Selected Papers of the 18th Conference of Pan-Pan Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

The Analysis of Junior High School Textbooks with a Focus on
Tasks
Hiroaki Shioda1 and Yoshio Hosaka2

1

Master course student at Graduate School of Social and Cultural Studies, Kyushu University,
2

Faculty of Foreign Language Department of English Language, Takushoku University
sh612shamrock@gmail.com, yhosaka@ner.takushoku-u.ac.jp

Abstract
This study is to clarify the quality of English textbooks from the point of view of communication. In Japan,
the curriculum for junior high school English was revised in 2008. Subsequently, English textbooks werealso revised in 2012 according to the guidelines of the new curriculum. The new curriculum puts more
importance on communicative activities. We adopted task analysis to examine the quality of English
textbooks. We analyzed the most popular English textbooks used in junior high schools in Japan: New
Horizon English Course. To assess the quality of tasks in the textbooks, we adopted the model developed by
Kawai, Hirata, Arai, Yokoyama, and Ohba (2002), following Skehan (1998). The three scales used are
distribution, interactional requirement and goal openness. The objectives of this study are (1) to analyze
Book1 to Book3 with a focus on the quality of tasks and (2) to compare previous English textbooks with newversions. As a result, there are no significant differences in quality among the new version English textbooksin terms of the three categories, and significant differences only between the new version Book1 and its old
version in terms of goal openness.

Keywords
English textbooks, tasks, communication ability

1Introduction

In Japan the curriculum for Japanese junior high school English was revised in 2008 and enforced in 2012.
Subsequently, English textbooks in junior high schools were also revised in 2012 according to the guidelinesof the new curriculum. One of the greatest differences between the old and the new curricula is the emphasison communication. The new curriculum puts more importance on communicative activities. With regard tolanguage activities, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology-Japan (MEXT)(2008a) state as below in the General Provisions of the new curriculum:
When teaching subjects etc., learning activities that necessitate students to use basic and fundamental
knowledge and skills should be emphasized and language activities should be enhanced by way of
preparing a solid linguistic environment necessary to deepen the students’ understanding of and interestin language and to develop their linguistic abilities, with an aim of fostering the students’ ability to think,to judge, to express themselves and so forth (p.4).
Furthermore, MEXT (2008b) state that “activities in which, for example, students actually use language toshare their thoughts and feelings with each other should be carried out” (p.3) in Foreign Languages. To sharethoughts and feelings with each other is exactly communication and the activities are regarded ascommunicative activities.
Although communication is a keyword, it is very difficult to examine how communication textbooks arecompiled. There have been some worthy attempts to do so (Uenishi, Hosaka, & Akase, 2012). In this study,
we adopt task analysis to examine the quality of English textbooks from the point of view of communication.

15

Selected Papers of the 18th Conference of Pan-Pan Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

2

BackgroundIn this section we examine basic communication abilities in the new curriculum and previous research ontask analysis in literature review.
2.1
Basic communication abilities
As it is generally accepted that “to develop students’ basic communication abilities such as listening,speaking, reading and writing, deepening their understanding of language and culture and fostering a positive
attitude toward communication through foreign languages” (MEXT, 2008b: p.1) has been the overall
objective of foreign languages, and ‘basic communication abilities’ in the new curriculum can be defined interms of those four abilities. The new curriculum puts more importance on communicative activities. As fortreatment of the language activities in the new curriculum, MEXT (2008b) explains that “activities in which,for example, students actually use language to share their thoughts and feelings with each other should be
carried out” (p.3). Such activities are very important for developing students’ basic communication abilities.
Since students attempt to communicate, using practical English when doing them, practical communication
abilities will be facilitated. Hirata et al. (2008) state that “English teachers have to consider making students
improve their communication abilities through language activities” (p.34) and propose an introduction of‘information gap’ into the activities. They also state that “the information gap is an essential factor foraccomplishing communication” (p.38) and students can improve their ability to use English effectively
through communication with information gaps.
In the new curriculum, the term ‘language activity’ is used. In this study, we use the alternative term‘task’, which had been used in a lot of previous studies.
2.2
Previous research on task analysis in Literature Review
Some studies on task analysis have been conducted in Japan. Kawai, Hirata, Arai, Yokoyama, and Ohba
(2002) proposed a model to assess pedagogical tasks in English textbooks, following Skehan (1998). Skehan(1998) classified tasks according to their features. The classification is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: The classification by Skehan (1998: pp.116-117)
Distribution
Type

Information

Task

Operations

Goals

Organization
Familiarity-

symmetric / asymmetricconcrete / abstract
immediate / remote
retrieval / transformation
few / many
arrange / decide vs. interpret
open / closed vs. tight / loose
focused / differentiatedconvergent / divergent

His classification has three main categories, which are information, operations and goals. Furthermore hesets up subordinate categories in each main category. Kawai et al. (2002) adopted the three main categories
and readjusted the subordinate categories.
Table 2: The model developed by Kawai et al. (2002: p.46)
Distribution
Information
Tasks
Operations
Goals

Type
Organization
Process
Interactional requirement
Elements
Open
Focused16

Two-way / One-way±Concrete±Immediate±Familiar±Structured
Retrieval / Transformation±Required
Many / Few±Open±Focused

Selected Papers of the 18th Conference of Pan-Pan Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics
Convergent±Convergent

The subordinate categories that Kawai et al. readjusted are distribution (two-way / one-way), type (±concrete/ ±immediate / ±familiar) and organization (±structured) in the category of information, process (retrieval /transformation), interactional requirement (±required) and elements (many / few) in the category ofoperations, open (±open), focused (±focused) and convergent (±convergent) in the category of goals. Kawai
et al. (2002) explain the definitions of these task features. We mention the definitions of distribution in the
category of information, interactional requirement in the category of operations and open in the category ofgoals in detail in the section 4.2. Now we mention the definitions of the other task features briefly. First, we
focus on the category of information. According to Kawai et al. (2002), as for type, tasks are assessed
according to whether or not “information and topics dealt with in them are concrete” (p.47), whether or not“information and topics dealt with in them are in line with a context of the situation” (p.47), and whether or
not “it is expected that learners have knowledge concerning information and topics of tasks” (p.47). As fororganization, tasks are assessed according to whether or not “arrangement of information and procedure ofprocessing information are expressed clearly or it is easy for learners to forecast them” (p.47). Second, we
focus on the category of operations. According to Kawai et al. (2002), as for process, “tasks which learners
retrieve necessary information as they are from information which they get are called retrieval-type task”(p.47) whereas “tasks which learners are required to interpret and transfigure information which they get inorder to complete a task are called transformation-type task” (pp.47-48). As for elements, tasks are assessed
according to whether or not “there are many necessary information processing elements for completing atask” (p.48). Lastly, we focus on the category of goals. According to Kawai et al. (2002), as for focused,tasks are assessed according to whether or not “final solutions of tasks are concise sentences or numericaland so forth” (p.48). As for convergent, “tasks which learners have common goals and learners are required
to reach a consensus of their opinions and so forth, exchanging information that they have are regarded as+convergent” (p.48) whereas “tasks which learners’ goals and positions are not common and learners are
required to state their own opinions in different positions are regarded as −convergent” (p.48).
Kawai et al. (2002) analyzed tasks in two textbooks, a Japanese high school textbook for speaking skills
and an ESL course book for speaking and listening skills, with the model. The model developed by Kawai et
al. is appropriate to assess the quality of tasks in English textbooks used in junior high schools in Japan.
Therefore, we decided to apply their model to task analysis from the point of view of communication.

3

Objectives

In this study we clarify the quality of English textbooks from the point of view of communication. In
this section we show the objectives of this study in detail.
The objectives of this study are
1. to analyze Book1 to Book3 of new textbooks with a focus on tasks.
2. to compare previous English textbooks with new versions.
By doing this, we clarify the quality of English textbooks.

4

MethodWe explain the method in this study, especially focusing on textbooks and tasks to be analyzed and theviewpoint of task analysis.
4.1
Textbooks and tasks to be analyzed
In this study, we analyzed the most popular authorized English textbooks at junior high schools in Japan:
New Horizon English Course at junior high school in Japan (Book1 to Book3) the new versions and the oldversions). There are 6 authorized English textbooks at junior high schools in Japan. The percentage use of
New Horizon English Course was 33.2% in the 2012 school year.
Table 3: English textbooks we analyzed
Textbooks

Publishing company

Authors

New Horizon English Course 1
New Horizon English Course 2

Tokyo shoseki
Publishing company

Kasajima et al.

17

Year
(Authorization)
2011
2011

Year
(Publishing)
2012
2012

Selected Papers of the 18th Conference of Pan-Pan Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics
New Horizon English Course 3
New Horizon English Course 1
New Horizon English Course 2
New Horizon English Course 3

Tokyo shoseki
Publishing company

Kasajima et al.

2011
2005
2005
2005

2012
2011
2011
2011

We need to define a task for selection of target tasks to analyze. A lot of researchers have defined tasks invarious ways. For example, Nunan (1989) defined a task as:a piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing, orinteracting in the target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form.
The task should also have a sense of completeness, being able to stand alone as a communicative act in
its own right (p.10).
Nunan defined a task, focusing on conveying meaning. On the other hand, Prabhu (1987) defined a task as“an activity which required learners to arrive at an outcome from given information through some process ofthought, and which allowed teachers to control and regulate that process” (p.24) in a narrow sense. These
definitions are not appropriate to select tasks in English textbooks used in junior high schools in Japanbecause of the narrow sense. Crookes (1986) defined a task in a broad sense as “a piece of work or an
activity, usually with a specified objective, undertaken as part of an educational course, at work, or used toelicit data for research” (p.1). In this study, we adopted the Crookes’s definition, which was also adopted in
Kawai et al. (2002) and other research. Based on this definition, we selected speaking tasks andcommunication tasks with speaking as the target tasks for analysis from the point of view of tasks that
require more communication with others. Tasks as a kind of drills were excluded from tasks to be analyzed.
4.2
Viewpoint of analysis
To assess the quality of tasks in the textbooks, we modified the model developed by Kawai et al. (2002),
following Skehan (1998). We adopted three scales from the model from the point of view of communication.
They are distribution in the category of information, interactional requirement in the category of operations
and open in the category of goals. As for these scales, we modified how to assess a little. There is no
modification in distribution. Kawai et al. (2002) explain that “tasks which a learner who has a part of
information and a learner who has the remaining information are created and each of them has both roles ofrequesting and supplying the information in order to complete a task are regarded as two-way” (p.47) and“tasks which a learner who has information and a learner who doesn’t have any information are created andlearners have either role of requesting the information or role of supplying the information in order tocomplete a task are regarded as one-way” (p.47). As for interactional requirement, we assessed at “required
or optional” instead of “±required”. Kawai et al. (2002) explained that “tasks which learners have different
information and need to request and supply the information each other in order to complete a task areregarded as +required” (p.48) (required) and “tasks which learners have different information and it is
optional for them to request and supply the information in order to complete a task are regarded as−required” (p.48) (optional). As for open, we changed the name of subordinate category from “open” to“goal openness”. We assessed at “open goal or closed goal” instead of “±open”. Kawai et al. (2002)
explained that “tasks which their goals or ways of completing the tasks are not restricted are regarded as+open” (p.48) (open goal) and “tasks which their goals or ways of completing the tasks are restricted are
regarded as −open” (p.48) (closed goal).
Table 4: The scales used in this study, following Kawai et al. (2002)
Tasks

Information
Operations
Goals

Distribution
Interactional requirement
Goal openness

Two-way / One-way
Required / Optional
Open goal / Closed goal

We focused on negotiation of meaning when we chose the scales, distribution in the category of
information and goal openness in the category of goals. When Richards and Schmidt (2010) describe
Interaction hypothesis (Long, 1996), they explain that negotiation of meaning “happens when interlocutors
attempt to overcome problems in conveying their meaning, resulting in both additional input and usefulfeedback on the learner’s own production” (p.290). They also explain that “language acquisition requires orgreatly benefits from interaction, communication and especially negotiation of meaning” (p.290) according18

Selected Papers of the 18th Conference of Pan-Pan Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics
to the hypothesis. As for distribution and goal openness, Long (1989) claimed that negotiation works areproduced more in two-way tasks and closed tasks.
As for interactional requirement in the category of operations, Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993) statethat comprehension of input, feedback on production and interlanguage modification are expected when eachinteractant is required to request and supply information. Based on this, we also chose interactional
requirement as one of the scales.
These findings suggest that English textbooks at junior high schools in Japan require two-way tasks,
required interaction tasks and closed goal tasks in order to develop students’ basic communication abilities.

5

Results

In this section we present the results of task analysis for the objective 1 (to analyze Book1 to Book3 of new
textbooks with a focus on tasks) and the objective 2 (to compare previous English textbooks with newversions).
5.1
Quality of new textbooks
We could have the data of each scale, distribution (Table 5), interactional requirement (Table 6) and goal
openness (Table 7) through analyzing tasks in the new version textbooks for objective 1. We employedchi-square test in order to examine significant differences among the textbooks in each scale.
First, as for distribution, it seems that the ratios of two-way tasks are much lower than those of one-waytasks in each textbook. As a result of chi-square test to examine significant differences among the textbooksin terms of the tendency, there are no significant differences among them (p = .717). Thus, it can be clear thatthe ratios of one-way tasks and two-way tasks in each textbook are almost the same.
Table 5: Distribution (The objective 1)
Two-wayBook1
9 (20.5%)Book2
5 (15.2%)
Book3
4 (13.8%)
Total
18 (17.0%)
Note: Ratios are shown in parentheses.

One-way35 (79.5%)
28 (84.8%)
25 (86.2%)
88 (83.0%)

Total
44
33
29
106

Second, as for interactional requirement, it seems that the ratios of required interaction tasks are lower
than those of optional interaction tasks in each textbook. As a result of chi-square test to examine significant
differences among the textbooks in terms of the tendency, there are no significant differences among the
textbooks (p = .256). Thus, it is clear that the ratios of required interaction tasks and optional interaction
tasks in each textbook are almost the same.
Table 6: Interactional requirement (The objective 1)
RequiredBook1
9 (20.5%)
Book2
10 (30.3%)
Book3
11 (37.9%)
Total
30 (28.3%)
Note: Ratios are shown in parentheses.

Optional
35 (79.5%)
23 (69.7%)
18 (62.1%)
76 (71.7%)

Total
44
33
29
106

Third, as for goal openness, it seems that the ratios of open goal tasks and closed goal tasks are balanced
in each textbook. As a result of chi-square test to examine significant differences among the textbooks interms of the tendency, there are no significant differences among the textbooks (p = .979). Thus, it can beclear that the ratios of open goal tasks and closed goal tasks in each textbook are almost the same.
Table 7: Goal openness (The objective 1)
Book1
Book2
Book3

Open goal
19 (43.2%)
15 (45.5%)
13 (44.8%)

Closed goal
25 (56.8%)
18 (54.5%)
16 (55.2%)

19

Total
44
33
29

Selected Papers of the 18th Conference of Pan-Pan Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics
Total
47 (45.3%)
Note: Ratios are shown in parentheses.

59 (54.7%)

106

5.2
Comparison
We were able to obtain data for each scale, distribution (Table 8), interactional requirement (Table 9) andgoal openness (Table 10) through analyzing tasks in the new version textbooks and their old versions forobjective 2. We employed Fisher’s exact test in order to examine the relevance between the new version
textbooks, the old version ones and the scales.
First, as for distribution, it seems that the ratios of two-way tasks are much lower than those of one-waytasks in each year Book. The tendency is seen in both the new version textbooks and the old version ones. As
a result of Fisher’s exact test in terms of this tendency, there are no significant differences between the newversion Book1 and the old version Book1 (p = .577). There are no significant differences between the newversion Book2 and the old version Book2 (p = .313). There are no significant differences between the newversion Book3 and the old version Book3 (p = .107). Thus, it is clear that the ratios of two-way tasks aremuch lower than those of one-way tasks in each year Book. This tendency can be seen in both new version
textbooks and the old version textbooks.
Table 8: Distribution (The objective 2)
Two-way
New Book1
9 (20.5%)
Old Book1
7 (21.2%)
New Book2
5 (15.2%)
Old Book2
9 (22.5%)
New Book3
4 (13.8%)
Old Book3
11 (29.7%)
Note: Ratios are shown in parentheses.

One-way35 (79.5%)
26 (78.8%)
28 (84.8%)
31 (77.5%)
25 (86.2%)
26 (70.3%)

Total
44
33
33
40
29
37

p
.577
.313
.107

Second, with regard to interactional requirement, it seems that the ratios of required interaction tasks arelower than those of optional interaction tasks in each year Book. This tendency is seen in both the newversion textbooks and the old versions. As a result of Fisher’s exact test in terms of this tendency, there areno significant differences between the new version Book1 and the old version Book1 (p = .520). There are no
significant differences between the new version Book2 and the old version Book2 (p = .403). There are no
significant differences between the new version Book3 and the old version Book3 (p = .249). Thus, it is clearthat the ratios of required interaction tasks are lower than that of optional interaction tasks in each year Book.
This tendency can be seen in both new version textbooks and the old version textbooks.
Table 9: Interactional requirement (The objective 2)
Required
New Book1
9 (20.5%)
Old Book1
6 (18.2%)
New Book2
10 (30.3%)
Old Book2
10 (25.0%)
New Book3
11 (37.9%)
Old Book3
10 (27.0%)
Note: Ratios are shown in parentheses.

Optional
35 (79.5%)
27 (81.8%)
23 (69.7%)
30 (75.0%)
18 (62.1%)
27 (73.0%)

Total
44
33
33
40
29
37

p
.520
.403
.249

Third, as for goal openness, it seems that the ratios of open goal tasks and closed goal tasks are balancedin the new version Book2, the old version Book2, the new version Book3 and the old version Book3. But it
seems that the ratio of open goal tasks is lower than that of closed goal tasks in the new version Book1,
whereas the ratio of open goal tasks is higher than that of closed goal tasks in the old version Book1. As aresult of Fisher’s exact test in terms of these tendencies, there are significant differences only between the
new version Book1 and the old version Book1 (p = .034). There are no significant differences between the
new version Book2 and the old version Book2 (p = .358). There are no significant differences between the
new version Book3 and the old version Book3 (p = .310). Thus, it is clear that the ratio of closed goal tasks ishigher than that of open goal tasks in the new version Book1, whereas the ratio of open goal tasks is higher
20

Selected Papers of the 18th Conference of Pan-Pan Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics
than that of closed goal tasks in the old version Book1. Besides, it is clear that the ratios of open goal tasks
and closed goal tasks are balanced in the new version Book2, the old version Book2, the new version Book3
and the old version Book3.
Table 10: Goal openness (The objective 2)Open goal
New Book1
19 (43.2%)
Old Book1
22 (66.7%)
New Book2
15 (45.5%)
Old Book2
21 (52.5%)
New Book3
13 (44.8%)
Old Book3
20 (54.1%)
Note: Ratios are shown in parentheses.

6

Closed goal
25 (56.8%)
11 (33.3%)
18 (54.5%)
19 (47.5%)
16 (55.2%)
17 (45.9%)

Total
44
33
33
40
29
37

p
.034
.358
.310

Discussions

Based on these results, we discuss the quality of English textbooks used in junior high schools in Japan interms of the objective 1 (to analyze Book1 to Book3 of new textbooks with a focus on tasks) and theobjective 2 (to compare previous English textbooks with new versions).
6.1
Quality of new textbooks
As for the quality of tasks in the new version textbooks, it is clear that the ratios of two-way tasks andrequired interaction tasks, which are important for developing students’ basic communication abilities, arelower. There are a lot of one-way tasks and optional interaction tasks in the textbooks and some of them are akind of exercise. This might be seen as one reason that the ratios of two-way tasks and required interaction
tasks are lower.
6.2
Comparison
As for the comparison between the new version textbooks and the old versions, the increase ofcommunication tasks named ‘Your Turn’ in the new version textbooks could be one of the reasons for thesignificant differences between the new version Book1 and the old version Book1 in terms of goal openness.
There are 19 ‘Your Turn’ exercises, which we regard as tasks to be analyzed in the old version Book1
whereas there are 37 in the new version. The quantitative difference of them between the new version Book1
and the old version is 18. We regarded 16 exercises of them as closed goal tasks. It might be seen as a factor
for the significant differences between the new version Book1 and the old version Book1 in terms of goal
openness.
Furthermore, it is remarkable that there are no significant differences in distribution and interactional
requirement, and also goal openness in Book2 and Book3. With regard to this, we understand that there arefew changes between the new version textbooks and the old versions although developing students’ basic
communication ability is supposed to be the main focus.

7

Conclusion

In this study we analyzed the tasks in English textbooks used in junior high schools in Japan in order toclarify the quality of the textbooks from the point of view of communication. By doing so, we clarified thatthe ratios of two-way tasks and required interaction tasks, which are important for developing students’ basic
communication abilities, are lower than those of one-way tasks and optional interaction tasks in the newversion textbooks. Also we found out that there are significant differences only between the new version
Book1 and the old version Book1 in terms of goal openness, but there are no significant differences in
distribution and interactional requirement, and also goal openness in Book2 and Book3. We think that more
two-way tasks and required interaction tasks should be introduced in English textbooks used in junior highschools in Japan in order to develop students’ basic communication abilities.
Furthermore, we found that the textbooks include speaking tasks and communication tasks as a kind of
exercise. Thus, we had some difficulties with analyzing these tasks with the scales we used. Therefore, it isnecessary to develop a new definition of tasks and scales for analyzing tasks in textbooks used in junior highschools in Japan. Furthermore, in this study we analyzed only one of the authorized English textbooks.
21

Selected Papers of the 18th Conference of Pan-Pan Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics
Further examination of the quality of other five authorized English textbooks is required.
It is very important for English teachers who work at junior high schools in Japan to understand thequality of English textbooks that they use. Moreover, they have to introduce communicative activities into
their English classes intentionally and appropriately in order to develop students’ basic communication
abilities.
References
Crookes, G. (1986). Task classification: a cross-disciplinary review. Technical Report, No. 4. Honolulu:
Center for Second Language Classroom Research, Social Science Research Institute, University of
Hawai’i at Manoa.
Hirata, Y., Inaoka, A., Kaneko, A., Saito, K., Sekikawa, M., Tarora, H., ...Yoshida, T. (2008). Heisei 20 nendo
kaitei chuugakkou kyouiku katei kouza gaikokugo. [2008 revised edition course of the curriculum forjunior high school foreign languages]. Tokyo: Gyousei.
Kawai, Y., Hirata, Y., Arai, Y., Yokoyama, Y., & Ohba, H. (2002). Akushon risaachi no tame no tasuku
bunseki. [Task analysis for action research]. A Collection of Essays in Celebration of the 15th
Anniversary of JACET Hokkaido Chapter, 43-54.
Long, M. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interactions. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in English
as a Second Language, 8 (2), 1-26.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. K.
Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.413-468). San Diego: Academic Press.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language
research and instruction. In S. Gass & G. Crookes (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating
theory and practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics (4th ed.). GreatBritain: Pearson Education Limited.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology-Japan (MEXT). (2008a). Chuugakkou
gakushuu shidou youryou eiyakuban: sousoku. [Course of study for junior high school English
version:chapter
1
generalprovisions].
Retrievedfrom
http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/07/22/1
298356_1.pdf
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology-Japan (MEXT). (2008b). Chuugakkou
gakushuu shidou youryou eiyakuban: gaikokugo. [Course of study for junior high school English
version:section9
foreignlanguages].
Retrievedfrom
http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/_icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/04/11/12
98356_10.pdf
Uenishi, K., Hosaka, Y., & Akase, M. (2012). English textbook analysis in China, Japan, Malaysia andThailand: a focus on Wh-interrogative questions. Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of
Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics. 12-21.

22