日 本 言 語 テ ス ト 学 会（JLTA）
第 25 回（2022 年 度）全 国 研 究 大 会 発 表 要 綱

Handbookofthe 25th Conferenceofthe Japan Language Testing Association
Conference Theme:
Teaching, Learning, and Assessment in CLIL
日 時：2022年11月5日（土）13:00–16:00 — 11月6日（日）10:00–18:05
会 場：オンライン開催（Zoom）
主 催：日本言語テスト学会（事務局）〒036-8560 青森県弘前市文京町1
弘前大学教育推進機構 教養教育開発実践センター
横内裕一郎研究室
TEL: 0172-36-2111（代表）
URL: http://jlta.ac/

The Japan Language Testing Association
Institute for Promotion of Higher Education, Center for Liberal Arts
Development and Practices, Hirosaki University, 1, Bunkyo-cho,
Hirosaki, Aomori, 036-8560, Japan
TEL: +81-0172-36-2111 (main switch number)
URL: http://jlta.ac/
E-mail: u16yoko@gmail.com

全 国 研 究 大 会 本 部 委 員 (Annual Conference Committee)

渡部 良典 / Yoshinori WATANABE （上智大学 / Sophia University）
横内 裕一郎 / Yuichiro YOKOUCHI （弘前大学 / Hirosaki University）
藤田 亮子 / Ryoko FUJITA（順天堂大学 / Juntendo University）
久保田恵佑 / Keisuke KUBOTA（福島県立医科大学 / Fukushima Medical University）
前田 啓貴 / Hiroki MAEDA（松山大学 / Matsuyama University）

全 国 研 究 大 会 運 営 委 員 (Annual Conference Steering Committee)

齋藤 英敏 / Hidetoshi SAITO（実行委員長・茨城大学 /Committee Chair, Ibaraki University)
ディボア・マーク/ Mark deBOER （実行委員長・国際教養大学 /Committee Chair, Akita International University）
渡部 倫子 / Tomoko WATANABE （広島大学 /Hiroshima University）
熊澤 孝昭 / Takaaki KUMAZAWA （東洋大学 / Toyo University）
周 育佳 / Yujia ZHOU
（東京外国語大学 /Tokyo University of Foreign Studies）
田中 洋也 / Hiroya TANAKA（北海学園大学 / Hokkai-Gakuen University）
前田 啓貴 / Hiroki MAEDA（松山大学 / Matsuyama University）
全 国 研 究 大 会 実 行 委 員 (Annual Conference Executive Committee)

齋藤 英敏 / Hidetoshi SAITO（茨城大学 / Ibaraki University）
熊澤 孝昭 / Takaaki KUMAZAWA （東洋大学 / Toyo University）
周 育佳 / Yujia ZHOU
（東京外国語大学 /Tokyo University of Foreign Studies）
田中 洋也 / Hiroya TANAKA（北海学園大学 / Hokkai-Gakuen University）
渡部 倫子 / Tomoko WATANABE （広島大学 / Hiroshima University）
前田 啓貴 / Hiroki MAEDA（松山大学 / Matsuyama University）

研 究 発 表 審 査 委 員 (Paper Presentation Abstract Reviewer)

渡部 倫子 / Tomoko WATANABE
ディボア・マーク/ Mark deBOER
田中 洋也 / Hiroya TANAKA（広島大学 / Hiroshima University）（国際教養大学 / Akita International University）（北海学園大学 / Hokkai-Gakuen University）

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

2

2. Conference Announcement（大会参加者へのご案内）

8

3. Abstracts（発表要旨）

11

4. Workshop （ワークショップ）24

5. Advertisement/Commercial Exhibit Sponsors（広告・展示協賛企業）
27

1

1. Conference Program Overview
Program of the 25th JLTA Conference
November 5, 2022 (Saturday)
13:00－16:00
Workshop
What is the Language Assessment Literacy Required for Japanese Language Teachers?
(Conducted in Japanese)
Lecturer: Sukero ITO (Akita International University)
Chair: Toshihide O’KI (Hakuoh University)
November 6, 2022 (Sunday)
10:00－10:10

Opening Ceremony
Coordinator: Yuko SHIMIZU (JLTA Vice President; Ritsumeikan University)
Greetings: Yoshinori WATANABE (JLTA President; Sophia University)

10:15－11:55

Presentations I, II and III(Presentation: 20 minutes; Discussion: 10 minutes)

11:55－13:05

Lunch Break

13:05－14:10

Presentations IV and V(Presentation: 20 minutes; Discussion: 10 minutes)

14:15－15:30

Keynote Speech
Coordinator: Yoshinori WATANABE (Sophia University)
Title: Assessment, Teaching, and Learning in CLIL: Challenges and Opportunities
Lecturer: Dmitri LEONTJEV (University of Jyväskylä, Finland)Break

15:30－15:40
15:40－17:10

Symposium
Theme: Teaching, Learning, and Assessment in CLIL:
National and International Perspectives
Coordinator: Makoto IKEDA (Sophia University, Japan)
Cognition and Language Integrated Assessment in the Soft CLIL Classroom
in Japan
Panelist 1: María Luisa Pérez CAÑADO (University of Jaén, Spain)
Teaching, Learning, and Assessment in CLIL: What’s the European
Story?
Panelist 2: Yuen Yi LO (University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong)
Assessment Literacy of CLIL Teachers
Panelist 3: Rachael RUEGG (Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand)
Assessment in Full-Degree EMI Programmes in Japan2

17:15－17:45

Closing Ceremony
Coordinator: Youichi NAKAMURA (JLTA Vice President/Seisen Jogakuin College)
2021 Best Paper Award Recipient:David ALLEN (Ochanomizu University) and Tatsuro TAHARA (Waseda University)
The JLTA Best Book Award for 2022

17:45－18:05

JLTA General Business Meeting
Selection of the chair
Reporter: Yuichiro YOKOUCHI (JLTA Secretary General; Hirosaki University)3日本言語テスト学会 第 25 回全国大会プログラム
第 1 日目：2022 年 11 月 5 日（土）13:00－16:00

ワークショップ：「日本語教師に求められる『評価リテラシー（Language Assessment Literacy）』とは？－健全な（公平で公正な）評価を目指すために－」（日本語で実施）
講師： 伊東 祐郎（国際教養大学）
司会： 大木 俊英（白鴎大学）

第 2 日目：2022 年 11 月 6 日（日）10:00－10:10

開会行事

総合司会
挨
拶

清水 裕子（JLTA 副会長・立命館大学）
渡部 良典（JLTA 会長・上智大学）

10:15－11:55

研究発表 I・II（発表 20 分, 質疑応答 10 分）

11:55－13:05

休憩

13:05－14:10

研究発表 IIV・VI（発表 20 分, 質疑応答 10 分）

14:15－15:30

基調講演
司会：渡部 良典（JLTA 会長・上智大学）
演題：Assessment, Teaching, and Learning in CLIL: Challenges and Opportunities
講師：Dmitri LEONTJEV 氏 (ユバスキュラ大学・フィンランド）

15:30－15:40

休憩

15:40－17:10 シンポジウム
テーマ：Teaching, Learning, and Assessment in CLIL: National and International Perspectives
コーディネーター：池田 真（上智大学）
Cognition and Language Integrated Assessment in the Soft CLIL Classroom in Japan
パネリスト 1：María Luisa Pérez CAÑADO (ハエン大学，スペイン)
Teaching, Learning, and Assessment in CLIL: What’s the European Story?
パネリスト 2：Yuen Yi LO (香港大学)
Assessment Literacy of CLIL teachers
パネリスト３：Rachael RUEGG (ヴィクトリア大学ウエリントン，ニュージーランド)
Assessment in Full-Degree EMI Programmes in Japan
17:15－17:45 閉会行事
司会 中村 洋一（JLTA 副会長・清泉女学院大学）
JLTA 最優秀論文賞授与式
2021 年度 JLTA 最優秀論文賞受賞者
David ALLEN （お茶の水女子大学））・太原 達朗（早稲田大学）
2022 年度日本言語テスト学会著作賞作品の表彰
4

17:45－18:05 JLTA 総会
議長選出
報告 横内 裕一郎（JLTA 事務局長・弘前大学）

Schedule Overview
Time

Part

10:00－
10:10

I

10:50－
11:20
11:25－
11:55
11:55－
13:05
13:05－
13:35

II

14:15－
15:30
15:40－
17:10
17:10－
17:45
17:45－
18:10

Room 2

Opening Ceremony

10:15－
10:45

13:40－
14:10

Room 1III

青山

NISHIZAWA

鈴木

ZHOU

陣内

WONG KATAGIRI
Break

IV
V

ALLEN

TAKANAMI

TAKEDAdeBOER †KeynoteLEONTJEV
Symposium
Closing Ceremony
General Meeting†Assessment practice presentation

5

Presentation Details
Room 1
Session Chair Part I & II: Hidetoshi SAITO (Ibaraki University)
Session Chair Part III & IV: Hiroya TANAKA (Hokkai-Gakuen University)
Session Chair Part V: Tomoko WATANABE (Hiroshima University)
Keynote speech chair
Yoshinori WATANABE (Sophia University)Part
Presenter (Affiliation)
Title (Page)
I青山 智恵 （Cambridge University Press
AI 搭載の無料ツールと Linguaskill リンガスキ
10:15－
10:45& Assessment）

ル活用のすすめ【賛助会員】 (p. 11)

10:50－
11:20

鈴木健太郎（北海道教育大学）

受容・産出知識を測定する多肢選択式語彙テ
ストの開発 (p. 12)

III

陣内 未来
（九州大学大学院人間環境学府）「共通試験」英語科目に対する評価と改善の
作題プロセスに関する経年比較研究 (p. 13)

David ALLEN(Ochanomizu University),
Kimie YAMAMURA (Aoyama Gakuin
University), Sayaka MEGURO (Gakushuin
University), Takamichi NAKAMURA(Chihaya High School)
Chiho TAKEDA(University of Reading)

The Impact of Cambridge B1 Preliminary and B2First in a High School Context in Japan (p. 14)

Coordinator: Makoto IKEDA(Sophia University, Japan)

Cognition and Language Integrated Assessment in
the Soft CLIL Classroom in Japan (p. 22)

Panelist 1: María Luisa Pérez CAÑADO
(University of Jaén, Spain)

Teaching, Learning, and Assessment in CLIL:
What’s the European Story? (p. 22)

Panelist 2: Yuen Yi LO(University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong)

Assessment Literacy of CLIL Teachers (p. 23)

Panelist 3: Rachael RUEGG(Victoria University of Wellington, New
Zealand)
Closing Ceremony
General Meeting

Assessment in Full-Degree EMI Programmes inJapan (p. 23)

II

11:25－
11:55

IV
13:05－
13:35

An Investigation of a Cross-Cultural Comparison of
Writing Assessment: Aptis Test Raters andJapanese EFL Raters (p. 15)
KeynoteAssessment, Teaching, and Learning in CLIL:
14:15 －
DmitriLEONTJEV(Universityof
Jyväskylä,
Challenges and Opportunities (p. 21)
15:30
Finland)
Symposium
Teaching, Learning, and Assessment in CLIL:
National and International Perspectives (p. 22)
V

13:40－
14:10

15:40－
17:10

17:10－
18:10

6

Room 2
Session Chair Part I & II: Takaaki Kumazawa (Toyo University)
Session Chair Part III & IV: Yujia Zhou (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies)
Session Chair Part V: Hiroki Maeda (Matsuyama University)Part
Presenter (Affiliation)
Title (Page)
I
Authenticity of Listening Input in High-Stakes
10:15－ Hitoshi NISHIZAWA (University of Hawaii)
Tests: A Fluency Perceptive (p. 16)
10:45
II
10:50－
11:20

Yujia ZHOU(Tokyo University of Foreign
Studies), Masashi NEGISHI (Tokyo
University of Foreign Studies), Asako
YOSHITOMI (Tokyo University of Foreign
Studies)III
11:25－
11:55

IV
13:05－
13:35

V
13:40－
14:10

Investigating the Appropriateness of Using a
Speaking Test for University Admissions as a
Placement Test (p. 17)
The Washback Effect of English Speaking
Assessment for University Entrance Exams:
A Case Study of the Hong Kong Diploma
Secondary Education English Examination Paper 4(p. 18)Development of Oral Reading Performance
Measure: A Rubric-Based, Binary-Choice,
Boundary-Definition (RBB) Scale (p. 19)
Assessment in CLIL: Focusing on the Developmentof the Learner (p. 20)

Nozomu WONG KATAGIRI(Kansai University)
Sachiyo TAKANAMI(Gunma University),
Hideki IIMURA (Gunma Prefectural
Women’s University)
Mark deBOER(Akita International University)72. Conference Announcement■ Registration
1. Pre-registration is required to attend the conference. Please register via the link below(https://studioas.jp/JLTA_From2022/). The registration deadline is October 31, 2022, at 23:59 (Japan
Standard Time). Please note that we will not be able to accept any applications after that time.
2. The registration fee is free for JLTA members and students (students who are not members of JLTA are
required to send a pdf file of their student ID to the Secretary General, Yuichiro Yokouchi, at
u16yoko@gmail.com). The fee for non-members is 1,000 yen. Please pay the registration fee via PayPal.
The PayPal commission fee will be paid by JLTA. If a non-member registers as a “member,” an additional
registration fee will be charged. Non-members who have not paid the correct amount will not be sent theentry link for the conference. Please note that in such cases, the 1,000 yen already paid will not be refunded.
3. The participation links will be sent after October 25 in the order of those whose membership status has
been confirmed. Registered participants who do not receive an invitation message by 12:00 (JapaneseStandard Time) on November 3 should send an email to the Secretary General, Yuichiro Yokouchi, at
u16yoko@gmail.com. Please note that the presenters and committee members involved in the conference
will be sent a separate participation link, so there is no need for them to register.
4. A receipt will be sent to your registered e-mail address approximately one week after the conference.
5. The participation link for the conference can only be used by the person who has applied. Please do notshare it with anyone else.
■ Presentation guidelines
1. The presentations will be held in Rooms 1 and 2. Please visit the conference website via the participation
link and click the relevant link to enter the room you wish to join.
2. During the presentations and Q&A sessions, you will need permission from the chair or presenter to turnon your video and microphone.
3. If you have a question, please press the “Raising Hand” button. After the chair calls on you, turn on the
microphone and speak. When you have finished speaking, please be sure to mute your microphone again.
4. During a presentation, participants can ask questions using the chat tool. Please note that your comments
will be shared with all the other participants.
5. The presentations will not be recorded, and presentation videos will not be shared with the public after the
conference.
6. Please do not capture or record the screen of the presentation as this may violate the copyright and portrait
rights of the presenter.
■ Emergency contact information
Yuichiro Yokouchi, Secretary General of JLTA: u16yoko@gmail.com

For the speakers
1. The time limits are as follows: presentation, 20 minutes; Q&A session, 10 minutes. These time limits
should be strictly observed. The starting time of a presentation may change depending on the duration of
the previous presentations. In such cases, the starting time will be adjusted using some of the break time.
2. Follow all the instructions given by the chair.
3. You should enter the room 15 minutes before the start of your presentation.
4. If you need a presentation certificate, please contact Yuichiro Yokouchi, the Secretary General of JLTA,
at u16yoko@gmail.com.
85. Please understand that we will not conduct a connection test in advance. We recommend that you accessthe meeting from an environment with a stable network.

9

大会参加者へのご案内
■ 受付
1.

2.

3.

4.
5.

本大会の参加には事前申込みが必須です。右記のリンクからご登録ください(https://studioas.jp/JLTA_From2022/)。参加申込の締切は，10 月 31 日 23 時 59 分（日本標準時）とさせていただきます。それ以降の参加申し込みは承れませんので，ご承知おきください。
参加費は，JLTA 会員・学生（JLTA 会員以外の学生は学生証の pdf ファイルを事務局長（横内：u16yoko@gmail.com）に送付いただきます）は無料，未会員は 1,000 円といたします。
決済方法は PayPal 決済のみといたします。なお，手数料は学会が負担いたします。事前申し込み締切日以降，未会員の方が「会員」として申し込みをされていた場合，追加で申し込
み費用を請求させていただきます。正しくお支払い頂いていない場合，大会の参加リンクは送付いたしません。また，その場合はすでにお支払い頂いた 1,000 円については返金致しかねますことをご了承ください。
参加リンクは 10 月 25 日以降，会員ステータスの確認が済んだ方から順にお送りいたします。11 月 3 日 12 時までに連絡がない場合，上記の連絡先にその旨連絡をくださいますよう
お願いいたします。なお，発表者と研究大会に関わる委員については別途参加リンクをお送りしますので，参加申込の必要はありません。
領収書は別途ご登録いただいたメールに研究大会終了後 1 週間以内に送付します。
参加リンクは申込みを行った本人のみが使用できます。他の方に共有しないようお願いいたします。

■ 発表視聴時のお願い
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

発表は Room 1 と Room 2 で実施されます。ご覧になりたい発表会場へは特設ページ内にあるリンクをクリックして会場にお入りください。
発表中・質疑応答中は司会者・発表者の指示なくカメラやマイクをオンにしないようにしてください。
質問の際は挙手ボタンを押し，司会者から指名が入ってからマイクをオンにし，発言してください。発言を終えたら再度必ずマイクをオフにしてください。
発表中にチャット機能を用いて質問を投稿することが可能です。質問は視聴者全体に情報が共有されます。
発表は録画されませんので，後日発表のビデオが公開されることはありません。
発表画面のキャプチャ，録画は発表者の著作権及び肖像権を侵害する行為にあたる可能性がありますので，決してなさらないようにお願いします。

■ 緊急連絡先の E メールアドレス
u16yoko@gmail.com（横内裕一郎，JLTA 事務局長）

発表者へのご案内
1.
2.
2.
3.
4.
5.

20 分の発表と 10 分の質疑応答の時間があります。時間厳守でお願いします。
発表開始時間は直前の発表の状況に応じて若干のずれが生じる場合があります。その場合，休憩時間を使って時間の調整を行います。
司会者の指示に従って発表を行うようにしてください。
発表者はご自身の発表 15 分前までには確実に発表会場に入室してください。
発表証明書などが必要な方は，u16yoko@gmail.com (横内裕一郎, JLTA 事務局長) までご連絡ください。
事前の接続テストは実施いたしませんので，その旨ご理解ください。当日はネットワークの安定した環境からアクセスしていただくことを推奨します。
10

3. Abstracts (発表要旨)

賛助会員発表 (Institutional Member Presentations)
Room 1 Part I (10:15－10:45)
AI 搭載の無料ツールと Linguaskill リンガスキル活用のすすめ
青山 智恵 (Cambridge University Press & Assessment)

ケンブリッジの CBT「リンガスキル Linguaskill」は、コロナ禍でも柔軟に対応ができるオンライ
ンテストとして、大学での活用がグローバルに加速しました。リンガスキルの出題で問われる力について、大学入学共通テストとの親和性が高いこともあり、日本ではまず高校で導入が始まりましたが、最近は入学時に４技能を測るプレースメントテストやその後の伸長度を確認するテストとして大学での活用が進んでいます。
企業による採用でも活用されています。日本航空（株）は、2020 年卒入社自社養成パイロット採用にあたり、英語スピーキングテストとしてケンブリッジのリンガスキルを導入、2023 年卒入社
自社養成パイロット採用でも引き続き活用しています。
実際の試験結果活用事例についてご報告させていただく他、リンガスキルのライティングとスピーキング試験対策に使える教材についてご紹介します。中でも AI が添削、スキルを判定する無料ツール「Write ＆Improve」と「Speak & Improve」は、学びの進捗状況を可視化できるので学習者のモティベーション向上に繋がるお役立ちツールとして好評を得ています。
Keywords
ケンブリッジ, Linguaskill リンガスキル, AI, プレースメントテスト, 採用

11Paper Session

Room 1 Part II (10:50－11:20)
受容・産出知識を測定する多肢選択式語彙テストの開発
鈴木 健太郎 (北海道教育大学)

新学習指導要領における扱う語彙数の増加に伴い，単元・学期・学年などの単位で学習した語彙の知識をテストすることは，繰り返しの学習を通した定着を促すとともに，自身の語彙知識の現状を把握し，今後の学習を計画するための情報を提供する。
一般的に，語彙知識は聞いたり読んだりして使える受容知識から始まり，繰り返し触れた遭遇や使用を通して，話したり書いたりして使える産出知識へと発達していく。既存の語彙テストの多くは，受容と産出知識のどちらかのみを測定するが，段階的な発達や個人差を考慮すると，生徒の語彙知識の段階に応じた形式でテストすることが望ましいと考えられる。
これらの背景を踏まえ，本発表では発表者が作成した，受容と産出語彙知識を測定できる紙面上での多肢選択式語彙テストについて紹介する。なお，本テストが測定する受容 (産出) 知識とは，
英語 (日本語) を見て，それに対応する日本語 (英語) を選択する，再認レベルのものを指す。
テストの基本的な構造は，(a) 問題 (日本語) と同じだけの多く (例. 16, 25) の選択肢 (英語) を用意し，(b) 選択肢をアルファベット順に並べ，(c) 回答が一通り終了したら経過時刻を記入させるというものである。
これらの特性により，受容と産出のどちらの方向からも回答が可能かつ，産出知識で回答した学習者の方が，受容知識で回答したものよりも速く回答が可能であるため，所要時間をもとに概ねどちらの知識をもとに回答したかを推定することができる。また，所要時間があるため，流暢さを念頭に置いた学習に意識を向けさせるという波及効果も期待できる。
発表では，Excel ファイルを使った問題作成方法について実演したのち，テストの妥当性，信頼性，実用性に加え，テスト実施までの指導，回答時の留意事項，結果の解釈，成績への取り入れ方などについて議論する。
Keywords
語彙テスト，受容語彙，産出語彙12

Room 1 Part III (11:25－11:55)「共通試験」英語科目に対する評価と改善の作題プロセスに関する経年比較研究
陣内 未来 (九州大学大学院人間環境学府)

共通第一次学力試験はそれ以前の「選抜中心の『大学入試』を高校教育に配慮した接続型の入試に組み替えたこと」が功績とされ、その理念について高等学校教育の正常化及び「高大接続を企
図した ’大学の試験’である」(荒井,2020,p.58)ことが掲げられてきた。この点は大学入試センター
試験にも受け継がれている。しかし、毎年、教育産業等から試験問題に対して難化/易化との評価が下されており、共通第一次学力試験から大学入学共通テストに至る「共通試験」の理念が如何に反映されてきたかはバラツキがあろう。実際、令和 4 年度の大学入学共通テストでは「数学Ⅰ」「数学Ⅰ・A」において極端な難化が指摘された。
そこで、本研究では「共通試験」英語科目において、如何に試験問題が評価され、改善されてきたのかという作題プロセスを経年的に明らかにしていくことを目的とする。
手法として、まずは「共通試験」問題の英語科目が如何に変化してきたのかを概観する。その上で、毎年「共通試験」後に大学入試センターが刊行する『試験問題に関する意見・評価』『試験問題評価委員会報告書』を分析することで、試験問題の変化を当時の高校、英語教育関係者、問題作成部会が如何に捉え、次年度試験に活かしてきたのかを明らかにする。
結果、「高校教育を尊重した大学の試験」という自明視されてきた「共通試験」の性格は、問題作
成の側面から見た時、最初から確立されていた訳ではないことが見えてきた。最初期は抑々高等
学校と問題作成部会の間で重視する観点にズレがあった。その後、高校側による懸命な働きかけと、高校の意見を踏まえつつも大学の試験としての独自性を貫く問題作成部会という構図を経て、「高校教育を尊重した大学の試験」が形成されてきた。またその結果、問題の難易度の調整法として、問題形式の変更と分量の増加が中心となった。即ち、「共通試験」の性格や高等学校との関係性を踏まえると問題作成側に残された自由度としては形式と分量しか積極的な操作ができなかったことが示唆された。
Keywords
共通第一次学力試験、大学入試センター試験、大学入学共通テスト、英語、作題プロセス

13

Room 1 Part IV (13:05–13:35)
The Impact of Cambridge B1 Preliminary and B2 First in a High School Context in JapanDavid ALLEN (Ochanomizu University)
Kimie YAMAMURA (Aoyama Gakuin University)
Sayaka MEGURO (Gakushuin University)
Takamichi NAKAMURA (Chihaya High School)
The washback effect of tests on English language teaching and learning is a growing area of research in Japan(Allen & Tahara, 2021). In spite of this growth, comparatively few washback studies have investigated theexperiences of high-school teachers and learners, and the impact that tests have during this stage of education.
This presentation will report on a medium-scale study that is currently being conducted by the authors. The
study is funded by Cambridge Assessment English and investigates the impact of the Cambridge B1
Preliminary and B2 First exams in a high school in the metropolitan Tokyo area. These exams have been
administered during the first and second years, respectively, since 2016, not least because they have been
expected to positively impact teaching and learning. However, until now there has been no appraisal ofwhether or how these exams may generate washback in this high-school context.
It is expected that because the Cambridge exams are high-quality, balanced four-skill proficiency exams, they
will positively support the learning and teaching of the four skills and five areas in line with the National
Course of Study (Shiratori, 2019). In particularly, the inclusion of paired-speaking tasks is predicted topromote the teaching and learning of speaking skills during regular class time.
The aims of the present study, therefore, are to document the characteristics of English education at the school,
critically evaluate any changes over time, and assess to what extent the Cambridge exams influence and/or
support the educational content and methods.
The study involves multiple data sources and collection methods, including a document analysis of curricula,teaching/learning materials and internally-administered exams; multiple observations of numerous teachers(both Japanese and English native speakers); interviews with teachers, including the current and former headteachers of English; a survey of students’ experiences and views; focus-group interviews with students; andanalyses of external test data (i.e., Cambridge exams and mock-university-entrance exams).
This presentation will provide an overview of the study design and a summary of the main findings. It is
predicted that while the exams may contribute positively to education in the school, other mediating factors,
such as teacher beliefs and other high-stakes exams, will also play important roles. Given the current debate
over the use of four-skills exams for university admissions, this study is expected to stimulate further
discussion concerning the potential impact of tests on English education in Japan.
Keywords
Impact, Washback, High School, Four-Skills, Cambridge

14

Room 1 Part V (13:40－14:10)
An Investigation of a Cross-Cultural Comparison of Writing Assessment: Aptis Test Raters andJapanese EFL Raters
Chiho TAKEDA (University of Reading)
Language performance assessments are typically rated by human raters. A growing number of native English
speaking (NES) teachers are employed in the EFL environment and involved in English language teaching
and assessment with local English teachers. The existence of rater linguistic and cultural background-related
bias in L2 writing assessment is the object of this study.
The purpose of this paper is to compare the rating behavior between the different background teachers: EFL
teachers (Japanese high school teachers) and Aptis test expert raters. 10 Japanese and 10 Aptis raters rated
Aptis 20 essays written by Japanese teenagers using a 10-point scale, then stated their three qualitative reasonsfor their holistic rating in order of importance. Although there were no significant differences between the twoteacher groups in the overall score, qualitative difference in their reasons reveals that the Japanese EFL
teachers focused on content (task achievement and organization), while the Aptis raters focused on languageuse (grammar, sentence structure, and vocabulary) and moved their attention to language content. An
interesting finding is that the Japanese raters placed more emphasis on organization and they tended to evaluate
more positively toward the essay which follows their familiar structure in contrast, they evaluated morenegatively toward incomplete essays than Aptis raters.
In addition, the analysis of the data from the questionnaire and interviews discovered that Japanese ratersemphasized accuracy concerning lexical and grammatical errors while Aptis raters evaluate both accuracy andcomplexity of language use. This study found that differences in their evaluation process of language use andJapanese raters found errors and reduced the mark per the specific errors while Aptis raters decided on thelevel of language use in their mind. Analysis of qualitative data shows that these differences stem from theirprofessional and educational backgrounds. Furthermore, Japanese raters are expected to lack linguistic
confidence due to being EFL teachers. Therefore, the assessment may focus on task achievement, organization,and errors of language use, which do not require high language proficiency.
The results show the issue of validity in language testing. Although the overall scores of the two groups were
almost consistent, the assessment processes and perspectives were completely different, and they each rated
the different traits and may have differing opinions on what is strong or weak. In addition, the evaluative
criteria of the two groups could reveal indirectly the difference in their instructional goals and emphasis
between the two groups. These results from the Japanese context will agree with similar studies conducted inother countries, especially in the EFL environment, which suggests this could be a global issue for language
assessment.
Keywords
Second language writing assessment, Rater behavior, Rater background, Rater bias

15

Room 2 Part I (10:15－10:45)
Authenticity of Listening Input in High-Stakes Tests: A Fluency Perceptive
Hitoshi NISHIZAWA (University of Hawaii)
There is an increasing interest in the authenticity of listening test inputs. Scholars have been advocating theuse of authentic materials not only for a more valid decision-making, but also for a positive washback effectto occur (Wagner & Ockey, 2018). Among many, one aspect of authenticity is scriptedness, which requiresconsiderations of hesitation phenomena, phonological features, and lexico-grammatical characteristics (Wager,2014). Previous studies investigated such features in high-stakes tests (Wager, 2016; Wagner & Wagner,
2016), concluding that most of the tests are often scripted and lack spoken language features. Yet, the previous
studies relied on researchers’ subjective judgments and did not offer fine-grained analyses. More in-depth
investigations on the authenticity of listening inputs are necessary to assess the validity of the tests. For instance,
temporal fluency measures can offer comparable and more detailed insight into the scriptedness of listening
texts across tests. Authentic texts might have a faster speech rate and more frequent pauses and repetitions
than inauthentic texts.
While some tests claim that their listening inputs include authentic spoken language features (e.g., TOEFL
iBT and PTE Academic; ETS, 2021; Pearson, 2010), others employ scripted texts (e.g., IELTS; Read, 2022).
Thus, it is worthwhile to investigate the extent to which these tests differ in temporal fluency measures. To
make a comparison, I exclusively investigate one target language use domain: academic lecture monologue
settings.
To do this, I coded audio samples from TOEFL iBT, IELTS, and PTE Academic in terms of speed fluency,
breakdown fluency, and repair fluency (Skehan, 2003). To ensure that the materials truly represent the tests,
data was taken only from the official test guide and official test practice books.
A preliminary analysis indicated many similarities and dissimilarities across the tests. Across the board, theinstances of repair measures and filled pauses were limited. While PTE and TOEFL indicated a higher
frequency than IELTS, the numeric differences seemed to be small. Notable differences were also observed
within the tests. Some passages in TOEFL and PTE had almost no instances of repair measures and filled
pauses, while others had many. Based on the findings, I will discuss the differences in the temporal measureswith regard to the task types and operationalization of the target language use domain to explore the validityof the tests.
Keywords
Listening, Authenticity, High-Stakes

16

Room2 Part II (10:50－11:20)
Investigating the Appropriateness of Using a Speaking Test for University Admissions as a Placement
Test
Yujia ZHOU (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies)
Masashi NEGISHI (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies)
Asako YOSHITOMI (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies)This study aimed to explore the possibility of using a speaking test developed for Japanese university
admissions to place students in English courses with a focus on productive skills. The speaking test used in
the study is the British Council Tokyo University of Foreign Studies-Speaking Test for Japanese universities(BCT-S). The BCT-S is a localization of the Aptis General Speaking component to the Japanese context; it isadministered to applicants for all faculties of Tokyo University of Foreign Studies (TUFS) from February2022.
The context of the study is an English language program offered by TUFS, with the aim of training future
academic and business professionals to become active participants in the global society. Among various
courses in the program, first-year students of non-English majors are required to take an English course
designed to improve their productive skills. So far, to assign students into different classes, scores on the
TOEIC Listening and Reading (LR) test have been used out of practicality. However, as the TOEIC LR test
only measures receptive skills, there have been concerns among teachers that a portion of the students may bemisplaced.
To provide instructions that are matched with students’ proficiency, this study investigated the appropriatenessof using BCT-S scores to place students. To this end, we compared the placement results using TOEIC LR
scores with those based on BCT-S scores. We also used teachers’ judgments regarding those who weremisplaced as the criterion.
Participants were 532 first-year students of non-English majors at TUFS. The students took the BCT-S in
February, 2022 and the TOEIC LR test in April. Based on their TOEIC LR scores, they were placed into 53
classes. At the end of the semester, we asked 30 teachers in a survey to judge whether the assignment of each
student into a class based on the TOEIC LR score was accurate and recommend an appropriate level if theyfelt the students were misplaced.
While the results indicated there is a great degree of overlap between the class levels based on each of these
two tests, students placed in the same level based on TOEIC LR scores had quite diverse levels as indicatedby the BCT-S scores. The results of teacher judgments show that using TOEIC LR scores produces a large
percentage of misplaced students. Although there are other issues to consider when using the BCT-S for
placement purposes, these findings provide some preliminary evidence to support the use of BCT-S for classplacement of productive skills. The limitations and implications of the findings for placement decisions inuniversity education are also discussed.

Keywords
Speaking test, Placement test, BCT-S, Productive skills, University entrance exam

17

Room2 Part III (11:25－11:55)
The Washback Effect of English Speaking Assessment for University Entrance Exams:
A Study of the Hong Kong Diploma Secondary Education English Examination Paper 4
Nozomu WONG KATAGIRI (Kansai University)
The present study explored unaddressed washback on the speaking test of the Hong Kong Diploma of
Secondary Education English Examination (HKDSE). HKDSE is a university entrance exam in Hong Kongwhich include a group discussion speaking test known as English Paper 4. To identify ongoing washback
effects including the socio-cultural perspectives, the study aims to reveal: 1) ongoing students washback of
test-specific and non-test-specific preparation, 2) how the mediating factors affect these preparation. 199
students from Hong Kong secondary school (4th to 6th grade) provided questionnaire data in two rounds.
Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were conducted to categories test preparation and mediating factors, cluster
analysis was then conducted to identify pattern between EFA factors. EFA Results indicate six major types oftest preparation, which can be categorized into two test-specific, three non-specific and one integrated type of
preparation. Mediating factors comprise a total of five categories of learner characteristics and stakeholders inand out of school. Cluster analyses were conducted between six test preparation factors and five mediating
factors. Result indicates four students’ groups of intertwining washback and mediating factor involved. Strong
relationship between extrinsic factor with test-specific learning, and intrinsic factor with non-test-specificlearning was found. Taken together, this study suggests that students are affected by mediating factors aside
from test, their learning method choices (e.g., learning from entertainment contents) are strongly connectedwith their characteristics (e.g., Interest toward English) and surroundings.
Keywords
Washback, HKDSE, Socio-cultural perspectives

18

Room2 Part IV (13:05－13:35)

Development of Oral Reading Performance Measure: A Rubric-Based, Binary-Choice, BoundaryDefinition (RBB) Scale
Sachiyo TAKANAMI (Gunma University)
Hideki IIMURA (Gunma Prefectural Women’s University)
This study aims to develop a practical and straightforward oral reading evaluation scale for Japanese EFL
learners. Oral reading activities are widely used in English classes in Japan. The purpose of oral reading
activities can generally be divided into either comprehension or expression. Oral reading is an autonomous
activity, and teachers set goals for the duration or number of times learners practice. However, immediate
feedback is essential if we want to use this method more effectively for our students. Although assessing
learners’ oral reading performances requires time and effort, we must consider an understandable and reliableevaluation scale.
We examined previous studies conducted in Japan from 2000 that focused on assessing oral reading
performances among Japanese EFL learners. Regardless of the different perspectives on evaluation, we foundthree common factors: correctness, naturalness, and listenability.
This study proposes a simple evaluation scale called a rubric-based, binary-choice, boundary-definition (RBB)
scale. The RBB scale is inspired by a practical evaluation scale called the empirically derived, binary-choice,boundary-definition (EBB) scale (Turner & Upshur, 1996; Upshur & Turner, 1995).
Thirty-five Japanese university students were asked to read an English passage (approximately 300 words)
aloud at their own pace. Their performances were scored using two scales: (a) the rubric consisting of three
viewpoints (correctness, naturalness, and listenability), and (b) the RBB scale based on the rubric. The results
showed that the inter-rater agreement in the rubric-based scale was satisfactory (kappa values were over 0.60).
The scores were also examined by generalizability theory, suggesting that the RBB scale could reflect thecomponents of the rubric.
Keywords
Oral reading, Rubric, Evaluation scale, EBB, Generalizability theory

19

Room2 Part V (13:40－14:10)
Assessment in CLIL: Focusing on the Development of the LearnerMark deBOER (Akita International University)
For educators, there seems to be a problematic dichotomy in CLIL, i.e., “there is a focus not only on the content,
and not only on the language” (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010, p. 1). Indeed, CLIL is the integration of content
and language, yet, depending on the CLIL context, content teachers focus primarily on the content, and thelanguage teachers focus on the language (Nikula et al., 2016; Ikeda et al., 2022). The issue then lies withwhether it is the content or language that is assessed. Saying that, there have been numerous advances in how
the integration of content and language is dealt with, for example, as unified construct as the intersects ofcontent and language pedagogy (Leung & Morton, 2016), Cognitive Discourse Functions (CDF) (DaltonPuffer, 2016), literacy being at the center of learning (Meyer et al., 2015), or through multimodal mediational
means (Leontjev & deBoer, 2020).
Drawing from these discussions of integration, in this presentation I will provide an expanded view ofassessment which focuses on the development of the learner. The assessment framework used stems from areconceptualized model of integration of content and language based on the theoretical principals of Feuerstein
et al.’s Learning Propensity Assessment Device (LPAD) (2010). Instances of learner interaction will be used
to illustrate where CDFs are embedded in learner created multimodalities, and how learners use
multimodalities as a mediational means to advance their joint understanding in a CLIL classroom. The
empirical data shown in this presentation comes from learners in a General English course at a Japanese
university as they worked on research projects over 15 weeks, using an asynchronous online forum tocommunicate, share files and information, and create a presentation.
Keywords
Multimodalities, CDFs, Assessment Framework, CLIL, LPAD

20

Keynote Speech
Room 1 14:15－15:30

Assessment, Teaching, and Learning in CLIL: Challenges and Opportunities
Dmitri LEONTJEV (University of Jyväskylä, Finland)
Classroom assessment in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a fascinating research topic. It
also creates challenges for teachers in various educational contexts, regardless of how CLIL is organised,focusing on content, language, or anything in between. These challenges are understandable considering thecomplexity behind CLIL education and the complex nature of classroom assessment, requiring a lot fromteachers both what regards CLIL and classroom assessment. This includes (a) knowledge of theories, concepts,
methods, and standards, (b) understanding of values behind different ways of organising CLIL instruction andclassroom assessment, (c) understanding the role of learners in them, (d) recognition of educational policies
and educational traditions and the ability to navigate within the constraints created by them, (e) criticalengagement with own conceptions about CLIL and assessment and own identity as a teacher, and (f) the ability
classroom instruction taking into account all of the above. It is, therefore, somewhat paradoxical thatassessment in CLIL has been the explicit research focus relatively rarely.
In this presentation, I attempt to disentangle the two complexities, giving an overview of recent developments
in classroom assessment and connecting those to developments in CLIL. I will first discuss classroom
assessment, teaching and learning (as, I argue, they should not be discussed separately) with reference toassessment culture (see Davison & Leung, 2009, for an early discussion). I will then outline some relatively
recent developments in CLIL, which, I believe, are particularly relevant to assessment in CLIL classrooms,
focusing particularly on integration in CLIL (e.g., Leung & Morton, 2016) and cognitive discourse functions(e.g., Morton, 2020). I will propose what the two complexities imply for assessment in CLIL classrooms
together, also referring to a recent edited volume I had the honour to co-edit (deBoer & Leontjev, 2020). I will
finally make a suggestion for dialectical teacher-researcher collaborations in further developments ofclassroom assessment in CLIL.
References
Davison, C., & Leung, C. (2009). Current Issues in English Language Teacher-Based Assessment. TESOL
Quarterly, 43(3), 393–415. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00242.x
deBoer, M., & Leontjev, D. (Eds.) (2020). Assessment and Learning in Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03054128-6
Leung, C. & Morton, T. (2016). Conclusion: language competence, learning and pedagogy in CLIL –Deepening and broadening integration. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore & U. Smit (Eds.),
Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 235–248). Bristol/Buffalo:Multilingual Matters.
Morton, T. (2020). Cognitive Discourse Functions: A Bridge between Content, Literacy and Language for
Teaching and Assessment in CLIL. CLIL. Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual andPluricultural Education, 3(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.33,
21

Symposium
Room 1 15:40－17:10

Teaching, Learning, and Assessment in CLIL: National and International Perspectives
Coordinator: Makoto IKEDA(Sophia University, Japan)
Panelist 1: María Luisa Pérez CAÑADO
(University of Jaén, Spain)
Panelist 2: Yuen Yi LO(University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong)
Panelist 3: Rachael RUEGG(Victoria University of Wellington, New
Zealand)Cognition and Language Integrated Assessment in the Soft CLIL Classroom in Japan
Makoto IKEDA (Sophia University)
One of the most conspicuous features of Japan’s new Course of Study (de facto national curriculum) lies inthe emphasis on ‘cognition, decision, and expression’. This mean that, in all subjects, students are expected todevelop these competencies through learning activities and assessed in classroom performances and tests. This
also applies to foreign language education, but assessment in cognition (thinking) looks shallow, unsystematic,
and weak. Turning to CLIL, particularly its language-oriented version, Soft CLIL (Ikeda, et al., 2021), whichborders on CLT (Communicative Language Teaching), pays more attention to the cognitive aspect as CLIL’s
four C’s (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010) include Cognition as one of its components. However, here again,
assessment of learners’ thinking ability leaves much to be desired. In this presentation, I will propose solutions
and ideas for this issue by referring to the original and revised editions of Bloom’s taxonomy (1957, 2001).
To be more concrete, I will first point out the insufficient treatment of cognitive skills in the assessment
guidelines by MEXT (the Ministry of Education, Culture, Science and Technology) and the newly Common
Test for University Admissions. I will then briefly revisit and reevaluate Bloom’s taxonomy in terms ofassessment task design, and finally present sample test items. The assumption of my talk is that the English
language education under the new Course of Study and Soft CLIL have so much in common that the latter
can inform the former in lesson plans, classroom instructions and assessment methods, particularly in the way
cognitive skills are activated, developed and evaluated. I will mainly take up upper secondary English/Soft
CLIL as examples.

Teaching, Learning, and Assessment in CLIL: What's the European Story?
María Luisa Pérez CAÑADO (University of Jaén, Spain)
After more than two decades of implementation in Europe, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
has become a well-acknowledged and firmly embedded approach to language education in our continent. This
talk will carry out a comprehensive overview of the chief innovations, challenges, and ways forward for biand plurilingual education on the European scene. In doing so, it will focus on five main aspects within each22

of these sections. The developments and advances will be charted in terms of the solid top-down push which
CLIL has received from gatekeepers; its extension beyond Primary and Secondary Education; the upgrade inlanguage level, methodology, and evaluation which have characterized it; the enhanced teacher training
initiatives which have been part and parcel of its implementation; and the stalwart nature of the research
conducted into its functioning. In turn, the main hurdles identified will hinge on five main fronts: the CLIL
implementation controversy, moving from CLIL to EMI, promoting pluriliteracies, debunking false myths,
and catering for diversity. Finally, future pathways for progression will be mapped out precisely to addressthese five niches, offering a broad array of materials and resources, methodological tips, practical examples,and recently validated instruments in order to rise to the challenges posed by bilingual education in Europe.
The ultimate aim is to determine where we stand and where we need to go vis-à-vis bilingual teaching, learning,
and assessment and to ensure that CLIL continues to advance unfettered in the continent where this acronym
was born.

Assessment Literacy of CLIL Teachers
Yuen Yi LO (Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong)
In Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programmes, non-linguistic content is taught andassessed in an additional language. Hence, CLIL teachers, most of whom are content subject specialists, may
encounter difficulties in evaluating students’ content knowledge independent of their L2 proficiency and inaligning objectives, instruction and assessment. These concerns are closely related to teachers’ assessment
literacy, which is seen as integral to teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and plays a crucial role ineffective instruction and assessment. While frameworks for teachers’ assessment literacy exist, there havebeen calls to re-examine this important construct with reference to specific disciplinary contexts. In thisseminar, the speaker will tease out the complexities of assessment in CLIL programmes and present a
conceptual framework for CLIL teachers’ assessment literacy. This framework will establish a theoreticalgrounding for future empirical research in the field and have important implications for CLIL teacher
education.

Assessment in Full-Degree EMI Programmes in Japan
Rachael RUEGG (Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand)
Assessment plays an important role in the evaluation of EMI programmes and of student outcomes in suchprogrammes. Different kinds of assessments are used for a wide range of purposes within EMI programs, suchas admission, placement, progression, and graduation. A great deal of research on EMI has focussed on therelationship between the language proficiency of students and programme outcomes, whereas there has beenless focus on other kinds of assessment. In this research a questionnaire was used to collect information
about the purposes of assessment and the kinds of assessments employed in fully English-taught degree
programmes in Japan that had been established for at least 5 years. The focus of this research wasprogramme-wide assessments that were required to be taken by all students in each EMI programme. The
results of the questionnaire will be combined with a review of literature to inform a discussion of assessment
best practices in full-degree EMI programmes.

23

4. Workshop Information（ワークショップ情報）
題目：「日本語教師に求められる『評価リテラシー（Language Assessment Literacy）』とは？
－健全な（公平で公正な）評価を目指すために－」（日本語で実施）
講師 伊東 祐郎（国際教養大学）
司会 大木 俊英（白鷗大学）日

時： 2022 年 11 月 5 日（土）13 時 00 分～16 時 00 分（2 度の休憩をはさむ）

場

所： オンライン（Zoom）

参 加費： 無料
定員： 100 名

申込期間：

9 月 5 日（月）～ 10 月 30 日（日） ［定員になり次第締め切り］

参加条件：

特になし

目的：
1.
2.
3.

過去に受験したテストを振り返り、「よいテスト」「悪いテスト」それぞれの特徴について分析し、共有を試みる。
日本語教育の現場で適切な評価を行うために必要な作業を体系的にまとめ、日本語教師に求められる「評価リテラシー」とは何かを把握する。
教育プログラムにおける言語テストと評価の役割を把握し、信頼性と妥当性を高めるテスト項目の開発と採点、結果の解釈を行う手法と諸課題について考察する。

手順：
1. よいテストの要件である信頼性・妥当性・実用性の確認
2. 良問・悪問を見分ける項目分析の活用
3. テスト統計の基礎・基本

申込方法：
1. 下記 URL または QR コードより申し込みフォームにアクセスし、必要な情報をご登録ください。締め切り後、参加者にのみ Zoom 情報をお知らせいたします。
https://forms.gle/W2bFW4g4wfWhPaJz924

2. 上記の申込方法で不具合がある場合はメールでの受け付けも致します。下記の情報を平井明代（筑波大学）hirai.akiyo.ft＠u.tsukuba.ac.jp まで e-mail でご連絡ください。
(1) 氏名・所属・メールアドレス（全員）(2) ワークショップの参加理由（全員）(3) 講師へのご質問（希望者のみ）(4) その他、ワークショップまたは JLTA ワークショップ全体に対して何かご要望がありましたらお書きください。（希望者のみ）

25

Workshop Information
What is the Language Assessment Literacy Required for Japanese Language Teachers?
(Conducted in Japanese)
Lecturer: Sukero ITO(Akita International University)
Chair:
Toshihide O’ki
(Hakuoh University)
Date: November 5, 2022 (Saturday), 13:00–16:00 (with two intermissions)
Venue: Zoom
Attendance Fee: Free
Maximum Number of Participants: 100
Registration Period: September 5th (Mon.) – October 30th (Sun.)(Registration will be closed after the number of participants reaches the limit)
Prerequisite: None
Objectives
1. To analyze the characteristics of good and bad assessments by reviewing participants’ previously taken
tests
2. To systematically summarize the whole process of evaluating classes appropriately in Japanese education,and to determine the evaluation literacy required for Japanese language teachers
3. To recognize the role of language testing and evaluation in educational programs, and to discuss ways todevelop test items for higher test reliability and validity, share methods to evaluate and interpret theirresults, and consider limitations
Flow
1. Check the reliability, validity, and practicality that are necessary for good assessment
2. Perform item analysis to distinguish good and bad test items
3. Review basic statistical knowledge required for language testing
How to register
1. To register for the workshop, please go to the following website with the URL or QR code below and fillin the necessary information. Only registered participants will receive Zoom information after the deadline.
https://forms.gle/W2bFW4g4wfWhPaJz9
2. If you cannot register using the website above, please email Akiyo HIRAI (University of Tsukuba) athirai.akiyo.ft@u.tsukuba.ac.jp
Let us know the following information when you register for the workshop.
(1) Your name, affiliation, and email address(2) Reason(s) for participating in this workshop(3) Questions for the instructor, if you have any (Optional)(4) Requests for this workshop, or JLTA workshops in general (Optional)

26

リンガスキル受験準備に役立つ自習用教材
私たちの学習教材は、自習用としても正式なコースの一部としても使用でき、学習者の多様な英語学習の目的をサポートします。お問合せは InfoJapan@cambridgeenglishreps.org まで。
CEFRレベルに対応

Linguaskillオンラインコース
Linguaskillオンラインコースは、学生が英語スキルを練習し、Linguaskillの対策に役立ちます。各コースのモジュールには

A2-C1

以下のものを含みます：
Linguaskillテストモジュールの概要
文法・語彙・コミュニケーション英語の演習
各言語スキルの本格的なテスト演習
Linguaskillを受験する前に試せるオリジナルの模擬テスト
テストのパフォーマンスを向上させるためのヒントi
各モジュールのデモを見る：

cambridgeenglish.org/linguaskill-learning-solutions

Linguaskill試験対策に「Evolve」を推奨
高等教育機関では、
Linguaskillと一緒に「Evolve」を導入することで、「学習者が自信をもって会話ができるように」
スピーキングに重点を置いた学習・評価ソリューションを提供します。
「Evolve」
が提供するもの：
コーパスの活用でスムーズかつナチュラルな英語表現を習得

6 Levels（12 Units/Book）
A1, A2, B1, B1+,
B2, C1

学習者と言語教育の専門家へのアンケートに基づき、効率的かつ効果的に英語を上達させる構成
スマートフォンで利用できるアクティビティや練習問題で自学自習をサポート
ビデオでは様々なアクセントを収録し、実際に使われている
自然な表現を習得
QRを読み取ると世界中から集めたリアル学習者のインタビューが視聴可能
eBookのご用意もありi

詳細はこちらでご確認ください：https://www.cambridge.org/jp/cambridgeenglish/catalog/adult-courses/evolve
9

27

28

29

30

＜協賛企業・法人・団体の一覧（50 音順）＞

IELTS ＊
British Council, IDP: IELTS Australia, Cambridge Assessment English
https://www.ielts.org
Cambridge University Press & Assessment ＊https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/jp
ピアソン・ジャパン株式会社 ＊Pearson Japan
https://www.pearson.co.jp/

VELC 研究会（事務局 株式会社 金星堂） ＊Research Group for Visualizing English Language Competency
https://www.velctest.org/index.html

We would like to greatly acknowledge 4 companies, organizations, and groups fortheir support.
本大会にあたり以上の 4 の企業・法人・団体様より大会運営のご支援を賜りました。厚く御礼申し上げます。

The conference information of JLTA2023 will be announced via the JLTA
website as soon as the details become available. We look forward to seeing you
there.
2023 年度の日本言語テスト学会全国研究大会は、詳細が決まり次第、
JLTA のホームページでお知らせいたします。ご参加のほどよろしくお願
いいたします。

31

日本言語テスト学会 (JLTA) (2022 年度) 全国研究大会発表要綱
Handbook of the 25th Conference of the Japan Language Testing Association
発行日：2022 年 10 月 24 日
発 行：日本言語テスト学会 (JLTA)
会長：渡部良典 (上智大学)
事務局：〒036-8560 青森県弘前市文京町1
弘前大学教育推進機構 教養教育開発実践センター
横内裕一郎研究室 TEL: 0172-36-2111（代表）E-mail: y.yokouchi@hirosaki-u.ac.jp
編集：全国研究大会実行委員会

印刷：株式会社国際文献社〒162-0801 東京都新宿区山吹町358-5
TEL: 03-5937-0249
FAX: 03-3368-2822

32