Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

The Effects of Classroom Oral Reading on Adolescent Japanese EFL
Learners’ Grammatical Proficiency
Nobuhiko Matsusaka and Kanji Horiguchi

Shiba Junior and Senior High School
nobuhiko-matsusaka@hotmail.co.jp, egfiend@aoni.waseda.jp

Abstract
This is a quasi-experimental study carried out in three sets of two school years at a private junior high schoolin Tokyo. It investigates the effects of classroom oral reading on Japanese junior high school EFL learners’
grammatical proficiency. The participants were three cohorts of students at the school, who were admitted totheir school at the beginning of three consecutive academic years respectively. The cohorts were taught thesame set of grammar items, but one cohort did oral reading in almost every lesson. The results seem tosuggest that while oral reading was effective in learning basic items, it was not as effective in relatively
complex ones.

Keywords
Grammar Teaching, Young Learners, Oral Reading

1

Introduction

1.1
Ideals of Japanese School ELTIn Japan, the overall policy of foreign language education in secondary school is outlined in the Course of
Study by Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). This is an official
document specifying the content of each school subject and its textbooks. “This official document presents
an instructional framework that includes general course objectives, course descriptions and contents to betaught, and guidelines for selecting materials, and is as much a political as a practical statement” (McGroarty
and Taguchi, 2005: 211). Looking at the wording of the 2008 Course of Study, it seems to be learners’communication skills that the government expect to be developed, i.e., the aim of the overall governmental
policy of secondary school English courses stated in the 2008 Course of Study is “to foster a positive attitude
to attempt communication; and to develop basic communication abilities in listening, speaking, reading, andwriting” (MEXT, 2008).
This definition of objectives in the Course of Study is considered to be identical to the general view ofmost Second Language Acquisition /Foreign Language Acquisition (SLA/FLA) professionals. That is, thepurpose of foreign language education should be to develop communicative ability by the learner in thetarget foreign language. The main target language, which is the obligatory foreign language, is English. Now
that English has become the main global language (Crystal, 1997), it is quite natural that the acquisition ofcommunicative ability in English should be the main purpose of English language education.
Yano (1999) shows that it is commonly accepted among many SLA/FLA professionals that learning aforeign language means not only learning the language itself but also learning how to communicate with its
speakers in socio-culturally appropriate ways. In other words, SLA/FLA learners should develop
communicative competence in their target language. Yano (1999) also points out that the notion ofcommunicative competence was first proposed by Hymes as a broader notion of Chomsky’s linguisticcompetence theory; however, the notion of communicative competence proposed by Celce-Murcia, Dörney
and Thurrell (1995) seems to be the most plausible to date. The model of communicative competence iscomposed of five subcategories: linguistic, sociocultural, actual, discourse, and strategic competence.
For the development of communicative competence, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) seems tobe the most plausible to be applied. Williams (1995) asserts that CLT is considered to be the current
mainstream in ESL, which has always been true since then. CLT, one of the methods of the Communicative
Approach (CA), directs learners’ attention mainly to the meaning of the target language rather than its
mechanisms, but it never neglects the importance of grammar. In CLT, the instruction of grammar manifests
itself as “Focus on Form.” This is a view of grammar in which the primary focus is on meaning or
62

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

communication (Long, 1991; Doughty and Williams, 1998). Celce-Murcia (1991) points out that grammar
should no longer be the center of language teaching or an autonomous system to be taught and learned
independent of meaning, social function, or discourse. Rather, she says, grammar should be taught as one
component of a general suite of communicative competence methods.
1.2
The Real Situation of Japanese School ELTThe extent to which the ideals of MEXT are materialized varies considerably with the school. While there
are schools which basically follow the Course of Study, there are schools which do not.
In Japan, oral reading as a method of English language teaching and learning has come into fashion sincearound the year 2000 (Kobayashi, 2006). It has been reported as an effective way to strengthen not only
learners’ awareness of the phonological aspects of English, such as sound-symbol relationships, rhythms,
intonations, stresses, the linking of English sound (Izumi, 2009). It is also thought beneficial for learners’
speaking skills when it is done repeatedly (Kunihiro, 1998).
On the other hand, there are schools where the Course of Study is not followed as faithfully. Teachers at
some Japanese secondary schools are finding communicative teaching difficult to implement because of theirteaching context. Sakui (2004) did a two-year longitudinal study by interviewing twelve junior high and highschool English teachers and observing classes taught by three of them. She reports that Japanese secondary
teachers of English are finding it too demanding to manage a communicative lesson, and that they are having
difficulties in sparing enough time for preparing a lesson involving communicative activities. As a result,although teachers recognize the importance of developing English communicative competence of theirlearners, they opt to conduct their lessons in a so-called grammar-translation style, employing ateacher-centered method with explicit grammar instructions and mechanical drills (Sakui, 2004).
Moreover, it seems that the actual purpose of English language education in each school can differ
remarkably depending on the needs of that particular institution. In other words, each school has its own
purpose for teaching English. This is not to imply that a completely chaotic system reigns, as high schools
may be grouped according to the purpose of English education related to its overall educational focus:
commercial, technical, general and so forth. Even general education high schools can be divided into several
groups according to the average T-scores of their students. For example, high schools with high T-scores areranked in the first class and called shingakuko. Many of the private shingakuko schools have their own
affiliated junior high school and provide the six-year unified school programs. In shingakuko high schools,
almost all students are expected to enter famous universities after graduation. Therefore, especially for firstclass private secondary schools, almost all of which are located in principal cities such as Tokyo, Yokohama,and Osaka, the main purpose of teaching English is to prepare their students for the entrance examinations ofthese famous universities, which include a number of grammar manipulative questions (Gorsuch, 2000).
Teaching methods that focus on grammar have been considered to be the most effective in aiding students topass the university entrance examinations (Tanabe, 1990). This is the present condition of English language
education in almost all first class private secondary schools in Japan and has been so for a long time.
1.3
Purpose of the Study
In view of the aforementioned ideals and actual situation, it is worthwhile to find a possible teaching method
which can fulfill both the governmental ideals, which are the Course of Study, and the necessity of grammar
teaching in the real teaching context. As long as oral reading has the aforesaid benefits on learners’communicative skills, it is necessary to reveal the extent to which oral reading can be fruitful for learners’
grammatical knowledge. Here, the grammatical ability focused on in this study is not exactly what the SLA
literature calls grammatical competence, which is the ability to structure and decode messages in terms of“the rules of morphology, syntax, semantics, and phonology” (Canale and Swain, 1980: 29). Rather, thisstudy is particularly interested in what Long (1988; 1991) names “Focus on Forms,” that is, the developmentof learners’ knowledge about grammar which centers around explicit grammar analyses and memorization of
independent grammatical rules.

2

Procedure

2.1
Participants
The participants were three cohorts of students (hereafter Groups A, B and C) at a private boys’ junior highschool in Tokyo. Almost all the students in the three groups started to learn English for the first time at thisschool and went through the same syllabus. They did so at different times; Groups A, B, and C entered theschool in 2010, 2009, and 2008 respectively.
63

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

All the three cohorts consisted of seven homeroom classes, each class having from 38 to 42 students withdifferent English and general learning abilities. At this school, the members of every cohort are shuffled andassigned to homeroom classes anew once a year at the beginning of a new academic year.
2.2
Method
2.2.1 Target Grammar Items on School Syllabus
At this school, the syllabus for all cohorts is fixed. It covers a period of three consecutive academic years.
The main grammar points listed in the syllabus for the first-year students are be-verbs, basic verbs, basic
adverbs, basic prepositions, the present and past tenses, the present and past progressive forms, yes-noquestions, wh-interrogatives, auxiliary verbs (can, may, must), basics of comparatives and superlatives, theexistential there, countable and uncountable nouns, and the determiners of English. The items listed on thesecond-year syllabus are auxiliary verbs (will, shall), tag questions, the five basic sentence patterns,
to-infinitives, negative questions, conjunctions (before, after, while, when, although, if, unless), phrases
including comparative or superlative forms of adjectives and adverbs, the present perfect tense, the passive
voice, relative pronouns and gerunds.
The syllabus requires the first year and the second year students to attend a 50-minute English lesson fivetimes a week, and it also requires that each grammar point be taught in eight to ten lessons.
2.2.2 Teaching Staff
As for the teaching staff, Groups A, B and C were taught by three different groups of four Japanese teachersof English. There was some overlapping of teachers among the three groups.
2.2.3 Grammar Presentation
The presentation of grammar items was given in class through grammatical analyses of example sentences inthe textbooks called Birdland junior English I (Yoshida, 2008a) and Birdland junior English II (Yoshida,2008b) (BJEI and BJEII respectively). These textbooks consist of 14 and 12 chapters respectively. Eachchapter of both the textbooks has three or four units, each of which is called Focus, a set of three to sevenexample sentences which contain the target grammar point(s) of each chapter. During and after the grammar
explanations, students in all the three cohorts were made to do grammar exercises, which were all adopted
from two grammar workbooks called Birdland junior English I: Kansei mondaishu (2008; Birdland junior
English I: Workbook for mastering grammar) and Birdland junior English II: Kansei mondaishu (2008;
Birdland junior EnglishI I: Workbook for mastering grammar). Kansei mondaishu I and II are grammar
exercise books attached to BJEI and II respectively. As there was not enough time to cover all the questionsin the workbooks, some specific questions were used for teaching all the three cohorts.
2.2.4 Reading Passages
All the three groups read passages from a reading section called Power Up attached to each chapter of the
textbooks. In Both BJEI and II, each Power Up section consists of a series of different reading passages, thelength of which varied from 30 to 160 words. Groups A, B, and C were all made to read one reading passage
from each Power Up section. The selection of the passages is not designated in the school syllabus. Rather,
the teaching staff in each year decided which passage to adopt before teaching.
In their first year, Groups B and C read the same set of ten passages, while Group A read twelve passages,
including six passages which Groups B and C also read.
In their second year, Groups B and C read the same set of eleven passages, while Group A read twelve
passages, five of which were the same passages that Groups B and C also read.
All the passages for the three groups in the first and second years were selected in such a way that they
contained at least one sentence which included the target grammar point of each chapter. Table 1 shows thenumber of reading passages read by the three groups in their first and second years.

64Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

Table 1: The Number of Power Up Passages Read by Groups A, B and C
CohortStarting
Year

Group A

2010

Group B

2009

Group C2008

Number of Power Up Passages
First Year of Junior High
Second Year of Junior HighSix passages read also by
Five passages read also by groups B
groups B and C; six
and C; seven passages not read bypassages not read byeither A or B
either B or C
The same eleven passages

The same ten passages

2.2.5 Oral Reading in Group A
In its first and second years of learning, Group A was offered less time for grammar analyses than Groups B
and C in order to set aside a certain amount of time for repetitious oral reading. The time allotted to oral
reading was five to ten minutes in each 50-minute lesson.
As to the Focus sections of each chapter, whereas Groups B and C took time to learn all of the sentences
through full grammatical explanations or precise grammatical analyses given by their teachers, Group A gavehigher priority to oral reading than detailed analyses given by the teachers. That is, grammatical explanations
or analyses were minimized in lessons for Group A.
Concerning the Power Up passages, they were introduced in the forms of listening comprehension withrecordings attached to the textbooks, reading comprehension and grammatical analyses of the sentences in
the passages. Again, in lessons for Group A, time for the grammatical analyses was minimized to make time
for repetitious oral reading.
The styles of Group A’s repetitious oral reading were decided by the teachers, who used various readingstyles from day to day. The typical ways of reading aloud were chorus reading, individual reading, fast
reading, timed reading, and a mixture of those methods.
2.3
Test
The study analyzed the results of the school’s annual English review tests. The tests are conducted at the
beginning of April every year. The tests examined in this study are the review tests taken by Groups A, B,
and C after their first year (hereafter Test 1; full score was 200) and the tests taken after the second year of
their learning (hereafter Test 2; full score was 200). The tests are designed in such a way that they cover theprevious year’s grammatical points. In Tests 1 and 2, the same questions were used for the three groups. The
language skills covered in both tests were listening, spelling, and grammar.
Of all the results of the two tests, this study specifically analyzed the performance in the grammar sectionsof both Tests 1 and 2, whose full sores were 90 and 60 respectively. The question types employed in thegrammar sections of Tests 1 and 2 were multiple-choice fill-in-the-gap questions, fill-in-the-gap questions
without multiple-choice items, sentence structure analyses, word-reordering questions, paraphrasingquestions, and translation from Japanese to English. Questions extracted from Tests 1 and 2 are shown inAppendices A and B respectively.

3

Results

The results of Tests 1 and 2 are shown in Tables 2 and 3 respectively.
Table 2: Results of Test 1
Group AGroup B
Group C

N
287
283
304

M
69.9
65.8
65.9

SD
9.5
14.2
13.4

N
282
281
303

M
47.0
45.6
46.8

SD
7.4
9.2
8.1

Table 3: Results of Test 2
Group AGroup B
Group CThe results of Test 1 were the following: Group A (n=287, M=69.9, SD=9.5), Group B (n=283, M=65.8,
65Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

SD=14.2), and Group C (n=304, M=65.9, SD=13.4). A Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance on Test 1
indicated that there was a significant difference among the three groups (χ2(2) = 12.85 , p < .001). A
supplemental Scheffe’s test (with alpha less than .05) revealed that Group A performed better than the othertwo groups did. The results of Test 2 were the following: Group A ( n=282, M=47.0, SD=7.4), Group B(n=281, M=45.6, SD=9.2), Group C (n=303, M=46.8, SD=8.1). A Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance on
Test 2 indicated that there was no significant difference among the three groups (χ2(2) = 2.05). The relation
between the score brackets and the number of students within the brackets is shown in Figures 1 and 2. The
horizontal and vertical axes represent the score brackets and the number of participants respectively.
70
60
50
Group AGroup B
Group C

40
30
20
10

0～
6～ 5
11 10
～
1 6 15～221 0～
2 6 25～3 1 30～3 6 35～4 1 40～4 6 45～5 1 50～5 6 55～6 1 60～6
66 5～
7 1 70～7 6 75～8 1 80～8 6 85～900Figure 1: Integrated Line Chart for Test 1
90
80
70
60
Group AGroup B
Group C

50
40
30
20
10

11
～
15
16
～
20
21
～
25
26
～
30
31
～
35
36
～
40
41
～
45
46
～
50
51
～
55
56
～
60

0～
5
6～
10

0

Figure 2: Integrated Line Chart for Test 2

4

Discussions

The aforementioned outcomes of the analyses of Tests 1 and 2 could suggest that Group A’s first-year oral
reading was effective significantly on Group A’ s first year grammar learning. However, the results also showthat oral reading in Group A was not as effective in their second year of learning. Let us consider the reasonsfor the results.
4.1
Difference in Age
The difference in the outcomes in Tests 1 and 2 may have been related to the difference in the participants’cognitive development. Namely, oral reading might have been more fruitful for younger participants.
It has been suggested in general that exposure to a massive amount of input is more effective for younger
learners (Thornbury, 1999). Moreover, repetitious oral reading may enable learners to be conscious of thebasic sentence structure patterns of English sentences (Griffin, 1992). This may have supported Group A in
dealing with various questions in Test 1. On the contrary, it has been argued that explicit and detailed
language rule analyses are more effective for mature learners, such as adult learners or young learners withhigh Intelligence Quotients (Ando, Fukunaga, Kurahachi, Suto, Nakano, and Kage, 1992). If it is the casethat the higher grade a student is in, or the more complicated the target grammar items become, the lesseffective oral-reading lessons become, then there might be a threshold point where grammar explanations
would prove more effective than oral reading.
4.2
Degree of Complexity
The difference between the first year and the second in the effectiveness of Group A’s oral reading can also
be considered due to the difference in degree of linguistic and/or conceptual complexity between thegrammar points in the first year and those in the second year. That is to say, oral reading in Group A may
have been effective on relatively simple grammar points which are easy to put into a chunk, whereas it may
not have been effective on more complex grammar points taught in the second year. Table 4 shows a possibleclassification of grammar points based on this assumption. Let us discuss the classification in detail below.
66Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

4.2.1 Simple grammar points in the first year
The grammar points in the first year may have been simple enough for Group A to understand while reading
aloud. The simplicity may be due to the fact that these grammar points are either (a) operations inmorphemic level, or (b) simple syntactic operations susceptible to chunking.
As to (a), grammar points such as plural –s, third-person singular –s and past tense –ed could have been
simple enough for Group A to recognize during their oral reading, which may have strengthened theirunderstanding of how those items behave in an actual sentence.
Regarding (b), the knowledge about the subject-verb agreement in use of be-verbs, the formation ofnegative sentences and yes-no questions, and the existential there may have been strengthened because they
form fixed sentence structures such as Are you-?, Is he-?, don’t, didn’t, Do you-?, Can I-?, There is a, Is there
any. Such structures may have been memorized by Group A as chunks while saying and hearing them during
oral reading.
4.2.2 More complex grammar points in the second year
On the other hand, items in the second year may have required either careful analyses of complicatedsentence structures or greater focuses on differences in meaning among similar language forms. It may havebeen difficult for Group A to decode complicated sentence structures or meaning at the same time they didoral reading. Such grammatical forms may be classified into the following three categories: (c) more
complex syntactic operations, (d) more abstract concepts, (e) distinction among items under the similar but
not the same grammatical points.
Grammar points grouped in category (c) would include relative pronouns and five basic sentence patterns.
Relative pronouns require the understanding of the concept of trace and clause embedding, which would
have been too challenging for Group A to fully grasp while reading aloud. Similarly, the five basic sentence
patterns may have required the distinction between different parts of speech and various word order patterns
during oral reading. Such mental processing may not have been manageable when Group A was reading
aloud.
Category (d) includes such grammatical points that several different meanings are expressed by one
language form. For example, the present perfect tense and to-infinitives can each convey several different
meanings according to the context.
Table 4: Possible Classification of Grammar Points
First year

Nature of grammar
points・Operations merely on
the morphemic level・ Simple syntactic
operations
often
susceptible
tochunking
Second
year

・

More
complexsyntactic
operations
・ Moreabstract
concepts

Examples・Plural –s・Third-person singular –s
・Past tense –ed
・Regular conjugation of comparatives and superlatives
・ Subject-verb agreement in use of be-verbs when sentence
subject is a pronoun
・Formation of negative sentences, yes-no questions, present
progressive and past progressive sentences
・Existential there
・Use of relative pronouns
・Distinction and use of different parts of speech according to fivebasic sentence patterns
・The present perfect as opposed to the past
・The meanings of to-infinitives
・Difference in usage between gerunds and to-infinitives

4.3
Effectiveness in grammatical analyses in Groups B and C
What is notable is that the performance by Groups B and C in Test 1 was not as good as that by Group A, butGroups B and C caught up with Group A by the time Test 2 was given. This shows that, as far as thegrammatical points dealt with in the second year were concerned, analytical learning may be more effective
than, or, at least, as effective as oral reading.

67Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

5

Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications

The results of this study suggest that oral reading is more effective in improving junior high school learners’
grammatical knowledge in areas where target items are characterized by relative grammatical and/or
conceptual simplicity than in areas where target items require comprehension of complex structures and/or
sophisticated concepts.
The above research results seem to have the following implications about the usage of oral reading as apossible method for teaching grammar to Japanese junior high school learners. That is, if the target grammar
points are relatively simple or if the learners are relatively young, teachers may be advised to incorporate anample amount of oral reading in their classes and, if the target grammar points are more complex or abstract
or if learners are more mature, teachers should focus more on grammar analyses than on oral reading.

6

Limitations

As this study is a quasi-experimental study carried out in three sets of two school years at a junior highschool, it has the following limitations.
Firstly, as Table 1 above indicates, the selection of the reading passages was not fully controlled. That is tosay, the frequency of appearance of some target grammar points was different in Group A on one hand andGroups B and C on the other hand.
Secondly, the teaching staff varied. The three groups were taught by three different teams of four English
teachers, who may have used different teaching skills and methods. It is possible to argue that thesignificantly high performance in Group A in Test 1 was due to the teachers.
Thirdly, the difference in the effectiveness of Group A’s oral reading between the first year and the second
may be attributed to the fact that Group A was exposed to first-year grammar points more frequently thanGroups B and C. First-year grammar points, such as the be-verbs, may have appeared much more frequently
than second-year points, such as the relative pronoun. This difference may have affected Group A more than
it affected Groups B and C because oral reading was done repeatedly, exposing Group A to the samegrammar points repeatedly and giving an advantage to Group A, which was not given to Group B or C. In
other words, the performance by Group A may be the result of frequent exposure rather than oral reading.
For further research, there seems to be a need for investigation on the frequency of appearance of eachgrammar point in the materials used by the three groups.
References
Ando, Juko., Fukunaga, N., Kurahachi, J., Suto, T., Nakano, T., & Kage, M. (1992). A comparative study on
the two EFL teaching methods: The communicative and the grammatical approach. Japanese Journalof Educational Psychology. 40, 247-256.
Birdland junior English I: Kansei mondaishu [Birdland junior English I: Workbook for mastering grammar].
(2008). Tokyo: Buneido.
Birdland junior English II: Kansei mondaishu [Birdland junior English II: Workbook for mastering
grammar]. (2008). Tokyo: Buneido.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretically bases of communicative approaches to second language
teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics. 1, 1-47.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly.
25,3, 459-480.
Celce-Murcia., Dörney. M. Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogicallymotivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics. 6, 2, 5-35.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Issues and terminology. In Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus onform in classroom second language acquisition (pp.1-11). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.
Griffin, S. (1992). Reading aloud: An educator comments. TESOL Quarterly. 25,2, 784-787.
Gorsuch, G. J. (2000). EFL educational policies and educational cultures: Influences on teachers' approval ofcommunicative activities. TESOL Quarterly. 34,4, 675-710.
Izumi, S. (2009). Focus on form wo toriireta atarashii eigo kyoiku [The new English language teaching withfocus on form]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Kobayashi, J. (2006). Eigo kyoiku houhou no kosatsu: Ondoku, ansho, hitsha [A study of English language
teaching methods: Oral reading, recitation, and hand-copying of written English]. STEP Bulletin. 16,
30-49.
68

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

Kunihiro, M. (1998). Eigo no hanashi kata [How to speak English]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.
Long, M. (Ed.), (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R.
Ginsberg., & Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp.
39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
McGroarty, M., & Taguchi, N. (2005). Evaluating the communicativeness of EFL textbooks for Japanese
secondary schools. In J, Frodesen., & C, Holten. (Eds.), The power of context in language teaching
and learning (pp. 211-224). Boston, Mass: Thomson/Heinle.
MEXT [Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology]. (2008). Course of Study.
Retrieved August 19, 2012, from http://ten.tokyo-shoseki.co.jp/downloadfr1/pdf/cey70148.pdf
Sakui, K. (2004). Wearing two pairs of shoes: Language teaching in Japan. ELT Journal. 58,2, 155-163.
Tanabe, Y. (1990). Gakko eigo [English in schools]. Tokyo: Chikumashobo.
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. London: Longman.
Williams, J. (1995). Focus on form in communicative language teaching: Research findings and theclassroom teacher. TESOL Journal. 4,4,13-16.
Yano, Y. (1999). What is it to learn a foreign language?—Nonnative speaker of English in the twenty-first
century. In Y. Kato. & R. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Second Language
Research in Japan (pp. 42-60).
Yoshida, K. (Ed.), (2008a). Birdland junior English I. Tokyo: Buneido.
Yoshida, K. (Ed.), (2008b). Birdland junior English II. Tokyo: Buneido.
Appendices
Appendix A. Extracted Questions from Test 1
第 3 問 次の問いの文または会話の 7 ～ 26 に入れるのに最も適当なものを、それぞれ下の①～③のうちから一つずつ選びなさい。
問 1 Hiroko and I 7 good friends.
① am
② is
③ are
問 2 “Whose desk is this?” “It’s 8 .”① her
② hers③ she
第 4 問 次の問いにおいて、日本文の意味に合うようにそれぞれ下の語句を並べ替え、 27 ～ 38 に入るように 3 番目と 5 番目にくる語句を答えなさい。
番目にくる語句
問 1 あなたの学校からは山が見えますか。
27
28?
① mountains② see③ from④ can⑤ you⑥ your school
問 2 授業中はうるさくしてはいけません。
29
30 .
① noisy② be③ in④ don’t⑤ class
第5問
Ａ 次の各組の文がほぼ同じ意味を表すように、空所に適語を答えなさい。
1 . A week has seven days.
＝ ( a )( b ) seven days in a week.
2. Is Mr. Yamada visiting London next month?
Ｂ 日本文に合うように、空所に適語を答えなさい。
1. I ( a ) get up early tomorrow morning.「私は明朝、早起きしなくてはならない。」
2. ( b ) is newer, this ( c ) that? 「これとあれとでは、どちらが新しいですか。」
Ｃ 下の内から適語を選び、必要があれば最も適する形にかえて空所に書きなさい。

69

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

She ( a ) a cake three days ago.
Kenji is in the soccer club. He usually ( b ) soccer after school.
He ( c ) cleaning his room then.
They are ( d ) in the sea.
Does Ms. Brown ( e ) Japanese? －Yes, she ( f ).

be
make
speak
play
swim
do

Ｄ 次の文を、それぞれ()内の指示に従って書き換えなさい。
1. Kumi went to the station by bus. (下線部が答えの中心となる疑問文に)
2. Hiroki sang an English song at the party. (下線部が答えの中心となる疑問文に)
Ｅ 次の日本文を英文にしなさい。
1. この味噌汁( this miso soup)には塩がたくさん入っています。
2. 彼の自転車は 4 台の中でいちばん新しい
Appendix B. Extracted Questions from Test 2
第 4 問 次の各問に答えなさい。
A. 次の日本文の意味を表す英文になるように、( )内から最も適するものを選びなさい。
1. 彼は今日の午後ここに来るでしょう。
21
He (1 can /2 will /3 has ) come here this afternoon.
2. パーティーに来てくれませんか。
22(1 Do you /2 Will you /3 Are you ) come to the party?
B. 次の
27
28
29
30
31
32

27

～

32

の下線部の不定詞と同じ用法を含む文を下の 1～4 より選びなさい。

I was surprised to meet her there.
Do you have a lot of things to do?
We went to the park to play soccer.
It began to rain.
There are many places to visit in Kyoto.
To write a letter in English is today’s homework.

1 Let’s go to the sea to swim.
2 I have something to give you.
3 I’m happy to meet you.
4 His work is to wash cars.

C. 次の英文の（）に入る最も適切なものを選びなさい。
1 Walk faster, (1 or /2 and ) you’ll be late for school.
33
2 (1 Before /2 When /3 Because ) I was young, I studied English very hard.
D. 次の英文の（）に入る最も適切なものを選びなさい。
1. It is important (1 for /2 of /3 at ) us to eat breakfast every day.
2. 私はあなたに E メールで結果をお知らせします。 40
I’ll (1 let /2 make /3 have ) you know the result by e-mail.

34

39

E. 次の 46 ～ X1 の英文と文型が同じものを 1～5 より選びなさい。
46
I got a camera.
1 I am very happy.
47
He named his dog Pochi.
2 She runs every morning.
48
The boy looks very happy.
3 I gave him a book.
4 He likes dogs.
49
Ms. Goto teaches us English.
5 We call him Black Jack.
50
I swim in the lake every weekend in summer.
X1
She made a dress for Jane.

70

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

F 次の英文の（）に入る最も適切なものを選びなさい。
1. We have (1 been knowing /2 known /3 knew ) each other for two years.
2. It has (1 been raining /2 rain /3 raining ) since yesterday.
X3

X2

G. 次の英文の（）に入る最も適切なものを選びなさい。
1. The building was (1 build /2 built /3 builded ) in 1950.
X9
2. That picture (1 is taking /2 was taken /3 takes ) in Nara.
X10
H. 次の英文の（）に入る最も適切なものを選びなさい。
1. She has a dog (1 whose /2 which /3 whom ) has blue eyes.
X16
2. I have a friend (1 whom /2 who /3 which ) works in Sapporo.
X17
I. 次の英文の( )内の動詞の最も適切な形にするとき、不定詞
不定詞(
なら 1 を、動名詞(
なら 2
不定詞 to --- )ならを、動名詞 --- ing )ならを、不定詞でも動名詞でもどちらでもよいものは 3 をマークしなさい。
1. I like ( listen ) to music.
X24
2. They want ( play ) soccer in the park.
X25
第 5 問 （英作文） 次の日本語を英文にしなさい。
1. レイチェル(Rachel)は大学(college)に行くことを決めた。
2. あなたはどこで生まれたのですか。

71