2022 April
ISSN 2436-2867

ELF
The Center for English
as a Lingua Franca
Forum

玉川大学

Vol.

2

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

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

Research articles: Research articles should come with a description of theresearch context and research questions, issues pertaining to the researchcontext, relevant theories, qualitative or quantitative research data, detailed
descriptions of research method including clear demonstration of attention toresearch ethics and commentary.
Teaching articles: Teaching articles should provide a description of theteaching context, relevant issues related to the teaching context, teachingtheories and approaches appropriate to the context as well as comments
reflecting pedagogical praxis.
Forum articles: From time to time, the editor may call for forum articles focusing
on a particular theme or issue. Readers are also welcome to propose themes
or issues for the forum in consultation with the editor. Contributors will be given
the opportunity to engage with current issues from a given standpoint as wellas with each other’s opinions on the issue.
The Center for English as a Lingua Franca reports: From time to time, theCenter will request a report from full-time faculty. The reports can focus on avariety of features or services within the ELF program. For example, student
use of the tutor service, research projects, and faculty development.
Book reviews: Writers of book (textbook or other) reviews should first contact
the editors with suggested titles before proceeding with the book review.
ELF classroom practices: Articles should be brief “take-away” descriptions of
any activity, project, strategy or useful tool employed with varying degrees ofsuccess in the ELF classroom (i.e.,“teacher’s toolbox”).
How to submit your manuscript:
Please email your submissions to the editors with the title, “CELF Forum
Submission”.
email: celfforum@tamagawa.ac.jp4Issue 2 Foreword:
Pedagogical practice at CELF is shaped by inherently multilingual influences,increasingly multidisciplinary approaches (such as Tamagawa University’s
ESTEAM Education), and, as readers of this second issue of The CELF Forum
will appreciate, by inventively multifaceted approaches.
Accordingly, in this volume:1) Broad educational perspectives are adopted: guidelines for ELF-awareteaching are expounded by Tomokazu Ishikawa, and Global Englishes arepresented in listening activities as undertaken by Vladimira Hanzlovska.
2) Communicative language teaching and learning are emphasized: a taskbased language teaching framework is outlined by Richard Marsh, andtranslanguaging strategies for maintaining mutual intelligibility are examinedby Satomi Kuroshima, Blagoja Dimoski, Tricia Okada, Yuri Jody Yujobo, andRasami Chaikul.
3) Reflections on speaking tasks are presented: timed activities by Adam
Littleton and adaptations of a ‘4-3-2 Technique’ by Aldo Villarreal.
4) Classroom practices are critiqued: good writing as disclosed by Brent
Rexroad, the effect of frequent dictation practice on listening, by Lai Bao Hoa,
and New Word Level Checker as utilized by Brett Milliner.
5) Faculty development and research at CELF this academic year is summarized
by Rasami Chaikul and Brett Milliner.
Production of this second volume has been accomplished thanks to thecommitment of CELF faculty contributors, and the attentiveness and persistenceof editors and reviewers Brett Milliner and Travis Cote.
Thank you all for your valuable contributions.
Paul McBride, MEd (TESOL)
Acting Director, CELF

Contents
Global Englishes Listening Activities in ELF Teaching Practice
Vladimira Hanzlovska

1

How a TBLT Framework can Inspire Japanese University
Learners
Richard Marsh

9

Guiding Students to Good Writing: An Exemplar-based Model
Brent Rexroad

19

The Effectiveness of Frequent Dictation Practices in Students'
Listening Performance
Lai Bao Hoa

27

Talk Against the Clock: Timed Speaking Activities in the ELF
Classroom
Adam Littleton

41

Evaluating Classroom Materials with New Word Level Checker
Brett Milliner

49

ELF-aware Language Teaching at The Center for ELF: Five
Guidelines
Tomokazu Ishikawa

59'Translanguaging' Gestures and Onomatopoeia as Resources
for Repairing the Problem
Satomi Kuroshima, Blagoja Dimoski, Tricia Okada, Yuri Jody
Yujobo & Rasami Chaikul

68

Reflections on Using '4-3-2 Technique' in an ELF Course
Aldo Villarroel

88

2021 Report for FD and Research in the CELF
Rasami Chaikul & Brett Milliner

101

Global Englishes Listening Activities
In ELF Teaching Practice
ELF教育における国際英語のリスニング教材の使用について
Vladimira Hanzlovska, ハンズロヴスカー•ヴラディミーラ
Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Tamagawa University, Japanmirahanz@lab.tamagawa.ac.jp
ABSTRACTIn the age when the English language is used as a contact language among speakers ofdiverse linguistic backgrounds around the world, the boundaries between ‘foreignness’and ‘nativeness’ are being gradually blurred (Kavanagh, 2016). This situation should bereflected in the way we conduct our classes and introduce a variety of teaching methods
and activities built on the understanding of English being a lingua franca rather thana foreign language (Galloway & Rose, 2014). The present paper discusses the practiceof using authentic audio materials as the basis for in-class as well as at-home activities
which respond to the need to recognise English as a global medium of communication
characterised by linguistic and cultural fluidity.
KEYWORDS: English as a Lingua Franca, ELF, Global Englishes, Listening activities
1. INTRODUCTION
With non-native users of English staggeringly outnumbering those who were born andraised in English speaking countries, the chances of information exchange in English
between two native speakers is estimated at a mere 4% (Yadav, 2018). The alluring
image of prestige associated with the English language has not been reflecting reality
for a number of years, and it is to be phased out from the English classroom. It is hardly
just a matter of political correctness—the more our students realise that they also are theowners of English (Norton, 1997), the more liberated and confident they will feel aboutbecoming its active users at relatively early stages of their learning process (Flowers &Kelsen, 2016).
However, changing the long-established discourse of the native-speaker being
the ultimate role model in terms of language acquisition is not going to happen overnight
and certainly not spontaneously. We as ELF teachers should make use of the tools wehave at our disposal to slowly dissolve the clearly outdated native/non-native dichotomy
1(Matikainen, 2018), with the ultimate goal of empowering our students.
2. EXPOSURE TO AUTHENTIC GLOBAL ENGLISHES
Those teachers who take an active part in course building are able to regulate to what
extent their syllabi and course books assume the perspective of English used in global
contexts. However, even if the course content and format are fixed, we can still provide
our students with a regular exposure to the rich diversity of global manifestations ofEnglish whose common denominator is the pursuit of creation and transmission of
meaning across borders and continents. This pedagogical goal can be achieved througha variety of teaching methods and implements (Hino, 2018) aimed at the learners’
receptive, productive, and interactive skills (Hino, 2021). In this paper, I would like tointroduce a set of activities based on authentic voice recordings of speakers of various
geographical and linguistic backgrounds available from online resources. I have been
producing and successfully using these teaching materials over the past several years of
my English teaching practice.
The Internet-based resources I have been using and have good experience withare:(1) IDEA—International Dialects of English Archive (International Dialects ofEnglish Archive, 2021)(2) Audio Lingua (Academie of Versailles, 2021)(3) Spoken English (Bridge LCS, 2020)
The above websites contain collections of short speech recordings mostly based on
informal, unstructured or semi-structured interviews with speakers of English fromaround the world. Rather than being treated as varieties of world Englishes, thelinguistic samples selected for the teaching materials discussed in this article are seen
as validations of the fluidity of the medium which is referred to by Jenkins as English
as a Multilingua Franca (Jenkins, 2015). Quite legitimately so, this understanding of
ELF includes “‘monolingual’ English speakers, so long as they are able to engage inthe dynamic exploitation of previously unfamiliar linguistic resources by adapting to a
multilingual environment." (Ishikawa, 2017, p. 38)
On the whole, the interviewees’ verbal constructions can be described asloosely based on, rather than strictly tied by, the kind of English students encounterin their textbooks. Their lexical choices are largely free from abstract concepts. The
pronunciation often reflects the speakers’ regional origin (in case of native dialects) or
phonological features of their L1 (in case of non-native accents). Moreover, the speeches
are interspersed with a variety of audible paralinguistic cues (laughter, pauses, nonverbal fillers, etc.)
3. MERIT FOR THE ELF CLASSROOMThe ad-hoc character and authenticity of the speakers’ linguistic choices makes these2

audio materials a valuable resource of English our learners will be coming acrossoutside the classroom environment—in their professional as well as private lives.
Rather than teaching linguistic norms, the main objective of these activities
is to expose the student to a variety of Englishes—with their culturally influenced
lexical choices, as well as unique pronunciation and stress patterns and grammatical
peculiarities often affected by the characteristics of the speakers’ L1.
While the speakers are of different linguistic backgrounds, intentionally,
they are never labelled as such. For some of them, English is their first language, forothers second or a foreign language. In fact, some of the speakers selected for thecomprehension exercises discussed here live abroad, in non-Anglophone countries,
and English is purely their "contact language of choice" (Jenkins, 2015, p. 73). Eachlistening activity is titled as ‘Speaker from (country)’, often followed by a subheading
specifying the content (e.g., ‘on her hometown’, ‘on celebrating birthdays’).
It needs to be noted that the audio materials available on the abovementioned
web-based sources have not been collected specifically for pedagogical purposes.
Therefore, when choosing audio contents suitable for processing into language
comprehension materials, it is necessary for the teacher to take into careful considerationthese following factors:
Length and suitability of content (ideally around one to three minutes of levelappropriate and engaging content)
Geographical variety (in concordance with the diversity of Global Englishes)
Gender, age and in some cases ethnicity (e.g., Singapore, South Africa)
Conversely, the following characteristics of a recording could render the content
challenging and potentially demotivating, and therefore they should be approached withcaution:Amount of white noise (e.g., interviews which took place over the phone may
cause strain to the listener)
Heavy dialect (e.g., Glaswegian), pidgins, creoles (e.g., Solomons)Unintelligible grammar (Occasional grammatical slips are tolerable, but 		
excessive mistakes could deter understanding. Thus, such materials might betterbe avoided.)
4. OVERVIEW OF SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES
4.1 In-class Activities
When used in class, the voice recordings can be used as a basis for comprehension
exercises and speaking activities stimulating learners’ critical thinking. As there are
currently no similar ELF learning resources known to be freely available online, theseteaching materials need to be developed by the teacher. On most occasions, my students
first receive a worksheet with the ‘primary’ comprehension exercise. Once they get
acquainted with the contents of the recording, they proceed to work on the ‘secondary’3

activities related to the topic discussed in the audio recording.
The in-class activities broadly fall into two categories:(1) Listening comprehension—primary activities aimed at enhancement ofstudents’ receptive skills, e.g., ‘true-false statement’ exercises, multiple 		choice exercises, and exercises involving filling in missing information(see Appendix A).
(2) Critical/analytical thinking—secondary activities designed with the view
to improving the students’ productive and interactive skills; worksheets 		
containing the transcript of the recording previously heard, a number of 		questions, and a “word-phrase ammunition box” of useful expressions andgrammatical constructions (see Appendix B).
Students are encouraged to reflect on the central idea of the audio material. These
activities are usually done as pair work or group discussion. For instance, if the speaker talks
about the size of the family he/she comes from, the students are prompted to contemplate
the size of a typical family in their country and whether/how it has changed over theyears. When comparing their perspective to that of the speaker in the audio recording, thestudents are reminded that not only finding common ground but also acknowledging thedifferences in a positive light is very important.
4.2 Out-of-class Activities
The ‘primary’ listening comprehension is given as a home assignment only occasionallyas the web-based audio files tend to contain the transcript. They are mostly done in classand serve as a foundation for tasks to be submitted in the form of short voice recordings(1-2 minutes) or in writing (up to 150 words). These at-home follow-up activities are
particularly suitable for students with a lower proficiency level, as they allow them anabundance of preparation time.
These activities can be categorised followingly:(1) Analysis, reflection, opinion—in terms of form and content, these activities
largely resemble the above-mentioned in-class activities focusing on critical/
analytical thinking (see Appendix B).
(2) Language analysis—students are asked to briefly reflect on the speaker’s
language; answering questions, e.g., Did you find the speaker’s language easyor hard to understand? Did you notice any strange/unusual words? If so, can you
give examples? Did you notice any ‘strange’ grammar? If so, can you specify it?
Do you think the speaker has made a grammatical mistake? If so, what was it/
were they?

45. CONCLUSION
The language practice based on authentic instances of Global Englishes which I havediscussed in this article has proven to be effective in language instruction held bothface-to-face and remotely during the past two academic years affected by the Covid-19
pandemic. I create each set of activities with the goal of dynamic alternation between
receptive and productive language skills in mind. Students work on them individually, inpairs, and as a group. When selecting suitable audio resources and making the materials,
I pay attention to my students' language proficiency (usually within the range of A2 - B1
on the CEFR scale) and always choose to cover topics I believe my students find easy
to relate to. From my experience, these activities help facilitate a positive and proactive
atmosphere in the classroom, and they have been found useful and rewarding by manyof my students. Finally, it is perhaps needless to say that these activities are usually notdesigned for assessment purposes—their function is largely informative, and their main
objective is to broaden the students' understanding of the role the English language plays
in connecting people around the world. It is a modest, yet enjoyable step from TEFL to
Teaching English as a Global Language (Crystal, 2003; Kavanagh, 2016).
REFERENCES
Academie of Versailles. (2021). Audio Lingua. https://audio-lingua.eu/?lang=en
Bridge, LCS. (2020). Spoken English. https://spoken-english.net/
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Flowers, S. D., & Kelsen, B. A. (2016). Digital sojourn: Empowering learners throughEnglish as a lingua franca. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Focus on
the learner. Tokyo: JALT.
Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2014). Using listening journals to raise awareness of Global
Englishes in ELT. ELT Journal, 68(4), 386–396. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu021
Hino N. (2018). Pedagogy for the post-native-speakerist teacher of English. In S.
Houghton & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Towards post-native-speakerism: Intercultural
Communication and Language Education (pp. 217–233). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-981-10-7162-1_12
Hino, N. (2021). Language education from a post-native-speakerist perspective: The caseof English as an international language. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 25(2), 528–
545. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2021-25-2-528-545
International Dialects of English Archive. (2021). IDEA – International Dialects of English
Archive. IDEA: International Dialects of English Archive | Free Dialect and Accent
5

Recordings for the Performing Arts. https://www.dialectsarchive.com/
Ishikawa, T. (2017). Conceptualising English as a global contact language. Englishes inPractice, 4(2), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1515/eip-2017-0002
Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua
Franca. Englishes in Practice, 2(3), 49–85. https://doi.org/10.1515/eip-2015-0003
Kavanagh, B. (2016). Native speakerism and English language education in Japan. Bulletinof the Institute for Excellence in Higher Education Tohoku University, 2, 201–209.
Matikainen, T. (2018). Moving past native-speakerism in English language teaching(ELT) in Japan. Keio SFC Journal, 19(2), 102–113.
Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly,31(3), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587831
Yadav, A. (2018). English language statistics: An exhaustive list. Lemon Grad. https://lemongrad.com/english-language-statistics/

6

APPENDIX A(‘Primary’ comprehension exercise)
Speaker from India
The Indian Festival of Holi

Listen to Ulka speak about the Indian festival of Holi. Then look a theseven statements and choose a YES-answer or a NO-answer.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Apart from Holi, Ulka mentions two otherIndian festivals.
Holi is Ulka’s favourite Indian festival.
People in India celebrate the arrival of springon Holi.
People celebrate Holi in their homes.
Indian people do body painting on Holi.
Ulka mentions the colour ‘orange’ in her
speech.
Ulka gives the listener a piece of advice in theend.

Yes, she does. - No, shedoesn’t.
Yes, it is. - No, it isn’t.
Yes, they do. - No, they don’t.
Yes, they do. - No, they don’t.
Yes, they do. - No, they don’t.
Yes, she does. - No, shedoesn’t.
Yes, she does. - No, shedoesn’t.

Is there anything else you heard Ulka say? (optional question)

7

APPENDIX B(Secondary/Follow-up in class or out-of-class activity)
Holidays - traditions
1. Read the transcript of Ulka’s speech about Holi
Hello, my name is Ulka. I come from India. There are lots of festivals in India, like
Diwali, the festival of lights, the Ganesh Festival and Durga Puja. The festival that I likethe best is Holi, the festival of colours. Holi marks the beginning of spring. We all cometogether on the streets and splash each other with water and colours. Wherever you go,people covered in red, yellow, blue and green will let you join in. A quick warning, if you
don’t like to play with water and colours, stay at home on Holi.
2. Think - write - speak
Answer these questions:A. What festivals are there in Japan?
B. What is your favourite festival called?
C. What is the idea of this festival? What is thisfestival about?
D. What do people do on this day?
E. Why is it your favourite festival?
F. Optional question: Do you have any tips or
warnings like Ulka had?
Your ammunition (helpful words and phrases):● There are a lot of festivals in Japan, such as…
● Japan has many traditions. Some of the most famous/most popular festivals are ....
● My favourite festival is called… (in Japanese). It means … in English.
● The festival I like most is…
● The main idea of this festival is…
● On this day, people usually (go, meet, wear, visit, pray, eat)...
● I like this festival a lot because...
● It is my favourite festival because…

8

How a TBLT Framework can Inspire Japanese
University Learners
タスクに基づく言語指導の枠組みによって、日本の大学生がいかに刺激と意欲を得られるかRichard Marsh, マーシュ•リチャード
Tamagawa University, Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Japanr.marsh@lab.tamagawa.ac.jp
ABSTRACTThis paper will explain the general structure and phases of my classes at Tamagawa
University in a bid to demonstrate how, even relatively low level, learners can engage in
extensive fluency building activities as long as they have the appropriate scaffolding andsupport. Some concrete classroom examples will be provided to illustrate how the theory
that underpins my teaching methodology can be utilized to encourage invigorating,student-centered discussion in any communicative Japanese university classroom. The
methodology and teaching practice described in this paper can be tailored and amended
to suit a variety of teaching and learning styles and could be used sporadically as partof your multifaceted teaching arsenal, or even form the very foundation of an entire
university syllabus.
KEYWORDS: Task based language teaching, EFL, Fluency, Learner-centerededucation
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper will concern itself with promoting an accessible form of task-based language
teaching (TBLT) in the Japanese university classroom. It aims to inspire and instructteachers who most certainly have encountered the method in their Masters or Doctoral
research, yet perhaps do not have the confidence or practical tools to implement it intheir classroom. As an experienced teacher in the Japanese tertiary education sector, I
am privy to the classroom experience of many other colleagues and fellow professors at
Tamagawa University and other institutions, and I would observe that there still seems to
be a somewhat slavish overreliance on a teacher-led textbook-based ‘methodology’. This
often places a primacy on teaching points, rather than learning opportunities (Allwright,2005) and seems to favour L1 top-down instruction at the expense of L2 creativity andnegotiation of meaning. I also feel it all too often falls back on a strict textbook-based
single answer approach instead of building learner autonomy and striving for English
9

as a lingua franca (ELF) ideals such as the priority of communication over a strict focus
on form (Jenkins & Leung, 2013; Leung & Lewkowicz, 2006). There is nothing overly
original or revolutionary in this paper; however, I sincerely feel the vast majority of
those working in the tertiary education sector in Japan would greatly benefit from theideas and practice espoused here. We are all well versed in the theory of our discipline;
however, it is high time that this theory actually made an impact in our classrooms andthat we all put what we preach into practice.
TBLT has its roots in communicative language teaching (CLT) in the sensethat language acquisition is considered to be an unconscious, natural process where all
students will be at slightly different levels and receptive to different styles of learning.
This is in contrast to a teacher-led direct intervention style approach based on a synthetic
syllabus where the focus is on the accurate learning of teaching and grammar points tosuccessfully synthesise the knowledge of the target L2. As Allwright (2005) importantly
alludes to, we “all know that we must expect learners to learn less than has been
explicitly taught, but we typically pay less attention to the more interesting phenomenon
that learners can also learn more than has been explicitly taught” (p. 14). In this sense,
TBLT can be seen as the natural progression of CLT. As opposed to weak CLT which
paid lip-service to the theory of using authentic text and notions and functions in
the classroom and continued with the practice of mostly declarative knowledge andgrammar points (Andon, 2009). TBLT rationale can be said to be “based upon a learnercentred and experiential pedagogical approach which essentially claims that learners’
engagement in authentic communicative language tasks will drive language acquisition
forward effectively” (East, 2012, p. 2). Therefore, I would agree with Allwright when heasserts that TBLT does lay a serious claim to replace the traditionally conceived teaching
point as the primary focus for language lesson planning (2005).
Through this paper, I will explore how a task-based approach has been conceivedof in academic literature in a bid to assess the pros and cons of its application to mycurrent teaching practice. I will also briefly elucidate what is meant by a ‘task’, anddiscuss two aspects of TBLT in more detail. There are a great many aspects of TBLT
that this brief article has limited space to cover. Therefore, I shall focus my efforts oncovering two criteria in more depth, namely strong and weak TBLT. I will discuss how
this theory can be applied to the classroom and what limits and advantages emerge
when it is used in practice. Finally, and most importantly, I will offer three 100-minuteclassroom lesson plans that will turn this TBLT theory into the reality of a concrete
university level English class.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
While there are many variants of TBLT when it comes to how it is conceived of intheory and applied in practice, it is useful to initially discuss the rational that underpins
the approach before specific aspects of it are discussed. Due to a lack of space in thispaper, I will only attempt a brief summary of the approach and cover features I feel aremost salient. As East points out, TBLT as a method has now become recognised as ameans of actualising a communicative pedagogical approach which, irregardless of what10

else it may or may not include, incorporates an obligatory main task phase (2012). Whileit can be said this description of the TBLT approach may lack in rigour and specificdirection for teachers or academics, as Andon makes clear, there is a great variety in theway TBLT as an approach is conceptualised (2009). Therefore, I feel East covers thecommon denominators that form the key criteria of the TBLT approach, namely that it
has gained notoriety in EFL mainstream and is considered to be the current orthodoxy
in certain sectors of ELT, has its roots in CLT, and involves the use of tasks in some
capacity (Andon, 2009).
Many TBLT books have covered the definition of a task in far more detail thanis possible in this article. As there is a relative consensus between TBLT theorists about
what constitutes a task (Andon, 2009) and, as the principle concern of this paper isto demonstrate how TBLT can be made to work in the Japanese university setting, I
will only offer a limited, yet concise, account. Ellis (2003, pp. 9-10) offers six criterialfeatures of what constitutes a task that I feel reflects the general agreement in theliterature:
1. A task is a workplan
2. A task involves a primary focus on meaning
3. A task involves real-world processes of language use
4. A task can involve any of the four language skills
5. A task engages cognitive processes
6. A task has a clearly defined communicative outcome
The use of real-world language and the primary focus on meaning (as oppose
to form) seem particularly important from an ELF standpoint. It is also helpful to
supplement this definition with the contrast between a task and an exercise. Ellis further
clarifies that a task should elicit a focus on the target form in an incidental fashion whilelearners focus on goal completion. On the other hand, an exercise is usually explicit
about the target form, practice-oriented and intentional in the sense that it may no longer
be considered to be grounded in authentic text or having a primary focus on meaning(Ellis, 2003).
The strong version of TBLT, as advocated by Prabhu’s procedural syllabus,
places tasks as the central focus of language acquisition and not merely as an excuse to
introduce a teaching point or practice fluency (Prabhu, 1987). In strong TBLT correction
and focus on form are kept to a minimum. Tasks are not merely the methodology but thesyllabus itself, and second language acquisition (SLA) is conceived of as being acquiredin the same way as the learners’ native L1 was, solely through communicating and theexperiential focus of achieving the goal of the task (Andon, 2009). This has been widely
criticised, and Klapper (2003) goes so far as to say that strong TBLT is inappropriate
as a method for foreign language learning due to its similarities to first language
acquisition. While weak TBLT, e.g., Ellis’ (2000, 2003) task-supported learning, sees animportant place for structure in the form of pre-task and post-task work and an increased
focus on form with more explicit introduction of grammar and lexical items. However,there are still those, such as Klapper (2003), who are critical of it. “What I am arguing
11for is a weaker version still which accepts the primacy of the communicative focus
but reinstates declarative knowledge and practice at the appropriate point in the task
cycle” (p. 40). However, East (2012) feels that Klapper has failed to acknowledge thatweak TBLT does have (gradual) systematic instruction, while often incidental, which
is supported by influential theorists such as Swan (2005) and Bruton (2002, 2005). As
Foster (1999) points out, the various TBLT “approaches are somewhat disparate, butthey share a common idea: giving learners tasks to transact, rather than items to learn,
provides an environment which best promotes the natural language learning process”(p. 69). It certainly seems apparent that the use of tasks encourages the learner’sinterlanguage to stretch and develop. As long as the balance between goal-oriented
communication can be struck with an appropriate focus on form, then this will help tobridge the gap between CLT and make it a more rigorous pedagogic model that willallow more traditional teachers, who had a previous reliance on formal knowledge andteaching points, to embrace it more readily (East, 2012).
I will now discuss this balance and the ‘focus on form’ conundrum in moredetail and compare it to my own experience to integrate academic theory with my, albeit
slightly anecdotal, practice. In my experience, strong TBLT is effective for fluency
and immersement in the task, especially if students are at the appropriate level andhave experienced the idea or theme before. However, with little or no pre-task work I
felt that learners could often be overwhelmed and lack direction. In addition, from mypersonal experience, Japanese learners tend to have a good lexical and grammatical basebut often lack in confidence and fluency. Through the implementation of ideas such as
those I present below, classes grew in confidence over time and were not as afraid tomake mistakes and discuss more stimulating issues without as much guidance as thesemester progressed. As such, I would favour a form of weak TBLT with a clear pre-task
phase for group work and exploring ideas with the teacher and each other. However,I must make it clear and state that the method and practice championed in the second
half of this paper can and should be tailored to the individual classroom reality, theteacher’s own unique strengths and philosophy and good pedagogic practice in general.
As Mangubhai, et al. (2005) make clear, “it would seem almost impossible, and evenundesirable, for teachers to ignore any sound practices from general teaching while
using CLT approaches” (p. 53).
3. METHODOLOGY
I will now present the general structure of my method of teaching a 100-minute Japanese
university level TBLT class. This section will simply concern itself with the method andnot the specifics. In the following Procedure section, I will concretize this method withthree real lesson plans I use in the classroom. Initially, I would elicit a warm up topic
for the class to discuss for a few minutes to generate ideas and gauge their schematic
knowledge. Next, I would choose three students and get some examples. In total, thisstage would take 20 to 25 minutes of class time. This could slightly vary dependingon the exuberance of the class discussion and what kind of rapport or ideas I get fromthe three example students. I feel selecting a stronger student for the first example,
12especially at the beginning of term when they may not be used to speaking to the wholeclass, is prudent. I normally select students at random and based on their eye contact
with me. I justify this decision by telling the learners that class participation is important(In the case of Tamagawa University it is worth 20% of their total grade, although thisdoes also include homework assignments etc.), so therefore they should be proactive andwant to speak with me, but I will not make them if they do not wish to do so. The nextstage is where I will introduce the topic and/or task through elicitation or brainstorming
together. Sometimes, depending on the task, it is necessary for me to model the taskor speak at length; however, I would use visual aids to support this as I do not want tocreate an imbalance in the student teacher talk time. Again, I will give three examples ofthis in the next section. This stage would take perhaps 10 to 15 minutes.
After this would be the most important part of the class, the production (pretask) phase. This would take around 30 minutes. While I do encourage pair and group
work, as I want to foster a relaxed, communicative class atmosphere, many learners may
choose to do this individually while remaining quite quiet. As this is the most personalstage of the class where learners will need to focus the most, I feel healthy group
discussion combined with individual thought and research works best. You can usuallytell when the class is ready to progress to the performance stage as the volume of theclass will natural raise as learners move away from writing/preparation to discussing
their ideas. I feel it is sensible to walk around the room and check their general progressand either reassure them that they are ready or motivate them to think of some moreideas and work harder for a few more minutes. When the class is ready, I would usuallysort the class into groups of 4 or 5 depending on the type of task I was teaching thatday. There are many ways this could be achieved, and the teacher is free to use theirdiscretion. However, I feel counting the class out loud and having number ones, twos
etc. sit together is the most simple and efficient. I would model an example frameworkon the board and elicit a way for the leaners to start and finish their performance task
on the board. The middle of the performance is up to them, to the preparation theygenerated in the production stage and their willingness to express themselves freely,
support each other, and ask each other questions. Questions are always crucial at thisstage, and I often remind them their class participation grade will improve if they
support each other and ask follow-up questions. This method of teaching gives theteacher a great insight into how hard students work and to what degree they are willingto make mistakes in English, be creative, and support their fellow class members. It isalso an excellent, relatively stress free way to improve presentation and other fluency
techniques that you can choose to explicitly connect to your speaking assessments (InTamagawa we are encouraged to conduct two speaking assessments per semester).
Lastly, as this method depends upon student effort and creativity (As it is obvious if they
do no work during the production stage, they cannot hope to complete the performancephase), as such it encourages learners autonomy and puts an increasing emphasis
on student output and them supporting and even teaching each other as the lesson
progresses.
Finally, if there is time, I would get one student to volunteer an example fromeach group and encourage questions when they are finished, before offering feedback
13where appropriate. It is also absolutely possible for this method to connect to a
textbook topic or a follow-up homework assignment with further feedback or classwork
consolidation if desirable. Therefore, the six general stages of this TBLT method are
as follows: 1. Warm up questions with three student examples, 2. Introduction of thetask, 3. Production (pre-task) phase, 4. Performance, 5. Examples and feedback, and 6.
Potential post task assignment.
4. PROCEDURE
4.1 Draw your Past, Present, and Future
1. Warm up questions with three student examples: What are the best/fun/exciting/stressful etc. times in your life and why? Give real examples from your life.
2. Introduction of the task: This task requires very little teacher explanation as I would
simply draw 5-7 pictures on the board of my past (1-10 years ago, if you choose a longtime, then tell the students they can choose a period of their liking, perhaps when they
were in high school works best), present, and future. The future is usually the mostdifficult for the learners to conceptualize, so normally I choose 10 years in the futureand draw many children to lighten the mood, a house in Ginza, Mercedes Benz car,
PhD certificate, and a future travel destination, etc. This is usually sufficient to motivatethem.
3. Production (pre-task) phase: Learners simply draw as many ideas from their life as
possible. However, it is essential to not let them write. The medium of drawing is crucial
for this task as it will make learners improvise their final performance, rather than readfrom a script. This is normally a lesson I use early on in the semester as it is excellent
to build class rapport and friendship and even very quiet learners will engage throughshowing their drawings. In fact, I feel that the visuals help to release any tension during
the final performance.
4. Performance: I always write something like this on the board: ‘H__ e____, t___ i_ m_
a_____ l___...’, and then elicit: ‘Hello everyone, this is my amazing life…’ and present
some example prompts and a way to close their presentation and invite questions fromtheir group. I feel providing this framework on the board is essential and the simple,
yet incredibly effective, elicitation technique is something I use very often and, for me,is the number one advantage when compared to, for example, a pre-prepared power
point slide. It is also an excellent way to check student progress, class enthusiasm, andengagement (and a way to grade class participation) and build rapport with the class.
5. Examples and feedback: When you initially adopt this teaching method it is essential
to do this stage thoroughly. I would get an example from each group; however, do notchoose the student so they get used to accepting the responsibility that if they want to
get an S/A grade it is in their interest to volunteer. Also, ensure two questions (or more)are asked at the end of every example to reinforce the point that questions are essential.
14

As the semester progresses and you may need some class time for other activities it
may not be quite so essential and this whole stage could potentially be skipped if theperformance was performed adequately.
6. Potential post task assignment: This task could potentially form the basis of theprocess-writing essay as it could easily lend itself to a 3-5 paragraph essays about thestudents’ lives, or at least be written up as an additional consolidation exercise if sodesired.
4.2 Panel Job Interviews
1. Warm up questions with three student examples: Do you have a part-time job? Whatis the best and worst thing about your job? Why do you want to make money, and how
do you use it?
2. Introduction of the task: Have student brainstorm full-time jobs. Initially, elicit anexample such as junior high school music teacher in Tamagawa, but it needs to be a real
job in a real institution/company. Then give the class some time and get a few examples,
it is, however, essential that all students have a real full-time job as it will ensure theremaining stages of the task are more authentic. Next, brainstorm and research job
interview questions. Give an example, e.g., ‘What are your strengths and weaknesses?’,‘Why do you want this job?’ etc.
3. Production (pre-task) phase: They now have to make notes and think about theanswers to the 5/6 question you have gathered from the class. Remind the students thatthey have many skills and experience from their university, high school, part-time jobs,
hobbies, travel, living alone, life experience, etc.
4. Performance: Sort the class into groups of four or five and sit in a panel interview
style. Have the initial interviewee stand up and elicit on the board, ‘Welcome to the job
interview. Please sit down. What job are you applying for?’ The students then use thestructure to try the panel interview. This is usually quite a difficult class for the learners,
and would be even in their L1! However, the experience is usually very positiveand lively, and I feel it is quite an authentic task that has real-world applications to asituation they will experience in the near future.
5. Examples and feedback: Have them choose a student from each group to give a small
example with some supporting correction and feedback.
6. Potential post task assignment: This could potentially be done very seriously andbe reviewed and written up for homework and even performed again in the future toconsolidate the lesson.
4.3 Plan Your Perfect 10 day/2-week Holiday/travel
1. Warm up questions with three student examples: What was the best holiday in your15

life? Where did you go? What did you eat? Who did you go with? What were thehighlights?
2. Introduction of the task: I prepare some photos of a 2-week trip I took from Istanbul
to Athens via Cappadocia, Santorini, and Delphi. Using these google images the students
can quickly understand the task without too much teacher led explanation.
3. Production (pre-task) phase: Have them brainstorm some ideas and encourage
the class to fly home from a different destination at which they arrived, e.g., Paris toBarcelona, Buenos Aires to Rio. Then they need to write something for every day of thetrip and save some photos to show during their performance.
4. Performance: Elicit a basic structure to support the student and have them explain
their journey and ask questions in groups of three or four.
5. Examples and feedback: Choose a few groups to select a member to give the minipresentation to the whole class. Have the class ask questions and give feedback andsupport where appropriate.
6. Potential post task assignment: Again, this could potentially be written up even
including some research to find the real price of flights and accommodation to form thebasis of an essay or a method to further inspire learners to use their English skills totravel abroad and experience new cultures. I feel this task can help to encourage intrinsic
motivation (Marsh, 2018) and an authentic ELF form of English as it may encourage
overseas travel, study and integration in the future.
5. FURTHER IDEAS
By using these six stages I feel this versatile and effective method can be tailored tosuit a variety of different learners and be adapted to improve all four of the key English
skills. Some other example lessons which have proved successful for me include how
to cook a meal, write a creative story, interview the class (three closed questions, oneopen), choose a news article (e.g. BreakingNewsEnglish.com), introduce three to five
new words, summarize, your opinion and write three discussion questions, how to
improve the four skills (speaking, listening, reading, writing), movie guessing game,
etc. While there is no space to explain these ideas in more detail in this article, perhaps
it may be feasible to describe them in the detail they deserve in further academic
publications. Finally, two classroom tasks of debate (Marsh, 2020) and leader-led
discussion (Marsh, 2019) fit this method, albeit in a slightly expanded fashion, nicely. As
such, I feel this method could prove useful for one-off classes or even form the core ofyour teaching style and repertoire.

166. CONCLUSION
Overall, I feel there are huge merits in pursuing a TBLT approach, especially the weakerforms. There can, of course, be no straight forward advocating for one perfect model andin many cases even weak TBLT is very difficult due to the constraints of certain syllabus
requirements, examination criteria, and possibly even resistance from more traditional
teachers themselves. It is, however, important that we as teachers, and as people, try tobetter ourselves, to stay alive to new ideas, and invigorate our work by keeping a keen
eye on emerging theory and taking encouragement and enthusiasm from new research
to make our classes more fruitful and our learners more inspired. The future lies inthe sensitive application of an appropriate, and usually communicative, approach thatembraces the local context and treasures other teaching qualities, a sentiment I think myfellow educators could agree on and work towards.
REFERENCES
Allwright, D. (2005). From teaching points to learning opportunities and beyond.
TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 9-31. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588450
Andon, N. (2009). What roles do theory and research play in language teaching: a casestudy on the task-based approach in language teaching [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. King’s College London
Bruton, A. (2002). From tasking purposes to purposing tasks. ELT Journal, 56(3), 280288. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.3.280
Bruton, A. (2005). Task-based language teaching: For the state secondary FL classroom?
The Language Learning Journal, 31(1), 55–68. doi: 10.1080/09571730585200091
East, M. (2012). Taking communication to task¬–again: What difference does a decade
make? Language Learning Journal, 43(1), 6-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.723729
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching
Research, 4(3), 193–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400302
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Foster, P. (1999). Key concepts in ELT: Task-based learning and pedagogy. ELT Journal,
53(1), 69–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/53.1.69
Jenkins, J., & Leung, C. (2014). English as a lingua franca. In A. Kunnan (Ed.), The
companion to language assessment (Vol. 4, pp. 1607–1616). Wiley. https://doi:10.1002/9781118411360.wbcla047
17

Klapper, J. (2003). Taking communication to task? A critical review of recent trends
in language teaching. Language Learning Journal, 27(1), 33-42. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09571730385200061
Leung, C., & Lewkowicz, J. (2006). Expanding horizons and unresolved conundrums:
Language testing and assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 211-234. https://doi.
org/10.2307/40264517
Mangubhai, F., Marland, P., Dashwood, A., & Son, J. B. (2005). Similarities anddifferences in teachers’ and researchers’ conceptions of communicative language
teaching: Does the use of an educational model cast a better light? Language
Teaching Research, 9(1), 31-66. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr153oa
Marsh, R. (2020). A moot point: How group debate can engage and motivate Japanese
university English students. The Center for ELF Journal, 6, 43-54. http://doi.
org/10.15045/ELF_0060105
Marsh, R. (2019). How 'leader-led discussion' task can be effectively used in a Japanese
university setting and provide a productive method of assessment. The Center for
ELF Journal, 5, 23-35. http://doi.org/10.15045/ELF_0050103
Marsh, R. (2018). Cultivation of learner-centered intrinsic motivation in the Japanese
ELF classroom. The Center for ELF Journal, 4, 16-25. http://doi.org/10.15045/
ELF_0040102
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford University Press.
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied
Linguistics, 26(3), 376–401. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami013

18

Guiding Students to Good Writing:
An Exemplar-Based Model
生徒を良い文章に導く：
エグザンプラー指示のモデル
Brent Rexroad, レックスロード・ブレント
Tamagawa University, Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Japanbrent@lab.tamagawa.ac.jp
ABSTRACT
Assisting students in becoming effective writers in English presents one of the greatest
challenges of English pedagogy. Exemplar-based strategies for writing instruction canhelp learners master standard structures and rules of academic writing, whilst helping
them attain a sense of confidence in their ability to accomplish the end goal of a given
writing assignment. Students, using exemplar texts as models of good writing, areencouraged to remove the parts of the model text that do not apply to the expressionof their opinions on the given topic but leave the overall sentence structures in place.
Beginning with highly scaffolded activities and short writing outcomes, the complexityof the topics and sentence structures gradually increases, allowing for implicit learningof the linguistic rules that are often difficult to comprehend. The exposure to texts ofincreasing levels of difficulty over time can help increase independent student output andassist students in acquiring a toolbox of schemas and a lexicon that can be readily usedin both written and oral communication. In this article, we will explore the process andbenefits of such an instructional system using scaffolded model texts as exemplars.
KEYWORDS: Writing pedagogy, Exemplar-based instruction, ELF education, Process
writing
1. EXEMPLAR-BASED WRITING INSTRUCTION
The acquisition of writing skills in an ESL/ELF environment can present uniquechallenges to instructors and one of the most daunting tasks language learners face.
However, with the utilization of exemplar-based instruction strategies, writing
proficiency may be more easily acquired (Chong, 2019). By presenting exemplar texts
of progressive difficulty as an instructional and scaffolding strategy, learners have theopportunity to practice accurate and structurally sound writing that helps them smoothlytransition to more advanced outcomes and develop greater independent writing
capabilities (Levrai & Bolster, 2019), with the additional benefit of improved writing
quality and clearer writing outcomes. These benefits can reduce instructor workload

19

and allow instructors to pinpoint specific deficiencies in the students’ language abilities.
Additionally, learners are able to build a bank of schemas that can be used not only inindependent writing but also in reading comprehension and oral communication. Overtime, these can serve as a means to effective communication when using English as a
lingua franca.
In the exemplar-based instruction strategy to be described here, learners are
given model texts that represent ideal outcomes that serve as a learning mechanism
for the standard structures and rules of academic writing. Students are encouraged toremove the parts of the model text that do not apply to the expression of their opinions
on the given topic, however the overall sentence structures remain in place. Beginningwith simple topics and short writing outcomes with minimal redaction, the complexityof the topics and sentence structures gradually increases, allowing for implicit learningof often difficult to comprehend linguist rules. The gradual exposure to texts ofincreasing levels of difficulty and increased independent student input, along with theuse of scaffolded sentence structures, helps students acquire academic writing skills thatcan be readily used in both written and oral communication.
2. WHAT IS EXEMPLAR-BASED INSTRUCTION?
Exemplars are often a spectrum of examples of both the best or worst practices ofstudent outcomes. They are designed to help students gain an understanding of content,
to acquire language skills, and to articulate the criteria standard for a given task
(Newlyn, 2013). Exemplar-based instruction models in writing instruction allow learners
to practice expressing themselves in written language within a scaffolded boundary thatassists them in learning correct grammatical forms and functions, as well as the distinct
parts of an academic essay, without suffering the pains of trying to create an outcome
independently from scratch. As the texts progress in difficulty of language and theme,
the length of the sentence structures that remain unaltered should decrease. Extended
exposure to such texts leads to the ability to assign writing topics without scaffolded
sentence structures, creating a chance for the learner to create truly original outcomes.
An additional key principle to long-term retention of the presented phrases andgrammatical structures is exposure through repetitive reading of final and grammaticallycorrect outcomes. Students should be actively engaging with their own writing outcomes
and repeating the phrases aloud to help embed the language into the long-term andreadily accessible memory.
3. BENEFITS OF EXEMPLAR-BASED WRITING INSTRUCTION
The benefits of exemplar-based writing instruction are broad. However, some of themain benefits are that students intuitively learn the standards and skills of writing.
Student ownership of the learning process may also be increased, since they are nolonger overwhelmed by undirected and minimally scaffolded writing assignments
and can therefore concentrate solely on expressing the individual ideas. With the useof a guide in the form of an exemplar, the quality of student outcomes can also be20

improved from the very start of the writing process, which reduces instructor workload.
The language acquired during the writing process can also enable students to developtransferable language skills.
Additionally, instruction under this guided system allows instructors to focus onareas of weakness within a whole class or in individual students. These insights, serving
as an ongoing assessment mechanism, help instructors avoid the trap of teaching an
overly broad spectrum of language forms that may have already been mastered by thestudents, thus creating an efficient and effective classroom environment.
4. USING EXEMPLARS TO TEACH LANGUAGE IN CHUNKSAs shown by Krishnamurthy (2002), traditionally language instructors have focused onteaching words as independent things, like puzzle pieces that fill in their appropriate spotin the grammatical puzzle that is a sentence. However, a shift to lexis over grammar,from instruction of one-word units to phrases or “chunks”, has confirmed the notion thatnative speakers actually take in and produce language in larger chunks (Krishnamurthy,
2002). This natural way of learning is supported by the use of exemplar texts andservices the needs of additional language learners as well.
Learning language in the chunks presented within the exemplar texts allows
students to use phrases, structures, and difficult-to-master language that cannot onlytransfer to writing skills, but also improve listening and speaking ability. Carefulattention should be paid to the words and phrases used in the exemplars to ensure thatterms and phrases can be easily transferred to oral communication. Additionally, when
students are certain that what they are writing or saying is grammatically correct, they
develop greater confidence to attempt to use more challenging language, due in part toa decrease in the effects of the anxiety caused by affective filters, thereby promoting
greater language acquisition (Andrade & Williams, 2009).
5. USING JOURNAL WRITING TO TEACH ESSAY WRITING
When exemplar texts are used to help develop the skills needed to write well, learners
can express their ideas using the exemplar texts as guides that direct them to clear
writing. Then, as they progress in their writing ability, they reproduce phrases fromcurrent and previous journals and utilize the chunks of language that gradually become
part of their schematic map. At a certain point, they will be able to also use them when
they write on a wide variety of topics with little to no scaffolding needed. One approachto achieving these goals is using regular writing activities such as journal entries. Basedon incidental information gathered from personal use of this system, students tend to
begin using learned phrases and vocabulary in spoken language as well. This often
occurs without the learner realizing that they used a previously learned phrase.
From an instructor’s perspective, receiving writing outcomes from students
that are overall structurally sound helps to identify individual student weaknesses
without sorting through a plethora of poorly structured outcomes that may not be fullycomprehendible. In addition, by adjusting the contents of the model text, language
21

structures of which an instructor would like to assess comprehension of can easily be
added to the texts, thereby serving as an effective assessment tool that allows for easy
ongoing formative assessment.
Figure 1
Summary of the journal writing process
Step 1 – Read it
・
Read the model text to understand it completely.
Step 2 – Highlight it・Highlight or underline the parts that can be changed.
Step 3 – Rewrite it・
Rewrite the essay, removing the parts that differ from the author’s ideas andopinions.
Step 4 – Practice it・Practice the text by reading the corrected version out loud to help retain thebuilt-in grammatical structures.
6. EXAMPLE OF THE JOURNAL WRITING PROCESS
Step 1 – Read it and identify words and structures that are unknown or unclear.
Example 1.1 Beginner-level Exemplar Text
Self-introduction
My name is R. B. I am from the United States. My hometown is Los Angeles,
California. It is a big city with many things to see and do. It is famous for the Hollywood
Sign and Universal Studios. Many people visit my city every year and buy souvenirs.
They also like to visit the beaches and go shopping. Please visit my city if you have achance.
Step 2 – Highlight or underline portions of the text you think you should change.
Example 1.2 Highlighted Text
Self-introduction
My name is R. B. I am from the United States. My hometown is Los Angeles in
the State of California. It is a big city with many things to see and do. It is famous for
the Hollywood Sign and Universal Studios. Many people visit my city every year andbuy souvenirs. They also like to visit the beaches and go shopping. Please visit my city
if you have a chance.
22

Step 3 – Rewrite the text with your information and ideas.
Example 1.3 Beginner-level Student Outcome
Self-introduction
My name is T. S. I am from Japan. My hometown is Otsuki Town in the
Prefecture of Nagano. It is a small town with not so many things to see and do. It isfamous for vegetables and fruits. Many people visit my town every month and buy
vegetables and fruits. They also like to visit the mountains and go the hot springs. Please
visit my town if you have a chance.
Note: *Student changes underlined for clarity.

Example 2.1 Intermediate-level Highlighted Exemplar Text.
The increased amount of highlighted areas is an indication of an increasing demand forindependent student input.
Country Life versus City Life
There are many benefits to living in the city, but for me life in the country ismore appealing. In the city you can find anything you want easily and not have to go
too far to get it, but in the country you can find higher quality goods that were madewith care by local residents. You can also get fresh vegetables and foods, although thevariety may be limited. Life in the country is also much quieter than that of the city. You
can enjoy the calming sounds of nature by a campfire at night or the trickling sounds ofa river. People also seem to have closer relationships in the country, and you can easily
get help from someone you know. Overall, country life has more benefits than life in thecity, so I hope to live in the country in the future.
Country Life versus City Life
Example 2.2 Intermediate-level Student Outcome
There are many benefits to living in the country, but for me living in a big city
is more interesting. In the country you can enjoy quiet places, but in the city you canfind many exciting and interesting things to do, such as going to museums and concerts
easily. You can also get a variety of foods, although the food may not be as fresh as in
the country. Life in the city is also much more convenient than that of the country. You
can enjoy the many different cultures and see people from all over the world. People
also seem to have more interesting hobbies and you can easily learn anything that you
want to learn. I think visiting the country is nice, but overall, city life has more benefits
than life in the country, so I hope to live in the city for the rest of my life.
23

Step 4 – Practice the text to embed the language structures and vocabulary,but only using the corrected text to prevent the embedding of incorrect grammaticalstructures.
7. STEPS FOR INSTRUCTORS
It is best for instructors to ease learners into the process of using exemplars, as withany other instruction model, however the process for preparing learners is fairly
straightforward and can be accomplished rather quickly. There are a few basic steps
and tips to follow that will make the process as smooth as possible. To promote the useof English as a lingua franca and to help students get used to various forms of English,
it is advisable to utilize texts, phrases, and terms from many English-speaking areas of
the world. This will help expose students to the wide variety of English from different
settings and help prepare them to interact in an English as a lingua franca environment.
Step 1. Explain the process by completing the first exemplar together with the students
in class and using your personal information or ideas. Make sure to use a simple
text that is easily understandable.
		
A.
			
		
B.
			
			
			
		
C.
			
		
D.
			
			
			

Read the text together as a class and answer student questions if
there are any portions of the text or vocabulary that are unclear.
Highlight the parts that you would change to match your 		
information or opinions. Students should also highlight the text
along with the instructor. It is useful to discuss where changes canbe made together with the students.
Rewrite the highlighted parts, replacing the model text 		
information with your information.
Have the students do the same the process in class with instructor
support. If students have highlighted the text in step (B) they
will only need to replace the highlighted information to match
their situations and opinions.

Step 2. Assign a similar level model text so that students can practice the process ofusing model texts as exemplars. It can be beneficial to assign this as a pair or
small group project.
		A.
Check the completed assignments and review common errors in			the exemplar-text process, as well as in the language used. In so			doing, the instructor can find and address common issues made by			groups and instruct the learners in a more time efficient manner.
		
B.
Address common mistakes in writing techniques and grammar in			class.

24

Step 3. Assign progressively harder texts that require greater independent input from thestudents, reviewing errors and instructing students as needs require.
8. TIPS FOR EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION
Tip 1. It is useful to show both the original exemplar text and the modified text
simultaneously, making sure the highlighting and requisite changes are displayed in bothtexts, so that the process can be easily understood.
Tip 2. Use a model text that is easily comprehensible and contains vocabulary thatthe students are already likely familiar with. It is recommended to use structures andvocabulary from previous lessons.
Tip 3. If the language of the exemplar texts is far above the level of the learners, they
are likely to get discouraged and also waste their valuable practice time looking up
words in a dictionary. Therefore, it is helpful to use a good mixture of words that are atand just above their current level but easily accessible to them.
Tip 4. For absolute beginners, or when the students will be writing about a subject they
may be unfamiliar with, it is beneficial to pre-teach the vocabulary in the lessons leading
up to the writing lesson to avoid overcomplicating the lesson and causing interferencewith the writing instruction.
9. CONCLUSION
Using model texts as scaffolding structures to improve writing outputs can be aneffective tool to increase overall writing capabilities of students and reduce teacher
workload by helping students develop an intuitive understanding of essay formatting,grammar patterns, comprehendible phrasing, and the ability to produce more accurate
outcomes. It can also allow for a greater overall understanding of the target language’s
function and encourage integration of language patterns that often cross over into
increased oral communication and listening capability, thus allowing learners to use
the language academically, as well as functionally, in both communication with native
English speakers and as a lingua franca.
REFERENCES
Andrade, M., & Williams, K. (2009). Foreign language learning anxiety in Japanese
EFL university classes: Physical, emotional, expressive, and verbal reactions.
Sophia Junior College Faculty Journal, 29, 1–24.
Chong, S. (2019). The use of exemplars in English writing classrooms: from theory topractice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(5), 748–763, doi:
10.1080/02602938.2018.1535051
25

Krishnamurthy, R. (2002). Language as chunks, not words. JALT 2002 Proceedings,
288–294. http://jalt-p publications.org/archive/proceedings/2002/288.pdf
Levrai, P., & Bolster, A (2019). A framework to support group essay writing in English
for Academic Purposes: A case study from an English-medium instruction
context. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(2), 186–202. doi:
10.1080/02602938.2018.1487024
Newlyn, D. (2013). Providing exemplars in the learning environment: The case for andagainst. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 1(1), 26–32. doi: 10.13189/
ujer.2013.010104

26

The Effectiveness of Frequent Dictation Practices inStudents’ Listening Performance
生徒のリスニング業績における頻繁なディクテーション実
践の有効性
Lai Bao Hoa, ライ•バオ•ホア
Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Tamagawa University, Japan
hoa@lab.tamagawa.ac.jp

ABSTRACTThe researcher has proposed the use of a ‘Listening Portfolio’ with dictation as amethod to help students improve their listening performance in a previous study (Lai,2020). This teaching practice was carried on accordingly to verify the claims of theprevious research and reinforce the researcher’s trust in the potential of dictation as oneof the most powerful paths for both teachers and students in mastering English listening
skills. Theoretically, dictation proved to partly address Japanese learners’ trauma ofrecognizing sounds and decoding forms when listening to English (Yonezaki, 2014). This
study investigated the effects of a dictation training for 43 lower-proficiency English asa Lingua Franca (ELF) students. Students were asked to complete six listening cloze
tests and six listening dictation exercises during class time. At the end of the dictation
training, students’ cloze test scores significantly improved and students reported being
more confident about listening to English.
KEYWORDS: Dictation, Listening portfolio, ELF listening, Bottom-up listening, L2
listening instruction
1. INTRODUCTION
When learning a language, listening is the essential skill that provides the language
input for learners. According to Ito (1990, p. 23), “speech is primary and writing issecondary”. In Japan, a listening section was only introduced to university entrance
exams in 2006 (Otaka, 2011), yet this change has not brought a significant improvementin Japanese students’ listening performance (Hamada, 2012). Regarding the scorescale in the Center Test, while 50 points are for the listening section, the written part isworth four times as much (Otaka, 2011). Years after the introduction of listening to the27university entrance exam and more innovations to English education policy in Japan,
Takeuchi and Kozuka (2010) compared students’ Test of English for International
Communication (TOEIC) listening scores from 2005 to 2008, and found no major
progress in students’ performance. Therefore, it can be understood that English listening
skills may not be neglected in Japan (Lai, 2020) like they once were, but there should be
more emphasis on the effectiveness of teaching techniques. If more effective approaches
to English listening instruction can be established, the outcomes would be much more
promising (Hamada, 2012; Seigel, 2015; White, 2008).
There are a number of factors contributing to Japanese learners of English
struggling more so with spoken input. One possible reason is Japanese and English
use completely different tongues, in terms of structure, writing, and vocabulary.
Nevertheless, this factor is not as decisive for other Asian languages. Japanese seemed
to underperform on a number of English proficiency tests when compared to test
takers from other Asian countries. Japan ranked 35/72 according to a recent English
Proficiency Index Report (EF EPI, 2017). In addition, Japan even ranked fifth from thebottom among 30 Asian countries on the Test of English as a Foreign Language by ETS(2017).
Another reason for the underperformance is the unbalanced approach to English
instruction, which is literacy-focused rather than practical-skill-focused as mentioned by
Otaka (2011). In recent years, as more English communicative opportunities have beenoffered to Japanese students during English lessons with the help of an ALT (AssistantLanguage Teacher), the imbalances in English instruction still need to be improved
upon.
Above all, even though Japanese students receive some listening instruction
and receive incalculably more opportunities to listen to English, there seems to be a
deciding rationale that creates a gap between their comprehension of the phonetic forms.
Renandya (2012) listed five reasons listening instruction did not work with lower-level
learners, and suggested that there is a linguistic threshold learners have to cross before
they can benefit from any specific listening instruction or listening strategies training.
This aligns with the proposal by Ito (1990) who posited that, when students recognize
the lexical items, they find the speech more comprehensible. Therefore, how canJapanese learners of English be trained to recognize lexical items of English flowing
speech?
Regarding the process of foreign language listening, Oller (1971) was the first to
claim there is a schema in the procedure of listening to a foreign language and Yonezaki(2014) proposed the sequences in listening:(1) The listener perceives sounds,(2) The listener decodes the sounds he or she has perceived, recognizing them ascertain linguistic forms, and(3) The listener decodes the forms he or she has recognized, this time 		comprehending the meaning of the forms. (p.22)
English language learners can perceive the sounds easily; nevertheless, the second and28third stages of recognition and comprehending the forms have been trapping students,
making comprehension a great challenge (Yonezaki, 2014). Figure 1 below shows thethree processes.
Figure 1
Three processes of listening (Yonezaki, 2014, p. 22)

For lower-level students, the initial stages of perception and recognition still require
much effort (Buck, 2007; Goh, 2000; Rost, 2013). Therefore, to interpret the meaning ofspeech more efficiently, students need to be attentive to every word in speech.
For all the above reasons, teachers should help their students conceive sounds as“corresponding linguistic forms” (Yonezaki, 2014, p. 23).
2. DICTATION IN LISTENING PRACTICES
2.1 What is Dictation?
Oller (1971) proposed a dictation model in which learners classify different units inphonetics, then start wording, sequencing, analysing, and translating into grapheme
transcription (see Figure 2).
Figure 2
Oller’s (1971) dictation model

Dictation was then defined by Nation (1991) as “a technique where the learners receive
some spoken input, hold this in their memory for a short time, and then write what they
heard” (p.12). Norris (1993) also described this method traditionally as:a text is either read by the teacher or played on a cassette tape once straight
through while the students just listen and try to understand. The text is broken
29down into several short sections with a pause between each section. During thatpause, the students have to write down what they have heard. (p.72)
2.2 Types of Dictation
Dictation has been used widely by teachers in a variety of formats; however, the mostpopular approaches to dictation tasks include: Standard Dictation, Partial Dictation,
Dicto-com, and Dictation with competing noise (Habibi et al., 2012).
In this research, the students got familiar with two dictation tasks. Firstly, a Dictocom task, whereby students chose different extracts of English videos, listened to theextracts, then wrote the transcription of the texts (Listening Portfolio). This activity was
assigned as homework, hence students had more freedom on timing, listening attempts,
pauses, and dictionary references. The second task was an in-class cloze test (Partial
Dictation). Students listened to the tape, and filled in the blanks with one suitable word
as they listened.
2.3 Advantages of Dictation
When communicative methods in teaching English became more praised, Dictation
seemed to be “non-communicative”, and therefore neglected (Kazazoğlu, 2013,p.1). Until recently, dictation has regained its appreciation and has been used widely
by English teachers (e.g., Fujinaga, 2002; ; Lai, 2020; Satori, 2010; Wilson, 2003;
Yonezaki, 2014).
Yonezaki (2014) found that, due to the lack of sounds and sound segregation,
it is challenging for Japanese learners to listen to English. They are also trapped in
decoding the received sounds into linguistic forms. It appears that Japanese students’biggest weakness may lie in the frequent failure to listen to reduced sounds, unstressed,
weakened syllables, and changes in sounds (Fujinaga, 2002). Without a solution toaddress this issue, Japanese learners’ comprehension is blocked. To overcome thisproblem, dictation should be used to help students recognise the sounds, and reconstruct
the sounds into meaningful words, phrases, or even sentences. With adequate exposure
to the target language through dictation activities and self-discovery of the rules oflanguage mutations like assimilation, liaison, and elision, the students will go across theline and build confidence, as well as their skill of prediction (Yonezaki, 2014). This lays
the groundwork for the development of English listening skills.
In the ELT world, dictation used to be considered powerless—a waste of timewith no learning effect (Yonezaki, 2014). Along with that, teachers tended to focus on
top-down listening or listening for gist with the search for the overall meaning. Even
though dictation has regained its recognition as an approach to enable learners to listen
more effectively, this method still receives skepticism on the grounds of its efficacy(Fujinaga, 2002; Satori, 2010; Wilson, 2003; Yonezaki, 2014); therefore, this researchaims to verify the effectiveness of frequent dictation practices on Japanese English
students’ listening performance.

30

3. TEACHING LISTENING IN THE ELF CLASSROOM
Different studies have been conducted to explore the teaching of listening skills
in an ELF setting. Milliner and Chaikul (2018) introduced an extensive listening
assignment called Listening Log using the website ELLLO (elllo.org), which is a pool ofapproximately 2000 videos of monologues or conversations featuring native and nonnative English speakers. Likewise, in Listening Portfolio (Lai, 2020), students freely
selected listening content online and wrote a listening log entry to ensure their listening
comprehension. A Listening Log was also promoted by Milliner and Chaikul (2018) asa way to (a) expose their ELF learners to different Englishes, (b) prepare learners forusing English internationally, (c) help learners become more independent learners, and(d) enhance learners’ listening fluency.
Also, to improve the effectiveness of teaching listening in ELF contexts, anaction research exercising several listening training methods (metacognitive, top-down,
and bottom-up listening) with 147 Japanese students in an ELF program was conductedby Milliner and Dimoski (2019). The training appeared to raise learners’ interest in
listening skills, but the researchers did not witness any listening test score improvement.
Another quasi-experimental study by Milliner and Dimoski (2021) sought
to evaluate the effectiveness of a metacognitive intervention (i.e., explicit listening
strategies training) for 129 low-level Japanese ELF learners. The explicit process-based
method with different learning tasks was positively received by students, and they
showed confidence in their listening to some degree; nevertheless, there was still noempirical evidence of listening improvement after the treatment.
ELF teachers and researchers have clearly shown interest in teaching andresearching listening skills; yet, it is still unclear which approaches are actually mosteffective. The following study, however, can start from this threshold to evaluate theeffectiveness of dictation training for low-proficiency English learners.
4. METHODOLOGY
A survey, tests, and the author’s classroom observations were used to help measure theefficiency of frequent dictation practice on students’ listening performance.
A convenience sample of 43 lower-proficiency Japanese learners of English ata private Japanese university agreed to take part in the research. Following students’scores in a TOEIC Bridge® placement test take before the study all learners can beconsidered either A1 or A2 on the Common European Framework for Reference (CEFR)
scale1.
Ethical guidelines for academic research were followed by the researcher.
Approval from the university research committee was issued before the commencingof this study, and consent forms were signed by the students to permit the researcher tocollect and analyse their test data and questionnaire responses.
During the intervention period, students were asked to do six cloze tests, which
1
A TOEIC Bridge to CEFR levels conversion was retrieved from ETS (https://www.ets.org/s/toeic/pdf/toeic_bridge_cefr_flyer.pdf)

31

were gap-fill listening exercises. The recordings and the scripts were taken from thecourses’ required textbook: Facts and Figures (Ackert et al., 2018). A sample of alistening cloze test is presented in Appendix A. Before the cloze tests, the students were
unprepared as they did not know which recording would be played on the test day. The
students listened to the recording and filled in one suitable word in each gap as theylistened. Each test included ten test items (i.e., 10 questions), which were ten missing
one-syllable words from the passages. The words were randomly chosen by the app Text
Fixer (https://www.textfixer.com/tools/random-choice.php). There was no focus or bias
in the researcher’s selection. The maximum score was 10 (i.e., 1 point for 1 question).
The results of the cloze tests did not affect students’ final grades.
Secondly, the students received a formative assessment by which students ran
a Listening Portfolio project during the semester. Every two weeks, the students wererequired to submit one assignment by listening to a self-selected two-minute video andtranscribing the text. At the beginning of the ELF course, students were made awareof the fact that native-like English was not necessarily the goal for assessment, and thestudents were encouraged to choose their favorite videos made by native and non-native
English speakers. Also, only videos without English subtitles were accepted as thestudents needed to type the script themselves as they listened. To validate the honesty ofstudents’ assignments, throughout the treatment period, the researcher randomly chosea Listening Portfolio, played the video in front of the class, and asked the student totranscribe a short extract. A quick question and answer session followed the transcriptiontask. Bonus points were given to reward exceptional performances and resubmission
orders were given in the case of unsatisfactory performance.
The procedure was monitored by the researcher to ensure no students missed thedeadlines. After the 15-week course, all students finished six listening assignments (sixfull Dicto-compositions) in the Listening Portfolio. As the weekly Listening Portfolio
submission proved to be a heavy workload for students, every two-week submission is agood solution.
Apart from the introduction week and the revision week, the listening cloze
tests and Listening Portfolio submissions were scheduled alternately throughout 13
weeks. Every listening cloze test took about 10 to 15 minutes including the listening, thechecking, and the rehearing. With the Listening Portfolio, the students were supposed todictate a full two-minute video on a 2-week basis, which required a great amount of time
listening, pausing, rehearing, typing, and checking. Thus, the students got exposed todictation practices every week and the exposure ranged from the minimum requirementsof about 10 minutes to several hours if students spent enough time to explore theirchosen listening excerpts thoroughly.
Last, a questionnaire was delivered to students at the end of the semester
asking them a variety of questions relating to frequent dictation practices including
the Listening Portfolio and the listening cloze tests. The questionnaire is presented inAppendix B.

32

5. FINDINGS AND RESULTS
When being asked to pick the most challenging skill among the four macro language
skills (i.e., speaking, writing, reading, and listening), nearly 21% of students said it waslistening and 35% (the largest percentage) chose writing. Listening has been reported
as the most challenging skill for Japanese students (Farrell & Mallard, 2006; Renandya& Farrell, 2010); however, to the researched group of students, 15 weeks with frequentdictation practice seemed to minimize the students’ fear of listening.
Eighty-one percent of students accomplished the Listening Portfolio project
and a high percentage of the surveyed students (86%) became more confident with
their listening skill after a semester full of dictation practices. To the researcher’sobservations, the students’ attitude towards listening changed. The students werereluctant to do the cloze tests, saying they did not understand anything “わからない”
when the course started. Gradually, the students seemed to be more comfortable withdoing the cloze tests and the Listening Portfolio reports. Some of the students showedheightened satisfaction when they got correct answers in the listening cloze tests, andsome told the researcher they spent ample time on the Listening Portfolio. A numberof individual Listening Portfolios showed students’ great efforts with correction marks,
vocabulary notes, and students’ hand-written scripts. The successful impact of the
Listening Portfolio became more apparent when some students drew pictures next to thetexts to help narrate the story of the video they listened to.
Additionally, an analysis of students’ scores for the close tests revealed that most
students improved at the end of the training. A significant increase was recorded when
the average scores for the first two (M = 5.37 SD = 2.20) and last two listening cloze
tests (M = 7.17 SD = 1.37) were compared, (t (42) = 5.534, p<.001). Following Plonsky
and Oswald’s (2014, p. 889) field-specific benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes inapplied linguistics' research (i.e., small, d = .40; medium, d = .70; large, d = 1.0), theeffect size (d = -0.844) is medium to large. Therefore, the results from the cloze tests
provide a strong empirical argument for teachers to use dictation as part of their listening
training.
In terms of TOEIC score, about 44.2% of the students reported that they
achieved a higher listening score than they did in the TOEIC test for class placement.
When asked if students did anything else at home to improve their English
listening skills other than the Listening Portfolio, only 7% of students answered“listening to English music”, and “went to an English center”. Dictation assignments
appeared to be the only major listening practice that the students undertook throughout
the 15-week treatment.
6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The results showed the potential effects that these dictation practices can have on lowerproficiency English learners’ listening skills. The majority of students displayed lower
levels of fear of listening in English after significant exposure to it both at home and inclass. Furthermore, students felt increasingly confident with their listening after listening33

to and dictating different English texts throughout the treatment. If dictation can bringalong students’ confidence in a language skill, it deserves at least a try in more English
classrooms, or more drills both in class and outside the classroom.
Although students were expected to achieve higher scores in the listening sectionof the TOEIC test, only half of the students reported an improvement. The strongest
evidence that dictation supports students’ listening comprehension was observed in thecloze tests. Students demonstrated a significant improvement in their scores at the endof the treatment, and the effect size was medium to large (d = -0.844). If the dictation
training was undertaken over a longer period, one could speculate that greater learning
gains could have been observed across the entire sample.
The TOEIC does not include dictation tasks; however, frequent dictation practice
partly reduces students’ stress when dealing with spoken English input, and it appears toraise students’ confidence. Extensive listening and a Listening Portfolio may not bringalong the direct and clear effects in students’ TOEIC listening score, but it appears to
help lower-level learners be more motivated towards listening, grow as independent
learners, and improve their cloze test performance. As a result, dictation contributes tostudents’ listening mastery to some extent.
Previous findings have shown critical advantages of dictation on students’listening performance even though a number of opponents are still in favor of otherteaching methods, which are more effective and less time-consuming. This practiceoriented research was conducted to revisit the researcher’s belief in giving dictation achance in ELT (Lai, 2020). Moreover, within the Japanese ELT context where dictation
can be the salvation to students’ perennial deadlock, teachers and researchers should
give this approach more attention and welcome it with more utilization and exploitation.
6. LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER SUGGESTIONSIn this study, dictation, despite showing some positive effects on students’ listening
skills, has not brought about a significant advancement in students’ grades. The results
can be self-explanatory as within the designated time frame, the method could only
build up students’ confidence and still could not improve students’ listening scoressignificantly.
Furthermore, the institution’s research ethics committee did not permit the
researcher to compare learners’ TOEIC scores for tests taken before and after thetreatment. As a result, the researcher could only ask learners in the questionnaire
whether their TOEIC listening scores improved after the treatment.
Last but not least, much more reliable measurement devices on a larger sample,
and over a longer term would shed more light on teachers’ and researchers’ uncertainty
about using dictation for their students’ listening training and practice.
To add a deeper interest to ELF scope, further studies into dictation, extensive
listening with native and non-native English speakers, and its effects on students’listening ability may yield amazing results.

34

REFERENCES
Ackert, P., Lee, L., Hawkins, E., & Beck, J. (2018). Facts and figures. Cengage
Learning.
Buck, G. (2007). Assessing listening. Cambridge University Press.
EF EPI (2017). EF English proficiency index report. EF English Proficiency Index.
www.ef.co.uk/epi/
ETS (Educational Testing Services). (2017). TOEFL iBT®: Test and score datasummary 2019. www.ets.org/s/toefl/pdf/94227_unlweb.pdf
Farrell, T., & Mallard, C. (2006). The use of reception strategies by learners of French
as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal, 90(3), 338-352. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00426.x
Fujinaga, M. (2002). Why is English listening comprehension difficult for Japanesecollege students? An analysis of errors in students’ dictation. The Wakayama
Economic Review, 306, 1-22.
Goh, C. C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners' listening
comprehension problems. System, 28(1), 55-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346251X(99)00060-3
Habibi, P., Nemati, A., & Habibi, S. (2012). The role of listening comprehension in
dictation. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 5(8), 3208-3210.
Hamada, Y. (2012). An effective way to improve listening skills through shadowing. The
Language Teacher, 36(1), 3-10.
Ito, H. (1990). Comprehension gap between listening and reading among Japaneselearners of English as a foreign language. Annual Review of English Language
Education in Japan, 1, 13-27. https://doi.org/10.20581/arele.1.0_13
Kazazoğlu, S. (2013). Dictation as a language learning tool. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1338-1346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.195
Lai, H. (2020). Listening portfolio: A combination of extensive and intensive listening.
The Center for English as a Lingua Franca Journal, 6(1), 95-106. http://doi.
org/10.15045/ELF_0060109
Milliner, B., & Chaikul, R. (2018). Extensive listening in the ELF classroom with
ELLLO. The Center for English as a Lingua Franca Journal, 4, 36-50. https://doi.
35

org/10.15045/ELF_0040104.
Milliner, B., & Dimoski, B. (2019). Explicit listening strategy training for ELF
learners. The Journal of AsiaTEFL, 16(3), 833-859. https://doi.org/10.18823/
asiatefl.2019.16.3.5.833.
Milliner, B., & Dimoski, B. (2021). The effects of a metacognitive intervention
on lower-proficiency EFL learners’ listening comprehension andlistening self-efficacy. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.
org/10.1177/13621688211004646
Nation, P. (1991). Dictation, dicto-comp, and related techniques. English Teaching
Forum, 29(4), 12-14.
Norris, R. W. (1993). Using creative dictation to manage, motivate, and activate large
groups of false beginners. Fukuoka Women’s Junior College Studies, 45, 71-82.
Oller, J. W. (1971). Dictation as a device for testing foreign-language proficiency. ELT
Journal, 25, 254-259.
Otaka, H. (2011). Backwash effect of the entrance exam on English language educationin Japan. 言語文化論集, 7, 161-184.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2
research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079
Renandya, W., & Farrell, T. (2010). 'Teacher, the tape is too fast!' Extensive listening in
ELT. ELT Journal, 65(1), 52-59. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq015
Renandya, W. (2012). Five reasons why listening strategy instruction might not workwith lower proficiency learners. ELTWorldOnline.com, 4, 1–11.
Rost, M. (2013). Teaching and researching listening. Routledge.
Satori, M. (2010). The effect of teaching phonetic information through repeated practiceof dictation and reading aloud in L2 listening class. Language Education &Technology, 47, 159-180. https://doi.org/10.24539/let.47.0_159
Siegel, J. (2015). Exploring listening strategy instruction through action research.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Takeuchi, T., & Kozuka, Y. (2010). An analysis of TOEIC scores before and after the
introduction of listening test of the National Center for University Entrance
Examinations—A case study of international cultural studies majors, English
36

majors and early childhood majors. Bulletin of Aichi University of Education
Educational Practice Center, 13, 127-131.
White, G. (2008). Listening and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons
from Good Language Learners (pp. 208–217). Cambridge University Press. http://
doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497667.019
Wilson, M. (2003). Discovery listening—improving perceptual processing. ELT
Journal, 57(4), 335-343. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.4.335
Yonezaki, H. (2014). Effectiveness of dictation in improving English listening ability ofJapanese high school students. Research Reports of Nagaoka National College ofTechnology, 50, 21-30.

37

APPENDIX A
A Sample of a Listening Cloze Test
Facts and Figures: Reading and Vocabulary development 1
Unit 5: Lesson 1: The world of work: Future jobs
Name: ……………………………………………………...
Listening practiceFill in the blanks with ONE word as you listen.
Robots are replacing humans in many jobs. In the future this will (1) ______
more, so we need to create new jobs. We will need people to do different jobs because
our lives will (2) _______. So what jobs will you apply for in the future? What skills
will you need to succeed in interviews?
In the future, journeys to nearby places might be in (3) ________ cars. We will
still need mechanics to repair these cars, but they will need to gain new software (4)________. Also, although these cars are fairly safe, crashes involving driverless cars
will happen. Someone was killed by a driverless car in Arizona in 2018. In these cases
someone has to (5) _______who is at fault, so we will need AI (artificial intelligence)lawyers, who understand this area of law.
There will also be more drones. People will use them to (6) ________ goods, andthey may also be used in search and rescue and in farming. This means they will need
to be controlled. Drone companies will require drone fleet managers. People who now
manage fleets of trucks may have the skills to do the job of a drone fleet manager.
Another job might be commercial pilots to (7) ________ into space. Morecompanies will want to go into outer space in the future. Although many flights might
be controlled by robots, some flights will still need pilots. Passengers will make large
payments for flights, and will feel more (8) _________ if there is a real pilot on board.
Companies will probably hire airline pilots for these jobs.
Renewable energy is important because of global warming. Engineers will beneeded to develop renewable energy systems. We also need to recycle more of ourwaste, so (9) ________ might find work doing this. Companies will pick people whohave creative qualities as well as engineering knowledge.
Scientists will still be needed, but they might work in different fields. We willneed new (10)_________ to replace plastics. Scientists might find a role doing this.
They might even find a job as an organ and body part creator.
38

APPENDIX B
Student Questionnaire (in English and Japanese)
My name is Hoa Bao Lai– English lecturer of CELF center, Tamagawa
University. I am conducting a research to better the understanding about theeffectiveness of frequent dictation practices in students’ listening performance.
So, I would like to ask you help me by answering the following questions
concerning your English language learning. This is not a test, so there is no “right” or“wrong” answer, and you do not need to write your name on it. I am interested in yourpersonal opinion. Please give me your own answers as only this will guarantee thesuccess of the investigation. Thank you very much for your help! You may refuse toanswer any questions without being asked for a reason.
Please circle the most suitable answer for each question.
Question 1: What skill do you find the most difficult among 4 English language
skills?
A.
B.
C.
D.

Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking

Question 2: Did you complete your listening portfolio? **The listening weekly assignment is the Extensive listening and dictation.

A. YesB. No
Question 3: Did you feel more confident in listening to English and attaining more
new English vocabulary after you completed your weekly listening assignments andcompiled them as listening portfolio?
A. YesB. No
Question 4: Did you do any other listening practices at home rather than theweekly listening assignments?
A. YesB. No
If yes, what are they? (Please specify your answers)………………………………………........................................
THE END THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION! :)39

アンケート調査
玉川大学CELFセンターのHoa Bao Laiです。学生のリスニングパフォーマンスにおける頻繁な口述慣習の有効性についての研究を行っています。
下記の質問を回答していただきますようご協力をお願いいたします。こちらはテストではありません。みなさんのご意見は、今回の調査には大変貴重なものです。ご協力よろしくお願いいたします。なお，答えにくい質問は答えなくても結構です．
下記の質問の内容を読んで、当てはまるものに○をつけてください。
質問１：英語の勉強で、あなたにとって一番難しいスキルはどれですか？
A.
聴解
B.
読解
C.
作文
D.
会話
問題２：あなたは毎週聴解を練習していますか？リスニングポートフォリオにまとめて
いますか？
A.
はい
B.
いいえ
質問３：毎週聴解の練習をし、纏めることであなたの聴解スキルが改善されたと感じて
いますか？
A.
はい
B.
いいえ
質問４：授業の課題以外にで他の聴解の練習をしていますか？それはなんですか？
A.
はい (カッコ内に書いて下さい)
B.
いいえ
以上
ありがとうございます。

40

Talk Against the Clock: Timed Speaking Activities inthe ELF Classroom
時間との戦い：ELFにおける時間制限を設けた流暢さのためのアクティビティ
Adam Littleton, リトルトン•アダム
Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Tamagawa University, Japan
adamlittleton@lab.tamagawa.ac.jp
ABSTRACTSilence in the Japanese second language classroom is a well-documented phenomenon(see, for example, Banks, 2016; King, 2013; King & Harumi, 2020). This presents
challenges to any communicative approach to language teaching and is a particularhindrance to facilitating verbal output and, as a result, to the achievement of oral
fluency. In the field of ELF (English as a Lingua Franca), where other traditionallyemphasized aspects of linguistic competence, such as grammatical accuracy, aredeemphasized in favor of comprehensibility and ensuring efficient communication,
students’ reticence can be doubly inimical to their development of competence. While
there are countless methods to reduce student reticence, encourage verbal output,
and facilitate the development of oral fluency, this paper will argue for the efficacy
of one elegantly simple and straightforward classroom tool: a timer. The author will
first outline the rationale for timed speaking activities, rooted in the literature on oral
fluency. A number of model activities and examples from classroom practice will then belaid out, followed by a discussion of the limitations of such methods, and conclusions.
KEYWORDS: Fluency, ELF, Output, Timer
1. INTRODUCTION: SPEAKING ACTIVITIES IN THE ELF CONTEXT
Most practitioners within the Japanese context will be familiar with the culturaltendency toward silence in the Japanese language classroom and the barrier that thispresents to communicative language teaching, where facilitating verbal output among
students is frequently a cornerstone of lesson plans and course syllabi. Output has beentheorized as a necessary precursor to the development of oral fluency (Swain & Lapkin,1995). It is therefore imperative for teachers to find ways to encourage verbal output
among students.
41

For the practitioner of ELF-aware pedagogy, the problem of student reticencetakes on even greater salience. In ELF, grammatical rules predicated upon assumptionsof “native speaker” normativity are elided in favor of an approach which acknowledges
the diversity of English as used in the real world, where the majority of users are not,in fact, native speakers. Rather than focus on grammatical accuracy, ELF tends toemphasize the more practical skills needed to conduct communication between speakers
of diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, skills such as negotiation of meaning and“translanguaging” in real time (D’Angelo, 2018).
It is not difficult to see, therefore, how a tendency toward silence would present
a barrier to the development of the types of skills, as well as the open mindset, which
ELF-aware pedagogy seeks to elevate. The roots of silence in the Japanese language
classroom are complex and multifarious but will likely be familiar to most practitioners
in Japan: an education system which emphasizes the passing of written tests and ishighly focused on grammatical accuracy; a cultural risk-aversion and desire not to“stand out;” an institutional deference toward authority which implicitly regards theteacher as the “source” of knowledge and students as passive recipients. While anattempt at a comprehensive inventory of the cultural incentives toward silence would
be beyond the scope of this paper, those laid out above should suffice to illustrate
the gravity of the problem for the practitioner of ELF-aware pedagogy. Having
absorbed different notions about the goals, methods, and mechanisms of language
education, students may not understand, or may even resist, more student-centered orcommunicative approaches. Failing to see the utility of activities which promote verbal
output for its own sake, students may respond with silence, apathy, or disengagement.
However, despite the apparent gap between traditional Japanese education and ELFaware pedagogy, it is possible to find areas of overlap between the two. Instructors canappeal simultaneously to students’ expectations of testable, quantitative measures ofprogress in highly controlled settings and to ELF’s emphasis on qualitative, dynamic
communicative ability in fluid and diverse conditions. Timed speaking activities are one
way to do this.
2. BACKGROUND: Defining Fluency
Fluency is often viewed as one prong in a tripartite division of linguistic competence,
the other two being accuracy and complexity (Skehan, 1989). Accuracy and complexity
are comparatively easy to define and to measure: accuracy being conformity togrammatical norms and complexity consisting of variability in vocabulary, grammar,
syntax, or other measurable features. Fluency, by contrast, is more difficult both todefine and to quantify. Though colloquially, “fluency” is often understood to be astand-in for general linguistic competence, linguists have thus far failed to come to aconsensus on just what the term denotes.
Across the various definitions which have been put forward, however, certain
themes can be observed. One of these is time. “Defining fluency as distinct from otheraspects of oral proficiency leads us repeatedly back to temporal variables in speech, suchas speed, pauses, hesitations, fillers, and so on” (Wood, 2001, p. 574). Perhaps the most42

straightforward example of this understanding is given by Fillmore, who defines fluency
as: “The ability to talk at length with few pauses, the ability to fill time with talk”(Fillmore, 1979, cited in Tavakoli, 2011, p. 72).
Most understandings of fluency, then, acknowledge the importance of time inits measurement. However, this relatively straightforward foundation has given rise toa host of increasingly complex and nuanced definitions used in various fields, and to aplethora of instruments designed to rigorously measure them. Most fall into two basic
categories: speech rate (including measures such as articulation rate, or the numberof syllables spoken per minute, and phonation ratio, or time spent speaking measured
against time required to produce speech) and utterance length (including measures suchas mean length of utterance or mean length of run) (Mora & Valls-Ferrer, 2012). Most
measures of speech rate rely upon measuring the time and are thus most relevant to theactivities laid out in this paper. It is important to note, however, that utterance lengthneed not be defined by time, but by the number of words or morphemes divided bydysfluent pauses. Both types of measurement are valuable in gathering quantitative dataon fluency, though timed methods are far more practical in the classroom.
Practicality also limits the usefulness in the classroom of some of the more
rigorous instruments for measuring timed fluency, valuable though they may be in
empirical research. However, regardless of the rigor of the instrument used to measure
it, the ability to assign a quantitative value to students’ oral fluency is beneficial bothfor student motivation and for students’ perception of the utility of fluency activities.
When students can empirically verify their improving language proficiency—e.g. thatthey are able to speak fluently in English for measurably longer periods of time—their
engagement and effort improve as a result.
3. TIMED FLUENCY ACTIVITIES IN THE JAPANESE ELF CLASSROOM
Effective timed fluency activities for the Japanese ELF classroom should prompt
students, above all, to speak. Students’ first goal is to fill a set period of time (forexample, thirty seconds) with verbal output. The second goal is to avoid dysfluent
pauses (for example, a pause of more than three seconds). If both goals are met, thestudent has achieved the desired outcome and succeeded in the activity.
Such an arrangement has numerous benefits. Given clear and measurable goals,
students are easily able to discern the short-term “purpose” of the activity, somethingthat is not necessarily the case with speaking and discussion tasks that are more openended. While the rationale for discussions may strike the instructor as perfectly obvious,
students accustomed to rigidly structured teacher-centered classes may interpret suchloosely defined activities as either debilitating in their freedom or lacking in seriousness.
By establishing strict and easily understandable parameters, the teacher can both provide
a degree of structure with which many students in the Japanese language classroom will
feel comfortable, and simultaneously foster growth by gently pushing students out of
their comfort zones in other ways—such as encouraging them to produce fluent verbal
output. Students are forced to work with the linguistic resources that they have. Unable
to consult a textbook or pause to search for the right words or the proper grammar, they43

must learn the skills of improvisation, thinking on their feet, and using fill words to keep
their listeners engaged, all skills in keeping with ELF’s emphasis on the negotiation of
meaning. In the author’s own experience, this process is often liberating and enjoyablefor students.
Below, I outline several classroom activities that can make use of a timer toimprove students’ oral fluency.
3.1 Activity 1: “Up the Ante”
This is a variation of a common fluency activity. In the original version, students are
asked to tell the same story or deliver the same set of information three times. With
each repetition, the amount of time allotted to convey the information decreases. The
diminishing time limit is meant to force students to speak more succinctly. However,I have found that the majority of Japanese students struggle to fill longer amounts oftime, and so I have reversed the premise, beginning with a shorter target and graduallyextending it so that students are forced to speak at greater length. This in some ways
turns the goal of the original activity on its head; rather than fostering succinctness, it
encourages garrulousness, which is typically the greater challenge for many JapaneseEnglish learners, particularly those of lower proficiency. The activity can be conducted
as follows:1.
Pair students with a partner.
2.
Label one partner A and the other B.
3.
Designate a period of time (e.g. 30 seconds).
4.
Assign students a topic and write it on the board. (This can be selected		
randomly, or can be related to material from class, such as themes for a		textbook.)
5.
One partner (A) controls the timer (most students will have a timer on		their smartphones). The other (B) must speak for 30 seconds about the		
topic without pausing (a pause is identified as 3 seconds of silence). If		they are able to meet both criteria, they have succeeded.
6.
Students then switch roles and repeat steps 1-5.
7.
Students switch partners. (See Appendix for a diagram on suggestions for		student rotations.)
8.
Students then speak on the same topic, but this time the target time is		increased (e.g., to 1 minute).
9.
Repeat, gradually increasing the time students must speak.
3.2 Activity 2: “Fluency Duel”
The below activity is better-suited to more advanced classes (or competitive groups),
and is best reserved for use later in the term, after students have grown accustomed tocommunicative teaching methods and comfortable speaking in front of their peers. It isbest avoided with particularly shy groups but is a good way to push more advanced orconfident students.
44

1.
2.
3.
4.
		
		
5.
		
6.
7.

Divide the class into teams.
Call two students to the front of the class (one from each team).
Choose a topic.
Time the first student to see how long he/she can speak without pausing.
(It will probably be necessary to set a cap on time, e.g. one minute,especially for higher-level classes).
When the student pauses, or the cap has been reached, stop the timer andrecord the time on the board.
Give the second student a topic and time him/her.
The student with the longest time scores a point for his/her team.

3.3 Activity 3: “Talk-a-thon”
This is a variation on the first activity with more focus on the conversation topics andless on the time limit.
1.
Pair students with partners.
2.
Label one partner A and the other B.
3.
Give students a list of topics (preferably an extensive list; topics may be		related to daily life or to recent course material such as themes from a		textbook).
4.
“A” chooses a topic and sets a timer (e.g. for one minute).
5.
“B” must speak for the set time.
6.
Students switch roles.
7.
Students change partners and repeat.
4. CAVEATS AND LIMITATIONS
Activities such as those outlined above can help students to overcome reticence, improvetheir oral fluency, and develop crucial ELF speaking skills such as improvisation,
persistence, and a willingness to take risks. However, such activities come with certain
limitations which must be borne in mind whenever they are implemented in theclassroom.
Firstly, timed speaking activities are inherently artificial. Though fluency issometimes defined as the ability to fill time with talk, generally, this is not the goal ofcompetent communication. Time may be a factor in business communication or othertypes of speech but filling a set amount of time with talk is simply not how most natural
speech works. Additionally, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that a student’s
partner has truly understood his or her output. What’s more, the turn-taking as embodied
in the rules of the activity is far more rigid and stilted than would be the case in any
natural conversation, where participants would take turns speaking and listening in amuch more dynamic way.
In addition to being artificial, the addition of the timer renders the activity
mechanical in the most literal sense. If the goal of good teaching is to avoid“mechanical” processes, as some have proposed (Prabhu, 1990), then such a regulated45

practice as the one described above must be viewed with a healthy degree of warinessat the very least, and supplemented by other, more natural forms of communication.
In addition, the repetitive nature of the turn-taking and partner-switching threatens tobecome dulling if used for too long or too frequently. Expending no more than about 20
to 30 minutes at a time on such activities is recommended.
Finally, though the author has always found the above activities to be enjoyable
and motivating for students, there is no doubt that the element of assessment impliedby achieving or not achieving the activity’s time targets can induce anxiety for somestudents. The overall effect of the activities, which see students speaking multiple
times to multiple partners (who are their peers) is to reduce anxiety through practiceand relatively low stakes. But for some particularly reticent students, the timer can be asource of stress, especially in the early stages of the activity or early in the semester.
5. CONCLUSIONAs demonstrated above, the reticence of students in the Japanese language classroom
can prove an impediment to the development of oral fluency. One effective means ofovercoming such reticence is through the design of activities which demonstrate tostudents a quantitative and measurable goal. The timer used in timed fluency activities
is a simple and surprisingly effective instrument to overcome risk-averse silence anddirect students toward the goal of fluent speech and other communication skills such as
improvisation and risk-taking. Such skills are necessary in any communicative setting,but particularly salient to the dynamic and practical nature of ELF-aware English
classes. Setting a goal of a given time allows students to focus on production without
attending excessively to grammar. Setting a further goal of limiting pauses ensures thatstudents must continue to speak, rather than spend valuable time and effort mentallyarranging grammar and syntax or attempting to recall vocabulary. It also forces students
to improvise and find other solutions quickly if they cannot recall a word or explain aconcept. All of this is achieved in a relatively low-stakes and supportive environment
where their conversation partners are their peers. Though there are limitations to suchactivities which must be carefully borne in mind by the instructor, their judicious use
can demonstrably and empirically improve students’ fluency over the course of a term,
providing powerful motivation—and hopefully, even a bit of fun.
REFERENCES
Banks, S. (2016). Behind Japanese students’ silence in English classrooms. Accents
Asia, 8(2), 54–75.
D’Angelo, J. (2018). The status of ELF in Japan. In Baker, W., Dewey, M., and Jenkins,
J. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 165–175).
Routledge.
Fillmore, C. J. (1979). On fluency. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, & W. S. J. Wang
46

(Eds.), Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior (pp.
85–101). Academic Press.
Mora, J. C., & Valls-Ferrer, M., (2012). Oral fluency, accuracy, and complexity in formal
instruction and study abroad learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 610–641.
King, J. (2013). Silence in the second language classrooms of Japanese universities.
Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 325–343. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams043
King, J. and Harumi, S. (2020). East Asian Perspectives on Silence in English Language
Education. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788926775
Prabhu, N.S. (1990). There is no best method-why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161–176.
Tavakoli, P. (2011). Pausing patterns: differences between L2 learners and native
speakers. ELT Journal, 65(1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq020
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. Routledge.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes theygenerate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3),371–391.
Wood, D. (2001). In search of fluency: What is it and how can we teach It? The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4), 573–589.

47

APPENDIX
Example rotation pattern for switching partners during a timed fluency activity:48

Evaluating the lexical difficulty of teaching materials
with NWLCNWLCで教材の難しさを評価する
Brett Milliner, ミリナー・ブレット
Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Tamagawa University
milliner@lit.tamagawa.ac.jp
ABSTRACTThis article provides a practical example of how English teachers can use thevocabulary profiling application, New Word Level Checker—NWLC (https://nwlc.
pythonanywhere.com/) to evaluate the lexical difficulty of teaching materials. NWLC
provides teachers with a quick and objective approach for appraising the difficultyof a prospective text, test, or worksheet. The paper begins with an introduction to thecoverage comprehension model (McLean, 2021) and its implications for selectingclassroom materials. Importantly, this section discusses the recommended coveragebenchmarks for different receptive modalities, or what percentage of words learners
have to know from a text to sufficiently comprehend it. A step-by-step example of how to
use the NWLC to measure the lexical difficulty of a TED® talk follows.
KEYWORDS: Vocabulary profiling, Corpus-based approach, Lexical coverage,
Viewing comprehension, ELT materials design
1. INTRODUCTION
Do you ever come across a text or a scene in a movie where you think to yourself,“this would be nice to use in class”, or wondered, “will this text be too difficult for mystudents?” This article introduces an efficient and objective approach for answering
these questions—surveying the lexical difficulty of a text with a vocabulary profilingtool. In the example presented in this article, all a teacher needs to do is copy and paste
a text, transcript, or exercise into the free website, New Word Level Checker—NWLC(https://nwlc.pythonanywhere.com/). NWLC will then report on the text’s lexical
coverage. In more practical terms, the profile will indicate within which word frequency
band (usually a band of 1000 words–1K) the text’s vocabulary falls into. As the meaningof higher frequency words are more likely to be known to students, a text comprisedof more high-frequency words will generally be easier for learners to comprehend. To
that end, the lexical profile report can be used as a measurement of a text’s difficulty,
49and determine its appropriateness for different learning tasks. This article will provide
English teachers with a practical example of how to use NWLC to evaluate the lexical
coverage (difficulty) of a TED talk. But first, however, it is important to discuss thedevelopments in lexical coverage research and how it can help teachers make more
informed decisions about the appropriateness of classroom materials.
2. COVERAGE COMPREHENSION MODEL & SELECTION OF CLASSROOM
MATERIALS
The coverage comprehension model (see McLean, 2021) argues that if learners know
the meanings of approximately 98% of the words within a written text, the lexical
difficulty of the text should not inhibit comprehension. To put it more succinctly,
if a language learner knows fewer than 98% of the words on a page, they will havetrouble comprehending the text (e.g., Hu & Nation, 2000; Laufer, 1989, Schmitt et al.,2011). For readers hearing about this concept for the first time, 98% may seem like aconservative benchmark, as learners can draw from background knowledge and use
other metacognitive strategies to overcome the comprehension gaps created by unknown
vocabulary. However, in the example texts below where pseudowords have been used inplace of real words, the comprehension difficulties even a very advanced English reader
experiences when reading with 95% (Figure 1) and 90% (Figure 2) coverage ought tobe glaringly obvious. Furthermore, it is worthwhile noting that all words are not equal.
Comprehension difficulties are compounded when an unknown word significantly
contributes to a text’s meaning.
Figure 1
An example of a graded reader text with 95% coverage

50

Figure 2
An example of a graded reader text with 90% coverage

Some readers may also wonder whether different modalities, such as audiovisual input,
where learners can draw from spoken and visual cues, necessitates different coveragecomprehension benchmarks. However, studies looking at this question have tended torecommend coverage levels close to 98%. In listening comprehension, 90% coverage
may be possible in some contexts. Giordano (2021) found that some Japanese learners
could comprehend videos of casual dialogues at 90% coverage. Similarly, van Zeelandand Schmitt (2013) found that a small proportion of their participants (foreign students
taking graduate courses in the UK) could comprehend spoken narrative texts at 90%
coverage. Nevertheless, in both studies, the researchers concluded that listening
comprehension was much more stable across their entire samples when coverage
was over 95%. In a study that evaluated viewer comprehension while watching a
documentary series, Durbahn et al. (2020) found that Chilean learners’ comprehension
scores improved from 62% to 87% when the vocabulary coverage changed from 92% to99%. In terms of listening in academic contexts, such as a lecture, coverage benchmarksof 98% were recommended by Noreille et al., (2018) and Stæhr, (2009). To summarize,
while there are some variations in coverage benchmarks for different input modalities
and genres, these differences are negligible. Much more coverage comprehension
research is needed, particularly in the area of audiovisual input, but the evidence thus far
suggests that language learners need to know almost every word in a text to sufficiently
comprehend it.
When interpreting the coverage comprehension model, language teachers
also need to understand that there are often imbalances within learners’ receptive
51

vocabulary knowledge. Across a range of L1 backgrounds (e.g., Milton et al., 2010;
Mizumoto & Shimamoto, 2008; van Zeeland, 2013) English learners’ spoken receptive
vocabulary knowledge (i.e., the vocabulary knowledge available while listening) is
typically reported to be lower than their written receptive vocabulary knowledge (i.e.,the vocabulary knowledge available while reading). Therefore, students tend to findspoken or audiovisual texts harder because their spoken receptive vocabulary knowledge
is underdeveloped. Furthermore, the listening modality in general deserves special
consideration because language learners cannot control speech rates or accents, andwhen compared to reading, words are only available for a fleeting moment. Therefore,
the potential weaknesses within learners’ spoken receptive vocabulary knowledge and alack of agency felt by learners while listening suggests that a more prudent selection of
spoken or audiovisual texts would prioritize a 98% lexical coverage benchmark.
Lexical coverage research also has implications for the types of activities
teachers implement. For teachers familiar with the four strands (Nation, 2007), activities
focusing on fluency development (e.g., timed reading; see Milliner, 2021), lexical
coverage ought to be 100% (i.e., no unknown words in the text). For meaning-focused
input tasks such as extensive reading or extensive viewing, a 98% coverage level isrecommended (Nation, 2007). And, in language-focused instruction (e.g., exercises in an
intensive reading textbook with glossaries, dictionaries, and other vocabulary support)a recommended lexical coverage figure is nothing lower than 85% (Schmitt et al., 2011;
Stoeckel et al., 2020).
3. NEW WORD LEVEL CHECKER—NWLC
New Word Level Checker (NWLC) (https://nwlc.pythonanywhere.com/) is a web
application for vocabulary profiling designed by Professor Atsushi Mizumoto (Kansai
University) to meet the needs of Japanese learners of English. NWLC analyzes English
words submitted by the user and produces vocabulary levels based on the selected wordlists. As of writing, the NWLC can provide lexical profiles using the New JACET8000,
SVL12000, the New General Service List, CEFR-J, and SWEK-J lists. All of theseword lists were constructed with the needs of Japanese learners of English in mind. The
NWLC is just one of many free vocabulary profiling tools (e.g., lextutor.ca & Antconc),
but what makes it stand out is its use of flemma and lemma-based word lists, the userfriendly design, and its focus on Japanese learners of English. For a more detailed
description of NWLC please see Mizumoto et al. (2021).
4. HOW TO USE NWLC
In this example, a TED talk titled The secrets of learning a new language (Machová,2018) is profiled for a prospective listening task.
The first step was to copy the transcript from the TED webpage (Figure 3).

52

Figure 3
The TED talk transcript used for this demonstration (Machová, 2018)

Then, the transcript was pasted into NWLC (Figure 4). In this example, the Word List
selected is the New General Service List—NGSL (Browne et al. 2013) because it is
one of the most recognized word frequency lists in our context. As mentioned above, avariety of Word Lists are available on the NWLC, and the JACET8000 would also be an
informative alternative for this profiling task.
Figure 4
The TED talk transcript pasted into NWLC

53

From this point, you click the blue “1. Check” button, and the following text profilingreport is generated (Figure 5).
Figure 5
The profiling report from NWLCThis report shows that 91.72% of the words used in this text are found in the 2801word NGSL list. The percentage can be interpreted as your students ought to be able tocomprehend 91.72% of the words in this talk providing, they know all 2801 words in
the NGSL at the spoken receptive level. For a teacher checking the appropriateness of
this TED talk for classroom use, however, their focus ought to be on the cumulative total
column. It shows that if learners can decipher all proper nouns and numbers (3.76%)
and know all words in the NGSL, they may have a reasonable chance of comprehending
this text (i.e., the cumulative percentage is 95.48%). On the other hand, this text
would not be appropriate for extensive listening or listening fluency training as both
require >98% and 100%, respectively. Further down the analysis page, a color-coded
map shows which words come from the different NGSL-related word lists (Figure 6).
Interestingly, the words colored black represent the proper nouns, numbers, and words
unlisted in any frequency list (3.35% coverage). One could argue that some of thesewords, for example, polyglots, imitating, ingenious and gibberish would be unknown tomost learners. Hence, the combination of these unknown off-list words and an unstableknowledge of the entire NGSL, would lead a teacher to conclude that this text would
be too difficult for their students to comprehend. This text would only be appropriate as
a listening exercise for advanced students because, Japanese students studying English
at Universities in Japan are reported to (a) struggle with spoken input, (b) their spoken
receptive vocabulary sizes are relatively low (see Milliner & Dimoski, 2019; Milliner
54

& Dimoski, 2021; Mizumoto & Shimamoto, 2008), and (c) the volume of potentiallyunknown unlisted words in this text is quite high. Nevertheless, in situations where thistext may be appropriate, the NWLC provides useful assistance to teachers for effectively
utilizing this text in their classrooms. A teacher could pre-teach or provide a glossary of
the beforementioned unlisted words. Moreover, a teacher could click on the Word List
tab in NWLC to access a word frequency report and a list of Auto-extracted keywords(Figure 7). These auto-extracted keywords could also be incorporated into pre-listening
vocabulary instruction or schema-building activities to help give learners a better chanceof comprehending the video.
Figure 6
Color-coded items from the different frequency lists

Figure 7
Word List and Auto-extracted Keywords reports from NWLC

55

5. CONCLUSIONS
Before discussing the conclusions, it is important to note that knowing 95~100% of
the words in a text does not guarantee comprehension. The difficulty of spoken or
written texts extends beyond lexical knowledge as learners draw from grammatical,
metacognitive, and background knowledge for comprehension. Nevertheless, thecoverage comprehension model provides teachers with a reasonably objective
benchmark for evaluating the difficulty of teaching materials, and the NWLC represents
an efficient and accurate tool for this purpose. In addition, the NWLC helps teachers
identify potential areas of difficulty so they can provide the necessary support forcomprehension. Outside of appraising the difficulty or suitability of prospective teachingmaterials, the NWLC can be used to survey the lexical coverage of student writing
or check for overused vocabulary. Teachers interested in assessing their learner’s
lexical knowledge should visit Vocableveltest.org, which provides free, customizable
vocabulary levels tests (see Milliner, 2022 for a description on how to use this site).
With more level-appropriate materials, teachers stand to have a much greater impact on
their students’ learning.
REFERENCES
Boon, A. (2015). Zombies in Tokyo. Atama-ii Books.
Browne, C., Culligan, B., & Phillips, J. (2013). The New General Service List. http://
www.newgeneralservicelist.org.
Durbahn, M., Rodgers, M., & Peters, E. (2020). The relationship between
vocabulary and viewing comprehension. System, 88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
system.2019.102166
Hu, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Vocabulary density and reading comprehension.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403–430.
Machová, L. (2018). The secrets of learning a second language [Video]. TED
Conferences. https://www.ted.com/talks/lydia_machova_the_secrets_of_
learning_a_new_language/transcript?language=en
Mizumoto, A. (2021). New Word Level Checker [Web application]. https://nwlc.
pythonanywhere.com/
Mizumoto, A., Pinchbeck, G., & McLean, S. (2021). Comparisons of word lists on New
Word Level Checker. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 10(2), 30-41. https://doi.org/10.7820/vli.v10.2.mizumoto
McLean, S. (2021). The coverage comprehension model, its importance to pedagogy
56and research, and threats to the validity with which it is operationalized. Reading
in a Foreign Language, 33(1), 126-140. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/67396
McLean, S., & Raine, P. (2018). VocabLeveltest.org. [Online program]. https://www.
vocableveltest.org/
Milliner, B. (2022). Create your own vocabulary levels’ test with vocablevelstest.org.
The Language Teacher, 46(1), 33-35.
Milliner, B. (2021). The effects of combining timed-reading, repeated-oral-reading, andextensive-reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 33(2), 191-211. http://hdl.
handle.net/10125/67400
Milliner, B., & Dimoski, B. (2019). Explicit listening strategy training for ELF
learners. The Journal of ASIA TEFL, 16(3), 833-859. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/
asiatefl.2019.16.3.5.833
Milliner, B., & Dimoski, B. (2021). Effects of a metacognitive intervention on lowerproficiency EFL learners’ listening comprehension and listening self-efficacy.
Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211004646
Mizumoto, A., & Shimamoto, T. (2008). A comparison of aural and written vocabulary
size of Japanese EFL university learners. Language Education & Technology, 45,
35–51.
Mizumoto, A., Pinchbeck, G., & McLean, S. (2021). Comparisons of word lists on New
Word Level Checker. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 10(2), 30-41. https://doi.org/10.7820/vli.v10.2.mizumoto
Milton J., Wade, J., & Hopkins, N. (2010). Aural word recognition and oral competence
in a foreign language. In R. Chacón-Beltrán, C. Abello-Contesse, & M.
Torreblanca-López (Eds.), Further insights into non-native vocabulary teaching
and learning (pp. 83-98). Multilingual Matters.
Nation, P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching,
1(1), 2-13. https://doi.org/10.2167/illt039.0
Noreille, A., Kestemont, B., Heylen, K., Desmet, P., & Peters, E. (2018). Vocabularyknowledge and listening comprehension at an intermediate level in English andFrench as foreign languages. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 169(1),
212–231. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.00013.norSchmitt, N., Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text
and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 26-43. https://57

doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01146.x
Stoekel, T., McLean, S., & Nation, P. (2020). Limitations of size and levels tests ofwritten receptive vocabulary knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
43(1), 181-203. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226312000025X
Stæhr, L. (2009). Vocabulary knowledge and advanced listening comprehension in
English as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(4),577-607. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990039
van Zeeland, H. (2013). L2 vocabulary knowledge in and out of context - Is it the samefor reading and listening? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 52–70.
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.36.1.03van
van Zeeland, H., & Schmitt, N. (2013). Lexical coverage in L1 and L2 listening
comprehension: The same or different from reading comprehension? Applied
Linguistics, 34(4), 55-88. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams074

58

ELF-aware language teaching at the Center for ELF:
Five guidelines
ELFセンターにおける英語を共通語として認識した
言語教育: 5つの指針
Tomokazu Ishikawa, 石川友和
Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Tamagawa University, Japant.ishikawa@lab.tamagawa.ac.jp
ABSTRACTThis paper documents what features the English version of the newly launchedCenter for English as a Lingua Franca website, namely five guidelines proposed forteaching English as a global lingua franca. These guidelines suggest shifting awayfrom predictability and testability and prioritising individual agency and action inlanguage teaching, in preparation for the unpredictability and unexpectedness of global
communication among English users.
KEYWORDS: English language teaching (ELT), English as a lingua franca (ELF),
English as a multilingua franca (EMF), Multilingualism, ‘Trans-’ theories
1. INTRODUCTION
Having been established in 2014 by the founding director Masaki Oda, Tamagawa
University’s Center for English as a Lingua Franca (CELF) is among the world’s firstcentres seeking to apply English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) research to teaching English
for academic purposes (see Oda, 2017). At the time of this publication, the programme
starts its 10th year, and with a view to commemorating its decennial development, CELF
launches a new website in both Japanese and English.
In consultation with the current director Paul McBride and other CELF faculty,
and partially based on our previous work (Ishikawa & McBride, 2019), I have drafted
the manuscript for the new website. While the Japanese webpages aim to inform
prospective students of the ELF programme, the English webpages hope to facilitate
discussion of ELF pedagogical applications both inside and outside of CELF. As the
ELF field is constantly evolving, the English version, in particular, is likely to keep
updated. The present paper documents my initial draft for the English pages, focusing
on the rationale behind five guidelines to be proposed for ELF-aware language teachingat CELF. Specifically, prior to the guidelines proposal, this paper first introduces ELF as59

a major field in applied linguistics, and then appraises teaching and learning English interms of (1) its use as a lingua franca in a multilingual world, (2) the theories du jour inapplied linguistics, namely ‘trans-’ theories, and (3) the prevalence of Standard English
in ELT.
2. APPLIED LINGUISTICS, GLOBAL ENGLISHES, AND ELF
Applied linguistics is commonly defined as “[t]he theoretical and empirical investigationof real-world problems in which language is a central issue” (Brumfit, 1995, p. 27).
Global Englishes is a research thread in applied linguistics, and a major real-world
problem for its scholarship is how English users communicate effectively in the world.
Statistically, 388 million first-language (L1) English speakers (i.e., Anglophones) ofdifferent origins constitute a tiny minority of an estimated 2.3 billion English speakers(Crystal, 2019). Global Englishes is relatively new in academia and comprises two
thriving research fields: World Englishes (WE) and ELF. The former is often associatedwith a ground-breaking forerunner English as an International Language (EIL) (e.g.,Smith, 1981).
While WE has enquired into the relationship between the global spread ofEnglish and different local cultures and identities (e.g., Kachru, 1992), ELF has enquired
into transnational communication through English. ELF corpora, such as the ViennaOxford International Corpus of English (VOICE), have attested that monolingualism
in English is no longer the norm. Instead, ELF corpus analytic studies illustrate thatmultilingual influences and effects are contingent across linguistic levels, such as
phonology, grammar, lexis, pragmatics, and discourse structure (e.g., Cogo & Dewey,2012). In this regard, ELF ethnographically informed studies have repeatedly indicatedthat mutual understanding derives from linguistic accommodation or adjusting andadapting language use according to the situation (e.g., Dewey, 2011), often through preemptive and other communication strategies (e.g., Dimoski et al., 2019). Put differently,
participants, including Anglophones, need to use linguistic resources flexibly anddynamically in order to fit communication partners and purposes. More recently, with anincreasing recognition of inherent multilingualism in global communication (see Section3), and in conjunction with ‘trans-’ theories, especially translanguaging (see Section 4),
ELF research has started to question the existence of the clear boundary of the English
language. To put differently, it has duly accentuated the malleability and permeability of
named languages.
3. TEACHING AND LEARNING ENGLISH WITHIN MULTILINGUALISM
In applied linguistics, many Second Language Acquisition (SLA) studies have viewed
additional language leaning as if it were a universal process of becoming anothermonolingual person who speaks a second language as the main language “rather thandifferent people from monolinguals in L1” (Cook, 2013, pp. 37–38). Supported bythis view, the ELT and testing industry can be seen as abstracting and materialising a‘standard’ variety in a couple of Anglophone countries and commodifying it globally as
60

Standard English (e.g., Leung, Lewkowicz & Jenkins, 2016). Despite the monolingual,nationalist ideologies surrounding English language learning, our real-worldcommunication goes across the national scale, and English is normally just part, not thewhole, of our communicative repertoires.
Jenkins (2015) foregrounds multilingualism in the ELF field, and her notion ofEnglish as a multilingua franca (EMF) posits that multilingualism is “the one single
factor without which there would be no ELF” (p. 63). The working definition of EMF
scenarios is: “Multilingual communication in which English is available as a contact
language of choice, but is not necessarily chosen” (p. 73). English users in a multilingual
world face the opposing forces of monolingually orientated, ideological ‘fixity’ andmultilingual, pragmatic ‘fluidity’ during interaction. The ideology of national languages,
especially ‘standard’ varieties, as systematic ‘objects’ remains powerful whenever welearn language and communicate. This seems to be particularly true of Standard English
in English Language Teaching (ELT). Even so, English learners and users develop and
exploit linguistic resources in a situated social context, frequently multilingual, throughand across global networks. With a view to reconciling the tension between ideologicaland pragmatic considerations, EMF awareness (Ishikawa, 2020a) advocates challenging
dominant essentialist, nationalist discourses around the English language. To be specific,
taking such an approach, instructors provide students with experiences of EMF scenariosand encourage their critical thinking about language, culture, and identity in reference totheir own experiences and in reference to extracts from published research.
EMF awareness frames English communicative competence within
multilingualism and requires it to move towards symbolic (Kramsch, 2009) andperformative (Canagarajah, 2013) competence. Precisely, in the light of empirical datafrom EMF awareness (Ishikawa, 2020a) and study-abroad teacher training programmes(Suzuki, 2021), this competence may be conceptualised as follows (Baker & Ishikawa,2021).
•
Conscious understanding of linguistic and cultural roles and effects on		interaction as well as meaning-making modes, both linguistic and non		linguistic,•
Flexible, situationally appropriate interactional practice based on this		understanding, and•Motivated attitudes or positive feelings and curiosity towards different		communicative practices and ‘others’.
4. TEACHING AND LEARNING ENGLISH FROM ‘TRANS-’ PERSPECTIVES
Translanguaging investigates how individuals bring in particular linguistic resources
to create and interpret meaning in defiance of the historical and political distinction
between named national languages (e.g., Li, 2018). It often associates multilinguals’
creative communicative practice as a way of pursuing social equity, reflecting its roots inresearching speakers of minority languages (e.g., García, 2009).
Translanguaging also positions language as embedded in wider meaning-making
61resources, and the notion of transmodal communication directly pays attention to how
our communication meshes multiple modes (e.g., colour, layout, music, gesture) as if
they are inseparable (e.g., Newfield, 2014). Related to translanguaging and transmodal
communication is transcultural communication. Given the complexity and fluidity ofculture, it is often unclear what specific cultures we are in-between in global encounters.
Transcultural communication eschews describing how interactants mix elements ofpresupposed cultures and instead takes the nebulous, overlapping nature of cultural
categories, similarities, and differences as the starting point of investigation (e.g.,
Pennycook, 2007). In line with ‘trans-’ theories, the ELF field seeks to take a holistic
approach to global communication, and precisely, to comprehend how English users
make use of multilingual, multicultural, and multimodal resources by transgressing
and transcending ideological boundaries, linguistic or otherwise, in order to create newsocial spaces, practices, and identities (Baker & Ishikawa, 2021).
The ‘trans-’ theories of translanguaging, transmodal, and transculturalcommunication (or better put, translingual, transmodal, and transculturalcommunication) feature the pragmatic side of the aforementioned notion of EMF
and EMF awareness. They focus on processes of communication and adaptable useof meaning-making resources and modes. Likewise, the ELF field has observed the
cruciality of linguistic accommodation as an overarching pragmatic strategy for mutual
understanding. Taken together, it seems that there is a further scope for ELF researchersand educators to conceptualise accommodation broadly as follows (Ishikawa, 2021).
•
Adjusting and adapting the way of using language flexibly and creatively
		(i.e., translingual accommodation),•
Appropriating available meaning-making modes in an integrated manner		(i.e., transmodal accommodation), and•Adjusting and adapting the way of creating and interpreting meaning
		beyond cultural stereotypes or generalisations (i.e., transcultural 				accommodation).
5. TEACHING STANDARD ENGLISH IN ELT AS AN EXAMPLE
Globally commodified Standard English emanates from an ‘imagined’ Anglophone
speech community of affluent monolingual speakers in a certain period of time.
Fundamentally, it often relies on the intuitions of materials writers who are typically‘white’, middle-class Anglophones, and is different from the English they use forthemselves (e.g., Leung, 2005). Certainly, Standard English in ELT satisfies practicality
in the classroom by prescribing and applying one-size-fits-all linguistic rules. However,
ELF research, in reference to complexity theory, “sees communicative norms as always
contextually embedded and subjectively mediated, and therefore as emergent rather thanpredetermined” (Ishikawa, 2020b, p. 104).
The crux of the argument would be that ELT ought not to conflate English inits entirety with the ‘convenient fiction’ (e.g., Widdowson, 2015) of Standard English.
Given that most English learners are exposed to Standard English models, and that62Anglophones become familiar with a similar ‘standard’ variety through schooling (Hall,2018), ELF-aware language teaching would not completely reject Standard English
in ELT, but would heed its idealised nature and teach its linguistic usage, along withassociated cultural interpretation, as discrete samples rather than de-contextualised
norms. Students would be encouraged to explore and adapt these and other samples inand out of the classroom for the sake of their own communication, “with all knowledge
provisional and continually open to reflection and revision” (Baker & Ishikawa, 2021,
p. 296). Similarly, internationally commercialised English standardised tests seem tohave limited efficacy against the unexpectedness and unpredictability of transnational
milieux. In fact, in keeping with observations made by Jenkins and Leung (2019)about the need for institutionally contextualised self-assessment, Tamagawa University
no longer places new students based on their Standard English test scores. Instead, it
encourages their self-regulation by having them examine demonstration videos andreading materials at different levels of classes and self-assess their readiness for classcommunication.
6. GUIDELINES PROPOSAL
ELF-aware language teaching at CELF, and potentially at other institutions, may wantto facilitate teaching and learning English within multilingualism and from ‘trans-’
perspectives, thereby recasting Standard English in ELT as an example rather than apre-determined linguistic ‘object’. This endeavour is not reducible to a single teaching
methodology or an acontextual generalisation, but is likely to be made possible throughthe following broad guidelines.
•				

Guideline 1: Examine instances of linguistic usage and cultural 		interpretation, including Standard English in ELT, as discrete samples
rather than de-contextualised norms.

•
Guideline 2: Take a critical approach to communication that challenges
		
dominant essentialist, nationalist discourses through EMF awareness:
		(1) providing students with experiences of EMF scenarios, and (2) 		
		
encouraging their critical thinking about language, culture, and identity in		reference to their experiences and in reference to extracts from published		research.
•
Guideline 3: Move towards EMF-aware symbolic, performative 				
competence, that is, the competence to embody (1) sensitivity to 				
linguistic, cultural, and modal resources, (2) flexible practice according to		the situation (i.e., accommodation), and (3) tenacious interest in 				individual diversity.
•		

Guideline 4: Focus on processes of communication and adaptable useof communicative resources, in other words, translingual, transmodal,63		and transcultural accommodation, that is, adjusting and adapting (1)		language flexibly and creatively, (2) meaning-making modes in an 				
integrated manner, and (3) cultural interpretation beyond stereotypes or		generalisations.
•				

Guideline 5: Appropriate teaching to local contexts by recognising how
Guidelines 1 to 4 are implemented will be variable depending on theirrelevance to local conditions, cultures, and needs.

The above guidelines are still work in progress, and to be developed in future studies at
CELF and elsewhere. It is even possible that a rising tide of EMF-aware pedagogicalresearch challenges the epistemological and institutional structures that place the English
language itself as a core part of ELT (Ishikawa, in press).
7. CONCLUSION
ELF-aware language teaching may not be about pursuing something revolutionary. It
may be about pursuing good language teaching practice in general, as per the evolutionof the ELF field, and potentially through the aforementioned five guidelines (Section 6).
As articulated by van Lier (2007):
The learner is a whole person, not an input-processing brain that happens 		
to be located inside a body that should preferably sit still while the input 		
is transmitted, received and computed by the brain. The learner 			is a person with a social, embodied mind, with dreams, worries and 		
beliefs, and in need of forging productive identities that link the personal 		self to the new worldly demands presented by the new language. (p. 62)
To help students make meaningful connections with the globalised world, I sincerely
hope that CELF continues centring human agency and action in its education, andteaching English as their own lingua franca for this multilingual world.
REFERENCES
Baker, W., & Ishikawa, T. (2021). Transcultural communication through Global
Englishes: An advanced textbook for students. Routledge.
Brumfit, C. (1995). Teacher professionalism and research. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer(Eds.), Principle & practice in applied linguistics (pp. 27–41). Oxford University
64Press.
Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan
relations. Routledge.
Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a lingua franca: A corpus-driven
investigation. Continuum.
Cook, V. (2013). Global English: Central or atypical form of SLA? In D. Singleton, J.
A. Fishman, L. Aronin & M. Ó. Laoire (Eds.), Current multilingualism: A new
linguistic dispensation (pp. 27–44). De Gruyter Mouton.
Crystal, D. (2019). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language (3rd ed.).
Cambridge University Press.
Dewey, M. (2011). Accommodative ELF talk and teacher knowledge. In A. Archibald,
A. Cogo & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Latest trends in ELF research (pp. 205–227).
Cambridge Scholars.
Dimoski, B., Kuroshima, S., Okada, T., Chaikul, R., & Yujobo, Y. J. (2019). The initialstages of developing resources for teaching communication strategies in ELFinformed pedagogy. Waseda Working Papers in ELF, 8, 105–128.
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. WileyBlackwell.
Hall, C. J. (2018). Cognitive perspectives on English as a lingua franca. In J. Jenkins, W.
Baker & M. Dewey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca(pp. 74–84). Routledge.
Ishikawa, T. (2020a). EMF awareness in the Japanese EFL/EMI context. ELT Journal,
74(4), 408–417. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccaa037
Ishikawa, T. (2020b). Complexity of English as a multilingua franca: Place ofmonolingual Standard English. In M. Konakahara & K. Tsuchiya (Eds.), English
as a lingua franca in Japan: Towards multilingual practices (pp. 91–109).
Palgrave Macmillan.
Ishikawa, T. (2021). Translanguaging and English-within-multilingualism in theJapanese EMI context. In W. Tsou & W. Baker (Eds.), English-medium instruction
translanguaging practices in Asia: Theories, frameworks and implementation inhigher education (pp. 39–57). Springer.
Ishikawa, T. (in press). English as a multilingua franca and ‘trans-’ theories. Englishes in65

Practice, 5.
Ishikawa, T., & McBride, P. (2019). Doing justice to ELF in ELT: Comments on Toh(2016). Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 8(2), 333–345. https://doi.
org/10.1515/jelf-2019-2026
Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua
franca. Englishes in Practice, 2(3), 49–85. https://doi.org/10.1515/eip-2015-0003
Jenkins, J., & Leung, C. (2019). From mythical ‘standard’ to standard reality: The needfor alternatives to standardized English language tests. Language Teaching, 52(1),
86–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444818000307
Kachru, B. B. (1992). Teaching world Englishes. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The othertongue: English across cultures (2nd ed., pp. 355–365). University of Illinois
Press.
Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject: What foreign language learners say
about their experience and why it matters. Oxford University Press.
Leung, C. (2005). Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicativecompetence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00084.x
Leung, C., Lewkowicz, J., & Jenkins, J. (2016). English for academic purposes: A needfor remodelling. Englishes in Practice, 3(3), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1515/eip2016-0003
Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics,
39(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx039
Newfield, D. (2014). Transformation, transduction and the transmodal moment. In C.
Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (2nd ed., pp. 100–
113). Routledge.
Oda, M. (2017). CELF reflection: A Journey to the establishment of a university ELF
program. JACET ELF SIG Journal, 1, 3–17.
Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. Routledge.
Smith, L. E. (1981). English as an international language: No room for linguisticchauvinism. Nagoya Gakuin University Round Table on Languages, Linguistics
and Literature, 3, 27–32.
66

Suzuki, A. (2021). Changing views of English through study abroad as teacher training.
ELT Journal, 75(4), 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccab038
van Lier, L. (2007). Action-based teaching, autonomy and identity. Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.2167/illt42.0
Widdowson, H. (2015). ELF and the pragmatics of language variation. Journal of
English as a Lingua Franca, 4(2), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-20150027

67Translanguaging Gestures and Onomatopoeia
as Resources for Repairing the Problem
修復の資源としての「言語境界線超越的」
ジェスチャーとオノマトペの一考察
Satomi Kuroshima, 黒嶋 智美
Tamagawa University, Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Japanskuroshi@lab.tamagawa.ac.jp
Blagoja Dimoski, ディモスキ・ブラゴヤ
Tamagawa University, Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Japanbdimoski@lit.tamagawa.ac.jp
Tricia Okada, 岡田 トリシャ
Tamagawa University, Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Japan
tokada@lit.tamagawa.ac.jp
Yuri Jody Yujobo, 祐乗坊 由利 ジョディー
Tamagawa University, Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Japanyujobo@lit.tamagawa.ac.jp
Rasami Chaikul, チャイクル・ラサミ
Tamagawa University, Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Japanrasami.chaikul@lab.tamagawa.ac.jp
ABSTRACTThis paper elucidates the use of translanguaging gestures and onomatopoeic
expressions as a practice of concerted actions by participants in English as a Lingua
Franca (ELF) interactions. As traditional discussions of communication strategies
for ELF users have overly emphasized the aspect of language, recent studies of ELF
interactions from a multilingual setting have started to explore the use of various
semiotic resources, such as gestures and/or tools, in addition to linguistic codes.
However, virtually no previous studies have shown atypical translanguaging phenomena
68

involving gestures and onomatopoeia. Therefore, in this paper, by drawing onconversation analysis as a research framework to analyze data of first-time encounters
between Japanese participants and their foreign interlocutors in online settings,
we will investigate how non-typical translanguaging phenomenon are indeed madeobservable and accountable for the purpose of their lived and coordinated courses ofactions. Special focus is placed on the participants’ use of gestures and onomatopoeic
expressions of their first language in the face of difficulties arising in spoken ELF
interactions. The results will demonstrate that such bodily and linguistic practices areresources for the speaker’s action of repairing a problem as well as a means for therecipient to help resolve interactional problems. In addition, the paper will contributeto the body of knowledge by demonstrating how participants display their orientation toshared agreement in translanguaging practices in ELF interactions such as repair.
KEYWORDS: Translanguaging, Gestures, Onomatopoeia, Conversation analysis,
Self-repair
1. INTRODUCTION
While the recent discussion of translanguaging conceptualizes it as a dynamic, fluid,
multimodal, and transcultural practice (Garcia & Li, 2014; Li, 2016), there is still muchroom to investigate how translanguaging phenomena are indeed made observable andaccountable for the purpose of their lived and coordinated course of actions with theirorientation to the recipient (Garfinkel, 1967), i.e., as a practical theory of interaction(Wagner, 2018).
Although recent studies of interactions from a multilingual setting have started
to explore the use of various semiotic resources, such as gestures and/or other tools, inaddition to linguistic codes, a large body of translanguaging practice in the literaturerefers mainly to its linguistic aspects, as it is often claimed to be “a practical theory oflanguage” (Wagner, 2018, p. 102), as shown, for instance, in Garcia & Li (2014), Li(2016), and Mazzaferro (2018). Furthermore, most of the literature on this practice isfrom multilingual and bilingual settings, where participants are accountably known to becompetent in multiple languages (Garcia & Li, 2014; Jakonen et al., 2018; Mazzaferro,2018).
As several cases of translanguaging1 gestures and onomatopoeic expressions
are used by our participants with a monolingual background in their interaction withconversational partners, most of whom have a multilingual background, we would liketo offer a detailed description of how translanguaging practices of those participants
emerge (cf. Dimoski et al., 2019), demonstrating that they are practical methods
that transcend whichever language they are using. Following this, we would like topropose that accountability in any given course of action is a foundational dimension oftranslanguaging practices.
1
Although the term is generally referred to the phenomenon involving languaging, the authors
use this term in a more technical sense throughout the paper than what is conceived in other studies
particularly due to its reference to a bodily phenomenon.

69

2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Translanguaging
Broadly speaking, translanguaging is speaker-centered and refers to language practices
in which interlocutors select certain language features and use them to match theircommunicative needs by employing all of their linguistic and semiotic resources(Garcia, 2011). It should not, however, be confused with code-switching, which “often
carries language-centered connotations of language interference, language transfer orborrowing of codes, [with] a monolingual orientation where languages are treated as
separate codes” (Makalela, 2017, pp. 15-16).
Li (2018, p. 15) stated that translanguaging is a practice that involves dynamic
and functionally integrated use of different languages and language varieties, but more
importantly a process of knowledge construction that goes beyond language(s). The
reason why it is crucial to observe and study translanguaging is because languages area constantly emerging phenomenon and the use of more than one named language has
become a global phenomenon especially between interlocutors with various cultural andlinguistic backgrounds.
In light of this perspective, by definition, an ELF context provides a richmultilingual resource for the participants (Jenkins, 2015). Thus, as studies by Cogo(2012, 2016) and Pietikäinen (2014) have shown, the phenomenon of translanguaging
is often observed in European settings, where multilingualism is a norm (also see
Jenkins, 2015), confirming that translanguaging occurs at phonological, lexical, anddiscourse levels (see Guzula et al., 2016 for translanguaging in an African pedagogicalmultilingual setting). However, we lack evidence of translanguaging in monolingual
contexts such as Japan regarding whether it can be still observed, and if so, how it isincorporated into their interaction.
Li (2018) also claimed that translanguaging empowers both the learner and theteacher, transforms power relations, and focuses the process of teaching and learning
on making meaning, enhancing experience, and developing identity. Although theway people use ‘language’ by utilizing their unified repertoire of language features
linguistically has been observed, nonverbal translanguaging and onomatopoeictranslanguaging, if any, also need to be observed.
2.2 Onomatopoeia
Another important background to this study is onomatopoeia. Bredin (1996), categorizes
onomatopoeia into two types. The first is direct onomatopoeia, in which two criteria
must be met: One is that the word denotes a class of sounds, and the other is that it
resembles a member of that class. Or put more simply, “the sound of the word resembles
the sound that it names” (Bredin, 1996, p. 558), e.g., hiss, moan, cluck, whirr, and buzz.
The second type he calls associative onomatopoeia, which occurs when “the sound of aword resembles a sound associated with whatever it is that the word denotes” (Bredin,
1996, p. 560), e.g., cuckoo, bubble, smash, whip, and so on. Turning to a Japanesecontext, onomatopoeic expressions are used widely in all levels of the language, which
can make Japanese very challenging for learners and for translators (Inose, 2007).
70

Examples of onomatopoeic expressions used to imitate real sounds made by human or
animal voices or otherwise in Japanese include, for example, “zaazaa” (the sound ofrain) or “wanwan” (the sound of a dog barking). Such expressions, according to Inose(2007), function as adverbs for the most part in Japanese.
As Bredin (1996) points out, it is often the case that the acoustic resemblance
between onomatopoeic expressions and the actual sounds made by the objects they refer
to is weak. This suggests that onomatopoeia in social interactions is not used merely
to convey the sounds but to accomplish a specific action, whose usage can be only
describable by analysis of the actual interaction.
2.3 Interaction Studies of Multimodality in ELF Communications
Finally, due to critiques made in the 90s which portrayed users of English as a second/
foreign language as deficient communicators (Firth & Wagner, 1997), in more recent
studies on interaction among ELF users, researchers have concluded them to becompetent or have unproblematic interactions by demonstrating how capable they are ofmanaging their interactions with multimodal semiotic resources (Björkman, 2014; Cogo,
2009; Firth, 1996, 2009; Kaur, 2011, 2016, 2020; Konakahara, 2017, 2020; Matsumoto,2011, 2014, 2018; Mauranen, 2006, 2012). Especially relevant to the current studies
is the burgeoning research area of gesture use in ELF communication (Kimura, 2020;
Kimura & Canagarajah, 2020; Konakahara, 2017, 2020; Matsumoto & Canagarajah,2020). These studies have demonstrated that participants’ uses of other modalities
besides language are an important resource to conduct meaningful communications.
However, no existing studies have elucidated the gestures used as translanguaging.
Based on more than a decade of ELF research, it has become clear that ELF
users (a) are “able to draw from the whole of their linguistic repertoires in order toachieve intersubjectivity” (Pietikäinen, 2018, p. 323), (b) “are competent in inviting therecipient to participate in searching together by incorporating multimodal resources”(Matsumoto & Canagarajah, 2020, p. 263), and (c) interact through meaning “coconstructed by the participants and expanded in context with the use of multilingual
resources” (Cogo, 2018, p. 360). These insights are all evidence for the accountabilityof participants’ engagement by utilizing any named language or means of multilingual
communicative practice as a capable and competent member (Garfinkel & Sacks, 1972).
In order to address these issues, we need to elucidate how our participants use gesturesand onomatopoeic expressions of their first language (and culture) as a translanguaging
practice in spoken ELF interactions and describe in detail the position and compositionof a turn (Schegloff, 2007) in which they occur. By adopting the methodology of
conversation analysis (Sacks, 1992; Schegloff, 2007), we will describe how the ELF
users are utilizing the translanguaging gestures and onomatopoeic expressions for theirconstruction of course of action.
3. DATA
Eighteen Japanese university students between the ages of 18-20 years fromvarious departments participated in the present study as part of a larger project on71communication strategies (Dimoski, et al., 2019). The gender breakdown consisted often male students and eight females. We also had 19 overseas participants living in eight
different countries. Their ages ranged from 20-50 years old, and they were from various
professions. In order to keep the number of pairs even, two Japanese participants andone foreign participant participated twice. The participants were randomly paired, notbased on their linguistic knowledge but depended on their availability and time zones.
As such, our original intention was not to investigate translanguaging gestures andonomatopoeia; however, those phenomena were so observed and visible that the current
study was launched.
During the pre-pandemic period, we collected all of our data from participants bypairing a Japanese student with a foreign participant and video-audio recorded naturally
occurring conversations using Zoom totaling 6.5 hours. All of the interactions were firstencounters, and names of the participants were changed with pseudonyms. Althoughparticipants could talk freely on any topic, we also created speaking prompts for theconversation to maximize the use of session time. We analyzed all the transcribed data
and videos for use of gestures and onomatopoeia with translanguaging implications.
Specifically, conversation analysis was conducted to analyze the position andcomposition of a turn for translanguaging of gestures and onomatopoeia.
Our working definition of translanguaging gestures and onomatopoeia is theuse of culturally conventionalized and typical gestures and onomatopoeic expressionsof a named language (e.g., Japanese, English, Spanish, Thai, etc.) and integrated withother language systems, such as English. As translanguaging implies the integration ofdifferent named language systems, we also treat gestures as a form of translanguaging
when used to construct actions beyond the named language and culture.
We found 14 cases of translanguaging gestures, and one case of translanguaging
onomatopoeia in our data corpus. This result indicates that both phenomena are notfrequently observed; nonetheless, they are treated as accountable by the participants. In
the following, we will demonstrate how these gestures and/or onomatopoeia of a named
language are used as resources for practices in ELF interactions transcending linguistic
boundaries.
4. ANALYSIS
4.1. Translanguaging Gestures and Onomatopoeia as a Repair Solution
On several occasions, our participants used non-verbal resources such as gestures toachieve various social actions. Of particular interest among the practices is their useof observably culturally specific gestures. Akin to translanguaging practices typically
performed via verbal elements of a conversational turn, participants used their gestures
as a means to go beyond linguistic and cultural boundaries.
In Excerpt 1, a Brazilian speaker Miguel is conversing with a Japanese student
Nami about her plan to move to Hawaii in the future. In line 1, Miguel asks when she
wants to move, to which Nami has a bit of trouble formulating her response at the
beginning in line 4. Due to the ambiguous formulation of her answer to the wh-question
with just the number “forty or fifty” (line 5), Miguel initiates a repair (Drew, 1997) in72

line 8. Although Nami attempts to repair her original response in lines 9 to 13 by treating
Miguel’s trouble as a hearing problem, Miguel initiates a repair again by reformulating
his original question to more explicitly convey what he really means in lines 15 to 22(the phenomenon called “third position repair,” see Schegloff, 1992). Nami still displays
trouble in answering right away as she delays her response until line 26. She thenformulates her answer by modifying her original version to “forty years after” with ahand gesture.
Excerpt 1 [Pair 9 forty][7:34] ((A Brazilian speaker Miguel is conversing with aJapanese student Nami about her plan to move to Hawaii in the future.))01 MIG: when do you want to mo::ve? When do you pla:n02		
to::mo::ve- to::, Hawai’i?
03		 (.)
04 NAM: uh:::::m, (1.0) n:::: (1.5) <I thi::nk,> n:::05
forty::, forty:: or, fifty.
06		 (1.0)
07 NAM: [<I li::ve,>
08 MIG: [Sorry?
09  NAM: forty:: or, fifty::.
10		 (1.0)
11 NAM: [forty years o:ld
12 MIG: [forty or:13 NAM: (mae)		back14		 (2.5)
15 MIG: uh:m, (0.2) I:- I mean like, (0.5) now you are:16		at university:,
17 NAM: ya.
18 MIG: so, livi::ng in: Tokyo.
19		 (0.2)
20 NAM: ya.
21 MIG: and uh::, when will you::, <mo:ve> to22		
live in Hawai’i?
23		 (0.5)
24 NAM: e/a::: n:::25		 (3.5)
26 NAM: uh- (1.0) uh:: I want to for- (.) forty: (.)
27		
forty? forty years *after.
nam		*waves her left hand once
28
(2.0)
29 MIG: +Four?
    mig+indicates four with four fingers-->>30 NAM:→ *%four:: *ti::+ ((hand gesture))    fig%fig. 1a73

nam →*indicates “4” with four fingers
nam →*makes “0” shape with both hands
    mig         +puts down his four fingers
31		 *%(2.0)*
nam → *displays “4” fingers in her R hand and “0” in L		hand*    fig%fig. 1b32		 *(1.0)
nam*leans over to the camera
33 NAM: [hhh34 MIG: [Oh, (0.5) s(h)o:: li:k(h)e,35		
may[be after you::- you retire?
35 NAM:[huh
36 NAM: ¥yeah¥37		 (0.2)
38 MIG: [¥Oh:::: ri::ght.¥ hh hh hh
39 NAM: [huhhuh
40 NAM: huh huh huh [.hh41 MIG:		[hhh
Figure 1a
Gestures performed by Miguel (left) and Nami (right) (line 29)74

Figure 1b
Hand gestures for “4” and “0” by Nami (line 31)

Miguel then checks his understanding with a candidate hearing in line 29 accompaniedwith a sign of four with his four fingers (Figure 1a). Nami repairs it by showing thetwo numbers of 4 and 0 with her hand gesture along with the word “forty” in line 30
and repeats the hand gesture subsequently in line 31 without a word. There, she uses atranslanguaging gesture by displaying four fingers with one hand and making a circle
shape with her other left thumb and index finger to indicate zero (Figure 1b). This
iconic gesture is arguably culturally specific to Japanese culture, which may not be in
the recipient’s domain of knowledge. However, Miguel seeks confirmation about his
renewed understanding of Nami’s response from line 34 with a reformulation of forty
with “after you retire”, which is happily acknowledged by Nami in line 37.
This example shows that, when a trouble with understanding has been indicatedseveral times previously and as such repairing the problem becomes relevant, thetranslanguaging gesture of a named culture (Japanese in this case) serves as a means torepair the trouble source of the original utterance by presenting the information visuallyto the recipient along with verbal language.
More remarkable instances are found in Excerpt 2. Here, the participants utilize
both onomatopoeic expressions and gestures as a practice of translanguaging to repair aninteractional problem. Prior to this segment, Mexican speaker, Monica, said she used to
study abroad in Japan so she mentioned that she missed Japanese food. When a Japanese
student, Kanako, asks what her favorite Japanese food is, Monica answers “ramen” and“takoyaki”, a fried octopus in pancake batter shaped like a ball. Then, Kanako gives anegative evaluation of not being able to eat “tako” (octopus), whose problematic nature
is displayed through her laughter in line 2 (the troubles-resistant orientation displayed
through laughter as in Jefferson, 1984).
Excerpt 2 [Pair 13 takoyaki][7:40]
01		 (1.0)
02 KAN: I can’t eat tak(h)o. hhh
03		 *(0.8)
kan*smiles04 MON: %↑really? *↑wh::y?
75

mon%raises her eye blows to show surprise
kan		
*nods
05 KAN: .hhh
06		*(1.0)
kan*looks upward
07		 *+(4.0)
    fig+fig. 2kan → *use an iconic hand gesture for chewing for 5
		times
08 KAN:→ hhh *chewing, *nn?
kan*chewing gesture *tilts her head09		 *(2.0)
kan*puts her left hand on her cheek
10 MON: too hot?
11
(1.0)
12 KAN: <hottu?>
13 MON: like,
14%(1.0)
mon → %+puts her left hand into mouth and does the		‘hot’ gesture    fig+fig. 2b15 MON:→ hot.
16
(0.8)
17 KAN: a:: *no, no, no. mm::::.
kan*shakes her head and looks upwards
18(3.0) *(2.0)
kan		*looks at Monica
19 KAN: *u::::nkan*gradually looks upwards
20(2.0)
21 KAN:→ *I <don’t> <like>, ↓nandaro
kan → *looks at Monica-->>22 KAN: *che- chewing, kucha kucha hhh
kan*repeats the same chewing gesture as line 7
23 MON:→ *really? like %chewing takoyaki?
mon →%chewing gesture
kan → *chewing gesture twice24(0.8)
25 KAN: huh- hehheh nn::::26(2.0)
27 MON: wh::y.

76

Figure 2a				Figure 2b
Iconic hand gesture (line 7)
Gesture for “hot” (line 14)

Kanako’s negative evaluation is received as unexpected by Monica as displayed inher facial expression. Consequently, Kanako is held accountable by Monica seeking
an explanation (in line 4). However, Kanako starts engaging in remembering activity(Goodwin, 1987) by looking upwards in line 6. During the five-second pause, while
keeping her gaze direction, Kanako uses an iconic hand gesture for chewing typicallyused in Japanese contexts. Subsequently, she utters a term that is hearable as an answer
to Monica’s question (“chewing”) again with the typical Japanese chewing hand gesture(Figure 2a), along with her tilted head in line 8; thereby, displaying it as a candidate
word choice. When Kanako puts her left hand on her cheek and brings back her gaze
towards her interlocutor, indicating that she gives up the word search for now in line 9,
Monica proffers her candidate understanding of Kanako’s answer in line 10. However,Kanako displays trouble with her partial repetition with a modified pronunciation of
Monica’s turn in line 12. Such display of a possible trouble invites Monica to repair her
prior turn by first projecting to exemplify it (“like”) and then demonstrating what she
was conveying with a culturally specific gesture of “hot” by putting her left hand into
mouth in line 13 and 14 (Figure 2b), which can be presumed not in Kanako’s domain.
When Monica completes her embodied exemplification in line 15, Kanako firstclaims her renewed understanding of the repaired information with a Japanese changeof-state token a:: (Endo, 2018) and denies Monica’s candidate understanding in line 17.
Then, the same formulation trouble again arises. Kanako indicates the trouble by looking
upwards and engages in a word search. She finally constructs her response in a full
sentence from line 21 by initiating her turn with “I don’t like” to indicate she is on her
way to formulate her response. Then, she switches to Japanese and uses a self-addressed
question of nandaro ‘What do you call it?’ to display that she still needs to search fora word, and then reuses the Japanese onomatopoeic expression for chewing (kucha
kucha) with a gesture to formulate the action of chewing with her left hand, conveyingthat this is her ‘best’ formulation. Monica finally accepts it as a reasonable formulation
and requests to confirm her understanding in line 23 by copying Kanako’s gesture ofchewing to demonstrate her candidate understanding.
In this excerpt, gestures and onomatopoeia from their native cultures andlanguages are used to formulate relevant actions when a speaker encounters formulationdifficulties or repairs the recipient’s problem in understanding. As the contextual77

configuration of language, gestures, and sequential environment elaborates theconstruction of an action that is made relevant in the local context (Goodwin, 2000),translanguaging gestures and onomatopoeic expressions used as a practice for repairing
have their own accountability in the lived course of action.
4.2 Preference for Treating the Onomatopoeia as a Practice for a Word Search
While we have a good number of cases of translanguaging gestures, we only found
one example of translanguaging onomatopoeia in our corpus (cf. Excerpt 2). The
scarcity of its occurrence in our data might be explained by the nature of onomatopoeia,
which is more unique to a named language compared to gestures. However, eventhough it is understood to be language specific, generic procedural knowledge of
onomatopoeic expressions has accountability to constitute a recognizable action in the
ELF communication, and such seemingly shared knowledge by members transcends the
linguistic domain.
Excerpt 3 illustrates this point. In this segment, Taiwanese speaker, John, is
recommending Japanese student, Ken, to visit scuba diving spots in the northern partof Taiwan, leading them to engage in a discussion about scuba. Then, from lines 1 to 7,
John agrees with Ken’s opinion about scuba diving by accounting for the nature of theactivity, namely being able to see coral under the water.
Excerpt 3 [Pair 2 scuba][28:17]
01 JOH:but- but, like you say, go- go scuba diving:,02		
uh: easy one is- is quite03		
it’s kind of: (0.5) very good (drill),
04 KEN:n::.
05 JOH:because you could see::::: (.) sea:?
06		
and, (0.5) like uh:: (1.0)>how to say,<07		
it- it- it’s like a pla:nt under the sea?
08		 (0.5)
09 KEN:ah:: yeah?
10 JOH:you know what I’m talking about, [(of course,
11 KEN:		
[uh-hum, uh-hm.
12 JOH:you don’t know) the w(h)or::d’
13 JOH:[hhh
14 KEN:[huh huh huh .hhh
15 JOH:*like ah:: barry reef, I guess.*(0.5)barry reef,joh*rolling up eyes
*looks at Ken-->>16 JOH:barry *reef,joh		*looks upwards-->>17		 *(0.8)
   joh*brings up his R hand and waves-->>18 JOH: → like, be::: blah, blah, blah* eh::   joh                 *puts down his R hand
19 		
(0.2)
78

20 KEN:→ be:: blah, blah, blah, wha21→ what’s be:: blah blah blah.
22 JOH:*Just like a plant under the sea a::n’   joh*holding gesture with his R hand and moves back		and forth
23 JOH:
beautifu::l? fra:gi::[l?*joh			-->>*
24 KEN:		
[ya, ya, ya.
25 JOH:(I think) uh:: the reef or:: I:: forgot.uh:.˚ya:˚26		 (1.8)
27 KEN:n:::
28 JOH:
So,just-(0.6)north of Taiwa:n and east of Taiwan.
29 JOH:yep.
27 KEN:OK.
On the way to explaining the coral, John engages in a word search from line 6 (“how tosay”). Without the interlocutor to assist him (John indeed recognizes the nature of the
problem in lines 10 and 12), he is not very successful, and so tries to give an exampleof Australian famous coral reef as a way of circumlocution in line 15. However, hismemory is only partially correct as he is saying “barry reef” instead of “great barrierreef” as an attempt to repair. He then gives another word search trial in line 18 witha typical English onomatopoeic expression of “blah, blah, blah” to indicate the partof the word he is having memory trouble with by providing the initial sound of “B”.
However, John’s appeal for help becomes in vain as Ken initiates a repair in line 20. As
Ken’s repair initiation format (i.e., “What is X?” with a partial repeat of John’s turn)targets John’s prior turn to self-repair the trouble source (i.e., word search), that is “be::blah blah blah,” this onomatopoeic expression does not become transcended as in theprevious excerpt, and instead the practice itself becomes a trouble source. However, inline 22 and 23 John treats Ken’s understanding trouble as a referential problem rather
than a problem with understanding the practice itself as a preferred solution to the
problem, and thus explains what he means by “be:: blah, blah, blah” in lines 22 and 23.
This phenomenon suggests the participant’s orientation to the accountabilityof a word search practice using onomatopoeia for translanguaging. When the possible
problem with understanding the practice itself is indicated by the interlocutor, thespeaker has an option to repair the problem by explaining the practice. However, theparticipant does not select the option but rather regards the nature of the trouble inanother dimension of interaction, that is, a referential aspect of the expression. The
language system here indicates that there seems to be a strong preference for treating theinitiation of repair as a problem with the reference rather than a practice of using it as aplaceholder with, in this case, “blah, blah, blah.” Such preference indicates that while
misunderstanding does occur, it is allowed for by our language system of onomatopoeic
expression; that is, the practice has a language specific form (e.g., blah blah blahin English, nani nani in Japanese), which is accountably not part of the recipient’s
linguistic domain. This, in other words, confirms that the practice itself is not treated79as problematic. Therefore, this instance suggests that the onomatopoeic expression ofa named language used in ELF communication is a practice for translanguaging. Whilefurther investigation is of course necessary to confirm this aspect of translanguaging
onomatopoeia, we believe this example points to an interesting direction for further
pursuing our investigation.
5. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
Although the number of cases in the present study is fairly limited, they neverthelessserve to describe the practices of translanguaging with gestures and onomatopoeic
expressions. Even though such forms accountably belong to the domain of the producer
and not necessarily presumed to be shared by the members of other languages andcultures, the translanguaging gestures and onomatopoeic expressions are produced andunderstood as resources for recognizable actions, such as repairing or word searches,and practices to repair the broken interactional surfaces (Garfinkel & Sacks, 1972;
Schegloff et al., 1977). While assembling a collection of cases, we also found instancesof translanguaging gestures used for practices other than repair. The analyses of thesecases will be reported in a separate article in the future.
In short, in addition to the mutual elaboration of language and gesture, whatmakes them observable, reportable, and accountable in a particular situation is theshared agreement on the methodical ways of accomplishing recognizable actions in
speaking according to a rule (Garfinkel, 1967). Such a property of natural language
practice consists of a position and a composition of each turn, permitting the members
to go beyond the named culture and language and dynamically transcend a specificlinguistic domain.
With this new approach and description of translanguaging phenomena, as
practitioners of ELF, we strongly believe that awareness of and sensitivity to particulardetails of participants’ interactional competence are needed and only it becomes a
describable object through the lens of participants’ orientation. Regarding onomatopoeic
expressions, exposing students to their usage across cultures, including their own, would
serve to heighten students’ awareness of (a) variations in the way sounds are interpreted
and represented by people around the world, and (b) potential communicative usability
that may arise when using them in certain contexts. A similar approach could also bebeneficial regarding translanguaging gestures. By exploring them in the classroom,
students can become more creative and flexible when they encounter or use them infuture ELF interactions, which is a necessary skill for a global citizen. We believe it isbeneficial for students to learn that they are by-products of interactants' engagement
because these occurrences are a part of practices we all commonly share beyond one
particular language.

80

6. LIMITATIONS
Finally, the limitations of this study were influenced by the period it was conducted
and the main objective of this long-term study, which was to focus on communication
strategies among ELF users whose background is monolingual. Our positionality
as the researchers comes from Southeast Asian, American, Australian, and Japanesecultural backgrounds, thus, we were able to confirm that certain gestures are an
accountable repertoire from the culture of particular participants. However, it is notpossible to say with certainty whether the gestures identified in the current study
denote translanguaging, since, in principle, they differ from language and thereby, aredependent on our conceptual understanding. Thus, whenever possible, the researchers'
positionality and cultural backgrounds were invoked to verify whether certain gestures
were conceptually available in participants' domain of knowledge.
REFERENCES
Björkman, B. (2014). An analysis of polyadic English as a lingua franca (ELF) speech:
A communicative strategies framework. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 122–138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.03.001
Bredin, H. (1996). Onomatopoeia as a figure and a linguistic principle. New Literary
History, 27(3), 555-569.
Cogo, A. (2009). Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A study of pragmatic
strategies. In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies
and findings (pp. 254-273). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Cogo, A. (2012). ELF and super-diversity: A case study of ELF multilingual practices
from a business context. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(2), 287–313.
https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2012-0020
Cogo, A. (2016). Conceptualizing ELF as a translanguaging phenomenon: Covert andovert resources in a transnational workplace. In K. Murata (Ed.), Waseda Working
Papers in ELF Volume 5 (pp. 61–77). ELF Research Group Waseda University.
Dimoski, B., Kuroshima, S., Okada, T., Chaikul, R., & Yujobo, Y. J. (2019). The initialstages of developing resources for teaching communication strategies in ELFinformed pedagogy. In K. Murata, T. Ishikawa & M. Konakahara (Eds.), Waseda
Working Papers in ELF Volume 8 (pp. 105-128). ELF Research Group Waseda
University.
Drew, P. (1997). “Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources oftroubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(1), 69–101. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7
81

Endo, T. (2018). The Japanese change-of-state tokens a and aa in responsive
units. Journal of Pragmatics, 123, 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pragma.2017.06.010
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On lingua franca English
and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237–259. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0378-2166(96)00014-8
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental
concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285-300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05480.x
García, O. (2011). From language garden to sustainable languaging: Bilingual education
in a global world. Perspectives, 34(1), 5-9.
García, O. (2020). Singularity, complexities and contradictions: A commentary abouttranslanguaging, social justice, and education. In Panagiotopoulou, A., Rosen,
Lisa., & Strzykala, J. (Eds.), Inclusion, Education and Translanguaging How toPromote Social Justice in (Teacher) Education? (pp. 11-20). Wiesbaden Springer
VS.
García, O., & Li, W. (2013). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education.
In Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. https://doi.
org/10.1057/9781137385765
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Polity Press.
Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1972). On formal structures of practical actions. In H.
Garfinkel (Ed.), Ethnomethodological Studies of Work (pp. 160–193). Routledge& Kegan JOH.
Goodwin, C. (1987). Forgetfulness as an interactive resource. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 50(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786746
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction.
Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/S03782166(99)00096-X
Guzula, X., McKinney, C., & Tyler, R. (2016). Languaging-for-learning: Legitimisingtranslanguaging and enabling multimodal practices in third spaces. Southern
African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 34(3), 211–226. https://doi.org/
10.2989/16073614.2016.1250360
Inose, H. (2007). Translating Japanese onomatopoeia and mimetic words. Translation
82

Research Projects, 1, 97-116.
Jakonen, T., Szabó, T. P., & Laihonen, P. (2018). Translanguaging as playful subversion
of a monolingual norm in the classroom. In G. Mazzaferro (Ed.), Translanguaging
as Everyday Practice (pp. 31-48). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-94851-5_3
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H.
Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31).
John Benjamins.
Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua
Franca. Englishes in Practice, 2(3), 49-85.
Kaur, J. (2011). Raising explicitness through self-repair in English as a lingua
franca. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2704–2715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pragma.2011.04.012
Kaur, J. (2016). Conversation analysis and ELF. In M.-L. Pitzl & R. Osirnk-Teasdale(Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Perspectives and prospects: contributions inhonour of Barbara Seidlhofer (pp. 161–168). Mouton De Gruyter.
Kaur, J. (2020). Other-correction in next position: The case of lexical replacement in
ELF interactions in an academic setting. Journal of Pragmatics, 169, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.06.013
Kimura, D. (2020). Enacting and expanding multilingual repertoires in a peer language
tutorial: Routinized sequences as a vehicle for learning. Journal of Pragmatics,
169, 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.07.008
Kimura, D., & Canagarajah, S. (2020). Embodied semiotic resources in research groupmeetings: How language competence is framed. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 24(5),634-655. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12435
Konakahara, M. (2017). Interactional management of face-threatening acts in casual
ELF conversation: An analysis of third-party complaint sequences. Journal of
English as a Lingua Franca, 6(2), 313–343. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-20170015
Konakahara, M. (2020). Single case analyses of two overlap sequences in casual ELF
conversations from a multimodal perspective: Toward the consideration of mutual
benefits of ELF and CA. Journal of Pragmatics, 170, 301–316. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.09.024
83Li, W. (2016). New chinglish and the post-multilingualism challenge: Translanguaging
ELF in China. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 5(1), 1–25. https://doi.
org/10.1515/jelf-2016-0001
Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics,
39(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx039
Makalela, L. (2017). Translanguaging practices in a South African institution of higher
learning: A case of ubuntu multilingual return. In C. Mazak & K. Carroll (Eds.),
Translanguaging in higher education: Beyond monolingual ideologies (pp. 11-28).
Multilingual Matters.
Matsumoto, Y. (2011). Successful ELF communications and implications for
ELT: Sequential analysis of ELF pronunciation negotiation strategies.
Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15404781.2011.01172.x
Matsumoto, Y. (2014). Collaborative co-constructionation of humorous interaction
among ELF speakers. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(1), 81-107.
https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2014-0004
Matsumoto, Y. (2018). “Because we are peers , we actually understand”: Third party
participant assistance in English as a lingua franca classroom interactions. TESOL
Quarterly, 52(4), 845–876. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.430
Matsumoto, Y., & Canagarajah, S. (2020). The use of gesture, gesture hold, and gazein trouble-in-talk among multilingual interlocutors in an English as a lingua
franca context. Journal of Pragmatics, 169, 245–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pragma.2020.08.015
Mauranen, A. (2006). Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua
franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177,
123–150. https://doi.org/10.1515/IJSL.2006.008
Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers.
Cambridge University Press.
Mazzaferro, G. (2018). Translanguaging as everyday practice. An introduction. In G.
Mazzaferro (Ed.), Translanguaging as Everyday Practice (pp. 1-12). Springer,
Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94851-5_1
Mondada, L. (2019). Conventions for multimodal transcription. Retrieved from https://www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodal-transcription
84

Pietikäinen, K. S. (2014). ELF couples and automatic code-switching. Journal of
English as a Lingua Franca, 3(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2014-0001
Peitikäinen, K. S. (2018). Misunderstandings and ensuring understanding in private ELF
talk. Applied Linguistics, 39(2), 188–212. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw005
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversations (Vol. 1 & Vol. 2). Blackwell.
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense
of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–
1345. https://doi.org/10.1086/229903
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer inconversation analysis. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511791208
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in
the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. https://doi.
org/10.2307/413107
Wagner, J. (2018). Multilingual and multimodal interactions. Applied Linguistics, 39(1),99–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx058

85

APPENDIX
Transcript conventions developed by Gail Jefferson (2004)
. 			
? 			
,			
↑↓ 		
_
		
- 			
[ ] 			
= 			(0.5)			
(.)			
:			˚word˚hhh			
.hhh			(h)			
#			<word>>word<

pitch fall
pitch rise
continuing intonation
marked pitch movement
underscoring indicates some form of stresstruncation
overlap
latching of turns
pause (length in tenths of a second)micropause
lengthening of a soundportions quieter than the surrounding talk
audible out-breath
audible in-breath
within-speech aspiration, usually indicating laughtercreaky voice quality
slow speech rate
fast speech rate

Multimodal transcript conventions developed by Lorenza Mondada (2019)* *		 Descriptions of embodied movements are delimited between+ +		 two identical symbols (one symbol per participant’s line of action) and are		 synchronized with corresponding stretches of talk/lapses of time.
*-->		 The action described continues across subsequent lines-->*		 until the same symbol is reached.
>>		 The action described begins before the extract’s beginning.
-->>		 The action described continues after the extract’s end.
. . . . 		 Preparation.
------		 Full extension of the movement is reached and maintained.
,,,,,		Retraction.
ava		 Participant doing the embodied action is identified when (s)he is not the		speaker.
fig		 The exact moment at which a screenshot has been taken is indicated86Reflections on Using the ‘4-3-2 Technique’ in an ELF
CourseELFコースでの「4-3-2テクニック」活用を振り返って
Aldo Villarroel, アルド・ヴイラローエル
Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Tamagawa University, Japan
aldo.vill@lab.tamagawa.ac.jp
ABSTRACT
Teaching EFL in Japanese university settings inevitably means summative assessments
are carried out to not only assign grades, but to also measure competence or proficiency
in skills assessed, be they writing, reading, listening, or speaking. In settings where
teachers have access to criterion-based assessment rubrics and are afforded opportunity
to design assessment tasks, they use activities to measure progress. This paper describes
how one particular activity, the ‘4-3-2 Technique’, is used to foster confidence andsmoothness in spoken communication and help students prepare for a summative
speaking assessment task and two ‘speaking tests’ carried out in the middle and at
the end of a semester. These tests make up the ‘Speaking and Listening’ assessment
component of an English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) program. This paper also describes
how the “4-3-2 Technique” is adapted to meet students’ needs and the ELF program’s
assessment goal.
KEYWORDS: ELF speaking assessment, ELF speaking tasks, Language learnerconfidence, L2 speaking fluency, Meaning-focused output
1. INTRODUCTION
Teaching in a four-skills ELF program, where ‘speaking tests’ are a non-negotiable
component, finding the time to focus on speaking along with designing andimplementing lead-up activities and final assessment tasks is challenging. In addition,teachers may also need to interpret prescribed criterion-based assessment rubrics.
Working with first- and second-year Japanese university students, this author
considered these same points when preparing their ELF course. The approach ofplanning units of work by backwards design; that is, “identifying a specific learning
destination [...] to see the instructional path most likely to get us there” (Wiggins &McTighe, 2011, p. 7), guided this author in planning the final goal and learning activities
that could be used to get there. Following this principle, a final summative assessment
task – a conversation with a partner on a set topic – was decided. Determining where87students were at the start of the course via an initial or entry test, then beginning to thinkof activities to use in class, led this author to finding and adapting the ‘4-3-2 Technique’.
The purpose of this article is to describe this author’s experiences implementing‘4-3-2’ as a major activity in students’ learning experiences, and how it helped
prepare learners for the course’s final speaking assessment. A background of theteaching context, initial or entry assessment task, and explanation of the techniquewill be followed by an explanation of and reasons for adaptations made to the ‘4-3-2
Technique’, and reflections and final thoughts.
2. BACKGROUND
In the first three classes of a semester, two different groups of students, high-beginner
to low-intermediate (CEFR A1-B1) level, 1st and 2nd year Japanese university
students, were given an initial diagnostic speaking-listening task to assess theiroverall communicative skills. The task was to have a conversation with a partner ona predetermined topic, in this instance, ‘My weekend’. The objectives of this initialtask were to give an indication of students’ vocabulary repertoire, topic knowledge,
sentence structure, including grammar use, question formation, and more notably,
how confidently and smoothly they communicated. This initial task suggested that
confidence and communication smoothness were two areas where students could benefit
from extra training. The goal of this training was to help learners communicate withfew(er) unnatural pauses, stops, and periods of silence that were prevalent in their initialdiagnostic task. There was, therefore, a need to look for ideas and techniques that could
aid in achieving this.
Before looking for these ideas and techniques, however, the first step was tostart with the end goal of identifying the specific summative speaking and listening,or communicative, assessment task that students would do at the end of the unit,
where communicating with confidence and smoothness were assessable criteria. Verysimilar to the initial diagnostic task mentioned earlier, the summative task was ‘a shortconversation with a random partner on a familiar topic (the topic to be determined at alater date)’.
The next step was to identify specific criteria and indicators that could beunderstood and used by learners and teachers as guides to check progress duringformative assessment and in their final assessment task. Figure 1, below, shows thecriterion-based ‘Speaking and Listening’ assessment rubric provided by the Center for
English as a Lingua Franca (CELF) that was used in the initial or entry speaking test.

88Figure 1
CELF’s original Listening & Speaking Criteria (Assessment Rubric)

The criteria in this rubric are wholistic and do not include the required specificassessable criteria that would be assessed in the final ‘conversation with a partner’speaking task. Having designed the assessment task, this author was aware that two
assessable components making up Criterion 4, ‘Can you communicate smoothly?’, were‘gap fillers’ and ‘active listening reactions and expressions’. Knowing this, and to ensure
clarity and transparency for students and their teacher, it was necessary to add additional
criteria to the original rubric. Figure 2 shows the additional criteria added (see Appendix
for Criteria 6 and 7).

89Figure 2
Additional criteria added to the CELF's Listening & Speaking Criteria Rubric
S
A
C
D

F

* Can youcommunicatesmoothly?
* Speaking: Do
you use gap
fillers to give
you thinking
time

Communication is activesmooth.
Pauses and stops
are natural.
* Gap fillers arealmost always
used to help
natural pauses
and stops.

Communication
is often activesmooth.
* Communication
has few unnaturalpauses and stops.
* Gap fillers areoften used to help
natural pauses andstops.

Communication
sometimes stops.
* Pauses and stops
are not natural.
* Gap fillers are
sometimes used tohelp natural pauses
and stops.

Communication
often stops.
* Pauses andstops are notnatural.
* Gap fillers
are rarely used
to help naturalpauses andstops.

Student
does notget agrade ofC, B, A,or S

* Can youcommunicatesmoothly?
* Listening:
do you use
active listening
expressions?

Communication is
active- smooth.
* Active listening
expressions arealmost always
used -helpsmoothness.

Communication
is often activesmooth.
* Active listening
expressions areoften used to help
smoothness.

Communication
sometimes stops.
* Active listening
expressions are
sometimes used tohelp smoothness.

Communication
often stops.
* Active listening
expressions are
rarely used tohelp smoothness.

Student
does notget agrade ofC, B, A,or S

NOTE: These additional criteria replaced the original Criteria 4

Planning activities that would cultivate confidence and smoothness were the last step.
It is when thinking about and planning such learning activities that this author read andlearned about the ‘4-3-2 Technique’.
2.1 The ‘4-3-2 Technique’According to Arevart and Nation (1991) and Nation (1989), this technique was adaptedfrom Maurice’s (1983) ‘4/3/2’. It involves speakers having a set topic, for example, ahobby or an interesting event, a future plan, or even using a picture prompt. Speakers
then prepare for a few minutes before talking and talk to three different partners about
this same topic (i.e., repeating the same talk to different audiences). In Nation’s (1989)
explanation, during the preparation time, speakers just think about what they will talkabout, and they do not make any written notes. When the thinking time is over, thespeaker starts talking about the (same) topic, with the time being reduced from four
minutes with the first partner, three minutes with the second, and two minutes with thethird partner. One crucial point in this (original) activity is that the listening partner
does not interrupt or ask questions; they just listen. The goal is for the speaker to focus
on communicating the same message or information they want to share in the time
given. Having different partners and less time, Nation (1989, p. 378) states, reduces the
chances the speaker will “add new information, [...] develop confidence, [and] have lessdifficulty in accessing language [as] there is no need to think of new material to fill theavailable time.”90

3. MODIFICATIONS
Reflecting on the initial diagnostic speaking activity, the ‘My weekend’ conversation,
mentioned earlier, it was evident that a number of students struggled to talk with (adegree of) confidence and with few unnatural pauses or stops in all three attempts with
their three partners. While contributing factors could have been a lack of vocabulary orcontent knowledge, or natural shyness, a decision was made to focus on communicatingsmoothly and with increased confidence, not on vocabulary, content knowledge, orgrammar. As a result, with student input, a few modifications to the original version
were made. However, one particular modification was an enforced one, the ‘new normal’teaching and learning environments faced since 2020.
3.1 Modification 1: Required Changes to Meet the ‘New Normal’ Covid-19 Teachingand Learning Environment
In preparation to carry out this activity, certain logistics, which in all likelihood had notbeen a factor previously, needed to be adjusted to meet the ‘new normal’ conditions
created by the Covid-19 situation. This necessitated using a video conferencing
application to conduct the activity to ensure student safety; that is, to maintain social
distance whilst aiming to keep the closest version of direct face-to-face interaction as
possible. Zoom video conferencing application was utilized instead of the available
Microsoft Teams video conferencing application as the latter does not have flexible selfselect breakout rooms. This was, and is, a crucial factor as the first three or four times
this activity was conducted, students were allowed to choose their speaking partners.
Later, when students had become used to the activity and knew what the goals andexpectations were, random partners were allocated.
In practical terms, for one group, this meant adapting ‘4-3-2’ in a hyflex situation
where the majority of the class was in a face-to-face environment, while some students
were online, either at home or elsewhere. To mitigate potential anxiety felt by students
studying remotely, students were told pairs would be made up of students in theclassroom with a partner studying remotely. For the other face-to-face group, it meantsocial distancing and limiting movement in the classroom. Movement was also limitedby the classroom layout.
At the start, all students joined in a whole class meeting via Zoom. It was
explained here that they would be allowed to choose their three partners and theirspeaking order, again to foster confidence. Once this was settled and the activity
explained, flexible self-selected breakout rooms were opened, and students joined thepartner of their choice. Having the ability to share a screen to all breakout rooms, thanks
to updates to Zoom, it was possible to share a countdown timer with all students sothey were aware of their speaking time. The countdown timer was used not only for the
speaking time, but also for the preparation time. It is important to note that, while theideal goal of the preparation time was the same as the speaking time, an extra minute
was added to their preparation time to enable students to change breakout rooms. This
screen sharing worked well with both groups; the classroom only group and the hyflex
group as they were all online. Students were sent an announcement that the activity
91

would start at a set time, and when the time came, the activity started.
As students were preparing and then talking, it was important to join eachbreakout room to listen only and see how students were performing. Unfortunately,while students were aware their teacher would join the breakout room, both muted andwith the camera off, the act of joining mid-sentence did cause some students to lose
focus. Because of this interruption, and loss of focus and/or confidence, students weretold that they would soon be given tools (outlined in Modification 3 and Modification 4
below) to help them deal with such interruptions.
When planning for the third and fourth transformations of the activity, it was also
clear that the new teaching and learning environment meant going ‘paperless’ would
be needed. To do this, Blackboard learning management system (LMS) and Microsoft
Teams were used. At the beginning, scaffolds for students were incorporated into
Blackboard. As useful as the LMS is, Microsoft Teams’ Class Notebook function wasa more user-friendly environment to share information that would be readily accessible
to students. Using the Content Library section of the Class Notebook allowed for the
posting of materials that students could refer to and copy into their own folders if they
wished. Students were also taught how to use the stand-alone Microsoft OneNote
application, which is a stand-alone version of the Class Notebook component ofMicrosoft Teams, meaning they were able to use either Microsoft Teams or Microsoft
OneNote in their classes.
3.2 Modification 2: Adjusting Planning and Speaking Times
When the original activity was first explained to the target student groups, their overall
reactions were less than positive; students did not express any confidence in their ability
to complete this activity. To boost their confidence, three modifications were made andexplained. The first was reducing the speaking time to three minutes for partner 1,
two minutes for partner 2 and one minute with partner 3. The second modification wasallowing students to write notes during their preparation time and allowing them to referto these written notes while they talked. The last change, which aided their composure,was including a short preparation time before each speech, with the preparation timeallowed being the same as the speaking time (i.e., three minutes to prepare for partner 1,
two minutes for partner 2 and one minute for partner 3).
One issue voiced by students was that having to change breakout rooms in orderto change partners often meant their planning time was cut. Considering their lackof confidence, this led to a second time modification; to factor in the breakout roomchanges, their preparation time was increased by one minute in all instances.
3.3 Modification 3: Additions for the Speaker
Never forgetting the original reason for using this technique (i.e., the need to foster
confidence and improve smoothness when speaking), suggested a need to teach students
some common gap fillers to use when talking. Two useful websites, created by Craine(2021) and Geikhman (2022), were found while looking for examples, and it was
decided to use them as a source of possible gap fillers to teach. Figure 3 shows the gap
fillers provided in the Content Library section of Microsoft OneNote’s Class Notebook.
92

Figure 3
Gap fillers

These gap fillers were introduced with the purposes of giving students more thinking
time and reducing unnatural pauses or stops when speaking. Initially four gap fillers
were introduced, then, when students were accustomed to them, more were added to thelist. Eventually, students had a list of fifteen fillers to choose from. The fillers’ purposes
and meanings were explained, though the underlying goal of giving students ‘thinking
time’ to reduce unnatural pauses or stops was constantly reinforced.
3.4 Modification 4: Additions for the ListenerOnce learners, specifically speakers, had been introduced to the gap fillers and had
begun (trying) to use them when they talked, the next step was to determine some
active listening expressions for the listening partner to use. As with the gap fillers, whilelooking for sources, three websites created by ESL Gold (2020), Hedstrom (2017) andMaking Sense of English (2021) were used as springboards.
Figure 4 shows the expressions and reactions students were provided in the Content
Library section of Microsoft OneNote’s Class Notebook.

93Figure 4
Active listening expressions and reactions

While their function may be to keep a conversation going, their additional use in thiscase was to help the speaker relax and boost their confidence as their partner would
show them that they are listening. Like the introduction of gap fillers to the speaker,
these active listening expressions were introduced in two groups, first noises andinterjections then single-word comments or short phrases. When doing the activity,
listeners were told they had to use at least three active listening expressions to help theirpartner by showing them they were listening, and to also give them a few extra secondsof ‘thinking time’.
3.5 Modification 5: Asking Questions
In the second half of the semester, to begin preparing for the summative task, thechallenge of putting all the pieces together with two additional changes took place.
The first was adding questions to the activity; a marked change from the original. The
94

reason for this was the summative task, the ‘4-3-2’ or ‘3-2-1 Technique’ was designed
to facilitate ‘a short conversation with a random partner on a familiar topic’. Students
were told they had to ask four, three or two questions, depending if they were the first,
second, or third partner during the activity, in effect facilitating a conversation to takeplace. As this question-asking component was also assessed, an additional criterion wasadded to the modified assessment rubric (see Figure 5) (see Appendix for Criterion 2).
The second change was going back to the original ‘4-3-2’ speaking time. Students werestill allowed to have the equivalent preparation time between partners, and they werealso allowed to make notes.
While these allowances were made in the conversation practices, students
were told that, in the final practices before the summative assessment task, their only
preparation time would be the time they took to change partners and breakout rooms.
They were also told they would not be allowed to write notes. Knowing the summative
task was ‘a short conversation with a random partner on a familiar topic’, students weretold their conversation topics would be limited to a choice.
Figure 5
Additional criterion added to a modified CELF Listening & Speaking Criteria(Assessment Rubric)
S
A
C
D* Do you ask
questions that areappropriate
to the topic/
conversation?
* Are your questions
appropriate to the
topic, orconversation

Speaker always
asks questions
to get more
information.
* Speaker asks
many questions

Speaker often
asks questions
to get more
information.
* Speaker asks
many questions

Speakersometimes asks
questions to get
moreinformation.
* Speaker asks
some questions.

Speaker asks
very few
questionsto get more
information.

F

Student does
not get a
grade of C, B,
A, or SNOTE: This additional criterion was added to the modified assessment rubric.

4. REFLECTIONS
While this was the first time using the ‘4-3-2 Technique’, and its shortened version as aformal fluency and confidence building activity, and though there were hurdles along theway, namely adapting it to the ‘new-normal’ learning and teaching environment, overall,it seems to have been positively received by both groups of students (See Figure 6).

95

Figure 6
Students' end-of-course feedback on the ‘4-3-2’ and (shortened) ‘3-2-1’ activities

Though this feedback is encouraging, there arguably still are challenges that suggest thisis not an activity that could be easily used as a warm-up or on a regular basis. The main
one is that it is time consuming. For example, in a 100-minute class, while in theory,
going by time allowances only, it should take approximately 25-35 minutes to complete,depending if it was the shortened ‘3-2-1’, or the original ‘4-3-2’. In reality, it took much
longer, even up to 45 minutes if students asked for and gave feedback. In a program witha ‘busy curriculum’ where other components also need to be covered, time constraints
may prevent teachers from doing this activity regularly, or as regularly as they would
like. The logistics required to meet Covid-19 safety protocols are another challenge tobe considered. Doing this online using Zoom, even if all students are in the classroom,means teachers need to be aware of, and have some ability to troubleshoot the common
IT or computer-related issues that may arise. Such issues may include forgetting tobring headphones, internet connection problems, computer hardware issues, running out
96

of battery, and forgetting to turn on video cameras. Classroom layout may also affect
how this activity can be carried out, with some layouts more conducive than others. Of
course, vocabulary, sentence structure, and grammatical knowledge are also elementsthat may need addressing, meaning more time is needed to scaffold this activity.
4.1 Looking Ahead
While there are pros and cons, in a four skills program where, for example, reading,writing and formal standardized tests such as the Test of English for International
Communication (TOEIC) are mandatory components of the program, one could try toincorporate topics studied in one or more components as a way to scaffold the ‘4-3-2’ (or‘3-2-1’) activity, or conversely use the ‘4-3-2’ (or ‘3-2-1’) activity as a springboard andscaffold for these elements. For example, with TOEIC, using picture prompts could help
familiarise them with Part 1 of this test. If the program uses a set text for the Reading
component, a topic from a chapter studied could be used as the ‘4-3-2’ activity topic.
When considering the Writing component, the writing topic or genre could be used withthis activity to help students prepare for short talks or presentations they may do basedon the Writing component.
A point not yet explored, which could facilitate this activity, is student agency
and student voice. One idea could be to let students choose the list of topics to talkabout. Allowing students to help design activities may encourage greater engagement inclassroom activities. Another point is if there are students who are doing standardized
tests not covered in their institution’s English Language program, such as theInternational English Language Testing System (IELTS), ‘4-3-2’ may be a helpful
tool for helping them prepare for such a test. Specifically, it could help such students
with Part 2 of the IELTS test, talking about a set topic for one to two minutes, or Part3, discussing the topic in more detail for four to five minutes. These students could be
asked to share their experiences with the class and provide ideas or topics to use, notonly to increase peer-to-peer interaction, but to also acknowledge their efforts.
5. CONCLUSION
While acknowledging that ‘4-3-2’ may be time consuming and logistically challenging
in the new Covid-normal teaching environment, it can be a handy activity to help
build confidence and communication smoothness. In addition, it may push “students toperform at a higher level than they normally do” (Te Reo Māori, n.d.).
Overall, the ‘4-3-2 Technique’ was found to be a valuable tool to have as it may
equip students with tools for communicating their ideas with increased confidence andsmoothness.
Above all, as Wiggins and McTighe (2005, p. 56) state, it is essential toremember to “aim for specific results and design backwards from them accordingly.” It
is by doing this that activities like the ‘4-3-2 Technique’, gap fillers and active listening
reactions can be used and adapted to help achieve the final goal required in summative
speaking assessment tasks.
97

REFERENCES
Arevart, S., & Nation, P. (1991). Fluency improvement in a second language. RELC
Journal, 22(1), 84-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829102200106
Craine, A. (2021, April 2). 15 common English filler words you should know.
Speechling. https://speechling.com/blog/15-common-english-filler-words-youshould-know/
ESL Gold. (2020). Rejoinders. https://eslgold.com/speaking/rejoinders/
Geikhman, Y. (2022). 15+ quick English filler words you’ll thank yourself for learning.
FluentU: English Language and Culture Blog. https://www.fluentu.com/blog/
english/english-filler-words/
Hedstrom, B. (2017, October 27). Rejoinders keep conversations going. Bryce
Hedstrom. https://www.brycehedstrom.com/2017/rejoinders-keep-conversationsgoing/
Making Sense of English. (2021). Rejoinders: The emoticons of speaking. https://www.
apoven.com/basic-english-conversation/
Maurice, K. (1983). The fluency workshop. TESOL Newsletter, 17 (4), 29.
Nation, I. S. P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. System, 17 (3), 377–384. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0346-251X(89)90010-9
Te Reo Māori in English-medium Schools. (n.d.). 4/3/2 (Maurice, 1983). https://
tereomaori.tki.org.nz/Teacher-tools/Te-Whakaipurangi-Rauemi/Examples-ofsecond-language-learning-tasks/4-3-2-Maurice-1983
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005) Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria,
VA: association for supervision and curriculum development ASCD. Colombian
Applied Linguistics Journal, 19(1), 140–142. https://doi.org/10.14483/calj.
v19n1.11490
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating highquality units. ASCD.

98

APPENDIX
Modified ELF Speaking & Listening Assessment Rubric992021 Report for FD and Research in the CELF
ELF センター 2021 FDと研究活動レポート
Rasami Chaikul, チャイクル・ ラサミ
Tamagawa University, Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Japanrasami.chaikul@lab.tamagawa.ac.jp
Brett Milliner, ミリナー・ブレット
Tamagawa University, Center for English as a Lingua Franca, Japan
milliner@lit.tamagawa.ac.jp
ABSTRACTThe world's situation has changed from facing COVID-19 pandemic to living with it.
The Center for English as a Lingua Franca (CELF) at Tamagawa University is oneof the very first English programs in which teachers from diverse backgrounds utilize
the usage of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) and try to enhance their students' ELF
awareness. CELF Faculty Development (FD) provided various FD workshops, lectures,
special seminars, and discussions to our teachers to promote diversity and inclusion
and help enhance our teacher’s professional development. This report will describe ourfaculty development activities and our faculty’s research achievements.
KEYWORDS: English as a Lingua Franca, ELF, Faculty development, Remoteteaching, ELF research
1. INTRODUCTION
The Center for English as a Lingua Franca (CELF) was established in April 2014 in
response to changes in English communication worldwide. The program emphasizes
English use in intercultural and transcultural communication and incorporates the ELFaware instruction into its program (Tamagawa Academy & University, 1996-2020).
Teachers at the CELF, Tamagawa University are qualified teachers from diverse
backgrounds from 23 different countries. These include Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria,
Canada, China, Egypt, Finland, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Malaysia,
New Zealand, Philippines, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, UK, USA, and Vietnam.
The teachers also speak various native languages, such as Arabic, Bulgarian, Chinese,100

Czech, English, Finnish, German, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Russian, Slovakian,
Spanish, Tagalog, Telugu, Thai, and Vietnamese (Tamagawa Academy & University,
1996-2020)
All CELF teachers are working together to provide a language learning environment
where awareness of the use of the English as a Lingua Franca is emphasized. There were16 CELF Faculty Development (FD) occasions this academic year. In this document wereport on our FD initiatives as well as the academic achievements of our faculty.
1. THE 2021 CELF-ELTAMA FORUM FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
The 2021 CELF-ELTama Forum for English Language Teaching was a collaborative
effort between CELF and ELTama. The event was held online via ZOOM on August21, 2021. This year featured a variety of sessions designed to promote discussion about
research and practices related to ELF and English language teaching. This reciprocal
event attracted approximately 70 participants.
Table 1
CELF talks at the 2020 CELF-ELTama Forum for English Language Teaching
Paper Presentation

Type of Talk & Title

Towards translingual and transcultural ELT
Paper Presentation

Using word frequency lists in ELTPaper Presentation

Creating ELF-aware lessons using TED talks
Paper Presentation

Students’ boredom in classPresentation

CELF Report101

Author(s)Tomokazu Ishikawa
Brett Milliner
Tiina Matikainen
Sachiko Nakamura
Rasami Chaikul

Figure 1
The 2021 CELF-ELTama Forum on Saturday, August 21, 2021

2. ONLINE ELF WORKSHOPS & TRAINING FOR CELF TEACHERS
As a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic many CELF FD events were held online
throughout the academic year. This section reports on some of the thirty-one faculty
development workshops, lectures, special seminars and online discussions held in 2021.
2.1 CELF Teacher Orientation
The CELF carried out Teacher Orientations each semester. The orientations were heldon March 22 in the Spring and September 15 in the Fall semester. This year, due tothe health regulations connected to COVID-19, only new teachers attended teacher
orientations on campus while continuing teachers participated via Zoom. Each teacher
orientation included a general briefing on the ELF program, textbooks and materials
used in the program, class management, how to use technology, explanations about
the academic calendar, faculty development, as well as important information on classmanagement and grading, extensive reading, and how to orient new students to theprogram.
Figure 2
The spring Teacher Orientation on March 22, 2021

102

2.2 Online Zoom FD Workshops
Due to COVID-19 related circumstances, CELF courses in 2021 were taught with ina mix of hybrid, online and face-to-face modalities. In addition to face-to-face classes
on campus, teachers and students met online for lessons using a variety of videocommunications platforms such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams. To help teachers handle
and convey the best possible education for CELF students, various up to date approaches
to online teaching were presented in CELF FD meetings. These included talks on how
to manage a class with Zoom, using Google® applications for online teaching, andhands on workshops and ideas for teaching ELF online. We wish to express our sincere
gratitude to the specialists and experts who shared their knowledge and experience inthis list of 2021 FD workshops.
CELF FD: Google Drive for Online Teaching
Date: May 24, 2021
Speaker: Rasami Chaikul
Participants: 9
CELF Hybrid Class FD Workshop/Discussion
Date: October 12th
Speaker: Rasami Chaikul
Participants: 7
CELF Extensive Reading and MReader
Date: October 18, 2021
Speaker: Brett Milliner
Participants: 10
Assessment and Unitama workshop
Date: December 20th, 2021
Speaker: Rasami Chaikul
Participants: 2
2.3 Blackboard CMS Training
Blackboard course management system (CMS) is implemented at Tamagawa University
which hosts all of CELF teaching resources and administrative information. CELF FD
held four Blackboard training sessions two times each semester.
CELF FD: Blackboard, Unitama, and Zoom Workshop
Thursday, April 8, 2021
Speaker: Rasami Chaikul
Participants: 12
CELF FD: Blackboard, Unitama, and Zoom Workshop
Friday, April 9, 2021
103

Speaker: Rasami Chaikul
Participants: 3
CELF FD: Blackboard Blog and Grade Center Workshop
Date: April 30, 2021
Speaker: Rasami Chaikul
Participants: 7
CELF Blackboard, Grade Center, and Zoom Classroom Workshop
Date: October 6th
Speaker: Rasami Chaikul
Participants: 5
2.4 CELF Online TOEIC IP TEST FD Workshops
Due to the safety concerns relating to the pandemic, the TOEIC IP test was moved to an
online test mode. A workshop and guidance for our teachers was provided by associate
professor Brett Milliner on June 7, 2021, and nine teachers attended.
2.5 CELF Online Tutor FD Workshop
The CELF provides opportunities for its students to experience using ELF in its tutor
service. Students make a reservation online and talk to teachers from various culturaland linguistic. Associate professor, Rasami Chaikul, led a Tutor FD Workshop on April
26, 2021.
2.6 ELF Assessment Workshop
CLEF Assessment & Unitama FD Workshops were held in both the spring and fallsemesters on July 16, and December 20, 2021.
2.7 ELF Module Orientation
ELF modules were designed especially for our ELF-aware program and teachers wereencouraged to trial the activities during the ELF program’s orientation week. This year,
associate professor Yody Yuri Yujobo demonstrated the ELF Modules at the CELF
Teacher Orientation meeting.
2.8 CELF FD Special Workshops
CELF FD also works to promote teacher research. This academic year, all FD special
workshops and my share events provided a platform for our teachers to showcase theirresearch and share their expertise. Many of these Special Workshops were conducted ina hybrid mode via Zoom and a face-to-face meeting.
104

CELF FD: Microsoft Teams FD Workshop
Date: April 16, 2021
Speaker: Aldo Villarroel
Participants: 9
CELF Special FD 1
Speaker: Sachiko Nakamura (Ph.D.) CELF
Title: Student Engagement
Date: December 6, 2021
Participants number: 15 (6 via Zoom and 9 face-to-face)
CELF Special FD 2
Speaker: Shun Morimoto (Ph.D.) College of Humanities, Tamagawa University
Title: "English Education at Primary and Secondary Schools in Japan under New Courseof Study – Status Quo and Future Challenges"
Date: January 11, 2022
Participants: 25 (12 online via Zoom, 13 face-to-face)
Figure 3
Left: Special lecture on Student Engagement by Sachiko Nakamura (Ph.D.) on
December 6. Right: Special lecture by Shun Morimoto (Ph.D.) on "English Education atPrimary and Secondary Schools in Japan under New Course of Study – Status Quo andFuture Challenges"

2.9 CELF FD Discussion Sessions
In addition to hosting lectures and workshops, the CELF FD also acts as a space forteachers and faculty members to meet, discuss ideas, and share knowledge. Two My
Share and Discussion FD sessions were held focusing on the topics of online classes andremote teaching. In these sessions many teachers shared their tips on how to conduct aneffective online class on June 18. In Fall semester (1/17/2022), the session also focussed
on assessment and grading.

1053. CELF RESEARCH ACHIEVEMENTS
Similar to 2020, researchers in the field faced a range of unique challenges relating to
the pandemic. Conferences were predominantly staged online, and the continuing online
classes made it difficult to collect data for classroom research projects. Still, the CELF
faculty managed to engage with the academic community on a number of fronts. These
included presenting in online conferences, publishing research articles, and working as
volunteers for different academic societies and publications.
3.1 Academic Presentations
In 2021 CELF faculty made 32 presentations at various international and domestic
conferences.
3.1.1 Domestic Presentations
The CELF made 10 presentations at conferences within Japan (see Table 2).
Some of the noteworthy talks included Tomokazu Ishikawa being an invited panelist
at The JALT PanSIG 2021, Miso Kim being an invited presenter at The JACET 60th
Commemorative International Convention, and Satomi Kuroshima presenting at The
Fourth JAAL in JACET Conference.
Table 2
Summary of CELF faculty’s domestic presentations (n＝10)
Type, Title, & Event

Author(s)Invited plenary panellist
Local and global perspectives: Plurilingualism andTomokazu Ishikawa
multilingualism
JALT PanSIG 2021
PosterPaul McBride &English as a Lingua Franca SIG
Tomokazu Ishikawa
JACET 60th Commemorative International Convention
Paper presentation
Reconceptualising intercultural and transcultural
Tomokazu Ishikawa
communicative competence
JACET 60th Commemorative International Convention
Invited co-ordinator
AILA Affiliate symposium – New forms of international
academic collaboration: Prospects and possibilities for ELT Tomokazu Ishikawa
in Asia
JACET 60th Commemorative International Convention

106

Invited presentation
Designing translingual and transmodal online classes:
Continuing English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) education in
online spaces
JACET 60th Commemorative International Convention
Paper presentation
Towards translingual and transcultural ELT
2021 CELF-ELTama Forum for English Language
Teaching
Paper presentation
Using word frequency lists in ELT2021 CELF-ELTama Forum for English Language
Teaching
Paper presentation
Creating ELF-aware lessons using TED talks
2021 CELF-ELTama Forum for English Language
Teaching
Paper presentation
Students’ boredom in class2021 CELF-ELTama Forum for English Language
Teaching
Paper presentation
Working toward group accomplishment through a proposal
sequence: Conversation analysis of a college English
learning activity
4th JAAL in JACET

Miso Kim

Tomokazu Ishikawa

Brett Milliner

Tiina Matikainen

Sachiko Nakamura

Satomi Kuroshima

3.1.2 International Presentations
Similar to in 2020, international travel restrictions prevented faculty from
attending any international conferences in person. The ELF Center was, however,represented at twelve international events. Among the different presentations listed inTable 3, Jody Yujobo, Miso Kim, Blagoja Dimoski, Satomi Kuroshima, Tricia Okada,and Rasami Chaikul presented at the AsiaTEFL 2021 conference in India. Satomi
Kuroshima made group presentations at the 17th International Pragmatics conference
and The 116th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA).
The CELF was also represented at the very prestigious AILA World Congress 2021
(Netherlands) by Tomokazu Ishikawa, Jody Yujobo, and Ayako Suzuki.

107

Table 3
Summary of CELF faculty’s international presentations (n＝22)
Location

Type, Title, & Event

Author(s)Panelist
Beginning to explain: Nanka-prefaced
Winterthur,
responsive and initial actions in Japanese
Satomi Kuroshima& Makoto Hayashi
Switzerland
conversation
17th International Pragmatics Conference(IPrA)
Paper presentation
Groningen, The English as a Lingua Franca research in Japan as
Tomokazu Ishikawa
Netherlandsa ground for English medium instruction
AILA World Congress 2021
Invited talkTowards transcultural ELT throughTaipei, Taiwan telecollaboration
Tomokazu Ishikawa
ETA-ROC 30th International Symposium andBook Fair on English TeachingNicos Sifakis
Invited plenary panelist(Organiser), Fan
ELF awareness in EFL pedagogy: How does
Fang, Tomokazu
ELF change EFL?
Athens, Greece
Ishikawa, EnricFirst International Conference on ELF-Aware
Llurda, Domingos
Practices for Inclusive Multilingual Classrooms
Sávio Siqueira, and(ENRICH-2021)
Henry Widdowson
Paper presentation
English as a multilingua franca and transcultural
ELTWill Baker &Athens, Greece
First International Conference on ELF-Aware Tomokazu Ishikawa
Practices for Inclusive Multilingual Classrooms(ENRICH-2021)
Invited talkReconceptualising intercultural and transcultural
Dong A,
competence and awareness
Tomokazu Ishikawa
VietnamEnglish Language & Culture Studies open
seminarInvited plenary talkTowards teaching English within
Singapore
multilingualism
Tomokazu Ishikawa
56th RELC International Conference (MEXT
Short-term Expert Dispatch Program)

108

Singapore

Invited panelist(tbc)
56th RELC International Conference (MEXT
Short-term Expert Dispatch Program)

Invited keynote speaker
Hong Kong (theELF to Unsettle Students’ Ideas of English for
University of
Global Citizenship Development
Hong Kong)
e-Sociolinguistic Symposium 23
Invited keynote
Re-Connecting with ZENJIN (Whole Person)
National
Principles and Sustainable Learning Strategies
Institute offor developing the next global human resources
Technology Goa
during the COVID-19 Pandemic
and Surathlkal;
International Conference on Sustainable
Goa, India
Learning: Strategies and its consequences indigital India
Paper presentation
Referent re-introduction in bilingual narratives:
Groningen, The
A qualitative analysis of crosslinguistic
Netherlands
influence (Kaken 19K00615)
AILA World Congress 2021
Paper presentation
Referent re-introduction as the locus ofcrosslinguistic influence: An investigation on
University of
Warsaw, Poland referential choice in Japanese-English bilingual
children (Kaken 19K00615)
13th International Symposium on Bilingualism
PosterGroningen, The Impacts of study abroad on university students’
Netherlands
understanding of English as a lingua franca
AILA World Congress 2021

Tomokazu Ishikawa

Ayako Suzuki

Yuri Jody Yujobo

Satomi MishinaMori, Yuki Nakano,
Yuri Jody Yujobo
Satomi MishinaMori, Yuki Nakano,
Yuri Jody Yujobo

Ayako Suzuki

Paper presentation
Invoking shared knowledge in proposal
USA
Satomi Kuroshima
sequences for collaborative activities
American Sociological Association (ASA) 116th
Annual Meeting
Paper presentation“Normally speaking”: A normalization device to Satomi Kuroshima,
USA, Baltimore resist heteronormativity
Sachie Tsuruta,
American Sociological Association (ASA) 116th Katsumi Harima
Annual Meeting109New Dehli,
India

New Dehli,
India

Athens, Greece

Athens, Greece

Athens, Greece

New Dehli,
India

OnlinePaper presentation
Creating Interdisciplinary Synergies throughteaching Social Issues known as “Wicked Prob- Yuri Jody Yujobo
lems”
AsiaTEFL 2021
Paper presentation
Blagoja Dimoski,
Understanding first-contact encounters inSatomi Kuroshima,
online communication among ELF users: PreYuri Jody Yujobo,
pandemic observations of transcultural andTricia Okada,
strategic language use
Rasami Chaikul
AsiaTEFL 2021
Paper presentation‘Translanguaging’ Gestures and Onomatopoeia Satomi Kuroshima,
as a Resource for Repairing the problem with
Blagoja Dimoski,
Speaking
Tricia Okada,First International Conference on ELF-Aware Yuri Jody Yujobo,
Practices for Inclusive Multilingual Classrooms Rasami Chaikul(ENRICH-2021)
Paper presentation
English is our language, too: Raisingintercultural awareness and Philippine English
Tricia Okada
First International Conference on ELF-Aware
Practices for Inclusive Multilingual Classrooms(ENRICH-2021)
Paper presentation
What’s Wrong with ELF? Students’ Difficulties
in Understanding ELF
Ayako Suzuki
First International Conference on ELF-Aware
Practices for Inclusive Multilingual Classrooms(ENRICH-2021)
Symposium
Facilitating student participation in online andMiso Kim
offline classrooms
AsiaTEFL 2021
Roundtable discussion
Emotion regulation
International Association for the Psychology of Sachiko Nakamura
Language Learning (IAPLL) Online Roundtable
Event

3.2 Academic Publications
Table 4 (below) reports on the different publications made by CELF faculty in 2021.
First and foremost, we wish to congratulate Tricia Okada on successfully defending
her Ph.D. thesis titled The migration pathways and gender performance of Transpinay

110entertainers in Japan. Tomokazu Ishikawa, Sachiko Nakamura, and Satomi Kuroshima
all published book chapters. What is perhaps different from previous years, a significant
number of research articles were published in first-quartile (Q11 ) ranked academic
journals. Ayako Suzuki published her research in ELT Journal. Brett Milliner, Blagoja
Dimoski, and Sachiko Nakamura published in Language Teaching Research. Tokokazu
Ishikawa published in Asian Englishes while Sachiko Nakamura also published in
System and The Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. These achievements are areflection of the dedicated research culture inside the CELF, and faculty’s reputation
within the larger academic community. Lastly, we would like to congratulate Tomokazu
Ishikawa on publishing his first textbook Transcultural Communication Through Global
Englishes: An advanced textbook for students with Professor Will Baker. We encourage
all teachers to consider using this textbook in their future English classes.
Table 4
Summary of publications by CELF faculty (n＝21)
Type (〇=Peer-reviewed) & Reference
Chapter 〇Kuroshima, S., Hyeri Kim, S., Hayano, K., Shin Kim, M., Lee, S.
(2021). When OKAY is repeated. In E. Betz, A. Deppermann, L.
Mondada, & M. Sorjornen (Eds.). OKAY across Languages. John
Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.34
Research article 〇Author(s)Satomi Kuroshima,
Stephanie Hyeri
Kim, Kaoru
Hayano,Mary Shin Kim
and Seung-Hee
Lee

Milliner, B., & Dimoski, B. (2021). The effects of a metacognitive Brett Milliner &Blagoja Dimoskiintervention on lower-proficiency EFL learners’ listening
comprehension and listening self-efficacy. Language Teaching
Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211004646
ReportChaikul, R., & Milliner, B. (2020). A report on research at
the Center for English as a Lingua Franca 2020. The Center
for English as a Lingua Franca Forum, 1, 49-62. http://doi.
org/10.15045/ELF_0060112
Research article 〇Rasami Chaikul &Brett Milliner

Milliner, B. (2021). Reading fluency training for elementaryBrett Milliner
level EFL learners: The effects of combining timed-reading,repeated-oral-reading, and extensive-reading. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 33(2), 191-211. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/67400

1

111

All journal rankings were retrieved from https://www.scimagojr.com

Textbook
Baker, W., & Ishikawa, T. (2021). Transcultural communication
through Global Englishes: An advanced textbook for students.
Routledge.
Chapter 〇Will Baker& Tomokazu
Ishikawa

Ishikawa, T. (2021). Translanguaging and English-withinmultilingualism in the Japanese EMI context. In Tsou, W. & Baker Tomokazu
W. (Eds.), English-medium instruction translanguaging practices Ishikawa
in Asia: Theories, frameworks and implementation in higher
education (pp. 39-57). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-98116-3001-9_3
Article 〇Ishikawa, T., & Baker, W. (2021). Multi-, inter-, and trans-?
‘Confusing’ terms for ELF researchers. The Center for
English as a Lingua Franca Forum, 1, 21-30. https://doi.
org/10.15045/00001564
Article 〇Ishikawa, T. (2021). Reconceptualising intercultural andtranscultural communicative competence. Proceedings of the
JACET 60th Commemorative International Convention, 127-128.
Research article 〇Ishikawa, T. (2022). English as a multilingua franca and transtheories. Englishes in Practice, 5(1).
Research article 〇Tomokazu
Ishikawa & Will
Baker

Tomokazu
Ishikawa
Tomokazu
Ishikawa

Satomi Kuroshima,
Blagoja Dimoski,
Kuroshima, S., Dimoski, B., Okada, T., Yujobo, J. Y., & Chaikul, Tricia Okada, Jody
R. (2022). Navigating boundaries through knowledge: Intercultural Yuri Yujobo, &Rasami Chaikul
Phenomenon in ELF interactions. Englishes in Practice, 5(1).
ArticleAriane Macalinga
Borlongan, A. M., & Ishikawa, T. (2021). English in Japan
Borlongan &Tomokazu
and Japanese English: Introduction to the special issue. AsianEnglishes, 23(1), 1-2. https://doi.org./10.1080/13488678.2021.188 Ishikawa
2804
Research article 〇Tomokazu
Ishikawa, T. (2021). Global Englishes and ‘Japanese English’.
Ishikawa
Asian Englishes, 23(1), 15-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2
020.1858579
112

Research article 〇Suzuki, A. (2021). Changing views of English through study
abroad as teacher training. ELT Journal, 75(4), 397-406. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccab038
Research article 〇Ayako Suzuki

Kuroshima, S., & Ivarsson, J. (2021). Toward a praxeologicalaccount of performing surgery: Overcoming methodological andtechnical constraints. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of
Human Sociality, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v4i3.128146
ArticleSatomi Kuroshima& Jonas Ivarsson

Milliner, B., & Shimono, T. (2021). ERJ interview with Torrin
Shimono. Extensive Reading Japan, 14(1), 3-5.
Doctoral thesis 〇Brett Milliner &Torrin Shimono

Okada, T. (2021). The migration pathways and gender performance Tricia Okada
of Transpinay entertainers in Japan. [Doctoral dissertation, Waseda
University]
ArticleMilliner, B. (2022). Create your own vocabulary levels test with
VocabLevelTest.org. The Language Teacher, 46(1), 33-35.
Chapter 〇Reinders, H., & Nakamura, S. (2021). Engagement. In S.
Mercer & T. Gregersen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
the psychology of language learning. Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780429321498
Research article 〇Nakamura, S., Darasawang, P., & Reinders, H. (2021). A
practitioner study on the implementation of strategy instruction
for boredom regulation. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.
org/10.1177/13621688211010272
Research article 〇Nakamura, S., Darasawang, P., & Reinders, H. (2021). The
antecedents of boredom in L2 classroom learning. System, 98,
1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102469

113

Brett Milliner

Hayo Reinders &Sachiko Nakamura
SachikoNakamura,
Pornapit
Darasawang, &Hayo Reinders
SachikoNakamura,
Pornapit
Darasawang, &Hayo Reinders

Research article 〇SachikoNakamura,
Nakamura, S., Reinders, H., & Darasawang, P. (2022). A
Pornapitclassroom-based study on the antecedents of epistemic curiosity in
Darasawang, &L2 learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1–16. https://Hayo Reinders
doi.org/10.1007/s10936-022-09839-x
3.3 Contributions to Academic Societies
Compared to previous years (see Chaikul & Milliner, 2019, 2020, 2021), there wasa significant increase in engagement from CELF faculty with a range of academicorganizations and publications in 2021. As reported in Table 5 below, CELF faculty
fulfilled 100 voluntary roles.
Table 5
Summary of contributions by CELF faculty to academic societies in 2021 (n=100)
Society

JACET
Asia TEFL

Position

Name

International Participants
Liaison Section Member

Paul McBride
Paul McBride

JACET ELF SIG

Member of the Asia TEFL
ELF research network

Steering Committee Member

Paul McBride

JACET Kanto

Vice President

Paul McBride

JACET Kanto Journal

Journal Editor

Paul McBride

Reviewer

Paul McBrideEnglishes in Practice

Editorial board member

Paul McBrideEnglishes in Practice

Reviewer

Paul McBride

The CELF Forum

Reviewer

Paul McBride

IAFOR Journal of Education

Senior Reviewer

IAFOR Journal of Education:
Language learning in education

Reviewer

Andrew
Leichsenring

Englishes in Practice

Reviewer

The CELF Forum

Reviewer

JACET ELF SIG

Andrew
Leichsenring
Andrew
Leichsenring
Andrew
Leichsenring
114

Extensive Reading Japan

Copy Editor

Brett Milliner

The Journal of Extensive
Reading

Copy Editor

Brett Milliner

Editor-in-Chief

Brett Milliner

Reading in a Foreign Language

Reviewer

Brett Milliner

International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language
Teaching—IRAL

Reviewer

Brett Milliner

International Journal of
Listening

Reviewer

Brett Milliner

JACET Kanto Journal

Reviewer

Satomi Kuroshima

Journal of Pragmatics

Reviewer

Satomi Kuroshima

The Japanese Association ofSociolinguistic Sciences

Reviewer

Satomi Kuroshima

Treasurer

Satomi Kuroshima

Research promotion
committee

Satomi Kuroshima

Reviewer

Satomi Kuroshima

Studies in Pragmatics 語用論研
究

Reviewer

Satomi Kuroshima

Special Committee for the
JACET 61st Anniversary
Commemoration Week (JACET
2022)

Publishers Section Member

Satomi Kuroshima

Executive Board Member

Satomi Kuroshima

Japanese Association for
Ethmenothodology andConversation Analysis

Communication Director

Satomi Kuroshima

EMCA Section Book
Awards’ Committee

Satomi Kuroshima

Englishes in Practice

The Japanese Association ofSociolinguistic Sciences
JACET

JACET Journal

The Japanese Society for
Artificial Intelligence, Special
Interest Group on Spoken
Language Understanding and
Dialogue Processing (SLUD)

American Sociological
Association (ASA)

115

Special Committee for the
JACET 60th Anniversary
Commemoration Week (JACET
2021)

Publishers Section Member

Satomi Kuroshima

Englishes in Practice

Editorial Board Member

Satomi Kuroshima

Englishes in Practice

Editorial Board Member &Assistant Handling Editor

Tomokazu Ishikawa

Reviewer

Tomokazu Ishikawa

Reviewer

Tomokazu Ishikawa

Executive Committee
MemberTomokazu Ishikawa

Englishes in Practice
The CELF Forum
JACET
JACET
JACET

JACET
JACET International Conference
Committee (JACET2022)

Chair & Steering Committee Tomokazu Ishikawa
MemberSteering Committee Member Tomokazu Ishikawa(AILA & JAAL in JACET
Coordinator)

Associate Chair & Steering
Committee Member for the
JACET Seminar

Tomokazu Ishikawa

Co-chief, Public Relations
SectionTomokazu Ishikawa

Chief, International
Participants Section

Tomokazu Ishikawa

Scientific Committee
MemberTomokazu Ishikawa

Cambridge Elements inIntercultural Communication

Editorial Board Member

Tomokazu Ishikawa

Invited Guest Co-Editor

Tomokazu Ishikawa

Journal of English as a Lingua
Franca

Reviewer

Tomokazu Ishikawa

Reviewer

Tomokazu Ishikawa

Special Committee for the
JACET 60th Anniversary
Commemoration Week
(JACET2021)

First International Conference
on ELF-Aware Practices
for INclusive Multilingual
Classrooms (ENRICH-2021)

Asian EnglishesInternational Journal of Applied
Linguistics

116

Language and Intercultural
Communication

Journal of Multilingual andMulticultural Development
JAAL in JACET

JACET ELF SIG

Tomokazu Ishikawa

Reviewer

Tomokazu Ishikawa

Steering Committee Member Tomokazu Ishikawa(Academic Exchange)
Public Relations Committee
Chair; Membership
Administration Committee
Vice Chair

Tomokazu Ishikawa

Reviewer

Tomokazu Ishikawa

JACET Journal

Reviewer

Tomokazu Ishikawa

JACET Kanto Journal

Reviewer

Tomokazu Ishikawa

JAAL in JACET Proceedings

Reviewer

Tomokazu Ishikawa

International Workshop
Series Organising
Committee Member

Tomokazu Ishikawa

JACET ELF SIG Journal

JACET ELF SIG – ELF
Research Group Waseda
AILA ELF ReN

Tomokazu Ishikawa

FIEP JAPANWorking Committee
MemberDirector of Public Relations

Rasami Chakul

JACET 2021 Conference

Steering Committee Member

Rasami Chaikul

Englishes in Practice

Reviewer

Rasami Chaikul

The CELF Forum

Reviewer

Rasami Chaikul

Englishes in Practice

Assistant Handling Editor

Rasami Chaiku

Special Committee for the
JACET 60th Anniversary
Commemoration Week (JACET
2021)

International Participants
Liaison Section Member

Yuri Jody Yujobo

Englishes in Practice

Reviewer

Yuri Jody Yujobo

The CELF Forum

Reviewer

Yuri Jody Yujobo

Program Book Section
LeaderYuri Jody Yujobo

The 9th JACET English
Education Seminar
Englishes in Practice
117

Reviewer

Reviewer

Blagoja Dimoski

The CELF Forum

Reviewer

Blagoja DimoskiInternational Participants
Liaison Section Member

Blagoja Dimoski

Englishes in PracticeHandling Editor

Travis CoteEnglishes in Practice

Reviewer

Travis Cote

The CELF Forum

Reviewer

Travis Cote

JACET Kanto

Branch Executive

Ayako Suzuki

JACET Kanto Journal

Editor-in-Chief

Ayako Suzuki

Special Committee for the
JACET 60th Anniversary
Commemoration Week (JACET
2021)

Academic Exchange Section
MemberAyako Suzuki

Englishes in Practice

Editorial Board Member

Ayako Suzuki

JACET Academic Affairs
Committee

Steering Committe Member

Ayako Suzuki

Chair

Ayako Suzuki

Englishes in Practice

Reviewer

Tiina Matikainen

The CELF Forum

Reviewer

Tiina Matikainen

JALT Journal

Reviewer

Tiina Matikainen

Englishes in Practice

Reviewer

Miso Kim

The CELF Forum

Reviewer

Miso Kim

Asia-Pacific Education Review

Reviewer

Miso Kim

The Modern Language Journal

Reviewer

Miso Kim

Publicity Committee
MemberMiso Kim

Director of Facebook

Miso Kim

Englishes in Practice

Reviewer

Tricia Okada

The CELF Forum

Reviewer

Tricia Okada

Journal of Homosexuality

Reviewer

Tricia Okada

Special Committee for the
JACET 60th Anniversary
Commemoration Week (JACET
2021)

JACET Teaching Materials SIG

Asia TEFL
Asia TEFL

118

Englishes in Practice

Reviewer

Sachiko Nakamura

The CELF Forum

Reviewer

Sachiko Nakamura

Language Teaching Research

Reviewer

Sachiko Nakamura

Journal of Language and
Education

Reviewer

Sachiko Nakamura

Reviewer

Sachiko Nakamura

JALT Postconference
Publication

Content Editor

Sachiko Nakamura

Reviewer

Sachiko Nakamura

JALT Journal

Copy Editor

Sachiko Nakamura

JALT Postconference
Proceedings

Copy Editor

Sachiko Nakamura

Studies in Second Language
Learning and Teaching

Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching

3.4 Research Grants Received by CELF Faculty
Members of CELF faculty are involved in a total of 11 research projects funded by
Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research through the Japan Society for the Promotion of
Science (JSPS Kakenhi). From the list of projects reported below (Table 6) we want tocongratulate Satomi Kuroshima on securing a new grant for a project titled, Disfluency
as deviance from and a resource for interaction order. We look forward to learning fromthe different research outputs that this and other projects will generate in the coming
years.
Table 6
Summary of research grants received by CELF faculty in 2021 (n=11)119GrantType

LengthProject

Recipient

JSPS
KakenhiGrant-in-Aid
for Scientific
Research (C)JSPS
Kakenhi

相互行為における行為のGrants-in Aid
04-01for Scientific 2020〜03- 構成――原発避難地域
Research (C)31-2024 における日常活動の基盤 Action formation in theinteraction: Routine groundsof everyday activities forthe evacuation area of a
nuclear power plant

SatomiKuroshima(Coinvestigator)

Blagoja
Dimoski(Primary
Investigator)& Satomi
Kuroshima,
Yuri Jody
Yujobo, Tricia
Okada, Rasami
Chaikul (Coinvestigators)

04-01Intersectionality of
2020〜03- the Transgender and31-2023 Transnational Lives ofTranspinay Entertainers inJapanTricia Okada(Primary
investigator)

Grant-in-Aid
for Scientific
Research (A)

日常場面と特定場面の日
04-012017〜03- 本語会話コーパスの構築
31-2022 と言語・相互行為研究の新展開

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

SatomiKuroshima(Coinvestigator)

JSPS
KakenhiGrant-in-Aid
for Scientific
Research (C)

英語授業内活動における04-012018〜03- 認識性交渉の会話分析と31-2022 タスクデザインの提案

JSPS
KakenhiGrant-in-Aid
for Scientific
Research (C)若者の就労支援活動にお04-012017〜03- ける相互行為の分析
31-2021

JSPS
KakenhiSatomiKuroshima(Coinvestigator)
SatomiKuroshima(Coinvestigator)

120

JSPS
Kakenhi

JSPS
KakenhiGrant-in-Aid
for Scientific
Research (B)Grant-in-Aid
for Scientific
Research (C)JSPS
KakenhiGrant-in-Aid
for Scientific
Research (C)JSPS
KakenhiGrant-in-Aid
for Scientific
Research (C)JSPS
KakenhiGrant-in-Aid
for Scientific
Research (C)多言語ビジネス環境での04-012019〜03- 共通語としての英語使用実31-2023 態調査とグローバル人材育成教育 [Research on therealities of the use of ELF
in multilingual businesssettings and implications forthe development of global
human resources]
日英継続バイリンガ
04-012019〜03- ルの談話能力の発達
31-2022 ー国際バカロレア校
生徒のナラティヴ研究
Development of JapaneseEnglish simultaneous andlate successive bilingual
discourse skills- Narrative
study on international
baccalaureate students

Tomokazu
Ishikawa(CoInvestigator)

Jody Yuri
Yujobo(CoInvestigator)

内部被曝検査通知に
04-012019〜03- おける医療従事者と来31-2023 院者の相互行為分析(Conversation analysis of
the internal exposure test
result consultation)

SatomiKuroshima(Primaryinvestigator)

社会的相互行為におけ
04-012021〜03- る「逸脱」と「資源」として
31-2024 の非流暢性 Disfluency
as deviance from and a
resource for interaction
order

SatomiKuroshima(Coinvestigator)

性同一性障害の診断を
07-182018〜03- 例にした精神医学的診察
31-2022 の会話分析(Conversation
analysis of psychiatricconsultation on “Gender
Identity Disorder”)

SatomiKuroshima(Coinvestigator)

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS AND PLANS FOR 2022
This document presented a review of the various faculty development lectures andworkshops staged throughout the 2021 academic year. Even though almost all FD

121initiatives took place online, we are confident that they prompted many conversations
between our diverse faculty, and perhaps more importantly, they helped faculty grow asteaching professionals. The CELF is also very proud it could maintain its strong researchrecord during another year of unique challenges.
REFERENCES
Tamagawa Academy & University (1996-2020). Center for English as a Lingua
Franca. Tamagawa University. http://www.tamagawa.ac.jp/
Chaikul, R., & Milliner, B. (2019). A report on faculty development and research at
the Center for English as a Lingua Franca. The Center for English as a Lingua
Franca Journal, 5, 54-82. http://doi.org/10.15045/ELF_0050105
Chaikul, R., & Milliner, B. (2020). A report on faculty development and research at
the Center for English as a Lingua Franca. The Center for English as a Lingua
Franca Journal, 6, 129-155. http://doi.org/10.15045/ELF_0060112
Chaikul, R., & Milliner, B. (2021). A report on research at the Center for English as a
Lingua Franca. The Center for English as a Lingua Franca Forum, 1, 49–62.
http://doi.org/10.15045/ELF_0060112

122