JACET Kansai Journal, 20, 156-173. (2018) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

Language Needs Analysis and the Internationalization of Higher
Education―The Unaddressed Factor in Japan― 1
ALIZADEH, Mehrasa / MEHRAN, Parisa / KOGUCHI, Ichiro /TAKEMURA, Haruo
Osaka University

Abstract
In recent years, universities in Japan have made efforts to respond to the urgent
call for internationalization of education by reforming their policies,
particularly with regard to English language education. Osaka University as oneof the most prominent Japanese institutions of higher education is also moving
toward online education to provide flexible learning opportunities for its
students, and facilitate the internationalization process. The current study
reports the findings of a needs analysis study as the initial step in designing an
online English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP) course at this university.
A Likert-type questionnaire, an open-ended question, and semi-structured
interviews were utilized to collect data from the students (N=278) and theEnglish instructors (N=12) as key stakeholders. According to the results, thestudents assessed their listening and speaking as lower than other skills andexpressed their desire to improve their oral/aural skills so as to be able to use
English in meaningful communicative situations. The instructors also stressed
the importance of meeting these perceived yet less addressed needs, which is inline with the internationalization policy. The findings of this study are intended
to inform the subsequent stages of online course design and development.
Keywords: needs analysis, internationalization, English for General Academic
Purposes (EGAP)
1. Introduction
1.1 ELT in Japan and the Internationalization of Higher Education
The Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and156

Language Needs Analysis and the Internationalization of Higher Education―The Unaddressed Factor in Japan―

Technology (MEXT) initiated a call for internationalization of higher educationin 2009 by launching the Global 30 or G30 Project which, among otherobjectives, aimed at increasing the number of international students from
123,829 in 2009 to 300,000 by 2020 (MEXT, 2009). In fulfillment of thispivotal goal, 13 core universities were chosen to foster an academic
environment in which local and international students could exchange opinions,knowledge, and culture, and make international ties to “live locally [and] growglobally” (Osaka University’s motto). In so doing, Japanese universities haveundertaken educational reforms on top of which lie English education policies.
The first stride regarding the educational reform was the transition of themedium of instruction from Japanese to English. The Global 30 universities
have thus begun to offer a selected number of courses and/or programs partiallyor entirely in English. The purpose of this reform action plan was for Japanese
students to be more exposed to the English language and get encouraged to
study overseas, and also for international students to study in Japan andcomplete a degree in English (MEXT, 2012). Among other initiatives started by
MEXT (2014), Japanese universities were spurred on to adopt an integrated
approach to English language teaching and learning emphasizing all four
language skills in instruction and assessment.
Nevertheless, English as the language of instruction has not yet
sufficiently found its way into Japanese universities. The main reason behind
this is rooted in the fact that English education in Japan is afflicted by various
problems, the most salient of which is the overemphasis upon the grammarbased, translation-oriented approach hindering Japanese EFL learners frombeing efficient communicators (Sakamoto, 2012). Other challenges that impede
effective English language teaching and learning in Japan include predominantteacher-centered instruction (Hosoki, 2011), lack of teacher training (Steele &Zhang, 2016), teaching to the test (Lowe, 2015), and lack of learner motivation(Kikuchi, 2013), to name a few.
As recommended by MEXT (2014), technology and ICT-enhanced
materials should be employed as a potential solution to the shortcomings of ELT
in Japan to more effectively enhance English pedagogy. As one of the leading
institutions of higher education in Japan, Osaka University is also considering
the shift to online education to facilitate learning and teaching, and take thelead in realizing the ultimate goal of globalization. As an initial step in157

ALIZADEH, Mehrasa / MEHRAN, Parisa / KOGUCHI, Ichiro / TAKEMURA, Haruo

implementing a more ICT-enhanced and globally-oriented environment at thisuniversity, the current study reports the results of a thorough L2 needs analysis
conducted prior to the design of an online English for General Academic
Purposes (EGAP) course, titled Osaka University Global English Online(OUGEO).
1.2 The Need for a Needs Analysis
In educational settings, as remarked by Brown (2009), needs analysis orneeds assessment is carried out to discover the learning needs of students which
are subsequently shaped into learning objectives. Those objectives are at thecore of curriculum development and are closely intertwined with materials
development, task design, evaluation, and so forth.
The existing literature (e.g., Brown, 1995; Long, 2005; Nation &Macalister, 2010) suggests that needs analysis is an ongoing process in language
course design since learner needs are subject to change over the course of time.
Reinvestigating the English language needs of Japanese students is thus anecessity particularly with regard to English educational practices in transitionat the moment.
Furthermore, according to experts on needs analysis research (e.g., Brown,
2009; Hyland, 2006), the design of a needs analysis study should consider the
involvement of different stakeholders into the analysis and the use of different
data sources and data collection techniques. Moreover, as remarked by DudleyEvans and St John (1998), the process of needs analysis is cyclical, meaningthat it is interdependent and interconnected with the other phases of course
design, development, delivery, and evaluation. Therefore, following thepedagogic needs analysis (PNA) approach as suggested by West (1998), theauthors have collected data from both undergraduate students and English
instructors and have attempted at using those findings to shape the subsequent
stages of course design, development, and evaluation.
1.3 Previous Studies
Although needs analysis is underused in Japan (Kitzman, 2011), somestudies have been conducted at Japanese institutions of higher education to
inform curriculum developers, instructors, and other staff members involved in
EGAP programs about students’ English needs and interests (e.g., Balint, 2004;

158

Language Needs Analysis and the Internationalization of Higher Education―The Unaddressed Factor in Japan―

Fushino, 2003; Nakano, Gilbert, & Donnery, 2009; Parsons & Iwasaki, 2008).
At Osaka University, only a few studies have been undertaken to assess theneeds of students exclusively majoring in engineering (Nishikawa et al., 2006;
Takefuta, 2012) and to the best of our knowledge, there is not any study that has
been conducted to explore the views of instructors on this issue. In order to be
more inclusive of the diversity of student needs and interests, this study seeks
to investigate the current English language needs of Japanese students bothfrom humanities (文系) and engineering/science (理系) backgrounds.
2. Method
2.1 Participants
A total of 278 Japanese undergraduate students enrolled at Osaka
University participated in this study. There were 183 males and 95 females aged
between 18 and 23 (mean age=19.67). Regarding disciplines and fields of study,
51.1% of the participants belonged to faculties of humanities and 48.9% toengineering/science. The majority of the participants were first-year (37.1%)
and second-year (50.4%) students, with 6.5% third-year and 6% fourth-year
students. There is no data available on the proficiency levels of the participants,
but to give the readers a general idea, the results of a TOEFL ITP Testadministered in 2012 to all freshmen at Osaka University has shown that on
average the students scored 479.73 with 677 as the highest and 330 as thelowest scores (Kimura & Mori, 2013).
In order to provide a more comprehensive account of the students’English language needs amidst the transition to globalization, twelve instructors(8 males and 4 females, 6 Japanese and 6 native speakers of English) affiliatedwith the Graduate School of Language and Culture and the Center for Educationin Liberal Arts and Sciences were also interviewed. All the instructor
participants have had experience teaching “Practical English” courses (実践英語
in Japanese ), which are aimed at improving the general academic English
language skills of first- and second-year students. In-depth interviews wereconducted with these instructors about students’ difficulties in learning English
and their immediate and future needs. Qualitative content analysis has been
conducted on the interview transcripts in an attempt to thematically categorize
them.

159

ALIZADEH, Mehrasa / MEHRAN, Parisa / KOGUCHI, Ichiro / TAKEMURA, Haruo

2.2 Instruments
A Likert-type questionnaire with five ordered response levels plus an
open-ended question has been used to collect data from the student participants.
The questionnaire was abridged and adapted from the “Needs Analysis
Questionnaire for Non-English-Background Students” developed by Gravatt,
Richards, and Lewis (1997, as cited in Richards, 2001, pp. 80-86), and it asked
the respondents about their English language needs, difficulties, andexpectations around the four main skills of listening, speaking, reading, andwriting. To avoid language barrier, the adapted version of the questionnaire with
42 items (including the open-ended question) was translated into Japanese (SeeAppendix). As suggested by Harkness, Pennell and Schoua-Glusberg (2004),
committee or team translation, which is a more efficient translation procedurecompared to back-translation, was adopted to assess the quality of thetranslation. Four translators, a Japanese professor of English, a Japanese
master ’s student majoring in Japanese linguistics, and the first two authors,
made independent translations of the questionnaire, and at revision meetings,
the translations were compared, amendments were made, and the final version
was agreed upon. The questionnaire distribution was done both offline andonline.
Moreover, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the twelve
instructors so as to further delve into the learning difficulties Japanese students
have been struggling with and their language needs as well as the ways the
instructors have tried to approach those problems. The interviews were notrecorded to ensure confidentiality and to avoid any reservations on the side of
the interviewees.
3. Results
3.1 Student Responses to the Questionnaire and the Open-Ended Question
The questionnaire initially asked the students about the language skill(s)they were expected to use the most, their difficulties with each of the skills, aswell as how important the skills were to success in their course of study andafter graduation. Figure 1 visually presents the descriptive statistics of theparticipants’ mean responses to the first 16 items of the questionnaire.

160

Language Needs Analysis and the Internationalization of Higher Education―The Unaddressed Factor in Japan―

Figure 1. Mean responses to items 1-16
According to the self-report data, the students in general believed thatthey were expected to use all the four language skills in their course of study
with the most emphasis on reading (mean=3.31) followed by listening(mean=2.76). Four independent-samples t-tests were run on the participant
responses to the first four items in order to compare the extent to which thestudents majoring in humanities (hereafter referred to as the H group) were
expected to use the four skills with those in engineering/science (hereafterreferred to as the ES group). There were statistically significant differences
between the means of the H and the ES groups as far as the expected use of
all the four skills were concerned, with the H group consistently reporting
higher levels of expectation. Details of the group means, standard deviations,t and p values, and the effect sizes (eta 2 ) are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1 t-Test Results, Humanities vs Engineering/Science Groups
Item 1
Item 2Item 3Item 4

H Gro up
ES Group
H Gro up
ES Group
H Gro up
ES Group
H Gro up
ES Group

mean
3.08
2.42
2.69
1.90
3.54
3.07
3.01
2.17

SD
0.96
0.90
1.07
0.76
0.83
0.85
1.03
0.84

t

p

eta 2

5.86

0.00 *

0.11

7.04

0.00 *

0.15

4.60

0.00 *

0.07

7.44

0.00 *

0.16

Looking back at Figure 1, items 5-8, it is clear that all the four skills
were demanding for the students with reading as the least (mean=2.95) andspeaking (mean=3.92) as the most arduous undertaking. In order to further

161

ALIZADEH, Mehrasa / MEHRAN, Parisa / KOGUCHI, Ichiro / TAKEMURA, Haruo

delve into the difficulties experienced by the H vs the ES group in relation to
the language skills, four other independent-samples t-tests were run on the
responses to items 5-8, all of which but one yielded insignificant results. In
fact, the only skill which the ES group (mean=3.84, SD=0.90) found slightly
more difficult than the H group (mean=3.54, SD=0.91) was listening, wheret(275)=2.83, p=0.005, eta 2 =0.02.
The remaining items presented in Figure 1 asked the participants to rate
the importance of the skills for success in their course of study and after
graduation. Looking at the means in Figure 1, it can be clearly seen thatreading has been rated as the most important skill for success in the students’course of study, followed by listening, writing, and speaking. Nevertheless,speaking has been considered as the most significant skill contributing tosuccess after graduation, followed by listening, reading, and finally writing.
The results of four paired-samples t-tests run on the data have revealed thatthe respondents rated reading (t=1.05, p>0.05) as equally important forsuccess both in their course of study and after graduation but reported
listening (t=9.96, p<0.05), speaking (t=11.44, p<0.05), and writing (t=3.08,
p<0.05) as more significant for success after graduation. The questionnairealso asked the students about various skills they would like to improve andhow useful they would find each. Figure 2 shows the descriptive statistics forresponses to items 17 throughout 41.

Figure 2. Response means of items 17-41 (the skills desired to be improved)162

Language Needs Analysis and the Internationalization of Higher Education―The Unaddressed Factor in Japan―

The students were willing to improve a variety of their receptive andproductive skills, in particular knowledge of vocabulary (mean=4.31, SD=0.84),
general reading comprehension (mean=4.25, SD=0.81), general listening
comprehension (mean=4.02, SD=0.88), summarizing materials (mean=3.98,
SD=0.93), participating in discussions (mean=3.98, SD=1.04), and giving
formal speeches and presentations (mean=3.95, SD=0.96), all of which areskills required for success in academia and the workplace.
The last item on the questionnaire was an open-ended question asking theparticipants for their comments on learning English at the university and any
specific difficulties they had encountered. Out of a total of 278 participants, 50
responded to the open-ended question, and their answers have been classified
into the five categories displayed in Figure 3. As it can be seen in the figure,many respondents voiced concerns over their low proficiency in oral/aural skills.
They expressed a deep interest in developing their listening and speaking skills
so as to be capable of participating in discussions and communicating withforeigners. The other components the students demanded more focus on werevocabulary and pronunciation.
Several participants believed that the university classes were inadequate
in addressing their foreign language needs due to the limited number of classhours, compulsory credit system resulting in demotivation, use of Japanese as
the medium of instruction, absence of placement testing and the problems of
mixed-level classes, overemphasis on reading, and unclear learning objectives.
Some students also mentioned that they had few, if any, chances of using
English outside the classroom, thus struggling with language attrition. Finally,
three respondents asked for more emphasis on academic/business English,
whereas two expressed interest in improving their conversational English.

163

ALIZADEH, Mehrasa / MEHRAN, Parisa / KOGUCHI, Ichiro / TAKEMURA, Haruo

Figure 3. Summary of participants’ responses to the open-ended question
3.2 Interviews with Instructors
The instructors who participated in this study were asked about the needsof undergraduate students at Osaka University, their major difficulties inlearning English and the ways they tried to address those needs and difficulties.
Before dealing with the instructor responses, it is worth noting that all of them
have had experience teaching EGAP courses to undergraduate students, and twoof them have taught online courses at this university. The non-Japanese
instructors used English as the main language of instruction with zero tominimal use of Japanese. The Japanese instructors used a mixture of bothlanguages, though in different proportions.
As far as technology use was concerned, a continuum of low to highusage was reported. Examples of technology integration include using online
collaborative platforms for writing classes, reading online news articles,
assigning projects to students in the form of doing research online, and utilizing
digital dictionaries. Most instructors used the CALL/iPad classrooms, but one
had to ask the students to bring their own devices.
Three common themes emerged through a qualitative content analysis of
the interview transcripts: (1) higher motivation levels among the students, (2)the need for more focus on oral/aural skills, (3) and the importance of four
skills integration, each of which will be explained below.
First, the instructors observed that in general Osaka University students’164

Language Needs Analysis and the Internationalization of Higher Education―The Unaddressed Factor in Japan―

motivation levels have increased considerably compared to about a decade ago.
A major reason mentioned was the TOEIC score requirement for those wanting
to be distinctive in the highly competitive job hunting process.
Second, all the instructors interviewed agreed that the students needed
more training in listening and speaking. They believed these two skills were theones which most students found difficult but which they had fewer opportunities
to practice. According to the instructors, listening was seen as a challenging
skill for Japanese students due to their little exposure to normal rates of speech,
correct pronunciation, different English accents, expressions, and casual
English. Speaking difficulties were also a result of lack of sufficient training
alongside low self-confidence and communication skills. The instructors
remarked that most students had a fairly good knowledge of English vocabulary
and grammar and were trained in reading and to some extent writing, thanks to
preparation for the entrance exam; nonetheless, they only occasionally got topractice oral/aural skills in class and almost never beyond that.
The third issue raised by the instructors was the necessity of teaching
integrated skills in English classes; however, one instructor believed that
despite its utmost importance, the integrative method was not feasible without
having enough teaching assistants or co-instructors. Finally, among otherconcerns noted were insufficient tech support, large class sizes, lack ofplacement testing, time limit, and using Japanese as the medium of instruction
in English classes.
4. Discussion
Before discussing the significance of the results for the design of theonline course, a summary of the major findings has been provided in Figure 4,
where L, S, R, and W stand for listening, speaking, reading, and writing,respectively.

165

ALIZADEH, Mehrasa / MEHRAN, Parisa / KOGUCHI, Ichiro / TAKEMURA, Haruo

Figure 4. Summary of the major findings
The results indicate that the instructors and students, irrespective of theirfields of study, have highlighted the difficulties with listening and speaking
skills. Previous studies at Osaka University and elsewhere in Japan have also
reported Japanese students’ perception of their poor command of listening andspeaking skills, their awareness of the importance of communicativecompetence, and their desire to improve it (Nakano et al., 2009; Parsons &Iwasaki, 2008; Takefuta, 2012; Yonesaka & Tanaka, 2013). These findings are
not exclusive to the 21 st century when the internationalization of education
became a fundamental objective of MEXT, but listening and speaking
proficiency has also been mentioned in older studies such as Sakui and Gaies(1999). These skills have also been rated as highly important for success after
graduation; hence, it is time Osaka University started to address its students’urgent need to practice oral/aural skills.
This study yields significant practical implications for the design anddevelopment of the prospective online course. Given that the participants
majoring in humanities and engineering/science all had equal difficulties withlanguage skills, the following description of the course features applies to bothtarget groups regardless of their majors.

166

Language Needs Analysis and the Internationalization of Higher Education―The Unaddressed Factor in Japan―

First, prior to the beginning of the course, a placement test will beadministered to classify the students into three proficiency groups, with eachgroup having its own appropriate course materials. The course will thus beoffered at three levels (elementary, intermediate, and upper-intermediate) basedon the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference). Second, the online
content will be all in English with bilingual announcements and instructions.
Third, using multimedia materials, all four skills will be integrated into avariety of lessons with an emphasis on listening and speaking within the lessthreatening online environment of the course. The students will also be assigned
weekly speaking and writing tasks with feedback provided by the instructors.
Fourth, a number of consciousness-raising lessons and activities will beincorporated throughout the course to help students solve common
pronunciation problems caused by katakana (one of the Japanese syllabaries)
English. A series of activities about wasei-eigo (和製英語, literally Japanesemade English) will be offered as well which aim to raise students’
consciousness towards these forms. Last but not least, responding to the demandof internationalization in Japan, based on Marlina’s (2013) suggestions, it will
be attempted to equip students with the ability to communicate in today’s
international and intercultural world village by including the following as thecore teaching and learning elements of the course: Learning about and appreciating cultural and linguistic differences Raising global awareness and knowledge on worldwide issues
 Knowing about the existence of world Englishes Developing critical thinking skills
 Promoting online collaboration and communication
In order to achieve these goals in practice, pieces of news from Breaking
News English (http://www.breakingnewsenglish.com/) will be chosen forreading comprehension. The news articles of this website are roughl ycategorized based on the CEFR, and can stimulate critical thinking as they areabout current social, political, economic, and cultural issues in the world.
Listening materials will be selected from English Language Listening Library
Online (ELLLO) (http://www.elllo.org/english/home.htm) including a range ofaccents such as British, Canadian, American, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, andPersiantoexposestudents
to
World
Englishes.
TED
Talks
(https://www.ted.com/talks) will also be utilized as the course listening

167

ALIZADEH, Mehrasa / MEHRAN, Parisa / KOGUCHI, Ichiro / TAKEMURA, Haruomaterials to cultivate critical thinking and public presentation skills. In addition,
the speaking and writing tasks as well as the final project (i.e., poster
presentation, delivered face to face) will be designed in a way so as to foster
critical thinking, collaboration, communication, and creativity by the use of
online affordances and augmented reality technology. It is worth noting that
permission has been taken from the owner of Breaking News English to upload
its copyrighted news articles on the course learning management system.
ELLLO is licensed under the Creative Commons. The TED Talks’ links will beembedded; therefore, no copyright issues are involved. In general, all resources
will be cited appropriately and linked back to their website.
5. Conclusion
This study was an attempt to shed light on the English language needs
and difficulties of Japanese learners of English at Osaka University. The
findings of the current study are conclusive evidence that these needs have so
far remained less addressed. They also have important implications for thedesign of the online course which will be offered at three levels focusing on all
four skills in particular listening and speaking as the most challenging ones.
The authors hope that the future course can facilitate promoting the goal ofinternationalization by helping students in enhancing their English skills withthe emphasis on listening/speaking and intercultural communication skills, andcan serve as a model for educators who are interested in developing Japaneselearners’ English skills, especially for global understanding and citizenship.
Notes
1. This study was orally presented at the 42 n d Annual International JALT
Conference held in Nagoya in 2016.
References
Balint, M. (2004, August). Assessing students perceived language needs in aneeds analysis. Proceedings of the 9 th Conference of Pan-Pacific
Association of Applied Linguistics, 26–43. Retrieved June 12, 2016 fromhttp://paaljapan.org/resources/proceedings/2004/BalintMartin.pdf
Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic
approach to program development. Boston, MA: Newbury House.

168

Language Needs Analysis and the Internationalization of Higher Education―The Unaddressed Factor in Japan―

Brown, J. D. (2009). Foreign and second language needs analysis. In M. H.
Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp.
269–293). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specificpurposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fushino, K. (2003, November). Students in college English reading classes: A
survey. In M. Swanson & K. Hill (Eds.), JALT2003 Conference
Proceedings (pp. 119–134). Retrieved June 12, 2016 from http://jaltpublications.org/archive/proceedings/2003/E070.pdf
Harkness, J., Pennell, B. E., & Schoua-Glusberg, A. (2004). Survey
questionnaire translation and assessment. In S. Presser, M. P. Couper, J. T.
Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin, J. M. Rothgeb, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods
for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 453–473). Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Hosoki, Y. (2011). English language education in Japan: Transitions andchallenges. Kokusai Kankeigaku Bulletin, 6(1), 199–215. Retrieved June
12, 2016 from http://tinyurl.com/zzaa4kt
Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes. London, England: Routledge.
Kikuchi, K. (2013). Demotivators in the Japanese EFL context. In M. T. Apple,
D. Da Silva, & T. Fellner (Eds.), Language learning motivation in Japan(pp. 206–224). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Kimura, S., & Mori, Y. (2013). 平成 24 年度 TOEFL-ITP 実施に関する報告書：
結果と分析・考察 [A report on the TOEFL-ITP administered in Heisei 24:
The results, analyses, and inquiries]. Toyonaka, Japan: Center for
Education in Liberal Arts and Sciences, Osaka University.
Kitzman, A. (2011). Needs analyses in the Japanese EFL classroom: A study ofteacher content control. OnCUE Journal, 5(1), 3–23. Retrieved June 12,2016 from http://jaltcue.org/files/OnCUE/OCJ5-1articles/OCJ5-1-pp3-23Kitzman.pdf
Long, M. H. (Ed.). (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lowe, R. J. (2015). Cram schools in Japan: The need for research. The
Language Teacher, 39(1), 26–31. Retrieved June 12, 2016 from http://jaltpublications.org/files/pdf-article/39.1tlt_art5.pdf
Marlina, R. (2013). Globalisation, internationalisation, and language education:

169

ALIZADEH, Mehrasa / MEHRAN, Parisa / KOGUCHI, Ichiro / TAKEMURA, Haruo

An academic program for global citizens. Multilingual Education, 3(5), 1–
21. doi:10.1186/2191-5059-3-5
MEXT. (2009). Prioritized financial assistance for the internationalization ofuniversities: Launching the project for establishing core universities forinternationalization (Global 30). Retrieved March 11, 2016 fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/02/15/1302272_002.pdf
MEXT. (2012). Higher education in Japan. Retrieved March 11, 2016 fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/highered/title03/detail03/__ics
Files/afieldfile/2012/06/19/1302653_1.pdf
MEXT. (2014). Report on the future improvement and enhancement of English
education (outline): Five recommendations on the English education
reform plan responding to the rapid globalization. Retrieved March 11,2016 from http://www.mext.go.jp/en/news/topics/detail/1372625.htm
Nakano, Y., Gilbert, J. E., & Donnery, E. (2009). Needs analysis for theconstruction of the English curriculum for the School of Human Welfare
Studies. Kwansei Gakuin University Repository, 1, 33–68. Retrieved July26, 2016 from http://www.kwansei.ac.jp/s_hws/attached/0000085365.pdf
Nation, I. S. P., & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Nishikawa, M., Nakajima, M., Iwai, C., Katakura, Y., Fujiyama, K., Gambe, A. E., …
Fukui, K. (2006). Development of e-learning contents for English for specificpurposes (ESP) in science and technology. Proceedings of the APRU Distance
Learning and the Internet 2006 Conference, 31–38. Retrieved June 12, 2016 fromhttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi= 10.1.1.131.8437&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Parsons, M., & Iwasaki, I. (2008). Toward a student’s curriculum: Learner perceptionsof studying EFL at university. Hannan Ronshu, 44(1), 21–33. Retrieved July 26,
2016 from http://www.ronsyu.hannan-u.ac.jp/open/n001984.pdf
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sakamoto, M. (2012). Moving towards effective English language teaching inJapan: Issues and challenges. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 33(4), 409–420. doi:10.1080/01434632.2012.661437
Sakui, K., & Gaies, S. (1999). Investigating Japanese learners’ beliefs about
language learning. System, 27(4), 473–492. doi:10.1016/S0346-

170

Language Needs Analysis and the Internationalization of Higher Education―The Unaddressed Factor in Japan―

251X(99)00046-9
Steele, D., & Zhang, R. (2016). Enhancement of teacher training: Key toimprovement of English education in Japan. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 217, 16–25. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.007
Takefuta, J. (2012). A course review based on a case study of English language
learning of first year engineering students. 大阪大学言語文化研究科言語文化共同研究プロジェクト 2011 『英語教育の新たなる展開』 , 13–22.
West, R. (1998, September). ESP-State of the art. Paper presented at
Networking for ESP–An Anti-Conference, Switzerland.
Yonesaka, S. M., & Tanaka, H. (2013). First-year Japanese university students’language learning beliefs: Continuity and change. TESL-EJ, 17(3), 1–20.
Retrieved July 26, 2016 from http://tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej67/a3.pdf
Appendix
Needs analysis questionnaire responded by students
性別:☐男性☐女性☐その他

年齢: __________________________

母語: __________________________

所属: _____________________年生

専攻: __________________________

大学では, 以下の言語スキルをどれくらい利用しますか? (◯をつけて下さい)
ほとんどない 時々
よく
全然ない
いつも
1
2
3
4
5
リスニング
1
2
3
4
5
スピーキングリーディング

1

2

3

4

5

ライティング

1

2

3

4

5

以下の言語 スキルに つ いて、どれ くらい困 難 を感じたこ とがあり ま すか? (◯をつ けて下
さい)
リスニング
スピーキング

全然ない1
1

ほとんどない
2
2

時々
3
3

よく
4
4

いつも
5
5

リーディング

1

2

3

4

5

ライティング

1

2

3

4

5

171

ALIZADEH, Mehrasa / MEHRAN, Parisa / KOGUCHI, Ichiro / TAKEMURA, Haruo

以下の言語スキルは、あなたの専攻にとってどれくらい重要ですか? (◯をつけて下さい)
全く重要でない
まあまあ
非常に重要
リスニング

1

2

3

4

5

スピーキング

1

2

3

4

5

リーディング

1

2

3

4

5

ライティング

1

2

3

4

5

卒業後、以下の言語スキルはどれくらい重要となると思われますか? (◯をつけて下さい)
全く重要でない
まあまあ
非常に重要
リスニング

1

2

3

4

5

スピーキング

1

2

3

4

5

リーディング

1

2

3

4

5

ライティング

1

2

3

4

5

英語のスキルを向上させるための講義を受ける場合、以下のことはどれくらい役立つでしょうか？(◯をつけて下さい)

役立たない
1.英語の発音、イントネーション、アクセント(ストレス・強勢)パターンを
聞くこと

まあ
まあ

役立
つ

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

6. 少 人 数 グ ル ー プ 、 協 同 プ ロ ジ ェ ク
ト、授業外の勉強会でディスカッシ
ョンする中で、積極的にメンバーとコミュニケーションをとること

1

2

3

4

5

7.授業内外で先生と積極的にコミュニ
ケーションをとること

1

2

3

4

5

2.講義中にメモを取ること
3.英語を聞いて、全体的に理解すること
4.フォーマルなスピーチやプレゼンをすること
5.積極的にディスカッションに参加す
ること

172

Language Needs Analysis and the Internationalization of Higher Education―The Unaddressed Factor in Japan―

8.図書館の利用スキルや情報検索スキ
ルを身に付けること
9.レポートを書くこと
10.実験レポートを書くこと
11. 小 説や 詩 な ど の ク リ エ イ テ ィ ブ な
作文を書くこと
12.ケ ース スタ デ ィ ー の レ ポ ー ト を 書
くこと
13.物や手順について説明すること
14.論 説文 のイ ン ト ロ ダ ク シ ョ ン や 結論を書くこと15.参考文献や引用文を書くこと
16.一貫した議論を立てること
17.事実に関する情報をまとめること
18.複 数の ソー ス か ら 得 た 情 報 を 統 合すること
19.資料を分析すること
20.語彙力をつけること
21.速く読むこと
22.批判的に読むこと
23.筆 者の 考え 方 を 理 解 す る た め に 読
むこと
24.資料を要約すること
25.英 語を 読ん で 全 体 的 に 理 解 す る こ
と

1

2

3

4

5

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4
4

5
5
5

1

2

3

4

5

1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4
4

5
5
5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

大学で学び身に付ける英語力に関して、他に何かコメントがありますか？もし
くは、他に困難を感じたことがありますか？もしあれば具体的に記述して下さい。

173

JACET Kansai Journal, 20, 174-193. (2018) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

Research on Japanese University Students’ Knowledge, Learning
Experience and Attitude Towards English Pronunciation
OHASHI, Kanae
Kyoto Sangyo University

Abstract
As CLT (Communicative Language Teaching) has become widespread in JapaneseEnglish classrooms, the content conveyed in communication seems to have become
more valued than the language form. This trend of paying less attention to English
form can be particularly seen in pronunciation instruction in schools at every level.
However, in this global era, Japanese learners of English should be encouraged to
speak intelligible English in terms of pronunciation as well as other aspects, such as
grammar. This paper investigates Japanese university students’ knowledge, learning
experience and attitude towards English pronunciation through a questionnaire in hopethat the results of the questionnaire research will lead to the better understanding of thecurrent situation surrounding Japanese university students. From the findings obtainedin this research, three points were identified. The first is that Japanese university
students generally had little learning experience of English pronunciation atjunior/senior high school. As a result, they do not have sufficient knowledge of English
pronunciation. The second is that students are well-aware of the importance of English
pronunciation. The third is that their learning experience, knowledge and attitude
towards English pronunciation are related to each other in some respects.
Key words: Japanese university students,
knowledge, learning experience and attitude towards English pronunciation
1. Introduction
In the history of second language teaching, the pronunciation was not as
well-understood as grammar and vocabulary by most second/foreign language teachers
until shortly before the beginning of the twentieth century (Kelly, 1969). According to
Celce-Murcia, Brinton, and Goodwin (1996), pronunciation had been taught throughintuition and imitation until the Reform Movement1 emerged in the 1890s. Along withthe development of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), the Reform Movement

174

Research on Japanese University Studentsʼ Knowledge, Learning
Experience and Attitude Towards English Pronunciation

did much to influence modern language teaching of pronunciation by applying thefindings of phonetics to foreign language teaching. This movement then led to thedevelopment of Audiolingualism in the United States and the Oral Approach in Britain
in which accurate pronunciation was emphasized and taught explicitly from the start of
the teaching.
The advent of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which has been adominant method in second language teaching since the 1980s, encouraged English
teachers to regard the intelligible pronunciation as one of the essential components ofcommunicative competence (Morley,1991). However, at the same time, the focus has
shifted from drills and exercises on pronunciation to “communicative activities basedon meaningful interaction which, if successful, directs learners’ attention away fromlanguage form and towards the message they want to communicate” (Nunan & Carter,
2001, p.57). Recently, this trend has also been pervasive in English education in Japan(Saito, 2007), and the educational focus has seemed to be put on the function andcontent of the language, not on its form, such as pronunciation. Meanwhile English has
become an international language, and the ability to output content in English has
become regarded as one of the most important elements. As a result, communicativecompetence, specifically oral communication competence, has come to be consideredcrucial. Under these circumstances, fostering oral output competence has been urged.
This trend can be seen in changes in the English classroom in schools at every level
through an increase in communicative activities, task activities, and the active learningteaching style utilizing an increasing amount of pair or group work activities. The
outcomes are visible in that there seem to be more and more students who do nothesitate to use verbal output and are willing to communicate in English.
However, while learners generally have an increasingly positive and active
attitude towards verbal output in English, many leaners including university students
seem to have difficulty with pronunciation in English and do not seem to pay attention
to their pronunciation nor try to improve them. When teaching pronunciation, I
sometimes ask students what kind of pronunciation instruction they have previously
received, and many answers that they have not learned or studied it. From thesesituations, it seems that a meaning-oriented approach, such as CLT, focusing on thetransaction of information, is accompanied by less attention to the students’concentration of accurate pronunciation.
When oral output competence is of importance, the pronunciation should be
stressed as much as fostering positive attitudes to oral output. In this global era,

175

OHASHI, Kanaestudents should be encouraged to speak intelligible English.
In an attempt to establish an effective pronunciation instruction method andimprove my students’ pronunciation, I came to think that it is essential to understandthe current situation of my students’ English pronunciation studies, in particular theirlearning experience and attitude towards English pronunciation. This led me to
conduct this research.
I have three purposes of this research in the hope of enhancing deeper
understanding in desirable English pronunciation instruction in Japan. The first is toinvestigate how much instruction in pronunciation Japanese university students have
had at junior/senior high school and how much knowledge they have as a result of theirexperience. The second is to reveal the Japanese students’ attitude towards English
pronunciation. The third is to examine whether there is a relation between the learning
experience, knowledge and attitude towards English pronunciation.
2. Method
2.1 Participants
The participants of this research were 92 Japanese students at a private university
in Kyoto, from freshmen to seniors, 61 male and 31 female, who took compulsory(TOEIC) and elective (English grammar conversation) classes. The students’ majors
varied, but there were no students whose major was English, although some of theirmajors were languages other than English. Regarding the age at which the participants
started learning English, seven started before entering elementary school, ten started at
the age of seven or eight, 25 started at the age of nine and ten, and 50 started at the ageof 11 or 12 when they started to take lessons of “a foreign language activity” atelementary school. In response to the question whether they like studying English
pronunciation, nine students answered “very much,” 38 students answered “yes,” 41
students answered “not very much,” four students answered “no.” That is, 47 students
out of 92, or 51 % of the participants like studying English pronunciation. This figure
is slightly higher than that of those who do not like pronunciation studying. As fortheir English ability levels, looking at their TOEIC test scores, the students’ levels
were as follows; Less than 300 ; 14%, From 300 to 449; 56%, From 450 to 599; 28 %,From 600 to 749; 1%.
2.2 Questionnaire
A questionnaire in Japanese, asking the students’ knowledge, learning experience

176

Research on Japanese University Studentsʼ Knowledge, Learning
Experience and Attitude Towards English Pronunciation

and attitude towards English pronunciation was given to the students. The
questionnaire was made up of the following four parts; First: five multiple choicequestions concerning the participants. Second: 12 multiple choice and sevendescriptive questions regarding the participants’ knowledge of English pronunciation.
Third: 10 four-point Likert-scale questions regarding the students’ learning experienceof pronunciation. Fourth: 17 four-point Likert-scale and three descriptive questions
regarding the students’ current situation of studying pronunciation and their attitude
towards it. The students were informed that the research was anonymous, and it was ofno relation to their grade, and consent forms were collected. The research was
conducted from January 10th to 23rd in 2017.
2.3 Data Analysis
The results of the questionnaire collected from each participant were digitized
into an EXCEL format and analyzed.
3. Results
This section first reports some general findings about the students’ knowledge ofEnglish pronunciation. Secondly, the students’ learning experience of English
pronunciation at junior/senior high school is explained. Thirdly, the students’ attitude
towards English pronunciation is reported. Finally, it is analyzed whether the students’learning experiences, knowledge of English pronunciation and attitude toward it
relates to each other.
3.1 Students’ Knowledge of Pronunciation
Table 1 shows the students’ knowledge of each phoneme of words. The questions
were drawn from the National Center Test of 2016 issued by the National Center for
University Entrance Examination. The participants were required to circle the word
whose underlined sound is different from the other three for the six sets of words. In
other words, the students were asked to identify the difference in pronunciation among
the underlined parts.

177

OHASHI, Kanae

Table 1 Students' Knowledge of Phonemes(n= 92)No.
Item1) glove2) casual

n
2
19

Item
onion
classic

n
25
8

Item
oven
habit

n
8
30

3)
4)

ease
cinema41
9loose
litter

19
12

pause
minor

10
62

Item
prove
label
praiseritual5)
6)

comb
although

33
19

go
sigh

24
43

lot
tough

13
22

only
weigh

n CA (%)
57
61.96
35
38.04
22
9

20.65
67.39

22
8
AVG

14.13
23.91
37.68

Notes . Words in bold are the correct answers.
CA represents the percentage of correct answers for each question.

As Table 1 indicates, the average percentage of the correct answers is 37.68%, whichindicates that the participants had difficulty in identifying differences in vowels andconsonants.
Table 2 below shows the students’ knowledge of word stress. The questions werealso drawn from the National Center Test of 2016. The participants were instructed tocircle the word whose accent location is different from the other words for the six setsof words.
Table 2 Students' Knowledge of Word StressNo.
Item1) novel2) audience

n

Item

6
23

paradefuneral3) atmosphere4) declare5) appointment

44
48
22

domestic
ethnic6) conference

7

delicate
estimate(n =91)

n
63
8

Item
rescueorigin

n
10
13

10
21
24

equipment
logicorganic

22
5
33

survival
reluctantmethodsuspicious

10

proposal

66

resident

Item
vital

n

CA (%)
12 69.23
47 51.65
15
17
12

48.35
52.75
26.37

8
AVG

72.53
53.48

Notes . CA represents the percentage of the correct answers for each question.
Words in bold are the correct answers.

Compared to the questions identifying each phoneme, shown in Table 1, the average ofthe correct answer is higher, at 53.48%. However, almost half of the students haddifficulty in putting correct stress on words.

178

Research on Japanese University Studentsʼ Knowledge, Learning
Experience and Attitude Towards English Pronunciation

Table 3 shows whether the students were able to identify the phonetic alphabet.
The students were given six words written in the phonetic alphabet and asked to write
them in the alphabet.
Table 3 Students' Knowledge of Phonetic Alphabet

No.

Item

(n=92)

CA (%)/ stéiʃən //impɔ'ːr tə nt // təgéðər /Wordstationimportant
together

CA(n)

1)
2)
3)

18
74
37

19.57
80.43
40.22

4)

/ dífikʌlt /

difficult

69

75.00

5)

/ θáʊznd /thousand

19

20.65

6)

/ kɑntrəbjú:ʃən /contribution

14

15.22
AVG

41.85

Note . CA represents the number of the correct answers for each question.

Looking at Table 3, although words such as “important” and “difficult,” were answered
correctly at a high rate, the average percentage of correct answers was 41.85%. Manyof the students were unable to read them. It can be said that students generally do nothave sufficient knowledge of the phonetic alphabet.
Table 4 below shows the results of the students’ response to the question,“Explain briefly how to pronounce /f/ sound, such as in “funny.”
Table 4 Students' Ability to Explain How to Pronounce the Phoneme /f/
Item
CA (n)
CA (%)
the place of articulation
26
28.26
the manner of articulation
8
8.70
both
8
8.70

(n =92)The phoneme /f/ is a labio-dental fricative. The sound is produced with the upper teeth
and inner lower lip (the place of articulation) and it is fricative (the manner ofarticulation). The answers which included the correct place of articulation and themanner of articulation were regarded as the right answers. According to the students’answers, only 8.70 % of the students were able to explain both the place and themanner of articulation correctly. One example of a correct answer is “There is contact
between the upper teeth and lower lip while exhaling strongly.” Regarding the manner

179

OHASHI, Kanaeof articulation, only 8.70 % of the students answered correctly. Those students also
included the place of articulation correctly.
3.2 Students’ Learning Experience of English Pronunciation
Table 5 indicates the students’ experiences of learning English pronunciation atjunior/senior high school. The students were given five questions seen in Table 5
regarding their learning experience of English pronunciation.

Table 5 Students' Learning Experience of English Pronunciation

1. Have you ever studied the phonetic alphabet?
2. Have you ever studied phonics?

( n =92)

4
n

3
n

2
n

1
n

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

5
(5.43)
2(2.17)

24(26.09)3(3.26)

4320(46.74) (21.74)
1077(10.87) (83.70)

2.20

8(8.70)
20(21.74)10(10.87)14(15.22)17(18.48)1(1.09)
1444(47.83)50(54.35)38(41.30)47(51.09)38(41.30)22(23.91)27

36
4(39.13) (4.35)
220(23.91) (0.00)
38
6(41.30) (6.52)
292(31.52) (2.17)
34
3(36.96) (3.26)
49
20(53.26) (21.74)
38
13

2.60

(15.22)(29.35)(41.30) (14.13)

29

29(31.52)(31.52)AVG

1.30

3. Have you ever been taught the following phonetic
features at junior/senior high school?
(1) pronunciation of each phoneme(2) word stress(3) rhythm(4) sentence intonation(5) sentence stress(6) breath control
4. Has your English pronunciation ever been correctedby an English teacher at junior /senior high school?
5. Have you ever used Katakana letters in order tomemorize pronunciation of English words?

23

11(25.00) (11.96)

Notes . The numbers 4-1 represent as follows: 4: certainly, yes 3: to some extent 2: seldom
1:never

180

3.00
2.60
2.80
2.80
2.00
2.50
2.80

Research on Japanese University Studentsʼ Knowledge, Learning
Experience and Attitude Towards English Pronunciation

The first two questions were whether students had studied the phonetic alphabet
and phonics. In regard to the phonetic alphabet, approximately 68% of the students
answered they had not studied it. This corresponds to the result of the students’knowledge of the phonetic alphabet seen in Table 3. As for the second question, it was
shown that more than 90% of the students had not studied phonics. This is quite
different from the currently on-going trend of introducing phonics at an early-age inEnglish education. The third question was to investigate how much learning experience
the students had had on specific phonetic features of English. In the question, thestudents were asked whether they had studied six features at junior/senior high school.
The features were pronunciation of each phoneme, word-stress, rhythm, sentence
intonation, sentence stress, and breath control 2 . Then positive answers to the question,that is, three (to some extent) and four (yes), were combined in order to detectfrequently-taught features. Word stress was the most-frequently-taught feature at
76.09%. The other features came in the following order; sentence intonation (66.31%),sentence stress (59.78%), pronunciation of each phoneme (56.53%), rhythm (52.17%),and breath control (25.0%). From this result, it can be said that the supra-segmental
features, such as word stress and sentence stress are more frequently-taught thansegmental features, such as pronunciation of each phoneme, in current pronunciation
instruction at junior/senior high school. The fourth question was to inquire whether the
students’ pronunciations have ever been corrected by English teachers at junior / seniorhigh school. Surprisingly, more than half of the students did not have such experiences.
The last question was whether the students had utilized katakana letters in order tomemorize pronunciation of English words. Approximately 64% of the students
answered they had used katakana letters before.
3.3 Students’ Attitude Towards English Pronunciation
In order to see the students’ attitude towards English pronunciation, thefollowing questions were given.
Q1. Do you think the knowledge of phonetic alphabet leads to correct
pronunciation?
Q2. How important do you think pronunciation is in communication in English?
Q3. From which country’s native speaker would you like to learn English
pronunciation?
Q4. Do you think that your English pronunciation is intelligible to native andnon-native speakers of English?

181

OHASHI, Kanae

Q5. What features of English pronunciation do you think are important forinternationally intelligible English?
Q6. Nowadays, English has become a global language with a wide variety ofaccents. In these circumstances, do you think that Japanese learners stillshould aim at producing “native” speakers’ accent, such as American andBritish?
Q7. Do you agree with the opinion that Japanese learners can speak “JapaneseEnglish” free from detailed rules of English pronunciation?
Q8. When do you think Japanese people should start learning English pronunciationin order to acquire accurate pronunciation?
Q9. Rate the degree of success of English pronunciation education you had injunior/senior high school.
For Question 1, “Do you think the knowledge of phonetic alphabet leads tocorrect pronunciation?” the results were as follows; Strongly agree: 13.04%, Agree:
56.52%, Disagree: 25.00 %, Strongly Disagree: 5.43%. This shows that almost 70 % of
the students think the knowledge of phonetic alphabet is necessary to pronounce words
correctly, although they in fact do not know them.
The results of Question 2 “How important do you think pronunciation is incommunication in English?” were as follows; Very important: 42.39 %, Important:
50.00 %, Not very important: 7.61 %, Not at all: 0.00 %. From the result, it is obviousthat the students realize the importance of pronunciation in English communication.
For Question 3 “From which country’s native speaker would you like to learn
English pronunciation?” the answers were as follows; The United States and Canada:
77.17 %, England: 17.39 %, Australia, New Zealand: 4.35%, Other: 1.09%. From thisresult, it is shown that students have a strong preference for the North American
English accent.
For Question 4 “Do you think that your English pronunciation is intelligible tonative and non-native speakers of English?”, only 2.17% of the students answered “yes”
to this question. 30.43 % of the students answered “often,” 39.13 % answered “notusually,” and 28.26 % answered “seldom.” More than 65 % of the students think that
their English pronunciation is unintelligible.
The result of Question 5 “What features of English pronunciation do you think
are important for internationally intelligible English?” is seen in Table 6. Positive
replies to the question, that is, three (important) and four (very important), werecombined in order to detect which feature is regarded important by the students. As a

182

Research on Japanese University Studentsʼ Knowledge, Learning
Experience and Attitude Towards English Pronunciation

result, the students chose sentence intonation (97.83%) as the most important feature.
Other features were regarded important at a high rate as well.
Table 6 The Phonetic Features Regarded Important by Students4Item(1) pronunciation of each phoneme(2) word stress(3) rhythm(4) sentence intonation(5) sentence stress(6) breath control

32(n =92)
1

n

n

n

n

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

19

61

12

0

(20.65)(66.30)(13.04)(0.00)

26

58

8

0

(28.26)(63.04)(8.70)(0.00)

30

56

6

0

(32.61)(60.87)(6.52)(0.00)

33

57

2

0

(35.87)(61.96)(2.17)(0.00)

30

52

10

0

(32.61)(56.52)(10.87)(0.00)

13

52

27

0

(14.13)(56.52)(29.35)(0.00)

AVG
3.10
3.20
3.30
3.30
3.20
2.80

Note . The numbers 4-1represent as follows: 4: very important 3: important 2: not very important 1: not at all

As for Question 6 “Nowadays, English has become a global language with awide variety. In these circumstances, do you think that Japanese learners still should
aim at producing “native” speakers’ accent, such as American and British?” thestudents’ answers were as follows; Strongly agree: 22.83 %, Agree: 57.61%, Disagree:
18.48 %, Strongly disagree: 1.09 %. Approximately 80% of the students think Japaneselearners still should aim at producing “native” speakers’ pronunciation. The students
were asked to write the reasons for their answers. The below are some of theircomments.
Reasons to agree
・ American and British accents are universally accepted.
・ These accents are standard and seem to be used in international conferences.
・ It is the safest way to pronounce in order to be understood by anybody.
・ If there are more varieties of English, English as a global language might not be
understood by everybody.

183

OHASHI, Kanae

・ When you have mastered native speaker-like pronunciation which is standard
universally, you can deal with other varieties of English.
Reasons to disagree
・ You can show your identity with a Japanese accent as long as it is intelligible.
・ Since there are a wide variety of English pronunciations like Indian English,
Japanese English should be accepted internationally as well.
・ I have been able to make myself understood in English although my pronunciation
was not good.
From the comments, it can be summarized that those who agreed with the question
claimed that American and British accents are standard and internationally used andJapanese people should aim at acquiring those “standard” accents. Those who
disagreed with the question asserted that as long as the accented English is intelligible,
it should be accepted in this global era.
Regarding Question 7 “Do you agree with the opinion that Japanese learners canspeak “Japanese English” free from detailed rules of English pronunciation?”, theresults were as follows; Strongly agree: 3.26 %, Agree: 23.91 %, Disagree: 55.43 %,Strongly disagree: 17.39 %. These correspond with the result from Question 6 above.
Approximately 72 % of the students think they should not speak “Japanese English.”
The students’ comments explaining the reason to their answers are as follows;
Reasons to agree
・The Japanese accent enables Japanese people to show their identity.
・The native speakers of English are expected to try to understand non-native speakers’
utterances.
・No matter how hard we try, Japanese people are different from native speakers, andwe should not expect to be understood perfectly.
・As long as the rough content of the utterance is understood, the details are notnecessary.
・Even native speakers of English have varieties of English.
Reasons to disagree
・In communication, strong accent give the interlocutor stress.
・Japanese English is not cool, and the interlocutor is not pleased to hear it.
・Japanese English is not intelligible at all to foreign people
・It is rude to use Japanese English to native speakers and pronunciation researchers.
In Question 8, “When do you think Japanese people should start learning English
pronunciation in order to acquire correct pronunciation?,” the students were asked to184Research on Japanese University Studentsʼ Knowledge, Learning
Experience and Attitude Towards English Pronunciation

choose a single answer from seven choices. The results were as follows; The earlier the
better: 47.48 %, Before entering a kindergarten (Before the age of three) : 7.78 %,After entering a kindergarten (After the age of three) : 11.11 %, From the first or
second grade: 17.78 %, From the third or fourth grade: 6.67 %, From the fifth or sixth
grade: 8.89%, Any age: 0.00 %. These indicate that the students realize that it isessential starting earlier in order to acquire correct pronunciation.
Concerning Question 9 “Rate the degree of success of English pronunciation
education you had at junior /senior high school”, the results were as follows; Verysuccessful: 1.09 %, Successful: 21.74 %, Not very successful: 64.13 %, Not successful:
13.04 %. More than 75 % of the students felt that English pronunciation education they
had at junior/senior high school was not successful.
3.4 Relation Between Students’ Knowledge, Learning Experiences and Attitude
Towards English Pronunciation
This section attempts to realize the third purpose of this research, which is tofind whether the students’ knowledge, learning experience of English pronunciation
and attitude towards it relates to each other.
To conduct the analysis, the students were grouped into the three levels
according to their scores on the pronunciation knowledge test reported in the previous
section. In the test, the students were asked questions regarding their knowledge ofphonemes, word-stress, and the phonetic alphabet. There were 18 questions all together,and a correct answer for respective question was counted as one point. The average ofthe students (n=92) was 8.33, with the highest score of 17 and the lowest of 3. The“High” group was those who got a score of 12 or more out of 18 questions. The“Middle” group was those who got a score of seven to 11. The “Low” group was those
who got a score of zero to six.
3.4.1 Relationship Between Learning Experience and Knowledge of Pronunciation
Firstly, in order to examine a relation between learning experience andknowledge, the answers to the four questions, also seen in Table 5 in the previous
section, are summarized on the basis of these three pronunciation knowledge levels.
The students were asked to indicate how much learning experience of pronunciation
they had had before, through a four-point Likert scale. The scale presented to thestudents is composed of 4 (yes, certainly), 3 (to some extent), 2 (seldom) and 1 (never).
The four questions are listed as follows;

185

OHASHI, Kanae

Q1. Have you ever studied phonetic alphabet?
Q2. Have you ever studied phonics?
Q3. Have you ever been taught the following phonetic features at junior/seniorhigh school?
1. Pronunciation of each phoneme
2. Word stress
3. Rhythm
4. Sentence intonation
5. Sentence stress
6. Breath control
Q4. Has your English pronunciation ever been corrected by an English teacher atjunior/senior high school?
The figures in Table 7 indicate the number of the students for each of therespective points in the scale regarding their experience of learning phonetic alphabet.
Since the midpoint value of the four-point Likert scale is 2.5, averages larger than 2.5
indicate the participants’ positive responses to the question while averages smaller
than 2.5 indicate their negative responses to the question. Furthermore, the degree ofdifference between averages and 2.5 indicates the degree of either positiveness ornegativeness respectively.

Table 7 Q1: Have You Ever Studied Phonetic Alphabet?

Knowledge
High (n =12)
Middle (n =52)
Low (n =28)

4
certainly,
Yes
1
2
2

Experience32
to someseldomextent
6
4
11
24
7
15

1
never
1
15
4

AVG
3.17
2.00
2.25

Only the average of the “High” group was above the midpoint value (=2.5) and both of
the “Middle” and “Low” groups’ were below the midpoint value. When looking at thepositive answers, the total of four (certainly, yes) and three (to some extent) combined,
seven out of 12 students (58%) in the “High” group answered they had learned thephonetic alphabet. Conversely only 9 out of 28 (32%) in the “Low” group had learned
the phonetic alphabet. In the previous section, it was reported the average of all the186Research on Japanese University Studentsʼ Knowledge, Learning
Experience and Attitude Towards English Pronunciation

students was 2.20. The “High” group’s average is rather high, indicating their positive
response to the question, that is, they are more experienced in learning the phonetic
alphabet. It can be inferred that their experience of learning the phonetic alphabet led
to good knowledge of pronunciation.
In Question 2, “Have you ever studied phonics?” unlike Question 1, the averagesof each group were all rather low, with points of 1.58 for the “High,” 1.15 for the“Middle” and 1.25 for the “Low” group. It was shown that the students did not haveexperience of learning phonics regardless of their knowledge level.
Table 8 is the list of averages attained from Question 3, “Have you ever beentaught the following phonetic features at junior/senior high school?”
Table 8 Q3: Have You Ever Been Taught the Following Phonetic Features at Junior/ seniorHigh school?
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

Knowledge
High (n =12)
Middle (n =52)
Low (n =28)

pronunciation ofeach phonemeword
stressrhythmsentence
intonation

sentence
stressbreathcontrol

AVG
2.83
2.56
2.61

AVG
3.25
2.98
2.86

AVG
2.92
2.50
2.54

AVG
3.08
2.71
2.79

AVG
3.25
2.63
2.75

AVG
2.25
2.04
1.96

In all of the features except (6) (breath control), the averages were above the midpointvalue in all knowledge levels. It can be said that the students, regardless of theirpronunciation knowledge level, had learned the features. However, the averages in all
the features of the “High” group were highest.
The figures in Table 9 indicate the number of students who chose the respective
points in the scale regarding Question 4, “Has your English pronunciation ever beencorrected by an English teacher at junior/senior high school?” in the “High,” “Middle,”and “Low” group.

187

OHASHI, Kanae

Table 9 Q4 : Has Your English Pronunciation Ever Been Corrected by an
English Teacher at Junior/Senior High School?
Experience
Knowledge
High (n =12)
Middle (n =52)
Low (n =28)

4
Certainly,
Yes
2
8
4

3
To someextent
5
17
5

2

1

Seldom

Never

5
19
14

0
8
5

M
2.75
2.48
2.29

Only the “High” group’s average is higher than the midpoint value (=2.5). Whenlooking at the positive answers, the total of four (certainly, yes) and three (to someextent) combined, seven out of 12 students (58%) in the “High” group answered they
had had the experience. Conversely only 9 out of 28 (32%) in the “Low” group had not.
There is a possibility that these experiences of having their pronunciation corrected led
to a good knowledge of pronunciation.
From the analyses of the questions, it can be said that more experienced students
have good knowledge of the pronunciation. Further research on relationship between
students’ learning experience and their knowledge of English pronunciation isnecessary.
3.4.2 Relationship Between Attitude Towards English and Knowledge ofPronunciation
Secondly, in order to detect inter-group differences in attitude towards English
pronunciation in terms of the students’ knowledge of pronunciation, the answers to thequestion below were analyzed.
Q1. Do you think knowledge of the phonetic alphabet leads to correct
pronunciation?
Q2. How important do you think pronunciation is in communication in English?
Q3. Do you think that your English pronunciation is intelligible to native andnon-native speakers of English?
In Question 1, “Do you think knowledge of the phonetic alphabet leads to correct
pronunciation?” the students were asked to indicate the degree of agreement to thequestion through a four-point Likert scale. The scale presented to the students wascomposed of 4 (strongly agree), 3 (agree), 2 (disagree) and 1 (strongly disagree).

188

Research on Japanese University Studentsʼ Knowledge, Learning
Experience and Attitude Towards English Pronunciation

Table 10: Q1. Do You Think Knowledge of the Phonetic Alphabet Leads
to Correct Pronunciation?
Attitude4
3
2
1
stronglystrongly
Knowledge
agree
disagreeAVG
agree
disagreeHigh (n =12)
3
8
1
0
3.17
Middle (n =52)
5
30
15
2
2.73
Low (n =28)
4
14
7
3
2.68

The average of the “High” group was 3.17, “Middle” was 2.73 and “Low” was2.68. It turned out that all of the groups’ averages were above the midpoint value andthe “High” group’s average was particularly higher than the other two groups. Whenlooking at the positive answers, the total of four (strongly agree) and three (agree)
combined, 11 out of 12 students (92%) in the “High” group answered they agreed tothe question. This indicates that the students with good knowledge of pronunciation
were more aware of the importance of the phonetic alphabet.
In Question 2, “How important do you think pronunciation is in communication
in English?” the scale was composed of 4 (very important), 3 (important), 2 (not very
important), and 1 (not at all). All of the groups’ averages were not very different withthe “High” group scoring 3.42, the “Middle” group, 3.33, the “Low” group, 3.36. It canbe said that the students were aware of the important role of pronunciation incommunication regardless of their level.
In Question 3, “Do you think that your English pronunciation is intelligible tonative and non-native speakers of English?” the students indicated the number of thescale from 4 (yes), 3(often), 2 (not usually), and 1 (seldom).
Table 11 Q3: Do You Think That Your English Pronunciation is Intelligible
to Native and Non-native Speakers of English?
Attitude
4
3
2
1
AVG
Knowledge
yes
often
not usually seldom
High (n =12)
1
6
4
1
2.58
Middle (n =52)
1
16
22
13
2.10
Low (n =28)
0
6
10
12
1.79

Only the “High” group’s average was above the midpoint value. The positive answers ,189

OHASHI, Kanae

the total of four (yes) and three (often) combined, seven out of 12 students (58%) in
the “High” group thought their English pronunciation is intelligible. On the other hand,
only six out of 28 students (21%) in the “Low” group thought their English
pronunciation is intelligible.
From the analyses of these questions, it was shown that although all the students
were well aware of the importance of the pronunciation, it can be summarized thatstudents who had good knowledge of pronunciation were particularly aware ofimportance of phonetic alphabet. Furthermore, the students with good knowledge ofpronunciation also were more confident in their pronunciation. It can be inferred thatstudents who have strong attitude towards the pronunciation have good knowledge ofpronunciation, or vice versa.
4. Discussion
Though this research is limited, particularly in its method to capture students’knowledge of pronunciation, the results attained in this research have brought mainly
three points. The first is that Japanese university students generally do not havesufficient learning experience of English pronunciation at junior/senior high school. As
a result, their knowledge of English pronunciation is rather limited. The second is thatstudents are aware of the importance of English pronunciation, notwithstanding thefact most of them are not confident in pronunciation. University students also have a
traditional view of learning English pronunciation, aiming at native speaker-likepronunciation, and consider the American and British English as a norm. The third isthat their learning experience, knowledge and attitude towards English pronunciation
are related to each other in some respects.
In regard to Japanese university students’ pronunciation knowledge of English,
Otsuka and Ueda (2011) examined Japanese university students’ achievements ofpronunciation based on items taught at junior/senior high school by giving the students
a test on phonetic items containing the phonetic alphabet, word-stress, intonation andpause, or word groups termed as “tone units” by Jenkins (2000). Their study showedthat approximately more than 60 % of the students answered correctly for word-stress,
intonation and pause while less than 20 % of the students answered correctly for thephonetic alphabet. The results suggest that university students have achieved a certain
level of pronunciation in terms of supra-segmental features. Kashiwagi and Snider(2013) investigated Japanese university students’ pronunciation in terms ofintelligibility by having native speakers and non-native speakers of English check the

190Research on Japanese University Studentsʼ Knowledge, Learning
Experience and Attitude Towards English Pronunciation

Japanese university students reading aloud short sentences. It was indicated that the
pronunciation of many Japanese university students was problematic, particularly insegmental features, and their pronunciation was generally rather unintelligible, when
the judges were non-native speakers. As mentioned by them, this result supports
Jenkins’ (2000) claim that non-native speakers tend to rely more on their interlocutors’
pronunciation as an acoustic signal and a pronunciation error leads to a communication
break-down. As a reason for this tendency, Jenkins explains that non-native speakers
do not share a socio-cultural background, nor a high level of linguistic knowledge, sothey need to rely on acoustic signals in speech by utilizing bottom-up processing.
These studies have provided suggestions for further research on which features ofpronunciation should be emphasized, particularly from the perspective of thecircumstances that English has become a global language. It seems that more focus
should be put on segmental features in current pronunciation instruction in Japan.
Regarding students’ attitude towards English pronunciation, the importance ofpronunciation in communication is well-recognized by Japanese university students. It
also turned out that many students have a tendency to aim at native-like pronunciation.
This kind of attitude has generally been seen in countries where English is studied as aforeign language, as pointed out by McKay (2002). For example, Dalton-Puffer,
Kaltenboeck, and Smit (1997) investigated Austrian university students’ attitude
toward native and non-native speakers’ English pronunciation. In general, preference
for native speakers’ accent over a non-native speakers’ was demonstrated.
However, as pointed out by Szpyra (2014), pronunciation is “the mostproblematic area, particularly when native-like speech is seen as the goal of teaching
and learning” (p.5). Globally speaking, such a pedagogical goal has come to be
regarded as non-feasible and not practical. For instance, Pandey (1994) describes thephonology of what he terms General Indian English (GIE) which was to replace British
Received Pronunciation (BRP) in hope of establishing a viable model of English
pronunciation. He hoped that GIE is acceptable from both the pedagogic and thecommunicative point of view. According to Pandey, BRP has slowly declined as asocially acceptable spoken variety since BRP is “too ideal a model for Indian learnersof English to acquire” (p.11). Similarly, in order to resolve the pedagogical difficulties
regarding pronunciation from an international perspective, Jenkins (2000) proposes“Lingua Franca Core” concentrating on phonological features which affectinternational intelligibility. These studies can contribute to teaching pronunciation in
Japanese classrooms.

191

OHASHI, Kanae

As for the relation between students’ learning experience, knowledge andattitude towards English pronunciation, as shown in the previous section, they are
related each other in some respects. Toyama (2015) also investigated factors affecting
Japanese university students’ pronunciation skills. She first categorized four factors,“emphasis on memorizing pronunciation rules, self-efficacy, a wish to communicate
and practice, and optimism about pronunciation learning” (p.107), based onquestionnaire answers from university students. Then the students’ pronunciation skills
were graded by recording them reading dialogues aloud. As a result, it was indicated “awish to communicate and practice” had a positive correlation with pronunciation skills.
Further studies which enhance our understanding of L2 learners’ attitude towards
pronunciation learning are necessary.
5. Conclusion
The analysis of the Japanese university students’ circumstances regarding
English pronunciation suggests that more raising awareness and emphasis on English
pronunciation instruction are necessary both in English classroom and pedagogy. In
order to put more focus on pronunciation instruction, further work needs to be done toinvestigate features affecting students’ pronunciation including their learning
experience, knowledge or skills of English pronunciation and attitude towards
pronunciation, taking into the account of current global circumstances. Also, from awider perspective of educational system, from elementary school to university,
university English teachers should be encouraged to have deeper understanding ofstudents’ experience of learning English pronunciation in order to give students
optimal pronunciation instruction.
Notes
1. Reform movement in language teaching was promoted greatly influenced byphoneticians, such as Henry Sweet, Wilhelm Viëtor and Paul Passy, which emergedin 1890. The notions and practices advocated in the movement were “1. The spoken
form of language is primary and should be taught first. 2. The findings of phonetics
should be applied to language teaching. 3. Teachers must have solid training inphonetics. 4. Learners should be given phonetic training to establish good speech
habits” (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, and Goodwin,1996, p.3).
2. In the questionnaire in Japanese, “breath control” is expressed as “iki no tsukaikata” or “how to use breath when speaking English.”192

Research on Japanese University Studentsʼ Knowledge, Learning
Experience and Attitude Towards English Pronunciation

References
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (1996). Teaching pronunciation:
A reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Kaltenboeck, G., & Smit, U. (1997). Learner attitude and L2
pronunciation in Austria. World Englishes, 16(1), 115-128.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kashiwagi, A., & Snider, M. (2013). Nihonjin gakushusha no eigo hatsuon no
intelligibility (rikaido): native-speaker oyobi non-native speaker wo kikite toshita chosa [Intelligibility of Japanese learners’ English pronunciation: An
investigation judged by native and non-native speakers]. Gakuen, Departmental
Bulletin Paper of Showa Women’s University, 869, 50-56.
Kelly, L. G. (1969). 25 centuries of language teaching, Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals
and perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
Morley, J. (1991). The pronunciation component in teaching English to speakers ofother languages. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 481-520.
Nunan, D., & Carter, R. (Eds.). (2001). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to
speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Otsuka, A., & Ueda, Y. (2011). Chugaku koko deno hatsuon gakushu rireki toteichakudo – daigaku 1 nensei he no check sheet to shitsumonshi ga shisa suru
mono [Pronunciation instruction and its achievements in Japanese junior andsenior high schools: An analysis of results from check sheets and a questionnaire].
Journal of Osaka Jogakuin University, 8, 1-27.
Pandey, P. K. (1994). On a description of the phonology of Indian English. In R. K.
Agnihotri, & A. L. Khanna (Eds.), Second language acquisition: Socio-culturaland linguistic aspects of English in India (pp.198-207). New Delhi: Sage.
Saito, Y. (2007). Nihonjin to eigo – mouhitotsu no eigo hyakunenshi [Japanese people
and English- a history of English language education in the past hundred years].
Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Szpyra, J. (2014). Pronunciation in EFL instruction: A research-based approach.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Toyama, M. (2015). Japanese EFL learners’ beliefs about pronunciation learning andtheir pronunciation skills. Language and Culture, 27 (3), 92-114.

193

JACET Kansai Journal, 20, 194-210. (2018) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

主体性を育むための英語教職課程の改善―学生と教員の省察に基づく研究―
The Improvement of Teacher Training Course to Develop Students Engagement―A Study Based on the Reflection of Students and Teachers―
井上聡

環太平洋大学

Abstract
The purpose of this research is to improve our teacher-training course based on the reflection ofboth students and teachers. Through student-centered classes focused on presentation, collaborative
learning, feedback, and reflection, we have found that our students are beginning to think about theimportance of interactive teaching, and that they get interested in certain fields associated with
their learning experience－learner factors, language acquisition, and so on. It may be possible forwould-be teachers to enhance their awareness of their career based on reflection.
キーワード：実践報告，英語教員養成，省察，主体性，英語科教育法Ⅰ
1. はじめに
グローバル社会や知識基盤社会の進展に伴い，高等教育において，専門知識だけでなく，
コミュニケーション能力や課題発見・解決能力といった汎用能力の育成が求められるようになった。日本の各大学の FD 活動（Faculty Development）においても，「主体的に学び考え行動する力」の育成が課題となっており，「授業の内容と授業に即した予習復習の計画に対してどのくらい出来たかを振り返り，学生の気づく機会を増やし，学生自身のキャリアアップ意識を高めること」（水戸，2014）が重視されている。とりわけ，「振り返り（リフレクション，省察）」の活動は重要である。省察活動には「教室での体験を振り返り自身の教授に対する理解を深めることによって成長を体験する」（玉井，2009）という効果が認められており，教員養成プログラムの充実には欠かせない要素となっている。当然，英語教
教職課程においても例外ではない。英語科教育の授業を行う際，旧来型の教師中心型の指導スタイルにこだわることなく，学習者中心の教育方法を柔軟に採り入れ，振り返りに基づいて主体的な授業参加を促し，授業改善とキャリア形成に与することが重要である。
そこで本研究では，学生の主体的関与を強め，英語科教育理論への理解を深めることを目的とし，筆者が従来続けてきた教師中心の講義型授業を改め，事前課題（教材の予習），
プレゼンテーション（説明と報告），集団討論，復習課題（省察コメント）を柱として，学194

主体性を育むための英語教職課程の改善―学生と教員の省察に基づく研究―

習者中心の授業への転換を図ることとした。省察コメントに基づいて，全般，時系列，単元別の観点から履修者の主体的取り組みの状況を調査するとともに，筆者自身も自らの授業内容・方法への省察を行い，今後の英語科教育の在り方について示唆を得る。
2. 理論的枠組み
2.1 本実践研究における問い
本研究の対象となる授業は「英語科教育法Ⅰ」である。担当 4 年目にして，敢えて授業改善に着手したのは，自身の授業成果を時系列で振り返りながら，「主体的に学び考え行動する力」の育成に貢献すべきと考えたためである。
筆者はこれまでの 4 年間，英語科教育法Ⅰの授業を，復習テスト，予習，輪読，補足説
明，筆者のモデル授業を中心として構成してきた。課題の確認や発問を継続して実施しているため，出席状況はほぼ皆勤であり，2016 年度の授業アンケートの総合評価（3.80/4.00）
は高水準であった。ただし，知識伝達型の授業形式であったため，学生が積極的に発言する機会が乏しく，教室内に漂う受動的な雰囲気に対して，常々このままで良いのかという疑問を抱いていた。感想コメントには「文法指導の単元が興味深かった」というものが多く含まれていたが，これはおそらく筆者の専門性（応用言語学）の影響であり，単元個々の満足度は不明のままであった。教員個々の専門分野は異なっていて当然であるが，授業最終日のアンケート結果を過度に重視することによって，指導単元別の満足度や意識の在りようが不明瞭となるため，時系列での変化を追うことが必要であると感じた。
教職課程への主体的関与を高めるうえで，省察能力の向上は不可欠である。省察には「本質の諸相への気づきを促し，行為の選択肢を拡大する」（Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005, p. 49）
効果があるため，教師は「経験の省察と実践化を繰り返しながら自動的に扱える技術・ルーティンを形成する」（坂本，2007, p. 591）存在であるとされる。特に授業後の省察においては，自明の理を問い直し，他者の視点をとり入れつつ，自身の気づきや考えを言語化することが重要である（Loughran, 2002）。ただし，教育実習生の場合，教育経験が乏しいため，内省的実践の機会を得ることは難しい（梅澤，1996）。ましてや，2 年次前期において省察の対象となる模擬授業の機会を豊富に提供することは不可能に近い。しかし，省察の対象は英語授業に限られるものではない。英語教育に関する日本語のプレゼンテーション，
発表への傾聴，発表内容に対する協働的な話し合いもまた省察力を高めるための素材となり，英語科教育への理解を深め，キャリア形成を促す契機になるものと考えられる。
そこで，2017 年度の英語科教育法Ⅰでは，主体性を育み，英語科教育への気づきを促すことを目的として，筆者自身がファシリテーターに徹すること，学生による発表や協働学
習の時間を多く確保すること，学生だけでなく教師も省察を行うことを柱として，授業改善を試みることとした。よって，本実践研究における問いは，「英語科教育における教師中
心型授業から学習者中心型授業への移行は可能か？」である。

195

井上

聡

2.2 英語科教育法Ⅰ
英語科教育法Ⅰは中高英語教員免許取得に関わる 2 年次配当の必須科目であり，90 分 15
コマで構成されている。平成 29 年度の履修者は 17 人（主免許：7 人，副免許：10 人）であり，英検準 2 級レベルの学生で占められた。ステップ履修科目として，英語科教育法Ⅱ
では「英語による導入授業」，英語科教育法Ⅲでは「日本語による文法説明と教科書本文」，
英語科教育法Ⅳでは「第二言語習得理論やワークシートの作成」について指導を行っており，Ⅱ以降の授業は学生による発表が中心となっている。
使用する教材は，「新しい時代の英語科教育の基礎と実践」（JACET 教育問題研究所，2013）である。英語科教育法Ⅰでは英語科教育に関する理論編（第 1 部）と実践編Ⅰ（第 2 部）を扱っている。この教材を選定したのは，「理論と実践を往き来し，その間に学んだことや気付いたことを振り返る（省察する）ことによって，教職としての成長を図る」（ 久村，2013）という教材観に共感したためである。第 1 回目の授業はオリエンテーションとして，授業の進め方に関する説明で終始した。以下，「日本の英語教育と世界」，「英語教育課程」，「言
語習得と教授法」，「学習者論」，「教師論」，「音声と文字の指導」，「リスニング指導」，「スピーキング指導」，「リーディング指導」，「ライティング指導」，「文法指導」，「語彙と辞書指導」の章順で進め，第 14 回では学習内容全般をふり返るための集団討論とアンケート調査を行い，最終回では後期授業（英語科教育法Ⅱ）への橋渡しとして，筆者が英語によるモデル授業を実演するとともに，スクリプトの書き方について説明を行った。表 1 に，これまでの指導と平成 29 年度の違いをリスト化した。
表1

授業構成の違い
平成 28 年まで

１．前回授業内容の復習（20 分）

平成 29 年度
１．プレゼンテーション①（15 分）

・復習用課題プリント

・前回授業の振り返り（5 人）・全員への発問と詳細な解説・筆者からのフィードバック

２．教材の輪読（40 分）

２．プレゼンテーション②（40 分）

・履修者による音読・キーワードの解説（3 人）

・筆者による補足説明

・筆者からの補足説明

３．アクティビティ（20 分）

３．アクティビティ（25 分）

・テーマに応じた資料の提示

・授業内容に関するグループ討論

４．まとめ（10 分程度）

４．まとめ（10 分程度）

５．課題

５．課題

・復習用課題プリントの配布・キーワードの事前調査

・省察コメントの送信

・省察コメントの送信

196主体性を育むための英語教職課程の改善―学生と教員の省察に基づく研究―

平成 28 年度までとの大きな違いは，筆者主導の時間を大幅に減らしたことである。従来においても学生への発問の頻度は多かったが，その大半は事前課題（復習プリント）の回
答，教材の音読，筆者が提示した資料への感想といった受動的な活動に充てられていたた
め，抜本的な改善策として，上記のように筆者による説明を大幅に削減することにした。
2.3 授業例（第 3 回授業）
授業と課題の関係が明確になるよう，第 2 回ではなく第 3 回（第 2 章：英語教育課程）を採り上げた。下記の表 2 は，授業の進行内容を簡潔にまとめたものである。
表2

授業例

時刻

内容

10:35

挨拶，出席，ティーチャートーク

10:40

省察コメントの発表（テーマ：第 1 章

日本の英語教育と世界）■発表例：「自分が受けてきた英語の授業は正確さを重視していたような気がする」，「もっと母国語の知識を増やすべきではないか」，「間違いを恐れずに発言させるために，流暢さを重視したスピーキング指導をしたい」など■教員コメント例：「原稿を見て発表するのは控えましょう」，「コメントを暗記するのではなく，各フレーズを結びつけて発表しましょう」，「聴講者の目を見て伝えるようにしましょう」，「1 分程度でまとめてください」など※この間，他の履修者は発表者や教員コメントをメモ
10:50

キーワード・プレゼンテーション（テーマ：第 2 章

英語教育課程）■スライドを用いた発表
学生 A

カリキュラム，学習指導要領，教育課程

学生 B

年間指導予定，言語の使用場面，言語の働き

学生 C

コミュニケーション能力，生涯学習，国際英語，世界の諸英語※スライドごとに教員が補足説明を行い，履修者は各自の予習ノートに加筆
11:30

協働的な話し合い■履修者：自発的に 5～6 人で 1 グループを編成■教員からの指示：自分の意見を短時間で伝える，他者の意見に耳を傾けながらメモを取る，制限時間内に全員の意見を共有する

11:55

まとめ・課題の連絡■課題①次週までに省察コメントを Google アンケートで送信②第 3 章（言語習得と教授法）のキーワード調べ③次週の発表者（省察：5 人，キーワード 3 人）を指名

197

井上

聡

履修者が 17 名であったため，全 12 回の授業におけるひとりあたりの発表頻度としては，省察で 4 回程度，キーワードで 2 回程度，合計で 6 回程度確保することができた。その結果，終盤に近付くにつれ，淡白な内容の発表が減り，聴講者と向き合いながら落ち着いて説明することができるようになった。これまでの学習経験と関連付けした発表も多く見られるようになった。ただし，聴講者の反応を気にせずに話し続ける学生も存在したため，
簡潔にまとめるよう継続して指導を行った。キーワードのスライド作成に際しては，1 順
目は教材の文章をそのまま書き写す傾向が強かったが，2 順目からは図表や教材以外のソースを活用するなどの工夫が見られ始めた。ひとりあたりのキーワード分担数を減らしてでも，発表する頻度を増やすべきであった。省察コメントについては，送信時期のばらつ
きが気にかかった。送信を忘れる履修者はひとりもいなかったが，授業前日の深夜に送信する履修者や常にコメント量の少ない履修者が一定数存在した。送信時期の早さやコメン
ト量の多さを競わせる必要性はないが，極端な個人差を埋めるための対応については次年度の課題として残った。
以上，授業方法に関して，(1)話し方，(2)発表時間，(3)発表頻度，(4)コメントの送信時期と量，といった課題が見いだされた。回を追うごとに履修者の主体的取り組みや参加意欲に改善の跡が見られるとともに，新年度に向けての具体的な改善策を得ることができた。
3. 研究の方法
3.1 研究の目的
本授業の目的は，学生の主体性を育むため，発表と振り返りの機会を増やし，教員養成というキャリア形成への意識を高めることである。指導内容や使用教材は従来と変わらないが，この授業実践の主な特徴は，(1)教師がファシリテーター役に徹すること，(2)発表や協働学習を通して学生による主体的関与を深めること，(3)授業内容に関する省察が毎回行われることの 3 点である。よって，本研究では，毎回学生から提出される省察コメントの量的・質的分析に基づいて，履修者の教職への意識づけの状況や学習者中心の授業の効果について調査・検討を行うとともに，筆者自身も授業への省察を深め，さらなる授業改善の糸口を見出すこととした。そのような観点に基づき，「RQ1 教職への意識（全体）」，「RQ2
教職への意識（時系列の変化）」，「RQ3 教職への意識（単元と満足度の関係）」という 3 種の研究課題を設定した。
3.2 研究のためのデータ
本研究で用いるデータは省察コメントと授業アンケートの 2 種類である。省察コメント
としては，毎回の授業後に Google アンケートで回答を求めたコメントを採用した。介護等体験実習以外の欠席者はいなかったため，ほぼ全員から回収した 12 回分のコメントの総字数は 84,430 字となった。アンケート調査は第 14 回目の授業で行った。各自ノートや省198

主体性を育むための英語教職課程の改善―学生と教員の省察に基づく研究―

察コメントを見ながら授業内容についての振り返りを行ったのち，12 種類の単元への満足度を 5 件法で選ばせた。「とても役に立った」場合を 5，「全く役に立たなかった」場合を1 として，当てはまるスケールを自主的に選ばせるとともに，特に印象に残った単元については簡潔なコメントを求めた。データは授業改善とともに研究発表でも使用されること，その場合には匿名化が行われること，研究結果についてはステップ履修科目の中で公開すること，回答は強制ではないことを伝えたところ，全員から承諾を得ることができた。なお，コメント分析に際しては KH Coder（樋口，2014）を，アンケート分析に係る統計量の算出に際しては Excel 統計 2015 を用いた。
3.3 分析の方法
次に分析の手法について述べる。RQ1（教職への意識：全般）では，省察コメント全体に表出される履修者のおおまかな傾向を調査するため，自己組織化マップと共起ネットワークを用いた。自己組織化マップでは，コメント中で多く使用された語を確認することができるだけでなく，使用された語の組み合わせや使用された文脈の関係を明示することが可能である。ただし，直接的な語と語の結びつきについては不明であるため，共起ネット
ワークを併用することにした。共起ネットワークでは，高頻度使用語は大きな円で示され，共起語の間は実線で結ばれる。特に共起関係が強い場合は，太い実線で結ばれるため，語と語のつながりを視覚的に検討するうえで適している。RQ2（教職への意識：時系列の変化）では，12 回にわたる総字数と特徴語の違いに基づいて分析を行った。総字数の推移を分析する際には箱ひげ図を，字数の検定に際しては，コメント字数に個人差が強く反映される可能性を考慮して，外れ値を含む検定に強いとされるフリードマン検定を用いた。特徴語の分析に際しては類似性測度を示す Jaccard 係数を用い，単元ごとに上位 3 語を抽出した。次に，対応分析によって出力されたアイテム散布図を用いて，単元間における特徴
語の関係について検討を行った。最後に RQ3（教職への意識：単元と満足度の関係）では，第 14 回授業でアンケート調査を行い，得られたデータに基づき，全単元の満足度について
統計量（平均，標準偏差など）を算出し，フリードマン検定を行った。特に関心が高かった単元を特定したのち，それぞれの単元に充てられたコメントの質的解釈に基づき，気づきや意識化が促された要因について検討を行った。なお，自己組織化マップ，共起ネット
ワーク，対応分析に際しては，KH Coder に格納された機能を用いた。分析に用いる際の変数（語句）の選定については，デフォルト通り，使用頻度 20 以上の語とした。
4. 結果と考察
4.1 教職への意識（全般）
ここでは，省察コメント全般に見られる主題や高頻度で使用される共起語のつながりについて検討を行う。下記の図 1, 2 は自己組織化マップと共起ネットワークである。

199

井上

聡

図 1 自己組織化マップ
まず，自己組織化マップ（図 1）については，実線によって合計 8 種の文脈に分けられた。それぞれの主題を読み解くと，さらに 4 種に統合できるように思われる。左端上の小さな文脈には，環境・意欲・指導等が密集しており，意欲を引き出すための指導環境を示していると考えられる。その右側に隣接する文脈は，中学・高校・大学・ライティング等で構成されていることから，書くための言語活動の環境を指しているように思われる。その右側に隣接する横長の領域は，書く・リーディング・リスニング・辞書等の語句が拡散しており，3 技能の言語領域を示していると解釈できる。以上，これら上段 3 種の文脈を総合すると，「3 技能の言語活動と指導環境」という主題が見えてくる。
次に，左端下部の文脈は，会話・アウトプット・スピーキング・CLT・コミュニケーショ
ン等で構成されており，英語伝達能力に焦点が当たっていると言える。文法といった語も見られるが，場面という語の近くに布置されているため，文法使用と文脈の関係を指しているものと思われる。その右横に隣接する細長い文脈には，音声・発音・知識・練習等の語が散見されることから，アウトプットのための条件が示されていると言える。よって，
これら 2 種の文脈を統合すると，「音声を重視した英語コミュニケーション」という主題を設定することが可能である。コミュニケーション重視の英語教育が浸透しつつある状況を200

主体性を育むための英語教職課程の改善―学生と教員の省察に基づく研究―

読み取ることができる。
下部中央の台形型領域には，教師・取り入れる・高校生・教える・言う・仕方等の語が集中していることから，「具体的な授業者としてのイメージ形成」が表出されていると言える。右端中段の文脈には，課題・活用・認知・スタイル・学習・ストラテジー等の語が密集しており，学習者要因に関する領域を示していると言える。その下部の文脈については，
記憶・残る・偶発・意図等といった語彙学習を示す領域となっている。これらの文脈を統合することによって，「 自らの英語学習との関連づけ」という主題を設定することができる。

図2

共起ネットワーク

共起ネットワーク（図 2）では，実線の数や太さ，円の大きさを見る限り，図 2 の右半
分・下部の集合体の中に履修者の意識が凝縮されていると言える。
「英語」と「授業」というふたつの高頻度語を中心として，教師―生徒，指導－学習，講義－活動，学ぶ－使う，といった対照的な立場が表出されていることから，「双方向性」への意識化が促されているものと考えられる。すべての履修者が同じように考えているとは言い難いが，教師中心の一方向型への意識の偏りは見られなかったことになる。
以上，コメント全体の概観を通して，(1)3 技能の統合と指導環境，(2)音声重視のコミュ
ニケーション活動，(3)授業者としてのイメージ形成，(4)英語学習との関連付け，(5)双方向

201

井上

聡

性への意識化，という主題を読み取ることができた。教師中心の授業との違いは不明であるが，日本語のプレゼンテーション，協働的な話し合い，省察活動を通して，教職への意識化を図ることはある程度まで可能であると言える。
4.2 時系列の変化
ここでは，コメント文字数の変化と特徴語の違いについて，順に議論を行う。下記の箱ひげ図（図 3）はコメント文字数の変化を示したものである。

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

1章

2章

3章

4章

5章

6章

7章

8章

9章 10章 11章 12章

図 3 総字数の変化
上図を概観すると，前半部・理論編（第 1 章から第 5 章）と後半部・実践編（第 6 章から第 12 章）で違いが生じているように思われる。中央値，範囲（最大値と最小値の差），
四分位範囲（中央 50％の範囲）ともに，前半から後半にかけて安定しつつあるように見える。フリードマン検定では中央値について差が認められなかったが（χ 2 =6.02，df=11，p= .87），第 3 章（言語習得と教授法），第 4 章（学習者論），第 8 章（スピーキング活動），
第 12 章（語彙指導と辞書）におけるコメント量のばらつきの大きさ，および，第 6 章（音声と文字），第 7 章（リスニング活動），第 9 章（リーディング活動），第 10 章（ライティ
ング活動）における外れ値の存在には一定の注意が必要である。授業前半部と後半部におけるモチベーションの差，理論編と実践編の理解の差，関連づけに必要な情報量の差，言語活動への体験の有無等，さまざまな要因が考えられる。履修者個別の属性に合わせた再調査が必要となるが，現段階では学習者要因等の情報が乏しく，サンプルサイズも小さいため，これ以上の議論は控えることとする。次に，表 3 に基づいて，単元別の特徴語の違いについて検討を行う。なお，抽出された特徴語は類似性測度を示す Jaccard 係数の上位 3
語である。

202

主体性を育むための英語教職課程の改善―学生と教員の省察に基づく研究―

表3

各単元における特徴語
第1章

第2章

第3章

第4章

第5章

第6章

EFL

設定

ZPD

動機

批判

音声

通じる

ｶﾘｷｭﾗﾑ

ZAD

場

改善

文字

EIL

場面

メタ

独立

資質

発音

第7章

第8章

第9章

第 10 章

第 11 章

第 12 章リスニング

スピーキングリーディングライティング

事項

偶発

スキーマ

話す

読む

文章

反復

辞書

聞き手

アウトプット

精読

構成

提示

語彙

第 1 章（日本の英語教育と世界）では，「通じる」という観点において，世界の中における英語の位置づけ（EIL）と日本における位置づけ（EFL）の対照性に関心が集まっている。
第 2 章（英語教育課程）では，「設定」という抽象的な語が抽出されたが，用例はすべて「場面や活動を設定」であったため，英語使用を促すための環境づくりに焦点が置かれている。
第 3 章（言語習得と教授法）では，ZAD（Zone of Actual Development），ZPD（Zone of Proximal
Development），メタという語句から，知識の内在化の過程に関心が寄せられていると言える。第 4 章（学習者論）では，動機づけの中でも学習環境の好み（場独立や場依存）の違いに焦点が当たっている。第 5 章（教師論）では「批判」という語が抽出されたが，用例における後続部が「評価」「省察」「反省」で占められているため，教育実践に対する振り返りへの意識化が促されていると言える。第 6 章（音声と文字の指導）では，文字の識別における音声の重要性に関心が集まっている。第 7 章から第 10 章に至っては，すべて言語活動の名称が最上位で選ばれるとともに，スキーマ，精読，（文章）構成といった，聴き方，読み方，書き方といった学習方略を示す用語が抽出された。指導にせよ学習にせよ，
多様な方略への関心が高まっていることがわかる。第 11 章（文法指導）では，「文法事項」の「提示」の仕方や「反復」による内在化に焦点が当てられている。第 12 章（辞書と語彙指導）では，リスト型の語彙学習（≒意図的学習）と文脈型の語彙学習（≒偶発的学習）への意識化が見られる。受験勉強への振り返りが行われた可能性が考えられる。
以上，すべての特徴語について検討を行ったわけではないが，単元ごとの興味の対象をある程度まで特定することができた。次に図 4 に基づき，単元全体の関係について検討を行う。全 12 単元を第 1 アイテムとして，それぞれの単元のコメントの中で使用頻度 20 以上のもの（デフォルト設定）を第 2 アイテムに設定して対応分析を行ったところ，図 5 のアイテム散布図が得られた。成分 1（横軸）の寄与率が 16.2％，成分 2（縦軸）の寄与率が15.8％，累積寄与率は 32％となった。2 軸による説明力はかなり低い水準となった。

203

井上

図4

聡

アイテム散布図

上図を見ると，基本的にほぼすべての単元の使用語彙が左上の象限（原点周辺）に集まっている。対応分析では原点付近に共通語が集中する一方で特徴語は飛び地的な位置に布置されるという性質があるため，使用頻度 20 以上の語で比較した場合，単元ごとの違いはそれほど明確ではないということになる。さらに，原点付近に，コミュニケーション系の語句（英語，話す，使用，使う，CLT など）と教師教育に関する語句（教師，教員，課題，
振り返るなど）が集まっていることから，全体傾向としては，英語伝達能力の育成と内省的教育実践の関わりに焦点が当てられていると言える。
その一方，原点から大きく外れた群としては，「学習者論（第 4 章）」と「リスニング指導（第 7 章）」が顕著であり，学習者の実体験との関連付けが強調されているように思われる。教材の内容から考えると，動機づけの連続体モデル，視覚型・聴覚型・触覚型・体験型といった認知スタイル，場依存・場独立といった学習環境の好み，記憶・認知・補償・
メタ認知・社会・情意等の学習方略といった項目への関心が高まったためではないかと思われる。スキーマ理論（背景知識の活性化）に関しては，リスニング不安を抱える履修者が関心を示したためと推測される。
寄与率が低いため断定は難しいが，学習者要因をさらに深く掘り下げることによって英語科教育への関心が高められ，スキーマ理論に基づくプレ・リスニング活動を充実させる
ことによって，リスニング不安が緩和される可能性が示唆された。主体性が伸びたかどう

204主体性を育むための英語教職課程の改善―学生と教員の省察に基づく研究―かは不明であるが，主体性を伸ばすためのヒントは得られたと言える。
4.3 教職への意識（単元と満足度の関係）
最後に，単元への関心の程度を測るため，満足度の違いについて分析を行う。下記の図
5 は全 12 回の満足度を示した箱ひげ図である。

5
4
3
2
1
0

1章

2章

3章

4章

5章

6章

7章

8章

9章

10章 11章 12章

図 5 満足度の違い
平均値を見ると，満足度の高い単元は，第 3 章（言語習得）（M=4.3, SD=1.1），第 4 章（学習者論）（M=4.1, SD=1.0），第 8 章（スピーキング指導）（M=3.9, SD=1.1），第 9 章（リーディング指導）（M=3.8, SD=0.7），第 11 章（語彙指導）（M=3.7, SD=0.9）である。対応分析の際に特徴語が遠くに布置されていた単元（学習者論）が含まれている一方，同じく特徴的に位置づけられていた「リスニング指導」の満足度はむしろ低くなっている。群間には差が認められたものの（χ 2 =32.74，df=11，p= .00），Scheffe の対比較において 5％水準で差が確認された区間はなかった。このような傾向は，図示されるように，中央値を明確に設定できる単元群（第 2 章：教育課程，第 4 章：学習者論，第 6 章：音声と文字の指導），類似
した分布を示す単元群（第 5 章：教師論，第 10 章：ライティング，第 11 章：文法指導，第 12 章：語彙指導），全体的に満足度の低い単元群（第 1 章：日本の英語教育と世界，第7 章：リスニング指導）への分化に因るものと考えられるが，そうした群ごとの特質の分析・解明に関しては今後の課題としたい。
引き続いて，満足度が高い単元に対するコメントの内容に基づいて，その要因について検討を行う。下記は，「言語習得と教授法」（第 3 章）に対するコメントの一部である。
(1) 思い出すことが多くあった。
(2) 英語を内在化させるため振り返りをする重要性や，インプットからアウトプットするまでの過程について学べた。

205

井上

聡

(3) 省察の説明で学習に対するモチベーションが変わった。
(4) ZAD と ZPD が面白かった。GTM と CLT なら GTM 派。
(5) 児童・生徒のメタ認知をどう活性化し，向上させるのか，とても興味がある。
(6) 内在化を図った授業方法を今後も探りたいと感じた。
上記のコメントを見ると，履修者が「内在化」というフレーズに関心を持っていることが読み取れる。(1)から(4)では自分自身の経験との関連づけが，(5)(6)では将来の教師像との関連づけが行われており，内在化に関する実体験に基づいて，過去や未来への「気づき」が活性化されていることが読み取れる。その一方，章タイトルの中に含まれる「教授法」
に関するコメントは(4)のみであった。コメントとして顕在化されていないだけという可能性は残るが，そもそも言語習得と教授法の領域が広すぎるため，ひとつの単元の中で扱うことに無理があったものと考えられる。さらに，教材内で扱われる教授法が文法訳読法とコミュニカティブ言語教授法という対極的なものに限られていたために，教授法の特性についての理解を深めることが難しかったものと思われる。今年度の授業では，後半の 2 回を「まとめ」としたが，そのうち 1 回を教授法に充てることは十分に可能であった。下記は「学習者論」（第 4 章）に充てられたコメントの一部である。
(7) 動機づけの仕方を学び，意欲を上げるためにどうすればよいか学ぶことができた。
(8) 今の自分の立場からイメージしやすい。
(9) 自分が授業をするときに，生徒の学習スタイル様式に合わせて考えることが大切。
(10) 生徒の内面について，いろんなタイプがあることが分かった。
(11) いかに動機づけをしていくのか，学習塾で悩んでいるので印象に残った。
(12) 場依存と場独立の人をどうやって同じ英語の授業で指導すべきか考えてみた。
ここでは，過去の実体験のみと関連づけられたコメントはなく，将来の教師像との関連づけを示すもので占められた。(7)(8)についても，教職課程に所属する対場から生徒指導を根底に置いた意見であると考えられる。このような傾向は，振り返りを導きやすいという「学習者論」固有の性質に因るものであろうが，「言語習得と教授法」（第 3 章）と 2 週連
続で扱われた波及効果によるものとも考えられる。英語学習への理解を深め，英語教員というキャリア形成への意識化を促すうえにおいて，自身の過去・現在・未来との関連づけは重要である。そういった点で，章続きとなっている「言語習得」と「学習者論」は英語科教育法Ⅰの前半の山場であり，教職への主体的な関与をさらに高める可能性を有しているものと考えられる。続いて「スピーキング指導」（第 8 章）のコメントについて触れるこ
とにする。

206

主体性を育むための英語教職課程の改善―学生と教員の省察に基づく研究―(13) スピーキングを行う際に，流暢さと正確さのバランスを保つのが難しいため。
(14) ある程度の正確さが必要だが，流暢さの方が伝わりやすい。
(15) 読み書きはできても話すとなると別であるということが，大学に入って実感できた。
(16) アウトプットの機会を増やすために，教室英語を使用することが重要だと分かった。
類似したコメントは割愛したが，この単元で最も多く見られたフレーズは「流暢さと正確さのバランス」に関するものであった。(13)のようにバランスの難しさを強調するものもあれば，(14)のように流暢さを推す意見も多く見られた。また，(15)のように実体験と関連づけたもの，(16)のように将来像と関連づけた意見も見られた。中高大といった教育機
関において英会話指導が主流となる中で，英語コミュニケーションへの関心が高まっている傾向が伺える。次に「リーディング指導」（第 9 章）へのコメントについて検討を行う。
(17) ただ読ませるのではなく，目的を与えてから読ませたりテーマを与えたり，経験したことのない授業の仕方を知ることができた。
(18) 精読や多読をすることで活動に対する意欲を上げることができると分かった。
(19) 自分なりにどういう活動をするのか，考えたり想像したりできた。
上記のコメントにも，過去や未来の自分自身への参照が反映されている。この単元では，スキャニング，スキミング，精読，多読といった読みの目的への紹介が重視される一方で，インプットを処理するためのポスト・リーディング活動については，ほとんどスペースが割かれていない。それにもかかわらず，未経験の言語活動への印象がコメントに反映されたのは，履修者の要望に従って，筆者が協働学習の時間を割き，さまざまな音読活動（モデル・リーディング，バズ・リーディング，サイト・トランスレーション，リード・アン
ド・ルックアップなど）の実演に充てたためと考えられる。継続的に行われていた協働的な話し合いの時間が具体的なモデル授業に代替されたことによって，必要以上に満足度が押し上げられた可能性は否めない。ただし，第 2 部（実践編Ⅰ）のように実践的な言語活動を扱う単元において主体的な関与を促すうえでは，協働的な話し合いよりも模擬授業を含めた体験学習の方が優先されるべきかもしれない。
以上，単元への満足度が自らの経験との関連づけの程度によって影響される可能性が示唆された。満足度の序列に問題があるわけではないが，履修者の知識が乏しい単元（たとえば，第 1 章：日本の英語教育と世界）や具体的な教授場面を想起させる必要のある単元（たとえば，言語活動）については，授業構成のバランスを柔軟に変えるべきであろう。
意欲や関心を高め，理解を深めるうえで，発表，討論，振り返りといった，学習者中心による運営が機能する単元が存在する一方，教師中心のプレゼンテーションが有効な単元も存在するという認識をもって，シラバス再編に取り組むことが重要である。

207

井上

聡

5. おわりに
5.1 RQ のまとめ
本研究の目的は，学習者中心の授業を実践し，教師も授業の省察を行い，授業改善のための糸口を掴むことであった。結果は下記の通りである。
RQ1（教職への意識：全般）では，省察コメント全般に表出された意識のありようと共起語の関係について分析を行った。その結果，全体を貫く主題として，「3 技能の言語活動と指導環境」，「音声重視のコミュニケーション活動」，「授業者としてのイメージ形成」，「自らの英語学習との関連づけ」が見出された。また，使用語の共起関係からは，教員・生徒，
指導・学習のような，双方向的な視点が表出された。RQ2（教職への意識：時系列の変化）
では，コメント数と特徴語に基づいて分析を行った。その結果，単元ごとのコメント字数に差は見られなかったが，それぞれの単元において履修者が注視しているフレーズを特定することができた。単元間の関係性という視点で考えると，リスニングのためのスキーマ
理論，場独立・場依存といった学習環境への好み，学習方略といった要素に強く焦点が当てられていた。最後に RQ3（教職への意識：単元と満足度の関係）では，全 12 単元におけるアンケート調査の集計を行った。その結果，実体験との関連づけが容易であり，実際の指導例や活動をイメージしやすい単元ほど満足度が高く，キャリア形成への意識化に与するという知見が得られた。
5.2 教育的示唆
本授業の目的は，学生の主体的な参加，協働的な話し合い，省察を軸とした学習者中心の授業を実践し，英語科教育やキャリア形成への意識化を促すことであった。得られた知見（双方向授業への意識化，意欲・関心を高めうる単元の特定，授業構成における学習者
中心と教師中心のバランス）に関しては，昨年までのデータとの比較が行われていないた
め，教師中心の授業との違いであると判断することはできないが，今後さらに主体性を育
むための糸口が得られたと言える。
授業改善において最も重視されるべき要素は「関連付けの促進」である。まず，関連付けの効果が最も見込まれる単元（学習者論や言語習得）の指導内容を充実すべきである。
たとえば，履修者間で質問紙調査を行い，個々の傾向について協働的に伝え合う機会を設けることが有用であろう。時間が許す限り，教授法への理解を促すことも重要である。多様な教授法の理論説明に終始するのではなく，同一の文法項目を訳読法，CLT，オーラル・
メソッド，オーディオリンガル教授法，直接教授法等といった多様な教授法で教員が導入
し，協働的な話し合いを通して，それぞれの特徴について理解を深めることによって，より柔軟な指導案を作成することが可能となる。ただし，質問紙調査・報告，教授法説明ともに時間がかかるため，第 14 回か第 15 回授業の一方に充てることが有用である。
次に，満足度の差を埋める活動が必要である。実体験を伴わない教育理論，および，具208

主体性を育むための英語教職課程の改善―学生と教員の省察に基づく研究―

体的な言語活動への理解を深めるうえでは，協働学習よりも体験学習や教師主導のプレゼ
ンテーションが機能する場合がある。深い学びに導くうえで協働学習が重要であることは論を待たないが，指導項目によって，学生による発表，教師主導の説明，協働学習，体験学習等のバランスを積極的に変えること，その際，選択される手法が指導者の好みに偏ることのないよう十分に配慮することが重要である。
限られた時間内でのシラバスの再編はかなり難しい作業となるが，本学の英語科教育法のように，2 年間にわたって，ⅠからⅣまでを特定の教員チームが担当する場合には，さまざまな要素を系統立てて組み込むことが可能である。教育実習での成功を念頭に置き，
模擬授業，教科書指導，教材作成，第二言語習得理論の指導といった要素を含め，よりいっそう主体的に学び考え行動する力を育み，英語力・英語指導力の高い教員を育成できる
よう，教職課程を整えることが不可欠となる。
5.3 問いへの答え
今年度の英語科教育法Ⅰの総合満足度は 3.88/4.00（全学平均 3.43）であり，前年度より少し上がったことになる。14 種の評価項目の中で特に高かった項目は，「この授業で居眠
りはほとんどありませんでした」（4.00），「毎回の学習目標は明確だった」（3.94），「話し方が明瞭で声量が適切であった」（3.94），「授業への参加意欲が促される工夫があった」（3.94），「教員の熱意が感じられた」（3.94）であった。授業最終日固有の高揚感に引きずられた可能性は否めないが，学生の発表や討議を中心として授業を再構築し，筆者が関与する割合
を従来に比べて極端に下げたにもかかわらず，最終評価に悪影響が見られなかった点は興味深い。事後，学生から聞き取り調査を行ったところ，「自分のことを考え直すきっかけになった」，「教員になったつもりで参加した」というものが多かった。履修者にとっては，
発表・傾聴・意見交換・省察といった活動を通して，教育実践に携わる自分を仮想し，仮想した自分の姿のモニターする機会になったのかもしれない。また，筆者にとっては，「課
題として事前に出した内容を教員が改めて時間を割いてまで教えなければならないと思い込む必要はない」（高橋, 2017, p. 68）という認識を得る機会となった。
大学教育において教師が果たすべき役割は，知識の伝達に終始することではなく，学生が主体的に行動するための足場掛けを行うことである。もちろん，すべてを学生に任せてよいというわけではなく，授業の性質や到達目標に応じて，教師はファシリテーターからリーダーの間を，さらに，理論と実践の間を絶え間なく移動し，省察を繰り返すべき存在であると言える。そのためには，最終的な授業評価のみに頼らず，日々の授業成果について継続的に省察を行うことが重要である。

209

井上

聡

引用文献
樋口耕一 (2014)『 社会調査のための計量テキスト分析：内容分析の継承と発展を目指して』
ナカニシヤ出版．
久村研 (2011)「はしがき」JACET 教育問題研究所（編）『新しい時代の英語科教育の基礎と実践：成長する英語教師を目指して』三修社, 3．
水戸英則（編）(2015)『今，なぜ「大学改革」か？私立大学の戦略的経営の必要性』東京：
丸善プラネット．
坂本篤史 (2007)「現職教員は授業経験から如何に学ぶか」『教育心理学研究』55, 584-596.
高橋悟 (2017)『最初に読みたいアクティブラーニングの本』海文堂．
玉井健 (2009)「リフレクティブ・プラクティスと教師の成長」『英語教育』3 月号, 大修館
書店, 10-12．
梅澤実 (1996)「模擬授業を中心とした教育実習事前指導における学習者・授業理解」『東京
学芸大学教育実習指導センター研究紀要』20, 89-104.
JACET 教育問題研究所 (2013)『新しい時代の英語科教育の基礎と実践：成長する英語教師を目指して』三修社．
Korthagen, F. A. J., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: core reflection as a means to enhance
professional growth. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 11(3), 47-71.
Loughran, J. J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching.
Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 33-43.

210

『JACET 関西支部紀要』（JACET Kansai Journal）刊行規定（2008 年 12 月制定，2015 年 3 月 7 日改定，2017 年 12 月 1 日改定）
1. 刊行趣旨
JACET 関西支部は支部会員に研究発表の機会を提供し，もって支部の研究活動の活性化に資するべく，研究紀要を刊行する。
2．刊行物の名称
本紀要の名称は『JACET 関西支部紀要』（JACET Kansai Journal）とする。なお，巻号は従前刊行物より継続とする。
3．刊行物の内容『JACET 関西支部紀要』には，投稿原稿及び委嘱原稿他を掲載する。
4．紀要編集委員会の設置『JACET 関西支部紀要』刊行事務のために，JACET 関西支部紀要編集委員会を置く。
5．刊行経費『JACET 関西支部紀要』の刊行経費は JACET 関西支部予算で充当する。
6．詳細規定『JACET 関西支部紀要』に掲載する論文に関する詳細規定は，JACET 関西支部紀要編集委
員会において「投稿要領」として定める。
7．規定の改廃
本規定の改廃は JACET 関西支部役員会において行う。

211

JACET Kansai Journal Publication Policy
Revised March 7, 2015
Revised December 1, 2017

1. Aims
JACET Kansai Chapter’s journal serves as a medium for publication of research by its Chapter
members and thus promotes research activities.

2. Journal title
The journal is entitled JACET Kansai Journal (JKJ)
3. Contents of Journal
JACET Kansai Journal (JKJ) publishes submitted papers, invited papers, and other works.
4. Establishment of the JKJ Editorial Committee
JACET Kansai Chapter establishes the JKJ Editorial Committee to publish JACET Kansai Journal(JKJ).

5. Publication expenses
JACET Kansai Chapter bears publication expenses of JACET Kansai Journal (JKJ).

6. Submission guidelines
The JKJ Editorial Committee determines submission guidelines and procedures for JACET Kansai
Journal (JKJ).

7. Amendment
Amendment of this Publication Policy (Japanese version) will be subject to approval by the JACET
Kansai Chapter Executive Committee. The English version will conform to the Japanese version.

212

『JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要』（JACET Kansai Journal）投稿要領（2017 年 12 月 1 日改定）
第１条 投稿者の要件
1 項 投稿者は投稿時において JACET 関⻄⽀部会員でなければならない。
2 項 ただし，第 2 著者以下は，他⽀部に所属する JACET 会員であってもよい。
3 項 投稿者および連名執筆者に学会費の未納がある場合，投稿は受理されない。
第 2 条 投稿原稿の要件
1 項 他誌に投稿中もしくは他誌に掲載済みの論文の投稿は認めない。
2 項 同一人物を第 1 著者とする複数論文の投稿は認めない。
3 項

各種学会等での口頭（ポスター）発表に基づく論文は審査対象となるが，論文末尾に口頭（ポスター）発表の事実を正確に記載するものとする。
第 3 条 投稿原稿の種別
1 項 投稿原稿は，大学等における英語教育およびその関連分野に関わる内容のものとする。
2 項 投稿原稿は下記の 3 種類とする。
(1) 研究論文（大学等における英語教育およびその関連分野に関する学術論文。)(2) 研究ノート（大学等における英語教育およびその関連分野に関する簡易な学術報告。
）(3) 実践報告（大学等における英語教育の実践報告。ただし，投稿締め切り日を起点として過去 1 年以内に開催された JACET 関⻄⽀部大会および国際大会における口頭（ポスター）
発表，または，同期間における JACET 関⻄⽀部研究会(SIG)での活動に関係する内容に基づくものに限る。）
第 4 条 投稿原稿の分量
1 項 投稿原稿の分量は以下の通りとする。
(1) 研究論文（20 ページ以内)(2) 研究ノート（10 ページ以内）(3) 実践報告（6 ページ以内）
2 項 投稿原稿の分量には，タイトル，概要，キーワード，本文，引用文献，図表などをすべて含むものとする。
3 項 修正指示をふまえて修正を行う場合も，1 項に定める制限を超えないものとする。

213

第 5 条 投稿原稿の作成
1 項 使用言語は英語または日本語とする。
2 項

投稿原稿の執筆にあたっては，紀要編集委員会が作成する当該年度の投稿用テンプレートを使用し，テンプレート記載のルールに完全に従うものとする。
3 項 投稿論文において，投稿者の氏名や所属，また，本人が特定できる引用文献や謝辞などは一切記載しないこととし，これらが入るべき場所に同等量の空行を挿入しておく。
第 6 条 投稿の方法
1 項 投稿者は，投稿に先立ち，オンライン投稿フォームより必要事項を入力し，送信する。
2 項 投稿者は，期日までに，投稿原稿（MS Word および PDF）および書式チェックシートの計
3 ファイルを紀要編集委員会事務局宛に送信する。
3 項 前項で定める送信メールの件名は「JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要投稿：氏名（所属先大学等名）」とする。また，メール本体には，氏名・所属・職名・論文題目・メールアドレスを明記する。
第 7 条 投稿原稿の受理
1 項 紀要編集委員会は，投稿された論文の内容および書式を確認し，必要に応じて，修正・再提出を求める場合がある。
2 項

修正が求められた場合，投稿者は，別途指定する期日までに修正原稿および修正報告書を提出する。期限に遅延した場合は投稿を辞退したものとみなす。
3 項 紀要編集委員会は，投稿原稿を不受理扱いとすることができる。
第 8 条 投稿原稿の審査
1 項 研究論文および研究ノートについては，原則として 3 名の論文査読委員による査読を行い，その結果をふまえ，紀要編集委員会において採否の判断を行う。
2 項 1 項に定める審査の過程で原稿種別の変更を求める場合がある。
3 項 1 項に定める審査の過程で原稿内容の修正を求める場合がある。この場合，投稿者は，指定された期日までに修正原稿および修正報告書を提出する。期限に遅延した場合は投稿を辞退した
ものとみなす。
4 項

実践報告については，査読委員による査読は行わず，編集委員会において投稿要件と内容の確認を行い，採否の判断を行う。
5 項 4 項に定める内容の確認の過程で所定の修正を求める場合がある。

214

第 9 条 投稿原稿の著作権1 項 『JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要』に掲載された原稿の著作権は本学会に帰属する。
2 項 投稿者等が，『JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要』に掲載された自身の原稿の複製・転載・公開を行おうとする場合は，事前に本学会の承認を受けることとする。
3 項 前項により原稿の複製・転載・公開を行う場合は，「本論文の著作権は一般社団法人大学英語教育学会に帰属する」旨を明記するものとする。
4 項 投稿者の所属する大学等が，『JACET 関⻄⽀部紀要』に掲載された原稿を機関レポジトリ等に収録しようとする場合は，事前に本学会の承認を受けることとする。
5 項 前項の依頼があった場合，本学会は，発行後 1 年以上経過したものについては機関レポジ
トリへの収録を認めることとし，経費は請求しない。
6 項 投稿者は，投稿論文が採択・掲載された場合，上記の 1 項〜4 項を了承したとみなす。
第 10 条 本規定の改廃
本規定の改廃は紀要編集委員会において行う。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
2005 年 6 月制定
2007 年 6 月改定
2008 年 12 月改定
2009 年 7 月 25 日改定
2011 年 6 月 5 日改定
2014 年 3 月 8 日改定
2016 年 2 月 24 日改定
2017 年 12 月 1 日改定

215

JACET Kansai Journal
Submission Guidelines
Revised December 1, 2017
I. Requirements for submitters
1. Authors must be JACET members.
2. If the first author is a Kansai Chapter member, coauthors can be JACET members of otherchapters.
3. Papers can be submitted by Kansai Chapter members in good standing who have paid theirdues for the current year.
II. Requirements for manuscripts
1. All papers must be original and not have been published elsewhere, nor be under consideration for
publication (including overseas journals).
2. Only one paper can be submitted by each contributor as the first author.
3. If the research has been presented orally or as a poster and this is so indicated, the paper can be considered
for publication. However, presentation details including location, date and name of conference must be in thesubmission.
III. Types of manuscripts
1. Papers should be related to research on English education at the tertiary, secondary, or otherlevels, as well as relevant areas.
2. Three types of papers will be accepted for submission:(1) Research Papers (Academic papers related to research on English education at the tertiary,
secondary, or other levels, as well as relevant areas)(2) Research Notes (Short academic reports related to research on English education at the tertiary,
secondary, or other levels, as well as relevant areas)(3) Practitioner Reports (Reports on the content of an oral or poster presentation at a JACET Kansai
Chapter Convention or a JACET International Convention which was made within one year prior
to the submission deadline/ Reports on activities of JACET Kansai SIGs occurring within one year
prior to the submission deadline)
IV. Manuscript Length
1. Manuscript length should be as follows:216

(1) Research Papers (no longer than 20 pages)(2) Research Notes (no longer than 10 pages)(3) Practitioner Reports (no longer than 6 pages)
2. Manuscript length includes the title, abstract, keywords, references, figures, tables, and othermaterials.
3. Revised manuscripts cannot exceed the manuscript length as stated above.
V. Manuscript preparation
1. Papers should be written in English or Japanese.
2. All manuscripts should be prepared using the current template and format checklists prepared by
the JACET Kansai Journal (JKJ) Editorial Committee.

3. All manuscripts should be prepared without the author name(s) or affiliation(s) or informationin the Acknowledgments that can reveal the author(s), but leave the equivalent amount of space toallow the information to be added.
VI. Submission

1. All contributors must complete a submission form on the JACET Kansai Journal (JKJ) website.
2. All contributors must send three files by e-mail to the JKJ Editorial Committee, which include theauthor’s manuscript as an MS Word document, an additional copy as a PDF, and a format checklist
prepared by the JKJ Editorial Committee).
3. All contributors must use the following subject line template for the e-mail message: Paper
submission to JACET Kansai Journal: Corresponding author name (corresponding author
affiliation). The e-mail cover message should include the following information:(1) Author name(s),(2) Author affiliation(s) and position(s)(3) The title of paper(4) Author’s email address
VII. Acceptance of manuscripts
1. The JKJ Editorial Committee may request authors to revise their manuscript.
2. Authors must submit their revised manuscripts along with revision notes by the deadline. TheJKJ Editorial Committee does not accept late submissions.
3. Failure to follow the JKJ Editorial Committee’s requirements could result in rejection.

217

VIII. Review of manuscripts
1. Research papers and research notes will be subject to peer review by at least three scholars. TheJKJ Editorial Committee will decide approval of manuscripts based upon the results of peer review.
2. During the review process as described in Line 1, the JKJ Editorial Committee reserves the rightto request a change in the type of manuscript such as from a research paper to a research note.
3. During the review process as described in Line 1, the JKJ Editorial Committee reserves the rightto request the revision of manuscripts. Authors’ failure to submit by the deadline will be considereda withdrawal.
4. Practitioner reports are not subject to peer review. However, the JKJ Editorial Committee will
ensure that all the requirements are completed, and that the contents follow the JKJ standards.
5. During the process as described in Line 4, the JKJ Editorial Committee reserves the right torequest the revision of practitioner reports.
IX. CopyrightIf the manuscript is accepted for publication in JACET Kansai Journal:

1. JACET will hold the copyright of the articles published in JACET Kansai Journal.

2. Anyone, including the author(s), who wishes to reproduce, reprint, or publish an article in JACET

Kansai Journal, must obtain permission from JACET.

3. Anyone, including the author(s), who wishes to reproduce, reprint, or publish an article in JACET

Kansai Journal, must clearly state that JACET holds the copyright.

4. When a request is made for an article in JACET Kansai Journal to be published through therepository of the author’s institution or another institution, permission from JACET must be
obtained.

5. Permission to publish in the repository shall be granted one year after the issue of JACET Kansai

Journal has been published, at no cost.

6. Authors who do not accept the above conditions (Line1-4 of Section IX. Copyright) mustwithdraw their manuscripts before publication.
X. Amendment
Amendment of these Submission Guidelines (Japanese version) will be made by the Kansai Chapter
Editorial Committee. The English version will conform to the Japanese version.

218