2016 April

Volume 2.1
ISSN 2189-0463

ELF

The Center for English
as a Lingua Franca
JournalEfficacy of promoting awareness in
ELF communicative strategies through PBL
Becoming ‘YouTubers’:
Using webclips in the ELF classroom
Developing Fluency in Circumlocution
Checking the Effectiveness of Quizlet
as a Tool for Vocabulary Learning
A report on faculty development and research inside
the Center for English as a Lingua Franca

CONTENTS

玉 川大学

The Center for ELF Journal
Issue Editors: Travis Cote and Brett Milliner
Translation: Mitsuko Imai
Reviewers:
Glenn TohCharlie Robertson
Jesse Hsu
Ethel Ogane
Paul McBride
Yuri Jody Yujobo
Andrew Leichsenring
Blagoja Dimoski
Takanori Sato
Tricia Okada
Mitsuko Imai
Ayako Suzuki

The Center for ELF Journal: Call for Articles
The Center for ELF Journal is a refereed journal that seeks to promote criticalreﬂection among English language teaching professionals from a wide range ofprofessional contexts. Manuscripts are subject to blind reviews by two or morereviewers after initial screening by the editorial committee.

Aims of Journal:▪ 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 teaching▪
▪
▪

professionals
To encourage language teaching professionals to empower themselves andin so doing empower their students
To encourage sharing of teaching techniques among ELF teachers
To serve and support the professional development needs of ELF teachers

Types of Articles:

Research article (1000 ~ 3000 words)
Teaching article (1000 ~ 3000 words)
Forum article (1000 words)
Book reviews (1000 words)
ELF classroom practices (1000 words)
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 research context,
relevant theories, qualitative or quantitative research data, detailed descriptions ofresearch method including clear demonstration of attention to research ethics andcommentary.

Teaching articles: Teaching articles should provide a description of the teachingcontext, relevant issues related to the teaching context, teaching theories andapproaches appropriate to the context as well as comments reﬂecting pedagogicalpraxis.

Forum articles: From time to time, the editor may call for forum articles focus-

ing 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 theopportunity to engage with current issues from a given standpoint as well as witheach otherʼs opinions on the issue.

Book reviews: Writers of book (textbook or other) reviews should ﬁrst contact theeditors 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., “teacherʼs toolbox”).

How to submit your manuscript:

Please email your submissions to the editors with the title, “The Center for ELF
Journal Submission”.
email: celfjournal@gmail.com

Issue 2.1 Foreword:
Managed by the Center for English as a Lingua Franca (CELF), the English as a
Lingua Franca (ELF) Program at Tamagawa University is a campus-wide English
program designed to enable students to effectively communicate with people all over
the world using English as a lingua franca. In 2015, approximately 2,500 students
were taught by 40 instructors with different language and cultural backgrounds.
CELF is about giving due recognition to the diverse contexts and situations inwhich English is now used as a lingua franca. The ELF paradigm is versatileand reﬂexive and captures the reality in which English is used for the creationand negotiation of a plurality of fresh meanings. The collection of articles in thisjournal represents the research and work from a handful of those ELF teachers. It
is the teachers, their personal beliefs and principles, who determine the success ofany language program. If teachers are going to hone their teaching skills, deepen
their knowledge and develop professionally, they must receive proper support. To
that end, the editors of this current issue were involved in creating the Center for
English as a Lingua Franca Journal. All teachers in the ELF Program were invited
to submit an academic article or research paper for consideration of publication inthis Journal. For teachers, publication in this Journal represents a chance to add totheir professional resume, but more importantly this is a platform for ELF teachers
to share ideas and add value to our new Center for English as a Lingua Franca.
In this second issue, Yuri Jody Yujobo, Ethel Ogane, Tricia Okada, Brett Milliner,
Takanori Sato, Blagoja Dimoski and report on using project-based learning (PBL)
activities to promote awareness in ELF communicative strategies. Michelangelo
Magasic shares his expert advice on how teachers can more effectively use webclips
in their classroom. Daniel Worden introduces circumlocution activities as a way topromote ﬂuency. Blair Barr investigates the effectiveness of the digital ﬂashcard
app, Quizlet® for vocabulary learning. This second issue concludes with a reporton faculty development activities and the research achievements for the CELF in
2015. In closing, I would like to thank Tamagawa University for their continued
ﬁnancial support, the authors for making such valuable contributions to the center,and the reviewers who dedicated their time and specialist knowledge to the blind
review process.
March 2016
Masaki Oda, Ph.D.
Director, CELF

Contents
Efficacy of promoting awareness in ELF communicative
strategies through PBL
Yuri Jody Yujobo, Ethel Ogane, Tricia Okada, Brett Milliner,
Takanori Sato & Blagoja Dimoski
Becoming ‘YouTubers’:
Using webclips in the ELF classroom

01

18

Michelangelo Magasic

Developing Fluency in Circumlocution
Daniel Worden

Checking the effectivness of Quizlet® as a tool for
vocabulary learning

26

36

Blair Barr

A report on faculty development and research inside theCenter for English as a Lingua Franca
Brett Milliner & Blagoja Dimoski

49

Efﬁcacy of promoting awareness in
ELF communicative strategies through PBL
ELFコミュニケーションストラテジー意識づけにおけるプロジェクトベース学習の有効性
Yuri Jody Yujobo, 祐乗坊由利ジョディー <yujobo@lit.tamagawa.ac.jp>
Ethel Ogane, 大金エセル <ethel@bus.tamagawa.ac.jp>
Tricia Okada, 岡田トリシャ <tokada@lit.tamagawa.ac.jp>
Brett Milliner, ミリナー・ブレット <milliner@lit.tamagawa.ac.jp>
Takanori Sato, 佐藤敬典 <taka-sato@lab.tamagawa.ac.jp>
Blagoja Dimoski, ディモスキ・ブラゴヤ <bdimoski@lit.tamagawa.ac.jp>
Tamagawa University, Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Japan
ABSTRACTAt the Center for English as a Lingua Franca (CELF), students interact withteachers and tutors who have different ﬁrst languages and cultural backgrounds.
The CELF goals are to raise student awareness of the use of language in such
ELF contexts and to develop an ELF-oriented curriculum. ELF research has
put forth a range of pedagogical implications. Suggestions by ELF researchers
include exposing students to a “wide range of English” (Björkman, 2013, p.
191), and “promoting interactions among students themselves in the classroom”(Matsumoto, 2011, p. 110). Students should be encouraged with opportunities toengage in meaningful tasks which promote the use of such strategies as repetition,
paraphrasing, clariﬁcation checks and “collaborative completion of utterancesin their interactions as they negotiate meaning and co-construct understanding
in English” (Kaur, 2014, p. 159). A research project incorporating these ELF
insights has been developed and project-based learning (PBL) was chosen as thepedagogical approach as it provides for communication and group collaboration
similar to real-world situations. Student interaction with tutors and in focus group
discussions (FGD) from two classes were recorded and transcribed for analysisof their use of strategies in order to maintain efﬁcacy in communication. Resultsfrom pre- and post-project questionnaires on student beliefs regarding their use of
strategies are also discussed.
KEYWORDS: ELF, Communication Strategies, PBL, Curriculum Development
1. INTRODUCTION

Insights for English language teaching from the research on English as a Lingua
Franca (ELF) include Kaurʼs (2014) assertion that students should be given
1

opportunities to engage in meaningful tasks which promote the use of strategies
such as repetition, paraphrasing, clariﬁcation checks and “collaborative completionof utterances in their interactions as they negotiate meaning and co-construct
understanding in English” (p. 159). As the goals of Tamagawa Universityʼs Center
for English as a Lingua Franca (CELF) are the promotion of teaching and learningfrom a global perspective and the development of effective ELF communication
skills in students, research at the CELF involves the synthesis of such insights into
the language curriculum and program assessments. This study continues previous
work on listening and speaking assessments using a Project-Based Learning (PBL)
teaching approach and focuses on student use of communication strategies in the
PBL task (see Okada, Ogane, Milliner, Yujobo & Sato, 2015).
The CELF offers elementary to intermediate level classes campus-wide toapproximately 2,500 undergraduates. Students meet two or three times a week,
200 minutes a week, earning four academic credits a semester. English is themain medium of communication but other linguistic resources, including but notlimited to oral, written and visual modes as well as any other codes available tothe participants, i.e., Japanese, are understood to be part of the userʼs repertoire incommunication (Canagarajah, 2013). The CELF Tutor Service provides students
with on-campus tutoring ﬁve days a week. The tutors, mainly CELF teachers, comefrom various language and cultural backgrounds, and work to engage students
in ELF communication. CELF teachers are encouraged to promote language
awareness in their lessons and expose their students to various kinds of English.
Through the multicultural atmosphere at the CELF, it is hoped that students become
more receptive to the use of English beyond the norms of native-English speakers(NESs). In addition, the CELF aims to prepare students to adapt to global trends
and phenomena in communication along with the effective transfer and sharing of
information. In the following sections we discuss the ELF paradigm, communication
strategies from an ELF perspective, and provide an overview of and rationale for
PBL.
2. ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA

ELF is the “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). Although ELF includes interactions between NESs
and non native-English speakers (NNESs), the majority of ELF communication
occurs among NNESs who speak different ﬁrst languages (Jenkins, 2015).
The use of English for intercultural communication is observable not only insimple interpersonal settings but also in highly specialized domains or inﬂuential
frameworks, including global business, politics, and higher education (House,1999).
Given the characteristics of ELF, the traditional view of English proﬁciency
2

is called into question. English proﬁciency is widely equated with conformity
to the language norms of people who speak English as a ﬁrst language (Leung,2005), and thus adherence to NES norms has been regarded as crucial in English
learning. Any deviance from NES norms is considered an error or deﬁciency to
be corrected no matter how successful the outcome is. However, this traditionalview of language proﬁciency overlooks the fact that ELF interactions often takeplace with no NESs present. Even when NESs are present, their variety of English
is less likely to constitute the linguistic reference norm (Seidlhofer, 2011). In fact,
a number of empirical studies have found that intelligibility in ELF settings does
not require conformity to NES norms and that NES proﬁciency per se does notguarantee successful ELF interactions (e.g., Björkman, 2008; Jenkins, 2006). For
example, Seidlhofer (2011) introduces the notion of unilateral idiomaticity or theuse of NES idiomatic expressions that are not intelligible to ELF speakers. Although
the correct linguistic form of the idiomatic expression indicates the speakerʼs highproﬁciency from the traditional perspective, unilateral idiomaticity indicates lackof proﬁciency in ELF interactions since the speaker lacks concern for his or herinterlocutor and neglects the need for adjusting the expression.
Proﬁciency is regarded differently in the ELF paradigm. Canagarajah (2006)
views proﬁciency as “the ability to shuttle between different varieties of English anddifferent speech communities” (p. 233). This is because ELF users currently havea number of opportunities to interact with individuals with different sociocultural
backgrounds and need to deal with various linguistic forms inﬂuenced by their ﬁrst
languages or similects (Mauranen, 2012). This conceptualization of proﬁciency
has put forth a range of pedagogical implications. Suggestions by ELF researchers
include exposing students to a “wide range of English” (Björkman, 2013, p. 191), and“promoting interactions among students themselves in the classroom” (Matsumoto,2011, p. 110). Exposing students to a broad range of similects is expected to raise
their language awareness and increase their tolerance to different varieties ofEnglish.
ELF researchers also emphasize the use of communication strategies, which
are useful in negotiating meaning and preventing communication breakdown, rather
than only adherence to native linguistic forms. Examples of such communicative
strategies include accommodation (manipulation of linguistic forms according
to the interlocutor), repetition, paraphrasing, non-verbal strategies, hypothesis
forming (Cogo & Dewey, 2012), seeking clariﬁcation, checking for understanding(Kaur, 2014), use of contextual cues (Matsumoto, 2011), and the concept of “let itpass” (Firth, 1996). Communication breakdown does not necessarily indicate that
ELF users have poor proﬁciency (although high-proﬁciency ELF users can avoid
communication breakdown by employing pre-emptive communication strategies).
Instead, what matters is to negotiate for the meaning and normalize the interaction byincorporating appropriate communication strategies. In regards to ELF proﬁciency,
students should be encouraged with opportunities to engage in meaningful tasks
3which promote the use of such strategies as well as the negotiation of meaning andco-construction of understanding involving the collaborative completion of eachotherʼs utterances (Kaur, 2014).
3. PROJECT-BASED LEARNING: OVERVIEW AND RATIONALE

PBL is a learner-centered approach which begins with a question centering onreal problems or issues. The question is followed by group work, entailing muchdialogic speech among students, to develop a solution or product. Students areencouraged through sustained inquiry to work collaboratively, and use criticalthinking and creativity. The PBL process fosters authenticity, student voice andchoice, reﬂection, critique and revision ending in a ﬁnal group presentation (BuckInstitute for Education, n.d.). Proponents claim that PBL experiences increase
student motivation to actively participate in projects (Bender, 2012).
The rationale for using PBL is based on the premise that dialogic speechprovides opportunities to enhance communication and understanding unlike
traditional teacher-centered classes which tend to be largely monologic. Monologic
approaches are riskier in terms of communicative effectiveness because listeners
and speakers often have little room for maneuvering and making use of discursive
strategies. “Monologic events where the listener has very few opportunities if
any to check his/her own understanding are where misunderstandings are most
likely to occur” (Björkman, 2013, p. 182). In addition to the promotion of theuse of communicative strategies by students, a PBL project approach encourages
collaboration and creativity. As Kaur (2014) states, “collaborative problem-solving
tasks and role plays, again based on ELF-type situations which are both meaningful
and realistic, can provide learners with opportunities to use (various pragmatic)
strategies” (p. 68).
4. METHODOLOGY

As part of a larger research project on ELF-oriented curriculum development, thepresent study focuses on student use of communication strategies during a PBL
project. As many of our students will most likely be situated in multicultural andmultilingual work contexts, our pedagogical goal is to develop student awarenessof how speakers use strategies for effective ELF communication. Our speciﬁcquestion for this study is to investigate studentsʼ beliefs and practices regarding theuse of communication strategies in collaborative groupwork.
4.1 Participants and the PBL Project
The participants were 47 ﬁrst-year Education majors in two ELF classes. Bothclasses were held in the spring semester of 2015 and instructed by two of theauthors. Based on the results of a TOEIC Bridge placement test administered before
4the start of the semester, the students were evaluated as basic users (CEFR A2/
TOEIC 320 or below) of English and placed in elementary level ELF classes. For
the PBL project, each class was divided into ﬁve groups of four to ﬁve members.
The project required each group to develop a new and unique product which would
assist people during a natural disaster. The task took four to ﬁve class sessions andgave a role to each member of the group. Students collaborated with their owngroup members and other group members, did online research and watched videos
on natural disasters and temporary housing shelters. Each group was given theopportunity to consult with a CELF tutor to receive advice on how to improve theirproduct. Each member was then required to prepare for a speaking role in a grouppresentation introducing the groupʼs product. For the presentations, two or threegroups from one class presented in the other class and vice versa. The authors acted
as class and group facilitators.

Figure 1. Sample posters for group products

Figure 2. A tutor session
4.2 Data Collection

All students were administered pre and post-project questionnaires. The bilingual(English and Japanese) online surveys consisted of thirteen Likert items on student
perceptions relating to ELF strategy use, collaborative effects of PBL, criticalthinking beneﬁts of PBL, and presentation skill beneﬁts of PBL. The surveys werecompleted anonymously.
The tutor sessions were held just before the group presentations. Eachsession included a CELF tutor and two students, the leader and assistant leaderof the PBL task group. Tutors were provided with questions to support and elicit
5communication strategies from the students during the session. Each session was a
maximum of ten minutes in length and was audio and video recorded.
The group presentations were video recorded and followed immediately bya twenty-minute Focus Group Discussion (FGD). The FGD was used to help elicit
student insights which may otherwise have remained hidden via an exchange ofexperiences and points of view (Green & Hart, 1999; Litosseliti, 2003). As with thegroup presentations, the two FGD sessions were comprised of groups from both ofthe classes. Each FGD was video recorded. Student and tutor verbal consent for theuse of all audio and video clips for research purposes was obtained.

Figure 3. Focus group discussion
5. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
5.1 Survey Results

The participant-response rate for both of our surveys was 100%. A pre and postanalysis of the data reveals a substantial increase in positive student perceptions of
ELF strategy use, collaborative effects of PBL, critical thinking beneﬁts of PBL,
and presentation skill beneﬁts of PBL.
Regarding studentsʼ perceptions of ELF strategy use, there is an overall
increase in the post-project survey in the number of students who either agreed orstrongly agreed that they were able to use repetition (up 38.3%), paraphrasing (up53.2%), and checking for understanding (up 27.7%) to help them communicate
more effectively (see Table 1). The results also indicate an increase of 14.9% in thenumber of students who felt that they were able to seek clariﬁcation as well as 8.5%
more students who reported they could replace general terms with more speciﬁcones to assist them to communicate more effectively. These results suggest thatproviding students with opportunities like those in the PBL task may help develop
student awareness of the use of communication strategies.

6

Table 1
Comparison between student perceptions for ELF strategy use pre andpost-project (n=47)
SA
%

A
%

N
%

D
%

SD
%

Pre-project

2.13

42.55

36.17

19.15

0.0

Post-project

17.02

65.96

8.51

8.51

0.0

Pre-project

4.26

21.28

34.04

36.17

4.26

Post-project

10.64

68.09

8.51

10.64

2.13

Pre-project

8.51

42.55

25.53

23.40

0.0

Post-project

19.15

59.57

21.28

0.0

0.0

Pre-project

12.77

36.17

25.53

23.40

2.13

Post-project

14.89

48.94

23.40

8.51

4.26

(e.g., using ‘dog’ instead of‘animal’)Pre-project

8.51

61.70

23.40

6.38

0.0

Post-project

17.02

59.57

12.77

8.51

2.13

Item
1. I can use repetition to help me
communicate effectively

2. I can use paraphrasing to help
me communicate effectively

3. I can check for understanding tohelp me communicate effectively

4. I can seek clarification to help me
communicate effectively

5. I can replace general terms withmore specific ones to help me
communicate communicatively

Note. SA= Strongly Agree; A= Agree; N=Neither Disagree nor Agree; D=Disagree; SD=Strongly Disagree.

7

Our pre and post-project data concerning studentsʼ perceptions of the collaborative
effects of PBL show an overwhelming number of students who responded positively
to the two questionnaire items (see Table 2). In both the pre and post-projectsurveys, nearly all of the participants indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed
that they could collaborate with their peers and, through project work, they were
better able to learn English. Looking at the post-data more closely, we ﬁnd a 29.8%
increase among students who felt strongly that they were able to collaborate withpeers on the projects and an increase of 10.6% in those who found collaboration as
an effective means of learning English.
Table 2Comparison between student perceptions of collaborative effects of PBL pre andpost-project (n=47)
SA
%

A
%

N
%

D
%

SD
%

Pre-project 34.04

63.83

2.13

0

0

Post-project 63.83

29.79

4.26

2.13

0

Pre-project 40.43

57.45

0

2.13

0

Post-project 51.06

42.55

2.13

4.26

0

Item
1. I could collaborate with peers on
projects.

2. Collaboration is helpful for me tolearn English.

Note. SA= Strongly Agree; A= Agree; N=Neither Disagree nor Agree; D=Disagree; SD=Strongly Disagree.

In PBL, students tackle real-life issues which are thought to engage andstimulate their problem-solving skills and encourage them to think outside the box.
Our ﬁndings indicate that, for the majority of the participants, the project work inthis study appeared to be effective in engaging their critical and creative thinking
skills. Table 3, below, shows that on average 80% of the students agreed or strongly
agreed with items 1, 2, and 3 in the post-project survey (see Table 3), which, when
we compare this result with the pre-project responses for the same items, equates
to a 19% increase.

8

Table 3
Comparison between student perceptions of critical thinking benefits of PBL preand post-project (n=47)
SA
%

A
%

N
%

D
%

SD
%

Pre-project

4.26

36.17

51.06

8.51

0.0

Post-project

25.53

44.68

21.28

8.51

0.0

Pre-project

6.38

61.70

31.91

0

0

Post-project

21.28

57.45

14.89

6.38

0

Pre-project

19.15

57.45

21.28

2.13

0

Post-project

38.30

55.32

4.26

2.13

0

Item
1. I could think critically about aproblem.

2. Group project work helped
me to think critically about aproblem better.

3. I could gain creative thinking
skills through the project.

Note. SA= Strongly Agree; A= Agree; N=Neither Disagree nor Agree; D=Disagree; SD=Strongly Disagree.

An analysis of studentsʼ post-project perceptions of presentation skill beneﬁts
of this PBL task reveals that an average of 57% (down 8%) of students agreed
and 33% (up 6%) strongly agreed that, not only did they learn how to structureand deliver a presentation through their participation in the project, the experiencemotivated them to learn English (see Table 4). It is important to note that although
the participants in this study did not receive explicit instruction aimed at developing
their presentation skills, a very small number disagreed with the three items.

9

Table 4
Comparison between student perceptions of presentation skill benefits of PBL
pre and post-project (n=47)
SA
%

A
%

N
%

D
%

SD
%

Pre-project

25.53

68.09

6.38

0.0

0.0

Post-project

38.30

46.81

8.51

6.38

0.0

Pre-project

6.17

61.70

2.13

0

0.0

Post-project

31.91

59.57

2.13

4.26

2.13

Pre-project

19.15

65.96

12.77

2.13

0.0

Post-project

27.66

63.83

4.26

2.13

2.13

Item
1. I could learn about
presentation structure
through grouppresentation. (e.g.,
introduction, detail,conclusion, question)

2. I could learn about
presentation skills throughgroup presentations.

3. Working on a groupproject motivated me tolearn English.

Note. SA= Strongly Agree; A= Agree; N=Neither Disagree nor Agree; D=Disagree; SD=Strongly Disagree.

The aim of the study was to determine whether our students would use
communicative strategies in project work to help them communicate effectively,
and if so, to identify the types of strategies they employ. In summing up the results,
we found evidence to suggest that the kind of project work used in this study may
be effective in engaging and motivating students to seek out and employ a range ofcommunicative strategies. The project work was also perceived by students to beimportant for their critical and creative thinking.

10

5.2 Tutor Sessions

Analysis of the the tutor session transcription data revealed that the students used avariety of communication and discursive strategies. Many students used repetition
to perhaps help continue their talk. In the excerpt below, the students, S1 and S2
work together, completing each otherʼs utterances, to describe one of the features,wings, of their product to the tutor, T1.
S1
S2
S1
S2
T1
S2

Wild wing wild wing, wing
Wing looks
looks wildvery wild
Wings look wildvery wild

In the next excerpt, the tutor (T1) asks a student what her position at her
company is and the student tries to come up with the English equivalent of “fukushacho” which means vice-president. She appears to think about it and comes up
with the term, “number two.” This may be an example of using paraphrasing as acommunication strategy.
S1
T1
S1
T1
S1
T1

Fuku shacho
Oh, what is that?
Ah nan daroo, fuku shacho te nan te iu dake
(What was it? How do we say vice-president?)
Okay, weʼll just
Number two
Number two, oh you are number two.

The tutors were provided with a discussion checklist to evaluate the use of
strategies, and were asked to create opportunities for the students to use strategies.
In this exchange, the tutor (T2) asks the students (S3 and S4) to repeat the advice
he had just given them about their product. The students show their understandingby paraphrasing the tutorʼs advice. One of the students (S4) uses the word “plastic”
instead of “vinyl side” and “waterproof material” to explain the second side of
the product. The tutor and students appear to be working collaboratively to coconstruct meaning (Kaur, 2014), that is, to establish understanding of the idea of a
two-sided product. Student 4 completes the utterance by S3 and the tutor follows
by linking “plastic” to “waterproof material”. In the last line, S3 may be showing her
understanding of “waterproof material” when she repeats the word, “rain.”

11

T2

S3
S4
T2
S3

Vinyl side is more protection. Also, in rain. If rain, likea raincoat keeps you dry. Wool inside, keeps you warm, so not only wool
but waterproof material. Do you understand? Can you tell me my idea,
what is my suggestions? ... my advice, please repeat. My advice.
One side is wool, and ...
an one side is plastic
Because of some material, waterproof material
Rain

In checking for understanding and seeking clariﬁcation, many of the students
used other resources to help keep the communication going. In explaining the ﬁfth
feature of their product, a watch, one of the students (S2) uses a verbal resource, herJapanese language, to ask, “Kore yori karui?” which means “Lighter than this?” She
may be trying to check her understanding of the tutorʼs (T1) question “How light?”
S2
T1
S2
T1
S2
T1
S2

Number ﬁve watch is light
Watch is light
Very light
Haha, not heavy
Not heavy
Not heavy How light? How light?
Kore yori karui? SameThe student (S3) in the next excerpt tries to explain what kind of people
will be using their product. The student appears to use the strategy of replacing ageneral term with more speciﬁc ones by describing “every family” as including both“rich” and “poor” families.
T1
S3
T1
S3
T1
S3

Every family can buy this balloon?
Yes
Every family?
Every family uh mm expens chigau na (no, thatʼs wrong) rich familymmand poor family

The tutor sessions were planned as opportunities for the students tocommunicate in order to meet a real need, which was getting advice on productdevelopment, and to communicate with speakers of a different variety of English
from their classroom teachers. The students appeared to concentrate on getting
the job done, that is, to clearly explain what their product was and its features.
In so doing, the students made use of a variety of communication and discursive
strategies.
125.3 Focus Group Discussion Analysis

The FGD questions, provided to the students in both English and Japanese, covered
topics on effective communication strategies, group collaboration, and criticalthinking (see Appendix). The students were encouraged to answer in English but
were also allowed to speak in Japanese. The authors translated any Japanese usedby the students into English for the purpose of this research study.
When students were asked if the group project helped them learn tocommunicate more effectively, most students agreed. A student commented (inJapanese), “Unlike when Iʼm using Japanese in daily life, I was able to think about
and select appropriate English expressions to make myself more easily understood.”This perhaps demonstrates that the student had become familiar with the practicaluse of English and negotiating for meaning.
With reference to communication strategies, most students recognizedgestures as a communication strategy even though it was not referred to by theteachers during the study. One student commented (in Japanese), “Through thegroup project, I learned that gestures can convey things we cannot convey only
by speaking English.” A majority of the students said that they tried using thestrategies of seeking clariﬁcation and asking for conﬁrmation during the tutor
sessions. A student said (in Japanese), “When I didnʼt understand what the tutor
was saying the ﬁrst time, I tried to conﬁrm it or asked for an explanation, andthen I could understand.” This student also stated that he tried again and again to
conﬁrm his understanding. When the teacher, as the FGD facilitator, asked about
repetition and paraphrasing, the students indicated by nodding that they also used
these communication strategies. The FGD data supports the pre and post-projectsurvey data which indicated a strong belief among the students that they made useof a variety of communication strategies during the project.
Students noted that the project helped them share opinions and work
collaboratively, both of which are necessary social skills in building relationships.
They thought that good leadership and delegating appropriate tasks to each member
made the project run more smoothly. Some students, however, appeared uncertain
about critical thinking. This may be due to the Japanese translation of criticalthinking used in this study which carries a negative connotation of criticism. The
students seemed to be more receptive when discussing creativity. They conﬁrmedthat by looking at the products designed by other groups, they were able to improvetheir products. Although conceptualizing appeared to be the most challenging
part of the project to the students, they said they would want to work on a groupproject again. They agreed that it was not only enjoyable but also worthwhile being
assigned a speciﬁc task to achieve a goal. As one student pointed out (in Japanese),“We can be cooperative and make sentences by speaking in English through a groupproject.” The FGD data appears to indicate that the students believed they were able
to engage in cooperative and collaborative learning while familiarizing themselveswith communication strategies.
136. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKSThis study investigated, from an ELF perspective, the development of language
awareness - how languages are used for effective communication - in students.
Students dealt with a timely and meaningful issue through collaborative group
work on a PBL project. Pre-project and post-project surveys, group work, tutor
sessions and the FGD (feedback) sessions were used to help focus student attention
on the use of communication strategies. Although the students did not have explicit
instruction on communication strategies, the pre and post-survey data show that thestudents perceived that they used communication strategies. The FGD data supports
this ﬁnding and the use of various types of communication strategies including
repetition, paraphrasing, seeking clariﬁcation, replacing general terms with speciﬁcones, and cooperative completion of utterances by students were found in the tutor
session data.
In analyzing the tutor session data, we found that interpreting the typeof communication strategy used by our students was very difﬁcult. We need tocategorize the use of communication strategies by students in an ELF context suchas ours in future research studies. In an upcoming research study by the authors, theeffects of pre-teaching communication strategies will also be explored.
Björkman (2013), in her study of ELF interactions in a higher educational
context, found a range of pedagogical implications for the classroom and claims
that interactions in group-work sessions involved the use of pragmatic strategies,
and the negotiation of meaning, helps learners to understand how communicative
effectiveness is actually achieved. Data from the pre and post-surveys and FGD
sessions show that the students perceived the project group work used in this study
as motivating and helpful to their learning. PBL was selected for this study for
its focus on the learning goals of acquiring knowledge, understanding issues andgaining 21st century skills through collaborative and creative investigative groupproblem-solving activities (Buck Institute for Education, n.d.). If such group projects
are carried out in the classroom, students may have more opportunities to thinkcreatively and critically, and at the same time utilize communication strategies formore effective communication. We note, however, that we need to have a thoroughdiscussion of what critical thinking involves for Japanese students.
The authors, recognizing the unique resources, speciﬁcally the multilingualand multicultural teachers, at the CELF, see PBL as an important teaching approach
which can contribute to the development of language awareness. The hope is thatfurther research on the use of communication strategies through the tools of PBL in
an ELF-aware teaching context will contribute to English education in Japan.

14

REFERENCES

Bender, W. N. (2012). Project-based learning: Differentiating instruction
for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Björkman, B. (2008). ʻSo where are we?ʼ Spoken lingua franca English at atechnical university in Sweden. English Today, 24(2), 35-41.
Björkman, B. (2013). English as an academic lingua franca: An
investigation of form and communicative effectiveness. Berlin:Walter deGruyter.
Buck Institute for Education (BIE) (n.d.). Project Based Learning for the
21st Century. Retrieved from http://www.bie.org/about/
Canagarajah, S. (2006). Changing communicative needs, revised
assessment objectives: Testing English as an international
language. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(3), 229-242.
Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual Practice: Global Englishes andCosmopolitan Relations. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a lingua franca.
London: Continuum.
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ʻlingua
francaʼ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics,
26, 237-259.
Green, J., & Hart, L. (1999). ʻThe impact of context on dataʼ. In Developing focus
group research, in R. S. Barbour & J. Kitzinger, (Eds.), Developing focus
group research (pp. 21-35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, J. (1999). Misunderstanding in intercultural communication:
Interactions in English as lingua franca and the myth of mutual
intelligibility. In G. Gnutzmann (Ed.), Teaching and learning English
as a global language: Native and non-native perspectives (pp.
73-89). Tubingen: Stauffenberg Verlag.
Jenkins, J. (2006). The spread of EIL: A testing time for testers. ELT
Journal, 60(1), 42-50.
Jenkins, J. (2015). Global Englishes (3rd ed.). Oxon: Routledge.
Kaur, J. (2014). Teaching the effective use of ELF: Insights from research into
ELF pragmatics, in K. Murata (Ed.), WASEDA working papers in ELF (vol.
3, pp. 58-68). Tokyo: Waseda University.
Leung, C. (2005). Convivial communication: Recontextualizing
communicative competence. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 15(2), 119-144.
Litosseliti, L. (2003). Using focus groups in research. New York: Continuum.
Matsumoto, Y. (2011). Successful ELF Communications and Implications
for ELT: Sequential Analysis of ELF Pronunciation Negotiation
Strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 97-114.
15

Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by
non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Okada, T., Ogane, E., Milliner, B., Yujobo, Y. J., & Sato, T. (2015). Assessing
ELF proﬁciency in project-based learning. The 62nd TEFLIN International
Conference: Proceedings for Teaching and Assessing L2 Learners in the
21st Century (pp. 202-210). Denpasar: Udayana University Press.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Appendix

Focus Group Discussion Questions
Did working on the group project help you learn how to communicate in English more effectively?
グループ・プロジェクトに参加することによって、あなたは英語でのコミュニケーションをより効果的に学ぶことができましたか？できたとしたら、それはどのような点においてですか？具
体例に説明してください。

For the Leader and Assistant Leader Only:
Did talking with the tutor / consultant help you to know how to communicate
more effectively by using any strategies? Using repetition? Paraphrasing?
Checking for understanding? Seeking clarification? Using specific terms
instead of general terms?
チューターやコンサルタントと会話することによって、あなたはより効果的にコミュニケーションを行うための以下に挙げた方法を知ることが出来ましたか：何らかの戦略を使うこと、反復表現を使うこと、パラフレーズすること、相手が言ったことを正しく理解しているか確認すること、相手が言ったことに関してさらに説明を求めること、物の総称ではなく具体的な言葉を使うことなど。

Did working on the group project help you learn to work collaboratively?
How? Can you give examples?
グループ・プロジェクトに参加することによって、あなたは、より協調的に作業をすることを学ぶことが出来ましたか？できたとしたら、それはどのような点においてですか。具体例を挙げてください。

Did working on the group project help you learn how to think more critically?
In what ways? Can you give examples?
グループ・プロジェクトに参加することによって、あなたはより批判的に考えることを学ぶことが出来ましたか？できたとしたら、それはどのような点においてですか。具体例を挙げてください。
16

Would you like to work on a group project again? Why or why not?
あなたはもう一度グループ・プロジェクトに参加したいと思いますか？
もしくは、参加したいとは思いませんか。その理由を教えてください。

17

Becoming ʻYouTubersʼ:Using webclips in the ELF classroom

ʻYouTubersʼを育てる：ELFクラス内でのWebclips使用法
Michelangelo Magasic, マガシック・アンジェロ
Tamagawa University, Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Japanangelomagasic@gmail.com
ABSTRACTThis paper outlines the suitability of webclips as a medium for use within ELF
teaching. It presents practical methods by which to include webclips in ELF
classes focusing on the combination of two literacies: watching and making
short web movies. In order to highlight the contribution of these literacies toan ELF curriculum, the exercises are discussed in light of Björkmanʼs (2013)
recommendations for ELF classroom practice. In particular, the medium of
webclips supports Björkmanʼs suggestions because: it presents a diverse rangeof English speakers and communication situations, it is an interactive learningmaterial which reﬂects real-life English, and, when used as a practical exercise, the medium encourages learners to develop their own voices and modes of
expression.
KEYWORDS: ELF, CALL, YouTube, Online Video, Film

1. INTRODUCTION

English as a Lingua Franca (henceforth, ELF) is a recently developed paradigm
which highlights the growing role of English as a language for international business, academic, touristic and recreational communication while positing a greater equality between native and non-native English speakers (Björkman, 2013).
Part of the reason for the development of English as a common language for theworldʼs inhabitants is the increased physical and virtual propinquity caused by theprocesses of globalisation (Jenkins, Cogo & Dewy, 2011; Poppi, 2013). In light of
this, the technology of the Internet can be seen as implicitly related to the development of ELF and does as such merit attention within an ELF curriculum bothas a method of content delivery and as a communications platform. Over the last
decade, the rise of the participatory Internet as fuelled by faster connection speeds
and lower data storage costs has allowed for the development of video hosting
websites (Jenkins, 2006). Online video can be seen to be a key element within thelandscape of the second generation Web 2.0 and provides an ideal vehicle to bring
English language audiovisual material into the ELF classroom. Here, Snelson and18Perkins (2009) have commented on the affordances of online video for language
learning, explaining:
The current manifestation of video technology brings the combinationof a global online delivery system and an interactive interface that
permits both viewing and authoring of video content, which extends
previous video capabilities to include greater levels of engagementwith the media. (p. 20)
Indeed, a growing body of literature has begun to explore the possibilities of online
video for language learning (Brook, 2011; Duffy, 2007; Hamilton, 2010; Muniandy& Veloo, 2011; Oddone, 2011; Watkins & Wilkins, 2011).
Webclips can be deﬁned as short, user-made videos available on video
hosting websites. Webclips developed as a form of user-generated content (UGC)
and generally feature low production values (Burgess, Green & Jenkins, 2009).
Video hosting websites are best exempliﬁed by YouTube, a Google owned company
with over 1 billion users and a near endless repository of audiovisual content(YouTube, 2015). The ﬁeld of online video hosting is, however, rounded out by avariety of smaller and niche sites such as Vimeo and Daily Motion. Between them,video hosting websites hold a diverse range of amateur and professional content
spanning almost all genres and ranging from seconds long to hours in duration. The
meteoric rise in the popularity of these sites over the last decade can be attributed to
the fact that webclips are a participatory genre in which the viewer is encouraged toengage in content production (Burgess et al., 2009). Accordingly, users may easily
upload their own video creations, and, following which, use a personal proﬁle inorder to manage their video collections as well as curate content created by others
and respond to communications. People who regularly upload videos of themselves
are known as YouTubers. Some of the most popular YouTubers have millions ofsubscribers and are increasingly recognizable within popular culture as celebrities
in their own right.
Given their status as audiovisual material, webclips may be said todemonstrate four main advantages (Magasic, 2016). These four beneﬁts ofaudiovisual materials for language learning are: 1) their status as an authentic text
which demonstrates vibrant scenes of life-like communication including language
features such as slang and idiomatic expressions; 2) their ability to demonstrate
the different verbal features employed within the English language including thevariety of accents employed by different national, regional and cultural groups aswell as changes in stress and tone for emphasis; 3) their ability to demonstrate theparalinguistic communication involved in English communication like gesture andfacial expressions; and 4) their status as a motivational resource which interests
students and helps bring to life the concepts which are discussed in class.
19

2. WATCHING, MAKING AND PARTICIPATING ONLINE

In this section, the paper will explain the twin literacies of watching and creating
online ﬁlms and the beneﬁts of each before exploring the potential for classparticipation in online video communities. The ﬁrst method of interacting withstreaming video is watching. Given the huge variety of videos available on theInternet, the teacher needs to employ discretion in ﬁnding appropriate material
for the classroom. The beneﬁt of this wide library, however, is the ability to
expose students to a range of language styles and communicative scenes. Here,
Watkins and Wilkins (2011) have stated that “YouTube is an ideal vehicle to teachWorld Englishes and expose students to a variety of English dialects” (p.117)(See also: Hamilton, 2010). Aside from a purely linguistic beneﬁt, webclips canalso broaden studentsʼ cultural awareness of the world of English communication
as they not only hear but also see embodied, often highly personal, displays
from different global contexts (Watkins & Wilkins, 2011). Once the teacher has
selected an appropriate clip (or assembled a playlist of multiple clips), this can beshown to students either individually on their personal devices or collectively via
a projector screen. By screening short clips of a few minutes duration, studentsʼ
cognitive load is reduced as they have a manageable length of material to follow
and analyse. To help facilitate comprehension, English captions may be added to
the viewing screen. Moreover, when watching independently, students have theability to replay certain difﬁcult sections of a clip as many times as they feel isnecessary. It can also be a beneﬁcial strategy to watch videos which model thevideo types which will be made in class so that students can gain an idea of thegeneric conventions of webclips such as self-ﬁlming and the use of titles and popups to provide additional information to the audience. It is hoped that if students
enjoy watching content and can develop the strategies to ﬁnd and access materialon their own through independent viewing, they will be motivated to continue
viewing outside of class.
Next, the students can engage in making their own “YouTuber” webclips.
To get the ball rolling, the teacher may guide students on how to use digital
devices like smartphones or cameras in conjunction with video editing software
or applications. Given that webclips are a participatory genre in which amateur
production values are the norm and that modern editing software is increasingly user
friendly, webclips can be made quite quickly (one or two ninety minute lessons forplanning, shooting and editing). While students are given almost unlimited scopein their choice of topic, videos usually feature subjects such as a demonstration ofa skill or hobby, a tour of the studentʼs hometown, university campus or club, or areview of a product. The videos are short (two to four minutes), have a speaking
focus and are marked by the author according to intelligibility and entertainment
value. The completed videos are then shown among classmates and students give
feedback on each otherʼs creations and ﬁnally vote on which videos were the most20

impressive. To do this, students need a device with a copy of their video along witha feedback sheet. Students then swap their device and sheet with a classmate, watch
each otherʼs videos and go on to give written (and, hopefully, verbal) feedback to
the classmate whose video they watched. Following which the process is repeatedwith another partner. As there is a class vote on which videos are best, students
should be motivated to share their work with as wide an audience as possible. At
the end of the lesson, each student will have a sheet which is full of comments
relating to their video. The purpose of these comments is to promote dialogue
regarding studentsʼ communicative and creative skills. This peer recognition issigniﬁcant as by making YouTuber videos, students are participating in a global
culture and, potentially, adding their own voice to an online conversation.
Uploading material to an online video hosting website can transfer studentsʼ
class work to a global stage and precipitate authentic interactions around this,however, uploading also entails an emotional commitment and as such the decisionon whether to do this should be made together by students and the teacher. Here,participation in a global online community has an overt connection to the tenets of
ELF in the sense that the user may easily communicate with people from all over
the world in English. On the other hand, participation does at the same time havecertain risks such as exposing students to negative elements which exist online (suchas trolling), as well as potentially compromising the privacy regulations of different
academic institutions. With these thoughts in mind, it can be seen that a numberof authors have spoken positively of the motivational (Hamilton, 2010; Godwin-Jones, 2012), cultural (Ushioda, 2011) and immersive (Shrosbree, 2008) beneﬁts
of an Internet based audience for students. Here, one potential way to reduce therisks of participation in online communities would be to organise interaction with apartner school or class rather than the Internet as a whole (See also: Ke & Cahyani,2014).
3. THE CONNECTION BETWEEN WATCHING AND MAKING

Through participation in watching and making in tandem, students may gain arich skill set which extends beyond the possible beneﬁts of participating in either
singularly. Here, the watching stage is important for introducing (or reinforcing,given that many students are already YouTube users) the language models featured
in webclips, while the making stage provides an opportunity for students to produce
a webclip using their own ideas, language, and interpretations of the genre. This
process of watching/making webclips can be seen to produce three outcomes. The
ﬁrst outcome is the activation of studentsʼ media consumption. One criticism of
the use of audiovisual material within language classrooms is that this can be a
relatively passive activity. Here Seferoğlu (2008) states, “It is also important thatthe teacher does not let students associate ﬁlms only with leisure and entertainment,
and watch the ﬁlms passively as they might watch television” (p.8). By engaging
21

in both sides of the production/consumption process, students are able to consider
more deeply the processes through which audiovisual media is made including theuse of language within. Second, is that students are able to develop their own voicein English. After watching a variety of different models of English communication,
students are then invited to contribute to this genre. In making a video about who
they are and what they like in English and then sharing this with their peers, studentsʼ
deepen their self-identiﬁcation as English speakers. Here, describing the resultsof a study in which Taiwanese and Indonesia students used online platforms tocommunicate with one another, Ke and Cahyani (2014) concluded that, “Students
gained conﬁdence and started to perceive English as a language they may be able
to use” (p. 1). The third outcome is that students gain technical skills and may
participate in a global community. Here, the process of making a webclip develops
skills in video creation and editing. Moreover, video hosting websites provide aforum where students may interact with people from all over the world in collective
discussion, with one possible avenue for communication here being reﬂection on
the process of creating a video.
4. WEBCLIPS AND ELF

In her monograph on the development of the ELF paradigm, Björkman (2013)
has made several recommendations for the inclusion of ELF principles within theclassroom. This section will discuss the three suggestions which are most relevantto the inclusion of webclips within a learning curriculum. The ﬁrst is the use ofmaterials with a “variety of accents” (p. 192). Webclips are an incredibly diverse
genre that showcase a range of English speakers and communication situations.
Introducing this speaker diversity in class broadens studentsʼ linguistic and cultural
spheres helping to ameliorate the effects of the native-speaker bias present in much
English language learning material (Jenkins, 2012). The second suggestion madeby Björkman is “the importance of providing the learner with modern and broad
based descriptions of language” (p. 191). This recommendation is further outlined
by Björkman as language which allows the learner to fulﬁl a variety of different
tasks. In producing a webclip, students engage in a number of different language
practices including: constructing and practicing an informative verbal soundtrack
for the video, generating supplementary written information such as titles, captions
and pop-ups to be included within the video and, potentially, producing theadministrative language necessary to participate in social media such as creating auser ID, providing key words and responding to comments that the video receives.
As the environment of video hosting sites reﬂects the productions and discussionsof real people, participating in this environment will assist students in developing
practical language skills applicable to real life situations. Finally, the third strategy
is “the inclusion of pragmatic strategies in teaching and listening material”. Here
Björkman explains that after consuming authentic materials, “...role-plays and other22

communicative activities can be used to enable learners to practice” (p. 192). As
webclips are a participatory genre, students are able to create their own content andinteract with other users of the video hosting websites. Students may respond to thedifferent material they have seen, either through comments or other communicative
actions such as ʻlikingʼ or ʻsharingʼ a video. Moreover, as the creators of content
themselves, students have a responsibility to respond to any feedback garnered bytheir own videos, for example, answering questions about the content of their videoor their creative motivation. Finally, it is worth noting here that while the beneﬁts
of the ﬁnal two points are heightened by having the ʻrealʼ audience that comeswith participation in an online video hosting website, this audience factor can be
simulated by having students prepare videos for their own class group in which
presentation, sharing and feedback can be directed toward the studentsʼ own classgroup and teacher.
5. CONCLUSIONThe ELF paradigm seeks to reduce native-speaker bias and precipitate awareness ofEnglish as an intercultural communication tool. In keeping with this aim, Björkmanʼs
recommendations for ELF classroom practice highlight strategies through which a
broad range of different speakers are introduced to learners and practical activities
focus on the exchange of meaning rather than reproducing native speaker models.
The global nature and amateur ethic of video hosting websites mean that they
feature a community of English speakers from around the world which students
may contribute to. By providing both consumptive and productive functions, thesesites allow learners to not only broaden their awareness of English and English
speakers but also offer a stage for students to develop their own voices as speakers.
Thus, webclips are an effective genre for inclusion within ELF teaching as they
compliment ELF tenets and allow for a range of entertaining, stimulating andeducational activities in class.
REFERENCES

Björkman, B. (2013). English as an academic Lingua Franca: An investigation ofform and communicative effectiveness. Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
Brook, J. (2011). The affordances of YouTube for language learning andteaching. Hawaii Paciﬁc University TESOL Working Paper Series, 9(1,2), 37-56. Retrieved from http://www.hpu.edu/CHSS/English/TESOL/
ProfessionalDevelopment/201109_TWPspringfall11/9_1-2_Brook.pdf
Burgess, J., Green, J., & Jenkins, H. (2009). YouTube: Online video andparticipatory culture. Cambridge: Polity.
Duffy, P. (2007). Engaging the YouTube Google-eyed generation: Strategies
23for using Web 2.0 in teaching and learning. The Electronic Journal of
e-Learning, 6(2), 119 - 130. Retrieved from www.ejel.org
Godwin-Jones, R. (2012). Digital video revisited: Storytelling, conferencing,
remixing. Language Learning and Technology, 16(1), 1-9. Retrieved fromhttp://llt.msu.edu/vol16num1/emerging.pdf
Hamilton, R. (2010). YouTube for two: Online video resources in a studentcentered, task-based ESL/EFL environment. Contemporary Issues in
Education Research, 3(8), 27-31. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.
com/docview/747986483?accountid=10382
Jenkins, H. (2006). Fans, bloggers, and gamers: Exploring participatory culture.
New York: New York University Press.
Jenkins, J., Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research
into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44, 281-315.
doi:10.1017/S0261444811000115
Jenkins, J. (2012). English as a Lingua Franca from the classroom to theclassroom. ELT Journal, 66(4), 486-494. doi:10.1093/elt/ccs040 486
Ke, I-C., & Cahyani, H. (2014). Learning to become users of English as a
lingua franca (ELF): How ELF online communication affects Taiwaneselearnersʼ beliefs of English. System, 46, 28-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
system.2014.07.008
Magasic, M. (2016). Learning through watching: Streaming video in L2 English
learning. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Muniandy, B., & Veloo, S. (2011).Views of pre service teachers in utilizing online
video clips for teaching English language. International Journal of Social
Science and Humanity, 1(3), 224-228. doi: 10.7763/IJSSH.2011.V1.39
Oddone, C. (2011). Using videos from YouTube and websites in the CLIL
classroom. Kalbųs Studijos, 18, 105-110. Retrieved from http://www.
kalbos.lt/archyvas4_en.html
Poppi, F. (2013). Global interactions in English as a lingua franca: How written
communication is changing under the inﬂuence of electronic media andnew contexts of use. Bern: Peter Lang.
Seferoğlu, G. (2008). Using feature ﬁlms in language classes. Educational
Studies, 34(1), 1-9. doi: 10.1080/03055690701785202
Shrosbree, M. (2008). Digital video in the language classroom. The JALT CALL
Journal, 4(1), 75-84. Retrieved from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
download?doi=10.1.1.455.9694&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Snelson, C., & Perkins, R.A. (2009). From silent ﬁlm to YouTube: Tracing thehistorical roots of motion picture technologies in education. Journalof Visual Literacy, 28, 1-27. Retrieved from:http://www.ohio.edu/
visualliteracy/JVL_ISSUE_ARCHIVES/JVL28(1)/28_1_SnelsonPerkins.
pdf
Ushioda, E. (2011). Language learning motivation, self and identity: Current
24theoretical perspectives. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(3),199-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.538701
Watkins, J., & Wilkins, M. (2011). Using YouTube in the EFL classroom.
Language Education in Asia, 2(1), 113-119. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.
org/10.5746/LEiA/11/V2/I1/A09/Watkins_Wilkins
YouTube. (2015). Statistics. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/
statistics.html

25

Developing Fluency in Circumlocution
Circumlocationを活用した指導法
Daniel Worden, ウォーデン・ダニエル
Tamagawa University, Center for English as a Lingua Franca
daniel.worden84@gmail.com
ABSTRACT

Circumlocution is an essential strategy for developing and aiding oral
communication. This paper aims to provide guidance on the beneﬁts and pedagogyof circumlocution as well as to present some materials designed to build ﬂuency
in circumlocution. The concept of circumlocution will be explained and its role indeveloping communication ability and fostering second language acquisition will
be explored. Following this, the issue of ﬂuency will be discussed with an emphasis
on how it relates to functional communication and circumlocution. The importanceof circumlocution training in ELF-aware teaching contexts will then be argued
for. In the ﬁnal section of the paper, methods for teaching circumlocution will be
introduced along with activities that can be used to develop ﬂuency in this very
important communication strategy.
KEYWORDS: Circumlocution, Communicative Competence, Strategic Competence,
Fluency, Communication Strategy
1. INTRODUCTION

Circumlocution is a communication strategy (CS) that allows language learners
to express themselves even when there is a gap in their linguistic knowledge. Thisis achieved through using descriptions, explanations and deﬁnitions instead of
the unknown target structure. This paper will explore the role of circumlocution
in language learning, outlining its beneﬁts and how it can be developed throughtraining. Fluency will then be discussed with special attention being paid to thepart it plays in the development of strategic competence, and circumlocution inparticular. Then, the relevance and beneﬁts of circumlocution training in ELFaware syllabi will be presented. Finally, the issue of how to teach circumlocution
will be addressed accompanied by some example exercises that aim to promote
ﬂuency in its use as a communication strategy.
2. CIRCUMLOCUTION
26

2.1. What is circumlocution?

Circumlocution is a communication strategy that can be simply deﬁned as using adescription of an object, concept, place or action in place of the target vocabularywhen the target vocabulary is not known. An example would be a situation wherea learner says, “Itʼs a long, yellow fruit. Monkeys like it” when the word ʻbananaʼ is
not known. The ability to employ communication strategies such as circumlocution
is essential in developing strategic competence, deﬁned by Hedge (2000) as“Knowing how to use different kinds of strategies… to express something when
language resources are lacking”. As circumlocution allows language learners tocommunicate semantic content that is beyond their current linguistic knowledge,
its value as a tool for functional communication is undeniable.
2.2. Why is circumlocution important?

Circumlocution has been found to be effective in enhancing communication ability
and aiding second language acquisition (SLA). As these factors are crucial in second
language learning, it stands to reason that circumlocution be granted a certain levelof importance. The ways in which communication ability and SLA can be boosted
through the use of circumlocution will be outlined below.
2.2.1. Communication ability

Communication strategies are a key component in developing strategic competence
as one of the core facets of Canale and Swainʼs (1980) communicative competence.
These strategies can be divided into two broad categories: reduction strategies(Ellis, 1994), also called risk-avoiding strategies (Corder, 1981), and achievement
strategies (Ellis, 1994) also called risk-taking strategies (Corder, 1981). When we
think of communication as the primary goal of language use it is clear which typeof CSs are preferable. Put simply, the use of reduction strategies equates to failureor, even worse, giving up. This breakdown in communication also means thatfurther chances to develop communication ability are lost. Furthermore, avoidance
strategies will neither allow learners to express themselves in their current situationor help them to develop their ability to communicate when faced with futurecommunicative obstacles. In contrast, the successful use of achievement strategies
means achievement of the communicative goal.
Moreover, Faucette (2001) points out that effective use of CSs leads toextended interaction which means that “learners can receive more input, can stayin the conversation, and develop their ability” (p. 6). This may be linked to otherissues she raises when stating, “effective learners tend to use appropriate strategies
to reach their learning goals, whereas ineffective language learners are less expert
in their strategy choice and use” (p. 3). It seems that a learnerʼs ability to employ
strategies correlates with their success in learning a language.
Finally, in considering the points highlighted above, it seems natural that
language teachers ought to equip learners with the skills, knowledge and conﬁdence
to take risks, negotiate meaning, and reap the rewards of these processes. Training
in circumlocution is an excellent way to achieve this.

27

2.2.2. Second language acquisition

Second language acquisition is another area that can be aided by CSs such as
circumlocution. The main way CSs foster acquisition is through the negotiation of
meaning that takes place (Ellis, 1994). Ellis (p. 511) cited Kasper and Kellerman(1997) who identiﬁed seven ways in which CSs may aid second language
acquisition.
● help to keep the ﬂow of the conversation going and thus increase learnersʼ
●
●
●
●
●
●

exposure to input
trigger negotiation of meaning which aids acquisition
increase their control over their existing linguistic structures
enable learners to obtain access to new linguistic resources when they
incorporate strategic solutions into their interlanguage.
ﬁll gaps in the learnerʼs lexicon through positive feedback following
requests for assistanceproduced pushed output
increase overall processing control.

In addition, Hedge (2000) states that SLA research suggests being exposed to
unknown language when it is needed and in a meaningful, self-constructed context
creates a situation that promotes acquisition. Furthermore, when eliciting unknown
or forgotten vocabulary, circumlocution can lead to vocabulary acquisition or
reinforcement.
3. FLUENCYOver the years, many deﬁnitions have been attached to the term ʻﬂuencyʼ. Becauseof the complexity of deﬁning this term, and because it is beyond the scope of thispaper, this section will be limited to the deﬁnition that best serves the goals andactivities I will explain later on.
In common discourse, a ﬂuent speaker is usually seen as one who has attained
native speaker-like proﬁciency. However, for the purposes of this paper, ﬂuency
will be deﬁned as the ability to produce comprehensible output in real-time. This isa more learner-centred deﬁnition that considers individualsʼ relative communicative
functionality. This deﬁnition was reached after considering others put forward by
Brumﬁt (2000) and Nation (1991). Brumﬁt (2000) states that ﬂuency “can be seenas the maximally effective operation of the language system so far acquired by
the student” (p. 69) while Nation (1991) simply calls it “having ready access towhat you already know” (p. 1). This perspective of ﬂuency sees it as relative to thelearnerʼs current level of proﬁciency, noting that, even among learners of a similarlevel, some are able to access known lexical structures more easily and quickly
than others.
28

4. CIRCUMLOCUTION IN AN ELF-AWARE SYLLABUS

Circumlocution training would be a worthwhile addition to any ELF-aware syllabus.
According to Barbara Seidlhofer (2011, p. 197), ELF pedagogy is concerned notwith “learning a language but learning to language”. Furthermore, with this importantdistinction in mind, she states that:“the purpose of teaching becomes the developmentof a capability for effective use which involves the process of exploiting whatever
linguistic resources are available, no matter how formally ʻdefectiveʼ” (p. 197)
Clearly, a learnerʼs ability to effectively use circumlocution to express
meaning beyond their current linguistic capability is an example of this. A learnerusing expressions such as ʻcar doctorʼ in place of ʻmechanicʼ or ʻa place where wecan buy ﬂowers” in place of “ﬂorist” may appear to lack linguistic knowledge but,in fact, by using these “defective” terms they are displaying their ability to exploit
their linguistic resources to achieve their communicative goals. This is the essenceof what Seidlhofer means when she speaks of learning to language. Circumlocution
is a skill that a learner can, and will often be forced through necessity to draw on
again and again throughout their language learning journey. Whether they have theconﬁdence and ability to employ it effectively will depend of the training they have
had which is why circumlocution should be included in ELF-aware syllabi.
5. TEACHING CIRCUMLOCUTION
5.1. How can we develop learners’ circumlocution ability?

The ﬁrst question to ask in teaching circumlocution is: Is it actually somethingthat can be taught? The teachability of CSs has been debated for a long time.
Some researchers (Bialystok & Kellerman, 1987; Bongaerts & Poulisse, 1989)
have claimed that L1 CSs are transferable to the L2, and therefore there is no
reason to spend time training students to develop these skills. On the other hand,researchers (Rost & Ross, 1991; Dörnyei, 1995; Faucette, 2001; Maleki, 2007;
Savignon, 1972, 1983, 1997; Scullen & Jourdain, 2000; Willems, 1987) havealso argued that training in CS use is possible and even necessary in order todevelop strategic competence in the L2. In addition, Brooks (1992) and Salamone
and Marsal (1997) identify circumlocution as the CS on which training has thebiggest effect. Based on my own class observations, in which I have witnessedlearners become more effective, ﬂuent and conﬁdent in circumlocution, I believethat circumlocution is most certainly a skill that beneﬁts from in-class instruction
and training.
Dornyei (1995) highlights two essential components of teaching circumlocution.
These are: 1) providing learners with the basic lexical and grammatical structuresneeded to describe properties and functions, and: 2) providing chances to practice
circumlocution to the point that the necessary structures become available for
ﬂuent production. In the ﬁrst step, phrases such as “Itʼs a thing for…”, “Itʼs a place29

where…”, “Itʼs an animal that is…”, “Itʼs the opposite of…”, “Itʼs similar to…” and“Itʼs a person who…”, should be presented so that even low-level learners are able
to use circumlocution to elicit the names of common objects, activities and so on
by completing the given structures with their own vocabulary. Once shown how,such learners are usually capable of producing descriptions such as “Itʼs an animal
that comes from Africa. Itʼs an animal that has a long nose and big ears”, to elicit
ʻelephantʼ. Of course, for more advanced learners, ways to describe more difﬁcult
themes such as emotions, concepts and abstract objects can be introduced. On
the second component of teaching circumlocution, gaining ﬂuency in using thesestructures, Dornyei (1915) states that “Providing opportunities for practice in strategy
use appears to be necessary because CSs can only fulﬁll their function as immediateﬁrst aid devices if their use has reached an automatic stage” (p. 64). Repetition ofsimilar but slightly altered tasks is the key to achieving this (Ahmadian, 2012).
Ahmadian claims that through repetition:
Learners might be able to build upon what they have alreadydone in order to ʻbuy timeʼ not only to do mental work on what
they are about to communicate but also to access and (re)formulate words and grammatical structures more efﬁciently,
effectively, and accurately. (p. 1)
To add further support to this claim, many studies (Bygate, 1996 & 2001;
Gass, Mackey, Alvarez-Torres & Fernández-García, 1999; Lynch & Maclean,
2000) have found that task repetition has positive effects on both ﬂuency andaccuracy.
To sum up, this simple process of presenting learners with language
models and then providing them with ample training opportunities in order togain ﬂuency and conﬁdence is what is required for successful circumlocution
instruction.
5.2. Activities for developing fluency in circumlocution

Nation (2013) lists four distinguishing features of ﬂuency activities. The ﬁrst
and most important is that they should be easy, allowing students to use known
grammatical and lexical structures. This is because learners cannot become ﬂuent
by working with difﬁcult material. The second most important features of ﬂuency
activities is that they should encourage learners to perform faster than their usual
speed, noting that an ideal speed for speaking is around 150 words per minute. The
third feature of ﬂuency activities is that they focus on meaning. That is, learners
should be giving and receiving information and not only practicing grammaticalforms. Finally, ﬂuency activities should provide a signiﬁcant amount of regular,
repeated practice for learners.
Below I will outline activities that ﬁt Nationʼs criteria. Note that before using30

these as ﬂuency-developing activities, learners should ﬁrst have a good knowledgeof the language needed to successfully complete the tasks.
5.2.1. Guess the word

In this very simple activity, each learner in a pair has a worksheet (see Appendix)
with a different set of words. First, Student A has two minutes to use circumlocution
to help Student B guess the word. The order of words is up to the student. They are
free to choose words that seem easy. They should keep track of how many words
they successfully elicit and how many (if any) they are forced to give up on. After
two minutes the teacher can ask students to count how many words their partner
was able to guess. This gives the activity a competitive aspect that encourages
students to perform faster than their usual speed, fulﬁlling the criterion given by
Nation (2013). The teacher can also ask which words were difﬁcult, providing an
opportunity to focus on form, with the teacher introducing or reinforcing language
structures to the class as required. The same process is then repeated for Student
Bʼs turn. After Student B has ﬁnished, students can then rotate and make new pairs,
giving them a chance to communicate with a different person, encounter different
input and reﬁne and improve on their previous performance.
A variation on this activity that makes it slightly more difﬁcult and simulates
real-world situations is having a predetermined order in which each word should beattempted. For example, having students start at the top left corner and work acrossthe page. This mimics reality in that learners have no control over what unknown
words, or gaps in knowledge, they will have to negotiate.
5.2.2. Crossword puzzles

In this activity each student in a pair has a partially completed crossword puzzle.
For example, Student Aʼs puzzle might have the answers for the ʻacrossʼ words
while Student Bʼs has the answers for the ʻdownʼ words. Students take turns asking
questions such as “What is 2 across?” or “What is 5 down?”. In response, students
give hints to help their partner guess the word. To encourage students to work
quickly a reward could be put on offer for the pair that ﬁnishes ﬁrst. This activity
can also be used for reviewing vocabulary. Crosswords can be made online or withspecial software.
5.2.3 Observed outcomesI have personally witnessed repeated positive outcomes from in-class circumlocution
training.
Over the past several years I have used circumlocution training activities
in a variety of teaching contexts. In these various contexts, including high school,
university and business English classes containing learners with different ability
levels and motivations, there was one constant: the enthusiasm, engagement andexcitement learners displayed during training activities was signiﬁcant. This31

observation alone has encouraged me to included circumlocution training in lessons
whenever possible.
Aside from its affective beneﬁts, I have also witnessed marked improvements
in learnersʼ ability to utilise circumlocution during in-class activities and tests. In a
recently completed course, learners took part in ten weeks of circumlocution training
culminating in a test. The test required them to use circumlocution strategies tocomplete a task similar to the ʻGuess the wordʼ activity outlined earlier in this paper.
Despite none of the test words having been used in prior in-class training activities,
the large majority of learners were able to complete the task to a high standard.
Also encouraging, were instances of learners using circumlocution in other in-classspeaking activities.
6. CONCLUSION

This paper has presented circumlocution as a valuable communication strategy that
requires and even warrants explicit teaching and a signiﬁcant amount of in-classtime dedicated to its development. As mentioned, numerous studies have found it
to be a valuable tool for communication and development of strategic competence.
It also has the potential to promote second language acquisition with its strong
reliance on negotiation of meaning, pushed output and eliciting. These indicators
all point strongly in favour of including circumlocution training in the syllabusof any course with an oral communication component. However, the enthusiasm,
motivation, and conﬁdence that activities such as ʻGuess the wordʼ create inclassrooms, even in those of low-level students with little interest in English study,
is perhaps the most signiﬁcant beneﬁt of circumlocution. It goes without sayingthat when learners are using their own self-constructed language to communicate
things beyond their linguistic limits, that is a great achievement.
REFERENCES

Ahmadian, M. (2012). Task repetition in ELT. ELT Journal, 66(3), 380-382.
Bialystok, E., & Kellerman, E. (1987). Language strategies in the classroom. In
B.K. Das (Ed.), Communication and Learning in the Classroom Community(pp. 160-175). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Bongaerts, T., & Poulisse, N. (1989). Communication strategies in L1 and L2:
Same or different? Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 253-268.
Brooks, F. (1992). Can we talk? Foreign Language Annals, 25(1), 59-71.
Brumﬁt, C. (2000). Accuracy and ﬂuency: The basic polarity. In H. Riggenback(Ed.), Perspectives on Fluency, (pp. 61-73). Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press.
Bygate, M. (1996). ʻEffect of task repetition: appraising the development of
second language learnersʼ in J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge32and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral
language. In M. Ahmadian, M. J. and M. Tavakoli. 2011. ʻThe effectsof simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on
accuracy, complexity, and ﬂuency in EFL learnersʼ oral productionʼ.
Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 23–49.
Canale, M.; Swain, M. (1980). “Theoretical bases of communicative approaches
to second language teaching and testing”. Applied Linguistics, 1(1),1–47.
Corder, P. (1983). Strategies of communication. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper(Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 15-19). London:
Longman.
Dörnyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL
Quarterly, 29(1), 55-85.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Faucette, P. (2001). A pedagogical perspective on communication strategies:
Beneﬁts of training and an analysis of English language teachingmaterials. Second Language Studies, 19(2), 1-40.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Fernández-García, M. (1999).
The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning,
49(4), 549–581. doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.00102
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the beneﬁts of task repetition andrecycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research,
4(3), 221–50.
Maleki, A. (2007).Teachability of communication strategies: An Iranianexperience. System, 35(4), 583-594.
Nation, I.S.P. (1991). Fluency and learning. The English Teacher, 20, 1-8.
Nation, I.S.P. (2013). What should every EFL teacher know? Seoul: Compass
Publishing.
Rost, M., & Ross, S. (1991). Learner use of strategies in interaction: Typology
and teachability. Language Learning, 41(2), 235-268.
Salomone, A., & Marsal, F. (1997). How to avoid language breakdown?
Circumlocution! Foreign Language Annals, 30(4), 473-484.
Savignon, S. J. (1972). Communicative competence: An experiment in foreign
language teaching. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.
Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom
practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom
practice (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
33

Scullen, M. E. & Jourdian, S. (2000). The effect of explicit training on successful
circumlocution: A classroom study. In J. Lee and A. Valdman (Eds.), Formand Meaning: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 231-253). Boston, MA: Heinle.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford
University Press.
Willems, G. M. (1987). Communication strategies and their signiﬁcance inforeign language teaching. System, 15(3), 351-364.

34

APPENDIX

Guess the Word●●●●

You have 2 minutes to describe as many of these words to your partner as you can.
Your partner must guess the words without looking at their handout.
You cannot say the words or use Japanese.
When time is up, count how many words your partner could guess.

dog

China

book

car

Coca Colatissueclock

baseball

Shibuya

Lady Gaga

kendo

Sushi

duck

KagawaShinjikangaroo

radio

chair

history

Bic
Camerafinger

skirt

Kyoto

cat

Francecycling

JohnnyDepp

Pokemonlunch

GoogleiPhoneAKB48

LondonAbe
Shinzo

piano

nose

pizza

Los
Angelesudon

Hokkaido

Tokyo Tokyo Sky
One Piece
University
Tree

35

Checking the Effectiveness of Quizlet as a Tool for
Vocabulary Learning
語彙習得ツールとしてのQuizletの有効性
Blair W.B. Barr, バアル・ブレア
Tamagawa University, Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Japan
blairbarr@lab.tamagawa.ac.jp
ABSTRACT

Inspired by the need to aid low-proﬁciency English users to increase their knowledgeof vocabulary, this preliminary study measures the success of digital-ﬂashcard users
by comparing their vocabulary test scores to those of non-users in the same class.
Thirty-two, low-level, ﬁrst year students in Tamagawa Universityʼs English as a
Lingua Franca program were asked to use Quizlet® to prepare for tests that would
recycle ﬁll-in-the-blank contents from the ﬂashcards available on this Web 2.0
application. On average, learners in the class who used gap-ﬁll ﬂashcards with theapplication scored higher on these tests, and moderately higher on tests with newcontents for the same vocabulary. The need for more homogeneous experimentationis acknowledged. In addition, the need for more extrinsic motivation to encourage
spaced repetition is considered as means for improving Quizlet-user success on
tests of extrapolated knowledge.
KEYWORDS: Quizlet, CALL, Vocabulary, Digital Flashcards
1. INTRODUCTION

36

It is easy to imagine that one of the main focuses of a language program would
be grammar, but without words it is impossible to achieve even a basic level ofcommunication. This is not to say that grammatical teaching should cease in thelanguage classroom, but learners I have met often cite a lack of vocabulary and the
difﬁculties encountered studying vocabulary as their main obstacles to learning andusing English. One of the aims in my own teaching is to ﬁnd ways to motivate lowproﬁciency university students to increase their vocabulary levels.
In this study, learners were encouraged to study with gap-ﬁll ﬂashcards using
the digital ﬂashcard application, Quizlet. The aim of the research was to measure
the success of users by comparing vocabulary test scores for Quizlet users and nonusers of the application. In the process of doing research, Quizlet users were foundto consist of two types of learners, kinesthetic and visual, and the following threequestions were considered:1. Are Quizlet users more successful on the vocabulary tests than the nonusers?
2. Are kinesthetic users more successful than visual ones?
3. Are Quizlet users more successful than non-users on tests with previously
unseen content?
2. Literature Review

In my own classes, I make it a practice to have learners use digital ﬂashcards
to help them learn and expand their English vocabulary. This is inspired by one
consistency in vocabulary learning literature that there is a need for repetition
or recycling of language for acquisition to occur (Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 2008).
Although the exact number of repetitions is unclear and variable, it is clear thatteachers and material writers should develop a longitudinal practice of explicitly
repeating the vocabulary learned for the duration of a course (Schmitt, 2008).
Neurological studies have shown that time breaks provided by spaced repetition,
where language is repeated over increasing time lapses, permits the regenerationof neurochemical substances in our brain that enable long-term recall (Baddeley,1990).
Many approaches to language learning treat vocabulary learning as
incidental (e.g. communicative language teaching and extensive reading). In thesecases, words are a part of the communicative or reading process, where students
are expected to notice and remember language encountered while focusing
on content. This passive approach to building vocabulary, however, has been
identiﬁed as overly gradual, thus requiring multiple encounters with words before
learning can be said to occur (Horst, Cobb, & Maera, 1998; Rott, 1999; Waring& Takaki, 2003). This may be an important part of acquisition, however it is notparticularly suitable for the short term objectives of limited-term university-level
language training, as such passive noticing and learning would occur too slowly(Schmitt, 2000).
Alternatively, language programs that provide an intentional focus on words
may enhance acquisition. Illustrating the advantages of explicit learning, Vidal(2003) found that one month after Spanish learners were exposed to videotaped
lectures in English they could recall only words that were central to the theme
or garnered explicit focus. In another study, Laufer (2005) found that intentional
vocabulary exercises in the classroom not only aided short-term acquisition, butalso led to greater retention than incidental learning. Despite such ﬁndings, Tangand Nesi (2003) reported that intentional vocabulary training is underused in someclassrooms. As a potential solution, Nation (2007) suggests that one quarter of alanguage program should consist of deliberate vocabulary building, with about aquarter to a third of that time spent using ﬂashcards. In my own classes, I had
learners using Quizlet ﬂashcard sets in class with instructions to use them to prepare37

for unit vocabulary tests as well.
Regarding the format of ﬂashcards, there are many options available. For
one, using L2 deﬁnitions or synonyms on the reverse of word cards are options, butthese can distract learners with other lexical items that may not be understood well.
Another option is to use pictures to stimulate learning with humor and beautiful
content, but these may not always be suitable for more abstract target language.
Finally, the traditional approach of using L1 translations on the reverse of ﬂashcards
has proven to be highly effective for rapid learning (Laufer and Shmueli, 1997). In
my own classes, I have set up ﬂashcard sets for each textbook unit. These ﬂashcards
stimulate the learners with pictures, but also clarify the meaning of the English
words with Japanese translations (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Vocabulary flashcard (screenshot): English words with Japanese translations
and pictures.

Repetition of isolated vocabulary alone is certainly helpful for learningspelling and forms (de Groot, 2006), but it is not enough to help learners understandhow to use words. In my own classes, I have often found learners had difﬁculty
doing gap activities despite having knowledge of the words through translation.
Learners need to be aware of how target words are used in some context (Coxhead,
2008; Horst et al., 1998). Knowing a word through translation is simply not enough.
Learners need to know situations where and when words are used. Learners mustalso know typical collocations, words that typically occur before and after the targetwords. Learners cannot be aware of such things by studying words in isolation. For
this reason, I have provided a second set of word cards that attempts to expose
learners to the usage of target words within two or three sentences each. Eachﬂashcard contains one ﬁll-in-the-blank sentence, with the correct form of the target
word appearing on the opposite side (Figure 2).

38

Figure 2. Gap-fill flashcard (screenshot): fill-in-the-blank sentences with target
vocabulary.

Quizlet is a digital ﬂashcard application that was used in my classes. Quizlet
provides learners with an attractive and easy-to-use interface that can enhance theexperience of paper ﬂashcards (Ashcroft & Imrie, 2014). Some of the advantagesof Quizlet include the ability to rapidly create ﬂashcards with pictures and audio,
the ability to access the application on a computer or smartphone, the ability toautomatically rearrange ﬂashcards to avoid serial learning, or memorizing theorder, and the ability to interact with the cards using a variety of study and gamemodes.
This research paper attempted to identify whether or not Quizlet users
accessing the gap-ﬁll ﬂashcards were more successful on (1) vocabulary tests
recycling content from the cards, and (2) a test with new content using the same
vocabulary.
3. METHODOLOGY

Thirty-two participants – 15 male and 17 female – in two ﬁrst-year low-level classes
in Tamagawa Universityʼs English as a Lingua Franca program were invited to takepart in this Quizlet-based study. The participants agreed to permit the monitoringof their Quizlet activities and the anonymous reporting on their vocabulary test
results.
For all classes, students were asked to bring a laptop or tablet PC to perform
Quizlet activities and take on-line tests, although a few students were permitted touse smartphones. Early in the term, all the students registered identiﬁable usernames
for Quizlet and were invited to join a class page containing private ﬂashcard setsbased on the vocabulary from their course book - Successful Keys to the TOEIC
Test: Intro, with each unit containing 10 new words and 8 phrases based on a related
theme. Consequently, as a registered teacher, I could view how and when each user
accessed each set of digital ﬂashcards (Figure 3).

39

Figure 3. Teacher’s view identifying how and when learners in the course used Quizlet
flashcard sets (screenshot – with real usernames obscured).

In class, students were directed to study from two sets of ﬂashcards foreach unit. The ﬁrst set contained pictures and Japanese words on one side andtheir English equivalents on the reverse (Figure 1). These sets were designed
to introduce learners to the vocabulary using their L1 and engaging imagery,while helping learners focus on the base forms of target words. The second set
contained 40 to 60 ﬁll-in-the-blank sentences with the correct forms of relevant
words completing these sentences on the reverse (Figure 2). The aim of thisset was to introduce learners to the words in the context of sentences, witheach target word and phrase recurring multiple times in a set. This exposure to
multiple usages aims to increase learnersʼ understanding of how the words areused.
Although all students used these cards at prescribed times in the classroom
for about 15 minutes each unit, three groups of users were identiﬁed based on
their out-of-class usage of the gap-ﬁll ﬂashcard sets to prepare for vocabulary
tests. First of all, some participants were classiﬁed as non-users (e.g., user 4 inFigure 3), who only used Quizlet as directed in class. These participants chose
not to prepare for tests using the online sets on their own time. A second group
was classiﬁed as visual users of Quizlet (e.g., user 3), accessing the sets only toview the ﬂashcards or to play the matching game, Scatter. For these activities,
users are only required to tap or drag the cards on the screen, so the users are
simply viewing the language. The ﬁnal group was classiﬁed as kinesthetic users(e.g., users 1, 2, & 5), accessing some of the visual learning tools as well as
the functions Learn, Test, Speller, and Space Race that require participants tophysically type correctly-spelled answers. I have classiﬁed these users as more40

active because they are kinesthetically interacting with the sets through typing
while being urged to remember the words, their correct spellings, and theirgrammatical forms.
For this study, four vocabulary tests were designed for four different textbook
units. The test questions were built using a subset of the ﬁll-in-the-blank sentences
available in the Quizlet sets. Each test contained 20 gap-ﬁll sentences - 10 multiplechoice and 10 written (Figure 4). The written gap-ﬁll activities were generally more
difﬁcult for my past students, so the 10 multiple-choice questions were included forassessment purposes, as they helped increase the overall class average on the gapﬁll quiz. Learners were informed to prepare for these scheduled tests. The tests were
held within the ﬁrst ten to ﬁfteen minutes of class, and completed digitally usinga Google Forms web link, unlocked at the time of the test, and then graded using
the Flubaroo add-on. The teacher physically and digitally monitored to ensure thatparticipants did not cheat by accessing Quizlet or other applications at the time of
the test.

Figure 4. Screenshot of a vocabulary review test with multiple choice and written gap-fillsentences

The fourth vocabulary test was longer than the ﬁrst three, as a second part41

aimed to test the ability of Quizlet users to extrapolate. Part A was the same as theﬁrst three tests and was used for assessing grades. Part B of this test contained 20
additional ﬁll-in-the-blank statements – 10 multiple choice and 10 written – at theend, for a total of 40 questions overall. Part B was designed to expose participants
to previously unseen sentences using the same unit vocabulary. This section wasa surprise to students, but in order to encourage completion, I did not informparticipants until the completion of the test that these additional questions would
not be used for assessing their grades due to the surprised nature of the test. Thismeans the participants thought all 40 questions would contribute to their grade, but
only the ﬁrst 20 were part of their evaluation.
In summary, learnersʼ Quizlet activities and the results of the four unit
vocabulary tests were used to answer the following questions:
1. Are Quizlet users more successful on the vocabulary tests than nonusers?
2. Are kinesthetic users more successful than visual ones?
3. Are Quizlet users more successful than non-users on tests withpreviously unseen content?
In order to compare success of the two groups in question one, a t-test of
independent means was performed to gauge the statistical difference between themeans of each group. However, after subdividing the Quizlet users for question two,a one-way ANOVA test was performed to check for statistical relevance between
the means of the three groups.
4. RESULTS

At the outset, it is important to note that this was not a controlled experiment. Usergroups were not predetermined, but rather created by individual study habits.
All participants were instructed on how to use Quizlet, and all learners wereencouraged to be both visual and kinesthetic users. Any other groups arose fromindividual preferences while using Quizlet, or poor study habits. It is possible thatthose participants scored lowly due to other factors. As such, the groups may not
be a comparable sample of participants, violating the assumption of homogeneity
in the statistical measures.
It is also noteworthy that only some participants were consistently placed in
the same user group for each test. The majority of the participants were classiﬁed
in different groups for different tests. For example, some learners had forgotten
about upcoming tests, and failed to prepare with Quizlet on those occasions,becoming non-users. Overall, however, through encouragement and awareness ofthe beneﬁts of more committed study, the number of kinesthetic users generally
increased.
42

Furthermore, simply because users were classiﬁed as non-users of Quizlet,
does not mean that they did not study for the vocabulary tests, as some other factors
may have helped individuals score well. For one, some students were observed
studying the vocabulary directly from their textbooks. Also, a few students usedvocabulary notebooks, and they physically wrote out the examples available in
Quizlet during the class time for later study. Finally, all students were required to use
Quizlet in class, and, as a teacher, I learned to increasingly focus on extrapolatingon the difﬁcult ﬁll-in-the-blank sentences with individuals and groups. This lastpoint certainly may have played a role in the increased scores for non-Quizlet users
on the last of the four vocabulary tests (Table 1/Figure 5).
Table 1
Statistical Distribution of Test Scores for Quizlet Users (Qzlt) and Non-users(NoQ), with T-Test of Independent Means Results
Test 1
NoQ
Qzlt
Mean
13.57 15.88
Std. Dev. 4.27
3.77
N
14
17
t
t(29) = 1.60
p
p > 0.05

Test 2NoQ
Qzlt
9.78 16.74
4.38
2.77
9
23
t(30) = 5.40
p < 0.01

Test 3
NoQ
Qzlt
11.10
17.45
3.73
2.58
10
20
t(28) = 5.47
p < 0.01

Test 4
NoQ
Qzlt
15.38
17.63
2.96
2.63
13
16
t(27) = 2.16
p < 0.05

4.1 Quizlet users vs. Non-users

Rather unsurprisingly, the results support the idea that Quizlet users score betteron the vocabulary tests with recycled phrases from the cards than those who did
not use Quizlet to support their home studies (Table 1). For the ﬁrst vocabulary
test, although the Quizlet users scored higher on average, the difference was notstatistically validated. This may partially be explained by the fact that the learners
were not entirely certain about their expectations with Quizlet at this stage. However,tests 2, 3 and 4 all resulted in statistically higher scores for the Quizlet users, evenwhen the non-users showed signiﬁcant improvement on the last of these tests.

43

■ Kinesthetic Users■ Visual Users■ Non-Quizlet Users

Figure 5. Distribution of test scores for kinesthetic, visual, and non-Quizlet users, withthe median represented by the center line, extending outwards to the quartiles and thelowest/highest scores.
4.2 Kinesthetic users vs. Visual learners vs. Non-users

Although the kinesthetic users of Quizlet generally scored slightly higher on
average than visual users, the difference between the scores was not supported
statistically (Table 2), and this is supported by a box plot of the test score
distribution for each group (Figure 5). In fact, the three visual users on test 4
even scored an insigniﬁcantly higher average than the multiple kinesthetic users
for the same test. Overall, the one-way ANOVA test was most signiﬁcant forvocabulary tests two and three (Table 2), with most of the difference explainedby the lower scoring non-users (Figure 5). Test one may have been lower overall
due to confused expectations of Quizlet users, and the higher scores on test 4 may
have been inﬂuenced by increased teacher support in the classroom. There may besome beneﬁts to using the kinesthetic tools rather than just visual ones in Quizlet,
because kinesthetic users usually scored the higher test average. Nonetheless,a larger sample of users may be required to statistically support this assertion.
It is also important to remember that the number of visual users was small anddecreasing because this group was unintended. The original aim was to encourage
all participants to use more Quizlet tools, thus creating more kinesthetic users.
However, some users had their individual preferences in practice.
44

Table 2
Statistical Distribution of Test Scores for Passive (Psv) and Active (Actv) Users,with one-way ANOVA results

NoQ

Test 1
Vis

Kin

NoQ

Test 2
Vis

Kin

NoQ

Test 3
Vis

Kin

NoQ

Test 4Vis

Kin

Mean 13.57 15.80 16.00 9.78 16.40 16.83 11.10 16.60 17.56 15.38 18.00 17.54
Std.
4.27
3.3
4.62 4.38 1.82 3.01 3.73 0.71 2.71 2.96 2.00
2.82
Dev.
N
14
10
7
9
5
18
10
2
18
13
3
13

F
p

F(2,28) = 1.24
p > 0.05

F(2,29) = 14.18
p < 0.01

F(2,27) = 14.63
p < 0.01

F(2,26) = 2.28
p > 0.05

4.3 Extrapolation Test

The second part of test number 4 presented the participants with 20 additional gapﬁll sentences that were not previously seen in the Quizlet cards. The aim was todetermine if Quizlet users were more successful on this test than non-users, thus
showing greater capability to extrapolate on the knowledge of the vocabulary they
had learned in context. Although, the three groups were identiﬁed (Figure 6), I
decided to return to the original comparison between Quizlet users (both kinesthetic
and visual) and non-users (Table 3) because there were only three visual users forthis test.

■ Kinesthetic Users■ Visual Users■ Non-Quizlet Users

Figure 6. Distribution of active, passive, and non-Quizlet users’ test scores on Test 4
with new content, with the median represented by the center line, extending outwards
to the quartiles and the lowest/highest scores at the end of the error bars.
45

Although Quizlet users scored over a point more on average on the vocabulary
test with new sentences than non-Quizlet users, the difference between these scores
was not supported statistically (Table 3). Again, a larger sample size may verify
this difference. Although this one test could not conclusively support the idea that
Quizlet users were better prepared to extrapolate on their vocabulary knowledge,
the higher average is promising.
Table 3
Statistical Distribution of Test Scores for Quizlet Users and Non-users for the
Vocabulary Test with New Content, with T-Test of Independent Means
No Quizlet

QuizletAverage

11.77

13.31

Std. Dev.

3.92

3.96

N

13

16

t

t(27) = 1.05

p

p > 0.05

5. Discussion

Quizlet users were unsurprisingly successful at recycling their knowledgeof the known contents on tests, and their ability to extrapolate better with newcontent than non-users shows some promising results. However, it is important toremember that all of these results were not comparing two homogeneous groups.
In the future, I would try to redesign the experiment to see how the test scores ofusers of traditional word translation ﬂashcards compare to those using the gap-ﬁll
ﬂashcards. Also, I would like to try a controlled experiment with two homogeneousgroups, collaborating with a teacher of a group of similar level, but using traditional
word cards.
One major problem I found with the approach used in this study is that
I failed to motivate continuous vocabulary development. The students generally
failed at performing spaced repetition, largely choosing to cram the night before or
morning of tests. In addition, students would go on to ignore sets once the unit tests
were completed, failing to reinforce the language learned throughout the course.
One option to encourage the increased use of spaced repetition is to haveconglomerated sets of ﬂashcards that learners could use to prepare for an end-ofterm examination as well. Intuitions about the forms, spelling, and pronunciation ofwords could improve with the smaller unit sets, and they could prepare themselves46

to handle the larger, conglomerated sets (Crothers & Suppes, 1967). Quizlet iswell designed for this purpose with a function that permits users to combine sets.
In order to provide learners with an incentive to use these sets regularly, a credit
system could be devised as a form of extrinsic motivation. This could be in theform of homework completion grades, or, in the case of the ELF program, by
providing additional word count credits for the extensive reading requirements inthe course. In this way, it is hoped that learners would use some of their time toreview vocabulary in context through spaced repetition.
6. CONCLUSION

Without a doubt, many of my students were visibly engaged by Quizlet in theclassroom. Additionally, it provided learners a way to learn independently on their
computers and smartphones. Unsurprisingly, the results of this study demonstrated
that learners using Quizlet performed better than non-users on tests recycling
contents from gap-ﬁll cards. Although results failed to conﬁrm that kinesthetic
users of the application could outperform visual ones, Quizlet users overall could
perform a little better on tests with new content. The trends are promising. In the
future, I will be implementing more strategies to extrinsically motivate learners
to do spaced repetition activities, and looking to compare homogeneous groups.
Ultimately, my hope is that these activities will not only play a role in improving
learnersʼ test scores, but also expanding their active vocabularies, their conﬁdence,and their enjoyment studying and using the language.
REFERENCES

Ashcroft, R. J., & Imrie, A. C. (2014). Learning vocabulary with digital
ﬂashcards. In N. Sonda & A. Krause (Eds.), JALT2013 Conference
Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.
Baddeley, A. (1990). Human Memory. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coxhead, A. (2008). Phraseology and English for academic purposes. In F.
Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in language learning and teaching(pp. 149-161). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Crothers, E., & Suppes, P. (1967). Experiments in Second-Language Learning.
New York: Academic Press.
de Groot, A. M. B. (2006). Effects of stimulus characteristics and backgroundmusic on foreign language vocabulary learning and forgetting. Language
Learning, 56(3), 463-506.
Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Meara, P. (1998). Beyond a Clockwork Orange: acquiring
second language vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language,11(2), 207-223.
Laufer, B. (2005). Focus on form in second language vocabulary learning.
47

EUROSLA Yearbook, 5, 223-250.
Laufer, B., & Shmueli, K. (1997). Memorizing new words: Does teaching haveanything to do with it? RELC Journal, 28(1), 89-108.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning andTeaching, 1(1), 1-12.
Rott, S. (1999). The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate language
learners` incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 21, 589-619.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language
Teaching Research, 12(3), 329-363.
Tang, E., & Nesi, H. (2003). Teaching vocabulary in two Chinese classrooms:
Schoolchildren`s exposure to English words in Hong Kong and Guangzhou.
Language Teaching Research, 7(1), 65-97.
Vidal, K. (2003). Academic listening: A source of vocabulary acquisition?
Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 56-89.
Waring, R., & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new
vocabulary from reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15,
1-27.

48

A report on faculty development and research
inside the Center for English as a Lingua Franca
ELFセンタ−のFD活動と研究報告
Brett Milliner, ミリナー・ブレット <milliner@lit.tamagawa.ac.jp>
Blagoja Dimoski, ディモスキ・ブラゴヤ <bdimoski@lit.tamagawa.ac.jp>
Tamagawa University, Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Japan
ABSTRACTThe overarching philosophy of The Center for English as a Lingua Franca (CELF)
is that the quality of our teaching will determine the success of our new English
as a Lingua Franca (ELF) program. As a result of the hiring policy of the center,
whereby teachers need not be native English speakers, a very diverse group of
45 teachers has been assembled. This diversity represents a valuable resource
for faculty development as all teachers bring different cultural, educational, andlanguage learning backgrounds (e.g., Ukraine, India, Korea, The Philippines, New
Zealand, Ireland, and Turkey). In this report, we describe the variety of faculty
training and development activities completed during the 2015 academic year andalso share the centerʼs research achievements.
KEYWORDS: ELF, Faculty Development, ELF Teacher Training, ELF Research
1. INTRODUCTION

The Center for English as a Lingua Franca (CELF) faculty development calendar
during the 2015 academic year was a very eventful one. Faculty development in
the ELF program represents a very interesting challenge as a large proportionof teachers are employed part-time and the teaching faculty comes from a wide
range of cultural and professional backgrounds. The different faculty development
initiatives extend to all faculty and part-time instructors are encouraged to participate
in the events. This paper reports on the various faculty development events staged
in 2015, before describing the academic achievements of the CELF in 2015.
2. THE 2015 ELF FORUM

The CELF staged an ELF Forum on Sunday, October 25th, 2015. The event
featured two guest speakers, Dr. Nathanael Rudolph from Mukogawa Womenʼs
University and Dr. Ayako Suzuki from the Department of Comparative Cultures,
49

Tamagawa University. Dr. Rudolph talked about his study of English seminar
students which found how conceptual and pedagogical shifts beyond essentialized
categories of being and doing may result in tensions in the classroom. Dr. Rudolphconcluded with a discussion on the potential implications for education seeking tomove beyond essentialized approaches to identity. Dr. Suzuki reﬂected on her studyof students participantsʼ learning journals and post-course questionnaires from aﬁrst-year English class where she taught about the diversity of English and asked
students to reﬂect on their values and the norms attached to English. Along with
the invited speakers, a total of nine presentations were made by CELF faculty.
A detailed description of the talks is presented in Table 1 below. The event was
attended by 50 guests including the president of the university, Dr. Yoshiaki Obara,
and members of the universityʼs board of directors.
Table 1
Summary of speakers and presentation titles at the 2015 ELF Forum
Title
Conceptualizing and approaching education for glocal
interaction beyond essentialization: A focus on Japan

Dr. Nathanael Rudolph

Welcome to the messy world of English: Towards a moretransformative approach to English

Dr. Ayako Suzuki

The Center for English as a Lingua Franca

50

AuthorAndrew Leichsenring,
Brett Milliner, PaulMcBride, & Blagoja
DimoskiSeven habits of a highly communicative ELF class

Arup Pandey

Being smart with your smartphone

Dara Langley

ELF awareness in the classroom

Corazon Kato

Redefining listening comprehension in an ELF context

Blagoja Dimoski

Training ELF teachers to create a more effective blended
learning environment

Brett Milliner & Travis
Cote

How do Japanese students acquire English skills?

Shigeko Shimazu

Using Google Forms for homework assessment andmonitoring

Daniel Worden

Challenging the notion that ELF threatens academic
standards

Paul McBride & Travis
Cote

Film as an ELF text

Michelangelo Magasic

Figure 1. Dr. Nathanael Rudolph speaking at the ELF Forum on October 25th, 2015.
3. LOCAL ELF WORKSHOPS & TRAINING FOR CELF TEACHERS

Throughout the academic year, the CELF staged a number of informal training
and workshop events for the faculty. Each event was held at the end of the work
day between 17:00 and 19:00 and all members of the CELF faculty were invited toattend. A short report for each event is provided below.
3.1 ELF Teacher Orientation

Two weeks prior to the commencement of 2015 classes, an ELF faculty orientation
was staged on March 25th. Along with a general brieﬁng about class management
and operations, teachers had opportunities to discuss a range of issues regarding the
ELF curriculum, including:● The Blackboard content management system● ELF● Extensive Reading● Process Writing● Textbooks
After the two-hour program, teachers were divided into smaller groups to tour
the universityʼs facilities and become acquainted with classroom audiovisualequipment.

Figure 2. The ELF Teacher Orientation on March 25th, 2015.
51

3.2 Blackboard CMS Training

All teaching resources and administrative information for CELF classes areavailable on the university Blackboard course management system (CMS) and the
ELF centerʼs teachers have been noted as the heaviest user group on the campus(Cote & Milliner, 2015). However, usage statistics revealed that only two-thirds of
the CELF faculty are actively utilizing the system to manage such tasks as classroom
assignments, student assessment and ﬂipped learning (Cote & Milliner, 2015). To
bridge this gap, as well as train new teachers, the CELF staged 2 workshops in thespring semester which focused on basic functions of the Blackboard system, and2 workshops in the fall semester which focused on creating and managing online
testing using the Blackboard focusing on creating and managing online testing.
Throughout 2015, CELF faculty investigated how teachers in the program used
the CMS and those ﬁndings directed current and ongoing research into how theteachers might be trained to more effectively use the system.

Figure 3. A Blackboard CMS training on April 20th, 2015.
3.3 ELF Pedagogy Workshops

In 2015, through a variety of ELF pedagogy workshops, CELF faculty havecontinued their work raising awareness and understanding of ELF-informed
pedagogy. These workshops appeared to have a positive impact on the teacherʼsapproaches in the classroom. Survey data from CELF faculty revealed thatmost teachers are now considering the implications of ELF for their teaching(Leichsenring, McBride, Ogane & Milliner, 2015). Moreover, submissions
from teaching faculty to The Center for ELF Journal (see section 5), along withpresentations at the ELF Forum, indicate that more teachers are taking an activerole in ELF research. These shifts in teaching approaches are also being observedin our research on student perceptions of ELF classes. A comparison of student
perceptions about ELF after the spring and fall semesters in the 2014 academic
year (Okada, Milliner, Leichsenring, McBride, Cote & Ogane, 2015) indicatedthat in the fall semester more students seemed to understand what ELF was andits implications for them as ELF users. In the following sections, a report for each
ELF pedagogy workshop is provided.
52

3.3.1 ELF Speaking Activities Workshop- April 28 and 29, 2015

Presented by Paul McBride and Andrew Leichsenring, a workshop on language
awareness and creating appropriate speaking activities for the CELF program wasstaged. The speakers discussed the way in which linguacultural norms in ELF arenegotiated rather than set. Other topics included the effective use of ELF throughinformation gap, code-switching, jigsaw reading, communication strategies, andstudent PowerPoint presentations.
3.3.2 ELF Assessment Workshop - June 22 and 23, 2015

Paul McBride, Takanori Sato, Blagoja Dimoski and Brett Milliner led a lecture anddiscussion event concerning assessment for ELF classes. Issues covered in thesesessions included overall assessment in ELF classes, how to conduct speaking
assessments, and suggested timelines for scheduling course assessments throughout
the term.
3.3.3 ELF Pronunciation Training Workshop - October 27 and 28, 2015

Pronunciation training aimed at improving learnersʼ intelligibility while at the sametime exposing them to a variety of accents is recommended in the ELF classroom(Jenkins, 2000; Mackenzie, 2014). In his ELF Pronunciation Training Workshop,
Takanori Sato lectured teachers on ELF pronunciation research and how it can
inform teachers in their approach to pronunciation training.

Figure 4. The October 28th ELF Pronunciation Training Workshop.

Issues addressed included goals of pronunciation teaching in ELF-aware pedagogy
as well as speciﬁc core pronunciation features which, according to Jenkins (2000),
may affect intelligibility in ELF communication and opposing non-core features
which tend to play a minimal role in the overall process (see Figure 5).

53

Figure 5. Slide from the Pronunciation Training Workshop (Sato, 2015).

3.4 Guest Speakers

The CELF values and maintains professional relations with prominent scholars inthe ﬁeld of language education and related ﬁelds. The Center also dedicates itself
to keeping these experts and the vital body of knowledge they possess accessible tothe teaching community through their ties to the CELF. To this end, the CELF washonored to host events featuring two esteemed guest speakers in 2015.
3.4.1 Dr. Isabel Martin, Ateneo de Manila University-Periphery ELT: Myths about English
in the Philippines - July 6, 2015

Dr. Isabel Martinʼs open lecture was attended by members of the CELF, teachersand students from other departments in Tamagawa University and teachers fromother universities. In her lecture, Dr. Martin discussed issues related to English
language ownership in a global context and delved into certain myths and fallacies,
stemming from the American colonial period, which she asserted have led toadverse effects on present-day English language and literature education in publicschools in the Philippines.

Figure 6. Photo from Dr. Isabel Martin’s (center) talk.
3.4.2 Dr. John Fanselow, Teacher’s College, Columbia University - October 28, 2015

The CELF faculty were invited to observe one of Michael Sekoʼs ELF classes under
the guidance of Dr. Fanselow. Part-time instructor, Michael Seko, demonstrated a54series of teaching practices and classroom management techniques recommended
by Dr. Fanselow to engage students and promote greater language awareness. In a
post-observation discussion with CELF faculty, Dr. Fanselow reﬂected on learning
outcomes observed in Mr. Sekoʼs lesson and discussed their implications forlanguage education, both in ELF contexts and in the profession as a whole.
3.5 Research Guidance for Full-time Faculty - July 8, 2015

The Director of CELF, Dr. Masaki Oda, gave a lecture on professional development
for CELF teachers. Dr. Oda described the actions the faculty need to take to progressin their academic careers and also gave a detailed explanation of the Japan Society
for the Promotion of Science Research Program (科研費). The full-time instructors
learned about grant writing, and the necessary steps (e.g., writing research budgets
and application types) researchers need to take to secure a research grant. We hopethat we can report on research grants successfully received by the CELF faculty inthe upcoming years.
3.6 YOJALT Edtech My Share Event - May 25, 2015

In collaboration with Yokohama JALT, the CELF co-sponsored a micro conference
which introduced technology use in the English language classroom. The event
attracted 30 teachers from the Tokyo area with several CELF faculty members,both full and part-time, making presentations. This event strengthened the CELFʼsrelationship with local academic societies and provided a bridge between CELF
teachers and larger professional support organizations. In addition, the event gave
CELF teachers an opportunity to discuss teaching ideas and present their researchin a professional forum.
4. STUDENT & TEACHER FEEDBACK
4.1 ELF Student Questionnaire

At the end of the spring and fall semesters in 2015, the CELF administered online
questionnaires using SurveyMonkey (<www.surveymonkey.com>). Students wereasked to complete the survey on either their smartphone or personal computer
during class time. The survey asked students about textbooks, teaching approaches,
the Blackboard system, the TOEIC test, ELF awareness, the CELF tutor service
and extensive reading. The response rate in the spring was 72% (1879 students)
and 96% (1941 students) in the fall. Survey results were utilized for curriculum
planning (e.g., textbook evaluations, tutor system planning, and teacher training)
and all teachers received a report for each of their ELF classes.
4.2 CELF Teacher Questionnaire

At the end of the spring and fall semesters in 2015, CELF faculty were requested
to complete an online questionnaire that asked them to reﬂect on their experience55

teaching ELF classes. The survey included questions on textbooks, teachingapproaches, the Blackboard system, the TOEIC test, ELF awareness, and the qualityof support teachers are receiving in the CELF program. Survey results are used
for program planning (e.g, textbooks and teacher training) and research purposes(e.g., Leichsenring, McBride, Ogane & Milliner, 2015; Okada, Milliner, Ogane,
Leichsenring, Imai, Cote & McBride, 2015).
5. JOURNALS & PUBLICATIONSThe Center worked on three journal publications in 2015.
● The Journal of Saitama City Educators Volume 5, Number 5.
● The Center for ELF Journal Volume 2, Issues 1 and 2.
These publications represent a valuable opportunity for faculty to reﬂect on andreﬁne their teaching approaches. Each publication is described in detail in thefollowing section.
5.1 The Journal of Saitama City Educators Volume 5, Number 5

In collaboration with The Journal of Saitama City Educators, the CELF edited one
journal issue, which contained work from full and part-time faculty. A summary of
the authors and the titles of their articles are listed in Table 2 below. All articles canbe accessed at: http://goo.gl/xlV6yq
Table 2The Journal of Saitama City Educators Volume 5, Number 5. Authors and article
titles.
Title
Using streaming video in the classroom: The evolution offeature films as an effective tool for learning English

AuthorMichelangelo
Magasic

Practical methods in measuring 21st century skills and global
competency

Yuri Jody Yujobo

NeuroELT: An introduction

Sharon Ishizaki

Cognitive overload in vocabulary lessons

Arup Pandey

Comparison of three learner dictionaries

Kaori Aono

5.2 The Center for ELF Journal Volume 2

The CELF also published two issues of The Center for ELF Journal, a double-blind
peer-reviewed journal with an international review team.
56

With this publication, the CELF is aiming to:● Promote more reﬂective teaching practices in ELF classes● Provide a context for the sharing of active learning ideas for the ELF
classroom● Promote higher levels of scholarship among faculty● Encourage ELF scholarship● Provide professional development opportunities for CELF teachers
The editorial team is also working to develop the proﬁle of these journal issues
online so that more scholars can see the work of the CELF and enable our faculty
to be cited by other studies. All Center for ELF Journal Issues can be accessed at:
http://www.tamagawa.ac.jp/celf/research/
6. CELF RESEARCH ACHIEVEMENTS

The CELF faculty has also been very active in research activities in 2015. Focusingon ELF and a range of other ﬁelds connected with English language teaching, thefollowing sections report on these endeavours.
6.1 Academic Presentations

Full-time faculty of the CELF made presentations on a wide spectrum of academic
themes in 2015, both in Japan and abroad. They include a keynote presentation, apanel discussion, posters and presentations reﬂecting multiple research interests
relevant to the CELF and the wider academic community. The following sections
report in more detail on the events attended and the titles and authors of 44 academicpresentations (18 internationally) made by the CELF in 2015.
6.1.1 Domestic Presentations

A combined total of 26 presentations were made domestically by full-time facultyof the CELF in 2015 (see Table 3). Notably, papers were presented at nationallevel conferences and related events held by prominent organizations including
the Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT), The Japan Association ofCollege English Teachers (JACET), The International Academic Forum (IAFOR),and the International Education for Sustainable Development Alliance (INTESDA),
in addition to special interest groups and afﬁliations of the aforementioned
organizations. Also listed are presentations made at the ELF Forum and an event
co-hosted by the CELF at Tamagawa University.

57

Table 3
ELF faculty’s domestic presentations (n=26)
Location
Kobe

Title & Event
Multiple Assessment Strategies and Rubrics for 4c’s of
21st century skills
Asian Conference on Language Learning. IAFOR

Tokyo
Tokyo

Fukuoka

Making the most of core smartphone apps
YOJALT: Mytech share 2015. JALT Yokohama Chapter
Interactive learning through PowerPointYOJALT: Mytech share 2015. JALT Yokohama Chapter
Extensive reading on smartphones and extensive reading
management with Xreading®
JALT CALL 2015. JALT CALL Sig

Fukuoka

Using the Technology Acceptance Model to Foster
University Foreign Language Teachers adoption of the
Learning Management System
JALT CALL 2015. JALT CALL Sig

Fukuoka

Form Technology for Teachers: An investigation of
Google Forms and SurveyMonkey.
JALT CALL 2015. JALT CALL Sig

Gunma

Implementing a mobile-based extensive reading
component: A report on student engagement andperceptions

AuthorYuri Jody
YujoboBrettMilliner
Blagoja
Dimoski
BrettMilliner &Travis Cote
BrettMilliner &Travis Cote
BrettMilliner

BrettMilliner2015 JACET Summer Seminar. JACET
Students Assenting to ELF
JACET National Conference 2015. JACETPaul
McBrideNative speakers and the learning of English at Japanese
Kagoshima Universities

Masaki Oda

Kagoshima

JACET National Conference 2015. JACET
Kagoshima

58

Teaching culture in English classes in East Asia
JACET National Conference 2015. JACET

Masaki Oda

TokyoValidity argument for the EIKEN can-do questionnaireinterpretations
Japan Language Testing 19th Annual Conference. JLTA
(Japan Language Testing Association)
The Center for English as a Lingua Franca
The ELF Teachers Forum. CELF, Tamagawa University

Tokyo

Tokyo

Tokyo

Redefining listening comprehension in an ELF context
The ELF Teachers Forum. CELF, Tamagawa University
Training ELF teachers to create a more effective blended
learning environment
The ELF Teachers Forum. CELF, Tamagawa University

Tokyo

Challenging the notion that ELF threatens academic
standards
The ELF Teachers Forum. CELF, Tamagawa University

Tokyo

What counts in second language oral communication
ability: The perspective of ELF users
5th Waseda ELF International Workshop

Tokyo

Some ELF-aware principles and practices for teaching
pre-intermediate learners
5th Waseda ELF International Workshop

Takanori
Sato(2nd author)
Andrew
Leichsenring,
BrettMilliner, PaulMcBride,& Blagoja
DimoskiBlagoja
Dimoski
BrettMilliner &Travis CotePaul
McBride &Travis Cote
Takanori
Sato
Paul
McBrideTowards Social Justice in Urban Food System Policy
Fukuoka

Shizuoka
Shizuoka

Second Asian Conference on the Social Sciences andSustainability. INTESDA

Jesse Hsu

Practical tasks to raise strategic competence

Blagoja
Dimoski

JALT International 2015. JALT
Aligning assessments for diverse blended learners
JALT International 2015. JALT

Yuri Jody
Yujobo59

Shizuoka

Fostering global human resource development throughService Learning

Yuri Jody
YujoboJALT International 2015. JALT
Shizuoka
Shizuoka
Shizuoka

Small talking in the classroom

Ethel Ogane

JALT International 2015. JALT
Language Learners’ Voices through Drama Techniques

TriciaOkada

JALT International 2015. JALT
Raising learners’ awareness of autonomy

Mitsuko
Imai

JALT International 2015. JALT
Curating the Street: Urban Construction Fence Art as
Semiotic Texts

Oita

Yokohama

Oita Text Forum 7. The Center for International Education & Research of Oita University; and the Oita Text
Forum

Jesse Hsu

The new Google Educators training for language teachers

BrettMilliner

YOJALT: Myshare 2015. JALT Yokohama Chapter

6.1.2 International Presentations

Full-time faculty of the CELF presented research and engaged in professional
dialogue in international settings spanning the globe. Research themes and issues
addressed reﬂect the diverse nature of professional interests in the CELF and theircontributions to academia on the international stage. Table 4 provides details of the
CELF facultyʼs international presentations during the 2015 academic year.
Table 4
ELF faculty’s international presentations (n=18)
Location
Beijing,
China

Padova,
Italy

Title
Teaching the Effective Use of ELF in“Homogeneous” Classrooms
ELF 8, ELF

Paul McBride& Andrew
Leichsenring

Training ELF teachers to create a blended learning
environment: encouraging CMS adoption andimplementation

Travis Cote &Brett Milliner

EUROCALL 2015, EUROCALL
60

AuthorPadova,
Italy

Bali,
Indonesia

One year of extensive reading on mobile devices:
Is it time for schools to stop buying paperbacks?
EUROCALL 2015, EUROCALL
Assessing ELF Proficiency in Project-Based
Learning
TEFLIN 2015, TEFLIN

Bali,
Indonesia
Nanjing,
China
Nanjing,
China

Daejeon,Korea

The Discourses of Proper ‘Assessments’ in ELT:How Can Teachers Deal with Them Critically?

Travis Cote &Brett Milliner
Tricia Okada,
Yuri Jody Yujobo,
Ethel Ogane, BrettMilliner,Takanori
Sato
Masaki Oda

TEFLIN 2015, TEFLIN
Assaying and Extrapolating from the Challengesof Launching an ELF Program
Asia TEFL 2015, Asia TEFL
Challenging the notion that ELF might destroy ourstandards
Asia TEFL 2015, Asia TEFL
Increasing CMS adoption: Using TAM locally to
explore faculty views and usage in a campus-wide
ELF program

Masaki Oda &Glenn Toh
Paul McBride &Travis Cote

Travis Cote &Brett Milliner

GLoCALL 2015, GLoCALL
Daejeon,
Korea

Comparing two online approaches to extensive
reading (ER) management: M-Reader® and
Xreading®

Travis Cote &Brett Milliner

GLoCALL 2015, GLoCALL
The Journey of Transpinay Entertainers in Japan
Melbourne, Asian Migration and Rooted Transnationalism,
Australia
International Workshop, Monash Asia Institute,
Monash University
Re-imagining the Use of English in Universities
Melbourne,
Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia
Australia(PESA) 45th Annual Conference

Tricia Okada

Paul McBride

61

Displacing NES-NNES dichotomy
Singapore

Phnom
Penh,
Cambodia

Phnom
Penh,
Cambodia
Phnom
Penh,
Cambodia
Phnom
Penh,
Cambodia
Hong
Kong,
China
Hong
Kong,
China

TESOL Regional conference on excellence inlanguage instruction: Supporting classroom
teaching and learning, TESOL international
Exploring the effectiveness of proactive listening
and dialogical speech in an ELF-Informed
framework
12th Annual CamTESOL Conference on English
Language Teaching, Cam TESOLVoices from Teaching Speaking through Drama
Techniques
12th Annual CamTESOL Conference on English
Language Teaching, Cam TESOLTeacher Identity and Migration of Filipino English
Teachers in Japan
12th Annual CamTESOL - UECA Regional ELT
Research Symposium, Cam TESOL

Masaki Oda

Blagoja Dimoski,
Yuri Jody Yujobo,& Mitsuko Imai

Tricia Okada

Tricia Okada

Learning to Small Talk
12th Annual CamTESOL Conference on English
Language Teaching, Cam TESOL
A journey to become an applied linguist:
Disciplinary knowledge and professional
development

Ethel Ogane

Masaki Oda

Chinese University of Hong Kong
Adaptation or adoption?: Legitimating ‘proper’assessment for ELT in Japan

Masaki Oda

University of Hong Kong

6.2 Publications

Research activities undertaken by faculty of the CELF throughout 2015 culminatedin the publication of 26 academic papers. The body of work ranged from researchor practice-oriented journal articles to book chapters. A majority of these articles
were peer-reviewed and many were published internationally. Table 5 below lists
the different articles published along with their references.

62

Table 5
ELF faculty’s publications (n=26)
Peerreviewed

Reference

AuthorToh, G. (2015). ‘A Tale of Two Programs’: Interrogating‘open(closed)ness’ and ‘cultural diversity’ throughcritical observations of two Japanese University English
language programs. Policy Futures in Education, 13(7),900-916. doi:10.1177/1478210315578064
Leichsenring, A., McBride, P., Ogane, E., & Milliner,
B. (2015). English as a lingua franca: Towards changing
practices. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.),
JALT2014 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo JALT, 378385.

Andrew
Leichsenring,
Paul McBride,
Ethel Ogane, &Brett Milliner✓

Milliner, B. (2015). Class blogging in the EFL
classroom. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 6, 1-11.

Brett Milliner✓

Dimoski, B. (2015). Student Nameplates for Classroom
Management and Beyond. The Center for ELF Journal,
1(1), 83-95.

Blagoja
Dimoski

✓

✓

✓

✓

Okada, T., Milliner, B., Ogane, E., Leichsenring, A.,
Imai, M., Cote, T., & McBride, P. (2015). A report forthe center for English as a lingua franca (CELF) for
academic year 2014-2015. The Center for ELF Journal,
1(1), 9-24.

Glenn Toh

Tricia Okada,
Brett Milliner,
Ethel Ogane,
Andrew
Leichsenring,
Mitsuko Imai,
Travis Cote &Paul McBride

小田眞幸 (2015). Book Review「日本人と英語」の社会学
寺沢拓敬著『新英語教育』, 552号, p.44.

Masaki Oda

Leichsenring, A. (2015). A Teacher’s Exploratory
Inquiry of Language Awareness: Language Learner
Perceptions from Oral Presentation. The Center for ELF
Journal, 1(1), 41-52.

Andrew
Leichsenring

Cote, T., & Milliner, B. (2015). A report on the microconference on tourism English education. The Journalof Tamagawa University College of Tourism and
Hospitality, 2, 93-97.
Toh, G. (2015). Dialogizing ‘the known’: experienceof English teaching in Japan through an assay ofderivatives as a dominant motif. In D. J. Rivers (Ed.),
Resistance to the known: counter-conduct in language
education (pp. 144-167). Houndmills. PalgraveMacmillan.

Travis Cote &Brett Milliner

Glenn Toh
63

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

64

Oda, M. (2015). The Discourses of Proper ‘Assessments’in ELT: How Can Teachers Deal with Them Critically?
In Hamied, F. A. et al. eds. Developing Indigenous
Models of English Language Teaching and Assessment.
(pp.191-202). Denpasar; Udayana University Press.
Toh, G. (2015). Teaching English for academic purposesin a Japanese setting: problematizing and dialogizing
essentialist constructions of language pedagogy, culture
and identity. In M. A. Peters & T. Besley (Eds.), PauloFreire: the global legacy (pp. 335-350). New York:Peter Lang.
Toh, G. (2015). Teaching English for academic purposesin a Japanese setting: problematizing and dialogizing
essentialist constructions of language pedagogy, culture
and identity. In M. A. Peters & T. Besley (Eds.), PauloFreire: the global legacy (pp. 335-350). New York:Peter Lang.
Toh, G. (2015). Countering essentialist conceptualizationsof content knowledge in a Japanese CLIL situation.
ELTWorldOnline.com, Special Issue on CLIL, 1-16.
Retrieved from http://blog.nus.edu.sg/eltwo/2015/04/27/
countering-essentialist-conceptualizations-of-contentknowledge-in-a-japanese-clil-situation/
Yujobo, Y.J. (2015). Multiple Assessment Strategies andRubrics for the 4Cs of 21st Century Skills. The Asian
Conference on Language Learning. The International
Academic Forum. p.273-284.
Milliner, B., & Flowers, S. (2015). Form technology
for language teachers: How do you like your monkey?.
The Language Teacher, 39(3), 24-27. Retrieved fromhttp://jalt-publications.org/tlt/departments/tlt-wired/articles/4475-form-technology-language-teachers-how-doyou-your-monkey
Sato, T., & Ikeda, N. (2015). Test-taker perception ofwhat test items measure: a potential impact of facevalidity on student learning. Language Testing in Asia,
5(10).doi:10.1186/s40468-015-0019-z
Milliner, B. (2015). Using smartphones in the language
classroom: Making the most of core smartphone apps.
Accents Asia, 8(1), 9-11.
Toh, G. (2015). English in Japan: indecisions,inequalities, and practices of relocalization. In R. Tupas(Ed.), Unequal Englishes: The politics of Englishes
today (pp. 111-129). London: Palgrave McMillan.

Masaki Oda

Glenn Toh

Glenn Toh

Yuri Jody
YujoboBrett Milliner& Simeon
Flowers (Tokai
University)
Takanori Sato
& Naoki Ikeda(University of
Melbourne)
Brett Milliner

Glenn Toh

✓

✓

✓

Cote, T., & Milliner. B. (2015). Implementing andmanaging an online extensive reading program: Students Travis Cote &
performance and perceptions. The IALLT Journal, 45(1),Brett Milliner
70-90.
Okada, T., Ogane, E., Milliner, B., Yujobo, Y. J., & Sato,
Tricia Okada,
T. (2015). Assessing ELF proficiency in project-based
Ethel Ogane,learning. The 62nd TEFLIN International Conference:
Brett Milliner,
Proceedings for Teaching and Assessing L2 Learners
Yuri Jodyin the 21st Century (pp. 202-210). Denpasar: Udayana
Yujobo, &University Press.
Takanori Sato
Milliner, B., & Cote, T. (2015). Mobile-based extensive
reading: An investigation into reluctant readers.
Brett Milliner
International Journal of Computer Assisted Language& Travis Cote
Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 1-15.doi:10.4018/
IJCALLT.2015100101
Milliner, B., & Cote, T. (2015). Comparing two
approaches to extensive reading (ER) management in
Brett Milliner &the Tamagawa ELF program: M-Reader and Xreading.
Travis Cote

玉川大学の教師教育リサーチセンター 年 報 第 5 号 ,

✓

✓

✓
✓

✓

115,123.
Milliner, B., & Cote, T. (2015). One year of extensive
reading on mobile devices: engagement and impressions.
In F. Helm, L. Bradley, M. Guarda, & S. Thouësny
Brett Milliner &(Eds), Critical CALL – Proceedings of the 2015
Travis Cote
EUROCALL Conference, Padova, Italy (pp. 404409). Dublin: Research-publishing. doi:10.14705/rpnet.2015.000366
Cote, T., & Milliner, B. (2015). Training ELF teachers
to create a blended learning environment: encouraging
CMS adoption and implementation. In F. Helm, L.
Travis Cote &Bradley, M. Guarda, & S. Thouësny (Eds), Critical
Brett Milliner
CALL – Proceedings of the 2015 EUROCALL
Conference, Padova, Italy (pp. 158-163). Dublin:
Research-publishing.doi:10.14705/rpnet.2015.000366
Yujobo, Y. J. (2015). Practical methods in measuring
Yuri Jody
21st century skills and global competency. The Journal
Yujoboof Saitama City Educators, 5(5), 9-14.
Oda, M. (2015). University English Language Programin Transition: EFL to ELF, then? Waseda working papers
Masaki Oda
in ELF 2015-06, 4, 199-208.
Milliner, B. (2016). Implementing a mobile-based
extensive reading component: A report on student
engagement and learning outcomes. In L. Yoffe &Brett Milliner
M. Iguchi (Eds), JACET Summer Seminar 2015
Proceedings, Kusatsu, Japan.

65

7. CONCLUDING REMARKS AND PLANS FOR 2016

In 2015, ELF classes expanded to become a campus-wide program reachingover 2500 students. The teaching faculty has also increased to over 40 full andpart-time teachers from diverse cultural and educational backgrounds. Thissituation represents an exciting opportunity for the ELF Center. We hope thatby (a) providing effective staff orientation meetings, (b) leading workshops on
Blackboard and e-learning, (c) providing lectures on ELF- informed pedagogy,and (d) collaborating with academic societies to host practical teaching events,
our program can improve and provide more effective language instruction.
In 2016, we are planning to review and revise assessment practices in
ELF classes, increasing the promotion of active learning, e-learning, blendedlearning and more informed ELF teaching practices. The CELF will also
publish our third issue of the Center for ELF Journal and stage another ELF
Forum in late 2016. The CELF is also very excited about hosting the JALTCALL 2016 conference, one of the largest educational technology conferencesin Asia. The CELF will also be collaborating with the recently formed JACETELF SIG.
REFERENCES

Cote, T., & Milliner, B. (2015). Training ELF teachers to create a blended
learning environment: encouraging CMS adoption and implementation. In
F. Helm, L. Bradley, M. Guarda, & S. Thouësny (Eds), Critical CALL –Proceedings of the 2015 EUROCALL Conference, Padova, Italy (pp. 158163). Dublin: Research-publishing.doi:10.14705/rpnet.2015.000366
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language: Newmodels, new norms, new goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leichsenring, A., McBride, P., Ogane, E., & Milliner, B. (2015). English as a
lingua franca: Towards changing practices. In P. Clements, A. Krause, &H. Brown (Eds.), JALT2014 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo JALT, 378385.
Mackenzie, I. (2014). English as a lingua franca: Theorizing and teaching
English. Oxon: Routledge.
McBride, P., & Leichsenring, A. (2015). Language awareness workshop: ELF inthe classroom. [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved from https://bb.tamagawa.
ac.jp/webapps/blackboard/content/listContentEditable.jsp?content_
id=_710153_1&course_id=_23818_1
Okada, T., Milliner, B., Ogane, E., Leichsenring, A., Imai, M., Cote, T., &McBride, P. (2015). A report for the center for English as a lingua franca(CELF) for academic year 2014-2015. The Center for ELF Journal, 1(1),
9-24.
66

Sato, T. (2015). ELF workshop: Teaching pronunciation in ELF classes[Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved from https://bb.tamagawa.ac.jp/
webapps/blackboard/content/listContentEditable.jsp?content_
id=_710153_1&course_id=_23818_1

67