8

ISSN 2188-8612

JACET International Convention
Selected Papers
Volume 8

The JACET 60th Commemorative International Convention
English Language Education to Endure Changing Times: Facing the Reality of Society 5.0

August 27 – 29, 2021
OnlineJACET International Convention Selected Papers, Volume 8
Published by the Japan Association of College English Teachers (JACET)JACET Selected Papers Committee
Senior Director-in-Charge
KAWANO, Madoka (Meiji University)

Director-in-Charge
LEIS, Adrian (Miyagi University of Education)

Editorial Board
Chair
NAKAYAMA, Akira (Ehime University)

Deputy Chair
TOYA, Mitsuyo (University of the Ryukyus)

BARBEE, Matthew (Doshisha University)

MATSUMOTO, Hiroyuki (Hokkai-Gakuen University)

HAENOUCHI, Hiroko (Nihon University)

NALL, Matthew (Miyagi University)

HIRAMOTO, Satoshi (Yasuda Women’s University)

OKADO, Hiroko (Meijo University)

KANAMARU, Toshiyuki (Kyoto University)

TERASHIMA, Takeshi (Matsuyama University)

KUMAZAWA, Takaaki (Toyo University)

Advisory Board
LE, Van Canh (Vietnam National University)
JEON, Jihyeon (Ewha Woman’s University)
NOGUCHI, Judy (Professor Emerita of Kobe Gakuin University)

JACET Prize & Academic Publication Selection Committee
Senior Director-in-Charge, HeadODA, Masaki (Tamagawa University)

Director-in-Charge, Vice-Head
SATO, Takehiro (Nagoya University of Foreign Studies)ii

Reviewers
ABE, Mariko (Chuo University)

OGURI, Yuko (Kansai Gaidai University)

AIZAWA, Kazumi (Tokyo Denki University)

OHMORI, Yujitsu (Aichi Prefectural University)

AKIYAMA, Tomoyasu (Bunkyo University)

OKADA, Nobuo (Kansai Gaidai University)

HAMADA, Akira (Kobe City University of Foreign Studies)

OSHIMA, Hideki (Shiga University)

HAYAMA, Megumi (Dokkyo University)

OSUKA, Naoko (Meiji University)

HINO, Nobuyuki (Osaka University)

OYA, Masanori (Meiji University)

HOSHINO, Yuko (Chiba University)

OZEKI, Shuji (Nagoya University)

HOSODA, Masaya (Hokkaido University of Education)

RUDOLPH, Nathanael (Kindai University)

ISHIKAWA, Yuka (Nagoya Institute of Technology)

RUGEN, Brian (Meiji University)

ISO, Tatsuo (Tokyo Denki University)

SAKAI, Hideki (Shinshu University)

KADOTA, Shuhei (Kwansei Gakuin University)

SAKATA, Naoki (Kumamoto Gakuen University)

KAMIMURA, Taeko (Senshu University)

SHIMIZU, Haruka (Tohoku Gakuin University)

KASAHARA, Kiwamu (Hokkaido University of Education)

SHIOZAWA, Tadashi (Chubu University)

KATAGIRI, Kazuhiko (Senshu University)

SHIOZAWA, Yasuko (Bunkyo University)

KAWAGOE, Eiko (Jikei University of Health Care Sciences)

SUGIURA, Masatoshi (Nagoya University)

KAWANARI, Mika (Meikai University)

SUZUKI, Chizuko (Nagasaki Junshin Catholic University)

KIMURA, Hiroshi (Emeritus Professor at Kindai University)

TAGUCHI, Etsuo (Daito Bunka University)

KOJIMA, Masumi (Gifu City Women’s College)

TAKAGI, Akiko (Aoyama Gakuin University)

KOMIYA, Tomiko (Okazaki Women’s Junior College)

TAKAHASHI, Kiyoshi (Miyagi University of Education)

KURIHARA, Noriko (Kurashiki City College)TERUI, Masako (Kindai University)

KUROSHIMA, Satomi (Tamagawa University)

UEYAMA, Yasuo (Hokkaido University of Education)

MASWANA, Sayako (Tokyo University of Science)

WATANABE, Yoshinori (Sophia University)

MATSUMOTO, Kahoko (Tokai University)

YAMANISHI, Hiroyuki (Chuo University)

MONOI, Naoko (Chiba University)

YANAGI, Yoshikazu (Nagoya Gakuin University)

NAKATA, Yoshiyuki (Doshisha University)

YOKOYAMA, Shozo (University of Miyazaki)

NODA, Saeko (Tsuda University)

YOSHIDA, Shinsuke (Kansai University)

NOMURA, Kazuhiro (Konan University)

YOSHII, Makoto (Prefectural University of Kumamoto)

NOTOHARA, Yoshiyuki (Doshisha University)

YOSHIKAWA, Hiroshi (Chukyo 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 March 2022
Copyright © 2022 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*
Looking Back Into the Future: Re-Envisioning the Goal of English Language
Education in the 21st Century································································ Le Van Canh 3

Selected Papers
Research Articles
A Hybrid Online/Face-to-Face Approach to Intercultural Interactions in a Japanese
Education Major University Context···························································· Kyoko Miyazato 25
A Self-Worth Perspective of Japanese First-Year Junior High School Students’Attitudes Towards Studying English································································ Adrian Leis 55
A Study on the Instructions on the Use of Hedging in English Academic Writing
Textbooks·················································· Kayo Fujimura-Wilson

85

Use of L1 in L2 Collaborative Writing: Does It Make Any Difference to the
Product or Process?
····························································· Yusa Koizumi 113
Accountability in Program Evaluation: How This Aspect Is Crucial in Evaluations andOrganizational Levels··············································Francisco Naranjo-Escobar 143
Combining In-Class and Out-of-Class Practices in a Hybrid Class: Action Researchof the Presentation Support System for Developing English Presentation Skills······························································ Ai Sugimura
Saori Takeoka
Eric A. Des Marais 173

Practitioner Report
Project-Based English Courses for University Students in an Online Setting···························································· Yoko Maekawa 203
Cognitive Linguistics for EFL Writers: A Study of Plurilingual Online Teamteaching Sessions···························································· Stephen Markve
Aiko Saito 221

Submission Guidelines ··············································································· 238

* Plenary Lectures

Le Van Canh. ELT in the uncertain future: Re-envisioning the goal of our profession(August 27)

Invited Papers

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 3-22

Looking Back Into the Future: Re-Envisioning the Goal of English Language
Education in the 21st Century

Le Van Canh
Vietnam National University, Hanoi

Abstract
As English language educators and teacher educators, we live in critical times. Our future isbecoming uncertain due to rapid development in artificial intelligence. Societies are becoming
increasingly digitalized, creating unprecedented changes in all aspects of human life,
including verbal communication. In such a world, the narrow focus of teaching English as alanguage per se as well as the high-stakes standardized testing, which are dominant in thefield of English language education, become obstacles to the promotion of students’ wholeperson development. In this article I argue for the need to re-envision the goal of English
language education by expanding the concentional concept of communicative competence tomultimodal communicative competence. Also, I recommend that ELT move beyond its
instrumentality with a focus soly on linguistic skills to take on its educational function by
integrating digital citizenship education into English lessons.

Keywords: twenty-first century ELT, re-envisioning the goal, multimodal communicativecompetence, digital citizenship education, transdiciplinarity

We hope that the human sciences and humanities will rise to the challenges of our time,
exploring new and transformative strategies to meet concrete problems in the world, both
local and global in character. (Anderson & Braud, 2011, p. 15)

3

Le Van CanhLooking Back Into the Future: Re-Envisioning the Goal of English Language Education in the 21st Century

As English language educators and teacher educators, we live in critical times. Our
future is becoming uncertain due to rapid development in artificial intelligence. Societies are
becoming increasingly digitalized, creating unprecedented changes in all aspects of human
life, including verbal communication. In such a world, the narrow focus of teaching English
as a language per se as well as the high-stakes standardized testing, which are dominant in thefield of English language education, become obstacles to the promotion of students’ wholeperson development. In order to argue for the need to re-envision the goal of English
language education, it is necessary to pinpoint the irrelevance of the existing goal. The firstand foremost usefulness of the act of re-envisioning the future, as I see it, is to turn theprofessional lens critically and reflexively back on ourselves and our own practices. Thus, inthis paper I will reflect on the long journey that we, English language educators, have
travelled so far. The purpose of this retrospection is to achieve better awareness of how ourprofession has changed itself in terms of its goals and the approaches to those goals, and ofwhat should be changed but have not been changed. Insights into these issues, I believe, arecritical in planting the signposts for our future journey, which is speculated to be of more
twists and turns. However, English language teaching (ELT) is so complex and diverse that it
is impossible to provide a comprehensive account of its developments within a short article.
While looking back on what shapes the past of ELT, I am, therefore, fully aware of thecomplexity that is likely to be sacrificed in the interests of presenting a coherent narrative. For
this, the perspective presented in this paper is moderately enlightening to some and a stimulus
for further debate and discussion to others.
The article starts with my personal reflection on ELT practices as I see them occurring
since the mid-twentieth century. In this part, my focus is on the relevance of the concept ofcommunicative competence to the multilingual, digitalized societies. This is followed by myspeculation on the changes in the way humans communicate under the influence of digital

4

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 3-22

technology, and how they challenge conventional ELT practices. Finally, I present somerecommendations for the changes that need to happen for ELT to move forward.

Reflection on Twentieth-Century English Language Teaching (ELT)
Although the teaching of English has a long history (Howatt with Widdowson, 2004),
ELT emerged as a distinctive and recognizable enterprise in the early twentieth century.
Accompanied by globalization, the spread of English on the global scale is a complex,
historical phenomenon, that is closely connected with British colonialism and globalization
alongside numerous other political and social forces. Graddol (2006) framed the field within
two models: the teaching of English as a foreign language (EFL) and the teaching of English
as a second language (ESL). Seargeant (2012) defines EFL as,
the use or variety of English in contexts where it neither has an official status
nor is widely used as a means of intranational communication. Instead, thelanguage is taught as being explicitly associated with countries traditionallyperceived as English-speaking (e.g., the UK, the USA) (p. 191).
By contrast, ESL is,a term used to refer either to the use of English in countries where it has someofficial status (mostly due to the legacy of colonialism), or in which it is the
predominant means of communication and is being learnt by people (often
immigrants) from non-English-speaking backgrounds (Seargeant, 2012, p.
192).
Unfortunately, this conceptual distinction between two educational contexts has notbeen sufficiently considered albeit of the newly-initiated umbrella label of ‘additional
language’ as an alternate to the ESL-EFL dichotomy. Consequently, the pedagogy of EFL has
been largely shaped by ideas on the nature of language and the learning conditions that make5

Le Van CanhLooking Back Into the Future: Re-Envisioning the Goal of English Language Education in the 21st Century

learners to acquire the language that were developed and exported from ESL contexts. These
ideas were constructed around five following influential language ideologies:• English is best taught through English;• The use of learners’ first language (L1) is inhibitive to the success of learning
English;• The earlier English is taught, the better the results;• The native-speakers’ linguistic performance is the norms that learners of English,
regardless of their learning contexts, should try to achieve; and• Native-speakers are ideal teachers of English.
Influenced by the essentialist views of language, language learner, native-speaker, andcommunicative competence, both producers and consumers of pedagogical approaches to
ELT took it for granted that language learning was universal regardless of the context inwhich it occurred. Leung and Valdés (2019, p. 349) comment,…it is often the case that language-teaching professionals, including bothresearchers and practitioners, tend to assume that the conditions that govern
language instruction are broadly similar across settings and contexts;
alternatively it is often assumed that additional language teaching and learning
is an autonomous activity in that it is non-susceptible to the influences of thesociocultural and political environment in which it is situated.
These essentialist views led to the emphasis on communicative competence as theultimate goal of ELT. The concept of communicative competence, which has informed
English language teaching since the 1970s, was initially coined by Chomsky (1965), who
initiated the concept of linguistic competence to refer to a homogeneous, fixed set ofgrammatical rules that “any speaker of a language knows implicitly” (p. 9). Chomsky (1965,

6

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 3-22

p. 3) made a distinction between linguistic competence and linguistic performance. For him,linguistic competence is the language knowledge of an ideal speaker-hearer in a homogeneouscommunity and unaffected by performance variables. In his critiques of Chomsky’s view,
Hymes (1974) coined the term communicative competence to reflect that “social function
gives form to the ways in which linguistic features are encountered in actual life” (p. 196).
Since then, the concept of communicative competence has been used for marketing ELT and
adopted uncritically in the language-in-education policies in many countries, where English istaught as an additional language in the school curriculum. Thus, the goal of teaching English
as a school subject outside English-speaking countries is misconceptualized as the acquisitionof the linguistic characteristics of the educated native speaker of the language being taught
and learned (Cook, 2007) for the purpose of communicating successfully with native speakers
within their speech communities. As Roberts et al. (2001) argue,
Although the foreign language learner may not be joining a new community inany permanent way, their goal is to understand the social practices of that
community and to behave in ways which will allow more continuing
relationship with it. (p. 10)
In a nutshell, for most part of the twentieth century, the western monolingual, nativespeakerism discourse was uncritically adopted as the Bible in global EFL. Normative
commitments to it were seen as the right approach to curriculum development, classroom
pedagogies, and test designs. Any divergence to it was marked as negative. This has mademost of learners struggle with their English language learning and many have become
frustrated and demotivated. Graddol (2006) has observed that the practice of teaching English
as a foreign language in many countries suffers high levels of failure because a native
speaking model sets an unrealistic target for most learners.
Early in the twenty-first century, there have been recommendations (e.g. Jenkins, 2000;
McKay, 2002; Seidlhofer, 2004) for viewing English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), a variety of7

Le Van CanhLooking Back Into the Future: Re-Envisioning the Goal of English Language Education in the 21st Century

the language that “has taken on a life of its own, independent to a considerable degree of thenorms established by its native speakers [which] warrants recognition (Seidlhofer, 2004, p.
212). Despite these recommendations, detailed pedagogical proposals remain much desired
because of many barriers. Kuo (2006), who considers the adoption of an intelligibility-driven
model suggested by Jenkins (2000) is problematic as it ignores the significant role of English
in educational gate keeping that requires the native speaking linguistic norms of the academy.
It is the gate-keeping function of English as pointed out by Kuo that accounts for why the
ELT industry continues to focus on native English norms, and as a result, ELT educators
continue to adhere to ‘standard’ norms. Personally, I think it may make better sense to to referto teaching English as an International Language (EIL) rather than as a lingua franca (ELF).
The concept of EIL is an easily-to-understand term and it refers to a shared agenda of all
related fields to inform and innovate ELT. The term also implies that students learning
English to become ‘globalized speakers’ (Deshors & Gilquin 2018), meaning those who may
start out by learning English as a foreign language in the school curriculum, but then become
exposed to a range of English varieties through travelling or work experiences. They may also
become active online bloggers routinely communicating with speakers with various
proficiency levels in English and from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds..
The multilingual turn (May, 2013) has challenged the monolingual view on language
and language learning. As bi/multilingual speakers are recognized as different frommonolinguals in several ways, the well-established concept of communicative competence,
which framed ELT for most part of the twentieth century, has been contested (Farr & Song,
2011; May 2013; Ortega 2013). Applied linguists (Cook 2012; Cook & Li, 2016) proposed
the concept of multi-competence in an attempt to better capture the diversity of language
knowledge of bilinguals and multilinguals. For similar reasons, the Douglas Fir Group (2016)used both communicative and interactional competence to refer to “the holistic sum of[multilingual speakers’] multiplelanguage capacities,” noting that their use of competence “is8JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 3-22

significantly different from its use by Chomsky, perhaps even its use by Hymes” (p. 26). Hall(2016, 2018, 2019) used the term repertoire, which was originally initiated by Gumperz(1986), to refer to the totality of an individual’s language knowledge, defining it as“conventionalized constellations of semiotic resources for taking action” (Hall, 2019, p. 86).
Drawing on the translanguaging perspective (Garcia & Li 2014; Li 2018), Ou and Gu(2021, p. 11) conceptualize communicative competence “beyond individuals’ ready linguistic
repertoires and relate it to spatiality, i.e., the whole material ecology and social networks ofcommunication.” Such a view fits well the view of language learning as “co-adaptation”(Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008) between interlocutors and between human and nonhuman agency.
Put briefly, the goal of ELT is to develop decontextualized communicative competence
in English. This leads to the common belief that teaching English is teaching the language per
se among ELT researchers. This “lingua bias” (Block, 2014) overlooks not only the role ofmultimodal interactional resources in teaching and learning but also the educational function,
which requires ethically-centred and future-oriented deliberation and action. Thus, ELT has tobe reframed within a new discourse, which emphasizes both the instrumentality and theeducational purpose of developing students’ capacity to choose their identities, entitlements
and social obligations to respond to the new requirements of the new century. As a result,
ELT has to “aims to enable students to effectively acquire a foreign language whileempowering them with the knowledge, skills, and commitment required by world citizens tosolve global problems” (Cates, 2002, p. 41). Put differently, there should be acomplimentarity between the instrumental and educational functions within ELT. Whatfollows is my speculation about the twenty-first century and the changes that are needed in
ELT.

9Le Van CanhLooking Back Into the Future: Re-Envisioning the Goal of English Language Education in the 21st Century

The twenty-first century world
From the beginning of the twenty-first century, our world and our lives have been
increasingly globalized and digitized. As a result, the ways we communicate, learn, work, use
technology, produce knowledge, and interact with others have profoundly changed. Thechanges we are experiencing today are driven by three major forces: digital technology,
neoliberal ideology, and post-humanist thinking. Digital technology will mediate all social
relationships via language. This means that how we relate to ourselves and to each other isdependent upon not only the words we exchange but also upon the conceptualization that
language makes possible. Language itself is epistemic: Language makes ‘reality’ real. New
media, including wikkis, blogs, vlogs, video-conferencing, text messaging, facebook, andtwitter have helped to shift the meaning of interaction itself. Arguably, they have collapsed
what had been imagined historically as a local interactional context. From the privacy of ourhomes, we can enter an endlessly public space. Truth, authenticity and reality are no longer
easily assumed or clearly apparent. According to Taylor and Ivinson (2013, p. 665):
The twenty-first century has been characterized by the digital revolution.
Societies are becoming increasingly digitalized. Digital technologies havestarted to change the way we communicate in terms of communication modes,
genres of expression, communicative situations, and communicative events(Deshors & Gilquin, 2018). This raises an important question whether a ‘static’normative native-speaker standard or a norm constantly in the making shouldbe the goal of English language education.
Neoliberalism, which is based on the market-driven economic rationale of supply anddemand, education, has redirected teaching and learning to skills-driven learning and handson experiences so as to prepare learners for their future participation in the economic andworking lives. That neoliberal discourse ignores the role of education in fostering coreknowledge, ethical values, and citizenship. Thus, the question is: ‘Should education be
10

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 3-22

primarily aimed to satisfy learners’ individual needs and interests as demanded by the work
market and technological demands?’ or ‘Should it primarily help young generations belong totheir societies successfully?’ Van Dijk (2001) argues that education tends to be at the serviceof the interests and needs of a specific set of actors by enacting practices that are associatedwith power abuse and discursive reproduction. Echoing Van Dijk, Seymour (2004) claims
that education should, first and foremost, focus on developing learners’ more inclusive mind.
Seymour’s concept of inclusive mind can be understood as successful belonging, which
involves knowledge and skills to act as socially responsible citizens in their societies.
While technology and neoliberalism have unquestionable positive impact on human
life, their devastating effects have recently been foregrounded. The anthropocentric premises
on which human materialism-oriented activities are based have raised serious concerns about
ecological sustainability. Such an awareness has generated a theoretical perspective so-called
post-humanism, addressing two interrelated questions ‘who am I?’ and ‘what am I?’. As
Pennycook (2018, p.5) explains,
Posthumanism thus draws on multiple strands of thought and points in multiple
directions, from a questioning of the centrality and exceptionalism of humans
as actors on this planet, or the relationship to other inhabitants of the earth, to are-evaluation of the role of objects and space in relation to human thought andaction, or the extension of human thinking and capacity through various formsof human enhancement.
From the post-humanist perspective, language is redefined as “embodied, embedded
and distributed aross people, places and time and not a determinate or determinable object ofanalysis” (Pennycook, 2018, p. 51). This means recognizing multimodal meaning-making(Kress, 2003), which emphasizes the fact that language practice is intertwined with spatial
elements other than what humans have in their minds. Posthumanism provides an incentive tobroaden the understanding of communicative competence from the terms of internalized11

Le Van CanhLooking Back Into the Future: Re-Envisioning the Goal of English Language Education in the 21st Century

individual capacity (Wardhaugh, 1986) to modes of thinking that decentralize human agency
and reorient the term to the multimodal and multisensory semiotic communication.
Post-humanism is aligned with the socio-cultural theories (Vygostky, 1978; Lantolf &Thorne, 2006) that “the human is not approached as an autonomous agent, but is locatedwithin an extensive system of relations” (Ferrando, 2013, p. 32). With reference to English
language education, post-humanist thinking means “The emergence of a language is acognitive process that takes place in an evolving cognitive ecosystem that includes a sharedworld of objects and events as well as adaptive resources internal to each member of thecommunity” (Hutchins, 2014, p. 37). This line of thinking shares a number of affinities with
the Vygotskyian sociocultural theory,
Our counter-narrative …is to put forward a linguistics of communicative activity thatis based on a view of language as a historically contingent emergent system, one thatprovides a repertoire of semiotic devices that people can use to realize theircommunicative intentions, to interpret the communicative intentions of others and,perhaps most importantly, to foster the conditions of possibility for transforming selfand community (Thorne & Lantolf, 2007, p. 171).
According to Porto and Zembylas (2020), post-humanist perspectives suggest that
language education create spaces for cultivating political, ethical, and social justiceresponsibilities for changing socially unjust societies.
Putting the three aforementioned driving forces together, there emerges one thornyquestion about the twenty-first century, ‘What’s next for humanity?’ Historian Yuval NoahHarari, in his recent best-seller 21 Lessons for the 21st Century (Harari, 2018), notes that
“Humankind is facing unprecendented revolutions, all our old stories are crumbling, and no
new story has so far emerged to replace them. How can we prepare ourselves and our children
for a world of such unprecendented transformation and radical uncertainties?” (p. 259). In
answering his question, Harari argues,
12

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 3-22

So, what should we be teaching? Many pedagogical experts argue that schools shouldswitch to teaching the four Cs – critical thinking, communication, collaboration andcreativity. More broadly, schools should downplay technical skills, and emphasize
general-purpose life skills. Most important of all will be the ability to deal withchange, to learn new things, and to preserve your mental balance in unfamiliar
situations. In order to keep up with the world of 2050, you will need not merely toinvent new ideas and products – you will above all need to reinvent yourself again andagain (p. 262).
With reference to ELT, I see three major questions that need to be responded byresearchers, scholars, practitioners, and teacher educators. The first question is “What shouldbe the goal of ELT in the new century?’ The second is ‘What lifeworlds are we preparing ourlearners to participate in?’ And finally, ‘How can all those discursive changes be consideredin EFL classrooms?’ In the following section, I provide my tentative answers to thesequestions.
Re-envisioning the goal of ELT in the new century
The changes resulted from the three driving forces of the twenty-first century (digitaltechnology, neoliberalism, and post-humanism) deem imperative to rethink ELT in a wholly
different light than what was established in the twentieth century. The merger of the threecomponents (i.e. translanguaging, sociocultural theory, and critical pedagogy) of thetransdisciplinary approach I suggest above requires that the concept of communicativecompetence be reconsidered within the multimodal communicative competence perspective.
Put differently, the conventional concept of communicative competence should be expanded
into multimodal communicative competence as the goal of ELT. Classroom pedagogy should
encourage and support students to co-deploy all the semiotic resources accessible to them inlearning the language and using the language for communication. This pedagogy is toempower learners. “Language learning is not about conformity to uniformity; it is about
13

Le Van CanhLooking Back Into the Future: Re-Envisioning the Goal of English Language Education in the 21st Century

empowering students to make meaning and to present themselves to the world as they sochoose” (Larsen-Freeman, 2007, p.73).
Another dimension of the re-purposing of ELT is the move beyond the instrumental
view towards new ways of serving the digitalized societies. ELT cannot isolate itself from thethe shift to the development of students’ socio-ethical capacities. English language educationin the digitalized societies should be contextualized within a discourse of love, empathy, andsympathy. As educators, ELT educators cannot view the acquisition of English as our goal.
Instead, English should be viewed as a vehicle through which digital citizenship is fostered.
While there has not been, and there will never be, a conclusive definition of digitalcitizenship, for the sake of oversimplicity, digital citizenship can be defined as therelationships between individuals and digitally-interconnected communities in digitalizedsocieties. Fostering digital citizenship through English language education is to ensure digital
responsibility, digital ethics, and digital wellbeing in navigating the online world. In otherwords, digital citizenship and communicative competence should be insured concurrently so
as to equip students not only with language abilities but also a moral compass whenparticipating in society online.
ELT needs to adopt a transdisciplinary approach (Leung & Vadés, 2019), which
integrates three main components: i) translanguaging as an applied linguistics theory oflanguage practice (Li, 2018); ii) socio-cultural theory; and iii) critical pedagogy.
Translanguaging allows the reconceptualization of language as a multilingual, multisemiotic,
multisensory, and multimodal resource for sense- and meaning-making, and the multilingual
as someone who is aware of the existence of the political entities of named languages and has
an ability to make use of the structural features of some of them that they have acquired. It
has the capacity to enable us to explore the human mind as a holistic multicompetence (Cook,
1992; Cook & Li, 2016), and rethink some of the bigger, theoretical issues in linguistics
generally (Li, 2018, p. 22).
14

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 3-22

The sociocultural theory takes up the issues of the co-relationships between language,
culture, context, and identity. According to Hawkins (2004, p. 3), language, viewed from thesociocultural perspective, does not exists as a general object. “Rather, each language iscomposed of different ‘social languages’, that is different styles of language that
communicate socially-situated identities (who is acting) and socially-situated activities (whatis being done).” Accordingly, language is never decontextualized, never used outside of aparticular ‘discourse’.
Critical pedagogy in language teaching (Akbari, 2008) is ‘about connecting the wordwith the world. It is about recognizing language as ideology, not just system. It is about
extending the educational space to the social, cultural, and political dynamics of language
use’ (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p.70). As Gee (1990, pp. 67–68) argues,
The English teacher can cooperate in her own marginalization by seeing herself as a“language teacher” with no connection to …social and political issues. Or she can…accept her role as one who socializes students into a world view that, given its power[in the United Stated of America] and abroad, must be viewed critically, comparatively,
and with a constant sense of the possibilities for change. Like it or not, the English teacher
stands at the very heart of the most crucial educational, cultural, and political issues of ourtime.
There have been scholarly voices in academia (e.g., Byram 2014; Roux, 2019; Serrano,2008) that ELT should not limit itself to the teaching of language knowledge (grammar,
vocabulary, phonology) and language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) toembrace its educational dimensions in equipping students with tools which allow them to be
active citizens, and be awaken to global issues. Byram (2014), for example, calls for a greaterattention to the educational purpose of foreign language teaching, stating that foreign
language teaching is more than teaching a language and that “foreign language learning is15

Le Van CanhLooking Back Into the Future: Re-Envisioning the Goal of English Language Education in the 21st Century

educational” (p. 1). He goes on to argue that, “The language teaching profession has
significant educational and political tasks and responsibilities before it” ( p. 16).
Conclusion
The certainty of uncertainty is becoming a new way of life. Re-envisioning reflects ourcapacity for making informed predictions and an ethics of possibilities. Re-envisioning alsopresents us with the chance to rethink and reorganize our profession. The purpose of thisarticle is revisit the goal of ELT that was framed within the concept of communicativecompetence based on the twentieth-century monolingualism with a view to navigating thejourney into the twenty-first century.
As discussed, ELT, throughout the twentieth-century, was informed by the ‘linear
thinking’ embodied in western reductionism, essentialism and dualism. As a result, the onesize-fits-all communicative approach was promoted as the only right approach to teaching
English regardless of the situated and dynamic reality of English language classrooms(Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013), and communicative competence, which is composed ofgrammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategiccompetence, was used as the uniform construct in assessing all learners’ proficiency inEnglish. When the complex phenomena were reduced to essences, teaching and learning
were viewed as of causal relationship. The dominance of ideologies extends even to thepresent second decade of the twenty-first century when digital technologies have changed
radically the way humans communicate within their digitally nested speech communities.
Despite the frequently promoted pedagogical possibilities, the hegemony of westernknowledge and ideology replaces one trend by another, supported by unchanged
oversimplified linear causality in additional language teaching and learning. Language
learning is about meaning-making, and the development of digital technology puts meaningmaking in a new light. With the support of digital technology, meaning is made, distributed,

16

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 3-22

interpreted, and remade through many communicational resources, not just language. The oldmindset, therefore, has to be challenged.
As societies are becoming increasingly digitalized, new challenges and opportunities
for ELT require that ELT renew itself. For good or bad, there is a great likelihood that English
is here to stay as a language of international communication, at least for the foreseeable
future. Yet, English is no longer conceptualized essentially as it was. Teachers need to renew
themselves as well. They need to take the role as language educators rather than language
teaching practitioners. As language educators, they do not only teach language, they teach andeducate students as well. I have recommended in this article that multimodal communicativecompetence and digital citizenship should be two peas in the ELT pod in the twenty-first
century.

References
Akbari, R. (2008). Transforming lives: introducing critical pedagogy into ELT classrooms,
ELT Journal, 62(3), 276–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn025
Anderson, R., & Braud, W. (2011). Transforming self and others through research:
Transpersonal research methods and skills for the human sciences and humanities.
State University of New York Press.
Block, D. (2014). Moving beyond lingualism: Multilingual embodiment and multimodality in
SLA. In S.May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, andbilingual education (pp. 64–87). Routledge.
Byram, M. (2014). Twenty-five years on – from cultural studies to intercultural citizenship.
Language, Culture and Curriculum, 27(3), 209–225.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.974329

17

Le Van CanhLooking Back Into the Future: Re-Envisioning the Goal of English Language Education in the 21st Century

Cates, K.A. (2002). Teaching for a better world: Global issues and language education.
Human Rights Education in Asian Schools, 5, 41–52. https://www.hurights.or.jp/
archives/human_rights_education_in_asian_schools/section2/2002/03/teaching-for-abetter-world-global-issues-and-language-education.html
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cook, V. (2007). The goals of ELT. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International
handbook of English language teaching (pp. 237–248). Springer.
Cook, V. (2012). Multi-competence. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied
linguistics (pp. 3768–3774). Wiley-Blackwell.
Cook, V., & Li Wei (Eds.). (2016). The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence.
Cambridge University Press.
Deshors, S.C., & Gilquin, G. (2018). Modeling world Englishes in the 21st century. New
reflections on model-making. In S.C. Deshors (Ed.), Modeling world Englishes:
Assessing the interplay of emanicipation and globalization of ESL varieties (pp. 281–
294). John Benjamins.
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world.
The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12301
Farr, M., & Song, J. (2011). Language ideologies and policies: Multilingualism andeducation. Language and Linguistic Compass, 5(9), 650–665.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00298.x
Ferrando, F. (2013). Posthumanism, transhumanism, antihumanism, metahumanism, and newmaterialisms: Differences and relations. Existenz, 8, 26–32. https://existenz.us/volumes/
Vol.8-2Ferrando.pdf
Garcia, O., & Li.W. (2014). Translanguaging, bilingualism, and bilingual education.
Palgrave.
Gee, J.P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Falmer.
18

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 3-22

Graddol, D. (2006). English next. British Council.
Gumperz, J. (1986). Introduction. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions insociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 1–25). Blackwell.
Hall, J. K. (2016) A usage-based view of multicompetence. In V. Cook & W. Li (Eds.)
Cambridge handbook of linguistic multicompetence (pp. 183–206). Cambridge
University Press.
Hall, J. K. (2018). From L2 interactional competence to L2 interactional repertoires:
Reconceptualising the objects of L2 learning. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 25–39.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1433050
Hall, J. K. (2019). The contributions of conversation analysis and interactional linguistics to ausage-based understanding of language: Expanding the transdisciplinary framework.
The Modern Language Journal, 103(Suppl.2019), 80–94.
https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12535
Harari, Y.N. (2018). 21 lessons for the 21st century. Jonathan Cape
Hawkins, M.R. (2004). Introduction. In M.R. Hawkins (Ed.), Language learning and teacher
education: A sociocultural approach (pp. 3–9). Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Howatt, A. with Widdowson, H. (2004) A history of English language teaching (2nd ed.)Oxford University Press.
Hutchins, E. (2014). The cultural ecosystem of human cognition. Philosophical Psychology,27(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2013.830548
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. University ofPennsylvania Press.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language: New models, newnorm, new goals. Oxford University Press.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. Routledge.

19

Le Van CanhLooking Back Into the Future: Re-Envisioning the Goal of English Language Education in the 21st Century

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL
Quarterly, 40(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264511
Kuo, I-C. (2006). Addressing the issue of teaching English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal,
60(3), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl001
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Teaching and learning English: From ideology to empowerment.
Journal of NELTA, 12(1&2), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.3126/nelta.v12i1.3430
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2013). Techniques and principles in language teaching(3rd edn.). Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford
University Press.
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language
development. Oxford University Press.
Leung, C., & Valdés, G. (2019). Translanguaging and the transdisciplinary framework for
language teaching and learning in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal,
103(2), 348–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12568
Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1),9–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx044
May. S. (2013). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual
education. Routledge.
McKay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals andapproaches. Oxford University Press.
Ortega, L. (2013). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdiciplinary relevance,
and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning, 63(Suppl.1), 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00735.x
Ou, W.A., & Gu, M.M. (2021). Competence beyond language: Translanguaging and spatial
repertoire in teacher-student interaction in a music classroom in an international
20

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 3-22

Chinese university. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (eversion). https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2021.1949261
Pennycook, A. (2018). Posthumanist applied linguistics. Routledge.
Porto, M., & Zembylas, M. (2020). Language education and global citizenship: Decolonial
and posthuman persepctives through pedagogies of discomfort. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (2nd ed.) (e-version).
Routledge
Roberts, C., Byram, M., Barro, A., Jordan, S., & Street, B. (2001). Language learners as
ethnographers. Multilingual Matters.
Roux, R. (2019). Perspectives on global citizenship education of Mexican university English
language teachers. Global Education in Practice: Teaching, Researching, andCitizenship, 17, 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047173420918542
Seargeant , P. (2012). Exploring world Englishes: Language in a global context. Routledge.
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives in teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209–239.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190504000145
Serrano, J.R. (2008). ELT and citizenship: Basic principles to raise social awareness throughlanguage teaching. HOW, 15(1), 63–82. https://www.howjournalcolombia.org/index.
php/how/article/view/88
Seymour, M. (2004). Educating for humanity: rethinking the purposes of education. In M.
Seymour (ED.), Educating for humanity: Rethinking the purposes of education (pp. 1–
10). Paradigm Publishers.
Taylor, C. A., & Ivinson, G. (2013). Material feminisms: New directions for education.
Gender and Education, 25(6), 664–670. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315638287

21

Le Van CanhLooking Back Into the Future: Re-Envisioning the Goal of English Language Education in the 21st Century

Thorne, S. L., & Lantolf, J. (2007). A linguistics of communicative activity. In S. Makoni &A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. 170-195).
Multilingual Matters.
Van Dijk, T. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin & H. Hamilton(Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Blackwell.
Vygotsky. L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
Wardhaugh, R. (1986). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Basil Blackwell Ltd.

22

Selected Papers
Research Articles

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 25-54

A Hybrid Online/Face-to-Face Approach to Intercultural Interactions
in a Japanese Education Major University Context

Kyoko Miyazato
Hakuoh University

Abstract
This project was conducted as part of a small-sized seminar course from 2019 to 2020 toinvestigate an effective approach to promoting on-campus intercultural experiences between
local and international students in a Japanese education major university context as part ofpre-service teacher training and of developing Japanese students’ intercultural competencies
through self-reflection over actual and online contacts. The hypothesis was that virtual
communication may compensate for the disadvantages of in-person intercultural contacts. The
study revealed that online interactions using Zoom at the outset of friendship formation
successfully resolved scheduling problems and reduced shyness toward foreigners among theJapanese student participants without prior intercultural experiences. Following a series of
online interactions followed by direct contact, the Japanese students seem to have acquired
self-confidence and motivation to actively participate in the project, which enhanced theirawareness of other cultures and modified their attitudes toward international students.
Moreover, it could be said that they attained personal growth in problem-solving, projectplanning, and cooperative attitudes, which ultimately led to the recognition of language
minorities in Japan itself and to self-directed volunteer activities helping foreign students withadaptation in a local elementary school.
Keywords: pre-service teacher training, online intercultural interactions

The number of foreign residents living in Japan in 2021 reached about 2.9 million
25

Kyoko Miyazato
A Hybrid Online/Face-to-Face Approach to Intercultural Interactions in a Japanese Education Major University Context(Immigration Services Agency of Japan, 2021), and accordingly, foreign students learning inJapanese elementary to senior high schools are reported to be over 93,000 (MEXT, 2019).
Thus, there is an acute need for teachers who possess the skills and understanding to deal with
culturally and linguistically diverse students in Japanese public schools. Given current as well
as future demand, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology(MEXT, 2011; 2017) urged each prefectural board of education to recruit teachers withoverseas experiences and intercultural literacy.
However, Izumimoto and Iwasaka (2016) point out that most Japanese education major
university students are domestic, mainly as a result of teacher training program curricularconstraints, which have resulted in their disinterest in studying abroad. To gain a teachingcertificate from a Japanese university, students usually need to acquire 45 or more credits
from education-related courses on top of regular graduation requirements for a bachelor’s
degree. They are also required to participate in off-campus duties such as a one-month teacher
practicum and one-week training in a special education school and a nursing home. Moreover,
the teacher training curriculum based on the current MEXT teaching certification system is apurely domestic one, in which international students cannot involve themselves (Iwata, 2014).
Such circumstances presumably facilitate Japanese teachers’ passive attitudes toward
intercultural understanding and foreign students’ education despite MEXT’s recognition of
their significance.
In response, this study investigated a possible approach to on-campus interculturalinteraction in Japan using online and face-to-face exchanges to promote interculturalexperiences as part of pre-service teacher training in an education major university program.
A project was undertaken in the author’s seminar course to offer Japanese students unable toavail themselves of the chance and benefits of studying abroad with authentic intercultural
encounters on-campus in order to prepare them for intercultural engagement in their future
professional fields, especially in diverse educational contexts. In particular, the study
26

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 25-54

investigated how intercultural learning can be fostered so as to develop local students’awareness, attitudes, and skills toward intercultural communication.

Literature Review
Japan’s Internationalization at Home and Abroad
Japanese universities began giving international exchanges serious consideration in the
1980s in response to an OECD report on the urgent need to open up Japanese universities tointernational students and scholars (Takagi, 2009). The Japanese government enacted a policy
called the “100,000 International Student Plan” in 1983 to attract more international students
to higher educational institutions, with a target number of 100,000 by the early 21st century.
This goal was attained in 2003, and MEXT then set forth a further plan called the “300,000
International Student Plan” in 2008 to triple this number by 2020, which was also achieved in2019 (Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 2021).
In addition to internationalizing Japanese universities, the Japanese government regards
global education for Japanese nationals as an urgent task and has put forth various guidelines
since 2007. To this end, a Global Human Resource Development Promotion Meeting wasorganized by the Prime Minister’s office in 2011, defining three essential skills global citizens
need to acquire. In addition to the first qualities of basic language and communication skills,
elements such as self-managing ability, a challenging spirit, flexibility, and responsibility
were listed. Furthermore, an understanding of other cultures and a sense of identity as aJapanese citizen were also categorized as the third qualities.
However, the Council on the Promotion of Human Resources for Globalization
Development (2011) report that the number of Japanese university students studying abroadhas been decreasing since 2004, a trend it attributes to “inwardly looking attitudes” (p. 5)
caused by the specific employment requirements of Japanese companies, the financial burden
involved, and an inflexible school curriculum. This inward trend has been particularly
27

Kyoko Miyazato
A Hybrid Online/Face-to-Face Approach to Intercultural Interactions in a Japanese Education Major University Context

apparent in education major university programs (Tokyo Gakugei University, 2014).
To facilitate globalized human resources development, since 2014, MEXT has led acampaign called the “Tobitate Study Abroad Initiative.” This promotion aimed to double thenumber of university students studying abroad from 60,000 to 120,000 and the number ofhigh school students from 30,000 to 60,000 by 2020 (Tobitate Ryugaku Japan, 2021).
However, the number of Japanese university students studying abroad to acquire a degree oreven degree credits reached only 58,720, and the number of high school students who studied
abroad in 2017 was 46,869, or 78% of the goal; however, over 91% of them stayed overseas
for less than three months. In brief, Japanese students at the secondary and tertiary levels
appear somewhat reluctant to study abroad for extensive periods despite the MEXT-initiatedpromotion.

Intercultural Education in Japan
Kato (2009) warns that teaching intercultural communication under current English
teaching conditions in Japan often tends to be superficial and fails to provide systematic
analysis or self-reflection due to time constraints, poor teacher quality, and difficulty inevaluating students’ intercultural outcomes. Thus, in present-day intercultural communication
education, experiential learning has been promoted in independent courses set apart fromEnglish language instruction.
Yet even under such teaching conditions, Kawanabe (2006) argues that whileknowledge, one of the three core elements constituting intercultural competence (Deardorff,
2006), has been instructed, the other two factors of attitudes and skills have been lessdeveloped in intercultural education courses. Bennett (2009) also emphasizes, cognitive,
affective, and behavioral components play a crucial role in developing interculturalcompetence. Thus, merely transmitting knowledge is insufficient, and providing opportunities
for self-reflection and self-analysis through actual contact and communication in collaborative
28

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 25-54

learning and group projects is highly recommended (Yabuta, 2015).

Face-to-Face Intercultural Contacts
Wu et al. (2015) stress the value of international students in academic prestige, cultural
exchanges, and financial rewards, explaining that international students, many of whom arehighly ranked in their home countries, enhance academic excellence and contribute todiversity and internationalization in classrooms, campuses, and communities. Eisenchlas &Trevaskes (2007) also point out the value of developing local students’ understanding andtolerance of different cultures.
However, the level of voluntary contact between domestic and international students isreported to be generally low or even rare (Ward et al., 2009) despite international students’desire to establish personal relationships with host students. Generally speaking, international
students have difficulty making friends with host students (Brebner, 2008). This is due to thefact that international students lack confidence in speaking the target language (Elsey &Kinnell, 1990), local students’ disinterest in making contact with their internationalcounterparts (Brebner, 2008; Ward, 2001), and other factors such as a lack of common
interests as well as cultural differences (Brebner, 2008).
In Japan, Kojima et al. (2015) report that while 47% of their participants hadintercultural learning experiences in class, only 5% had intercultural exchanges outside theclassroom. They further stated that 80% of the students in their study had an intrinsic interestin participating in intercultural exchanges in order to acquire international skills helpful totheir future careers as well as job-hunting. The researchers offer the following reasons forJapanese students’ passivity regarding intercultural exchanges: lack of English skills,
psychological distance or uneasiness about cultural differences, the financial burden oflimited funds to spend on socialization, and busy schedules, the last two of which are new to
the Japanese case. In sum, discrepancies have been noted in levels of motivation toward29

Kyoko Miyazato
A Hybrid Online/Face-to-Face Approach to Intercultural Interactions in a Japanese Education Major University Context

intercultural interactions between international and local students due to technical difficulties
such as language, scheduling, and psychological distance, including cultural barriers.

Online Intercultural Exchange
Online intercultural exchange (OIE), or “virtual exchange,” has become one of the main
tools for developing intercultural competence, foreign language learning, and digital skills,
thanks to merits such as the low cost of international activities and authentic language usewith distant speakers of other languages.
First, OIE has strong potential for developing ICC (O’Dowd, 2016), especially throughsynchronous videoconference exchanges, which foster students’ abilities to interact withmembers of the target culture and intercultural negotiating skills through real-timecommunication and face-to-face dialogue. Moreover, OIE can be used as preparation for
physical mobility as it engages forthcoming exchange students in virtual interaction withstudents in their future destination, and thus becoming accustomed to the educational systemand daily life in the target culture (Kinginger, 2009).
OIE also creates opportunities for authentic language use as well as interculturalinteractions, thus allowing students in different geographical locations to communicate
directly with one another (Guth, 2016). This authenticity motivates foreign language learners(Lewis & O’Dowd, 2016) and makes language classrooms more content-based since they
involve a group of target language speakers (Guth & Helm, 2010). In addition, this approach
utilizes digital learning (De Wit, 2016), a critical dimension of internationalization policy
aiming to foster interactions along with active forms of learning such as collaborative online
international learning (COIL) by engaging students in collaborative projects involving globalclassrooms, which in turn brings about further academic outcomes.
Thus, OIE is regarded as a cost-effective alternative to physical mobility in support ofstudents who are unable or unwilling to take part in studying abroad (Kinginger, 2009). Lewis
30

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 25-54& O’Dowd (2016) report that only 4% of European university students had participated ininternational exchange programs due to economic and target language barriers despite theadvanced promotion of multiculturalism and a heavy emphasis on overseas experiences. De
Wit (2016) also demonstrates a high discrepancy between the intention to study abroad andthe realization of such intention, even though this implies students’ intrinsic interest.
In view of this background, this study explored intercultural opportunities offered in asmall-sized seminar course from 2019 to 2020 using both online and face-to-face interactions.
The initial assumption was that in and out-of-class intercultural interactions throughexperiential learning, or “learning by doing” (Lewis & Williams, 1994, p. 5), effectively
cultivate Japanese students’ intercultural competencies to the degree that the interactions
modifies their attitudes and actions. Second, because online intercultural interaction isreported to resolve physical distance and scheduling problems (Yogi, 2009), the hypothesis
was that virtual communication may compensate for the disadvantages of in-person
intercultural contact. If so, the hybrid use of the two approaches should be effective in
improving students’ intercultural competence.
The research questions for this study were the following:1.

Did the pedagogical activities improve Japanese students’ ICC? Did they lead tomodified attitudes and self-directed intercultural interactions?

2. Did online interactions affect the Japanese students’ involvement in the project?

MethodObjectives and Background of the Project
An intercultural exchange project named “FINFID” (A Friend in Need is a Friend
Indeed) was implemented in 2019 and 2020 in the author’s seminar courses in a university in
the Kanto region of Japan. The primary goal of the project was to offer on-campus
intercultural interactions for busy EFL education major students unable to enjoy study abroad
31

Kyoko Miyazato
A Hybrid Online/Face-to-Face Approach to Intercultural Interactions in a Japanese Education Major University Context

opportunities due to curricular or economic constraints. In the circumstances in whichinternational students are kept largely apart from the Japanese EFL education major students
housed on a different campus, chances of the latter encountering international students on
campus are drastically diminished, especially as many of the Japanese students are from local,
relatively rural districts with fewer foreign residents and students than more urban areas. This
lack of contact with foreigners in their daily lives is assumed to be behind the students’
passive or shy attitudes toward people of foreign origin.
Another objective of this study was to encourage more in-depth interculturalinteractions through experiential learning, which may arouse students’ recognition andreflective analysis of cross-cultural issues. In the author’s intercultural communication course,
where international exchange students study alongside Japanese students, few opportunities
for intercultural contacts are provided due to its large class size as well as time constraints.
Thus, this study aimed to develop affective and behavioral dimensions of Japanese university
students’ intercultural communicative skills.
Finally, personal development such as enhanced student self-confidence and leadershipis expected to be an outcome of the project. By taking part in the project, which required
project planning, problem solving, IT use, and presentation skills as well as active andcooperative attitudes in team or pair work, it was expected that students would attain multiplecompetencies and abilities and eventually grow in self-confidence and a sense ofaccomplishment similar to that generated by studying abroad.

Participants
The participants in the FINFID project were 25 Japanese education major students (13juniors in 2019, 7 seniors and 12 juniors in 2020, with 7 students participating in two
consecutive years, 9 males and 16 females) in the university. Of the 25 participants, 14 hadoverseas experience in the US, Canada, or Southeast Asia lasting from one week to two
32

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 25-54

months, mainly for English language study or sightseeing. Their overall English levels were
low to intermediate, with an average TOEFL score of 450 ranging from 385 to 507.
All participants took the author’s seminar, a small-sized course taught over two
consecutive years from the junior to the senior years. This course was chosen for conducting
the study because of its greater flexibility in teaching content and approach, small class size,
and the students’ interest in intercultural exchanges.

Task Design
The project consisted of three primary facets implemented each semester: in-class gettogether opportunities, out-of-class events organized by the Japanese students to enhance
opportunities for intercultural interactions, and semester-end presentations and self-reflection
reports on their experiences.
At the beginning of each semester, an in-class get-together was held in order to initiate
friendships and exchange contact information. Once initial contact was established, out-ofclass events organized by the Japanese students followed in order to deepen the friendships byinviting the international students to the events. Each pair or group of three Japanese students
led an event once a semester, and each attended another pair’s or group’s event as a supporter,
also at least once a semester. The reason for requiring the Japanese students to plan andinitiate these out-of-class events was to help develop their project planning, leadership, andactive attitudes. In addition, an in-class party was also held on campus in the middle of eachsemester to develop and monitor the students’ friendships and induce more involvement in the
project. In consideration of the Japanese students’ busy schedules, they were encouraged toparticipate in at least four exchanges on or off-campus, including two mandatory in-class gettogether opportunities per semester.
Based on the idea that acquiring ICC involves reflecting on one’s own cultural norms
and values and shaping one’s own identities, semester-end reflection papers and in-class self33

Kyoko Miyazato
A Hybrid Online/Face-to-Face Approach to Intercultural Interactions in a Japanese Education Major University Context

analysis presentations were made mandatory so as to require them to report any findings,
outcomes, challenges, self-evaluation, and recommendations for future projects.
Thus, participation in and out-of-class events, reflective papers on their intercultural
progress, and in-class presentations and discussions were required and counted for 25% ofcourse evaluation. In other words, the project did not consist of purely extra-curricular
activities but was integrated into the course syllabus as part of course requirements.

Procedures in 2019 and 2020
As part of face-to-face interactions in 2019, the Japanese students observed a Japanese
as a foreign language (JFL) class in which international students gave individual Japanesepresentations about friendship and the Japanese students participated in class discussions on
the topic in late April. This followed out-of-class events held from May to July, including
chatting in the international lounge, going to noodle restaurants in the local town, visiting
nearby shrines, playing board games, visiting tourist spots, and so on. In June, an in-classparty was held on campus to develop the friendships, and all the Japanese students and manyof the international students attended the parties, sharing the tasks of shopping, cooking, andcleaning up. The same procedures were followed in the Fall semester, except for an in-class
get-together in mid-October organized by the Japanese students in place of a JFL classobservation so as to welcome new international students. The interactions in 2019 wereconducted face-to-face, and 12 international students from the US, Norway, Thailand,
Bolivia, Taiwan, South Korea, and China attended the events.
In Spring 2020, all the interactions were conducted on Zoom, and the in-class party wascancelled due to the COVID-19 crisis. Following the first get-together in early June becauseof the delayed start, the Japanese students working in pairs launched weekly Zoom events for
six consecutive weeks, including an object-hunting race, online Japanese cooking, online
tours of Japan, colloquial expressions used by young Japanese, English lessons with an
34

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 25-54

international student, and “Discover Norway Day.” Three US and one South Korean
exchange students living on campus participated in the interactions, and one Norwegian and
one US student attended the sessions from their home countries.
In Fall 2020, all international exchange students left Japan due to the COVID
pandemic, so those international students, mainly from Asian countries, who were enrolled
for degree purposes were invited to the face-to-face exchanges. The four participatinginternational students were from China, Bolivia, and Malaysia, and the language used in theexchange was Japanese. To compensate for the lack of opportunities to interact withinternational students on campus, the Japanese students planned a new volunteer activity tohelp younger foreign students in the vicinity adapt to Japanese’ life in the city’s Acculturation
Center for newly arrived foreign elementary and secondary students. While the Japanese
students participated in the 90-minute-volunteer activities at least twice in the Acculturation
Center, several students assisted more than five times due to their interest in the activity.

Table 1
Project Summary
Timeline

EventsFeatures

Late April 2019

First in-class get-together

Observation of JFL class, Exchanging
of contact information

May to August

Small-group out-of-class events

Casual on-and off-campus interactions

June

In-class okonomiyaki party

Shopping, cooking, cleaning done
together

Early September

Reflected presentations of in- andout-of-class events

Mid-October 2019

Second in-class get-together

Self-introduction and playing games
organized by the Japanese students

Late-October to early Small-group out-of-class events
January

Casual on-and off-campus interactions

December 2019

In-class nabe party

Joint shopping, cooking, cleaning

Late January

Reflected presentations of in- andout-of-class events

Early June 2020

First online in-class get together

35

Delayed semester due to COVID-19,
Organized by the Japanese students,
Exchanged contact information

Kyoko Miyazato
A Hybrid Online/Face-to-Face Approach to Intercultural Interactions in a Japanese Education Major University Context

Mid-June to late July Out-of-class Zoom events organized Japanese pairs organized weekly Zoom
by the Japanese students
events for 6 weeks
Early August

Reflected presentations of in/out-ofclass events

Mid-October

Second in-class get-together,
PowerPoint presentations of cultural
events: Shinto shrines, Japanese
Halloween, and Christmas

Organized by the Japanese students,
Information exchanges about cultural
events in Japan and overseas (South
Korea, Bolivia, and Malaysia)

Late November toearly January

Volunteer activity helping foreign
elementary students

New project initiated by the Japanese
students: In-class 1-hour orientation
offered by Board of Education staff

Mid-December

In-class year-end party PowerPoint
presentation of Japanese New Year
events and experiencing New Yeargames

Organized by the Japanese students,
Teaching and experiencing writing
greeting cards with Japanesecalligraphy, otedama, fukuwarai, andhyakunin-isshu card games

Late January

Reflections on presentations of inand out-of-class events and newvolunteer projects

Research Method
Since this study tried to capture the complex reality of the Japanese students’ attitudes
toward intercultural interactions, a qualitative case study approach was adopted. Three
primary research methods—participant observation of in and out-of-class events, unstructured
interviews with all Japanese students, and document analysis of Japanese students’ written
reflections and presentations—were scrutinized. To investigate the international students’perspectives, seven students who consistently participated in the interactions wereinterviewed individually as supplementary data. All data in the reflection papers andinterviews were translated into English by the author with the participants’ consent.

Results
Table 2
Summary of the Results
ICC
Affective dimensions(awareness & attitude)
Compassion & patience
toward international
students’ difficulties

Face-to-Face in 2019

Hybrid in 2020

Improved

Improved✔ Speaking easy Japaneseslowly36✔ Zoom tour of Japan, adding hiragana
to slides

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 25-54

Modified image toward
international students✔ Showing respect for Asianstudents✔ Non-threatening image after Zoom
interactions

Increased appreciation ofcultural differences✔

✔

Desire for overseas
experiences✔

✔

Behavioral dimensions(skills)

Not much improved

Improved

Modified passivity✔ Partially, along withreflective attitude✔ Increased confidence in dealing withforeigners

Self-directed action

Lack of motivation✔ Volunteer activities in Acculturation
CenterOther skills
Project planning

Moderately improved✔ PR through SNS

Improved✔ Appealing content

Problem-solving✔ Zoom rehearsals, volunteer activities

IT skills✔ Effective visuals

Careful preparation✔

Cooperative learning✔ Incorporated international students

Creativity✔ Appealing events with movement

Friendship & cooperation Discrepancy in motivation
among members✔

Face-to-Face Interactions in 2019Japanese Students’ Recognition of Challenges and Efforts by the International Students
Several students responded that observing the JFL class and seeing the international
students struggling to speak Japanese made them realize that learning foreign languages
requires courage, discipline, and perseverance from every language learner. This recognition
resulted in compassion and empathy toward the international students by speaking Japanese ata slower speed and choosing vocabulary and expressions appropriate to the international
students’ proficiency levels. The international students’ motivation to learn Japanese led theJapanese students to respect the international students. One student said,
I learned about the Japanese proficiency test called nihongo-kentei from my Thai students. I took alook at her textbook and I found it’s quite difficult even for Japanese native speakers. I respect X
for studying Japanese so seriously. I should learn more about my country and try hard to use
English even though my English is not good.

The Japanese students’ image of the international students also changed. One male37

Kyoko Miyazato
A Hybrid Online/Face-to-Face Approach to Intercultural Interactions in a Japanese Education Major University Context

student commented as follows about one of the Taiwanese students, who is fluent in both
Japanese and English:
I see them as highly motivated to lead life positively in Japan and willing to communicate inJapanese despite the challenges. After mingling with B, I feel like visiting Asian countries. This is
the first time for me to think this way. I only wanted to visit countries like Europe and the US.

This episode indicates that the Japanese students’ contact with the Asian students, manyof whom had multiple foreign language skills and internationally-minded attitudes, modified
the students’ over-admiration of the West or of English-speaking people and aroused theirinterest in various cultures. Thus, it seems that real-life contact with the hard-working andcosmopolitan Asian students positively influenced the Japanese students’ perceptions ofcultural relativity and foreign language learning.

Learning about Cultural Differences First-Hand
The international exchanges brought about a feeling of exoticness. One student said:
Just going to the international lounge was an exciting thing for me. I was so excited to be
surrounded by international students in the lounge. It’s as if it was a foreign country.

Other students converted the failure derived from language and cultural barriers into alearning experience:
I felt uneasy in the conversations with international students because maybe I was nervous. I wassilent at first, but I realized that just waiting to be asked questions by the international student didn’t
work when I saw their bored faces.

The students realized that they had to act on unsuccessful experiences, which led themto modify their passive behaviors and attitudes. The Japanese students also worked on finding
common interests and sought more effective ways to interact. They held events such as“Game Day,” where the Japanese and international students played games such as Monopoly.
They also set up Instagram and Facebook pages to advertise upcoming events to allow
international and Japanese alumni to learn about the FINFID project, which they thought
would help preserve their friendships even after leaving the university. These efforts can beinterpreted as increased motivation to get involved in the project.
38

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 25-54

Lack of Motivation: Scheduling Problems and Communication Breakdowns
However, quite a few students recognized their passivity or shyness toward foreigners,
which was pointed out by the American and Bolivian students in the interviews. This wasprobably due to the busy lives of the Japanese and international students as well as physicaldistance of studying on different campuses, and it was challenging to find mutuallyconvenient times for both parties to meet.
Nonetheless, technical problems were not the sole reason for the passivity noted. In
fact, many students revealed uneasiness or puzzlement about being among international
students. One male student said that he did not know what to talk about and that an uneasy
silence prevailed. Moreover, the Japanese students’ high expectations and positive images ofintercultural interactions as fun may have brought about disappointment about face-to-faceinteractions caused by communication breakdowns and lack of common interests.
As the project required the students to spend time and energy on pursuing the project,
the students needed solid commitment to engaging with the project. Those with highmotivation criticized the less-motivated students, whereas the less motivated ones blamed the
motivated students for never helping them assimilate into their closely-knit community. One
outcome of this constraint was that six of the 13 participants in 2019 showed reluctance toengage in the project in 2020 after some communication breakdowns. Of the six withdrawers,
four had no prior overseas or intercultural experience.

Zoom Interactions in Spring 2020 and Face-to-Face Interactions in Fall 2020
Technical Merits: Resolving Scheduling and Economic Problems
Many students pointed out that practical convenience was the most appealing feature ofZoom interactions. Meeting online for 30 minutes over lunch was no burden or obstacle for
either party. These interactions also made it possible to include participants from faraway39

Kyoko Miyazato
A Hybrid Online/Face-to-Face Approach to Intercultural Interactions in a Japanese Education Major University Context

places, such as past international students from the US and a forthcoming exchange student
from Norway. Several students also referred to the economic benefit of needing no primary
tools or money to participate in the Zoom events. Thus, OIE turned out to be an effective
alternative for involving busy Japanese university students in international exchanges.

Educational Merit 1: Improved IT and Project-Planning Skills
OIE also brought about various educational merits. Most Japanese students referred to
the need to prepare for Zoom events more carefully than for face-to-face events. One reason isa lack of technical skills needed to use Zoom effectively. When this project began in Spring
2020, most Japanese students were unfamiliar with Zoom. In response, some pairs conductedrehearsals before their planned events, assuming that technical problems might occur due totheir unfamiliarity with Zoom operations and functions, such as sharing files and trying out
breakout sessions.
The students carefully prepared content as well, including PowerPoint slides to show
online to the participants. They argued that messages on the screen tend to be flat unless thecontent of the events attracted participants’ attention. Thus, the students needed to resort tovarious devices in order to create effective visuals by adding appealing images. Moreover, theJapanese students carefully organized the online events with exciting topics, presuming thatonline activities include little movement or action, thus potentially making the events
somewhat dull. Several pairs tried to add physical movement or actions to the activities. One
pair planned the “object-hunting race” so as to introduce and show objects with names
starting with a specific letter or Japanese syllable within a maximum traveling time of oneand-half minutes from their house. In one scene, the Norwegian student brought a huge
popcorn machine from her kitchen for the task of introducing an item whose name started
with either the letter p or one of the Japanese pa, pi, pu, pe, or po syllables. Another Japanese
student showed a katori-senko (anti-mosquito incense) as an example of an item starting with40

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 25-54

the letter k or one of the ka, ki, ku, ke, or ko syllables in Japanese. As both the popcorn
machine and anti-mosquito incense were culturally new to the students from different
cultures, explanations of what they were and why they are present in traditional homes
became a learning experience about each other’s daily lives and cultures.
Since the students recognized physical distance and two-dimensional displays as
demerits of simultaneous online interactions, they worked to make the exchanges joyful andfruitful through creativity and problem-solving skills in order to attract participants’ attention.
In sum, the careful planning and student-initiated rehearsing involved in staging the events
demonstrated their strong motivation to make the interactions successful as well as
possibilities for online intercultural exchanges as an effective learning approach given goodtask design, careful preparation, and technical skills.

Educational Merit 2: Incorporating Learning Experiences and Collaborative Activities
The Japanese students emphasized the significance of incorporating learning experiences
into their events. The students also referred to the necessity of providing academic input:
We should make our events into learning opportunities not only for the international students but
also for ourselves…. We came to discover Japanese culture by introducing it to the international
students. We also chose topics related to our daily lives to induce active discussions and so learnsomething new together. More in-depth discussions reduced the psychological distance between us.

This comment supports Eisenchlas & Trevaskes’ (2007) suggestion of establishingcommon ground for both parties so that students can focus on features of interest to them andidentify interactions with broader topics. They further suggest involving international students
in the events and incorporating their opinions at the planning and executing stages so that
communication may be enjoyed in both directions. One pair, which included the Norwegianstudent, who was forced to postpone her studies in Japan due to the COVID pandemic,
offered an event called “Discover Norway.” Another pair conducted a collaborative English
online lesson with an American exchange student. Thus, following some events conducted by
the Japanese students only, some of them realized that collaborative activities involving the41

Kyoko Miyazato
A Hybrid Online/Face-to-Face Approach to Intercultural Interactions in a Japanese Education Major University Context

international students brought about greater accomplishment and friendships and helped
bridge the language and cultural gaps separating them psychologically from one another.

Educational Merit 3: Building Friendships and Cooperation among Members
All the Japanese students in this study experienced roles as organizers and MCs for outof-class events. Even shy students who were unwilling to appear front stage had to engage inthe task at least once a semester and thus gained a sense of achievement from the challenges:
I learned the importance of cooperation through this project. Some are good at creating a goodatmosphere, but others are not. Some special talent is necessary to become a good MC, but anyone
can become an adequate MC with a supportive audience. We helped one another to compensate forour shortcomings. Other Japanese students supported the organizers from the back. This kind ofbackstage support is indispensable for a Zoom event like this.

Several students also reported their appreciation of the cooperative and supportive
attitudes of the exchange students. As a result, the Japanese students constantly paid attention
to the international students’ language barriers, adding hiragana (phonetic) versions of kanji
characters to online slides and using repetition. Thankful for the international students’ support,
some Japanese students came to sympathize with the international students’ situation:
Our pair planned an Online Bus Tour of Japan to entertain our international students. I’m sure they
all wanted to go and visit Japanese tourist spots. This must be one of their reasons for coming toJapan. We felt so bad for them with the timing of the COVID crisis, so we wanted to reduce theirfrustration at having to stay home and to make them happy… Some of the international students
didn’t have high Japanese skills, so we decided to provide them with an online Bilingual Bus Tourwith one of us acting as a Japanese tour guide and the other as an English one.

The students’ recognition of online interactions as handy but complex interaction tools
led them to carefully plan and execute activities, establishing rapport and friendships among
seminar members and their international counterparts. In the next section, the further
outcomes of the online interactions in this project acting as anxiety relief and reducing various
types of linguistic, cultural, and psychological barriers will be discussed.

Motivational Merit 1: Reducing Language Barriers with Half-Scripted Scenarios
The bilingual bus tour event mentioned above ultimately led to greater confidence in
42

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 25-54

their English communicative skills. One student responded:
I’ve learned English for exams, but I felt I was using English in authentic conversational situations.
When the international students understood my prepared English explanations, I got excited and got
motivated. I know I can’t respond in English smoothly, but I came to communicate with them inEnglish with my ready scenario.

In fact, many students pointed out the advantages of online interactions in lowering thelanguage barriers, saying that online exchanges allowed them time to reflect and plan theirutterances and procedures before the online interactions. Of course, some utterances in the
online interactions also had to be impromptu, just as in face-to-face interactions, but thestudents with little confidence in English communicative skills felt a sense of accomplishment
and satisfaction in using the target language with ready-made English scenarios. This implies
that face-to-face interactions force participants to respond in the target language on the spot,
thus potentially creating communication breakdowns and deterioration in their motivation.
Thus, because online interactions induced careful preparation, including ready-madeEnglish scenarios or prepared utterances, the students with little confidence in English skills
overcame language-related anxiety. However, in direct contact, all communication issimultaneous, which may be too high a hurdle for the less confident students to conquer.

Motivational Merit 2: Diminishing Cultural Barriers to Nonverbal Pressure
The students recognized the challenges involved in receiving online verbal and nonverbal messages adequately. They felt anxious about a lack of pragmatic information on thescreen, which prevented them from understanding their counterparts’ utterances correctly:
I overreacted and nodded more often online than in face-to-face interactions to avoid giving cold
impressions of me to the international students. Online silence gives much colder messages than in
direct interactions. Our seminar classmates understood the tendency well, and they all overreacted.

However, some Japanese students mentioned that the online exchanges weremanageable pragmatically or even beneficial because all the non-verbal cues except facial
expressions were blocked on the Zoom screen, which made them concentrate on listening to
the components of verbal statements. One student elaborated such merits as follows:43

Kyoko Miyazato
A Hybrid Online/Face-to-Face Approach to Intercultural Interactions in a Japanese Education Major University Context

Interacting with foreigners face-to-face was really threatening for me because all the unspoken
messages or pressure coming from my counterparts were transmitted through the air. We alreadyhave language anxiety, which often results in communication breakdowns, but we are also exposedto the hidden pressure and tense mood of meeting foreigners. This creates an alien atmosphere withdifferent non-verbal messages. The fear and anxiety overwhelmed me. But in OIE, all the negative
messages were blocked on the screen. We were physically apart from one another, and only
minimum non-verbal messages such as facial expressions were shown on the screen. They are so dry
or unreal that I didn’t feel scared of them. I could also concentrate on English sounds, so it was easierto understand them even if they spoke English.

Another student also analyzed how the two-dimensional display helped themconcentrate on listening to the utterances only:
In actual face-to-face interactions, we see many other things while listening to the conversation. All
the distractors are blocked on Zoom, so we can pay attention to the sounds only. Maybe we see
fundamental facial expressions, but we don’t get detailed nonverbal messages from the screen.
That’s why we don’t have to get tense on Zoom.

One student also referred to a pragmatic merit of the approach, arguing that the time
limit in Zoom interactions covered up uneasiness about finishing a conversation:
Saying goodbye to foreigners properly was always a big concern for me. I didn’t know how to finish
our conversation smoothly in English. There is a long silence, and finally, I say goodbye, but both ofus always feel awkward. But in our Zoom sessions, the closing time was set, and we only had 30
minutes. We say, “Too bad. We need to finish now” at one o’clock. It was so easy, and people
accepted the timing in any situation.

Thus, the apparent disadvantages of online intercultural exchanges as two-dimensional
unreal communication tools were perceived as advantages by the shy Japanese students
suffering from anxiety toward language and cultural barriers. Since the beginning stage of theinteractions seems crucial in sustaining passive students’ motivation to involve themselves inintercultural interactions, online intercultural exchanges effectively reduced their anxieties
and boosted their continuing willingness to challenge the barriers.

Motivational Merit 3: Overcoming Fear among Students without Intercultural Experience
Among the 25 Japanese participants, only three had frequent intercultural contacts withforeigners in their private lives. One of the three students showed disappointment with thelack of use of the target language in this project, complaining that the language used in
FINFID was primarily Japanese. However, students without prior intercultural experience
noted major changes in their attitudes and behaviors toward cross-cultural learning through44

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 25-54

the project. One student with lower English skills clarified such progress as follows:
I was fearful of foreigners. When I saw them in town, I was hoping they’d never talk to me. I know I
was sending them the message, “Never talk to me, even in Japanese.” I just didn’t know how to deal
with them and how to respond to them. I wasn’t interested in foreign countries until my junior year. I
know I’m majoring in English, but I was hopeless and lacked self-confidence in English. Now I
know I can respond to them without any problem. I want to go to places like Norway, Indiana, andAustralia because I want to meet the international students I met in FINFID.

Another student without overseas experience elaborated on her feelings as follows:
I entered this university expecting international exchanges, but the hurdles involved in contacting
foreigners were too high for me. I wasn’t bold enough to mingle with them on my own initiative. But
with the help of FINFID, I overcame these hurdles and realized that we don’t need much courage toenjoy communication on simple everyday topics.

The confidence in intercultural contacts and empathy toward foreigners they gained
from the Zoom interactions ultimately resulted in the self-initiated volunteer activity ofhelping foreign students in the local Acculturation Center:I was moved to see the little kids studying hiragana so hard. Because they didn’t understandJapanese at all, I tried to draw pictures, I used my poor English, I made gestures, and I did
everything I could to make myself understood. When they understood my messages, they gave me a
big smile. I wanted to do anything to help and entertain them. I ran and skipped ropes with them. We
laughed together, and I realized we could understand each other with limited language skills because
we are the same humans. Now that I got accustomed to young foreign children, I can manage adultforeigners, too.

A few students with prior overseas experience are likely to seek target language
learning opportunities rather than simply appreciating cross-cultural encounters, which they
already experienced in their prior contacts and may lead to unsatisfactory results. They thus
regarded the intercultural interactions as tools for improving their target language skills, while
the shy students, who lacked advanced target language skills, and those with little or nointercultural experience (the majority) gained a deeper understanding of intercultural learning
as well as greater self-confidence in dealing with foreigners. It seems that they succeeded in
substantial―as opposed to superficial―meaning making in intercultural learning, which alsobrought about behavioral and cognitive modifications and identity formation.
In conclusion, for the shy Japanese students, the hybrid form of Zoom interactions at
the outset and moving toward face-to-face interactions was effective in gradually developing
their self-confidence, appropriate cultural identity, and positive attitudes as well as facilitating

45

Kyoko Miyazato
A Hybrid Online/Face-to-Face Approach to Intercultural Interactions in a Japanese Education Major University Context

other technical skills needed to lessen the language, cultural, and psychological barriers.

Table 3
Summary of Barriers to Intercultural Interactions
Barriers to intercultural interactions

Face-to-Face – 2019Technical barriers

Hybrid – 2020

A lot

Scheduling problems✔

Physical distance✔

Economic burden✔

Moderate

IT skills✔ But useful for the future

Two-dimensional representation✔ Flat message, need for creativity

Need for careful preparation✔

Language barriers

A lot

Reduced

Impromptu utterances✔

Reduced with half-scripted scenarios

Understanding target language✔

✔ But clearer due of limited
nonverbal distractor

Cultural barriers

A lot

Non-verbal pressure✔

Pragmatic cue: Timing to finish✔

Psychological barriers✔ But only facial expressions

A lot

Uneasiness, puzzlement, fear✔

Tension✔

Reduced

ReducedBlocked on screen

Discussion
In the intercultural interactions conducted face-to-face in 2019, most students
commented that they found the project useful and that parts of their ICC improved. Although
the assessment was based on their impressionistic judgments, it can be concluded that some
improvement was achieved, as seen in their more profound understanding of the international
students’ difficulties, increased appreciation of cultural differences, and attitude changes suchas greater tolerance in speaking simple Japanese at a slow pace. Despite a generalappreciation of the project and its outcomes, some of the host students’ lack of motivation to46

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 25-54

participate in out-of-class events became apparent, implying that the face-to-face project in2019 was not influential enough for some Japanese students to be self-directive. For the lessmotivated students, their busy schedule and shyness derived from language and culturalbarriers were two main demotivating factors in 2019.
In contrast, the online interaction using Zoom in Spring 2020 made it possible forparticipants to interact with one another smoothly even though they studied on different
campuses. It also enabled participants from overseas to attend the events, and the preparatory
adaptation to the target culture and language and friendship formation became possible for
future international students. Moreover, the online approach in 2020 developed students’various skills and reduced linguistic, cultural, and psychological barriers for the novice
students taking part in intercultural interactions thanks to the limited tension due to semiplanned scenarios, two-dimensional screen blocking distracting non-verbal cues, and careful
preparation with creative planning.
Following a series of online interactions, which made the students accustomed tointercultural exchanges followed by real direct contacts in Fall 2020, the Japanese students
longed for face-to-face interactions with the international students. In this sense, online
intercultural exchanges in 2020 effectively motivated the more timid Japanese students tomeet international students face-to-face as the first step in forming comfortable relationships.
The participants’ increased self-confidence in challenging language and culturalbarriers ultimately led to the recognition of language minorities in Japan. By working withyounger foreigners, they also discovered the importance of spending time together without
paying undue attention to differences in language or culture and realizing the common groundevery person shares with others. Especially for the shy Japanese students who felt pressure todeal with adult international students, associating with international students of a younger age
was a preparatory stage to reducing their anxiety toward foreigners of their own age.
Furthermore, the OIE experiences brought about additional educational outcomes and47

Kyoko Miyazato
A Hybrid Online/Face-to-Face Approach to Intercultural Interactions in a Japanese Education Major University Context

personal development such as creative planning, careful preparation, pertinent problemsolving skills, cooperative attitudes, and friendship with international students. Although they
admitted that the advantages of face-to-face interactions are so substantial that OIE cannot
fully replace them, most participants, especially students new to intercultural exchanges,
valued the advantages of OIE. Thus, it can be said that the hybrid use of actual and remoteinteractions decreased the local students’ fear and increased their confidence levels.

Conclusion and Suggestions
The COVID-19 crisis, which prevented the students in this study from having in-person
contacts in Spring 2020, coincided with trying online interactions as a substitute and turned
out to be an alternative approach to intercultural interactions. Interacting remotely at the
beginning of friendship formation followed by in-person contacts compensated for the
disadvantages of face-to-face intercultural exchanges caused mainly by the language andpragmatic barriers some shy Japanese university students without prior interculturalexperience faced. In brief, it could be said that their cognitive skills and cultural sensitivity
were enriched, and the course objectives were met in the form of direct and online
involvement through experiential learning to the degree that the interactions modified theirattitudes and actions, especially thanks to the hybrid use of both formats.
Multiculturalism and globalism have been proceeding rapidly in Japanese schools, andthe development of ICC for teachers has been a crucial goal of pre-service teacher training.
Considering that teachers’ attitudes toward multiculturalism and intercultural understanding
affect students’ sense of internationalization, intercultural experiences and skills should begiven greater value in pre-service teacher education. Specifically, OIE has shown solid
educational potential for developing ICC domestically thanks to its benefit of virtual mobility,
which helps resolve scheduling problems, physical distance, and economic burden.
Turning to specific suggestions for improving a tendency toward cultural inwardness
48

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 25-54

among education major Japanese students, we should consider the constraints built into theirbusy academic schedules. As shown in the literature review above, these students need tofulfill various requirements in order to gain a teacher certificate. As a result, it is difficult for
students to find time for extensive overseas study during their four years in college undercurrent pre-service teacher training programs. Even if they wish—and can afford—topostpone their graduation to attend extensive overseas study programs, such overseas
experience is not adequately valued by local education authorities in prefectural screening
exams for hiring full-time tenure-track certificated teachers.
According to MEXT (2020), only fourteen prefectural boards of education offer a gap
year system whereby applicants who passed the screening test can postpone the start of theiremployment to attend graduate school overseas, although quite a few prefectural boards ofeducation offer the gap year system to those who wish to study in graduate schools in Japan.
Given that studying in a graduate school overseas for degree credit purposes is enormously
challenging for pre-service teachers in elementary and secondary schools, the gap year systemshould be also applied to other forms of extensive overseas stay, including learning inlanguage schools and doing educational volunteer work overseas.
Moreover, some students’ primary or even sole purpose for taking part in theintercultural interactions offered by the FINFID project was to develop their target language
skills. Although it is understandable that language learners should enjoy its outcomes, such
utilitarian intentions could affect the counterparts’ feelings, and friendships may not develop
appropriately. As seen in the students’ responses, the images of intercultural exchange forsome Japanese students are related to English-speaking people or the West. Fostering morebalanced and relativistic views of intercultural interactions is another challenge to be met.
We have to accept that international students on campus will not automatically engage
in intercultural exchanges and contact with local students in most Japanese university settings.
Nonetheless, we cannot deny that international students on campus are a vital resource for49

Kyoko Miyazato
A Hybrid Online/Face-to-Face Approach to Intercultural Interactions in a Japanese Education Major University Context

providing local students with opportunities for intercultural experiences domestically. MEXT
(2012) suggests that Japanese teacher education programs avail themselves of the skills
offered by foreigners and international students living in Japan in order to cultivate
prospective teachers’ intercultural communicative competence domestically. With educational
supervision of semi-structured intercultural friendship formation by teachers
and―ideally―institutional commitment and involvement, we can lead Japanese students tothe intercultural arena without physical mobility with the hybrid use of face-to-face andvirtual interactions for building understanding and skills necessary for present and future
globalized classrooms in Japan.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the participants of this study for their cooperation and the threeanonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions. I also appreciate Dr. Paul Bruthiaux for
stylistic improvements to this paper.

References
Bennett, M. J. (2009). Defining, measuring, and facilitation intercultural learning: A
conceptual introduction to the intercultural education double supplement. Taylor &Francis.
Brebner, L. H. (2008). Intercultural interactions in a New Zealand university: Pakeha andAsian perspectives. Paper presented at ISANA International Conference, Auckland.
Council on Promotion of Human Resource for Globalization Development. (2011).
Sangakukan niyoru global jinzai no ikusei notameno senryaku H.23.4.28. [Industrygovernment-academia strategies for fostering globalized human resources--- April 28,
2011, Heisei 23]. Retrieved August 2, 2021, from https://www.mext.go.jp/component

50

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 25-54/a_menu/education/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile /2011/06/01/1301460_1.pdf, Tokyo:
Prime Minister’s Office.
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a
student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education,
10, 241-266.
De Wit, H. (2016). Internationalisation and the role of online intercultural exchange. In R.
O’Dowd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice(pp. 69-82). Routledge.
Eisenchlas, S. & Trevaskes, S. (2007). Developing intercultural communication skills throughintergroup interaction. Intercultural Education, 18, 5, 413-425.
Elsey, B., & Kinnell, M. (1990). Introduction, In M. Kinnell (Ed.), The learning experiencesof overseas students (pp. 1-11). The Society for Research into Higher Education &Open University Press.
Guth, S. (2016). Online intercultural exchange in Europe---State of the art and implications
for the future. In R. O’Dowd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Online intercultural exchange:
Policy, pedagogy, practice (pp. 83-99). Routledge.
Guth, S. & Helm, F. (Eds.). (2010). Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacies andintercultural learning in the 21st Century. Peter Lang.
Immigration Services Agency of Japan (2021). Reiwa 2nenmatu genzai niokeru zairyuu
gaikokujinnsu nitsuite. [The number of foreign residents in Japan as of the end of Year
Reiwa 2nd]. Retrieved August 2, 2021, from www.moj.go.jp/isa/publications/press/
nyuukokukanri04 _000 18.html: Tokyo, Tokyo: Immigration Service Agency of Japan.
Iwata, Y. (2014). Kyouin yousei kyouiku no guro-baruka nikansuru cyousano gaiyou. [Asummary of research on globalization in teacher education]. Tokyo Gakugei Daigaku
jyuten kenkyuuhi (2013 nenndo) global na shiyawo ikuseisuru kyouin yousei program51

Kyoko Miyazato
A Hybrid Online/Face-to-Face Approach to Intercultural Interactions in a Japanese Education Major University Context

to sono uneitouno arikatani kansuru kaihatsukenkyu houkokusho. Tokyo Gakugei
University Teacher Training and Curriculum Development Center, 3-5.
Izumimoto, C. & Iwasaka, Y. (2016). Kyouin yousei daigaku niokeru gurobarukani
rendoshita kokunaigakusei to ryugakusei no kyousyu niyoru gengo bunka kyouiku[Collaborative language/ culture education between international and home students
engaging in globalization]. Jisedai Kyouin Yousei Center Kennkyuu Kiyou, 2, 47-57.
Kato, Y. (2009). Ibunkakan nouryoku wo hagukumu ibunka training no kenkyu－Koutou
kyouiku niokeru ibunka training jissenno mondai to kaizen ni kansuru ichikousatsu[Intercultural training for developing intercultural competence]. Jinai Daigaku Kenkyu
Kiyou, 8, 13-21.
Kawanabe, K. (2006). Ibunkarikai kyouiku niokeru jissenteki approach no kanousei[Possibility of practical approach in intercultural understanding education]. Bulletin ofCenter for Educational Research and Development, 15, 53-60.
Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of research.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Kojima, N., Uchino, T., Isobe, N., Takada, J., Nihonmatsu, M., Okamoto, Y., Miyake, N.,
Kamito, R., Yashiki, T. & Yosihara, S. (2015). Nihonjin daigakusei no kokusai kouryu
nikansuru ishiki cyousa: Uchimuki shikou to kokusai kouryu ishi no kankei [Inwardoriented Japanese students and international exchange]. Hiroshima University Hoken
Kanri Center Sougou Hoken Kagaku, 31, 35-42.
Lewis, L. H. & Williams, C. J. (1994). Experiential learning: Past and present. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 62, 5-16.
Lewis, T. & O’Dowd, R. (2016). Introduction to online intercultural exchange and thisvolume. In R. O’Dowd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Online intercultural exchange: Policy,
pedagogy, practice (pp. 1-20). Routledge.
MEXT. (2011). Kyouin saiyou touno kaizen nitsuite [Improvements to teacher recruitment].
52

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 25-54

Retrieved December 31, 2019 from: http: //www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/senkou/
1329308.htm. Tokyo: MEXT.
MEXT. (2012). Kyoushoku katei no shitu no hosyotou nikansuru working group (daiyonkai)haifushiryou shiryou1 kyouinyousei katei no globalka taiou nikansuru kentou jikou
nitsuite. [Report of the fourth working group meeting concerning quality control overteacher training programs, Handout 1 on how to cope with globalism in pre-service
teacher training]. Retrieved August 1, 2021 from www. mext.go.jp /b_menu /shingi/chousa/shotou /093/093_1 /shiryo/1329283.htm, Tokyo: MEXT.
MEXT. (2017). Heisei 29 nenndo kyoushi no saiyou touno kaizen nikakawaru torikumi jirei[Report on improvements on teacher recruitment in Heisei 29th year]. Retrieved
August 1, 2021 from https://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2017/ 02/17 /1381762_1.pdf, Tokyo: MEXT.
MEXT. (2019). Gaikokujin jidou seito touno tayousei heno taiou. [Support for diversity
dealing with foreign pupils and students] Retrieved August 1, 2021 from https://www.
mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2019/04/2
2/1304738_003.pdf, Tokyo: MEXT.
MEXT. (2020). Reiwa 2 nenndo kyoushi no saiyou touno kaizen nikakawaru torikumi jirei[Report on improvements on teacher recruitment in Reiwa 2nd year]. Retrieved August22, 2021 from https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20200722-mxt_kyoikujinzai01000008797-5.pdf, Tokyo: MEXT.
O’Dowd, R. (2016). Learning from the past and looking to the future of online intercultural
exchange. In R. O’Dowd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Online intercultural exchange: Policy,
pedagogy, practice (pp. 273-293). Routledge.
Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet. (2021). Ryuugakusei 30 mannin keikaku kosshi

53

Kyoko Miyazato
A Hybrid Online/Face-to-Face Approach to Intercultural Interactions in a Japanese Education Major University Context

kennsyou kekka houkoku [Verification result reports on 300,000 International Student
Plan] Retrieved August 22, 2021 from https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/
kyouikusaisei/jikkoukaigi _wg/koutou_wg /dai8/siryou1-3.pdf, Tokyo: Kantei.
Takagi, H. (2009). Internationalisation of undergraduate curricula: The gap between ideas andpractice in Japan. London Review of Education, 7, 1, 31-39.
Tobitate Ryugaku Japan (2021) Data demiru nihon no ryugaku [Data of Japanese students’studying abroad]. Retrieved August 1, 2021, from https://tobitate.mext.go.jp/about/case/, Tokyo: Tobitate Ryugaku Japan and MEXT.
Tokyo Gakugei University Teacher Training and Curriculum Development Center (2014).
Kyoshi kyouiku to globalization (Kyoushi kyouiku jissen kouryu workshop 2013.11.23
Report and relevant documents. [Teacher education and globalization: Reports andrelevant documents of the teacher education workshop on 11.23.2013], Tokyo Gakugei
University.
Ward, C. (2001). The impact of international students on domestic students and hostinstitutions. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Ward, C., Masgoret, A., & Gezentsvey, M. (2009). Investigating attitudes toward
international students: Program and policy implications for social integration andinternational education. Social Issues and Policy Review, 3, 79-102.
Wu, H. Garza, E., & Guzman, N. (2015). International student’s challenge and adjustment tocollege. Education Research International 2015.
Yabuta, Y. (2015) Global jinzai to global mind ikusei ni kansuru ichikousatsu [A study on
fostering “globally competent human resources” and global mind]. Bulletin of Seisen
Jogakuin College, 34, 53-62.
Yogi, M. (2009). ICT enkaku kouryu wo tooshita kokusai rikai [ICT teleconference andglobal mind]. Ryuukyu Daigaku Kyouiku Gakubu Kiyou, 74, 69-87.

54

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 55-83

A Self-Worth Perspective of Japanese First-Year Junior High SchoolStudents’ Attitudes Towards Studying English1

Adrian Leis
Miyagi University of Education

Abstract
In this qualitative study, the attitudes of 159 first-year Japanese junior high school students
towards studying English were investigated from the perspective of the self-worth theory.
Students were required to write three essays about how they would react under hypotheticalcircumstances in which their feelings of self-worth might be threatened. The contents of thestudents’ essays were analyzed and matched with quadrants of Covington’s (1992)
Quadripolar Model of Achievement Motivation. Although a clear conclusion could not bereached, the results did indicate that few students could be described as optimists in theirEnglish studies. Pedagogical implications to increase the number of students with optimistic
views of their English studies will also be discussed. The results of this study and theimplications discussed within will be especially useful for junior high school teachers,
university professors involved in language education, and university pedagogy students
seeking for insights to what drives junior high school students to study English.

Keywords: L2 learning motivation, self-worth theory, achievement motivation

Students in Japan’s English as a foreign language (EFL) environment have developed areputation as being relatively unwilling to take risks in their studies. Students appear to be
overconcerned with the grammatical accuracy of their linguistic output and too shy to raise
their hands to ask questions in class (Harumi, 2011). Japanese students’ seemingly negative55

Adrian Leis
A Self-Worth Perspective of Japanese First-Year Junior High School Students’ Attitudes Towards Studying English

attitudes towards language learning have been discussed from various theories of motivation.
However, despite a plethora of research in psychology, the amount of literature related to theself-worth theory in the EFL context of Japan is almost non-existent. In this study, I focus on
the self-worth theory and aim to understand why Japanese students react the way they dowhen faced with situations in which they feel they may fail. It is hoped that the results of thestudy and discussions within this paper will be useful for language teachers, both current andprospective, as they search for ways to increase their students’ love of English.

Motivation Research in Japan
There has been an enormous amount of research on a global scale related to what drives
humans to achieve their goals, whether those goals be related to sports, academia, or personal
relationships. The field of English education in Japan is no exception, with second language(L2) learning motivation being one of the most popular topics appearing at conferences and injournals related to language learning and teaching. Researchers have focused their studies on
L2 learning motivation in Japan from various fields, such as the self-determination theory,
willingness to communicate, the L2 motivational self system, and demotivation. A common
theme appearing in the results of these studies is the passiveness of Japanese learners andseemingly lack of drive in their language learning.
The self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 1985) is perhaps the theory of
motivation focused upon most comprehensively in second language acquisition (SLA)
studies. It advocates that humans’ drive in their chosen fields becomes more intrinsic when
they maintain strong feelings of three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competency, andrelatedness. Much of the SDT research in the Japanese EFL context has been based on theearly work by Hiromori (2006). Researchers have suggested that feelings of autonomy in
English studies are lacking within Japanese students (Nakata, 2010), which may be due to ateacher-centered approach seen in many Japanese junior high schools and senior high schools.
56

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 55-83

Some studies have considered techniques to call upon in the language classroom,
especially those that trigger a sense of autonomy, to increase students’ intrinsic motivation.
Tanaka (2010), for example, encouraged self-reflection and self-regulation in students’language learning. These techniques, along with feedback given during group-work sessions
over a five-week period, saw heightened levels of intrinsic motivation among the students.
The effects of vocabulary size on intrinsic motivation in extensive reading (Tanaka, 2017a)
and in demotivating learning environments (Tanaka, 2017b) have also been discussed within
the Japanese EFL context. Although Mizumoto and Takeuchi (2009) presented various
effective strategies for increasing the intrinsic motivation of Japanese EFL learners towards
vocabulary learning, such as explicit vocabulary instruction, classroom teachers are stillsearching for more classroom techniques that effectively move students towards being more
intrinsically motivated. More practical research clearly needs to be conducted in this field.
The work of Yashima (e.g., 2002) has led research in the field of willingness tocommunicate (WTC). She suggested that Japanese students’ international posture––theirattitudes towards the international community––acted as a clear indicator of students'
willingness to communicate in the second language (L2) and, in turn, their motivation to learn
English and their proficiency. Anxiety has also been discussed as having an apparent effect––both positive and negative––on Japanese students’ WTC (Noro, 2013). Factors that have been
noted as helpful in increasing Japanese students’ WTC included an increased sense of agency,
a feeling of obligation to speak, and being challenged (Sato, 2019, 2020).
Another viewpoint of motivation that has received much attention over the past two
decades is the L2 Motivational Self System (e.g., Dörnyei, 2009), which describes language
students’ drive to learn from three components: the ideal L2 self (i.e., the optimal future
image of oneself as an L2 speaker); the ought-to L2 self (i.e., the pressure one feels fromexternal expectations); and L2 learning experience (i.e., the influences of teachers, family,
others, and academic institution environment).
57

Adrian Leis
A Self-Worth Perspective of Japanese First-Year Junior High School Students’ Attitudes Towards Studying English

The L2 Motivational Self System has received much attention in Japan, but manystudies have demonstrated that Japanese students struggle to create vivid ideal L2 self images.
Yashima (2009), for example, suggested Japanese learners’ attitudes towards studying
English to be highly extrinsic; the focus of their studies appeared to be more on passing tests
than realizing visions of themselves speaking fluently in the future. Konno (2014), whoargued that there was a lack of suggestions of techniques for language teachers to call upon tostrengthen students’ ideal L2 self images, suggested strong positive relationships between
feedback based on concepts of the SDT (i.e., autonomy, competency, relatedness) and the L2
motivational self system. Over the 10-week intervention period, clear trends were observed inheightening the clarity of students’ ideal and ought-to L2 self images, as well as statisticallysignificant increases in most of the concepts behind the SDT. The importance of having vivid
future self images is backed up in a qualitative study spanning four years by Cooke (2021),
whose findings “highlighted the importance of the formulation of a robust future self and themaintenance of this vision over time to sustain motivation for the L2” (p. 35).
A further area of motivation that, rather worryingly, has been widely investigated inJapan is L2 learning demotivation. So apparent is the dwindling drive of Japanese students tostudy English that Ushioda (2013) claims, “it is no exaggeration to say that nearly all theleading empirical research on demotivation in foreign language learning currently derives
from Japan” (p. 5). In addition to the pressures of high-stakes exams––such as high school
and university entrance exams––contributing to Japanese students’ weakening will to study
English, other factors have also been proven as demotivating, such as lack of intrinsic
motivation (Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009), comparisons of oneself and other students who appear to
be more highly proficient in English (Falout et al., 2009), and boredom due to both the subject
itself and instructors’ teaching styles (Kikuchi, 2019). Despite boredom being seen as one ofthe principal contributors to L2 demotivation, it is yet to receive much attention, with the
exception of a recent study by Nakamura and her colleagues (2021), which, although
58

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 55-83

conducted in the Thai EFL environment, provides many hints for preventing demotivation ofJapanese students.
Despite the amount of literature related to motivation, and lack thereof, in the Japanese
EFL context being quite extensive, very few studies have considered the reasons for Japanese
students’ apparent lack of enthusiasm from the perspective of the self-worth theory. In thisstudy, I aim to help fill this gap by investigating the reasons why Japanese students of English
react the way they do when faced with challenging situations. The principles behind the selfworth theory and what can be gained from researching it may provide valuable hints forlanguage researchers and instructors alike. Like the expectations of Covington (2009) throughthe self-worth theory, I hope that the results and implications from this study will “not only
draw students to their best effort academically, but also increase their willingness to learn andprofit from their learning” (p. 141).

The Self-Worth Theory
The self-worth theory is established on the philosophical ideas that one’s sense of self isthe center of human existence (Covington 1992, 1998; Covington & Beery, 1976) and gives
meaning to how one thinks, how one dreams, and how one behaves (Elliot & Covington,2001). In a simple definition, the self-worth theory advocates that “individuals strive to give
their lives meaning by seeking the approval of others” (Covington, 2009, p. 142); one’s
performances and successes in tasks reflect one’s ability, which subsequently affects one’s
feeling of worth (Beery, 1975). Therefore, if we demonstrate high performance in a particularfield, we feel more confident and worthy as human beings. Conversely, if our performances
are inferior, it results in declining confidence and feelings of self-worth.
The self-worth theory was derived from a response to the need achievement theory(e.g., Atkinson, 1964) and criticisms of the developments by Weiner (1972, 1974). The needachievement theory explains individuals’ motivation as coming from two directions: the drive
59Adrian Leis
A Self-Worth Perspective of Japanese First-Year Junior High School Students’ Attitudes Towards Studying English

to succeed or to avoid failure. Although Atkinson’s model had described these drives from
affective and emotional angles––individuals’ strive for success describes their “capacity toexperience pride in accomplishment” (Atkinson, 1964, p. 214)––Weiner (1972, 1974) focusedon the cognitive aspects of motivation and aimed to interpret how individuals perceive theoutcomes of events and the processes they go through as they seek to interpret their emotions.
The interpretation of Atkinson’s model presented by Weiner (1972, 1974) moved awayfrom an emotional perspective (i.e., the pride felt in success and the shame of failure) to
describing achievement as “a capacity for perceiving success as caused by internal factors,
particularly effort” (Weiner et al., 1971, p. 18). However, the focus on how the amount ofeffort one makes as a dominant factor in one’s success was criticized in some circles, largely
by supporters of the self-worth theory and its principles. They argued that “if a student tries
hard and fails anyway, then attributions typically go to low ability, which consequently––according to the self-worth theory––implies unworthiness” (Covington, 2009, p. 143).
The notion that the harder I try, the more successful I will be may appear as a fitting
guide in studying; many people are brought up with the mentality that practice makes perfect.
However, the focus on effort may present a dilemma, especially after experiencing failure orin circumstances in which we are not confident of being successful. When college students,for example, make decisions about which elective courses to take––simple ones which will beeasy to pass and require little effort or demanding ones which call for much hard work but
from which they will learn a lot––they find themselves in a predicament: Do I place morevalue on effort and improving my ability through high-level courses, or more weight on my
reputation as a talented student who gets high scores? In most cases, the commitment topreserve one’s reputation wins (Cavazza et al., 2015; Covington & Omelich, 1979).
The self-worth theory proposes that as they seek self-acceptance, humans tend to use
two powerful strategies when experiencing failure or are faced with the risk of failure: defense
pessimism (i.e., strategies that allow the individual to prepare for possible negative settings)
60

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 55-83

and self-handicapping (i.e., strategies to divert failure away from the individual’s ability, suchas task avoidance). A third mechanism of the self-worth theory is seen in the individual’s
response to a sense of helplessness. A student’s response to a feeling of helplessness is
displayed by their “attributing failure to insufficient ability, the onset of negative affect andexpectancies, decrements in persistence and performance, and avoidance of subsequent
challenge” (Elliot, 2005, p. 53). Table 1 provides an overview of the traits of individuals
showing high and low defensive pessimism strategies, self-handicapping strategies, andhelplessness. It should be noted that the lower the individuals’ adoptions of strategies are, themore willing they are to take risks.

Table 1
Traits of High and Low Defensive Pessimism, Self-handicapping, and Helplessness
Strategy
Defense Pessimism

Level
High

Trait
 negative outlook about future test results feel that they have lost control of the outcomes of
their effortsLow optimistic about future test results
 interested in improving their own performances
Self-handicappingHigh try to avoid challenging situations
 look for ways to get out of taking on the task until
the last minuteLow thrive on challenges
 always looking for ways to improve
HelplessnessHigh view failure as embarrassing
 give up easily when faced with failureLow view failure as opportunities to learn
 persistent through failures
Note. The above summaries are based on the descriptions given by Norem (2008) (defensive
pessimism), Martin et al. (2003) (self-handicapping), and Elliot (2005) (helplessness).

In addition to the negative commentary related to the cognitive nature of Weiner’s(1972, 1974) interpretation of the need achievement model, a further critique was its bipolar
scale: One would be described as either highly oriented towards success or highly driven to61

Adrian Leis
A Self-Worth Perspective of Japanese First-Year Junior High School Students’ Attitudes Towards Studying English

avoid failure. However, because “individuals can be simultaneously attracted to and repelledby the same task” (Covington, 1998, p. 40), the bipolar model does not consider those whoare both highly success-oriented and high failure avoiding, nor individuals who display low
success orientation and low failure avoidance. Thus, while maintaining the original affective
nature of Atkinson’s need achievement model, Covington (1992) suggested that it may be
more fitting to consider individuals’ motivation in a quadripolar model.

The Quadripolar Model of Achievement Motivation
As an improvement of the bipolar model of need achievement and to overcome thefailure to recognize linking between the forces of success orientation and failure avoidance(Covington, 1992), Covington recommended a Quadripolar Model of Achievement
Motivation (QMAM) that would include the interactions between humans’ fear of failure andfocus on success (Covington, 1992; Covington & Omelich, 1991). As shown in Figure 1, the
QMAM describes four categories in which individuals may fall into: Optimists, Overstrivers,
Self-protectors, and Failure Acceptors.

Figure 1
Covington’s Quadripolar Model of Achievement MotivationLowsuccessorientation

High fear of failure
Self-Protectors
Overstrivers
High self-handicapping
Low self-handicappingHigh defensive pessimism
High defensive pessimism
Low helplessness
Low helplessness
Failure Acceptors
Low self-handicapping
Low defensive pessimism
High helplessness

Optimists
Low self-handicapping
Low defensive pessimism
Low helplessness

Highsuccessorientation

Low fear of failure
Note. The above quadripolar model of achievement motivation is based on Covington’s(1992, p. 40) model with summarized descriptions added from De Castella et al. (2013, p. 53).

62

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 55-83

Optimists
Optimists display the traits of students oriented toward being successful in their chosen
field but do not necessarily show signs of avoiding failure. They are willing to take risks andare resilient to challenges they face as they strive to reach their goals (Covington & Omelich,1991). These students are confident and believe they can achieve anything if they put theirminds to it.
Overstrivers
Overstrivers are highly oriented towards success; they will do anything it takes to avoid
failure. When faced with possibilities of failure, Overstrivers tend to do more than is expectedof them (Thompson & Parker, 2007), running the risk of becoming burnt out. The short-time
benefits may suggest success, but the long-term results may be ominous, both physically andpsychologically (Covington, 1992).
Self-protectors
Self-protectors are those with a high fear of failure but low success orientation. They
are described as those who lack confidence and look for strategies to blame low performanceon their unwillingness to exert effort rather than lack of ability (Martin et al., 2001).
Failure Acceptors
Those in the Failure Acceptors category are the students who, as the name suggests,
have given up and are motivated by neither a drive to succeed nor a fear of failure. Thesestudents tend to come to school with an attitude of “It’s all too difficult for me, so why evenbother?” Among the four quartiles, students described as Failure Acceptors are the least likely
to reach their academic potential (Martin & Marsh, 2003).

Self-Worth Theory Research in SLA
Much research in second language acquisition (SLA) has considered language students’fear of failure while focusing on anxiety, willingness to communicate, and demotivation.
63

Adrian Leis
A Self-Worth Perspective of Japanese First-Year Junior High School Students’ Attitudes Towards Studying English

There has also been a recent trend towards a focus on implicit theories of intelligence (Dweck& Leggett, 1988), or as is more commonly known, mindsets (Dweck, 2006, 2017), bothinternationally (e.g., Lou & Noels, 2016) and in Japan (e.g., Imai, 2020). Implicit theories
describe humans’ beliefs regarding the innateness of intelligence, and recent studies suggest
many techniques for language instructors to call upon that strengthen the belief among theirstudents that their efforts will bring about future success in their learning. However, most ofthese studies have focused on strengthening students’ growth mindsets (i.e., a belief that one
is in charge of their potential). Based on my own studies of mindsets in Japan (e.g., Leis,
2021; Leis et al., 2020), I feel a broader view of Japanese students’ drive to study, especiallyfrom the angle of how students react to face-threatening experiences, is necessary. I believe
the self-worth theory offers this perspective.
One of the few attempts to examine the self-worth theory in SLA was conducted by
Matsuguma (2013), who suggested that introducing the thought of self-compassion in acontent-based language teaching course may be effective in increasing Japanese students’
self-confidence and sense of self-worth. Furthermore, Matsuguma (2013) argued that
introducing the thought of self-compassion may effectively decrease the rate of suicide inJapan, which, disturbingly, had been showing an increasing trend.
Although the QMAM has been investigated in the Japanese schooling system (DeCastella et al., 2013) to validate the QMAM in the Asian context, to my knowledge, noresearch to date has attempted to describe into which quartile of the QMAM Japanese
students tend to fall. This study attempts to fill this gap and elicit ideas about how to help
Japanese EFL students have optimistic views in their studies, even when faced with possible
failure.
This Study
Research Question
In this study, I aimed to answer the following research question: Which quartile of the64JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 55-83

QMAM do Japanese adolescents tend to fall into when it comes to their English studies?
Because the self-worth theory has received such little attention in the field of SLA todate, in this study, I intended to provide a basic overview of Japanese adolescents at one
particular academic institution and their reactions to situations in which they feel they may
fail. I hope the results of this study will act as a springboard to initiate further studies to lookat a broader range of language learners and in more detail. By focusing on junior high school
students, the results will be especially suitable for university professors specializing in
education and university students aiming to become English teachers in the future, as theylook for ways to stimulate a love for English among their students.

Participants
A total of 159 Japanese first-grade junior high school students participated in this study.
The students all attended the same public junior high school in a large city in northeast Japan.
Although it was a public junior high school, which generally anyone can attend, because it
was affiliated with a national university and students were required to take an entrance test,
the school had a reputation as being more academically sound with pupils more focused on
studying for the highly competitive entrance exams in comparison to students at other juniorhigh schools. Thus, it could be said that the students at this school have a reputation as being
decidedly more motivated to study than those at the majority of public junior high schools.
The participants’ ages ranged from 12–13 (m = 12.70; SD = 0.50). There were 79
female and 78 male participants. Two participants chose not to indicate their gender. No
objective tests were conducted to measure students’ English proficiency as part of this study.
However, the students had been taking official English lessons for at least two years atelementary school and reported that they had passed Level Pre-1 (n = 1), Level 2 (n = 6),
Level Pre-2 (n = 12), Level 3 (n = 23), Level 4 (n = 24), or Level 5 (n = 19) in the English
proficiency test run by the Society for Testing English Proficiency in Japan. A total of 74
65

Adrian Leis
A Self-Worth Perspective of Japanese First-Year Junior High School Students’ Attitudes Towards Studying English

participants reported that they had never taken an English proficiency test.
In order to grasp students’ linguistic self-confidence, which I assumed might have an
impact on the students’ feelings of self-worth, I asked the students to describe their English
ability on a scale of 1 (very low) to 10 (very high). Overall, the students’ self-perceived
proficiency (SPP) was intermediate (m = 5.68; SD = 2.22).

Methodology
To measure how the students would react when faced with possible failure, I partiallyreferred to the methodology used by Covington and Omelich (1979) as a guide for the present
study. Covington and Omelich had university students rate hypothetical failures in tests from
affective perspectives and then describe the kind of feedback they would give if they were ina teacher’s role. Assuming it would be unrealistic for junior high school students to imagine
how to give feedback from a teacher’s viewpoint, in my study I had them write essays todescribe how they would react in three circumstances in which they may experience failure.
To my knowledge, no study has previously used this approach to investigating students’feeling of self-worth in language learning environments.
The topics were presented to students in booklets with four sections. Section 1
contained items related to students’ demographics (e.g., age, gender). In Sections 2–4,
students wrote essays in their native language to describe what they imagined doing in facethreatening circumstances. Upon consultation with the students’ regular English teachers, it
was decided that the students’ English proficiency was not high enough to write the essays in
English. Therefore, Japanese was chosen as the language for the tasks.
The students were given five minutes to complete Section 1 and 10 minutes to complete
each of Sections 2–4. They were instructed not to turn the page to the following essay until
told to do so. Including the explanations of the essay topics, overall, the task tookapproximately 45 minutes to complete. See the Appendix for the situations presented to66

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 55-83

students in Japanese with their English translations.

Analyses
After the students completed the essays, I collected the booklets and shuffled them as
not to reflect the order in which students were sitting in the classroom. The paper booklets
were passed to three research assistants who entered the data into an online spreadsheet. Eachessay was read and marked high or low depending on how they fit with the descriptions ofdefensive pessimism, self-handicapping, and helplessness, as was described in Table 1. Basedon each descriptive’s high and low combinations, the students were categorized into one of
the QMAM quartiles. It should be noted that some combinations (e.g., high-high-high) did not
fit any of the quartiles.
The data were then entered into NVivo for qualitative analysis based on an explorationof word frequencies. To avoid the possibility of cherry-picking the words and phrases I had
hoped to see in the students’ essays, the most populous keywords reported by NVivo werefocused upon in the discussion of the results. It should be noted that pre-set regular Japanesestop words in the NVivo software and words occurring in the essay topics (e.g., benkyou [tostudy]) were not included in the exploration of word frequencies or other analyses.

Results and Discussion
First, I calculated the number of students for each high/low combination according to
the students’ essays. The combination of low defensive pessimism, high self-handicapping,and high helplessness was the most populous at 49.06%. This low-high-high sequence,
however, did not adhere to any of the QMAM quartiles. Of the QMAM quartiles, Overstrivers
was the most populous, with 23.26% of the students being described in this way. Less than
one-tenth of the participants could be placed into the Optimist quartile. Table 2 displays thenumbers of students for each combination, their QMAM quartiles, and the self-perceived67Adrian Leis
A Self-Worth Perspective of Japanese First-Year Junior High School Students’ Attitudes Towards Studying English

proficiency (SPP) levels for the students cleanly fitting into one of the QMAM quartiles.
Because I had assumed that SPP might affect the students’ feelings of self-worth, I
conducted a one-way analysis of variance with a Tukey-Kramer Honest Significant
Difference post-hoc test to confirm whether any significant differences existed among thefour groups. The test was not significant, F(3, 60) = 1.93, p = .134. Therefore, I can conclude
that students’ feelings of self-worth were not due to their linguistic self-confidence but otherfactors. I shall now focus on each of the three essays separately to investigate the factors that
affected students’ conduct when faced with the possibility of failure and suggest pedagogicalimplications to increase the number of students in the Optimist quartile.

Table 2
Combinations of Students’ Essays and QMAM Quartiles
Responses
QMAM

H-H-H

H-H-L

H-L-H

H-L-L

L-H-H

L-H-L

L-L-H

L-L-L

None

None

None

None

Overstriver

15
9.43%
N/M

1
< 1%
N/M

1
< 1%
N/M

78
49.06%
N/M

37
23.27%
6.03

FailureAcceptor
10
6.29%
6.20

Optimist

Number
Percentage
SPP

Selfprotector
4
2.52%
7.75

13
8.18%
7.38

Note. n = 159; H: high; L: low; SPP: self-perceived proficiency; N/M: not measured.

Essay 1
Based on the content of Essay 1, a great majority of the students (n = 138; 86.80%)
were described as having low defensive pessimism. A sign of low pessimism was a very
positive result, as it suggests students were not so concerned with comparing their test scoreswith others but more concerned with strategies for improving at the individual level. Two of
the most populous keywords in Essay 1, houhou and shikata (i.e., method, way), appeared infour of the 13 Optimists’ essays (i.e., 32.5%), 17 of the 34 Overstrivers’ essays (i.e., 50%),
and three of the 10 essays written by the Failure Acceptors. These keywords were also seen in
more than a quarter (i.e., 25.64%) of the essays written by students with low-high-high68

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 55-83

combinations. This suggested that these students, especially those described as Optimists,
were placing more importance on the quality of their study time rather than the quantity:
 I think you should find your own study method and use that time in a moremeaningful way. (Optimist; SPP: 8)
 Maybe you didn’t study in the right way? I think there are some things thatyou just can’t learn if you don’t do output and just focus on input work, suchas vocabulary lists (although they are important too). (Optimist; SPP: 3)
 Ask your friends how they study and learn different ways to study fromthem. You can find out how to increase the amount you study, too.
(Overstriver; SPP:7)
It should be noted, however, that when creating this essay topic, it was thought thatinstead of suggesting that the students themselves were getting test scores below average, itwould be sounder from an ethical perspective to create a situation in which the students’friends received below-average scores. It was expected that this would give examples of thekinds of self-talk students go through in this kind of situation. Whether the students would
indeed have the same reactions in cases when they themselves were the ones below the classaverage remains to be seen.
Despite the possible ethical dilemma described above, the results suggested thestudents’ self-talk to be very positive. As a pedagogical implication, it can be said that
because students do not seem to be overly concern with class averages, one might question
the reasoning behind categorizing students as sub-par or not when returning tests. As I havedone in previous studies (Leis, 2021; Leis & Wilson, 2017), I urge teachers to consider
incorporating an idio-comparative marking system when returning tests: a system that does
not give comparisons among students, but rather bases the comparisons with each student’s
individual previous grades. For example, if a student got a score of 60 in a test and her
previous score had been 40, the teacher could write +20 to indicate to the student that she her
69Adrian Leis
A Self-Worth Perspective of Japanese First-Year Junior High School Students’ Attitudes Towards Studying English

score had improved by 20 points. If the teacher simply mentions the class average (e.g., 70),
the above student might lose motivation as she thinks, “I tried really hard, but I am still not as
good as others.” In a similar way, if a student got 75 in such a test and had received a score of
90 in the previous test, the teacher could write −15 to her test score to show that her result hadsignificantly decreased. If the class average is made known to the class, this student may
think, “I did not study as hard this time, but I was still above the class average. That is okay.”
Although I have observed the idio-comparative marking system being successful in increasing
students’ drive to study in classes at junior and senior high school, as well as university,
empirical evidence is still needed to validate its success in increasing motivation over abroader range of students.
Furthermore, as Covington (1992) urges that school is not a place for academic
competition, I call on schools to cease displaying students’ rankings on bulletin boards within
the schools and on report cards. Showing students whether they have improved or not on theirown previous efforts is sufficient. With comparisons among students being seen as a prime
factor for demotivation (Falout et al., 2009), I hope teachers will consider these suggestions intheir academic institutions.

Essay 2
Despite the positive response in Essay 1, a similar pattern was not observed in thesecond essay. When asked whether or not they would raise their hands when they had notunderstood the teacher’s explanation, an overwhelming majority of students (n = 134;
84.28%) indicated that they would not raise their hands. This result might not be surprising
for anyone who has experience teaching in Japanese junior or senior high school EFL
classrooms, as the deafening silence of English classes in Japan is often a topic among
researchers (e.g., Donohue, 1998; Harumi, 1999, 2011). In previous studies, reasons behind
the apparent lack of willingness to participate in classes actively were put down to lack of
70

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 55-83

confidence (Harumi, 2011) and as a strategy to avoid difficult situations that may lead to theembarrassment of making a mistake in front of others in the group (Donohue, 1998; Harumi,
1999, 2011). In the present study, two salient patterns that emerged were related to a fear of
being annoying and causing troubles (i.e., meiwaku; 37 occurrences, 27.61%) for others in theclass, and embarrassment (i.e., hazukashii; 30 occurrences, 22.39%) that they may be the only
one who had not understood: If I raise my hand and say, “I don't know” in front of everyone, I think thepeople around me will be a little annoyed. (Overstriver; SPP:5)
 Since we’re in the middle of the lesson, I’m sure I’d bother the whole class.
So, I’d ask the teacher after class. (Self-protector; SPP:6)
 I would be embarrassed, so try to ask my friends around me secretly. I thinkit’s better for me to mark what I don't understand and do it later because I
would feel embarrassed if I were the only one who didn’t understand, and it
stopped the class. (Overstriver; SPP:7)
Among the responses of the remaining 25 students who indicated that they would raise
their hands, three instances of hazukashii (n = 3) were observed. However, thisembarrassment was directed at problems that might result from not understanding: I would feel embarrassed raising my hand, but it’s a different language in adifferent country, so if I use it without understanding it well, I may not be
understood, or I may say something different from what I want to say to theother person. (Failure Acceptor; SPP:4)
 It’s better to understand the material than to move on without
understanding it, so don't be shy about raising your hand and asking
questions. (Optimist; SPP:8)
The content of the students’ essays suggests that teachers need to consider ways to help
students overcome the embarrassment of raising their hands and assure their students that they71

Adrian Leis
A Self-Worth Perspective of Japanese First-Year Junior High School Students’ Attitudes Towards Studying English

are not causing problems for other students in the class by confirming the content of an
explanation. A pedagogical implication that rises from these factors causing students to
refrain from asking questions is effective praise.
The way teachers praise students can have a tremendous effect on subsequent efforts.
Many teachers seem to feel that their students will be highly motivated when they receive a
thumbs up and “Good job!” Research in the field of motivation suggests otherwise. As
tempting as it might be to say, “Good job!” when students get the correct answer, such praise
for ability has proven to be detrimental for students (Johnston, 2012; Mueller & Dweck,1998). By praising the correct answer, the student might be happy in the short term, but later,when faced with a challenge in which she feels she might not get the correct answer, more
often than not, she will refrain from answering out of concern for getting the wrong answer
and consequently not being praised. Praise focused on students’ success should be avoided, as
it results in children developing “a sense of contingent self-worth—that they are only able,
good, and worthy when they are successful” (Johnston, 2012, p. 39).
Instead, praise could be focused on the processes that students undergo to reach thefinal outcome, whether that be a successful one or not. Examples of praise focusing on
process include, “You must have tried really hard”; and “You found a good way to do it, canyou think of other ways that may also work?” (Kamins & Dweck, 1999, p. 842). Considering
the precision of the timing of when we give praise to the students can also be effective.
Studies have suggested that optimal benefits for students can be achieved when praise andother kinds of feedback are given immediately after the behavior has occurred (Arbel et al.,2017). One way of doing this in regular EFL classes is to give praise such as “Great” or“Thank you” after students have raised their hands but before giving their answers. Suchpraise focuses on the efforts students have made to contribute to the class rather than whether
their answers are correct or not (Leis, 2021).

72

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 55-83

Essay 3In the final essay, the students were asked how they would react to being asked for
directions when their friend who could speak English fluently was nearby. If the students tookcharge of giving directions, it was perceived as low helplessness. On the other hand, if thestudents did not take on the challenge, they were marked as having high helplessness. The
majority of the students in this study indicated that they would prefer their friend give thedirections (n = 97; 61.01%) than giving the directions themselves directions (n = 55; 34.59%)
or doing it together (n = 7; 4.40%). When the essays were read in detail, however, it was
discovered that in many cases, although the students indicated that they would take on thetask of giving directions, they would, in fact, speak Japanese and ask their friend to translate.
In such cases, the students were judged as having high helplessness. The analysis revealed
that almost two-thirds of the participants (i.e., n = 103; 64.78%) were marked as having highhelplessness, and 56 students (i.e., 35.22%) were judged as having low helplessness.
In a similar pattern to the second essay, concerns about causing problems (komaru; 20
instances, 19.42%) and being annoying (meiwaku; 11 instances, 10.68%) stood out as themost populous reasons for not giving directions. Students felt that their English was not goodenough to give the directions successfully, and this would result in the listeners notunderstanding or even going to the wrong place: I was the one who was asked to do it, but I’m not very good at English, so I
might give the wrong directions or answer with strange words or grammar.
This would annoy the person who asked me. (Failure Acceptor; SPP: 5)
 To be honest, if someone were asking for directions, I would want to tellthem myself. But if I couldn’t say it well, they would be in trouble, and it
would take a lot of time for both of us, so I thought it would be better toleave it to my friend. (Failure Acceptor; SPP: 8)
Among the students who indicated that they would give directions, a willingness to take73

Adrian Leis
A Self-Worth Perspective of Japanese First-Year Junior High School Students’ Attitudes Towards Studying English

on the challenge (i.e., chousen suru) and try out (i.e., yattemiru) was a commonly seen theme
throughout the essays (n = 15, 26.79%):
 This would be a good opportunity for me to use English. I want tocommunicate with foreigners with my own skills. If I made a mistake, I
would ask my friend for some advice after. I would be curious to try it.
(Optimist; SPP: 8)
 It’s not every day that I get the chance to talk to a foreigner, and I want toknow how well I can use the English I know. (Optimist; SPP: 6)
With a willingness to try out their English based on their curiosity of how successful
they would be, the importance of leadership in group work is a pedagogical implication thatcan be discussed here. Over the last few years, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology (MEXT, 2019) has been encouraging teachers in Japan to use a morecommunicative approach to their teaching. This focus on communication also reflects recent
thoughts regarding learner agency. Whereas previously, learner agency was based around theindividual, in the past decade, there has been a shift towards more collaboration between
individuals and among group members (Seligman & Seligman, 2019).
Communication and collaboration are seen as critical parts of education. Therefore,
including group work in regular English classes will be an essential part of helping students
develop the courage to take on challenges without relying on others, even if they feel theirEnglish proficiency is lacking. In addition, as Johnston (2012) suggested, when using group
work in the classroom, it may be beneficial to regularly rotate leadership roles, ensuring theless confident and more introverted students are given as many opportunities to be in controlof the group as those with higher self-confidence.

Answer to the Research Question
In this study, I sought to discover which quartile of the QMAM Japanese adolescents74

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 55-83

tend to fall into when it comes to their English studies. Like many studies, it is difficult tocome to a clear conclusion, especially when one considers that 59.75% of the sample (i.e., 95
students) did not have a high-low combination that cleanly fit into one of the QMAM
quartiles. However, what can be said based on the evidence, is that there were few Optimists.
Furthermore, almost a quarter of the participants (i.e., 23.27%) were described as
Overstrivers, suggesting a prevailing educational environment in which many students may belikely to experience burnout in their English studies.

Conclusions
In this study, a concerning pattern has been discussed in that less than one in 10 of thejunior high school students in the sample could be described as Optimists in their English
studies according to the QMAM.
Like any academic investigation, however, this study is limited by numerous factorsthat may have influenced the results. First, this study was conducted only once. Therefore,
there is a possibility that various circumstances (e.g., students’ moods or health) on the day
the study was conducted may have affected the results. In future studies, it may be beneficial
to consider a more longitudinal design, in which essays are written several times over an
extended period.
Second, the number of participants in this qualitative study was relatively high. This
number might be viewed as being too high to gain a deep understanding at the individuallevel, which is often the principal objective of conducting a qualitative study. In futurestudies, reducing the number of participants and including interviews and classroom
observations may bring about a clearer understanding of the reasons why Japanese EFL
students behave the way they do in these situations.
Third, the data analysis was conducted alone by the author. It is possible that thecommon words and phrases reported by NVivo could have been interpreted in various ways.
75

Adrian Leis
A Self-Worth Perspective of Japanese First-Year Junior High School Students’ Attitudes Towards Studying English

In future studies, it may be more beneficial to use a larger research team to discuss otherpossible interpretations of the data.
Finally, the students in this study were somewhat highly motivated in their English
studies and thus may not reflect the broader description of Japanese adolescents. The selfworth theory is yet to receive much attention in the Japanese EFL context, but I feel that withmore studies over a broad range of ages, proficiencies, and experience with the English
language, I may be able to hone in on a better conclusion.
The weaknesses described above do, of course, illustrate the limitations of this paper,
but, just as importantly, they also provide ideas for future directions in this approach to
studying human motivation, which has been neglected for far too long in the field of SLA.
Creating a classroom environment in which students are willing to take risks and be fearlessin the face of failure is not easy, especially when it comes to learning second and otherlanguages. I believe that the results of this study and the pedagogical implications suggested
within this paper (i.e., refraining from giving class averages and using an idio-comparative
marking system, careful use of praise, and well-managed groupwork) will help junior highschool English teachers––both those already in the classroom and those currently studying atuniversity––to have a clearer understanding of their students’ actions when faced withpossible failure and the reasons why they react in those ways. With further research, a better
understanding of techniques to reduce the fear of failure can be achieved.

Note
1.

This paper is a revised version of the manuscript presented at the 2021 JACETInternational Convention.
Acknowledgements

Many thanks go to the teachers and students who gave up their valuable class time to write
the essays analyzed in this study. I would also like to show my gratitude to Simon Cooke for
76

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 55-83

his comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References
Arbel, Y., Hong, L., Baker, T. E., & Holroyd, C. B. (2017). It’s all about timing: An
electrophysiological examination of feedback-based learning with immediate anddelayed feedback. Neuropsychologia, 99, 179–186.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.03.003
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Van Nostrand.
Beery, R. G. (1975). Fear of failure in the student experience. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 54, 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2164-4918.1975.tb04220.x
Cavazza, N., Guidetti, M., & Pagliaro, A. (2015). Who cares for reputation? Individual
differences and concern for reputation. Current Psychology, 34(1), 164–176.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9249-y
Cooke, S. (2021). Maintenance, development and atrophy of the L2 self in 4 Japanese
universities: A longitudinal study of Japanese university students. JALS, 2, 13–38.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UtaiR9e94G6245zQFvwC2RERX72bpGkS/view
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation andschool reform. Cambridge University Press.
Covington, M. V. (1998). The will to learn: A guide for motivating young people. Cambridge
University Press.
Covington, M. V. (2009). Handbook of motivation at school. Routledge.
Covington, M. V., & Beery, R. G. (1976). Self-worth and school learning. Holt, Rinehart &Winston.
Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1979). Effort: The double-edged sword in school
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 169–182.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.71.2.169
77

Adrian Leis
A Self-Worth Perspective of Japanese First-Year Junior High School Students’ Attitudes Towards Studying English

Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1991). Need achievement revisited: Verification of
Atkinson’s original 2 x 2 model. In C. S. Spielberger, I. G. Sarason, Z. Kulesar & G. L.
Van Heck (Eds.) Stress and emotion, 14 (pp. 85–105). Hemisphere.
De Castella, K., Byrne, D., & Covington, M. (2013). Unmotivated or motivated to fail? A
cross-cultural study of achievement motivation, fear of failure, and student
disengagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 861–880.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032464
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination inpersonality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6
Donohue, R. T. (1998). Japanese culture and communication: Critical cultural analysis.
University Press of America.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.),
Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Multilingual Matters.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Ballantine Books.
Dweck, C. S. (2017). Mindset: Changing the way you think to fulfil your potential. Robinson.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation andpersonality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033295x.95.2.256
Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C.
S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation, (pp. 52–72). The Guilford
Press.
Elliot, A. J., & Covington, M. V. (2001). Approach and avoidance motivation andachievement goals. In M. V. Covington & A. J. Elliot (Eds.), Special issue of
Educational Psychology Review (pp. 73–92). Plenum.
Falout, J., Elwood, J., & Hood, M. (2009). Demotivation: Affective states and learning
78

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 55-83

outcomes. System, 37(3), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.03.004
Harumi, S. (1999). The use of silence by Japanese learners of English in cross-culturalcommunication and its pedagogical implications [Unpublished PhD Thesis]. Institute of
Education, University of London. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10006613/
Harumi, S. (2011). Classroom silence: Voices from Japanese EFL learners. ELT Journal, 65,
260–269. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq046
Hiromori, T. (2006). The effect of educational intervention on L2 learners’ motivational
development. JACET Journal, 43, 1–14. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110006388891
Imai, M. (2020). The effect of positive psychology in SLA: From fixed mindset to growthmindset. The Center for English as a Lingua France Journal, 6, 33–43.
https://www.tamagawa.ac.jp/celf/research/pdf/celf_journal_final6.pdf
Johnston, P. H. (2012). Opening minds: Using language to change lives. Stenhouse
Publishers.
Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person versus process praise and criticism:
Implications for contingent self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology, 35(3),835–847. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.3.835
Kikuchi, K. (2019). Motivation and demotivation over two years: A case study of English
language learners. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 157–175.
https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2019.9.1.7
Konno, K. (2014). Motivational practices for enhancing EFL learners’ self-determination andthe L2 self. ARELE, 25, 191–206. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/arele/25/0/25_
KJ00009903597/_pdf
Leis, A. (2021). The effects of praise on the mindsets of university students in an EFL
environment. Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition, 7(2), 37–59.
https://doi.org/10.31261/TAPSLA.9098
Leis, A., Itagaki, N., & Yanagida, M. (2020). Test feedback and the growth mindset: A79

Adrian Leis
A Self-Worth Perspective of Japanese First-Year Junior High School Students’ Attitudes Towards Studying English

perspective from metacognitive self-confidence. Journal of the Tohoku English
Language Education Society, 40. 73–88. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
342903400_Test_Feedback_and_the_Growth_Mindset_A_Perspective_from_Metacogn
itive_Self-Confidence
Leis, A., & Wilson, M. (2017). Giving class averages: Is it worth it? Eurasian Journal ofApplied Linguistics, 3(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.461030
Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2016). Changing language mindsets: Implications for goal
orientations and responses to failure in and outside the second language classroom.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 22–33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.03.004
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2003). Fear of failure: Friend or foe. Australian Psychologist,
38(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050060310001706997
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001). A quadripolar need achievement
representation of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism. American Educational
Research Journal, 38, 583–610. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038003583
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., Williamson, A., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Self-handicapping,defensive pessimism, and goal orientation: A qualitative study of university students.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 617–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/00220663.95.3.617
Matsuguma, S. (2013). Raising a sense of self-worth: Action research on self-compassion in
an English program. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). The SIT Graduate Institute,
Brattleboro, Vermont. https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=
1704&context=ipp_collection
MEXT. (2019). Koutougakkou gakushu shidou yoryou [Course of Study for High School].
Kairyudo.
Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2009). Examining the effectiveness of explicit instruction of80

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 55-83

vocabulary learning strategies with Japanese EFL university students. Language
Teaching Research, 13(4), 425–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168809341511
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s
motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33–
52. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.75.1.33
Nakamura, S., Darasawang, P., & Reinders, H. (2021). The antecedents of boredom in L2
classroom learning. System, 98, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102469
Nakata, Y. (2010). Towards a framework of self-regulated language learning. TESL Canada
Journal, 27(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v27i2.1047
Norem, J. K. (2008). Defensive pessimism as a positive self-critical tool. In E. Chang (Ed.)
Self-criticism and self enhancement: Theory and research and clinical implications (pp.
89–104). American Psychological Association.
Noro, T. (2013). Eigo supiikingu ni okeru WTC no fuan no sougousayou ni yoru eikyou [Theinfluence on English speaking caused by interaction between WTC and anxiety],
Proceedings of JASELE Conference, 40, 8–9.
Sakai, H., & Kikuchi, K. (2009). An analysis of demotivators in the FL classroom. System,
37(1), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.09.005
Sato, R. (2019). Fluctuations in an EFL teacher’s willingness to communicate in an Englishmedium lesson: An observational case study in Japan. Innovation in Language Learning
and Teaching, 13, 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2017.1375506
Sato, R. (2020). Examining fluctuations in the WTC of Japanese EFL speakers: Language
proficiency, affective and conditional factors. Language Teaching Research, Advanceonline publication, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820977825
Seligman, M., & Seligman, M. (2019, July 18–21). Marty, Mandy, & living positive
psychology [Plenary speech]. 6th World Congress on Positive Psychology, Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia. http://wcpp-2019.p.asnevents.com.au/days/2019-0781

Adrian Leis
A Self-Worth Perspective of Japanese First-Year Junior High School Students’ Attitudes Towards Studying English

18/abstract/56685
Tanaka, H. (2010). Enhancing intrinsic motivation in the classroom. JACET Journal, 50, 63–
80.
Tanaka, M. (2017a). Factors affecting motivation for short in-class extensive reading. The
Journal of Asia TEFL, 14(1), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.1.7.98
Tanaka, M. (2017b). Examining EFL vocabulary learning motivation in a demotivating
learning environment. System, 65, 130–138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.01.010
Thompson, T., & Parker, C. (2007). Diagnosing the poor performance of self-worth protective
students: A product of future outcome uncertainty, evaluation threat, or both?
Educational Psychology, 27(2), 25–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410601061512
Ushioda, E. (2013). Foreign language motivation research in Japan: An ‘insider’ perspectivefrom outside Japan. In M. T. Apple, D. Da Silva & T. Fellner (Eds.), Language learning
motivation in Japan, (pp. 1–14). Multilingual Matters.
Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation: From mechanism to cognition. Markham.
Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. General Learning Press.
Weiner, B., Frieze, L., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. (1971). Perceiving thecauses of success and failure. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett,
S. Valins & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 95–
121). General Learning Press.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate a second language: The Japanese EFL
context. Modern Language Journal, 86, 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/15404781.00136
Yashima, T. (2009). International posture and the ideal L2 self in the Japanese EFL context.
In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp.
144–163). Multilingual Matters.
82

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 55-83

Appendix
The essay topics presented to students in this study in the original format (i.e., Japanese)
and with English translations. The mechanisms of the self-worth theory shown in parentheses
after each essay number have been added for the purposes of this paper and were not includedin the booklets given to the students in the investigation. Original Japanese versions of theessay topics can be obtained by contacting the author.
Essay 1. (Defensive Pessimism)
Your friend studied English for more than three hours every day, but his score on the final
exam was below the class average. What advice would you give to your friend?
Essay 2. (Self-handicapping)
You are in English class, and you don't quite understand the grammar that the teacher was
explaining in the first 10 minutes. Do you raise your hand and confirm the teacher's
explanation, or do you not raise your hand? Circle either “raise your hand” or “not raise yourhand” and write the reason.
Essay 3. (Helplessness)
You are shopping at the station with a friend who just came back from studying in the UnitedStates for a year. While your friend is using the restroom, a foreigner suddenly asks you for
directions in English. Just as you are about to show him the way, your friend comes back.
Would you leave it to your friend who speaks fluent English to show him the way? Or would
you do your best to teach yourself? Please circle either “Leave it to my friend,” “Don't leave it
to my friend,” or “Do it together” and write the reason.

83

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 85-112

A Study on the Instructions on the Use of Hedging
in English Academic Writing Textbooks

Kayo Fujimura-Wilson
Yamaguchi University

Abstract
When writing research papers, native English writers tend to use hedging to soften theirclaims and protect themselves against criticism from readers. However, non-native English
writers generally use fewer hedges in their articles than native English writers. To clarify thisdiscrepancy, this study investigated how hedging was introduced in a total of 10 academic
writing textbooks used by upper-intermediate and advanced Japanese learners of English. The
study consists of two components; the first investigation focused on the extent to which thesetextbooks provided instructions on the use of hedging, while the second investigation focusedon how frequently hedging was actually presented in the textbooks. The results showed thatthe use of hedging was not directly introduced in some investigated textbooks although it was
adequately used in sample paragraphs and essays. The explanations on hedging and thenumber of relevant exercises varied among the textbooks. These findings highlight
instructional areas that require additional focus. As hedging is used in English research papers
and learners of English study various lexical hedges during the early stages of learning,teachers need to discuss its functions in more detail to help learners raise their awareness ofusing English hedges appropriately in the academic context.

Keywords: hedging, metadiscourse, academic writing, textbook analysis

85

Kayo Fujimura-Wilson
A Study on the Instructions on the Use of Hedging in English Academic Writing Textbooks

Hedging is an interactional source of metadiscourse used to soften a writer’s claims,
and native English writers tend to use it when making inferences in their results (Hyland,
1998a). However, previous studies have shown that Japanese writers of English tend to use
fewer hedges when writing academic research articles (Fujimura-Wilson, 2019, 2020). In
addition, as Japanese learners of English generally find it difficult to acquire epistemic
modality, they tend to use it less often in their writing (Nakayama, 2021). This highlights theneed for a focus on hedging in academic writing, especially in the pedagogical context. As
such, this study investigated the extent to which hedging has been introduced and discussed ina sample of academic writing textbooks used by upper-intermediate and advanced Japaneselearners of English to provide insights into how these learners are instructed on the use ofhedging and its purpose.
In written communication, writers can persuade, inform, and engage readers throughtheir choice of language. In this regard, they may also convey their attitude towards what they
write as well as their readers. Hyland (2005a) emphasizes the importance of metadiscourse,which “represents a writer’s attempts to guide a receiver’s perception of a text as signals of
the writer’s attitude towards the content and the audience of the text in understanding
language in use” (p. 3). Metadiscourse consists of interactive and interactional resources(Hyland, 2005a, p. 49). Interactive resources include transitions (e.g., in addition and but),frame makers (e.g., finally and to conclude), endophoric markers (e.g., see Figure and in
Section 2), evidentials (e.g., according to X and Z states), and code glosses (e.g., e.g. and suchas), while interactional resources include hedges (e.g., might and perhaps), boosters (e.g., infact and definitely), attitude markers (e.g., unfortunately and I agree), self-mentions (e.g., weand my), and engagement markers (e.g., note and you can see that) (Hyland, 2005a).
The term “hedges” was originally used by Lakoff (1972), referring to “words whose job
it is to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy” (p. 195). The use of hedging has been analyzed inboth spoken (Coates, 1987; Holmes, 1988) and written discourse (Hyland, 1996a, 1996b;
86

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 85-112

Salager-Meyer, 1994) in English and in other languages such as Chinese (Hu & Cao, 2011),
Persian (Samaie et al., 2014), and Spanish (Lee & Casal, 2014). Hedges have also beenstudied in the context of academic research papers, with some researchers focusing on
different languages to understand how it is variously used by native and non-native English
writers (Hinkel, 2003, 2005; Kobayashi, 2016). However, there is limited emphasis on how
hedging is taught in academic writing textbooks. To address this gap, this study investigatedEnglish foreign language (EFL) textbooks used in upper-intermediate and advanced academic
writing classes in Japan to determine how hedging is introduced. It was anticipated that theresults would indicate a lack of teaching pragmatics in this regard, thus suggesting that
academic writing classes need to provide more detailed instructions on hedging in addition tohighlighting its purpose.
This study initially discusses the common structure of textbooks used in academic
writing classes, and then a definition of hedges and related previous studies are introduced.
Following an explanation of the research methods used in this study, the results concerning
the introduction of hedges in academic writing textbooks used in upper-intermediate andadvanced classes in Japan are presented and discussed, along with some suggestions forteaching the use of hedges. Finally, the discussion also considers the importance of raising
non-native English writers’ awareness of hedging in discourse and pragmatics in writing.

Previous Studies on the Use of Hedging in Research Articles and Academic Writing
Textbooks
Academic Writing Textbooks
Academic writing textbooks introduce strategies for paragraph construction and essay
writing, including structures of various essays and research papers. These textbooks also
introduce the language of academic writing and provide information on how to write citations
and references. With regards to introducing academic language, appropriate language style87Kayo Fujimura-Wilson
A Study on the Instructions on the Use of Hedging in English Academic Writing Textbooks

and tone, how to make points stronger and more precise, and word choices are typicallyintroduced.
In his analysis of academic writing textbooks, Widodo (2007) illustrated the process ofwriting, including the steps of planning, drafting, reviewing, and editing. Widodo (2007)
states that “the core goal of the textbook is the development of the college students’ essays in
English, concentrating on writing good essays of different types through the integrated
approach: process and text function based writing” (p. 119). He emphasized the importance ofunderstanding the organization of structures and ideas in writing and suggested that according
to the types of essays (e.g., descriptions and argumentations), general structure, organizationof ideas, and syntactic patterns need to be defined in brief pieces of writing.
Moreover, writers need to understand the rhetoric of a text and carefully consider how
to present the writing outcome more effectively while using patterns recognized by readers;
therefore, writers need to be aware of appropriate language and structure in their texts(Hyland, 2019). It is also important for students to recognize appropriate discourse patterns
within their disciplines, as acceptable patterns and forms differ depending on the genre anddiscipline (Hyland, 2004).

Theoretical Background, Definition and Categories of Hedges in Academic Writing
Hedges are an important means of mitigating directness that allow writers to distancethemselves from a statement and help avoid to take direct responsibility for their claims while
minimizing damage to their personal credibility (Hyland, 2005b, p. 96). Hyland (1998a) statesthat “hedging indicates unwillingness to make an explicit and complete commitment to thetruth of a proposition” (p. 3). In this regard, “hedges emphasize the subjectivity of a position
by allowing information to be presented as an opinion rather than a fact and therefore openthat position to negotiation” (Hyland, 2005b, p. 61).

88

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 85-112

In terms of pragmatics, Hyland (1998a) proposed two main hedging categories inacademic writing, namely, (1) content-oriented hedges, consisting of accuracy-hedges (further
sub-divided into attribute and reliability hedges) and writer-oriented hedges, and (2) readeroriented hedges. Attribute hedges are used to express results less explicitly and approximate
the results of the attributes of phenomena described (e.g., generally and approximately).
Reliability hedges are used to suggest possibility and probability when presenting results interms of a writer’s confidence in expressing subjective uncertainty (e.g., may, could, andlikely). Writer-oriented hedges are used to suggest knowledge by writers with a high-level
claim and refer to wider bodies of knowledge on the topic while protecting writers from theconsequence of the claim (e.g., suggest, indicate, and be assumed). Reader-oriented hedges
are used to try to involve readers in the discussion and communicate with them while
minimizing any threat to readers’ face (e.g., I think, we predict, and if we).
Hedges are often seen in lexical and grammatical forms. Hyland (1996b, 1998a)
reported that scientific hedging could be frequently observed in lexical phenomena. Hyland(1996b) found that 79% of cases involved lexical items, including lexical verbs, adjectives,
adverbs, and modal verbs. Consistent with this, Hyland (1998a) found that 85% of hedging in
his data were lexical items, with the remaining 15% of hedges being strategic hedges,
including references to limiting conditions, theories and methods, and admissions of lacking
knowledge. Meanwhile, other studies have shown examples in syntactic structures, including
if-clauses, question forms, passive constructions, and impersonal phrases (Hinkel, 1997;
Jalilifar, 2011; Loi & Lim, 2019). Some hedges can be categorized as “possibility hedges”(e.g., perhaps and possibly) or “downtoners” (e.g., little, slightly, and fairly), which havelowering effects and scale downward from assumed norms (Quirk et al., 1985, p. 445).

Previous Studies on the Use of Hedging in Academic Writing Textbooks
Some studies have analyzed the use of hedging in academic writing textbooks. Among89

Kayo Fujimura-Wilson
A Study on the Instructions on the Use of Hedging in English Academic Writing Textbooks

these, Hyland (1994) investigated a total of 14 English academic writing textbooks ranging
from post-beginners to advanced level and found that most textbooks tended tounderrepresent the importance of hedging devices, suggesting more of a consensus view
rather than discussing individual research articles. In his results, 10 textbooks (71.4%)
introduced modal verbs; eight (57.1%), lexical verbs; four (28.6%), adverbs; three (21.4%),
adjectives; and two (14.3%), nouns; however, the textbooks did not necessarily explain theuse of hedging (Hyland, 1994). For example, when lexical verbs such as seem, suggest, andindicate were introduced, they were explained as ways to convey a writer’s ideas withneutrality, connotation, opinion, or uncertainty; however, their use in situations where writers
are not prepared to guarantee a proposition and try to protect themselves from criticism was
not explained.
Myers (1992) also investigated linguistic features used in sentences in textbooks,
finding that claims in the result sections were accredited as facts without hedging. Thereappears to be no clear consensus on the use of hedging; resultantly, students are likely toremain uninformed of their purpose in indicating uncertainty or in politely offeringsuggestions.
As these studies were conducted nearly three decades ago, this study also serves as animportant follow-up on how and whether introductions of hedging have changed in academic
writing textbooks for EFL learners.

Methods
Materials
This study analyzed a total of 10 academic writing textbooks used in upperintermediate and advanced levels at Japanese universities. Of these, two textbooks were
published by Japanese publishers, while eight were published by either American or British
publishers. The 10 textbooks were: (1) Academic Writing Skills, Student’s Book 2 (Chin et al.,90

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 85-112

2012), (2) Academic Writing Strategies: Focus on Global Issues for Sustainable Development
Goals (Nakatani, 2020), (3) Basic Steps to Writing Research Papers (Kluge & Taylor, 2007),(4) Effective Academic Writing (2nd ed.) (Liss & Davis, 2012), (5) Final Draft 3 (AquinoCutcher et al., 2016), (6) Longman Academic Writing Series 3: Paragraphs to Essays (4thed.) (Oshima & Hogue, 2017a), (7) Longman Academic Writing Series 4: Essays (5th ed.)(Oshima & Hogue, 2017b), (8) 3-point Academic Writing, Organization, Content, Language(Miyama et al., 2019), (9) Writing Essays: From Paragraph to Essay (Zemach & Ghulldu,
2020), and (10) Writing Research Papers: From Essay to Research Paper (Zemach et al.,2020). As shown, these textbooks were published from 2007 to 2020.

ProcedureFirst Investigation: Introductions of the Use of Hedging in Academic Writing Textbooks
The first investigation aimed at determining the extent to which the use of hedging wasintroduced in the 10 selected textbooks. The analysis focused on whether the authors
introduced the concept of hedging and discussed its purposes and importance. This included
the ways in which the use of hedging was introduced using explanations and exercises, withcomparisons among textbooks. Within these explanations in the textbooks, the purposes andfunctions of hedging were examined in terms of pragmatics.

Second Investigation: Analyzing the Use of Hedging in Sample Paragraphs and Essays
The second investigation examined the number of hedges used in some sample
paragraphs and essays from each of the 10 textbooks, using Hyland’s (1998a) definitions ofhedging. The sample paragraphs and essays used in this study consisted of 34,863 words intotal. The primary focus of analysis was on lexical hedges, as they have been reported tomake up 85% of all hedges used in research articles (Hyland, 1998a). In addition, the analysis
included if-clauses and we and I expressions that can be understood as reader-oriented hedges.
91

Kayo Fujimura-Wilson
A Study on the Instructions on the Use of Hedging in English Academic Writing Textbooks

The results of the second investigation were then compared with those from a previous study
conducted by Fujimura-Wilson (2020), which analyzed the use of hedging in journal articles.
In this study, MAXQDA software was used to code and count the number of hedges.
The analyzed sample paragraphs and essays consisted of material from both hard andsoft disciplines, with approximately 29% of the texts related to topics in hard disciplines (e.g.,
health and environment) and approximately 71% of the texts related to topics in soft
disciplines (e.g., history, education, and languages). Generally, hard disciplines include thefields of biology, engineering, and physics, while soft disciplines include the fields ofphilosophy, marketing, applied linguistics, and sociology. Previous research has compared theuse of English hedges between these two major discipline groups, finding that native English
writers in soft disciplines tend to use more hedging than those in hard disciplines. This isbecause research in soft disciplines has less control over variables and is more influenced bycontextual vagaries, and writers need to express themselves more cautiously by using hedges(Hyland, 1998b). In other words, since results are not always mathematically verifiable in soft
disciplines, writers have to negotiate their claims with readers (Vázquez & Giner, 2008).

Results and Discussion
First Investigation
In the first investigation, four textbooks were found to have introduced the use ofhedging, including one from a Japanese publisher (i.e., textbook 2) and three British
publishers (i.e., textbooks 1, 5, and 10). While all four explained the softening function ofhedging, only textbook 2 explicitly explained the function of protecting writers (see Table 1).
In addition, the explanations of hedging varied among the textbooks, with some focusing on
lexical forms. The number of exercises also notably varied.

92

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 85-112

Table 1
Textbook Introductions to Hedging and its Functions
Textbook number
Hedging
Softening Protection
1. Academic Writing Skills✓✓
×
2. Academic Writing Strategies✓✓✓
3. Basic Steps to Writing Research Papers
××
×
4. Effective Academic Writing××
×
5. Final Draft 3✓✓
×
6. Longman Academic Writing Series 3
×××
7. Longman Academic Writing Series 4
×××
8. 3-point Academic Writing××
×
9. Writing Essays
×××
10. Writing Research Papers✓✓
×
Note. Hedging = the term was introduced; Softening = described a softening function;
Protection = described a protecting function towards the author

For example, textbook 1 published by a British publisher used approximately half apage to introduce hedges. It was explained that hedging is used to avoid overgeneralization:“overgeneralization gives the impression that the writer is unaware of, or has not consideredother possibilities. This makes the writer’s arguments appear weak and less convincing to thereader. Overgeneralization can be avoided by the use of hedging terms …” (Chin et al., 2012,
p. 83).
In contrast, textbook 2, which was published by a Japanese publisher, used a total ofeight pages to introduce hedges and boosters1; on a different page, this textbook introduced
metadiscourse to describe a writer’s stance2, including opinions and ideas, unexpected or
negative results, interesting points, pointing out and generalization, and similarity andalternatives. Particularly, textbook 2 clearly explained the function of protection, stating that“in order to protect your argument, you need to use hedges which downtone your claims withuncertain expressions such as modals” (Nakatani, 2020, p. 37). This was the only investigatedtextbook that introduced the use of language regarding the writer’s intention in terms ofpragmatics.

93

Kayo Fujimura-Wilson
A Study on the Instructions on the Use of Hedging in English Academic Writing Textbooks

Textbook 5 introduced the use of hedging in a section titled “Grammar for Writing:
Modals for Hedging,” which only provided examples of modal verbs (e.g., can, could, may,and might) in hedging (Aquino-Cutcher et al., 2016). This textbook explained that modal
verbs are used to change the sentence tone, which can soften a writer’s claims and make themappear more credible (Aquino-Cutcher et al., 2016).
Finally, textbook 10 introduced the use of hedges in a chapter titled “Academic
Language” which explained that “a hedge can refine the shape of your argument – make it
more tentative and less strict, absolute, and forceful, thereby making it easier for the reader toaccept and believe as well as making your statement more likely to be true” (Zemach et al.,2020, p. 82). It also pointed out that an author “may feel that a strong statement does not fullyreflect the facts uncovered in the research, and in this case, the language can be adjusted byusing hedges” (Zemach et al., 2020, p. 82).
The ways in which examples of hedges were introduced also differed among the
textbooks. For example, textbooks 1 and 10 published by British publishers introduced lexical
hedges. Textbook 1 introduced different lexical forms, including verbs (e.g., seem, tend, andsuggest), modal verbs (e.g., may, might, can, and could), adjectives (e.g., many, some, andfew), adverbs of frequency (e.g., usually, often, and sometimes), adverbs of certainty (e.g.,
probably, possibly, and perhaps), and nouns (e.g., assumption, possibility, and probability).
Textbook 10 included a section titled “How to use hedges” in which lexical and strategic
hedges are introduced alongside exercises that ask learners to create more tentative sentencesby using hedges. For examples, adverbs (e.g., a little, slightly, and possibly), modal verbs(e.g., can, could, may, and might), quantifiers of modifiers including adjectives and nouns(e.g., several, some, and the minority of), qualifying phrases (e.g., it seems that, many people
believe that, there is a tendency, it is possible that, and it might be the case that), andconditional sentences using if-clauses are introduced in this section. Textbook 5 only briefly

94

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 85-112

introduced modal verbs as hedges and provided little information on other lexical hedges.
Modal verbs can be used to change the tone of statements to soften the writer’s claims.
In contrast, textbook 2 provided limited details concerning lexical forms of hedging.
Instead, two specific types of hedging were introduced, including “approximators” (kinjichi inJapanese), which are used for softening explicitness of phenomena, and “shield”, which areused for softening the degree of certainty. Nakatani (2016) explains that “approximators help
reduce the clarity of a fact and a shield weakens the strength of certainty to protect writers”(p. 74). Examples of “approximators” include the word approximately, which implies“roughly to” and “about” (Harper Collins Publishers, 1992, p. 25) and also means “fairly
accurate but not totally precise” (Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 64). The textbook offered
the following sample sentence for “approximators”: “Approximately 10,000 people visit
Indonesia to see wild orangutans” (Nakatani, 2020, p. 38). An example of a “shield” in the
textbook included the modal verb may, which indicates an epistemic possibility and is related
to the degrees of certainty about the truth of a proposition (Huschová, 2015), as follows:“Unless we protect them properly, we may lose many endangered species” (Nakatani, 2020,
p. 38).
Textbooks 1, 2, 5, and 10 each introduced modal verbs as hedges. Textbook 2 used a
page to introduce the use of hedging with the four modal verbs of can, could, may, and mightin a grammar explanation titled “Focus on accuracy: Hedges.” This page offered sample
sentences for each of these verbs. For example, learners can compare and distinguish the useof can and could between sentence 1: “We can conclude that convenience stores areimportant for our life.” and sentence 2: “We could conclude that convenience stores areimportant for our life.” In sentence 1, can is used to indicate a possibility that can be seen
objectively based on facts and experiences (Nakatani, 2020, p. 53), thus softening the claim as
a possibility while still suggesting that convenience stores are important for our life. On theother hand, sentence 2 uses could to indicate a theoretical possibility, thus suggesting some95

Kayo Fujimura-Wilson
A Study on the Instructions on the Use of Hedging in English Academic Writing Textbooks

exceptions to the writer’s claim. This option is used when something is possible in theory but
is less likely to actually occur (Nakatani, 2020, p. 53). Swan (1980, p. 127) states that could
can be used to imply the possibility that something can happen or is free to happen, while
Hyland (1998a) explains that could expresses tentative possibility (p. 109).
The number of exercises also varied among the textbooks. Textbook 1 had only one
exercise, asking learners to circle the hedging expressions in a model essay. Similarly,
Textbook 5 had only one exercise, in which learners choose and circle the correct modal verbs
from one of two choices in each sentence. Textbook 2 had the most number of exercises of all
the textbooks in this study. First, learners are required to define differences between sentencesthat do and do not have hedges. After identifying hedges and their functions, they are also
required to write a solution paragraph using relevant phrases from the template on theexercise page such as I think we should (not), this is because, in my opinion, in order to solve,
and for example. After writing the paragraph, learners need to edit and check the use of all
implemented hedges in their paragraphs. Moreover, a grammar explanation page titled “Focus
on accuracy: Hedges” offered a quiz that is designed for learners to define the meanings of thethree sentences with and without can and could in order to confirm differences in themeanings of the three sentences. Finally, textbook 10 had several exercises in which learners
are required to insert hedges into sentences that lack them in order to practice some lexicaland strategic hedges. Learners are required to practice using adverbs, modal verbs, andquantifiers of modifiers and creating qualifying phrases and conditionals involving if-clauses
to construct sentences using hedging. There is also a paragraph in which learners have to
identify sentences in which hedges can be inserted to soften the meanings; following thisexercise, learners are required to share their rewritten paragraphs with other learners. In
another exercise, they have to identify the use of hedges in a model research paper in thistextbook.
These four textbooks introduced forms of hedging and provided exercises to help
96

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 85-112

learners identify differences between sentences that do and do not include hedges. However,
the other six textbooks in this study did not mention or discuss the use of hedging. The
language introduced in these textbooks primarily related to strategies for writing essays andresearch papers, without focusing on intentional meanings of sentences. For example, lexical
forms such as adjectives, adverbs, verbs, and modal verbs were introduced without discussing
their potential for hedging. Concerning academic language, noun clauses using a relative
clause, adverbial clauses showing contrast and concession, adverbs of frequency andquantifiers, and if-clauses were often introduced in these textbooks. Some textbooks advised
learners to avoid “overgeneralizations” when making sentences using modifiers and modal
verbs.

Second Investigation
Although some textbooks did not mention the use of hedges, hedges were used insample paragraphs and model essays in all the textbooks. Selected sample paragraphs andmodel essays in the textbooks were further investigated in terms of the use of hedges. Fromthe 10 textbooks analyzed, a total of 1,095 hedges were used in this study, more specifically,
31.4 hedges per 1,000 words. Compound hedges, in which multiple hedges were used in one
sentence, were observed in approximately 48% of hedges in the results. For example, thefollowing sample sentence was taken from textbook 1, using a modal verb indicating a
possibility (can), an adverb indicating generalization (generally), and a quantifier of an
adjective (some), to suggest some general cases:(1) While home school students can interact with each other via the internet and evenparticipate in occasional field trips, they generally spend their day alone with a parent,
or in some cases, a small group.
(Academic Writing Skills, Student’s Book 2, 2012, p. 99)
97

Kayo Fujimura-Wilson
A Study on the Instructions on the Use of Hedging in English Academic Writing Textbooks

While the textbooks introduced similar writing strategies, each used a different layout.
The overall lengths differed, with the number of pages ranging from 86 pages (textbook 8) to344 pages (textbook 7). The number of sample sentences, paragraphs, and essays also varied.
The numbers of hedges ranged from 20.4 (textbook 3) to 57.5 (textbook 8) per 1,000 words(see Table 2). The standard deviation for the number of hedges in the sample paragraphs andessays was 10.97.

Table 2
Number of Hedges Used in Sample Paragraphs and Essays (Number per 1,000 Words)
Textbook number
1. Academic Writing Skills
2. Academic Writing Strategies
3. Basic Steps to Writing Research Papers
4. Effective Academic Writing
5. Final Draft 3
6. Longman Academic Writing Series 3
7. Longman Academic Writing Series 4
8. 3-point Academic Writing
9. Writing Essays
10. Writing Research Papers

Number of hedges
33.3
25.9
20.4
27.1
39.4
26.1
36.9
57.5
44.7
29.8

Both lexical and grammatical hedges were used in the analyzed sample paragraphs andessays. The hedges used included lexical verbs (e.g., seem and suggest), modal verbs (e.g.,can, may, could, and would), nouns (e.g., suggestion and a number of), adjectives (e.g., likely
and possible), adverbs (e.g., sometimes and approximately), if-clauses, and we and I
expressions that can be understood as reader-oriented hedges. Table 3 shows a comparison
between the frequencies of hedges found in the textbooks analyzed in this study andfrequencies found in research papers as reported in a study conducted by Fujimura-Wilson

98

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 85-112(2020). As shown, the two studies found similar frequencies, with modal verbs being usedmost frequently, followed by adjectives, verbs, and we and I expressions (see Table 3).

Table 3Frequency of Hedges Used in Sample Paragraphs and Essays and Research Papers (Number
per 1,000 Words)
HedgesIn the textbooks
In research papers
Verbs
2.2
3.7
Modal verbs
12.7
7.2
Nouns
0.4
1.0
Adjectives
7.8
4.6
Adverbs
2.1
2.4
If-clauses
0.7
0.3
We and I expressions
5.6
3.1
Total
31.4
22.2
Note. Data from the research papers were extracted from a study conducted by FujimuraWilson (2020).

The frequencies of various hedges used in the textbooks were slightly higher than thosein the research papers. For instance, 12.7 modal verbs per 1,000 words were used in the
textbooks, while 7.2 modal verbs per 1,000 words were used in the research papers.
Furthermore, 7.8 adjectives per 1,000 words were used in the textbooks, whereas 4.6
adjectives per 1,000 words were used in the research papers. Sample paragraphs and essays
used in the textbooks differed from research papers. While the writing styles and topics in the
textbooks are generic in order to appeal to all learners of English, the research papers feature
various writing styles and pertain to different disciplines and topics. As mentioned earlier, theuse of hedges also differs between academic disciplines, with writers in the soft disciplines
generally using more hedges than those in the hard disciplines (Hyland, 1998b). In this study,
71% of the sample paragraphs and essays extracted from the textbooks in this analysis
pertained to soft disciplines.

99

Kayo Fujimura-Wilson
A Study on the Instructions on the Use of Hedging in English Academic Writing Textbooks

In the analyzed textbooks, modal verbs were most frequently introduced when
explaining hedging, and used in sample paragraphs and essays. The data analysis showedthat can was the most frequently used, followed by will and may. Can is used to suggest
possibility, and will indicates prediction for logical outcomes (Hyland, 1998a). May
indicates possibility (Hyland, 1998a; Swan, 1980), and would represents hypothetical
epistemic use (Hyland, 1998a). In the sentences below, example 2 suggests a possibility of
meaning where listeners stare at a speaker with unblinking eyes, while example 3 indicates apossible disagreement in a discussion on multilingualism, in which there is a theoreticalpossibility that learning more languages causes confusion for learners. Modal verbs are used
to indicate a tentative meaning as a possibility in a writer’s claim. As Japanese learners ofEnglish may only remember the meanings in Japanese for these modal verbs and remain
unaware of a writer’s intention, teachers need to explain how native English writers use themto soften their claims.

(2) However, if listeners stare at a speaker with unblinking eyes, this can mean that they
are bored, distracted, angry, or defensive.
(Longman Academic Writing Series 3: Paragraphs to Essays [4th ed.], 2017, p. 199)

(3) Some people may disagree with multilingualism. They would argue that learning morelanguages may cause confusion among learners.
(Academic Writing Skills, Student’s Book 2, 2012, p. 87)

Textbook 10 explained that the use of quantifiers strengthens arguments by allowing
writers to admit that this is not always the case (Zemach et al., 2020). Approximators andquantifiers, including few, little, some, many, several, a number of, and the minority of, wereoccasionally used. These can be defined as attribute hedges within accuracy-oriented hedges,
100

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 85-112

and represent approximately 26% of all the hedges examined in this study. Quantifiers such as
some and several express the number or amount of the noun they respectively precede. In
example 4 below, the sentence does not reveal the actual number of preceding years or
number of investigated nations when discussing a large study.

(4) In a large study conducted some years ago in several nations, 40 percent of participantsin the United States rated themselves as shy.
(Longman Academic Writing Series 4: Essays [5th ed.], 2017, p. 118)

This use shows that modifiers can be variously employed to indicate small or large
numbers without direct specification. While several indicates “more than two but not many”(Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 1318), some means “unspecified amount, a considerable
number” (Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 1374).
Regarding the use of quantifiers, textbook 1 stated that “it is common to use quantifiers
when the exact number is unimportant or unknown” (Chin et al., 2012, p. 125). In thebiomedical context, for example, Dubois (1987) explains that numbers are often presented
with rounding, using hedges such as approximately, about, and some, suggesting theimportance of using imprecise numerical expressions when reporting findings. In thepreviously discussed study on hedging in research papers, it was found that writers in the hard
disciplines tended to use adjectival quantifiers such as some and several more frequently thanthose in the soft disciplines (Fujimura-Wilson, 2020). When examining the psychologicaleffect of quantifiers, O’Brien (1989) found that the practice of using expressions ofprobability may lead to different understandings in a medical context, suggesting that patients
may have differing interpretations when presented with quantifiers instead of explicit
numbers. In addition, textbook 10 explained that quantifiers increase the credibility of anargument if writers admit that this is not always the case (Zemach et al., 2020).
101

Kayo Fujimura-Wilson
A Study on the Instructions on the Use of Hedging in English Academic Writing Textbooks

In academic writing, Japanese researchers often acknowledge that they should not use
subject personal pronouns. In this regard, textbook 1 stated that “using first- and secondperson pronouns such as I, you, we make the tone of writing subjective and informal, and soshould be avoided in academic writing” (Chin et al., 2012, p. 24). However, in terms ofhedging, personal pronouns sometimes help make sentences appear more like personalevaluations. According to Koutsantoni (2006), they can be used to express personal opinions
rather than present general statements. When presenting a claim, personal pronouns can beused as hedges to soften the degree of certainty and explicitness. For example, in my opinion
can be used as a hedge, as shown in example 5 below:(5) Therefore, in my opinion, the policy of allowing single-sex classes in public schools
should be continued and encouraged.
(Longman Academic Writing Series 4: Essays [5th ed.], 2017, p. 74)

By defining the claim as a personal opinion, writers reduce the degree of certainty andprotect themselves. In some analyzed textbooks, statements using the first pronoun I were
often observed in the sample essays, as writers expressed what they thought and used theirexperiences as examples. The use of first pronouns in textbooks differed from their use in theactual research papers, although authors also tend to use I-statements in research papers to
explain narrative stories and/or describe a study process.
Moreover, the personal pronoun we is sometimes used as a hedge in order to involve
readers in discussions and communicate with them through appeals. In sentences that describe
personal opinions with hedging, readers are allowed to choose an individual interpretation andan alternative view rather than a definitive statement (Hyland, 1996a). According to Hyland(1998a, p. 182), personal attribution is used to express reader-oriented hedges whenintroducing claims, and when epistemic verbs and verbs of judgement and deduction, such as
102

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 85-112

propose, believe, calculate, and infer, are typically used. In example 6 below, the writers
indicate their intention by using the epistemic lexical verb propose and soften their claim byusing a reader-oriented hedge. Hyland (1998a) states that the verbs propose and believe areused to indicate a judgement. In the study of hedges in research papers, reader-oriented
hedges, including we and I expressions, were more frequently used by writers in soft
disciplines than those in hard disciplines (Fujimura-Wilson, 2020).

(6) In previous work [7] we have proposed the biomimetic development of digging robots
based on the gopher tortoise that can be used to maintain the necessary number ofburrows across the habitat until conservation efforts to restore tortoise populations takeeffect.
(3-point Academic Writing, Organization, Content, Language, 2019, p. 48)

These lexical hedges are generally studied at the early stages of English learning.
However, learners of English may lack an understanding of their pragmatic meanings.
Although learners have to first learn to use these lexical items, instruction on the use ofhedging in English writing at an early stage will help increase their variety and allow foralternation in their choices of lexical hedges (Hinkel, 2020). When teaching lexical words in
English grammar, comparisons between sentences with and without lexical hedges can help
learners better understand differences in their meanings and a writer’s intentions.

Conclusion
This study examined the extent to which hedging is taught in the EFL context byanalyzing textbooks of academic writing used in upper-intermediate and advanced English
writing classes at Japanese universities, through two investigations. The first focused on theextent to which the selected textbooks introduced and discussed the use of hedging and103

Kayo Fujimura-Wilson
A Study on the Instructions on the Use of Hedging in English Academic Writing Textbooks

provided exercises for learners of English. The second focused on the extent to which hedging
was actually used in sample paragraphs and essays as well as the number of hedging features
used and the characteristics of their use. This study is intended to provide insights into howlearners are taught about the characteristics of hedges used in academic writing.
The results showed that the manner in which the textbooks introduced the use ofhedging varied, with only four textbooks introducing the concept. Some textbooks briefly
discussed the use of hedging through simple explanations. Of the four that directly introduced
the use of hedging, various explanations and a different number of exercises were provided,
most of which were aimed at helping learners define hedges, distinguish between themeanings of sentences with and without hedges, identify hedges in paragraphs, and write
sentences and paragraphs using hedges. Six textbooks fail to mention and explain hedging.
The results suggest that teachers need to provide instruction on hedging by offering moredetailed explanations and examples of their use and purposes, and discuss its importance inlanguage use when seeking to understand a writer’s intention in terms of pragmatics. Unlessteachers introduce the use of hedging formally in the classroom, learners of English may find
it difficult to acknowledge its usage and functions.
Nevertheless, the textbooks use hedges in sample paragraphs and model essays. The
analysis of frequency in this study showed that certain lexical hedges were used, with modal
verbs being used most frequently, followed by adjectives, including modifiers of quantifiers,
and we and I expressions as reader-oriented hedges. In research papers, these lexical hedges
are sometimes used to soften a writer’s claims; that is, to make them more tentative. Teachers
could use the examples provided in the textbooks to introduce the use of such English hedges
in an academic writing classroom. As learners tend to study lexical items in early stages of
their English studies, they could become more aware of the use of hedging and continuously
increase their range of hedging.

104

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 85-112

The use of hedges is related to a writer’s intentional meanings in sentences andproposition in pragmatics. However, this factor may not be of predominant concern in an
academic writing classroom, since learners have to first acquire skills in writing strategies andacademic language when writing essays and research papers. Nevertheless, regarding written
discourse, writers still need to be capable of nuancing their stances and to negotiate claims
with readers through the use of appropriate language. To effectively persuade and engage
readers, writers have to carefully choose the most appropriate language tone, which can help
increase the degree of influence they wish to exert in a given context. As such, the use ofhedging should be taught in an advanced level in English classes. According to Okamura(2011), native English researchers are aware of hedging as a politeness strategy in research
articles, which is used to help protect the writers, cited authors, and readers’ face within the
discourse community. In line with this, non-native English researchers also need to be awareof the significance of hedging.
Based on these findings, some suggestions are offered for introducing the use ofhedging in academic writing classes. First, the introduction of several hedging examples,
including lexical forms and strategic hedges, as well as sample sentences with and without
hedges, is likely to help learners understand and differentiate the meanings of sentences andthe purposes of their use, particularly when they can compare and define meanings between
sentences. Second, teachers could focus on developing improved awareness of the appropriate
places to use hedging. Hedges are often used in the results and discussion sections of research
articles, as they help soften a writer’s claims and therefore provide protection from criticism.
Hyland (1995) found that over 80% of hedges were used to mitigate and soften claims andopinions in these sections. Third, learners need to become aware of the differences in the useof hedging between the hard and soft disciplines. Characteristics of specific hedging use,
including the frequency and types involved, could be introduced to ensure that learners
understand the appropriate applications in their own disciplines. Previous studies have shown105

Kayo Fujimura-Wilson
A Study on the Instructions on the Use of Hedging in English Academic Writing Textbooks

that native English writers in the soft disciplines tend to use more hedging than those in thehard disciplines, as soft disciplines often require writers to negotiate their claims more withreaders compared to hard disciplines (Fujimura-Wilson, 2020; Hyland, 1998b; Vázquez &Giner, 2008).
This study had some limitations. First, the analysis solely focused on the introduction
and the use of hedging in upper-intermediate and advanced textbooks used in academic
writing classes at Japanese universities. Further research is required to investigate the use ofhedging by analyzing textbooks at different levels of English language proficiency as well as
sample paragraphs and essays across disciplines. Second, this study did not examine how
students could be taught about hedging in relation to their level of proficiency. More researchshould be conducted to investigate learner awareness of hedging and focus areas for teachers,
thereby facilitating the development of more detailed methodological approaches. Finally,studies are required to investigate differences in the use of hedges between the English andJapanese languages, especially to help clarify the issue for Japanese learners of English.
Overall, non-native English writers will be more likely to use hedging appropriately ifteachers pay more attention to the use of hedging and examples are introduced more
frequently in the classroom.

Acknowledgements
This study was rewritten based on an earlier paper published by Fujimura-Wilson (2021) in
The JACET International Convention Proceedings: The JACET 60th Commemorative
International Convention (Online, 2021). Additional data were analyzed in this article.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the three anonymous referees who provided
encouraging comments and also the JACET Selected Papers Committee for accepting to
publish this paper.
This work is supported by JSPS KAKENHI grant number JP19K00761.
106

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 85-112

Notes
1. Boosters such as it is clear that, of course, and indeed are used to highlight important
points and attract readers (Nakatani, 2020).
2. Metadiscourse is used to describe a writer’s stance. For example, a writer’s opinions andideas can be described using I think, I believe, I would like to say, and in my opinion,
while unexpected or negative results can be described using unfortunately, interesting
points can be described using interestingly and remarkably, pointing out can be describedusing in particular, generalization can be described using in general, and similarities andalternatives can be described using similarly and alternatively (Nakatani, 2020, p. 32).

References
Aquino-Cutcher, A., Asplin, W., Bohlke, D., & Lambert, J. (2016). Final draft 3. Cambridge
University Press.
Chin, P., Reid, S., Wray, S., & Yamazaki, Y. (2012). Academic writing skills, Student’s book
2. Cambridge University Press.
Coates, J. (1987). Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of the PhilologicalSociety, 85(1), 110-131. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467968X.1987.tb00714.x
Dubois, B. L. (1987). “Something on the order of around forty to forty-four”: Imprecise
numerical expressions in biomedical slide talk. Language in Society, 16(4), 527-541.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500000361
Fujimura-Wilson, K. (2019). A comparative study of hedges used in English academic
research articles between native English and Japanese writers. JACET ChuugokuShikoku Chapter Research Bulletin, 16, 19-36.

107

Kayo Fujimura-Wilson
A Study on the Instructions on the Use of Hedging in English Academic Writing Textbooks

Fujimura-Wilson, K. (2020). Hedging use by native English and Japanese writers in hard andsoft disciplines of academic articles. JACET Chuugoku-Shikoku Chapter Research
Bulletin, 17, 1-18.
Fujimura-Wilson, K. (2021). A textbook analysis of instruction on hedging use in academic
writing. The JACET International Convention Proceedings: The JACET 60th
Commemorative International Convention (Online, 2021), 1-4.
Harper Collins Publishers. (1992). Collins pocket thesaurus.
Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(3),361-386. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216696000409
Hinkel, E. (2003). Adverbial markers and tone in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of
Pragmatics, 35, 1049-1068. http://w.elihinkel.org/downloads/Adverbial-markers-andtone.pdf
Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied
Language Learning, 15(1-2), 29-53.
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~prokofieva/CandidacyPapers/Hinkel_Hedging.pdf
Hinkel, E. (2020). Teaching academic text in English, Practical techniques in vocabulary andgrammar. Routledge.
Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 21-44.
https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/9/1/21/232499
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstract of applied linguistic articles: A
comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics,
43(11), 2795-2809.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216611001135
Huschová, P. (2015). Exploring modal verbs conveying possibility in academic discourse.
Discourse and Interaction, 8(2), 35-47. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2015-2-35

108

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 85-112

Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for SpecificPurposes, 13(3), 239-256.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0889490694900043
Hyland, K. (1995). The author in the text: hedging scientific writing. Hong Kong Papers in
Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18, 33-42. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED390258
Hyland, K. (1996a). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles.
Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433-454.
https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/17/4/433/198756
Hyland, K. (1996b). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles.
Written Communication, 13(2), 251-281.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013002004
Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Hyland, K. (1998b). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text &Talk, 18(3), 349-382. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourse. The University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Bloomsbury.
Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing, Second edition. Cambridge University Press.
Jalilifar, A. R. (2011). World of attitudes in research article discussion sections: A crosslinguistic perspective. Journal of Technology & Education, 5(3), 177-186.
https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=195503
Kluge, D. E., & Taylor, M. A. (2007). Basic steps to writing research papers. Cengage
Learning.
Kobayashi, Y. (2016). Investigating metadiscourse markers in Asian Englishes: A corpusbased approach. Language in Focus Journal, 2(1), 19-35.
109

Kayo Fujimura-Wilson
A Study on the Instructions on the Use of Hedging in English Academic Writing Textbooks

http://archive.sciendo.com/LIFIJSAL/lifijsal.2016.2.issue-1/lifijsal-2016-0002/lifijsal2016-0002.pdf
Koutsantoni, D. (2006). Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and researchtheses: Advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 5(1), 19-36.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1475158505000524
Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts.
Chicago Linguistic Society Papers, 8, 183-228.
Lee, J. J., & Casal, J. E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A crosslinguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis. System, 46, 39-54.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0346251X14001109
Liss, R., & Davis, J. (2012). Effective academic writing (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Loi, C. K., & Lim, J. M-H. (2019). Hedging in the discussion sections of English and Malay
educational research articles. Journal of Language Studies, 19(1), 36-61.
https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2019-1901-03
Miyama, A., Yukishige, M., Onabe, T., Murao, J., & Moore, A. (2019). 3-point academic
writing, organization, content, Language. Kinseido.
Myers, G. (1992). Textbook and the sociology of scientific knowledge. English for SpecificPurposes, 11, 3-17. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ447336
Nakatani, Y. (2016). Daigakusei no tame no akademikku eibun raitingu – Kenteishiken
taisaku kara eibun ronbun shippitsu made [Academic writing strategies for university
students]. Taishukan publishing.
Nakatani, Y. (2020). Academic writing strategies: Focus on global issues for sustainable
development goals. Kinseido.

110

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 85-112

Nakayama, S., (2021) Japanese EFL learners’ modal auxiliary verb use in argumentative
essays: A corpus-based study. Paper presented at The JACET 60th Commemorative
International Convention, Online.
O’Brien, B. J. (1989). Words or numbers? The evaluation of probability expressions ingeneral practice. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 39, 98-100.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1711769/
Okamura, A. (2011). Politeness in scientific research articles revisited: The use of
ethnography and corpus. British Studies in Applied Linguistics, 12, 84-99.
https://www.academia.edu/651029/Politeness_in_scientific_research_articles_revisited
Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2017a). Longman academic writing series 3: Paragraphs to essays(4th ed.). Pearson Education.
Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2017b). Longman academic writing series 4: Essays (5th ed.).
Pearson Education.
Oxford University Press. (2006). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th Rev. ed.).
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the
English language. Longman.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English
written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-170.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0889490694900132
Samaie, M., Khosravian, F., & Boghayeri, M. (2014). The frequency and types of hedges in
research article introductions by Persian and English native authors. Procedia – Social
and Behavioral Science, 98, 1678-1685.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275538678
Swan, M. (1980). Practical English usage. Oxford University Press.

111

Kayo Fujimura-Wilson
A Study on the Instructions on the Use of Hedging in English Academic Writing Textbooks

Vázquez, L. & Giner, D. (2008). Beyond mood and modality: Epistemic modality markers ashedges in research articles, A cross-disciplinary study. Alicante Journal of English
Studies, 21, 171-190. https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2008.21.10
Widodo, H. P. (2007). Textbook analysis on college academic writing. TEFLIN Journal,
18(2), 109-122. http://www.teflin.org/journal/index.php/journal/article/view/112
Zemach, D., Broudy, D., & Valvona, C. (2020). Writing research papers: From essay toresearch paper. Macmillan Education Limited.
Zemach, D., & Ghulldu, L. (2020). Writing essays: From paragraph to essay. Macmillan
Education Limited.

112

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 113-142

Use of L1 in L2 Collaborative Writing: Does It Make Any Difference to the
Product or Process?

Yusa Koizumi
Meiji Gakuin University

Abstract
A growing body of research has shown that students’ L1 performs various functions thatfacilitate L2 collaborative writing, and these findings lead to an assumption that adequate
employment of L1 helps students produce better-quality texts. This study aims to test thisassumption and find any relationship between L1 use and text quality. It also investigates theimpact of L1 use on the process of collaborative writing. University EFL students in Japanwrote a narrative text in pairs. Their interactions were audio-recorded and transcribed, andturns containing any utterance in L1 (Japanese) were identified. Their compositions wereassessed for fluency, accuracy, complexity, content, and organization. The quantitative
analysis found no significant relationships between the proportion of L1 turns and the ratingsof compositions. However, qualitative examinations of interactions revealed notabledifferences in the writing process between frequent users and infrequent users of L1. The
former tended to suspend formulating to revise their plans or engage in long language-related
episodes. The latter tended to complete the formulating stage quickly and spend ample timeon review. Pedagogical implications are discussed regarding the benefits and drawbacks ofallowing EFL students to use their shared L1 for L2 collaborative writing.

Keywords: L2 writing, collaborative writing, L1 use, language-related episodes

113

Yusa Koizumi
Use of L1 in L2 Collaborative Writing: Does It Make Any Difference to the Product or Process?

Collaborative writing, or “the co-authoring of a text by two or more writers” (Storch,
2013, p. 2), is an attractive option for the second language (L2) teachers who seek toincorporate focus on form into meaning-focused communicative tasks. Based on theinteractional approach to L2 acquisition, researchers argue that collaborative writing provides
students with opportunities to discuss or negotiate L2 form. Through the discussion or
negotiation, students can attend to the language they produce and receive corrective feedback
from their peers, which will help them notice the gap between the target language and theirinterlanguage (Adams, 2003; Storch, 2013; Swain & Lapkin, 2001). For sociocultural
theorists, collaborative writing promotes L2 development through interactive problemsolving. When students tackle problems in vocabulary or grammar together, their existing L2
knowledge is shared, or new knowledge is co-constructed. The knowledge thus gained isinternalized into their system (Anton & Dicamilla, 1999; Donato, 1994; Swain, 2010).
In typical EFL contexts, students have a common first language (L1) that mediates theircommunication outside the classroom. For EFL teachers, it is ordinary to find students switch
to their L1 while working on tasks, and dealing with this situation tactfully poses apedagogical challenge. As communicative approaches to L2 teaching gained popularity,
researchers and practitioners came to endorse the exclusive use of L2 in classrooms as thebest way to maximize the amount of input and output. In recent years, however, someresearchers have adopted a more favorable position on the use of L1 for L2 tasks. They view
L1 as a device for directing students’ attention to form (Storch & Aldosari, 2010; Storch &Wigglesworth, 2003; Swain & Lapkin, 2000) as well as a medium for collaborative problemsolving and scaffolding (Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2009; Anton & Dicamilla,
1999; Storch, 2013). Thus, from the interactionist or sociocultural perspective, EFL students’common L1 is a valuable resource that helps them make the best use of the opportunities thatcollaborative writing offers them.

114

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 113-142

Literature Review
An increasing body of research has evidenced a variety of functions that L1 performs in
L2 collaborative writing, including clarifying task requirements, generating ideas, resolving
linguistic problems, and managing collaboration (Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2009;
Azkarai & García Mayo, 2015; Storch & Aldosari, 2010; Swain & Lapkin, 2000). Many ofthese studies investigated the relative importance of these functions by measuring thefrequency with which they were performed in L1, and the result often varied across tasks. For
example, in Storch and Aldosari’s (2010) study, L1 was used most frequently for task
management in a jigsaw task but for generating ideas and talking about vocabulary in acomposition task. In Azkarai and García Mayo’s (2015) study, the most common function was
phatics (i.e., use of expressions for sociability, such as “okay” or “right”) for both dictogloss
and text editing tasks, but the second most common function was off-task talk for the
dictogloss task while grammar talk for the text editing task.
These findings revealing the versatility of L1 in collaborative writing may lead to anassumption that adequate amounts of L1 use during task work enable students to produce
high-quality L2 texts. However, few published studies have tested this assumption. One ofthem is Swain and Lapkin’s (2000) study with French immersion students in Canada. The
participants completed two pair writing tasks, jigsaw and dictogloss, based on the same story.
The two tasks did not differ significantly in the amount of L1 use: L1 (English) was used in
29% of turns in the jigsaw task and 21% of turns in the dictogloss task. For both tasks, thepercentage of L1 turns was larger for pairs whose texts were rated lower and smaller for pairs
whose texts were rated higher, and these differences appeared more strongly for the jigsaw
task. When the percentage of L1 turns was correlated with the text ratings for content andlanguage, a significant negative correlation was found for the jigsaw task. The results
suggested that students who write less successfully rely more heavily on L1, but the amountof L1 they need to employ varies across task types.
115

Yusa Koizumi
Use of L1 in L2 Collaborative Writing: Does It Make Any Difference to the Product or Process?

The same topic has been researched in L2 individual writing. Some studies focused on
L1 use at the pre-writing stage, typically engaging students in a brainstorming or note-making
activity in L1 or L2 and comparing the texts they subsequently composed. These studies haveproduced mixed results: Some found an advantage for L1 users in limited areas of text quality(Lally, 2000) while others found no significant differences (Akyel, 1994). One individual
writing study investigated the impact of L1 use at the composing stage. Woodall (2002)
explored how students’ language switching from L2 to L1 while composing relates to thequality of the text they produce. The study found a significant correlation between the
duration of L1 use and text quality, but the direction of the relationship varied depending on
students’ L1. The relationship was positive for students whose L1 was cognate with the L2 but
negative for students whose L1 was not cognate with the L2.
To summarize, the bulk of research investigating the roles of L1 in L2 collaborative
writing has been expanding, and the studies have identified the most common functions of L1
in various types of tasks. On the other hand, the amount of literature attempting to disentangle
the relationship between L1 use and the quality of the written product is limited. Some studies
on individual writing shed some light on this topic, but they derived data from pre-writing
activities or think-aloud protocols, which likely narrowed the range of L1 functions to beanalyzed. Another issue that has been out of the scope of previous studies is the relationshipbetween L1 use and the process of collaborative writing. If L1 performs essential functions
for collaborative writing, such as generating ideas and discussing form, how much L1
students employ may affect how often and how long they engage in these activities at which
points in the writing process.
With the aim of addressing these gaps in the literature, the present study set out toanswer the following research questions:
1. Is there any relationship between the amount of L1 use during L2 collaborative writing andthe quality of the text produced?
116

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 113-142

2. How does the writing process of the students who use L1 frequently differ from the writing
process of the students who use L1 infrequently?

MethodData Collection
The participants were fifty first-year students in two EFL classes at a competitive
private university in Tokyo. They all spoke Japanese as their first language. The students
belonged to the same department but majored in various subjects, including literature,
education, and math. When the data were collected, they were enrolled in an EFL course
required for all students in the department. They had been assigned to the two highintermediate classes based on their placement test results, which were equivalent to TOEIC
565 to 690. The two-semester EFL course aimed to develop oral and written communication
skills, and the classes met once a week for 90 minutes. The lessons were taught according to atask-based syllabus, and by the time the data were collected, students had completed different
types of oral tasks in pairs or small groups. The teacher was a native speaker of Japanese withnear-native fluency in English. She generally used English for classroom instructions but
switched to Japanese temporarily when she judged it necessary. She instructed students to use
English exclusively for oral tasks but allowed them to use Japanese for other activities,
including vocabulary and grammar exercises.
The data were collected in the seventh week of the first semester, during the regularlessons of the two classes, using a picture story jigsaw task. This type of task can engage
students in active interaction and meaning negotiation (Foster, 1998; Nakahama et al., 2001;
Pica et al., 1993) and be easily modified into a writing task. For these reasons, it has beenused in many collaborative writing studies (e.g., Storch & Aldosari, 2010; Swain & Lapkin,
2000, 2001). At the beginning of the class, the teacher explained the purpose and procedure of
the data collection and asked students to sign a consent form. After that, she paired students
117

Yusa Koizumi
Use of L1 in L2 Collaborative Writing: Does It Make Any Difference to the Product or Process?

randomly and gave each pair a set of two picture cards. Each card contained four pictures
depicting different scenes of the same story (Appendix A). Students then spent 10 minutes
putting the pictures in the correct order by orally describing them to each other. For this task,
the two classes were both instructed to use English exclusively. When 10 minutes had passed,
the teacher told students to stop and show their picture cards to their partners. Pairs then spent
15 minutes writing down the story they had worked out. For this posttask, one class (12 pairs)
was instructed to use English exclusively, but the other (13 pairs) was allowed to use Japanese
as needed. Each pair’s interaction during the posttask was audio-recorded and subsequently
transcribed according to the Jeffersonian system (Appendix B). Each pair’s handwritten
composition was collected and converted to a Microsoft Word document. No changes weremade to the language use, spelling, or punctuation in the original text. The number of words
in each composition was counted, and the text was segmented into T-units based on Hunt’s(1966) definition: “exactly one main clause plus whatever subordinate clauses happen to be
attached to or embedded within it” (p. 737).

Data Analysis
Amount of L1 Use
To measure the amount of L1 used in the pair interactions, all utterances in Japanese
were identified in the transcripts, and turns containing any Japanese utterance were coded as
L1 turns. This coding system did not account for the length of turns or the amount of Japanesecontained in individual turns. Thus, L1 turns included short turns entirely in Japanese, long
turns entirely in English except for a single Japanese word, and long turns exclusively inJapanese. Loan words originating from English (e.g., “OK”, “nice”) were not counted as
Japanese utterances because it was difficult to judge whether students used them as English
words or Japanese words. When all L1 turns had been identified, the proportion of L1 turns tototal turns was calculated for each pair.
118

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 113-142

Analysis of the Compositions
The compositions produced by the 25 pairs were assessed for fluency, accuracy,
syntactic complexity, and lexical complexity. Fluency was measured by the number of words
written. Accuracy was evaluated by two measurements: the proportion of error-free T-units tototal T-units and the number of errors per word. L2 researchers consider the former a suitablemeasure for intermediate and advanced learners who can handle subordination (Norris &Ortega, 2009). One drawback of this measurement is that it does not account for thedifferences in the number of errors in the same T-unit. The second measure, the number of
errors per word, was adopted to make up for this shortcoming because it can deal with errorsthat appear unevenly in the same text (Polio, 1997). Errors in lexis, morphology, syntax, anddiscourse were defined separately. To test reliability, the researcher and a colleague
independently applied the definitions to all compositions and achieved an agreement rate of
97%. Syntactic complexity was assessed by three measures that tapped into different
dimensions of the construct, following Norris and Ortega’s (2009) suggestion. Mean length of
T-unit was used to measure overall complexity, mean number of clauses per T-unit was used
to measure complexity by subordination, and mean length of clause was employed to measurecomplexity at the subclausal level. Lexical complexity was measured by type-token ratio.
The compositions were also evaluated qualitatively in terms of task fulfillment, idea
development, and cohesion. The three areas were selected based on the objectives of thelesson in which the task was implemented. For each aspect, a four-point analytical scale wasdeveloped (Appendix C). The researcher’s two colleagues, both experienced in teachingcollege EFL writing in Japan, independently scored the compositions using the rubrics. To
assess inter-rater reliability, the correlation between the two raters’ scores was measured by
Kendall’s rank-order correlation coefficient, with the alpha level set at .05. A significant
positive relationship was found for all three scales: task fulfilment (τ = .59, p = .003), idea
development (τ = .45, p =.026) and cohesion (τ = .52, p =.009). The two raters’ scores were119

Yusa Koizumi
Use of L1 in L2 Collaborative Writing: Does It Make Any Difference to the Product or Process?

averaged, and the means were used in subsequent analyses.
Analysis of the Writing Process
Zimmermann’s (2000) model of L2 writing was adopted as a framework for examining
students’ writing process. Zimmermann developed this model based on individual andcollaborative L2 writing data, making it applicable to the present study. The model consists ofthree major processes: planning, formulating, and reviewing. Planning may occur at the
global level dealing with the whole text or at the local level involving individual sentences.
Formulating, which forms the central component of this model, consists of three
subprocesses: formulating, writing, and repairing. The subprocess formulating refers to the actof orally translating one’s idea into words and is further divided into minor subprocesses suchas making a tentative formulation and evaluating, accepting, rejecting, or modifying atentative formulation. The subprocess writing refers to the mechanical act of inscribing, andrepairing refers to reading and reformulating what has been written. The final major process,reviewing, involves reading and evaluating the complete text. Zimmermann acknowledges
that these processes and subprocesses are “overlapping and recursive” (p. 84). Writers
typically engage in the three main processes—planning, formulating, and reviewing—in thisorder. However, they may regress to planning while formulating or regress to formulating
while reviewing. The central formulating process is not one straight line: It consists ofrecurrent cycles of local planning and the three subprocesses (i.e., formulating, writing, andrepairing). Writers repeat this cycle numerous times as they add new sentences to their text
until they complete it and move on to the final reviewing stage.
As the first step of the analysis, the three main processes in Zimmermann’s model(planning, formulating, and reviewing) were identified in the transcripts. The task cycle in thepresent study had been designed so that students would complete global-level planning during
the jigsaw task and concentrate on formulating and reviewing during the posttask. Thus,
students were supposed to have already figured out the story’s general plot and main120

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 113-142

characters when the posttask began. However, the data showed that some pairs returned to
global planning while formulating, to confirm or revise their original plans. To address these
instances, the analysis covered all three major processes, including planning. On the other
hand, the subprocesses under formulating (formulating, writing, and repairing) were not
identified in the transcripts. In the present study, these subprocesses often occurred
simultaneously as one student vocalized a tentative form while the other wrote it down,
making it difficult to distinguish them in the transcripts. In addition, even when they occurred
separately, the writing subprocess may not appear in the transcript because students often
scribed silently. When the three main processes had been identified in the transcripts, theaudio recordings were checked to verify when they started in the 15-minute interaction andhow long they lasted. (See Appendix D for the definitions and examples of the three major
processes.)
The next step consisted of coding the transcripts for episodes, in which a pair discussed
a topic that was not directly related to the process or subprocess they were engaged in.
Zimmermann’s model includes a subprocess called L2 problem-solving, which is unique to L2
writing. It has no fixed place in the model, but it typically occurred during the formulatingprocess in Zimmermann’s data. Because Zimmermann did not offer any specific definitions of
L2 problem-solving, the notion of language-related episodes (LREs) was employed tooperationalize the term. Based on Swain and Lapkin (1998) and Williams (1999), LREs were
defined as interactional sequences in which students question or correct their use of an L2
item or discuss an L2 item devoid of any previous use of that item. L2 items consisted ofparticular forms or issues in L2 lexis, morphology, syntax, or discourse. These definitions
were applied to the transcripts to identify LREs. The researcher and a colleague independently
coded 11% of the interactional data to check the reliability of the coding, and they agreed on
72% of the cases. The researcher resolved the disagreements through discussion with thecolleague and adjusted the definitions accordingly.
121

Yusa Koizumi
Use of L1 in L2 Collaborative Writing: Does It Make Any Difference to the Product or Process?

In addition to LREs, task management and off-task talk episodes were identified in thetranscripts. These episodes were not in the scope of Zimmermann’s study, but they were
included in many previous studies on L2 collaborative writing (e.g., McDonough et al., 2016;
Storch, 2005). Following these previous studies, task management episodes were defined as
sequences in which students read task instructions, clarify task requirements, discuss work
procedures, or monitor time. Off-task episodes were defined as sequences in which students
discuss a topic unrelated to the task. After the three types of episodes were identified in thetranscripts, their timings and durations were determined in the audio data. (See Appendix D
for the definitions and examples of the three types of episodes.)Results
The proportion of L1 turns varied widely across pairs, from .01 to .78. The mean for the
25 pairs was .28 (SD = 0.24). Pairs that were allowed to use Japanese tended to use it more
frequently than pairs that were instructed to use English exclusively: The mean proportion of
L1 turns was .43 (SD = 0.23) for the former (n = 13) but .13 (SD = 0.14) for the latter (n =12). To investigate the first research question, the proportion of L1 turns was correlated withthe measurements for fluency, accuracy, and complexity and the ratings for task fulfillment,
idea development, and cohesion. Because preliminary testing revealed that the assumption of
normal distribution was breached in some data, a series of non-parametric bivariate tests(Kendall’s tau) were carried out. The alpha level was set at .05. As shown in Table 1, thesetests did not find any significant relationships between the proportion of L1 turns and text
quality.

122

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 113-142

Table 1
Correlations Between the Proportion of L1 Turns and Text Quality Measures
MSDτ
Proportion of L1 turns
0.28
0.24
Number of words
82.04
11.44
−.07
Errors per word
0.10
0.06
.15
Proportion of error-free T-units
0.45
0.23
−.15
Length of clause
6.51
0.70
−.11
Length of T-unit
8.27
0.94
−.10
Clauses per T-unit
1.28
0.13
−.03
Type-token ratio
0.58
0.05
.05
Task fulfillment
3.72
0.56
−.07
Idea development
3.68
0.38
−.02
Cohesion
3.66
0.53
.00
Note. N = 25

p
.607
.304
.314
.441
.498
.833
.726
.668
.917
.979

The second research question explored differences in the writing process between pairsthat used L1 frequently and pairs that used L1 infrequently. Focusing on selected pairs andqualitatively analyzing their interactions was a practical approach to this investigation. Thus,
the interactions of the three pairs that used Japanese most frequently (High L1 pairs) werecompared with those of the three pairs that used Japanese least frequently (Low L1 pairs). The
High L1 pairs (High 1, High 2, and High 3) all belonged to the class that was allowed to use
Japanese, and the proportions of L1 turns were .64, .70, and .78, respectively. The Low L1
pairs (Low 1, Low 2, and Low 3) all belonged to the class that was instructed to speak English
exclusively, and the proportions of L1 turns were .01, .01, and .03, respectively.
Table 2 displays the amount of time (in seconds) each pair spent on planning,
formulating, reviewing, and the three types of episodes. As it shows, all pairs spent thebiggest chunk of time formulating, which constitutes the core of Zimmermann’s model. The
High L1 pairs allocated 47 to 66% of their time to this process. Although the Low L1 pairs
allocated slightly less, they still spent 34 to 51% of their time formulating. The two groups
were distinct in the other two processes: planning and reviewing. The High L1 pairs spent 12
to 19% of their time planning while the Low L1 pairs spent less than 10%. The Low L1 pairs
spent 15 to 20% of their time (over 2 minutes) reviewing the texts they had composed while123

Yusa Koizumi
Use of L1 in L2 Collaborative Writing: Does It Make Any Difference to the Product or Process?

the High L1 pairs spent no time. For the three types of episodes, no clear pattern was
detected: The time spent varied within the High L1 and Low L1 groups, but not between
them.
Table 2
Amounts of Time Spent on Processes and Episodes
Processes
Planning Formulating Reviewing
High
L1

1

LREs

EpisodesTask
management
8(0.9%)
0

Off-task

168
571
0
153
0
(18.7%)(63.4%)(17.0%)
2
131
419
0
350
0
(14.6%)(46.6%)(38.9%)
3
111
597
0
173
13
6
(12.3%)(66.3%)(19.2%)(1.4%)(0.7%)
Low 1
87
455
180
174
4
0
L1
(9.7%)(50.6%)(20.0%)(19.3%)(0.4%)
2
36
435
161
249
19
0
(4.0%)(48.3%)(17.9%)(27.7%)(2.1%)
3
86
309
136
221
24
124
(9.6%)(34.3%)(15.1%)(24.6%)(2.7%)(13.8%)
Note. The amount of time was measured in seconds. The percentages represent the
proportions to the total time on task, 15 minutes (900 seconds).
Based on the results, a timeline was created for each pair in order to map the three mainprocesses (planning, formulating, and reviewing) and the three types of episodes (LREs, time
management, and off-task) in the 15-minute collaborative writing (Figure 1). Not merely did
the timelines highlight the differences between the High L1 and Low L1 pairs reported above,
they disclosed other interesting findings related to the differences. As for planning, thetimeline for High 1 showed that these students allocated 2.5 minutes at the beginning of thetask to global-level planning. As for reviewing, Low 2 and Low 3 finished formulating andmoved on to review earlier than the others, at the 8-minute mark and the 10-minute mark,respectively. After the review, these pairs had spare time: Low 2 used it for formulating andLREs, but Low 3 used it for off-task talk. Regarding LREs, the timelines made it clear thatHigh L1 pairs’ LREs tended to be more continuous than Low L1 pairs’ LREs.

124

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 113-142

Figure 1
Timelines for the High L1 and Low L1 Pairs

125

Yusa Koizumi
Use of L1 in L2 Collaborative Writing: Does It Make Any Difference to the Product or Process?

Discussion
The analysis for the first research question found no significant correlations between
the proportion of L1 turns in a pair’s interaction and the ratings of their joint composition.
This result indicates that the amount of L1 students employ in the process of collaborative
writing has little impact on their product. This result is not surprising given the mixed
findings of previous studies on L2 collaborative writing (Swain & Lapkin, 2000) and L2
individual writing (Akyel, 1994; Lally, 2000; Woodall, 2002). As in these studies, the result
suggests that the relationship between L1 use and text quality interacts with other variables,
including students’ proficiency and task type. Further investigation involving these variables
is needed to disentangle the complex relationships.
The findings for the second research question were twofold. For one, the analysis
showed that the pairs that used L1 most frequently and the pairs that used L1 least frequently
both spent the largest part of their time formulating. As shown in Excerpt 1, formulating in thedata typically proceeded as one student orally generated a part of a sentence while the otherrepeated it or repaired it.
Excerpt 1
Low 1
Formulating
Y:
he: =
J:
= remembered,Y:-bered (1.0) he: thJ:throwing awayY:
throw away =J:= the ticketY:
the ticket lottery ticket in garbage (.) can
(4.0)
J:
(?)
Y:
a: (10.0) he:(7.0)
J:
ticketY:
the ticket i::n garbage can.
J:garbage garbage can. throw away (.) in?
Y:
okay? ((chuckle)) throw away ticket lottery ticket
Repairing sometimes developed into an LRE, as in Excerpts 2 and 3.
126

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 113-142

Excerpt 2
Low 3
Formulating
S:
Diego =Y:
= Diego,S:
rememberY:remembered that
S:
that (.) he:: he:: throw (.) [the]Y:[the:]
S:
lottery =Y:= the lottery ticket. =S:= the lottery ticket.
(3.0)
Y:
e Die- Diego, (1.0) Di::ego, (.) remembered, (1.0) -bered, that, (2.0) ((writing)) he,S:
thro:wY:
throw
LRE (4 seconds)
S:
threw throw throw
Y:
threw threw,
S:
threw =Y:
= the lottery ticket.
S:
yes.
Excerpt 3
High 2
FormulatingK:= m he he he went to he went to the (2.0) went to: the(1.0) ((K writes))M:garbage dump
K:
garbage (2.0) dump to (2.0) to look for [the ticket]
M:[un] to look for(5.0)
LRE (17 seconds)
K:
ticket ni shita houga iinokana {should we say “ticket”?}M:
it toka demo iinjane {“it” will work}K:*for* (1.0) it?
M:ja ja [ticket demo iika] {then “ticket” will also work}K:[it docchi demo iiyo] mou ikkai {whichever is okay. (“ticket”) one more time}
These excerpts show that both High and Low L1 pairs interacted almost entirely inEnglish while formulating. The High L1 pair in Excerpt 3 switched to Japanese only after the
LRE was initiated. These findings suggest that permitting L1 use for L2 collaborative writing
does not necessarily lead to overuse. Particularly, when the task is implemented as part of atask cycle that primarily focuses on communicating in L2, students likely mediate their
127

Yusa Koizumi
Use of L1 in L2 Collaborative Writing: Does It Make Any Difference to the Product or Process?

communication in L2 while formulating and switch to L1 only when the need arises. This
result is in line with the aforementioned studies on L1 use in collaborative writing, which
consistently showed that students use L1 sparingly even when given access to it (Azkarai &García Mayo, 2015; Storch & Aldosari, 2010; Swain & Lapkin, 2000). The result also
indicates that the process of formulating does not require much L1. Previous studies on theroles of L1 found the language to be most functional for discussing content, negotiating
language, managing the task, and building rapport (Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo,
2009; Azkarai & García Mayo, 2015; Storch & Aldosari, 2010; Swain & Lapkin, 2000).
The present study suggests that students intuitively know what they can do and cannot do in
L2 and, when permitted, switch between the two languages flexibly according to their needs.
More importantly, the analysis revealed that the High L1 pairs’ and Low L1 pairs’
writing processes diverged when they engaged in activities other than formulating. The
timelines showed that both High L1 and Low L1 pairs frequently suspended formulating toengage in planning or LREs. However, High L1 pairs spent more time on individual
instances, and these long detours likely slowed down their formulating process and prevented
them from saving time for review. In fact, one High L1 pair (High 3) did not finish writing
their story in time, and the other two did so just barely.
Planning by High L1 pairs sometimes focused on global issues that related to the entire
narrative. Zimmermann’s (2000) model places global planning at the outset of the writing
process, yet it allows for a backward move from formulating to global planning. In planning
globally, High L1 pairs confirmed the plot they had worked out in the jigsaw task, sometimes
modifying or developing it to make it more logical or elaborate. These were conducted almost
entirely in Japanese, as seen in High 1’s long sequence at the beginning of their timeline(Excerpt 4). Thus, the access to Japanese offered High L1 pairs the means to reflect on andadjust the plans they had generated in English, which might have motivated them to suspend
formulating and return to global planning.
128

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 113-142

Excerpt 4
High 1
Planning (127 seconds)
S:saisho (.) saishoga: (2.0) atashiwa E E ni C ni (2.0) de: sono atoni: (5.0) korekana(6.0) nanka toriaezu [kore ikou] {First, my first is E. E and C and, after that, this. For
now, let’s go for this.}K:[a teka] a teka: nan (2.0) iya nantsu:kane kore {No, what can I say, this}S:
kore saisho? {Is this the first?}(1.0)
K:
kore saishoja nainja nai? ano: (1.0) D ga saisho janai D shaisho de: {This is not thefirst. D is the first. D is the first, and}S:
un
K:(?) kou yonde {Goes like this}S:
unK:
ano naitte iunoga atte hoshii kedo demo (2.0) a: demo yappari korede {I want to have(a picture that shows) “not there,” but, but on a second thought, (let’s go for) this.}S:unK:
dokoni yattakke mitaina fu:ni omotte kore yatte omoidashite: {(He) thinks like, where
did I put it, and (he) does this and remembers}
S:
aa aa
K:
de nainatte omotte {and thinks (it’s) not there}S:unK:
de kiitemite {and asks}
S:unK:
de garbage truck ittakara {and the garbage truck went, so}S:un (3.0) a! souiukoto [ittemite: nakute: de:] {that’s how it goes. (he) goes there, (theticket is) not there, and}K:
[ittemite: nakute: (.) de:]S:
setsumei {explain}K:setsumei [shite:] {(he) explains, and}S:
[shite:]K:
un. mitsukete [kurete:] {(another person) finds (it)}S:[mitsukete kurete:] okane {money}K:okane mitaina {money}S:
aa yatto wakatta. {I finally understand.}K:
konna kanjide iinjanai? {Isn’t it something like this?}S:ma korede ikka. hai. tekotowa: saishoga? {This is good. Yes. Then, the first is?}K:
saishoga [D de] {The first is D, and}S:
[D ka] D (.) F? =K:
= F de
S:
F-u:
K:
A (.)
S:
A?
K:
e
S:
A:: de de ikunoka. E? {A. Then, then (he) goes. E?}(2.0)
K:
E dane E C dane E CS:
E C deK:
H.
129

Yusa Koizumi
Use of L1 in L2 Collaborative Writing: Does It Make Any Difference to the Product or Process?

S:
K:
S:
K:
S:

H E (1.0) de? {and?}B
B [G?][G]oh (2.0) yoshi {Good.}
A similar explanation can be offered regarding LREs. As shown in Table 2, the total

time spent on LREs did not considerably differ between High L1 and Low L1 pairs. However,High L1 pairs generated fewer LREs than Low L1 pairs: The average number of LREs was
16.67 for the former while 19.00 for the latter. This means that High L1 pairs tended toengage in individual episodes longer. For example, High 2 produced one of the longest LREs
in the data, which lasted 71 seconds (Excerpt 5). Throughout this episode, Japanese mediatedthe students’ discussion and collaboration. The Japanese utterances performed a variety offunctions, including clarifying problems, proposing solutions, examining ideas, and making
joint decisions, all of which are essential to discussing or negotiating form. Japanese also
helped the students articulate and share their explicit knowledge of English. For example, K
mentioned two Japanese translations, “tanomu” and “tazuneru,” which correspond to different
meanings of the verb “ask” (“to request” and “to inquire”). Following this, the two students
discussed collocational patterns associated with the different meanings of “ask.” A little later,
K used the Japanese grammatical term “futeishi” (infinitive) to distinguish the “to” in theircomposition from the preposition “to” in the sentence they were formulating. The students
most probably had obtained the information about “ask” and “to” in Japanese, and it would
have been a challenge if they had had to verbalize it solely in English. Interestingly, the initialquestion that triggered this LRE was whether to insert “people” after the verb “ask.” Theexchanges about “ask” and “to” emerged incidentally in the course of the discussion. The
discussion of the initial question activated the students’ knowledge of relevant grammaticalfeatures, which set off further discussions related to these features.

130

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 113-142

Excerpt 5
High 2K:
asked to search his lottery (.) ticket?
LRE (71 seconds)
M:
people toka ireta houga ii? {Should we put something like “people”?}K:
ask (.) for for dakke nandakke {Is it “for”? What is it?}M:
aa nanka bunpotekinano attane {There was something related to grammar.}K:unM:
mou wasure chatta = {I already forgot.}K:= tanomuto tazuneruwa chigatta mou wasure chatta ((laugh)) {“To request” and “toinquire” are different. I forgot.}
M:
ask
K:
zenbu ask de sumasechau {I’ll use “ask” for everything.} (2.0) ask forM:
ask nani nani janai? [sokon tokoni (.) aiteno namaewo kakunja naino?] {Isn’t it “asksomeone”? Shouldn’t we write the person’s name there?}K:[a: ask (.)] ask for (.) people tokaja nakattake for toka (?) shhh {Isn’t it “ask forpeople”? (?) “for”?}(1.0)
M:
ask, hitono namae, to janakattakke {Isn’t it “ask, a person’s name, to”?}
K:
e:to soshitara kore (.) kore soujanee? {Then, isn’t this it?} ((found an example in theircomposition)) (2.0) tazuneruto (.) tanomuga chigatta kigasuru chigawanakattakke {Ithink “to inquire” and “to request” are different. Aren’t they different?} asked awoman where the garbage wasM:
to asked to (.) to irukke {Do we need “to”?}K:hhhh kono to wa futeishino to dakara (1.0) iya? ask for datta ki surundakedo {This“to” is the infinitive “to,” so ... no I think “ask for.”}M:
tashika nani naniwo kuda (.) iya shi (.) kudasai tekina imidatta ask for {I think “askfor” means something like “give me something.”}K:a sokka {You’re right.}
M:
soudatta kigasuru {I think so.}K:
asked (1.0) people.
This LRE, as well as many others produced by High L1 pairs, provides evidence forL1’s versatility as a metalanguage, or “language that is used to talk about language” (Berry,
2005, p. 17), in collaborative contexts. L1 helps students verbalize their explicit knowledge of
L2 and share it with their peers. It also facilitates in-depth discussion of L2 forms byequipping students with the necessary linguistic resources. With the help of L1, students canapply their explicit knowledge to their discussion and thereby resolve their L2 problems
interactively. Finally, the discussion of the target feature may activate students’ memory of
related features and promote further language-related discussion. Through performing thesefunctions, L1 helps prolong LREs, thereby sustaining students’ attention to the target forms.
131

Yusa Koizumi
Use of L1 in L2 Collaborative Writing: Does It Make Any Difference to the Product or Process?

This is presumably why High L1 pairs’ LREs tended to last longer than Low L1 pairs’ LREs.
In contrast, the Low L1 pairs’ writing processes were more linear, with fewer lengthy
interruptions. These pairs focused on recollecting the story they had worked out during thejigsaw task and putting it down on the paper, and this helped them go through formulating
quickly and save enough time for review. Although the longer time on review did not maketheir compositions better than High L1 pairs’, it did provide them with opportunities to checktheir works for any problems. As a result, Low 1 returned to global planning and discussed analternative plot. Low 2 returned to formulating to rewrite a part of their text and engaged infairly long LREs in that process. Low 3 finished formulating in 10 minutes and spent about 3
minutes reviewing; however, they still had time to spare and filled it with off-task talk in
English. These results suggest that restricting L1 use in collaborative writing may help
students concentrate on formulating and complete the task in a given time. The flip side is thatstudents may avoid dealing with complicated issues that they cannot smoothly discuss in L2,
therefore losing their chances to learn. Restricting access to L1 may also make it difficult for
students to stay productive: They may run out of things to do and engage in off-task talk tokill their time.
As discussed above, Low L1 pairs’ formulating often triggered LREs, which left themwith greater LRE counts than High L1 pairs. However, most of their LREs addressed simple
morphological issues and were resolved quickly without much interaction. The LRE in
Excerpt 2 is a typical example. It consisted of five turns, all very short, and lasted only 4
seconds. Students focused on the verb “throw” and successfully worked out the correct form
“threw.” However, they did not arrive at the solution through explicit discussion or
negotiation using metalanguage: All they did was vocalize the forms “throw” and “threw”
repeatedly. In a study using dictogloss tasks, Fortune and Thorp (2001) found their university
ESL students resolve 70% of their LREs through such vocalization. The researchers speculatethat when vocalizing, students may be tapping into their implicit knowledge to choose the132JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 113-142

form that sounds right, or they may be employing their explicit knowledge without
articulating it. Whichever is the case, problem-solving through vocalization is less beneficial
for learning. Seen from the interactionist perspective, resolution through vocalization makes
LREs shorter, thus reducing the duration of the time for which students focus on the target
form. In fact, Fortune’s (2005) follow-up study revealed that LREs containing metalanguage
are more likely to resume after being suspended than LREs containing no metalanguage. Seenfrom the sociocultural perspective, vocalization deprives students of the opportunity forcollective scaffolding. Students may apply their explicit knowledge to the problem at hand,but the knowledge cannot be transferred to their partners unless they articulate it.

Conclusion
The present study aimed to find any relationship between the amount of L1 employedduring L2 collaborative writing and the quality of the text produced. It also explored any
differences in the writing process between students who use L1 frequently and those who use
L1 infrequently while composing. Interactional and written data were derived from 50
university EFL students in Japan who composed a narrative text in pairs. The quantitative
analysis of the data showed that the proportion of L1 turns in the interaction did not
significantly correlate with the text measurements for fluency, accuracy, and complexity or
the ratings in three areas related to content and organization. However, the qualitative analysisof the transcribed interactions based on Zimmermann’s (2000) model of L2 writing showednotable differences between the three pairs that used L1 most frequently (High L1) and thethree pairs that used L1 least frequently (Low L1). The High L1 pairs’ writing processes
featured long intermissions in which students suspended formulating and engaged in planningor LREs. Their replanning sometimes addressed issues related to the entire story, and their
LREs often involved explicit discussions of L2 forms using metalanguage. These long detours
slowed down their formulating process and left them with no time for review. The Low L1
133

Yusa Koizumi
Use of L1 in L2 Collaborative Writing: Does It Make Any Difference to the Product or Process?

pairs’ writing processes were more linear, with fewer and shorter interruptions. They
concentrated on formulating, completed the process faster than the High L1 pairs, and saved
ample time for review. They generated more LREs than the High L1 pairs but resolved mostof them quickly without using metalanguage.
The study provides pedagogical implications regarding L1 use in L2 collaborative
writing. Co-authoring a text provides students with a variety of learning opportunities, and thestudy verified that some of these opportunities can be enhanced when students interact in L1
while they compose. Thus, whether teachers should permit students to use L1 depends onwhich opportunities they wish to enhance with the particular collaborative writing task. Ifthey seek to engage students in in-depth discussions of L2 forms and thereby sustain students’attention to the forms, or if they seek to have students articulate their explicit knowledge andscaffold each other’s learning, they should allow them to use L1 in the formulating andreviewing processes. Making L1 available might be an option in the planning process forteachers who prioritize having students develop detailed plans before starting to write.
However, when teachers implement collaborative writing as a more goal-oriented activity thatemphasizes completion under a time limit or as an opportunity for communicating andnegotiating meaning in L2, they should minimize the amount of L1 students employ. These
implications echo what Yoshida and Yanase (2003) suggest regarding when to encourage or
discourage L1 use in EFL classes at Japanese primary and secondary schools.
The study is limited in several respects, and future research will benefit from addressingthese limitations. Most importantly, the data for the study was drawn from one group of
students using one type of task that required them to produce a relatively short narrative in 15
minutes. The topic needs to be explored further with students of different proficiency levels
and tasks requiring other types of texts. The time on task may have been too short for somepairs, especially those that used L1 frequently, to incorporate their discussions into theircompositions. Taking this into account, time on task needs to be carefully adjusted. In
134

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 113-142

addition, although the participants had completed several oral tasks before the data collection,
it was virtually the first time for them to engage in collaborative writing. If they had been
given opportunities to practice, they would have become more capable of creating one text
together, and the amounts and purposes of their L1 use might have changed. Longitudinalstudies incorporating multiple task administrations are likely to shed new light on thisresearch topic. At least one study has found a significant relationship between the focus ofstudents’ talk while writing and the rating of their collaborative composition (McDonough etal., 2016). Overcoming the limitations of the present study may lead to uncovering the roles
that students’ L1 plays in that relationship.

Notes
This work was funded by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (19K13300).

References
Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development.
Language Teaching Research, 7(3), 347–376. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168803lr127oa
Akyel, A. (1994). First language use in EFL writing: Planning in Turkish vs. planning in
English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 169–184.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1994.tb00062.x
Alegría de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M. D. P. (2009). Oral interaction in task-based EFL
learning: The use of the L1 as a cognitive tool. International Review of Applied Linguistics
in Language Teaching, 47(3–4), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.014
Anton, M., & Dicamilla, F. J. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborativeinteraction in the L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 233–247.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00018
Azkarai, A., & García Mayo, M. D. P. (2015). Task-modality and L1 use in EFL oral
135

Yusa Koizumi
Use of L1 in L2 Collaborative Writing: Does It Make Any Difference to the Product or Process?

interaction. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 550–571.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541717
Berry, R. (2005). Making the most of metalanguage. Language Awareness, 14(1), 3–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410508668817
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G.
Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Ablex
Publishing.
Fortune, A. (2005). Learners' use of metalanguage in collaborative form-focused L2 output
tasks. Language Awareness, 14(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410508668818
Fortune, A., & Thorp, D. (2001). Knotted and entangled: New light on the identification,
classification and value of language related episodes in collaborative output tasks.
Language Awareness, 10(2–3), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410108667031
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied
Linguistics, 19, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.1.1
Hunt, K. W. (1966). Recent measures in syntactic development. Elementary English, 43, 732–
739.
Lally, C. G. (2000). First language influences in second language composition: The effect ofpre-writing. Foreign Language Annals, 33(4), 428–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.19449720.2000.tb00623.x
McDonough, K., Crawford, W. J., & De Vleeschauwer, J. (2016). Thai EFL learners'
interaction during collaborative writing tasks and its relationship to text quality. In M. Sato
& S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning (pp. 185–208). John
Benjamins.
Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & van Lier, L. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversational
and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35,
377–405. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588028
136

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 113-142

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in
instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks forsecond language instruction and research. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks andlanguage learning (pp. 9–34). Multilingual Matters.
Polio, C. G. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research.
Language Learning, 47(1), 101–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.31997003
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students' reflections. Journalof Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Multilingual Matters.
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners' use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an
EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14, 355–375.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375362
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting?
TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 760–770. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588224
Swain, M. (2010). 'Talking-it-through': Languaging as a source of learning. In R. Batstone(Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 112–130).
Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent
French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–
337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first
language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274.
https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400304
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring137

Yusa Koizumi
Use of L1 in L2 Collaborative Writing: Does It Make Any Difference to the Product or Process?

task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks:
Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). Longman.
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00103
Woodall, B. R. (2002). Language-switching: Using the first language while writing in asecond language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(1), 7–28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00051-0
Yoshida, K., & Yanase, K. (2003). Nihongo o ikashita eigo jugyo no susume [A guide to an
English class using Japanese]. Taishukanshoten.
Zimmermann, R. (2000). L2 writing: subprocesses, a model of formulating and empiricalfindings. Learning and Instruction, 10(1), 73–99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(99)00019-5

138

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 113-142

Appendices
Appendix A: Jigsaw Picture Cards

139

Yusa Koizumi
Use of L1 in L2 Collaborative Writing: Does It Make Any Difference to the Product or Process?

Appendix B: Transcription System?

Rising intonation.

Falling intonation,

Non-final intonation!

Animated tone(?)

Incomprehensible word

(stay)

Problematic hearing (the transcriber is uncertain about the word)[ ]Overlapping utterance=

Linked or continuing utterancest-

Cutoffsta:yStretching of the sound or syllable

sta::yLonger stretch of the sound or syllable(.)

Short pause(2.0)

Timed pause (in seconds)

stay

Increased volume*stay*

Lowered volumehhOutbreath((laughter))Comment by the transcriber

saishoJapanese utterance{first}English translation of Japanese utterance

140

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 113-142

Appendix C: Analytical Scales for Text Assessment
Task accomplishment
The writing brings
together all pictures into a
coherent story.

Idea development
The story is very welldeveloped. Detail isprovided in most scenes.

Cohesion
Cohesive devices (e.g.,transition markers,
pronouns, repetition of key
vocabulary) are usedeffectively to connect
ideas.

3

The writing brings
together all pictures into astory. The story is
generally coherent, but itomits important elementsof some pictures.

The story is fairly welldeveloped. Detail isprovided in some scenes.

Cohesive devices are usedeffectively, but connectionof ideas is occasionallyunclear.

2

The writing omits one
picture entirely, and/or thestory is not sufficiently
coherent.

The story is not sufficiently Cohesive devices are notdeveloped. Detail issufficiently used, andprovided only occasionally. connection of ideas issometimes unclear.

1

The writing omits two or
more pictures entirely,
and/or it does not tell acoherent story.

The story seriously lacks
development. Little or no
detail is provided.

4

141

Cohesive devices are
hardly ever used, andconnection of ideas isoften unclear.

Yusa Koizumi
Use of L1 in L2 Collaborative Writing: Does It Make Any Difference to the Product or Process?

Appendix D: Definitions and Examples of Processes and Episodes
Process

Planning

Formulating

EpisodesDefinition
Discussing the content of theentire narrative (global
planning) or the next scene(local planning)

W:
N:
W:
N:
W:
N:
W:
N:
W:

Examplehe is isn’t Diego?
no? uh who. [so][who] who who
I think just Diego.
[Diego][because]ohso if this is not Diego who is thi:s.
((laugh)) okay.

Recurrent cycles of:- formulating (orallytranslating an idea intowords and evaluating it),- writing (the mechanicalact of writing), and- repairing (reading andreformulating)

Y:
J:
Y:
J:
Y:
J:
Y:

he asks
he asked
his mother,his mother, (6.0) where’s garbage,aa
a::nd sh (13.0) mother (7.0)
garbage ((writing))yeah garbage uh

Reviewing

Final process of reading andevaluating the entire text

Y:
S:
Y:
S:
Y:
S:
Y:

but but, is there:: a mistake?
reallya:: is there a mistake?
mistake?
is there (.) aru? {Is there any?}
a: okayokay ((laugh))

Languagerelated
episodes(LREs)

Sequences in which students
question or correct their useof an L2 item or discuss an
L2 item devoid of any
previous use of that itemA:

his lottery lottery, (2.0) is nothing.
(3.0) a! was ka
a! so:ka {that’s right}
so:da kore aredayo {right, this is,
you know}
ja: looked ka = {then (this is)“looked”}= looked looked. zenbu kakokei
nanda kore {all of these are pasttense}

K:
A:
K:
A:

Task
Sequences in which students
management read task instructions, clarify
task requirements, discusswork procedures, or monitor
time

N:
W:
N:
W:

time is so:: left (5.0) uh
so let’s try to more longer? (5.0)
okay?
okay.

Off-task talkS:
Y:will you go to the baseball game?
uh I want to go to but I don’t haveticket.
oh

Sequences in which students
discuss a topic unrelated tothe task

S:

Note. The definitions of the three processes are based on Zimmermann (2000). The definitionof LREs is based on Swain and Lapkin (1998) and Williams (1999).

142

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 143-172

Accountability in Program Evaluation: How This Aspect Is Crucial in
Evaluations and Organizational Levels

Francisco Naranjo-Escobar
Lakeland University Japan

Abstract
Accountability is critical to quality assurance and the effective implementation of innovations.
However, there is a paucity of research on accountability utilization, conceptualization, andevidence collection. In turn, this has prompted scholars to call for the reconsideration of
accountability and the methods/strategies conducive to it as an observable phenomenon. Thisidea has gained momentum given the rapid migration from traditional to virtual classrooms,
mostly when policies overlook contextual variables affecting the implementation of
innovations—such as CALL-related or other initiatives. This paper sought to address themethodological and conceptual gaps regarding stakeholders and accountability
representativeness in the literature. To achieve this aim, this study first built on the available
literature to survey the nature of accountability and the socially reactive and dialecticalprocesses producing evidence. Then, an argument was crafted to assess the strength of therationales in the literature and suggest courses of action that consider social and contextual
constraints when implementing technology-related initiatives. The argument revealed that
accountability comprises a social product derived from evaluand participants' reactive andreflective engagement with their context; however, those elements are overlooked. On thisbasis, it is recommended that evaluand members observe environmental factors whenassessing initiative implementation and success rate.

143

Francisco Naranjo-Escobar
Accountability in Program Evaluation: How This Aspect Is Crucial in Evaluations and Organizational Levels

Keywords: evaluation, accountability, stakeholders, empowerment, argument-based
approach to evaluation

The last JACET Conference held in August 2021 had innovation and a reflection onteaching practices as one of its foci; one of the symposiums referred to how critical it is torethink the objectives sought by English language education and even referred to how English
language education should cover areas of Applied Linguistics. Along similar lines, this paper
theoretically reflects on the concept of accountability and its influence over programs
evaluation and, by extension, over any attempts to improve teaching praxis.
I depart from Gruba et al.' s (2016) assumption that curricular innovation is akin toevaluation in that there is an argument to make—either adding something that is missing or
modifying a component that has not worked correctly through a set of logical assertions thatgive shape to an idea that, concisely, "holds water."First, this paper explores accountability in program evaluation to address gaps which
are critical to improving praxis, allowing smoother access to crucial information, and, therefore,
to the implementation of changes. Additionally, this paper refers to the argument-based
approach to evaluation (Gruba et al., 2016) as the proposed tool to address all the theoreticalgaps regarding accountability. Due to the novelty of the argument-based approach to evaluation,
the last part of this manuscript is devoted to a brief definition, discussing its relevance, and thepresentation and appraisal of the argument found in the literature on accountability andstakeholders.

Accountability in Program Evaluation: Contextualizing the Issue
Program evaluation is a systematic attempt to gather information to make judgments or
decisions and inform interested parties—stakeholders—about the operation, results, or
144

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 143-172

constraints of an educational program to suggest improvements or ponder what has been done
against a priori established criteria (Norris, 2006, 2016; Rea-Dickins & Germaine, 1992; Owen,
2007). This idea of asking questions to organizations based on evidence for standards alignment
or deviation constitutes accountability (Bovens, 2005), and it is a central concept in evaluation
due to its utilization scope (see Norris, 2016; Lumino & Gambardella, 2020; Picciotto, 2013).
However, the literature has conceptualized accountability from two perspectives: an
external audit angle and an organizational relationship-based approach. The first perspective,
for instance, is what Norris (2016) identifies as the per se nature of evaluative endeavors in themost recent state-of-the-art review of program evaluation. He claims that any evaluative
process is akin to assessing how compliant a site is with regard to regulations and parameters;
this activity then acts as a catalyzer for compliance-focused improvement suggestions, which,in turn, reflects the conventional motivations to evaluate (Watanabe et al., 2009) and focuses on
the rationale that programs ought to demonstrate their value before society to ensure continuity(Benjamin, 2008; Kiely & Rea-Dickins, 2005; Nkwake, 2015; Norris, 2009, 2016; Patton,
2010; Rea-Dickins & Germaine, 1992; Zannirato, 2014).
The second perspective refers to compliance-enforcement and quality-assurance
producing responsibility relationships that emerge within organizations to satisfy
overarching-level-imposed regulations (Benjamin, 2008; Frink et al., 2008; Norris, 2016;
Rea-Dickins & Germaine, 1998). The latter social dynamics-based angle assumes that
educational programs are ecologies in which different organizational levels—macro, meso, andmicro—socially interact to translate guidelines into actions (Aizawa & Rose, 2019; Gruba et al.,2016; Kali et al., 2011). Such a process reflects what Rea-Dickins and Germaine's (1992) andother scholars' work (Lynch, 1996; Owen, 2007) claim to be critical: considering what is
effective for the site based on its unique characteristics. This rationale turns any evaluation
findings into a reflection of the ecology of the evaluand, and therefore, into what needs to be145Francisco Naranjo-Escobar
Accountability in Program Evaluation: How This Aspect Is Crucial in Evaluations and Organizational Levels

potentially corrected. At this stage is when the exploration of internal social dynamics becomes
valuable; social dynamics play a role in catalyzing improvement and are crucial to evaluative
processes (Kiely & Rea-Dickins, 2005; Lynch, 1996; Norris, 2006, 2016; Owen, 2007;
Rea-Dickins & Germaine, 1992). However, the need to prove value before society becomesproblematic because accountability may be weaponized. An example of this phenomenon is
washback in the form of curricula that serve test results to keep policymakers and society
appeased (see Koretz, 2008; Koretz & Hamilton, 2006; Smith & Holloway, 2020; Sultana,2018) as opposed to focusing on evaluand, and therefore, praxis improvement (see Norris,2016).
Although recently scholars have discussed and questioned the legitimacy of theutilization and scope of accountability as an effective quality measure (Colarusso & Giancola,
2020; Lumino & Gambardella, 2020; Norris, 2016; Picciotto, 2013), the intra-evaluand
dynamics leading to observable accountability at intra-stratum or inter-strata level havereceived little attention. The bulk of the discussion has centered on documentedclassroom-bound policy compliance-motivated dynamics (see Adamson & Weaver, 1998;
Leaton Gray, 2013; Preskill & Boyle, 2008; Smith & Holloway, 2020) and on how
guidelines—if anything—constitute constraints or sources of interpretation (Aizawa & Rose,2019). This situation has been the case even though stakeholder-access materials acknowledge
both the existence of a potential inter-strata influence (Bryson et al., 2011) and a need for arevision/reflection on the methodology employed to access participants (Bryson et al., 2011;
Bryson & Patton, 2015; Kivits & Sawang, 2021).
Furthermore, the literature constantly repeats keywords redirecting the discussion tosocial dynamics: participation, involvement, ownership, professional growth, and nurturing are
frequent terms in the literature (Gruba et al., 2016; Kiely, 2006; Kiely & Rea-Dickins, 2005;
Norris, 2016; Owen, 2007). Despite most research on program evaluation and evaluation
146

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 143-172

focuses on effectively working with stakeholders to reach the evaluative objectives, social
dynamics have been sacrificed and there has been a skewness towards categorization. Also,
there has been an emphasis on linking evaluator onus to access to individuals and, therefore, toresults and representativeness (Ackermann & Eden, 2011, 2020; Bryson et al., 2011; Kivits &Sawang, 2021; Linfield & Posavac, 2018). Although methodologically positive because they
reinforce the role of evaluators as neutral individuals, the trend mentioned above seems toignore some practical aspects inherent to organizations, such as grouping and the involvement
or refocus of attention upon evaluative endeavors (Azzam, 2010). If involvement varies whenevaluating a project and results in shifting stakeholder importance, then the same may welloccur during regular operation. This factor might affect visible accountability before an actual
evaluation takes place.
Similarly, role percolation—individuals wearing multiple hats—and potential multi-,
intra-, and inter-strata retroactive feeds have not been explored explicitly in the evaluation andprogram evaluation literature. To date, endeavors have been experimental in that they seek todemonstrate the feasibility of this perspective from a limited scope that does not cater tomultiple roles at once (see Gruba et al., 2016). This lack of explicit surveyance seems surprising,to say the least when organizational levels and their influence across organizations are
documented in the literature. An example is the case of governmental pressure on educators(see Leaton Gray, 2013; Smith & Holloway, 2020), which is acknowledged but not exploredfrom the standpoint of what it generates cross-sectionally.
Then, the question is how multi- or inter-strata relationships emerge and how they affectvisible/observable accountability; if government policies affect teachers' practice—a grossexample of multi-strata influence—then it is fathomable to consider the same may happen
within any evaluand among the participants. Why at a specific level and not everywhere?
Alternatively, why would it only happen at a specific level if so is the case?
147

Francisco Naranjo-Escobar
Accountability in Program Evaluation: How This Aspect Is Crucial in Evaluations and Organizational Levels

Along a similar line of thought but focusing on the operational evaluation oftechnological implementations, Gruba et al. (2016) proposed a method whose application canbe extended to solve the problems presented by this paper. These authors argue that in order toevaluate the effectiveness of technology implementations, it is necessary to consider two
aspects: the structure of the site and the participants—evaluand and stakeholders. They also
propose a reformulation or tailoring of Kane's (2006) argument-based approach to validity
based on the literature's call for its use as an analytical tool; arguments operate underassumptions requiring robust evidence (LeBaron Wallace, 2011) while extrapolation inferences
are logically justified from the standpoint of the intended use rather than from the meaning theymight have by themselves (Chapelle, 2012).
Furthermore, and building upon the flexibility of the argument-based approach, I argue
that we may well include an extra ingredient when construing stakeholders. Stakeholders may
well have multiple roles—wear multiple hats—that can percolate. Although percolation has
been acknowledged in the literature as a possibility (Bryson et al., 2011), the literature on
evaluation itself argues that we need to choose participants for the sake of a successful
evaluative project (Bryson et al., 2011; Kivits & Sawang, 2021), thus rendering percolation asecondary issue that is, somehow, relegated by the pursued objectives.
The idea of selection is pervasive in the literature (Ackermann & Eden, 2011, 2020;
Bryson et al., 2011; Kivits & Sawang, 2021), and scholars themselves acknowledge that
selection, although not ideal, is necessary to gain access to meaningful data or individuals due
to contextual values (Bryson et al., 2011; Bryson & Patton, 2015; Stack et al., 2018).
Additionally, other academics argue that we should focus on finding better or worse answers toorganizational issues instead of ideal responses due to the argumental nature of
problem-solving phenomena within organizations (Ackermann & Eden, 2020).
Furthermore, although anecdotally, percolation of roles is often found at the tertiary
148

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 143-172

level; there, coordinators may well be teachers and might also take part in a policy-making
committee. Role percolation should be addressed because of the information leverage it implies.
Even though an individual with coordination capabilities may act as a teacher, their knowledge
and access to information differ from those of a teacher with no other duties, thus making theirperformance unequal to that of individuals whose access is limited. Believing that people canconsciously decide what pieces of information to use is naive.
The situation mentioned above has posited two potential conundrums. First, there is thequestion of representative accountability findings: whether they truly represent all participants
and whether all those involved in the program could share their views. This limitation arises
from the inherently selective nature of current stakeholder access methods employed and theonus placed on the evaluator—or the individual acting as such. Secondly, there are thephenomena that produce observed accountability. Again, in this case, the internal operational
dynamics of the evaluand may have been relegated to the crafting of participant lists. With thisgap identified, this paper now refers to the relationship between accountability and attitude
within settings to then explore organizational factors.

Accountability and Attitude Within Programs: The Answer to the Social Nature of
Accountability
Norris (2016) provides an excellent overview of the state of the art in program
evaluation and specifies accountability as one of the driving factors due to its quantifiable
nature. Accountability is easy to conceptualize tangibly and transform into an artifact—be it
numbers or descriptors—upon which a discussion can arise. No discussion is unilateral,
however. The first step for anybody to listen is identifying with or having a reaction based on
the argument at hand (see Hall et al., 2015, for a summary of the several reactions
accountability generates in individuals).
149

Francisco Naranjo-Escobar
Accountability in Program Evaluation: How This Aspect Is Crucial in Evaluations and Organizational Levels

With this in mind, it is pertinent to discuss and analyze what drives people to listen or
join a discussion when accountability arises in evaluands. Owen (2007) argues that evaluative
processes are an extrapolation of individual appraisals; the critical difference is the scale.
Evaluations focus on group performance, while appraisals cater to individuals. Therefore, tounderstand, we should center on the individuals who partake in the group and the internal social
dynamics that arise and produce observable accountability. The focus is what individuals feelcompelled to do, not the existing rules by themselves (Hall et al., 2015). This fact may imply
that social dynamics may not be transparent or seem misleading without any careful analysis(Lillejord & Børte, 2020).
Moreover, attitude is inherent to stakeholders, thus centering the discussion on how
participants are accessed. The literature documents this topic very well, with the concepts of
empowerment and participation receiving attention (Kiely, 2006; Gruba et al., 2016). In
particular the literature to date constantly stresses the critical role of stakeholders for the
success of any evaluative endeavor, highlighting the idea of access. In turn, Bryson et al. (2011)
review a myriad of tools to access stakeholders; these authors acknowledge that suchtechniques have limitations and that their validity—as in how representative of reality
stakeholder analysis techniques are—goes beyond the scope of what an evaluator should do:
produce results that are meaningful for those who are interested. A similar standpoint is that of
Bryson and Patton (2015), who argue that the criteria of inclusion of an individual is based on
how critical the information they might possess is. Therefore, although methodologicallysensible, if we claim evaluations are participation-focused processes, researchers should reflect
on whether current stakeholder identification methods lead to generalizable/representative
results.
Filtering or categorizing poses per se a contradiction to the original motivations ofevaluations. Likewise, assuming that filtering or exclusion might be collateral damage of the150

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 143-172

evaluative endeavor poses an extra layer of issues that may invalidate the evaluative effort due
to poor involvement (see Kiely, 2006; Leaton Gray, 2013, for discussions on how involvement
fosters improvement). As a result, selection constitutes a limitation circumscribed to theevaluator's onus but mainly triggered by methodological reasons. For instance, Ackermann and
Eden (2011) propose a power/interest grid—their work from 1998 (Eden & Ackermann, 1998)
is quoted by Bryson et al. (2011), but their 2011 (Ackermann & Eden, 2011) work is chiefly thesame. Ackermann and Eden (2011) further expand and refer to stakeholder dynamics—which
could be extrapolated to Norris's (2016) idea of "relationships"— from a standpoint thatprivileges power and interest. Individuals may or not be interested regardless of their power;
therefore, any attitudinal change might be influenced by those factors or, vice versa, any
decision may well be affected by how involved or how much decision-making power someone
may have. Ackermann and Eden's (2011) toolkit is comprehensive in that it engulfs key
concepts that can be further expanded. Interest, for example, can be further expanded into
attitudinal aspects, such as antagonism or favorability towards a specific idea (see Bryson et al.,2011; Patton, 2018).
Although focused on implementing and normalizing blended learning approaches, otherperspectives that analyze participants' attitudes suggest breaking down the site into several
analytical layers (see Gruba & Hinkelman, 2012; Gruba et al., 2016; Jones, 2007). This
breakdown process operates under the assumption that any innovation affects the entire systemupon which it is implemented. According to this approach, each layer exhibits exclusive
attitudinal constraints. Even though the multi-layered conceptualization of organizations
belongs to organizational theory (see House et al., 1995; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000; Mitchell etal., 1997), it allows understanding feelings, attitudes, reactions, and motivations from astandpoint that enriches contextualization—an essential concept in seminal research (Norris,
2016; Rea-Dickins and Germaine, 1992) which is assumed obvious when designing evaluations.
151Francisco Naranjo-Escobar
Accountability in Program Evaluation: How This Aspect Is Crucial in Evaluations and Organizational Levels

Although the multi-layered approach might seem atomizing, it focuses on what each layer
might require or reject from other layers to reach goals smoothly (accountability) and operate
effectively; this conceptualization explains factors otherwise attributable to office politics orthe sociopolitical context of evaluands (Kiely & Rea-Dickins, 2005).
Further evidence supporting the relevance of closer scrutiny comes from the literature
exclusively focusing on attitudinal factors. Attitude has been found to affect performance and,
therefore, accountability results (Dubnick, 2003; Hall et al., 2015; Lerner & Tetlock, 1999);
similarly—as a subset—power, interaction dynamics, and personal beliefs have been found toexert influence on performance (see Kezar, 2013; Leaton Gray, 2013; Zannirato, 2014).
Specifically, Leaton Gray (2013) claimed to have found that decision-making by key
members—superior levels—directly influenced or restricted less empowered stakeholders'scope of action. Additionally, negative emotional responses, such as blatant rejection (see Van
der Meer & Edelenbos, 2006; Zannirato, 2014), as well as sabotage due to personal agendas(Bryson et al., 2011; Stufflebeam & Coryn, 2014), and systematic social
behavior—culture—have also appeared as behavioral factors (Adamson & Weaver, 1998;
Preskill & Boyle, 2008).
Therefore, it is clear that the evaluator should consider all these emotional aspects toforesee possible drawbacks; these limitations stand as an invitation to carefully categorize
stakeholders beyond the traditional models suggested and employed in evaluative praxis(Bryson et al., 2011; Kivits & Sawang, 2021; Lynch, 1996; Owen, 2007; Rea-Dickins &Germaine, 1992) which are reviewed in the next section.

Identifying Stakeholders: From Traditional Methods to a Comprehensive Approach
Ignoring past trends, which have undoubtedly contributed to evaluation scholarship,
does not do justice to the profession; rather than focusing on what these approaches lack,
152

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 143-172

scrutiny and reflection are needed to develop the discipline.
To date, the most cited method is the Ackermann and Eden's (2011) model, whose older
version (Eden & Ackermann, 1998) was quoted by Bryson et al. (2011) in their seminal
methodology paper. Bryson et al.'s (2011) recommendation of Ackermann and Eden's (2011)
power/interest grid is to date, probably, the most scalable and responsive tool available tocategorize participants in light of operational constraints; this is despite the fact several scholars,
including Bryson et al. (2011) themselves, acknowledge the need to innovate and findalternative methods (see Kivits & Sawang, 2021, for a similar assertion).
Ackermann and Eden's (2011) model situates stakeholders according to theirsignificance within the ecology of the evaluand and allows a discrete understanding of
attitudinal factors. The authors identify players, context-setters, subjects, and crowd. Players
are highly interested and influential, subjects are interested but lack power, crowd members
lack power and interest, while context setters have power but lack interest. The method,
however, does not account for organizational-level membership. This drawback makes specificconstraints remain obscure despite their critical role in the design, implementation, andnormalization of educational innovations (Gruba & Hinkelman, 2012; Gruba et al., 2016; Jones,
2007), whose improvement focus (see Gruba et al., 2016, for an extensive discussion on thisanalogy) makes them akin to evaluative endeavors.
Therefore, paying attention to the invisible mechanics of policymaking and policy
enforcement may shed some light on how each layer's limitations and motivations affect theentire site. In particular, the literature has described such limitations from an operational andcascading influence standpoint, as layers engage in retroactive and cross-sectional feedback
cycles (see Gruba & Hinkelman, 2012; Gruba et al., 2016; House et al., 1995).
The literature constantly refers to identifying key stakeholders to ensure a smoothevaluative endeavor; likewise, it is accepted that stakeholders are subsets within a153

Francisco Naranjo-Escobar
Accountability in Program Evaluation: How This Aspect Is Crucial in Evaluations and Organizational Levels

group—hence the need to categorize. Similarly, the literature acknowledges the entire process
as being subject to discussion, inherently judgmental (Bryson & Patton, 2015), and inherently
biased (Kivits & Sawang, 2021). Similarly, the concept of role percolation—several individuals
performing several roles—is accounted for in the literature as a factor affecting stakeholder
categorization (see Bryson et al., 2011); this, however, does not go beyond a simple
acknowledgment. What is more, explicit evidence of the impact of social dynamics, which isakin to multi-layer retroactive feeds, has also been described in the literature dealing witheducational and general evaluation accountability (see Hall et al., 2015, for a summary on
issues on educational settings and Kali et al., 2011, for an example of how pedagogical praxis
requires that the three layers cooperate)
To date, it remains unclear why percolation of roles has not been explored despite its
essential role in effectively addressing the concept of "accessing relevant stakeholders" whilecatering to the highly contextualized and rich nature of evaluands (Bryson et al., 2011; Bryson& Patton, 2015; Lynch, 1996; Kiely & Rea-Dickins, 2005; Norris, 2009, 2016; Rea-Dickins &Germaine, 1992). Now, I will refer to the three-layer approach to organization to shed more
light on why percolation is a factor deserving attention.
The Three Levels From Management: Breaking Down Sites
The literature acknowledges the existence of three organizational levels: macro, meso,
and micro. First, we will discuss the macro level and then proceed with the meso and the microlevel.
Macro-Level. Fenton-Smith and Gurney (2016) outline the macro-level to be in chargeof “sector-wide policies'' (p. 74). This means its scope of action comprises an overarchingentity that regulates and establishes parameters to be followed. The influence ofaccountability at this level can have two interpretations; first, it can be understood as thecatalyst for the existence of this level, as policy crafting constitutes benchmarking and
154

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 143-172

because already existing policy frameworks may control the scope of future policies (seeFenton-Smith & Gurney, 2016; Van der Meer & Edelenbos, 2006). Secondly, the macro levelcan be conceptualized as the primary factor motivating further organizational relationships
within educational settings. This rationale arises from the fact that collaboration and task
allotment are critical in achieving compliance with established benchmarks (see Benjamin,
2008, for a discussion). This conceptualization means that policy frames objectives whichindirectly influence any subsequent reactions or decision-making processes by individuals
that ought to abide by such regulations. Often, abidance is sought via approval.
Regarding this latter idea, the literature provides a series of examples demonstrating
how policy acts as a source of pressure that—positively or negatively—controls and frames
decision-making (Gruba et al., 2016; López et al., 2015; Virtanen & Uusikylä, 2004). Therefore,
it would not be strange to think that any evaluative efforts sponsored by this layer seek to either
legitimize or establish new rules.
Legitimization constitutes another way to reach normalization via the establishment or
acknowledgment of practices. This approach has been indirectly mentioned in the literature(Borrás & Højlund, 2015; Norris, 2016; Radej, 2011). However, while Norris (2016) argues
that one of the goals of evaluative endeavors is reaching societal approval orparameterization—normalization—of practices, other scholars argue there might be a moresinister top-down and interest-driven legitimization process that serves the venue or layer
pushing for it. An example of problematic motivations is washback in curricular articulation
when high-stake testing is the center of the curriculum (see Wall, 2012; Green, 2020; Sultana,
2018, for an extensive literature review of seminal and relevant research on washback. Anotherissue is the way sites tend to align themselves to address governmental understanding ofcurricula/quality (see Drago & Paredes, 2011; see also Mizala & Torche, 2012), which is a
result of a compliance-focused domino effect (see Linn, 2008). Other notorious examples are155Francisco Naranjo-Escobar
Accountability in Program Evaluation: How This Aspect Is Crucial in Evaluations and Organizational Levels

policy updates seeking to cater to society's heightened sensitivity to tertiary education
quality—another example of washback (see Espinoza & González, 2013). However, not all is
negative, as the inclusion of new literacies that respond to updated semiotic resources in theclassroom may be a catalyst for policy change (Burnett et al., 2014; Lotherington & Jenson,2011); similarly, contextual changes, such as the 2019 pandemic, have impacted policy due tothe forced transition from live to online instruction in some cases.
Meso-Level. This level operationalizes macro-level guidelines. It was first described inmanagement theory (Frink et al., 2008; House et al., 1995) as a reaction to the stabilization ofindividuals—micro level—and the system in which they are—the macro level. In the case of
program evaluation and evaluative endeavors, Gruba et al. (2016) define the meso level asfeaturing negotiation and administration tasks conducive to policy or guideline
operationalization; this makes their definition similar to that of management theory scholars
in that the meso level acts as a buffer between the top and the lowest level. Additionally, thislayer seeks to generate prestige and benefits for the organization; it aims at demonstrating
fully compliant operations before society (see Rosinger et al., 2016). However, as Kezar,(2013) notes, the social dynamics within the level impact stakeholders' capacity to perform
due to the status-quo—tenure culture, for example (see Ott & Cisneros, 2015)—and what is
acceptable in the established environment. These factors take prominence when we construe
management positions within educational settings as tokens of accountability relationships;
they exist because there is a need in the organization to justify behavior before authority.
However, as Wagner (1993/2013) notes, such relationships do not exist in a void; theyrequire a dialogical dynamic to be fruitful: those checked need to see the need to be checked,
and those checking need to see the need for checks. This interpretation is supported by Bovens(2005) who adds that managers and managed individuals constantly engage in feedback loops
to address challenges and ponder decisions. A simple example of this loop would be the156

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 143-172

tailoring of curricula to follow regulations and cater to stakeholders' needs alike (see Barnes etal., 2000; Kenna & Russell, 2015; Pinto, 2016).
Therefore, understanding why specific actions have been taken, why certain
stakeholders are doing something—be it in the case of technology implementations or any otherpractices—and whose agency was involved play a pivotal role in understanding this level's
motivations. One option to enquire about criteria could be a needs analysis (Long, 2005); thistool, although classic, helps understand what specific educational needs administrators
intended to address; however, it may not do justice to the whole subset of social dynamics inthe evaluand, and, therefore, to participation. Participation and direct involvement by
stakeholders promote ownership (McNeil et al., 2005) and, as Kiely (2006) asserts, the larger
the levels of ownership, the greater the tendency “to nurture: to understand, to innovate, toevaluate, and to justify" (p. 601). Therefore, we see how a virtuous cooperation cycle based on
the acceptance of issues may emerge (Nkwake, 2015; Salmon, 2015). However, it is also
necessary to explore what happens with practitioners in isolation. The next section refers to themicro-level.
Micro-Level. This level is characterized by actions inside the classroom and impact onlearning outcomes (Gruba et al., 2016; Hannah & Lester, 2009). It features engagement indevelopmental experiences triggered by educators' immediate activities in response tomeso-level plans of action (Hannah & Lester, 2009). One example would be the documentedcase of the Chilean voucher policy; in that situation, schools selected students sitting for the
standardized ministerial exams in an attempt to minimize backlash and match
macro/meso-level expectations (see Mizala & Torche, 2012). Another example is what
Cárdenas-Claros and Oyanedel (2016) found when exploring technology implementation in
an EFL program in Chile; in their study, they discovered that teachers' personal attitudes andbeliefs affected macro/meso-level policy enforcement. This provides some evidence that not
157

Francisco Naranjo-Escobar
Accountability in Program Evaluation: How This Aspect Is Crucial in Evaluations and Organizational Levels

only top-down influence is possible but also the opposite to some extent, as the variability ofoutcomes in educational settings has, somehow, made policies more tolerant of deviations
from set standards (see Leibowitz et al., 2015; Wamala & Ssembatya, 2015). Undoubtedly,variability arises as a response to the limits imposed by micro/meso-level guidelines because
educators interpret and regurgitate them according to their experience, beliefs, level ofbenchmark abidance (Linn, 2008) or based on their understanding of leadership and decision
making (Ingersoll et al., 2018). However, when these motivation subsets combine, theultimate result is variability and highly context-dependent characteristics that makeeducational settings unique, thus resonating with the traditional conceptualization ofevaluands (see Kiely & Rea-Dickins, 2005; Lynch, 1996; Norris, 2009, 2016; Rea-Dickins &Germaine, 1992; Owen, 2007), access to relevant stakeholders (Bryson et al., 2011; Bryson &Patton, 2015; Kivits & Sawang, 2021), and the currency of buzzwords like ownership andparticipation (Kiely,2006; McNeil et al., 2005).
The last section of this paper focuses on a brief explanation of the argument-based
approach to evaluation devised by Gruba et al. (2016). Since this approach responds to arenewal in the methodological approaches used in applied linguistics, it is necessary to explain
why apart from responding to calls for innovation, it can contribute to clarifying the issue ofaccountability in educational settings.
The Argument-Based Approach to Evaluation, the Craft and the Appraisal of the Argument
The argument-based approach developed by Kane (2006) has been actively used in
testing due to its primary validity-focused perspective. However, as Gruba et al. (2016) argue,
evaluations are arguments, or dialectical relationships, that rely on robustness to succeed.
Evaluators need to consider rebuttals to their argument to ensure it is valid from an inferential
standpoint. Furthermore, LeBaron Wallace (2011) discusses how arguments are mere yet
excellent analytical tools that may not be necessarily confined to testing; something that
158

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 143-172

Chapelle (2012) and Chapelle et al. (2010) also do when elaborating on Kane's (2006) original
proposal. The question is why it is employed when testing is involved and not when otherbranches of applied linguistics are at play. Evaluative endeavors are nothing but an argument;
there is a target domain, collected data, and an assessment of such evidence to measure theplausibility/feasibility of the interpretations of observed accountability. Gruba et al.'s (2016)
proposal is nothing but an extrapolation of the concept of validity (see Chapelle, 2012; Chapelle
et al., 2010, for a discussion on how validity operates), and it is not something new in applied
linguistics. For example, Cubilo (2014) stresses that evidence sheds light on resultinterpretations when extrapolating high-stake principles to classroom-focused assessment
practices in validity arguments.
The following section describes Gruba et al.'s (2016) argument proposal in a top-down
fashion:Target domain: the context of the evaluation or innovation to implement

1.
i.

Domain definition inference: linking the context to the required data thatwould represent it ideally. The data needs to represent the context to be effective.
Data collection: assertions about the data that need to be collected to evaluate2.

the status quo or make improvement suggestions.
i.

Evaluation inference: linking the collected data to the findings identified.
Findings: assertions pinpointing what can be suggested after the data analysis

3.

about the evaluation or the improvement suggestion.
i.

Explanation inference: linking the findings to a rationale that explains them.
Rationale: assertions defining how the findings—evaluative ones—can be4.
explained.
i.

Utilization inference: linking the rationale with the improvement or theeffective implementation of the innovation proposed.
159

Francisco Naranjo-Escobar
Accountability in Program Evaluation: How This Aspect Is Crucial in Evaluations and Organizational Levels

Program improvement: assertions detailing how findings can be used to5.

improve the status quo or implement the innovation.
i.

Ramification inference: linking the improvement of the program to situations

outside the scope of the context of the evaluand.
6.

Broader implications: assertions describing potential broader implications(p.40)The Craft of the Argument. The argument found in the literature took key concepts:
participation, access to relevant/representative information via stakeholders, and improvement
based on the findings. The first two factors (participation and access to relevant/representative
information via stakeholders) support the domain definition inference, and the target domain
stage in that stakeholders offer context-rich information that allows exploring the issues
present in the evaluand. The concept of improvement found in evaluation literature is akin to
the result of the data collection stage as the evaluation, and the explanation inferences are
directly connected to the contextually rich data representing—purportedly—the reality of theevaluand. Up to this stage, the argument refers to how participation is critical to ensuringlong-term stability and acceptance of changes in an evaluand, thus stressing the importance ofthe context and how this aspect explains findings and needs in a dialogical fashion.
The rationale and the program improvement stages correspond to what the findings
and their logical explanation can offer the evaluand; at this stage, any innovation might
become logical, as findings highlight parts that fall short within the system; this is due to thefact the utilization inference corresponds to how the findings can be articulated to improve thepraxis of the evaluand. In turn, the ramification inference implies contextual
transferability—how similar evaluands can use other evaluands' experience to inform decision
making, thus leading to the broader implications stage.
The Appraisal of the Argument. The argument found in the literature seems solid
160

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 143-172

immediately, however, as the discussion already demonstrated, the main weakness in thecurrent model of evaluation and program evaluation is stakeholder access due to the biased
nature of selection (Bryson et al., 2011); however, it is even more surprising that recent work
still refers to this weakness (see Kivits and Sawang, 2021).
Nonetheless, while there seems to be enough research highlighting the importance ofinternal dynamics related to accountability (Benjamin, 2008; Dubnick, 2003; Frink et al.,2008; Hall et al., 2015; Lerner & Tetlock, 1999), stressing organizational layer-motivatedconstraints (Gruba & Hinkelman, 2012; Gruba et al., 2016; House et al., 1995; Klein &Kozlowski, 2000; Mitchell et al., 1997), and referring to the impact of participation andinvolvement (Kiely, 2006; Leaton Gray, 2013), there is little program evaluation-focusedresearch demonstrating or refuting how such internal dynamics interact to produce theevidence needed to support the claims evaluative endeavors seek to sustain. What we do find
are toolkits that recommend courses of action departing from theoretical ideals when
designing evaluative or similar endeavors (see Gruba et al., 2016; Lynch, 1996; Linfield &Posavac, 2018; Rea-Dickins & Germaine, 1992; Owen, 2007), a copious amount of research
discussing the relevance and conceptualization of stakeholders (see Bryson et al., 2011; Bryson& Patton, 2015; Kivits & Sawang, 2021), and a vast description of the internal mechanics oforganizations, which were extensively referred to in previous sections. Considering this, there
is no reason to believe that educational settings are different from any other organization
described in management literature; accountability pressures are similar, and humans tend tofollow similar behavioral patterns. The mere acknowledgment of stakeholder-selection
methods limitations weakens any evaluative argument, as there is no certainty as to whether thefindings are genuinely representative of the evaluand or site.
Practical Implications for Teachers. Teachers and administrators alike can reflect on
how their role affects the implementation or the evaluation—in the sense of measuring the161Francisco Naranjo-Escobar
Accountability in Program Evaluation: How This Aspect Is Crucial in Evaluations and Organizational Levels

efficacy—of their praxis or the status quo in the evaluand. Given the myriad of factors at play,such as the level-specific issues discussed in this paper, teachers should reflect upon theirpraxis critically and make sure participation is real—from a perspective that bias is minimal
and that all the limitations identified in the literature are addressed as best as possible.
Stakeholders are critical to the program's stability, and while the literature and current praxis
are not coherent in that they call for contextualization while hindering it via selection, it isbetter than not taking any action. However, since the primary goal of any evaluative endeavor
is to collect information that improves educational practice; therefore, further practicalresearch is needed to assess the feasibility and practicality of the theoretical claims herein
exposed.

Conclusion
This paper theoretically explored the concept of accountability in language program
evaluation with a focus on the social aspects that have been overlooked in program evaluation
research and practice. Then, it crafted an argument in light of the literature and appraised it in abid to suggest practical implications and give practitioners suggestions on how to tackle
evaluations or innovations due to their similar nature. Likewise, this paper has discussed two
accountability perspectives found in recent literature: a benchmark to give accounts for
performance, and as the relationships emerging within organizations owing to the enforcementof auditability requirements (Norris, 2016). Based on this distinction, it has been possible todiscuss the critical influence of affective and organizational factors in the ecology of programs
and in the rationalization of accountability requirements. Particularly, the theoretical review ofthe literature has demonstrated the existence of an overlooked area of research within the realmof stakeholders and how effectively they can reflect as a group the accountability of the sitewherein they belong. Although a contradiction in terms of stakeholder representativeness has
162

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 143-172

been theoretically demonstrated, further research is needed to empirically assess the veracity ofthese claims and cater for other potential issues that might be contextually relevant.

Acknowledgements
I would like that the reviewers for their patience and feedback. Their feedback andinput were valuable and important to polish this manuscript and take on this challenge.

References
Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2011). Strategic management of stakeholders: Theory and practice.
Long Range Planning, 44(3), 179-196. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.08.001
Ackermann, F, & Eden, C. (2020). Strategic options development and analysis. In M.
Reynolds, & S. Holwell (Eds.), Systems approached to making change: A practicalguide (2nd ed., pp. 139-200). Springer.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4471-7472-1_4
Adamson, R., & Weaver, E. T. (1998). Adapting the evaluation process to the organizational
culture. In S. T. Gray (Ed.), Evaluation with power. Jossey-Bass.
Aizawa, I., & Rose, H. (2019). An analysis of Japan's English as medium of instruction
initiatives within higher education: The gap between meso-level policy and micro-level
practice. Higher Education, 77(6), 1125–1142.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0323-5
Azzam, T. (2010). Evaluator responsiveness to stakeholders. American Journal of Evaluation,31(1), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214009354917
Barnes, M., Clarke, D., & Stephens, M. (2000). Assessment: The engine of systemic curricularreform? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(5), 623-650.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270050116923
163

Francisco Naranjo-Escobar
Accountability in Program Evaluation: How This Aspect Is Crucial in Evaluations and Organizational Levels

Benjamin, L. M. (2008). Evaluator's role in accountability relationships: Measurement
technician, capacity builder or risk manager? Evaluation, 14(3), 323-343.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389008090858
Borrás, S., & Højlund, S. (2015). Evaluation and policy learning: The learners' perspective.
European Journal of Political Research, 54(1), 99-120.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12076
Bovens, M. (2005). Public accountability. In E. Ferlie, L. Linn, & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of public management (pp. 182-208). Oxford University Press.
Bryson, J. M., & Patton, M. Q. (2015). Analyzing and engaging stakeholders. In K. E.
Newcomer, H. P. Hatry, & J. S. Wholey (Eds.), Handbook of practical program
evaluation (4th ed., pp. 36-61). Wiley-Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch2
Bryson, J. M., Patton, M. Q., & Bowman, R. A. (2011). Working with evaluation stakeholders:
A rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34(1),1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.07.001
Burnett, C., Merchant, G., Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2014). The (im)materiality of literacy: The
significance of subjectivity to new literacies research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural
Politics of Education, 35(1), 90-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2012.739469
Cárdenas-Claros, M., & Oyanedel, M. (2016). Teachers' implicit theories and use of ICTs in
the language classroom. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(2), 207–225.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2014.988745
Chapelle, C. A. (2012). Validity argument for language assessment: The framework is
simple… Language Testing, 29(1), 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211417211

164

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 143-172

Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. (2010). Does an argument-based approach tovalidity make a difference? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(1), 3–13.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00165.x
Colarusso, S., & Giancola, O. (2020). Università e nuove forme di valutazione: Strategie
individuali, produzione scientifica, effetti istituzionali [University and the new ways ofevaluation: Individual strategy, scientific production, institutional effects]. Sapieza
Università Editrice. https://www.editricesapienza.it/formati-elettronici/pdf-open-accessCubilo, J. (2014). Argument-based validity in classroom and program contexts: Applications
and considerations. Shiken Research Bulletin, 18(1), 18-24.
https://hosted.jalt.org/sites/jalt.org.teval/files/18-1-18%20Cubilo.pdf
Drago, J., Paredes, R. D. (2011). La brecha de calidad en la educación chilena [The quality gap
in Chile’s education system]. Revista CEPAL, 104(Agosto), 167-180.
https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/11508
Dubnick, M. J. (2003). Accountability and ethics: Reconsidering the relationships.
International Journal of Organizational Theory & Behavior, 6(3), 405-441.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-06-03-2003-B002
Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (1998). Making strategy: The journey of strategic management.
SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446217153
Espinoza, Ó., & González, E. (2013). Accreditation in higher education in Chile: Results andconsequences. Quality Assurance in Education, 21(1), 20-38.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881311293043
Fenton-Smith, B., & Gurney, L. (2016). Actors and agency in academic language policy andplanning. Current Issues in Language Planning, 17(1), 72-87.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2016.1115323
Frink, D., Hall, A. T., Perryman, A. A., Ranft, A. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., & Royle,165

Francisco Naranjo-Escobar
Accountability in Program Evaluation: How This Aspect Is Crucial in Evaluations and Organizational Levels

M. T. (2008). Meso-level theory of accountability in organizations. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 27, 177-245.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(08)27005-2
Green, A. (2020). Washback in Language Assessment. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopediaof applied linguistics (pp. 1–6). John Wiley & Sons.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1274.pub2
Gruba, P., Cárdenas-Claros, M., Suvorov, R., & Rick, K. (2016). Blended language program
evaluation. Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Gruba, P., & Hinkelman, D. (2012). Blending technologies in second language classrooms.
Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Buckley, M. R. (2015). An accountability account: A review andsynthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 204–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2052
Hannah, S. T., & Lester, P. B. (2009). A multilevel approach to building and leading learningorganizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 34-48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.003
House, R., Rousseau, D., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework forthe integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 17, 71-114.
Ingersoll, E., Sirinides, P., & Dougherty, P. (2018). Leadership matters: Teachers' roles inschool decision making and school performance. American Educator, 42(1), 13–17.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1173452.pdf
Jones, C. (2007). Designing for practice. In H. Beetham, & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking
pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning (pp. 166–179).
Routledge.
166

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 143-172

Kali, Y., Goodyear, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2011). Researching design practices and design
cognition: Contexts, experiences and pedagogical knowledge‐in‐pieces. Learning, Mediaand Technology, 36(2), 129-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2011.553621
Kane, M. (2006). Validation. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational Measurement (4th ed., pp.
17-64). Praeger.
Kenna, J. L., & Russell, W. B. (2015). Elementary teachers’ utilization of field trips in an era ofaccountability: A research study. Curriculum and Teaching, 30(1), 51-66.
https://doi.org/10.7459/ct/30.1.05
Kezar, A. (2013). Departmental cultures and non-tenure-track faculty: Willingness, capacity,and opportunity to perform at four-year institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 84(2),153-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2013.11777284
Kiely, R. (2006). Evaluation, innovation, and ownership in language programs. The Modern
Language Journal, 90(4), 597-601. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00466_8.x
Kiely, R., & Rea-Dickins, P. (2005). Program evaluation in language education. Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511224
Kivits, R., & Sawang, S. (2021). The dynamism of stakeholder engagement: A case study of
the aviation industry. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70428-5
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps inconceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods,
3(3), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810033001
Koretz, D. (2008). Measuring up: What educational testing really tells us. Harvard University
Press
Koretz, D., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Testing for accountability in K-12. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.),
Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 531-578). Praeger.
Leaton Gray, S. (2013). The 'big society', education and power. Power and Education, 5(3),167Francisco Naranjo-Escobar
Accountability in Program Evaluation: How This Aspect Is Crucial in Evaluations and Organizational Levels

248-261. https://doi.org/10.2304/power.2013.5.3.248
LeBaron Wallace, T. (2011). An argument-based approach to validity in evaluation.
Evaluation, 17(3), 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389011410522
Leibowitz, B., Bozalek, V., van Schalkwyk, S., & Winberg, C. (2015). Institutional context
matters: The professional development of academics as teachers in South African higher
education. Higher Education, 69(2), 315-330.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9777-2
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects ofaccountability. Psychological bulletin, 125(2), 255-275.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255
Lillejord, S., & Børte, K. (2020). Trapped between accountability and professional learning?
School leaders and teacher evaluation. Professional Development in Education, 46(2),274–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1585384
Linfield, K. J., & Posavac, E. J. (2018). Program evaluation (9th ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315102429
Linn, R. (2008). Educational accountability systems. In K. Ryan & L. Shepard (Eds.), The
Future of test-based educational accountability (pp. 3-24). Routledge.
Long, M. H. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge University Press.
López, D. A., Rojas, M. J., López, B. A., & López, D. C. (2015). Chilean universities andinstitutional quality assurance processes. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(2), 166-183.
https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-05-2013-0024
Lotherington, H., & Jenson, J. (2011). Teaching multimodal and digital literacy in second
language settings: New literacies, new basics, new pedagogies. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 31, 226-248. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000110
Lumino, R., & Gambardella, D. (2020). Re-framing accountability and learning through
168

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 143-172

evaluation: Insights from the Italian higher education evaluation system. Evaluation,
26(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389019901304
Lynch, B. (1996). Language program evaluation: Theory and practice. Cambridge University
Press.
McNeil, K. A., Newman, I., & Steinhauser, J. (2005). How to be involved in program
evaluation: What every administrator needs to know. Scarecrow Education.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. The
Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. https://doi.org/10.2307/259247
Mizala, A., & Torche, F. (2012). Bringing the schools back in: The stratification of educational
achievement in the Chilean voucher system. International Journal of Educational
Development, 32(1), 132-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2010.09.004
Nkwake, A. M. (2015). Credibility, validity, and assumptions in program evaluation
methodology. Springer.
Norris, J. M. (2006). The why (and how) of assessing student learning outcomes in college
foreign language programs. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 576-583.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00466_2.x
Norris, J. M. (2009). Understanding and improving language education through program
evaluation: Introduction to the special issue. Language Teaching Research, 13(1), 7-13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808095520
Norris, J. M. (2016). Language program evaluation. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1),
169-189. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12307
Ott, M., & Cisneros, J. (2015). Understanding the changing faculty workforce in higher
education: A comparison of non-tenure track and tenure line experiences. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 23(90), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1934
169

Francisco Naranjo-Escobar
Accountability in Program Evaluation: How This Aspect Is Crucial in Evaluations and Organizational Levels

Owen, J. M. (2007). Program evaluation: Forms and approaches (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhanceinnovation and use. Guilford Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2018). Stakeholders. In B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational
research, measurement, and evaluation (pp. 1584-1586). SAGE Publications, Inc.
https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139.n656
Picciotto, R. (2013). The logic of development effectiveness: Is it time for the broader
evaluation community to take notice? Evaluation, 19(2), 155–170.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389013483715
Pinto, L. E. (2016). Tensions and fissures: the politics of standardized testing and accountabilityin Ontario, 1995–2015. The Curriculum Journal, 27(1), 95-112.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2016.1140061
Preskill, H., & Boyle, S. (2008). A Multidisciplinary model of evaluation capacity
building. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(4), 443-459.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214008324182
Radej, B. (2011). Synthesis in policy impact assessment. Evaluation, 17(2), 133-150.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389011403450
Rea-Dickins, P., & Germaine, K. (1992). Evaluation. Oxford University Press.
Rea-Dickins, P., & Germaine, K. (1998). Managing evaluation and innovation in language
teaching: Building bridges. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315841014
Rosinger, K. O., Taylor, B. J., Coco, L., & Slaughter, S. (2016). Organizational segmentationand the prestige economy: Deprofessionalization in high- and low-resource departments.
The Journal of Higher Education, 87(1), 27-54. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2016.0000
Salmon, G. (2015). Learning innovation: A framework for transformation. European Journal ofOpen, Distance and e-Learning, 17(2), 220-236.
170

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 143-172

https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2014-0031
Smith, W. C., & Holloway, J. (2020). School testing culture and teacher satisfaction.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 32, 461–479.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09342-8
Stack, R., Leal, N., Stamp, S., Reveruzzi, B., Middlin, K., & Lennon, A. (2018). Complex
evaluations in the political context: Engaging stakeholders in evaluation design.
Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 18(2), 122–131.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X18778699
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Coryn, C. L. S. (2014). Evaluation theory, models, and applications (2nded.). Jossey-Bass.
Sultana, N. (2018). Investigating the relationship between washback and curriculum alignment:
A Literature Review. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 9(2), 151-158.
Van der Meer, F., & Edelenbos, J. (2006). Evaluation in multi-actor policy processes:
Accountability, learning and co-operation. Evaluation, 12(2), 201-218.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389006066972
Virtanen, P., & Uusikylä, P. (2004). Exploring the missing links between cause and effect: A
conceptual framework for understanding micro–macro conversions in programmeevaluation. Evaluation, 10(1), 77-91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389004043136
Wagner, R. B. (2013). Accountability in education: A philosophical inquiry. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315021348 (Original work published 1993)
Wall, D. (2012). Washback in language assessment. The encyclopedia of applied linguistics.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1274
Wamala, R., & Ssembatya, V. A. (2015). Productivity in academia: An assessment of causal
linkages between output and outcome indicators. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(2),184-195. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-01-2014-0002
171

Francisco Naranjo-Escobar
Accountability in Program Evaluation: How This Aspect Is Crucial in Evaluations and Organizational Levels

Watanabe, Y., Norris, J. M., & González-Lloret, M. (2009). Identifying and responding toevaluation needs in college foreign language programs. In J. M. Norris, J. M. Davis, C.
Sinicrope, & Y. Watanabe (Eds.), Toward useful program evaluation in college foreign
education (pp. 5-56). University of Hawaii.
Zannirato, A. (2014). Promoting change in "two-tiered" departments: An exploratory
evaluation of conflict and empowerment among language and literature faculty. The
American association of university supervisors, coordinators and directors of foreign
languages programs (AAUSC) (pp. 154-182). http://hdl.handle.net/102015/69738

172

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 173-199

Combining In-Class and Out-of-Class Practices in a Hybrid Class:
Action Research of the Presentation Support System
for Developing English Presentation Skills

Ai Sugimura
Okayama Prefectural University
Saori Takeoka
College of Nagoya Women’s University
Eric A. Des Marais
Okayama Prefectural University

Abstract
To thrive in this quickly globalizing digital era, the importance of expressing oneself inEnglish is becoming more and more necessary. Both professionals and academics must beable to express their ideas quickly, clearly, and confidently to their colleagues. Well-polishedpresentation skills are more important than ever before. To meet this challenge, we designed
and built the Presentation Support System and then adapted it to graduate learning in 2019.
The purpose of this study is to describe the learning system, hypothesize how we think itenhances the presentation skills of graduate students, and report the results of the experimentusing the system. We also highlight areas for future research.

Keywords: presentation, web support system, evaluation, peer learning

Expressing oneself in English is an unavoidable reality in a globalized digital era. To
address this, we designed and built the Presentation Support System, then adapted it to173

Sugimura, A., Takeoka, S., & Des Marais, E.A.
Combining In-Class and Out-of-Class Practices in a Hybrid Class: Action Research of the Presentation Support System for Developing
English Presentation Skills

graduate learning in 2019. This study will explain the learning system and report sometentative results obtained from the first semester of a postgraduate class in 2021.

Description of the Presentation Support System
The system was first conceived in 2017. It is composed of two subsystems: In-class
Learning and Outside of Class Learning. These two subsystems were designed to create an
integrated learning system that supports hybrid learning both in and out of the classroom(Figure 1). To improve presentation skills, self-study, or voluntary practice outside of regularclass time is essential. The system aims to encourage students to practice by themselves andcombine the in-class learning with out-of-class practice effectively. So far, the In-class
Learning subsystem was built and then piloted in a graduate course. The Outside of Class
Learning subsystem is currently under construction. This study will describe the alreadyconstructed In-class Learning part of the system, focusing on its three evaluation systems.

Figure 1
Outline of Presentation Support System

Outline of In-class Learning mode
The In-class Learning mode is mainly used in class. There are three activities:
Presentation (Practice), Q & A, and Presentation (Final). These three activities are designed to174

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 173-199

support the class through recording presentations and allowing other students and instructors
to provide feedback to the presenter.
Presentation (Practice) is used to rehearse the presentation and to engage in selfevaluation. It helps the presenter to get used to the technology and to self-reflect on their own
performance. As the presenter gives a presentation, the presentation system creates arecording. Whenever the student needs any corrections, a teacher or peer can stop thepresentation to offer advice to the presenter. Thus Presentation (Practice) allows interruption
and repetition when they are necessary. The advice is also recorded and helps the presenter toimprove their performance after class. Once the student is ready, they then move on to
Presentation (Final Version).
In the Q & A activity, the class and instructors interact with the presenter, offering
feedback or asking questions, as would happen in a professional seminar or academic
conference. Q & A is also composed of the same four parts as in Presentation (Final Version).
To be a good questioner, students need to concentrate on the presentation. Careful observationof other students’ performance is beneficial for the enhancement of their presentation skills.
Presentation (Final Version) consists of four parts: video recording, online evaluation,
post-presentation evaluation and evaluation comments. During this activity, students give a
presentation as if it were at an actual conference or seminar. They give a talk along with aPowerPoint presentation. Their presentation is recorded so that the speaker can review theirperformance later along with feedback from the audience.
Feedback devices
Feedback is an important component of the In-class Learning mode, and it is integrated
throughout the presentation system. This allows the presenter to receive useful critiques tohelp them gain confidence with public speaking, to improve their presentation techniques,
and to develop their own presentation style.

175

Sugimura, A., Takeoka, S., & Des Marais, E.A.
Combining In-Class and Out-of-Class Practices in a Hybrid Class: Action Research of the Presentation Support System for Developing
English Presentation Skills

Various previous research deals with the effects and impacts of feedback onpresentation performance. At school, feedback is basically given by three types of
evaluators: teacher, peers and the speaker themselves. Feedback varies according to its
source, and this variety of perspectives allows for a wider range of improvement of presenter
performance (De Grez et al., 2012; Patri, 2002; Dollisso & Koundinya, 2011; van Ginkel etal., 2017a; van Ginkel et al., 2017b). The effects and the differences which derive from thesedifferent sources of feedback are still in an investigational stage. However, since a
presentation can have various audience members who would judge the presentation based on
their own individual criteria, diversity in feedback is important for presentation practice.
Thus, our system includes the above mentioned three feedback sources.
Feedback from peers is especially helpful, so In-class Learning mode is particularly
useful for the collection of feedback from other students. Peer feedback can be a tool to help
develop presentation skills especially among higher education students (Day et al., 2021). It
is important, since by evaluating other students’ performance, the presenter and observer
learn both good and poor points regarding their presentation. Sometimes students follow thegood example indicated by their peers and avoid poor performance. If they can judge theperformance of their peers suitably, that means they can judge their own presentation well.
Peer feedback can promote learners’ active participation and meaningful engagement(Gikandi & Morrow, 2016). On the process of producing feedback reviews, students engage
in multiple acts of evaluative judgement, which stimulates their various abilities. Thus, Nicolet al. (2013) argues that the capacity to produce quality feedback is a fundamental graduate
skill (2013). Effective feedback plays a crucial part in the system, and an issue we have been
researching (Sugimura, 2019, 2020, 2021). In this system, feedback is a significant
component of the In-class Learning mode, and it is integrated throughout the presentation
system. The Presentation (Final Version) utilizes three types of evaluations: 1) Online
Evaluation; 2) Post-Presentation Evaluation; and 3) Comment.
176

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 173-199

Procedure for Presentation (Final Version)
As mentioned above, the system has three activities. Among them, we are concentratingon Presentation (Final) here. This activity consists of the following four parts:● Video Recording● Online Evaluation● Post-Presentation Evaluation● Evaluation Comments
In Presentation (Final), students give a presentation as if it were at an actual conferenceor seminar. They give a talk along with a PowerPoint presentation. Their presentation isrecorded as is shown in Figure 2, so that the speaker can review their performance later alongwith feedback provided by their peers and instructor.

Figure 2
Video Recording Using the System

Online Evaluation is done concurrently while the class watches the presentation. It is
designed to be done quickly: evaluators have only two choices per item. Audience members
click on the corresponding evaluation item in the Evaluation Item Table (Figure 3) while thepresentation occurs. The blue buttons (○) means the performance is satisfactory, while the red
buttons (×) indicates that improvement is needed. Teacher registers the evaluation category
177

Sugimura, A., Takeoka, S., & Des Marais, E.A.
Combining In-Class and Out-of-Class Practices in a Hybrid Class: Action Research of the Presentation Support System for Developing
English Presentation Skills

first, and then selects all the needed evaluation items from each evaluation category. In ourcase, we registered the three evaluation categories of Voice, Posture, and Slides. Eachcategory has two or three evaluation items, and students are expected to choose either good,which is shown in blue or poor, which is in red, whenever they think it appropriate while
watching the presentation. The guideline for the assessment is based on Stevens & Levi’s
rubric evaluation method (2013).

Figure 3
Online Evaluation Table

Voice
PostureSlidesFigure 4
Post-Presentation Evaluation Table

178

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 173-199

The Post-Presentation Evaluation is done after the presentation (Figure 4). It allows theteacher and other students to provide a more thorough evaluation of the entire presentation.
Like the Online Evaluation, teachers can select items for evaluation based on the goals of thelesson and can even input their own evaluation items. However, unlike the Online Evaluation,
the Post-Presentation is a rubric with an adjustable evaluation range (default is set to 5).
Of course, evaluators will have opinions and ideas that cannot be expressed within theconfines of the Online Evaluation and Post-Presentation Evaluation. Therefore, there is a third
evaluation mode which allows free commenting.

Feedback Session
After a presentation, feedback is given to the student. In the In-class Learning mode,
four types of evaluation results can be utilized (Figure 5). Individual practice is important toenhance presentation skills. Once a class period is finished, the results from the evaluation
systems support students’ outside of class self-practice. Each student can go at their own paceand analyze their own video and practice by themselves based on the results.

Figure 5
Outline of Feedback Session

179

Sugimura, A., Takeoka, S., & Des Marais, E.A.
Combining In-Class and Out-of-Class Practices in a Hybrid Class: Action Research of the Presentation Support System for Developing
English Presentation Skills

The feedback from the instructors and other students helps the student engage in selfreflection to better understand their specific strengths and areas for improvement. With theseevaluation results, students learn regularly and continuously. They continue free practice andpeer discussion with other students using the Out-of-Class Learning mode. Thus, the system
helps students combine In-Class and Out-of-Class Practices.

Presentation Playback with Online Dynamic Evaluation Results
In the feedback session, Online Evaluation plays an important role. Figure 6 shows
what the results of an Online Evaluation might look like. As the video is played, theevaluation results are shown simultaneously. When a certain percentage of the audiencechoose the same evaluation category, which are voice, posture and slides in this study, thesquare under the category name will be lit. The blue light means the performance in thatcategory is good, while red indicates the performance needs improvement. We call this color
change the “color palette.” The percentage of the color palette can be set by teachers based on
the number of audience members and how often the light would be lit. The color paletteallows the speaker to see the feedback in relation to the timing of the presentation, thereby
helping them to pinpoint issues they might need to work on.
The lights in the color palette also work as an indicator when students play back thevideo. The red light enables students to find which part of recording contains problems intheir presentation. Thanks to the light, they can avoid watching the video inefficiently.
Without any markers, it could be time-consuming to watch the video searching for their
weaknesses. Thus, the lights of the color palette help speakers not only in providing theevaluation results but also in making video playback less time-consuming.

180

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 173-199

Figure 6
Color Palette

Categories:
Voice,
Posture,SlidesOnline Evaluation Results
The number of times each evaluation item is chosen is calculated automatically andshown in the summary table (Figure 7). The figures written in blue mean that the performancein that evaluation item is satisfactory while red ones indicate the area needs improvement.

Figure 7
Online Evaluation Summary Table

181

Sugimura, A., Takeoka, S., & Des Marais, E.A.
Combining In-Class and Out-of-Class Practices in a Hybrid Class: Action Research of the Presentation Support System for Developing
English Presentation Skills

The black shows the total number. Since the color palette shows the results only in categories,
this table gives more detailed feedback. Concrete figures help students to grasp both thestrong points and areas needing improvement for their performance. Speakers can understandwhere they are strong and where they need to improve.

Post-Presentation Evaluation Results
Post-Presentation Evaluation allows the evaluators to provide more nuanced feedback
than the simple two-choice responses given by the Online Evaluation. Figure 8 shows theresults of the Post-Presentation Evaluation. The table indicates the number of evaluators whochose each response from poor to strong, and the average score the presentation received foreach evaluation item.

Figure 8
Post-Presentation Evaluation Summary Table

Item 1: Clarity
Item 2: Understandability
Item 3: Posture
Item 4: Slides
Item 5: Overall impression

This type of evaluation is a well-established form of feedback and has been used for along time, even before computer-based evaluation was introduced. However, being connected
182

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 173-199

to a computer system, all the evaluation results are collected and calculated in one spot, andthe scores including averages are shown digitally.

Comment
Rubric-based evaluations are quick and are also useful for aggregating feedback into aquantitative format. This makes class management easier for the instructor and puts lessburden on evaluators. However, it also has drawbacks as presenters could lose the opportunity
for more nuanced and individualized feedback.
So, in addition to the above-mentioned evaluations there is an open comment evaluation
mode as well. By writing comments in their own words, evaluators can better express both
positive feedback and areas for improvement. The benefits of this are twofold.
First, for the students as evaluators, it forces them to think deeply about what they thinkmakes a strong presentation. Throughout the school term, students must consider again andagain what they personally believe makes a strong presentation. By critiquing others, theevaluators can then internalize the guidelines for a strong presentation that the instructor haspresented didactically. In short, through active engagement with the “rules” for a goodpresentation, they can take knowledge obtained through passive learning and turn it into apractical skill of self-critique which will help them when they present.
For the student who is presenting, the comments section helps them better understandthe minds of their audience. This allows the presenter to step outside of their own thinking
and see their presentation from multiple other points of view. As a presenter, this helps thembetter assess themselves more realistically in that they are able to calibrate their own selfassessment to the assessments that others make. This supports not just the development of
their skills as a presenter but helps them build confidence that their audience is not judging
them harshly or unfairly but is instead interested in hearing what they have to say.

183

Sugimura, A., Takeoka, S., & Des Marais, E.A.
Combining In-Class and Out-of-Class Practices in a Hybrid Class: Action Research of the Presentation Support System for Developing
English Presentation Skills

Thus, using four forms of evaluation, feedback sessions help presenters connect in-classactivities to out-of-class activities. We used data from these evaluations as the basis of ourresearch project.

Results from Experiment
We conducted an experiment using the Presentation Support System. The aim of theexperiment was to analyze the evaluation results by comparing Online Evaluations and PostPresentation Evaluations. We expected that through the comparison, the characteristics ofthese evaluations will be revealed. By understanding the differences or similarities, we canutilize them better to give more effective feedback to students.

Outline of Experiment
The system was used in a graduate course at a Japanese university in the first semesterof 2021. The course objective was to enhance their academic and professional presentation
skills in English. This included the ability to make slides in English, give a short presentation,and to handle a Question & Answer session after the presentation. While there was somedidactic material presented regarding tips for giving effective presentations, reviews ofpronunciation and intonation, and strategies for dealing with audience questions, the bulk of
the class focused on practicing presentation skills.
In this course, students were provided a script and slides for a prepared presentation
based on the topic in each class, such as “Numbers and Units” and “Various Graphs.” This
helped them to practice how to paraphrase a full speech into highlights for the slides later,while practicing with the prepared script helped them develop their basic presentation skills
and pronunciation.
The students were all Japanese with varying degrees of skill in English communication.
The number of students was 33, and they were divided into two groups. In each group, they184

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 173-199

were separated in a former half and a latter half, and when the former half gave presentations,the latter half played a role of evaluator. Even the students in the former half evaluated theirpeer when they were not the presenter along with the instructor. Therefore, we conductedpresentation session for four times, two times in each group, and all the students had a chance
to give a presentation in front of their group members.
In this study, we focused on one of these presentation sessions. The details of theexperiment are as follows:●Period: First semester in 2021
●Participants: First year students in an MS course (computer science major)●Number of participants: 17 (including an instructor)●Number of speakers: Eight

Results of the Post-Presentation Evaluation
First, the results of Post-Presentation Evaluation will be examined. In the experiment,
17 students gave presentations. The table shows the mean scores for all items for eachspeaker. The five evaluation items were: 1) Item 1 (clarity); 2) Item 2 (understandability); 3)
Item 3 (posture); 4) Item 4 (slides); and 5) Item 5 (overall impression). All were rated on ascale of 1 to 5. Grade 1 means poor and Grade 5, excellent. The value of Cronbach’s alpha for
Table 1 was α = .946, which suggests that the reliability is excellent.
As Table 1 shows, among the 14 speakers, Speaker 2 had the lowest mean of 2.61,
while Speakers 4 and 7 had the highest with 4.20. In this study, these three characteristic
speakers will be focused on, in addition to Speaker 3, who is an example of an average
speaker in this session, with an average of 3.41.

185

Sugimura, A., Takeoka, S., & Des Marais, E.A.
Combining In-Class and Out-of-Class Practices in a Hybrid Class: Action Research of the Presentation Support System for Developing
English Presentation Skills

Table 1Results of Post-Presentation Evaluation
Item1

Item2

Item3

Item4

Item5

Average

1

2.7

3.0

3.6

3.8

3.2

3.28

2

2.1

2.5

2.9

3.1

2.5

2.61

3

3.3

3.4

3.6

3.4

3.4

3.41

4

4.6

4.1

3.9

4.0

4.4

4.20

5

4.0

3.7

3.9

3.9

3.7

3.85

6

3.4

3.4

3.8

3.8

3.5

3.56

7

4.4

4.3

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.20

8

4.2

3.6

3.9

3.7

3.7

3.82

Average

3.59

3.49

3.71

3.73

3.57

－

SD

0.833

0.551

0.311

0.298

0.555

－

Speaker no.

According to Table 1, Speaker 2 was rated poor in all five items, which is reflected
directly in his average. Item 1 (clarity) was the lowest among the results, but the other items
also showed similarly low values. This made it difficult to decide in which area Speaker 2
should start working to improve his performance. Table 1 didn’t indicate any strengths in his
presentation, either.
Contrary to Speaker 2, both Speaker 4 and 7 received a high evaluation. Their averages
are the same, the values in each item were similar and almost all of them were 4.0 and over.
Judging from the results of the Post-Presentation Evaluation, their performance seems to haveno specific improvements.
The average presenter Speaker 3 didn’t show any distinct features in the results. As far
as the table shows, his presentation was neither good nor bad. For teachers, a presenter likeSpeaker 3 is difficult to instruct, since the weaknesses and strengths in his performance areambiguous.

186

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 173-199

Thus, the Post-Presentation Evaluation provides the overall tendencies of each speaker,
but depending on the speaker, it is not enough to indicate specific areas which need
improvements, or to give detailed information about the speaker.

Results of the Online Evaluation
Next, we will focus on the results of Online Evaluation. While Post-Presentation
Evaluation targets the whole presentation after it is given, Online Evaluation is done
simultaneously with the presentation. Whenever the audience member finds the performanceis good, they click the blue button of the corresponding item, and when the performance ispoor, they click the red button. Here the blue buttons mean good, and red, poor. In contrast to
the Post-Presentation Evaluation, which is evaluated only once after the presentation isfinished, Online Evaluation is done continuously during the whole presentation. Because of
the differences of evaluation method, the evaluation items in Online Evaluation are notnecessarily same as those in Post-Presentation Evaluation, though they have some relevanceto each other. In this experiment, six evaluation items were set: 1) Item 1 (volume of voice);2) Item 2 (speaking speed); 3) Item 3 (pronunciation and intonation); 4) Item 4 (eye contact);
5) Item 5 (posture); and 6) Item 6 (slides).
Table 2 and Table 3 show the averages for the number of clicks for each item for all
eight speakers. Table 2 contains the results of blue clicks and Table 3, red clicks. Both tables
indicate that they share the same tendencies as the Post-Presentation Evaluation. Basically,
Speakers 4 and 7 received more blue clicks (positive evaluations) and less red clicks (negativeevaluations) compared to other speakers. However, though Speaker 4 and 7 shared the same
average (4.20) in the Post-Presentation Evaluation, Speaker 4 received more positive
feedback in total (30.8) than Speaker 7 (26.4), which was same as Speaker 5. Closely
examined, Speaker 4 was considerably strong in Item 1 (volume of voice), which resulted in
the largest value in total. Speakers 4 and 5 received high ratings in Items 1, 2, and 4.
187

Sugimura, A., Takeoka, S., & Des Marais, E.A.
Combining In-Class and Out-of-Class Practices in a Hybrid Class: Action Research of the Presentation Support System for Developing
English Presentation Skills

However, their results show that they have areas they need to improve, or items whose scores
are not necessarily high. Compared with them, the total value of blue clicks was not so large
as Speaker 2, while Speaker 7 was highly evaluated in almost all the items and received few
negative evaluations. In his case, there is no prominent item, but overall, the results are wellbalanced.
In contrast, Speaker 2 was the lowest, just as in the Post-Presentation Evaluation. In theOnline Evaluation, he had negative evaluations for most items. He received distinctively large
value of red clicks (20.8), with the least number of blue clicks (14.0). His results indicate his
performance was poor in Items 1 (volume of voice) and 4 (eye contact); especially Item 1, thevolume of voice, was significantly weak. In fact, in his presentation, his voice wasconsiderably low, and his eyes followed the script and didn’t make enough eye contact withhis audience. In this way, his evaluation results closely reflect his actual performance.

Table 2Sum of Blue Clicks in Online Evaluation
Speaker no

Item1

Item2

Item3

Item4

Item5

Item6

Total

1

.2.3

3.5

1.6

1.4

2.0

4.0

14.8

2

0.1

3.6

4.0

1.0

1.5

3.8

14.0

3

3.8

3.3

1.8

2.5

3.5

3.3

18.0

4

11.4

6.8

3.9

2.5

2.0

4.3

30.8

5

8.0

4.0

1.3

5.9

3.5

3.8

26.4

6

3.1

2.6

1.5

2.0

2.1

3.4

14.8

7

7.0

3.5

5.5

4.1

2.9

3.4

26.4

8

7.0

3.3

2.6

2.8

3.8

4.6

24.0

Average

5.3

3.8

2.8

2.8

2.7

3.8

21.1

SD

3.4

1.2

1.4

1.5

0.8

0.4

6.1

188

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 173-199

Table 3Sum of Red Clicks in Online Evaluation

Speaker no.

Item1

Item2

Item3

Item4

Item5

Item6

Total

1

4.6

2.1

1.4

2.1

0.5

0.4

11.1

2

11.4

1.0

0.8

4.1

2.1

1.4

20.8

3

1.8

0.9

2.9

1.8

1.8

0.8

9.8

4

0.0

0.1

1.5

1.1

1.1

0.5

4.4

5

0.4

0.0

1.9

0.5

0.3

0.9

3.9

6

0.8

1.4

2.0

2.0

0.4

0.6

7.1

7

0.3

0.5

0.1

1.4

0.8

0.8

3.8

8

0.0

1.5

3.1

0.8

0.1

0.8

6.3

Average

2.4

0.9

1.7

1.7

0.9

0.8

8.4

SD

3.7

0.7

0.9

1.1

0.7

0.3

5.3

However, closely examined, it is indicated that Speaker 2 had relatively highevaluations in Item 3 (pronunciation and intonation). This suggests that if only he could
improve the volume of his voice (i.e., Item 1), his presentation would be much better. With
this improvement, clarity and understandability in Post-Presentation Evaluation are also
expected to be greatly improved.
Regarding the average Speaker 3, again he did not show any distinct features in positive
feedback. However, in Table 3, the total of his negative feedbacks amounted to 9.8, arelatively high value, which means his performance needs some improvements.

Online Evaluation Results with time scale
Since the Online Evaluation is done concurrently with the presentation, this evaluation
method provides the results in chronological order. The transition of evaluation will be
examined here. The vertical axis in the figures shows the actual number of clicks and thehorizontal axis shows the time scale in 30-second increments. Blue bars represent positive
feedback and red bars, negative.
189

Sugimura, A., Takeoka, S., & Des Marais, E.A.
Combining In-Class and Out-of-Class Practices in a Hybrid Class: Action Research of the Presentation Support System for Developing
English Presentation Skills

Speaker 2
Speaker 2 is indicated as the weakest speaker among all eight, both in Post-Presentation
Evaluation and Online Evaluation. He was especially weak in Item 1 (volume of voice).
Figure 9 shows his chronological evaluation results for Item 1. A blue bar represents goodwhile red bars, poor. As the graph shows, the volume of his voice was low throughout thepresentation. He received as many as 27 red clicks during the first 30 seconds. Positive
evaluation in this item was given only once at the beginning and that was all. The graph of
Item 4 (eye contact) shows a similar tendency.
However, the graph of item 3 (pronunciation and intonation) suggests Speaker 2 isbetter in this area than in other evaluation items (Figure 10). In most time ranges, the numberof clicks is not necessarily big, and the blue bars are recorded throughout the presentation.
During the first 30 seconds, he received the maximum positive feedback of 17 times. It is
important that each speaker can recognize certain strengths in their performance, otherwise,
they would lose their motivation.

Figure 9
Speaker 2’s Chronological Evaluation Results of Item 1 (Volume of Voice)
5
0

-10
-15
-20

good

-25

poor

time(sec)

190

390

360

330

300

270

240

210

180

150

120

90

60

-30

30

times

-5

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 173-199

Figure 10

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2

good

390

360

330

300

270

240

210

180

150

120

90

60

poor

30

times

Speaker 2’s Chronological Evaluation Results of Item 3 (Pronunciation and Intonation)time(sec)

In both the negative feedback in Item 1 and positive feedback in Item 3, the peak
appears during the first 30 seconds. It is highly possible that the first impression of thepresentation affected the evaluation of whole presentation. Opening is a crucial part inpresentations to grab the attention of their audience. Online Evaluation results of Speaker 2
suggest timing should be considered during presentations. With a careful and impressive
opening, his presentation might be much improved.
Speaker 3
As an average presenter, Speaker 3 had no specific areas to improve in the results ofPost-Presentation Evaluation. In his Online Evaluation, he showed similar tendencies, but in
Item 3 (pronunciation and intonation), he received more negative feedback compared withother areas. According to Figure 11, he got 11 red clicks during the 60 to 90 second time
period. Toward the end of his presentation, negative feedback was not recorded, still Speaker
3 needs to improve this area, especially in the former half of his presentation.

191

Sugimura, A., Takeoka, S., & Des Marais, E.A.
Combining In-Class and Out-of-Class Practices in a Hybrid Class: Action Research of the Presentation Support System for Developing
English Presentation Skills

Figure 11

6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12

good

270

240

210

time(sec)

180

150

120

90

60

poor

30

times

Speaker 3’s Chronological Evaluation Results of Item 3 (Pronunciation and Intonation)

Speaker 4
Speaker 4 received the highest value in positive feedbacks among eight speakers with
30.8 (average 21.1). He was incomparably strongest in Item 1, volume of voice (11.4). As
Figure 12 shows, he received no negative feedback at all throughout his presentation in thisitem. The peak appears during 60 to 90 seconds, which is close to the opening.
However, in other areas such as Item 3 (pronunciation and intonation) and Item 5(posture), his values are not necessarily large. Figure 13 indicates he received negativeevaluation frequently. It is true that his negative values are not so large, but to make a better
presentation, Speaker 4 must practice in this area.

192

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 173-199

Figure 12

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

good

270

240

210

180

150

120

90

60

poor

30

times

Speaker 4’s Chronological Evaluation Results of Item 4 (Volume of Voice)time(sec)

Figure 13

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3

good

270

240

210

180

150

120

90

60

poor

30

times

Speaker 4’s Chronological Evaluation Results of Item 5 (Posture)time(sec)

Speaker 7
Speaker 7 is an all-round presenter, and both his Post-Presentation Evaluation and
Online Evaluation showed no specific areas for improvement. If we take a close look at theevaluation results with time scale, however, it reveals a certain tendency in his presentation.
193

Sugimura, A., Takeoka, S., & Des Marais, E.A.
Combining In-Class and Out-of-Class Practices in a Hybrid Class: Action Research of the Presentation Support System for Developing
English Presentation Skills

Figure 14 shows the results of Speaker 7 in Item 3 (pronunciation and intonation).
According to Table 2 and 3, he had no problem in this area. Figure 14 also proves his
performance was good enough to receive only one negative feedback rating during the wholepresentation. However, though he gained many blue clicks at the beginning and toward theend of presentation, the positive feedback drops in the middle part. Figure 14 suggests his
presentation became less active or interesting. In order to improve his presentation, the middle
part would be the area to consider.

Figure 14

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2

good

300

270

240

time(sec)

210

180

150

120

90

60

poor

30

times

Speaker 7’s Chronological Evaluation Results of Item 3 (Pronunciation and Intonation)Thus, taking time into consideration, results from Online Evaluation offer anotherperspective on feedback and instruction. It was also indicated that the peak of evaluation
frequency tends to appear at the beginning of a presentation. This means the opening part of apresentation has a major impact on the audience and sometimes that affects the wholeimpression of the presentation. The Online Evaluation helps presenters and teachers
understand the influence of timing in a presentation.

194

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 173-199

Conclusion
Generally speaking, the comparison of the evaluation results between the PostPresentation Evaluations and the Online Evaluations shows similar tendencies. These two
evaluation methods both aim to indicate which evaluation items are good or poor. As their
purpose is the same, the similarity suggests their validity.
However, their focal points are different. The purpose of the Post-Presentation
Evaluation is a holistic evaluation of the presentation. Even if there were some bad points, theoverall impression is good, so the speaker could get a high evaluation. It is also possible thatpeers rate the speaker positively to show support and encouragement. This kind of
consideration has the risk of giving excessively higher evaluations among peers (Fujiwara etal., 2007).
Rubric-based evaluation such as Post-Presentation Evaluation is often done after class,so that evaluators can take time (Dollisso & Koundinya 2011; Cotter & Hinkelman, 2019).
However, if plenty of time is allowed for peer evaluation, it could cause a reciprocal effectmentioned above, or the impression could change over time.
In contrast, the Online Evaluation is done concurrently and continuously with thepresentation. Yamashita & Nakajima developed a “response analyzer” and introduced thedevice into undergraduate learning. As they insist, the simultaneous evaluation with apresentation is done intuitively and unnecessary consideration tends to be reduced (2010).
In addition, in the Online Evaluation, as the audience are expected to evaluate
throughout the presentation, even an excellent presentation can receive helpful, detailed
feedback. By watching a video playback with the color palette lighting, speakers can learn inwhich category and where in their presentation they need to improve. By the same logic, apoor presenter like Speaker 2 can find their strength on close examination of the evaluation
results.

195

Sugimura, A., Takeoka, S., & Des Marais, E.A.
Combining In-Class and Out-of-Class Practices in a Hybrid Class: Action Research of the Presentation Support System for Developing
English Presentation Skills

The differences in these two evaluation methods, that is, Post-Presentation Evaluation
and Online Evaluation, help speakers understand their performance and identify theirstrengths and weaknesses in their presentation. The variety of evaluation system provides
diversified viewpoints to both instructors and students.
Taking the differences of each evaluation method into account, it is necessary toconsider which evaluation items are appropriate to the method. For example, Online
Evaluation has advantages in evaluating the presentation consistently from the beginning to
the end. However, to make the maximize its potential benefits, additional research shouldattempt to determine how to assess presentations fairly, in terms of evaluation items such asvolume of voice, pronunciation, and so on. In addition to the present evaluation items, we alsoneed to consider other factors, namely, the script or the speakers’ intention pertaining towhich aspects they are focusing on to impress the audience. By understanding the relevanceand characteristics of the evaluation methods in this software, instructors will be able to give
more effective instruction. With further research, we plan to develop a teaching method which
combines in-class and out-of-class practices smoothly.
To enhance presentation skills, it is important to practice not only in class but also outof class. However, that does not mean simple repetition is enough to lead to improvement.
Without precise feedback in which area a speaker needs improvement, it is difficult topractice effectively. To meet these needs, evaluation methods such as we have discussed here
are indispensable. Especially, multiple evaluation methods serve well to provide various typesof feedback.
We introduced the Presentation Support System and some of the results from the firstreal-world use of the system. Because of COVID-19, the chance to use the system in face-toface lessons was limited. Future research will involve investigation of the causal relationships
between the various kinds of evaluation, the in-class and out-of-class variables, and the196

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 173-199

learning outcomes of the students, so that we can develop an effective teaching method forpresentations.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17K02936. We would liketo express our sincere gratitude to the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive andmotivational comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper.

References
Cotter, M., & Hinkelman, D. (2019). Video assessment module: self, peer, and teacher post
performance assessment for learning. In F. Meunier, J. Van de Vyver, L. Bradley & S.
Thouësny (Eds), CALL and complexity – short papers from EUROCALL 2019 (pp. 9499). https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2019.38.992
Day, I. N. Z., Saab, N. & Wilfried, A. (2021). Online peer feedback on video presentations:type of feedback and improvement of presentation skills. Assessment & Evaluation inHigher Education, 47(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1904826
De Grez, L., Valcke, M, & Roozen, I. (2012). How effective are self- and peer assessment oforal presentation skills compared to teachers’ assessments? Active Learning in Higher
Education, 13(2), 129-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412441284
Dollisso, A. & Koundinya, V. (2011). An Integrated Framework for Assessing Oral
Presentations Using Peer, Self, and Instructor Assessment Strategies. NACTA Journal,
55(4), 39-44.
Fujiwara, Y., Ohnishi H. & Kato H. (2007). An Evaluation Support System for Impartial Peer
Evaluation – “Reciprocal Effect” Occurred by Selecting Evaluators in Case of Peer
Evaluation of Learning Outcome -. Japan Society for Educational Technology, 31(2),125-134. https://doi.org/10.15077/jjet.KJ00004964268
197

Sugimura, A., Takeoka, S., & Des Marais, E.A.
Combining In-Class and Out-of-Class Practices in a Hybrid Class: Action Research of the Presentation Support System for Developing
English Presentation Skills

Gikandi, J. W.& Morrow, D. (2016). Designing and Implementing Peer Formative Feedback
within Online Learning Environments. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(2),153-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2015.1058853
Nicol, D, Thomson, A. & Breslin C. (2013). Rethinking feedback practices in higher
education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
39(1), 102-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
Patri, M. (2002). The Influence of Peer Feedback on Self and Peer-Assessment of Oral Skills.
Language Testing 19(2), 109-131. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt224oa
Stevens, D. D. & Levi, A. J. (2013). Introduction to Rubrics: An Assessment Tool to Save
Grading Time, Convey Effective Feedback, and Promote Student Learning. Stylus
Publishing.
Sugimura, A. (2019). Action Research Examining the Presentation Support System. Research
Reports of the Organization for Research on Practical Web-based Education
Conferences, 7, 7-10.
Sugimura, A. (2020). Action Research Examining the Presentation Support System (2).
Research Reports of the Organization for Research on Practical Web-based Education
Conferences 8, 3-6.
Sugimura, A. (2021). Action Research Examining the Presentation Support System (3).
Research Reports of the Organization for Research on Practical Web-based Education
Conferences, 9, 1-4.
van Ginkel, S., Gulikers, J. Biemans, H. & Mulder, M. (2017 a). Fostering Oral Presentation
Performance: Does the Quality of Feedback Differ When Provided by the Teacher,
Peers or Peers Guided by Tutor? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6),953-966. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1212984

198

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 173-199

van Ginkel, S., Gulikers, J. Biemans, H. & Mulder, M. (2017 b). The Impact of the Feedback
Source on Developing Oral Presentation Competence. Studies in Higher Education,
42(9), 1671-1685. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1117064
Yamashita, Y. & Nakajima. T. (2010). Analysis of the Relation between Presentation Skills
and Understandability – Comparison between a Questionnaire Analysis with Response
Analyzer -. Japan Society for Educational Technology, 34(Suppl), 5-8.
https://doi.org/10.15077/jjet.KJ00007086663

199

Selected Papers
Practitioner Report

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 203-219

Project-Based English Courses for University Students
in an Online Setting

Yoko Maekawa
Okayama University of Science

Abstract
During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, university education worldwide
shifted toward online learning. Online education imposed various limitations on the teachingof English courses, resulting in fewer opportunities for students to participate in class. To
encourage students’ participation, active learning, and interaction with their classmates, I
planned and carried out project-based English courses for university students majoring inscience and engineering, using the online platform Zoom. The project was designed to satisfy
students’ three psychological needs (according to self-determination theory): autonomy,competence, and relatedness. Although few students answered the pre- and post-questionnaire
surveys, the results suggested that the class satisfied students’ psychological needs andmaintained their motivation to learn English. In the open-ended questions, students
commented on the project’s effectiveness in helping them acquire useful English skills. Sincesome students experienced difficulty completing projects, some points must be improved infuture research. However, this practice may present a new approach to teaching English touniversity students.

Keywords: Online teaching, Project-based instruction, English learning motivation

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a great impact on
education worldwide. In 2020, classes suddenly shifted toward an online setting (United203

Yoko Maekawa
Project-Based English Courses for University Students in an Online Setting

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2020), of which teachers had little
pedagogical knowledge or technological experience (Rapanta et al., 2020). Accessible
platforms and interactive communication are crucial to the success of online courses (Bao,2020; Chen et al., 2020), while online anxiety may negatively influence students’ learning(Bolliger & Halupa, 2012; Stiller & Koster, 2016).
In a prior study, I conducted a survey on students’ expectations regarding the online
courses (Maekawa, 2021). The results revealed that students were anxious because they had
no idea what to expect, were afraid of having no peer help, worried about possible technicalproblems (e.g., network instability) and the possibility of missing important information due
to their weak Internet connection. During the spring semester of 2020, I tried to conduct
interactive instruction using the online teleconferencing platform Zoom while considering
students’ emotional well-being. To reduce students’ anxiety during class activities, students’communication with the instructor was limited to Zoom’s chat and response features. The
results of the prior questionnaire survey and class evaluation showed that students reacted
positively to the intervention, as they found it easy to participate, experienced no peerpressure, and felt comfortable asking questions (Maekawa, 2021). Although the prior classintervention seemed successful and effective, there were limited interactions between students
and few activities to express their opinions in English.
To increase opportunities for peer communication and cultivate students’ research andcognitive skills during the ongoing online learning environment, I decided to conduct a
project-based class using Zoom. The purpose of this article is to present the practice of
project-based courses using Zoom as well as students’ responses toward it. Students’ reactions
may reveal the advantages and disadvantages of project-based online courses.

204

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 203-219

Literature Review
Online Courses
The COVID-19 pandemic has aggravated teachers’ stress not only because of theurgent need to shift to online learning but due to related health concerns and the blurring of
the barrier between work and home (MacIntyre et al., 2020). Although online learning
presents various advantages for learners who are unable to attend courses or engage in selfregulated learning (Abe et al., 2019; Bao, 2020; Moore et al., 2011), they may also have anegative impact on students’ course persistence and grades (Xu & Jaggars, 2013). The lack ofsocial interaction is the main limitation of online courses; therefore, it is crucial to promotecollaboration and interactive communication (Deusen-Scholl, 2015; Erben et al., 2009).
Project-based Course
Project-based learning has proven to be effective for teaching content and language
simultaneously, while encouraging students to take active roles in learning throughcollaboration (Shin, 2018; Troyan, 2016). Projects include group collaboration and research,
as well as production of papers or presentations (e.g., Nishioka, 2016; Sampson, 2015; Shin,
2018; Troyan, 2016). Nishida and Yashima (2009) investigated motivational processes
through musical projects in primary schools and found that students’ perceived competence,autonomy, and willingness to communicate increased. In prior studies, I found that
presentation activities helped students gain confidence and satisfied their psychological needs(Maekawa & Yashima, 2012a, 2012b). Prior studies have examined the effectiveness of active
learning instructions, which include multi-modal interactions, collaborative working, andproject-based assignments (Cheung, 2021; Yuliansyah & Ayu, 2021; Zhang et al., 2021), in
online settings. Thus, it is important to provide students with active learning instructions andplenty of interaction opportunities, investigate their effects on students’ motivation, andidentify the problems that students face.

205

Yoko Maekawa
Project-Based English Courses for University Students in an Online Setting

Course Design and Practice
I designed a project-based Zoom class to increase peer interaction and maintainstudents’ motivation to learn English.
Theoretical Framework
When designing the project-based course, I used self-determination theory (SDT) as thetheoretical framework for maintaining students’ emotional well-being and motivation.
According to SDT, humans tend to regulate their behavior through communication or byinteracting with their environment, and may develop self-determined motivation to participate
in activities by satisfying three psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness(Deci & Ryan, 2002; Noels et al., 2019). SDT introduces three types of motivation: intrinsic,
extrinsic, and amotivation. Extrinsic motivation is categorized into four different types ofregulations (external, introjected, identified, and integrated), according to learners’ level ofself-determination in the activity. I have used this theory because it is useful to check theeffectiveness of classroom interventions and understand students’ English learning motivation
by assessing the satisfaction of their psychological needs and motivational changes.
Students were allowed to choose the project themes and work configurations(individually, in pairs, or in groups or three). By providing them with these choices, students’
need for autonomy would be satisfied. Competence-related needs would be satisfied throughweekly assignments and feedback that could lead students to complete the project. I also
introduced a rubric for each assignment so that students could find ways to improve theircontent or English proficiency. Students’ need for relatedness would be fulfilled by discussing
the project with their teammates and communicating with the instructor.
Course Background
Students were classified into different levels according to their Visualizing English
Language Competency test scores at the beginning and end of their first year. The second

206

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 203-219

result was used to divide second-year students into three levels: S (highest), A (middle), and B(lowest). In 2020, I taught one S-level group and one A-level group of second-year students.
The S-level group had twenty-five students from the departments of Life Science and Applied
Physics, who were high in academic level and diligent but also quiet and passive. The A-levelgroup comprised thirty-six students from the departments of Applied Chemistry andBiotechnology and Mechanical Systems Engineering. In this group, there was significant
variation in students’ personalities: some were quite active, while others were shy. The Alevel group was slightly more energetic than the S-level group. I decided to conduct projects
from the fall semester for the following reasons: 1) I had included presentations and projects
on the syllabi but had to abandon them during the spring semester due to the sudden shift toonline learning. 2) I wanted to provide a more authentic learning environment for higher-levelsecond-year students.
Projects
The target university uses the quarter system, so the fall semester was divided into twoquarters. During the first fall quarter (Fall 1), the project goal was to make presentations,while that of the second fall quarter (Fall 2) was to complete research papers. Table 1 presents
the schedule for each quarter. At the beginning of each quarter, students voted for the theme ofthe projects and read an article relevant to the selected theme. After Week 3, each class started
with an introduction and lecture about the weekly assignment. Subsequently, students moved
to a breakout room for discussion, and the class concluded with a summary session. During
student discussions, students were allowed to use all of Zoom’s functions. I moved between
all breakout rooms to check how each discussion was progressing and to answer students’questions.
As noted above, I allowed students to choose some aspects of the program. First, I
asked students to vote for the project themes at the beginning of each quarter. In Fall 1, both207

Yoko Maekawa
Project-Based English Courses for University Students in an Online Setting

groups chose COVID-19 as their theme, researched their topic, and gave a 2–3-minute-longpresentation through Zoom at the end of the quarter. The topic examples included the main
symptoms of COVID-19, ways to prevent infection, the effects of wearing masks, and thedescription of COVID-19. In Fall 2, S-level students voted for environmental issues as theirmain theme and wrote research papers about topics such as global warming, wildfires,
deforestation, and air pollution. A-level students selected ideal future machines as their theme.
The topic examples included time machines, moving walkways in campus, space elevators,
and automatic cooking machines.

Table 1
Schedule of Project-based Courses in Each Quarter
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8

Fall 1
Orientation & theme choice
Reading comprehension
Brainstorming
ResearchPresentation structure
Transition words
What is good speechPresentation

Fall 2
Orientation & theme choice
Reading comprehension
Brainstorming & research
Structure of research papers
Making paragraphs
References
Clear, correct, and concise speech
Editing a draft

Table 2
Configuration of the Project Groups
S-levelIndividual
Pair
Triad

A-level88 (4 pairs)
9 (3 groups)

15
18 (9 pairs)
3 (1 group)Students were allowed to complete the project individually, in pairs, or in groups ofthree. Table 2 shows students’ participation styles; around a third of students chose to work
individually. Additionally, some students chose individual work because they had difficultycommunicating with others, while others struggled during group work due to technical issues.
208

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 203-219

I also noticed that some groups in the breakout rooms interacted only through Chat, without
using their microphones. Other groups participated in class from the same room on campus,
engaging in face-to-face discussions. Conversely, others effectively utilized Zoom’s features
to establish a mutual understanding using visual aids.

Study
Purpose and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of project-based courses andstudents’ reactions toward them. The research questions were the following: “How did the
project-based online English class affect on students’ motivation in learning English?” (RQ1),“What are the benefits of project-based online English classes?” (RQ2), and “What are thedisadvantages of project-based online English classes?” (RQ3).
MethodI assessed the motivational effects of the projects and students’ reactions to them at theend of the spring and fall semesters, in August and February, respectively. The survey was
conducted through Google Forms. I sent students a link to the questionnaire after informing
them of its purpose and that participation was entirely voluntary and would not affect theirgrades.

Table 3
Number of Survey Respondents
S-levelA-level
Total

August7
5
12

February
8
8
16

209

Both
3
3
6

Yoko Maekawa
Project-Based English Courses for University Students in an Online Setting

Due to the online setting, the number of participants was very small. Therefore, theresults, especially the quantitative ones, were unreliable. However, I analyzed the data to
examine the effectiveness of the class. Table 3 shows the number of participants in Augustand February. Although the number of participants increased slightly in February, only a few
students answered both the August and February surveys. Five of those students chose towork in a group, while one student worked individually.
Materials
Both questionnaires in August and February assessed motivational regulations andsatisfaction vis-à-vis their psychological needs with five-scale items. In February, I also
included five items on students’ reflections regarding the projects, as well as three open-ended
questions. IBM SPSS Statistics 25 software was used to analyze the quantitative data, while
MAXQDA2020 software was used to analyze the qualitative data.
Motivational Regulation. Hiromori (2006) developed a motivational regulation scale
for Japanese English learners based on Noels’ (2001) research. I used this instrument toexamine the motivational effects of the educational intervention. To lighten students’emotional burden, I omitted some items. Of the 25 original items, only 20 were used. Items
were categorized as follows: intrinsic motivation (four items), identified regulation (fouritems), introjected regulation (four items), external regulation (four items), and amotivation(four items).
Students’ Perceived Satisfaction of Their Psychological Needs. I adopted Hiromori’s(2006) scale for assessing the satisfaction of students’ psychological needs (autonomy,competence, and relatedness). To reduce students’ burden, only three items from the original
six in each category were used. Nevertheless, I included one reverse item for each category
and attempted to maintain variations.

210

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 203-219

Reflections on the Projects. Students’ acceptance of the projects was measured withfive items developed for this study. The items were: “I enjoyed the project,” “Instructions
were difficult to understand,” “The project assignment was difficult,” “I could gain English
knowledge,” and “It had a high workload.”
Open-ended Questions. In February, I asked three questions: 1) What did you learn
through the project? 2) What improvements would you suggest for the project-based class? 3)
Write your opinion about the Zoom classes.

Results
Satisfaction of Students’ Psychological Needs
The Cronbach’s alpha of competence was low (α = .28, including students only
answering in February and α = -.10 only students answering both in August and February).
Since both results suggested that the same item (“Sometimes, I feel that I am not good atEnglish”) be eliminated, it was removed.
The mean scores, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alphas of perceived
psychological needs are presented in Table 4. Due to the small number of participants, it was
inappropriate to calculate the statistical difference. Participants answering both surveys (inAugust and February) showed an increase in the satisfaction of their autonomy andrelatedness needs, while their competence-related needs remained the same.

211

Yoko Maekawa
Project-Based English Courses for University Students in an Online Setting

Table 4
Mean Scores, Standard Deviation, and Cronbach’s Alphas of Students’ Psychological Needs
All participants
August (n = 12) February (n = 16)
M (SD)

AutonomyCompetence
Relatedness

3.44(0.69)
2.92(0.83)
3.58(0.73)

α

.65
.83
.78

M (SD)

3.67(0.66)
3.69(0.85)
3.69(0.77)

α

.86
.86
.76

Participants answering both surveys (n = 6)
AugustFebruary
M (SD)

3.61(0.85)
3.83(0.93)
2.89(1.03)

α

.90
.89
.88

M (SD)

4.06(0.49)
3.83(0.92)
3.61(1.04)

αDifference(Feb-Aug)

.74

0.44

.85

0.00

.81

0.72

Motivational Regulation
The Cronbach’s alpha of external regulation exhibited a low score (α = -.43) inFebruary for students answering both surveys. After eliminating the item “Parents andteachers nag me to study English,” the results improved in all cases; thus, said item wasomitted. As shown in Table 5, among all regulations, amotivation showed the largest increase
from August to February, while external regulation decreased slightly. The changes in otherregulations were small.

Table 5
Mean Scores, Standard Deviation, Cronbach’s Alphas of Motivational Regulation
All Participants
August (n = 12) February (n = 16)
M (SD)

Intrinsic
Identified
Introjected
External
Amotivation

3.63(0.99)
4.17(0.89)
4.06(0.75)
3.83(0.78)
1.73(0.78)

α

.85
.92
.76
.67
.75

M (SD)

3.39(0.88)
3.95(0.85)
3.77(0.70)
3.42(0.60)
2.39(0.63)

α

.90
.91
.79
.56
.54

Participants answering both surveys (n = 6)
AugustFebruary
M (SD)

3.75(0.97)
4.13(0.92)
3.79(0.73)
3.78(0.86)
1.79(0.80)

212

α

.98
.94
.90
.77
.87

M (SD)

3.67(0.96)
4.17(0.79)
3.96(0.53)
3.56(0.58)
2.33(0.79)

αDifference(Feb-Aug)

.93

-0.08

.84

0.04

.76

0.17

-.49

-0.22

.64

0.54

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 203-219

Students’ Reflections on the Project
The means and standard deviations of students’ reflections on the project aresummarized in Table 6. The item “It had a high workload” scored the highest, followed by “Ienjoyed the project” and “The project was difficult.”

Table 6
Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of Students’ Reflections on the Project (n = 12)
I enjoyed the project
Instructions were difficult to understandThe project was difficult
I improved my knowledge of English
It had a high workload

M

SD

3.47
2.35
3.47
3.29
4.12

1.01
0.79
0.94
0.99
0.78

Regarding the answers to the open-ended questions, I coded each answer and counted
the number of codes that appeared. Table 7 shows a summary of the coding. For question 2,
there appeared some codes which were not related to the points to be improved such as “funto work with classmates”; nevertheless, I kept those codes.

Table 7
Answer Codes for Open-ended Questions (n = 12)
Question 1) What did you learn through the
project?
English presentation and writing skills (8)Effective knowledge and useful skills for myfuture career (2)
The importance of seeing things fromdifferent perspectives (2)English skills in general (1)Knowledge of the project theme (1)Question 2) What improvements would you
suggest for the project-based class?
Inclusion of templates (2)Extend discussion time with team members(3)Extend communication with the teacher (1)Reduce discussion time (1) Reduce difficulty and workload (2)
Fun to work with classmates (3)Easy to ask questions to teacher frombreakout rooms (1)Note. The numbers between parentheses indicate the number of times the codes appeared.

213

Yoko Maekawa
Project-Based English Courses for University Students in an Online Setting

Discussion
Regarding RQ1, even though the sample size was small, students reported an increasein the satisfaction of their need for autonomy and relatedness. Although there were few peerinteractions, students had been able to interact with the teacher frequently in the previous
semester. The increase in the satisfaction of relatedness indicates that the project met students’needs. However, five of the six students who answered both surveys chose to work in groups,
so individual students’ answers may vary. The increase in autonomy suggests that providing
students with choices was effective. Students’ satisfaction with competence did not change.
However, since the class content became more difficult later, perhaps the project satisfied
their competence-related needs as well. Although motivational regulation did not change
significantly, there is a possibility that project-based courses could satisfy students’
psychological needs and maintain their motivation to learn English.
Regarding RQ 2, students perceived the project as enjoyable and effective for Englishlanguage learning, which appeared in the codes of open-end questions asking for the points tobe improved as well as the answers for students’ reflections. Additionally, based on thisstudy’s findings, the benefits of this practice include providing students with opportunities tocommunicate their knowledge and improve their skills, allowing them to visualize the benefitsof learning English for their future careers, and providing them with a broader cross-cultural
perspective, even despite the restrictions inherent to online learning.
Regarding RQ 3, although students were able to understand the instructions, theyreported that the workload was considerable and that the project was difficult to complete.
This is because students already had many assignments in other classes. The blurring of thebarrier between school and home (MacIntyre et al., 2020) may have also affected students.
Students reported that the distance learning environment restricted their time to discuss tasks
with their classmates and complete the project outside the class. The online setting also made214

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 203-219

it difficult for them to casually ask questions to the teacher. This indicates that online curricula
should account for students’ learning environment, assignment schedule, and conditions tocooperate with others.

Conclusion
This study developed and implemented a project-based English class through Zoom andanalyzed the benefits and problems of the practice. The COVID-19 pandemic has affectedteachers and students’ mental health, which may have contributed to students’ evaluation of
the project as too difficult. Thus, it was difficult to assess which students did not enjoy theclass per se. This is the main limitation of this study. However, students assessed the projects
positively in both the class evaluation and the survey. One student sent me a long email sayingthat she appreciated the class, was amazed to explore the possibilities of online learning, andhad gained interest in learning English. It is also possible that some students reacted positively
because I developed a good rapport with them during the spring semester, as I focused on
considering students’ emotional well-being and tried not to increase their emotional burden.
Although the COVID-19 pandemic is beginning to subside, projects like the one presented inthis study may help educators to be prepared for possible future crises. For future research, I
would like to compare the effects of face-to-face and online project-based or active learning
courses.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to express thanks to anonymous reviewers for their usefulcomments and Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.

215

Yoko Maekawa
Project-Based English Courses for University Students in an Online Setting

References
Abe, Y., Elwood, J. A., & Hood, M. (2019). Self-regulated learning, e-Learning, and theflipped classroom: A comparative study. Language Education & Technology, 56, 133–
156.
Bao, W. (2020). COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking
University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 113–115.
doi:10.1002/hbe2.191
Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. P. (2012). Student perceptions of satisfaction and anxiety in an
online doctoral program. Distance Education, 33(1), 81–98.
Chen, T., Peng, L., Yin, X., Rong, J., JianjunYang, & Cong, G. (2020). Analysis of user
satisfaction with online education platforms in China during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Healthcare, 8(3), 200.
Cheung, A. (2021). Synchronous online teaching, a blessing or a curse? Insights from EFL
primary students' interaction during online English lessons. System, 100, 102566.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Self-determination research: Reflections and future
directions. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research(pp. 431–442). University of Rochester Press.
Deusen-Scholl, N. V. (2015). Assessing outcomes in online foreign language education: What
are key measures for success? The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 398–400.
doi:10.1111/MODL.12234_2
Erben, T., Ban, R., & Castaneda, M. (2009). Teaching English language learners throughtechnology. Routledge.
Hiromori, T. (2006). Gaikokugo gakushusha no dokizuke wo takameru riron to jissen[Foreign language learners' motivation: Research and practice]. Taga Shuppan.

216

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 203-219

MacIntyre, P. D., Gregersen, T., & Mercer, S. (2020). Language teachers' coping strategies
during the COVID-19 conversion to online teaching: Correlations with stress,
wellbeing and negative emotions. System, 94, 102352.
Maekawa, Y. (2021). Creating an interactive Zoom English class for university students
during COVID-19 and students’ reactions, LET Kansai Chapter Collected Papers, 10,41-58.
Maekawa, Y., & Yashima, T. (2012a). Examining the motivational effect of presentation-based
instruction on Japanese engineering students: From the viewpoints of the ideal self andself-determination theory. Language Education & Technology, 49, 65–92.
Maekawa, Y., & Yashima, T. (2012b). Examining the effects of presentation-based instruction
on Japanese engineering students’ attitudes towards learning English: Preliminary
study. JACET Kansai Journal, 14, 17-28.
Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). E-Learning, online learning, anddistance learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education,
14(2), 129–135. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001
Nishida, R., & Yashima, T. (2009). The enhancement of intrinsic motivation and willingness
to communicate through a musical project in young Japanese EFL learners. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association of Applied Linguistics(AAAL), Denver, Co.
Nishioka, H. (2016). Analysing language development in a collaborative digital storytelling
project: Sociocultural perspectives. System, 62, 39–52.
Noels, K. A. (2001). New orientations in language learning motivation: Towards a model of
intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations and motivation. In Z. Dörnyei & R.
Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 43–68). University of
Hawaii Press.

217

Yoko Maekawa
Project-Based English Courses for University Students in an Online Setting

Noels, K. A., Lou, N. M., Lascano, D. I. V., Chaffee, K. E., Dincer, A., Zhang, Y. S. D., &Zhang, X. (2019). Self-determination and motivated engagement in language learning.
In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry, & S. Ryan (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of
motivation for language learning (pp. 95–115). Palgrave Macmillan.
Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university
teaching during and after the COVID-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence andlearning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 923–945.
doi:10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y
Sampson, R. J. (2015). Tracing motivational emergence in a classroom language learning
project. System, 50, 10–20.
Shin, M.-H. (2018). Effects of project-based learning on students' motivation and selfefficacy. English Teaching, 73(1), 95–114. doi:10.15858/engtea.73.1.201803.95
Stiller, K. D., & Koster, A. (2016). Learner attrition in an advanced vocational online training:
The role of computer attitude, computer anxiety, and online learning experience.
European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 19(2), 1–14.
Troyan, F. J. (2016). An expeditionary unit targeting the development of higher-order thinking
skills. In L. Cammarata (Ed.), Content-based foreign language teaching: Curriculum
and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills (pp. 215–228).
Routledge.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2020). COVID-19 Impact
on Education. Retrieved from: www.UNESCO.org
Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2013). The impact of online learning on students' course outcomes:
Evidence from a large community and technical college system. Economics of
Education Review, 37, 46–57.

218

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 203-219

Yuliansyah, A., & Ayu, M. (2021). The implementation of project-based assignment in online
learning during COVID-19. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 2(1),32–38.
Zhang, Z., Liu, T., & Lee, C. B. (2021). Language learners' enjoyment and emotion regulationin online collaborative learning. System, 98, 102478.

219

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 221-235

Cognitive Linguistics for EFL Writers: A Study of Plurilingual Online
Team-teaching Sessions

Stephen Markve
Independent Researcher
Aiko Saito
Faculty of Foreign Studies, Setsunan University

Abstract
We collaborated to team-teach an English presentation skills class via Zoom plurilingually,
introducing concepts from cognitive linguistics (e.g. frame semantics, prototype, and category
membership) to move students to “re-conceptualize” their tools, words, and master theirpresentation skills. Students were overall confident in casual English conversation, yet tended
to either write grammatically correct sentences in limited patterns, or try to raise readability
scores by merely switching everyday vocabularies with archaic ones. Focusing on the “weight”
of the verbs used in their writings, students were asked to explore the frame semantics
afforded by verbs through translation options and bilingual discussions. Each participant
prepared and presented creative new stories, challenging the next speaker to try out otherpossibilities to entertain the audience. Showing marked improvement launched by this broadminded approach, students displayed clear understandings of scenes implied by the verb infocus (‘escape’) and created and filled in imaginative new frames to entertain their audience.
They used powerful verbs and equally strong tropes to present multiple thematic roles,
extending elementary frames and harnessing the encyclopedic nature of semantics.

Keywords: cognitive linguistics, EFL, writing, plurilingual approach, stylistic analysis

Cognitive Approach and Plurilingual Setting
The aim of this paper is to report an experimental writing training taught by two
221Markve, S., & Saito, A.
Cognitive Linguistics for EFL Writers: A Study of Plurilingual Online Team-teaching Sessions

bilingual teachers using a cognitive approach in a plurilingual setting during Weeks 9 and 10of an English presentation skills class in 2020. This framework furthers work done in L1
composition pedagogy (Markve, 2014) which focuses on rhetorically productive writing
exercises afforded by focus on metaphor. The present work enabled learners to further explore
their L1 and L2 knowledge with greater speed, compared to a conventional English-only class.
The language and cognitive skills transfer easily across languages for bilingual users, andtheir learning experience is “more productive if it builds on what is already known”(Bialystok and Peets, 2010). Students’ outcome in L2 composition showed significant
development in quality at the end of the two sessions.

MethodThe two teachers of the sessions are both users of students’ L1 and L2: Teacher 1 is anative speaker of Japanese whose strongest L2 is English, and is less competent in two other
European languages; Teacher 2 is a native speaker of English whose competent L2 includes
Japanese and two European languages. Having studied in foreign settings, both experienced
the developing stages of L2 writing. Our pedagogical beliefs view multiple language
knowledge as inseparable within the user’s mind; thus a word in one of our languages isconnected to meanings and imageries of our other known languages, bridged by thetranslation of the word.
The class in question was a group of 11 third year English majors in a Japanese
university, recently home after six-month study abroad program to the English-speaking
countries before the Pandemic. Their TOEIC scores at the time varied from 500 to 750+. They
aimed to master effective presentation skills in English in the elective course called “Debate
and Presentation b,” which consisted of 15×90min online sessions in the fall-winter of 2020.
Along with attending live online classes, students submitted digital self-recordings andreports using university online systems. It was the 9th and 10th weeks that we had
plurilingual team-teaching Zoom sessions to introduce cognitive linguistics notions toreexamine their tool, words.
222

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 221-235

By the 8th week, students were overall confident in casual English conversation among
themselves and with Teacher 1. Regarding their writings for presentation, however, theytended to either stay within their comfort zone to write grammatically correct sentences inlimited grammatical patterns, or try to raise readability scores by merely switching everyday
vocabularies with archaic ones. Editing process rarely improved the quality of their firstdraft.
Students have been using vocabulary textbooks and online dictionaries to build their
vocabulary knowledge. That experience seemed to shape their habit of replacing words
with what they think of as ”higher-level vocabulary” when they try to “improve” their writing.
Students rarely considered restructuring the whole sentence, nor paid attention to theenvironment of the word, at the choice of words.

Research Question and Hypothesis
The subject teacher (Teacher 1) looked for a way to guide students to see words in a
broader, richer scope than a typical “Vocab. list for EFL learners” which sorts words bydifficulty level, frequency in use or in English ability tests. Such textbooks usually provide
word-level translations and stand-alone example sentences with little contextual information,and do little to help linking knowledge of words. Our hypothesis was (1) by introducing theidea of cognitive linguistics, (2) and using learners’ strong L1 and limited L2 in classdiscussion, students’ choice of words will be liberated and therefore strengthen and enrichtheir L2 writing.

Procedure
Each 90 min. class was given either with preparation homework or with summary
writing submission. It was a challenge in the online class to save enough time for individual
student’s composition while guaranteeing effective feedback and also the room to learn frompeers. During the two experimental sessions, (1) some students just “thought about”, whileothers “wrote and submit” their preparation homework, (2) then all attending students
223

Markve, S., & Saito, A.
Cognitive Linguistics for EFL Writers: A Study of Plurilingual Online Team-teaching Sessions

presented their work orally during class, (3) and then all submitted their final version in
written form as summary after the second session. Teacher 1 and Teacher 2 conducted teamteaching sessions for two weeks, with several preparation meetings over the target learners’
previous activities and aims of the course.

Preparation Homework
The preparation homework for the experimental sessions was given with a painting
titled Lady in Yellow Dress (Kurzweil, 1899) and directions as follows: "Write a short passage
about the person in the painting. What is she thinking?" Students were told to ignore theartist’s information.
Session 1
The first session started by reading a sample passage on the painting written by a student inanother class. This session aimed to introduce students to a linguistic focus on the heart oflanguage and consider elements suggested or required by each verb they use. By showing an
example of student writing and focusing on cognitive and practical aspects of verbs and action,
we broaden their strategies for effective communication, simultaneously sharpen their vocabulary
and “re-structure” their arguments.
After seeing a writing sample from another class, students were asked to find movement
and action (both physical and conceptual) in its language. Importantly, this step was meant toopen their minds to perceive more imaginatively, hence we were not concerned with
distinguishing between grammatical forms. Responses included ‘go, sit, celebrate’ in various
forms and were used to open a discussion on the weight each verb carried. The class discussed thesemantic loads of verbs such as ‘do, have, make’ and evaluated their roles in representing asituation and in triggering readers’ imaginations. Teacher 2 noted the ubiquity and broad
applicability of these “light” verbs in an effort to encourage students to look inside verbs to see
what roles they require or suggest, and look outside and vividly imagine scenes in which theymight take place.
Using verbs’ weights as a point of departure, we wanted students to understand how such
224

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 221-235

investigations and their subsequent uses in writing more creatively leads to a bigger mental
dictionary. Further, the session positioned students to both think in and about English and think
about language in general as ways to transform their communication skills.
Another frame introduced in the class was the cline between functional and imaginative
verbs. Our objective was for them first to recognize this cline and then employ it, seeking more
imaginative language to pique their audience’s interest, inducing their own creativity while
coming to understand that using different verbs can transform their writing. In the sample, theylooked for verbs or action-oriented phrases, and imagined what each focuses on and what morethey could point to.
Further, students reflected on how, from a user-based position, by entertaining language
more broadly (cf. its relation to or representation of reality) and the action and roles of a sentence(cf. verbs’ functions, weights, and implied arguments) more narrowly, they could connect betterwith their audience and enjoy wide-ranging benefits from exploring cognitive aspects of language.
Here is the example we showed the students, asking them to think about the content of its
verbs or action words, and what information the words require or suggest. The example isrepresentative of student writing in that verbs are for the most part fairly light.
A girl is sitting on the sofa looking kind of lonely and tired. The yellow dress worn
is her favourite. She went to a party at the hotel with her boyfriend. It was the party
to celebrate a friend of her boyfriend’s birthday who comes from the very rich family. The
party went for more than three hours and she was starting to get tired. The other reason
she got tired was that she’s not used to these posh parties. She escaped from the great halland was resting on this couch.

(Preparation homework by Student 1)

While discussing words students have identified, they are asked to elaborate what each one
describes. After referring to several verbs of various weights, we highlight the verb ‘be’ – noting
its support of progressive and passive verbs and that as a copula it ‘is’ everywhere, functioning
like an equal sign. Referencing this omnipotent function and the mildly amusing use of ‘is’ movestudents to open their minds to word choice and lighten our approach. We touch also on its very
useful but not particularly imaginative function in language with an aside about its semantically225

Markve, S., & Saito, A.
Cognitive Linguistics for EFL Writers: A Study of Plurilingual Online Team-teaching Sessions

explosive role in metaphor.
Leading into the crux of our investigation, we asked students to investigate verbs in termsof their information, the roles they suggest, and the frames they induce. Students look at the
sample and were asked “Which verbs offer more information, roles, and frame potential?” – basic
linguistic ideas which can be easily harnessed for classroom discussion. After some feedback,another playful question is posed: “Did any of them capture your attention?” The aim of thisquestion was to introduce a potentially new turn of phrase and linking as conceptually opposite
the intended answer.
At the end of the sample, Student 1 wrote “(the woman) escaped from the great hall...”providing our class with a wonderfully rich verb to explore. Assigning a similar task for enoughstudents, ideally across two or more sections, should afford any practitioner ample data, using
their own imagination to select the most useful word or phrase for their objective. Drumming up
business and revving students’ minds, we compliment this word choice in complementing thepainting before us. Students were asked to entertain what ‘escape’ does to their minds, what ittriggers, and what its potential is. We move them to consider its back-story and what fascinating
implications it has; remarking “what a great insight, now what further can we imagine from this?”
Keeping semantics in focus, students were asked to interpret the sample writing as a story,
mapping out the paths that lead up to and away from their understanding of this scene, exploring
who and what is she escaping, in what way is she escaping, and why?
Imaginatively exploring semantics strengthens students’ language abilities, and actively
positing verbs’ networks are the gateway to growth. Students suggested that the woman could be
escaping a person, a place, a thing, a mental or physical condition; they surmise “how about‘how’” – in what manner and how long does this action last. To gain as much insight into thescene as possible, we also weigh the word’s lexical aspect: Are there temporal parts to it and isthere a clear endpoint?
We also want students to use dictionaries as a way to frame words and definitions as
members of a category; doing so helps position their word in a network of related ideas, opening
them to the nuances of known and unknown words and their networks. Students were asked for
226

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 221-235

the first definition of ‘escape’ and a sample sentence (e.g. “The prisoner escaped from jail.”) andwhat roles (e.g. agent, patient, etc) are implied or required of it. They then did the same with theremaining definitions – comparing them and rationalizing their relationships to each other, taking
notes on this to help them elaborate a scene.
Session 1 concluded with the following homework assignment: “Explore ‘escape’ – what’s“inside” this verb? How far can it take you? Write down synonyms, antonyms, & translations;
make notes; and reflect on how they are located in your cognitive map and how you areanswering these questions!” They were given one week to complete the assignment.
Session 2
The outline of session 2 was presented at the class outset as in the content column inTable 1. Session 2 started with a quick review of the previous week. Teachers invited students
to explain key concepts for a student who had missed Session1. Homework check turned out
to be a lively idea sharing and discussion on the target word ‘escape’ as students competedwith their discoveries of synonyms, antonyms, and translations. Talking about the similarities
and subtle differences of words, the class generated a network of bilingual ideas about thetarget item.

Table 1
Outline of Session 2
Time
20min
20
30

Aim
Reflect their learning
Collect ideas
Connect ideas and expand
network20

Put knowledge into practiceContent
Quick review of Session 1
Homework check: Sharing ideas and findings
Discussion: “What we can do with synonyms,
antonyms, and translations to open up ourimaginations” – and fill in our argument structures!”
Students' oral presentation [their 2nd original story
with the painting]

The quick review of the previous session included references to the unique status of ‘be’
– its static, speedy, and light qualities as well as its logic-defying and hence immensely potent
227

Markve, S., & Saito, A.
Cognitive Linguistics for EFL Writers: A Study of Plurilingual Online Team-teaching Sessions

role in metaphor. Light verbs were profiled as reducing a scene, making scant reference to its
rich potential. And heavy verbs, such as ‘escape’ were referred to and exemplified by a wordfrom the same student writing sample of the previous lesson, viz. ‘celebrate’ with its
suggested network of agent, object, emotion, reason, and other broader cultural implications.
Next, we drew on students’ homework to investigate what more we can learn about the“outside” elements of ‘escape’ through its synonyms, paraphrases, antonyms, and translations.
Synonyms & Paraphrases
Students produced the following ideas which we then organized as in Table 2:

Table 2
Synonyms and Paraphrases of the English Verb ‘Escape’Elements
Active resistance
Quiet motion
Previously enclosed
Abstract reason
MentalExamples‘run away’, ‘breakout’, ‘departure’, ‘disappear’, ‘get free’‘leave’, ‘fade out’, ‘get away’, ‘sneak out’, ‘avoid’‘release’"get out of a bad situation""forget about your usual life/problems"

Each of these points to a different aspect of the frame ‘escape’ – any of which could bereferred to and used to elaborate some meaning of the argument “she escaped.” This shows
students recognizing a network of meaning around the core definition. There are various subtle
but crucial differences among synonyms. For example, ‘leave’ is like ‘escape’ in its movementaway from the source domain, but nearly opposite, in that ‘leave’ suggests free movement with noresistance.
Antonyms
Synonyms are both familiar as part of everyday speech to help audiences understand ourarguments by pointing to similar concepts or through imaginative metaphors. Antonyms, on theother hand, have great potential because they open up oppositions to contrast with our argument;
however, in their negation, they also highlight aspects that may not appear so easily when only

228

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 221-235

seeking synonyms. Thus, antonyms provide a surprisingly helpful backdoor into expanding
students’ cognitive maps.
The list students came up with was surprisingly large as shown in Table 3:

Table 3
Antonyms Search of the English Verb ‘Escape’Core meaning
ImprisonOrder of incidents ‘catch’→ ‘keep’→ ‘imprison’→ ‘escape’→ ‘trace’→ ‘find/discover’
Not+escape‘stay’, ‘continue’→ less judgment, neutral‘remain’, ‘hang on’, ‘face’→encounter physical enemy→ emotional
challenge‘suffer’, ‘endure’ →go through inaction's consequences
Escape as "going" The opposite action will be ‘come’, ‘walk’, ‘appear’

Translation
As to translations of the word ‘escape’, the class faced unexpectedly wide selections andthe “translation equivalence” (Cook, 2010) issue on interpretation. Students’ research results
included from the basic ‘nigeru’ to other ones with elements of direction, speed (‘dasso-suru’),legal aspect (‘datsugoku-suru’), completion of the act (‘nige-kiru’), focus on freedom (‘jiyuuninaru’), reasons (‘manugareru’), association of a loan word ‘esuke-pu’, etc. One student asked,
while reflecting translations, whether the English verb ‘chase’ is antonym of ‘escape.’ It is notexactly the opposite notion in English, but Japanese ‘nigeru’ and ‘ou’ (‘chase’) form a
combination of two sides, the one who escapes and the one who chases the escaped. Anotherdiscovery was that ‘nige-nai’, the negation of ‘nigeru’, is somewhat different from the simple
inaction. There is evaluative aspect on the choice the agent made.
Each of these can be profiled as a prototype within a category which further opens up
extensions (peripheral category members) to explore and to rationalize. We can imagine theprototypical escapee as rightfully in jail and then imagine other personal characteristics which
may complicate our first assumptions. The above responses suggest students’ awareness of the229

Markve, S., & Saito, A.
Cognitive Linguistics for EFL Writers: A Study of Plurilingual Online Team-teaching Sessions

tentative nature which a word’s core meaning might have. They offer room to “re-imagine” theescapee’s reasons for and manner of escape or physical/conceptual parameters from which theperson is escaping or even whether the verb has its usual prototypical endpoint. Their bilingual
search and open exchange collectively formed a cognitive map around ‘escape’ generated fromcountless bits of ideas they found in L1 and L2 as roughly shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1
What Students Found In/Outside of the Word ‘Escape’ Through Bilingual Search and OpenExchange

Results and Findings
Students took notes during the lecture and discussion, yet they were notgiven extra time to write or type their new composition. Immediately after the discussion
phase, Teacher 2 asked students to present their composition orally to the class. Teacher 1
invited the first student to present, and mainly Teacher 2 gave feedback as a representative
listener after each presentation. Each student named the next speaker, thus students did notknow when their turn would be.
230

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 221-235

Students’ presentations show that they explored different aspects of the word
‘escape’, and fully made use of their discussion. Such a creative writing activity leads tocooperative critical thinking process without spoiling the entertainment value (Saito, 2015).
Live oral composition in class functioned as a competitive storytelling. No similar plots were
made. They tried to amuse audience, taking risk to try something new for them. Students
were bold enough to design their second writing with both "light" speedy verbs and "rich"verbs. Following are transcripts of three students’ oral compositions with analysis. Verbs inthe story part are underlined:
Student 2
She is escaping from the police. You may wonder why she is escaping from thepolice. Look at her face. She is thinking,“Many people are dancing now. But where are their bags? How stupid they are! So
now I can steal their poaches, …”
like that. And she stole their bags or money, and escaped from the party.
But someone noticed about it. So they called police, and then she is escaping fromthe police now.

(Student 2 at the end of the second session)

Student 2 draws on the prototype: law breaker – law enforcer; and then, using several“heavier verbs” (‘wonder’, ‘steal’, ‘dancing’, ‘notice’) fills out the argument template with “thief,crime, situation, character flaw of victims”– which facilitates criminal’s action, object of crime(money), aftermath (vigilant bystander) – which leads to the ‘escape’ scenario. The student uses
the classical story pattern of present-past-back to present.
Student 3
Right after Student 2, Student 3 was nominated to talk. This student gave a story in a stylethat he as the narrator occasionally tells his view to the audience:
I think she is escaping from the atmosphere of, like a formal dance party.
She is,… kind of novelty in France, and she is not in the mood, though her parents let
her go to the party to look,… to get connection with boys. And there are many girls
who are trying to get connection with boys. She’s just escaped from such atmosphere231Markve, S., & Saito, A.
Cognitive Linguistics for EFL Writers: A Study of Plurilingual Online Team-teaching Sessions

secretly. You know, people don't care, because girls just think about she ran away
and thought that their enemy [=rival] is gone, or something like this. And shejust relaxed on the couch. Then she met a servant, how can I say, someone like ahouse cleaner by chance, and he likes painting, and asked her “Can I paint a pictureof you?” Because if it’s like a portrait, I think she’s sitting on the couch andrelaxed too much, so I thought someone just painted her picture. Maybe from thisevent, the girl in the yellow dress and the boy, I don’t know, like fall in love orsomething…

(Student 3 at the end of the second session)

The student shifts from the core meaning of “breaking the law (or being held hostage)” to“breaking social code” and therefore parents’ desire. The story opens up commentary from theother girls’ points of view, which shows the students’ awareness by harnessing the roles affordedby the frame. Her escape results in the “freedom” to just relax on a couch. Here the story meetsanother frame: unsanctioned relations with the “wrong side of the tracks.” A working-class boy,with renaissance talent and a girl from an upper crust family – this sort of liaison is often viewed
askance, from both sides of the tracks. The action to “escape" first meant not taking part inestablished society. However, encountering an outsider and the provisional happy ending
makes the evaluation shift on her "escape".
Student 4: before and after the Sessions
One student’s writings showed a significant change before and after the sessions. The
first version was a story of a character at the end of a tiring day. Verbs are light and simple,
and do not hold much information. Whether it turns a fun reading largely depends on if thereader had a similar experience:
I guess the woman is hangry [sic?], so she wants to eat noodle, but she is also lazy, so
she doesn’t want to move on [the] sofa. She got back home from the party that was
stepmother’s birthday. She doesn’t like [the] yellow dress, but she ware [sic] it
because the stepmother really like [sic] yellow.
(Student 4’s preparation homework)

232

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 221-235

It's a straightforward writing and is rather flat. The student’s second work is
intentionally shorter, with elaborate choice of words and structure which provides suspenseand surprises for the audience. This student happened to be the last presenter of the day, so
she avoided what other students had already tried out:[“My writing is quite short.”]She is escaping from her servant. She is a princess. She is also running on a public
street. Suddenly, someone takes her hand, and said to her, “Trust me.”[“That’s it.”](Student 4 at the end of the second session)

Showing marked improvement, the student creates a powerful frame, suggesting multiple
thematic roles with a powerful verb and an equally strong trope (‘take one’s hand’) initiated by ananonymous ‘someone.’ The student clearly understands the “hostage” scenario for escape andextends the meaning to include the super-exclusive world of royalty. Hence, we can only imagine
how the princess understands her ‘escape’. The scene becomes more real in that the scene is on a‘public’ street, perhaps beyond royal grounds, and the princess is acting just as we commoners
would in such a case: running. The brevity of the story and the immediacy of its core action is
amplified by ‘suddenly’ and, ironically, the “lightness” of the pronoun ‘someone’ which draws us
in all the more. The audience was captured first by this character’s action (taking the princess’hand) and then by the all-powerful request: “trust me” – one of the most delicate conditions wecan willingly acquiesce to, whose meaning is undefinable and whose ramifications areunimaginable. The student opened a plethora of scenarios with a mere four sentences and seems
to be very aware of the potency of delving into a verb’s web of meaning.

Discussion
Our work started from the recognition that students’ writing tended not to venture
beyond several sentence patterns and that they attempted to improve their readability scoresby simply replacing vocabulary with seemingly more erudite synonyms. Although limited totwo sessions and eleven students, we found that after guiding students to reconsider the
implied ideas, relations, and scenes of “heavy” verbs, their writing improved. By
233

Markve, S., & Saito, A.
Cognitive Linguistics for EFL Writers: A Study of Plurilingual Online Team-teaching Sessions

investigating verbs in general and ‘escape’ in particular, students’ writing exhibited fuller
pictures of the imagined scene by filling out the prototypical roles and using heavier verbs(Student 2), creatively moving outside the prototypical range of ‘escape’ (Student 3), andradically re-writing their work (Student 4), deftly playing on the implied frame of two
powerful ideas (‘trust’ and ‘take one’s hand’) and juxtaposing those grammatically andculturally argument-laden trajectories with the nearly vacuous ‘someone.’ – piquing ourinterest many times over, within four sentences. While students immediately employed their
cognitive awareness into practice, teachers recognized the usefulness of stylistics inevaluating their creative writing (Burke, et al. 2012).

Conclusion
We found that concerted, creative attention to the semantics and pragmatics of verbs
within a cognitive framework can open students to re-imagining their writing. Focusing at thelexical level may seem antithetical to composing, but demonstrating the wealth of meaning
implied by the frame semantics afforded by verbs in particular helps to explore potential ideas
throughout writing. Within L1 Writing Studies, linguistics has been largely marginalized sincethe 1980s. With the present renewed focus on cognitive linguistics, there is a move from
“information transfer” (a la dictionary semantics) to “understanding by juxtaposing” (e.g.
with a word’s competing category members) in teaching language production – a move which
recognizes all writers as knowledge-makers, who don’t “merely pass along information,
paying attention to the seemingly superficial aspects (of writing) but rather necessarily play
an epistemic role by their acts” (Markve, 2014). Further work might similarly focus on thecreative aspects of meaning within other parts of speech to improve writing or reading.

References
Bialystok, E. and Peets, K.F. (2010). Bilingualism and cognitive linkages. The Educationof English language learners. 133-151. NY: Guilford.

234

JACET Selected Papers Vol.8 (2022), 221-235

https://www.guilford.com/books/The-Education-of-English-Language-Learners/ShatzWilkinson/9781462503308
Burke, M., Csábi, S., Week, L., & Zerkowitz, J. (Eds.) (2012). Pedagogical stylistics. London:
Continuum. https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/pedagogical-stylistics-9781441140104/
Cook, G. (2010). Translation in language teaching: An argument for reassessment.
OUP. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/translation-in-language-teaching9780194424752?lang=en&cc=eg
Kurzweil, M. (1899). Lady in yellow dress [Original title: Dame im gelben Kleid ] [Painting].
Vienna Museum, Vienna, Austria. https://sammlung.wienmuseum.at/en/object/200675dame-in-gelb/
Markve, S. (2014). A use for linguistics in composition: A blending theory approach tometaphor in the writing class. https://doi.org/10.37099/mtu.dc.etd-restricted/257
Saito, A. (2015). Bridging the gap between L1 education and L2 education. In M. Teranishi,
Y. Saito, & K. Wales (Eds.), Literature and language learning in the EFL classroom(pp.41-60). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137443663_4

235

Submission Guidelines

JACET International Convention Selected Papers, Vol. 8
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: September 17, 2021
Submission Deadline: 11:59 PM Japan Standard Time, November 1, 2021
Submission Form:
http://www.jacet.org/selected-papers-submission2021/
A.

Requirements

1.

A paper must be based on a presentation (oral or regular poster presentation) given at the JACET
60th Commemorative International Convention (Online, 2021) and the first contributor must bea member of JACET. All other contributors must have also presented the work at the JACET 60th
Commemorative 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, including abstract, references, figures, tables, and appendix, should be formatted toA4 size and not exceed 30 pages for Research articles, 20 pages for Symposium Papers, and 15
pages for Practitioner Reports.

2.

All manuscripts must be written in English.

238

3.

All submissions to JACET Selected Papers must conform to the requirements of the Publication
Manual of the American Psychological Association, 7thedition.
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 For anonymity in the peer review process, submit papers 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 In order to guarantee anonymity in the review process, both the author name(s)and their publication information should be substituted with “ ***** ” throughout
the entire manuscript including references.
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 Convert the Word file manuscript into PDF format, saving it under the author’s fullname as in the following examples: suzukikaoru or smithkerry. Submit the PDF file byclicking “choose file” on the submission form.
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.

239