40th Anniversary Special Issue

2012

14

JACET KANSAI JOURNAL
THE JOURNAL OF THE KANSAI CHAPTER OF
THE JAPAN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE ENGLISH TEACHERS

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE 2012
CHAIRPERSON

Yuko Oguri
University of Shiga Prefecture
MEMBERS

Kaori Nitta
Kinki University
Sonia Sonoko Strain
Himeji Dokkyo University
Tomoko Yashima
Kansai University
EDITORIAL OFFICE

Yuko Ikuma
Osaka Kyoiku University
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the following colleagues who served
as reviewers of the papers considered for publication during the preparation of JACET
Kansai Journal No. 14:
LIST OF REVIEWERS (in alphabetical order)
Nobuhiko Akamatsu (Doshisha Univ.)
Kazunori Nozawa (Ritsumeikan Univ.)
Sonoko Harada (Emeritus, Kobe College)
Virginia Peng (Ritsumeikan Univ.)
Keiko Hayashi (Hiroshima Jogakuin Univ.)
Osato Shiki (Kwansei Gakuin Univ.)
Hiroyuki Imai (Hyogo Univ. of Teacher
Osamu Takeuchi (Kansai Univ.)
Education)
Midori Tanimura (Kyoto Univ. of Foreign
Keiichi Ishikawa (Kyoto Women’s Univ.)
Studies)
Emiko Izumi (Kyoto Univ. of Education)
Natsumi Wakamoto (Doshisha Women’sCollege of Liberal Arts)
Takaaki Kanzaki (Kwansei Gakuin Univ.)
Hiroyuki Yamanishi (Kansai Gaidai Univ.)
Eiko Kawagoe (Kobe City College of Nursing)Hirokazu Yokokawa (Kobe Univ.)
Hiroshi Kimura (Kinki Univ.)
Haruyo Yoshida (Osaka Kyoiku Univ.)
Toshiko Koyama (Osaka Ohtani Univ.)
Shinsuke Yoshida (Kansai Univ.)
Atsushi Mizumoto (Kansai Univ.)
Copying All content in this journal is protected by the Japanese copyright law. All rights reserved.
The material therein may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it isreproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context after permission has been granted fromthe Kansai Chapter of JACET. If any of the items with copyright in this journal are republished or
copied, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged.
Instructions for Contributors can be found in the appendix and via http://www.jacetkansai.org/kako.html#kiyou
ᥖ㍕ㄽᩥࡣ㸪JACET 㛵すᨭ㒊㸪࠾ࡼࡧ JACET 㛵す⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ
࡛ࡣ࠶ࡾࡲࡏࢇࠋ
The articles published herein do not reflect the opinions of JACET Kansai Chapter or the JACET
Kansai Journal Editorial Committee.
© Kansai Chapter, The Japan Association of College English Teachers, 2012

JACET Kansai Journal
No. 14 March 2012
Editorial
Editorialᑠᰩ ⿱Ꮚ
iii

ᑠᰩ ⿱Ꮚ㛵すᨭ㒊タ❧ 40 ࿘ᖺࢆグᛕࡋ࡚

Part I
Part I
Invited Article
Invited Article
Susan HUNSTON
1Motivated; Self-Directed; Informed – The Model Language Learner in the 21st Century
Research Article
Research Article
Yoko MAEKAWA and Tomoko YASHIMA
Examining the Effects of Presentation-based Instruction on Japanese Engineering
Students’ Attitudes towards Learning English: A Preliminary Study
Research Notes
Research Notes

17

Mai MATSUNAGA
29
An Empirical Study on Effective Training Sessions for Pre-Service Elementary School
Teachers᭷ᮏ ᮒ㔛᭷ᮏ ᮒ㔛
ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢㄞゎ᪉␎࡜Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚

41

Application Reports
Application Reports
Cheena FUJIOKA
Implementing Content-Based Peace Education in an EFL Classroom Utilizing NonFiction Literature஧஬ ⩏༤஧஬ ⩏༤
ከ㔜▱⬟࡜⛉Ꮫศ㔝ࡢࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆ⏕࠿ࡍㄞゎࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋࡓⱥㄒᣦᑟἲ

Part II
Part II
Invited Articles㸦Ṕ௦ᨭ㒊㛗ࡼࡾ㸧
Invited1990 ᖺ Articles㸦Ṕ௦ᨭ㒊㛗ࡼࡾ㸧4 ᭶㹼1992 ᖺ 6 ᭶  ኱㇂ Ὀ↷
1994 ᖺ 4 ᭶㹼᭶㹼1998 ᖺ 3 ᭶  ኱㇂ከ⏣ Ὀ↷⛱
1998 ᖺ 4 ᭶㹼᭶㹼2002 ᖺ 3 ᭶  ከ⏣㇏⏣ ⛱ᫀ೔
2002 ᖺ 4 ᭶㹼᭶㹼2006 ᖺ 3 ᭶  ㇏⏣ᒸ⏣ ᫀ೔
ఙኵ
2006 ᖺ 4 ᭶㹼᭶㹼2010 ᖺ 3 ᭶  ᒸ⏣ᮌᮧ ఙኵ
༤᫝༤᫝
2010 ᖺ 4 ᭶㹼᭶㹼⌧ᅾᖺ ᭶  ᮌᮧ㔝ཱྀࢪࣗࢹ࢕࣮ὠከỤᖺ ᭶㹼⌧ᅾ     㔝ཱྀࢪࣗࢹ࢕࣮ὠከỤ

53

65

77
80
83
86
89
92

Kansai Chapter
The Japan Association of College English Teachers

History of JACET Kansai Chapter㸦㛵すᨭ㒊ࡢ⣔ᅗ㸧
JACET 㛵すᨭ㒊኱఍ࡢṔྐ㸦᪂⏣ 㤶⧊㸧
ᑠᰩ
⿱Ꮚ
JACET
㛵すᨭ㒊⣖せࡢṔྐ㸦ᑠᰩ ⿱Ꮚ㸧95100◊✲఍⤂௓㸸102103
 Ꮫ⩦ⱥᩥἲ◊✲఍㸦ᒸ⏣ ఙኵࠊ⏥ᩫ 㞞அ㸧
104
 ࣜࢫࢽࣥࢢ◊✲఍㸦㧗ᶫ ᑑኵ㸧105ᩥᏛᩍ⫱◊✲఍㸦Ᏻ⏣ ඃ㸧
106
 ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ◊✲఍㸦ᕝ㷂 ┾⌮Ꮚ㸧107
 The Writing Research Group, the JACET Kansai Chapter 㸦Junko Otoshi㸧 108
 ESP ◊✲఍㸦㛵す㸧㸦᪂⏣ 㤶⧊㸧109 ᩍᮦ㛤Ⓨ◊✲఍㸦኱ෆ ࿴ṇࠊ௰ᕝ ᾈୡ㸧 ࠕᾏእࡢእᅜㄒᩍ⫱ࠖ◊✲఍㸦኱㇂ Ὀ↷㸧AppendicesࠗJACET Kansai Journal㸦JACET 㛵す⣖せ㸧࠘ห⾜つᐃ

110

ࠗJACET Kansai Journal㸦JACET 㛵す⣖せ㸧࠘ᢞ✏つᐃ᭷ᮏ ᮒ㔛

112

஧஬ ⩏༤

㸦Ṕ௦ᨭ㒊㛗ࡼࡾ㸧ᖺ ᭶㹼ᖺ ᭶  ኱㇂ Ὀ↷ᖺ ᭶㹼ᖺ ᭶  ከ⏣ ⛱ᖺ ᭶㹼ᖺ ᭶  ㇏⏣ ᫀ೔ᖺ ᭶㹼ᖺ ᭶  ᒸ⏣ ఙኵᖺ ᭶㹼ᖺ ᭶  ᮌᮧ ༤᫝ᖺ ᭶㹼⌧ᅾ     㔝ཱྀࢪࣗࢹ࢕࣮ὠከỤ

Kansai Chapter
The Japan Association of College English Teachers-$&(7.DQVDL-RXUQDO
LLL  -$&(7.DQVDL&KDSWHU
,661   3ULQWHGLQ-$3$1
㛵すᨭ㒊タ❧ 40 ࿘ᖺࢆグᛕࡋ࡚ 㛵すᨭ㒊⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡣࠊㅽࢇ࡛ JACET KANSAI JOURNAL No.14 ࢆ࠾ᒆࡅ࠸
ࡓࡋࡲࡍࠋ௒ᅇࡣ 2 㒊ᵓᡂ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࠋ๓༙ࡣᚑ᮶ࡢ⣖せ࡛ࡍࠋṊᗜᕝዪᏊ኱Ꮫ࡛㛤ദࡉࢀࡓ 40 ࿘ᖺグᛕ኱఍࡟࠾࠸࡚ Susan Hunston ඛ⏕ࡀㅮ₇ࡉࢀࡓෆᐜ
ࢆࡑࡢࡲࡲᐤ✏ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࡲࡋࡓࠋㅮ₇ཎ✏࡛ࡍࡢ࡛ࠊᑡࡋㄞࡳ᫆ࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸
ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡛ࡋࡻ࠺࠿ࠋḟ࡟ 10 ⦅ࡢᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡢ࠺ࡕ 2 ᅇࡢᰝㄞࢆ⤒࡚᥇ᢥࡉࢀ
ࡓ 5 ⦅ࡢㄽᩥࡀ⥆ࡁࡲࡍࠋ ᚋ༙ࡣᨭ㒊タ❧ 40 ࿘ᖺࡢグᛕ≉㞟࡛ࡍࠋ᭱ึ࡟Ṕ௦ᨭ㒊㛗࡟ᅾ௵୰ࡢ㐠Ⴀࡸᛮ࠸ฟࠊ௒ᚋࡢᨭ㒊࡟ᮃࡴࡇ࡜ࢆ᭩࠸࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢᙜ᫬ࡢඛ⏕᪉ࡢᨭ㒊࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⇕࠸᝿࠸ࡸάືࡀᩥ㠃࠿ࡽఏࢃࡗ࡚ࡁࡲࡍࠋḟ࡟ࠕᨭ㒊⣔ᅗࠖ࡜㢟ࡋ࡚Ꮫ఍ࡢ୰ᚰⓗάືࡢṌࡳࢆ≉㞟ࡋࡲࡋࡓࠋᨭ㒊኱఍ࡣࠊࡑࡢ㒔ᗘࢸ࣮࣐ࢆ⪃࠼ࠊẖᖺ 2 ᅇ㛤ദࡋ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࡋࠊ⣖せࡶࡑࡢ᫬ࠎ࡟࠾࠸᳨࡚ウࢆ㔜ࡡ࡞ࡀࡽ 14 ྕ࡟࡞ࡾࡲࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊ8 ࡘࡢ◊✲఍ࡣ⊂⮬࡟⣖せࡸ෉ᏊࢆⓎ⾜ࡋࡓࡾࠊ◊✲఍࡛ࡢ▱ぢࢆබหࡋࡓࡾ࡜ࡑࢀࡒࢀάⓎ࡞◊✲άືࢆ⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡲࡍࡢ࡛ࠊࡇࢀ࠿ࡽࡢ 10 ᖺࡀ୍ᒙᮇᚅࡉࢀࡲࡍࠋ JKJ No.14 ࡣࡓࡃࡉࢇࡢ᪉ࠎࡢ༠ຊࡢ࠾࠿ࡆ࡛↓஦Ⓨ⾜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋ
⊩㌟ⓗ࡞ᰝㄞጤဨࡢඛ⏕᪉ࠊᗈ࿌ࡢᥖ㍕ࢆࡋ࡚⣖せⓎ⾜ࢆᨭ᥼ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓ㈶ຓ఍ဨࡢ᪉ࠎࠊࡉࡽ࡟≉㞟ྕࡢࡓࡵ࡟᫬㛫ࢆ๭࠸࡚ᐤ✏ࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓṔ௦ᨭ㒊㛗ࡸ◊✲఍ࡢࡳ࡞ࡉࡲ࡟ࡣᚰࡼࡾ࠾♩⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋࡲࡓࠊ⦅㞟ጤဨࡢ᪂⏣㤶⧊ඛ⏕ࠊࢫࢺࣞ࢖࣭ࣥࢯࢽ࢔ᅬᏊඛ⏕ࠊඵᓥᬛᏊඛ⏕ࠊ⦅㞟సᴗࢆ ࠿ࡃぢᏲࡗ࡚ࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓ㔝ཱྀࢪࣗࢹ࢕࣮ὠከỤᨭ㒊㛗ࡸᖿ஦ࡢඛ⏕᪉࡟ཌࡃឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋ
ࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ᫬㛫࡜ࡢᡓ࠸ࡢ୰࡛ᖖ࡟㎿㏿࡟ᑐᛂࡋ࡚ࡃࡔࡉࡗࡓ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍஦ົᒁ㛗⏕㤿⿱Ꮚඛ⏕ࡢࡈᑾຊ࡟ឤㅰࡢពࢆ⾲ࡋࡓ࠸࡜ᛮ࠸ࡲࡍࠋ ௒᪥◊✲ࡢᡭἲࡶከᵝ໬ࡋ࡚ࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋJKJ ࡶࡑࡢኚ໬࡟ᑐᛂࡍ࡭ࡃࠊNo.15 ࡼࡾᢞ✏ཎ✏ࡢศ㔞ࢆࠕ12 㡫௨ෆࠖ࠿ࡽࠕ10 㡫௨ୖ 20 㡫௨ෆࠖ࡜ኚ᭦࠸ࡓࡋࡲࡍࠋヲ⣽ࡣ᭱ᚋࡢ࣮࣌ࢪࠕᢞ✏つᐃࠖࢆࡈぴࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ⦅㞟⪅୍ྠࠊḟྕ࡬ࡢᢞ✏ࢆ࠾ᚅࡕࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢグᛕྕࡀࡳ࡞ࡉࡲࡢᩍ⫱࡜◊✲ࡢ୍ຓ࡜࡞ࡿ
ࡇ࡜ࢆ㢪ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾࡲࡍࠋ        㛵すᨭ㒊⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࢆ௦⾲ࡋ࡚
ᑠᰩ⿱Ꮚ
2012 ᖺ 3 ᭶ 12 ᪥

iii






3DUW,
,QYLWHG$UWLFOH 











5HVHDUFK$UWLFOH











5HVHDUFK1RWHV











$SSOLFDWLRQ5HSRUWV










-$&(7.DQVDL-RXUQDO±  -$&(7.DQVDL&KDSWHU
,661   3ULQWHGLQ-$3$1

Motivated; Self-Directed; Informed – The Model Language Learner in the 21st Century(Transcript of plenary lecture given at JACET Kansai Chapter 2011 40th Anniversary Conference,
Nov. 27, 2011, Mukogawa Women’s University, Nishinomiya, Japan)
Susan Hunston
University of Birmingham
I am always nervous when talking to an audience of language teachers, because I am awarethat you know much more about language teaching than I do. So let me talk to you not as alanguage teacher but as a language learner. I have attended classes in quite a number of languages,
though I don’t speak any of them well and in some cases I have forgotten most of what I ever knew.
But I am an enthusiastic, if not very confident, language learner. What, for me, is a good language
learning experience? I suggest there are three important factors: motivation, self-direction, andaccurate information. Moving beyond my own experience I want to link these factors to threedevelopments in research that are related to language teaching: studies of motivation, studies ofEnglish as a Lingua Franca, and studies related to using corpus information to inform language
teaching.
Motivation
It is well known that motivation is key to language learning. The best teacher in the world
cannot make an unmotivated learner learn. (Though the best teacher will probably motivate thelearner). The worst teacher in the world cannot prevent a motivated learner from learning. There area lot of theories of motivation, but one that appeals to me is the theory of ‘possible selves’. This has
been developed in relation to language teaching by Zoltán Dörnyei, using concepts suggested by
Markus and Nurius (Dörnyei 2010). Dörnyei says that two ‘selves’ are particularly relevant tolanguage learning: the ‘ideal self’ and the ‘ought self’. He describes the ‘ideal self’ like this: ‘The
former refers to the representation of the attributes that someone would ideally like to possess (i.e.
representation of hopes, aspirations or wishes)’. And the ‘ought self’ like this: ‘the latter refers to
the attributes that one believes one ought to possess (i.e. a representation of someone’s sense of duty,
obligation and responsibilities) and which therefore may bear little resemblance to desires or
wishes’. The concept of possible selves is related to motivation because ‘motivation involves thedesire for people to reduce the discrepancy between their actual and ideal/ought selves.’
Dörnyei argues that the notion of possible selves offers a better explanation for the relationshipbetween the reason for learning a language and the effort a learner expends than other theories. This1SusanHunston
Susan
HUNSTON

has been tested on learners in Hungary, Japan and China. Basically, what it means is that a learner
will try hard to learn a language because he or she imagines themselves as a competent speaker ofthat language or as a member of a community in which the language is spoken. Now here is where
the concept of English as a global language is important. Earlier theories of motivation weredeveloped in places where two communities lived side by side, as in bilingual Canada for example.
A learner might learn the ‘other’ language either because they like people in the other community or
because they have things they need to do. It assumed a situation of ‘us’ and ‘them’ and offeredreasons for ‘us’ to learn ‘their’ language. But English today does not belong to what Kachru called
the ‘inner circle’ of English speaking countries, or even the ‘outer circle’. English is not thelanguage of Britain, Australia or US or even the language of India, Singapore and the Philippines.
This is something that has changed in recent years and that goes on changing. And the use ofEnglish as a lingua franca is gradually changing the nature of English. But more important for thelearner, it is changing the nature of who the learner is.
Because the learner of English does not need to think ‘I want to have American friends so I
want to learn English’ or ‘I want to travel in America so I will need to know some English’ butrather ‘I can imagine myself as a member of an international community, talking to people from allover the world. I can be a user of English, not a learner of English, and English can be my language.
This is my ideal self’. To put this another way, English is no longer the language of ‘them’ – it isincreasingly the language of ‘us’. And to relate this to motivation – learners may no longer want tosound like ‘them’ or be able to operate in ‘their society’ but may wish to be one of ‘us’, where ‘us’is an international community. However, we also need here to narrow down the notion of ‘aninternational community’, to make it less of a utopian dream and more of a reality.
Here I would like to relate the concept of English as a Lingua Franca to the concept of what
Adrian Holliday calls ‘small cultures’. Holliday makes quite a radical argument about what culture
is and how it relates to language learning. In Holliday (2010) he makes the point that much of what
is taught about culture, including what is taught to language learners, is often a type of stereotyping,giving the impression that everyone in the target culture adheres to the same norms, and focusing on
the points of greatest difference between the home culture and the target culture. In fact, cultures
around the world are similar as well as different, and even in the most homogeneous country, eachindividual will relate to what might be called the ‘main culture’ in a slightly different way. And
national cultures are not homogeneous. In Holliday (1999) he argues that culture is not about
nationality, or that national culture is only one kind of culture. He makes the point that people of thesame nationality but different ages can feel quite ‘foreign’ to one another and that communities canbe built up among people of different nationalities who nonetheless have a lot in common with one
2Motivated; Self-Directed; Informed – The Model Language Learner in the 21st Century

another. Language teachers might be one example. Holliday argues that when we look at people ofdifferent nationalities working on a single project, we might interpret this as people of different
cultures interacting and we might look at this as an example of intercultural communication, but wemight also interpret the same situation as a single small culture, with its own rules and its own
assumptions. Work on communication in international businesses, for example, often picks up thatwhat is going on is not the problematic communication of people from different cultures but theeasy communication of people in a single small culture. In fact international businesses work very
hard at making themselves into small cultures.
The academic world is a good example of a small culture and it is also an example of acommunity that very often uses English as a lingua franca. In many universities, in many parts of
the world, English is used among people from a wide range of countries. Anna Mauranen has
researched the English used by people in the small culture of universities in Finland, arguing that
this should be regarded as a variety of English that is just as valid as the English used in Britain or
in the US (Mauranen in press). Universities are a familiar example of this, but not the only one.
Increasingly in Europe, many businesses, especially in highly technological fields, often use
English as the lingua franca even when no native speakers of English work there. We will return tothis later, but for the moment we might link this to motivation by saying that a motivated learner ofEnglish may well have an imagined possible self that is working in such an environment, auniversity or a company where English is the lingua franca. This is an imagined self who ‘owns’
English.
Mauranen’s work is based on a corpus of spoken English known as the ELFA corpus. This is a
corpus of English used in an academic setting, and used among people who are not native speakers
of English but who are speakers of English and to whom English belongs. Although each individual
has learnt English after learning at least one other language, for the community as a whole English
is an ‘owned’ language because it is the only language that is shared by all. Mauranen makes it clearthat these speakers are not learners of English; they are users of English and their language must be
described as such. These are, after all, successful communicators in English. This in turn makes us
look at English in a different way.
For example, Mauranen notes that one of the distinctive features of the ELFA corpus is the useof determiners – the, a and the ‘zero’ determiner. Now everyone knows that determiners are a reallydifficult area of English and that learners of English have a lot of problems with them, particularly
if the first language is one without a similar language feature. Mauranen points out, however, that in
spoken native speaker English determiners are often omitted, and she draws on the work of Carterand McCarthy on spoken English and ellipsis here. She might also mention new uses of English in3SusanHunston
Susan
HUNSTONtext messaging, for example, where determiner use is very different to what is taught in the English
language classroom (Tagg, in press). Mauranen links all this to language change and makes quite abold suggestion: “non-standard article use may not be best seen as a collection of random errors, but
may reflect an ongoing reshuffle of article functions.” In other words – just as native speakers ofEnglish use determiners systematically, and have systematic ways of not using them, so speakers of
ELF do the same. Determiner use is open to change and this change is being influenced by speakers
of ELF.
This is important I think to the motivation behind learning English because it very much
pinpoints English as belonging to its speakers. On the other hand, for the teacher of English it is not
terribly useful because we have to teach what is the norm for our time. We cannot really tell learners
that determiner use does not matter because it is changing.
But here is a rather different example, and something which I think is useful for teachers.
Mauranen observes that speakers of ELF in academic settings use talk about talk (often called
metadiscourse) as a way of managing discourse in a situation when people have different
experiences of using English and when the need to be clear and to achieve mutual understanding isimportant. Although all speakers of English use metadiscourse to make the organization of what
they are saying clear, speakers of English as a lingua franca seem to do so more, and differently. For
example, Mauranen notes that there are more instances of ‘self-rephrase markers’ in ELFA than in
the MICASE corpus. (The MICASE corpus is a collection of instances of spoken English collected
on a university campus in the USA.) Intriguingly, though, whereas in MICASE the most frequentphrase doing this is in other words, this phase is quite infrequent in ELFA and instead people tend to
say I mean. Here are some other examples of talk about talk from ELFA, all with different purposes(from Mauranen in press):(6.20) …because i think that well let’s put it as a question can there be a quality as such
independently from… [labels the speech act]
(6.21) …or i- if i, put it more clearly where can we see this culture… [labels reformulation](6.22) …then just some minor things nothing to criticize you… [on-record politeness, correction](6.23) …i'm also going to put it a bit more sharply than you do yourself, on the relationshipbetween… [labels reformulation and aligns with face concerns](6.24) …to put it blunt if you put it a bit bluntly so that’s what i find problematic [labels
reformulation and aligns with face concerns](6.25) …this is not criticism but … [labels the speech act, corrects impression](6.26) …now i’m going to be nasty… [aligns with face concerns]
To summarise the point of this – learners of English who are going to operate in a native4Motivated; Self-Directed; Informed – The Model Language Learner in the 21st Century

speaker environment may not need to learn much about metadiscourse. But users of English in an
ELF environment will find it useful both to understand how to use other people’s metadiscourse tofollow what is going on and to use metadiscourse themselves to facilitate the interaction. Looking at
examples such as those given by Mauranen also draws their attention to important aspects ofpersonal interaction – speech acts, face and politeness, and reformulations.
Self-direction
Our ideal, motivated learner will know what they want to learn and will be ready to takecharge of their own learning. In this situation what a teacher has to do is to allow this to happen.
The teacher allows the learner to take responsibility for expanding their own language repertoire.
All the teacher has to do is not waste the learner’s time by insisting they learn things that are of nointerest.
This is fine in principle, but… The learner isn’t alone. How do you allow a classroom full ofstudents each to follow their own direction? The learner may not be very self-directed. If a learner’s
main ambition is to go to sleep, how do you ‘allow’ that? The learner’s self-direction may not bevery profitable. Learners do, after all, have to pass exams. If a learner wants to learn only song
lyrics the teacher may have to intervene.
Well, I am going to side-step these important questions and focus instead on the wish oflearners to improve. I mentioned a moment ago that a learner should take responsibility for
expanding their own language repertoire. This might be thought of as ‘knowing more words’ and‘being able to operate in more situations’. If I could return to my own language learning experience
for a moment, I can ask for a train ticket in German, but when the ticket-seller comes back with an
explanation that the trains are not running properly because there is a strike, I’m stuck. I would likemy repertoire to expand so that I could operate more confidently in that situation. In French I canmove around fairly confidently and deal with the unexpected. What I have some difficulty in doingis in taking part in academic conferences in French. This is something I would like to be able to do.
And so on. Notice that I am talking here about ‘doing more things’ rather than ‘making fewer
mistakes’. I suspect the self-directed learner usually thinks about improvement as ‘doing morethings’ rather than as about ‘making fewer mistakes’. As language teachers we might see two sides
to this: improvement is ‘doing more things well’ as well as ‘doing fewer things badly’.
There are a number of trends in the study of learner language that help us to move beyond theconcept of improvement as avoiding error. One tradition is the study of task-based learning and how
learners can be shown to improve as they interact with tasks – improvement being becoming moreaccurate (= less bad) but also more complex in their speech (= more good). Jason Moser points out
5SusanHunston
Susan
HUNSTON

that these two measures interact with one another. In his PhD research he has studied youngintermediate learners of English in Japan and looks for reliable measures of improvement. He notesthat learners who are experimenting with longer and more complex utterances – learners who aretaking responsibility for expanding their own repertoires – are inevitably less accurate than theirmore cautious peers. Reporting on a case study, identified here as ‘D5’, Moser (2012) notes that:“D5 [also improved most in the third iteration of the task], with her most complex and fluent
language occurring here, although her number of error-free AS-units decreased.”
And: “Another characteristic of D5’s third performance was the addition of new propositional
content on an earlier centre of interest. …Adding new information by expanding a previous theme
or introducing a new theme came with trade-offs, as very little of the new language was error-free.
Additionally, for many students the new content revealed gaps in their interlanguage and, like D5’s
new content, contained substantial errors. The nature of the errors indicates they were not the resultof speaking too fast or carelessness but instead emerged from the difficulty of producing newcontent in real-time.”
Here we have an example of a teacher (Jason Moser himself) who has succeeded in achieving
something difficult – persuading students when talking in pairs to try out new language, to pushthemselves to expand their own repertoires. We all know that one of the challenges of task-basedlearning is persuading students to do this in a context that is in many ways artificial – two speakers
of Japanese speak to each other in English on a topic selected by the teacher. The increase in errors
is a direct result of this success. Moser is careful, then, as are other researchers in this area, toregard errors as necessary to success rather than as indicators of failure.
It has taken some time for the same emphasis to translate into another area of learner research– learner corpora. Corpus research facilitates comparisons between corpora, and there is a strong
tradition of comparing corpora of texts produced by learners of English with particular L1
backgrounds and those produced by other learners or by native speakers of English. Work by
Granger, Meunier and others is very well-known in this regard. Inevitably, though, this work runs
the risk of circularity. Often the learners are identified as having a smaller vocabulary and anarrower range of expression and a higher level of error than the native speaker. Well, yes, this iswhat learners are – they can do fewer things and they do them less well. I am being inappropriately
unkind here of course. The value of the huge amount of research into learner corpora is to give ususeful specificity about vocabulary, grammar and the restricted repertoire, indicating where mostdifficulties lie for a given group of learners and where teaching effort can most profitably be used.
Recently, however, this work has developed into comparing learners with themselves – essentially,
younger learners with older learners, as a way of noting how learners develop without taking the6Motivated; Self-Directed; Informed – The Model Language Learner in the 21st Century

native speaker as the benchmark. An early example was Housen (2002), who noted that thedevelopment of verb use in learners of English was not linear. The pattern of use of verbs frombeginner to advanced learners depends on the form of the verb (-ing form, -ed form etc) and themeaning of the verb.
Housen’s work is about accuracy and notes how learners reduce the wrong use of verbs andincrease the correct use of verbs. Current work by Chau Meng Huat, however, focuses on howlearners expand their repertoire – they learn to say more things in a more complex way (Chau, in
preparation). In this respect, Chau’s work is similar to that of Moser, though their methodologies arevery different. Chau uses a longitudinal corpus of stories written by Malaysian learners of English.
All the learners are responding to the same set of pictures in writing their stories, so much of the
vocabulary in the corpus is the same. Chau bases his study on the learners’ use of grammaticalwords such as prepositions and pronouns. One particularly interesting finding is the word that. The
word draws attention to itself because its frequency changes dramatically from the early corpus to
the later ones. Whereas other words fluctuate in frequency, that is consistent in that the older thelearner the more times they use that. There are of course a number of ways that that is used, andChau divides these into two types: Not complex: that used as a determiner and as a pro-form (1 and
2 below). Complex: that used to link clauses, either as the complementiser of a verb, noun or
adjective, or as a relative pronoun (3 and 4 below). All examples come from Chau (in preparation).
Examples are:(1) that as a determinere.g.

They rushed to that place and Ali quickly jumped into the river. (023d)… they quickly ran as fast as they could to that sound. (067d)(2) that as a demonstrative pronoun
e.g.

Ali, Abu and Chong were happy heard about that. (098d)
After that, Ali, Abu, Raju and Siti brought Amira to her house. (122d)(3) that as a conjunction
e.g.

Samad also happy that he was helped that girl. (036d)
I went towards the river bank without knowing that I was standing on the rough part of
the river bank. (103d)(4) that as a relative pronoun
e.g.

When they arrived the hospital, they meet the doctor that helped to save Maria. (83d)
At last, she found all the three boys that helped her daughter. (118d)

What he finds is that as the use of that increases over time, the proportion of complex uses
increases. What is more, the range of collocations with that as a clause linker increases. The stage 1
7SusanHunston
Susan
HUNSTONlearners use that as a complementiser (example 3 above) with only three verbs: know, promised andsay/said, and with no nouns or adjectives. The stage 4 learners use that with 12 verbs (e.g. found out,
heard, hoped, knew, realised) and with two adjectives: happy and shocked. So using that to formclause complexes is a minor feature of stage 1 language use but a major feature of stage 4 language
use.
Informed
Finally, as a language learner, I wish to obtain accurate information about the language I am
learning. This is more difficult than it may sound. Notoriously, native speakers of a language do notalways know what they say and still less why they say one thing and not another.
One of the most significant developments in language learning in the last few years has been
an increase in the use of corpora, and the internet, as a source of information about a language.
Learners now have a wealth of information, literally at their fingertips, and the difficulty lies in how
to interpret that information. Or rather, how to turn a mass of data into information. Increasingly, theself-directed learner uses on-line information to become an informed learner.
One of the issues in using a corpus to make discoveries about language is that learners often
want to know about grammar but a corpus is best at telling us about vocabulary. However, as weknow, corpus research has also encouraged us to re-think what we know about grammar as a matterof vocabulary, or at least of words.
To explain what this means I am going to turn to Dave Willis. Willis (2003), in my opinion,
makes the most useful contribution to what is often called pedagogic grammar – the description of
the grammar of a language that is most useful to the learner. He distinguishes between three kindsof grammar:• The grammar of structure• The grammar of class• The grammar of orientation
As a quick reminder, the grammar of structure is mostly about word order and the order ofclause elements – how to make questions or negatives, or how to use modal verbs and so on.
Grammar books are mostly very good at teaching the grammar of structure. The grammar of class isabout which words can be used with which structures. For example, if we take the word that again –there is a large but limited set of verbs, nouns and adjectives that come before that and to which thatis a complementiser. Words that do not come into that set do not belong to the class of words thatare followed by that. This is what Gill Francis and I called ‘grammar patterns’, and they are thesource of many problems for learners. The difficulty for grammar books is that there are a lot of8Motivated; Self-Directed; Informed – The Model Language Learner in the 21st Century

patterns and a lot of words that go with each pattern, so teaching them all is practically impossible.
In fact, Willis suggests that patterns cannot be taught at all – we can only alert learners to the factthat patterns exist and then encourage them to notice them and so acquire them gradually andpiecemeal. In other words, while we might have a syllabus based on the grammar of structure, we
could never, according to Willis, have a syllabus based on the grammar of class. On the other hand,
corpus software, which encourages us to look for words and what surrounds them, is a really goodtool for helping us to see patterns, or the grammar of class. So the self-directed learner, using a
corpus, can become the informed learner in this respect at least.
The grammar of orientation is about decisions that are taken based on deixis – signalling how
the objects talked about relate to the speaker and the hearer. Examples include determiners – I cantalk about the conference or a conference, the choice of determiner being determined by how I want
to represent our shared or not shared knowledge of this conference. As we know, this is probably
the most difficult kind of grammar to teach because so much of what might be considered ‘correct’is about interpretation and what is going on in the speaker’s head.
What I want to do now is to experiment a bit with how a learner might interrogate a corpus toanswer questions about each of the grammar of structure, class, and orientation. Here is an exampleof each.
The grammar of structure
I am going to look at a type of question structure, and because I am using an unparsed corpus I
have to look for a word – in this case what? To make life simple, I get 200 lines for what and thenselect only those that are questions at the beginning of a sentence – this is about 45. We get thesequestion forms (among others):
What about + noun
“What about bail? I'll put up any amount they ask.”“What about high school?" “B-minus average”
what if + subject + verb
What if you could go to any sporting event in the world?
“Let’s take the phone” “What if we do and he comes by and notices it’s missing?”
what +kind/sort of + noun + is it + when/that
What kind of sick society is it when the government spends billions on bombs but cuts
disability benefits?
What sort of a society is it that will not buy a winter coat for an old man with holes in his
shoes?
9SusanHunston
Susan
HUNSTON

what + aux + subject + verb: what as verb pro-form
What are they going to do when they're 30?
What are you doing? Tell me, I want to know.
What did you do? I used to sell things, serve, that sort of thing.
What should current mortgage holders do?
what + aux + subject + verb: what as object
Well what do they want then?
What has the new ‘equality’ brought us?
what + verb + complement: what as subject
What would drive a man in his mid-thirties to try and cut it at the highest level?
What has happened to the British Motor Industry?
what + verb+ subject: what as complement
What is the best goal you have seen?
What do you imagine is the commonest reptile in the world?
What, then, would you say is the source of most of your work?
What + object +aux + subject + verb
What future will the children have if you vote no?
What sort of society do you want to live in?
A fairly cursory glance at a grammar book suggests this information is no different from thegrammar book, so what we find is not remarkable but is accurate. This suggests one or all of three
things:•Intuition about structure is sound•Known/taught information about structure is accurate•

Structure in English does not change much over time

Now we turn to:
The grammar of orientation
We mentioned determiners above and my example of orientation is the choice between a andthe. This is something that is extremely difficult to explain, as every English teacher knows. It is
actually quite interesting to see how many instances of a and the are a matter of choice and how
many are not. Here is an example (http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/students/birmingham/ugprofiles/jack.aspx accessed 13.11.11):
10Motivated; Self-Directed; Informed – The Model Language Learner in the 21st Century

Why choose Birmingham?
I suppose a number of different factors. I wanted to come to university. I like the campus idea thateverything is there for you, but then, you’ve got a city outside that you can go and explore as well.
I’m from quite a small rural village, so I wanted to come and do the big city thing, and university
seemed the right time to do that.
I saw a couple of different options, both campus-based universities and cities, such as Leicester,
Nottingham and Birmingham, among others. I realised it’s actually quite important as well to be
happy where you live. It’s not just about the university and the course and the campus, it’s about thecity too. After looking around the cities and the different universities I was applying for, I felt thatBirmingham was a city that really appealed to me more than the others. There's loads going on in areally vibrant and student friendly city with lots to do.
We could say a lot about this example, but I’ll just point out the instances of choice and non-choicein determiner:
1. No choice: a number of; the campus idea; quite a small rural village; the big city thing; theright time; a couple of
2. Choice, one right choice: it’s not just about the university and the course and the campus;
the cities and the different universities I was applying for
3. Choice, more than one right choice: Birmingham was a city that really appealed to me; in areally vibrant and student friendly cityThat’s a bit of a digression, just noting that determiner use is not always a matter of choice. But
often it is, of course, and learners do have difficulty making that choice. The example above does
point out that phraseology can influence determiner use, and this is something I’d like to explore alittle further. This is a study I did some time ago. The target word is accident and the basic point isthat the accident and an accident are used in different ways, with very different collocations. Hereare some examples:‘An accident’ commonly occurs in these phrases:•

Involved / killed/injured in an accident•

It was an accident•

Had an accident•

After/following an accident‘The accident’ commonly occurs in these phrases:•

The accident happened11SusanHunston
Susan
HUNSTON•

After/before the accident

Another piece of information: if we look for adjectives preceding accident we find that they arelikely to be preceded by a, as in:•

A fatal accident•

A tragic accident•

A serious accident

What use, if anything, is this? This information does not really allow us to police the boundary
between right and wrong. ‘involved in an accident’ may be common, but there are plenty of times
when ‘involved in the accident’ would be the correct choice. The same is true for ‘following an
accident’ and ‘following the accident’ or ‘a serious accident’ and ‘the serious accident’. When we
looked at the grammar of class, we found that frequency is an indicator of how acceptablesomething is, but when we look at the grammar of orientation, frequency tells us something
different – it tells us ‘what is often said’ or what kind of sequences of meaning are often made. The
phrases that I have picked out above make sense only when we see them in longer contexts. So
what the learner will see, if anything, will be a common sequence.
179 lines ‘involved in … accident’, of which most, 130, are ‘an’.
•‘I'm sorry to tell you that your husband was involved in an accident this morning’•I have never been involved in an accident in 20 years of motoring.

•

Well the lady that phoned in about the charges for going in an ambulance to hospital. My
son was involved in an accident on his motorbike in August. And he was taken from Melton
Mowbray to the Queen's Medical Centre…

•

A day out for a coach party ended in disaster yesterday when the vehicle crashed … Thecoach involved in the accident was not fitted with seat belts …
‘serious accident’ 113 lines, all of which are ‘a serious accident’•

They [adventures] include having a van burned out outside the Gresham Hotel in Dublin in
October 1995. Then the replacement van was involved in a serious accident in January 1996.
‘following…accident’ 700 lines, of which most (470) are ‘after the accident’•a helicopter service was halted last month after an accident in which four tourists were killed.

•

A motorcyclist was killed after a collision with a car on the A944 between Aberdeen and
Alford. Two people in the car were taken to hospital with minor injuries after the accident
near Tillyfourie junction.
Looking at these contrasting examples may give learners a sense of the difference between aand the in these contexts.
12Motivated; Self-Directed; Informed – The Model Language Learner in the 21st Century

The grammar of classThis is where the corpus is much more useful. We find things out that we did not know before.
This suggests that: intuition about class is less sound and/or that what is known and taught is lesscertain or less accurate and/or that class in English changes over time. All of these points have been
supported by previous work by Gill Francis and myself. We have observed our own intuitions to be
uncertain. Francis (1993) pointed out that grammar books often do not have information about class(of this kind) and we have written extensively about patterns changing over time. Others have done
the same, and about class being different in different varieties of English (e.g. Mukerjee 2009).
In case it is needed, here is a quick explanation about ‘pattern’ and ‘class’: We know that wordclass (noun, verb etc) is a matter of pattern, not a matter of inherent meaning of a word. For
example, helicopter is usually a noun, but in they helicopter the injured to hospital, the pattern(pronoun + word + noun phrase + prepositional phrase) makes it a verb. Another example: must isusually a modal verb, but in it’s a must, the pattern (a + word) makes it a noun. The thing that makes
helicopter a noun and must a modal verb is not the meaning of the word but the pattern it is usuallyfound in. Change the pattern, change the word class.
So, pattern puts words into classes. Willis’s argument is that the concept of class can beextended far beyond the usual word classes that have names and to classes of words that don’t havenames. We don’t have a name for words that are followed by a that-clause, but the lack of a namedoesn’t stop them being treated as a class, just as nouns or verbs are a class. The grammar of class is,of course, the point at which lexis and grammar come into contact. Each piece of information ispartly about vocabulary and partly about grammar.
Now let’s look at an example of how class might be investigated in a corpus, focussing on theneed that learners have to discover ‘is this correct’? Learners ask teachers to police the dividing line
between right and wrong and this is where a corpus is at least potentially useful though not, as weshall see, infallible.
My example comes from an internet question-answer site where learners of English can ask
questions about what is correct in English. Here is the on-line dialogue:
Q:
Q: Hello.
Hello. Is
Is it
it correct
correct toto say:say: ‘It‘It isis notnot allowed
allowed toto park
park here’?
here’? Is
Is it
it betterbetter to
to say:say: ‘You‘You areare not
not allowed
allowedto park
park here’?
here’? Thank
Thank you.
you.
to
A:
A: The
The first
first isis notnot common
common colloquial
colloquial speech.
speech. The
The second
second isis fine.
fine. A
A signsign will
will simply
simply say
say ‘No‘No
parking’.
parking’.
Q:
Q: II am
am askingasking because
because as
as farfar asas II know
know itit isis correct
correct toto saysay ‘it‘it isis notnot permitted
permitted toto park
park here’,
here’, but
but
allow
somehowdoesn’t
sound
right
to
me
to
be
used
in
this
sentence.
allow somehow doesn’t sound right to me to be used in this sentence.
13





SusanHunston
Susan
HUNSTON

A: You could say ‘parking is not permitted here’, ‘you may not park here’, ‘you are not permitted topark here’, ‘parking is not allowed here’, or several other turns of phrase. While your sentence is
not grammatically incorrect, it is not considered goo colloquial (or formal) English. ‘Allow’ isfine.
Q: Yes I know these forms, but I am wondering whether it is correct to say: ‘It is not allowed to dosth’.
A: It is not incorrect, but it is awkward.
Q: I see. Thank you
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1825437 (Accessed 11.11.11)
So, according to our on-line expert, ‘It is not allowed to’ is correct but awkward, and ‘it is not
permitted to’ is of uncertain status. Let’s see what we can find out from a corpus.
Search for: ‘it + 1 + not + allowed + to’ in the BoE.
The corpus search yields about 35 lines. So the sample sentence appears to be correct. But when we
look more closely we see that in most cases, it is anaphoric e.g.
…visualizing the mind as a tightly closed vessel filled with dangerous volatile material which
would explode if it [the volatile material] was not allowed to escape.
The move came after the Humanist Society of Scotland complained of discrimination because
it [the Society] was not allowed to solemnise marriages.
…the new aircraft… was only given a partial certificate of airworthiness. It [the aircraft] was
not allowed to fly in weather colder than 4 deg C…
There are three exceptions, but the first two are notably ‘non-native’:
On this motor, he tells us, is the following sticker: “Caution. This actuator is qualified forautomatic washing machines and it is not allowed to open it for reasons of closeness.” Howworrying.
“If I can't speak to you like this, who can? Or maybe it's not allowed to say such things to you.
People are worried about the future.” Franco listened with a smile, made a joke about theirage and said that he was working on the Ley Organica del Estado…
But the next one seems perfectly ok:That suggests to me that this legislation does not sit easy in this society and is in need of urgent
review. As we hurtle towards the next millennium, is it really not allowed to be old andpoor, living in a dirty house and content to be that way?
Though it may be significant that this is a question. It seems that some ‘borderline’ acceptable
patterns are more acceptable when they are in questions than in statements. That’s just a hypothesis.
14Motivated; Self-Directed; Informed – The Model Language Learner in the 21st Century

My own intuition suggested that whereas it is not allowed to is at least odd, it is not permitted to ismuch less odd, so I then repeated the search with ‘permitted’. This time I got only 13 lines, so on
the face of it this appears somewhat less acceptable. However, this time only about half theexamples have anaphoric it, and none are from noticeably non-native sources. So there are in the
corpus around 6 or 7 examples of the target pattern:
Now, after twelve years, I was discovering that it was not permitted to take your cat to thevet or to change your library book during the first fortnight of mourning.
I thought she would always enter a room frowning, expecting to find something wrong. This
time her suspicions were justified and the wrinkles on her brow deepened. “It is not
permitted to smoke. This is a hospital. You should know better.”
Across the lawn was the bungalow in which Elvis stayed. “Sorry,” insisted the guide as I
headed off for a quick peek, “It's not permitted to go near The King's bungalow.” It is
not permitted to pitch a tent or park a caravan closer than 150 m from a house/chalet.
To repeat: a quick corpus search suggests that ‘it is not allowed to’ is better than ‘it is not permitted
to’ because it is more common. But a closer look, eliminating false hits, suggests the opposite – that‘it is permitted to’ is acceptable, though relatively rare, and the ‘it is allowed to’ is only borderline
acceptable, if that (see Hase 2002 for an explanation of this point). This example illustrates theusefulness of this kind of corpus research, but also the difficulty of it. Corpus data has to be looked
at closely to distinguish the ‘false hits’ – the instances of anaphoric it in this case – and there willoften be examples of things that have been written for special effect – to show an unusual use ofEnglish, or to mimic a non-native speaker, for example. These have to be identified, and discounted.
Given enough persistence, I think our learner has probably got correct information, but the learner
may also suspect, and probably correctly, that here as so often the grammar is flexible, and a patternused with one word (permitted) attracts other similar words and starts to be used with them, in thiscase allowed. The process of pattern leakage is accelerated by English as a Lingua Franca. I havenoticed on European airlines, for example, that it is not allowed to is commonly used. So, if the ELF
situation of airlines is anything to go by, it is not allowed to is already acceptable English though it
hasn’t found its way into a reference corpus yet.
Conclusion
To summarise, then: I have suggested that the learner of English at the beginning of the 21st
century is preparing to be a member of a small culture (or several small cultures) in which English
is used as a lingua franca, and that the image of the self as a member of these cultures provides the
motivation for learning English. The motivated learner will expand their repertoire of English,15SusanSusan HUNSTONHUNSTON

where expansion is a matter of greater complexity of language use rather than of making fewer
errors. I have further suggested that access to a corpus will enable the learner to make observations
about English, but that this is most useful when the grammar of class is the point at issue.
References
Dörnyei Z. 2010 ‘Researching motivation: from integrativeness to the ideal L2 self’ in Hunston andOakey (eds.) 74-83.
Hase N. 2002 ‘Limitations on the passive construction with extraposition of the non-finite clause:
why is it not permitted to say ‘Is it not allowed to smoke in the library’?’ Kwansei Gakuin
University Humanities Review 7: 91-102.
Hausen A. 2002 ‘A corpus-based study of the L2-acquisition of the English verb system’ in Granger,
S., Hung, J. and Petch-Tyson, S. (eds.) Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language
Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Benjamin. 77-118.
Holliday A. 1999 ‘Small cultures’ Applied Linguistics 20/2: 237-64
Holliday A. 2010 ‘Interrogating the concept of stereotypes in intercultural communication’ in
Hunston and Oakey (eds.) 134-140.
Hunston S. and Oakey D. 2010. Introducing Applied Linguistics: Concepts and skills. London:
Routledge.
Mauranen A. In press. Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moser J. 2012 ‘A classroom-based, mixed methods research into the influence of transcribing,reporting, and task repetition on student spoken task performances’. Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Birmingham.
Mukherjee J. 2010. ‘Creative variation in New Englishes: corpus-based insights into verbcomplementational innovations in Indian English’ in Lenz, A. and Plewnia, A. (eds.) Grammar
between Norm and Variation. Amsterdam: Benjamin.
Tagg, C. (in press) The Discourse of Text Messaging. London: Continuum.
Willis D. 2003 Rules, Patterns and Words: Grammar and lexis in English language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

16
16


-$&(7.DQVDL-RXUQDO±  -$&(7.DQVDL&KDSWHU
,661   3ULQWHGLQ-$3$1


Examining the Effects of Presentation-based Instruction on JapaneseEngineering Students’ Attitudes towards Learning English: A Preliminary Study
Yoko Maekawa
Osaka Christian Junior College

Tomoko Yashima
Kansai University

ABSTRACTEnglish has become a necessary tool for Japanese engineering students; however, generally
speaking, engineering students do not have much interest in learning English. For a preliminary
study of engineering students’ motivation to learn English, we used Dörnyei’s (2009) second
language (L2) motivational self system to examine their attitudes towards learning English and how
presentation-based courses might affect their motivation/attitudes. The results showed that
presentation activity is effective in reducing students’ anxiety towards using English as well as
increasing their interest in it. Moreover, students’ perceived competence grew significantly, andproved that the English presentation activity is effective in helping engineering students to gain
confidence in using English. Thus, we concluded that the presentation activities are effective in
helping learners create clearer visions of their future selves using English.
Key words: ideal L2 self, motivation, presentation-based instruction

I.

INTRODUCTION
English has become a necessary tool for Japanese engineering students, who intend to work in
a rapidly globalizing society. Most Japanese engineering students, however, seem to focus more on
studying their major field than learning English, and they are neither confident with their English
skills nor motivated to learn English. In Dörnyei’s (2005) theory known as the second language(L2) motivational self system, the ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self are the central concepts.
According to Dörnyei (2005, 2009), if individuals’ image of how they would like to become or how
they believe they should become as L2 users are clear, it would be a powerful motivator to learn
English; thus, it is important for learners to imagine situations in which they would need to use
English. To successfully motivate Japanese engineering students to learn English, it may benecessary to design English-learning activities based on possible future English-speaking situations
so that students can enhance their ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self, and then clarify their goals forlearning English. Therefore, to motivate Japanese engineering students to study English, we believe
it is useful to provide activities that can help students experience English-speaking situations thatthey might encounter in the future, and create a clear and detailed image of a possible English-using
17




<RNR0$(.$:$ 7RPRNR<$6+,0$

self. For this reason, we decided to introduce English presentation activities in an L2 classroom andask students to explain some kinds of engineering products. As a preliminary study conducted prior
to a larger study on engineering students’ motivation to learn English, we administered a survey to
examine how engineering students’ attitudes and motivation towards learning English would change
through a year-long ELT instruction in which learners engage in English presentation activities.
1.

The L2 motivational self system
According to Dörnyei (2005), the L2 motivational self system consists of three components:

The ideal L2 self, ought-to L2 self, and L2 learning experience. They are:1. Ideal L2 self, referring to the L2-specific facet of one’s ideal self: If the person we would
like to become speaks an L2, the ideal L2 self would be a powerful motivator to learn the L2
because of the desire to reduce the discrepancy between our actual and ideal selves,
2. Ought-to L2 self, referring to the attributes that one believes one ought to possess in order toavoid possible negative outcomes, and3. L2 Learning Experience, which concerns situation-specific motives related to the immediate
learning environment and experience. (Dörnyei, 2005, pp. 105-106)
Thus, the ideal L2 self refers to a relatively positive image of the future self, while theought-to L2 self is a more protective and instrumental image.
The concepts of an ideal self and an ought-to self are types of a superordinate concept known
as possible selves, which are intrinsically future-oriented in contrast to traditional views of theself-conception (Carver, Reynolds, & Scheier, 1994, p. 134). The ideal and ought-to selves are
related to individuals’ long-term goals and “as-yet unrealized potential” (Carver et al., 1994, p. 134).
As Dörnyei (2005, 2009) explained, the self-image of a future self that is drawn as possible selves
could function as “future self guides” and motivate learners to start and continue studying so thatthey can reduce the gap between their vision and reality. His earlier research results and theoreticalconsiderations led Dörnyei to propose the “L2 Motivational Self System” with its components:
ideal L2 self, ought-to L2 self and L2 learning experience.
We anticipated that an image of oneself using English in the future as an engineer would
affect engineering students’ motivation to learn English. Moreover, the concepts of the ideal L2 self
and the ought-to L2 self seem to effectively explain Japanese engineering students’ motivation tolearn English; thus we decided to study and conduct a survey about the attitudes of engineering
students towards learning English by using the L2 motivational self system as a conceptual
framework.
Recently, some interventional studies were conducted by Japanese researchers (Hiromori,2006; Nishida & Yashima, 2009; Tanaka & Hiromori, 2007) in which motivational changes throughproject-based teaching were assessed. These studies indicated that project-based instruction affectedstudents’ motivation to learn English when the instruction met the students’ interest or needs. Our
research is conducted along these lines and examines motivational/attitudinal changes throughpresentation-based courses by using the L2 motivational self system as a conceptual framework.
18




([DPLQLQJWKH(IIHFWVRI3UHVHQWDWLRQEDVHG,QVWUXFWLRQRQ-DSDQHVH(QJLQHHULQJ
6WXGHQWV·$WWLWXGHVWRZDUGV/HDUQLQJ(QJOLVK$3UHOLPLQDU\6WXG\2.

Designing an English presentation-based course
When developing a technical English course for engineering students, we deemed it necessary

to design a class that would help students create and activate a plausible and vivid image of using
English in their future careers. As many English self-study guides for engineers suggest, people inthat field are often required to introduce technology or products they have developed in English(Campbell, 1995; Davis, 2005; Raman & Sharma, 2008). Moreover, many engineering students
seem to be aware of the necessity of English presentation skills because they know they might needto give English presentations in their future careers. Thus, the first author decided to assign thestudents in her English class to give presentations introducing engineering or machinery products in
English.
Giving a good presentation requires certain knowledge about a product, research skills for an
in-depth examination of that product, and explanation skills for introducing the product clearly andconcisely. Therefore, through learning to give speeches, students will understand what kind of
English skills they will need to acquire to succeed as engineers. This will help them develop clear
and realistic images of their ideal selves. Furthermore, giving a speech in English may train thelearners, because (1) developing a script requires English composition skills, (2) presenting aspeech forces awareness of pronunciation and prosody, (3) listening to classmates’ presentations
improves listening comprehension skills, and (4) researching in preparation for presentations
requires reading comprehension skills.
In the class, the first author assigned four presentations introducing engineering or machinery
products in English in a single academic year. Students were allowed to choose topics related totheir interest areas or dreams and asked to give a 5- to 10-minute long speech following eachpresentation theme. The themes of the presentation were selected, as they would gradually become
more and more complicated so that students would extend their speeches and make an in-depth
study of their topics. The themes were product introduction, comparison with similar products,
manual explanations, and business presentations. The class instruction also followed these themeswith the expectation that students would learn and acquire the necessary skills step-by-step. For
each presentation, all students evaluated the performance, content, and clarity of their classmates’
presentations and gave comments. The evaluation results and comments were all typed out, alongwith the instructor’s scores for performance, content, clarity, structure, and preparation, and given
back to each presenter so that students would notice their strengths and weaknesses and use these toimprove their performances and speech. The presentation scripts were also evaluated with regard tocontent, structure, vocabulary choices, language usage, and mechanics to make students be aware of
their grammar, presentation structure, and vocabulary choices. After each presentation, students
were also given time to ask questions about classmates’ presentations in either Japanese or English.
For the last presentation, all students had to ask a question about at least one presentation.
Furthermore, students were allowed to choose to present either individually or in pairs.
From the perspective of the L2 motivational self system, the authors expected that students
19





<RNR0$(.$:$ 7RPRNR<$6+,0$

would come to have a clear image of themselves using English, which, in turn, would influence
their attitudes towards learning English. At the same time, we believed that they would gain theconfidence to learn English through their English presentation activities. Through presentation
activities in which they communicated their knowledge to other people, students may feel a sense ofaccomplishment that would increase their interest in learning and using English.
II. METHOD
1.

Objectives
This study examined engineering students’ motivation and attitudes towards learning English

from the perspective of the L2 motivational self system. The research questions are as follows:
1. How would engineering students’ motivation and attitudes towards learning English change
through a year-long presentation-based English course?
2. How would engineering students’ perceived English competence change through a
year-long presentation-based English course?
2.

Participants
The participants were second- and third-year students in the mechanical engineering
department of a private university in the Tokyo area who were enrolled in the first author’sTechnical English I (TEI) and Technical English II (TEII) courses. The second-year students werein TEI, and the third-year students were in TEII. Both TEI and TEII classes were elective, but theymeet the university’s required English credits. In this college, six instructors, including the firstauthor, taught Technical English classes. Each instructor has a different background and is allowed
to choose teaching materials and course designs freely. Students have to study with different
instructors for TEI and TEII. Consequently, no participants took the fist author’s class twice.
3.

Procedure
Questionnaire surveys were distributed in the first class (April) and the last class (January) of
the academic years in 2007 and 2008. In 2007, 29 students enrolled (23 in TEI and 6 in TEII); in
2008, 41 students enrolled (30 in TEI and 11 in TEII). We eliminated the responses of students whomarked the same number for all items on a questionnaire, because their answers would haveinterfered with the reliability of data and analysis. We also eliminated those who participated inonly one survey. As a result, 46 students participated in total. We used SPSS 16.0 to analyze the
data.
4.

Questionnaire
The questionnaire consists of two parts; the motivation and attitudes towards learning English
and perceived competence.
1. Motivational/Attitudinal questionnaire (20 items, 7-point scale, Ryan, 2009)
20




([DPLQLQJWKH(IIHFWVRI3UHVHQWDWLRQEDVHG,QVWUXFWLRQRQ-DSDQHVH(QJLQHHULQJ
6WXGHQWV·$WWLWXGHVWRZDUGV/HDUQLQJ(QJOLVK$3UHOLPLQDU\6WXG\Based on Dörnyei’s former studies and questionnaires (e.g., Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei& Clément, 2001), Ryan developed motivational scales called Motivational Factors Questionnaire(MFQ) for his study (published in 2009),2 which ask for individuals’ attitudes and motivation
towards learning English and about English speaking cultures. Of the 100 items for measuring 17
variables, we used 20 items within 5 variables directly related to attitudes and motivations forlearning English. The five variables were the following (see Appendix A for all the items).
Attitudes towards learning English: Four items assessed the interest individuals had in learning
English. An example is “Learning English is really great.”
Linguistic self-confidence: Three items reflected how confident individuals are in learning English(e.g., “I am sure I will be able to learn a foreign language”).
English classroom anxiety: Two items indexed how much anxiety individuals had when using
English in the classroom. An example is “I always feel that my classmates speak English
better than I do.”Ideal L2 self: Six items served to assess how individuals visualize themselves as future users ofEnglish (e.g., “I often imagine myself as someone who is able to speak English,” “I canimagine speaking English with international friends”).
Ought-to L2 self: Five items reflected the ways in which individuals feel the needs and pressures tolearn English. Examples are “For me to become an educated person I should learn English,”and “Knowledge of English would make me a better educated person.”1

2. Perceived competence (14 items, 4-point scale)
To measure how students perceive their English skills, we constructed an original can-do list
specific to engineering students based on a former open-ended questionnaire survey that asked
students what they wanted or thought it was necessary for learning in an English course. We also
considered important elements of technical communication, such as the three Cs (clarity,
correctness, concision) when making the can-do list. The questionnaire items are as follows:࣭I can express what I want to say in English.
࣭I can understand English documents.
࣭I can check my English writing using dictionary and textbooks.
࣭I can give a presentation in English.
࣭I can have a simple conversation in English.
࣭I can write English materials for a presentation.
࣭I can choose an appropriate vocabulary when writing English.
࣭I know the grammatical rules and different parts of speech.
࣭I can speak English with the knowledge of correct pronunciation.
࣭I can research necessary information and present the result.
21





<RNR0$(.$:$ 7RPRNR<$6+,0$

࣭I can see the difference between written and spoken English.
࣭I can make myself understood by everyone.
࣭I can understand what is spoken in English.
࣭I can understand what native English speakers say.
III.

RESULTS

1. Motivational variables
Before examining each variable of the L2 motivational self system, we checked thedescriptive statistics for each item and found several items showing a ceiling effect: “When I think
about my future, it is important that I am able to use English” (variable: Ideal L2 self, April
questionnaire), “Learning English is necessary because it is an international language” (variable:
Ought-to L2 self, April questionnaire), “I get nervous and confused when I speak in my English
class” (variable: English classroom anxiety, April questionnaire), and “If I made the effort, I could
learn a foreign language” (variable: Linguistic self-confidence, January questionnaire). Although we
included those items for each variable, these results may be important.
To study each variable, we calculated the average number of items for each variable. Table 1
shows the means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alphas for surveys conducted in April andJanuary, and the results of paired t-tests that examined the growth of each variable from April to
January. Since multiple comparisons were made using paired t-tests, we applied Bonferroni’s
adjustment to maintain the error rate. The statistical significance Į = .05 became Į = .01 because
there were five variables. Therefore, the t-test results would be significant when p < .01. Figure 1
also shows how the means of each variable changed from April to January. According to the resultsof the paired t-tests, English classroom anxiety lessened significantly. Attitudes towards learning
English improved, although this improvement did not appear significant after Bonferroni’s
adjustment.
Significant positive correlations were found between Ideal L2 self and Attitudes towards
learning English (r = .59), between Ideal L2 self and Ought-to L2 self (r = .33), between Ideal L2
self and Linguistic self confidence (r = .46), as well as between Attitudes towards learning English
and Linguistic self confidence (r = .65) in April. In January, there were significant positive
correlations between Ideal L2 self and Attitudes towards learning English (r = .50), between Ideal
L2 self and Linguistic self-confidence (r = .34), and between Attitudes towards learning English
and Linguistic self-confidence (r = .64), while a significant negative correlation was found between
English classroom anxiety and Linguistic self-confidence (r = -.42).

22




([DPLQLQJWKH(IIHFWVRI3UHVHQWDWLRQEDVHG,QVWUXFWLRQRQ-DSDQHVH(QJLQHHULQJ
6WXGHQWV·$WWLWXGHVWRZDUGV/HDUQLQJ(QJOLVK$3UHOLPLQDU\6WXG\Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and t-test results of the motivational variables
April
January
Mean
Mean
Cohen’s
p
Į
Į
t
d
(SD)
(SD)
N = 46
3.84
4.14
Attitudes towards
.80
.83
-2.16
.036
0.27
(1.14)(1.08)
learning English
3.73
3.92
Linguistic
.67
.66
-1.24
.221
0.16
(1.25)(1.11)
self-confidence
5.61
5.03
English classroom
0.42
.71
.67
2.89*
.006
(1.29)(1.47)
anxiety
4.36
4.43
.87
.82
-0.12
.908
0.06
Ideal L2 self
(1.25)(1.11)
5.28
5.45
.79
.64
-1.00
.324
0.15
Ought-to L2 self
(1.29)(1.01)*p < .01



$35



-$1






$WWLWXGHVWRZDUGV /LQJXLVWLFVHOI (QJOLVKFODVVURRPOHDUQLQJ(QJOLVKFRQILGHQFH
DQ[LHW\,GHDO/VHOI

2XJKWWR/VHOI

Figure 1. Means of the motivational variables
2. Perceived competence
For the perceived competence, we also examined the descriptive statistics first and found twoitems showing the floor effect: “I can speak English with the knowledge of correct pronunciation”(April questionnaire), and “I can understand what native English speakers say” (April
questionnaire).
When making the can-do list, we considered items that would indicate several different skills.
Based on the considered skills and results of exploratory factor analysis, we categorized all items
into several groups, each of which indicated a different skill. After checking the Cronbach’s alphasof these groups, we decided to use a set of four categories that exhibited the highest Cronbach’s
alphas. The four categories are (1) English writing skills (4 items, e.g., “I can check my English
writing using a dictionary and textbooks”), (2) presentation and explanation skills (6 items, e.g., “I
can express what I want to say in English”), (3) daily conversation skills (3 items, e.g., “I can makea simple conversation in English.”), and (4) reading comprehension skills (1 item, “I can understandEnglish documents”). See Appendix B for the items in each category. Table 2 and Figure 2 show the
23





<RNR0$(.$:$ 7RPRNR<$6+,0$

means, standard deviations and Cronbach’s alphas for these categories and the results of the paired
t-tests. For the t-tests, we also applied Bonferroni’s adjustment; the significance alpha level was set
at .013 (p < .013), because four comparisons were made.
As Figure 2 indicates, each category showed a rather low profile but significant differences
between April and January, as in Table2. In particular, there were large increases in writing skills,
and presentation and explanation skills. Students also tended to perceive more improvement in theirreading comprehension than other areas in both April and January.
Table 2. Means and t-test results of perceived competence of English-using skills
April
January
Mean
Mean
Cohen’s
Į
Į
t
p
(SD)
(SD)
d
N = 46
Presentationand explanation

1.84(0.53).76

2.17(0.42).67-5.60*.000

0.68

Englishwriting

2.06(0.55).81

2.32(0.49).72-3.96*

.000

0.50

Daily
conversation

2.07(0.63).73

2.24(0.58).78-2.70*.010

0.29

Readingcomprehension

2.13(0.78)-

2.41(0.72)--2.66*.011

0.38*p < .013




$35

-$1






3UHVHQWDWLRQDQG
H[SODQDWLRQ(QJOLVKZULWLQJ 'DLO\FRQYHUVDWLRQ

5HDGLQJFRPSUHKHQVLRQ

Figure 2. Means of perceived competenceIV.

DISCUSSION
We will discuss the results shown above in relation to each of the two research questions.

1. How would engineering students’ attitudes and motivation towards learning English
change through a year-long presentation-based English course?
In the results presented in Table1 and Figure 1, the score on English classroom anxiety was
the highest, and those on the Ideal L2 self and Ought-to L2 self were already fairly high in April.
24




([DPLQLQJWKH(IIHFWVRI3UHVHQWDWLRQEDVHG,QVWUXFWLRQRQ-DSDQHVH(QJLQHHULQJ
6WXGHQWV·$WWLWXGHVWRZDUGV/HDUQLQJ(QJOLVK$3UHOLPLQDU\6WXG\On the other hand, Attitudes towards learning English and Linguistic self-confidence showed lower
scores. This may mean that engineering students were afraid to speak out in the classroom and had
little confidence and interest in learning English when they started taking the technical English
courses. However, they were also able to visualize themselves using English as well as feelings ofexternal pressure to learn English.
After taking a one-year presentation-based class, students showed significantly less anxiety
and slightly more favorable attitudes towards learning English. This means that the presentation
activities helped the students become used to speaking English in a classroom, overcome theiranxiety, and gain greater interest and confidence in learning English. Moreover, scores for Ought-to
L2 self and Ideal L2 self remained high in January. This may mean that the presentation activity
matched the image that the engineering students had of their future as English speakers, andallowed them to experience possible situations in which they had to use it. From the correlations,
we could not see direct relations between English classroom anxiety and Ideal L2 self or Ought-to
L2 self. However, in January, Ideal L2 self showed a positive significant correlation with Linguistic
self-confidence, while English classroom anxiety showed a negative significant correlation with
Linguistic self-confidence. This result may mean that students who overcame their anxiety gained
confidence and maintained their ideal image of using English.
Therefore, for research question 1, it is possible to say that a presentation-based course helped
students overcome the fear of using English in the classroom and made them more interested inlearning English.
2. How would engineering students’ perceived English competence change through a
year-long presentation-based English course?
The results on perceived competence suggested several items that showed a floor effect, andthe students’ scores were not very high in any of the skill categories. Among the four categories,
Reading comprehension had the highest score. This may reflect the overall effect of the English
education that students had received.
All categories showed significant growth between April and January. This would thus show
the answer for research question 2. Since the class was presentation-based, it is natural that students
felt an improvement in presentation skills. These results may mean that students perceived that they
had also gained English writing skills through the presentation-based courses. Therefore, it ispossible to say that the engineering students could feel that the presentation-based course was
effective for improving both presentation and writing skills, both of which are necessary in the fieldof technical communication. Furthermore, some students voluntarily wrote in the class reflectionscomments such as “I’m glad that I could gain a lot of new knowledge through making
presentations,” ”I could improve my presentation by using classmates’ comments, and I’m sure mypresentation skills have been improved,” and “This class let me learn various things, such aspresentation skills and knowledge of the specific fields of my major.” The above comments andresults suggest presentation-based instruction is satisfying and effective for engineering students.
25





V.

<RNR0$(.$:$ 7RPRNR<$6+,0$

CONCLUSION
This study found that engineering students had an image of themselves, or their ideal selvesusing English and that they were aware of the necessity of studying it as a foreign language. We
also found that presentation activities helped engineering students hold the image of themselvesusing English in their future careers. Moreover, from the fact that students could overcome theirfear of using English in a classroom and gained interest in learning English through a one-year
presentation-based course, it is possible to infer that presentation activities are effective for reducing
students’ anxieties as speakers, stimulate their interest in learning English, and help motivate themto learn it. The fact that the students’ perceived competence grew significantly also proves that thepresentation activities are effective in helping engineering students gain confidence as speakers ofEnglish. Thus, we may conclude that giving opportunities to present in English is an effective wayof motivating engineering students.
One limitation of this study is that the number of participants was not large enough. It may
also be necessary to study exactly how the students’ English competency developed throughpresentation-based instruction. However, this study showed satisfying results in that it revealed that
presentation-based courses are effective as a method for training students to speak English in aclassroom setting. Based on the results of this study, we plan to investigate the processes by which
presentation-based courses stimulate the motivation level and affective factors for engineering
students. As a preliminary study, we believe that this study has introduced a new perspective on the
English curriculum for engineering students.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to express our thanks to anonymous reviewers for their useful comments.
NOTES
1. Since the Cronbach’s alpha of Ought-to self in January was only .36, we removed two items
suggested by the data. Then, the Cronbach’s alpha became .64 in January and .79 in April.
Thus, we decided to use the remaining three items for the ought-to L2 self
2. Dr. Ryan was collecting data in 2006, when the first author obtained the scales from him to use
it in her study. We wish to express our thanks to him for letting us use them.
REFERENCES
Campbell, E. (1995). ESL resource book for engineers and scientists. New York: John Wiley &Sons, Inc.
Carver, C. S., Reynolds, S. L., & Scheier, M. F. (1994). The possible selves of optimists andpessimists. Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 133-141.
Csizér, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Language learners’ motivational profiles and their motivatedlearning behavior. Language Learning, 55, 613-659.
26




([DPLQLQJWKH(IIHFWVRI3UHVHQWDWLRQEDVHG,QVWUXFWLRQRQ-DSDQHVH(QJLQHHULQJ
6WXGHQWV·$WWLWXGHVWRZDUGV/HDUQLQJ(QJOLVK$3UHOLPLQDU\6WXG\Davis, M. (2005). Scientific papers and presentations. Massachusetts: Elsevier.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner, individual differences in second
language acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.),
Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9-42). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z. & Clément, R. (2001). Motivational characteristics of learning different target
languages: Results of a nationwide survey. In Z. Dörnyei & R. W. Schmidt (Eds),
Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 399-432). Honolulu, HI: University of
Hawaii Press.
Hiromori, T. (2006). Gaikokugo Gakushusha no Dokizuke wo Takameru Riron to Jissen [Foreign
language learners' motivation: research and practice]. Tokyo: Taga Shuppan.
Nishida, R., & Yashima, T. (2009). The enhancement of intrinsic motivation and willingness tocommunicate through a musical project in young Japanese EFL learners. Paper presented at
the Annual Conference of American Association of Applied Linguistics (AAAL), Denver,
Colorado.
Raman, M., & Sharma, S. (2008). Technical communication English skills for engineers. India:
Oxford University Press.
Ryan, S. (2009). Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal L2 self and Japanese learnersof English. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and L2 self (pp.
120-143). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Tanaka, H., & Hiromori, T. (2007). Eigo gakushusya no naihatsuteki dokiduke wo takameru kyoiku
jissen teki kainyu to sono koka no kensho [The effects of educational intervention thatenhances intrinsic motivation of L2 students]. JALT Journal, 29, 59-77.
APPENDICES<Appendix A>
Items and variables for “the motivational/attitudinal questionnaire”
Attitudes towards learning English• Learning English is really great.
• I really enjoy learning English.
• I find learning English really interesting.
• I’m always looking forward to my English classes.
Linguistic self-confidence• I am sure I will be able to learn a foreign language.
• Learning a foreign language is a difficult task for me.
• If I made the effort, I could learn a foreign language.
English classroom anxiety• I always feel that my classmates speak English better than I do.
• I get nervous and confused when I am speaking in my English class.
27





<RNR0$(.$:$ 7RPRNR<$6+,0$

Ideal L2 self
• The things I want to do in the future require me to speak English.
• Whenever I think of my future career, I imagine myself being able to use English.
• I often imagine myself as someone who is able to speak English.
• I would like to be able to use English to communicate with people from other countries.
• I can imagine speaking English with international friends.
• When I think about my future, it is important that I use English.
Ought-to self
• For me to become an educated person I should learn English.
• Hardly anybody really cares whether I learn English or not.
• A knowledge of English would make me a better educated person.
• For people where I live learning English doesn’t really matter that much.
• Learning English is necessary because it is an international language.
<Appendix B>
Items and categories for “Perceived competence”
Concept 1: Accurate English Composition (4 items)
Į: April .76, January .67• I can check my English writing using a dictionary and textbooks.
• I can write English materials for presentation.
• I can choose an appropriate vocabulary when writing English.
• I know the grammatical rules and the different parts of speech.
Concept 2: Presentation and Clear Explanation (6 items)
Į: April .81, January .72• I can express what I want to say in English.
• I can make a presentation in English.
• I can speak English with the knowledge of correct pronunciation.
• I can research necessary information and present the results.
• I can see the difference between written and spoken English.
• I can make myself understood by everyone.
Concept 3: Daily Conversation (3 items)
Į: April .73, January .78• I can make a simple conversation in English.
• I can understand what is spoken in English.
• I can understand what native English speakers say.
Concept 4: Reading (1 item)• I can understand English documents.

28-$&(7.DQVDL-RXUQDO±  -$&(7.DQVDL&KDSWHU
,661   3ULQWHGLQ-$3$1

An Empirical Study on Effective Training Sessionsfor Pre-Service Elementary School Teachers
Mai Matsunaga
Kinki University

ABSTRACTThis study explored effective training procedures as part of a class offered to university students ina teaching certificate program. More precisely, the author examined the difference in benefit fromoffering students one training session (control group) in comparison to five sessions (experimentalgroup) on giving game instructions. Specifically, this study attempted to answer the following
research questions: 1) whether there is a statistically significant difference in pre-service teachers’
ability to give game instructions after receiving five sessions (experimental group) in comparison to
one session (control group), and 2) whether five sessions are effective enough for the experimentalgroup to improve their game instruction skills to a satisfactory level. To measure the effectivenessof these sessions, a set of criteria for teaching skills (Matsunaga, 2009a) was employed. The resultsof statistical analyses imply that the experimental group had significantly higher scores on the posttest compared to those of the control group. However, their average scores did not reach thesatisfactory level. These results indicate that allotting more time to practicing certain skills canbetter prepare pre-service teachers to conduct English activities. Future classes, therefore, should
consider incorporating more practical training sessions into their syllabi. The results also indicatethat it is necessary to explore a way for pre-service teachers to reach the satisfactory level.
Key words: pre-service teachers, elementary school English activities, training sessions, giving
game instructions

I. INTRODUCTION
While English activities have been required for the fifth and sixth grade students in public
elementary schools in Japan (MEXT, 2008a), the issue over the quality of teaching has repeatedly
been one of the obstacles elementary schools have faced. In other words, more than 90% of English
classes are taught by homeroom teachers (MEXT, 2008b) who are not necessarily trained English
teachers. Therefore, the level of English teachers in terms of their English ability and teaching skills
has been at the center of discussion among researchers (Butler, 2005; Higuchi, Kanamori, &Kunikata, 2005).
Subsequently, in order to more effectively promote a higher quality in elementary school
English education nationwide, training sessions based on a clear set of standards should be offered
not only to in-service teachers but also to pre-service teachers, i.e., university students in teachingcertificate programs. Researchers teaching pre-service teachers at universities have proposed syllabi
29




Matsunaga
MaiMai
MATSUNAGA

for methodology classes on teaching elementary school English (Egawa, 2008; Ito, 2010; Izumi,
2007; Koda, 2009; Yoshida, Kodera, Terada, & Honda, 2006). These syllabi often include boththeoretical aspects such as objectives of English activities and methodology on teaching elementary
school English, and practical aspects such as learning how to teach songs and chants, andexperiencing micro-teaching. Moreover, some researchers (Hojo & Matsuzaki, 2010; Matsumiya,2010) have suggested appropriate contents for methodology classes based on the feedback they
have received from their students. According to the feedback, pre-service teachers tend to preferlearning practical skills such as English conversation skills and game instruction skills, to learningtheoretical elements. These proposed syllabi and feedback from pre-service teachers suggest that
universities should offer pre-service teachers ample practical training regarding English ability andteaching skills before they go into an actual classroom as a student teacher. Yet, to date, neither
extensive research on the actual contents of practical training sessions for pre-service teachers nor
empirical studies on the effectiveness of the contents of training sessions have been done. In regards
to the current situation, this study explored effective training procedures for university students whoplan to become teachers at a primary or secondary level. More precisely, this study empiricallymeasured the effectiveness of a specific training element regarding teaching skills of elementary
school English activities, giving game instructions in English.
II. RESEARCH QUESTIONSIn this study, a control group received one 30-minute training session on giving game
instructions in English whereas an experimental group received five 30-minute training sessions.
The control group experienced a time allotment the author used to employ for her previous students
in a methodology class. In her previous methodology class, the students seemed to develop their
game instruction skills in English even through one 30-minute training session. However, due toinformal observations, the author thought one training session was not enough for the students toimprove their skills to a satisfactory level in this study. And this experience led the author to explore
appropriate training procedures and a minimum amount of training sessions that should be
conducted in order to help pre-service teachers develop their ability to give game instructions to asatisfactory level. Therefore, the experimental group in this study received what the author
considered a minimally effective amount of practice time, i.e., five sessions. In addition, offering
the pre-service teachers more than five training sessions was not a feasible option, considering thefact that the instructors had to cover other topics and materials required in the methodology classsyllabus.
Specifically, this study attempted to answer the following research questions.
1. Is there a statistically significant difference in pre-service teachers’ ability to give game
instructions after receiving five training sessions (the experimental group) in comparison to one
training session (the control group)?
2. Are five 30-minute training sessions effective for the experimental group to develop their game
30






$Q(PSLULFDO6WXG\RQ(IIHFWLYH7UDLQLQJ6HVVLRQVIRU3UH6HUYLFH(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO7HDFKHUVinstruction skills to a satisfactory level (level three: minimum professional competence)?
III. METHOD
1. Participants
The participants in the study were 49 second to fourth-year university students who were in
two Methodology of Teaching English I classes taught by two different Japanese instructors,
including the author, in the first semester in 2010. This methodology class is one of the requiredclasses in an English teaching certificate program offered to literature, economics, and law majors
at the university. The students in this program plan to teach at a primary or secondary level in the
future. In order to take the methodology class, the students are required to have a minimum TOEIC(the Test of English for International Communication) score of 450, and the average score of theparticipants in this study was 525, ranging from 450 to 860. In this study, the 49 participants weredivided into two groups: 26 students who took the other instructor’s class as a control group, and 23
students who took the author’s class as an experimental group. The ANOVA (one-way analysis ofvariance) results on the pre-test scores between the two groups indicated that there was no
significant difference in the scores of the pre-test between the groups (see RESULTS section forcomplete data). This suggested that the two groups exhibited a level of skills in giving game
instructions in English similar enough to justify continuing statistical analyses on the data.
2. Materials
Test Materials
Giving game instructions was chosen as the specific training element for this study because
it had been one of the most typical skills required in English classes at the elementary school level(MEXT, 2009). The same two games were chosen for both pre- and post-tests in which theparticipants were evaluated on their skills in giving game instructions in English as if to elementary
school students. The two games were chosen from a revised list of games for fifth and/or sixth
grade elementary school students, which had been developed by the author and examined for its
content validity by two experts on teacher training for elementary school teachers (Matsunaga,
2009b). The two games in the present study were the secret word game and the can you ---? game(see test cards for the secret word game & the can you ---? game in Appendix B). These two games
were chosen based on the level of difficulty so that the test included both easy (the secret wordgame) and difficult (the can you ---? game) sets of game instructions. The can you ---? game was
evaluated difficult since the game activity is more complicated than the other, and its English
instructions require a larger variety of English expressions.
Rating scales
For the purpose of setting the minimum levels of teaching skills for elementary school
English teachers, the author developed her own level description (rating scale) in order to evaluate a
31





Matsunaga
MaiMai
MATSUNAGA

teachers’ current level of teaching skills (Matsunaga, 2009a). The rubric was also examined for its
content validity by the above experts. The participants’ performance in giving game instructions inEnglish in this study was evaluated based on this rating scale.
In the process of creating the level description of teaching skills, the rubric employed three
categories introduced in a test, EPTI (the English Proficiency Test for Indonesia), developed by the
SEAMEO -RELC, NLLIA LTRC, and IKIPS (The South East Asian Ministers of Education
Organization, Regional Language Center, The National Language and Literacy Institute of Australia,
Language Testing Research Center, & Institut Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan ) (1997). The EPTI
was developed for the purpose of creating an English proficiency test that was relevant to highschool teachers of English in Indonesia. Although the main purpose of this test was to measure theEnglish proficiency of teachers, the test was also used to evaluate their teaching skills in English.
For instance, the test materials included topics such as gathering and preparing teaching materials,
communicating in English in the classroom with students, and participating in professional training
and development activities. Therefore, the author found the content of the test relevant to the testingof teaching skills of Japanese elementary school teachers, and referred to the EPTI’s evaluation
categories on teaching skills when creating her own rubric. The test introduced the following threeevaluation categories for teaching skills: (a) overall task fulfillment and completeness of
instructions; (b) identification of participants, and use of instructive language; and (c) fluency.
The author reconfigured these three categories into four categories as follows: (a) overalltask fulfillment, (b) recognition of students’ level, (c) use of instructional language, and (d) fluency.
The first element, overall task fulfillment, evaluates participants’ ability in conducting activities in acomprehensible manner for their students, using appropriate English expressions, intonation, andpronunciation. The second element, recognition of students’ level, evaluates participants’ ability inadjusting their level and speed of English to those of their students. The third element, use of
instructional language, evaluates participants’ ability in employing appropriate classroom English.
And the last element, fluency, evaluates participants’ ability in conducting activities with a smoothand even tempo. The rating scale employed four levels within the range of 0% to 100%: (a) Level
one (0% to 59%), insufficient level to assess; (b) level two (60 to 69%), limited professional
competence; (c) level three (70 to 79%), minimum professional competence; and (d) level four (80to 100%), professional competence, with level three being set as a satisfactory level. In addition,
each of the four evaluation categories accounted for the following allotment for a total of 100%: (a)overall task fulfillment, 70%; (b) recognition of students’ level, 10%; (c) use of instructional
language, 10%; and (d) fluency, 10%. Utilizing this rating scale, the participants’ performance ingiving instructions of game 1 and 2 was separately assessed based on the four levels in the range of
0% to 100%. Furthermore, since the SEAMEO -RELC, NLLIA LTRC, and IKIPS revealed only thecategories but did not reveal level descriptions, the author created her own level descriptions of thefour categories (Matsunaga, 2009a). Due to limitations of space, only level descriptions of overalltask fulfillment are shown in Appendix A (see Matsunaga, 2009a for more information on the rubricof teaching skills).
32






$Q(PSLULFDO6WXG\RQ(IIHFWLYH7UDLQLQJ6HVVLRQVIRU3UH6HUYLFH(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO7HDFKHUV

3. Procedures
Instructional materials
Although taught by two different instructors, the two Methodology of Teaching English I
classes, i.e., the control and experimental groups, shared the same syllabus and were conducted in
virtually identical ways. The only difference between the classes was that the control group received
one 30-minute training session on giving game instructions in English, while the experimentalgroup received five 30-minute training sessions.
The experimental group received 30-minute practice giving game instructions in five classes
from weeks four to eight (total of 14 weeks), and five different games for fifth and/or sixth graders
were chosen for the sessions. The five games were selected on a frequency basis from the textbooks,
English Notebook 1 and 2 (Eigo note 1, 2), which were distributed by the Ministry (2009a) andhave been used at public elementary schools. The five games were: (a) a bingo game, (b) a finger
pointing game (Yubisashi-game), (c) a Japanese card game (Karuta-game), (d) a stereo game, and(e) a concentration game. In each session, working in groups of three to four people, the participantsreceived a practice card, which included the information: the name, objectives, procedures, andJapanese instructions of the game. In creating five practice cards, the author referred to the teacher’smanuals for the textbooks (MEXT, 2009b). Then, the participants were given four minutes toprepare to act out the game instructions in English to other members in the group. After this grouppractice, the instructor (author) demonstrated the same game instructions as an example, focusing
on instructional language and interaction with students. In this demonstration, the instructor focusedon showing the participants how to interact with elementary school level students by using simple
English, gestures, and facial expressions that would be useful when teaching students in that level.
Following this example, the participants were given five minutes to improve their original
instructions, and then they acted out the instructions again to other members in the group.
The participants in the control group practiced giving game instructions of one of the fiveprescribed games, the finger pointing game (Yubisashi-game), in the same week in which theexperimental group also practiced the same game. Procedures of this one training session followed
the same manner as those of the experimental group. For the other four times when theexperimental group received training sessions, the control group spent more time on individual
elements in the common syllabus such as learning theoretical aspects of English teaching.
Pre- and post-tests
The participants in both groups took an interview-style practical pre-test in the second or
third week of the class. The practical test consisted of the two games and was given individually byan interviewer (instructor) in his/her office for 15 minutes. In the practical test, a participant wasgiven a test card for each game which included the information: the name, objectives, procedures,and Japanese instructions of the game; then, after four minutes of preparation time, the participant
had to act out giving the game instructions in English as if to elementary school students. In
33





Matsunaga
MaiMai
MATSUNAGA

addition, all practical tests were video-recorded with permission by the participants. In order toevaluate the tests, the interviewer (the instructor) of each group served both as an interviewer and arater. After the initial practical test, the original interviewer reviewed the video-recording and rated
it based on the rating scale described in the above section, Rating scales. Then, on a different day,the other interviewer reviewed the same video-recording and re-rated it in order to confirm thereliability of the first rating. In order to confirm the reliability of the first rating, inter-rater
reliability of the two raters on the ratings of game 1 and 2 in the pre-test was separately examinedthrough computing correlation coefficients. The results of the correlational analyses showed that thecorrelations on the ratings of both games between the two raters were statistically significant andwere greater than or equal to .85, r(49) = .85, p < .01 for game 1, and r(49)= .89, p < .01 for game 2.
These results indicated that the two raters agreed on the ratings on the pre-test to an extent which
confirmed the reliability of the first rating. The same interview-style practical test was administeredas a post-test with both groups with the same procedures in the 12th or 13th week of the class. In
terms of the reliability of the first rating on the post-test, it was again confirmed by the results of thecorrelational analyses (r(49) = .94, p < .01 for game 1, and r(49)= .95, p < .01 for game 2).
IV. RESULTS
1. Research question 1: Difference in test scores between two groups
First, two sets of ANOVAs were conducted to evaluate the relationship between the numberof training sessions and a difference in the scores of the pre-test. The independent variable, thenumber of training sessions, included two levels: one time (control) and five times (experimental).
The dependent variable was a difference in the scores of the pre-test. The ANOVA for game 1 was
not significant, F(1,47) = .01, p = .96. The ANOVA for game 2 was also not significant, F(1,47)= .27, p = .61. These results indicated that there was no significant difference in the scores of the
pre-test between the two groups.
Second, two sets of ANOVAs were conducted to evaluate the relationship between thenumber of training sessions and a difference in the scores of the post-test. The independent variable,
the number of training sessions, again included two levels: one time (control) and five times(experimental). The dependent variable was a difference in the scores of the post-test. The ANOVA
for game 1 was significant, F(1,47) = 7.45, p = .01. The strength of relationship (effect size)
between the number of training sessions and the difference in the scores, as assessed by Ș2 , was .35,
which is regarded as having a medium effect (Cohen, 1988). The ANOVA for game 2 was alsosignificant, F(1,47) = 27.75, p = .01. The strength of relationship, as again assessed by Ș2 , was .37,
which is also regarded as having a medium effect (Cohen, 1988). These results indicated that there
was a significant difference in the scores of the post-test between the two groups, yielding higherscores for the experimental group. Moreover, the effect sizes in the post-test suggested that the
number of training sessions moderately affected the variance of the difference in the scores of bothgames. The means and standard deviations for the pre- and post-test scores of the two groups are
34






$Q(PSLULFDO6WXG\RQ(IIHFWLYH7UDLQLQJ6HVVLRQVIRU3UH6HUYLFH(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO7HDFKHUVpresented in Table 1. The control group’s average post-test score on game 2 (17.50) decreased fromtheir average pre-test score (20.35) mainly because two of the participants in the group scoredextremely low on game 2 on the post-test (zero, and six). These two participants scored extremely
low because they resorted to using Japanese in conducting the game 2 activity although they wereclearly instructed to use only English for their instructions.
Table 1. Means and standard deviations of pre- and post-test scores of two groups
Control (n = 26)
Experimental (n = 23)
M
SD
M
SD
Game 1 Pre
49.42 22.10
49.17 21.73
Post
50.50 22.76
65.63 13.23
Game 2 Pre
Post

20.35
17.50

9.11
9.00

16.71 6.37
52.34 22.01

2. Research question 2: Effectiveness of five training sessions
In order to ascertain whether pre-service teachers in the experimental group were able tosignificantly improve their ability to give game instructions, two paired-samples t tests wereconducted to evaluate the effects of the training on the scores of each of the two games between the
pre- and post-tests. For game 1, the results indicated that the mean score for the post-test wassignificantly greater than the mean score for the pre-test, t(22) = 4.37, p = .01. For game 2, theresults also indicated that the mean score for the post-test was significantly greater than the meanscore for the pre-test, t(22) = 6.70, p = .01. These results indicated that the participants in theexperimental group improved their skills in giving game instructions through participating in five
training sessions, as compared to their control group counterparts (t(25) = 1.69, p = .10 for game 1,
and t(25) = -1.58, p = .13 for game 2).
On the other hand, the average post-test scores of the experimental group in Table 1
indicated that even the experimental group on average did not reach the satisfactory level (level
three, 70%) in both game 1 (M = 65.63) and 2 (M = 52.34). In other words, five training sessions
helped to improve the pre-service teachers’ game instruction skills to a certain extent, but did not
help to improve their game instruction skills to the satisfactory level in the study.
V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This study empirically explored the effectiveness of multiple training sessions incomparison to a single training session on giving game instructions. More precisely, this study
examined the difference in benefit from offering pre-service teachers one training session (control
group) in comparison to five training sessions (experimental group) on giving game instructions.
Specifically, this study attempted to answer the following research questions: 1) whether theexperimental group significantly outperforms their control group counterparts on a test of giving
35





Matsunaga
MaiMai
MATSUNAGA

game instructions, and 2) whether five training sessions are effective enough for the experimentalgroup to improve their game instruction skills to a satisfactory level.
The results of statistical analyses implied that offering the participants five training
sessions (the experimental group) helped to significantly improve their skills in giving game
instructions. This means that the previous time allotment for giving game instructions (one time)
may not have been sufficient to improve the students’ skills adequately, and therefore, more timeshould be spent on this type of practice in future classes. The positive results obtained from thisstudy suggested that training sessions as part of class contents in a methodology class would help
pre-service teachers improve their teaching skills to a practical extent. Along these same lines, thefact that the average scores of the experimental group did not reach the required professional levelin this study (level three, 70%) suggested that it would be necessary to further explore a way forstudents to reach that level through revising the contents of training sessions. One plausible way
would be exposing participants to a larger variety of game activities at different times compared toonly five activities in only five classes in this study. In order to introduce more game activities tothe participants in a limited amount of time in a course (for instance, 150 minutes in this study),
instructors may demonstrate a game activity as if the participants were elementary school students(for instance, 15 minutes), instead of the participants themselves conducting the game activity twice
per session in this study (30 minutes). In addition, towards the end of the course, the participants
should have opportunities to act out a few game activities themselves (for instance, in the last two
sessions) in order to put observations into practice. In this newly suggested way, the participants
will learn how to properly give game instructions mainly through observing the instructor’s model
performances, and therefore, less time is required for each activity (for instance 15 minutes). As aresult, the participants can be exposed to a larger variety of game activities at different times (forinstance, 10 activities in 10 classes for a total of 150 minutes of training time in this study), and thismay better prepare the participants to give game instructions, eventually helping them to reach thesatisfactory level. Furthermore, it may be important for the participants to reflect on and evaluate
their participation and performances during the training sessions so that they can understand what
they have learned and what they still have to improve. Finally, this newly proposed way may
require instructors themselves to be familiar with a variety of game activities and prepared to givepre-service teachers proper model performances.
The following limitations should also be considered when interpreting the data in this study.
First, this study had only a limited number of participants (a total of 49), and therefore, the data may
not be statistically valid. However, the author believes that the data can show an overall tendency ofthe effectiveness of practical training sessions on giving game instructions in English. Second, thisstudy covered only one typical element regarding teaching skills, giving game instructions, andresulted in restricting positive effects of practice only to this area. With these limitations, however,this study still offers valuable implications for future research on effective training sessions for preservice elementary school teachers. For instance, the research method in this study can be applied todifferent areas of training sessions. In other words, future research on effective contents of classes
36

An Empirical Study on Effective Training Sessions for Pre-Service Elementary School
Teachers

offered in teaching certificate programs should examine different areas related to English ability orteaching skills such as classroom English for their effectiveness on improving skills of pre-service
teachers. And the author hopes that an accumulation of more empirical data of this kind will help
improve the development of classes in teaching certificate programs, making program contents
more practical and effective for pre-service elementary school teachers.
NoteThis study, under the title “An empirical study on effective teacher training sessions for English
teachers in elementary schools”, was orally presented at JACET Kansai Chapter 2010 Autumn
Conference held at Kwansei Gakuin University on November 27th, 2010.
REFERENCES
Butler, Y. G. (2005). English language education in Japanese elementary schools: Analyses andsuggestions based on East Asian perspectives. Tokyo: Sanseido.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd edition). NY:
Academic Press.
Egawa, M. (2008). The development of university teacher training programs for elementary school
English teachers. JASTEC Journal, 27, 53-65.
Higuchi, T., Kanamori, T., & Kunikata, T. (Eds.). (2005). Korekara no shogakko eigokyoiku riron tojissen [Future English education in elementary schools: Theories and practices]. Tokyo:
Kenkyusha.
Hojo, R. & Matsuzaki, K. (2010). A survey of university freshmen’s hopes for English teachingclasses conducted by the university students on a voluntary basis: For the purpose of nurturing
student-teachers. Bulletin of Joetsu University of Education, 29, 231-240.
Ito, M. (2010). Raising awareness of prospective secondary school English teachers about
elementary school English: Toward coherent English education in Japan. Aoyamagakuin
University Kyoikugakai Kiyo Kyoikukenkyu, 54, 149-168.
Izumi, E. (2007). Kyoikudaigaku niokeru shogakkoeigo eno torikumi kyoinyosei togenshokukyoinkenshu no jyujitsu wo mezashite [Elementary school English education atteachers colleges: Toward better teacher training for pre- and in-service teachers]. JES Journal,
8, 75-82.
Koda, A. (2009). A model course for pre-service teacher training research on Tokohagakuen
University’s “Bridge course” for elementary school English teacher training. Tokohagakuen
University Journal, 25, 65-80.
Matsumiya, N. (2010). Changes in attitudes toward teaching English on the part of university
students studying to be elementary school teachers: The effect of a relevant teaching methods
course, Journal of Quality Education, 3, 111-134.
Matsunaga, M. (2009a). A rubric of competence levels of Japanese English teachers in elementary
schools. Kinki University English Journal, 3,1-18.
37
37

Mai MATSUNAGA
MATSUNAGA
Mai

Matsunaga, M. (2009b). Tests to measure competencies of Japanese English teachers at theelementary school level. Kinki University English Journal, 4,13-29.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2008a). Shogakko gakushu shido
yoryo [A course of study for elementary schools]. Tokyo; Tokyoshoseki.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2008b). Shogakkoeigokatsudo
jishijyokyochosa no omona kekkagaiyo heisei 19 nendo [A Report on current situation ofEnglish education in public elementary schools, 2007]. Retrieved July 5, 2010, fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/ b_menu/ houdou/20/03/08031920/001.htm
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2009a). Eigo note 1 & 2 [English
notebook 1 & 2]. Tokyo: Kyoikushuppan.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2009b). Eigo note 1 & 2- Shido
handbook 1 & 2 [English notebook 1 & 2: Teacher’s manuals 1 & 2]. Tokyo: Kairyudo.
Saito, E. & Takeuchi, O. (Eds.). (2007). Shogakko eigo gakkyutannin no tameno katsudou aidiashuu
gorokunensei yo [Teaching English at the elementary school level: Example activities forhomeroom teachers (fifth & sixth graders)]. Tokyo: Sanseido.
SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, NLLIA Language Testing Research Centre, & IKIPS
Semarang and Malang. (1997). The English proficiency test for Indonesia: EPTI Manual.
Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Yoshida, H., Kodera, S., Terada, H., & Honda, K. (2006). Shogakkoeigokyoiku no
kyoinyoseikarikyuramukaihatsu [Developing a teacher training curriculum for elementary
school English education]. The Bulletin of the English Society Osaka Kyoiku University, 51,
105-122.
APPENDIX A (Level Descriptions on Overall Task Fulfillment)
Teaching skills: Overall task fulfillment
Levels Descriptions
4
Very competent in teaching English. When explaining how to perform a game, can briefly
explain it, effectively using picture prompts or gestures, including all the necessary
information. When performing a model dialogue, can explain the situation well,effectively using picture prompts or gestures, with appropriate intonation andpronunciation.
3
Competent in teaching English. When explaining how to perform a game, some pausing
or hesitation is evident, but can explain it well enough for students to carry out the game,using picture prompts or gestures, including most of the necessary information. Whenperforming a model dialogue, some pausing or hesitation is evident, but can explain thesituation, using picture prompts or gestures, and use acceptable intonation andpronunciation well enough for students to follow.
2
Only marginally competent in teaching English. When explaining how to perform a game,
pausing or hesitation is evident. Trouble explaining the game instructions well enough forstudents to carry out the game, missing some necessary information. When performing amodel dialogue, pausing or hesitation is evident, and trouble explaining the situation.
38






$Q(PSLULFDO6WXG\RQ(IIHFWLYH7UDLQLQJ6HVVLRQVIRU3UH6HUYLFH(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO7HDFKHUVErrors in intonation and pronunciation in a dialogue are evident. Cannot be a good model
for students.
1
Not competent in teaching English. When explaining how to perform a game, pausing or
hesitation is evident, and it is almost impossible to explain the instructions well enoughfor students to carry out the game, missing much of the necessary information. Whenperforming a model dialogue, pausing or hesitation is evident, and almost impossible toexplain the situation. Difficult to read a dialogue aloud, with many errors in intonationand pronunciation. Impossible to be a model for students.
Note. The teaching skills rubric consists of four categories: Overall task fulfillment, recognition of
students’ level, use of instructional language, and fluency. Each category consists of four levels:
Level 1, insufficient level to assess; level 2, limited professional competence; level 3, minimum
professional competence; and level 4, professional competence.

APPENDIX B (A Translation of Test Cards)
Secret Word Game
Game: Secret word gameObjectives: Students (5th or 6th graders) will learn names of occupations, and will be able torepeat them after the teacher.
Style: listening game, conducted in pairs
Prepared materials: Picture cards of various jobs, an eraser
Procedures:
1. Students work in pairs, sitting face to face. Each pair puts an eraser between them.
2. The teacher says one of the occupation names on the board, and the students repeat it
after the teacher. However, when the teacher says the secret word, students should not
repeat the word. Instead, they have to pick up the eraser. Those who grab the eraser,earn 1 point.
Test criteria for giving instructions: An interviewee must include the following
instructions. He/ she is also expected to effectively use the prepared materials andappropriate gestures.
Required instructions: (the following instructions are given in Japanese except for 1, 6, &7.)

1. Let’s play the Secret Word game!
2. Work in pairs.
3. Sit face to face with your partner. Then, put an eraser between the two of you.
4. Repeat the word after me.
5. But, when I say the secret word, “carpenter,” do not repeat it. You must pick up
the eraser!
(end of the test)
6. You get the eraser, and you get one point.
7. You get more points, and you are the winner.
39





Matsunaga
MaiMai
MATSUNAGACan You---? Game
Game: Can you ---? gameObjectives: Students (5th or 6th graders) will be able to ask and answer questions, using“Can you ---?” “Yes, I can. / No, I can’t.”
Style: interview game, conducted in pairs
Prepared materials: a worksheet, which details five people and six things each person
can/cannot do
Procedures:
1. Students work in pairs, sitting face to face. Each student chooses who he or she will
become from the five people on the worksheet, but does not tell the partner his or her
choice.
2. The students in pairs ask and answer questions, using “Can you ---?” “Yes, I can. / No, I
can’t.” The student who can guess who his or her partner is with fewer questions willbe the winner.
Test criteria for giving instructions: An interviewee must include the following
instructions. He/ she is also expected to effectively use the prepared materials andappropriate gestures.
Required instructions㸸㸸(the following instructions are given in Japanese, except for 1 &7.)
1. Let’s play the Can You ---? Game!
2. Work in pairs, and sit face to face with your partner.
3. Look at your worksheet. Choose one person you want to be.
4. But, do not tell your partner who you are.
5. Ask and answer questions, using “Can you ---?” “Yes, I can. / No, I can’t.”
6. When you know who your partner is, ask your partner “Are you ---?”(end of the test)
7. Ask fewer questions, and you are the winner.

Note
In the process of creating the above two test cards, the author referred to the game activities
introduced in Saito, E. & Takeuchi, O. (Eds.). (2007) in REFERENCES.

40

-$&(7.DQVDL-RXUQDO±  -$&(7.DQVDL&KDSWHU
,661   3ULQWHGLQ-$3$1

ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ
ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢㄞゎ⪅ࡢㄞゎ᪉␎࡜Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝㄞゎ᪉␎࡜Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
᪉␎࡜Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᭷ᮏ ᮒ㔛
ᗈᓥዪᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔༤ኈᚋᮇㄢ⛬ABSTRACTThe purpose of this paper is to theoretically explain individual differences of learning strategies,
reading strategies and learning styles. Reading strategies have become a key feature of current
reading instruction. Generally, the specific reading strategies tend to be used for all the learners to
improve their reading skills in the classroom. However, from the point of view of individual
differences, learning styles seem to be very important for successful reading. It is often said thatlearning styles are related to learning strategy use and successful learning. On the other hand, there
is little study on the relationship between reading strategies and learning styles. Also, the definitionof the terms and the taxonomies are controversial among researchers though many studies havedone. Thus, this study aims to structure the fundamentals of learning strategies, reading strategies
and learning styles in order to consider the importance of individual differences in reading.
࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸
࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸸 ㄞゎ㸪ಶேᕪ㸪Ꮫ⩦᪉␎㸪ㄞゎ᪉␎㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ

1. ࡣࡌࡵ࡟
᪥ᮏேⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㸪ㄞゎࡣ᭱ࡶぶࡋࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿάື࡛࠶ࡿ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ㸪
TOEIC ࠾ࡼࡧ TOEFL ࡛ࡣ᪥ᮏேࡢㄞゎຊࡣ࠿࡞ࡾప࠸ࠋ1970 ᖺ௦ᚋ༙ࡼࡾ㸪ESL ゝㄒ⎔ቃ࡟࠾࠸࡚ 4 ᢏ⬟ࢆ⥙⨶ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᏛ⩦᪉␎ࡢ◊✲ࡀጞࡲࡾ (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990;
Oxford, 1990; Rubin, 1981; 1987)㸪EFL ゝㄒ⎔ቃ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ┒ࢇ࡟ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋㄞ
ゎ᪉␎ࡢ◊✲࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ㸪EFL ゝㄒ⎔ቃ࡟࠾࠸࡚ຠᯝⓗ࡞ᣦᑟἲࢆぢฟࡍࡓࡵ࡟⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ (Arimoto, 2011; ᯘ, 2009; Ono, Midorikawa, & Robson, 2001; ༲ᇛ, 1996)ࠋ
ㄞゎ᪉␎ࡣ㸪኱ࡁࡃࡣㄆ▱ⓗഃ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࢺࢵࣉࢲ࢘ࣥฎ⌮࡜࣎ࢺ࣒࢔ࢵࣉฎ⌮࡟ศ㢮ࡉࢀ (Barnett, 1988; Block, 1986)㸪ㄞゎࡢ┠ⓗ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚㸪ᩍᐊࡢ୰࡛ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᏛ⩦⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ྠࡌ᪉␎ࡀᣦᑟࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≉࡟㸪ඃࢀࡓㄞࡳᡭࢆࣔࢹࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚㸪ᙼࡽࡀ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿㄞ
ゎ᪉␎ࡣᮍ⇍࡞ㄞࡳᡭ࡟ࡶᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡾ㸪ㄞゎຊࡶྥୖࡍࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ
࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟ࡣࡑࢀࡒࢀಶࠎ࡟ᚓព㸪୙ᚓពࡀ࠶ࡾ㸪ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᏛ⩦⪅࡟ᣦᑟࡋࡓ
ㄞゎ᪉␎ࡀ㐺ษ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡣ㝈ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋຠᯝⓗ࡟Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢㄞゎຊࢆ㣴࠺ࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ಶࠎࡢ≉ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿᏛ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࢆ▱ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᏛ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡣ 1970 ᖺ௦ࡼࡾᚰ⌮Ꮫࡢศ㔝࡟࠾࠸࡚ᥦၐࡉࢀ㸪➨஧ゝㄒ⋓ᚓ◊✲࡟ࡶᛂ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᏛ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢࣔࢹࣝ࡟ࡣ㸪㡰ḟ—௵ព㸪ᢳ㇟ⓗ—ලయⓗ࡜࠸࠺⏕᮶ࡢ
ᮏ㉁࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ㸪ᣦᑟࡢዲࡳ㸪᝟ሗฎ⌮ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ㸪ㄆ▱ⓗᛶ᱁ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢࡼ࠺࡟⏕ᚓⓗ
41




᭷ᮏ ᮒ㔛࡞ഃ㠃࡜⎔ቃⓗ࡞ഃ㠃ࢆවࡡഛ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ㸪⤒㦂ࡸ⎔ቃ࡬ࡢ㡰ᛂᛶࡢ࠶ࡿዲࡳ࡜ࡍࡿࡶ
ࡢ㸪ሙ౫Ꮡ࣭ሙ⊂❧࡜࠸࠺ㄆ▱ⓗഃ㠃࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿ (Curry, 1983; Dunn, 1984;
Gregorc, 1979; Kolb & Kolb, 2005; Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977)ࠋ୍⯡ⓗ࡟㸪ඃࢀࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ≉ᛶ࡟ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡀ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ (Christison, 2003;
Naiman, Fröhlich, Stern, & Todesco, 1978; Skehan, 1998; Stern, 1975)ࠋ୍᪉㸪ㄞゎ᪉␎࡜Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢ㛵㐃ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪࠶ࡲࡾ◊✲ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ
Ꮫ⩦᪉␎㸪ㄞゎ᪉␎࠾ࡼࡧᏛ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡣ㸪ከࡃࡢ◊✲࡛ྲྀࡾୖࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪EFL
ゝㄒ⎔ቃ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᏛ⩦⪅ࡢಶேᕪ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ༑ศ࡞◊✲ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓ㸪ࡇࢀࡽࡢ⏝ㄒࡢ┦㐪ࡣ᭕᫕࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࡑࡢᐃ⩏ࡸศ㢮ἲࡶ◊✲⪅㛫࡛࠿࡞ࡾぢゎࡀ␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ᣦᑟἲ࡟኱ࡁࡃᙳ㡪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ᮏ◊✲ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦᪉␎㸪ㄞゎ᪉␎࡞ࡽࡧ࡟Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢᐃ⩏࡜ศ㢮ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⌮ㄽⓗ࡟᳨ドࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡎ㸪ㄞゎ᪉␎ࡢ๓ᥦ࡜࡞ࡿᏛ⩦᪉␎࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ඛ⾜◊✲ࢆᇶ࡟㸪ࡑࡢᐃ⩏࠾ࡼࡧศ㢮ἲࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ
2. Ꮫ⩦᪉␎
2.1 Ꮫ⩦᪉␎ࡢᐃ⩏ESL ゝㄒ⎔ቃ࡟࠾࠸࡚ 1970 ᖺ௦ᚋ༙ࡼࡾ㸪Rubin (1975)㸪Stern (1975)㸪Naiman, et al.
(1978) ࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡿඃࢀࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ⏝࠸ࡿᏛ⩦᪉␎ࡢ◊✲ࡀጞࡲࡾ㸪1980 ᖺ௦࠿ࡽ 1990 ᖺ௦๓༙࡟ࡣ㸪O’Malley and Chamot (1990)㸪Oxford (1990)㸪Wenden (1991) ࡞࡝࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ꮫ⩦᪉␎ࡢศ㢮ἲࡀᥦၐࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ᐃ⩏࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ◊✲⪅㛫࡛ぢゎࡀ␗࡞ࡾ㸪ၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ (Ellis, 1994, pp. 531–532)ࠋ
ࡲࡎ㸪᪉␎ࢆ⾜ືⓗ㸪⢭⚄ⓗ㸪ࡲࡓࡣࡑࡢ୧⪅࡜࡜ࡿࡢ࠿ࡀ᫂☜࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࡟
ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ Dörnyei and Skehan (2003, pp. 608–609) ࡶᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋOxford and Crookall(1989) ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦᪉␎ࡣᏛ⩦ᡭẁ㸪Ꮫ⩦཯ᛂ㸪Ꮫ⩦⾜ື࡛࠶ࡾ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࡢᏛ⩦㸪ၥ㢟ゎỴ㸪ຮᙉἲ࡛࠶ࡿࡀ㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࿧ࡤࢀࡼ࠺࡜᪉␎ࡣᏛ⩦ࢆࡼࡾ⬟⋡ⓗ㸪ຠ⋡ⓗ࡟ࡍࡿ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋO’Malley and Chamot (1990) ࡸ Chamot (2004) ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀᏛ⩦┠ᶆࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟࡜ࡿព㆑ⓗ࡞ᛮ⪃ࡸ⾜ື࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪Dörnyei (2005, p. 167) ࡣ㸪ᐃ⩏࡟ᛮ⪃ࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡇ࡜ࡣ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋOxford ࡽࡣ⾜ື୺⩏ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡛࠶
ࡾ㸪O’Malley and Chamot ࡽࡣ⾜ື࡟ຍ࠼㸪ᛮ⪃࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㏆ᖺ࡛ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦᪉␎ࡣᛮ⪃࡜⾜ືࡢ୧⪅ࢆໟᣓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ (Chamot, 2004; Cohen, 2007)ࠋ
ḟ࡟㸪ព㆑ⓗࡲࡓࡣ↓ព㆑࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪᪉␎ࡣᣦᑟࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡣ㸪Ꮫࢇࡔ᪉␎ࢆ࠺ࡲࡃ㐺ᛂࡉࡏࡼ࠺࡜ព㆑ⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᏛ⩦᪉␎࡟ࡣ┠ⓗࡀ࠶ࡾ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࡢಁ㐍㸪≉ᐃࡢㄢ㢟ࡸၥ㢟ࡢᑐฎ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢆᐜ᫆࡟㸪㏿ࡃ㸪ᴦࡋࡃࡍࡿ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࡢḞⅬࢆ⿵࠺ࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡿ (Cohen, 2007, pp. 38–39)ࠋ௨
ୖࡼࡾ㸪Ꮫ⩦᪉␎ࢆ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀ┠ⓗࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟࡜ࡿព㆑ⓗ࡞⾜ື࠾ࡼࡧᛮ⪃࡛࠶ࡾ㸪┤㠃ࡍࡿၥ㢟ࢆゎỴࡋ㸪ຠ⋡ⓗ࡟Ꮫ⩦ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡿ᪉ἲ࡜ᐃ⩏௜ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
2.2 Ꮫ⩦᪉␎ࡢศ㢮Ꮫ⩦᪉␎ࡢศ㢮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶᵝࠎ࡞ศ㢮ἲࡀᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋRubin (1981) ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦᪉␎
42




ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢㄞゎ᪉␎࡜Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚


ࢆ 2 ࡘࡢ⠊␪࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ゝㄒᏛ⩦࡟┤᥋ⓗ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿฎ⌮㐣⛬࡜㛫᥋ⓗ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ
ฎ⌮㐣⛬ࢆᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ┤᥋ⓗ᪉␎࡟ࡣ㸪ゎ᳨࣭᫂ド㸪᥎࣭᥎ㄽ㸪ᖐ⣡ⓗ᥎ㄽ㸪ᬯグ㸪⦎⩦㸪ࣔࢽࢱࣜࣥࢢࡢ 6 ࡘࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㛫᥋ⓗ᪉␎࡟ࡣ㸪⦎⩦ࡸ⏘ฟࡢᶵ఍ࢆసࡿࡇ
࡜ࡢ 2 ࡘࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡢᚋ㸪Rubin (1987) ࡣ᪉␎ࢆ㸪Ꮫ⩦᪉␎㸪ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ᪉␎㸪♫఍᪉␎ࡢ 3 ࡘ࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᏛ⩦᪉␎ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦࡟┤᥋ⓗ࡟ᵓᡂࡋᙳ㡪ࡍࡿゝㄒᵓ㐀ࡢⓎ㐩࡟ᐤ୚ࡍࡿ
᪉␎࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ᚋ࡟㸪Ꮫ⩦᪉␎ࡣ࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎࡜ㄆ▱᪉␎ࡢ 2 ࡘࡢ⠊␪࡟࡞ࡿࠋࢥ
࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ᪉␎ࡣ㸪ゝㄒᏛ⩦࡟ࡣ࠶ࡲࡾ┤᥋ⓗ࡟㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡀ㸪఍ヰ࡬ࡢཧຍ㸪
ពᛮࡢ␯㏻㸪ࡲࡓࡣヰࡋᡭࡢពᅗࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿ㐣⛬࡟㔜Ⅼࡀ⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ♫఍᪉␎ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟⮬㌟ࡢ▱㆑࡟ゐࢀ㸪ᐇ㊶ࡍࡿᶵ఍ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┒ࢇ࡟⾜࠺άື࡛࠶ࡿࠋRubinࡣ㸪ㄆ▱᪉␎࡜࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎ࡣ୧⪅࡜ࡶ࡟ゝㄒᏛ⩦࡟┤᥋ⓗ࡟㛵୚ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᙜ᫬ࡣ㸪ࡇࡢ 2 ࡘࡢ᪉␎ࡢศ㢮ࡣᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࡀ㸪୧⪅ࡢ㐪࠸ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓ
ࡢࡀ㸪O’Malley ࡜ Chamot (Chamot & Küpper, 1989; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990) ࡛࠶ࡿࠋO’Malley and Chamot (1990) ࡣ㸪᝟ሗฎ⌮ࣔࢹࣝ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ㸪Ꮫ⩦᪉␎ࢆ࣓ࢱㄆ▱㸪ㄆ▱㸪♫఍࣭᝟ព᪉␎ࡢ 3 ࡘࡢ⠊␪࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋChamot and Küpper (1989) ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜㸪࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎࡜ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦㐣⛬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼㸪Ꮫ⩦࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ィ⏬ࡋ㸪Ꮫ⩦㢟ᮦࢆࣔࢽࢱ࣮ࡋ㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࠺ࡲࡃᏛࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆホ౯ࡍࡿ᪉␎࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㏆ᖺ࡛ࡣ㸪⮬ᕫไᚚ࡜࠸࠺⏝ㄒࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ࡇࢀࡣ࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎࡜ྠ⩏ㄒ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ (Cohen & Macaro,
2007; Dörnyei, 2005)ࠋㄆ▱᪉␎࡜ࡣ㸪Ꮫࡪ㢟ᮦ࡜┦஫స⏝ࡋ㸪⢭⚄ⓗ㸪㌟యⓗ࡟ྲྀࡾᢅ࠸㸪≉ᐃࡢᡭἲࢆᏛ⩦㢟ᮦ࡟ᛂ⏝ࡍࡿ᪉␎࡛࠶ࡿࠋ♫఍࣭᝟ព᪉␎࡜ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢆᨭ᥼ࡍࡿࡓࡵ
࡟௚⪅࡜┦஫స⏝ࡋ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢱࢫࢡࡢຓࡅ࡜ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ຠᯝⓗ࡞ᢚไࢆ⏝࠸ࡿ᪉␎࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
Oxford (1990) ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦᪉␎ࢆ┤᥋ⓗ࡜㛫᥋ⓗ᪉␎ࡢ 2 ࡘࡢ⠊␪࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ┤᥋ⓗ᪉␎࡟ࡣグ᠈㸪ㄆ▱㸪⿵ൾ᪉␎㸪㛫᥋ⓗ᪉␎࡟ࡣ࣓ࢱㄆ▱㸪᝟ព㸪♫఍᪉␎ࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋࡇࡢศ㢮ἲࡣ Rubin (1981; 1987) ࡟㉳ᅉࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀ㸪࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎ࢆ㛫᥋ⓗ᪉␎࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿⅬ࡛┦㐪ࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪グ᠈᪉␎࡜⿵ൾ᪉␎࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡶ Oxford ࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋグ᠈᪉␎ࡣ㸪᪂ࡋ࠸᝟ሗࢆグ᠈ࡋ᳨⣴ࡍࡿࡢࢆಁࡍࠋ⿵ൾ
᪉␎ࡣ㸪⫼ᬒⓗ▱㆑ࡸゝㄒⓗᡭ᥃࠿ࡾࡢ౑⏝࡞࡝㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ୙㊊ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ▱㆑ࢆ⿵࠺┠ⓗ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋグ᠈᪉␎࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ Dörnyei and Skehan (2003, p. 608) ࡣ㸪ㄆ▱᪉␎࡜ྠ➼࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ูࡢ⠊␪࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪グ᠈᪉␎ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ㄆ▱᪉␎ࡢୗ఩ࡢ㒊㢮࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪⿵ൾ᪉␎ࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡟᥎ ࡸ᥎ㄽ࡜࿧ࡤࢀ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ㄆ▱᪉␎࡟ྵࡲࢀ
࡚࠸ࡿ (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990)ࠋDörnyei and Skehan ࡣ㸪ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥ᪉␎ࢆᏛ⩦᪉␎ࡢ⠊␪࠿ࡽྲྀࡾ㝖ࡁ㸪Oxford ࡢグ᠈᪉␎࡜ㄆ▱᪉␎ࢆ୍ࡘ࡟ࡲ࡜ࡵ㸪O’Malley andChamot ࡢ♫఍࣭᝟ព᪉␎ࢆศࡅࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ㸪ㄆ▱᪉␎㸪࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎㸪♫఍᪉␎㸪᝟ព᪉␎ࡢ 4 ࡘ࡟ศ㢮ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Hsiao and Oxford (2002) ࡣ㸪Rubin (1981)㸪O’Malley and Chamot (1990)㸪Oxford (1990) ࡢศ㢮ἲࢆẚ㍑ࡋ㸪Oxford ࡢ 6 ศ㢮ࡀ㸪(1) ┤᥋ⓗ᪉␎࡜㛫᥋ⓗ᪉␎ࡢ 2 ศ㢮㸪(2) O’Malley
and Chamot ࡢ 3 ศ㢮㸪(3) O’Malley and Chamot ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ 4 ᅉᏊ㸦ㄆ▱㸪࣓ࢱㄆ▱㸪♫఍㸪᝟ព᪉␎㸧࡜ 5 ᅉᏊ㸦グ᠈㸪ㄆ▱㸪⿵ൾ㸪࣓ࢱㄆ▱㸪♫఍࣭᝟ព᪉␎㸧ࡼࡾ㐺ษ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ
43





᭷ᮏ ᮒ㔛࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪Oxford ࡢศ㢮ἲ࡟ࡣ༑ศ㐺ᙜ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࢹ࣮
ࢱࡣᚓࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡽࡎ㸪௚ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡶ⪃࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ㸪Ꮫ⩦᪉␎ࡢศ㢮ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚༑
ศ⪃៖ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋLoCastro (1994) ࡀᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟㸪Ꮫ⩦᪉␎ࡣ ESL ゝㄒ⎔ቃ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᥦၐࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪᪥ᮏࡢ EFL ゝㄒ⎔ቃ࡟㐺ᛂࡋ࡞࠸᪉␎ࡶ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶᛕ㢌࡟⨨࠿࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋᏛ⩦᪉␎ࢆ 4 ᢏ⬟ู࡟ࡳࡿ࡜㸪ࡑࢀࡒࢀࡢ᪉␎࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣලయᛶ࡟Ḟࡅ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪᫂░࡛ࡣ࡞࠸㒊ศࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ≉࡟㸪ㄞゎ᪉␎࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪ࡑࡢᐃ⩏࠾ࡼࡧศ㢮ἲࡣ◊✲⪅㛫࡛┦㐪ࡀࡳࡽࢀ㸪᭕᫕࡞㒊ศࡶከࡃ㸪ᴫᛕࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡢࡀᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚㸪ㄞゎ᪉␎࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
3. ㄞゎ᪉␎
3.1 ㄞゎ᪉␎ࡢᐃ⩏ㄞゎ᪉␎࡜ࡣ㸪Barnett (1988) ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜㸪ㄞࡳᡭࡀຠᯝⓗ࡟ᩥ❶࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳ㸪ㄞࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ
ෆᐜࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿ࡜ࡁࡢ▱ⓗάື࡛࠶ࡿࠋCarrell (1998b) ࡣ㸪ㄞࡳᡭࡀ┠ⓗࡸ┠ᶆࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪⬟ືⓗ࡟㑅ᢥ㸪ไᚚࡍࡿ⾜ື࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋBarnett ࡢᐃ⩏ࡣᛮ⪃ࢆព࿡ࡋ㸪
Carrell ࡢᐃ⩏ࡣ⾜ືࢆព࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋㄞゎ᪉␎ࡢᐃ⩏࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪ពᅗⓗ㸪ࡲࡓࡣព㆑ⓗ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㆟ㄽࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪๓㏙ࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪᪉␎࡜ࡣ┠ⓗ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚ព
㆑ⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡿ⾜ື࠾ࡼࡧᛮ⪃࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚㸪ㄞゎ᪉␎ࢆ㸪ព㆑ⓗ࡞⾜ື࠾ࡼࡧᛮ⪃࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ㄞࡳᡭࡀᩥ❶ࢆ⬟⋡ⓗ࡟⌮ゎࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪┠ⓗ࡟ྜࢃࡏ࡚ㄞࡳ᪉ࢆไᚚ㸪㐺ᛂࡉࡏࡿ᪉ἲ࡜ᐃ⩏࡙ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
3.2 ㄞゎ᪉␎ࡢศ㢮୍⯡ⓗ࡟㸪ㄞゎ᪉␎ࡣ㸪ࢺࢵࣉࢲ࢘ࣥฎ⌮᪉␎࡜࣎ࢺ࣒࢔ࢵࣉฎ⌮᪉␎࡟኱ูࡉࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸪Block (1986) ࡣ඲యⓗ᪉␎࡜ᒁᡤⓗ᪉␎㸪Barnett (1988) ࡣࢸࢡࢫࢺࣞ࣋ࣝ᪉
␎࡜ㄒࣞ࣋ࣝ᪉␎࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ㄞゎάືࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃៖ࡍࡿ࡜㸪ㄆ▱ⓗഃ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࢺࢵࣉࢲ࢘ࣥฎ⌮᪉␎࡜࣎ࢺ࣒࢔ࢵࣉฎ⌮᪉␎ࡢ 2 ศ㢮࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ேࡢᛮ⪃࠾ࡼࡧ⾜ືⓗഃ㠃࠿ࡽࡉࡽ࡟᫂☜࡟ࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪O’Malley and Chamot (1990)㸪
Oxford (1990)㸪Yamato (2000) ࢆཧ↷ࡋ㸪࣓ࢱㄆ▱㸪ㄆ▱㸪♫఍࣭᝟ពࡢ 3 ࡘࡢഃ㠃࠿ࡽㄞゎ᪉␎ࢆ⾲ 1 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ศ㢮ࡍࡿࠋㄞゎ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎࡜ࡣ㸪ㄞࡴ┠ⓗࢆ᫂☜࡟ࡍࡿ㸪⌮ゎࢆࣔࢽࢱ࣮ࡋ㸪ಟṇࡍࡿ㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟࠺ࡲࡃㄞࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆホ౯ࡍࡿ᪉ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋㄆ▱᪉␎࡜ࡣ㸪ㄞࡳᡭ⮬㌟
ࡢ▱㆑࡜ᩥ❶ࡢ᝟ሗࢆ࠺ࡲࡃά⏝ࡋ࡚㸪ศᯒࡸ᥎ ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᩥ❶ࡢෆᐜࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿ᪉ἲ࡛
࠶ࡿࠋ♫఍࣭᝟ព᪉␎࡜ࡣ㸪௚⪅࡜ࡢ༠ຊ㸪⮬㌟ࡢឤ᝟ࡢࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝ࡞࡝㸪⎔ቃ࡟㐺ᛂࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ᪉ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⾲ 1 ࡟ᣲࡆ࡚࠸ࡿㄞゎ᪉␎ࢆ㸪Ⰻ࠸㸪ᝏ࠸࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪㢟ᮦࡢࢺࣆࢵࢡࡸㄞࡴ
┠ⓗ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡑࡢ౑⏝ࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤ㸪㥆ᰁࡳࡢ࠶ࡿࢺࣆࢵࢡ࡞ࡽࡤ㸪⫼ᬒ▱㆑ࡸ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡢ฼⏝㸪ࢫࢺ࣮࣮ࣜࡢᒎ㛤ࢆ᥎ ࡋ࡚ෆᐜࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ୍᪉㸪㥆ᰁࡳࡢ࡞࠸
ࢺࣆࢵࢡࡢᩥ❶ࢆㄞࡴሙྜࡣ㸪⣽㒊ࡲ࡛┠ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ෆᐜࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡾ㸪୍ᩥࡎࡘศᯒࡋࡓࡾ㸪ᩥ❶ᵓᡂࢆᢕᥱࡋ࡚᝟ሗࡢ⧅ࡀࡾࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࠋヨ㦂࡞࡝㝈ࡽࢀࡓ᫬㛫
44




ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢㄞゎ᪉␎࡜Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ࡢ୰࡛㸪⣲᪩ࡃෆᐜࢆᢕᥱࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿ࡜ࡁࡣ㸪ᚲせ࡞᝟ሗࡢࡳ࡬ࡢὀ┠㸪᥎㸪ࢫ࢟ࣕࢽࣥࢢ࡞࡝ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚ㄞࡴࠋCarrell (1998a) ࡀ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟㸪ຠᯝⓗ࡟ㄞゎ᪉␎ࢆ౑⏝࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ㸪᪉␎࡜ࡣఱ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿㸪࡞ࡐᏛࡪᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࠿࡜
࠸࠺ᐉゝⓗ▱㆑㸪࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟᪉␎ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ᡭ⥆ࡁⓗ▱㆑㸪࠸ࡘ࡝ࡇ࡛᪉␎ࢆ౑
⏝ࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺≧ἣⓗ▱㆑ࡢ 3 ࡘࡢ࣓ࢱㄆ▱ⓗ▱㆑ࡀ㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⾲ 1. ㄞゎ᪉␎ࡢศ㢮ㄞゎ᪉␎࣓ࢱㄆ▱᪉␎ ࣔࢽࢱࣜࣥࢢ

ㄝ᫂

 ᚟⩦
 ィ⏬
 ホ౯

⮬ศࡢ⌮ゎࡀṇࡋ࠸࠿࡝࠺࠿෌☜ㄆࡍࡿࠋㄗࡾ࡟Ẽ௜ࡃࠋໟᣓⓗ࡟ᩥ❶ࢆᤊ࠼㸪ᚲせࡢ࡞࠸᝟ሗࢆ㑊ࡅ㸪┠ⓗ࡟ྜࢃࡏ࡚㔜せ࡞᝟ሗࡢࡳ࡟ὀ┠ࡋ࡚⌮ゎࡋࡼ࠺࡜ィ⏬ࡍࡿࠋ஦๓࡟Ꮫ⩦ෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳ㸪ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜᝟ሗࢆ཰㞟ࡋ࡚᫂☜࡟ࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ
Ꮫ⩦ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ⧞ࡾ㏉ࡋ⦎⩦ࡋ㸪ᛂ⏝ࡍࡿࠋㄞࡴ┠ⓗࢆ᫂☜࡟ࡋ࡚ᩥ❶ࢆㄞࡴࠋ
⮬㌟ࡢㄞゎࡢᡂᯝࢆホ౯ࡍࡿࠋ

ㄆ▱᪉␎
 ศᯒ
 ᶫΏࡋ᥎ㄽ ⢭⦓໬᥎ㄽ
 ₇⧢ⓗ᥎ㄽ
 ᥎ 
 ⢭ᐦ
 ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ ⩻ヂ ࢳࣕࣥ࢟ࣥࢢ ࢫ࣑࢟ࣥࢢ ࢫ࢟ࣕࢽࣥࢢ ࡘ࡞ࡂゝⴥ ⫼ᬒⓗ▱㆑ ᩥ❶ᵓ㐀 せ⣙୍ᩥࡎࡘ⣽ศ໬ࡋ࡚ヲ⣽࡟⌮ゎࡍࡿࠋ௦ྡモࡢ↷ᛂ㛵ಀࢆ᥎ ࡍࡿ࡞࡝㸪ᩥ❶ࡢ୍㈏ᛶࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࠋ⫼ᬒⓗ▱㆑ࢆ⏝࠸࡚㸪ᩥ❶ࡢᒎ㛤㸪᭩ࡁᡭࡢពᅗ࡞࡝ࢆ᥎ ࡍࡿࠋᏛ⩦ࡋࡓつ๎ࢆᙜ࡚ࡣࡵ࡚⌮ゎࡍࡿࠋᩥ❶୰ࡢ᝟ሗ࠿ࡽ㸪᪂ࡋ࠸ᩥἲつ๎ࡸᮍ▱ㄒࡢព࿡ࢆ᥎ ࡍࡿࠋ᪂ࡋ࠸᝟ሗ࡜᪤Ꮡ▱㆑ࢆ⤖ࡧ௜ࡅࡿࠋ
ᩥ❶ࡢෆᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆᛮ࠸ᥥࡁ࡞ࡀࡽ⌮ゎࡍࡿࠋẕㄒ࡟ኚ᥮ࡋ࡚⌮ゎࡍࡿࠋᩥࢆព࿡ࡢࡲ࡜ࡲࡾࡈ࡜࡟༊ษࡾ࡞ࡀࡽㄞࡴࠋ
඲య࡟┠ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ᩥ❶ࡢ୺㢟ࢆᥗࡴࠋ㔜せ࡞᝟ሗࡢࡳࢆ᥈ࡋ࡚ෆᐜࢆᢕᥱࡍࡿࠋ
ࡘ࡞ࡂゝⴥ࠿ࡽ㸪ᩥ❶ࡢᒎ㛤ࢆ⪃࠼ࡿࠋㄒᙡ࣭ᩥἲ▱㆑ࡸ♫఍࣭ᩥ໬ⓗ▱㆑ࢆ฼⏝ࡋ࡚ෆᐜࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࠋᩥ❶ࡢᵓᡂࢆᢕᥱࡋ㸪᝟ሗࡢ⧅ࡀࡾࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࠋㄞࢇࡔෆᐜࢆ㸪㔜せ࡞᝟ሗࢆ⤌ࡳ㎸ࢇ࡛▷ࡃ⧳ࡵࡿࠋ

♫఍࣭᝟ព᪉␎
 ༠ㄪ
 ㉁ၥ
 ୙Ᏻ㍍ῶ ༴㝤㈇ᢸ

ၥ㢟ゎỴ㸪᝟ሗ஺᥮࡞࡝㸪௚⪅࡜༠ྠᏛ⩦ࡍࡿࠋ⮬ศࡢ⌮ゎࡀṇࡋ࠸࠿᫂☜࡟ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪ᩍᖌࡸ௰㛫࡟㉁ၥࡍࡿࠋ῝࿧྾࡛Ẽᣢࡕࢆⴠࡕ╔࠿ࡏࡿ࡞࡝㸪ㄞࡴࡇ࡜࡬ࡢ୙Ᏻࢆᑡ࡞ࡃࡍࡿࠋ
㞴ࡋ࠸ᩥ❶࡛ࡶ㸪㛫㐪࠸ࢆᜍࢀࡎ㸪㐍ࢇ࡛ㄞࡳ⥆ࡅࡿࠋ

 ὀព
 ண⩦

ㄞゎ᪉␎ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟ㄞࡳ᪉ࡢࢥࢶࢆᣦᑟࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟᭷┈࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࡑࡢᣦᑟࡢຠᯝࡀሗ
࿌ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽὀ┠ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪୍⯡ⓗ࡟ㄞゎຊࡢ⫱ᡂ࡟ຠᯝⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ᪉␎ࢆᣦᑟࡋ࡚ࡶ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ྥࡁ㸪୙ྥࡁࡀ࠶ࡿ
ࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋㄞゎ᪉␎ࡣ㸪ᣦᑟ⪅ࡀㄞゎࡢ┠ⓗ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚㸪ᩍᐊࡢ୰࡛ࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᏛ
⩦⪅࡟ㄞゎຊࢆྥୖࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵࡢࡼࡾⰋ࠸᪉␎ࢆᣦᑟࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࡢᑐࡋ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ಶேࡢࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ≉ᛶ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ዲࡳ㸪ᚰⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ㸪ㄆ▱ⓗ࡞せᅉ࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡇ࡛㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ≉ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡃࠋ

45





᭷ᮏ ᮒ㔛

4. Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ
Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡣ㸪୍⯡ⓗ࡟㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿẚ㍑ⓗ୍㈏ࡋࡓ㸪Ọ⥆ⓗ࡞ዲࡳࢆ⾲ࡍ≉ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ࡑࡢᐃ⩏࡟ࡣ࠸ࡃࡽ࠿㆟ㄽࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚≉࡟㆟ㄽࢆ࿧ࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ 3 ࡘࡢぢゎࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋ
4.1 Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡣ⏕᮶ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿㸪ࡲࡓࡣ⎔ቃࡸ≧ἣᏛ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡣ⏕᮶ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿㸪ࡲࡓࡣ⎔ቃࡸ≧ἣ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚
ࡿࡢ࠿㸪ࡲࡓࡣ⎔ቃࡸ≧ἣ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ⓨ㐩㸪ኚ໬ࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ⓨ㐩㸪ኚ໬ࡍࡿࡢ࠿
Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࢆዲࡳ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡣከ࠸ࡀ (Brown, 1994; Christison, 2003; Dunn, 1984;
Kolb & Kolb, 2005; Reid, 1995)㸪Dörnyei (2006) ࡣ㸪ዲࡳࡢᐃ⩏௜ࡅ࡟࠾࠸࡚㸪≧ἣ࡟ᛂࡌ࡚Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࢆኚ࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᰂ㌾ᛶࡢḞዴ࡟ࡣၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋCoffield, Moseley, Hall, and Ecclestone (2004) ࡣ㸪Dunn ࡢ⌮ㄽࡣᏛ⩦⪅ࡢዲࡳࢆẚ㍑ⓗ୙ኚⓗ࡛⏕᮶ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ᣦᑟࢆዲࡳ࡟ྜࢃࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿ࠶ࡲࡾ
Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢከᵝ࡞ྍ⬟ᛶࢆไ㝈ࡋ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺࡜࠸࠺ḞⅬࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ᠱᛕࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Skehan (1998, p. 237) ࡣ㸪࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛㸪ேࡀ㑅ࡪࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡣ⏕ᚓⓗ㈨㉁࡜
࠸࠺ࡼࡾಶேⓗዲࡳࡀከᑡᙳ㡪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᬯ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ᅛᐃᛶࡣᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡽ࡞࠸࡛
࠶ࢁ࠺࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋᏛ⩦ࢆ⤒㦂ࡢኚ໬ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚▱㆑ࡀ⏕ࡳฟࡉࢀࡿ㐣⛬࡜ࡍࡿ Kolb
(Kolb & Kolb, 2005) ࡢ⤒㦂Ꮫ⩦⌮ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡣ⤒㦂ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚Ⓨ㐩ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡜ᩥ໬ࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㸪ࡑࡢᅜ≉᭷ࡢ♫఍ⓗ⩦័ࡸ᐀ᩍࡀᏛ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ (Nelson, 1995; Oxford &Anderson, 1995)ࠋChristison (2003, p. 269) ࡣ㸪ᩥ໬ෆࡢㄡࡶࡀྠࡌዲࡳࢆࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛
ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪ࡴࡋࢁᩥ໬ࡣேࡢዲࡳࡢⓎ㐩࡟ᙳ㡪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ᑐ↷ⓗ࡟㸪Gregorc (1979) ࡢᥦၐࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࣐࢖ࣥࢻࣔࢹࣝ࡟ࡳࡽࢀࡿලయⓗ᧯స࡜ᢳ㇟
ⓗ᧯సࡣ㸪Piaget (1968) ࡢᛮ⪃Ⓨ㐩ẁ㝵ㄝ࡟㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋලయⓗ᧯స࠿ࡽᢳ㇟ⓗ᧯స࡬࡜⛣⾜ࡍࡿ㡰ᗎࡣ୍ᐃ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ẁ㝵ࡢ⏕ࡌࡿᖺ㱋ࡢಶேᕪࡣ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶⓎ㐩ࡢ㡰ᗎࡣ୙ኚⓗ࡛࠶ࡿഃ㠃ࡶ࠶ࡿ (ᯘ, 2011)ࠋ㟷ᮌ (2005) ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࢆ⏕᮶ࡢࡶࡢ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡢ࠿㸪⎔ቃ࡟ࡼࡾኚ໬ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡢ࠿ࡣ㸪࡝ࡕࡽ࠿ࡀṇࡋࡃ㸪࡝ࡕࡽ࠿ࡀ㛫㐪ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜
࠸࠺ᛶ㉁ࡢࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋᏛ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡣ⏕᮶ⓗ࡞ഃ㠃࡜⎔ቃ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ኚ
໬ࡍࡿഃ㠃ࡀ࠶ࡾ㸪┦஫࡟స⏝ࡋྜࡗ࡚Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ≉ᛶࢆᙧᡂࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
4.2 Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡜ㄆ▱ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡣ㛵㐃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿
ㄆ▱ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡜ࡣ㸪ேࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⌮ゎࡋ㸪⪃࠼㸪ၥ㢟ࢆゎỴࡋ㸪Ꮫࡧ㸪௚⪅࡜࠿࠿ࢃࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ฎ⌮࡟࠾ࡅࡿಶேᕪ࡛࠶ࡿ (Witkin et al., 1977)ࠋㄆ▱ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡜Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪୧⪅ࡣྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ◊✲ࡶ࠶ࢀࡤ␗࡞ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ
Riding and Cheema (1991) ࡣ㸪ㄆ▱ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡜Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢ୺࡞ᕪ␗ࡢ୍ࡘࡣ㸪⪃៖ࡉࢀࡿࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢせ⣲ࡢᩘ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ㄆ▱ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡣ஧ᴟࡢഃ㠃ࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡣከࡃࡢせ⣲ࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪஧⪅ᢥ୍ࡢᴟ㝈࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
Dörnyei and Skehan (2003, p. 602) ࡣ㸪ㄆ▱ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡣ≉ᚩⓗ࡞ࣃࢱ࣮࡛ࣥ᝟ሗࢆฎ⌮ࡍࡿഴྥ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡟Ꮫ⩦࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴࡓࡵࡢ඾ᆺⓗ࡞ዲࡳ࡛࠶
ࡿ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ㸪๓⪅ࡣ᝟ሗฎ⌮࡟࠾ࡅࡿዲࡳ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡀ㸪ᚋ⪅ࡣᏛ⩦
46




ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢㄞゎ᪉␎࡜Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ࡢ࠸࠿࡞ࡿഃ㠃ࢆࡶໟྵࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
4.3 Ꮫ⩦/Ꮫ⩦ ㄆ▱ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡣ▱⬟࡜ྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࠿
Riding (1997) ࡣ㸪ㄆ▱ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡜▱⬟࡟ࡣ㛵㐃ᛶࡣ࡞࠸࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪Skehan(1991; 1998) ࡣ㸪ከࡃࡢ◊✲࠿ࡽㄆ▱ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ྵࡲࢀࡿሙ౫Ꮡ࣭ሙ⊂❧࡜ゝㄒ⩦⇍ᗘࡢ┦㛵ࡣ r = .30 ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ࡇࡢ┦㛵ࡣ᭷ពᛶࢆᚓ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪➨஧ゝㄒᏛ⩦ࡢᡂຌ࡬ࡢ㔜せ࡞ᙳ㡪ࡣព࿡ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪▱⬟ࢆᐃࡍࡿഃ㠃ࢆ㝖ࡃ࡜┦㛵ࡣపࡃ࡞ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪ሙ౫Ꮡ࣭ሙ⊂❧ࡣ▱⬟࡜ྠࡌ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ぢゎࢆᑟࡁฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ (Dörnyei& Skehan, 2003, p. 603)ࠋᯘ (2011) ࡣ㸪ከ㔜▱⬟⌮ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㸪ே࡟ࡣ 8 ࡘࡢ▱⬟㸦ゝㄒⓗ▱⬟㸪ㄽ⌮࣭ᩘᏛⓗ▱⬟㸪㡢ᴦⓗ▱⬟㸪どぬ࣭✵㛫ⓗ▱⬟㸪㌟య㐠ືⓗ▱⬟㸪ᑐேⓗ▱⬟㸪ෆ┬ⓗ▱⬟㸪༤≀ⓗ▱⬟㸧ࡀഛࢃࡗ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡣ▱⬟࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿ Gardner ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡣ▱⬟࡜㛵㐃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㒊ศࡶ࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢぢゎࡢ┦㐪ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿ࡜㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡜ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀ≀஦ࢆᏛࡪ㝿࡟ዲࢇ࡛⏝࠸ࡿ㸪ಶᛶⓗ࡛㸪୍㈏ࡋࡓ≉ᛶ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪⏕᮶ⓗ࡟ࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᏛ⩦⪅ࡢዲࡳࡢ୰࡟ࡣ㸪⤒㦂࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ኚ໬ࡋ㸪⎔ቃ࡟㐺ᛂࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡶྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ᪉␎࡜ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪๓⪅ࡣ㸪┠ⓗ࡟ྜࢃࡏ࡚ព㆑ⓗ࡟౑⏝ࢆ㐺ᛂࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡀ㸪ᚋ⪅ࡣ㸪┠ⓗࡸ≧ἣ࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀ↓ព㆑ⓗ࡟ᖖ࡟ዲࢇ࡛⏝࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
4.4 Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢศ㢮Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢᵓᡂせ⣲ࡶࡲࡓ㸪◊✲⪅㛫࡛␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪Brown (1994) ࡢ㌟యⓗ㸪᝟ពⓗ㸪ㄆ▱ⓗ㡿ᇦ㸪Oxford and Anderson (1995) ࡢㄆ▱ⓗ㸪ᐇ⾜ⓗ㸪᝟ពⓗ㸪♫఍ⓗ㸪⏕⌮ⓗ㸪⾜ືⓗഃ㠃㸪Reid (1995)㸪Christison (2003) ࡢㄆ▱㸪ឤぬ㸪ᛶ᱁ࡢ 3 㡿ᇦ㸪ᯘ (2011) ࡢዲࡳ㸪⏕᮶ⓗ㸪ᚰ⌮ⓗせ⣲࡞࡝ࡀᣲࡆࡽࢀࡿࠋ௨ୖࡢഃ㠃ࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿ࡜㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡣ
⾲ 2 ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ศ㢮ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
ㄆ▱ⓗࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡜ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀ≀஦ࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ฎ⌮ࡋ㸪⌮ゎࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶
ࡿࠋሙ౫Ꮡ࣭ሙ⊂❧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ㸪๓⪅ࡣ㸪ᩥἲ࡞࡝ࡢつ๎ࢆᩥ⬦ࡢ୰࡛ᬯ♧ⓗ࡟Ꮫࡪࡇ࡜
ࢆዲࡴᏛ⩦⪅࡛࠶ࡾ㸪ᚋ⪅ࡣ㸪ᩥἲ࡞࡝ࡢつ๎ࢆ᫂♧ⓗ࡟Ꮫࡪࡇ࡜ࢆዲࡴᏛ⩦⪅࡛࠶ࡿࠋ඲యⓗ࡜ࡣ㸪ෆᐜࡢᴫせࢆᢕᥱࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆዲࡳ㸪ศᯒⓗ࡜ࡣ㸪⣽㒊ࡲ࡛⌮ゎࡋ࡚ෆᐜࢆᥗ
ࡴࡇ࡜ࢆዲࡴࠋ⾪ືⓗ࣭⇍⪃ⓗ࡜ࡣ㸪⟅࠼ࢆᑟࡁฟࡍࡓࡵ࡟㸪⣲᪩ࡃ᥎ ࢆ⾜࠺ࡢ࠿㸪ࡺࡗࡃࡾศᯒࢆࡋ࡚⤖ㄽࢆฟࡍࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺≉ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
⏕⌮ⓗࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ▱ぬ࡜⎔ቃࡀ῝ࡃ࠿࠿ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋどぬⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡣ㸪᭩⡠࡞࡝ᩥᏐ࡟㉳ࡇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᩥ❶ࢆㄞࡴࡇ࡜ࡸ⤮ᅗࢆぢ࡚⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚓព࡛࠶ࡾ㸪⫈ぬⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡣ㸪ㅮ⩏࡞࡝ཱྀ㢌࡛ࡢㄝ᫂ࢆ⪺ࡃᏛ⩦᪉ἲࢆዲࡴࠋゐぬⓗᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ㸪ᐇ㝿࡟≀࡟ゐࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⌮ゎࡋ㸪㐠ືឤぬⓗᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ㸪㌟యࢆ౑࠸㸪ືసࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆዲࡴࠋ⎔ቃⓗഃ㠃࡜ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࡍࡿሙࡢ⎔ቃࡸᖍ㡰ࡢዲࡳ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪♫఍ⓗഃ㠃࡜ࡣ㸪ಶேᏛ⩦ࡲࡓࡣ༠ྠᏛ⩦࡜࠸࠺Ꮫ⩦᪉ἲࡢዲࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ᛶ᱁ⓗࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡜ࡣ㸪ேࡢ᝟ពⓗഃ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ᭕᫕ࡉ࡬ࡢᐶᐜᛶ࡜ࡣ㸪ศ࠿ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜
ࡀ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶẼ࡟ࡏࡎᏛ⩦ࢆ㐍ࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡢ࠿㸪ࡲࡓࡣ୍ࡘࡢࡇ࡜࡟ᇳ╔ࡋ࡚㸪ࡑࡇ
47





᭷ᮏ ᮒ㔛࡛⌮ゎࡀṆࡲࡗ࡚ࡋࡲ࠺ࡢ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋෆྥᛶ࣭እྥᛶ࡜ࡣ㸪♫஺ⓗ࠿ෆẼ࠿࡜࠸࠺ᛶ᱁ࡢഃ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⾲ 2. Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢศ㢮Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ
ㄆ▱ⓗࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ

⏕⌮ⓗࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ

ᛶ᱁ⓗࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ

㻌

✀㢮
ሙ౫Ꮡ
ሙ⊂❧

≉ᛶ
㠀ㄽ⌮ⓗ㸪ᖐ⣡ⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦ㄽ⌮ⓗ㸪₇⧢ⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦

඲యⓗ
ศᯒⓗ

ໟᣓⓗ࡞⌮ゎ㸪ὶᬸࡉẁ㝵ⓗ࡞⌮ゎ㸪ṇ☜ࡉ

⾪ືⓗ
⇍⪃ⓗ

༶ᗙ࡟Ỵ᩿
᫬㛫ࢆ᥃ࡅ᳨࡚ウ

ឤぬⓗ

どぬⓗ
⫈ぬⓗ
ゐぬⓗ
㐠ືឤぬⓗ

⎔ቃⓗ

㡢㸪ග㸪Ẽ

♫఍ⓗ

ࢢ࣮ࣝࣉᏛ⩦㸪࣌࢔Ꮫ⩦㸪ಶேᏛ⩦ㅮ⩏ᙧᘧ㸪ᤵᴗཧຍ

᭕᫕ࡉ࡬ࡢᐶᐜᛶ
እྥⓗ
ෆྥⓗ

㸪ᖍ㡰

୍ࡘࡢゎ⟅㸪ከᵝᛶࡢ࠶ࡿゎ⟅ே๓࡛ᇽࠎ࡜Ⓨゝࢆࡋ㸪ཱྀ⟅ヨ㦂ࡀᚓពⓎゝࡣᑡ࡞࠸ࡀ㸪グ㏙ヨ㦂ࡀᚓព┠ⓗ࡟ྜࢃࡏ࡚ព㆑ⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡿᏛ⩦᪉␎࡜ࡣᑐ↷ⓗ࡟㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡜ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀ୍㈏ࡋ࡚ዲࢇ࡛⏝࠸ࡿ᪉ἲ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪୍ே୍ே≉ᛶࡣ␗࡞ࡿࠋḟ࡟㸪ㄞゎ᪉␎ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㸪᪥ᮏࡢ EFL ゝㄒ⎔ቃ࡟࠾ࡅࡿඃࢀࡓㄞࡳᡭ࡜ᮍ⇍࡞ㄞࡳᡭࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋ
5. ඃࢀࡓㄞࡳᡭ
ඃࢀࡓㄞࡳᡭ࡜ᮍ⇍࡞ㄞࡳᡭㄞࡳᡭ࡜ᮍ⇍࡞ㄞࡳᡭඃࢀࡓㄞࡳᡭࡢ౑⏝ࡍࡿㄞゎ᪉␎ࡢ◊✲ࡣ㸪ESL ゝㄒ⎔ቃ࡟࠾࠸࡚ Hosenfeld (1977)㸪
Block (1986; 1992)㸪Barnett (1988)㸪Carrell (1989) ࡽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍⯡ⓗ࡟㸪ඃࢀࡓㄞࡳᡭࡣࢺࢵࣉࢲ࢘ࣥฎ⌮᪉␎ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ㸪ᮍ⇍࡞ㄞࡳᡭࡣ࣎ࢺ࣒࢔ࢵࣉ
ฎ⌮ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿ࡜࠸ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪᪥ᮏࡢ EFL ゝㄒ⎔ቃ࡛ࡣ㸪ඃࢀࡓㄞࡳᡭ࡜ᮍ⇍࡞ㄞࡳᡭࡢ≉ᚩ࡟ࡣ┦㐪Ⅼࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿ㸦⾲ 3 ཧ↷㸧ࠋ
⾲ 3 ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟㸪༲ᇛ (1996) ࡣ㸪୍⯡ⓗ࡟࠸ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿඃࢀࡓㄞࡳᡭ࡜ᮍ⇍࡞ㄞࡳᡭࡢ≉ᚩࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୍᪉㸪Ono, et al. (2001) ࡸ Arimoto (2011) ࡛ࡣ㸪ඃࢀࡓㄞࡳᡭࡣᩥἲ
▱㆑ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿ㸪ᩥ༢఩࡛ࡢศᯒࢆ⾜࠺࡞࡝㸪࣎ࢺ࣒࢔ࢵࣉฎ⌮᪉␎ࢆ⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮍ⇍࡞ㄞࡳᡭ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡳࡿ࡜㸪㏲ḟⓗ㸪㒊ศⓗ࡞࿴ヂࡸᩥᵓ㐀ࡢศᯒࡣ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓ㸪ㄒᙡࡢ᥎ 㸪ᩥ⬦࠿ࡽࡢෆᐜ᥎ 㸪⤖ㄽࡢண ࡞࡝㸪ࢺࢵࣉࢲ࢘ࣥฎ⌮᪉␎ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ (Arimoto, 2011; ᯘ, 2009; Ono, et al., 2001)ࠋ௨ୖࡢࡼ࠺࡟㸪᪥ᮏࡢ EFL ゝㄒ⎔ቃ࡟࠾ࡅ
48




ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢㄞゎ᪉␎࡜Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ࡿඃࢀࡓㄞࡳᡭ࡜ᮍ⇍࡞ㄞࡳᡭࡢ≉ᚩ࡟┦㐪Ⅼࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢㄞゎ᪉␎ࡢ౑⏝࡟ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ಶࠎࡢࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᏛ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡀᙳ㡪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜
ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
⾲ 3. ඃࢀࡓㄞࡳᡭ࡜ᮍ⇍࡞ㄞࡳᡭࡢ≉ᚩ㻌༲ᇛ (1996)

Ono, et al. (2001)

ᯘ (2009)

Arimoto (2011)ඃࢀࡓㄞࡳᡭ
ᮍ⇍࡞ㄞࡳᡭ
ḟ࡟㉳ࡇࡿ᝟ሗ࡜๓㏙ࡢ᝟ሗࢆ࠺ࡲ 㞴ࡋ࠸ㄒྃࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜୍ㄒ୍ྃゎㄞࡋ㸪ࡃ㛵㐃࡙ࡅࡿࠋ᥎ ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
ᩥ❶୰ࡢᩥἲ㸪ㄒྃࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃ㸪⫼ ᖖ࡟࿴ヂࡋ࡞ࡀࡽㄞࡳ㸪඲యࡢព࿡ࢆ
ᬒ▱㆑ࢆά⏝ࡋ࡚ෆᐜࢆ᥎ ࡍࡿࠋ ᥗࡴࡇ࡜ࡀ࠺ࡲࡃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ
ᩥࣞ࣋ࣝࡢศᯒࢆࡍࡿࠋ
ㄒᙡ㸪ᩥἲ▱㆑ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࠋࢫ࣑࢟ࣥࢢࢆࡍࡿࠋ
⫼ᬒ▱㆑ࢆ౑⏝ࡍࡿࠋෆᐜࡸᙧᘧ࠿ࡽㄒᙡࢆ᥎ ࡍࡿࠋ㏲ḟⓗ㸪㒊ศⓗ࿴ヂࡸᩥࣞ࣋ࣝࡢศᯒ
ࡣ⾜ࢃ࡞࠸ࠋゝㄒⓗ▱㆑㸦ㄒᙡ㸪ᩥἲ㸪⫼ᬒ▱㆑㸧ࡣ౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ

ࢺࣆࢵࢡࢭࣥࢸࣥࢫࡸ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸪ࡘ࡞ࡂゝⴥࢆ฼⏝ࡍࡿࠋᩥ⬦࠿ࡽព࿡ࢆᢕᥱࡍࡿࠋ

࿴ヂࢆࡋ࡚ㄞࡴࠋ
⫼ᬒ▱㆑ࢆ฼⏝ࡍࡿࠋ᭩ࡁᡭࡢពᅗࡸ⤖ㄽࢆண ࡍࡿࠋᩥἲ▱㆑ࢆ౑⏝ࡋ㸪ᩥἲࢆᢕᥱࡍ
ࡿࠋㄒᙡ▱㆑ࢆ฼⏝ࡍࡿࠋᩥࢆព࿡
ࡢࡲ࡜ࡲࡾ࡟༊ษࡾ࡞ࡀࡽㄞࡴࠋ
ࣃࣛࢢࣛࣇᵓᡂࢆ⌮ゎࡋ㸪ࣃࣛࢢࣛࣇࡈ࡜࡟ෆᐜࢆᢕᥱࡍࡿࠋ

ᩥ⬦࠿ࡽෆᐜࢆ᥎ ࡍࡿࠋᩥᵓ㐀ࡢศᯒࡸᩥἲ࡟ࡣὀ┠ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ
ᩥ❶୰ࡢ᝟ሗࢆ⤖ࡧࡘࡅ࡚ෆᐜࢆ⌮ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㞴ࡋ࠸ࠋ⫼ᬒ▱㆑࡜ෆᐜࡢ
㛵㐃௜ࡅࡀ㞴ࡋ࠸ࠋ

Aebersold and Field (1997, p. 16) ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜㸪ඃࢀࡓㄞࡳᡭࡢ≉ᛶ࡟ࡣಶேᕪࡢഃ㠃࡛࠶ࡿᏛ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡀ㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᏛ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪⡿ᒣ (2002, p. 287) ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ⮬యⰋ࠸㸪ᝏ࠸࡜࠸࠺౯್ほࢆྵࡴࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྠᵝ࡟㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ಶࠎࡢᏛ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡀⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡛㝗ࡾࡸࡍ࠸ᅔ㞴Ⅼࢆᢕᥱࡋ㸪ࡑࢀ࡟ᛂࡌࡓ㐺ษ࡞ㄢ㢟ࢆ⏝ពࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢⓎ㐩ࢆಁࡍࡇ࡜ࡢ㔜せᛶࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᏛ⩦⪅ࡢࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᏛ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢ㛗ᡤࢆ⌮ゎࡋ㸪ࡑࡢ㛗ᡤࢆఙࡤࡍᶵ఍ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟㥆ᰁࡳࡢ࡞࠸ㄞゎ᪉␎ࡢᣦᑟࢆࡋ㸪ከ✀ከᵝ࡞ㄞࡳ᪉ࢆ♧ࡍࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ព㆑ⓗ࡞౑⏝࠿ࡽ↓ព㆑ⓗ࡞౑⏝࡬࡜Ⓨᒎࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟⧅ࡀࡾ㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢᰂ㌾ᛶࢆ⫱ᡂࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡿࠋㄞゎ᪉␎ࡢᣦᑟ࡛ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ≉ᛶࢆά࠿ࡋ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢᚓព㸪୙ᚓព࡜ࡍࡿㄞࡳ
᪉ࢆ┦஫࡟⤌ࡳྜࢃࡏ࡞ࡀࡽゐࢀࡉࡏ㸪ᑡࡋࡎࡘ័ࢀ࡚࠸ࡃࡼ࠺࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ኱ษ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
6. ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟
ᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦᪉␎㸪ㄞゎ᪉␎࡞ࡽࡧ࡟Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㸪ඛ⾜◊✲࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚
⌮ㄽⓗ࡟᳨ドࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋᏛ⩦᪉␎࡜ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀຠᯝⓗ࡟ၥ㢟ࢆゎỴࡋ㸪┠ⓗࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ព㆑ⓗ࡟⏝࠸ࡿ᪉ἲ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪࣓ࢱㄆ▱㸪ㄆ▱࠾ࡼࡧ♫఍࣭᝟ពⓗഃ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⾜ື࡜ᛮ⪃࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓ㸪ㄞゎ᪉␎࡜ࡣ㸪ㄞࡳᡭࡀᩥ❶ࢆ⬟⋡ⓗ࡟⌮ゎࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟㸪ㄞࡴ┠ⓗ࡟ྜࢃࡏ࡚ㄞࡳ᪉ࢆ㐺ᛂࡉࡏࡿព㆑ⓗ࡞᪉ἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୍᪉㸪Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡜ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸪ㄆ▱㸪⏕⌮࠾ࡼࡧᛶ᱁࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡿ୍㈏ࡋࡓಶᛶⓗ࡞ዲࡳ࡛࠶ࡾ㸪⏕᮶ⓗ࡛ኚࢃࡽ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡜⤒㦂ࡸ⎔ቃ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ኚࢃࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
49





᭷ᮏ ᮒ㔛Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦᪉␎ࡢ౑⏝࡜㛵㐃ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀ㸪ㄞゎ᪉␎࡜࡝ࡢࡼ
࠺࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ◊✲ࡣ࠶ࡲࡾ࡞࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ㸪ඃࢀࡓㄞࡳᡭ࡜ᮍ⇍࡞ㄞࡳᡭࡢ≉ᚩࡣ◊✲⪅㛫࡛␗࡞ࡗ࡚࠾ࡾ㸪ࡑࡢ┦㐪ࡢせᅉࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢⱥㄒ⩦⇍ᗘࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢࡶࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᏛ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡀㄞゎ᪉␎ࡢ౑⏝࡟㛵୚ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ
࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㸪ຠᯝⓗ࡟ㄞゎ᪉␎ࡢᣦᑟࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵ࡟ࡣ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢ≉ᛶ࡛࠶ࡿᏛ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚▱ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ኱ษ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᣦᑟ⪅ഃ࠿ࡽࡢ୍᪉ⓗ࡞ㄞゎ᪉␎ࡢᣦᑟ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸪Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢᚓព࡜ࡍࡿㄞࡳ᪉ࢆࡉࡽ࡟☜࠿࡞ࡶࡢ࡟ࡍࡿ
ࡓࡵࡢᣦᑟ㸪ࡲࡓࡣ㸪ᅔ㞴࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿㄞࡳ᪉࡟ᑡࡋࡎࡘゐࢀ࡚័ࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟ಁࡍᣦᑟࢆ⧊
ࡾ஺ࡐࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㸪⮬ᚊࡋࡓㄞࡳᡭ࡜࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ᨭ᥼ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜ࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ௒
ᚋࡣ㸪ᮏ◊✲ࡢ⌮ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁ㸪ㄞゎ᪉␎࡜Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄪᰝࢆ⾜࠸㸪᳨ドࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄢ㢟࡜ࡍࡿࠋㅰ㎡ᮏ✏ᇳ➹࡟࠶ࡓࡾ㸪ᗈᓥዪᏛ㝔኱Ꮫࡢᯘ᱇Ꮚᩍᤵ㸪ᰝㄞጤဨࡢඛ⏕᪉࠿ࡽ㈗㔜࡞ࡈពぢ㸪ࡈᣦᑟࢆ࠸ࡓࡔࡁࡲࡋࡓࠋᚰࡼࡾឤㅰ⏦ࡋୖࡆࡲࡍࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩㟷ᮌஂ⨾Ꮚ (2005).ࠕᏛ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝࡢᴫᛕ࡜⌮ㄽ—Ḣ⡿ࡢ◊✲࠿ࡽᏛࡪ࣓ࠖࠗࢹ࢕࢔ᩍ⫱◊✲࠘2, 197–212.
ᯘ᱇Ꮚ (2009).ࠕ࣮ࣜࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ࡜ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢࡢ⤫ྜⓗ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ—⌮ゎࡢࡓࡵࡢᣦᑟࢆ
┠ᣦࡋ࡚—ࠖࠗJACET 㛵すᨭ㒊ࣛ࢖ࢸ࢕ࣥࢢᣦᑟ◊✲఍⣖せ࠘8, 1–14.
ᯘ᱇Ꮚ (2011).ࠕከ㔜▱⬟⌮ㄽࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃࠼ࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱ (2) —ⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡟࠾ࡅࡿಶேᕪࢆ
㉸࠼࡚—ࠖࠗⱥㄒᩍ⫱࠘60(2), 50–52.
༲ᇛ♸ྖ (1996).ࠕᅔ㞴ᰯ⏕࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥᩥㄞゎࢫࢺࣛࢸࢪ࣮ࠖࠗൢᆅᩍ⫱◊✲࠘50, 95–104.
CiNii Complete database (2006 ᖺ 9 ᭶ 21 ᪥)⡿ᒣᮅ஧ (2002).ࠗⱥㄒᩍ⫱: ᐇ㊶࠿ࡽ⌮ㄽ࡬࠘㸦ᨵゞቑ⿵∧㸧ᮾி: ᯇ᯽♫.
Aebersold, J. A., & Field, M. L. (1997). From reader to reading teacher: Issues and strategies forsecond language classrooms. Cambridge; NY: Cambridge University Press.
Arimoto, A. (2011). Top-down and bottom-up processing in EFL reading. Studies in English
Language Teaching, 34, 41–50.
Barnett, M. A. (1988). Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use affects L2comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 72, 150–162.
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20,
463–494.
Block, E. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL
Quarterly, 26, 319–343.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall Regents.
Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language
50




ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢㄞゎ᪉␎࡜Ꮫ⩦ࢫࢱ࢖ࣝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚


Journal, 73, 121–134.
Carrell, P. L. (1998a). Metacognition and EFL/ESL reading. Instructional Science, 26, 97–112.
Carrell, P. L. (1998b). Can reading strategies be successfully taught? The Language Teacher, 22(3).
Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/98/mar/carrell.html
Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic
Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1, 14–26. Retrieved February, 19, 2010, from
Directory of Open Access Journals database.
Chamot, A. U., & Küpper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign
Language Annals, 22, 13–24.
Christison, M. A. (2003). Learning styles and strategies. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English
Language Teaching (International ed.) (pp. 267–288). New York: McGraw-Hill/Contemporary.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Retrieved December 27, 2010, fromhttp://www.hull.ac.uk/php/edskas/learning%20styles.pdf
Cohen, A. D. (2007). Coming to terms with language learner strategies: Surveying the experts. In A.
D. Cohen, & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research andpractice (pp. 47–68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, A. D., & Macaro, E. (Eds.) (2007). Language learner strategies: Thirty years of researchand practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Curry, L. (1983). An organization of learning styles theory and constructs. Retrieved December 21,
2010, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED235185.pdf
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dörnyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 42–68.
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J.
Daughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630).
Malden: Blackwell.
Dunn, R. (1984). Learning style: State of the science. Theory into Practice, 23, 10–19.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gregorc, A. F. (1979). Learning/teaching styles: Potent forces behind them. Educational Leadership,
36, 234–236.
Hsiao, T-Y., & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A
confirmatory factor analysis. Modern Language Journal, 86, 368–383.
Hosenfeld, C. (1977). A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of successful andnonsuccessful second language learners. System, 5, 110–123.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential
learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & education, 4, 193–212.
Retrieved December 31, 2010, fromhttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.127.6489&rep=rep1&type=pdf
51





᭷ᮏ ᮒ㔛

LoCastro, V. (1994). Learning strategies and learning environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 409–414.
Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Toronto:
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Nelson, G. L. (1995). Cultural differences in learning styles. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles inthe ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 3–18). New York: Heinle & Heinle.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ono, N., Midorikawa, H., & Robson, G. (2001). Exploring the nature of good and poor L2 reading
behavior. JACET bulletin, 33, 73–88. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from CiNii Complete
database.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategy: What every teacher should know. Boston, MA:
Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L., & Crookall, D. (1989). Research on language learning strategies: Methods, findings,
and instructional issues. Modern Language Journal, 73, 404–419.
Oxford, R. L., & Anderson, N. J. (1995). A crosscultural view of learning styles. Language
Teaching, 28, 201–215.
Piaget, J. (1968). Six études de psychologie. Paris: Denoël. [㑥ヂ: ⁪ἑṊஂ (1983).ࠗᛮ⪃ࡢᚰ⌮
Ꮫ—Ⓨ㐩ᚰ⌮Ꮫࡢ 6 ◊✲—࠘ᮾி: ࡳࡍࡎ᭩ᡣ.]Reid, J. M. (Ed.). (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. New York: Heinle & Heinle.
Riding, R. J. (1997). On the nature of cognitive style. Educational Psychology, 17, 29–49.
Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles—An overview and integration. Educational
Psychology, 11, 193–215.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 42–51.
Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11,
117–131.
Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In A.
Wenden, & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 15–30). New York:
Prentice Hall.
Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 13, 275–298.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern
Language Review, 31, 304–318.
Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy: Planning and implementing learnertraining for language learners. New York: Prentice Hall.
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and fieldindependent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational
Research, 47, 1–64.
Yamato, R. (2000). Awareness and real use of reading strategies. JALT Journal, 22, 140–164.
52