2021 April
ISSN 2436-2867

ELF
The Center for English
as a Lingua Franca
Forum

玉川大学

Vol.

1

The Center for English as a
Lingua Franca Forum
Issue Editors: Brett Milliner and Travis Cote
Reviewers:
Paul McBride
Tiina Matikainen
Tricia Okada
Blagoja Dimoski
Satomi Kuroshima
Andrew Leichsenring
Tomokazu Ishikawa
Miso Kim
Yuri Jody Yujobo
Rasami Chaikul

The Center for English as a Lingua Franca
Forum: Call for Articles
The Center for English as a Lingua Franca Forum is a refereed publicationthat seeks to promote critical reflection among English language teachingprofessionals from a wide range of professional contexts. Manuscripts are
subject to blind reviews by two or more reviewers after initial screening by theeditorial committee.
Aims of the Publication:▪ To encourage critical awareness among language teaching professionals▪ To encourage reflexive thinking among language teaching professionals▪ To encourage a praxis of action and reflection among language teachingprofessionals▪ To encourage language teaching professionals to empower themselves
and in so doing empower their students▪ To encourage sharing of teaching techniques among the CELF teachers▪ To serve and support the professional development needs of the CELF
teachers
Types of Articles:
Research article (1000 ~ 3000 words)
Teaching article (1000 ~ 3000 words)
Forum article (1000 words)
Center for English as a lingua franca reports (1000 words)
Book reviews (1000 words)
ELF classroom practices (1000 words)
Guidelines for Contributors:
Article contributions may include, but are not limited to, one or more of thefollowing areas:
English as a lingua franca
Curriculum design and development
Teaching methods, materials and techniques
Classroom centered research
Testing and evaluation
Teacher training and professional development
Language learning and acquisition
Culture, identity and power in language education
Application of technology in the language classroom

Research articles: Research articles should come with a description of theresearch context and research questions, issues pertaining to the researchcontext, relevant theories, qualitative or quantitative research data, detailed
descriptions of research method including clear demonstration of attention toresearch ethics and commentary.
Teaching articles: Teaching articles should provide a description of theteaching context, relevant issues related to the teaching context, teachingtheories and approaches appropriate to the context as well as comments
reflecting pedagogical praxis.
Forum articles: From time to time, the editor may call for forum articles focusing
on a particular theme or issue. Readers are also welcome to propose themes
or issues for the forum in consultation with the editor. Contributors will be given
the opportunity to engage with current issues from a given standpoint as wellas with each other’s opinions on the issue.
The Center for English as a Lingua Franca reports: From time to time, theCenter will request a report from full-time faculty. The reports can focus on avariety of features or services within the ELF program. For example, student
use of the tutor service, research projects, and faculty development.
Book reviews: Writers of book (textbook or other) reviews should first contact
the editors with suggested titles before proceeding with the book review.
ELF classroom practices: Articles should be brief “take-away” descriptions of
any activity, project, strategy or useful tool employed with varying degrees ofsuccess in the ELF classroom (i.e.,“teacher’s toolbox”).
How to submit your manuscript:
Please email your submissions to the editors with the title, “CELF Forum
Submission”.
email: celfforum@tamagawa.ac.jp4Issue 1 Foreword:
This volume is the first edition of The CELF Forum. It is being producedin the seventh academic year since the establishment of the Center for English
as a Lingua Franca (CELF) at Tamagawa University, a time when we may
reflect on our foundations and look forward with expectation.
In doing so, I acknowledge the estimable contribution of Dr. Masaki Oda,
CELF Director from its foundation until last academic year, and the admirable
endeavors of past and present faculty members as we learn about and engage
in ELF research, especially as it relates to pedagogy.
We are pleased this edition includes an article coauthored by prominent
ELF scholar Dr. Will Baker (University of Southampton) and Dr. Tomokazu
Ishikawa. Addressing differences between the terms ‘multi’, ‘inter’, and ‘trans’,
they clarify some perspectives prevalent in English language teaching.
Two articles in this volume focus on writing. In the first, Dr. Heiko Langexamines the extent to which his students use ELF in written communication,in contrast with the extent to which they hold ELF-oriented perceptions oflanguage use. In the second, Richard Marsh discusses ELF-aware process
writing approaches which involve student choice, diversity of opinion, andadaptability to various situations including remote contexts.
Two articles examine speaking. Drew Larson adopts a formative
approach to speaking assessment, exploring activities and guidelines for“microtesting”, including measures suitable in remote learning contexts.
Saranya Muthumaniraja describes the rationale and benefits of a "structured
presentation practice model" for Japanese learners of English.
Rasami Chaikul and Brett Milliner conclude with a report on research at
CELF this academic year.
Finally, I would like to express our sincere gratitude to editors BrettMilliner and Travis Cote for their commendable work on the first volume of thispublication.
Thank you CELF faculty members and administration staff for a
productive academic year.
Paul McBride MEd (TESOL)
Acting Director
CELF

Contents
ELF Awareness and Use in Written Communication: Beyond
the Native Speaker Norm?
Heiko Lang

1

An Examination of Speaking Assessment in the ELF
Classroom
Drew Larson

10

Multi-, inter-, and trans-? ‘Confusing’ Terms for ELF
Researchers
Tomokazu Ishikawa & Will Baker

21

In the Shadow of Covid-19: SurveyMonkey as an Illuminating
Path towards Process Writing and Formative Assessment
Richard Marsh

31

Improving Oral Fluency Practice in Presentation Classes
through"Structured Fluency Practice Model"
Saranyaraja Muthumaniraja

40

A Report on Research at the Center for English as a Lingua
Franca 2020
Rasami Chaikul & Brett Milliner

49

ELF Awareness and Use in Written Communication:
Beyond the Native Speaker Norm?
書面のコミュニケーションにおけるELFの利用と認識：
ネイティブスピーカー規範を超えて？
Heiko Lang, ハイコ・ラング
Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Tamagawa University, Japanh.lang@lab.tamagawa.ac.jp
ABSTRACT
Research on the use of ELF in written communication is still in its infancy. This study
analyses the emergence of ELF in students’ discussion board posts in two ELF-informed
language courses at a Japanese university. The purpose of this study was to ascertain
whether or not students were able to make use of the principles of ELF in written
communication with their peers. I find that students were able to use various strategies for
effective ELF communication that deviates in important aspects from the norms of native
speaker usage. However, in terms of their own perception as ELF users, they remainedlargely bound to the norms of “standard” English. These findings point to the limitationsof ELF pedagogy in the monolingual and monocultural Japanese classroom.
KEYWORDS: ELF, English language teaching, Written communication, Discussion
board posts, Student writings
1. INTRODUCTION
This article deals with students’ written discourse in English in two English as a Lingua
Franca (ELF) courses that were taught in Japan during the Covid-19 pandemic. In theacademic year of 2020 / 2021, physical interaction between teachers and students inclassroom settings was severely limited due to restrictions of “social distancing”. While
video conference programs were used to emulate as closely as possible real classroom
interaction, students and teachers were also asked to become familiar with “asynchronous
teaching”. This form of text-based interaction with English – via written homework,quizzes, or discussion board posts – has important merits for students, such as thepossibility to deal with the assignments at one’s preferred speed for looking up words andcross-referencing, and a reduced level of stress in comparison to an oral communication
situation. In fact, it has been claimed that written communication via devices (likecomputers or smart phones) has been a preferred form of communication for a majority of1

Japanese students for some time (Takahashi, 2014).
In this context, it is interesting to probe the students’ awareness and use of theconcept of ELF concerning the use of English in writing: Are students, when they undertake
written tasks in English, aware of the possibilities of English as a Lingua Franca? Do
they actively try to communicate their opinions based on their cultural background andemphasize understandability over native-speaker norms of grammatical correctness, or dothey, in contrast, revert to practices linked to assumptions about the necessity to compose
sentences in “standard English”? After all, it can be argued that a distinct boundary exists
between the possibilities to use ELF in oral communication and the more rigid world of
written texts, where more stricter rules of grammar and semantics seem to apply.
The problem of the difference between written and oral forms of communicationin the use of English as a Lingua Franca is an issue that needs further clarification fromthe field. In general, ELF communication in written texts has received far less scholarly
attention than spoken discourse (Jenkins et al., 2011) with the exception of written
academic discourse (Flowerdew, 2008; Lillis & Curry, 2010). Indeed, even a very wideranging definition of ELF as “any use of English among speakers of different first languages
for whom English is the communicative medium of choice, and often the only option”(Seidlhofer, 2011, p. 7, italics in the original) emphasizes the use of English by speakers
in contrast to writers. It has even been argued, contrary to the position adopted in thispaper, that the very concept of ELF is not very useful for written discourse, as in writing“the need for clarity, and rhetorical coherence, in the absence of scope for interpersonalnegotiation and with a potentially heterogeneous audience, forces both writer and reader
to give greater weight to recognized rules of grammar and syntax” (Sowden 2012, p. 95).
Recently, however, with the rise of digital forms of communication through webbased appliances and social media, interest in how written forms of English communicationreflect non-native speaker cultural norms has been growing (Franceschi & Vettorel 2017).
Poppi (2012), for example, has demonstrated that written articles by non-native speakers
of English (in her case, Baltic and Chinese newspaper articles) do indeed show a “tendency
to turn national expressions and concepts into English in a way which might sounddeviant to the native speaker, but has proved to be communicatively effective” (p. 108).
Importantly, successful use of ELF in written form does not necessarily require the senderand the recipient of a message to come from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
Elder and Davies (2006) argue that ELF can also emerge when all participants to a given
communication “share the same or (similar) first language” (p. 282).
2. METHODOLOGY
In order to answer the question of whether or not the students’ written English would reflect
their awareness of English as a Lingua Franca, in this study, 406 discussion board posts ofa popular learning platform, Blackboard, from 35 student participants, who are non-native
English speakers with a Japanese cultural background and with low-intermediate English
proficiency, were analysed. After the project, a questionnaire about ELF awareness was
conducted (see Appendix A).
Thematically, the data analysed here focuses on students’ written opinions about2gender roles in Japanese society. Before the activities were conducted, several teachingmodules1 , developed by Tamagawa University’s Center for English as a Lingua Franca,
were used to introduce the basic concept of ELF and gender roles. After this introduction,
students were asked to express their opinions on various topics connected with “gender”
in contemporary Japan (such as gender roles in the workplace or in leisure activities suchas video games or cosplay). After this, students were given the task to comment on theirclassmates’ posts and to respond to comments that they received in order to ascertain theirlevel of understanding.
During the project, students were encouraged to consider the principles of ELF asdeveloped during class, and to try to communicate their points of view in English without
taking undue observance to the grammatical correctness and idiomatic patterns of native
speaker English, but instead to focus on mutual intelligibility. As the goal of the study was
to observe the emergence of ELF communication among L1 Japanese speakers of English,
teacher intervention (in the form of corrections or suggestions) was strictly limited inorder to prevent giving the students the impression that their way of communicating wasin any way deficient. However, teacher feedback was given during the Zoom meetings
after each activity, and ELF-informed elements of the students’ posts were discussed inclass.
With regards to data analysis, all student statements were read carefully andinstances of non-standard use of English were identified. All critical passages that
contained ELF-informed content were extracted and analysed as to whether they showed
the application of ELF strategies to deal with non-normative use of English or creativeuse of English stemming from the students’ cultural and linguistic L1 background. The
qualitative data was then compared and synthesized to gain a holistic understanding about
the use of the ELF among the students. Representative examples were selected for the
discussion below.
3. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGSA) Several non-normative uses of English can be found in the data, and two different
strategies are visible for dealing with such uses: The students’ reactions to their peers’
non-standard usage of English reveals both the “let-it-pass” strategy, which means simply
ignoring an unknown phrase or word, and the “make-it-normal” strategy, which means
accepting and re-using an original nonstandard use of English in one’s own discourse(Ren in Chen 2016, p. 168).
As an example of the “let-it-pass” strategy, the following exchange deals with the different
gender roles in the Japanese workplace.
S1:
Women are entrusted with more detailed tasks than men. For
example, women serve tea and clean the house.
S2:
I also felt that women tend not to be assigned important tasks.
Here, judging from her use of examples, S1 uses the English word “detailed” in the senseof “minor”, which native speakers might consider as slightly unusual. Her interlocutor, S2,
1

Authors of the modules were Tomokazu Ishikawa and Paul McBride.

3

however understands the meaning and affirms S1’s point without asking for confirmation
or attempting to correct her, but by choosing a different expression which is more “usual”
from the perspective of the standard usage of English.
Here is a further example, concerning the same topic:
S10: Men are working outside, women are doing house-work. I wanted you to get rid of
these stereotypes and become a more free style.
S4:
I agree […]. So far, I hope that this concept of men working and women doinghousehold chores can be dispelled.
Here, S4 chooses to let the non-standard use of English in S10’s second sentence pass. As
in the prior example, concentrating one’s reply to the central topic of the conversation,
this strategy minimizes frictions in the flow of the conversation, and thus helps to achievea successful communication.
An example of the “make-it-normal” strategy can be found in the exchange
between S3 and S4, who discuss gender roles in relation to hair length. S3 states that hairlength should not be regulated:
S3:
As such people change length our hair. This is free and I think it isgood.
Here, the usage of “free” seems to be a direct translation of the Japanese “自由 jiyū”,
signifying “freedom”. In her response, S4 understands S3’s use of “free” in this sense andconcurs:
S4:
I agree hair is free and your think it is good. I have a short hair. So it is a happy
way of thinking.
In another instance, discussing the liberating effects of cosplay on the issue of genderin Japanese society, a Japanese phrase that denotes being concerned with the opinion ofothers (mawari no me wo ki ni suru), literally “to be concerned with the eyes around you”
is used:
S5:
People care about the eyes around them. I want to eliminate thestereotypes that ‘this is normal’ and ‘this should be done’.
S6:
I think so, too. […] Now there is a place to cosplay without worrying
about people’s eyes. I think it is rare that there is no gender role andfreedom.
In a further text posted after the above, and possibly influenced by it, another student uses
the same image:
S7:
And cosplayers don’t care about the eyes around them. Because
cosplay cannot be enjoyed if you care about the eyes around you.
S5, having been the first person to introduce the image in the thread, eagerly concurs:
S5:
I have the same opinion! Cosplay does not have a gender role. Whena gender role arises, people care about their eyes. As [S7] says, don’t worry about the eyesaround you.
These short exchanges show, first, how NNS of English who share the same L1 linguistic
background can use both the “let-it-pass” strategy and the “make-it-normal” strategy inorder to communicate successfully by using non-standard English. Second, they reveal that
contrary to the often perceived “need for clarity, and rhetorical coherence” (Sowden 2012,4p. 95) in written discourse, non-standard use of English in writing does not necessarilyhinder intelligibility among speakers of the same L1 linguistic and cultural background.
B) Sometimes, Japanese was employed in order to bring across the intended meaning. In
relation to the gender gap among chefs and the prevalent image of preparing meals as a
typical chore for women in Japanese society, S8 argues in the following way:
S8:
There are many men in chefs and itamae at first-class hotels.
S4:
You are right. The chef I am imagining is male, and so on TV, There
are many image of men.
Here, S8 felt that using the common English word “chef” as denoting somebody who
prepares meals was not enough to bring across his point. Only by exploiting the Japaneseterm “itamae” (a term used in Japanese to refer to a Sushi chef), S8 is able to render thefull sense of his opinion into English. S4, sharing the same linguistic background, has notrouble of understanding S8.
In another example, S2 argues that gender roles are currently changing, and argues that“even men do household chores”. S9 agrees, stating that
S9:
While the idea of ‘Ikumen’ is widespread, it is a mistake to say that
only women do housework.
Here, S9 feels that a Japanese word – “Ikumen”, signifying men who take an active rolein family affairs, especially childcare – was most suited to express the shared meaning in
the conversation with S2.
In these examples, students are actively applying the ELF strategy to “enrich” (Cogo2009, p. 270) English with native linguistic elements. In fact, this seemingly carefree useof originally Japanese terms – some of which in fact already have entered the English
language2 – can be seen as reflecting the growing security of Japanese students in enriching
English by native idioms and making English a language that is “owned” by NNS.
C) The above examples seem to demonstrate a growing confidence in applying theprinciples of ELF on part of the Japanese students. However, a post-project survey (seeappendix A) indicates that the students’ self-perceptions of their own performance as ELF
users are not necessarily congruent with these findings.
The results of this survey can be summarized in the following way. While most
students affirmed their understanding of the concept of ELF (62%, Q1), its importance(81%, Q2), and its usefulness (75%, Q6) for writing on discussion boards, more thanhalf (53%) stated that they still felt the need to adhere to standard English (Q3), and 76%
stated that it was important for them not to make spelling or grammar mistakes (Q5).
Indeed, almost all students (87%) stated that the English grammar and spelling rules had
hindered them to freely express their opinions (Q7). For many of them (44%), it was
important to use “correct” English when communicating in writing with their Japanesepeers, while a third of them (28%) had a contrasting opinion (Q10). Some students (31%)
were comfortable with their peers using non-standard English, while the same number
2

A huge number of English online resources uses these two terms; at least “Itamae” has already,at the time of writing, found its way into an authoritative British dictionary of English: Macmillan
Dictionary https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/itamae

5(31%) were irritated and unsure how to respond (Q8). A majority (78%) believed that theirpeers were seeking to write “correct” English (Q9).
While the concept of ELF is, then, generally acknowledged by the students, theingrained native-speaker norms are still prevalent and inform both their own writings andtheir assessment of their peers’ discourse.
4. CONCLUSION
This study has resulted in several findings. First, the data has revealed that the Japanese
students who participated in this study are able to use several strategies (both the “let-itpass” and the “make-it-normal” strategy) for dealing with non-standard uses of English
among their peers.
Second, the data has shown several examples of non-standard forms of English
which are clearly influenced by the students’ L1, in this case, Japanese. In the cases
considered in this study, these “linguistic innovations” (Seidlhofer, 2011) did not prevent
understanding, which supports Hülmbauer’s (2007) argument that “there is no one-toone correlation of lexicogrammatical correctness and communicative effectiveness” (p.
5); indeed, the examples show that standard forms of English can be enriched by using
original L1 expressions.
Third, however, in their own assessment of their written discourse, a majority ofthe students still widely consider standard norms of English as the benchmark for theirposts, and state that they attempted to write “correct” English regardless of the activities’
explicit goal to treat English as their “own” language and giving priority to expressing
their points of view over adhering strictly to native-speaker grammatical correctness. The
native-speaker myth (Jenkins, 2007) seems still to be ingrained in the Japanese students’collective image of English (Ishikawa, 2018), and without a “real” communication
situation between L1 speakers of other languages, native speaker norms and usages
apparently remain authoritative for the use of written English among Japanese students at
this stage of their English education.
As the students were conscious that they were communicating in effect with their
L1 peers, not with interlocutors from a culturally or linguistically different background,
all attempts to “simulate” ELF communication were, of course, somewhat artificial.
This shortcoming, i.e., the lack of “real” ELF communication, however, is not specificto written activities, but applies to most communication activities in the Japanese ELF
classroom. This raises the question of the very possibility of ELF pedagogy in the normal(monocultural and monolingual) Japanese classroom, i.e., without the immediate accessto interlocutors from different L1 backgrounds for communicative purposes. A feasible
method for raising ELF awareness in this context is for the teacher to give feedback
to the students on their ELF-informed discourse elements and to point out exactly
where ELF-informed communication has taken place, that is, where they have (with orwithout their knowledge) become ELF users by creatively enriching “standard” English
with idioms, grammatical constructions, or other usages of English that stem from theircultural and linguistic background as Japanese and which would not be normally used bynative speakers. As a further step, ELF classes in Japan should make increasing use of6the emerging software technology and the internet environment by providing students theexperience of online communication (Ke & Suzuki, 2011) with other non-native speakers
of English from different cultures.
While a more detailed research (both in terms of a larger student sample and alonger observation period) is certainly necessary to corroborate the findings of this study,
they indicate that without the possibility of “real” and sustained emergence into the abovedescribed forms of ELF communication experience, be they oral or written, pedagogic
efforts to raise awareness of ELF principles in a monolingual Japanese classroom willremain theoretical and abstract to the students, and might ultimately be insufficient tochallenge the native speaker myth that seems to be so deeply ingrained in the Japanese
students’ minds.
REFERENCES
Cogo, A. (2009). Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A study of pragmatic
strategies. In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies
and Findings (pp. 254-273). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Elder, C., & Davies, A. (2006). Assessing English as a lingua franca. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics, 26, 282-301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190506000146
Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an additional language: What
can Goffmann’s ‘stigma’ tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2),77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.002
Franceschi, V., & Vettorel, P. (2017). ELF users’ perceptions of their ‘non-nativeness’ indigital communication through English: Falling short of the target?, Altre Modernità,
4, 133-48.
Hülmbauer, C. (2007). ‘You moved, aren’t?’ – The relationship between lexicogrammaticalcorrectness and communicative effectiveness in English as a lingua franca, Vienna
English Working Papers, 16(2), 3-35.
Ishikawa, T. (2018). From English native-speakerism to multilingualism: A conceptual
note, JACET ELF SIG Journal, 2, 9-17.
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jenkins, J., Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into
English as a lingua franca, Language Teaching 44(3), 281-315. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0261444811000115
7

Ke, I., & Suzuki, T. (2011). Teaching global English with NNSeNNS online communication,
Journal of Asia TEFL, 8(2), 109-130.
Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics andpractices of publishing in English. Routledge.
Poppi, F. (2012). Global interactions in English as a lingua franca. How written
communication is changing under the influence of electronic media and newcontexts of use. Peter Lang.
Ren, W. (2016). Strategies used in Chinese university students’ ELF emails to remedy
or prevent problems in understanding. In Y. Chen & D.-H. V. Rau et al. (Eds.),
Email discourse among Chinese using English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 163-181).
Springer.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford University Press.
Sowden, C. (2012). ELF on a mushroom: The overnight growth in English as a lingua
franca, ELT Journal, 66(1), 89-96. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr024
Takahashi, T. (2014). Youth, social media and connectivity in Japan. In P. Seargeant & C.
Tagg (Eds.), The Language of social media. Identity and community on the internet(pp. 186-207). Palgrave Macmillan.

8

APPENDIX A
Questions and Results of the post-activity survey in per cent. Total number of responses:
31.

Q1 I think I understand the basic concept
of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) as
opposed to English as a native-speaker“owned” language.
Q2 When formulating my opinion
on blackboard, I felt that the concept
of English as a Lingua Franca wasimportant to me.
Q3 When formulating my opinion on
blackboard, I felt the necessity to adhere
to correct (in terms of standard English)
grammar and spelling.
Q4 I thought that most of my classmates
were actively trying to use ELF.
Q5 When formulating my opinion on
blackboard, it was important for me not
to make grammar or spelling mistakes.
Q6 I think the concept of ELF is usefulfor me when writing in English with myJapanese classmates.
Q7 I felt that English grammar andspelling were making it difficult for me
to express my opinion the way I wantedto.
Q8 When I noticed that some classmates
were using English that is different fromstandard English, I felt irritated andunsure how to respond.
Q9 I believe that most of my classmates
were trying to write “correct” English.
Q10 I think it is important to use“correct” English in writing whencommunicating in writing with myJapanese classmates.

Strongly
agree

Strongly
disagree

19

44

34

3

0

23

58

19

0

0

31

22

38

9

0

35

41

19

6

0

33

43

13

10

0

32

44

19

3

3

42

45

10

3

0

16

16

38

22

9

31

47

16

6

0

9

34

28

25

3

9

An Examination of Speaking Assessment in the ELF
Classroom
ELF教室でのスピーキング評価の検討
Drew Larson, ドリュー・ラーソン
Tamagawa University, Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Japanlarson@lab.tamagawa.ac.jp
ABSTRACTEnglish as a Lingua Franca instructors should prepare students to functionally communicate
in a way that instills fluency and inspires practical communication skills, while upholding
the position that these objectives take precedence over pre-conceptualized native-speakernorms of accuracy in assessment procedures so as to infuse self-confidence into students’
speaking abilities. In lieu of standard examination models, an alternative assessment
method is presented that is based upon daily classwork serving as a foundational elementof the speaking component of the students’ final grades. This approach uses continual‘microtesting’ to gauge student proficiency and effort. The paper will explore how teachers
can establish a microtesting practice in their classroom, including examples of activities
and speaking exercises that can be utilized, guidelines for preparing learners for thegoals and expectations associated with an assessment process that is likely different fromones they have been exposed to in the past, and various tips for handling the practicalaspects of incorporating this new assessment strategy with attention paid to the recent
development of remote learning.
KEYWORDS: Speaking assessment, Prioritizing practical communication skills,
Navigating speaking assessment, Microtesting
1. INTRODUCTION
In Harold Madsen’s (1983) book Techniques in Testing, the author notes, “The testingof speaking is widely regarded as the most challenging of all language tests to prepare,administer and score” (p. 147). 35 years later, the situation has hardly improved, as Luke
Harding and Tim McNamara (2018) point out that, “The sociolinguistic reality of English
as a lingua franca (ELF) communication represents one of the most significant challenges
to language testing and assessment since the advent of the communicative revolution” (p.
570). Traditional assessment methods, such as class presentations and mid-terms and final
exams, are not only frequently accompanied by problematic issues for students (including

10

procrastination, cramming information into short-term memory, and increased levels ofstress that may inhibit fluency), such mechanisms also often have difficulty replicating
the primary environment in which language skills are most commonly used – daily
communication.
Designing a testing process that minimizes problems and maximizes the potential
for success will be helpful for students and teachers alike. The purpose of this paper is toestablish what type of assessment can achieve these goals by examining what the criteria
for “success” in an ELF classroom amounts to, and how a teacher can practically simulatethat for grading purposes.
2. STANDARD ASSESSMENT METHODSAssessment criteria vary according to the situation a learner is in. Students in a publicschool will be graded by different criteria than those who are using English for businesspurposes, and both of those students will see different standards for achievement thansomeone trying to specifically excel in a particular language exam (e.g. TOEIC, TOEFL,IELTS or other such standardized tests). Success is determined by how well a learner uses
the language according to the purposes for which they are being trained. In the example
of studying for tests, this is easily measured based off of how the student’s score improves
on said test. For business people, it may come down to how well they present their ideas
or products, with quantified success embodied in increased sales. For students in a publicschool program, it may depend upon their mastery of a variety of the 4 skills of Listening,
Speaking, Reading and Writing with an emphasis on grammatical correctness. In all thesesituations, student achievement is held to different standards depending upon the assessor
and the goals of the assessment mechanism.
There are certain commonalities required of all types of language testing systems,
though. No matter what skills are being appraised, the methodology of that assessment
should be objectively consistent and fair across the sample of students being tested. The
validity of the assessment process relies upon results being as replicable and as devoid of
instructor subjectivity as possible.
In classrooms around the world, many language teachers choose to focus
assessment measures on traditional testing mechanisms like presentations, portfolios, andmidterms and final examinations. Rubrics are frequently utilized to gauge how effectively
students address a variety of factors in the speaking process, often including fluency andaccuracy-based checkpoints. The more detailed the rubric, the more justified the assessor
feels in the validity of the results. However, often overlooked is the infrequency in whichsuch assessment occurs, meaning a great deal of the student’s grade is dependent upon
their performance on a single day. With so much pressure riding on these ‘landmark’
examinations of a student’s ability, it can lead to validity issues in a variety of ways, fromunfamiliar or uncomfortable topics to increased stress or bad days caused by external
factors independent of the student’s language abilities. Additionally, the process ofstudying for event-based assessment can lead to ‘cramming’, a sub-optimal method ofstudying that lends itself to poorer long-term retention of information. Studies into the
Spacing Effect reveal that building vocabulary and skills over a longer, sustained period
11will result in better gains (Kornell, 2009).
Keeping these factors in mind, it becomes apparent that the typical assessment‘events’ that most language classes utilize are less than ideal, and that a more desirable
assessment method would be one that is spread out over a long time frame, covers a wide
range of topics, and is as stress-free as possible. Furthermore, it should simulate the goals
and expectations of language students who are using English as a Lingua Franca. Teachers
need to understand what these goals are and identify how to grade students for a masteryof abilities that support them.
3. GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS OF ELF CLASSROOMS AND ASSESSMENT
In order to answer this question, we should first examine what exactly ELF is. It is the useof English “as a global means of inter-community communication” (Seidlhofer, 2016, p.
20). It features “any use of English among speakers of different first languages for whom
English is the communicative medium of choice and often the only option” (Seidlhofer,
2011, p. 7).
There are a wide variety of World Englishes (Kachru, 1985). Due to theappropriation of English for use as a lingua franca, a number of different ‘acceptable
forms’ of the language have emerged (e.g. Jenkins, 2011). With such a wide array ofpractical Englishes in use among native and non-native speakers, language learners do
not necessarily encounter the same forms of English in the real world as their education isoften based upon (Mauranen, 2012). Given the normative differences between Inner Circle
varieties, these variations filter down to Outer Circle and Expanding Circle countries,
impacting the validity of assessments that are based on Inner Circle norms (Lowenberg,
2003). As a result, language teachers should reconsider the principles of basing theirpractices on native speakerism (Dewey, 2012). Assessment should instead focus onfactors like strategies of negotiation, situated performance, communicative repertoire, andlanguage awareness as opposed to preconceived notions of ‘accuracy’, as “discrete-item
tests, particularly on grammar and vocabulary, have limited utility” (Canagarajah, 2006,
p. 240).
The forms of English utilized in ELF contexts are often not identical to American
English or British English or other forms of English that exist around the world. Instead,they are localized amalgamations of these multilingual resources and repertoires that do
not rely specifically upon the grammatical ‘rules’ prescribed by any particular version.
In the real world, as long as the end goal of communication without confusion between
interactants is attained, ELF is successfully serving its purpose. The classroom shouldreflect those standards, as opposed to the imposition of narrowly dictated norms, as Ferit
Kilickaya (2009) states, “it is of utmost importance for teachers to develop a greater
tolerance of differences and adjust their expectations according to the setting... Whatmatters most seems to be the intelligibility of the uses of English” (p. 37). Accordingly,
ELF classrooms should not be concerned with accuracy nearly so much as fluency andcomprehensibility, and testing mechanisms should also strive for determining if students
are capable of communication that is free from significant confusion. That is to say, canthey get the information they want? And can they provide the information that someone
12

else wants? Or, if confusion occurs, can the problem be worked out through some formof troubleshooting or pre-empting? This communication should ideally be impromptu
in nature and capable of spanning any number of topics that may arise in personal or
professional settings.
In short, an ELF classroom should focus primarily on increasing the students’communicative capability, and the assessment of students should focus on how effectivethat communicative performance is.
While presentations are an excellent way of determining how effectively a student
can communicate with sufficient preparation, they do not fulfill the goal of creating asituation in which impromptu speech can be assessed. And although examinations can be
structured to do this, they can also fall short in providing an authentic environment forcommunication and typically only produce a stressful environment in its place. Students
don't always perform well under pressure. ‘Freezing up’ when stress levels are high is anatural and not-uncommon reaction. Being overly nervous is typically not conducive tousing a language that is not the speaker’s mother tongue with optimal levels of accuracy
or fluency. Comfortable and relaxed environments allow the river of language to flow
more freely.
An ELF teacher should strive to create this type of environment in the classroom
in order to get a true look at the capabilities of each student, lest the validity of theassessment be open to scrutiny under the standard that it is not representative of what a
student is capable of in ‘normal’ life. If the goal of ELF is communicative competence
in a real-world situation, then teachers must replicate real-world scenarios that allow for
impromptu, sustained communication.
A solution is to implement an assessment mechanism that captures the students’capabilities over an extended period of time and topics. It should allow students to focus
on fluency so they may display communicative competence in a relaxed environment
as opposed to making checkpoints to assure students have mastered the accuracy of thelanguage. ‘Microtesting’ is designed to do exactly these things.
4. MICROTESTING IN THE ELF CLASSROOM
4.1 What is microtesting?
Microtesting is done on a steady and consistent basis throughout the term. It gauges a
student’s ‘everyday capabilities’ for the precise reason that it is done every day. Insteadof having large testing events, one goal of microtesting is to become as inconspicuous
as possible. By using cumulative assessment methods in which the students gain points
for achieving the practical goals of providing and procuring information, a teacher canaccurately gauge proficiency levels over a variety of topics throughout the scope of theterm. Microtesting offers students a low-stress environment in which they can practice theirlanguage skills with other non-native English speakers to fully realize the expectations ofEnglish as a Lingua Franca as a form of communication, increasing their self-efficacy
levels and communicative competence.

13

4.2 How can microtesting be instituted in the classroom?
The environment described above can be easily attained through small group work. It
relieves the pressure of individual-based assessment found in interviews or presentations,and as long as the groups are not too large, allows all the participants to have sufficient
opportunities to contribute. Group sizes of three or four students permit everyone to remain
active listeners and speakers without applying the pressure of continual involvement thatcan stem from pair work (i.e. it provides chances for ‘breaks’). As groups increase to sizesof five or more, it creates the potential for shy or less proficient students to get lost by nothaving such active involvement, so be wary of letting groups get too large, but if large
groups are necessary due to class size, then consider ways to assure involvement from allparticipants, perhaps by establishing mandatory speaking ‘turns’ or rewarding students
who create more inclusiveness for their peers.
If students are given an opportunity to speak in small groups for extended periodsof time in every class it helps build the habits necessary to become competent and confident
English speakers. They will become accustomed to the format and the expectations as theteacher guides them through the process of becoming effective English users.
4.3 How does a teacher prepare students for microtesting?
Of course, it is critical that these expectations are properly explained. This style ofassessment will be new for most students, and it is the teacher’s responsibility to makesure they understand that their grades do not rely upon ‘normal’ tests, and that daily group
work will count as a major factor towards their final grade. Students must be told what theyneed to do in order to accrue points and achieve a good grade. The following checkpoints
provide not only the criteria for succeeding in the assessment, but also for succeeding atusing English as a Lingua Franca in the real world.
Can participants contribute to conversation?
At what level? (both in quality and quantity of contribution)Can they include others? (through question/response and troubleshooting help)
Can they stay on topic and achieve targets? (when applicable)
By establishing early on what the criteria is in order to achieve ‘success’, students haveample time to adjust to the standards. Teacher monitoring and guidance can further pointout areas that students are successful in and techniques they can use to improve, likehelping to expand other group members’ comments by using “wh-“ questions or utilizing
cross-talk when appropriate. Giving lots of positive reinforcement coupled with notes on
how to improve performance during the early stages of the term will allow students tolearn how to converse optimally.
The occasional use of L1 is acceptable in this environment, because expecting
students to use only English can damage self-confidence by leading to verbal paralysis
while students search for proper vocabulary that they may not know. As Li Wei
acknowledges, “Translanguaging has proven to be an effective pedagogical practice in avariety of educational contexts where the school language or the language-of-instruction
is different from the languages of the learners” (2018, pg. 15). By allowing unknown
lexical items to be substituted with the student’s mother tongue, it encourages fluency
14

and gives other students an opportunity to provide peer assistance by offering the properwords or phrasing, an action that helps the teacher not only by serving as a surrogate
instructor, but by offering a grading factor in favor of the peer teacher.
4.4 How does a teacher use microtesting to gauge student achievement?
The first step is for a teacher to set the criteria by which they will award points forcontributions. As this system is cumulative, these points will be recorded and compiled at
the end of the term to establish the students’ final speaking scores. It is not necessary to
remove points for a lack of achievement, merely tally them as achievements are attained.
Some of the possible criteria that a teacher may choose to track could include
factors like:		How often a student makes contributions
		
The proficiency level of contributions (average and above or below)		
The ability to achieve specific targets (individual or group)		The ability to include others in conversation through questioning		The ability to respond to questions or other students’ contributions		
The utilization of code switching or cross talk		
Providing assistance to peers
By creating a ‘key’, teachers can quickly mark which students attain which goals througha system of shorthand notation. Teachers can use different marks, shapes, or letters tomake the grading system as simple or complex as desired. Using different colors is a nice
way to separate student involvement in different phases of the class time (e.g. small group
work as opposed to individual contributions during or outside of class). Figure 1 shows
one potential set of criteria and the marks that could accompany each achievement

Figure 1. Example of notations used for microtesting assessment (with key)
Depending upon what the teacher assesses the students’ needs as being, the marked
achievements may change according to the level of the group or even from class to15

class. With an extremely low level class, the achievement may be as small as speaking asingle phrase in English, while more advanced classes may need to successfully state andexplain an idea or opinion in order to achieve the desired target. Whatever the criteria, it
is important that it is predetermined by the teacher and then marked consistently for all
students. If a student excels at achieving a target, simply circling the mark once or twice
can serve as a reminder of how far above average that student’s accomplishment was, oralternatively if partial credit is to be awarded, a new mark can be created (e.g. using ahalf-sized mark, or a small dot). As long as the teacher can establish set criteria and thenfollow it without bias, these quick and easy notations can be tallied at some point after theactivity has been completed for an accurate and objective accounting of how much each
student has achieved.
Teachers may have a more challenging time monitoring small group work forassessment purposes than they would have in a standard assessment event. With multiple
groups working simultaneously, it is not as easy to provide a detailed critique of a student’s
ability. However, this is not actually problematic if teachers adjust their standards of what
they are looking for. Instead of seeking accuracy and paying attention to the mistakes thatstudents make, teachers should mark accomplishments and provide points for students’achievements. Keeping a specific accounting of a student’s errors is not as simple whenthe entire class is speaking at one time as it is during an assessment ‘event’. Having
multiple groups speaking at the same time can also present a challenge to monitor, butwith practice the teacher can learn to jump quickly between groups. Instead of listening
for the complete content of a single student’s contribution, marking the fact that thecontribution was made and immediately moving on to another group and then checking
back to assure that the first group is continuing along the same conversational trajectory
can allow for more continual oversight. Finding a central location in the room from which
the teacher can hear or see multiple groups at one time is advantageous and allows theteacher to instantly redirect his or her attention. Although shifting focus repeatedly whilestill maintaining a connection with multiple conversations is difficult, adjusting one’s
listening ability to identify new voices as they emerge, even as 5 or more people are
speaking, is a skill that can be practiced and improved upon, so that as new voices speak
out, they can be immediately acknowledged and marked according to the types and levelsof their contributions. Only in situations when the teacher must answer questions or initiate
conversation (e.g. by offering advice or modeling examples of what the activity requires)is there a complete separation from the ability to shift one’s attention to any speaker in theroom. Otherwise, the teacher always tries to maintain some level of contact with every
group.
4.5 What activities can be used in conjunction with microtesting?
Microtesting does not require a different curriculum than teachers would typically utilize,
it merely provides a different way to assess daily activities with the goal of using themto gauge a student’s abilities. Any speaking activity that would normally be used canbe graded through the lens of microtesting, however it is optimally designed for small
group activities in which a teacher must simultaneously monitor a large number of student
conversations.
16However if teachers are at a loss of how to institute such a system, particularly
with low-level students who may have difficulty with lightly guided small group work,
perhaps this can serve as a guide to what types of speaking activities to assign.
In the first few class sessions, keeping the class together in a large, teacher-led
group can help provide the guidance students need in order to become more autonomous.
Beginning the class with student introductions will help teachers get an immediate ‘first
impression’ of what proficiency level students are at. Teachers can model personalized
questions in response to the subject material students provide in their introductions.
This will allow the class to see how questions can be utilized to extend conversation andprocure specific information. A focus on “wh-” questions can provide the forms for linesof questioning that allow for greater response than simple “yes/no” questions, althoughboth can be utilized as needed. As well as modeling question technique, these first classes
can help a teacher determine what groupings of students will work best in future activities.
Trying to equally distribute speakers of above or below average proficiency across groups
will lead to the best results, as every group will have students capable of helping guideothers through the activities.
Another early-stage, full-class activity to utilize is storytelling. Using an interesting
story, picture, or video, teachers should establish a sequence of simple sentences. Teachers
can ascertain student comprehension by asking the class questions of varying difficultythat provide a listening check. These questions can be directed towards the class as a groupfor choral response, or at individual students. Review the material as frequently as needed
until the questions are consistently answered correctly. Once students have a firm graspof the material, separate them into small groups for rote re-tells of the material, with each
student taking turns to give the next sentence in the sequence that they can remember.
Have groups repeat the re-tells as many times as possible within the allotted time, trying
to relate different sentences with each successive re-tell. This should help ease lower-level
students into group work by giving them the material they need to be successful as well as
an understanding that even short sentences can be sufficient for continuing a conversation.
After utilizing these storytelling techniques for enough time to establish a comfort
level with small-group work, the teacher can introduce topic-free or very broad-based
topical conversation activities for short periods of time. Once groups can comfortably fill
five minutes by utilizing the questioning and short sentence techniques they have learned,
time frames can be extended and more target-focused topics can be layered into the group
work. By slowly working up the levels in stages and providing notes and suggestions of
how to continue to improve, group work can eventually utilize very specific targets or
task-based elements and continue for longer and longer periods of time.
4.6 Can microtesting work in an online classroom?
The short answer is yes. Although it is largely more difficult to use a microtesting-based
assessment system while using an online platform like Zoom, there are actually benefits
as well.
The primary difficulty is that the current technology only allows a teacher tomonitor one group at a time, and it takes a few seconds to change between groups. In
a live classroom environment, with the groups set up in a circle around the teacher, it is17

very simple to shift attention from one group to the next, or even monitor multiple groups
simultaneously to a degree. However online groups take so much time to switch between,
it necessitates an alternative approach. The easiest way to troubleshoot these issues isto spend more time monitoring each small group than one might do in a live classroom.
This requires trust that the other groups are remaining on task. Additionally, the teacher‘misses’ large portions of what is going on in the groups that are not being monitored. One
solution is to emphasize that students repeat themselves whenever the teacher enters theroom. This allows them to treat the majority of each exercise as ‘practice’ so that they can
prepare for the time periods during which the teacher enters the breakout room. While theteacher monitors other groups, the students can rehearse what they will say, and then when
the teacher enters, they can get a second crack at the material. An advantage to this systemis that it really encourages students to ask questions to other group members as everyone
tries to remember who has said what and make sure that each person is heard from while
the teacher is present. Another nice aspect of Zoom is how easy it is to keep track of who
is speaking. Additionally, the chat feature can be utilized to give notes surreptitiously to
students, or perhaps to task them with personal goals within their group work.
4.7. What are the pros and cons of microtesting in a nutshell?
There are a number of advantages to instituting a microtesting-based system of assessmentin the classroom. Most notably, it creates a ‘task-based’ environment in which language
is used for a purpose closely approximating real-world usage. The intense monitoringof frequent speaking activities can allow teachers to get a very strong perception of
their student’s general speaking abilities. Microtesting tends to result in a more relaxedclassroom environment, relieving the nerves of both teacher and students. Additionally,such a system can inspire and reward attendance, as students will recognize that the
cumulative nature of point accrual means that regularly attending class and making efforts
during group talk time will directly result in a better final grade.
On the other hand, disadvantages to this system include how difficult it can be tomonitor the large amount of simultaneous classroom activity as well as what individual
students’ specific abilities and weaknesses are, although this can be mitigated with practiceand increasingly detailed notation. Teachers need to make a concerted effort to get toknow students’ names very quickly in order to monitor group work effectively.
4.8. How well does microtesting work?
Although further research needs to be performed on the effectiveness of microtesting,results indicate that students who score well on TOEIC also perform at an above-averagelevel when assessed using microtesting methods. However, these methods also revealthat some students who do not perform particularly well on that standardized test are still
capable of very high levels of communicative competence.
Moreover, the system indicates there is marked improvement in many students’
speaking skills as the term progresses. They appear to learn conversational tactics thatallow their abilities to improve noticeably.
Most tellingly, students approve of microtesting by large margins, with 87% ofquestionnaire respondents (N=62) preferring it to more typical large-scale testing events.
18

The assessment technique is certainly ripe for continued research in fields like selfefficacy or a closer examination as to how well the results of microtesting correlate withthe results of large-scale standardized tests (although it should be noted that these tests
typically skew towards an over-reliance upon ‘accuracy’, which, as previously discussed,
has nebulous value within ELF constructs).
5. CONCLUSION
Microtesting is a low-stress assessment process that replicates a real-world environment
by providing frequent, task-based activities on a variety of topics, thus serving as an
appropriate testing mechanism in an ELF classroom. Teachers can implement it in lieu oftraditional tests or in conjunction with them.
REFERENCES
Canagarajah, S. (2006). Changing communicative needs, revised assessment objectives:
Testing English as an international language. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(3),229-242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15434311laq0303_1
Dewey, M. (2012). Towards a post-normative approach: Learning the pedagogy of ELF.
Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), 141-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/
jelf-2012-0007
Harding, L. & McNamara, T. (2018). Language assessment: The challenge of ELF. In J.
Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (Eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a
Lingua Franca. 570-582. Routledge.
Jenkins, J. (2011). Accommodating (to) ELF in the international university. Journal of
Pragmatics, 43(1), 926-936. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.011
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English
language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk and H.G. Widdowson (Eds), English in
the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures, 11-30. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kilickaya, F. (2009). World Englishes, English as an international language, and applied
linguistics. English Language Teaching, 2(3), 35-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.
v2n3p35
Kornell, N. (2009). Optimising learning using flashcards: Spacing is more effective thancramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society
for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 23(9), 1297-1317. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/acp.1537
19

Lowenberg, P. (2003). Assessing English proficiency in the Expanding Circle. World
Englishes, 21(3), 431-435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00261
Madsen, H.S. (1983). Techniques in testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Seidlhofer, B. (2016). ELF: English in a global context. In K. Murata (Ed.), Exploring
ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts: Conceptualization, Researchand Pedagogic Implications, 17-28. Routledge.
Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics,
39(1), 9-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx039

20

Multi-, Inter-, and Trans-?
‘Confusing’ Terms for ELF Researchers「多」「間」「超」?
ELF研究者にとっての‘紛らわしい’用語
Tomokazu Ishikawa, 石川 友和
Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Tamagawa University, Japant.ishikawa@lab.tamagawa.ac.jp
Will Baker, ウィル ・ ベーカー
Centre for Global Englishes, University of Southampton, UK
W.Baker@soton.ac.uk
ABSTRACTThis paper addresses the nuanced distinctions between multi-, inter-, and transterms in relation to the research field of ELF. The terms to be discussed in this paper
are multilingualism, multilanguaging, multicultural, multimodality, interculturalcommunication, interculturality, translanguaging, transcultural communication, andtransmodality.
KEYWORDS: English as a multilingua franca (EMF), Multilingualism,
Translanguaging, Intercultural and transcultural communication,
Multimodality and transmodality“[N]one of us, inside or outside ELF, are able to completely escapewhat Morán Panero (2015) calls ‘the terminological trap’.”(Jenkins, 2015, p. 71)
1. INTRODUCTION
ELF enquiry seeks to comprehend how English users interact at a global scale and in doing
this draws on terms from applied linguistics more broadly. However, no one term would
aptly describe global communication as stated in the opening quotation from Jenkins(2015). In this paper, we aim to do a little ‘spring cleaning’ for the nuanced distinctions
between the key terms multi-, inter-, and trans- with a focus on the ELF field.
In this age of global networks, much communication through English takes place
in online digital environments. This is illustrated in Dovchin, Sultana, and Pennycook’s
21

(2016) example taken from Facebook wall posts of a group of Mongolian participants(Naidan, male, age 19 and Dolgormaa, female, age 18). Their translation from Mongolian
is in brackets:
Extract 1
Naidan:Намрын налгар өдрүүдээ гэж...ккк – ☺ feeling wonderful.

		[Nice autumn day...kkk – ☺ feeling wonderful.]

Dolgormaa:

UB-d weather tiim muu bgamuu, flight hoishlogdloo, just wandering		around, but saw an Absolute Hunk! Girls! *Wink wink*		[Is the weather that bad in UB? My flight has been delayed, just 				

wandering around, but saw an Absolute Hunk! Girls! *Wink wink*]		(p. 99)Dovchin et al. (2016) illustrate how English and other multiple resources are intertwinedin Naidan and Dolgormaa’s interaction. They also propose that these resources result
from “one’s unequal social class, wealth and power” (2016, p. 92). In this example,
only Dolgormaa comes from a relatively affluent family with much experience of global
interaction. Such a holistic treatment of communication coincides with a currently
prominent notion in the ELF field, namely English as a multilingual franca (EMF) –although this is not a direction taken by Dovchin et al. (2016). More precisely, we argue
that EMF has the potential to integrate the multi-, inter-, and trans- perspectives to be
discussed in this paper. The next section explains each of the following concepts andnotions while referring back to the above Facebook exchange:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Multilingualism
Multilanguaging
Multicultural
Multimodality
Intercultural communication
Interculturality
Translanguaging
Transcultural communication, andTransmodality.

2. MULTI- TERMS FOR ELF RESEARCHERS
Following sociolinguistic tradition (e.g., Harris, 1997), ELF research has explored
linguistic practices at the interactional level, linguistic resources and repertoires (i.e.,
totalities of individually available linguistic resources) at the cognitive level, and linguistic22

constructs at the ideological level (Mauranen, 2012). Linguistic resources are specificparts of language deployed in and for each different interaction which are associable withdifferent named languages in an ideological sense (e.g., English and Japanese). With
multilingual resources as a prime example, the multi- terms are concerned with multiple
meaning making resources and modes.
Multilingualism
Multilingualism refers to the knowledge and use of different languages. Institutions andsocieties may recognise different languages to different degrees in policies and practices.
For individuals, what Cook (2002) calls multi-competence or “the knowledge of more than
one language in the same mind” (p. 10) is the norm. This does not mean that individuals
have equal proficiency across domains of use in all languages. In Blommaert’s (2010)
words:
We never know ‘all’ of a language, we always know specificbits and pieces of it. This counts for our ‘mother tongue’ as well
as for the languages we pick up in the course of a lifetime …
such ‘truncated’ repertoires are a better diagnostic of what realmultilingual competence means in an age of globalization[.] (p.
23)
Extract 1 may be said to be multilingual due to a mixture of Mongolian and English
in different scripts. Even so, while Naidan’s post is mostly Mongolian in the Cyrillicalphabet, combined with the English phrase pre-provided by Facebook, Dolgormaa meshes
Mongolian and English in the Latin alphabet. Dovchin et al. (2016) ascribe this difference
to “the speakers’ specific socio-economic backgrounds and access to resources” (p. 100)since only Dolgormaa is frequently online.
Multilanguaging
In second language acquisition (SLA), Nguyen (2012) argues that multilanguaging,
instead of multilingualism, “helps elucidate the dynamic mechanisms of language use
and reduce any possible association … with an accomplished and perfectionist state”(Nguyen, 2012, p. 68; cited in Jenkins, 2015, p. 78). In the ELF field, this term is adapted
to refer to linguistic development through accommodation (i.e., adjusting and adapting
the way of communicating) to multilingual English users (Jenkins, 2015). More precisely,
it is the act of learning “to engage in the dynamic exploitation of previously unfamiliar
linguistic resources by adapting to a multilingual environment” (Ishikawa, 2017, p. 38).
Anglophones are no exception, and they will potentially learn multilingual resources,
irrespective of their ability in other languages. As a caveat, these resources are not always
categorisable into one particular language. Cogo (2018), for instance, cites her participant’s
remark “was ist dis?” (p. 364) as an amalgamation of German, Spanish, and English. In
Extract 1, Dolgormaa can afford regular transnational travel, both online and offline, as
23

evident by the fact that she is waiting for flight at the time of posting. She is thus more
likely to engage in and witness multilanguaging than Naidan.
Multicultural
In a multicultural grouping or scenario, one or more participants recognise different
cultures which may have some bearing on their interaction. While culture is indispensable
to making and interpreting meaning (Baker, 2015), participants may not find any culturaldifferences to be obstacles to achieving meaning (Ishikawa, 2020). In this regard,
multicultural is not synonymous with cross-cultural, which usually presume distinct
cultural groups at a national level as a cause of communication difficulty (see Scollon& Scollon, 2001). The term multicultural is also different from multiculturalism, whose
perspective focuses on existing different cultural groups within society, such as multiethnic
areas in Tokyo. Extract 1 shows the limitations of an earlier cross-cultural model which
regards the same nationality as representing the same culture. Dolgormaa’s post begins
with asking what the weather is like in UB or Ulaanbaatar, but quickly moves beyond the
local scale. “Absolute Hunk” is a global brand of vodka advertised by a popular US actor
from the television series Sex and the City. Her familiarity with global cultural products
and practices testifies a “wider range of cultural, media and linguistic resources at her
disposal” (Dovchin et al., 2016, p. 100).
Multimodality
Communication involves multiple meaning making cues, signs, and symbols, often called
semiotic resources. Even though language is a major form of human communication, “theseparation of language from the complexity of signs with which its use is associated has
limited our understanding of a broader semiotics” (Pennycook, 2007, p. 49). Multimodality
embraces a full range of communication forms or modes to understand what speakers
actually mean, thereby countering the bias towards language as the only semiotic resource
researched. Modes are defined as “a socially shaped and culturally given resource formeaning making” such as “[i]mage, writing, layout, music, gesture, speech, moving
image, [and] soundtrack” (Kress, 2014/2017, p. 60). Hyperlinks and animations are also
commonly used to affect online. Extract 1 may be said to be multimodal since meaning
depends not only on the scripts but also on a giggling sound “kkk”, a smiling emoji ☺,and a facial expression *Wink wink*.
3. INTER- TERMS FOR ELF RESEARCHERS
Human beings tend to categorise their experiential reality to “make sense of the world by
imposing [their] own order” (Widdowson, 2012, p. 5). Making distinctions and envisaging
categories will help them cope with otherwise amorphous phenomena in the real world.
Language is no exception, and neither is culture. The inter- terms involve two or morecategories and signify in-betweenness.

24

Intercultural communication
As a research field, intercultural communication investigates distinct cultural or othergroups in interaction with each other, usually involving more than one first language andnationality. Typically, interactants with different social and linguistic backgrounds would
assume potential cultural differences. However, more recent research in the field stresses
the importance of going beyond a fixed ‘intercultural line’ (Holliday, 2011) between‘our’ and ‘other’ cultures that may be based on stereotypes or generalizations. Indeed,
presently well-cited inter- terms, such as intercultural awareness (ICA) (Baker, 2015) andintercultural citizenship (e.g., Byram et al., 2017), or critical approaches in interculturalcommunication more generally (e.g., Piller, 2017), problematise a simplified andessentialised understanding of culture and its role in interactional practices. From a morecritical perspective, intercultural communication refers to actual instances where culturaland linguistic differences are perceived as relevant to the interaction by participants
and/or researchers (Baker, 2015). In this regard, Extract 1 can be said to be interculturalcommunication. While Naidan and Dolgormaa share the first language and nationality,
their unequal access to the online world results in the different, and unequal, distributionof cultural resources.
Interculturality
Interculturality highlights how cultural practices and identities are negotiated andconstructed during interaction. To borrow Zhu’s (2019) words:
interculturality … departs from traditions of seeing culturalmemberships or cultural differences, largely, if not always, assomething ‘given’, ‘static’, or as something ‘one either has ordoes not have’. Instead, it problematises the notion of cultural
identities and emphasises the emergent, discursive and internature of interactions. (p. 219)
This intersubjective process is not free from power and ideology. Rather, as it involves
national, ethnic, and racial categorisations, it can result in nationalism, ethnicism, andracism (e.g., Zhu & Li, 2016). It can thereby lead to cultural ‘othering’, where membersof ‘other’ groups are seen as inferior in one way or another (Holliday et al., 2017). In
Extract 1, Dolgormaa is constructing and identifying with ‘elite’ globally oriented cultural
practices and groups, potentially putting her in a more powerful position to Naidan who
might then accept or contest this identification in subsequent turns.
4. TRANS- TERMS FOR ELF RESEARCHERS
The currently observed ‘trans’ turn in applied linguistics “signals the need to transcend thenamed and bounded categories that have historically shaped our thinking about the world
and its inhabitants, the nature of knowledge, and communicative resources” (Hawkins
25

& Mori, 2018, p. 1). ELF research has explored the interplay between the ideologicalconstructs of multiple, enumerable languages or cultures and fluid, flexible meaning
making resources and repertoires. It is our communicative practices that transgress andpotentially transform the perceived boundaries of these constructs. Overall, the transterms foreground a dynamic process across ideological boundaries.
Translanguaging
Translanguaging is defined as “the fluid and dynamic practices [and theories] thattranscend the boundaries between named languages, language varieties, and language andother semiotic systems” (Li, 2018, p. 9). Having its roots in bilingual education research(Williams, 1994) and developing itself around educational and social issues (e.g., Creese& Blackledge, 2015), translanguaging connects with the more traditional term languaging
i.e., the dynamic use of language to make sense of the world (e.g., Doughty, 1972).
Compared to code-switching, whose research has a longer tradition (e.g., Gumperz, 1964),translanguaging deemphasises the explicit awareness of the different codes involved ininteraction and emphasises their permeability for interaction. Translanguaging currently
aims to advance three strands: transcendent or transgressive “to engage diverse multiple
meaning-making systems and subjectivities”, transformative “not only for language
systems but also for individuals’ cognition and social structures”, and transdisciplinary“between linguistics, psychology, sociology, and education” (Li, 2018, p. 27). Regarding
Extract 1, the complexity of Dolgormaa’s meaning making renders it rather difficultand possibly inappropriate to try to establish which language or mode is being used at aparticular moment.
Transcultural communication
This term originates from transculturality research in anthropology, sociology, andphilosophy (e.g., Appadurai, 1996; Welsch, 1999) which largely targets how individuals
or groups defy cultural boundaries to create new spaces (e.g., adapted cultural practicesof immigrants). With a focus on interaction, transcultural communication refers to actual“communication where interactants move through and across, rather than in-between,
cultural and linguistic boundaries, thus, ‘named’ languages and cultures can no longer
be taken for granted and in the process borders become blurred, transgressed andtranscended” (Baker & Sangiamchit, 2019, p. 472). Empirically, it is often unclear what
specific cultures participants are in-between in global encounters (e.g., Baker, 2015). As a
research approach, transcultural communication eschews describing how participants mix
elements of presupposed cultures, and instead takes “nebulous and overlapping nature ofculture” (Ishikawa, 2018, p. 455) as the starting point of investigation. The ideologicalsignificance of national scales is no longer taken for granted, and where seen as salient,
it is critically interrogated. In Extract 1, small-talking about the weather, alluding to asexy-looking celebrity, and winking are all cultural practices, but none of them could
reasonably be delineated as representing any a priori cultural categories.
Transmodality
As with multimodality, transmodality questions the separation or concentration on
26

language in communication. This notion indexes meaning making processes in whicha range of modes are used simultaneously and collaboratively, with boundaries between
modes blurring, and useful distinctions among modes not easily attainable (e.g., Baker &Sangiamchit, 2019). Put differently, meaning is made and interpreted not as the sum of each
multimodal resource, but generated at “the transmodal moment” (Newfield, 2014/2017,p. 103), in other words, as one synergetic whole, resulting from the orchestration ofmultimodal resources. In Extract 1, meaning and emotional impact are created throughthe interaction of modes. To be specific, Naidan seems excited not so much because of
any one of the elements we see, i.e., the nice weather, giggling sound, and smiling, but
because all these elements work together. Likewise, Dolgormaa seems exhilarated while
her text is moving through the linguistic boundaries ‘as she pleases’ and exclamatory
nouns are embedded in winking expressions.
5. CONCLUSION
The trans- terms are not the rejection of earlier multi- and inter- terms but rather build on
and expand them. EMF aims to take a more coherent and holistic approach to interaction
among English users, and as such, it embraces all these perspectives (i.e., multi-, inter-,and trans-). Multiple resources and modes, perceived intersubjectivity, and transgressive
and transformative practices are all normal features of effective global communication.
Thus, those terms would collaboratively help comprehend the multi-layered complexityof everyday meaning making and interpretation in global encounters.
REFERENCES
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization.
University of Minnesota Press.
Baker, W. (2015). Culture and identity through English as a lingua franca: Rethinking
concepts and goals in intercultural communication. De Gruyter Mouton.
Baker, W., & Sangiamchit, C. (2019). Transcultural communication: Language,
communication and culture through English as a lingua franca in a social network
community. Language and Intercultural Communication, 19(6), 471–487. https://doi: 10.1080/14708477.2019.1606230
Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge University
Press.
Byram, M., Golubeva, I., Han, H., & Wagner, M. (Eds.). (2017). From principles topractice in education for intercultural citizenship. Multilingual Matters.

27

Cogo, A. (2018). ELF and multilingualism. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker, & M. Dewey (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca (pp. 357–368). Routledge.
Cook, V. (2002). Background to the L2 user. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user
(pp. 1–28). Multilingual Matters.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2015). Translanguaging and identity in educationalsettings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 20–35. https://doi: 10.1017/
S0267190514000233
Doughty, P. (1972). Pupils also use language to live: A defence of a linguistic approachto language study for the classroom. English in Education, 6(1), 18–28. https://doi: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1972.tb00371.x
Dovchin, S., Sultana, S., & Pennycook, A. (2016). Unequal translingual Englishes in the
Asian peripheries. Asian Englishes, 18(2), 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/134886
78.2016.1171673
Gumperz, J. J. (1964). Hindi-Punjabi code-switching in Delhi. In H. Lunt (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists (pp. 1115–1124).
Mouton.
Harris, R. (1997). From an integrational point of view. In G. Wolf & N. Love (Eds.),
Linguistics inside out: Roy Harris and his critics (pp. 229–310). John Benjamins.
Hawkins, M. R., & Mori, J. (2018). Considering ‘trans-’ perspectives in language
theories and practices. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 1–8. https://doi: 10.1093/applin/
amx056
Holliday, A. (2011). Intercultural communication and ideology. Sage.
Holliday, A., Kullman, J., & Hyde, M. (2017). Intercultural communication: An
advanced resource book for students (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Ishikawa, T. (2017). Conceptualising English as a global contact language. Englishes inPractice, 4(2), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1515/eip-2017-0002
Ishikawa, T. (2018). Review: The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca.
ELT Journal, 72(4), 455–458. https://doi: 10.1093/elt/ccy032
Ishikawa, T. (2020). EMF awareness in the Japanese EFL/EMI context. ELT Journal,
74(4), 408–417. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccaa037

28

Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua
Franca. Englishes in Practice, 2(3), 49–85. https://doi.org/10.1515/eip-2015-0003
Kress, G. (2014/2017). What is mode? In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook ofmultimodal analysis (2nd ed., pp. 60–75). Routledge.
Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics,
39(1), 9–30. https://doi: 10.1093/applin/amx039
Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers.
Cambridge University Press.
Morán Panero, S. (2015, June 24-26). Discussant paper [Paper presentation]. BAAL/
CUP Seminar 2015: (De)Constructing Englishes: Exploring the implications of
ontologies of the language for learning, teaching and assessment, York, UK.
Newfield, D. (2014/2017). Transformation, transduction and the transmodal moment.
In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (2nd ed., pp.
100–113). Routledge.
Nguyen, H. H. (2012). The multilanguaging of a Vietnamese American in South
Philadelphia. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 27(1), 65–85.
Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. Routledge.
Piller, I. (2017). Intercultural communication: A critical introduction (2nd ed.).
Edinburgh University Press.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Discourse and intercultural communication. In
D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse
analysis (pp. 538–547). Blackwell.
Welsch, W. (1999). Transculturality: The puzzling form of cultures today. In M.
Featherstone & S. Lash (Eds.), Spaces of culture: City, nation, world (pp. 194–213). Sage.
Widdowson, H. G. (2012). ELF and the inconvenience of established concepts. Journalof English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), 5–26. https://doi: 10.1515/jelf-2012-0002
Williams, C. (1994). Arfarniad o ddulliau dysgu ac addysgu yng nghyd-destun addysg
uwchradd ddwyieithog [An evaluation of teaching and learning methods inthe context of bilingual secondary education] (Unpublished doctoral thesis).
University of Wales.
29

Zhu, H. (2019). Exploring intercultural communication: Language in action (2nd ed.).
Routledge.
Zhu, H., & Li, W. (2016). “Where are you really from?”: Nationality and ethnicity
talk (NET) in everyday interactions. Applied Linguistics Review, 7(4), 449–470.
https://doi: 10.1515/applirev-2016-0020

30

In the Shadow of Covid-19: SurveyMonkey as an
Illuminating Path Towards Process Writing andFormative Assessment
コロナの影で:プロセスライティングにおけるアセスメントのためのプラットホームとしてのサーベイモンキーとその成功例
Richard Marsh, マーシュ リチャード
Tamagawa University, Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Japanr.marsh@lab.tamagawa.ac.jp
ABSTRACT
Adopting a process approach to writing and summative method of assessment canpotentially be daunting without the appropriate classroom resources and experience.
This is particularly true in an online teaching environment in the shadow of Covid-19.
This paper hopes to provide a comprehensive and practical task to remedy these fears.
Grounded in ELF pedagogy and designed for a Japanese university level context, thetask can be easily adopted, and with flexibility and adaptability, make a smooth transition
to any similar online or face-to-face educational environment. Learners choose a topic
and write up to 10 questions to distribute among their peers. In this sense, it is learnercentered as the topics and ideas emerge from the learners themselves. This results in agreat diversity of themes where the author of the questionnaire will often be surprised tofind an unexpected plurality of opinion present in their respondents. This SurveyMonkey
task encourages a wider breadth of vision and a more explicit awareness of the different
stages of the writing process. This paper is perfectly compatible with teaching andassessing a process approach to writing and hopes to inspire others to take a similar path.
KEYWORDS: SurveyMonkey, Learner-centered, Process writing, Formative
assessment
1. INTRODUCTION
I agree wholeheartedly with a formative approach to assessment and the use of process
writing tasks, which give learners an opportunity to critically reflect, reconstruct andreformulate their final piece of assessed writing. It is a great pleasure to be a part of
CELF and a privilege to work with an institution, which gives me the encouragement toutilize a process approach to writing assessment in the classroom. It is encouraging and31

rewarding to be part of a department, which shares my pedagogical outlook and givesme the freedom to be creative and express myself as a teacher. However, it is often left
to ourselves as teachers to create the concrete classroom reality where these ideals cometo fruition. The SurveyMonkey writing task presented in this paper is something I havebeen developing and using in class to great effect and I feel it fully satisfies the criteria
espoused by our esteemed department and I hope it can be inspirational and find a homein many other classrooms.
While we expect learners to complete a process writing assignment (in the CELF
curriculum it accounts for 20% of their final grade), there are not many specific examples
of how this can be practically implemented. As Lacina and Block (2012) state, ‘there isvery little data on what writing instruction looks like in schools’ (p. 10). While this is a
general quote about US schools, it is also true to suggest there is a paucity of research intertiary education in a Japanese English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) context. As such, there
is a clear need for purpose-built assessment tasks, which reflect the values of process
writing and an ELF conception of English (Harding & McNamara, 2018). This has beenfurther exasperated by the recent Covid-19 pandemic as the immediacy with which wehave been forced to ‘move online’ has resulted in, ‘many non-expert online teachers opting
to focus on the materials/resources they would use anyway to teach their course contents,
independently of its format being face-to-face or online’ (Rapanta et al., 2020, p. 927). It
has been a trying time for educational institutions struggling with the shifting reality wecurrently inhabit. Providing consistency, training and support for students and teachers
alike in such an unprecedented climate has not been easy. As such, ‘bad assessment
practices can have a potent effect on students’, with regards to potential loss of student
and teacher confidence, motivation and time (Crusan et al., 2016, p. 43). This paper hopes
to bridge this gap and suggest a practical method of online writing assessment. The task
is sensitive to many core ELF concerns and offers the opportunity for reflexivity andredrafting compatible with a process approach to writing. It is also student-centered andaims to boost learner autonomy in the sense that it views the teacher as a facilitator andscaffolder rather than a lecturer and all-powerful judge in the teaching and assessment
process.
The purpose of this article is to reinvigorate the teaching of process writing in a
Japanese ELF setting. Initially, some of the key theories underpinning the task will be
discussed including concerns relating to ELF, formative assessment and remote teaching.
The subsequent section of this paper will elucidate how to conduct this SurveyMonkey
writing assessment task in detail. Lastly, some student feedback will be presented, before
concluding with some potential scope for further study and some final thoughts
2. LITERATURE REVIEWAs ELF educators we want to move past viewing English as a static and native-normative
phenomenon and be sensitive to the reality that the ‘language in its global contexts has
become relatively fluid, flexible, contingent, and often non-native-influenced’ (Jenkins& Leung, 2013, p. 8). As such, the major challenge is to devise assessment tasks thatreflect this viewpoint and dispense with a preoccupation on native-like correctness. We
32must also strive to be authentic in the sense that our assessment tasks are, to as large an
extent as possible, grounded in the learners’ real-world lives and interests. An effective
process writing assessment task should be strongly student-centered with the teacher,even more so in an online environment, supporting and facilitating the students to increase
the ownership of their learning process (Rapanta et al., 2020). As explained in the next
section of this paper, the SurveyMonkey writing task is certainly suitable with all of theabove criteria and is highly adaptable to a face-to-face environment or, the seemingly
new normal, synchronous and asynchronous online method currently enforced upon us.
The task provides an important opportunity for reflection and self-paced learning. It isalso compatible with formative assessment as it allows for continuous assessment andevidence-based learning. We are lucky that the CELF curriculum affords us the chance
to teach in such a fashion. In other institutional settings, perhaps this method would be
hampered by conflicting departmental demands. Therefore, the rest is up to us, to ourown ideas, confidence, professionalism and knowledge. As such, ‘the recent attention toclassroom-based teacher formative assessment is not surprising, given the key role it ismeant to play in the teaching and learning process’ (Leung & Lewkowicz, 2006, p. 226).
As detailed in the next section, the SurveyMonkey writing task has a plethora ofdifferent stages, which provide a chance for learners to reflect and improve their work.
There is also a great many opportunities to formatively assess the learners in other areas
such as class participation, not only writing. It often becomes so obvious by being in
the classroom, or being aware of their online participation, who has really put in a lotof effort and has a real passion to improve. While consequently it is also clear whenidentifying those who have merely done the bare minimum to pass the course and notbeen as receptive to feedback or really taken the opportunity to reflect and improve. As
Lee identifies, ‘while previous second-language writing research has focused on certain
aspects of assessment, such as teacher feedback, error correction and peer review, there
is little research that investigates teachers’ systematic attempts to implement formative
assessment’ (2011, p. 100). I hope that this paper can contribute to this important bodyof research. There is currently an on-going paradigm shift away from a product-focused,summative style brand of formal assessment towards a formative view of assessment(Harding & McNamara, 2018; Lee, 2011; Leung & Lewkowicz, 2006). These on-goingdevelopments aim to provide students with new learning opportunities, encourage
different ways of fulfilling the task requirements and raise awareness of the processes
that underpin it. This paper aims to catalyse this process still further. It also hopes toachieve this with conscious effort applied to the core concerns of ELF advocates. For
example, as an ‘emphasis on grammar and examinations may function as a demotivating
factor for Japanese learners of English’ (Kikuchi & Sakai, 2009, p. 198), it would be moredesirable to adapt the criterion for marking grammar from that of formal accuracy to one ofeffective and appropriate conveyance of meaning (Harding & McNamara, 2018). Overall,
the ambition of this paper, like the journal in which it appears, is to encourage a wholeschool approach, share good practice and disseminate ideas. As Lee (2011) summarises
neatly, we need to ‘work collaboratively, to reflect critically on practice, and to engage incontinuing professional development so that formative assessment will become a pivotal
element of our repertoire’ (p. 110).
33

3. PROCEDURE
While teaching and assessing the SurveyMonkey task completely online brought somechallenges, there were also immense benefits to conducting this task in the current
Covid-19 era. It requires a paradigm shift to successfully adapt to the new realities of beinga solely online teacher (Martin et al., 2019). It is useful to aim to be more of a facilitator
than an instructor when carrying out the procedure of the SurveyMonkey task. I feel it isvery important to have an online presence, in the sense that you are always available tosupport learners, provide on-going feedback and have a clear, transparent way of checking
their understanding and progress. Yet also be malleable and know when to be hands-off
and allow learners the freedom to be independent and work at their own pace. There isa lot for students to take on-board during the procedure of this task, most obviously thefact that the vast majority of learners are not familiar with the SurveyMonkey website
itself and have often never written their own questionnaire or conducted such a lengthy
research-based piece of writing. However, ultimately it should be a journey of exploration
where students are granted a great deal of autonomy to create a mini-research project of
their own. As such, giving learners access to new platforms such as SurveyMonkey andgranting them a great degree of creative freedom will hopefully play a significant role
in reinvigorating our, ‘educational community as a whole—and in the end, the students
themselves are transformed into better writers’ (Lacina & Block, 2012, p. 16).
The following section will explain the various different stages involved in carryingout the SurveyMonkey task. Bear it in mind that there is certain flexibility here and,depending on the size of the class, level of the learners, etc. parts could be amended
or adapted, or even a more parsimonious procedure could be taken, depending on time
constraints, class time, etc. Initially, each learner must think of a suitable topic, someexamples include, Japanese culture, differences of men and women, learning English,
do Japanese people need English, part-time and future jobs, alcohol, plastic surgery,smoking, music, sports, computer games, etc. The class must then learn how to use
the SurveyMonkey website, through a mixture of teacher-guided instruction, trial anderror, peer review, and write between 6-10 open and closed questions. Experimentationis crucial, however, ‘Matrix/Rating Scale’ questions (which is a specific category on
the SurveyMonkey website) usually work best as it is easy to add an extra question for
additional insightful comments and it produces easy to use graphs for analysis. There isa very simple function built into SurveyMonkey where students can pilot their survey as
they write it, ensuring they will receive their results in the desired format once they begin
gathering real data. It is important to make learners aware of this and demonstrate its
function clearly. The next step is to start collecting data. It is flexible, but I would suggest
more than 20 respondents should be the minimum requirement and above 40 or 50 would
be excellent. Through online lessons, it is probably best if students use a web link, which
they can email or send via Zoom/MS Teams, etc., or share using a class Line group if
they are comfortable with this. I actually never suggested the last method, although many
classes chose to gather their results this way on their own volition. Once we return to theclassroom, in my opinion, the best way is to save a unique QR code, they can generate
through SurveyMonkey, and show it to other students face-to-face. Often, I have the group34

go into another classroom, with permission from their teacher of course, and while it ismostly a reading and writing exercise, it usually produces a highly interactive atmosphere.
Additional homework could be to collect further data from friends and family. This would
increase their number of respondents and expand the diversity of their comments andinformation they can use to construct the final piece of writing.
Lastly, they should analyse the data and plan, draft and write a 5-paragraph essay(introduction, 3 body paragraphs and conclusion) of between 300-600 words, dependingon the level of the learners. Some stimulating questions to introduce at this stage are,why were you interested in the topic and questions? What were the most interesting/surprising results? What were some unique/insightful comments? What is the author’s(your) opinion, did you agree or disagree with the class? What questions did not work very
well, what could be improved? Ideally, these questions should stimulate a more critical,reflective piece of work, rather than mere description or regurgitation of the answers totheir questions. I would also encourage the use of visual data, with the inclusion of tables
or graphs a welcome bonus. Overall, the multiple stages of production, not to mention
the many chances for feedback, revision and redrafting are perfectly compatible withan online working environment. Independent learning is encouraged and the wholeprocess can be done at the learners’ own pace, potentially suiting different learning styles.
Through this process, it could be expected that learners would improve their IT skills andgain familiarity with new applications and programs. They also gain the opportunity tolearn a great deal about their classmates and develop a more conscious sense of reflection
and criticality about the strengths and weaknesses of their questionnaire, and the process
through which they develop their writing in general.
Some final points to be aware of is that SurveyMonkey can also be used inJapanese, or in many different languages in fact, which sometimes can be an advantage forlower-level learners. I would always encourage them to try to design their questionnairein English first, but sometimes alternate between English and Japanese if they become
uncertain, as it would be a shame for them to make a mistake in this early stage of theprocess as it could potentially affect the quality of their results later. Although, throughclear guidance, on-going teacher support and peer assistance, this kind of issue should
be relatively rare. However, it must be made clear that it is essential that their questions
and answers should be written in English. Finally, please make it clear that learners only
require the free version of SurveyMonkey. The website, like many similar services, often
offers additional options or encourages you to purchase the paid options. It must be madevery clear that learners do not need to spend any money nor do they require any additionalfeatures whatsoever. The free option offers a maximum of 10 questions and up to 100
respondents to answer their questionnaire for free, this is more than enough to complete
the above process adequately.
4. METHODOLOGY
I have been teaching this SurveyMonkey research and writing assessment for over three
years now. I conducted a 10-question survey with two lower-intermediate level classes(Tamagawa equivalent 200s) using SurveyMonkey (http://www.surveymonkey.com/) to35

gauge their feedback to a variety of questions. There were a total of 38 respondents (20men and 18 women). The findings and results will be reported in the below section of
the paper. While there was mostly positive feedback and many instructive comments, I
perhaps felt that it did not work as well in the shadow of covid-19. There could be manyfactors for this and the next section will cover this in more detail.
5. FINDINGS AND RESULTS
Initially, learners were asked what topic they chose for their questionnaire. While I do
provide some examples and elicit as many fruitful topics as possible, ultimately students
have full control over the content of their surveys. As such, there is always a diverse
plurality of topics. For example, some of the topics chosen were, travel, convenience
stores, clothes shopping, exercise, theme parks, sleep etc. The next question was regarding
how many surveys the students collected. Eleven learners collected less than 20, 22
students collected between 20 and 40 and impressively five people collected more than
40. It was more difficult to collaborate with neighbouring classes as I was teaching thiscourse online, so perhaps when regular face-to-face lessons resume it could be expectedthat these numbers would be even higher. While it is not desirable to extrapolate the exact
correlation between sample size and the final grade the students received for the task. It
is certainly a useful barometer for how much effort the learner put into that particular
stage of the process, and how many additional respondents they sought outside formalclass hours. As shown below in Table 1, the group of learners I surveyed largely foundthe task to be stimulating, with almost 70% (68.42%) finding it to be ‘quite interesting’ or‘very interesting’. While I am happy with the results, I perhaps expected a slightly morepositive response as there is no denying that, while online teaching has some advantages,
it misses a certain spark when compared to face-to-face interaction. I would be interested
to see the results of the survey if it was repeated once we return to the classroom. It
is clear that teaching in an online environment requires additional competencies fromus as educators (Martin et al., 2019), and demands a re-thinking and fine-tuning of ourpedagogical practices (Rapanta et al., 2020). This is an on-going, reflective process. I
have made adjustments to my teaching practice and, in the implementation of the task
described above, it can, and should, be tailored to suit your specific class and their andlearning requirements.
Table 1
Question 4: Was your Survey and Essay Interesting?
It wasQuite
MediumYes, quiteboringBoringInteresting
0
2
10
19
0%
5.26%
26.32%
50%

Yes, very
Interesting7
18.42%

Total
38

As you can see from Table 2 there was a similarly positive response regarding learners’
perceptions of their own topics and questionnaires. Many positive comments reflected36this and highlighted a sense of creativity and discovery, e.g. ‘I could hear everyone's real
voice’, ‘I can think more about food and I want to add some questions to a new survey’.
Although it must be acknowledged that the screen share function on MS Teams and Zoom
etc. is a fantastic asset to an online learning environment, I do not feel it was quite aseffective as actually having learners in a room with their laptops and being able to support
them directly. However, it must be said that overall I feel the task was successful and I
would have to agree that, ‘the design of effective learning environments and embedding
online technologies can serve as catalysts for teachers to experiment new things, explore
creative alternatives and reflect on their own practice’ (Rapanta et al., 2020, p. 942). The
next question (Table 3) drew more of a polarised response, with a large percentage of
respondents (65.79%) enjoying their classmates’ surveys, while others felt less positiveas perhaps they found the repetitive nature of the exercise to be somewhat of a chore.
Again, I anticipate that this is slightly different from the face-to-face interaction of theclassroom where students can build rapport and clarify misunderstandings more easily,or even visit a new class and get to know other students. I feel this is neatly reflected in
the following comments, ‘because the questions were interesting and answering is fun’,‘because everyone has many ideas different to me so I enjoyed it’, ‘other people survey isinteresting, but all questions answering is bother’.
Table 2
Question 5: Did you think your topic and questions worked well for the Survey andEssay?
Not at all
Not reallyMediumYes, quite
Yes, very
Total
well
well
0
2
11
18
7
38
0%
5.26%
28.95%
47.37%
18.42%
Table 3
Question 7: Did you enjoy other class members Surveys and Questions?
Not at all
Not reallyMediumYes, quite
Yes, very
interesting
interesting
2
4
7
15
10
5.26%
10.53%
18.42%
39.47%
26.32%

Total
38

Lastly, there was some positive feedback regarding whether the learners felt they had
improved their overall English writing and computer (IT) skills (Tables 4 and 5). While
this is subjective and relatively anecdotal, it is pleasing nonetheless and many of thepositive comments pertain to a distinct sense of gratitude for the opportunity to take partin the task and an increased sense of motivation to do something similar in the future.
For example, ‘I was able to write with the structure in mind, ‘my English vocabulary has
improved, thank you!’, ‘I can use it when I want to ask a questionnaire in another class’etc.
37

etc. It was also noteworthy that some respondents commented that they practiced some
digital literacy skills they had previously seldom had the chance to demonstrate, e.g. ‘I
was able to put together some graphs in English for the first time’. There is not enoughscope in this current paper to discuss the results or further comments in more detail, but I
will just conclude with some brief examples. E.g. ‘I wrote this essay after thinking a lot,
I want to use SurveyMonkey in the future’, ‘this is my first time to do a survey, it is great
experience for me, but next time I can do it better’ etc. Overall, there are many pleasing
aspects to this, albeit relative small-scale, study and potentially in the future there could
be scope for a more in-depth study or one that accounts for a repeat performance of thetask to gauge if the learners made any adjustments to their survey design, plan or overall
writing process. Perhaps, once we return to the classroom, it may also be instructional
to repeat the survey to compare a remote versus a face-to-face learning environment tofurther fine-tune its delivery.
Table 4
Question 9a: Do you feel the Survey and Essay helped improve your English writing
skills?
Not at all
Not reallyMediumYes, a little
Yes, very
Total
much
0
3
6
15
13
37
0%
8.11%
16.22%
40.54%
35.14%
Table 5
Question 9b: Do you feel the Survey and Essay helped improve your Computer (IT)skills?
Not at all
Not reallyMediumYes, a little
Yes, very
Total
much
2
1
8
16
11
38
5.26%
2.68%
21.05%
41.11%
28.95%
6. CONCLUSION
This paper has described how to conduct a SurveyMonkey writing assessment andoutlined some of the major benefits for it to be utilized when adopting a process approach
to writing and making the transition from summative to formative assessment. While a
degree of flexibility and adaptation must be applied, when carrying out the task in an
online teaching environment, the compatibility and applicability to an ELF Japanese
university syllabus have hopefully been comprehensively accounted for. Teaching writing
should not be a chore, nor should it be a demand for strict native-normative adherence.
It should be a journey of exploration and self-reflection with the opportunity for learners
to take ownership of their work and their overall learning process. By the time learners
complete this task they will hopefully have produced something they will be proud of and38the final piece of writing will be a structure built on a solid foundation, which will standthem in good stead for their future academic writing careers.
REFERENCES
Crusan, D., Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2016). Writing assessment literacy: Surveying
second language teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices. Assessing Writing,28, 43–56. https://doi:10.1016/j.asw.2016.03.001
Harding, L., & McNamara, T. F. (2018). Language assessment: The challenge of
ELF. In J. Jenkins, M. J. Dewey, & W. Baker (Eds.), Routledge Handbook ofEnglish as a Lingua Franca. Routledge. https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/
doi/10.4324/9781315717173.ch45
Jenkins, J., & Leung, C. (2013). English as a Lingua Franca. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.),The
Companion to Language Assessment (pp. 1607-1616). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118411360.wbcla047
Kikuchi, K., & Sakai, H. (2009). Japanese learners' demotivation to study English: A
survey study. JALT Journal, 31(2), 183-204. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTJJ31.2
Lacina, J., & Block, C. (2012). Progressive writing instruction: Empowering schoolleaders and teachers. Voices from the Middle, 19(3), 10-17.
Lee, I. (2011). Formative assessment in EFL writing: An exploratory case study.
Changing English, 18(1), 99-111. https://doi:10.1080/1358684x.2011.543516
Leung, C., & Lewkowicz, J. (2006). Expanding horizons and unresolved conundrums:
Language testing and assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 211-234. https://doi.
org/10.2307/40264517
Martin, F., Budhrani, K., Kumar, S., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2019). Award-winning faculty
online teaching practices: Roles and competencies. Online Learning, 23(1), 184205. https://doi:10.24059/olj.v23i1.1329
Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online
university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher
presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 2, 923-925.
https://doi:10.1007/s42438-020-00155-

39

Improving Oral Fluency Practice in Presentation
Classes through “Structured Fluency Practice Model”
プレゼンテーション授業における「構造化流暢性演習モデル」によるスピーキング流暢性の改善
Saranyaraja Muthumaniraja サラニヤラジャ ・ ムツマニラジャCenter for English as a Lingua Franca, Tamagawa University, Japansaranyaraja@lab.tamagawa.ac.jp
ABSTRACTIn this 21st century, there has been a growing demand for graduates to level up theircommunicative competencies, particularly in speaking and presentation. In Japan, EFL
students are exposed to rigorous English studies in college; therefore, there is a greaterneed to learn the skill. This paper aims to introduce a "structured presentation practicemodel" and outline its benefits for presentation practice. It also aims to describe thebenefits of this structured presentation practice and explain how learners can benefit fromthis practice. This article will also describe the pedagogical rationale behind the method
and how it could benefit Japanese students for effectively practicing their fluency forpresentation. The author implemented this pedagogical style of practicing the presentation
for a year and found that, in general, students responded well and enjoyed it.
KEYWORDS: Presentation, Fluency, Repetition
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the concerns in improving the communicative competencies among EFL learners
is their reluctance to speak English in the classroom – this is a pedagogical challenge that
English teachers face, promoting such skills among students. Communicative skills are
essential in the professional environment as the person's competence for an organizationis broadly based on how well a person can explain what they do. One of the challenges
faced by university students in Japan is that there is limited use of spoken English in
the classroom before they enter the university, and even less opportunity to talk about
topics in English (Apple, 2011). Many high school teachers are under pressure to prepare
high school students for entrance examinations, often abandoning their classrooms'
communicative practices (Browne & Wada, 1998). No matter how hard the teacher
works to develop public speaking skills, anxiety plays a significant hindrance. In public
speaking, anxiety is a situation where the individual is afraid to deliver a speech (Ayers
40

& Hopf, 1993) as cited in Ciarrocca (2015). This is particularly the case for quiet andpassive students in Asia, such as China, Japan, and Korea. (Bankowski, 2010; Watkins &Biggs, 2001; Woodrow, 2006). Practicing public speaking in classrooms can help students
develop their confidence in preparing and delivering oral presentations (King, 2002, as
cited in Nyugen, 2015).
This paper will explain the fluency practice model structure and how to implement
the model in the classroom. The following activity is designed for practicing oral fluency.
The author implemented their own version of structured practice model successfully in apresentation class at a National University to encourage, improve and practice speaking
fluency in a methodical manner. The compulsory presentation classes were for all firstyear students and they were solely focused on improving students’ presentation skills.
It was initially challenging for the author to improve the presentation skills, but later,
she formulated a structured presentation practice inspired after Maurice's 4/3/2 fluency
technique (1983) to help her students practice their presentation in a structured way.
2. LITERATURE REVIEWIn the EFL context, an oral presentation occurs in specific physical, social, and culturalcontexts, with a particular theme and purpose of communication. The speaker conveys
the message to the audience through linguistic and logistical aspects. The meaning and its
interpretation rely on the interaction between the presentation content and participants. It
demands a mixture of qualities: good knowledge of the topic of the presentation, audiencefriendly content organization, high language proficiency, adequate online languageprocessing skills, ability to talk extemporaneously, practical delivery skills, appropriate
display of paralinguistic elements, engaging the audience, an element of performance,
good physiological qualities, sensitivity to the content, register and disclosure skills, a
lucid presentation, adherence to specific behavior, and multimedia management (Chou,
2011; Morita, 2000; Sundarajun & Keily, 2010; Tsai 2010; Tuan & Neomy, 2007; ZappaHollman, 2007).
Most English teachers and learners work towards attaining fluency. Though English
fluency is often cited as an end goal, truly fluent English speaking is an objective only
a few learners achieve. Fluency is a term in language learning, but its definition varies
concerning its context. Fluency is often flow or smoothness of delivery when speaking(Chambers, 1997; Koponen & Riggenach, 2000), while for others, fluency has measurable
characteristics like pauses, hesitations, and repetitions (De Jong & Perfetti, 2011). Others
distinguish fluency between cognitive and fluency. Cognitive is a mental process involved
in gaining knowledge and performance is the observable speech, fluidity, and accuracy ofthe original performance (De Jong & Perfetti, 2011; Segalowitz, 2000). To sum up, fluency
is the speaker's ability to speak smoothly with minimal pauses and hesitations in the target
language. The activity defined in this article is based on Maurice's Fluency workshop, or
4/3/2 technique, in which the students speak on the given topic and repeat it. In the original
study, the students were given a question and asked to answer it in the form of a shortspeech. They were given five minutes to think and prepare their answers and write down
notes for their speech. Then students gave their speech without referring to their written41script three times. Each script's time limit was four minutes for speech one, three minutes
for speech two, and two minutes for speech three. Many studies that have demonstrated
improvements fluency while helping the students to overcome the difficulties using 4/3/2
technique (Abed, 2020; Boers, 2014; Doe & Hurling, 2015; Movahed & Karkia, 2014;
Yang, 2014; Yufrizal, 2018). Therefore, it incited the author to use this fluency method in
her presentation class. Nation's (2007) fluency strand mandates that language production
under pressure is necessary to increase learners' production speed. Repetitive tasks are
effective ways to build fluency in second languages. DeKeyser's Skill Acquisition Theory(2007) states that language production's automaticity is ultimately accomplished throughrepeated language practice.
3. THE STRUCTURED FLUENCY PRACTICE MODEL AND PROCEDURE
The structured fluency practice model follows a few traits of Maurice's fluency model
workshop or 4/3/2 technique. In the author’s class, students were given the presentation
topic and were asked to prepare a presentation script for two minutes. As we proceedfurther into the term, the time of the following presentation increases. In the original
study, the students gave their speeches without referring to their paper three times, withthe time limit for each speech gradually decreasing. The time limit for the first speech
was four minutes; for the next speech, it was three minutes and two minutes for speech
three, while in the author’s structured fluency practice model, the practice time remained
the same while providing some extra time to improvise the script giving equal room topractice and review the content of speaking.
This structured fluency model can be introduced in most presentation classrooms.
Students prepare a script as homework for the presentation topic given to them for a
specified time frame. Keeping in mind the time specification, the students need to preparea script based on the outline. Once the script is prepared, the students move towards
the practice stage. To scaffold the practice rounds, students are instructed to check theboxes on a checklist (Figure 1) as they move through each stage. Each practice stages aredescribed in detail in the section below.
3.1 Structured fluency practice model stages:
Stage 1 – practice with the script
Stage 2 – practice with or without the script
Stage 3 – practice without a script

42

Figure 1. The presentation practice checklist
3.1.1 Stage 1 – Practice with the Script
The students are made to stand at the walls and are given partners to practicethe script. If the presentation time allotted is two minutes, the timer will be set for two
minutes while practicing. The students have to face each other and read their presentations
simultaneously. Once the timer has finished, the students are given seven minutes to reflect,
make changes, or add content to their script. In the second round, they face a different
partner and start reading their presentation script as the timer is again set for two minutes.
In the second round, they are given a five minutes break to review the script. Stage 1 has
five rounds, and students are given five minutes except for the first round, where they
are given seven minutes to review the script. This is the first step to familiarize the script
while practicing. Using the script to practice at this stage improves one’s understanding of
the script and allows them to focus on pronunciation, tone of the words, and sentence tone
to impact its meaning.
3.1.2 Stage 2 – Practice with or without Script
In this stage, the presenter should try to control the script itself by not relying on
43

it. It takes time and commitment for the students to take complete control of the script.
The presenter can change the script’s content so that it is easier for him/her to speak
confidently. It is completely fine for the presenter to rely on the script while practicing
partially. Once the timer goes on for two minutes, the students start speaking their revised
speaking content simultaneously. They are allowed to look at the script if they need to.
Since they had already revised the script in the previous stage, they are now instructed tofocus on logistic aspects such as eye contact, gestures along with the linguistic aspects
such as intonation, pronunciation, and volume. They are given four rounds to practice atthis stage with different partners at the specified time limit. During this stage, the students
note down difficult words, phrases, and a few points that they tend to forget in the outline
sheet during break time. They are given a break of five minutes for the first round andthe break reduces for the other rounds. They are allowed to refer to the script and outline
while presenting and are also encouraged to practice their logistics and linguistic aspects.
3.1.3 Stage 3 – Practice without Script
In this final stage, the presenter does not rely on the script and masters the whole
script to his/her understanding. The timer is again set for the specified minutes. They
practice the presentation without the script with partners but can use the outline they notedin the second stage. The goal is not to rely on the script and speak. The transition to thisphase requires dedicated effort and practice. Once the presenter achieves this phase, he/she would have a better understanding of their script. They could also reduce their speech
anxiety and improve their participation and confidence in speaking.
4. REFLECTIONS
The author introduced this structured fluency model over a year of classes, and thestudents' perception of it was welcoming. Students feel anxious when asked to speak infront of the class, especially in a second language. This model's primary aim is to practicegiving a presentation in a structured and easy way. One benefit of this activity is thatseveral speakers are practicing their presentations simultaneously, which helps students
get into the mood of actually articulating their voices in class. The author has used thepresentation practice model to practice the presentation speech and improve fluency while
speaking, keeping the time constant, and giving learners extra time to review the script.
With pre-intermediate to intermediate level students, they never had difficulty keeping topresentation time limit of not more than five minutes.
The benefits of this model include improving oral fluency, reducing students'
anxiety, and encouraging class participation. It also boosted the classroom atmosphere.
We took one whole class to practice each presentation using the presentation model. As
we gradually got used to the model, the students could review and grip the scripts more
efficiently. They were also instructed to practice their presentation using this model athome. This practice model's secondary benefit is that it improved oral fluency as theyreceived abundant speaking practice in the classroom. Focusing on speaking practice withthis model, the quantity and quality of the speeches improved considerably. The socio cognitive benefits - self-confidence and accomplishment are reinforced too.
44

Since the original study (1983) by Maurcie did not prescribe how often this activity should
be repeated, the author has found that repeated practice followed by practice at home wassufficient or until the student felt confident with their speaking. Repeating the activity
and making students aware of the fluency model by practicing the presentation with thepresentation model in class helped them manage their learning goals. The author noticed
this effect towards the end of the final presentation of the term as they were able to give
their presentations without a script. Additionally, the majority of them were able to give
their presentation with little difficulty on the presentation day. Also, students spoke withless arduousness and volubility. This was very evident as we moved towards the end of
the term.
5. CONCLUSION
In the context of the English presentation classroom, a varied approach to Maurice's
technique involves practicing at the same time frame with interval time for reviewing
and reflecting. Initially, I applied these changes in reaction to the noticeable anxiety anduneven output of a sizable number of speakers. However, experimenting with Marcie's
technique in classes has led me away from the decreasing time limit to making the time
constant and adding longer periods for review and reflection. As a result, the structured
fluency model diverges from Maurice’s fluency workshop somewhat, and it perhaps it canbe recognized as an efficient scaffolding task.
Through informal observations, it is likely that the presentation practice model is themost effective as a means of introducing learners to the idea of practicing oral fluency andthat its value lies in conditioning them to manage the facilitative pressure of going throughall three stages of practice. Applying this model early in the term will promote a positive
outlook towards fluency building, train students to effectively formulate and review ideas,
and automize the phrases and tricky words that need practice. For a significant number ofstudents, it might lessen the unease brought on by extended stretches and hesitation while
giving presentations.
Above all, this activity would benefit from a more critical application andcomprehensive quantitative-based evaluations. Now I have discussed the learning context
and reasons why the presentation practice model merits attention, the follow up to thisactivity will be to see if this variant produces fluency gains and smoother delivery. Given
this, two overarching questions come to mind: (1)does this presentation practice model
help learners formulate more coherent ideas as they review? And, (2) does the presentation
practice model develop fluency by reducing pauses in the final delivery? By understanding
the answers to these questions, we could apply this technique more correctly to fluency
training in presentation classes.
REFERENCES
Abed, B. K. (2020). Developing speaking fluency of University of Technology' MSc
students by Using the 4/3/2 Technique. Al-Fatih journal, 16(84) 1-25. https://www.iasj.net/iasj/article/192647
45

Apple, M. (2011). The Big Five personality traits and foreign language speaking
confidence among Japanese EFL students [Doctoral dissertation, Temple
University]. Proquest dissertations and Theses database. https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/277844382_The_Big_Five_personality_traits_and_foreign_language_speaking_confidence_among_Japanese_EFL_students
Bankowski, E. (2010). Developing skills for effective academic presentations in EAP.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(2), 187196. http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE717.pdf
Boers, F. (2014). A reappraisal of the 4/3/2 activity. RELC Journal, 45(3), 221–235.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688214546964
Browne, C. M., & Wada, M. (1998). Current issues in high school English teaching inJapan: An exploratory survey. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 11(1), 97–112.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07908319808666543
Ciarrocca, R. (2015). Fostering public speaking through pecha kucha in the high school
English classroom. Studies in Teaching Research Digest, 1, 13-18. https://files.
eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED559718.pdf
Chambers, F. (1997). What do we mean by fluency? System, 25(4), 535– 544. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00046-8
Chou, M. (2011). The influence of learner strategies on oral presentations. English forSpecific Purposes, 30(4), 272-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.04.003
De Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An
experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language
Learning, 61(2), 533–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00620.x
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97-113). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Doe, T., & Hurling, S. (2015). Implementing speaking fluency activities. In P. Clements,
A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), JALT 2014 Conference Proceedings (pp. 255263). JALT. https://jalt-publications.org/proceedings/articles/4713-implementingspeaking-fluency-activities
Koponen, M., & Riggenbach, H. (2000). Overview: Varying perspectives on fluency.
In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (5–24). University of Michigan
Press.
46

Maurice, K. (1983) The fluency workshop. TESOL Newsletter, 17, (p. 429). https://eric.
ed.gov/?id=ED289347
Morita, N. (2000). Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities ina TESL graduate program. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 279-310. https://doi.
org/10.2307/3587953
Movahed, R., & Karkia, P. (2014). Reading/Listening & the 4/3/2 on EFL students’
speaking skills. International Journal of Linguistics, 6(1), 53. https://doi.
org/10.5296/ijl.v6i1.4841
Nation, P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in language learning and teaching, 1(1),1-11. https://doi.org/10.2167/illt039.0
Nguyen, H. (2015). Student perceptions of the use of Pecha Kucha presentations for
EFL reading classes. Language in Education in Asia, 6(2), 135- 149. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5746/LEiA/15/V6/I2/A5/Nguyen
Segalowitz, N. (2000). Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance. In H.
Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 200– 219). University of Michigan
Press.
Sundrarajun, C., & Kiely, R. (2010). The oral presentation as a context for learningand assessment. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 101-117.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17501220903125021
Tsai, S. (2010). Developing and integrating courseware for oral presentations into
ESP learning contexts. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1245-1258. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.021
Tuan, T. A., & Neomy, S. (2007). Investigating group planning in preparation for oralpresentations in an EFL class in Vietnam. RELC Journal, 38(1), 104-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206076162
Watkins, D. A., & Biggs, J. B. (2001). The paradox of the Chinese learner andbeyond. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching the Chinese learner:
Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 3-26). CERC and HKU.
Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and speaking English as a second language. RELC
Journal, 37(3), 308-328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206071315
Yang, Y. (2014). The development of speaking fluency: The 4/3/2 technique for the
EFL learners in China. International Journal of Research Studies in Language
Learning, 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2013.624
47

Yufrizal, H. (2018). The application of 4/3/2 technique to enhance speaking fluency of
EFL students in Indonesia. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 5(10)99-107. https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.510.526
Zappa-Hollman, S. (2007). Academic presentations across post-secondary contexts. The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(4), 455-485. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/
cmlr.63.4.455

48

A Report on Research at the Center for English as a
Lingua Franca 2020
ELF センター 2020 研究活動レポート
Rasami Chaikul, チャイクル・ ラサミ
The Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Tamagawa University, Japanrasami.chaikul@lab.tamagawa.ac.jp
Brett Milliner, ミリナー・ブレット
Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Tamagawa University, Japan
milliner@lit.tamagawa.ac.jp
ABSTRACT2020 presented teacher/researchers in the field its own set of unique challenges. Conferenceswere cancelled, data collection was complex, and the shift to emergency remote teachingleft very little time to focus on research activities. Despite these circumstances, facultyat The Center for English as a Lingua Franca (CELF) managed to maintain its strong
connections to the academic community in the shape of participation in online conferences,publishing research articles, and helping different academic societies to adapt to the ‘newnormal’. In this short report, we table the Center’s broad list of academic achievements.

KEYWORDS: English as a Lingua Franca, ELF, Faculty development, Teacher
development, ELF research
1. CELF RESEARCH ACHIEVEMENTS
1.1 Academic Presentations
In 2020, despite restrictions on travel and public meetings, CELF faculty made 32 online
presentations at various international and domestic conferences.
1.1.1 Domestic Presentations
There were 20 presentations at conferences and other academic events in Japan.
These consisted of panel discussions and numerous paper and poster presentations (seeTable 1). Of particular note, Rasami Chaikul and Ayako Suzuki were invited speakers at
the Aichi University Forum. The CELF’s acting Director, Paul McBride was a leading49

presenter at the Center for English as a Lingua Franca (CELF) and JACET Language
Policy SIG Joint Seminar.
Table 1
Summary of CELF faculty’s domestic presentations (n＝20)
Type, Title, & Event
Presentation
デモンストレーションを是認・否認することー指導者の演奏を止める実践から(On approving/disapproving of demonstrations:
Instructor’s practice of stopping a learner’s music
performance)
第37回日本認知科学会(The 37th Annual Meeting ofJapanese Cognitive Science Society)
Presentation
Liven up the English classroom with academic
learning: Further examples from cognitive
psychology
第3回JAAL-in-JACET学術交流集会(国際大会研究
発表)
Presentation
Awareness of English-within-multilingualism throughclass blog discussions
2020玉川大学英語教育セミナー/CELF-ELTama
Forum for English Language Teaching
Presentation
CELF Report
2020玉川大学英語教育セミナー/CELF-ELTama
Forum for English Language Teaching
Plenary Talk
Computer-assisted language tests in the remotelearning context
2020玉川大学英語教育セミナー/CELF-ELTama
Forum for English Language Teaching
Plenary Talk
Approach to ELF-aware pedagogy in remote teaching
scenario
2020玉川大学英語教育セミナー/CELF-ELTama
Forum for English Language Teaching

50

Author(s)Satomi Kuroshima

Tomokazu Ishikawa

Tomokazu Ishikawa

Tomokazu Ishikawa

Brett Milliner

Rasami Chaikul

Presentation
Integrating English-within-multilingualism within
EFL
JACET 第3回ジョイントセミナー/Third JACET Joint
SeminarPresentation
After the curtain call: The homecoming of Filipinotransgender women entertainers in Japan
Association for Asian Studies (AAS) 2020
Presentation
Reading fluency training for EFL learners
JALT2020 International Conference
Invited talkELF-informed pedagogy in remote learning scenario:
Student engagement in English as a Lingua Franca
Forum of The Institute for Research in Humanities
and Social Sciences, Aichi University (IRHSA)
Invited talk
Why study abroad for student English teachers: ELF
and their awareness of correctness
Forum of The Institute for Research in Humanities
and Social Sciences, Aichi University (IRHSA)
PosterLanguage and educational issues: Rethinking English
and English education
第3回JAAL-in-JACET学術交流集会
PosterActivities of the JACET Testing SIG: the past, thepresent and the future
第3回JAAL-in-JACET学術交流集会
Presentation
Study abroad for becoming an independent English
language teacher: Ideals and realities
第3回JAAL-in-JACET学術交流集会
Panel Discussion
The quarter speaks out: Women in Japanese academia
JALT2020 International Conference
Presentation
South Korean jobseekers’ L2 motivation and emotion
JALT2020 International Conference

Tomokazu Ishikawa

Tricia Okada

Brett Milliner
Rasami Chaikul

Ayako Suzuki

Rasami Chaikul

Rasami Chaikul

Ayako Suzuki

Tricia Okada
Miso Kim

51

Presentation
Applying data-driven learning to expand students’lexicogrammatical knowledge
2020玉川大学英語教育セミナー/CELF-ELTama
Forum for English Language Teaching
Invited presentation
ELF-aware pedagogy: Areas of convergence withlanguage policy
Center for English as a Lingua Franca (CELF) FD at
Tamagawa University, and JACET Language Policy
SIG Joint Seminar 2021
Presentation
教科書ができるまで―教材研究会の経験から
JACET 第3回ジョイントセミナー (Third JACET Joint
Seminar)Presentation
Enhancing clarity and student engagement in online
teaching: Overcoming challenges and exploring
opportunities
令和 2 年度 大学教育力研修:遠隔授業の事例発表およびグループセッション:事例発表 C (Reiwa
2nd year university-wide staff development training:
Case study of distance learning)

Miso Kim

Paul McBride

Ayako Suzuki

Blagoja Dimoski

1.1.2 International Presentations
In 2020, international travel restrictions prevented faculty from attending any
international conferences in person. Nevertheless, the ELF Center was represented at nine
online events. Among them, Jody Yujobo, Miso Kim, and Brett Milliner presented at the
Asia TEFL conference in Korea, Satomi Kuroshima made a group presentation at the114th Annual Meeting of American Sociological Association and Tricia Okada presented
at the Philippine Queer Studies Conference.
Table 2
Summary of CELF faculty’s international presentations (n＝12）
Location
Type, Title, & Event
Goyang, Korea Presentation
Moving toward ESTEAM education: ELF
with a multidisciplinary approach of STEAM
education
Asia TEFL 2020

52

Author(s)Yuri Jody Yojobo

Goyang, Korea Presentation
Brett Milliner
Reading fluency training for lower-proficiency
EFL learners: Timed reading, repeated oral
reading, and extensive reading.
Asia TEFL 2020
Goyang, Korea Presentation
Sungwoo Kim,
Commonalities and divergences in the
Miso Kim, Eunhae
developmental trajectories of three applied
Cholinguists: A collaborative autoethnography
Asia TEFL 2020
Goyang, Korea Presentation
Miso Kim
Inside the “black box”: Questioning “standard
English” in the South Korean neoliberal job
marketAsia TEFL 2020
Southampton, Invited Presentation
Tomokazu Ishikawa
UK
EMF awareness in ELTCentre for Global Englishes Seminar
Seoul, Korea Roundtable
Dawn Lucovich,
Roundtable for cross-cultural collaboration
Miso Kim, Erinbetween Korea and Japan
Bruni Suzuki, Rhea
KOTESOL 2021
Metituk
Phnom Penh, Presentation
Tiina Matikainen
Cambodia
TOEIC stumbling blocks: The types ofquestions that cause the most difficulty forJapanese university students
CAMTESOL 2021
New York, USA Presentation
Satomi Kuroshima
Cross-Cutting preference of the evaluation& Tomone Komiya
of radioactive dose: Local epistemology andmoral accountability
114th Annual Meeting of American
Sociological Association (ASA)
Manila, The
Presentation
Tricia Okada
Philippines
Double pass: Examining migration pathwaysof transpinay migrants in Japan
Philippine Queer Studies Conference 2020
USA
Presentation
Tiina Matikainen
Creating ELF-oriented lessons with TED talks
TESOL 2021 International Convention

53

USA

Singapore

Presentation
A chronological and geographical analysis
of applied linguists’ development in liminal
spaces: A collaborative autoethnography
American Association of Applied Linguistics
2021 Annual Conference
Presentation
Teaching English as a lingua franca forsustainable communication abilities
55th RELC International Conference

Sungwoo Kim,
Miso Kim, Eunhae
Cho

Ayako Suzuki

1.2 Academic Publications
CELF faculty published their research in books (as chapters), journals, conference
proceedings, and in other forms. We wish to congratulate Tomokazu Ishikawa, PaulMcBride, Tricia Okada, Tiina Matikainen, and Andrew Leichsenring for publishingbook chapters. Other publication highlights include Tomokazu Ishikawa and Miso Kim
publishing their research in the Q1 rated ELT Journal and Modern Language Journal.
Also, Ayako Suzuki co-authored a textbook, Real-time Basic English, and Tricia Okada
published her study in the Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia. All 22 publications byfaculty in 2020 are listed in Table 3 below. This total exceeds previous years (see Chaikul& Milliner, 2019, 2020).
Table 3
Summary of publications by CELF faculty (n＝22)
Type (〇=Peer-reviewed) & Reference
ReportChaikul, R., & Milliner, B. (2020). A report on faculty
development and research at the Center for English as a Lingua
Franca. The Center for English as a Lingua Franca Journal, 6,
129-155. http://doi.org/10.15045/ELF_0060112
Article〇Milliner, B. (2020). “Forced pleasure reading may get youneither”: A reply to Jeff McQuillan. Language and Language
Teaching, 9(2), 1-4.
Chapter〇
McBride, P. (2021). Considering English teaching in the context
of ELF. In H. Lee & B. Spolsky (Eds.), Localizing global
English: Asian perspectives and practices (pp. 3-19). Routledge.

54

Author(s)Rasami Chaikul &Brett Milliner

Brett Milliner

Paul McBrideArticle〇
Kuroshima, S. (2020). Therapist and patient accountability
through tactility and sensation in medical massage sessions.
Social Interaction: Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality,3(1). https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i1.120251
Article〇Ishikawa, T. (2021). Global Englishes and ‘Japanese English’.
Asian Englishes, 23(1).
Article〇Borlongan, A. M., & Ishikawa. T. (2021). English in Japanand Japanese English: Introduction to the special issue. AsianEnglishes, 23(1).
Article〇Ishikawa, T. (2020). EMF awareness in the Japanese EFL/EMI
context. ELT Journal, 74(4), 408-417. https://doi.org/10.1093/
elt/ccaa037
Chapter〇
Ishikawa, T. (2020). Liven up the English classroom withacademic learning: Examples from cognitive psychology. Center
for English as a Lingua Franca Journal, 6, 67-77. http://doi.
org/10.15045/ELF_0060107
Chapter〇
Ishikawa, T. (2021). Rigour in ELF language attitude research:
An example of a conversational interview study. In K. Murata(Ed.), ELF research methods and approaches to data andanalyses: Theoretical and methodological underpinnings (pp.
258-275). Routledge.
Chapter〇
Okada, T. (2020). How did we end up here? Narratives ofFilipinas teaching English in Japan. In D. H., Nagatomo, K. A.
Brown, & M. L. Cook (Eds.), Foreign female English teachersin Japanese higher education: Narratives from our quarter (pp.
257-272). Candlin & Mynard. https://doi.org/10.47908/11
Editorial
Milliner, B. (Ed.) (2020). Yokohama JALT MyShare2019[Special issue]. AccentsAsia,12(2),1-46.
Article〇Kim, M. (2020). A qualitative analysis of EFL learners’
discrimination of nearsynonyms in a data-driven learning
task. English Teaching, 75(3), 25-47. https://doi.org/10.15858/
engtea.75.3.202009.25

Satomi Kuroshima

Tomokazu Ishikawa
Ariane Borlongan& Tomokazu
Ishikawa
Tomokazu Ishikawa

Tomokazu Ishikawa

Tomokazu Ishikawa

Tricia Okada

Brett Milliner
Miso Kim

55

Chapter〇Andrew
Leichsenring, A. (2020). English L2 university teachers’
Leichsenring
perceptions on the influence of academic honesty on theirteaching and teaching philosophies. In B. Montoneri (Ed.),
Academic misconduct and plagiarism: Case studies fromuniversities around the world (pp. 23-46). Lexington Books.
Chapter〇
Gregory Paul
Glasgow, G. P., Ng, P. C. L., Matikainen, T., & Machida, T.
Glasgow, Patrick(2020). Challenging and interrogating native speakerism in
Ng, Tiina
an elementary school professional development programme
Matikainen,
in Japan. In S. A. Houghton & J. Bouchard (Eds.), NativeTomohisa MachidaSpeakerism: Its resilience and undoing. Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-981-15-5671-5_9
Article〇Tricia Okada
Okada, T. (2020). Gender performance and migration
experience of Filipino transgender women entertainers in Japan,
International Journal of Transgender Health. https://doi.org/10.1
080/26895269.2020.1838390
Textbook
Daniel Jenks, Akira
Jenks, D., Mikami, A., Ohyama, N., Takahashi, S., & Suzuki, A. Mikami, Nakakatsu(2020). Real-time basic English. 朝日出版社 [Asahi Press]
Ohyama, Sadao
Takahashi & Ayako
Suzuki
Article〇Tricia Okada
Okada, T. (2020). Negotiations in the gendered experiencesof transpinay entertainers in Japan. Journal of Contemporary
Eastern Asia, 19(2), 40-60. https://doi.org/10.17477/
jcea.2020.19.2.040
Article〇Brett Milliner
Milliner, B. (2021). Stories of avid extensive readers in auniversity-level EFL course. Journal of Extensive Reading, 8(1),1-16. http://jalt-publications.org/content/index.php/jer/ issue/
view/8ArticleBlagoja Dimoski,
Dimoski, B., Kuroshima, S., Okada, T., Chaikul, R., & Yujobo,
Satomi Kuroshima,
Y. J. (2020). JSPS Kakenhi report on developing resources
Tricia Okada,for teaching and assessing communication strategies in ELFRasami Chaikul &informed pedagogy: An empirical approach based on learners’
Yuri Jody Yujobo
communicative capability. The Center for English as a
Lingua Franca Journal, 6, 119-127. http://doi.org/10.15045/
ELF_0060111
56

Article
Satomi Kuroshima
黒嶋智美. 2020. 知識の確認デバイス：「て（いう）こと」による理解候補の提示 ー英語学習活動の相互行為における知識や理解の交渉ー 『日本語用論学会 第22回大会発表論文集』15号: pp. 219-222.
Article〇Satomi Kuroshima
黒嶋智美. 2021.「医療記録を「読むこと」と「見ること」の会話分
析」『日本保健医療社会学会論集』31: pp. 67-77.
Article〇Miso Kim & Suresh
Kim, M., & Canagarajah, S. (2021). Student artifacts as language
Canagarajah
learning materials: A new materialist analysis of South Koreanjob seekers’ student-generated materials use. The Modern
Language Journal, 105(S1), 21-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/
modl.12686
1.3 Contributions to Academic Societies
CELF faculty filled a number of different roles in academic organizations in 2020. Faculty
fulfilled 47 voluntary roles in domestic and international academic societies. Table 4 lists
the variety of roles fulfilled.
Table 4
Summary of contributions by CELF faculty to academic societies in 2019 (n=47)
Society
Position
Name
JACET ELF SIG
Steering Committee
Paul McBride
MemberJACET Kanto Journal
Journal Editor
Paul McBride
JACET ELF SIG
Reviewer
Paul McBride
Journal of Asian Englishes
Reviewer
Paul McBrideEnglishes in Practice
Editorial board member
Paul McBride
IAFOR Journal of Education
Senior Reviewer
Andrew
Leichsenring
IAFOR Journal of Education:
Reviewer
Andrew
Language learning in education
Leichsenring
Extensive Reading Japan
Copy Editor
Brett Milliner
The Journal of Extensive Reading
Copy Editor
Brett Milliner
JALT Yokohama
Publications Chair
Brett Milliner
Accents Asia Journal
Special Issue Editor
Brett Milliner
Englishes in Practice
Editor-in-Chief
Brett Milliner
JACET Kanto Journal
Reviewer
SatomiKuroshima
57

Journal of Pragmatics

Reviewer

The Japanese Association ofSociolinguistic Sciences
The Japanese Association ofSociolinguistic Sciences
Special Committee for the JACET 60th
Anniversary Commemoration Week
(JACET 2021)
Englishes in PracticeTreasurer

Englishes in PracticeSpecial Committee for the JACET 60th
Anniversary Commemoration Week
(JACET 2021)
JACET Seminar Committee
JACET Academic Exchange
Committee
Asian Englishes

Publishers Section
Member
Editorial Board Member
Editorial Board Member& Assistant Handling
EditorChief, International
Participants Section
Associate Chair &Steering Committee
MemberSteering Committee
Member(AILA & JAAL in JACET
Coordinator)
Invited Guest Co-Editor

Journal of English as a Lingua Franca

ReviewerInternational Journal of Applied
Linguistics
Language and Intercultural
Communication
Journal of Multilingual andMulticultural Development
JAAL in JACET

Reviewer

JACET ELF SIG
JACET ELF SIG Journal
58

Reviewer

Reviewer
Reviewer
Steering Committee
Member (Academic
Exchange)
Steering Committee
MemberReviewer

SatomiKuroshima
SatomiKuroshima
SatomiKuroshima
SatomiKuroshima
SatomiKuroshima
Tomokazu
Ishikawa
Tomokazu
Ishikawa
Tomokazu
Ishikawa
Tomokazu
Ishikawa
Tomokazu
Ishikawa
Tomokazu
Ishikawa
Tomokazu
Ishikawa
Tomokazu
Ishikawa
Tomokazu
Ishikawa
Tomokazu
Ishikawa
Tomokazu
Ishikawa
Tomokazu
Ishikawa

JACET Journal

Reviewer

JACET Kanto Journal

Reviewer

JAAL in JACET Proceedings

Reviewer

JACET
ELF International Conference Series
FIEP JAPANJACET 2021 Conference
JAAL in JACET

Scientific Committee
MemberWorking Committee
MemberBoard Member & Public
Relations Chair
Steering Committee
MemberSteering Committee
MemberReviewer
Publishers Section
Manager

Tomokazu
Ishikawa
Tomokazu
Ishikawa
Tomokazu
Ishikawa
Tomokazu
Ishikawa
Tomokazu
Ishikawa
Rasami Chakul
Rasami Chaikul
Rasami Chaikul

Journal of Pragmatics
Rasami Chaikul
Special Committee for the JACET 60th
Rasami Chaikul
Anniversary Commemoration Week
(JACET 2021)
Englishes in Practice
Assistant Handling Editor Rasami Chaiku
Special Committee for the JACET 60th International Participants
Yuri Jody
Anniversary Commemoration Week
Section Member
Yujobo(JACET 2021)
New Crown Textbook Series (Sanseido
Proofreader
Yuri Jody
Co. Ltd)
YujoboSpecial Committee for the JACET 60th International Participants Blagoja Dimoski
Anniversary Commemoration Week
Section Member(JACET 2021)
Englishes in PracticeHandling Editor
Travis Cote
JACET Kanto
Branch Executive
Ayako Suzuki
JACET Kanto Journal
Editor-in-Chief
Ayako Suzuki
Special Committee for the JACET 60th
Academic Exchange
Ayako Suzuki
Anniversary Commemoration Week
Section Member(JACET 2021)
Englishes in Practice
Editorial Board Member
Ayako Suzuki
JACET Teaching Materials SIG
Chair
Ayako Suzuki591.4 Research Grants Received by CELF Faculty
Members of CELF faculty are involved in a total of 10 research projects funded by
Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research through the Japan Society for the Promotion of
Science (JSPS Kakenhi). We want to congratulate Tricia Okada (primary-investigator) for
securing a new grant for a project researching the Intersectionality of the Transgender andTransnational Lives of Transpinay Entertainers in Japan. We also recognize, once again,
our queen of grant collections, Satomi Kuroshima who secured a new grant for a project
titled, Action formation in the interaction: Routine grounds of everyday activities for theevacuation area of a nuclear power plant. This volume of grants awarded to CELF faculty
are a testament to the strong collaborative research culture inside the CELF.
Table 5
Summary of research grants received by CELF faculty in 2020 (n=10)
Grant
Type
LengthProject
JSPS
Grant-in-Aid 04-01-2020 Intersectionality of
Kakenhi for Scientific〜03-31- the transgender andResearch (C)2023transnational lives oftranspinay entertainers in
Japan
JSPS
Grants-in Aid 04-01-2020 相互行為における行為
Kakenhi for Scientific〜03-31- の構成--原発避難地域
における日常活動の基Research (C)2024
盤 Action formation in
the interaction: Routine
grounds of everyday
activities for the evacuation
area of a nuclear power
plant
JSPS
Kakenhi

60

Grant-in-Aid
for Scientific
Research (A)04-01-2017 日常場面と特定場面の日〜03-31- 本語会話コーパスの構築と言語・相互行為研究の新2021
展開Recipient
Tricia Okada(Primary
investigator)
SatomiKuroshima(Coinvestigator)

SatomiKuroshima(Coinvestigator)

JSPS
KakenhiGrant-in-Aid
for Scientific
Research (C)04-01-2018 Developing resources for〜03-31- teaching and assessing
2022
communication strategies
in ELF-informed pedagogy:
An empirical approachbased on learners’communicative competence

Blagoja
Dimoski(Primary
Investigator)&
SatomiKuroshima,
Yuri Jody
Yujobo, Tricia
Okada, Rasami
Chaikul (Coinvestigators)
英語授業内活動におけるSatomi
認識性交渉の会話分析とKuroshima
タスクデザインの提案(Coinvestigator)
若者の就労支援活動におSatomi
ける相互行為の分析
Kuroshima(Coinvestigator)
多言語ビジネス環境でのTomokazu
共通語としての英語使用実Ishikawa
態調査とグローバル人材(Co育成教育 [Research on theInvestigator)
realities of the use of ELF
in multilingual businesssettings and implications forthe development of global
human resources]
日英継続バイリンガ
Jody Yuri
ルの談話能力の発達
Yujoboー国際バカロレア校(Co生徒のナラティヴ研究
Investigator)
Development of JapaneseEnglish simultaneous andlate successive bilingual
discourse skills- Narrative
study on international
baccalaureate students

JSPS
KakenhiGrant-in-Aid
for Scientific
Research (C)04-01-2018〜03-312022

JSPS
KakenhiGrant-in-Aid
for Scientific
Research (C)04-01-2017〜03-312021

JSPS
KakenhiGrant-in-Aid
for Scientific
Research (B)04-01-2019〜03-312023

JSPS
KakenhiGrant-in-Aid
for Scientific
Research (C)04-01-2019〜03-312022

61

JSPS
KakenhiGrant-in-Aid
for Scientific
Research (C)JSPS
KakenhiGrant-in-Aid
for Scientific
Research (C)04-01-2019 内部被曝検査通知に〜03-31- おける医療従事者と来院者の相互行為分析
2023(Conversation analysis of
the internal exposure test
result consultation)
07-18-2018 性同一性障害の診断を〜03-31- 例にした精神医学的診察の会話分析(Conversation
2022
analysis of psychiatricconsultation on “Gender
Identity Disorder”)

SatomiKuroshima(Primaryinvestigator)
SatomiKuroshima(Coinvestigator)

2. CONCLUDING REMARKS AND PLANS FOR 2021
This document presented a review of the various research achievements in the 2020
academic year. The CELF is very proud it could maintain its strong research record during
a year of many challenges, and we look forward to having an impactful 2021.
REFERENCES
Chaikul, R., & Milliner, B. (2019). A report on faculty development and research at
the Center for English as a Lingua Franca. The Center for English as a Lingua
Franca Journal, 5, 54-82. info:doi/10.15045/ELF_0060112
Chaikul, R., & Milliner, B. (2020). A report on faculty development and research at
the Center for English as a Lingua Franca. The Center for English as a Lingua
Franca Journal, 6, 129-155. info:doi/10.15045/ELF_0050105

62