Development Paper : Adolescent Health

Effective Teaching-Learning Process for Training
Assertive Communication Skills
Kohei Yamada*, Naoshi Maeuezato** and Kazuyoshi Ohtsu****

Department of School Health Sciences, Aichi University of Education
1 Hirosawa, Igaya-cho, Kariya, Aichi 448-8542 Japan
koyamada@auecc.aichi-edu.ac.jp**
Department of Health Education, Hokkaido University of Education
5-3-1 Ainosato, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 002-8501 Japan***
Department of Sports Promotion, Nihon Wellness Sports University
1377 Ooazanunokawa, Tone, Ibaraki 300-1622 Japan[Received June 22, 2010 ; Accepted January 26, 2012]

The purpose of this study was to investigate teaching-learning processes for training life
skills. A life skills training program with a focus on assertive communication skills was
conducted at elementary schools in Chiba prefecture and Tokyo on 278 fifth-grade students.
The basic training for life skills development includes the following five stages;
1) Instruction: Learning the meaning of assertive communication skills (cognitive domain),2) Modeling: Observing the model,3) P ractice: Participating in role-play,4) Feedback: Receiving positive feedback and comments on their role-play from otherstudents,5) R einforcement: Writing a statement declaring the intention to use assertive communicationin everyday life.
Cognitive domain (how to develop assertive communication skills) was used in the instruction
stages, and self-efficacy formation (affective domain) was used in the modeling, practice, andfeedback stages.
Students were placed into one of four training programs: a cognitive and self-efficacy
formation training program (80 students), a cognitive domain training program (55 students),
a self-efficacy formation training program (56 students), and a program for basic developmentof life skills (87 students). An assertiveness scale, self-efficacy scale and self-esteem scale forchildren were used for evaluation before the class, right after the class, a week after the classand a month later. Formative assessment was used in class.
The main results were as follows:
1) The group which adopted cognitive domain development attained skills more effectively
immediately after the class. The group that adopted affective formation (self-efficacy
formation) was able to attain the skills more effectively after one week, and also one monthafter the class.
2) It was effective to incorporate cognitive development and self-efficacy formation into theteaching-learning process when trying to develop assertive communication skills.
It can be concluded from this study that, in addition to the five basic processes of life skill
development, it is effective to incorporate a ‘how to develop’ assertive communication skills
program as well as self-efficacy formation into the teaching-learning process for assertive
communication training.
Keywords: teaching-learning process, assertive communication skills,
cognitive domain (development), affective domain (formation)[School Health Vol.9, 45-58, 2013]

School Health Vol.9, 45-58, 2013
http://www.shobix.co.jp/sh/hpe/main.htm

45

Yamada K., et al.

1. Introduction
The Division of Mental Health of the World
Health Organization (WHO) established guidelines
for life skills education in 1994 and advocated its
introduction into school curricula worldwide to help
children and adolescents acquire life skills in theearly stage of their development and enable them toavoid risky situations (e.g., drinking, smoking, drugabuse, school truancy, and stress) (WHO, 1994). In
the guidelines, life skills are defined as “abilities
for adaptive and positive behavior that enable
individuals to deal effectively with the demands
and challenges of everyday life.” The “abilities”
here indicate psychological/social skills, which areroughly classified into five groups and ten categories,
and include skills for communication, coping withemotions, coping with stress, and problem solving(WHO, 1994).
To clarify the status of life skills education
provided as part of health education (HE) at Japanese
schools, physical education teachers and school
nurse teachers in charge of HE were asked to indicate
what they believed was the most necessary life
skills education category (of the five groups and10 categories) and what they felt were problems
associated with life skills education (Ono et al., 2002;
Watanabe et al., 2006). Respondents indicated that
communication was the most important life skills andthat problems associated with life skills education
were “a lack of knowledge in life skills education
methods” and “difficulties in assessing students.”
Reports on current life skills education programs
also indicate the presence of controversial issues. For
example, in an analysis based on the taxonomy ofeducational objectives (Kajita, 2005), some teachers
solely placed their emphasis on the formation ofskills (behavior domain) without approaching thetarget education from the cognitive or affective
domains while other teachers provided life skills
education without evaluating whether it was effective
in helping students acquire or reinforce the skills
being taught. In order to further enhance and promote
life skills education, it is necessary for educators toapproach it from all three target educational domains:the cognitive, affective, and behavior domains. In
other words, it is necessary to incorporate cognitive
development (the cognitive domain) and affective
development (the affective domain) into the basic
teaching/learning process of skill formation, which is46

an approach from the behavior domain (Aikawa andTumura, 1996; Kokubun, 1999). It is also important todevelop an effective teaching/learning process basedon results of assessments (formative evaluations, andimmediate, follow-up assessments).
Life skills education should emphasize
communication skills, which teachers have indicatedas the most important. Wolpe et al. (1996) classified
communication patterns into three categories: selfcentered communicators with no consideration forothers (aggressive pattern), unselfish communicators
who give full priority to others (passive pattern), andcommunicators who prioritize themselves but withdue consideration for others (assertive pattern). To
develop assertive communication skills, Bower et al.
suggest that individuals need to describe the otherparty, express your mind, specify your idea, andexplain why you choose to think so (Bower et al.,1991). Therefore, it is of significant importance todeepen individual awareness of these four essential
activities to develop assertive communication skills.
To achieve effective development, attention should
also be paid to the association with self-esteem andself-efficacy, which are thought to be involved in theenhancement of life skills, including communication
skills (WHO, 1994; Ohtsu, 1999). It has been clarified
that self-esteem and self-efficacy are deeply related tocommunication skills (Maeda et al., 1998; Yamada etal., 2003). Of these, self-efficacy is defined as “one’s
belief in one’s ability to take the action to produce
certain results” (Bandura, 1977), and this affects
individual behavior. It has been reported that highself-efficacy influences motivation for the learningor achievement of life skills regardless of the degreeof innate skill (Iida et al., 2001). This indicates thatlife skills development may be effectively achieved
through four approaches (sources of information)
for the enhancement of self-efficacy advocated byBandura (1997); “enactive attainment,” “vicarious
experience,” “physiological and effective states,” and“verbal persuasion”.
This study aimed to show that incorporation of
cognitive development and affective development(self-efficacy formation) in the basic life skills
teaching/learning process was effective for theformation of assertive communication skills.
In a one-hour group instruction setting, there is alimit to the formation of assertive communication
skills without continuous intervention. In this study,
therefore, validation was performed with a focus on
School Health Vol.9, 45-58, 2013
http://www.shobix.co.jp/sh/hp/main.htm

Effective Teaching-Learning Process for Training Assertive Communication Skills

cognitive development and affective development
as the basic stage in the formation of assertive
communication skill.

2. Methods
2.1. Subjects
A s s h o w n i n Ta b l e 1 , q u e s t i o n n a i r e a n dexperimental class (HE) were conducted for 278 fifth
grade students (147 boys and 131 girls) at elementary
schools A and B in Chiba Prefecture during the period
from September to December 2007. During the period
from November to December 2007, questionnaires
were conducted on 121 fifth grade students (60 boys
and 61 girls) at elementary schools C and D in Chiba
and E in Tokyo.

2.2. Method of Teaching the HE Class2.2.1. Goal of the Class
The teaching material selected for the class was“(A) Mental Development” in “Mental Health”, abooklet for 5th graders designed for use in the HE
section of physical education specified in the current
elementary school course of study (Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology,2008). The goal of the class was for children toacquire self-expression skills that would enable themto express their own opinions to others. “Acquirementof self-expression skills” in this case was definedas the ability to use assertive communication skills.
The sub-goals (from the viewpoint of formativeevaluations) of the class are listed under point (1) to(4) below. Because of the possibility of children toerroneously interpret the term “assertion” as “selfcentered” behavior associated with the attitude ofbeing concerned only with oneself, the term was
replaced with “self-expression” in the class in order toensure that all the children understood that the target
term implied consideration not only for oneself but
also for other people as well as to use the same termpresented in the school curriculum guidelines.
(1) Interest/ willingness/ attitude (Anderson and
Krathwohl, 2001): The ability to participate in roleplaying to acquire self-expression skills.
(2) Cogitation/ judgment/ expression (Anderson
and Krathwohl, 2001): The ability to choose the most
preferable of the three communication patterns. The
ability to find four essential factors in self-expressivelines and underline the applicable parts.
(3) Knowledge/ understanding (Anderson and
Krathwohl, 2001): The ability to explain each of thethree communication patterns.
(4) Life skills: The ability to deliver self-expressivelines with true feelings in the role-play.
2.2.2. Instruction Group and Non-Instruction
Group (Control Group)
As conditions for class design, cognitive formation
was to be developed as follows: In the “Instruction”
process in the basic life skills teaching/learning
process presented in Table 2, it was decided tolead the children to attain cognitive development
in terms of the four essential factors for assertive
communication: 1) Describing the other party, 2)
Expressing your mind, 3) Specifying your idea, and
4) Explaining why you choose to think so. These

Table 1 Subjects of the instruction group and the control group
5EJQQNNQECVKQP

5EJQQNUK\G

5WDLGEV+PUVTWEVKQPITQWR
;%KV[ OGFKWOUK\GEKV[%QIPKVKXGFGXGNQROGPVUGNHGHHKECE[HQTOCVKQPITQWR (%KV[ OGFKWOUK\GEKV[

#'NGOGPVCT[5EJQQN NCTIG

ENCUUGUEJKNFTGP

$'NGOGPVCT[5EJQQN OGFKWOENCUUEJKNFTGP

;%KV[ OGFKWOUK\GEKV[

#'NGOGPVCT[5EJQQN NCTIG

ENCUUEJKNFTGP

(%KV[ OGFKWOUK\GEKV[

$'NGOGPVCT[5EJQQN OGFKWOENCUUEJKNFTGP%QIPKVKXGFGXGNQROGPVITQWR
5GNHGHHKECE[HQTOCVKQPITQWR$CUKEITQWR%QPVTQNITQWR

;%KV[ OGFKWOUK\GEKV[

#'NGOGPVCT[5EJQQN NCTIG

ENCUUEJKNFTGP

(%KV[ OGFKWOUK\GEKV[

$'NGOGPVCT[5EJQQN OGFKWOENCUUEJKNFTGP

;%KV[ OGFKWOUK\GEKV[

#'NGOGPVCT[5EJQQN NCTIG

ENCUUGUEJKNFTGP

;%KV[ OGFKWOUK\GEKV[

$'NGOGPVCT[5EJQQN OGFKWOENCUUEJKNFTGP

;%KV[ OGFKWOUK\GEKV[

%'NGOGPVCT[5EJQQN OGFKWOENCUUGUEJKNFTGP

+%QWPV[ TWTCN

&'NGOGPVCT[5EJQQN OGFKWOENCUUGUEJKNFTGP

59CTF WTDCP

''NGOGPVCT[5EJQQN OGFKWOENCUUEJKNFTGP

School Health Vol.9, 45-58, 2013
http://www.shobix.co.jp/sh/hpe/main.htm

EJKNFTGPEJKNFTGPEJKNFTGPEJKNFTGPEJKNFTGP

47

Yamada K., et al.

Table 2 Teaching/ Learning Process in the Cognitive Development/ Self-Efficacy Formation Group3URFHVV/HVVRQDQGDFWLYLWLHV

4XHVWLRQ:KHQGRZHXVXDOO\EHFRPH  DQJU\  IUXVWUDWHGRU  QHUYRXV"

5HFRJQL]H࡮:ULWH\RXUDQVZHUVIRU  WR  RQWKHZRUNVKHHW

࡮+DYH VHYHUDO FKLOGUHQ ZULWH WKHLU DQVZHUVRQWKHEODFNERDUG
([SODQDWLRQ:HRIWHQH[SHULHQFHVWUHVVVXFKDVJHWWLQJIUXVWUDWHGRYHUWURXEOHDVVRFLDWHGZLWKRWKHUV,WLVLPSRUWDQWWRFRPPXQLFDWHZHOOZLWKRWKHUVWRHVWDEOLVKJRRGUHODWLRQVKLSV

)LQG



,QVWUXFWLRQ:RUNVKHHW
:6 

:6
4XHVWLRQ  7KHUH DUH WKUHH W\SHV RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQPHWKRGV SDVVLYH DJJUHVVLYH DQG DVVHUWLYH:KLFKW\SHGR\RXWKLQNLVLGHDO":ULWH\RXUDQVZHULQWKHER[             
࡮ 6HOHFWHG FKLOGUHQ  SHUIRUP WKUHH W\SHV RI ([SODQDWLRQ([SODLQWKHWKUHHFRPPXQLFDWLRQW\SHV DQG IRXU IDFWRUV RI HVWDEOLVKPHQW RIFRPPXQLFDWLRQLQIURQWRIWKHRWKHUFKLOGUHQ)RUPDWLYH
DVVHUWLYHFRPPXQLFDWLRQVNLOOVDVVHVVPHQW  
4XHVWLRQ  8QGHUOLQH WKH SDUWV WKDW UHSUHVHQW DQ\ RI WKH IRXU HVVHQWLDO IDFWRUV RI DVVHUWLYH
FRPPXQLFDWLRQDQGSXWWKHFRUUHVSRQGLQJQXPEHU WR XQGHUHDFKOLQH D 


7KLQN

$VVHVVPHQWWHDFKLQJPDWHULDO6XSSRUWIURPWKHWHDFKHU([SODQDWLRQ ([SODLQ WKH SDUWV WKDW UHSUHVHQW :6࡮&KLOGUHQXQGHUOLQHWKHDSSOLFDEOHSDUWVWKHIRXUIDFWRUVRIHVWDEOLVKPHQWRIDVVHUWLYH࡮&KLOGUHQ UDLVH WKHLU KDQGV LI WKH\ KDYH DQ\
)RUPDWLYH
FRPPXQLFDWLRQVNLOOVTXHVWLRQV
DVVHVVPHQW  ,QVWUXFWLRQ<RXUIULHQGVZLOOSOD\UROHVIRUDVVHUWLYHFRPPXQLFDWLRQ E  3D\DWWHQWLRQWRWKHLU'HYHORSDWWLWXGHV SRVWXUHVOLQHVRIVLJKW DQGPDQQHURIVSHDNLQJ FDOPQHVV ZKHQ\RXVHHWKHPSOD\LQJ
0RGHOLQJ
࡮7KHVHOHFWHGFKLOGUHQSHUIRUPUROHSOD\LQJLQIURQW ࡮&DOOWKHWZRFKLOGUHQZKRKDYHSUDFWLFHGUROHE 9LFDULRXVRIWKHRWKHUFKLOGUHQ
SOD\LQJEHIRUHWKHFODVV)RUPDWLYH
H[SHULHQFH
DVVHVVPHQW  :RUN3UDFWLFHDVVHUWLYHFRPPXQLFDWLRQWKURXJKWKHUROHSOD\LQJDFWLYLW\&DOP\RXUVHOIGRZQE\
FORVLQJ\RXUH\HVIRUVHFRQGVEHIRUHWKHUROHSOD\  F 7KHJRDORIWKLVDFWLYLW\LVWRPDNH\RX
3UDFWLFH
FDSDEOHRIGHOLYHULQJDVVHUWLYHOLQHVZLWKWUXHIHHOLQJV'R\RXUEHVWWRDFKLHYHWKHJRDO G 
F 3K\VLRORJLFDO
:6
DQGDIIHFWLYHVWDWHV
࡮(DFKFKLOGSOD\VDUROHZLWKDIULHQGVLWWLQJQH[WWR ࡮([SODLQWKHSURFHGXUHRIUROHSOD\LQJ
WKHPG (QDFWLYH

D &RJQLWLYH
GHYHORSPHQWDWWDLQPHQW)HHGEDFN

H 9HUEDOSHUVXDVLRQ8WLOL]H

5HLQIRUFHPHQW

6XPPDU\3URPLVH,SURPLVHWRDGRSWDQDVVHUWLYHFRPPXQLFDWLRQVW\OHIURP''000<<<< 
࡮&KLOGUHQZULWHWKHLUSDUWQHUVFRPPHQWVDQGWKHLU ࡮0DNHHDFKSDLURIFKLOGUHQVZLWFKUROHVRZQFRPPHQWVLQWKHDSSOLFDEOHER[HV:RUN$IWHUWKHDFWLYLW\DVN\RXUSDUWQHUZKDWSDUWRI\RXUSHUIRUPDQFHKHVKHIRXQGJRRG H 
DQGZULWHLWLQWKHER[  $OVRZULWH\RXURZQFRPPHQWLQER[                         
࡮&KLOGUHQZULWHDSURPLVH

࡮6XPPDUL]HWKHOHVVRQJLYHQLQWKHFODVV)RUPDWLYH
DVVHVVPHQW  


1RWH 7KHXQGHUOLQHGSDUWUHSUHVHQWWKHWHDFKLQJOHDUQLQJSURFHVV 
1RWH 7KHER[HGSDUWVUHSUHVHQWWKHEDVLFWUDLQLQJIRUOLIHVNLOOV ILYHVWDJHV
1RWH  D UHSUHVHQWVFRJQLWLYHGHYHORSPHQWDQGSDUWV E WR H UHSUHVHQWVHOIHIILFDF\IRUPDWLRQ DIIHFWLYHGHYHORSPHQW
1RWH )RUPDWLYHDVVHVVPHQW   LQWHUHVWZLOOLQJQHVVDWWLWXGH    FRJLWDWLRQMXGJPHQWH[SUHVVLRQ    NQRZOHGJHXQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG
  OLIHVNLOOV IURPWKHVDPHYLHZSRLQWVDVWKRVHRIWKHVXEJRDOV

four factors were further simplified to make themeasier for the children to learn in the following ways:
description, expression, specification, and choice.
For affective development, the four approaches
useful for enhancing self-efficacy were actively andpurposefully incorporated in “modeling”, “practice”,
and “feedback” in the basic life skill teaching/learning
process. To be more specific, “vicarious experience”
was incorporated in the “modeling” process inthe basic life skills teaching/learning process.
“Vicarious experience” is an approach to self-efficacy
development that involves looking at others who areless capable but still able to pull something off andthinking “I can do this too” (Bandura, 1997). In thisstudy, two children who had been poor at assertive
48

communication were chosen to assume assertive roles
in role-playing. They learned their self-assertive lines
in advance and played their roles during the class.
By observing the two non-assertive children playing
assertive roles, the other children were expected tofeel that they were also able to play the same roles
and thereby develop self-efficacy. Meanwhile, thetwo children were expected to strengthen self-efficacy
after the successful experience of delivering theirassertive lines in front of others.
“Enactive attainment” and “physiologicaland affective states” were incorporated into the“practice” process, and “verbal persuasion” was in
the “feedback” process. “Enactive attainment” is anapproach to enhancing self-efficacy that involves
School Health Vol.9, 45-58, 2013
http://www.shobix.co.jp/sh/hp/main.htm

Effective Teaching-Learning Process for Training Assertive Communication Skills

setting goals, actually performing activities, andhaving successful experiences (Bandura, 1997).
Tsunoyama reported that setting a non-difficult
goal before practicing mathematical calculations
enhanced learners’ spontaneous motivation and selfefficacy, and helped them acquire calculation skills(Kakuyama, 1985). In this study, the teachers set a
goal (learn to deliver self-expressive lines with true
feelings) immediately before entering the “practice”
process and then led the children to participate inrole-playing activities.
“Physiological and affective states” are sources ofself-efficacy. By reducing fear or stress levels before
performing an activity, one can enhance self-efficacy(Bandura, 1997). Maeda et al. reported that closing
eyes and calming down before playing assertive roles
in role-playing activities were effective in helping
learners strengthen self-efficacy and acquire assertive
communication skills (Maeda, 1985; Maeda et al.,1993). In this study, the children were instructed toclose their eyes for 30 seconds to calm themselves
before the start of role-playing.
“Verbal persuasion” also contributes to theenhancement of self-efficacy when others verbally
express their faith in an individual’s ability andefforts to perform an activity (Bandura, 1997). Tojo
(1987) pointed out that positive feedback toward
performance was effective in strengthening selfefficacy and developing skills. In this study, thechildren who viewed the role-playing were instructed
to tell the children who played the roles how wellthey performed the activity.

According to these experimental conditions,the students were classified into groups as shownin Figure 1. First, they were classified into an
instruction group and a control group. The instructiongroup was further classified into the following four
sub-groups: the “cognitive development/self-efficacy
formation group”, for which cognitive development
and self-efficacy formation were incorporated into
the basic life skills teaching/learning process; the“cognitive development group”, for which the idea of
cognitive development was incorporated; the “selfefficacy formation group”, for which self-efficacy
formation was incorporated; and the “basic group”,
which was to go through only the basic life skills
teaching/learning process.
The self-efficacy formation group and the basic
group were not allowed to experience formationof the four factors essential for achieving assertive
communication skills. Instead, they were only taught
three patterns of communication. Being taught noneof the four essential factors for achieving assertive
communication skills, they would have 5-minuteperiod of free time during the class. To adjust for thisexpected gap, they were given a longer time to write
down their thoughts at the end of class.
The cognitive development group and the basic
group went through the processes of modeling,practice, and feedback. The children in these groups
would be inevitably led to acquire self-efficacy inthe course of these processes, even though the level
might have been low. In order to avoid this potential
self-efficacy formation as much as possible, theFigure 1 Class design conditions in the instruction group and the control group+PUVTWEVKQPITQWR+PUVTWEVKQP%QPVTQNITQWR/QFGNKPI
5GNHGHHKECE[XGTDCNRGTUWCUKQP/QFGNKPI

5GNHGHHKECE[XGTDCNRGTUWCUKQP

2TCEVKEG(GGFDCEM

2TCEVKEG(GGFDCEM

5GNHGHHKECE[
GPCEVKXGCVVCKPOGPVRJ[UKQNQIKECNCPF
CHHGEVKXGUVCVGU

5GNHGHHKECE[XGTDCNRGTUWCUKQP

2TCEVKEG(GGFDCEM‫ޓޓޓޓޓޓޓ‬/QPVJCUUGUUOGPV+PUVTWEVKQP

5GNHGHHKECE[
GPCEVKXGCVVCKPOGPVRJ[UKQNQIKECNCPF
CHHGEVKXGUVCVGU

4GKPHQTEGOGPV‫ޓޓޓޓޓޓޓ‬9GGMCUUGUUOGPV%QIPKVKXG
FGXGNQROGPV/QFGNKPI(GGFDCEM‫&ޓޓޓޓޓޓޓ‬C[CUUGUUOGPV+PUVTWEVKQP

5GNHGHHKECE[XGTDCNRGTUWCUKQP

2TCEVKEG‫(ޓޓޓޓޓޓޓޓޓ‬QTOCVKXGCUUGUUOGPV $CUKEITQWR%QIPKVKXG
FGXGNQROGPV/QFGNKPI‫(ޓޓޓޓޓޓޓޓޓ‬QTOCVKXGCUUGUUOGPV 

5GNHGHHKECE[
HQTOCVKQPITQWR+PUVTWEVKQP‫(ޓޓޓޓޓޓޓޓޓ‬QTOCVKXGCUUGUUOGPV   %QIPKVKXGFGXGNQROGPVITQWR‫ޓޓޓޓޓޓޓޓޓ‬2TGNKOKPCT[CUUGUUOGPV%QIPKVKXG
FGXGNQROGPVUGNH
GHHKECE[HQTOCVKQP
ITQWR

0QENCUU

0QVG ‫ޓ‬+PUVTWEVKQPψ/QFGNKPIψ2TCEVKEGψ(GGFDCEMψ4GKPHQTEGOGPV$CUKENKHGUMKNNUVGCEJKPINGCTPKPIRTQEGUU
0QVG ‫(ޓ‬QTOCVKXGCUUGUUOGPV  KPVGTGUVYKNNKPIPGUUCVVKVWFG  EQIPKVKQPLWFIOGPVGZRTGUUKQP  MPQYNGFIGWPFGTUVCPFKPICPF  NKHGUMKNNU

School Health Vol.9, 45-58, 2013
http://www.shobix.co.jp/sh/hpe/main.htm

49

Yamada K., et al.

following alterations were made for the groups: 1) A
pair of teachers played role models in the modelingprocess; 2) Children performed role-playing activities
without having set a goal in the practice process;and 3) Children were asked to point out issues to be
improved regarding the role-playing activities in the
feedback process.
Besides the instruction group mentioned above,
there was a control group which experienced none of
the above-mentioned class activities.
2.2.3. Instructors
All scheduled instructors received training
beforehand from the author of this study to prevent
individual differences from affecting the resultsof the class. In addition, home room teachers andschool nurse teachers received training and reacheda shared understanding regarding the way in which
the class should be conducted, and they participatedin the class as supporters together with the author.
They engaged in personal coaching when the children
were divided in groups. The school nurse teachers
who served as teaching partners in the team teaching
setting were members of a study group, to which theauthor also belonged, and had been well trained interms of health education.

2.3. Class Assessment
2.3.1. Assessment Scales
As shown in Figure 1, assessment was performed
1 week prior to the class (pre-test), (post-test), 1
week after the class (follow-upⅠ), and 1 month after
the class (follow-upⅡ) using the three below-listed
assessment scales. The children were requested tofill in the questionnaire by themselves during classes
without writing down their names.
a. Assertive Communication Scale (ACS):
Using the 18-item checklist created by Hamaguchi(1993), the children rated each item on a fourlevel scale from “Applicable” to “Not Applicable”(minimum score: 18, maximum score: 72).
b. General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES):
Using the 16-item checklist created by Sakano etal. (1986), the children chose “Yes” or “No” for each
item (minimum score: 0, maximum score: 16).
c. Self-Esteem Scale (SES):
Using the 10-item checklist created by Rosenberg(1965), children rated each item on a four-level scalefrom “Agree” to “Not Agree” (minimum score: 10,
50

maximum score: 40).
2.3.2. Formative Evaluations
Formative evaluations are as shown in the rightcolumn of Table 2, Assessment/Material, from i) toiv), which correspond to the sub-goals of the classmentioned earlier. The formative evaluation items
were presented on the worksheet used in the class.
As instructed by the teacher, the children rated theirown performances on a three-level scale consistingof A (Succeeded), B (Did fairly well), and C (Failed),
during the class.

2.4. Ethical Considerations in the Study
Each questionnaire started with a statement of theaim of this survey along with a question asking if
subjects consented to participate in the questionnaire.
After answering this question, they answered the restof the questions. In cases where subjects did not give
their consent, the questionnaire was discontinued thenand there.
Concerning intervention in the class, a prospectus
and a verbal explanation were given to the principlesof the schools and the home room teachers concerned,
and a prospectus and a letter of request were given
to the guardians of the children to explain the intent
of the questionnaire and to obtain permission for
their participation. The home room teachers andschool nurse teachers also gained the children’s
understanding through verbal explanations of the aimof this study.

2.5. Statistics
SPSS for Windows 16.0J was used for statisticalanalysis, a chi-square test, a t-test (paired), a oneway analysis of variance (unpaired), and a two-way
analysis of variance (mixed design, unpaired withclass designing conditions, paired with assessment
stages). For the two-way analysis of variance, afour by four two-way factorial design was used.
The first factor comprised the conditions for classdesign (methods to introduce cognitive development
and self-efficacy formation) and the second factor
comprised the assessment stages (pre-test, post-test,
follow-upⅠ test, and follow-upⅡ test). In the twoway analysis of variance, main effect/interaction was
analyzed. If any interaction was detected, a simple
main effect test and a simple main effect multiple
School Health Vol.9, 45-58, 2013
http://www.shobix.co.jp/sh/hp/main.htm

Effective Teaching-Learning Process for Training Assertive Communication Skills

instruction group and the control group, an unpaired
one-way analysis of variance was performed for therespective scores for ACS, GSES, and SES in posttest. As a result, significant difference was observed
between the instruction group and the control groupin all the three assessment scales [ACS: F = 18.39,
GSES: F = 10.58, SES: F = 15.45; (p <0.01)].

comparison (Tukey-Kramer method) were performed.
In addition, Pearson’s product-moment correlation
coefficient was performed to analyze changes inscores for ACS, GSES, and SES assessed before theclass, immediately after the class, one week after theclass, and one month after the class.

3. Results

3.2. Assessment Results in the Instruction
Group

A one-way analysis of variance (unpaired) was
performed for scores for ACS, GSES, and SES
rated as pre-test by the instruction group and thecontrol group. No significant difference were seen
for any of these assessment scores between the twogroups [ACS: F (4,394) = 1.32, GSES: F (4,394)= 1.05, SES: F (4,394) = 1.21; (none of these wassignificant)]. Therefore, these groups were consideredhomogeneous.

3.2.1. The Formative Evaluations
In terms of the formative evaluations performed
during the class that is, (1) interest/willingness/
attitude, (2) cogitation/judgment/expression, (3)knowledge/understanding, and (4) life skills, we
looked at the percentages of the children who
assessed themselves as “Succeeded” or “Did fairly”.
As shown in Table 4, the result was the highest in the
cognitive development/self-efficacy formation groupin terms of formative evaluations (1) to (4).
Next, a chi-square test was performed to examine
differences in percentages among the instructiongroups in the formative evaluations (1) to (4).
As a result, a significant difference was observedin all formative evaluations. When an adjusted
residual analysis was performed for each formativeevaluation, (1) to (4), the percentages in the cognitive

3.1. Comparison between the Instruction
Group and the Control GroupThe assessment results in the control group areshown in Table 3. When a paired t-test was performed
for the changes between the pre-test and post-test, nosignificant difference in any of the three assessment
scales [ACS: t = 1.18, GSES: t = 0.68, SES: t =1.14]. In order to investigate differences between the

Table 3 Mean Score for Each Rating Scale in the Control Group
2TGVGUV2QUVVGUV/GCP 㧔5&㧕/GCP 㧔5&㧕

#UUGTVKXGEQOOWPKECVKQP5ECNG #%5











5GNHGHHKECE[5ECNG )5'5











5GNHGUVGGO5ECNG 5'5











VXCNWG#NNPU

Table 4 Achievement Rate (%) by the Formative Assessment%QIPKVKXGFGXGNQROGPVUGNHGHHKECE[HQTOCVKQP
ITQWR?

%QIPKVKXGFGXGNQROGPV
ITQWR

5GNHGHHKECE[
HQTOCVKQPITQWR

$CUKE
ITQWR

ǿ8CNWG

 +PVGTGUVYKNNKPIPGUUCVVKVWFG



=



̄



= ?





 %QIPKVKQPLWFIOGPVGZRTGUUKQP



=

?



= ?



̄





 -PQYNGFIGWPFGTUVCPFKPI



=

?



= ?



̄





 .KHGUMKNNU



=

?



̄



=

?




R R=‫?ޓޓ‬#UUGUUOGPVDCUGFQPVJGCFLWUVGFTGUKFWCNCPCN[UKUSchool Health Vol.9, 45-58, 2013
http://www.shobix.co.jp/sh/hpe/main.htm

51

Yamada K., et al.

development/self-efficacy formation group and in
the self-efficacy formation group were significantly
higher in terms of (1) and (4), and the percentages
in the cognitive development/self-efficacy formationgroup and the cognitive development group weresignificantly higher in terms of (2) and (3).
3.2.2. Assertive Communication Scales (ACS)The changes in ACS score in the instruction groupare shown in Table 5. When a two-way analysis
of variance (mixed design) (factors: class design
conditions and assessment stages) was performed for
the ACS scores, a statistical significance was observedin the main effects (class designing conditions andassessment stages) and interactions. Since interactions
were observed between them, a simple main effecttest was performed. A statistical significance wasobserved in the simple main effects consisting ofassessment stages and class designing conditions.
Using the Tukey-Kramer method, a simple main
effect multiple comparison was performed. In termsof class design conditions, a significant difference
was observed between the cognitive development/
self-efficacy formation group and the cognitive
development group/basic group and between the
self-efficacy formation group and the cognitive
development group/basic group at post-test. When thescores at the follow-upⅠ test and those at the followupⅡ test were compared, there were significant
differences between the cognitive development/selfefficacy formation group and the other three groups(the cognitive development group, the self-efficacy
formation group, and the basic group) and between
the cognitive development group and the self-efficacy
formation group/basic group.

In terms of class assessment stages, the scoresat post-test were significantly higher than those at
pre-test for the instruction group. For the cognitive
development/self-efficacy formation group andthe cognitive development group, the respectivescores at the follow-upⅠ and follow-upⅡ test weresignificantly higher than the scores at pre-test. In the
self-efficacy formation group and the basic group, therespective scores at the follow-upⅠ and follow-upⅡ
test were significantly lower than the scores at pretest.
3.2.3. Self-Efficacy Scales (GSES)
The changes in GSES score in the instructiongroup are shown in Table 6. When a two-way
analysis of variance (factors: class design conditions
and assessment stages) was performed for the GSES
scores, a statistical significance was observed in themain effects (class design conditions and assessment
stages) and interactions. For these, a simple main
effect test was performed. Statistical significancewas observed in the simple main effects consisting ofclass design conditions and assessment stages.
Using the Tukey-Kramer method, a multiple
comparison was performed. In terms of class design
conditions, a significant difference was observed
between the cognitive development/self-efficacy
formation group and the cognitive developmentgroup/basic group and between the self-efficacy
formation group and the basic group at posttest. When the scores at the follow-upⅠ test andthose at follow-upⅡ test were compared, there
were significant differences between the cognitive
development/self-efficacy formation group andthe self-efficacy formation group/ basic group andTable 5 Mean Scores for ACS in the Instruction Group2TGVGUV

2QUVVGUV

(QNNQYWRΣ(QNNQYWRΤ/GCP 5&

/GCP 5&

/GCP 5&

/GCP 5&

5KORNGOCKP
GHHGEV(XCNWG#%QIPKVKXGFGXGNQROGPV5GNHGHHKECE[HQTOCVKQPITQWR    





$%QIPKVKXGFGXGNQROGPVITQWR        

%5GNHGHHKECE[HQTOCVKQPITQWR        

&$CUKEITQWR        ̄

# $ # & % $ % &# $ 㧘# % # & $ % $ &/WNVKRNGEQORCTKUQP̄%NCUUFGUKIPEQPFKVKQPU DGVYGGPITQWRU/CKPGHHGEVU%NCUUFGUKIPKPIEQPFKVKQPU(  R
/CKPGHHGEVU#UUGUUOGPVUVCIGU(  R+PVGTCEVKQPU(  R52/WNVKRNGEQORCTKUQP
6WMG[-TCOGT#UUGUUOGPVUVCIG




# $ # % 㧘# & $ % $ &R R

R̄PU

School Health Vol.9, 45-58, 2013
http://www.shobix.co.jp/sh/hp/main.htm

Effective Teaching-Learning Process for Training Assertive Communication Skills

between the cognitive development group and thebasic group.
In terms of class assessment stages, the scoresat post-test were significantly higher than those at
pre-test in the cognitive development/self-efficacy
formation group, the self-efficacy formation group,and the basic group. In the cognitive development/
self-efficacy formation group and the cognitive
development group, the respective scores at thefollow-upⅠ and follow-upⅡ test were significantly
higher than those at pre-test. In the self-efficacy
formation group, the respective scores at the followupⅠ and the follow-upⅡtest were significantly lower
than that at post-test.
3.2.4. Results in Self-Esteem Scales (SES)The changes in SES score in the instruction groupare shown in Table 7. When a two-way analysis
of variance (factors: class designing conditions
and assessment stages) was performed for the SES
scores, a statistical significance was observed in themain effects (class design conditions and assessment
stages) and interactions. For those, a simple main
effect test was performed. A statistical significancewas observed in the simple main effects consisting ofclass design conditions and assessment stages.
Using the Tukey-Kramer method, a multiple
comparison was performed. In terms of class design
conditions, significant difference was observed
between the cognitive development/self-efficacy
formation group and the cognitive developmentgroup/the basic group and between the self-efficacy
formation group and the cognitive developmentgroup/the basic group at post-test. When the scoresat the follow-upⅠ test and those at the follow-upⅡ
test were compared, there were significant differences
between the cognitive development/self-efficacy
formation group and the self-efficacy formationgroup/basic group and between the cognitive
development group and the self-efficacy formationgroup/basic group.
In terms of class assessment stages, the scores

Table 6 Mean Scores for GSES in the Instruction Group2TGVGUV

2QUVVGUV

(QNNQYWRΣ(QNNQYWRΤ

5KORNGOCKP
GHHGEV/WNVKRNGEQORCTKUQP
6WMG[-TCOGT/GCP 5&

/GCP 5&

/GCP 5&

/GCP 5&(XCNWG#UUGUUOGPVUVCIG#%QIPKVKXGFGXGNQROGPV5GNHGHHKECE[HQTOCVKQPITQWR 

   





$%QIPKVKXGFGXGNQROGPVITQWR 

 

   

%5GNHGHHKECE[HQTOCVKQPITQWR 

  

     

&$CUKEITQWR 

 

 

 





̄

# $ # & % &# % # & $ &# % # & $ &/WNVKRNGEQORCTKUQP̄%NCUUFGUKIPEQPFKVKQPU DGVYGGPITQWRU/CKPGHHGEVU%NCUUFGUKIPKPIEQPFKVKQPU(  R
/CKPGHHGEVU#UUGUUOGPVUVCIGU(  R
+PVGTCEVKQPU(  R

R R



R̄PU

Table 7 Mean Scores for SES in the Instruction Group2TGVGUV

2QUVVGUV

(QNNQYWRΣ(QNNQYWRΤ

5KORNGOCKP
GHHGEV/WNVKRNGEQORCTKUQP
6WMG[-TCOGT#UUGUUOGPVUVCIG/GCP 5&

/GCP 5&

/GCP 5&

/GCP 5&(XCNWG#%QIPKVKXGFGXGNQROGPV5GNHGHHKECE[HQTOCVKQPITQWR    





$%QIPKVKXGFGXGNQROGPVITQWR       

%5GNHGHHKECE[HQTOCVKQPITQWR        

&$CUKEITQWR      # % # & $ % $ &# % 㧘# & $ % $ &/WNVKRNGEQORCTKUQP̄%NCUUFGUKIPEQPFKVKQPU DGVYGGPITQWRU# $ # & ̄% $ % &/CKPGHHGEVU%NCUUFGUKIPKPIEQPFKVKQPU(  R
/CKPGHHGEVU#UUGUUOGPVUVCIGU(  R+PVGTCEVKQPU(  R

School Health Vol.9, 45-58, 2013
http://www.shobix.co.jp/sh/hpe/main.htm

R R



R̄PU

53

Yamada K., et al.

at post-test were significantly higher than those at
pre-test in the instruction group. In the cognitive
development/self-efficacy formation group andthe cognitive development group, the respectivescores at the follow-upⅠ and follow-upⅡ test weresignificantly higher than those at pre-test. In the selfefficacy formation group, the respective scores at thefollow-upⅠ and follow-upⅡ test were significantly
lower than those at post-test. In the basic group, thescores at the follow-upⅡ test were significantly
lower than those at post-test.

3.3. Correlation between ACS, GSES, and SES
Table 8 shows results for the analysis ofcorrelations between ACS and GSES and between
ACS and SES in terms of score increase from pre-test
to post-test and from pre-test to the follow-upⅡ test.
In the cognitive development/self-efficacy formationgroup, the correlation coefficients between ACS and
GSES and between ACS and SES from pre-test to
post-test and from pre-test to the follow-upⅡ test
were 0.424 to 0. 489. Although these values wererather moderate, they showed significant correlations.
In the cognitive development group, the correlation
coefficients from pre-test to the follow-upⅡ test were0.237 and 0.248. In the self-efficacy formation group,
the correlation coefficients from pre-test to post-test
were 0.357 to 0.361. Although these values wererather moderate, they showed significant correlations.
In the basic group, no statistically significant results
were observed.

4. Discussion
This study aimed to verify whether the teaching/learning process incorporating cognitive development
and self-efficacy formation was effective for theformation of assertive communication skills.
The achievements of the class designed for theformation of assertive communication skills wereanalyzed through a comparison of the results in the
instruction group and the control group, the latter ofwhich only involved questionnaires only. A significant
difference in scores at post-test was observed between
these two groups. This demonstrates that the class
had a certain degree of effect on the instructiongroup. In order to better clarify the teaching/learning
process for more effective assertive communication
skills formation, the degree of acquisition of assertive
communication skills (post-test) and the degree ofreinforcement of said skills (follow-upⅠ and followupⅡ test) in the instruction group were investigated

4.1. Effects in the Degree of Acquisition ofAssertive Communication Skills
The degree of acquisition was determined basedon the state of formation of assertive communication
skills immediately after the class.
When examining the scores for ACS at post-test,
which showed the degree of acquisition of assertive
communication skills, and the scores for GSES
and SES, which showed the degree of self-efficacy
formation as affective development, the scores in
the cognitive development/self-efficacy formationgroup and the self-efficacy formation group weresignificantly higher than those in the basic group. This
meant that the acquisition of assertive communication
skills and self-efficacy formation had been achievedin these two groups.
According to Bandura(1977), it is important toTable 8 Correlations between ACS and GSES/SES in Score Increase from Preliminary to Day 0/Week 1
2TGVGUVψ2QUVVGUV%QIPKVKXGFGXGNQROGPV
5GNHGHHKECE[HQTOCVKQPITQWR%QIPKVKXGFGXGNQROGPVITQWR
5GNHGHHKECE[HQTOCVKQPITQWR$CUKEITQWR

2TGVGUVψ(QNNQYWRΤ

#%5)5'5



#%55'5



#%5)5'5 ̄

#%55'5 ̄

#%5)5'5

 ̄#%55'5

 ̄#%5)5'5 ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄#%55'5

2GCTUQP URTQFWEVOQOGPVEQTTGNCVKQPEQGHHKEKGPVU
R R R̄PU

54

School Health Vol.9, 45-58, 2013
http://www.shobix.co.jp/sh/hp/main.htm

Effective Teaching-Learning Process for Training Assertive Communication Skills

integrate the four approaches to enhancement of selfefficacy into the process of skill formation in orderto further strengthen self-efficacy and to form skills .
Sakano et al. (1987) also reported that the use of two
approaches (“vicarious experience” and “enactive
attainment”) to enhance self-efficacy was more
effective in increasing self-efficacy and in helping
students acquire assertive communication skills thanthe use of only one approach (vicarious experience)In this study, therefore, the four approaches wereincorporated in the life skills teaching/learning
process in order to integrate them.
“Vicarious experience” was incorporated into the“modeling” process in the basic life skills teaching/learning process. To be more specific, children who
were usually poor at assertive communication werechosen as coping models to take assertive parts inrole-playing activities with assertive dialogues. As
the formative evaluation of this modeling process,children were asked whether they had attained
the goal for (1) interest/willingness/attitude.
The percentages of the children who answered“Succeeded” and “Did fairly well” in the cognitive
development/self-efficacy formation group and theself-efficacy formation group were significantly
higher than those in the cognitive developmentgroup and the basic group. Similar to the preceding
study (Sakano, 1987), use of such coping models inthis study caused the other children to feel, “I canalso play the role if he/she can do it,” and enhanced
their self-efficacy to a greater degree than the useof mastery models, which would have allowed
them solve tasks without any trouble right from the
beginning.
The “enactive attainment” and “physiologicaland affective states” approaches were incorporated
into the “practice” process and “verbal persuasion”
was incorporated into “feedback.” For the “enactive
attainment” approach, the teachers set a goal (thestudents will learn to deliver self-expressive lines withtrue feelings) before starting the role-playing activity
in the “practice” process. For the “physiologicaland affective states” approach, the children were
instructed to close their eyes for 30 seconds in orderto calm themselves before starting role-playing. For
the “verbal persuasion” approach, the children whoviewed the role-playing activity were instructed totell the children who played the roles how well they
performed in the activity. For formative evaluation ofthese activities, children were asked whether they had
School Health Vol.9, 45-58, 2013
http://www.shobix.co.jp/sh/hpe/main.htm

attained the goal for (4) life skills. The percentagesof the children who answered “Succeeded” and “Didfairly well” in the cognitive development/self-efficacy
formation group and the self-efficacy formation groupwere significantly higher than those in the cognitive
development group and the basic group. According
to the results of assessments for ACS, GSES, andSES performed immediately after the class, scoresin the cognitive development/self-efficacy formationgroup and the self-efficacy formation group weresignificantly higher than those in the basic group. The
significantly higher scores for ACS suggested thatthe children had acquired assertive communication
skills and the significantly higher scores for GSES
and SES suggested that self-efficacy was formed in
the children as affective development immediately
after the class. In the analysis of correlation betweenchanges in score for ACS and GSES from pre-test to
post-test, the children who had gained higher ACS
scores at post-test than at pre-test gained higherscores for GSES as well. This indicated that boththe enhancement of self-efficacy and the formationof assertive communication skills were achieved bythese children. This correlation between self-efficacy
and assertive communication skills was similar tothat shown in the preceding studies (Maeda, 1985;
Sakano et al., 1987; Tojyo et al., 1987; Maeda et al.,1993). It is supposed that the children in the cognitive
development/self-efficacy formation group andthe self-efficacy formation group formed assertive
communication skills immediately after the classbecause their self-efficacy was enhanced throughthe four approaches that actively and purposefullyheightened self-efficacy.
Therefore, affective development as self-efficacy
formation was considered effective in helping
students acquire assertive communication skills.

4.2. Effects in Degrees of Reinforcement ofAssertive Communication Skills
The degree of reinforcement was determined basedon the state of formation of assertive communication
skills one month after the class.
When the mean scores for ACS, GSES, and SES
at one week and one month after the class were
examined, the scores in the cognitive development/
self-efficacy formation group and the cognitive
development group were significantly higher
than those in the basic group. This meant that the55

Yamada K., et al.

reinforcement of assertive communication skills andself-esteem had been achieved in these two groups.
Cognitive development was incorporated in the“instruction” process in the basic life skills teaching/learning process. To be specific, the cognitive methodof teaching the children that assertive communication
skills consisted of four essential factors was
employed, and the students were required to underline
the parts that represented the four factors to reinforce
the lesson.
In order to examine the effect of this cognitive
development, the children were asked, as theformative evaluation during the class, whether they
had attained the sub-goals, (2) cogitation/judgment/
expression and (3) knowledge/understanding.
The percentages of the children in the cognitive
development/self-efficacy formation group andthe cognitive development group who answered“Succeeded” and “Did fairly well” in the selfassessment regarding (2) and (3) were significantly
higher than those in the self-efficacy formationgroup and the basic group. These results suggested
that their knowledge/understanding was enhanced
when they were taught the four factors for assertive
communication skills and that their cognition of thefour factors was deepened when they were led to think
about the factors and to underline the applicable parts.
In other words, class activities such as underlining
the parts representing the four factors for assertive
communication skills contributed to deepening thechildren’s understanding of the material. However,cognitive development by incorporating the factors
for assertive communication skills in the instruction
process had no effect on the degree of acquisitionof assertive communication skills immediately after
the class. This implies that cognitive developmentof assertive communication skills led the children
to realize how they could communicate assertively,
but that it was difficult for the students to acquire
such skills immediately. Meanwhile, the cognitive
development group gradually became able toreinforce assertive communication skills over one
week or one month after the class. Ogura (1960)
reported that health education enabled children to
maintain their behavior as they acquired objective
understanding of the law of health, etc. Objective
cognitive development for attaining assertive
communication skills was supposed to be associatedwith the maintenance of action.
In the self-efficacy formation group, scores for
56

ACS, GSES, and SES were decreased one week or
one month after the class. Bandura (1997) reported
that self-efficacy formed in a specific situation(specific self-efficacy) was likely to deteriorate
with the passage of time. Although self-efficacy indelivering assertive lines in a specific situation suchas in role-playing was acquired, it may not havebeen reinforced. Iida et al. (2001) also suggested that
temporary formation of self-efficacy was unlikely to
be developed into long-term skill formation. It was
supposed that self-efficacy formation was effective
for the acquisition of assertive communication skills
but not for the reinforcement of the skills.

4.3. Effect in Acquisition and Reinforcement ofAssertive Communication Skills
Scores for ACS, GSES, and SES in the cognitive
development/self-efficacy formation group werehigher than those in the cognitive developmentgroup and the self-efficacy formation group in termsof degree of acquisition and reinforcement. This isinterpreted as follows: a synergistic effect was gainedby introducing cognitive development and selfefficacy formation at the same time. This contributed
to the acquisition of assertive communication skills
and the enhancement of self-efficacy and self-esteem.
This is also suggested in the correlation between
the enhancement of self-efficacy and assertive
communication skills. The correlation coefficientsfrom pre-test to post-test and the follow-upⅠ test in
the cognitive development/self-efficacy formationgroup were higher than those in the cognitive
development group and the self-efficacy formationgroup. This implied that the enhancement of selfefficacy and the formation of assertive communication
skills were effectively achieved. Kajita (2005)
showed the cognitive domain and the affective
domain in the taxonomy and claimed that, when theability to think and judge (superior in the cognitive
domain) and developmental behavior (superior in theaffective domain) are formed, skills are formed in the
behavior domain at the same time Because cognitive
development and affective development, whichwere in even more superior positions, were achieved
simultaneously in this teaching/learning process, skill
formation was supposed to have been effectively
achieved.
From all of the above, it has been suggested thatincorporation of affective development as cognitive
School Health Vol.9, 45-58, 2013
http://www.shobix.co.jp/sh/hp/main.htm

Effective Teaching-Learning Process for Training Assertive Communication Skills

development and self-efficacy formation in the basic
life skills teaching/learning process is effective foracquiring and reinforcing assertive communication
skills.

5. Study Limitations
This study was performed on the instruction groupand the control group, using an experimental classand questionnaires. However, the intervention sample
size in each group was too small to fully clarify theeffect of skill formation. In this study, the followupⅡ test was the only follow-up assessment on theexperimental class. It will be necessary in the future
to assess the effects on the class three months, sixmonths, and one year after the class and to investigate
the continuity of the skills acquired in greater detail.
It will also be necessary to explore ways to apply thistechnique to a variety of other situations. Since it isdifficult to achieve skill formation thoroughly in agroup lesson within one class session, other methods
for application in life skills education should be
investigated.
This study was conducted with a focus on theacquisition of assertive communication skills. In
the future studies, it should be clarified whether thismethod is applicable to the acquisition of other life
skills and whether any factor other than self-efficacy
has an effect on life skills formation.

6. Conclusion
This study aimed to verify whether the basic
life skills teaching/learning process with cognitive
development and self-efficacy formation was effective
for the formation of assertive communication skills.
The effects of a class designed for formation ofassertive communication skills were evaluated. The
evaluation showed that the class had an effect on
the instruction group to a certain degree. In order
to find more effective teaching/learning processes
for the formation of assertive communication skills,
class design conditions were specified within the
instruction group, and the formation (acquisition/
reinforcement) of skills was investigated.
In the “Instruction” process in the basic life skills
teaching/learning process, cognitive development was
attempted in terms of the four essential factors for theformation of assertive communication skills. Its effectwas observed on reinforcement of the skills one week
School Health Vol.9, 45-58, 2013
http://www.shobix.co.jp/sh/hpe/main.htm

and one month after the class. For the processes,“Modeling”, “Practice”, and “Feedback”, affective
development was attempted by incorporating
the following techniques that could contribute toenhancement of self-efficacy: “vicarious experience”,“enactive attainment”, “physiological and affective
state”, and “verbal persuasion”. Its effect wasobserved on the acquisition of skills immediately
after the class. For further enhancement of assertive
communication skills acquisition/ reinforcement, it
was effective to achieve cognitive development andself-efficacy formation simultaneously.
As presented above, it is suggested that working
on cognitive development regarding the four
factors for formation of the skills in the basic
life skills teaching/learning process and working
on self-efficacy formation by incorporating thetechniques that could contribute to enhancementof self-efficacy, namely, “vicarious experience”,“enactive attainment”, “physiological and affective
state”, and “verbal persuasion”, in the respective
processes of “Modeling”, “Practice”, and “Feedback”
were effective in achieving the acquisition andreinforcement of assertive communication skills
It is hoped that intervention and surveillance will
be continued using larger sample sizes to clarify
whether this method might be applicable to theacquisition of other life skills.

7. References
Aikawa A, Tsumura T. (1996). Social skills and interpersonal
relationships,1st edition. 3-46, Seishinshobo,Tokyo. (inJapanese)
Aikawa M. (2000). Skills of inter personal relationships:
psychology of social skills. 25-39, Science Publishing, Tokyo.
(in Japanese)
Anderson L, Krathwohl DA. (2001). Taxonomy for Learning,
Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives. Longman, New York, USA
Bandura A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavioral change. Psychological Review 84: 191-215.
Bandura A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. 79113, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.
Bloom BS. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives,
Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. The classif ication of
educational goals. Longman Group United Kingdom, London
Bower SA, Bower GH. (1991). Asserting Yourself : A Practical
Guide for Positive Change, 2nd edition. Addison Wesley
Publishing Company, New York.
Hamaguchi Y. (1993). Construction of assertiveness scale forchildren. The Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology 42:
101-108. (in Japanese with English abstract)
Iida J, Ishikuma T. (2001). Institute of psychology, class-based57

Yamada K., et al.
skill training in a junior high school : The effect of selfefficacy on students' skill learning. Tsukuba PsychologicalResearch 23: 179-185. (in Japanese with English abstract)
Kakuyama T. (1985). Effect of self-efficacy on goal setting. The
Journal of Tokyo International University. The Department
of International Studies and Human Relations 31: 183-190 (inJapanese with English abstract)
Kjita E. (2005). Handbook on for mative and sum mativeevaluation of student learning, 2nd edition. 21-27, Yuhikaku
Publishing , Tokyo. (in Japanese)
Kokubun Y. (1999). Helping young children develop social skills,
1st edition. 12-28, Toshobunka, Tokyo. (in Japanese)
Maeda M. (1985). The effects of combinations of vicarious
reinforcement on the formation of assertive behaviors incovert modeling. Japanese Journal of Behavior Therapy 10:112-122. (in Japanese with English abstract)
Maeda M, Togasaki Y. (1989). The relationships of self-efficacy,
self-esteem, efficacy for examination, and emotional state.
Bulletin of Women's College of Fine Arts 28: 133-145. (inJapanese with English abstract)
Maeda M, Harano K. (1993). The effect of self-efficacy on theformation of assertive behaviors. Bulletin of Counselingand School Psychology 33: 19-27. (in Japanese with English
abstract)
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.
(2008). Courses of Study for Elementary and Secondary
Schools, Section 9 physical education.
Ogura M. (1960). Studies on the Development of Knowledge
about Health. Bulletin of the Faculty of Education Universityof Tokyo 5: 71-122. (in Japanese with English abstract)
Ohtsu K. (1999). Starting from practice in life skills studies:
Parallels among issues of smoking, drinking, drugs, etc. 1stedition. 2-9, Toyo-kan Publishing Co, Tokyo (in Japanese)
Ono K, Tachikawa J, et al. (2002). The present situation of life
skills education in high schools and junior high schools.
Japanese Journal of Health Education and Promotion 10: 188189. (in Japanese)
Rosenberg M. (1965). Society and reconsidered : The concept ofcompetence. Psychological Review 66: 297-333.
Sakano Y, Tohjoh M. (1986). The general self-efficacy scale. scale
development and validation. Japanese Journal of Behavior
Therapy 12: 73-82. (in Japanese with English abstract)
Sakano Y, Suzuki T, et al. (1987). The effect of enhancing
treatment of self-efficacy in an assertiveness training. The
Bulletin of the Faculty of Education, Chiba University 4: 161185. (in Japanese with English abstract)
Tohjoh M, Sakano Y. (1987). The relative effectiveness ofperceived self-efficacy and outcome expectancy upon thetask performance. Bulletin of the Faculty of Education, Chiba
University 35: 13-21. (in Japanese with English abstract)
Watanabe S, Tachikawa J, et al. (2006). The present situation oflife skills education for Yogo teachers (school health nurses).
Chiba School Health Journal 6: 42-43. (in Japanese)
WHO (1994). Division of Mental Health: Life Skills Education in
Schools .1-5, Geneva.
Wolpe J, Lazarus A. (1966). Behavior Therapy Techniques:
A Guide to the Treatment of Newroses. Pergamon Press,
Rotterdam
Yamada K, Ohtsu K, et al. (2003). A study on the self-esteem
and general self-efficacy and their relationships to assertive
communication skill. Japanese Journal of Chiba School Health
1: 14-24. (in Japanese with English abstract)

58

Name:
Kohei Yamada
Affiliation:
Department of School Health Sciences,
Aichi University of Education

Address:
1 Hirosawa, Kariya, Aichi 448-8542 Japan
Brief Biographical History:
2010- Lecturer, Department of School Health Sciences, Aichi
University of Education
2011- Assistant Professor, Department of School Health Sciences,
Aichi University of Education
2012- Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Education (Masters
Program), Aichi University of Education
Main Works:• A Study of Effective Contents of a Comprehensive Health
Education Curriculum for Promoting QOL of Obese Children.
International Journal of Sport and Health Science, 4:252-264,
2006• A Study on the Relationships among Self-Efficacy, Social
Skills, Assertive Communication Skill, and Coping Humor
in Interpersonal Conflict. Japanese Journal of School Health,54:203-210,2012
Membership in Learned Societies:• Japanese Association of School Health• Japanese Society of Health Education and Promotion• Japan Society of Physical Education, Health and Sport Sciences

School Health Vol.9, 45-58, 2013
http://www.shobix.co.jp/sh/hp/main.htm