Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

The Asian EFL Journal
Professional Teaching Articles
February 2016
Issue 90

Senior Editors:
Paul Robertson and John Adamson
Guest Editor:
Anamai Damnet

1

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Published by the English Language Education Publishing
Asian EFL Journal
A Division of TESOL Asia GroupPart of SITE Ltd Australia
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com©Asian EFL Journal 2016
This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception no
reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of the Asian EFL Journal Press.
No unauthorized photocopying
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the Asian EFL Journal.
editor@asian-efl-journal.com
Publisher: Dr. Paul Robertson
Chief Editor: Dr. John Adamson
Production Editor: Brian Wadman
ISSN 1738-1460

2

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Table of Contents
Hsiu-chuan Chen……………………………………………...……………………4 – 27-

A Study of Ability Grouping Practice in an EFL Context: Perspectives of JuniorCollege Nursing Students

Martin Hawkes ………………………………………………………………..…..28 - 53-

Using Task Portfolios for Assessment in Oral Communication Courses

Hambalee Jehma…………………………………………………………...............54 - 65-

Flipped Learning as a Strategy for an Effective EFL Classroom

Darlene Yamauchi ………………………………………………………………..66 - 86-

Redesigning a Japanese Tertiary Communicative EFL syllabus: Integrating
Multiple Intelligences

Lindsay Mack……………………………………..……………………………...87 - 106-

Narrative Reflection on an Advanced English Course in Japan

3

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

A Study of Ability Grouping Practice in an EFL Context: Perspectives of Junior College
Nursing Students
Hsiu-chuan Chen
Kang Ning Junior College of Medical Care and Management, Taiwan

Bioprofile
Hsiu-chuan Chen is an associate professor of English at Kang Ning Junior College ofMedical Care and Management in Taipei. Her main research interests are in second language
reading, cooperative learning, and children’s literature.

Abstract
This study investigated nursing students’ learning experiences of ability grouping in English
class. A total of 193 freshman students, placed into three different ability levels, useddifferent sets of textbooks and took midterm and final exams with different contents.
Questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were employed to find out students’
perceptions of learning English through ability grouping practice over one-academic-schoolyear time frame. Questionnaire data were put into factor analysis. MANOVA and Scheffé
test were further employed to examine level differences. Interview data were analyzed,
following the content analysis procedure. The questionnaire results indicated that the lowability group had a significantly higher degree of satisfaction with teachers’ instruction andlearning outcomes, followed by the middle-ability and high-ability groups. The interview
findings showed that despite the benefits of the homogenous grouping arrangement enjoyedby students, high-grouped and intermediated-grouped EFL learners complained about
differentiated exams which resulted in unfair grading. Possible alternatives to ensure fairness
in grading are discussed in the study.

Key Words: Ability Grouping, Placement Practice, Homogeneous Class, EFL Learners,
Nursing Students.
Hsiu-chuan Chen, University of Kang Ning, Department of Applied Foreign Languages, No. 137, 75 Alley,
Sec.3, Kang Ning Rd., Neihu District, Taipei 11456, Taiwan. Email: hcchen@knjc.edu.tw

4

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Introduction
As English continues to prevail as the global language, proficiency in this language is
especially important both as a convenient communication tool and as a prerequisite in the
pursuit of higher academic goals (Grabe & Stoller, 2002). However, wide discrepancies instudents’ linguistic levels makes it a great challenge for teachers to effectively improvestudents’ learning. In numerous mixed-ability EFL classes, many strong students are
indifferent to teachers’ lectures and take little interest in classroom activities, whereas weaker
students totally get lost in learning and thereby give up on English (Cheng & Shih, 2007; Liu,
2008).
Ability grouping practice is recognized as one of the effective ways to deal with the
problem of a wide discrepancy in EFL learners’ linguistic levels, since it allows teachers toprovide students with instruction and materials that suit the ability levels of their students(Lee & Lin, 2013; Walqui, 2000). The Ministry of Education in Taiwan has encouraged
college-level schools to implement ability grouping in English classes since 2001. In
addition, due to the unsatisfactory performances of Taiwanese college students on TOFEL
tests compared to those of students in other Asian countries from 2002 to 2004, more tertiary
institutions have followed an educational policy in which different levels of English classes
are offered to effectively increase students’ English proficiency, an essential aspect of global
competitiveness (Sheu & Wang, 2006).
The junior college 1 where students study nursing in this inquiry has followed theuniversity English teaching trend and experimented with a homogeneous groupingarrangement in Freshman English for several years. However, the benefits of the educational
language policy are mainly felt from policy makers’ and school authorities’ points of view. It
is students who live their experiences of ability grouping in English classes. In other words,
as students’ viewpoints are the ultimate reality in the classroom (Raines, 2007), the purposeof the study was to examine the effectiveness of the language program from students’perspectives. The study addresses two questions as follows:
1. What were nursing students’ perceptions of learning English in ability-grouped classes?
2. What were the things they liked and disliked about ability grouping practice?

1

Junior college in Taiwan with an emphasis on vocational education offers five-year programs and two-year
programs. The level of achievement recognized by a student after either five or two years of study in a juniorcollege in Taiwan is similar to that of after two years of study in a community college in the United States.
5

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Literature Review

Ability Grouping Debate
Ability grouping has long been one of the most controversial educational policies overthe past few decades (Loveless, 1998; Sheu & Wang, 2006). Among the vast international
literature on ability grouping, the meta-analysis studies conducted by two American scholars,
Slavin and Kulik, have formed the so called Slavin-Kulik debate. Slavin (1987; 1990)
reviewed research on the effects of ability grouping on the achievement of elementary andsecondary students and found that the overall achievement effects were essentially zero at all
grade levels. On the other hand, Kulik and Kulik’s (1982) review research indicated thatability grouping has a small, yet significant effect on the achievement of secondary students.
Compared with average achievers and low achievers, high achievers made more significant
progress largely due to enriched curriculums. As ability grouping benefits high achievers andharms no one in terms of achievement, some researchers have endorsed Kulik’s position on
homogeneous or between-class groupings (Rogers, 2002).
While acknowledging the positive effects of the enriched curriculum on high achievers’learning, Slavin (1990) views ability grouping as anti-democratic. Being aware of theindividual capabilities, teachers tend to have high expectations for high achievers and low
expectations for low-achieving students. According to Hoffer and Gamoran (1993), teachers
in high-track classes focus their instruction on higher-level thinking such as problem solving,whereas teachers in low-track classes, the learning of basic skills. Despite the enrichedcurriculum created for high achievers, Boaler, William, and Brown (2000) argued that ability
grouping led to curriculum polarization which disadvantaged many students in high-set
classes since they were required to learn at a fast pace incompatible with understanding, andlimited the opportunities to learn for students in low-set classes since they were regarded as
failures who could cope with low-level work only. That ability grouping caused unequal
learning opportunities for students in low-set classes has been supported by Kim’s (2012)
study, in which the sense of inequality was the problem that concerned students most,especially those in low-ability and middle-ability classes.
In addition to the dispute over the curriculum and equity, research conducted to examine
the effects of ability grouping on students’ affective domain has also revealed mixed results.
For example, some studies have found that ability grouping can enhance self-concept of lowachieving students since they don’t need to compete with their brighter peers, which prevents
them from feeling frustration and a loss of self-esteem (Segro, 1995). In like manner, Liu,
6

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Wang, and Parkins (2005) found that low-achieving students had a more positive self-concept
than their high-achieving counterparts 3 years after being ability-grouped. This might be
attributable to the given opportunities for low achievers to experience success, in line withthe big-fish-little-pond effect. On the other hand, Gamoran (1993) argued that theorganizational features of ability grouping negatively affect the psychological domain of lowability students such as lower self-esteem and negative attitudes toward learning. The
argument has been confirmed in Cheng and Shih (2007), who claimed that other than causing
psychological problems to low achievers, ability grouping also brought about problems to
low-performing learners in the high-level group in junior high English class. Low achievers
faced stigma attachment and had resentment against high achievers, whereas low-performing
students in the high-level group were under pressure and felt frustrated, revealing thenegative big-fish-little-pond effect.
As the past research evidence regarding ability grouping is inconclusive, instead of
having students taught in the same class for all subjects, a growing number of schools have
had their students taught in certain subjects such as reading and math in homogenous classes.
In countries where English is taught as a Foreign Language (EFL), English is always used as
an example for single-ability grouping (Joyce & McMillan, 2010; Kim, 2012; Shih, 2006).
Kim (2012) investigated Korean middle school teachers’ and students’ perceptions of anability grouping policy in which EFL learners remained in the mixed-ability classes most of
the day but regrouped to different English classes based on their linguistic proficiency levels.
Kim claimed that the homogeneous grouping arrangement didn’t seem to result in expected
positive outcomes. Virtually none of the students clearly showed their positive attitudes
toward such an arrangement. The problems identified by the EFL learners included feelingembarrassed by exposing their ability, changing classrooms, using limited information togroup students, and feeling awkward learning English with students from different classes.
Kim further concluded that the benefits of ability grouping could be maximized by providing
systematic support in curriculum design, materials development, and teacher training. What isnoteworthy is that studies situated in different EFL contexts will yield different results interms of the implementation of ability grouping. As the nursing students in the present study
are junior college level students, the next section will center on the context of higher
education in Taiwan.

Research on Ability Grouping in Taiwanese Tertiary Education
Unlike the mixed results of studies conducted with elementary and high school students
7

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

mentioned previously, most of the studies reporting on the implementation of ability groupingin the Taiwanese EFL classroom at college level have shown positive achievement (Chien,
Ching, & Kao, 2002; Lee & Lin, 2013; Su & Lin, 2006) and affective effects in certain
aspects such as positive attitudes toward placement practice (Yu, 1994) and academic
confidence (Liu, 2009). Regarding the achievement gains, research has revealed divergent
results for students placed in different ability-level groups. In Chien et al.’s, (2002) study,
university freshman students in ability-grouped classes outperformed those in mixed-ability
classes on TOEFL tests after one-year of placement. Students in the low-ability group madegreater improvement than those in the high-ability and the middle-ability groups. The lowgrouped students also perceived the connection of their English improvement to the ability
grouping policy more than the high-grouped and intermediate-grouped students. However, in
Wen’s (2011) study, students in the low-ability group didn’t make significant progress onlistening or reading subtests of the General English Proficiency Test (GEPT 2 ). Instead,students in the middle-ability group achieved significantly higher scores on listening andreading; students in the high-ability group, listening.
Research exploring the affective domain has demonstrated that most students holdpositive attitudes toward ability grouping (Li, 2011; Liu, 2008; Sheu & Wang, 2006) and thatlower-grouped students seemed to benefit from placement practice most (Lee & Lin, 2013;
Liu, 2009; Su, 2010; Yu, 1994). Yu’s (1994) large-scale investigation in which a 17-question
survey was administered to 2,448 sophomores provided the evidence of students’ support forthe placement of an English lab program. Additionally, students placed in the basic level
favored ability grouping more than those placed in the intermediate and high levels. Such
results are in accordance with those of Liu’s (2008) and Su’s (2010) studies, where a majority
of college students, low-achieving EFL learners in particular, responded positively to thesingle-ability classes. They believed that they benefitted from the grouping arrangement insome areas such as English learning, comprehensible teachers’ instruction, and the boosting
up of confidence. It is noteworthy that these college students expressed that placement
practice wasn’t closely related to their improvement. One interesting result from Su’s study
was that there was a higher percentage of approval (34.6%) than disapproval (26.5%) in theassessment system with the top-ceiling score for each level, since the restriction of grades
remains a controversial issue when adopting an ability grouping policy.
2

GEPT is a test of English language proficiency commissioned by Taiwan's Ministry of Education in 1999. It
consists of 4 components: reading, listening, writing, and speaking.
8

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

According to Lee and Lin (2013), low-proficiency learners’ stronger instructional
preference for and greater satisfaction with single-ability language classes might result fromtheir having less anxiety and apprehension when learning English with the absence of highproficiency learners. This result is consistent with Liu (2009), who reported that the lowproficiency students improved in their academic confidence and overall English self-concept
most as compared with their average and above-average counterparts over one-academicschool-year time frame. Despite the lower anxiety level and higher English self-concept of
the EFL learners in the lower-level group, some studies have indicated that students don’t
perceive the relevance of placement practice on their motivation, interest, or attitude towards
English learning (Liu, 2008; Sheu & Wang, 2006; Su, 2010). This foregrounds theimportance of a detailed look into the affective effects of ability grouping by exploring thethings students like and dislike about such a practice. Moreover, the junior college where
nursing students in this inquiry were had adopted a homogeneous grouping arrangement inFreshman English classes for a couple of years. It is vital to examine the effectiveness of thisEnglish placement program. In other words, this study hopes to shed light on theimplementation of the educational language policy by examining learners’ learning
experiences of ability grouping in the real world of the classroom.

Methodology

Context
This study took place in a three-credit-hour, required Freshman English course thatmet for two hours one time and one hour another time each week for one school year. A totalof 193 freshman students (179 females and 14 males) majoring in nursing from a five-year
program at a junior college in Taipei participated in the study. These students were placed
into three different ability levels according to their scores of an English placement test on
their orientation day. The placement test constructed by the researcher consisted of simulationquestions of a reading subtest of the GEPT at the elementary level, equivalent to CEFR-A2
level. Level A had one class which was composed of the top 27% of students; Level C also
had one class which was composed of the bottom 21% of students. The rest of the students
were placed into Level B which had two classes. The four classes were named Class A, B, C,
and D, with Class A for high proficiency students and Class D for low proficiency ones. The
EFL learners’ ages ranged from 15-17 years old. Before entering junior college, thesestudents had received five years of formal education in English in elementary school and9Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

junior high school. But some of them had started learning English a couple of years prior toformal education.
Four EFL teachers with more than 8 years of teaching experience taught the classes.
Students in different ability levels used different sets of textbooks and took midterm and final
exams with different contents. To ensure fairness in grading, a proficiency test accounting for
20% of the final score in the English course was given on the final exam day. The proficiency
test in the first semester consisted of questions from an online learning website. In otherwords, students were required to study English by practicing online exercises during their
free time. The proficiency test in the second semester was the same one administered on theorientation day.

Data Collection
This study employed two different data collection procedures: questionnaires and semistructured interviews.

Questionnaires
Prior to the study, a 23-item questionnaire adapted from Shih (2006) was pilot tested ona total of 198 freshman nursing students in the previous academic year. The items aimed to
explore the effects of the ability grouping practice in the four areas most frequently addressedin the related literature, namely, (1) stigmatization, (2) teachers’ instruction and attitudes, (3)students’ learning outcomes and attitudes, and (4) classroom atmosphere and interaction. Allvariables were assessed using a four-point Likert scale (with 1 “strongly disagree” and 4“strongly agree”). The questionnaire data were put into factor analysis, using SPSS. After the
analysis, items with a factor loading bigger than .50 were qualified for the questionnaire. The
revised questionnaire had 17 items. The 17-item questionnaire was administered to allstudents to understand their perceptions of learning English in ability-grouped classes at theend of the study. The results of factor analysis and a reliability test identified four factors witha Cronbach coefficient α. of .88 acquired for internal consistency. Additionally, the factor
loading of each item was bigger than .50 with an explained variance up to 64.94%, whichmeant that the construct validity of the questionnaire was high.
Factor 1, Stigmatization, accounted for 35.59% of the total variance and included 4
items. This factor investigated whether students felt a stigma placed upon them since
stigmatization is negatively related to learning. Factor 2, Teacher’s Instruction and Attitudes,
accounted for 13.75% of the total variance and had 4 items. This factor aimed to determine
10Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

whether teachers’ instruction was appropriate for students with a similar ability. It also aimed
to find out teachers’ attitudes toward teaching since they might have an influence on thequality of instruction. Factor 3, Students’ Learning Outcomes and Attitudes, accounted for
8.02% of the total variance and included 5 items. This factor attempted to scrutinize theimpact of ability grouping on student learning. The last factor, Classroom Atmosphere,accounted for 6.58% of the total variance and included 4 items. It focused on the learning
environment and peer culture which encourages learning and helps maintain on-task
behaviors. After computing descriptive statistics such as means and standard deviations,
inferential statistics (i.e., MANOVA and Scheffé test) were employed to examine level
differences.

Interviews
In order to obtain an in-depth understanding of students’ perspectives about their abilitygrouped English program, 18 students from three different ability groups were randomly
selected for semi-structured interviews. 6 interviewees were selected from Level A, Level B,
and Level C respectively. The interviews asked both general questions and a specific question.
The general questions aimed at probing students’ views on what they liked and disliked about
their grouped English classes. The specific question asked students’ preferences of grouped,homogeneous classes or ungrouped, heterogeneous classes. Two experienced EFL teachers
conducted the interviews. Interview data were analyzed to identify codes and categorize therecurrent patterns, following the content analysis procedure (Patton, 2002). The interview
excerpts were translated from Chinese (i.e., students’ first language) into English by the
researcher.

Results and Discussion
The goal of this paper was to address the issues of what nursing students perceived theirEnglish learning through ability grouping and what they liked and disliked about thepractice. The former issue will be explicated with the questionnaire data and the latter, theinterview data.

Learning English through Ability Grouping
The results from the questionnaire which probed the four frequently-discussed areas
concerning ability grouping indicated that most students perceived a stigmatizing effect inbetween-class learning situations, since they scored higher than the median value of 2.5
11

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

([1+2+3+4])/4) (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree), assummarized in Table 1. However, the respondents had different reactions to the other 3
dimensions: “teachers’ instruction and attitudes,” “students’ learning outcomes and attitudes,”and “classroom atmosphere,” as the mean scores of the three ability groups fluctuatedbetween 2.32 and 3.01. Further analysis of MANOVA and Scheffé test demonstrated that
there were significant differences on the perceptions of all three groups, which mainly fell on
Teachers’ Instruction and Attitudes, and Students’ Learning Outcomes and Attitudes. The
low-ability group had a significantly higher degree of satisfaction with these two dimensions,followed by the middle-ability and high-ability groups, with significant levels of p<.001 (F=15.310) and p <.05 (F= 3.422) respectively. Table 2 delineates the results of MANOVA and
Scheffé for students’ perceptions on the four areas investigated.
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Students’ Perceptions on Four Areas
Areas

Level A (N=53)

Level B (N=100)

Level C (N=40)

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

Stigmatization

2.93

.65

2.83

.62

2.96

.75

Instruction

2.32

.52

2.53

.65

3.01

.54

Learning

2.36

.57

2.6

.59

2.67

.49

Classroom Atmosphere

2.67

.55

2.81

.52

2.95

.60

Table 2: MANOVA and Scheffé Test for Students’ Perceptions on Four Areas
Areas
TING

Error

Stigmatization

SS

Df

MS

F

Scheffé Test
n.s.

.028

2

.014

Instruction

10.911

2

5.456

Learning

2.189

2

1.095

3.442*

Atmosphere

1.730

2

.865

2.932n.s.

Stigmatization

82.444190.434

Instruction

67.706

190.356

Learning

60.411

190.318

Atmosphere56.063190.295

1=Level A; b 2 =Level B; c 3 =Level Ca***= p<.001; *p<.05

n.s. = no significance
12

.032

15.310*** 3c>2 b; 3>1 a; 2>1
3 >2; 3>1; 2>1

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Stigmatization didn’t reach a significant level of p<.05 among the ability groups in whichmore than 65% of the group members agreed on all items in this dimension (Table 3). The
finding suggested that students were unanimous in their perceptions to stigma attachment.
Stigmatization in the current study primarily examined students’ perceptions about thelabeling effect, of superiority and inferiority complexes and of their assigned groups. It
seemed clear that ability grouping caused strong feelings about a stigmatizing effect on the
EFL learners. Such phenomenon might be largely due to the differentiation of textbooks andof midterm and final exams, and the naming of various linguistic proficiency levels, withClass A for stronger students and Class D for weaker ones. As one of the major arguments
against a homogeneous arrangement is that students placed in the lower-ability level may
develop a sense of inferiority (Joyce and McMillan, 2010), how to alleviate stigma
attachment on lower-proficiency learners seems essential for reducing the detrimental effects
on students’ affect when adopting this educational language policy.
Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations of Students’ Perceptions on Stigmatization
Description

1. Easily labeled as good or bad

Level A

Level B

Level C

(N=53)(N=100)(N=40)

M (%)

SD

M (%)

SD

M (%)

SD

2.7

.80

2.9

.81

2.8

.94

students
Strongly disagree

9.4%

5%

10%

Disagree

22.6%

23%

25%

Agree

56.6%

49%

40%

Strongly agree

11.3%

23%

25%

2. Level A students showing

3.08

.85

2.61

.82

3.05

.75

superiority
Strongly disagree

5.7%

7%

2.5%

Disagree

15.1%

26%

17.5%

Agree

45.3%

49%

52.5%

34%

18%

27.5%

Strongly agree
3. Level C students showing

3

.83

2.84

.85

3

inferiority
Strongly disagree

3.8%

6%

13

5%

.85

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Disagree

22.6%

22%

20%

Agree

43.4%

46%

45%

Strongly agree

30.2%

26%

30%

4. Sad about assigned group

2.96

.88

2.96

.77

3

Strongly disagree

7.5%

4%

5%

Disagree

17%

12%

22.5%

Agree

47.2%

51%

40%

Strongly agree

28.3%

33%

32.5%

.88

Teachers’ Instruction and Attitudes, and Students’ Learning Outcomes and Attitudes
were found to be significantly different among the subgroups. Simply put, more low-grouped
students believed that placement practice positively affected teaching and learning thanintermediate-grouped and high-grouped students. In the category of teachers’ instruction andattitudes, low-proficiency learners had confidence in English learning (Item 5), found English
classes interesting (Item 6) and teachers’ instruction easy to understand (Item 7), and received
teachers’ encouragement the most (Item 8), in the second place were middle-proficiency
learners, followed by high-proficiency learners. Among these four items, Item 7 got thehighest student endorsement of 95%, 75%, and 54.7% from the low, intermediate, and highlanguage groups, as displayed in Table 4. Advocates of ability grouping claim that teachers
can meet the needs of each group by adjusting their instruction (Ansalone, 2003). The EFL
learners’ perceptions about the comprehensible teaching content illustrated this concept nicely.
When the instructional content is specifically relevant to each group’s needs, students are
more likely to enjoy their English classes, thereby becoming more confident in learning. It
was evident from Item 8 that the low-level group who reported receiving their teacher’s
encouragement outnumbered the middle-level and high-level groups. This result implied thatplacement practice didn’t negatively influence teachers’ attitudes toward weaker students,
which contradicted the argument made by French and Rothman (1990, [cited in Shih, 2006]).
Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations of Students’ Perceptions on Teachers’
Instruction and Attitudes
Description

Level A

Level B

Level C

(N=53)(N=100)(N=40)

M (%)

SD

14

M (%)

SD

M (%)

SD

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

5. Confident in English learning

2.25

.83

2.41

.82

2.85

Strongly disagree

18.9%

9%

5%

Disagree

43.4%

39%

30%

Agree

32.1%

40%

40%

Strongly agree

5.7%

12%

25%

2.42 .72

2.61

6. Fun to have English in grouped

.83

3.13

.86

.65

class
Strongly disagree

11.3%

9%

0%

Disagree

37.7%

27%

15%

Agree

49.1%

50%

57.5%

Strongly agree

1.9%

14%

27.5%

7. Easy to understand teacher’s

2.57

.77

2.82

.69

3.28

.55

instruction
Strongly disagree

7.5%

3%

0%

Disagree

37.7%

22%

5%

Agree

45.3%

60%

62.5%

Strongly agree

9.4%

15%

32.5%

8. Receiving teacher’s

2.06

.69

2.27

.77

2.8

.72

encouragement
Strongly disagree

18.9%

11%

2.5%

Disagree

58.5%

52%

30%

Agree

20.8%

30%

52.5%

Strongly agree

1.9%

7%

15%

Similar to Teachers’ Instruction and Attitudes, the low group students acknowledged thebeneficial effects of the ability-grouped English program on their learning outcomes andattitudes the most; the high group students acknowledged such benefits the least. According
to Table 5, except the last two items (Items 12-13), the low-ability group almost
overwhelmingly agreed with the other three items, with a large percentage of over 75%. In
other words, low-achieving students felt that they made progress in English (Item 9) and thatthey as well as their peers concentrated in class (Items 10-11) the most. On the contrary, highachievers approved the three items the least, with a percentage of agreement lower than 50%.
It is worth mentioning that less than half of the participants in all three groups reported a15

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

devotion of English learning out of class (Item 12), which lent support to some researchers
such as Liu (2008), and Sheu and Wang (2006), who declared that Taiwanese college students
don’t perceive grouping arrangements as facilitative to learning motivation. The result also
highlights the importance of how to motivate students to study English more intensively.
With regard to Item 13, over half of the respondents among the subgroups reached aconsensus on the statement of classroom activities going smoothly. Such a finding appeared
to be consistent with the contention that through instructional adjustment, ability grouping
can be a practical alternative to deal with the big gaps in EFL learners’ proficiency levels.
The smooth flow of in-class activities makes both learning and teaching easier (Lee & Lin,
2013; Walqui, 2000; Yu, 1994).
Table 5.

Means and Standard Deviations of Students’ Perceptions on Students’

Learning Outcomes and Attitudes
Description

9. Making greater progress inLevel A

Level B

Level C

(N=53)(N=100)(N=40)

M (%)

SD

M (%)

SD

M (%)

SD

2.15

.72

2.35

.82

2.93

.62

EnglishStrongly disagree

15.1%

11%

2.5%

Disagree

58.5%

47%

15%

Agree

22.6%

32%

70%

Strongly agree

3.8%

10%

12.5%

10. Concentrating in class

2.42

Strongly disagree

9.4%

6%

2.5%

Disagree

45.3%

37%

22.5%

Agree

39.6%

46%

70%

Strongly agree

5.7%

11%

5%

11. Peers concentrating in class

2.4

.75

.66

2.67

2.84

.76

.76

2.78

2.75

Strongly disagree

5.7%

6%

2.5%

Disagree

52.8%

33%

22.5%

Agree

37.7%

50%

72.5%

Strongly agree

3.8%

11%

2.5%

12. Devotion to English learning

2.3

.70

16

2.51

.77

2.4

. 58

.54

.63

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

out of class
Strongly disagree

9.4%

8%

5%

Disagree

54.7%

49%

52.5%

Agree

32.1%

34%

40%

Strongly agree

3.8%

9%

2.5%

13. Activities and dialogue practice

2.55

.75

2.65

.72

2.48

.68

going smoothly
Strongly disagree

9.4%

6%

7.5%

Disagree

32.1%

39%

40%

Agree

52.8%

48%

50%

Strongly agree

5.7%

7%

2.5%

Finally, although the three groups didn’t respond significantly different to Classroom
Atmosphere, the low-proficiency group had higher percentages of approval for most items
than the other two groups, as shown in Table 6. Compared with the other two levels ofstudents, low-proficiency students agreed that their peers were more willing to help (Item 14),and that it was easier to find more able peers (Item 16) and familiar peers for consultation(Item 17). As for Item 15, it was important to note that there was a higher percentage ofdisagreement than agreement from students in the subgroups. In other words, when asked
whether they could find models of English learning in grouped classes, all subgroups
disagreed. The low degree of accessibility to role models might be due in no small part to thesimilar linguistic ability of students in a homogeneous placement language program.
To sum up, the questionnaire data revealed that students with various linguistic abilities
were aware of a stigmatizing effect when learning English through ability grouping. The lowability group considered teaching and learning more significantly effective in between-classlearning situations than the medium-ability group, whereas the middle-ability group felt
significantly more positive toward these two areas than the high-ability group. Low groupstudents also perceived a more satisfying learning environment and peer culture than midgroup and high group students despite the fact that the difference didn’t reach a significant
level. To shed further light into the effects of ability grouping policy in language education,
data gathered through interviews were analyzed.
Table 6. Means and Standard Deviations of Students’ Perceptions on Class Atmosphere
Description

Level A

17

Level B

Level

C

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

(N=53)
M (%) SD

(N=100)M (%)

SD(N=40)MSD(%)
14. Peers willing to help each other

2.45

.77

2.88

.69

2.68

Strongly disagree

9.4%

5%

12.5%

Disagree

43.4%

29%

17.5%

Agree

39.6%

58%

60%

Strongly agree

7.5%

8%

10%

15. Unable to find models of

2.83

.83

2.98

.70

3.08

.83

.73

English learning
Strongly disagree

7.5%

4%

0%

Disagree

20.8%

13%

22.5%

Agree

52.8%

64%

47.5%

Strongly agree

18.9%

19%

30%

16. Easy to find more able peers to

2.7

.72

2.63

.72

3

.75

consult
Strongly disagree

7.5%

3%

2.5%

Disagree

22.6%

36%

20%

Agree

62.3%

49%

52.5%

Strongly agree

7.5%

12%

25%

17. Easy to find familiar peers to

2.72

.74

2.76

.69

3.05

.71

consult
Strongly disagree

7.5%

2%

0%

Disagree

22.6%

30%

22.5%

Agree

60.4%

55%

50%

Strongly agree

9.4%

13%

27.5%

Things Liked and Disliked about Ability Grouping
The interview data showed that the EFL learners perceived both advantages anddisadvantages of learning English through ability grouping. What students liked about theirability-grouped English program included (1) receiving instruction and materials appropriate
to their levels, (2) meeting new friends, (3) making progress in English, (4) building up
confidence, and (5) promoting a quieter learning environment. The perceptions of the first18

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

three benefits were reiterated by learners in all language groups, whereas the last two
advantages were identified by students in different ability groups.
A majority of participants liked being taught according to their linguistic competence,meeting new friends, and improving English proficiency. One high achiever made a clear
description of why she liked placement practice.

Excerpt 1: S3 in the high-level group
I don’t need to learn English that I had learned during my preschool days with peers who
don’t have any idea about basic English. Learning English with peers who have therelatively equivalent level allowed us to learn from each other. Teachers could also
provide more supplementary materials and diverse activities, which helped foster myEnglish learning…I made friends from other homeroom classes with whom I could havea heart-to-heart talk.

The problem of mixed abilities in the same classroom has existed almost as long as thehistory of language teaching. It is common for EFL practitioners to see students sufferingfrom this problem with stronger students yawning in class and weaker students getting lost in
their learning. The above excerpt indicates that the high achiever didn’t suffer from the
problem, since she didn’t need to relearn basic English she had long been familiar with in the
single-ability classroom. Such a classroom allowed teachers to easily design activities andmaterials to satisfy their students’ needs. The differentiated instruction also helped prevent
weaker students from falling behind in the class, thereby developing their confidence. One
low achiever who couldn’t catch up with the teaching pace in heterogeneous classes prior toher junior-college days remarked that,

Excerpt 2: S1 in the low-level group
I never passed English courses before entering junior college. But now, I don’t worry
about falling behind. With the teacher’s comprehensible lectures and manageable
textbook, I think I am more confident in passing this subject. If I were in mixed-ability
classes, I would fail again.

Other than low-achieving students, average achievers also believe that they have moreacademic confidence in grouped classes than in ungrouped classes. The finding was not
surprising because high-proficiency students were placed into the advanced language group.
19

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Through the eyes of high achievers, arranging students who had better English proficiency inthe same class created a quieter learning environment, since these students were more
attentive to instructors’ lectures and rarely exhibited off-task behaviors such as chatting withfellow classmates. One high-proficiency student said, “I liked the quieter classroom. I can’t
concentrate with noisy classmates chatting around me” (S6 in the high-level group). Despite
the benefits enjoyed by the interviewees, different materials had different midterm and final
exam questions and unfair grading ensued. What follows are the problems the EFL learners
encountered.
Things students disliked about grouping practice were (1) differentiated exams, (2)studying with other homeroom peers, (3) changing classrooms, (4) study pressure, and (5) alack of model students. Differentiated exams was the problem complained about by theparticipants most, specifically by high-grouped and intermediate-grouped students. Simply
put, they high group students considered it unfair to take midterm and final exams different
from those taken by low-grouped students. As the content of these exams in the low-levelgroup were much easier than those in the high and intermediate-level groups, low achievers
often gained higher scores than high and medium achievers. Students with better linguistic
proficiency ended up having lower scores than those with weak abilities. Lower English
scores would adversely affect their class ranking, thereby limiting their opportunities to apply
for scholarships. One high achiever exclaimed:

Excerpt 4: S6 in the high-level group
The English score is included in our class ranking. Different exams resulted in unfair
grading and class ranking. This might affect some students’ opportunities to getscholarships.

The potential drawback of losing scholarship opportunities can be also evidenced in one
medium achiever’s elaboration on the issue of grading.

Excerpt 5: S3 in the intermediate-level group
A couple of senior fellow students told us not to do well on the placement test. Being
placed into the lower-level group can allow someone to take easier exams and therefore
they are likely to get a higher English score.

Excerpt 5 reveals that students might intentionally demote themselves to a lower group20

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

in order to get a better score and class ranking. Every semester, the top three students in everyclass are awarded a scholarship. A good grade in English also increases the opportunity toreceive scholarships sponsored by other institutes and non-profitable organizations. As there
is a shortage of nurses in Taiwan, nursing students get employed easily right after graduation.
Some students from vulnerable families in this study sacrificed their qualifications to attend
senior high schools which had higher academic levels than the junior college. With their goodacademic abilities, they are always qualified for application for scholarships for students fromvulnerable families as well as scholarships for nursing students granted by hospitals, nursing
associations, and health institutes, etc. It is quite understandable that students in the high level
and intermediate language groups complained about the unfair grading caused by thedifferentiated exams.
Studying with students from other classes and changing classrooms were the next two
frequently-addressed problems. These two problems were intertwined in terms of discussing
about assignments and class business with peers from other homeroom classes. A few EFL
learners responded that they discussed with their homeroom peers during the breaks
whenever they were confused about assignments and that they easily reached a consensus
about class business. However, discussing these issues was a serious inconvenience in abilitygrouped classes. One student in the middle group reported,

Excerpt 6: S5 in the intermediate-level group
I feel embarrassed to ask unfamiliar peers about class assignments…It’s hard forstudents from 4 different homeroom classes to reach a consensus about whether to turnon air-conditioning since we have to pay for it. If two classes turn on the A/C, the othertwo don’t. Would that be unfair?

Unlike the problems about studying with students from different classes and studying ina different classroom unanimously raised by students at all levels, the last two problems,study pressure and a lack of model students, were identified by students in the high and midgroups respectively. One high group student contended that she was under stress simply
because she had been misplaced. She stated, “I felt that I’ve come to the wrong classroom. I
cannot do well in quizzes and exams as my fellow students even though I work hard, whichquite discourages me” (S4 in the high-level group). As for a lack of language learning models,the problem pinpointed by medium-proficiency learners was within expectations, since those
who are more competent in English were placed into the high-level group. One pointed out,
21

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

“We have comparable English levels in ability-grouped class, so there aren’t any rolemodels” (S2 in the intermediate-level group).
The interview data clearly showed the consistency among interviewees with different
proficiency levels in regard to certain aspects. They all mentioned that they liked ability
grouping mainly because of the instruction and materials corresponding to their linguisticcompetence, meeting new friends and making progress in English. Meanwhile, they
explained that they disliked the practice largely due to the problems related to studying withstudents from other classes and to changing classrooms. Such findings are quite similar to thecase in Kim’s (2012), in which Korean students viewed these two problems as against theefficacy of ability grouping.
The interview findings demonstrated that students in the three ability groups varied intheir reactions toward placement learning situations. High-ability students favored the quieter
class atmosphere but were extremely dissatisfied with the more difficult exams and the unfair
grading that ensued. The complaint was also a common phenomenon found in the interview
with middle-ability students. Different from unequal learning opportunities for low-grouped
students which had been highlighted by some researchers like Slavin (1990), the unfair
grading brought about by more advanced textbooks and complicated exams became the issue
which concerned the EFL learners in the present study most. Despite the unsatisfactory
feelings, average-achieving students boosted their confidence in English learning, as did the
low achievers. Low-proficiency students firmly believed that the appropriate pace of lessons
and suitable instructional materials enhanced their academic confidence. That students
reacted differently toward ability grouping can be seen in their instructional preferences, as
listed in Table 7.
Table 7. Numbers and Percentages of Students’ Preferences for Ability Grouping
Level A(N=6)

Level B (N=6)

Level C (N=6)

Total

For

1

2

6

9 (50%

Against4

3

0

7 (39%)

Neutral1

10

2 (11%)

Among 18 students with three levels of proficiency selected as the participants in theinterview, 9 (50%) preferred grouped, homogeneous classes; 7 (39%) had preferences forungrouped, heterogeneous classes; 2 (11%) remained neutral. The low group students were22

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

overwhelmingly in favor of the homogeneous grouping arrangement. This seemed toillustrate why low-ability students expressed their dislike of their English program least
compared with their high-ability and middle-ability counterparts. Such findings, taken inaccord with the questionnaire results in which the low group agreed significantly more thanthe mid and high group in Teachers’ Instruction and Attitudes, and Students Learning
Outcomes and Attitudes, confirm Liu (2008), Su (2010) and Yu’s (1994) research, which
contends that low-proficiency EFL learners respond positively to the influences of ability
grouping most.

Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications
This study has shown that the low-grouped nursing students had the most positive
reactions toward placement policy in terms of instruction and learning outcomes, followed byintermediated-grouped and high-grouped students. While acknowledging benefitting fromappropriate instruction and materials and making improvements in English through thehomogenous arrangement, middle and high-proficiency learners complained about moredifficult midterm and final exam questions which resulted in unfair grading. Two possible
alternatives can be implemented to ensure fairness in grading.
First, instead of adopting different materials, the same set of English textbooks should be
used in all different ability classes. However, the high-level group are instructed with more
content; the low-level group, less content. All language groups take the same midterm andfinal questions based on the content covered in the low-level class. The use of the same set oflearning materials can also help low-ability students feel less inferior to their peers (Shih,2006). The other alternative is inclusion of the placement test score in the semester score andrestriction of grades for each ability level, for example, 100 for Level A, 85 for Level B, and75 for Level C. This might diminish the possibility of students who intentionally demotethemselves to lower-level groups. By adopting such policies, school authorities and teachers
would clearly convey to students that they learn better by being taught according to theirproficiency levels.
Finally, a significant number of interview participants felt uncomfortable when having to
ask their peers questions about assignments or discussing class business. This points to a lackof class identity and mutual support among fellow students. Teachers should incorporate
more in-class activities to help students become familiar with peers from different homeroom
classes. And schools should play a role in providing systematic support of activity designs, assuggested by Kim (2012). This would be more conducive to teachers’ instruction and23

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

students’ learning in ability-grouped English classes.

24

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

References
Ansalone, G. (2003). Poverty, tracking, and the social construction of failure: International
perspectives on tracking. Journal of Children & Poverty, 9, 3-20.
Boaler, J., William, d., & Brown, M. (200). Students’ experiences of ability groupingdisaffection, polarizaion and the construction of failure. British Educational Research
Journal, 26, 631-648.
Cheng, Y. S., & Shih, C. Y. (2007). Evaluation of ability grouping and mixed-ability grouping
practices in junior high English class. Contemporary Educational Research Quarterly,
15(2), 35-78.
Chien, C. N., Ching, H. L., & Kao, L. H. (2002). An empirical study on ability grouping
practice in English class. Proceedings of 2002 Conference and Workshop on TEFL &Applied Linguistics, 185-198. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Gamoran, A. (1993). Alternative uses of ability grouping in secondary schools: Can we bringhigh quality instruction to low-ability classrooms? American Journal of Education, 102,
1-22.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. London: Pearson
Education Longman.
Hoffer, T. B, & Gamoran, A. (1993). Effects of instructional differences among ability groups
on student achievement in middle-school science and mathematics. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED363 509).
Hornby, G., Witte, C,& Michell, D. (2011). Policies and practices of ability grouping in New
Zealand intermediate schools. British Journal of Learning Support, 26(3), 92-96.
Joyce, P., & McMillan, B. (2010). Student perceptions of their learning experience instreamed and mixed-ability classes. Language Education in Asia 1, 215-227.
Kim, Y. (2012). Implementing ability grouping in EFL contexts: Perceptions of teachers andstudents. Language Teaching Research, 16, 289-315.
Kulik, C. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students:
A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19,415-428.
Lee, C. L., & Lin, C. J. (2013). A method of English ability-grouping teaching in a universityof technology. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3, 268272.
Li, C. L. (2011). A study of technical college freshmen’s opinions about English ability
grouping teaching in southern Taiwan. Paper presented at the 4th Joint Conference of25

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

General Education in Pintung, Taitung, & Ponghu Areas. Pingtung: Taiwan.
Liu, H. J. (2008). An analysis of the effects of ability grouping on student learning inuniversity-wide English classes. Feng Chia Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences,16, 217-249.
Liu, H. J. (2009). Exploring changes in academic self-concept in ability-grouped English
classes. Chang Gung Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(2), 411-432
Liu, W. C., Wang, C. K. J.,& Parkins, E. J. (2005). A longitudinal study of students’ academic
self-concept in a streamed setting: The Singapore context. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 75(4), 567-586.
Loveless, T. (1998). The tracking and ability grouping debate. “The Fordham report”.
Washington, DC: The Fordham Foundation.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Raines, A. S., Brabham, E. G., & Aycock, A. (2007). High schools students’ instructional
preferences when reading literary works of art. The Reading Matrix, 7 (2), 97-116.
Rogers, K. B. (2002). Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and answers, Roeper
Review, 24, 102-107.
Segro, G. (1995). Meeting the needs of all students: Making ability grouping work. Nassp
Bulletin, 79 (568), 18-26.
Sheu, C. M., & Wang, P. L. (2006). A case study of student perceptions toward between-classability grouping in freshman practical English class. KUAS Journal of Humanities andSocial Sciences, 3, 111-140.
Shih, C. Y. (2006). A study of ability-grouping practice in junior high English class.
Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Slavin, R. (1987). Ability grouping and students achievement in elementary schools: a best
evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 347-350.
Slavin, R. (1990). Achievement effects in ability grouping in secondary schools: A best
evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471-499.
Su, C., & Lin, Y.C. (2006). Effect of ability-grouping on the teaching efficiency of English
reading class. In Department of English Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages(Ed.), The Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on English Teaching and
Learning in the Republic of China (pp.989-1001). Kaohsiung: Kaun Tang International
Publications Ltd.
Su, S. W. (2010). English placement practice and instruction: A needs analysis from the26

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

perspective of technological university students. National Kaohsiung Normal
University Academic Journal, 29, 1-27.
Walqui, A. (2000). Contextual factors in second language acquisition. ERIC Digest. Center
for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/005
contextual.html
Wen, S. M. (2011). An analysis of the implementing outcomes of ability grouping of
freshman English in a university of technology. Journal of National Taichung
University: Humanities & Arts, 25(2), 65-80.
Yu, C. F. (1994). The assessment of ability grouping in the college lab program: The
Soochow experience. Soochow Journal of Foreign Language and Literatures, 10, 45-77.

27

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Using Task Portfolios for Assessment in Oral Communication Courses
Martin Hawkes
The University of Shiga Prefecture, Hikone, Japan
Bioprofile
Martin Hawkes has taught English as a foreign language for over ten years. He is an
Associate Professor at The University of Shiga Prefecture in Japan. He holds an MSc in
TESOL from Aston University, and is presently a PhD candidate at the same institution. His
research interests include form-focused instruction in task-based language teaching.

Abstract
Despite the growing acceptance of task-based language teaching around the world, there havebeen some questions raised regarding its suitability for Asian contexts. Concerns include theuse of L1 during tasks and problems with keeping less motivated learners on task. Anotherissue is the question of how teachers should assess students following a task-based syllabus.
This paper will describe an approach to assessment where learners make recordings of thetasks they perform in classes, which are collected over the semester to create portfolios forgrading by their teacher. 39 first-year Japanese university students participated in this study.
Over a 15-week English oral communication course, a portion of the students' grade wasdetermined from a portfolio consisting of six collaborative speaking tasks. To evaluate thetask portfolio system, the researcher employed three data collection methods: questionnaires,
samples of task recordings, and a research journal. The questionnaire data indicated that theparticipants responded positively to the portfolio assessment, and they stated that the elementof pressure involved helped them improve their task performances. These claims were
supported by the recordings of task interaction and the research journal. Overall, the findings
suggest that recording task performances for portfolio provides some degree of extrinsic
motivation to encourage less motivated learners to stay on task, and could be a useful option
for practitioners in similar contexts.

Martin Hawkes, The University of Shiga Prefecture, Department of Intercultural Communications, 2500
Hassakacho, Hikone City, Shiga Prefecture, 522-8533, Japan. Email: martin_hawkes@hotmail.com
28

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Key words: Motivation, Task-based Teaching, Oral Communication

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to describe a small practitioner research project involving
two intact EFL classes of university students in Japan. It outlines a change that was made to
the assessment procedures for an oral communication course which contained elements of atask-based approach. In addition to the common assessment methods of end-of-course
speaking and writing tests, an extra task portfolio strand was added where participants maderecordings of themselves performing collaborative tasks. These served as samples of theparticipants’ class work, and were used for a portion of their course grade. In this paper, I will
describe the participants' responses to the new evaluation method, its strengths, and someremaining issues that practitioners may need to consider before implementing a similar
approach.

Tasks and Language Learning
The use of communicative tasks in language teaching and research has become
widespread in many parts of the world. Over the past two decades in Asia, communicative
language teaching (CLT) has even become the recommended approach by somegovernmental education departments (Hu, 2002; Birch, 2012). Task-based language teaching(TBLT), which has developed as a distinct branch of CLT, has been described as "a new
orthodoxy" (Littlewood, 2004) in language pedagogy, having a number of high-profile
supporters in the TESOL community (Ellis, 2003; Willis & Willis, 2007), and being the topic
of numerous articles, books and conference presentations.
Advocates of tasks in language learning have theorized their ability to foster second
language development. In his (1983; 1996) interaction hypothesis (Long, 1983; 1996), whichbuilt on Krashen's (1982) hugely influential input hypothesis, Long argued that thenegotiation and repair sequences that occur in the kind of interaction found in tasks can leadto acquisition. Moves such as recasts, comprehension checks and clarification requests lead toreformulations that convert previously incomprehensible language into comprehensible input,
which might facilitate acquisition. Feedback from negotiation also provides negative
evidence to the learners that all was not well with their utterance, and may help them notice a
gap between the target language and their own emerging interlanguage (Schmidt, 1990;

29

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

2001). Additionally, tasks provide an opportunity for output, which is claimed to be anecessary component for interlanguage development (Swain, 2005).
Throughout the development of TBLT there has been some debate as to what actuallyconstitutes a task (see Ellis, 2003, pp. 2-10; Nunan, 2007; Willis & Willis, 2007, pp. 12-13;
Samuda & Bygate, 2008, pp. 62-70). While some differences in interpretation exist, thefollowing five-point description of task by Skehan's (1998) seems to cover the fundamental
characteristics that are relevant to the current study:

1. Meaning is primary
2. Learners are not given other people's meanings to regurgitate
3. There is some sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities
4. Task completion has some priority
5. The assessment of the task is in terms of outcome. (p. 95)

Tasks and East Asian Language Learning Contexts
Much has been written about the difficulties of using communicative tasks in East Asianclassrooms. Carless, researching Hong Kong school contexts, reported primary school
teachers' concerns of noise and indiscipline, use of the L1, and lack of participation on thepart of some students (2002; 2004). In Carless (2008), he described the problems thatteachers have in getting monolingual classes of Chinese-speaking learners to use the target
language, English, during task performances.
In the Japanese context, Burrows (2008) has argued that learning styles may not becompatible with a task-based approach as Japanese language learners are not accustomed tothe inherent autonomy allowed by communicative tasks. Goto Butler (2011) discussed
similar themes, arguing that the tenets of CLT and TBLT are ethnocentric and based onWestern ideas of education; therefore, some may resist its implementation. The consequencesof this are arguably very visible in the ubiquitous compulsory oral communication classes
that first year university students must take. Talandis and Stout (2014) report that students inthese classes are often reluctant to speak and actively participate in classroom activities.
Indeed, the phenomenon of silence in language classrooms in Japan has been described indetail (King, 2013), as has the lack of communicative competence among Japanese learners
leaving high school. Negishi, Takada, and Tono (2013) report that despite having studied
English since the age of twelve, by the age of 17 (one year before entry to university) 50% of30

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

students have yet to reach the A1 level of the Common European Framework of Reference(CEFR), and a further 33% are still at A1.
Teachers have no doubt tackled this issue in a variety of ways in language classrooms
around Japan. However, one approach that seems to have proved popular with some is theimmediate method (Azra, Ikezawa, Rowlett, & Vannieuwenhyuse, 2004). This techniqueinvolves regular assessment where learners are required to give a performance of the day’s
target language or task. Approaches like this rely on the threat of an assessed performanceproviding an element of extra motivation to help focus the learners on tasks, a point that isrelevant to this paper.

Assessment in oral communication courses
Despite the focus of oral communication courses in Japanese universities being
ostensibly on the development of speaking and active listening skills, the assessment
procedures that are used are not always consistent with these goals. Institutions often require
a written form of assessment. For example, students may receive test items which requirethem to complete missing sections of conversations representative of those that appeared
during the course. However, it is probably more desirable to employ a test format that
directly attempts to assess speaking proficiency such as an oral proficiency test. These may
come in the form of traditional interview tests between teacher and student. However, due tothe unavoidable power imbalance in such situations (Hughes, 2003), the use of pairs testingmight be more effective in producing more authentic exchanges (Egyud & Glover, 2001;
Taylor, 2001; Yamada, 2006. Although see Foot, 1999; O’Sullivan, 2002; and Norton, 2005
for arguments against pairs testing). A context-dependent issue with such oral proficiency
tests is related to the time available for testing. With large class sizes being the norm in many
institutions, the actual time that can be allocated to each individual (or pair of individuals)
may be limited. This raises the question of whether a student can be reliably assessed over a
speaking test that may not last much more than a couple of minutes.
One possible alternative assessment method for these courses is the use of a kind of
portfolio. There is an extensive body of research into the use of portfolios in education
generally, and more specifically in foreign language teaching and learning. Hedge (2000)
detailed a number of potential advantages of portfolio assessment, mostly related to involving
students in the learning process. Indeed, there is a good deal of research in this specific area.
Nunes (2004) found portfolios to be a useful means of promoting learner reflection of theirwritten work. In the East Asian context, there have been several studies that reported positive
31

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

responses from students towards portfolio assessment (Apple & Shimo, 2004; Sharifi &Hassaskhah, 2011). Further, Huang and Hung (2010) found that learners who shared
speaking samples using an online portfolio, and received feedback from peers, showed
evidence of enhanced performance. Hung (2009) found that electronic portfolios of writing
promoted self-directed learning, and Chen (2006) concurred, reporting that portfolios might
be useful for learners to record their development. However, Chen had reservations about
their use as an assessment tool, arguing that there would be resistance from advocates of
traditional assessment methods. Chen and Squires (2010) suggested otherwise, proposing thatclassroom-based assessment methods such as portfolio assessment could be more motivating
and preferable to standardized testing.
Indeed, the main potential benefit of portfolio assessment relevant to the current
discussion is that it allows learners to be evaluated over a period of time and on a number ofpieces of work, rather than grades being weighted towards a single final exam (Dornyei,2001). They may also provide the kind of motivational push that approaches such as theimmediate method hope to achieve.
While considering the above issues regarding difficulties of implementing TBLT in
Asian contexts, motivational issues more generally, and portfolio assessment, the following
research questions were formulated:

1. How did the participants respond to the task portfolio system of assessment?
2. How did the use of task portfolios affect the participants’ performance on tasks?
3. How did the use of task portfolios affect the participants’ use of L1 during tasks?

Methodology

ParticipantsThis study was conducted at a private university in Japan. The participants came from
two intact classes of 1st year students aged 18 to 19 years old. They were largely
homogenous in that they had all received six years of standardized English education at thejunior and senior high school, which mainly focused on grammar translation, reading
practice, and the learning of vocabulary from word lists. The result of this was that, like many
school leavers in Japan, the participants had relatively strong explicit grammaticalknowledge; however, their speaking skills were rather limited, and their confidence in32

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

communicating in English was low. Although the two classes were made up of business andlaw majors, the university requires them to take a compulsory English Communication coursein the first semester of university. Of the 42 students that had registered in the two classes, 39
agreed to participate in the study and were present for the data collection sessions. 24 of the
respondents were male, and 15 were female.

Procedures
The study covered one 15-week semester oral communication course (see Figure 1). In
week 1, the researcher gave an explanation of the task recordings and portfolio assessment
system, and conducted a brief training session using the voice recorders. At this stage theresearch project was also explained, and those students who wished to participate were asked
to read and sign consent forms, and complete a pre-course questionnaire.
During the course there were six topic areas covered that loosely followed a prescribedtextbook Interchange 1A (Richards, Hull, & Proctor, 2012). At the end of each unit of study,
the learners performed a collaborative communicative task which was recorded. These tasks
were labelled ‘portfolio tasks’ (see Table 1 for details), and the learners were told that theywould be used for assessment purposes. During these sessions the researcher took notes onproceedings to produce a research journal. Finally, in the penultimate class, participants wereasked to complete the post-course questionnaire.

1

2

Explanations
Questionnaire

6

3

4

Portfolio task 1

7

8

11
Portfolio task 5

12

Portfolio task 2

9Portfolio task 3

5

10

Portfolio task 4

13

14

Portfolio task 6 Questionnaire

Figure 1. An overview of the 15-week course plan
33

15

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Table 1The six tasks used in the study:
Timed conversation In this icebreaking task, learners imagined they were meeting for the
first time and had four minutes to become acquainted.
Cinema trip

For this decision-making task, triads received the current schedule
for a local cinema. The group had to plan a trip to the cinema anddecide which film they would see together; the showing; a place toeat, and whether they will dine before or after the movie; and an
appropriate meeting time and place. Groups completed the task in
between five and eight minutes.

Find the differences Used widely in teaching (Ur, 2014) and research (Mackey & Gass,
2005), this jigsaw task had pairs receive pictures with a park
scene with ten differences. They needed to find ten differences
between the pictures. Pairs completed the task in between nineand seventeen minutes.
Scheduling

For this jigsaw task (Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993), pairs received
a schedule for the next week. They were asked to find a mutuallyconvenient time to meet and do a homework assignment. This task issimilar to scheduling tasks commonly found in published materials(e.g. Barnard, Cady, Duckworth, & Trew, 2009). Pairs completed thetask in between four and five minutes.

Health discussion

In groups of four, learners had to discuss their lifestyle habits anddecide which group member was the healthiest. Groups completed
the task in between six and ten minutes.

My best vacation

Learners worked in pairs to tell their partner about their best holiday
experience with details of where they went to, what they did, whomthey were with, and any other points of interest. During eachnarration, the listener was required to ask questions to elicit further
details. Pairs had to perform the task for ten minutes (five minuteseach).

Pre-course questionnaire
After giving an explanation of the study, the participants completed a short written
questionnaire (see Appendix A) which took around five minutes. The questionnaire containednine items using different rating scales and one checklist item. It was written in English andJapanese, and each item was explained in plenary. The aim was to better understand theparticipants’ English learning backgrounds and attitudes to studying English. For the purposeof the study, it was particularly important to determine the participants’ feelings about
34

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

speaking English in class with their peers. Their responses could then be compared to similar
items in the post-course questionnaire to try to evaluate any impact from the portfolio tasks.

Task Interaction Recordings
The portfolio tasks were audio recorded using digital IC recorders, and saved as MP3
files. The researcher followed a stations approach (Markee, 2000), in which each group had
their own device and was responsible for making the recording. Therefore, in the first lesson,
the participants practiced how to use the recorders to minimize the potential for lost or
corrupted data.
Participants submitted the recorders after the task had been completed, and the data weretransferred to computer to be organized into folders for each learner. After each successive
task, another sample of interaction was added to each folder creating a portfolio of eachparticipant’s performances. Samples of the data contained on these audio files were thentranscribed, organized and analyzed using the software Transana (Woods & Fassnacht,2012). To protect the anonymity of the participants, the samples of task interaction shown inthis paper have had any identifying features removed, and pseudonyms have been used.

Post-course Questionnaire
In the final class, a second written L1 questionnaire (see Appendix B) was administered,
which took around ten minutes to complete. First, it contained five rating scale items
designed to determine how the participants responded to the tasks and being recorded. Someof these items were followed by a guided clarification question (Dornyei & Taguchi, 2010),
where further details could be provided in Japanese or English. For the purpose of this paper,the open responses were translated into English by the author. Finally, there were six
statements related to how participants thought the recording process had affected their task
performances. The participants were asked to state the extent to which they agreed with thesestatements using a five-point Likert scale.

Research Journal
During each class in which portfolio tasks were recorded, the researcher took notes about
several potential areas of interest. These included the ease of use of the recorders, theapparent comparative use of L1 and L2 during task time, and participants’ responses to thetasks.
35

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Findings
Over the six portfolio tasks, a number of surface observations were made. Overall, theparticipants appeared engaged by the tasks, and the chance to work collaboratively with manydifferent members of the class. During other classroom activities, some participants did notinteract (in either L1 or L2) a great deal with the others around them, but, when it was
required by the portfolio tasks, they seemed to seize the opportunity with enthusiasm.
Participants also appeared to be using English exclusively when working on the portfolio
tasks.
As we might expect, the participants took the portfolio tasks seriously. They often
seemed a little apprehensive at the beginning, and were perhaps nervous of the prospect of
their spoken English being recorded.
The recording process itself was relatively trouble free. Although there were a couple ofisolated cases where a group lost their data, the vast majority of task performances weresafely recorded and could be transferred to the researcher’s computer filing system.

Previous Learning Experiences
As discussed above, the pre-course questionnaire asked about the participants’ previous
English learning experiences. The first item asked what proportion of their high schoolclasses were used for speaking activities. Figure 2 shows that most participants reported onlya small amount of class time devoted to speaking activities (Mean = 25.4%, SD = 16.0) with
41% of participants responding that 20% or less of class time was devoted to speaking
activities.

36

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Figure 2. The proportion of time allocated to speaking activities in the participants’ highschool classes

Figure 3 shows the kind of speaking activities the participants had experienced intheir high school classes, although this rather crude measurement can only give us a very
rough idea of the learners’ backgrounds. By far the most common activities appear to havebeen repetition drills led either by the teacher or recordings (for some teachers that may be
not be confident in providing a pronunciation model). It is striking that a few students
reported that they never did any of these speaking activities, especially those which require alittle more genuine communication such as structured question and answer activities andcommunicative tasks. Finally, the number indicating that they sometimes did communicative
tasks was higher than expected. It is likely, although this is only conjecture, these were highly
structured “tasks” such as survey activities where the questions are already decided andminimal follow up is required.

Figure 3. The frequency of different speaking activities done in the participants’ high schoolclasses

General Responses to Task Portfolios
Figure 4 shows comparative data from the pre- and post-course questionnaires. It
illustrates how much the participants reported enjoying English speaking activities with their37

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

classmates in their previous learning experiences (pre-course questionnaire) and following
the course under investigation (post-course questionnaire).
As Figure 4 illustrates, only 37% of participants responded positively towards speaking
tasks they had done in the past. The most common response (56%) was one of indifference,
while a small minority actively disliked them. Following the course involving the portfolio
tasks, the responses were much more positive. There were no negative responses, a small
minority answered so-so, and the vast majority (86%) responded favorably, with the mostcommon choice being that they really enjoyed the speaking tasks.
In the first open response items that followed in the post-course questionnaire, many
participants reported that they had enjoyed the opportunity to use English with theirclassmates, which they had not been given previously. Several participants also commented
on a spirit of collaboration that existed during speaking activities. Responses such as thefollowing were typical (NB: the original Japanese comments have been translated into
English):• “I haven’t had a chance to speak much English before so this was fun.”• “It was fun to speak to classmates that I don’t usually speak to. Also, for somebody likeme who is weak at English, my classmates helped me and speaking English was more funthan it had been before.”

Figure 4. Participants’ feelings regarding English speaking activities in class38

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

The second item of the post-course questionnaire asked the participants how they felt
about being recorded. One might expect language learners to feel uncomfortable with having
their L2 conversations recorded. If this were to raise anxiety levels to above what might beconsidered acceptable, it may have had a detrimental effect on their learning. Figure 5 shows
the results obtained. It can be seen that rather than a negative response, the results show 73%
of participants responding positively.

Figure 5. Participants’ responses to having their tasks recorded
Again, an open response section followed this item. One theme that ran through the
responses was that being recorded gave the participants a heightened level of anxiety, but that
it appeared to be of a healthy amount. Examples of this included the following:• “I had a nervous feeling.”• “With some anxiety I can learn.”• “At first I didn’t see why we were being recorded, but I think its gives us a ‘sense oftension’ and a feeling that we want to do our best. So, it’s good!”

It seems that the process of being recorded for the purpose of assessment may havefacilitated motivation in this group of learners. Another theme that was evident in the open
responses was the use of English during the recorded tasks. Some participants claimed thatthey not only used English more, but that they also paid more attention to accuracy, as shownin the following responses:• “Compared to normal (activities) I used English more.”• “I was careful to use good English.”39

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Indeed, the use of L1 and L2 during task time was one of the main focuses of thisinvestigation, and it is towards this that we now turn.

L1 Use during Task Performances
The next item of interest asked participants to report how much they thought they used
English (as opposed to slipping into their L1) during their speaking tasks (see Figure 6). The
pre-course responses resulted in a mean of 46.9% (SD = 17.5), while the post-course
responses gave an increased mean of 78.1% (SD = 15.8). A matched t-test was conductedwhich showed this increase to be significant (t = 2.02, df = 38, p < .05), and that theparticipants judged themselves to have used more English during the portfolio tasks on thiscourse than they had in their previous learning experiences.

Figure 6. Participants’ perceptions of the proportion of task-time spent in L2

The use of L1 and L2 during tasks was further investigated through analysis of therecorded task interaction. Even a cursory listening to samples of the participants’conversations revealed that most participants used English almost all of the time. In fact,many were being rather modest in their responses to the questionnaire item, and more could
have safely answered that they used English more than 81% of the time. Most participants
seemed to use English almost exclusively for on-task talk, that is, utterances that moved the40

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

task forward towards its goal. However, there were many instances of L1 that occurred in thedata set, and it is worth exploring the reasons why it was employed. The L1 usage examples
were coded for their purpose and divided into the following five broad categories:
1. Task transitions
Participants sometimes used their L1 to organize the various stages of the tasks. This wasdone at transitional stages such as at the beginning and end of sub-sections of a task. Excerpt
1 shows a participant using the Japanese loanword version of ‘start’ to signal that they should
now begin the task. It seems highly unlikely that even novice learners do not know thesewords in English, but still some in the current group of participants chose to employ their L1
in these “off-task” situations.

Excerpt 1
A: my name is Miki Kogawa
B: my name is Hiro Tanaka (2.5) jaa staato (T: let’s begin)

2. Clarification of task proceduresSome participants used the L1 to check how they should perform the task and also toteach their partner(s) the correct way to proceed. Excerpt 2 shows an example of this during
the first exchange of the find the differences task. Here, participant F at first acknowledges
that her picture is the same (itself a rare on-task use of L1) as participant E’s. Next,
participant F uses Japanese to ask his partner how he ought to respond.

Excerpt 2
E: she is sitting near dog
F: un. (2.0) nani wo yuttara ii no? (T: yes. what should
I say?)

3. Intrapersonal talkIn the data set, there were several instances where the L1 was used for intrapersonal talk,that is, when the participants were not directing their talk at their interlocutor but towards
themselves as part of their thinking process. Excerpt 3 illustrates this, again taken from thefind the differences task, where participant G doubts her description of a girl’s clothes.

Excerpt 3
41

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

G: her skirt is denim kana::: (T: isn’t it?)Excerpt 4 shows participant H having some trouble retrieving the correct comparative
adjective to describe the food he ate on holiday in Hawaii. He uses his L1 during a shortpiece of intrapersonal talk before correctly applying the rule for making comparatives withshort adjectives. As with excerpt 3 and many other examples in the data set, this kind of L1
off-task talk seems to be part of the production process for many of the participants.

Excerpt 4
H: this place eh: eat a big hamburger
I: oh:
H: ah so er: ha- hamburger is er: very er: very er: nan to iu
kana? (T: what should I say?) bi- bigger!
I: hm hm

4. Hesitation Devices
As we might expect, rather than using the kind of fillers that native speakers would use(um, er, em etc.), the data set shows that the participants tended to stick with those typicallyfound in Japanese speech. Excerpt 5 exemplifies this with participant H using a common L1
filler, while giving himself some time to think how to describe the reason for Daiba’s fame.

Excerpt 5
J: Fujiterebi is a famous place in Daiba e::to:: there
have many talents

5. Enquiries about L2
As the tasks were being recorded for assessment, many participants seemingly did notwant to openly use their L1. Therefore, there were many cases in the data set of off-task
whispering. In these cases, although it was often impossible to tell what they were saying, theresults of their whispered exchanges can clearly be heard. Many of these seemed to be
discussions about language form — usually a vocabulary item, or sometimes a grammaticalpoint. Excerpt 6 illustrates a typical example from the my best vacation task. Here, participant
K is describing the long flight involved on his trip, but he does not seem able to recall the42

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

word flight. After a whispered exchange in their L1, participant L provides the sought for
lexical item, and participant K can then complete his turn.

Excerpt 6
K: this trip is very lon- long time eh::((whispering in L1))
L: flight!
K: very long flight!

Aspects of Task Performance
Finally, in the post-course questionnaire, participants rated, using a five-point Likert
scale, how they thought being recorded affected six aspects of their performances on thetasks, compared with occasions when their tasks were not recorded. The responses in Figure
7 show that the participants generally felt that being recorded pushed them to be more
successful in task completion, and encouraged them to speak less Japanese and avoid making
mistakes. However, most participants did not feel that they produced more difficult language.
Perhaps the threat of the recording made them cautious, and encouraged them to rely on
language forms and structures with which they were comfortable. Responses to the final two
items indicate that the participants also felt they had asked more questions and given
expanded answers (probably most relevant to less structured discussion-style tasks).

Figure 7. Participants responses to how being recorded affected their task performances

43

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Discussion and Classroom Implications
In this section, I will consider the three research questions in turn.

1. How did the participants respond to the implementation of a task portfolio system?
Overall, the results suggest that this group of learners accepted the use of the portfolio
task system well. The questionnaire data shows positive responses towards doing the tasks on
this course as well as being recorded itself. Like many groups of university students in Japan,
before the course the participants indicated that they did not enjoy speaking English. The factthat they have reported that they not only enjoyed doing the tasks, but also that they foundbeing recorded pushed them to apply themselves, is an indication that using a portfolio task
system could be a useful option in contexts where motivation and enthusiasm forcommunication in English is low. From only the simple rating scale items of thequestionnaire, it is possible that the positive responses could simply be a reflection of theparticipants enjoying the course materials, the teaching, or the company of their newclassmates. If they have had rather negative high school experiences of learning English,
perhaps the fresh approach using collaborative tasks would be the cause of them responding
to a questionnaire so positively. However, the open response sections of the post-course
questionnaire were illuminating, and there were some interesting and insightful explanations
to support their rating scale choices, including the comments about recordings providing apush to perform at their full potential.
2. How did the use of task portfolios affect the participants’ use of L1 during tasks?
To investigate the second research question, both participants’ opinions and samples of
the task interaction were used. In the questionnaire, the participants’ responses show that theycertainly felt they were using more English in their task performances compared to their priorlearning experiences. Entries in the teacher journal indicate that learners appeared to beengaging in the tasks exclusively in English. This was partly corroborated by an analysis of
the task interaction, which shows that the vast majority of talk was indeed done in English.
The exceptions to this were of interest too, and they raise some issues about the continued L1
usage during tasks, including how these uses of L1 can be reduced, and whether it isefficacious to do so. Some L1 uses, such as the use of English transition words that weresurely known to the users, pose the question why they used Japanese on these occasions.
However, it is likely that some L1 uses could be minimized. For example, to counter the useof Japanese fillers, the teaching of English hesitation devices may be effective. Further, the44

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

practice of circumlocution skills might help learners deal with gaps in vocabulary. This area
might be an interesting avenue for further research, possibly using more data collection
methods including participant interviews to try and better understand the reasons whylearners employ the L1.
3. How did the use of task portfolios affect the participants’ use of L1 during tasks?
The results from the questionnaire items that targeted this research question showed thatthe majority of participants generally felt that being recorded had a positive effect on various
elements of task performance. The responses suggested learners felt more successful inmeeting the task goals, and they corroborated the findings about L1/L2 use. Most participants
reported being careful to not make mistakes, suggesting a focus on accuracy. There has beensome discussion in the field of TBLT regarding how learners can be directed towards
attending to accuracy (Hawkes, 2012; Skehan, 1998; Willis & Willis, 2007), and the findingsof the current study suggest that the recording of tasks could encourage learners to focus onform. The results also show that the majority of this group of participants did not try to use
difficult language forms. This might suggest less risk taking, and possibly less of a focus oncomplexity. Future CAF studies (Housen & Kuiken, 2009), which look at the effect of task
variables on the three task performance factors of complexity, fluency and accuracy, might
consider the impact of “performance threats” such as assessed recordings.
Many of the findings described and discussed above appear to be the result of somemotivational effect from being recorded for assessment. This is undoubtedly a form of
extrinsic motivation. It has been argued by scholars who specialize in motivation thatextrinsic motivational factors are not effective over the long term, and may even be damaging(Dornyei, 2001). However, it is common for practitioners to mix both intrinsic and extrinsic
motivational factors in their teaching and assessment approaches. Also, if testing is requiredby institutions, perhaps it is better to strive for assessment tools that are closely linked to thegoals of the course (in this case oral communication in English), and improve performance on
language learning tasks.

Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications
To summarize, this paper investigated the use of task portfolios, that is, the learners in an
EFL English communication class had their task performances recorded to make a collectionof samples of their classroom work. Questionnaire results indicate a largely positive
response, with participants apparently finding that having their tasks recorded provided an
45

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

extra motivational push to do their best work and improve their performance. It also seemed
to limit the use of L1 during tasks, a perennial problem for teachers in monolingual EFL
contexts like Japan. These results suggest that task portfolios may be a useful way for teacher
to add an extra component to their assessment schemes for oral communication classes. Not
only does it provide a testing approach that directly assesses what happens in class (asopposed to a heavily weighted final interview test), it might also help to improve task
performances and even classroom management for learners with lower motivation.
Despite the potential of this approach, there are undeniably some areas that need to beaddressed. Drawbacks include the initial cost of recording devices and batteries, theadditional task of making sure the batteries are charged, and the inconvenience of carrying
the equipment to class. These issues will of course be exacerbated in teaching contexts whereclass sizes are large. However, over the past few years more and more learners havesmartphones with perfectly reasonable audio recording hardware and software. Learners canbe mad responsible for making recordings and then submitting them to an online storage
service such as Dropbox. Indeed, Hawking (2015) described the step-by-step process toachieve this. While this may not be an option for some teachers — in contexts where students
do not have the necessary devices — for those who can, it may simplify the process ofcollecting samples of task interaction. The use of smartphone technology in portfolio creationis certainly one potential avenue for further investigation. It opens up the possibility ofcreating communities for giving and receiving feedback from teachers and peers of the kindreported by Huang and Hung (2010).
Another issue for busy teachers is the sheer amount of time it may take to process thecollected samples and allocate grades. Again, the burden will increase with the number ofstudents. This is certainly a valid concern although it may not necessarily take more time thangrading written work. For those who consider it too much, they could devise a system where
perhaps only two or three samples are selected for assessment. Students can be made awarethat not all of their portfolio tasks will actually be assessed, but they will not know which
ones will be chosen. This is similar to an approach to alleviate the burden of grading for busy
teachers advocated by Folse (2013). Again, devising methods and techniques to help
overworked teachers is certainly a fertile area for further research.
A third challenge is with the practical issue of distinguishing between voices while
listening to the samples of task interaction. Certainly, if there are three or more learners
participating in a task, it can become very difficult to discriminate between different voices.
One solution would be to use video recordings, but this may add to the equipment problems
46

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

discussed above. Again, if it is possible, having students make their own videos with theirsmartphones might be the best option. If this is not possible, it may be better to keep portfolio
tasks limited to those performed in pairs or perhaps triads. Finally, it will be easier todistinguish voices if there is a balance of male and female learners in each task group.
Whenever any new intervention to a teaching course is introduced, especially anassessment method, individual practitioners need to balance the potential benefits against
some of the problems they may face. Despite the pitfalls outlined above, the paper
demonstrates a potentially useful assessment option for teachers of monolingual EFL classes
across Asia and beyond.

47

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

References
Apple, M., & Shimo, E. (2004). Learners to teacher: Portfolios, please! Perceptions of
portfolio assessment in EFL classrooms. In T. Newfields (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2004
JALT Pan-SIG Conference (pp. 53-58). Tokyo: JALT Publications.
Azra, J., Ikezawa, M., Rowlett, B., Vannieuwenhyuse, B. (2004). The immediate method. In
K. Bradford-Watts, C. Ikeguchi, & M. Swanson (Eds.) JALT 2004 Conference
Proceedings (527-536). Tokyo: JALT.
Barnard, R., Cady, J., Duckworth, M., & Trew, G. (2009). Business Venture 2 (3rd ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Birch, G. C. (2012). Task-based learning and the 2003 action plan: An analysis of tasks
designed by senior high school teachers of English. On Task 2 (2), 24-27.
Burrows, C. (2008). An evaluation of task-based learning (TBL) in the Japanese classroom.
English Today 24 (4), 11-16.
Carless, D. (2002). Implementing task-based learning with young learners. ELT Journal 56(4), 389-396.
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teacher’s reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primaryschools. TESOL Quarterly 38 (4), 639-662.
Carless, D. (2008). Student use of the mother tongue in the task-based classroom. ELT
Journal 62 (4), 331-338.
Chen, Y. (2006). EFL instruction and assessment with portfolios: A case study in Taiwan. The
Asian EFL Journal 8 (1), 69-96.
Chen, M., & Squires, D. (2010). Vocational college students’ perceptions on standardized
English proficiency tests. The Asian EFL Journal 12 (2), 68-91.
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dornyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research:
Construction, administration, and processing (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Egyud, G., & Glover, P. (2001). Oral testing in pairs: A secondary school perspective. ELT
Journal 55 (1), 70-76.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
False, K. (2013, November). If you are a teacher today, thank your teachers. Paper presented
at JALT2013, Kobe, Japan.
Foot, M. (1999). Relaxing in pairs. ELT Journal 53 (1), 36-41.
48

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Goto Butler, Y. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language
teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31, 36-57.
Hawkes, M. L. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form.
ELT Journal 66 (3), 327-336.
Hawking, R. (2015). Using Send to Dropbox to submit audio recordings from mobile phones.
The Language Teacher 39 (1), 39-41.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language
acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30 (4), 461-473.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case ofcommunicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum 15 (2),93-105.
Huang, H., & Hung, S. (2010). Effects of electronic portfolios on EFL oral performance. The
Asian EFL Journal 12 (2), 192-212.
Hung, S. (2009). Promoting self-assessment strategies: An electronic portfolio approach. The
Asian EFL Journal 11 (2), 129-146.
King, J. (2013). Silence in the second language classrooms of Japanese universities. Applied
Linguistics 34 (3), 325-343.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT
Journal 58 (4), 319-326.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation ofcomprehensible input. Applied Linguistics 4 (2), 126-141.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In
W. R. Ritchie & T. J. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413468). New York: Academic Press.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design.
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Marwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Negishi, M., Takada, T., & Tono, Y. (2013). A progress report on the development of the
CEFR-J. Studies in Language Testing 36: Proceedings of the ALTE Kraków Conference,49

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

July 2011. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norton, J. (2005). The paired format in the Cambridge speaking tests. ELT Journal 59 (4),287-297.
Nunan, D. (2007). Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining ‘task’. AsianEFL Journal 8 (3).
Nunes, A. (2004). Portfolios in the EFL classroom: Disclosing an informed practice. ELT
Journal 58 (4).
O’Sullivan, B. (2002). Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task
performance. Language Testing 19 (3), 277-295.
Richards, J. C., Hull, J., Proctor, S. (2012). Interchange 1A. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics 11 (2), 129-158.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
Instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sharifi, A., & Hassaskhah, J. (2011) The role of portfolio assessment and reflection on
process writing. The Asian EFL Journal 13 (1), 193-225.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbookof research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-483). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Talandis, G., & Stout, M. (2015). Getting EFL students to speak: An action research project.
ELT Journal 61 (9), 11-25.
Taylor, L. (2001). The paired speaking test format: Recent studies. Research Notes 2, 14 15.
Ur, P. (2014). Discussions and more. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Woods, D., & Fassnacht, C. (2012). Transana (Version 2.61) [Software]. Available fromhttp://www.transana.org/
Yamada, H. (2006). An analysis of oral testing in pairs. Jinai Daigaku Kenkyuu Kiyou 5, 6984.

50

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

APPENDIX A

51

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

APPENDIX B

52

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

53

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Flipped Learning as a Strategy for an Effective EFL Classroom
Hambalee Jehma
Prince of Songkla University International College, Hatyai Campus, Prince of Songkla
University, Thailand

Bioprofile:Hambalee Jehma graduated with a B.A. in the Department of English Language andLiterature from Thammasat University, in 2010. Upon graduation from Thammasat
University, he has pursued his Master’s Degree in Teaching English as a Foreign Language
at Thammasat University. He is now working as an English lecturer at the Prince of Songkla
University International College, Hatyai Campus, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand.
His interests are Second language Acquisition, Phonetics and Phonology, Sociolinguistics
and CALL.

Abstract
Teaching and learning language is not an independent technology based method, yet it isneeded to be integrated into different pedagogical approaches (Kern, 2006). Therefore, theFlipped Classroom teaching methodology pioneered by Bergmann and Sams (2012) has been
employed in the compulsory course of the English language for freshmen students in the
English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts. The implementation of the Flipped Classroom
approach aims to investigate if it is effective in mastering the EFL learners’ English skills
with high satisfaction. Twenty students in this study were trained by a non-native English
teacher. They were also asked to master their English skills by typically interacting with theEnglish content in the video posted on the www.classstart.org prepared by the teacher before
coming to the class. The questions were usually asked and discussed in the class before
composing any writing tasks in the next class. The students were asked to finish a university
course evaluation system at the end of the semester. The findings show that the students had
some improvement in English writing skills according to the different scores of the firstwriting performance with the score of 113 or 56 % and the final writing performance with a54

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

higher score of 134 or 67 % which were measured by using the rubric distributed to thestudents at the beginning of the course. Moreover, the statistic evaluation data confirmed that
Hambalee Jehma, Prince of Songkla University, International College, Hatyai Campus, Songkhla, Thailand
Email: jehmahambalee@gmail.com

they were really satisfied with the course instructed by using Flipped learning strategy with ahigh score of 4.60 out of 5.00 or 92 percent. The results revealed that implementing Flipped
learning in the EFL classroom is highly recommended.

Key Words: English Writing Skills, EFL, Flipped Classrooms, Teaching Methodology

Introduction
English is widely regarded as a global or international language, and this undoubtedly
implies that there is a need for people to understand each other’s English (Jehma &Phoocharoensil, 2014). Therefore, there is no exception for Thailand. As Thai people areproud that they have never been colonized, they are proud of being Thai and using Thai as amother tongue, Thais’ level of English proficiency is low compared with many countries in
Asia (Wiriyachitra, 2002). Though a great change in the Thai curriculum concerning theEnglish language learning was started at the upper elementary level in 1960 (Khamkhien,2010), the Thai government has not pushed a substantial effort to promote any teaching
methodology to improve Thai students’ level of English proficiency (Khamkhien, 2006), thefailure of this effort was very obvious as mentioned in many studies by Bolton (2008) and
Wiriyachitra (2001), based on the scores of two international standardized tests: TOEFL and
TOEIC. Thai test takers’ scores have been significantly lower, compared to those of other
Southeast Asian countries. As a result, this problematic phenomenon is central to language
pedagogy (Khamkhien, 2010).
To explore the way of getting students mastered in English, educators around the world
have been struggling to explore if there is any new pedagogies to help their students achievein their subjects. Even in Thailand, the traditional pedagogy of solely giving a lecture has
been changed to a newer strategy like integrated or communicative teaching in the classroom,
especially for teaching language (Wiriyachitra, 2002). The effort, however, was worth lessthan expected.
As the failure has happened in every single level of education, the new term of ‘flippedclassroom’ has been promoted. This approach has become popular as the availability of theinternet supports the media implemented in this approach, with videos and audios more easily

55

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

accessible which suits the current generation (Herreid& Schiller, 2013). As the two significant
pioneers of this approach, Bergmann and Sams (2012) realized the effectiveness of chemistryclass content posted online for the students (Tucker, 2012), the strategy has attracted much interest
around the world since most of teachers have been applying this pedagogy into their classroom(Stuntz, 2013). The idea of the ‘flipped classroom’ is very common: teachers create video lessons
or any interactive lesson to be used in the class as a lecture available and accessible at home
(Tucker, 2012). In other words, it is a busy, collaborative, and social place where extroversion,
collaboration, and teamwork are highly valued (Honeycutt, 2014). The term has also ben definedin another educational way. The flipped classroom can be defined as an educational technique thatconsists of two main parts: interactive group learning activities in the classroom, and directcomputer-based individual instruction outside the classroom (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). In
addition, the flipped classroom is also defined as a teaching methodology that allows educators tohave more chances to engage with the students actively. Therefore, instructors in the classroom
assign recorded video lectures as homework, and the time for active learning exercises and direct
engagement with students happens in the classroom (2013).The model of this approach can be,
therefore, clearly explained in the Figure 1.

Figure 1 Flipped class model (adapted from Bishop, 2013)
To be more specific, in Troy Faulkner’s Calculus class (Fulton, 2012), for example, theflipped classroom strategy was applied. IPads, laptops, and smartphones were brought into
the classroom in order to be useful tools for learning. The teacher raised questions which
ensured students understood about the video posted the previous time before coming to class.
Students were assigned to work on the problems and explore how to solve them properly.
The students, thereby, discussed at their own pace and in their own style. Some of them sat ina group and discussed, but some preferred to think and learn on their own while their friends
56

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

were around them. Faulkner worked at home to put the videos for his students at night or the
day before the class had begun, so that his students could review the video at home before
joining the discussion in the following class at school. He also monitored the students during
the discussion to ensure that if there were some who needed his help, he could immediately
give them the information needed. If there was a quiz or the test on some specific topic, healways gave the students results promptly (2012).
A Basic Algebra, Algebra II/Trig, and Senior Math class taught by Darren Nelson canillustrate how another flipped classroom looks like (Fulton, 2012). The class shows thatflipped classroom strategy is an amazing technique in saving time. The conceptual idea canbe explained with a ten minute video while students normally spend a whole period in classas the methodology have been promoted in various classes at different levels of education.
Papadopoulos, Santiago-Román, and Portela (2010), for instance, implemented this approachin an electrical engineering class. They found the students progressed faster to catch up withmore material at a greater depth. In addition, the approach has also been applied in a biology
class by Moravec et al. (2010). This led to a performance increase of 21% on exam questions.
In the English classroom, a flipped pedagogy has been implemented in classrooms
around the world. That is to say, college students in Dubai have been taught by this approach.
Fallow (2013) found that some teachers flipped his/her traditional class by solely giving a
lecture in the class and asking students to do homework at their home to be done in reverse.
The teacher in the study mentioned that students in general felt very happy and positively
toward this approach used in the class. They could develop their vocabulary by selecting
more proper words for different specific situations or contexts.
In terms of writing, the digital tools used in the class such as blogs and wikis haveapproved students’ achievement by sharing their ideas to others (Beach, 2012). Felix (2008)
also revealed that 168 teachers from his study portrayed that they were satisfied with theirstudents’ writing performance. 89% of them confirmed that the methodology has changed
their teaching method, resulting in an increase of students’ collaboration in sharing their ideas
amongst students and between students and teachers especially while giving feedback. The
students themselves also reported that writing on the wiki could help them improve to use
engagements markers (Kuteeva, 2010). Moreover, some research also shows that employing
digital tools in teaching and learning can improve students writing skill according to thewriting scores assessed over five years (Silvernail & Gritter, 2007). To be more specific,
there was a significant increase in the students’ writing scores with the ones who frequently57

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

used or interacted and practiced writing via their laptop. Other students, who rarely practiced
or interacted with digital tools, however, had lower scores.
The pedagogy implemented has not only influenced students’ writing performance, but
the reading skill has been affected. Warschauer (2008) reveals that there has been an increasein the students writing performance as well as the reading skill when students learnt byinteracting with the media posted by the teacher. They shared and cooperated their ideas
amongst themselves via blogs. Yi (2008) mentioned that students also improved their reading
skills after they read and interacted with the digital texts posted. It resulted in a high level ofstudent engagement. Students also analyzed the fictional components such as characters,
settings, and so on by a collaborative exchange of critical responses and wrote a creative
writing (Black, 2009).
There appears to be a gap in the literature since the research which has been done does
not cover teaching and learning English by implementing a flipped learning strategy in a Thai
EFL context and also lacks any experimental studies concerning the satisfaction of the EFL
learners toward this strategy. Such an absence of empirical studies can lead to these following
research questions.

Research Questions and Objectives
There are two main research questions in this study:
1. To what extent does a flipped classroom learning pedagogy influence Thai EFL
learners’ beliefs?
2. To what extent does a flipped classroom learning pedagogy influence Thai EFL
learners in developing their English writing skills?

Methodology
20 Thai EFL learners were selected to be participants in the study. They were freshmen
studying English II, a compulsory subject in the university. They were majoring in
multimedia at the International College, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand. They hadstudied English I in the previous semester. They, thereby, had quite the same level of English
language background.
During the course, students participated in the class two times a week for three hours aperiod. They have always been asked to interact with the materials or videos posted via theactive learning assistant website, www.classtarts.org. The website was designed by the
Faculty of Management, at Prince of Songkla University.
58

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

The students were divided into groups by the teacher using this class management
program website. This was done in order for students to be assigned any exercises moreeasily. Students were also asked to write a paragraph without any materials taught at the
beginning of the course concerning the topic assigned to learn at home. The first assigned
work was collected and measured. Their work was given comments and correctedindividually and turned back in the next period. The course required continuous practicing
and learning throughout the semester. The teacher kept monitoring, measuring, and assisting
students to master all English skills, especially their writing skills. The writing assignments
were scored using a rubric created by the teacher via the website program,
http://rubistar.4teachers.org/. There were four categories considered in the rubric;
organization, accuracy of facts, spelling and punctuation, and focus on assigned topic. At theend of the course, students were asked to finish the course evaluation concerning theirsatisfaction online provided by the university. They also had a final exam, which included
writing an essay. Both of these assessments were considered and compared to evaluate if the
flipped class pedagogy implemented in the class had worked.

Results and Discussion
The data were collected from both students’ satisfaction toward the course through theonline evaluation systems and the performance of students in writing, the results are shown in
the following charts:
Table 1 Course Evaluation by the Students
Items
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Descriptions
Teaching techniques
Being professional
Listening to students’ comments
Supporting students to think
Reasonably
Giving enough information forsearching
Creating lessons and activities
due to learners’ interest
Warm and happy learning
Environment
Implementing a proper media
Distributing various media
for an effective learning
Over all59

Scores(5)
4.80
4.60
4.45
4.55

%
96
92
89
91

4.50

90

4.80

96

4.65

93

4.55
4.60

91
92

4.60

92

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

The data shown in table 1 displays the satisfaction of the students towards the coursewith a flipped class learning pedagogy. The results obviously show that the learners are verysatisfied towards the course with the high overall score of 4.6 out of 5 or 92%. The result
confirms a similar satisfaction as the study done by Fallows (2013). He found that thisapproach applied by the English teacher in teaching English vocabulary for the college
students in Dubai was very satisfying. Students were happy and increased their English
vocabulary. To be more specific, the teaching techniques and the creation of lessons andactivities due to learners’ interests in items were ranked the highest with a score of 4.8 out of
5.or 96%. Moreover, the data shows that the students were happy with the course with thescore of 4.65 or 93%. The items of being professional and distributing various media for aneffective learning environment were ranked third with the score of 4.6 or 92%. In addition,
students also thought that the teacher supported them to think reasonably and implemented aproper media for them in the class with the score of 4.55 or 91%. The last two items whether
the teacher gives enough information for searching and listens to their comments were alsoranked with high scores of 4.5 and 4.45 or 90% and 89 % respectively. The results from thisevaluation confirm that learners were satisfied and happy with the course implemented with aflipped class learning strategy as well as other studies that had been evaluated with a highscore of satisfaction by the students. For example, Zappe, Leiecht, Messner, Litzinger, andLee (2009) found that students in the class where the approach was implemented this had apositive impact on student learning. Students stated that they were satisfied with the course
promoting flipped teaching since they enjoyed watching the video at home compared tolistening to the lecture in class.
Table 2 Students’ First Writing PerformanceStudent
No.

Categories
Organization

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

1.5
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0

Accuracyof facts
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Spelling
1.5
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
60

Topic
focus
2.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
2.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0

Over all
6.0
4.0
7.0
4.0
5.5
5.5
5.0
5.5
4.0
4.0

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Total
%

2.5
2.0
2.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
2.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
30.5
61

1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
23.0
46

1.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
26.5
53

2.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.5
1.5
33.0
66

7.0
5.5
8.0
6.0
5.0
8.5
6.5
5.5
5.5
5.0
113.0
56

Table 3 Students’ Final Writing PerformanceStudent
No.

Categories
Organization

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Total
%

2.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
36.5
73

Accuracyof facts
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
26.0
52

Spelling
1.5
1.5
2.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
2.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
1.5
33.5
67

Topic
focus
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
38.5
77

Over all
6.5
5.5
7.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
5.5
5.5
6.0
5.5
7.5
6.0
9.0
8.0
6.0
9.5
7.5
6.0
8.5
6.5
134.0
67

Table 2 and Table 3 clearly show the improvement of the students in their English
writing. That is to say, all of the measured categories developed. According to the scores, theoverall score obviously states the students’ improvement which they got an overall score of
112 out of 200 or 56% in the first writing assignment, yet they received a higher score of 134
61

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

or 67% in their last writing performance. In terms of organization, the final writing
performance score was higher than that in the first writing at the beginning of the semesterwith a score of 36.5 or 73% compared to the lower score of the first writing, 30.5 or 61%. It
means students had developed their writing skill in terms of organization 12%. In addition,
students also improved their writing in terms of having an accuracy of facts. To illustrate, thestudents performed only 23 out of 100 or 46% at the beginning of the semester. They,
however, had some development by the end of the semester according to the score of the final
writing task, 26 or 52%, resulting in a 6% improvement in this category. The category ofspelling was ranked as the highest improvement since the score of final writing task is higher
than the first writing task. That is to say, students score in the final writing task in terms ofspelling was 33.5 or 67%, yet at the beginning, students could only produce a score of 26.5 or
53% which is lower than the final one of 14%. In terms of the topic focus, there was asignificant increase of students’ development. In other words, students started writing at the
beginning of the semester with a score of 33 or 66% concerning the topic focus whereas theresult of the final writing score was higher with a score of 38.5 or 77%. That means thestudents had a better skill by a percentage of 11%. In brief, students had improved in all
categories which were scored in the writing assignment by the end of semester. The spellingcorrectness was ranked as the highest category which students had mastered. They improved
from a score of 26.5 or 53% from the beginning of the semester to a score of 33.5 or 67% at
the end of the course. They could also develop their skill of focusing on the topic assignedwith a score of 33 or 66% to 38.5 or 77%. The other two categories, organization andaccuracy of facts, have been mastered by the students. They could improve these two skills
starting from a score of 30.5 or 61% in the aspect of organization to 36.5 or 73% and from 23
or 46% in the aspect of accuracy of facts to 26 or 52% by the end of semester.

62

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Figure 2 Students’ writing performance development
The students’ English writing improvement can be clearly shown in Figure 2. Students
had developed in all categories scored in writing assignments. In other words, the topic focus
in writing had been ranked with the highest score which students mastered. The other skills
required such as organization and spelling also improved. Even though the category ofaccuracy seems to be the least skill students developed, the final writing performance canconfirm that they still have some development.

Conclusions and Implications
In conclusion, this approach used in the English classroom, especially in for writing skill
development has been done by the teacher and the results can confirm that the flippedclassroom pedagogy is highly advised. It is not only the learners who have a really positive
perspective toward the course implemented by this approach that can give them a hand to
motivate the students to have a better feeling of willingness to develop and concentrate what
they were acquiring, but the skills they were acquiring or learning had been mastered along
the way due to the positive impact of the approach as many others have found that with aflipped classroom teaching method, the students were positive about receiving specific andpersonal help inside the classroom since the teacher can spend more time to help theirstudents focusing on what they really need to be assisted in (Maher, Lipford & Singh, 2011).
Though the approach done in this study is advised to EFL teachers, the way to manage theclass and prepare the lessons should be very careful while choosing appropriate resources in
the media to suit the uniqueness of the students at the different levels of language proficiency
since some students prefer to enjoy their own teacher’s lesson video, but some love viewing
other media prepared by the teacher from other resources (Fulton, 2012). Teachers andeducators can apply any free online class management and assess websites suggested in the
study for the students’ effective learning or any other websites provided while implementing
this approach to engage the students in the learning process in order to include all traditional
activities i.e. giving lectures, taking notes and questioning (Prince, 2004).

63

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

References
Beach, R. (2012). Uses of digital tools and literacies in the English Language Arts
classroom. Research in the Schools, 19 (1), 45-59.
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every classevery day. International Society for Technology in Education.
Bishop, J. L., &Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research.
In ASEE National Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA.
Black, R. W. (2009). Online fan fiction, global identities, and imagination. Research in the
Teaching of English 43, 397-425.
Bolton, K. (2008). English in Asia, Asian Englishes, and the issue of proficiency. English
Today 94, 24(2), 3-12.
D. F. (2013). Flipped classrooms and CALL sustainability: A rationale for the developmentof flipped classrooms for sustainable CALL. Glasgow, 10-13 July 2013 Papers, 323.
Fallows, N. (2013). A Flipped Approach to Vocabulary Teaching in HCT Dubai CollegesFoundations Level 03: Utilising Spaced Repetition for Consolidation.
Felix, J. P. (2008). Edublogging: Instruction for thedigital age learner. Talking Points, 19 (2),14-21.
Fulton, K. (2012). Upside down and inside out: Flip Your Classroom to Improve Student
Learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(8), 12-17.
Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013).Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal ofCollege Science Teaching, 42(5), 62-66.
Jehma, H., & Phoocharoensil, S. (2014). L1 Transfer in the Production of Fricatives andStops by Pattani-Malay Learners of English in Thailand. Asian Social Science, 10(7).
Honeycutt, B. (2014). The Flipped Classroom: Tips for Integrating Moments of Reflection.
Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. Tesol
Quarterly, 183-210.
Khamkhien, A. (2006). Thai and Vietnamese university students’ language learning strategies
M.A. Thesis, Chulalongkorn University.
Khamkhien, A. (2010). Teaching English Speaking and English Speaking Tests in the Thai
Context: A Reflection from Thai Perspective. English Language Teaching, 3 (1).

64Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Kuteeva, M. (2010).Wikis and academic writing: Changing the writer–reader relationship.
English for Specific Purposes, 30 (1), 44-57.
Maher, M. L., Lipford, H., & Singh, V. Flipped Classroom Strategies Using Online Videos.
Moravec, M., Williams, A., Aguilar-Roca, N. and O’Dowd, D.K. 2010. Learn before lecture:
A strategy that improves learning outcomes in a large introductory biology class. CBElife sciences education. 9, 4 (2010), 473–481.
Papadopoulos, C., Santiago-Román, A., & Portela, G. (2010).Work in progress—Developing
and implementing an Inverted Classroom for Engineering Statics. In Frontiers in
Education Conference (FIE), 2010 IEEE (pp. F3F-1). IEEE.Stuntz,
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal ofEngineering Education Washington 93, 223–232.
Silvernail, D. L., & Gritter, A. K. (2007). Maine’s middle school laptop program: Creating
better writers. Portland, ME: Center for Education Policy, Applied Research, andEvaluation University of Southern Maine. Retrieved from http://www.usm.maine.
edu/cepare/
Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12(1), 82-83.
Warschauer, M. (2008).Laptops and literacy: A multi-site case study. Pedagogies: An
International Journal, 3, 52-67.
Wiriyachitra, A. (2001). A Thai university scenario in the coming decade. Thai TESOL
Newsletter, 14, 4-7.
Wiriyachitra, A. (2002). English language teaching and learning in Thailand in thisdecade. Thai TESOL focus, 15 (1), 4-9.
Yi, Y. (2008). Relay writing in an adolescent online community. Journal of Adolescent &Adult Literacy, 51, 670-680. doi:10.1598/JAAL.51.8.6
Zappe, S., Leicht, R., Messner, J.,Litzinger, T., & Lee, H. (2009).“Flipping” the classroom to
explore active learning in a large undergraduate course. Proceedings of the 2009
American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exhibition.

65

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Redesigning a Japanese Tertiary Communicative EFL syllabus: Integrating Multiple
Intelligences
Darlene Yamauchi
Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Japan

Bioprofile
Darlene Yamauchi (MATEYL) has been teaching English in Japan for more than 23 years
and is affiliated as an adjunct professor at Niigata University of Health and Welfare. Her
research interests include content and language integrated learning (CLIL), teacher-training
and multiple intelligences (MI). Currently Darlene is working toward a PhD in Linguistics.

Abstract
As it is becoming increasingly recognized that students vary in their natural competences, theacquisition of English language competences can also be seen from various perspectives. To
enhance this understanding, Gardner’s (1993) Multiple Intelligences (MI) research suggeststhat each person has a high probability of possessing different types of intelligences.
Historically, linguistic intelligence has been closely associated with language acquisition, butother intelligences may be significant for language learning, particularly in English as a
Foreign Language (EFL) classes that are aimed at improving oral communication (Cameron,2001). In order to explore this issue, the present study will focus on learners’ selfidentification of MI in a compulsory first year General EFL cohort at a Japanese University(n=55). Using an MI Inventory as a method to ascertain learners’ perception of theirprevalent intelligences, the researcher found through the preliminary results that interpersonaland bodily intelligences, not typically linked to language acquisition, were more predominant
than the standard linguistic or mathematic-logical intelligences with this population. This
study also examined how techniques and activities may be altered or shifted in order toaccommodate students’ prevalent intelligences within the current syllabus for the intention of
improving motivation, promoting learner autonomy as well as engaging students toparticipate in class. While the findings from this study add support to changing the delivery
method of techniques and methods in a first year tertiary speaking class at a Japanese66

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Darlene Yamauchi, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, 1398 Shimami-cho, Kita-ku,
Niigata-shi, Niigata, 950-3198, Japan Email: daryama2014@outlook.com

university, further research is indicated before any conclusive claims can be made.

Key words: Communication, EFL, MI Inventory, Language Acquisition, and Tertiary
Speaking Classes.

Introduction
As is evident with the recent Japanese Government initiatives, the necessity for Japanesepeople to communicate in English cannot be overlooked, and Japanese universities are being
called upon to produce graduates that are able to communicate in English in order to perform
on the global stage (MEXT, 2011). Unfortunately, the reality is that many Japanese students
either dislike English or feel it is too difficult and by the time they have reached university
level have all but given up (Roesgard, 2006). The lack of interest or motivation to learn
English may be linked to the EFL instruction these students have received and continue toreceive (Taguchi, 2013). One barrier to effective learning often cited is the disparity between
students’ needs and learning styles with regard to the methodology utilized in the classroom(Ogawa & Izumi, 2015). In an effort to address these discrepancies Howard Gardner’s(1985) theory of Multiple Intelligences with its focus on learner autonomy may offer an
effective novel approach to educational advancement in tertiary learning environments(Yamauchi, 2014). This study discusses the preliminary results from an intrinsic, small-scalecase study focusing on learners’ self-identification of Multiple Intelligences (MI) in a firstyear General EFL cohort at a Japanese University (n=55). The literature review will provide
an overview of MI, highlighting its applicability to EFL instruction as well as a discussion of
the concepts of learner motivation and willingness to communicate (WTC). Using an
originally designed MI Inventory as a methodology to ascertain learners’ perception of theirprevalent intelligences, preliminary results will be presented. This study will also examine
how utilizing MI in the modification of classroom practices to adapt techniques which meetthe needs of the students will benefit the further promotion of the students’ prevalent
intelligences within the current syllabus. Practical interventions within the current syllabus
will be proposed as a means of improving motivation, promoting learner autonomy as well as
encouraging students to engage in class. Then, conclusions and implications for further
research will be suggested.
67

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Literature Review

Multiple Intelligences
Gardner (1983) introduced the Theory of Multiple Intelligences in 1983 as an alternative
theory to the traditional notion of intelligence as a fixed entity based on IQ testing, as it may
be considered restrictive in scope (Christison, 2005).

According to Gardner’s theory,

intelligence may be defined as the bio-psychological potential to process information incertain kinds of ways in order to solve problems or create products that are valued in one ormore cultural settings (Gardner, 1999). One of the most unique features of MI theory is theconcept that individuals can develop one or more talents or competences termed intelligences(Armstrong, 2009). He initially proposed seven intelligences later adding an eighth, anaturalist intelligence (Gardner, 2011). More recently other intelligences such an existential
intelligence (Chen, Moran & Gardner, 2009) have been proposed, but as they have not been
applied widely in EFL MI research, for the purpose of this research the following eight will
be investigated:

1. Linguistic intelligence is viewed as encompassing sensitivity to spoken and written
language, as well as the ability to learn languages, and the capacity to use language toaccomplish particular goals. This intelligence includes the ability to effectively use
language for expression verbally or as a means to remember information (Christison,2005).

2. Logical-mathematical intelligence involves the capability to analyze problems
logically, or carry out mathematical operations utilizing deductive thinking, as well as
the ability to conduct scientific investigations through logical reasoning (Gardner,
1999).

3. Musical intelligence is generally viewed as the skill in the performance, composition,
and appreciation of musical patterns. It encompasses the capacity to recognize andcompose musical pitches, tones, and rhythms. Musical intelligence is often viewed as
structurally parallel and is often linked to linguistic intelligence (Armstrong, 2009).

4. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is largely concerned with the potential of using one's
68

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

whole body or parts of the body to solve problems but it may also be associatedclosely with the ability to use mental abilities to coordinate bodily movements (Reid,
1998).

5. Spatial intelligence incorporates the potential to recognize and use the patterns ofwide space and more confined areas (Christison, 2005).

6. Interpersonal intelligence is concerned with the capacity to understand theintentions, motivations and desires of other people. It allows people to work
effectively with others (Armstrong, 2009).

7. Intrapersonal intelligence comprises the capacity to understand oneself, toappreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations (Christison, 2005).

8. Naturalist intelligence: The naturalist intelligence is concerned with the ability torecognize, categorize or classify plants, and animals (Gardner, 1999).

These intelligences may be viewed as interrelated, as an individual may not know thestrength or weakness of his or her particular intelligence, based on the strength or weaknessof another intelligence (Gardner, 2011). These strengths and relative weaknesses may bebased on a whole host of factors, including but not limited to: biological reasons, i.e. brain
development or genetic composition; cultural biases, such as what is valued in particularsettings; the amount of resources available to aid in the development of an intelligence, or
motivational motives, namely how much an individual desires to develop an intelligence(Gardner, 1999).

MI and Second Language Learning
MI theory in the language classroom may be considered as a context in which language
teachers are able to offer acknowledgment to the holistic nature of learners as well as address
student diversity (Christison, 2005). Utilizing MI theory allows teachers to organize learning
situations that offer learners a variety of ways to engage meaning and strengthen memory
pathways; as MI may be considered a readily used tool for lesson planning that can increase
the appeal of language learning tasks, creating a positive motivational learning environment(Buchen, 2006, Reid, 1999).
69

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Using MI generated teaching strategies that draw on a variety of intelligences allows
students to better appreciate their strengths as well as expand interests leading to further
development of perceived weaker MI; thus further assisting language learning (Puchta,
Herbert and Mario Rinvolucri, 2005). The application of MI theory in the language
classroom, enables teachers to recognize as well as differentiate students areas of interest inorder to promote a more learner centered environment as Arnold and Fonseca (2004) state
succeeding in: ‘putting individuals with their different ways of learning where they belong,back at the center of the learning process’ (p.125) The following are examples of practicalapplications for MI in the ESL classroom (Armstrong 2009, Buchen 2006, Puchta.et.al,2005):

1. Linguistic Intelligence: reading a story, choosing suitable word to fill in a gap in a
sentence, choosing an appropriate synonym or antonym for a given word, answering multiple
questions related to a text.
2. Logical Mathematical Intelligence: sequencing events in a chronological order,
finding logical errors, presenting timelines of events presented in a story or a text, word
searches jigsaw puzzles and games, concept maps.
3. Bodily Kinesthetic Intelligence: drawing, writing on the board, role plays,
dramatization, making models of objects and using realia (real objects), games.
4. Visual Spatial Intelligence: drawing diagrams, working with maps, matching
pictures with words, describing pictures or images.
5. Musical Intelligence: songs, tongue twisters, rhymes, playing songs in order tointroduce a topic or analyze the lyrics, transforming lyrics into a text.
6. Interpersonal Intelligence: analyzing a character, reflections on characters and theiractions or motivation, analyzing or retelling/rewriting a text from another’s character point ofview, group work.
7. Intrapersonal Intelligence: journal keeping, activities in order to elicit personal
experiences (reflections, discussions and sharing personal experiences).
8. Naturalistic Intelligence: comparisons between a novel and a film, news
broadcasted by two different resources, categorizing, analyzing settings, field trips andprojects.

Motivation and Second Language Learning

70

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Motivation and second language learning is not a new concept. Gardner and Lambert(1959) may be considered the trailblazers as more than 50 years ago demonstrated in their
groundbreaking study that language achievement is not only related to language aptitude, but
to motivation as well. Later research has further supported Gardner and Lambert’s findings
with regard to second language learning (Kimura, Nakata, & Okumura, 2001; Yashima,2002).
Without motivation, learning a second language is exceedingly difficult, regardless ofconditions, learning styles, teaching styles, therefore motivation may be considered the mostsignificant factor influencing language learning (Thanasoulas, 2000). Although motivation
has been well recognized as an instrumental factor in language learning, agreeing on adefinition of motivation has been problematic as it is multi-dimensional and continuously
evolving (Irie, 2003). Dornyei (2001) discusses motivation in the context of a constantly
changing arousal where wants and desires are ranked, evaluated and acted on with somedegree of success. There is little disagreement that fostering motivation is crucial to alanguage learner's success; therefore, the question then logically turns to how best to increase
motivation. Looking to the socio-educational model of L2 acquisition may offer someinsight. Gardner (1985) suggests that two fundamental attitudes; integrativeness and attitude
towards the learning situation may contribute to the learners’ level of L2 learning motivation
with the level of motivation considered as an influencing factor on the linguistic outcome
such as achievement or proficiency (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993). Integrativeness isconcerned with the desire to learn an L2 with the goal of communicating with members of theL2 community. It may predict that students with a higher level of integrativeness and stronger
L2 learning motivation will be more willingly to interact with an L2 language group thanthose with a lower level of integrativeness and motivation.

(Yashima, 2002). Learnermotivation may be affected by many variables such as age, gender, subject major, stage oflearning, classroom environment, and cultural expectations. Research into English language
learners’ motivation has shown that factors for learner motivation, such as exam results or
career targets may be viewed as important for Japanese university students (Irie, 2003). Other
studies comment that there may be a relationship between the enjoyment of learning andmotivation for Japanese learners (Ryan, 2009). Research into English language learners has
shown that factors for learner motivation, such as exam results or career targets are also
viewed as important for Japanese university students (Irie, 2003). Research into gender andmotivation with Japanese learners, has demonstrated that girls consistently reported higher
levels of motivation than boys with students seemingly positively motivated by native
71

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

speaker teachers as well as by direct experience overseas (Fukuchi & Sakamoto, 2005).
Generally, students who are interested in the foreign community, international affairs, andhave an interest in studying or living abroad will have more favorable attitudes toward what
English symbolizes than other learners (Johnson, 2013). Yashima (2000) terms this concept
as "international posture” and comments this factor may positively influence learnermotivation (Yashima, 2000). Yashima (2002) identified a variable she called WTC(willingness to communicate) determining that this has a significant effect on motivation,
further presenting the argument that as the study of general English has been considered aknowledge-based subject as opposed to a performance based subject with a clear aim, it will
have a negative effect on students’ willingness to communicate (Taguchi, 2014)
Looking at the attitudes toward the International community of Japanese University
students with regard to motivation research, the reality for most Japanese learners enrolled inJapanese universities is that, students do not have constant contact with native English
speakers as they are removed from the L2 community. As a result, attitudes towards Englishspeaking cultures for this population are generally created through educational interventions
and exposure to the media, with English seeming to represent something ambiguous to young
Japanese learners as it symbolizes the world outside of Japan, or as something to connect
them to foreign cultures if they choose. As Yashima’s (2000) study with Japanese university
students majoring in information studies demonstrated, learners perceived instrumental andintercultural friendships as being the most important predictors of motivation and second
language proficiency (Yashima, 2000). This reinforces other earlier studies that commented
that although students recognized that English may be necessary in a globalized society, they
are unclear as to the role it will play and how or if it will affect them; particularly as working
in the international community was considered a less important motivator to learn English bymost Japanese university students (Miyahara, Namoto, Yamanaka, Murakami, Kinoshita &Yamamoto, 1997).

Methodology
Setting and ParticipantsThis study was conducted in a small private university in Northern Japan. The
participants (n=55) consisted of the entire cohort of Information Science students enrolled ina first year compulsory General EFL course. The students were given a placement test upon
entrance to the university and classes were formed based on the results. Therefore, thestudents may be considered at approximately the same lower English language level. The
72

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

sample for this study was chosen due to the fact that the researcher was teaching all of thestudents in this cohort, which offered the most convenient access. All participants consented
in writing prior to start of this study and completed the MI inventories voluntarily.
Instrument and Procedures
There appears to be various MI inventories available internationally (see Armstrong,
2001 Shearer, 2002), but none culturally specific to EFL contexts or Japanese learners;
therefore, in order for the inventory to be intellectually as well as culturally appropriate forthis group of students, the instrument utilized was an MI inventory designed by the
researcher, with alterations made in an effort to make questions understood more readily by
the students. To offer a few examples, in question 17 the word cell phone was added, inquestion 26 the word audiotape was changed to iPod (Appendix 1). These changes invocabulary were made to update the MI Inventory. Other examples of alterations were thedeletion of Scrabble as most Japanese students are unaware of this game. The games such as
Sudoku and Go in question 21 were added as well as using Japanese in place of English inquestion 29 as Japanese is the students’ native language (Appendix 1). The MI inventory
contained five questions pertaining to each of the eight intelligences with students’ scoresshown out of a possible 25 (see table 1). A letter code was given for each intelligence(Appendix1) with a total of 40 questions, the questions were presented randomly with a fivepoint Likert scale devised as follows 1 = statement does not describe me at all, 2 = statement
describes me very little, 3 = statement describes me somewhat, 4=statement describes me
pretty well and 5 = statement describes me exactly. The MI inventory was first designed in
English (Appendix 1) and then translated into Japanese (Appendix 2). Although bothinventories were available to the students, all students chose to complete the Japaneseversion. The inventories were administered in the second week of the school year. A generalexplanation of the MI inventory was provided as well as a reminder that the students’answers would be completely anonymous in an effort to prevent anxiety or stress as well as
to promote candid responses (Armstrong, 2009). There was no time limit for completion of
the inventory, but all inventories were completed within 20 minutes.

Preliminary Results and Discussion
Looking at the graph of class averages solely (figure 1), the three most prevalent MI
perceived by the students were Musical Intelligence with 75.2% followed by Interpersonal at
65.2% and Bodily-Kinesthetic with 62.5%. The three least prevalent intelligences perceived
by this sample were Logical-mathematical Intelligence at 47.2%, Spatial at 55.5% and73

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Intrapersonal Intelligence with 57.6%.

Interestingly, Linguistic (60.1%) and Logical-

mathematical Intelligences (47.2%), the two intelligences most strongly associated withlanguage learning, were found in this small study to be less prevalent than the intelligences
typically associated with language learning; specifically Musical (75.2%) and Bodykinesthetic Intelligences (62.5%).
With respect to the results, it would seem that if Interpersonal, Musical, and BodilyKinesthetic were found to be more prevalent than Linguistic or Logical-MathematicalIntelligences within the sample, activities and techniques on the syllabus should be altered inan effort to satisfy the needs of these learners (Armstrong, 2009). One method of
consideration is to strategically incorporate activities into the syllabus that will cater
specifically to the prevalent MI. For example. if students possess a dominant interpersonal
intelligence there is a strong possibility that they will enjoy participating in group work
activities that may increase motivation as well as eventual language learning (Visser, Ashton,& Vernon, 2006). When utilizing MI in designing activities to satisfy learners’ needs, it soon
becomes apparent that one MI does not exist in isolation; therefore, an activity designed for
one MI may also cater to another MI (Armstrong, 2009).
Cooperative-learning (CL) has been suggested as an effective teaching strategy inlessons targeted at utilizing MI particularly as within the group structure there may be many
opportunities afforded to activate various MI (Armstrong, 2009). In CL, students work
together in small groups on a structured activity. The group members are individuallyaccountable for their work, and the work of the group as a whole is also assessed (Johnson &Johnson, 1999). Cooperative learning permits opportunities for language development by
allowing students to use groups as a natural environment to learn English, hence increasing
independence from the teacher as well as promoting learner autonomy. (Johnson, Johnson, &Holubec, 2002).
A very well established teaching approach to CL is the Jigsaw Approach (Jacobs, Powerand Loh, 2002). In the jigsaw approach to instruction, the target material is divided, usually
into four parts, and distributed to small groups to learn. In this activity a reading passage
from the textbook divided into four sections, labeled A-D. The students read their portion of
the passage silently, then all the students with the same lettered passage gather together.
When these homogeneous groups have mastered their material, students regroup into
heterogeneous groups to present material and complete a task, in this case putting 4 sectionsof a reading passage into order. All MI may be considered activated with this activity, but
specifically as peer teaching and group problem solving are used to complete the jigsaw,
74

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Interpersonal Intelligence and Linguistic Intelligence are definitely activated predominantly
as the students are reading in groups.
Other practical examples for incorporating MI effectively into the syllabus would be theuse of mind maps. As a vocabulary activity, it may cater to a student possessing a dominant
linguistic intelligence as well as a learner with a predominant spatial intelligence (Appendix
3). This derivative effect is also observed with a listening activity that was originallydesigned for a learner with a dominant musical intelligence as it may also be found applicablefor students with a predominant naturalist or logical intelligence (Appendix 4).
English proficiency tests such as TOEIC (Test of English for International
Communication) are an inescapable reality for most Japanese University students,
particularly as recent government mandates have required that university graduates acheivescores that demonstrate the ability to communicate in English effectively in the workplace(MEXT, 2011). The students involved in the present study are no exception, as they musttake this test at least once a year. The preparation for this test is done during regular classhours and casual observation has shown that the class participation for these classes is among
the lowest for the year. With the goal of test preparation, MI based activities can aid inincreasing motivation as well as class participation. Using music is popular in EFL
classrooms. For example, cloze exercises where students listen to a song and fill in blanks
with the lyrics they hear is an effective way to tap into students’ Musical Intelligence(Armstrong, 2009). An expansion of this cloze activity offers a successful example of using aMusical Intelligence based activity for TOEIC preparation. The students are given handouts
and while working in pairs try to guess grammatical functions for each blank before theylisten to the music—whether the missing words are adjectives, nouns, adverbs, verbs, etc.
This activity coincides with the TOEIC test as in the sentence-completion section of the
TOEIC, students must find the correct words or phrases to complete sentences focusing on
grammatical forms and logically discover answers. After deciding upon the grammaticalforms, students listen to the song and fill in the words or phrases they hear. Again, working inpairs, they check their answers. Many times the students’ knowledge of grammar helps themanswer questions. For example, if the word preceding a blank is “have,” that often indicatesthat the missing word is a verb in the present perfect tense. In addition, by eliciting theanswers, students’ problem solving skills are utilized. This music activity aids student’s
development of linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, intrapersonal and interpersonal
intelligences. The feedback from this activity has been extremely positive and the students
seem to enjoy this and many of the other new activities that have been added. There have75

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

been many unsolicited positive comments from the students and in general the attitude,interest and the amount of time students stay on task appears to have increased.

;Table 1: Class average of each intelligenceIntelligence

AverageIntelligence

Average score

A

Linguistic

15/25

B

Logical-Mathematical 11.8/25

47.2%

C

Spatial13.9/25

55.5%

DBodily-Kinesthetic

15.6/25

62.5%

EMusical18.8/2575.2%

FInterpersonal

16.3/2565.2%

G

Intrapersonal

14.4/25

57.6%

HNaturalist

14.1/25

56.5%

Code

Percentage
60.1%

76

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Figure 1: Graph of average scores for each intelligence (n=55)

Conclusions and Implications
This study discussed initial results from a small-scale case study focusing on learner selfidentification of Multiple Intelligences (MI) in a first year General EFL class at a Japanese
University. Results from an MI Inventory employed as a method to ascertain learners’
perception of their prevalent intelligences, indicated that interpersonal and bodily
intelligences, not typically linked to language acquisition, were found to be more
predominant than the standard linguistic or mathematic-logical intelligences with this firstyear class. This study also examined how techniques and activities may be altered or shifted
utilizing activities generated from MI theory in order to accommodate students’ prevalent
intelligences and perhaps stimulate dormant MI within the existing syllabus for the intentionof improving motivation, promoting learner autonomy as well as engaging students toparticipate in class. Practical interventions, such as the incorporation of teaching strategies(i.e. cooperative learning) within the current syllabus were offered as a means to improve
local practice, hence, illustrating how one activity or technique may cater to several
intelligences simultaneously.
Although this research may be deemed valid, results are preliminary, the sample size wassmall and as with any self-reporting questionnaires, one serious drawback is the reliability of
the results obtained. Additionally, although anonymity was guaranteed, students may havefelt a degree of pressure to answer in one way or another. Looking to future studies,increasing the sample size or adding a quantitative research instrument, such as individualinterviews, would be beneficial, as the addition of quantitative data may offer a more contextspecific image of the benefits of implementing MI based activities into an existing ESP
syllabus.

77

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

References
Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (3rd edition). Alexandria:
ASCD.
Arnold, J. & Fonseca, C. (2004). Multiple Intelligence Theory and Foreign Language
Learning: A Brain-based Perspective, International Journal of English Studies (IJES), 4(1), 119-136. Retrieved from http://rabida.uhu.es/dspace/bitstream/handle/10272/5320/
Multiple_intelligence_theory_and_foreign.pdf?sequence=2
Babbie, E. R. (2005). The basics of social research. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Buchen, I. H. (2006). Futures thinking, learning, and leading: Applying multiple
intelligences to success and innovation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Education.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching language to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chen, J, Moran, S. & Gardner, H. (2009). Multiple intelligences around the world. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Christison, M. A. (2005). Multiple intelligences and language learning. A guidebook oftheory, activities, inventories, and resources. San Francisco: Alta Books.
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dornyei, Z. (2009). The L2 Motivational self-system. In Z. Dornyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.),
Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9-42). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Fukuchi, N. T., & Sakamoto, R. (2005). Affective dimensions of the Japanese foreign
language learner: Implications for psychological learner development in Japan. Journalof Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 26(4), 333-350.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. Multiple intelligences for the 21st Century. New
York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
78

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning. London: Edward
Arnold.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second language
acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266-272.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). On the measurement of affective variables insecond language learning. Language Learning, 43, 157-194.
Irie, K. (2003). What do we know about the language learning motivation of university
students in Japan? Some patterns in survey studies. JALT Journal, 25(1), 86-100.
Ogawa, E. & Izumi, S. (2015). Belief, strategy use, and confidence in L2 abilities of EFL
learners at different levels of L2 proficiency. JACET Journal, 59, 1-18.
Jacobs, G. M., Power, M. A. & Loh, W. I. (2002). The teacher’s source for cooperative
learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,competitive, and individualistic learning (5th Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, M. (2013) A longitudinal perspective on EFL learning motivation in Japaneseengineering students. In T. Apple, D. Da Silva & T. Fellner (Eds.) Language learning
motivation in Japan (pp.189-205). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Holubec, E. J. (2002). Circles of learning: Cooperation in
the classroom (5th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Kimura, Y., Nakata, Y., & Okumura, T. (2001). Language learning motivation of EFL
learners in Japan - A cross-sectional analysis of various learning milieus. JALT Journal,
23(1), 47-68.
Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. 2011）Five
Proposals and Specific Measures for Developing Proficiency in English forInternational Communication. July13, 2011.
Miyahara, F., Namoto, M., Yamanaka, S., Murakami, R., Kinoshita, M. andYamamoto, H.

(1997) Konomamade Yoika Daigaku Eigokyoiku [Current status of university English
education: Comparison of university students’ ability in English and learning
behaviour in China, Korea, and Japan]. Tokyo: Shohakusya.
Ogawa, E., & Izumi, S. (2015). Belief, Strategy Use, and Confidence in L2 Abilities of EFL
Learners at Different Levels of L2 Proficiency. JACET Journal, 59, 1-18.
Puchta, H. & Rinvolucri, M. (2005) Multiple Intelligences in EFL: Exercises for Secondary
and adult students, Helbling Languages, and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

79

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Reid, J. (Ed). (1998). Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Roesgard, M. (2006). Japanese education and the cram school business: Functions,challenges, and perspectives of the juku. Copenhagen: Nordic Institute of AsianStudies.
Rose, H. (2012). Language Learning Strategy Research: Where do we go from here? Studies
in Self-Access Learning (SiSAL), 3(2), 137-148. Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/archives/jun12/rose/
Ryan, S. (2009). Ambivalence and commitment liberation and challenge: Investigating theattitudes of young Japanese people towards the learning of English. Journal ofMultilingual and Multicultural Development, 30(5), 405-420.
Shearer, B. C. (2012). An Inter-rater Reliability Study of a Self-assessment for the Multiple
Intelligences. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 4(38), 131-38.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taguchi, T. (2013). Motivation, attitudes and selves in the Japanese context: A mixed
methods approach. In T. Apple, D. Da Silva & T. Fellner (Eds.) Language learning
motivation in Japan (p.169-188). Bristol: Multilingual Matters
Thanasoulas, D. (2000). What is learner autonomy and how can it be fostered? The Internet
TESL

Journal,6(11).

Retrievedfrom

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Thanasoulas-

Autonomy.html
Visser, B.A., Ashton, M.C. & Vernon, P.A. (2006). Beyond g: Putting multiple intelligences
theory to the test. Intelligence, 34, 487–502
Yamauchi, D. (2014). Self-‐evaluation of learner`s multiple intelligences in an undergraduate
ESP Program for nurses at a Japanese university. The Journal of Teaching English forSpecific and Academic Purposes, 2(4), 591-602.
Yashima, T. (2000) Orientations and motivations in foreign language learning: A study ofJapanese college students. JACET Bulletin, 31, 121-133.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL
context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54-66.

80

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Appendix 1
MI Inventory (English Version)
Rate the following statements from 1-5 as indicated as below.

1 = Statement does not describe me at all
2 = Statement describes me very little
3 = Statement describes me somewhat
4 = Statement describes me pretty well
5 = Statement describes me exactly

Key

QuestionsD

1

I like making things with my hands and enjoy activities such as building models, making
origami, cooking or sewing.

E

2

Music is very important and without it something would be missing in my life.

D

3

At amusement parks my favorite place is roller coasters or similar attractions

C

4

I have a good sense of direction and I can generally find my way around new places.

G

5

I keep a diary or journal and write in it at least once a week.

H

6

I like animals and they seem to like me.

H7

I like outdoor activities like camping, hiking, and/or other outdoor sports.

C8

I often see clear visual images when I close my eyes.

H

9

I like plants and am a good gardener.

B

10

I believe almost everything can be explained logically.

E

11 I play a musical instrument.

B

12 I can easily compute numbers in my head.

E

13 I like singing.

A

14 I enjoy reading books.

A

15 When I speak to people I talk about things that I have heard or read.

G

16 I consider myself independent or strong willedC

17

When I want to remember something I often use cameras or my cell phone to record what I see
around me.

81

Ans.

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

G

18 I have a strong awareness of my strengths and weaknesses.

D

19 I find it difficult to sit still for long periods of time.

F

20 I would rather go to a party with my friends than stay home alone.

Key
B
F
D

Questions
I enjoy playing games that require logical thinking such as crossword puzzles, Sudoku,
Othello, Go, chess
I prefer to ask someone for advice or help when I have a problem, rather than solve it by22
myself.
When I talk or try to explain something I often use hand gestures or other forms of body23
language.
21F

24 I have at least three close friends.

C

25 I enjoy doing jigsaw puzzles, mazes, and other visual puzzles.

E

26 I frequently listen to music on the radio, cds, ipod or on my computer.

G

27 I have thought often about my goals and dreams for the future.

F

28

A

29 Japanese, social studies, and history are easier subjects for me than math and science.

E

30

F

31 My friends and family seem to ask for my advice.

A

32

C

33 I like to draw or sketch.

H

34 I recycle and separate garbage thoroughly at home or at school.

B

35 Math and/or science are among my favorite subjects.

D

36 I like sports and regularly participate in at least one sport or physical activity.

A

37

H

38 I enjoy watching movies or TV programs starring animals.

B

39 I'm interested in new advances or changes in science.

G

40 If I had a choice I would rather spend my free time alone than with lots of people.

I enjoy team sports for example softball or volleyball more than solo sports group sports likeswimming and jogging.

Without realizing it I sometimes find myself humming or singing with a televisioncommercial or a popular song.

I understand more from listening to the radio or a CD than I do from watching television orfilms.

When I am driving, I pay more attention to the words written on billboards than to thescenery.

82

Ans.

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

A
C
E
G

Linguistic Intelligence
Spatial Intelligence
Musical Intelligence
Intrapersonal Intelligence

B
D
F
H

Logical-Mathematical Intelligence
Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence
Interpersonal Intelligence
Naturalist Intelligence

Appendix 2
MI インベントリー(Japanese version)
それぞれの項目について、自分に当てはまるものを、下の１－5 の中から選び、「回答」欄に、その数字を記入してください。
１→ まったくあてはまらない２→ ほとんどあてはまらない

３→ どちらかといえばあてはまる
４→ かなりあてはまる
５→ ぴったりあてはまる

Key

質問

D

1

プラモデルの組み立て、折り紙、料理、手芸など、手を使ってものを作ることが好きです。

E

2

自分にとって音楽はとても大切で、人生に欠かせないものです。

D

3

遊園地では、ジェットコースターのような乗りものが好きです。

C

4

方向感覚はいいので、初めての場所でも道に迷うことはありません。

G

5

少なくとも週に 1 回以上、日記のようなものを書いています。

H

6

動物が好きだし、動物にも好かれる方だと思います。

H

7

キャンプやハイキング、野外スポーツなど、アウトドアの活動が好きです。

C

8目をつむっていても、はっきりと目で見ているような映像を思い浮かべることができます。

H

9

植物が好きで、ガーデニングが得意です。

B

10 ほとんどすべてのことは、論理的に説明できるものだと思います。

E

11 楽器を演奏します。

B

12 暗算が得意です。

E

13 歌うことが好きです。

A

14 本を読むことが好きです。

A

15 人と話をする時には、自分が読んだり聞いたりしたことについて話します。
83

回答Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

G

16 自分は、意思をしっかり持った、自立した人間だと思います。

C

17 自分が見たことを覚えておくために、よくカメラを使います。

G

18 自分の長所や短所をよく知っています。

D

19 長い時間じっと座っていることが苦手です。

F

20 一人で家にいるより、友達と遊びに行くほうが好きです。

Key

質問
クロスワードや数独、オセロ、囲碁、将棋のような、論理的な思考を求められるゲームが好きで
す。

B

21

F

22 悩みがある時は、自分で解決するよりも、誰かにアドバイスや助けを求めたいです。

D

23 話しをする時や何かを説明しようとする時に、よく身振り手振りを使います。

F

24 少なくとも 3 人の親友がいます。

C

25 ジグソーパズルや迷路など、視覚的なパズルが好きです。

E

26 ラジオや CD、ipod でよく音楽を聞きます。

G

27 自分の将来の夢や目標についてよく考えます。

F

28

A

29 自分にとっては、国語や社会、歴史の方が、数学や科学より簡単に感じられます。

E

30 ふと気が付くと、無意識に CM ソングや流行りの歌を口ずさんでいることがあります。

F

31 友達や家族などから、相談されることがよくあります。

A

32 ラジオなどで音声を聞く方が、テレビなどで映像を見るよりも、内容が理解しやすいです。

C

33 スケッチなど、絵を描くことが好きです。

H

34 家でも学校でも、ごみの分別はちゃんとします。

B

35 数学や理科は好きな科目です。

D

36 体を動かすことが好きで、すくなくとも１つは定期的に行っているスポーツがあります。

A

37 ドライブしている時には、景色より看板の文字に目がいきます。

H

38 動物に関する映画やテレビを見るのが好きです。

野球やバレーボールなどの団体競技の方が、水泳やジョギングなどの個人競技よりも好きです
。

84

回答

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

B

39 科学の進歩や変化に興味があります。

G

40 休みのときには、たくさんの人と一緒にいるよりも、一人でいる方が好きです。

各質問項目が示す知能分野
A
C
E
G

語学的知能
空間的知能
音楽的知能
内省的知能

B
D
F
H

論理・数学的知能
身体・運動的知能
人間関係的知能
博物学的知能Appendix 3
Example of a Vocabulary Activity utilizing Linguistic/Spatial/Interpersonal Intelligences

Appendix 4
Example of a Listening Activity utilizing Musical/ Naturalist /Logical Intelligences"The 3 R's" by Jack Johnson
Three it's a magic number
Yes it is, it's a magic number
Because two times three is six
And three times six is eighteen
And the eighteenth letter in the alphabet is R
We've got three R's we're going to talk about today
85

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

We've got to learn toReduce, Reuse, Recycle
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
If you're going to the market to buy some _____________
You've got to bring your own bags and you learn to reduce your waste
And if your brother or your sister's got some ________ clothes
You could try them on before you buy some more of those
Reuse, we've got to __________ to reuse
And if the first two R's don't work out
And if you've got to make some ___________
Don't throw it out
Recycle, we've got to learn to recycle,
We've got to learn to____________, Reuse, Recycle
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Reduce, __________, Recycle
Reduce, Reuse, _____________
Because three it's a _______number
Yes it is, it's a magic number
3, 3, 33, 6, 9, 12, 15,_____, 21, 24, 27, 30, ___, 36
33, 30, 27, 24, 21, 18, 15, 12, 9, 6, and3, it's a magic number

86

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Narrative Reflection on an Advanced English Course in Japan
Lindsay Mack
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
Bioprofile
Lindsay Mack is an Associate Professor of English at the Center for Language Education at
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, Japan. Her research interests include, writing centers,
second language writing, critical pedagogy and EFL curriculum development.

Abstract
In this paper, the author’s main objective is to model how one can employ three curriculum
models, curriculum as product, process and praxis, to critically analyze one’s curriculum, inher case, an Advanced English course, to discover if the course is in line with one’s
educational philosophical beliefs. She begins with a detailed theoretical background of thethree different curriculum models, curriculum as product, curriculum as process andcurriculum as praxis. Next, she critically analyzes her own curriculum, through a narrativereflection, at the level of design and implementation to discover how her curriculum isinformed by these models. Through analysis, she discovers that although in some respects her
curriculum achieves the goals of a curriculum as praxis, it fails to achieve them in many otherrespects and instead contains many elements that fall under curriculum as process andcurriculum as product.
Key words: Praxis, Critical Pedagogy

Introduction“Thus as applied linguists and English language teachers we should become political actors
engaged in a critical pedagogical project to use English to oppose dominant discourses of theWest and to help articulation of counter discourses in English.” - Alastair Pennycook in“English in the World” in Power and Inequality in Language Education;

Lindsey Mack, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, Center for Language Education,1-1Jumonijibaru, Beppu-shi, Oita-ken, Japan. Email: mackli@apu.ac.jp87Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

I begin with this quote because I believe it represents my current curriculum andeducational philosophy. I first read this quote four years ago. At that time I had just moved
from America, where I was a high school history teacher, to Japan, to begin my new career asa University English Teacher. I remember worrying about how my new profession made me
complicit in spreading English hegemony. Moreover, I was concerned that as a teacher fromthe center, (a native English speaking country where English is the primary language)
teaching in a periphery country (countries that acknowledge the importance of English as an
International language and teach English as a foreign language), I was producing andreproducing global inequalities perpetuated by the rise of English. Hence, I set out to use mypower as a course designer of Advanced English to create a new forward curriculum thatencouraged students’ voice and identity. It was my hope that my curriculum would promote atransformative pedagogy for all students to challenge the status quo and social inequalities,
otherwise known as in curriculum as praxis. However, as time went by, I wondered if mycurriculum actually fulfilled my original intentions.
Therefore, in this paper my main objective is to model how one can employ threecurriculum models, curriculum as product, process and praxis, to critically analyze one’s
curriculum, in my case, an Advanced English course, to discover if the course is in line with
one’s educational philosophical beliefs. This paper is a narrative account of the criticalreflection I conducted over one semester of teaching an Advanced English course. In the next
section, I will provide a brief summary of these three philosophical models of curriculum thatguided me in my curriculum’s analysis as well as some background research on narratives.

Literature Review
Narrative
Simply put, a narrative is a spoken or written account of something. Researchers employ
narratives to make sense of the world as they perceive and experience it, and to report toother people what they have discovered and learned about their experience. In other words,
narratives provide connections, links, understandings and coherence. Polkinghorne (1995),
states that narrative accounts “exhibit human activity as a purposeful engagement in theworld. Narrative is the type of discourse that draws together diverse events, happenings andactions of human lives” (p.5).

88

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Currently, narrative reflections are penetrating all areas of educational and social
research. Denzin (2000) argues, “the study of narrative forces the social sciences to develop
new theories, new methods and new ways of talking about self and society” (Denzin, as citedin Riessman, 2008, p. 16). Educational research stories are accounts that educators give of
their work, usually presented in the form of a journal article. Narrative descriptions aredifferent than positivist scientific research that stress objectivity, rationality and logicalreasoning seeking to tell universal truths. In contrast, narrative research comes for theinterpretivist paradigm and it emphasizes subjectivity and contextual circumstances and does
not search for universal truths, rather casual links by re-telling stories that are contextual andspatially located. According to Sikes and Gale (2006), “researchers who choose to use thesorts of narratives that obviously and explicitly tell stories do so because they believe that thisapproach is most effective for communicating the ‘data’ they want to get across. Thesestories convey their own epistemological, ontological, ethical and political position.” (para.
26) I am one of those researchers who chose a narrative account to retell my story ofreflective practice of examining my philosophical beliefs in education.
This paper is a narrative of my critical reflection. For this article, I employ Ajayi’s
definition of critical reflection as “an educational imagination that allows candidates to lookat themselves and their situations with new eyes, and in the process, become conscious of themultiple ways they can interpret critique, challenge, confront and reconstruct teaching” (p.
170). In other words, critical reflection requires us to step-back and examine our classrooms
and curriculum. Thus, this paper provides a narrative account of the reflective process I
underwent to investigate my curriculum. In this critical evaluative framework, my goal is toanalyze specifically the type of curriculum (product, process, praxis) I had created. Therefore,
I will first provide a brief explanation of these theoretical frameworks in the literature review.
Curriculum as ProductIn educational practice, curriculum as product is the most dominant curriculum theory intoday’s society. Most state-run curriculums are informed by this model. Here, the student is
the learner and the teacher’s role is to implement the course so that the objectives of thecurriculum are realized and the outcome (product) is measured. According to Grundy (1987)
this model “ascribes meaning to outcome, that is the experience gains meaning through what
it produces” (p. 102). Therefore, the desired outcomes and goals of the curriculum are theproduct. The product could be the test that is taken at the end of the course or the final
research paper that is written by the students.
89

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Curriculum as Process
Although curriculum as product is the prevailing model informing current curriculum
practices, there are many criticisms of this model. The predominant criticism is that byfocusing only on the product it “restrains the human imagination simply because it sets limits
or boundaries to what is learned and tested” (McKernan, 2007, p. 19). From these criticisms,
a new curriculum model was formed, curriculum as process, also sometimes referred to as
curriculum as practice. In other words, curriculum is a proposal, a process rather than aproduct with measurable results and objectives. The students are not the consumers but active
participants and the teacher is not the implementer but rather the designer. In addition, theteacher becomes a reflective practitioner who participates in various research projects such asneeds based assessment or action research in order to develop his/her skills as a teacher.
Curriculum as Praxis
The final model, curriculum as praxis, is the most influential to my development as ateacher and the curriculum in Advanced English was initially designed to reflect this view of
education. It is similar to the process model in that it rejects the objectives model and sees
curriculum as a process meaning making experience. However, curriculum as praxis differsfrom the process model because it is meant to instill students with a critical consciousness toquestion and challenge injustices in society. Throughout my narrative account, I will refer tothese curriculum models in relation to my own educational beliefs and my curriculum.

Institutional Context
I teach at International University (IU), a pseudonym, an international university in Japanhosting over 6,000 students, 3,000 of whom represent students from 92 countries. Students at
IU come from various cultural, ethnic, and religious backgrounds, and are immersed in an
academic English environment. High-level English language ability, usually over 550 on the
Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), is required for international students who
must take academic content classes in English. While many students obtain this high level ofEnglish, they are still English language learners and wish to improve their English skills inacademic writing, critical reading, and critical discussion.

90

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Classroom Context
It was for these students that the course, Advanced English (AE), was originallydesigned for. This course is intended to help prepare international, English-based students(predominantly from Korea, China, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia) to take content
lectures in English, and overall improve their English ability. Moreover, it was designed todevelop students’ advanced writing, research, argumentation, analytical skills, and, finally, toapply the skills they have learned through debating. I designed the course in line with criticalpedagogy and constructivist pedagogy. Following these pedagogies, the curriculum focuses
on global issues and also draws on students’ lived experience to create a forum for theiranalysis of the world around them (Giroux, 1992). The course is intense; classes meet fourdays a week for 95 minutes, and discussion iss an integral part of the class. Assessments are
based on debate, multiple choice reading tests, and summaries.

Methodology
A key feature of the research involved an interrogation of my curriculum in regard to thethree philosophical models, curriculum as product, curriculum as process and curriculum as
praxis. My specific aims were to:
1. Reflect on my curriculum through teacher field notes and journals
2. Determine if the curriculum follows my own educational philosophical beliefs in linewith curriculum of praxis
I employed two different methods in analyzing my curriculum, teacher field notes andjournal.
Teacher Field Notes
Teacher field notes are written observations of what was observed in the classroom.
Obviously, thick descriptions are difficult to record while teaching, therefore I would jot
down quick notes on my lesson plan while I was teaching. Immediately after class I would
systematically write down more detailed notes which included: recounts of the lesson’s
objectives, what activities were conducted in class, my overall impression of the students’reaction to the lesson and any other notes that I felt were significant. I tried to refrain fromsubjective details about how I felt about the lesson and instead only reported facts.
Obviously, my impression of student’s reaction to the lesson plan bordered on subjective so I
tried to report what students had said about the lesson rather than my own assumptions. The
91

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

reason being was that I wanted to employ the journal to reflect and analyze my curriculum
while I wanted the teacher field notes to function like a log of activities I had conducted inclass.
Teacher Journal
Teacher journals are often used for analysis and reflecting on one’s teaching. Journals arecommonly employed in qualitative research because they can provide a data set that refines
the understanding of the role of the researcher (Janesick, 1999, p. 506). For this research thejournal was of primary importance because the goal of research was to reflect on mycurriculum and what better way to reflect than through a journal. In line with Maclean’s andMohr’s (1999) suggestions, I employed a journal to reflect on the events in the classroom,
interactions in the classroom, quotations, readings, surprising events, thoughts about the
research process, and ideas about teaching. The journal differed from my field notes, in thatthe journal included more than recounts of the activities but instead reflections on the
curriculum as well as my thoughts and theorizing about my research agenda and myeducational philosophies. Instead of writing directly after class, like the teacher field notes, I
wrote in the journal every other day at night time in order to have more time away from thesubject to deepen my reflection instead of recording my immediate reaction. Below is anarrative of my inquiry and reflection on my curriculum. It is divided into three parts,
beginning of the reflection, during the reflection and finally, future directions.

Narrative of My Inquiry
Beginning of the Reflection
The decision to engage in reflective inquiry had always been a vision of mine since I
entered the education field. When I was appointed Advanced English Level Coordinator I
was given the opportunity to redesign the course with my vision and course objectives. As
previously mentioned I was greatly influenced by critical pedagogy and curriculum as praxis
so it was only natural that I decided to try to develop the course in line with a criticalpedagogical curriculum.
Before I started my systematic reflection of the Advanced English curriculum I first
analyzed my own vision for the class and its objectives. In order to do this, I researched thetheoretical background of the three curriculum models and also researched more about the92Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

philosophical beliefs I claimed to aspire to. I knew that I did not affirm the curriculum asproduct model. Curriculum as product has its origins in both the intellectual-rationalist
ideology and the technical-behavioral ideology. The intellectual and rationalist ideology was
one of the earliest views of education in which content should be knowledge driven by
universal truths (McKernan, 2007). In light of this view, the curriculum’s goal is to enlighten
and pass on these universal truths, such as math, science and history from generation to
generation. The content in the class is viewed as a universal truth which one does notquestion. In other words, in math class there is one correct answer, in history there is one
perspective that is correct. Teachers pass on this knowledge to the student (Young, 1998, p.
25).
This model, steeped in the scientific positivist view point, places a heavy emphasis on
the accountability and measurability of a set curriculum (McKernan, 2007, p 19). Therefore,
the teacher is the implementer not the designer and the students are the consumers andlearners, never the negotiators. The teacher takes a passive role because the objectives for thecourse and the content are not decided by the teacher but rather from the top down, forexample, in public education it is usually decided at the national level by policy makers(Young, 1998, p. 27). Instead, I believe that I am not the implementer of the curriculum as in
the product model, nor am I only a reflective practitioner as in the process model. I strive to
be a conscious agent of change in the curriculum as praxis model. This is the role I strive forthrough my daily teaching interactions.
The influence of critical theories (i.e., critical pedagogy and critical applied linguistics,
CAL) has been central in my development as a teacher and course designer. As a TEFL
teacher, I reject traditional applied linguistics which “views critical thinking as apolitical,
classrooms as isolated and equitable, and that English teachers should not aim for change”(Pennycook, 2001, p. 11). I want to work to reconfigure the traditional student/teacher
relationship, where the teacher is the active agent transmitting knowledge, and the students
are the passive recipients of the teacher's knowledge. It is my intention that the classroom
will become a site where new knowledge, grounded in the experiences of students andteachers alike, is produced through meaningful dialogue and activities (Stevens, 2009). To
me, curriculum as praxis is a transformative pedagogy.
Before I started my critical reflection of the course I created, I wrote in my journal, “I
firmly believe in curriculum of praxis and try to create activities in line with this curriculum.
I want my curriculum to be a transformative process.” About a month into my reflection, I reread what I had written. I noted, that I repeated the phrases “transformative process” and93

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

“praxis” many times. I realized I needed to employ less nebulous terms and define theseconcepts but when I tried to define them I got stuck. Therefore, I did some research toinvestigate what these terms meant.
Curriculum of praxis views education as a transformative and liberating process where
the ultimate goal is emancipation. I wanted my curriculum to be a transformative process;however I was unsure if the goal should be emancipation. Therefore, I researched more thedefinition of emancipation. Grundy defines emancipation as “finding one’s own voice”(Grundy, 1987 p.107). In other words, emancipating yourself from the oppressive nature of
the dominant power in society. The first step needed in this transformative process is raising
one’s critical consciousness, sometimes referred to as “conscientization.” This refers to theprocess of developing a new critical awareness through recognizing social economic andpolitical contradictions (Grundy, 1987, p.107). Once students have reached critical awarenessthen praxis can be initiated. Simply put, praxis is a cycle of action and reflection. This action“involves freely choosing to act in ways which are informed by critical social theorems”(Grundy, 1987, p.113). In other words, praxis is when a lesson and skill is enacted andpracticed. Praxis leads to social transformation in the classroom and in the collective societal
level (Stevens, 2009).
With a better understanding of transformative process and praxis, I realized I also needed
better understanding of critical pedagogy, a term I employed heavily in my journal. Criticalpedagogy requires students to examine their own society through the lenses of power in order
to expose structural inequalities and marginalized groups. Critical pedagogy is not only about
challenging dominant theories and status quo, but also functions as a way of raising a criticalconsciousness in students to question dominant cultural, political, and social domains (Freire,
1968; Giroux, 1992; Gore, 1992; Luke, 1992).
As I did more investigation, I began to discover a disconnect between critical pedagogy
and my work at a private college in Japan. My main criticism of curriculum as praxis is theuse of the vocabulary words such as emancipation, empowerment and praxis. Emancipationmeans to be freed from bondage, oppression and restraint (the freedictionary.com). My
students are private school students living a nice life in Japan, I wondered what bondage I
was freeing them from. I realized that within curriculum as praxis, emancipation refers tofreeing oneself from the oppressive nature of the dominant power in society, but I wonder if
it is possible to ever really be free from it. I want to make students more critically aware, but
I am not sure I want to “emancipate them.”

94

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Although I began to have a more critical, skeptical view of curriculum of praxis, I stillwanted to adhere to its main tenets. In order for praxis to be fulfilled the curriculum must
embody these principles of critical pedagogy:
1. That learning should have a critical focus.
2. That the learners should be active participants in the learning program.
3. That the learning experience should be meaningful to the learner (Grundy, 1987, p. 100).
Before the reflection, I believed my curriculum fulfilled all three requirements. The topic
for the course, was English as a global language. Frustrated with the original curriculum that
focused on Western topics, such as homeschooling, I decided to change the content to a moreculturally relative topic to create a more empowering curriculum: the spread of global
English. I wanted to highlight both the negative and positive impact of the spread of English
in the world, and the different dilemmas and paradoxes countries’ governments and people
face as English continues to spread around the globe. I also wanted to explore historicalmotivators for the spread of English including: colonialism, imperialism, rise of America, andglobalism. Other subjects I wanted to explore included linguistic imperialism, ecology oflanguages, language diffusions, world Englishes and Americanization. From my point ofview, I had changed the topic to have a more relevant focus and to allow for more criticality.
Before I started teaching the curriculum, I reviewed my teacher journal where I focusedheavily on critical theories in line with curriculum as praxis. I wrote that “in theory the design
and implementation of Advanced English should be in line with curriculum as praxis,
however, the reality might be different so I am interested to see what the outcome is after I
systematically reflect on my curriculum.” Once the semester started I set to the task ofanalyzing the design and implementation of AE’s curriculum in light of these three models,reported earlier, to see if indeed my curriculum is one of praxis or if many elements are
actually informed by the curriculum as product or process models.
During the Reflection
As mentioned above, there were three principles that I believed a curriculum, specifically
my curriculum, should aspire for which was in line with curriculum as praxis:
1. That learning should have a critical focus.
2. That the learners should be active participants in the learning program.
3. That the learning experience should be meaningful to the learner (Grundy, 1987, p. 100).

95

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Upon analysis of my daily implementation of AE’s curriculum I believe the lesson plansachieved number one and two, however, I reconsidered if it was meaningful to the learner.
Many of the activities in class were designed to raise one’s critical consciousness. For me, thebest way to promote a students’ critical awareness is to create student-centered lessons where
I pose dilemmas, problems, cases, and projects for students to sort out for themselves what
they need to do and know, hence promoting student ownership over what they learn andthink. This is referred to as “problem posing.” According to Grundy (1987) “problem posing
education allows, indeed encourages, students and teachers together to confront the real
problems of their existence and relationships” (p.103).
Another way I encouraged students to become active participants was by always
emphasizing that I am the facilitator, not the expert. I believe that teachers are responsible forgiving students a voice, not for contributing to silencing them. By emphasizing that I am thefacilitator I re-enforce a key principle of critical pedagogy, that teachers and students should
participate in co-constructing their class through a process of negotiation (Auerbach, Brito, &Lima, 2004). In other words, all participants work towards a common goal and everyone’s
knowledge counts (Auerbach et al. 2004). Students know that the teacher holds the power,
therefore teachers should debunk the myth of teacher as expert right from the beginning of
the course. I always stressed that I am the guide and not a teacher. In that sense, the fourmonths is a journey that the teacher and all students participate in.
Besides creating lessons that are critical in nature, I also tried to create a curriculum inwhich the learners are active participants in the learning program. When designing thecourse, I was conscious of the need to create a curriculum that encouraged students tobecome co-creators of their own learning through debate, critical in-class discussion, online
discussion, and other active-learning practices. I tried to make the learners active participantsby creating student centered lesson plans. Some activities that I found successful were “Think
Pair Shares,” “mini debates,” “research projects,” “conducting surveys,” “information gap,”“jigsaws,” and “writing workshops,” “online discussion” and “mindmapping” I found these
activities as a way for students to interact with each other and as a way to encourage them tothink through issues.( See appendix for brief descriptions of each of these activities.)
All of these activities were successful in promoting student engagement and to somelevel of criticality. But I did start to notice the students waning enthusiasm in the class as thesemester went on. I wrote in my journal, “the students don’t seem excited today.” I started toinvestigate why that might be the reason. I believe the topic I chose is responsible for the
students waning enthusiasm.
96

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Topic
As mentioned earlier, during class I problem posed by choosing central thematicquestions related to the course’s content to question, explore and re-visit throughout thesemester. For this class the central theme was ‘English as a Global language’ and I related tofollowing questions:
1. How does language connect to culture and identity?
2. Is the spread of English another form of colonialism?
3. Are all countries positive about incorporating English language education in schools?
4. Do native speakers of English have more power in the world? Is this fair?
As we read different literature we would revisit these questions. Not only did we discussthese topics but we also debated them. I tried to choose a topic that would allow them tocritically look at a real issue involved in English hegemony. Hence, the first debate topic was,‘Should English be the official language of instruction in Africa?”
As the semester continued I started to question this topic I chose. I wrote in my journal,“the students seem to be very lack luster about this topic.” Although I thought the spread ofglobal English, was suitable for advanced learners, I became very aware that not all students
are necessarily interested in this topic. I wrote in my journal about a student who talked to me
after class concerning the topic of ‘English as a global language’. I wrote, “this student told
me it was obvious that everyone is overwhelmed by the power of the English language. He
said that the topic was interesting at first but soon became very repetitive he wished he could
have spent more time discussing various topics not related to the spread of English.” I had a
lot of empathy for students who wanted to improve their English but were not interested inthis subject.
Test Standardization
Most Japanese universities, including IU, operate under a traditional model of education,
which includes high stake tests, accountability, mandated objectives and final products.
These are all characteristics of curriculum as product, which, as mentioned previously,
philosophically I rejected. Despite my desire to create a curriculum in line with curriculum as
praxis and reject curriculum as product I realized through my reflection that there are still
many aspects of my curriculum that are characteristics of curriculum as product. This can be
attributed to that fact that I work within a Japanese university, that is designed in a top down
structure. I am one of five coordinators who create and manage the English curriculum. My
97

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

specific duty is to manage the Advanced English curriculum for six classes, with fivedifferent teachers.
As AE course coordinator I have to adhere to the university regulations and objectives.
When designing the curriculum, I first worked together with the other English level
coordinators to set the objectives for each course within the entire English curriculum. These
objectives then had to be approved by the top of the Japanese bureaucracy I operate in.
Therefore the specific objectives in writing, speaking, listening, grammar and reading for AE
were decided and the curriculum adhered to these objectives. An example of one of thespecific objectives for reading is, “Use a range of skills such as skimming, scanning andsummarizing that they can use to extract meaning from academic texts.” Therefore I designed
a lesson plan on skimming, scanning and summarizing. It was after the objectives were madethat I designed the lesson plans and assessments.
Overall, these assessments focused on products and did not encourage students to be
critical as in curriculum as praxis or to use their imagination as in curriculum as process. The
assessments comprised of four multiple choice tests, four summaries of different readings andtwo research papers. The multiple choice tests and summary writing can be classified in the
curriculum as product model. The multiple choice tests were computerized and were usedbecause they are easy to grade and easy to standardize so that all teachers could use them.
Although they were meant to test students on critical reading they still were mainly testing
students on their ability to answer the questions and did not promote criticality or
imagination. I questioned this in my journal writing, “How do these tests promote curriculum
as praxis in anyway?”
The summary writing assessments also represents curriculum as product. I taught
students how to summarize the readings I selected by providing a power point thathighlighted the main points of the reading. When the students turned in their summaries I
was surprised by their similarity in their structure and their restatement of the main ideas.
When I expressed this sentiment to my students at the end of the semester, many admitted torelying heavily on the power points I used in class in order to understand the text. The ironyof this was that I had tried to spend time making student-centered power points, only showing
students the authors’ main claims after the students first discussed them. I hadn’t realized
though that many students had never realized and negotiated the authors’ main ideas on theirown; instead, they had just waited for my interpretation. This was frustrating to me, as I had
originally envisioned a class where students negotiated their own meaning. Instead theyrelied on the teacher’s interpretation. Since the summaries were all copied from my power98

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

point I felt that I transferred a body of knowledge to my students as in the product model(Young, 1998).
After the Reflection: Resolutions for the Future
Based on my reflection, I realized there were two areas I wanted to change in the AE
course:1. Student voice
2. Compromise between curriculum as product and curriculum as praxis

Enhancing Student Voices
I realized through my critical reflection that my need to control the classroom limited myability to promote student voices. By choosing the topic beforehand I could lesson plan inadvance and become an “expert” on that topic. However, being an expert and imparting
teacher knowledge to the students is the curriculum as product model which I theoreticallyrejected. I need to abandon my need to control and instead co-create knowledge with thestudents. I realized my topic was not relevant for the students, especially because it waschosen by the teacher. For my future curriculum I want to let students choose the topic,
instead of deciding for them. Therefore, in the future I will try to build in more opportunities
for students to negotiate the content. We are using a textbook next semester and I plan onallowing students the opportunity to choose which subjects they would like to discuss. I also
want them to create the central thematic questions. I hope this leads to me taking on more ofa role as facilitator next semester. By infusing the course with more opportunities for student
voice I believe the curriculum will become more meaningful to students.
Compromise between Curriculum as Product and Curriculum as Praxis
Through this critical reflection I became more discerning of curriculum as praxis andterms such as emancipation and transformative process. I realized that within curriculum as
praxis emancipation refers to freeing oneself from the oppressive nature of the dominant
power in society, but I wonder if it is possible to ever really be free from it. TOEFL tests andhigh stakes standardized tests certainly qualify as “dominant power” but like it or not, that ispart of the educational system students operate in and by not preparing students for these tests
I am not preparing them to succeed in world where English is used as a global language. I see
my role as a language broker, helping students access the English language which will only99

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

empower them. I want to make students more critically aware but I am not sure I want to“emancipate them.” Overall, it is hard to divorce a curriculum completely from the traditional
product approach for curriculum because university education is still steeped inaccountability and assessment. Designing a curriculum is not black and white, product or
praxis. I realized when analyzing the curriculum there is a way to adhere to the constraints ofcurriculum as product but also add some elements of the other curriculum models.
One way I found a compromise between curriculum as product and curriculum as praxis
was by keeping the multiple choice tests but adding a critical analysis section to it. I decided
to keep the multiple choice tests because they help students prepare for other standardized
tests such as TOEFL and IELTS, as mentioned before, which is part of the overall higher
education and employment system, which ultimately the students are trying to join. Many of
my students want to study abroad, or attend graduate school in the West and in order for
those students to accomplish this, they need to score well on these tests and it is my
responsibility to prepare them for that regardless of if I agree with these standardized tests.
However, I was able to find a compromise to adhering to these tests and curriculum as praxis
by adding a critical response to a reading where the student could critically analyze the text.

Conclusion
Overall, I have dissected my curriculum through the lens of three models, curriculum as
praxis, curriculum as process and curriculum as product. Although the course was successful
in terms of student praise and popularity, it is imperative to reflect on any course, especiallywhen attempting to maintain more critical elements to a curriculum. Teacher reflection is oneof the components of critical pedagogy. Billig, (2000, as cited in Starfield, 2004) states:
Those of us that see ourselves as operating within a critical paradigm have a
responsibility to continually challenge received orthodoxies, be they in the so-called
mainstream, uncritical paradigms or within research and teaching that situates itself
within a critical frame. Therefore, teachers need a perpetual vigilance in our practices toguard against complacency (p. 138).
Exposing my inconsistencies in terms of curriculum creation encountered in my class isvery humbling. Although I strived for a curriculum as praxis it was not always possible.
Moreover, there are still aspects of my curriculum that are product and process. Currently, I
do not think it will be possible to divorce my course completely from the product approach

100Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

considering I work at a small Japanese private university. However, I will continue to strive
to create a curriculum of praxis and promote criticality in my classroom.

101

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

References
Ajayi, L. (2011). Teaching Alternative Licensed Literacy Teachers to Learn from Practice: A
Critical Reflection Model. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(3), 169-189.
Bakhtin, M. and Volosinov, V. N. (1986). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Metnjka
L and Titunik I R (trans.) Cambridge MA., and London Harvard University Press
Boyce, M. (2011). Teaching critically as an act of praxis and resistance. Retrieved fromhttp://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/Vol2_2/boyce.pdf
Brito, I., Lima, A., & Auerbach, E. (2004). The logic of nonstandard teaching: A course incape verdean language, culture, and history. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Criticalpedagogies and language learning (pp. 181-200). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Denzin, N. (2000). Introduction. In Andrews. M., Sclater. S. D., Squire. C., and Treacher., A.
(Eds) Lines of Narrative: Psychosocial Perspectives. London Routledge.
Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Seabury
Press.
Giroux, H. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New
York: Routledge.
Gore, J. M. (1993). The struggle for pedagogies: Critical and feminist discourses as regimes
for truth. New York: Routledge.
Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or praxis. London: Falmer.
Hammond, J., & Macken-Horarik, M. (1999). Critical Literacy: Challenges and Questions for
ESL Classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 528-528.
Janesick, V. (1999). A Journal About Journal Writing as a Qualitative Research Technique:
History, Issues, and Reflections. Qualitative Inquiry, 5: 505-524.
Johnston, B. (1999). Putting critical pedagogy in its place: A personal account. TESOL
Quarterly, 33 (3), pp. 557-565.
Luke, C. & Gore, J. (1992). Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy (1st ed.). New York:
Routledge.
MacLean, M., Mohr, M., & Mohr, M. (1999). Teacher-researchers at work. Berkeley,
California: National Writing Project.
McKernan, J. (2007). Curriculum and imagination: Process, theory, pedagogy and action
research. London: Routledge.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. London: LEA.
Polkinghorne, D. (1995) Narrative Configuration in Qualitative Analysis. In Hatch, J. &102

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Wisniewski, R. (Eds) Life History and Narrative, (pp. 5-23). Lewes, UK: Falmer.
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications
Sikes, P., & Gale, K. (2006). Narrative Approaches to Educational Research. Retrieved fromhttp://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/narrative/narrativehome.htm#Narrative
accounts of research
Slattery, P. (2006). Curriculum development in the postmodern era (Second edition). New
York: Routledge.
Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000) Curriculum theory and practice' the encyclopedia of informal
education. Retrieved from www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.
Starfield, S. (2004). “Why does this feel empowering?” Thesis writing, concordancing, andcorporatizing university. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies andlanguage learning (pp. 138-157). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Stevens, C. (2009) Critical Pedagogy on the Web. Retrieved from: http://mingo.infoscience.uiowa.edu/~stevens/critped/definitions.htm
Young, M.F.D. (1998). The curriculum of the future: From the ‘New sociology of education’to a critical theory of learning. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.

103

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

Appendix
1. Think Pair ShareIn this activity the teacher provokes the students’ thinking with a question/ prompt orobservation. The students take a few minutes to “think” about the question. Then, thestudents form a “pair” and talk about their answer, comparing their answer and together
identifying the best most convincing answer. After students talk in pairs, they then “share”
their ideas with the rest of the class while the teacher records their answers on the board. This
was a useful activity because students learn by talking about the content, in this case English
as a global language. I found that students were reticent to share their ideas if I went directly
to a whole class discussion. This activity provided structure to the discussion by allowing
students to follow the prescribed process. By doing this it holds students accountable because
they must report to their partner thus limiting off-task behavior.

2. Mini debates
As the title suggests, mini debates were shorter debates, often done with little preparation.
I would choose some controversial topics related to the topic such for example, “The loss ofnational language and culture is inevitable with English as the global language.” Instead of
having the students discuss the topic, I would structure it as a debate to force the students tounderstand the main ideas associated with the affirmative and negative side. First the students
were divided into teams of two. I would divide the class into as many teams as possible sothat there were multiple debates going on so that all students could participate. I would givethe students ten minutes to prepare their arguments and then they would start an unstructured
debate where the teams would express their arguments. I would try to push students to
respond to other side’s argument. This activity, similar to other activities involved all thestudents and held them accountable so that they had to come up with arguments.
3. Information gaps
Another activity that promoted student engagement was the information gap. Gap
activities force students to ask each other questions in order to finish filling out their sheet.
Commonly used in lower level classes where students are practicing a particular target
language, I modified the activity to make it suitable for advanced language learners by having
them search for specific information that matched their paper. For example, in one activity I
had students match the correct claim with their data. This forced them to contemplate the104Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

criteria of a claim and data and forced them to find the best match. These activities weremeaningful for the students because they were all involved in the process equally andworking towards a specific goal.
4. Jigsaws
Another activity that promoted student involvement was the jigsaw. I found this activity
particularly useful because although the class was advanced, in reality there were manydifferent levels in the class. In the jigsaw lesson plan the teacher makes heterogeneous groupsof students, then divides them into new groups to become an expert on a topic. They can
become an expert by reading about the topic or researching it. Finally, they return to theheterogeneous group of students to report on their topic while the other group members takenotes and ask questions. This activity created a positive interdependence in the classroom andhelped students master difficult material in an exciting way.
5. Argument Mapping
One procedure that was very successful in getting students to logically put theirarguments together was a mind map software called Rationale. Rationale was created by
Austhink, 2004, and it is basically a tool for diagramming reasoning. Using this software inclass, students made argument reasoning mind maps. The software is also used to structure
student debates and their final research essay. I found that this really improved the student’s
ability to organize their ideas, arguments and visually see the weaknesses in their arguments
as well. We did many activities in groups where students looked at each other’s’ maps andgave each other feedback.
6. Online Discussions
Another activity I conducted that helped create a critically informed instruction was an
online discussion for students to participate and for teachers to give feedback. The online
discussion not only helps shy students participate more, but also encourages students to build
on one another’s perspectives to gain a deeper understanding of the materials. This facilitatedstudents in their examination of issues, such as culture, hegemony, Americanization, tobecome a dynamic process building overtime. The online discussion is also a great way tomonitor the students’ learning and help teachers identify which areas need clarification. This
forum became a great chance to play devil’s advocate, and force students to think more about

105

Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles. February 2016 Issue 90.

generalizations and question their original beliefs (see Americanization online discussion
later).
7. Mini Research Projects
In order for students to take control over their own learning I created mini research
projects once a week or every other week. For example, student conducted a project on‘English in your country.’ Students would have to do research and share their research totheir group which comprised of other students from other countries in order to compare andcontrast the English in their country. They were told to focus on: the history of English intheir country, general attitudes to the English language in their country, official policy withrespect to English in their county, the history of their personal relationship with English andfinally their own attitude towards English. Students enjoyed their own sharing of the research
on English education in their country and discovering similarities between their respective
country’s language policy and people’s attitudes towards English. I wrote in my journal,“Today’s lesson was so exciting. I didn’t know my students had so much they wanted to say
about English in their country, and questions to ask their classmates. Even though class had
finished students stayed behind to ask more questions and continue their conversations.”

106