Feature Article

Student Perceptions of Textbook
Topics in a Discussion Course

Davey Young
Sophia University
How learners relate to discussion topics has been shown to directly impact Willingness
to Communicate (WTC). Understanding how students relate to a variety of topic types,
therefore, can aid materials designers and teachers in the creation and presentation ofcontent in speaking courses or courses with a speaking component. This study investigatedstudents’ attitudes towards 24 topics in course-specific textbooks for a compulsory English
discussion class for first year students at a private university in Japan. Six times over thecourse of one academic year, a questionnaire that rated each topic along the four topic
dimensions of interest, familiarity, difficulty, and importance using a four-point Likert scale
was administered to 1,664 students. Topics related to university and student life ranked as
the most interesting and familiar, while those pertaining to social issues were ranked as moredifficult. Correlation analysis identified importance as having a medium correlation withinterest. These findings imply that topics related to university and student life, as well as
those which students find important to discuss, might be well suited to engaging students inspeaking classes. However, teachers would likely also benefit from an understanding of how
topics are presented and perceived in their individual teaching contexts.

Willingness to Communicate (WTC) as an affective construct was first applied
to second language communication in the mid-1990s, and since that time has
proven to be a useful concept in both research on second language acquisitionand language teaching more practically (Yashima, 2012; Yashima, MacIntyre, &Ikeda, 2018). MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément, and Noels’ (1998) heuristic model ofvariables influencing WTC proposed a hierarchy of six layers of variables that havean impact on a language learner’s WTC. One such variable is the social situation,
which MacIntyre et al. (1998) further parsed into five factors: “the participants,
the setting, the purpose, the topic, and the channel of communication” (p. 553).
107

YoungWhile language teachers cannot account for most of the variables in MacIntyre
et al.‘s model, they have some measure of control over those factors in the social
situation created in the classroom, including the topic.
Topic interest has been found to directly impact language learners’ situational
WTC (Aubrey, 2010; Kang, 2005; MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément, & Noels,
1998), and Aubrey (2011) suggested that teachers gain an understanding ofwhat topics interest their students in order to harness latent WTC. Kang (2005)
also argued that topic familiarity is facilitative of WTC, and a number of otherstudies have found topic familiarity to have a positive impact on second language
speaking performance (Khabbazbashi, 2017; Papajohn, 1999; Zuengler, 1993).
Skehan (1998) posited that such impact is possible because greater topic
familiarity lowers cognitive demands and thereby frees attentional resources for
retrieval of other linguistic information.
Topic-based EFL textbooks are common on the market today and are utilized
in a variety of teaching contexts. However, textbook topics might not always bewell-suited to their assorted learning contexts. Kitzman (2016) asked 988 firstand second-year university students from seven Japanese universities to rank
their interest in 20 textbook topics, as well as write in three additional topics
that interest them. She found a general lack of definition across demographic
lines, as well as a wide variety of write-in topics, suggesting that the textbook inquestion did not fit every context in which it was being used. Kikuchi and Sakai(2009) found in a survey of 112 students at three private universities in Tokyoand Shizuoka that course books and non-communicative teaching methods werethe most significant demotivating factors at the high school level. As most of theparticipants in Kikuchi and Sakai’s study were majoring in English literature orinternational relations, the researchers assumed their motivation to learn English
to be high. In a comprehensive review of the relevant literature at the time,
Kikuchi (2013) identified both students’ dissatisfaction with subject area, as well
as dissatisfaction with course books used in EFL classes, as demotivating factors
in the Japanese context.
Wolf (2013) compared textbook-assigned and student-selected topics alongfour perceptual dimensions—interest, knowledge, importance, and difficulty—
108

Student Perceptions of Textbook Topics, OCJSI 1, pages 107-127

among 101 second-year EFL students from the Department of Tourism at a
private university in Japan. The students were from three classes spanning low,
mid, and high proficiencies, with 31, 35, and 35 students in each class respectively.
In total, they consisted of 67 females and 34 males. These participants completed
a set of three questionnaires about 40 textbook topics sorted into eight thematic
categories, as well as a fourth questionnaire about self-selected topics. Wolf foundthat the participants “perceived statistically significantly greater knowledge
about and interest in discussing their own topics” (p. 59).
Participants in Siegel’s (2014) study were four first-year Japanese students
with paper-based TOEFL scores ranging from 407 to 483. These four students
video recorded over 37 hours of their own peer-to-peer conversation in English
with 30 different non-Japanese international students with whom they lived
in an on-campus dormitory. These video recordings were then transcribed andanalyzed by the researcher using conversation analysis to identify self-selected
conversational topic frequency. Topics (N = 162) were identified and placed
into 13 categories. The rates that each topic appeared in conversation werethen compared against their frequency of appearance in 11 EFL textbooks.
Siegel identified a mismatch in what topics are often presented to students inthe classroom and what topics students actually prefer to discuss in English.
Therefore, it would seem that understanding how students relate to a variety
of topics, at least in a university setting in Japan, might help language programadministrators and teachers alike make informed decisions about what materials
to use or develop in speaking classes or classes with a speaking component.
It should be noted that differences in the number of participants limit thegeneralizability of previous relevant studies (Kikuchi & Sakai, 2009; Siegel,
2014; Wolf, 2013) to the present study. Additionally, in the cases of Kikuchi andSakai (2009) and Wolf (2013), it is not known how much class time the students
in these studies spent preparing for or engaging in discussion in English, which isthe sole focus of the teaching context in the present study. However, a previous
pilot study surveying 98 students on topic interest in the same teaching context
as the current study identified topics relating to university and student life as
more interesting to participants than other topic categories represented in the109Youngcourse-specific textbook (Young, 2016).
The current study was carried out with two aims in mind. The first aim
was to learn how students in the given context view the topics in the coursespecific textbook; this aim was related to program development and textbook
revision. The second aim was to identify any correlations between the four topic
dimensions of interest, difficulty, importance, and familiarity. As the majority ofstudies on topic and WTC deal predominantly with topic interest, correlation
analysis was to be carried out with the hope that such analysis could provide
insight into what topic dimensions beyond interest might relate to WTC, and in
so doing inform future research. To this end, two research questions were posed:
1. How do students view the textbook topics in terms of interest, difficulty,
importance, and familiarity?
2. What, if any, are the correlations between students’ interest in, difficultyof, importance of, and familiarity with topics in a discussion-based
speaking course?
Based on findings from a pilot study (Young, 2016) and relevant research(Siegel, 2014; Wolf, 2013), the following four hypotheses were made:1. Topics related to university and student life will be rated more interesting
and familiar to students than topics related to social issues.
2. Topics related to social issues will be rated more difficult and important
to discuss than topics related to university and student life.
3. Interest will be positively correlated with importance and familiarity.
4. Difficulty will be negatively correlated with familiarity.

Methods
Participants and Teaching Context
Participants were 1,664 first-year students enrolled in a mandatory, discussionbased speaking course at a private university in Japan. This sample size ensured
a margin of error below 2% with a 95% confidence level for the 4,500 to 4,700
students enrolled in the course each year. Classes meet once per week and arecapped at nine students, though most contain only eight, with students placed
into one of four proficiency levels based on TOEIC scores. The small class size
110Student Perceptions of Textbook Topics, OCJSI 1, pages 107-127

and lesson format create an ideal context for examining social situational factors
relating to WTC (Aubrey, 2010; Cao & Philp, 2006; Yashima, 2012). The highest
level students have a combined listening and reading TOEIC score of 680 orabove, the second level between 480 and 679, the third between 280 and 479,
and the fourth below 280. The number of students in each level varies slightly
from year to year, with around 90% of students consistently being placed into thesecond or third proficiency levels. The remaining 10% or so of students fall into
the highest and lowest levels in roughly equal numbers. Students from all ten of
the university’s departments are enrolled in the course, representing a wide rangeof proficiency and motivation to learn and use English. Classes were selected forthe present study to represent the distribution of students by department andproficiency level, and only students within these classes participated in the study.
The course employs a functional-notional, theme-based syllabus delivered
using a communicative approach. Students learn functional language delivered
across 24 topics sequentially paired into 12 overarching themes. For example,
the first and second topics are themed as “communication”, while the third andfourth are themed as “education”. As the overarching themes connecting paired
topics often only tenuously represent the actual content of the lesson, topic
categories were created by consulting the topic taxonomies of Wolf (2013) and
Siegel (2014) before creating a unique taxonomy appropriate to the context(Appendix A). These topic categories were then used when formulating the firstresearch question and the first and second hypotheses.
Classes in the current context maximize student-to-student interaction tomeet the stated course aims of improving speaking fluency and preparing students
to discuss a range of topics in English (Hurling, 2012). As course content is an
integral component of the syllabus, a suite of textbooks—one textbook persemester for each of the four proficiency levels—was created specifically for thecourse. These textbooks are revised annually to better meet course aims, and thecurrent study was undertaken in part to aid in this revision process. The content
and discussion prompts are uniform across each level of the textbook, thoughlanguage and task complexity are graded.
Each textbook unit is based around a specific topic, with an out-of-class111Younghomework reading designed to activate existing schemata and further build
topic familiarity (Young, 2016). In accordance with Nation’s (2009) principleof combining meaning-focused input with meaning-focused output, in-classdiscussion tasks all relate to the topic and draw on information contained within
the homework reading. Each 90-minute lesson follows a standardized format
reflected in the textbook and contains between 50 and 60 minutes of pair andsmall group discussion tasks, the staging and sequence of which is delivered by
the program’s 42 full-time instructors in a strongly unified way.
This uniformity is achieved in large part through extensive teacher training,which includes a five-day orientation to the course’s prescribed teaching
methodology, annual professional development projects, and routine raternorming sessions for both the regular lesson assessment rubric and the moreformalized, criterion-referenced discussion tests (Lesley, 2018). In addition,
instructors are subject to a regular observation procedure to ensure eachcomponent of the standard lesson is executed to standard. The progression topeer observations for teachers after their first year on the course, as well as aculture of collaboration within the program, help ensure mutual accountability
among instructors. There is no deviation from aims, basic lesson structure, orcontent in any given lesson, as such deviation would bear out in the assessment
forms, completed quizzes, and comments for students submitted by teachers at
the end of each teaching day.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data was collected via a set of six questionnaires administered by 19 instructors
over the course of two semesters in the 2016 academic year. After lessons five,nine, and thirteen in each 14-week semester, students completed a questionnaireasking them to rate the previous four textbook topics on a four-point Likert
scale, with ‘a’ being the least interesting, familiar, etc., and ‘d’ being the mostinteresting, familiar, etc. (Appendix B). The ‘a’ to ‘d’ scale was used to correspondwith the bubble sheets on which students recorded their responses to each item.
Mean scores for each topic were created by converting the alphabetic charactersused on the bubble sheets to numeric values, with ‘a’ being converted to one,112

Student Perceptions of Textbook Topics, OCJSI 1, pages 107-127‘b’ converted to two, and so on. If students were absent for a given lesson, theymarked ‘e’ to indicate their absence for the corresponding items on the survey.
These responses were then eliminated from the study, as were all of the responses
on any incomplete or incorrectly completed surveys. While it would have been
ideal to administer a questionnaire after every lesson, doing so three times persemester was the most realistic and reliable option due to a variety of logisticalconcerns related to the collection and treatment of data.
Though 1,664 students participated in the study, the number who completed
a given questionnaire varied from 1,496 to 1,631 due to student absence, error,
or to administrator error. The questionnaires were completed on bubble sheetsthat were then collated using an OMR scanner for subsequent calculation of
averages and correlation analysis in SPSS.
It should be noted that comparing averages of a given dimension from topic
to topic is problematic for a number of reasons. For one, individual student’s
interpretation of the Likert scale may have floated from survey to survey.
Different students rating any given topic likely also had different interpretationsof the scale. Furthermore, the number of responses varied somewhat due tostudent absence and student or administrator error. A general trend towards
fewer respondents from questionnaire to questionnaire mirrors the decline inoverall attendance over the course of the academic year. In combination, thesefactors could easily account for minor differences in averages when comparing
topics within a single dimension.

Results

The first research question asked how students view the textbook topics in termsof interest, difficulty, importance, and familiarity. Mean scores and standard
deviations for each topic across the four dimensions are displayed in Appendix
C. Topics are listed in the sequence in which they appear in the textbook.
Of the 24 topics represented in the study, six pertain to university andstudent life. In other words, six of 24 topics could be said to relate directly tothe experience of being a university student. These topics are, in the order thatthey appear in the textbooks, “Making Friends at University”, “Why Go to113

YoungUniversity?”, “University Entrance Systems”, “Students and Part-time Jobs”,“Students and Social Pressure”, and “Studying Abroad”. Table 1 shows how
the findings support the first hypothesis, as the top five most interesting topics
pertain to university and student life, as do the top four most familiar topics. As
only six of 24 topics relate to university and student life, their ranking relative
to the other 18 topics in terms of interest and familiarity could be high enoughto offset concerns around the floating scale and differences in response numbers
between surveys.
An examination of Table 2 reveals partial support for the second hypothesis,
which assumed that topics related to social issues would be rated more difficultand important to discuss than topics related to university and student life. Sevenof the textbooks’ 24 topics are centered on social issues, and five of these wererated as the five most difficult topics for students to discuss. Topics relating touniversity and student life generally ranked low in terms of difficulty. As forimportance, however, those seven topics which pertain to social issues as well as
the six relating to university and student life are evenly distributed throughout
the rankings.
The second research question asked what, if any, correlations exist between
students’ interest in, difficulty of, importance of, and familiarity with topics inthe course. An understanding of such correlation might offer insight into how thedimensions beyond interest relate to WTC. In other words, if interest has beenshown to relate to situational WTC, then a dimension with a large correlation
to interest may have a similar relationship. Spearman’s rho (r) correlations were
found to be statistically significant at p < .001 with the notable exception of thecorrelation between interest and difficulty (Table 3). Spearman’s rho was selected
to treat the Likert scale as ordinal and on the assumption that the relationshipbetween the variables would be monotonic but not necessarily linear.
There is a medium correlation between interest and importance (r = .440),
as well as small correlations between interest and familiarity (r = .367), andimportance and familiarity (r = .357). The third hypothesis, that interest would
be positively correlated with importance and familiarity, is therefore clearlysupported. Additionally, there are significant but not important correlations
114

Student Perceptions of Textbook Topics, OCJSI 1, pages 107-127
Table 1
Textbook Topics Ranked By Mean Interest and Familiarity
Mean
Familiarity

Mean Interest
Rank

Topic

(SD)

Topic

(SD)

1

Making Friends at University

3.11 (1.01)

Making Friends at University

3.35 (0.87)

2

Why Go to University?

3.08 (0.97

Why Go to University?

3.25 (0.87)

3Students and Part-time Jobs

3.06 (0.97)

University Entrance Systems

3.22 (0.92)

4

University Entrance Systems

3.05 (0.99

Students and Part-time Jobs

3.18 (0.91)

5Studying Abroad

3.05 (0.94)

Face-to-face vs Online
Communication

3.13 (0.86)

6

Money

2.99 (0.88)

Money

3.08 (0.85)

7Japanese and Foreign Customs

2.97 (0.90)

Happiness

2.98 (0.81)

8Face-to-face vs Online
Communication

2.96 (0.93

Public Behavior

2.98 (0.82)

9Happiness

2.95 (0.94)

Students and Social Pressure

2.98 (0.91)

10English in Japan2.95 (0.90)

Studying Abroad

2.94 (0.89)

11

Public Behavior

2.95 (0.83)

English in Japan2.89 (0.81)

12

The Globalization of Japanese
Culture2.94 (0.90)

The Influence of the Media

2.87 (0.82)

13Country versus City

2.93 (0.92)

Personality

2.83 (0.79)

14

Personality

2.92 (0.81)

Traditional and New Media

2.82 (0.82)

15Students and Social Pressure

2.90 (0.92)

Learning Values

2.78 (0.86)

16

Gender in Japan2.89 (0.81)

Japanese and Foreign Customs

2.77 (0.82)

17

How Can We Help Hikikomori?

2.88 (0.93)

Country versus City

2.76 (0.91)

18

Traditional and New Media

2.87 (0.83)

The Globalization of Japanese
Culture2.72 (0.85)

19

The Influence of the Media

2.86 (0.85)

Gender in Japan2.71 (0.78)

20Technology: Past, Present, andFuture2.84 (0.89)

Technology: Past, Present, andFuture2.67 (0.85)

21

Crime and Punishment

2.83 (0.84)

The Environment and You

2.67 (0.88)

22

Learning Values

2.82 (0.89)

Crime and Punishment

2.46 (0.83)

23

The Environment and You

2.78 (0.86)

Poverty

2.46 (0.87)

24

Poverty

2.76 (0.88)

How Can We Help Hikikomori?

2.02 (0.99)

115

YoungTable 2
Textbook Topics Ranked By Mean Difficulty and Importance
Mean
Importance

Rank

Topic

Mean
Difficulty(SD)

1

Poverty

3.08 (0.84)

Why Go to University?

3.19 (0.85)

2

Crime and Punishment

2.95 (0.84)

Money

3.16 (0.79)

3

Learning Values

2.91 (0.88)

Poverty

3.15 (0.82)

4Gender in Japan2.75 (0.76)

Studying Abroad

3.11 (0.84)

5Public Behavior

2.72 (0.79)

Gender in Japan

3.10 (0.77)

6Personality

2.72 (0.76)

Public Behavior

3.08 (0.78)

7Happiness

2.67 (0.88)

Happiness

3.07 (0.86)

8

Traditional and New Media

2.66 (0.78)

English in Japan

3.07 (0.82)

9Students and Social Pressure

2.66 (0.88)

Crime and Punishment

3.06 (0.76)

10

The Influence of the Media

2.63 (0.76)

University Entrance Systems

3.05 (0.85)

11

Money

2.62 (0.84)

Face-to-face vs Online
Communication

3.05 (0.82)

12

The Environment and You

2.61 (0.82)

Students and Part-time Jobs

3.04 (0.85)

13Japanese and Foreign Customs

2.59 (0.78)

Japanese and Foreign Customs

3.04 (0.79)

14

University Entrance Systems

2.58 (0.90)

Learning Values

3.03 (0.86)

15Technology: Past, Present, andFuture2.58 (0.81)

Students and Social Pressure

3.02 (0.87)

16

English in Japan

2.55 (0.80)

Personality

3.02 (0.77)

17

The Globalization of Japanese
Culture2.55 (0.77)

Making Friends at University

3.01 (0.89)

18

Why Go to University?

2.48 (0.86)

The Globalization of Japanese
Culture3.01 (0.80)

19Studying Abroad

2.46 (0.82)

The Environment and You

2.98 (0.86)

20

How Can We Help Hikikomori?

2.46 (0.86)

How Can We Help Hikikomori?

2.96 (0.91)

21Country versus City

2.38 (0.79)

The Influence of the Media

2.93 (0.77)

22Students and Part-time Jobs

2.35 (0.81)

Traditional and New Media

2.92 (0.78)

23Face-to-face vs Online
Communication

2.35 (0.79)

Technology: Past, Present, andFuture2.88 (0.79)

24

Making Friends at University

2.18 (0.80)

Country versus City

2.75 (0.86)

116

Topic

(SD)

Student Perceptions of Textbook Topics, OCJSI 1, pages 107-127
Table 2
Correlations Between the Four Dimensions of Textbook Topics
Interest

Difficulty

ImportanceInterest-

Difficulty

.001

-

Importance.440***.082***-

Familiarity.367***-.067***.357***

Familiarity-* correlation significant at p < .05; ** correlation significant at p < .01; *** correlation significant at
p < .001

between difficulty and importance (r = .082) and difficulty and familiarity(r = -.062). The correlation between interest and difficulty was shown to be
insignificant (p = .922). Though the significant correlations were not large,
they might warrant further and more focused research into what relationship,
if any, familiarity and importance have with WTC. The fourth hypothesis, thatdifficulty would be negatively correlated with familiarity, is not supported by thecurrent findings due to the size of the correlation, albeit negative.

Discussion

The biggest limitation of the present study was that it asked participants torate the textbook topics every four weeks over two semesters, which allows forthe possibility that raters’ interpretation of the Likert scale evolved between
questionnaires. Students might also have had difficulty recalling a topic from aprior lesson when completing each questionnaire, affecting their perception ofthat topic. Moreover, participants’ internal understanding or interpretation of the
topic dimensions, in particular importance and familiarity, may have differed fromstudent to student. For example, one student may have interpreted familiarity as
direct experience with the topic, while another may have interpreted familiarity
to mean prior knowledge without direct experience. Such a discrepancy would
have an impact on how students rate certain topics.
An additional limitation is that, though the course books are used in astrongly unified curriculum, there is still room for variation in how discrete117Youngaspects of each unit are presented by instructors who use these materials. Theselimitations were hopefully mitigated by the low margin of error. Furthermore, as
the second research question examined correlations between topic dimensions,
it would be misguided to assume there is any causal relationship between these
individual dimensions themselves, or that they have any impact on WTC,
without the benefit of further research.
With respect to existing similar research, it is worth noting that Siegel(2014) found that topics which she categorized as “academic life” were the mostfrequently discussed, comprising 17.3% of the recorded talk. The findings of thepresent study could be viewed as consistent with those in Siegel’s study insofar as
the five most interesting topics are related to university and student life, though
there is an obvious gap in sample size and methodology. The current findings do
not concord with those in Wolf ’s (2013) study, which also used a Likert scale
to rate textbook topics across the same four dimensions as in the present study,
allowing the dimension of familiarity in the current study to be compared to
the knowledge dimension in Wolf ’s. This lack of agreement might be due to avariety of differences in teaching context (e.g., class size, proficiency level, andsyllabus design), as well as differences between the textbooks being used therein.
Such differences might therefore suggest that topics and topic sets are context
dependent, and that the findings in the current study have implications mostuseful for teaching contexts similar to those in which the present study was
conducted.
However, different perceptions of superficially similar topics across likestudies help illustrate how important topic presentation and framing is to its
perception. For instance, Wolf ’s (2013) topic category of “food health” wasrated the second to least interesting out of eight topic categories appearing ina course-assigned textbook. However, the topic of “food” in Kitzman’s (2016)
survey was ranked as the second most interesting among 20 topics in a different
textbook. In the same study, “health” was ranked number 13. As Kitzman’s
study only ranked these topics in relation to one another rather than rating theirinterest to students in isolation, it cannot be said with any degree of confidence
that the participants indeed found the topic of “food” to be interesting, only that118

Student Perceptions of Textbook Topics, OCJSI 1, pages 107-127

it was the most interesting (or the least disinteresting) of the available options.
Similarly, the topic category of “punishment” in Wolf ’s (2013) study was thesecond most interesting of eight, while the topic of “crime and punishment” inthe present study was ranked 21 out of 24 in terms of interest.
It seems reasonable to argue that it is not the topic in isolation that students
find interesting, difficult, important, or familiar; how the topic is presented isjust as, if not more so, important to topic perception than the topic category
itself. For example, the questions What is your favorite food? and How can people
become more aware of additives in processed food? may both be categorized under
the topic heading “food”, but each will rate differently in terms of interest,
familiarity, importance, and difficulty within a given sample of students. For
purposes of textbook revision, noting unexpectedly high or low rankings canhelp inform how textbook content is presented in future editions. In the current
study, particularly low ratings for certain topics spurred close examination of
how these topics were presented in the relevant edition of the textbook andinformed their revision. “How Can We Help Hikikomori?”, for instance, wasrevised in an attempt to make the topic more familiar. Similarly, “Poverty” wasrevised to be somewhat less difficult, and “Country versus City” to be somewhat
more difficult.
Before teachers know what topics will best engage their students, favoring
topics that relate to university and student life might be a good initial choice,at least for the context of tertiary EFL in Japan, when selecting or designing
materials for a speaking course or a course with a speaking component. Thissuggestion is based on the relatively high ranking of such topics in terms ofinterest and importance in the present study, and on the medium correlation
between these two dimensions. Furthermore, as difficulty appears to haveno significant correlation with the other dimensions, teachers and materials
writers should feel free to focus on interest, importance, and familiarity withoutworrying whether or not a topic is too difficult for students. Even if students
find a topic to be difficult, they might still be willing to communicate about it,
especially if the topic is regarded as interesting, familiar, and important to discuss.
However, teachers should still be aware that difficult topics may carry with119

Youngthem additional cognitive burdens that have the potential to negatively impact
speaking performance. Once teachers gain an understanding of what topics their
particular students would prefer to encounter in their English studies, they can
select or design materials based on that understanding. Ongoing needs analysis
can then inform how those materials are modified to present each topic in such a
way that maximizes student engagement.
It is important to remember MacIntyre et al.‘s (1998) five factors of thesocial situation, as the participants, setting, purpose, topic, and channel ofcommunication all interact with each other to help determine a learner’s WTC
in any given social situation, in addition to more fixed, trait-like factors such as
personality. The interplay between relatively stable learner characteristics anddynamic learning contexts is only just beginning to be understood (Yashima
et al., 2018). A follow-up study on how students view the same topic whenpresented in different ways, and accounting for a range of situational and fixedfactors, would contribute greatly to this line of inquiry. A more thoroughinvestigation could include Rasch analysis to identify and control for variationin scale interpretation between survey administrations and from student to
student, as well as investigate variables such as students’ proficiency level or
faculty. Additionally, further research could examine how the topic dimensionsof familiarity, importance, and difficulty do or do not impact situational WTC.

Conclusion

The present study identified small-to-medium correlations between students’
perceived topic interest, familiarity, and importance. Additionally, the strongest
single correlation was between importance and interest. Among the topics
investigated here, those related to university and student life were generally thebest received in terms of interest and familiarity. The current findings also indicatethat difficulty may be a poor indicator of how interesting, familiar, or importanta topic might be to students. As such, teachers and materials designers should
feel comfortable challenging students to engage with potentially difficult topics
with the confidence that such topics can be presented in ways that are interesting,familiar, and important. Still, having a broad idea of how students may perceive a120

Student Perceptions of Textbook Topics, OCJSI 1, pages 107-127

topic is only a starting point to harnessing latent WTC.

Acknowledgments

I would like to sincerely thank Anna Bordilovskaya, Andrew G. Brown, Nicole
Gallagher, Matthew Alexander Hartley, Hugh Kirkwood, Jamie Lesley, Matthew
Livingston, Tobias Long, Anna Loseva, Christopher Mattson, Paul McEntee,
Christopher Nicklin, Sam Reid, Matthew Y. Schaefer, Liz Shek-Noble, Tracyann Tsuruoka, Travis West, and Chris Whiffin for assisting in the arduous task ofcollecting data for this research. I would also like to thank Kayoko Yamauchi forassisting with the Japanese translation of the questionnaires.

References

Aubrey, S. (2010). Influences on Japanese students’ willingness to communicate
across three different sized EFL classes (Master’s thesis). Retrieved fromhttp://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Thesis/Thesis-Aubrey.pdf
Aubrey, S. (2011). Facilitating interaction in East Asian EFL classrooms:
Increasing students’ willingness to communicate. Language Education in
Asia, 2(2), 237-245.
Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness tocommunicate: A comparison of behavior in whole class, group anddyadic interaction. System, 34(4), 480-493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
system.2006.05.002
Hurling, S. (2012). Introduction to EDC. New Directions in Teachingand Learning English Discussion, 1(1), 1.2-1.10. http://doi.
org/10.14992/00016242
Kang, S. J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness tocommunicate in a second language. System, 33(2), 277-292. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.system.2004.10.004
Khabbazbashi, N. (2017). Topic and background knowledge effects on
performance in speaking assessment. Language Testing, 34(1), 23-48.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532215595666
Kikuchi, K. (2013). Demotivators in the Japanese EFL context. In M. T. Apple,
121

YoungD. Da Silva, & T. Fellner (Eds.), Language learning motivation in Japan (pp.
206-224). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Kikuchi, K., & Sakai, H. (2009). English educational policy for high schools
in Japan: Ideals vs. reality. RELC Journal, 40(2), 172-191. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0033688209105865
Kitzman, A. (2016). Working to meet students’ needs with optimal topics.
OnCUE Journal, 9(3), 239-260.
Lesley, J. (2018). Reflective teacher training: Uniting theory with practice. New
Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 6, 261-272.
MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998).
Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational modelof L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x
Nation, I. S. P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Papajohn, D. (1999). The effect of topic variation in performance
testing: The case of the chemistry TEACH test for international
teaching assistants. Language Testing, 16(1), 52-81. https://doi.
org/10.1177/026553229901600104
Siegel, A. (2014). What should we talk about? The authenticity of textbook
topics. ELT Journal, 68(4), 363-375. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu012
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Wolf, J. P. (2013). Exploring and contrasting EFL learners’ perceptions of
textbook-assigned and self-selected discussion topics. Language Teaching
Research, 17(1), 49-66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812457535
Yashima, T. (2012). Willing to communicate: Momentary volition that resultsin L2 behavior. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, and M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for
language learning (pp. 119-135). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Yashima, T., MacIntyre, P. D., & Ikeda, M. (2018). Situated willingness
to communicate in an L2: Interplay of individual characteristics andcontext. Language Teaching Research, 22(1), 115-137. https://doi.
122

Student Perceptions of Textbook Topics, OCJSI 1, pages 107-127

org/10.1177/1362168816657851
Young, D. (2016). Textbook revision in the EDC context: Readability and topic
interest. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 4,
295-302.
Zuengler, J. (1993). Encouraging learners’ conversational participation: The
effect of content knowledge. Language Learning, 43(3), 403-432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1993.tb00620.x

Author bio

Davey Young is a Lecturer at Sophia University’s Department of English Studies.
He holds an MA in TESOL and has worked in various ESL and EFL contexts in
the United States, China, and Japan. His current research interests include quality
assurance, materials development, and special education needs. dyoung@sophia.
ac.jp
Received: October 18, 2018
Accepted: March 14, 2019123

YoungAppendix A
Table of Textbook Topics by Lesson and Category
Semester and lesson
numberTextbook topic

Topic category

Spring 2

How Can We Help Hikikomori?

Social issues

Spring 3

Making Friends at University

University and student life

Spring 4

Why Go to University?

University and student life

Spring 5

University Entrance Systems

University and student life

Spring 6

The Environment and You

Environment

Spring 7

Country versus City

Environment

Spring 8

Students and Part-time Jobs

University and student life

Spring 9

Students and Social Pressure

University and student life

Spring 10

Face-to-face versus Online
Communication

Media, technology, & communication

Spring 11

Technology: Past, Present, and Future

Media, technology, & communication

Spring 12

Happiness

Social issues

Spring 13

Learning Values

Social issues

Fall 2The Globalization of Japanese Culture

CultureFall 3

Japanese and Foreign Customs

CultureFall 4

English in Japan

Language

Fall 5

Studying Abroad

University and student life

Fall 6The Influence of the MediaMedia, technology, & communication

Fall 7

Traditional and New MediaMedia, technology, & communication

Fall 8PovertySocial issues

Fall 9

Money

Money

Fall 10

Gender in Japan

Social issues

Fall 11

Personality

Self

Fall 12

Crime and Punishment

Social issues

Fall 13

Public Behavior

Social issues

124

Student Perceptions of Textbook Topics, OCJSI 1, pages 107-127

Appendix B
Questionnaire Sample (Semester
Appendix 1,
B Topics 1-4)
Questionnaire Sample (Semester 1, Topics 1-4)

Instructions: Read and think about each question carefully! Your feedback is important to us. Please write yourstudent ID number and mark your answers on the test card provided. There are 16 questions in total.
学生からのフィードバックは，英語教育ディスカッションセンターのプログラム開発と発展のためにとても重要なものです。各質問をよく読んでから、丁寧に回答してください。配布されたマークシートに学生番号を記入し、該当する回答をマークしてください。質問は全部で 16 問あります。
How interesting was each topic to discuss? (Choose the letter that best describes your degree of interest in eachlesson topic on the left. “a” is the least interesting; “d” is the most interesting. If you were absent for a particularlesson, please answer “e”.)
以下のディスカッショントピックに対するあなたの関心度はどのようなものでしたか。（左側にある各レッ
スンのトピックに対し，あなたの関心度に最も当てはまる記号を選び，マークしてください。例えば，”a”
は「全く関心がなかった」、”d”は「とても関心があった」になります。もし，該当するレッスンを欠席していた場合は，”e”にマークしてください。）
INTEREST
関心度
Not Interesting
Very Interesting
Absent
関心がなかった
関心があった欠席
1. Lesson 2: How Can We Help Hikikomori?
a
b
c
d
e
2. Lesson 3: Making Friends at University
a
b
c
d
e
3. Lesson 4: Why Go to University?
a
b
c
d
e
4. Lesson 5: University Entrance Systems
a
b
c
d
e
How difficult was each topic to discuss? (Choose the letter that best describes the degree of difficulty of the lesson
topic on the left. “a” is the least difficult; “d” is the most difficult. If you were absent for a particular lesson, pleaseanswer “e”.)
以下のディスカッショントピックはどのくらい難しかったですか。（左側にある各レッスンのトピックに対し，あなたの難易度に最も当てはまる記号を選び，マークしてください。例えば，”a”は「全く難しくなかった」、”d”は「とても難しかった」になります。もし，該当するレッスンを欠席していた場合は，”e”にマークしてください。）
DIFFICULTY
難易度
Not Difficult
Very Difficult
Absent
難しくない
とても難しい欠席
5. Lesson 2: How Can We Help Hikikomori?
a
b
c
d
e
6. Lesson 3: Making Friends at University
a
b
c
d
e
7. Lesson 4: Why Go to University?
a
b
c
d
e
8. Lesson 5: University Entrance Systems
a
b
c
d
e

22

125

Young
How important do you think each topic is to discuss? (Choose the letter that best describes the degree ofimportance of the lesson topic on the left. “a” is the least important; “d” is the most important. If you were absent
for a particular lesson, please answer “e”.)
以下のディスカッショントピックはどのくらい議論する重要性があると思いますか。（左側にある各レッス
ンのトピックに対し，あなたの重要度に最も当てはまる記号を選び，マークしてください。例えば，”a”は「全く重要でない」、”d”は「とても重要」になります。もし，該当するレッスンを欠席していた場合
は，”e”にマークしてください。）
IMPORTANCE
重要度
Not Important
Very Important
Absent
重要でない
とても重要
欠席
9. Lesson 2: How Can We Help Hikikomori?
a
b
c
d
e
10. Lesson 3: Making Friends at University
a
b
c
d
e
11. Lesson 4: Why Go to University?
a
b
c
d
e
12. Lesson 5: University Entrance Systems
a
b
c
d
e
Before each lesson, how familiar were you with each topic? (Choose the letter that best describes the degree offamiliarity with the lesson topic on the left. “a” is the least familiar; “d” is the most familiar. If you were absent fora particular lesson, please answer “e”.)
レッスンを受ける前，以下のディスカッショントピックは、あなたにとってどのくらい馴染みのあるものでしたか。（左側にある各レッスンのトピックに対し，あなたの馴染みの度合いに最も当てはまる記号を選び，マークしてください。例えば，”a”は「全く馴染みがなかった」、”d”は「とても馴染みがあった」になります。もし，該当するレッスンを欠席していた場合は，”e”にマークしてください。）
FAMILIARITY
親近感
Not Familiar
Very Familiar
Absent
馴染みがない馴染みがある欠席
13. Lesson 2: How Can We Help Hikikomori?
a
b
c
d
e
14. Lesson 3: Making Friends at University
a
b
c
d
e
15. Lesson 4: Why Go to University?
a
b
c
d
e
16. Lesson 5: University Entrance Systems
a
b
c
d
e

23

126

Student Perceptions of Textbook Topics, OCJSI 1, pages 107-127

Appendix C

Table of Total Mean Scores for the Four Textbook Topic Dimensions
Interest

Difficulty

ImportanceFamiliarity

Topic

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

1. How Can We Help Hikikomori? (n = 1627)

2.88

0.93

2.46

0.86

2.96

0.91

2.02

0.99

2. Making Friends at University (n = 1627)

3.11

1.01

2.18

0.80

3.01

0.89

3.35

0.87

3. Why Go to University? (n = 1627)

3.08

0.97

2.48

0.86

3.19

0.85

3.25

0.87

4. University Entrance Systems (n = 1627)*

3.05

0.99

2.58

0.90

3.05

0.85

3.22

0.92

5. The Environment and You (n = 1615)

2.78

0.86

2.61

0.82

2.98

0.86

2.62

0.88

6. Country versus City (n = 1615)

2.93

0.92

2.38

0.79

2.75

0.86

2.76

0.91

7. Students and Part-time Jobs (n = 1615)

3.06

0.97

2.35

0.81

3.04

0.85

3.18

0.91

8. Students and Social Pressure (n = 1615)*

2.90

0.92

2.66

0.88

3.02

0.87

2.98

0.91

9. Face-to-face versus Online Communication(n = 1631)

2.96

0.93

2.35

0.79

3.05

0.82

3.13

0.86

10. Technology: Past, Present, and Future (n= 1631)

2.84

0.89

2.58

0.81

2.88

0.79

2.67

0.85

11. Happiness (n = 1631)

2.95

0.94

2.67

0.88

3.07

0.86

2.98

0.81

12. Learning Values (n = 1631)*

2.82

0.89

2.91

0.88

3.03

0.86

2.78

0.86

13. The Globalization of Japanese Culture (n= 1542)

2.94

0.90

2.55

0.77

3.01

0.80

2.72

0.85

14. Japanese and Foreign Customs (n = 1542)

2.97

0.90

2.59

0.78

3.04

0.79

2.77

0.82

15. English in Japan (n = 1542)

2.95

0.90

2.55

0.80

3.07

0.82

2.89

0.81

16. Studying Abroad (n = 1542)*

3.05

0.94

2.46

0.82

3.11

0.84

2.94

0.89

17. The Influence of the Media (n = 1550)

2.86

0.85

2.63

0.76

2.93

0.77

2.87

0.82

18. Traditional and New Media (n = 1550)

2.87

0.83

2.66

0.78

2.92

0.78

2.82

0.82

19. Poverty (n = 1550)

2.76

0.88

3.08

0.84

3.15

0.82

2.46

0.87

20. Money (n = 1550)*

2.99

0.88

2.62

0.84

3.16

0.79

3.08

0.85

21. Gender in Japan (n = 1496)

2.89

0.81

2.75

0.76

3.10

0.77

2.71

0.78

22. Personality (n = 1496)

2.92

0.81

2.72

0.76

3.02

0.77

2.83

0.79

23. Crime and Punishment (n = 1496)

2.83

0.84

2.95

0.84

3.06

0.76

2.46

0.83

24. Public Behavior (n = 1496)*

2.95

0.83

2.72

0.79

3.08

0.78

2.98

0.82

Note. Asterisk refers to week of survey collection on current and previous three weeks’ topics.

127