JACET Kansai Journal, 16
16, 134-153. (2014) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

Factors That Affect Japanese EFL Learners’ Motivation to Do a Learning Task
Noriko Kimura
Ritsumeikan University (part-time)
ABSTRACTThis study examined factors that affect English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ motivation todoalearningtask

longitudinally.

Thirty-two

Japanese

university

students

had

a-few-sentence-long writing homework (a learning task) and provided peer feedback on thewritings in class (a learning activity) every week for a semester. Their reflections on the activity
obtained through a survey and interviews at the end of the semester were analyzed along with theirreasons for English learning obtained through a survey earlier in the semester. Results revealed
that the peer feedback activity enhanced satisfaction of many students’ needs for “relatedness”(Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 73) to others and “optimal challenges” (“competence,” p. 70) in doing thehomework writing task, which in turn facilitated their motivation to do the task. Other results
showed that whereas the activity let some students have pleasure and, therefore, “autonomy” (p.
73), it put a student under “excessive external pressure toward behaving . . . a certain way” (p. 74),
possibly interacting with his extrinsic nature of reasons for English learning. The author
discussed implications for teaching and research.
Key words: task-specific motivation, interactions of determinant factors, learners’ accounts, alongitudinal study

I. INTRODUCTION
Researchers have reported that there are many important factors that affect or are related tosecond language (L2) learning outcomes, for example, foreign language aptitude (e.g., Skehan,2002), language learning environments (e.g., Guilloteaux & Dörnyei, 2008), and motivation to dolearning tasks (e.g., Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Dörnyei, 2005). Motivation to do learning tasks is
one of the factors that can be changed within an individual through educational intervention(Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002). It is important for language teachers and researchers to know whatkinds of educational activities actually enhance (Guilloteaux & Dörnyei, 2008) what kinds oflearners’ motivation to do learning tasks and why. To answer such questions, this study examines
whether and how a particular classroom activity done over a semester induces changes in whatkinds of learners’ motivation to do a particular learning task over the period, analyzing learners’
reflections. In the following section, first, I present a definition of motivation employed in the
study. Next, I review determinants of motivation to do learning tasks that have been reported inprevious studies. Then, I identify research questions that remain to be answered in this study.

134

Noriko KIMURA

II. TASK-SPECIFIC MOTIVATION AND ITS DETERMINANTS
Researchers have used the term motivation to refer to various things: in some cases, howlanguage learners feel about the community in which the target language is spoken; in other cases,
reasons or goals for learning (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991).

In contrast, Crookes and Schmidt(1991) introduced conceptualization of motivation that accords with practitioners’ immediateclassroom concerns (e.g., motivating students to be engaged in learning tasks), on the basis ofdefinitions of motivation developed in the mainstream education field.

They said that it canconceptually be said that a student is motivated if that person chooses to do learning tasks, “become
productively engaged in [the] learning tasks, and sustain that engagement, without the need forcontinual encouragement or direction” (p. 480).

In the present study, I use the term motivation tomean this concept.
In explaining the concept of motivation to do learning tasks, Crookes and Schmidt (1991)
considered different levels of the L2 learning process at which the learner may be motivated. For
example, a student interested in a particular aspect of language (e.g., pronunciation) is more likely
to be motivated to work on the aspect (motivation at the micro level) whereas a student doing group
work may satisfy the need for affiliation with others and get motivated to do learning tasks(motivation at the classroom level). A language program that meets a student’s needs will be
more motivating to that person (motivation at the syllabus level) whereas a student’s selecting
appropriate goals for long-term learning may be important to manipulate motivation (motivation at
the long-term learning level). Thus, it is very useful to think about the level at which motivation
is discussed. In this study, I examine learners’ motivation at the task level, that is, their motivation
to do a learning task (task-specific motivation) because motivating learners to be engaged in tasks
is practitioners’ immediate concern and because “focusing on [tasks] . . . create[s] researchable
behavioral units” (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 80).
Task-specific motivation seems to be affected by various factors, which may be grouped
into two: ones that are different depending on the current L2 learning contexts and tasks (external
factors) and ones that vary across individuals according to their previous L2 learning experiences(internal factors). The first types of factors are ones influenced externally through immediateteaching practice and learning activities. In mainstream education, researchers have argued that ifcontexts in which learners do a learning task tend to satisfy their psychological needs forachievement, affiliation with other people, and autonomy, they are more likely to internalize andintegrate values of doing the task and are more self-determined (hence motivated) to do thelearning task (e.g., Keller, 1983; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002). That is, they
have argued that if external factors of achievement, affiliation with other people, and autonomy areenhanced, task-specific motivation will be increased. Similarly, in the L2 field, observing 27
teachers’ teaching practice and their students’ motivated behavior (i.e., attention/alertness1,
participation, and volunteering), Guilloteaux and Dörnyei (2008) argued that the teachers’
employing such strategies as letting learners work in pairs, arousing learners’ curiosity/interest, andproviding neutral feedback was significantly correlated with the students’ motivated behavior.
2135

Factors that affect Japanese EFL learners’ motivation to do a learning task

The second types of factors that determine motivation to do L2 learning tasks are ones thatvary across individuals according to their previous L2 learning experiences, and these internal
factors may include reasons or goals for L2 learning.

Okada and Nakaya (2006) did a non-L2

experimental laboratory study to examine effects of an internal factor of multidimensional reasonsfor learning in general on interest in a task of solving specific problems (i.e., intrinsic task-specificmotivation2) under controlling/non-controlling instruction conditions (i.e., putting external pressure
or not).

They found that even though both types of students with external-introjected (e.g.,

ego-involved) reasons for learning and ones with intrinsic/internal-introjected reasons had
experienced higher anxiety in solving the problems than students learning without reasons, thosewith intrinsic/internal-introjected reasons had shown higher task-specific motivation after doing thetask in the no-pressure condition than those with external-introjected reasons. They speculated
that this might be because those with intrinsic/internal-introjected reasons might have accepted theanxiety-inducing problem-solving situation as challenging opportunities (“optimal challenges” or“feelings of competence”; Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70; an external factor of task-specific motivation)
and, consequently, had got more motivated whereas those with external-introjected reasons might
have put pressure on themselves even in the no-pressure condition and, therefore, had not become
intrinsically motivated. This non-L2 experimental laboratory study may imply that it is possiblethat depending on an internal factor of learners’ reasons for L2 learning, certain L2 learning
activities (e.g., a peer feedback activity) may or may not induce changes in some external factors(e.g., “autonomy,” “optimal challenges”; Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70) of motivation to do an L2
learning task and, as a result, may or may not result in changes in the motivation.
These causal relationships between task-specific motivation and its determinants havebeen speculated based mostly on the results of cross-sectional (Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002)
correlation studies (Okada & Nakaya, 2006) using observed (e.g., Guilloteaux & Dörnyei, 2008) or
self-reported degrees in these factors. However, some researchers (e.g., Dörnyei & Ottó, 1998;
Sasaki, 2011; Yang, Baba, & Cumming, 2004) have argued that motivation is dynamically changing
over time according to various internal and external factors and thus situated in the context.3
Therefore, it is important to observe whether determinant factors that may possibly be enhanced ordiminished through a particular learning activity done in an academic setting over a period of time
affect motivation to do an L2 learning task longitudinally. In addition, “if we treat motivation as
such a dynamic and situated mechanism, case studies using [learners’ own accounts] provide
appropriate avenues for the study of L2 learners’ motivational behaviors” (Sasaki, 2011, p. 84).
Therefore, it is valuable to examine the plausibility of the causal relationships between the
motivation and its determinants by also investigating what learners say about the relationships.4
Thus, I conducted this study to investigate whether any possible external determinant factors (e.g.,“perceived competence,” “feelings of relatedness,” “autonomy”; Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 73) thatmight possibly be found to be facilitated or undermined through a particular learning activity donein an academic context over a semester would affect motivation to do a particular task
3136

Noriko KIMURA

longitudinally by examining what learners would say about the causal relationships and taking into
account learner variation in a possible internal determinant factor (i.e., reasons for L2 learning).
More specifically, I asked the following research questions (RQs).
RQ1. What external factors (e.g., “perceived competence,” “feelings of relatedness,” “autonomy”;
Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 73) regarding doing a particular learning task were facilitated orundermined (possibly according to individual differences in the internal factor of reasons forL2 learning) through a particular learning activity done in an academic context over asemester?
RQ2. Did the learners’ motivation to do the learning task (task-specific motivation) increase
because of the learning activity over the semester?
RQ3. What are the relationships (if any) between the task-specific motivation and the external
factors?
III. METHOD
1. A learning task and a learning activity
A learning task in which learners were engaged in the present study was writing homework(described below). A learning activity employed in the study to facilitate or undermine thelearners’ degrees in possible external determinant factors of their motivation to do the homework
writing task was a peer feedback activity. A peer feedback activity allowing learners to interact
with each other and receive feedback on their success in communicating their own ideas (asdescribed below) was considered to be likely to provide “supports for competence, autonomy, andrelatedness” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 74) and, as a result, motivate them to do the homework writingtask.
2. Participants
Thirty-two Japanese non-English-major students at a large private university in Japan
participated in the study in 2007. They were enrolled in one of four EFL courses that they wererequired to take in their first semester at the university. The course level was designated as‘intermediate.’ The course mainly aimed at developing their listening skills, but the instructor (I)also encouraged them to practice writing and speaking. The class met 90 minutes once a week fora semester (14 weeks).
Every week the students were required to submit homework where they had written a few
sentences answering questions regarding the topic of a story they were going to listen to in class(e.g., vacation plans, volunteering, health). Most of the questions had asked for answers with theirown ideas so that their audience (their peers and instructor) would be interested in reading their
original answers. Their writings collected at the beginning of the class were randomly distributed
to their peers, and they were asked to read the writings and provide open-ended feedback (e.g.,comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the content and language) on them either in4137Factors that affect Japanese EFL learners’ motivation to do a learning task

English or in Japanese, using a few minutes in class.

The written assignments with the peer

feedback on them were subsequently read by the instructor, who provided additional feedback onthem before returning them to the students the following week.
3. A postinstruction questionnaire
I administered a questionnaire written in Japanese to the class near the end of the semester(in the 13th week). It consisted of items asking the students questions about their experiences
regarding the homework writing task, the peer feedback activity, and various other aspects of thecourse.

Of the items, those relevant to and, therefore, used in the study are described in Table 1.

Three items (Items 4, 5, and 8) intended to measure degrees of changes in the students’task-specific motivation due to the peer feedback activity on a 5-point scale, and one item (Item 6)
degrees of excessive external pressure the students had felt in their peers’ reading their writings.
One item (Item 9) asked for the students’ reflections on the peer feedback activity in an open-ended
format. Translations of the item statements are presented in the last column of Table 1. For each5-point-scaled item, the students were asked to rate the extent to which each statement applied tothemselves on a 5-point scale the description of which can be translated into English in thefollowing way: “Mostly does not apply (1),” “Does not apply much (2),” “Neither applies or does
not apply (3),” “Applies to some extent (4),” and “Applies very much (5).”
4. Interviews
In addition, I interviewed four of the students (see below for the procedure taken to selectthem) individually in Japanese after the semester was over. In the interviews, I asked themquestions to get their reflections on English learning over the semester and various aspects of thecourse including doing the homework writing task and the peer feedback activity. In forming thequestions concerning the writing task and peer feedback activity (i.e., those relevant to and,
therefore, used in the study), I used a phrase “What do/did you think . . . ?” (not “Do/Did you thinkthat . . . ?”) to avoid biasing the interviewees’ answers. I tape-recorded each interview, whichlasted about 2 hours, and subsequently transcribed it.
I chose the four students for the interviews on the basis of their patterns of reasons for L2
learning that I had determined by analyzing responses to a questionnaire that I had administered tothe class earlier in the semester (in the second week). This is because as explained in theTask-Specific Motivation and Its Determinants section, according to learners’ reasons for L2
learning, certain activities (e.g., the peer feedback activity) might have differential effects on somefactors externally related to task-specific motivation (e.g., “optimal challenges,” “autonomy”; Ryan
& Deci, 2000, p. 70) and, as a result, on the motivation. The preinstruction questionnaire (written
in Japanese) contained 15 items that represented five types of reasons for L2 learning: lack ofreasons, external reasons, introjection (e.g., ego-involvement), identification (e.g., personal
5138Noriko KIMURA

Table 1. Description of postinstruction questionnaire items
Item number and item statement
Form

Trait intended to measure(English translation by the author)

5-point-

Degrees of changes in

4. “Being conscious that my classmates would

scaledstudents’ motivation to do theread them in class, I came to try to write

homework writing task due
to the peer feedback activity

sentences with better content and in better
English when writing to answer the
homework questions.”
5. “Being conscious that my classmates would

Open-ended

Degrees of excessive externalpressure (less autonomy)
students felt in their peers’
reading their writings
Opinions about or reflections
on the peer feedback activity
students experienced over thesemesterread them in class, I got more motivated tocommunicate their content when writing myhomework sentences.”
8. “Reading my classmates’ homework
writings in class, I came to think that I want
to write better sentences, too.”
6. “Thinking that my English might be wrong, I
didn’t like my classmates to read myhomework writings in class.”
9. “Please write down your opinions on or
feeling about exchanging homework writings
with your classmates in class, writing
comments on their writings, and receiving
comments on your own writings.”

importance), and intrinsic reasons. I constructed these items by translating some of items used in
Noels, Pelletier, Clément, and Vallerand (2000) into Japanese and modifying them according to theJapanese EFL learning context, referring to a description of the five reason types in Ryan and Deci
(2000) and by adapting some of items used in Hiromori (2005). English translations of sample
item statements are “I study English because I feel happy when I find out a new thing while
studying English” (an intrinsic reason), “I study English because I think it is good for my personal
development” (identification), “I study English because I will feel guilty later if I do not study it”(introjection), “I study English to get a good job in the future” (an external reason), and “I have theimpression of wasting my time in studying English” (lack of reasons). The students were asked torate the extent to which each statement applied to themselves on a 5-point scale (written in
Japanese) ranging from “Mostly does not apply (1)” to “Applies very much (5).”I determined each student’s pattern of reasons for L2 learning in the following way. First,
I searched for a good clustering of the 32 students on the basis of their mean scores in the five
6139Factors that affect Japanese EFL learners’ motivation to do a learning task

reason types by employing k-means clustering technique with K (the number of clusters) = 3, 4,
and 5, using R, Version 1.8.1. Then, I chose the clustering with K = 5 because in addition to alower value (25.4) of the sum of within sums of squares for K = 5 than those for K = 3 and 4 (40.3
and 30.8, respectively), the clustering with K = 5 produced five clusters whose centers’ mean scoresin the five reason types allowed interpretations that made sense. Finally, I denoted each student’s
reason pattern as the reason pattern of the center of the cluster to which the person belonged. At
the end of the semester, I made efforts to recruit volunteers for interviews from various clusters,
which resulted in having the four students from three clusters out of the five.
5. Analysis of open-ended response data in the postinstruction questionnaire
I examined the 32 students’ open-ended responses to Item 9 of the postinstruction
questionnaire (which asked for their reflections on the peer feedback activity done over thesemester) to identify what factors had been facilitated or undermined through the activity (for RQ1).
I employed an inductive analytic method of qualitative data, to generate categories (i.e., factor
indicators; and factors indicated by them) to code the comments by noting patterns in them and torefine the categories by comparing a comment in a category with all the other comments coded in
the same category and contrasting it with all the comments in other categories carefully andrepeatedly. In doing so, I also went over the transcribed interview data to be more knowledgeable
about real meanings of the Item 9 comments. In addition, as mentioned earlier, this study was
based on the findings of the previous studies on motivation in general and L2 learning. Therefore,
when generating and refining the categories, I also referred to Ryan and Deci’s (2000) explanationof factors or conditions that are likely to enhance or diminish internalization and integration ofvalues or actions, which may in turn affect interest, effort toward achievement, persistence, andvolition (i.e., motivation).
6. Analysis of interview data
I examined the transcribed interview responses of the four students for the following two
purposes: (a) to find more detailed descriptions of their reflections on the peer feedback activity
with regard to the factors or indicators found through the analysis of the Item 9 responses (for RQ1),
that is, to “interpret the [factors or indicators] in terms of the narrative, situational, particularistic
character of the case” (Stake, 1997, p. 410) and (b) to find relationships between the factors orindicators and motivation (for RQ3). To this end, I “stud[ied] and restud[ied] [the students’]
narrative accounts” (Stake, 1997, p. 410) in the transcribed interview data, “interpreting, trying out
alternative meanings” (p. 406), and “look[ing] for patterns, consistencies, repetitions, andmanifestations pertinent to” the factors and motivation (p. 408). In this way, I identified interview
responses that expressed reflections regarding the factor indicators, motivation, or relationships
between them, marked the responses with the corresponding indicator names or a label ofmotivation accordingly, and, where applicable, indicated the causal relationships, using arrows (e.g.,7140Noriko KIMURA

optimal challenge ĺ motivation). Furthermore, because I developed this study on the basis of theprevious findings on motivation, when identifying the relationships between the factor indicatorsand motivation, I also referred to Ryan and Deci’s (2000) explanation of factors or conditions thatare likely to facilitate or undermine internalization and integration of values or actions and, as aresult, motivation. Finally, among the responses marked, I chose those that seemed to especiallyshow “what is meaningful to the case people [i.e., the students]” (Stake, 1997, p. 404) and “get themeanings of the case shared with readers” (p. 414) for presentation.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RQ1 asked what external factors had been facilitated or undermined (possibly according toindividual differences in the internal factor of reasons for L2 learning) through the peer feedback
activity done over a semester. The above-mentioned analysis of the open-ended responses to Item
9 of the postinstruction questionnaire (by employing the inductive analytic method and referring to
Ryan & Deci, 2000) revealed three external factors (i.e., “competence, autonomy, and relatedness”;
Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 74) enhanced or diminished through the activity and six indicators(categories) indicating the factors. Table 2 presents the factors, their indicators, and theircorresponding sample responses.5 Each factor and its indicators are further verified in thefollowing subsections in turn.
Relatedness to others
First, the written comments seemed to show that the peer feedback activity had enabledsome learners to feel more satisfied with regard to their need for “relatedness” (Ryan & Deci, 2000,
p. 73) to their peers. That is, a factor of relatedness to others seemed to have been facilitatedthrough the activity. Indicators of this factor were the following two: (a) the students were happy
feeling “cared” about (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p.73) by their peers, and (b) they felt that they werecommunicating with their peers (see Table 2). More detailed descriptions of the learners’
reflections suggesting the enhancement in these categories can be found in the following sample
interview responses.
(a) Feeling cared about by the peers / caring about the peers
Example 1(Miki6 was explaining what she had thought reading peer comments she had received on her
writings.)
Miki: I was simply happy and,
Noriko: What were you happy about?
Miki: My peers had written such comments for me not as “Uh, is that so” but often as “I amalso something,” and it was like fun.
Example 1 shows that finding out that her peers had read her writings carefully and responded toher writings with original comments, the student (writer) felt happy and “cared” about (Ryan &Deci, 2000, p.73) by her peers.
8141Factors that affect Japanese EFL learners’ motivation to do a learning task

Table 2. External factors and their indicators enhanced or diminished through the peer
feedback activity and their sample responses
External

Indicator of the factor

factor(Number of comments)

Sample responses

Relatedness

Feeling cared about by

to others

peers (4)Communication (3)• I was happy to receive comments/opinions fromthe classmates.
• It was good to be able to communicate with thepeers.
• I think that receiving comments is communication.

Competence

Receiving objective
opinions and usefulfeedback (5)• I think that it is a good method because I can know
my peers’ opinions and get my hard-to-understandparts [in my writings] pointed out [by the peers].
• It is good because having comments written means
having my writings read.

Having optimal
challenges (4)• Because I felt tension and came to get motivated towrite better English, I think that although I was
reluctant [to do the activity] at first, the activity
was good after all.
• It was good that I came to read my partners’
writings carefully to write comments [on them].
• I think that because doing the peer feedback
activity is a good stimulus for each other, it isgood.

Autonomy

Feeling competent to do
the task (1)• It was good that when I got an appropriate
response [on my writing from a peer], I could feelthat what I had wanted to say had been understood.

Having freedom
from/Feeling excessive• It is a little pleasure to read written comments.
• There were many writings fun to read.

external pressure toward
thinking a certain way (5including 1 negative
comment)• Whereas I came to work on the homework
seriously [because of the peer feedback activity], I
was reluctant [to do the activity]. (A negative
comment)

Example 2(Miki was explaining what she had thought reading her peers’ writings.)
Miki: (a long pause) Mm, there was a person who had probably misunderstood the content,
the meaning [of a homework question] somehow, and the person had written a wrong thing [asan answer to the question], and I was confused wondering how to write [a comment] for it.
9142Noriko KIMURA

Noriko: Hmm, you noticed a person’s mistake, and uh,
Miki: It’s rude or cold [to write] “[Your answer is] wrong” [on the person’s writing], and I
wondered what to do.
Example 2 shows that the student (reader) was caring about her peer when she was providing
comments on the peer’s writing.
(b) Communication
Example 3(Hiromi was explaining what she had thought reading the peer feedback provided on her
writings.)
Hiromi: So, uh, I thought that it’s good that we can read opinions and comments [provided] bya person whom we don’t have any relationship with at all.
(Hiromi was explaining what she thought about the peer feedback activity.)
Hiromi: By our writing [comments on the homework writings], often, though it might not be
the case with regard to people that I don’t know, mostly, once I came to know who the person[whose name was written on my homework writing along with the feedback] was, I wondered,“Oh, did this person write [any comment on my writing]?” [when it was returned to me] and it
was good that I felt that I was communicating [with the person].
Noriko: When was it that [you felt that] you were communicating?
Hiromi: When the homework was returned [to me], I could see “Oh, the person who had made apresentation [in another class] wrote [the comment on my writing]” and so on.
Example 3 shows that by getting comments from her peers, the student felt that she wascommunicating with them, and this seems to indicate that she felt related to them.
In summary, the learners were caring about their peers, responding to the peers’ writings
carefully, and seem to have felt related to the peers, reading the feedback carefully provided bythem and feeling that they were communicating with the peers. Thus, it can be said that the peer
feedback activity enhanced their satisfaction with regard to the need for “relatedness” to others(Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 73).
Competence
Another external factor that the peer feedback activity seemed to have facilitated issatisfaction of the learners’ need for “competence” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 73) with regard to doing
the homework writing task and the peer feedback activity. The following three relevant
indicators/categories were found in the questionnaire responses: (a) the students felt that theyreceived objective opinions and useful “feedback” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70) from their peers, (b)they felt that they had “optimal challenges” (p. 70) in doing the homework writing task andproviding the feedback, and (c) they “fe[lt] competent” (p. 73) to do the homework writing task(see Table 2). In addition, some interview responses supported the activity’s effect in thesecategories, as Examples 4-7 show.
10143

Factors that affect Japanese EFL learners’ motivation to do a learning task(a) Receiving objective opinions and useful feedback
Example 4(Hiromi was explaining what she had thought reading her peers’ writings.)
Hiromi: Uh, when I had written a similar answer [to my peer’s for a homework question], I
thought, “Oh, there is a way to write like this.”
Example 4 shows that even reading her peers’ writings to provide feedback on them allowed thestudent to learn something useful (i.e., receive “feedback”; Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70) for her
writing.
(b) Having optimal challenges
Example 5(Hiromi was explaining what she had thought reading peer feedback provided on her writings.)
Hiromi: Uh, I thought that my peers are reading [my homework writings] carefully and, uh,since there are some occasions when I do careless work, I thought that I have to write carefully.
Noriko: Oh, occasionally you do careless work?
Hiromi: [Occasionally] I do careless work andNoriko: Oh.
Hiromi: [I thought that] carefully,
Noriko: Mm.
Hiromi: [I thought that] because my writings are [carefully] read, I have to write carefully,
because my writings had sometimes been corrected.
Noriko: Oh. I see. Uh, when you saw your writings corrected when they were returned [toyou], [you thought that] carefully,
Hiromi: I thought that I have to write carefully.
Example 6(Hiromi was explaining what she had thought reading her peers’ writings or what she thought
about reading them in class.)
Hiromi: Uh, seeing my peers very good at grammar or using grammar appropriately, I thoughtthat I have to write grammar correctly and that I have to try not to make mistakes.
Examples 5 and 6 show that observing her peers reading her writings carefully and her peers
producing good writings, the student had “optimal challenges” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70), trying
to perform well in writing.
(c) Feeling competent to do the task
Example 7(Toru was explaining what he had thought reading peer feedback he had received on his
homework writings.)
Toru: Reading it, well, [I thought that] the points I wanted to make had been successfully,
though not perfectly, communicated.
Example 7 shows that the content of the peer feedback let the student know that he had been
11
144

Noriko KIMURA

successful in communicating his idea to the reader (i.e., “feel competent”; Ryan & Deci, 2000, p.
74).
In summary, the comments in Examples 4-7 show that the peer feedback activity provided
the learners with useful “feedback” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70) and “optimal challenges” (p. 70) in
doing the writing task and the activity and enabled them to “feel competent” (p. 74) to do the taskand, consequently, that the learners “fe[lt] efficacious with respect to [the writing and peer
feedback] activit[y]” (p. 73).
Autonomy
A third result found in the questionnaire responses is that the peer feedback activity
seemed to have enhanced or undermined the learners’ “autonomy” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 73) todo the activity, depending on their reasons for L2 learning. More specifically, the responses
showed that some students had had pleasure, doing the peer feedback activity and thus had felt
“freedom from excessive external pressure toward behaving or thinking a certain way” (Ryan &Deci, 2000, p. 74) and, therefore, seemed to have had a “feeling of volition” (p. 74) (see Table 2).
On the other hand, a response showed that one student had felt such external pressure (see Table 2),
possibly due to his extrinsic nature of reasons for L2 learning (which had been observed throughthe analysis of the preinstruction survey data; see the Interviews subsection of the Method section
for the analysis procedure). Supporting the activity’s effect on this factor, the following sample
interview response shows that the student had fun, getting to know things about his peers and theirideas through reading their writings and thus had “freedom from excessive external pressure toward
behaving or thinking a certain way” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 74) in doing the peer feedback activity.
(a) Having freedom from excessive external pressure toward thinking a certain way
Example 8(Goro was explaining what he had thought reading peers’ homework writings.)
Goro: Well, [I thought that] my classmates often write various interesting things or think aboutsuch various things, or I could know a little about “an aspect” or a part that I didn’t know [aboutthem], or, uh, because there were some questions asking about their past, it was often fun toknow such things.
The result of differential effects of the peer feedback activity on a factor of freedom fromexcessive external pressure toward thinking a certain way according to reasons for L2 learning may
be explained in the following way similar to Okada and Nakaya’s (2006) argument mentioned
earlier: The students with more intrinsic reasons for L2 learning accepted the activity as a situation
providing them with “optimal challenges” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70), whereas those with more
extrinsic reasons took the same activity as a situation putting excessive external pressure on them tobehave a certain way.
In addition, I examined the 32 students’ responses to Item 6 (“Thinking that my English
might be wrong, I didn’t like my classmates to read my homework writings in class”), which had
been administered intended to measure degrees of excessive external pressure they had felt in their
12145

Factors that affect Japanese EFL learners’ motivation to do a learning task

peers’ reading their writings (see Table 1). An analysis to examine concurrent validity7 of Item 6
using responses to both Item 6 and Item 9 (which asked for open-ended reflections on the activity;
see Table 1) revealed that Item 6 might not necessarily have measured degrees of excessive externalpressure but have measured degrees of excessive external pressure or optimal challenges,
depending on the respondents (the students), unlike the original intention of the item writer (me).
Table 3 shows numbers of the students by their response types for Items 6 and 9 (i.e., different
degrees of their agreement with the statement of Item 6 from 1 [mostly does not apply] to 5 [applies
very much], and various positive, negative, and other8 reflections provided for Item 9, respectively),and numbers and percentages of the students providing positive reflections for Item 9 among thestudents choosing the same answers for Item 6. The last three rows of the table show that out of
15 students responding to Item 6 with Answer Choice 4 of “Applies to some extent” (i.e., those
who thought that the statement “Thinking that my English might be wrong, I didn’t like myclassmates to read my homework writings in class” applied to themselves to some extent), a
majority (11 students, 73.3%) still provided positive reflections on the peer feedback activity for
Item 9. This result seems to mean that there was no such clearly linear relationship between thestudents’ responses to Items 6 and 9 that the higher the degrees of their agreement with thestatement of Item 6, the more negative their reflections on the peer feedback activity (i.e., the morethey felt excessive external pressure), unlike the original expectation of the item writer. An
examination of the content of the statement of Item 6 suggests that for these students agreeing with
the Item 6 statement but still providing positive reflections for Item 9, Item 6 may have measured
degrees of optimal challenges. Thus, it can be said that Item 6 might have measured degrees of
optimal challenges or excessive external pressure, depending on the respondents.
RQ2 asked whether the learners’ motivation to do the homework writing task had
increased because of the peer feedback activity done over the semester. The degrees of changes intheir task-specific motivation due to the activity were intended to be measured by Item 4 (“Being
conscious that my classmates would read them in class, I came to try to write sentences with better
content and in better English when writing to answer the homework questions”), Item 5 (“Being
conscious that my classmates would read them in class, I got more motivated to communicate theircontent when writing my homework sentences”), and Item 8 (“Reading my classmates’ homework
writings in class, I came to think that I want to write better sentences, too”) of the questionnaire(see Table 1). Figure 1 shows the frequency histograms of the students’ responses to Items 4, 5,
and 8. Means (and standard deviations) of the responses to Items 4, 5, and 8 were 3.6 (0.9), 3.5(0.9), and 3.7 (0.7), respectively. These results show that most of the learners became more
motivated to do the writing task at home because of the peer feedback activity done in class overthe semester.9
RQ3 asked what the learners would say about the relationships between the external
factors found to have been facilitated or undermined through the peer feedback activity (RQ1) andthe task-specific motivation (RQ2). The analysis of the interview responses (described in the
13
146Noriko KIMURA

Table 3. Numbers of students by response types for Items 6 and 9 and percentages of students
with positive Item 9 responses among those with the same Item 6 responses
Response to Item 6
Response to Item 9

1

2

3

4

5

Feeling cared about

0

1

0

1

0

Communication

0

2

0

0

1

Getting useful feedback

0

0

2

1

1

Having optimal challenges
Feeling competent
Autonomy“Good”
Positive & otherFeeling cared about & otherFeeling cared about, getting useful feedback, & other
Negative
Feeling excessive external pressure
Other

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
1

2
0
1
1

2
1
3
3

0
0
0
0

0
0

1
1

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
1

0
1

1
3

0
1

Total of students

0

7

7

15

3

Number of students providing positive reflections for Item 9
Percentage of students providing positive reflections for Item 9

0

6
86

6
86

11
73

2
67

Positive–

Note. A dash indicates the percentage could not be calculated.

Frequency

25
20
15
10
5
0
1

2

3

4

5

Response to Item 4

1

2

3

4

Response to Item 5

5

1

2

3

4

5

Response to Item 8

Figure 1. Frequency histograms of students’ responses to Items 4, 5, and 8
Analysis of Interview Data subsection of the Method section) revealed two relationships. First, as
the learners came to feel that their peers “cared” about them (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 73) through thepeer feedback activity, they became more motivated to work on their homework writing task, as
Example 9 shows.
14147

Factors that affect Japanese EFL learners’ motivation to do a learning task

Example 9(Hiromi was explaining what she had thought reading peer feedback on her writings.)
Hiromi: Well, when [I found that] even a person whom I don’t know or hardly have arelationship with had written [comments on my writing] carefully, I became conscious that mywritings are being read, and, uh, for a person’s making comments, for a person who makescomments, I somehow came to think that I would work hard again.
Example 9 shows that a peer’s carefully making comments on the student’s writing even when thepeer is not close to her made her feel “cared” about (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 73) and, as a result,motivated her to work hard on the homework. This finding supports the theoretical proposition
reviewed by Ryan and Deci (2000) that “internalization [hence motivation] is more likely to be inevidence when there are ambient supports for feelings of relatedness” (p. 73).
Another relationship between the external factors and the task-specific motivation that theinterview responses revealed was that as the learners had “optimal challenges” (Ryan & Deci, 2000,
p. 70) in writing their homework because of the peer feedback activity, they became more
motivated to work on the writing task, as Examples 10 and 11 show.
Example 10(Hiromi was explaining what she had thought reading others’ writings in the peer feedback
activity.)
Hiromi: I wanted to know how much my classmates were writing by reading their writings, andso [after reading them] I thought that they were working so hard and thought that I would work
hard, too.
Example 11(Goro was explaining what he had thought about exchanging and reading writings andproviding and getting comments on the writings.)
Goro: Mm, after all, uh, I think that it was good that because of our exchanging our writings
after writing them, thinking that I was going to get my English read [by a classmate in class]when I wrote it, I almost felt tension, I almost got ready [to work], or I could work on the
English writing, being conscious or thinking that I would complete the passage after thinking[about it] myself carefully to some extent.
Examples 10 and 11 show that because the learners felt “optimal challenges” (Ryan & Deci, 2000,
p. 70) in writing their homework through reading their peers’ writings or getting their writings readby their peers, they chose to get productively engaged in the homework writing task, that is,
became motivated to work on the task. This result conforms to the theoretical notion reported in
Ryan and Deci (2000) that people are more likely to adopt activities (i.e., to become motivated)when they have “feelings of competence” (e.g., “optimal challenges”; p. 70) with respect to theactivities.

15
148

Noriko KIMURA

V. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING AND RESEARCH
The purpose of this study was to identify external factors that affect learners’ motivation to
do a learning task in an academic context over a period, by taking into account variation in aninternal factor of their reasons for L2 learning and examining their reflections. To achieve thisend, I asked the three RQs and answered them through the analyses of the questionnaire andinterview responses.

I summarize the findings as follows.

RQ1 was “What external factors

regarding doing a learning task were facilitated or undermined through a learning activity done
over a semester?”

The peer feedback activity done over the semester enabled many students tofeel that they were “cared” about (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 73) by their peers and that they werecommunicating with their peers and, therefore, enhanced their satisfaction with regard to the needfor “relatedness” (p. 73) to others (an external factor of relatedness). Through the activity, many
students also received objective opinions and useful “feedback” from their peers and had “optimal
challenges” and “feelings of competence” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70) in doing the homework
writing task (an external factor of competence). In contrast, whereas the activity let some students
have fun and, therefore, facilitated their satisfaction in terms of the need for “autonomy” to do theactivity and the writing task, it put a student under “excessive external pressure toward behaving . . .
a certain way” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 74), possibly due to his extrinsic nature of reasons forEnglish learning (as we saw in the last comment in Table 2 by such a student with extrinsic reasonsin the study). That is, the activity seems to have had an effect on the students’ autonomy (anexternal factor), interacting with their reasons for English learning (an internal factor). RQ2 was“Did the learners’ motivation to do the learning task increase because of the learning activity overthe semester?” The responses to the items intended to measure changes in the students’task-specific motivation showed that most of them had become more motivated to work on the
homework writing task because of the peer feedback activity over the semester. RQ3 was “Whatare the relationships between the task-specific motivation and the external factors?” Theinterview responses revealed that as the students had felt “cared” about (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 73)
by their peers and had “optimal challenges” (p.70) in doing the task because of the activity, they
had become more motivated to do the task.
It is noteworthy that the peer feedback activity taking only a few minutes of the class time
could enhance many students’ motivation to do the learning task at home because the activity
enhanced their satisfaction with regard to their “needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness”(Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 74). Thus, by providing learners with activities which will increaseimportant factors determining motivation to do learning tasks, teachers can help motivate thelearners to do the tasks and, as a result, may possibly help improve their learning outcomes. This
argument seems to be in line with that of Freiermuth and Huang (2012), who examined effects ofan intercultural online chat task done by Japanese and Taiwanese students on their motivation tocommunicate in English and found that the students had been motivated because the task had
engendered important factors facilitating motivation such as task attractiveness, task innovativeness,
16149

Factors that affect Japanese EFL learners’ motivation to do a learning task

confidence, no anxiety, relationships, and a need to negotiate in English.
The results reported in the previous section may also indicate that even when many
students are engaged in a learning task with “optimal challenges” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70) andpleasure because of an activity and thus are motivated to work on the task, there is a possibility thata student learning English for extrinsic reasons or with negative developmental learning
experiences may be involved in the same task under “excessive external pressure toward
behaving . . . a certain way” (p. 74; i.e., with less autonomy) even with the help of the activity (orbecause of the activity) and, as a result, may not be internally motivated to work on the task. In
order to verify this speculation, further in-depth studies examining learners’ accounts are necessary
for the following three reasons. First, “each learner is unique” (Larsen-Freeman, 2012, p. 24) interms of such factors as cognitive capacities or processes, social interactions, learning experiences,
an identity, a personality, goals, feelings, and interactions of and changes in such factors. In thepresent study, only reasons for L2 learning were taken into consideration as an internal factor that
could possibly influence external factors (e.g., “autonomy,” “optimal challenges”; Ryan & Deci,
2000, p. 70) of task-specific motivation interacting with the peer feedback activity. To seek
explanations from other internal factors through in-depth analyses of learners’ accounts will help
researchers avoid overlooking other influential internal factors. Second, in-depth studies oflearners’ accounts will more insightfully reveal what external factors (e.g., excessive externalpressure, “optimal challenges”; Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70) are induced as a result of interactions of
the internal factors observed and the activity and how the external factors are related to changes intask-specific motivation. Through the analyses, researchers may observe, for instance, whether
task-specific motivation of a learner with particular previous learning experiences and goals in aparticular current learning environment has increased because of the learner’s internalization ofvalues (i.e., more internalized/intrinsic motivation) or due to the person’s being under “excessive
external pressure toward behaving . . . a certain way” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 74; i.e., extrinsic/lessself-determined motivation), or they may see a more complex dynamic interrelation among alearner’s personal, environmental, and emergent factors (de Bot & Larsen-Freeman, 2011) andtask-specific motivation. Third, accumulation of such individual data from learners will help
researchers see the data further support the theoretical speculations based on the previous findings(as has been done in this study) or let them observe individual variation that cannot be predicted by
the theory (de Bot, 2011).
Future research should also investigate what kinds among the various task-specificmotivations thus multiplicatively induced by the differences in the various factors, in turn, lead towhat kinds of qualitative behaviors (e.g., preempting attention to form, taking risks by using
complex language; Ellis, 2009; as opposed to sheer quantity of behaviors), which seem “conducive
to learning” (p. 107). It may turn out that more internalized/intrinsic task-specific motivation(though it is likely to have multidimensional aspects, having been affected by the various factors)
induces such qualitative behaviors and learning outcomes, as Vallerand and Ratelle (2002) posited a17150

Noriko KIMURA

similar postulate and reviewed some evidence for it in various fields. Future investigation of such
dynamic relationships between task-specific motivations resulting from various factors’ interactions
and qualitative behaviors and learning outcomes could be done by examining learners’ accounts
and by analyzing changes in learners’ products over time.
NOTES
1. See Ellis (2009) and Guilloteaux and Dörnyei (2009) for a discussion on the labeling of thevariable.
2. Okada and Nakaya (2006) mention that interest is very important when researchers think about
initiation and sustainment of achievement behavior, and, therefore, I considered it equivalent to
intrinsic motivation as defined in the present study.
3. Definitions of motivation employed in their studies are not necessarily the same as that used in
the present study, but I considered their argument to be valid even when motivation is defined as in
the present study.
4. Although a causal relationship is best supported by an experimental study, it is often very
difficult to have a control group required for such a study due to the group’s possible loss ofopportunities to receive educational benefits, especially if the study is longitudinal.
5. All the comments were originally in Japanese and were translated by me.
6. All the interviewees’ names that appear in the study are pseudonyms. All accounts in theexamples were originally in Japanese and were translated by me.
7. See Bachman (1990) or McDonald (1999) for an explanation of concurrent validity.
8. “Other” reflections included comments about the homework questions and about occasionaldifficulties that the learners had had in providing feedback comments or correcting peers’ English
due to the nature of the content of the writings, their limited English ability, or time limitations.
9. It is possible that Items 4 and 5 might have measured degrees of changes in the learners’
choosing to be engaged in the learning task because of internalization of values (i.e., intrinsic
task-specific motivation) or ones in their choosing to be engaged under external pressure toward
behaving a certain way (i.e., extrinsic task-specific motivation), depending on the questionnaire
respondents. For example, the student who provided a negative reflection for Item 9 responded to
Items 4 and 5 with Answer Choice 4 (applies to some extent), which may indicate that for thisstudent, Items 4 and 5 might have measured the degree of the change in his extrinsic task-specificmotivation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
An earlier version of part of this paper was presented at the seventh Conference of the Pan-Asian
Consortium of Language Teaching Societies, held concurrently with the 34th JALT International
Conference, in Tokyo on November 1, 2008. This study was supported in part by a JALT
Research Grant for 2007 to 2008. I would like to thank my students for their participation in the18151Factors that affect Japanese EFL learners’ motivation to do a learning task

study and anonymous reviewers of JACET Kansai Journal for their valuable comments andsuggestions.
REFERENCES
Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language
Learning, 41, 469-512.
de Bot, K. (2011). Epilogue. In M. H. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic
approach to second language development. Methods and techniques (pp. 123-127). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
de Bot, K., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). Researching second language development from a
dynamic systems theory perspective. In M. H. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A
dynamic approach to second language development. Methods and techniques (pp. 5-23).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ottó, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Thames
Valley University Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 4, 43-69.
Ellis, R. (2009). A reader responds to Guilloteaux and Dörnyei’s “Motivating language learners: A
classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student
motivation.” TESOL Quarterly, 43, 105-109.
Freiermuth, M.R., & Huang, H. (2012). Bringing Japan and Taiwan closer electronically: A look at
an intercultural online synchronic chat task and its effect on motivation. Language Teaching
Research, 16, 61-88.
Guilloteaux, M. J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: A classroom-oriented
investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student motivation. TESOL Quarterly,
42, 55-77.
Guilloteaux, M. J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The authors reply. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 109-111.
Hiromori, T. (2005). Gaikokugo gakushuusha no doukiduke wo takameru 3tsu no youin: Zentai
keikou to kojinsa no kanten kara [Three factors that motivate L2 learners: From theperspectives of general tendency and individual differences]. JACET Bulletin, 41, 37-50.
Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional
design theories and models (pp. 386-434). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). From unity to diversity . . . to diversity within unity. English Teaching
Forum, 50, 22-27.
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
19
152

Noriko KIMURA

Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you learning a second
language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50,
57-85.
Okada, R., & Nakaya, M. (2006). Doukiduke-sutairu ga kadai heno kyoumi ni oyobosu eikyou[Motivational style and interest in tasks: Self-determination theory]. Japanese Journal of
Educational Psychology, 54, 1-11.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Sasaki, M. (2011). Effects of varying lengths of study-abroad experiences on Japanese EFL
students’ L2 writing ability and motivation: A longitudinal study. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 81-105.
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences
and instructed language learning (pp. 69-93). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Stake, R. E. (1997). Case study methods in educational research: Seeking sweet water. In R. M.
Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 401-414). Washington,
DC: American Educational Research Association.
Vallerand, R. J., & Ratelle, C. F. (2002). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A hierarchical model. In
E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 37-63).
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Yang, L., Baba, K., & Cumming, A. (2004). Activity systems for ESL writing improvement: Casestudies of three Chinese and three Japanese adult learners of English. Angles on the
English-Speaking World, 4, 13-33.

20
153

JACET Kansai Journal, 16
16, 154-169. (2014) ©JACET Kansai Chapter
ISSN 1880-2281

Printed in JAPAN.

Designing Materials as a Measure to Facilitate Teacher Development:
The Use of an Internet Blog
Hiromi Murakami1, Yoko Yamada2, Keiko Kanai3, and Sachiko Takagi4
Kansai Gaidai College1, Kansai Gaidai University2, Kinki University3, Osaka Prefecture University4
ABSTRACT
To make classes more attractive and effective, teachers are required to regularly reflect on theirteaching and exert continuous effort at improving it. However, it is not easy for a teacher to improve
his/her teaching without any teacher development activities. To encourage teachers to develop areflective view of their teaching, we focus on their ability to design materials. Since many postsecondary English teachers design materials to achieve the aims of their classes and meet thestudents’ needs, designing materials is expected to be a way of facilitating their development. On
the basis of this assumption, we set up a research project for cultivating post-secondary English
teachers’ ability to design materials through the use of an Internet blog. In this paper, we introduce
our ongoing project and examine its progress.
Key words: designing materials, teacher development, post-secondary English teachers, blog

I. INTRODUCTION
Developing teaching skills is more difficult for post-secondary English teachers than for
their counterparts who teach high school or junior high school. As Morizumi (2011, p. 228) notes,
there was no teacher training programme or qualification for post-secondary teachers in Japan. Thus,
Faculty Development (FD) efforts are needed to develop post-secondary teachers’ skills.
Among the various types of FD programmes (e.g. workshops and forums), the Open Class
project is expected to give teachers feedback about their teaching from their colleagues, which they
can then use to improve their teaching skills. The first author’s former research team designed peer
review sheets and tips for the project (Murakami et al., 2012), aimed at establishing ‘a win-win
relationship’ between a teacher who opens his/her class to other teachers and those who visit theclass. However, mental barriers to peer reviewing exist among post-secondary teachers (cf. Ministryof Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2008).
The difficulty of using the peer review sheets and tips to measure the post-secondary
English teachers’ reflection on their teaching and the development of their teaching skills prompted
the first author to develop portfolios instead: the MH-style Portfolio for English learners (Murakami,2012) and MH-style Portfolio for College Teachers (Murakami, 2013). Unlike the peer review
sheets, the portfolios did not require peer reviewing by other teachers. However, both portfolios
were not as effective in developing post-secondary English teachers’ teaching skills as expected, for
two reasons. One was that teachers still doubted the effect of the learner portfolio on the154Hiromi MURAKAMI, Yoko YAMADA, Keiko KANAI & Sachiko TAKAGI

development of their teaching skills and felt that checking the portfolios during the course would belaborious. The other reason was that although the teacher’s portfolio was enthusiastically welcomed,
its users did not know how to apply the results to their professional development.
Given the situation described above, we decided to look for an alternative in theprofessional development of post-secondary English teachers. Teacher development covers
numerous aspects (e.g. Richards and Farrell, 2005); however, we focus on the teachers’ ability todesign supplemental materials suitable for the aims of their classes and the level of the students.
There are several reasons for this. Firstly, although teachers use commercially supplied textbooks intheir classes, supplemental materials are often needed to achieve the class aims and satisfy thestudents’ needs. Thus, teachers need the ability to design suitable supplemental materials. Secondly,
designing materials enables teachers to increase their knowledge of their teaching field, as well asother abilities needed in teaching.
In this paper, we report on our ongoing research project for cultivating the ability of postsecondary English teachers to design materials through the use of an Internet blog we set up.
(‘Materials’ refers to supplemental materials.) In section 2, we explain the aims of the blog andcharacteristics of the materials we designed for it. In section 3, we introduce our three teachingmaterials to illustrate the characteristics of our materials. Section 4 examines the extent to which
our project functions effectively. Section 5 summarises the study.
II. DESIGNING A BLOG
1. Aims of our blog
We set up an online blog to cultivate post-secondary teachers’ ability to design materials.
Our blog includes an introduction to us and our research activities, teaching materials that we havedesigned (the main content), and announcements of forums that we organise. All contents except
our materials can be accessed by anyone; the materials are available only to registered members of
the blog.
The idea of setting up a blog to offer materials may not be new, but our ultimate aim is not
merely to offer our materials to registered members. We have three objectives. The first is toencourage registered members to develop a reflective view of the way they design materials and toprovide them with insights that they can employ in designing materials. The second is to raise theirmotivation to design materials. The third objective is to create a place where post-secondary
teachers can discuss problems related to teaching and share ideas — any time, any place. Whatever
feedback we receive about our materials from registered members and about our ongoing research
project and/or teacher development from the blog audience will give us the opportunity to improve
our materials and reflect on our activities. Furthermore, teachers who can access our blog can use
the feedback as the basis for their discussion about their teaching. Not all persons in the audience
will leave comments about the feedback they encounter on our blog, but the mere act of reading the
feedback offers them the opportunity to reflect on their teaching.

155

Designing Materials as a Measure to Facilitate Teacher Development: The Use of an Internet Blog

2. Characteristics of our materials
Our materials are designed for 10-minute classroom activities so that registered members
can easily use them in their classes. To achieve the first two objectives, our materials have two
characteristics. One is that each comes with an information sheet, with which we aim to achieve ourfirst objective of encouraging our members to develop a reflective view in designing materials andproviding them with insights that they can employ in developing materials.
Our information sheet includes the following:1.

suitable skills/fields

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

target students
purpose of designing the material; expected effects of using itprocedure for introducing the material
background of the material design
students’ reactions/feedback
tips for teachers
references‘Suitable skills/fields’ aims to raise teachers’ awareness of the students’ skills/knowledge that theyneed to develop when they design teaching materials. Identifying ‘target students’ encourages
teachers to deepen their understanding of their students, including the latter’s strengths andweaknesses. ‘Purpose of designing the material; expected effects of using it’ helps teachers assess
whether the materials they design contribute to the achievement of their class aims. ‘Procedure for
introducing the material’ helps teachers plan when to use the materials in their classes, which gives
them the opportunity to reflect on their lesson plans in accordance with the syllabus. ‘Backgroundof the material design’ encourages teachers to consider their reason for designing the materials.
‘Students’ reactions/feedback’ is intended to make teachers pay close attention to their students’reactions to and level of students’ achievement of the materials. The students’ reactions to thematerial give teachers a good opportunity to monitor whether the materials they designed had thedesired effects. Moreover, in ‘tips for teachers’, teachers offer advice to others regarding the use of
the materials. By doing so, teachers who designed the materials can review their own materials
objectively. Finally, in ‘references’, teachers reveal the notions they used in designing the materials.
This is meant to encourage them to reflect on their current knowledge of their teaching fields andunderstanding of teaching theories (see Appendix for a full version of the information sheet).
The other characteristic of our materials is that they were designed from our specialised
viewpoints, using the same English source materials (e.g. newspaper articles and a section of abook).1 In this manner, we aim to achieve the second objective of raising our registered members’
motivation to design materials. Some materials are designed for use in English-language courses(e.g. reading comprehension and listening classes); others, mainly for content courses (e.g. English
linguistics and Journalism); and still others, for both English-language and content courses. The
156
3

Hiromi MURAKAMI, Yoko YAMADA, Keiko KANAI & Sachiko TAKAGI

level of the targeted students also varies from material to material. The reason we designed
materials from different specialised viewpoints based on the same English source materials was tointroduce a wide range of possibilities for designing materials.2
We set up our blog on 10 August 20123 and uploaded our first teaching materials on 24
October 2012.
III. TEACHING MATERIALS FROM SPECIALISED VIEWPOINTS
To illustrate the characteristics of our materials, we introduce in this section three teachingmaterials designed from different specialised viewpoints: English linguistics, particularly
information structure, journalism, and critical discourse analysis. The same English source material
was used to prepare the materials — a section of an English book, 50 facts that should change theworld. The book was written for native speakers of English, not English as a second language (ESL)
speakers. These three materials have not been uploaded on our blog, and, due to limited space, we
do not present their information sheets.
1. Teaching material designed from the viewpoint of English linguistics
This sub-section introduces a teaching material designed from the viewpoint of English
linguistics, particularly, the viewpoint of information structure. It describes (a) the notion used formaking the material, (b) the purpose of designing the material, (c) details of the material, (d)expected effects of using the material, (e) suitable courses and target students, and (f) tips forteachers.
When speakers/writers convey information to a listener/reader, the listener knows some ofit (= old/given information) but not the rest of it (= new information). Languages have various
devices to distinguish new information from old/given information (e.g. ga and wa in Japanese;a/an and the in English).
The difference between new and old/given information affects the order of the information
presented in discourse. In many languages, including English, moving from old/given information
to new information is the natural way information flows in discourse.4 When conveying information
to a listener/reader, speakers/writers choose a certain device (e.g. a certain syntactic construction)from the available options based on their assumption of how suited the information is to theknowledge available to the listener/reader. The appropriate choice of a device determines success incontrolling the information flow in discourse and helps to construct well-organised discourse.
How is the notion of information structure related to the development of Japanese university
students’ English communicative competence? According to Shirai (2008, pp. 84–87),
communicative competence consists of three components: linguistic competence, discourse
competence, and sociolinguistic competence. Shirai states that linguistic competence is the ability to
produce a grammatically correct sentence on the basis of the knowledge of a language’s soundpattern, words, and grammar. However, linguistic competence alone is not enough to appropriately
communicate with others; the other two competences are also needed. According to Shirai,
157

Designing Materials as a Measure to Facilitate Teacher Development: The Use of an Internet Blog

discourse competence is the ability to construct a discourse by adequately connecting individual
sentences, and sociolinguistic competence is the ability to appropriately use language in a social
context. Among these three competences, discourse competence is directly relevant to the notion of
information structure.
To gain some insight into Japanese university students’ discourse competence in English, we
asked 41 Japanese university students to judge whether the dialogue in (1) is natural or not.5 If theysaid yes, they were asked why; if they said no, they were asked why and also requested to rewrite
the unnatural part.
(1) A: What happened to the mouse?
B: A cat caught the mouse.
The results show that about 61% of the students judged the dialogue as unnatural because new
information (= a cat) came before old/given information (= the mouse) in (1B). They changed (1B)
into The mouse was caught by a cat.6 However, the other students did not judge the dialogue in thisway. It is noteworthy that some students judged the dialogue as natural because it was
grammatically correct. These students may have linguistic competence but not discourse
competence.
Based on this observation, we designed a teaching material with the purpose of promoting
students’ understanding of how discourse is constructed and developing their discourse competence.
Students are asked to read the passage shown in the box on the next page and then explain why thepassive clause is chosen in the first clause of the second paragraph instead of the more basic
counterpart, the active clause. They are told to answer the question in terms of information structure.
The difference between the passive and active clauses has to do with the way informationis structured, as illustrated in (2). (2b) is the active version of (2a).
(2) a. Many of these diseases can be prevented by providing clean water and by[old/given information][new information]
preventative medicine, ….
[new information](Jessica Williams, 50 facts that should change the world, p. 110)
(The underlines and indications of types of information with brackets are ours.)b. Providing clean water and preventative medicine can prevent[new information]
many of these diseases.
[old/given information]
These diseases are introduced in the previous paragraph and, thus, are old/given information. With
158
5

Hiromi MURAKAMI, Yoko YAMADA, Keiko KANAI & Sachiko TAKAGI

the noun phrase many of these diseases as a subject, the passive clause presents new information
relative to what readers already know and creates a natural flow of information.
By using this material, we hope that students will gain a better understanding of discourse
construction and pay close attention to the choice of one particular construction from the available
options.
This material is particularly suitable for courses dealing with topics relating to information
structure (e.g. Introduction to English Linguistics or English Grammar). No specific English
proficiency level is needed.
Finally, we suggest that this material should be given to students as an assignment at theend of the lesson, which will allow them ample time to discuss their answers in the following lesson.
Teaching Material Designed From the Viewpoint of English Linguistics,
Particularly, the Viewpoint of Information Structure
Read the following passage and answer the question.
Warmer temperatures mean that diseases spread more quickly. Bacteria thatcause diarrhoeal diseases flourish in hot weather, contaminating water supplies.
Mosquitoes and rats thrive too, migrating into areas which were previously too coolfor them to venture — leading to the spread of potentially fatal diseases like malaria
and dengue fever. Meanwhile, there are reports that malaria is making a modest
reappearance in Italy, a country that was declared malaria-free in 1970.
Many of these diseases can be prevented by providing clean water and by
preventative medicine, but this comes at a cost — and with many poorer nations
already struggling to provide healthcare services to their people, it could be tough forthem to cope with the increased demands on their resources. It’s thought that global
warming could cause as many as a million additional deaths from malaria each year.
(Jessica Williams, 50 facts that should change the world, p. 110)
(The underlines are the material designer’s.)
Question: Why do you think the passive clause is chosen in the first clause of thesecond paragraph instead of the active clause?

2. Teaching material designed from the viewpoint of journalism
This sub-section introduces a teaching material designed from the viewpoint of journalism.
It (a) describes the target students, (b) explains the purpose of designing the material, (c) elaborates
on the expected effects of using the material, (d) provides specific details of the material, and (e)provides tips for teachers using the material.
The material is targeted at students who are passionate about mass media and current issues,
for instance, students majoring in English who have a strong interest in mass media, or mass media
majors who are keen on learning English. This material is suitable for classrooms covering topics
such as English and Mass Media, Introduction to Journalism, and Practice in Journalism.
The English source material is included in the book 50 facts that should change the world
159

Designing Materials as a Measure to Facilitate Teacher Development: The Use of an Internet Blog

by Jessica Williams, a journalist and a television producer for the BBC. Her journalistic views areclearly reflected in the article and stress that global warming is one of the most pressing issues insociety today. By using this material, students are expected to learn how to write news articles thatwill catch the reader’s attention. The material focuses on two such pointers.
The first is to use impressive quotes from interviewees, such as ‘February 2007 may beremembered as the day the question mark was removed from whether people are to blame forclimate change’; ‘we have the time and knowledge to act, but only if we act internationally, strongly
and urgently’; and ‘the real secret is that governments buy in’. Task 1 of the material asks students
to underline direct quotes. Teachers can explain the rule of ‘golden quotes’, which many journalists
try to follow by inserting impressive and strong quotes in quotation marks in their news articles toencourage readers to read further. Students will learn the importance of using strong quotes in news
articles and may eventually choose to use similar techniques when they write class reports.
The second pointer in writing news articles revolves around the fact that journalists do notalways write news articles with straightforward sentences, but sometimes write in an elaborate orcomplicated manner to surprise and attract their readers. For example, the article includes sentencessuch as ‘There’s no kinder way to put it’ before ‘climate change is already happening’ and‘heatwaves are silent killers’. Task 2 aims to encourage students to underline sentences that describe
facts that are presented in an elaborate and complicated manner. Teachers should explain thatjournalists need to ensure that these facts are not missed. At the same time, however, the teachers
need to remind their students that journalists have to choose from various phrases to convey thesame content in an effective manner.
In addition to the objectives mentioned above, the material was also created to raise student
awareness and in-depth understanding about important issues in society. Task 3 asks students toanswer four questions related to global warming:a) The article describes the number of deaths that resulted from the 2003 heatwave in Europe.
What were the damages caused by heatwaves in Japan in recent years?
b) The article describes diseases caused by heatwaves. What are the other diseases that haveresulted from the heat?
c) The article describes the rising sea levels. Where is this happening now?
Describe damages caused by this phenomenon in detail.
d) The article describes action taken by various governments to cut emissions.
What is the Japanese government doing about this?
By addressing these questions, students will learn about the latest developments related to
global warming, which could encourage them to explore the issues further.
As the material is likely to take students more than 10 minutes to complete, it should
preferably be presented along with the whole article at the end of the previous lesson as an
assignment, and students can discuss their answers for 10 minutes in the following lesson.
Another option in using this material is to select only one or two tasks among the three.
160
7Hiromi MURAKAMI, Yoko YAMADA, Keiko KANAI & Sachiko TAKAGITeachers can decide how many of the tasks to implement based on the progress and interests of
their students.
Teaching Material Designed From the Viewpoint of Journalism
Read the passage ‘Global warming already kills 150,000 people every year’ andprepare answers for the following questions by the beginning of the next class.
1) Underline parts that quote somebody’s words directly.
2) Underline parts that you think describe what happens in an intentionally catchymanner rather than stating facts in a neutral, straightforward way.
3) The following four issues are mentioned in the passage. Find out more about
them.
a) The article describes the number of deaths that resulted from the 2003 heatwave
in Europe. What were the damages caused by heatwaves in Japan in recent years?
b) The article describes diseases caused by heatwaves. What are the other diseases
that have resulted from the heat?
c) The article describes the rising sea levels. Where is this happening now?
Describe damages caused by this phenomenon in detail.
d) The article describes action taken by various governments to cut emissions.
What is the Japanese government doing about this?

3. Teaching material designed from the viewpoint of critical discourse analysis
This sub-section describes (a) the purpose of designing the material, (b) the concepts usedin creating the material, (c) details of the material, (d) expected effects of using the material, (e)target students, (f) suitable courses, and (g) tips for teachers.
The first purpose of the reading practice is to help students understand what words are used
to describe similar kinds of phenomena and to analyse the messages conveyed by such word
choices. The second purpose is to encourage them to interpret conflicting opinions and viewpoints
within the appropriate social and institutional contexts. To achieve these purposes, we utilise theconcepts of critical discourse analysis (CDA).
CDA studies social situations and social institutions by seeking the context of the targeted
discourse or text. It aims to clarify how a writer/speaker creates realities and represents ideologies
in the discourse (Fairclough, 2001).7 In CDA, analysts interpret texts in terms of word choices andgrammatical structure, taking social contexts into consideration, because ideologies are ‘embeddedin the forms of language that are used’ (Fairclough, 2001, p. 2). Based on CDA’s viewpoint of text
interpretation, we will describe two tasks in the reading practice.
In the first task, students are expected to identify expressions in the first to sixth paragraphsthat are synonymous with ‘global warming’, a phrase in the text title. This task reflects Fairclough’s(1992) viewpoint in text analysis, which considers ‘whether agency, causality and responsibility are
made explicit or left vague in media accounts of important events’ (Fairclough, 1992, p. 181).
161

Designing Materials as a Measure to Facilitate Teacher Development: The Use of an Internet Blog

Students should find words such as ‘climate change’ in the first paragraph and ‘the heatwave’ in thethird paragraph. Next, they are led to notice that these words similarly indicate the cause of people’s
deaths without clearly describing or even mentioning the agency behind this cause. In fact, it is not
until the 10th paragraph that the text mentions human action as being responsible for global
warming. However, it is unlikely that the writer intentionally conceals human responsibility because
she is critical of it in the whole essay. Perhaps she presents the realities of global warming first toemphasise their seriousness and to attract the readers’ attention.
The second task in the reading practice is concerned with conflict of ideologies. When theideologies of a group are naturalised and come to be regarded as ‘common sense’, conflict may
occur with other groups who hold different ideologies (Fairclough, 1992, pp. 87–88). Van Dijk
(1988) examines this ideological conflict in terms of the power relations between ‘our’ group and‘their’ group: ‘Our’ (group’s) opinions are naturalised and widely accepted, while ‘their’ (group’s)
opinions are less supported and their stance is marginalised. He explains this type of conflict thattakes place within discourse using the notion of the ‘ideological square’, which consists of thefollowing four principles: (1) Emphasize our good properties/actions, (2) Emphasize their badproperties/actions, (3) Mitigate our bad properties/actions, and (4) Mitigate their good
properties/actions (p. 33).
The second task requires the students to identify the referents of ‘our’ group and ‘their’group in the 11th paragraph. ‘Our’ group refers to ordinary people including the readers, while‘their’ group consists of ‘our governments’. ‘Our governments’ are described as not having tackled
global warming sufficiently, an emphasis on their bad properties/actions. On the other hand, ‘our’group, that is, ‘we’, is anxious about the risks of global warming, so our good properties/actions areemphasised. Therefore, the contrast between (1) and (2) in the ideological square emphasises
ordinary people’s admirable deeds and governments’ faulty attitudes. Contrary to van Dijk’s (1988)
concept, ‘our governments’ who have power belong to ‘their’ group, while ordinary people, wholack power, belong to ‘our’ group. This essay strongly argues that ‘our’ group, which holds lesspower, should take action.
The reading material allows students to consider what kinds of expressions are used torepresent a certain phenomenon, who is responsible for the phenomenon, and what social stances
are presented in connection with it. These observations help the students clearly understand the text,
including the writer’s argument about global warming.
Target students for using this material are those who are in intermediate or advanced
instruction in university English classes. They should be interested in reading long passages aboutsocial, cultural, and political problems.
The material is suitable for classes such as Media English, Discourse Analysis, andIntroduction to Pragmatics, as such classes include not only English grammar and vocabulary but
also issues such as the functions of language, organisation of text, and social context of reading
passages.
Lastly, we suggest that teachers explain the social and cultural contexts of global warming
162
9Hiromi MURAKAMI, Yoko YAMADA, Keiko KANAI & Sachiko TAKAGI

in order to provide students with background knowledge of the text. This will equip the students toanswer the questions with less difficulty and to think deeply about the text content.
Teaching Material Designed From the Viewpoint of Critical Discourse Analysis
Task 1
Identify expressions in the first to sixth paragraphs (below) that are synonymouswith ‘global warming’, a phrase in the text title.
Task 2
Identify the referents of van Dijk’s (1988) notion of ‘our group’ and ‘their group’in the 11th paragraph (below).
Global warming already kills 150,000 people every yearձ There’s no kinder way to put it: climate change is already happening, and it’salready claiming lives.
ղ In 2003, Europe experienced one of its hottest summers ever. Across thecontinents, temperatures soared: in France, the thermometer hovered around 40
degrees Celsius for a fortnight, while Belgium had the hottest summer sincerecords began in 1833. In cities, where temperatures tend not to fall at night, there
was little respite from the choking heat.
ճ It was only once the heat had subsided that the human cost of the extreme
weather began to be counted. In France, undertakers were forced to store bodies ina refrigerated warehouse. At first it was estimated that the heatwave had claimed
some 35,000 lives across Europe. But three years on, the Earth Policy Instituteissued its revised death toll: it now believes that more than 52,000 Europeans diedfrom heat in the summer of 2003.
մ The Institute pointed out that heatwaves are silent killers ʊ coroners’reports
rarely list heat as a cause of death, and it’s only when death counts can becompared with a ‘normal’ year that the true toll can be determined. And theInstitute warns that because of this, policy-makers and the public haven’t yet
grasped the full extent of what happened that summer ʊ and what risks we may
face in the future.
յ The heatwave had other serious consequences, too. Crop yields slumped as
fields turned from green to brown, and Europe’s agricultural output fell to its
lowest level in a century. Wheat harvests were down 20 per cent in France andnearly 650,000 hectares of forest were destroyed in fires. As Europe’s vegetation
withered and died, its ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the air was hugely
reduced ʊ thus, cruelly, leading to far higher emissions across the continents.
ն Even in terms of death toll alone, this was the worst natural disaster Europe had
faced in 50 years. And the World Health Organization warns that worse is to come.
Every year, the WHO estimates that climate change leads to more than 150,000
deaths and 5 million illness ʊ and that this toll could double by 2030.
ջ The IPCC report made it very clear: it’s worse than we’ve thought, and we’ve
done it to ourselves. And unless we, as a species, take drastic action, things aregoing to get very bad. But in a way, this may give us cause for hope. In 2007,
there’s no excuse for not doing something about global warming. Our governments
can no longer couch their discussions in paternalistic language, urging us to do our
163

Designing Materials as a Measure to Facilitate Teacher Development: The Use of an Internet Blog

bit while being reluctant to take strong action that might cost them votes. Slowly,
we might be starting to realise that there’s something bigger at stake here. And
maybe, just maybe, a change is coming.

IV. EXAMINING THE PROGRESS OF OUR PROJECT
In this section, we examine the extent to which our project has functioned effectively so far.
We also discuss the problems we face and suggest possible solutions.
1. Recognition of our blog
To achieve our objectives, our blog first needs to be recognised and visited by users. To
determine whether our blog had been recognised and visited, we checked the size of our blog
audience and the number of page views in two months, namely March and September 2013. The
size of the blog audience refers to the number of people who visited it,8 while the number of pageviews indicates the number of pages that were clicked.
Figures 1 and 2 chart the size of the blog audience and number of page views in three weeks
of March and September 2013.

400
370

350

Nnumber

300
250
200
150

223

232

171

166

211

100

Size of the blog
audience (numberof persons)
Number of page
views

50
0
1

2

3

Week
Figure 1. Size of the blog audience and number of page views in three weeks
of March 2012. Numbers on the horizontal line indicate the following:
1 = 3–9 March, 2 = 10–16 March, and 3 = 17–23 March.

164
11

Hiromi MURAKAMI, Yoko YAMADA, Keiko KANAI & Sachiko TAKAGI

400

375

350

Number

300
250
217

200
150

204

196
142

141

100
50

Size of the blog
audience (numberof persons)
Number of page
views

0
1

2

3

Week

Figure 2. Size of the blog audience and number of page views in three weeks
of September 2013. Numbers on the horizontal line indicate the following:
1 = 1–7 September, 2 = 8–14 September, and 3 = 15–21 September.
The size of the blog audience and number of page views varied from week to week, but there was
one common aspect: When people visited the blog, some of them clicked some pages. This suggeststhat some members of the audience are interested in our blog and read our columns, activity
information, forum announcements (forums that we organised) and so on. So far, we have received
five comments from our blog audience. Other people in the audience might also read the comments
and learn about what others think of teaching and/or our project.9
In short, as far as the results shown in the two figures are concerned, it might be safe to saythat our blog has been recognised and has become a place that people visit to find information.
2. Communication typeThe results shown in Figures 1 and 2 suggest that the blog is gaining recognition as a placethat provides information on teaching. At present, this one-way type of communication is what
exists between the blog audience and us and between the members of the blog audience. Although
the comments we received encouraged us to pursue our project, they are too few for us to conclude
that we have created two-way communication between the blog audience and us. What is more, thecomments are not directly connected to each other in that they are not responses to other comments.
This suggests that two-way communication has not been created between the members of our blog
audience, either.
3. Necessity of our activities on a face-to-face basis
Our first two objectives are to encourage the registered members of our blog to develop areflective view of the way they design materials and provide them with insights that they canemploy in designing materials (Objective 1); and to boost the motivation of registered members to165

Designing Materials as a Measure to Facilitate Teacher Development: The Use of an Internet Blog

design materials (Objective 2). To achieve these objectives, we need to encourage post-secondary
English teachers to become registered members, download our uploaded materials, and observe thematerials. However, we have hardly succeeded so far, as only a few post-secondary English teachers
have registered, and there is no feedback about our materials. This situation raises a serious
question as to whether cultivating the ability of post-secondary English teachers to design materials
facilitates teacher development.
In order to promote our project and make post-secondary English teachers more aware of thewide range of possibilities offered by materials that we designed from different specialised
viewpoints and based on the same English source materials, we gave several conference
presentations, both individually and as a group, and organised several meetings and forums. The
comments we received at our presentations, meetings and forums support our project; the comments
showed that the possibilities offered by our materials aroused the participants’ interest in materials
design and developed in them a reflective view of their teaching. The informal comments they madeconfirmed that cultivating the ability of post-secondary English teachers to design materials
facilitates teacher development.
Why, then, were there discrepancies between a few registered members and the participants’positive responses to the materials we introduced at the conferences and forums? There are two
possible explanations. One is the existence of mental barriers to registration. The other, which canbe drawn from the informal comments we received at the conferences and/or forums, is that it was
not until we introduced the materials we had designed from different specialised viewpoints thatmany of the participants became aware of the wide range of possibilities for designing materials. If
this is true, it suggests that once teachers are given a chance to observe our materials, they will
likely be interested in materials design and develop a reflective view of their teaching. Considering
these possible explanations, we certainly need to continue our activities on a face-to-face basis andmake teachers aware of the wide range of possibilities for designing materials.
Moreover, it should be added that we have to redesign our blog, upload our materials more
frequently, and offer a greater variety of materials, such as those focusing on remedial studies, inorder to attract a larger blog audience. (Thus far, we have uploaded materials designed on the basisof two different English source materials.)
V. CONCLUDING REMARKSThis paper has reported on our ongoing research project for cultivating the ability of postsecondary English teachers to design materials as a way of facilitating teacher development. Sincemany post-secondary English teachers design materials to achieve the aims of their classes and meetthe students’ needs, designing materials is expected to help facilitate their development.
About 14 months have passed since we set up our blog and nearly one year since weuploaded the first materials. The blog has become a place that people visit to find information, but it
still has a long way to go to achieve our objectives. We need to exert continuous effort towards
achieving our objectives by reflecting on the feedback we receive from our face-to-face activities
166
13

Hiromi MURAKAMI, Yoko YAMADA, Keiko KANAI & Sachiko TAKAGI

and from our blog audience.
NOTES
1
All the English source materials on our blog passed the blog’s requirements for uploading, which
include obtaining permission from the copyright holders.
2
In addition to this, our different types of materials provide teachers with information on various
courses. Because post-secondary teachers are frequently required to teach outside their fields,
information on various courses will help them develop the ability to teach in unfamiliar fields.
34

http://blog.goo.ne.jp/hiromikaken
The tendency to give new information after old/given information is called, for example, the‘Given Before New Principle’ (Gundel, 1988, p. 229).
5
Our inspiration for the experimental dialogue in (1) is the dialogue in Shirai (2008, p. 85).
6
Although the mouse is introduced in (1A) and is old/given information, none of the studentschanged (1B) into It was caught by a cat.
7
Ideologies are ‘significations/constructions of reality which are built into various dimensions of
the forms/meanings of discursive practices, and which contribute to the production, reproduction ortransformation of relations of domination’ (Fairclough, 1992, p. 87).
8
As it is impossible to know whether people who access the blog are post-secondary English
teachers or not, we leave this matter in our discussion.
9
It is impossible for us to check whether the blog audience have read the comments or not.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study is based on a workshop held at the JACET Kansai Chapter 2012 Fall Conference at
Kyoto Sangyo University on 24 November 2012. However, the content was revised. This study isfunded by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No. 24520687) from the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science and Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture.
REFERENCES
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd edition). London: Longman.
Gundel, J. K. (1988). Universals of topic-comment structure. In M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik, & J.
Wirth (Eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (pp. 209–239). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2008). Chuokyoikushingikaidaigakubunkakai (dai 71 kai) gijiroku࣭haifushiryo [shiryo 4-2] dai 3 sho gakushi katei
kyoiku no jujitsu o sasaeru gakunai no kyoshokuin no shokuno kaihatsu [The minutes of theCentral Council for Education, the Subdivision on Universities] Retrieved fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo4/gijiroku/08103112/003/006.htm
Morizumi, M. (2011). Daigaku eigo kyoin no yosei to kenshu [College English teacher training andeducation]. In JACET (Ed.), Daigaku kyoikugaku taikei dai 7 kan eigo kyoshi no seicho:
167

Designing Materials as a Measure to Facilitate Teacher Development: The Use of an Internet Blog

motomerareru senmonsei [A series of studies on English education. Vol. 7. Developing theprofessional competences of English language teachers. From pre-service training tolifelong learning] (pp. 228–241). Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.
Murakami, H. (2012). Eigo kyoin no jugyoryoku wo unagasu eigo gakushushayo potofuorio[Design notebook for learners: The MH-style portfolio for college English learners]. Kyoto:
Nakanishiya Shupan.
Murakami, H. (2013). Daigaku kyoin no tame no FD techo-MH shiki potofuorio: kyoinyo [FDnotebook for college teachers: The MH-style portfolio for college teachers]. Kyoto:
Nakanishiya Shupan.
Murakami, H., Togo, T., & Sasai, E. (2012). Daigaku eigo kyoin no jugyoryoku kojo o mezasu
jugyokansatsushito oyobi jugyokaizen no tame no tebikisho no kosatsu [A study ofpeer review sheets and tips for developing teaching skills of university English teachers].
A workshop held at the JACET Kansai Chapter 2012 Spring Conference at Osaka
University on 16 June 2012.
Richards, J. C. & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shirai, Y. (2008). Gaikokugo gakushu no kagaku: Daini gengo shutokuron to wa nani ka [Scienceof foreign language learning: What is second language acquisition]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
van Dijk, T. (1988). Opinions and ideologies in the press. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (Eds.), Approaches
to media discourse (pp. 21–63). Oxford: Blackwell.
Williams, J. (2007). 50 facts that should change the world. London: Icon Books.

168
15

Hiromi MURAKAMI, Yoko YAMADA, Keiko KANAI & Sachiko TAKAGIAPPENDIX
Information Sheet for Designing Teaching Material     
Suitable skills/fields㸦Select all that apply㸧㸦 㸧grammar /㸦 㸧reading /㸦 㸧writing /㸦  㸧 listening /㸦 㸧 speaking / 㸦 㸧vocabulary 㸦others 㸧
Target students㸦Select all that apply㸧㸦  㸧advanced / 㸦㸧intermediate / 㸦㸧beginner / 㸦㸧remedial㸦others                       㸧      
Purpose of designing the material; Expected effects of using it

Procedure for introducing the material / Background of the material design

Students’ reactions/feedback (if you used this material)

Tips for teachers

References

169

AppendicesࠗJACET Kansai Journal㸦JACET 㛵す⣖せ㸧࠘ห⾜つᐃ㸦2008 ᖺ 12 ᭶ไᐃࠊ2010 ᖺ 10 ᭶ 2 ᪥ᨵᐃ㸧
1. ห⾜㊃᪨࣭ห⾜≀ࡢྡ⛠
JACET 㛵すᨭ㒊ࡣᨭ㒊఍ဨ࡟◊✲Ⓨ⾲ࡢᶵ఍ࢆᥦ౪ࡋࠊࡶࡗ࡚ᨭ㒊ࡢ◊✲άືࡢάᛶ໬࡟㈨ࡍࡿ࡭
ࡃࠊ◊✲⣖せࢆห⾜ࡍࡿࠋᮏ⣖せࡢྡ⛠ࡣࠗJACET 㛵す⣖せ࠘㸦JACET Kansai Journal㸧࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
2. ห⾜᪥⛬ᮏ⣖せࡣᖺห࡛Ⓨ⾜ࡍࡿࠋⓎ⾜ࡲ࡛ࡢ᪥⛬ࡣཎ๎࡜ࡋ࡚ḟࡢ࡜࠾ࡾ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
10 ᭶ 15 ᪥㸦ᚲ╔㸧ᢞ✏ཎ✏⥾ࡵษࡾ

12 ᭶ 15 ᪥ᑂᰝ⤖ᯝ㏻▱

1 ᭶ 31 ᪥㸦ᚲ╔㸧ಟṇཎ✏⥾ࡵษࡾ

3 ᭶ᮎห⾜3. ᥖ㍕ㄽᩥࡢ✀㢮ᮏ⣖せ࡟ᥖ㍕ࡍࡿㄽᩥࡣୗグࡢ 3 ✀㢮࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧 ጤკㄽᩥ
㸦2㸧 JACET 㛵すᨭ㒊኱఍࠾ࡼࡧ඲ᅜ኱఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌㸦࣏ࢫࢱ࣮㸧Ⓨ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃᢞ✏ㄽᩥ
㸦3㸧 ୍⯡ᢞ✏ㄽᩥ࡞࠾ࠊ㸦1㸧ࡢጤკࡣ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡢุ᩿࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⾜࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊ
㸦2㸧ࡣᢞ✏⥾ࡵษࡾ᪥ࢆ㉳Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚㐣ཤ 1 ᖺ௨ෆ࡟㛤ദࡉࢀࡓ኱఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌㸦࣏ࢫࢱ࣮㸧Ⓨ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃㄽᩥࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡍ࡭
࡚ࡢᥖ㍕ㄽᩥࡣࠊᢞ✏⪅ࡢ᝟ሗࢆ㞃ࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊヱᙜᑓ㛛ศ㔝࡟㏆࠸ 2 ྡࡢᰝㄞ⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ཝᐦ࡟ᰝ
ㄞࡉࢀࡿࠋ
4. ᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡢ✀ู࡜ෆᐜᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡣୗグࡢ 3 ✀࡜ࡋࠊᢞ✏᫬࡟ᢞ✏⪅ࡀㄽᩥ✀ูࢆ⏦࿌ࡍࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊᑂᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ␗࡞ࡿ
✀ู࡛᥇⏝ࡍࡿሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧 ◊✲ㄽᩥ
㸦2㸧 ᐇ㊶ㄽᩥ㸦3㸧 ◊✲ࣀ࣮ࢺ
5. ᢞ✏ㄽᩥ
ᑂᰝࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡣࠊ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡀཎ๎࡜ࡋ࡚ JACET ఍ဨ࠿ࡽጤკࡋࡓ」ᩘࡢᑂᰝဨ࡟
ࡼࡗ࡚༏ྡ᪉ᘧ࡛ᑂᰝࡉࢀࡿࠋ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡣࠊᑂᰝ⤖ᯝࢆࡩࡲ࠼࡚᥇ྰࡢ᭱⤊Ỵᐃࢆ⾜࠺ࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᑂᰝ⤖ᯝࡣୗグࡢ 3 ✀࡜ࡋࠊ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡼࡾᢞ✏⪅࡟㟁Ꮚ࣓࢖࡛ࣝ㏻▱ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧 ᥇⏝㸦2㸧 ಟṇ᮲௳௜ࡁ᥇⏝㸦3㸧 ୙᥇⏝6. つᐃࡢᨵᗫᮏつᐃࡢᨵᗫࡣᨭ㒊ᙺဨ఍࡟࠾࠸࡚⾜࠺ࠋ

141
171

JACET Kansai Journal
Publication Policy
Revised October 2, 2010
1. Journal name and reason for publication
JACET Kansai Journal (JKJ) is published by JACET Kansai Chapter to serve as a medium for
publication of research by its Chapter members and thus promote research activities.
2. Publication schedule
The journal will be published annually according to the following schedule (subject to revision by
the Editorial Committee).
Deadline for manuscripts: October 15
Announcement of editorial decision: December 15
Deadline for receipt of revised manuscripts: January 31
Publication: March 31
If revision of the manuscript is requested as a condition for publication, the revised manuscript must
be received by January 31 or it will be considered to have been withdrawn.
3. Types of papers
Three types of papers will be published: (1) invited paper, (2) paper based on a presentation at a
JACET Chapter or National Convention, (3) submitted paper (see 4). An invited paper can berequested by the Editorial Committee. A paper based on a JACET presentation (oral or poster) canbe submitted if the presentation was made within one year prior to the submission deadline. All
papers will be subject to peer review.
4. Types of submitted papers
All manuscripts submitted must have been authored by JACET Kansai Chapter members in goodstanding. Three types of submitted papers will be considered for publication: research article,
application report, research note.
5. Review of manuscripts
All manuscripts submitted will be subject to review by the JKJ Editorial Committee. The decisionof whether or not to accept a manuscript for publication will be based on peer review by reviewers,
who will be JACET members selected by the editorial committee. The final decision by the JKJ
Editorial Committee will be (1) accept, (2) accept if revised, or (3) reject.
6. 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.

142
172

ࠗJACET Kansai Journal㸦JACET 㛵す⣖せ㸧࠘ᢞ✏つᐃ㸦2014 ᖺ 3 ᭶ 8 ᪥ᨵᐃ㸧
1. ᢞ✏㈨᱁
ᢞ✏⪅ࡣᢞ✏᫬࡟࠾࠸࡚ JACET 㛵すᨭ㒊఍ဨ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊ௚ᨭ㒊࡟ᡤᒓࡍࡿ
JACET ఍ဨࡀࠊ㛵すᨭ㒊఍ဨࢆ➹㢌ⴭ⪅࡜ࡍࡿㄽᩥࡢ㐃ྡᇳ➹⪅࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣጉࡆ࡞࠸ࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᢞ
✏⪅࠾ࡼࡧ㐃ྡᇳ➹⪅࡟Ꮫ఍㈝ࡢᮍ⣡ࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࠊᢞ✏ࡣཷ⌮ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊ➹㢌ⴭ⪅࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ」ᩘᢞ✏ࠊ௚ㄅ࡟ᢞ✏୰ࡶࡋࡃࡣ௚ㄅ࡟ᥖ㍕῭ࡳࡢㄽᩥࡢᢞ✏ࡣㄆࡵ࡞࠸ࠋྛ✀Ꮫ఍➼࡛ࡢཱྀ㢌㸦࣏ࢫࢱ࣮㸧Ⓨ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃㄽᩥࡣᑂᰝᑐ㇟࡜࡞ࡿࡀࠊㄽᩥᮎᑿ࡟ཱྀ㢌㸦࣏ࢫࢱ࣮㸧Ⓨ⾲ࡢ஦ᐇࢆṇ☜࡟
グ㍕ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
2. ᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡢෆᐜ࡜✀ูᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒᩍ⫱࠾ࡼࡧࡑࡢ㛵㐃ศ㔝ࡢ◊✲࡟㛵ࢃࡿෆᐜࡢࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡣୗグࡢ 2 ✀㢮࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧JACET 㛵すᨭ㒊኱఍࠾ࡼࡧ඲ᅜ኱఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌㸦࣏ࢫࢱ࣮㸧Ⓨ⾲ࢆ⤒ࡓᢞ✏ㄽᩥ
㸦2㸧୍⯡ᢞ✏ㄽᩥ࡞࠾ࠊ㸦1㸧ࡣᢞ✏⥾ࡵษࡾ᪥ࢆ㉳Ⅼ࡜ࡋ࡚㐣ཤ 1 ᖺ௨ෆ࡟㛤ദࡉࢀࡓ኱఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿཱྀ㢌㸦࣏ࢫࢱ࣮㸧Ⓨ⾲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃㄽᩥࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
3. ౑⏝ゝㄒ࣭య⿢࣭᭩ᘧ࣭ศ㔞౑⏝ゝㄒࡣⱥㄒࡲࡓࡣ᪥ᮏㄒ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡣࠊ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡀసᡂࡋࡓᙜヱᖺᗘࡢᢞ✏ㄽᩥ⏝ࢸࣥࣉ࣮ࣞࢺࢆ౑⏝ࡋ࡚సᡂࡋࠊᘬ⏝᭩ᘧ࣭ཧ⪃ᩥ⊩᭩ᘧ➼ࡣ APA ࡢ᭱᪂∧࡟‽ࡌࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࡿࠋᏐయࡣⱥᩥ Times New Roman ᪥ᮏㄒ MS ᫂ᮅࢆ౑⏝ࡋࠊࢧ࢖ࢬࡣ 12p ࡜ࡍࡿࠋᅗ࣭⾲ෆࡢࣇ࢛ࣥࢺࡣ 9p ௨ୖ࡜ࡍࡿࠋㄽᩥࡢศ㔞ࡣࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࠊᴫせࠊ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻࠊᮏᩥࠊཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ࠊᅗ⾲࡞࡝ࢆࡍ࡭࡚ྵࡵ࡚ 10 㡫௨ୖ 20 㡫௨ෆ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ
4. ᢞ✏᪉ἲ
ᣦᐃࡢࢸࣥࣉ࣮ࣞࢺ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚సᡂࡉࢀࡓ MS Word®ࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆᙜヱᖺᗘࡢ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍஦ົᒁ㛗ᐄ࡟㟁Ꮚ࣓࣮࡛ࣝ㏦ಙࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠋῧ௜ࡍࡿㄽᩥࣇ࢓࢖ࣝ࡟ࡣࠊẶྡ࣭ᡤᒓ࣭ᮏேࡀ≉ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿㅰ㎡
࡞࡝ࡣグ㍕ࡏࡎࠊࡇࢀࡽࡀධࡿ࡭ࡁሙᡤ࡟ྠ➼ศ㔞ࡢ✵⾜ࢆᤄධࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋࡲࡓࠊ࣓࣮ࣝࡢ௳ྡࡣ
ࠕJACET 㛵す⣖せᢞ✏㸸Ặྡ㸦ᡤᒓ㸧ࠖ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ࣓࣮ࣝᮏయ࡟ࡣୗグෆᐜࢆグ㍕ࡍࡿࠋ
㸦1㸧Ặྡ
㸦2㸧ᡤᒓ࣭⫋ྡ㸦㠀ᖖ໅ࡸ኱Ꮫ㝔⏕࡞࡝ࡢูࡶྵࡴ㸧㸦3㸧ᢞ✏ㄽᩥ✀ู㸦኱఍Ⓨ⾲῭ㄽᩥ㸭୍⯡ᢞ✏ㄽᩥ㸧ͤ๓⪅ࡢሙྜࡣⓎ⾲኱఍ྡ࣭᪥᫬࣭㢟┠ࢆ᫂グࠋ㸦4㸧ㄽᩥ✀ู⏦࿌㸦◊✲ㄽᩥ㸭ᐇ㊶ㄽᩥ㸭◊✲ࣀ࣮ࢺ㸧
㸦5㸧࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻ㸦࣮࣮ͤ࢟࣡ࢻࡢᩘࡣ 3㹼5 ࡜ࡋࠊᇳ➹ゝㄒ࡛グ㍕㸧
࡞࠾ࠊᑂᰝࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ᥇⏝࡞࠸ࡋಟṇ᥇⏝࡜࡞ࡗࡓሙྜࡣࠊ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍ࡢᣦ♧࡟ᚑ࠸ࠊᮇ᪥ࡲ࡛
࡟ಟṇཎ✏ࡢ㟁Ꮚࣇ࢓࢖ࣝࢆῧ௜ࣇ࢓࢖࡛ࣝ㏦ಙࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠋ෌ᥦฟᮇ㝈࡟㐜ᘏࡋࡓሙྜࡣᢞ✏ࢆ㎡

173
143

㏥ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࠋ
ⴭసᶒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ᢞ✏⪅ࡣࠊᢞ✏ㄽᩥࡀ᥇⏝࣭ᥖ㍕ࡉࢀࡓሙྜࠊ௨ୗࡢ஦㡯ࢆ஢ᢎࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡳ࡞ࡍࠋ㛵すᨭ㒊⣖せ࡟ᥖ㍕ࡉࢀࡓㄽᩥ➼ࡢⴭసᶒࡣᮏᏛ఍࡟ᖐᒓࡋࠊⴭ⪅➼ࡀ」〇࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ㌿㍕ࡍ
ࡿሙྜࡣࠊᮏᏛ఍ࡢᢎㄆࢆཷࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋ㛵すᨭ㒊⣖せᥖ㍕ㄽᩥ➼ࡀࠊ&L1LLཬࡧⴭ⪅ᡤᒓࡢᶵ㛵࣏ࣞࢪࢺࣜ➼ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚බ㛤ࡀồࡵࡽࢀࡓሙྜࡣࠊⓎ⾜ᚋ㸯ᖺ⤒ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡣཎ๎ࡇࢀࢆㄆࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋᑦࠊࡇࡢሙྜࡣ↓ᩱ࡜ࡍࡿࠋᶵ㛵࣏ࣞࢪࢺࣜ➼ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚බ㛤ࡍࡿㄽᩥࡣ㛵すᨭ㒊⣖せᥖ㍕✏࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

ⴭ⪅➼ࡀࠊ⮬㌟ࡢㄽᩥ➼ࢆබ㛤ࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࡣࠊᮏᏛ఍࡟஦๓࡟ᢎㄆࢆᚓ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋᑦࠊ
ࠕᮏㄽᩥࡢⴭసᶒࡣ୍⯡♫ᅋἲே኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᚲࡎ᫂グࡍࡿࠋ

6. つᐃࡢᨵᗫᮏつᐃࡢᨵᗫࡣ⣖せ⦅㞟ጤဨ఍࡟࠾࠸࡚⾜࠺ࠋʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊʊ
2005 ᖺ 6 ᭶ไᐃ2007 ᖺ 6 ᭶ᨵᐃ2008 ᖺ 12 ᭶ᨵᐃ2009 ᖺ 7 ᭶ 25 ᪥ᨵᐃ2011 ᖺ 6 ᭶ 5 ᪥ᨵᐃ2014 ᖺ 3 ᭶ 8 ᪥ᨵᐃ

JACET Kansai Journal
Submission Guidelines
Revised March 8, 2014

1. Qualifications for manuscript submission
Papers can be submitted by Kansai Chapter members in good standing who have paid their dues for thecurrent year. Each member can submit only one paper as a first author for each issue. If the first author is a
Kansai Chapter member, coauthors can be JACET members of other chapters. All papers must be originaland not have been published elsewhere nor be under consideration for publication (including overseas
journals). If the research has been presented orally or as a poster and this is so indicated, the paper can beconsidered for publication.

2. Papers accepted for submission
Papers should be related to research on college/university English education or relevant areas. Two types of
papers will be accepted for submission:

174
144

1) A paper that reports the content of an oral or poster presentation at a JACET Kansai Chapter Convention
or a JACET National Convention

2) A paper submitted by a Kansai Chapter member
A paper based on a JACET presentation (oral or poster) can be submitted if the presentation was made within
one year prior to the submission deadline.

3. Language, format, style and length
Papers should be written in English or Japanese. All manuscripts should be prepared using the current
template prepared by the JACET Kansai Journal (JKJ) Editorial Committee. The reference format should
conform to the most recent edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association(APA). Use font type Times New Roman, size 12 point font for body text and 9 and bigger point for Table
and Figure. Papers must be more than 10 and no more than 20 printed pages, including the title, references,
figures and other material.

4. Submission
Manuscripts should be submitted by e-mail to the JKJ Editorial Committee. Prepare the manuscript without
the author name(s) or affiliation(s) or information in the Acknowledgments that can reveal the author(s) but
leave the equivalent amount of space to allow the information to be added. Send the manuscript as an MS
Word® document to the JKJ Editorial Committee. Use the following subject line template for the e-mailmessage: 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) type of submission [conference-presentation paper (give conference
name and date) or submitted paper], (4) type of paper (research article, application report, research note), and(5) three to five keywords in the language used for the paper. If the manuscript is accepted for publication, acomplete manuscript, including the author name(s) and affiliation(s), and a final camera-ready copy should
be sent as an e-mail attachment to the JKJ Executive Committee office with the Attention note “JACET
Kansai Journal manuscript.”

5. 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. Anyone,

including the author(s), who wishes to reproduce an article, must obtain permission from JACET.
(2)When a request is made for an article in JACET Kansai Journal to be published through CiNii or

the repository of the author’s institution, permission shall be granted one year after the issue of JACET
Kansai Journal has been published, at no cost.
(3)

The institutional repositories are to use the versions as they are published in JACET Kansai

Journal.
(4)

Anyone, including the author(s), who wishes to republish an article must obtain permission from

JACET and clearly state that JACET holds the copyright.

175
145

6. Amendment
Amendment of these Submission Guidelines (Japanese version) made by the Kansai Chapter Editorial
Committee will be subject to approval by the Kansai Chapter Executive Committee. The English version will
conform to the Japanese version.

176
146

日本人大学生のための英語力診断テスト●返却資材到着の翌日中には結果通知（wed 上の e ポートフォリオで）●大学生のための状況別 Can Do レベルと学習アドバイスでモチベーションアップ
●大学生のプレイスメント・テスト、アチーブメント・テストとして最適●クラス分けなどのご要望にも細かく迅速に対応●一人当たり 800 円（税別）

お問い合せ先 英語能力測定・評価研究会 [VELC 研究会 ]〒101-0051 東京都千代田区神田神保町 3-21（株式会社www.velctest.org

金星堂

内）

e-mail: info@velctest.org

2014 年度 新刊英語テキスト●

BBC World Profile on DVD
BBC

●

●

●

●

●

やさしい英語と映像で学ぶ総合英語

Global Issues Towards Peace
DVD で学ぶ共存社会 −グローバル時代を考える

森田 彰／萓 忠義／佐藤 明彦／原田 慎一／高橋 礼子／ Cuong Huynh 著

達川 奎三／ Walter Davies ／田頭 憲二／山本 五郎／田北 冬子 著

BBC ドキュメンタリーで英語力向上を目指すフルカラー DVD 教材！

DVD でグローバル時代における「共存社会」を理解・発信・議論する！

Gateway to College English●

It’s Time to Read!

文法から学ぶ大学基礎英語

楽しく読んで学ぶ基礎英語

表 正幸 著

八木 茂那子／町田 純子／ Siobhán Ryan 著

主語 (S) と動詞 (V) の役割理解を中心とした初級レベル向け教材！

楽しく読めるエッセイで英語の基礎力向上を目指すテキスト！

Listening Elements●

English Listening and Speaking Patterns

大学生のための『リスニングエレメント』『パターン』で学ぶ英語コミュニケーション

Terry OʼBrien ／三原 京／根之木 朋貴／木村 博是 著
実践的な練習を通して、基礎的なリスニング力を養う好教材！

Andrew E. Bennett 著
実践的なパターンエクササイズでコミュニケーション能力を高める！

Do Your Own Project in English <Volume 1>●

BusinessWeek: Eye on Japan and the World

プロジェクト発信型英語『ビジネスウィーク』で読み解く国際社会鈴木 佑治 著

村上 直久 著

「プロジェクト活動」を通して自発的な表現の場を創造するテキスト！

米国の経済週刊誌 Bloomberg BusinessWeek で世界を読み解く！

Ҥᩏ‫ؘ‬Life Topics <Advanced>ఇࡸ˟ᅈẅ

総合英語ライフ トピックス 2〒 162-0801 東京都新宿区山吹町 361

島岡 丘／ Jonathan Berman 著

TEL: 03-3268-2311 / FAX: 03-3268-2486
E-mail: nanundo@post.email.ne.jp『クリティカル・シンキング』を取り入れた、好評総合英語教材第 2 弾！

177ᡂ ⨾ ᇽ  2014 ᖺ  ᪂ ห᏷ᡞ㻌 ┿㻘㻌㻿㼠㼑㼢㼑㻌㼀㼍㼥㼘㼛㼞㼑㻙㻷㼚㼛㼣㼘㼑㼟㻘㻌㻹㼍㼘㼏㼛㼘㼙㻌㻹㼍㼚㼚࠙⥲ྜᩍᮦ䡡䢔䡬䡿䢚䡤䢙䡴䢚䡹䡳䢕ࠚ㻌 ᏷ᡞ㻌 ┿㻘㻌㻮㼞㼡㼏㼑㻌㻭㼘㼘㼑㼚㻘㻌 㧗ᶫ┿⌮Ꮚ㻌࠙㻰㼂㻰䞉䢂䡩䡬䡹䞉䢔䢙䡲䢚䢊䢛䢕䡼ࠚ㻌Supreme Reading 2 ........................... 1,995 ෇(⛯㎸)㻌 AFP World News Report 2 ........... 2,625 ෇㻔⛯㎸㻕㻶㼛㼔㼚㻌㻴㻚㻌㻾㼍㼚㼐㼘㼑㻘㻌 ᳚ᖹ㻌 ῟࠙⥲ྜᩍᮦ䡡䜲䜼䝸䝇ࠚ ᳃⏣㻌ᙲ㻘㻌బ⸨᫂ᙪ㻘㻌⸨ᮏ῟ྐ㻘㻌ᒣᮏ⏤ᕸᏊ㻘㻌⏕㇂኱ᆅ㻘㻌㻮㼕㼘㼘㻌㻮㼑㼚㼒㼕㼑㼘㼐㻌The Heart of Britain ........................... 1,995 ෇(⛯㎸)㻌

࠙㻰㼂㻰䞉ୡ⏺䛾ⱥㄒࠚ

World Wide English on DVD -Volume 1࠙⥲ྜᩍᮦ䡡♫఍ၥ㢟ࠚ㻶㼛㼚㼍㼠㼔㼍㼚㻌㻸㼥㼚㼏㼔㻘㻌 ጤᩥගኴ㑻㻌............................................................................ 2,520 ෇㻔⛯㎸㻕

Trend Watching ..................................... 1,995 ෇㻔⛯㎸㻕㻌 Ᏻᾉㄔ♸㻘㻌㻾㼕㼏㼔㼍㼞㼐㻌㻿㻚㻌㻸㼍㼢㼕㼚㧗▼⚽ᶞ㻘㻌 ▼஭㝯அ㻘㻌 Ლᒣ᐀ඞ㻘㻌㻶㼛㼑㻌㻯㼕㼡㼚㼏㼕㻌 ࠙⥲ྜᩍᮦ䞉ἲᚊⱥㄒࠚ㻌࠙㻰㼂㻰䞉䢂䡩䡬䡹䞉㼃㼑㼎 㐃ືࠚ

VOA News Clip Collection ........... 2,520 ෇㻔⛯㎸㻕

Good Choice -Law in Daily Life- ............. 1,995 ෇㻔⛯㎸㻕 ⱝ᭷ಖᙪ㻵㼍㼚㻚㻌㻮㼛㼣㼞㼕㼚㼓㻘㻌 ᕝཱྀᜨᏊ㻘㻌 ❑⏣⿱Ụ㻘㻌 ஂឿ⨾㈗㻘㻌 ᐑᮏ࿴ⱱ㻌ᮧୖ჆௦Ꮚ㻘㻌㻳㼕㼘㼘㼕㼍㼚㻌㻲㼘㼍㼔㼑㼞㼠㼥㻘㻌㻶㼍㼙㼑㼟㻌㻮㼑㼍㼚㻌࠙⥲ྜᩍᮦ䞉⛉Ꮫࠚ

Our Place in the Universe ............ 1,995 ෇㻔⛯㎸㻕㻌ᒸᮏிᏊ㻘㻌㻮㼑㼚㼑㼐㼕㼏㼠㻌㻾㼛㼣㼘㼑㼠㼠㻘㻌 ᮌୗ㻌 ⥤㻘㻌㻿㼍㼞㼍㻌㻱㼘㼘㼕㼟㻌࠙᫬஦ⱥㄒࠚġ

Meet the World㻌–English through Newspapers- 2014㻌............................................................................ 2,100 ෇㻔⛯㎸㻕㻌㻲㼞㼍㼚㽲㼛㼕㼟㻌㼐㼑㻌㻿㼛㼑㼠㼑㻘㻌 ᾉ⏣ඞஅ௓㻌࠙䢔䡬䡿䢚䡤䢙䡴䢚䞉♫఍ၥ㢟ࠚ㻌࠙⥲ྜᩍᮦ䞉ⱥᩥἲࠚ㻌

English Challenger ............................ 1,995 ෇㻔⛯㎸㻕㻌 Making Sense of the World-Wisdom through Knowledge- ............................ 1,995 ෇(⛯㎸)ᮡ⏣⏤ோ㻘㻌㻾㼕㼏㼔㼍㼞㼐㻌㻾㻚㻌㻯㼍㼞㼍㼗㼑㼞࠙ⱥసᩥࠚ

Genre Approach to Paragraph Writing᭩⡠䛾᝟ሗ䛿䝩䞊䝮䝨䞊䝆䛷䜒䛤ぴ䛻䛺䜜䜎䛩䚹㻌
URL: https://www.seibido.co.jp e-mail:seibido@seibido.co.jp............................................................................ 2,100 ෇㻔⛯㎸㻕㻌▼஭㝯அ㻘㻌 ᯇᮏᜨ⨾Ꮚ㻘㻌 Ლᒣ᐀ඞ㻘㻌㻶㼛㼑㻌㻯㼕㼡㼚㼏㼕㻌 ࠙㼀㻻㻱㻵㻯䒆䞉⥲ྜᩍᮦ䞉䢔䢙䡲䢚䢊䢛䢕䡼ࠚ㻌

Overall Skills for the TOEIC Test.... 2,310 ෇㻔⛯㎸㻕䒆㻹㼕㼘㼑㼟㻌㻯㼞㼍㼢㼑㼚㻘㻌 ᐑᓮ඘ಖ㻌

ᰴᘧ఍♫㻌

䒆

࠙㼀㻻㻱㻵㻯 䞉⥲ྜᩍᮦࠚ㻌

Valuable Clues for the TOEIC䒆Test....2,730 ෇㻔⛯㎸㻕㻌 ࠛ101-0052 ᮾி㒔༓௦⏣༊⚄⏣ᑠᕝ⏫ 3-22

TEL 03-3291-2261 / FAX 03-3293-5490



www.versant.jp

178ᡂ㻌 ⨾㻌 ᇽ㻌ᒍᛖἅἱἷἝἃὊἉἹὅщửย‫ܭ‬ẴỦᵭᵮᵧᶁᵭᵮᵧᶁểỊᾎ‫׎ٳ‬ᛖỂỉἅἱἷἝἃὊἉἹὅỆ࣏ᙲểẰủỦỉỊẆҥỆ૨ඥởᛖ࢛ửỄủẻẬჷẾềẟỦẦ
ỂỊễẪẆܱᨥỉἥἊ἟Ἃởဃ෇ỉ‫ئ‬ỂẟẦỆјௐႎỂᢘЏỆᚕᛖử̅ảỦẦỂẴẇ
ᵭᵮᵧᶁ ᵆᵭᶐᵿᶊᴾᵮᶐᶍᶄᶇᶁᶇᶃᶌᶁᶗᴾᵧᶌᶒᶃᶐᶔᶇᶃᶕᵋᶁᶍᶋᶎᶓᶒᶃᶐᵇᴾỊẆẸỉᚕᛖᬝ̅ᏡщửܲᚇႎỆย‫ܭ‬ỂẨỦἘἋἚỂẴẇ

఍ሙ䠖㻻㻼㻵㼏䝔䝇䝖䝉䞁䝍䞊䠄ᮾி䞉⏣⏫䠅ᵟᵡᵲᵤᵪίμ቟‫׎ٳ‬ᛖ૙Ꮛң˟ὸầ᧏ႆὉᚸ̖ẲẺẆࣱ̮᫂ỉ᭗ẟἘἋἚὲ䈜㻭㻯㼀㻲㻸䛿䚸⣙㻠㻜ᖺ㛫䛻䜟䛯䜚ୡ⏺
䛾䝁䝭䝳䝙䜿䞊䝅䝵䞁⬟ຊホ౯䛾ᇶ‽䛸䛧䛶㻭㻯㼀㻲㻸 㻼㼞㼛㼒㼕㼏㼕㼑㼚㼏㼥㻌㻳㼡㼕㼐㼑㼘㼕㼚㼑㼟㻙㻿㼜㼑㼍㼗㼕㼚㼓䜢ᥦ౪䛧䚸㻻㻼㻵㼏䛸㻻㻼㻵䛾㛤Ⓨ䛸ホ౯䜢⾜䛳䛶䛔䜎䛩䚹ᤵᴗ䜔◊✲䛷䛾฼⏝䜢䛤᳨ウ䛾ඛ⏕
䛬䜂䚸䛤┦ㄯ䛟䛰䛥䛔䟿䟿䛚ၥ䛔ྜ䜟䛫䛿䚸ୗグ䜈䠪䠡䠟䝷䞊䝙䞁䜾ᰴᘧ఍♫䝬䝛䝆䝯䞁䝖◊ಟ஦ᴗ㒊䠄㻻㻼㻵㼏䝡䝆䝛䝇᥎㐍䜾䝹䞊䝥䠅䕔䝯䞊䝹䠖㼕㼚㼝㼡㼕㼞㼥㻬㼛㼜㼕㼏㻚㼖㼜㻚㼚㼑㼏㻚㼏㼛㼙䕔䝩䞊䝮䝨䞊䝆䠖㼔㼠㼠㼜㻦㻛㻛㼣㼣㼣㻚㼚㼑㼏㼘㼑㼍㼞㼚㼕㼚㼓㻚㼖㼜㻛䠪䠡䠟䝷䞊䝙䞁䜾ᰴᘧ఍♫ 䛈㻝㻜㻤㻙㻜㻜㻞㻟 ᮾி㒔༊Ⱚᾆ㻟୎┠㻝㻣㻙㻝㻞䠄࿃ጔ䝡䝹䠅

179

180




Compass Publishing ࡢ TOEFL®ᩍᮦࡣࡌࡵ࡚ 72()/p࡟ᣮᡓࡍࡿ࡞ࡽ %DVLF6NLOOVIRUWKH72()/ pL%7
7DUJHW6FRUH㸸72()/pL%7&RPSRQHQW㸸 ࣭ࣞ࣋ࣝ ࢫู࢟ࣝ ඲  ෉࣭ᐇ㝿ࡢࢸࢫࢺ࡟㢖ฟࡍࡿࢺࣆࢵࢡࢆ᥇⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ
⫼ᬒ▱㆑ࡸ༢ㄒຊࢆቑࡸࡍࡢ࡟᭱㐺࡛ࡍࠋ࣭ྲྀࡾእࡋྍ⬟࡞ゎ⟅࡜ /LVWHQLQJ6SHDNLQJ:ULWLQJ ࡟ࡣ⦎⩦ၥ㢟ࡢ㡢ኌ &' ࡀ௜ᒓࠋ
౯᱁㸸඲ࣞ࣋ࣝྠ୍౯᱁ ⛯ู   /LVWHQLQJ?
5HDGLQJ?6SHDNLQJ?:ULWLQJ?

ࣁ࢖ࢫࢥ࢔ࢆ┠ᣦࡍ 6NLOOVIRUWKH72()/pL%76HFRQG(GLWLRQ

7DUJHW6FRUH㸸%XLOGLQJ72()/pL%7࣭'HYHORSLQJ72()/pL%7
0DVWHULQJ72()/pL%7&RPSRQHQW㸸%XLOGLQJ'HYHORSLQJ0DVWHULQJ ࡢ㸱࣭ࣞ࣋ࣝ ࢫู࢟ࣝ ඲  ෉࡜ྛࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟  ࢫ࢟ࣝࡀ  ෉࡟࡞ࡗࡓ &RPELQHG%RRN ࡀ࠶ࡾࡲࡍࠋ
࣭ࡇࡢࢩ࣮ࣜࢬ࡛ࡣࠊ㢖ฟၥ㢟ࣃࢱ࣮ࣥ࡟㔜Ⅼࢆ⨨ࡁࠊ౛ࡸ࢔ࢻࣂ࢖ࢫࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࣁ࢖ࢫࢥ࢔ࢆ⋓ᚓ࡛ࡁࡿࡼ࠺࡟
ᚭᗏⓗ࡟ࢺ࣮ࣞࢽࣥࢢࡋࡲࡍࠋ
࣭඲࡚ࡢᮏ࡟ 03&' ࡀ௜ᒓࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ03㸱&' ᑐᛂࡢ㹁㹂ࣉࣞ࢖࣮ࣖࡸࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱ࣮࡛෌⏕ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡔࡅࡲࡍࠋ
࣭ྲྀࡾእࡋྍ⬟࡞ゎ⟅ࡀ௜ᒓࠋ
౯᱁㸸඲ࣞ࣋ࣝྠ୍౯᱁ ⛯ู &RPELQHG?
/LVWHQLQJ?5HDGLQJ?6SHDNLQJ?:ULWLQJ?
ၟရ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ࠾ၥ࠸ྜࢃࡏࡣ Compass Publishing Japan ᰴᘧ఍♫TEL:0120-953-513 FAX:0120-953-514 E-mail:contact@compasspub.jp
http://www.compasspub.jp181

改訂第4版

How Languages are Learned
世界中の教師トレーナーから幅広く支持されている定番書
経験豊富な教師トレーナーであり語学習得研究の専門家である、パッツィー・ライトバウンとニーナ・スパダが、母語と第二言語の習得に関する理論を、授業での実態と絡めて展開しています。また、著者らが示すアイデアを実践するためのアクティビティを多数紹介しているほか、理論を実用的な観点から理解できるよう、理解度をチェックするセクションや、実際の授業の事例をふんだんに用いたケーススタディーを随所に掲載しています。
新版では、最近の研究内容を盛り込み関連資料もより充実させました。語学指導の参考書として、また、教職課
程における手引書として、ぜひご活用ください。

Patsy M. Lightbown、Nina Spada 著
ISBN: 9780194541268
256 pages | Paperback | 246x167 mm
参考価格 : 3,715 円（税抜）

電子書籍版も好評発売中。Amazon Kindle、Kobo、
eBooks.com および iBookstore でお求めいただけます。
弊社の電子書籍ラインアップはウェブサイトでご覧ください。

www.oup.com/elt/ebooks

NEW How Languages are Learned の著者がシリーズエディターを務める
Oxford Key Concepts for the Language Classroom
さまざまな調査研究に基づき、第二言語習得理論と実践に即した教授法を結びつけた考察を紹介する本
シリーズは、指導現場の状況を分析したり検証したりするのに役立ちます。

2014年5月以降順次刊行予定

参考価格 :
各 5,000 円（税抜）

2014年1月刊

Focus on Assessment
Eunice Eunhee Jang

Focus on Content-Based
Language Teaching
Patsy M. Lightbown

ISBN:9780194000833

ISBN: 9780194000826

Focus on OralInteraction
Rhonda Oliver
Jenefer Philp
ISBN: 9780194000840■購入希望の方は、取扱い書店へご注文ください。 ■表示の価格は 2014 年 3 月 1 日時点のもので、予告なく変更することがございます。

オックスフォード大学出版局〒108-8386

東京都港区芝4-17-5 相鉄田町ビル3階

TEL: 03-5444-5454

FAX: 03-5444-6644

www.oupjapan.co.jp

182

E-mail: elt.japan@oup.com

JACET Kansai Journal 16
㸦JACET 㛵す⣖せ ➨ 16 ྕ㸧2014 ᖺ 3 ᭶ 31 ᪥ Ⓨ⾜
⦅㞟࣭Ⓨ⾜㸸኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍㸦JACET㸧㛵すᨭ㒊ࠛ577-8502 ኱㜰ᗓᮾ኱㜰ᕷᑠⱝỤ 3-4-1㏆␥኱Ꮫ ⌮ᕤᏛ㒊 11 ྕ㤋↷஭㞞Ꮚ ◊✲ᐊෆE-mail: admin@jacet-kansai.org
URL: http://www.jacet-kansai.org/௦⾲⪅㸸㔝ཱྀࢪࣗࢹ࢕࣮ὠከỤ༳ๅ࣭〇ᮏ㸸ᰴᘧ఍♫ ⏣୰ࣉࣜࣥࢺ

ISSN 1880-2281

JACET Kansai Journal
No. 16 March 2014
Editorial
小栗 裕子

iii

Invited Article
根岸 雅史
言語テストの非透明性のインパクト

Research Articles
Ayako HIRANO

1

The Eﬀects of Output-oriented pre-task vs. Input-oriented pre-task Before a Dictogloss Task
Cheena FUJIOKA

13

Using the Novelization of the Movie, Dead Poets Society in an EFL Reading Course
Atsuko NISHITANI50

A Rasch Analysis of Grammatical Diﬃculty: What Inﬂuences Item Diﬃculty?
Masumi AZUMA

71

Figurative Interpretations Demonstrated by Three Language Groups: English, Chinese and Japanese

Research Notes
藤本 恵子

90

音韻知識が日本人 EFL 学習者のリスニングに与える影響について
梅原 大輔 / 冨永 英夫

103

日本人英語学習者は主語をどうとらえているか ―量的・質的研究
Kanako YAMAOKA

123

Qualitative analysis of eﬀects of the use of authentic materials in remedial
English classes at a Japanese university
Noriko KIMURA

134

Factors that aﬀect Japanese EFL learnersʼ motivation to do a learning task

Application Report
Hiromi MURAKAMI, Yoko YAMADA, Keiko KANAI, and Sachiko TAKAGI

154

Designing Materials as a Measure to Facilitate Teacher Development: The Use of an Internet Blog

Appendices『JACET Kansai Journal（JACET 関西紀要）』刊行規定『JACET Kansai Journal（JACET 関西紀要）
』投稿規定

171
173