research group of the grammar of sound](Ed.), Bumpou to onsei [Grammar and Sound] (pp. 45-53). Tokyo, Japan: Kuroshio.
Maekawa, K., Igarashi, Y., Kikuchi, H., & Yoneyama, S. (2004). Nihongo hanashi kotoba
corpus no intonation labelling (version 1.0) [Intonation labelling of the corpus of
spontaneous Japanese (version 1.0)]. Retrieved fromhttp://www2.ninjal.ac.jp/kikuo/intonation.pdf
Mennen, I. (2015). Beyond segments: Towards a L2 intonation learning theory. In E. DelaisRoussarie, M. Avanzi, & S. Herment (Eds.), Prosody and language in contact: L2
acquisition, attrition and languages in multilingual situations (pp. 171-188). Berlin,
Germany: Springer.
Nariai, T., & Tanaka, K. (2012) A study on pitch patterns of Japanese speakers of English incomparison with native speakers of English. Journal of the Acoustical Science andTechnology, 33(4), 247-254.
O’Connor, J. D., & Arnold, G. F. (1973). Intonation of colloquial English (2nd ed.). London,
UK: Longman.
Sato, H., & Ueda, I. (2011). Misplacement of nuclear stress by Japanese learners of English.
Journal of the Phonetic Society of Japan, 15(1), 87-95.
Shimizu, A. (2011). English as a lingua franca and the teaching of pronunciation. Journal of
the Phonetic Society of Japan, 15(1), 44-62.
So, C. K., & Best, C. T. (2014). Phonetic influences on English and French listeners’
assimilation of Mandarin tones to native prosodic categories. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 36(2), 195-221.
Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.
Todaka, Y. (1994). Japanese students’ English intonation. Bulletin of Miyazaki Municipal
150

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 119-151

University Faculty of Humanities, 1(1), 23-47.
Watanabe, K. (1994). Eigo intonation ron [English intonation]. Tokyo, Japan: Kenkyu-sha.
Wells, J. C. (2006). English intonation: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

151



JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 153-177

Exploring College Student Views on the Use of the First Language inEnglish Language Teaching: The Case of Scholarship Students

Takaharu Saito
Ryutsu Keizai University

Abstract
The present study investigated Japanese college student views on the function and value offirst language (L1) use in the English classroom. The first-year scholarship students at acollege completed a questionnaire consisting of 11 closed questions on their views, and two
open-ended questions on the perceived advantages and disadvantages, of using L1 in English
classes. The results indicate that the college students perceive a positive role for L1 use incore, framework, and social functions: a core function for imparting knowledge about thetarget language (TL), framework function for managing the classroom, and social function for
reducing classroom anxiety. While students recognize this functionality of L1 use, they also
perceive L1 use as a potentially demotivating factor. The students’ conflicting views on L1
use call for further research, to investigate the optimal L1/TL balance for maximizing TL
teaching and learning.

Keywords: first language (L1), target language (TL)

Introduction
The proper balance between use of the learners’ first language (L1) and the target
language (TL) in the foreign language classroom remains an object of debate among
researchers, who have generated numerous studies concerning this issue, from a teacher,learner, theoretical, and/or pedagogical perspective. Though a near consensus appears to hold
153

Saito, T.
Exploring College Student Views on the Use of the First Language in English Language Teaching: The Case of Scholarship Students

that teachers should aim to make maximum use of the TL, researcher outlooks differ, ranging
from insistence on total exclusion of the L1, toward varying degrees of recognition that the L1
can provide valuable support for effective learning of the TL (e.g., Atkinson, 1993;
Butzkamm & Caldwell, 2009; Polio & Duff, 1994). Rolin-Ianziti and Varshney (2008) pointout that this divergence of opinion is “based on the underlying differences in approach
regarding the language classroom environment and the goal of language learning” (p. 250).
Given the debate on the L1/TL balance, the notion of TL exclusivity (or themonolingual principle) has been the subject of re-examination, though it has typically beenprescribed by official policies, particularly in the field of English language teaching(McMillan & Rivers, 2011; Phillipson, 1992). In an effort to reassess the role of L1 use inlanguage education, Hall and Cook (2012) explored a wide range of applied linguistics
knowledge, such as the amount and functions of L1 use; theoretical frameworks frompsycholinguistic, second language acquisition, constructivist, sociocultural, andsociolinguistic perspectives; and teacher and learner perceptions of L1 use.
Furthering such reassessment, a number of studies have attempted to quantify theamount of L1 used in teacher discourse (e.g., Duff & Polio, 1990; Edstrom, 2006; Kim &Elder, 2005; Macaro, 1997; Polio & Duff, 1994), and the results of these investigations
demonstrate that the amount of L1 use varies considerably with the institutional and societal
context.
The reported functions of L1 use, however, appear to be relatively constant. Duff andPolio (1990) suggest that teachers tend to use the learners’ L1 when it differs significantly
from the TL, such as in the grammar or writing system, a decision influenced by departmental
polices, lesson objectives and tasks, training, and qualifications. Subsequently, Polio andDuff (1994) explored the pedagogical functions of L1 use by summarizing teachers’ use oflearners’ L1 for grammar instruction, classroom management, demonstration of empathy tolearners, and response to learners already speaking in their L1. Drawing on Kim and Elder154

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 153-177(2008), Littlewood and Yu (2011) classified the functions of L1 use into core goals forteaching the target language, framework goals for managing the classroom situation, andsocial goals for expressing personal concern and sympathy, in order to explain teachers’
strategic employment of learners’ L1 in class. Given these pedagogical functions of L1, some
applied linguists insist that the L1 can and should be treated as a positive resource for
language teaching, not an impediment to learning the TL (e.g., Butzkamm & Caldwell, 2009;
Cook, 2001; Widdowson, 2003).
In addition to the aforementioned amount and functions of L1 use, which were
investigated from a teacher perspective, much attention has been paid to learner perceptionsof L1 use, such as the strategic use of the L1 by students during classroom interaction, andstudent views on L1 use in the classroom. Regarding the strategic use of the L1, two mainstudies (Anton & DiCamilla, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 2000), each employing a sociocultural
framework, identify two essential functions. First, the L1 is a psychological tool for learners
to focus attention on form when solving grammatical problems; and second, the L1 fulfills thesocial role of establishing a cooperative atmosphere.
Studies on L1 use from a learner perspective, on the other hand, have employed either
SLA (Levine, 2003; Macaro, 1997) or sociolinguistic frameworks (Chavez, 2003). Macaro(1997) investigated English high school learners’ reactions to TL exclusivity, and found that
only a minority of able learners accepted TL exclusivity, while the majority had a negative
reaction, with both groups agreeing on the importance of framework goals of L1 use forclassroom management. Levine (2003) investigated college students’ anxiety level in relation
to the amount of TL use, and found no correlation between student anxiety and the amount of
the TL used, with TL exclusivity considered as a positive challenge in the U.S. university
context.
Chavez (2003) explored the different functions of L1 and TL use perceived by learners
in the language classroom, viewing the functions in terms of a diglossic environment. The
155

Saito, T.
Exploring College Student Views on the Use of the First Language in English Language Teaching: The Case of Scholarship Students

results showed that learners perceived two functions of L1 use: medium-oriented interactions
for teaching the TL itself, and framework-oriented interactions for class management; while
appreciating TL use for repetitive practical activities. These studies on student views on L1
use in the classroom generally agree that contextual factors such as learner proficiency in the
TL, teaching methods, and department policies tend to play a crucial role in shaping students’views on the L1/TL balance.
Rolin-Ianziti and Varsheny (2008) point out that most studies have focused on the
L1/TL issue in teacher discourse over the past two decades, with relatively few studies
exploring the issue from a learner perspective. Investigating learner views is, however,indispensable in teaching language because it can anticipate areas of conflict between teachers
and learners, and can be of great help in creating better communication in the language
classroom. Thus, in order to obtain further information on the role that learners attribute to
L1 use in language teaching and learning, the present study addressed the following
questions: What are Japanese college student views on L1 use in English language teaching?
Are the aforementioned pedagogical functions and/or dangers of L1 use evident in student
perceptions?

The study
The purpose of the study was to examine Japanese college student views on the use of
L1 (Japanese) in English language teaching (ELT), in an English as a foreign language (EFL)
context. The investigation was conducted in contexts where the English teachers and theirstudents share a common L1 (Japanese) in most of the lessons, but the students sometimes
take practical English conversation classes from native English-speaking teachers (mainly
from the United States or the U.K.) who may have little proficiency in Japanese. In such an
EFL context, the classroom is the main or only source of student exposure to the TL (English).

156

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 153-177

Saito (2018) previously investigated Japanese college student perceptions of L1 use in
ELT, relying on qualitative data (through analysis of student written comments on L1 use).
The results suggested that college students appreciate inclusion of the L1 in a variety ofsituations, such as learning the TL itself, managing classroom activity, and establishing a safe
space for learning. In order to increase the quality of the relevant data, drawing on RolinIanziti and Varshney (2008), the present study employed both qualitative and quantitative
forms of data collection and analysis, with open-ended and closed questions, respectively; andexamined to what extent the respective results of the two forms of analysis were mutually
supporting.
Similar to Rolin-Ianziti and Varshney’s study of learner views on the use of the L1(English) and TL (French) at a college in Australia, the research conducted in Japan,
regarding L1(Japanese) use in teaching the TL (English), aimed to critically assist in
anticipating areas of conflict between teachers and learners, and in improving ourunderstanding of communication between them in language education.

Procedure
The investigation was conducted at a private college in Japan, where the author works
as a full-time language instructor. The research participants were first-year scholarshipstudents of the college, who were enrolled in a course in global communication, a required
subject for scholarship students, taught exclusively in English by native or near-native
English-speaking teachers. They were also taking comprehensive English and TOEIC
preparation classes from Japanese English teachers. As these students had passed a special
entrance examination to obtain a scholarship, and were chosen from a large group of
applicants, their scholastic abilities, attainments, and/or motivation for learning were typicallyhigher than other students at the same college.

157

Saito, T.
Exploring College Student Views on the Use of the First Language in English Language Teaching: The Case of Scholarship Students

The study was based on a questionnaire consisting of two sections (see Appendix),following Rolin-Ianziti and Varshney (2008). The first comprised 11 closed questions (i.e.,
opinion statements) which were answered on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5
(strongly disagree). The second contained two open-ended questions asking the students tolist three or more advantages and disadvantages of using L1 (Japanese) in English classes.
The closed questions assessed student views in four main areas of particular relevance to thestudy: core goals of L1 use in teaching the TL (1, 2, 3); framework goals of L1 use inmanaging the classroom situation (5, 6); social goals of L1 use in expressing personal concern
and sympathy as teachers, and supporting identity as learners (8, 9, 11); and primarily TL or
TL-only instruction (4, 7, 10).
The questionnaire was administered to 31 first-year scholarship students in June 2018.
It was administered after eight weeks of instruction, to ensure that the students had beenadequately exposed to the college learning environment. Quantitative analysis of the
responses to the 11 closed questions was conducted, followed by qualitative analysis of the
responses to the two open questions; and descriptive statistics were employed to analyze
student responses to the former, to calculate the frequency of the respective answers to eachquestion. The qualitative analysis was based on two lists of written responses, one detailingthe advantages or positive views of L1 use (Japanese) in English classes, and the other the
disadvantages or negative views of such L1 use. The qualitative data was analyzed based on
the aforementioned four main areas of relevance to the study, which were the focus of theclosed questions. Thus, the overall structure of the study was based on four categories: (1)student views on L1 use for core goals, (2) student views on L1 use for framework goals, (3)student views on L1 use for social goals, and (4) student views on perceived dangers of L1
use. Since the questionnaire was administered in the students’ L1, the students’ writtencomments were translated into English by the author.

158

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 153-177

Findings and Discussion
The following focuses on the four categories detailed above, with selected results of thequantitative analysis employed to support the interpretation of the qualitative data.

Student Views on L1 Use for Core Goals
This category focuses on student views on L1 use in learning the TL (English). The
expression “easy to understand” is found in almost every student’s open-ended response (27out of 31 students) regarding the advantages of L1, showing the significant importance of L1
use for learning the TL:
Since Japanese is a language I usually use, its use makes it easier to understandEnglish lessons. (Student #3)
I can understand the explanation in Japanese better, because the explanation in English
makes it difficult to understand the content of English lessons. (Student #18)
Use of Japanese makes it easy to understand the meaning of English. (Student #20)
These comments show that students attribute a significant positive role to L1 use, in theirunderstanding of the content of English lessons as a whole. In support of these comments,
Widdowson (2003) claims that L1 use is an inevitable and natural element of classroom life,and can and should be turned to pedagogical advantage as a positive resource for learning the
TL. Some students detailed the effectiveness of L1 use for learning grammar, vocabulary(English words and phrases), and translation:
Use of Japanese is effective for both teachers and learners when it comes to teachingdifficult elements, such as subtle nuances of grammar and English words. (Student #2)
Use of Japanese makes it easy to understand grammar and subtle nuances of English
expressions. (Student #9)

159

Saito, T.
Exploring College Student Views on the Use of the First Language in English Language Teaching: The Case of Scholarship Students

Use of Japanese makes it easy to understand the difficult parts of English grammar
and vocabulary. Only Japanese use can explain some difficult aspects of English, suchas translation into Japanese. (Student #29)
The response frequencies for Closed Question 1 indicate a similar preference for L1 use whenteachers are explaining the grammatical structure of the TL: 22 students (71%) strongly agree
or agree that L1 use makes understanding grammatical explanations easier, 8 (26 %) neither
agree nor disagree, 1 (3%) disagrees, and none strongly disagrees.
The quantitative analysis of Closed Question 2, concerning vocabulary, shows arelatively high frequency of agreement: 19 students (61%) strongly agree or agree that
explanation with L1 use makes it easier to understand the meaning of English vocabulary, 8(26%) neither agree nor disagree, 4 (13%) disagree, and none strongly disagrees.
Quantitative analysis of the responses to Closed Question 3 indicates that students tend
to understand long sentences better if the TL is translated into the L1. In this case, 18
students (58%) strongly agree or agree that translation into the L1 enables them to better
understand long TL sentences, 8 (26%) neither agree nor disagree, 4 (13%) disagree, and1(3%) strongly disagrees.
The results of qualitative and quantitative analysis suggest that students typicallyappreciate L1 use for learning the TL, supporting the reported functionality of L1 use for
explaining difficult aspects of the TL, such as grammatical elements and the meaning of new
vocabulary items, from both teacher and learner perspectives. In a similar way, Polio andDuff (1994) found that teachers used their learners’ L1 for grammar instruction and classroom
management, as well as to demonstrate empathy with learners, translate unknown words, andcompensate for students’ lack of understanding. Students’ appreciation of translation appears
to support Cook’s argument (2010) that translation is a natural and effective means oflanguage learning, develops important skills, answers learners’ needs, and protects their
linguistic and cultural identity. Furthermore, current SLA research, such as Laufer and Girsai
160

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 153-177(2008), supports the conceptions of “noticing” and “focusing on forms,” and advocates theeffectiveness of contrastive analysis and translation as one of the strategies for form-focused
instruction.
The students’ qualitative responses appear to support some theoretical approaches to L1
use. For example, some student comments indicate that L1 use facilitates communication
between teacher and student, or among students:
Use of Japanese can facilitate communication with teacher and classmates better thanuse of English. (Student #13)
Use of Japanese makes it easier for students to teach each other. (Student #20)
Use of Japanese makes it easier to communicate, because I am unfamiliar with English.
(Student #24)
Japanese is useful when I explain to my classmates the reason I selected a certain item
in a multiple-choice test. (Student #31)
Students’ preference for communicating in the L1 may be partly explained from thesociocultural perspective that suggests that language learning is a collaborative process driven
by social interaction (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978; Lantolf, 2000). From this perspective, L1 use is acognitive tool for learners, by which learning is scaffolded. L1 use in collaborative talkduring tasks, such as pair work for solving problems between learners, facilitates productionof the TL through interaction, and enables learners to work with teachers or experts at a levelthat may otherwise be beyond their reach. L1 use also facilitates communication whencommunication in the TL fails.
In addition, some student comments indicate that L1 use can increase the efficiency of
TL learning by reducing both learning time and the burden of doing cognitively challenging
tasks:English only lessons are inefficient because it takes time to check difficult parts oflessons. (Student #7)
161

Saito, T.
Exploring College Student Views on the Use of the First Language in English Language Teaching: The Case of Scholarship Students

Translation of English words into Japanese makes the learning process faster.
(Student #16)
Use of Japanese can help organize large amounts of lesson information more rapidly.
(Student #22)
Offering theoretical support for such comments, Macaro (2006), for instance, suggests that L1
use can lighten the cognitive load on learners, facilitate the processing of other output, andprovide efficient short cuts in the learning process employed by leaners. He also suggests thatthe introduction of a matching L1 word is an effective way of introducing new TL lexical
items.
Thus, overall, the results concerning student views on L1 use for core goals suggest thatTL lessons in the classroom should not preclude L1 use, because such use provides effective
ways of enhancing the learning process, though maximization of the TL is needed.

Student Views on L1 Use for Framework Goals
Responses regarding English teachers’ administration and classroom management
constitute another focus category in which students attribute a positive role to L1 use.
Responses to the open question on the advantages of L1 use, for example, suggest thatstudents tend to appreciate the use of the L1 in classroom management, such as providing
information about class outlines and activities:
In Japanese, I do not have to worry about missing important information. (Student #3)
Explanation of an assignment in English may have a negative effect on executing theassignment. (Student #7)
I can understand what to do next in lessons when Japanese is used. (Student #11)
Lessons go smoothly in Japanese. (Student #17)
The quantitative analysis of Closed Question 5, regarding classroom management, indicates ahigh frequency of agreement with such comments: 22 students (71%) strongly agree or agree
162

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 153-177

that teachers should give instructions (about classroom outlines, assignments, details of
testing and assessment) in L1, 7 (23%) neither agree nor disagree, 1 (3%) disagrees, and 1(3%) strongly disagrees. Therefore, L1 use for classroom management seems to provide
better opportunities for students to obtain important information about lesson objectives,
including assignments and assessment, in order to avoid confusion.
Overlapping somewhat with L1 use for core goals, included in this category is L1 use
for instructions regarding English examinations: teaching important points or techniques in
preparation for such examinations (e.g., the TOEIC and English proficiency exams), including
the acquisition of pertinent knowledge and skills, such as patterns of past examinationquestions and predicting future examination questions. Though no explicit references toEnglish exam preparation are observed in the students’ qualitative responses, their frequent
use of expressions such as “easy to understand” likely includes understanding more easily
explanations regarding the structure and content of such English examinations.
In support of this, the results of quantitative analysis of the Closed Question 6
responses, concerning English examinations, shows the highest frequency of agreement
among all the 11 closed questions: 28 students (90%) strongly agree or agree that L1 should
be used for the explanation of important points for passing English proficiency examinations,
1 (3%) neither agrees nor disagrees, 1 (3%) disagrees, and 1 (3%) strongly disagrees.
Especially in light of their typically high motivation as scholarship students, clear and detailed
L1 technical explanation regarding the successful execution of assignments and exams would
appear to satisfy the students’ real-world needs.
In support of such framework functionality, Cook (2001) suggests that teachers’ L1 use
is effective for task organization, maintenance of discipline, contact with individual students,
and testing. Chavez’s study (2003) indicates that learners prefer L1 use for achieving themost important communicative goals, such as matters related to evaluation; while Medgyes(1994) argues that nonnative English teachers, who share with their students the same cultural,163

Saito, T.
Exploring College Student Views on the Use of the First Language in English Language Teaching: The Case of Scholarship Students

educational, and linguistic background, are typically most familiar with the general
educational goals related to curricular and exam requirements.

Student Views on L1 Use for Social Goals
This category focuses on the use of L1 in creating a better affective, emotional,
empathetic, and sympathetic environment for learning the TL. Student responses to the open
question on the advantages of L1 use appear to confirm the sense of emotional security
provided by L1 use, judging from the frequent use of terms such as “a sense of security,”“relax,” and “a feeling of intimacy”:
Use of Japanese gives me a sense of security. (Student #3)
Use of Japanese makes me feel an affinity with the speaker, and reduces my anxiety
about learning. (Student #18)
Use of Japanese removes the fear of being exposed to an unknown language.
(Student #24)
The results of the quantitative analysis for Closed Question 8, regarding the reassuring role ofL1 use, indicate that 23 students (74%) strongly agree or agree that they feel a sense of
security when teachers use L1 in class, 6 (20%) neither agree nor disagree, none disagrees,and 2 (6%) strongly disagree.
In the case of Closed Question 9, focusing on student perceptions of the relationshipbetween L1 use and human contact in class, 5 students (16%) strongly agree or agree that L1
use is better for human contact with English teachers in class, 19 (61%) neither agree nor
disagree, 5 (16%) disagree, and 2 (6%) strongly disagree. The students’ comparative
neutrality on this question suggests that some may conceive of such use as implying
overreliance on the L1, or may find it possible to develop human affinity using the TL alone.
At the time of the investigation, students were well-advanced in a global communication
course that was taught only in English by native or near-native English teachers, in which
164

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 153-177

they may already have established a good relationship with these teachers; thus, further, indepth investigation is required to explain their neutral position.
The results of the qualitative and quantitative analysis of student responses concerning
the affective domain of L1 use suggest that such use plays a role in reducing classroom
anxiety, helping to create a safe space or less threatening atmosphere, and establishingpositive teacher-student and inter-peer relationships in the classroom. Littlewood & Yu
(2011), for example, highlight the reassuring role that the learners’ L1 can play in class,counteracting the potentially alienating effects of monolingual teaching;, while Levine (2003)
suggests that principled and meaningful L1 use can contribute to a reduction in learneranxiety. Finally, Auerbach (1993) emphasizes that L1 use “reduces anxiety and enhances theaffective environment for learning, takes into account sociocultural factors, facilitates
incorporation of learners’ life experiences, and allows for learner-centered curriculum
development” (p. 20).
Thus, a significant body of research suggests that L1 use is effective in the affective
domain, as evidenced by expressions such as “the affective-humanistic benefits of mothertongue use,” “affective and interpersonal functions of L1 use,” “L1 use for promoting classunity and identity in a variety of ELT contexts,” and “L1 use in encouraging learnermotivation and positive attitudes toward the language being learned” (e.g., Camilleri, 1996;
Nikula, 2007; Schweers, 1999; Stibbard, 1998).
Closed Question 11 investigated students’ identity as learners in an EFL context. The
quantitative results indicate that 8 students (26%) strongly agree or agree that L1 use in
English classes is a natural form of support for the self as a learner, 10 (32%) neither agree
nor disagree, 13 (42%) disagree, and none strongly disagrees. This relatively high frequency
of disagreement may be partly owing to students’ difficulty in articulating their response tocomplex identity issues. Additional research, such as a case study with in-depth interviews,

165

Saito, T.
Exploring College Student Views on the Use of the First Language in English Language Teaching: The Case of Scholarship Students

may be needed in order to investigate such complicated issues of identity in this area, which
typically vary with the social context.
However, L1 use in ELT may be significant not only in pedagogical terms (i.e., howlanguage is learned), but also with respect to learners’ sense of who they are and what theywant to be in an era of globalization. This dual significance would appear to be illustrated by
the present study, because the students’ sense of security through L1 use is evident from thedata, suggesting that the L1 is the strongest identity marker in their everyday lives. In
addition, much recent ESL research has focused on speaker-identity support in various social
contexts incorporating English as a lingua franca among nonnative speakers of English in a
multi-lingual community (e.g., Norton, 2000; Seidlhofer 2011).

Student Views on Perceived Dangers of L1 Use
The qualitative responses concerning the disadvantages of using the L1 in TL classes,
indicate that L1 use has some drawbacks. The perceived dangers of L1 use include lack of
exposure to the TL, overuse of L1, and dependence on L1 use. A number of students appear
to recognize lack of exposure to the TL as a detrimental aspect of L1 use, which may impede
language development:
Unable to acquire English proficiency. Less exposure to English. (Student #10)
Cannot improve English proficiency. Less exposure to English in everyday life.
(Student #11)
These remarks indicate that students see exposure to the TL as an advantage in learning thelanguage. Such exposure helps learners to improve listening comprehensive skills in English,
while L1 use impedes this type of learning:
Less exposure to English reduces the opportunity to listen to English. (Student #8)
Less exposure to English reduces listening comprehension skills. (Student #13)
English-only lessons improve listening comprehension for the TOEIC test.
166

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 153-177(Student #22)
Some respondents see L1 use as impeding the acquisition of English pronunciation:
L1 use makes it difficult to learn pronunciation for English words and sentences.
(Student #1)
Cannot learn the native nuances of expressions and pronunciation. (Student #9)
Thus, some consider L1 use as detrimental because it does not allow them to properly address
the phonetic features of the TL. Exposure to the TL also appears to foster natural andspontaneous use of the TL, whereas L1 use impedes such use:
Use of Japanese forces learners to promptly go back to translating spoken English into
Japanese, which makes the learning process inefficient. Utterance in English tends tobecome unnatural. (Student #7)
Unable to speak in English when I have to. (Student #29)
Furthermore, it is obvious from the respondents’ frequent use of the word “practical,” that
exposure to the TL is typically perceived to promote practical use of the foreign language
spoken in real-world settings:
Less opportunity to use practical English, because only English lessons allow me touse it. (Student #10)
Unable to learn real-life, practical English, such as idiomatic and slang expressions
used in real-world settings. (Student #25)
Lack of exposure to the TL appears to be seen as detrimental to development of the learners’
overall practical skills, including listening comprehension, pronunciation, and thespontaneous and natural use of the TL in real-world contexts; though the L1 plays a positiverole in the functionality of core, framework, and social goals for learning the TL.
Another perceived danger, separate from but related to lack of TL exposure, is overuseof the L1; that is, excessive use of the L1 in the classroom:
Tend to provide excessive information about a textbook. (Student #1)
167

Saito, T.
Exploring College Student Views on the Use of the First Language in English Language Teaching: The Case of Scholarship Students

Reduce the amount of time spent using English. (Student # 6)
Tend to use Japanese without consideration. (Student #17)
As the above comments suggest, some students complain about excessive L1 use, which,among other things, deflects from the essential aim of learning the target language. Suchoveruse of the L1 is also seen by some students as resulting in cognitive dependence on the
L1, which hampers language learning due to lack of attention to the TL:
Rely on Japanese and pay less attention to listening to English. (Student # 6)
Dependent on Japanese and unable to learn English. (Student #9)
These responses indicate that students may feel difficulty in freeing themselves from the L1.
Dependence on the L1, focusing on L1 explanations without TL linguistic input, may have anegative effect on the mental process of learning, which in turn demotivates learners by
reducing their willingness to learn the TL:
Dependent on using Japanese, and explanation in Japanese reduces the effort
to learn by yourself. (Student #12)
Reduce the opportunity to learn the language by yourself. (Student #16)
Lose the positive tension to learn the language. (Student #21)
Still worse is that such demotivation may in turn have a negative effect on classroom
management related to classroom atmosphere:
Create an atmosphere of hesitation in speaking English with proper pronunciation.
(Student #9)
Dependence on Japanese impedes the development of an active conversation stylepeculiar to English-speaking people. (Student #12)
Much empty talk in Japanese among students. (Student #31)
These negative views on L1 use imply that exposure to the TL helps students learn thelanguage for practical use in real-world settings, and directs attention to the TL.

168

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 153-177

The closed questions relating to the amount of TL exposure are Questions 4, 7, and 10,
which assess students’ perceptions of instruction either solely or mainly in the TL. The
responses to Closed Question 4, concerning TL-only instruction, indicate neutrality: 6
students (20%) strongly agree or agree that English teachers should use only the TL in theclassroom, 18 (58%) neither agree nor disagree, and 7 (22%) disagree or strongly disagree.
The responses to Closed Question 7, focusing on primarily TL instruction, indicate ahigh frequency of agreement: 25 students (81%) strongly agree or agree that English teachers
should use the TL most of the time in class but explain difficult parts in the L1, 4 (13%)
neither agree nor disagree, 2 (6%) disagree, and none strongly disagree. The difference in thefrequency of responses between Questions 4 and 7 suggests that students tend to preferprimarily TL instruction to TL-only instruction in the language classroom.
Closed Question 10, inverting Questions 4 and 7, tests the reliability of the latter twoquestions. Here, 21 students (68%) strongly agree or agree that excessive use of the L1 by
English teachers hampers the learning of the real-life, practical TL, 8 (26%) neither agree nor
disagree, 2 (6%) disagree, and none strongly disagrees. The results indicate a relatively highpercentage of agreement, echoing the preference for primarily TL instruction.
The qualitative and quantitative analysis of student responses regarding the perceived
dangers of L1 use suggests that students attribute a positive role to TL exposure, with respect
to learning the language for practical use; however, as their responses to the functionality
questions illustrate, their perception of the dangers of L1 use does not argue for eliminating
L1 use in the classroom. These results support those of Rolin-Ianziti and Varshney (2008),
recall the views of Levine’s (2003) respondents, who saw TL use as a rewarding experience,and echo the conclusions of Atkinson’ study (1993), which warns that while there are positive
aspects to L1 use, it may present the single greatest danger to foreign language acquisition if itthreatens the primacy of the TL.

169

Saito, T.
Exploring College Student Views on the Use of the First Language in English Language Teaching: The Case of Scholarship Students

Summary of Findings and Discussion
This section summarizes the analysis of the results for the four categories, discussed in
the previous section. In the context of this study, students attribute a positive role to L1 use inpursuing core functional language-learning goals, with the open responses indicating that such
use is effective for understanding the content of English lessons as a whole, particularly thedifficult aspects of the TL, such as grammatical elements, and the meaning of new vocabularyterms, with use of translation when necessary. The closed responses also indicate that L1 use
is conducive to learning the linguistic features of the TL. Similar conclusions were reached inseveral previous studies (e.g., Chaves, 2003; Rolin-Ianziti & Varshney, 2008), which
demonstrated that learners prefer L1 use in learning grammatical elements.
The students’ observed preference for L1 communication during collaborative tasks
appears to be supported by studies exploring strategic learner use of the L1 (Anton &DiCamilla, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 2000), undertaken within a sociocultural framework
shaped by the importance of classroom interaction for language learning (e.g., Vygotsky,
1978; Lantolf, 2000), which showed that learners use the L1 to solve difficult problems
involved in TL learning during group tasks. At the same time, the students’ emphasis on thebenefit of L1 use for efficient learning of the TL is echoed in the conclusions of SLA studies,that code-switching and L1 use in classroom discourse can lighten the cognitive load onlearners, and offer efficient shortcuts for the learning process (e.g., Macaro 2006).
Nonetheless, a neutral or dissenting attitude toward L1 use for core functionality wasevidenced by a minority of the respondents, similarly to studies in the European andAustralian contexts (Macaro, 1997; Rolin-Ianziti & Varshney, 2008). Further research should
investigate the individual characteristics of these respondents, such as their language-learning
aptitude, learner identity, and overseas experiences. Overall, the results concerning student
views on L1 use for core goals suggest that TL lessons should not preclude L1 use, because

170

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 153-177

such use provides effective ways of enhancing the learning process; however, as the responses
regarding the dangers of L1 use suggest, TL use should be maximized.
Students also see a positive role for L1 use in pursuing framework functional goals,
with their open-question responses suggesting that they perceive L1 use as effective forclassroom management, including instruction related to English examinations, and thequantitative analysis revealing that a significant percentage of students favor L1 use in suchmanagement. Supporting these results, Macaro (1997) found agreement among English highschool students in favor of classroom management in English, while Chavez (2003) reached asimilar conclusion in the context of a U.S. university. Rolin-Ianziti and Varshney (2008), on
the other hand, reached a slightly different quantitative conclusion, in favor of TL use, at anAustralian university, due to the teachers’ employment of successful TL teaching techniques,
which reminds us of the importance of contextual factors such as the departmental policy
regarding L1 use and teacher training. Several studies also value the framework functionalityof L1 in terms of maintenance of discipline, evaluation issues, and curricular and exam
requirements (e.g., Cook, 2001; Medgyes, 1994).
With respect to the functional domain of social goals for creating an affective
environment in learning the TL, the results of qualitative and quantitative analysis indicatethat L1 use appears to play a role in alleviating classroom anxiety and helping to establish
positive relationships between teacher and learners, and among learners. Abundant researchsuggests affective domain benefits to be derived from L1 use in TL classrooms, in various
social contexts (e.g., Auerbach, 1993; Edstrom, 2006; Levine, 2003, Littlewood & Yu, 2011;
Stibbard, 1998). One closed question (11), focusing on student identity by investigating thenaturalness of L1 use in supporting the self as learner, received a relatively high degree of
disagreement. Further longitudinal case studies, with in-depth interviews, would help toelucidate such complex issues of identity construction in this area.

171

Saito, T.
Exploring College Student Views on the Use of the First Language in English Language Teaching: The Case of Scholarship Students

While students valued the core, framework, and social functionality of L1 use, they
nevertheless viewed such use as having some drawbacks. Their qualitative responses indicate
a perception that lack of exposure to the TL, overuse of L1, and dependence on the L1 not
only impede TL development, but also demotivate students by reducing their willingness tolearn the TL; however, their quantitative responses suggest that the students prefer primarily
TL instruction to TL-only instruction, suggesting that their perception does not preclude L1
use. Given their positive view of L1 functionality, yet concern about the perceived dangers of
L1 use, the students would appear to hold somewhat conflicting views on L1 use in TL
learning; a similar conclusion to that reached by Rolin-Ianziti and Varshney (2008).
In addition, some studies suggest that contextual factors, such as an EFL or ESL
context, teacher training, student characteristics, student TL proficiency, department policies,
and instructors’ teaching methods and classroom practices, may influence student views on
the L1/TL balance (e.g., Chavez, 2003; Levine, 2003; Macaro, 1997). In this study, involving
scholarship students with high motivation for learning the TL, the respondents appeared toprefer L1 use for the most important and valuable communicative purposes, such as mattersrelated to evaluation, important information for English proficiency examinations, andlinguistic knowledge of the TL; while they preferred TL use for acquiring practical mastery of
the language.

Conclusion
The results of the present study suggest that highly motivated Japanese college students
attribute a positive role to L1 use, in terms of its core, framework, and social functionality.
Such use is perceived to perform a core function in developing linguistic knowledge of the TL,
framework function in the management of classroom activities, and social function in
reducing classroom anxiety. Thus, the L1 would appear to be useful for TL learning,
especially in an EFL context where learners typically share a common language with the172

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 153-177

teacher (Hall & Cook, 2012; Medgyes, 1994). At the same time, students are aware of theneed for exposure to the TL, in order to gain practical ability in the language, recalling
Atkinson’ study (1993), which, while acknowledging positive aspects to L1 use, cautions thatsuch use can present the single greatest danger to TL acquisition if it reduces TL use.
The view that students need both languages for effective language learning is a firststep toward researching optimum strategies for maximizing TL use. The learner views here
could, indeed, be reframed within the task-based approach to language learning supported by
the SLA and sociocultural perspectives, where the L1 is seen as a potential, form-focused tool
(Laufer & Girsai 2008) for completing tasks that maximize exposure to the TL. The conceptof translanguaging in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) could also revise thelearner perspective, which aims to maximize learner acquisition of context-specificknowledge and academic TL proficiency through the purposeful use of L1 and TL (Ikeda,2017). Further longitudinal research is needed to investigate the optimal L1/TL balance,
taking into account the various contextual factors discussed.

Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the anonymous JACET Selected Papers reviewers for their insightful andinvaluable comments on earlier drafts of this article.

References
Anton, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interactionin the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314-342.
Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching monolingual classes. London: Longman.
Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL
Quarterly, 27(1), 9-32.
Butzkamm, W., & Caldwell, J. (2009). The bilingual reform: A paradigm shift in foreign
173

Saito, T.
Exploring College Student Views on the Use of the First Language in English Language Teaching: The Case of Scholarship Students

language teaching. Tubingen: Narr Studienbucher.
Camilleri, A. (1996). Language values and identities: Code-switching in secondaryclassrooms in Malta. Linguistics and Education, 8(1), 85-103.
Chavez, M. (2003). The diglossic foreign-language classroom: Learners’ views on L1and L2
functions. In C. Blyth (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of foreign-language classrooms:
Contributions of the native, the near-native, and the non-native speaker (pp. 163-208).
Boston: Heinle.
Cook, G. (2010). Translation in language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 57(3), 402-423.
Duff, P., & Polio, C. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language
classrooms? The Modern Language Journal, 74(2), 154-166.
Edstrom, A. (2006). L1 use in the L2 classroom: One teacher’s self-evaluation.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(2), 275-292.
Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning.
Language Teaching, 45(3), 271-308.
Ikeda, M. (2017, March). Construction of a model for translanguaging in CLIL. Special
lecture sponsored by the English Education Research Center, Eiken Foundation ofJapan, Tokyo.
Kim, S. H. O., & Elder, C. (2005). Language choices and pedagogical functions in the foreign
language classroom: A cross-linguistic functions of teacher talk. Language Teaching
Research, 9, 355-380.
Kim, S. H. O., & Elder, C. (2008). Target language use in foreign language classrooms:
Practices and perceptions of two native speaker teachers in New Zealand. Language,
culture and curriculum, 21(2), 167-185.
Lantolf, J. (Ed.). (2000). Socio-cultural theory and second language learning. Oxford
174

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 153-177

University Press.
Laufer, B., & Girsai, N. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary
learning: A case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics, 29(4),694-761.
Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use,
first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. Modern
Language Journal, 87(3), 343-364.
Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign
language classroom. Language Teaching, 44, 64-77.
Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Macaro, E. (2006). Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning
strategy In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions,challenges and contributions to the profession (pp. 63-84). New York: Springer.
McMillan, B., & Rivers, D. (2011). The practice of policy: Teacher attitudes toward“English only”. System, 39, 251-263.
Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan Publishers.
Nikula, T. (2007). Speaking English in Finnish content-based classrooms. World Englishes,
26(2), 206-223.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning. New York: Pearson Education.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Polio, C., & Duff, P. (1994). Teachers’ language use in university foreign language
classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. Modern
Language Journal, 78(3), 313-326.
Rolin-Ianziti, J., & Varshney, R. (2008). Students’ views regarding the use of the first
language: An exploratory study in a tertiary context maximizing target language
175

Saito, T.
Exploring College Student Views on the Use of the First Language in English Language Teaching: The Case of Scholarship Students

use. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(2), 249-273.
Saito, T. (2018). Exploring Japanese college student perceptions of first language use in
English language teaching. English Literature 104, 17-32. Waseda University
English Literature Society.
Schweers, C. (1990). Using L1 in the L2 classrooms. English Teaching Forum, 37(2), 613.
Seidlhofer, S. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford University Press.
Stibbard, R. (1998). The principled use of oral translation in foreign language teaching. In K.
Malmkjaer (ed.), Translation and language teaching (pp. 69-76). Manchester: St.
Jerome Publishing.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first
language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251-274.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford
University Press.

Appendix
Q1. This is a questionnaire concerning English lessons. How strongly do you feel about thefollowing statements? Please circle one of the appropriate numbers for each statement (1.
Strongly agree; 2. Agree; 3. Neither agree nor disagree; 4. Disagree; 5. Strongly disagree).

1. I find it easier to understand English grammar when English teachers explain it in Japanese.
2. I find it easier to understand English words (phrases) when English teachers explain themin Japanese.

176

JACET Selected Papers Vol. 6 (2019), 153-177

3. I find it easier to understand long English sentences when English teachers translate theminto Japanese.
4. English teachers should only use English in the classroom.
5. English teachers should give instructions (about classroom outlines, assignments, details of
testing and assessment) in Japanese.
6. English teachers should use Japanese for explaining important information regarding
English proficiency examinations.
7. English teachers should use English most of the time in class, only using Japanese to
explain difficult elements.
8. I feel a sense of security when English teachers use Japanese in class.
9. I think it is better to communicate in Japanese with English teachers in class.
10. When English teachers often use Japanese in the classroom, it impedes the learning ofreal-life, practical English.
11. It feels natural to use Japanese in English lessons, to support the self as a learner.
Q2. List three or more advantages of using Japanese in English classes.
Q3. List three or more disadvantages of using Japanese in English classes.

177



JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 179-209

Frequency of Asking Personal Questions: A Case of Japanese EFL Learners
at a University in Tokyo

Haruka Toyoda and Emi Fukasawa
Sophia University

Abstract
The present study investigated how often 90 Japanese university students learning English as
a foreign language (EFL) at a university ask personal questions to interlocutors with two
kinds of status variables, higher in status or older and equal in status or of the same age, inEnglish. Types of personal information included age, marital status or if he or she is in a
relationship, and family-related information. The students were asked to select either scalefrom never, not so often, sometimes, often, and always on an on-line questionnaire written in
Japanese. They also answered the frequency of doing so in Japanese. The frequency andresponse patterns in the two languages were compared to examine the presence of first
language (L1) transfer into the criteria for asking personal questions in English. The
frequency was higher in English to both types of conversational partners. Some students
selected the same scales in the two languages, thus suggesting the transfer, but other selected
higher or lower frequency scales in English. In all the cases, majority of them seem to havedifferent criteria from those of English native speakers (NSs). The results indicate that theyneed an opportunity to become aware of the difference.

Keywords: personal questions, conversational topics, second language pragmatics,
interlanguage pragmatics, pragmatic failure

Toyoda, H. & Fukasawa, E.
Frequency of Asking Personal Questions: A Case of Japanese EFL Learners at a University in Tokyo

Introduction
Scope of the Study
The present study examined how often non-English-major Japanese students at auniversity may choose seemingly inappropriate conversational topics while communicating in
English. With an online questionnaire saved as a Google Form, the present researchers asked
90 students how often they ask personal questions while speaking their L1 Japanese and target
language (TL), or second language (L2), English. The personal topics included age, marital
status or if he or she has a girlfriend or boyfriend, family composition such as having abrother or sister. Such aspects of a language would be included in pragmatics, which may not
be paid attention in classroom compared to other components (i.e. phonetics and phonology,
semantics, and syntax). A study on assistant language teachers (ALTs) done by Sophia
University (2017) revealed that pragmatics is not often taught at high schools in Japan.
In the field of linguistics, pragmatics is to explain why people talk in a specific way orchoose certain expressions rather than other and how they understand what is meant, or
implicated, from what is said. Austin (1962), Brown and Levinson (1987), Grice (1989),
Leech (1983), and Searle (1969) are among the earlier studies that tried to answer thesequestions. Learners’ pragmatics is in the scope of a research filed called interlanguage
pragmatics (ILP), or second language pragmatics (Kasper & Blum-Kulka 1993; Kasper &Rose 2001; Shimizu 2009). Defining the scope of ILP, Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993, p. 3)
describe that studies in ILP have primarily focused on “the comprehension and production of
linguistic action” by learners. Common examples of linguistic action may be speech acts
proposed by Searle (1969).
Leech (1983, p. 10) differentiates general pragmatics, the universal rules and mannersof language use in human language, and sociopragmatics, unique rules and manners in a
specific language. Asking personal questions to a conversational partner can be simply

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 179-209

regarded as a request for information but the intent behind this linguistic action may beinterpreted differently among cultures. Such culture-specific interpretation seems to fit into
sociopragmatics, which the present study focused on.

Asking Personal Questions
Brown and Levinson (1987, p. 61) propose that every adult has face, a public image of
him/herself that a person wants to show to other members of the society. Face comprises of
two different kinds, positive and negative faces. Positive face is “the basic claim to territories,
personal preserves, rights to non-distraction

i.e. freedom of action and freedom from

imposition.” Negative face is “the positive consistent self-image or personality [crucially
including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of] claimed byinteractants.” Brown and Levinson call any actions that can threaten these two types of faces
face-threatening acts (FTAs). Asking personal questions can threaten both faces. In a sense, it
may threaten one’s negative face by asking the information that he does not want to disclose,
which means requesting him to do what he does not want to. At the same time, by mentioning
taboo topics to him, it may threaten his positive face by suggesting that the person asking thequestion does not care about his feelings.
Asking personal questions seems more acceptable in Japanese than English, especiallyin public (e.g., TV interviews), from an older person to the younger, and between people atthe same age or equal in status. Mimaki (1999, p. 51) observed conversational topics chosenby 38 pairs of Japanese university students, who met each other for the first time. She found23 common topics categorized into (a) campus life; (b) groups where the students belong suchas faculty, department, clubs, and years at the university; (c) residence; (d) similarities withthe conversational partner; (e) where they are from or which school they graduated from; (f)research interest, dissertation, or major; (g) future plan after graduating; or (h) entranceToyoda, H. & Fukasawa, E.
Frequency of Asking Personal Questions: A Case of Japanese EFL Learners at a University in Tokyo

examinations that they took to enter the university. This finding led her to claim that thestudents have a scheme, or a set of knowledge, for choice of topics. She also found that they
tried to look for what they have in common and emphasized the similarities, showed intereston the similarities or differences, and avoided unsafe, or face-threatening, topics such as if heor she has a girlfriend or boyfriend, academic records such as grades or exam scores, andparents’ occupation.
Kumagai and Ishii (2005) conducted a questionnaire and interview survey to compare
Japanese and Korean preference of conversational topics for strangers of their age. The
participants were 631 Japanese and 807 Koreans at different age groups, who were born
between 1934 and 1983. They found that the Japanese preferred topics such as (a) hobbies;(b) sports, TV programs, films, and celebrities; (c) how to spend holidays; (d) where they arefrom; and (e) their age. In addition, young Japanese people tended to prefer relationshipissues, marriage, and classes or work. The topics that both Japanese and Koreans were likely
to avoid included their or their family members’ income and body measurements such asheight and weight. They conclude that the two important factors for choosing topics in the
two languages were if the topic can promote further exchange of talk and if the topic isunrelated to conversational partners’ privacy.
The two studies indicate that NSs of Japanese may tend to avoid asking about his or her
privacy when conversing with a stranger. However, what privacy includes and to what extent
it is respected in Japanese seem unclear. Self-help manner books for conversation may
provide some clues. Sugiyama (2005) shows strategies to dodge answering to questions onage, marital status, and other personal issues when being asked by bosses or colleagues (p. 85)
and recommends not asking such information because the person being asked may feelembarrassed (p. 41). Noguchi (2009, p. 105) explains that with the increased awareness ofprivacy protection in these twenty years, more people are unwilling to disclose their privacy.

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 179-209

Yet he shows some indirect question forms to ask about personal issues (p. 87, pp. 106-107).
The topics included marital status or if he or she is in a relationship, age, residence orresidential area, educational records, and income (to a person with apparently high income).
These two books suggest that the types of information just mentioned may be part of privacy
but that asking them can occur and possibly be tolerated.
Regarding the situation in English, some research in the field of sociolinguistics (e.g.
Coupland, 2000), psychology (e.g. Haas & Sherman, 1982; Johnson & Aries, 1983) andmedicine especially language disorders (e.g. Barnes et al., 2013; Nadig et al., 2010; Stibling etal., 2009) deal with choice of topics. However, few studies appear to deal with personalquestions. It may be because such studies investigated conversations between people whoknow each other. Mimaki (1993, p. 52) divides a conversation between those who have met
each other for the first time into three phases. They are (a) exchange of basic information
about the participants, (b) increased exchange of talk on topics introduced in the first phase,and (c) closure of the conversation with decreased exchange. She reports that her participants
actively exchanged information about themselves in the first phase by asking questions. If thisis also true in English, personal questions may be seen at the beginning of conversations
between those who do not each other well. With the limited number of earlier studies, it seems
very difficult to determine if personal questions are asked in such situation or whether it ispreferable in English. In addition, speakers of different English varieties such as British,
American, Canadian, and Australian may possibly have different criteria for the choice ofsuch topics as well as individual preferences.
Manner books and a textbook targeted at Japanese EFL learners would be helpful toconsider these points. Vardaman (2009, 2013) and Vardaman and Morimoto (1999) show
some inappropriate and impolite topics for questions in conversations: age, relationship orromance-related issues, if he or she has children, income, price of objects that he or she wears

Toyoda, H. & Fukasawa, E.
Frequency of Asking Personal Questions: A Case of Japanese EFL Learners at a University in Tokyoor owns, blood type, religion, and body measurements or weight. Sakamoto and Sakamoto(2008) quote one of the common Americans’ complaints about speakers of Japanese:
Japanese ask too many personal questions. They mention Why don’t you have children? andWhy don’t you stop smoking? as the examples. They explain, “To Japanese, such questions
show warm interest in the other person’s well-being. But to Americans, they seem to be aninvasion of privacy” (p. 27). These publications indicate that Japanese learners are likely to
ask such information and that this may be impolite. Yet it is important to note that the books
are based on Americans’ viewpoints and not on speakers of other English varieties.

Learners and Conversational Topics
In the field of ILP, Zuengler (1993) studied the influence of topics as a factor affecting
learners’ performance. However, there seems little research dealing with learners’sociopragmatic knowledge of preferable topics in their TL and how this is projected to theirperformance. It may be because majority of studies in ILP have focused on speech acts as
typical examples of linguistic action. Asking questions to introduce a new topic for aconversation seem a type of linguistic action but different from speech acts. Speech acts havea clear goal of communication and can end when a certain action is performed. On the other
hand, asking questions with such an aim may occur throughout a broader discourse to keep aconversation going.
Shimizu (2017, p. 132) states that people are likely to spend overwhelmingly more timeon talks without a purpose, small talks, than those with a purpose, talks to perform specifictasks such as asking directions or shopping, in daily conversation. He also did a questionnaire
survey with his colleague, of which respondents were international students learning Japaneseat universities in Japan. More than 100 students identified what they found difficult inJapanese small talks and what they expect to be taught in classroom. The results indicated that

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 179-209

the students were finding difficulties with substantial aspects of Japanese small talks such as
how to have small talks in the first place, choosing good, icebreaking, or appropriate topics
according to whom they are talking to, how to keep the conversation going, how to respond towhat he or she has just said. Japanese learners of English may face the same difficulties.
Difficulties in pragmatics of a TL may cause leaners to talk differently from NSs. For
instance, studies by Beebe and Takahashi (1989), Takahashi (1996), Takahashi and Beebe(1993) suggest that Japanese learners of English do not always employ the same strategies or
expressions as the ones NSs use in the speech acts of disagreeing, requesting, and correcting
respectively. In the study done by Sophia University (2017), the majority of ALTs reported
that some students and Japanese teachers of English sound inappropriate in manner andexpressions while speaking English. Such deviant examples from the NSs’ norm can be
regarded as pragmatic failure (Thomas, 1983), which refers to the incidents where learners’
true intention is not understood by a conversational partner. An influential factor associatedwith pragmatic failure is pragmatic transfer (Kasper, 1992), which refers to transferredpragmatic norm into an L2, which was originated in leaners’ L1 or what they have learned inand outside classroom. The present study tried to investigate the association of the students’
L1 pragmatics with the frequency of asking personal questions in English.

MethodThe purpose of the present study was to find out how frequently university students
learning EFL ask personal questions, which seem to be common in Japanese, in English.
Ninety non-English-major students at a university in Tokyo responded to an online
questionnaire with 71 questions saved as a Google Form. They belonged to four intact classes
in a compulsory course for academic English communication. There were 43 male and 47
female students, whose age ranged from 18 to 20 (M = 18.9, SD = 0.59). They were assigned

Toyoda, H. & Fukasawa, E.
Frequency of Asking Personal Questions: A Case of Japanese EFL Learners at a University in Tokyo

to classes according to the scores on a placement test, which employed Test of English for
Academic Purposes (TEAP) developed by Eiken Foundation of Japan. One of the four classes
was labeled as elementary (N = 24) and the rest were labeled as intermediate (N = 66). Thirty
students had an experience of staying in English-speaking countries for more than two weeks,with 17 having stayed up to 1 month, 5 having stayed up to 3 months, and 8 having stayed
more than a year (M = 6.2 months, SD = 11.1). A Spearman’s correlation coefficient test
revealed no significant correlation between the response patterns and their proficiency or theexperience, so the participants were regarded as one homogeneous group for the proceedingstatistical analyses.
The questionnaire, written in Japanese, composed of four sections. They were (a)asking personal questions in Japanese, (b) asking personal questions in English, (c) attitudes
for conversation in English, and (d) students’ awareness and background. The present study
focused only on the first and second sections with the limitation of pages. These sections
asked how often the students ask questions to elicit personal information while talking with a
NS of Japanese or English with two age or status (hereafter written as simply status)
variables, older or higher in status (hereafter referred as higher in status or with higher status)and equal in status or of the same age as theirs (hereafter indicated as equal in status or withequal status), while conversing in Japanese or English respectively.
The sections focused on six types of personal information. They were (a) age, (b) if heor she is in a relationship or married (hereafter referred as marital status), (c) types of person
he or she would like for a romantic relationship, (d) blood type, (e) body weight, and (f)family-related information such as if he or she has brothers or sisters (hereafter written as
family issues). Although the degree of intimacy, such as close or distant, seems to be anotherimportant variable that can affect the frequency (Mimaki, 1999), it was not focused since thetotal number of questionnaire questions was already large, which would have demotivated theJACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 179-209

students. Instead, one question was created to ask with which topics of the six the students
consider solidarity is important when deciding if they ask or not. For the frequency, thestudents were asked to choose either scale from (a) always, (b) often, (c) sometimes, (d) not so
often, or (e) never. In addition to these questions to inquire the frequency, the sections
included questions to ask uncommon or common types of information that they ask. The
students were first asked to select either yes or no and then those who selected yes were asked
to write down the types of information.
The third section asked to what degree they agree with the statements describing
necessary attitudes for communication in English. The fourth section asked their basic
information such as age, gender, English learning background such as where they learned
English, scores on English proficiency tests, experience of having stayed in English speaking
countries for more than two weeks, and if they have learned English pragmatics. The section
also asked their awareness levels in English pragmatics.
The students answered the questionnaire with anonymity as part of an awarenessraising activity in class as an introduction to the concepts of pragmatics and speech acts. Only
data from the 90 students, who gave permission to the use of their responses for the present
study, was analyzed and reported on this paper. The measurement of the frequency data wasregarded as ordinal and the scales were substituted as 0 (never), 1 (not so often), 2(sometimes), 3 (often), and 4 (always) for the statistical analyses. Although the data was not
on ratio scale, the average and the standard deviation on each question was calculated to help
further understand the dynamics of the data. Using IBM’s SPSS, a Spearman’s correlation
coefficient test was performed among all possible pairs of the questionnaire questions
excluding the open-ended to see how the students’ response patterns in one question was
associated with those on others. In addition, on pairs of questions to inquire the frequency, thenumbers of students who chose the same and different scales were counted. To find theToyoda, H. & Fukasawa, E.
Frequency of Asking Personal Questions: A Case of Japanese EFL Learners at a University in Tokyo

possible causes of correlations, their response patterns were categorized into three types.
These were (a) choosing the same scale on both of a question pair, (b) choosing a higher
frequency scale on a question than the other, and (c) choosing a lower frequency scale on aquestion than the other.
The response patterns were regarded to reflect the students’ perception ofsociopragmatic rules, or criteria, for asking specific types of information mentioned earlier.
The rules were concerned with (a) difference between Japanese and English, and (b) necessityof style-shifting, or changing the frequency of asking, according to the status of aconversational partner. As a presupposition, every student was assumed to have different
absolute value for the frequency, which they may adjust based on their own criteria.
Possible types of perceptions about the difference between Japanese and English are (a)the degree of acceptability for asking personal information X is the same in Japanese andEnglish, (b) asking personal information X is more acceptable in English than in Japanese,and (c) asking personal information X is less acceptable in English than in Japanese. The first
type imply that the students may be transferring L1 rules into English. Considering the earlier
studies (Sakamoto & Sakamoto, 2008; Vardaman, 2009, 2013; Vardaman & Morimoto, 1999),
the second would reflect their incorrect understanding since it may be the opposite. Given thepossibility that the information can be asked more often in Japanese, the third seem to be themost appropriate.
Possible types of the rules concerned with the necessity of style-shifting according to
the status of a conversational partner are (a) the degree of acceptability for asking personal
information X is the same regardless of the status of an interlocutor, (b) asking personal
information X is more acceptable to an interlocutor equal in status, and (c) asking personal
information X is less acceptable to an interlocutor equal in status. With the limited number of
earlier studies, it seems difficult to decide if status difference is an influential factor for asking

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 179-209

personal information in English. The default would be the second since this variable comes
into play when people decide whether to do an FTA (Brown & Levinson, 1987). However,considering the advice from the earlier studies (Vardaman 2009, 2013; Vardaman &Morimoto, 1999), not asking regardless of his or her status may be safer, so the first one
would also be possible. The third seems the least common in both English and Japanese, so
the response patterns were expected to reflect either the first or second of the above.
The next section discusses the students’ responses on (a) asking age, (b) marital status,and (c) family issues, which indicated statistically significant correlations with higher reported
frequencies to be noted. Uncommon conversational topics reported by the students were also
analyzed to find out their perception about unsafe topics in the two languages. On the datafrom the questionnaire questions that elicited yes or no, logistic regression analyses of generalequation model were performed to examine the difference of the students’ response patterns
between the two languages or the two status variables, higher or equal.

Results and Discussions
The Spearman’s correlation coefficient test indicated significant correlations of thestudents’ response patterns in Japanese and English on questionnaire questions that asked thefrequency of asking (a) age, (b) marital status, and (c) family issues. It may be important tonote again that asking these types of information does not seem preferable in English(Sakamoto & Sakamoto, 2008; Vardaman, 2009, 2013; Vardaman & Morimoto, 1999). The
following subsections present the results on the three topics respectively and then theuncommon topics reported by the students.

Age
Table 1 shows the number and percentage of students who chose each frequency scales

Toyoda, H. & Fukasawa, E.
Frequency of Asking Personal Questions: A Case of Japanese EFL Learners at a University in Tokyo

for asking age to persons with the two status variables in Japanese and English. To a person
higher in status, the most selected scales were not so often in Japanese (N = 39, 43%) andsometimes in English (N = 28, 31%). In English, more students chose higher frequency scales
from sometimes to always. The ratio of those who answered that they ask age with different
frequency levels reached at about 80% in Japanese and 70% in English. To a person equal instatus, the students selected sometimes the most in Japanese (N = 39, 43%) and often in
English (N = 30, 33%). Compared to cases with an interlocutor with higher status, lessstudents, 4% (N = 4) in Japanese and 11% (N = 10) in English, selected never and theygenerally selected higher frequency scales. In English, more students selected higher
frequency scales always and often than to a person higher in status. The total of those who
selected other than never were 96% in Japanese and 89% in English. The average of thefrequency was the lowest in Japanese to a person with higher status and the highest in English
to a person with equal status. In the study of Kumagai and Ishii (2005), age was one of the
topics that the Japanese participants preferred. The great percentage of those who chose otherthan never in Japanese seem to support this though the general frequency was not very high.

Table 1Frequency of Asking Age in Japanese and English
To Higher Status
To Equal Status
Japanese
EnglishJapanese
EnglishAlways
1 1%
5 6%
3 3%
10 11%
Often
6 7%
11 12%
24 27%
30 33%
Sometimes
23 26%
28 31%
39 43%
27 30%
Not so often
39 43%
20 22%
20 22%
13 14%
Never
21 23%
26 29%
4 4%
10 11%
Total
90
90
90
90
M
1.19
1.43
2.02
2.19
SD
0.91
1.18
0.89
1.15

The Spearman’s correlation coefficient test indicated significant correlations among

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 179-209

pairs of questions where the comparison was made between languages and the status
variables. Table 2 shows the list of pairs with significant correlations.

Table 2Asking Age: Pairs of Questions with Significant Correlations
Pairs of Questionnaire Questions
Between Languages
Pair 1 To Higher Status in Japanese
Pair 2 To Equal Status in Japanese
Between Status Variables
Pair 3 To Higher Status in Japanese
Pair 4 To Higher Status in English
Note. * p < .01r To Higher Status in English
 To Equal Status in English

.33 *
.40 *

 To Equal Status in Japanese To Equal Status in English

.40 *
.65 *

A weak positive correlation and relatively strong positive correlations were indicated in Pair 1
and Pairs 2 to 4 respectively. Such positive correlations imply a specific tendency: the higher
are the scales that the students chose on one of a question pair, so are the scales on another.
Table 3 shows the ratio of the three response patterns seen in Pairs 1 and 2: (a) selected
the same scales in both languages (J = E), (b) selected higher frequency scales in English (J <E), and (c) selected lower frequency scales in English (J > E). In both pairs, the least common
pattern was J > E.

Table 3Asking Age: Response Patterns in Pairs 1 & 2
J=E
J<E
J>E
Total
Pair 1
33
37%
33
37%
24
27%
90
Pair 2
38
42%
31
34%
21
23%
90
Note. J = E = selected the same scales in Japanese and English, J < E = selected higher
frequency scales in English, J > E = selected lower frequency scales in English
Question Pairs

In Pair 1, the same number of the patterns fit into J = E and J < E. In J = E, more students

Toyoda, H. & Fukasawa, E.
Frequency of Asking Personal Questions: A Case of Japanese EFL Learners at a University in Tokyo

selected never (N = 10), sometimes (N = 10), and not so often (N = 9). In J < E, the students
chose not so often (N = 18) and never (N = 11) the most in Japanese but selected sometimes(N = 17) and often (N = 8) in English. In J > E, they chose not so often (N = 12) andsometimes (N = 11) the most in Japanese and never (N = 16) and not so often (N = 7) in
English. It seems that majority of the students having responded with J = E or J > E pattern
may have chosen lower frequency scales than those who have responded with J < E pattern.
In Pair 2, the most common pattern was J = E. More students chose sometimes (N =16) and often (N = 14) in the two languages thus selected higher frequency scales than inPair 1. In J < E, they selected sometimes (N = 16) and not so often (N = 11) the most inJapanese but often (N = 15), always (N = 8) and sometimes (N = 7) in English. In J > E,
which was the least common, they chose often (N = 8) and sometimes (N = 7) the most inJapanese then never (N = 8) and not so often (N = 8) in English.
The response patterns in Pairs 1 and 2 would be reflecting the students’ different
perceptions: (a) the degree of acceptability for asking age is the same in Japanese andEnglish (J = E), (b) asking age is more acceptable in English (J < E), and (c) asking age isless acceptable in English (J > E). In Pair 1, majorities seem to be following either the first or
second. Those who are applying the first or third seem to have a relatively low absolute valueof the frequency. In Pair 2, they are likely to be following the same rules but with higher
values. In both Pairs 1 and 2, more than 30% seem to be following the third, which may be
the opposite of the reality.
Table 4 indicates the ratio of three response patterns seen in Pairs 3 and 4: (a) chose thesame scales regardless of his or her status (H = E), (b) chose higher frequency scales to aperson equal in status (H < E), and (c) chose lower frequency scales to this type ofinterlocutor (H > E).

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 179-209

Table 4
Asking Age: Response Patterns in Pairs 3 & 4
H=E
H<E
H>E
Total
Pair 3
31
34%
55
61%
4
4%
90
Pair 4
43
48%
46
51%
1
1%
90
Note. H = E = selected the same frequency scales to both types of the interlocutor, H < E =selected higher frequency scales to a person equal in status, H > E = selected lower
frequency scales to a person equal in status
Question Pairs

The most frequent pattern was H < E in both Pairs 3 and 4. In Pair 3, most students selected
either one of not so often (N = 26), never (N = 18), or sometimes (N = 10) to a person higher
in status and sometimes (N = 25) and often (N = 22) to a person equal in status. In H = E,majority selected not so often (N = 13) and sometimes (N = 12). In H < E of Pair 4, theymostly selected never or sometimes (N = 16 for each) and not so often (N = 12) to a personwith higher status and often (N = 22) and sometimes (N = 15) to a person with equal status. In
H = E, they chose sometimes (N = 13) and never (N = 12) the most. With only a few students
having fit in H > E in Pairs 3 and 4, the students’ response patterns in Pairs 3 and 4 would be
due to either perception of (a) the degree of acceptability for asking age is the same
regardless of the interlocutors’ status (H = E) or (b) asking age is more acceptable to a personwith equal in status (H < E).
The difference of the coefficients from weak to relatively strong in Pairs 1 to 4 would
be due to the varying number of those who consistently style-shifted or maintained the same
pattern and the average of the frequency. The consistency may have been the greatest in Pair 4
with the highest average. In summary, the students’ responses can be described in three ways.
Firstly, each student seems to have different absolute values for the acceptability of asking age
as they chose different scales. Secondly, some students may have style-shifted according to
the status of an interlocutor but others did not, which suggests different levels of sensitivity tothis variable. Finally, some students appear to have style-shifted based on the perception that

Toyoda, H. & Fukasawa, E.
Frequency of Asking Personal Questions: A Case of Japanese EFL Learners at a University in TokyoJapanese and English have different rules for asking age though others do not. They are also
likely to have different levels of sensitivity to the difference.
To a person higher in status, they do not seem to ask age so often in English, but thefrequency went up when talking to a person equal in status. Since asking age appears to be
impolite (Vardaman 2009, 2013; Vardaman & Morimoto 1999) choosing other than neverwould be unsafe. In addition, some students responded with J < E pattern, which would also
be problematic. The students seem to have different rules for asking age in English, which
include acceptability of doing so and when or how to style-shift. The existence of those who
responded with J = E pattern suggests that they seem to be transferring the measures of asking
age in their L1 into L2.
Marital status
Table 5 shows the frequency of asking marital status in Japanese and English to persons
with higher or equal status. To an interlocutor with higher status, the students selected not so
often the most in both Japanese and English (N = 39, 43% for each). In English, more
students chose often (N = 11, 12%) and one chose always. Those who selected other thannever occupied 68% in Japanese and 70% in English. To a conversational partner equal instatus, they chose sometimes the most both in Japanese (N = 40, 44%) and English (N = 32,36%). In English, 4 students chose always though less chose other higher frequency scales.
The ratio of those who selected other than never was 86% in Japanese and 87% in English.
The average of the frequency was the lowest in Japanese to a person with higher status andthe highest in English to a person equal in status and this tendency corresponds to that inasking age. Compared to asking age, about twice more students chose not so often to bothtypes of interlocutors in English. In Japanese, about 10% more students chose never. The
students may be less likely to ask this type of information than age. In Mimaki (1999), if he or
she has a girlfriend or boyfriend was one of the topics that the students avoided. The higher

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 179-209

percentage of never to a person equal in status than asking age in Japanese would support thispoint.

Table 5Frequency of Asking Marital Status in Japanese and English
To Higher Status
To Equal Status
Japanese
EnglishJapanese
EnglishAlways
0 0%
1 1%
0 0%
4 4%
Often
1 1%
11 12%
18 20%
16 18%
Sometimes
18 20%
12 13%
40 44%
32 36%
Not so often
39 43%
39 43%
19 21%
26 29%
Never
32 36%
27 30%
13 14%
12 13%
Total
90
90
90
90
M
0.87
1.11
1.70
1.71
SD
0.76
1.00
0.95
1.05

Table 6 shows the pairs of questionnaire questions with statistically significant
correlations. A weak positive correlation, relatively strong positive correlations, and strong
positive correlations were indicated in Pair 1, Pairs 2 and 3, and Pair 4 in order.

Table 6Asking Marital Status: Pairs of Questions with Significant Correlations
Pairs of Questionnaire Questions
Between Languages
Pair 1 To Higher Status in Japanese
Pair 2 To Equal Status in Japanese
Between Status Variables
Pair 3 To Higher Status in Japanese
Pair 4 To Higher Status in English
Note. * p < .01r To Higher Status in English
 To Equal Status in English

.34 *
.45 *

 To Equal Status in Japanese To Equal Status in English

.54 *
.74 *

Table 7 shows the response patterns seen in Pairs 1 and 2. In both pairs, the students
responded with J = E pattern the most and the percentage was nearly 60%.

Toyoda, H. & Fukasawa, E.
Frequency of Asking Personal Questions: A Case of Japanese EFL Learners at a University in Tokyo

Table 7Asking Marital Status: Response Patterns in Pairs 1 & 2
Question Pairs
J=E
J<E
J>E
Total
Pair 1
52
58%
24
27%
14
16%
90
Pair 2
51
57%
17
19%
22
24%
90
Note. J = E = selected the same scales in Japanese and English, J < E = selected higher
frequency scales in English, J > E = selected lower frequency scales in English

In Pair 1, majority of such students chose lower frequency scales, not so often (N = 27), never(N = 16), and sometimes (N = 8). In Pair 2, from the most, they selected sometimes (N = 23),
not so often (N = 11), and often (N = 10), thus chose higher frequency scales than in Pair 1. In
Pair 1, the second most common pattern was J < E. They selected never (N = 16) the most inJapanese and often (N = 10) and not so often (N = 9) in English. In Pair 2, the second mostcommon was J > E. Majority selected sometimes (N = 13) and often (N = 7) in Japanese andnot so often (N = 13) and never (N = 5) in English. However, there were still about 20% who
responded with J < E pattern. They chose never (N = 6), not so often (N = 6), and sometimes(N = 4) the most in Japanese, but often (N = 6), sometimes (N = 5), and always (N = 4) in
English.
Possible types of the students’ perceptions adjusting their value for the frequency ofasking the information may be (a) the degree of acceptability for asking marital status is thesame in Japanese and English (J = E), (b) asking marital status is more acceptable in English(J < E), and (c) asking marital status is less acceptable in English (J > E). Majority of thestudents are likely to be following the first one. In Pair 1, they seem to have lower absolutevalue for the frequency than in Pair 2. However, it may be important to note the existence of
those who appear to be applying the third, who responded with J < E pattern.
Table 8 indicates the ratio of the three response patterns seen in Pairs 3 and 4. There
was no student who responded with H > E pattern.

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 179-209

Table 8Asking Marital Status: Response Patterns in Pairs 3 & 4
Question Pairs
H=E
H<E
H>E
Total
Pair 3
35
39%
55
61%
0
0%
90
Pair 4
47
52%
43
48%
0
0%
90
Note. H = E = selected the same frequency scales to both types of the interlocutor, H < E =selected higher frequency scales to a person equal in status, H > E = selected lower
frequency scales to a person equal in status

In Pair 3, more students fit in H < E pattern. To a person higher in status, from the most, theychose not so often (N = 27), never (N = 19), and sometimes (N = 9). To a person equal instatus, they selected sometimes (N = 31), often (N = 17), and not so often (N = 7). In H = E
pattern, they mostly chose never (N = 13), not so often (N = 12), and sometimes (N = 9). In
Pair 4, about the same number of the students responded with H = E or H < E pattern. In H =E, majority selected never (N = 18), not so often (N = 12), or often (N = 9). Differing from
Pair 3, the third most selected was often. In H < E, they chose not so often (N = 21) and never(N = 15) the most to a person higher in status and sometimes (N = 25), not so often (N = 8),
and often (N = 7) to a person equal in status.
Compared to cases of asking age in both pairs, the students generally chose lower
frequency scales in H = E pattern and style-shifted with low frequency. The strong correlationin Pair 4 appears to reflect this consistency with lower frequency scales but with the highest
average among the four pairs. Since there was no student who responded with H > E pattern,
the students’ possible perceptions regarding interlocutors’ status can be either one of (a) the
degree of acceptability for asking marital status is the same regardless of the interlocutors’
status (H = E) and (b) asking marital status is more acceptable to a person equal in status (H< E). Majority of the students are likely to be applying the first one for asking this type of
information in English with relatively low absolute values. Those who seem to be following

Toyoda, H. & Fukasawa, E.
Frequency of Asking Personal Questions: A Case of Japanese EFL Learners at a University in Tokyo

the second also appear to have lower values than when asking age.
In sum, the students’ responses may be explained as the following. Firstly, each student
seems to have a different but lower absolute value for the acceptability of asking marital
status than that for asking age. Secondly, some style-shifted according to the status ofinterlocutors but others did not. Their levels of sensitivity seem to vary. Finally, some may
have style-shifted based on the perception that Japanese and English have different rules forasking marital status, but others do not. They appear to have different levels of sensitivity to
the difference.
In English, the students are not likely to ask this type of information to a person higher
in status very often but there were still over a quarter of students who selected higher
frequency scales from sometimes to always. To a person equal in status, about 60% selected
the higher frequency scales. The students’ response patterns suggest that more students appear
to be transferring L1 sociopragmatic rules into English than when asking age.
Family Issues
Table 9 shows the numbers and percentages of those who chose each frequency scale
for asking family issues in Japanese and English. To a person with higher status, they chose
sometimes the most in both Japanese (N = 42, 47%) and English (N = 33, 37%). In English,
about twice more students selected often than in Japanese and 5 more students chose always.
The number of those who selected never was the least among the three types of information.
Those who selected other than never occupied 91% in both Japanese and English. To a person
equal in status, the students selected often the most in both Japanese (N = 37, 41%) andEnglish (N = 33, 37%). In English, 2 more students chose never but 5 more students selectedalways. The ratio of those who selected other than never were 96% in Japanese and 93% inEnglish. Overall, the highest percentages of those who selected other than never among thethree topics in English imply that the students may regard asking this type of information is

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 179-209

safe, though it does not seem so in reality.

Table 9Frequency of Asking Family Issues in Japanese and English
To Higher Status
To Equal Status
Japanese
EnglishJapanese
EnglishAlways
1 1%
6 7%
7 8%
12 13%
Often
13 14%
27 30%
37 41%
33 37%
Sometimes
42 47%
33 37%
35 39%
32 36%
Not so often
26 29%
16 18%
7 8%
7 8%
Never
8 9%
8 9%
4 4%
6 7%
Total
90
90
90
90
M
1.70
2.08
2.40
2.42
SD
0.86
1.05
0.90
1.03

Table 10 indicates the pairs of questionnaire questions with significant correlations.
Again, the Spearman’s correlation coefficient test presented a weak positive correlation,
relatively strong positive correlations, and strong positive correlation in Pair 1, Pairs 2 and 3,
and Pair 4 respectively. The correlation coefficient was the highest in Pair 4 among all theother pairs including those in earlier subsections.

Table 10
Asking Family Issues: Pairs of Questions with Significant Correlations
Pairs of Questionnaire Questions
Between Languages
Pair 1 To Higher Status in Japanese
Pair 2 To Equal Status in Japanese
Between Status Variables
Pair 3 To Higher Status in Japanese
Pair 4 To Higher Status in English
Note. * p < .01r To Higher Status in English
 To Equal Status in English

.34 *
.47 *

 To Equal Status in Japanese To Equal Status in English

.41 *
.83 *

Toyoda, H. & Fukasawa, E.
Frequency of Asking Personal Questions: A Case of Japanese EFL Learners at a University in Tokyo

Table 11
Asking Family Issues: Response Patterns in Pairs 1 & 2
Question Pairs
J=E
J<E
J>E
Total
Pair 1
39
43%
36
40%
15
17%
90
Pair 2
49
54%
23
26%
18
20%
90
Note. J = E = selected the same scales in Japanese and English, J < E = selected higher
frequency scales in English, J > E = selected lower frequency scales in English

Table 11 shows the response patterns seen in Pairs 1 and 2. In Pair 1, about the same
number of students responded with J = E or J < E pattern. In J = E, majority selected
sometimes (N = 18), often (N = 8), or never (N = 8). In J < E, they selected not so often (N =17) and sometimes (N = 14) the most in Japanese and often (N = 19) and sometimes (N = 11)
in English. In Pair 2, the most common was J = E. Majority selected sometimes and often (N= 19 for each). The second most common pattern was J < E. They chose sometimes (N = 13)
and often (N = 6) the most in Japanese and often (N = 14) and always (N = 7) in English. In
Pairs 1 and 2, the prevailing patterns were J = E and J < E as they were in other two topics
excepting Pair 2 of marital status. The difference is that the students kept the same frequency
or changed it with relatively high frequencies.
Possible types of the students’ perceptions regarding the difference between Japaneseand English would be (a) the degree of acceptability for asking family issues is the same inJapanese and English (J = E), (b) asking family issues is more acceptable in English (J < E),
and (c) asking family issues is less acceptable in English (J > E). The least students seem to befollowing the third one, which seems the most appropriate. The rest are likely to be following
either the first or second with relatively high frequency.
Table 12 shows the students’ response patterns seen in Pairs 3 and 4.

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 179-209

Table 12Asking Family Issues: Response Patterns in Pairs 3 & 4
Question Pairs
H=E
H<E
H>E
Total
Pair 3
25
28%
65
72%
0
0%
90
Pair 4
58
64%
31
34%
1
1%
90
Note. H = E = selected the same frequency scales to both types of the interlocutor, H < E =selected higher frequency scales to a person equal in status, H > E = selected lower
frequency scales to a person equal in status

In Pair 3, more than 70% of the students’ response patterns fit in H < E. This would suggestthat they commonly change the frequency of asking the information according to the status of
an interlocutor in Japanese. To a person higher in status, from the most, they chose never (N =44), not so often (N = 12), and sometimes (N = 9). To a person equal in status, almost all
students selected sometimes (N = 34), not so often (N = 17), or often (N = 13).
On the other hand, in Pair 4, the most common pattern was H = E, where the majority
selected sometimes (N = 21) and often (N = 20). In H < E, they selected sometimes (N = 12)
and not so often (N = 11) the most to a person with higher status and often (N = 13) andsometimes (N = 11) to a person equal in status. Compared to Pair 3, they selected higher
frequency scales in H = E pattern and style shifted with higher frequencies in H < E pattern.
With no or only one student having responded with H > E patterns, possible types of thestudents’ perceptions may be (a) the degree of acceptability for asking family issues is thesame regardless of the interlocutors’ status (H = E) and (b) asking family issues is more
acceptable to a person with equal in status (H < E). The greatest correlation in Pair 4 would
be due to the consistency of the students’ response patterns accompanied by the highest
average.
So far, the students’ responses would be explained as the following. Firstly, each
student seems to have a different but higher absolute value for the acceptability of asking
family issues than that for asking other two types of information. Secondly, some style-shiftedToyoda, H. & Fukasawa, E.
Frequency of Asking Personal Questions: A Case of Japanese EFL Learners at a University in Tokyoaccording to the status of interlocutors but others did not. They seem to have different levelsof sensitivity to this variable. Finally, some may have style-shifted based on the perceptionthat Japanese and English have different rules for asking family issues. They appear to havedifferent levels of sensitivity to the difference.
Differing from other two types of information, the students seem to have higher
absolute values. This seems to contradict with NSs’ norm. The least students responded with J> E pattern, which would be the most appropriate. These tendencies may be problematic.

Uncommon Topics Reported by the Students
Table 13 shows the number of students who answered that there are kinds ofinformation that they do not ask while interacting with NSs of Japanese or English. The
number of those who answered yes was greater in Japanese. In Japanese, majority did so
regardless of the conversational partners’ status, but an opposite tendency was seen in
English.
The results of the logistic regression analyses indicate that the students’ response
patterns differ according to the status of interlocutors and languages as shown in Table 14.
This means that they may have changed their responses based on the interlocutors’ status andhave different criteria in the two languages. Other factors than their L1 appear to be affecting
the criteria in their L2.

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 179-209

Table 13
Number of Students Who Listed Uncommon Topics
To Higher Status
To Equal Status
Japanese
EnglishJapanese
English
Yes
63
70%
39
43%
37
41%
27
30%
No
27
30%
51
57%
53
59%
63
70%
Total
90
90
90
90
Note. Yes = answered that there are some types of information that they do not ask
No = answered that there are none

Table 14
Results of the Logistic Regression Analyses among Pairs of Questionnaire Questions
Question Pairs
To Higher Status in Japanese
To Equal Status in Japanese
To Higher Status in Japanese
To Higher Status in English
Note. * p < .01, **p < .05-

To Higher Status in English
To Equal Status in English
To Equal Status in Japanese
To Equal Status in English

χ2
df
20.35 15.80 132.49 1
8.53 1

p
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00

*
**
*
*

To a person higher in status, the major types of uncommon topics included age (N = 17
in Japanese, N = 8 in English) and career-related issues such as his/her current or former
positions and educational background (N = 16 in Japanese, N = 4 in English). Although herparticipants talked with an interlocutor equal in status, this corresponds to the finding of
Mimaki (1999) that they avoided talking about academic records. To a person equal in status,
the uncommon topics included appearance-related issues such as body weight or body partsfor which he or she takes special care for beauty (N = 11 in Japanese, N = 7 in English). This
also corresponds to the finding of Kumagai and Ishii (2005) that their Japanese participants
did not prefer talking about body measurements such as height and weight. In Japanese, thesecond most mentioned were family issues such as what his or her parents do or if he or she
has a mother or father (N = 7).
In English, small number of the students mentioned different kinds of information such

Toyoda, H. & Fukasawa, E.
Frequency of Asking Personal Questions: A Case of Japanese EFL Learners at a University in Tokyo

as blood types, religion, complexes that he or she has about him or her (N = 2 for each). The
students seem to have common types of information that they do not ask in the two languages,
but the number of the students who listed varied between the languages. It may be important
to note that only small numbers of students listed age, marital status, and family issues as
uncommon topics in English. In addition, the number of students who answered no was
greater. This would suggest the students’ misunderstanding that there are less taboo topics forconversation in English.

Conclusion
Earlier studies imply that asking personal information seems unsafe in both Japaneseand English, or in American English, but the types of information included in this category
may be different between the two languages. In Japanese, age appears to be one of common
preferred topics, but this does not seem so in English as well as marital status and family
issues. The results indicated that the students are more likely to change the frequency ofasking age, marital status, and family issues based on the conversational partners’ status in
Japanese. In English, there were more students who selected the same frequency scales
regardless of the status of the interlocutor. This may suggest their decreased sensitivity tostatus differences when asking personal information in English.
In addition, there were more students who selected higher frequency scales in English
than those who selected lower frequency scales in English. In all the three topics, the averageof the frequency was the lowest to a person with higher status in Japanese and the highest to aperson with equal status in English. The students may regard asking such types of information
to be more common in English than in Japanese. This perception appears to be the opposite of
the reality.
The significant correlations between English and Japanese, Pairs 1 and 2, indicate that

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 179-209

there seem to be some students who employ the same criteria to decide the frequency ofasking the three kinds of information in the two languages. This would suggest the transferfrom L1. However, not all the students are likely to be acting so. There may be some otherinfluential factors such as their stereotypes and inappropriate knowledge such as people talkmore openly in English and it is OK to ask about people’s privacy in English, which they
picked up during their learning process.
The highest correlation coefficients in Pair 4 of all the topics, where the comparison
was based on status variables in English, indicate that asking such information to a person
equal in status would be a predictor of doing so to a person higher in status or vice versa. The
higher coefficients than in other pairs may be due to the higher average of the frequency andthe consistency of the students’ response patterns, which were categorized into either H = E or
H < E.
The logistic regression analyses indicated that their choice of conversational topics
would have been influenced by the interlocutors’ status in both languages and the criteria fordoing so may differ between the languages. This may also indicate the existence of otherfactors other than their L1 that affect the choice. The results so far suggest that the students
have unique criteria, or interlanguage-pragmatic criteria, for choice of conversational topics
and for deciding if they ask or not in English. The criteria appear to differ from those of their
L1 and possibly from those of English NSs.
These findings suggest two possibilities that the students may need to be aware of (a)the acceptability of asking personal questions in Japanese and English seem different and (b)the types included in personal information may also be different. Although the perception
would vary according to individuals and the varieties of English, it seems important to letthem aware that NSs of English may have different criteria. The role of instruction will bevery important since majority of the students may not have opportunities to notice theToyoda, H. & Fukasawa, E.
Frequency of Asking Personal Questions: A Case of Japanese EFL Learners at a University in Tokyo

differences outside classroom.
At present, with the limited amount of earlier studies, to what extent their perceptions
are deviant from that of English NSs is unclear. To do so, the same questionnaire survey toNSs, those who speak different varieties of English if possible, will be necessary. In addition,
because of the limited data size and the fact that the students belong to only one university inTokyo, whether students in other universities have the same tendencies is unknown. The
questionnaire will need to be answered by more participants from other universities and inother areas. Furthermore, the reported frequency may differ from the actual frequency innatural conversations. Observations of the students communicating with a NS of Japanese or
English will be also required. Finally, since the questionnaire did not ask why they selected
specific frequency scales and with what kind of understanding they behave so, what thestudents really have in mind may not have been depicted. Interviews or additionalquestionnaire survey will help understanding their perceptions fully.

Acknowledgements
The present study would not have been possible without the 90 participants who kindly
provided their data. The first author is very grateful to Dr. Eisuke Inoue, a professor in
Medical Informatics at St. Marianna University of Medicine, for his kind suggestions on thestatistical analyses. The authors are deeply indebted to the Selected Papers Committee and thethree anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments whose helped improving thismanuscript. Any mistakes or flaws that remain on it are the authors’ fault entirely.

References
Austin, J. L. (1975). In Urmson J. O., Sbisà M. (Eds.), How to do things with words

The

William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955 (2nd ed.). Cambridge,

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 179-209

MA : Harvard University Press.
Barnes, S., Candlin, C., & Ferguson, A. (2013). Aphasia and topic initiation in conversation: A
case study. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 48(1),102-114.
Beebe, L. M., & Takahashi, T. (1989). Do you have a bag? Social status and patternedvariation in seocond language acquisition In S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston & L.
Selinker (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition: Volume 1 discourse andpragmatics (pp. 103-125). Philadelphia: Multilinguial Matters.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge, CB: Cambridge University Press.
Coupland, J. (Ed.). (2000). Small talk. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Haas, A., & Sherman, M. A. (1982). Conversational topic as a function of role and gender.
Psychological Reports, (51), 453-454.
Johnson, F. L., & Aries, E. J. (1983). Conversational patterns among same-sex pairs of lateadolescent close friends. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, (142), 225-238.
Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in ESL, 11(1), 134.
Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics: An introduction. In G.
Kasper, & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 3-17). New York:
Oxfod University Press.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K., R. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. In K. Rose R., & G.
Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 1-9). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Kumagai, T., & Ishii, E. (2005). Kaiwa ni okeru wadai no sentaku: Jakunen-sou wo chuushin

Toyoda, H. & Fukasawa, E.
Frequency of Asking Personal Questions: A Case of Japanese EFL Learners at a University in Tokyo

to suru nihon-jin to kankoku-jin no chousa kara (Choice of topics in conversations:
From a study on Japanese and Koreans with younger generations as the majority ofparticipants). The Japanese Journal of Language in Society, 8(1), 93-105.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Routledge.
Mimaki, Y. (1999). Sho-taimen kaiwa ni okeru wadai-sentaku sukiima to sutoratejii: Daigakusei kaiwa no bunseki (The schema and strategies for choosing topics in coversations
between strangers: Analyses of conversations among university students). NihongoKyoiku, (103), 49-58.
Nadig, A., Lee, I., Singh, L., Bosshart, K., & Ozonoff, S. (2010). How does the topic ofconversation affect verbal exchange and eye gaze? A comparison between typicaldevelopment and high-functioning autism. Neuropsychologia, 48(9), 2730-2739.
Noguchi, S. (2009). Dare to demo 15-fun-ijou kaiwa ga togire-nai! Hanashi-kata 66 no ruuru(Sixty-six rules for conversation to keep a conversation going for more than 15
minutes). Tokyo: Subaru-sha.
Sakamoko, N., & Sakamoto, S. (2008). Polite fictions in collision: Why japanese andamericans seem rude to each other. Tokyo: Kinseido.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Shimizu, T. (2009). Chuukan-gengo-goyouron gairon: Daini-gengo gakushuu-sha nogoyouron-teki nouryoku no shiyou, shuutoku, kyouiku (An introduction to interlanguage
pragmatics: Second language learners' use, acquisition, and education of pragmaticcompetence). Tokyo: 3A Corporation.
Shimizu, T. (2017). Zatsudan no shoutai (What a small talk is). Tokyo: Bonjinsha.
Sophia University. (2017). Shou-gakkou, chuu-gakkou, koutou-gakkou ni okeru ALT no jittai
ni kansuru dai-kibo ankeeto-chousa-kenkyu saishuu-houkoku-sho (Final report of a

JACET Selected Papers, Vol. 6 (2019), 179-209

large-scale questionnaire survey on assistant language teachers at elementary, juniorhigh, and high schools about their working situations). Retrieved January 24, 2018,from https://www.bun-eido.co.jp/aste/alt_final_report.pdf.
Stribling, P., Rae, J., & Dickerson, P. (2009). Using conversation analysis to explore therecurrence of a topic in the talk of a boy with an autism spectrum disorder. Clinical
Linguistics and Phonetics, 23(8), 555-582.
Sugiyama, M. (Ed.). (2012). Hanashi-kata no manaa to kotsu: Kurashi no e-hon (Manners
and tips for the way of talk: An illustrated book for daily life). Tokyo: Gakken Plus.
Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
18(2), 189-223.
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act ofcorrection. In G. Kasper, & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 138157). New York: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.
Vardaman, J. M. (2009). Amerika-jin to tsukiau manaa-bukku (The American-style mannerbook). Tokyo: Chukei Shuppan.
Vardaman, J. M. (2013). Neitibu ga oshieru manaa-ihan na ei-kaiwa (Bad manners in english
conversation: From a native speaker's point of view). Tokyo: Chukei-Shuppan.
Vardaman, J. M., & Morimoto, T. (1999). Manaa-ihan no ei-kaiwa (English conversations in
bad manners). Tokyo: Kodansha International.
Zuengler, J. (1993). Explaining NNS interactional behavior: The effect of conversational
topic. In G. Kasper, & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 184-195).
New York: Oxford University Press.

Submission Guidelines

JACET International Convention Selected Papers, Vol. 6
SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
Manuscripts for the JACET International Convention Selected Papers (JACET Selected Papers) will
only be accepted by online submission. Please read the following guidelines carefully.
Important Dates:
Submission Form Open: October 5, 2018
Submission Deadline: 11:59 PM Japan Standard Time, January 10, 2019
Submission Form:
http://www.jacet.org/selected-papers-submission2018/
A.

Requirements

1.

A paper must be based on a presentation (oral or regular poster presentation) given at the JACET
57th International Convention and the first contributor must be a member of JACET. All othercontributors must have also presented the work at the JACET 57th International Convention.

2.

A paper based on a plenary lecture may be submitted as an Invited Paper (by invitation only).

B.

Editorial Policy

1.

JACET Selected Papers, a refereed, open-access electronic journal, encourages submission of thefollowing:-Research Articles on pedagogy and topics of significance to teachers of English-Symposium Papers on relevant issues to teachers of English (one per symposium)-Practitioner Reports to share findings and insights

2.

Manuscripts submitted to JACET Selected Papers must not have been previously published, norshould they be under consideration for publication elsewhere.

3.

Manuscripts which do not conform to the guidelines will not be considered for review.

4.

Only one paper can be submitted by each contributor.

5.

The Editorial Board of JACET Selected Papers reserves the right to make editorial changes inany manuscript accepted for publication to enhance clarity or style. The corresponding author
will be consulted if the changes are substantial.

6.

Paper offprints will not be provided.

C.

Guidelines

1.

Manuscripts on A4 paper, including abstract, references, figures, tables, and appendix, should notexceed 30 pages for Research Articles, 20 pages for Symposium Papers, and 15 pages for
Practitioner Reports.

2.

All manuscripts must be in English.

211

3.

All submissions to JACET Selected Papers must conform to the requirements of the Publication
Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th edition.
3.1 Prepare manuscripts using Microsoft Word (2003 or later).
3.2 Use 12-point Times New Roman font.
3.3 Leave margins of 2.5 cm on all sides of every page (A4 size, 210 mm × 297 mm or 8.27 in
× 11.7 in). There are 26 lines to a page.
3.4 Do not justify right margins.
3.5 Do not use running heads.
3.6 Create a paper without the author name(s).
3.7 Include the title, an abstract (no more than 200 words), and keywords (no more than five
keywords; a multiple-word key phrase can be counted as one keyword).
3.8 Acknowledgements should not be included at the time of submission.
3.9 For pagination, use Arabic numerals placed in the upper right-hand corner of each page.
3.10 Throughout the entire manuscript including references, both author name(s) and their
publication information should be substituted with "*****."

D.

Submission Procedure1.

All contributors must complete a submission form on the JACET website, which can be accessedfrom the Submission Guidelines.

2.

Contributors must follow the instructions below.
2.1 Save the manuscript under the author’s full name as in the following examples: suzukikaoru
or smithkerry. Submit both Word and PDF files.
2.2 If there are more than four authors, write all authors’ information on a separate file and send
to the JACET office by e-mail: Author names, affiliation, membership number, postal code,
address, telephone number, and e-mail address.
(JACET e-mail address: jacet@zb3.so-net.ne.jp)
2.3 Do not include a cover sheet.

E.

Contributor’s Responsibility

1.

Contributors are responsible for the content of their manuscripts.

2.

Contributors are responsible for obtaining permission to reproduce any material such as figures
and tables for which they do not own the copyright, and for ensuring that the appropriate
acknowledgements are included in their manuscript.

F.

Copyright

1.

JACET holds the copyright of the articles published in JACET Selected Papers.

2.

Anyone, including the author(s), who wishes to reproduce or republish an article, must obtain
permission from JACET. Also, it should be clearly stated that JACET holds the copyright.

212