JACET Kansai
Kansai Journal,(2016)©JACET
Kansai
Chapter
JACET
Journal,18,
18,36-51.
36-51.
(2016)©JACET
Kansai
Chapter
ISSN1880-2281
1880-2281
ISSN

Printedin inJAPAN.
PrintedJAPAN.

ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢືᶵࢆ㧗ࡵࠊ⥔ᣢࡍࡿ࡟ࡣ ̿ືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉ࡜ືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ̿➉ෆ ⌮㛵す኱ᏛእᅜㄒᏛ㒊኱Ꮫ㝔እᅜㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ◊✲⛉ࡣࡌࡵ࡟㸸ືᶵ࡙ࡅ◊✲ࡢᚲせᛶ ᫖௒ࡢ᪥ᮏࢆྲྀࡾᕳࡃ♫఍᝟ໃࡢᙳ㡪ࢆᙉࡃཷࡅࠊⱥㄒࡢᏛ⩦ࡣࠊࡑࡢ㐠⏝⬟ຊྥୖࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢࡳㄽࡌࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከࡃ࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ1 ࡲࡓࠊⱥㄒࢆᩍ࠼ࡿᩍဨࡢ❧ሙ࠿ࡽࡳ࡚ࡶࠊ㐠⏝⬟ຊࡢྥୖ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿᩍ࠼᪉ࡸᏛࡧ᪉࡟㛵ᚰࡀྥࡃࡢࡣᙜ↛ࡢࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡲࡓࡇࢀࡣ೺඲࡞ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡶ࠸
࠼ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋᩍ⫱ᐇ㊶ࡢሙ࡛࠶ࡿᏛᰯ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊⱥㄒࢆᏛࡪࡇ࡜࡟ᑐࡋ࡚✚ᴟⓗ࡟࡞ࢀ࡞࠸Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡀከᩘ࠾ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡜ࡑࡢ⥔ᣢࡀᛴົ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡶࠊཝ↛࡜ࡋࡓ⌧ᐇ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ
ࠗᖹᡂ 26 ᖺᗘ ⱥㄒᩍ⫱ᨵၿࡢࡓࡵࡢⱥㄒຊㄪᰝ஦ᴗሗ࿌᭩࠘
㸦ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ࠊ2015㸧࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊබ❧㧗➼Ꮫᰯ㸦3 ᖺ⏕ࠊ66,067 ྡᑐ㇟㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊⱥㄒࡢᏛ⩦ࡀዲࡁ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸⏕ᚐࡀ඲యࡢ
25㸣ࢆ༨ࡵࠊ
ࠕ࡝ࡕࡽ࠿࡜࠸࠼ࡤዲࡁ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᅇ⟅ࢆຍ࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊࡑࡢ๭ྜࡣ 58.3㸣࡟ࡶࡢࡰࡿ≧ἣࡀᾋࡁ᙮ࡾ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡟ᑐࡍࡿᾘᴟⓗഴྥࡣࠊCEFR ࡢ A1 ࣞ࣋ࣝ࡜࠸࠺᪥ᮏࡢ㧗ᰯ⏕ࡀࡶࡗ࡜ࡶከࡃྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᒙ࡟࠾࠸࡚㢧ⴭ࡟⾲ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋୖグࡢ≧ἣࡣࠊ
ᖹᡂ 27 ᖺᗘ࡟⾜ࢃࢀࡓྠㄪᰝ㸦3 ᖺ⏕ࠊ78,984 ྡᑐ㇟㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ኱ࡁࡃࡣኚ໬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊ᪂ࡓ࡟
ㄪᰝࢆጞࡵࡓ୰Ꮫ⏕㸦3 ᖺ⏕ࠊ984,991 ྡᑐ㇟㸧ࡢẁ㝵࡛ࡶఝࡓࡼ࠺࡞ഴྥ㸦㧗ᰯࡼࡾࡣᑡࡋⰋ࠸⤖ᯝ࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀ㸧ࡀぢ࡚ྲྀࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ௨ୖࡼࡾ⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡟ᑐࡍࡿ✚ᴟᛶࢆ㣴࠺࡜࠸࠺どⅬࢆᣢࡗࡓືᶵ࡙ࡅࡢ◊✲ࡣࠊᩍ⫱ᐇ㊶ࡢሙ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࠿࡞ࡾࡢ㔜せᛶࢆᖏࡧ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

36
36

ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢືᶵࢆ㧗ࡵࠊ⥔ᣢࡍࡿ࡟ࡣ̿ືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉ࡜ືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ̿ᩍᐊእ࡛ࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡟ᑐࡍࡿືᶵ࡙ࡅ㸬 ࡓࡔࡋࠊࡇࡇ࡛ᡃࠎࡀ␃ពࡋ࡚࠾ࡃ࡭ࡁࡣࠊⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡀᩍᐊෆ࡟ࡢࡳ㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠊ࡜
㸬࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋᡃࠎࡣࠊ࡜ࡶࡍࡿ࡜ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡀᩍᐊෆࡢࡳ࡛⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⪃࠼࡟ᅃࢃ㸬ࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ᫖௒࡛ࡣࠊᵝࠎ࡞ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⎔ቃ࡛ࠊᩍᐊእࡢᏛ⩦࡟ࡶ┠ࢆྥࡅࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ
࡜࠸࠺୺ᙇࡀ㧗ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊBenson & Reinders, 2011; Lai, 2015; Lai, Zhu, & Gong, 2015㸧ࠋࡇ㸬ࡢ⌮⏤ࡣࠊᩍᐊෆ࡛ࡢᏛ⩦᫬㛫ࡀࡁࢃࡵ࡚㝈ᐃⓗ࡛ࠊⱥㄒࡢ⩦ᚓ࡟ࡣ୙༑ศ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
㸬ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ᪥ᮏࡢබ❧Ꮫᰯ࡛ࡢᩍᐊෆ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢ᫬㛫ࢆᴫ⟬ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊᑠᏛᰯ࡛ࡣ 36.75 ᫬㛫⛬ᗘࠊ୰Ꮫᰯ࡛ 245 ᫬㛫⛬ᗘࠊ㧗➼Ꮫᰯ࡛ࡶ 347 ᫬㛫⛬ᗘ࡟ࡋ࠿࡞ࡽࡎࠊᑠ୰㧗ࡢ⥲᫬㛫ᩘࢆྜィࡋ
࡚ࡶࠊ628.75 ᫬㛫⛬ᗘ࡟ࡋ࠿࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋ2 ࡇࡢ᫬㛫ᩘࢆ࢝ࢼࢲࡢ࢖࣐࣮ࢪ࡛ࣙࣥึ⣭࡟㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᚲせ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ 1,200 ᫬㛫⛬ᗘ㸦ఀᮾࠊ1997㸧࡜ẚ㍑ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ࠾࠾ࡼࡑ༙ศ࡟ࡋ࠿࡞ࡽ
࡞࠸ࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᩍᐊෆ࡛ࡢᏛ⩦ࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ୙༑ศ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᩍᐊእ࡛ࡢᏛ⩦᫬㛫ࢆࡋࡗ࠿ࡾ࡜᥀ࡾ㉳ࡇࡋࠊࢺ࣮ࢱࣝ࡟ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࢆ⪃࠼࡞࠸࡜ࠊⱥㄒࡢ⩦ᚓࡣᛮ࠺ࡼ࠺࡟㐍ࡲ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿ㸦➉ෆࠊ
2007b㸧
ࠋ࡜ࡇࢁࡀࠊ๓㏙ࡢᩥ⛉┬ㄪᰝ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊᩍᐊእࡢ⮬୺ⓗ࡞ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࢆࠕ᭶ࠥ㔠࡛ࡲࡗࡓࡃࡋ
࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺㧗ᰯ⏕ࡀᑐ㇟⪅඲యࡢ 41.9㸣ࢆ༨ࡵࠊ30 ศᮍ‶࡜ࡢᅇ⟅ࡶྵࡴ࡜ 63.6㸣ࡶࡢᏛ⩦⪅ࡀ㺂ᩍᐊእ࡛⮬୺ⓗ࡞ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࢆࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸≧ἣࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ࠊ2015㸧
ࠋ3 ࡲࡓࠊ
㸬ᅵ᪥࠾ࡼࡧఇ᪥ࢆྲྀࡾฟࡋ࡚ࡶྠࡌഴྥࡀࡳࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊᩍᐊእ࡛ࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡟ᑐࡍࡿືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࢆຍ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ↔┱ࡢᛴ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋ

ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࢆືᶵ࡙ࡅࡿせᅉ ⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡟ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡢ㠃࠿ࡽᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿせᅉࡣࠊࠕືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉࠖ 㸦motivational influences㸧࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡋࡓึᮇࡢ◊✲࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊChambers㸦1999㸧ࡸ Dörnyei and Ottó㸦1998㸧ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ

㸯㸧

ᩍဨ

㸰㸧ぶ࣭඗ᘵ

37
37

㸱㸧཭ே

➉ෆ ⌮

㸲㸧

ᐟ㢟

㸵㸧

⮬ศ⮬㌟

㸳㸧Ꮫ⩦⎔ቃ㸴㸧ᩍᮦࡢ㸵せᅉࡀືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡜㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋ≉ᚩࡣࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿ social agent 㸦ே㸧࡜ artifact 㸦ࣔࣀ㸧ࡢ୧᪉ࡀࠊືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚࠶ࡽࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
㸬 Sugita and Takeuchi㸦2010b㸧ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏࡢබ❧୰Ꮫᰯ࡛ 1,141 ྡࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊᩍᐊእ
࡛ࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡟↔Ⅼࢆ⤠ࡾࠊືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉࢆㄪᰝࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ

㸯㸧⮬ᚊឤ㸦⮬ᕫㄪᩚឤ㸧㸰㸧⩏ົឤ࣭௚⪅࠿ࡽࡢྏ㈐㸱㸧 ୙Ᏻឤ

㸲㸧ᩍဨ࠿ࡽࡢホ౯㸳㸧ᐟ㢟࣭ࢸࢫࢺ

㸬ࡢ㸳ࡘࡀࠊᩍᐊእ࡛ࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࢆືᶵ࡙ࡅࡿせᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚ྠᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≉ᚩⓗ࡞ࡢࡣࠊᩍᐊእ࡛ࡢ
Ꮫ⩦ࡀᩍᐊ⏤᮶ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉ࡟ᙳ㡪ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋຍ࠼࡚ࠊᑐ㇟⪅ࡢⱥㄒຊࡢ㐪࠸࡟ࡼࡾࠊୖグࡢ㸳ࡘࡢせᅉࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ࡝ࡢせᅉࢆᙉࡃ▱ぬࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࡀኚࢃࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡶሗ࿌ࡉࢀ࡚
࠸ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᾏእࡢ◊✲㸦ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊChambers, 1999; Lai, Zhu, & Gong, 2015㸧࡟࠶ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ぶ࣭඗ᘵࡢᙳ㡪ຊࡣࠊ᪥ᮏࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࠶ࡽࢃࢀ࡞࠸㸦Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟▱ぬࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸧ࡢࡶࠊ㸯ࡘࡢ≉ᚩ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ

ືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉ▱ぬࡢࢲ࢖ࢼ࣑ࢬ࣒ ᭱㏆ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ㸦᫬㛫ࡢ⤒㐣࡟࡜ࡶ࡞࠺㸧ືᶵࡢࢲ࢖ࢼ࣑ࢵࢡ࡞ኚື࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㛵ᚰࡀྥࡅࡽࢀࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿ㸦ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ Dörnyei, MacIntyre, & Henry, 2015; Miura, 2011; Ueki & Takeuchi, inpress㸧
ࠋᮡ⏣࣭➉ෆ㸦2007㸧ࡣࠊබ❧୰Ꮫࡢ⏕ᚐ 120 ྡࢆᑐ㇟࡟ࠊ⣙ 1 ࣨ᭶༙࡟ࢃࡓࡾⱥㄒᏛ⩦᪥グࢆࡘࡅࡉࡏࠊࡑࡢ㸴᫬Ⅼ㸦㸯㐌㛫㛫㝸㸧࡟࠾ࡅࡿグ㏙ࢆศᯒࡋ࡚ࠊືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉࡢᙳ㡪ࡢᙉࡉࡢኚື
㸬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄪ࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊࡲࡎࠊḟ㡫ࡢ㸲せᅉࡀࠊᩍᐊእ࡛ࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᙉࡃᙳ㡪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊࡇࡢ㸲せᅉࡢᙉࡉ㸦᪥グ࡛ゝཬࡉࢀࡿ๭ྜ࡛⟬ฟ㸧ࡣࠊᅗ㸯㸦p.40㸧࡟3838

ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢືᶵࢆ㧗ࡵࠊ⥔ᣢࡍࡿ࡟ࡣ̿ືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉ࡜ືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ̿♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ᫬㛫㍈࡟ࡑࡗ࡚ኚ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ

㸯㸧ࢸࢫࢺ      㸰㸧௚⪅㸦୺࡟ᩍဨ㸧㸱㸧⮬ࡽࡢẼᣢࡕ㸦⮬ᚊឤࠊ༴ᶵឤ㸧㸲㸧ᩍᮦࡇࢀࡽࡢ⤖ᯝࡢ୰࡛≉࡟ὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁࡣࠊࢸࢫࢺ࡜௚⪅㸦ࡇࡇ࡛ࡣᩍဨ㸧ࡢᙳ㡪ࡢ㛵ಀᛶ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ
㸬Ꮫᮇ㛤ጞ᫬ᮇ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⏕ᚐࡣᩍဨࡢᙳ㡪㸦ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤᩍ࠼᪉ࡸែᗘ㸧ࢆᙉࡃཷࡅࠊᩍᐊእ࡛ࡢᏛ⩦࡟㥑ࡾ❧࡚ࡽࢀࡿࡼ࠺ࡔࡀࠊ㸱㐌┠ࡢ୰㛫ࢸࢫࢺ࡜࠸࠺࢖࣋ࣥࢺ㸦஦㇟㸧࡟ྥ࠿࠺࡟ࡘࢀ࡚ࡑࡢᙳ㡪ຊࡣపୗࡋࠊධࢀ᭰ࢃࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࢸࢫࢺࡢᙳ㡪ຊࡀቑࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠋ୰㛫ࢸࢫࢺࡀ⤊ࢃࡿ࡜ࠊ෌ࡧᩍဨࡢᙳ
㡪ຊࡀୖࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࢸࢫࢺࡢᙳ㡪ຊࡣపୗࡍࡿࠋࡘࡲࡾࠊࢸࢫࢺ࡜௚⪅㸦ᩍဨ㸧ࡢ㛫࡟ࡣࠊࢺ࣮ࣞࢻ࣭
࢜ࣇ㸦trade-off㸧ࡢ㛵ಀࡀぢ࡚ྲྀࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ㛵ಀᛶࡣࠊᅗ㸰࠾ࡼࡧ㸱ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊⱥㄒຊ
ࡀẚ㍑ⓗ㧗ࡵࡢ⏕ᚐࡢ㛫࡟㢧ⴭ࡟ฟ⌧ࡍࡿࡀࠊపࡵࡢ⏕ᚐࡢ㛫࡟ࡣࠊࢸࢫࢺࡢᙳ㡪ຊࡢࡳࡀ⾲ࢀࡿഴྥࡀぢ࡚ྲྀࢀࡿࠋ4 ࡞࠾ࠊᮏㄪᰝ࡛ࡣᩍᮦࡢᙳ㡪ຊࡣᙅ࠸ࡀࠊࡇࢀࡣࡑࡢᙳ㡪ຊࡀᩍဨࡢᩍ࠼᪉ࢆ፹
௓࡟ࡋ࡚࠶ࡽࢃࢀࡿࡓࡵࠊ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓ⮬ࡽࡢẼᣢࡕ㸦⮬ᚊឤࠊ༴ᶵឤ࡞࡝㸧࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊⱥ
ㄒຊࡢࣞ࣋ࣝ࡟㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊྠࡌࡼ࠺࡞ഴྥ࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ5 ࡇࡢせᅉ࡟ࡣࠊᏛ⩦┠ᶆࢆタᐃࡋࠊ୙Ᏻࢆᢚ࠼ࠊᘬࡁᘏࡤࡋ⾜Ⅽ㸦procrastination㸧ࢆ㑊ࡅ㺂⮬ࡽ࡟᭷⬟ឤࢆᣢࡘ࡞࡝ࠊ⮬ᕫㄪᩚࡸ᝟ព࡟㛵ࡍࡿグ㏙ࡀከࡃྵࡲࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ࠕືᶵ࡙ࡅࡢᙉࡉࡣከࡃࡢせ⣲࡟」ྜⓗ࡟ᨭ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚ᐇ⌧ࡍࡿࠖ࡜ࡍࡿࠕືᶵࡢ㡹ᙉᛶࠖ
㸦robustness of motivation㸧ࡢ⪃࠼᪉㸦Ueki, 2013; ᳜ᮌ࣭➉ෆࠊ2014; Ueki
& Takeuchi, 2015㸧ࢆ཯࣭ᫎ㞟⣙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿせᅉ࡜ࡶ࠸࠼ࡿࠋ

39
39

➉ෆ ⌮ᅗ㸯 ືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉ㸸ࡑࡢᙳ㡪ࡢ᫬㛫ⓗኚື㸦ᮡ⏣࣭➉ෆࠊ2007㸧  ᅗ㸰 ⱥㄒຊୖ఩⩌࡛ࡢኚື㸦ᮡ⏣࣭➉ෆࠊ2007㸧

40

40

ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢືᶵࢆ㧗ࡵࠊ⥔ᣢࡍࡿ࡟ࡣ̿ືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉ࡜ືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ̿  ᅗ㸱 ⱥㄒຊୗ఩⩌࡛ࡢኚື㸦ᮡ⏣࣭➉ෆࠊ2007㸧㸬௨ୖࡢ⤖ᯝࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊ᪥ᮏࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡜࠸࠺ᩥ⬦࡛ࡣࠊᩍᐊእࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࡢືᶵ
࡙ࡅ࡟ᩍᐊ⏤᮶ࡢせᅉࡀᙉࡃᙳ㡪ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᩍᐊෆ࣭እࡢᏛ⩦ࡀ୙ྍศ࡞㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ
㸬ࡲࡓࠊᩍᐊእⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉࡀࠊᩍᐊෆ࡛ࡢ࢖࣋ࣥࢺ㸦஦㇟㸧࡟ᙳ㡪ࡉࢀ࡚ࡑࡢᙉࡉࢆኚ࠼
࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡸࠊᩍဨࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅ㸦ྵࡴࢸࢫࢺ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀᛶ㸧ࡀࠊࡁࢃࡵ࡚㔜せ࡞ືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉ࡜࡞ࡿࡇ
࡜ࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟࡞ࡗࡓࠋ

ືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᩍဨࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅ
 ୖ㏙ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࡢ࠺ࡕࠊࡇࡇ࡛ࡣ⣬ᖜࡢ㛵ಀ࡛ࠊ௚⪅㸦ᩍဨ㸧ࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ⓗࢆ⤠ࡾࠊㄽࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡃࡇ࡜࡟ࡍࡿࠋືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟ᑐࡍࡿᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿാࡁ࠿ࡅࡣࠊ
ࠕືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎ࠖ
㸦motivational strategies㸧࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋ6 Guilloteaux and Dörnyei㸦2008㸧࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎࡟ࡣ㸰ࡘࡢഃ㠃ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ㸯ࡘࡣືᶵࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡓࡵࡢᩍဨࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࠊࡶ࠺㸯ࡘࡣᏛ⩦⪅⮬㌟ࡀ⮬ࡽࡢືᶵࢆ⥔ᣢࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡿ⮬ᕫㄪᩚࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࡢࡇ࡜ࢆࡉࡍ࡜࠸࠺ࠋᮏ⠇࡛ࡣ๓⪅ࡢഃ㠃ࡢࡳ࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

41
41

➉ෆ ⌮

ࡲࡓࡇࡢ୰࡟ࡣࠊࢸࢫࢺࡢ฼⏝᪉ἲࡶྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ྲྀࡾᢅ࠺㸦cf. Cheng & Dörnyei, 2007㸧ࠋ Dörnyei and Csizér㸦1998㸧ࡣࠊࣁ࣮࡛ࣥ࢞ࣜࡢㄪᰝࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊ⾲㸯࡟♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡞᪉ἲࡀືᶵ࡙
ࡅ࡟ᙺ❧ࡘྍ⬟ᛶࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢᚋࠊDörnyei 㸦2001㸧ࡣ⤌⧊ⓗ࡟ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞᪉ἲࢆ཰㞟ࡋࠊືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎࡜ࡋ࡚ 102 ✀㢮ࡲ࡛ቑࡸࡋ࡚࠸ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ୰࡟ࡣࠊಶูࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱⎔ቃࢆ⪃࠼ࡓሙྜࠊ฼⏝ࡋ࡟ࡃ࠸ࡶࡢࡸࠊ฼⏝࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡶྵࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ᪥ᮏࡢබ❧୰Ꮫᰯ࡛⾜ࡗࡓ◊✲ࡢ㸯ࡘ㸦Sugita & Takeuchi, 2010a㸧࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢᩍ⫱⎔ቃࢆ⇍▱ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸳ྡࡢ୰Ꮫᰯⱥㄒᩍဨ࡟ Dörnyei ࡀᥦ♧ࡋࡓ 102 ✀㢮ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎ࢆ㑅ูࡋ࡚ࡶࡽ࠸ࠊ
65 ✀㢮ࡲ࡛ᅽ⦰ࡋ࡚࠸
ࡿࠋࡑࡢ㝿ࡢ㑅ูᇶ‽ࡣࠊ⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᩍ⫱⎔ቃ࡛ࡢ㐺ษᛶ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢᚋࠊࡉࡽ
࡟ 124 ྡࡢ୰Ꮫᰯⱥㄒᩍဨ࡟㸦ᅽ⦰ࡉࢀࡓ 65 ✀㢮ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㸧ᚲせᛶࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ㡰఩ࢆࡘࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡟౫㢗ࡋࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟⾲㸰㸦p. 43㸧࡟♧ࡍ 15 ✀㢮ࢆ㑅ࡧฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

⾲㸯⾲㸯
ືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ
10 ࡢ᪉ἲ㸦Dörnyei& Csizér,
1998㸧ືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ
10 ࡢ᪉ἲ㸦Dörnyei& Csizér,
1998㸧ࡇࡢ⤖ᯝࢆࡶ࡜࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊྠ◊✲࡛ࡣ 190 ྡࡢ୰Ꮫ⏕㸦㸰࠾ࡼࡧ㸱ᖺ⏕㸧࡜ᙼࡽࡢ㏻࠺Ꮫᰯࡢ㸳ྡࡢⱥㄒᩍဨ࡟ཧຍࢆồࡵࠊ࠾࠾ࡼࡑ㸰ࣨ᭶࡟ࢃࡓࡾࠊྛ᪉␎ࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘ࡜⏕ᚐࡢືᶵࡢᙉࡉ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࢆࠊ」ᩘᅇ㸦㸱ᅇࠥ㸳ᅇ㸧ࡢ⮬ᕫ⏦࿌ไࡢ㉁ၥ⣬࡛☜ㄆࡋ࡚࠸ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ⏕ᚐࡢືᶵࡢᙉࡉ࡜㛵ಀࡢ࠶ࡗࡓᩍဨࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎ࡣࠊ (a) 㸲ࡘ㸦඲యࡢ⣙ 27㸣㸧ࡢࡳ࡛ࠊ(b) ࡑࡢᙳ㡪ࡢฟ⌧࡟ࡣ⏕ᚐࡢⱥㄒຊࡀ㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ7 (c) ᩍဨഃࡢ౑⏝㢖ᗘࡀ㧗ࡃ࡚ࡶ⏕ᚐࡢືᶵ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࡞࠸᪉␎ࡸࠊప
ࡃ࡚ࡶᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿ᪉␎ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶุ᫂ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢ࠺ࡕ (b) ࢆヲࡋࡃࡳࡿ࡜ࠊⱥㄒຊୖ఩⩌࡟࠾࠸࡚᪉␎౑⏝࡜ືᶵࡢᙉࡉ࡟㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡶࡢࡣ # 2ࠊ 5ࠊ 10ࠊ 14 ࡛ࠊⱥㄒຊୗ఩⩌࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ
#1ࠊ2ࠊ3ࠊ8ࠊ12 ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡇࡢ୧⩌࡟ඹ㏻ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊ # 2 ࡢࠕ࣮࣌ࣃ࣮ࢸࢫࢺ௨እࡢホ4242ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢືᶵࢆ㧗ࡵࠊ⥔ᣢࡍࡿ࡟ࡣ̿ືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉ࡜ືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ̿౯᪉ἲ㸦㡢ㄞࢸࢫࢺࡸ࢖ࣥࢱࣅ࣮ࣗࢸࢫࢺ㸧ࡶྲྀࢀධࢀࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺᪉␎ࡢࡳ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࠋࡇࡢ⤖ᯝࡣࠊࠕືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎ࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶᖖ࡟ຠຊࢆⓎ᥹ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᩍᖌࡢ౑࠸᪉࡜Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢⱥㄒຊ࡜ࡢ㛵ಀࡢ୰࡛ᙳ㡪ຊࢆᣢࡘࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡼ࠺ࠋ

⾲㸰᪥ᮏࡢබ❧୰Ꮫᰯ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
L2 Ꮫ⩦ືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎㸦Sugita& Takeuchi,
2010a㸧
⾲㸰᪥ᮏࡢබ❧୰Ꮫᰯ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
L2 Ꮫ⩦ືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎㸦Sugita& Takeuchi,
2010a㸧

 Dörnyei㸦2001㸧ࡣࠊⱥㄒຊࡢ௚࡟ࠊಶูࡢᏛ⩦⎔ቃ㸦Ꮫᰯ✀ࠊᩥ໬㸧ࡢᙳ㡪࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࢆཷࡅ࡚ࠊSugita-McEown & Takeuchi㸦2014㸧ࡣࠊᏛᰯ✀ࢆ୰Ꮫ࠿ࡽ኱Ꮫ࡟ኚ࠼࡚ㄪᰝࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ◊✲࡛ࡣࠊ᪥ᮏேࡢ኱Ꮫ⏕ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ 222 ྡ㸦㸳ࢡࣛࢫ㸧࡜ࡑࡢᢸᙜᩍဨ㸯ྡ࡟༠ຊࢆồࡵࠊ⣙㸱ࣨ᭶㛫࡟㸲᫬Ⅼ㸦㸯ࣨ᭶㛫㝸㸧ࡢ㉁ၥ⣬ㄪᰝࢆ࠾ࡇ࡞࠸ࠊືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎ࡢ౑⏝࡜ືᶵࡢᙉࡉࡢ㛵ಀࢆㄪ࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ⤖ᯝࠊ(a) 㛵ಀࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࡢࡣ㸵ࡘ㸦17 ✀㢮୰㸧ࡢ᪉␎౑⏝࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ (b) 㸲᫬Ⅼࡢࡍ࡭࡚࡛⥅⥆ⓗ࡟㛵ಀࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ(c) Ꮫᮇࡢጞࡵࡢࡳ࡛㛵ಀࡀ☜ㄆ࡛ࡁࡿࡶࡢࠊ(d) Ꮫᮇࡢ⤊ࢃࡾ࡟࡞ࡿ࡜㛵ಀࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ㸦୺࡜ࡋ࡚ࢸࢫࢺ࣭ホ౯࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡶࡢ㸧ࠊ(e) ౑⏝ࡍࡿࢱ࢖࣑ࣥࢢ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣ㈇ࡢᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡶࡢࡀ࠶ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊ(f) Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢⱥㄒຊ8 ࡜Ꮫᮇጞࡵࡢືᶵࡢᙉࡉࡀࠊ
㸦ືᶵ࡙ࡅ㸧᪉␎౑⏝࡜ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡢ㛵ಀᛶ࡟ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

43
43➉ෆ ⌮

Guilloteaux and Dörnyei㸦2008㸧ࡶࠊ㡑ᅜࡢ୰Ꮫ⏕ 1,300 ྡ㸦40 ࢡࣛࢫࠊ27 ྡࡢᩍဨ㸧ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚
ືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎ࡢᙳ㡪ࢆㄪ࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊ (a) ඲య࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᩍဨࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎ࡢ౑⏝࡜⏕ᚐࡢືᶵࡢᙉࡉࡣ㛵ಀࡍࡿࡀࠊ(b) ྠ୍ࡢ᪉␎౑⏝࡛ࡶᩍဨࡢ౑࠸᪉࡟ࡼࡾᙳ㡪࡟㐪࠸ࡀฟࡿ࡯࠿ࠊ(c) ౑⏝ࡍࡿࢱ࢖࣑ࣥࢢ࡛ࡣ㈇ࡢᙳ㡪ࡀฟࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡾࠊࡲࡓ (d) ᙳ㡪ࡢฟ⌧࡟ࡣᩥ໬ࡢ㐪࠸ࡶ㛵ಀࡍࡿ࡜ሗ࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ௨ୖࡢ⤖ᯝࢆࡲ࡜ࡵࡿ࡜ࠊືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎࡜࠸࠺ᙧ࡛ࡢᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿാࡁ࠿ࡅࡣࠊ

㸦㸯㸧☜࠿࡟ືᶵ࡙ࡅ࡜ࡑࡢ⥔ᣢ࡟ຠᯝࡣ࠶ࡿࡼ࠺ࡔࡀࠊ
㸦㸰㸧Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢືᶵ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᖖ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡶࡢࡣᏑᅾࡏࡎࠊ
㸦㸱㸧ᑐ㇟⪅ࡢⱥㄒຊࡢ㧗పࡸࠊึᮇࡢືᶵࡢᙉࡉ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅࠊࡉࡽ࡟
㸦㸲㸧౑࠸᪉࡜౑࠺ࢱ࢖࣑ࣥࢢ㸦᫬ᮇ㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶᙳ㡪ຊࡀኚࢃࡾࠊ
㸦㸳㸧౑࠸᪉ࡸ౑࠺⎔ቃ࣭ᩥ⬦ࢆ㛫㐪࠼ࡿ࡜ࠊ㈇ࡢᙳ㡪ࡀฟࡿሙྜࡶ᝿ᐃࡋ࠺ࡿࠊ

࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋ

ᩍ⫱࡜◊✲࡬ࡢ♧၀ ࡇࡇࡲ࡛ࠊືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉ࡜ືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ◊✲ࢆぢ࡚ࡁࡓࡀࠊᮏ⠇࡛ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ◊✲࠿ࡽᚓࡽࢀࡿᩍ⫱࣭◊✲࡟ᑐࡍࡿ♧၀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡋ࡚ࡳࡓ࠸ࠋࡲࡎᩍ⫱࡬ࡢ♧၀࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ᪥ᮏࡢᏛ
㸬ᰯᩍ⫱ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⎔ቃ࡛୺࡟ᏛࡪᏛ⩦⪅࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᩍᐊእࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࡀࠊᩍᐊ⏤᮶ࡢせᅉࡢᙳ㡪ࢆᙉ㸬ࡃཷࡅ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᩍᐊෆ࣭እࡢᏛࡧࡀ୙ྍศ࡞㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࢃ࠿ࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊᩍᐊእࡢᏛࡧࢆ
ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊᩍᐊෆࡢάືࡸ࢖࣋ࣥࢺࢆ࠺ࡲࡃ฼⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࠕᤵᴗࡢ෇⎔ࠖ㸦ᅗ㸲㸸➉ෆࠊ
㸬
2007b㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞⪃࠼᪉ࡀ㔜せ࡜࡞ࢁ࠺ࠋࡇࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࡣࠊᤵᴗෆࡢάື࡜ᤵᴗእࡢάື㸦᚟⩦άືࠊ㸬㸬ண⩦άືࠊⓎᒎᏛ⩦ࠊ⮬୺Ꮫ⩦࡞࡝㸧ࢆ㐃ືࡉࡏࠊᤵᴗእᏛ⩦ࢆಁ㐍ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡶࡢ࡛ࠊᤵᴗእᏛ⩦ࡶࠕᗈ⩏ࡢᤵᴗࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚࡜ࡽ࠼ࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢᐇ㊶౛࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣ Sumi and Takeuchi㸦2013㸧㸬࡞࡝ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡇ࡛ᙉㄪࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊⱥㄒ⩦ᚓ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㔜せ࡞ᩍᐊእ࡛ࡢᏛࡧࢆࠊᩍᐊෆ࡛ࡢᏛ
ࡧ࡜ศ㞳ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ୧⪅ࢆ୍య࡜ࡋ࡚ࢹࢨ࢖ࣥࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊⱥㄒᏛ⩦࡬ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࠊࡦ࠸࡚ࡣ

4444ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢືᶵࢆ㧗ࡵࠊ⥔ᣢࡍࡿ࡟ࡣ̿ືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉ࡜ືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ̿Ꮫ⩦᫬㛫ࡢቑຍ࡜ⱥㄒຊࡢྥୖ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡗ࡚࠸ࡃ࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ᅗ㸲 ࠕᤵᴗࡢ෇⎔ࠖࡢᴫᛕᅗ㸦➉ෆࠊ2007b㸧 ࡲࡓᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᩍဨ࡟ࡼࡿാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡜ࢸࢫࢺࡢᙳ㡪ࡀ㢧ⴭ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ୧⪅ࡢ㛫࡟ᩍᐊෆ࡛ࡢ࢖࣋ࣥࢺ࡟࿧ᛂࡋࡓࢺ࣮ࣞࢻ࣭࢜ࣇࡢ㛵ಀࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
ືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉࡢᙳ㡪ࡣࢲ࢖ࢼ࣑ࢵࢡ࡟ኚ໬ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊᩍဨࡣ࡝ࡢせᅉࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞࢖࣋ࣥࢺ࡟
࿧ᛂࡋ࡚ᙳ㡪ຊࢆᣢࡘࡢ࠿ࢆ⌮ゎࡋࡓୖ࡛ࠊィ⏬ⓗ࡟Ꮫ⩦⪅࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡃᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᩍဨࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࠊࡘࡲࡾືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎࡟ࡘ
࠸࡚ࡣࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ≉ᚩ㸦ⱥㄒຊࡢ㧗పࠊึᮇẁ㝵ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࡢᙉࡉ㸧ࠊᩍဨࡢ౑⏝᪉ἲࠊ౑⏝ࡍࡿࢱ࢖࣑ࣥࢢࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⎔ቃ࣭ᩥ⬦࡞࡝ࡀࠊࡑࡢᙳ㡪ຊࡢฟ⌧࡜ᐦ᥋࡟㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺
ࡇ࡜ࡶࢃ࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ᩍဨࡣࠊ࠸࠿࡞ࡿሙྜ࡛ࡶຠᯝࢆⓎ᥹ࡍࡿࠕࢸࢵࣃࣥࡢࠖືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎
ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡞࡝࡜࠸࠺⪃࠼᪉ࡣᤞ࡚ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ཯ᛂࢆࡼࡃほᐹࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ᪉␎ࢆᰂ㌾࡟㑅ᢥ࣭ά⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃጼໃࢆ࡜ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ኱ษ࡟࡞ࢁ࠺ࠋ9 ◊✲࡟㛵ࡍࡿ♧၀࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊࡲࡎࠊືᶵࡣ」ᩘࡢせᅉ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚」㞧࡟ 㸦complex㸧࡟ᨭ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸
ࡿ㸦Ueki & Takeuchi, 2015㸧࡜࠸࠺ㄆ㆑࡟❧ࡘᚲせᛶࡀ࠶ࡆࡽࢀࡼ࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊせᅉ㛫࡟ࡣ┦஫࡟㛵㐃

45
45➉ෆ ⌮

ᛶࡀ࠶ࡾ㸦interdependent㸧ࠊᙳ㡪ࡢฟ⌧ࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶ㢖ᗘ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚┤⥺ⓗ࡟┦㛵ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࢩࣥࣉࣝ࡞
ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃ㸦non-linear㸧ࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࡑࡢᙳ㡪㛵ಀࡀ᫬㛫࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ኚ໬ࡍࡿ㸦dynamic㸧࡜࠸࠺❧ሙ࡟❧ࡗࡓୖ࡛ࠊ௒ᚋࡢ◊✲ࢹࢨ࢖ࣥࢆ⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡃᚲせᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶᣦ᦬࡛ࡁࡼ࠺ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⪃࠼᪉ࡣࠊComplex Dynamic Systems Theory㸦Dörnyei, 2014; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ᯟ⤌ࡳࡀᥦ᱌ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ௒ᚋࠊࡑࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࡢࡉࡽ࡞ࡿά⏝ࡀᮇᚅࡉࢀࡿࠋ࠾ࢃࡾ࡟ ືᶵ࡙ࡅ◊✲ࡢ➨୍ே⪅ Dörnyei㸦2001, p.2㸧ࡣࠊእᅜㄒᏛ⩦࡟࠾ࡅࡿືᶵ࡙ࡅࡢ኱ษࡉࢆࠊ

My personal experience is that 99 per cent of language learners who really want to learn a foreign
language (i.e., who are really motivated) will be able to master a reasonable working knowledge of it as aminimum, regardless of their language aptitude.

࡜⾲⌧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊゝㄒᏛ⪅ࡢ Chomsky ࡶࠊ

The truth of the matter is that about 99 percent of teaching is making the students feel interested in thematerial. Then the other 1 percent has to do with your methods. And that’s not just true of
languages. It’s true of every subject. We’ve gone to schools and colleges, and you all know that you
have taken courses in school where you have learned enough to pass the exam, and a week later you
forget what the subject was. Well, that’s the problem. Learning does not achieve lasting results when
you don’t see any point to it. Learning has to come from inside; you have to want to learn. If you wantto learn, you’ll learn no matter how bad the methods are (Chomsky, 1988, pp. 181-182).

࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ⩦࡟࠾ࡅࡿືᶵ࡙ࡅࡸ⯆࿡ࡢ኱ษࡉࢆᙉㄪࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢゝཬ࡟ࡶ㛵ࢃࡽࡎࠊ᫖௒ࡢࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ໬ࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡍࡿ♫఍₻ὶࡢ୰࡛ࡣࠊ࡜ࡶࡍࢀࡤᡂᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ㐠⏝ຊྥୖ࡟ࡢࡳ┠ࡀዣࢃࢀࡀࡕ࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᡃࠎࡣࠊࡑࡢᡭ๓࡛ᅔ㞴࡟┤㠃ࡋࠊ↓ຊឤ࡟ⱔࡲࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᏛ⩦⪅46

46

ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢືᶵࢆ㧗ࡵࠊ⥔ᣢࡍࡿ࡟ࡣ̿ືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉ࡜ືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ̿ࡀከᩘᏑᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶᛀࢀࡎࠊᙼࡽࢆ㐠⏝ຊྥୖࡢධࡾཱྀ࡟❧ࡓࡏࡿ࡜࠸࠺ືᶵ࡙ࡅࡢどⅬࢆᣢࡕ⥆ࡅࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ୍⏕ᾭࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚Ꮫ⩦ࢆ⥅⥆ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽࡳ࡚ࡶࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅ⥔ᣢ࡟༑඲࡞㓄៖ࢆࡋ࡚࠸ࡃᚲせᛶࡣ㧗࠸ࠋ࠸ࡉࡉ࠿ࣃࣛࢻࢵࢡࢫࡵ࠸ࡓ⤖ㄒ࡟ࡣ࡞ࡿࡀࠊືᶵ࡙
ࡅࢆ㉺࠼࡚㐠⏝ຊࡢྥୖ࡟ࡘ࡞ࡀࡿᩍ⫱࣭◊✲࡬ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡅࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊືᶵ࡙ࡅࡢ◊✲ࢆ㐍ࡵ࡚࠸ࡁࡓ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ὀ*ᮏ✏ࡣࠊ2015 ᖺᗘ኱Ꮫⱥㄒᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍ (JACET) 㛵すᨭ㒊኱఍࡛ࡢࢩ࣏ࣥࢪ࢔࣒ࡢⓎ⾲ෆᐜ࡟ಟṇ࣭ຍ➹ࢆຍ࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

1㸬ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊⱥㄒ 4 ᢏ⬟ヨ㦂᝟ሗࢧ࢖ࢺ㸦http://4skills.eiken.or.jp/index.html㸧࡞࡝ࢆཧ↷ࡢࡇ࡜ࠋ
2. ᑠᏛᰯࡢሙྜࠊ㐌 1 ᅇ 45 ศࠊᖺ㛫 35 㐌ࠊ2 Ꮫᖺࢆィ⟬᰿ᣐ࡜ࡋࠊࡇࡢ࠺ࡕ 70㸣ࡀᐇ㝿ࡢᏛ⩦࡟฼⏝ࡉࢀࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ヨ⟬ࡋࡓࠋ୰Ꮫᰯࡢሙྜࡣࠊ㐌 4 ᅇ 50 ศࠊᖺ㛫 35 㐌ࠊ3 Ꮫᖺࢆ᰿ᣐ࡜ࡋࠊ㧗➼Ꮫᰯࡢሙྜࡣࠊྜィ 17 ༢఩㺂ྛ 50 ศࠊᖺ㛫 35 㐌࡜タᐃࡋࠊ࠸ࡎࢀࡢሙྜࡶᐇ㉁Ꮫ⩦⋡ࡣ 70㸣࡛ᴫ⟬ࡋࡓࠋ
3. ࠕᐟ㢟ࡣ㝖ࡃࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᑜࡡ᪉࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
4㸬GTEC for Students Core ࡛ ᐃࡋࠊࡑࡢᡂ⦼㡰࡟ୖ࠿ࡽ 30 ྡ࡜ୗ࠿ࡽ 30 ྡࡢࢹ࣮ࢱࢆࠊࡑࢀࡒࢀ
ⱥㄒຊୖ఩⩌࡜ⱥㄒຊୗ఩⩌࡜ࡋ࡚฼⏝ࡋࡓࠋ
5㸬▱ぬ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣྠࡌഴྥ࡟ࡣ࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡇࢀࡀᐇ㝿ࡢ⾜ື࡟㌿໬ࡋࠊࡲࡓ⥔ᣢࡉࢀࡿ࠿࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ㐪࠸ࡀ⏕ࡌࡿࡶࡢ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ
6㸬
ࠕ㊊ሙ࠿ࡅࠖ
㸦scaffolding㸧ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ࡜ࡽ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊࡇࡢሙྜࠊᢅ࠸ࡀ࣑ࢡࣟࣞ࣋ࣝ࡞
ࡶࡢ࡜࡞ࡾࠊ࣓ࢱㄆ▱ⓗ࡞ാࡁ࠿ࡅࡢࡼ࠺࡟࣐ࢡࣟ࡞࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝㄽࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ㞴ࡋࡃ࡞ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᩍ
ဨࡢാࡁ࠿ࡅࢆᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ needs ࡢ඘㊊ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽㄽࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁࡿࡀ㸦cf. Agawa & Takeuchi,
2016a, 2016b㸧ࠊᮏ✏࡛ࡣࡇࡢⅬ࡟ࡣ㋃ࡳ㎸ࡲ࡞࠸ࠋ
7. ⱥㄒຊࡣ GTEC for Students Core ࡛ ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
8. ⱥㄒຊࡣ C-test ࡛ ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

47
47

➉ෆ ⌮

9. ᩥ໬࣭ᩥ⬦ࡢ᪉␎౑⏝࡟ᑐࡍࡿᙳ㡪࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᩍဨഃࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᏛ⩦⪅ഃ㸦Ꮫ⩦᪉␎㸧࡟ࡶㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿ㸦ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊTakeuchi, 2009; Takeuchi, et al., 2005 ཧ↷㸧ࠋཧ⪃ᩥ⊩ఀᮾ἞ᕫ (1997) ࠗ࢝ࢼࢲࡢࣂ࢖ࣜࣥ࢞ࣝᩍ⫱—࢖࣐࣮ࢪ࣭ࣙࣥࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ࡜᪥ᮏࡢⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡢ᥋Ⅼࢆồࡵ࡚࠘῱Ỉ♫ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ (2015) ࠗᖹᡂ 26 ᖺᗘⱥㄒᩍ⫱ᨵၿࡢࡓࡵࡢⱥㄒຊㄪᰝ஦ᴗሗ࿌᭩࠘
㸦➨ 4 ❶, pp.91-120㸧
http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/ gaikokugo/1358258.htm
ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ (2016a) ࠗᖹᡂ 27 ᖺᗘⱥㄒᩍ⫱ᨵၿࡢࡓࡵࡢⱥㄒຊㄪᰝ஦ᴗሗ࿌᭩㸦୰Ꮫᰯ㸧࠘ᩥ㒊⛉Ꮫ┬ (2016b) ࠗᖹᡂ 27 ᖺᗘⱥㄒᩍ⫱ᨵၿࡢࡓࡵࡢⱥㄒຊㄪᰝ஦ᴗሗ࿌᭩㸦㧗➼Ꮫᰯ㸧࠘ᮡ⏣㯞ဢ࣭➉ෆ ⌮ (2007)ࠕ୰Ꮫᰯࡢᤵᴗእⱥㄒ⮬୺Ꮫ⩦࡟࠾ࡅࡿືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉ-Ꮫ⩦ࡢືᶵࢆ㧗ࡵࡿࡢࡣఱࠊࡑࡋ࡚ㄡ㸽ࠖࠗⱥㄒᩍ⫱࠘, 10 ᭶ྕ, ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ, 65-67.
➉ෆ ⌮ (2007a) ࠗ㐩ேࡢⱥㄒᏛ⩦ἲ—ࢹ࣮ࢱࡀㄒࡿຠᯝⓗ࡞እᅜㄒ⩦ᚓἲ࡜ࡣ࠘ⲡᛮ♫➉ෆ ⌮ (2007b) ࠕ⮬ࡽᏛࡪጼໃࢆ㌟࡟ࡘࡅࡿ࡟ࡣ㸸⮬୺Ꮫ⩦ࡢᚲせᛶ࡜ࡑࡢ᪉ἲࢆ᥈ࡿࠖ Teaching
English Now, 8, ୕┬ᇽ, 2-5.
➉ෆ ⌮ (2010) ࠕࠕືᶵ࡙ࡅࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄪ࡭ࡓ࠸ࠖ
ࠗⱥㄒᩍ⫱࠘, 5 ᭶ྕ, ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ, 22-25.
➉ෆ ⌮ (2012) ࠕࢫ࣮࣮ࣟࣛࢼ࣮࡟ᐤࡾῧ࠺࣮⮬ᕫㄪᩚᏛ⩦ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ࣮ࠖࠗⱥㄒᩍ⫱࠘, 7 ᭶ྕ, ኱ಟ㤋᭩ᗑ, 39-41.
᳜ᮌ⨾༓Ꮚ࣭➉ෆ ⌮ (2014) ࠕእᅜㄒᏛ⩦࡟࠾ࡅࡿඛᘏࡤࡋ⾜ືࡢணഛⓗㄪᰝ㸸⮬ᕫㄪᩚᏛ⩦ࡢᯟ⤌ࡳࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠖ
ࠗ➨ 54 ᅇእᅜㄒᩍ⫱࣓ࢹ࢕࢔Ꮫ఍ (LET) ඲ᅜ◊✲኱఍Ⓨ⾲せ㡯࠘, 60-61.
Agawa, T., & Takeuchi, O. (2016a). Validating self-determination theory in the Japanese EFL context: The
relationship between innate needs and motivation. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 18, 6-32.
Agawa, T., & Takeuchi, O. (2016b). Re-examination of psychological needs and L2 motivation of Japanese EFL
learners: An interview study. The Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles, 89, 74-98.
Benson, P., & Reinders, H. (2011). Beyond the language classroom: The theory and practice of informal
language learning and teaching. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

48

48

ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢືᶵࢆ㧗ࡵࠊ⥔ᣢࡍࡿ࡟ࡣ̿ືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉ࡜ືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ̿

Chambers, N. G. (1999). Motivating language learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cheng, H.F., & Dörnyei, Z. (2007). The use of motivational strategies in language instruction: The case of EFL
teaching in Taiwan. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 153-174.
Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge: The Managua lectures. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2014). Researching complex dynamic systems: ‘Retrodictive qualitative modelling’ in the language
classroom. Language Teaching, 47, 80-91.
Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language learners: Results of an empirical
study. Language Teaching Research, 2, 203-229.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ottó, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in
Applied Linguistics, 4, 43-69 (Themes Valley University, UK).
Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P.D., & Henry, A. (Eds.). (2015). Motivational dynamics in language learning.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Gao, X. (2010). Strategic language learning: The roles of agency and context. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Guilloteaux, J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: A classroom-oriented investigation of theeffects of motivational strategies on student motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 55-77.
Lai, C. (2015). Perceiving and traversing in-class and out-of-class learning: Accounts from foreign language
learners in Hong Kong. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9, 265-284.
Lai, C., Zhu, W., & Gong, G. (2015). Understanding the quality of out-of-class English learning. TESOL
Quarterly, 49, 278-308.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Miura, T. (2011). Motivational trajectories of successful foreign language learners: Six biographical casestudies. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (Temple University, Japan)
Mizumoto A., & Takeuchi, O. (2008). Exploring the driving forces behind TOEIC scores: Focusing on49
49

➉ෆ ⌮

vocabulary learning strategies, motivation, and study time. JACET Journal, 46, 17-31.
Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2012). Adaptation and validation of self-regulating capacity in vocabulary
learning scale. Applied Linguistics, 33, 83-91.
Sugita, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2010a). What can teachers do to motivate their students?: A classroom research on
motivational strategy use in the Japanese EFL context. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4,21-35.
Sugita, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2010b). Motivational influences surrounding secondary school EFL students.
Language Education & Technology, 47, 181-203.
Sugita (McEown), M., & Takeuchi, O. (2014). Motivational strategies in EFL classrooms: How do teachers
impact students’ motivation? Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 20-38.
Sumi, S., & Takeuchi, O. (2013). The cyclic model of learning: An attempt based on the DBR in an EFL context(pp.157-181). In J. C. Rodriguez, & C. Pardo-Ballester (Eds.). Design-based research in CALL. CALICO.
Takeuchi, O. (2009). Learning from good language learners in a specific context. In T. Yoshida et al. (Eds.),
Researching language teaching and learning: An integration of practice and theory. (pp. 305-322). Oxford:
Peter Lang.
Takeuchi, O., Griffiths, & Coyle, D. (2007). Applying strategies to context: The role of individual, situational,
and group differences. In A. Cohen and E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of
research and practice. (Ch. 4. pp.69-92) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ueki, M. (2013). L2 communication anxiety levels in relation to different communication partners: An empirical
study in Japanese EFL classrooms. JACET Kansai Journal, 15, 25-39.
Ueki, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2013). Exploring the concept of the ideal L2 self in an Asian EFL context: The caseof Japanese university students. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7, 238-252.
Ueki, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2015). Study abroad and motivation to learn a second language: Exploring thepossibility of the L2 Motivational Self System. Language Education & Technology, 52, 1-25.
Ueki, M., & Takeuchi, O. (in press). The impact of studying abroad experience on the affective changes related
to L2 motivation: A qualitative study of the processes of change. In M.T. Apple, D. Da Silva, & T. Fellner5050ⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢືᶵࢆ㧗ࡵࠊ⥔ᣢࡍࡿ࡟ࡣ̿ືᶵ࡙ࡅせᅉ࡜ືᶵ࡙ࡅ᪉␎ࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ̿(Eds.). L2 selves and motivation in Asian contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Yashima, T., Noels, K., Shizuka, S., Takeuchi, O., Yamane, S., & Yoshizawa, K. (2009). The interplay ofclassroom anxiety, intrinsic motivation, and gender in the Japanese EFL context. Foreign Language
Education Research, 17, 41-64 (http://kuir.jm.kansai-u.ac.jp/dspace/handle/10112/768).

51
51

JACET Kansai
Kansai Journal,(2016)©JACET
Kansai
Chapter
JACET
Journal,18,
18,52-65.
52-65.
(2016)©JACET
Kansai
Chapter
ISSN1880-2281
1880-2281
ISSN

Printedin inJAPAN.
PrintedJAPAN.

࣏ࢵࣉ࣭࢝ࣝࢳ࣮ࣕᩍᮦࡢຠ⏝ ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⌮ㄽࣔࢹࣝࡢᵓ⠏
Constructing a Theoretical Model of the Effects
of Using Pop Culture Materials in English Language Classes

ੳ⑼ᕶᓼ
␹ᚭቇ㒮ᄢቇ

Abstract
This paper qualitatively investigates the way in which beginning-level English language
learners are affected by utilizing pop culture materials, such as movies and pop music. In orderto understand the effects from various perspectives, qualitative comments were first collectedwith a free-description questionnaire from 83 college students who had been exposed to suchmaterials for 6 months. The Modified Grounded Theory Approach was used to analyze the dataand produce a theoretical model of the effects by identifying conceptual categories gained fromthe comments, making links between categories and establishing relationships between them.
The results indicate that utilizing pop culture materials has a beneficial effect of promoting
English learner motivation and positive attitudes toward language learning.

ࠠ ࡯ ࡢ ࡯ ࠼ 㧦 ࡐ ࠶ ࡊ ࡮ ࠞ ࡞ ࠴ ࡖ ࡯ ᢎ ᧚ ‫ ޔ‬M-GTA‫ ⎇ ⊛ ⾰ ޔ‬ⓥߪߓ߼ߦ ᤋ ↹ ࡮ 㖸 ᭉ (㇌ ↹ ࡮ ㇌ ᭉ ߽ ฽ ߻ )ࠍ 㗴 ᧚ ߣ ߒ ߚ ᢎ ᧚ ࠍ ᝼ ᬺ ౝ ߢ ᵴ ↪ ߔ ࠆ ߎ ߣ ߢ ‫ ⺆ ⧷ ޔ‬ቇ⠌਄ߤߩࠃ߁ߥല↪߇޽ࠆߩߛࠈ߁߆‫⎇ᧄޕ‬ⓥߢߪ‫ޔ‬ᥧ㤩ߦ⹺߼ࠄࠇߡߪ޿ࠆ߇⎇ⓥ࡟
ࡌ࡞ߢᧂߛ᣿⏕ߦ⏕⹺ߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿ߎߩല↪ࠍ᣿ࠄ߆ߦߒ‫੹ޔ‬ᓟߩᤋ↹⧷⺆ᢎ᧚ߩ㐿⊒ᤨߦෳ⠨ߣߥࠆឭ᩺ࠍ⹜ߺࠆ‫ޕ‬ዏ‫⎇ᧄޔ‬ⓥߢߪ‫ޔ‬ᤋ↹࡮ࡐࡇࡘ࡜࡯㖸ᭉࠍ৻⥸ᄢⴐ߇ᐢߊᅢ߻ᄢⴐะߌᢥൻߩ✚⒓ߣߒߡ‫ߣޠ࡯ࡖ࠴࡞ࠞ࡮ࡊ࠶ࡐޟ‬๭߱ߎߣߦߔࠆ‫ޕ‬152
52

ࡐ࠶ࡊ࡮ࠞ࡞࠴ࡖ࡯ᢎ᧚ߩല↪ߦ㑐ߔࠆℂ⺰ࡕ࠺࡞ߩ᭴▽ ᧄ⎇ⓥߩౕ૕⊛ߥᵹࠇߪ‫࡯ࡖ࠴࡞ࠞ࡮ࡊ࠶ࡐޔ‬ᢎ᧚ࠍᵴ↪ߒߚ᝼ᬺߩ೨ᓟߦ߅޿ߡฃ
⻠⠪ోຬߦታᣉߒߚࠕࡦࠤ࡯࠻⺞ᩏ㧔ㆬᛯᑼߣ⥄↱⸥ㅀ㧕ߩ⚿ᨐࠍၮߦ‫⺆⧷ޔ‬ᢎ⢒࡮ቇ⠌ ਄ ߩ ല ↪ ࠍ ౕ ૕ ⊛ ߦ น ⷞ ൻ ߔ ࠆ ὐ ߦ ޽ ࠆ ‫ ᧁ ޔ ߦ ․ ޕ‬ਅ (2003)ߩ ୃ ᱜࠣ࡜ࡦ࠺࠶࠼࡮࠮ ࠝ ࡝ ࡯ ࡮ ࠕ ࡊ ࡠ ࡯ ࠴ (એ ਅ ‫ ޔ‬M-GTA)ࠍ ↪ ޿ ߡ ‫ ⷰ ⊛ ⾰ ޔ‬ὐ ߆ ࠄ ⥄ ↱ ⸥ ㅀ ᑼ ࠺ ࡯ ࠲ ࠍ ♖ ✺ߦಽᨆߒ‫⺆⧷ޔ‬ቇ⠌ߦኻߔࠆേᯏᡷༀߦ૗߆ߒࠄ⽸₂ߔࠆߩ߆‫࠙ࠕ࡮࠻࠶ࡊࡦࠗߚ߹ޔ‬࠻ࡊ࠶࠻ߩ஥㕙ߥߤౕ૕⊛ߦ૗߆ߒࠄߩല↪߇޽ࠆߩ߆ࠍតࠅ‫ࠞ࡮ࡊ࠶ࡐޔߦ⊛⚳ᦨޔ‬࡞࠴ࡖ࡯ࠍ⚛᧚ߣߔࠆᢎ᧚㐿⊒ᤨߦൊ᩺ߔߴ߈᦭ലߥ␜ໂࠍ⹜ߺࠆ‫ޕ‬

⾰⊛⎇ⓥ
⾰⊛⎇ⓥ᭎ⷰ
 ㊂⊛⎇ⓥߪ‫ࠆ޽ޔ‬઒⺑ߦ㑐ߒߡᄢ㊂ߩ࠺࡯࠲߆ࠄ৻⥸ᕈࠍዉ߈ߚ޿႐ว߿‫ޔ‬ੑߟએ਄ߩ ੐ ⽎ ࠍ Ყ セ ߒ Ꮕ ࠍ ⏕ ⹺ ߒ ߚ ޿ ႐ ว ߥ ߤ ߦ ㆡ ߒ ߡ ޿ ࠆ (⷏ ᪯ , 2007, pp. 20-21)‫ ৻ ޕ‬ᣇ ‫⾰ ޔ‬⊛⎇ⓥߪ‫ޔ‬ኻ⽎߇ዋᢙ੐଀ߦߥࠄߑࠆࠍᓧߥ޿႐วߦะ޿ߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔߡߒߣ଀ߩߎޔ‬૗߆ߩᛛⴚߦఝࠇߚ㆐ੱࠍኻ⽎ߣߒߡ૗ࠄ߆ߩ᭴ㅧࠍ᣿ࠄ߆ߦߒߚ޿႐วߦߪ‫ࠍੱ⥸৻ޔ‬ᄙᢙ 㓸 ߼ ߡ ᓐ ࠄ ߩ ᐔ ဋ ⊛ ߥ ᭴ ㅧ ࠍ ᛽ ಴ ߒ ߡ ߽ ᗧ ๧ ߪ ߥ ޿ (⷏ ᪯ , 2007, p. 44)‫ޕ‬ ߎߩࠃ߁ߦ‫ޔ‬ዋᢙߩࠨࡦࡊ࡞߇⎇ⓥኻ⽎ߣߥࠆ႐ว‫ޔ‬㊂⊛ಽᨆߪะ޿ߡ߅ࠄߕ‫ޔ‬ታ㓙ߦࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯ࠍㅢߒߡⵍ㛎⠪ࠍⷰኤߒߚࠅ‫ౕࠍߩ߽ߚߒ࠻ࡦࡔࠦߦ↱⥄ޔ‬૕⊛ߦಽᨆߔ ࠆ ߎ ߣ ߢ ‫ ⷰ ޔ‬ኤ ኻ ⽎ ߩ ౝ ஥ ߦ ޽ ࠆ ᭴ ㅧ ࠍ ਥ ⷰ ⊛ ߦ ᛽ ಴ ߒ ‫ ⺆ ⸒ ޔ‬ൻ (߽ ߒ ߊ ߪ ᭴ ㅧ ൻ )ߔࠆ ᔅ ⷐ ߇ ޽ ࠆ ‫ ޕ‬2  Richards & Morse (2008) ߽ ⾰ ⊛ ⎇ ⓥ ࠍ ‫( ޔ‬1)ᧂ ⍮ ߩ 㗔 ၞ ߩ ℂ ⸃ ‫( ޔ‬2)ᄌ
ൻ ߔ ࠆ ⃻ ⽎ ߿ ⶄ 㔀 ߥ ⁁ ᴫ ߩ ℂ ⸃ ‫(ޔ‬3)ⵍ 㛎 ⠪ ߩ ⚻ 㛎 ߦ 㑐 ߔ ࠆ ⸃ ㉼ ‫(ޔ‬4)⃻ ታ ࠍ ෻ ᤋ ߒ ߚ ℂ ⺰(⊛ ᨒ ⚵ ߺ )ߩ ᭴ ▽ ‫( ޔ‬5)⃻ ⽎ ߩ ⹦ ⚦ ߥ ℂ ⸃ ‫ ⵍ ޕ ࠆ ޿ ߡ ߃ ᝒ ߦ ࠢ ࠶ ࠖ ࠹ ࡑ ࠹ ࠬ ࠪ ߣ ޔ‬㛎 ⠪ ߩ⚻㛎ߦ㑐ߒߡ♖✺ߥℂ⸃ߣ⸃㉼‫ߩߘޔ‬᭴ㅧൻߎߘ߇⾰⊛⎇ⓥߩᦨ⚳⋡ᮡߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬᭽‫⎇⊛⾰ߥޘ‬ⓥᴺ
 ⾰ ⊛ ⎇ ⓥ ᴺ ߦ ߪ ‫ޔ‬KJ ᴺ ‫ࡈ ࡜ ࠣ ࡁ ࠬ ࠛޔ ࠢ ࡯ ࡢ ࠼ ࡞ ࡯ ࠖ ࡈޔ ࠴ ࡯ ࡠ ࡊ ࠕ࡮ࡉ ࠖ ࠹ ࡜ ࠽ޔ‬ࠖ࡯‫ࠬ࡯ࠦ࡮ࡈࠗ࡜ޔ࠴࡯ࠨ࡝࡮ࡦ࡚ࠪࠢࠕޔ‬ಽᨆ‫⁁ޔ‬ᴫ⺰‫㉼⸃ޔ‬ቇ⊛⃻⽎ቇߥߤᄙߊ

53
53

ੳ⑼ ᕶᓼߩ ᨒ ⚵ ߺ ߇ ሽ ࿷ ߔ ࠆ ‫ ޕ‬3 ߎ ߩ ࠃ ߁ ߥ ⾰ ⊛ ⎇ ⓥ ߩ ৻ ᚻ ᴺ ߣ ߒ ߡ ‫ޔ‬1960 ᐕ ઍ ߦ ឭ ᩺ ߐ ࠇ ߚ ࠣ࡜ ࡦ ࠺ ࠶ ࠼ ࡮ ࠮ ࠝ ࡝ ࡯ ࡮ ࠕ ࡊ ࡠ ࡯ ࠴ (એ ਅ ‫ ޔ‬GTA)߇ ⋴ ⼔ ߿ ⥃ ᐥ ᔃ ℂ ߥ ߤ ߩ ಽ ㊁ ࠍ ೋ ߼ ߣߒ ‫ ᦨ ޔ‬ㄭ ߢ ߪ ᢎ ⢒ ಽ ㊁ ߢ ߽ ᵈ ⋡ ߐ ࠇ ߟ ߟ ޽ ࠆ (㓏 ᚭ , 2012)‫ ᦨ ޔ ߫ ߃ ଀ ޕ‬ㄭ ߩ GTA ࠍ ↪ ޿ߚ ੐ ଀ ⎇ ⓥ ࠍ ᜼ ߍ ࠆ ߣ ‫ ޔ‬ਛ ᧛ (2015)ߪ ‫ ޔ‬ᾫ ✵ ߩ ⸰ ໧ ⋴ ⼔ ࠬ ࠹ ࡯ ࠪ ࡚ ࡦ ▤ ℂ ⠪ ߣ ޿ ߁ 㒢 ቯߐ ࠇ ߚ ੱ ᧚ 16 ฬ ࠍ ኻ ⽎ ߦ ‫ ⸰ޔ‬໧ ⋴ ⼔ Ꮷ ࠍ ᵴ ߆ ߒ ⢒ ߡ ࠆ 㑐 ࠊ ࠅ ࠍ ᣿ ࠄ ߆ ߦ ߒ ߚ ‫ޔ ߚ ߹ޕ‬⍹਄ ࡮ Ꮉ ว ࡮ ጊ ፒ (2015)ߪ ‫ ࠆ ޽ ޔ‬ਛ ቇ ᩞ ߢ ൕ ോ ߔ ࠆ ᩞ 㐳 1 ฬ ߆ ࠄ ᓧ ࠄ ࠇ ߚ ࠗ ࡦ ࠲ ࡆ ࡘ ࡯ ࡮࠺࡯࠲ࠍ߽ߣߦ‫ޔ‬ᩞ㐳ߩ᝼ᬺᡷༀᡰេ߿ᩞౝ⎇ୃଦㅴߦ㑐ߔࠆᢎ⢒⊛࡝࡯࠳࡯ࠪ࠶ࡊⴕ
േ߿ߘߩḮߣߥߞߡ޿ࠆᢎ⢒ⷰࠍ⸃᣿ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ GTA ߣ ߪ ‫ ߦ ࠲ ࡯ ࠺ ߢ ߹ ߊ ޽ޔ‬ၮ ߠ ޿ ߚ ಽ ᨆ࡮ℂ ⺰ ᭴ ▽ ࠍ ਥ ߣ ߔ ࠆ ᚻ ᴺ ߢ ‫ޔ‬ណ ข ߒ ߚ ⥄↱ ⸥ ㅀ ࡮ ࠗ ࡦ ࠲ ࡆ ࡘ ࡯ ߥ ߤ ߩ ࠺ ࡯ ࠲ ࠍ ᢥ ሼ ࠺ ࡯ ࠲ ߦ ᄌ ឵ ߒ ‫( ࠍ ࠻ ࠬ ࠢ ࠹ ߩ ߘ ޔ‬1)ಾ

ൻ‫ޔ‬(2)࡜ ࡌ ࡞ ઃ ߌ ‫(ޔ‬3)ࠞ ࠹ ࠧ ࡝ ࡯ ಽ 㘃 ‫(ޔ‬4)ℂ ⺰ ߩ ᭴ ▽ ‫ ߩޔ‬ᵹ ࠇ ߢ ⴕ ߁ ⾰ ⊛ ⎇ ⓥ ᚻ ᴺ ߢ ޽ ࠆ (ᚋ
ᧁ , 2008a; 2008b)‫ ⎇ ᧄޕ‬ⓥ ߢ ᛒ ߁ ߩ ߪ ߎ ߩ GTA ߩ ᡷ ⦟┵⊛ߦ⸒߃߫ಽᨆᤨߦಾߢ ޽ ࠆ M-GTA(ᧁ ਅ , 2003)ߢ ޽ ࠅ ‫ޔ‬ൻࠍⴕࠊߕ‫ޔ‬ಽᨆ࠹࡯ࡑߣߩ㑐ㅪ߆ࠄ࠺࡯࠲ࠍ♖ᩏߒ‫ޔ‬㑐ㅪ▎ᚲߦᵈ⋡ߒ‫ޔ‬ಽᨆࡢ࡯ࠢࠪ࡯࠻ࠍᵴ↪ߔࠆߎߣߢ᭎ᔨ↢ᚑࠍ⹜ߺࠆᚻᴺߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬4
 ࡑ࡯ࠤ࠹ࠖࡦࠣߥߤߩࡆࠫࡀࠬ♽ಽ㊁߿ᔃℂቇ‫ޔ‬ᢎ⢒♽ߥߤߩ࠾࡯࠭ಽᨆߥߤߢߪ‫ޔ‬⥄↱⸥ㅀߩ࿁╵࠺࡯࠲ࠍ⾰⊛⸒⺆࠺࡯࠲ߣߒߡಽᨆߔࠆᯏળߪᄙߊ‫ޔ‬ᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒ߦ㒢ቯߔࠇ߫‫ޔ‬ቇᦼᧃߦታᣉߐࠇࠆ᝼ᬺ⹏ଔ߿᝼ᬺᡷༀࠍ⋡⊛ߣߒߚᣣᏱ⊛ߦቇ↢ߦታᣉߔࠆ
࡝ࠕ࡚ࠢࠪࡦࡍ࡯ࡄ࡯ߥߤߦ߽⥄↱⸥ㅀᰣ߇޽ࠆ‫ߩ࠲࡯࠺⊛⾰ߥ߁ࠃߩߎޕ‬ಽᨆߦߪ‫ޔ‬࠹ ࠢ ࠬ ࠻࡮ࡑ ࠗ ࠾ ࡦ ࠣ ╬ (⍹ ↰ , 2008)ߩ ᚻ ᴺ ߢ ᯏ ᪾ ⊛ ߦ ⥄ േ ಣ ℂ ߒ ߡ ⸘ ㊂ ಽ ᨆ ߒ ߡ ߽ ᧄ ⎇ⓥ ߢ ␜ ߔ ࠃ ߁ ߥ ℂ ⺰ ᭴ ▽ ߪ 㔍 ߒ ߊ ‫ ߩ ߎޔ‬ὐ ߢ (M-)GTA ߥ ߤ ߩ ⾰ ⊛ ⎇ ⓥ ᴺ ߦ ߪ ৻ ⷗ ߩ ଔ ୯߇޽ࠈ߁‫ޕ‬5

ᣇᴺ⺰࠺࡯࠲ߩ෼㓸ߦ㑐ߒߡ ᧄ ⎇ ⓥ ߩ ࠺ ࡯ ࠲ ෼ 㓸 ߦ 㑐 ߒ ߡ ‫ ޔ ߕ ߹ ޔ‬TOEFL ITP ߩ ᐔ ဋ 417 ὐ ߩ ೋ ࡮ ਛ ⚖ ⧷ ⺆ ቇ ⠌ ⠪83 ฬ (ᄢ ቇ 1 ᐕ ↢ )ࠍ ኻ ⽎ ߦ ‫ ࡯ ࡖ ࠴ ࡞ ࠞ ࡮ ࡊ ࠶ ࡐ ޔ‬ᢎ ᧚ ࠍ ↪ ޿ ߚ ᝼ ᬺ ࠍ ඨ ᐕ 㑆 ታ ᣉ ߒ ߚ ‫ޕ‬5454ࡐ࠶ࡊ࡮ࠞ࡞࠴ࡖ࡯ᢎ᧚ߩല↪ߦ㑐ߔࠆℂ⺰ࡕ࠺࡞ߩ᭴▽᝼ᬺౝߢߪ‫ޔ‬ᵗ↹ࠍ㗴᧚ߣߒߚ࠹ࠠࠬ࠻ࠍਛᔃߦ‫ޔ‬ᵗᭉ࡮㇌↹࡮ᣣᧄࠕ࠾ࡔߩ⥄૞ᢎ᧚߽೽ᢎ᧚ߣߒߡ૶↪ߒߚ‫ޕ‬6 ߹ߚ‫ޔ‬ታ㛎᝼ᬺߩ੐೨࡮੐ᓟߦ‫ޔ‬ᒰ⹥᝼ᬺߩല↪ߦ㑐ߔࠆࠕ ࡦ ࠤ ࡯ ࠻ ⺞ ᩏ (ㆬ ᛯ ᑼ ࡮ ⥄ ↱ ⸥ ㅀ )ࠍ ታ ᣉ ߒ ߚ ‫ ߩ ߎ ޕ‬83 ฬ ߩ ㆬ ಴ ߦ ޽ ߚ ࠅ ‫( ⺆ ⧷ ޔ‬࿤ ᢥൻ )ߦ ⥝ ๧ ߩ ޽ ࠆ ⧷ ᢥ ⑼ ߩ ቇ ↢ ߥ ߤ ߪ ⵍ 㛎 ⠪ ߆ ࠄ ᄖ ߒ ‫ ⵍޔ‬㛎 ⠪ ߩ ⧷ ⺆ ቇ ⠌ ߦ ኻ ߔ ࠆ േ ᯏ ߦೋ߼߆ࠄࡃࠗࠕࠬ߇߆߆ࠄߧࠃ߁㈩ᘦߒߚ‫ޕ‬ ฃ ⻠ ߒ ߚ ో ቇ ↢ ߩ ૕ 㛎 ࠍ ♖ ✺ ߦ ᝒ ߃ ࠆ ߚ ߼ ‫ ⵍ ޔ‬㛎 ⠪ ߩ ⥄ ↱ ⸥ ㅀ ᑼ ో ࠺ ࡯ ࠲ ࠍ M-GTA
ߩಽᨆኻ⽎ߣߒ‫ⵍޔ‬㛎⠪ߩ⧷⺆ቇ⠌ᘒᐲߩᄌൻߥࠄ߮ߦ᝼ᬺߩല↪ߦ㑐ߔࠆⷐ࿃߿ߘߩ࿃ ᨐ 㑐 ଥ ࠍ ត ࠆ ‫ޕ‬7 ߎ ߩ ℂ ↱ ߣ ߒ ߡ ‫ޔ ߫ ߃ ଀ޔ‬ጊ ⷏ (2010)ߪ ࠹ ࠢ ࠬ ࠻ ಣ ℂ ߩ ৻ ㅪ ߩ ૞ ᬺ (ࠦ࡯ ࠼ ൻ ߣ ⷞ ⷡ ⴫ ␜ )ࠍ ⥄ േ ൻ ߔ ࠆ SPSS TEXT Analytics for Surveys (SPSSTA)ߩ ࠃ ߁ ߥ GUI
࠹ࠢࠬ࠻࡮ࡑࠗ࠾ࡦࠣ࡮࠷࡯࡞ࠍ↪޿ࠇ߫‫ޟ‬ᄢ㊂ߩ⥄↱⸥ㅀࠕࡦࠤ࡯࠻⚿ᨐߩಣℂ߇น⢻ ‫ ߣ ޠ‬ᜰ ៰ ߔ ࠆ ߽ ‫ ޔ‬⍴ ᚲ ߣ ߒ ߡ GTA ߿ KJ ᴺ ߥ ߤ ‫ ߩ ੱ ޟ‬ᚻ ߦ ࠃ ࠆ ‫ ⊛ ⾰ ߥ ⚦ ❫ޠ‬ಽ ᨆ ߇ 㔍ߒߊߥࠆὐ߽᜼ߍߡ޿ࠆ‫੹ޕ‬࿁ߩಽᨆኻ⽎ߪ‫࡯ࡖ࠴࡞ࠞ࡮ࡊ࠶ࡐޔ‬ᢎ᧚ࠍᵴ↪ߒߚ᝼ᬺࠍඨᐕ㑆૕㛎ߒߚቇ⠌⠪ߦ㒢ቯߒߡ߅ࠅ‫⸥↱⥄ޔ‬ㅀ࠺࡯࠲ࠍ♖✺ߦ⾰⊛ߦಽᨆߒߡߘߩ
ℂ ⺰ ࡕ ࠺ ࡞ ࠍ ᭴ ▽ ߔ ࠆ ὐ ߆ ࠄ M-GTA ࠍ ↪ ޿ ࠆ ‫ޕ‬ࠕࡦࠤ࡯࠻⺞ᩏౝኈ એਅߪታᣉߒߚࠕࡦࠤ࡯࠻㗄⋡ߩౝኈߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬

1. ᤋ ↹ ࡮ 㖸 ᭉ ࠍ ૶ ߁ ߎ ߣ ߢ ‫ ⺆ ⧷ ޔ‬ቇ ⠌ ߇ ᭉ ߒ ߊ ߥ ࠆ ߣ ᕁ ߁ ‫ ⺆ ⧷[ ޕ‬ቇ ⠌ ߩ ᭉ ߒ ߐ ]2. ᤋ ↹࡮㖸 ᭉ ࠍ ૶ ߁ ߎ ߣ ߢ ‫ޔ‬න ⺆࡮ࡈ ࡟ ࡯ ࠭ ߇ ⥄ ὼ ߦ ᥧ ⸥ ߢ ߈ ࠆ ࠃ ߁ ߦ ߥ ࠆ ߣ ᕁ ߁ ‫[ޕ‬න⺆࡮ࡈ࡟࡯࠭ߩቇ⠌]3. ᤋ ↹ ࡮ 㖸 ᭉ ࠍ ૶ ߁ ߎ ߣ ߢ ‫ ࠍ ⺆ ⧷ ޔ‬ญ ߦ ߒ ߡ ⊒ ߔ ࠆ ࠃ ߁ ߦ ߥ ࠆ ߣ ᕁ ߁ ‫࠻ ࠶ ࡊ ࠻ ࠙ ࠕ[ ޕ‬ലᨐ]
4. ᤋ ↹࡮㖸 ᭉ ࠍ ૶ ߁ ߎ ߣ ߢ ‫ ⁁ ߩ ߈ ߣ ߁ ૶ ࠍ ⃻ ⴫ ߩ ⺆ ⧷ޔ‬ᴫ ࠍ ⠨ ߃ ࠆ ࠃ ߁ ߦ ߥ ࠆ ߣ ᕁ ߁ ‫ޕ‬[⁁ ᴫ ᛠ ី ]5. ᤋ ↹ ࡮ 㖸 ᭉ ࠍ ૶ ߁ ߎ ߣ ߢ ‫ ⺆ ⧷ ޔ‬ቇ ⠌ ߩ ᗧ ᰼ ߇ Ⴧ ߔ ߣ ᕁ ߁ ‫[ ޕ‬ቇ ⠌ ᗧ ᰼ ല ᨐ ]5555ோ⛉ ᜤᚨ

6. ᫎ ⏬ ࣭ 㡢 ᴦ ࢆ ౑ ࠺ ࡇ ࡜ ࡛ ࠊ ⱥ ㄒ ࢆ ⪺ ࡃ ࡇ ࡜ ࡟ ័ ࢀ ࡑ ࠺ ࡔ ࠋ [ࣄ ࢔ ࣜ ࣥ ࢢ ࡢ 㡰 ᛂ ]7. ⮬ ศ ࡛ ὒ ⏬࣭ὒ ᴦ ࡟ ゐ ࢀ ࡿ ࡜ ࡁ ࡶ ⱥ ㄒ ࡢ ࢫ ࢡ ࣜ ࣉ ࢺ࣭ḷ モ ࢆ ぢ ࡿ ࡼ ࠺ ࡟ ࡞ ࡿ ࡜ ᛮ ࠺ ࠋ[ⱥ ㄒ ࡬ ࡢ ព ㆑ ໬ ][]ࡣ ᤵ ᴗ 㛤 ጞ ๓ ࡢ ᤵ ᴗ ຠ ᯝ ࣭ ື ᶵ ᨵ ၿ ணࢆ ♧ ࡍ ࠋ㸦 1-7 ࡲ ࡛ ࡣ 5 ẁ 㝵 㑅 ᢥ ᘧ 㡯 ┠ 㸧

1. ᫎ ⏬ ࣭ 㡢 ᴦ ࢆ ౑ ࠺ ࡇ ࡜ ࡛ ࠊ ⱥ ㄒ Ꮫ ⩦ ࡀ ᴦ ࡋ ࡃ ࡞ ࡗ ࡓ ࠋ [ⱥ ㄒ Ꮫ ⩦ ࡢ ᴦ ࡋ ࡉ ]2. ᫎ ⏬࣭㡢 ᴦ ࢆ ౑ ࠺ ࡇ ࡜ ࡛ ࠊ༢ ㄒ࣭ࣇ ࣞ ࣮ ࢬ ࡀ ⮬ ↛ ࡟ ᬯ グ ࡛ ࡁ ࡿ ࡼ ࠺ ࡟ ࡞ ࡗ ࡓ ࠋ[༢ ㄒ ࣭ࣇ࣮ࣞࢬࡢᏛ⩦]3. ᫎ ⏬࣭㡢 ᴦ ࢆ ౑ ࠺ ࡇ ࡜ ࡛ ࠊⱥ ㄒ ࢆ ཱྀ ࡟ ࡋ ࡚ Ⓨ ࡍ ࡿ ࡼ ࠺ ࡟ ࡞ ࡗ ࡓ ࠋ[࢔ ࢘ ࢺ ࣉ ࢵ ࢺ ຠ ᯝ ]4. ᫎ ⏬ ࣭ 㡢 ᴦ ࢆ ౑ ࠺ ࡇ ࡜ ࡛ ࠊ ⱥ ㄒ ࡢ ⾲ ⌧ ࢆ ౑ ࠺ ࡜ ࡁ ࡢ ≧ ἣ ࢆ ⪃ ࠼ ࡿ ࡼ ࠺ ࡟ ࡞ ࡗ ࡓ ࠋ [≧ἣᢕᥱ]
5. ᫎ ⏬ ࣭ 㡢 ᴦ ࢆ ౑ ࠺ ࡇ ࡜ ࡛ ࠊ ⱥ ㄒ Ꮫ ⩦ ࡢ ព ḧ ࡀ ቑ ࡋ ࡓ ࠋ [Ꮫ ⩦ ព ḧ ຠ ᯝ ]6. ᫎ ⏬ ࣭ 㡢 ᴦ ࢆ ౑ ࠺ ࡇ ࡜ ࡛ ࠊ ⱥ ㄒ ࢆ ⪺ ࡃ ࡇ ࡜ ࡟ ័ ࢀ ࡓ ࠋ [ࣄ ࢔ ࣜ ࣥ ࢢ ࡢ 㡰 ᛂ ]7. ⮬ ศ ࡛ ὒ ⏬ ࣭ ὒ ᴦ ࡟ ゐ ࢀ ࡿ ࡜ ࡁ ࡶ ⱥ ㄒ ࡢ ࢫ ࢡ ࣜ ࣉ ࢺ ࣭ ḷ モ ࢆ ぢ ࡿ ࡼ ࠺ ࡟ ࡞ ࡗ ࡓ ࠋ [ⱥㄒ࡬ࡢព㆑໬]8. ᫎ ⏬ ࣭ ḷ ࡞ ࡝ ࣏ ࢵ ࣉ ࣭ ࢝ ࣝ ࢳ ࣕ ࣮ ࢆ ㏻ ࡋ ࡓ ⱥ ㄒ ᩍ ⫱ ࣭ Ꮫ ⩦ ࡀ ⮬ ศ ࡢ ⱥ ㄒ Ꮫ ⩦ ࡢ ື ᶵᨵၿ࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᙺ❧ࡕࡲࡋࡓ࠿ࠋࡶࡋࡃࡣᙺ❧ࡕࡲࡏࢇ࡛ࡋࡓ࠿ࠋ[]ࡣ ᤵ ᴗ ⤊ ஢ ᚋ ࡢ ᤵ ᴗ ຠ ᯝ ࣭ ື ᶵ ᨵ ၿ ⤖ ᯝ ࢆ ♧ ࡍ ࠋ (1-7 ࡲ ࡛ ࡣ 5 ẁ 㝵 㑅 ᢥ ᘧ 㡯 ┠ ࠊ 8

ࡣ⮬⏤グ㏙ᘧ㡯┠) ୖ グ ࡢ 1-7 ࡢ 㑅 ᢥ ᘧ 㡯 ┠ ࡣ ࠊ ಶ ࠎ ࡢ 㡯 ┠ ࡟ 㛵 ࡋ ࡚ ࠕ ኱ ኚ ࡼ ࡃ ᙜ ࡚ ࡣ ࡲ ࡿ 㸦 5 Ⅼ 㸧ࠖࠕ ࠿࡞ ࡾ ᙜ ࡚ ࡣ ࡲ ࡿ㸦 4 Ⅼ 㸧ࠖࠕ ࠶ ࡿ ⛬ ᗘ ᙜ ࡚ ࡣ ࡲ ࡿ㸦 3 Ⅼ 㸧ࠖࠕ ࠶ ࡲ ࡾ ᙜ ࡚ ࡣ ࡲ ࡽ ࡞ ࠸㸦 2 Ⅼ 㸧ࠖࠕ ᙜ ࡚ ࡣ ࡲ ࡽ ࡞ ࠸㸦 1 Ⅼ 㸧ࠖࡢ 5 Ⅼ ‶ Ⅼ ࡛ ᅇ ⟅ ࢆ ࠾ 㢪 ࠸ ࡋ ࠊᤵ ᴗ ⤊ ஢ ᚋ ࡟ ᐇ ᪋ ࡋ ࡓ ࢔ ࣥ ࢣ࣮ࢺ㡯┠࡟ࡣ 8 ࡢ⮬⏤グ㏙ᘧࢆຍ࠼ࡓࠋ

56
56

࣏ࢵࣉ࣭࢝ࣝࢳ࣮ࣕᩍᮦࡢຠ⏝࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⌮ㄽࣔࢹࣝࡢᵓ⠏࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ㑅ᢥᘧ㡯┠ࡢᇶᮏ⤫ィ㔞 ௨ ୗ ࡣ ࠊ ࢔ ࣥ ࢣ ࣮ ࢺ 㡯 ┠ 1-7 ࡲ ࡛ ࡢ ᇶ ᮏ ⓗ ࡞ グ ㏙ ⤫ ィ 㔞 ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ⾲㸯஦ ๓ ࣭ ஦ ᚋ ࢔ ࣥ ࢣ ࣮ ࢺ ࡢ ᖹ ᆒ ್ ࠊ SDࠊ ࠾ ࡼ ࡧ t ᳨ ᐃ ࡢ ⤖ ᯝ
஦๓

஦ᚋ

M

SD

N

M

SD

N

Q1

4.78

0.44

83

4.59

0.56

83

5.46

**

Q2

4.67

0.52

83

4.41

0.6

83

3.37

***

Q3

4.33

0.81

83

3.65

0.77

83

1.86

***

Q4

4.14

0.93

83

3.52

0.86

83

2.97

***

Q5

4.52

0.68

83

3.99

0.75

83

3.52

***

Q6

4.35

0.84

83

3.95

0.76

83

3.75

***

Q7

4.35

0.78

83

4.36

0.82

83

3.78

n.s.

t್

  n.s.㠀 ᭷ ព , **p < .01, ***p < .001

 ⾲ 1 ࡢᖹᆒ್ࡢ⤖ᯝ࠿ࡽࠊࡲࡎᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ࣏ࢵࣉ࣭࢝ࣝࢳ࣮ࣕⓗⱥㄒᩍ⫱࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㧗࠸ᮇᚅࡀ஦๓࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡢᖹᆒ್࠿ࡽศ࠿ࡿࠋ஦ᚋ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝࡢᖹᆒ್ࡶࡑࡢ㧗ࡉࢆ⥔ᣢࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᴫࡡ࣏ࢵࣉ࣭࢝ࣝࢳ࣮ࣕࢆ⏝࠸ࡓⱥㄒᩍ⫱ࡣᏛ⩦⪅࡟⫯ᐃⓗ࡞Ꮫ⩦ຠᯝࢆ ୚ ࠼ ࡚ ࠸ ࡿ ࠋ≉ ࡟ ࠊ࣏ ࢵ ࣉ࣭࢝ ࣝ ࢳ ࣕ ࣮ ᩍ ᮦ ࡢ ᑟ ධ ࡣ Ꮫ ⩦ ⪅ ࡢ ᮇ ᚅ ࡝ ࠾ ࡾ ࠊࠕⱥㄒᏛ⩦ࡢ ᴦ ࡋ ࡉ (Q1)ࠖࡀ ྥ ୖ ࡋ ࠊࠕ ⱥ ㄒ ࡬ ࡢ ព ㆑ ໬ (Q7)ࠖࡀ 㧗 ࡲ ࡾ ࠊࠕ ༢ ㄒ࣭ࣇ ࣞ ࣮ ࢬ ࡢ Ꮫ ⩦ (Q2)ࠖ
࡟᭷ຠ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀศ࠿ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟ࡣᏛ⩦⪅ࡢᮇᚅ࡜ᐇ㝿ࡢᡭᛂ࠼ࡢ஋㞳ࡶዴᐇ࡟཯ᫎࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ࣏ࢵࣉ࣭࢝ࣝࢳ࣮ࣕᩍᮦࢆά⏝ࡋࡓ࠿ࡽ࡜࠸ࡗ࡚ࠊ⿕㦂 ⪅ ඲ ဨ ࡀ ព ㆑ ⓗ ࡟ Ⓨ ヰ ሙ 㠃 ࢆ ᝿ ᐃ ࡋ ࡓ ࡾ (Q4)ࠊ ࢔ ࢘ ࢺ ࣉ ࢵ ࢺ ࡀ ಁ 㐍 ࡉ ࢀ ࡿ (Q5)ࡇ ࡜ ࡣ࡞ ࡃ ࠊ ⱥ ㄒ Ꮫ ⩦ ࡢ ື ᶵ ௜ ࡅ ᨵ ၿ (Q6)ࡸ ࣜ ࢫ ࢽ ࣥ ࢢ ࡬ ࡢ ័ ࢀ (Q7)ࡣ ᤵ ᴗ 㛤 ጞ ๓ ࡟ ᢪ ࠸ ࡓ ᮇᚅ࡯࡝࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ

57
57

ோ⛉ ᜤᚨ ࡲࡓࠊཧ⪃ࡲ࡛࡟ࠊ஦๓࣭஦ᚋࡢᕪࡢ᳨ウࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺㄪᰝ⤖ᯝࡢᚓⅬ࡟ ࡘ ࠸ ࡚ t ᳨ ᐃ ࢆ ⾜ ࡗ ࡓ ࠋࡑ ࡢ ⤖ ᯝ ࠊQ1(t = 5.46, df = 83, p < .01)ࠊQ2 (t = 3.37, df = 83,
p < .001)ࠊQ3 (t = 1.86, df = 83, p < .001)ࠊQ4(t = 2.97, df = 83, p < .001)ࠊQ5(t = 3.52, df = 83,
p < .001)ࠊQ6(t = 3.75, df = 83, p < .001)ࡲ ࡛ ஦ ๓ ࢔ ࣥ ࢣ ࣮ ࢺ ࡢ ᪉ ࡀ ᭷ ព ࡟ 㧗 ࠸ ᚓ Ⅼ ࢆ ♧ ࡋ ࠊ
Q7 ࡢ ࡳ ஦ ๓ ࣭ ஦ ᚋ ࡟ ࠾ ࡅ ࡿ ᚓ Ⅼ ᕪ ࡣ ᭷ ព ࡛ ࡣ ࡞ ࠿ ࡗ ࡓ (t = 3.78, df = 83, n.s.)ࠋ ࡘ ࡲ ࡾ ࠊ t᳨ᐃࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ㔞ⓗศᯒࡢほⅬ࠿ࡽ⪃ᐹࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࠕ ⱥ ㄒ ࡬ ࡢ ព ㆑ ໬ ࠖ௨ እ ࡣ ᙜ ヱ ᤵ ᴗ ࡢ ຠ ᯝࡣᮇᚅࢆ㉸࠼ࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡀࠊᯝࡓࡋ࡚ࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ ↓ㄽࠊࡇࡢ⌮⏤࡟ࡣ஦๓࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺࡢ⤖ᯝࡀ࡝ࡢ㉁ၥ㡯┠࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ࠿࡞ࡾ㧗࠸್࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ㉳ᅉࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡣࡎ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ㔞ⓗศᯒ࠿ࡽࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤖ㄽࢆᑟࡃࡢࡣ᫬ᮇ ᑦ ᪩ ࡛ ࠶ ࢁ ࠺ ࠋ≉ ࡟ ࠊᖹ ᆒ ್ ࡀ 3 Ⅼ ྎ ࡛ ࠶ ࡗ ࡓ Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6 ࡢ ㉁ ၥ 㡯 ┠ ࡟ ࠾ ࠸ ࡚ ࡶ ࠊ࠶ࡿ⛬ᗘࡢᡭᛂ࠼ࢆᚓࡓᏛ⩦⪅ࡶᐇ㝿࡟ࡣ࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࠊ⿕㦂⪅ࡀ࣏ࢵࣉ࣭࢝ࣝࢳ࣮ࣕᩍᮦࢆά⏝ࡋࡓᤵᴗࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ᐇ㝿࡟ឤࡌࡓయ㦂ࢆ⮬⏤グ㏙ᘧࢹ࣮ࢱ࠿ࡽศᯒࡋࠊ඲࡚ࡢ⿕㦂⪅࡟ࡣᙜ࡚ࡣࡲࡽ࡞ࡃ࡚ࡶࠊᐇ㝿࡟࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ຠ⏝ࡀぢࡽࢀࡓࡢ࠿ࠊゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤࠊ㉁ⓗศᯒࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛㔞ⓗศᯒ࡛ࡣぢ࠼࡟ࡃ࠸ຠᯝࡢᐇែࢆゎ᫂ࡍࡿࠋศᯒ
M-GTA ศ ᯒ ᡭ 㡰 ᮏ❶࡛ࡣࠊ࢔ࣥࢣ࣮ࢺ㡯┠ 8 ࡢ⮬⏤グ㏙ᘧࢹ࣮ࢱࢆ㉁ⓗ࡟ศᯒࡍࡿࠋᮏ◊✲ࡢ᭱⤊┠ⓗࡣࠊ⿕㦂⪅ࡢᏛ⩦ែᗘࡢኚ໬࡞࡝࣏ࢵࣉ࣭࢝ࣝࢳ࣮ࣕᩍᮦࡢຠ⏝ࠊ୪ࡧ࡟㛵㐃ᩍᮦ㛤Ⓨ ᫬ ࡟ ཧ ⪃ ࡟ ࡍ ࡭ ࡁ ௬ ㄝ ⏕ ᡂ ࡟ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ ࡇ ࡢ ┠ ⓗ ࢆ 㐩 ᡂ ࡍ ࡿ ࡓ ࡵ ࠊ GTA ࡢ ᨵ Ⰻ ∧ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ
M-GTA(ᮌ ୗ , 2003)ࢆ ศ ᯒ ࡢ ᯟ ⤌ ࡳ ࡜ ࡋ ࡚ ᥇ ⏝ ࡋ ࠊ࣎ ࢺ ࣒ ࢔ ࢵ ࣉ ⓗ ࡟ ࣔ ࢹ ࣝ ᵓ ⠏ ࢆ ┠ ᣦ ࡍ ࠋ
M-GTA ࡢ ᇶ ᮏ ⓗ ࡞ ⪃ ࠼ ᪉ ࡣ ࠊࠕ ᴫ ᛕ ໬ ࠖ ࡛ ࠶ ࡿ ࠋ ᴫ ᛕ ໬ ࡜ ࡣ ࠊ ⋓ ᚓ ࡋ ࡓ ࢸ ࢡ ࢫ ࢺ ࠿ ࡽ ఱ࠿ ࡋ ࡽ ࡢ ᴫ ᛕ ࢆ ⏕ ᡂ ࡍ ࡿ ࡇ ࡜ ࢆ ᣦ ࡍ (す ᲄ , 2007, p. 92)ࠋ ≉ ࡟ ࠊ M-GTA ࡣ ື ⓗ ࡞ ᴫ ᛕ ໬ࢆ┠ᣦࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟▮༳ࢆ㏣ຍࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛≉ᚩࡢิᣲࡢࡳ࡞ࡽࡎࠊᙳ㡪㛵ಀࡸ⾜ື ᥎ ⛣ ࣃ ࢱ ࣮ ࣥ ࠊࢩ ࢫ ࢸ ࣒ ኚ ໬ ࡞ ࡝ ࠊఱ ࠿ ࡋ ࡽ ࡢ ࣉ ࣟ ࢭ ࢫ ࢆ ᤊ ࠼ ࡚ ᵓ 㐀 ໬ ࡍ ࡿ (す ᲄ , 2007,

58
58

ࡐ࠶ࡊ࡮ࠞ࡞࠴ࡖ࡯ᢎ᧚ߩല↪ߦ㑐ߔࠆℂ⺰ࡕ࠺࡞ߩ᭴▽p. 94)‫ ⎇ ᧄޕ‬ⓥ ߦ ߅ ޿ ߡ ߽ ‫ޔ‬᛽ ಴ ߒ ߚ ฦ ᭎ ᔨ 㑆 ߩ ࿃ ᨐ 㑐 ଥ ╬ ࠍ น ⷞ ൻ ߔ ࠆ ߎ ߣ ߢ ‫࡮ࡊ ࠶ ࡐޔ‬ࠞ࡞࠴ࡖ࡯ᢎ᧚߆ࠄᓧࠄࠇࠆല↪ߩ⢛᥊ߦሽ࿷ߔࠆⷐ࿃ࠍࡕ࠺࡞ൻߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ ಽ ᨆ ߦ ޽ ߚ ࠅ ‫ ⸘ ߕ ߹ޔ‬83 ฬ ಽ ߩ ⥄ ↱ ⸥ ㅀ ࠺ ࡯ ࠲ (ࠦ ࡔ ࡦ ࠻ ᢙ ߪ ⸘ 154 ⒳ )ߦ ኻ ߒ ߡ ‫ޔ‬઒ߩ᭎ᔨฬߣࡊࡠࡄ࠹ࠖ‫ޔ‬ℂ⺰⊛ࡔࡕ╬ࠍട߃ߚ‫ޕ‬ᰴߦ‫ࠍ࠲࡯࠺ߩߎޔ‬㘃ૃߒߚ᭎ᔨߏߣ
ߦਗߴᦧ߃ߒ‫ޔ‬Ყセ࡮♖ᩏߒߚ਄ߢౕ૕଀ࠍ߹ߣ߼⋥ߒ‫ޔ‬ᱜᑼߥ᭎ᔨฬࠍઃਈߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᱜᑼߥ᭎ᔨฬࠍઃߌࠆ㓙ߦߪ‫ߩߟ৻ޔ‬᭎ᔨߦߟ߈৻ߟߩࡢ࡯ࠢࠪ࡯࠻ߢ߹ߣ߼ߚ‫ޟ‬ℂ⺰⊛ࡔ ࡕ ‫ ࠆ ߥ ߣ ޠ‬ಽ ᨆ ࡢ ࡯ ࠢ ࠪ ࡯ ࠻ ࠍ ᵴ ↪ ߒ ߚ (⷏ ᪯ , 2007, p. 158)‫ ⴫ ޕ‬2 ߩ ಽ ᨆ ࡢ ࡯ ࠢ ࠪ ࡯࠻ ߢ ߪ ‫ ⎇ ᧄޔ‬ⓥ ߢ ↢ ᚑ ߐ ࠇ ߚ ᭎ ᔨ ߩ ৻ ଀ ߣ ߒ ߡ ‫ޔ‬᭎ ᔨ ฬ‫ ⸥ ޟ‬ᙘ ߩ ଦ ㅴ ല ᨐ ‫ ߩ ߘ ߣޠ‬ቯ ⟵ ‫ޔ‬ౕ૕଀ࠍ᜼ߍߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬8⴫㧞ታ㓙ߩಽᨆࡢ࡯ࠢࠪ࡯࠻ߩ଀᭎ᔨฬ⸥ ᙘ ߩ ଦ ㅴ ല ᨐ (5/83:6%)ቯ⟵ᤋ↹࡮㖸ᭉࠍㅢߒߚ⺆ᒵ࡮ࡈ࡟࡯࠭ߩ⸥ᙘଦㅴലᨐ‫ߩߘޔ‬ቇ⠌ᗧ᰼ౕ૕଀࡮߆ߚߊࠆߒߊ⧷⺆ߩീᒝࠍߔࠆࠃࠅ‫ޔ‬㖸ᭉ߿ᤋ↹ߩࡈ࡟࡯࠭
ߥߤߩ߅߆ߍߢ‫ߩߘߊࠃޔ‬න⺆ࠍᕁ޿಴ߒߡ޿ߚࠅߒ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬(16)࡮ᤋ↹ߩ႐㕙ߥߤߣ৻✜ߦ⸥ᙘߐࠇࠆߎߣߢ‫⸥ޔ‬ᙘ߇⧰ᚻߥ⑳ߦ ߣ ߞ ߡ ߽ ◲ න ߦ ⷡ ߃ ࠄ ࠇ ߚ ࠅ り ߦ ߟ ޿ ߚ ࠅ ߒ ߚ ߣ ᕁ ߁ ‫( ޕ‬38)࡮หߓන⺆‫ޔ‬ᾫ⺆ࠍⷡ߃ࠆߦߒߡ߽‫ޔ‬ᤋ↹ߥߤߢ႐㕙߿⁁ᴫ߇ߪߞ߈ࠅಽ߆ߞߡ޿ࠆߣ㗡ߦࠬ࠶ߣ౉ߞߡ߈߿ߔ޿ߩߢ‫ޔ‬Ⓧᭂ⊛ߦᵗ↹ࠍ⷗ߡߚߊߐࠎ⸒⪲ࠍⷡ߃ߡ޿߈ߚ޿ߣᕁ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬(72)࡮ᤋ↹߿㖸ᭉࠍㅢߓߚቇ⠌ߩᣇ߇㗡ߦ౉ࠅ߿ߔߊߡ޿޿ߣᕁ޿

59
59

ੳ⑼ ᕶᓼ߹ ߒ ߚ ‫( ޕ‬73)࡮ᭉߒࠎߢ⧷⺆ࠍቇ߱ߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆߒ‫⥄ޔ‬ὼߦ㗡ߦࡈ࡟࡯࠭߇౉ ߞ ߡ ߈ ߹ ߒ ߚ ‫( ޕ‬74)ࡐ࠶ࡊ࡮ࠞ࡞࠴ࡖ࡯ᢎ᧚ߩല↪ߦ㑐ߔࠆℂ⺰ࡕ࠺࡞ M-GTA ߩ ၮ ᧄ ⊛ ߥ ⠨ ߃ ᣇ ߪ ‫ ⴫ޔ‬2 ߢ ᜼ ߍ ߚ ࠃ ߁ ߦ ‫ޔ‬₪ ᓧ ߒ ߚ ౕ ૕ ଀ ߆ ࠄ ૗ ߆ ߒ ࠄ ߩ ᭎ᔨ ࠍ ↢ ᚑ ߔ ࠆ ߎ ߣ ߦ ޽ ࠆ (⷏ ᪯ , 2007, p. 92)‫ޕ‬M-GTA ߪ േ ⊛ ߥ ᭎ ᔨ ൻ ࠍ ⋡ ᜰ ߔ ⾰ ⊛ ⎇ ⓥ ᚻᴺߢ޽ࠅ‫ߦ⊛⚳ᦨޔ‬⍫ශࠍㅊടߒ࿑␜ߔࠆߎߣߢ‫․ޔ‬ᓽߩ೉᜼ߦട߃ߡ‫ޔ‬ᓇ㗀㑐ଥ߿ⴕേ ផ ⒖ ࡄ ࠲ ࡯ ࡦ ‫ ࡓ ࠹ ࠬ ࠪޔ‬ᄌ ൻ ߥ ߤ ‫ޔ‬૗ ߆ ߒ ࠄ ߩ ࡊ ࡠ ࠮ ࠬ ࠍ ᝒ ߃ ߡ ᭴ ㅧ ൻ ߔ ࠆ (⷏ ᪯ , 2007,
p. 94)‫ ᦨޔ ߡ ⚻ ࠍ ࠬ ࠮ ࡠ ࡊ ߥ ߁ ࠃ ߩ ߎޕ‬ᓟ ߦ ‫ޔ‬ฦ ᭎ ᔨ ࠍ ߹ ߣ ߼ ߚ ࡢ ࡯ ࠢ ࠪ ࡯ ࠻ ࠍ ߘ ࠇ ߙ ࠇᲧ セ ߒ ‫ ߩ ߆ ߟ ߊ ޿ޔ‬᭎ ᔨ ࠍ ൮ ᜝ ߔ ࠆ ࠞ ࠹ ࠧ ࡝ ࡯ ࠍ ࡏ ࠻ ࡓ ࠕ ࠶ ࡊ ⊛ ߦ ޿ ߊ ߟ ߆ ↢ ᚑ ߒ ߚ ᓟ ‫ޔ‬⍫ශࠍㅊടߒߡ↢ᚑߒߚࠞ࠹ࠧ࡝࡯ߣฦ᭎ᔨߩ㑐ଥࠍ␜ߒߥ߇ࠄ‫ޔ‬‫࡯ ࡖ ࠴ ࡞ ࠞ࡮ࡊ ࠶ ࡐ ޟ‬᝼ ᬺ ߩ ല ↪ ‫ ߦ ޠ‬㑐 ߔ ࠆ ℂ ⺰ ࡕ ࠺ ࡞ (࿑ 1)ࠍ ᭴ ▽ ߒ ߚ ‫ ޕ‬9
 ࿑ 1 ߩࠬ࠻࡯࡝࡯࡜ࠗࡦࠍ⺑᣿ߒߟߟ‫ޔ‬એਅߎߩℂ⺰ࡕ࠺࡞ࠍ⠨ኤߔࠆ‫࠶ࡐޔߕ߹ޕ‬ࡊ࡮ࠞ࡞࠴ࡖ࡯ᢎ᧚߆ࠄᓧࠄࠇࠆല↪ߩࠦࠕ࡮ࠞ࠹ࠧ࡝࡯ߪ⧷⺆ቇ⠌਄ߦ߅ߌࠆ‫ࠢࡑޟ‬ࡠ ⊛ ല ↪ ‫ ⊛ ࡠ ࠢ ࠗ ࡑ ޟߣޠ‬ല ↪ ‫ ߦޠ‬ੑ ಽ ߐ ࠇ ࠆ ‫ ⊛ ࡠ ࠢ ࡑޕ‬ല ↪ ߪ ‫ޔ‬‫⺆⧷ޟ‬ቇ⠌ߦኻߔࠆേ
ᯏᡷༀ‫ޟߣޠ‬ቇ⠌ᗧ᰼ߩะ਄‫ࠄ߆࡯࡝ࠧ࠹ࠞߩޠ‬ᚑࠅ‫ޔ‬೨⠪ߪᓟ⠪ߦᓇ㗀ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߎޕ‬ߩੑߟߩ߁ߜ೨⠪ߩല↪ߩᣇ߇ᒝߊ‫ߩߘޔ‬ਛߢ߽‫⺆⧷ޟ‬ቇ⠌ߩᭉߒߐ‫ࠆࠃߦޠ‬ലᨐ߇․╩ߒߡᄢ߈޿‫ޕ‬ ᰴ ߦ ‫ ⊛ ࡠ ࠢ ࠗ ࡑޔ‬ല ↪ ߪ ‫ޔ‬‫ ⺆ ޟ‬ᒵ࡮⴫ ⃻ ߦ 㑐 ߔ ࠆ ᳇ ߠ ߈ ‫ޔޠ‬‫ ޟ‬ሼ ᐀࡮᱌ ⹖ ߩ ᗧ ⼂ ൻ ‫ޔޠ‬‫⺆ޟ‬↪ ⺰ ⊛ ⷐ ࿃ ߳ ߩ ᳇ ߠ ߈ ‫ ࠍ ࠣ ࡦ ࠾ ࠬ ࡝ ޟޔޠ‬ㅢ ߒ ߚ ᳇ ߠ ߈ ‫ ߩ ޠ‬྾ ߟ ߩ ࠞ ࠹ ࠧ ࡝ ࡯ ߆ ࠄ ᚑ ࠆ ‫ޕ‬‫ ޟ‬ሼ ᐀࡮᱌ ⹖ ߩ ᗧ ⼂ ൻ ‫ ⷐ ⊛ ⺰ ↪ ⺆ ޟߣޠ‬࿃ ߳ ߩ ᳇ ߠ ߈ ‫ޔ ߪޠ‬‫ ⺆ ޟ‬ᒵ࡮⴫ ⃻ ߦ 㑐 ߔ ࠆ ᳇ ߠ ߈ ‫ޠ‬ߦᓇ㗀ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩߘޕ‬ᓇ㗀߽޽ߞߡ߆‫ߩߎޔ‬྾ߟߩࠞ࠹ࠧ࡝࡯ߩਛߢߪ‫⺆ޟ‬ᒵ࡮⴫⃻ߦ㑐ߔࠆ᳇ߠ߈‫ߦޠ‬㑐ߔࠆല↪߇ᦨ߽ᒝ޿‫⊛ࡠࠢࠗࡑޔߦ․ޕ‬ല↪ߪ‫ޔ‬ᢥሼ߿ᗧ๧ߥߤ⸒
⺆ߩౝ⊛஥㕙ߦ㑐ߔࠆᗧ⼂ൻߣ૶↪⁁ᴫ߿႐㕙‫ޔ‬ᢥൻߥߤ⸒⺆ߩᄖ⊛஥㕙ߦ㑐ߔࠆᗧ⼂ൻߣ޿߁ౕ૕଀ߦ߽ಽ㘃ߔࠆߎߣ߇น⢻ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬

60
60

61

61

࿑㧝‫࡯ࡖ࠴࡞ࠞ࡮ࡊ࠶ࡐޟ‬ᢎ᧚ߩല↪‫ߦޠ‬㑐ߔࠆℂ⺰ࡕ࠺࡞ࡐ࠶ࡊ࡮ࠞ࡞࠴ࡖ࡯ᢎ᧚ߩല↪ߦ㑐ߔࠆℂ⺰ࡕ࠺࡞ߩ᭴▽ੳ⑼ ᕶᓼ⠨ኤ ᦨ⚳⊛ߥ࿑ 1 ߩ᭴▽ࡕ࠺࡞ߩ↢ᚑߣߘߩ⸃㉼ࠍㅢߒߡ‫࡯ࡖ࠴࡞ࠞ࡮ࡊ࠶ࡐޔ‬ᢎ᧚߆ࠄᓧ ࠄ ࠇ ࠆ ല ↪ ࠍ ߹ ߣ ߼ ࠆ ‫ ⺆ ⧷ ޟޔ ߕ ߹ ޕ‬ቇ ⠌ ߦ ኻ ߔ ࠆ േ ᯏ ᡷ ༀ ‫ ⵍ ో ߇ ޠ‬㛎 ⠪ ߩ 54%ࠍ භ߼ߡ߅ࠅ‫ޔ‬ห᝼ᬺ߇⧷⺆ቇ⠌ߦ㓚ოߩ޽ࠆቇ⠌⠪ߦਈ߃ߚᓇ㗀ߣߒߡ‫ߩߘޔ‬ᢝዬࠍૐߊ
ߒ‫ޔ‬ቇ⠌ᗧ᰼߇ะ਄ߒߚὐ߇⹺߼ࠄࠇࠆ‫੹ޔߦ․ޕ‬ᓟ‫ޔ‬Ⓧᭂ⊛ߦᤋ↹࡮㖸ᭉߦ⸅ࠇ‫ޔ‬ሼ᐀߿᱌⹖ࠍㅢߒߡ⧷⺆ࠍቇ߮ߚ޿ߣ޿߁ᆫ൓߽ુ߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᰴߦ‫ߥ⊛⥸৻ޔ‬ᢎ᧚ࠍ↪޿ߚቇ⠌ߣߪ⇣ߥࠅࠝ࡯࠮ࡦ࠹ࠖ࠶ࠢߥ⴫⃻߇ቇߴࠆὐ‫ޔ‬ታ↪࡟ࡌ࡞ߩ⧷⺆ߦኻߔࠆ᳇ߠ߈ߣ
ߘࠇࠍㅢߒߡᛠីߔࠆ⥄りߩ⃻⁁ߩ⧷⺆ജ‫ࠅ➅ࠍࠣࡦ࠾ࠬ࡝ޔ‬㄰ߔߎߣߢᘠࠇߦࠃࠆቇ
⠌ലᨐ߳ߩᦼᓙ‫߽ߤߥޔ‬ಽ߆ࠆ‫ޔߦࠄߐޕ‬ᤋ↹ࠍ↪޿ߚ᝼ᬺߢߪ‫ࡈ࡝࠮ޔ‬ౝߢᛒࠊࠇࠆ
⴫⃻ߩ႐㕙߿૶↪⁁ᴫ‫ߩߘߪߊߒ߽ޔ‬⢛᥊ᢥൻߥߤ߽ቇ߱ߎߣ߇ߢ߈‫ࠍࠄࠇߘޔ‬ㅢߒߡቇ߱ߎߣߢන⺆߿ࡈ࡟࡯࠭߇ቇ⠌⠪ߩ⸥ᙘߦᱷࠅ߿ߔ޿ߣ޿߁ല↪߽޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬᝼ᬺߦ㑐ߒߡᓧࠄࠇߚቇ↢ߩᗧ⷗߆ࠄߪ‫ޔ‬᝼ᬺౝߢ㧞࿁ታᣉߒߚᤋ↹⧷⺆⴫⃻ߦ㑐ߔࠆࡊ࡟࠯ࡦ࠹
࡯࡚ࠪࡦࠍㅢߒߡ‫ޔ‬ቇ↢߇⢻േ⊛ߦሼ᐀ࠍ⺒ߺߘߩ૶↪႐㕙ߥߤ߽ൊ᩺ߒߥ߇ࠄ⺞ᩏቇ⠌ࠍߔࠆߎߣߢ⸒⺆⴫⃻ߦ㑐ߔࠆ᳇ߠ߈ߩല↪߽ߺࠄࠇ‫ޔ‬ਛߦߪ‫ޔ‬᝼ᬺౝߢ߽ߞߣ↢ߩ⧷⺆ߩࠬࡇ࡯࠼ߦ㊀ὐࠍ߅޿ߚࠬࡇ࡯ࠠࡦࠣ✵⠌߽ߒߚ޿ߣ޿߁ᗧ᰼޽ࠆቇ↢߽޿ߚ‫ޕ‬ એ਄ߩὐ߆ࠄ‫੹ޔ‬ᓟߩࡐ࠶ࡊ࡮ࠞ࡞࠴ࡖ࡯ᢎ᧚ߩ㐿⊒ߦ߅޿ߡࡈࠜ࡯ࠞࠬࠍ⟎ߊߴ߈ὐ ߪ ‫(ޔ‬1)࡝ ࠬ ࠾ ࡦ ࠣ ߪ ็ ߈ ᦧ ߃ ߩ ߺ ߥ ࠄ ߕ ‫ ߩ ↢ޔ‬㖸 ჿ ߽ ട ߃ ߚ CD ࠍ ↪ ᗧ ߔ ࠆ ߩ ߇ ᦸ ߹ߒ ޿ ‫(ޔ‬2)ቇ ⠌ ⠪ ߦ ࡊ ࡟ ࠯ ࡦ ࠹ ࡯ ࠪ ࡚ ࡦ ࠍ ⺖ ߔ ࠲ ࠬ ࠢ ࠍ ⋓ ࠅ ㄟ ߻ ߩ ߇ ᦸ ߹ ߒ ޿ ‫(ޔ‬3)ⷙ ▸ ᢥᴺ╬߆ࠄㅺ⣕ߒߡ޿ߡ߽ᤋ↹ߢ↪޿ࠄࠇࠆ᭽‫ࠅ⋓ࠍ⃻⴫ߩ↢ߥޘ‬ㄟߺ⸃⺑ߔࠆ࡝ࠬ࠻㓸ߥ ߤ ࠍ ឭ ␜ ߔ ࠆ ‫(ޔ‬4)૶ ↪ ⁁ ᴫ ߿ ․ ቯ ߩ ႐ 㕙 ࠍ ᗐ ቯ ߐ ߖ ‫ ߩ ߆ ߟ ߊ ޿ޔ‬บ ⹖ ࠍ ෻ ᓳ ✵ ⠌ ߐ ߖࠆ ࠃ ߁ ߥ ࠬ ࡇ ࡯ ࠠ ࡦ ࠣ ࠲ ࠬ ࠢ ߩ ዉ ౉ ‫(ޔ‬5)ሼ ᐀ ࠍ ㅢ ߒ ߚ ࡝ ࡯ ࠺ ࠖ ࡦ ࠣ ᵴ േ ‫ ߦ ․ޔ‬ታ 㓙 ߩ ࠬࠢ ࡝ ࡊ ࠻ ߣ ሼ ᐀ ⠡ ⸶ ߣ ߩ ㆑ ޿ ࠍ ᳇ ߠ ߆ ߖ ࠆ ࠃ ߁ ߥ ቇ ⠌ ࠲ ࠬ ࠢ ߩ ዉ ౉ ‫ ߇ ߤ ߥޔ‬⠨ ߃ ࠄ ࠇ ࠆ ‫ޕ‬⏕߆ߦ੹࿁᝼ᬺߢਛᔃ⊛ߦᵴ↪ߒߚᤋ↹ᢎ᧚߿⃻࿷౏ೀߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ㑐ㅪᢎ᧚ߦߪ‫ޔ‬਄⸥ߩ ࠃ ߁ ߥ ࠲ ࠬ ࠢ 㗄 ⋡ ߇ ච ੑ ಽ ߦ ข ࠅ ౉ ࠇ ࠄ ࠇ ߡ ޿ ߥ ޿ ‫ ޕ‬10


62
62

ࡐ࠶ࡊ࡮ࠞ࡞࠴ࡖ࡯ᢎ᧚ߩല↪ߦ㑐ߔࠆℂ⺰ࡕ࠺࡞ߩ᭴▽߹ߣ߼ᧄ⎇ⓥߩ߹ߣ߼ ᧄ⎇ⓥߢߪ‫࡯ࡖ࠴࡞ࠞ࡮ࡊ࠶ࡐޔ‬ᢎ᧚ࠍ᝼ᬺߢዉ౉ߒߚ㓙ߩല↪ߦ㑐ߔࠆℂ⺰ࡕ࠺࡞ࠍ M-GTA ࠍ ↪ ޿ ߡ ᭴ ▽ ߒ ߚ ‫ ⺆ ⧷ ޕ‬ቇ ⠌ ⠪ ߩ േ ᯏ ઃ ߌ ߦ ᦭ ല ߢ ޽ ࠆ ߎ ߣ ߿ ‫⺆ ⧷ ߩ ⁁ ⃻ ޔ‬ജߣታ↪࡟ࡌ࡞ߣߩਵ㔌ߩ⊒⷗ߥߤ‫ޔ‬ೋਛ⚖ቇ⠌⠪ߦߪ‫ޔ‬ᤋ↹߿㖸ᭉࠍᵴ↪ߔࠆߎߣߢ
⧷⺆ቇ⠌ࠍଦㅴߐߖࠆലᨐ߇޽ࠆߎߣ߇ಽ߆ߞߚ‫↪૶ޔߚ߹ޕ‬႐㕙╬߇ᛠីߢ߈ࠆߎߣ
ߢ‫⺆ޔ‬ᒵ࡮ࡈ࡟࡯࠭╬ߩ⸥ᙘࠍଦㅴߐߖࠆലᨐ߿‫ࠣࡦࠠ࡯ࡇࠬޔ‬ᗧ᰼ࠍ㜞߼ࠆലᨐ߽૗
ੱ߆ߩቇ⠌⠪ߦߪ⷗ࠄࠇ‫ౕࠄࠇߎޔ‬૕⊛ߥ㗄⋡ߦ㑐ߒߡߪ‫੹ޔ‬ᓟߩᤋ↹⧷⺆ࠍߪߓ߼ߣ
ߔࠆࡐ࠶ࡊ࡮ࠞ࡞࠴ࡖ࡯ᢎ᧚ߩ㐿⊒ߦ⋓ࠅㄟ߻ߴ߈㊀ⷐߥൊ᩺੐㗄ߢ޽ࠆߣ⸒߃ࠆ‫ߘޕ‬ߩᗧ๧ߢ߽‫⎇ᧄޔ‬ⓥࠍታᣉߒߚᗧ⟵ߪዋߥߊߥ޿ߣ⸒߃ࠃ߁‫ޕ‬੹ᓟߩᣇะᕈ ᧄ⎇ⓥߢ␜ߒߚࡐ࠶ࡊ࡮ࠞ࡞࠴ࡖ࡯ᢎ᧚ߦ㑐ߔࠆല↪ࡕ࠺࡞ߪᥳቯ⊛ߥ߽ߩߢ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬ⵍ㛎⠪࠺࡯࠲ࠍ੹ᓟ߽Ⴧ߿ߔߎߣߢ‫ߦࠄߐޔ‬ᬌ⸛ߒߡ޿ߊᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ࠍ࡞࠺ࡕᧄߚ߹ޕ‬ၮ⋚ߦ⾰໧⚕ࠍㆡቱୃᱜߒ‫ⵍޔ‬㛎⠪ߩ૕㛎ߦ㑐ߔࠆታᘒ⺞ᩏ߽ⴕ߁ߎߣߢ‫ޔ‬ᣂߚߥⷞᐳ
ࠍᓧࠄࠇࠆน⢻ᕈ߽޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᄢቇߩ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ࠍ‫ޔ‬ᄢቇ‫␠ޔ‬ળ‫ߪߊߒ߽ޔ‬ቇ⠌⠪ߥߤ‫ߩߤޔ‬࠾࡯࠭ߦวࠊߖࠆ߆ߦߪᄢ߈ߊᗧ⷗߇ಽ߆ࠇࠆ߇‫⎇ᧄޔ‬ⓥߩࠃ߁ߥ⺞ᩏࠍ㊀ߨߚ਄ߢቇ
⠌⠪ߩ࠾࡯࠭ߦวࠊߖߚ⧷⺆ᢎ⢒ࠍዷ㐿ߔࠆߎߣ߽‫੹ޔ‬ᓟߩ࡝ࡔ࠺ࠖࠕ࡞ᢎ⢒╬ߦ߅ߌࠆ৻ߟߩ᦭ലߥᣇ╷ߢ޽ࠈ߁‫ߩ࡯ࡖ࠴࡞ࠞ࡮ࡊ࠶ࡐޔߦ․ޕ‬㗔ၞߦߪ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄߩઍ⴫ᢥൻ
ߢ޽ࠆࠕ࠾ࡔ߿ࠥ࡯ࡓ߽฽߹ࠇࠆߎߣ߆ࠄ‫੹ޔ‬ᓟ‫⺆⧷ߚ޿↪ࠍ᧚⚛ߥ߁ࠃߩߎޔ‬ᢎ⢒ߩ᦭ ല ᕈ ߽ ᬌ ⸽ ߒ ‫ ޔ‬iPad ╬ ߩ ៤ Ꮺ 㔚 ሶ ┵ ᧃ ࠍ ᵴ ↪ ߒ ߚ ᝼ ᬺ ᴺ ߽ ឭ ᩺ ߒ ߡ ޿ ߈ ߚ ޿ ‫ޕ‬ᵈ1 ࡐ࠶ࡊ࡮ࠞ࡞࠴ࡖ࡯ߪࡐࡇࡘ࡜࡯࡮ࠞ࡞࠴ࡖ࡯ߣ߽๭߫ࠇ‫ߩߘޔ‬ኻ⺆ߦߪ⟤ⴚ߿ᢥቇߥߤ⍮⼂࡮ᢎ㙃߇ᔅⷐߥࡂࠗ࡮ࠞ࡞࠴ࡖ࡯߇ሽ࿷ߔࠆ‫ࡂߣ࡯ࡖ࠴࡞ࠞ࡮ࡊ࠶ࡐޔߚ߹ޕ‬ࠗ࡮ࠞ࡞࠴ࡖ࡯ߩਔ㗔ၞࠍࠞࡃ࡯ߔࠆࠨࡉ࡮ࠞ࡞࠴ࡖ࡯ߣ๭߫ࠇࠆ㗔ၞ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᄢⴐߦ63
63

ੳ⑼ ᕶᓼ

ㅢᐩߒߡ޿ࠆᢥൻࠍࡔࠗࡦ࡮ࠬ࠻࡝࡯ࡓߣ߽๭߱‫ޕ‬
2 ߎ ߩ ࠃ ߁ ߥ ౝ ⊛ ᭴ ㅧ ࠍ ᛽ ಴ ߔ ࠆ ߚ ߼ ߦ ߽ ‫ ⷏ޔ‬᪯ (2007)ᦚ ߊ ‫ ⎇ ⊛ ⾰ޔ‬ⓥ ߢ ߪ‫ ޟ‬ౝ ⊛ ⷞ ὐ ‫ޠ‬ࠍ ㊀ ⷞ ߒ ߡ ޿ ࠆ (cf. ⷏ ᪯ , 2007)‫ޕ‬
3 KJ ᴺ ߪ Ꮉ ༑ ↰ ੑ ㇢ ᳁ ߇ ⠨ ᩺ ߒ ߚ ⾰ ⊛ ⎇ ⓥ ᴺ ߢ ޽ ࠆ ‫ޔ ߪ ߊ ߒ ⹦ޕ‬Ꮉ ༑ ↰ (1967, 1970, 1986)╬ࠍෳᾖ‫ޕ‬4 ‫ ޟ‬Q&A on M-GTA ‫ ޠ‬http://m-gta.jp/ (2015 ᐕ 3 ᦬ 28 ᣣ 㑛 ⷩ )5 ࡑ ࠗ ࠾ ࡦ ࠣ (Mining)ߣ ޿ ߁ ࠲ ࡯ ࡓ ߪ ណ ជ (Mine)ߦ ↱ ᧪ ߒ ‫ ࠅ ߹ ߟޔ ࠻ ࠬ ࠢ ࠹ ߥ ⊛ ⾰ޔ‬ណ ขߒߚ⸒⺆࠺࡯࠲ౝߦၒ߽ࠇߡ޿ࠆᖱႎࠍណជ࡮ᵴ↪ߔࠆᣇᴺߢ޽ࠆ‫ౕޕ‬૕⊛ߦߪ‫ޔ‬ೋ߼ߦ⸒⺆࠺࡯࠲ࠍຠ⹖࡮ᵴ↪ߥߤߩᒻᘒ⚛࡟ࡌ࡞߿‫ߪߦᤨޔ‬ਥ⺆ߣㅀ⺆ߩଥࠅฃߌߥߤߩ
᭴ᢥ࡟ࡌ࡞ߢ⸃ᨆߒ‫⚿ޔ‬ᨐࠍࠞ࠹ࠧ࡝࡯೎ߦಽ㘃ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣣᧄ⺆ࠍಽᨆኻ⽎ߣߔࠆ႐วߪಽ ߆ ߜ ᦠ ߈ (ಽ ഀ )ߔ ࠆ ᔅ ⷐ ߇ ޽ ࠆ ‫ ࠍ ࠲ ࡯ ࠺ ߥ ⊛ ⾰ ޔ ࠅ ߹ ߟ ޕ‬ಽ ⸃ ߔ ࠆ ߎ ߣ ߢ ‫ߢ ߹ ߊ ޽ ޔ‬㊂⊛ⷰὐ߆ࠄ࠺࡯࠲ࠍ⷗⋥ߔߣ޿߁૞ᬺߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
6 ߎߩℂ↱߆ࠄ‫৻ޔ‬ㇱࠍ㒰߈‫ᧄޔ‬Ⓜࠍㅢߒߡᵗ↹࡮ᵗᭉߢߪߥߊᤋ↹࡮㖸ᭉߣ޿߁↪⺆ࠍ↪޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬7 ࠗ ࡦ ࠲ ࡆ ࡘ ࡯ ኻ ⽎ ⠪ ࠍ ㆬ ߱ ႐ ว ‫ޔ‬㑐 ᔃ ⋧ 㑐 ⊛ ࠨ ࡦ ࡊ ࡝ ࡦ ࠣ (⷏ ᪯ , 2007, p. 102)ߥ ߤ ߩ ℂ⺰⊛ࠨࡦࡊ࡝ࡦࠣࠍ↪޿ߡಽᨆ࠹࡯ࡑࠍ⢐ቯ࡮ุቯ࡮ਛ┙⊛ߦᝒ߃ࠆዋᢙߩⵍ㛎⠪ࠍಽᨆ ኻ ⽎ ߣ ߔ ࠆ ᚻ ᴺ ߽ ޽ ࠆ ‫ޔ ߅ ߥޕ‬㑐 ᔃ ⋧ 㑐 ⊛ ࠨ ࡦ ࡊ ࡝ ࡦ ࠣ ߣ ߪ 㑐 ᔃ ⋧ 㑐 ⊛ ㆬ ᛯ ߩ ৻ ⒳ ߢ ‫ޔ‬‫⥄ޟ‬ಽߩ㑐ᔃ㧔࡝ࠨ࡯࠴ࠢࠛࠬ࠴࡚ࡦ㧕ߦᾖࠄߒߡ㧔⋧㑐⊛ߦ㧕ኻ⽎⠪ࠍࠨࡦࡊ࡝ࡦࠣߔ ࠆ ‫ ⷏( ޠ‬᪯ , 2007, p. 102)ߎ ߣ ߢ ޽ ࠆ ‫ޕ‬
8 ฦ ౕ ૕ ଀ ᧃ ߩ ⇟ ภ ߪ 1 ߆ ࠄ 83 ߹ ߢ ഀ ࠅ ᒰ ߡ ߚ ⵍ 㛎 ⠪ ߩ ㅢ ߒ ⇟ ภ ߢ ޽ ࠆ ‫ޕ‬
9 ฦࠞ࠹ࠧ࡝࡯ߦઃߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ㧔 㧕ߩᢙሼߪ⹥ᒰߔࠆࠦࡔࡦ࠻ߩੱᢙࠍ␜ߔ‫ޕ‬
10 ⎇ ⓥ ਄ ߩ ⋡ ⊛ ߆ ࠄ ‫ ․ޔ‬ቯ ߩ ᢎ ᧚ ߩ ല ↪࡮ᛕ ್ ࠍ ߔ ࠆ ࠊ ߌ ߢ ߪ ߥ ޿ ߩ ߢ ‫ ↪ ૶ޔ‬ᢎ ᧚ ߩ ౏㐿ߪᏅߒប߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬ෳ⠨ᢥ₂⍹ ↰ ၮ ᐢ (2008)‫ ޡ‬R ߦ ࠃ ࠆ ࠹ ࠠ ࠬ ࠻ ࡑ ࠗ ࠾ ࡦ ࠣ ౉ 㐷 ‫ ޢ‬᫪ ർ ಴

64
64

ᩣᑼળ␠

ࡐ࠶ࡊ࡮ࠞ࡞࠴ࡖ࡯ᢎ᧚ߩല↪ߦ㑐ߔࠆℂ⺰ࡕ࠺࡞ߩ᭴▽⍹ ਄ 㕏 ⧐࡮Ꮉ ว ౏ ቁ࡮ጊ 㦮 ଻ ኼ (2015)‫ ޟ‬ਛ ቇ ᩞ ߦ ߅ ߌ ࠆ ᩞ ౝ ⎇ ୃ ᵴ ᕈ ൻ ߩ ߚ ߼ ߩ ᩞ 㐳 ߩᢎ ⢒ ⊛ ࡝ ࡯ ࠳ ࡯ ࠪ ࠶ ࡊ ⸃ ᣿ ߦ 㑐 ߔ ࠆ ੐ ଀ ⎇ ⓥ ‫ ޡޠ‬㕒 ጟ ᄢ ቇ ᢎ ⢒ ቇ ㇱ ⎇ ⓥ ႎ ๔ ੱ ᢥ ࡮␠ ળ ࡮ ⥄ ὼ ⑼ ቇ ▻ ‫ ޢ‬Vol. 65, 125-138.
㓏 ᚭ 㓁 ᄥ (2012)‫ ޟ‬ᄖ ࿖ ⺆ ᵴ േ ߦ ኻ ߔ ࠆ ዊ ቇ ᩞ ᢎ ຬ ߩ ᗧ ⼂ ߦ 㑐 ߔ ࠆ ⾰ ⊛ ⎇ ⓥ —ᔅ ୃ ൻ ᓟ ߩ⃻ ⁁ —‫ ޡޠ‬JES Journal‫ ޢ‬Vol. 12, 102-114.
Ꮉ ༑ ↰ ੑ ㇢ (1967)‫ ⊒ ޡ‬ᗐ ᴺ —ഃ ㅧ ᕈ 㐿 ⊒ ߩ ߚ ߼ ߦ ‫ ޢ‬ਛ ᄩ ౏ ⺰ ᣂ ␠Ꮉ ༑ ↰ ੑ ㇢ (1970)‫ ⊒ ࡮ ⛯ ޡ‬ㅍ ᴺ —KJ ᴺ ߩ ዷ 㐿 ߣ ᔕ ↪ ‫ ޢ‬ਛ ᄩ ౏ ⺰ ᣂ ␠Ꮉ ༑ ↰ ੑ ㇢ (1986)‫ ޡ‬KJ ᴺ —Ḅ ᴋ ࠍ ߒ ߡ ⺆ ࠄ ߒ ߼ ࠆ ‫ ޢ‬ਛ ᄩ ౏ ⺰ ᣂ ␠ᧁ ਅ ᐽ ੳ (2003)‫ ߩ ࠴ ࡯ ࡠ ࡊ ࠕ ࡮ ࡯ ࡝ ࠝ ࠮ ࡮ ࠼ ࠶ ࠺ ࡦ ࠙ ࡜ ࠣ ޡ‬ታ 〣 í⾰ ⊛ ⎇ ⓥ ߳ ߩ ⺃ ޿ ‫ޢ‬ᒄᢥၴਛ ᧛ 㗅 ሶ (2015)‫ ޟ‬ᾫ ✵ ߩ ⸰ ໧ ⋴ ⼔ ࠬ ࠹ ࡯ ࠪ ࡚ ࡦ ▤ ℂ ⠪ ߦ ࠃ ࠆ ੱ ᧚ ᵴ ↪ ߣ ⢒ ᚑ ߩ 㑐 ࠊ ࠅ ‫ޠ‬‫ ↰ ⑺ ޡ‬ᄢ ቇ ଻ ஜ ቇ ኾ ᡹ ♿ ⷐ ‫ ޢ‬Vol. 23, 1-11.
ᚋ ᧁ ࠢ ࡟ ࠗ ࠣ ࡅ ࡞ ṑ ሶ (2008a)‫ ⎇ ⊛ ⾰ ޡ‬ⓥ ᣇ ᴺ ࠯ ࡒ ࠽ ࡯ ࡞ -ࠣ ࡜ ࡦ ࠺ ࠶ ࠼ ࠮ ࠝ ࡝ ࡯ ࠕ ࡊ ࡠ࡯࠴ࠍቇ߱‫ޢ‬කቇᦠ㒮ᚋ ᧁ ࠢ ࡟ ࠗ ࠣ ࡅ ࡞ ṑ ሶ (2008b)‫ ޡ‬ታ 〣 ࠣ ࡜ ࡦ ࠺ ࠶ ࠼ ࡮ ࠮ ࠝ ࡝ ࡯ ࡮ ࠕ ࡊ ࡠ ࡯ ࠴  ⃻ ⽎ ࠍ ߣࠄ߃ࠆ‫ޢ‬ᣂᦐ␠ᚋ ᧁ ࠢ ࡟ ࠗ ࠣ ࡅ ࡞ ṑ ሶ (2010)‫  ࠴ ࡯ ࡠ ࡊ ࠕ࡮࡯ ࡝ ࠝ ࠮࡮࠼ ࠶ ࠺ ࡦ ࡜ ࠣ ޡ‬ታ 〣 ࡢ ࡯ ࠢ ࡉ ࠶ࠢ‫ޢ‬ᣣᧄ⋴⼔දળ಴ળ⷏ ᪯ ೰ ᄩ (2007)‫ ⎇ ⊛ ⾰ ࡮ ⟵ ⻠ ࡉ ࠗ ࡜ ޡ‬ⓥ ߣ ߪ ૗ ߆ SCQRM ࡌ ࡯ ࠪ ࠶ ࠢ ✬ ‫ ޢ‬ᣂ ᦐ ␠ጊ ⷏ ඳ ਯ (2010) ‫ ޟ‬ᢎ ⢒ ⎇ ⓥ ߩ ߚ ߼ ߩ ⥄ ↱ ⸥ ㅀ ࠕ ࡦ ࠤ ࡯ ࠻ ࠺ ࡯ ࠲ ಽ ᨆ ౉ 㐷 : SPSS Text
Analytics for Surveys ࠍ ↪ ޿ ߡ ‫ ޡޠ‬ᄖ ࿖ ⺆ ᢎ ⢒ ࡔ ࠺ ࠖ ࠕ ቇ ળ (LET)㑐 ⷏ ᡰ ㇱ ࡔ ࠰ ࠼ ࡠࠫ ࡯ ⎇ ⓥ ㇱ ળ 2010 ᐕ ᐲ ႎ ๔ ⺰ 㓸 㧦 ࠃ ࠅ ⦟ ޿ ᄖ ࿖ ⺆ ⎇ ⓥ ߩ ߚ ߼ ߩ ᣇ ᴺ ‫ ޢ‬110-123.
Richards, L., & Morse, J.M. (2008)‫ ߡ ߼ ߓ ߪ ޡ‬ቇ ߱ ⾰ ⊛ ⎇ ⓥ ‫ ޢ‬ක Ꮷ ⮎ ಴6565

JACET Kansai
Kansai Journal,(2016)©JACET
Kansai
Chapter
JACET
Journal,18,
18,66-85.
66-85.
(2016)©JACET
Kansai
Chapter
ISSN1880-2281
1880-2281
ISSN

Printedin JAPAN.
Printedin JAPAN.

A Survey Study on English Proficiency and Teaching Skills for Teaching
English in Japanese Elementary Schools

Mai Matsunaga
Kyoto Sangyo University

Abstract
This paper examined the results of a survey study that explored elementary school teachers’
perceptions of their current and desired levels of English proficiency and teaching skills. The
results showed that gaps were found consistently between the current and desired levels,
showing higher levels for the desired.

Keywords䠖 English education in elementary schools, English proficiency, teaching skills

Introduction
English Education in Japanese Elementary Schools
In March 2008, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology(MEXT) introduced a revised course of study for elementary school education (MEXT,
2008b). This new course of study was put into effect in April 2011. Within this revised courseof study, all fifth and sixth graders are required to have a foreign language class, i.e., English
class, once a week, of which homeroom teachers are mainly in charge of teaching. There arethree objectives to this course of study: (a) to foster understanding of languages and cultures,(b) to promote active participation in communication, and (c) to develop basic communication
skills. While English activities have been required in public elementary schools in Japan, theissue over the quality of teaching has repeatedly been one of the obstacles elementary schools
have faced. In other words, more than 90% of English classes have been taught by homeroom
66
66

Mai MATSUNAGA

teachers (MEXT, 2008a) who are not necessarily trained English teachers since there havebeen no required courses on elementary school English education offered in teachingcertificate programs for primary education. Therefore, the level of English teachers inelementary schools in terms of their English ability and teaching skills has been at the centerof discussion among researchers (Butler, 2005; Higuchi, Kanamori, & Kunikata, 2005).
In December 2013, claiming an urgent need to teach Japanese students the necessary
skills to meet the demands of an ever-globalizing world, MEXT released an educational
reform plan regarding English education from the primary to secondary levels. This new plan,called “English education reform plan corresponding to globalization,” aims at strengthening
English education at the elementary school level and further advancing English education at
the secondary levels. The plan states that new courses of study for the elementary school,
junior high school, and senior high school levels will be released in 2018. Subsequently, they
will be implemented incrementally from 2018 to 2020, and become effective at all publicschools in 2020. Under the new course of study for elementary schools, third and fourth
graders will be required to take an English activity class, focusing on nurturing foundations
for communication skills, once or twice a week. The homeroom teachers will be mainly
responsible for teaching these classes. Fifth and sixth graders will have to take three requiredclasses per week, focusing on nurturing basic English language skills. And these classes will
be taught by specialized English course teachers in addition to homeroom teachers. Moreover,the English classes for fifth and sixth graders will be categorized as a subject; therefore,course textbooks authorized by the ministry will be utilized. In regard to teacher training prior
to the full-scale implementation of the new course of study in 2020, the ministry plans to holdtraining sessions both for specialized English course teachers and homeroom teachers.
Furthermore, the ministry intends to create measures for additional posting and training ofEnglish education promotion leaders in each region, who will be responsible for training
leader teachers of all schools in their regions (MEXT, 2013).
67
67

A Survey Study on English Proficiency and Teaching Skills for Teaching English in Japanese Elementary
Schools

Previous Survey Studies Targeting Elementary School Teachers
Survey studies on elementary school teachers’ attitudes towards foreign language
activities (English activities) have been conducted both before and after the full
implementation of the current course of study (e.g. Otani, 2014; Sakuma, 2010; Shinato,2012). These surveys have dealt with current situations and issues regarding teaching English
at elementary schools. The results of these surveys have often suggested the need to improve
the English proficiency and teaching skills of teachers, and to provide adequate teacher
training.
There have also been survey studies focusing on the English ability of elementary
school teachers. For example, Butler (2004) conducted a survey study focusing on elementary
school teachers’ perceived and desired English proficiency levels in an Asian context (Korea,
Taiwan, and Japan). Teachers from these three countries were asked to self-evaluate theircurrent English proficiency levels and also to specify the minimum levels necessary forsuccessful English teaching at an elementary school level. In the study, English proficiency
was determined based on the seven elements of the FLOSEM (the Stanford Foreign Language
Oral Skills Evaluation Matrix): (a) listening comprehension, (b) oral fluency, (c) vocabulary
in speech, (d) pronunciation, (e) oral grammar, (f) reading comprehension, and (g) writing
ability. The participants were asked to answer from a range of level 1 (lowest) to 6 (highest)with mid-levels in between. The results showed that the teachers in all three countries
evaluated their proficiencies in productive skills weaker than those in receptive skills. They
also perceived large gaps between their current English proficiency and the minimum level
necessary for successful teaching. Looking specifically at the results of Japanese teachers(112 participants), the average proficiency level across all seven aspects was 2.67 for thecurrent proficiency and 3.76 for the desired proficiency (F (1, 104) = 89.52, p < .0001, ‫ڦ‬2=.46). The gap between self-assessed current and desired levels of oral grammar was thelargest. Based on this Butler study, Kobayashi and Miyamoto (2008) conducted a similar
68
68

Mai MATSUNAGA

survey study on English ability of teachers both at private sectors and public elementary
schools in Japan in 2005 and 2006. The survey included three categories: (a) competencies
necessary for elementary school English teachers, (b) English proficiency necessary forelementary school English teachers, and (c) necessary elements for teacher training. The
second category, English proficiencies, asked teachers to self-evaluate their current English
proficiency levels and also to specify the minimum levels necessary for successful English
teaching at the elementary school level. The English proficiency included four aspects: (a)listening and speaking, (b) reading, (c) writing, and (d) vocabulary. These aspects partiallyfollowed those of Butler study (2004); however, the levels used in this study were based on
the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching,assessment, Council of Europe, 2001), and ranged from level 1 (A1 in CEFR) to 6 (C2 in
CEFR). The results indicated that teachers at private sectors assessed their current English
proficiency higher in every aspect (M = 3.33 out of 6), compared with elementary school
teachers (M = 1.83). The teachers at private sectors also expected higher levels in all four
aspects (M = 3.65) to be necessary for successful English teaching than elementary school
teachers (M = 3.33). In addition, the survey items for elementary school teachers included two
different situations related to desired proficiency levels, teaching alone and team-teaching.
The results suggested that desired proficiency levels in all four aspects were higher whenteachers teach alone (M = 3.33) than when teachers team-teach with another teacher (M =2.45).

Research Questions
Following the above previous studies on elementary school teachers’ English
proficiency levels (Butler, 2004; Kobayashi and Miyamoto 2008), the author investigatedchanges (if any) in elementary school teachers’ perceptions of their current and desired levelsof English proficiency after the official implementation of the required English activities in
69
69

A Survey Study on English Proficiency and Teaching Skills for Teaching English in Japanese Elementary
Schools

2011. In addition to English proficiency levels, the author investigated elementary school
teachers’ perceptions of their current and desired levels of teaching skills.
This study attempted to answer the following research questions.
1. What differences (if any) exist between the perceived current and desired levels in each of
the five domains (listening and speaking, grammar in speech, pronunciation, reading, andwriting) of English ability?
2. What differences (if any) exist between the perceived current and desired levels in each of
the four domains (overall teaching skills, adjusting to students’ level of English, use ofclassroom English, and fluency in conducting activities in English) of teaching skills?

MethodParticipants
The participants in the study were 80 public elementary school teachers at four different
schools in Osaka and Hyogo prefectures. The participants’ profiles are summarized in Table 1.
The frequency of English activities was as follows (of the teachers who have experienced
teaching English activities): 37.5% taught one lesson per week, 25% taught fewer than fivelessons per year, 18.8% taught two to three lessons per month, 12.5% taught one lesson permonth, and 6.2% taught more than two lessons per week. The teaching style was as follows:with an ALT (75%), alone (8.4%), with a Japanese English teacher (8.3%), and more than
three teachers together in the same classroom (8.3%). The teacher’s position in the classroom
when teaching with an ALT was as follows (of the teachers who have taught with ALTs): anassistant position to an ALT (50%), an ALT taught most class (45%), and a leading position
(5%).

70
70

Mai MATSUNAGA

Table 1
Profiles of Participating Teachers
Number of respondents
Survey distribution areas

80
4 regular public elementary schools(3 schools in Osaka, 1 school in Hyogo)

Gender and age

67.5% were female teachers; 38.8% were over 50 years old,
26.3% were in their 20s, 25% were in their 30s.

Teacher types

Both homeroom teachers (78.7%) and non-homeroom teachers(21.3%)

Years of teaching English activity
classes

No experience (40%), 2 to 3 years (16.3%), 1 to 2 years(13.8%), 3 to 4 years (10%), and 4 to 5 years (10%)

Number of teachers who have worked
with ALTs

60 (75%)

Number of teachers who have been to
English-speaking countries

37 (46.3%)

Number of teachers who have Englishrelated qualifications

11 (13.8%)
e.g. TOEIC 620, 640; Eiken grades 3, pre-2, 2Materials
The survey. In order to investigate the elementary school teachers’ perceived current
and desired levels of English proficiency and teaching skills, a survey was developed andadministered. The survey consisted of two parts: (a) English proficiency and (b) teachingskills. The first part, English proficiency, was administered to ascertain how teachers assessed
their own English proficiency, and how they assessed the level of proficiency required forsuccessfully teaching English, both for solo- and team-teaching. To be more precise, theteachers were asked to rate their English proficiency, using a scale from 1 to 6, in fivedomains (listening and speaking, grammar in speech, pronunciation, reading, and writing),
and the teachers could rate their proficiency between levels as well. In addition, the teachers
were asked to use the same scale to indicate the minimum levels in each domain that teachers
must have to enable them to teach English, for solo- and team-teaching respectively. The
items and scales on English proficiency in this study were developed, referring to Butler(2004), and Kobayashi and Miyamoto (2008). For the level description in this study, the7171A Survey Study on English Proficiency and Teaching Skills for Teaching English in Japanese Elementary
Schools

description of the CEFR (as in Kobayashi & Miyamoto) was utilized. As for the second part,teaching skills, the author used the measures and description that she had developed for her
previous studies (Matsunaga, 2012). The teachers were asked to rate their current teachingskills, using a scale from 1 to 4 (no mid-levels, level 3 is designated as a satisfactory level), in
four domains (overall teaching skills, adjusting to students’ level of English, use of classroom
English, and fluency in conducting activities in English). In addition, the teachers were asked
to use the same scale to indicate the minimum levels in each domain that teachers must haveto enable them to teach English, for solo- and team-teaching separately (see the Appendix forthe domains and level description for English proficiency and teaching skills).

Procedures
The author or her research partner visited each of the four public elementary schools
and met with a teacher in charge of distributing the survey to other teachers at his/her school.
At the meeting, the teacher in charge was handed a pile of 30 surveys and given a thoroughexplanation of the study. The teacher in charge was asked to tell other teachers to make surethat all the items on the survey would be answered. The teachers in charge returned the filledout pile of surveys by mail (a stamped envelope was provided). All of the teachers who
participated in this study were volunteers.
Most of the teachers who received the survey filled it out completely. However, threeteachers did not answer all the questions. The analysis of the survey, therefore, was based on
the responses of those participants who answered all of the items on the survey; those who
responded only partially were not included. The total number of the participants who
answered all the items was 80.

72
72

Mai MATSUNAGA

Results and Discussion
Current and desired levels of English proficiencies. First, the teachers’ self-assessedcurrent and desired English proficiencies were analyzed based on their survey responses.
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations of teachers’ self-assessed English
proficiency levels; the scores range from 1 to 6, with 1 indicating the lowest level (A1 in
CEFR) and 6 indicating the highest (C2 in CEFR). The results showed consistent gaps in all
five skill domains between the teachers’ self-assessed current and desired levels, showing
higher levels for the desired. In addition, the results indicated that the teachers on average
evaluated solo-teaching required higher proficiency levels, except for writing skills, comparedto those of team-teaching situations.

Table 2Means and Standard Deviations of Teachers’ Self-Assessed English Proficiency Levels
Current

DesiredSolo-teaching
Team-teaching
Listening & speaking
1.29 (.50)
2.52 ( .77)
2.03 ( .68)
Grammar in speech
1.75 (.73)
3.23 (1.16)
2.64 (1.02)
Pronunciation
1.66 (.59)
3.07 (1.02)
2.56 ( .94)
Reading
1.74 (.85)
2.71 ( .99)
2.23 ( .85)
Writing
1.36 (.55)
2.04 ( .79)
2.50 (1.01)
Note. Standard deviations are indicated in parentheses. There are six levels and correspond to the CEFR
levels: 1 (A1), 2 (A2), 3 (B1), 4 (B2), 5 (C1), and 6 (C2).

Next, paired-samples t tests were employed to identify statistically significant
differences between current and desired levels in each of the five skill domains. Tables 3, 4,
and 5 describe the results of the paired-samples t tests for the five skill domains for the current
and desired-solo, the current and desired-team, and the desired-solo and desired-teamrespectively. The results indicated that the mean level for the desired solo-teaching was
significantly greater than that for the current. And, the mean level for the desired teamteaching was also significantly greater than that for the current. In addition, the mean level forthe desired solo-teaching was significantly greater than that for the desired team-teaching,73
73

A Survey Study on English Proficiency and Teaching Skills for Teaching English in Japanese Elementary
Schools

except for the writing skills, where the desired team-teaching level was significantly greaterthan that for the desired solo-teaching. These results showed that the participants evaluatedtheir current level of English proficiency lower than the desired level in order to teach English
effectively, and they also thought that solo-teaching, compared to team-teaching, generally
required higher levels of English proficiencies. This may be because the participants thought
they needed to be more independent as a teacher when they teach alone, and therefore, theyneeded higher English ability, compared to team-teaching situations where they can depend
more on the other teacher.

Table 3Differences in English Proficiency Domains between Current and Desired (Solo)
SkillsListening & Speaking
Grammar in speech
Pronunciation
Reading
Writing

Current
M
1.29
1.75
1.66
1.74
1.36

Desired-solo
M
SD
2.52
.77
3.23
1.16
3.07
1.02
2.71
.99
2.04
.79

SD
.50
.73
.59
.85
.55

t(79)
-12.48*-9.86*-11.59*-7.42*-10.39**p < .001.

Table 4
Differences in English Proficiency Domains between Current and Desired (Team)
SkillsListening & Speaking
Grammar in speech
Pronunciation
Reading
Writing

Current
M
1.29
1.75
1.66
1.74
1.36

Desired-team
M
SD
2.03
.68
2.64
1.02
2.56
.94
2.23
.85
2.50
1.01

SD
.50
.73
.59
.85
.55

*p < .001.

74
74

t(79)
-8.49*-6.62*-8.70*-4.37*-8.35*

Mai MATSUNAGA

Table 5Differences in English Proficiency Domains between Desired-Solo and Desired-Team
SkillsListening & Speaking
Grammar in speech
Pronunciation
Reading
WritingDesired-solo
M
SD
2.52
.77
3.23
1.16
3.07
1.02
2.71
.99
2.04
.79

Desired-team
M
SD
2.03
.68
2.64
1.02
2.56
.94
2.23
.85
2.50
1.01

t(79)
8.46*
7.55*
7.32*
7.94*
-7.16**p < .001.

Examining the results in Table 2 more closely focusing on each of the three conditions
with English ability, i.e. current, desired-solo, and desired-team, the participants rated all of
their current five aspects lower than level 2 (CEFR A2), and they rated their current listening
and speaking skills the lowest (M = 1.29). Regarding the desired-solo, they rated all of their
desired five domain levels higher than 2, and they rated grammar in speech (M= 3.23) andpronunciation (M= 3.07) higher than level 3 (CEFR B1). The biggest gap between the current
and the desired-solo was found in grammar in speech, where the desired-solo level was 1.48
higher than the current level. These results appeared to be consistent with actual teachingsituations, where teachers mainly teach oral skills (listening and speaking skills), and as aresult, teachers themselves are expected to reach sufficient levels of grammar in speech andpronunciation in order to teach well and be an ideal model for their students. With regards tothe desired-team, they rated all of their five domains higher than level 2, and they rated
grammar in speech (M = 2.64) the highest as it was in the desired-solo. However, unlike thedesired-solo, they did not rate any of the five aspects higher than level 3. The biggest gap
between the current and the desired-team was found in writing skills, where the desired-teamlevel was 1.14 higher than the current level. Comparing the desired-solo with the desired-team,they rated all of the five domains, except for writing skills, higher in the desired-solo than in
the desired-team. The result of the teachers rating their writing skills the highest in teamteaching situations may mean that they thought they were required to have more writing skills
75
75

A Survey Study on English Proficiency and Teaching Skills for Teaching English in Japanese Elementary
Schoolsin order to communicate with the other teacher, who is usually an English-speaking ALT.
They may have felt that they had to interact with an English-speaking ALT more frequently in
writing such as corresponding through email messages and producing teaching materials
together in team-teaching situations. The biggest gap between the desired-solo and desiredteam was found in grammar in speech, where they rated their desired-solo 0.59 higher thantheir desired-team.
In addition, the above results in this study were compared with those of the previous
survey study conducted by Kobayashi and Miyamoto (2008). The comparison was made since
this previous study had elementary school teachers (236 teachers) as participants, andemployed the same three conditions (current, desired-solo, and desired-team) and six levels(the CEFR A1 to C2) as in the current study although the skill domains were slightly different(listening & speaking, fluency, reading, writing, and vocabulary) from the current study. It isalso worth mentioning that the previous study included teachers from both regular schools(148 teachers) and pilot schools for English education (88 teachers), while the current study
included teachers only from regular schools (80 teachers). This difference implies that theoriginal level of English proficiencies may have been higher with the participants in theprevious study since teachers at pilot schools teach more English classes than at regularschools, and they usually exhibit higher levels of English proficiency. Keeping thesedifferences between the previous and current studies in mind, the overall results of the twostudies were still similar. For example, the results in the previous study indicated that theteachers evaluated their current levels the lowest in all skill domains, compared to the desiredsolo and desired-team. They also rated the desired-solo in all domains the highest. Thesesimilarities between the current study (the data was collected in 2013 to 2014) and theprevious study (the data was collected in 2005 and 2006) also suggest that the introduction ofEnglish activities as a required course for the fifth and sixth graders in 2011 has not changed
teachers’ overall tendencies in perceived current and desired levels of English proficiencies
76
76

Mai MATSUNAGA

necessary to teach English effectively at the elementary school level.

Current and desired levels of teaching skills. Teachers’ self-assessed current anddesired English teaching skills were analyzed based on their survey responses. Table 6 showsmeans and standard deviations of teachers’ self-assessed levels of teaching skills; the scores
range from 1 to 4, with 1 indicating the lowest level and 4 indicating the highest. The results
showed consistent gaps in all four skill domains between the teachers’ self-assessed current
and desired levels, showing higher levels for the desired. In addition, the results indicated thatthe teachers on average evaluated solo-teaching required higher levels of teaching skills
compared to those of team-teaching situations.

Table 6Means and Standard Deviations of Teachers’ Self-Assessed Levels of Teaching Skills
Current
Overall teaching

1.90 (.67)

DesiredSolo-teaching
2.94 (.72)

Adjusting to students’levels of English

1.88 (.70)

3.01 (.85)

2.45 (.83)

Use of classroom English
Fluency in conducting
activities in English

2.07 (.69)
1.90 (.70)

2.96 (.77)
2.94 (.85)

2.50 (.78)
2.33 (.79)

Team -teaching
2.38 (.72)

Note. Standard deviations are indicated in parentheses. There are four levels: 1 (lowest) to 4 (highest).

In addition, three paired-samples t tests were conducted separately for each domain.
Table 7, 8, and 9 describe the results of the paired-samples t tests for the four domains ofteaching skills for the current and desired-solo, the current and desired-team, and the desiredsolo and desired-team respectively. The results indicated that the mean level for the desired
solo-teaching was significantly greater than that for the current. And, the mean levels for thedesired-team was also significantly greater than those for the current. Then, the mean level forthe desired solo-teaching was significantly greater than those for the desired-team. The results
77
77

A Survey Study on English Proficiency and Teaching Skills for Teaching English in Japanese Elementary
Schoolssuggest that the teachers do not think their current teaching skills sufficient enough forsuccessful teaching, and they think they need higher levels of teaching skills for solo-teachingsituations, compared to those for team-teaching situations.

Table 7
Differences in Teaching Skill Domains between Current and Desired (Solo)
Current
M
1.90

SD
.67

Desired-solo
M
2.94

SD
.72

t(79)
-9.66*

Adjusting to students’levels of English

1.88

.70

3.01

.85

-10.41*

Use of classroom English

2.07

.69

2.96

.77

-8.82*

Fluency in conducting activities inEnglish

1.90

.70

2.94

.85

-9.29*

SkillsOverall teaching*p < .001.

Table 8Differences in Teaching Skill Domains between Current and Desired (Team)
SkillsOverall teaching
Adjusting to students’levels of English

Current
M
1.90

SD
.67

Desired-team
M
SD
2.38
.72

t(79)
-4.72*

1.88

.70

2.45

-5.56*.83

Use of classroom English

2.07

.69

2.50

.78

-4.38*

Fluency in conducting activities inEnglish

1.90

.70

2.33

.79

-4.17**p < .001.

Table 9Differences in Teaching Skill Domains between Desired-Solo and Desired-Team
SkillsOverall teaching
Adjusting to students’levels of English

Desired-solo
M
SD
2.94
.72
3.01
.85

Desired-team
M
SD
2.38
.72
2.45
.83

t(79)
9.19*
9.60*

Use of classroom English

2.96

.77

2.50

.78

7.52*

Fluency in conducting activities inEnglish

2.94

.85

2.33

.79

10.63**p < .001.

78
78

Mai MATSUNAGA

Looking at the results in Table 6 more closely focusing on each of the three conditions
with teaching skills, the participants rated all of their current four skills, except use ofclassroom English (M = 2.07), lower than level 2, and they rated their current adjusting tostudents’ levels of English the lowest (M = 1.88). Regarding the desired-solo, they rated all of
their desired four skill levels higher than 2 and close to 3 (in the range of 2.94 to 3.01), andthey rated adjusting to students’ levels of English the highest (M = 3.01). The biggest gap
between the current and the desired-solo was found in adjusting to students’ levels of English,
where the desired-solo level was 1.13 higher than the current level. This gap suggests that theteachers realized the importance of adjusting their level of English in order for their students
to understand materials or activities in English, but the teachers also found this adjusting skill
difficult to attain. Moreover, they might have thought that solo-teaching situations required
this adjusting skill more than in team-teaching situations, where the other English-speaking
ALT can mainly lead a class in English. With regards to the desired-team, they rated all of
their four skills higher than level 2, and they rated use of classroom English (M = 2.50) the
highest. They rated this aspect the highest possibly because they thought they had tocommunicate with the other English-speaking teacher in English inside and outside theclassroom in team-teaching situations. However, unlike the desired-solo, they did not rate anyof the four skills higher than level 3 as they did not with English proficiencies. As it was forEnglish proficiencies, the participants may have thought team-teaching did not require as highlevels as solo-teaching since the other English-speaking teacher can compensate for theirinsufficient teaching skills. The biggest gap between the current and the desired-team wasfound in adjusting to students’ levels of English as it was between the current and the desiredsolo. The desired-team level was 0.57 higher than the current level. Comparing the desiredsolo with the desired-team, they rated all of the four skills higher in the desired-solo than in
the desired-team. The biggest gap between these two conditions was found in fluency inconducting activities in English, where they rated their desired-solo 0.61 higher than their
79
79

A Survey Study on English Proficiency and Teaching Skills for Teaching English in Japanese Elementary
Schoolsdesired-team. This gap may mean that they found fluency in conducting activities in English
more crucial in solo-teaching situations than in team-teaching situations since they have toteach classes all by themselves in solo situations.

Conclusion and Implications
Regarding English abilities and teaching skills, gaps were found consistently between
the elementary school teachers’ current and desired (both solo- and team-teaching) levels,
showing higher levels for the desired. Between the desired solo-teaching and desired teamteaching, solo-teaching tended to show higher levels. In other words, the participantsevaluated their current levels of English proficiency and teaching skills inadequate to teachEnglish to a sufficient level, especially when they have to teach by themselves.
These results were consistent with the previous survey results on English abilities in
Kobayashi and Miyamoto, 2008. Examining the results more closely, however, the desired
levels were higher for both solo- and team-teaching in the previous study than in the current
study, for example with the desired-solo, 3.5 in the previous study and 2.52 in the current
study for listening and speaking, 3.2 and 2.71 for reading, and 3.1 and 2.04 for writing
respectively. The fact that the previous study included the participants not only from regularschools but also from specially appointed schools for English education may have contributed
to showing higher levels for the desired. Moreover, the timing of conducting the surveys may
have also affected the results of the previous and current studies. The survey in the previous
study was conducted before the implementation of the required English activities for the fifthand sixth graders, and the teachers may have expected the necessary English levels forteaching a required course to be high. In contrast, the participants in the current study haveactually experienced teaching the required course and may have found the necessary English
levels in reality lower than they expected. Comments in the open-ended question section in
the current survey seemed to support this timing theory and revealed that the teachers tended8080Mai MATSUNAGA

to think teaching English activities did not require high English or teaching levels. There were
only 11 teachers (out of 80) who wrote comments in the open-ended question section andtherefore, it is difficult to generalize from the comments. Taking this into consideration, themajority (eight teachers) were satisfied with their current levels of English ability andteaching skills, so they did not think they needed much self-study. They also commented that
their general teaching skills and classroom management skills as a homeroom teacher would
complement the lack of their English ability or English teaching skills. Similarly, the resultsof the previous study conducted by Shinato after the full implementation of the current courseof study (Shinato, 2012) described a similar tendency of teachers’ habituation towards
teaching English, where they become accustomed to teaching English and are not willing tofurther improve their skills. However, this author wonders if the current levels of English
proficiency and teaching skills of homeroom teachers are truly satisfactory, considering thefuture path of English becoming required for the third and fourth graders and becoming arequired subject for the fifth and sixth graders.
Based on the results of the survey, there are implications about improving English
proficiency and teaching skills of elementary school teachers. First of all, systematic support
for teachers provided by MEXT seems warranted based on these results. The results of thepresent survey suggest that teachers feel the need to improve their English proficiency andteaching skills in order to teach more effectively.
In the same vein, correlation coefficients were computed between the oral English
proficiency elements (listening and speaking skills, grammar in speech, and pronunciation)and the teaching skills element (overall teaching skills). The results showed that all threecorrelations were statistically significant (p < .001) and were greater than .50 (.54 for listening
and speaking skills, .63 for grammar in speech, and .57 for pronunciation). These results
suggest that if the participants positively evaluated their oral English skills, they also tended
to positively evaluate their teaching skills, and vice versa. In other words, providing teachers81
81

A Survey Study on English Proficiency and Teaching Skills for Teaching English in Japanese Elementary
Schoolswith adequate training programs both in English proficiency and instructional techniques is
crucial to their developing confidence in their skills as English teachers.
According to MEXT’s new English education reform plan (MEXT, 2013), it is planning
to provide both specialized English course teachers and homeroom teachers with adequate
training before the full scale implementation of the new course of study in 2020. For instance,
in 2014, MEXT launched a five-year training program in collaboration with the British
Council, aiming to improve English ability and teaching skills of English education
promotion leaders (British Council Japan, 2014). The author thinks that the results of thecurrent survey on what aspects of English proficiency or teaching skills the teachers feel theyneed to improve will help organize effective training programs.
Second, in addition to in-service teacher training, teaching certificate programs for preservice teachers at universities should adjust to the revised curriculum of English education at
the elementary school level, empowering pre-service teachers with proper English proficiency
and teaching skills. In this respect, MEXT plans to develop “a core curriculum” for English
teacher-training courses at universities, which is expected to describe the minimum levels ofskills necessary for elementary school English teachers (MEXT, 2015).
The following limitations should also be considered when interpreting the data in thisstudy. First, this study had only a limited number of participants (n = 80), and therefore, theresults should be interpreted with caution when generalizing to other populations. However,
the author believes that the accumulation of data from this kind of limited-sized study will
eventually produce data that can show an overall tendency of teachers’ perceptions about
English proficiency and teaching skills. Second, even though teachers’ self-evaluations areamong the best way to understand their current needs, more research is necessary to reveal
more objectively what types and levels of proficiencies and teaching skills teachers reallyneed to teach in elementary schools. With these limitations, however, the author hopes that
this study still offers valuable implications for future research on English ability and teaching82
82

Mai MATSUNAGA

skills for elementary school teachers in Japan.

Notes
1. This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 25770216.
2. This study was orally presented at JACET Kansai Chapter 2015 Spring conference held at
Osaka Kyoiku University on June 27th, 2015.

References
British Council Japan. (2014). Monbukagakushou to eigoshidouryoku koujyoujigyou de renkei[The British Council develops teacher-training programs in collaboration with the
MEXT]. Retrieved December 20, 2015, fromhttps://www.britishcouncil.jp/about/press/20140516-mext-teacher-training
Butler, Y. G. (2004). What level of English proficiency do elementary school teachers need toattain to teach EFL? Case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 245-278.
Butler, Y. G. (2005). English language education in Japanese elementary schools: Analyses
and suggestions based on East Asian perspectives. Tokyo: Sanseido.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Higuchi, T., Kanamori, T., & Kunikata, T. (Eds.). (2005). Korekara no shogakko eigokyoiku
riron to jissen [Future English education in elementary schools: Theories and practices].
Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Kobayashi, M., & Miyamoto, Y. (2008). Issues in EYL teacher education: From surveys
involving private sector teachers and primary school teachers. JASTEC Journal, 27, 97116.
Matsunaga, M. (2012). English training sessions for pre-service elementary school teachers in83
83

A Survey Study on English Proficiency and Teaching Skills for Teaching English in Japanese Elementary
Schools

Japan. Selected papers from the twenty-first international symposium on English
teaching, ETA-ROC (English Teachers’ Association Republic of China), 115-127.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2008a).
Shogakkoeigokatsudo jishijyokyochosa no omona kekkagaiyo heisei 19 nendo [AReport on current situation of English education in public elementary schools, 2007].
Retrieved March 1, 2013, from http://www.mext.go.jp/ b_menu/
houdou/20/03/08031920/001.htm
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2008b). Shogakko gakushu
shido yoryo [A course of study for elementary schools]. Tokyo: Tokyoshoseki.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. International Education
Division, Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau. (2013). English education
reform plan corresponding to globalization. Retrieved April 14, 2014, fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/25/12/1342456.htm
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. International Education
Division, Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau. (2015). Eigokyouin noeigoryoku shidouryoku kyoukanotameno chousakenkyujigyo [Research and studies on
improving English ability and teaching skills of English teachers]. Retrieved December
20, 2015, from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/1362173.htm
Otani, M. (2014). Present and future issues for foreign language activities at elementary
schools based on the survey result of Shimane teachers. Shimane daigaku kyoikugakubu
kiyo [Bulletin, Faculty of Education, Shimane University], 48, 1-10.
Sakuma, Y. (2010). Gaikokugo katsudou ikouki ni okeru kouritsushougakkou chuukakukyoin
no ishikichousa [A survey study on foreign language activities, targetting leadingteachers at public elementary schools]. TELES Journal, 30, 29-43.
Shinato, Y. (2012). A qualitative study on the elementary school teachers’ awareness offoreign lagauge activities focusing on the actual conditions. JES Journal, 12, 102-114.
84
84

Mai MATSUNAGA

Appendix
Five domains and level description of English ability (Level 3)
Ԙ Listening and speaking skills
Can comprehend the main points of speech. Can participate in conversations on familiar matters regularly
encountered in work, school, or leisure.
ԙ Grammar in speech
Can produce a few complex sentence constructions but makes noticeable grammatical errors.
Ԛ Pronunciation
Can produce most sounds and sound patterns, but sometimes needs to repeat him/herself to make theutterance clearer.
ԛ Reading skills
Can comprehend texts written in everyday language or on familiar topics.
Ԝ Writing skills
Can take notes while listening to speech. Can write texts on everyday matters.
Each domain comprises six levels. Due to limitations of space, only level 3 is described in this appendix.

Four domains and level description of teaching skills (Level 3)
Ԙ Overall teaching skills
Adequately competent in teaching English. When conducting an activity, some pausing or hesitation isevident, but can explain it well enough for students to carry out the activity, using picture prompts or
gestures, including most of the necessary information, with acceptable intonation and pronunciation.
ԙ Adjusting to students’ level of English
Minimally effective in recognizing students’ level. Can minimally adapt the level of English and speed ofspeech to the age and level of students, using picture prompts or gestures. Some inappropriate use ofEnglish is evident (e.g., use of exceedingly difficult expressions, too fast or too slow), but this rarely
impedes the explanation of activities.
Ԛ Use of classroom English
Adequately competent in using instructional language or classroom English. Pausing or hesitation isevident, but can use them appropriately, not impeding the explanation.
ԛ Fluency in conducting activities in English
Adequately fluent. When explaining how to conduct an activity, can speak fluently and smoothly withfairly even tempo most of the time, rarely impeding the explanation.
Each domain comprises four levels. Due to limitations of space, only level 3 is described in this appendix.

85
85