（別刷）

Challenges in Creating a Social Welfare Workbook

太田有希

アダウト・ジニーズ

生涯学習研究― 聖徳大学生涯学習研究所紀要 ―第 18 号

別冊2020 年 3 月

Challenges in Creating a Social Welfare Workbook
Yuki Ota & Adauto Diniz

Abstract
When instructors choose to write their own material to use in an EFL class, a lot has
got to be taken into consideration. An original set of materials to satisfy learners’ learningneeds requires assessment, ongoing trials and changes, research of best practices, andabove all patience to achieve the best outcome. A set of ESP materials to satisfy the needsof a writing class for university students of Social Welfare requires yet deeper researchand greater persistence. This action research paper shows the challenges and issues
first-timers faced in attempting to create meaningful materials for a specific group at theuniversity level.
大学３年生の一般英語のライティングの授業で使用する教材を作るため、教材研究と開発を行なうこと３年。使用する学生の学科や専攻に合うように、ニーズ分析を行い、教員や学生からのフィードバックをもとに教科書からワークブックになった。新たな文法を教えるのではなく、すでに知っている文法（現在形、過去形、未来形）を応用し、文章を書くことによって、英作文に対する抵抗を減らし、自信につなぐ。ワークブックが完成するまではまだ多少時間はかかるが、本論文では教材を作る問題や経過報告を紹介している。

There are plenty of writing textbooks available for En-

dents’ needs. The use of a generic syllabus saves time forglish language learners in the market. Some are general

instructors, but it does not always mean it is educationallywriting textbooks, while some are specifically for a field

meaningful for learners. The second option, on the otherof study (English for Specific Purposes, or ESP in short).

hand, was to create photocopied handouts from various

However, textbooks specifically about, or related to Social

textbooks. This would raise numerous copyright and legal

Welfare are very scarce, especially in Japan. Moreover,issues. The last option was the most ideal for our learners:

it is extremely difficult to find something that is suitablecreating an original set of materials that would satisfy thefor true-beginner level university students. There are sev-

learning needs of the learners. However, having to create

eral ways to tackle this problem: use a general writing

a completely new set of materials from scratch requires

textbook that is over the users’ level and provide sup-time and effort. What do students want and need? Whatplementary materials; create photocopied handouts fromare their levels? What linguistic proficiency are the stu-various writing textbooks; or make worksheets, activities,

dents required to achieve by the time they complete theand exercises from scratch. When considering what thecourse? What are the students’ interests and what kind ofbest course of action would be for their students while

activities will they be interested in doing? What do they

writing the syllabus for the upcoming year, two instruc-think about individual, pair, or group activities? These

tors thought the first option was out of the question, even

were just the first questions to jump-start the process forthough in reality there are plenty of institutions that uti-

creating tailored materials. The purpose of this action re-lize teaching materials that are not suitable for their stu-

search paper is to share and discuss the challenges and—1—

Yuki Ota・Adauto Diniz

issues that were faced as first-timers in attempting to cre-velopment. A single task must possess all four strands

ate meaningful materials for a specific group of students

to improve learners’ linguistic proficiency. According toat the university level.

Wiggins and McTighe (2005, p. 195), a “good plan forlearning” must be “engaging and effective.” They stat-

Backgrounded that the “goal is to affect (learners) on many levels;

Since 2016, two university instructors for general English

it must not be dry academic content, but interesting andclasses were assigned third year Social Welfare students

relevant work, intellectually compelling and meaningful”

to teach writing. The class sizes ranged from 25 to 40 stu-and through this learners “develop greater skill and un-

dents and their English levels varied from false beginners

derstanding, greater intellectual power... as they reachto intermediate. The students were studying to become

identified goals” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 195). In

welfare workers, psychiatric social workers, school nurses,

order to design a more engaging and effective set of ma-

and/or kindergarten teachers in Japan with a rather limit-

terials, they introduced the “WHERETO elements” thated opportunity of using English in their future workplaces.

served as a reminder when creating materials: “Where is

Notwithstanding students’ general indifference toward En-

it going?”; “hook the students”; “explore and equip”;

glish, in their Social Welfare Department, general English“rethink and revise”; “exhibit and evaluate”; “tailor

classes were required all four years. In their first year,

to student needs, interests, and styles”; and “organize

students reviewed basic grammar, which they should havefor maximum engagement and effectiveness” (Wiggins &learned in junior high and senior high schools. In their

McTighe, 2005).

second year, students continued with grammar with an

Wiggins and McTighe’s WHERETO contains numerous

emphasis on reading. The first two years of university

questions, which creators and designers should revisit fromEnglish classes were input-based. However, it was ques-time to time to prevent them from losing track of theirtionable whether these inputs were comprehensible andpurpose. Nation (2005, p. 95) suggested four types of tasks

acquired. In the third and fourth years of university, thethat would take learners “beyond their present level ofgeneral English classes focused mainly on output: writing

proficiency.” These were “experience tasks”, “sharedin the third year and listening and speaking in the fourthtasks”, “guided tasks”, and “independent tasks”. Ex-

year. In addition, in their third and fourth years, students

perience tasks had learners incorporate their past experi-

were requested to be taught specific language that would

ences into composition tasks, while shared tasks referred

help them in their future workplaces. In other words, theirto the collaborative learning experience. Guided tasks pro-English had to be ESP.

vided scaffolding to complete the exercises, and indepen-

There are copious amounts of textbooks available in thedent tasks left “learners to rely on their own resources”

market targeting a specific skill or combination of skills.

(Nation, 2009, p. 95). These tasks, as Nation (2009, p. 110)

The topics covered in these books are very general andargued, aimed to deal with the “gap between the learn-should not be considered ESP. It was particularly difficult

ers’ knowledge and the knowledge required to do a task”

to find a writing (or of any other skill) textbook that would

and showed that there is a variety of ways to approachbe an appropriate fit for the students in the Social Welfare

learning. By introducing different exercises, the learners

Department.

will be kept engaged, which is an effective way for them
to apply their knowledge into practical production.

TheoryNation (2009, p. 93-95) introduced four teaching princi-

Processes

ples (famously known as the four strands) which teachers

Creating a textbook is no easy task. However, basingmust keep in mind when designing materials or tasks. The

our work on Wiggins and McTighe’s (2005) ideas and sug-

four strands were: meaning-focused input, meaning-fo-

gestions, a simple flowchart was created to help design,

cused output, language-focused learning, and fluency de-plan, and visualize the process. The procedure included—2—Challenges in Creating a Social Welfare Workbook

six simple steps.

appropriate material for learners. This step is almost anever-ending process.

Step １: Target
Who would use this textbook and for what purpose?

Step ６: Publishing

Deciding on the target population and their proficiency

Once the textbook feels complete and ready for the next

was an important first step. Without having a clear target

step, writers may approach a publishing company or use

population, a purpose and an objective for creating a text-

an in-house publisher.

book, nor an idea of student levels, the final product will

Target Population

be unorganized.

The student users of this textbook were third year stu-

Step ２: Needs Analysis

dents in the Social Welfare Department in a women’s uni-

Conducting a needs analysis was crucial because a text-

versity in Chiba, Japan. The department was split into twobook should neither be too difficult nor too easy as, incourses: the Welfare course and the School Nurse course.

either case, it would not encourage comprehension nor

In each course, students could obtain licenses, or be eli-motivation to learn. By running a needs analysis of thegible to take the licensure exams, to become psychiatrictarget population, it would give a clearer view of the pop-social workers, social workers, school nurses (wellness

ulation’s characteristics and therefore provide a clearer

teachers), or nursery school teachers. Their English pro-focus on what kind of exercises should be included and at

ficiency levels were assessed by CASEC (Computerized

what level of difficulty.

Assessment System for English Communications) in theirfirst and second years of college. The graph CASEC Score

Step ３: Brainstorming and Outlining(see Appendix) shows results of first-year students in the

In the next step, writer(s) must brainstorm what toschool years 2015 - 2016 and 2016 – 2017, who were ju-

include and in what order, and whether the textbook isnior-year students in 2018 when this action research wasgoing to be content-based or task-based instruction. Also,presented.

writers must analyze if each of the chapters, units, or les-These scores compared two sets of first year students

sons are going to follow the same template throughout

who enrolled in 2015 and in 2016. As shown, the gap be-or whether it is going to be random in terms of ordering.

tween the highest and the lowest scores for both years

Going back to Wiggins and McTighe (2005), tasks must be

was significantly wide. Although these students were di-effective.

vided into ３ classes, in every class there would be one
or two students with a much higher English proficiency

Step ４: Visuals and Layouts

level than the others and there would be several who, de-Because there are many language learners who learn

spite their exposure to years of input, would be like true

better with visual aid, writer(s) must also pay extra atten-

beginners of English. Furthermore, the CASEC scorestion to visuals and the layout of each section or page of theshowed a drop in both highest and lowest scores after the

textbook. It is important that writer(s) see things from theend of their first academic year, with the exception of the

textbook users’ perspective and take into account what

2016-2017 students’ low scores, where there was a slightthey may feel when engaged in completing tasks.

improvement. These scores did not show any significant
improvement in the second year as well (not shown in the

Step ５: Executing, Revising, and Repeating

graph).

Testing out the materials and getting feedback fromboth the instructors and learners is important as thisFindings

provides an insight to what works and what doesn’t work.

Three versions of Social Welfare writing materials have

Revising the textbook based on feedback will make a morebeen made, tested, and revised since 2016. The first two—3—

Yuki Ota・Adauto Diniz

versions were textbooks, defined as “a book used as a

textbook to a workbook. Instead of having explanations ofstandard work for a study of a particular subject”, andgrammar points, the workbook contained more exercises

the third version was a workbook, defined as “a student’s

and tasks that required students to apply their knowledge.

book containing instruction and exercises relating to a par-In the first semester, students reviewed the simple (pres-ticular subject” (New Oxford Dictionary).

ent, past, future) tenses along with numerous pair-workand group-work activities in each lesson. Students wereFirst- and Second-Generations: Textbook (20162017 and 2017 – 2018)

given some autonomy on who they wanted to work with

The first two textbook versions contained progres-allowed learners to help fill each other’s knowledge gaps.

sive and perfect tenses with minimal explanation in En-

Students were expected to produce sentence-level writing

glish, and no review exercises for the simple tenses. This

and, towards the end of the first semester, they were chal-

was too difficult for students because, although they had

lenged to a paragraph-level composition.

on select tasks. The collaborative learning experience fully

learned the simple, progressive, and even the perfect tens-

In the second semester, students were engaged in pro-es on multiple occasions in their prior English language

ducing only paragraph-level writing tasks. Each writing

courses, students struggled to form basic sentences bytask required students to share their thoughts and write

themselves. This was mainly due to their lack of retention,

longer passages. By the end of the second semester, stu-

but there may be other reasons, which could be analyzed

dents were able to write five paragraph essays. In thesein a future article. Even though the textbook was designed

longer writing exercises, students were engaged and foundfor a writing course, it contained repetitive grammar exer-

effective ways of using grammar, words, and phrases theycises in which students showed great disinterest.

had learned in previous classes. Through numerous col-In the first semester, students were provided with exercises that required only short answers. In the second se-laborative problem-solving and learning experiences, students learned to elaborate on their writing.

mester, students were challenged to write in a paragraph,

In these writing tasks, students were given autonomy

though this was too demanding. Students were capable ofon topics they had to write. The second semester course-

writing short sentence answers, and yet struggled to write

work required students to write and present three written

multiple sentences about the same topic. Through ongoingworks. In the first written work, students wrote downobservations, the instructors could see that students did

their thoughts on certain things around them (i.e. priori-

not quite know how to elaborate – even in Japanese.

ty seats, English language education, aging population, toMoreover, the content was too field-specific. The use

name a few). In the second composition, students com-of fictional characters (both Japanese and non-Japanese)pared, took sides, and argued their points (topics included

that worked in relevant, Social Welfare-related fields, wasliving alone or living at home, cats or dogs, cooking at

expected to have a positive effect on the students. How-

home or eating out, and more). The third and final written

ever, the characters’ roles were so distant from students’task required students to research and talk about a topic

reality, that students had a hard time relating, which may

related to their majors. Students were encouraged to add

have had a negative effect onto students. Overall, the first

any topic of their liking to the list of topics during class,two generations of textbooks were too difficult, boring, andgiving them the autonomy to choose. This positively influ-

demanding. The students needed something much simpler

enced their composition quantity and quality. The sense ofand engaging. The instructors, too, had a difficult timeachievement students felt at the end of each task should

checking for comprehension when explaining the gram-

motivate them in their future studies.
After each written task, students were required to sub-mar points to students.

mit a typed copy to their instructor prior to their follow-

Third Generation: Workbook (2018 – 2019)

ing meeting, which would be copied and distributed to all

In the third version, the material shifted from being a

students in the class. Each student read their paper in—4—Challenges in Creating a Social Welfare Workbook

front of their peers, while the other students used a copy

enough absorbed input from previous years, and that theyof the script to follow, understand, and highlight sentences

would be interested in purely ESP texts, may have beenor ideas that were most appealing to them. This led to an-

the biggest errors.

other short composition, where each student would write

However, we have organized the current product based

down what they found interesting in every classmate’s

on a clearly defined target population, levels, purposes andspeech. Although this represents more grading for theobjectives.

teachers, the aim for this task was to encourage students

We have chosen to write our own set of materials toto learn to summarize and get more practice with gram-use in an EFL writing class, taking a lot into consideration.

mar points taught in previous semesters.

We have devised tasks that took into account Nation’s

The workbook allowed students to effectively use their(2009) four strands, not only targeting the final outcome.

linguistic knowledge and engage in writing. However,

Learners will have acquired greater understanding, skill,

there were some challenges, for example, when students

and intellectual power as they reach identified goals. The

refused to believe that simple sentences could deliver anmaterials also afford these learners with an opportunity

adequate, meaningful message. In the beginning, students

to develop their confidence in writing. Our current set ofresorted to using online tools to translate their sentences

ESP materials aims to satisfy our university Social Wel-

into English, which we had to stop, explaining that this wasfare students’ learning needs through an incorporation of

a form of cheating. It has been a great challenge to makeWiggins & McTighe’s (2005) WHERETO elements. This

sure students understand that, as arduous as it may seem,material has effectively been keeping learners engaged bythey can write as eloquently in English as they would inapplying their knowledge to practical production.

Japanese (or their L１). Another challenge faced was theAlso, as onsite trial and error evolved over the years,

overall lack of creativity in students. Students were seen

additional review from the writers and course instructors

waiting for their more capable peers or for the teachers

should provide further multiple perspectives and prove toto spoon-feed them with ideas or instructions every time abe significantly useful during the process.

new task would be assigned.

In sum, the suitability of an ESP workbook for a university class in the department of Social Welfare will

Directions for the Future

hinge on its being in tune with learners’ academic and,Receiving feedback and comments from a non-writer

subsequently, professional needs. A workbook with fewer

instructor has provided the material preparers an array

explanations of grammar points and with more exercisesof points to evaluate and redesign certain tasks for future

and tasks that require collaborative learning has provengenerations of the workbook. The writers will continue

to better meet these needs. In addition, having students

working with others (such as colleagues and students) andwork on tasks while engaging them in producing para-seeking feedback to make even more user-friendly, mean-graph-level composition that will lead up to writing about

ingful, engaging, and effective material. The workbook

their majors in Social Welfare has also mitigated students’should continue to expose students to written English in-general indifference toward English.

put and encourage output through written exercises andtasks that are tailored to their levels and to their depart-

References:mental interests.

(2010). textbook. In Stevenson, A., & Lindberg, C. (Eds.),
New Oxford American Dictionary: Oxford University

Conclusion

Press. Retrieved １ Oct. 2018, from

There have been various challenges and issues while

http://www.oxfordreference.com.

attempting to create meaningful materials for a specif-(2010). workbook. In Stevenson, A., & Lindberg, C. (Eds.),

ic group of university students. Assuming that students

New Oxford American Dictionary: Oxford University

would have reached their third year of university withPress. Retrieved １ Oct. 2018, from—5—

Yuki Ota・Adauto Diniz

http://www.oxfordreference.com.
Nation, I.S.P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. Routledge: New York.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by de-sign: Expanded ２nd Edition. Pearson Merrill Prentice
Hall: New Jersey.

Appendix

CASEC Scores
CASEC test scores conducted on two sets of first year
students in the Social Welfare Department in April 2015
and 2016, and January 2016 and 2017.

—6—